the report, which has been truly characterised by the Bishop of St. David's as 'a mosaic of compromises cemented by a general disposition in favour of Ritualism'-(p. 122). For ourselves, we have no doubt how the question ought to be decided on historical grounds; nor have we any great misgivings as to the probable result of any legal decision. 6 (III.) Of incense it will not be necessary to say much, although Dr. Littledale has devoted a pamphlet to the subject. The examples of it since the Reformation give no countenance to the practice of 'censing persons or things,' which is said to be carried to a greater length in the services of the Ritualists than in those of the Roman Church. Such use of incense is declared by the Committee of Convocation to be 'inadmissible ;' and it is unanimously condemned by the twelve counsel whose opinions have been taken on these questions. With regard to the simpler use of incense in a standing vessel, for the twofold purpose of sweet fumigation and of serving as an expressive symbol, the Committee think it sufficient to remark, that it should not be introduced without the sanction of competent ecclesiastical authority.' On the question of this kind of use, the legal advisers of the bishops were not asked to give their opinion, and, like them, Sir W. Bovill and Mr. Coleridge have confined their answer to the censing of persons and things. But the remaining six counsel have all declared themselves more or less strongly against all use of incense in any part of the Church-service. (IV.) The mixture of water with the wine in the eucharistic cup is also the subject of a tract by Dr. Littledale. This practice was ordered by the First Book of Edward VI., but was not mentioned in the Second. In favour of it is alleged the authority of Bishop Andrewes and of Archbishop Laud* (although as to Laud the matter is not so clear† as Dr. Littledale supposes); and it is argued that the mixture must have been intended by the revisers of 1662, because Cosin writes:-'Our Church forbids it not, for aught I know, and they that think fit may use it, as some most eminent among us do at this day.' ‡ To any one, however, but a Ritualist these words would seem to intimate that the writer himself did not practise the rite in question; and it is clear from the context § that this was the case with Cosin, even in his earlier and more ritualistic days, *Littledale, p. 17. † See a paper by the Rev. J. C. Crosthwaite, in the 'British Magazine,' xxxi. pp. 615-6. The Nonjuror Brett says that Laud introduced the custom at Allhallows, Barking, when he was minister of that parish (On Liturgies,' p. 404, ed. 1838). But it appears that he never held the parish (Hierurg. Angl.,' p. 391). Littledale, p. 19. § Cosin, vol. v. pp. 153-4,' ed. Ang. Cath. Lib. to to which the note belongs. And we have already pointed out the fallacy of supposing that any of Cosin's notes, whether earlier or later, or even that his suggestions for the alteration of the Prayer-book, are to be received as evidence, in the sense which the Ritualists pretend, of the intentions of our last revisers. The mixture, as is well known, was insisted on as necessary by the section of Nonjurors who were styled Usagers; * and we believe that, in consequence of a connection with the Nonjurors, it has always been kept up by some clergymen of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. But its true significance, according to Dr. Littledale, was not understood until of late years, when the 'new science' (as Bishop Thirlwall calls it, p.78) of Liturgiology' threw light on the matter. And therefore, because it is prescribed in some ancient liturgies, it is said to be a tradition of the Universal Church, † so that whoever omits it must, according to Dr. Littledale, bring himself under the censure of our Thirty-fourth Article, as one that 'through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church' (p. 16). In other words, whereas the object of that Article is to assert for the national Church the right of regulating such matters for itself, and of requiring individuals to submit to its regulations, Dr. Littledale would have us to believe that its condemnation applies to those who obey the laws and customs of the national Church in preference to setting up their private judgment under the name of obedience to the Church universal. The absence of all order for the mixture, after it had been specially ordered in the first reformed Prayer-book, is all but conclusive against it. The bishops are advised by their counsel that the ceremonial mixing of water with the wine, as a significant act in the course of the service, appears to us to be illegal.' * It might be supposed that the Ritualists, as they have very much in common with the party of Hickes, Collier, and Brett, would avow a sympathy with them, as the Tractarians did at an earlier time. But it is quite otherwise; see, for instance, Mr. Baring-Gould, in 'The Church and the World,' p. 107, and Dr. Littledale, on Incense,' p. 33, where Dodwell is styled the most eccentric of even that crotchety brotherhood.' We do not understand the meaning of this; perhaps it arises from the fact that the Ritualists aim at popular influence, which the Nonjurors never dreamt of, and hence their favourite party in the last century is that of Wesley. So little does Mr. Blenkinsopp know of the history of the Nonjurors, that he supposes the Anglican bishops' to have been concerned in a negotiation for union with the Greek Church, which was really carried on by Collier and his party. (The Church and the World,' p. 192. See Lathbury's History of the Nonjurors,' pp. 309-360.) + Neither Sir William Palmer ('Origines Liturgica,' ed. 2., vol. ii., p. 75) nor Archdeacon Freeman (p. 78) admits its obligation, and it appears that it has never been used in the Armenian Church. If the water was anciently used in countries where wine was never drunk without mixture, the true analogy for us would rather be that the eucharistic wine should, like that which we usually drink, be un-mixed. Vol. 122.-No. 243. Of Of the counsel on the other side, Mr. Cutler thinks it 'perfectly legal;' Mr. Prideaux, 'not illegal.' Dr. Deane professes 'some doubt,' but strongly inclines to the opinion that such addition is not illegal.' But Sir W. Bovill, Mr. W. M. James, Mr. Coleridge, Sir R. Phillimore, and Mr. Hannen (although the last two speak somewhat less decidedly) regard it as unauthorised and illegal. (V.) As to the position of the priest at the holy table, Dr. Littledale has a theory which, although so new that it was unknown to Mr. Perry in 1857,* appears to be now generally adopted by the party. Even Archdeacon Freeman has in this respect allowed himself to fall, not only into the opinion, but into the tone of the Ritualists, and peremptorily tells us that 'there is no real doubt whatever' about the matter. According to these authorities, the term 'north side' does not mean the northern end of the table, but the northern part of the west side. The theory has been well discussed in pamphlets by Mr. Droop, Mr. Elliott, and others; § nowhere, perhaps, better than in an article by the Rev. T. F. Simmons; || and these writers have not only conclusively disposed of it, but have very seriously damaged Dr. Littledale's pretensions to a character for learning and candour. The fact is, that according to the letter of the rubrics and other documents for 1552, the holy table was, at communion time, to be placed with its shorter parts (or ends) east and west; and this was the custom in parish churches, although the altarwise' position, with the ends north and south, became usual in churches and chapels of a different class. In the reign of Charles I. there was a great controversy on the subject between Williams, then Bishop of Lincoln, and Peter Heylyn (which is very inaccurately reported by Dr. Littledale). But neither of these Lawful Church Ornaments,' p. 365. On turning back to the Quarterly Review,' of 1851, we find it stated that 'some who did not venture on this flagrant irregularity [standing at the west side of the table], but were still desirous of giving the table the character of an altar, used slily to place themselves just at the north-west corner of the table, thus half complying with the rubric, which enjoined the north, and half indulging their Romanising propensity for the west.' The writer had seen this puerility actually practised, and persisted in by several, and particularly by two leading persons, who have since openly gone over to Rome' (lxxxix. 212). But the theory now before us had not then been propounded. Rites and Ritual,' p. 71. † See the Directorium,' p. 247. "The North Side of the Table,' by H. R. Droop, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. London, 1866. The North Side of the Table,' by C. J. Elliott, M.A., Vicar of Winkfield, Berks. Windsor, 1866. The Priest at the Altar.' Oxford and London, 1866. || See the 'Contemporary Review' for October last. antagonists antagonists showed any conception of Dr. Littledale's interpretation as possible, or doubted that the priest's position was to be at the north of the table; the only question was, whether as he stood there, with his face to the table-shouldering the people,' as Dr. Littledale elegantly expresses it (p. 23)-the longer or the shorter side of the oblong table should be turned towards him. And Cosin, in the same age, shows equally little suspicion of the meaning put by the new school on the term 'north side,' although Dr. Littledale and his friends would have us believe that it was generally so understood until the time of the Nonjurors. What the Nonjurors really did, however, was not to introduce a new interpretation of the Church's rubric; but, in connection with a new office of their own, where the priest was directed to do certain things 'turning to the altar' or 'before the altar,' they explain these phrases to mean 'on the north side' i. e. at the north end. § The present position of our communion tables was established after the restoration of Charles II., not by any direct change in the rubric (although a change is indirectly supposed in the rubric which we are next to consider), but through the operation of the sense of comeliness, and in consequence of the dying away of prejudices which nothing but some new and offensive movement from the opposite side would be likely to resuscitate. But although the priest, according to his new instructions, is to begin the office at the northern part of the west side, this is not enough for the Directorians, who prescribe all manner of strange shiftings from one part to another, and at the consecration bring him back to the position of 1519, 'afore the midst of the altar.' In this we believe them to be utterly unwarranted by the history of the matter. While the tables were turned east and west, there was no occasion for doubt or difficulty as to the place where he should stand at the consecration; but, as we have already seen (p. 180), Laud and Wren got into trouble by consecrating at the west side of tables which were turned altarwise. In 1662 the rubric was brought into its present shape, which was intended to obviate the difficulty of reaching the elements from the north end after they had been placed in the middle of the table. The priest, standing before the table, is to 'order' (i. e. arrange) them, by removing them to such a *For instance, Heylyn says, I presume no man of reason will deny but that the northern end or side (call it which you will) is pars septentrionalis, the northern part. Though I expect, ere long, in spite of dictionaries and the grammar, to hear the contrary from this trim epistoler.'--' Coal from the Altar,' p. 24. † See, e.g., his Works, v. 309. Littledale, p. 28; Directorium,' pp. 47, 247-8. 0 2 place place that he may 'with the more readiness and decency' reach them from his position at the north end; and in that position he is to break the bread before the people,' i. e., so that the act of breaking may be seen by the congregation. Of the glosses put on this rubric by Dr. Littledale and the Directorians-that ordering the bread and wine,' means 'diminishing the quantity of bread offered in proportion to the number of intending communicants,' and 'pouring wine into the chalice from the flagon or stoup, which was not always done at the offertory,' that breaking the bread before the people' means, in presence thereof, not that the faithful actually see the fraction itself, but that the celebrant may be seen as he inclines in the act of the breaking, and as he elevates the paten, and shows the chalice, as he raises it, above his head 't-we need only say that they are entirely worthy of their authors. (VI.) In favour of wafer-bread a great deal of authority may be produced down to the end of Elizabeth's reign, after which the use of it appears to have died out. On the words of the rubric, that it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten with meats,' we have the contemporaneous exposition of Archbishop Parker, that this means 'where either there wanteth such fine usual bread, or superstition be feared in the wafer-bread, they may have the Communion in fine usual bread.' But since wafer-bread has been disused for more than two centuries and a half, and since the revival of it, after so long disuse, would manifestly contradict the declared object of that rubric, viz. to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition,' it is probable that the early precedents would not carry any conclusive weight in a court of law. In the opinions lately given the preponderance is greatly against it. The Committee of Convocation think that the use of wafer-bread, if not actually forbidden, is certainly discouraged; and of the twelve lawyers who have been consulted, while some hesitate to condemn it (as Sir W. Bovill and Mr. Coleridge, who have no decided opinion'), only four are in favour of its legality. (VII.) By the First Book of Edward, all but communicants were ordered to leave the choir at the celebration of the sacrament, but the non-communicants were allowed to remain in other parts of the church, nor has their presence ever been expressly for †Directorium,' p. 74. *Littledale, p. 26. This word, which is wanting in Strype's Parker' (p. 310, folio), but is found in the Parker Society's edition of the Archbishop's 'Correspondence' (p. 376), seems to make nonsense. The true reading is, surely, with Strype, such fine bread,' i.e. of the kind ordered by Elizabeth's Injunctions, resembling the singing-cakes which served for the use of the private mass,' but 'somewhat bigger.' t bidden |