
 
 <f 
 
 EX LIBRI£ 
 
 l'i;i:ni IRTCB ' IROSBT? U:i:
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 THE TREATMENT OF THE 
 
 REMAINS AT THE EUCHARIST 
 
 AFTER HOLY COMMUNION 
 
 AND THE TIME OF THE 
 
 ABLUTIONS
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 C. F. CLAY, Manager 
 
 LONDON : FETTER LANE, E.C 4 
 
 NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN CO. 
 BOM RAY 1 
 
 CALCUTTA J- MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. 
 MADRAS J 
 
 TORONTO : THE MACMILLAN CO. 
 OFCANADA, Ltd. 
 
 TOKYO : MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 
 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 
 THE TREATMENT OF THE 
 
 REMAINS AT THE EUCHARIST 
 
 AFTER HOLY COMMUNION 
 
 AND THE TIME OF THE 
 
 ABLUTIONS 
 
 BY 
 
 W. LOCKTON 
 
 VICE-PRINCIPAL OF 
 WINCHESTER DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 1920
 
 
 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE suggestion that it might be useful if he were to 
 compile such a work as this came to the writer from 
 a friend, and, it may be well to explain, his own inclina- 
 tions would have led him rather to other fields of research. 
 Whatever its value the book is the result of an attempt to 
 carry out two requests. The first was that the question of 
 the proper time for the consumption of the remains at 
 the eucharist, and any ablutions in connection with the 
 English rite, should be investigated from a historical 
 point of view. The original essay dealing with the matter 
 appeared in the Church Quarterly Review for April, 1917. 
 On its publication there was a further request from 
 various quarters that the material collected with any 
 suitable additions should be preserved in a more per- 
 manent and accessible form. The present book in which 
 the earlier essay is very much enlarged and modified is 
 the response to this second request. In the course of the 
 investigation it was found impossible to treat the original 
 question at all adequately by itself, and a number of 
 kindred subjects had almost of necessity to be examined 
 and discussed at the same time; but still the work is not 
 intended to be a treatise on reservation, and so there is 
 no discussion of many questions, such as the incident of 
 Gorgonia. It is not claimed that the subject has been 
 treated as exhaustively as might be possible by one who 
 had unlimited time at his disposal, and it is probable 
 that very much other evidence exists, and might be 
 brought to light by lengthy research in the great 
 libraries, but it is hoped that sufficient examples have 
 been given from the more accessible sources to show 
 the correct development of practice with regard to the 
 different matters treated, and in all probability further 
 research would make really but very little difference to 
 
 1291,
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 the final conclusions. The writer has laboured under the 
 disadvantage of doing his work amid the stress of other 
 quite different tasks, and for the most part away from 
 any important library, and even, as a consequence of the 
 war, away from the majority of his own books. 
 
 It is interesting to note how the examination of even 
 such small liturgical points as the disposal of the remains 
 of the consecrated elements after the communion and the 
 ablutions serves to bring out the connection and depend- 
 ence of the various documents considered, and so may be 
 not without value for the more general history of liturgical 
 development. The writer has endeavoured to let the 
 authorities give their evidence in their own words, and 
 for this reason, although for the purposes of the book 
 translations were inevitable, they have been made as 
 literal as possible. Anyone wishing to study the original 
 documents will find in every case an adequate reference. 
 An apology may perhaps seem to be needed for what may 
 appear to be unnecessary repetition of the same or similar 
 texts, but any attempt at tracing the growth and elabora- 
 tion of a ceremony would have been impossible otherwise. 
 Experience also has proved to the writer that few people 
 will ever take the trouble to look up the references given, 
 even when only to other parts of the same work, and that 
 if an argument depends upon a document quoted only on 
 another page the evidence is too often entirely overlooked, 
 and even declared to be non-existent. 
 
 The author wishes to thank a great number of friends, 
 so many that it would be impossible to draw up a com- 
 plete list, for kind assistance on special points, without 
 which he would have been unable to write the essay at 
 all, and particularly to the editor of The Church Quarterly 
 Review for his courtesy in allowing portions of the original 
 article to be reprinted. 
 
 W. L. 
 
 Winchester, 
 
 7 March, 1920.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. Early Evidence .... 
 
 II. In the East 
 
 III. In the West 
 
 IV. The Sancta 
 
 V. The Portion of the Host left on the 
 Altar 
 
 VI. On Maundy Thursday 
 
 VII. .In Later Days in the West . 
 
 VIII. The Development of the Ablutions 
 
 IX. The Ablutions in Britain 
 
 X. The Order of Communion and the First 
 Prayer Book .... 
 
 XI. The Second Prayer Book and the Eliza 
 bethan Settlement 
 
 XII. The Scottish Prayer Book and the 
 Prayer Book of 1661 . 
 
 XIII. The Worship of the Lamb 
 
 XIV. Conclusions 
 
 Appendix. Reservation and the Book of 
 Common Prayer .... 
 
 Index 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I 
 
 35 
 45 
 
 63 
 
 75 
 98 
 
 118 
 
 149 
 
 171 
 
 183 
 
 203 
 
 217 
 238 
 
 248 
 273
 
 CHAPTER I 
 EARLY EVIDENCE 
 
 ANY practice which has for its object increased rever- 
 A ence towards the holy sacrament of our Lord's body 
 and blood is worthy of the careful consideration of all 
 faithful Christians. We remember St Paul's words: 
 
 Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord 
 unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the 
 Lord.... For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh 
 judgement unto himself, if he discern not the body 1 . 
 
 Though in a different degree, all unworthy treatment of 
 the consecrated elements and failure to "discern the 
 Lord's body " must likewise be deserving of condemnation. 
 It was to avoid any possibility of such dishonour that in 
 the course of time various rules arose in different parts of 
 the church for the disposal of the remains of the conse- 
 crated species when the communion was ended. It may 
 therefore be of value to examine the evidence about the 
 primitive and later customs in the matter, and then to 
 investigate the history of the present rubrics of the Book 
 of Common Prayer dealing with the subject, so that we 
 may the better understand their exact significance. 
 
 In his First Apology, addressed to the emperor Antoninus 
 Pius, describing the eucharist, as celebrated perhaps at 
 Ephesus, Justin Martyr (f c. 167) writes: 
 
 And after the president has given thanks, and all the 
 people have responded, those called deacons among us distri- 
 bute to each of those present of the bread and wine and water 
 over which thanks have been given, and carry some away to 
 those who are absent 2 . 
 
 1 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. 2 Apol. 1. lxv. 5, Migne, P.O. vi. col. 428. 
 
 l.e. 1
 
 2 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 Later we read : 
 
 And there follows the distribution to each, and the partak- 
 ing of those things over which thanks have been given ; and to 
 those who are not present they are sent by the deacons 1 . 
 
 Whether the deacons left the church immediately after 
 the communion of the people before such final prayers as 
 there may have been, or waited until the sendee was 
 completely over, there is nothing to show, and probably 
 the difference would not have been great, for the com- 
 munion is the natural climax of the service, and Justin 
 thought no further prayers worthy of mention. Nor are 
 we told anything about what happened to the remnants 
 not needed for the communion either in church or at home. 
 That there was at this period a worthy method of dis- 
 posing of any surplus of the consecrated elements, which 
 would be followed by a reverent washing of the sacred 
 vessels, seems certain in view of the statements of 
 Tertullian and others about the great care with which the 
 sacrament must be handled. 
 
 Tertullian says: 
 
 We suffer anxiety if anything of the cup, or even of our 
 bread fall to the ground 2 . 
 
 The so-called Egyptian Church Order, now generally 
 recognised as the work of Hippolytus (f 235), requires a 
 person who reserves the eucharist at home to take great 
 precautions, and likewise the priest during the liturgy. 
 We read : 
 
 But let everyone take heed that no unbeliever partake of 
 the eucharist, nor any mouse or other animal, and that nothing 
 of it fall, or be lost, for the body of Christ is to be eaten by the 
 faithful and not despised. For blessing it indeed in the name 
 of God thou hast taken the chalice as the antitype of the blood 
 of Christ. Wherefore be careful not to spill it, lest a strange 
 
 1 Apol. 1. lxvii. 5, P.G. vi. col. 429. 
 
 2 De Corona, 3, Migne, P.L. 11. col. 80.
 
 i] EARLY EVIDENCE 3 
 
 spirit lick it up, as though thou despisest it : thou wilt be guilty 
 of the blood as one who scorns the price by which he was 
 redeemed 1 . 
 
 This is the order according to the most ancient text, the 
 Latin version of the Verona fragments. There are also 
 ancient translations into Ethiopic, Arabic and Coptic. The 
 Arabic and Coptic texts represent a later recension, which 
 according to the Latin rendering given by Renaudot, 
 taken apparently from the Arabic, runs: 
 
 Everyone will take the greatest heed that no unbeliever be 
 admitted to the communion of the mysteries ; also that no mouse 
 or other animal approach them, or that nothing fall, and he 
 sin, since it is the body of Christ and His blood. No one of the 
 faithful therefore who communicates in the mysteries ought 
 to be negligent with regard to it, for nothing ought to be spilled 
 from the chalice after it has been blessed in the name of the 
 Lord, and he has taken it, because it is the blood of Christ. 
 Be most careful therefore, whosoever thou mayest be, that 
 nothing of it be spilled, so that no unclean spirits pollute it, 
 and be not thou one who despises the blood of Christ, and is 
 guilty as a scorner of the blood by which he was redeemed 2 . 
 
 In the so-called Testament of our Lord (c. 350), which 
 is based on the Egyptian Church Order, the reference to 
 the bread has disappeared. We read: 
 
 He who spilleth of the cup gathereth up judgment to himself. 
 Similarly also he who seeth and is silent and doth not reprove 
 him, whoever he may be 3 . 
 
 In the so-called Canons of Hippolytus (fourth to sixth 
 century?) we have in an Arabic translation a still later 
 modification of the same rules, quite changing their 
 
 1 Connolly, The so-called Egyptian Church Order, pp. 190-1. Hauler, 
 Didasc. Apos. Fragm. pp. n 7-8. Cf. Horner, The Statutes of the Apostles, 
 pp. 180-1, 261, 326-7. 
 
 2 Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Coll. vol. 1. pp. 289-90. Cf. Horner, Statutes 
 of the Apostles, p. 261. 
 
 3 Cooper and Maclean, The Testament of our Lord, p. 128. 
 
 1 — 2
 
 4 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 original scope, and a text akin to the Coptic and Arabic 
 recension, and particularly the version given above, is 
 presumably the basis of it. We note that the reference to 
 private reservation has disappeared. We read : 
 
 But let the clergy take the greatest heed that they invite 
 no one to partake of the sacred mysteries except believers 
 only. Let a clerk stand in readiness near the altar, and when 
 the chalice is prepared let him stand on guard so that no fly 
 fly about over it, and that nothing fall into it, for from this 
 there may arise for the priests the guilt of mortal sin. Conse- 
 quently let someone keep guard over the holy place. But let 
 him who distributes the mysteries, and those who receive, 
 take very great heed lest anything fall to the ground so that 
 no evil spirit get possession of it 1 . 
 
 Similar directions abound in later days in various docu- 
 ments, and considerable evidence to the same effect may be 
 drawn from the fathers early and late. Origen (f c. 254) says : 
 
 You who are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries 
 know how when you receive the body of the Lord you keep it 
 with all care and reverence lest even a little of it fall, that 
 nothing of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and 
 rightly believe, yourselves guilty if anything of it fall through 
 negligence. But if you employ, and rightly employ, such 
 great care with respect to that body which is to be reserved, 
 how do you think that it is less awful to have neglected the 
 word of God than His body 2 ? 
 
 Between these words of Origen and the directions of the 
 Egyptian Church Order there is a close affinity, and there 
 may be even a literary connection, and there is again 
 apparently a reference to private reservation. 
 
 St Cyril of Jerusalem {c. 348) adopts a similar attitude 
 with regard to the great care to be exercised in handling 
 the sacrament. In his catechical lectures he says: 
 
 1 Canon xxvm. §§ 206-9. Connolly, p. 78. Achelis, Die Canones 
 Ilippolyti, pp. 1 19-21. 
 
 2 In Exod. xiii. 3, P.G. Ml. col. 391.
 
 I] EARLY EVIDENCE 5 
 
 Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine e} r es 
 by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof, giving heed 
 lest thou lose any of it : for what thou losest is a loss to thee as 
 it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone 
 gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution 
 keep it fast? How much more cautiously then wilt thou ob- 
 serve that not a crumb falls from thee of what is more precious 
 than gold and precious stones 1 ? 
 
 A sermon, formerly attributed to St Augustine, but 
 belonging more probably to St Caesarius of Aries (f 542), 
 also bears witness to the great care shown by Christians 
 lest any of the sacrament should fall to the ground. Like 
 Origen the writer argues from it that the word of God 
 ought to be treated with not less respect. We read: 
 
 I ask you, brethren and sisters, tell me, what seems to you 
 to be of more value the word of God or the body of Christ? 
 If you wish to answer truly you ought surely to say this, that 
 the word of God is of no less value than the body of Christ. 
 And so however great care we observe when the body of Christ 
 is ministered to us that nothing of it fall from our hands to the 
 ground, let us observe the same care lest the word of God which 
 is administered to us be lost from our hearts while we are 
 thinking or speaking of something else. For a man will be none 
 the less guilty who hears the word of God carelessly than he 
 who has allowed the body of Christ to fall to the ground by his 
 negligence 2 . 
 
 The same opinion we see about the scrupulous care 
 exercised by the faithful lest even a small portion of the 
 sacrament be lost is expressed in many writings differing 
 very widely in date and place. Yet unless there was some 
 seemly method of disposing of the remains after com- 
 munion, including a reverent cleansing of the chalice and 
 
 1 Caiech. xxm. Mystag. v. 21, P.G. xxxiii. col. 1125 (Church's 
 translation, Library of the Fathers, p. 279). 
 
 2 Augustine, Sermones, App. Sermo ccc, otherwise L. Homil. Horn. 26, 
 P.L. xxxix. col. 2319.
 
 6 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 paten, such acts of profanity must have been of regular 
 occurrence : this in view of the strongly expressed opinions 
 of so many writers about the general attitude we can 
 hardly conceive to be possible. 
 
 Origen is witness to a custom, founded apparently on 
 the rules of the Mosaic law, by which what was left over 
 of the eucharist was kept until the morrow, but no portion 
 of the remains reserved until the third day, the Christian 
 practice thus agreeing exactly with that of the Jews with 
 regard to the consumption of certain of the sacrifices. On 
 such precedents, as we shall see, all later rules for the 
 disposal of the remnants of the sacrament after com- 
 munion are ultimately based. We read : 
 
 For the Lord when He gave the bread to His disciples saying, 
 Take and eat, did not defer it, nor command it to be kept until 
 the morrow. The same significance perhaps is to be found also 
 in the fact that it (Leviticus) does not command the bread to 
 be carried on a journey, that you may always bear the bread 
 of the word of God, which you carry within you, fresh.... Another 
 figure of the sacraments indeed there is where it commands 
 also what is left over to another day to be eaten, and nothing 
 indeed to be reserved till the third day 1 . 
 
 Origen is drawing out a mystical lesson from our Lord's 
 words as well as from Leviticus, and he cannot be taken 
 as disapproving of reservation in itself, and the practice 
 must have been quite common in his day and before, as is 
 implied indeed in the other words of his quoted above, 
 and as we see in the works of other writers, as Tertullian 
 and Cyprian. Private reservation is also clearly referred 
 to as the ordinary custom in the extract from the Egyptian 
 Church Order. The words of Cyril of Alexandria (| 444) to 
 Calosyrius at a later date undoubtedly represent the 
 traditional view of the church on the permanent effects 
 of consecration. We read: 
 
 1 Horn. V in Levit. 8, P.G. XXI. col. 459.
 
 i] EARLY EVIDENCE 7 
 
 And I hear that they say that the mystical benediction 
 avails nothing for sanctification if any of it be left until 
 another day. But they are mad who say such things, for 
 neither is Christ other than Himself, nor His holy body changed, 
 but the power and vivifying grace of the benediction abide 
 perpetually in it 1 . 
 
 In the so-called liturgy of St Clement, found in the 
 eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, we are told 
 for the first time what actually happens to the remains in 
 the service after the communion. We read: 
 
 And when all have received, both men and women, let the 
 deacons take what remains over and carry it into the sacristy 
 (pastophorium) 2 . 
 
 This takes place immediately after the communion and 
 before the last prayers. Unfortunately nothing is said 
 about their final disposal, whether they are reserved in the 
 sacristy till the morrow, or for a longer period as in later 
 days, or consumed there immediately, for which also there 
 is considerable evidence at a later period. Reservation 
 until the next day only would seem to be the more usual 
 custom at this date. 
 
 The practice of reserving the sacrament in the sacristy 
 is referred to in what appears to be in origin a marginal 
 note which has been interpolated in some texts of Jerome's 
 Commentary on Ezekiel xl. We read: 
 
 Wherefore the sacristy in which lies the body of Christ Who 
 is the true Bridegroom of the church and of our souls is rightly 
 called the bridal chamber or pastophorium?. 
 
 In the Sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons (cap. lxiii-lxxix) 
 we have in a shortened form and somewhat modified in 
 places the directions, but not the prayers, of the eighth 
 book of the Apostolic Constitutions. Here what is left 
 
 1 Adv. Anthropomorph. i, P.G. lxxvi. col. 1073-6. 
 
 2 Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, p. 25. 
 
 3 In Ezek. xl. See Freestone, Sacrament Reserved, p. no.
 
 8 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 over from the communion remains on the holy table 
 apparently until after the blessing and dismissal, when we 
 find rules for its disposal. We read : 
 
 Whatsoever remains over let the presbyters and the deacons 
 gather up, taking careful heed that there be not much over 
 that so there be not exceeding great judgment upon them like 
 the sons of Aaron and the sons of Eli whom the Holy Ghost 
 smote because they refrained not from setting at nought the 
 Lord's sacrifice: how much more them that shall think scorn 
 of the body and blood of the Lord, deeming that it is only 
 bodily food that they receive not spiritual 1 . 
 
 In an ancient Coptic collection of constitutions of uncer- 
 tain date we read: 
 
 If it happens on the day of some solemn feast that any of the 
 eucharist remains over, it should be treated with honour: 
 and the following day the priests should divide it among them- 
 selves and communicate therefrom. If no one is found who 
 can consume it, it should be reverently buried somewhere, 
 but not burnt ; for the honour due to the holy bodies does not 
 allow them to burn them : but they bury them 2 . 
 
 In the nineteenth of a set of Arabic canons ascribed to 
 the council of Nicaea, and widely accepted by about the 
 seventh century, we find directions for the disposal of the 
 remnants of the eucharist. We read: 
 
 As often as commemorations are made in churches and 
 monasteries, or at the tombs of the martyrs, and any of the 
 eucharist is left over, let the priests honour it in the morning 
 of the following day before they communicate. But if what is 
 left over is much let them divide it among themselves and each 
 take his portion, but only once by way of a single morsel whether 
 small or great, and let it not be done a second or third time 3 . 
 
 1 Brightman, p. 463. 
 
 2 PerpStuitd de la Foi, 1841, in. 7, vol. III. col. 212. 
 
 3 Hardouin, Concil. Collectio, vol. 1. col. 506.
 
 i] EARLY EVIDENCE 9 
 
 Hesychius (f c. 438) in his commentary on Leviticus 
 compares the Jewish and Christian practice with regard 
 to the remains of the sacrifices. He says: 
 
 The body of Christ the living Bread which came down from 
 heaven... ought to be baked and eaten within the church in 
 the holy place, that is, at the altar, and never elsewhere. 
 Wherefore Paul commanded the Corinthians, When ye come 
 together... or despise ye the church of God and shame them 
 that have not (1 Cor. xi. 20-22). And this is so because there 
 entirely the mystic supper ought to be celebrated.... But that 
 which was left of the flesh and the bread he commanded to 
 be burned in the fire. And this also we now see done before 
 our eyes in the church, and whatever happens to remain 
 unconsumed is committed to the fire: not simply that which 
 has been kept one or two or many days, for as it appears it 
 was not this that the lawgiver commanded, but that which was 
 left he ordered to be burned 1 . 
 
 Evagrius in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 594) gives the 
 usage at Constantinople in his day, and before. We read : 
 
 It is considered an ancient custom in the imperial city that 
 whenever a large quantity of the sacred pieces of the spotless 
 body of Christ our God remained over uncorrupted boys of 
 those who attend the school of grammar should be summoned 
 to eat them 2 . 
 
 The same practice apparently obtained also in Gaul at 
 about the same date. In the sixth canon of the second 
 council of Macon in 585 we read: 
 
 Whatever remnants of the sacrifices are left over in the 
 sacristy after the completion of mass on Wednesday and Friday, 
 let innocent boys be brought to church by him whose business 
 it is, and a fast having been imposed upon them, let them receive 
 the same remnants sprinkled with wine 3 . 
 
 1 In Lev. 11, P.G. xcni. col. 886-7. 
 
 2 Hist. Eccles. iv. 36, P.G. lxxxvi. col. 2769. 
 
 3 Hardouin, vol. in. col. 462.
 
 io EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 The mention of the fast seems to preclude the possibility 
 that only unconsecrated hosts are intended as in later 
 days. The phraseology also is identical with that used with 
 reference to the disposal of the remnants of the sacrament 
 in the East. 
 
 At a synod held at Constantinople under the patriarch 
 Nicholas Grammaticus in the days of the emperor Alexius 
 Comnenus I (c. 1085) one of the questions brought forward 
 for decision by certain monks had to do with the disposal 
 of the remains at the eucharist. Though late it will be 
 convenient to give the answer here. According to Theodore 
 Balsamon the twelfth century canonist, we read : 
 
 Question 5. Ought the priest to eat the things which are 
 offered in the church, as the oblations and liquids, indiscrimi- 
 nately and as he wills, and ought he to eat them as common 
 bread? And if man}' such things have been gathered what 
 ought he to do with them? Answer. The fragments of the 
 exalted (consecrated) oblation they ought not to eat save only 
 in the church, until they have consumed everything, and the 
 remnants of the others not with milk, or cheese, or eggs, or 
 fish, but separately and by themselves 1 . 
 
 The seventh canon of Theophilus of Alexandria (385- 
 412), sometimes referred to in this connection and mis- 
 understood, may be given for comparison. We read : 
 
 Let the clergy divide the things which are offered for the 
 purpose of the sacrifice after those needed for the mysteries 
 are consumed, and let not a catechumen eat or drink of them, 
 but only the clergy and the faithful brethren who are with 
 them. For since they were brought to the altar, and of them 
 parts were taken for the divine gifts, and those were hallowed, 
 how shall any of them be given to the uninitiated to con- 
 sume 2 ? 
 
 1 Balsamon, Interpretationes Canonicae, P.G. cxxxvm. col. 944. 
 
 2 Balsamon, Theoph. Alex. Quaes., P.G. lxv. col. 41.
 
 I] EARLY EVIDENCE II 
 
 The custom prescribed by the decree is similar to that 
 mentioned by the pseudo Jerome, whose words also are 
 frequently misinterpreted. He says: 
 
 And after the communion whatever remained over from the 
 sacrifices eating there in church a meal in common they con- 
 sumed them in like manner 1 . 
 
 There can be no doubt that the reference in both cases 
 is to the portion of the people's offerings or sacrifices not 
 needed for the mysteries, that is, what was not required 
 for the consecration, not what was left over from the 
 communion, and the practice is well attested otherwise, 
 but both the extracts, and particularly the former, have 
 been interpreted differently, and as we shall see by English 
 divines 2 , of the remains of the consecrated elements, a 
 natural misunderstanding perhaps when the offering of 
 the people was obsolete. Balsamon is quite clear about 
 the exact meaning of each of the texts he gives. He says: 
 
 The Canon gave no orders at all with regard to the fragments 
 left over of the holy consecrated bread and the rest (i.e. the 
 wine), and did not prescribe how they should be used. The 
 Answer however divided the consumption of the oblations into 
 two; yet about the wine which was offered the holy synod 
 gave no decision; but Theophilus decreed that this also should 
 be consumed in the same way as the loaves, and rightly as I 
 think, for the wine is not consecrated but only hallowed 3 . 
 
 At this point it will be convenient to consider the 
 apocryphal letter of Clement to James the Lord's brother, 
 and it will be useful for our purpose to quote it at some- 
 what greater length than is usually done. It belongs 
 apparently to the seventh century, and so what is de- 
 scribed represents the practice of that date. We read : 
 
 The sacraments of the divine secrets were committed to the 
 three grades of the clergy, to the priest, the deacon and the 
 
 1 In i Cor. xi, P.L. xxx. col. 751. 
 
 2 See pp. 197, 207, 2ii, cf. p. 209. 3 P.G. cxxxvm. col. 944.
 
 12 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 minister, who with fear and trembling ought to guard the 
 remnants of the fragments of the Lord's body that no corruption 
 be found in the sacristy, lest through acting negligently grave 
 injury be brought to a portion of the Lord's body. But if the 
 communion of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is carelessly 
 distributed and the priest does not trouble to admonish the 
 minor officials, let him be smitten with a grievous curse, and a 
 meet stroke of humiliation. Let so many hosts indeed be offered 
 on the altar as ought to suffice for the people, but if any remain 
 until the morrow, let them not be reserved 1 , but be carefully 
 consumed by the clerks with fear and trembling. But let not 
 those who consume the residue of the Lord's body which has 
 been left in the sacristy come together immediately to receive 
 common food lest they think that the food which is being 
 digested... be mingled with the holy portion. If therefore the 
 Lord's portion be eaten in the morning let the ministers who 
 consumed it fast until the sixth hour, and if they received it 
 at the third or fourth hour, let them fast until the evening.... 
 
 And the palls and veils which have been soiled in the service 
 of the sanctuary, let the deacon and lower ministers wash 
 near the sacristy, not casting the coverings of the Lord's table 
 out of doors from the sacristy, lest unhappily tiny fragments 
 (pulvis) of the Lord's body fall by chance from the linen washed 
 out of doors, and it be sin to him who does it. Therefore we 
 command that these holy things be kept with care by the 
 ministers within the sacristy. And let a new bowl be provided 
 and except for this purpose let nothing else touch it, but let 
 not this bowl be used for washing any veils except those which 
 pertain to the worship of the Lord's altar. Let the palls of the 
 altar alone be washed in it, and the veils of the doors in another. .. 
 
 We command also that none of the fragments of the Lord's 
 oblation be set before anyone at the table who is excommuni- 
 cate from the church, or a layman. How dost thou know 
 whether thou art not bestowing the bread of the sacristy on the 
 unworthy? How dost thou know if those on whom thou art 
 bestowing it are clean from women?... Again and again we 
 1 "Quod si remanserint in crastinum non reserventur."
 
 I] EARLY EVIDENCE 13 
 
 commend to your charge the fragments of the Lord's body. 
 Let the chalice also be prepared for bearing the blood of the 
 Lord with entire cleanliness of service, and let the minister 
 prepare it lest, if the chalice be not well washed, it become sin 
 to the deacon who offers it.... From the beginning of the epistle 
 up to this point I have entrusted the sacraments to your charge 
 to look after them well where no mouse dung may be found 
 among the fragments of the Lord's portion, and that nothing 
 corrupt remain through the negligence of the clergy, lest men 
 come wishing to receive healing for themselves, and, when they 
 see what is corrupt, be seen to receive it rather with ridicule and 
 disgust, and through the negligence of the clergy fall into sin 1 . 
 
 We notice at once the similarity between the require- 
 ments of the first part of this letter with regard to the 
 disposal of the remains of the sacrament, and the directions 
 of the Egyptian Church Order, and Origen and others. 
 It is quite clear that the remains of the sacrament are not 
 consumed during the service immediately after the com- 
 munion, but are carried into the sacristy. With regard 
 to their subsequent treatment a question of translation 
 makes a considerable difference. The usual translation in 
 later days, when the document was quoted so widely in 
 the West as an authority, was "if any remain let them not 
 be reserved until the morrow," but this is almost certainly 
 incorrect. These directions, like others we have already 
 considered, are plainly based on the rules of the Mosaic 
 law for the disposal of the remains of sacrifices. In the 
 Pentateuch we find two different rules for this according 
 to the occasion. In one case the remains maybe kept and 
 eaten the second day, but if left until the third day they 
 must be burned (Lev. vii. 16, 17; xix. 6); in the other the 
 remains may be eaten only on the day of the sacrifice, and 
 if kept until the morrow they must be burned (Ex. xii. 10; 
 xxix. 34). Origen, as we noticed, compared both these 
 
 1 P.G. 1. col. 483-7.
 
 14 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 requirements with usages prevailing with regard to the 
 eucharist, and though for the purpose of his mystical 
 interpretation he argued that it was not by Christ's 
 ordinance that it should be kept until the morning, yet 
 he assumed that frequently it would be so reserved. Those 
 of whom Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Calosyrius, who did 
 not regard the consecration as lasting until the next day, 
 were probably influenced by the second of the rules given 
 above. We note however that both the Levitical regulations 
 assume that the remains will have been kept at least until 
 the morrow before it will be necessary to dispose of them 
 by burning. It seems therefore almost impossible that 
 the letter of the pseudo Clement can mean anything 
 different. Translating in this way "if any remain until 
 the morrow" we note that the phrase is exactly what we 
 find in each case where the subject is mentioned in the 
 Pentateuch (Ex. xii. 10; xxiii. 18; xxix. 34; cf. Lev. vii. 
 15; xix. 6; xxii. 30). The various times mentioned for 
 consuming the remains of the sacrament, in the morning, 
 or at the third or fourth hour, suggest that it does not 
 take place immediately after the liturgy, but on a separate 
 occasion, and therefore apparently on a different day. 
 What is to be consumed is that "which has been left in 
 the sacristy," again suggesting a time other than immedi- 
 ately after the liturgy, and with this the tense of the verb 
 agrees, for it is literally, "if any have remained." It 
 would seem then that the intention of the letter of the 
 pseudo Clement is that the remains of the sacrament 
 should be kept until the next day, and that then they 
 must be consumed by the clergy and not reserved, though 
 they are still consecrated, and must not be confused with 
 the unconsecrated oblations, being still "the communion 
 of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ." This agrees exactly 
 with the Arabic canons of the council of Nicaea: "As 
 often as. . .any of the eucharist is left over, let the priests 
 honour it in the morning of the following day before
 
 i] EARLY EVIDENCE 15 
 
 they communicate 1 ." It is also just what we find in the 
 ancient Coptic rule quoted above: "If it happens on the 
 day of some solemn feast that any of the eucharist remains 
 over, it should be treated with honour: and the following 
 day the priests should divide it among themselves and 
 communicate therefrom 2 ." The practice to which Hesy- 
 chius is alluding when he speaks of burning the remains 
 of the eucharist which have been kept "one or two or 
 many days," seems also, as he claims, connected with the 
 Levitical rule, though his argument that they should be 
 burned immediately is scarcely correct, for the remains 
 of the sacrifices were not burned until the morrow 3 . The 
 custom of giving what was left to boys also points in the 
 same direction, lor certainly at the council of Macon, and 
 probably in the East, the boys were only fetched on certain 
 days 4 . That the remains of the consecrated breads should 
 be kept at least until the next morning seems to have 
 been at one time an almost universal custom, and there 
 can be little doubt that the letter of the pseudo Clement 
 should be correctly translated as above — "if any remain 
 until the morrow, let them not be reserved." 
 
 We must however notice one piece of evidence which 
 at first sight appears to tell against this interpretation, 
 and it is to be found in one of the Canons of Athanasius. 
 These canons survive only in the Arabic and Coptic, but 
 they appear to belong to the date of Athanasius, and they 
 may be due to the saint himself. We read: 
 
 And concerning the holy mysteries, the body of Christ and 
 His blood, they shall not let aught thereof remain over from 
 evening to the morning, but shall do with it whatsoever they 
 will. The holy altar having been prepared, and so long as the 
 holy mysteries are thereon, ere he hath raised it up the readers 
 shall not be silent before it, but shall sing in the word of God 
 or shall repeat the psalms. ...And because it is His body and 
 
 1 See p. 8. a See p. 8. 
 
 3 See p. 9. * See p. 9.
 
 16 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. 
 
 blood, so shall they not leave praising Him, until the time when 
 the place is cleansed 1 . 
 
 Another canon however seems to show that the reference 
 is not to the consecrated elements at all. We read : 
 
 An offering that remaineth over from yesterday they shall 
 not offer, neither that which hath been divided in pieces in 
 any church, but bread warm, fresh and whole 2 . 
 
 From this it seems clear that the former canon has 
 nothing to do with the remnants of the sacrament, but 
 that it refers to the unconsecrated oblations of the people 
 which must not be used in the eucharist except on the day 
 on which they were originally baked and offered ; and this 
 explanation fits in exactly with the purpose of the rest of 
 the canon. We have therefore nothing here which testifies 
 to the existence of a custom which would contradict our 
 interpretation of the passage in the pseudo Clement, that 
 the remains of the consecrated hosts were not as a rule 
 disposed of until the next day. 
 
 Nothing is said about the consumption of any remains 
 of the chalice in the letter of the pseudo Clement, or 
 whether the residue of the consecrated wine was also 
 reserved. We are only told that it is the duty of the 
 minister to see that the chalice is well washed. In view 
 of the rubric in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, 
 and later custom in the matter, at any rate on occasions, 
 both in East and West, it seems probable that this too 
 was taken into the sacristy, and reserved in a similar way. 
 Anything in the nature of ablutions, and the necessary 
 cleansing of the vessels, must thus have taken place in the 
 sacristy, and not before the conclusion of the service. 
 
 At a superficial view the letter of the pseudo Clement, 
 though requiring reservation of the remains for one day, 
 might seem to forbid it altogether for a longer period, but 
 
 1 Riedel and Crum, The Canons of Athanasius, pp. 48-9. 
 8 Riedel and Crum, p. 42, cf. p. 129. 

 
 i] EARLY EVIDENCE ly 
 
 there appears to be no evidence of the existence of any 
 such custom, or that it was ever so interpreted. Some, 
 such as those mentioned by Cyril of Alexandria in his 
 letter to Calosyrius, appear to have argued against reserva- 
 tion in any form, but the letter was never so understood, 
 and continuous reservation was the common practice both 
 before and after its appearance. In the rule for dealing 
 with "the remnants of the fragments of the Lord's body," 
 or "the residue of the Lord's body," for the necessary 
 disposal of which, as remains of the sacrifices, precedent 
 could be found in the Mosaic law, in view of the reasons 
 put forward for similar customs elsewhere, the writer 
 without any doubt had in mind the requirements of the 
 Pentateuch. With the question of the continuous reserva- 
 tion of that which was wanted for its proper purpose he 
 is not concerned, and the Old Testament certainly failed 
 to supply any rule which was applicable. Yet the existence 
 of such perpetual reservation is evidently supposed, for 
 the words "let them not be reserved," suggest it, as also 
 the fact that some might come to partake of the sacrament 
 as an act of devotion and be scandalized to find it corrupt. 
 The use of the reserved species for purposes of communion 
 is not condemned but rather the reverse, and the argu- 
 ment is that it is not seemly that the faithful should have 
 to receive that which had been negligently kept for an 
 indefinite period and had become foul. To prevent all 
 abuse "the residue" or "the remnants of the fragments of 
 the Lord's body" were not to be used for communion at 
 all, or even given to laymen, but consumed by the clergy. 
 Consequently separate provision would have to be made 
 for continuous reservation, and so in reckoning the people 
 for whom the hosts to be consecrated are to suffice account 
 would have to be taken of those who were expected to 
 communicate with the reserved species and the needs of 
 the sick, so that they might be independent of any 
 accidental surplus. Though misunderstood on one point, 
 
 L. E. 2
 
 18 EARLY EVIDENCE [ch. i. 
 
 some such interpretation as this, which indeed is identical 
 with that given by St Thomas Aquinas l , has always been 
 put upon the directions of the letter, and it has been 
 rightly regarded as condemning, not the seemly reserva- 
 tion of the sacrament, but the negligent treatment of 
 what was left over from communion. 
 
 1 Summa, Pars in. Quaes, lxxxiii. Art. v, P.L. iv. (Second Series), 
 col. 848. See p. 42.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 IN THE EAST 
 
 WE have already noticed the practice of burying the 
 remains of the eucharist among the Copts. It 
 seems to have been not unknown elsewhere, and to have 
 continued to a much later period in orthodox circles. 
 Cardinal Humbert in his controversial work against the 
 Greeks, written in 1054, contrasts what he considers their 
 unworthy methods of dealing with the remnants of the 
 sacrament with the better custom said to prevail in the 
 churches at Jerusalem. We read : 
 
 If anything of the holy and venerable eucharist remain over 
 in the churches of Jerusalem they neither burn it nor put it 
 into a pit, but store it away in a clean pyx, and the following 
 day communicate the people from it : for they give communion 
 there daily because there assemble thither Christians from 
 various provinces, who because of their faith and exceeding 
 great love towards the Son of God desire to communicate 
 there, for as much as that place is more venerable and sacred 
 than any place in the whole world.... But to inter or bury the 
 holy eucharist in the earth, as some are said to do, or to put 
 it in a pot, or to pour it away, is gross negligence and not the 
 fear of God 1 . 
 
 We have here evidently a reference to the contents of 
 the chalice as well as to the bread. 
 
 Nothing is said in any of the texts of the Greek liturgy 
 of St James, which have come down to us, about the dis- 
 posal of what remains after the communion, or about any 
 ablutions, but we get some information from the Syriac 
 
 1 Adv. Calumn. Graec. 33, P.L. cxliii. col. 952. 
 
 V
 
 20 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 form of the rite. In an explanation of the liturgy drawn 
 up by Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amid, at the end of 
 the twelfth century, but sometimes wrongly ascribed to 
 John Maro (f 707) the founder of the Maronites, we read 
 after the communion and thanksgiving: 
 
 And immediately he commends them to the divine grace 
 saying, Go in peace.... When the priest is about to say this 
 commendation he should put his right hand on the altar and 
 immediately turn round to the people, and make crosses over 
 them with it, and the}' should say Psalm xxxiv., / will always 
 give thanks... and afterwards (to the tune) Voices of praise they 
 .sing, Thy body which I have eaten... or (to the tune) Be glad ye 
 
 righteous, Not to judgment or condemnation And then he seals 1 
 
 the people saying, The blessing of our Lord Jesus Christ.... And 
 after he has consumed the body and drunk the blood and 
 ministered (i.e. performed the ablutions), and wiped the vessels 
 he says, Because I have eaten of thy body... 2 . 
 
 In the Syriac liturgy of the Maronites, who were 
 received into communion with the Roman church in 1182, 
 according to the edition printed at Rome in 1592, we read: 
 
 The priest says the final seal common to all the anaphoras, 
 Bless us all.. ..The priest says, Go in peace. ...He drinks the 
 blood and says, By thy vivifying and living blood. ...The deacon 
 (says Psalm xxxiii), / will always give thanks.... And afterwards 
 (to the tune) Voices of praise they sing, Praise the Lord, all ye 
 people, Alleluia, Thy body which I have eaten.... Another hymn 
 (to the tune) Be glad ye righteous, Not to judgment or con- 
 demnation.... Pit the end the priest seals them, The blessing of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ.... After the consumption of the body 
 the priest ministers (i.e. wipes and cleanses the vessels), and 
 says this prayer, The oblation which we have today offered.... And 
 when he wipes the paten he says, May the living fire of thy precious 
 body and blood. ...And when he wipes his fingers thrice, and 
 
 1 I.e. blesses with the sign of the cross. So a "seal" is a blessing. 
 
 2 Assemani, Codex Liturgicus, vol. v. p. 396. Cf. Connolly and 
 Codrington Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy, p. 69.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 21 
 
 first those of his right hand, he says, Let my fingers rehearse thy 
 praises. ...At his left hand he says, Guard me, Lord, from all 
 harm.. ..And when he drinks the wine which he had mixed for 
 the ablution he says, They shall be satisfied... (Ps. xxxvi). When 
 he wipes the chalice he says the prayer of Ephraim, Wipe away, 
 Lord with the sponge of thy mercy.... And after the seal he 
 says, Because I have eaten of thy holy body... 1 . 
 
 In the common order of the Syriac liturgy as used by 
 the Syrian Jacobites, and similarly in the liturgy of the 
 Christians of St Thomas on the Malabar coast, we read 
 after the communion and thanksgiving: 
 
 The seal, May God who has granted «s....The priest puts his 
 right hand on the altar, and says this prayer of commendation, 
 signing the people thrice with the sign of the cross, and says, 
 Go in peace.... The priest bowing before the table of life says 
 within himself this prayer for himself secretly, By the oblation 
 which we have today offered.... After he has finished all things 
 which pertain to the ministering (i.e. consuming the remains) 
 of the body of Christ he says, The Lord is my shepherd, and the 
 rest of the psalm (xxiii). And he wipes the paten and says, 
 If any member remain, let it remain to thy knowledge which 
 created the world. If any member remain, may the Lord be its 
 keeper, and be merciful to us. And after he has finished wiping 
 the chalice he says, What shall I render unto the Lord....Aiter 
 he has wiped the chalice with a sponge he says this prayer of 
 Mar Ephraim, Wipe away, Lord, with the sponge of thy mercy.... 
 And when he washes his hands he says, May the living fire of 
 thy precious body and blood.... And he washes his fingers thrice, 
 beginning with the right hand, and says, Let my fingers rehearse 
 thy praises. ...At the left hand he says, Guard me, Lord, from 
 all harm.... And when he drinks the wine which he has mixed 
 for the ablution 2 he says, They shall be sati spied... (Ps. xxxvi). 
 He washes his hands in water and says this psalm, Be thou my 
 
 1 Assemani, vol. v. pp. 215-223. 
 
 2 Lit. the "deaconess," that which is employed in the ministry, or 
 service (of cleansing the fingers and chalice).
 
 22 
 
 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 judge... (Ps. xxvi). He wipes his hands and says, Bring unto 
 the Lord... (Ps. xxix)... Verse, Not to judgment or condemna- 
 tion... 1 . 
 
 The similarity between these rubrics of the Maronite 
 and Jacobite rites suggests that there has been little 
 change in the ceremony of the ablutions since the Maro- 
 nites submitted to Rome at the end of the twelfth century, 
 and the fact that both sets of rubrics, and particularly the 
 Maronite version, are very similar to the description given 
 by Dionysius Barsalibi, confirms the idea. 
 
 In the anaphora of St James at the time of communion 
 we read : 
 
 And these verses, as also many others, are diminished or 
 lengthened according to the number of communicants. Im- 
 mediately the priest wipes the vessels with the help of the 
 deacon, and then is said the prayer of thanksgiving 2 . 
 
 At first sight this rubric seems to suggest that the 
 ablutions took place immediately after the communion. 
 Yet it would be curious if two anaphoras of the same rite 
 ordered entirely contradictory customs on such a point as 
 this, and we notice that only the wiping of the vessels is 
 mentioned, and nothing is said about any consumption of 
 the remains, or of any washing either of the vessels or of 
 the priest's hands. It seems more probable that we have 
 a practice similar to that ordered in certain texts of the 
 liturgy of St Chrysostom after the priest's communion, 
 where we read : 
 
 And he receives thrice from it, and then wipes both his 
 own lips and the holy chalice with the veil which is in his 
 hands 3 . 
 
 1 Renaudot, vol. n. pp. 25-28. CI Brightman, pp. 106-8. Howard, The 
 Christians of Si Thomas and their Liturgies, pp. 250-263. 
 
 2 Renaudot, vol. 11. p. 42. 
 
 3 Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. 125. Cf. Swainson, 
 Th'. Greek Liturgies, p. 140. Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, vol. IV. p. 368.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 23 
 
 In the Coptic liturgy of St Basil, according to a manu- 
 script of perhaps the fourteenth century, after the prayer 
 of inclination which follows the communion we read at 
 the very end of the liturgy: 
 
 Let the priest say the benediction, Lord be merciful unto 
 «s....When he has finished the washing of the vessels, let him 
 drink the water which remains in them, and let him dismiss 
 the people when he has said the benediction 1 . 
 
 The modern service books make it clear that the ablu- 
 tions still come at the end of the service between the 
 prayer of inclination and the final blessing, though only 
 the washing of the priest's hands is mentioned. In the 
 1887 edition we read: 
 
 The people shall sa3^, Kyrie eleison. Then the priest' shall 
 pour water upon his hands, and shall make the sign with a 
 little thereof upon the table and shall say, Angel of this sacri- 
 fice.... Then he shall wipe his face with his hand and his brother 
 priests above and below, and the whole congregation (shall 
 do the like), and he shall bless them and give them the dis- 
 missal, and shall end with reading the blessing 2 . 
 
 In the fourteenth century commentary of Abu'l Bircat 
 on the Coptic liturgy we read with reference to the con- 
 sumption of the remains : 
 
 And when he has completed these things with regard to the 
 distribution of the communion, the priest will take care that 
 if by chance any particle however small of the body be left 
 over he gather it up and give it to those ministering at the 
 altar. Let the deacon also bear away the chalice in which the 
 priest has communicated with the despoticon 3 , and likewise 
 the blood if any of it be left over 4 . 
 
 The remains of the particles intended for the people are 
 evidently consumed immediately after the communion, 
 but the chalice used at the consecration and for the 
 
 1 Renaudot, vol. i. p. 25. 2 Brightman, p. 188. 
 
 3 The central portion of the host. 4 Renaudot, vol. 1. p. 293.
 
 24 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 priest's communion into which the despoticon was placed, 
 is taken away. According to an ancient canon, however, 
 neither it nor the other sacred vessels are cleansed until 
 after the service is ended, for it is the function of the 
 priests and deacons who performed the liturgy, and so it 
 is unlikely that the despoticon and the remains of the 
 chalice are consumed earlier. We read : 
 
 It is forbidden to priests to give any layman the duty of 
 washing the chalice and the other sacred vessels, or to permit 
 them to drink the water of ablution, which ought to be drunk 
 by the priests and deacons who have officiated 1 . 
 
 Among Questions and Answers according to the Doctrine of 
 the Fathers of uncertain date we find a decision prescribing 
 what is to be done when a particle of the consecrated host is 
 discovered after the ablutions, and this makes it still plainer 
 that the cleansing of the vessels takes place after the service. 
 We read : 
 
 After the communion, when the liturgy is finished, and the 
 priest has washed the sacred vessels, and has drunk the water 
 of their ablution, if he finds a particle of the holy body on the 
 table of the altar or in the veil what ought he to do? Should 
 he receive it after having taken the ablution? Ought the water 
 which he has drunk to be considered as having caused him to 
 break his fast or not, since it has been poured on the paten and 
 chalice which were imbued with the holy body and the precious 
 blood? When the sacred ministry of the liturgy is finished and 
 the priest has washed the sacred vessels, and has drunk the 
 water of their ablution, if he finds any particle of the body as 
 has been mentioned above he ought not in any wise to take it, 
 but he should enquire if there is any priest among his colleagues 
 or any deacon who has communicated and who has not taken 
 the water of ablution, and if he finds such an one he should 
 give him the particle of the body which he has found. After- 
 wards he should again wash his hands over the paten and give 
 
 1 PerpStuiU de la Foi, m. 7, vol. III. col. 21 r.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 25 
 
 him who has received the particle the water of ablution to 
 drink. If there is no ecclesiastic or layman fasting and of age 
 to receive the communion the priest should still beware of 
 taking it after he has taken the water of ablution of the sacred 
 vessels and of his hands, the liturgy being finished and the 
 distribution of the body of Jesus Christ ended, because he has 
 broken his fast by the water which he has drunk and therefore 
 cannot receive the communion of the holy body. He should 
 then place this particle which he has found on the paten and 
 light two candles about it and a lamp towards the east : then 
 he should himself stay to guard the body until the following 
 day. And when the liturgy is celebrated he should receive it 
 fasting without performing any function at the altar, and he 
 should wash his hands with water which he should drink. After 
 all this he should do a very severe penance because of the 
 negligence he has shown with regard to the body and blood of 
 the Son of God which was poured out for the salvation of His 
 creatures 1 . 
 
 In the rite as used by the Coptic Uniats the directions 
 have been considerably Romanized, and both the con- 
 sumption of the remains and the ablutions take place 
 immediately after the communion. In the text of the 
 liturgy as given by the Marquess of Bute, which is based 
 on the edition (in Coptic and Arabic) of Raphael Tuki, 
 Bishop of Arsinoe, printed at Rome in 1736, though 
 taking note of modern practice, we read : 
 
 If there are communicants they approach and he communi- 
 cates them saying to each, This is in very truth the body and the 
 blood of Emmanuel our God. Amen. He then moves the paten 
 crosswise towards the people, turns, and replaces it on the 
 altar. He consumes what remains of the sacred host, saying 
 again, This is in very truth the body of Emmanuel our God. 
 Amen; and then after cleansing the paten into the chalice 
 what remains of the blood, saying, This is in very truth the blood 
 
 1 Perpetuite de la Foi, in. 7, vol. ill. col. 21 1-2. Cf. Renaudot, vol. 1. 
 p. 294.
 
 26 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 of Emmanuel our God, Amen. He holds out the chalice into 
 which the deacon pours some wine, and the priest says, Peace 
 be unto all. The people answer, And unto thy spirit. He drinks 
 the wine. Then wine and water are poured over his fingers into 
 the chalice and he drinks it, and wipes and arranges the chalice 
 saying meanwhile inaudibly in Arabic, Our mouth is filled with 
 gladness... 1 . 
 
 The Nestorian custom is very extraordinary, and ob- 
 viously arose through a corruption of the practice by which 
 the remains of the consecrated elements were consumed 
 after the service. After the blessing which concludes the 
 liturgy proper there is a "Prayer on receiving the Holy 
 Thing," and another "In ordering the Mysteries 2 ." This 
 ordering is really the consumption of what remains after 
 the communion of the people, and the previous prayer is 
 explained by the fact that according to modern usage the 
 celebrant himself does not communicate until after the 
 benediction when he consumes what is left. In earlier days 
 certainly the usual custom prevailed by which the priest 
 communicated after the Lord's prayer which marked the 
 end of the eucharistic prayer, and before the communion 
 of the people, and it is this which is described in the 
 Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (f c. 502) 3 . At some later date 
 the priest's act of communion was postponed and combined 
 with the consumption of the remnants of the sacrament 
 left from the people's communion, at the close of the 
 service. 
 
 At Constantinople the practice of giving the remains of 
 the eucharist to children survived until quite a late period, 
 for Nicephorus Callistus (c. 1333) in his Ecclesiastical 
 History, taking up the words of Evagrius, says the custom 
 was still in vogue in his youth : 
 
 1 Marquess of Bute, Coptic Morning Service, p. 113. 
 
 2 The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari, S.P.C.K., p. 38. 
 Cf. Brightman, p. 304. 
 
 3 Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, p. 27.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 27 
 
 A custom has prevailed for a long time in the queen of cities 
 that whenever there was a large quantity of pieces of the 
 spotless and divine body of our Lord and God and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ left over the priests should fetch uncorrupted boys 
 of those who attend the school of grammar, and that they 
 should eat the remnants fasting. And this indeed frequently 
 happened to me also when I was quite a boy, and particularly 
 when at a tender age I was engaged in study in the sacred 
 courts 1 . 
 
 In the Paschal Chronicle for the year 624 we get some 
 information about the arrangements at the conclusion of 
 the liturgy among the Greeks, but nothing is said definitely 
 about the consumption of the remains, or the ablutions of 
 the vessels. We read : 
 
 It was arranged that there should be singing after all have 
 partaken of the holy mysteries, as the clergy are about to put 
 away the precious fans, patens, and chalices, and other holy 
 vessels in the sacristy, after the removal of all things from the 
 credence after the distribution and the singing of the last verse 
 of the Communion 2 . 
 
 A canon of the Typicon of Nicephorus, patriarch of 
 Constantinople (806-815), gives some particulars with 
 regard to the ablutions: 
 
 Let the priest look at the people first and sacrifice the holy 
 gifts so that there may not be a superabundance, and let no 
 one dare to touch them alone : but for thyself do thou distribute 
 them to the people, and after they have partaken of them wash 
 the chalice round with wine twice and with water once in the 
 fear of God 3 . 
 
 We have reference to several points in the service in 
 these directions, before the consecration, the communion, 
 
 1 Hist. Eccles. xvn. 25, P.G. cxlvii. col. 280. 
 
 2 Chronicon Paschale, P.G. xcn. col. 1001. 
 
 3 Pitra, Juris Eccles. Grace. Hist, et Mon. vol. 11. p. 341.
 
 28 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 and the ablutions, and there is nothing to show when the 
 last takes place. 
 
 In the texts of the liturgies of St Basil and St Chrysostom 
 as given in the ninth century Barberini manuscript 
 nothing is said about the consumption of the remains or 
 of the ablutions, but at the end of the latter we find "a 
 prayer at the gathering up of the holy gifts, The fulness of 
 the law. . ." corresponding to "a prayer in the sacristy" 
 in the former 1 , so that both must have taken place in the 
 sacristy after the service. 
 
 In an eleventh century codex of the liturgy of St 
 Chrysostom we have an expansion of the short rubrics of 
 the earlier text. The liturgy of St Basil agrees almost 
 identically. We read : 
 
 Then the communion being finished and the holy remnants 
 taken up from the divine table, the priest prays on, We give 
 thee thanks. ...And when he is about to return the holy gifts 
 where they were set forth, on taking them from the holy table 
 the deacon censes them thrice. The priest says to himself, 
 Be thou exalted... and taking them up he says aloud, At all 
 times, now and always and for ever and ever. And on returning 
 from the prothesis 2 both deacon and priest, the deacon says, 
 Stand up. Having received the divine, holy, spotless, immortal, 
 heavenly and lifcgiving, awful mysteries of Christ, let us give 
 thanks to the Lord.. ..A. prayer at the gathering up of the holy 
 things, The fulness of the law... 3 . 
 
 We note that the remains of the consecrated elements 
 are taken away to the prothesis by the priest and deacon 
 together after "Be thou exalted," and before the deacon's 
 call to thanksgiving. The consumption of them evidently 
 takes place in the sacristy, or at the prothesis, after the 
 
 1 Brightman, p. 344. 
 
 2 The place where the oblation is set forth, properly the act of setting 
 it forth. 
 
 3 Swainson, The Greek Liturgies, pp. i4i~3. Cf. pp. 169-71.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 29 
 
 service. The title of the prayer said meanwhile now speaks 
 of "holy things," not of "holy gifts." 
 
 In an order for the liturgy published by Philotheus, 
 Patriarch of Constantinople in the fourteenth century, the 
 directions of the canon of Nicephorus are elaborated, and 
 we read that the deacon washes the chalice thrice with 
 wine and water, and wipes it with the sponge, and washes 
 his hands and lips, saying Nunc dimittis, etc. With 
 regard to the priest it says "He washes (his hands) 
 thoroughly 1 ." 
 
 In a sixteenth century manuscript of the liturgy of St 
 Chrysostom we have still further development, and again 
 we find practically the same directions in the liturgy of 
 St Basil. We read: 
 
 Then the deacon taking the holy paten sponges it over the 
 holy chalice quite thoroughly, and with care and reverence 
 covers the holy chalice with the veil. Likewise also he puts 
 the star and the veils over the holy paten. And they open the 
 door of the sanctuary, and the deacon, bowing once, takes 
 the holy chalice with reverence and goes to the door, and 
 elevating the holy chalice shows it to the people, saying, In the 
 fear of God and love draw near. ...And both the deacon and 
 priest return to the holy table and the priest censes it thrice, 
 saying to himself, Be thou exalted.... Then taking the holy paten 
 he puts it upon the head of the deacon, and the deacon takes 
 it with reverence, looks outside towards the door, and saying 
 nothing departs to the prothesis and puts it down. And the 
 priest bows and takes the holy chalice, and turns towards the 
 door, and looks at the people saying, Blessed be our God. Then 
 he says aloud, At all times, now and always and for ever and ever... 
 And immediately he says secretly the prayer, We give thee 
 thanks.... The deacon standing in the accustomed place says, 
 Having received the divine. ...A prayer at the gathering up of 
 
 1 Sirkov, Histoire de la correction des livres en Bulgarie au XI V e siecle 
 (in Russian), vol. i. p. 172. See Gabrol and Leclercq, Dictionnaire 
 d' Archiologie Chritienne et de Liturgie, vol. 1. Pt. 1. col. no.
 
 30 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 the holy things, secretly, The fulness of the law....Aito,v the 
 prayer the priest departs and standing in the accustomed 
 place distributes the antidoron 1 . Then he makes the dismissal.... 
 And having blessed the people he goes in again. And after 
 the dismissal, if there is no deacon the priest enters the pro- 
 thesis and receives what is left in the holy chalice, carefully 
 and reverently. And he washes the holy chalice thrice and 
 looks if anything, what is called a pearl, remain. Then he says, 
 Lord now lettest thou.. ..And. he gathers together the holy things, 
 the chalice and the paten with the veils according to custom ; 
 but if there is a deacon he does it. And the priest departs into 
 the sacristy and unvests 2 . 
 
 We notice that the "holy things" are no longer the 
 consecrated elements, but the sacred vessels. 
 
 The modern rubrics are almost identical with those of 
 the sixteenth century. The prayer "We give thee thanks" 
 said secretly by the priest is no longer said after the com- 
 munion of the people, but after the priest's own com- 
 munion and before the opening of the door of the sanctu- 
 ary. The latter part reads : 
 
 And when this (the dismissal) is finished the priest enters 
 through the holy doors and departing to the prothesis says 
 the following prayer secretly, The fulness of the law. ...And. 
 the deacon enters, but he through the north part, and gathers 
 up the holy things with fear and safety so that nothing at all 
 even the least portion of the holy things fall away or be left 
 behind, and he washes his hands in the accustomed place. And 
 the priest goes outside and distributes the antidoron to the 
 people. Then entering the sanctuary he puts off the priestly 
 vestments, saying, Lord now lettest thou... 3 . 
 
 The authorities of the Greek Church in Bayswater have 
 very kindly supplied some further particulars with regard 
 to modern practice : 
 
 1 The blessed bread, the remains of the unconsecrated oblations left 
 over from the prothesis. 
 
 2 Swainson, pp. 140-4. J Brightman, pp. 398-9.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 31 
 
 After loud utterance of the priest, At all times, now and 
 always and for ever, the priest himself, and not the deacon, 
 removes the consecrated elements to the table of the prothesis. 
 When more than one priest is officiating from that moment 
 onwards, and especially after the dismissal, one of the other 
 officiating priests, or the officiating deacon, could consume the 
 consecrated elements. But if the officiating priest has no 
 assistant (priest or deacon) he has no time to consume them 
 other than after the distribution of the antidoron 1 . 
 
 Further details are as follows: 
 
 At the close of the liturgy the officiating priest carries the 
 consecrated elements to the table of the prothesis, where the 
 officiating deacon, and if not the officiating priest, consumes the 
 remainder. He then pours a little warm water and wine into 
 the chalice to cleanse it, and consumes these also. He repeats 
 this action several times, until he is certain that no "partiele" 
 or "pearl" remains, and consumes them each time. Then in 
 order to remove any dampness from the interior of the chalice, 
 he uses a special cloth with which he wipes it, and then he 
 places a round sponge in it, leaving it there till the next liturgy 2 . 
 
 The late Mr W. J. Birkbeck has given a description 
 based on his own observation of what happens at the 
 consumption of the remains of the consecrated elements 
 and the ablutions in the Russian Church. He shows the 
 full liturgical setting. We read : 
 
 After the communion of the people the priest places the 
 chalice, now containing the whole of what is left of both species 
 of the holy sacrament, on the altar, and the deacon after 
 removing with the sponge the merides (or unconsecrated 
 particles of bread placed on the paten at the beginning of the 
 service in memory of the mother of God, and the various saints 
 and members of the church living and departed on behalf of 
 whom the liturgy is offered) from the paten into the chalice, 
 
 1 Letter dated Sept. 17th, 1916. 
 
 2 Letter dated Jan. nth, 1916.
 
 32 IN THE EAST [ch. 
 
 covers it with the veil.... The priest then says the post-com- 
 munion prayer of thanksgiving at the altar. He then goes to 
 the royal doors and blesses the people saying, God, save thy 
 people and bless thine inheritance, and the choir sing the 
 anthem, We have seen the true light, etc. during which the priest 
 returns to the altar, and after censing the altar with three 
 swings of the censer gives the paten to the deacon to take to 
 the prothesis table, and after adoring takes the chalice in his 
 hands and showing it to the people says, Blessed is our God, 
 always now and ever, world without end, and then while the choir 
 sing another troparion 1 he takes the chalice to the prothesis 
 table and puts it down. Then follow some more prayers, 
 occupying three whole pages of the Russian service book, 
 consisting chiefly of a short litany said by the deacon, the 
 Let us go forth in peace, which corresponds with the Western 
 lie missa est, and the long prayer behind the ambo 2 , which the 
 priest comes out into the nave to read. It is only after this 
 that the deacon, if he has already communicated, returns to 
 the prothesis and consumes what remains of the holy sacra- 
 ment, and takes the ablutions, the priest meanwhile distributing 
 the antidoron, or bringing the cross into the nave for the 
 people to kiss. But supposing as is most frequently the case 
 on ordinary days, that the deacon has not made his com- 
 munion, then the priest himself returns to the prothesis and 
 takes the ablutions, but not until after the whole service is 
 over and the people gone 3 . 
 
 Mr Birkbeck has also given the usage of other Eastern 
 churches with respect to the consumption of the remains 
 of the eucharist and the ablutions, the observed practice 
 agreeing generally with the rubrics of the liturgies : 
 
 With regard to the practice of other Eastern rites besides 
 that of the Orthodox Eastern Church in this matter I can only 
 
 1 A short hymn. 
 
 2 The pulpit, originally in the middle of the church. 
 
 3 Letter dated Aug. 15th in Church Times for Aug. 19th, 1910, 
 vol. lxiv. p. 216.
 
 ii] IN THE EAST 33 
 
 speak positively with regard to the Syrian Jacobite and the 
 East Syrian Nestorian rites. Both of these agree with the 
 Orthodox Eastern Church in deferring the consumption of what 
 remains of the blessed sacrament and of the ablutions to the 
 end of the service and not taking them as in the Roman rite 
 immediately after the communion 1 . 
 
 With regard to the Uniat rites when I saw the Syrian Jacobite 
 and the Chaldaean Uniat rites the ablutions were taken after 
 the blessing. TheRuthenian books retain the Byzantine rubrics, 
 and in the vast majority of instances in which I have seen 
 their rite used, whether in Rome or in Austria, they have been 
 strictly followed so far as the ablutions are concerned. Only 
 on two occasions, once in Galicia and once in Vienna, have I 
 seen the rubric disregarded and the Latin custom followed. 
 But this was before Leo XIII in the early nineties took measures 
 against the tinkering of the Uniat rites in a Latin direction, 
 and I am informed that this disregard of plain directions would 
 not be possible now 2 . 
 
 In the Armenian liturgy which is Romanized at various 
 points the remains are consumed immediately after the 
 communion before the thanksgiving and blessing. We 
 read: 
 
 During the communion the choir sing the hymns proper for 
 the day, and also, We have been filled.... Whilst the choir is 
 singing the priest consumes what remains of the sacred 
 elements, and then repeats in secret these prayers of thanks- 
 giving, We give thanks unto thee... 3 . 
 
 In all these different extracts illustrating the practice 
 of the churches of the East at so many different places and 
 times we find great variety of usage, but whether the 
 remains of the consecrated species remained on the altar 
 until the end of the service or not the primitive practice 
 
 1 Church Times, Sept. 2nd, 1910, vol. lxiv. p. 272. 
 
 2 Church Times, Sept. 16th, 1910, vol. lxiv. p. 352. 
 
 3 Fortescue, The Armenian Church, pp. 107-8. Cf. Daniel, Codex 
 Liturgicus, vol. iv. p. 478. 
 
 L. E. 3
 
 34 IN THE EAST [ch. ii 
 
 still persisted in the majority of instances where Roman 
 influence is absent, and they were not disposed of until 
 the liturgy was ended, and in any case the cleansing of the 
 sacred vessels did not usually take place until the service 
 was finished; and clearly while the custom of consuming 
 the remains of the eucharist after the conclusion of the 
 service continued nothing in the way of ablutions of the 
 sacred vessels could possibly take place at an earlier 
 point. There can thus be little doubt but that this was the 
 primitive usage in the matter, and that in the earliest 
 days all cleansing of the vessels must have been performed 
 afterwards in the sacristy.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 IN THE WEST 
 
 THE practice of giving what remained over of the 
 consecrated elements after communion at mass to 
 boys continued in the West, as well as in the East, for 
 some centuries. At the third council of Tours under 
 Charles the Great in 813 a word of caution on the subject 
 was still found necessary : 
 
 Priests must be expressly admonished that when they have 
 performed the sacred solemnities of the mass, and have com- 
 municated the people, they give not the body of the Lord 
 carelessly to boys, or any other persons who are standing 
 b}', without distinction 1 . 
 
 Traces of this custom, and of child communion, are 
 found much later. About the year 1198 in a synod held 
 under Odo of Paris it was decreed : 
 
 Priests are straitly charged that they in no wise give hosts, 
 even though not consecrated, to boys 2 . 
 
 The synod of Clermont in 1268 modified this prescription 
 and evidently has unconsecrated hosts chiefly in view: 
 
 We forbid priests to give hosts, though not consecrated, to 
 boys except on Easter Day, in the place of blessed bread, and 
 then let them eat them immediately, and not carry them out 
 of the church 3 . 
 
 Another modification of the Parisian canon was issued 
 at Bayeux (c. 1300) : 
 
 1 Hardouin, vol. iv. col. 1025. 
 
 2 Hardouin, vol. vi. 2, col. 1945. s Hardouin, vol. vn. col. 593. 
 
 3—2
 
 36 IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 We forbid priests in any wise to give sacred hosts to boys 
 under the age of seven years 1 . 
 
 Here apparently it is consecrated hosts which are pro- 
 hibited, as in 1255 at Bordeaux, where a canon, known 
 evidently at Clermont, forbade anything but blessed bread 
 to be given to boys even for communion at Easter 2 . 
 
 On Maundy Thursday there was a similar custom of 
 giving unconsecrated hosts to the poor, presumably those 
 whose feet were washed in the ceremony of the Mandatum, 
 and it persisted for some centuries, for we find it in the 
 Statutes of Lanfranc, the Constitutions of Ulrich of Cluny, 
 the ancient Ordinary of Corbie, and the Customs of St 
 Benignus of Dijon, representing the practice of the 
 eleventh and twelfth centuries 3 . 
 
 The sixteenth council of Toledo in 693 required the 
 eucharistic loaves to be made of only moderate size, 
 because of the difficulty otherwise of consuming the re- 
 mains. We read : 
 
 The assembly has unanimously decided that no bread be set 
 forth on the altar of the Lord to be hallowed by the benediction 
 of the priest save that which is whole and fair, which has been 
 prepared with care. And let not anything big but only those 
 of moderate size be offered, as the custom of the church main- 
 tains, so that the remnants of it, if they are to be reserved, 
 may be more easily reserved without any injury in a moderate 
 compass, or if it is necessary to consume them, it may not 
 oppress and overload the stomach of him who takes them 4 . 
 
 A canon of uncertain date, perhaps belonging to the 
 synod of Rodomum about the year 878, reads: 
 
 We have been told that certain priests when they have 
 celebrated mass, refusing themselves to consume the divine 
 
 1 Hardouin, vol. vn. col. 1228. 2 Hardouin, vol. vn. col. 471. 
 
 3 Martene, De Ant. Eccles. Riiibus, 1783, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. 
 § xxxiii. p. 126. 
 
 4 Hardouin, vol. in. col. 1797.
 
 in] IN THE WEST 37 
 
 mysteries which they have consecrated, give the Lord's cup 
 to poor women who offer at mass, or to certain laymen who 
 know not how to discern the Lord's body, that is to distinguish 
 between spiritual food and carnal. How contrary this is to 
 the whole religion of the church the piety of the faithful 
 knows. Wherefore we forbid it to all priests, so that no one 
 for the future may presume to do this ; but let him either con- 
 sume- it himself with reverence, or entrust it to either the 
 deacon or subdeacon who are ministers of the altar to gather 
 up 1 . 
 
 The pseudo Alcuin (eleventh century?) likewise tells us 
 that this duty was entrusted to the deacon and subdeacon. 
 He says: 
 
 The subdeacon is the under-minister, because he is under 
 the deacon, that is, under the minister.... The sacrifice being 
 finished he takes up the mysteries of the body and blood of 
 the Lord which were left over, to be gathered up or carried 
 away by the deacon 2 . 
 
 A passage in the life of St Adalbert, Bishop of Prague 
 (fc. 997), in language almost identical with that of the 
 pseudo Alcuin, speaks of a similar custom at the end of 
 mass: 
 
 Whatever was left over of that from which he and the newly 
 baptized had communicated he commanded to be gathered up, 
 and he kept it for himself, wrapped in a most clean cloth, to 
 carry it away for viaticum 3 . 
 
 The document most frequently quoted as the authority 
 for the traditional practice of the West with regard to the 
 disposal of the remnants of the eucharist after the com- 
 munion is the apocryphal letter of Clement the First of 
 Rome to James the Lord's brother, which we have already 
 discussed 4 . We find it quoted by most of the early 
 
 1 Hardouin, vol. vi. 1, p. 205. 
 
 2 De Div. Off. in Hittorp, De Div. Cath. Eccl. Off. et Myst. 1610, col. 
 269. 
 
 s P.L. cxxxvn. col. 884. * See pp. 11-18.
 
 3 8 IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 canonists. Remigius, Bishop of Coire {c. 830), entitles his 
 extract " What is allowed with regard to the Lord's body 1 ." 
 In the forged decretals of the pseudo Isidore (c. 850) 
 according to some manuscripts the summary of the 
 passage is "that the sacraments of the divine secrets 
 are committed to three orders, and that priests, deacons 
 and ministers perform the sacraments of the church 
 carefully and without negligence 2 ." Regino of Priim 
 (f 915) heads his quotation "Carefulness with regard to 
 the Lord's body 3 ." Burchard, Bishop of Worms (f 1025), 
 summarises the rule as follows, "So many oblations as 
 will suffice for the people are to be offered, and what are 
 left are not to be kept till the morrow 4 ." Ivo of Chartres 
 (f 1 1 15) quotes the letter in each of his two collections, 
 heading it in one case "By whom the Lord's sacraments 
 are to be handled," and in the other "So many hosts are 
 to be offered on the altar as will be able to suffice the 
 people, and what is left is to be consumed by the clergy 
 with fear and trembling, and with great carefulness 5 ." 
 Cardinal Gregory includes the passage in his collection 
 called Poly carpus (c. 1124) 6 and Gratian in his Decretum 
 (c. 1151) 7 . Gratian repeats the title of Ivo of Chartres, 
 "By whom the Lord's sacraments are to be handled." 
 In Gratian it is included in the official Corpus Juris 
 Canonici of 1572-85, and all later editions. From the 
 different summaries it is plain that the canonists considered 
 the document authoritative as a whole and not simply on 
 one or two points, and clearly it was regarded as something 
 more than a relic of bygone times of no force for the 
 present. Though when properly interpreted it has really 
 nothing to do with the question, being concerned with the 
 
 1 P.L. ax. col. 1093-4. 
 
 2 Hinschius, Decreiales pseudo Isidorianae, p. 46. 
 
 3 P.L. cxxxn. col. 225-6. * P.L. cxl. col. 754. 
 8 P.L. clxi. col. 1079, 165. 
 
 • P.L. clxxxvii. col. 1740, n. 136. 
 
 7 Pars in. De Cons. Dist. II. c. 23, P.L. clxxxvii. col. 1740.
 
 in] IN THE WEST 39 
 
 disposal of an accidental surplus and not directly with the 
 reservation of the sacrament at all, as a matter of fact it 
 is historically the ultimate source of the modern rules for 
 the reservation of the consecrated host and its renewal. 
 
 Not only was what was left over from the communion 
 consumed in the sacristy, but this was also, as in the East, 
 the place of reservation. In the Gelasian Sacramentary 
 (c. 700, and later) in the mass of Maundy Thursday we read : 
 
 They communicate and reserve of this sacrifice until the 
 morrow; and thence let them communicate 1 . 
 
 On Good Friday we are told : 
 
 The prayers above written being finished, the deacons go 
 into the sacristy. They proceed with the body and blood of 
 the Lord which remained the day before, and place it on the 
 altar 2 . 
 
 There would appear to have been reservation in both 
 kinds, or at any rate this was probably the original 
 meaning of the rubric. 
 
 The Missale Francorum (c. 700) mentions the reserva- 
 tion of the hosts in the sacristy and quotes the letter of 
 the pseudo Clement. In the allocation to the subdeacon 
 we read: 
 
 The oblations which come to the altar are called the shew- 
 bread. Of these oblations only so much as is able to suffice for 
 the people ought to be placed on the altar, that there be no 
 decay in the sacristy 3 . 
 
 These instructions are repeated a number of times in 
 various forms for use at ordination at Rome and elsewhere, 
 and are to be found in the Pontificals of Egbert (f 766) and 
 Dunstan (f 988), and other English books 4 . In the early 
 days it was obviously the custom in England as in other 
 
 1 Wilson, Gelasian Sacramentary, p. 72. 2 Wilson, p. 77. 
 
 3 Thomasius, Opera, vol. VI. p. 343. 
 
 1 Martene, vol. II. lib. 1. cap. viii. Art. xi. Ord. 11. iii. iv. xiv. xvii. 
 PP- 34. 38, 4 2 > 70. 84.
 
 4 o IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 countries, to reserve the sacrament in the sacristy. King 
 Alfred in his translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History 
 says of Gregory the Great : 
 
 His body was buried before the housel porch. 
 
 The housel porch is clearly the place where the sacra- 
 ment is reserved, but in the original Latin it is "secre- 
 tarium," or sacristy 1 . 
 
 The Leofric Missal (c. 1070) prescribing the ceremonies 
 of Good Friday gives a version of the directions of the 
 Gelasian Sacramentary, and the same are found in nume- 
 rous other books. We read : 
 
 The deacons go into the sacristy and proceed with the body 
 of the Lord, which has remained from the previous day, but 
 without the consecrated wine, and place it upon the altar 2 . 
 
 Evidently the reservation in both kinds is no longer 
 allowed, but the custom is clearly known, and was perhaps 
 still the practice in some places. 
 
 Giraldus Cambrensis (f 1223) in his celebrated Gemma 
 Ecclesiastica gives the instructions of the pseudo Clement, 
 adding an exception of the hosts for the dying. We note 
 the generally acknowledged authority of the letter in 
 Britain as elsewhere. He says: 
 
 Let not the priest presume to prepare or consecrate more 
 hosts than ought to suffice for the people : but if they remain 
 let them not be reserved until the morrow, except a few for 
 viaticum, but be received with fear by the clergy 3 . 
 
 The various rules for the renewal of the reserved sacra- 
 ment are to be traced back ultimately to the letter of the 
 pseudo Clement. This is stated very plainly in an eleventh 
 century codex of the Abbey of St Martial at Limoges. We 
 read: 
 
 1 Bede, Hist. Eccl. n. i, Ed. Ang. Sax. and Latin, Cambridge, 1614, 
 p. 107. 
 
 2 Warren, Leo/tic Missal, p. 96. 
 
 3 Girald. Camb. Gemma Eccles. 1. 8, Ed. Brewer, vol. u. p. 27.
 
 in] IN THE WEST 41 
 
 It is the custom at Limoges because of the precept of Pope 
 Clement with reference to caring for the Lord's body, that not 
 only in the monasteries, but also in all the churches of the 
 primate of Limoges, lest through lapse of time any decay should 
 be discovered in the fragments of the Lord's body, that the 
 body of the Lord should be renewed twelve times in the year, 
 and that the old which is changed should not be consumed 
 except by the clergy 1 . 
 
 In the thirteenth century statutes of the abbey of St 
 Victor at Paris we find a special direction with regard to 
 the disposal of the remains of the eucharist after the 
 general communion at Easter. We read : 
 
 The priors and claustrales ought to observe that at Easter 
 in communicating the people they use caution that what is left 
 over of the sacrament be not reserved more than eight days 2 . 
 
 It is interesting to see the comment of the canonist 
 Lyndwood in his Provinciate (c. 1422) on the directions of 
 the letter of the pseudo Clement, Tribus enim gradibus, 
 which he quotes from Gratian, and its bearing on the 
 practice of reservation, universal in his day. He says : 
 
 The priest will always have the eucharist ready for the sick 
 (De consec. Dist. II. cap. Presbyter). Nor does cap. Tribus of 
 the same distinction, where it is forbidden to reserve surplus 
 hosts placed on the altar, prevent it: for it is true that they 
 ought not to be reserved for the need of those consecrating, 
 but for the need of the dying 3 . 
 
 St Thomas Aquinas (f 1274) had written to much the 
 same effect, and quoted the same two authorities from 
 Gratian, the letter of the pseudo Clement, and a canon of 
 the council of Worms (Aix-la-Chapelle, in 809 4 ?). He 
 explains the epistle not as forbidding all reservation but the 
 
 1 Martene, vol. i. lib. i. cap. v. Art. in. § ix. p. 252. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. in. lib. iv. App. Ant. Stat. S. Vict. xir. p. 292. 
 
 3 Lib. in. Tit. 25. De custodia eucharistiae , cap. Dignissimum, verb. 
 Die dominica, Ed. Oxford, 1679, p. 248. 
 
 4 Capit. Reg. Franc. 1. p. 161, in Monnmenta Germaniae Historica.
 
 42 IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 reservation of any chance surplus left over by accident from 
 the communion, an interpretation which we decided was 
 the only one possible in view both of the wording of the 
 letter and contemporary practice. We read : 
 
 ii. Further truth ought to correspond to the figure. But 
 with regard to the paschal lamb, which was a figure of this 
 sacrament, it is commanded that nothing of it should remain 
 until the morning. It is unfitting therefore that consecrated 
 hosts should be reserved, and not immediately consumed.... 
 To the eleventh objection we reply that the truth ought to 
 correspond to the figure so far as this, namely that no part of 
 a consecrated host from which the priest and ministers, or 
 even the people communicate, ought to be reserved until the 
 morrow. Wherefore we find (De consec. Dist. n. cap. Tribus 
 gradibus) Pope Clement I at the beginning of his second epistle 
 decreed that "so many hosts be offered on the altar as ought 
 to suffice for the people, but if any remain let them not be 
 reserved until the morrow." Yet because this sacrament has 
 to be consumed daily, but the paschal lamb was not consumed 
 daily, so it is necessary to reserve other consecrated hosts for 
 the sick. Wherefore in the same distinction cap. 93 we read, 
 "Let the priest have the eucharist always ready so that when 
 anyone is sick he may communicate him immediately, lest he 
 die without communion 1 ." 
 
 The old practice of burning or burying the remains of 
 the eucharist survived, according to the Penitentials, when- 
 ever the sacramental species was marred by neglect of any 
 kind, or decayed. In the Rule of St Columban (c. 600) we 
 read: 
 
 Let him who has shown negligence towards the sacrifice so 
 that a worm is found in it, even though it be whole, burn it in 
 fire near the altar and put away the ashes underneath the 
 altar, and himself do penance forty days 2 . 
 
 1 Sumtna, Pars in. Quaes, lxxxiii. De riiu eucharistiae, Art. v. 
 P.L. iv. (Second Series), col. 844, 848. 
 
 2 P.L. lxxx. col. 222.
 
 in] IN THE WEST 43 
 
 In the Penitential of Theodore (668-690) we read : 
 
 Every sacrifice which has become corrupt through the 
 foulness of age must be burned in fire 1 . 
 
 In the Penitential of Egbert (735-766) we read : 
 
 Let him who has neglected the sacrifice so that there are 
 worms in it, and it has lost its colour and taste, do penance 
 for twenty, thirty or forty days, and let it be burned in fire, 
 and its ashes put away under the altar 2 . 
 
 We might quote likewise from many other penitentials 
 containing similar rules for dealing with the sacrament in 
 various contingencies. Like provision is made, we may 
 note, in the penitentials ascribed to Gregory III (731-741), 
 the Venerable Bede (f 735), Halitgar, Bishop of Cambrai 
 (817-831), Robert of St Victor, in the Canons under 
 Edgar (f 975), and in codices belonging to the monasteries 
 of Bobbio and Rheinau, the Colbertine Collection at Paris 
 and the library of St Vito of Verdun 3 . Such directions for 
 burning the remains of the eucharistic species in certain 
 cases appear in the mediaeval missals, as those of Salisbury 
 and York, and they are still found in the modern Roman 
 missal in the preliminary rubrics. 
 
 Our examination of the evidence has shown that 
 throughout the West, and also in England, in the early 
 days, and apparently up to the eleventh century in some 
 places, in accordance with the directions contained in 
 the letter of the pseudo Clement the remains of the con- 
 secrated elements, whether for reservation or not, were 
 taken to the sacristy to be disposed of, and on ordinary 
 days were consumed there, usually by the priests or other 
 ministers, but sometimes by boys. The consumption so 
 
 1 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, vol. in. 
 p. 187. 
 
 2 Haddan and Stubbs, vol. in. p. 427. 
 
 3 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. v. Art. v. pp. 255-7. Thorpe, Ancient 
 Laws and Institutes of England, 11. p. 252. Gerbert, Mon. Vet. Lit. 
 Alemann. vol. 11. p. 23.
 
 44 IN THE WEST [ch. in 
 
 long as it took place in the sacristy could hardly be other- 
 wise than after the conclusion of mass, and according to 
 the original meaning of the letter of the pseudo Clement 
 not till the next day. The decrees of the councils of Tours 
 and Rodomum seem to suggest that in the ninth century 
 the consumption of the remains took place in the church, 
 but this may not be intended : and the ordination address 
 to the subdeacon appears to assume the continuance of 
 the ancient custom. The probability is that, contrary to 
 the common custom of the East, the hosts were not taken 
 away to the sacristy until the service was completely over, 
 and this must have been the case when a priest celebrated 
 without assistant ministers, but at present we have had 
 no direct evidence. We shall consider the point later in 
 connection with the portion of the priest's host put down 
 on the altar till the end of mass.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 THE SANCTA 
 
 IT will be of value for our enquiry into the early method 
 of dealing with the remains of the consecrated elements 
 after communion in the West to consider the exact signifi- 
 cance of the term " Sancta," and the ceremonies connected 
 with it, and then what we can learn on a kindred subject, 
 the portion of the priest's host which, according to the 
 custom of the Roman church and elsewhere, was put 
 down on the altar after the fraction to remain there till 
 the end of mass. 
 
 In the First Roman Ordo (c. 770) of Mabillon, ac- 
 cording to the Colbertine manuscript, we read: 
 
 But before they come to the altar the deacons put off their 
 planets * in the presbytery, and the district subdeacon receives 
 them, and gives them to the acolytes of the district to which 
 the deacons belong, and then two acolytes holding the pyxes 
 with the Sancta uncovered, and a subdeacon following after 
 them, holding his hand on the mouth of a pyx, shows the 
 Sancta to the pontiff or the deacon who precedes him. Then the 
 pontiff or deacon with bowed head salutes the Sancta, and 
 looks to see if there be more than is necessary, that he may 
 order it to be placed in the conditorium 2 ' 3 . 
 
 Later on we read : 
 
 When he says, Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, let him drop 
 of the Sancta into the chalice 4 . 
 
 And again we read : 
 
 And when he (the pontiff) has communicated let him put of 
 that Sancta which he has bitten into the chalice in the hands 
 
 1 I.e. chasubles. 2 Perhaps an aumbry, or cupboard. 
 
 3 Mabillon, Mus. Hal. vol. II. p. 8. 4 Mabillon, vol. II. p. 13.
 
 46 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 of the archdeacon, saying Fiat commixtio; and he is confirmed 
 by the archdeacon 1,2 . 
 
 From these extracts we gather that the word " Sancta " is 
 a name for the consecrated elements in general, and its 
 use is by no means limited to the particle which is em- 
 ployed for what is sometimes called "the ceremony of the 
 Sancta"; and it is the same in the slightly differing texts 
 of other Or dines. The term is used for the whole of the 
 reserved sacramental species which is brought in by the 
 acolytes, and this must have been a considerable quantity, 
 as more than one pyx is mentioned, for that put aside in 
 the conditorium as well as for that placed on the altar, 
 and also for the newly consecrated host from which the 
 pope makes his communion. 
 
 We may illustrate this general use of the word for the 
 sacramental elements. The singular form, "Sanctum," is 
 used by Tertullian 3 and also by Cyprian 4 , while the Greek 
 form to ayiov is suggested by the use of Matt. vii. 6, of 
 the eucharist in the Didache 5 . In an ancient missal of the 
 church of Angers we find the words "Sanctum cum 
 Sanctis" used at the commixture, and in another "Sancta 
 cum Sanctis," the latter being found also in a Rheims 
 missal of 1491 6 . These are presumably in imitation of the 
 Mozarabic "Sancta Sanctis" at the same point, which is 
 a Western equivalent of to ayia roU dyloa in the 
 Eastern liturgies. Whatever may have been the original 
 intention of this formula it is clear that the first of the 
 times the adjective is used it refers to the Holy Sacrament. 
 As the word "Sancta" appears in the Roman Ordines the 
 grammatical construction is uncertain, for we find "cum 
 Sanctis," "mittit Sancta," "de ipsa Sancta" in the First 
 
 1 Communicated with the sacrament of the blood. 
 
 2 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 14. 
 
 8 De Sped. 25, P.L. 1. col. 657. 
 
 « De Lapsis, 26, P.L. iv. col. 486. 5 Didache, ix. 5. 
 
 6 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. ix. § ii. p. 151.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 47 
 
 Ordo according to some texts ; but in the Colbertine manu- 
 script the first two run "cum Sancta," " mittit de Sancta 1 ." 
 We must now return to a consideration of the precise 
 significance of what was done with the Sancta during 
 mass. That the sacrament consecrated on a previous 
 occasion was brought to the altar at the celebration of 
 mass appears also from other authorities, and it was in 
 no sense merely a Roman custom. Presumably it was the 
 whole of what was reserved. Gregory of Tours (f 594) 
 says: 
 
 The passion being read with the other lessons which the 
 priestly rule required, the time for offering the sacrifice 
 drew nigh, and the deacon, having taken the tower in which 
 the mystery of the Lord's body was kept, began to carry it to 
 the door, but when he had entered the temple that he might 
 place it upon the altar it slipped from his hand and was carried 
 into the air and so came to the altar, the hand of the deacon 
 being quite unable to overtake it 2 . 
 
 A similar account is found in the description of the 
 Gallican mass attributed to Germanus of Paris (f 576) : 
 
 But now the church in sweet tones hymns the body of Christ 
 as it comes to the altar, no longer with trumpets unrestrained 
 but with spiritual voices singing the greatness of Christ. And 
 the body of the Lord is thus brought in towers because the 
 sepulchre of the Lord was hewn in the rock in the form of a 
 tower, and within it was the couch on which the Lord's body 
 rested, and from which He rose in triumph, the King of glory 3 . 
 
 The word "tower" appears to be the common name for 
 the receptacle for the reserved sacrament, not merely for 
 the vessel in which it was brought to the altar for use at a 
 particular ceremony. We find numerous allusions to it, and 
 there is a form for blessing one in the Gallican Sacrament- 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. pp. 8, 13, 14. 
 
 2 Mirac. Lib. I de Gloria Martyr. 86, P.L. LXXI. col. 781. 
 
 3 De Sono, P.L. lxxii. col. 92-3.
 
 48 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 ary 1 . St Remigius of Rheims (f 533) in his will require^ 
 a tower and chalice to be made 2 , and St Aridius in the 
 same century four towers and four chalices 3 . Fortunatus 
 sings of a tower as bearing the sacred body of the Lamb 4 . 
 Bishop Lando of Rheims (f c. 645) left a golden tower to 
 his cathedral 5 . The life of St Didier of Cahors (f 659) 
 joins chalices and towers together in the description of 
 church ornaments 6 . The use of the term persisted into the 
 seventeenth century, or at any rate the vessel for the 
 reservation of the sacrament was sometimes made in this 
 shape at that date, as at the monastery of Marmoutier at 
 Tours, the churches of St Lawrence, Rouen, St Benet, 
 Paris, at Laon, and in Bourges cathedral 7 . 
 
 According to Roman custom the Sancta brought to the 
 altar before the beginning of mass would seem to have been 
 reserved from a previous papal mass. To grasp the full 
 meaning of the observance it will be necessary to enquire 
 also into the kindred customs in connection with the 
 Fermentum or Leaven, the use of which appears to have 
 been a substitute for the earlier practice of concelebration, 
 and a sign of unity. The earliest clear mention of the 
 Fermentum is to be found in the life of Pope Miltiades 
 (3 1 1-3 14) as given in the Liber Pontificalis, and also in 
 similar words in certain ancient catalogues of the Roman 
 bishops, which for the earlier lives are the basis of it : 
 
 He caused that the consecrated oblations from that day 
 (Sunday) should be sent throughout the churches from the con- 
 secration of the bishop, — which betokens the Fermentum 8 . 
 
 1 Neale and Forbes, Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church, p. 362. 
 
 2 P.L. lxv. col. 971. 3 P.L. lxxi. col. 1 147. 
 4 Miscell. in. Carmen 25, P.L. lxxxviii. col. 144. 
 
 6 P.L. lxv. col. 971. 
 
 6 Krusch, Mon. Germ. Hist., Vitae iv. Vita 15, p. 576. 
 
 ' Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. v. Art. iii. § vi. p. 252. Thiers, Traite d. 
 I'Exposition du St. Sacrement de I'Autel, 1677, pp. 39-42. Cf. Freestone, 
 Sacrament Reserved, p. 218; also for references above. 
 
 8 Duchesne, Lib. Pont. vol. I. p. 168. Cf. p. 74, and Acta Sanctorum , 
 April, vol. 1. p. xxix.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 49 
 
 Later in the same century Siricius (384-399), so the 
 same authorities assert, made it a necessary condition to 
 receive the Fermentum before a priest could celebrate at 
 all. We read : 
 
 Siricius... ordered that no presbyter should celebrate mass 
 throughout the whole week unless he should receive the 
 element consecrated by the bishop of the appointed place, a 
 token which is called the Fermentum 1 . 
 
 The well-known letter to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, 
 attributed to Innocent I (401-417) likewise speaks of a 
 weekly distribution of the Fermentum. He says : 
 
 But about the Fermentum, which on the Lord's day we 
 send to all the titular churches, you wished to consult us 
 unnecessarily, since all your churches are situated within the 
 city, and the presbyters of these, because on that day on 
 account of the people entrusted to them, they cannot assemble 
 with us, for that reason receive the Fermentum consecrated 
 by us at the hands of acolytes, that especially on that day they 
 may not judge themselves separated from our communion: 
 but I do not think it ought to be done in the country districts, 
 because the sacraments must not be carried far, nor do we 
 intend it for the presbyters appointed to the different ceme- 
 teries, for they have the right and licence to consecrate them 2 . 
 
 The use of the Fermentum was not limited to the 
 station masses, for no mass could be said without it 
 throughout the week, and it was the sign of the Pope's 
 permission to celebrate. In the ancient gloss on the letter 
 to Decentius found in a codex in the library of St Emmeram 
 at Ratisbon, the Fermentum was only distributed five 
 times in the year, but no mass might be said by a priest in 
 the station churches without it. It runs: 
 
 With regard to what is called the Fermentum it is the cus- 
 tom among the Romans that from the mass which is sung on 
 
 1 Duchesne, 1. p. 216. Cf. p. 86 and Ada Sand. April, vol. 1. p. xxxii. 
 
 2 P.L. xx. col. 556-7. 
 
 l. e. 4
 
 50 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 Maundy Thursday, Holy Saturday, Easter Day, Pentecost and 
 the Nativity of our Lord there should be reserved (of the 
 Sancta) throughout the whole year, and wherever in the stations 
 the pope himself is not present at the mass, it is put into the 
 chalice from that mass when he says Pax Domini. And this is 
 called the Fermentum. And on Holy Saturday no priest in 
 the baptismal churches communicates anybody until he has 
 put into the chalice of that Sancta which the pope has offered 1 . 
 
 We note that the Fermentum is taken from the Sancta, 
 the common name for the eucharistic elements, con- 
 secrated by the pope on the five occasions. A description 
 of the ceremony is to be found in the First Ordo, though 
 it is not stated that the Fermentum is taken from the 
 Sancta: 
 
 When Pax Domini ought to be said a particle of the Fer- 
 mentum which was consecrated by the Apostolicus is brought 
 by the subdeacon oblationer and given to the archdeacon, and 
 he offers it to the bishop, and he makes the sign of the cross 
 with it thrice, and saying Pax Domini puts it into the chalice.... 
 The like is done also by a presbyter when he says mass in a 
 station.... Bishops who preside over cities do all things exactly 
 as the chief pontiff 2 . 
 
 In the Gallicanized Ordo of St Amand the word Fer- 
 mentum is not used, but simply the more general term 
 Sancta. There is a full description of the observance on 
 Easter Eve : 
 
 On that night none of the presbyter cardinals stand there, 
 but each says mass at his own title, and has leave to sit on the 
 throne and say Gloria in excelsis. And each presbyter sends 
 a mansionary 3 from his title to the church of the Saviour, and 
 they wait there until the Sancta is broken, having corporals 
 with them. And the subdeacon oblationer comes and gives to 
 
 1 Mabillon, Iter German. Descript. pp. 65-66. Cf. Mabillon, vol. II. 
 pp. xxxviii, xxxix. 
 
 * Mabillon, vol. II. pp. 16-7. 
 
 3 Sacristan or sexton, a minor church official.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 51 
 
 them of the Sancta which the pontiff has consecrated, and 
 they receive it in the corporals and each returns to his title, 
 and gives the Sancta to the priest. And with it he makes a 
 cross over the chalice, and puts it in it, and says, Dominus 
 vobiscum, and all communicate 1 . 
 
 In the description of mass as said by a bishop or priest 
 on an ordinary day the Ordo of St Amand tells us how the 
 Fermentum, which here too is called simply the Sancta, 
 was used. We read : 
 
 And when he says Pax Domini the subdeacon holds in a 
 corporal at the corner of the altar some of the Sancta which 
 the pontiff has consecrated, and the deacon takes it and gives 
 it to the bishop or priest, and then making a cross over the 
 chalice he says Pax Domini 2 . 
 
 The Fermentum was reserved from the mass of Maundy 
 Thursday, but as there was no celebration of the eucharist 
 from that time until Easter Eve, when it was again dis- 
 tributed, the majority of it would be used to add to the 
 stock of the Sancta, from which communion was given 
 on Good Friday, only part of what was distributed on 
 Maundy Thursday being used on that day, the rest being 
 reserved as on other occasions. According to the Ein- 
 siedeln Ordo the communion on Good Friday is the reason 
 for the distribution of the Sancta on Maundy Thursday : 
 
 And when the whole oblation has been broken the Apostoli- 
 cus communicates alone. And he likewise blesses the chrism 
 and commands that there be a distribution of it to the titular 
 and other churches, either by the oblationer of the year, or 
 his assistant. Similarly also of the holy sacrifice, which they 
 reserve for the Friday 3 . 
 
 In the description of the Good Friday ceremonies we 
 read: 
 
 1 Duchesne, Christian Worship (Eng. trans.), 1904, pp. 470-1. 
 
 2 Duchesne, C.W. p. 464. 
 
 3 Duchesne, C.W. pp. 481-2. 
 
 4—2
 
 52 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 And they go again to the Lateran singing Beati immaculati. 
 But the Apostolicus does not communicate there, nor the 
 deacons. And whoever wishes to communicate communicates 
 from the pyxes of the sacrifice which was reserved from Thurs- 
 day : and anyone who does not wish to communicate there goes 
 to the other churches of Rome, or to the titles, and communi- 
 cates 1 . 
 
 Once again, as in the First Ordo, we hear of the pyxes 
 (capsae) for the reservation of the sacrament, which pre- 
 sumably was distributed in considerable quantities on 
 Maundy Thursday to the various churches. 
 
 The practice described in the Einsiedeln Ordo seems to 
 be identical with that with which the ritualist Amalarius 
 of Metz became familiar on his visit to Rome in 832, when 
 he learned that the Ordo with which he was acquainted, 
 akin to Or dines I and 77 it would seem, was no longer a 
 description of current practice. In Ordo I we read at the 
 end of the description of the Maundy Thursday cere- 
 monies : 
 
 Having washed his hands the pontiff comes to the altar and 
 all the people communicate in their order, and he reserves of 
 the Sancta for the morrow 2 . 
 
 Misled by some such order as this Amalarius had 
 written : 
 
 The heavenly bread, that is, the body of the Lord, is reserved 
 from the Thursday until Good Friday.... On Good Friday the 
 body of the Lord is not consecrated. It is necessary that those 
 who have a wish to communicate should have the sacrifice 
 from the previous day 3 . 
 
 When Amalarius arrived in Rome he learned that this 
 was no longer the custom, but that the actual practice 
 was in agreement, not with Ordo I , but with what we 
 
 found in the Einsiedeln Ordo. He says: 
 
 * 
 
 1 Duchesne, C.W. p. 483. 2 Mabillon, vol. II. p. 21. 
 
 3 De Eccles. Officiis, lib. I. 12. Hittorp, col. 330.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 53 
 
 In the above-mentioned book I found it written that after 
 the salutation of the cross two priests should bring the body 
 of the Lord which was reserved the previous day, and a 
 chalice with wine not consecrated that it may be consecrated 
 then, and the people communicate from it. Concerning which 
 statement I asked the Roman archdeacon and he replied, 
 " In that station where the Apostolicus salutes the cross nobody 
 communicates 1 ." 
 
 We may note that the pseudo Alcuin in his comments 
 on the matter, evidently based on the words of Amalarius, 
 plainly identifies the Sancta with "the body of the Lord." 
 He says: 
 
 With reference to the same day (Maundy Thursday) we read 
 in the Ordines that there should be reserved of the body of the 
 Lord for communion on the morrow. ...And because on Good 
 Friday the body of the Lord is not consecrated it is necessary 
 that those who have a wish to communicate should have the 
 sacrifice from the previous day; yet the Romans do not do 
 this 2 . 
 
 The Or do of St Amand describes a practice similar to 
 that of the Einsiedeln Ordo except that the Sancta remains 
 on the altar until the end of the service. We read in the 
 account of Maundy Thursday : 
 
 Mass being finished, the deacon says, lie missa est. And the 
 Sancta are reserved until the morrow 3 . 
 
 Yet there is no communion at the station, but only at 
 the titular churches. After the solemn prayers we read: 
 
 Then the presbyters return to their titles, and at the ninth hour 
 they repeat the lessons and responsories, the gospel and also 
 the solemn prayers, and adore the cross, and all communicate 4 . 
 
 It seems plain from the evidence that the term Sancta 
 was used of the Holy Sacrament generally, though at 
 
 1 De Eccles. Officiis, lib. i. 15. Hittorp, col. 340. 
 
 2 De Divinis Officiis. Hittorp, col. 249. 
 
 3 Duchesne, C.W. p. 467. * Duchesne, C.W. p. 468.
 
 54 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 Rome the word is not found apparently except for what 
 is consecrated by the pope, and the Sancta of which 
 we hear is the sacrament which had been distributed to 
 the titular churches from a papal mass. The Sancta 
 brought to the pope on his approach to the altar at the 
 stational church, part being put into the chalice at Pax 
 Domini, does not really differ from what on other occasions 
 was called the Fermentum, which was used in exactly the 
 same manner when another celebrated, both alike being 
 part of the sacred elements which had been consecrated 
 by the pope, and were reserved in the different churches 
 of Rome for use at the various masses held there through- 
 out the year, whether the pope or another was celebrant, 
 and on Good Friday for the communion of the faithful. 
 
 In the later Gallican Appendix to the First Ordo (ninth 
 century?), as in the Ordo itself, the word Sancta is used of 
 the consecrated hosts generally, and quite apart from any 
 particular ceremony of putting it into the chalice. In the 
 description of the Maundy Thursday service, much as in 
 the Ordo itself, we read: 
 
 Mass being finished, they communicate in the appointed 
 order, and they reserve of the Sancta for the morrow according 
 to custom 1 . 
 
 The order for Good Friday is an elaboration of what 
 we noticed in the Gelasian Sacramentary, and is the same 
 both in Ordo I and in the Appendix to it; the Sancta is 
 evidently the whole of the reserved sacrament. We read: 
 
 The two former priests as soon as they have saluted (the 
 pontiff) enter the sacristy, or wherever the body of the Lord 
 which remained from the previous day had been placed, and 
 put it on a paten; and let one subdeacon hold before them a 
 chalice with wine not consecrated and another a paten with 
 the body of the Lord; and one priest takes the paten and 
 another the chalice which they are holding, and they put them 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. II. p. 32.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 55 
 
 down on the bare altar.... The pontiff descends to the altar 
 and says, Or emus. Praeceptis salutaribus.... When they have 
 said Amen he takes of the Sancta and puts it into the chalice, 
 saying nothing, and all communicate in silence 1 . 
 
 We may note other passages from the Ordo of St Amand 
 illustrating the use of the word Sancta: 
 
 And when they have made the fraction the archdeacon takes 
 the holy chalice from the subdeacon, and another deacon the 
 paten from the acolyte, and they come before the pontiff. The 
 pontiff takes the Sancta from the paten, bites a piece from 
 the particle, and with it makes a cross over the chalice, saying 
 secretly Fiat commixtio and the rest. Then the pontiff is 
 confirmed, the chalice being held by the archdeacon. Then 
 the bishops or priests, take the Sancta from the hand of the 
 pontiff, and go to the left part of the altar, and place their 
 hands with the Sancta on the altar, and so communicate.... 
 Then he (the archdeacon) gives the chalice to the bishop who 
 communicated first, and goes to the pontiff, and receives the 
 Sancta from his hand, and likewise the other deacons. And 
 they go to the right part of the altar and communicate.... Then 
 the archdeacon takes the chalice from the bishop, and the 
 subdeacon comes holding the smaller strainer in his hand, and 
 takes out the Sancta from the chalice, and puts it into the 
 former cup from which the archdeacon will communicate the 
 people 2 . 
 
 And a presbyter receives it from his hand, and makes a cross 
 with the Sancta over the cup and puts it within 3 . 
 
 On Maundy Thursday we are told : 
 
 And he (the pontiff) goes to his throne, and the priests, and 
 deacons also, break the Sancta, and meanwhile Agnus Dei is 
 sung. Then the pontiff communicates alone, and the deacon 
 covers both the Sancta and the chalice on the altar with a 
 corporal.... And the Sancta are reserved until the morrow 4 . 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. pp. 23, 35. 2 Duchesne, C.W. pp. 461-2. 
 
 3 Duchesne, C.W. p. 463. * Duchesne, C.W. pp. 466-7.
 
 56 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 In Ordo II, a Carolingian version of Ordo I, we 
 note a change in practice from what is described in the 
 original text, and the Sancta is already on the altar when 
 the pope appears: 
 
 And the pontiff passes to the top of the choir, and on the 
 higher step, bowing his head to the altar, first adores the 
 Sancta 1 . 
 
 The explanation is apparently that the direction has 
 been modified so as to suit the Gallican method of reserva- 
 tion over the altar. Of reservation on or over the altar 
 we have a number of examples in Gallican circles at this 
 period. The Synodical Admonition attributed to Leo IV 
 (847-55), and incorporated in many tenth century docu- 
 ments makes an order to this effect : 
 
 Let nothing be placed upon the altar except the chests and 
 relics, or perhaps the four gospels and a pyx, with the body of 
 the Lord for the viaticum of the sick 2 . 
 
 Regino of Priim (f 915) in visitation articles based on 
 this Admonition mentions it twice : 
 
 Enquiry should be made if the pyx is always over the altar 
 with the sacred oblation for the viaticum of the sick 3 . 
 
 Every priest should have a pyx or vessel meet for so great a 
 sacrament, where the Lord's body may be carefully stored for 
 the viaticum of those who depart from this world... and it 
 should always be over the altar well fastened on account of 
 mice and evil men 4 . 
 
 The reference seems to be to a vessel standing on the 
 altar, rather than a receptacle over it and separate from 
 it, as an aumbry. 
 
 In the Ecloga ascribed to Amalarius, really a Gallican 
 Ordo, we likewise note the Sancta on or over the altar : 
 
 The bishop coming to the altar first adores the Sancta, and 
 
 afterwards gives the Pax to the priests and deacons. ...After 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. 11. p. 43. * P.L. cxxxn. col. 456. 
 
 8 Notitiae, i. 9, P.L. cxxxu. col. 187. 
 4 Notitiae, 1. 70, P.L. cxxxu. col. 205-6.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 57 
 
 the bishop has adored the Sancta he goes to the right of the 
 altar 1 . 
 
 In Ordo II the Sancta is used in a similar manner to 
 what we noticed in Ordo I as a link between mass and 
 mass: 
 
 (After the pontifical benedictions are finished, as is the 
 custom in these parts) when he says Pax Domini he puts some 
 of the Sancta, which had been offered, into the chalice 2 . 
 
 The words in brackets are found only in certain manu- 
 scripts. Their Gallican origin is evident, but they afford 
 valuable testimony to the widespread use of the Ordo. 
 
 In Mabillon's Ordo IV, which is the conclusion of the 
 Ecloga of Amalarius 3 , we find the Sancta no longer used 
 to link together consecutive masses, but apparently only 
 to join the priest's mass with the pope's, as was the 
 purpose of the Fermentum. We read : 
 
 Then he (the pope) says Pax Domini. He does not put any 
 of the Sancta into the chalice as is the custom with other 
 priests. When he breaks the host he says Agnus Dei, and the 
 fraction being performed, when the Apostolic Lord communi- 
 cates he bites off a piece for himself and puts the rest into the 
 chalice, making a cross with it thrice over the chalice, saying 
 nothing. And he is confirmed from the chalice which the 
 archdeacon holds 4 . 
 
 Amalarius comments on the difference of custom with 
 regard to the commixture : 
 
 I notice that by different people the dropping of the bread 
 into the wine is variously performed, for some first drop of the 
 Sancta into the chalice, and afterwards say Pax Domini, while 
 others postpone the putting of it until the Pax is finished and 
 the fraction as well 5 . 
 
 This difference of practice at an episcopal mass sur- 
 vived in many places even when the custom of using the 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. II. pp. 550-1. 2 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 49. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. 11. p. 560. * Mabillon, vol. II. p. 62. 
 
 5 De Eccles. Officiis, lib. in. 31. Hittorp, col. 432.
 
 58 THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 Sancta from a previous mass had died out. We read 
 in the eleventh century mass of Flacius Illyricus, and 
 similarly in various other Gallican documents, as, for 
 example, codices belonging to the church of Verdun, and 
 the monastery of St Gregory at Basle : 
 
 Let not the bishop put part of the obley into the chalice as 
 priests are wont to do, but wait until, the benediction being 
 finished, he ought to communicate, and then taking a piece 
 which he had broken off before, and holding it over the chalice 
 let him drop it in saying Sacri sanguinis commixtio 1 . 
 
 Durandus, Bishop of Mende (f 1296), bears witness to 
 the divergence of custom at the pope's mass. He writes 
 in his well-known Rationale : 
 
 The chief pontiff does not let the particle of the host drop 
 into the chalice immediately, but after making the sign of the 
 cross thrice puts it down on the paten, and after the kiss of 
 peace goes up to his throne and sits down there. In the sight 
 of all he takes the larger portion of the obley from the paten 
 which the subdeacon had brought from the altar, and dividing 
 it with his teeth, consumes one particle of it, and puts the other 
 into the chalice, and drinks of the blood with a reed 2 . 
 
 The two different practices clearly arose from the fact 
 that at Rome a portion of the consecrated host was put 
 into the chalice at two points of the service, as we noticed 
 in the directions given in Ordo I, the first being a particle 
 of the Sancta reserved from a previous day, and the 
 second a piece of the host from which the pope com- 
 municated. Similar directions are repeated in Ordincs II 
 and 777. Amalarius noted the double immission pre- 
 scribed in the Roman Ordo he knew, though apparently 
 without realising that on the first occasion the presancti- 
 fied species was used. Commenting on the place where it 
 
 1 Martene, vol. I. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. xn. Ordo IV. p. 185. Cf. Ordo 
 XV. p. 213, Ordo XVI. p. 216, etc. 
 
 2 Durandus, Rationale Div. Off. lib. iv. De Commumone Sacerdotis, 
 i. lxxvii.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 59 
 
 says that the pope puts the remainder of the host which 
 he has bitten into the chalice, he wrote: 
 
 If this is so done in the Roman church it is possible to learn 
 from them what the putting of bread twice into the chalice 
 may mean, for nothing which is done in this service according 
 to the order of the fathers is void of significance 1 . 
 
 The use of the word Sancta as a general name for the 
 consecrated elements, and particularly for the reserved 
 sacrament, continued for centuries. 
 
 In the Common Roman Ordo of Hittorp, belonging 
 perhaps to the eleventh century, after the account of the 
 blessing of the oils on Maundy Thursday we read: 
 
 Then let the pontiff wash his hands and the deacon go to 
 the altar and uncover the Sancta. And let the pontiff coming 
 to the altar divide the obleys for the fraction, and let all the 
 people communicate in order 2 . 
 
 In the description of the Good Friday ceremonies we 
 are told after the embolismus at the conclusion of the 
 Lord's prayer : 
 
 And when they have said Amen he takes some of the Sancta, 
 and puts it into the chalice, saying nothing 3 . 
 
 In the pontificals of Egbert of York (f 766), and Tirpinus, 
 Archbishop of Rheims, which survive in early tenth cen- 
 tury manuscripts, we have a reference to a use of the 
 Sancta similar to that at Rome. We read: 
 
 On Maundy Thursday mass is celebrated at the Lateran at 
 the sixth hour. The pontiff begins by saying Oremus and 
 Deus a quo. Then the Sancta are placed on the altar 4 . 
 
 In St Gall MS. No. 1394, which is an Irish fragment of 
 the eighth or ninth century, we read : 
 
 Holding the Sancta in his hands he signs the chalice with 
 
 1 De Eccles. Officiis, lib. in. 31. Hittorp, col. 433. 
 
 2 Hittorp, col. 67. 3 Hittorp, col. 75. 
 4 Martene, vol. 111. lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 101.
 
 6o THE SANCTA [ch. 
 
 the cross and then the Pax is given. And the priest says Pax 
 el caritas Domini, and drops the Sancta into the chalice, and 
 the people give the Pax one to another and communicate 1 . 
 
 The Sancta is here evidently the newly consecrated host, 
 not part of the sacrament reserved from a previous occa- 
 sion. 
 
 The directions given in a tenth century Ordo of the 
 monastery of Corbie about what is to be done on Maundy 
 Thursday are particularly noticeable, and we shall have 
 to refer to them again. We read : 
 
 But when the priest has broken the Sancta let him put one 
 portion into the chalice, and communicate from another, but 
 the third let him put down on the altar. And let him be con- 
 firmed by the deacon from the chalice, but only on this day. 
 After he has confirmed the priest let the deacon place the 
 chalice on the altar, and let him take the larger paten and put 
 on it whole hosts of the Sancta and place it on the left side near 
 the chalice 2 . 
 
 On Good Friday the directions are almost the same as 
 those of Hittorp's Common Roman Ordo, the fact that the 
 two Ordines have a common source coming out more 
 clearly here than in the account of the Maundy Thursday 
 service. We read: 
 
 When they have said Amen, let him take of the Sancta and 
 put it into the chalice saying nothing, and all communicate 
 in silence 3 . 
 
 In the twelfth century customs of the abbey of St 
 Benignus at Dijon we read similarly on Good Friday: 
 
 The priest follows and says with a loud voice Praeceptis 
 salutaribus with the Lord's Prayer, and the collect following, 
 Libera nos. And when he has said, Per omnia saecida saeculorum, 
 he takes of the Sancta and puts it into the chalice.... Then the 
 
 1 Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 177. 
 % Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. § xliii. p. 128. 
 3 Martene, vol. iv. lib. iti. cap. xiv. § xlii. p. 139.
 
 iv] THE SANCTA 61 
 
 priest communicates first from the Sancta and afterwards 
 distributes to all in order 1 . 
 
 A tenth or eleventh century Ordo from the Imperial 
 Library of Vienna after the blessing of the oils reads as 
 in the Common Roman Ordo : 
 
 Then let the pontiff wash his hands, and the deacons go to 
 the altar and uncover the Sancta. 
 
 At the end of the service there is the usual direction : 
 
 And they reserve of the Sancta until the morrow 2 . 
 
 In a twelfth century missal of the bishop of Riva, and 
 in a fourteenth century pontifical of Aries, we get almost 
 identical directions: 
 
 Then let the priest or bishop communicate alone, and the 
 deacon covers the Sancta on the altar with a linen cloth.... 
 Afterwards let the priest wash his hands and the deacon go 
 to the altar and uncover the Sancta : and let the priest come to 
 the altar and divide the obleys for the fraction, and let all the 
 people communicate in order 3 . 
 
 Similar words are found in many descriptions of the 
 Maundy Thursday service. At Beauvais in the eleventh 
 century, at Besancon, and the monastery of St Germanus 
 in the twelfth, and in the Ordo of Bishop Fulco of Angers 
 in the fourteenth, we find "Let the deacons go to the 
 altar and uncover the Sancta 4 ." 
 
 The order of the Roman Ordines, "Let the Sancta be 
 reserved until the morrow," appears in a tenth century 
 pontifical of Sens 5 , and a twelfth century Ordo from the 
 Imperial Library of Vienna 6 , and elsewhere. 
 
 1 Martene, vol. iv. pp. 139-40. 
 
 2 Gerbert, Monumenta Vei. Lit. A lent. vol. II. pp. 78, 80. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. 11. p. lxx. Cf. Martene, vol. in. lib. iv. cap. xxii. 
 p. 117. 
 
 4 Martene, vol. in. lib. iv. cap. xxii. pp. 112, no, 115, 92. 
 
 5 Martene, vol. in. lib. iv. cap. xxii. p. 88. 
 
 6 Gerbert, vol. 11. pp. 200-1.
 
 62 THE SANCTA [ch. iv 
 
 The use of the term " Sancta" as the common designation 
 of the consecrated elements, whether reserved or not, is 
 thus very widespread and persistent; and other examples 
 might be quoted. It is by no means limited to Rome. In 
 particular the common explanation, which limits it to the 
 portion of a host consecrated on a previous occasion and 
 put into the chalice at the words Pax Domini when the 
 pope celebrated at a station mass, appears to be entirely 
 without foundation.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 THE PORTION OF THE HOST LEFT ON THE ALTAR 
 
 THE portion of the host broken by the celebrant and 
 laid down on the altar till the end of mass appears 
 to have been closely connected with the Sancta. In Ordo I 
 according to the St Gall manuscript we read : 
 
 Then the pontiff breaks the obley on the right side, and the 
 particle which he breaks off he leaves upon the altar; but the 
 rest of his own oblations he puts on the paten which the deacon 
 holds, and returns to his throne.... And the altar being emptied 
 of the oblations, save for the particle which the pontiff left 
 upon the altar from his own oblation which he broke (because 
 they so keep the rule that while the solemnities of mass are 
 being performed the altar should not be without the sacrifice), 
 the archdeacon looks to the choir and nods to them to say 
 Agnus Dei 1 . 
 
 In the Colbertine manuscript the whole section "save 
 for the particle ... the sacrifice" is omitted. The note is 
 thus probably a Gallican addition, but the practice de- 
 scribed, being found in all the recensions of the Ordo, is 
 certainly Roman. 
 
 There is no definite statement on the subject, but it 
 would seem that the portion of the host which remained 
 on the altar till the end of mass was reserved until another 
 day, and was added to the stock of the Sancta, taking the 
 place apparently of what was used at the commixture by 
 the pope. 
 
 In Ordo II the directions are much cut down : 
 
 Then the pontiff breaks the obley on the right side, and the 
 particle which he breaks oft", he leaves upon the altar, but the 
 
 1 Mabillon, n. pp. 13, 14.
 
 64 THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR [ch. 
 
 rest of his oblations he puts on the paten which the deacon holds, 
 and returns to his throne.... And the altar being emptied of 
 the oblations, the archdeacon looks to the choir and nods to 
 them to say Agnus Dei 1 . 
 
 In Ordo III the directions are practically the same and 
 the host is called the Sancta. We read : 
 
 Then the pontiff breaks the obley on the right side, and the 
 particle of that Sancta which he has broken he leaves on the 
 altar 2 . 
 
 In Ordo IV there is no need to leave a particle on the 
 altar till the end of mass, for in accordance with Gallican 
 custom the Sancta is reserved on or over the altar, and 
 the host is broken into two pieces instead of three, one 
 being consumed by the celebrant and the other put into 
 the chalice. As the reserved host is not used for the com- 
 mixture there is no need to replenish the stock of the 
 Sancta. 
 
 In Ordo V likewise the host is broken into two pieces 
 only, but the celebrant consumes neither. The part laid 
 upon the altar is distinctly separated from what is to be 
 used for the communion, and presumably it is left un- 
 touched until the end of the mass. We read : 
 
 Let the bishop divide between them (two patens brought by 
 the deacon) the sacred body which has been consecrated, and let 
 him break one of the obleys, and from it put one particle on 
 the corporal, and the other into the chalice when he says 
 Pax Domini 3 . 
 
 The usual custom was for the host to be divided into 
 three portions, as it still is, and a mystical reason for it, 
 ascribed to Pope Sergius (f 701) by Ivo of Chartres (f n 15) 
 and Gratian (j 1151) is frequently quoted. We read: 
 
 Threefold is the body of the Lord. The portion of the obley 
 which is put into the chalice shows the body of Christ which 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. pp. 49, 50. 2 Mabillon, vol. It. p. 59. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. 11. p. 68.
 
 v] THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR 65 
 
 has already risen, the portion eaten Christ walking still upon the 
 earth, the portion remaining on the altar until the end of mass 
 His body lying in the grave, because the bodies of the saints 
 will be in their graves until the end of the world 1 . 
 
 Amalarius in describing the fraction uses an Or do akin, 
 as we have seen, to the First Roman Ordo for the basis of 
 his exposition, and gives a lengthy explanation of its 
 meaning, also quoting Sergius. We read : 
 
 There follows in the aforementioned little book.... Then the 
 pontiff breaks the obley on the right side, and the particle 
 which he breaks off he leaves upon the altar, but the rest of 
 the oblations he puts on the paten which the deacon holds 2 . 
 
 Concerning the portion of the obley which remains on the 
 altar. Threefold is the body of Christ. ...By the particle of 
 the obley dropped into the chalice is shown the body of Christ 
 which has already risen from the dead, by that eaten by the 
 priest or people, that walking still upon the earth, by that left on 
 the altar, that lying in the graves. The same body brings the 
 obley with it to the grave, and holy church calls it the viaticum 
 of the dying... and that particle remains on the altar until the 
 end of mass because the bodies of the saints will rest in their 
 graves until the end of the world 3 . 
 
 That the portion of the host left on the altar is reserved 
 is clear, but presumably only for the sick. As we noticed 
 in discussing the Sancta Amalarius appears to know 
 nothing of the ceremony of putting the presanctified host 
 as such into the chalice. 
 
 At the synod of Quiercy, held in 838 under Louis the 
 Pious, various opinions of Amalarius were condemned, and 
 in particular the ideas expressed in the exposition of the 
 three parts of the priest's host, which he had borrowed 
 from Sergius. We read : 
 
 1 Ivo Cam. Panormia, i. 140, P.L. clxi. col. 1076. Gratian, Decre- 
 tum, Pars in. De Consec. Dist. 11. c. 22, P.L. clxxxvii. col. 1740. 
 
 2 De Eccles. Off. lib. in. 31. Hittorp, col. 433. 
 
 3 Lib. in. 35. Hittorp, col. 435. 
 
 L. E. 5
 
 66 THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR [ch. 
 
 And so the aforesaid teacher asserts among other things that 
 the body of Christ is threefold and tripartite, that indeed there 
 are three bodies of Christ... asserting that the one is Christ, 
 another the faithful who are alive, another those who are 
 departed, and that Christ indeed is contained in the particle 
 of the chalice, the living in the fragments on the paten, but the 
 departed in a certain particle on the altar 1 . 
 
 It is plain from their manner of referring to it that the 
 fathers assembled at Quiercy were not familiar with the 
 practice of leaving a host on the altar until the end of mass, 
 and that it was a Roman custom at that time not yet 
 adopted at any rate in parts of Gaul. The fact that 
 Amalarius was condemned for employing the explanation 
 of Sergius does not appear to have affected its subsequent 
 popularity in Gaul as elsewhere. 
 
 Rhabanus Maurus (1856), who claims to describe 
 Roman custom, and quotes a Roman Ordo, uses very 
 similar words to Amalarius. We read: 
 
 Let the priest break the obley on the right side, one particle 
 being left upon the altar, and the rest of the oblations let him 
 put on a paten which the deacon holds. By the particle of the 
 obley dropped into the chalice he shows the body of Christ 
 which has already risen from the dead, by that eaten by the 
 priest and people, that which still walks with the disciples on 
 the earth after the resurrection, and shows Him alive, by that 
 left on the altar he suggests Him lying in the grave and de- 
 serted by His disciples in His passion 2 . 
 
 The pseudoAlcuin (eleventh century?), quoting Remigius 
 of Auxerre (f 908), gives a similar explanation, and evi- 
 dently the custom of reserving the third portion of the 
 host on the altar till the end of mass still obtains: 
 
 Pope Sergius ordered that at the time of the fraction of the 
 Lord's body Agnus Dei should be sung by clergy and people. 
 Threefold is the body of Christ.... By the particle of the obley 
 
 1 Mansi, Concilia, vol. xiv. col. 742, 745. 
 
 2 Rhabanus Maurus, De Inst. Cler. lib. I. 33. Hittorp, col. 586.
 
 v] THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR 67 
 
 put into the chalice is shown the body of Christ which has 
 already risen from the dead, by that eaten by the priest or 
 people that walking still upon the earth, by that left on the 
 altar until the end of mass that lying in the tomb until the 
 end of the world 1 . 
 
 In his explanation of the duties of the subdeacon, 
 already quoted, the pseudo Alcuin suggests that the dis- 
 posal of the entire remains of the sacrament, as well as of 
 the third part of the host placed on the altar, was post- 
 poned until the end of mass: 
 
 The sacrifice being finished he takes up the mysteries of the 
 body and blood of the Lord which were left over, to be gathered 
 up or carried away by the deacon 2 . 
 
 Though the words used, "peracto sacrificio," might 
 refer to the consecration that explanation is impossible 
 here ; they are hardly used of the communion, but might 
 refer to the end of the service, an explanation which 
 agrees well with his interpretation (taken from Remigius 
 of Auxerre) of Ite missa est — "Mass is complete, both the 
 oblation on our behalf and the prayer 3 ." 
 
 A description of the practice of St Adalbert, Bishop of 
 Prague (f c. 997), the phraseology of which, as we have 
 seen, is very similar to that of the pseudo Alcuin's explana- 
 tion of the duties of the subdeacon, can hardly refer to 
 anything before the end of the service. We read: 
 
 Whatever was left over of that from which he and the newly 
 baptized had communicated he commanded to be gathered 
 up and he kept it for himself wrapped in a most clean cloth, 
 to carry it away for viaticum 4 . 
 
 In the tenth century Corbie Or do for Maundy Thursday, 
 which, we noted, was a modification of a Roman Ordo, it 
 is quite plain that the sacrament to be reserved for the 
 
 1 De Divinis Officiis. Hittorp, col. 277. 
 
 2 Hittorp, col. 269. See p. 37 above. 
 
 3 Hittorp, col. 295. 
 
 4 P.L. cxxxvu. col. 884. See p. 37.
 
 68 THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR [ch. 
 
 morrow remains on the altar until the end of mass. We 
 have already quoted part of the description, but it may 
 be given in full : 
 
 When the priest has broken the Sancta let him put one 
 portion into the chalice and communicate from another, but 
 the third let him put down on the altar... and let the deacon 
 take the larger paten and put on it whole hosts of the Sancta, 
 and place it on the left side near the chalice... and let the deacon 
 take from the larger paten as many of the obleys as will suffice 
 to communicate the people.. ..And immediately let that which 
 remains on the altar be covered by the two deacons, each with 
 a clean linen cloth... and after the Post Communion prayer let 
 not the deacon say, Ite missa est, but let all things be finished 
 with that prayer. And let those obleys which had remained 
 covered upon the altar be preserved until the morrow according 
 to custom 1 . 
 
 Though it is not definitely stated, it would seem as if 
 the third part of the host which remained on the altar, as 
 well as the whole hosts, was reserved until the morrow; 
 at any rate nothing is said about its consumption. 
 
 In the Ordo of St Amand, contrary to the usual rule in 
 the matter, it is plainly stated that some of the hosts are 
 to be reserved. We read at the offertory: 
 
 He (the deacon) gives them (the obleys) to the archdeacon 
 and with them he makes three or five rows upon the altar, so 
 much as will suffice for the people, and then some remain until 
 the morrow according to the requirement of the canon 2 . 
 
 After the consecration we are told : 
 
 When the pontiff has said Pax Domini the subdeacon takes 
 the paten from the acolyte, and gives it to the archdeacon, 
 and he holds it at the right hand of the pontiff, and he breaks 
 one of the obleys which he offers for himself, and puts down 
 the chief part of it upon the altar, and places the whole obley 
 
 1 Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. §§ xliii, xlv. p. 128. 
 
 2 Duchesne, C.W. p. 460.
 
 v] THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR 69 
 
 and part of the other on the paten, and the archdeacon returns 
 the paten to the acolyte, and the pontiff goes back to his throne 1 . 
 
 Nothing is said about what happens to the portion of the 
 obley placed on the altar, but presumably it becomes part 
 of the Sancta reserved until the next day. 
 
 When the pope himself celebrates there is no mention 
 of the putting of a piece of the host consecrated on a 
 previous occasion into the chalice, a point we noticed in 
 various Gallicanized Ordines of later date, but when a 
 bishop or priest celebrates in his stead a particle of the 
 Sancta consecrated by the pope is put into the chalice at 
 Pax Domini. The conclusion that the portion of the host 
 placed on the altar is reserved and added to the Sancta 
 when the pope celebrates seems to receive confirmation 
 from the direction, given below, that when another 
 celebrates it is to be used for the communion of two of 
 the bishops, for then of course it would be impossible to 
 use it to replenish the stock of the Sancta, since this is 
 limited to what is consecrated by the pope himself. 
 After the division of the rest of the obley s for the fraction, 
 we read : 
 
 Then the bishop returns to the altar to break the portion 
 of the obley which remained, and when they have performed 
 the fraction the deacon announces the station, as is the custom. 
 And both bishops and priests come to communicate before 
 the altar, and the bishop gives two of the particles to the first 
 of the bishops into his hand, and he who receives them returns 
 one of them to him, and he holds the particle in his right hand 
 until they communicate, as above, and then he places his 
 hands upon the altar, and communicates himself, who has 
 said the mass 2 . 
 
 In the explanation of the order of the mass given by 
 Bernoldof Constance (f 1100) in the Micrologics, and based 
 on Roman and Gallican Ordines, the reasons given for the 
 
 1 Duchesne, C.W. p. 461. a Duchesne, C.W. pp. 464-5.
 
 ?o THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR [ch 
 
 L 
 
 threefold division of the host have been modified, and the 
 third portion is used for the communion when not required 
 for the sick, and only in that case does it remain on the 
 altar till the end of mass. There is no putting of a particle 
 of a presanctified host into the chalice, and there is not 
 necessarily anything reserved. We read : 
 
 But when he says Per Dominum nostrum he breaks the host 
 on the right side according to the Ordo to show the piercing 
 of the Lord's side. Then he breaks the greater portion into 
 two that he may be able to deal with three parts of the Lord's 
 body, for one he ought to put into the chalice, making a cross, 
 when he says Pax Domini, to show the union of body and soul 
 in the resurrection of Christ; the second indeed the priest 
 himself of necessity consumes before partaking of the chalice 
 according to the Lord's institution, but the third he of necessity 
 puts down for those about to communicate, or for the sick. 
 Nor is this in any way without real symbolical significance. 
 For in a threefold manner is the Lord's body understood.... 
 The third, that which now rests in Christ, is also aptly figured 
 by the third particle reserved on the altar, which we are accus- 
 tomed to call the viaticum of the dying 1 . 
 
 John of Avranches (c. 1065) describes a similar practice, 
 and again it is the third portion of the broken host, not a 
 whole host, which is reserved on the altar, when required, 
 for the sick. We read : 
 
 Let the deacon offer the paten to the priest, and on it let 
 the priest divide the body of the Lord into three parts. Putting 
 one of the parts into the chalice let the priest say with a loud 
 voice Pax Domini, and immediately add in secret Fiat com- 
 mixtio. With another let him communicate himself, the deacon 
 and subdcacon. The third, the viaticum, if there be need, let 
 him reserve on the paten until the end of mass. . .The third, which 
 remains on the altar, holy church calls the viaticum of the 
 dying, that it may be shown that they ought not to be con- 
 sidered dying who die in Christ, but sleeping until they 
 1 De Eccles. Obscrv. 17. Hittorp, col. 741.
 
 v] THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR 71 
 
 are brought by such and so mighty a Leader to eternal life; but 
 if there be no need, let the priest or one of the ministers receive 
 the third part 1 . 
 
 According to the Gemma Animae, ascribed to Honorius 
 of Autun (c. 1 1 23), the third part is usually given to 
 the subdeacon, and it is only reserved for the sick on 
 occasion. The reservation has now become quite formal in 
 a pyx, not merely the leaving of the particle on the altar 
 till the end of mass. We read : 
 
 The bishop breaks the obley because the Lord broke the 
 bread for the disciples at Emmaus. He divides the obley into 
 three parts, and retaining one for himself gives two to the deacon 
 and subdeacon, because the Lord after breaking the bread 
 apportioned one part to Himself, and two to Cleopas and 
 Luke 2 . 
 
 Concerning the three parts of the obley. The obley is not 
 consumed whole, but is divided into three; one is put into the 
 chalice, another is consumed by the priest, the third is placed 
 in a pyx as the viaticum for the dying, because the body of 
 Christ is threefold.... The piece left on the altar is the body of 
 the Lord resting in the tomb, that is, the church dead in Christ, 
 but about to rise again through union with the body of 
 Christ 3 . 
 
 Peter Lombard (f 1164) and Innocent III (f 1180) both 
 quote the words of Sergius with regard to the three parts 
 of the obley 4 , but say nothing which gives any information 
 whether the practice of leaving the third part on the altar 
 until the end of mass was still in use. 
 
 Hugh of St Victor (f 1141) likewise gives the exposition 
 of Sergius, as an alternative explanation of the three 
 portions of the broken host, and his words imply that the 
 
 1 De Offic. Eccles., P.L. cxlviii. col. 36-7. 
 
 2 De Ant. Ritu Miss. lib. 1. 63. Hittorp, col. 1 197-8. 
 
 3 Lib. 1. 64, col. 1 198. 
 
 4 Sententiae, Lib. iv. Dist. xn. 6, P.L. 1. (Second Series) col. 356. De 
 Sacro Altaris Mysterio, lib. vi. c. 3, P.L. ccxvu. col. 907.
 
 72 THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR [ch. 
 
 practice with regard to the third was not yet obsolete. We 
 read: 
 
 Yet Pope Sergius speaks otherwise on these points, for he 
 wishes the union of the body and soul of Christ made in the 
 resurrection to be signified by the commixture of the body and 
 blood, for he says, The piece of the obley put into the chalice 
 shows the body of Christ which has already risen, the piece 
 eaten that walking on the earth, the piece put back on the 
 altar until the end of mass, the members of Christ, that is, the 
 bodies of the saints, resting in their graves until the end of the 
 world 1 . 
 
 By the time of St Thomas Aquinas (f 1274) the practice 
 of leaving the third part of the priest's host on the altar 
 until the end of mass has become a thing of the past, 
 though he thinks the interpretation ascribed to Sergius 
 as still of value. We read : 
 
 To the eighth objection we reply that, as Pope Sergius says, 
 (and it is found De Consec. Dist. 11. cap. 22), Threefold is 
 the body of the Lord... the portion remaining on the altar until 
 the end of mass is the body lying in the grave, because the 
 bodies of the saints will be in their graves until the end of the 
 world — though their souls are in either purgatory or heaven. 
 Though this rite is not now observed, namely that one portion 
 should be reserved until the end of mass, because of the danger, 
 yet the significance of the portions remains the same, which 
 indeed they have expressed in metre saying, " The host is divided 
 into parts; that which is soaked denotes the fully blessed, that 
 which is dry the living, that which is reserved those who are 
 buried 2 ." 
 
 Evidently Aquinas does not realise the connection, 
 which comes out quite clearly in the Gemma Animae of 
 Honorius of Autun 3 , between the third part of the broken 
 
 1 De Offic. Eccles. lib. ir. 39. Hittorp, col. 1409. 
 
 * Summa Theologica, Pars in. Quaes, lxxxiii. De ritu eucharistiae, 
 Art. v., P.L. iv. (Second Series), col. 847. 
 3 See p. 71.
 
 v] THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR 73 
 
 host which was put down on the altar till the end of mass 
 and then reserved, and the hosts for reservation which 
 still remain on the altar until the conclusion of the service, 
 or he would not have regarded the custom as entirely 
 obsolete. 
 
 According to Durandus (f 1296) the portion of the host 
 put down on the altar remained there until the end of mass 
 even when, not being required for the sick, it was consumed 
 by the ministers of the altar, and presumably this was the 
 original custom when it was not to be reserved longer, 
 which does not appear to have been always the case, and 
 it agrees exactly with our conclusion about the time of the 
 consumption of the remains of the consecrated elements, 
 that it did not take place until the service was over. 
 Like St Thomas Aquinas he fails to realise that the treat- 
 ment of the hosts to be reserved is historically a con- 
 tinuation of the practice by which the third part of the 
 priest's host remained on the altar until the end of the 
 liturgy. We read: 
 
 According to Pope Sergius...the portion reserved until the 
 end of mass according to the ancient custom of the Roman 
 church for the ministers or the sick signifies all the dead... Pope 
 Sergius says, Threefold is the body of the Lord... the portion 
 remaining on the altar till the end of mass the body of Christ, 
 or according to others, the body of the faithful hidden in the 
 grave. This part remains on the altar till the end of mass 
 because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves until the 
 end of the world. The part however which is reserved until the 
 end of mass is no longer in use 1 . 
 
 Though at first sight all these accounts seem very 
 similar we can trace out the gradual modification of 
 practice due to the change of ideas. We gather that in the 
 earliest days the remains of the consecrated hosts were 
 not dealt with until the conclusion of the service, and that 
 the presence of the sacrifice on the altar until the end of 
 
 1 Rationale Div. Off. lib. iv. cap. li. De Fractione Hostiae, f. Ixxv.
 
 74 THE PORTION LEFT ON THE ALTAR [ch. v 
 
 mass was considered so important that one of the pieces 
 of the host broken at the fraction was retained on the 
 altar even during the communion to ensure that some 
 should remain, and it was for this purpose originally that 
 the host was broken into three parts. Afterwards the 
 third portion of the host was reserved and added to the 
 supply of the Sancta, which was thus undiminished by 
 the papal mass, and if necessary could be used for the 
 commixture on another day. Even after the custom of 
 putting a particle of the presanctified host into the chalice 
 was limited to a priest's mass, the host continued to be 
 broken into three, and the third part was reserved on the 
 altar till the end of mass, being apparently consumed by 
 the ministers when not required for the sick. At length, 
 however, the practice lapsed, except when there was 
 special need for reservation, and the third part was used 
 with the rest of the consecrated elements for the com- 
 munion.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 
 
 THE earliest clear reference to the reservation of the 
 sacrament on Maundy Thursday in the West is to 
 be found, as we have already noticed, in the Gelasian 
 Sacramentary (c. 700, and later). We read: 
 
 They communicate and reserve of this sacrifice until the 
 morrow; and thence let them communicate 1 . 
 
 On Good Friday the direction runs : 
 
 The above written prayers being finished the deacons go 
 into the sacristy. They proceed with the body and blood of the 
 Lord which remained the day before, and place it upon the 
 altar 2 . 
 
 We are told nothing how or when the consecrated 
 elements were taken into the sacristy for reservation, but 
 as what was reserved was that which had been specially 
 consecrated in excess of the needs of the communion on 
 Maundy Thursday the custom was presumably much the 
 same as on other days. Practically the same words are 
 repeated in various later service books, as the Leofric 
 missal, but the point is still left undecided. In Roman 
 Ordo I we read : 
 
 All the people communicate in their order, and he reserves 
 of the Sancta until the morrow 3 . 
 
 In the Gallican Appendix to Ordo I we find similar 
 directions, and though no precise moment is mentioned, 
 save that it is after the communion, we learn that a 
 traditional custom is followed: 
 
 Mass being finished they communicate in the appointed 
 
 1 Wilson, Gelasian Sacramentary, p. 72. 
 
 2 Wilson, p. 77. 3 Mabillon, vol. II. p. 21.
 
 76 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 order, and reserve of the Sancta until the morrow according 
 to custom 1 . 
 
 In the Ordo of St Amand we get more definite informa- 
 tion about the time, which agrees with what appears to 
 have been the practice on ordinary days. We read: 
 
 Mass being finished the deacon says, lie missa est, and the 
 Sancta are reserved until the morrow 2 . 
 
 The rules of the monastery of Corbie of the tenth century, 
 though more elaborate, are to the same effect as regards 
 the time of reservation. We read: 
 
 Let them (the deacons) return to the priest that they may 
 communicate, and the rest in order. And after the Post 
 Communion prayer let not the deacon say, lie missa est, but 
 let all things be finished with that prayer. And let those obleys 
 which had remained covered upon the altar, be preserved 
 until the morrow according to custom 3 . 
 
 It is interesting to note the development in the manner 
 of reserving the sacrament on Maundy Thursday at Cluny. 
 In the earlier versions of the Constitutions, dating from 
 the first half of the eleventh century, according to different 
 manuscripts we read : 
 
 All ought to communicate, even the children, and the levite 
 ought to send so many hosts to mass that some may be reserved 
 for the morrow 4 . 
 
 All ought to communicate, even the children, and so many 
 hosts ought to be sent to mass that when the brethren are 
 communicated there may remain enough for all to com- 
 municate from them on the morrow 5 . 
 
 The Constitutions of Sigibert give more details. We 
 read: 
 
 So many hosts ought to be offered as will suffice also for 
 communion another day. Let all the brethren communicate, 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. ir. p. 32. 2 Duchesne, C.W. p. 467. 
 
 8 Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. §§ xliii, xlv. p. 128. 
 * Albers, Consuet. Clun. Ant. p. 18. 6 Albers, p. 48.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 77 
 
 even the children. Let nothing of the blood of the Lord remain 
 in the chalice, but let all be consumed. After mass let the 
 deacon and the secretary and the lay brethren come with 
 candles and thurible, and take the chalice and the paten which 
 has the Lord's body, putting another paten upon it, and wrap 
 it in most clean linen, and put it away upon some altar, or in 
 a most clean coffer, and let there be a light before it all day 
 and all night until matins 1 . 
 
 Ulrich's version of the Constitutions of Cluny (late 
 eleventh century) gives an identical practice. We read : 
 
 Mass being finished, the tablet is struck as a sign for vespers... 
 Meanwhile the Lord's body is put away by the priest behind the 
 altar on a golden paten, and the paten between golden plates, 
 and the plates again between silver tablets which were made 
 for the text of the gospel. And thus it is carried from the altar 
 with candles and very much incense 2 . 
 
 The Customs of the monastery of St Benignus at Dijon 
 (twelfth century) are based on those of Cluny, and the 
 sacrament is carried away likewise during vespers, but 
 they need not be quoted 3 . Similar directions are to be 
 found in various places at this period. The Carthusian rule 
 (c. 1 130) disapproved of such elaborate ceremonial on the 
 occasion, and preferred the simplicity of an ordinary day, 
 the host being reserved as usual at the high altar. We read : 
 
 One host of the larger size ought to be consecrated in this 
 mass for Good Friday, and this we wish put back in the usual 
 place at the high altar, and forbid sepulchres to be made for 
 the reserving of it after the manner of the seculars, or other 
 preparations not fitting for our solitude 4 . 
 
 English custom about the time of putting the sacrament 
 away varied much as in other places. In the Constitutions 
 
 1 Albers, Consuet. Sigib. Abb. xxx. p. 93. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. iv. lib. m. cap. xiii. § xlvi. p. 128. 
 
 3 Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. § xlvi. p. 128. 
 
 4 Ordin. Cart. c. xlix. 6. Cf. Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. § xlvii. 
 p. 129.
 
 78 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 of Lanfranc (c. 1077), akin to those of Cluny and Bee, the 
 sacrament is put away after mass during vespers. We read : 
 
 Mass being finished let evening prayer be said on the forms 1 . 
 Meanwhile let the priest go in procession, and when he has 
 come to the altar proceed to the appointed place most fittingly 
 prepared, and there repose the body of the Lord 2 . 
 
 The directions contained in a pontifical of the latter half 
 of the twelfth century at Magdalen College, Oxford, are 
 obviously based on those of Lanfranc. We read: 
 
 And the brethren and those who wished of the people being 
 communicated, and the ampulla of the sacred chrism being 
 adored and kissed, the three deacons already mentioned carry 
 back the same ampullae into the sacristy with devotion, and 
 put them by in a fit place for safety. And let the blood on 
 the same day be entirely consumed. Of the obleys let so many 
 be reserved until the morrow as will be able to suffice for all to 
 communicate. Mass being celebrated, let the bishop, the same 
 procession going before him with which he came to the altar, 
 proceed to the appointed place, and there repose the body of 
 the Lord, the place being censed both before and after the 
 reposing of it 3 . 
 
 In the pontifical of Bishop Lacy of Exeter (f 1455) 
 the description of the procession of the oils is much 
 the same as in that at Magdalen College, and there is 
 clearly a literary connection between the two. With 
 respect to the reposing of the hosts we read: 
 
 And let the bishop take for reservation as many whole 
 hosts in the sacrifice of the Lord's body as will suffice for Good 
 Friday. But on this day let the blood be entirely consumed.... 
 The prayers being finished with the antiphon, let the bishop 
 immediately begin the antiphon, Coenantibus. The canticle, 
 
 1 This is explained more fully in the Customs of St Benignus of 
 Dijon, "The forms being turned over and the brethren stretched out 
 prostrate upon them." Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. § xlvi. p. 128. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. § xlvi. p. 128. 
 
 8 Wilson, The Pontifical of Magdalen College (H.B.S.), p. 168.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 79 
 
 Magnificat. Meanwhile let the altar be censed. And so when 
 these things are done let the bishop turn to the altar, and say 
 to the people, Dominus vobiscum. The Post Communion prayer, 
 Refecti. And so let the office be finished, the deacon saying, 
 Ite missa est. And so let mass and vespers finish together. And 
 let the hosts be put away reverently in a seemly place by the 
 bishop and ministers of the altar clad in their sacred vest- 
 ments 1 . 
 
 In the Ordinate of Augustinian use, belonging to Holy- 
 rood and dating from the middle of the fifteenth century, 
 the text of the description of the Maundy Thursday pro- 
 cession of the sacrament is an elaborated form of that in 
 the Magdalen College pontifical, being akin also to that in 
 the pontifical of Bishop Lacy, though now the hosts are 
 carried away during vespers and before the end of mass. 
 We read: 
 
 Let the deacon put so many hosts for consecration as will 
 suffice today and tomorrow for himself and for those of the 
 clergy and faithful people who wish to communicate. ...And 
 the brethren being communicated and the Communion sung let 
 the prelate begin the antiphon, Calicem salutaris, at the altar. 
 And while the vesper psalms are sung in choir let him, saying 
 these psalms with his ministers, place the hosts to be reserved 
 for the morrow on the corporals on which they were consecrated, 
 folding the same corporals over, and placing the corporals 
 folded upon one of the chalices let him give it to the deacon to 
 carry, and let him carry it with great care and let the prelate 
 follow, the same procession going before him with which he 
 came to the altar, and let them proceed to the place properly 
 prepared for this purpose, and there let the same prelate, taking 
 it again from the deacon, carefully and fittingly repose the 
 Lord's body, the place being censed both before and after, and 
 as long as the Lord's body remains there let a light burn con- 
 tinuously. This being completed let him return to the altar. 
 And the psalms being said let him begin the antiphon, Coenanti- 
 
 1 Barnes, Liber Pontificalis of Edmund Lacy, pp. 74-5.
 
 80 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 bus, immediately, and this being finished after Magnificat let 
 the priest turn to the people and say, Dominus vobiscum, and 
 the prayer Ad complendum, and the deacon, Benedicamus 
 Domino; and let mass and vespers finish together 1 . 
 
 In the three earliest known missals of Sarum use, dating 
 from the latter half of the thirteenth century and the 
 beginning of the fourteenth, now in the John Rylands 
 Library at Manchester, the Library of the Arsenal at 
 Paris, and the Library of the University of Bologna, there 
 is no description of the procession or information about 
 the time at which it took place. We read at the offertory 
 only: 
 
 Let three hosts be put for consecration by the subdeacon, 
 and of these let two be reserved for the morrow, one to be 
 received by the priest, the other that it may be reposed with 
 the cross in the sepulchre 2 . 
 
 The same rubric was repeated in the printed Sarum 
 missal 3 . It is found also with but verbal alterations in 
 the rules of the various churches which imitated Sarum 
 use, as in the Exeter Ordinale issued by Bishop Grandisson 
 in 1337 4 . It appears likewise in the printed Hereford 
 missal 5 . In the Hereford missal there is also another 
 rubric directing the sacrament to be taken to the place 
 where it is to be reserved during Magnificat before the end 
 of mass. We read : 
 
 This fifth antiphon being finished, let the antiphon, Coenanti- 
 bus, be begun immediately. The psalm, Magnificat. Meanwhile 
 let the bishop put away the hosts to be reserved for the 
 morrow with lights and incense in a proper place set apart for 
 the purpose. The antiphon, Cocnantibus. The antiphon being 
 repeated after Magnificat, let the priest say the prayer with 
 
 1 Eeles, The Holyrood Ordinale, pp. 105-6. 
 
 2 Legg, The Sarum Missal, p. 104. 
 
 8 Dickinson, Missale Sarum, col. 303. 
 
 * Dalton, Ordinale Exon. vol. 1. (H.B.S.), p. 318. 
 
 6 Henderson, Missale Herford. p. 87.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 81 
 
 Dominus vobiscum and Or emus in the accustomed manner. 
 The prayer, Refecti. And so let mass and vespers finish together 1 . 
 
 The Hereford rubrics at this point are almost verbally 
 identical with those of the Sarum missal at various dates, 
 and must be derived from them, but the Sarum books 
 have nothing corresponding to the section, "Meanwhile 
 let the bishop. . .for the purpose," and so it is evidently 
 a later addition and derived from a different source. 
 
 The offertory rubric "Let three hosts. . .sepulchre" is 
 found also in a York missal of the fifteenth century now 
 at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, but this manuscript 
 copies Sarum rules on many points, and the direction is 
 absent from other manuscript York missals, and from the 
 printed editions 2 . There is, however, in all extant York 
 missals, both manuscript and printed from the fourteenth 
 to the sixteenth century, a rubric dealing with the reserva- 
 tion of the sacrament on Maundy Thursday. We read: 
 
 And let the adults of the church communicate. Let the 
 blood be entirely consumed. Let there be reserved of the body 
 of the Lord until the morrow, and let it be reverently reposed 
 by the prelate where it is to be reserved. The Communion, 
 Dominus Jesus 3 . 
 
 This rubric, though ordering the sacrament to be re- 
 moved from the altar before the end of mass, like the 
 corresponding rubric at Hereford, is easily recognised by 
 the phraseology as belonging to an earlier date. On Good 
 Friday the York missal says the bishop takes the chalice 
 containing the sacrament from the armariolum 4 , and this 
 name though ultimately Gallican seems to suggest possible 
 Roman influence, being found in this connection in 
 Or dines XIV and XV. On several other points such as 
 the number and endings of the collects the York missal, 
 both in the printed editions and in some of the manuscripts, 
 
 1 Henderson, pp. 89-90. 2 Henderson, York Missal, vol. I. p. 97. 
 3 Henderson, vol. 1. p. 98. 4 Henderson, vol. I. p. 107. See pp. 84-5. 
 
 L. E. 6
 
 82 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 has since the fourteenth century appealed to a Roman 
 Ordo and the custom of the Roman church, quoting the 
 Micrologus 1 . Similarly perhaps Roman influence, direct 
 or indirect, may have affected the time for the removal 
 of the sacrament from the altar on Maundy Thursday. 
 
 The evolution of this custom at Rome is particularly 
 interesting, and it rose apparently in connection with the 
 distribution of the Fermentum. We noticed in the Ordo of 
 St Amand, and similarly in the gloss on the letter of 
 Innocent I to Decentius that the Fermentum was sent 
 away from the pope's mass to the titular and other 
 churches before the end of the service. In the Einsiedeln 
 Ordo we found two processions, or at any rate two goings 
 from the altar, on Maundy Thursday during the mass, 
 first that of the oils, and secondly that of the consecrated 
 hosts. It will be useful to repeat the description : 
 
 And when the whole oblation has been broken the Apostoli- 
 cus communicates alone. And he likewise blesses the chrism, 
 and commands that there be a distribution of it to the titular 
 and other churches, either by the oblationer of the year, or 
 his assistant. Similarly also of the holy sacrifice, which they 
 reserve for the Friday 2 . 
 
 In the Roman Ordo X (eleventh century) which deals 
 with the Holy Week ceremonies, and textually is an 
 elaboration of the rules of Ordo I, we have a further 
 development. We read: 
 
 Afterwards, let the ampullae be carried back in procession, 
 
 as they were brought in, to the sacristy, or place where they 
 
 ought to be put, and thence let it (the oil) be distributed to 
 
 anyone as is fitting and it shall be required. And the pope 
 
 communicates on his throne those who wish to communicate. 
 
 Yet let whole obleys of the body of the Lord be reserved for 
 
 Good Friday, but the blood of the Lord be entirely consumed. 
 
 The kiss of peace is not given, Agnus Dei is said, and the 
 
 x Henderson, vol. i. pp. 168-9. Cf. Hittorp, col. 735-6. 
 1 Duchesne, C.W. pp. 481-2.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 83 
 
 Communion, Dominus Jesus Christus. But before the pope 
 returns to the altar to finish mass let the junior of the cardinal 
 presbyters carry the body of the Lord, placed in a pyx, to the 
 place prepared, preceded by cross and lights, and with a 
 canopy over. Then the pope returns to the altar and says the 
 prayer, Refecti vitalibus, and this being finished the deacon 
 says, lie missa est 1 . 
 
 The direction about the oils is clearly only another 
 version of that found in the Einsiedeln Ordo, while that 
 with regard to the sacrament appears to be evolved from 
 the instructions about the Fermentum, and instead of the 
 departure of the ministers to the titular churches with the 
 Sancta, we have a procession to the place of repose. 
 
 In Ordo XIV, which is ascribed to James Cajetan, 
 though not entirely his compilation, we find as regards 
 the Holy Week ceremonies an expansion of Ordo X, and 
 much of it is incorporated with little alteration. There is, 
 however, no mention of the procession of the sacrament, 
 and the whole section, "But before the pope. . .and with 
 a canopy over," is omitted 2 . The explanation does not 
 seem to be very difficult. The Ordo belongs to the earlier 
 part of the fourteenth century, to the beginning of the 
 period of the exile of the papacy. In the papal chapel or 
 local church there were naturally and of necessity many 
 modifications of customs which were adapted only to the 
 basilicas of Rome, and the method of reservation was also 
 changed. The usual place for the reserved sacrament in 
 the pope's church was now no longer in the sacristy 
 according to the ancient traditional usage of Rome, but 
 at or over the altar in accordance with Gallican custom. 
 The description of the ceremonies on the feast of the 
 Annunciation makes this point quite plain. We read : 
 
 The cardinal bishop who served the pope at mass does not 
 put off his vestments since he has to carry the boat with the 
 incense to the pope at the proper time, and to cense the altar 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 101. a Mabillon, vol. ir. p. 357. 
 
 6—2
 
 84 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 and the coffer in which is reserved the body of the Lord, and 
 likewise the pope 1 . 
 
 The special reservation on Maundy Thursday seems to 
 have been no exception to the rule, and there would thus 
 be less scope for a procession of the sacrament, so that we 
 are simply told that the hosts are to be "reverently 
 reserved." 
 
 In Ordo IF we find the procession of the sacrament 
 re-introduced. This document is founded on both Ordines 
 X and XIV for the Holy Week ceremonial, and incor- 
 porates large extracts from both, including elements of 
 Ordo X which were omitted in Ordo XIV. It represents a 
 later development of the ceremonies at Avignon in its 
 earliest draft, but the text which has survived has been 
 modified because of the return of the pope to Rome. Yet 
 the account of the procession of the holy sacrament on 
 Maundy Thursday, as the phraseology shows, is a descrip- 
 tion of Gallican practice. We read: 
 
 And before he washes his hands in the great papal bowls, 
 let the pope himself, or the cardinal bishop who serves him at 
 mass, carry to the armariolum 2 in which it will be reserved till 
 the morrow, the aforementioned chalice with the body of 
 Christ covered with the veil, and the other end of it hanging 
 from his left shoulder, holding the chalice with both hands 
 in the midst, lights, the cross and incense going before in 
 procession with devotion. And when it is put away he genu- 
 flects, and censes the body of Christ, and then returns to the 
 altar, and washes his hands according to custom 3 . 
 
 This account is evidently based on that of Ordo X, but 
 the next section gives a modification of the shorter text 
 of Ordo XIV. One important change in ceremonial had 
 evidently grown up at Avignon. In Ordo X it is the 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 352. Cf. Ordo XV, pp. 473-522. 
 
 2 The chest, near the high altar in Gallican churches, in which are 
 kept the vessels, etc., for mass. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. II. p. 483.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 85 
 
 junior cardinal priest who carries the holy sacrament to 
 the place of repose on Maundy Thursday, and who like- 
 wise brings it back on Good Friday. In Ordo XIV , though 
 nothing is said about the carrying of the sacrament to the 
 place of repose, it is the same person who brings it back on 
 Good Friday. In Ordo XV, however, we find it is the pope 
 himself, or the celebrant, who performs both functions, 
 and there is a note on the date of the change : 
 
 Then he (the pope) goes with cross, lights and incense to 
 the armariolum or chest, in which the chalice with the body of 
 Christ was reserved from the previous day. And the same 
 custom has existed from the days of John XXII, Benedict XII, 
 Clement VI, Innocent VI, Urban V, Gregory XI and Urban VI, 
 bishops of Rome, to the present time. And the pope himself 
 goes to the armariolum, or chest, and brings the body of 
 Christ to the altar,... although according to James Cajetan the 
 junior cardinal priest was accustomed to carry the body of 
 Christ to the altar in the olden days 1 . 
 
 If from motives of reverence the pope himself must 
 bear the sacrament to and from the place of repose on 
 Maundy Thursday and Good Friday with all due honour, 
 we see a reason why after the return to Rome there was 
 a reversion to the more primitive custom which still 
 obtained generally elsewhere, and the hosts to be reserved 
 were retained on the altar until the end of the service, for 
 it would not be considered seemly for the celebrant to 
 leave the altar in procession with a long train of attendants 
 in the middle of mass. We shall consider the documents 
 bearing on this matter later. 
 
 The description of the Holy Week ceremonies in the 
 Carmelite Ordinate of 1312 is in some points similar to that 
 of Ordo X, and on examination there seems to be a literary 
 connection, though it is obscured by modifications and 
 additions of later date. We read: 
 
 Thence let the ministers of the altar and the rest of the 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 493.
 
 86 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY |ch. 
 
 brethren communicate according to the manner prescribed in 
 rubric xlv. Yet let consecrated hosts be reserved, one for the 
 office to be performed on the morrow, another if there be need 
 for the sick. The Communion, Dominns Jesus. The com- 
 munion being finished let them begin vespers at once. ...The 
 psalms finished let the deacon take the chalice with the conse- 
 crated hosts in it, covered with the paten and a corporal.... 
 Magnificat being said, when the deacon begins the antiphon 
 again as before, let him immediately bear away the chalice 
 with the sacrament to the place prepared by the sacrist, 
 candlebearers preceding him, and there with due reverence 
 and a light let it be reserved. But let the deacon immediately 
 return to the altar. The antiphon after Magnificat being 
 finished let the prelate turn to the congregation and say, 
 Dominus vobiscum, then Orcmus and the final collect, Refecti. 
 Dominus vobiscum. The deacon, Benedicamus Domino, or, Ite 
 missa est, where the chrism is consecrated 1 . 
 
 The Customs of Bee (1290-1310) likewise order the 
 procession of the sacrament immediately after the com- 
 munion and before the end of mass. We read : 
 
 When all have communicated the priest and the deacon, the 
 cantor also assisting, wrap up the consecrated hosts in corporals. 
 Then let the priest offer incense, and the deacon, all genu- 
 flecting, carry them away with the greatest care to the ap- 
 pointed place, lay brethren going before with candles and a 
 censer. Meanwhile after the communion let the cantor of the 
 week say Dominus Jesus. And when the levite has put away 
 the hosts let him offer incense, and so return to the altar. Then 
 let the priest say, Dominus vobiscum, and the Post Communion 
 of the mass, and the deacon, Benedicamus Domino, as on a 
 festival 2 . 
 
 The custom of removing the sacrament from the altar 
 before the end of mass immediately after the communion 
 is by no means so prominent a feature in documents 
 
 1 Zimmerman, Ordinaire de I'ordre de Notre Dame du Mont Carmel 
 (131 2), Bibliotheque Liturgique, vol. xm. pp. 164-5. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiii. § xlvi. p. 129.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 87 
 
 describing the ceremonies of Maundy Thursday as the 
 procession of the consecrated oils at this point, and the 
 commoner custom was that by which the sacrament 
 remained on the altar till the end of mass, when the pro- 
 cession to the place of repose followed immediately, or 
 during vespers. The solemn removal of the consecrated 
 hosts after the communion for use on the morrow seems 
 to have been limited chiefly to monastic churches, where 
 as a rule in the absence of the bishop a procession of the 
 oils was impossible. In the various Roman Ordines the 
 chrism is an object of great reverence, and Amalarius in 
 explaining it says: 
 
 The ampulla with the chrism signifies in a manner the body 
 of the Lord which He took of the Virgin Mary 1 . 
 
 It was not therefore unnatural, particularly as a pro- 
 cession of the oils was in so many churches impossible, 
 that the procession of the sacrament, which was the true 
 body of the Lord, should take the place of that of the 
 chrism which could only symbolise it, though in origin as 
 we have seen the two were in no sense alternatives. There 
 was also, we may note, a similar substitution in the Palm 
 Sunday procession, where the sacrament came to take the 
 place of the book of the gospels 2 , but it cannot be discussed 
 here. 
 
 It will be interesting to note the development of the 
 Maundy Thursday procession of the host in the later 
 Roman books. In the first printed missal of 1474 we read : 
 
 Today the priest reserves in a proper and convenient place 
 one host consecrated for the following day on which there is 
 no consecration, or also more if it shall be necessary for the 
 sick. But the whole of the blood he consumes. Then the 
 brethren communicate at once, and afterwards mass is finished 3 . 
 
 1 De Eccles. Offic. lib. I. 12. Hittorp, col. 329. 
 
 2 Compare Hittorp, col. 46 fL, col. 246, and Martene. vol. iv. lib. ill. 
 cap. xii. §§ xiii-xv, pp. 119-20, for the development of this procession. 
 
 3 Lippe, Missale Romanum (H.B.S.), vol. 1. p. 158.
 
 88 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 Nothing is said how or when the host is put away. In 
 the pontifical of 1497, and also in that of 1503, it takes 
 place after the service. We read: 
 
 He proceeds in the mass up to the communion of the body 
 and blood inclusively, which the bishop alone receives. And 
 this being done, the deacon puts the consecrated hosts to be 
 reserved for the morrow into a chalice or vessel prepared for 
 the purpose, and reverently places it in the middle of the altar... 
 The bishop signs the altar when he says the gospel of St John.... 
 And the deacon who has ministered to the bishop at the altar 
 puts away the sacrament consecrated for the morrow in a 
 place arranged suitably for the purpose 1 . 
 
 The various directions in the book of ceremonies of 
 Patricius and Marcellus, published in 15 16, about which 
 we shall have occasion to speak further later on, show 
 great elaboration. When the pope is present but not 
 celebrating we read: 
 
 A little before the communion the master of ceremonies 
 brings the chalice before mentioned from the credence to the 
 altar to put away in it the body of the Lord to be reserved. 
 Having made his communion in both kinds the celebrant before 
 he purifies himself reverently puts away the body of the Lord 
 to be reserved in the chalice last prepared, and the deacon 
 covers it with a pall, a paten being placed over it, and a silk 
 veil, and reverently places it in the middle of the altar. Then 
 the celebrant purifies himself in the same place, and reverence 
 being made to the sacrament without mitre, as it were side- 
 ways at the epistle corner, standing there with face turned 
 to the people, out of reverence for the sacrament he washes 
 his hands and finishes mass.... At the end of mass Ite missa est 
 is said. Mass being finished the pope gives the benediction 
 but not the indulgences, and the celebrant signs the altar 
 saying Initium sancti evangelii, and goes to the faldstool.... 
 Then the pope descends to the altar, where kneeling down he 
 reverently censes the body of the Lord put away in the chalice 
 
 1 ff. clxxi.-clxxviii.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 89 
 
 for the morrow, swinging the thurible thrice. Then having 
 made his reverence he devoutly takes the chalice with the 
 sacrament, and bareheaded carries it under the canopy, which 
 the senior bishops who assist the pope and are waiting outside 
 the screen of the chapel in their copes, carry holding their 
 mitres in their hands. And the procession is in this order. — 
 First the esquires of the pope, the proctors of the orders, the 
 advocates with their secretaries, the chamberlains, the nobles 
 and the orators, the singers of the pope chanting the hymn, 
 Pange lingua, the clerks of the closet, the auditors, two acolytes 
 with candlesticks, the subdeacons, one of them in a tunicle 
 while the other, prepared as above, carries the cross ; after the 
 cross the abbots, the bishops, the archbishops, the orators, 
 the prelates, the vicechamberlain, if he be a bishop, other 
 assistants of the pope, the cardinal deacons, priests, and 
 bishops, all without mitres, then all the torches, which follow, 
 two acolytes with candlesticks, and two with thuribles censing 
 the sacrament continuously, then the pope in the middle 
 between the two cardinal deacon assistants under a canopy, 
 as we have said, who one on each side lift up and hold the 
 border of the pope's cope. Let the chief layman of the city 
 bear his train. Let the auditor in charge of the mitre in the 
 middle between two private chamberlains, the protonotaries 
 and others without vestments, follow the pope. When the 
 pope is at the place where the sacrament is to be reposed the 
 cardinal who has celebrated, or the deacon assistant on the 
 right of the pope, takes it from the hands of the pope, and 
 reposes it in the coffer, and the pope retiring a little after 
 making a reverence puts incense into the censer, the cardinal 
 priest ministering it, and censes the sacrament again as before. 
 Then the sacrist closes the coffer, and gives the key to the 
 cardinal who will celebrate on the morrow 1 . 
 
 When the pope himself celebrates we are told : 
 He puts away the body of Christ to be reserved for the 
 morrow into the chalice prepared before he washes his fingers. 
 
 1 Sac. Caer. sive Rit. Eccles. S. Rom. Eccles. lib. n. c. xliv. Ed. Catalani, 
 vol. 11. pp. 169-73.
 
 go ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 In olden times it was carried at once to the sacristy, which is 
 near the altar of the blessed Peter, by the deacon or by the 
 cardinal bishop assistant. But according to the decree of 
 Sixtus it can be carried by the pope at the end of mass, all 
 going in procession with candles as above; and when the 
 sacrament is reposed and the candles extinguished they will 
 go in the accustomed manner to read the processes 1 ' 2 . 
 
 Of this decree of Pope Sixtus IV (f 1484) Patricius 
 and Marcellus speak more particularly elsewhere : 
 
 It is to be noted that before Pope Sixtus the processes were 
 accustomed to be read and the solemn benediction given as a 
 rule before mass. Then mass was said and the sacrament was 
 carried after the communion to the coffer for the morrow by 
 the deacon according to the common rubric and sometimes by 
 the celebrant, the ministers of the altar only accompanying 
 him with lights, and when they returned mass was finished, 
 and at the end, if the processes had not been read, the pontiff 
 set out thither in procession with all the ranks of the court and 
 they were read, and at the end the Mandatum was performed, 
 as has been said. But Sixtus before-mentioned, considering 
 that our Saviour cannot be venerated with worthy enough 
 praise, for this reason ordained the method aforesaid 3 . 
 
 When the pope is absent the procession of the sacrament 
 still takes place after the communion. We read : 
 
 If the pope is not present at the office of the Thursday all 
 things being ready for the celebration of mass and the reserva- 
 tion of the sacrament for the morrow, as we have said above, 
 the cardinal who is about to celebrate takes his vestments 
 at the proper time and performs mass with the accustomed 
 ceremonies until he has made his communion. Then before he 
 purifies himself he puts away the sacrament to be reserved in 
 the chalice, censes it and carries it in procession to the place 
 prepared in this order. — The esquires of the cardinals, and if 
 they are present of the pope, the advocates, the secretaries, 
 
 1 I.e. the excommunications read out on certain days. 
 
 2 c. xlvu. Catalani, p. 188. 3 c. xlvi. § 3, Catalan!, pp. 186-7.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 91 
 
 the chamberlains go first, then the acolytes, the clerks of the 
 closet, the auditors, the apostolic subdeacons, the nobles, the 
 orators, the singers chanting Pange lingua, the chaplains of 
 the celebrant with torches, the master of ceremonies with the 
 thurible, or two masters of ceremonies with two thuribles, 
 censing the sacrament continuously, then the celebrant 
 without a canopy in the middle between the deacon and 
 subdeacon, and following after him without vestments the 
 cardinal bishops, priests, and deacons, and the prelates in their 
 copes, and other officials. But if being prepared they wish to 
 go in solemn procession the order described above when the 
 sacrament is carried by the pope should be observed, except 
 that the subdeacon of the chapel should carry the cross, and 
 his own ministers should minister to the cardinal, and not the 
 officials of the pope. The sacrament being reposed they return 
 in the same manner to the altar, and mass is finished, and the 
 benediction given, and the indulgences proclaimed if the pope 
 does not make a process 1 . 
 
 The directions of the book of ceremonies for cardinals 
 and bishops drawn up by Paris de Grassis (j 1528), but 
 not published till 1564, require the procession of the 
 sacrament always to be held after mass. We read: 
 
 The celebrant, his communion made in both kinds, before 
 he purines himself puts away the sacrament within the bowl 
 of the chalice last brought, and not upon the paten, and covers 
 the chalice first with the pall, then with the paten which he 
 used at mass, and the deacon covers them with a small veil. 
 At the end of mass Ite missa est is said, and the solemn bene- 
 diction is given by the cardinal, but the indulgence is in no wise 
 to be proclaimed, because when the sacrament has been put 
 away it will be proclaimed in the place of the sacrament, as 
 below. The celebrant when he says the gospel, In principio, does 
 not sign the altar as at other times. And he puts off all his 
 vestments at the side, and meanwhile all things are quietly 
 prepared for the procession, and the torches lighted and given 
 to the chaplains of the cardinal. And the canons take their 
 1 c. xlviii. Catalani, p. 189.
 
 92 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 customary vestments, and two who are to be the ministers a 
 tunicle and dalmatic, and all when they are ready, holding 
 lighted candles in their hands, come one "by one to the altar, 
 and there first of all genuflect.... Then standing with biretta 
 but without mitre he puts incense into two thuribles without 
 blessing it... and two chaplains hold the two thuribles; and so 
 he goes to the altar in the accustomed manner, and there with 
 bare head he prays, kneeling upon the cushion: then taking 
 one of the thuribles he censes the sacrament kneeling, swinging 
 the censer thrice. Afterwards, as he kneels, the veil mentioned 
 above is put on his shoulders by the ministers and fastened 
 with pins. Then by the same canon-ministers who stand ready 
 the sacrament is offered to him still kneeling, without any 
 reverence on the part of the cardinal, and without kissing his 
 hand. And when it has been offered to him the ministers 
 genuflect and the cardinal rises and the choir sing there the 
 hymn, Pange lingua. ...And two ministers ready for the purpose, 
 one on each side, lift up the front borders of his cope, and a 
 chaplain lifts up the hem of his vestment in the front. And the 
 chief of the banner bearers of the people, or one of them, right 
 excellent and honourable, but a layman, bears the cardinal's 
 train, and he goes devoutly indeed but saying nothing under 
 the canopy, which as I said the mansionaries, who are ready for 
 the purpose, carry. And all the clergy with candles in their 
 hands proceed singing the afore-mentioned hymn. And when 
 the cardinal is before the place of repose of the sacrament the 
 canopy is left outside and the clergy carry it back; and kneeling 
 there the singers begin the most pious song, salutaris, or, 
 Verbam caro, or as they will, continuing until the sacrament 
 has been censed by the cardinal 1 . 
 
 In the post Tridentine missal of 1570, after the revision 
 under Pius V, directions for the procession of the host 
 after mass have been added to the older rubrics. We read: 
 
 Then let the communion take place and afterwards the mass 
 be finished. The Communion, Dominus Jesus. The Post Com- 
 
 1 De Caer. Card, et Epis. 1564, lib. n. 46, ff. 127-8.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 93 
 
 munion, Refecti. And lie missa est is said. Mass being finished 
 torches are lighted and a procession is made in the accustomed 
 manner. The celebrant genuflects before the altar, puts incense 
 into two thuribles and with one censes the sacrament thrice. 
 Then taking the chalice with the sacrament from the hand of 
 the deacon and covering it with the ends of the veil with which 
 his shoulders are covered he proceeds in the middle between 
 the deacon on the right and the subdeacon on the left under a 
 canopy, two acolytes continuously censing the sacrament until 
 they come to the place prepared where it is to be reserved for 
 the morrow. Meantime while the procession is made the hymn, 
 Pange lingua, is sung. And after reposing the sacrament and 
 censing it again let vespers be said in choir 1 . 
 
 In the Caeremoniale Episcoporum first published by 
 Clement VIII in 1600 we find in a modified form the 
 directions of Paris de Grassis with regard to the ceremonial 
 of Maundy Thursday. We read : 
 
 And having received the communion of the body and blood, 
 before he purifies himself the bishop puts away the sacrament 
 within the chalice, which the deacon covers with a pall and the 
 paten placed over it, and finally with a silk veil, and reverently 
 places it in the middle of the altar.... Ite missa est being said 
 the bishop without mitre, standing on the epistle side, will 
 give the solemn benediction, but the indulgences will be pro- 
 claimed in the place where the sacramentis reposed. When 
 after mass the bishop is about to say the gospel, In principio, 
 he will not make the sign of the cross over the altar as at other 
 times, and when this is finished, returning to his throne he puts 
 off the sacred vestments as far as but exclusive of the stole, 
 and puts on a white cope. Meanwhile the canons when they 
 are ready take lighted candles, and the senior of the beneficed, 
 or of the mansionaries who are ready in copes, take the posts 
 of the canopy. The bishop, having put on his cope and mitre, 
 standing puts incense into two thuribles without blessing it, 
 and the priest assistant who ministers it not kissing the hand 
 
 1 p. 160. Lippe, vol. 1. p. 158, vol. 11. p. 73.
 
 94 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 of the bishop as at other times. And this done he returns to 
 the altar and there with bare head, kneeling upon the cushion, 
 taking one of the two said thuribles from the assistant priest 
 censes the sacrament with a triple swing. Then the veil is put 
 over his shoulders and fastened with pins, and the deacon 
 assistant and no other with due reverences takes the sacrament 
 from the altar, and standing offers it to the bishop kneeling, 
 without any reverence towards the bishop and without kissing 
 him, though after he has left it in the hands of the bishop he 
 genuflects. And the bishop rises with the sacrament and 
 immediately the singers begin the hymn, Pange lingua. The 
 assistant ministers one on each side lift up the front borders 
 of his cope, and the master of ceremonies or some chaplain, 
 when the bishop ascends or descends steps, lifts up the edge of 
 his inner vestment in the front, and some right worthy layman, 
 or someone else who is present according to the custom of the 
 place, lifts up his cope at the back. The bishop enters under the 
 canopy carrying the sacrament devoutly. The canons being 
 ready with candles go before in the accustomed order. When 
 they have arrived at the chapel where the sacrament is to be 
 placed the canopy is left outside and the singers in pious and 
 devout song sing salutaris or Tantum ergo until the sacrament 
 has been reposed by the bishop and censed. When the bishop 
 is before the highest step of the altar let a deacon, kneeling 
 without kissing his hand, take the sacrament from his hand as 
 he stands, and put it down on the altar in the place prepared, 
 covering the chalice with a veil all round. And meanwhile the 
 bishop retiring a little puts incense into one of the thuribles 
 standing, and kneeling again he will cense the sacrament with 
 a triple swing, and ascending to the altar and kissing it with 
 a genuflection will give the solemn benediction, standing 
 without mitre on the epistle side, holding his pastoral staff 
 while he says Pater et Filius; and the priest assistant will then 
 proclaim the indulgences of forty days in the accustomed 
 manner, and the canons put off their vestments, and return into 
 the choir for vespers 1 . 
 
 1 Lib. ii. c. 23, pp. 227-30.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 95 
 
 The directions of the modern Caeremoniale Episcoporum 
 are almost verbally identical. 
 
 In the missal of 1604, after the revision of Clement VIII, 
 practically the rubrics of the modern missal appear, few 
 changes having been made since. We read: 
 
 Today the priest consecrates two hosts one of which he con- 
 sumes, the other he reserves for the following day on which 
 the sacrament is not consecrated. He reserves also other 
 consecrated particles if there be need for the sick. But the 
 whole of the blood he consumes and before the ablution of 
 his fingers he puts the reserved host into another chalice which 
 the deacon covers with the pall and paten, and over it he 
 spreads the veil, and places it in the middle of the altar. Then 
 the communion is made, and mass is finished. And the priest 
 genuflects whenever he approaches or departs from the middle 
 of the altar, or crosses before the sacrament reserved in the 
 chalice, and when he has to say Dominns vobiscum he does 
 not turn towards the people in the middle of the altar that he 
 may not turn his back upon the sacrament, but on the gospel 
 side, and at the end he gives the blessing from the same place. 
 The Communion, Dominus Jesus. The Post Communion, Refecti. 
 And Ite missa est is said. The blessing is given, and the gospel 
 of St John is read, at the beginning of which the priest does 
 not sign the altar but only himself. Today let a suitable place 
 be prepared in some chapel of the church, or on an altar, 
 and let it be adorned as fairly as possible with veils and lights 
 that the chalice with the reserved host as above may be reposed 
 there. And mass being finished torches are lighted and a 
 procession is made in the accustomed manner, but with another 
 subdeacon who is in readiness bearing the cross. The celebrant 
 wearing a white cope stands before the altar and puts incense 
 into two thuribles without blessing it. Then genuflecting in 
 the middle with one of them he censes the sacrament thrice, 
 and taking the chalice with the sacrament from the hand of 
 the deacon who stands, and covering it with the ends of the 
 veil with which his shoulders are covered, he proceeds in the
 
 96 ON MAUNDY THURSDAY [ch. 
 
 middle between the same deacon on the right and the subdeacon 
 on the left under the canop}', two acolytes continuously censing 
 the sacrament, until they come to the place prepared where it 
 is to be reserved for the morrow. Meantime while the pro- 
 cession is made the hymn, Pange lingua, is sung. And when 
 they have come to the place prepared the deacon genuflects 
 and takes the chalice with the sacrament from the priest who 
 stands, and puts it first on the altar where it is censed by the 
 priest kneeling as above. Then he reposes it in the coffer and 
 vespers are said without chant in choir 1 . 
 
 A few notes on the Ambrosian and Mozarabic customs 
 on Maundy Thursday may finish our enquiry. 
 
 At Milan in the twelfth century according to the Ordo 
 of Beroldus the sacrament remained on the altar until the 
 end of mass. We read : 
 
 Let the archbishop communicate with the clergy and 
 people. So let mass be finished according to custom. After- 
 wards. . .let the pontiff go into the sacristy, where he bids the 
 subdeacons diligently guard the sacrament of the body and 
 blood of the Lord 2 . 
 
 The modern Ambrosian missal has adopted the Roman 
 rubrics, and they are practically identical with those of 
 the missal of 1604, so that the sacrament is still not 
 removed until the close of the service. 
 
 The early Mozarabic books make no mention of any 
 reservation of the sacrament on Maundy Thursday. In the 
 Missale Mixtum of Cardinal Ximenes of 1500 we find an 
 elaborate procession of the host, with bell-ringing and the 
 strewing of branches, and it follows the priest's communion 
 immediately 3 . The order in many ways is similar to that 
 of Patricius and Marcellus, and from a literary point of 
 view is probably derived ultimately from the same source 
 
 We have now traced out the development of the pro- 
 
 1 pp- 93-4- 
 
 2 Magistretti, Beroldus, p. 104. 
 
 3 Lesley, Missale Mixtum, p. 165. P.L. lxxxv. col. 418-9.
 
 vi] ON MAUNDY THURSDAY 97 
 
 cession of the blessed sacrament on Maundy Thursday 
 from its commencement to the present day. Our enquiry 
 seems to have made it clear that except at Rome, or in 
 the papal chapel at certain periods, the custom was as a 
 rule that the holy sacrament which was to be reserved 
 from the mass of Maundy Thursday for use on Good 
 Friday, should remain on the altar until the end of mass, 
 in accordance with what appears to have been the primi- 
 tive custom on all occasions, and then put away, with 
 little or no ceremonial in the earliest days, and afterwards 
 with very much. The contrary Roman custom, which was 
 imitated in other places, and particularly among the 
 religious orders, as the Carmelites and Augustinians, seems 
 to have descended from the practice of sending the Fer- 
 mentum before the end of the station mass to the titular 
 churches of Rome for use when mass was celebrated by 
 another than the pope, and on Maundy Thursday for the 
 communion of the faithful throughout the city on Good 
 Friday. New ideas at Rome after the return from Avignon, 
 and particularly the notions that out of honour to our 
 Lord the procession should be a very elaborate ceremony, 
 and that the pope or celebrant only should carry the 
 sacrament on this occasion, brought about a different 
 practice, and Sixtus IV ordained that when the pope was 
 present the procession of the host to the place of repose 
 should not take place until mass was finished, and that 
 the pope himself should bear the host. Consequently, at 
 a later date, it became once more the custom at Rome, as 
 in other places, whoever was the celebrant, that the 
 sacrament should remain on the altar until the end of the 
 mass, and there was thus though not intentionally a 
 reversion to primitive practice. 
 
 L. E.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 IN LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 
 
 WE are now in a position to return to a further con- 
 sideration of the rules of the church in the West, 
 and particularly those of later times, and in liturgical 
 documents of different sorts, for dealing with what was 
 left of the consecrated elements after the communion, 
 whether intended for the purpose of reservation, or because 
 too much was consecrated. 
 
 In the letter of the pseudo Clement already noted we 
 have the foundation of the later rules. According to the 
 usual translation it reads : 
 
 But if any (hosts) remain let them not be reserved until the 
 morrow, but be carefully consumed by the clerks with fear 
 and trembling 1 . 
 
 In the Synodical Admonition ascribed to Leo IV (847- 
 55), and at any rate belonging to about his period, though 
 probably Gallican in origin, this direction becomes : 
 
 Consume the body and blood of the Lord with fear and 
 reverence 2 . 
 
 By itself this injunction is perhaps ambiguous, but the 
 visitation articles of Regino of Prum (f 915) bring out the 
 original meaning. We read: 
 
 Mass being finished (expleta missa), does the priest himself 
 with fear and reverence consume what is left of the body and 
 blood of the Lord 3 ? 
 
 The exact meaning of "mass being finished" may 
 
 1 P.O. 1. col. 484. See p. 12. 2 P.L. cxxxn. col. 456. 
 
 3 P.L. cxxxu. col. 190.
 
 ch. vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 99 
 
 perhaps be determined by the occurrence of the same 
 phrase in another of the same articles of enquiry, where it 
 is the equivalent of "post missam" in the Admonition: 
 
 Mass being finished, does he distribute eulogiae to the folk 
 from the oblations which are offered by the people on Sundays 
 and feast days 1 ? 
 
 The eulogiae were not distributed until the conclusion 
 of the liturgy, and so unless the phrase is used in two 
 different senses in the same articles, the probability is that 
 the consumption of the remains also took place when mass 
 was completely ended; and this agrees with the other 
 evidence about the earlier days. In other documents, how- 
 ever, we do sometimes find "expleta missa" used with a 
 wider meaning, as in the Appendix to Roman Ordo I for 
 the consecration 2 , but this would not fit the context in 
 either of Regino's articles. 
 
 In the description of mass given by John of Avranches 
 (c. 1065) the consumption of the remains takes place 
 before the end of the service. We read: 
 
 The particle which remained in the chalice let the priest 
 consume, and afterwards let him give the chalice to the deacon 
 to cleanse and consume what is left; and let him carry away 
 the chalice with the paten to the left corner of the altar, and 
 there receive part himself and give part to the subdeacon.... 
 After the cleansing of paten and chalice let an acolyte hold 
 each wrapped in a napkin until the end of the first Post Com- 
 munion 3 . 
 
 The earlier Roman Ordines, apart from the mention of 
 the piece left on the altar till the end of mass, say nothing 
 about what is done with the remains of the sacrament 
 after the communion, but the suggestion is that they 
 remain on the altar till the conclusion of the service. 
 
 1 P.L. cxxxn. col. 190. Cf. col. 457. 
 
 2 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 32. See pp. 54, 75 above. 
 
 3 Dc Off. Eccles., P.L. cxlvii. col. 37. 
 
 7—2
 
 ioo LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 Perhaps there may be a reference to a different custom in 
 the Gallican Ordo VI (eleventh century?) where we read: 
 
 The same archdeacon must be very careful that nothing of 
 the blood or body of Christ remain in chalice or paten 1 . 
 
 Unfortunately nothing is said about the way in which he 
 is to carry out this duty. 
 
 At a later date Durandus (f 1296), commenting on a 
 Roman Ordo, gives more precise information : 
 
 And then the subdeacon consumes the rest of the blood with 
 the particle put into the chalice. ...The part dipped in the 
 chalice... the lord pope does not receive... but the ministers 
 consume it... and in particular the subdeacon consumes it for 
 him, because he communicates last, and it is the business of 
 the last to consume the remains and purify the chalice 2 . 
 
 In an Ordo, printed by Martene, giving the duties of 
 the cardinal deacon on feast days, and in an Ordo printed 
 by Gattico, both presumably of the fourteenth century, 
 though based on earlier materials, we read : 
 
 And when all the communicants have received the blood, 
 the cardinal deacon gives the reed to the subdeacon for him 
 to suck at both ends, and afterwards the chalice to consume 
 what is left over of the blood of Christ 3 . 
 
 The rules for the general communion on Easter Day in 
 Ordo XV incorporate the same directions. We read: 
 
 It is to be noted that our lord the pope on this day is not 
 accustomed to wash his fingers with wine, nor to consume the 
 wine, as he is accustomed, after he has communicated the 
 subdeacon, but when all have communicated. And not only 
 so : the subdeacon does not drink the wine until all have com- 
 municated, and this because, if anything of the body of Christ 
 remain on the paten, the pope alone ought to consume it, and, 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. 11. pp. 75-6. 
 
 2 Rationale Div. Off. lib. iv. cap. liv. De Communions Sacerdotis, 
 f. lxxvii. 
 
 3 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. XII. p. 247. Gattico, Acta Caerem. 
 vol. 1. p. 42.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 101 
 
 if anything of the blood of Christ in the chalice, the subdeacon 
 ought to consume it.. ..And when all the communicants have 
 received the blood the lord deacon gives the tube or reed to 
 the subdeacon for him to suck at both ends, and afterwards 
 the chalice to consume what is left over of the blood of Christ 1 . 
 
 All the evidence with regard to details of what was done 
 at Rome with the remains of the consecrated elements is 
 comparatively late, and unfortunately there is very little 
 information about earlier days to be found elsewhere. In 
 Ulrich's Constitutions of Cluny (c. 1080) we read: 
 
 All being communicated who wish and last of all the sub- 
 deacon, who always by custom ought to communicate at the 
 high mass, except on those days on which only one host is 
 consecrated, and when he is communicated who holds the 
 scutella 2 , if the body of the Lord remain over, or if it seem 
 good to him, it is covered with the scutella 3 . 
 
 What exactly is done with the remains we are not told 
 here, but the writer makes it clear in his description of 
 what has been the previous custom on Good Friday, and 
 what he wishes for the future : 
 
 Formerly there was great care that after all had communi- 
 cated whatever was left over should be consumed by the same 
 priests who brought it in, with great reverence and attention, 
 and nothing at all remained until the morrow. And indeed 
 I never knew it otherwise, although, to speak generally, there 
 may be another custom in other churches — but about that we 
 are not here greatly concerned — that on this day as on another, 
 if anything be left over from the communicants, it is reserved 4 . 
 
 The same custom was observed on Good Friday, and it 
 would seem also on other days, at the monastery of St 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. 11. pp. 506-7. 
 
 2 A tray or dish used to catch any small fragments of the sacrament 
 of the Lord's body which might fall in the act of communion. 
 
 3 Martene, vol. iv. lib. 11. cap. iv. § xv. p. 63. 
 
 4 P.L. cxlix. col. 662.
 
 102 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 Benignus at Dijon, the constitutions of which were based 
 on those of Cluny. We read on Good Friday: 
 
 Then the priest communicates first from the Sancta, and 
 afterwards distributes to all in order. Whatever is left over 
 of the body of the Lord is taken up carefully by the priests who 
 perform all the service in church on this day, and consumed 1 . 
 
 On other days we are told similarly: 
 
 If the body of the Lord be left over, or if it seem good to him, 
 he gives it to the subdeacon to consume, or he puts it away in a 
 pyx 2 . 
 
 We see here the original meaning of the words "if it 
 seem good to him," which have become meaningless in 
 Ulrich's version of the constitutions, according to which 
 what is left is always reserved, and no mention is made of 
 its being consumed. We find also an earlier custom sur- 
 viving at Dijon with regard to the remains in the chalice. 
 According to Ulrich the priest alone communicates with 
 the blood, save by intinction ; in the Constitutions of Dijon 
 we read much as in the Roman Ordines quoted above : 
 
 All those being finished who are to receive the blood of 
 the Lord, the subdeacon also approaches and receives it. The 
 deacon also afterwards, lifting the tube from the chalice and 
 putting it to his mouth, when he has emptied it of the blood by 
 sucking it at both ends, commits it to the subdeacon to keep 
 for the time, and he himself consumes the rest of the blood, 
 with that particle of the Lord's body which the priest had put 
 into it, from the front part of the chalice 3 . 
 
 In the Constitutions of Hirshau compiled by the abbot 
 William from those of Cluny towards the end of the 
 eleventh century we find a curious modification of the 
 rules for the communion of the subdeacon and the minister 
 who held the scutella, suggesting that the compiler did not 
 
 1 Martene, vol. iv. lib. in. cap. xiv. § xlii. p. 140. 
 ' Martene, vol. iv. lib. 11. cap. iv. § xv. p. 64. 
 8 Martene, vol. iv. lib. n. cap. iv. § xv. p. 64.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 103 
 
 understand the document he was using as the basis of his 
 own work. We read: 
 
 And then the subdeacon receives the body of the Lord and 
 after him all who wish, and last of all the minister who holds 
 the scutella, if any remain.... After all who have received the 
 body of the Lord have communicated with the Lord's blood 
 it is brought last of all to the minister that he too may drink 
 of the same blood of the Lord, but only if he has received the 
 body of the Lord, for by custom he does not communicate 
 unless some part of the body of the Lord remain over 1 . 
 
 According to Ulrich's Constitutions the consecrated 
 hosts left over from the communion are reserved for 
 another day. In another place he gives detailed instruc- 
 tions about the renewal of the reserved sacrament : 
 
 It should be known also that the body of the Lord is changed 
 every Sunday. While the priest proceeds to the pax the newly 
 consecrated is placed by the deacon in a cork pyx, and what 
 was consecrated the previous Sunday is taken out and divided 
 by the same deacon, and the brethren thence communicated; 
 only the two particles of that host which the priest divided are 
 not changed. And while the familiar psalms 2 are being said 
 after terce the deacon takes the aforesaid pyx from the dove 
 which hangs continually over the altar, wiping well the dust 
 from the outside with a small linen cloth, and places it upon the 
 right corner of the altar under a veil, and when mass is finished 
 puts it back in the same place 3 . 
 
 In the Cistercian rules of the twelfth century the 
 directions for reserving the sacrament and the disposal of 
 the remains are combined. We read: 
 
 And let him thus receive the body of the Lord over the 
 chalice, and then the blood. And then having put down the 
 chalice uncovered upon the corporal let him turn to the right 
 
 1 P.L. cl. col. 1013-4. 
 
 2 Additional psalms said after the regular office on behalf of bene- 
 factors. 
 
 3 P.L. cxlix. col. 722-3.
 
 104 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 corner of the altar, and putting down there the paten with the 
 hosts, let him take the host from the vessel put ready b}' the 
 deacon, and place it upon the paten, and one, or more when it 
 shall be necessary, of those which are there let him put away 
 in the vessel : but let this be done only on Sundays and Maundy 
 Thursday. And let the vessel be put down on the altar until 
 after mass. This being done let the priest communicate the 
 deacon and subdeacon from the third part (of his host), and 
 then from the other hosts the rest of those about to communi- 
 cate. But let him be as careful as possible that no other 
 part of the Lord's body remain. ...If any of the blood be left 
 over let him (the deacon) drink it from the chalice after he has 
 returned the tube to the subdeacon. And before he returns the 
 tube let him empty it as far as possible of the blood of the Lord 
 by sucking it at both ends, and return the chalice to the 
 priest without kissing his hand. ...But before the priest receives 
 the chalice let him place in the vessel any whole hosts which 
 have been left over from those who communicated 1 . 
 
 In a thirteenth century version of the Cistercian Customs 
 belonging to the convent of Val des Choux in Burgundy 
 we find considerable alteration and curtailment, due 
 chiefly to the fact that in 1198 the General Chapter had 
 limited the communion in both species to the deacon and 
 subdeacon only 2 , but the rule that the hosts left over 
 should remain on the altar until after mass is still retained 3 . 
 The earliest evidence of a different custom seems to be in 
 the rules for the Dominican mass belonging to the thir- 
 teenth century, and there we find that the deacon not only 
 brings the reserved sacrament to the altar during the 
 service, but, unless the communion is deferred, carries it 
 away again likewise, the last relic of the old rule with 
 regard to the third part of the priest's obley having thus 
 disappeared. We read: 
 
 1 Martene, vol. IV. lib. 11. cap. iv. § xv. pp. 64-5. 
 
 2 S6jalon. Nomasticon Cisterc. (Lib. Antiq. Definit.), p. 406. 
 * Birch, Ordinate Conventus Vallis Cauliiim, p. 40.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 105 
 
 When the time of communion has arrived let the deacon, 
 candlebearers going before him with candles, bring the afore- 
 mentioned pyx with the body of the Lord, and open it upon the 
 altar.... And it should be known that if there is a great company 
 present awaiting the end of mass, the communion can be put 
 off until after mass, if it seems good to the prior, except on 
 Maundy Thursday. Otherwise it must be finished before the 
 communion is said. ...But if before the end of the communion 
 the priest sees that too great a number of hosts has been 
 prepared he can give them to the brethren two at a time, so 
 that he need not reserve too great a number. But let those 
 which remain, being placed by the priest in the pyx, be carried 
 with honour to the proper place by the deacon, candlebearers 
 going before, and the brethren making a genuflexion 1 . 
 
 The Carmelites likewise according to the 13 12 constitu- 
 tions removed the hosts for reservation from the altar 
 after the communion and before the end of mass. We 
 read: 
 
 Let the priest also after receiving the body of Christ and 
 before the reception of the blood consume likewise the conse- 
 crated hosts brought to him by the deacon, putting two others 
 into the pyx, after which the pyx being closed, let the deacon, 
 first genuflecting, carry back the sacrament to its place, 
 candlebearers going before him as before.... But if on the day 
 when the sacrament has to be renewed the brethren are to be 
 communicated the priest can give the reserved hosts upon 
 the altar in communicating them, placing others in their place 
 as before. And then after the communion of the brethren the 
 deacon can carry back the sacrament to its place as above 2 . 
 
 The Carmelite rule for the removal of the sacrament to 
 be reserved is thus the same on ordinary days as on 
 Maundy Thursday. That there should be a tendency to 
 assimilate the practice of Maundy Thursday and other 
 
 1 Missale Conventuale. Legg, Tracts on the Mass (H.B.S.), pp. 85-6. 
 
 2 Zimmerman, Ordinaire de I'ordre de Notre Dame du Mont Carme 
 (1312), xliv. p. 87.
 
 106 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 days is quite natural, and we can hardly regard this as 
 independent of the custom on that day which we have 
 already noticed as being connected with that described in 
 Ordo X. The ceremonial of the Dominicans at mass is 
 closely allied with that of the Carmelites, and they appear 
 to have a common origin. 
 
 It may be useful to quote other rules of various dates 
 which indicate the time of the removal from the altar of 
 the hosts which are to be reserved. With the Carthusians 
 (c. 1 130) the customary place of reservation was over the 
 high altar, and so it is scarcely surprising that the sacra- 
 ment should be put away immediately. We read : 
 
 And on Sundays the deacon, making a genuflexion on the 
 right side of the altar, puts down on the paten the host which 
 was reserved from the preceding Sunday, and putting back 
 another whole host instead of it in the pyx restores the pyx to 
 its place, and communicates with the first mentioned host on 
 his knees at the right corner of the altar. And whoever takes 
 the p}'x in which is the bod}' of the Lord, and whenever, in 
 taking it from behind the altar he genuflects 1 . 
 
 The directions in the Soissons ritual are similar, though 
 as the place of reservation is no longer behind the altar 
 but in a hanging pyx, the action is not so simple: 
 
 Meanwhile let the priest proceed as far as the communion 
 and then let the deacon bring to him the vessel which hangs 
 over the altar in which the encharist is reserved from Sunday 
 to Sunday. And let the priest, receiving it, place within it a 
 host newly consecrated, and take out that which was reserved, 
 and communicate with it. And let the deacon carry back the 
 vessel with the fresh host to its place 2 . 
 
 At Bayeux in the fourteenth century though the sacra- 
 ment is reserved in a chest over the altar, the procession 
 of the Dominicans and Carmelites has been adopted, and 
 the new hosts are carried back immediately. We read: 
 
 1 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. xn. Ordo XXV. p. 228. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. 1. lib. I. cap. iv. Art. XII. Ordo XXII. p. 220.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 107 
 
 Every Sunday while the priest communicates let the deacon 
 take the linen cloth placed on the left part of the altar, and two 
 candlebearers going before him, fetch the Lord's body from its 
 place over the right corner of the altar, bearing it aloft in a 
 pyx with great reverence. And this being received by the 
 priest, and two new hosts put back by him, let the deacon with 
 the same solemnity carry back the pyx with the body to the 
 place where it was before 1 . 
 
 Though the new practice, adopted it would seem in 
 imitation of the Maundy Thursday custom, first evidenced 
 in the Sixth Roman Ordo, of removing the sacrament 
 from the altar before the end of mass, became very wide- 
 spread, the older usage, by which the hosts left over from 
 communion, or set apart for reservation, remained on the 
 altar until the end of the service, survived at Rome on 
 ordinary days until almost the close of the sixteenth 
 century, thus continuing in a manner the ancient rule 
 with regard to the third part of the priest's obley. In the 
 book of The Sacred Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Rites of the 
 Holy Roman Church, published in 15 16, w 7 e read: 
 
 The communion being done the pope rises if he sat for the 
 communion and makes his reverence to the sacrament, and 
 the subdeacon puts back the hosts, if any remain, upon the 
 altar where the}' stay until the end of mass 2 . 
 
 In order to show how persistent was this practice 
 where Roman influence was strong it may be well to give 
 further particulars about this book. It was compiled by 
 Patricius, Bishop of Pienza, and dedicated to Pope 
 Innocent VIII in 1488, not being intended for publication. 
 It was published with slight alterations by Marcellus, 
 Bishop of Corcyra in 15 16, much to the indignation of 
 Paris de Grassis, Bishop of Pesaro, the papal Master of 
 Ceremonies, who resented its appearance as likely to be 
 
 1 Martene, vol. I. lib. I. cap. iv. Art. xn. Ordo XXIV. p. 227. 
 
 2 Sac. Caer. sive Rit. Eccles. S. Rom. Eccles. lib. II. cap. i. § 6. Ed. 
 Catalani, vol. n. p. 269.
 
 108 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 derogatory to the dignity of the pope by making public 
 what would better be kept private, and also because it 
 was published as though it were Marcellus's own work. 
 Its popularity, however, was very great, and its influence 
 must have been enormous for between 15 16 and 1582 at 
 least eight editions of it were printed at Rome, Florence, 
 Venice or Cologne, besides other editions later. Paris de 
 Grassis (f 1528) himself also indeed prepared a similar 
 work concerning the ceremonial to be observed by car- 
 dinals and bishops in their dioceses, giving in particular 
 the customs at Bologna, but it was not published until 
 after his death. Of this there were editions at Rome in 
 1564 and 1580, and at Venice in 1582. With regard to the 
 removal of the hosts left over after a general communion 
 to the place of reservation the rule is the same as that 
 given by Patricius, and they remain on the altar until the 
 end of mass. We read : 
 
 The communion being finished the torches will be carried 
 away, and the cardinal will rise if he sat for the communion, 
 and the chalice with the remainder of the hosts being put back 
 and covered he will purify his fingers in the accustomed manner 
 and consume the ablution. Then if there shall be hosts upon 
 the altar he will wash his hands on the epistle side without 
 mitre and finish mass. And at the end, if there shall be hosts 
 upon the altar, he will give the blessing without mitre, and 
 when he says Initium Sancti Evangelii he will not sign the 
 altar, and as often as he shall go or return from the book to 
 the middle of the altar let him always genuflect, and he will 
 not be precisely before the middle of the altar when he sings 
 Dominus vobiscum that he seem not to turn his back directly 
 on the sacrament 1 . 
 
 The conditional form of the directions appears to be due 
 
 not to the possibility of the chalice with the rest of the 
 
 hosts being carried away, but to provide for the case 
 
 when every host would be used in the communion. Though 
 
 1 De Caer. Card, et Episc. lib. n. cap. 49, t. 141.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 109 
 
 details of ceremonial are given with some minuteness there 
 is no direction that the hosts which remain should be 
 removed from the altar before the end of the mass. The 
 normal thing would be that after a general communion 
 and on some other occasions at least a few would be left 
 over, and this the rule for the benediction makes clear. 
 We read: 
 
 If the body of Christ be on the altar, as on Easter Day, 
 Corpus Christi, Maundy Thursday, or whenever it may be, 
 then the blessing ought to be given with bare head 1 . 
 
 Patricius tells us that he had called in the help of John 
 Burchard in compiling the second book of his work. In 
 1502 while Master of the Ceremonies at Rome Burchard 
 published his well-known Ordo Missae, and in this the 
 ancient rule is still observed, and the hosts which are to 
 be reserved remain on the altar until after mass. When 
 the priest has said Quid retribuam and before Calicem 
 salutaris we are told: 
 
 If there are consecrated hosts on the corporal to be reserved 
 for another time, making due reverence to them, he places 
 them in a vessel provided for the purpose 2 . 
 
 After the benediction at the end of mass we read : 
 
 If there is a vessel with consecrated hosts to be reserved for 
 another time to be put back, due reverence being made to the 
 sacrament with bare head, he carries it away and puts it down 
 in its place and safely closes it, and this being done he returns 
 to the middle of the altar 3 . 
 
 Nothing is said about any hosts which might be left over 
 from the communion, but presumably they were added to 
 those in the pyx, as in other rites. 
 
 That the ancient practice of keeping any hosts which 
 were to be reserved on the altar till the end of mass was 
 
 1 Lib. I. cap. xlii. f. 54. 
 
 2 Legg, Tracts on the Mass (H.B.S.), p. 163. 
 
 3 Legg, p. 168.
 
 no LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 universal where Roman influence was at work is proved 
 by the popularity of Burchard's Or do Missae, even more 
 than by the book of Patricius and Marcellus. No work is 
 of greater importance for the history of the ceremonial of 
 the mass in the Roman Church than this book, for it 
 gives the order of service, not simply as performed in the 
 basilicas of Rome, but as carried out in the ordinary 
 church. The rules about the sacrament for reservation, 
 though in accordance with the most ancient usage, do not 
 appear in the first draft of the Ordo in the missal of 1501, 
 but they are to be found in numerous editions published 
 during the sixteenth century. There appear to have been 
 at least nine Latin and two Italian editions of it as a 
 separate book, the latest being in 1589. It is included in 
 seven editions of the Liber Sacerdotalis, in one of the Liber 
 Familiaris Clericorum, in eight editions of the Roman 
 missal and in two local missals, and probably this list is 
 not exhaustive 1 . There can be no doubt about its wide- 
 spread influence, and it found its way into England. A 
 copy now in the British Museum was in England at an 
 early date, for the title-page shows that it once belonged 
 to the Pardoner's Churchyard at St Paul's, and as it bears 
 also the name "Lumley" it may have belonged to 
 Cranmer 2 . Perhaps it may have suggested the mixing of 
 the chalice at the offertory as ordered in the First English 
 Prayer Book, for this is in accordance with Roman, not 
 with old English custom, though it is the more ancient 
 usage, and is found elsewhere. 
 
 In 1570 a new edition entitled Ritus Servandus in 
 Celebratione Missarum, or Ritus Celebrandi Missam, ap- 
 peared after emendation under the authority of the council 
 of Trent in the Missal of Pius V, which henceforth was 
 the only authorised missal of the Roman rite. The rule 
 about the hosts for reservation being placed in the pyx 
 still remained practically as before, as indeed it does to 
 
 1 Legg, pp. xxv. ff. 2 Legg, p. 121.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST in 
 
 the present time, but the order to put the pyx back in its 
 place after the blessing has disappeared. In the Caere- 
 moniale Episcoporum first published by Clement VIII in 
 1600 we read in the directions for Easter Day: 
 
 The communion being finished the torches which up to this 
 point have been burning are carried away, and the celebrant, 
 having put back the vessel or chalice with the hosts upon the 
 altar, if any remain, covers it, — or he also (vel etiam) consigns 
 it to some priest ready with stole and cotta or cope, and he 
 carries it under a canopy, if it can be done conveniently, clerks 
 going before with torches and certain of the clergy accom- 
 panying, to the place where the sacrament is kept 1 . 
 
 The practice prescribed for Maundy Thursday in the 
 Tenth Roman Ordo, and adopted by the Carmelites and 
 Dominicans and others even on ordinary days, is thus 
 officially sanctioned for the Roman rite as an alternative 
 to the older and more general custom described by 
 Patricius and de Grassis, so that now the remains of the 
 sacrament may be removed from the altar immediately 
 after the communion and before the end of mass. The 
 reason for the change seems to emerge quite plainly from 
 what we are told by Paris de Grassis. In his description of 
 a general communion we have noted that the ceremonial is 
 to be different for the conclusion of the mass when the 
 sacrament remains on the altar. He tells us also that 
 when the bishop is about to celebrate the sacrament 
 should be removed from the place over the altar where it 
 is usually reserved 2 . His reason, as given in another 
 place, is as follows: 
 
 In the presence of the sacrament neither the pope nor the 
 celebrating bishops can properly sit, nor can they retain the 
 mitre on their head nor receive the censing themselves until 
 after the sacrament has been censed 3 . 
 
 1 Lib. 11. cap. xxix. pp. 263-4. 
 
 2 De Caer. Card, et Episc. lib. I. cap. 28, f. 34. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. 11. p. cxliii.
 
 H2 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 We notice here a quite different attitude towards the 
 sacrament from that of the ancient Ordines, where fre- 
 quently we are told that the pope sits in its presence : and 
 this indeed is the posture still retained for the communion, 
 not only in the ceremonial of Patricius and Marcellus, but 
 in the book of Paris de Grassis himself, though nowadays 
 it is no longer the custom, as Catalani said, "out of 
 reverence for the sacrament 1 ." The explanation of the 
 removal of the reserved sacrament from over the altar on 
 the occasion of a solemn pontifical mass affords also a 
 reason for taking away what remained after communion 
 immediately. As the practice of removing the sacrament 
 before the bishop celebrates appears to have been adopted 
 in the days of Leo X (15 13-21) it is not surprising that 
 by the time of Clement VIII in 1600 there should be a 
 further development, and provision should be made for 
 the remains to be taken away after communion. In 
 Innocent X's edition of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum in 
 165 1 the new ideas of reverence have prevailed entirely 
 over ancient custom, and by the change of "vel etiam" 
 into "et" the alternative usage is disallowed, so that the 
 breach with antiquity is complete 2 , and the rule mentioned 
 in Or do I that "while the solemnities of mass are being 
 performed the altar should not be without the sacrifice 3 ," 
 when a bishop celebrates can no longer be observed. 
 
 According to the Ritus Celebrandi Missam of 1570 it 
 was still possible to keep the ancient rule when a priest 
 celebrated, though it seems seldom to have been done in 
 practice except when communion was given after mass, 
 for which special provision was made in the 1570 order, 
 or when there was no tabernacle over the altar where 
 mass was said. The Brescia Rititale of 1570 provides an 
 
 1 Catalani, Caeremoniale Episcoporum, vol. II. cap. xxix. § viii. n. 2, 
 P- 354- 
 
 2 Lib. 11. cap. xxix. p. 364. Cf. Ed. Catalani, p. 354. 
 
 3 See p. 63. Mabillon, vol. 11. p. 14.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 113 
 
 example of it when the communion was postponed until 
 the end of mass: 
 
 The consecration being completed, if there be a number of 
 consecrated particles which hinder those things which remain 
 to be done for the completion of the sacred mystery of the 
 altar, let him put them a little on one side until the reception 
 of the body and blood, and this being finished let him put them 
 back again in the middle of the altar, or put them away in 
 the tabernacle if the communion of the people be deferred to 
 another day: afterwards let him wash his fingers according to 
 custom. The consecration being finished so long as the most 
 holy body of Christ is on the altar let two lighted candles at 
 least burn there continually, and when it is given to the faith- 
 ful let there be also a burning taper 1 . 
 
 The Peru Manuale of 1607 has a modified form of these 
 directions and the change from "the consecration being 
 finished" to "mass being finished" brings out even more 
 clearly that the sacrament remains on the altar until after 
 the end of mass 2 . 
 
 In the 1604 missal of Clement VIII the same rule about 
 placing the hosts in the pyx still appears as in Burchard's 
 Ordo Missae and the Ritus Celebrandi Missam of 1570, and 
 we find the rubric of the modern Roman missal with 
 regard to the sacrament remaining on the altar for the 
 first time: 
 
 If any particles remain on the altar in a chalice or other 
 vessel until the end of mass let those things which are pre- 
 scribed for the end of mass on Maundy Thursday be observed. 
 
 In the Brixen Sacerdotale of 1609 which gives directions 
 for saying mass "according to the Roman rite and the 
 use of the diocese of Brixen," the remains of the sacrament 
 after communion are plainly ordered to remain on the 
 altar until after mass. We read: 
 
 The communion being finished, if any particles are left over 
 
 1 if. 12, 13. 2 p. 20. 
 
 l. e. 8
 
 H4 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 let them be kept upon the altar, and after mass the sign of the 
 cross being first made towards the people, let them be trans- 
 ferred to the tabernacle of the venerable sacrament. If only 
 one or so be left over the celebrant can either give them all 
 together to the last communicant, or himself consume them 
 up to the time of the ablution 1 . 
 
 The chief reason however according to modern practice 
 for the hosts to remain on the altar until the end of mass 
 on ordinary occasions is the absence of a tabernacle where 
 mass is being said. We may perhaps close this part of 
 our enquiry with the words of a modern writer with 
 regard to the usage of the Roman Church : 
 
 If no particles remain he does not genuflect on returning, 
 but if any remain he immediately genuflects, placing his hands 
 on the corporal, and if they are not to be reserved he consumes 
 them reverently; if they are to be put into the tabernacle, he 
 covers the pyxis,... puts it into the tabernacle, genuflects, and 
 then closes the tabernacle. If there be no tabernacle on the 
 altar, so that the pyxis must be left on the corporal, to be 
 afterwards removed, the priest should be careful to observe 
 the reverences prescribed by the missal for the case in which 
 the pyxis containing the blessed sacrament remains on the 
 altar till the end of mass 2 . 
 
 Unfortunately we have little information about the 
 details of ancient English practice with respect to the 
 reservation or consumption of the remains of the sacrament 
 after communion. Among the canons of the council of 
 Durham in 1220 we read: 
 
 And therefore we straitly decree that priests be careful with 
 regard to those things which pertain to the essence of the 
 sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, providing that 
 the eucharist be reserved in a clean and well fastened pyx: 
 and let not consecrated hosts be reserved more than seven days. 
 Let the reserved hosts be consumed before the consumption of 
 
 1 p. 1 1 r. 
 
 2 O'Kane, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual p. 446.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 115 
 
 the blood of the Lord by him who celebrates the mass or by 
 some other person of clean and honest life 1 . 
 
 The rule found among the Cautelae Missae of the printed 
 Sarum and York Missals is rather different : 
 
 And if he has to consume other hosts, as when the host is 
 to be renewed, let him first consume that which he has conse- 
 crated and the blood: afterwards the others which are left 
 over. Let him consume his own host before the others, because 
 about his own he believes and knows, about the others he 
 believes and does not know ; at last after all the ablutions, and 
 not before 2 . 
 
 Nothing is said about the hosts left over after a com- 
 munion of the faithful, but presumably if not reserved 
 they would be consumed at the same point before the 
 ablutions. 
 
 Our somewhat lengthy enquiry in this chapter has 
 shown that at the beginning of the tenth century at any 
 rate as in the earliest days the remains of the sacrament 
 after the communion were not consumed until the end of 
 mass. In the eleventh century, however, in Gallican 
 circles, if not elsewhere, the custom, which is perhaps that 
 alluded to in the Roman Ordo VI, of consuming what was 
 left in the chalice and the hosts not required for reservation 
 immediately after the communion, was firmly established. 
 Relics of the older practice survived in the fact that the 
 priest's host was still broken into three pieces, though the 
 third part was no longer laid down on the altar until the 
 end of the service, and in the almost universal custom of 
 retaining the hosts to be reserved on the altar until after 
 mass, which continued to be the most general usage both at 
 Rome and elsewhere until the end of the sixteenth century. 
 The Dominicans, however, as early as the thirteenth 
 century, imitating the practice of Maundy Thursday on 
 
 1 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. i. p. 579. 
 
 2 Dickinson, Sarum Missal, col. 650. Henderson, York Missal, vol. ir. 
 p. 224. 
 
 8—2
 
 n6 LATER DAYS IN THE WEST [ch. 
 
 ordinary days, had begun to remove the sacrament from 
 the altar to the place of reservation immediately after the 
 communion, and the custom was imitated in other churches. 
 In the Caeremoniale Episcoporum of 1600 the newer 
 practice was allowed at Rome as an alternative to the 
 older, apparently because of the impossibility, with the 
 later ideas of reverence due to the sacrament, of carrying 
 out the full ceremonial of a pontifical mass in its presence. 
 In the edition of 165 1 the more recent alternative has 
 become the only practice allowed. The rule for putting 
 away the sacrament for reservation after the ordinary 
 mass, found in Burchard's Ordo Missae of 1502, disap- 
 peared in the official Ritus Celebrandi Missam of 1570, and 
 though a rubric added in the Roman missal of 1604 pro- 
 vides for the custom, since the publication of the reformed 
 missal of Pius V there has been no positive order on the 
 subject. In practice as a rule the hosts are placed in the 
 tabernacle immediately after the communion so that the 
 primitive custom survives only on certain days in the year, 
 when communion is deferred until after mass, or when 
 mass is said at an altar where there is no tabernacle, and 
 some of the sacrament has to be reserved. 
 
 About ancient British custom with regard to putting 
 away the hosts for reservation on ordinary days, no 
 directions seem to have survived. The probability, how- 
 ever, is that any hosts which remained after the com- 
 munion would remain upon the altar until mass was ended, 
 as on Maundy Thursday according to Salisbury use, 
 and according to the Roman books both on Maundy 
 Thursday (save for a time) and other days. The fact that 
 in England the method of reserving the sacrament was in 
 a pyx hanging over the high altar points to the same con- 
 clusion. It is unlikely that the lowering of the dove as 
 described in the Constitutions of Cluny 1 would as a rule 
 take place in the middle of mass immediately after the 
 
 1 See p. 103.
 
 vii] LATER DAYS IN THE WEST 117 
 
 communion, even though something of the sort seems to 
 have been prescribed at Soissons 1 ; at any rate it would be 
 improbable when the priest celebrated without assistant 
 ministers, and there seems no hint that such an awkward 
 practice obtained on any occasion in England. We can 
 hardly conclude otherwise therefore than that in England 
 as in Rome and other places with few exceptions the 
 sacrament remained on the altar until the end of the 
 service. Even the adoption of the more Roman custom 
 of employing tabernacles for reservation instead of the 
 hanging pyx in Mary's reign as at Hereford, Gloucester, 
 Durham and other places 2 , would hardly alter the existing 
 custom, for the Roman practice was identical with it, and 
 evidence of no other usage in England seems to be known. 
 
 1 See p. 106. 
 
 2 Frere, Visitation Articles, vol. n. pp. 393. 408, 414.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABLUTIONS 
 
 HAVING discussed the disposal of the remains, great 
 or small, of the consecrated hosts after the com- 
 munion we turn to a consideration of the means adopted 
 to ensure that the whole contents of the chalice also 
 should be reverently treated and consumed. This desire 
 to avoid any sort of irreverence in dealing with the 
 remains of the cup led to special care in the manner of 
 washing it, and ultimately to the ceremony of the ablu- 
 tions. 
 
 In the letter of the pseudo Clement (seventh century) 
 we saw that it was the duty of the "minister" to prepare 
 the chalice for mass, and to see that it was thoroughly 
 cleansed, and therefore presumably to wash it after use. 
 We read : 
 
 The chalice... let the minister prepare, lest if the chalice be 
 not well washed, it become sin to the deacon who offers it 1 . 
 
 Nothing is said about what should be done with the 
 water afterwards, but perhaps it was disposed of in the 
 same manner as the ashes of the palls of the altar and other 
 sacred things, which were burnt when too old for use. We 
 read: 
 
 ^ Let their ashes also be taken into the baptistery where no 
 one has to pass, or be put into the wall, or into holes in the 
 floor, that they may not be defiled by the feet of those who 
 enter 2 . 
 
 At Rome according to Ordo I {c. 770) the washing of 
 the chalice used for the consecration must have taken 
 place where it had been prepared, apparently in the 
 1 P.G. 1. col. 486. See p. 13. 2 P.G. 1. col. 485.
 
 ch. viii] THE ABLUTIONS 119 
 
 sacristy, and hardly before the end of mass. After the 
 chalice has been emptied into the large cup used for ad- 
 ministering the communion we are told : 
 
 But the subdeacon attendant takes the chalice and gives it 
 to an acolyte who puts it back in the sacristy (paratorium) 1 . 
 
 The same direction is found also in Ordo II, and with 
 verbal alterations in Ordo III 2 . 
 
 In the Synodical Admonition ascribed to Leo IV (847- 
 55), and plainly not unconnected with the letter of the 
 pseudo Clement, there are much fuller instructions with 
 regard to the cleansing of the sacred vessels, and here it is 
 the duty not of any of the inferior ministers but of the 
 priest. We read: 
 
 Consume the body and blood of the Lord with fear and 
 reverence. Wash and wipe the sacred vessels with your own 
 hands. ...Let a place be provided in the sacristy or near the 
 altar where the water can be poured when the sacred vessels 
 are washed, and let a fair vessel stand there with water, that 
 there the priest may wash his hands after the communion 3 . 
 
 The Admonition is either repeated in or used as a basis 
 of a number of documents which appeared within the next 
 hundred years or so, and in particular we may note the 
 Capitular of Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, of the year 
 857, the synodical charges of Ratherius, Bishop of Verona 
 (f 958), and of Ulrich, Bishop of Augsburg (f 973), and 
 also the so-called Eutychiani papae exhortatio 4 . It is also 
 the foundation of certain visitation articles of about the 
 year 906 ascribed to Regino of Priim. We find however in 
 these documents some progress in the way of addition and 
 interpretation. Hincmar's enquiry runs: 
 
 Has he a place provided where the water can be poured 
 when the vessels of the altar are washed, or the mouth or hands 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. u. pp. 14, 15. 2 Mabillon, vol. 11. pp. 50, 60. 
 
 3 P.L. cxxxii. col. 456. 
 
 4 P.L. cxxv. col. 779. P.L. cxxxvi. col. 559. Gerbert, Vet. Lit. Alem. 
 vol. 1. pp. 397-8. P.L. v. col. 165. 
 
 
 xX
 
 120 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 after the reception of the sacred communion? Or does the 
 priest himself with his own hands wash the corporal for the 
 first time, or his deacon or subdeacon 1 ? 
 
 Still more important is an enquiry of Regino, part of 
 which we have already quoted in the previous chapter : 
 
 Mass being finished (expleta missa), does the priest himself 
 with fear and reverence consume what is left of the body and 
 blood of the Lord? And if he has no deacon or subdeacon does 
 he himself with his own hand wash and wipe the chalice and 
 paten 2 ? 
 
 We have already noticed that apparently the mass is to 
 be completely ended before the remains are consumed, 
 and therefore of course before the washing of the sacred 
 vessels, which may now be entrusted to the deacon or 
 subdeacon, as in the letter of the pseudo Clement. 
 
 The Admonition of the pseudo Leo clearly refers to a 
 washing of the vessels after the communion comparable 
 with the washing of the priest's hands. The water employed 
 for the ablution of the vessels was to be poured into the 
 place provided for the purpose, and it would presumably 
 be the same with the water used for washing the priest's 
 hands, as Hincmar's enquiry makes plain. The alternative 
 "in the sacristy or near the altar" seems to show the 
 beginning of the custom of consuming the remains at the 
 altar instead of in the sacristy as prescribed in the letter 
 of the pseudo Clement. If so, since according to the original 
 text of the Admonition the vessels were to be washed with 
 the priest's own hands, not by the deacon or subdeacon, 
 as allowed by the pseudo Clement, or anyone else, the 
 reference must be to an ablution after the service was over 
 rather than to one immediately after communion. This 
 was almost certainly the case later according to Regino's 
 articles, and it would seem to have been the traditional 
 custom at the period. 
 
 1 P.L. cxxv. col. 779. * P.L. cxxxn. col. 190.
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 121 
 
 In the Missale Francorum belonging to the latter part 
 of the seventh century, and in kindred documents, in the 
 allocution to the subdeacon at his ordination we read : 
 
 And the palls which are spread upon the surface of the altar 
 ought to be washed in one vessel, the corporals in another. 
 Where the corporals have been washed no other linen cloth 
 ought to be washed in the same place. The water ought to be 
 poured away in the baptistery 1 . 
 
 We notice that only the washing of the linen cloths of 
 the altar is mentioned, and that nothing is said about the 
 sacred vessels. The order to pour away the water of ablu- 
 tion in the baptistery reminds us of the direction in the 
 letter of the pseudo Clement, where this is one of the 
 places suggested, as we have noticed, for the disposal of 
 the ashes of worn-out palls and other things when burnt. 
 Both the allocution to the subdeacon and the Admonition 
 of the pseudo Leo are obviously based to some extent on 
 the directions of the pseudo Clement. The mention of the 
 washing of the corporal in Hincmar's Capitular, as well 
 as of the sacred vessels, seems to show the beginning of a 
 process which was to combine the requirements of the two 
 documents and change the significance and scope of some 
 of the directions in later versions of the Admonition, 
 applying them to the washing of sacred things in general. 
 In later days too the consumption of the body and blood 
 of Christ referred to appears to have been interpreted of 
 the priest's communion, not, as in the Visitation Articles 
 of Regino of Priim, of what was left over from the ad- 
 ministration. In the version given in the first printed 
 Roman Pontifical of 1485 as revised by Patricius, Bishop 
 of Pienza, we find both these modifications. We read: 
 
 In it (i.e. at mass) consume the body and blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ with all reverence and fear.... The corporals and 
 palls... and other linen cloths and the sacred vessels with your 
 
 1 Thomasius, Opera Omnia, vol. vi. p. 343. Martene, vol. 11. lib. 1. 
 cap. viii. Art. xi. Ord. ii, iii, iv, xiv, xvii. pp. 34, 38, 42, 70, 84, etc.
 
 122 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 own hands wash and wipe carefully.... In the sacristies or 
 secretaria, or near the high altar, let there be a suitable place 
 for pouring the water after washing the corporals and linen 
 cloths, the vessels and other sacred things and the hands after 
 you have touched the holy chrism, or the oil of catechumens 
 or of the sick. And let a vessel stand there with clean water to 
 wash the hands of the priests and others who are about to 
 perform a holy function, and the divine office, and near by a 
 clean linen cloth to wipe them 1 . 
 
 The Admonition is still found in the modern Roman 
 Pontifical for use at a synod in a form more or less depend- 
 ent on Patricius, though in some particulars there is a 
 return to the original, and we no longer hear of wiping 
 linen cloths. 
 
 The Admonition required the priest to wash and wipe 
 the sacred vessels with his own hands. Whatever may have 
 been aimed at, the practice of entrusting their cleansing 
 to the deacon or subdeacon, which is found in the letter 
 of the pseudo Clement, is again allowed in Regino's 
 articles. Until quite a late date this washing of the chalice 
 and paten with the consumption of the small portions of 
 the remains was still performed after the conclusion of 
 the service, as we shall see later, in the Cistercian Customs 
 and in the rule of the monastery of St Victor at Paris of 
 the twelfth and thirteenth centuries 2 . 
 
 It may be interesting to see how the requirements of 
 the letter of the pseudo Clement and the Admonition of 
 the pseudo Leo with regard to the washing of the sacred 
 vessels, etc., were carried out in practice, and the directions 
 given in the Constitutions of Cluny compiled by Ulrich 
 (t 1093) are specially valuable, though not directly con- 
 cerned with the ablutions after mass. We read: 
 
 The subdeacon washes his hands beforehand that he may 
 
 1 P.L. cxxxn. col. 458. 
 
 * See pp. 1 33-/5. Martene, vol. m. lib. iv. App. Ant. Const. S. Vict. 
 Paris, cap. 1. p. 277. Vol. iv. lib. n. cap. iv. § xx. p. 65.
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 123 
 
 be ready to perform his office with the chalice, and taking it 
 with the corporal and paten while the gospel is being read he 
 looks to see if any water has been left in it from the washing, 
 and he pours it into a hollow place made in the brick of the 
 tiles near the altar, just as another has been made a little 
 further away that the same subdeacon and the other inferior 
 ministers may wash their hands over it 1 . 
 
 Elsewhere each of these "hollow places" is called a 
 piscina. We read : 
 
 And as soon as the subdeacon and ministers have received 
 the Pax they do not neglect to wash their hands in the piscina 
 which is near the altar 2 . 
 
 For this purpose let there be provided very deep vessels of 
 brass, devoted to no other use, and in these after vespers in 
 church let the corporals be dipped twice in cold water, and 
 rubbed in the hands. Afterwards water is poured over them 
 a third time, and so they remain all night. And in the morning 
 it is poured, as also before, into the piscina over which the 
 chalices are washed 3 . 
 
 As there appear to be no wall piscinas in France be- 
 longing to a time much before the end of the twelfth 
 century 4 , presumably piscinas in the floor took the place 
 of the earlier use of the baptistery, and as we shall see, it 
 was the same in England. 
 
 In the Admonition of the pseudo Leo the washing of 
 the priest's hands and of the sacred vessels are closely 
 connected and we shall find it convenient to discuss them 
 together. In Roman Ordo I we read only of an ablution 
 of the pope's hands at an ordinary mass after the receiving 
 of the oblations at the offertory, and likewise of the arch- 
 deacon's: 
 
 After this the pope... returns to his throne, and washes his 
 
 1 Lib. 11. cap. xxx. P.L. cxlix. col. 717. 
 
 2 Lib. 11. cap. xxx. P.L. cxlix. col. 720. 
 
 3 Lib. in. cap. xiv. P.L. cxlix. col. 758. 
 
 * Viollet le Due, Diet, de I' Arch. Franc, vol. vn. p. 189.
 
 124 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 hands. The archdeacon standing before the altar after finishing 
 the reception washes his hands 1 . 
 
 The same order with regard to the washing of the 
 pope's hands is found in Ordo II, but nothing is said 
 about the archdeacon's. In Ordo III, on the other hand, 
 there is no mention of the washing of the pope's hands, 
 but that of the archdeacon's is still prescribed 2 . In Ordo I 
 and in the Appendix on Maundy Thursday there are 
 washings of the pope's hands before the service begins and 
 after the blessing of the oils before the communion of the 
 faithful, in each case after handling the oils. We read : 
 
 And let the other ministers hold the ampulla when full, and 
 the pope having washed his hands proceeds with the seven 
 taper bearers to mass 3 . 
 
 After finishing this (the benediction of the oils), and having 
 washed his hands the pope goes to the altar, and all the people 
 communicate in order 4 . 
 
 In Ordo I, and similarly in Ordo II, we read at the com- 
 munion : 
 
 After these things all return to the pope's throne, the caller 
 of the names, the treasurer, the acolyte who holds the paten, 
 he who holds the towel, and he who ministers the water, and 
 communicate, and the archdeacon confirms them after the 
 pope 5 . 
 
 Nothing is said about the acolytes who have the towel 
 and water performing their functions after the commu- 
 nion, and in view of the careful mention of the different 
 washings of hands on other occasions it is unlikely that 
 any further ablution took place before the end of mass, 
 and it is probable that the washing of the hands after the 
 communion was as yet confined to Gallican circles. The 
 earliest evidence of any such thing comes from Gaul, 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. ir. pp. n, 47. 2 Mabillon, vol. II. p. 57. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. 11. pp. 20, 33. ■ Mabillon, vol. II. pp. 21, 34. 
 
 6 Mabillon, vol. n. pp. 15, 50.
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 125 
 
 being found in the Ordo of St Amand (c. 830) which is a 
 Gallicanized version of Ordo I. 
 
 We read there at the conclusion of the communion : 
 
 Then the pontiff descends from his seat and goes to the altar, 
 and the taper bearers return after him. And meanwhile the 
 priests or deacons wash their hands 1 . 
 
 We note that it is not said that the pope washes his 
 hands after the communion, but only his assistants, and 
 it may be that here as also after the offertory in Ordo III 
 there was no ablution of the pope's hands. The references 
 to handwashing in the Ordo of St Amand are somewhat 
 peculiar, and are apparently derived from a document now 
 represented by a ninth century St Blasien manuscript. 
 At the offertory it is before receiving the oblations of the 
 people that the pope washes his hands, and not afterwards 
 as is usual 2 . It seems somewhat extraordinary that the 
 pontiff should be the only one who omitted to wash his 
 hands after the communion, but the presumption is that 
 the writer of the Ordo did not intend it. 
 
 In Ordo VI (eleventh century?) the ceremony is very 
 distinctly described, and it is one of some elaboration. 
 Though the document appears to be Gallican in origin it 
 appeals to Roman custom as set out in some earlier Roman 
 Ordo known to the writer. We read : 
 
 Afterwards when all have now communicated, the acolyte 
 who carries the paten goes to the left part of the altar, and 
 stands with the subdeacon. And the bishop sitting according 
 to the aforesaid Ordo, three acolytes kneeling before him 
 minister water for his hands. Having washed his hands, the 
 bishop rises, turns to the people, and says, Dominus vobiscum 3 . 
 
 1 Duchesne, C.W. p. 463. 
 
 2 Duchesne, C.W. p. 459. Cf. Gerbert, vol. 11. p. 173. Elsewhere 
 however (p. 169) the St Blasien MS. orders it at both points; so also the 
 Codex Ratoldi of Corbie (tenth century). Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. 
 Art. xn. Ordo XI. pp. 203-4. 
 
 3 Mabillon, vol. 11. p. 76.
 
 126 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 We notice that though it is in this Ordo that we are told 
 that "the archdeacon must be very careful that nothing 
 of the blood or body of Christ remain in chalice or paten 1 ," 
 nothing is said about any ablution of the vessels during 
 the service. 
 
 Directions very similar in many ways are to be found 
 even earlier in the tenth century Codex Ratoldi (f 986) of 
 the abbey of Corbie. We read : 
 
 At the nod of the bishop the cantor begins the Communion, 
 Pascha nostrum. This being completed, let the bishop sit on 
 his throne and having washed his hands for the third time 
 return to the altar and say the collect Ad complendum 2 . 
 
 Ivo of Chartres (f 11 15) describes the washing of the 
 priest's hands after communion at length, and compares 
 it with the ablutions of the Levitical priests. After the 
 reception we read : 
 
 After these things the priest returns to the right part of the 
 altar, and there completes the office of the mass. ...It should be 
 noted that after the handling and consumption of the sacra- 
 ments before the priest returns to the assembly of the church, 
 though he ought to have been cleansed by partaking of such 
 great holiness, he washes his hands as from the touch of an 
 unclean and deadly thing, and the water is poured into a 
 sacred place provided for this purpose. ...Therefore they wash 
 their hands and treat the water of ablution fittingly, in which 
 way they honour the dignity of the sacrament, and by such 
 an ablution call to mind their own unworthiness.... Afterwards 
 there follow prayers in which there is a remembrance of benefits 
 received and a giving of thanks... and all these things being 
 finished, the priest or the deacon says, Ite missa est 3 . 
 
 Though the water with which the celebrant's hands 
 were washed is disposed of so carefully nothing is said 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. pp. 75-6. See p. 100. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. xn. Ordo XI. p. 204. 
 
 3 De Rebus Eccles. Sermones. Hittorp. col. 808.
 
 vin] THE ABLUTIONS 127 
 
 about any ablution of the vessels, or precaution against 
 irreverence with regard to what remains. 
 
 In the description of mass written by John of Avranches 
 (c. 1065) when appointed archbishop of Rouen, describing 
 the ceremonial of Rouen, we find further development, 
 though the date is earlier : 
 
 The particle which remained in the chalice let the priest 
 consume, and afterwards let him give the chalice to the deacon 
 to cleanse and consume what is left; and let him carry away 
 the chalice with the paten to the left corner of the altar, and 
 there receive part himself and give part to the subdeacon. 
 Afterwards let each take a share in cleansing each. And let an 
 acolyte bring another chalice to the priest to wash his fingers. 
 And let the subdeacon help the deacon to cleanse the chalice 
 and paten. After the cleansing of paten and chalice let an 
 acolyte hold each, wrapped in a napkin until the end of the 
 first Post Communion 1 . 
 
 For the first time we find details not only of the washing 
 of the priest's fingers, but also of the sacred vessels, which 
 takes place in church after the communion and the con- 
 sumption of the remains, and before the end of the service. 
 Nothing is said about the disposal of the water in which 
 they were washed, and presumably it was poured away. 
 The priest's hands are washed, not in the fair vessel of the 
 Admonition of the pseudo Leo, nor in the chalice used at 
 the mass, but in another chalice. We note that the whole 
 ceremony of consuming the remains, washing the vessels 
 and the priest's hands, which originally had taken place 
 in the sacristy, has now come to be performed, presumably 
 from motives of greater reverence, near the altar and 
 during the service. If the cleansing could be performed 
 by some one else besides the priest it is not surprising that 
 sooner or later it should be carried out by the deacon 
 or subdeacon immediately after the communion of the 
 
 De Off. Eccles., P.L. cxlvii. col. 37.
 
 128 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 people, and while the priest concludes the service. It 
 would be a great convenience that the vessels clean and 
 dry should thus be put away at the end of mass on the 
 departure of the ministers from the altar. 
 
 In a letter of Peter Damien (f 1072) to the priest 
 Ubertus we find a further development : 
 
 With regard to the celebration of the solemnities of masses 
 we have both learned and hold this rule according to the custom 
 in well-ordered churches, that we put off pouring into the 
 chalice at the end of mass if we hope ourselves to offer the 
 sacrifice again the same day. Otherwise whenever we offer the 
 sacred hosts at the end we always besprinkle the chalice 
 according to custom. Further whether we are fasting or not, 
 we do not change this rule of besprinkling 1 . 
 
 Peter Damien appears to be the first to mention a 
 ceremonial pouring into the chalice, but he does not tell us 
 whether it is identical with the pouring over the priest's 
 fingers, or even mention the latter at all, nor does he say 
 whether the ablution is of wine or water. It seems more 
 probable that wine was used, and this was certainly the 
 custom later, but in view of the omission of the sprinkling 
 when the priest had to celebrate again it is improbable 
 that there was any pouring over the priest's fingers into 
 the chalice or other vessel, apart from the final washing 
 of his hands ; but however this may have been the ablution 
 was consumed by the priest and not poured away, or the 
 ablution need not have been omitted before a second 
 mass. The ceremony is clearly a preliminary to the 
 necessary washing of the vessels which must take place 
 later and after the service, at any rate when there was no 
 minister. The ablution he says is already traditional in 
 well-ordered churches, but as yet it is not universally 
 regarded as an essential feature of mass. 
 
 In Roman Ordo X (eleventh century) we get the sug- 
 
 1 Epis. lib. vm. ep. xviii., P.L. cxliv. col. 370.
 
 vni] THE ABLUTIONS 129 
 
 gestion of further elaboration. In the description of the 
 Good Friday ceremonies we read : 
 
 And the pontiff alone communicates without the ministers, 
 not solemnly at his throne, but on this day only before the 
 altar out of humble reverence for God and the passion of 
 Christ. And on the present Friday, and when mass is celebrated 
 for the dead, he makes the ablution in the chalice and con- 
 sumes it himself, and afterwards washes with water in the 
 bowls 1 . 
 
 We note that it is only at requiems and the communion 
 of the presanctified on Good Friday that the ablution is 
 made in the chalice, apparently that used at the mass. 
 As this is a preliminary to the washing of his hands it 
 seems that the ablution in the chalice was made over his 
 fingers, and in view of later practice probably of wine. 
 At requiems and on Good Friday the ablution is consumed 
 by the pope, on ordinary occasions presumably by other 
 of the ministers. 
 
 In the Carthusian Statutes (c. 1230) we are told: 
 
 After consuming the blood the priest on every occasion 
 consumes the first ablution immediately without any interval. . . . 
 When the priest washes his fingers in water Agnus Dei is 
 begun. ...On every occasion when mass is sung he who assists 
 the priest, whether he communicates or not, takes the chalice, 
 washes it with wine and consumes it, but only when he com- 
 municates. Otherwise the wine is poured into the sacrarium, 
 and the chalice as in other masses is turned over upon the paten 2 . 
 
 As the chalice is afterwards washed with wine the first 
 ablution can hardly be of anything else. Presumably it is 
 made into the chalice and consumed by the priest. The 
 washing of the fingers in water must be in another vessel, 
 and as the wine with which the chalice is washed is not 
 necessarily consumed, the water of ablution is probably 
 poured into the piscina. 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. p. 103. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. xn. Ordo XXV. p. 228. 
 
 L. E. 9
 
 130 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 Innocent III (1198-1216) in a work on The Sacred 
 Mystery of the Altar written before his elevation to the 
 papacy, describing the practice of his time, bases his 
 words on those of Ivo of Chartres: 
 
 After the consumption of the sacrifice of the eucharist the 
 priest washes and besprinkles his hands lest anything remain 
 unawares after touching the most divine sacrament, not that 
 he has contracted any uncleanness in touching the sacrament, 
 but rather that he may remember his own unworthiness who 
 has judged himself unworthy of celebrating so great sacra- 
 ments... and indeed account it unfitting that the hands which 
 have handled the incorruptible body should touch a corruptible 
 body until they are carefully washed. But the water of ablution 
 ought to be poured away honourably into a clean place that 
 the dignity of the sacrament may be more reverently esteemed 1 . 
 
 About the year 12 12 the Bishop of Maguelonne and the 
 clergy of his cathedral of St Peter wrote to Innocent III 
 asking for a ruling with regard to the ablutions. In the 
 pope's letter of reply we read: 
 
 You desire to be instructed by letters apostolic when a priest 
 ought to besprinkle at mass. To which we thus make answer. 
 The priest ought always to besprinkle with wine after he has 
 received the whole sacrament of the eucharist except when on 
 the same day he has to celebrate another mass, lest if by chance 
 he received the wine of ablution, he should be hindered from 
 another celebration 2 . 
 
 We notice that no information is given about what is to 
 be besprinkled or washed, whether the chalice, the priest's 
 mouth or fingers, or all three, but the ablution is evidently 
 in the chalice and clearly quite distinct from the washing 
 with water mentioned in the previous extract, for the 
 wine is to be consumed but the water poured away in a 
 
 1 De Sacro Altari Mysterio, lib. VI. 8, P.L. ccxvn. col. qio-ii. 
 
 2 P.L. ccxv. col. 442. Cf. Decret. Greg. IX, lib. III. tit. xli. De 
 celebratione.c. v. Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars II. Ed. Friedburg, 1881, 
 col. 636.
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 131 
 
 clean place. In the version of this letter used and com- 
 mented on by St Thomas Aquinas (f 1274) we read: 
 'The priest ought always to rinse (besprinkle) his mouth 
 with wine 1 ," but there is no reference to the mouth in 
 the authentic text, and more probably the ablution of 
 the chalice is intended. 
 
 In the Order of the Offices of the church of Siena com- 
 piled in 1213 by Orderic, a canon of the church, we find 
 interesting directions with regard to the ablutions: 
 
 The communion being received by the priest, and all the 
 ministers and those who were to be communicated com- 
 municated, the deacon folds the corporal and puts it back in 
 its place, and if any of the body remains he puts it away with 
 the greatest care. And this done the priest washes over the 
 chalice the tips of the fingers of each hand with which he has 
 consecrated the body of the Lord, the deacon near the altar 
 holding the chalice from underneath, and the subdeacon 
 pouring the wine. And afterwards he washes the same fingers 
 over a bowl with water given by an acolyte. Then wiping his 
 fingers with a towel which was put on the corner of the altar 
 he drinks up the ablution of wine which is in the chalice, and 
 so all things being arranged the deacon and subdeacon return 
 to stand in their place behind the priest 2 . 
 
 Only one ablution is mentioned, of the priest's fingers, 
 and nothing is said about a washing of the chalice. Wine 
 is used, and the ablution is over the chalice, but afterwards 
 there is a washing of the same fingers with water over a 
 bowl. 
 
 Alexander of Hales (f 1245) gives a paraphrase of the 
 directions of Innocent IIP, but as he was an Englishman 
 we may perhaps reserve it for consideration later when 
 dealing with the history of the ablutions in Britain. 
 
 1 Summa, Pars in. Quaes, lxxxiii. De ritu eucharistiae, Art. v. 10, 
 P.L. iv. (Second Series), col. 848. 
 
 2 Trombelli, Ordo Off. Ecc. Senensis, Pt. 11. § 68, p. 472. 
 
 3 Tractal. de Officio Missae, Pars n. Summa Theol. 1622, vol. III. 
 p. 327. See pp. 1 50-1. 
 
 9—2
 
 132 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 The remarks of Durandus (f 1296) on the ablutions in 
 his Rationale of the Divine Offices are clearly based on the 
 paraphrase of Ivo of Chartres by Innocent III. We read: 
 
 After the consumption of the sacrifice of the eucharist the 
 priest washes and besprinkles his fingers lest anything by 
 chance remain unawares, or adhere after touching the divine 
 sacrament, not that he has contracted any uncleanness in 
 touching it, but rather that he may remember his own un- 
 worthiness who judges himself unworthy of celebrating so 
 great sacraments.... It is indeed unfitting that his hands which 
 have handled the incorruptible body should take hold of a 
 corruptible body, or approach and touch common things until 
 they are carefully washed. And on account of this also some, 
 when mass is finished and they have put off the sacred vest- 
 ments, wash their hands again. And the water of ablution 
 ought to be poured into a clean and honourable place that the 
 dignity of the sacrament may be reverently esteemed.. . .And the 
 priest besprinkles his fingers and consumes the ablution at the 
 right corner of the altar, or at least turning towards it.... Some 
 having drunk the ablution put the chalice on its side 1 . 
 
 In the ancient Rituale of the church of Soissons we find 
 a reminiscence of Roman Ordo X. We read : 
 
 The Communion is so called because it is sung at the time 
 of communion. And so to complete (ad complcndum) the 
 mystery of our salvation let the subdeacon pour wine into the 
 chalice. At the ablution of the hands let the clerks minister 
 water in bowls: let this ablution also be poured into the 
 piscina which is reserved for the use of the high altar 2 . 
 
 Again there is no mention of the pouring of wine over 
 the priest's fingers, but it could hardly have been omitted. 
 
 In the Roman Ordo printed by Martene describing the 
 duties of the cardinal deacon when he assists the pope at 
 mass on festivals only one ablution is mentioned. We 
 read : 
 
 1 Rationale, lib. iv. cap. lv. De Perfusione, i. lxxviii. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. 1. lib. 1. cap. iv. Art. XII. Ordo XXII. pp. 220-21.
 
 vin] THE ABLUTIONS 133 
 
 And after the subdeacon has sucked the reed at both ends 
 the same cardinal places the reed upon the paten, and the 
 subdeacon afterwards consumes what is in the chalice. Then 
 the same cardinal turns to the cardinal bishop who brings to 
 him the ablution which the pope had made after receiving the 
 body and blood, and he takes it and drinks a little and gives 
 the rest to the subdeacon to drink 1 . 
 
 As the ablution made by the pope is brought to the 
 cardinal while the subdeacon is in the act of consuming 
 what is left in the chalice, it must be that of the pope's 
 fingers made in another vessel, not that of the chalice. 
 There is no mention of the washing of the pope's hands in 
 the bowls as elsewhere. 
 
 In the statutes of the monastery of St Victor in Paris 
 (thirteenth century) we find a description of the ceremonial 
 ablutions in a developed state, but when there is a com- 
 munion of the people they are only a preliminary to the 
 more thorough cleansing of the sacred vessels with the 
 consumption of the smallest fragments of the consecrated 
 hosts which still takes place after mass at the altar. We 
 read: 
 
 And when all have communicated let the brethren who are 
 in the choir sing the Communion, and then let the deacon with 
 the chalice and the subdeacon with a cruet of wine cross to 
 the corner of the altar, and let the priest take the chalice and 
 wash his fingers in it, and then do the rest in the accustomed 
 manner. But it should be known that as often as the body of 
 the Lord is administered from the paten, and as often as the 
 blood from the chalice, to another besides the priest, the deacon 
 ought when he returns with the subdeacon to the altar after 
 mass, having first washed his hands, to wash the paten itself 
 and to pour the ablution into the chalice, and he or the sub- 
 deacon to consume it: then the subdeacon pouring water let 
 him wash the chalice both within and without, and the paten 
 
 1 Martene, vol. i. lib. i. cap. iv. Art. xn. p. 246.
 
 134 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 in the piscina, and wipe it with a towel provided for the 
 purpose 1 . 
 
 The priest washes his hands in the piscina after the 
 first ablution in the chalice, for we read: 
 
 And after the Pax has been received each will turn to the 
 altar, and they will so stand until the priest goes to the piscina. 
 Then the Communion will be begun 2 . 
 
 The Customs of the Cistercians (c. 1120) likewise provide 
 for the more ancient manner of making the ablutions 
 after the service, and though earlier in date than the 
 statutes of the monastery of St Victor the directions are 
 more elaborate, and show really a more advanced stage 
 of development. We read: 
 
 Receiving the chalice let him besprinkle his fingers within 
 it, and placing it upon the altar go to the piscina to wash his 
 fingers in water. Wiping them on the moderate sized linen 
 cloth provided for him for the purpose let him return to the 
 altar to consume the wine which he has poured into the chalice. 
 After receiving it let him again besprinkle the chalice with 
 wine. Having drunk this let him place it, not on its side, upon 
 the altar next the pa ten.... After Benedicamus Domino or Ite 
 missa est has been said let him (the deacon) bow, and then 
 going to the altar let him take away from it the chalice and the 
 paten upon a salver, consuming there with his tongue anything 
 which may have been left over of the body of the Lord upon 
 the paten. And afterwards taking the tube let him wash it 
 with wine, and afterwards the paten. After drinking this let 
 him pour other wine into the chalice rinsing the inside, and let 
 him again receive it. Let him a third time pour in wine, rinsing 
 it in the same manner, and this let the subdeacon finish. And 
 if it shall be necessary let him pour in wine still another time, 
 and having washed and wiped them on the towel on which 
 
 1 Martene, vol. in. lib. iv. App. Ant. Cons. S. Vict. Paris, cap. 1. 
 p. 277. 
 
 2 Cap. lxviii. p. 283.
 
 vni] THE ABLUTIONS 135 
 
 a little before the priest wiped his fingers, let him put them 
 away, and the corporals with the chalices 1 . 
 
 At Cluny ceremonial elaboration took place at an early 
 date, and already in the eleventh century we find not only 
 the ceremonial ablutions after the communion but also 
 that the necessary cleansing of the vessels, which also 
 has become an elaborate ceremony, has been transferred 
 from after the service to the same place. We quote 
 Ulrich's version, but practically the same directions are 
 to be found in the Constitutions of the monastery of St 
 Benignus at Dijon, which appear to be based on an 
 earlier text of the Cluny statutes 2 : 
 
 If the body of the Lord remain over, or if it seem good to him 
 (the priest), it is covered with the scutella, and he who holds it 
 does not move away thence until the priest after taking the 
 chalice from the subdeacon consumes the blood and the wine 
 with which he afterwards washes the chalice, which is poured 
 by the same subdeacon who holds the cruet in one hand, and 
 with the other, which is wrapped in a linen cloth, which he had 
 placed with the paten upon the altar, lifts up the foot of the 
 chalice. The deacon after receiving the communion goes near 
 the armariolum that he may wash with wine in another chalice 
 his fingers, with which he has handled the Lord's body, the 
 minister who is serving pouring the wine from the cruet and 
 lifting the foot of the chalice. And after washing he first wipes 
 them on the chalice and then puts it to his face, and that part 
 which he wiped to his mouth, and consumes the wine turning 
 to the east. ...And the subdeacon, as soon as the priest has 
 consumed the blood and the wine with which he afterwards 
 washed the chalice, takes from him the chalice kissing his hand, 
 and from the deacon the paten belonging to the chalice, which 
 he had taken from the altar, one of the corporals being always 
 put upon it, — for the other he puts back into its place upon 
 the altar — and then he who holds the scutella lifting it on high 
 
 1 Martene, vol. iv. lib. II. cap. iv. §§ xv, xx. p. 65. 
 
 2 Martene, vol. iv. lib. 11. cap. iv. § xv. p. 64.
 
 136 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 goes to the left corner of the altar, and the subdeacon remains 
 with the chalice on the right, holding the chalice in one hand 
 behind the priest, the paten with the corporal being lifted up 
 for a short time with the other. And towards them the whole 
 convent genuflects out of reverence for the body and blood of 
 the Lord. And as soon as the minister who is serving has 
 poured the wine on the fingers of the deacon he approaches 
 towards the foot pace (reclinatorium) bringing the other smaller 
 chalice with the cruet, with which he has ministered to the 
 deacon and which he afterwards took from him, that the priest 
 also may wash his fingers with which he has handled the Lord's 
 body, which he is never allowed to wash in the chalice of the 
 high mass. After taking this wine is again poured into the 
 chalice, that the chalice itself may be washed a little, and it is 
 consumed by the priest. And as often as he consumes either 
 the blood or the wine which is left he turns his face towards 
 the altar or towards the east. And he who carries the candle- 
 stick, after the priest has returned from the pax, immediately 
 takes it and holds it lifted up before the step, and does not put 
 it down before Per Dominum nostrum of the first Post Com- 
 munion collect is said. At the same time both the subdeacon 
 with the chalice and the minister with the scutella depart.... 
 And after the subdeacon and minister have departed from before 
 the altar each carries his own things to the armariolum, and 
 there although it be bright day both, that is to say the paten 
 upon which the body of the Lord was broken and the chalice, 
 are most carefully examined with a taper by the subdeacon and 
 minister lest by chance even the most minute portion of the 
 Lord's body remain, and if he should see anything remain he 
 does not presume to touch it with his hand but lifts it with his 
 tongue only and consumes it, if it be a particle such as he can 
 conveniently consume, but if it be very minute and as one may 
 say indivisible and like an atom, if he can he takes it with wine 
 in the chalice in which the priest and deacon wash their fingers, 
 and lifts it and removes it. But if it so adhere that this cannot 
 be done with wine, he puts his tongue lightly on the place where 
 he saw it and consumes it, and afterwards again pours wine
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 137 
 
 upon the paten. But even if he has discovered that nothing of 
 any size remains there, yet let him not because of this omit to 
 pour wine upon it very carefully at any rate once, and consume 
 entirely what was poured ; and afterwards he washes the same 
 chalice in which he consumed the wine which was poured 
 upon the paten with other wine, or he puts that other wine, 
 with which either he or the minister washed the chalice of the 
 high mass inside, into that chalice and consumes it, and puts 
 other wine into the chalice of the high mass, and washes it 
 all round inside, and if the minister has communicated he will 
 drink it, but if not the subdeacon, after he has consumed the 
 wine poured upon the paten, puts it, as was said, into that 
 chalice on which the same paten was placed and consumes it, 
 and then does not wash it with other wine unless by chance 
 he discovers that something remains there afterwards.... And 
 if they are able to finish a little before the end of mass neither 
 of them ought because of this to unvest. And when the priest 
 leaves the altar he gives the missal to the deacon that it may 
 be carried back by him 1 . 
 
 In comparison with this very complicated account the 
 description of what is done at low mass is quite simple : 
 
 Then he consumes the blood. Then his companion pours 
 wine into the chalice for the first time, and the third time pours 
 it over the first four fingers which have handled the body of 
 the Lord, and these after the ablution he ought to wipe on the 
 front part of the chalice whence he consumed the blood. Then 
 he puts the chalice to his own mouth, and does likewise for 
 his companion if he has communicated, and he receives it, 
 and his companion kisses his hand when he returns the chalice 
 to the priest 2 . 
 
 The description of low mass is, as we should expect, 
 based on that of high mass, for it is high mass which is 
 properly the norm of any rite, and low mass is merely a 
 
 1 Martene, vol. iv. lib. n. cap. iv. § xv. pp. 63-4. P.L. cxlix. col. 
 
 721-3- 
 
 2 Martene, vol. iv. lib. 11. cap. iv. § xx. p. 71.
 
 138 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 convenient curtailment. We note that the pouring of 
 wine into the chalice is distinct from the pouring over the 
 priest's ringers, and this ablution of the chalice takes place 
 twice before the ablution of the fingers. If he has com- 
 municated the server assists in the consumption of the 
 ablutions. 
 
 From the beginning of the thirteenth century references 
 to the ablutions are plentiful, but there was great variety 
 of practice. About this time we begin to find rules about 
 what is to be done when a priest duplicates, but the fact 
 that it was necessary for councils so frequently to make 
 decrees on the subject shows clearly that as yet there was 
 no rule which was generally accepted and absolute. 
 Various British councils considered the question, and 
 made canons dealing with it, as those of Westminster in 
 1200, Durham in 1220, Oxford in 1222, and Aberdeen in 
 1230 1 . We find similar rules also in the constitutions of 
 Richard le Poor of Salisbury (c. 1220), of Archbishop 
 Langton in 1222, and of Archbishop Edmund of Abingdon 
 in 1236, and elsewhere 2 . Reserving these for the present 
 we may note a canon of the council of Cologne in 1280. 
 We read: 
 
 And now in the first mass after the reception of the blood 
 let him not take the ablution of wine and water, but reserve 
 it in a safe and proper place, and receive it at the second mass, 
 or let him give it to a proper person who is fasting and whom 
 he knew to be ready for the purpose 3 . 
 
 At the council of Nimes in 1284 we find what w^as to 
 become the ordinary practice of the West : 
 
 We decree also that in the chalice there be placed more wine 
 than water, and that after the priest has received the whole 
 
 1 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I. pp. 505, 579, 586. Regislrum Aberdonense, 
 vol. n. p. 27. 
 
 2 Spelman, Concilia, vol. 11. p. 148. Wilkins, vol. 1. p. 594. Spelman, 
 vol. 11. pp. 206, 232. See pp. 1 51-4. 
 
 3 Hardouin, vol. VII. col. 825.
 
 vni] THE ABLUTIONS 139 
 
 of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, he shall make 
 two receptions according to the custom of the church of Nimes, 
 the first of pure wine only, the second of wine and water ; and 
 with the second let him at the same time besprinkle his fingers 
 over the chalice and afterwards receive it, except when he has 
 to celebrate another mass the same day, and then he ought not 
 to receive it but only the blood. And if he receives it, it prevents 
 the second celebration 1 . 
 
 In Roman Or do XIV the ceremony of the ablutions is 
 mentioned several times, and as these directions form the 
 basis of the modern Roman rules, we must give the chief 
 of the accounts in full. We note the influence of the 
 Admonition of the pseudo Leo in the phraseology, and so 
 ultimately of the epistle of the pseudo Clement : 
 
 Afterwards the chalice being uncovered by the deacon, he 
 will be able to wipe the paten over it a little with his right 
 thumb, so that if anything of the host remains on it, it may 
 fall into the chalice, and let him say the verses, Quid retribuam, 
 Calicem, and the other things which are to be said before the 
 consumption of the blood, as they are contained in the book. 
 And then let him consume the blood with the portion of the 
 host which is in the chalice with all reverence and care. After 
 consuming it let him take a little wine in the chalice, the sub- 
 deacon pouring it, and consume it to wash his mouth. After- 
 wards saying the prayers, Quod ore sumpsimus and Corpus 
 tuum, let him hold the fingers of each hand, with which he has 
 touched the host, over the chalice and wash them a little, the 
 subdeacon again pouring the wine. And before he consumes it 
 let him wash his fingers again in water, which a chaplain 
 pours into the bowls, and let this water be thrown away in 
 a clean place. Having washed his fingers in water in the afore- 
 mentioned manner let the pontiff wipe his mouth with a towel, 
 which he who keeps the mitre offers to him. Afterwards 
 having drunk the wine which was in the chalice let him wipe 
 his mouth with the same cloth. Meanwhile let the deacon, 
 
 1 Hardouin, vol. vn. col. 916.
 
 140 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 having washed his lingers, fold the corporals and put them 
 away in the place in which they ought to be kept 1 . 
 
 In Roman Or do XV we have already mentioned the 
 washing of the pope's hands in the great bowls. More 
 details are given with 5 regard to the ceremony of the 
 ablutions on Good Friday, the description being based on 
 that in Ordo X. We read: 
 
 And the pope communicates alone without the ministers... 
 and he consumes the blood not with the reed, but from the 
 chalice, and after the consumption of the blood wine is poured 
 into the chalice by the sacristan, or other bishop who serves 
 him in the mass, and it is consumed from the chalice at the 
 corner of the altar ; and in the same place he washes his hands 
 in water in the bowls brought by one of the soldiers, or servants 
 of the household 2 . 
 
 On Maundy Thursday there was no reference to any 
 ablution of the chalice or of the priest's fingers over it. 
 On Good Friday though there is mention of the former all 
 reference to the latter is still omitted. On Easter Day 
 there is no mention of any ablution of the chalice, and 
 presumably it is performed by the subdeacon to whom 
 both chalice and tube are delivered that he may consume 
 whatever remains, not by the pope. We read: 
 
 And after all have communicated the confessor of the pope 
 if he be a bishop approaches, but if not another bishop of the 
 papal household brings the golden chalice covered with one 
 end of the linen cloth, the other end hanging over his left 
 shoulder according to custom. And after the bishop the 
 senior of the acolytes carries the cruets of wine and water with 
 two cups covered with the cloth with which the altar-pall is 
 covered. And the afore-mentioned bishop comes with the said 
 acolyte to the pope, and the second bishop washes the small 
 cup of gold with wine. Then he pours wine over the fingers of 
 the pope and the second bishop carries the perfusion of his 
 fingers to the altar, and the cardinal deacon with the subdeacon 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. n. pp. 307-8. ■ Mabillon, vol 11. pp. 494-5.
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 141 
 
 drinks it according to custom. The confessor, having washed 
 the chalice, pours wine and the acolyte water into the chalice, 
 both kneeling before the pope, and the lord pope washes his 
 mouth, and consumes the wine in the afore-mentioned chalice; 
 and if any remains the subdeacon consumes it over the altar. 
 Then the pope washes his hands in the great golden bowls, and 
 having washed them he goes to the altar and so finishes mass 1 . 
 
 It may be interesting to trace the development in the 
 later Roman printed books. 
 
 In the earliest printed Roman missal of 1474 the rubric 
 with regard to the ablutions is quite short : 
 
 After the consumption of the blood let him say Quod ore. 
 Then while purifying he says Corpus tuum 2 . 
 
 In the 1505 edition the first part of this becomes: 
 
 The blood being drunk he afterwards besprinkles his fingers, 
 saying Quod ore 3 . 
 
 In 1558 there is a further enlargement : 
 
 The blood being drunk let him afterwards besprinkle his 
 fingers with wine and water, saying Quod ore 4 . 
 
 In a Roman missal printed at Venice in 1501, probably 
 for Franciscan use, we find an introduction by John 
 Burchard on the order to be observed in saying mass. 
 With regard to the ablutions we read : 
 
 He reverently consumes the whole of the blood with the 
 particle put in the chalice, and having consumed these he 
 says Quod ore (another prayer, Corpus tuum), holding out the 
 chalice meanwhile to the minister who pours wine into it, 
 and with it the priest purifies himself. Then the same minister 
 pouring wine the priest washes his thumbs and forefingers over 
 the chalice and consumes this ablution also. Then he wipes 
 his mouth and fingers and the chalice, he folds the corporals, 
 and puts them down in the middle of the altar 5 . 
 
 1 Mabillon, vol. II. pp. 506-7. 2 Lippe, vol. I. p. 211. 
 
 3 Lippe, vol. 1. p. 211, vol. 11. p. 114. 4 Lippe, vol. 1. p. 2 1 1, vol. 11. p. 114. 
 
 6 Legg, Tracts on the Mass, p. 164.
 
 142 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 In 1502 Burchard published an enlarged version of his 
 Ordo missae, and in this form, as we have noticed, it was 
 reprinted many times, either as a separate tract, or as an 
 introduction to various missals, or incorporated in other 
 works. We now read : 
 
 And standing he reverently consumes the whole of the blood 
 with the particle put in the chalice. And having consumed these 
 he says secretly Quod ore, holding out the chalice meanwhile 
 to the minister who pours wine into it, and with it the celebrant 
 purifies himself. And if there are any to be communicated he 
 communicates them before he washes his fingers, the order on 
 the time and manner of communicating the people given in the 
 Presbyter ale being observed. Then purifying himself and the 
 rest of those who have communicated he says secretly Corpus 
 tuum. The same minister again pouring wine, the celebrant 
 washes his thumbs and forefingers over the chalice, and con- 
 sumes the ablution also. Then he also wipes his mouth and 
 the chalice with the purificator, and puts the purificator over 
 the chalice, and over it the paten, and places it as seems best 
 to him on the right side or left, or puts it down in the middle 
 of the altar 1 . 
 
 We see here the distinction clearly drawn between a 
 "purification" and an "ablution," the former referring to 
 the rinsing of the priest's or communicant's mouth after 
 partaking, the latter to the washing of the chalice or the 
 priest's fingers. Usually the first pouring is both. 
 
 Burchard's directions about what is to be done when a 
 priest duplicates are also interesting. We read: 
 
 These or any other priests in cases permitted by law wishing 
 to celebrate twice in a day ought not in the first mass after 
 the consumption of the blood to purify themselves or to con- 
 sume the ablution of the fingers, but after the consumption of 
 the blood to wash his fingers over the chalice, and to put away 
 this ablution into some clean vessel, and to purify himself 
 with it another day on which he has celebrated one mass only 
 
 1 Legg, p. 164.
 
 viii] THE ABLUTIONS 143 
 
 after the consumption of the blood, or on the same day after 
 the said second mass, or to consume it after the purification 
 and ablution of the same second mass. But more than two 
 masses in one day it is not lawful to celebrate, save only on the 
 day of the nativity of our Saviour Jesus Christ, on which any 
 priest otherwise disposed to celebrate is able to celebrate three 
 masses. And also when intending to do this he ought not in 
 the first or second mass to purify himself, or to take the ablu- 
 tion of his fingers, but to put it away in some clean vessel, and 
 to consume it after the purification of the third mass. But if 
 anyone intending to celebrate more masses on the same day 
 has purified himself in the first or second mass or consumed the 
 ablution, he ought not to celebrate again that day 1 . 
 
 In the Book of Ceremonies of Patricius and Marcellus of 
 15 16 we read after the communion: 
 
 Then the pope sits and an acolyte approaches with two cups, 
 one of gold for the pope and the other for the credence, carrying 
 in his hands ampullae of wine and water, and with him comes 
 the chief of the cardinal priests who pours wine over the golden 
 cup, and the pope without mitre washes his fingers. Then 
 taking his mitre he washes his hands in the accustomed manner. 
 Then he descends to the altar and mass is finished 2 . 
 
 The directions of de Grassis (f 1528) are shorter: 
 
 He will purify his fingers in the accustomed manner and 
 consume the ablution. Then if there shall be hosts upon the 
 altar he will wash his hands on the epistle side without mitre 
 and finish mass 3 . 
 
 In the post Tridentine missal of 1570 the rubric dealing 
 with the ablutions has become much more detailed: 
 
 He consumes the whole of the blood with the particle. And 
 when he has consumed it if there are any to be communicated 
 let him communicate them before he purifies himself. After- 
 wards he says Quod ore. Meanwhile he holds out the chalice 
 
 1 Legg, p. 172. 
 
 2 Lib. 11. cap. i. § 6. Ed. Catalani, vol. II. pp. 269-70. 
 
 3 Lib. 11. 49, f. 141. See p. 108.
 
 144 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 to the minister who pours into it a little wine with which he 
 purifies himself. Then he proceeds Corpus tuum. He washes 
 his fingers, wipes them and consumes the ablution. He wipes 
 the chalice, and having folded the corporal covers it in the 
 accustomed manner. Then he proceeds with mass 1 . 
 
 In the Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missarum prefixed 
 to this missal we read : 
 
 Standing he reverently consumes the whole of the blood with 
 the particle put in the chalice. And when he has consumed 
 these he says secretly Quod ore. Afterwards he holds out the 
 chalice over the altar to the minister at the epistle corner, and 
 on his pouring in wine he purifies himself. Then he washes his 
 thumbs and forefingers over the chalice and wipes them with 
 the purificator : saying meanwhile Corpus tuum he consumes the 
 ablution. Then he wipes his mouth and the chalice with the 
 purificator, and having done this spreads the purificator over 
 the chalice, and over it the paten and over the paten the small 
 pall, and covers it with the veil, folds the corporal and puts 
 it back in the burse which he puts over the chalice, and places 
 it on-the altar as before. If there are any to be communicated 
 during mass, let him communicate them before he takes the 
 purification and before he washes his fingers; and when they 
 are communicated he says Quod ore, and then purifying himself 
 and those who have communicated he says Corpus tuum, and 
 does the rest as above. 
 
 In the revised missal of Clement VIII of 1604 the 
 rubric is altered but little. The chief modification is that 
 the priest "wipes his mouth and the chalice" before 
 folding the corporal. In the first part of the Ritus ser- 
 vandus there is likewise very little change, but we are told 
 that the priest "washes his thumbs and forefingers with 
 wine and water over the chalice." The directions when 
 there are communicants are much more precise and may 
 be quoted. We read: 
 
 1 Lippe, vol. 11. p. 246.
 
 vni] THE ABLUTIONS 145 
 
 If there are any to be communicated during mass the priest 
 after the consumption of the blood before he purifies himself, 
 makes a genuflexion and puts the consecrated particles in a 
 pyx, or, if there are few to be communicated, on the paten, 
 unless they have been put in a pyx or another chalice from the 
 beginning.... When all are communicated he returns to the 
 altar saying nothing, and does not give them the blessing be- 
 cause he will give it at the end of mass. If the particles were 
 put on the corporal he wipes it with the paten, and if there were 
 any fragments on it, he puts them into the chalice. Then he 
 says secretly Quod ore and purifies himself saying Corpus tuum, 
 and does the rest as above. And a minister holding a vessel 
 with wine and water in his right hand and a napkin in his left, 
 a little behind the priest, offers them the purification and the 
 napkin to wipe their mouths. 
 
 The changes made in the Roman missal by Urban VIII 
 in 1634 na -d practically no effect on the directions dealing 
 with the ablutions, and they are almost verbally identical 
 with those which appeared in the edition of 1604. 
 
 With some few exceptions the reformed missal of 1570, 
 which was revised under the authority of the council of 
 Trent, was imposed upon the whole Roman communion 
 by the bull of Pius V, and in ordinary churches no deviation 
 from this standard was allowed. It was the same also 
 with the editions of the missal as revised by Clement VIII 
 and Urban VIII. Pius V however in his bull did except 
 those churches which could show a prescription of two 
 hundred years for their own local uses, and it was con- 
 tinued after the later reforms. Consequently the ancient 
 customs of such churches as those of Rouen, Lyons, 
 Chartres, as also of the Carthusian, Carmelite and Domi- 
 nican orders still survived. At Rouen as late as the 
 beginning of the eighteenth century the ceremonial at the 
 ablutions was still much the same as that described by 
 John of Avranches in the eleventh century. 
 
 De Moleon gives some interesting particulars of ancient 
 
 L. E. 10
 
 146 THE ABLUTIONS [ch. 
 
 ceremonial still surviving when he wrote in 17 18 in 
 various French churches. We read: 
 
 In all the missals of Rouen printed up to last century... there 
 is only one purification or ablution with wine as at Lyons and 
 among the Carthusians. The last ablution with water and wine 
 was not then practised and they did not compel the priest to 
 drink the rinsing of his fingers. He went to wash his hands at 
 the piscina or lavatory which was near the altar (sacerdos 
 vadat ad lavatorium). The same thing is seen in the missal of 
 the Carmelites of the year 1574, and the Ritual of Rouen re- 
 quires that there should be one near every altar as in the church 
 of St Etienne des Tonneliers at Rouen 1 . 
 
 A similar custom prevailed also at that date at Chartres. 
 We read: 
 
 The deacon brings the cruets and pours the ablutions. This 
 is the only place where the deacon serves the priest, since a boy 
 gives him water to wash in a bowl, as at the lavabo, and pours 
 it into the piscina, so that he is not obliged to drink the 
 rinsing of his fingers. Formerly this was practised everywhere, 
 and it is still practised to this day at Lyons and among the 
 Carthusians who have continued to maintain their ancient 
 customs 2 . 
 
 Nothing is said, we may note in conclusion, in any of 
 the Mozarabic service books about the ablutions, but in 
 practice those usual in the rest of the Western Church, 
 of the chalice and of the priest's fingers, have been 
 adopted 3 . The modern Ambrosian rite has taken over not 
 only the Roman practice, but the Roman rubrics also. 
 
 We have now traced out from the various documents 
 the chief points in the history of the ceremony of the 
 ablutions from the time that we first hear of any such 
 thing until the present day, reserving, however, the con- 
 sideration of specifically British authorities for separate 
 
 1 De Moleon, Voyages Liturgiques de France, p. 315. 
 
 2 De Moleon, p. 230. 
 
 3 Lesley, Missale Mixtutn, p. 233. P.L. LXXXV. col. 566.
 
 viiij THE ABLUTIONS 147 
 
 treatment. In the earliest days and for many centuries 
 there appear to have been no ceremonial ablutions at all, 
 either of the chalice or of the priest's hands after the 
 communion, during mass, but only a necessary and reverent 
 washing of them afterwards in the sacristy. By about the 
 ninth century however, if not earlier, the washing of 
 the priest's hands had been introduced into the ordinary 
 course of the service and took place immediately after the 
 communion. At about the same period we find that the 
 washing of the vessels was transferred, at any rate in 
 some churches, from the sacristy to a place near the altar, 
 the water employed being reverently poured away in a 
 place provided for the purpose. Generally it seems to have 
 been performed by the deacon and subdeacon, not by the 
 priest, but still apparently after the service was over. The 
 next century we read of the washing of the priest's hands 
 immediately after communion as a firmly established 
 custom. In the eleventh century we hear of an ablution 
 of the chalice, presumably with wine which is consumed 
 by the priest, and that it is traditional in well-ordered 
 churches. This takes place before the final cleansing of the 
 vessels, which also in some churches has now begun to 
 take place during the service. There is also before the 
 washing of the priest's hands in bowls or at the piscina, an 
 ablution of his fingers, sometimes in another chalice, but 
 sometimes in that of the mass, whether with wine or water 
 is not mentioned, but presumably with the former, and 
 it is consumed by the priest or ministers. In the twelfth 
 century we find it clearly stated that the ablution of the 
 priest's fingers is with wine which is consumed, though we 
 hear also after a first ablution of a sprinkling with water. 
 There is a cleansing of the chalice with wine during the 
 service by the minister, and this is sometimes consumed 
 and sometimes poured away. The water in which the 
 priest's hands were washed is always put into the piscina. 
 By this time it seems that the method of making the 
 
 10 — 2
 
 148 THE ABLUTIONS [ch.viii 
 
 ablutions is becoming more or less fixed. With elabora- 
 tions on occasions, such as the ablution of the priest's 
 ringers by the subdeacon or other minister, practically the 
 same use persists for some centuries. In different places 
 there was variety of detail, sometimes wine was used for 
 the ablutions both of the chalice and of the priest's fingers, 
 but sometimes water for the latter. In some churches 
 there were more than two ablutions, and two of the chalice 
 before that of the priest's fingers, one being regarded as 
 for the purification of the mouth. Any ablution of the 
 chalice or of the priest's fingers during the service is of 
 late introduction according to the evidence, and was inter- 
 polated for the sake of additional reverence, being intended 
 as a preliminary to the actual cleansing of the hands and 
 vessels after mass was over. In some places however this 
 necessary cleansing of the vessels came to be performed 
 during the service immediately after the ceremonial ablu- 
 tions, but in others the older practice of postponing it 
 until the end of the service continued at any rate till the 
 thirteenth century, the smallest fragments of the host 
 being consumed at the same time, a survival from the 
 days when all the consecrated remains were consumed 
 after mass.
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 
 
 IT may be interesting to supplement our general enquiry 
 into the historical development of the ceremony of the 
 ablutions by giving also its outline as found in documents 
 which illustrate English or British usage. 
 
 The Admonition of the pseudo Leo with its rules for the 
 washing of the sacred vessels and the priest's hands was 
 evidently known and regarded as authoritative in England 
 as well as on the continent at an early date. It is found 
 in Cotton MS., Tiberius C. I, of the British Museum 1 , a 
 manuscript belonging to the diocese of Salisbury, and 
 written in the latter part of the eleventh century, perhaps 
 in the episcopate of St Osmund, or even earlier, and as in 
 later days it is for use at the Provincial Council of the 
 bishop. The earliest examples of a piscina or "clean 
 place" as required by the Admonition in England as else- 
 where appear to have been in the floor and similar to 
 what is described in the Consnetudines of Ulrich of Cluny, 
 specimens which date perhaps from the early thirteenth 
 century still surviving in two of the chapels of Lincoln 
 Cathedral, and other places. Of wall piscinas there appear 
 to be no examples in England any more than in France 
 before the middle of the twelfth century, but Norman 
 examples exist at St Martin's, Leicester, Ryarsh, Kent, in 
 the crypt of Gloucester Cathedral, and two at Romsey 
 Abbey, while at Jesus College, Cambridge, there is one 
 approaching early English 2 . The work of John of Avranches 
 De Ecclesiaslicis Officiis giving the use of Rouen was 
 
 1 f. 191 b. Cf. Chambers, Divine Worship in England, p. n. 
 
 2 Parker, Glossary of Terms used in Architecture, p. 164.
 
 150 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 known and used at the abbey of Llanthony in the twelfth 
 century 1 , and so it is not improbable that his elaborate 
 ceremonial for the ablutions was imitated as well as other 
 things. The ceremonial of Rouen evidently had consider- 
 able influence in Britain, the Lay Folks Mass Book being 
 a description of an adaptation of it 2 , while the Hereford 
 Holy Week ceremonial is also derived from it 3 . The Lay 
 Folks Mass Book in its present form belongs to the 
 thirteenth century, and in its original text, which appears 
 to have been in French, to the twelfth 4 . In a manuscript 
 of about the year 1375 in the British Museum we read : 
 
 Loke pater-noster thou be sayande, 
 I-whils tho preste is rynsande. 
 When tho preste has rinsynge done, 
 Opon thi fete thou stonde up sone 5 . 
 
 There is also a shorter text of later date (c. 1450) : 
 
 Whanne the prest hath the rensynge don, 
 He wol make an ende son 6 . 
 
 Nothing is said whether the rinsing is that of the chalice 
 or of the priest's fingers, but probably the reference is to 
 both. In a manuscript at Gonville and Caius College, 
 Cambridge, also of the middle of the fifteenth century, we 
 find "receyuande," "receuyng" instead of "rinsing 7 ," and 
 as the reference must be to the same ceremony, the 
 ablution was evidently consumed. 
 
 Alexander of Hales (f 1245), who was an Englishman, 
 speaks of the washing of the priest's hands, as we have 
 already noticed, and practically reproduces the remarks 
 of Innocent III. We read: 
 
 These things being done, the priest washes his hands, not 
 that he has contracted any uncleanness in touching the Lord's 
 
 1 Bishop, Liturgica Historica, pp. 299, 300. 
 
 2 Simmons, Lay Folks Mass Book, p. xxxii. 
 
 3 Bishop, pp. 276-300. * Simmons, pp. xxxi, xli-xliii. 
 
 6 Simmons, p. 54. • Simmons, p. 55. ' Simmons, p. 55.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 151 
 
 sacrament, but rather out of reverence for the sacrament and 
 that he may remember his own unworthiness, and that he may 
 account it unfitting that the hands which have handled the 
 incorruptible body should touch a corruptible body, or any- 
 thing unclean until they are carefully washed, and also in order 
 that if anything has by chance adhered to his hands in touching 
 the sacrament it may be washed away. And the water of 
 ablution ought to be poured away honourably into a clean place, 
 that the dignity of the sacrament may be more reverently 
 esteemed 1 . 
 
 The Consuetudinaries of Salisbury (thirteenth century), 
 Wells (thirteenth century), and Exeter (fourteenth century), 
 all ultimately Sarum, also mention only the earlier washing 
 of the hands : 
 
 After the reception of the sacrament, while the priest goes to 
 wash his hands, let the deacon fold the corporals 2 . 
 
 It is the same also in the Vernon MS. of the thirteenth 
 or fourteenth century, — A treatise of the manner & mede 
 of the mass. We read : 
 
 Whon he hath used, he walketh riht 
 To lauatorie, ther hit is diht 
 For to wassche his hende. 
 So gostly he comes a-geyn 
 Un-to god for-to preyen 
 Sum special grace 3 . 
 
 The question of the ablutions and particularly what was 
 to be done when a priest celebrated twice in the same day, 
 occupied the attention of various British councils about 
 the beginning of the thirteenth century. Among the 
 canons of the council of Westminster in 1200 we read: 
 
 When the same priest celebrates twice in one day after the 
 first celebration and the consumption of the blood let nothing 
 
 1 Summa Theol. vol. ill. p. 327. See p. 131. 
 
 2 Frere, The Use of Sarum, vol. 1. p. 88. Reynolds, Wells Cathedral. 
 Ordinate et Statnta, p. 38. Dalton, Ordinale Exon. (H.B.S.) vol. 1. p. 298. 
 
 3 Simmons, p. 145.
 
 152 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 be poured into the chalice, but of course let the drainings of 
 the chalice be most carefully swallowed after the first cele- 
 bration, and the fingers sucked, or licked with the tongue, 
 and washed, the ablution being reserved in a clean vessel 
 provided specially for the purpose, and let this ablution be 
 consumed after the second celebration. Let these things be so 
 done unless at the first celebration a deacon or other proper 
 minister be present who can consume the ablution 1 . 
 
 At the council of Durham in 1220 we find a washing 
 of the paten also, and now any innocent person is allowed 
 to consume the ablutions. Two of the decrees read : 
 
 And if he receives it (the host) from the paten as some do 
 after the celebration of mass let him cause both paten and 
 chalice to be besprinkled with water, or if he does not receive 
 it from the paten, the chalice only. And let the priest have near 
 the altar a most clean cloth wrapped all round in another 
 cloth, fitly and properly covered, on which after the reception 
 of the healthful sacrament, he may wipe his fingers and his 
 lips, when he has washed them.... Also if the priest has of 
 necessity to celebrate twice by any chance in a day — which 
 except on Christmas Day, or Easter Day, or when a corpse is 
 present in church for burial, or some evident necessity compel 
 we forbid to be done — after the first celebration let the drainings 
 of the chalice be most carefully swallowed, and what was poured 
 over his fingers into the chalice be reserved in a clean vessel 
 specially provided for the purpose, and be consumed after 
 the celebration of the second mass, unless by chance at the 
 first celebration a deacon or other proper minister, or some 
 innocent person, be present who can consume the ablution 
 without hurt to conscience 2 . 
 
 The repeated expression "after the celebration" does 
 not mean apparently after the conclusion of the service, 
 but only after the communion, the remainder of the 
 liturgy being considered presumably of negligible import- 
 ance. 
 
 1 Wilkins, vol. 1. p. 505. 2 Wilkins, vol. 1. p. 579.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 153 
 
 In the Constitutions of Richard le Poor (c. 1220), Bishop 
 of Salisbury, we find the same provision for the washing 
 of both paten and chalice, and for the consumption of the 
 ablutions, and use of the purificator, expressed in identical 
 words, and again, "some innocent person" is allowed to 
 take the ablutions 1 . 
 
 At the council of Oxford in 1222 we have again the 
 same rule to be observed when a priest duplicates: 
 
 And let the priest after he has consumed the Lord's body and 
 blood at the altar, if he has himself to celebrate the solemnities 
 of the mass a second time on the same day, not presume to 
 consume the wine poured into the chalice, or over his fingers 2 . 
 
 We find an almost identical order in the Constitutions 
 of Archbishop Langton, also in 1222, though water is 
 allowed as an alternative to wine: 
 
 After the priest has consumed the body of Christ and the 
 blood let him not dare to consume the water or wine put into 
 the chalice, or poured over his fingers, if on the same day he 
 has of necessity to celebrate the solemnities of the mass again 3 . 
 
 The council of Aberdeen in 1230 repeated with but 
 slight alteration the directions of the council of Durham in 
 1220, ordering the ablution of the priest's fingers to "be 
 consumed by some person of good conscience," or reserved 
 until after the second celebration in a clean vessel, and 
 adding words from the decree of the council of West-* 
 minster in 1200 — "after the first celebration and the con- 
 sumption of the body and blood let nothing which is 
 consumed by the celebrant be poured into the chalice, but 
 only after the following celebration 4 ." 
 
 The Constitutions of Edmund of Abingdon, Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, of the year 1236, have the same order about 
 the ablution of the paten and chalice, and the use of the 
 
 1 Spelman, vol. n. p. 148. 2 Wilkins, vol. 1. p. 586. 
 
 3 Wilkins, vol. 1. p. 594. 
 
 4 Registrum Aberdonense, vol. II. p. 27.
 
 154 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 purificator, but the direction about what is to be done 
 when a priest duplicates is omitted 1 . Both the Durham 
 decrees with regard to the ablutions reappear with slight 
 modifications in certain anonymous constitutions of per- 
 haps a little later date 2 . 
 
 By the beginning of the thirteenth century the ablutions 
 had evidently become a regular feature of the liturgy in 
 Britain, and at the end of the century we find references 
 to them in the service-books. In the pontifical of Anianus, 
 Bishop of Bangor (i 267-1305), there is a mention of the 
 threefold ablution, though no particulars are given. After 
 Corpus ei sanguis we read: 
 
 After the first effusion let him say Quod ore, after the second 
 effusion Haec nos communio, after the third effusion Gratias 
 tibi. After the completion of mass let the priest say Placeat 
 tibi 3 . 
 
 No distinction is drawn between the different ablutions, 
 but perhaps the first and third are of the chalice, and the 
 second of the priest's fingers in the chalice. 
 
 In a manuscript Sarum missal (perhaps earlier than 
 1300), formerly belonging to the Earl of Crawford, and now 
 in the John Rylands Library at Manchester, we read : 
 
 Then let the body and blood be consumed, and afterwards 
 let this prayer be said, Gratias tibi. Then let him proceed to 
 wash his fingers and the chalice, and meanwhile say Haec nos 
 communio, Benedicta, Quod ore. Mass being finished, with 
 head bowed before the altar and hands joined, let the priest 
 say Placeat tibi 4 . 
 
 The three prayers suggest that there are three washings, 
 perhaps two of the chalice and one of the priest's fingers, 
 but nothing is said about wine or water. 
 
 A manuscript Sarum missal of about the same date, now 
 
 1 Spelman, vol. II. p. 206. 2 Spelman, vol. 11. p. 232. 
 
 3 Henderson, York Missal, vol. 1 . p. 335. 
 * Legg, Sarum Missal, p. 228.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 155 
 
 at the library of the Arsenal in Paris, has the same rubrics 
 at this point, save for the omission of that before Placeat 
 tibi 1 . 
 
 In a manuscript containing the order for a nuptial mass, 
 probably of the first half of the fifteenth century, and 
 now in the British Museum, we have a rearrangement of 
 the Crawford form of the rubric which makes nonsense, 
 due, it would seem, to an unintelligent attempt to make 
 Gratias tibi the final prayer, as it is according to another 
 Sarum tradition. We read: 
 
 Then let him proceed to wash his fingers and the chalice, 
 and meanwhile say Quod ore, Haec nos communio. Then let the 
 body and blood be consumed, and afterwards let this prayer 
 be said, Gratias tibi 2 . 
 
 In a manuscript Sarum missal of a little later date 
 than the Crawford book, now in the University Library 
 at Bologna, the rubrics with regard to the ablutions are 
 contradictory, for though prayers are provided for three 
 ablutions, where the liquid to be used is prescribed they 
 are as distinctly limited to two, due apparently to a 
 combination of two different sets of rubrics without the 
 necessary adjustment. We read: 
 
 At the first washing Corpus tuum, at the second washing let 
 him say Quod ore, at the third washing let him say Haec nos 
 communio. The prayer being said let the priest take the chalice 
 and go to the right corner of the altar, and let the subdeacon 
 minister to him wine once and water once, and let the priest 
 say these prayers following. At the first washing of his hands 
 in the chalice let him say Gratias tibi. Then let the priest turn 
 the chalice over on the paten, and with hands joined say before 
 the altar Perceptio corporis. Then let him go to the sacrarium 
 to wash his hands, and again with hands joined let him return 
 to the altar to say the collects; and so let mass be finished 3 . 
 
 1 Legg, Sarum Missal, p. 228. 
 
 2 Legg, Tracts on the Mass (H.B.S.), p. 266. 
 8 Legg, Sarum Missal, p. 228.
 
 156 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 In a manuscript Sarum missal of perhaps the begin- 
 ning of the fourteenth century in Cambridge University 
 Library (ff. 4. 44), in a manuscript manual of slightly later 
 date belonging to the Rev. Edmund McClure, and also in a 
 manuscript manual of the fifteenth century which belonged 
 to the late Dr Rock, we find different rubrics again. We 
 read: 
 
 Then let him receive. After this let the minister approach 
 and pour wine or water into the chalice, and if it be necessary 
 that the priest should celebrate again let him receive nothing 
 of the effusion, but put it in the sacrarium. After the first 
 effusion let him say Quod ore, after the second effusion Haec 
 nos communio, after the third effusion let him say with great 
 devotion this prayer, Gr alias tibi, A dor emus cruets, Lavabo inter 
 innocentes. After the completion of mass let the priest, with 
 body bowed before the altar and hands joined, say this prayer, 
 Placeat tibi 1 . 
 
 Nothing is said about the liquid to be used for particular 
 ablutions. We note the addition of Adoremus crucis after 
 Gratias tibi, and of Lavabo inter innocentes presumably at 
 the washing of the hands. 
 
 In the Sarum Customary, given in manuscripts of the 
 Ordinal of the end of the fourteenth century, we find 
 much more elaborate rubrics, incorporating those of the 
 more ancient Consuetudinary and of the missals, and also 
 the substance of the decree of the council of Westminster 
 in 1200 on duplication. We read according to the manu- 
 script at Corpus Christi College, Oxford: 
 
 Then let him consume the blood, and having consumed it 
 let the priest go to the right corner of the altar with the chalice 
 between his hands, his fingers still joined as before, and let the 
 subdeacon approach and pour into the chalice wine and water, 
 and let the priest rinse his hands lest any remnants of the body 
 and blood remain on his fingers or in the chalice. But when 
 
 1 Legg, Tracts on the Mass, pp. 267-8. Cf. Rock, Church of our 
 Fathers, Ed. Hart and Frere, 1905, vol. iv. p. 193.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 157 
 
 any (priest) has to celebrate twice in one day then he ought 
 not to receive any ablution, but to put it in the sacrarium or 
 in a clean vessel until the end of the second mass, and then 
 let each ablution be consumed. After the first infusion let 
 this prayer follow, Quod ore. Then let him wash his fingers in 
 the bowl of the chalice with wine poured by the subdeacon. 
 And this being drunk this prayer, Haec nos communio, follows. 
 Then let the subdeacon pour water into the chalice, and this 
 being drunk let the priest go to the middle of the altar and 
 bow and say with devotion this prayer, Gratias tibi. And with 
 this prayer let the priest go to the right corner of the altar 
 and wash his hands. Meanwhile let the deacon fold the cor- 
 porals. Let the subdeacon carry the book to the right corner 
 of the altar. And let the deacon take the chalice which lies 
 on the paten, and when the priest returns to the right corner 
 of the altar if any of the infusion remain let him hold it to the 
 mouth of the priest for him to consume. After the reception 
 of the sacrament, while the priest goes to wash his hands, let 
 the deacon fold the corporals and put them back in the case. 
 And afterwards let him place the corporals on the chalice 
 with the chalice veil, and commit the chalice also to the acolyte 
 until the Post Communion is said, and when Per omnia saecula 
 saeculorum is said after the prayer let him carry it away 
 with the same solemnity with which he brought it in. When 
 he has washed his hands let the priest return to the right corner 
 of the altar, and say the Communion with his ministers 1 . 
 
 The passage "After the reception. . .brought it in" is 
 taken verbatim from the Consuetudinary. 
 
 Apparently the ablution of the chalice like that of the 
 priest's fingers is with wine, but the third pouring into the 
 chalice is now of water. According to another text of the 
 Ordinal, however, in a manuscript at Salisbury Cathedral, 
 the third pouring also is of wine. This text omits, probably 
 by an error of the copyist, the statement that when the 
 priest goes to the right corner of the altar he "washes his 
 
 1 Frere, Use of S arum, vol. 1. pp. 87-8. See p. 151 above.
 
 158 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 hands" while the deacon folds the corporals, though the 
 second reference to this washing still remains 1 . 
 
 In a missal written for Colewich 2 about the year 1400 
 and now in the British Museum we find the directions of 
 the Customary according to the text of the manuscript at 
 Corpus Christi College, Oxford, incorporated with but few 
 alterations in the ordinary of the mass instead of the 
 shorter rubrics. Water is prescribed for the third ablution, 
 and when the priest washes his hands at the sacrarium he 
 says Lavabo inter innocentes. At the end we read: "After 
 the reception of the sacrament, etc., as above on the First 
 Sunday of the Advent of the Lord," the details not being 
 repeated 3 . 
 
 In another missal of about the same date, which was 
 presented to Oswestry church in 1554, and regarded by 
 Maskell as perhaps belonging to the use of Bangor, we 
 find another version of the rubrics from the Sarum 
 Customary. As in the Roman missal the priest is directed 
 to consume "the whole of the blood." It then continues: 
 
 And having consumed it and put the chalice down upon the 
 altar, bowing with great veneration in the middle of the altar 
 and looking at the cross, let the priest say this prayer following 
 Gratias tibi, and this being said let the priest go.... 
 
 We notice that Gratias tibi here follows the consumption 
 of the elements immediately, as in the Crawford missal. 
 There are only two ablutions, the first of the priest's 
 fingers with wine, the second of the chalice with wine or 
 water, the different uses of the two manuscripts of the 
 Customary being thus made alternatives, and both may 
 be poured by the subdeacon "or some other minister." 
 The words "After the first infusion let this prayer follow, 
 Quod ore," are omitted, and Quod ore takes the place of 
 Haec nos in the text as given in the Customary, while 
 
 1 Frere, vol. 1. pp. 87-8. 2 Probably Colwich, Staffs. 
 3 Harl. MS. 4919. Legg, Tracts on the Mass, pp. 266-7.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 159 
 
 Haec nos is now said after the final ablution before the 
 priest returns to the middle of the altar. At this point 
 there is an insertion and we read : 
 
 The prayer being finished, let the priest go to the middle of 
 the altar and putting the chalice down there so as to lie upon 
 the paten, and bowing with great veneration, and looking at 
 the cross, let him say in memory of the Lord's passion Adoremus 
 cruris. 
 
 The reference to the cross is thus repeated in similar 
 words. The section "Meanwhile let the deacon. . .to con- 
 sume," is omitted, as also the section "and give the chalice 
 . . .brought it in." We read also that the priest places the 
 corporals "with the chalice veil or napkin" on the chalice 1 . 
 In a manuscript Sarum missal of about the middle of 
 the fifteenth century now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford 
 (Rawl. Liturg. C 2), we find another form of the directions 
 of the Sarum Customary, akin to those of the Oswestry 
 missal, Gratia s tibi being said after the priest's communion 
 and before the ablutions, but with various other altera- 
 tions, and without the lengthy omissions of the Oswestry 
 manuscript. We read: 
 
 Then let him consume the blood, and having consumed it 
 and put down the chalice on the right corner of the altar, 
 bowing with great veneration before the middle of the altar, 
 and looking at the cross let him say, Gratias tibi. . .Jesu Christi, 
 (then let him retire from the altar) et precor . . .in vitam eternam. 
 Then let the priest go to the right corner of the altar, and take 
 the chalice again between his hands, his fingers still joined as 
 before, and the subdeacon approaching let him pour wine into 
 the chalice, and let the priest rinse his fingers in the bowl of 
 the chalice, lest any remnants of the body and blood remain on 
 his fingers or in the chalice. But when any priest has to cele- 
 brate twice in one day then he ought not to receive any ablution, 
 but to put it in the sacrarium, or in a clean vessel until the end 
 
 1 Maskell, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, pp. 184-196.
 
 160 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 of the second mass, and then let him consume each ablution. 
 And so the said infusion of wine being consumed let the priest 
 say this prayer, Quod ore. Then the fingers with which the 
 sacrament is handled ought to be besprinkled by the subdeacon 
 in the bowl of the chalice, with wine, which is consumed by 
 the priest himself. And this being drunk the prayer, Haec 
 nos communio, follows. And afterwards let the priest lean the 
 chalice over on the paten and bow in the middle of the altar and 
 say with devotion this prayer looking at the cross, A dor emus 
 cruets. Then let the priest go to the sacrarium, or to the right 
 corner of the altar, and wash his hands, an acolyte ministering 
 to him. And meanwhile let the deacon fold the corporals and 
 put them back in the case. And let the subdeacon carry the 
 book to the right corner of the altar. And when the priest 
 returns to the right corner of the altar after the washing of his 
 hands let the deacon take the chalice which lies on the paten, 
 and if any of the infusion remain in it, let him hold it to the 
 mouth of the priest for him to consume. Then let him place 
 the corporals on it with the chalice veil, and commit it to the 
 acolyte until the Post Communion is said, and when Per omnia 
 saecula saeculorum is said after the prayer let him carry it away 
 with the same solemnity with which he brought it in. When he 
 has washed his hands let the priest return to the right corner 
 of the altar, and say the Communion with his ministers 1 . 
 
 We notice that here again there are only two ablutions, 
 but it is the third and not the second as in the Oswestry 
 missal which is omitted. Wine is prescribed on both 
 occasions. The order to turn the chalice over on the paten 
 is almost verbally identical with that in the early four- 
 teenth century Bologna manuscript. The direction to look 
 at the cross is repeated as in the Oswestry book. It is 
 the second reference to the deacon folding the corporals 
 while the priest washes his hands which is here omitted. 
 
 In another fifteenth century Bodleian manuscript (Laud. 
 Misc. 164) we have another version of the directions of the 
 
 1 f. 123. Cf. Legg, Tracts on the Mass, p. 267.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 161 
 
 Customary akin to that of the last named missal, but the 
 influence of the rubrics of the Oswestry book is also appar- 
 ent. There are three ablutions and an attempt has been 
 made to combine the two conflicting types of Sarum 
 rubric, and to put back Gratias tibi so as to follow the 
 third ablution; for where it is found in the preceding 
 manuscript immediately after the consumption of the 
 elements the priest is directed to say this "prayer," 
 though no prayer is given. There is only one reference to 
 looking at the cross when he says Adoremus cruris. We 
 read: 
 
 Then let him consume the blood, and having consumed it 
 and put down the chalice on the right corner of the altar let 
 him say this prayer. Then let the priest go to the right corner 
 of the altar and take the chalice between his hands, his fingers 
 still joined as before. And this being done let the deacon pour 
 wine into the chalice. And this being drunk let him say Quod 
 ore. Then let him wash his fingers in the bowl of the chalice 
 with wine poured by the subdeacon. And this being drunk let 
 him say Haec nos communio. Then let the subdeacon pour 
 water into the chalice, and this being drunk let the priest go 
 to the middle of the altar and bow and say with great venera- 
 tion, looking at the cross, Adoremus cruets. Let Gratias tibi 
 follow. Then let the priest go to the sacrarium, and there wash 
 his hands in the sacrarium, and having washed and wiped them 
 let him return to the right corner of the altar and say the Post 
 Communion; and this being said let him say He missa est 
 towards the people 1 . 
 
 We notice that it is the deacon who pours the first 
 ablution, though the subdeacon still pours the other two, 
 and that the third ablution is of water. 
 
 In the missal presented to Westminster Abbey by 
 Abbot Lytlyngton (1362-86) we read: 
 
 Prayer of the priest at receiving before taking (the ablutions), 
 Corpus et sanguis. When the minister pours wine into the 
 
 1 Cf. Legg, p. 266. 
 l.e. 11
 
 162 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 chalice for the ablutions let the priest say Domine Jesu. At 
 the washing of the hands Corpus Domini. Another prayer after 
 the washing, Quod ore 1 . 
 
 Apparently there is only one ablution, which is of wine. 
 
 In a late fourteenth century manuscript missal which be- 
 longed to the church of Sherborne, and is now at Alnwick 
 Castle, we read: 
 
 After the reception of the body and blood of the Lord, and 
 after the first infusion say Quod ore, after the washing of the 
 fingers within the chalice Haec nos communio. Bowing let 
 him say Gr alias tibi. Mass being finished let the priest bow 
 before the altar and say Placeat tibi 2 . 
 
 In a manuscript missal of Hereford use of the fourteenth 
 century in the library of University College, Oxford, we 
 read: 
 
 Then let him sign himself with the blood. Then let him go 
 with the chalice to the right corner of the altar and make three 
 infusions. While the first is made let him say Quod ore, while 
 the second infusion is made over his fingers Haec nos Domine, 
 while the third infusion is made Tres sunt. Then let the chalice 
 be put on the paten. Then let the priest bow before the altar, 
 and say on this wise Corpus tuum. Then let him wash his 
 hands at the sacrarium, and say Lavabo inter innocentes. Then 
 let him go to the altar, and having said the collects with Ite 
 missa est let the priest before the altar, with head or body 
 bowed and hands joined, say this prayer, Placeat tibi 3 . 
 
 We notice a resemblance to the later directions of the 
 Bologna Sarum missal. As at Sherborne nothing is said 
 whether the ablutions are with wine or water, but in 
 addition to the washing of the hands at the sacrarium 
 there are plainly three pourings into the chalice, Tres sunt 
 (i John v. 7) supplying a mystical interpretation. 
 
 1 Legg, Missale Westmonast. vol. n. col. 520-1. 
 
 2 Legg, Liturgical Notes on the Sherborne Missal, pp. 8, 9. Cf. Simmons, 
 Lay Folks Mass Book, p. 306. 
 
 3 Henderson, Hereford Missal, pp. 134-5.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 163 
 
 In a fourteenth century manuscript missal of the use 
 of York now in the Minster Library we have only two 
 prayers, Quod ore and Haec nos communio, followed by 
 Placeat tibi 1 , so that probably only two ablutions are 
 intended, but there are no rubrics. 
 
 In another copy of about the same date now at Uni- 
 versity College, Oxford, we read : 
 
 Quod ore, Haec nos communio, Tres sunt. After mass let him 
 bow. Placeat tibi 2 . 
 
 Here there are probably three ablutions corresponding 
 to the number of the prayers, the third again providing 
 the mystical meaning. 
 
 In a manuscript breviary of the use of York of the four- 
 teenth century, now in the Minster Library, we find also 
 the canon of the mass, etc., and as given here the rubrics 
 are somewhat more elaborate. We read : 
 
 When first the wine is poured into the chalice after the 
 reception this prayer is said, Quod ore. Secondly after the 
 infusion of the water into the chalice let the priest say Haec 
 nos communio, Tres sunt. Then let him bow his body in the 
 middle of the altar and say as he goes to the lavatory this 
 prayer, Gratias tibi. After the completion of mass let the priest, 
 with body bowed and hands joined before the altar, say this 
 prayer, Placeat tibi 3 . 
 
 We note that the first of the ablutions in the chalice is 
 of wine and the second of water. If a third is intended by 
 the prayer, Tres sunt, this also would probably be of water. 
 
 In another manuscript York missal of the fifteenth cen- 
 tury (c. 1470), written for use in the cathedral itself, as is 
 plain from a number of points, and now at Sidney Sussex 
 College, Cambridge, we find a version of the rubrics of the 
 Sarum Customary. We read: 
 
 Then let him consume the blood, and having consumed it 
 
 1 Henderson, York Missal, vol. I. pp. 203-5. 
 
 2 Henderson, vol. 1. pp. 203-5. 3 Henderson, vol. 1. pp. 203-5. 
 
 11 — 2
 
 164 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 let the priest go to the right corner of the altar with the chalice 
 between his hands, his fingers still joined as before, and let 
 the thurifer approach and deliver to the subdeacon a phial with 
 wine that he may pour into the chalice, and let the priest 
 rinse his hands lest any remnants of the body and blood remain 
 on his fingers, or in the chalice. But when any priest has to 
 celebrate twice in one day then at the first mass he ought not 
 to receive any ablution, but to put it in the sacrarium in a 
 clean vessel until the end of the second mass, and then let 
 each ablution be consumed. And after the first ablution let a 
 prayer follow in this wise, Quod ore. Then let him wash his 
 fingers in the bowl of the chalice with wine poured by the 
 subdeacon. And this being drunk let the prayer, Haec nos 
 communio, follow. Then likewise let the subdeacon pour wine 
 into the chalice, and this being drunk let the priest go to the 
 middle of the altar and replace the chalice upon the paten, and 
 bow and say Gratias tibi. And with this prayer let the priest 
 go to the right corner of the altar that the thurifer may give the 
 priest water at the sacrarium, the candlebearer holding the bowls . 
 And while these things are being done let the deacon fold the 
 corporals, and afterwards carry the book to the right corner of 
 the altar. Then let the deacon take the chalice which lies on the 
 paten, and if any of the infusion remain in it let him hold it 
 to the mouth of the priest for him to consume when he comes 
 from the right corner of the altar. And afterwards let him 
 cover the chalice on the north part of the altar, and put on it 
 the corporals, and deliver it to the subdeacon, or acolyte, as 
 is noted above in the rubric before the preface. After the 
 reception of the sacrament, and the ablution of his hands, let 
 the priest turn towards the people at the right corner of the 
 altar, and say the Communion, and the rest. Mass being finished, 
 let the priest, with body bowed and hands joined, silently before 
 the middle of the altar say this prayer, Placeat tibi 1 . 
 
 We notice that here there are plainly three ablutions 
 in the chalice each of wine in addition to the washing of the 
 
 1 Henderson, vol. I. pp. 202-4.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 165 
 
 priest's hands at the sacrarium. The word "likewise" in 
 the case of the third shows that the practice of using 
 water for the last ablution was known and disallowed. 
 Among the modifications of the Sarum order we note the 
 addition of the words "Let the thurifer approach and 
 deliver to the subdeacon a phial with wine," the directions 
 to "replace the chalice upon the paten" before saying 
 Gratias tibi, and "that the thurifer may give the priest 
 water at the sacrarium, the candlebearer holding the 
 bowls," and the statement that the chalice is to be 
 covered "on the north part of the altar." Also it is when 
 the priest comes "from the right corner of the altar," not 
 when he goes to it, as in the Customary and other books, 
 that the drainings of the chalice are to be consumed. 
 The reference to the bowls suggests the Roman Ordines. 
 
 Certain notes of the canonist Lyndwood in his Pro- 
 vinciate, begun in 1422, are interesting as illustrating 
 English custom with regard to the ablutions, and the 
 liquid used. We read: 
 
 Digitis super fusum. From these words it can be gathered 
 that the first ablution ought to be in the chalice, and the second 
 over the fingers also in the chalice, and each of wine. Therefore 
 they err who first pour over their fingers, and they also who 
 use water at the second pouring 1 . 
 
 Ablutos. By the pouring over of wine into the chalice, or by 
 the ablution made at the lavatory. But today according to the 
 usual custom this is not observed, except that a towel is kept 
 near the lavatory 2 . 
 
 Apparently Lyndwood knows nothing of a third ablu- 
 tion. Though he prefers that the ablutions of the chalice 
 and of the priest's fingers should both be with wine, he is 
 witness to the prevalence of a contrary custom, by which 
 water was used at the second ablution, as we noticed in 
 
 1 Lib. in. Tit. 23, De celeb, miss. Constitutio, Stephanus, Ed. Oxford, 
 1679, p. 227. 
 
 3 Constitutio, Edmundus, p. 235.
 
 166 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 the Oswestry missal {c. 1400) (as an alternative), in the 
 rubrics of the York breviary text of the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, and in the Constitutions of Archbishop Langton as 
 early as the thirteenth, where indeed water is allowed 
 apparently even for the first ablution. It is only for the 
 third ablution that water is prescribed in the Corpus 
 Christi College, Oxford, text of the Sarum Customary and 
 texts dependent on it, and this Lyndwood does not 
 mention. He tells us that in most places the hand-washing 
 at the sacrarium after the ablutions in the chalice was 
 obsolete, though a vestige remained in the provision of a 
 towel, but the rubric derived ultimately from the Con- 
 suetudinary is repeated in all missals at a much later date, 
 showing it would seem that the existence of rubrics is not 
 necessarily evidence that in practice they are obeyed. 
 
 In the manuscript missal written by James Sibbald 
 (f 1507), Vicar of Arbuthnott in the diocese of St Andrews, 
 really a book of Sarum use, we find another version of the 
 directions derived from the Customary according to the 
 original text in which Gratias tibi is said at the end of the 
 ablutions and not after the consumption of the elements. 
 It agrees generally with the Corpus Christi College, 
 Oxford, manuscript, water being ordered for the third 
 ablution, but the section derived from the Consuetudinary, 
 " After the reception. . .he brought it in," is omitted at the 
 end. We notice also that as in the York missal with the 
 Sarum rubrics, now at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, 
 it is when the priest comes "from the right corner of the 
 altar," not when he goes to it, that the last drainings of 
 the ablutions are to be consumed 1 . 
 
 The rubrics of the York printed missal of which five 
 editions are known to have existed, 1509 (?), 1516, 1517, 
 1530 and 1533 are in marked contrast as regards length 
 with those of the Sidney Sussex manuscript, yet they 
 are plainly derived from them by a process of curtailment, 
 1 Forbes, Missale de Arbuthnott, p. 163.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 167 
 
 much of the characteristic phraseology, here and elsewhere, 
 being retained. We read after Corpus et sanguis : 
 
 After the first ablution let this prayer be said Quod ore. Then 
 let him take the chalice and put it upon the paten and after- 
 wards bowing let him say Haec nos communio. Then let the 
 priest, with body bowed and hands joined, silently in the 
 midst of the altar say this prayer, Placeat tibi 1 . 
 
 The directions are obviously incomplete for only one 
 ablution is actually mentioned, but as this is called the 
 first and two prayers are provided, probably two are 
 intended — of the chalice and of the priest's fingers. The 
 rubrics of a missal, Sarum in many points though drawn 
 up for the use of York Minster, are adapted not very 
 skilfully to the requirements of an ordinary parish church 
 with few assistant ministers and simple ceremonial. 
 
 The rubrics of the Hereford printed missal as published 
 in 1502, are longer and somewhat more elaborate. We read : 
 
 After he has communicated let him go to the right corner 
 of the altar with the chalice and wash it with wine saying 
 Quod ore. Then let him wash his fingers over the chalice with 
 wine or water saying Haec nos Domine. Then let him wash it 
 with water and return to the middle of the altar with that 
 ablution, and there consume it, and let him say again Corpus 
 tuum. Then let him put the chalice so as to lie on the paten, 
 and bow to the altar and go to the sacrarium and wash his 
 hands, and as he goes let him say Lavabo inter innocentes. 
 Then let him return to the altar and say the Communion. This 
 being said let him sign himself and turn to the people and say, 
 Dominus vobiscum. And let him say the Post Communion. And 
 at the end of the prayer let him join his hands and go to the 
 middle of the altar saying Per Dominum.... Then with hands 
 joined let him bow to the altar saying Placeat tibi 2 . 
 
 We notice that there are three ablutions, that the second 
 may be of wine or water, and the third of water. The 
 
 1 Henderson, York Missal, vol. I. pp. 202-4. 
 
 2 Henderson, Herefore Missal, pp. 134-5.
 
 168 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch. 
 
 rubrics show considerable expansion and modification of 
 the manuscript missal, and a comparison seems to show 
 the influence of the Sarum rubrics, though there is much 
 curtailment ; and the use of water is here authorised, not 
 condemned as by Lyndwood. 
 
 In the various editions of the printed Sarum missal 
 which appeared between 1487 and 1557 there is little 
 change in the rubrics, which are a modification of the 
 version of the rubrics of the Customary found in the 
 Bodleian manuscript, Rawl. Liturg. C 2. With respect to 
 the ablutions we read : 
 
 Then let him consume the blood, and having consumed it 
 let the priest bow and say with devotion the following prayer, 
 Gratias tibi. And having said this let the priest go to the right 
 corner of the altar with the chalice between his hands, his 
 fingers still joined as before, and let the subdeacon approach 
 and pour into the chalice wine and water, and let the priest 
 rinse his hands lest any remnants of the body or blood remain 
 on his fingers, or in the chalice. But when any priest has to 
 celebrate twice in one day then at the first mass he ought not 
 to receive any ablution, but to put it in the sacrarium or in a 
 clean vessel until the end of the second mass ; and then let each 
 ablution be consumed. After the first ablution this prayer, 
 Quod ore, is said. Then let him wash his fingers in the bowl 
 of the chalice with wine poured by the subdeacon. And this 
 being drunk let the prayer, Haec nos communio, follow. After 
 the reception of the ablution let the priest put the chalice on 
 the paten so that if anything remain it may drain. And after- 
 wards bowing let him say Adoremus cruets. Then let him wash 
 his hands. Meanwhile let the deacon fold the corporals. When 
 he has washed his hands and the priest returns to the right 
 corner of the altar let the deacon hold the chalice to the mouth 
 of the priest for him to consume, if anything of the infusion 
 remain in it. And afterwards let him say the Communion with 
 his ministers 1 . 
 
 1 Dickinson, Missale Sarum, col. 626-8.
 
 ix] THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN 169 
 
 The final text of the rubrics of the Sarum missal with 
 regard to the ablutions thus agrees with the earliest 
 known, that of the Crawford manuscript, in placing 
 Gratias tibi immediately after the communion and before 
 the ablutions. Apparently as in the Bodleian manuscript, 
 Rawl. Liturg. C 2, there are only two ablutions, and 
 though we are told that the subdeacon will pour wine and 
 water into the chalice the second ablution is to be of wine, 
 and all reference to the third which was frequently of 
 water has vanished. 
 
 The rubrics for the ablutions of the Sarum Customary 
 reappear in the Manual of 1554, and it is the text of the 
 Corpus Christi College, Oxford, manuscript which is 
 followed. Three ablutions are prescribed and water for the 
 third. We notice that it is the deacon not the subdeacon, 
 as is usual, who ministers both the wine, as in the Bodleian 
 manuscript, Laud. Misc. 164, and also the water, while the 
 subdeacon, not the acolyte, as in the Bodleian manuscript, 
 Rawl. Liturg. C 2, ministers the water when he washes 
 his hands at the sacrarium. The words "after the first 
 ablution, " which properly indicate when Quod ore is to be 
 said, have been joined to the previous sentence so that 
 when a priest duplicates we are told that each ablution 
 should be consumed "after the first ablution." After the 
 third ablution the priest is directed to "turn the chalice 
 over upon the paten," as in the Bodleian manuscript, Rawl. 
 Liturg. C 2, and in the earlier Bologna manuscript, and as 
 suggested in the printed missals at this point 1 . 
 
 Our investigation has shown that the history of the 
 ablutions in England and Britain generally was much the 
 same as elsewhere. In the earliest days the rules of the 
 Admonition of the pseudo Leo with regard to the washing 
 of the vessels and the priest's hands were observed, as we 
 see in Cotton MS. Tiberius C. I of the eleventh century, now 
 in the British Museum. The washing of the priest's fingers 
 
 1 Dickinson, col. 626-8.
 
 170 THE ABLUTIONS IN BRITAIN [ch.ix 
 
 was the earliest form of ablution to be moved so as to 
 take place during the service, exactly as on the continent, 
 and it is found in the Consuetudinaries of different cathe- 
 drals, the oldest of which, that of Salisbury, dates from 
 the beginning of the thirteenth century, and is the basis 
 of the rest. About the same time we find various councils 
 laying down rules for the ablutions, as for a practice which, 
 though now well established, was still uncertain in detail, 
 and particularly with reference to what is to be done 
 when a priest duplicates. There is to be a rinsing both of 
 the chalice and of the priest's fingers. The influence of 
 Rouen on English ceremonial as seen in the Lay Folks 
 Mass Book and elsewhere suggests that the customs of 
 that church were imitated in this as in other matters. By 
 the end of the thirteenth century directions for the ablu- 
 tions are included in the service books, and we find them 
 in the pontifical of Anianus of Bangor. In the Sarum 
 Customary of the first half of the fourteenth century, 
 which is an elaboration of the older Consuetudinary, we 
 find a big development, and the complicated directions 
 contained in it became the norm of later days, and appear 
 with various modifications not only in all the later Salis- 
 bury missals, where the cross influences are extremely 
 complicated, but also at York, Hereford, and St Andrews.
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 THE ORDER OF COMMUNION AND 
 THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 
 
 THE first change in the traditional method of giving 
 communion in England is to be found in the Order 
 of Communion published in 1548, a form of prayer in 
 English by which the holy sacrament in both kinds was 
 to be given to the people, to be interpolated in the Latin 
 mass. The preliminary rubric runs : 
 
 The time of the communion shall be immediately after that 
 the priest himself hath received the sacrament, without the 
 varying of any other rite or ceremony in the mass (until other 
 order shall be provided), but as heretofore usually the priest 
 hath done with the sacrament of the body, to prepare, bless, 
 and consecrate so much as will serve the people, so it shall 
 continue still after the same manner and form, save that he 
 shall bless and consecrate the biggest chalice, or some fair 
 and convenient cup or cups full of wine with some water put 
 into it, and that day not drink it up all himself, but taking 
 one only sup, or draught, leave the rest upon the altar covered, 
 and turn to them that are disposed to be partakers of the 
 communion, and shall thus exhort them as followeth. 
 
 After the confession and absolution and We do not pre- 
 sume, we read: 
 
 Then shall the priest rise, the people still reverently kneeling, 
 and the priest shall deliver the communion, first to the ministers 
 if any be there present that they may be ready to help the 
 priest, and after to the other. And when he doth deliver the 
 sacrament of the body of Christ he shall say to everyone these 
 words following, 
 
 The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, 
 preserve thy body unto everlasting life.
 
 172 THE ORDER OF COMMUNION [ch. 
 
 And the priest delivering the sacrament of the blood, and 
 giving everyone to drink once and no more, shall say, 
 
 The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, 
 preserve thy soul to everlasting life. 
 
 If there be a deacon or other priest then shall he follow with 
 the chalice, and as the priest ministereth the bread so shall 
 he for more expedition minister the wine in form before written. 
 Then shall the priest, turning him to the people, let the people 
 depart with this blessing, 
 
 The peace of God which passeth all understanding keep your 
 hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his 
 Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 To which the people shall answer, Amen. 
 
 The new Order of Communion was not in many ways 
 such a very great innovation. Numerous such orders for 
 use when communion was given out of mass are in existence, 
 and since the twelfth century a form of confession and 
 absolution had been frequently interpolated in the service 
 on the occasions when the sacrament was distributed in its 
 proper place after the communion of the priest. Also the 
 insertion of a confession and absolution in the vernacular 
 into the mass after the sermon had been common on the 
 continent, at any rate from the eleventh century, and many 
 forms exist 1 , so that the absolutely new elements in the 
 Order of Communion were not so very numerous. Allowing 
 for other influences we note that the words used at the 
 actual delivery of the sacrament are very similar to what 
 we find in the order for the visitation of the sick in the 
 lost St Remi codex of the Gregorian Sacramentary (c. 800) . 
 After preparatory devotions we read: 
 
 Then let him communicate the sick man saying, 
 The body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee unto 
 everlasting life. 
 
 1 Mulhenhoff and Sherer, Denkmaler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 
 p. 200 ff.
 
 x] AND THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 173 
 
 The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem thee unto ever- 
 lasting life. 
 
 The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the communion of 
 the saints be with thee and with us unto everlasting life, Amen. 
 
 Prayer in consummation 1 . 
 
 The Pax at the giving of the sacrament privately came 
 usually before communion as at mass, and was indeed a 
 duplication of the Pax given in church, but the practice of 
 giving it after the words of adminstration, if not after the 
 actual reception, seems to have been not uncommon, and 
 survives in various orders of communion. In the Codex 
 Tilianus of the Gregorian Sacramentary and in a twelfth 
 century pontifical of Salzburg, which retains the Gregorian 
 rubrics, in the service for the communion of the sick we read : 
 
 A prayer at (before, Salz.) the reception of the eucharist, 
 
 The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy 
 soul unto everlasting life. Amen. 
 
 (And then, Salz.) 
 
 The peace and communion of the body and blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life. 
 
 After the consumption of the eucharist, 
 
 Lord Jesu Christ... 2 . 
 
 In a tenth or eleventh century German form only the 
 Pax in its modified form has survived. After the unction 
 and collects we read : 
 
 Here let him be communicated, 
 
 The peace and communion of the body and blood of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life. Amen 3 . 
 
 The English Order of Communion according to the rubric 
 was to be inserted in the order of the mass immediately 
 after the priest's communion, and therefore before the 
 
 1 Menard, Gregorian Sacramentary, pp. 550-1. P.L. lxxviii. col. 537. 
 Cf. Freestone, The Sacrament Reserved, p. 243. 
 
 2 Menard, p. 542. P.L. lxxviii. col. 528. Martene, vol. 1. lib. vn. 
 Art. iv. Ordo XV. p. 325. 
 
 3 Gerbert, Mon. Vet. Lit. Alem. vol. 11. p. 33.
 
 174 THE ORDER OF COMMUNION [ch. 
 
 prayer Gratias tibi according to the printed Sarum missal. 
 When there were communicants the order of the Crawford 
 missal would probably be that adopted, and in this we 
 read before Gratias tibi, "Then let the body and the blood 
 be consumed," so that after the Order of Communion the 
 consumption of the remains would precede Gratias tibi, 
 the remains ordinarily being the contents of the chalice with 
 the particle, and sometimes reserved hosts from the pyx. 
 The prayer, Gratias tibi, begins : 
 
 I give thee thanks, O Lord, holy Father, almighty ever- 
 lasting God, who hast refreshed me with the most sacred body 
 and blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and I pray thee 
 that this sacrament... 1 . 
 
 A longer version of this prayer, Gratias tibi, to be said 
 by the priest after mass is also found in the printed Sarum 
 missal. This begins : 
 
 I give thee thanks, O Lord God, almighty Father, who hast 
 vouchsafed to satisfy me with the body and blood of thy dear 
 Son our Lord Jesus Christ. I beseech thy great clemency, 
 almighty and merciful Lord, that this holy communion... 2 . 
 
 In the Bobbio and Stowe missals and in the ninth 
 century Irish fragment, St Gall MS. 1394, practically the 
 same form is found as the last prayer at mass 3 , and the 
 text is now seen to be derived from certain Post Com- 
 munion collects of the Leonine Sacramentary 4 . We note 
 the beginning: 
 
 We give thee thanks, O Lord, holy Father, almighty ever- 
 lasting God, who hast satisfied us with the communion of the 
 body and blood of Christ thy Son, and we humbly beseech thy 
 mercy, O Lord, that this thy sacrament... 
 
 1 Dickinson, Sarum Missal, col. 626-7. 
 
 2 Dickinson, col. 639. 
 
 * Neale and Forbes, Ancient Gallican Liturgies, p. 209. Warren, 
 Liturgy of the Celtic Church, pp. 243-4, 179. 
 
 * Feltoe, pp. 71, in.
 
 x] AND THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 175 
 
 In the Bobbio missal the prayer, Gratias tibi, which is so 
 widespread in different versions is headed "The con- 
 summation of mass," so that by the combination of the 
 Order of Communion with the Sarum mass we have an 
 almost exact reproduction of the sequence of the St Remi 
 order of clinical communion. 
 
 The communion Pax according to the new English 
 Order, in which the original Pax of the mass also survives, 
 is the concluding act in the distribution of the sacrament 
 and the ratification of the communion of the recipients 
 with one another "in the knowledge and love of God, 
 and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," which is effected 
 in that holy action. It is a development of the idea of peace 
 and communion (pax et communicatio) found in the 
 forms quoted above, and in the Ambrosian missal, and 
 with an addition in the Stowe missal and St Gall MS. 
 1394 l . As part of the act of communion the Pax, though 
 following the reception of the sacrament, naturally pre- 
 cedes the consumption of the remains, and in the Order of 
 Communion it marks the dismissal of the communicants 
 from the altar, not the end of the mass which has still to 
 be completed. The sequence would thus be, the com- 
 munion of the people in both kinds, the communion Pax 
 in English at the dismissal of the communicants, the con- 
 sumption of the remains, the thanksgiving, Gratias tibi, and 
 then the ablutions, after which the mass was concluded. 
 
 In 1549 was published the first English Prayer Book. 
 The order of communion is now no longer a separate thing 
 from the usual order of mass, but the two are joined 
 inseparably. The dismissal of the communicants and the 
 dismissal of the rest of the congregation are united, and 
 the blessing which had commonly been given at the end 
 of mass is added to the new communion Pax. The idea of 
 thanksgiving after communion, not always included in the 
 old Latin Post Communion collects, has now become a 
 
 1 Warren, pp. 242, 177.
 
 176 THE ORDER OF COMMUNION [ch. 
 
 regular feature of the service, and unlike Gratias tibi, the 
 form is said publicly and before the new Pax. Yet its 
 connection with the old thanksgiving is obvious, for it 
 begins : 
 
 Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, 
 for that thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries 
 with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood 
 of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.... And we most humbly 
 beseech thee, O heavenly Father.... 
 
 The thanksgivings after communion in Hermann's Con- 
 sultation begin similarly, and may have suggested the 
 provision of the English form, but verbally this agrees 
 rather more closely with the old English prayers 1 . 
 
 The order of the latter part of the service is now some- 
 what modified, and we have the sequence, the communion 
 of the people, the thanksgiving, the communion Pax and 
 blessing for the dismissal of the whole congregation. 
 Nothing is said about either the consumption of the re- 
 mains of the sacrament or the ablutions. It was quite 
 natural, however, that priests accustomed to the Latin 
 service should continue the 'ceremony of the ablutions, 
 adapted of course slightly to the new conditions, and now 
 that the chalice was delivered to all communicants it 
 would generally be necessary to deal with what was left 
 of the consecrated wine, as in the earliest days, as well as 
 of the consecrated bread, so that the performance of the 
 ablutions, particularly when there was more than one cup, 
 as suggested in the Order of Communion, would no longer 
 be quite so simple a ceremony. That the ceremony of the 
 ablutions was continued to the annoyance of certain of 
 the bishops and others who favoured the new ideas we 
 have considerable evidence. In a draft of "Articles to be 
 followed and observed according to the King's Majesty's 
 Injunctions and Proceedings," compiled it would seem in 
 1549, we reac l: 
 
 1 Hermann, f. 96 b.
 
 x] AND THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 177 
 
 For an uniformity that no minister do counterfeit the popish 
 mass as to kiss the Lord's table, washing his fingers every time 
 in the communion... laying down and licking the chalice of the 
 communion... or setting any light upon the Lord's board at any 
 time, and finally to use no other ceremonies than are appointed 
 in the King's Book of Common Prayers 1 . 
 
 In 1550 Ridley put forth a somewhat expanded form of 
 these requirements in his diocese. We read: 
 
 That no minister do counterfeit the popish mass in kissing 
 the Lord's board, washing his hands or fingers after the gospel, 
 or the receipt of the holy communion, shifting the book from 
 one place to another, laying down and licking the chalice after 
 the communion... or setting any light upon the Lord's board, 
 and finally that the minister in the time of the holy communion 
 do use only the ceremonies and gestures appointed in the Book 
 of Common Prayer and none other, so that there do not appear 
 in them any counterfeiting of the Popish mass 2 . 
 
 In 155 1 Hooper put forth the same directions with 
 regard to the ablutions, etc., in his diocese of Gloucester 3 . 
 
 We note that though the Articles appeal to the In- 
 junctions of 1547 they forbid what they allowed — the 
 lights on the altar — because of the silence of the Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 Bucer in his Censura on the First Prayer Book presented 
 to the Bishop of Ely in 155 1 includes washing the chalice 
 among the numerous superstitions still rife among those 
 who used the Book. He says : 
 
 There are some who by whatever signs they can study to 
 counterfeit their never sufficiently hated mass, both by 
 vestments, lights and bowings, by crossings, by washing the 
 chalice and other gestures of the missal, by breathing over the 
 bread and cup of the eucharist, by transferring the book on 
 the table from the right side to the left, by placing the table 
 in the same place in which the altar stood, by showing the 
 
 1 Frere, Visitation Articles, vol. II. pp. 19 1-3. 
 
 2 Frere, vol. 11. pp. 241-2. 3 Frere, vol. 11. p. 276. 
 
 L. E. 12
 
 178 THE ORDER OF COMMUNION [ch. 
 
 bread and chalice of the eucharist to adoring old people and 
 other superstitious folk, who do not communicate with the 
 sacraments 1 . 
 
 We notice that here there is condemnation of what is 
 required or allowed by the Prayer Book — the vestments 
 and crossings — as well as of that which is not mentioned. 
 
 Though the ablutions were thus performed still in the 
 old manner, there must have been on some occasions at 
 any rate a change in the time of performing the action. 
 
 Following the example of the Brandenburg Order of 
 1540, provision is made in the First Prayer Book for the 
 communion of the sick or those in danger of death with 
 the reserved sacrament in both kinds, and this is evidently 
 intended to be the normal method of giving communion. 
 We read: 
 
 And if the same day there be a celebration of the holy com- 
 munion in the church, then shall the priest reserve at the open 
 communion so much of the sacrament of the body and blood 
 as shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall com- 
 municate with him, if there be any. And so soon as he con- 
 veniently may, after the open communion ended in the church, 
 shall go and minister the same, first to those that are appointed 
 to communicate with the sick, if there be any, and last of all 
 to the sick person himself. But before the curate distribute 
 the holy communion the appointed general confession must be 
 made in the name of the communicants, the curate adding the 
 absolution with the comfortable sentences of scripture following 
 in the open communion, and after the communion ended the 
 collect, Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank 
 thee, etc. 
 
 There is also another rubric at the end of the office 
 dealing with the question of reservation : 
 
 And if there be more sick persons to be visited the same day 
 that the curate doth celebrate in any sick man's house, then 
 shall the curate there reserve so much of the sacrament of the 
 1 Scripta Anglicana, pp. 493-4.
 
 x] AND THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 179 
 
 body and blood as shall serve the other sick persons, and such 
 as be appointed to communicate with them, if there be any, 
 and shall immediately carry it and minister it unto them. 
 
 These rules clearly involved the remains of the conse- 
 crated elements in both kinds, or some of them, remaining 
 on the altar until the conclusion of the mass. Nothing, 
 however, is said about what is to be done with what is 
 left after all have communicated in the sick man's house, 
 and as the sick man is to communicate last that something 
 would frequently be left is plain. The consumption of any 
 such remains and anything in the nature of ablutions 
 must certainly have been postponed, and could not 
 well follow immediately after the communion. The words 
 "last of all" seem decisive against this, and preclude the 
 consumption by the priest or neighbours at this point, and 
 by the sick person it would in many cases be impossible. 
 That whatever was left over was reserved until the con- 
 clusion of the service appears to be the only possible thing, 
 and it is not improbable that the same order was intended 
 to be observed at ordinary celebrations of the holy com- 
 munion in church. 
 
 According to the Order of Communion after the distri- 
 bution of the sacrament there followed the new communion 
 Pax, the consumption, of the remains, the thanksgiving, 
 Gratias tibi, said secretly, and then the ablutions. It 
 seems unlikely that now the thanksgiving is said publicly 
 the consumption of the remains would come before it and 
 the ablutions afterwards. Indeed it seems clear from a 
 comparison of the wording in the Order of Communion 
 with that in the thanksgiving, and elsewhere in the new 
 communion service, that the disposal of what was left was 
 not intended to take place before the saying of the thanks- 
 giving. To Cranmer, whatever might be his views at the 
 moment, the eucharistic elements were rightly called "the 
 mysteries" of the body and blood of Christ, and in this 
 
 12 — 2
 
 l8o THE ORDER OF COMMUNION [ch. 
 
 sense he uses the word "mysteries" very many times in 
 his book on The true and catholic Doctrine and Use of the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Slipper. In the exhortation in the 
 Order of Communion to be said after the consecration in the 
 presence of the holy sacrament we read : "meet partakers of 
 these holy mysteries," "he hath left in these holy mysteries 
 as a pledge of his love." In the First Prayer Book, where the 
 position of the exhortation has been changed to a point 
 before the elements are placed on the altar, immediately 
 after the sermon, we find instead "meet partakers of those 
 holy mysteries," "he hath left in those holy mysteries as 
 a pledge of his love." Similar changes may be noted in 
 the use of other expressions as "this holy communion," 
 "this holy sacrament," "this most blessed bread." In 
 spite of the care shown however in making these altera- 
 tions we find in the thanksgiving which appears for the 
 first time in the First Prayer Book, "thou hast vouchsafed 
 to feed us in these holy mysteries," words which certainly 
 seem to imply the presence of the sacrament. The doctrine 
 of the First Prayer Book with respect to our Lord's pre- 
 sence in the eucharist is declared in the final rubric, con- 
 tinued from the Order of Communion, and derived perhaps 
 ultimately from Gratian 1 . After requiring the eucharistic 
 breads to be broken it continues : 
 
 And men must not think less to be received in part than in 
 the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 If the mysteries remained in part, the sacrament would 
 continue in its completeness, and this is suggested by the 
 wording of the thanksgiving. Otherwise in view of the care 
 shown in correcting the adjectives in the exhortation it is 
 difficult to understand the deliberate introduction of the 
 word ' ' these ' ' which seems to suppose the sacrament present . 
 
 1 Gratian, Decrelum, Pars ill. De Consec. Dist. n. c. 77, P.L. clxxxvii. 
 col. 1 772-3.
 
 x] AND THE FIRST PRAYER BOOK 181 
 
 If the consumption of the remains of the sacrament 
 came after the thanksgiving it must certainly have come 
 after the new communion Pax and blessing also, and this 
 would agree with what was apparently the original inten- 
 tion of the new Pax, as the seal of the fellowship in Christ 
 assured in the act of communion, as explained in the 
 thanksgiving, for which purpose it was placed as closely 
 as possible to the distribution of the elements, and before 
 the consumption of the remains. 
 
 It will be useful also to note the importance attached to 
 the idea that every celebration of the Lord's Supper 
 should be as far as possible something approximating to 
 a general communion, though the extreme opinion of 
 some of the reformers, which prevented all communion of 
 the sick, that under no other conditions could the sacra- 
 ment be administered, was not adopted. An examination 
 of the language of the Prayer Book shows that a distinc- 
 tion was intended to be drawn by the compilers between 
 receiving "the sacrament of Christ's body and blood" and 
 the receiving of "the holy communion of the body and 
 blood of our Saviour Christ." The latter always supposes 
 the fellowship of the communicants about the Lord's 
 table, and though the idea itself is not absent, in no single 
 instance, it would seem, is the word " communion " intended 
 to refer to the communion with our Lord, but only with 
 the fellow worshippers. The meaning of the noun is in 
 exact agreement with that of the phrase "to communicate 
 with," and is used of fellowship with other men. For the 
 reception of the sacrament to be a communion it was 
 necessary to communicate with other persons, and as 
 many as possible. The rubric required that there should 
 be no celebration of the Lord's Supper "except there be 
 some to communicate with the priest." To secure as 
 general a communion as possible on every occasion there 
 were only two days in the year on which provision was 
 made for more than one celebration. The multiplication
 
 182 THE ORDER OF COMMUNION [ch. x. 
 
 of masses with few or no communicants was intended to 
 cease, and this was a point insisted on by the authorities 
 as Bishop Bonner found when he tried to introduce a 
 number of masses or "communions," as of our Lady and 
 the apostles, in the chapels of St Paul's cathedral 1 . 
 
 From this fact that every celebration of the Lord's 
 supper was intended to be something akin to a general 
 communion we may draw another argument with regard 
 to the point at which the remains of the sacrament were 
 consumed and the ablutions made, and it tends to the 
 same conclusion. When communion had been given only 
 in one kind the consecrated hosts which were left remained 
 on the altar according to the almost universal custom of 
 the church in the West, at Rome and elsewhere, and were 
 not disposed of by being put away in the place of reserva- 
 tion until the end of mass, a relic of the primitive custom 
 by which both the consumption of the remains of the 
 elements in both kinds and the ablutions had taken place 
 after the service. Now that communion was once more 
 given in both kinds it would be quite what might be ex- 
 pected that the practice which had survived in the case of 
 the hosts should be extended to the wine also, the practical 
 reasons for it being even stronger than in the case of the 
 bread, though now the method of disposal would normally 
 be by consumption, as in the earliest days, and not by 
 reservation in church. So far as we can see then, though 
 there is no definite statement on the subject, all the argu- 
 ments point to the idea that the compilers of the First 
 Prayer Book intended a reversion to primitive usage, such 
 as is mentioned in the letter of the pseudo Clement, and 
 that the consumption of the remains of the sacrament 
 should not take place until the conclusion of the service, 
 and if so obviously the ablutions could not take place 
 earlier. 
 
 1 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, ed. Pratt, vol. v. p. 723. Grey Friars' 
 Chronicle (Camden Society, 53), p. 59.
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK AND THE 
 ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 
 
 IN the Second Prayer Book, published in 1552 by the 
 authority of parliament only, there was still further 
 departure from traditional notions and practices than had 
 been intended under the First Book, and particularly in 
 the service for the administration of the Lord's Supper, 
 and in the ideas with respect to it. A great many of the 
 changes seem to be due to criticisms of the First Prayer 
 Book by Bucer in his Censura. Some appear to be due to 
 Swiss influence and particularly that of Zurich, probably 
 through the influence of John Hooper who had just 
 returned (in 1549) from that city, and was full of the ideas 
 he had imbibed there during his exile. We may see 
 examples of it in the insistence on the use of the full text 
 of the ten commandments according to the twentieth 
 chapter of Exodus, a favourite notion of Hooper's, as in 
 the Zurich service books, and in such phrases as "remem- 
 ber the poor," found in all versions of the Zurich liturgy, 
 and consequently in that of John a Lasco. The idea that 
 at every celebration of the Lord's supper there should be 
 a general communion is still further emphasised in the 
 Second Prayer Book. At Bucer's suggestion there is for 
 the future to be only one communion even on Christmas 
 and Easter Days. The rubric of the First Prayer Book is 
 altered to read : 
 
 And there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, 
 except there be a good number to communicate with the priest 
 according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty
 
 184 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 persons in the parish of discretion to receive the communion, 
 yet there shall be no communion except four or three at the 
 least communicate with the priest. 
 
 Also there is to be no private celebration for a sick person 
 except there be "a good number to receive the com- 
 munion with the sick person." 
 
 The breaking up of the Canon in the Second Prayer 
 Book and the removal of the confession and absolution, 
 etc., were in accordance with Bucer's suggestions that the 
 communion should follow the Great Thanksgiving immedi- 
 ately, so as to secure a closer conformity to our Lord's 
 own practice. For the same reason presumably the Lord's 
 prayer was made to follow the administration, though 
 there was considerable precedent for this in the various 
 orders for giving communion apart from mass. Since the 
 Lord's prayer has always been regarded as belonging to 
 the communion, and not to the consecration, as we see in 
 all the liturgies, though Gregory the Great wished it to 
 be said over the oblation, the difference was not of vital 
 importance. 
 
 The new position of the Gloria in Excelsis after the 
 thanksgiving for communion opens out a wider problem, 
 and here we seem to recognise the influence of Zurich. In 
 the Zurich liturgy the Gloria had been moved from the 
 beginning of the service, and was sung between the epistle 
 and gospel. The idea of our Lord as the Lamb of God, and 
 the Lord's supper as the Christian passover, is a feature of 
 the Zurich service. After the communion we read in the 
 1535 edition: 
 
 And he reads (John xiii ) as long as is required until the 
 breaking of the bread is entirely ended, and all the ministers 
 have come back again to the table with the cups. Then the 
 pastor says, Let us kneel down and praise God and give him 
 thanks. Then he begins the following psalm which the Jews 
 always say at their passover, the deacons saying one verse
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 185 
 
 and then another. The pastor says, Praise the Lord, ye 
 servants... (Ps. cxiii) 1 . 
 
 As an alternative to this psalm, the beginning of the 
 Jewish Hallel, there is another hymn of thanksgiving, a 
 Christian Hallel as it were, made up partly of psalm 
 verses, and partly it would seem of a paraphrase of the 
 ancient proper preface for Easter Day, which speaks of 
 Christ as the paschal Lamb. We read: 
 
 I will magnify thee, my God, and will praise thy name for 
 ever and ever. ...He gave us his only Son, that we through him 
 might live. He hath made his flesh and blood to be our proper 
 food, and by his death hath brought us to everlasting life. 
 He is the Lamb of God, the pardon for our sins, the one and 
 only pledge of mercy 2 . 
 
 Zwingli in his Fidei ratio of July 8, 1530, gave his belief 
 with regard to our Lord's presence in this supper as 
 follows : 
 
 I believe that in the holy eucharist, that is in the supper of 
 thanksgiving, the true body of Christ is present by the con- 
 templation of faith, that is, that those who give thanks to the 
 Lord for the benefit He has conferred upon us in His Son, 
 recognise that He took upon Him true flesh, in that flesh truly 
 suffered, truly washed away our sins by His blood, and thus 
 everything wrought by Christ for them becomes as it were 
 present by the contemplation of faith 3 . 
 
 The same idea is expressed in an exhortation added to 
 the 1525 edition of the Zurich service in Zwingli's own 
 hand 4 , and repeated with but slight modifications in later 
 editions. We read: 
 
 Now remembering, dear brethren and sisters, what we have 
 now performed according to the commandment of our Lord, 
 namely that with thankful remembrance we have borne witness 
 
 1 Wolfensberger, Die Ziircher Kirchengebete, p. 55. 
 a Wolfensberger, p. 56. 
 
 3 Kidd, Documents of the Continental Reformation, p. 474. 
 
 4 Sraend, Die Evangelischen Deutschen Messen, p. 201.
 
 186 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 to our faith, that we are all miserable sinners, but by his body 
 given and his blood poured forth we have been cleansed from 
 sin, and redeemed from everlasting death... we ought also truly 
 to pray God to grant unto us all to hold with firm faith within 
 our hearts this remembrance of his bitter death, and bear it 
 steadfastly with us, and therewith die daily to all wickedness... 
 God be merciful unto us and bless us and shed forth the light 
 of his countenance upon us, and be merciful unto us 1 . 
 
 The presence of our Lord, dramatically represented in 
 the supper, and manifest to the eye of faith in the act of 
 communion as crucified for us, is something very real and 
 abiding, so that throughout the concluding portion of the 
 service He is worshipped as exhibited to the faithful in 
 the sacrament, "the Lamb as it had been slain," "present 
 by the contemplation of faith," and prayer is made to 
 Him that His presence may be shown in our lives. With 
 a thanksgiving to Jesus the service concludes: 
 
 God, we thank thee for all thy gifts and goodness, who 
 livest and reignest God for ever and ever. Amen 2 . 
 
 This seems to suggest a reason, if not the only one, for 
 the removal of the Gloria in excelsis, which had already 
 been moved from its ancient place at the beginning of the 
 service in the Zurich liturgy, to its present position in the 
 English service, not only because it would thus be an act 
 of thanksgiving for participation in the Christian passover, 
 a Christian Hallel, but because it was an act of w r orship 
 of Jesus, Who is both outwardly exhibited as the Lamb of 
 God, and also specially manifest to the hearts of the 
 faithful, in the sacrament. In the First English Prayer 
 Book before Ye that do truly, and the confession and 
 absolution the priest thus addresses the people and invites 
 them to the feast : 
 
 1 Richter, Evangelisch. Kirchenord. p. 138. For 1535 edition see 
 Wolfensberger, p. 57. 
 
 2 Richter, p. 138. Wolfensberger, p. 57.
 
 XI] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 187 
 
 Christ our Paschal Lamb is offered up for us, once for all, 
 when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross, for he is the 
 very Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. 
 Wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord. 
 
 A similar form is found at the same point in a Lasco's 
 service, really a version of that of Zurich, for the Strangers' 
 Church in London, published in 155 1, and probably the 
 two are not unconnected. We read: 
 
 Standing in the midst of the ministers, turning towards the 
 people, he recites that joyful and saving message to the whole 
 church from Paul, concerning that victim, the most innocent 
 in the whole world, now offered up for our sins, Christ Jesus, 
 in these words: 
 
 Behold now, dear brethren, Christ our Passover is sacrificed 
 for us, therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven 
 nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the 
 unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Through the same 
 Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Amen 1 . 
 
 In the First English Prayer Book, as in the liturgy of 
 Hermann's Consultation, the Agnus Dei was sung during 
 the communion. Originally according to the Liber Ponti- 
 ficalis it had been sung during the breaking of the bread, 
 by order of Pope Sergius I (687-701) 2 . It was evidently 
 intended as explanatory of the symbolical action of the 
 Fraction, an idea quite in accord with the Zwinglian 
 notion of the Lord's Supper as a dramatic representation 
 of redemption and an exhibition of Jesus to the faithful 
 as the Lamb of God. Both the invitation and the Agnus 
 Dei, however, were omitted from the Second Prayer 
 Book, presumably out of regard for Bucer's suggestion and 
 to avoid what he called "bread worship." The worship of 
 our Lord as manifest to the eye of faith in the sacrament, 
 or in Zwingli's w 7 ords "present by the contemplation of 
 
 1 J. a Lasco, Forma ac Ratio iota Ecclesiastici Ministerii, pp. 252-3. 
 
 2 Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, 1. p. 376.
 
 188 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 faith," is retained in what apparently was considered a 
 less dangerous position in the Gloria in excelsis, which 
 was now placed after the thanksgiving for communion to 
 supply the idea of the adoration of the Lamb ; and perhaps 
 for this reason there was an augmentation of the text, 
 which suggests the three-fold Agnus. 
 
 In accordance with Bucer's suggestions in the Second 
 Prayer Book the invocation of the Holy Ghost over the 
 elements, together with the sign of the cross and other 
 manual acts, was omitted; and generally he would abolish 
 all idea of consecration or benediction of material things, 
 the water in baptism as well as the bread and wine at holy 
 communion. His criticisms of the rubrics which deal with 
 the quantity and kind of bread to be employed are particu- 
 larly important. Commenting on the rubrics of the First 
 Prayer Book at the offertory he says in his Censura : 
 
 From the fourth paragraph of this order, in which it is 
 prescribed that the minister ought to take only so much bread 
 and wine as will suffice for those about to communicate, some 
 make for themselves the superstition that they consider it 
 unlawful if anything of the bread and wine of the communion 
 remain over, when it is finished, to allow it to come to common 
 use, as if there were in this bread and wine of itself anything 
 of divinity, or even sanctity, outside the use at communion. 
 Consequently however much bread and wine remain from the 
 communion there are yet some who consider that the whole 
 of it must be consumed by themselves. And so men must be 
 taught that Christ the Lord is offered not to bread and wine 
 but to devout minds by the words of the Lord and these sym- 
 bols. Wherefore outside the use of the communion which the 
 Lord instituted, the bread and wine, even if they have been 
 placed on the table of the Lord, have nothing in them of sanctity 
 more than have other bread and wine. It is true indeed that 
 we read in the writings of the holy fathers that these remains 
 in some churches at one time were consumed immediately 
 after the communion or otherwise by the ministers, in others
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 189 
 
 that they were reserved, until the following day, as Cyril 
 reminded Calosyrius 1 , by others were consumed by fire as 
 Hesychius (Lib. 11. in Levit.) is witness 2 . But when we see how 
 Satan with powerful and pestilent trickery by his Roman 
 antichrists has put forward for so many generations now 
 bread instead of Christ for us to adore that he may take away 
 from us all perception and adoration of Christ our Saviour, 
 we ought whatever things seem to favour that bread worship 
 and are used by the antichrists to retain the same in the hearts 
 of the simpler folk, as far and as completely as possible to 
 banish from our churches. Christ our Lord truly gives Himself 
 indeed to His faithful people that they may enjoy the food of 
 eternal life, employing for that purpose His words and the 
 symbols of bread and wine; and so indeed whoever with true 
 faith in Him communicate in these mysteries as He Himself 
 instituted them truly receive Him by the apprehension of faith 
 and spirit. And so in this use of giving and receiving instituted 
 by the Lord, bread and wine are the symbols of the body and 
 blood of Christ, by which He offers Himself to us. But outside 
 this use they are what other bread and wine are, for nothing in 
 their nature is changed, nor is Christ the Lord given to them 
 but to faithful minds. These things it is fitting that the people 
 be taught, as in word so also in deed, as diligently as possible, so 
 that, although in former times so many masses and such horrible 
 superstitions about this sacred matter have been introduced, men 
 may both understand its true meaning and resume its use 3 . 
 
 Bucer's doctrine is very similar to that of Zwingli. 
 According to Zwingli Christ was present in the sacrament 
 "by the contemplation of faith," according to Bucer, "by 
 the apprehension of faith and spirit." Cranmer had ex- 
 pressed almost identical opinions in his work on The true 
 and catholic Doctrine and Use of the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper, published the previous year, 1550. Two 
 extracts are of importance. The first is Cranmer's com- 
 ment on the letter of the pseudo Clement. We read: 
 
 1 See pp. 6-7. 2 See p. 9. 3 Scripta Anglicana, p. 464.
 
 190 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 They allege St Clement, whose words be these, as they 
 report : 
 
 The sacraments of God's secrets are committed to three 
 degrees : to a priest, a deacon and a minister : which with fear 
 and trembling ought to keep the leavings of the broken pieces 
 of the Lord's body, that no corruption be found in the holy 
 place, lest by negligence great injury be done to the portion of 
 the Lord's body. 
 
 And by and by followeth: 
 
 So many hosts must be offered in the altar as will suffice 
 for the people. And, if any remain, they must not be kept until 
 the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks with 
 fear and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the 
 Lord's body may not by and by take other common meats, 
 lest they should mix that holy portion with the meat, which is 
 digested by the belly.... Thereto re if the Lord's portion be eaten 
 in the morning, the ministers that consume it must fast unto 
 six of the clock: and if they do take it at three or four of the 
 clock, the minister must fast until the evening.... 
 
 For by the same epistle appeareth evidently three special 
 things against the errors of the papists. The first is, that the 
 bread in the sacrament is called the Lord's body, and the pieces 
 of the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the 
 Lord's body, which cannot be understand but figuratively. 
 The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserved and 
 hanged up. as the papists everywhere do use. The third is, 
 that the priests ought not to receive the sacrament alone (as 
 the papists commonly do, making a sale thereof unto the 
 people) but they ought to communicate with the people. And 
 here is diligently to be noted that we ought not unreverently 
 and unadvisedly to approach unto the meat of the Lord's table, 
 as we do to other common meats and drinks, but with great 
 fear and dread, lest we should come to that holy table un- 
 worthily, wherein is not only represented, but also spiritually 
 given unto us, very Christ Himself 1 . 
 
 1 Cranmer, The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Book in. Chap. xv. 
 (Parker Society), pp. 14 1-2.
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 191 
 
 The phraseology of this extract in quite a number of 
 particulars we shall find reproduced in the rubrics of the 
 Second Prayer Book. We notice that what Cranmer under- 
 stands to be condemned by the letter of the pseudo 
 Clement is not the carrying of the sacrament to the sick 
 after the service the same day, a practice provided for in 
 the First Prayer Book, but the hanging of it up or con- 
 tinual reservation. In another place a little further on we 
 find even closer agreement with the quotation from Bucer. 
 We read: 
 
 When common bread and wine be taken and severed from 
 other bread and wine to the use of the holy communion, that 
 portion of bread and wine, although it be the same substance 
 that the other is from the which it is severed, yet it is now called 
 consecrated, or holy bread and holy wine. Not that the bread 
 and wine have or can have any holiness in them, but that they 
 be used to an holy work and represent holy and godly things. 
 And therefore St Dionyse calleth the bread holy bread, and the 
 cup an holy cup, as soon as they be set upon the altar to the 
 use of the holy communion. But specially they may be called 
 holy and consecrated, when they be separated to that holy 
 use by Christ's own words, which He spake for that purpose, 
 saying of the bread "This is my body," and of the wine "This 
 is my blood." So that commonly the authors before those 
 words be spoken do take the bread and wine but as other 
 common bread and wine ; but after those words be pronounced 
 over them, then they take them for consecrated and holy 
 bread and wine. Not that the bread and wine can be partakers 
 of any holiness or godliness, or can be the body and blood of 
 Christ, but that they represent the very body and blood of 
 Christ and the holy food and nourishment which we have by 
 Him 1 . 
 
 We see that the ideas of Bucer, as expressed in his 
 Censura, are little more than a reproduction of Cranmer's. 
 It is not surprising then that Cranmer should fall in to 
 some extent with Bucer's suggestions for the disposal of 
 
 1 Book in. Chap. xv. pp. 177-8.
 
 192 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 the remains of the sacrament after the communion, so that 
 the rule adopted, though it did not, as we shall see, 
 actually insist upon this being done, was such as to allow 
 the residue of the bread and wine to return to something 
 akin to common use, a practice it would seem already 
 adopted by some, but scrupulously avoided by others, 
 in Bucer's view out of wanton superstition. Another 
 quotation from the Censura will make the reason for the 
 new rubric in the Second Prayer Book still more obvious ; 
 it was to conciliate those who held opinions such as 
 Bucer's. We read: 
 
 But lest any should fear that by conformity to this anything 
 superstitious should be strengthened, as that it were lawful 
 to use such bread and no other, it ma} 7 be possible to add in 
 one or two words that it must not be thought from this 
 description of the bread that it is not lawful of itself to use in 
 the eucharist leavened and usual bread, and that the matter 
 and form of the bread which is described in the book is only pro- 
 posed, as it is stated in words also in this section, " for avoiding 
 of all matters and occasion of dissension," and also of offence 
 to the simple and the contempt of this sacred ordinance, which 
 is commonly wont to ensue 1 . 
 
 That the rubric of the Second Prayer Book was intended 
 to carry out this suggestion is plain. It runs: 
 
 And to take away the superstition which any person hath 
 or might have in the bread and wine it shall suffice that the 
 bread be such as is usual to be eaten at the table with other 
 meats, but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently 
 may be gotten. And if any of the bread or wine remain, the 
 curate shall have it to his own use. 
 
 In spite of later interpretations there can be little 
 doubt but that the direction about what remains was 
 intended originally to refer to the consecrated bread and 
 wine as well as to what was unconsecrated, for it was not 
 supposed, as we have seen, by either Cranmer or Bucer 
 
 1 Scripta Anglicana, p. 459.
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 193 
 
 that consecration had made any real difference. And yet 
 the rubric is to some extent a compromise, for it by no 
 means goes the full length of Bucer's suggestions, and it 
 might have been much more peremptory in requiring con- 
 formity to the new ideas. It is not directed that the 
 remains of the sacrament, which presumably remain on 
 the holy table until the end of the service, shall return to 
 common use, or to that of the multitude, but only of 
 the curate. Consequently the primitive and widespread 
 custom by which the remains were consumed by the 
 priest and other ministers in the sacristy, as prescribed in 
 the letter of pseudo Clement, the language of which — and 
 that according to Cranmer's translation — and of his com- 
 ments upon it, the new rubric seems at several points to 
 adopt, was in no way prevented, and it was probably the 
 deliberate intention that it should be so, " for avoiding of 
 all matters and occasion of dissension" as the First Prayer 
 Book said when speaking of the kind of bread to be used. 
 Such an interpretation at any rate would almost certainly 
 be put upon the rubric by those who favoured the old 
 ways. There must have been many who used the book 
 under compulsion, even with scrupulous exactness and 
 with no breach of rubric, who by no means assented to 
 the principles of the revisers who had made it what it was. 
 Peter Martyr took much the same view of the value of 
 consecration as did Bucer in his criticism of the First 
 Prayer Book. Like the continental reformers generally he 
 maintained that the recitation of the words of institution 
 was for the edification of the hearers only, and conse- 
 quently he objected to a second recital of these words in 
 the event of the original supply of bread and wine not 
 sufficing, and also to reservation of the sacrament. He 
 wrote to Bucer: 
 
 And surely it is wonderful that they find it a burden to say 
 those words in the presence of the sick man to whom they 
 l. e. 13
 
 194 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 would be especially useful when they say them uselessly in the 
 temple if the wine has happened to fail in the cup when the 
 men who are present and are receiving the sacrament have 
 already heard them 1 . 
 
 We notice that the practice of a second consecration 
 had evidently continued under the First Prayer Book, 
 though no longer prescribed as in the Order of Communion. 
 To meet the wishes of those who objected to this custom 
 and who regarded the words as for the edification of the 
 congregation, all reference to reservation, which would 
 make the recital of the words in the presence of the sick 
 person unnecessary, and assume some virtue in consecra- 
 tion, was omitted in the Second Prayer Book, though the 
 practice is not forbidden as we might have expected. 
 
 In a paragraph following the public service of holy 
 communion in Hermann's Consultation the opinions of 
 Bucer in an earlier stage of development than what we 
 find in the Censura, come out quite plainly, and we find 
 a condemnation of reservation in marked contrast with 
 what was allowed to appear in the Second Prayer Book. 
 We read: 
 
 But since our Lord instituted His sacrament only that we 
 should eat and drink of it in remembrance of Him, and in no 
 wise that we should set it out, or carry it round to view, and 
 because this sacrament has been brought to horrible super- 
 stition and impiety, from the fact that abuses of this sort have 
 been introduced in the former use of the sacrament, to take 
 away both that superstition and impiety and also the various 
 scruples of the feeble and irreligious questions about these 
 mysteries, pastors and those who minister the sacrament will 
 give heed that as often as the supper has to be administered, 
 whether in church or in private houses for the sick, they care- 
 fully reckon the number of those who are going to communicate, 
 that in accordance with it they may take the particles of bread 
 and the quantity of wine. But whatever of the remnants is 
 
 1 Strype, Memorials of Thomas Cranmcr, vol. n. Num. lxi. p. 899.
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 195 
 
 left over, when the communion is finished, let them immediately 
 consume it, and not reserve it, or put it away anywhere, or 
 carry it away, or set it out to view 1 . 
 
 There was little agreement, however, among the various 
 reformed liturgies about what was to be done with what 
 was left after the communion. Pullain in his order of 
 service for the refugees at Glastonbury published in 155 1, 
 and representing it would seem the custom of the French 
 church at Strasburg, says: 
 
 After all have communicated, and they have returned one 
 by one to their places, the deacon puts down the chalice and 
 returns to his place, and then the pastor leads the people in 
 thanksgiving in these words 2 . 
 
 The chalice was apparently put back on the holy table, 
 as we saw also at Zurich, but nothing is said about what 
 happens to what is left. Evidently it was not consumed 
 before the end of the service if we may judge from the 
 rule "for administering the eucharist to the sick." We 
 read: 
 
 If a sick man asks for the eucharist on the day on which 
 the supper is celebrated by the church, the deacon is sent with 
 a few pious persons, that they may communicate with the 
 sick man 3 . 
 
 It would seem as if the "pious persons" communicate a 
 second time with the sick man, and apparently the deacon 
 also, a practice which appears to have been adopted also 
 in the reign of Elizabeth under the rubrics of the Second 
 Prayer Book. The custom by which the priest took with 
 him some of the congregation who had been present at the 
 celebration in church to the sick person's house was incor- 
 porated by Aless in 155 1 in the rubrics of the order for 
 the communion of the sick, in his Latin version of the 
 First Prayer Book. 
 
 1 Hermann, Simplex ac pia Deliberatio, f. 97 a. 
 
 2 Pullain, Liturgia Sacra, f. rr. 3 Pullain, f. 28. 
 
 13—2
 
 196 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 In 155 1 John a Lasco put out in Latin the service used 
 in his church for strangers in Austin Friars, a translation 
 into French being published in 1556, into Dutch in 1563, 
 into German in 1565, and also one into Italian. A special 
 interest attaches to it in connection with the origin and 
 interpretation of the order on the same subject in the 
 present Book of Common Prayer. We read : 
 
 And the deacons at the doors of the temple collect the alms 
 for the poor; and the remnants of the bread and wine, which 
 were left over from the use of the supper, they bestow on the 
 poor of the church as each one has need, especially if there 
 are any who are infirm or aged 1 . 
 
 It seems plain from the words "as each one has need" 
 that what is intended is not a consumption of the remains 
 at the door of the church, but only a distribution there, 
 the remnants being taken out of the church for use at 
 home. 
 
 It may be useful to quote the views of other reformers 
 even though their influence on the Book of Common 
 Prayer was not so direct. Bullinger in The Fifth Decade of 
 the Lord's Supper takes much the same line as Bucer, and 
 in his later days Cranmer, that there is no holiness in the 
 elements apart from their use. There would thus be no 
 point in such an administration to the sick with what was 
 left over from the service in church as is provided for by 
 the First Prayer Book and Pullain's Glastonbury liturgy. 
 Indeed he refused, as we know, even a celebration for the 
 sick on the ground that it is a public service. We read: 
 
 The remnants of the supper. Of these things before handled 
 springeth another question: What is to be thought of the 
 remnants and leavings of the Lord's Supper; and whether 
 there ought any part of it to be reserved; and whether that 
 which is reserved or shut up ought to be adored? This question 
 seemeth to have no godliness at all in it, but to be altogether 
 
 1 J. a Lasco, Forma ac Ratio, p. 269.
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 197 
 
 superstitious and very hurtful. For who knoweth not that 
 bread and wine, out of the holy and lawful use appointed, are 
 not a sacrament 1 ? 
 
 Thomas Becon in his Comparison between the Lord's 
 Supper and the Pope's Mass, says : 
 
 Christ when the banquet was done, did not command His 
 disciples that they should gather up and keep in store the 
 fragments that be left and remained of the sacramental bread ; 
 which thing, notwithstanding, we read that He did often before 
 concerning the common bread 2 . 
 
 In his Catechism of the Sacraments, and also in Certain 
 Articles of Christian Religion, he interprets the words of the 
 pseudo Jerome already quoted, which speak of a feast being 
 held in church from that part of the people's offerings 
 which was not needed for consecration, as though they 
 referred to what had been consecrated 3 . Jewel has the 
 same wrong interpretation, and likewise others 4 . 
 
 The reformers everywhere however did not disapprove of 
 some special honour being paid to the remains of the sacra- 
 ment and their reverent consumption. In the liturgy of 
 the reformed church of Sweden, drawn up by Laurence 
 Petri, a disciple of Luther at Wittenberg, and afterwards 
 archbishop of Upsala, which was published in 1576, we 
 find provision for an ablution also. This order for the 
 celebration of mass as it is called, though it incorporates 
 a number of the reformed ideas, is based on the Roman 
 service, and contains many of the Roman prayers, some 
 in a modified form, but there are also apparently reminis- 
 cences of passages in the communion service of the English 
 Book of Common Prayer. A peculiarity is that as in the 
 liturgy of SS. Adai and Mari the priest does not com- 
 municate until he consumes the remains of the sacrament, 
 
 1 Bullinger, Works (Parker Society), vol. v. p. 422. 
 
 2 Becon, Works (P.S.), vol. in. pp. 372-3. 
 
 3 Works (P.S.), vol. 11. p. 251, vol. in. p. 456. See p. 11. 
 
 4 Jewel, Works (P.S.), vol. n. pp. 553-4. Seep. 207. Cf. pp. 209, 211.
 
 t 9 8 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 though this is not at the end of the service as with the 
 Nestorians, but immediately after the communion of the 
 people. We read : 
 
 When the celebrant himself is about to communicate, taking 
 in his hands the blessed and sanctified bread, he reverently 
 genuflects saying Partem caelestem. Then he says thrice D online 
 ■non sum dignus. When he is about to receive he says, Corpus 
 Domini nostri Jesu Christi, etc. Having received the body of 
 Christ with joined hands he keeps his thoughts occupied in 
 meditation on the most holy sacrament, that its use may be 
 salutary to us. Then when he is about to take the chalice into 
 his hands he reverently genuflects saying Quid retribuam. 
 Partaking of the chalice he says, Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi, etc. Afterwards he says to himself Quod ore. Then he 
 pours a little wine into the chalice, and when he drinks it up 
 he says to himself Corpus tuum 1 . 
 
 The Second English Prayer Book had been published 
 with the authority of Parliament only in 1552, and was 
 never officially sanctioned by the church. As it was 
 abolished the next year on the accession of Mary it can 
 hardly be said really to have been accepted in practice. 
 The principles which had suggested the alterations found 
 in it with regard to the Lord's Supper were never more 
 than the private opinions of the compilers, and the book 
 must have been used by many who entirely repudiated 
 them. Though for whatever reasons it was the Second 
 Prayer Book which was adopted under the Elizabethan 
 settlement the views of the men who had made it what it 
 was were by no means those of the authorities of the time. 
 The idea that there was no such thing as any consecration 
 of the elements in Holy Communion, but only a setting 
 apart for a holy use, was deliberately and officially 
 abandoned. One piece of evidence is the addition of the 
 words of administration from the First Prayer Book to 
 the newly invented forms found in the Second Book, so 
 
 1 Assemani, Codex Liturgicus, vol. VI. p. lxxxiii.
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 199 
 
 that they now began with the ancient and traditional con- 
 fession of faith in the sacrament — "The body of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 Another piece of evidence of the same change of opinion 
 in official circles is to be found in the fact that in the Latin 
 version of the Prayer Book put forth by authority in 1560 
 the translator Haddon, who evidently based his work 
 on Aless's version of the First Prayer Book, was able 
 without contradiction to revert to some extent to the text 
 of that book. In particular we find that the rubric about 
 the priest having for his own use whatever is left of the 
 bread and wine is omitted, and Aless's rendering of the 
 rubric of the First Book, providing for reservation, is 
 prefixed to the order for the communion of the sick with 
 but few and slight alterations. 
 
 Further evidence of the change in belief among those in 
 authority is to be found in the trial of Robert Johnson, a 
 preacher at Northampton and chaplain to the Lord 
 Keeper Bacon, which took place at Westminster Hall 
 before the Queen's Commissioners, including the Lord 
 Chief Justice, the Bishop of London, the Dean of West- 
 minster and others, on February 20, 1573. The chief 
 offence with which he was charged was that he had used 
 fresh wine at a communion service without reciting over 
 them the words of institution. He quoted Cranmer and 
 Bullinger in his defence, and referred also to the opinions 
 of Musculus 1 , Peter Martyr and Calvin, arguing that the 
 words were used for the edification of the worshippers 
 only, not to effect any change in the elements, and that 
 as they had been recited once that was sufficient. Parts 
 of the examination may be quoted : 
 
 R. Johnson. I stand here indited for three points, the first 
 is, that I have not repeated the words of the institution, or 
 as they commonly say, I have not consecrated the wine when 
 
 1 Otherwise Reginald Wolf, a public reader in divinity at Berne.
 
 200 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 I delivered it to the communicants. ...For the first I answer 
 under protestation that at no time in the celebrating of the 
 communion have I omitted any prayer or words of institution 
 which the order of the Book prescribeth, but have used them 
 in as full and ample manner as they are appointed, but some 
 times upon occasion when wine failed I sent for more which 
 I delivered to the people with the words appointed in the Book 
 to be said at the delivery of the sacrament, not again repeating 
 the words of institution, partly for that it being one entire 
 action and one supper, the words of institution afore spoken 
 were sufficient as I do take it, and partly for that in the Book 
 of Common Prayer there is no such order appointed, unto the 
 which in this case I do refer myself. 
 
 ***** 
 
 R. Johnson. I pray you tell me one thing, whether be the 
 words of institution spoken for the bread or for the receivers. 
 
 Dean of Westminster. For both. 
 
 R. Johnson. I deny that, for the evangelist doth testify that 
 Christ "said to his disciples," to teach them to what end and 
 use they should take the bread. 
 
 ***** 
 
 Master Garrard. Johnson, you confess in a manner as much 
 as you are burdened with, for you confess that when the words 
 of institution were recited you had no wine. 
 
 R. Johnson. I do not confess that, for I had both bread and 
 wine. 
 
 Master Garrard. But you had not that wine. 
 
 R. Johnson. No. 
 
 Master Garrard. Therefore it was not consecrated. 
 
 R. Johnson. The words afore were sufficient for the conse- 
 cration. 
 
 Dean of Westminster. Then with those words you consecrated 
 all the wine in the tavern. 
 
 R. Johnson. No sir. For the wine that was in the tavern 
 was brought to the church, and of a common wine was ap- 
 pointed to be a sacramental wine, to represent Christ's blood, 
 and this is consecration.
 
 xi] AND THE ELIZABETHAN SETTLEMENT 201 
 
 Dean of Westminster. Why then the word is of no force 
 with you. 
 
 R. Johnson. No, not of force to bring any holiness to the 
 sacrament. I trust you do not think that the word maketh 
 the bread the holier when it is a sacrament. 
 
 Doctor Wylson. Yes, it is sacer pants. 
 
 Bishop of London. It is sacer panis, a holy sacrament; for 
 the sacrament is holy. 
 
 R. Johnson. That I confess, but that holiness is in the use 
 and end and not in the substance : for otherwise you shall make 
 a magical incantation and not a consecration. Master Cranmer 
 in his book of the sacrament saith that there cometh no holiness 
 to the bread by consecration 1 ' 2 . 
 
 ^It is plain that his views were identical with those of 
 Cranmer, Bucer and Peter Martyr, in accordance with 
 which the Prayer Book had been revised. The letter of 
 the Prayer Book was also on his side, for there was no 
 direction to repeat the words of institution when the 
 bread or wine failed, Peter Martyr, indeed, having ob- 
 jected strongly to this very thing, and interpreted the 
 words of institution as said for the edification of the com- 
 municants. Yet he was found guilty and condemned to a 
 year's imprisonment in the Gatehouse at Westminster — 
 though he died before he had completed the sentence. 
 Clearly the opinions of his judges, some of them dignitaries 
 of the church, were very different from those of the men 
 who in 1552 had caused the alterations in the Prayer Book 
 and made it what it was. The views of the revisers were 
 not considered as necessarily binding on the church in 
 1573, nor as conclusive with regard to the interpretation 
 of the Book. 
 
 To make quite plain what was the intention of the 
 church in the matter of a second consecration, an order 
 
 1 See p. i9r. 
 
 2 A Parte of a Register, pp. 105-9.
 
 202 THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK [ch.xi 
 
 was included among the canons of 1604. In Canon 21 we 
 read: 
 
 No bread or wine newly brought shall be used; but first the 
 words of institution shall be rehearsed, when the said bread and 
 wine be present upon the communion table 1 . 
 
 This direction was considered of such importance as to 
 be repeated in numerous episcopal injunctions for many 
 years, making it quite plain that the doctrine of the 
 extreme reformers had been definitely rejected. 
 
 1 Canons and Constitutions, S.P.C.K. p. 13.
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK AND THE 
 PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 
 
 FOR the next stage in the development of the rubric 
 of the English Prayer Book dealing with the disposal 
 of the remains at holy communion we must go to Scotland. 
 In a Lasco's liturgy for the Strangers' Church in Austin 
 Friars we noticed the provision : 
 
 And the deacons at the doors of the temple collect the alms for 
 the poor; and the remnants of the bread and wine, which were 
 left over from the use of the supper, they bestow on the poor 
 of the church as each one has need, especially if there are any 
 who are infirm or aged 1 . 
 
 What is intended is clearly that the remnants should be 
 taken out of the church for use at home. 
 
 In the sixth of the reforming canons of 1636 for the 
 church of Scotland we read : 
 
 In the ministration he (the priest) shall have care that the 
 elements are circumspectly handled; and what is reserved 
 thereof be distributed to the poorer sort, which receive that 
 day; to be eaten and drunken by them before they go out of 
 the church 2 . 
 
 What is forbidden here is the practice which was pre- 
 scribed in a Lasco's service, and which was probably the 
 common practice among the Calvinists in Scotland, the 
 carrying away of the remains for consumption at home. 
 There can be no doubt about the time and place where the 
 remains of the sacrament not required for communion are 
 o be consumed, and that it is to be neither immediately 
 
 1 See p. 196. Forma ac Ratio, p. 269. 
 
 2 Prayer Booh Dictionary, p. 611.
 
 204 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 after the communion nor at home, but at the end of the 
 service in church. The rule is akin to that of the synod of 
 Constantinople which we have quoted 1 , and as this was 
 known to and cited as authoritative by English divines, 
 such as Anthony Sparrow 2 , a little later, it probably sug- 
 gested the wording. The decree reads : 
 
 The fragments of the consecrated oblation they ought not 
 to eat save only in the church, until they have consumed 
 everything 3 . 
 
 For the consumption of the remains by the laity there 
 was some mediaeval precedent in Britain as we saw in the 
 decree of the council of Durham in 1220 4 , but the com- 
 moner practice, when not used for communion another 
 day, was to limit it to the clergy, following the directions 
 of the pseudo Clement. 
 
 In the ill-fated Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, authorised 
 by the canons of 1636 before it was actually published and 
 having the personal approval of Charles I, the rubric of 
 the Second English Prayer Book with reference to the 
 disposal of the remains is clearly, and of course correctly 
 from a historical point of view, interpreted as applying 
 to the consecrated elements, though the priest is no 
 longer to have them to his own use, for the rubric is com- 
 bined with the canon. We read: 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain, which is conse- 
 crated, it shall be reverently eaten and drunk by such of the 
 communicants only as the presbyter which celebrates shall 
 take unto him, but it shall not be carried out of the church. 
 And to the end there may be little left, he that officiates is 
 required to consecrate with the least, and then if there be 
 want the words of consecration may be repeated again over 
 more either bread or wine 5 . 
 
 1 See p. 10. 2 See p. 211. 
 
 8 P.G. cxxxviii. col. 944. * See pp. 114-5. 
 
 5 Dowden, Annotated Scottish Communion Office, pp. 256-7. Hall, 
 Reliquiae Liturgicae, vol. II. p. 157.
 
 xii] AND THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 205 
 
 As the canon and prayer book were connected docu- 
 ments, and parts of the same reforming effort, one may 
 plainly be taken as explanatory of the other. That it was 
 only the communicants who were invited who were to 
 consume the remains, and that they were to do it in church 
 is clear from both, but a comparison shows also that "it 
 shall not be carried out of the church" refers, not to any- 
 thing which the priest might do, but to a possible carrying 
 of the consecrated elements home by those to whom they 
 were given in accordance with the Calvinistic custom. 
 We may notice also that the phrase is almost identical 
 with the similar order about unconsecrated hosts at the 
 council of Clermont in 1268 — "let them. . .not carry them 
 out of the church 1 ." 
 
 The Prayer Book contains also a rubric quite in accord- 
 ance with traditional usage both in East and West with 
 regard to the treatment of the sacrament while on the 
 altar: 
 
 When all have communicated, he that celebrates shall go to 
 the Lord's table, and cover with a fair linen cloth, or corporal, 
 that which remaineth of the consecrated elements 2 . 
 
 To speak strictly of course in the case of the chalice it 
 could never happen that none would remain, a point 
 made clear for example in a manuscript of the Hereford 
 missal, where after the priest has communicated and 
 consumed the remains but before he makes the ablution, 
 we yet read "let him sign himself with the blood 3 ." The 
 rubric, however, seems to refer to something much more 
 definite than this, and if we are to interpret it strictly it 
 requires that there should always be some of the con- 
 secrated elements left, thus agreeing with the primitive 
 practice which found expression in the ancient Roman 
 rule which ordered a portion of the eucharist to remain 
 
 1 See p. 35. 
 
 2 Dowden, p. 253. Hall, vol. II. p. 152. 
 
 3 Seep. 162. Henderson, p. 134. Perhaps in origin a displacement.
 
 206 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 on the altar until the end of mass, so that, to quote the 
 Gallican explanation of the custom, while the celebration 
 was in progress the altar should never be without the 
 sacrament 1 , though in accordance with the other Scottish 
 rubric it should be little. 
 
 We may notice how closely the rubric agrees both with 
 the direction of the letter of the pseudo Clement, according 
 to the usual translation, and also with the words of the 
 synod of Constantinople: 
 
 But if any (hosts) remain, let them not be reserved until the 
 morrow, but be carefully consumed by the clerks with fear 
 and trembling 2 . 
 
 The fragments of the consecrated oblation they ought not 
 to eat save only in the church, until they have consumed 
 everything 3 . 
 
 The similarity is hardly accidental. 
 
 The later official interpretation of the rubric "If any 
 remain" of the Second Prayer Book, which in England 
 was left unaltered until the last revision in 1661, was that 
 it referred to the unconsecrated elements. Though this 
 was as we have seen historically incorrect, the original 
 reference being to any remains whether consecrated or 
 unconsecrated, those responsible for the Second Prayer 
 Book recognising no real difference between them, yet in 
 view of the fact that the extreme ideas of the revisers had 
 been officially repudiated and expression of the change 
 has been inserted in the Book of Common Prayer in the 
 words of administration, it was perhaps a legitimate inter- 
 pretation, and was necessary unless the doctrine of the 
 book was to be self-contradictory. It is not surprising, 
 however, that ultimately, to take away all excuse for pro- 
 fanity, the wording should be altered. 
 
 Cosin in his First Series of Notes on the Book of Common 
 Prayer, contained in a Prayer Book printed in 1619, says: 
 
 1 See p. 63. Mabillon, II. p. 14. 2 P.G. 1. col. 484. See p. 12. 
 
 3 P.G. cxxxvm. col. 944. See p. 10.
 
 xii] AND THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 207 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain, etc. Which is not 
 to be understood of the bread and wine already consecrated, 
 but of that which remains without consecration; for else it 
 were but a profanation of the holy sacrament to let the curate 
 have it home to his own use. How unworthily they act who 
 misuse this rubric to excuse so great a crime they themselves 
 should see. It was Nestorianism once to think that the conse- 
 crated bread, if it were kept " till the morrow " became common 
 bread again, if St Thomas., .quoteth St Cyril of Alexandria right 
 (Ep. ad Calos.) . . .There was order taken for it of old in the church, 
 which were well to be observed still, that no more should be 
 brought, at least consecrated upon the altar, than would 
 suffice to communicate the people, and if any remained, that 
 the priests should reverently receive it. " Let so many hosts be 
 offered on the altar as ought to suffice for the people. Let not 
 that which remains (of course from the hosts and consecrated 
 elements) be kept until the morrow, but with fear and trembling 
 be consumed with carefulness by the clerks" [Clem. P.P. Ep. II.) 1 . 
 
 We notice that he founds his suggestion on the letter 
 of the pseudo Clement according to the usual translation. 
 Though he makes the quotation in Latin he gives it very 
 freely. In the same series of notes we read again : 
 
 To his own use. We read in Clemens that after the communion 
 was done the deacon took up that which was left and carried it 
 into the Pastophorinm, the room where the priests were lodged. 
 In Origen that it was not kept till the next day. In St Jerome 
 that after the communion they that had eaten it in the church 
 spent all that remained of the oblations. In Hesychius that 
 after the example of the old law, all that was left was cast into 
 the fire. In Evagrius that it was an ancient custom at Con- 
 stantinople, that if any of the sacrament remained, young 
 children were called from the school to eat it up: which was 
 retained in France as in the councils of Macon and Tours, held 
 under Charlemagne 2 . 
 
 1 Parts of this and the following extract which are given by Cosin in 
 Latin, are here translated. Works, vol. v. pp. 130-1. See pp. 6, 7, 11-13. 
 
 2 Works, vol. v. p. 132. For references see pp. 6, 7, 9, 35.
 
 208 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 We notice that he falls into the same mistake as Becon 
 and Jewel, and interprets what the pseudo Jerome says, 
 not of the unconsecrated elements, as it should be, but of 
 the consecrated. 
 
 In Cosin's Second Series of Notes to be found in a 
 Prayer Book printed in 1638 we read : 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain, etc. Which is to be 
 understood of that bread and wine, that the churchwardens 
 provided, and carried into the vestry, not of that which the 
 priest consecrated for the sacrament : for of this, if he be care- 
 ful, as he ought to be, to consecrate no more than will suffice 
 to be distributed unto the communicants none will remain 1 . 
 
 This was written we may note before the present rubric 
 was added, which like its Scottish parent assumes that 
 some of the sacrament will always remain, and in accord- 
 ance with ancient custom be on the altar until the end of 
 the service. 
 
 A note written at some later time in the margin records 
 a possible criticism: 
 
 Yet if for lack of care they consecrate more than they 
 distribute, why may not the curates have it to their own use, 
 as well as be given to children (Concil. Matisc. II), or be burnt 
 in the fire (Isych. In Levitic), for though the bread and the 
 wine remain, yet the consecration, the sacrament of the body 
 and blood of Christ, do not remain longer than the holy action 
 itself remains for which the bread and wine were hallowed; 
 and which being ended, return to their former use again 2 . 
 
 This question can hardly be Cosin's own, for it directly 
 contradicts his usual teaching and particularly what we 
 find in the First Series of Notes, and agrees with the doc- 
 trine of the more extreme reformers which had inspired 
 the alterations to be found in the Second Prayer Book, 
 including the rubric which Cosin is so careful to explain 
 
 1 Works, vol. v. p. 356. 
 
 2 Works, vol. v. pp. 356-7. For references see p. 9 as above.
 
 XII] AND THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 209 
 
 in accordance with the changed views upon the sacrament 
 which had been adopted under the Elizabethan settle- 
 ment, and in a sense other than the original. 
 
 Another note of the Second Series is a comment upon 
 the rubric as referring to the unconsecrated, not the con- 
 secrated elements. We read : 
 
 The curate shall have it to his own use. It was the ancient 
 manner of the church to offer a good quantity of bread and 
 wine (every one of the people some) for use as well of the 
 minister and priest, as for the poor, and the preparation of 
 the sacrament 1 . 
 
 In his Third Series of Notes arguing for his usual 
 explanation of the rubric Cosin again confuses the uncon- 
 secrated with the consecrated elements. He says: 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain the curate, etc. Which 
 needeth not be understood of that bread and wine which was 
 blessed and consecrated, but of that which was brought to the 
 church, and not used for the sacrament. And vet we read of 
 some such thing in the Constitutions of the Apostles, Lib. viii. 
 c. 31. " Let the deacons distribute the remains of the blessings 
 at the mysteries to the clergy according to the mind of the 
 bishop or presbyters. To the bishop, four parts; to a presbyter, 
 three; to a deacon, two; to the rest, subdeacons, readers, 
 singers, or deaconesses, one part 2 ." 
 
 In another collection of Cosin's entitled "Particulars to 
 be considered, explained and corrected in the Book of 
 Common Prayer," written in all probability as early as 
 the days of Charles I for the most part, and now bound 
 up with the 1619 Prayer Book which contains the First 
 Series of Notes, we get further observations on the matter. 
 We read: 
 
 It is likewise here ordered, that if any of the bread and wine 
 remain, the curate shall have it to his own use. Which words 
 some curates have abused and extended so far, that they 
 
 1 Works, vol. v. p. 357. 2 Works, vol. v. p. 481. 
 
 L. E. I4
 
 210 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 suppose they may take all that remains of the consecrated 
 bread and wine itself, home to their houses, and there eat and 
 drink the same with their other common meats; at least the 
 Roman Catholics take occasion hereby to lay this negligence 
 and calumny upon the Church of England ; whereas the rubric 
 only intends it of such bread and wine as remains unconse- 
 crate of that which was provided for the parish (as appeareth 
 by the articles of enquiry hereabouts in the visitations of 
 divers bishops). And therefore for the better clearing of this 
 particular, some words are needful here to be added, whereby 
 the priest may be enjoined to consider the number of them which 
 are to receive the sacrament, and to consecrate the bread and 
 wine in such a near proportion as shall be sufficient for them ; 
 but if any of the consecrated elements be left, that he and 
 some others with him shall decently eat and drink them in the 
 church before all the people depart from it 1 . 
 
 This consideration evidently suggested the restoration 
 of the rubric at the offertory requiring the priest then to 
 place upon the table "so much bread and wine as he shall 
 think sufficient," likewise influencing the alteration of 
 the rubric about the consumption of the remains. Though 
 at first sight it might seem to be the meaning intended, as 
 a matter of fact there appear to be no episcopal articles 
 before this date which deal with the rubric concerning 
 what remains of the bread and wine, and the reference is 
 only to their provision by the churchwardens, as men- 
 tioned also in the Second Series of Notes. Many bishops 
 had put out enquiries of this kind in words based on 
 Canon 20 of 1604 2 . As a specimen we may give the earliest, 
 that of Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1605 : 
 
 Whether the churchwardens do provide against every com- 
 munion with the advice of the minister a sufficient quantity 
 of fine white bread, and of good and wholesome wine for the 
 number of the communicants that shall receive, and that to 
 
 1 Works, vol. v. p. 519. 
 
 2 Canons and Constitutions, S.P.C.K. p. 12.
 
 xii] AND THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 211 
 
 be brought in a clean and sweet standing pot of pewter, or of 
 other pure metal 1 ? 
 
 Anthony Sparrow, who was concerned with the revision 
 of 1661, takes the same line as Cosin with regard to the 
 interpretation of the rubric, and in his Rationale upon the 
 Book of Common Prayer, published in 1657, we read : 
 
 If any of the bread and wine remain the curate shall have it to 
 his own use. That is if it were not consecrated; for if it be 
 consecrated, it is all to be spent with fear and reverence by the 
 communicants, in the church 2 . 
 
 He adds references to the letter of the pseudo Clement 
 as given by Gratian 3 , to the fifth answer of the synod of 
 Constantinople to the questions of the monks, as given by 
 Balsamon 4 , and also to the seventh canon of Theophilus 
 of Alexandria, though this as we saw is concerned really 
 with the unconsecrated elements 5 . 
 
 Among the criticisms and suggestions with regard to 
 the Book of Common Prayer compiled by Bishop Wren, 
 who was one of the revisers of 1661, evidently with a view 
 to this work, being drawn up just before, apparently in 
 1660, we find one very similar to those of Cosin: 
 
 What remaineth of the bread of any loaf or wafer that was 
 broken for the use of the communion, or of the wine that was 
 poured out or had benediction, the curate shall after the 
 service is ended take some of the communicants to him there 
 to eat and drink the same. But all the rest in both kinds the 
 curate shall have to his own use. As this was set down before 
 much outcry was made against it 6 . 
 
 Public opinion in the church being opposed to the 
 original intention of the rubric, and the authorities being 
 unanimous in explaining it otherwise and in accordance 
 
 1 See App. to Second Report of Ritual Commission, 1868, p. 450 etc. 
 
 2 Sparrow, Rationale. Ed. Downes, 1722, p. 180. 
 
 3 Pars in. De Consec. Dist. 11. c. 23. P.L. clxxxvii. col. 1740. 
 
 i P.G. cxxxviii. col. 944. 5 See pp. 10, n. Cf. p. 209. 
 
 6 Wren, Fragmentary Illustrations, pp. 84-5. 
 
 14 — 2
 
 212 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 with the traditional confession of faith in the sacrament 
 added to the words of administration under the Eliza- 
 bethan settlement, it was clear that there would be some 
 modification or explanation which would make the in- 
 tention beyond dispute, and that henceforth at any rate 
 only the remains of what had not been consecrated 
 should be taken out of church for consumption at home. 
 In what is called the "Durham Book," which is a Prayer 
 Book of date 1619, into which the bishops had entered 
 such alterations of the Book of Common Prayer as they 
 decided upon at their meetings after the adjournment of 
 convocation on July 31, 1661, we read the following first 
 authoritative draft of the new rubric dealing with the 
 matter: 
 
 If any of the bread (and) or wine remain unconsecrated the 
 curate shall have it to his own use. And if any remain that was 
 consecrate it shall not be carried out of the church, but the 
 priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then 
 call unto him before the Lord's table shall there immediately 
 after the blessing reverently eat and drink the same 1 . 
 
 The rule is clearly based on the rubric of the Scottish 
 Prayer Book, as that is on the Second Prayer Book and 
 the canon of 1636. The word "there" brings out the point 
 that it is the historical interpretation of the words "it 
 shall not be carried out of the church," which is still 
 intended, and what is forbidden is the carrying aw T ay of 
 the remains by those to whom they have been given for 
 consumption at home. It is "before the Lord's table" 
 that the remains are to be distributed and it is "there" 
 likewise that they are to be consumed. 
 
 In Sancroft's Fair Copy of the Durham Book, which 
 was made in a Prayer Book of 1634, there is no change 
 save that the original reading of the Second Prayer Book, 
 "bread or wine," is the one adopted. It was the other 
 
 1 Parker, An Introduction to the History of the Successive Revisions of 
 the Book of Common Prayer, p. ccxxxiii.
 
 xii] AND THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 213 
 
 reading, however, "bread and wine," which finally passed 
 the Houses of Convocation and received Parliamentary- 
 sanction, and is authoritative to-day. The rubric now 
 reads : 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, the 
 curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that 
 which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, 
 but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall 
 then call unto him, shall, immediately after the blessing, rever- 
 ently eat and drink the same. 
 
 We notice that there have been several alterations 
 from the Durham Book, and both the words "before the 
 Lord's table" and "there" have disappeared, and with 
 the latter the last specific link with the historical interpre- 
 tation, and the reason for the preceding prohibition. The 
 rubric, however, is still concerned only with the disposal 
 of the remains, whether unconsecrated or consecrated, 
 and the change from "and" to "but" at the beginning 
 of the direction with regard to the latter makes the idea 
 of contrast stronger, so that still the carrying out of the 
 church which is forbidden is one comparable with that 
 which is included in the notion of the curate having the 
 unconsecrated elements to his own use, and its aim, as 
 we see from the intentions of the revisers Cosin, Sparrow, 
 and Wren, and the whole previous discussion which led 
 up to the change, was to prevent a similar treatment of 
 the consecrated elements. The alteration has, however, 
 opened the way for the common interpretation according 
 to which not only the carrying away of the remains for 
 consumption at home, but also any taking of the sacra- 
 ment out of church for purposes of communion is forbidden. 
 If this be so it is only an unforeseen result of the new 
 wording, for the point was never alluded to in all the dis- 
 cussion which resulted in the order so far as it has come 
 down to us.
 
 214 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. 
 
 From the Scottish liturgy another rubric, agreeing as 
 we noticed with the traditional practice of both East and 
 West, when the blessed sacrament is on the altar, took 
 its origin in 1661 : 
 
 When all have communicated, the minister shall return to 
 the Lord's table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth 
 of the consecrated elements, covering the same with a fair 
 linen cloth. 
 
 As in the Scottish Prayer Book the rubric is not con- 
 ditional, but it assumes that something will always remain, 
 and so it is not sufficient to regard it as providing for the 
 treatment of a chance surplus. It is a definite order 
 intended to apply to all occasions, and so is comparable 
 with the ancient rule of the First Roman Ordo which 
 required the sacrament to remain on the altar until the 
 end of mass 1 . 
 
 We may note that we have met with no evidence in 
 any post-Reformation English authority for the consump- 
 tion of the remains of the sacrament not required for 
 communion before the close of the service, and that 
 according to all rubrics or suggested rubrics dealing with 
 the matter this is to be done after the benediction. It is 
 probable that this was intended, as we saw, under the 
 First Prayer Book, but in all editions of the Prayer Book 
 since it has been quite plainly ordered, even if in such a 
 way as to allow scope for irreverence, and the sacrament 
 has remained on the altar according to ancient custom 
 until the end of the liturgy. There was thus a deliberate 
 break with the later mediaeval practice and a return to the 
 primitive usage of both East and West, still retained to 
 some extent in the East, but gradually modified as we 
 saw in the West, so that the present custom apart from 
 the occasions when the sacrament to be reserved remains 
 on the altar until the end of mass is entirely different. 
 
 1 See p. 63. Mabillon, 11. p. 14.
 
 xii] AND THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 215 
 
 No idea of any ceremonial ablution of the chalice seems 
 to have entered the minds of the Anglican divines of the 
 seventeenth century, though they adopted various cere- 
 monial practices unknown to the rubrics of the Book of 
 Common Prayer. Under the First Prayer Book the ablu- 
 tions were made more or less in accordance with traditional 
 practice though probably, as we saw, at any rate on some 
 occasions, at a different time, and it was the same also in 
 the days of Elizabeth, if we may judge by the numerous 
 complaints of bishops and others about the imitation of 
 the Popish mass, but the practice seems to have died out 
 until it was revived in the nineteenth century. As the 
 universal custom from the seventeenth to the nineteenth 
 century was for the remains of the sacrament to be 
 consumed after the benediction, it is clear that there 
 could have been no cleansing of the vessels before, and 
 therefore there was a return to the earliest practice in 
 England as in the rest of the West and elsewhere, such as 
 we find in the Admonition of the pseudo Leo, by which 
 they were washed in the vestry after the service. 
 
 Before concluding this part of our discussion it may be 
 well to quote the judgment of the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury in the Bishop of Lincoln's case in 1890 on the ques- 
 tion of the ablutions, though its authority is not every- 
 where recognised and not unchallenged on canonical 
 grounds. We read : 
 
 The cleansing of the vessels appears to be not an improper 
 completion of this act which is ordered to follow the close of 
 the service without any break or interval.... The rubric gives 
 a general direction as to what is to be done in the way of 
 consuming what remains after the service, and is not so minute 
 as to go beyond this, our book having abandoned many over- 
 niceties of regulation. If a conscientious scruple is felt as to not 
 "carrying out of the church" slight remnants even into the 
 vestry, it is not the duty of this court to over-rule it, and the 
 credence is a suitable place for completing the consumption.
 
 2i6 THE SCOTTISH PRAYER BOOK [ch. xii 
 
 In ancient liturgies, which cannot be held to fail in punctilious 
 reverence, after the words of dismissal the minister goes into 
 the prothesis (the wide apse where the credence is) and there 
 consumes the last remnants (see Goar, Euch., p. 86 *) . In neither 
 of those liturgies [copies of the liturgy of St Chrysostom] which 
 were in Cranmer's hands and used by him (as we have seen) 
 are any directions given. If it were the duty of this court to 
 point out where and when, if not at the Holy Table, the 
 minister would most properly complete the consumption of 
 the consecrated elements in such a way as he might think 
 to be necessary in compliance with the rubric, the court would 
 unhesitatingly say "at the credence, or in the place where 
 they had been prepared." Nevertheless the court cannot hold 
 that the minister, who, after the service was ended and the 
 benediction given, in order that no part of the consecrated 
 elements should be carried out of the church, cleansed the 
 vessels of all remnants in a reverent way without ceremony 
 or prayers before finally leaving the Holy Table, would have 
 subjected himself to penal consequences by so doing 2 . 
 
 1 This should be p. 68. The error seems to be due to copying without 
 verification a reference given in Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 
 
 895- 
 
 2 Read and others v. the Lord Bishop of Lincoln. Judgment. Nov. 21, 
 
 1890, pp. 15-17-
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 
 
 THAT the intention of the Prayer Book since the last 
 revision is that the remains of the blessed sacrament 
 after communion should remain on the altar reverently- 
 covered with a fair linen cloth until the end of the service 
 admits of no doubt, and thus agreement with ancient 
 usage, and particularly with what was the rule of the 
 church of Rome on the subject, was effected. There was 
 a still further return to ancient ideas with regard to the 
 eucharist characterising the whole revision. In particular 
 we may note the change in the Black Rubric which said 
 that "no adoration is intended or ought to be done. . . 
 unto any real and essential presence there being of 
 Christ's natural flesh and blood," so as to read "any 
 corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." 
 The order requiring on every occasion "what remaineth 
 of the consecrated elements" to be placed on the altar 
 immediately after the administration brought it about 
 that, as St Gregory the Great had said in his letter to 
 John of Syracuse, the prayer which our Redeemer had 
 composed is always recited over His body and blood 1 , 
 though not before the communion as originally. It may 
 be well to enquire what other influence the new rubric 
 had on the devotion of the worshippers during the latter 
 part of the service. 
 
 We have noticed that according to Zwingli's ideas, as 
 shown in the liturgy of Zurich, though he would not con- 
 nect our Lord's presence directly with the elements, the 
 concluding portion of the service was performed with a 
 
 1 P.L. lxxvii. col. 956-7.
 
 218 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 deep sense of the reality of that presence as He is exhibited 
 outwardly in symbolic actions and inwardly to the eye of 
 faith in the act of communion, "the Lamb of God which 
 taketh away the sin of the world," and that He is thus 
 worshipped in the sacrament "present by the contempla- 
 tion of faith." In later days the ceremonial commemora- 
 tion of the sacrifice of Christ became one of the chief 
 features of a celebration of the Lord's Supper among the 
 followers of Zwingli and Calvin, and in the broken bread 
 and the wine poured out the sacrifice is dramatically set 
 forth for the edification of the worshippers. In the Puritan 
 Prayer Book published by Waldegrave (c. 1585) we read: 
 
 During the which time [of the communion] some place of 
 the Scriptures is read, which doth lively set forth the death 
 of Christ, to the intent that our eyes and senses may not only 
 be occupied in these outward signs of bread and wine, which 
 are called the visible word; but that our hearts and minds 
 also may be fully fixed in the contemplation of the Lord's 
 death, which is by this holy sacrament represented 1 . 
 
 The same words are found in the editions published at 
 Middleburgh in 1586, 1587 and 1602 2 . In The New Book 
 of Common Prayer, according to the form of the Kirk of 
 Scotland issued in 1644 after the troubles which arose 
 over the Prayer Book of 1637 we nn d an almost identical 
 order, but the importance attached to the idea of the 
 exhibition of our Lord and His death in the sacrament is 
 shown by "the Visible Word" being printed in italics 
 with capital letters 3 . 
 
 It was as bringing out the idea of our Lord's sacrificial 
 death that so much emphasis was laid on the breaking of 
 the bread. In the Parliamentary Directory of 1644 we read : 
 
 According to the holy institution, command, and example 
 of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, I take this bread; and 
 
 1 Hall, Fragmenla Liturgica, vol. i. p. 66. 
 
 2 Hall, Reliquiae Liturgicae, vol. I. p. 59. 
 
 3 Hall, F.L. vol. 1. p. 94.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 219 
 
 having given thanks, I break it, and give it unto you (There 
 the minister, who is also himself to communicate, is to break 
 the bread and give it to the communicants) . Take ye, eat ye, 
 This is the body of Christ, which is broken for you, Do this in 
 remembrance of Him 1 . 
 
 We note the implication that not all those present 
 would necessarily communicate, and the same point is 
 brought out in the preliminary exhortation, though there 
 it is only the "ignorant, scandalous, profane or (those) 
 that live in any sin or offence against their knowledge or 
 conscience" who are warned "that they presume not to 
 come to that holy table " ; but no interval is allowed in 
 which they may withdraw. 
 
 Important evidence about the ideas of the Puritan party 
 with regard to the sacrament is to be found in the liturgy 
 prepared by Richard Baxter and submitted by him and 
 the other Puritan divines to the Savoy Conference in 
 1661. As Baxter stated that he had no quarrel with the 
 doctrines of the Book of Common Prayer, the proposed 
 liturgy is to be regarded as much as an interpretation of 
 that book according to his theological ideas as a substitute 
 for it. According to the Puritan divines, the three chief 
 elements in the ordinance were the consecration, the com- 
 memoration of the sacrifice, and the communion. Conse- 
 quently in their exceptions to the Book of Common Prayer 
 their complaint had been : 
 
 We conceive that the manner of the consecrating of the 
 elements is not here explicit and distinct enough, and the 
 minister's breaking of the bread is not so much as mentioned 2 . 
 
 In Baxter's liturgy we see how the Puritans would bring 
 out these ideas. From their point of view a description of 
 the sacrament is as follows: 
 
 The Lord's Supper, then, is an holy sacrament, instituted by 
 
 1 Hall, Reliquiae Liturgicae, vol. Hi. p. 57. 
 
 2 Cardwell, Conferences, 3rd Ed. p. 321.
 
 220 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 Christ: wherein bread and wine, being first by consecration 
 made sacramentally, or representatively, the body and blood 
 of Christ, are used by breaking and pouring out to represent 
 and commemorate the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood upon 
 the cross once offered up to God for sin; and are given in the 
 name of Christ unto the Church, to signify and solemnize the 
 renewal of His holy covenant with them, and the giving of 
 Himself unto them, to expiate their sins by His sacrifice, and 
 sanctify them further by His Spirit, and confirm their right to 
 everlasting life 1 . 
 
 With regard to the consecration we read : 
 
 Sanctify these thy creatures of bread and wine, which, 
 according to thy institution and command, we set apart to 
 this holy use, that they may be sacramentally the body and 
 blood of thy Son Jesus Christ 2 . 
 
 After the words of institution which are not part of a 
 prayer but addressed to the people the minister says: 
 
 This bread and wine, being set apart, and consecrated to 
 this holy use by God's appointment, are now no common bread 
 and wine, but sacramentally the body and blood of Christ 3 . 
 
 The commemoration of the sacrifice, which follows, is a 
 very dramatic feature of the liturgy: 
 
 Then let the minister take the bread, and break it in the sight 
 of the people, saying : 
 
 The body of Christ was broken for us, and offered once for 
 all to sanctify us: behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that 
 taketh away the sins of the world. 
 
 In like manner let him take the cup, and pour out the wine 
 in the sight of the congregation, saying : 
 
 We were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a 
 Lamb without blemish and without spot 4 . 
 
 We note how the words agree with the forms already 
 quoted from a Lasco's liturgy, and the First Prayer Book, 
 
 1 Hall, Reliquiae Liturgicae, vol. iv. p. 57. 
 
 2 R.L. vol. iv. p. 68. 
 
 3 R.L. vol. iv. p. 69. * R.L. vol. iv. p. 70.
 
 xni] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 221 
 
 though with regard to the latter, the draft Articles of 
 1549, Ridley's Injunctions of 1550, and Hooper's similar 
 Injunctions of 1551, forbade "showing the sacrament 
 openly before the distribution 1 ." They are also very 
 similar to the words of the Roman missal when the priest 
 turns towards the people for the communion. Lifting up 
 a particle of the holy sacrament he says : 
 
 Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the 
 sins of the world. 
 
 That non-communicants might remain throughout the 
 service is plain, though they are not encouraged ; yet they 
 too take part in the commemoration of the sacrifice. 
 We read : 
 
 See here Christ dying in this holy representation ! Behold 
 the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the 
 world ! It is his will to be thus frequently crucified before our 
 eyes. ...See here his broken body and his blood, the testimonies 
 of his willingness.... Deny not your consent but heartily give 
 up yourselves to Christ.... Receive now a crucified Christ here 
 represented, and be contented to take up your cross and follow 
 him 2 . 
 
 A striking feature of the liturgy is the adoration of 
 Jesus exhibited to the faithful in the sacrament as the 
 sacrificed and glorified Lamb of God. The idea behind it 
 is the same as that of Zwingli in the Zurich liturgy, but 
 its special interest is to be found in the light it throws 
 upon the interpretation put upon the Gloria in excelsis as 
 used in the Book of Common Prayer by such as Baxter. 
 Immediately after the participation the minister prays : 
 
 Most glorious God, how wonderful is thy power and wisdom, 
 thy holiness and justice, thy love and mercy, in this work of 
 our redemption, by the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, 
 intercession and dominion of thy Son ! No power or wisdom in 
 
 1 Frere, Visitation Articles, vol. II. pp. I9 2 ~3» 2 4 2 > 2 7 6 - 
 
 2 Hall, R.L. vol. IV. pp. 61-4.
 
 222 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 heaven or earth could have delivered us, but thine. The angels 
 desire to pry into this mystery : the heavenly host do celebrate 
 it with praises saying, Glory be to God in the highest; on earth 
 peace, goodwill towards men. The whole creation shall proclaim 
 thy praises: Blessing, honour, glory and power, be unto him 
 that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and 
 ever. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, 
 and honour, and glory : for he hath redeemed us to God by his 
 blood, and made us kings and priests unto our God. ...With 
 the blood of thy Son, with the sacrament, and with thy Spirit, 
 thou hast sealed up to us these precious promises 1 . 
 
 We must now examine the ideas of the church party at 
 the Savoy Conference. In Cosin's First Series of Notes 
 upon the Book of Common Prayer we read : 
 
 Lord and heavenly Father . In King Edward's first service 
 book, this prayer was set before the delivery of the sacrament 
 to the people, and followed immediately after the consecration ; 
 and certainly it was the better and the more natural order of 
 the two; neither do I know whether it were the printer's 
 negligence, or no, thus to displace it. For the consecration of 
 the sacrament being ever the first, it was always the use in 
 all liturgies to have the oblation follow (which is this), and then 
 the participation, which goes before, and after all, the thanks- 
 giving, which is here set next before the Gloria in excelsis; in 
 regard whereof I have always observed my lord and master 
 Dr Overall to use this oblation in its right place, when he had 
 consecrated the sacrament to make an offering of it (as being 
 the true public sacrifice of the church) unto God, that by the 
 merits of Christ's death, which was now commemorated, all 
 the Church of God might receive mercy, etc. as in this prayer; 
 and when that was done he did communicate the people, and 
 so end with the thanksgiving following hereafter 2 . 
 
 Cosin clearly misunderstood the rationale of the euchar- 
 istic prayer in the Eastern liturgies, for as in them the 
 consecration is deemed to be effected by the Epiclesis and 
 
 1 R.L. vol. IV. pp. 74-5. 2 Parker, Introduction, pp. ccxxiii, ccxxiv.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 223 
 
 not by the recitation of the words of institution, it follows 
 and does not precede what he calls "the oblation." To 
 Cosin, as to the Puritan divines, the three chief elements 
 in the ordinance are the consecration, the commemoration 
 of the sacrifice and the communion. The difference was 
 that to the Puritans the commemoration of the sacrifice 
 was an exhibition of the sacrifice to men, but to Cosin and 
 his friends a presentation of the sacrifice to God. Conse- 
 quently on one side the emphasis was on making an 
 offering to the Father while on the other it was on the 
 manifestation and the consequent adoration of the Son. 
 As the order of the liturgy was finally settled neither side 
 gained what they desired. 
 
 In his work on the Catholic Religion of the Realm of 
 England of the year 1652 Cosin gave a description of the 
 ceremonial at the consecration in the Lord's Supper. We 
 read: 
 
 Then standing up by solemn prayers which contain the 
 institution of the sacrament and the very words of Christ when 
 instituting it, breaking the bread which he has taken into his 
 hands and pouring out the wine into the chalice, he blesses 
 each symbol, and consecrates them to be the sacrament of 
 Christ's body and blood 1 . 
 
 In the Particulars to be considered (No. 57) the breaking 
 of the bread is still regarded as important, but nothing is 
 said about the pouring out of the wine. We read : 
 
 No direction is given to the priest (as in King Edward's 
 service-book there was, and as in most places it is still in use) 
 to "take the bread and cup into his hands" nor to "break the 
 bread" before the people, which is a needful circumstance 
 belonging to this sacrament; and therefore, for his better 
 warrant therein, such a direction ought here to be set in the 
 margin of the book 2 . 
 
 1 Cosin, Works, vol. iv. p. 359. 
 
 2 Cosin, Works, vol. v. pp. 516-7. Cf. Brightman, English Rite, 
 vol. 1. p. ccxix.
 
 224 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 The possibility of the pouring out of the wine at the 
 time of consecration is allowed according to Wren's sug- 
 gestions for revising the Book of Common Prayer. His 
 proposed rubric runs : 
 
 Then the priest standing before the table shall so order and 
 set the bread and the wine that, while he is pronouncing the 
 following collect, he may readily take the bread and break it, 
 and also take the cup, to pour into it (if he pour it not before), 
 and then he shall say... 1 . 
 
 The final rubrics on the point are clearly due to Cosin : 
 
 When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered 
 the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and 
 decency break the bread before the people, and take the cup 
 into his hands, he shall say the prayer of consecration, as 
 ioMoweth.... Who in the same night that he was betrayed (Here 
 the priest is to take the paten into his hands) took bread; and 
 when he had given thanks (And here to break the bread), he 
 brake it. 
 
 The Puritan idea of the commemoration of the sacrifice 
 of Christ is thus entirely disallowed. Baxter had written : 
 
 Bread and wine, being first by consecration made sacra- 
 mentally, or representatively the body and blood of Christ, 
 are used by breaking and pouring out to represent and com- 
 memorate the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood upon the 
 cross once offered up to God. 
 
 Now the breaking of the bread is directed to take place 
 before consecration, and there is no mention of the pouring 
 out of the wine at all. 
 
 The rubrics finally adopted are found in the Durham 
 Book and in this Cosin's suggestions for the sequence of 
 the eucharistic prayer are also set out, for as in the First 
 Prayer Book "Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father" 
 follows the prayer of consecration immediately. A note 
 
 1 Parker, Introduction, p. ccccxxv.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 225 
 
 in Sancroft's hand shows, however, that this also was 
 afterwards disallowed, and the old arrangement of the 
 prayers restored. We read: 
 
 My lords the bishops at Ely House ordered all in the old 
 method, thus — First the prayer of address, We do not presume ; 
 with the rubric, When the priest standing, etc., the prayer 
 of consecration unaltered (only one for own and Amen at 
 last) with the marginal rubrics. Then (the memorial or prayer 
 of oblation omitted and the Lord's prayer) follow the rubrics 
 and forms of participation.... And then the Lord's prayer, 
 the collect, Lord and heavenly Father, etc., etc., to the end 1 . 
 
 The bishops thus plainly refused to accept Cosin's sug- 
 gestion and with it his idea of the eucharistic sacrifice. 
 Consequently neither Baxter's nor Cosin's notion of the 
 commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ was officially 
 recognised, and churchmen were left free to hold the 
 doctrine to be gathered from antiquity and the ancient 
 liturgies on the subject, and to accept from each of the 
 opposing parties the ideas which are most in accordance 
 with these. Yet the fact of the commemoration of the 
 sacrifice is deliberately recognised, for the second exhorta- 
 tion is altered to read: "so it is your duty to receive the 
 communion in remembrance of the sacrifice of his death," 
 the words in italics being an addition; while there is still 
 of course the statement in the Catechism that the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper was ordained " for the continual 
 remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ." 
 
 As is usual in all such cases the interpretation according 
 to which the new version of the Prayer Book was accepted 
 is of no less importance than the conflicting ideas which 
 had made it what it was. Even the more Protestant 
 recognised the reverence due to our Lord manifest in the 
 sacrament as the sacrificed Lamb of God. Daniel Brevint, 
 Canon of Durham, and afterwards Dean of Lincoln, in 
 
 1 Parker, Introduction, p. ccxxii. 
 l. e. 15
 
 226 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, published in 1673, 
 thus writes of the eucharist : 
 
 Therefore whensoever Christians approach to this dreadful 
 mystery, and to the Lamb of God lying and sacrificed (as some 
 say that the holy Nicene Council speaks) upon the holy table: 
 it concerns their main interest in point of salvation, as well 
 as in other duties, to take a special care, not to lame and 
 deprive the grand sacrifice of its own due attendance 1 . 
 
 Archbishop Laud in his defence of adoration towards 
 the altar in his speech in the Star Chamber on June 14th, 
 1637, said: 
 
 It is versus altare, towards his altar, as the greatest place of 
 God's residence on earth 2 . 
 
 And again: 
 
 Where Harding names divers ceremonies, and particularly 
 bowing themselves and adoring at the sacrament — I say adoring 
 at the sacrament, not adoring the sacrament: there Bishop 
 Jewel approves all, both the kneeling and the bowing 3 . 
 
 Adoration of Christ at the sacrament was also approved 
 by Cosin. In his defence of the practice of receiving the 
 communion kneeling in his Second Series of Notes on the 
 Book of Common Prayer, we read: 
 
 True it is, that the body and blood of Christ are sacra- 
 mentally and really (not feignedly) present, when the blessed 
 bread and wine are taken by the faithful communicants.... 
 Therefore whosoever so receiveth them, at that time when he 
 receiveth them, rightly doth he adore and reverence his Saviour 
 there together with the sacramental bread and cup, exhibiting 
 His own body and blood unto them. But our kneeling, and 
 the outward gesture of humility and reverence in our bodies, 
 is ordained only to testify and express the inward reverence 
 and devotion of our souls towards our blessed Saviour, Who 
 vouchsafed to sacrifice Himself for us upon the cross, and now 
 
 1 Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, p. 94. 
 
 2 Staley, Hierurgia Anglicana, Pt 11. 1903, p. 88. s Pt II. p. 89.
 
 xiii] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 227 
 
 presenteth Himself to be united sacramentally to us, that we 
 may enjoy all the benefits of His mystical passion, and be 
 nourished with the spiritual food of His blessed body and 
 blood unto life eternal 1 . 
 
 "The inward reverence and devotion of our souls 
 towards our blessed Saviour" was commonly expressed in 
 the period immediately following the last revision of the 
 Prayer Book by the use of the Agnus Dei, and it appears 
 quite frequently in books of devotion for private use at 
 communion 2 . This act of worship of our Lord in the sacra- 
 ment is found not only before communion but afterwards 
 in accordance with the ideas which seem to have caused 
 the removal of the Gloria in excelsis to its new position in 
 1552. Thomas Burnet in The Nature, Use and Efficacy of 
 the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, published in 1731, and 
 dedicated to members of the Royal Family, gives it thus 
 for use immediately after communion : 
 
 O Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, have 
 mercy upon me. By thine agony and bloody sweat, thy cross 
 and passion, good Lord deliver me 3 . 
 
 The worship of our Lord exhibited as the Lamb of God 
 in the sacrament, officially recognised in the Gloria in 
 excelsis, was thus at the end of the seventeenth and the 
 beginning of the eighteenth century a common element 
 of private eucharistic devotion after as well as before 
 reception. If the faithful coming to communion could be 
 said to "approach to the dreadful mystery and to the 
 Lamb of God lying and sacrificed upon the holy table" it 
 was not unlikely that afterwards when what remained of 
 the consecrated elements was reverently placed upon the 
 holy table and covered with a fair linen cloth the same 
 idea should be continued, the negations of the revisers 
 
 1 Parker, Introduction, p. ccxx. 
 
 2 Legg, English Church Life, pp. 57-60. 
 
 3 Burnet, The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, p. 30. 
 
 15—2
 
 228 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 being forgotten but their positive ideas accepted, and that 
 men should still "behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that 
 taketh away the sins of the world," and worship Him in 
 "these holy mysteries" in the traditional phraseology of 
 the Agnus, which is included in the Gloria in excelsis. 
 The rubric requiring the sacrament to remain on the altar 
 until the end of the service according to ancient custom 
 made it impossible that it should be otherwise, when the 
 negations of the sixteenth century were abandoned, and 
 much of the earlier faith restored. The association of the 
 Gloria in excelsis with the sacramental presence of our 
 Lord was not a new thing. Thomas Becon in his Displaying 
 of the Popish Mass says : 
 
 After these things ye go unto the midst of the altar, and 
 looking up to the pyx, where ye think your God to be, and 
 making solemn courtesy, like womanly Joan, ye say the 
 Gloria in excelsis 1 . 
 
 Nor could this worship of our Lord very well be limited 
 to those who communicated on that particular occasion. 
 Both the Parliamentary Directory and Baxter's liturgy 
 recognised that non-communicants might be present 
 during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, though it was 
 not encouraged or regarded as fulfilling our Lord's com- 
 mand, and the same thing is the historical explanation of 
 the form taken by some of the rubrics of the Book of 
 Common Prayer, when under the First Prayer Book it 
 was the ordinary custom. The strong condemnation of 
 those who were present at the sacrament without com- 
 municating, inserted in the Second Prayer Book at Bucer's 
 suggestion and based perhaps on words of St Chrysostom 2 , 
 was omitted in 1662 so that freedom in the matter was 
 restored. According to Bishop Wren at this date there was 
 no need for the words of the exhortation any longer, and 
 
 1 Becon, Displaying of the Popish Mass. Works (Parker Society), 
 vol. in. p. 263. 
 
 2 In Epis. ad Ephes. Cap. i. Horn, hi., P.G. lxii. col. 29.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 229 
 
 among his proposals for altering the Book of Common 
 Prayer we read : 
 
 To stand by, as gazers and lookers on, is now wholly out of 
 use in all parishes. And the Not-Communicants generally do 
 use to depart, without bidding 1 . 
 
 If these words were intended to refer to all non-com- 
 municating attendance, to the presence of those who were 
 regular communicants on other occasions as well as of 
 those who never communicated at all, it certainly was not 
 the truth a little later. We read of John Evelyn in 1684, 
 after communicating at an early celebration at Whitehall 
 being present again at a later celebration, and there is 
 nothing to show that it was anything exceptional, or con- 
 fined to the court. He writes: 
 
 30 [March] Easter Day. The bishop of Rochester [Dr Turner] 
 preached before the king; after which his majesty, accom- 
 panied with three of his natural sons... went up to the altar; 
 the three boys entering before the king within the rails, at the 
 right hand, and three bishops on the left, viz. London (who 
 Officiated), Durham, and Rochester with the Sub Dean 
 Dr Holder. The king kneeling before the altar, making his 
 offering, the bishops first received, and then his majesty; after 
 which he retired to a canopied seat on the right hand. Note 
 there was perfume burnt before the office began. I had received 
 the sacrament at Whitehall early with the Lords and House- 
 hold, the Bishop of London officiating. Then went to 
 St Martin's, where Dr Tenison preached,... then went again to 
 Whitehall as above. In the afternoon went to St Martin's 
 again 2 . 
 
 The Bishop of London evidently duplicated, but 
 Evelyn was present the second time without communi- 
 cating. In a day so crowded with religious observance it 
 is unlikely that Evelyn was there simply for sight-seeing, 
 
 1 Parker, Introduction, p. ccccxxv. 
 
 2 Bray, The Diary of John Evelyn, Esquire, F.R.S. (The Chandos 
 Classics), pp. 456-7.
 
 230 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 and it appears not to have been the custom for non-com- 
 municants to depart. If the words of Baxter's exhorta- 
 tion were true even for those who refused the invitation 
 to communion they could hardly be untrue for those who 
 had communicated at an earlier service or on another 
 occasion : 
 
 See here Christ dying in this holy representation! Behold 
 the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the 
 world ! It is his will to be thus frequently crucified before our 
 eyes 1 . 
 
 The adoration of Christ, exhibited in His sacrament as 
 the sacrificed and glorified Lamb of God, which is pro- 
 vided in the Gloria in excelsis, whatever its original purpose 
 and scope, is put into the mouths of all, and is an act of 
 worship for all. The private opinions of the revisers of the 
 Book of Common Prayer at one period were never regarded 
 as binding by the revisers of another, nor have they been 
 regarded as necessarily binding on anyone except in so 
 far as they have been incorporated in the text ; and indeed 
 as they have been so contradictory it would have been 
 impossible. The Prayer Book must be interpreted not as 
 expressing the views of one party or another, either in the 
 sixteenth or seventeenth century, but in accordance with 
 its own appeal to antiquity, in the light of that knowledge 
 which is the privilege of the particular age. 
 
 In the liturgy of St James after the fraction at the con- 
 signation the priest says: 
 
 Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
 world, slain for the life and salvation of the world 2 . 
 
 After the people's thanksgiving for communion at the 
 last entrance when the priest returns to the sanctuary with 
 the sacred elements the archdeacon says: 
 
 Glory to thee, glory to thee, glory to thee, O Christ the King, 
 
 1 See p. 221. Hall, Reliquiae Liturgicae, vol. iv. p. 6i. 
 
 2 Brightrnan, Eastern Liturgies, p. 62.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 231 
 
 the only begotten Word of the Father, for thou didst vouchsafe 
 that we thy sinful and unworthy servants should enjoy thy 
 spotless mysteries for the remission of our sins and eternal 
 life. Glory to thee 1 . 
 
 Similarly in the Syrian liturgy in a prayer of the fraction 
 we read : 
 
 Thou art the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
 world 2 . 
 
 Returning with the mysteries at the last entrance the 
 priest says: 
 
 Glory to thee, glory to thee, glory to thee, O our Lord and 
 our God for ever. Our Lord Jesus Christ, let not thy holy body 
 which we have eaten and thy propitiatory blood which we have 
 drunk be unto us for judgment and for vengeance but for the 
 life and salvation of us all : and have mercy upon us 3 . 
 
 Thus in both the liturgies of the Syrian rite our Lord in 
 the sacrament is recognised as the sacrificed Lamb of God, 
 and He is worshipped after the communion in words very 
 similar to the beginning of the Gloria in excelsis — "Glory 
 to thee." 
 
 In the Nestorian liturgy we are told that "when the 
 people have received the holy thing the priest takes back 
 the vessels, with the mysteries to their place (and the 
 veil is closed) " 4 ; and there they remain until they are con- 
 sumed when the celebrant makes his communion at the 
 end of the service. At the end of the thanksgiving after the 
 people's communion "one of the deacons binds up the 
 veil," and the mysteries are again exposed to view. Those 
 that are in the nave then say this psalm : 
 
 O praise the Lord of heaven : the Son who gave us his body 
 and blood. 
 
 Praise him in the height : the Son who gave us his body and 
 blood (and the rest of Ps. cxlviii. 1-6 in like manner). 
 
 1 Brightman, p. 65. 2 Brightman, p. 99. 
 
 3 Brightman, p. 104. * Brightman, p. 301.
 
 232 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 And they proceed 
 
 praise the Lord, all ye heathen: For his gift to us. 
 Praise him, all ye nations: For his gift to us 
 
 {and the rest of Ps. cxvii). 
 Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost : 
 
 To the Son who gave us his body and blood. 
 From everlasting to everlasting world without end, Amen : 
 
 To the Son who gave us his body and blood. 
 Let all the people say Amen and Amen : 
 
 To the Son who gave us his body and blood. 
 Let us confess and worship and glorify : 
 
 The Son who gave us his body and blood. 
 And they proceed 
 Our Father which art in heaven, 
 three times (without f arcings) K 
 
 Again we have adoration of the Son and thanksgiving 
 to Him for the blessings of communion, while there is a 
 further point of contact with the English liturgy in the 
 use of the Lord's prayer after the communion, all in the 
 presence of the blessed sacrament. 
 
 In the liturgy of St Chrysostom at the fraction the 
 priest says: 
 
 Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God, who was broken 
 and not divided 2 . 
 
 The holy sacrament is twice exposed to the people to 
 kindle their adoration after the communion of the min- 
 isters. On the first occasion which is after the communion 
 of the people when any receive we have a benediction 
 with the blessed sacrament. We read: 
 
 And thus they open the door of the sanctuary, and the 
 deacon bowing once takes the holy chalice from the priest 
 with reverence and goes to the door, and elevating it shows it 
 to the people, saying, In the fear of God, and faith and love 
 draw near. The choir, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
 
 1 Brightman, pp. 302-3. 3 Brightman, p. 393.
 
 xiii] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 233 
 
 the Lord. God is the Lord and hath showed us light. And the priest 
 blesses the people saying over them aloud, God save thy 
 People and bless thine inheritance. The choir the apolutikon of 
 the day 1 . And both the deacon and priest return to the holy 
 table, and the deacon puts down the holy cup upon it and 
 says to the priest, Exalt, sir. And the priest censes it thrice 
 saying to himself, Be thou exalted, God, above the heavens, and 
 thy glory above all the earth. Then taking the holy paten he 
 puts it upon the head of the deacon, and the deacon takes it 
 with reverence, looks outside towards the door, and saying 
 nothing, departs to the prothesis and puts it down. And the 
 priest bows and takes the holy chalice [containing the remains 
 of the holy sacrament], and turns towards the door, and looks 
 at the people saying, Blessed be our God. Then he says aloud, 
 At all times, now and always and for ever and ever 2 . 
 
 This attitude towards the holy sacrament is by no 
 means simply modern, even if it does not belong to the 
 earliest days. The blessing of the faithful by the priest 
 after the communion while he, or the deacon by his side, 
 holds the sacrament in his hands is as old as the beginning 
 of the ninth century at any rate in the liturgy of the pre- 
 sanctified. St Theodore of the Studium (c. 800) in his 
 work, De Praesanctificatis, says: 
 
 After the reception by the brethren there is said, God, 
 save thy people and bless thine inheritance, and he marks them 
 with the divine sign of the precious cross. The divine gifts he 
 on no account puts down on the divine table, but immediately 
 puts them away in the prothesis 3 . 
 
 The second act of reverence towards the blessed sacra- 
 ment we find already in the eleventh century codex of the 
 liturgy of St Chrysostom. We read : 
 
 And when he is about to return the holy gifts where they 
 
 were set forth, on taking them from the holy table the deacon 
 
 censes them thrice. The priest says to himself, Be thou exalted, 
 
 1 A hymn of dismissal. a Brightman, pp. 395-7. 
 
 3 P.G. xcix. col. 1689.
 
 234 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 God, above the heavens, and thy glory above all the earth, 
 and taking them up he says aloud, At all times, now and always, 
 and for ever and ever 1 . 
 
 This taking up of the sacrament for removal to the 
 prothesis is thus likened in the priest's prayer to our 
 Lord's ascension, and allusions to this interpretation we 
 find in various writers of different periods. An exposition 
 of the liturgy written by Germanus, patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople (fc. 740), but interpolated (c. 1100), says: 
 
 The taking up of the holy remnants which are left suggests 
 the ascension of our Lord and God 2 . 
 
 Similarly we read in the commentary of Simeon of 
 Thessalonica (f 1429) on the liturgy: 
 
 Censing the gifts the chief priest departs saying also those 
 things which manifest the ascension of the Saviour 3 . 
 
 In the Longer Catechism of the Russian Church, in 
 accordance with such traditional expositions, a mystical 
 interpretation is given to each of the two special acts of 
 reverence towards our Lord in His sacramental presence 
 after the communion. We read : 
 
 Q. What is set forth after this [the communion of the clergy] 
 by the drawing back of the veil, the opening of the royal doors, 
 and the appearance of the holy gifts? 
 
 A . The appearance of Jesus Christ Himself after His resur- 
 rection. 
 
 Q. What is figured by the last showing of the holy gifts to 
 the people after which they are hid from view? 
 
 A . The ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven 4 . 
 
 Almost the same symbolical interpretation is found in 
 the Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (t c. 502) which explain 
 
 1 Swainson, p. 141. 
 
 2 Goar, Enchologion, p. 131, n. 182. 
 
 3 Goar, pp. 131, 192. 
 
 4 Blackmore, Doctrine of the Russian Church, p. 94.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 235 
 
 an early form of the Nestorian rite. After the priest's 
 thanksgiving for communion we read : 
 
 Then all in the altar and without in the congregation pray 
 the prayer which that lifegiving mouth taught. With it do men 
 begin every prayer, morning and evening : and with it do they 
 complete all the rites (or mysteries) of holy church. This it is 
 said is that which includes all prayer, and without it no prayer 
 is concluded. Then the priest goes forth and stands at the door 
 of the altar; and he stretches forth his hands and blesses the 
 people, and says — the whole people the priest blesses in that 
 hour, symbolizing the blessing which our Lord Jesus gave to 
 His twelve. On the day of His ascension He the High Pontiff, 
 lifted up His hands and blessed and made priests of His twelve ; 
 and then He was taken up. A symbol of His resurrection has 
 the priest typified by the completion of the mysteries, and a 
 symbol of His revelation before His disciples by distributing 
 Him. By the stretching out of the hands of the bright-robed 
 priest towards the light he confers a blessing upon the whole 
 congregation; and thus he says, He that hath blessed us with 
 every blessing of the Spirit in heaven, may He also now bless us 
 all with the power of His mysteries... and with his right hand he 
 signs the congregation with the living sign 1 . 
 
 We note the use of the Lord's prayer after the com- 
 munion as in the Book of Common Prayer, and the blessing 
 "with the power of His mysteries," not unlike the blessing 
 "in the knowledge and love of. . .his Son Jesus Christ" 
 after communion which has characterised the English rite 
 since the publication of the Order of Communion in 1548. 
 
 The liturgy of the Armenians has also the benediction 
 with the blessed sacrament after the communion as in 
 the liturgy of St Chrysostom, though according to some 
 texts there is no allusion to it in the rubrics 2 . We read: 
 
 1 Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, pp. 30-3 1 . 
 
 2 Issaverdenz, The Armenian Liturgy, p. 81. Translations of Christian 
 Liturgies, 1. The Armenian Liturgy, p. 104. Fortescue, The Armenian 
 Church, p. 107. Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, vol. IV. p. 477.
 
 236 THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB [ch. 
 
 Then all who are worthy communicate. The clerks sing... 
 This is the same Christ the divine Word who sitteth at the right 
 hand of the Father, and who sacrificed here amongst us taketh 
 away the sin of the world. He is blessed for ever with the Father 
 and the Spirit, now and ever for the time to come and world 
 without end. When all have communicated the clerks sing in a 
 loud voice, Our God and our Lord hath appeared to us. Blessed 
 is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Then the priest makes 
 over them the sign of the cross with the sacred gifts, and says, 
 Save thy people, Lord, and bless thine inheritance: govern them 
 and lift them tip for ever. The clerks sing, We have been filled, 
 Lord, from thy good things, tasting of thy body and blood: Glory 
 be on high to thee who hast fed us. Thou who continually feedest 
 us, send down upon us thy spiritual blessing: Glory be on high to 
 thee who hast fed us 1 . 
 
 We notice how the ideas of the Agnus are incorporated 
 in the communion hymn which is really a paraphrase of 
 part of the Gloria in excelsis. The hymn of thanksgiving 
 after the benediction with the sacrament also has affinity 
 with the Gloria. 
 
 Our examination of the ancient liturgies has shown that 
 the thought of our Lord as the sacrificed Lamb of God 
 manifest in the eucharist is found in almost all. The 
 worship of Him after the communion in His special sacra- 
 mental presence is also very widespread, and in words 
 not very dissimilar from those provided in the Gloria in 
 excelsis. The Church of England in the original preface of 
 the Prayer Book now entitled, "Concerning the service of 
 the Church," appealed " to the mind and purpose of the old 
 fathers" of liturgy. Likewise at the last revision in 1661 
 the appeal was to "the most ancient liturgies," and to 
 these the revisers were referred by Charles II in his 
 Letters Patent of March 25th of that year 2 . Of the liturgy 
 
 1 Brightman, pp. 452-4. Cf. Malan, The Divine Liturgy of the Armen- 
 ian Church, p. 50. 
 
 2 Cardwell, Conferences, 3rd Ed. p. 300.
 
 xin] THE WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 237 
 
 which bears the name of one of the "ancient fathers" 
 St Chrysostom, the faithful have been reminded twice 
 every day for centuries. It is in accordance with the 
 consensus of the liturgies, not by the contradictory 
 opinions of different sets of revisers, that "all sober, 
 peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of 
 England" have tried to interpret the Book of Common 
 Prayer, as the book itself recommends. Thus all such have 
 been able when "what remaineth of the consecrated 
 elements" has been reverently placed upon the Lord's 
 table, to recognise still "the Lamb of God lying and 
 sacrificed upon the holy table," as Daniel Brevint said 1 , 
 and whether in thanksgiving for communion or in simple 
 adoration to join with the angelic hosts in worshipping the 
 "Lamb as it had been slain," "Who hath appeared unto 
 us"— 
 
 O Lord God, Lamb of God. Son of the Father, that takest 
 away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us, receive our 
 prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, 
 have mercy upon us. For thou only art holy; thou only art 
 the Lord, thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost art most 
 high in the glory of God the Father. Amen. 
 
 1 See p. 226.
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 WE are now in a position to summarise our chief 
 results. The primitive custom appears to have been 
 that what was left of the consecrated elements after the 
 communion at the eucharist should not be consumed at 
 once immediately after the administration, but be reserved 
 at any rate until the end of the service either in the sacristy 
 or on the altar and generally, in accordance with the 
 Mosaic rules for the disposal of the remains of the sacrifices, 
 until the next day. This practice seems to have existed 
 everywhere in the early days so far as we know, and lasted 
 with slight modifications for many centuries. The remains 
 were disposed of finally in a variety of ways, some of them 
 very extraordinary to our modern notions, being burnt, a 
 practice derived from the Jewish law, buried, or given to 
 children. The more common usage was that any residue 
 which was left, presumably of both kinds, should be 
 carried into the sacristy, and in so far as it had not been 
 intended for reservation should be consumed by the 
 clergy or used for communion the next day. In the Greek 
 church the remains are still carried into the prothesis, 
 and, when there is no deacon or he has not communicated, 
 consumed by the priest after the service, so that what 
 was a very early custom has continued with little change 
 until modern times. In the West the history was more or 
 less identical for centuries, but as a rule it would seem the 
 residue of the sacrament, commonly called the Sancta, 
 was kept on the altar until the end of the liturgy, special 
 provision being made at Rome that this should always be
 
 ch. xiv] CONCLUSIONS 239 
 
 the case by the rule that the third part of the celebrant's 
 host should be put down on the altar at the fraction, and 
 remain there till the conclusion of mass. The remnants 
 were disposed of finally in ways very similar to those 
 which prevailed in the East as the letter of the pseudo 
 Clement and its derivatives bear witness, being consumed 
 generally by the clergy in the sacristy, originally not till 
 next day, or according to the decrees of the Gallican 
 councils consumed by children and others, in the later 
 days apparently at the end of the liturgy and in the 
 church. 
 
 In the earliest period all cleansing of the sacred vessels 
 must have been performed in the sacristy after the con- 
 sumption of the remains, and obviously not before the 
 end of the service. According to the letter of the pseudo 
 Clement it appears to have been the function of the min- 
 ister. Modification of the practice seems to have been due 
 to the change of custom by which the holy vessels, which 
 formerly had been kept and cleansed in the sacristy, were 
 kept and cleansed near the altar. The alteration took 
 place originally it would appear in Gallican circles, and 
 the Admonition ascribed to Leo IV (c. 847) seems to mark 
 the beginning of the transition. The cleansing was now 
 properly the function of the priest, a point on which the 
 Admonition is emphatic, but in spite of discouragement 
 the custom, which was perhaps really the more primitive, 
 grew by which it was performed by the deacon or sub- 
 deacon, and consequently to bring it into agreement with 
 current practice, various modifications were introduced 
 into the original text of the Admonition of the pseudo 
 Leo. 
 
 The washing of the priest's hands after the communion 
 during the service is heard of first in the ninth century in 
 the Ordo of St Amand, though curiously it does not men- 
 tion the celebrant in this connection, and the washing of 
 his hands first appears in the tenth century in the Codex
 
 240 CONCLUSIONS [ch. 
 
 Ratoldi of Corbie, and in the Sixth Roman Ordo. The 
 ceremonial ablution of the chalice with the consumption 
 of the liquid used, apparently wine, is not found before the 
 middle of the eleventh century, but then according to 
 Peter Damien it is a well established and traditional 
 usage. It is really of course only a preliminary to the 
 older and more thorough cleansing of the chalice, and 
 paten also, at the conclusion of the service. About the 
 same time in the description of the ceremonies of mass as 
 celebrated at Rouen, given by John of Avranches, we 
 first read of the sprinkling of the priest's fingers, which 
 took place in some churches on some occasions in a second 
 chalice, but in others in the chalice of the mass. This 
 ablution also as well as that of the chalice itself was con- 
 sumed by the priest, in contradistinction to the more 
 ancient usage at the washing of the priest's hands in 
 bowls or at the piscina, when the water was always 
 poured away. As time went on the ablutions became 
 more and more elaborate, and frequently the final cleans- 
 ing of the chalice as well as the ceremonial ablution took 
 place in church and during the service: of this practice 
 also John of Avranches is our earliest informant. As the 
 whole action had come to be performed in church and 
 was now the duty of the ministers of the altar, not of the 
 celebrant, there was clearly no longer any reason why it 
 should be postponed until the end of the liturgy, and con- 
 venience suggested that the consumption of the remains, 
 both of chalice and paten, should take place as soon as 
 possible after the communion, so that the cleansing of 
 them could be completed while the priest was finishing 
 the prayers, and the vessels, cleansed and ready for use 
 another day, could be put away in the chest near the 
 altar before the close of the mass, or carried away when 
 the deacon and other ministers left the altar. Various 
 relics of the older usage still survived for a long time in 
 the details we find prescribed in the different orders regu-
 
 xiv] CONCLUSIONS 241 
 
 lating ceremonial, as in the Cistercian statutes of the 
 twelfth century, and the rule of St Victor of the thirteenth, 
 and the vessels are cleansed after mass and the minute 
 remnants consumed. The customs of high mass, in which 
 we find the proper norm of a rite, would naturally be 
 followed with the necessary modifications at low mass, 
 and so though there were numerous minor variations in 
 different localities and survivals from older usage, as at 
 Rouen, there was evolved what has been the general 
 custom for centuries in most parts of the West. 
 
 With regard to the remains of the consecrated bread 
 the history was somewhat different from what it was 
 with regard to the wine, and at quite an early date at 
 any rate at Rome the remnants were added to what was 
 to be reserved. Until the end of the sixteenth century 
 it was the general custom throughout most of the West 
 and certainly at Rome, as witness Patricius, Marcellus, 
 Burchard and de Grassis, that the consecrated hosts 
 which were left over from the communion, if whole, 
 should remain on the altar until the end of the mass so 
 that every time communion was given in its proper place 
 immediately after the consecration, the latter part of the 
 service was said in the presence of the blessed sacrament, 
 and it became almost a mass of exposition. The earliest 
 to change this custom appear to have been the Dominicans 
 and the Carmelites, whose ceremonial on so many points 
 was similar and almost certainly derived from a common 
 source, and another practice had been adopted by the 
 thirteenth century. The change seems to have been 
 adopted first on Maundy Thursday when in Carmelite 
 churches, in imitation apparently of the custom which at 
 one time obtained at Rome from about the tenth century 
 until after the return from Avignon, being a development 
 as we saw from the earlier ceremonial removal of the 
 Fermentum, there was a procession soon after the com- 
 munion of the consecrated host to the altar or other place 
 l. e. 16
 
 242 CONCLUSIONS [CH. 
 
 of repose, as well as the procession of the consecrated oils 
 at much the same point, the latter a function possible only 
 in cathedral churches in the presence of the bishop. In 
 other and particularly in monastic churches in which it 
 was adopted the procession of the sacrament seems 
 practically to have taken the place of the earlier procession 
 of the oils in cathedrals, but where the two processions 
 were necessary that of the sacrament in most places, 
 except for some time in Rome, continued to be held im- 
 mediately after the conclusion of mass. It was natural 
 that the more elaborate custom of Maundy Thursday 
 should tend to be imitated on ordinary days, and so we 
 find that in the Dominican and Carmelite books the con- 
 secrated hosts to be reserved for another day were solemnly 
 carried away by the deacon immediately the communion 
 of the faithful was over without waiting for the final 
 prayers. At York on Maundy Thursday the sacrament 
 appears to have been put away by the bishop in the place 
 of repose, or sepulchre, immediately after the communion, 
 but nothing is said about a procession. We find this also, 
 however, adopted at Holyrood in the fifteenth century. 
 There appears to be no evidence that any such custom 
 obtained in England on ordinary days according to any 
 of the mediaeval uses; the traditional manner of reserva- 
 tion in a hanging pyx would hardly lend itself to such a 
 practice. 
 
 At Rome the custom of removing the sacrament from 
 the altar after the communion seems to have been adopted 
 first in the sixteenth century at a pontifical mass because 
 as Paris de Grassis explained it was difficult, if not im- 
 possible, to carry out the full ceremonial in the presence 
 of the sacrament. In the Caeremoniale Episcoporum of 
 1600 the new practice is allowed as an alternative to the 
 earlier custom of its remaining on the altar until mass 
 was finished. In the edition of 1651 by the change of " vel 
 etiam" into "et" the later alternative becomes the only
 
 xiv] CONCLUSIONS 243 
 
 authoritative practice when a bishop celebrates, and so 
 nowadays the consecrated hosts are no longer allowed to 
 remain on the altar until the end of mass except on 
 special occasions. 
 
 The customs of low mass being an adaptation of those 
 of high mass, and those of an episcopal mass, it was 
 inevitable that sooner or later at that type of service the 
 priest should imitate the more elaborate order. The rule of 
 the Ordo Missae of 1502 requiring the sacrament to be put 
 away after mass disappeared in the revised Ritus Cele- 
 brandi Missam of 1570, and since that date there has been 
 no definite order on the point, though a rubric added in 
 1604 provides for the possibility. In practice it has come 
 to pass that on almost every occasion the hosts to be 
 reserved are removed from the altar immediately after 
 the communion and placed in the tabernacle. Conse- 
 quently the ancient usage survives only when communion 
 is to be given after mass, or when mass is said at an altar 
 where there is no tabernacle, and so many hosts are left 
 over that the priest cannot conveniently consume them 
 himself before the ablutions. 
 
 As the Order of Communion of 1548 was to be used 
 "without the varying of any other rite or ceremony in the 
 mass" the consumption of the remains of the sacrament 
 according to Sarum use would take place before the 
 thanksgiving Gratias tibi and immediately after the 
 English Pax which was the concluding act in the com- 
 munion of the people, and the ablutions would follow. 
 Any hosts to be reserved, including probably any surplus 
 from the communion which could not conveniently be 
 consumed, would remain on the altar until the end of 
 mass, when they would be placed in the hanging pyx and 
 reserved over the altar. 
 
 Under the First Prayer Book some change in current 
 practice seems to have been intended, and a reversion to 
 more primitive use. Certainly when the sacrament was 
 
 16 — 2
 
 244 CONCLUSIONS [ch. 
 
 reserved for the communion of the sick at home the 
 consecrated elements in both kinds must have remained 
 on the altar until the service was over, and there are a 
 number of points such as the wording of the thanksgiving 
 and the use of the English communion Pax, which suggest 
 that the compilers of the book intended this to be the 
 ordinary custom, and that the latter part of the service 
 should be said in the presence of the sacrament. 
 
 In the Second Prayer Book the rule is clear, when we 
 consider the history, that the remains of both bread and 
 wine are to remain on the holy table until after the 
 blessing, when the priest is to have them, as well as any- 
 thing which remained unconsecrated, to his own use, the 
 revisers, whatever their private views, thus making possible 
 for those who wished a return to the earliest usage of the 
 church, by which the remains were consumed by the 
 ministers in the sacristy after the service or another 
 day. 
 
 In the revised Prayer Book of 1661 the new rubric quite 
 plainly orders that "what remaineth of the consecrated 
 elements," whether much or little, shall be placed upon 
 the Lord's table and be reserved there until after the 
 benediction: and as the rule is not conditional it would 
 seem that definite provision is to be made so that some 
 of the sacrament may always remain on the altar until 
 after the blessing, the rubric being thus in general agree- 
 ment with the rule of the First Roman Ordo that the 
 altar should never be without the sacrifice while mass is 
 being performed, and the practice by which a piece of the 
 Sancta remained on the altar until the end of mass. There 
 is now no possible ambiguity on the point whether the 
 final rubric refers to the consecrated or unconsecrated 
 elements, and there is a plain direction, based on the letter 
 of the pseudo Clement, and the words of the synod of 
 Constantinople, that what is not required for communion 
 should be consumed by the priest and other of the com-
 
 xiv] CONCLUSIONS 245 
 
 municants immediately after the blessing. The sources of 
 this rubric being concerned with any chance superfluity 
 of the sacrament, not with what might be intended for 
 reservation, it can hardly have a wider application, and 
 that this was the sole purpose of the rubric comes out 
 plainly from the known intentions of the revisers, and by 
 a consideration of the discussion which led to its adoption. 
 Sparrow makes it clear that it was in this sense that it 
 was accepted by some at any rate in the church, and, we 
 may add, Thorndike expressed a similar opinion. 
 
 The latter part of the communion service being neces- 
 sarily said in the presence of the holy sacrament, the 
 Lord's prayer, though said after instead of before the com- 
 munion to which it has always been an adjunct, fulfils 
 the requirement of Gregory the Great, and is recited over 
 Christ's body and blood, in completion of the mysteries 
 of the church, as Narsai says, and as an act of thanks- 
 giving on the part of the sons of God for renewed sonship 
 in Christ in the communion and worship of Him to Whom 
 we are thus joined in fellowship and life, as the Nestorian 
 liturgy suggests. The Gloria in excelsis said in the presence 
 of the sacrament becomes an act of devotion to " the Lamb 
 as it had been slain," comparable with similar forms found 
 in various liturgies, when He is recognised still as "the 
 Lamb of God lying and sacrificed upon the holy table," 
 as well as an act of thanksgiving. In the saying of the 
 English communion Pax while the elements are still on 
 the altar we have agreement not only with one of the most 
 important features of the Order of Communion of 1548, 
 but also with the practice of the Western church ever 
 since the Pax, removed to a place after the consecration, 
 has become a benediction "with the power of His mys- 
 teries," not merely a sign of goodwill but an effectual 
 token of "the peace and communion of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ" bestowed in the sacrament, in the immediate 
 presence of which the blessing is given.
 
 246 CONCLUSIONS [ch. 
 
 The question of the ablutions, ceremonial or otherwise, 
 so far as our information goes, does not seem to have been 
 considered by the revisers of 1661, nor have we any 
 evidence that the practice was introduced by any of the 
 Caroline divines. Their appeal was not so much to old 
 English practice as to more ancient authorities, and to 
 the East, and to canonical rather than liturgical rules. They 
 quote not mediaeval service books but the works of such 
 authorities as Gratian and Balsamon for the disposal of 
 the remains after the communion, and in accordance with 
 their interpretation of the letter of the pseudo Clement 
 they are ordered to be consumed at the end of the liturgy 
 by the priest and others in church. There was thus an 
 intentional break with mediaeval practice, or rather it 
 was not considered, and any ablutions or cleansing of the 
 vessels would of necessity be such as would be in agree- 
 ment with the precedent found for the consumption of 
 the remains, and must have taken place after the service, 
 probably in the vestry. If the mediaeval ablutions are 
 revived, as is desired by many, since they cannot precede 
 the consumption of the remains of the sacrament, they 
 too must follow the blessing. The time of a ceremony 
 definitely ordered in the Prayer Book cannot be changed 
 in order that the ablutions may still be performed at 
 what superficially seems to correspond to the later 
 mediaeval position; and in view of the great difference 
 both in substance and importance between the conclusion 
 of the Latin mass and the post-communion part of the 
 communion service in the Book of Common Prayer, such 
 a position does not really exist. The ceremonial ablutions 
 have always been a preliminary to a more thorough 
 cleansing of the chalice and paten later, and with few 
 exceptions this has always taken place, as convenience 
 dictates, after the service, though sometimes for greater 
 reverence as at Citeaux and St Victor in church. The 
 requirements of the Book of Common Prayer are quite
 
 xiv] CONCLUSIONS 247 
 
 in accordance with what must have been the Roman 
 custom for over a thousand years, and with the practice 
 which must have obtained in England after the coming 
 of Augustine for nearly five hundred. They are in agree- 
 ment too with the common usage in the East to-day, so 
 that nothing can be more Catholic than what the rubrics 
 prescribe.
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 RESERVATION AND THE BOOK OF COMMON 
 
 PRAYER 
 
 I. 
 
 THE question of reservation of the holy sacrament under 
 the Book of Common Prayer in its various editions is of 
 considerable importance, and as in the later versions of the 
 book it is closely connected with the interpretation of the 
 rubrics for the disposal of the remains of the consecrated 
 elements not required for communion it ma}^ not be inappro- 
 priate to give a separate treatment of the whole subject, though 
 there will necessarily be some repetition. 
 
 The full text of the rubric of the First Prayer Book dealing 
 with the matter is as follows: 
 
 And if the same day there be a celebration of the holy com- 
 munion in the church, then shall the priest reserve at the open 
 communion so much of the sacrament of the body and blood, as 
 shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall communicate 
 with him, if there be any. And so soon as he conveniently may, 
 after the open communion ended in the church, shall go and 
 minister the same, first to those that are appointed to communicate 
 with the sick, if there be any, and last of all to the sick person 
 himself. But before the curate distribute the holy communion the 
 appointed general confession must be made in the name of the 
 communicants, the curate adding the absolution with the com- 
 fortable sentences of scripture following in the open communion, 
 and after the communion ended the collect, Almighty and ever- 
 living God, we most heartily thank thee, etc. 
 
 The version of this as given in Aless's Latin Prayer Book of 
 1551 is somewhat different. We read: 
 
 But if it happen that on the same day the Lord's supper is 
 celebrated in church, then the priest in the supper shall reserve 
 so much of the sacrament as suffices for the sick man, and soon 
 after the mass is ended, together with some of those who are 
 present, shall go to the sick man, and he shall first communicate 
 those who attend on the sick man and were present at the supper,
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 249 
 
 and last of all the sick man. But first let the general confession 
 be made and the absolution with the collect as is prescribed above 1 . 
 
 We notice that the first direction in the order for the com- 
 munion of the sick is that the priest shall reserve as much of 
 the sacrament in both kinds as will suffice for the sick man and 
 those who are intending to communicate with him, and this 
 is evidently the normal method of providing for the communion 
 of the sick, a consecration in the sick man's house being only 
 for special cases. "The communion" we note is the act of ad- 
 ministration and the reception together with others, emphasis 
 being laid on the point that there should always be a "com- 
 munion," if possible, and not a mere private participation. 
 Yet when such a "communion" is clearly impossible, that the 
 sick man may at least " receive the sacrament of Christ's body 
 and blood," the priest may minister the reserved sacrament 
 to him alone. No form of service however for use in such a case 
 is provided, the thanksgiving, in accordance with the principles 
 on which the First Prayer Book was drawn up, laying special 
 stress on the fellowship with other communicants which in 
 this case would be absent. Presumably also it was intended 
 that the use of the reserved species would be the usual method 
 of ministering the sacrament to permanent invalids, the aged 
 and others who could not come to church and yet were 
 desirous of the communion. In such cases there would be no 
 particular urgency and they could wait for a celebration in 
 church. There is indeed no provision of a celebration in a 
 house for such as these — the collect, epistle and gospel, as 
 also the service for the visitation of the sick, like the similar 
 forms in the old manuals, are suitable only for those in danger 
 of death — and the administration of the reserved sacrament 
 is the only thing possible. 
 
 In the rubrics of Aless's Latin version of the First Prayer 
 Book there are considerable changes from the original, and the 
 procedure prescribed is indeed quite different. We have the 
 new idea that some of those who were at the celebration in 
 church should accompany the priest to the sick man's house, 
 
 1 Scripta Anglicana, p. 448.
 
 250 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 instead of a company, of whose numbers notice had been 
 given, awaiting his arrival from the church, and these who 
 accompany the priest are to receive the sacrament with the 
 sick, apparentty for the second time. Union with the com- 
 municants in church is thus secured as well as a real "com- 
 munion," and some of the objections to a private administration 
 of the sacrament, felt in certain quarters at the period, are 
 done away. The order prescribed however is more akin to that 
 found, as we saw, in Pullain's Glastonbury service for the 
 communion of the sick with the reserved sacrament 1 than to 
 that given in the First Prayer Book, which it professes to be. 
 A comparison of the phraseology of the two orders makes it 
 not improbable that there is a literary connection between the 
 two, and that Aless used Pullain's service, published earlier 
 in the same year, in a manner similar to that in which he used 
 the Latin of the ancient services and of Hermann's Consultation. 
 Perhaps it was the practice to which in his long residence 
 abroad he had become accustomed. 
 
 Though there were thus two different forms of procedure 
 put forth for use when the sick were communicated from the 
 church, that of the Prayer Book itself and that of Aless, it 
 seems probable that very frequently it was neither of these but 
 the traditional method of administering the reserved sacrament 
 which was adopted, and that in some places, though not in 
 others, there was continuous reservation in one kind as before; 
 and this does not appear to have been always prevented by 
 the civil authorities as we might have expected. Pyxes occur 
 very frequently in the inventories of church goods made by 
 the commissioners on their visitation in 1552, and not seldom 
 they were allowed to be retained. In some cases they are 
 spoken of as actually containing the blessed sacrament, as at 
 Edlesborough, Bucks, and Flintham, Notts. 2 A noteworthy 
 example is that of Saffron Walden where in connection with 
 the visitation on Oct. 5, 1552 we read: 
 
 1 See p. 195. 
 
 2 Public Record Office, Ex. Q.R. Miscel. Ch. Goods, 1/37 and 7/82. See 
 Hierurgia Anglicana, Pt II. p. 160.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 251 
 
 Goods delivered for the ministration of the divine service. To 
 James Cowle and Thomas Marten, churchwardens, a chalice of 
 silver and gilt, of xv ounces, a cope of red velvet, a carpet of blue 
 velvet for the communion table, and vii linen cloths for the same, 
 a little round box to carry the sacrament in, with a purse to put 
 it in, and all the surplices 1 . 
 
 We notice that this was within a month of the time, Nov. 1, 
 when the Second Prayer Book would be obligatory. 
 
 The use of a pyx in the form of " a little round box" would 
 hardly be necessary, or even particularly useful, if the sacra- 
 ment in both kinds was to be taken from the church immediately 
 after the service, and it seems evident that the rubrics of the 
 First Prayer Book, which clearly as we have noted did not 
 provide for every possibility, were not interpreted as forbid- 
 ding continuous reservation. The Saffron Walden case indeed 
 suggests that it was expected that it would continue even under 
 the Second Book. 
 
 II. 
 
 In the Second Prayer Book, as we noticed, all reference to 
 the practice of reservation was omitted. It is remarkable 
 however in view of the strong opinions of Bucer, Peter Martyr, 
 and others whose judgment had great weight in the revision, 
 that there was no rubric actually forbidding reservation, and 
 it would not have been surprising if it had been stringently 
 condemned as in Hermann's Consultation 2 , which also had been 
 drawn up under the auspices of Bucer. Some other influence 
 apparently was also at work, and just as in the case of the 
 direction for the disposal of the remains after communion, the 
 most extreme line was not taken. The only authoritative 
 references to the custom of reservation are those which 
 appeared a little later in 1553 in the Articles of Religion : 
 
 The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, 
 or to be carried about, but that we should rightly (duly) use them. 
 
 The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's 
 ordinance kept (reserved), carried about, lifted up, or worshipped 3 . 
 
 1 Proceedings of Essex Archaeological Society, N.S. in. p. 62. 
 
 2 See pp. 194-5. Hermann, f. 97. 
 
 3 Articles xxv. and xxvm., formerly xxvi. and xxix.
 
 252 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 Both articles however express only a truism to which the 
 strongest advocates of reservation could assent, and the same 
 statement, that there is no express ordinance of Christ on the 
 subject could be made with equal truth with regard to infant 
 baptism, which yet "is in any wise to be retained in the church, 
 as most agreeable with the institution of Christ l ." Both in the 
 exhortations and rubrics the distinction still survived between 
 receiving "the holy communion of the body and blood of our 
 Saviour Christ," and receiving "the sacrament of Christ's 
 body and blood." The latter might be possible for a sick man 
 when a "communion" was out of the question, and it was to 
 cover the case when the sick man would receive the sacrament 
 alone, as we saw, that the words were put into the rubric of 
 the First Prlj^er Book. It is only when for various reasons even 
 the delivery of the sacrament to him alone is impossible that 
 the priest is to give instruction, not with regard to spiritual 
 communion, for "communion" would be considered in such 
 a case impossible, but about the spiritual eating and drinking 
 of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ. No provision is 
 made for the reception of the sacrament apart from a "com- 
 munion"; but this was true even in the First Prayer Book, 
 for though the possibility is mentioned there, as we saw, the 
 form of service given for the administration of the reserved 
 sacrament provides only for a "communion," and would be 
 unsuitable if no one communicated with the sick. Also, as in 
 the First Book, there is no provision at all for invalids or for 
 any but those in danger of death. Whatever the intention, the 
 rubric of the First Prayer Book which reads "where the curate 
 may reverently celebrate" has been carefully altered so as to 
 admit the possibility of reservation, "celebrate " being changed 
 to "minister." It will be well to give the rubrics at some 
 length: 
 
 And having a convenient place in the sick man's house, where 
 the curate may reverently minister, and a good number to receive 
 the communion with the sick person, with all things necessary for 
 the same, he shall there minister the holy communion.... At the 
 
 1 Art. xxvir.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 253 
 
 time of the distribution of the holy sacrament, the priest shall 
 first receive the communion himself, and after minister unto them 
 that be appointed to communicate with the sick.... When the sick 
 person is visited and receiveth the holy communion all at one 
 time, then the priest for more expedition shall cut off the form of 
 the visitation at the psalm, In thee, O Lord, have I put my trust, 
 and go straight to the communion. 
 
 The word "celebrate" in the Second Prayer Book is almost 
 synonymous with "minister," as we can see from the exhorta- 
 tions and the preceding rubrics, and that it does not necessarily 
 include a reference to the consecration we shall see later, but 
 probably the fuller meaning is usually intended. The word 
 "minister" however quite obviously need not include any 
 reference to the consecration, and may refer only to the act 
 of administration as in the rubric following the collect, epistle 
 and gospel, and the rubric of the First Prayer Book about the 
 delivery of the reserved sacrament. The title of the order is 
 still "The communion of the sick," but that this refers strictly 
 not to the whole service but to the administration of and 
 common participation in the sacrament, which may be 
 ministered with the reserved elements, is plain from its 
 original use in the First Prayer Book, for there a further title 
 was prefixed to the order requiring a consecration in the sick 
 man's house — "The celebration of the holy communion for 
 the sick." "The communion" is still used in this its proper 
 sense very frequently in the Second Prayer Book, and means 
 simply the double act of administration and reception in 
 common. The use of the reserved sacrament, though no longer 
 plainly ordered, is thus in no way precluded by the rubrics. 
 In particular it would seem, the direction that when the sick 
 person is visited and receives the holy communion all at one 
 time the priest shall cut off the form of the visitation and "go 
 straight to the communion" could be interpreted of the 
 administration of the reserved sacrament. 
 
 We notice also the words "a good number to receive the 
 communion with the sick person." Even in time of plague or 
 sweat the insistence on the idea of a "communion" is so great 
 that if no neighbours may be obtained the minister alone may
 
 254 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 communicate with the sick so as to realise the "communion," 
 though the mere receiving of the sacrament of Christ's body 
 and blood is recognised. Apparently the priest is to com- 
 municate at every "communion" of the sick though not 
 necessarily at every administration of the sacrament, and so 
 the chief advantage of using the reserved sacrament on such 
 an occasion would be a saving of time. 
 
 If the whole service was ever intended to be used for the 
 sick, the rubrics were not so interpreted later ; and certainly 
 nothing is said about the amount to be used: if there was no 
 consecration it would be a minimum. In the First Prayer Book 
 there was a distinct order to say the prayer of consecration, as 
 there was also to reserve. In the Second Book both were 
 omitted. In view of the opinions of many of the reformers 
 which repudiated all idea of consecration as well as reservation 
 it is as possible to argue that the prayer of consecration was 
 to be omitted at the communion of the sick, as that the remains 
 of the bread and wine which the curate is to have to his own 
 use were not to be reserved. Perhaps both customs obtained 
 in different circles, one party treating the service as practically 
 a mass of the presanctified similar to what was usual at one 
 time on Good Friday, an interpretation certainly adopted later, 
 and the other omitting the preface, Sanctus, and prayer of 
 consecration, and reading only the account of the institution 
 for the edification of the assembled company. This last is 
 exactly what is ordered in Hermann's Consultation, which like 
 the Second English Prayer Book is to some extent a product of 
 Bucer's labours. Hermann's order for the communion of the 
 sick is as follows — exhortation, part of John vi (with ex- 
 planation), confession and absolution, creed, prayer for the 
 sick person, and the Lord's prayer. Then we read: 
 
 This being said, let him pray for peace for the sick man and all 
 present. Then clearly and devoutly let him recite the words of the 
 supper, The Lord in that night in which he was betrayed, etc. And 
 after that recital let him deliver to the sick man and those of the 
 company present who have offered themselves, as is meet, as 
 guests at the table of the Lord, the whole sacrament with the 
 words which are written above. After the communion let him
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 255 
 
 conclude the Lord's Supper with thanksgiving and the benediction 
 as described above 1 . 
 
 We note that many elements of the public service, including 
 the preface and Sanctus, have disappeared, so that there is 
 nothing which can be regarded as a prayer of consecration. 
 We are told also that the above order may be curtailed. 
 
 III. 
 
 Under the Elizabethan settlement it was the Second Prayer 
 Book which with some alterations was adopted. In the Latin 
 version, however, published by Haddon in 1560 with royal 
 authority, in the order for the communion of the sick there is 
 a rubric definitely providing for the reservation of the sacra- 
 ment. We read: 
 
 But if it happen that on the same day the Lord's supper is 
 celebrated in church, then the priest in the supper shall reserve so 
 much of the sacrament as suffices for the sick man, and soon after 
 the supper is ended, together with some of those who are present, 
 shall go to the sick man, and he shall first communicate (with) 
 those who attend on the sick man and were present at the supper, 
 and last of all (with) the sick man. But first let the general con- 
 fession be made, and the absolution with the collect as is pre- 
 scribed above 2 . 
 
 We note that the rubric is practically a reproduction of that 
 of Aless's Latin Prayer Book, which, as we saw, is a modification 
 of that of the First Prayer Book, chiefly by the addition of 
 the direction, perhaps from Pullain's Glastonbury service, re- 
 quiring some of the congregation in church to accompany the 
 priest to the sick man's house, the only alterations being the 
 substitution of " supper" for " mass," and "communicate with " 
 for "communicate." The former shows that the reintroduction 
 of the rubric in 1560 was not altogether unintentional. Whether 
 the latter means that the priest is to receive the sacrament 
 a second time or not is perhaps doubtful, for "he shall com- 
 municate with" (" communicabit cum illis") may only be 
 
 1 Hermann, f. 98 b. 
 
 2 Liturgical Services of Queen Elizabeth (Parker Society), p. 404.
 
 256 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 intended as better Latin for "he shall communicate" ("com- 
 municabit eos"), but in view of the fact that the members 
 of the congregation who accompany him apparently receive 
 the sacrament a second time and the rubric of the Second 
 Prayer Book requiring the priest always to communicate first, 
 it is not improbable. Though the directions are practically 
 those of the First Prayer Book, as the Second Book says 
 nothing about what parts of the service were to be used at a 
 private communion, the order does not seem to be impossible 
 as an exposition of what might be done under the rubrics of 
 that book broadly interpreted, if the communion were given 
 with the reserved sacrament. It seems indeed not unlikely 
 that this was a common, perhaps the official, gloss on the 
 directions of the Second Prayer Book under the new conditions, 
 and was perhaps a record of what was already the practice in 
 certain quarters. 
 
 That reservation for the sick was common at the beginning 
 of Elizabeth's reign seems to be the only possible interpretation 
 of a letter of Calvin, preserved in substance by Strype, who 
 thus explains the occasion: 
 
 The mention of Calvin must bring in a very remarkable letter 
 which he wrote in the month of August this year (1561) concerning 
 ecclesiastical rites used in our office of private prayer newly 
 established, which were scrupled by some of the English exiles 
 upon their return, chiefly because not used by the reformed church 
 in Geneva, concerning which they had sent to Calvin for his 
 resolution and judgment. 
 
 The first three of the questions put to him were, whether it 
 was expedient after the public confession to have any absolu- 
 tion, concerning the using of certain proper words to every 
 communicant singly, and how often the Lord's supper should 
 be administered. The fourth with the answer must be given 
 in full : 
 
 The fourth query was, Whether it were convenient to com- 
 municate the sick? And if so with what number and company? 
 And whether in this private communion the public office should 
 be used, or no office, but the consecrated bread only brought from 
 the church unto the party home to his house? To which Calvin
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 257 
 
 gave in substance this answer. That the sick should not be denied 
 the sacrament, many and weighty causes moved him : for should 
 they not be communicated, it would be a very blameworthy 
 neglect of Christ's institution. But that when the sick party was 
 to partake, there should be some assembly of the kindred, friends, 
 and neighbours, that so there might be a distribution, according 
 to Christ's commandment. And that the holy action should be 
 joined with an explication of the mystery; and that nothing should 
 be done differently from the common form and way of the church. 
 He liked not carrying the sacrament up and down promiscuously ; 
 for the avoiding of superstition in some, and ambition and vain 
 ostentation in others ; many for such ends being apt in those days 
 to come to these private sacraments. Which he esteemed a very 
 difficult thing to prevent. And that therefore the greater judgment 
 and care should be used to whom they gave it. And lastly, he 
 looked upon it as a preposterous thing to bring bread as holy from 
 the church; but to carry it in pomp, by no means tolerable 1 . s 
 
 Though communicating the sick with the reserved sacrament 
 was thus not one of the "rites used in the English liturgy" of 
 which Calvin approved, yet it is clear that it must have been 
 regarded as in no way incompatible with the Book of Common 
 Prayer, and indeed a common practice, or there would have 
 been no occasion to put the question at all. In neither question 
 nor answer is there mention of anything but the bread, sug- 
 gesting the continued use of the pyx, as perhaps at Saffron 
 Walden and other places, which apparently was carried "in 
 pomp." We note too the question about what service should be 
 used, and in Calvin's reply the insistence on the " communion," 
 and his emphasis not on the consecration but on "an explica- 
 tion of the mystery" for the benefit of the sick. 
 
 Anthony Sparrow, afterwards successively bishop of Exeter 
 and Norwich, in his Rationale, first published in 1657, when the 
 rubrics were still those of the Second Pra}'er Book, explaining 
 the order for the communion of the sick, likewise gives it as his 
 judgment that reservation is still allowable: 
 
 The rubric at the communion of the sick, directs the priest to 
 deliver the communion to the sick; but does not there set down 
 how much of the communion service shall be used at the delivering 
 
 1 Strype, Annals of the Reformation, vol. I. Pt I. Ch. xxi. Oxford, 
 1824, p. 387. 
 
 L. E. 17
 
 258 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 of the communion to the sick ; and therefore seems to me to refer 
 us to former directions in times past. Now the direction formerly 
 was this, " If the same day... " 1 . 
 
 We note how this appeal to the practice under the First 
 Prayer Book agrees with what we concluded was a possible 
 interpretation of the rubrics of the Second Book, and with what 
 was apparently the official view of the matter in the days of 
 Elizabeth as set out in the rubric of the Latin Prayer Book, 
 and also the common practice at that time as disclosed in the 
 letter of Calvin. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The question of the lawfulness of reservation under the 
 Prayer Book of 1661 depends upon the interpretation in its 
 revised form of the rubric which orders the consumption of the 
 remains of the sacrament. This runs, as we noted: 
 
 But if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be 
 carried out of the church, but the priest and such other of the 
 communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately 
 after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. 
 
 From a literary point of view the rubric is connected with 
 the Scottish canon of 1636 and the corresponding rubric in 
 the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637. ^ n the canon, already quoted, 
 we read: 
 
 In the ministration he (the priest) shall have care that the 
 elements are circumspectly handled ; and what is reserved thereof 
 be distributed to the poorer sort which receive that day ; to be 
 eaten and drunken by them before they go out of church 2 . 
 
 From the phraseology alone it is clear that reservation of 
 the sacrament in the technical sense does not come within the 
 original scope of the canon, and that it has to do with reverence 
 in the administration of the sacrament and reverence in the 
 disposal of the surplus, and the intention was to prevent the 
 remnants of the consecrated bread and wine being taken away 
 by the communicants for consumption at home. 
 
 1 Sparrow, Rationale, Ed. Downes, pp. 223-4. 
 
 2 See p. 203. Prayer Book Dictionary, p. 611.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 259 
 
 In the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 which was authorised 
 before publication by the canons of 1636 the substance of 
 the canon was incorporated, as we saw, in the rubric of the 
 Second Prayer Book which deals with the disposal of the 
 remains of the elements, and we read : 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain, which is consecrated, 
 it shall be reverently eaten and drunk by such of the communi- 
 cants only as the presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, 
 but it shall not be carried out of the church. 
 
 The directions of the rubric, as we noticed, are in no wise 
 unprecedented and they may be traced back in part to the 
 letter of the pseudo Clement 1 through the Second Prayer Book, 
 and in part to the words of the synod of Constantinople 2 
 under Nicholas Grammaticus (c. 1085) through the canon of 
 1636. 
 
 (a) The question about what it was which remained, whether 
 the consecrated or unconsecrated elements which according 
 to the rubric of the Second Prayer Book the priest was to have 
 to his own use, which had been so much discussed by Cosin 
 and other Anglican divines of the seventeenth century, was 
 clearly determined in the 1661 revision. The addition then 
 made however with the intention of settling this point, has 
 itself proved to be ambiguous, and upon its interpretation 
 depends the whole question of the reservation of the sacrament 
 for the sick. Does it refer to that portion of the sacrament which 
 is not needed for the communion in church, thus precluding 
 anything in the way of reservation, or does it refer only to that 
 which is in excess of what is sufficient for those who are to 
 receive the sacrament, whether in church or at home, which 
 the priest had in mind, when taking the bread and wine at 
 the offertory? Historically it is plain that the intention of 
 the rubric had nothing whatever to do with reservation, for 
 the point was never alluded to in all the discussion which 
 finally resulted in the new order, so far as it has come down 
 to us, and the literary antecedents of both the Scottish and 
 
 1 See pp. 1 1-3. PG. 1. col. 484. 
 
 2 See p. 10. P.G. cxxxviii. col. 944. 
 
 17 — 2
 
 260 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 English rubrics were concerned only with the disposal of the 
 surplus elements not required for communion. If all reserva- 
 tion is now precluded it must be by inadvertence. Is the rubric 
 to be interpreted in this sense? What was the contemporary 
 interpretation? In view of the importance of the matter it 
 may be well to enquire somewhat fully into these points in 
 the light of history and by comparison with similar forms found 
 elsewhere. 
 
 At the offertory in the First Prayer Book there was the 
 rubric : 
 
 Then shall the minister take so much bread and wine as shall 
 suffice for the persons appointed to receive the holy communion. 
 
 Here the question of sufficiency, as we saw, is certainty not 
 limited by the number of those who are to receive the com- 
 munion in church, but the priest takes into consideration the 
 number of those for whom he wishes to reserve, just as in the 
 direction from the letter of the pseudo Clement which is the 
 ultimate basis of the order — "Let so many hosts be offered on 
 the altar as ought to suffice for the people 1 ," — and also in the 
 allocution to the subdeacon in Missale Francorum 2 , in the 
 pontificals of Egbert and Dunstan, and various other English 
 and continental sendee books 3 — "Only so much as is able to 
 suffice for the people ought to be placed on the altar." In the 
 Second Prayer Book, as we noticed, this rubric at the offertory 
 together with any definite provision for reservation was taken 
 away, apparently because it was no longer believed by the 
 revisers that consecration made any real difference to the 
 elements, and because of Bucer's criticism of it: 
 
 From the fourth paragraph of this order, in which it is pre- 
 scribed that the minister ought to take only so much bread and 
 wine as will suffice for those about to communicate, some make for 
 themselves the superstition that they consider it unlawful if 
 anything of the bread and wine of the communion remain over 
 when it is finished to allow it to come to common use....Conse- 
 
 1 P.G. i. col. 484. 
 
 2 Thomasius, Opera, vol. vi. p. 343. 
 
 8 Martene, vol. II. lib. 1. cap. viii. Art. xi. Ord. ii. iii. iv. xiv. xvii. 
 pp. 34, 38, 42, 70, 84.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 261 
 
 quently however much bread and wine remain from the communion 
 there are yet some who consider that the whole of it must be 
 consumed by themselves 1 . 
 
 The opinion of the revisers in 1661 and also of the church 
 at large at that date was the exact opposite of this. The words 
 of the pseudo Clement were frequently quoted as supplying 
 a rule to be followed. In particular we remember the suggestion 
 of Cosin: 
 
 Some words are needful here to be added, whereby the priest 
 may be enjoined to consider the number of them which are to 
 receive the sacrament and to consecrate the bread and wine in 
 such near proportion as shall be sufficient for them : but if any of 
 the consecrated elements be left that he and some others with him 
 shall decently eat and drink them in the church before all the 
 people depart from it 2 . 
 
 We have here the substance with but slightly different 
 
 wording of the rubrics of the present Book of Common Prayer 
 
 dealing with the same points : 
 
 The priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and 
 wine as he shall think sufficient.... But if any remain of that which 
 was consecrated it shall not be carried out of the church, but the 
 priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call 
 unto him shall immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and 
 drink the same. 
 
 Both Cosin and Sparrow quoted the letter of the pseudo 
 Clement as supplying a rule it would be well to adopt 3 . It is 
 remarkable how closely the rubrics adopted agree with the 
 directions of this letter, where, following the usual translation, 
 we read: 
 
 Let so many hosts be offered on the altar as ought to suffice for 
 the people. But if any remain let them not be reserved until the 
 morrow, but be carefully consumed by the clerks with fear and 
 trembling 4 . 
 
 As the letter of the pseudo Clement included those who 
 would be communicated with the reserved sacrament among 
 those for whom the elements were to suffice, there seems no 
 
 1 See p. 188. Scripta Anglicana, p. 464. 
 
 2 See p. 210. Works, vol. v. p. 519. 
 
 3 See pp. 207, 2ix. * P.G. 1. col. 484. Cf. p. 12 above.
 
 262 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 reason why the present rubric, from a literary point of view 
 its direct descendant, should not do the like, as in the First 
 Prayer Book, and in the old English and other pontificals 
 which were based upon Missale Francorum and contained a 
 similar order. If this be so that which is referred to in the 
 rubric "If any remain" would be what was not required to 
 suffice for those who were to receive the sacrament whether 
 in church or at home. The direction would then correspond 
 exactly with the answer of the synod of Constantinople to 
 the monks, which cannot be considered as hostile to reserva- 
 tion, though we find it saying, in words referred to by Sparrow 
 as suggesting an English rubric to the same effect : 
 
 The fragments of the consecrated oblation they ought not to 
 eat save only in the church, until they have consumed everything 1 . 
 
 Such an interpretation of the rubric "If any remain," has 
 the advantage as we saw in the case of the similar Scottish 
 directions, of doing full justice to the difference in the wording 
 of the two separate rubrics which refer to what remains, that 
 after the administration of the sacrament being positive — 
 "what remaineth of the consecrated elements" — while after 
 the blessing it is the conditional form which is retained — "if 
 any remain of that which is consecrated." The suggestion is 
 that though something must always remain after the com- 
 munion of the people in church there is a chance that nothing 
 may remain which requires consumption after the blessing. 
 If so there must be a possibility that some portion of the 
 sacrament, perhaps the whole of what has not been consumed, 
 is required for some other purpose, having indeed been conse- 
 crated with this intent, and so would not come under the rubric 
 for dealing with what is superfluous. This purpose could hardly 
 be anything else but the communion of the sick or others not 
 able to attend the celebrations in church. 
 
 (b) The rubric "If any remain" is not one of those which 
 give instructions for the performance of the service, and it is 
 not concerned with the administration of the sacrament. It 
 is a direction dealing with the disposal of the remains of the 
 
 1 P.G. cxxxvm. col. 944.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 263 
 
 elements, consecrated and unconsecrated, after the liturgy is 
 over, being comparable with the other rubric which has to do 
 with the disposal of the money collected at the offertory ; and 
 the conjunction "but" makes it plain that the carrying out of 
 church of the consecrated elements intended is something 
 similar to that involved in the curate having the unconsecrated 
 to his own use. The whole rubric is conditional, and has to do 
 only with occasions on which there is an accidental superfluity 
 of bread or wine, whether consecrated or unconsecrated. If 
 this state of things does not exist the rubric does not apply, 
 and this would be the case both if some of the bread and wine 
 provided by the churchwardens were reserved for use another 
 day, and if it were arranged for someone to be communicated 
 from part of the sacrament consecrated in church, whether 
 it was reserved for a longer or shorter period after the service 
 was over. In such a case as definite provision would have to 
 be made as for the communion in church, and it would in no 
 way depend upon the existence after the administration in 
 church of a merely chance surplus, even if this were allowed 
 under the rubric which precedes the Lord's Prayer; yet it is 
 only for the disposal of such an accidental surplus after the 
 service to prevent abuse that the rubric provides. In some 
 cases as we saw the portion of the host which according to the 
 ancient Roman rule remained on the altar until the end of 
 mass was used for the communion of the sick 1 : only the 
 possibility of a similar use of "what remaineth of the conse- 
 crated elements," which are required to be reverently placed 
 upon the Lord's Table after the communion in church, would 
 reasonably account for the element of uncertainty about the 
 existence of any remains to be consumed after the service, 
 which is shown in the conditional form of the rubric "If any 
 remain." 
 
 (c) Yet in accordance with the rubrics of the present Prayer 
 Book as of the First Book the use of the reserved sacrament 
 is only possible on certain occasions. Under the First Prayer 
 Book there were three methods of giving the sacrament to the 
 
 1 See Chap. v. above.
 
 264 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 sick. (1) The whole celebration of the Lord's supper, including 
 the consecration, might take place in the sick man's house, and 
 he would thus receive the "communion" with as many of his 
 friends as were present. (2) The sick man and his friends might 
 receive the reserved sacrament together, and thus it would 
 still be a "communion." (3) The sick man might receive the 
 reserved sacrament alone. If even this last is impossible, and 
 for various reasons the sick man cannot "receive the sacrament 
 of Christ's body and blood" at all, the curate is to give in- 
 struction, as we noticed, not about spiritual "communion," 
 for in the sense in which this word is used in the Prayer Book 
 it would be impossible, but about the spiritual eating and drink- 
 ing of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ. Spiritual 
 reception is thus not looked upon as in any way taking the 
 place of the "communion," but only of receiving the reserved 
 sacrament alone. Under the present Prayer Book, unlike 
 the First Book, the provision of the order for the communion 
 of the sick clearly makes the actual celebration in the sick 
 man's house the normal method when he desires a "com- 
 munion," and it is possible, but such a celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper, (1), is definitely forbidden unless there are 
 "three or two at the least" to communicate with the sick 
 person, save when the sick desires a "communion" in time of 
 plague. At all times indeed the possibility of (1) depends upon 
 the fulfilment of various conditions. The sick man may not 
 desire a "communion" or be able to bear it, or any but the 
 shortest service. At certain times of the year no amount of 
 timely notice will be sufficient in large parishes for the curate 
 to arrange a separate consecration for each chronic sick person 
 who will rightly desire to receive the sacrament. In many 
 cases it would be impossible to arrange that there should be 
 "three or two at the least" to communicate with the sick. 
 Still in many places there is no "convenient place" where 
 "the curate may reverently minister," and the whole service 
 would be impossible. For many cases therefore, to which 
 (2) and (3) would apply, the Prayer Book makes no definite 
 provision at all, and unless many of the faithful are to be
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 265 
 
 permanently deprived of the sacrament recourse must be had 
 to the ancient traditional method of supplying the need. 
 Historically the rubric requiring the priest to give instruction 
 in spiritual reception when the sick man cannot "receive the 
 sacrament of Christ's body and blood " refers to the administra- 
 tion of the reserved sacrament, though in the case of (3), when 
 no one could communicate with him, even the First Prayer 
 Book provided no form of service, and consequently it suggests 
 the same thing today. The instruction about spiritual reception 
 is still ordered only when on a particular occasion (3) is im- 
 possible, and not as an alternative to his never receiving the 
 sacrament at all. The use of the reserved sacrament is the 
 only method of supplying the need, which the phraseology of 
 the Prayer Book itself suggests. 
 
 (d) Both reservation of the sacrament and a second com- 
 munion on the same day were contrary to the ideas of those 
 responsible for the Second Prayer Book, and the provision for 
 both found in the First Book disappeared. The reasons for 
 their objections, that there is no such thing as a consecration 
 of the elements themselves, and that every communion must 
 be more or less of a general communion, have long been aban- 
 doned, and the Prayer Book modified in consequence, the 
 traditional confession of faith in the sacrament being added 
 to the words of administration, and the words "except there 
 be a good number to communicate with the priest" altered; 
 yet no rubric definitely ordering either reservation or a second 
 celebration on the same day has been added. Since the pro- 
 vision for two communions on Christmas Day and Easter Day 
 was omitted from the Second Prayer Book, the Prayer Book 
 has arranged for only one celebration on any day even at the 
 great festivals, and the rubrics provide for no other. Yet 
 before the close of 1662, the year in which the revised Prayer 
 Book came into use, the holding of two celebrations of the 
 communion on the same day in the same church was well 
 known, and by the end of the seventeenth century they were 
 widespread 1 . At the present time indeed the great majority 
 of the communions made in the English Church take place at 
 
 1 Legg, English Church Life, pp. 48-50.
 
 266 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 an early eucharist, frequently one of several on the same day, 
 a practice as abhorrent to the reformers of the sixteenth 
 century as reservation, and equally unprovided for in the Book 
 of Common Prayer. The rise of this custom involved a new 
 method of interpretation being applied to some of the rubrics, 
 and in particular to that arranging for the disposal of the 
 remains of the unconsecrated elements which had been pro- 
 vided "for the communion": 
 
 And if any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, the 
 curate shall have it to his own use. 
 
 For any second celebration of the holy communion on the 
 same day in the same church to be possible at all it really 
 demands the addition of some such gloss as "when provision 
 has been made for every administration of the sacrament 
 required," and unfortunately this has led to the rubric be- 
 coming entirely a dead letter, and so one of the most primitive 
 practices enjoined by the Prayer Book has been lost. The same 
 gloss applied to the second part of the rubric dealing with the 
 consecrated elements would serve rather to make the historical 
 meaning clearer, that it refers only to what is not required for 
 purposes of communion, and has nothing to do with the primi- 
 tive practice of the reservation of the sacrament. Yet though 
 the traditional method of providing for the communion of the 
 whole by a second celebration of the Lord's Supper on the same 
 day has been generally adopted, the traditional method of 
 providing for the communion of the sick has not been so wide- 
 spread; yet neither can be said to be contrary to the present 
 doctrinal standard of the Book of Common Prayer, and what 
 is lacking is only a definite provision which was omitted be- 
 cause of opinions which the church has long since repudiated, 
 if ever committed to them. 
 
 (e) For the correct understanding of a rubric contemporary 
 practice or interpretation is of value as illustrating the meaning 
 according to which it was accepted. We have already noticed 
 the opinion of Sparrow on the interpretation of the rubrics of 
 the Pra)'er Book before its revision in 1661: 
 
 The rubric at the communion of the sick directs the priest to 
 deliver the communion to the sick; but does not there set down how
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 267 
 
 much of the communion service shall be used at the delivering of 
 the communion to the sick : and therefore seems to me to refer us 
 to former directions in times past 1 . 
 
 Cosin had also criticised the inadequacy of the unrevised 
 rubrics assuming likewise that it could not be intended that 
 the whole service should be used, parts being unsuitable. In 
 his Particulars to be considered we read : 
 
 What part of the public order at the communion is to be used, 
 and what omitted (as some part of it seems needful to be), is not 
 here said 2 . 
 
 The new rubrics are undoubtedly much more definite than 
 they were before the revision, for now when certain conditions 
 are satisfied the priest is directed to "celebrate the holy com- 
 munion beginning with the collect." Yet it is impossible 
 to build much upon the alteration from "minister" to "cele- 
 brate," a change the exact opposite of what was made in the 
 Second Prayer Book, though not at quite the same point, and 
 to argue that the consecration is now definitely ordered. Cosin 
 clearly employs the word "celebrate" of the reception of the 
 sacrament, and without any direct reference to the act of 
 consecration, using it indeed of the action of the people. In 
 his First Series of Notes on the Prayer Book we read : 
 
 A nd there shall be no celebration, etc. except there be a great number. 
 This was made against the Solitariae Missae that the papists are 
 nowadays content withal. It was an abuse springing up about 
 Charlemagne's time (it seems), to have the priest communicate and 
 say mass, though there were none to celebrate with him. Therefore 
 the council of Mentz then made a canon against it 3 . 
 
 If such a meaning could be attached to the word "celebrate " 
 by the revisers it is plain that we have still no clear direction 
 for a consecration, even though the word does seem on occasions 
 to include it. This plainly seems to have been Sparrow's 
 opinion — and as one of the chief revisers it has special weight 
 — for in the various editions of his Rationale published after 
 the revision he made no alteration in his recommendation of 
 reservation, suggesting that he still considered it allowable and 
 
 1 See pp. 257-8. Rationale, p. 223. 
 
 2 Works, vol. v. p. 524. Parker, Introduction, p. ccxci. 
 
 3 Parker, p. ccxxx.
 
 268 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 his reasons not obsolete. This conclusion is confirmed by the 
 fact that no alteration was made in the rubric dealing with 
 the occasions on which the sick man was visited and received 
 the Holy Communion at the same time, for then the priest is 
 still required to cut off the form of visitation at the psalm and 
 "go straight to the communion," a phrase of considerable 
 ambiguity, as we have noticed, being used frequently and 
 more correctly of the acts of distribution and reception, and 
 including in the First Prayer Book a reference to the distri- 
 bution of the communion with the reserved sacrament. It is 
 unlikely that Sparrow, successively bishop of Exeter and 
 Norwich, and therefore responsible for the administration of 
 the revised Prayer Book, would continue to recommend in the 
 various editions of his Rationale a practice which was generally 
 and officially regarded as forbidden under the new rubrics. 
 His attitude indeed he had already made clear in his book, and 
 from the historical point of view it is the only one possible. 
 After all the addition to the rubric "If any remain" is only a 
 carrying out of his suggestion, based he says upon the direc- 
 tions of the pseudo Clement and the synod of Constantinople, 
 for the disposal of the remains of the sacrament 1 , and it is plain 
 that he saw nothing in it contradictory to his advocacy of 
 reservation in the same book, agreeing thus exactly with 
 the only interpretation historically considered of which his 
 authorities, the letter of the pseudo Clement and the answer 
 of the synod of Constantinople to the monks, are capable. 
 Samuel Downes in his edition of the Rationale published in 
 1722 took occasion to explain in a footnote the altered con- 
 ditions under the revised rubrics 2 , but it is not improbable that 
 Sparrow himself, who had assisted in the revision, is a more 
 competent authority on what was their intention, and the 
 proper interpretation. 
 
 Another of the revisers who expressed an opinion on the 
 matter was Herbert Thorndike, a Prebendary of Westminster. 
 In his Reformation of the Church of England better than that of 
 the Council of Trent, written about 1670, though not then 
 published, he advocates even continuous reservation. We read : 
 
 1 Seep 211. 2 Rationale, p. 223 n.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 269 
 
 And thus far I will particularize, as concerning the eucharist 
 that the church is to endeavour the celebrating of it so frequently 
 that it may be reserved to the next communion. For in the mean- 
 time it ought to be so ready for them that pass into the other 
 world that they need not stay for the consecrating of it on purpose 
 for every one. The reason of the necessity of it for all, which hath 
 been delivered, aggravates it very much in danger of death. And 
 the practice of the church attests it to the utmost. Neither will 
 there be any necessity of giving it in one kind only, as by some 
 passages of antiquity may be collected if common reason could 
 deceive in a subject of this nature 1 . 
 
 Thorndike in this work is comparing Roman and Anglican 
 practices, and is by no means unfriendly towards the Church 
 of Rome, but however much he was inclined to bring forward 
 the ideal of the Church of England rather than the actual, 
 there could be no point in arguing from that which was 
 generally regarded as forbidden. It would be an extraordinary 
 method of showing that the reformation of the Church of 
 England was better than that of the Council of Trent to put 
 forward as evidence of its superiority a practice which was 
 common in the Roman Church, but was not allowed by the 
 Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 There appear to be no opinions of the revisers in existence 
 which take the opposite view of reservation. The fact however 
 that the new rubric could be interpreted as making reservation 
 impossible by those who were unaccustomed to the practice, 
 or even opposed to it, and who cared nothing for the traditional 
 application of the words of the pseudo Clement and of the 
 synod of Constantinople, was realised on both sides as early 
 as the beginning of the eighteenth century. We have already 
 noticed the explanation of Samuel Downes in his edition of 
 Sparrow's Rationale in 1722. In the Communion Office of the 
 Non Jurors published in 1718 it was evidently thought well 
 that the direction should be altered so as to avoid the possi- 
 bility of any such wresting of its meaning, and a modification 
 of part of the rubric of the First Prayer Book from the order 
 for the communion of the sick dealing with the matter is 
 prefixed to the rubric ordering the consumption of the remains 
 
 1 Ch. xxxix. § 4. Works, vol. v. p. 578.
 
 270 RESERVATION AND THE 
 
 immediately after the blessing, with the result that the scope 
 of the rubric is entirely changed. We read: 
 
 If there be any persons who through sickness, or any other 
 urgent cause, are under a necessity of communicating at their 
 houses ; then the priest shall reserve at the open communion so 
 much of the sacrament of the body and blood, as shall serve 
 those who are to receive at home. And if after that, or if, when 
 none are to communicate at their houses, any of the consecrated 
 elements remain, then it shall not be carried out of the church; 
 but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall 
 then call unto him, shall immediately after the Blessing reverently 
 eat and drink the same 1 . 
 
 We may now gather up the results of our enquiry. The 
 practice of the reservation of the sacrament, together with that 
 of holding a second celebration of the holy communion in the 
 same church on the same day, both of which were prescribed 
 in the First Prayer Book, was omitted from the Second Book 
 out of deference to the opinions of certain of the extreme 
 reformers, yet not condemned. No rubric altering the lack 
 of prescription of the use of the reserved species has since been 
 inserted in the Book of Common Prayer, yet the omission was 
 not regarded as forbidding it, and in the days of Elizabeth accord- 
 ing to Calvin reservation was a well-known practice and the 
 officially authorized Latin Prayer Book recommends reservation 
 for the sick in a rubric slightly modified from that of Aless's 
 Latin version of the First Prayer Book, and the practice was 
 continued it would seem up to the time of the Rebellion and 
 later in certain circles, for we find Sparrow in his Rationale 
 published in 1657 interpreting the absence of definite directions 
 about the amount of the service to be used for the com- 
 munion of the sick as referring back to the rubrics of the First 
 Prayer Book, and allowing reservation. In 1661 on the re- 
 commendation of Cosin, Sparrow and Wren, an addition, based 
 on the rubric of the Scottish Prayer Book, and also directly 
 on the words of the pseudo Clement and the synod of 
 Constantinople for dealing with the residue of the sacrament 
 
 1 Dowden, The Annotated Scottish Communion Office, p. 321. Hall, 
 F.L. vol. v. pp. 51-2.
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 271 
 
 not required for communion, by consumption in church, was 
 made to the rubric "If any remain," and this forbade, "if 
 any remain," the carrying of these remains out of church. 
 Such a reverent disposal of the remains according to the 
 traditional interpretation of the pseudo Clement and the 
 answer of the synod of Constantinople to the monks, whence 
 the wording of the rubric was drawn, in no way touched the 
 question of what was in their days the universal custom of 
 reserving the sacrament for the sick, and Sparrow was clearly 
 of the same opinion, for in his Rationale, after the insertion 
 of the new rubric as well as before, he advocated both the 
 practices which are supposed to be contradictory. The same 
 view was evidently taken also by Thorndike another of the 
 revisers who advocated reservation, while there appears to 
 be no opinion of any reviser to the contrary. The order for 
 the communion of the sick, like that for the visitation of the 
 sick, is only possible on occasions, being intended as is plain 
 for the dying and those in danger of death, and not for chronic 
 invalids or the like, and the conditions for its use are such as 
 can seldom be satisfied. The recommendations that when the 
 sick man is visited and receives the communion at the same 
 time the priest should, instead of saying the psalm, "go straight 
 to the communion," and that when the sick man does "not 
 receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood," not when 
 he cannot receive the "communion," the priest should instruct 
 him about spiritual reception, both originally referring to the 
 possible use of the reserved sacrament and worded accordingly, 
 suggest a return to this ancient practice of the church to supply 
 the many cases for which the Prayer Book makes no provision ; 
 and such a practice alone gives point to the difference of wording 
 of the two rubrics before the Lord's Prayer, and at the end of 
 the service with respect to what remains at the two points. 
 That reservation has not been so widely adopted for the sick 
 as a second celebration the same day has been for the com- 
 munion of the whole seems to depend ultimately on other 
 considerations than the wording of the rubric " If any remain," 
 the first portion of which, if interpreted in the same way, would 
 forbid two celebrations in a church on any day; and the ex-
 
 272 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 
 
 planation of the rubric would appear to be rather a consequence 
 of the general disuse of reservation in days when a low view 
 was taken of the necessity of the communion of the sick, and 
 not the disuse of reservation a consequence of the rubric. Had 
 "the practice been general it is difficult to see how any one 
 reading the rubric would have imagined it was forbidden, any 
 more than that a second celebration is forbidden by the same 
 and other rubrics. Few writers seem to have approached the 
 matter from the purely historical point of view, and the tradi- 
 tion of centuries in the interpretation of the directions of the 
 pseudo Clement and of the synod of Constantinople, the 
 basis of the rubric, has been generally ignored, though a similar 
 interpretation of the words referring to the unconsecrated 
 remains, which can boast no such precedent, has passed without 
 question, and the holding of two celebrations on the same day 
 has been common since the end of the seventeenth century. 
 A communion of the sick in which all the conditions laid down 
 by the rubrics were fulfilled must have been at any period 
 comparatively rare, but it is a curiosity of interpretation that 
 while private celebrations of the holy communion, held at the 
 suggestion of the curate and not after timely notice given to 
 him, for invalids and others not in danger of death, with 
 nothing whatever prepared by the sick man or his friends, 
 without the required number of communicants, and with a 
 different collect, epistle, and gospel, on each of which points 
 the Prayer Book directions are very precise, should have been 
 considered as quite legitimate, while a communion with the 
 reserved sacrament against which the Prayer Book says 
 nothing should have been so often regarded as entirely for- 
 bidden. It might have been thought that, even on the inter- 
 pretation of "If any remain" which ignores the long history 
 and traditional interpretation of the source of the rubric, and 
 the intentions of some at any rate of the revisers to the same 
 effect, apart from controversy there would have been at least 
 as much freedom in one case as in the other.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Abingdon, Edmund of, Abp of 
 
 Canterbury, 138, 153 
 Abu'l Bircat, 23 
 Adai and Mari, SS., Liturgy of, 26, 
 
 197 
 Adalbert, St, Bp of Prague, 37, 67 
 Admonition of the pseudo Leo IV, 
 
 Synodical, 56, 98-9, 119-23, 
 
 127, 139, 149, 169, 215, 239 
 Agnus Dei, 66, 82, 129, 187-8, 227- 
 
 8,236 
 Alcuin, Pseudo, 37, 53, 66-7 
 Aless, Alexander, Latin Prayer 
 
 Book of, 195. 199, 248-50, 255, 
 
 258, 270 
 Alexander of Hales, Glos., 131, 150 
 Alexius Comnenus I, 10 
 Alfred's Trans, of Bede's Eccles. 
 
 Hist., 40 
 Alnwick Castle, 162 
 Amalarius, Ecloga of. See Ecloga 
 
 of Amalarius 
 Amalarius of Metz, 52-3, 65-6, 
 
 «7 
 Amand, St, Ordo of Abbey of, 
 
 50-1. 53. 55. 68, 76, 82, 125, 239 
 Ambrosian Rite, 96, 146, 175 
 Andrews, St, Diocese of, 166, 170 
 Angers Missal, 46 
 Anianus, Bp of Bangor, Pontifical 
 
 of, 154, 170 
 Antidoron, 30-2 
 Antoninus Pius, 1 
 Apostolic Constitutions, 7, 16, 209 
 Aquinas, St Thomas, 18, 41, 72-3, 
 
 131, 207 
 Arabic Canons of Nicaea, 8, 14 
 Arbuthnott Missal, 166 
 Aridius, St, 48 
 Aries, Pontifical of, 61 
 Armariolum, 81, 84-5, 135-6 
 Armenian Rite, 33, 235-6 
 Arsenal Library, Paris, 80, 155 
 Articles of Religion, 251-2 
 Articles to be followed, etc. (1549), 
 
 176-7, 221 
 Athanasius, St, Canons of, 15-6 
 Augustine, St, Abp of Canterbury, 
 
 247 
 
 L. E. 
 
 Augustine, St, Bp of Hippo, 5 
 Augustinian Ordinate of Holyrood, 
 
 79, 97 
 
 Austin Friars, 196, 203. See 
 
 Strangers' Church 
 Austria, 33 
 Avignon, 84, 97, 241 
 Avranches, John of. See John of 
 
 Avranches 
 
 Bacon, Nicholas, Lord Keeper, 199 
 Balsamon, Theodore, 10-11, 211, 
 
 246 
 Bancroft, Richard, Abp of Canter- 
 bury, 210 
 Bangor, Use of, 154, 158 
 Baptistery, 118, 121, 123 
 Barberini MS., 28 
 Barsalibi, Dionysius. See Diony- 
 
 sius Barsalibi 
 Basil, St, Coptic Liturgy of, 23 
 Basil, St, Liturgy of, 28, 29 
 Baxter, Richard, 219, 221, 225 
 Baxter's Liturgy, 219-22, 228, 230 
 Bayeux, 106. See Councils and 
 
 Synods 
 Bayswater, Greek Church in, 30 
 Beauvais, Ordo of, 61 
 Bee, Customs of, 78, 86 
 Becon, Thomas, 197, 208, 228 
 Bede, Ecclesiastical History of, 40 
 Bede, Penitential of, 43 
 Benet, St, Church of, Paris, 48 
 Benignus, St, of Dijon, Customs 
 
 of, 36, 60, 77-8, 101-2, 135 
 Bernold of Constance, Micrologus 
 
 of, 69, 82 
 Beroldus, Ordo of (Ambrosian), 96 
 Besancon, Ordo of, 61 
 Birkbeck, the late Mr W. J., 31-2 
 Black Rubric, 217 
 Blasien, St, MS. of, 125 
 Bobbio Missal, 174-5 
 Bobbio, Penitential of, 43 
 Bodleian Library, Oxford, 159-60, 
 
 168-9 
 Bologna, Customs of, 108 
 Bologna, Library of University of, 
 
 80, 155, 160, 162, 169 
 
 18
 
 274 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Bonner, Edmund, Bp of London, 
 
 182 
 Bourges Cathedral, 48 
 Boys consume remains of eucha- 
 
 rist, 9, 15, 26-7, 35-6, 43, 238-9 
 Brandenburg Order, 178 
 Brescia Rituale, 112 
 Brevint, Daniel, Dean of Lincoln, 
 
 225, 237 
 Brixen Sacerdotale, 113 
 Bucer, Martin, 177, 183-4, 187-9, 
 
 191-4, 196, 201, 228, 251, 254, 
 
 260 
 Bullinger, Heinrich, 196, 199 
 Burchard, Bp of Worms, 38 
 Burchard, John, Papal Master of 
 
 Ceremonies, 109, 113, 116, 141- 
 
 2, 241 
 Burnet, Thomas, Prebendary of 
 
 Salisbury, 227 
 Bute, Marquess of, 25 
 Byzantine Rite, 33. See Chrysos- 
 
 tom, St, Liturgy of, etc. 
 
 Caeremoniale Episcoporum, 93, 95, 
 
 1 1 1-2, 116, 242 
 Caesarius, St, Bp of Aries, 5 
 Cajetan, James, 83, 85 
 Calosyrius, Bp of Arsinoe, 6, 14, 
 
 17, 189, 207 
 Calvinists, Customs of, 203, 205 
 Calvin, John, 199, 218, 256-8, 270 
 Cambridge University Library, 
 
 156 
 Canons of 1604, 202, 210 
 Canons of 1636, Scottish, 203-4, 
 
 212 
 Canterbury, Abp of (Edward 
 
 White Benson), 215 
 Carmelite Rite, 85, 97, 105-6, in, 
 
 145-6, 241-2 
 Caroline divines, 246. See names 
 
 of individuals 
 Carthusian Rite, 77, 106, 129, 
 
 145-6 
 Catalani, Joseph, 112 
 Catalogue of Bishops of Rome, 
 
 48-9 
 Catechism of Russian Church, 
 
 Longer, 234 
 Cantelae Missae, 115 
 Censura of Bucer, 177, 183, 188, 
 
 191-2, 194, 260 
 Chaldaean Uniats, Rite of, 33 
 Charles I, 204, 209 
 Charles II, 229, 236 
 Charles the Great, 35, 207, 267 
 
 Chartres, Use of, 145-6 
 Chrysostom, St, Abp of Constanti- 
 nople, 228, 237 
 Chrysostom, St, Liturgy of, 22, 
 28-32, 216, 232-3, 235-7 
 
 Cistercian Rite, 103-4, 122, 134, 
 .241, 246 
 
 Clement, Letter of the pseudo, 11- 
 18, 37, 40-3, 98, 118-22, 139, 
 182, 189-91, 193, 204, 206-7, 
 211, 239, 244, 246, 259-61, 
 268-72 
 
 Clement, St, Liturgy of, 7 
 
 Cluny, Constitutions of, 36, 76-8, 
 101-2, 116, 122, 135, 149 
 
 Codex Ratoldi, 125-6, 239-40 
 
 Codex Tilianus, 173 
 
 Colbertine MS. Penitential, Biblio- 
 theque Nationale, Paris, 43 
 
 Colbertine MSS., Bibliotheque Na- 
 tionale, Paris, 43, 45, 47, 63 
 
 Colewich, or Colwich, Staffs, 158 
 
 Columban, St, Rule of, 42 
 
 Commemoration of Sacrifice of 
 Christ, 218-25 
 
 Common Prayer, Book of. See 
 Prayer Book 
 
 Communion of sick. See Viaticum 
 
 Communion Pax, 173, 175-6, 179, 
 181, 243-5 
 
 Conditorium, 45 
 
 Consecration of elements, 67, 99, 
 180, 188-9, 1 9 1 > 199-202, 204, 
 207-13, 219-20, 222-4 
 
 Constantinople, 9, 26-7. See 
 Councils and Synods 
 
 Constitutions, Apostolic, 7, 16, 209 
 
 Constitutions ( English ), Anon. , 138, 
 
 154 
 Consuetudinary (or Ordinate), 79, 
 
 80, 116, 151, 156-7, 166, 170, 
 
 242 
 Consuetudinary of Exeter, 151 
 Consuetudinary of Salisbury, 151, 
 
 156-7, 166, 170 
 Consuetudinary of Wells, 151 
 Coptic Constitutions, 8, 15 
 Coptic Liturgy, 23 
 Coptic Liturgy of St Basil, 23 
 Coptic Rite, 8, 15, 19, 23, 25 
 Coptic Uniats, Liturgy of, 25 
 Corbie, Ordinary of, 36 
 Corbie, Ordo of Monastery of, 60, 
 
 67, 76 
 Corinthians, First Epistle to, 9 
 Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 
 
 156, 158, 166, 169
 
 INDEX 
 
 275 
 
 Corpus Juris Canonici, 38, 130 
 Cosin, John, Bp of Durham, 208, 
 
 211, 213, 222-6, 259, 26l, 27O 
 
 Cosin's First Series of Notes, 206- 
 
 9, 222, 261, 267 
 Cosin's Second Series of Notes, 
 
 208-10, 226 
 Cosin's Third Series of Notes, 209 
 Cosin's Particulars to be considered, 
 
 209, 223, 267 
 Cotton MS., Tiberius C.I, 149, 169 
 Councils and Synods : 
 
 Aberdeen, 138, 153 
 
 Aix-la-Chapelle, 41 
 
 Bayeux, 35 
 
 Bordeaux, 36 
 
 Clermont, 35-6, 205 
 
 Cologne, 138 
 
 Constantinople, 10-11, 204, 206, 
 211, 244, 259, 262, 268-72 
 
 Durham, 138, 152-4, 204 
 
 Macon II, 9, 15, 207-8 
 
 Mentz, 267 
 
 Nicaea, 8, 14, 226 
 
 Nimes, 138 
 
 Oxford, 138, 153 
 
 Paris, 35 
 
 Quiercy, 65-6 
 
 Kodomum, 36, 44 
 
 Toledo XVI, 36 
 
 Tours III, 35, 44, 207 
 
 Trent, no, 143, 145, 268-9 
 
 Westminster, 138, 151, 153, 156 
 
 Worms, 41 
 Cranmer, Thomas, Abp of Canter- 
 bury, no, 179, 189, 191-3- 196, 
 
 199, 201, 216 
 Crawford Sarum Missal, 80, 154-5, 
 
 158, 169, 174 
 Cyprian, St, Bp of Carthage, 6, 46 
 Cyril, St, Abp of Alexandria, 6, 14, 
 
 17, 189, 207 
 Cyril, St, Bp of Jerusalem, 4 
 
 Damien, Peter, 128, 240 
 Decentius, Bp of Gubbio, 49, 82 
 Decretum of Gratian, 38, 41, 64-5, 
 
 180, 211, 246 
 Despoticon, 23-4 
 Didache, 46 
 
 Didier, St, of Cahors, 48 
 Dionysius Barsalibi, 20, 22 
 Dionysius, St, 191 
 Directory, Parliamentary, 218, 228 
 Dominican Rite, 104, 106, in, 
 
 115, 145, 241-2 
 Downes, Samuel, 268-9 
 
 Dunstan, St, Pontifical of, 39, 260 
 Durandus, William, Bp of Mende, 
 
 Rationale of, 58, 73, 100, 132 
 Durham, Bp of (Nathaniel Crewe), 
 
 229 
 Durham Book, 212-3, 22 4 
 Durham Cathedral, 117 
 
 Eastern Liturgies, Chapter II, 216, 
 
 222, 230-7 
 Ecloga of Amalarius, 56-7 
 Edgar, Canons under, 43 
 Edlesborough, Bucks, 250 
 Egbert, Penitential of, 43 
 Egbert, Pontifical of, 39, 59, 260 
 Egyptian Church Order, 2, 3, 6, 13 
 Einsiedeln Or do, 51-3, 82-3 
 Elizabethan Settlement, 195, 198- 
 
 202, 209, 212, 215, 255-6, 258, 
 
 270 
 Elizabeth, Prayer Book of. See 
 
 Prayer Book of Elizabeth, or 
 
 James I 
 Ely, Bp of (Thomas Goodrich), 177 
 Ely House, 225 
 Emmeram, St, atRatisbon, Library 
 
 of, 49 
 English divines, 11, 215, 246, 259 
 Ephesus, Eucharist at, 1 
 Epiclesis, 222 
 
 Etienne, St, Rouen, Church of, 146 
 Eucharist buried, 8, 19, 42-3, 238 
 Eucharist burnt, 8, 9, 15, 19, 42-3, 
 
 238 
 Eulogiae, 99, 209 
 Eutychiani Papae Exhortatio, 119 
 Evagrius, 9, 26, 207 
 Evelyn, John, 229 
 Exeter Ordinate (or Consuetu- 
 dinary), 80, 151 
 Exodus, 13, 14, 183 
 Ezekiel xl, Jerome on, 7 
 
 Fermentum, 48-51, 54, 57, 82-3, 
 
 97- 2 4i 
 
 Fidei ratio of Zwingli, 185 
 
 First Prayer Book. See Prayer 
 Book, First 
 
 Flacius Illyricus, Mass of, 58 
 
 Flintham, Notts, 250 
 
 Fortunatus, Venantius, Bp of Poi- 
 tiers, 48 
 
 Franciscan Use, 141 
 
 Fulco, St, of Angers, 61 
 
 Galicia, 33 
 
 Gallican Councils, 9, 35-7, 239
 
 276 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Gallican influence, 50, 54, 56, 63-4, 
 69, 75, 81, 83-4, 100, 115, 124-5, 
 206, 239 
 
 Gallican Ordines, 69, 100, 125 
 
 Gallican Rite, 47, 66 
 
 Gallican Sacramentary, 47 
 
 Gall, St, MSS., 59, 63, 174-5 
 
 Garrard, Master, 200 
 
 Gattico, J. B., 100 
 
 Gaul, 9 
 
 Gelasian Sacramentary, 39, 40, 54, 
 
 75 
 
 Gemma Animae of Hononus of 
 Autun, 71-2 
 
 Gemma Ecclesiastica of Giraldus 
 Cambrensis, 40 
 
 Geneva, Reformed Church in, 256 
 
 German form of clinical com- 
 munion, 173 
 
 Germanus, Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, 234 
 
 Germanus, St, Bp of Paris, 47 
 
 Germanus, St, Monastery of (St 
 Germain des Pres), Paris, 61 
 
 Giraldus Cambrensis (de Barri), 40 
 
 Glastonbury, French Church at, 
 195-6, 250, 255 
 
 Gloria in excelsis, 50, 184, 186, 188, 
 221-2, 227-8, 230-1, 236, 245 
 
 Gloucester Cathedral, 117, 149 
 
 Gonville and Caius College, Cam- 
 bridge, 150 
 
 Gorgonia, Sister of St Gregory 
 Nazianzen, v 
 
 Grandisson, John de, Bp of 
 Exeter, 80 
 
 Grassis, Paris de, Bp of Pesaro, 
 Papal Master of Ceremonies, 91, 
 93, 107-8, 111-2, 143, 241-2 
 
 Gratian, Francis, Decretum of, 38, 
 41, 64-5, 180, 211, 246 
 
 Gratias tibi, 154-9, 161-6, 168-9, 
 174-6, 179 
 
 Greek Church, 30, 238 
 
 Gregorian Sacramentary, 172-3 
 
 Gregory, Cardinal, Polycarpus of, 
 
 38 
 Gregory, St, Bp of Tours, 47 
 Gregory, St, Monastery of, Basle, 
 
 58 
 Gregory III, Penitential of, 43 
 
 Haddon, Walter, 199, 255 
 Hales, Alexander of, 131, 150 
 Halitgar, Bp of Cambrai, Peniten- 
 tial of, 43 
 Hallel, 185-6 
 
 Harding, Thomas, Fellow of New 
 College, Oxford, 226 
 
 Hereford Cathedral, 117 
 
 Hereford Missal, 80-1, 162, 167, 
 170, 205 
 
 Hereford, Use of, 150, 162 
 
 Hermann, Abp of Cologne, Con- 
 sultation of, 76, 187, 194, 250-1, 
 
 254 
 
 Hesychius, 9, 15, 189, 207-8 
 
 Hincmar, Abp of Rheims, Capi- 
 tular of, 1 1 9-2 1 
 
 Hippolytus, 2 
 
 Hippolytus, Canons of, 3 
 
 Hirshau, Constitutions of, 102 
 
 Holder, Dr, Subdean of Chapels 
 Royal, 229 
 
 Holyrood Ordinale, 79, 242 
 
 Honorius of Autun, 71-2 
 
 Hooper, John, Bp of Gloucester, 
 177, 183, 221 
 
 Hugh of St Victor, 71 
 
 Humbert, Cardinal, 19 
 
 Imperial Library, Vienna, 61 
 
 Irish Rite, 59, 174-5 
 
 Isidore, Pseudo, 38 
 
 Ivo of Chartres, 38, 64, 126, 130, 132 
 
 James, St, Liturgy of, 19, 230 
 James, St, Lord's brother, 11, 37 
 James, St, Syriac Liturgy of, 22 
 Jerome, Pseudo, 11, 197, 207 
 Jerome, St, 7 
 Jerusalem, 19 
 
 Jesus College, Cambridge, 149 
 Jewel, John, Bp of Salisbury, 197, 
 
 208, 226 
 John, Bp of Syracuse, 217 
 John of Avranches, Abp of Rouen, 
 
 70, 99, 127, 145, 149, 240 
 Johnson, Robert, Preacher at 
 
 Northampton, 199-201 
 Justice, Lord Chief, 199 
 Justin Martyr, St, 1, 2 
 
 King Edward VI, First Prayer 
 
 Book of. See Prayer Book, 
 
 First, of Edward VI 
 King Edward VI, Second Prayer 
 
 Book of. See Prayer Book, 
 
 Second, of Edward VI 
 King's Majesty's Injunctions and 
 
 Proceedings, 176-7 
 
 Lacy, Edmund, Bp of Exeter, 
 Pontifical of, 78-9
 
 INDEX 
 
 277 
 
 Lando, Bp of Rheims, 48 
 Lanfranc, Constitutions of, 36, 
 
 77-8 
 
 Langton, Stephen, Abp of Canter- 
 bury, 138, 153, 166 
 
 Laon, Church at, 48 
 
 Lasco, John a, 183, 187, 196, 203, 
 220 
 
 Lateran, Church of the, St Saviour, 
 
 50, 52, 59 
 Laud, William, Abp of Canterbury, 
 
 226 
 Lawrence, St, Church of, Rouen, 
 
 48 
 Lay Folks Mass Book, 150, 170 
 Leofric Missal, 40, 75 
 Leonine Sacramentary, 174 
 Leviticus, 6, 9, 13-5, 126, 189, 208 
 Liber Familiaris Clericorum, no 
 Liber Pontificalis, 48, 187 
 Liber Sacerdotalis, no 
 Lincoln, Bp of (Edward King), 215 
 Lincoln Cathedral, 149 
 Llanthony, Abbey of, 150 
 Lombard, Peter, 71 
 London, Bp of (Edwin Sandys), 
 
 199-201 
 London, Bp of (Henry Compton), 
 
 229 
 Lord's prayer after communion, 
 
 184, 217, 225, 232, 235, 245 
 Lumley, Lord, purchaser of many 
 
 of Cranmer's books, no 
 Luther, Martin, 197 
 Lyndwood, William, Provinciate 
 
 of, 41, 165-6 
 Lyons, Use of, 145-6 
 Lytlyngton, Nicholas, Abbot of 
 
 Westminster, 161 
 
 Mabillon, John, Roman Ordines of, 
 45> 57- See Roman Ordo I , etc. 
 
 Magdalen College, Oxford, Ponti- 
 fical of, 78-9 
 
 Maguelonne, Bp and Cathedral of, 
 130 
 
 Malabar Rite, 21 
 
 Mansionary, 50, 92-3 
 
 Manual, 113, 156, 169 
 
 Marcellus, Christopher, Bp of 
 Corcyra, 88, 90, 96, 107-8, no, 
 112, 143, 241 
 
 Marmoutier, Monastery of, Tours, 
 48 
 
 Maro, John, Patriarch of Antioch, 
 20 
 
 Maronites 20, 22 
 
 Martial, St, Abbey of, Limoges, 
 
 40-1 
 Martin, St, Church of, in the 
 
 Fields, 229 
 Martin, St, Church of, Leicester, 
 
 149 
 Martyr, Peter, 193, 199, 201, 251 
 Mary, Queen, 117 
 McClure (or Blew) MS. Manual, 
 
 156 
 
 Micrologns, 69, 82 
 Middleburgh Prayer Book, 218 
 Milan, Use of, 96 
 Missale Francorum, 39, 121, 260, 
 
 262 
 Missale Mixtum, 96 
 Moleon, Sieur de, 145-6 
 Mosaic law, 6, 13-5, 17, 42, 126, 238 
 Mozarabic Rite, 46, 96, 146 
 Musculus (Reginald Wolf), 199 
 
 Narsai, Liturgical Homilies of, 26, 
 
 234. 245 
 Nestorianism, 207 
 
 Nestorian Rite, 26, 33, 197-8, 231, 
 
 235. 245 
 
 Nicephorus Callistus, 26 
 
 Nicephorus, Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople, Typicon of, 27, 29 
 
 Nicholas Grammaticus, Patriarch 
 
 of Constantinople, 10, 259 
 Nimes, Use of, 138-9 
 Non-communicants, 228-30, 237 
 Non-jurors, 269 
 
 Odo of Paris (Eudes de Sully), 35 
 Orderic, Canon of Siena, 131 
 Order of Communion, 171— 6, 179— 
 
 80, 194, 235, 243, 245 
 Ordinate (or Consuetudinary), 79, 
 
 80, 116, 151, 156-7, 166, 170, 
 
 242 
 Ordinate of Exeter, 151 
 Ordinate of Holyrood, 79, 116, 242 
 Ordinate of Salisbury, 151, 156-7, 
 
 166, 170 
 Ordinate of Wells, 151 
 Ordo, First Roman, etc. See 
 
 Roman Ordo I, etc. 
 Ordo Missae of Burchard, 109-10, 
 
 113, 116, 142, 243 
 Ordo of St Amand. See Amand, 
 
 St, Ordo of Abbey of 
 Origen, 4-6, 13, 207 
 Osmund, St, Bp of Sarum, 149 
 Oswestry, Missal of Church of, 
 
 158-61, 166
 
 278 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Overall, John, Bp of Durham, 222 
 
 Pardoner's Churchyard, no 
 
 Parliamentary Directory, 218, 228 
 
 Paschal Chronicle, 27 
 
 Pastophorium, 7, 207 
 
 Paten, Ablution of, 20-1, 24-5, 29, 
 31, 127, 133-4. 136-7. 152-3, 240 
 
 Patricius, Bp of Pienza, 88, go, 96, 
 107-12, 121-2, 143, 241 
 
 Paul, St, 1, 9, 187 
 
 Paul, St, Cathedral of, London, 
 182 
 
 Pax, Communion. See Com- 
 munion Pax 
 
 Pearl (fragment of sacrament), 
 30-1 
 
 Peru M annate, 113 
 
 Peter Damien, 128, 240 
 
 Peter Lombard, 71 
 
 Peter Martyr, 193, 199, 201, 251 
 
 Petri, Laurence, Abp of Upsala, 
 
 197 
 
 Philotheus, Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople, 29 
 
 Piscina, 123, 129, 132, 134, 146-7, 
 149, 240. See Sacrarium and 
 Place (for pouring ablutions) 
 
 Place (for pouring ablutions), 119- 
 20, 122-3, I2 6, 128, 130, 132, 
 
 139, 147. 149. 151. 240 
 Polycarpus of Cardinal Gregory, 38 
 Poor, Richard le, Bp of Salisbury, 
 
 138, 153 
 Popes of Rome : 
 Benedict XII, 85 
 Clement I. See Clement, Letter 
 of the pseudo, and Clement, 
 St, Liturgy of 
 Clement VI, 85 
 Clement VIII, 93, 95, n 1-3, 
 
 144-5 
 Eutychianus, 119 
 Gregory the Great, 40, 184, 217, 
 
 245 
 Gregory III, 43 
 Gregory XI, 85 
 Innocent I, 49, 82 
 Innocent III, 71, 130-2, 150 
 Innocent VI, 85 
 Innocent VIII, 107 
 Innocent X, 112 
 John XXII, 85 
 Leo IV. See Admonition of the 
 
 pseudo Leo IV, Synodical 
 Leo X, 112 
 Leo XIII, 33 
 
 Popes of Rome (cont.): 
 
 Miltiades, 48 
 
 Pius V, 92, no, 116, 145 
 
 Sergius I, 64-6, 71-3, 187 
 
 Siricius, 49 
 
 Sixtus IV, 90, 97 
 
 Urban V, 85 
 
 Urban VI, 85 
 
 Urban VIII, 145 
 Prayer Book, 181, 196-7, 203, 214, 
 
 230, 232, 235, 248, 264-6, 270 
 Prayer Book, First, of Edward VI, 
 
 no, 175, 177-8, 180-3, 186-8, 
 
 191, 193-6, 198-9, 201, 214-5, 
 
 220, 222-4, 228, 236, 243, 248- 
 
 56, 258, 260, 262-5, 268-70 
 Prayer Book, Second, of Edward 
 
 VI, 183-4, 187-8, 191-2, 194-5. 
 
 198, 201, 204, 206, 208, 212, 
 
 228, 244, 251, 253-60, 265, 267, 
 
 270 
 Prayer Book of Elizabeth, or 
 
 James I, 198-201, 206, 208-9, 
 
 211-2, 215, 219, 221-4, 226, 229, 
 
 257 
 Prayer Book of Charles II, 1, 196, 
 
 213, 217, 224-5, 227-8, 230, 232, 
 
 235-7, 244, 246, 258, 260-1, 
 
 263-6, 268-9, 271-2 
 Prayer Book of Kirk of Scotland, 
 
 218 
 Prayer Book, Puritan, 218 
 Prayer Book, Scottish, 204-6, 208, 
 
 212, 214, 218, 258-9, 262, 270 
 Prothesis, 28-32, 216, 233-4, 238 
 Provinciate of William Lyndwood, 
 
 41, 165-6 
 Pullain, Valerand, 195-6, 250, 255 
 Puritans, 218-9, 223-4 
 Pyx, 19, 45-8, 52, 56, 71, 83, 88, 
 
 102-7,109-11,113-4,116-7, 145, 
 
 228, 242-3, 250-1, 257 
 
 Questions and Answers according 
 to the Doctrine of the Fathers 
 (Coptic), 24 
 
 Ratherius, Bp of Verona, 119 
 Regino of Priim, 38, 56, 98-9, 
 
 119-22 
 Remi, St, Codex of, 172, 175 
 Remigius, Bp of Coire, 38 
 Remigius of Auxerre, 66-7 
 Remigius, St, Abp of Rheims, 148 
 Renaudot, Eusebius, 3, 22-3, 25 
 Rhabanus Maurus, 66 
 Kheims Missal, 46
 
 INDEX 
 
 279 
 
 Rheinau, Penitential of, 43 
 Ridley, Nicholas, Bp of London, 
 
 177, 221 
 Ritus Servandus in Celebratione 
 Missarum, or Ritus Celebrandi 
 Missam, no, 112-3, 116, 144, 
 
 243 
 Riva, Missal of Bp of, 61 
 Robert of St Victor, Penitential 
 
 of, 43 
 Rochester, Bp of (Francis Turner), 
 
 229 
 Rock MS. Manual, 156 
 Roman Catholics, 210 
 Roman Missal, 43, 87, 92, 95-6, 
 
 no, 113, 116, 141, 143-6, 158, 
 
 197, 221 
 Roman Ordines, 46, 52-3, 58, 61, 
 
 65-7. 6 9, 82, 87, 99, 100, 102, 
 
 112, 125, 132, 165 
 Roman Ordo, Common, of Hittorp, 
 
 59-61, 67 
 Roman Ordo I, 45, 50, 52, 54, 56-8, 
 
 61, 65, 75, 82, U2, 118, 123-5, 
 
 205, 214, 217, 244, 263 
 Roman Ordo I , Appendix, 54, 75, 
 
 99. 124 
 Roman Ordo II, 52, 56-8, 61, 119, 
 
 124 
 Roman Ordo III, 58, 64, 119, 124-5 
 Roman Ordo IV, 57, 64 
 Roman Ordo V, 64 
 Roman Ordo VI, 100, 107, 115, 
 
 125-6, 240 
 Roman Ordo X, 82-5, 106, 128, 132, 
 
 140 
 Roman Ordo XIV, 81, 83-5, 139 
 Ro man Ordo XV, Si, 84-5 , 1 00, 1 40 
 Roman Pontifical, 88, 12 1-2 
 Roman Ritual, 107, 114 
 Romsey Abbey, Hants, 149 
 *>#Rouen, Use of, 127, 145-6, 149-50, 
 
 170, 240-1 
 Russian Rite, 31-2, 234 
 Ruthenian Rite, 33 
 Ryarsh, Kent, 149 
 Rylands Library, Manchester, 80, 
 
 154 
 
 Sacrarium, 129, 155-62, 164-9. 
 See Piscina and Place (for 
 pouring ablutions) 
 
 Sacred Ceremonies and Ecclesi- 
 astical Rites of the Holy Roman 
 Church, of Patricius, 107 
 
 Sacristy, or Vestry, 7, 9, 12-4, 16, 
 27-8, 34. 39, 4°. 43-4, 54- 75. 
 
 82-3, 96, 119-20, 122, 127, 147, 
 190, 193. 208, 215, 238-9, 244, 
 246 
 Saffron Walden, Pyx at, 250, 257 
 Sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons, 7 
 St Gall MSS., 59, 63, 174-5 
 Salisbury Cathedral, 157 
 Salzburg, Pontifical of, 173 
 Sancroft, William, Chaplain to 
 Cosin (Abp of Canterbury 1678), 
 212, 225 
 Sancroft's Fair Copy, 212 
 Sancta, Chapter iv, 83, 238, 244 
 Sanctum, 46 
 
 Sarum Consuetudinary (or Ordi- 
 nate), 151, 156-7, 166, 170 
 Sarum Customary, 156, 158-9, 
 
 161, 163, 165-6, 168-9, 170 
 Sarum Manual, 156, 169 
 Sarum Missal, 43, 80-1, 115-6, 
 154-6, 158-9, 161-2, 166-70, 
 
 173-5. 243 
 
 Sarum Ordinale (or Consuetudi- 
 nary), 151, 156-7, 166, 170 
 
 Saviour, Church of the, Lateran, 
 
 50, 52. 59 
 Savoy Conference, 219, 222 
 Scottish Canons of 1636, 203-4, 
 
 212, 258-9 
 
 Scottish Prayer Book. See Prayer 
 
 Book, Scottish 
 Scutella, 101, 102-3, r 35 
 Second Prayer Book. See Prayer 
 
 Book, Second 
 Sens, Pontifical of, 61 
 Sherborne, Church of, 162 
 Sibbald, James, Vicar of Arbuth- 
 
 nott, 166 
 Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, 
 
 163, 166 
 Siena, Order of Offices at, 131 
 Sigibert, Constitutions of, 76 
 Simeon of Thessalonica, 234 
 Soissons Cathedral, 106, 117, 132 
 Sparrow, Anthony, Bp of Exeter 
 
 1667, Norwich 1676, 204, 211, 
 
 213, 245, 257, 261-2, 266-71 
 Stowe Missal, 174-5 
 Strangers' Church, Austin Friars, 
 
 187, 196, 203 
 Strasburg, French Church at, 195 
 Strype, John, Historian, 256 
 Sweden, Church of, 197 
 Synods. See Councils and Synods 
 Syriac Liturgy of St James, 19-21, 
 
 33. 231 
 Syrian Jacobites, Rite of, 21-2, 33
 
 280 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Syrian Jacobites, Uniats, Rite of, 
 33 
 
 Tenison, Thomas, Rector of St 
 Martin's in the Fields (Bp of 
 Lincoln 1692, Abp of Canterbury 
 1695), 229 
 
 Tertullian, 2, 6, 46 
 
 Testament of our Lord, 3 
 
 Thanksgiving after communion, 
 20-2, 26, 28-30, 32-3, 126, 174- 
 6, 178-81, 184-6, 188, 195, 
 221-2, 230-2, 236-7, 243-5, 
 248-9, 255. See Gratias tibi 
 
 Theodore, Abp of Canterbury, 
 Penitential of, 43 
 
 Theodore, St, of the Studium, 233 
 
 Theophilus, Bp of Alexandria, 
 10-1, 211 
 
 Third part of the host. Chapter v, 
 104, 107, 115, 239 
 
 Thomas, St, Christians of, 21 
 
 Thorndike, Herbert, Prebendary 
 of Westminster, 245, 268-9, 271 
 
 Tirpinus, Abp of Rheims, Ponti- 
 fical of, 59 
 
 Tower (for sacrament), 47-8 
 
 Tuki, Ralph, Bp of Arsinoe, 25 
 
 Turner, Francis, Bp of Rochester, 
 229 
 
 Ubertus, 128 
 
 Ulrich, Abbot of Cluny, 36, 77, 
 
 IOI-3, 122, I35, I49 
 
 Ulrich, Bp of Augsburg, 119 
 Unconsecrated oblations, 10-2, 14, 
 
 16, 30-2, 35-6, 99, 197, 207, 209, 
 
 211 
 Uniats, 20, 25, 33 
 University College, Oxford, 162-3 
 
 Val des Choux, Abbey of, Bur- 
 gundy, 104 
 
 Verdun, Church of, 58 
 
 Vernon MS., 151 
 
 Verona Fragments of Egyptian 
 
 Church Order, 3 
 Vestry. See Sacristy 
 Viaticum, and Communion of sick, 
 
 37, 40-1, 56, 65, 67, 70-1, 73-4, 
 
 86-7,95, 172-3. i7 8 -9, 181, 194- 
 
 6, 248-9, 250-72 
 Victor, St, Abbey of, Paris, 41, 
 
 122, 133-4, 241, 246 
 Victor, St, Robert of, Penitential 
 
 of, 43 
 Vienna, 33, 61 
 
 Vienna, Imperial Library of, 61 
 Visible Word, 218 
 Vito, St, of Verdun, Penitential 
 
 of, 43 
 
 Waldegrave, Robert, Printer, 218 
 Wells, Consuetudinary (or Ordi- 
 nate), 151 
 Westminster Abbey, 161 
 Westminster, Dean of (Gabriel 
 
 Goodman), 199-201 
 Whitehall, Chapel at, 229 
 William, Abbot of Hirshau, 102 
 Wolf, Reginald (Musculus), 199 
 Wren, Matthew, Bp of Ely, 211, 
 
 213, 224, 228, 270 
 Wylson, Doctor, 201 
 
 Ximenes, Francis, Cardinal, 96 
 
 York Breviary, 163, 166 
 York Minster Library, 163 
 York Missal, 43, 81, 115, 163, 
 166-7, I 7°, 242 
 
 Zurich Service, 183-7, J 95> 217, 
 
 221 
 Zwingli, Huldreich, 185, 187, 189,3*. 
 
 217-8, 221 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Jg, 0CT151970 
 
 OCT 1 8 1970 
 
 k£$T0 LD-l 
 
 SEP 3 
 
 RC 
 
 1988 
 
 Form L9-Series 4939
 
 3 1158 00941 1371 
 
 L£ 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 637 476 3