may not produce a result, certainly not contemplated, but rather to be deprecated. As a matter of fact, an opportunity must, no doubt, be afforded to non-communicants to withdraw without disturbing the order of the service and the devotion of the communicants. Such an opportunity has, indeed, as a matter of custom, been tacitly afforded in most churches by the discretion of the minister; and until our people are educated into a truer and fuller appreciation of their Eucharistic privileges, it had, as a matter of toleration, to be permitted. To prevent the opposite abuse of non-communicant attendance, it seems at last to have become necessary positively to discountenance the latter, in consequence of which it will be all the more incumbent on the clergy to raise their voice in special warning against the idea, utterly abhorrent from the law and custom of the primitive Church, that withdrawal from the Holy Communion is a matter of indifference, and has, by implication, the sanction of the Church. No loophole must be left for the conscience of the non-communicant to consider it a matter of choice whether to remain without partaking, or to absent himself altogether. The arrangements of our Prayer-book are based upon an implied recognition of the primitive principle that on the Lord's Day the celebration of the Holy Eucharist is to be an integral part of the Christian worship, and that all the "faithful" are expected, even as they are all invited, to communicate. Individual disobedience to this principle cannot, in these days of total absence of discipline, be prevented; but it should be made clear, and strongly insisted on, that all disobedience is sinful, whether it take the form of withdrawal from the service, or of attendance upon it in a way contrary to the letter and spirit of Christ's Institution. Of the two, undoubtedly the latter form of disobedience is the more grievous, hurt

same time we must not lose sight of the fact that in those churches where two or more administrations on the same day are requisite, from the largeness of the congregation, a pause becomes necessary at the later communions, to enable those to retire whose duty it is to do so, having already partaken. The propriety for this has hitherto been sufficiently recognized by custom, and no new Rubric would have been needed but for the persistent efforts now made by the clergy in certain churches to force the entire congregation, whether communicants or non-communicants, to remain during the administration of the Sacrament, by not permitting any pause in the Service to take place, in order that the latter may with propriety retire.

ful to the soul which deceives itself by substituting an act of self-invented will-worship for the act of worship enjoined by Christ, and dishonouring to God by the mockery of a pretended obedience, while Christ's command is deliberately set at nought.

Since the perverse determination of a party -full of zeal, though zeal without knowledgeto force upon the Church a novel practice, at variance with primitive usage, has been deemed to have rendered legislative action on the part of Convocation indispensable, we have only to express the hope that the discussion of the subject which has led to the proposed new rubric will tend, as on the one hand, to a more general appreciation of the Holy Communion, so, on the other hand, to a more clear and general perception that "non-communicant attendance" is, in fact, a dishonour to Him whom it professes to honour; and that the ultimate result will be such a restoration of the Holy Eucharist to its rightful place in the Church's worship as alone can make her professed adherence to primitive doctrine and practice a reality.

SECT. 2.-OBSERVATIONS ON "THE FINAL REJOINDER " OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNION TO MR. SCUDAMORE'S "REMARKS" AND "EXPOSURE "*:—(THE RULE OF THE CHURCH THEREIN ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT THE OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION CLAIMED AS A RIGHT.) The English Church Union may be congratulated on the improvement effected in the tone, if not the spirit, of its Committee by Mr. Scudamore's " " of the "Authorised exposure" Reply" to his "Remarks," as evidenced by their "Final Rejoinder." After the vehement onslaught of the former production, it is quite pleasing to find how mildly and gently, and to a certain extent even modestly, the same writers have been enabled to phrase what they term their "Rejoinder," but what we venture to suggest may-with equal, if not greater propriety, be termed their "Recantation." The Council of the Union have no doubt exercised a wise discretion in entrusting the Committee with

*"A Final Rejoinder to the Strictures of the Rev. W. E. Scudamore on the Memorial, Petition, and Authorized Reply of the Council of the English Church Union." London: 11; Burleigh-street, Strand. (Published Sept., 1873.) The Review of the "Authorized Reply "in Sect. 1, had previously appeared in the Special Suppt. to the English Churchman.

this other and final production, on the very intelligible ground that they are 'the best exponents of their own statements." Who, indeed, could so well, or so becomingly, plead that they had altogether been misunderstood, and that in fact they differ from Mr. Scudamore very much less than that gentlemen, and many with him who have heard both sides of the question, were led to imagine?" It is most satisfactory to learn that "they had no thought of saying anything in their former Reply likely to hurt Mr. Scudamore's feelings," and that "certainly they did not mean to treat him with disrespect." It is something to have their frank acknowledgment that they " were apparently unsuccessful in their choice of language," and the expression of their hope "to be all the more vigilant and careful on the present occasion." All this, however, which sounds like an amende honorable, would have been considerably more graceful but for the covert imputation implied in the expression of "their unfeigned sorrow that Mr. Scudamore should have thought it right to 'change' his 'voice,' and 'adopt' in his 'Exposure' a very different style from that employed in his "Remarks." For this, so far as it goes, conciliatory tone towards himself, Mr. Scudamore is indebted to a fear- not altogether groundless-on the part of the Council "lest his strictures on their arguments, and above all, on their honesty, should appear to outside readers unanswerable." Not over-confident, it seems, in the cogency of their "Rejoinder," the Committee judiciously stipulate that "mutual credit should be given for at least honesty of purpose." Considering the mass of sophistry and mis-statement of which the "Authorized Reply" is made up, we cannot but think this a somewhat bold demand; not unlike that of a vanquished army whose commander, finding himself hemmed in on all sides, attaches to his offer of surrender the condition that he shall be suffered to march away

with flying colours, on the principle "tout est perdu fors l'honneur." Such a sensitive regard for their own character for "honesty of purpose" is highly commendable.

With the fruitless discussion on 66 Black Letter Days" and "Waferbread," it is not our intention to weary our readers. We pass on at once to the more important points of the controversy, noting the concessions which the Committee have had the self-denying candour to

66

make. We have it now from their own lips that these "innocents," as Mr. Scudamore terms them, were not unaware of the allegation "would it not have been more "honest "" to say the fact -" of irregular reservations in certain chapels"-bracketed as "private" by the Committee-" of our Communion." How after this confession, extorted by Mr. Scudamore's inconvenient knowledge of their proceedings, can the Committee have the face to say that his demand for a caution against such superstitious abuse of the Sacrament "seemed to the Committee a thing to be deprecated, as on other grounds, so because of the popular readiness to denounce as Popish' the restoration among ourselves of any Western practice, even though it be wholly Consistent with the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England?" What is the meaning of this, if it is not an attempt to defend an indefensible practice by the paltry plea that the chapels in which it is adopted by Clergymen of the Church of England, are not public but private places of worship? Is the introduction into the devotion of the members of the Church of a practice connected with an unlawful purpose-that of idolatrous adoration-less objectionable because it is smuggled in "privately," to say nothing of the fact that those who are guilty of such a perversion of the Ordinance of Christ, hold up their corrupt system as possessing a superior excellence, calculated to produce a deeper spirituality?

Another and not less important admission made by the Committee deserves to be reproduced in full, in the words of the writers, accenting them with italics of our own:—

"The Committee do not doubt, and have never denied (?) that the general rule and intention of the Church was that all the faithful should communicate every Lord's "'s Day; if not, as in some places at the first, every day. It would be surprising, indeed, were any Canon framed in contravention of this principle, and incredible that any Primitive Canon should 'mean' to prescribe that some should only be 'staying, while others communicate.' Fully recognizing (?) the general law and design of the Church, the Committee maintain that those of the faithful who could not, for some just reason, communicate on any given occasion, were at liberty to remain, and were not driven out (these italics are the Committee's) while others communicated.' This

1 See the solemn warning given in Scripture.-2 Pet. ii. 1.

is really the only point in dispute between them and Mr. Scudamore."- Rejoinder, p. 19.

This admission as to what was in "primitive" times "the general rule and intention of the Church," is all-sufficient for those who, with Mr. Scudamore, have contended all along against the principle and practice of "NonCommunicant Attendance," which it is the avowed object of the English Church Union, and of the new sect which it represents, to justify and to uphold. The thirtyeight pages of special pleading by which the Committee attempt to minimize this admission, which in terms they are at last compelled to make, may be of importance to the Committee for the palliation in the eyes of the Council of the false position into which they have betrayed their employers: they will scarcely serve the same purpose in the eyes of the unbiassed reader, and may safely be relegated to the category of "questions and strifes of words without profit," with which, taking the Apostolic counsel, we forbear from intermeddling. The only points with which we are concerned, and for the sake of which we have devoted to this controversy so large a space, are :—

1. As to the intention of the Church in the observance of the Ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ as the basis of Christian Worship, and as the means of realizing through personal Union with Him the privileges and blessings of the Covenant sealed with His Blood.

2. As to the propriety and lawfulness of substituting for the Worship ordained by Christ Himself another kind of Worship more congenial to the corrupt tendencies of human nature, and especially to its proclivity to idolatry.

On the former point the undoubted custom as well as the recorded Canons of the primitive Church are conclusive, as is acknowledged by the "Rejoinder."

On the latter point a simple appeal to the Christian conscience ought to be all-sufficient; and those who do not respond to that appeal may be referred to the painful experience of the Church's history, which furnishes abundant evidence of the decay of true religion, whenever and on whatever plea, the Holy Eucharist has been degraded from a Life-giving Ordinance, replete with the fulness of God, to a ceremonious performance deluding the souls of men.

Since the day when St. Chrysostom fulminated

his expostulations against those Christians who disregarded and set at naught the parting command of Christ to His Church, to the present day, the perversion of His Ordinance which culminated in the Popish practice of "hearing Mass," has become more and more prevalent, to the almost utter extinction, in the practice of the great body of Churchmen, of that which is the root and source of all Christian Life, and of the true spiritual Worship of God through Christ. If the Church of England is to recover from the low state to which she has in consequence been reduced, it must be by a return to Christ's command, and to primitive obedience to it, not by substituting for his commandment the doctrines and traditions of men. It is on this ground, and on this alone, that we have attached so much importance to the controversy that has taken place between Mr. Scudamore and the English Church Union, of which we trust that their "Final Rejoinder" is the expiring note.

SECT. 3.-A FEW WORDS OF FRIENDLY REMONSTRANCE TO THOSE WHO ATTEND AT THE HOLY

COMMUNION WITHOUT RECEPTION.-By the Rev. W. E. Scudamore.

Habitual Communicants who are not prepared to receive on some given occasion may nevertheless desire to remain during the Celebration. If they really feel their present unfitness, and remain to bewail it before God, and by the sight of the blessing of which they are deprived to chastise themselves for their unworthiness, and so deepen their sense of it, such an act of contrition must tend to prepare them for a more fruitful Communion when the opportunity next offers itself.

The Church of England does not forbid us to take such a penance on ourselves; nor is it out of harmony with the teaching and practice of her great model, the Catholic Church of the first ages. According to the early discipline, those public penitents who had given proof of their repentance in the more severe stages of their correction, were still for a given time condemned to this restriction. It was also inflicted for a shorter period, as their sole punishment, on those who had been guilty of lighter offences. Their penance was to behold others enjoying the privilege from which they were for their sins debarred. These were the only class of persons permitted to be present without

receiving, when the discipline of the Church was in its early vigour. All others were required to communicate. We trust, however,

that the precedent is sufficient to justify those among ourselves, who equally penitent, though not fully prepared at the time, are on rare occasions present without partaking.

Many of the Clergy have been forward to claim for their people the liberty of which we have now spoken, and have encouraged them to exercise it on due occasion. Unhappily, however, this liberty has too often become licence; and that which might have been for our wealth has become unto us an occasion of falling. Already in some congregations, owing to an abuse of the discretion allowed, the Communions of once frequent and fervent Communicants have become less frequent if not rare. Already in some churches, where there are two celebrations on Sunday and other Holy Days, those who refrain from partaking often outnumber, even at the earlier, those who partake. Already too we may see at the most solemn performances of these mysteries very many present who have never been Communicants, and have no present thought of becoming so. In a word, many things tending in the end, however unintentionally, to irreverence, to the depreciation of this Blessed Sacrament, and to the injury of souls, have resulted from the manner in which the liberty permitted to us has been too often used. The practice of great numbers is no longer in accordance with the intention and hopes of some of those who began the movement which led to it. It is to be feared that non-communicating attendance is now with too many no tacit confession of unworthiness at the time, no expression of heartfelt contrition and humility. Where it has become more frequent than reception, it evidently cannot be so.

In the absence of discipline, the simplest privilege is apt to be abused, and part of the result which we have to lament might have been

anticipated; but the greater part of the evil is probably due to two causes for which those who claimed only an occasional liberty for the timid Communicant are not responsible. These are the notions, now widely diffused, that one end of the Celebration is to give all, whether communicating or not, the opportunity of "adoring Christ present under the forms of bread and wine," and that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is imputed to those present even though they do not "eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup," by which we "shew the Lord's death." There is no warrant in Holy Scripture or in Primitive antiquity for either of these notions. No such "adoration" as is now too often practised was known for above a thousand years after Christ, and the early Church has taught us by the Fathers that it is only through partaking of the Offering that we can appropriate the Sacrifice.

We cannot lawfully or safely make any other use of this Holy Sacrament than that which alone has been revealed to us by Christ, recorded by Apostles and Evangelists, and handed down to us by the pure and undivided Church of the first ages. If we add of our own to the Ordinance of God, we may well fear lest it be one day said to us by Him on Whose perfect work we have attempted to improve, "Who hath required this at your hand?"

The evils which we deprecate ran their course unchecked in the middle ages, and still form one of the great practical hindrances to spiritual devotion of the truest type in many parts of the Continent. It is, therefore, our plain duty to God and man to watch with the most jealous care lest they again invade our portion of the Lord's inheritance. We must even be bold to intreat those who may occasionally use their liberty with advantage to themselves, to use it with charitable caution, lest their motive should be mistaken, and so their example do harm. "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak."

* See Part VII., Appx., Notes C, Q, R, and U, p. 220-236,

of the Holy Communion. No rule or direction to that effect is to be found in the Communion Service, or in any other part of the Book of Common Prayer, nor, until the recent attempt to revive it, has such a custom been observed in our Church since the Reformation. Having prevailed in early times, though not in the *See Appx., Note D, Bishop of Lincoln's Address.

Apostolic age, it has been generally regarded in the light of a pious and reverent custom, and adopted by individuals at their own discretion as a matter of self-discipline, and an aid to devotion. In this sense no one can object to a practice which is within the limits of Christian freedom. The question, however, assumes a very different and most important aspect when attempts are made to impose the practice as a matter of obligation on the conscience of the Communicant, aud to engraft it as an addi ional rule upon the fasting observar.ces enjoined by our Church.

Besides the primary objection

that it is an innovation unauthorized by the Prayer-book, and unwarranted by Holy Scripture, the enforcement of fasting Communion as a necessary Christian duty involves the practical consequence that the reception of the Sacrament is restricted to an early hour of the day, to the disparagement and neglect of the principal service of the Lord's Day, when the whole congregation assemble in the forenoon for Divine Service, and which it is the evident intention of the Church should culminate in the chief act of Christian worship--the commemoration of the One Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross-for which Morning Prayer and Litany are the preparatory offices, and around which all her services centre as the crowning act of adoration.

The rubric which prohibits the Minister from proceeding to the celebration of the Holy Communion in the event of there not being a sufficient number ready to communicate with him, is intended to guard against the abuse of "solitary Masses "2 at which the Priest alone communicated-an abuse which the revived practice of non-communicant attendance is calculated, and in some instances, we fear, intended to bring back into our Church,-but it gives no authority or justification to the Minister to curtail the principal service when the whole congregation, comprising both Communicants and Catechumens, are assembled, by the omission of the essential part of it-the consecration and administration-(the other portion being merely introductory), unless compelled to do so by the insufficient number of communicants.

This rubric, it should be observed, by which the minister is guided in concluding the service without proceeding to the celebration, is not permissive to him to omit it at his discretion, but

1 See Note A, Appendix, and Part VIII. pp. 241 and 214. 2 See Extract from "Church Bells," Appendix II. (Cover.)

is prohibitory against the administration of the Sacrament, should there not "be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest according to his discretion." That case ought to be an exceptional one, calling for the use of the second Exhortation provided for that end, in giving notice for the Holy Communion—a matter of grief to the Minister, and to be amended by the congregation, on being warned by him of the neglect of their duty. But owing to the evil custom of concluding with the sermon and omitting the administration of the Sacrament, which has grown up in days of lukewarmness, the people have been led to regard their worship as complete without its essential act, and to consider it as a separate Service, and the remaining "to communicate with the Priest," a matter altogether optional.

A much deeper sense, however, of their privilege and duty in this respect, has been evinced of late years by the Laity, and there has been no lack of large and regular attendance of Communicants at the mid-day administrations. But all this increase of earnest devotion on the part of the general congregation is sadly frustrated in some instances by the misplaced zeal of those clergy who, to enforce compliance with their own views of the importance of early and fasting Communion, have restricted the Celebrations (with few exceptions), to early hours, contrary to the feelings and wishes of the majority of their flocks. In some of our parish Churches there are now frequent Celebrations on Sundays and week days at five, six, seven, or eight a.m., for the sake of a favoured minority, while the mid-day Communion Service is, as a rule, mutilated by omitting the administration of the Sacrament, except once a month, although a large portion of the congregation would gladly remain to communicate every Sunday. A serious hardship is thus inflicted upon the regular midday communicants, especially the aged, and those in weak health, who cannot attend fasting, and such an arrangement can only be regarded as an exercise of tyrannical power on the part of the Clergy over the Laity, deserving of very grave censure.

To have an early Sunday morning celebration in addition to, though not in substitution of, the mid-day Communion, in order to provide for the increasing number of communicants in our large parishes, many of whom may be unable to

3 2ud Rubric in Communion Service.