care.

land, the author must be supposed to have weighed every statement in it with unusual He was, in fact, in putting it forth taking a position similar to that of Jewel in the Apology, and offering himself to the communions abroad as the representative and mouthpiece of his church. His testimony, then, must be decisive as to the custom of his day. But he tells us, in rather a full description of the celebration of the Sacrament, that, after the prayer for the Church Militant, "those who are not going to communicate are sent out."5 Both here and in another writing of uncertain date, he speaks of this dismissal as the effect of the warning in the exhortation :—“A two-fold exhortation to the people immediately follows: the one, that those who come not to communicate go out; the other, that the rest prepare themselves worthily." "

In 1615 appeared the Instructio HistoricoTheologica of John Forbes, a professor at Aberdeen, and son of the good Bishop of that city, in which he argues at some length against the practice of remaining without communicating.

In Sparrow's "Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer," published in 1657, are these remarks: :- "After this (i.e., the Prayer for the Church Militant) follow some wholesome exhortations to those that are coming to the Holy Communion, seriously exhorting the unprepared to forbear. So was the custom of old in the Greek Church. The priest admonishes all that are coming to that Holy Sacrament, driving away the unworthy, but inviting the prepared.

. Those that after these exhortations stay to receive, the Church supposing prepared, invites to draw near.

דיי

In 1659, only three years before the last revision of the Liturgy, L Estrange published the first edition of his "Alliance of Divine Offices." Though writing so short a time before the omission of the warning to depart, we find him as clear as any of our earlier authorities, with regard to the usage of the first Christians :"True it is that, according to the primitive rules, no man of the faithful people might stay behind and not communicate, upon pain of excommunication." 118

We remark the same thing in Thorndike, whose "Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England," appeared the same year. "We

5 Vol. iv. p. 359.

6 Second Series of Notes; Works, vol. v. p. 304. See note i.; p. 803. 7 P. 169. London, 1722. 8 Ch. vi. Annot. M; p. 269. Oxford, 1846,

shall be bold to conclude," says this writer, after adducing the proper evidence, that, so far as appears by the Scripture, all that did celebrate did communicate; as all that assisted did celebrate, &c." In another work, published the very year of the revision, he says:-"I will not here undertake that all which remained did always communicate; though I doubt not I may undertake that the rule of the church required them always to communicate. For when the world was come into the Church, the rule that prevailed in the time of persecution, there is no marvel that it could not then prevail. By St. Chrysostom alone it appears sufficiently that the rule was well enough known, but not in force even in his time. So when they that might not communicate were dismissed, they that would not communicate remained nevertheless. For the eucharist was not to be set aside for their negligence." Thorndike held also that the communion was essential to the sacrifice. "This representative and commemorative sacrifice is of the nature and kind of peace offerings, inasmuch as it is celebrated on purpose to communicate with the altar in feasting upon it."2 III.-The Warning to Depart withdrawn at the Last Revision, because no longer necessary: Testimony of the later Divines of the 17th Century. Such being the practice and opinions of our divines between the first compilation and the final revision of the Liturgy, it will be asked, why the warning to non-communicants was not retained? The answer is very simple. They were now, as we have learnt from some of the foregoing extracts, in the habit of withdrawing as a matter of course. The sentence of exclusion," had, therefore, become unnecessary, and, indeed, unsuitable, so that it became expedient to remove it, especially as its retention would have prevented the use of the exhortation in which it occurs. It was accordingly omitted, and the exhortation, only slightly altered in other respects, was appointed to be read as a notice of celebration, "in case the minister should see the people negligent to come."

6.

That the altered habits of the people were the cause of the withdrawal of the warning, could not reasonably be doubted, even if we had no evidence of the fact. There is a direct proof, however, that that circumstance did influence the divines of 1662, and, as if to complete his testimony, it is supplied by Cosin, who 9 Book III. ch. xxiv. § 9; Works, vol. iv. p. 565. Oxford; 1853. 1 Just Weights, &c., ch. xv. §7; vol. v. p. 181, 2 The Epilogue, b. iii. ch. v. § 9; vol. iv. p. 107.

has already informed us that the non-communicants were sent out after the Prayer for the Church Militant. This great bishop, it is well known, was "one of the principal commissioners' for the revision, and it so happens that there have come down to us some memoranda which he made of "Particulars to be considered, explained, and corrected in the Book of Common Prayer," to which it "is plain that those reviewers had very great regard, they having altered most things according as was therein desired."3 Now among these notes is one which points out that the first and second exhortations (as they then stood) were "more fit to be read some days before the Communion, than at the very same time when the people are come to receive it ;" and one of the reasons assigned is, that "they that tarry for that purpose are not negligent, and they that are negligent be gone, and hear it not.” Another alteration was also made at this review, evidently with the same purpose of bringing the office into closer agreement with the actual state of things. The Invitation to "draw near," as left in 1552, contained the following sentence :"Make your humble confession to Almighty God, before this congregation, here gathered together in His Holy Name, meekly kneeling upon your knees." As this, if strictly taken, implied the presence of others besides the communicants, the words, "before this congregation, &c.," were omitted in 1662,5

That the true reason for the omission of the charge to withdraw has been given, is further evident from the fact, that no advantage was taken of it by any party in the Church. At least I do not remember to have read of any attempt, either by the divines of the Restoration or their successors, to revive the practice which it had suppressed; nor am I aware that a single instance has been produced by the modern advocates of the medieval custom. Scandret alone, if I mistake not, has been quoted, as condemning the custom of his day :- "There is not one that does approach the altar except those who have prepared themselves to receive it as the Sacrament of Communion. And whence is this practice, but from the great ignorance of this Divine Service ?"6

This author, however, is more respected for piety than for judgment; and, were it other3 Nicholls' Comment. App. to vol. i., p. 67. Ibid. p. 69, No. lii.; or Cosin's Works, vol. v. App. I. 5 Bulleys's Variations, p. 42.

p. 515.

6 Christian Sacrifice, p. 45, quoted in The Right of all the Baptised, &c., p. 10.

wise, his single voice could not be held entitled to much weight. In general, and perhaps with this sole exception, our later writers agree entirely with their predecessors, both as to the nature and the propriety of the primitive usage. This will appear sufficiently from the testimonies that follow.

In Brevint's Missale Romanum, published in 1672, we are told that anciently "no man was suffered to stand or remain in the church that either could not, or would not, receive the Holy Sacrament; and, therefore, such persons, of what condition soever, as had a mind only to see and hear what was then said and done, were all without any exception dismissed, and, if need were, turned out, after one of the deacons or exorcists, had cried out with a loud voice, "Si quis non communicat, det locum.” 7

Beveridge, in 1678, commenting on Justin Martyr's description of the Holy Communion, says:-"From these words of this Apostolic man it is clear that on every Sunday or Lord's Day, all the Christians, whether living in towns or in the country, were wont to meet together. When assembled, they heard the writings of the Apostles and other Scriptures, and offered their common pravers and thanksgivings to Almighty God; after which they celebrated the Eucharistic prayers and thanksgivings, that is to say, those by which the elements offered are consecrated to be the mystical Body and Blood of Christ; which being consecrated, were distributed to all present, to a'l who had been at the prayers and heard the Holy Scriptures, and were partaken of by them. No one, therefore, went out before he had been fed with this spiritual food. So that these two Apostolical canons (viii. ix.,) prescribe nothing else, but that the Apostolical discipline of the first Christians described by St. Justin the Martyr, should be strictly observed by all who desire to remain in the Communion of the Church."

To the same effect Payne, an able opponent of the Church of Rome, in the reign of James IL, after quoting Justin, Ignatius, the Apostolic canon, and that of Antioch, proceeds to say :"So great a crime was it for any not to keep to constant communion, which was to be done as much by all the faithful as by the priest himself; every Christian in those devout ages who was baptised, and had not notoriously violated 7 Ch. ii.; p. 12. Oxford, 1672.

8 Codex Prim. Vind. I. ii. c. ii. § vi. Works, v ol. xii. p. 22 Oxford, 1848. See also § v. p. 20.

his baptismal covenant, so as to be put into the state and number of the public penitents, did always communicate as often as there was any sacrament, which was, I believe, as often as they assembled for public worship; and he that had not done that in those first and purest times, would have been thought almost to have been a deserter, and to have renounced his Christianity.. Only the noroi, faithful,

who received the Communion, were allowed to be present at the celebration of it, which is a very good argument against our adversaries' opinion of the sacrifice of the mass; for had they believed the Eucharist, though received only by the priest, had done good as a sacrifice to those who were present, although they did not partake of it, as they now do in the Church of Rome, what need they have put out and excluded all those who were non-communicants?" "8

Nelson, in "The Great Duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice," 1706, interprets the Apostolic canon of those who "did not continue to partake of the Holy Sacrament." "According to this rule the Primitive Christians practised, who never withdrew themselves from the Lord's Supper, when it made a part of the public worship. . . . . Whosoever, therefore, shall neglect to communicate, and retires from the holy table when the banquet is prepared, either does not thoroughly understand his duty in this respect or must be very defective in the performance of it."9 Marshall, the author of "The Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church," 1714, suggests that some brand be fixed upon the practice of joining in the other parts of public worship, and of departing from it without the reception of the blessed Sacrament."10 A suggestion which he founds upon the Apostolic and other canons, and St. Chrysostom's denunciation of those who stayed without communicating. In other words, he thought that all present were bound both to stay to the end and to partake, while allowing, as an inference from the allusion of Clemens Alexandrinus before cited,1 that "in the smaller number of churches" the reception was at an early period left to the conscience of the worshipper.

The notion of a separation of the sacrifice and sacrament, and the corrupt practice in defence of which it is alleged, might have been expected to find patrons, if anywhere, among such of our Sacrifice of the Mass in Gibson's Preservative, tit. vi. ch. ii.; vol. ii. p. 74. London, 1738. Pp. 32, 34; ed. 9, 1727. 10 Chapter iv. p. 163. Oxford 1844.

1 See before in this essay, p. 288.

divines as adopted that view of the Holy Eucharist which is maintained in Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, yet we do not find that they either endeavoured or desired to effect its restoration.

Johnson himself says:-"I only speak of the efficacy of the oblation on behalf of such as were detained from the Communion by some involuntary and invincible obstacle; and am so far from having any good opinion of the solitary masses among the Papists, that I am fully satisfied that in the primitive Church the oblation and communion were inseparable; and that they had but one altar in every Church, where all, both clergy and people, both attended and received." 2

Bingham, who has treated the subject at some length, affirms that "the most ancient and primitive custom was for all that were allowed to stay and communicate in prayers, to communicate in the participation of the Eucharist also, except only the last class of penitents. These only excepted, all other baptized persons were not only admitted, but by the rule of the Church obliged to communicate in the Eucharist, under pain of ecclesiastical censure. Waterland, speaking of the decree of Agde, which ordered all to wait for the Bishop's blessing, says :-" Though the dismission of the non-communicants might be perhaps deferred somewhat later now than in Chrysostom's time, yet dismissed they were before the communion properly came on, and the absurdity which Chrysostom complained of, that of staying out the whole solemnity without communicating, never was admitted in those days." 4

SECT. 3.-By the Rev. Dr. Biber,

THE DOCTRINE AND INTENTION OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AS SHOWN BY HER OFFICES. L-THE PRE-REFORMATION USAGE AND THE EXISTING PRACTICE. II. THE "ORDER OF THE COMMUNION." III.-RESISTANCE TO THE "ORDER OF THE COMMUNION:" ARCHBISHOP CRANMER'S DEFENCE OF IT. IV. THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VI., IN 1549. V.-THE SECOND PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VI., 1552.

IN considering the question whether according to the doctrine and intention of the Church of England the communion of the faithful be essential to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist; and the presence of the non-communicant portion of the congregation, either the whole or Unbloody Sacrifice, ch. ii. sect. ii.; vol. i. p. 401. Oxford, 3 Antiquities b. xiv. ch v. sect i. 4 Review ch xiv. vol. iv. p. 793.

1847.

any of them, agreeable to that doctrine and intention, we have presented to us two facts upon which it is not likely that any difference of opinion will arise, viz:

(1.) That previous to the Reformation of the English Church, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, or, as it was then termed, the

66

Mass," was entirely independent of the participation of any of the congregation as communicants; that besides many private masses connected with superstitious practices, it was celebrated and formed the chief feature of Divine Service on Sundays and Holy-days, and was attended by the people generally; that one essential part of the Celebration, as then ordered, was the "adoration of the Host," connected with the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that the participation of any of the congregation in the service as communicants was a secondary consideration, and a matter of individual concern.

(2.) That up to the present time (with the exception of a few congregations, now increasing in number, in which, as an innovation upon the long existing custom, the practice of non-communicants remaining during the celebration of the Holy Communion has, by the sole authority of the clergy ministering to them, been taught and more or less adopted), the uniform practice of the English Church has been to celebrate the Holy Eucharist,-unhappily through the lukewarmness of the times too unfrequently, at such times only when it may be expected that there will be a sufficient number to communicate with the priest; on all which occasions the non-communicant portion of the congregation, having been present at the previous part of the Morning Service, withdraw; generally after the sermon, or, when an offertory collection is made, after the Prayer for the Church Militant; the remaining part of the Communion Office being considered as a Service intended exclusively for communicants.

The question, then, which under this head has to be resolved, is, in what manner, and with what design, if any, the transition has been effected from the pre-Reformation practice of "the Mass" to the present practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist.

That the change was not a fortuitous one, consequent upon the general changes which took place at the Reformation in the religious belief of the Church of England and her mode of worship, but was the result of a deliberate design

on the part of the Reformers, will probably be admitted by all, and can scarcely require any proof. But although the fact does not call for proof, it may be useful, with a view chiefly to connect the present point with previous parts of the inquiry, to take notice, as occasion may serve, of the views entertained by the leading Reformers, which undoubtedly determined them in the changes they made in the form of the Service.

II.-The "Order of the Communion.” The first change made by authority in regard to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, was in 1547, when a new "Order of the Communion" was set forth by King Edward VI., preceded by "godly Injunctions," and a "Proclamation," authorising and enjoining the use of it. In this "Order" the curate is directed, "the next Sunday or Holy-day, or at the least one day before he shall minister the Communion," to give "warning to his parishioners, or those which be present, that they prepare themselves thereto;" for which purpose a form of exhortation is subjoined, which, or some "such like" exhortation, he is to use. From its opening words, "Dear friends, and you especially upon whose souls I have cure and charge," it is clear that its contents are addressed to all the parishioners,-except of course such as are not qualified to receive the Holy Communion. To them the curate signifies his intention "by God's grace to offer to all such as shall be there godly disposed, the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, to be taken of them in the remembrance of His most fruitful and glorious passion; by the which passion we have obtained remission of our sins, and be made partakers of the kingdom of heaven; whereof we be assured and as certained if we come to the said Sacrament with hearty repentance for our offences, stedfast faith in God's mercy, and earnest minds to obey God's will, and to offend no more; wherefore our duty is to come to these holy mysteries with most hearty thanks to be given to Almighty God for His infinite mercy and benefits, given and bestowed upon us His unworthy servants, for whom He hath not only given His Body to death, and shed His Blood, but also doth vouchsafe in a Sacrament and Mystery to give us His said Body and Blood spiritually to feed and drink upon."

In the rubric following the exhortation from which the above is an extract, it is ordered that

"the time of the Communion shall be immediately after the priest himself hath received the Sacrament, without the varying of any other rite or ceremony in the Mass (until other orders 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 yet 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" (as he would do in a private Mass, which was not yet disallowed), "but take 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" (which the exhortation apparently assumes will be all that are at church that day, after the notice previously given; seeing there is no indication of any separation of the congregation into communicants and noncommunicants), "and shall thus exhort them as followeth."

This exhortation commences, "Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye coming to His Holy Communion, must consider," &c. ; the exhortation continuing in nearly the same words as that now in use in this part of the Office.

After this the priest is directed to address to "them which be ready to take the Sacrament," a warning to this effect :-" If any man here be an open blasphemer," or otherwise a grievous sinner, or one that "doth not trust himself to be reconciled to Almighty God, and in charity with all the world, let him yet awhile bewail his sins, and not come to this holy table, lest after the taking of this most blessed Bread, the Devil enter into him as he did into Judas, to fulfil in him all iniquity, and to bring him to destruction, both of body and soul."

Up to this point it is evident that the "Order" proceeds on the supposition that all the parishioners present will communicate. They are instructed that it is their Christian duty to do so; there is not one word to encourage them to abstain as they had done heretofore, and to limit their devotion to noncommunicant attendance. At the same time the fact is not lost sight of, that there may be those present who are not in a suitable disposition of mind to communicate; and for fear lest the earnest exhortation to do so should lead any to communicate unwrthily,

"Here the priest shall pause awhile, to see if any man will withdraw himself." But it is not supposed that any will do so except on consideration of his unfitness to communicate; for the rubric goes on to say: "And if he perceive any so to do, then let him commune with him privily at convenient leisure, and see whether he can with good exhortation bring him to grace." None, evidently but a graceless person is supposed to withdraw from the Communion; all the rest, it is assumed, will remain to communicate; for to them, "after a little pause," the priest is directed to say, in the very words (but slightly varied) of the exhortation as it stands at present-"You that do truly and earnestly repent" &c., "draw near and take this Holy Sacrament to your comfort, make your humble confession to Almighty God, and to His Holy Church here gathered together in His name, meekly kneeling upon your knees." From the words, "to His Holy Church here gathered together in His name," it has been inferred by some that a congregation must have been present, independently of those who intended to communicate, and in whose name this confession was made. It is evident, however, that these words import nothing more than that each individual among those so addressed is reminded that his confession is a public one before the whole Church, the primitive toμoλóynois, — an observation which had more point than it seems to have to our ears, at a time when private confession was commonly used as a preliminary to the Holy Communion. The idea that the communicants were here exhorted to confess to the non-communicants is so palpably absurd, that it needs only to be pointed out to carry with it its own refutation.

The next rubric is as follows;-"Then shall general confession be made in the name of all those that are minded to receive the Holy Communion, either by one of them, or else by one of the ministers, or by the priest himself, all kneeling humbly upon their knees." Here it should be observed, that this confession is ordered to be made, not by the celebrant, nor yet by one of the assistant ministers, if there be a layman present to make it, and that it is not to be repeated after him (as now)