Thinking otherwise however, and reminding the reader of the canon made in the year 1571, my first business would have been to explain what the custom of the primitive Church was: but it is so well known that during the first five centuries at least, the universal practice was to allow no one to be present except communicants, and the last class of penitents, that it would be a waste of space and time to repeat authorities which have been cited over and over again. Those who wish to examine them, may especially consult Bona, de rebus Liturgicis, Lib. 1. Cap. xvi.: and Bingham, Christian Antiquities, Book 15. I would repeat that I pass on thus briefly, only because the fact of the practice of the earliest ages of the Church is both so certain and so generally owned; and not because it is of little importance in the decision which we ought to come to in this matter : for on the contrary, it is not simply of importance, but in all doubtful matters, of obligation: both by the decision of the Church of England herself, and by the united. testimony of her best divines. So that even allowing that there was no more to say, we should already have learned enough, having discovered the rule which governed the first five centuries.25 25 There is one canon which I would notice in a note, being of the highest importance, and apparently opposing the unvaried agreement of all other ancient practice. It is the ninth of the Apostolical Canons. "Omnes fideles qui ingrediuntur, et scripturas audiunt, in precatione autem et sacra communione non permanent, ut ecclesiæ confusionem afferentes, segregari oportet." But the object was, not to enforce the attendance of non-communicants, as we call them now-a-days, and oblige the unworthy, or the sceptic, or the scoffer to remain, but the necessity of communion. The ca non does not speak only of the prayers, but of the actual partaking. And this is the view which the greatest commentators have taken. Thus Balsamon says: "Præsentis canonis constitutio est acerbissima. Segregat enim eos qui in ecclesiam conveniunt, et non ad finem usque expectant, nec communicant." And Zonaras to the same effect: "Canon præsens exigit omnes, dum sanctum celebratur sacrificium, ad finem usque in oratione, sanctaque But there seems to be no slight ground to suppose that for a much longer period the old discipline was, if not in all churches, yet retained in many: Bona 26 owns that it fell not into disuse until the 8th century, and Morinus acknowledges to the same but in the 9th century Amalarius has the following important testimony; speaking of the origin of the term Missa, he continues: "Consuetudo nostra tenet, ut catechumenos repellamus ante Evangelium. Non mihi videtur ex ratione communione perseverare. Siquidem tum temporis a laicis exigebatur, ut frequenter communicarent." Beverege. Pandect. Canon. tom. i. p. 6. Nor, in connection with this famous canon, must we overlook the second canon of the council of Antioch, which repeats almost the same words and in his exposition of this, Balsamon lays down what we are strictly to understand by the term Liturgy, or that part of the Holy Service, up to the beginning of which non-communicants were at liberty to depart. He refers to the former one of the Apostolical collection, and continues: "De liturgia autem, eaque sola dictos Can. hæc decrevisse intellige; non item de aliis ecclesiasticis officiis. Quoniam autem dicunt quidam, et quamobrem Patriarcha universalis sancta dominica a loco ejus prodiens non perseverat usque ad liturgiæ absolutionem, sed post evangelium recedit? Hisce dicimus, quod divina liturgia post sancti evangelii lectionem proprie celebratur. Quandoquidem enim in sanctis ecclesiis omnia canimus in Dei gloriam, sive e veteri sint testamento, sive e novo; post prin cipium enim protinus ordine recitantur psalmi, usque ad Apostoli lectionem qui quidem sunt ex veteri testamento. Post evangelium autem incipit cærimonia celebrandi incruenti sacrificii: Patriarcha ante hanc, et post sanctum Evangelium recte discedit, et can. non transgreditur. Ut nec quis transgreditur, si post evangelium vel ante evangelium discedit; verum ob necessariam piamque causam, non ob vituperabilem." Ibid. p. 432. To return for an instant to the Apostolical canon, it may be added, that this last explanation reconciles completely with the rest, that also of Aristenus, who declares, that it forbids any one to depart, "dum adhuc sacra liturgia celebratur." The present practice therefore of the Church of England, that non-communicants should leave the church before the Liturgy, in its strict sense, begins; and that all should communicate who remain, is as it appears to me in exact accordance with the Apostolical and Antiochean canons. 26 Opera. tom. i. p. 350. Opera posthum: de Catech. cap. 16. incumbere, cum proculdubio prædicatoribus gentium præceptum sit, ut evangelium eis prædicent: sed sacrificio omnino interesse non possunt, nisi renati, quia neque pro eis rogatur a sacerdote in consecratione corporis Domini, neque confectum illis porrigitur. Sic orat sa cerdos pro circumstantibus: Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum, et omnium adstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio. Nondum renati, infideles vocantur, non fideles. Igitur non possumus animadvertere pro illis constitutam esse orationem in officio confectionis corporis Christi. Quapropter merito eo tempore recedunt, quo sacrificium celebratur. I am aware that Bona, who cites the first words only, attempts to explain this statement away, as if its author was speaking of some ceremony on a particular occasion: but of this there is not a trace; Amalarius is describing the whole service of the liturgy, and all its parts. 28 Now it must not be forgotten that there is a wide difference between this practice ceasing to be observed in the fifth century, or in the tenth, because according to Amalarius, it is certain it was still observed in the ninth. How much later, it may not be easy to decide: and the Church of England would have restored a custom which had been interrupted not for a thousand years, but for five or six hundred only. One Nor is it to be overlooked that without an exception, the ritualists of the middle ages never mention in terms of disapproval the ancient custom, nor even speak of that which had taken the place of it and was observed in their own times, as the rather to be commended. would suppose that the primitive rites had never been discontinued, from the manner in which the old distinctions were carefully preserved: and it is difficult to conceive but that, if it might have been, they would have 28 De eccles. Off. lib. iii. cap. 36. desired to have had the early discipline restored. Thus in the 13th century, Durand says: "Missa catechumenorum est ab introitu usque post offertorium, quæ missa ab emittendo dicitur, quoniam quando sacerdos incipit consecrare eucharistiam, catechumeni foris de ecclesia mittuntur.-Missa vero fidelium est ab offertorio usque ad post-communionem." 29 Again, Gabriel Biel, in the 14th century. "Melius dividitur Missa in tres partes, sc. in præparationem tam populi, quam materiæ consecrandæ; in eucharistiæ consecrationem et oblationem ; in consecratæ communionem et mysterii conclusionem. Prima pars potest dici missa catechumenorum, pro eo quod major pars admittit catechumenos, secunda canon, tertia communio." 30 And, once more, Radulph Tungrensis about the same time, after describing the rites observed at communion, plainly states the fact, "omnes debent communicare. 99 31 In after years, at a period when every concession made in favour of the return to a better practice in the Church of England, by her opponents who refused to remain in her communion, is of importance, we find the same opinions expressed in even plainer terms. Thus Harding in his reply to Jewell's apology, is excusing Pighius who had been cited as allowing that abuses had crept into the celebration of mass. "He meaneth not," says Harding, "that the Masse itself is erroneous, as ful wel there he declareth: but that men be faulty in abusing that holy sacrifice. For many come to the aulter unworthely. Many be present at it, that ought not to come within the church dores." 32 Again the authors of a catechetical work in 1647: "whosoever doth hear masse in sinne, doth besides the irreverence committed 29 Rationale. lib. iv. cap. 1. 45. 30 In Canone. lect. 15. 31 De Canonum observ. Prop. 23. And see also Thomas Wal densis: de Sacramental. iv. 33. fol. 76. 32 Confutation of the Apology. p. 207. Edit. 1565. 4to. Preface. against the highest mysterie in Christian religion, render himself unworthy of those speciall benefites, which are obteined by this Sacrifice. Which appeareth plainely by the practise of the primitive church, and also by the present practise ordained by the councell of Trent, which commandeth Bishops, that they should not permit in their Diocesses any publicke and notorious sinner to be present at Masse. Yea, the same councell, to expresse more fully the great reuerence that is required at this holy mystery, commandeth all Bishops, that they should not suffer any Priest to say Masse, unlesse those who be present, do first by a decent composition of their body, shew, that they are present not only in body, but also in minde, and with a devout affection of heart." 33 These extracts fully recognize the principle which I am Once more, the author of the "Liturcontending for. gical discourse of the Mass." He is considering whether indiscriminately men should be allowed to be present during the whole service: and concludes in the negative: "as being more conformable to the practice of God's holy Church, which did never esteem any one worthy to be present at these sacred mysteries, until they were fully instructed, and truly converted, and made true members of the Catholic Church." 34 I shall only further make one or two extracts from documents which were published about the time, or soon after, of the Reformation: as confirmatory of the interpretation which has been given above, as the correct one to be put upon the Common Prayer Books of Edward's and Elizabeth's reigns. 33 A Declaration of the principall pointes of Christian Doctrine, gathered ovt of diuerse Catechismes, and set forth by the English Priests dwelling in Tournay Colledge. p. 582. The italics are in the original: being extracts from the Council of 34 Preface, p. 20. |