Curate (Scotch Liturgy, Presbyter or Curate) overnight, or else in the morning upon the beginning of Matins (2 B. E. and Sc. L., of Morning Prayer) or immediately after." The Latin version of Haddon, published under the Queen's authority in 1560, renders the last words as if they meant "immediately after the beginning of the Morning Prayer." Such an interruption of the service could not, however, have been intended, and the natural sense of the words presents no difficulty. When the Rubric was framed, there was a considerable interval between Matins and the Celebration. We are told by Heylyn that the "ancient practice of the Church of England" was for "the Morning Prayer or Matins to begin between six and seven; the Second Service or Communion Service not till nine or ten;" which custom, he affirms, continued in his time (1637) "in the Cathedral Church of Winchester, in that of Southwell, and perhaps some others."1 When Grindall was Archbishop of York, he issued an order, 1571, that "the Minister should not pause or stay between the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion, but continue and say the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion, or the Service appointed to be said when there is no Communion, together, without any intermission."2 Cosin, writing in the reign of Charles I., remarked with Heylyn, that it was "the common custom in all or most places to read the Morning Service and the Communion Service both at one time;" and as this custom was "crossed" by the present Rubric, he suggested that "a direction was wanting what space of time was to be allowed between the two Services." A different remedy was, however, provided at the last Review. It seems that Cosin himself then proposed to insert the words two days before at least, but the alteration of the Rubric to that effect in his hand is cancelled, and the words "at least some time the day before" substituted in the writing of Sancroft, 4 who acted as secretary to the Commissioners. Wren had suggested that "those words, or immediately after," should "now be left out; because now in very few parish churches is there any space at all given between the Morning Prayer and the Communion Office."

1 Antidotum Lincolniense, § iii. ch. x. p. 61.

2 Works, p. 137; Camb. 1843. Doc. Ann. No. lxxvi. vol. i. p. 371. 3 Particulars to be Considered, No. 43, Works, vol. v. p. 512; Oxf. 1855.

4 Cosin, u.s. note. The reference is to "a Book of Common Prayer of the year 1619, corrected and altered throughout in Bp. Cosin's hand, with further correction made in Sancroft's handwriting.' Pref. xxi. Fragmentary Illustrations of the B. C. P. p. 74; ed. Jacobson, 1874.

The intention of the notice required is to give the Curate the opportunity of acting as directed by the subsequent paragraph of the same Rubric, should any person of vicious life, or not in charity, propose to communicate.

A previous notice was also required in the Consultation of Hermann,1 Archbishop of Cologne, which was held in great esteem by our Reformers; but the object with him was rather to secure due preparation:-"We will that the pastors admit no man to the Lord's Supper, which hath not first offered himself to them, and that after he hath first made a confession of his sins, being catechised, he receive absolution according to the Lord's word." For this purpose they were to resort to the Church the evening before, where, after a "public institution of them" by exhortation, psalm-singing, etc., "a private instruction was to follow of all, one by one."

SECTION II. Of the Time of the Celebration.

We might infer from the order that a desire to communicate should be noticed to the Curate "at least some time the day before," that the celebration would take place in the earlier part of the day. This was secured by the order of Grindall that there should be no pause between the Services. There is no express law on the subject in our Rubrics or later Canons, simply because the need of prohibiting afternoon or evening celebrations could not have occurred to those who framed them. It was the universal rule and practice derived from primitive times, to celebrate in the morning only (except at certain seasons specified by authority), and I am not aware that before the present age any Priest of our Church ever desired to break through a rule so venerable from its antiquity and wholesome in its effect. When holy men, in the fresh feelings of the early morning, fasting, and as yet undisturbed by any earthly care, can hardly venture to draw near, or think themselves meet partakers of those holy Mysteries, what madness is it to invite and urge, as some have done, the half-taught and half-religious multitude to come at a time when many are oppressed with meat and drink, and all have been long exposed to the distractions and excitements that in our waking hours are ever beating in upon the soul through every avenue of sense! Those who value the gift of God enough to profit by it will delight to seek it early: while generally those whom men

1 Engl. Transl. fol. 195 fa. 1, fol. 200 fa. 2; Lond. 1548.

would allure by a late celebration are not such as would receive with profit. Too often the Sacrament is dishonoured, and the devout are scandalized, only to minister to the indolence or to humour the self-will of the unworthy. Surely both Priest and people may well consider lest in this there should be a dangerous contempt of our Lord's awful warning, that we "give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast our pearls before swine." That many do and will partake unworthily, at whatever hour we celebrate, is unavoidable; but woe unto us if we needlessly increase the risk of such a profanation!

The Holy Eucharist was instituted after the Paschal Supper, and it was probably in imitation of this that at first the Celebration took place (whether invariably or not we cannot tell) in the evening, after a common supper of the rich and poor, the love-feast of S. Jude,'-and so called because it was a sign and pledge of mutual love and charity. That the Celebration took place after the feast, is evident from the abuse corrected by S. Paul at Corinth. The rich there, providing the chief materials for the feast, would not always wait for the poor, who having less leisure were more likely to come late, and "every one took before other his own supper," so that in the end one was hungry and another drunken."2 Had the Eucharist been celebrated first, all must have been present when the feast began. As a partial remedy for the time, S. Paul directed that all should "tarry one for another," and that "if any hungered he should eat at home;" but promised to "set the rest in order when he came."3 The result appears to show that he afterwards put the Celebration before the love-feast; for although there are many allusions to the latter in early writers, the foregoing passage is the only one extant in which it is implied. that it came first. At Troas, a year or two later, according to the received chronology, when he had preached to the disciples assembled on the Lord's day, he "broke bread" (in the Eucharist), and after that "made a meal "5 (at the lovefeast or agape).

Nor can it be doubted that, even in the Apostles' time, the further precaution was taken of severing the dangerous connexion (as it had proved) between the feast and Sacrament.

1 Ep. v. 12.

31 Cor. xi. 33, 34.

5 "Tevoάuevos, having made a meal.'

21 Cor. xi. 21.

4 Acts xx. 7, 11.

The agape was a veritable meal. Not having tasted it.'. . . Usage decides for the other meaning." Alford in loco.

This may certainly be inferred from the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan, written in 104, only four years at the most after the death of S. John, in which he gives the Emperor information respecting the worship of the Christians, then becoming numerous in his province. They were accustomed to meet on a set day, before it was light, and sing a hymn together alternately to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by a Sacrament". (see before, p. 21) to commit no crime," which things being done, they were wont to depart, and to meet again to take food, in common, however." From this time, in short, we never hear of them together; the Eucharist being generally celebrated in the morning, and the love-feast held in the evening. Of the former, Tertullian, contrasting the institution and the practice of his day, says, "The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was commanded by the Lord both at a meal-time, and to all, we receive in assemblies held even before dawn." 3 In

1 The date 100 for his death is an inference from the fact that Eusebius in his Chronicon quotes at that date a statement from Irenæus (L. ii. c. 2, § 5, p. 359; see also L. iii. c. 3, § 4, p. 436) that he dwelt at Ephesus till the time of Trajan; but the Chronicle of Alexandria says expressly that he lived seventy-two years after the Passion, and puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era, the very year in which Pliny wrote. See Tillemont, Mem. Eccl. note xv. sur S. Jean, tom. i. p. 276; Brux. 1732.

2 Epp. L. x. E. xcvii. p. 566. Lips. 1805. Tertullian gives the following account of the Feast of Charity :-"Our supper shows its nature by its name. It is called that which is Love among the Greeks. However great its expense, it is gain to incur expense in the name of piety; seeing that we help the poor also by that refreshment. . . . It (the management of the Feast) admits nothing base, nothing immodest. They do not sit down before prayer to God be first tasted. As much is eaten as hungry men take; as much drunk as is good for the chaste. They are so filled as those who remember that even in the night they have to worship God. They so converse as those who know that the Lord hears them. After water for the hands, and lights, as each is able from the holy Scriptures or of his own mind, he is called into the midst to sing unto God. . . . In the same manner prayer puts an end to the feast."-Tertull. Apol. c. xxxix. tom. v. p. 76. The reference to prayer in the night, the mention of lights, and other things in the context not cited here, show (as Albaspinus points out, Observ. L. i. n. xviii. p. 136) that these feasts took place in the evening. For a long time they were held in church, but abuse ensuing, this was forbidden by the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 365, Can. xxviii. Pandect ii. p. 465, and by that in Trullo 691, Can. lxxiv. p. 243. By the third Council of Carthage, 397, Can. xxx. Labb. ii. col. 1171, all feasting in church was forbidden, doubtless under the influence of S. Augustine, who had already urged to his Bishop the example of the Churches in the greater part of Italy and elsewhere, Ep. xxii. ad Aurel. § 4, tom. ii. col. 37, and who had himself seen the success of a similar prohibition at Milan: Confess. L. vi. c. ii. tom. i. col. 139.

3 De Cor. Mil. c. iii. tom. iv. p. 293.

C

S. Cyprian's time a few sectaries used water only at their morning Celebrations, from an affectation of abstemiousness, but "offered the mixed Cup" at supper, justifying the latter practice by an appeal to our Lord's example. The Saint's reply shows what was the general rule of the Church in his time:" It behoved Christ to offer about the evening of the day, that the very hour itself of the Sacrament might set forth the decline and evening of the world; . . . but we celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord in the morning." 1 The same distinction is observed by S. Gregory of Nazianzum, though he is less definite as to time:-"He initiates the disciples in the Passover in an upper chamber, and after the supper.... We (celebrate it) in houses of prayer, and before supper." There was a considerable exception to this rule in Egypt, but it was regarded as blameworthy. "The Egyptians near Alexandria, and those who inhabit the Thebaid," says an historian of the fifth century, “have assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not partake of the Mysteries according to the custom of Christians; for after feasting and filling themselves with all kinds of food (seeing they offer at eventide), they partake of the Mysteries." 3

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

1 Ep. lxiii. p. 156.

2 Orat. xl. § xxx. tom. i. p. 715. The later Jews have observed a rule with regard to eating before their Passover, which has been wrongly alleged as the origin of the fast before the Christian feast of Eucharist. "On the eve of the Passover, near Mincha, shall no one eat unless darkness has set in."-Mischna, De Paschate, c. x. n. 1, Pars iii. p. 172; Amst. 1699. Near Mincha is explained by Maimonides to be "that time when there still remains of the day more than two hours and a half." Bartenora: " a little before the Mincha; the half-hour at the beginning of the tenth hour; for the daily Sacrifice was offered at the middle of the tenth hour, which is the time of the Mincha."-Ibid. The reason, as given by both these writers, is, "that he may eat the unleavened bread with appetite,”—“in honour of the precept,” adds Bartenora. The reason of the rule governed its observance. It was not understood to prohibit all food, "but the author warns him not to satiate himself with other kinds of food (i.e. other than bread, which was forbidden by the Law itself), and be unable to eat the Passover."-Barten. ibid. To the same effect Maimonides :-" It has been forbidden to eat much of the other kinds of food." There is therefore little or no analogy between the Jewish and the Christian custom. The former prescribes only partial abstinence, and that not for a spiritual reason; while its duration was not from the preceding day, but for a few hours only before the feast began, which might be as soon as the darkness came on.

3 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. L. v. c. xxii. p. 235.

4 This was expressly ordered in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum : "The Morning Prayers ended, and the supplication which they call the Litany being over, let the Communion succeed."-De Div. Off. c. 3. p. 89.