Images de page

"to be used at certain times when the curate shall see the people negligent to come to the Holy Communion," were added upon Bucer's special instance, and in consequence of his "Censure;" but we beg the reader to mark that the main design even of Bucer's empiricism, was only that which the Church herself had in view, the making the Holy Communion her perpetual and standing office, in which we "commemorate the one great and final Sacrifice, in the manner appointed by our Lord, and continually present unto God that memorial with prayer and thanksgiving, and an offering of our substance and of ourselves, both soul and body; and to apply to ourselves, through faith, the results of the one propitiatory sacrifice."* The following are Bucer's own reasonings in his "Censure" on the first Book of Edward, which we take the liberty of translating for the convenience of the English reader. "The persons


rather than stand by and not communicate, to "depart hence, and give place to them that be godly disposed." Among the other modifications which took place at the last revision, this sentence was omitted; and upon the complaint of the Presbyterians, (who had now become dissatisfied with Bucer's alterations,) that "the first and second exhortations were more fit to be read some days before the Communion, than at the very time that the people are come to receive it," one of them was converted into a previous warning, and they were directed to be read "after the Sermon or homily ended." This was, in fact, going back to the practice of Edward's First Book, which contained both an exhortation to present, and a warning of future communion, to be given, if necessary, after the creed and Sermon. It had been, however, therein wisely prescribed that "in cathedrals, and wherever there was daily Communion, it shall be sufficient to read it once a month, and that in parish churches on the week days, it may be left unsaid." It will be borne in mind that at this time the order, for at least weekly Communion, in all parish churches, was peremptory. Another alteration was, that whereas, in Edward's First Book, the DryService" was allowed to be used on Wednesdays and Fridays only; the direction was now extended to the Holydays, and we are informed by an eminent ritualist, who must be allowed to have understood the sense and practice of the Church in his time, which was before the last revision, that "under the notion of Holy Dayes in this place, such Sundays are also to be comprehended on which there is no Communion, in country villages where congregations are thin; for Sundays are put into the catalogue of holy dayes in the Act of Parliament and order of our Church." It is also evident that the revision of our Common Prayer Book at the last review, while leaving the administration of the daily Communion to the discretion of the Curate, contemplated that it should be administered in all parish churches every Lord's day; for when the Presbyterian Brethren, in 1661, desired that the "Minister be not required to rehearse any part of the Liturgy at the Communion Table, save only those parts which properly belong to the Lord's Supper," the reply of the Bishops was as follows: "That the Minister should not read the Communion Service at the Communion Table, is not reasonable to demand, since all the primitive Churches used it. . . . . The Priest standing at the Communion Table, seemeth to give us an invitation to the Holy Sacrament, and minds us of our duty to receive the Holy Communion, some at least every Sunday; and though we neglect our duty, it is fit the Church should keep her standing.' Nor was any intimation of departure now given to non-communicants, only the rubric referred to by Bishop Mant directing the "convenient placing of the Communicants at the time of the celebration," was added before the third exhortation. These three exhortations are termed by Dr. Nicholls, 1. The warning to Communion; 2. The exhortation to Communion ; 3. The exhortation at Communion.

[ocr errors]

*Charge, by Charles James, Lord Bishop of London, 1842. Bucer, in main. taining the propriety of administering the Communion, at least every Lord's day, terms it "that sacred rite, in which the majesty of God, the death and resurrection of his Son, and the salvation of mankind, are celebrated and represented."

present should be urged by all methods to communicate. But there are some who agree with us in this, and yet do not use the true means of effecting it. For some with this view celebrate the Lord's Supper as seldom as three or four times a year, others dismiss all the people who had assembled at the preaching of the gospel, and the prayers, in order to celebrate the Lord's Supper in presence of the communicants only. For, inasmuch as the Lord commended to his disciples the use of this Sacrament, for the solemn celebration of his memory, surely it is our duty to celebrate it at every solemn assembly, that is, on every Lord's day. Likewise inasmuch as the Apostle (1 Cor. xi.) delegates the celebration of the Lord's Supper to the Christians as frequently as they met, and as we read that the Apostolic Church continued in the breaking of bread, as well as in the Apostles' doctrine, (Acts ii.) it follows that the primitive Churches received from a certain tradition of the Apostles, the practice of exhibiting the Lord's Supper on all Sundays and festivals, nay, as often as the Church assembled."

The rubrics here referred to regarded parochial churches only; with respect to cathedrals, no change seems to have been contemplated, for whereas in Edward's First Book it is assumed that in "cathedral churches" as well as "other places," there is "daily communion," the rubric in the Second Prayer Book, (which is the same with that still in force,) provides that "in cathedral and collegiate churches, where there be many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with the minister [priest, 1662] every Sunday at the least, except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary."

It had been provided in Edward's First Book that, "Upon Wednesdays and Fridays, (after the Litany ended,) as well as on other days, whensoever the people be customably assembled to pray in the church, and none disposed to communicate with the priest, he shall put upon him a plain albe, or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at the altar, &c., until after the offertory with one of the concluding collects, and the accustomed blessing. This was the origin in the English Church of what has been called the Dry-Service,† or the Communion Service without Communion." There is said to have been a precedent for such service in other parts of Europe. The earliest notice of it, however, which we have is in the year 1200. But the practice was prohibited by several councils, although it is said to have still prevailed at Turin so late as the year 1587.‡

"In cathedral churches or other places, where there is daily communion, it shall be sufficient to read this exhortation once in a month, and in parish churches, upon the week days, it may be left unsaid."-Rubric after the first exhortation, -"Dearly beloved in the Lord."

† Missa Sicca, called also the Sailor's Mass, from the difficulty of administering the Communion on board ship.

See Palmer's Antiquities of English Ritual, vol. ii. p. 164. Third Edition.

Although none had been more opposed to this practice than some of the ritualists of the Latin church, it equally fell under the censure of Bucer. "This," he says, "is a dumb-shew of the Lord's Supper, borrowed from the anti-christian Romanists. It therefore serves in its own way to confirm in the minds of the superstitious their impious faith in the mass. This I have heard from pious, learned, and serious men, from whom even noble women had the open audacity to seek for memories, (as they call them,) when communicants were wanting.. .. And what grounds are there in the word of God for the minister's saying, either in his ordinary dress or in the plain linen albe, and in other places than at the Lord's table, the other prayers, psalms, and lessons, which have the same dignity and divine power in themselves, and yet saying that semi-mass in missal vestments, and at the Lord's table ?" This observation of Bucer's does not, however, seem to have been entirely attended to; the principal alteration made in this respect was, that whereas the semi-mass, (as Bucer called it,) in Edward's First Book, ended immediately after the Offertory, when the concluding collect was said and the blessing pronounced; the same service in Edward's Second Book included the Prayer for the Church Militant, the position of which in Edward's First Book was after the Preface, immediately between the Sanctus and the Prayer of Consecration, but was in the Second Book removed to its present place, after the Offertory.

It may be necessary here to remind the reader, that the Communion Service consisted originally of two parts, the one appropriated to catechumens, or learners, at which all persons were permitted to be present, and which consisted principally of Hymns, Exhortations, and the reading of the Scriptures; while the latter part, at which none were permitted to be present but the faithful, included the Confession of Faith,* the Consecration, and the Reception of the Holy Communion. "In the course of ages, however, the ancient exclusion of catechumens and infidels became obsolete, because the Christian religion was universally prevalent. Thus it was in England, as in most other countries. The distinction between the missa-catechumenorum, or that part of the Liturgy which catechumens might attend, and the missa-fidelium, or that part where the faithful, or Christians only, were present, gradually became extinct. Hence we find, that in the middle ages the sermon, or instruction to the people, was sometimes delivered after the Creed and Offertory; thus excluding the Creed from that part of the office which was originally intended for the faithful only. This custom of the Church of England is

* "The Creed was placed in the part which followed the dismissal of the catechumens and learners, and before the solemn prayers, or Canon. After their dismissal, the Creed was recited, as a further test of the orthodoxy of those that remained and professed to be faithful.”—Palmer's Antiquities of the English Ritual, vol. ii. p. 55.

still visible in our Liturgy, where the sermon follows the Creed instead of preceding it, according to the primitive rule."

[ocr errors]

From the circumstances above stated, the exclusion of any who desired to be present had ceased for many centuries before the Reformation, and it became the practice all over the East and West, for the communicants to receive in presence of the congregation. Such is still the rule and practice on the continent, as well in the Western Church as among all who have separated from her communion-among Catholics and Protestants. Such is equally the rule of the Anglo-Catholic Church, in whose Liturgy there exists no form of dismissal until the final blessing, nor even any reminiscence of the ancient practice of the dismissal of the catechumens.† Such was also the practice in the Church of England until a comparatively recent time. The sovereigns of England, to this day, receive the Holy Communion in presence of their subjects. But subsequently to the Revolution,§ in those periods when the laxity of some of the prelates would have altered the Creeds and neutralized the presbyterate, it became fashionable to depreciate the Sacraments of the Church, and undervalue her privileges. Then it was that rubrical violations commenced; the practice became common of curtailing the service by pronouncing the blessing from the pulpit, instead of returning to the altar to continue the service, according to the Rubric and ancient usage. The Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was in the early periods of the Reformation still administered in nearly every parish church in England on every Lord's Day,|| became gradually less and less frequently celebrated. The office

Palmer's Antiquities of the English Ritual, vol. ii. p. 55. In the Roman Liturgy there is still a reminiscence of the ancient practice, the sermon coming between the Gospel and the Creed. The Anglican Church, by changing the position of the sermon, abolished the last vestige of the distinction between the two parts of the office.

In Edward's First Book, the communicants were directed to remain in the choir, and all others to leave it after the Offertory, except the priest and clerks. The congregation remained in the nave.

The only other persons present, who are permitted to communicate, are the officiating Prelates, and the Dean of Westminster.

§ We are informed by Bishop Burnet, that immediately after the Revolution clergymen were maintained by subscription to "read prayers in so many places, and at so many different hours, that devout persons might have that comfort at every hour of the day; that there were constant Sacraments every Lord's day in many churches, and that there were both greater numbers and greater appearances of devotion at prayers and Sacraments, than had been observed in the memory of man."-Hist. of his own Times, vol. ii.

See Le Strange's Alliance of Divine Offices. This learned ritualist, referring to the Apostolical Canon, "Let every one of the Faithful that comes into church, and continueth not in prayer, and the participation of the blessed mysteries, be excommunicated," observes, "This notwithstanding, for matter of fact, clear it is all did not conform, St. Chrysostom reproving some upon this very score," [nearly in the words of the Exhortation in Edward's Second Book,] "why standest thou behind and doest not partake of the table?" Bucer wished to have every person in England, who did not communicate every Sunday, excommunicated; but the only alteration made in consequence, was the extension of the obligation to communicate from "once" to "three times" in the year, of which Easter was to be one.


appointed by the Church for the daily communion being now left to the discretion of the Curate was discontinued altogether. On Sundays and Holydays, the "Dry-Service," intended by the Church to be used only when communicants could not be obtained, now resumed the place of the solitary mass of the priest; and although either of these practices would have been justly considered a great evil by our Reformers, we are not here called upon, even if we were competent, to decide which is the greater. The Dry-Service at length came to be employed on the most solemn occasions, even at the consecration of churches. The Holy Communion was in some places administered monthly, in others quarterly, in others annually. The practice of noncommunicants retiring after the sermon, commenced, although the Rubric gave not the slightest intimation of such practice. This custom soon gave rise to the feeling that this was the proper place to retire. A notion became prevalent that it was more holy to retire than to assist. The clergy themselves entertained the opinion that the congregation ought to be dismissed after the sermon, first on communion, and then on non-communion days; and finding no form for the purpose provided by the Rubric, they invented or interpolated one.† And, as a natural consequence of this unauthorized attempt on the part of private individuals to improve the Liturgy, now that there is so general a desire manifested to return to the old paths, there is no question which the clergy find more perplexity in deciding, than, whereabouts is the proper place to dismiss the congregation? For there is certainly no vestige of such dismissal after the sermon. And, such is the force of long habit, there are, we believe, but few who have discovered, that, as no form of dismissal is to be found in the Liturgy, it is obvious that no dismissal whatever is contemplated by the Church. We have found it necessary to premise these obser

In St. Paul's Cathedral, the Rubric for weekly clerical Communion is said to be superseded by a chapter regulation to the effect that preparation will be made for communion every Lord's day, which will be administered if a certain number of the congregation require it. But it appears that on Sunday, January 30th, the day on which the King of Prussia assisted at Divine Service, no preparation was made, the Eucharistic office was suspended, and the "Dry-Service" substituted for the Memorial of Christ's death.

+ Even the Dry-Service was generally mutilated (whenever a sermon was preached) by omitting the prayer for the Church Militant. This prayer is still omitted at the Temple church.

See Bishop Mant's Charge, above cited, p. 237.

Some are of opinion that the Church of England is more conformable to the primitive Church in her present practice, than she is in her rubrics. But independently of the fact, that "we are not to take as our rule and government the early Church, but the Church of England, as she speaks in plain and obvious cases by her rubrics and canons," (Bishop of London's Charge,) we presume that in the primitive Church, all baptized persons (not in the class of penitents) were expected be present. There were also the consistentes, or those permitted to remain, nding with the Faithful, joining in prayers with them, but abstaining from union," (L'Estrange.) In this class were included the penitents who were

« PrécédentContinuer »