"No Communion."

23

Will any one deny that, even if our Lord Himself alone elected to celebrate these Holy Mysteries, unattended by as much as one of His followers, these Holy Mysteries would be validly celebrated? This much, at all events, is clearly evident-that no body of Christian laity, however numerous, could by any act of theirs validly celebrate the Mysteries; they would be compelled to have recourse to the services of one who had authority "to do this in remembrance" of Him, and he alone could by himself alone, unaided in any wise by other Christians, validly and effectually and duly celebrate the Sacrament in obedience to his Lord's command.

Next let us observe what gloss is put upon the rubric in our Prayer-book in regard to the celebration of these Mysteries. I refer to the rubric that "there shall be no Communion," etc. For as to the previous one, stating "there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper," etc., the concluding words, "according to his discretion," at once dispose of any impediment in the way of celebrating if the priest think fit, even without the aid of one person present. But many interpret the next as though it forbade altogether a celebration without the attendance of a certain number. A closer examination, however, of the two rubrics would at once reveal a distinction between the two injunctions. And here it is we recognize the confusion that has arisen in the minds of some, owing to their inability to discern the difference between the terms used in naming the Holy Mysteries.

In the first rubric the term used is the "Lord's Supper," in the second, "Communion," and the confusion, I say, which has arisen is owing to the fact

that they have identified these terms as applying to the one and the same thing; whereas, in truth, the one term has reference to one thing, and the other to a separate and distinct aspect of that one thing. The "Lord's Supper" is here the term used for the whole rite, while the term "Communion" refers only to one aspect of it, or to one separate part or distinct act of ritual which may happen after the whole rite has been duly consummated. To hold any other opinion respecting the language and direction of these rubrics must place the makers of them in an absurd, if not ludicrous position. For, if the terms referred to the same thing absolutely, what need, we should ask, was there for the first of them if the second was intended for the priest's guidance? or, if the first was meant to be his rule, what need of the second, which entirely nullifies the first, if the terms in both refer to one and the same thing, viz. the Holy Mysteries ?

"Communion" evidently refers to the ritual act of administering the Holy Sacrament to the faithful laity, after its due and proper celebration by the priest. For, without doubt, this was the interpretation of the term, as understood by our elergy prior to, and at the time of, the reform of our Liturgy; and such is the meaning now given to it by other branches of the Church. And unless three or four in a certain parish. of a given size presented themselves, then the one or two must wait till a more convenient season, as at Easter, or Christmas, or other great feast, when a goodly number would be expected to present themselves, and until then must content themselves with the blessings which they would gain undoubtedly by

Rubrics in a Catholic Sense.

25

faithfully assisting at the Celebration by their presence only.

It is difficult at this distance of time to get at the reasons for this command, but that it affected the laity only we can in no wise doubt. The knowledge of those who framed, or assisted in framing, the rubrics at a time when canon law was a subject. of special study, must for ever preclude the opinion that they were unacquainted with the general laws that governed the discipline and liturgies of the Catholic Church; by no means may we presume that they intended framing rubrics that should contravene the canons of the whole Church. Nay, we could shew instances where in our Prayer-book, in order to keep intact "the faith once delivered to the saints," they have, while ostensibly appearing to yield to the clamour of the hour and the pressure of Puritan invective, so skilfully arranged parts of our Liturgy and worded rubrics that are yet in sympathy with the rest of the Catholic Church. And these very instances confirm us in the opinion that here, as elsewhere, they have been careful to admit loopholes of escape amidst the apparent entanglement of such an environment as may be represented through the confusion of ideas that prevailed among the enemy as to the use of certain terms, as "Communion" and "Lord's Supper," respecting the Holy Mysteries.

Having formed this opinion from the internal testimony afforded by the Book of Common Prayer itself, and from the commentaries of such prelates as Bishops Overall, Cosin, and others, we do not scruple to affirm that the whole scheme of the book (as indeed it is admitted in the preface) was in the

direction of sympathy and accord with the whole Church of Christ. Having, then, this basis to rest upon, we cannot for one moment doubt but that these rubrics in question were so framed that they should present no difficulty to those who within our English communion might desire to conform to the direct command of Christ Himself, and the common usage of His Holy Church throughout all ages.*

Let us consider, then, first, that the celebration of the Holy Eucharist is admittedly the highest act of worship we can render to God; that it may without question be termed the Lord's Service in particular; that it is the only Liturgical Service which is of obligation upon all the faithful by the supreme authority of Christ Himself and of Holy Scripture; that the celebration of this particular service can only be performed by a priest, and by him validly and effectually, without the aid of any other person, as it was such only whom Christ authorized to celebrate this Sacrament. Granted these premises, it were indeed absurd to impose any other meaning upon the rubrics in question than that we have endeavoured to assign to them.

But Puritan disputants might reply that the rubrics in question were in accord with what Christ Himself directed when He said, "Where two or three," etc. Here we are at issue at once with them, and deny that this particular passage had special reference to a meeting of the faithful for public worship, and that only; neither the context nor the original text will bear this interpretation. It has reference more especially, or altogether, to the union *See, for instances of private Mass, Peliccia, lib. ii. sec. 2, cap. 11.

of two or three for general Church purposes, persons who should be of one mind, and that mind the Mind of Christ, as set forth in particular in the Creed, and according to His holy Will.

But, supposing for a moment it did refer to public worship, we should then have an instance of a particular branch of Christ's Church (the English communion) presuming to amend or otherwise alter the supreme canon of her great Founder, and directing that Christ should not be invoked in solemn celebration of the Holy Mysteries, nor that any remembrance should be made of Him as He has directed Himself, only as it pleases the fancy or whim of this particular branch, viz. save and only when A or B at least are pleased to present themselves for Communion, and by this special rubric of their own device excluding for an indefinite time the two or three whom Christ has expressed Himself as willing and ready to bless with His especial Presence!

We ask, what power or authority have they for thus contravening a direct command of the chief Bishop and Founder? Such a rubric must, in the very face of this, be altogether ultra vires, and can bind no one, least of all the clergy who expound Christ's law. But, as we have shewn above, this cannot be the case. And not only would such interpretations as Puritans would place on this rubric go against the higher law of Christ, but also be found to be at issue with the general and common custom of the whole Church, which is, that the priest may each day or any particular day celebrate the Holy Mysteries without the aid of a second person, and that such celebration would be perfectly valid. I am