The first which claims attention is the 23rd of the Injunctions of K. Edward in 1547: that is, just before the publication of the Order of Communion so often spoken of. I quote from the original edition by Grafton. "In the tyme of the Letany, of the high Masse, of the Sermon, and when the priest readeth the scripture to the parishioners, no maner of persones, without a just and urgent cause, shall departe out of the Churche." Without insisting upon any argument which may be deduced from the exception of "a just and urgent cause," which supposing that the ancient discipline was restored would fully meet our present case, I think that this order set forth in 1547 is of especial value, when compared with the corresponding injunction, the 18th of Queen Elizabeth's in 1559. I again quote from an original edition of that year; and I do this because Dr. Cardwell has said,35 either carelessly or unfairly, that this is "the same as before; except that communion of the sacrament is substituted for high mass, and the last sentence respecting perambulation of parishes is new;" although, as the reader will see, there is another and most important variation. This Injunction says; "In the tyme of the letanye, of the common prayer, of the sermon, and when the priest readeth the scripture to the parishioners, no maner of persons without a Juste and urgent cause shall use any walkyng in the church, ne shall departe out of the churche." Here there is a total omission of all reference to the "Mass," or "Holy Communion :" which cannot be set down as other than very significant; for we know that those by whom these later Injunctions were 35 Documentary Annals. vol. i. p. 186. Note. I cannot conceive that Dr. Cardwell had seen any copy of Elizabeth's Injunctions, which agreed, according to his account, with K. Edward's. Three editions of the Injunctions of 1547, drawn up, had the earlier ones of Edward before them; with which, if they were at all.adopted, they did not interfere, except for some especial purpose. About the same time Dr. Guest writing to Sir William Cecil, concerning the new service book, that is, the Common Prayer of Q. Elizabeth, and "why the service is set forth in such sort as it is," explains among other points objected against, "the dividing the service of the Communion into two parts," and proves the correctness of what we are therefore forced to conclude was the practice intended to be observed, by the authority of Durant, S. Chrysostom, and Dionysius: viz: "That they only did remain which did receive." 36 To the like effect speaks Bp. Jewell in his apology, upon the subject of the Eucharist. "Ad hoc epulum invitandum esse populum, ut omnes inter se communicent, et societatem suam inter se, spemque eam, quam habent in Christo Jesu, publice significent, et testificentur. Itaque si quis fuisset, qui spectator tantum esse velit, et a sacra communione abstineret, illum veteres patres, et Romanos episcopos in primitiva Ecclesia, antequam nata esset privata missa, tanquam improbum atque ethnicum excommunicasse." "37 Archbishop Parker, among other directions to be observed at his Visitation, ordered: "Item, these things being done, the preacher to proceed to the sermon, which being done, all the extern laity to be commanded out by the beadle." 38 Again, the following rubric is of no little weight, if we remember that it is in the Form 36 Cardwell: Hist. of Confe rences. p. 51. 37 Enchiridion Theologicum. Randolph. vol. i. p. 217. The same is to be seen repeated in the Harmony of Confessions, published in 1586. p. 425: which, although very far from being an authority, is still to be considered as a witness of facts. 38 Strype. Parker. p. 303. Cited by a writer in the English Churchman. (March 12, 1846.) The same also quotes a passage from the Life of Bp. Bedell, p. 54. "As I was at the Lord's table beginning g of the consecration of a church drawn up and used by Bishop Andrews. "Finitis precationibus istis Dominus Episcopus sedem separatim capessit, (ubi prius) populusque universus non communicaturus dimittitur, et porta clauditur." 39 It is necessary that I should notice what at first sight has seemed a strong proof that in the reign of Elizabeth, notwithstanding the exhortation of the Common Prayer Book, and the authorities above quoted, the non-communicants nevertheless did remain, during the entire service. The place is in the Reply of Thomas Cartwright to the answer of Whitgift against the famous Admonition: he is speaking of wafer-bread. "I haue spoken" he says "of thys bread before in generall, and if Maister Doctor dyd not disagree wyth hymselfe, we are heere well agreed. For first he sayth it skilleth not what bread we haue, and by and by he sayth, that he wysheth it were common bread, and assigneth a great cause which the booke of service lykewise assigneth, which is to avoyde superstition. And it is certaynely known by experience, that in dyvers places the ignoraunt people that haue beene mysled in popery, have knocked and kneled unto it, and helde vp theyr handes, whylest the mynister hath geuen it, not those only which have receyued it, but those which have been in the churche, and looked on. I speake of that whiche I knowe, and haue sene wyth my eyes." This passage is extracted "940 the service of the Communion before the sermon he came in, and after the sermon was done, those that communicated not being departed, &c." It has been asserted that the exclusion of the "extern laity," refers not to a communion, but to the Archbishop's Charge: but this is incapable of proof, and what then means "extern"? 39 It is not at all beside the mark to add, that in our own time, the order of the consecration of the church of S. Mary, Lambeth, has this rubric: "The Sermon being ended, and all who do not receive the Holy Communion having left the Church, and the Doors shut, the Bishop proceeds to the Communion Service." 40 P. 164. b. From a copy of this rare tract in my possession. in the Hierurgia Anglicana, p. 104: and the learned editors of that useful publication, do not, I must observe, exhibit their usual judgment in a note which they subjoin. "Here" we are told "is an incidental proof that the Holy Eucharist was then celebrated in the presence of the congregation, non-communicants as well as communicants, as in other parts of the western Church at and since the great schism. The present custom of excluding non-communicants from witnessing the commemorative sacrifice, is an innovation, unsanctioned alike by rubrick and canon." These are somewhat bold conclusions to arrive at upon the faith of one evidence and to say nothing of the rapid decision, that a return, even though it were in our own days, to primitive practice was an innovation, it certainly would have been as well if the editors had also told us, since we are to believe this innovation is later than Elizabeth's reign, when it did begin or established itself. 41 But as I own this to be if not the only authority," at least an apparently strong one, brought forward by those who advocate the continued stay of non-communicants, it must be examined. Now, to pass by the question of 41 Two arguments have certainly been adduced in favour of noncommunicants: but really they scarcely seem to be worthy consideration. One is, that the Church of England considers every person to be a communicant, (which in a sense is true,) who communicates, at the required times during the year, according to the rubric. But in the first place this rubric cannot be understood to enforce the communion of parishioners, living in sin, or under penance; and in the next, it does not say one word about them, on those occasions when from any just or urgent cause, they do not communicate. The other argument is, that the Church does by courtesy (a strange courtesy it would have been thought of old) admit the presence of noncommunicants, because, "at Coronations the Sovereign receives the Sacrament in presence of her subjects, not one of whom is permitted to communicate, except the officiating Bishops and the dean of Westminster." Strictly, the Order of the Coronation, as used at present, is said not to be an authorized Formulary of the Church of England: but, waiving this, (and it cannot be denied very high authority) there who Cartwright was, and that he would not be unlikely to strain facts, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he is alluding to communions at that time, about 1572, in the Church of England. He is arguing against the allowance of wafer-bread: and remembering, as he well could, the performance of the Divine Service during Q. Mary's reign, and probably in King Henry's, he reasons from the superstitious gestures then made by the common people and I somewhat wonder that the editors of the Hierurgia, have in their extract left out the words "that have been mysled in popery." So that even if this was all the information which Cartwright furnishes, he leaves the question exactly where it was before. But I think he gives unanswerable witness upon the other side, in proof that it was not then the custom to celebrate the Holy Eucharist in the presence of noncommunicants. He says, a few pages before: "Nowe remayneth to be spoken of the number of communicants, and that there is fault in the appoynting of the service booke, not only for that it admitteth in the tyme of plague, that one with y mynister may celebrate the supper of the Lord in the house, but for that it ordayneth a communion in the church, when of a great number which assemble there, it admitteth three or fower.-The departing therefore of the rest of the church from those three or fower, is an open profession that they have no communion nor unitie with them, that doe communicate." And presently afterwards, as if to set at rest what he means by departing, we read: "So that it must needes folow, that the not receiuing of those whych de are ample reasons why on such an occasion, some relaxation should be allowed of the general rule: omitting all mention of the impossibility of distributing the elements to every one, or of permitting them to be distributed. It certainly, in short, is not a case from which fairly any argument can be brought. |