Anciently it is well known such was not the practice: as Romsèe acknowledges. "Equidem olim quando sub sacrificio distribuebatur Eucharistia, iis prætermissis, sacerdos accedebat ad communicandos, quibus distribuens sacramentum simpliciter dicebat: Corpus Domini nostri, vel alia verba, juxta disciplinam antiquam Ecclesiæ." 16 And this custom was not intruded upon until the 13th century, when the mendicant orders, fond of novelties, introduced the new one," which was soon adopted into the liturgies of the Roman and English churches.

16 Opera. tom. iv. p. 364.

17 Morinus: de pœnit. lib. viii. cap. 9. Cit. Romsee.

f

CHAPTER V.

ASSING by another question which at the time of the publication of the Order of 1548 excited very great displeasure, viz. that auricular confession 18 was not enjoined by it as a necessary preparation to a worthy receiving of the Eucharist; there are two points upon which I would make some remarks, and of which the Order not unnaturally suggests to us the consideration; occupying as it does the intermediate ground between the total rejection by the church of England, as liturgies, of the old Uses, and the acceptance of the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward the 6th. To these I shall devote the present chapter.

First, with regard to being present during the previous service, I do not mean of Matins and of the Litany, which in modern practice almost always are joined with it, but of the Liturgy itself, there are some who argue that this is not necessary, but that a parishioner (or indeed any one) may partake of the consecrated elements, who enters the church for that purpose even so late as after the distribution has commenced. I am sorry to say that this is no exaggeration, because not only did I myself witness such an instance, not long ago; but it is even still in the same parish defended upon (we must, I suppose, conclude) some principle, and persisted in as a matter of practice. But no one who has examined these

18 The reader must remember that the absolution which it did require, and which had already occurred in the Ordinary of the Mass,

(of which therefore the same view was held) was not sacramental, but of a far lower kind, of defects and failings, rather than of sins.

questions can assert, that it is either according to primitive custom or to the intention of the English church.

People, I conceive, who are hindered against their wills from being present at the beginning of our present Communion Office, may be allowed to enter at any time previous to the exhortation, "Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, &c." Following this and the confession and absolution, (a portion of the service which it is most desirable all communicants should be present at,) begins the more solemn part, the Anaphora, with the ancient form, "Lift up your hearts." After its commencement, surely they should not enter. Else how

can they say that they have offered up that sacrifice, which together with the priest, as God's people, they have power to offer? 19 In the Apostolical constitutions, people are allowed to be admitted during the previous prayers, or the reading of the lessons, or the sermon: but it is not

19 It is not necessary to heap up authorities upon this point: but, referring the reader to Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. ch. ii. §. 4. and to the Gemma Anima. lib. i. cap. 30, I shall make two extracts from writers of the English and the Roman Churches. Le Brun says: "Veteres patres animadvertunt bifariam dici posse Fideles sacrificium offerre. Sacrificium offerri censetur, inquit Hilarius Diaconus sæculo IV. cum oblationes præstantur, quas cum iis omnibus quæ ad sacrificium requiruntur, ad altare sacerdos offert. Secundo loco Fideles offerunt sacrificium laudis, sacerdoti se addentes, ut spiritu una cum ipso Christi sacrificium offerant, quod verum laudis sacrificium est, quodque unum honore Deum afficere, nobisque nullum non ad salu

tem subsidium et beneficium comparare potest." Opera. tom. i. p. 208. And Archbishop Laud against Fisher: "At, and in the Eucharist, wee offer up to God three sacrifices. One by the Priest onely, that's the Commemorative Sacrifice of Christ's Death represented in Bread broken, and Wine poured out. Another by the Priest and the People, joyntly, and that is the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, for all the Benefits and graces we receive by the precious Death of Christ. The Third, by every particular man for himself onely, and that is the Sacrifice of every man's Body, and Soule, to serve him in both, all the rest of his life, for this blessing thus bestowed on him." § 35. p. 305. Edit. 1639.

conceived that such liberty would be taken afterwards. I would refer especially to the 58th Ch. of the 2nd book, where particular directions are given how honourable or poor persons are to be received who should enter up to that time. And again, to the latter part of the 11th Ch. of the 8th book, where deacons are appointed to stand at the door by the men's side, and deaconesses by. the other, that no one should go out, or the doors be opened, even though one of the faithful should apply for admission, during the offering of the sacrifice: “xαтą τον καιρον της αναφορας.

κατα

In large towns where there are many churches, some only very short distances from each other, and considerable numbers to communicate, it is not an uncommon thing for the clergy of one church, where there is not a communion, to hasten after the conclusion of their own duties to assist in a neighbouring church, where there is one. So long as communions are not more frequent than they are now and the number of the clergy so limited, this is an assistance, against the giving of which not only nothing which I have said militates, but which is perhaps to be commended. But it is a practice which must not exceed its due and accustomed bounds, those, I mean, which have already been laid down: it is a practice which is rather permitted under the necessities of the time, than to be looked upon as allowable if those necessities were removed.

For, and it must be remembered that I am speaking of our own days in which three Offices properly distinct are, it may be said, invariably mixed up and joined together, it is not even when most decorously conducted, quite free from an appearance of intrusion into sacred duties which have long before begun. And if this is the case when every care is taken to prevent it, by arriving at the church before non-communicants have departed, I must leave the reader to imagine, how utterly devoid of all reverence must be the hurried and breathless en

trance of a person, not merely into the church, but into the chancel, and throwing off of coats, and huddling on of a surplice, at any time during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, though (as has been said) after the distribution has commenced, provided only that it be not finished.

The second question to which I have alluded will require rather a longer consideration: it is this; whether non-communicants ought or ought not to be present during the entire Service: and of course another is included in this, viz. whether the almost universal practice of the church of England now, which allows and recommends their departure from the church at an early period of it, is to be defended or not? I shall now attempt to shew that non-communicants ought not, if possible, to be allowed to be present during the whole celebration of the Eucharist, and much less therefore should their departure be prevented.

It cannot be said that this is not a subject which deserves consideration, or one upon which a reasonable conclusion is not likely to be of benefit. For it has been already made a practical question: the constant custom of the church of England for some three hundred years has within the last four years been interrupted, and whole parishes (in more instances than one large and important parishes,) have been thrown most unnecessarily into confusion and excitement. Nor has this passed away; at the time that I am now writing, there is a sort of public controversy being carried on, and attempts made to enforce and to prove the propriety of non-communicants remaining in the church during the whole service.

The first point to which I shall direct the reader's attention will be, a passage in the well-known judgment of the Lord Bishop of Exeter, in the case of the Rev. W. Blunt. It appears that Mr. Blunt had "compelled all persons to remain in church on sacrament sundays until the con