and before the confession of the communicants" (Strype's Annals, Vol. I., P. i., p. 508.) It is difficult to understand by what process of reasoning this fact is claimed as a proof that the attendance of noncommunicants had the sanction of the Church at this period. Even supposing that the Bishops had "refused," as is alleged, to entertain this suggestion, it would only prove that the Lower House of Convocation was more anxious than the Bishops for the observance of the rule laid down by the Church in her public Office, which even their refusal to enforce it could not abrogate. But the fact is that the Bishops gave no such “refusal," as is alleged. Many abuses and irregularities had at this period crept into the Church, which it was attempted at this time to correct, suggestions being made with that view, not only by the Lower House of Convocation, but by several of the Bishops, and by the Archbishop himself. And they all shared one common fate; they fell through; and the reason why they did so is thus stated by the historian. "Many of these things would not go down with the looseness of that age; and it was feared to give the Church too much power; and vice cared not for restraint" (Strype's Annals, Vol. I., P. i., p. 507). To give any weight to the argument deduced from this circumstance by the advocates of non-communican attendance, they must be prepared to assert that the whole of the violations of Church order pointed out in that paper of "Requests and Petitions" from the Lower House had the sanction of the Bishops, and thereby the sanction of the Church. They will scarcely feel disposed to go that length.

Equally futile is the attempt to press Bishop Jewel into the service as a witness for non-communicant attendance. In the course of the controversy between the Bishop and Harding on Private Mass the latter had made an observation to this effect: "I judge that Mr. Jewel, who harpeth so many jarring arguments against private mass upon the very word 'communion,' will not allow that for a good and lawfu communion, where there is but one only to receive with the priest. Verily it appeareth by his sermon that all the people ought to receive, or to be driven out of the Church" (Jewel's Works: Parker Society Vol. I., p. 183). To this the Bishop replies: "O Mr. Harding, how long will you thus wilfully pervert the ways of the Lord? You know, this is neither the doctrine nor the practice of our Church. Howbeit the ancient doctors have both taught so, and also practised the same. Anacletus saith: After the consecration is ended, let all receive, unless they will be thrust from the Church.' And Calixtus saith further: 'For so is it appointed by the Apostles, and so is it observed in the Church of Rome'" (Jewel's Works: Parker Society, Vol. I., p. 186). On looking at the context, and likewise at the sermon on which Harding's charge is founded (see Jewel's Works: Parker Society, Vol. I., p. 19), it is at once evident

that the question here is not whether non-communicants shall be bidden to depart, or allowed to remain, during Celebration, but whether they shall be excommunicated. This was what both Harding and the Bishop meant by the words, "driven out of the Church." Bishop Jewel, taking Harding's words, as they were intended, in this sense, most truly replied that it was neither the doctrine nor the practice of the English Church to excommunicate persons for the offence of not communicating. Had he asserted that it was not the doctrine or the practice of the English Church that non-communicants should quit the Church at the time of the Celebration, he would have asserted a point-blank untruth, of which moreover his adversary Harding could have on the instant convicted him out of the English Prayer Book.

"And

So again Bishop Cosin is cited as a witness for noncommunicant attendance on the Holy Communion, on the strength of a passage in which, commenting on the words ut nobis videtur, which occur in a Canon of the Council of Mentz against the priest's solitary Mass, he says that the Fathers who made that Canon "knew not well whether they should forbid it absolutely and simply if there were no company; as, indeed, better were it to endure the absence of the people than for the minister to neglect the usual and daily Sacrifice of the Church, by which all people, whether they be there or no, reap so much benefit." this," he adds, "was the opinion of my lord and master, Dr. Overall" (Cosin's Works: Anglo-Cath. Library, Vol. V., p. 127). All that Bishop Cosin here affirms is that Dr. Overall was of the same opinion with himself, that the Fathers who made the Canon of Mentz were in doubt which was preferable, to have no Celebration at all, or Celebration by the priest alone. The question of non-communicant attendance is not so much as touched upon in the whole passage, which turns entirely on what Cosin calls " an abuse springing up about Charlemagne's time to have the priest communicate and say Mass, though there were none to celebrate with him (Ibid, p. 126); and has for its object to justify the Rubric in the English Prayer Book which forbids such solitary Celebrations. To ascertain what Bishop Cosin's mind was on the subject of non-communicant attendance, we have only to turn to his Note on the Exhortation, "If ye stand by as gazers and lookers on, &c., usque ad give place to them that be godly disposed." On this the Bishop remarks::-"A religious invective added here, against the lewd and irreligious custom of the people then nursed up in Popery, to be present at the Communion, and to let the priest communicate for them all; from whence arose the abuse of private Masses; a practice so repugnant to the Scripture, and to the use of the ancient Church, that at this day not any but the Romish Church throughout all the Christian world are known to use it, as the Greek, Syrian, Armenian, and Ethiopian liturgies do testify; nay, the Roman liturgy itself

"

is herein full against the Roman practice." And then, having quoted the 9th Apostolic Canon, excommunicating non-communicants, and the celebrated passage in the 3rd Homily of St. Chrysostom on Ephes. i., Bishop Cosin adds:-"So that this preface and exhortation seem to be taken out of St. Chrysostom's words, they are in all points so like one to the other" (Cosin's Works: Anglo-Cath. Library, Vol. V., pp. 98, 99). Yet the advocates of non-communicant attendance would have us believe that Bishop Cosin is all on their side.

Charity requires that such glaring misrepresentations of historical facts, and perversions of the sense of authors quoted, in which the various defences of non-communicant attendance abound, should be attributed rather to haste and ignorance, to an absence of careful research, and to an utter want of critical discernment, than to wilful deception. The instances of a false colouring given to both the facts and the statements alleged are, indeed, so numerous that it is difficult to resist the suspicion of conscious obliquity. It is hard to say, however, how far persons looking, with a strong bias in favour of a preconceived opinion, for proofs in support of it, are capable of weighing evidence with calmness and impartiality; and the benefit of the doubt may therefore cheerfully be given to the advocates of non-communicant attendance, provided they will learn to be more careful and more critical in their investigations, and less positive and contemptuous in their manner of asserting their erroneous conclusions.

NOTE D.-See p. 340.

Maskell-on Omission of Sentence respecting the General Confession.

The reason for this omission has been well pointed out by Mr. Maskell (Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, 2nd Ed., Lond., 1846, Pref. pp. lxxv., lxxvi.), who thus accounts for the original introduction of the clause now omitted. "There is," he observes, "a very satisfactory explanation to be given why some such words should have been inserted. Because the form of Confession ran, according to the old missals, 'Confiteor Deo, beatæ Mariæ, omnibus sanctis,' as well as 'et vobis fratres;' and without entering into the question of the presence of holy spirits with us and among us, when we are engaged in the duties of public worship, I think that the revisers of the Liturgy acted wisely in removing all reference to them on such an occasion; for it was not in any way equired, and they had had lamentable proofs of the practical evils which had followed an unscriptural excess of devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, and of a continual offering up of prayers which we have no authority to assure us will be either heard or answered. But in 1662 the same reasons existed no

longer; men's minds had become fixed in a more pure belief, and a better judgment as to whom prayer should address; namely, the Only Three Persons of the Undivided Trinity. Hence, without specifying before whom the confession to Almighty God should be made, or appearing any longer to limit it to things visible-viz,, the congregation gathered in His holy Name-this passage, as altogether uncalled for, was wisely omitted." The same author, in answer to the supposition that by "this congregation" the-communicants, supposed to remain in the church, are meant, has these pertinent remarks: "It would be a most strange thing, unheard of elsewhere during the whole history of the Church of Christ, that those who with earnest and contrite hearts, in full assurance of faith, are prepared to receive the Body and Blood of Christ and to show their entire communion with Him and with His Church, should first be called upon to make their confession to Almighty God, general though it be, in the presence, not accidental but desired, of the profane, the careless, the despisers, it may be of the unbaptized. . . . Nor can I omit to add, that it was not always 'this congregation,' but in the Order of 1548, and the First Book of 1549, His holy Church.' And could this apply to those of whom I have just spoken? The congregation means therefore the communicants themselves." This argument is yet further strengthened by the fact that the confession was, in the earlier "Orders," directed to be made, not "before," but "to," His holy Church.

NOTE E.-See p. 341.

The Question of the Legal Right of Non-Communicants to Remain, considered.

It has, indeed, been argued froin the absence of an express injunction to depart, since the last revision, that there is no longer any authority in the Prayer Book for the withdrawal of the non-communicants; and a dictum of Mr. A. J. Stephens is quoted from his Notes on the Prayer Book, to the effect that "noncommunicants, if they think proper, have a legal right to remain during the entire administration of the Holy Sacrament" (Stephen's "Book of Common Prayer, from the Sealed Books, with Notes," Vol. II., p. 1173: compare also p. 1185). If this means that there is no power of expulsion provided, and no penalty attached to the act of remaining, it is entitled to all the respect which is due to the legal opinion of so distinguished a member of the profession. But when Mr. A. J. Stephens adds that the non-communicants remaining during the entire administration" is a practice which should be encouraged, and not, as it unfortunately is, discouraged by the clergy," it becomes necessary to bear in mind the wide distinction between the legal opinion of so distinguished a lawyer and his private theological opinion. While the former cannot but

have great weight, the latter may have-as happens to be the case in the present instance-no weight whatever. Mr. A. J. Stephens would hardly contend that it is the duty of the clergy to encourage the laity in doing that which the Church evidently intends that they should not do, whenever it so happens that no power to enforce her intention and no penalty is provided; which the clergy would be doing in this case if they were to act on his suggestion. The question is not what a contentious person may have a "legal right" to do, because the law has made no provision against it, but what, in appointing the Order of Divine Service, the Church really intended. This, and not what may be done in opposition to it, by a strict, or rather a captious, construction of the letter of the law, is what it is the duty of the clergy to encourage among the laity.

NOTE F.-See p. 344.

Meaning of the term "Minister."

The word "Minister" is here used, not, as it is often taken, in contradiction to the word "Priest," but as including both Bishop and Priest, and so designating the λειτουργός. And here it may not be out of place to call to mind the fact that, according to primitive and Catholic rule, the proper minister of the Eucharistic Worship is the Bishop. "Let that Eucharist be accounted valid which is under the Bishop. or him to whom the Bishop may have committed it (S. Ignat. ad Smyrn., c. 8). Even the Bishop himself is in the Eucharistic Worship not in the proper sense a sacrificer, but merely the representative of Christ, the only true Sacrificer, even as he is the only true Sacrifice; offering on behalf of his flock the creaturely elements to which the Word of Christ Himself, being an everlasting, ever-living, ever-efficacious Word, imparts their mystical character as the Body and Blood of the true Sacrifice. The Eucharistic Worship is not a fresh sacrifice, a fresh propitiation, made by the minister, over and above, in addition to, or in repetition of, the Sacrifice of Christ. It is the laying hold, the appropriation, the partaking, of the One True Sacrifice, "the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. x. 10). So far as there is any offering on the part of the Minister and the Congregation of the Faithful, it is the offering of the elements (the Oblation), for sanctification by Christ Himself, through His Word, to the great sacramental Mystery; the essence of the Worship consisting in the participation of the Faithful, both Minister and people, in the Sacrifice offered by Christ in heaven, through those elements so sanctified; and the Minister's part therein consisting in "ministering" the mystic elements-made the Body and Blood of the true Sacrifice, not by the earthly Minister, but by the High Priest in heaven, in answer to the prayers of the earthly Minister and Congregation. This con

sideration alone is sufficient to show how essential to Eucharistic Worship is the Communion of the Faithful.

NOTE G.-See p. 345.

The true Christian Sacrificial Worship.

It is a startling, a painful, and assuredly a fearful fact, that the ordinary worship of the English Church on the Lord's Day has thus come-not in intention, it is true, nor consciously, but in fact-to bear a closer analogy to the sacrifice of Cain than to the sacrifice of Abel. Even the sacrifice of Cain was in one respect superior; for it offered to God something-the fruits of the ground-not a mere lipservice. The "excellency" of Abel's sacrifice, however, and that wherein Cain's was deficient, was that Abel's sacrifice was the sacrifice appointed by God,— the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice through the shedding of blood, without which "there is no remission" (Heb. ix. 22), typical of the true Propitiatory Sacrifice, prepared of old, the Body of the God-man, the Lamb slain upon the Cross. Cain ignored the necessity of such a sacrifice and God's appointment of it; his was such a sacrifice as he himself thought most fit to offer. And does not our worship labour under the same reproach, while the sacrificial Eucharistic Worship ordained by Christ forms no part of it, while the great bulk of our worshippers not only have no desire for, and habitually absent themselves from, that worship, but many of them cannot so much as endure the sound of the word "sacrifice" as associated with that worship; while the very doctrine of the atonement has, in the case of many avowedly, and in the case of many more virtually, ceased to be a part of their creed? And would that reproach be taken away by the attendance on that worship of contumacious worshippers, refusing to join in it according to Christ's command and institution, and substituting for such dutiful and faithful participation a devotion of their own devising, not free from suspicion and danger of idolatry, clearly chargeable with the sin of wilfulness; and, as the Reformers of the English Church rightly judged, incurring the additional guilt of open defiance and "derision" of Christ's ordinance? So long as there is "obedience of faith" (Rom. xvi. 26) tɔ Christ, it matters little what form the disobedience takes; one form of disobedience may be more aggravated, more heinous than another; but no form of disobedience in His worship can be acceptable to God; disobedience is disobedience still, and "obedience is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam. xv. 22). Nay more, it is obedience that made, and still makes, the one true Sacrifice, embodied in the Holy Eucharist, all-sufficient and allavailing. Who, in fact, it may be asked-for it is this that the question resolves itself into-are the "Saints" of God, but "those that have made a covenant with Him by Sacrifice," that is, the Sacrifice

no

appointed by Him, in the way appointed by Him as a covenant performance? (Ps. 1. 5).

NOTE H.-See p. 345.

Unauthorised and Superstitious Ceremonies:-" Triple Ablution," &c.

not

Among the symptoms which would seem only to justify such a suspicion, but to render it almost unavoidable, is the affectation of distinctively Romish modes of expression, and imitation of small peculiarities (all the more significant in their imitation, the more intrinsically frivolous they are) of the Romish ceremonial. Judging from these indiscretions -to call them by no harsher name-into which even faithful and otherwise sound clergymen of the English Church are sometimes betrayed, it would seem that to give offence to their brother Churchmen is with them a very small matter indeed. But is it so light a matter to give offence, either in itself, or in respect of the consequences? Not only are individual souls offended, and by a natural process of re-action driven further away from the truth of Christ's Ordinance; but in the Church generally the progress of Church principles is lamentably impeded by the employment of terms, and the adoption of practices, upon which it is morally impossible that the great body of the members of our Church should put any other construction than this, that there is a deliberate design to re-introduce the leaven of Romanism into our Church. More especially deserving of notice and condemnation-as tending to inculcate the notion that the unconsumed elements remaining after the act of communion are per se the very "Body and Blood" of Christ, is the growing practice of "triple ablution" of the Cup. What can be the impression produced upon the mind of the looker-on,-for, remember, it is all done in the Church for the express purpose of being looked at,-in seeing the celebrant wash out the cup, raised high above his head, turning it round and round while at his mouth, and repeating the operation three several times? Whatever doctrinal meaningthis may be supposed to have for the initiated, to the uninitiated it can hardly appear otherwise than ridiculous,-unless, indeed, the sense of ridicule be overborne by the indignant sense of the profanation of the high and holy mystery by making it subservient to ceremonial puerility. Why should the seemly act of rinsing out the cup, instead of being quietly done in the Vestry, which is the proper place for it, be ostentatiously performed in the sight of wondering, and, we fear, in some instances, scoffing by-standers, as if it formed part of the holy rite itself? Is it done to advertise all men: hold, how superstitious I am!" For of superstition, not of reverence, is that performance an unmistakeable indication. With true reverence for the Sacred

"Be

Presence in which he stands, for the Heavenly Substance of which he has been made a partaker, such elaborate trifling with holy things, under pretence of a religious ceremony, is utterly incompatible. The same may be said of another new practice, that of moving the Cup from side to side by way of making a sign of the Cross, in giving it to each communicaut. Should not the very craving after these ever fresh additions to their ceremonial alarm the performers as to the unreality of what they are about? The reality of true spiritual communion with Christ in the highest mystery of His Faith and the deepest wonder of His Grace, leaves no void behind, to be filled up by such vain devices. But the mind, once set in motion in the direction of the fanciful, and, therefore, the unreal, never is, never can be, satisfied, and, accordingly, is driven for ever to seek out "many inventions.” What, we may well ask, would our Blessed Lord Himself have said to this elaborate ceremonial of "triple ablution"? What, indeed, did He say, in Whose pretended honour it is performed? Is it not on record? "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside” -in non-communicant attendance, to wit-"the commandment of God,"-as in this case :-"Take, eat, drink ye all of this;"-"ye hold the traditions of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such like things ye do. Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions !" 1

NOTE I.-See p. 347.

Early and Fasting Communion?

It is no part of the object of the present inquiry to enter upon the questions arising out of the two rules alluded to. Whatever may be their obligation, or their value, it is certain at all events that they are not anywhere referred to in Holy Scripture, nor enjoined by our Blessed Lord. The highest importance that might attach to them can never, therefore, be validly pleaded in support of a direct infringement of a positive command of Christ. And it may well be doubted whether the additional separation of the congregation, not only into communicants and non-communicants, but of the communicants themselves into early and fasting, and late and non-fasting communicants, would be conducive to edification, and to that sense of fellowship of all the members with one another, which ever has formed, and ever ought to form, a prominent feature in the character of the Christian Church, and of her common worship. The splitting up of the Church into sections, some of which think themselves holier than others, was a danger and a mischief which early manifested itself, and which cannot be too carefully guarded against.

1 St. Mark, vii. 7-9.

2 This subject will be fully treated in the concluding and supplementary Part of this Series, next to follow.

NOTE J.-See p. 348.

Danger of the Practice from other Considerations. Many other collateral and subordinate considerations which lie beside the design of the present inquiry might be urged against the attempt to reintroduce the practice of non-communicant attendance; such as, for example, the danger of engendering irreverence, especially in the minds of the young, by habitual prerence at the most solemn act or worship as mere spectators :--the disturbance occasioned to the minds of the communicants, to the inevitable detriment of their devotion, by the presence of a mixed multitude of non-communicants, instead of the solemn stillness that reigns in a congregation consisting of none but communicants;-the inappropriateness of the whole Service to those who do not communicate;-the levity and irreverence displayed during the process of "bearing Mass" in Romish churches;-the perfunctory manner in which both priests and people despatch their "religious duties," observable in countries where Romanism prevails;--their lamentable ignorance of God's Word ;-their belief in all manner of absurd legends and religious impostures;-their habitual desecration of the Lord's Day;-and other practical results of a system of outward observance without the inner reality of spiritual religion.* However deeply we may feel the frightful amount of irreligion that prevails among our own populations, as well as the hollowness of the religion of many of the professed members of our Church, and the consequent necessity of a religious revival amongst ourselves, we may well hesitate to turn for a remedy against the evils and shortcomings of our own Church to the effete system of Romanism, looking at the fruits which it produces wherever it is in the ascendant. A sojourn of sufficient duration to afford opportunities of penetrating beneath the surface of things either at Rome or in Ireland, is notoriously the best cure for Romanizing tendencies. And are not the evils of the Romish system as clearly traceable to its perversion of the Eucharistic Worship in the "Mass," as those of our system are to the general neglect and infrequency of that worship in our Church? Are not, in fact, the communicant portions of our congregations the leaven which leavens the whole lump, and prevents it from becoming utterly stale and unprofitable? And does not this indicate that, not the restoration of noncommunicant attendance, after the fashion of Rome, but the restoration of the Eucharistic Worship to the place which it held in the worship of the Primitive Church, when the whole congregation of the Faithful partook of the Sacrifice every Lord's Day, is the true remedy for our sad spiritual condition?

The Editor takes the opportunity of calling attention to a very ably-written pamphlet just published (April, 1873), entitled "Quousque?-Considerations on Ritualism, by a High Churchman of the Old School," giving practical proof of the need of such warning and remonstrance as above. London: Longmans. 2nd Edition. Price 1s.

EXTRACT I.

Remarks on the Petition of "The English Church Union" to Convocation, in favour of Non-Communicant Attendance, by the Rev. W. E. Scudamore. [SINCE the earlier sections of Part IX. were published in the English Churchman, two documents of some public importance, on the question of Non-Communicant attendance-a "Memorial" and a "Petition "-have been presented to Convocation by "the Council of the English Church Union." They are headed respectively, "Proposed Legislation on the Prayer Book" (Jan. 30, 1872), and “Proposed Rubric against Non-Communicating Attendance during the Holy Communion" (April 15, 1872). They contain statements and arguments, which in several instances attempt to deduce opposite conclusions from the historical evidence which has been shown in the foregoing treatises forming Parts IX. and X., to be conclusive of the Rule of the Church, both Primitive and Anglican, that Non-Communicants should not be present at the administration of the Holy Communion. It is the confirmation of this Rule, by the new Rubric proposed by Convocation, viz., :-" That a pause should here be made to enable those to withdraw who do not intend to communicate"-that the petitioners protest against and condemn. In answer to the assertions and arguments maintained with such apparent authority in these documents, Mr. Scudamore published last year a pamphlet, entitled "Remarks on the Memorial and Petition to Convocation, &c.," which will be found to be a learned and temperate treatment of the questions at issue, displaying a thorough knowledge of the subject, and supported by historical references. We commend the pamphlet to the attention of all who are interested in this question, becoming one of practical importance in the English Church at the present time, and who desire that the truth of the historical evidence on which it depends should be clearly ascertained and made known where, from mere prejudice, or erroneous statements asserted without proof, in support of foregone conclusions, the subject has been so much misunderstood. We extract, as an instance of Mr. Scudamore's treatment of the various points in detail, his disproof of the alleged testimony of Van Espen and Balsamon, produced by the Memorialists as witnesses on their side, and then give entire the concluding portion of his "Remarks."]

THE 8TH AND 9TH APOSTOLICAL CANON. In the Memorial, p. 10, note, we read, "Van Espen, the greatest of modern Canonists agreeing with his ancient predecessors, Balsamon, Zonaras, and Alexius Aristenus, explains these Canons, as purely prohibitory in character, and not at all as enjoining actual participation of Holy Communion on the part of all present. Balsamon's words, as given by Van Espen, are as follows:-Dicere enim omnes nos fideles laicos, et consecratos qui sacra non tractant, oportere quotidie sanctis communicare, alioqui segregari, nec est ex sententia Canonis, nec potest fieri: et ideo nonus Canon dixit puniri fideles qui non permanent, et non addidit eos qui non communicant. Ita interpretare Canonem convenienter II. Canoni Synodi Antiochena."

It is true that Van Espen does carelessly ascribe ingtons, London, 1872.

К

Price Is.