times than Easter and Pentecost; against communicating any one who has not confessed and received absolution; which last is found in Lyndwood, as part of the Canon law of England, an authority not to be pleaded for fasting Communions or celebrations. We have priests administering vows, consecrating virgins, founding religious orders, setting up confessionals, and appointing penances in all the plenitude of apostolical authority. Where did they get this authority? Certainly not from their own Bishops, who would probably disclaim its possession. It is the Bishop (Mr. Kingdon argues) to whom alone it belongs to enforce canonical discipline. He is the judge of what Canons are or are not in force; for every preacher to be coming out with a "voice of the Church" at his own discretion is the overthrow of all Catholic order.

"Surely," exclaims our author, "this is of the essence of Presbyterianism, when the priest thinks that he has inherent in his priesthood powers which have been with general consent restricted to the office of bishop." No bishop, however, nothing short of a Pope, and he only since his accession to infallibility,—could be justified in the language lately heard from the pulpit of St. Matthias' at Richmond.

"By

3. The question thus stripped of fictitious authority is reduced to its true foundation— that of custom. Into the origin and ground of the custom Mr. Kingdon does not enquire, further than to accept it as the general practice in the fifth century to communicate fasting as a mark of reverence; but what was meant by "fasting" is another question. The physical definition of an absolutely empty stomach is not capable of being made the subject of general regulation, since the period of digestion varies in different persons. The Latin canonists, therefore, determine what they call the "natural fast," as commencing with the beginning of the day, which they date from midnight. By this

purely technical rule a priest may sup a little after 11, and proceed to celebrate "fasting" within an hour. There is no trace of such artificial fasts in the early Church. According to Athanasius the usual hour of celebration in Egypt was 9 o'clock, which on fast days was altered to noon, or even 3 p.m. As the people rose with the sun, this would give some hours for meditation and prayer before Communion. It is by no means clear that these hours were to be passed without any morsel of food. Mr. Kingdon well brings out the fact, that the exhortations of St. Chrysostom and others are directed against the excessive meals of the time. A full stomach was, no doubt, unfavourable to reverent communion; but it does not follow that an absolutely empty one was required; or that any definite period of abstinence was enjoined, except on fast days. Mr. Kingdon comes to the conclusion that the jentaculum, a slight refection commonly taken at daybreak, was no impediment to subsequent Communion; and he sustains his opinion by observing that in Acts xxvii. 33, the voyagers are said to have "continued fasting, having taken nothing” for a fortnight, which must obviously admit of some necessary support, though no set meals were taken. In like manner 'fasting" Communion was recommended in contradistinction to a state of repletion, without in the least implying any of the technical or physical speculations of the later schoolmen. The question, in short, was one of reverence and devotion, not of artificial observance, and it was regulated (as all such questions ought to be) with a view to edification, in the then state of social habits.

4. Precisely so, (Mr. Kingdon well argues,) is the question to be regulated now. The introduction of tea and coffee has entirely changed the character of an English breakfast, and the colder climate naturally leads to a later hour of service. The English mid-day communicant, who has taken his light breakfast about 8 o'clock, is quite as much "fasting" as the Egyptian at 9, after his little jentaculum at daybreak. Certainly if the reason of the custom be considered-which after all is the only thing worth considering,-we cannot but think it shows greater reverence for the Sacrament, to approach it after Matins, Litany, and Sermon, according to the full order of the Church, than to hasten, immediately on rising, to the most important Service of the day, curtailed of the preparatory offices, and then return to break

66

fast at the usual hour, under the supposition of having so performed a special act of fasting! Such "fasting" reminds us of the practice of some Colleges, in our undergraduate days, where dinner was served at the same hour all the year through; but on fast days Chapel" was before, instead of after, dinner, in order that we might fast till after Evening Prayer. The result, of course, was that the Fast Day dinner, having no religious service to follow, was more prolonged and luxurious than the Feast! St. Chrysostom, in a passage (also cited by Mr. Oxenham) reprehends eating after Communion more than before; and Mr. Kingdon produces a Canon, attributed to Clement of Rome, requiring a fast of six hours after reception. This is no doubt practically observed, in their subsequent retirement, by many of the mid-day communicants so condemned by these "rigorists ;" and we very much doubt whether St. Clement or St. Athanasius would not prefer them to the Pharisaical priest who (Mr. Kingdon tells us) lies in bed till near 11 o'clock in order to celebrate as soon as he is up!

Trifling as the whole controversy must appear, in the light of primitive practice, it becomes really a serious matter when pressed upon us by this new school of "Rigorists" as a duty of Divine authority binding on the conscience. It was by hampering the Eucharist with these artificial scruples that the Schoolmen fell into their absurd and repulsive speculations, which tend to disgust ordinary readers of average common sense. The practical effect was to discourage Communion, and substitute Eucharistic Adoration, as the chief part of religious worship. This is what our own reactionaries are now actually aiming at; an early Celebration (frequently called "Mass,") attended by the pious few; an exposition" of the Sacrament after the Sermon, or "High Celebration "; and finally -in effect-a Continental Sunday! We recommend the following remarks to the serious consideration of our readers; and we are grateful to the writer for giving us the benefit of his well stored mind on this much vexed question.

"The custom of fasting Communion, with all its various questions of time and manner, has been in abeyance in England for some three hundred years and more. . . . It must

therefore come under the head of a custom or canon abrogated by disuser. . . The custom

arose, as all seem to agree, because of the profanation of the Sacrament by those who had

eaten or drunk to excess. There is little, if any fear that this danger of excess exists now in the usual English breakfast. The introduction of tea and coffee has wholly altered the face of affairs, and with changed habits comes naturally change of custom. Nor, indeed, are there to be seen any symptoms of profanation from the habit of mid-day Communions. Our congregations are now probably more [reverent and] orderly than ever. . . The multitudes who throng our Churches-at all events where the worship of God is rendered with some apparent degree of care-are to all appearance devout and reverent. Those who remain to communicate at mid-day are not behind-hand in exhibiting tokens of true devotion. So that, indeed, we may be able to thank God and take courage, since after so many years of fighting and trouble, indifference and deadness, the Church of England is exhibiting the truest tokens of a true Church; so that the Greek Archbishop of Syros acknowledged, 'The English seem to me to carry their Christianity into their daily lives more than any other nation I have known.' The action of the Rigorists is to break up this; and what do they offer in exchange? One person is reported to have been forbidden prospectively to communicate for two years, as for two years early celebrations would in all probability be out of reach!" [Of course this lady might have fasted till noon if she chose, but then she could not prescribe to others, which is the essence of all such sectarian zeal.] "Many are taught not only to think lightly of Matins and Evensong as acts of worship, but during these services to be occupied with books of private devotion by way of thanksgiving for Communion received, or preparation for future Communion," [or for 'adoration only,'] so that they give attendance without joining in the act of common worship of the Church of God. . . .

"In the earliest Church frequent Communion was the rule; and Gratian, who supplies the one quotation from St. Augustine for fasting Communion, supplies many for frequent Communions. . . . But by degrees the habit of receiving fasting crept in because of scandals. It is said by degrees, because it is quite manifest that, though St. Augustine calls it a universal custom of the Church, St. Cyprian in the third century does not seem to have enforced it; nor did St. Basil, at the end of the fourth century, know of such a binding custom, recluse though

he was; and the annual Maunday with succeeding Communion was not condemned until the end of the seventh century.

"As, by degrees, this custom advanced, the custom of frequent reception receded; and when a subsequent fast was attempted to be enforced, the laity only communicated once a year at the most. It was to correct this sad state of things that the Church of England set herself at the Reformation. She abolished "private Mass altogether, that is, when none but the priest communicated; and, at the same time, she made arrangements for daily Communion, if possible. There had been no rubric in the Sarum use, which was adopted as the " use of the Church of England," compelling the laity to fasting Communion, nor any Canon in Lyndwood; so the question was dropped out altogether.... If now that the blessed Sacrament is more frequented, and danger from excessive eating or wine-bibbing before mid-day has quite passed away, there is a successful attempt made to insist on fasting from previous midnight before communicating; then, in a few years, when youthful zeal has cooled, there will be a return to the perilous neglect of Communion which

existed in late medieval times, and is now generally prevalent abroad. . . . . Indeed, in nine cases out of ten in England, there is more settled quietude of mind after the usual light breakfast than before.

"It was no doubt in view of this danger of the present day, the going back to infrequent Communion, that John Mason Neale gave his dying opinion that since fasting Communion had been abrogated by disuser, and was not binding in England, he could not wish that it should be revived and enforced on the laity living in the world. To this opinion of one above suspicion

of laxity of view, the writer desires to give his earnest adhesion. It is the duty of every Christian to communicate frequently, and with the utmost reverence. Neither Holy Scripture, nor the Church of England, insists on fasting from the previous midnight as a necessity to Communion. Indeed it is impossible to believe that our dear Lord would have instituted the Sacrament of His love during and after supper, if to communicate after food were possible to be, as some say," the sin of the age"; or, as Mr. Oxenham says, "what God has forbidden."

NOTE A. p. 370.

ORIGIN OF THE LITANY.

.

In the Injunctions of Edward VI., 1547, is an order that immediately before High Mass, the Priest, with other of the Quire, shall kneel in the midst of the Church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany which is set forth in English." This Litany, from which our present has been formed by some curtailment and a few other changes, was prepared by Cranmer from the earlier English and Latin forms, and printed in 1544... There wa nothing to disturb this arrangement in the Rubrics of 2 B. E.; and in 1559 it was again expressly ordered in the Injunction of Elizabeth, whose order on this head is, with the exception of one verbal change of "High Mass" into "the time of Communion of the Sacrament," identical in wording with that of Edward as quoted above. Thus it was that the Litany and Communion Office formed from the first one united service, the Morning Prayer being said by itself some time before.-From "Notitia Eucharistica," by the Rev. W. E. Scudamore, 1872, ch. ix., §3, p. 262.

NOTE B. pp. 371, 376.

HOURS OF SERVICE IN FORMER TIMES.

As the Holy Communion has generally followed

the Morning Prayer and Litany, the hour of celebration has varied greatly in our Church. At the last Revision, Cosin proposed, without effect, that the Morning Prayer should be directed to be said between six and ten of the clock. At that time, according to L'Estrange, the hour of Morning Prayer with us was nine in the forenoon, This, however, had at an earlier period been the time of Holy Communion. The usual hour for the solemnity of this service," observes Bishop Sparrow, "was anciently (and so should be) nine of the clock in the morning. This is the Canonical Hour." Heylyn, as already quoted, says: This was the ancient practice of the Church of England. The Morning Prayer, or Matins, to begin between six and seven; the Second Service, or Communion Service, not till nine or ten, which distribution still continues in the Cathedral Church of Winchester, in that of Southwell, and perhaps some others." Sparrow refers to the old Canon Law, in which it was observed, after the third council of Orleans, A.D. 538, that the Celebration should take place at the Third Hour (or nine o'clock), which probably for this reason, was called the Sacred Hour, and in Italy the Golden Hour. . . . On fast days a much later hour was fixed, even at an early period,

from regard to a scruple (respecting which Tertullian is our first authority) lest the fast should be broken by the reception. There is an offering" (on Maundy Thursday), says S. Augustine, “in the morning for the sake of those who dine, but at eventide for the sake of those who fast." S. Ambrose says that on most fast days they had to " go to Church, hymns were to be sung, the Oblation to be celebrated, immediately at the hour of noon." His cotemporary S. Epiphanius, in the East, says that on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year, the Liturgy was celebrated at the Ninth Hour, "because the faithful used to fast on those days."-Not. Euchar. ch. ii. p. 34.

NOTE C.-p. 361-9.

ON NON-COMMUNICANT ATTENDANCE.

From the Bishop of Lincoln's 5th Address to his Diocese, 1873.*

The actual reception of the Holy Communion appears to be endangered by a practice which is now recommended by many, and even enforced by some, namely, what is commonly called "non-communicating attendance," or "spiritual communion," and which in Continental Churches has assumed the form of what is called "perpetual adoration" of the corporeal presence of Christ upon the altar.

66

Our Blessed Lord, when He instituted that Holy Sacrament, said to His disciples, "Drink ye all of this," and it is expressly stated in the Gospel that they all drank of it."8 The custom of the Primitive Church is thus described by Justin Martyr:9" After the consecration, the bread and wine that have been blessed are given to everyone of those that are present." In the words of a celebrated Roman Catholic liturgical writer, Cardinal Bona, "It is certain that in the first ages of the Church, all the faithful, having one heart and one mind, continued steadfastly in breaking of bread, as the Acts of the Apostles testify,2 nor was anyone permitted to be present at the sacred mysteries who could not offer and partake of the mysteries, except those who were under penance; and therefore non-communicating attendance' was in fact like a stigma of shame and a ban of excommunication." The law and custom of the Primitive Church to this effect are stated with clearness and fulness by our own learned writer on "Ecclesiastical Antiquities," Joseph Bingham.3

*Twelve Addresses delivered at his Visitation of the Diocese, by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lincoln. London Rivington, 1873 (by permission).

8 Matt. xxvi. 27; Mark xiv. 23.

9 S. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 65 and 67.

1 ¿kdory (c. 65). This word is repeated by him in c. 67, and there he expressly says that the consecrated elements are distributed to all present, and that all partake of them : ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἑκάστῳ γίγνεται.

2 Acts ii. 42.

3 See Bingham, Book XV., ch. iv., and cp. the Rev. W. E. Scudamore's learned volume, “Notitia Eucharistica," ch. xiii.

It is remarkable that some persons who would impose upon us what is called "fasting Communion" as a matter of necessity, on a plea of reverential obedience to the ancient Church, are also found to recommend, and even to require, "non-communicating attendance," in opposition to the law and practice of the ancient Church, and to the command of Christ Himself. And this is done even on a pretext of reverence for the Holy Sacrament, and for Christ Himself, Who instituted it, not in order to be looked at, but to be received, according to His express command. But all such pleas of reverence are rebuked and rejected with holy indignation by Him who said, "Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"4

66

That the Church of England desires and intends that all her members who have been baptized and confirmed should come to the Holy Communion, and that all who are present at the administration of the Communion should communicate, appears to be certain. In papal times in England, as in Roman Catholic countries now, many were present at the Mass who did not receive, except once a year-at Easter. And the Church of England at the Reformation did not, and could not, at once change that state of things; but she showed clearly what her mind was in this matter. She abandoned the word Mass, which is not older than the fourth century, and she restored the terms used by St. Paul, the "Lord's Supper,"s and Communion," the "Lord's Table," which are meaningless to those who are not partakers of the spiritual food set before them in the Holy Eucharist. She began with inviting the communicants to approach the Holy Table and to take their places in the choir,s and by commanding the rest to depart from it. In the twenty-fifth Article she declares her judgment that "the Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, but that we should duly use them." And in the Prayer Books of 1552 and of 1559 and 1604 and 1637,9 in the exhortation after the Prayer for the Church militant, the minister, if he saw the people negligent in coming to the Communion, was enjoined to say, "Whereas ye offend God so sore in refusing this holy banquet, I admonish, exhort, and beseech you, that to this unkindness ye will not add any more; which thing ye shall do, if ye stand by as gazers and lookers on them that do communicate, and be no partakers of the same yourselves.

Besides, the whole of her Service after the Prayer

4 Luke vi. 46. 51 Cor. xi 20. 61 Cor. x. 16. 71 Cor. x. 21. 8 Rubric after the Offertory in King Edw. VI. first Pr.Book. 9 It seems that these strong sentences produced their desired effect, so far as to deter persons from re.naining in church during the time of the adm nistration, without communicating; for, though repeated in the editions of the Prayer Book from 1552 to 1637, they do not appear in the Prayer Book of the next and final revision, that of 1662. And this agrees with the statement of Bishop Cosin, 1652, quoted below.

for the Church militant is so framed as to be applicable only to actual communicants. It cannot reasonably be used by others. And in her rubrics in the Office, she contemplates that all present will communicate. Thus she says, "This general Confession shall be made in the name of all that are minded to receive the Communion by one of the ministers; all the people kneeling, and saying,"-where it is evident that they who communicate are synonymous with "all the people," and that therefore there are none present who do not communicate. And again she says, "The minister shall first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then proceed to deliver the same to the bishops, priests, and deacons, in like manner (if any be present), and after that to the people also in order." And again, "if the consecrated bread and wine be all spent before all have communicated, then he is to consecrate more;" and again, “when all have communicated, the minister shall return to the Lord's Table."

It is said, indeed, that some portion of the Communion Service is ordered "to be said or sung," and that the singing of that portion implies the presence of a choir, consisting of some who are not communicants. But if persons are fit to sing God's praises at these holy mysteries, they ought to be fit to partake of them. This rubric affords a very good test, whether the persons in question are duly qualified to lead the people in the worship of the sanctuary. Can we imagine that in the Old Dispensation any would be allowed to minister as Levites if they were not fit to partake of the peace-offerings of the altar? Can we suppose that any one could be permitted to be a guest at the Hebrew Passover who did not comply with the Divine command to eat of it? As to the presence of children at the Holy Communion, surely it would reflect discredit on the training of our Church choirs if no Samuels could be found in them, qualified to bless God with their hearts and souls, fcr His love to them in giving them that heavenly food, as well as to sing His praise with their voices for vouchsafing it to others.

If now it be necessary to appeal to a credible witness of the mind of the Church of England in this question of Non-communicating attendance," we may cite the words of one whose authority in the liturgical matters of our own and other Churches stands deservedly high, Bishop Cosin, in the middle of the seventeeth century, who, in his treatise on the religion, discipline, and ritual of the Church of England, written in 1652, describes the Order of the administration of the Holy Eucharist, in the Church of England, and says, "After the Prayer for the Church militant, those persons who are not about to communicate with us, are dismissed out of the Church.”

1 Bishop osin's word's are "postea, qui nobis cum communicaturi non sunt, emittuntur foras" (Bishop Cosin," Works," iv., 359, ed. Oxford, 1851).

46

per

The condition of other Churches appears to show the wisdom of the Church of England in this respect. No one who observes the present condition of some foreign Churches, can doubt that the encouragement of what is called "spiritual communion," and petual adoration," has tended to supplant and supersede the reception of the Holy Communion, and to confirm the erroneous dogma of transubstantiation; and may therefore be not uncharitably called a device of the Evil One acting with insidious subtlety by means of persons having holy intentions in their minds, and holy words in their mouths, and endeavouring, by their agency, to alter and impair the Divine character of the Holy Eucharist, and to deprive the Church of the heavenly nourishment which Christ bestows in that Holy Sacrament.2

But anything that is a breach of Christ's law cannot be otherwise than offensive to Him. And this growing practice of "non-communicating attendance calls also for strong reprobation, as tending to immoral results. It is a compromise between God and the World; and seeks to reconcile the two. Actual reception of the Holy Communion has this practical benefit among others, that it demands previous, strict self-examination, and godly repentance, and the forsaking of sin, and holy resolutions of amendment, as indispensable pre-requisites for that reception. But "spiritual communion" and "adoration" require no such moral preparation. They exact no turning away from the world, the flesh, and the devil, with remorse and shame, and turning to God with the whole heart; and yet he who spiritually communicates and adores, is flattered by others and himself, with the fond imagination that he is performing a religious exercise of high and holy devotion. Verily, as the wise man man says, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."3 And while we are bound to utter

...

a protest against non-communicating attendance," let us not forget to humble and condemn ourselves for our own heartlessness and unthankfulness, and for the lamentable spectacle which is presented in our churches by crowds of adult professing Christians on the Lord's Day, turning their backs with indifference and self-complacency on the Lord's Table, at the very time when the bread and wine, with which He feeds our souls, are placed upon it. Let us not flatter them that they are safe. Let us not speed them forth from the Church with joyous music, and words of peace. No; they are excommunicating themselves, and they ought to hear a solemn warning and wholesome reproof from us.