THE MIXED CHALICE
A Legal Argument,
THE MIXED CHALICE.
HEADS OF ARGUMENT
That the Mixed Chalice, symbolical of the blood and water that flowed from our Lord's side, (1) is of primitive and Catholic use, that (2) it is nowhere forbidden in the Church of England, that (3) the forbidding of it would have been an almost suicidal act on the part of the Reformers, that (4) it has been a practice more or less prevalent at all times since the Reformation, having approval of highest authority, that (5) it is in itself an usage harmless and free from any possibility of abuse, and that. (6) it has indirectly legal sanction by the lawful ornament which supposes, and is provided for, its use.
It is a matter of great moment in the consideration of this and of kindred subjects, to bear in mind that, which many care not to bear in mind, [3/4] viz., that it is a first principle of the Church of England, a principle underlying the whole superstructure of the Church, that she should be guided in all things by the rule of the “whole Catholic Church of Christ," and more especially of the "old primitive Church, which was most incorrupt and pure. [Preface to the Prayer Book and Homily.]
In matters of doctrine she holds it to be essential to adhere to this rule; in matters of discipline, ceremony, and ritual, she holds it to be of great importance.
This is a principle set forth in her Prayer Book, Articles, Canons, Homilies, in Acts of Parliament, Royal Acts and Declarations, and in the writings of the Reformers and her best divines.
Ancient ceremonies, the Preface to the Prayer Book says, ought to be "reverenced for their antiquity." "Whosoever," says Article XXXIV, “through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church." Canon XXX says, “So far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such-like Churches, in all things which they held and practised, that, as the ‘Apology [4/5] of the Church of England' confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of sober men." "No new faith was propagated in England, no religion," as it is expressed in a Royal declaration of Elizabeth, “set up, but that which is commanded by our Saviour, and practised by the primitive Church, and unanimously approved by the Fathers of the best antiquity." Further and abundant testimony might readily be given.
Indeed, that the Church of England is no "new" Church cannot otherwise be proved than by identity of doctrine in all things, and by identity of practice in main things, with the doctrine and practice of the Church of all times. I say identity of practice in main things; for though it be true that usages and ceremonies, to which we especially now refer, may be changed, yet ancient usages and ceremonies may not lightly be changed.
The last observation is especially true of those usages and ceremonies that are free from any possibility of abuse.
Now, that the Mixed Chalice is a Catholic and primitive usage, is beyond all dispute. "It must be confessed," says Wheatley, “that the mixture has in all ages been the general practice.” “It is certain," says Johnson, in his "Unbloody Sacrifice,” “that the primitive Christians did offer water [5/6] mingled with wine in the Eucharist." And similarly Palmer, in his "Antiquities of the English Ritual,” “The custom of mingling water with the wine of the Eucharist is one which prevailed universally in the Christian Church from the earliest period."
It may suffice here to refer
To the Liturgies of S. James, A.D. 50; S. Mark, A.D. 70; S. Clement, A.D. 150; S. Basil, A.D. 370; the Ambrosias, A.D. 370; S. Chrysostom, A.D. 390. [For further and fuller evidence of Liturgies, see an excellent pamphlet by Dr. Littledale, “The Mixed Chalice: a Letter to Henry Lord Bishop of Exeter." The pamphlet had not been read by the author until his own had been written.]
To Councils,—as those of Carthage, A.D. 397; Orleans, A.D. 541; Auxerre, A.D. 576; Braga, A.D. 675; in Trullo, A.D. 691
To Fathers,—as Justin Martyr, A.D. 149; S. Irenaeus, A.D. 178; S. Clement, A.D. 200; S. Cyprian, A.D. 258; S. Ambrose, A.D. 397, or whoever was the author of the “De Sacramentis;" S. Jerome, A.D. 426; S. Augustine, A.D. 430, who quotes and adopts S. Cyprian's words. [See also Bingham's "Antiquities of the Christian Church," book xx. ch. ii.]
In only one Church, that is, the Armenian, was it not used; and this exception, it is to be observed, was itself excepted to. "The Armenians were condemned," says Wheatley, again, “by the [6/7] Council in Trullo, A.D. 691, for administering in pure wine."
Consistently, therefore, with the aforesaid declarations of the Church of England, its reformers and divines, we find the use of the Mixed Chalice continued at the Reformation. In the first Book of Edward VI., 1549, it was indeed expressly ordered, “Putting thereto a little pure and clean water."
In the 2nd Book the order was omitted. "How it came to be neglected in the review of our Liturgy, I have not been able to discover," says Wheatley. The order may possibly have been omitted as being part of a rubric in the 1st Book which was entirely omitted in the 2nd Book. But if there were a purpose in the omission, that purpose may very probably have been a deference to the prejudices of those "dyvers unquiette persons," the Puritans. The Puritans, it is well known, while they professed to reverence Holy Scripture, had no reverence for Antiquity.
Wine, then, being on all hands admitted to be the only essential, according to the letter of Holy Scripture, was the only thing left ordered. The water was left, as from various reasons we conclude, not obligatory, but permissive. [The Act of Parliament by which the 2nd Book was ratified, declared of the 1st Book, that there was nothing in it but what was "agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive Church." Why then was it altered? Assuredly not with any intention to deny what was "agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive Church." But the alterations were made in the 2nd Book in concession to those persons,—i.e. the Puritans, in whose minds "doubts had been raised in the use and exercise thereof," but which doubts, it is nevertheless admitted, "proceeded from curiosity rather than any worthy cause." In other words, in an extreme spirit of liberty, the 2nd Book did not enforce, though surely it could not mean to proscribe, even things agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive Church. It left them "open."]
 One thing is clear. No rubric, or law, or canon, or injunction, has forbidden it. If it had been the intention to forbid it, as the Elevation was forbidden, though only for the space of two or three years in the 1st Book, two lines would have done it. But this would have given great offence, and justly so, to the Catholic party, which was strong. The simple omission of the order would tend to satisfy the one party without such offence to the other. ["A staunch and powerful minority," remarks Mr. Orby Shipley, “The Church and the World," p. 506, “in the leading counsels of the time—a minority which, though powerless to overrule, was sufficiently powerful to make its voice heard, as well as to restrain, to modify, and to guide the decisions of the greater number."]
But it has been said, "What is not ordered, that is forbidden." [Counsel for the Prosecution in Mr. Simpson's case.] It might be readily shown that this position is not true nor tenable of any Prayer Book of any branch of the Church. Most certainly [8/9] it is not true of the 1st and 2nd Books of Edward VI. Neither is the position true of the present Prayer Book of the Church of England, nor of customs prevailing in the use of the Prayer Book. Many instances from the latter Book are given in the Appendix to this Argument. One or two instances, taken from the Communion Office itself, and from all the three Books, may suffice here.
By the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it may be observed in limine, the position is not true in reference to ornaments, neither is it in reference to doctrines. [Many instances might be given in proof that the position is false in respect to doctrines from the Articles and Prayer Book. One notable one shall be adduced from the black rubric of the Communion Office. The words of this rubric as it stood in the 2nd Prayer Book, though for a period of eight months and ten days only, were as follows. "We do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood." In the present Book the words are "It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." The words "Real and Essential" were advisedly displaced, and only adoration to a "Corporal" presence, that is to say, as the substitution proves, a presence after the nature and properties of a human body, was henceforth disallowed. Although, therefore, a Priest of the Church of England may not now be bound to hold, yet a Priest is at full liberty to hold, that, in respect to the Sacramental bread and wine, (1) there is "a real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood," and (2) that “adoration" may be done to "a real and essential presence there being." The history of the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession, intituled "De Caenâ Domini," will furnish a similar illustration ab extra which it may be useful to give. The Article is "De Coenâ Domini docent, quod Corpus et Sanguis Christi vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in Coenâ Domini, et improbant secus docentes." We are told that in order to meet the views of the Zuinglians and others an attempt was made by Melancthon to substitute vere exhibeantur in the place of "vere adsint et distribuantur," and to eliminate entirely "improbant secus docentes." The attempt was avowedly made, not with any view of denying the position, but to leave the doctrine of the universal reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper by all communicants an open question. The attempt was frustrated by the Lutherans. Had it however succeeded, surely it could not have been afterwards maintained that the doctrine as expressed in the original words was untenable.] Is not the [9/10] inference fair, that it would not be judged to be so in reference to usages such as the one in question? But let us see.
Our first instance applies to each of the three Books. I refer to the use of a variety of altar cloths. These varied altar cloths, though not ordered, have yet been adjudged lawful by the Judicial Committee. Now altar cloths in themselves are but ornaments of the church; but the “usage" of them, as being expressive of the various seasons of the year and the events of our Lord's life,—His Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension,—is distinctly symbolical and ceremonial, is quite as much so as the usage of [10/11] the Mixed Chalice. [The word "ornament" is used above in its popular sense as a decoration, and not as "an article used in the performance of the services and rites of the Church." V. Decision of the Judicial Committee in the S. Barnabas case.] On what principle, then, can it be maintained, that the usage of the varied altar cloths, though not ordered, is yet permissive, and yet that the usage of the Mixed Chalice—one indeed far more widely adopted, it is believed, since the Reformation, than that of the altar cloths—though also not ordered, is therefore not to be permitted?
The next instance applies only to the 1st Book; but it is a very notable instance, and the evidence of it is beyond all dispute. I refer to the omission of any order in the 1st Book for the “fair white linen cloth" during the celebration of the Blessed Sacrament. It is singular, that not only were there not altar coverings ordered, but not even this was Ordered, neither was any mention at all made of it. The question, then, just now asked may here be again repeated. Can the omission of such order for the “fair linen cloth,"—the usage of which, let it be remembered, is, as that of the Mixed Chalice, also symbolical,—be construed into an intention to prohibit the same? [The fair linen cloth is popularly taken as a symbol of the feast of the Sacrament. Of old, we are informed by S. Isidore of Pelusium, A.D. 430, it was considered as a shroud, in memorial of the burial of Christ, being long enough at the ends to admit of being folded back over the Oblations.—V. Early Christian Ritual, by Dr. Littledale, p. 7.]
An analogous case of omission of an order occurs very close to the one in question in the Office, [11/12] both in the 2nd Book and in our present Book, and which is very striking. In the 1st Book it is said after the notice of the “Holy Gospel," "The Clerks and people shall answer, ‘Glory be to Thee, O Lord."' Now the rubric giving this order was omitted in the 2nd Book; it is not to be found in our present Book, and yet it is of almost universal custom to sing or say these words. Now if it be forbidden, as a thing opposed to, or clashing with, the rubric of the Prayer Book, or the Act of Uniformity, to add a ceremony once ordered but subsequently not ordered, by parity of argument it must be forbidden also to add a form of praise once ordered but subsequently not ordered. And the converse of this is true.
The following remark applies only to the 2nd Book. The entire rubric which contained the direction in question in the 1st Book, was omitted in the 2nd Book. Not only was the Mixed Chalice not ordered, but other and needful directions, relating to the putting of the elements upon the paten and in the chalice, were also omitted. "Laying the bread," it was before directed, "upon the corporas, or else in the paten, or in some other comely thing prepared for that purpose, and putting the wine into the chalice, or else in some fair and convenient cup prepared for that use." Surely the omission of these directions cannot be taken as a forbidding of the doing of the things previously directed to be done. If it were so, there [12/13] could be no consecration, for there would be nothing to consecrate.
And this leads me to notice one thing even perhaps yet more singular. I mean the omission in the 2nd Book of all order for the manual acts at the Consecration. In the 1st Book it is ordered, “Here the Priest must take the bread into his hand." In our present Book it is added, “and here to break the bread." In the 1st Book we have, “Here the Priest shall take the cup into his hand." In our present Book it is added, “and here to lay his hand upon every vessel." .. . In the 2nd Book all is omitted. The conclusion is inevitable.
There is another striking instance, namely, in the delivery of the Sacrament to the people. It is said in the 1st Book, “When he delivereth the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, he shall say to every one these words." But in the 2nd Book it is simply, “When he delivereth the Bread he shall say." The words "every one" were omitted. That this omission was made in deference to the Puritans is clear. The Catholics desired to say the words to each communicant, as more expressive of their doctrine, that God wills that each and all shall be saved. But the Puritans desired to say the words to many at a time, as more expressive of their doctrine that God wills that some, “the elect," only shall be saved. But surely it could not be for one moment inferred, that in [13/14] so far as the omission of the words to "every one" gave the liberty to one party of administering to a "table," as it is expressed, at once, it at the same time took away the liberty from the other party of administering to each communicant separately. [In our present Book it is, “When he delivereth the bread to any one, he shall say,” “And the minister that delivereth the cup to any one shall say."]
It may be added, the rubric of our present Prayer Book cannot well be otherwise regarded than simply as an abbreviated form of the rubric of the 1st Book. Whereas the rubric of the 1st Book ordered, as has been noticed, the laying of the bread upon the corporas, or else the paten, and the putting of the wine into the chalice, or else into some fair and convenient cup, the present rubric simply directs, that the “Priest" shall lay upon the table so much bread and wine, as he shall think &I] fficient. Now compliance with the letter of this rubric is not only a thing not done, but it is a thing that cannot be done.
Although our Lord's cup in the Last Supper is said, or supposed, to have been a mixed one, it is yet only called "wine." [See Dr. Littledale's pamphlet.] Similarly, in the Prayer Book of Edward VI., though the cup was undoubtedly a mixed one, yet in the place where the elements are ordered to be set on the altar, it is only named "wine." Wine, therefore, by [14/15] the showing of this Prayer Book does not necessarily,—and it certainly is no "evasion to say that it does not,—exclude "the little water." [See the “Times," Oct. 20th.]
The case Rex v. Sparks is in confirmation of the above argument. "In this case an indictment for using alias preces in the Church and alio modo seems to have been judged insufficient, because such prayers may be used upon some extraordinary occasion, and so no crime. And it was said that the indictment ought to have alleged that the defendant used other forms and prayers instead of those enjoined, which were neglected by him; for otherwise every parson may be indicted, that useth prayers before the sermon other than such which are required by the Book of Common Prayer." [Stephens, Eccl. Stat. vol. i. p. 361.]
And to the same effect are the words of Bishop Cosin, one of the chief Reviewers of the Prayer Book in A.D. 1662, as touching the principle of the exclusiveness of rubrics. "The Book," says he, “does not everywhere enjoin and prescribe every little order, what should be said or done, but takes it for granted that people are acquainted with such common and things always used already." [Works, vol. v. p. 65.]
Again, if the position be true, that “that which is not ordered is forbidden," what place would be left for such a thing as a prohibitory rubric? Surely there could be no need of one. Now there [15/16] was in the 1st Book of Edward a rubric prohibiting the Elevation as has been noticed, and in our present Book there are rubrics prohibiting a celebration if there be not "three persons to communicate with the Priest," and the reservation; also there is the black rubric. The very existence of such rubrics is fatal to the position in question.
For these reasons alone, then,—reasons applicable alike to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Books,—it cannot be, that the position is true or tenable, that “that which is not ordered is necessarily forbidden."
If the Reformers through their "private judgment," had forbidden the tradition and ceremony in question, “ordained and approved," as it had been, with only one exception, and that excepted to, by the authority of Christ's Church universal, they must have fallen under the censure of their own Article, and merited "rebuke openly," as they "that offend against the order of the Church." Indeed, after all their professions of adherence to Catholic practice as well as to Catholic doctrine, it would have been difficult to have freed them, had they done so, from the charge of grave inconsistency, or rather of gross dishonesty. He, too, we may add, is assuredly no friend to the Reformers, who strives to prove their profession and practice to be entirely at variance, and, in a matter so free from all abuse or possibility of abuse, affirms that they went about with a "lie in their mouth," [16/17] saying in one and the same breath, “Let this Sacrament be in such wise done and ministered,"--and let us provide that this Sacrament shall not be in such wise done and ministered, “as the good Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it."
A catena of highest authority might be easily made in favour of the use of the Mixed Chalice. The circumstance of the two cruets having been allowed by the Royal Commissioners in 1552 to remain in churches "for the use of the parish," goes to prove that the practice was not forbidden under the 2nd Book, but the contrary. Bishop Andrewes, one of the first of our Bishops, and perhaps the greatest of our divines among the Bishops, not only permitted it, but ordered it in a form drawn up for the consecration of a church in his diocese. The mixture was used in the King's Chapel Royal all the time that he was Dean of it. The instructions given for the performance of Divine Service in Spain by King James, when the Prince Charles was there, are very significant of the use in general of his times, viz., that there should be an "admixing of water with the wine;" and accordingly we find "flagons" ordered to be provided. Now the Preface of the Bible was addressed to King James, and he is there spoken of as "Defender of the Faith." The usage has also the sanction of Archbishop Laud. Bishop Cosin, one, as we have observed, of the chief Reviewers [17/18] and Commissioners of A. D. 1662, deemed it not to be unlawful—"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." What Wheatley says in the last century is significant of his time. Now it is submitted that it is a thing quite incredible, that an usage bearing such testimony as this for its sanction can be one forbidden and contrary to law.
It has been already said, and it is of importance that it should be remarked, and it is a plea for the retention of the Mixed Chalice, that this is not one of those usages that can in any sense be said "to offend the minds of sober men," or "endamage the Church of God.?' There cannot be any reasonable offence here to any one. It is perfectly harmless and innocent. Images, pulpits, and other things, may be abused and give much offence. The Mixed Chalice, symbolical of the blood and water which flowed from our Lord's side, can have no offence in it. Neither can it be regarded as one of those usages that are "dark and dumb." It is as expressive as it is touching, one indeed of the most expressive and touching of symbols connected with the celebration of the Holy Sacrament.
Add to these arguments the one following. The rubric on ornaments in our present Book, (and the word "Ornaments" includes utensils by the [18/19] judgment of the Privy Council,) refers us to the 2nd year; and the 2nd year is judged by the Privy Council to refer specially to the 1st Book. Now there must have been a vessel for the water under the 1st Book, as the water was ordered. Accordingly, as observed above, we find in the inventories two cruets. A vessel, therefore, for the water is a lawful ornaments. [At Sandford, Oxon, the ancient cruets remain and are in use.]
Seeing, then, that the Mixed Chalice is of primitive and Catholic usage, that it is nowhere forbidden in the Church of England, that the forbidding of it would have been an almost suicidal act on the part of the Reformers, that it has been a practice more or less prevalent at all times since the Reformation, having approval of highest authority, that it is in itself an usage harmless and free from any possibility of abuse, and that it has, indirectly, legal sanction by the lawful ornament which supposes and is provided for its use, it is submitted that it cannot be illegal, but must be permissible.
FURTHER reasons and instances to show the untenableness of the position, that "that which is not ordered is prohibited."
MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER.
Hymns at the commencement of the Service, and before the sermon in the afternoon, and at the conclusion of the sermon, are not ordered. Are they forbidden?
Beyond all doubt a variety of hymn books, as now used in the Church of England, is not ordered. Such variety, too, seems almost to jar with a portion of the Preface of the Prayer Book, where it speaks of the "diversity in singing in churches, some following Salisbury use, some Hereford use, some the use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln: now from henceforth all the whole realm shall have but one use." Notwithstanding this, hymn books, having no authority, have had the printed sanction of the late Bishop of London and the Christian Knowledge Society—of the Committee of which, I believe, the Archbishops and Bishops are ex-officio members,--and of others in high place. Are these books to be regarded as strictly prohibited?
Bowing towards the altar is not ordered. Except, indeed, the order be taken from the Canons of 1640, and, in that case, if binding on any minister, it would be binding on all. But the custom has been general as well with Priest as with people. Bishop Wilson, of Sodor and Man, says, “thousands of good people of our Church practise it at this day." The practice was observed at the installation of the [21/22] Knights of the Garter at Westminster Abbey, until A. D. 1730. Is it strictly forbidden?
The same may be said of bowing at the Gloria and the name of the Holy Trinity, commonly practised and traditionally by the minister and by the people, especially by old people in the country;
Also of turning to the East in reciting the Creed. There is no order for it.
An anthem after the third collect is ordered, “where they sing." Now the common practice, where they sing, is not an anthem, but a hymn. Is this substitution a thing prohibited?
The Athanasian Creed is commonly read alternately by the minister and the people, and not by the minister and people together, as seemingly implied in the rubric heading it, where it is said, it is to be said or sung "instead of the Apostles' Creed." Is this custom unlawful?
The alternate reading of the Psalms for the day by minister and people--a thing much objected to by the Puritans, is another instance. The usage is traditional from pre-Reformation time, but is not ordered.
For S. Michael's Day a second set of 2nd Lessons is appointed for morning and afternoon. Which is to be used?
The Litany is to be said or sung, but by whom? By Priest alone, or by Priest and people?
A pause is usual in praying for the sick; but it is not ordered.
There is no order at the conclusion of Evening Prayer, after the sermon for a prayer and the blessing, either from the pulpit or elsewhere. Are they forbidden?
COMMUNION OFFICE AND SERVICE.
And here we may first of all notice a very common remark. "No altar," it is said, "no sacrifice," and therefore "no sacrificial act." But the "Altar," although [22/23] the word was expunged under the 2nd Book for seven years, was brought back under the rubric on ornaments, as an ornament of the 2nd year and 1st Book. ["Altar" is used in the Coronation Office.] May not then, legitimately, the converse of the statement be taken? An altar implies a sacrifice, and a sacrifice implies sacrificial acts. Are all these, not ordered, strictly forbidden?
There is no order to link this Office without a break to Morning Prayer.
There is no order for sitting during the Epistle, as is customary.
The form of praise, “Glory be to Thee, O Lord," before the Gospel, which is almost universal, has been noticed as not being ordered. It maybe added that the form "Thanks be to Thee, O Lord," at the end, which is common, is not ordered.
In the coincidence of festivals with festivals, or of festivals with the Lord's Day, as there is no order for the choice of Lessons, so is there no order for the choice of Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, to be used. Which are to be used? Here too we are left to pre-Reformation usage.
There is no order for hymns immediately before the sermon, but rather are they contrary to order, “Then shall follow."
Nor for any prayer or Gloria, or ascription of praise between the Creed and the sermon, nor for the usual ascription of praise after the sermon; when also the whole congregation, without any order, stand up. [Certainly there, is no order for the congregation not communicating to leave the church at this place, and disturb and interrupt the "continuity of the Communion Service." Nor is there any order for the minister himself to make a long pause, that it may depart. The proper place to depart would be after the "Morning Prayer" is concluded.]
There is no order for the position of the people during the Exhortation. Is standing forbidden, or sitting? In the rubric, after the Prefaces, it is said, "After each [23/24] of which Prefaces shall be said or sung." But by whom? Are the people to join? If so, whether in whole or part? At the “Ter Sanctus" only, according to pre-Reformation usage, is the practice of some; throughout the whole, is the practice of others. What is forbidden, and what is not forbidden?
There is no order for the manner of the Priest's receiving and his position. Some Priests stand, as a sacrificial act. More generally kneeling is the custom, as an act of adoration. Which is forbidden?
At the Lord's Prayer after Communion, and the prayer following, is the Priest to stand or to kneel? Are the people to do as he does? It is common for the former to stand and the latter to kneel. Which is forbidden?
By whom is the Gloria in Excelsis "to be said or sung?"
At the Blessing there is no order for the Priest or Bishop to stand. Is standing forbidden? Neither is there any order to turn to the people. Is this forbidden?
Similar observations will apply to the Office for Public Baptism, to the Office for the Ordering of Priests and Deacons and the Consecration of Bishops. But it is unnecessary to add more.
It may be said, that the Preface to the Prayer Book points to a remedy for the resolution of the "doubts" above named. I mean, "resort" to the Bishop of the diocese. The reply is evident.
1. That such "resort" is far from being applicable to all the instances given, though it be to some of them; for the power of the Bishop itself has its limits.
2. If the "resort" be had, one rule would on many points prevail in one diocese and another rule in another [24/25] diocese, or a different rule might prevail in the same diocese at different times.
It could hardly be otherwise, than that a Bishop would determine, in great part, in conformity with his own doctrinal or ritual views, be they Catholic or Puritan.
Take, for instance, the point in question, the Mixed Chalice. If "resort" had been had on it, we should unquestionably have had two rules. Bishop Andrewes and Bishop eosin would have consented to the usage, and might even have ordered it, as the former did at the consecration of a church. Other Bishops would not have consented to it, and might have forbidden it.
Doubts, then, would not have been resolved, neither would difficulties of uniformity have been removed.
ON the question of the Elevation, which was prohibited, and the Mixed Chalice, which was ordered. in the 1st Book of Edward, and the omission in the 2nd Book of both the prohibition and the order, Dr. Stephens argued at Exeter to the following effect.
A prohibition withdrawn, is equivalent to a prohibition not withdrawn; but an order withdrawn is not only the rescinding of an order as imperative on all celebrants, but is equivalent to the substitution in its place of a prohibition to each celebrant not to do the thing previously ordered to be done. In other words, he argued, that the withdrawal of a prohibition has no force or meaning whatsoever, but the withdrawal of an order has great force, and a very extensive meaning.
The reasoning is strange. It is replied:
A prohibition being withdrawn, the thing prohibited is [25/26] no longer prohibited, and an order being withdrawn, the thing ordered is no longer ordered. In other words, and in reference to the present points and the two rubrics in question, liberty is henceforth accorded to the celebrant to use the Elevation and the Mixed Chalice, or not to use them.
Such an interpretation is agreeable to right reason, is strictly in harmony with Article XXVIII, considered both grammatically and historically', and with the feeling of the times as above stated.
[Article XXVIII is simply apologetic for the discontinuance of what had been customary. The words of the Article of A.D. 1553 were, “The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not commanded by Christ's ordinance to be kept, lifted up . . ." As altered in A.D. 1562, they became, "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance to be kept, lifted up . . . "The Revisers went one step further and no more. Neither the Reservation nor the Elevation are obligatory as an integral part of the institution. It could not be said that either were wrong, for both were primitive. On the Elevation, see Dr. Littledale's able Essay. Palmer.]