ficant. The discipline of fasting is by no means overlooked in our formularies. The ancient fast days are retained in the calendar; fasting is expressly enjoined preparatory to adult baptism and Holy Orders. On two points, however, our formularies are profoundly silent; they say nothing of fasting Communion, and they refrain from determining the forms and modes of fasting. These two points the present sermon undertakes to supply it determines, first, that the Communion is to be received fasting, and, secondly, that fasting means "early" and not at mid-day. Such are Mr. Oxenham's conclusions, and in view of the times on which he founds them he is obviously in error, because in the Primitive Church "early" meant daybreak, and not eight o'clock, and a true fast was not ended till long after noon. But whatever the merits of his private opinion, it is at least a grave canonical offence for any ordained Minister of the Church to teach, as on the authority of the Church, that which the Church has not only significantly declined to authorize, but expressly declared to be neither material nor necessary, and prohibited her teachers from requiring to be religiously held and believed by the people. And Mr. Oxenham has justly subjected himself to the charge of having committed such an offence on this occasion.

Dismissing, then, the unfounded pretence of Church authority, let us see what is to be said for the preacher's view as a matter of private judgment. In the first place, there is a wide difference between "Early" Communion and "Fasting" Communion. The early worship adverted to in the well-known epistle of Pliny (p. 10), was obviously for the same reason that led the disciples to come together in the evening for fear of the Jews (John xx. 19): they were afraid to meet by daylight. For the same reason, perhaps, or from adherence to the time of the institution of the Lord's Supper, the evening continued to be the time of meeting throughout the period recorded in the New Testament. The Sacrament was taken after supper in the Church of Corinth, and though in Acts xx. 11, the actual celebration was after midnight, the Assembly began in the evening (apparently the usual hour), and was only prolonged to break of day by the long preaching of the Apostle, and the accident to Eutychus. Mr. Oxenham would have us believe that St. Paul

* See Note B, Appendix.

transferred the hour to early morning because of the abuses at Corinth; but not a word of this appears in the Apostle's own instructions, and if it were so it would have no more to do with fasting, properly speaking, than the early morning of the Christians, mentioned by Pliny. What the Apostle did tell the Corinthians was not to fast, but to eat and drink at home, instead of in the Church. Neither can the instance at Troas (Acts xx.) be properly called a fasting Communion, since the meeting was commenced soon after the usual evening meal, and only accidentally prolonged through the night. So far as the Scripture shows, then, the original institution and the Apostolic practice was to communicate after supper. The distinction which the preacher tries to draw between the Passover as a sacred meal and other repasts cannot apply to the Agape, or other meals of the disciples in the Apostolic times, nor is such a distinction of meals anywhere countenanced in the New Testament. In short, the New Testament nowhere suggests any connection between fasting and the Holy Eucharist, nor is any such connection implied in the origin of "early" Communions. According to Pliny, they rose up early in the morning and went to service, to escape the observation of the heathen. There was no special reference to the Eucharist in this practice; it applied equally to all other acts of worship, and the same may be observed of Mr. Oxenham's references to other exhortations to early worship-they have no special application to the Eucharist, and are quite as much observed in early private prayer as in early Communions. With regard to the hour, therefore, it is simply a question of convenience and general devotion, without any special obligation from the nature of the Sacrament.

Fasting is quite another thing. It followed at a later period, partly as a consequence from the necessity of night assemblies, and partly from the general value of fasting as a preparation for prayer. Our Lord himself treats it in connection with prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, and it has always been so retained in the Church. Hence, the Lord's Day, and other festivals were preceded by fasting days and vigils, often continuing throughout the night up to the hour of early service. The worshippers then came to the Communion fasting, not, however, to the Communion only or specifically, but to the whole service of praise and prayer.

Now there is no doubt that fasting, as a devotional exercise, is too much neglected among us, and might well be dwelt upon from the pulpit for stricter observance. Our Church has given us the days, but no detailed instructions for the mode of keeping them. Probably she was restrained by the corrupt notions prevalent at the time of the Reformation, and still dominant in the Church of Rome. That Church has substituted a superstitious distinction of meats for the scriptural and primitive fast, which implied an entire abstinence from food, drink, and sleep during the time of its continuance. Be this as it may, Mr. Oxenham's exhortation is not to fasting as a proper accompaniment of devotion in general, nor even to fasting Communion as practised in the primitive Church. He insists on a 7 or 8 o'clock celebration as "honouring the Sacrament," and a mid-day celebration as "dishonouring it." His early communicant may take his usual meals the day before, enjoy a long night's rest, and hastening to the Communion as soon as he is dressed may return to his usual breakfast immediately after. Whereas, one who after his private devotions takes his light breakfast-thereby preventing the feeling of bodily exhaustion, and enabling the mind more earnestly to devote its whole attention to the Service-and then proceeding to church at the customary hour in this country, communicates about noon, is pronounced guilty of "dishonouring the Sacrament." The first has spent the hours between his last meal and the Communion in sleep; the second in wakeful recollection and public worship, yet the preacher praises the one and condemns the other, simply because the sleeping interval was two or three hours longer than the waking one. This is but a poor example of a fasting Communion as practised by the Fathers. When St. Augustine would have the Sacrament received as the first food that passes our lips, he means the first after a long exercise of prayer and abstinence, not the first after a good night's sleep, or a hearty supper. And when St. Chrysostom alludes to genuine fasting as making worthy of the Communion, he expressly adds, "when thou hast received and oughtest to increase temperance thou undoest all," i.e., by an instant resort to food. If the Fathers had to choose between the so-called early celebration and the midday Communion as arranged in Richmond, and other churches, having regard to the domestic habits of this

country they would have pronounced the one as far from fasting as the other, and might not improbably have reversed the preference exhibited by Mr. Oxenham. The eight o'clock service which he insists on may be edifying to those who use it, and it is undoubtedly convenient to some who cannot attend the more usual hour, and these are good reasons for continuing it. But it is certainly neither early nor fasting in the primitive sense, and it involves some departure from Catholic usage, the plain intention of our own Liturgy, and the general practice of the Church of England, since the Reformation, by placing the celebration before instead of after Matins and Litany.

The Church of Rome has a reason for fasting Communion, arising from her doctrine of transubstantiation, which is no less discordant from the primitive and patristic view. Tertullian speaks of the reception of the Communion as breaking the fast; while the contrary is held at Rome, from a belief that the natural substance of the elements is annihilated in the consecration. We must hope that Mr. Oxenham has not been led into this error by the writers whom he has followed; but the gloss at page 18 on the words of St. Augustine is not in the language of the Church of England, and the recommendation of non-communicating attendance at page 17, is quite against her views and those of the primitive Church, as the Bishop of the diocese has conclusively shown in his farewell Charge at Oxford.

We notice with regret an instance of the unfair manner in which Mr. Oxenham attempts to support his argument, in respect to a long extract taken from Mr. Scudamore's "Notitia Eucharistica," to which book the reader is referred. It concludes with a quotation from St. Augustine as witnessing to the then universal observation of the custom of receiving the Sacrament fasting. But the sentence following, which tells directly against his argument, is omitted. It continues thus: "The same Father, however, informs us that there were some who, by way of more signal commemoration, offered and received after taking food 'on one set day in the year, to wit, that in which the Lord gave the Supper itself." This important exception to the rule of the Church, which Mr. Scudamore proceeds to inform us was sanctioned by the Third Council of Carthage, A.D.

4 See extract from the Charge, Part X. Appendix.

397, and not abolished until 300 years after, is thus wholly ignored by Mr. Oxenham.

The latter paragraphs, summing up the purport of the discourse, we can only regard as wholly unjustifiable, considering the occasion, and the position of the preacher." Mr. Oxenham summarily asks the following questions in a tone of dogmatic assumption seldom met with from any clergyman of the English Church. It betrays the desire of the Ultra High-Church school, whose views he represents, to lay again upon us and our children that yoke of "human traditions," for Divine doctrine, which our forefathers not only were unable to bear," but firmly refused to submit to !

"Will you go on refusing to 'hear the Church'?

"Will you go on seeking a blessing from God in a manner in which he has forbidden you to seek it?

"Will you go on offering to God a service which you have great reason to fear that He will never accept?

"Will you go on refusing to give to Jesus Christ the honour due to His Person and His Presence?

"Will you not rather be obedient, when it is God Almighty who bids you?"

Well might the Vicar of Richmond observe, in his very temperate remarks from his pulpit, on the following Sunday after this Sermon was preached (as we can state on reliable authority) that, "having been appealed to by several of the most devout members of his flock respecting the reception of the Sacrament at mid-day, it became his duty, as their Pastor, plainly to tell them, (while reminding them of his own strong preference for early, rather than mid-day Communions, as a pious custom,) that he could not conscientiously teach THAT to be wrong, and an unacceptable service to God, for which he could find no warrant from Scripture or the authority of the Church!"

A due regard to Christian truth would prompt us to ask in return to such a question as the fourth of those demanded by the Preacher,— can he really mean to bring so serious a condemnation against the whole body of faithful members of the Church of England for generations past, as that of refusing to give due honour to the Lord Jesus Christ because they have received the Holy Communion at the customary mid-day Service, in obedience to the 5 See Part VII. Appendix, Note U, p. 236.

call of her ministers, after having taken their light breakfast four or five hours before? The most suitable answer indeed to such teaching, as implied by the above questions, would bethe stern rebuke of Our Blessed Saviour to the Pharisees of old :—“ In vain do they worship ME, teaching for doctrines the commandinents

of men."

So much for "The Duty of Fasting Communion," as authoritatively promulgated in the name of "the Church." There is, however, another aspect of the question, which, although only incidentally and indirectly suggested in the sermon before us, we cannot pass over in silence. It is not altogether on the ground of obedience to an alleged disciplinary law of the Church that the practice of "Fasting Communion" is so strongly insisted on; there is underlying all this a gross carnal conception of the nature of the Holy Eucharist, a misapprehension of the fact, and perversion of the doctrine of the Real Presence, equally pernicious by the provocation to unbelief which it induces in many minds by way of reaction, and by the fomentation of superstitious feelings in a different class of minds, seducing them into a devotional materialism-in other words, into direct idolatry; -idolatry all the more subversive of true faith and piety, and all the more perilous to the souls that indulge in its intoxication, because connected with a depraved view of the operations, and even of the Sacred Person Itself, of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

SECT. 6. THE CANON LAW OF THE CHURCH ON FASTING COMMUNION, CONSIDERED; IN A

REVIEW OF A RECENT TREATISE ON THE SUB

JECT, BY THE REV. H. J. KINGDON. Ir suggests the comparison of a veteran warrior contending with a new recruit, for a learned writer like Mr. Kingdon to take up the controversy so rashly and ill-advisedly entered upon by Mr. Oxenham. When a congregation, however, can be told from a Church of England pulpit that they are "dishonouring the Sacrament, and doing what God has forbidden," in obeying the invitation to draw near and partake at the most usual hour-and at which alone the Eucharist is celebrated in the vast majority of our churches-it is as well to have some real learning expended on the question. "If it be true," Mr. Kingdon remarks, "that some of

6 Fasting Communion; How binding in England by the Canons. By Rev. H. J. Kingdon, M.A. J. Parker & Co., 1873.

these rigorist priests have refused to communicate invalids because the medical man had directed food to be taken every two hours, and have distressed devout aged persons by saying they were committing a mortal sin by supporting their enfeebled nature with a little food before communicating,-if this be true, it is clearly advisable that some enquiry should be made into the grounds of this teaching."

No one really versed in ritual or canon law, would listen to such trifling for a moment; a Roman Catholic priest, even, would repudiate the idea. The mischief is that these sciolists are neither ritualists, canonists, nor theologians; they take up hastily second-hand learning from the ephemeral publications of the day, and, without a glimpse of the real application, assert their own dictum, as the "voice of the Church." Mr. Oxenham might be pardoned for not understanding Tertullian's rugged and difficult Latin; but when he quotes the African Father's letter to his own wife, as addressed to "a Christian lady having a heathen husband" (!) he shows plainly enough how little he has consulted the Fathers for himself. So again, his argument about the Passover being a sacrificial feast, and therefore no impediment to a "fasting" reception at the Institution, is traced by Mr. Kingdon to a blunder of Dr. Littledale's; who, mistaking the evening for the morning sacrifice, imagined the Jews to fast through the greater part of the day, when in fact the most that was ever required was abstinence for two or three hours before the Passover Supper. Mr. Oxenham retails this fiction with references which exhibit a complete ignorance of the whole question. It is examined by Mr. Kingdon with almost a superfluity of learning. The Jews never did (nor do now) enjoin fasting before the Paschal Supper; and if they did, it would be nihil ad rem, seeing that the supposed fast was clearly broken by the Supper itself, before the institution of the Sacrament. Mr. Kingdon adds that Archdeacon Freeman, one of Mr. Oxenham's references, concurs with himself in the opinion that our Lord's Last Supper was not the Paschal Feast at all; — an opinion which we cannot adopt, but which should have certainly prevented Mr. Oxenham, if he read his authorities, from quoting the Archdeacon on his side. There is really no question possible, with regard to the original institution, or any Scriptural authority on the point. Not only is there no injunction or counsel to fast in the New Testament, but ir

every instance there recorded, the Communion, as a matter of fact, was after supper. Even when rebuking the excesses at Corinth, St. Paul did not recommend a preparatory fast, but to "eat at home." No ritualist (Mr. Kingdon justly observes) calls it more than a “præceptum ecclesiae." The only question that can possibly be raised is "how far a Fasting Communion is enjoined by the Church, either in Rubrics or Canons Mr. Kingdon addresses himself to this question by an examination of all the Canons alleged on the subject. We will state the conclusions at which he arrives, in our own words, and then proceed to show how he supports them.

1. In the first place, there is no Canon at all requiring the Laity to receive fasting. All the Canons on the subject relate to the celebrating priest.

2. None of these Canons are those of a General Council, or of any other Council having authority to bind the Church of England.

3. Fasting Communion was at one time the general custom of the Church, but not universally obligatory; nor was there any fixed rule on the length or strictness of the Fast.

4. The ancient custom is now lawfully and judiciously superseded by the better custom of our own Church.

1. As regards lay obligation, Mr. Kingdon disposes of the whole question in this single sentence:- "If a man hunt through the three massy folios containing the Decretum, the Decretals, and the Extravagants, he only finds one short paragraph about the Fasting Communion of the laity; and that no ancient Canon law, nor any Canon of any general or particular Council, but an extract-it may be said an unfair extract from Augustine's letter to Januarius" (p. 18). This "single paragraph" is fully discussed in different parts of Mr. Kingdon's pamphlet, and indeed it is tolerably well known. The African Church celebrated the Eucharist after a public banquet at 30 p.m., on Maunday Thursday, in commemoration of the original Institution. This exception to the general rule is expressly authorized in the Canon of the Council of Carthage, A.D., 397, which forms the chief authority for fasting celebration (p. 20). The Quinisext Cuncil (in Trullo) A. D. 692 (recognized as a General Council in the Greek Church, but not in the West), allows this exception as being "profitable to the Church for some local reasons," but determines for themselves "in

accordance with the apostolical traditions" to forbid this infraction of the Lent Fast as "a dishonouring of the whole Lent." It was the Lent Fast then, not the Eucharistic one, which this Canon was designed to enforce; its language clearly shows that the fast before celebration might be dispensed with on sufficient reason by the proper authority, with profit to the Church. S. Augustine's opinion on the subject, which is not very clearly expressed, Mr. Kingdon translates in this way. "A pleasing idea has attracted some, that on one fixed day in the year when the Lord gave the Supper, it should be lawful that the Body and Blood of the Lord should be offered and received after food, as if for a more striking commemoration. But I think it more seemly that it should be done at such an hour, that he who has also fasted can come to the oblation after the refection which takes place at three o'clock; wherefore we compel none to dine before the Lord's Supper, but also we dare forbid none to do so" (p 19).

On the strength of this passage, Thomas Aquinas, overlooking or suppressing the concluding words, pronounced the exception to be abrogated (though no Canon to that effect can be produced), and "the custom of the whole world to be that the Body of Christ should be taken fasting." This assertion of Thomas Aquinas is positively all the Canon Law for communicating fasting. There is no doubt it was the established custom of the Church of Rome when he wrote, and hence it is enjoined, not only in some foreign Canons never received in England, but in the Penitentiale of our own Archbishop Theodore. These disciplinary Canons, however, have been abrogated, in common with many others, by disuse; and accordingly our English Canonist, Lyndwood, while prohibiting lay Communion without con fession, does not require fasting.

Mr. King lon disposes with equal success of the Council of Constance (A.D. 1415), which has been supposed to be especially binding in England, because our Church was represented there. It is not representation, however, but subsequent reception, which gives authority to a Council, and if the Decrees of Constance are to be held binding in England, we must deny the cup to the laity, with a good deal more that no one as yet contends for.

It is a mistake to suppose that Canons, like Acts of Parliament, continue in force until they are formally repealed. It is not the usage of

the Church to repeal Canons at any time, and very few repealing clauses are to be found. The practice is to re-issue, from time to time, the rules designed to be kept in force, leaving others to be "abrogated by disuse." This is well and conclusively established in Mr. Kingdon's first Chapter. We wish he had more distinctly urged that our own Code of 1603 does in fact supersede all previous Canons of mere discipline, as distinguished from Canons of faith. Now, the 57th Canon of this Code expressly declares that "nothing material or necessary can be added to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as set down in the Book of Common Prayer." This appears to us decisive of the whole controversy, and we earnestly repeat our author's words. "By what right do priests in England say that to communicate otherwise than fasting is a mortal sin? By no right human or divine. If they know the meaning of what they say, it is wicked in them, making the heart of the righteous sad whem God hath not made sad;' if they do not know the meaning, it is unpardonable in them to use such language at random."

2. The same line of argument is pursued in regard to the Canons of clerical obligation. These are of less general interest to our readers; and we can surely leave the clergy to take care of themselves. No layman wants to prevent the priest from celebrating fasting if he chooses; but if St. Augustine is rightly understood to suggest a fasting reception after 3 o'clock in the afternoon, no priest can reasonably complain of our ordinary mid-day communion. The laity can hardly be solemnly adjured to come at an earlier hour, only because the priest cannot wait for his breakfast. It is entirely his own affair; there is no obligation in our Church (as Mr. Kingdon most conclusively shows) for either fasting celebration or fasting Communion; and this is the answer to Mr. N. Poyntz's suggestion of obtaining an episcopal dispensation; there is nothing for an English Bishop to dispense.

Mr. Kingdon reminds us of other Canons far more authoritative than any that can be adduced for fasting Eucharists;-Canons against the ministration of the Cup to the laity; against the marriage of priests and bishops; against clerical beards (which he has seen with "abhorrence" polluting the chalice); against baptizing at other

7 The Fast before Communion, &c." Palmer, 1872,