The cross should be made on the child's forehead with the thumb of the Priest.

In her tender care lest any child of her members should die unbaptized, the medieval Church1 directed that parish Priests should often instruct their congregations in the necessity of Baptism, and the form to be employed in its ministration, teaching them to use the appointed words without alteration, transposition, or confusion. And to make sure that all had been done decently and in order, the priest had to inquire whether the proper form had been observed in all respects. It was lawful also to baptize a child in danger even in Church with the shortened service, provided that if it lived it was to have the rest of the office said over it. The rule being, that, in case of danger, "semper incipiatur ad substantiam illius sacramenti et postea residuum compleatur si poterit." A lay man or woman may not baptize, except in the last extremity, and when a Clergyman cannot be obtained; in such a case, the man should perform the Sacrament and not the woman, unless the latter be better acquainted with the necessary form. Mr. Procter considers (p. 361) that "since 1604 a lawful Minister is the only substitute for the Minister of the parish in the administration of Private Baptism," and recommends the Clergy "to remit such a case of irregular (i.e. lay) though valid baptism, until the period when the person may be confirmed, and thus, by his own act, testify his desire to be received into CHRIST'S Church." If the baptism is valid, which Mr. Procter allows, we do not see what the person's own desire has to do with it. Consecration not being of the essence of this Sacrament, a Priest is not absolutely necessary for its performance, and the service should be completed in the Church just as though "a lawful Minister" had officiated. The vessel used in private baptisms seems anciently to have been of sufficient size for the practice of immersion, as may be gathered from a gloss of Lyndwood's, (Lib. 3; Tit. 24,) who, speaking of an order that the vessel employed as above should be burnt or set apart for the use of the Church, explains this to mean such uses as to wash vestments in, "vel possunt talia vasa verti ad usum prælati ecclesiæ in aliquo ministerio honesto." A small cruet, or a shell, kept for the purpose, would seem to be the most fitting vessel for our modern requirements. The water used should always be either put into the fire, or carried into the Church, and poured away in the font. Mr. Procter (p. 364) mentions the difficulty of uniting the two baptismal offices for infants, but without making any suggestion to remove it. A solution will be found in the Fifteenth Volume of the Ecclesiastic, p. 61. The only especial notice of the Baptism of Adults we have found in the Sarum rite, is the following rubric: "Si baptizandus non

1 See Rubric appended to the Office for Baptism, apud Maskell. Mon. Rit. Vol. I.

poterit loqui; vel quia parvulus, vel quia mutus, vel quia ægrotans aut aliunde impotens, tunc debent patrini pro eo respondere ad omnes interrogationes in baptismo. Si autem loqui poterit, tunc pro seipso respondeat ad singulas orationes nisi ad interrogationes sui nominis tantum, ad quas semper patrini sui respondeant pro eo."

We pass over the Catechism and Confirmation Office, and proceed to the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony. And here we must observe, that though Mr. Procter has taken great pains in tracing our present Offices to their origin, and exhibiting their gradual developments and changes, he has seldom thought it worth while to show how the modern rubrics can be explained by the ancient, or how far our modern practice can be improved and made more definite by a reference to the medieval customs. This is a serious fault; for plainly one of the chief uses of studying the old rituals is to supply from them the deficiencies of our present Prayer Book, and to learn that correct method of celebrating Divine Offices, which has fallen into desuetude owing to ignorance, carelessness, and irreverence. We need not enlarge upon this topic, as regards the Marriage Service, which has already been treated at some length in our pages: we will only notice two or three points in our Author's commentary, which we think are capable of improvement. It is not necessary to have recourse to Hermann's Consultation for the source of the injunction that the persons to be married should come to the Church "with their friends and neighbours ;" the Manual from which our own Office was compiled orders the man and woman to be placed before the Church door," coram Deo, et sacerdote, et populo;" it enjoins the priest to address the man, "Cunctis audientibus ;" and it directs the woman to be "given away," "a patre suo vel ab amicis ejus ;" all which are more than sufficient to prove that our rubric comes from a more ancient origin than the Lutheran service-book. Again, no notice is taken of the procession from the Church door to the chancel, though the Sarum rubric, which orders it, is printed; again, we have no directions how best to incorporate the Communion Office with that for Matrimony. In all these points a few hints for the practice of the Clergy would have been of great use.

Turning to the Communion of the Sick, we think it very probable that a little deeper study of our ancient canons and formularies would supply some valuable precedents of private consecrations of the Holy Eucharist being allowed. The example of S. Ambrose, who offered the sacrifice at the country house of a lady near Rome,1 is well known, as are also the instances collected by Bingham, but we are not aware of any facts or directions bearing upon the subject, and derived from English sources, having hitherto 1 See Fleury, Eccl. Hist. Book xviii. § 19. 2 Antiq. xv. 4.

2

been published. We offer the following suggestive fact. The use of portable altar stones was enjoined by many early English Canons and visitation articles. These were formed of a thin stone, or piece of marble, set in a wooden frame, and often ornamented with gold, and silver, and jewels. They were sometimes employed in churches or oratories, which possessed only wooden altars, being placed upon the fixed slab to hold the paten and chalice. Their size was about one foot long by six inches across, and about two inches high. It was the custom for Bishops to consecrate many of them to be distributed through their dioceses, not only to persons who had private chaplains and oratories of their own, but to guilds, and brotherhoods, and parish priests, that thus the Holy Eucharist might be celebrated without irreverence, even in unconsecrated places. When the reservation of the elements was forbidden, it was doubtless with some idea of returning to the practice which had obtained occasionally in earlier times, and which at the period of the Reformation was felt to be called for by the abuse of private masses, and, we fear, the infrequency of Communions.

We are sorry to have to find fault with Mr. Procter's labours, but what we have said above with reference to the Marriage Service, applies with equal force to his treatment of the Offices for Burial and for Churching of Women. In the former of these we notice again the omission of all information how to combine that service with the Holy Communion, and of the reason why the Collect is so termed. The purpose for which of old the corpse was brought into the Church, was in order that the Eucharistic sacrifice might be offered in the presence of the dead. Our own practice is a standing protest against the neglect of the Holy Sacrament, and it would be in conformity alike with ancient precedent and modern directions that the Altar Service should commence after the Lesson, the coffin standing before the congregation in the nave. We see no reason why Mr. Procter should have written : "The corpse is carried from the church to the grave in silence." This, we suppose, must be allowed to be the existing rule of the Church. Formerly, however, the direction was: "Finita oratione præcipiat fratribus ut accipiant feretrum: et deportent defunctum ad tumulum et dum portatur, clerici cantent has subsequentes Antiphonas. In Paradisum, etc."2 Our author also sees an important difference between our prayers at the end of the Service, and the corresponding portion of the medieval forms; in that ours have "respect only to the living, instead of the dead, whose doom is already certain." (p. 404.) Even Wheatley would have taught us better to appreciate the Catholic leanings of our reformers. That prayer for the departed should be placed somewhat in the back-ground was to be expected in an age which had 1 See Rock, Church of our Fathers, Vol. I. pp. 247, sqq. 2 Pontif. Bangor. Ap. Maskell.

witnessed the abuses arising from a confusion between Purgatory, and the ancient belief as to the condition of departed souls; but that the primitive doctrine concerning the state of the spirits of the Church's children in the unseen world should be altogether given up, is a notion entirely repugnant to fact, and contradicts the very ground of the Reformation which was a return to Primitive belief and practice. Any who, like ourselves, have lamented over the hideous, gloomy paraphernalia of an undertaker's funeral, will be pleased to hear that there really is good authority for the cloaks, scarves, and hat-bands worn by mourners now-a-days. It was an old English custom,1 that the chief mourners should be dressed in black cloaks and hoods: these last are represented by the hatbands, except in the case of women, who still very commonly wear hoods. The shape of these robes may be observed in many illuminations. In the representation of the hearse in Westminster Abbey, at the dirge of Abbot Islip, figured in the second volume of Dr. Rock's work quoted below, their form may be seen very distinctly.

The service of Thanksgiving of women after childbirth, commonly called the Churching of Women, is formed from the ancient "Ordo ad purificandam mulierem post partum ante ostium ecclesiæ," which is contained in the Sarum Manual. It has always been a difficulty to know where to place the woman, a difficulty which Mr. Procter just states, but more suo, does not resolve. The ancient ritualism2 was this: the woman came, between two matrons, to the door of the church inside the porch; she was there met by the priest, who, taking her by the hand, said, "Ingredere in templum DEI." Thereupon was said, either by the priest alone, or by him and his assistants, one or two Psalms, not those which we now use, but the 121st, Levavi oculos, and the 128th, Beati omnes. According to the Sarum order, the woman was not led into the church till the end of the service. The rest of the office is the same as our own. The York Manual directed her to remain during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and at its conclusion, to kneel down at the altar steps and receive absolution from the hand of the priest. There is still in some churches a seat called the Churching stoole,3 placed near the entrance, and this would seem the most fitting place for one who, before taking part in the ordinary worship of the Church, has to appear before God with thanksgiving and humility. The Churching should always take place immediately before some service, especially before the Holy Communion. The priest going to the woman at the door, should say

1 See Rock, Church of our Fathers, Vol. II. p. 472.

2 See Maskell, Mon. Rit. Vol. I. p. 38.

3 See Ecclesiologist, Vol. XII. p. 440, New Series.

4 Mr. Procter tells us (p. 406) that "custom has sanctioned its insertion before the General Thanksgiving."

the address to her there, repeating the Psalm either in procession, or when he returns to his place. Of course there is no difficulty about making the offering when the Sacrament of the altar is celebrated; at other times we think an assistant should advance to the chancel step with an alms bag, into which the woman, coming forward, should place her offering. The words "decently apparelled," (which Mr. Procter omits to notice altogether) refer to the old custom of having the head covered with a white veil ; the addition of a candle in the hand would hardly find favour with a modern congregation.

Here we stop. A review of the Ordination Services would carry us too far. We have now merely to notice a few omissions which in another edition, (we think Mr. Procter may deservedly look for more than one,) ought to be corrected. Any commentary on the Prayer Book is incomplete which does not notice its musical character and its adaptation to the Plain song of the Catholic Church. There is not a word about this in the work at the head of this article. A single note (p. 193) observing that "in the rubric before the Venite there is an instance of confusion between the ecclesiastical terms, reading, saying, and singing," is really all that the book contains upon this subject; and even that is not correct. "Reading" seems to have been the general word; "saying" was reciting on one note without inflection; "singing," what we now call chanting, i.e., reciting with inflections. It must be allowed to be of great importance that students preparing for Holy Orders, should learn how to use the Church's Book of Offices. This, however, they cannot be expected to know unless sound teaching be provided for them; and we consider a knowledge of Plain Song, practical at least, if not scientific, to be essentially necessary to the right use of the Prayer Book. In every work, therefore, which professes to explain rubrics and instruct in the due performance of divine services, the student ought to be taught that there is only one way (varied at times, but still one,) in which the holy offices are to be said, and how useful in giving life and variety to our formularies, are those old directions which order one part to be said with note, another without note, this to be intoned "clarâ,” that to be read "modestâ voce." To omit all mention of this matter is an indubitable deficiency. In cases also where modern practices are brought forward, we desiderate the pronunciation of some judgment as to whether they are correct or not. This, as we have said above, Mr. Procter fails to do. We have before mentioned some instances; we add one or two more. Thus, in connection with the subject last mentioned, we find the following note (p. 244) "as a substitute for the Introit, in cathedrals, the hymn Tersanctus is generally sung by the choir"-a corrupt tradition, which certainly merits some kind of protest, if it is worth insertion at all. Again, "Its" (the rubric's) "language directing the Table to stand

VOL. XVII.

2 L