those who depart from the Holy Communion to consider their own spiritual danger, as well as to deter those who remain, from imagining that they can do so safely without communicating, it may, by the goodness of God, be overruled for a great blessing to His Church, NOTE D. pp. 369-83. ON FASTING COMMUNION. (From the Bishop of Lincoln's 4th Address.) . . . . Anything which tends to put an obstacle in the way of actual reception of the Holy Communion, or to obscure the truth that it is a communion; and that the reception of that Holy Sacrament is the paramount duty and privilege to be recognised therein, and is essential to the derivation of any benefit from it; or that tends to make separation among those who ought to be united together in communion with one another in Christ and in simultaneous reception of Him, cannot be otherwise than unpleasing to Him Who instituted that Holy Feast of love, in order to make us thereby partakers of Himself, the Giver of all grace and glory. It is with deep sorrow that I feel constrained to notice certain practices which are creeping in among us, and seem to be liable to this heavy censure, and which, even on account of the piety and holiness of some who are their advocates, are likely to be more hurtful. The Evil One ever tries to use holy men as his chosen instruments for unholy ends, and is never more to be feared than when he is transformed into an angel of light.* . . . The first matter to which I would here advert is the inculcation, and even the enforcement of fasting as a necessary pre-requisite for the reception of the Holy Communion. This condition is now prescribed by many on the plea of reverence, according to which it is said that the Holy Sacrament ought to be the first food that we take in the day; and, secondly, it is affirmed, that except we comply with this requirement, we schismatically set ourselves in opposition to the ancient Catholic Church of Christ. The plea of reverence has not unfrequently been insinuated by the Evil One into the minds of men, in order to draw them from Christ. Fear of Christ moved the Gadarenes to beseech Him to depart out of their coasts.5 Reverence for the Blood of Christ was pleaded by the Council of Constance in the fifteenth century, when they took away the cup from the laity. And there is reason to think that the Evil One destroys the health of many souls in our own day, by suggesting to them that they are safer in fear 6 ing to come to the Holy Communion, and in therefore staying away from it, than in lovingly obeying the command of that Blessed Saviour who said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." To this plea therefore we would reply, that true reverence to Christ is shown by dutiful obedience to Him. Let us therefore ask, What is His will in this matter? To this question it is replied by some, that Christ declares His will by His Church, and that the ancient Catholic Church communicated fasting; and therefore, they add, fasting is to be prescribed to all as a pre-requisite for the Holy Communion. To this we would say, Heaven forbid that we should disparage fasting. We are no followers of Aerius or Jovinian. We readily allow that at the present day we have great reason to humble ourselves for our surfeiting and self-indulgence. We have much cause to repent of our neglect of fasting as prescribed by our own Church. How many there are who care little for her commands with regard to the observance of the Fast of Friday, or of Lent, or even of Ash Wednesday! "Fasting is a good thing; but let good things be done well." Let us not fast with those of old whom the prophet blames, who fasted "for strife and debate." Let us not fast with the Pharisees, in spiritual pride, "to be seen of men," and who boasted themselves to God as holier than others for doing so." Let us not fast with the Montanists, who prescribed fasts of their own private invention, or with the Puritans in our own land, in the seventeenth century, who fasted with churlish singularity on the Festivals of the Church; but let us fast in a spirit of penitential sorrow and humble self-abasement, and dutiful and loving obedience to that spiritual authority, under which we have been placed by the good providence of God. Yes, it is rejoined, this is precisely our opinion. The ancient Catholic Church received the Communion fasting, and in deference to her spiritual authority we are bound to do the same. It is earnestly to be hoped that we shall ever be ready to pay that honour to the ancient Church which is due to her. But even because we feel reverence for that wisdom which God gave her, and for the presence of Christ and of His Holy Spirit in the Church-a presence which He has never withdrawn from herwe must not allow ourselves to be so tied to the letter of laws ritual and ceremonial, as to forget the spirit which gives them life. Nothing is more easy, and nothing more childish, than to lay down as a general rule in such matters, "The ancient Church did so and 80, and we must therefore do the same." . . . . Christ never intended-the ancient Church of Christ never dreamt-that in matters ritual and cere 7 Zonaras, in "Canon. Apost.," 66. 9 Matt. vi. 16; Luke xviii. 12. .... 8 Isaiah lviii. 4. monial (I am not speaking of the Holy Sacraments instituted by Christ for the attainment of ends of never ceasing necessity to all) one fixed and rigid rule should be enforced everywhere and at all times, and that the Church of God should be deprived of the benefit of that ripe experience, which Time, by his goodness, brings with it, and be barred from the exercise of that discretion which is his gift. No: such a supposition as that would be to confound faith with forms, and doctrine with ritual-a fond and fatal mistake. On the contrary, it was well said of old, that it is even desirable that ceremonies should not be the same everywhere and always, but should vary in different places and seasons,' in order that men may not think that religion is tied to ceremonies, and in order that variety of ritual may bring out in clearer light the unity of doctrine. . . ... Our Blessed Lord did not institute the Holy Communion fasting. We read that " After supper He took the cup;" and though there was something very special in the circumstances of that particular act which may well modify its application as a rule for us to follow, yet it may be added, that on another occasion, when there were no such circumstances, He sanctified a meal by administering, as is generally supposed, the Holy Communion, namely at Emmaus, when He was made known to the two disciples in the breaking of bread. The Primitive Church hallowed its daily food by receiving the Holy Communion after it. This prac. tice led to abuses in some churches, especially at Corinth; and St. Paul interposed by his apostolical authority to correct those abuses. It is somewhat observable, that the holy Apostle, who was inspired by the Holy Ghost, does not do what some persons, who are not inspired, teach as needful to be done; he does not command all the Corinthians to fast before they receive the Communion. On the contrary, he says, "If any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation." He certainly contemplates and recommends there that some should eat before coming to Communion. . . . It cannot be doubted, that, at the close of the fourth century, it was the practice of the Church to receive the Communion before any other food, except on one day of the year, namely on Maundy Thursday-the anniversary of the day when the Holy Communion was instituted. On that anniversary it was adminis tered after supper, as a record of the time of its original institution by Christ." All this is readily allowed, and it would be irreverent and presumptuous in us to say that the Church of God did not act wisely and well in this matter. If we had lived in those days, our duty would have been to conform to this rule of the Church. But then it is no less certain that it would be also irreverent and presumptuous in us to take upon ourselves to be legislators in matters ritual, and to impose customs, whether derived from the first century or from the fourth century, in a spirit of opposition to the laws and usages of the particular church in which our own lot is cast by the good providence of God. If some among us are to take upon themselves to import an early fasting Communion from the third and fourth centuries, and to impose it as a matter of necessity, why should not others among us be allowed to import an Evening Communion from the first century, and from the practice of Christ Himself and of the Apostles, and to impose it as a matter of necessity? Surely, brethren, much confusion and division would arise from such a course as this. Our Blessed Lord and His Apostles reclined at the Holy Communion; are we therefore to do the same? Are the ancient agape, or love-feasts, to be restored? The early Christians saluted one another with a holy kiss at the Communion; is this to be practised also? The primitive Christians sold their goods and had all things in common; are our people to be constrained to do the same? In primitive times, the Apostles lived upon voluntary offerings, or by the labours of their own hands;9 is this also to be a rule for us? It was an ancient practice for many centuries to administer the Holy Communion to infants; shall we undertake to prescribe this also by our own private authority?. . . . The hopeless and unutterable confusion which would be introduced by the application of a rule, to which some among us now appeal with such surprising confidence, would be so great that they who apply the rule would be among the first to resent its application to themselves, and to intreat us to set it aside. Nor is this all. If the rule of some ages of the ancient Church, as to fasting Communion, is to be applied and enforced by private men on their own authority, it ought not to be applied partially, but with all its concomitant circumstances which gave a reasonableness to it. 7 See S. Augustine, Epist. liv. 8 and 9. "Januarium." vol. ii., pp. 189, 190, ed. Gaume. "ocil. Carth.," iii., can. 29, from which it appears also that the Communion was usually administered in the morning early, and not "pomeridiano tempore." On that day, as St. Augustine says, "ad Januarium," 190, when the Communion was administered in the afternoon," neminem cogimus ante dominicam illam cœnam prandere, sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus." 9 Acts. xx, 34. 8 Acts ii. 44; iv. 37. 1 Cp. Bingham, XV., iv. 7. As I have said, in that primitive age Holy Communion was administered very early in the morning, and often before daybreak; and therefore it was not then a rigid and harsh thing to say, "Let the Holy Sacrament be the first food taken by thee in the day. Break not thy fast before the day breaks." But this is not the case now. The Church of England, being warned by the example of other Churches, which require fasting as a pre-requisite for the Holy Communion; and seeing that the reception of the Holy Communion, which is the main thing to be required of all Christians, is hindered by that requirement, and that the number of actual communicants in those Churches is miserably small; and that persons who have communicated early in the morning in those Churches, or even have been present at an early celebration without communicating, imagine that the principal religious duty of the day is over, and then spend the rest of the Lord's Day in worldly dissipation; and that in many places private masses, in which the priest is the only recipient, have usurped the place of Communions,-has profited by her experience, and, in the exercise of a wise discretion, and actuated by a spirit of charity for her children, while she encourages early Communion as a blessed beginning of any day in our lives-and especially of the Lord's Day.... also deems that the Holy Communion is as it were, the apex and crown of Christian worship, and she seems rather to recommend, by the structure of her services, which lead the worshipper upward by a long and gradual ascent of preparatory litanies, intercessions, lauds and thanksgivings, to the Holy Eucharist, as their culminating point and glorious consummation, that it should be administered later in the day. This being the case, she has not ventured to prescribe fasting to her clergy or her people as a necessary pre-requisite for the administration and reception of the Holy Communion. Brethren, the law of the Church is the law of Christ; and the law of Christ is love. And Christ, Who condemned the Pharisees for blaming His disciples when they walked through the corn-fields on a Sabbath Day, and plucked the ears of corn and ate them when they were hungry,' and Who would not send away the multitudes fasting from the desertplace, lest they should faint by the way, but worked a miracle to feed them, would not censure those who temperately and sparingly satisfy the cravings of nature, which is His work, in order to do Him service; but would rather, perhaps, blame those who would set aside the higher law of charity, on the plea of zeal for a ritual law which does not even oblige those on whom they would impose it. It may be said that the answer to all this is, Let the parish priest have early Communion. Doubtless, 2 See Archdn. Freeman's "Princip. Div. Serv.," vol. i., ch. iv. 8 Matt. xii. 1-8. Matt. xv. 32. he will have often an early Celebration; but this cannot be his practice always, if he desires to gather round the Lord's Table a goodly number of communicants; nor does this seem to be the intention of the Church of England. But we may go further. We need not scruple to say that any members of the Church of England who, on the plea of reverence for the authority of the ancient Church, venture to require fasting as a condition of administering and receiving the Holy Communion, not only set themselves up against the authority of the Church of England, which, for the most part, administers the Holy Communion at midday, or even later, on Sundays, but even against that ancient Church to which they appeal. For what do such persons do? They change Sunday from a festival into a fast-day, and would require others to do the same. They quote Tertullian and Augustine in behalf of fasting Communion; let them, therefore, listen to those doctors of the ancient Church. The ones says that it is "nefas" to fast on the Lord's Day, and the other declares that it is "scandalum magnum "to do so; and the ancient Church declared that if a person ventured to fast on the Lord's Day he ought to be excommunicated,' and not allowed to come to the Lord's Table. On the whole, then, we come to this conclusion. The Eucharist is a feast of love. Let us not separate ourselves from one another, but let us be joined together there in communion with one another in Him. Let us remember Him who said, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." Let not him that fasteth judge him that fasteth not. Temperance and sobriety do not disqualify a man from Communion; but censoriousness and spiritual pride do. "Let all your things be done with charity." "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." Next, let us carefully avoid anything which would have the least tendency to frustrate or to hinder the fulfilment of our Lord's earnest desire and command, that all men should receive the Holy Communion. If in the parishes of the Church of England, where the Communion is administered mostly at mid-day, we impose fasting as a condition of Communion, the inevitable result will be that we shall drive away many who now communicate, from the Lord's Table, and we shall repel many from coming who otherwise would communicate; and thus, by rigid rules of our own making, we should be acting in a spirit of resistance and rebellion against Christ and the Church. Tertullian," De Corona," c. 3: "Die Dominico jejunium netas ducimus; vel de geniculis adorare." 6 St. Augustine, Epist. cxv.; cp. St. Ambrose, Epist. xxiii. 7 Canon Apostol., 56: Εἴ τις κληρικός ευρέθη τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν νηστεύων, καθαιρείσθω, ἐὰν δὲ λαϊκὸς γ', ἀφοριζέσθω. In the epist'es of the so-called Ignatius "ad Philipp," c. 13, such a person is called Χριστοκτόνος. Matt. ix. 13; xii. 7. The two remaining Notes, forming Appendix II., will be found in the cover of this Part. FOLD PART XII. THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER REGARDED IN ITS TWO- -A PLEADING OF CHRIST'S ONE SACRIFICE IN MEMORIAL before God, for HIS ACCEPT ANCE OF THE OFFERING OF OUR WORSHIP. A Treatise by the REV. J. LE MESURIER, Vicar of Bembridge, Isle of Wight. I.-The Question considered:- Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice ?—and, if so, in what sense? In attempting to give an answer to the above question, the real point we are concerned to ascertain seems to be this :-In what exact relation does the Lord's Supper stand to Christian Worship? The undoubted and all-important truth flowing demonstratively from the words of the institution taken in connection with, and so interpreting our Lord's previous discourse of St. John vi., that in it our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the Body and Blood of Christ, even as our bodies are by bread and wine" does not altogether supply an answer to this. To come to be fed by Christ with the "Bread of Life," is not the same thing as to come to worship Him; nor is it, to say the least, self-evident how the two acts stand related to each other. Yet the essential connexion of the Holy Communion with Christian worship is attested to us by the first mention Here we would rest midway, As on a sacred height, That darkest and that brightest Day Meeting before our sight; From that dark depth of woes Thy love for us hath trod, Till, from self's chains released, of it after Pentecost (Acts ii. 42), as well as by the universal instinct and practice of Christians from the earliest days until now. Those who declare the Eucharist to be in any sense a sacrifice do undoubtedly give an answer which meets the case, for every sacrificial act is an act of worship. But then the further question arises "Is it a sacrifice?" and, if so, "in what sense?" 66 Now, almost all, I doubt not, who are earnest to maintain the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, are yet ready to admit fully and heartily that it is only a commemorative sacrifice." And, if we take Chrysostom, 2 Theophylact, or Bishop Bramhall3 as our guides, this is identical in meaning with the "commemoration of a sacrifice," -or rather the latter is the more accurate statement of the two. "We make not another sacrifice, but always the same; but rather we make (εργαζόμεθα) & commemoration (ανάμνησιν) of a sacrifice." Bishop Bramhall writes: "Protestants acknowledge (1st) spiritual and eucharistical sacrifices, as prayers, praises, a contrite 1 I would draw attention to Canon Trevor's Treatise on "Sacrifice and Participation of the Holy Eucharist," 1st Edition, (J. & C. Mozley)—a work by all means to be read on this subject. (See Part IV.) The 2nd Edition is in preparation. 2 Chrysostom on Hebrew X. Quoted by Canon Trevor, p. 7. 3 Bramhall's works (Anglo. Cath. Libr.) Vol. V. 221. Part IV., Discourse VII." Protestants' Ordination Defended." T heart, alms, and the like; (2ndly) a commemoration, or a representative sacrifice, in the Holy Eucharist; (3rdly) they teach that this is not 'nuda commemoratio'-' a bare commemoration' without efficacy, but that the blessed Sacrament is a means ordained by Christ to render us capable, and to apply unto us the virtue of that all-sufficient Sacrifice of infinite value which Christ made upon the Cross, which is as far as the moderate Romanists dare go in distinct and particular expressions." "Whatever power the Holy Eucharist hath is in relation to the Sacrifice of Christ, as a means ordained to apply that to true believers." The above passage, in clearness and precision, seems to leave nothing more that can be required to be said; what follows is to shew how this is taught in Scripture, and to endeavour to clear away some confusion of thought which seems painfully to hang about this subject. II. The WHOLE Eucharistic Service, a pleading of Christ's Sacrifice before God. Before, however, entering on our own enquiry it is right to allude to an answer already given in these pages to the question placed at the head of this treatise, and against which nothing in these observations is intended to militate, viz., that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a commemoration of the death of Christ, not only before men, but before God. This has been shown from our Lord's use of the word ἀνάμνησις, compared with the occurrence of the same word, Numbers x. 10, and Levit. xxiv. 7, 8, and the use of the corresponding term μvnμóσvvov in connection with Jewish sacrificial worship. It is confirmed by the simple fact of its ever having been connected with public worship, which is unquestionably a service "before God," and further by the insertion in all the ancient Liturgies of a special verbal commemoration of the sufferings and death of Christ with prayer and praise to God, before the offering of the bread and wine. Thus the whole service has an aspect God-ward as well as man-ward; and in the words of Bishop Bramhall, 66 we acknowledge a representation of that action [the Sacrifice on the Cross] to God the Father; we acknowledge an impetration of the benefit of it," as well as 66 we maintain an application of its virtue." Or, in the words of a living writer, 5 which will probably commend themselves to See Note A, Appendix. Also Canon Trevor's work, Pt. IV. Epist. to M. de la Milletiere, Anglo-Cath. Libr., Vol. 1., 54 (quoted by Bishop Harold Browne-Art. XXXI., p. 746.) all, "What we do in words when we add to our prayers 'through Jesus Christ our Lord,' that we do in act in the Eucharist, viz., plead with God the once offered, never-to-be-repeated Sacrifice of Christ in an ordinance of His own appointment." III.-FIRST BEGINNING of a change of language about the 3rd century, seen in the writings of St. Cyprian. This does, of course, supply a real bond between the Lord's Supper and Christian worship, and if it is argued further, as it is,—that by analogy, the term sacrifice may be reasonably applied to a service, in which we plead Christ's Sacrifice past-as the Jews in their sacrifices looked forward to it as yet to come,— we have no wish to raise contention on this question of terms, so long as the sense in which the word is used is ever borne in mind. But it does seem of much importance to remember that the application of the term "sacrifice” or "oblation" to the commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ's death was utterly unknown in the Church till the middle of the third century; and further, that seeing (as has been already elsewhere shewn) that the verbal commemoration of Christ's death was always made in the early Liturgies at the offering of the elements before the completion of the consecration" (i.e., although after the recital of our Lord's words of institation, yet before the Invocation or prayer that by the presence of the Holy Ghost they might 6 "The Oblation.] This name attached itself to the Holy Eucharist from the several offerings or oblations (#popopài) which were made in the celebration. There is the oblation of alms (in kind or money) for the poor, the elergy, and the fabric of the Church; the special oblation for the use of the altar of a part of the bread and wine already offered as al us; and the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ when the sacrifice of His death is commemorated and pleaded before God in the prayers and ritual action of this most holy sacrament. It does not appear that the Eucharistic commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ was spoken of as an offering before the third century." [See Note B, Appendix.] "The Sacrifice.] This appellation of the Holy Eucharist seems to have run a course parallel with Oblation, to which in sense it is so nearly related. At first the rite was called a sacrifice, on account of the material offerings that were presented at it."-Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica," pp. 12-13 "We need not question that these early fathers, as undoubtedly those after them, believed that the bread and wine offered to the Lord were offered in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, and so, that the Eucharist was a commemorative sacrifice. But it is remarkable that even this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice does not expressly appear before the time of Cyprian." Bishop Harold Browne on the XXXIX Articles-Art. XXXI., p. 739. See Part IV., p. 99. 7 That the Elements are not consecrated until this Proyer is offered, see at length, Thorndike, Vol. IV., p. 50-61. See also conclusion of Note A. Appendix. |