land. It is to be hoped that a fair comparison of the text and notes, will prove their identity on these points beyond question.

As regards rites and ceremonies, the rule of the Anglican Church is this :-" Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies and rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying".1

Now there are three Eucharistic rites, which are certainly "approved by common authority", and yet are not prescribed in our Liturgy. These are, mixing water with

1 Article xxxiv.

the wine, washing the hands, and making the sign of the cross. Our Church surely never intended that these venerable and significant ceremonies should be abolished. Indeed it would be absolutely suicidal in a clergyman, for instance, to omit the first, having in conformity with the canon of 1571, just quoted the language of St. Cyprian that the holy Eucharist can no more be consecrated with water alone, than with wine alone. To read out of the Homilies of the practice of the Christians in Justin Martyr's time, that "bread and wine and water were brought forth" in their solemn assemblies, and that "before all other things" we must take care that the Lord's Supper be done and ministered " as the good fathers of the primitive Church frequented it”,1 and yet to neglect such a mode of celebrating, is not only inconsistent, but perfectly unjustifiable. The continuance of the ceremony is clearly enjoined in those passages: its place in the Divine Service must be

1 Homilies of Common Prayer and Sacraments, and concerning the Sacrament.

determined by the custom which prevailed before the Reformation.

The Church of England expressly bears witness to the antiquity and Catholicity of the sign of the cross in one of her canons, as follows:-"The honour and dignity of the name of the cross begat a reverend estimation even in the Apostles' times (for aught that is known to the contrary) of the sign of the cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions, thereby making an outward show and profession, even to the astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the cross".1

As to washing the hands, we can hardly imagine that our Church, which professes to retain no rite or symbol which be not for edification, should direct that "the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past”, and not intend, at the same time, that the piscina, which is a part of the chancel, should have its proper and legitimate use.

1 Canon xxx, 1603.

The fact appears to be, that these rites, being of such universal use, were not thought to require special directions for their adoption or continuance at the last revision of the Liturgy, even as, in general, creeds and canons are drawn up only when points of faith or discipline are impugned or neglected. And we may add an important circumstance in corroboration of this view,— namely, that the usages in question continued to be practised by some of our best and soundest divines long after the rubrics concerning them had been left out of our Prayer Book.

Looking upon them, therefore, as legitimate rites of our Eucharistic Office, it has been deemed fit, in this manual, to furnish the communicant with devotions suitable thereto, to be employed by him whenever he may happen to witness them.

And as all such ceremonies are instructive, and intended for the edification of worshippers, so even the "ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof", are likewise symbolical of some great truth, as we may clearly infer from the injunction

respecting lights on the altar. The compiler has accordingly acted liberally upon this sacramental principle, convinced, moreover, that it is one of the most effectual means at our disposal of keeping the mind steadily employed in the contemplation of the awful process of Redemption.

66

It is impossible to conceive the amount of spiritual injury which a clergyman may unwittingly inflict upon the docile and humble-minded portion of his flock, by neglecting to give full effect to the intention of the Church in regard to the service of the altar. Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness " is a precept which applies preeminently to the administration of the Lord's Supper. So celestial is its dignity, and the consequence of its celebration so important and eternal, that no help which ecclesiastical usage recommends for impressing us with feelings adequate to its high character can be safely dispensed with. Every ornament of priest and altar, every tone of voice, every attitude of the body, every manual

1 Psalm xevi, 9.