this interpretation to Balsamon, and thereby make him appear guilty of an inconsistency. But he does not conceal from us that both Balsamon and Zonaras thought differently:

"The text of the Canon, as it is represented by Dionysius in these words, And do not receive the Holy Communion, intimates clearly enough that the Faithful who enter the Church and hear the Scriptures, but do not communicate, are suspended (segregari) by this Canon. And so also Theodore Balsamon appears to have understood it; for in his commentary on the Canon he expressly says, The provision, &c. Zonaras also appears to be of the same opinion."

I only remark here that all this may be seen in the same page and in the same column with the passage so carefully extracted by the compilers of the Memorial, and reproduced in English in the Petition. In the same page also Van Espen actually argues that the antiquity of the "Dionysian reading" is shown by its agreement with the practice of the primitive Church: "For it is a certain and established fact that in the first ages of the Church all the Faithful, having one heart and one mind, continued daily in Communion and Breaking of Bread,' as the Acts of the Apostles witness; nor was any one permitted to be present at the sacred mysteries who could not offer and partake of the offerings; which custom, says Cardinal Bona, evidently lasted a long time." Such then is the witness of Van Espen, when he is allowed to speak for himself.

The passage ascribed to Balsamon is given again in the Petition, p. 5, in English, but is not there scribed to Balsamon, being introduced by the prefatory words, "Beveridge cites a comment on the 8th Apostolical Canon, to the effect that," &c. Now upon this I observe: (1) that Beveridge cannot be said to cite a passage which is merely a part of the text that he is editing; (2) that Balsamon, who does cite this interpretation of the 8th and 9th Canons, calls it "Another Interpretation ;" and expressly distinguishes it from his own; and (3) that the writer of it speaks of himself as a layman, whereas Balsamon was a Bishop; and (4) that Balsamon did on the contrary understand and explain that the Apostolic Canons did "enjoin actual participation of Holy Communion on the part of all present." Here are his own words upon the 9th:-"The provision of the present Canon is most severe, for it suspends those who come to Church and do not stay to the end, nor partake." This then is the real testimony of Balsamon, and it is simply the very reverse of that imputed to him!

Concluding Remarks.

Before I quit this subject, I wish to say that a bare petition, however urgent, against the proposed Rubric, would not have called forth any notice on my part. Even the treatment of the subject in the Memorial, though greatly mistaken in my opinion, did not

induce me to break silence. It was only when that was followed up by the elaborate argument of the Petition, that I felt it necessary for some one to protest against those many and accumulated errors of statement on which the Petitioners so largely rest their cause. It is not right that such errors, though unintentional, should be allowed to sink into the mind of the Church, and to produce fruit in her practice. They must, if not utterly renounced, give a wrong tone and direction to the exercise of that liberty which the Petitioners desire to retain. The holiest cause may be injured fatally, the best and wisest aims of man may be marred and turned to ovil, by the admission of falsehood in the principles or premises on which they first proceed. Would that some friendly hand might be permitted to remove such fertile "roots of bitterness" and elements of sure decay. We could then hope that the present movement, if wisely directed and controlled, might with God's blessing lead on in time to some partial restoration of the true discipline and ancient sanctity of His Church.

All, I suppose, will grant that, if we had discipline, some classes of worshippers, distinctly specified by rule, might with advantage remain throughout the service, for a prescribed or recognized period, without being obliged to communicate; but the use which is now too often made of our present legal, though not intended, freedom is on every account to be regretted, We sometimes see the great mass of a congregation. which has notoriously been brought together by the music, pouring out in an almost tumultuous manner, to the distraction of the devout worshippers, even while the confession of the Communicants is proceeding. If the clergy will not put an end to this by making a pause in the service, during which those who are bent on leaving may do so without disturbing the devotions and shocking the reverence of others, it is certainly time that an attempt to remedy the evil should be made by authority. Again, we may on occasions behold crowds of persons, of whose baptism even we have no assurance, 66 gazing" at the celebration, as at some public spectacle, and among them, it may be, "busy mockers" and scoffers, preparing trouble for the Church of God and for their own souls. At the very best, if we could by any means make sure that only those who do communicate at other times, or are preparing for Communion, should remain without receiving, the former experience of the Church, and any knowledge of human nature, will tell us that without discipline and that carefully sustained, it must end at last in a state of things resembling that which we witness in the Roman Church abroad.

The Petitioners deplore, and I deplore with them the entire neglect of Holy Communion by so many who yet profess to be members of the

Church of England. But we must remember that the same neglect prevails to a still greater extent in France under the system which they advocate, and that it is rapidly gaining ground elsewhere; while everywhere on the Continent there exists, and for many ages has existed, almost without rebuke, another very serious evil which that system is directly calculated to produce and to maintain, namely, a greater infrequency of Communion in the mass of actual Communicants. Lamentably deficient as we are, long observation, reading, and inquiry have given me a profound conviction that, in proportion to our numbers, the devout, intelligent, and faithful Communions made in the Church of England far exceed those of any section, legitimate or schismatical, of the Church of Rome.

In conclusion, I should observe that I must not be understood to impute wilful misrepresentation to the compilers of these documents. I know by my own experience how apt men are, in a hasty search for an authority, to misconceive the meaning of the writer, or to see only what appears to tell on one side of the question, and to pass over what does tell on the other. It is very difficult, too, for some minds, when strongly possessed by a foregone conclusion, to apprehend the full force of facts that are seen by an unprejudiced bystander to subvert the theory to which they cling. Those who would investigate the religious, or even the great social and political, questions of the day with advantage to the Church and nation, require a previous discipline both moral and intellectual, to which few are now subjected, either by their own choice, or by the happiness of their education. Yet nothing is more sacred or important than historical truth; nor has God assigned to man any higher duty than to seek it earnestly and guard it faithfully. There is no hope for a country or a Church in which the past has ceased to be understood, and the lessons which it might read us are perverted or despised.

EXTRACT II.

From the last Charge of the late Bishop of Oxford.

[The strong terms in which the revived practice of Non-Communicant attendance and its consequences are condemned in his parting Charge to the diocese of Oxford, by Dr. Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester, is such an important testimony to the views and principles maintained in this Series, and coming from one who has borne such an influential part in the great revival of Church principles during the last quarter century, that we include with much satisfaction the following extract, by permission, from the Charge, in this Appendix to Parts IX. and X.]

A reasonable growth in the decency and beauty of the externals of worship naturally accompanies and often helps forward increasing devotion, a growing sense of God's presence with His Church, and of the greatness of the service which we ought to render to the Heavenly King. The restoration of our churches, the comely and often beautiful adorning of our chancels, the vast improvement in our church music, the greater order, efficiency, and heartiness of our ser

vices, all instance this, and call for our deepest gratitude to God. . . But whilst I rejoice in this altered tone of our services, I must not fail to remind you that there may be changes, in what look at first sight to be mere outward matters, which do involve great doctrinal questions; and, as by the mere substitution of one flag for another, there may be indicated in a very small alteration changes which reach very far indeed. As to all such changes, it is of course impossible to be too watchful. They may, if they are allowed to establish themselves without question, lead, almost before we are aware, into an alteration of our position as to great and fundamental truths. Thus, for example, our Church and nation did deliberately, at the Reformation in the sixteenth century, reject at once the tyrannous usurpations of the Bishop of Rome, and a whole system of superstitious accretions whick, under the shadow of the Papacy, had, moss-like, overgrown the fair proportions of primitive truth. . . But there is also a set of changes which men may aim at introducing, changes which do not tend to the perfecting of our own system, but to the introduction instead of it of that which is in whole or in part really another. Such changes as these, whether their advocates do or do not see the conclusion to which they are naturally leading, do really symbolize a body different from our own, and tend, so far as they are allowed, to transform our own into it. Suffer me to name to you, as an instance of what I mean, one practice, the growth of which amongst us I view with great apprehension. I mean a tendency unquestionably manifested in certain quarters to change the idea of the Holy Eucharist from a Communion of the Faithful into a function of the celebrating priest. Such a change is in my most mature judgment no lawful progress in increased reverence for that great Sacrament upon the lines of our own Church. I cannot but regard it as the adoption of the view, and therefore of the practice of another Church, to whose doctrine as to the Holy Eucharist it naturally belongs, whereas it is absolutely subversive of that which has been received amongst ourselves. For in strict agreement as we believe with the words of Holy Writ, and with the teaching of the Primitive Church, we do not regard the Communion of the Faithful as an accident of the Holy Eucharist, which may be added to it, or separated from it, at will, leaving the great function of intercession untouched by the omission, but as of the very essence of the Sacrament. So it was at the institution 'Take, eat, this is My Body.' The mysterious Presence and the actual Communion are bound indissoiubly together. So they are in St. Paul's address to the Corinthian Church. The bread that we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? Such was the custom of those first Christians who came together on the first day of the week, not to see even an apostle celebrate, but to break bread, to partake, that is. plainly, themselves, of the consecrated

elements. From this, the solitary Mass of Rome is so absolutely unwarranted a deviation, that we can have no assurance that it does not altogether overthrow the very nature of the Sacrament. It is certain that this practice is most intimately connected, both as to cause and consequence, with the greatest practical corruptions of the Papal Communion. Whatever, then, tends to its introduction amongst ourselves appears to me to threaten the existence of our whole religious system. Such tendencies I see in the attempt to make the celebrations of the Holy Eucharist at our principal Sunday morning service impressive, if not gorgeous, as a display, whilst the congregation are urged to remain through the service as spectators, but not to partake of the Sacrament as communicants. Such a tendency I detect in the multiplication of choral Communions, where few members of the choir communicate. The very purpose for which these practices are recommended seems to me at variance with the true idea of the Eucharist, for, effectual with God, as we doubt not, through Christ our Lord, this great appointed act of the Church's intercession is, I know no ground for supposing that prayer offered up by those who are present at the celebration, but do not partake in it, is one whit more prevailing than prayer at any other time or in any other place. Nor does it seem to me that a surrounding crowd of non-communicants adds any honour to the Sacrament. On the contrary, to remain and not to communicate seems to me to dishonour Christ's institution, and to injure the soul of the worshipper. Far truer, far more reverend, far safer for the unprepared spirit, was the old warning, which before the sacred mysteries, proclaimed to the unbaptised, to the catechumen and to the unreconciled penitent, that he should depart. Against these changes, then, and such as these, I venture, with a parting voice, to warn you.

"Never, so far as I can read the signs of the times, was there a period when re-union with the corrupt Communion which has ever persecuted with a thoroughly Donatist hatred our Reformed Church, was more impossible than now. More and more, by an arrogance which increases with her weakness, by a growing intolerance for truth which she once endured, by a new fruitfulness in error, and by a blind infatuation which looks to me most like to a judicial sentence, which makes her able to forget truth alone and to learn nothing but falsehood, the Papal See is alienating from itself its own Italy, its favourite Spain, its old adherents in Germany, and its most enlightened children in France. At such a moment, we are told, its hopes are concentrated on England. It has always been, it still remains, the special charge of the English Church to resist these insidious assaults. Nor, God helping her, will that Church resist in vain. The sects, like the undisciplined mass whose burning zeal cannot compensate in the terrible time of an invasion for their lack of undisciplined movements and compact organization, would soon fall before her: but the Catholic Church of England, whilst she is true to herself and to her God. can, and in Christ's strength I venture to say will, ward off from this nation so tremendous an evil as its subjugation to the yoke of the Papacy."

EXTRACT III.

From Dr. Moberly's Bampton Lectures, 1868. [The following observations on Non-Communicant attendance, by the Bishop of Salisbury, are also a strong condemnation of the revived practice.}

The observations which I have made upon the primitive doctrine of Holy Communion, as excluding the Roman practice of private Masses, appear to me

to tell with not less force against the recently introduced usage in some churches of the Anglican communion, of persons of adult age, and confirmed, who are therefore capable of communicating, remaining in the Church during the time of the celebration, and witnessing without partaking of the sacrament. Is it supposed that this is a primitive practice? Is it not certain that St. Chrysostom speaks of it in the severest terms when adopted, apparently as a new thing, among the careless and imperfectly instructed Churchmen of Constantinople in his own days? And if other denunciations of it are seldom found in the writings of other ancient fathers, is not the true explanation of the absence of such denunciations to be found in the fact that such an usage was absolutely unknown and unthought of in the early Church? And does it not militate directly against the very fundamental idea of the commemorative sacrifice as the great and solemn offering on the part of the whole Church that men should thus, not refrain only, but exhibit, in a sort of presumption of will-worship, the fact of their determination to refrain from communion? Is it not in fact a part of the natural result, of the logical consequence of the Romish doctrine, which regards the entire sacrifice as completed by the sacrificing priest singly and alone, and ignores the necessary though subordinate part which the Church in her faithful people contributes to the joint act? The only possible place which a faithful lay Christian, or, I would add, a priest not celebrating, can rightly have when the Holy Eucharist is celebrated, is the place of a communicant. If there be reasons and causes personal to himself why he should not on the particular occasion communicate, the same reasonable causes require his absence from the celebration. I say not these things,' says St. Chrysostom, in order that ye should partake anyhow (arλ), but that yo should make yourselves worthy. Art thou not worthy of the sacrifice, nor of the participation? Then neither art thou worthy of the prayers. Thou hearest the crier, who standeth and saith, Depart all ye who are in penance. All that do not partake are in penance. If thou art one of those who are in penance, thou must not partake; for whosoever doth not partake is one of those who are in penance. 'Consider,' he goes on to say, 'consider I beseech you. The King's table is spread, angels are ministering at the table, the King Himself is present; and dost thou stand gaping by? He speaketh these words to all who shamelessly and boldly stand by. For every one who refuseth to partake of the mysteries doth stand shamelessly and boldly by. Tell me, if any man invited to a feast should wash his hands, and sit down, and be ready for the board, and then refuse to partake, does he not insult the giver of the invitation? Were it not better that such an one should not be present at all? In such a way thou didst present thyself. Thou didst sing the hymn; amidst all the rest thou didst acknowledge thyself to be one of the worthy, by not having withdrawn along with the unworthy. How is it then that thou didst remain, and yet parpartakest not of the table?" It is indeed very possible that there is a great difference between the conduct of those who.n St. Chrysostom refers to, and of those who do the like in the present day, that while in the former case it may have been merely a fashion of carelessness and neglect, it is in the latter the effect of theory, and intended as reverence. I do not see that the argument is the less applicable to the one case than to the other, even if this be so, while the theory exemplified in the modern practice is precisely that against which it is my particular purpose to object.

But

SECTION 1.-NON-COMMUNICANT ATTENDANCE : -THE DEFENCE OF THE PRACTICE BY THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNION IN THEIR CONTROVERSY WITH MR. SCUDAMORE, CONSIDERED."

CONSIDERING the real importance of the question at issue with the English Church Union, we were inclined, on the first appearance of their "Reply," to enter our solemn protest against both its matter, as essentially unsound and replete with sophistry, and its tone and spirit, as inconsistent with religious controversy, especially on so sacred a subject as the Holy Eucharist. We deemed it more becoming, however, to await the rejoinder which we felt assured would come from Mr. Scudamore's pen. That rejoinder has since appeared, in the shape of a triumphant refutation of the unfair charges brought against him personally, and an equally

*Authorized Reply to the Rev. W. Scudamore's Remarks on the Memorial and Petit on to Convocation of the Council of the English Church Union. London: Church Printing Company. December, 1872.—An Exposure of the Authorized Reply of the Council of the English Church Union to the Rev. W. E. Scudamore's Remarks on its Memorial and Petition to Convocation. By W. E. SCUDAMORE. London: Rivingtons. 1873.

triumphant confutation of the grievous mis representations by which it is attempted to prop up a system diametrically opposed to the command of the Lord Jesus Himself, and to the law and invariable usage of His Church in the primitive ages. So complete is the demolition of the edifice of sophistry reared up and presented to the world under the imposing title, "Authorized Reply," that further critical examination of it on our part becomes superfluous; and we there. fore confine ourselves to the simple task of indicating to our readers the salient points of the controversy.

Mr. Scudamore calls his rejoinder an "Exposure ;" and a more complete exposure it is difficult to conceive. That it should have been called for is greatly to be lamented-all the more so because it involves an indelible stigma upon a body, many of whose members deserve to be reckoned in the first rank of English Churchmen, and from which, at one time, great things were expected. Mr. Scudamore is, indeed, more than justified in considering it "an omen full of evil augury" to the Church "that a number of

S

English gentlemen of character and position should, notwithstanding the advantages of mutual counsel and assistance, have thought fit to endorse the publication of such a document as the Authorized Reply."" The feeling of concern with which all loyal Churchmen cannot fail to look upon this strange phenomenon is, however, mitigated by the consideration that the evil will work its own remedy. For some time past the character of the English Church Union has been under a cloud, and what may be justly regarded as its latest escapade cannot fail to open the eyes of the many excellent men-clerical and lay,-who were induced by its original professions to enrol themselves among its members, to its present utter mismanagement. This fresh proof of the mischievous use made by its Council of the influence which it has acquired, will, it is to be hoped, convince the members of the necessity of a thorough change in its management. Those who have known the Union in its better days have long noted with regret its gradual descent from the lofty standard of loyal and uncompromising Churchmanship, by which formerly it was characterized, to the low ground of factious intrigue and party spirit stamped upon its action in more recent times. To take the lead in noble designs, resolutely carried out for the advancement of the Church, those who at present guide its counsels seem not to possess either the will or the ability. The promotion of mere party objects has taken the place of the high aims for the prosecution of which the Union was formed, and the maintenance of sound doctrine has been quite disregarded. Neither the insidious attacks of a sceptical rationalism, uor the open assaults of blaspheming infidelity, have provoked the bold and effective resistance which might have been expected at the hands of a body professedly organized for the defence of the Faith. Meanwhile, the tone of its organs, generally supercilious, and not unfrequently scurrilous, has done more to offend than to foster religious feeling, and has brought reproach upon the cause advocated by them. It is well, therefore, for the interests of true religion and the maintenance of Catholic principles, that the disguise should have been thrown off at last, and that the decided preference accorded to the crude theories and traditions of mediævalism over the genuine principies and practices of primitive Christianity should have been as

openly avowed as it is, in the course of the argument put forth by " Authority," and happily (albeit somewhat mercilessly) demolished by Mr. Scudamore. The facility with which he has succeeded in doing this, is, indeed, due quite as much to the clumsiness of his assailants as to his own skill; nor does the tone in which he rebukes the spirit of the attacks made upon him at all exceed the limits of righteous indignation, considering the mass of misquotations, misrepresentations, and insinuations with which he has had to deal.

Turning from the tone and manner of the "Authorized Reply "-discreditable as they are to the body which has been ill-advised enough to entrust the production of that document to hands so manifestly incompetent, and to give it the prestige of its name-to its matter, we hardly know which is more deplorable, the ignorance betrayed by these special pleaders, or the boldness wich which they pervert the clearest evidence, and propound the most groundless assertions. They seem to labour under the impression that the mystic letters, E. C. U., will prove a talisman barring all criticism, and capable, like the harlequin's wand in the pantomime, of effecting the most astounding transformations. Let us take, as an instance of this, the sense put upon the Ninth Apostolical Canon :

"ALL THE FAITHFUL ENTERING (THE CHURCH), AND HEARING THE SCRIPTURES, BUT NOT REMAINING FOR THE PRAYER AND THE HOLY PARTAKING, ARE TO BE SEGREGATED, AS INTRODUCING DISORDER INTO THE CHURCH."

This seems plain enough, and scarcely susceptible of more than one meaning. It is rendered still plainer, if possible, when read by the light of primitive custom, of which an account has happily been preserved by a cotemporaneous writer. St. Justin, who suffered martyrdom in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, has left on record a description of the worship of the Christian Church in his day, which represents it exactly as that which the Apostolic Canon aims at upholding :—

"On the day called Sunday there is a meeting together in one place of all who dwell in towns or in the country, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the Scriptures of the prophets are read as far as time will permit. Then, the reader having finished, the presiding minister, by word of mouth, gives instruction and exhortation to imitate those good examples. After this we all stand up together and offer prayers; and when we have ended prayer, there is brought forth bread and