AND

Luke xiv., 17, 18.

And will faint souls refuse to eat
The Heavenly food while yet they may,-
Their sin excuse with self-deceit,
And cold and heartless turn away?

Teach me, my God! the "better part,"
When I some vain excuse would plead;
What stills not my own anxious heart,
How could it e'er with Thee succeed?

-DR. MONSELL's Spiritual Songs.

tion" of Herman de Weiden, Archbishop of Cologne. As the reformed offices of our Church (of which the first was drawn up in the following year) were to some extent indebted to this work, it will be well to show the direction in which its influence would tell. The clergy are commanded in it to exhort the people "to receive, and not to stand there as despisers of so great gifts which in the Holy Supper be offered to all that are present, nor to make to themselves a hurtful spectacle of a blessed feast."1 It is then shown that in the Primitive Church all present were under obligation to receive, and the clergy are thus taught how to act in the peculiar circumstances of the time without losing sight of, or rather under the guidance of, the ancient principle: "As the pastors then must diligently teach and dissuade them, which with the rest of the congregation

1 Fol. 171. Ed. 1548.

cannot communicate, because they stick in divers open sins, that they be not present at the Holy Supper, and testify unto them that, if they stand at the Supper with such a mind, they do spite unto Christ, and that it shall be damnation unto them; so they must also diligently warn and exhort them which with a good conscience may be present at the Supper, that is to say who truly believe in Christ the Lord, that they receive the sacraments with the other members of Christ. But forasmuch as this institution of the Lord-that all they which be present at the sime Supper of the Lord should communicate of one bread and cup, His Body and Blood,-is so much out of use, and covered a great while since through common ignorance, it shall be needful to call men back again treatably and gently to the observation of this tradition of the Lord." The clergy are therefore not to "fray away" the well-disposed, and "drive them from the holy action of the Supper, while they have any hope of them that they will go forward in the study and communion of Christ."2

By the first statute of Edward VI., passed on the 4th of November in the same year, 1547, the priest was ordered "at the least one day" before the celebration of the Holy Communion to "exhort all persons which should be present, likewise to resort, and prepare themselves to receive the same." The reason assigned for the order is, that "it is more agreeable to the first institution of Christ, to the usage of the Apostles, and the Primitive Church, that the people being present should receive the same with the priest, than that the priest should receive it alone."3 The immediate effect of such an exhortation would probably be small; but it would help to prepare the people for a rule. It was the first authoritative step in the return to primitive practice, and was avowedly taken because it tended in that direction.

In the First Book of Edward VI., published in 1549, the sentences of the offertory were followed by this rubric:-" Then so many as shall be partakers of the Holy Communion shall tarry still in the quire, or in some convenient place near the quire, the men on the one side, and the women on the other side.

2 Fol. 172 3. Ed. 1548.

31 Edw. VI. cap. I. sect. 7. I am in lebted for this reference to a writer in the "Ecclesiologist," (the Rev. T. W. Perry) whose articles (Aug. and Oct., 1858) have been reprinted under the title of "The Anglican Authority for the Presence of Non-Communicants."

All other (that mind not to receive the sail Holy Communion) shall depart out of the quire, except the ministers and clerks."

This rubric presents such difficulties, that Mr. Maskell, and others, have declared their inability to understand either parts of it. This was my own case when the former edition of this essay appeared; but an explanation has been since offered," which certainly removes the chief difficulty. It has been pointed out that at this period those who offered alms placed them with their own hands in the alms-box, which was directed to be placed "near unto the high altar." This would bring them into the quire, and as many who gave alms might not intend to communicate, it became desirable to direct those who wished to do so that they should stay there, or as near as their numbers would permit, while the rest retired to a more distant part of the Church. The last clause of the rubric appears to be still open to the charg that has been brought against it; for it allows "ministers," not intending to receive, to remain in the quire, and therefore to be present; whereas a subsequent rubric in the same office implies that all the ministers present are to receive. "Then shall the priest first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to other ministers, if any there be present (that they may be ready to help the chief minister), and after to the people." It should be added, that if strictly pressed, the for ner of these rubrics gives even the "chief minister" or celebrant licence to abstain from receiving.

In the same year in which this Liturgy was published, we find Cranmer, the chief of the commissioners for its translation and revision, while lamenting the presence of non-communicants, yet speaking as if the alternative of sending them out of the church had not yet occurred to his mind; (unless it be rather thought that he believed the time for it not yet come). He

4 See Maskell's "Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Eag land," p. 223. In the former edition of this essay, the last clause of this rubric stood thus, except the minister anl clerks" (for ministers, &c.) This was a clerical error or misprint; but it has led the writer of "The Anglican Authority' into much needless discussion.

says, "Although I would exhort every good Christian man often to receive the Holy Communion, yet I do not recite all these things to the intent that I would, in this corrupt world, where men live so ungodly as they do, that the old canons should be restored again, which command every man present to receive the Communion with the priest; which canons, if they were now used, I fear that many would now receive it unworthily."

In Ridley's Injunctions, delivered in 1550, the curates, churchwardens, and questmen of his diocese, are exhorted to "set up the Lord's board". . ." in such place of the quire or chancel, as shall be thought most meet," ... "so that the ministers with the communicants may have their place separated from the rest of the people." In Hooper's Visitation Book, after a direction similar to that of Ridley for "placing the "Lord's Board," the reason for it is thus given: "So that the ministers and communicants may be seen, heard, and understood of all the people then being present. "s

It is evident that at this time, notwithstanding the injunction of the statute 1 Edward VI, but little progress could have been made towards the exclusion of non-communicants, and this is confirmed by the language of Bucer in his Animadversions on the Book of Common Prayer, published in 1550:-" All means should be employed to bring about that those who are present at the Communion be partakers of the Sacrament."" Bishop Hooper's instructions to his clergy in the year following show the same thing. "The Communion," he said, "ought not to be kept or celebrated within the church, unless that the whole congregation (or at least a good part of the same) do receive it.'10 His remedy was, not to dismiss the non-communicants, but in effect to diminish the frequency of the celebration, as might have been anticipated from the general leanings of his theology. Three years later, writing from prison, shortly before his death, he says that "Romani neoterici," contrary to the institution of Christ, "illis qui adsunt non dant."1

Among many charges, for the most part of 7 Cardwell's Documentary Annals, vol. i., p. 94. Later Writings published by the Parker Society, 1852, p. 183. Art. xlii.

9 Censura in Ord. Eccl, c. xxvii, Script. Anglie. p. 495. Basil. 1577.

19 Later Writings, u.s, p. 126; Art xxvii.

1 Hyperaspismus, ibid, p. 466.

very frivolous character, brought before the Privy Council in February, 1551, against Ferrar, Bishop of St. David's, are two which illustrate the differences of opinion and practice prevailing at the time. It was alleged against him by his accusers, that "he being often in Caermarthen, and other places, in the chancel, at the time of Holy Communion, not only tarried there himself neither communicating nor ministering bareheaded and uncoiffed reverently kneeling, but also permitted the people there to continue, the chancel and choir full, kneeling and knocking their breasts, which manner," they added, "is yet used in all the diocese, without any reformation or gainsay of him, or any of his officers." The Bishop acknowledged that he had been so present himself without receiving, and stated that "the choirs of Caermarthen and other places there were not close at the sides, so that the people might come in and forth at their pleasure." 3 Another charge against him was, that having on a certain occasion "celebrated matrimony in his own person," he neither communicated himself nor required the persons married to do so, his chaplain celebrating, and "only one other priest communicating for the married." In reply he explained that he was disabled himself, having been obliged to break his fast before the ceremony; and with regard to the married persons, he said, that "being not disposed to receive the Holy Communion, he could not compel them against their conscience."5 He had done nothing illegal; but he had sanctioned by his example a practice which the more influential Reformers were already anxious to suppress, and this was enough, as his enemies probably thought, to prejudice his cause with the tribunal before which he was accused.

II. The Second Book of Edward VI. ordered Non-Participants to leave the Church. Time of departure.

A further step towards the suppression of the practice was made in the year following, when the revised book of Common Prayer, known as the Second Book of Edward VI., was published by authority. An Exhortation therein appointed to be read after the Prayer for the Church Militant contained the following admonition :— "Whereas ye offend God so sore in refusing this holy banquet, I admonish, exhort and beseech you that unto this unkindness ye will

2 Foxe's Acts and Monuments. By Townsend, Lond. 1847: vol. vii. p. 6, Art xxi.

not add any more, which thing ye shall do if ye stand by as gazers and lookers on them that dɔ communicate, and be no partakers of the sime yourselves. . . . Truly it is a great unthankfulness to say nay when ye be called; but the fault is much greater when men stand by, and yet will neither eat nor drink this holy Communion with other. . . . What will this be else but a neglecting, a despising and mocking of the testament of Christ? Wherefore rather thin that you should so do, depart you hence anl give place to them that be godly disposed. But when you depart, I beseech you ponder with yourselves from whom you depart. Ye depart from the Lord's table, ye depart from your brethren and from the banquet of most heavenly food. These things, if ye earnestly consider, ye shall by God's grace return to a better mind, for the obtaining whereof we shall make our humble petitions when we shall receive the Holy Communion."6

66

It has been argued that this warning is aldressed only to "curious or idle spectators; but there is no trace of such a limitation in the document itself. Its evident object is, first tɔ win all present to communicate at the time, or failing that, to induce those who still refused the holy banquet" to leave the Church without delay. The composers of the Exhortation were clearly ignorant of any reason that could justify the presence of those who did not intend to receive. Nor would a spectacle so familiar (for all who had been confirmed were then communicants) be likely to attract "curious and idle spectators," especially, if as the objectors suppose, it was still to remain free and open to everyone who behaved at it with common reverence. There can be no doubt that the more natural interpretation is also the true one, viz., that the admonition was directed against the custom in which every adult of that day had been trained, of attending the celebration as a religious exercise without communicating. other words, the Reformers endeavoured by this means to put an end to the medieval practice of "hearing Mass," and to restore the ancient rule of actual Communion. Even the late Mr. Wilberforce saw that it was intended to send away all who did not partake. "Whereas," Le says, "according to the previous book, all who were in fellowship with the Christian body might remain in the nave, and communicate in the Church's offering, even if any temporary 6 Cardwell's Liturgies Compared, p. 285.

In

hindrance prevented them from drawing nearer to the altar; the Second Book of Edward ordered such persons to go away, and thus excluded them from the Eucharistic Sacrifice, unless they were prepared at the moment to participate in the sacrament." So clear and positive a statement from an unwilling witness ought to have had more weight with those who have followed him in other respects only toɔ faithfully.

Mr. Wilberforce, without a shadow of proof, asserted that this "sentence of exclusion " was introduced by "the Puritan party."8 Another writer on the same side ventures to characterise it as "that spawn of Calvinistic theology." Are these representations true? The avowed principle of the English Reformation was conformity, as far as possible, to the undivided Church of

the first ages. It is right therefore to assume, until the contrary shall be shown, that the framers of the exhortation believed it to be in accordance with the primitive rule. No proof

can be required of their acquaintance with the early canons. We have heard Cranmer referring to them. I have met with no evidence more direct than that quoted from him, either in his writings or in those of the divines associated with him in the revision; but Bishop Jewel, who may be said to be almost one of them, 10 distinctly avers that in this, as in everything else, they claimed to be, and believed themselves to be, true followers of the ancient and uncorrupted Church. “Good brethren" he says, in his well-known sermon at Paul's Cross in the spring of the year 1560, "I will make it plain unto you through God's grace, by the most ancient writers that were in and after the Apostles' time, and by the order of the first primitive Church, that there then could be no private Mass, and that whoso would not communicate with the priest were then commanded out of the congregation." He accordingly quotes the Apostolical Canon and other authorities, and then, apostrophizing those to whom he appeals, proceeds :'If we be deceived therein, ye are they that have deceived us. Thus ye ordered the

7 Eucharist, p. 378. 9 Right of all the Baptiz d, p. 21. 8 Eucharist, p. 380. In p. 379 he speaks of it as "this order to send the multitude arvay." The allusion to Matthew xiv. 15 is infelicitous, if not protane. That multitude was fainting for lack of food, and to send them away to seek it when Christ was at hand showed some forgetfulness of His power, or of His willingness to relieve every distress; but in the case before us, the multitudes, though affectionately pressed to eat, refuse to do so. Can it be wrong to send such away? 10 See Note at end of Sect. 3, p. 336.

holy Communion in your time; the same we received at your hands, and have faithfully delivered it unto the people. . ."

As the exhortation, in which this warning to depart occurred, was read after the Prayer for the Church Militant, its natural effect would be to cause the non-communicants to leave at that time, even when it did not happen to be read. We shall presently see from a statement of Bishop Cosin, that this is what actually took place.` III.-Testimonies to the Reformed Rule,-from the Elizabethan Revision, the authorised Latin Version, and the 2nd book of Homilies.

In the year 1559, the first of Elizabeth, several changes in the Liturgy were proposed, though but a few were carried into effect. Among those agitated at the time was one which, though of minor importance, would have brought the Church of England still nearer to its professed model of antiquity. It appears from a letter of Guest, one of the commissioners of revision to the Queen's Secretary, that it was originally proposed to send away the non-communicants before the recital of the Nicene Creed:-"The creed is ordained (i.e. in the draft of the revised Book) to be said only of the communicants, be cause Dionysius and Chrysostom, and Basil in their Liturgies, say that the learners were shut out or the creed was said;2 because it is the prayer of the faithful only, which were the communicants. For that they which did not receive were taken for that time as not faithful. Therefore Chrysostom saith, that they which do not receive be as men doing penance for their sin."3 The time of dismissal was not altered; nor does the testimony of Guest reach to the motives of the change made at the earlier revision; but we may at least infer from the foregoing extract, that the principle on which the Elizabethan divines continued to dismiss the non-communicants was the same as that on which the question

1 Serm. at Paul's Cross, pp. 56, 57, Lond, 1509. Sim in his Apology, in the Enchirid Theolog. vol. i. p. 217,

"There is no reason to think that any creed was ever used in the Liturgy during the first ages of the Church;" but when admitted (at various times in different parts of the Church, beginning at Antioch, about A.D. 471), it' was placed both in the Eastern and Western Churches, "in that part, which followed the dismissal of the catechumens and hearers, and before the solemn prayers, or canon." Palmer, Origines Liturgica, Ch. iv. Sect. v. vol. ii, p. 54,

3 Cardwell's Conferences, ch. ii. p. 51. The letter was written to explain" some causes of the order taken in the new service "by the committee of divines appointed to prepare it. To whom the subsequent changes are due is uncertain. U. s. ch. i, p. 21.

had been decided by S. Chrysostom more than a thousand years before.

In April, 1560, in compliance with a petition. from the Universities and the Colleges at Winchester an 1 Eton, the Royal sanction was given by letters patent to the use of a Latin version of the Book of Common Prayer in College Chapels, and by the clergy in their private devotions. The version thus authorised was not made from the revised English book, but was based on Aless's translation of the first book of Edward, published complete in 1551, which differed in many particulars, mostly of little importance, from its professed original. Among these variations is the following:-In the Prayer Book of 1519, in the order for the Communion of the Sick, the priest was directed to reserve a portion of the elements consecrated at the "open Com. munion," when a sick person was to receive the same day, and after the public service to "go and minister the same first to them that were appointed to communicate with the sick (if there be any), and last of all to the sick person himself." It was not provided that those who received with the sick should have been present at the previous celebration in church. The version of Aless, however, (under what influence is not known), did represent the Church as having made this provision; for having ordered the reservation as before, it directs that "Mass being ended, the priest together with some of those who are present, shall go to the sick person, and shall first communicate those who are present with the sick and have been at the Supper, and last of all the sick person himself." 115 By the second Book of Edward, reservation was no longer to be practised, and therefore the safeguard introduced by Aless was not needed; but very significantly, when the later Latin version permitted reservation for the Communion of the sick in colleges, it also retained, and therefore, so far as it could, authorised the rule that, with the unavoidable exception of the sick person, those present should have been at the previous consecration in church, and should communicate. As the later version of this rubric is by no means a blind trasnscript from the earlier, I think that we shall not be wrong in ascribing its adoption of Aless's unauthorised interpolation to the still growing jealousy of that "separation of the sacrifice

4 Cardwell's Two Liturgies compared, p. 368. 5 In Bucer's Scripta Anglicana, p. 448.