that were negligent to receive were gone, and heard it not; " and there was no longer any use for the passages above quoted, which implied the presence of those who were not prepared to receive. This fact was alleged by Bishop Wren as one reason, among others, for desiring that the Exhortation should "be quite left out: ""To stand as gazers and lookers-on is now wholly out of use in all parishes. And the not-communicants generally do use to depart without bidding." Accordingly at that date the two first Exhortations were appointed to be used some days before the Celebration; and those passages were removed altogether. Another change, less striking, but apparently with the same view, was also made. In the address, that do truly," etc., as it stood in O. C. and 1 B. E., the intending communicants were exhorted to confess their sins to "Almighty God and to His holy Church, here gathered together in His Name," as in 2 B. E.," to Almighty God, before this congregation here," etc. The reference to the congregation was omitted in 1662, most probably because it consisted only of the communicants themselves. "Ye The evils that have resulted from the practice of "hearing Mass," both in the middle ages and since the reformation of our branch of the Church Catholic, have been so serious that it is a plain duty in those who know anything of them to protest against the attempt to revive that unprimitive and unscriptural custom among ourselves. As a piece of discipline, where discipline can be observed, the example of the early Church would warrant an occasional resort to it. Under other conditions, whatever the first promise of good, the practice must be, and has been within the knowledge of the writer, productive of great evil. Those who have carefully studied the subject by the light of Holy Scripture and Christian antiquity can have no doubt of this; and it appears to be also the half-logical, half-instinctive conclusion of men who do not profess to have investigated deeply, but in whom an ardent piety has been happily united with an enlarged spiritual experience and a well-balanced mind. “I have a strong feeling," says the saintly Keble,2" against the foreign custom of encouraging all sorts of persons to 'assist' at the Holy Eucharist without communicating. It seems to me open to two grave objections: it cannot be without danger of profaneness and irreverence to very many, and of consequent dishonour to the Holy Sacrament: and it has 1 Fragmentary Illustrations, p. 78. 2 Letters of Spiritual Counsel, L. cxvi. p. 207; 2d ed. brought in or encouraged, or both (at least so I greatly suspect), a notion of a quasi-sacramental virtue in such attendance, which I take to be great part of the error stigmatized in our 31st Article. Even in such a good book as the Imitatio Christi, and still more in the Paradisus Animæ, one finds participating in Missâ vel Communione' spoken of, as if one brought a spiritual benefit of the same order as the other. This I believe to be utterly unauthorized by Scripture and Antiquity; and I can imagine it of very dangerous consequence. But whatever one thought of this, the former objection would still stand, and it would not do to answer that the early Church allowed or even encouraged the practice; because, even if that were granted (I very much doubt it, to say the least), the existence of discipline at that time entirely alters the case. . . . Yet, of course, I cannot deny that there may be any number of cases in which attendance without communicating may be morally and spiritually (I could not say sacramentally) beneficial: and in default of discipline, I should advise any person who thought that such was his own case to consult with his spiritual adviser, and act accordingly; the clergyman of the particular Church not objecting." The only writer of the Reformed Church of England, who is known to have advocated attendance without Communion before this century, is Scandret, the author of "Sacrifice, the Divine Service." After lamenting that the Eucharistic Sacrifice was rarely taught from the pulpit, and very seldom recognised in the language of religious persons, this author proceeds to ask, "When have you heard any one say, Come, let us go and behold the Christian Sacrifice? . . . Or, Come, let us behold the Bishop, the Priest, the representative of Jesus Christ in the Christian Holy of Holies, offering at the Altar of God the Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation? . . . We hear none of these, or any like. expressions, from the best of the people; and, which is fearful to consider, we have reason to think that there is nothing of this notion in their best thoughts or apprehensions. Do 1 Sacrifice, etc., pp. 25-27; Lond. 1707 :--The author describes himself in the title-page as a "Priest of the Church of England;" but nothing more is known of him. A letter to Scandret from Charles Leslie, then Chancellor of the Cathedral of Connor, is prefixed; which makes it probable that he belonged to the Irish branch of the Church. The manuscript was left with Leslie to be printed. He had "marked some passages in it to have discoursed with" the author, "but that opportunity not happening" he "would not take upon" him "to alter anything." His letter expresses strong general approbation, but does not touch the point before us. they not hasten out of Church as soon as the sermon is at an end, as if they desired to avoid the sight of the great Divine Service? And when the Sacrifice or Oblation is to follow, there is not one that does approach the Altar, except those that are prepared themselves to receive it, as the Sacrament of Communion." SECTION II.-The Sacrifice imputed to Communicants only. The notion to which Mr. Keble alludes, of a "quasi-sacramental virtue" in non-communicating attendance, has been defended of late years by making a distinction between the Sacrifice and the Sacrament; and alleging that we can join in, and benefit by our presence at, the Sacrifice, although we do not proceed to partake of the thing offered. It may however be clearly shown by reference to authorities, which both as Catholics and members of the Church of England we are bound to venerate, that it is only by partaking of the Offering that we can join in the Sacrifice and appropriate its benefits. This question has no history in the first ages, because the practice of "hearing Mass" was itself a mediæval corruption, and the defence adopted is of still later origin. We are constrained, therefore, when treating of the principle, to confine ourselves to considerations respecting the nature of the rite as gathered from Holy Scripture, and to illustrations of it derived chiefly from incidental observations of the Fathers. I. The Holy Eucharist is a sacrificial rite, commemorative of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ. By it we show and plead before God the atoning merits of His Passion. But this representation of His Sacrifice is in Holy Scripture inseparably connected with the consumption of the symbols, which represent the Body that was broken and the Blood that was shed upon the Cross. He did not say, Offer this, My Body, and this, My Blood; and then, if ready and desirous, partake of them. On the contrary, the command to Take, eat and drink came first; and then He told them that the bread which they were eating was His Body, and the wine which they were drinking was His Blood. By the order of His words, He implies that the commemoration of His Sacrifice by the recipient is altogether dependent on his eating that Bread and drinking of that Cup. This is inferred yet more clearly from what follows:: "This do ye (or offer ye), as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me."1 1 1 Cor. xi. 25. According, then, to His institution, it is only so oft as we eat and drink, that we commemorate His Death and Sacrifice. S. Paul speaks directly to the same purpose:-" As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come."1 Is it not perfectly evident, then, that we do not "show the Lord's death," when we do not "eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup"? In other words, if we do not communicate, we are not commemorating His Sacrifice; unless we partake, we do not offer. II. This holy ordinance is of the nature of those "Peaceofferings for Thanksgiving" which the children of Israel offered under the Law, as a token of gratitude for mercies received. But in all Peace-offerings it was a necessary duty for the offerers themselves to partake of the victim. "They are performed," says Josephus,2 «"by feasting on the part of those who sacrifice." In accordance with this, some of the Jewish writers have derived the Hebrew name for a Peaceoffering from shalam, in the sense of to be at peace; because, a part being burnt on the Altar, a part eaten by the Priest, and the rest by the offerers, it was a common feast of God and man, and therefore a sign of peace between them. Others, witnessing equally to the same fact, derived it from the same word in the sense of to pay; because, said they, portions were severally due and were allotted to God, to the Priest, and to the lay offerers. If the offerers did not consume their portion within a certain time, they forfeited all beneficial interest in the sacrifice:- 'If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his Peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it." This was the law of Peace-offerings in general; but less time was allowed for the consumption of a "Peace-offering for Thanksgiving :"-" On the same day it shall be eaten up: ye shall leave none of it until the morrow. I am the Lord."5 To conclude in the words of Bishop Andrewes :-"The law of a Peace-offering is, he that offers it must take his part of it, eat of it, or it doth him no good." "If Christ be a propitiatory sacrifice, a Peace-offering, I see not how we can avoid but the flesh of our Peaceoffering must be eaten in this feast by us, or else we evacuate the offering utterly, and lose the fruit of it."7 11 Cor. xi. 26. 2 De Antiq. L. iii. c. ix., Opp. tom. i. p. 121; Oxon. 1720. 6 Serm. iv. of the Resurr. vol. ii. p. 251. 7 Serm. vii. of the Resurr. p. 298. 5 Lev. xxii. 30. III. There was one "Peace-offering for Thanksgiving" to which the Christian Eucharist bears an especial analogy. The Passover was a perpetual Thank-offering appointed to commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and to prefigure the sacrifice of the Lamb of God,1 precisely as the Eucharist is a perpetual Thank-offering ordained to commemorate our deliverance from a worse bondage, and to represent and plead that same sole meritorious sacrifice, since it has taken place. Our Lord called His institution a "Passover," and modelled it in some respects after the ritual of that ordinance. Hence it might be assumed that the rule of the Passover would be the rule of the Eucharist. But the Passover was no exception to the general law. On the contrary, there was an especial and express application of it to this particular case. To" keep the Passover" was, in the language of Scripture, to "eat it," and it was ordained that any one who "forbore to keep it" should be "cut off from among His people." It was accordingly ruled by Jewish authorities, that if any persons, belonging to a company formed for the purpose of celebrating the Passover, failed to eat a piece of the lamb of at least a certain size (about that of an olive), they had no part in the Sacrifice; they were "excluded, as if they had not been in the mind of him who slew the victim." Hence, if we were guided by the analogy of this single rite, we might with some confidence infer that persons present at the Christian Eucharist derive no benefit from that rite as a sacrifice, unless they partake of that which is then offered. "Our Saviour," says S. Athanasius," since He was changing the typical for the spiritual, promised them that they should no longer eat the flesh of a lamb, but His own, saying, Take, eat and drink: this is My Body and My Blood. When we are, then, nourished by those things, we shall also, my beloved, properly keep the Feast of the Passover." 4 IV. We have the warrant of Scripture itself for the use of the analogy to which we have now called attention. When S. Paul would illustrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christians, he refers us to the anticipative sacrifices of the law," Behold Israel after the flesh. Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the Altar ?" His argument is that they take 1 1 Cor. v. 7. 2 S. Luke xii. 15. Compare the whole narrative; S. Matt. xxvi. 1719; S. Mark xiv. 12-16; S. Luke xxii. 7-15; and see after, Part II. ch. xv. sect. ii. n. iii. 4 Numb. ix. 13. 3 Numb. ix. 11. 5 Maimonides, Tract. i. de Pasch. c. ii. § v. p. 12. 6 Festal Epistles, Ep. iv. p. 34. 7 1 Cor. x. 18. |