« ZurückWeiter »
Rubric than its words actually convey. Practical need has asserted and substantiated its claim. The Rubric, or rather the original Injunction on which the Rubric was based, has shown itself conveniently expansive and elastic, and the word “ Anthem ” proved a pregnant and germinant one, covering at once the Hymn, the Introit, and the Anthem proper. The truth is, however, that it is to custom and necessity, not to Rubrics or Injunctions, that we owe the general introduction of Music, as distinct from Plain song, into our Revised Offices. Custom drew forth the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth; the Injunction subsequently gave rise to the Rubric. But as Music originally found its way into our Reformed Service, independently of written authority, so, independently of written authority, does it continue. For the very necessity which received formal recognition in the Anthem-Rubric, refuses to be satisfied with or limited by the strict terms of that Rubric. The Anthem, in some shape or other, was a fact before ever any written authority called it into legal existence; and in like manner, Hymnsinging, over and above the Anthem, has been, and is, and will be, an actual fact, notwithstanding its apparent want of formal rubrical sanction.
The result of all is, that while“ the Anthem” still retains its place, as a special offering to God of the firstfruits of sacred musical skill and science, “in choirs and places” where such an offering is possible, the additional introduction elsewhere of suitable Hymns, whether in the Eucharistic or other Offices, as aids and reliefs to the Services, is not only not thereby excluded, but practically and subordinately and implicitly sanctioned.
This Section may be concluded with some practical rules on the subject of which it has treated.
1. Although, as we have seen, there was no deliberate intention, on the part of our Liturgical Revisers, that the old Antiphon should be reproduced, or find an exact counterpart in the modern Anthem; still, on the other hand, it is most desirable that the Anthem should practically-by its appropriate character, by its responding accordantly to the Service of the day, bringing out and emphasizing its special theme-vindicate its right to the title it has obtained, and prove itself a legitimate successor and representative of the Antiphon'. Anthems or Hymns may thus become invaluable auxiliaries; imparting a freedom and variety to our Service which it would not otherwise possess, and rendering it susceptible of easy adaptation to the ever-changing phases of the Church's year. If the “Hymn, or such like song," does not possess any of this “ Antiphonal ” character, if it is regarded merely in the light of so much music interpolated into the Office by way of relief, it becomes simply an element of disintegration, splitting up the Service into several isolated fragments, instead of imparting a unity and consistency and character to the whole. Hence the need of due and reverent care in the selection of the Anthems and Hymns. Judiciously chosen, they may not only give new beauty and meaning to our Services, but may also prove most useful and delightful means of propagating and popularizing Church doctrine, and promoting the growth of genuine and healthy Church feeling.
2. As regards the position of the Hymns. The Elizabethan Injunction specifies the “ beginning or end of Common Prayer;" and the Rubric says, “after the third Collect.” So that we have three available places for “Hymns, or such like songs.” The Hymn at the beginning of Common Prayer, although desirable on great Festivals, as a kind of Antiphon fixing the key-note of the whole succeeding Service, is somewhat inconsistent with the general penitential character of the Introduction to our Mattins and Evensong, and should not, therefore, be ordinarily employed'. During the Eucharistic Office, the singing of Hymns, independently of the Nicene Creed, and the great Eucharistic Hymn “ Gloria in Excelsis," is most desirable. There may be (1) an introductory“ Introit ;" (2) a Hymn, or (as the alternative provided in Edward's First Prayer Book) the “ Agnus Dei," after the Prayer of Consecration; and (3) a Hymn, or (as a very suitable alternative) the “ Nunc Dimittis," when the Service is over, and the remains of the Consecrated Elements are being reverently consumed. In the Office for Holy Matrimony, the Order for the Burial of the Dead, and other occasional Offices, Hymns may be often most appropriately and happily introduced.
1 It should, perhaps, be remarked, that there still remain in the Prayer Book a few instances of the word Anthem retaining its old meaning. For example, the Invitatory Psalm, « Tenite cultemus," is regarded in some sort as a fixed Antiphon before the Psalms for the day, and is in this sense called an Anthem; the Rubrio enjoining its constant use," except on Easter-day, upon which another Anthem is appointed." The word is also used in its old sense in the following passage from the Introduc. tion, “Concerning the Service of the Church :"-"For this cause be cut off Anthems, Responds, Invitatories, and such like things
as did break the continual course of the reading of the Scripture."
The “O Saviour of the world,” after the Psalm in the “Visita-
3 " In the Communion time the Clerks shall sing-
have mercy upon us.
3. With regard to the exact nature of the music to be employed in the Psalms, Hymns, Canticles, Anthems, &c., it would be most unwise, even if possible, to lay down any strict rules. While it would be a great error to discard many of the ancient Hymn-tunes and Psalm-chants of the Church, it would be a no less serious error to keep exclusively to them. The Church must bring forth from her treasurehouse “things new and old;" not only the severe (and to some ears uncouth) unisonous strains of bygone times, but also the rich, full harmonies of modern days. All must be freely, fearlessly employed, according as taste, or special circumstances, or choral capability may dictate. Experiments must be made, mistakes perhaps braved; for many questions as to the best practical methods of linking together the “sphere-born, harmonious sisters, Voice and Verse ” in the Service of the Sanctuary remain as yet undecided. Hasty dogmatism, and intolerant exclusiveness, in reference to the accessories of Divine Worship, are much to be deprecated, for in all matters of external apparatus the Church of England has yet much to learn. In putting forth the full strength of our Prayer Book, and developing its inward powers and energies, there will be also gradually disclosed outward features and graces which seem new and strange from their having been so long latent. But it is certain that all the resources of the Church, external as well as internal, are needed for modern times; and that all appliances, musical, ritual, æsthetic, should be brought to bear on the services rendered to God by so cultivated an age, and set forth before men to win and help their souls. God having given all these outward aids-music, ritual, artHe means them to be employed for His glory, and in order to influence, and subdue, and attract mankind. As churches should be beautiful, and ritual beautiful, so music also should be beautiful; that it may be a more fitting offering to Him, and better calculated to impress, soften, humanize, and win. None of these Divinely-granted helps may be contemptuously laid aside. All should be reverently, humbly, piously used; used for God, not for self; used in full and fearless confidence that it is His own blessed will that they should be used; used with the single eye to the glory of God, and the spiritual welfare of His people.
THE ACCESSORIES OF DIVINE SERVICE.
DIVINE SERVICE being, as the term implies, the act of Worship rendered to God, it follows from the consideration of His Majesty that the place where it is offered, and the persons engaged in conducting it, should be furnished with whatever is suitable to denote its reverent dignity.
The practice of the Jewish Church in this respect, based as it was on a Divine command which prescribed even its minutest details, proves that such accessories are not in their own nature unacceptable to God, or inconsistent with the claims of a Spiritual Being to the homage of His rational creatures.
Further, the sanction given by our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles to the services of the Temple and the Synagogue, and the application made of the Jewish Ritual by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, furnish indisputable authority for incorporating similar symbolic uses with Christianity, in order that it may present itself to mankind in a not less attractive form than the Religious System which it was designed to complete, but did in the end supersede.
That such a Christian adaptation of other existing Religious Ritual Customs was considered to be right and desirable, is evidenced by the fact that the Christian Church, from its earliest days downwards, has every where exhibited, though in varying degrees, this combination of Symbolical Ritualism with the highest spiritual worship; and thus bas practically enunciated a law—that Divine Service is to be accompanied with external accessories. .
The Rule given by the Church of England in applying this principle is contained in the following general Rubric, which is placed in a prominent position at the beginning of the Prayer Book:
“And here 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 the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth."
A Rubric substantially, though not quite verbally, identical with this, first appeared in the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559 : the necessity for which arose out of the determination, on Queen Elizabeth's accession, to abandon the Latin Service-books, which had been restored in Queen Mary's reign, and to revert to the form of Divine Worship arranged in the Second Prayer Book of King Edward VI. [A.D. 1552], though with some revisions which made it more conformable to the First Reformed Prayer Book [A.D. 1549]. This change in the Services necessarily required some adaptation in the Accessories of Divine Worship; and as these had also undergone alterations during the period in which the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552 were employed, it was requisite to adopt some standard by which to regulate them. The standard chosen was the use which prevailed “by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.” The Rubric which declared this decision was also incorporated with the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity; it was retained in the very slightly revised Prayer Book of James I., and was re-enacted at the last revision in 1661. It will facilitate the comparison of these four directions, to place them in parallel columns, thus :Prayer Book, 1559. Statute 1 Eliz. c. 2, Prayer Book, 1603-4. Prayer Book, 1662.
$ 25, 1558-9. “And here is to be “Provided always, “And here is to be “And here is to be noted, that the Minister and be it enacted, that noted that the Minister noted, that such Ornaat the time of the Com- such Ornaments of the at the time of the Com- ments of the Church, munion, and at all other Church, and of the munion, and at all other and of the Ministers times in his Ministra. Ministers thereof, shall times in his Ministra- thereof at all times of tion, shall use such Or- be retained and be in tion, shall use such Or their Ministration, shall naments in the Church use, as was in this Church naments in the Church, be retained and be in as were in use by autho- of England by authority as were in use by autho- use as were in this rity of Parliament in of Parliament, in the se- rity of Parliament, in Church of England by the second year of the cond year of the reign of the second year of the the Authority of Parliareign of King Edward King Edward the Sixth, reign of King Edward ment, in the second year the Sixth, according to until other order shall the Sixth, according to of the reign of King the Act of Parliament be therein taken by the the Act of Parliament Edward the Sixth !.” set in the beginning of authority of the Queen's set in the beginning of this Book.”
Majesty, with the advice this Book.”
But it should be noticed that, though the first three of these directions furnished the primary and general Rule during the period from 1559 to 1662, there were issued contemporaneously other orders relating to the same subject : these occur (1) in the Elizabethan INJUNCTIONS of 1559; (2) in the Elizabethan ADVERTISEMENTS of 1564-5; (3) in the Jacobean Canons of 1603-4; (4) in the Caroline Canons of 1640. Of all these, however, it must be remembered that they were not designed to supersede the fuller direction given in the two Rubrics and in the Statute: but that the First were explanatory of the Rubrie and Statute of 1559; the Second, Third, and Fourth were drawn out by the laxity of the times, which necessitated endeavours to secure something like a general and uniform decency in the conduct of Divine Worship, and in order to effect this, insisted only upon the fewest and simplest of the Accessories which were prescribed under the fuller Rule. But these four series of special ORDERS being sometimes cited as Directions advisedly contrariant to the general RULES, it is desirable to state somewhat more particularly their precise character and object.
1 In Bishop Cosin's Durham Prayer Book the Rubric is altered from its previous to its present form in his handwriting. At the end of the alteration is a note (not intended for printing, but underscored with a dotted line), “These are the words of the Act itself. v. Supra.” He also began to write a list, but gave over the task after writing the word “Surplice.” Probably he thought that to specify them might peril the Rubric itself; though it is clear that his wish was to name them, for, in his “Particulars to
be considered, explained, and corrected, in the Book of Common Prayer,” he appends this note to the Rubric:-"But what those ornaments of the Church and of the minister were, is not bere specified, and they are so unknown to many, that by most they are neglected. Wherefore it were requisite that those ornaments, used in the second year of King Edward, should be here particularly named and set forth, that there might be no difference about them.” [Works, Ang. Cath. Lib. vol. v. p. 507.]
1. The INJUNCTIONS of 1559. Such of these as related to the Accessories of the Services and Offices appointed in the Prayer Book of 1559 were demanded by the then existing condition of things. The Statute 1 Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2, A.D. 1553, had abolished the alterations made in the reign of Edward VI., and legally restored the Services (together with their Accessories) to the condition in which they were left “in the last year of Henry Eighth.” The consequence of this was, that the Injunctions of 1547 (whether then or previously having the force of an Act of Parliament or not is here immaterial) ceased to be of any authority, at least so far as they at all affected the character of the Services : nor do they seem to have subsequently regained their authority; for the reviving Statute, 1 Eliz. c. 1, A.D. 1558, does not touch them, and the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity could, at most, only very indirectly refer to them when restoring the book of 1552, “ with the order of service," subject, however, to “the alterations and additions” made by the statute of 1559. Probably indeed it was intended not to continue the Injunctions of 1547, whether they had lapsed or not, since the issuing of new Injunctions would furnish a more convenient method of altering the former ones, if requisite, than the mere publication of amendments. But however this may have been, the Marian period having legally reintroduced some of those practices which the Injunctions of 1547 had regarded as abuses, they could not be forbidden on the ground of being unlawful. The obvious plan therefore was to repeat the process of 1547, and thus define legally how much of the existing general custom was designed to be preserved, by distinctly specifying such particular items of it as were thought desirable to be abolished. This was done by the Elizabethan Injunctions, which were founded upon those of 1547, and were followed by certain " Interpretations and further Considerations ;" and thus, (except such of them as did not deal at all with any old, or authorized some new, practice in regard to Ritual and Ceremonial matters, they simply subtracted certain portions from the existing whole, and so enabled the Clergy and Laity of that day to know exactly which and how many of the Accessories of Divine Service then employed were to be regarded as coming within the terms of the Rubric and Statute—“in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Rather less was, however, abolished by the Injunctions of 1559 than by those of 1547-e. g. nothing was said about the removal of Images, though the second Injunction forbade to “set forth or extol the dignity of any images, robes, or miracles.”
2. The ADVERTISEMENTS of 1564-5. The necessity for these sprang from the great and growing negligence of the anti-ritual party, and their opposition to the then existing law which regulated the Ritual and Ceremonial. To so great a height had this attained, that it provoked a letter of complaint from the Queen to Archbishop Parker, dated January 25, 1564-5, wherein Her Majesty said that, “We, to our no small grief and discomfort do hear, that .... for lack of regard given thereto in due time, by such superior and principal officers as you are, being the Primate, and other the Bishops of your province,. ... there is crept and brought into the Church .... an open and manifest disorder and offence to the godly wise and obedient persons, by diversity of opinions, and specially in the external, decent and lawful rites and ceremonies to be used in the Churches ....:" and the Queen further declared that, “We .... have certainly determined to have all such diversities, varieties, and novelties .... as breed nothing but contention, offence, and breach of common charity, and are also against the laws, good usages, and ordinances of our realm, to be reformed and repressed and brought to one manner of uniformity through our whole realm and dominions. ...." [Parker Correspondence, p. 224.]
In consequence of this Royal Letter the Archbishop directed the Bishop of London (Grindal), as Dean of the Province, to inform the other Bishops of the Queen's commands, and also to direct them “that they inviolably see the laws and ordinances already established to be without delay and colour executed in their particular jurisdictions.” [Parker Correspondence, p. 229.] Moreover, the varieties complained of were to be stated in returns which were to be sent to the Archbishop by the end of February.
But it is not difficult to understand, what seems to have been the case, that it was no easy task to deal with the prevalent disorder, encouraged as it was by a not inconsiderable body of persons (including many Clergy and some Bishops) who had a violent dislike of the prescribed Ritual and Ceremonial. Nor is it surprising to find that the Bishops, in order to promote uniformity, contented themselves with insisting upon the observance of only such of the existing requirements as they thought necessary for the decent conduct of Divine Worship. This minimum requirement was embodied in the Advertisements which, about a month later, were submitted to the Queen for her approval, that so they might be issued
ke of them iformity, though the Advert
with the full force of Ecclesiastical Law; yet, anxious as Her Majesty was to stop irregularities, the requisite authorization was withheld; and when, after some delay, they were permitted to be published, their enforcement appears to have depended upon the general authority of the Ordinaries; nor is it at all clear that they afterwards obtained that Royal sanction which alone could have armed the Bishops with adequate powers to compel their observance. There does not appear to be any very precise information on the matter, but the little which is available seems to imply that the Queen (if not also some of her Council) was dissatisfied with so low a standard of conformity as the Bishops had set up; and also that there was an unwillingness to supersede the Rubric on Ornaments, and its corresponding clause in the Act of Uniformity, by legalizing what probably it was then hoped would be no more than a temporary step towards attaining a further compliance with the Ecclesiastical Law under more favourable circumstances.
3. The Canons of 1603-4. The history of the thirty-eight years between the publication of the Elizabethan Advertisements and the accession of James I., is that of a continuous strife between the Ecclesiastical Authorities and the non-conforming party in the Church of England; the efforts of the latter being encouraged by the hope, or persuasion, that the new King's familiarity with Scottish practices might favourably incline him towards their Presbyterian prepossessions. The Hampton Court Conference, which was held within the first year of King James's reign, was an effort to convince them, and to remove, if possible, any reasonable ground of complaint; but its proceedings revealed the weakness of the objections, and terminated in a resolution that any changes ought to be in the direction, not of laxity, but of strictness; and so the few alterations which were made in the Book of Common Prayer were of the latter character, and served to bring out more distinctly some points of its Doctrine,-points, however, which were clearly implied in the Services.
But it was easier, no doubt, to make Doctrine more objective in the Formularies than to enforce discipline, especially in Ritual and Ceremonial matters which were peculiarly obnoxious to those of Presbyterian inclinations. The long acquiescence in a low standard of practice in these respects could hardly be other than fatal to any attempt to impose obedience to the larger legal requirements which still subsisted. So, being, as it was, necessary, in the loose and fragmentary condition of many of the then existing Ecclesiastical Ordinances, to provide some complete code of discipline, it was nevertheless impossible probably to do more than re-enforce those more limited Orders which could not be dispensed with, unless the Clergy and Churches in England were to assume a garb little, if at all, distinguishable from the Ministers and Temples of the foreign Reformed bodies or of the Presbyterian Community in Scotland.
Accordingly, in the Book of Canons “collected by Bishop Bancroft out of the Articles, Injunctions, and Synodical Acts passed and published in the reigns of King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth,” and passed by “both Houses” of Convocation (Collier, E. H., ii. p. 687], all that was deemed indispensable was embodied, and in virtue of the King's Letters Patent, which ratified these Canons, became Statutably binding upon the Clergy, and Ecclesiastically obligatory upon the Laity.
4. The Canons of 1640. During the last twenty years of King James's reign, and the first fourteen years of his successor, King Charles I., there was a gradual improvement in the externals of Divine Service, due in part, no doubt, to the Canons just remarked upon, but more probably to greater vigilance among the Ecclesiastical Authorities, and to an increasing desire for the restoration of what had fallen into desuetude, though it was still upheld by Ecclesiastical enactments. But the Puritan leaven was still working in the Church of England, and its fermenting power was increased by Civil proceedings with which it came in contact. The effect of this was that accusations, vaguer or more specific, became current, and presented serious obstacles to those loyal and well-affected Churchmen who were doing what they could to rescue the worship of the Church from the ill condition to which a long period of negligence had reduced it.
It was for the purpose of defending generally this reformation, and of sanctioning particularly some of its more prominent features, that the Convocation of 1640 agreed to a small code of seventeen new Canons: their design being thus distinctly proclaimed in the Letters Patent which were prefixed to them :
“Forasmuch as We are given to understand, that many of Our subjects being misled against the Rites and Ceremonies now used in the Church of England, have lately taken offence at the same, upon an unjust supposal, that they are not only contrary to Our Laws, but also introductive unto Popish
perstitions, whereas it well appeareth unto Us, upon mature consideration, that the said Rites and