them as His equivalent signs of His once sacrificed Body and Blood, take deep into us a fresh certainty of our perfect acceptance in Him our Sacrifice, and also of our mystical union with Him as He, once dead, now lives for us and in us, thus feeding on Him in the heart, by faith, with thanksgiving. Receiving His signs, we should look up with renewed and inexpressible confidence through Him to the Father.

"I do not think that the Holy Scriptures give us reason to believe that this sacred procedure (which we cannot see, but which is truly present to faith) involves any special attachment of His Presence to the sacred Signs, albeit called His Body and His Blood by reason of their equivalence as divine Tokens."

Now, I do not quote these words because I agree with them entirely, but because they seem to me to justify the custom of our Church. If we believe that the Holy Communion is a service of thanksgiving for the life and death of Jesus Christ and His redemption of the world; if in it we commemorate that death and sacrifice; if in it Jesus Christ is Himself spiritually present among us, I think we shall quite understand why it has become the great service of Christian worship, the greatest service of worship in the Christian Church, in whatever way we may celebrate it. Every celebration, then, of the Holy Communion should, I believe, be a Communion, but not necessarily for all who are present. At an ordination it is a Communion for all those who have been ordained; at a wedding for the bride and bridegroom and perhaps their nearest relatives only; at a celebration in commemoration of the departed for the nearest friends, but that is no reason why others should not be present at this service. So at a parish celebration some should communicate, but not all need.

I would pass then to the practical question. In my visitation questions I particularly asked about the Choral Celebration, and I was impressed with the answers. There are about 126 churches in the diocese in which there is a choral celebration in some form or other. The majority of the clergy seem to be agreed that Morning

THE PRINCIPAL SERVICE

93 Prayer is the best ordinary service for their people. Some who probably might desire something different say quite clearly that they do not think their people are ready for a choral celebration as the ordinary service on a Sunday. My own observation would entirely agree with that; I am sure that for the ordinary congregation on Sunday morning in most churches, the traditional custom of the English Church is the best. The Morning Service has greater variety and conveys a larger element of instruction; it is simpler and easier of comprehension. More than that, the great majority of the more devout would prefer their Communion to be something separate and solemn, and if they attend a celebration in the early morning they would like a different service later in the day. Then, on the other hand, there are a certain number who would lay immense stress, at any rate for some people, on the Eucharistic service. There are some now who would press it with great vehemence as being the one thing which would bring people back to church, and in some parishes there is a choral celebration which is very fully attended. There is no doubt that the appeal is different in different places. I certainly know many parishes where the introduction of the Holy Communion as a substitute for Mattins has alienated great bodies of the people. Nor is it the case that ultimately people are taught to like it. Some who have been attracted by it at first definitely come back to preferring the old-fashioned Morning Service.

There is another problem which is facing us at the present time. It is becoming increasingly doubtful whether the old-fashioned hours of eight and eleven are the most suitable for Divine Service. Eleven o'clock was the hour selected to suit the comfortable habits of our English upper classes; eight o'clock was the hour for the new element of self-discipline introduced among the country squires and parsons by the Oxford Movement; but for people of other classes these hours are inconvenient. Eight o'clock is exactly the time of the family breakfast; eleven is so late that it is impossible for the

service to be attended, as an earlier service might be, by those who have the household dinner to cook. In some parishes the custom has arisen of a choral celebration at 9.30 or 10, which is found to be popular, at any rate, to a section of the congregation, followed by Morning Prayer in the old-fashioned way at eleven. It is quite clear that in many ways we are in a transition period. Old customs have been broken up, new customs and habits are being formed, and it is the duty of every parish priest to consider carefully what is best for his people and what his people feel is best for them. There was a time when the canonical hour for Morning Service was nine o'clock. Customs have changed in the past, and they may change again. Only let us be quite clear that we do what is for the spiritual good of the people.

My directions are as follows: In every parish there should be Morning Prayer said at an hour suitable for the people, with a suitable amount of music. Exceptions may be made, especially in those parishes where it is customary to have a plain Mattins followed by a choral Eucharist, and where those who desire the other use may usually find it in some neighbouring church. Secondly, where it is found suitable and convenient and the circumstances of the parish allow it, there may be a Eucharistic Service at 9.30 or 10. Thirdly, in places where it is desired generally or occasionally to have choral celebration of the Holy Communion as part of the ordinary Morning Service, I am prepared to authorize, provided it is agreeable to the people, that Morning Prayer should be said as far as the Benedictus, and should then be followed by the Eucharist and a sermon. The Creed and the Collect will not be said or sung twice, and I do not think there is anything lost in the omission of the Apostles' Creed when the Nicene Creed follows. Psalms, Canticles, and Lessons for the day may be considered a suitable introduction for the Communion Service, and the service will not be unduly lengthy. In such a case no difficulty should be made about those who desire to leave the church after the sermon. I think that in this way, in a parish where

THE DUTY OF A PARISH PRIEST

95

there is but one church and where it is obviously impossible for the clergyman to have many services, the desires of both classes of people in the parish will be met.

There are some other smaller difficulties which might arise, and one is the difficulty with regard to the Litany. There is, I think, an increasing feeling on the one side of the great beauty of the Litany, on the other side that when added to the rest of the Morning Service it often becomes heavy and therefore unprofitable. The Litany must be said, as the Prayer Book directs, every Sunday, but I think more and more we should aim at using it as a service by itself, or sometimes as an introduction to a Communion Service. It becomes most impressive when it is used in an impressive way.

Let me conclude with a few general directions. The period is undoubtedly one of transition. On the one hand, the more or less enforced attendance at church by people whether they like it or not has almost entirely died out except in places where old-fashioned views prevail. On the other hand, the desire for religious services and interest in them has probably increased amongst a section of our people, but they demand that the sermons should be interesting and the services should be edifying. It is your duty, the duty of all who are interested in the wellbeing of the Church, to devote all your care and attention to making the services as good as you possibly can. You must preserve its traditional character, for people are conservative in matters of religion. You must by diligent attention to your sermon make it an appeal to the intellectual demands of your people, and however you order your services you must make them respond to and call forth the reality of religious experience.

CHAPTER V

THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK

In the portion of my charge that I delivered yesterday I tried to illustrate the genius and character of the Church of England as expressed in its worship. I pointed out that it was in its essence a reform of the traditional worship of the pre-Reformation Church, and that in that reform there had been exhibited a respect for antiquity and a desire to conform to the teaching of the old Fathers and the Scriptures; that the purpose of the revision was to attain greater simplicity; to make the service comprehensible to the congregation as well as to the ministers; that its aim was the edification of the people. I suggested to you also that the simple dignity of the Church of England was more in harmony with our religious point of view than a too elaborate ceremonial. I am going to-day further to illustrate the characteristics of the teaching of the Church of England by another point -the absence throughout of rigid rules or regulations.

There is a natural tendency in the human mind to demand definite direction. If once the desire to do what is right is formed the question is asked, What is right? To many, at any rate, it is a great relief that they can be given a definite rule which they are to keep and which will be satisfactory. That is the principle of the Law. In contrast with that is the principle of the Gospel, which means freedom and initiative, which passes beyond definite rule and makes definite rule unnecessary by a transformation of the spirit and the direction of the conscience. No doubt for those who are unfit for it such a state of freedom has its dangers. It may easily become