such of our brethren as have been misled by that learned but most unjustifiable publication, will induce them to modify their present practice. "But," it will be contended, "surely we may claim to reintroduce all ancient _English_ ceremonies; such as elevating the Elements after consecration; making the sign of the cross in consecrating, and again over the head of each communicant before administering;--or such, again, as frequent bowing and genuflection;--various regulated movements to and fro,--as at the saying of the Creed;--swinging of censers again and again in various directions; with many other ceremonies." To all this, however, there is an answer which, I humbly conceive, is unanswerable. It is this,--that the English Church, to whose laws they appeal, has _expressly abolished_ some of these ceremonies, and laid her prohibition upon the use of more than a very moderate number of any kind. I refer, first, to the fact that she withdrew from her Service-book certain orders previously embodied in it for the performance of some of these actions. Under this head comes the elevation of the Elements after consecration. This is confessedly, even by the admission of Roman writers, a modern ceremony, not older than the twelfth century.[60] However, in the old English Service-books the order was, "After the words, 'For this is my Body,' the priest shall bend himself towards the Host, and afterwards lift it above his forehead, that it may be seen by the people." But in the Communion Office of 1549, this was forbidden by rubric, "These words are to be said without any elevation, or shewing to the people." And the Articles of 1562-1571 confirm this, saying, that "the sacrament was not by Christ's ordinance lifted up or worshipped" (Art. 28). So, again, the sign of the cross was, according to the First Book of Edward, to be used at consecration; but in the Second it was withdrawn. Nor, I believe, can any rehabilitation of these practices be alleged (as can be done in the case of lights or incense) from subsequent injunctions, canons, or customs. It is in vain to say that there was anything accidental in the omission of the cross at consecration, since it was carefully retained at baptism, and defended subsequently in the canons of 1603; or that the "elevation" or lifting up, "and worshipping," was restored by the omission of the prohibition in 1549, since by 1562 (Articles) it was expressly disallowed. Those who plead, as a support to the rubric, the better mind of the Church, as manifested in the wishes of her great men--her Andreweses and Cosins--and even in her canons of 1603--must accept the fact, that by that better mind and those canons these usages are never advocated. [60] See Mabillon, Iter. Ital., p. xlix., and 'Principles of Divine Service,' Introd. vol. ii. p. 87. A slight raising of the Elements at the words 'He blessed,' as if making an offering, is ancient and probably universal.