character, if I may use the expression, of moral principles, the intensity and absoluteness with which they are laid down ages before the world has approximated to the ideal thus asserted. If we can trust historic evidence at all, we may trust it for as much as this: that the obligations of fidelity, sincerity, purity, self-denial, were imperatively announced as binding duties on the conscience in age after age when the esoteric rule of worldly-wise men had been entirely in the opposite direction, when the concentrated experience of previous generations was held, not, indeed, to justify, but to excuse, by utilitarian considerations, craft, dissimulation, sensuality, selfishness. Now this can certainly not be said in any sense of the empirical geometrical notions which Mr. Spencer supposes to have been gradually consolidated into our intuition of space. The wisest men of their time, and the most simple alike, have always recognised that a straight line is the shortest way between two points. All experience undoubtedly has led us to this result, though it may be the teaching of more than experience. But how can we sustain the theory that our notions of duty are consolidated out of utilitarian experiences when, as far at least as historic evidence goes, they can be shown to be not only long anterior to any general adoption of them by mankind, but to have been announced with the utmost absoluteness ages ago, when they were the laughing-stock of the world in general, and had to fight their way chiefly against the very considerationsutilitarian considerations- by which they are now supposed to have been alone supported? If we compare the history of moral discovery with that of scientific discovery, we shall see on what a very different foundation the two kinds are based. Scientific discoveries, though they may seem incon

sistent with much of our experience at first, are cleared from inconsistency at every fresh intellectual step which is made, until at last no one who enters into the reasoning by which they are established, can refuse his assent. Moral discoveries are from the very first opposed to a great number of the natural tendencies of the very men who announce them, and are of use precisely because they are thus opposed, because they proclaim a war which, whether open or secret, must be as unending as human history, and therefore they are discoveries which, however often announced, need fresh announcing in every fresh generation of men, gaining hold over our nature on one side only to lose it on another, and, as I think most people will admit, never weaving themselves into all our thoughts and actions so effectually as to leave any single society of men with a less serious moral conflict on its hands than that of any previous society, however ancient and primitive. I confess I cannot reconcile facts of this kind at all with the hypothesis that our moral intuitions grow gradually out of cumulative utilitarian experiences. Civilization doubtless does so grow; the use of the appliances and inventions of each generation becomes a sort of second nature to its successors; but the old controversy which was pleaded thousands of years ago, "before the mountains and strong foundations of the earth," is as fresh to-day as it was then; and I cannot believe that this could be so, if during all that time our moral nature had been steadily growing by the consolidation of utili tarian experiences into intuitions. Surely by this time, at least, if that were so some one elementary moral law should be as deeply ingrained in human practice as the geometrical law that a straigh line is the shortest way between two points. Which of them is it?

[THIS attempt to sum up a small liturgical question originated as follows: -In an essay in Good Words (May 1868, p. 306) on "Some Characteristics of the Papacy occurred this statement:" At the reception of the Holy "Communion, while others kneel, the "Pope sits... He still retains the pos"ture of the first Apostles, and in this "he is followed by the Presbyterians of "Scotland and the Nonconformists of

England, who endeavour by this act "to return to that spirit which, in the Pope himself, has never been aban"doned. It brings before us the ancient

66

days, when the Sacrament was still a supper, when the communicants were "still guests, when the altar was still a "table."

This statement was denied in the most unqualified terms by a Roman Catholic writer, and his denial was endorsed by the Dublin Review of January 1869. This led to a fresh statement and counterstatement in the Dublin Review of April. The controversy seemed to involve matters sufficiently curious to deserve a summary of its true issues, apart from any personal questions; and it is accordingly thus treated on the neutral ground of Macmillan's Magazine.

A. P. S.]

AMONG the curious archæological questions which surround the celebration of the Eucharist, not the least remarkable is that which concerns the posture of the communicant. Of the four possible postures, lying, sitting, standing, and kneeling, all have been practised at different times. The original posture is, beyond doubt, the recumbent. It is certain not only from the well-known custom of lying on couches at meals during that age of the Roman Empire, but from the precise and unmistakeable expressions of the Evangelists (ávékeito, Matt. xxvi. 20; άvakeiμévwv, Mark xiv.

18; άvénɛσɛ, Luke xxii. 14). They all describe this recumbent attitude, which, in the case of St. John, is further illustrated by describing in detail the posture in which the beloved disciple lay at length upon the couch next his Master (John xiii. 23-25). There is no record of the moment when this attitude, hallowed by the most sacred associations and the most primitive usage, was lost. It has now so entirely passed away as to have faded even from the imagination. Even in works of art, Poussin and Le Sueur are the only painters of the Last Supper who have attempted to represent it. It is almost obliterated even in the versions of the original record. The Vulgate translation has retained the words "discubuit," "discumbentibus." But the English versions of the sixteenth century, whether of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Churches, are not equally honest. In Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, and Rheims versions, of John xiii. 23, 25, and xxi. 20, it is "leaning," not "lying;" and in the Authorized Version it is "lying" in John xiii. 25 only. In all these versions, in Mark xiv. 3, 18, &c. it is "sat at meat," or

"

at the table," or "at the board." Only in Wycliff, both in John xiii. and Luke xiv. it is "rested." Doubtless the alteration began early, when the idea of the Supper was lost in that of the "Sacrament." Then the usual attitude of devotion took the place of the common attitude of guests at a meal; and standing, which, in the earlier ages of the Church, as in the East then and now, became the authorized posture. In process of time, the attitude of standing was in Western countries exchanged for the more reve-' rential posture of kneeling, as in other parts of the worship, so also in the 1 Mrs. Jamieson's "Sacred and Legendary Art," i. 257, 258.

moment of receiving the Communion. But in one large class of persons the standing posture still retained its ground. Throughout the service of the Mass of the Roman Church, whilst the congregation is enjoined to kneel, the officiating priest is enjoined to stand, thus maintaining an intermediate position between the custom when all stood, and the modern custom when all kneel. In the English Church, the standing posture is yet further restrained; for though a relic of the earlier Western practice is preserved in the standing posture of the officiating minister during the larger part of the Communion Service, at the moment of reception he also kneels.

There long remained, however, and there still remains, to a certain degree, one remnant of the original posture of the Last Supper. Recumbency, indeed, has every where disappeared. But the nearest approach to it-i.e. the posture of sitting, which in the West has succeeded generally in social intercourse to that of lying down-has in one instance been preserved. The Bishop of Rome, from the singular importance of his office, has naturally preserved many peculiarities which have elsewhere perished, just as the clerical order generally has preserved other usages which the more transitory fashion of the secular world has in other

professions obliterated. Not to speak of any rites but those which belong to the celebration of the Eucharist, there are amongst other peculiarities these :He still celebrates facing the congregation, behind the altar, instead of turning his back on the congregation, and occupying, as all other priests, the space between them and the altar. He still continues at least, in his chief cathedral (St. John Lateran)-the practice of celebrating, not on a stone structure, but on a wooden plank or table. During his celebration, instrumental1 music, common on all other like occasions, is prohibited, as in Eastern Churches. He takes the wine not, as other priests, from the cup, but sucks it from a gold

1 The trumpets blown at the entrance of the Pope into St. Peter's forms an apparent exception to this rule.

tube with a sponge inside it. This singular practice is said to be a remnant of the ancient practice when the wine as well as the bread was universally administered, and hence this precaution against spilling the wine, which has thus been preserved in the single case of the Pope, for which it is probably less needed than any other.1 In ancient times the Cardinal Presbyters used to celebrate mass with the Pope, standing in a circle round him-a relic of the more social character of the original communion. A separate scrutiny takes place of both the elements before he receives them. The sacristan eats and drinks first, looking at the Pope, from the same paten and the same chalice.3

But the peculiarity which has attracted most attention, is the fact that by him, and by him alone, in the Roman Catholic Church the posture of sitting has been, at least till comparatively modern times, retained intact, and in modern times is still, if not retained, yet kept in remembrance and partially represented.

It is one of the most curious circumstances of this curious practice, that amongst Roman Catholics themselves there should be not only the most conflicting evidence as to the fact, but even entire ignorance as to the practice ever having existed. In a recent number of the leading Roman Catholic journal (the Dublin Review), the statement that such a practice prevailed was asserted to be "the purest romance ;" and though in a subsequent number this expression was courteously withdrawn, yet the fact was still denied, and it appeared that there were even well-instructed Roman Catholics who had never heard of its existence. This obscurity on the matter, as well as

1 Casalius, "De Veteribus Sacris Christianorum Ritibus," pp. 418, 420. 2 Ibid. p. 419.

3 It is probable that these practices originated in the fear of poison in the elements. The "Credence" table is a relic of the same dreadful suspicion.

4 It is hardly necessary to say that these peculiarities of usage belong to the Pope only as Pope. On ordinary days he communicates like any other priest.

the warmth of feeling which the mere indication of the fact called forth, may perhaps show that it is regarded as of more importance than would at first sight appear; or, at any rate, may serve as a justification for a more careful statement of the authorities on both sides of the question.

1. The Roman Liturgies themselves have no express statement on the subject. They all agree in directing that the Pope retires to his lofty seat-"ad sedem eminentem"-behind the altar, and there remains. Some of them add that he "stands" waiting for the subdeacon to approach with the sacred elements; but beyond this, with the exceptions hereafter to be noticed, there is no order given.

2. The earliest indication of the Pope's position to which a reference is found is in St. Bonaventura (1221-1274), on Psalm xxi.

"Papa quando sumit corpus "Christi in missâ solemni, sumit omni"bus videntibus, nam sedens in cathe"dra, se convertit ad populum" (Opp. vol. i. pp. 111, 112); and that this was understood to mean that he communicated sitting appears from the marginal note of the edition of Bonaventura published by order of Sixtus V. (1230 1296), "Papa quare communicet sedens."

Durandus, in his "Rationale" (iv. § 4, 5, p. 203), and the "Liber Sacrarum Cærimoniarum" (p. 102), use nearly the same words: "Ascendens ad sedem eminentem ibi communicat." This expression, though it would suggest that the Pope was seated, does not of necessity imply it. But the "Liber Sacrarum Cærimoniarum," although at Christmas (p. 133) it describes the Pope immediately after his ascension of the chair as "ibi stans," when it speaks of Easter (p. 176) expressly mentions the posture of sitting as at least permissible. "Com"munione facta, Papa surgit, si com"municando sedebit."

Cardinal Bona (Rer. Lit. ii. c. 17, 88; iii. p. 395)-than whom there is no higher authority-writes: "Summus "Pontifex cum solemniter celebrat sedens "communit hoc modo."1

Martene (1654-1789), "De Ant. Eccl. Rit." i. 4, 10, p. 421, states that "Romæ

summus Pontifex celebrans in suâ "sede consistens seipsum communicabat. "Postea accedebant episcopi et pres"byteri ut a pontifice communionem "accipiant, episcopi quidem stantes ad "sedem pontificis, presbyteri verò ad 'altare genibus flexis."

The obvious meaning of this passage is that the Pope remains ("consistens ")" in his place, sitting; whilst the other clergy, according to their ranks, assume the different postures described, the bishops standing, the presbyters kneeling. And this is the view taken of it by Moroni, the chamberlain and intimate friend of· the late Pope Gregory XVI., who cites these words as showing "che in Roma "il Papa communicavasi sedendo nel suo "trono" (Dizionario, vol. xv. p. 126).

It is hardly necessary to confirm these high Roman authorities by the testimony of Protestant Ritualists. But that it was the received opinion amongst such writers that the Pope sits, appears from the unhesitating assertions to this effect by Bingham, Neale, and Maskell.

3. To these great liturgical authorities on the theory of the Papal posture may be added, besides Moroni (whose words just cited may be taken as a testimony to the practice of the late Pope), the following witnesses to the usaye of modern times.

The Rev. J. E. Eustace, the wellknown Roman Catholic traveller through Italy, says: "When the Pope is seated, "the two deacons bring the holy sacra

Archbishop Gerbet, who has the credit of having instigated the recent "Syllabus," and whose work on "Rome Chrétienne," is expressly intended as a guide to the antiquities of Christian Rome, writes as follows:

66

"Le Pape descend de l'autel, traverse "le sanctuaire et monte au siége ponti"fical. Là, à demi assis, quoique incliné par respect, il communie," &c. "L'atti"tude du Pape et cette communion "multiple. ... retracent la pre"mière communion des Apôtres assis à "la table du Sauveur." (Rome Chrétienne, ii. 86, 87.)

The passage is the more interesting as Gerbet's reference to the original attitude shows his belief that it was the retention of the primitive practice.

An English traveller, a careful observer, thus speaks of the sacrament on Easter Day, 1868:-"I have a very "distinct recollection of the part of the 66 ceremony about which you question 66 me. The Pope was seated at the end. "The paten and chalice were carried to "him from the altar; and it strikes me

66

very forcibly, but I cannot state it on oath, that he remained sitting whilst receiving the Sacrament."

4. This mass of testimony might be thought sufficient to establish so simple a fact. But it will be observed that there is a slight wavering in the statement of Martene and of Gerbet; and this variation is confirmed by the silence or by the express contradiction of other authorities, not indeed so high, but still of considerable weight.

It is stated that in the "Ordo" of Urban VIII., after the adoration of the sacred elements the Pope immediately rises, "statim surgit;" and that Crispus, who was sub-deacon to Clement XI., says, “in cathedrâ stans et veluti erectus in cruce sanguinem sugit." These same authorities, with Catalani, also state that after the communion "the Pope takes his mitre and sits down," "sumptâ mitrâ sedet," or "accipit mitram et sedens," &c. It is also said to be mentioned as a peculiarity that on Easter Day, 1481, Sixtus IV. was obliged by infirmity to sit down during the communion at High

He writes as follows (in his "Thesaurus Rituum," in the "Commentarium de Sacra S. Pontificis communione," 20): "Dicitur autem Summus Pon"tifex sedere dum communicat, vel quia ipse antiquitus in communicando sedebat, vel quia sedentis instar com"municabat, sicut præsens in tempus 'fieri solet. Summus namque Pontifex "ad solium, stans non sedens, ad ma"jorem venerationem repræsentandam, 66 ipsi tamen solio, populo universo spectante, innixus, et incurvus, quasi "sedens communicat, Christum Dominum cruci affixum, in eaque quodam " modo reclinantem repræsentans.'

66

66

The other is Pope Benedict XIV. (1740-1758), who thus writes in his treatise "De Sacrosancto Missæ Sacrificio,"

1 These quotations, which I have not been able to verify, are taken from the statements of the writer in the Dublin Review, April 1869, pp. 514, 515.

2 Dublin Review, April 1869, p. 516. The same passage extracts from the sentence quoted in the text, "Summus Pontifex ad solium stans, non sedens," but omits all that precedes and all that follows.