are certainly reliable, they are often of a general and vague character, and like those in our Prayer Book clearly imply upon the part of the Priest a knowledge derived either from traditional practice, or from books which thus far have not been made public. It is very evident from the incidental notices by writers of the sixteenth century, that many ceremonies were lawfully observed by the Priest at the altar concerning which the missals are altogether silent. Thus for example it has been supposed that a Blessing by the Priest at the end of Mass was unknown in England until the Prayer Book prescribed it. This, however, was not the case. The custom (as has been intimated) had already passed into England from the continent where it originated, and although not prescribed by any one of the English missals, was not on that account regarded as an unlawful addition. For in the explanation of the ceremonies of the Mass prepared for the Convocation of 1543 it is referred to as a perfectly legitimate custom: "The Priest gives us at our departure sometimes the Benediction in the name of the whole Trinity." Contem

poraneous evidence, therefore, as to what was the ceremonial in actual use in England, will often be quite as valuable, and in some cases more valuable, than the rubrics of the liturgical books. It is because this principle has been overlooked, that such statements have been made, as, that in England the psalm Judica me was not said at the altar; that there were no genuflections in the creed or in the Canon; that the last Gospel was not said at the altar, and many like assertions-all of them quite contrary to what was the actual practice.

Ceremonies to be used in the Church of England, See Collier's Eccl. History, ed. 1852, vol. v., p. 117.

X. Of Ceremonial restoration.

There being no evidence whatever that the Sarum or any one ceremonial Use of England had displaced all the others previous to the setting forth of the Prayer Book, a Priest in rendering the offices of the Prayer Book may legitimately adopt the ceremonies of the Use which in his judgment seems to have the highest claim upon his observance. But while such a course is historically defensible, every one will agree that the revival of the diversity of usage prevalent before 1549 is most undesirable. We have already no lack of liturgical variety, diocesan and parochial, without our contributing anything further. It would seem, therefore, to be the wisest course, to retain those ceremonies which were required by the English Canon law, or were common to all the English Uses, and which have survived in actual practice throughout the West. And where the Prayer Book has adopted features from the Uses of the continent, to turn to those Uses, as far as possible, for the ceremonial mode of rendering these particular parts, rather than to adapt to them ceremonial of our own devising, which may be congruous, but which is quite as likely not to be.

In this work of ceremonial synthesis no student can afford to ignore the missal of Pius V., and the many commentaries thereon. As has been said already, there is no fundamental difference in any liturgical, ceremonial, or doctrinal point between it and the missals of England, except that the latter, never having been subjected to revision, contain all the medieval accretions which were wisely set aside by the former. And the revision of the missal under Pius V. did not origin

42

ate a new and peculiarly Roman ceremonial, as some seem to think. It was an effort, and a successful effort, to bring unity out of diversity, to purge the text of the missals of much that was unworthy, to simplify the ritual by cutting away the local exuberances of medievalism, and to arrange and codify by explicit rubrics the ceremonial of the Mass, much of which up to that time had been left to unwritten custom.* So that while we miss in the Roman missal this or that feature found in one or the other of the English missals, we shall look in vain for one important ceremony which was not practised in England at the time the Prayer Book was set forth. Invaluable results have been obtained in recent years by antiquarian research into the liturgical customs of old England, and many long-forgotten ceremonies have been brought to light. These are held up to us by some, who bid us to see how altogether different were the rites and ceremonies of England from those of Rome, and how unique was England in all her ways. The answer is simple enough. These antiquated customs were never the peculiar property of the Church of England. When they were in vogue in England they were also being observed in

But we have been told that the Ritus of this missal was drawn from the Ordo Missae of John Burckard and that he was a very disreputable man, being described by a contemporary as vilissimus. But what of that? More than one of the compilers of the Prayer Book have been characterized by epithets no less opprobrious, and the witness may be true; but we do not on that account consider their liturgical labours as beneath our notice, or think one whit less of the Book of Common Prayer which they produced. The learned Dr. Legg, however, does not think that Burckard was exclusively responsible for the Ritus. He says: "It has often been said, with more or less authority, that this Ordo Missae of Burckard is the source of the Ritus Celebrandi prefixed to the Pian edition of the Roman Mass book. Pierre Le Brun goes so far as to say that Burckard is copied almost word for word. There is some exaggeration here; for this statement can be easily disproved by any close examination of the two documents. But they are allied, and it would seem likely that the idea of the Ritus Celebrandi was borrowed directly from Burckard." (Tracts on the Mass, H. B. Soc., p. xxvi.)

other parts of the West where they originated. It must be remembered that the Church of England had no more an independent liturgical and ceremonial tradition than she had an independent tradition of faith. She ever recognized herself as being part of the great body of Western Christendom, and all its worship as well as its faith was hers. So that there is yet to be found a single ceremony observed in England prior to the setting forth of the Prayer Book which was not also observed somewhere beyond the Channel from whence England had received it.

In the course of time many customs and ceremonies were allowed to fall into oblivion or were formally abolished both in England and on the Continent, no doubt for the reason that they no longer ministered to edification. We shall, therefore, act wisely, if in the work of ceremonial restoration we accept the judgment of the West and make no attempt to put in practice again any ceremony (however much it may commend itself to our antiquarian tastes) which the wisdom of both England and Rome has permitted to fall into general desuetude out of consideration for 'the diversity of times and men's manners.'

The following, then, are the principles which have been adhered to throughout this work: (1) That the rubrics of the Prayer Book are binding in foro conscientia; (2) That our Communion Office is lacking in no necessary sacrificial feature; (3) That the Priest is at liberty to make acts of private devotion during the Mass; (4) That anthems and hymns may be freely introduced into the service, and that there is no restriction as to the words of such anthems and hymns; (5) That the ancient ornaments and ceremonial in use prior

to 1549 are to be continued, except in so far as they have been set saide by the express provisions of our present Prayer Book; (6) That these ornaments and this ceremonial may be ascertained from the ancient body of English Canon law, from the books of the various. diocesan Uses, and from contemporaneous documents bearing evidence to the actual practice of the Church of England, from which the American Church has derived her faith and orders; (7) That where features have been adopted by the Prayer Book from rites other than the English, the ceremonial of those rites is to be followed in these particulars; (8) That where a ceremony not prescribed by the Prayer Book, has also been allowed to fall into desuetude throughout the West, it is not to be revived; (9) That for ceremonial details the judgment of the liturgical and ceremonial writers who are recognized authorities is to be taken rather than individual surmisings.

XII. Of the Ornaments Rubric.

In mentioning the sources of information for the study of the Church's ceremonial, we make no reference to the so-called "Ornaments Rubric." It stands in the English Prayer Book, but was never given a place in our American book, and for its absence we need have no regrets. For, to say nothing of its seemingly erastian character in referring the clergy to the authority of parliament for guidance as to the ornaments to be used in divine worship, it is evidently a piece of restrictive legislation which we can very well spare. It must be remembered that the law governing the ornaments of the Church was to be found in the body of canon law and in the various liturgical books.