the contrary, with the settled determination to leave undone, that which He has commanded, there is not only no reason to believe, but every reason to believe that no such manifestation will be vouchsafed to them. It is unwarrantable, nay, highly presumptuous, to imagine, or to teach, that there will or can be anything of the kind; for in doing so we assume that in matters of His holy worship disobedience is equally acceptable to God as obedience; an assumption which is a direct affront to the Sovereign Majesty of the Godhead. Instead of any reasonable ground for expecting that a special blessing will attend such an unauthorized special devotion, there is great reason to fear that He to whom that affront is offered will punish the presumption of those who thus approach Him in disobedience, by confounding their prayers, and sendthem "a strong delusion that they should believe a lie." 3

IV.-Spiritual Dangers of Non-Communicant Attendance.

66

This danger, of being punished by the visitation of a strong delusion" for a presumptuous approach to God in will-worship and disobedience, is not, however, the only danger incident to the practice of non-communicant attendance on the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. There are two special dangers obviously resulting from this unauthorised, and therefore unsanctified and unblest, devotion; dangers which no man will make light of that is aware of the proclivity innate in the heart of man, to idolatry on the one hand, and to unbelief on the other hand.

The more obvious danger, that most commonly incurred through the practice of noncommunicant attendance, is the transfer of the adoration due to God and His Christ in Heaven alone, that adoration which the communicant, the obedient worshipper, pays to the presence of Christ specially manifested to him in that holy Mystery,-from God and His Christ to the

3 In no other way does it seem possible to account for the incredible, the incomprehensible credulity, the readiness to accept the most palpable falsehoods, to put faith in the grossest impostures, which characterizes the Romish system. Surely the striking examples exhibited in our own time of men of the most brilliant intellectual gifts, the highest spiritual attainments, laying their minds prostrate before the most grovelling superstitions of modern Rome, ought to act as a warning to all, how in matters affecting God's worship they venture to depart from the only sure foundation-God's Word, His command and promise-and to indulge in fanciful devices of human invention.

consecrated elements. In the Romish Church, in which this anthorised devotion, or rather this corruption and perversion of the Eucharistic Sacrament, is carried out in the most systematic manner, the "elevation of the Host" for the purpose of "adoration," directly invites this act of idolatrous worship. And there is reason to fear that in our own Church a similar transfer of adoration from its true object, Christ's invisible presence manifested to the worshipper's faith in the mystery of His Body and Blood, to the visible elements consecrated for that mystery, takes place in the minds of many whose Eucharistic devotions, whether communicant or non-communicant, have (unconsciously it may be to themselves), become tinged with ideas borrowed from the Romish Church.4

Singularly enough the same departure from the truth and reality of Christ's Ordinance to which the introduction of the non-communicant element into the Eucharistic Worship of the Church is attributable, and from which the idolatrous "adoration of the Host" has taken its rise, has a tendency, likewise, to beget the very opposite extreme of unbelief. In the absence of that manifestation of Christ's special presence vouchsafed to the faithful and obedient communicant, which makes his Eucharistic devotion a living spiritual reality, a "worship in spirit and in truth," the disobedient, non-communicant devotion, if it does not sink down into a sensuous act of idolatrous adoration, assumes the character of a mental effort, stirring up religious thoughts and emotions within the mind. And these being mistaken for that which alone deserves the name of devotion, of true worship-the communing of the spirit of man with the Spirit of the Living God-there ensues a state of covert unbelief, ignorant and incredulous of the spiritual realities which underlie the doctrine of Christ, while in words that doctrine is adhered to, the state described as "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

V.—Inadmissibility of Non-Communicant
Attendance.

Upon all these considerations there seems to

4 2 Tim. i 5. Has it never occurred to the advocates of what they term "spiritual communion" that this very notion of theirs is the Quaker's warrant for discarding the Sacrament altogether as a "carnal ordinance"? Between that and the idolatry of "the Host" lies in fact the only logical alternative of non-communicant attendance.

5 See Note J, Appendix.

be no room for any other conclusion but this, that non-communicant attendance on the Holy Eucharist, so far from being countenanced or encouraged, or attempts being made to enforce it, ought, on the contrary, to be discountenanced and disallowed. That which is at variance with the Institution of Christ and with the teaching of His holy Apostles; that which was prohibited under severe spiritual penalties by the Primitive Church; that which has been reprobated in the strongest language by the English Church; that which in times past has contributed largely to the decay of true religion, and the all but extinction of the true Eucharistic Worship; that which is of necessity void of spiritual reality, and calculated to bring the mind into a state of spiritual delusion that which is fraught with the twofold peril of idolatry and unbelief.-it can surely never be right to admit into our worship, much less to recommend, to encourage, or to enforce.

VI.-Concluding Appeal: the true Restoration.

May we not cherish the hope that a careful and prayerful reconsideration of the question in all its bearings will lead those who, with the best intentions it may be, have committed themselves to a course so clearly incompatible with their duty to Christ, to the Church Catholic, and to the Anglican Branch of it, to desist from the further prosecution of their attempt to restore the pre-Refor.na tion practice of non-communicant attendance, and of solitary Celebration by the priest? May not an appeal be permitted and successfully be made to them, asking them to bring their energies, their talents, their burning zeal for the cause of the Church, to bear in hearty co-operation with such of their brethren of the clergy and laity as are like-minded with them in the desire for spiritual Church restoration, by making a united effort to effect that restoration which alone can satisfy the heart of a true Churchman, revive in our Church a Catholic spirit, and rekindle in her the flame of true devotion,—the restora tion of the Eucharistic Worship in its fullest and truest sense, as the participation of the members of the Church militant in earth in the true Worship of the everlasting. High Priest in heaven, in the mystery of His most Blessed Body and Blood, that "new and living way which He has consecrated for us?" On such an effort, the effort to realise, as far as human infirmity may permit, Christ's own ideal of His

ith one

Church, all one with Him, in Him another, and through Him with the Father,delineated by Him in His fervent prayer for His Church, and embodied in the institution of the Eucharistic Mystery, on the very eve of His offering himself as the great and everlasting Sacrifice, we may rest assured that the blessing of Christ will descend in fulness of power, and that it will bear fruit in rich abundance, to the increase of true religion, to the salvation of many souls, to the edification of the Church, and to the praise and honour of Him to whom "be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.

Amen."

SECT. 6.-By the Rev. W. E. Scudamore.* REMARKS ON THE PROBABLE RESULTS OF THE ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THE PRACTICE OF NON-COMMUNICANT ATTENDANCE.

ENOUGH, perhaps, has now been said to show both the intention of the Church herself and the conviction of her most eminent divines. There is, however, one more than probable result of the practice now struggling to regain a footing in our country, to which it is desirable that we should advert briefly before we conclude.

That

In the Church of Rome, where attendance at mass without communicating has been for centuries regarded as the chief ordinary duty of religion, a habit necessarily grew up of viewing the host, as exhibited in the hands of the priest and on the altar, with feelings of intense reverence, which led at length to its becoming the avowed object of a direct adoration. Church, with her usual policy, instead of labouring to recal her children to the more healthy simplicity of the first ages, cherished the mistaken devotion by every means at her command, and in the end, at the Thirteenth Session of Trent, declared the worship of latria, that is, the same worship that is paid to God Himself, to be due to the Sacrament. This result was of course facilitated by that unprimitive view of the Real Presence, which she has so long adopted; but it is evident that there is danger of a tendency to the same practice from every extravagance of language upon this sacred subject. And the danger is especially great when the people are taught that by assisting" merely, without communicating, at the "action

This Section, in continuation of Sect. 2, page 325, forms the conclusion of the treatise by the above author, contained in Parts IX. and X.

6 Sess. xiii. De Euch. c. v. and can. vi.

wherein Christ's very Presence is exhibited on earth," they may receive an earnest of "that privilege which is perpetually afforded to the saints in bliss, a foretaste of the beatific vision."

This superstitious tendency has betrayed itself already among the English advocates of attendance without participation. Thus one of them argues in its behalf, that " Anglo-Zuinglians, Anglo-Calvinists, at any rate, who regard the sacred elements as bare signs of a thing absent,' may not on their own principles refuse permission to the devout soul to gaze thereby at Christ, whom the sacred elements represent." The writer of an anonymous tract on Spiritual Communion" seems to be somewhat in advance of this. After supposing this objection :-"Is there no danger of unduly paying worship to the creatures of bread and wine?" he thus endeavours to obviate it "No more than there was danger of Moses unduly worshipping the Burning Bush, when he worshipped our Blessed Lord Really Present in it ;-or rather, since the Bread and Wine become in Reality his own Body and Blood, no more than when those who worshipped Him, as did the Wise Men, in His Visible Body on earth, were in danger of worshipping His natural creatures of human flesh and blood which composed It."s

:

Without desiring to enter fully upon the subject of adoration, which has been much discussed since the first appearance of the work, (of which this is a republication), I feel it right to renew my protest against the sentiments expressed in the foregoing extracts, as contrary to the doctrine both of our own Church and of its primitive model. In the Twenty-fifth Article of Religion it is declared that the Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon.

but that we should duly use them." The Article does not simply say that they were "not ordained to be gazed on ";—that this was not their great end. This was never imagined by any, and it would have been superstition to deny it; but it opposes gazing to the "due use" of the ordinance, and so teaches us that it is no part of that use. By the Twenty-eighth Article we are further taught that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not, by Christ's ordinance, reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped;" while in the declaration appended to the Communion Office the Church not only asserts Wilberforce, pp. 413, 414.

Tracts on Catholic Unity, No. 8 p. 7.

For

her own freedom from this abuse of His insti tution, but affirms it to be idolatry:-"No adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine, then bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians). And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

The teaching of the Church of England upon this point is too clear to be questioned, and her authority will determine the conduct of all her dutiful children. It is a satisfaction, however, to know that her decision is in accordance with the religious wisdom of the first ages, her avowed model in doctrine, and, where it has been possible, in discipline likewise.

By excluding those who did not receive, the primitive Church saved them at least from the temptation to gaze and adore. One reason of that exclusion was, as we have seen it stated by S. Chrysostom, that those who are not in a meet state to communicate must be equally unmeet to join in the Eucharistic Office; but occasionally this objection is expressed in a manner yet more to the point of our inquiry ;as when the same Father says:-"Many laden with numberless sins, when they see the festival come, as if they were driven to it by the day itself, touch the sacred mysteries, which it is not lawful for them, while so disposed, even to see. The author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, describing the celebration of the Sacrament, says :- They remain, who are worthy of the sight and communion of the Divine things."

66

But how was it with those who did receive? It must be confessed that after the second century there was much in the language used by divines with respect to Christ's presence in the Sacrament which, unless explained and corrected by their other teaching, would naturally lead in time to an undue reverence for the material symbols of His death. They never thought of worshipping them, and seldom directed the eyes of the people towards them ;2

9 Hom. de Bapt. Christi. Opp. tom. ii. p. 441. 1 C. ii. sec. 2. Opp. tom. i. p. 315.

2 The strongest instance that occurs to me is in S. Chrysos

5

or

but when they spoke (for example) of "seeing the Lord crucified and lying 3 on the altar, or told their hearers that "He had passed into the earthly element and made it heavenly," warned them not to judge of it by taste or sight, they were certainly, when understood to the letter, laying a foundation on which a less instructed age might build a formal practice of creature worship. We may well doubt whether they were alive to the danger which might result from such expressions. Their own disciples understood them, and we have no right to blame them because they did not foresee the clouds of ignorance and barbarism which were destined, before the lapse of many centuries, to overspread the Church. It has, moreover, been so ordered, that in their writings are found many passages in which they labour to raise men's thoughts above the outward sign, and fix them in faith on the unseen reality which it denotes. We are thus furnished with an incidental protest on their part against the very evil to which the extreme language that they at times employed was calculated to conduce, and with a proof that such language was not prompted by the habit of "gazing or "adoring," or by any sentiment which would have led them to approve of it. Thus Origen:

"Not that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word declare to be His Body, but the word in the mystery of which that bread was to be broken. Nor did He say that that visible drink was His Blood, but the word in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured forth." The Fathers at Nicæa:-"Let us not fix our thoughts unworthily on the bread and the cup set before us, tom, in Ep. i. ad Cor. Hom. xxiv. sub fin. (Opp. tom. x. p. 256):-"This mystery makes earth heaven. Only throw open then the gates of heaven and look through; or rather, not of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens, and then thou wilt see that which has been said. For the most precious of all things there will I show thee lying upon the earth. For as in kings' houses, the most honourable thing of all is not walls, or golden roof, but the person of the king seated on the throne; so also in heaven is the Body of the King. But this it is now permitted thee to see upon the earth." Yet this passage and its context are so worded that they are quoted by Jewel as an instance in which S. Chrysostom "withdraweth the minds of the people from the sensible elements of the bread and the wine, and lifteth them up by spiritual cogitations into heaven." Reply to Harding, art. viii. div. 21; p. 298.

3 Chrysost. de Sacerd. Serm. iii. c. iv. ; p. 42. Oxon. 1844. 4 Gaudentius, Tr. ii. de Pasch. Biblioth. PP. tom. v. p. 946. Lugd. 1677.

5 Cyrill. Hier. Catech. Myst. iv. sec. iii. Opp. p. 291. Oxor. 6 In S. Matt. Ev. Comm. § 85. Opp. tom. iii. p. 898.

66

For,

but lifting up our mind, let us by faith deem that on that holy table is lying the Lamb of God. " S. Athanasius :- Speaking of the eating of His Body, and seeing many scandalized thereby, the Lord said, 'Does this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' for how many would His Body suffice for food, that this should be the food of the whole world? But He made mention of the ascension into heaven of the Son of man with a view to with. draw them from the corporeal notion, and that they might also understand that the flesh, of which He spake, is heavenly food, from above, and a spiritual nourishment given by Him." 8 S. Augustine :-"We receive visible food, but the Sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the Sacrament another." "This,' then, is the bread which cometh down from heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die ;' but it is that which belongs to the virtue of the Sacrament, not that which belongs to the visible Sacrament: it is he who eats inwardly, not outwardly, he who eats in his heart, not he who presses with his tooth." S. Nilus:-"Not as of common bread and wine to the satisfying of the belly do we partake of that awful and desirable table in the Church; but a share is given to us of a small portion by those who minister to God, and we partake gazing intently aloft with the eyes of the soul, that we may be cleansed from our sins, and attain to holiness and salvation.")

Thus thought and spoke the pious teachers of the early Church. With the most reverent belief in Christ present, and "verily and indeed received by the faithful" in this holy ordinance, and though perpetually, as was most natural, and as He Himself had taught them, giving the Name of the Divine Reality to that which signified It, they yet remembered that the symbol is but the instrument that conveys Christ, and not Christ, in absolute identity, Himself. Him therefore they adored, not it. The earthly sign did not detain them upon earth. They looked beyond, they looked above. Through that which 7 Hist. Conc. Nic. Gelasio Cyzic. ascr. c. xxx. Mansi. tom. ii. col. 888.

8 Ep. ad Serap. iv. § 19. Opp. tom. i. P. ii. pp. 567, 568. Patav. 1777. The Eucharist is not expressly named in this passage; but the allusion cannot be doubted.

9 Tract. in Joh. Ev. xxvi. § § 11, 12; tom. iii. P. ii. col. 1983 1 Epp. 1. ii. Ep. cxliv.; p. 186. Rom. 1668.

lay before them, their faith could see, as through a veil, Jesus once offered. The eye might rest on the material sign; but the soul beheld "the

heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

NOTE A. See p. 319.

Alleged compulsory attendance. Cartwright suggested as a remedy that those which would withdraw themselves, should be, by ecclesiastical discipline at all times, and how also, under a godly prince, by civil punishment, brought to communicate with their brethren," p. 117, sect. 3; in Whitgift, u. s., c. v. div. xi., p. 552. On the other hand, in the Admonition, in defence of which Cartwright came forward in his reply, the Church was vilified for too great strictness in this respect, and accused of thrusting men in their sin to the Lord's Table." Wnitg. u. s., p. 553. The latter became the general view of the Puritans, and at the Restoration their wish was to have no rule whatever for the communion of the laity. See Cardwell's Conferences, ch. vii., p. 321. The Bishops in their reply to this demand remarked: - 66 Formerly our Church was quarrelled at for not compelling men to the Communion; now for urging men. How should she please?"-Ibid 354.

NOTE B.-See p. 333.

Permission given to Non-Communicants to remain in a remote part of the Church.

It is to the permissive presence of non-communicants in a remoter part of the church that these passages in Ridley's and Hooper's Visitation Articles and Injunctions must be referred. They were issued in the interval between the promulgation of the First and Second Books when under Royal injunctions, and in anticipation of the change made in the Second Book in this respect, "tables" were substituted for the ancient altars. The order so to place the "tables" that "the minister and communicants may be seen, heard, and understood of all the people there being present," was the best and wisest arrangement that could be devised, after the concession to the popular feeling in favour of a Masslike Service had been made, which allowed non-communicants to be present in a remoter part of the church; since it was evidently better that they should see and hear what was going on, and a check would thus be put upon the tendency to irreverent conduct, which, from one of the rubrics appended to the Office in the First Book, appears to have been by nɔ means

uncommon. That these Injunctions were not meant to give a sanction to non-communicant attendance may be inferred, both from the general views of the two Bishops who issued them,--which were anything but inclining towards the Romish Mass,-and also from the fact that in the Second Book the presence of non-communicants was so far from being even permissively sanctioned, that on the contrary they were in the most peremptory terms bidden to depart from the church. That this change in the Second Book was not owing to any change in the views of the compilers touching the nature of the Holy Eucharist, and the proper mode of its celebration, under the influence of foreign divines, as has been erroneously supposed, is evident from the fact that the direction 'depart" given in the Second Book is in perfect keeping with the views that underlie the first "Order of the Communion," which commanded all to communicate, and made a pause for those to "withdraw themselves" who could not communicate with a safe conscience, and were noted in the Office as standing in need of special spiritual counsel and admonition with a view to "bring them to grace." It was with this view of the Eucharistic Office, as essentially a Communion Service, that the Reformers of King Edward VI.'s time set out; and upon this they fell back, evidently ill-satisfied with the practical result of the concession they had made to popular feeling.

to

66

NOTE C.-See p. 338.

The Testimony of the Lower House of Convocation, Bisho Jewell, Bishop Cosins, &c., against Non-Communicants being present.

As a collateral proof of the fact that the deliberate intention of the Church was to exclude non-communicants, and was understood to be so at the time, it deserves to be mentioned that a paper of "Requests and Petitions of the Lower House of Convocation,” presented to the Upper House in 1562, contains among other articles having for their object the better enforcement of discipline and of the ecclesiastical laws, the following: "That no person abide within the Church during the time of the Communion, unless he do communicate; that is, they shall depart immediately after the exhortation be ended,