proposed, without effect, that the Morning Prayer should be directed to be said between six and ten of the clock.1 At that time, according to L'Estrange,2 "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,3 " 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 decreed, after the third Council of Orleans,5 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. In the forged Decretals, published about the year 830, is an order ascribed to Telesphorus, the seventh Bishop of Rome, that, except on the eve of Christmas, masses should not be celebrated "before the Third Hour," i.e. before the office of Tierce. This supposed decree was probably, however, in many hands before pseudo-Isidore published his collection, for we find it cited by Amalarius 8 in 827. The impostor, without doubt, only reflected the general practice of the province of Mayence, to which he seems to have belonged. The decree is again quoted by Strabo,9 842. Both Amalarius and Strabo ascribe the order to Telesphorus. At the end of the same century, it was a subject of inquiry at episcopal visitations, whether the Priest "celebrated Mass at the appointed time; that is, about the Third Hour of the day." "10 Ascending in the order of time, we find Gregory11 the Great saying of a Bishop, who celebrated almost daily, that he had come to offer the sacrifice at the Third Hour." So

1 Works, vol. v. p. 506, note.

3 Rationale, p. 157, ed. 7.

2 Alliance, ch. iii. p. 102.

4 Antid. Linc. § 3, ch. 10, p. 61.

5 Can. xiv. Labb. tom. v. col. 294; see Jus. Can. De Consecr. D. i. c. Et hoc.

Sim. Gratian, P. iii. D. i. c. lii.

This decree says that "Masses

are canonically performed at the Third Hour;” and the only canon extant is that of Orleans.

6

Gavanti, Thesaur. P. i. tit. xv. p. 49; Antv. 1646.

7 C. ii. Labb. tom. i. col. 560.

8 De Eccl. Off. L. iii. c. 42; Hitt. col. 438.

9 De Reb. Eccl. c. 23; Hitt. col. 685.

10 Regino De Eccl. Discipl. L. i. p. 10; Vienn. 1765.

11 In Evang. Hom. xxxvii. tom. iii. col. 134; Antv. 1615.

Gregory of Tours,1 A.D. 575, in the life of Nicetius, Bishop of Lyons, speaks of "the Third Hour when the people met at the solemnities of Masses." Sidonius Apollinaris,2 A.D. 472, mentions a return to church "at the Third Hour, when the Divine service was to be performed by the Priests;" which seems to be the earliest authentic mention of that hour.

On fast-days a much later hour was fixed, even at an early period, from regard to a scruple (respecting which Tertullian3 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 5 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 contemporary, 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." In the Capitula of Theodulf, A.D. 794, which were much used as an Episcopal charge in France and England (being translated into Saxon by Elfric in the tenth century), we have a similar rule for Lent:" It is requisite that after noon-song (nones, at the Ninth Hour, or 3 P.M.) a man hear Mass, and after Mass his even-song at the season . . . and afterwards take meat."7 In religious communities, where men broke their fast late at other seasons, the Celebration would naturally be deferred also. Thus Palladius, A.D. 401, says that the Abbot Apollo and his monks received the Eucharist at the Ninth Hour, and took food after it.

SECTION III.-On Fasting before Celebrating and Receiving.

The Egyptian practice mentioned in the last Section was to be condemned on several accounts. It was not only a departure from the general rule of early Celebrations, but it would otherwise have violated "the custom of Christians," even if the feast had been less luxurious and abundant than it was. For it had now long been the general practice to celebrate and receive fasting. The earliest witness is

1 Vitæ Patrum, c. viii. § xi. col. 1196.

2 Lib. v. Ep. xvii. ed. Sirm. col. 148.

3 De Orat. c. xix, tom. iv. p. 14.

4 Ep. liv. c. vii. tom. ii. col. 169.

5 In Ps. cxviii. v. 62, § viii. n. 48, tom. iii. p. 319.

6 Adv. Hær. L. iii. tom. ii. c. xxii. p. 1104; Par. 1622.

7 C. 39; Johnson's Canons, vol. i. p. 476.

8 Hist. Lausiaca, c. lii.

Tertullian,1 who, however, does not tell us how far it was observed in his day:-" Will not thy husband know what thou art tasting secretly before all (other) food?" S. Basil," in a discourse on fasting generally, says, "It hallows the Nazarene; it perfects the Priest. For without fasting it is impossible to venture on the sacred function, not only in the mystical and true service now offered, but even in the typical service offered under the Law." S. Chrysostom 3 bears witness to the strict observance of this rule, while he contrasts it with the prevalent indulgence after Communion :-" Before receiving thou fastest, that thou mayest by all means be found worthy of the Communion, but when thou hast received, and oughtest to increase temperance, thou undoest all." S. Augustine affirms that the rule was universal:-" It is perfectly clear that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of the Lord, they did not receive it fasting. But are we for that reason to cast reproach on the Universal Church, because it is always received by persons fasting? For therefore did it please the Holy Ghost, that in honour of so great a Sacrament, the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian before other food; for on that account is this custom observed throughout the whole world." 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." The exception had been sanctioned only three years before this was written (while the rule was affirmed, for the clergy at least) by the third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397; but it was abolished by that in Trullo,7 A.D. 691. The rule became a law for both clergy and laity in our own Church so early as 960" We charge that no man take the Housel after he hath broke his fast, except it be on account of extreme sickness." 8

6

5

It is probable that a period of some length elapsed before Fasting Communion was regarded as the fully established rule of the Church. When Tertullian, who always takes up and presses the more severe practices of his day, says that Christians then had Celebrations before dawn, though the Sacrament was instituted at the time of a meal, he does not say that

they did not also celebrate later in the day, or that they always communicated fasting. We observe the same thing in S. Cyprian,1 A.D. 253, about half a century later. There were some in his time who, "from ignorance or simplicity," used water only at their morning Celebrations, but, "nevertheless, at supper (cum ad cœnandum venimus) offered the Mixed Cup. Now, it is observable that, while S. Cyprian most strongly condemns the substitution of water for wine, and proposes and discusses the question,-"Ought we, therefore (ie. because Christ did so) to celebrate the Lord's institution after supper?" he contents himself with giving reasons for celebrating in the early morning, and does not condemn the Aquarians for receiving after food. In fact, he only mentions early Celebrations that he may prevent the retort,"You accuse us of departing from the Institution, by using water; while you yourself equally depart from it by celebrating in the morning." There is reason to think also that, when Fasting Communion became a law for the clergy, it still remained for a time only a good custom for the laity. The earliest decree on the subject, that of Carthage,2 A.D. 397, appears to refer to both :-"That the Sacraments of the Altar be celebrated (celebrentur) by none but persons fasting, except on that one day of the year on which the Supper of the Lord (ie. the Institution) is celebrated." This seems to require that all present should be fasting. The laity were still zealous and frequent communicants, and could probably bear to be included under a rule which, at a later period, would often have deterred them from receiving. But after this, whatever the common custom might be, the Councils only insist on the fasting of the clergy. Thus the Council of Bracara,3 in 572, condemns Presbyters who should "consecrate the oblation" "after taking any food." The Council of Auxerre, some six or seven years later, says, "It is not permitted to Presbyter, or Deacon, or Subdeacon to handle Masses after taking food or drink, or to stay in church while Masses are being said." That of Mâcon,5 585, appears to enjoin temperance in the Celebrant rather than entire abstinence:"That no Presbyter, stuffed with food or surfeited with wine, presume to handle the sacrifices, or celebrate Masses on private or festal days." As it cites the Canon of Carthage for its authority, we may perhaps infer that the

4

1 Ep. lxiii. pp. 148, 156.

2 Can. xxix. Labb. tom. ii. col. 1171. The exception was taken away in Spain by the Council of Bracara, A.D. 563; cap. xvi. contra Priscill. Labb. tom. v. col. 838. 3 Can. x. Labb. tom. v. col. 898. 5 Can. vi. ibid. col. 982.

4 Can. xix. ibid. col. 959.

Fathers of Mâcon did not understand the word fasting in that decree to forbid eating altogether. In the same canon, they ordered that the consecrated remains should be eaten by children, who were to be "brought to the Church on Wednesday or Friday . . . and being ordered to fast," there to consume them. The silence as to a previous fast, while the post-Communion fast then usual was enjoined, and the improbability that the children should all be fasting when brought to the church, unless they had been commanded to abstain, tend to confirm the opinion that it was only moderate use of food which the Council required of the Priest. The Council of Toledo,1 646, legislating for the Clergy, forbids any one "to celebrate Masses (Missas facere) after taking, however little, food or drink." The Council of C. P., 691, repeals the exception allowed at Carthage, not, however, alleging that it was wrong to celebrate or receive after eating, but that it broke the Lent fast.2 Three hundred years before, S. Augustine had solved the same difficulty in another way, viz., by advising that the feast which preceded the Celebration on Maundy Thursday should be deferred to the Ninth Hour.

Doubts having been raised "as to whether the Order for Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion might be used as separate services," it was by the Act of Parliament 35 and 36 Vict. c. xxxv. (July 18, 1872), "enacted and declared that any of such forms of service may be used together, or in varying order as separate services."

SECTION IV. Of the Repulse of Notorious Sinners and

Wrongdoers.

RUBRIC I.—PARAGRAPH II.

¶ And if any of those be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbour by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended, the Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him and advertise him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to

1 Cap. ii. Labb. tom. v. col. 1839.

2 Can. xxix. Bever. Pandect. tom. i. p. 188.

3

Ep. liv. ad Januar. c. vii. § 9; tom. ii. col. 168.