Pi

»*,

P4-

ON

THE USE OF LIGHTS

Communion Cable,

IN THE DAY TIME.

BY
HON. & REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B.C.L.
OF ALL SOULS' COLLEGE, OXFORD,
LATE CHAPLAIN TO THE QUEEN.

SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED.

LONDON:
FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON,
st. paul's chuech taed, and wateeloo placer
& LESLIE, 58, GREAT QUEEN STREET.
1851.

ON THE USE OF LIGHTS,

It may minister somewhat, under God's blessing, to the Peace of the Church, by
throwing light upon a subject in which, through want of accurate information, well-
intentioned men have gone astray (and, unwisely persisting in their course, are
now entangling themselves in difficulty, and affording a handle of attack to " as
many as have evil will at Zion"), to present to the consideration of all whom it
may concern, a somewhat personal history of the revival of Candles on the Com
munion Table, which has been one chief cause of the sad scenes exhibited of late
in the Church of St. Barnabas, in Pimlico ; and if the narrative shall seem prolix
and egotistical, let the reader kindly exercise his patience unto the end, when the
motive for the egotistical form and minute detail will be assigned. In the mean
time, let him be content to receive for once a tale am naturel, neither spiced nor
diluted ad captwndum.
My first acquaintance with Candles on the Communion Table was in the Chapel
of Oriel College, Oxford, where I went to reside as an under-graduate in October,
1817. I saw them also at the Chapel of Magdalen College in that University, to
which the love of Church music took me almost daily. I witnessed them also,
about the same time, in the Cathedral at Winchester, where my friendship with
(my future brother-in-law) Sir W. Heathcote led me frequently to pass some time
in the vacations. In that Cathedral the Candles were not upon the Table, but on
two very large wooden Candelabra resting on the ground, like the handsome bronze
ones, twelve feet in height, the spoil of one of King Charles's Chapels Royal, sold
during the Rebellion, and which, in 1822, were in the Cathedral of Ghent.
In 1819 (I think), when lionizing some friends at Oxford, in showing them our
Chapel at Oriel, I came nearer to the Table than I had done before ; and then
perceived that the Candles were not only filthily dirty, but broken in several
places, and only kept upright by cinctures of paper fastened (I think) with pins.
As I had had the privilege to be trained from childhood in a reverence for sacred
things, I could not forbear from remonstrating with the Tutors of the College on a
state of things so unseemly. They took the remonstrance in good part, and an
alteration was made ; but whether it was by substituting new Candles for the old
ones, or (as I rather think) substituting painted sticks to look like Candles, I cannot
say. The present Archbishop of Dublin, the present Provost of Oriel College, the
Rector of St. Giles's, Bloomsbury, the Vicar of Cobham, Surrey, and the Vicar of
Hursley, in Hampshire, who were then the resident Fellows, can (I suppose) both
remember, and say, if they think fit.
From Oriel College I was elected to a fellowship at All Souls, in the College
Chapel of which Foundation there were then no Candles on the Communion Table,
which, with Oriel, Magdalen, and Winchester under my mind, I naturally regarded
as a defect, which, when I quitted my fellowship, I supplied, by presenting a pair
of Candlesticks for the purpose, which are there (I suppose) to this day.
A 2

4 on the use oe lights
I do not remember any thing more upon the subject \ until, in that c6^ect™*°?a
anonymous contributions which was given to the world under the title of Dr. oo
" Ecclesiastical Dictionary" (of which those on Confirmation, Euchai :ist, _H alt -u> -
munion, and Holy Table were from my own pen), I read, under " LlSht8 °*
Altar," the passage which Mr. Bennett is reported to have read lately wo
pulpit in St. Barnabas, Pimlico. The impression it conveyed to my mino wa
simply "puerility;" and I thought to myself, that if no more could be said tor me
use of Candles on the Altar than that, we should be quite as well without them, ana
that my money at All Souls had been misapplied. For that, in the middle ot trie
nineteenth century, when the light of the glorious Gospel of God has shone tnrougn-
out the world, it should be necessary, by two tapers on the Altar, to signify that it
ought so to shine, did seem to me almost a climax of childishness. And ™er<*ore>
when, shortly afterwards, they became a bone of contention, through Dr. Hook and
others insisting upon them (as in that article in his Dictionary they are insisted
upon), I could only shrug my shoulders, and marvel.
The last that I had to do with this subject was in consequence of an application
for information as to the real law and meaning of these lights, made to me by the
present Rector of Warburton, near Warrington, with whom I had formed acquaint
ance while he served a cure in Surrey. He wished for the information in relation
to a review in the " English Review " which he was writing, upon one of the
pro-Popery publications, from within the bosom of the Church, with which we have
been now for many years inundated, and for which we have, in the first place, to
thank the Editors of " Froude's Remains," and, in the next, the compilers of a
publication called " The Ecclesiastical Almanack," which was first brought under
my notice in 1840, and against which I immediately sought to put people on their
guard by a paper in the " British Magazine " (Vol. xvii. pp. 629—631), under the
signature V. A. L. I was very happy to strengthen Mr. Beaufort's hands in
seeking to arrest the same mischief, and turned to my books to hunt up the
matter, and furnished him with much of what follows, which he inserted in his
review, and printed also separately for distribution.
¦ It seemed manifest, beyond dispute (but see Appendix), that the use of lights, in
broad daylight, at the Communion Tables in the Church of England, was directly
connected with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. That doctrine was first forced
upon the Western Churches by the decree of (what is called) the 4th Lateran
Council, i. e. a.d. 1215 : prior to which time (as Tonstal, the staunchest and purest
of the adherents to the Roman Dogmas in the 16th century, in England, observes)
it was free for men to receive that doctrine or not, as they thought best.
It is not till after the enforcement of Transubstantiation on the Western Churches
by the Lateran Decree, in 1215, that, as far as my investigation as yet enables me
to speak, we find mention in the English Canons of lights, or candlesticks, forming
part of Ecclesiastical Furniture. The first I have met with occurs in the Constitu
tion of Walter Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester, 1244, who, in his last Constitution,
speaks of " minores cerei in usus altarium." The next is in the Constitution of
Walter Gray, Archbishop of York, in the year 1250, where we find, 1. " A Candle
stick for the Paschal Taper :" 2. " A Lanthorn with a little Bell :" and 3. "Two
Candlesticks for the Collets," *. e. Acolythes, or attendants on the Priest. And
that this is the very first Introduction of No. 2 into the English Churches, appears
from this, viz., that in the Constitutions of St. Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury,
from 1234 to 1244, his constitutions bearing date in the third year of his Archi-
i Since printing the first edition, it has been recalled to my mind, that they were introduced
into Trinity Church, Coventry, in 1830.

on the communion table, in the day time. 5
episcopate, i. e. 1236, we find mention only of " a little bell going before the Lord's
Body when the Eucharist is to be carried to the Sick ;" in order to make which
intelligible to ordinary readers, it is necessary to explain that, originally, in the very
earliest times of Christianity, when members of a Congregation were hindered from
communicating in Church by reason of sickness, it was the custom (for the more
obviously preserving " the Communion of Saints ") to reserve, at the Sacred Feast,
a portion of the consecrated elements for their use. The idea is beautiful : and,
among other chargeB which we have to bring against the Mediseval Church is this,
viz. that they not only, by the figment of Purgatory, have deprived us (in prudence)
of the comfort of praying for our loved ones who are gone ; but, by their figment of
Transubstantiation, have deprived us (also in prudence) of the pleasure of reserving
for our sick members a portion of the elements consecrated for the Congregation.
To avoid the idolatrous adoration of them, as well as other superstitions remaining
to this day among our people, and arising from the same source (well known to the
Country Clergy), the Church of England was compelled to enjoin the decent, but
novel, custom of consuming with reverence, after the Eucharist, the elements con
secrated which remained over and above, after all present had communicated.
But to return : a few years later than the Constitutions of Gray, Archbishop of
York, in 1250, we have those of John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, given
at Reading, in 1279. Here we have an explanation of the use to be made of "the
Lanthorn with the Little Bell " in the Constitution of York. In the 7th of Peck-
ham's Constitutions we read : " We decree that this Sacrament be carried with due
reverence to the Sick, the Priest having on his Surplice and stole " (i. e. the black
silk or serge which we now call Scarf) " with a light in a Lantern before him." But
as yet, beyond " the Candlestick for the Paschal Taper," in the York Constitutions
for 1250 (which, by its very term, seems appropriated to some special ceremony at
Easter, indicative probably of resurrection, and not at all concerned with Transub
stantiation), we have nothing touching upon the subject of the Two Candlesticks on
the Communion- or Altar-Table. In 1292, in the deed of Endowment of the Church
of St. Nicholas, Great Bookham, Surrey, i. e. 77 years after the Lateran Council,
for the first time (that I have been able, as yet, to find) we have mention of them.
In that deed provision is made, out of the endowment, and enjoined upon the
Vicar, for the perpetual maintenance of two waxes (cereos) before the altar of St.
Nicholas, in the said Church. But, whether those Cerei were to be lighted in the
day time, or only after sunset, does not appear. The injunction for this light, in
daylight, occurs first in the Constitutions of Walter Reynolds (Archbishop of
Canterbury from 1313 to 1327), where, in the 5th Constitution, we read this
Injunction : " And let two Candles, or one at least, be lighted at the time of High-
Mass" (i. e. twelve at noon2). So late in the history of the Church of England,
and for so short a period (not quite 230 years), did this custom obtain in
the Church of England ; and that in immediate and distinct connexion with,
and, as it were, illustrative of, the mediseval figment of Transubstantiation.
In tracing the onward history of these two lights, I have, as yet, met nothing
worthy of comment, until we come to the reign of Edward VI. This Prince
came to the throne January 28, 1547 (N. S.). The very first ecclesiastical move
ment in his reign was the issuing the injunctions which Mr. Bennett, from Dr. Hook,
s That this is their first introduction by authority, appears from hence, that in the Constitutions
of Robert Winchilsea, Archbishop of Canterbury, from 1294 to 1313, the immediate predecessor of
Reynolds, no mention of Candlesticks for Mass or Altar occurs in the very minute list of Church
Furniture, which is contained in the fourth of those Constitutions. Only " a Lanthorn to be
carried before the Body of Christ" (the reserved wafer when carried to the Sick) ; and " a Candle
stick for the Taper at Easter." But see Appendix. A 3

(,' ON THE USE OF LIGHTS
read in St. Barnabas ; while, as yet, not even communion in both kinds had been
restored, which was not done until the Communion Office in 1548 ; before the first
Book of Common Prayer, which was not agreed upon till January, 1549 (N. S.);
and before the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been brought under discussion at
the Universities, which was late in that same year, 1549. It is in this sense, then,
that we are to construe the injunction issued by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, cited
as of such weight by the contributor to Dr. Hook's Dictionary. The words of the
injunction are these : " that all Deans, Archdeacons, Parsons, Vicars, and other
ecclesiastical persons" . . . "shall suffer from henceforth no torches nor candles,
tapers, or images of wax, to be set up before any image or picture, but only two
lights upon the high altar, before the Sacrament, which, for the signification that
Christ is the very true Light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still." The
question is, what is to be understood by the term "before the Sacrament1?" All
persons moderately cognizant with ecclesiastical language of this date, know per
fectly that, by that term in this place, nothing else, more or less, was signified,
than the reserved consecrated wafer in the Pyx; reserved originally (as we have
seen) for the use of the sick, who could not receive the sacred feast in the Church ;
but which, by means of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, had become an object
of worship of the very highest kind, even of Aarptia : that species of worship
which, as acknowledged by the construers of the degrees of worship, is due only to
the Deity.
But that it may be shown, beyond all gainsaying, that such is the meaning to be
attached to the words, it will be well to cite the act of Mary I. (sess. 2), c. 3 :
where arrest, and imprisonment until Quarter Sessions (and then to be tried and
punished), is awarded against any person who shall " contemptuously pull down,
deface, spoil, abuse, break, or otherwise irreverently handle or alter the most
blessed, comfortable, and holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus
Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, being, or that shall be, in any
Church or Chapel, or in any other decent place, or the pyx or canopy wherein the
said Sacrament is or shall be."
The whole meaning and intent of the injunction passed clean away, when the
Church of England ceased to reserve any particle of the consecrated elements, and
ordered all to be reverently consumed upon the spot : and would have equally
passed away, even though, together with the prohibition of reservation, the doctrine
of Transubstantiation had been retained. How much more unmeaning, if possible,
must that injunction be, when the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation, which
first introduced these lights among us, has been utterly and entirely abrogated
from the teaching of our Church !
But now let us turn aside to examine a little the weight or authority due to
this injunction, even supposing no change had taken place either in the disposal
of the consecrated elements, or in the doctrine of the value to be set upon them
(apart, I mean, from their administration or reception in Communion). For this
injunction is cited in Dr. Hook's Dictionary as a matter of grave force, and the
use of lights is spoken of as enjoined by our laws. Now the only mention of them is
in this injunction of Edward VI. ; and that, not an order to have them, but a per
mission to suffer them ! But were it otherwise, of what value or authority, I would
fain ask, would a mere injunction of Edward VI. be 2 The time, thank God, has
long passed since the fiat of the wearer of the Crown could be regarded as law, or
obligation to obey, unless, in ecclesiastical matters, supported by the assemblies of
the Church, or by the Great Council of the nation in Parliament in causes civil. If
Mr. Bennett can gravely urge an injunction of Edward VI. as having the force of
law, he must admit the same to one from Queen Victoria; and, with Lord John

ON THE COMMUNION TABLE, IN THE DAY TIME. /
Russell at Her Majesty's elbow, I wish him joy of his conclusion. " Oh," but it
will be said by Mr. Bennett, and his teacher, the anonymous contributor of this
article to Dr. Hook's Dictionary, " What do you make of the Rubric just before
Morning Service 2 Do you not see that we quote that as well as Edward VI.'s
injunction 2" Yes, indeed, I do, but I know that it is quoted to even less purpose
(if that be possible) than the injunction itself. Let us read the Rubric : " Here it
is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at
all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this
Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of
Edward VI."
It is sufficient to ask, as an exposure of the absurdity of the whole thing, by
what possible means can a royal injunction of the first year of Edward VI, be con
strued to be the same as authority of Parliament in the second year 2 The excel
lent Dr. Nicholls, who lived in the reign of Queen Anne, has commented clearly
upon this Rubric ; and has shown, that the act of 2 Edward VI. (referred to) eon-
tains in itself no directions concerning habits or ornaments, but simply enjoins
that " all ministers shall be bound to say mattens and evensong, and the admi
nistration of the Sacraments, and all the common and open prayer, ' in such
order and form as is mentioned in the said book ' (first Common Prayer Book of
Edward VI.), * and not other or otherwise.' So that by this act (says Dr. Nicholls)
we are sent to inquire into the Rubrics of King Edward's first Common Prayer
Book." In which Boot: no word will be found concerning these lights.
Thus utterly without law, either enjoining or permitting, and utterly without reason,
or rather contrary to all reason, and only connected with and arising from a medicercd
error in doctrine, which we have long since discarded and prohibited, is that custom for
which Mr. Bennett thinks himself, in foro conscientice, bound to contend at the
hazard of decency, peace, and even life itself ! I mean the custom of having
lights upon the Communion Table, at any other time than when artificial light
is required for the performance of Divine Service, in the absence of the light
of day.
As the writer of the article in Dr. Hook's Dictionary (which has been the chief
apparent cause of all this error), from meeting in the early Canons mention of
offerings of oil for lamps, and directions concerning it, has been led to conclude
that in these he found traces of customs sanctioning that for which he was
contending, it may be desirable, for his sake (if still alive) and that of others,
to offer a word of explanation, which, if that writer would only have taken
the trouble to read up his subject in Bingham, he would have found to his hand,
viz. that the necessity and use of this oil and these lamps in the primitive Church
arose from hence, viz. that the public worship of Christians was prohibited by law;
and the exercise of it exposed the worshippers to fine, imprisonment, torture, or
death. To avoid needlessly incurring these consequences, the Christians were wont
to meet for worship by night, or in caves or catacombs, whence the light of day was
excluded. It was necessary, therefore, to use artificial light ; and the means of
maintaining this was one of the recognized acts of worship and oblation on the part
of the believers. Further, in order that Vespers, Complines, and Mattens might all
be decently celebrated (which occur between sunset and sunrise), provision of
light was always made, and enjoined to be made. Hence the hour of Vespers was
known in the Eastern Church as Avxvaipia ; in the Western, Hora Lucernaris,
because candles were then lighted. The oblations of wax for these purposes appear
in some places to have been once a year ; but our Anglo-Saxon Canons direct the
Light Scot to be paid three times a year. Of course candlesticks for these purposes
formed as necessary a part of the ordinary furniture of a church as the seats, or

8 ON THE USE OF LIGHTS ON THE COMMUNION TABLE, &C.
stoup, or piscina. But of a fixed light upon the altar before the reserved wafer
(or Housel) I can find no trace before the promulgation of Transubstantiation.
But see Appendix.
But to use artificial light in worship in the day time is one of the follies and super
stitions of Heathenism, which Lactantius, who flourished about a.d. 300, in the 6th
Book of his work "De rero Cultu," holds up to severe scorn and reprobation. It
began, however, i. e. the burning lights by day at the tombs of the Martyrs, from
Heathenism to creep into the Church ; was condemned (with a reason which shows
the origin to have been for magical incantation, as Ferdinand Mendoza explained it
to Clement VIII.) by the Council of Eliberis, in Spain, a.d. 305, c. 34 ; was attacked,
as a manifest graft from Heathenism, by Vigilantius, a Spanish Presbyter, towards
the close of that century ; and feebly defended by Jerome, as not altogether
idolatrous ; who alleges a custom in the Oriental Churches of lighting tapers at the
reading of the Gospel, of which, in the 8th and 9th centuries, in the works (in the
Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris, vol. x.) ascribed to Alcuin and Amalarius of Treves (but
not mentioned as theirs by Dupin or Clarke), we find some traces in the West —
tapers being lighted at the reading of the Gospel, to signify its superiority over the
Prophets, and extinguished when the reading was finished. Instead of which, in
England, we mark the same honour by saying before the Gospel, " Glory be to Thee,
0 Lord," and after it, according to the beautiful custom still retained in country
Parishes, " Thanks be given to God." I have met with uothing else in the Ecclesias
tical writers to throw further light upon this subject.
I have related the matter in this personal style, because, as I have no reason to
believe that any step had been taken of late years in reference to the Candles on
the Communion Table before the transactions narrated above at Oriel and All Souls,
it is not unreasonable to suppose that they set the matter in motion ; and that,
consequently, I have been myself, however unconsciously and unintentionally, in
some sort the cause of the error into which Mr. Bennett has fallen, and of the
consequent turmoil ; and therefore I have stated the whole of the facts, that they
who are disposed to blame may have free opportunity of doing so. I have been
minute, even to prolixity, in stating all the circumstances, that all men may see
with what perfect simplicity, and unconsciousness of error, a man may be led into
error in a matter of such obscurity, which I hope may plead in mitigation of cen
sure, not only in my own case, but in that also of those who more rashly (and with
less reading and consideration than any alteration in sacred things demands) have
carried out to an extreme of absurdity the use of Candles, for which no legitimate
use was assigned. And further still, that the rulers of the Church may take
occasion to consider the practical inconvenience likely, at some time or another, to
ensue, from retaining in the Church any practice for which sound and intelligible
cause cannot be alleged.
P.S. The lights in the Tabernacle and Temple, from which the light of day was
excluded, significant of the then existing dispensation of prophecy — the " light
shining in a dark place ;" and of « the mystery which in " those " ages was not
made known unto the sons of men ;" can afford no precedent for such things under
the Christian dispensation, with which they are wholly incongruous ; seeing that " the
day has dawned, and the day-star arisen on our hearts :" "the Sun of Righteous
ness has risen with healing in His wings;" hath exhibited Himself "the true
light of the world," and " hath brought life and immortality to light by His Gospel."
For Christian men in sun-lighted temples, to burn tapers in the worship of God is
tantamount to declaring that they prefer the glimmer of prophecy, to the full blaze
of Gospel revelation.

APPENDIX TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Since the foregoing Paper was revised for a Second Edition, I have been induced
to examine more closely our earlier Anglo-Saxon Canons, and among them, towards
the latter end of the tenth century, find two records, which, while they in some
degree modify the previous view,— by showing that the corrupt innovation of lights
in day-light obtained earlier in the English Church than there had before seemed
reason to suppose, — at the same time, when taken in conjunction with Jerome's
testimony upon the subject, and that of Lyndwood (in whom I was led to search
by Mr. Hart's "Ecclesiastical Records of England, Ireland, and Scotland"), enable
us to trace the course of this error from its first introduction, through its gradual
development, to its climax as exhibited in the Injunctions of Edward VI. The
history is very interesting, and well worth attention now, when the unhealthy
craving after exciting novelties, or the revival of the mediasval stimulants, is again
manifesting itself. The two passages in the Anglo-Saxon Canons alluded to, occur
in Collections ascribed respectively to King Edgar, who reigned from 959 to 975,
and to one Elfric, who is supposed to have been his contemporary, but of whom no
certain information can be had. In the first of these Collections we find, c. 42,
" Let a light be always burning in the church when Mass is sung." In the other
Collection there is this, c. 14 : " He is called the Acolyth, who holds the Candle or
Taper at the Divine Services ; when the Gospel is read ; or when the Housel (the
Hallowed Bread) is consecrated at the altar ; not as if he were to drive away
obscure darkness, but to signify bliss by that light, to the honour of Christ, who is our
Light." The comment of Lyndwood, who wrote about 1430, will be found in his
Note on the Canon of Walter Reynolds in 1322, cited above p. 5. At the mention
of Candles in that Canon, Lyndwood observes, '¦' For it is ordered by the Canon
Law 3 that a Priest may not celebrate Mass without the light of fire. If, however,
he do so, he performs the service, though he grievously sins in so doing." Now
let us turn to Jerome, and see how the matter stood in his time. Vigilantius had
objected to the rulers of the Church, that they had introduced an heathenish
custom into Christian worship, by burning lights in day-light. How does Jerome
meet him 2 Thus he speaks : " We do not light waxes in broad day, as you in vain
falsely accuse us of doing ; but that we may subdue the shades of night by this
refreshment, and watch unto light, instead of blindly sleeping with you in darkness.
But if some, through the inexperience and simplicity of laymen, or indeed of
religious women, — of whom we can truly say, ' I confess that they have a zeal of
God, but not according to knowledge,' — do this for the honour of the martyrs,
what blame do you thence deduce ? (quid inde perdis ?) The Apostles themselves
once blamed the waste of ointment, but were reproved by the voice of the Lord.
Christ indeed needed not the ointment, nor do the martyrs the light of candles :
and yet that woman did this in honour of Christ, and the devotion of her mind was
accepted. And whosoever light candles have their reward according to their faith,
as the Apostle says, ' Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' Do
you call these sort of men idolaters 2 I deny not that all we who believe in Christ
have come from the error of idolatry ; for we are not born Christians, but become
such by regeneration. But because we once worshipped idols, ought we now not
to worship God, lest we appear to honour Him with the same honour with which
we served the idols 2 That was done to idols, and is therefore to be abhorred ; this
is done to martyrs, and is therefore worthy of acceptation. Indeed, throughout
the Churches of the East, altogether apart from the relics of the martyrs, when the
Gospel is read candles are lighted, though the sun be shining ; not for the purpose
of dispelling darkness, but for a manifest token of joy."
3 Lynd wood's words are ex parte Juris: but no such passage can be found in the Canon Law. It
appears to be from the " Commentaries on the Canon Law" by Henry of Susa, Cardinal Bishop of
Ostia, who nourished about 1262, and also is cited by Lyndwood under the designation Hosteensis.
He was at that time the chief authority in Canonical Law.

]0 APPENDIX.
It is a curious passage : first, he repudiates it as a ^""^-XtteWmtS
tiaus, denying the fact ; then, while admitting it to have ^crept in by the ««J
piety of inexperienced and silly laymen and women, who .had more zea
knowledge, affects a sort of pious indignation that exception should
^Bufsuch is the history of the rise and progress of the affair. A gentile custom
introduced into the Christian Church without Ecclesiastical authont y b p w a
individual Gentile converts who transferred to the tombs of the ™^™? oi the fifth
idol-worship : so it was regarded by its defender at the c™™"^ fJ^tZ
century, who rejected as a calumny the imputation of such \P"J*°\^£^
Church at large. By the tenth century, as we have see n by ** ^"S™™
Canons, that which had been practised at the tombs of the martyrs, , ^ been
transferred to the Holy Table at the most sacred rites ; ™ lOT^XESdta'
but by injunction : that is to say, no fixed lights upon the aUar, bu flights heW m
the hands of the Acolyths during consecration In the ^* «*"*"* \J? ™t
have seen by Lyndwood, that which Jerome had repudiated as a calumny had got
to be esteemed so essential, that a priest who consecrated the Eucharist without it
was considered to incur grievous sin. And by the sixteenth, as appears by
Edward VI.'s Injunctions, it had gone one step further ; and, apart Horn service
hours, this rite of idol-worship was employed to honour the wafer reserved in the
pyx, which was set forth as an object of the highest worship, Aarpeia.
Surely, the uninspired records of the Church, like the inspired, or Holy Scrip
tures, contain lessons of warning ; and so plain a history of the growth and progress
of an error ought not to be lost on pious and reflecting minds.
It is right that all men should know the reason cited from the Canon Law by
Lyndwood, why the light of fire, without which it had come to be accounted
grievous sin to celebrate the Eucharist, should be of wax, rather than of any other
material. " For a candle thus burning resembles Christ Himself, who is the light
of the world." " Whence a candle in its composition resembles Christ in three
points : for it is composed of wax, wick, and light. So also Christ consists of the
Virgin's flesh generated without seed, like as wax proceeds from the bee, without
generation or coition of a bee. The wick, which is white, signifies the soul of
Christ adorned with the brightness of innocence. The light, moreover, signifies
His Deity united to the flesh."
Nothing, I think, but the fearful spirit of delusion, which seems to be let loose
among us again, could justify the calling attention to such a passage — so awful, so
revolting. But desperate diseases require desperate remedies. A writer in the
"English Churchman," which I have this day (December 28) received, in review
ing the previous Paper still clings to, and attempts to advocate, " a mystical
signification" for this " instructive and striking ceremony." He has it now in its
full nakedness, (at least that of Western Christendom, for the Eastern appears to
be free from the stigma,) a ceremony according to which the Deity of our Lord
was commensurate with His humanity, sustained in existence by the consumption
of the latter, and then expiring : while the effect of His Deity upon His innocence
was to soil it and render it worthless, which is the result of the action of the flame
upon the wick ! And yet not even the childishness or impiety of such a signification
forms the most awful and appalling feature connected with this matter. That
presents itself in the undeniable fact thus exposed, viz. of the near approach
which the Western Churches in the fifteenth century had made to the introduction
of the Guebre or Fire-worship into Christianity. To celebrate the sacred rites
without the light of fire accounted a grievous sin, because that light of fire was a
sacred emblem of the Deity ! What man can deny that the arguments used by the
writers of those ages for offering Latria to the consecrated wafer, to the crucifix,
and to the cross, are to the full, at least equally, available for offering Latria to the
sacred light 2 And what more do the Guebres do 2 " You make a god of fire."
" It is false ! " the Guebres reply, " we only worship Him under this most signi
ficant emblem." The very language of the Council of Trent : " Due honour and
veneration are to be given to the images of Christ, &c, not because it is supposed
that there is any divinity or virtue in them on account of which they are to be
worshipped, . . . but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the
prototypes which they represent ; so that by the images which we kiss, before
which we uncover our heads and fall down, we worship Christ." The received

APPENDIX. 11
maxim upon which subject was set forth by Naclantius, Bishop of Clugium, viz.
that " the same worship is to be paid to the image which is due to the person
represented by it." If fire, therefore, be an image of the Deity, (as set forth by
authority in the fifteenth century,) it follows irrefragably that Latria is due to it.
Hence "the grievous sin" incurred by the Priest who should celebrate Divine
offices without it.
Such is the fearful history of a custom ; sooner than part with which, men are
to be found in the middle of the nineteenth century, who deem it a light matter to
resign the care of the souls which Christ had entrusted to their keeping ! " Where
is the flock which was given thee, thy beautiful flock 2" "I resigned them for that
which I hold in my hand." " What hast thou in thine hand 2" " The ashes of a
taper, burned upon Thine altar ; which I deemed more precious in Thy sight."
For one thing I stand corrected by the reviewer in the " English Churchman,"
namely, for the use of the term " half-knowledge," in reference to the writer of the
artiele on Lights in Dr. Hook's Dictionary. I have struck it from this impression,
being most willing to acknowledge that it is not by the use of any term of reproach
that the cause of truth or peace will be promoted : for surely " The wrath of man
worketh not the righteousness of God."

Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John's Square, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 7512

W