The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or
Holy Communion

In the Liturgy it is called The Communion, and well it were that the piety of the people were such as to make it alwayes a Communion. The Church as appears by her pathetical Exhortation before the Communion, and the Rubrick after it, labours to bring men oftner to communicate than she usually obtains. Private and solitary Communions of the Priest alone she allows not; and therefore when other cannot be had she appoints only so much of the Service, as relates not of necessity to a present Communion, and that to be said at the Holy Table; and upon good reason, the Church thereby keeping, as it were, her ground, visibly minding us of what she desires and labours towards, our more frequent access to that holy Table, and in the mean while that part of the Service which she uses may perhaps more fitly be called the Second Service than the Communion. And so it is often called, though not in the Rubr. of the Liturgy, yet in divers Fast books and the like set out by Authority.

If any should think that it cannot properly be called the Second Service, because the Morning Service and Litany go before it, which we prove in the following discourse to be two distinct Services, whereby this should seem to be the Third rather than the Second Service, it is Answered, that sometimes the Communion Service is used upon such dayes as the Litany is not; and then it may without question be called the Second Service: nay, even then when the Litany and all is used, the Communion Service may be very fitly called the Second Service: For though in strictness of speech the Litany is a service distinct, as is shewn; yet in our usual acception of the word Service, namely for a compleat Service with all the several parts of it, Psalms, Readings, Creeds, Thanksgivings, and Prayers, so the Litany is not a Service, nor so esteemed, but called The Litany, or Supplications; and lookt upon sometimes, when other Offices follow, as a kind of Preparative (though a distinct form) to them, as to The Communion, Commination, &c. And therefore it was a custome in some Churches, that a Bell was tolled, while the Litany was saying, to give notice to the people, that the Communion Service was now coming on.

This Service consists of Four parts, The first reaches to the Offertory, called anciently Missa Catechumenorum, the service of the Catechumens: The second is the Offertory, which reaches to the Consecration. The third begins at the Consecration, and ends at the Angelical Hymn, Glory be to God on high. The last is the Post-Communion, or Thanksgiving, which with us is nothing but that holy Hymn.

That they are three distinct Services will appear. For they are to be performed at distinct places, and times. The Morning Service is to be said at the beginning of the day, as appears in the third Collect for Grace. Πρωΐα, sayes, S. Chrys. which is translated, S. Matth. 27. 2. in the Morning: and S. John 18. 28. Early. In S. Mark 13. 35. it is translated, The dawning of the day. The place for it is the accustomed place in the Chancel or Church, saies the Rubr. before Morning prayer, or where the Ordinary shall appoint it.

The Litany is also a distinct Service, for it is no part of the Morning Service, as you may see Rubr. after Athanas. Creed. Here ends the Morn. and Even. Service. Then follows the Litany. Nor is it any part of the Com. Service, for that begins with Our Father, and the Collect, Almighty God, &c. and is to be said after the Litany. The time and place for this, is not appointed in the Rubr. but it is supposed to be known by practice. For in the Commination, the 51. Psal. is appointed to be said, where they are accustomed to say the Litany, and that was in the Church. Eliz. Inj. 18. before the Chancel door. Bishop Andrews notes upon the Liturgy: It being a penitential Office, is there appointed, in imitation of Gods command, to the Priests in their penitential Service, Ioel 2 17. Let the Priests weep between the Porch and the Altar. The time of this, is a little before the time of the Com. Service, Inj. 18. Eliz.

The Communion-Service is to be some good distance after the Morn. Service, Rubr. 1. before the Communion-Service, So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signifie their names to the Curate, over night, or before Morning prayer, or immediately after, which does necessarily require a good space of time to do it in. The usual hour for the solemnity of this Service, was anciently, and so should be, Nine of the clock, Morning. C. Aurel. 3. c. 11. This is the Canonical hour De Consecr. dist. 1. c. Et Hos. Thence probably call'd, the holy hour, Decret. dist. 44. c. fin. In case of necessity it might be said earlier or later, Durant, de Ritibus; but this was the usual and Canonical hour for it. One reason which is given for it is, because at this hour began our Saviours Passion, S. Mark 15. 25. the Jewes then crying out Crucifie, &c. At this hour therefore is the Com. Service (part of which is a commemoration of Christs Passion) performed. Another reason given is, because this hour the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, Acts 2. 15. Lastly, because it is the most convenient hour for all to meet, and dispatch this with other offices before Noon. For, 'till the Service was ended, Men were perswaded to be fasting; and therefore it was thought fit to end all the Service, before Noon, that people might be free to eat. Durant. l. 2. c. 7. Why this Service is called the Second, see pag. 207, 208.

The place for this Service is the Altar or Communion Table, Rubr. before the Com. And so it was always in Primitive times, which is a thing so plain as it needs no proof.

B. And if any of them be an open and notorious evil liver, &c.] Notorium amongst the civilians and canonists is threefold. First, there is notorium presumptionis, “a notoriousness of presumption,” where evidentia rei est evidenter a jure presumpta, “the evidence of the thing is taken for evident, by presumption of law;” as where it presumeth one to be the son of such a man, because he was born in wedlock. Secondly, there is notorium juris, “a notoriousness of law,” when the offence is proved either per confessionem factam in jure, “by confession made in open court,” or per sententiam judicis, “by the sentence of the judge.” Lastly, there is notorium facti, “a notoriousness of fact,’ when per evidentiam rei nulla potest tergiversatione celari, “the evidence is so clear, as the accusation can by no shifts be avoided.”

Now to which of these three the term notorius in this rubric relateth is a great question. The learned prelate, Bishop Andrewes‘, restraineth it positively to the second: “Our law of England,” saith he, “will not suffer the minister to judge any man a notorious offender, but he who is so convinced by some legal sentence;” the law of England will not suffer it, so that should the ecclesiastical permit it, the municipal law would not; and if it comes to an antinomy, a justle between the canon laws of our Church and the law of the land, this it is must overrule. But doth our canon law give any such toleration? Doth it empower any minister to exclude his parishioner (claiming his Christian privilege in those blessed mysteries) from the Sacrament, or to make his private discretion the supreme judge of the notoriousness here mentioned?

Certainly no. As for the 26th and 27th canons, which are produced to the contrary, they neither speak explicitly enough, nor do they sufficiently direct in this affair. The canon wherein our Church declareth her mind more articulately is the 109th: “if any offend their brethren, either by adultery, whoredom, incest, or drunkenness, or by swearing, ribaldry, usury, or any other uncleanness and wickedness of life, the churchwardens, or questmen and sidemen, in their next presentment to their ordinaries, shall faithfully present all and every of the said offenders, to the intent that they and every of them may be punished by the severity of the laws, according to their deserts, and such notorious offenders shall not be admitted to the Communion till they be reformed;” where I note, first, the crime must be scandalous, “an offence to the brethren.” Secondly, it must be “presented to the ordinary.” Thirdly, that such scandalous offenders, so presented to the ordinary, “are not to be admitted to the Communion.”

But some perhaps will say, this was one of the failings of an ill-regulated state and Church, which justly called for a reformation, and so indeed it was pretended by Dr. Burgess, and Mr. White of Dorchester, at a committee sitting in the Lords’ House, in March 1641. But, upon a full debate, it was determined at that committee, to the very conviction of the opponents, that open and notorious evil livers were none but such as the laws had adjudged to be so. Agreeable to this determination did the parliament afterwards ordain, that no person be suspended from the Communion for any matter of scandal, but, “either upon his confession before the eldership to have committed such an offence, or upon the testimony of two witnesses at least, and those examined upon oath.” So was it ordained by this parliament, sufficiently presbyterian, against the liking of an assembly of presbyters, which did eniwius dogmatis et argumentis in contrarium, nec semel, sed frustra, contendere; “vehemently, though all to little purpose, (more than once,) oppose it with all the arguments they could,” as Mr. Selden assures us.

Having opened the mind of both our Church and state, as to this particular, it will not be amiss to represent the conformity it beareth with the imperial edict, and practice of the primitive Church. As for the imperial law, it speaks loud enough; omnibus episcopis et presbyteris interdicimus segregare aliquem a sacra communione, antequam causa monstretur, propter quam sancte regule hoc fieri jubent, “we prohibit all, both bishops and presbyters, from shutting out any one from the Communion, before just cause be shewn that the holy canons warrant them so to proceed.” As for the primitive usage, St. Augustine fully, nos a Communione quenquam prohibere non possumus, nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in aliquo judicio ecclesiastico, vel seculari nominatum, atque convictums, “we cannot repel any man from the Communion, unless he hath freely confessed his offence, or hath been accused and convicted in some secular court, or ecclesiastical consistory.”

Indeed so was the legislative pattern of our Saviour, in the first institution of His Supper. Never was there a more detestable crime than Judas’s treason, never was delinquent convicted upon evidence so infallible as his Master’s omniscience. But though he had already projected the conspiracy, and our Saviour already knew it, yet did He not interdict him from participating with His elect Apostles, recommending thereby to His Church this lesson, that no outward communion of the wicked with us in those sacred ordinances, can possibly render them ineffectual to His holy ones. It is true, I grant, some learned men depart from this sense, and because St. John saith that “Judas, having received the sop, went immediately out,” thence infer his absence at the time of Christ’s instituting His last supper. But our Church is positive in the contrary; nor can St. John be otherwise reconciled to the rest of the evangelists.

To conclude, the result of all the premises is, that none are to be suspended from this Sacrament but the notorious delinquents, and that none are notorious but they whom the sentence of the law or their own confessions have stated so to be. All reason it should be so. My temporal estate no private person can deprive me of, until it be legally evicted from me by course of law, and shall it be in the power of any mortal man to divest me of my interest in that, blessed banquet, before I be adjudged to have forfeited it upon fair hearing? What were this, but to expose Christians to the infirmities, passions, and somewhat else, quod dicere nolo, of their spiritual pastors?

C. The same order shall the curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, &c.] Amongst the three graces the Apostle hath given the supremacy of dignity to charity, 1 Cor. xiii. 13, and this most excellent grace is never so resplendent as in the celebration of the Eucharist, in relation to which, she is most strictly enjoined by our Saviour Himself, “If thou bringest thy gift unto the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave thy gift before the altar, and go first and be reconciled to thy brother:” which is very rationally thought by learned men to be the institution of an evangelical ordinance, because it was not commanded under the law to such as were to present their oblations, and it is not like that Christ would superinduce any new establishment to former rights, when the ceremonial law was expiring; concurrent with the Master’s precept is the order of His disciples, St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 18, “When ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you.” What these divisions were he tells them in the 21st verse, viz. that “when they came to their love-feasts,” wherewith this Sacrament was joined, and which were instituted for the preservation of Christian fellowship, and levelling of all, not only animosities, but high thoughts; this notwithstanding, the rich, who brought plenty, presuming he might be master of what he offered, either fell to apart, or with some select and choice friends of his own exceedings fed liberally, while the poor man had not wherewith to stay his stomach; which inferred a disdain not agreeable to the design of that charitable collation: upon these proceedings, the Apostle being to pronounce his judgment, he assures them they are much in the wrong, and that this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, i. 6. that this practice and the Communion are two, inconsistent and incompatible one with the other; charity being so essentially requisite to the right participation of the Sacrament, as it hath imposed denomination to it. It being called the Communion, 1 Cor. x. 16, why so, he tells us in the next verse, “for thereby we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Now there cannot possibly be union where there is not charity, the breach of this grace being the same in the spiritual body of the Church that a wound is in the natural, solutio continut, a rupture of the part entire.

And in symbolical reference to this, it may be here aptly hinted, that in the primitive Church for certain, and probably in the Apostolic, they used in the celebration of this Sacrament to have but one loaf and one cup for the whole congregation, to which in all likelihood Ignatius alluded εἷς ἄρτος τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐθρύφθη, καὶ ἕν ποτήριον τοῖς ὅλοις διενεμήθη, i. 6. “one bread is broken, and one cup distributed to the whole congregation;᾽ which passage, though that most excellent edition of Isaacus Vossius (exactly agreeing with the very ancient translation published by the reverend primate of Armagh) doth not own, yet I presume the rather to cite, because he speaketh elsewhere of some éva ἄρτον κλῶντες, i. e. “breaking one bread.” A matter not improbable in such times when communicants were not by the tithe so numerous as now. And though I deny not but this father might have chief regard to Christ, the mystical bread which came down from heaven, yet doth not that hinder but he might also allude to what was then matter of fact in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Besides this nominal indication of the necessity of this virtue from the word Communion, further evidence may be produced from antiquity for its high reputation; as that it was a constant adjunct to those ἀγάπαι, or feasts of love, which were fellow-like collations intended as a repast for the poor, together with the wealthy: and though, several abuses stepping into that sacred confraternity and brotherhood, Christian prudence thought fit soon after in the Greek Church (for in the African they continued together up to Tertullian’s time) to disjoin them, ordering the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated in the morning fasting; yet that it might still lay claim and title to its ancient appellation of a love feast, it was accommodated with ceremonies of like import.

Whence in the entrance into service of those blessed mysteries, the deacon was appointed to cry aloud, μή τις κατὰ τίνος, i. 6. “let no man be at strife one with another,” (a phrase borrowed I conceive from that of Ignatius!, μηδεὶς ὑμῶν τὶ κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον ἐχέτω, 1. 6. “let no man have any controversy with his neighbour;”) and this proclamation once past, the holy kiss and embraces amongst the faithful presently followed; ἀλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεθα παυσάμενοι TOV εὐχῶν, i. 6. “prayers ended, we salute one another with an holy kiss,” that is, ἀλλήλους οἱ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἀλλήλας αἱ γυναῖςkes, as the Constitutions have it, “men, men, and women, women;” and it cannot otherwise be conceived, considering their stations were so disposed in holy assemblies as each sex was severed and apart from the other. From hence also Tertullian calleth this signaculum orationis, “the seal and close of prayer.”

This is that which the council of Laodicea, and the Greeks in their liturgies, call εἰρήνη, the Latins pax, the “salutation of peace,” and is still retained by the Church of Rome, derived originally from that of the Apostle, Rom. xvi. 16, “salute one another with a holy kiss.” Lastly, when the congregation was departed, this noble virtue of charity was still preserved, by sending sometimes “blessed loaves,” sometimes part of the consecrated bread to their absent friends, as tokens of their Christian correspondence, whereof mention is made in the epistle of Irenaeus to Victor bishop of Rome cited by Eusebius, and in the several epistles of Augustine and Paulinus under the name of panis benedictus, “blessed bread.” The result of all this tends, not as to the decision of a question controverted, but to the exciting us up to a due estimation of this grace, and to mind us that this Sacrament should be somewhat beside ἀνάμνησις τοῦ πάθους, “a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross,” (which is granted to be the chief motive to its institution,) and that also it is intended to be ἀμνηστίας ψήφισμα, “an act of oblivion,” according to the Athenian mode, of injuries received.

D. Shall stand in the body of the church or in the chancel.] This rubric being not explicit enough as to the proper station of the holy table, is illustrated by comparing the eighty-second canon with Queen Elizabeth’s first Injunctions, and succeeding orders. In the canon the order is, that the table shall stand where it is placed, viz. at the east end of the chancel, “saving when the holy Communion is to be administered: at which time the same shall be placed in so good a sort, as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants, and the communicants also may more conveniently and in more number communicate with the minister.” Which one words are almost verbatim transcribed out of the queen’s Injunctions, these only superadding: “and after the Communion done from time to time the same holy table to be placed where it stood before.”

Nothing can be more express and demonstrative, that the table placed where the altar stood, was but seposed, set out of the way, during only the time of non-communication; and that at the time of the Communion it was to be removed, as the word ‘saving,’ mentioned both in the canon and in the Injunctions, and the cited member of the Injunctions infallibly implieth; if these instances afford not satiety to quiet all scruples, the orders of that queen speak shrill enough. '‘And if in any church the steps be transposed, that they be not erected again, but that the place be decently paved, where the Communion table shall stand, out of the time of receiving of the holy Communion.” Order, Oct. 10, 3 Eliz. So that out of Communion time the table is to stand altar-wise, as we, and only we do phrase it; for altar-wise is an idiom peculiar to us English, not known abroad in foreign parts; and they who can find popery in that position, have better eyes than ordinary. Altars with them do not observe one regular position; some are placed in the middle of the choir; some at the upper part, end-ways north and south; and if eye-witnesses may be trusted, the chief altar in St. Peter’s church at Rome stands in the midst of the chancel. As for the priest standing at the north side of the table, this seemeth to avoid the fashion of the priest’s standing with his face towards the east, as is the popish practice.” So the MS. collections of a learned man.

Part. 1. We begin the first part as the Church was wont to begin her Services, with the LORDS PRAYER, concerning which, see the Morning Service.

After this follows an excellent prayer to God to cleanse our hearts by his holy inspiration.

E. Shall say the Lords Prayer.] The Lord’s Prayer hath been ever since Christianity a considerable portion of the Communion Service, and instituted so to be by Christ Himself, if credit may be given to St. Jerome. Docuit apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui, Pater Noster, &c. i. 6. “Christ taught His Apostles the boldness to address themselves to God in His own words in the daily sacrifice of His body.” The like is affirmed by St, Augustine, epist. 59; and Gregory, lib. vii. epist. 63.

The Decalogue. The Law was imprinted as the first in man's heart: the which is acknowledged even by profane Poets, as well as divine Prophets in general. Exemplo quodcung, malo committitur, ipsi displicet authori: prima est hac ultio, quod se indice, nemo nocens absolvitur, improba quamvis gratia fallacis pratoris vicerit urnam.

And a Seneca notably: Prima & maxima peccantium poena peccale: Sin is the greatest punishment of sin in particular (as Melancthon observes). Heathen authors have a pattern for every precept, according to that of Paul, Rom. 2.14. The Gentiles, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.

But when the light of it through custom of sin began to wear away, it was openly proclaimed unto the world, engraven in stone, written in a book, kept for recording in the Church, as a perfect abridgement of all law, setting down the duties of all men, in all things, for all times.

In it observe Prefaces: One, of the Law writer: God spake all these words, &c. Another, of the Law-giver: I am the Lord thy God, &c. And Precepts of the First table, concerning our love to God; Second, touching our love to man. In the former preface note: the Matter, all these words; and Manner, when and who.

Then follow the COMMANDMENTS, with a Kyrie, or Lord have mercy upon us, after every one of them. Which though I cannot say it was ancient, yet surely cannot be denied to be very useful and pious. And if there be any that think this might be spared, as being fitter for poor Publicans than Saints; let them turn to the Parable of the Publican and Pharisee going up to the Temple to pray, S. Luke 18. and there they shall receive an answer.

F. Then shall the priest rehearse the Ten Commandments.] The recital of the Decalogue with the Pater Noster and Creed, were enjoined by Henry VIII., and his son Edward in his first Injunctions. But the rehearsal of them after this sort, that is, before the epistle and gospel, and with these responses, was not introduced until the second liturgy of Edward VI. An order it is of as high prudence as can be devised in such a Christian affair. Here is God speaking by the priest, another Moses to the people: so it should be, “speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall say unto thee, and we will hear thee,” Deut. v.27; he stands delivering God’s message to us, while we lie prostrate in the lowest posture we can, stricken down with terror at those dreadful laws, the violation of the least of which were enough in God’s strict eye eternally to condemn us. Laws which never any man without God’s preventing and assisting grace did or can observe, and therefore we are directed by the Church to invoke God’s grace for our performance of His will; to every precept we are taught to apply St. Augustine’s, da quod jubes, “grant me to do what Thou commandest.” The sum of this petitionary response is derived from Deut. v. 29, “Oh that there were such an heart in them that they would keep all My commandments.” And as we crave such an heart from God, so we implore His mercy for our violation of them.

Though true it is, the contriving of the decalogue into a way so edifying towards piety, and making it parcel of God’s public worship, be a peculiar of our Church, yet somewhat not much unlike it is to be found in that manual of prayers, composed by Gilbertus Cognatus for the private use of his kinsman about the year 1553, whose words I shall here set down. Having recited the decalogue, he then subjoineth,

Hic nos premit eterna mors, O Deus, hic fatemur justum judicium tuum, et commeritam nostram condemnationem. Sed hic misereat te nostri, O Jesu Christe, ne pereamus. Tu quoque, O Sancte Spiritus, inscribe hanc legem cordibus nostris, ut secundum eam alacri animo ambulemus, teque revereamus diebus vite nostre universis. Amen.

“Here, O Lord, we be obnoxious to eternal death. Here we can expect nothing but the most just sentence to come upon us, and our deserved condemnation. But here, O Jesu Christ, have mercy upon us, lest we perish. And Thou, O Holy Ghost, write this law in our hearts, we beseech Thee, that we may walk conformable to it, and that we may reverence Thee all the days of our life. Amen.”

Then follows the COLLECT for the day, with another for the King, which the Priest is to say standing, &c. Of this posture enough hath been said in the Morning Service. Though there hath been a Prayer for the King in the Morning Service, and another in the Litany; Yet the Church here appoints one again, that she may strictly observe S. Pauls rule, 1 Tim. 2. who directs that in all our publick prayers for all Men, an especial prayer should be made for the King. Now the Morning Service, Litany and this Communion-Service are three distinct Services, and therefore have each of them such an especial prayer.

G. The priest shall read the epistle.] The epistle, or as the ancients sometimes called it, the apostle, was instituted to personate and represent the law preceding the gospel, and therefore, for the most part, is formed of such parcels of the Apostolical writings as are more eminent for moral instructions.

H. Glory be to Thee, O Lord.] This doxology is omitted in our reformed liturgy, not out of any particular disgust against it, but because our Church was studious of reducing her sacred rites to a less onerous model. Antiquity did own it with an high regard, and it deserved no less, τοῦ διακόνου ἀνοίγειν μέλλοντος TO τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τετράθυρον, πάντες αὐτῷ ἀτενίζομεν, ἡσυχίαν παρέχοντες καὶ ἡνίκα τοῦ δρόμου τῆς ἀναγ- νώσεως ἄρξηται εὐθέως διανιστάμεθα ἐπιφωνοῦντες Δόξα σοι Κύριε: i.e. “the deacon going about to open the gospel, consisting of four parts, we all fix our eyes upon him, as still as may be, and when he begins to read the gospel (by declaring whence it is taken) we presently all rise up acclaiming, ‘'Glory be to Thee, O Lord.” Alcuin gives a satisfactory reason for it, quasi dicat, quia verba salutem conferentia mox audituri estis, laudate Dominum cujus beneficio hance gratiam percipere meruistis: “because you expect to hear the words of the gospel which brings salvation to all true believers, therefore praise that God who hath graciously dispensed to you so great a blessing.”

I. Standing up.] Ὅταν ἀναγινωσκόμενον ἢ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, καὶ οἱ διάκονοι, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς στηκέTOCA μετὰ πολλῆς ἡσυχίας: “when the gospel is read, let all presbyters, deacons, and all the people stand up with much silence and attention,” Clem. Const., lib. ii. cap. 57. So all the world διανιστάμεθα, mentioned in the foregoing place of Chrysostom, imports a custom anciently observed with that punctual strictness as none of what quality soever was exempted from it, as the same Father assures us, ἀναγινωσκομένων τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελίων, οὐκ ὡς ἔτυχε ἀκροώμεθα, ἀλλἱστάμενοι, καὶ νήφοντες παραδεχόμενοι τὰπαραγγέλματα, Xe. καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τὸ διάδημα Βασιλικὸν περικείμενος ἵσταται μετὰ πάντος φόβου, καὶ οὐδὲ τὸ διάδημα συγχωρεῖ περικεῖσθαι τῆ κεφαλῆ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποκύπτει διὰ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις εὐαγγελίοις ὁμιλοῦντα θεὸν, i. 6. “while the holy gospel is reading, we do not attend in a careless posture, but standing up with much gravity, we so receive the message,” &c. “yea, the greatest potentate on earth stands up also with awful reverence, takes not the liberty to cover his head with his imperial diadem, but in all submissive manner behaves himself in the presence of God, who speaks in those sacred gospels;” standing is in truth the most proper posture of attention, and if any part of Scripture requireth attention, the gospel doth it in an eminent degree, the reading whereof is τῶν οὐρανῶν ἄνοιξις, “the setting of heaven gates wide open;” not with the Psalmist, “for the King of Glory to enter in,” but for the “King of Glory to come forth.” Nor shall it pass without a note, that this passage of Chrysostom presents the emperor himself, not only standing, but also standing bare at the reading of the gospel, such honour was then deferred to those evangelical tidings.

But here it will be demanded, what assurance I can give, that those early Christians did not stand at all the rest of the service, kneeling time only excepted; and if they did, my observation signifieth nothing. In answer to which I say, the practice was not uniform in this point in all places. In the African Church the fashion was for the auditory to stand up while the lessons were read. So St. Cyprian” represents Aurelius and Celerinus, both made readers, standing in loco altiore, “in a place of higher advance,” meaning the desk or pulpit, ab omni populo circumstante conspecti, “beheld of all the audience standing round about them,” which mode continued there even up to St. Augustine’s time, who often mentions it; sedens loquor, vos stando laboratis: “I preach unto you sitting, you toil yourselves in standing to hear me.” Yet in another place he rather commendeth the sitting posture, longe consultius in quibusdam ecclesiis transmarinis, non solum antistites sedentes loguuntur ad populum, sed ipsi etiam populo sedilia subjacent, ne quisquam infirmior stando lassatus, a saluberrima intentione avertatur, aut etiam cogatur abscedere: “it is better ordered in some beyond-sea churches, where not only the preachers sit while they teach the people, but seats are also provided for the audience, lest any through infirmity wearied with long standing, should be either hindered from attention, or enforced to depart the church.” This custom indeed of standing seems a peculiar of Africa, for other Churches used sitting.

So St. Jerome gives the practice of the monks of his time, completis orationibus, cunctisque residentibus, medius incipit disputare, “prayers being ended, and all sitting down again, one from amongst them begins to preach.” And that this was the uniform practice of the Greek Church, is inferrible from Justin Martyr, who laying down how the Scriptures were read, and the sermon delivered in the assemblies, proceeds thus, ἔπευτα ἄνιστάμεθα κοινῇ πάντες καὶ εὐχὰς πέμπομεν: “after this we rise up all together and send forth our prayers.” So also that known proclamation of the deacon, so frequent in St. Chrysostom, στῶμεν καλῶς, “let us stand upright with all reverence,” when there was a transition from one part of divine service to another; now this rising up, and standing upright, must necessarily infer that they sat before. So also, not to urge the Clementine Constitutions, St. Chrysostom is most express, speaking of the irreverence of some in holy assemblies, av ἀστεῖον ὁ δεῖνα εἴπῃ γέλως εὐθέως ἐν τοῖς καθημένοις γίνεtat: “if the preacher be somewhat more elegant than ordinary, presently they who sit to hear them fall on laughing.” But what can be more either full or authentic than our Saviour’s practice in St. Luke ii. 46, whom His parents “found in the temple sitting in the midst of the doctors, and hearing them.”

After this, the Priest reads the Epistle and Gospel for the day. Concerning the antiquity of which, and the reason of their choice, hath been said already: nothing here remains to be shewn, but the antiquity and piety of those Rites, which were used both by us and the ancient Church, about the reading of the Gospel.

1. First, when the GOSPEL is named, the Clergy and the people present, say or sing, Glory be to thee O Lord. So it is in S. Chrys. Liturg. Glorifying God that hath sent to them also the word of salvation. As it is in the Acts of the Apost. 11. 18. When they heard these things they glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

2. While the Gospel is reading, all that are present stand Grat. de Consr. dist. 1. c. 68. And Zozomen in his Hist. l. 7. c. 19. tells us it was a new fashion in Alexandria, than the Bishop did not rise up when the Gospel was read: [Quod apud alios usquam fieri, neque comperi neque audivi; Which, says he, I never observed nor heard amongst any others whatsoever:] The reason was this. Anciently, whensoever the holy Lessons were read, the people stood, to express their reverence to the holy word. Aug. l. hom. 50. hom. 26. Nehem. 8. 5.

   But because this was counted too great a burden, it was thought fit to shew our reverence, especially at the reading of the Gospel, which historically declares somewhat which our Saviour spake, did, or suffered in his own person: By this gesture, shewing a reverend regard to the Son of God, above other messengers, although speaking as from God. And against Arrians, Jews, Infidels, who derogate from the honour of our LORD, such ceremonies are most profitable. As judicious Mr. Hooker notes.

3. After the Gospel is ended, the use was to praise God, saying, Thanks be to God for this Gospel. So was it of old ordained, Tolet. Conc. 4. c. 11. that the Lands or Praises should be said, not after the Epistle, but immediately after the Gospel, for the glory of Christ, which is preached in the Gospel.

In some places the fashion was, then to kiss the book. And surely this book, by reason of the rich contents of it; deserves a better regard than too often it findes. It should in this respect be used so, as others may see we prefer it before all other books.

Next is the NICENE CREED; so called, because it was for the most part framed at the great Council of Nice. But because the great Council of Constantinople added the latter part, and brought it to the frame which we now use, therefore is it called also the Constantinopolitan Creed. This Creed began to be used in Churches at the Communion Service immediately after the Gospel, in the year of our Lord 339.

Afterward it was established in the Churches of Spain and France, after the custome of the Eastern Church, Conc. Tolet. 3. c. 2. and continued down to our times.

The Reason why this Creed follows immediately after the Epistle and Gospel, is the same that was given for the APOSTLES CREED following next after the Lessons at Morning and Evening prayer. To which the Canon of Toledo last cited, hath added Another Reason of the saying it here before the people draw neer to the holy Communion: namely, [That the breasts of those that approach to those dreadful mysteries may be purified with a true and right faith.]

A third reason is given by Dionys. Eccl. Hierar. c. 3. par. 2. & 3. It will not be amiss to set down some passages of his at large, because they will both give us a third reason of using the Creed in this place, and discover to us, as I conceive, much of the ancient beautiful order of the Communion-Service.

The Bishop or Priest standing at the Altar, begins the melody of Psalms, all the degrees of Ecclesiasticks singing with him. This Psalmody is used, as in almost all Priestly Offices, so in this, to prepare and dispose our souls by holy affections, to the celebration of the holy mysteries following; and by the consent and singing together of divine Psalms, to work in us an unanimous consent and concord one towards another. Then is read by some of the Ministers, first a Lesson out of the Old Testament, then one out of the New, in their order, (for the reasons before mentioned in the discourse of Lessons at Morning Service:) After this the Catechumens, the possessed, and the penitents are dismist, and they only allowed to stay, who are deem'd worthy to receive the holy Sacrament: which being done, some of the under Ministers keep the door of the Church, that no Infidel or unworthy person may intrude into these sacred Mysteries. Then the Ministers and devout people (reverently beholding the holy signs, not yet consecrated, but blest and offered up to God on a by-standing Table, called the Table of Proposition (τράπεζα προθέσεως) Praise and bless the Father of Lights, (from whom, as all good gifts, so this great blessing of the Communion does come) with the Catholick hymn of praise, which some call the Creed; others more divinely, The Pontifical Thanksgiving, as containing in it all the spiritual gifts which flow from Heaven upon us, the whole mystery of our salvation; when this hymn of praise is finished, the Deacons with the Priest, set the holy Bread and Cup of Blessing upon the Altar; after which, the Priest or Bishop saies the most sacred, that is, the Lords Prayer, gives the Blessing to the people; then they (in token of perfect charity, a most necessary vertue at this time of offering at the Altar, S. Mat. 5. 23.) salute each other. After which, the names of holy Men that have lived and died in the faith of Chirst are read out of the Diptychs, and their memories celebrated, to perswade others to a diligent imitation of their vertues, and a stedfast expectation of their heavenly rewards. This commemoration of the Saints, presently upon the setting of the holy signs upon the Altar, is not without some mystery; to shew the inseparable sacred union of the Saints with Christ, who is represented by those sacred signs. These things being rightly performed, the Bishop or Priest, that is to Consecrate, washes his hands, a most decent Ceremony, signifying, that those that are to do these holy Offices should have a special care of purity. I will wash mine hands in innocency, O Lord, and so will I compass thine Altar, Psal. 26. 6. After he hath magnified these divine gifts, and God that gave them, then he consecrates the holy Mysteries: and having uncovered them, reverently shews them to the people, inviting them to the receiving of them. Himself, and the Priests and Deacons receive first, then the people receive in both kinds; and having all received, they end the Service with a Thanksgiving, which was Psal. 34.

K. The Gospel being ended, shall be said the Creed.] Having had formerly occasion to speak of the Latin Creed, surnamed the Apostles, we come now to that of the Greek Church, whereof this following is the most large, I say not the most ancient; indeed by how much the more copious, so much the less ancient: for the earliest Christian Church knew, I conceive, no other creed, no other confession of faith, as antecedently necessary to baptism, for which and to which all rules of faith were anciently made and applied, than that of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as was the direction of our Saviour relating to baptism, which Justin Martyr expoundeth by εἷς 6 τῶν ἁπάντων θεὸς ἐν Πατρὶ, καὶ υἱῷ Kat ἁγίῳ πνεύματι γνωριζόμενος: “one God of the whole universe, under the notions of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

Afterwards, as upstart heresies did administer occasion, several articles were added in opposition to those false teachers; for instance, “Maker of heaven and earth,” against Menander, who held the world was created by Angels; “His only Son, born of the Virgin Mary,” in opposition to Ebion and Cerinthus, who maintained He was mere man, begat by Joseph; “crucified, dead, and buried,” in opposition to Simon Magus, who denied Christ’s humanation, or incarnation, saying that all His conversation here on earth was δοκήσει, “seemingly only,” and not in verity: for which reason Ignatius’, who undertakes him and his adherents, so often repeateth the word, ἀληθῶς, as ἀληθῶς ἐγεννήθη, ἀληθῶς ἐσταυρώθη, ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη, “He was truly born, truly crucified, He truly rose again.” Further instances might be produced were it necessary or advantageous to my present purpose.

Though the emergency of such heterodox opinions occasioned the addition of such defensitives against them, yet as learned Grotius hath well noted, all Churches did not observe a vocal uniformity, or bind themselves strictly to the letter, but varied in the make or outward frame, though they agreed in the substance; whence it is that in ancient confessions there appeareth such a verbal diversity, when in truth the mental result of all is the same. And when one precise formula was once agreed upon, yet was that form modelled always suitable to the essential import, and very often in the express words of elder precedents. Take the most ancient of creeds extant, which the most ancient of Churches, that of Jerusalem, is likeliest to afford us; take, say, that creed, and compare it with those few monuments we have of earlier times, and you will find very many parcels thereof so near resembling, as may persuade us they did relate each to other. Several of them Grotius hath collected to my hand, and some others my slender reading shall contribute.

[...]

Nay, even those superstructures which were afterward affixed to this creed by the councils of Nice and Constantinople, have preserved the like regard to antiquity, whereof some instances may be given; as where Christ is rendered to be φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, “light of light,” Justin Martyr hath the very same expression, ὡς φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς ἐκλάμψαν: so where He is said ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ, “consubstantial with His Father,’ the same Justin to the same effect, ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας οὐσίας ὁ πατὴρ τὸν υἱὸν ἀπεγέννησεν: so where the council of Constantinople added concerning the Holy Ghost, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, His procession from the Father, the said Justin, ἔστι δὲ ὁ πωτὴρ ἀγένητος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ TO πνεῦμα προῆλθεν.

This creed, as Nicene, was contrived by the great exemplar of human frailty, Hosius, bishop of Corduba. It passed the council’s so great approbation, that τριακοσίων δεκαοκτὼ ἐπισκόπων συναχθέντων ἑπτὰ μόνον διεφώνησαν', “there were of three hundred and eighteen bishops there present but seven that dissented.” So inconsiderable then was the Arian party, which, not long after, so ranted and domineered as to compel this very Hosius to renounce his own confession, and infallibility itself (the Bishop of Rome) to fail, and subscribe to their faith. The supplemental parcels which relate to the Holy Ghost were added by the Constantinopolitan fathers, and some say, framed by Gregory Nyssen, but I see no full evidence for it.

As for the public use of this creed, in the daily offices of the Church, Durandus, Polydor Virgil, and some late authors, fixed the first original upon Marcus and Damasus, bishops of Rome. But Walafridus Strabo, who flourished 850, and therefore likelier to know the truth than his juniors, delivereth no such thing, referring us to the third council of Toledo, celebrated anno 589. And this council tells us whence she had it, decreeing, ut per omnes Ecclesias Hispanie et Gallicie, secundum formam Orientalium Ecclesiarum Concilit Constantinopolitant Symbolum recitetur, “that throughout all Churches of Spain and Gallicia, according to the mode (of whom, of the western? no, but) “of the eastern Churches, the Constantinopolitan Creed should be rehearsed.” Certainly had the use thereof been in the Church of Rome at this time, the council would not have rambled unto the east for a precedent. And confessed it is by all Romanists generally, that from the Greeks they had, not only the Creed itself, but also the first hint of making it an auctory to the liturgy. If so, then it will be taken tardé, to enter very late and very short of Damasus’s time. For Vossius from Theodorus Lector proveth evidently the Greeks themselves had it not very many years before this council. "Macedonius, an orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, being violently expelled by Anastasius the emperor to make way for Timotheus, an heretic of the Eutychian sect: no sooner was Timotheus settled in his see, but presently, at the entreaty of his friends, he ordered that the Constantinopolitan Creed should be said at every Church meeting, or time of public prayer, to the discredit of Macedonius, as if he were disaffected to it, whereas until that time it was only rehearsed once a year, when the bishop catechised on Maundy Thursday.” Thus Theodorus; and this was about the year 511, which being the first hint we have in all antiquity of this, or any other symbol, represented as parcel of the public liturgy, we will give those ritualists leave to say their pleasure, and we will have the like liberty to think what we list. But though the Church primitive was slow in employing it, as we now do, they having designed it for other very religious intents; yet can that be no competent bar to us, but we may, both this and others, dispose, as we do, to the best improvement of our faith, and edification of the common interest of the Church.

The Lord's Supper is called a sacrifice by the learned ancient Doctors in four respects: First, because it is a representation and memorial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross: 1 Cor. 11.26. As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lord's death until He come. So S. Ambrose: Christ is daily sacrificed in the minds of believers, as upon an altar: Semel in cruce, quotidie in sacramento, faith Lombard.

Secondly, because in this action we offer praise and thanksgiving unto God for the redemption of the world: and this is the sacrifice of our lips: Heb. 13.15.

Thirdly, because every communicant doth offer and present himself body and soul, a living, holy, acceptable sacrifice to the Lord: Rom. 12.1. The which excels the sacrifices of the priests in old time: for they did offer dead sacrifices, but we present ourselves a lively sacrifice to God.

Fourthly, because it was a custom in the Primitive Church at the receiving of this blessed Sacrament to give large contributions unto the poor, a sacrifice well accepted of God: Heb. 13.16. Now the Church allowing and following this good old custom, stirs up the people to give cheerfully by repeating some one or two choice sentences of scripture best fitting this occasion, as Matth. 6.19, Matth. 7.12, &c.

These kinds of oblation are our Church's offertory, and unbloody sacrifices offered by the whole congregation unto the Lord: so far differing from popish sacrificing, as S. Paul's in London is from S. Peter's in Rome.

After the Epistle and Gospel and the confession of that Faith which is taught in holy Writ, follows THE SERMON. Amb. ep. 33. ad Marcel. Leo. 1. Ser. 2. de Pascha, which usually was an exposition of some part of the Epistle or Gospel, or proper Lesson for the day, as we may see in S. Augustine in his Serm. de Temp. according to the pattern in Nehem. 8. 8. They read in the book, in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people to understand the reading. And the Preacher was in his Exposition appointed to observe the Catholick interpretation of the old Doctors of the Church; as we may see in the 19. Can. of the sixth Council of Constantinople held in Trull. The Canon is this.

Let the Governors of Churches every Sunday at the least, teach their Clergy and people the Oracles of piety and true Religion; collecting out of Divine Scripture, the sentences and Doctrines of truth, not transgressing the ancient bounds and traditions of the holy Fathers. And if any doubt or controversie arise about Scripture, let them follow that interpretation, which the Lights of the Church and the Doctors have left in their writings. By which they shall more deserve commendation, than by making private interpretations, which if they adhere to, they are in danger to fall from the truth.

To this agrees the Canon made in Queen Elizabeths time. Anno Dom. 1571.

The Preachers chiefly shall take heed that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe and believe, but that which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old Testament and the New, and that which the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that Doctrine.

These Golden Canons had they been duly observed, would have been a great preservative of Truth and the Churches peace.

The Sermon was not above an hour long. Cyril. Catech. 13.

Before the Sermon no prayer is appointed but the Lords Prayer, the petitions being first consigned upon the people, by the Preacher or Minister, who is appointed to bid the prayers, as it is in Edw. 6. and Queen Eliz. Injunctions; that is, to tell the people beforehand, what they are at that time especially to pray for in the Lords Prayer; which in the 55. Can. of the Constit. Anno Dom. 1603. is called, moving the people to joyn with the Preacher in praying the Lords Prayer. Of old, nothing was said before the Sermon, but Gemina Salutatio, the double Salutation, Clem. Const. l. 8. c. 5. Optat. l. 7. The Bishop or Priest never begins to speak to the people; but first in the Name of God he salutes the people and the salutation is doubled, that is, the Preacher says, The Lord be with you, and the people answer, And with thy Spirit. Much after this manner was the Jews practice, Neh. 8. 4. & 6. Ezra the Scribe stood upon a Pulpit of wood, &c. and opened the book in the sight of all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up, and Ezra blessed the Lord the great God, and all the people answered Amen, Amen, and worshipped. Verse 8. Then Ezra read in the Book, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. So we see, that both amongst Jews and Christians of old, the Preacher before his Sermon used only a short Salutation, or Blessing; to which the people having answered, the Sermon began. And though the Church of England uses not the very same form, yet in this she follows the ancient practice, prescribing only the short prayer of our Lord: and indeed what need any more? For whatsoever we can desire, is abundantly prayed for before in the Liturgy, and needs not be prayed over again immediately. And therefore there being no need of such a solemn prayer, the Church hath appointed none, but only the Lords Prayer: and no other being appointed, no other should be used by the Preacher. For, as hath been shewn, Pag. 1. No prayers should be used publickly, but those that are prescribed; lest through ignorance or carelesness, any thing contrary to the faith should be uttered before God. How necessary such restraint of private mens prayers in publick is, and how good that reason is for such restraint, a little experience of licentious times will abundantly shew. The pulpit is no security from errors. Men may as well speak blasphemy or vanity before the Sermon, as in it. Is it not reason then that the Church should take care what she can, to prevent this danger, by restraining that liberty, which is so likely to run men into it? Suppose some Preachers should be so careful, as not to vent any thing unsavory, yet the Church cannot be secured of all, and therefore must not allow a general liberty. Nay, suppose the Church could be assured of all Preachers care in this particular, that their prayers should be for matter sound and good; yet how should it be reasonable for the Church to allow any private person or Preacher to offer up to God a prayer in the name of the Congregation, as their joynt desire, to which, they never before consented themselves, nor their Governors for them. A Preacher may pray for his Auditory by himself, though they know it not, nor consented to it before hand; but it is not imaginable how he should offer it up in their name, or call it their prayer to God, as sometimes the use hath been, which neither they themselves, nor their Governours, whom Christ hath impowred to make prayer for them, have consented to, or acknowledged for theirs: no more than any man can call that the Petition of a Town, which he shall present in their names, though they never before consented to it, or so much as saw it before it was presented.

This Form of bidding Prayers is very ancient: we may see the like in S. Chrys. and other Liturgies which they called προσφωνήσεις, Allocutions, in which the Deacon speaks to the people from point to point, directing them what to pray for (as hath been said before.) This is all the difference betwixt them and this; that in them the people were to answer to every point severally, Lord have mercy, &c. In this, they are taught to sum up all the Petitions in the Lords Prayer, and to pray for them all together.

This was the practice in King Edw. the Sixth's time, as appears by Bishop Latymer, Iewel, and others in those daies, whose Forms of Bidding Prayers, before Sermon, are to be seen in their writings.

If there be no Sermon, there shall follow one of the Homilies set forth. So was it of old appointed Conc. Vas. c. 4. [If the Parish Priest be sick, or cannot preach, let the homilies of the holy Fathers be read by the Deacon.]

Part 2. The OFFERTORY followes, which are certain sentences out of holy Scripture, which are sung or said while the people offered. Durant.

Offerings or Oblations are an high part of Gods service and worship, taught by the light of nature and right reason: which bids us to honour God with our substance, as well as with our bodies and souls: to give a part of our goods to God as an homage or acknowledgement of his Dominion over us, and that all that we have comes from God; 1 Chron. 29. 14. Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort; for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee? To bring presents to him that ought to be feared, Psal. 76. 11. This duty of offerings was practised by the Fathers before the Law, with a gracious acceptation. Witness Abel, Gen. 4. 4. Commanded in the Law, Exod. 25. 2. Speak to the children of Israel that they bring me an offering. So Deut. 16. 16. Confirmed by our Saviour in the Gospel, S. Matth. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. If any man conceives that this offering here mentioned was a Jewish perishing rite, not a duty of the Gospel to continue; let him consider,

1. First, that there is the same reason for this duty under the Gospel, as there was under or before the Law, God being Lord of us and ours as well as of them; and therefore to be acknowledged for such by us, as well as by them.
2. Secondly, that all the rest of our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount was Gospel, and concerning duties obliging us Christians: and it is not likely that our Saviour should intermix one only Judaical rite amongst them.
3. Thirdly, that our Saviour before all these precepts mentioned in this his Sermon, whereof this of oblations is one, prefaces this severe sanction, S. Matth. 5. 19. Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; which could not be truly said concerning the breach of a Jewish outworn rite.
4. That our Saviour hath carefully taught us there, the due manner of the performance of this duty of oblations, like as he did concerning alms and prayers, and no man can shew that ever he did any where else; nor is it probable that he should here carefully direct us, how to do that which was presently to be left, and was already out of force, as this was, supposing it to be a Jewish rite. We may then, I conceive, suppose it for a truth, that oblations are here commanded by our Saviour.

Add to this, that offerings were highly commended by the Gospel, in the Wise men that offered Gold, Frankincense and Myrrhe, S. Matth. 2. 11. and that they were practised by the Fathers in the Christian Church. So saies Epiphan. haer. 80. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. [By a gift to the King, his honour and our affection is shewn; therefore our Lord willing us to offer with all simplicity and innocency, preached, saying, When thou bringest thy gift to the altar, &c. We must therefore offer of our goods to God, according as Moses commanded, Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty. There are offerings under the Gospel, as well as under the Law: the kind of offerings is the same: Here is all the difference, they were offered then by servants, now by sons.] S. Hier. ep. ad Heliodor. The axe is laid to the root of the tree, if I bring not my gift to the Altar: nor can I plead poverty, since the poor widow hath cast in two mites,] We should do well to think of this.

Though oblations be acceptable at any time, yet at sometimes they have been thought more necessary, as

1. First, when the Church is in want, Ex. 35. 4, &c.
2. Secondly, when we have received some signal and eminent blessing from God. Psal. 76. When David had recounted the great mercy of God in breaking the bow and the shield of the Churches enemies, at the 11. verse, he presses this duty, Bring presents to him that ought to be feared.
3. Thirdly, at our high and solemn Festivals, Deut. 16. 16. Three times in the year shall they appear before me, and they shall not appear empty; Especially when we receive the holy Communion. Theodoret Hist. l. 5. c. 17. tells us, that it was the ancient custome, before the receiving of the holy Sacrament, to come into the Quire and offer at the holy Table. And surely it becomes not us to be empty-handed, when God comes to us full-handed, as in that Sacrament he does.

N. The offertory.] The whole action of the sacred Communion is elemented of nothing but sacrifices and oblations. So in our Church, so in the Apostolic, which should be the grand exemplar to all; and though our Church varieth somewhat in the mode, from the first original, yet in the substance her practice is conformable. These sacrifices and oblations we may cast into four partitions, and find them all in the primitive, and in our service. I shall name them all, but insist only upon the first, as incident to my present purpose. The first is the bringing of our gifts to the Altar, that is, the species and elements of the sacred symbols, and withal some overplus, according to our abilities, for relief of the poor. And this eleemosynary offering is a sacrifice, so called, Phil. iv. 18, and Heb. xiii. 16, and declared to be “well pleasing to God;” pleasing to God, though extended to the poor: these have a warrant of attorney from God Himself to receive 1 Cor. 16.2. our alms. “He that hath pity on the poor, lendeth to the Lord,” Prov. xix. 17. So that when we come together to break bread, in the Scripture notion, that is, to communicate, we must break it to the hungry, to God Himself in his poor members, as ever we expect a share in that last Venite, “Come ye blessed,” &c. These acts of mercy being only set down as the reason of that Venite, “Come ye blessed,” &c., “for I was an hungry, and ye gave Me to eat,” &c. Matt. xxv. 35.

The second sacrifice is the consecration of the elements, and presenting them up to God by the prayers of the minister and congregation, whereby they become that Sacrament for which they are set apart and deputed.

The third is the sacrifice of praises and prayers ab God, which are styled sacrifices, Ps. 1. 23, and cxli. 2, Heb. νυ. 7, and xiii. 15.

The fourth is the oblation of ourselves, of our souls and bodies, θυσίαν ζῶσαν, “a living, holy, and reasonable sacrifice,’' Rom. xii. 1.

Now to restrain my discourse, as I promised, to the sacrifice of alms-deeds, it will be necessary to take notice of the Apostolic and primitive practice in this concernment, and thereby to observe the agreeableness of our own rule with it. First then, we are not ignorant, I hope, that the Apostolic custom of communicating was at their agapes and love-feasts. These feasts were a joint and liberal collation of all the assembly, every man contributing ὅτε ἄν εὐοδῶται, “as God hath blessed him,” the rich for the poor. Out of the offerings brought, so much as was thought convenient for the Sacrament was taken by the party who officiated, and the cane remains were deputed both for the refreshment of the congregation, and also for relief of the poor: and these oblations were by the Apostle’s constitution to be set apart, κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, “every Lord’s day.”

Of these feasts St. Jude in his epistle makes mention, speaking of spots in the Christian love-feasts, and not long after him, Ignatius, οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἀγάπην ποιεῖν: “it is not suffered to celebrate the agape without leave from the bishop.” Of the mode Tertullian is most express, modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die, vel cum velit, et si modo possit, apponit. Hec quasi deposita pietatis sunt: inde non epulis, nec potaculis, nec ingratis voratrinis dispensatur, sed egenis alendis humandisque, et pueris puellisque re ac parentibus destitutis, etateque domitis senibus, item naufragis, et si qui in metallis, et si qui in insulis vel in custodiis duntaxat ex causa Dei, fiunt: '‘some little modicum or portion of contribution, every man once a month or oftener, if he can, and will, layeth aside for this purpose. These collations are the pledges of piety: nor are they disposed to the satisfying of our gluttonous appetites, but for the relief or burial of the poor or orphans, or aged or shipwrecked persons, or for the maintenance of such as suffer imprisonment or exile for the cause of Christ.”

But abuses of excess having crept into these feasts, the junketings, comessations, and mealing together were soon laid aside; and where they were so, though the Sacrament had nothing but of religious import, yet the eleemosynary oblations still continued. For Justin Martyr, rendering the practice of his time, tells us, of εὐποροῦντες καὶ βουλόμενοι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἕκαστος THY ἑαυτοῦ ὃ βούλεται δίδωσι: καὶ τὸ συλλεγόμενον παρὰ τῷ προεστῶτι ἀποτίθεται, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπικουρεῖ ὀρφανοῖς, καὶ χήραις, καὶ τοῖς διὰ νόσον ἤ διὰ ἄλλην αἰτίαν λειπομένοις, καὶ τοῖς ἐν δέσμοις οὖσι, καὶ τοῖς παρεπιδήμοις οὖσι ζένοις: “they that are well to pass, if they are so disposed, every man as he pleaseth, offereth somewhat of that he hath; and this collection is deposited with the chief president, who therewith relieveth orphans, widows, such as are sick, or in want upon the like cause, such also as are in prison, or travellers which come from far countries:” and to this usage I conceive Clemens Alexandrinus® had an eye, where he said many resorted to hear the word of God, κοινωνικοὺς τῶν ἐπιτηδείων μαθόντες τοὺς καθωσιωμένους τῷ Χριστῷ, “knowing that Christians communicated to the needy things necessary.” ΤῸ the same effect St. Cyprian, “thou art rich and wealthy, and dost thou believe thou canst rightly celebrate the Lord’s Supper, who dost not mind the poor man’s box, who appearest in the Lord’s house empty, without the sacrifice of alms-deeds, nay, who takest thy share of that sacrifice which the poor man himself offered.” Not to trouble you with multiplying more authorities in so clear a matter, it may suffice once for all to remind you, that upon this very account the sacred mysteries gained in the primitive Church so frequently to be called τὰ ἅγια δῶρα, “the sacred gifts,” or “offerings.”

But though alms-giving be a necessary duty, yet doth not God accept it from all, but in these oblations He respects the men, not the gifts; there are some Cains, of whose sacrifices He will none, and therefore in the primitive Church, such persons as had misdemeaned themselves, or scandalized religion, St. Cyprian positively orders, prohibeantur afferre, “let them be kept back from offering;” so also for such as harboured malice against their brethren, the council of Carthage ordained, neque im sacrario, neque in Gazophylacio, recipiantur eorum oblationes, “that their offerings should be accepted of, neither at the Altar, nor in the Church treasury.” Now although the elements of bread and wine are provided by an establishment of our Church, differing from the ancient custom, yet can there be no reason shewed why we should proscribe and cast away that most necessary sacrifice of alms; which though at first introduced as concomitant with the former, yet hath sufficient interest in religion to entitle itself to a place in the course of the grand sacrifice, and the Church hath very fitly assigned it this place, as preambulatory to the prayers ensuing, it being properly styled by St. Chrysostom, πτερὸν τῆς εὐχῆς, ‘the wing of prayer,” upon which wing the prayers of Cornelius ascended up into heaven, Acts x. 2.

As to the sentences of this offertory, they which differ in the Scottish service from ours, are taken out of Bishop Andrewes’ notes upon the Book of Common Prayer.

F. The churchwardens or some other.] The ancient mode was an exact pursuance of the text delivered by our Saviour, Matt. v. 23, which implieth that the gifts should be brought to the Altar: there were they presented by the people, and there received by the priest. Gregory Nazianzen sets it down very expressly, speaking of Valens the emperor’s offering, ἐπεὶ τὰ δῶρα TH θείᾳ τραπέζῃ προσενεγκεῖν ἔδει, ὧν avτουργὸς ἦν, συνεπελάβετο οὐδεὶς, ὥσπερ ἣν ἔθος: i. 6. “when the time was come for him to bring his gifts to the holy table, which he was to do himself, none would, as the custom was, receive them.” ‘The like hath Theodoret concerning Theodosius, but not so full; and more conformable to this usage was the order in the beginning of the Reformation, by which the parishioners were enjoined themselves to “put their alms into the poor man’s chest,” which then was placed near the High Altar. Bishop Andrewes faulteth the churchwardens going up and down to receive the alms: sapit hee collectio per singula capita Genevensem morem; “this collecting alms by the poll savours of the Geneva mode,” whence it is that the Scottish rubric was rectified in this particular, as in others, conformable to his notes.

Next to the OFFERTORY is that excellent PRAYER for the CHURCH MILITANT, wherein we pray for the Catholick and Apostolick Church; For all Christian Kings, Princes & Governors, for the whole Clergy and people, for all in adversity, Such a prayer hath S. Chr. in his Liturg, a little before the Consecration.

R. For the whole state of Christ’s Church.] This prayer sheweth its warrant at first, that it is derived from 1 Tim. 1. 1: “I exhort therefore that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.” The preface of “giving thanks for all men,” when in the process of the prayer there is no thanksgiving for any man, was interpreted a slip in the supervisors of the liturgy, who should either have expunged it, or added some such clause as the Scotch liturgy exhibiteth, as eucharistical for the saints departed from the faith.

As for this prayer, there are precedents enough in the like form. Tertullian first, oramus pro imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum, et potestatibus, pro statu seculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis, i.e. “we pray for the emperors and their ministers, for secular potentates, for peaceable times, for long life.” Then Clemens’, προσευχέσθω 6 διάκονος ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἁπάσης, Kal παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου, Kal τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ μερῶν, καὶ ἐκφορίων, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱερέων, καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ τῆς καθόλου εἰρήνης, 1. 6. “let the deacon pray for the universal Church, the whole world, and all the parts thereof, and the fruits of the earth; for the priests and governors, for the chief priests and kings, and the general peace.” Next Eusebius, speaking how the priests were employed at the celebrity of the dedication of the temple at Jerusalem, he gives in part this account, ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς εἰρήνης, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας Tod θεοῦ, αὐτοῦ τε βασίλέως, παίδων τε αὐτοῦ θεοφιλῶν, ἱκετηρίας εὐχάς τῷ θεῷ προσαναφέροντες, i. 6. 181 they offered up their supplications for the general peace, for the Church of God, for the emperor, and for his children beloved of God.” After him Cyril, declaring the practice of his time at the celebration of the Eucharist, thus: ἐπὶ τῆς θυσίας ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν θεὸν ὑπὲρ κοινῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης, τῆς τοῦ κόσμου εὐσταθείας, ὑπὲρ βασίλέων, ὑπὲρ στρατιωτῶν, καὶ συμμάχων, i.e. “over this propitiatory sacrifice, we call upon God for the general peace of all Churches, for the tranquillity of the world, for emperors, their armies, and all that fight for them.” I shall conclude with St. Ambrose’, oratio premittitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris: “first,’ before consecration, “prayer is made for the people, for kings, and for others:” and though this prayer be in our Church only a peculiar of morning service, yet St. Chrysostom seemeth to render the same usage in his time at the evening prayers also; for putting the question, ri δέ ἐστι TO, πρῶτον πάντων, “what meaneth this speech; ‘first of all,’ he resolveth it thus: τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ λατρείᾳ καθημερινῇ, “that is in the daily service; καὶ τοῦτο ἴσασιν οἱ μύσται πῶς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν γίνεται, καὶ ἐν ἑσπέρᾳ, καὶ πρώϊᾳ, i. 8. “and this is well known to the priests that it is performed every day, both at evening and morning prayers.” But I will not over-confidently assert it upon this single testimony, especially when perhaps his words may bear another sense.

He, from the Minister's exhortation before the Communion, is contained in these words of Paul: Let a man therefore examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup: wherein observe two points: A preparation: Let a man examine himself. A participation: and so let him eat, &c.

In the first note the Parties: Examining a man, that is, every man; examined himself.; and the Parts.

Bexa translates, and Erasmus expounds ... so the word is used in John 3.27: A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven; and John 7.46: Never man spake like this. A man, then, in this place signifies every man—sovereign, priest, people. The which observation overthrows utterly Romish implicit faith. Every layman ought to turn confessor and examiner, endowed with sufficient knowledge for this heavenly business: he must look not only through the spectacles of the priest, but also see with his own eyes, able to try himself.

Himself. For that is the duty; not another, for that is a fault. We must not be busy bishops in other men's dioceses, but meddle with our own business: we must not break our neighbour's head with the Pharisee, but smite our own breast with the Publican.

S. Augustine complained of men in his time that they were Curiosi ad cognoscendum vitam altenam, defidiofi ad corrigendam suam: and reverend Hooker, of men in our time, that their virtue is nothing but to hear gladly the reproof of others' vice: like tailors, who measure, like barbers, who cut all other except themselves. But our Saviour Christ would not have us to gaze on the mote in our brother's eye, but rather to pull out the beam in our own sight. And His apostle here, not to pry into others, but to try ourselves; not but that others, according to their several charge, must examine others, as parents must examine their children: Exod. 12.26.27. and masters must examine their household, Gen. 18.19. and pastors must examine their parishioners, as here Paul corrected and directed the Corinthians: and for this cause, the names of all communicants are to be sent unto the minister, that there may be made trial of all: yet if parents and masters and ministers omit this examination, every one must be both able and willing to prove himself.

The parts of examination are concerning the Manner and Matter. For the manner, a trial is to be made Uprightly and Necessarily.

The former is implied in the word Examine: which notes a diligent and exact inquiry, such as lapidaries and goldsmiths use to find out true metal from counterfeit, good from bad. As the Shunamite sought for Elisha, Mary for Christ, the woman for her lost groat: so we must search as if we would find, search until we find. Many men examine their bad manners, as they do their bad money, seek as if they would not see, search as if they would not understand. They decline sin through all the cases (as one notes): In nominativo per superbiam, in genitivo per luxuriam, in dativo per simoniam, in accusativo per detractationem, in vocativo per adulationem, in ablativo per rapinam: and yet they will not acknowledge their sins in any case. When other men's examination hath found them out, excuses are ready: Non feci: si feci, non male feci: si male feci, non multum male: si multum male, non mala intentione; aut si habita intentione, tamen altera persuasione. Wherefore, as the Prophet said: If ye will ask a question, ask it indeed: so if ye will examine yourselves, examine earnestly, thoroughly, uprightly. For examination must be made necessarily. This we may gather out of the word therefore: whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: Let a man therefore, &. Trial of our selves then is necessary, both in respect of our Duty and Danger if we neglect this duty.

In respect of our duty: for Christ in his first institution used a commanding term; Do this. Do this in remembrance of me: so that it is not in our choice to do it, or not to do it. If any be not fit, he must endeavor to make himself fit: and the way to make fit is examination: Let a man examine himself therefore, &c.

Secondly, trial is necessary in regard of the danger, if we receive the Lord's Supper unworthily.

Danger in respect of: The sin: verse 27. The punishment for this sin: In general: verse 29. In particular: verse 30.

For this cause many are weak, and sick, and die. See Epistle for Maundy Thursday.

Now the matters in which every Communicant must be examined are summarily two: Faith and Repentence.

These two (like Hippocrates’ twins) must go together hand in hand. For there is no true repentance without faith; nor lively faith without repentance. B. Latimer said well; Lady faith is a great state, having a Gentleman Usher going before her, called agnitio peccatorum, and a great train following after her, which are the good works of our calling. He that says he does repent, when as he does not believe, receives the Sacrament ignorantly: and he that says he does believe, when as he does not repent, receives the Sacrament irreverently: both unworthily.

The parts of faith are: Knowledge and Application.

Every Communicant ought to know the three general points of holy Religion: namely, man's

1. Generation: how he was created according to God’s image in holiness and righteousness.
2. Degeneration: how he fell from that estate, and all his posterity with him.
3. Regeneration: how he was again restored and recreated by Christ’s passion, of which this Sacrament is a sign and seal.

In more particular, every Communicant must understand the number and nature of the Sacraments. Our Saviour Christ ordained in his Church only two Sacraments, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation and infusion, assuring the first receiving into the covenant of grace: whereby men are matriculated and admitted into the congregation, and made members of Christ. For this cause the sacred Font is placed at the very door and entrance into the Church: but the Communion is a sacrament of confirmation, to strengthen our faith, and cherish grace received: and therefore the Lord's table by good order is placed in the best & highest room of the Church. Baptism must be received of one but once: because we cannot be born twice, one beginning in Christianity is enough: but the Lord's Supper often, because we need daily to be nourished in the faith of Christ: once born, fed always.

The nature of this Sacrament is made known by the names in holy writ given unto it: Whereof I note principally two: the Lord's Supper, and the Communion. A Supper in regard of the Time: being instituted in the night that Christ was betrayed, as his farewell token. Things: because it is a holy feast (as Augustine said) Non dentis, sed mentis: not so toothsome, as wholesome: not corporal meat, but spiritual Manna.

The Lord's Supper in three respects:

1. Because it was ordained by the Lord: 1 Cor. 11.23.
2. Because it was instituted in remembrance of the Lord: Luke 22.19.
3. Because it was in the Primitive Church usually received on the Lord's day: Acts 20.7.

It is called a Communion in respect of the common union among ourselves, having at that time more specially perfect peace with all men: or a Communion in respect of the public participation, as being a common mess, not a private Mass proper to one, as the Popish priefts use it; or Communion, as being a signe and seale of our communion with Christ: for his graces are conveighed unto us by the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments.

Hence the Sacraments (as Paschasius observes) have their name. Sacramenta dicuntur a secreto, eo quod inre visibili divinitas intus aliquid ultra secretius efficit. In the words of our Church: Sacraments are visible signes of invisible grace, ordained of God as badges and sure witnesses of his good will towards us. It is meet every Christian should understand these, and the like plaine principles of holy faith: but exact knowledge to discuss controverted points about the Sacraments is not required: according to that of Chrysostome: The table of the Lord is not prepared for chattering layes, but for high towering Eagles, who fly thither where the dead body lieth. It is not for subtle Sophisters, but for simple believers ascending up to Christ upon the wings of faith: and therefore the Communicant must not only know, but apply that in particular, which he believeth in general: as that Christ's body was crucified for him; and his blood shed for him. He that understands, and believes, and applies these things, examineth his faith as he should.

In our repentance we must examine two points especially: to wit, our Contrition for sin past; Resolution to prevent, so far as we can, all sin to come.

For the first, Panitentia est quasi punientia. Pœnitere (saith Augustine) is poenam tenere. We must therefore weep with Peter, and water our couch with David, and put on sackcloth with Nineveh: nay we must rent our heart. For a broken spirit is an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord. O magnum donum, quod in pœnam dedit, in salutem vertit: peccatum tristitiam peperit, tristitia peccatum contrivit. As the worm bred in the tree devours the tree: so sorrow brought into the world by sin, doth overthrow sin: so good is God to turn curses into blessings, and grief into grace. If thy heart be not thoroughly touched for sin, become sorry because thou art no more sorry: resolve to be more resolved. For (as one wittily) factum infetum, si non sit cor affectum. If Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Christ in clean linen; how darest thou receive it with an unclean soul? If thou wilt not kiss a Prince's hand with a foul mouth, eat not the Lord's body with a foul mind. Let a man therefore examine himself, &c. And so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. Having thus examined examination, I come now to the participation.

And so let him eat, &c. Of which words I purpose to speak first jointly, then severally. Considered jointly, they confute three popish conclusions: as first, the reservation, elevation, circumgestation, adoration of the bread. Our Apostle saith here plainly, that the bread must be taken and eaten: Ergo, not to be reserved, nor carried about, nor lifted up, nor kept in a box to be worshipped.

Secondly, to take, to eat, to taste, to drink, to do this in remembrance of Christ, are actions of the living, only pertaining to the living: and therefore the Papists are deceived holding the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and the dead. How can the dead eat or drink, taste or take? Ergo, neither the duty nor the benefit belongs unto them, but only to those alive; who first examine themselves, and after eat of this bread and drink of this cup.

Thirdly, the conjunction of these two: Let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup abundantly proves, that both parts of the Lord's Supper ought to be ministered unto all: Ergo the Papists in denying the cup unto the Laity, wrong both God and his people, by defrauding them of this comfort. As every one must examine, so every one both eat and drink: not only drink, and not eat, or eat and not drink: but both eat and drink, Christ foreseeing this Papistical error said in his first institution, Drink ye of all of it! He took the bread and said only, take, eat, indefinitely: but when he took the cup, he did add an universal note: Bibite omnes: Drink ye, drink all ye. We conclude therefore with Cyprian: Adulterum est, empium est, sacrilegum est, quodcunq humano furore instituitur, ut dispositio divina violetur. Christ is the truth, and the way to the truth: Ergo, non aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis prior fecit. Thus much of the words jointly. Now of every one severally.

And so. Let there be first preparation, and then participation: when a man is thus examined, let him thus eat. Let him eat: These are not words of permission, leaving it only to his choice whether he will eat or not eat, but they are words of Paul’s commission, implying that he must eat necessarily, not out of custom, but out of conscience. For it is not said here; let him eat if he have no hindrance at home, or occasion of absence abroad; if he be neither displeased with his Pastor nor angry with the people: but let him, without all hindrance, examine, and then let him, without all hindrance, eat of this bread. Eat: Christ in his first institution hath said, take and eat. First take, then eat: take not only into your mouths, but into your hands: hereby representing the soul and faith; for the taking of the bread and wine into our hands seals our apprehension of Christ by the finger of faith: John 1.12. As many as received him, to them he gave power to be the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name. Eating of the bread and drinking of the wine seals our application of Christ, incorporated into us mystically, 1 Cor. 10.16. For by the strength of faith we chew the cud, as it were, and make Christ our own. Yet herein observe a great difference between corporal food and this heavenly bread: for the one, digested, is made like us, but the other, received into our souls, makes us like it. This action, then, of taking is very significant: and therefore I see no reason why the Priest, altering Christ’s ordinance, should give the bread into the people’s mouth only, not into their hand. First, the word ... signifies properly to take with the hand. Secondly, it is against the rules of common civility that men of discretion, such as Communicants ought to be, should be fed like children, having their meat put into their mouths. Thirdly, if this taking is not construed of the hand, but of the mouth, then idle repetition and plain tautology in the words of Christ: for eating notes oral receiving, and therefore taking must imply manual receiving. Fourthly, it was the custom of the Primitive Church, as we read in Eusebius and Cyril; How wilt thou (saith Ambrose to Theodosius) receive the Lord's body with a bloody hand?

The Papists answer that the Church altered this custom, because some reserved the bread for magical spells and superstitious uses. A silly shift: for no abuse can take away the use of that which is simply good. The Bible must be read, albeit some pervert it to their destruction; the word of God must be preached, howsoever it be unto some the savor of death unto death; and so the bread, according to Christ's institution, must be taken, albeit happily some keep it to wicked and idolatrous purposes.

This bread. The nice distinguishing of the Schoolmen is like the peeling of an onion: they pull off so many skins, until at last there is no skin. They turn and toss the words of Christ's institution, Hoc est corpus meum, so long, till they bring all that Christ said and did at his last Supper unto nothing. For so we read in their Gloss, that hoc doth signify nothing. Omnipotent creatures, who make of something nothing: and again of this nothing, something; yea, Christ who made all things: for by pronouncing these words, hoc est corpus meum, they make their Maker a dozen gods at once with one sentence. This is a pronoun demonstrative, not an individual, any thing, or a nothing. Stephen Gardiner herein forgot his grammar and logic too. For hoc doth determine, and must, as Paul teacheth, and the circumstances of the Gospel import, be restrained unto the bread. Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake (no doubt the bread) that he took, and gave to the disciples the selfsame that he brake, saying, Take ye, eat ye, this that I give you, this is my body. What could our Savior mean, but this that he gave, this that he brake, this that he took? which by the witness of truth itself was bread. If the Papists imagine that he took bread, but brake it not; or brake it, but gave it not: they make the Lord's Supper a merry jest, where the latter end starteth from the beginning, and the middle from them both. Either they must dissent manifestly from the proposition of Christ, and exposition of Paul, from all the Fathers, and some of their own followers: or else admit our interpretation, This bread is my body: and if we resolve the words of Christ so, they cannot be proper, but figurative; This bread is the sign and seal of my body.

Bread. It pleased our Saviour to make bread the outward element in this holy Sacrament, for the manifold analogies between it and his body. First, as bread is the strength and state of our natural life; so Christ is for our spiritual being all in all. Secondly, as bread is loathed of the full stomach, but most acceptable to the hungry soul; so Christ is most welcome unto such as hunger and thirst after righteousness. Thirdly, as bread is usual and daily; so Christ should be to the Christian: feeding on that bread which came down from Heaven should be the soul's ordinary refection. Fourthly, as bread is made one loaf of many grains; so we that are many are one bread, and one body, because we all are partakers of one bread. Unus ubig, calix domin, cibis unius, & una mensa, domusa det.

Lastly, as corn is cut down with the scythe, threshed in the barn with many stripes, torn in the mill with much violence, then bolted and sifted, last of all baked with extreme heat in the oven; and all this, that it may be fit meat for our body: so Christ in his ripe age was cut down by cruel death, his body was whipped, his flesh rent asunder, his soul was as it were melted in the fiery furnace of God's anger: and all this, that he might become food for our soul; that we might eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. The like resemblances are between the wine and his blood: For as wine doth make glad the heart of man, Psalm 104:15, so the precious blood of Christ, as flagons of wine, comforts the sick soul. Paulsnus sweetly: In cruce fixa caro est quo pascor, de cruce sanguis ille fluit, vitam quo bibo, corda laso.

In this exhortation, having St. Paul for our leader, and the Church of Scotland for our follower, I hope we need not any further examine, why the Church doth use this scripture for this purpose. Augustine's observation is good: insolentissima infans est, disputare, an id faciendum sit, quod tota facit ecclesia.

After which follow some wholsom Exhortations to those that are coming to the holy Communion, seriously exhorting the unprepared to forbear. So was the custome of old in the Greek Church. The Priest admonishes all that are coming to that holy Sacrament, driving away the unworthy, but inviting the prepared, and that with a loud voice, and hands lifted up, standing aloft, where he may be seen and heard of all. Chrys. in Heb. hom. 9. in Ethic.

A. And above all things, &c.] That the holy Communion, even in the Apostolical age, was celebrated at the same both table and time, when Christians met for their ordinary repast at meals, hath been said before. No part of that, either spiritual or temporal food, was received without some religious application to God, relative and directed to the ends for which those collations were prepared; which application, whether it concerned the creature destined for bodily or for mystical refreshment, consisted of either two prayers distinct, or two distinct members of one prayer. The first was εὐχαριστία, “thanksgiving” to God for those benefits. The second εὐλογία, “invocation” of His blessing upon them. To speak appositely to the matter in hand, when this application related to the elements separated for the holy Communion, thanksgiving was made to God the Father much to the same effect of this, that is, “for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” &c. And from this very use the Communion contracted the name of Eucharist, and not, as hitherto hath been commonly supposed, from any words constituting consecration. Consecration of the elements was made indeed with thanksgiving, not by it; by blessing it was performed, by blessing joined with thanksgiving in one continued form of prayer, or by blessing concomitant with thanksgiving in two distinct forms. Clear it is, though I grant the words were anciently used in a promiscuous sense, these two, thanksgiving and blessing, as distinct things, have in antiquity several designs, and also several forms.

Justin Martyr, describing the Eucharist or thanksgiving, in his time, saith, Ὃ Κύριος παρέδωκε, ἵνα ἅμα τὲ εὐχαριστῶμεν TO θεῷ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐκτικέναι σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας ἐν ἧ γεγόναμεν ἠλευθερωκέναι ἡμᾶς, καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς, καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας καταλελυκέναι τελείαν κατά- λυσιν, διὰ τοῦ παθητοῦ γενομένου κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν αὐτοῦ, “the Lord hath commanded that withal we should give thanks to God for the creation of the world, and all things therein for the benefit of man; and for His delivering us from the misery wherein we were born, and overthrowing principalities and powers with a total defeat, by Him that suffered according to His counsel.” For farther illustration of this place, you must know, that though the agape were now, for the cause afore specified, antiquated in the Greek Church, yet in regard the collations were so very bountiful, as the Communion accommodations served, there remained fair dole for the poor, the ancient form of thanksgiving, used at their ordinary meals, was in part retained, viz. that by which special recognizance was made to God as the Creator, Lord, and giver of all things.

After this, relating to the creatures deputed for Christ’s redemption and passion, and as he elsewhere addeth, ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσθαι τούτων παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, “for that God did deign them the favour of those gifts of bread and wine.” ‘To the very same purpose is that εὐχαριστία μυστικὴ in the Clementine Constitutions; evyaριστοῦμεν col πάτερ ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ζωῆς ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παῖδός σου, &c.; “we give Thee hearty thanks, our Father, for the life Thou hast given us by Thy Son Jesus Christ,” &c., dv ἀπέστειλας ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γίνεσθαι ἄνθρωπον, &c., “whom Thou sentest to become man for our salvation,” &c.: so gradually proceeding through the whole economy of His mediatorship, it concludeth thus; ἔτι evyaριστοῦμεν πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐκχυθέντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σώματος, οὗ καὶ ἀντίτυπα ταῦτα ἐπιτελοῦμεν, αὐτοῦ διαταξαμένου ἡμῖν καταγγέλλειν τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον; “we further thank Thee, O our Father, for the precious blood of Jesus Christ shed for us, and for His precious body, the antitypes whereof we now celebrate, He having commanded us to shew forth His death.” Thus have I made it evident whence the word Eucharist is derived, and that this thanksgiving was anciently distinct from the consecrating or blessing of the elements, whereof the several forms are also as easily to be produced, but I shall supersede them for the present, having occasion anon to declare them.

Those that after these exhortations stay to receive, the Church supposing prepared, invites, to draw near; and after their humble confession the Priest or Bishop absolves and comforts them with some choice sentences taken out of holy Scripture.

D. Draw near.] This exhortation, with the former, should regularly be said before the people ascend into the chancel; for the first, I have the suffrage of a very learned bishop concurring in opinion with me; and for the latter, these very words, “draw near,’' seem to imply as much, which would sound very superfluous and idle, were the communicants already ascended. Therefore Bishop Andrewes hath affixed this marginal note, forte non est opus his verbis, quia jam accesserunt, “perhaps these words might be better spared, because they are already come.” Again, the rubric before this invitation confirms this opinion, enjoining it to be said to them that come (not those that are already come) to receive the holy Communion.

Now to enquire into the practice of antiquity; first, you must know, that the laity, the people, were not permitted so much as to enter the chancel: μόνοις ἐξόν ἐστιν τοῖς iepatixois εἰσιέναι εἰς TO θυσιαστήριον, καὶ κοινωνεῖν, “it is only lawful for the clergy to enter the chancel, and there to communicate.” So also another canon of another council, μὴ ἐξέστῳ τινὶ τῶν arraytov ἐν λαϊκοῖς τελοῦντι, ἔνδον ἱεροῦ εἰσιέναι θυσιαστηρίου ἷ, “Jet no layman be permitted to come within the choir;” but this is with an exception of honour to the emperor, who had a dispensation to enter this holy place, ἡνίκα ἀν βουληθείη προσάξαι δῶρα τῷ πλάσαντι, “when he had a mind to present his oblations to his Creator.” I do not think that this is the first council which passed this grace to the emperor, because Nazianzen before cited, in the last chapter, gives so clear an account of the matter of fact. I shall not overcharge you with too many proofs in so known a custom, which needs no further demonstration than that familiar phrase, of ' ‘laic communion,” so frequent in St. Cyprian and the African fathers, which denoted the deposing of a clergyman, and compelling him to communicate amongst the people, in a place distinct from the clergy.

Whence first this distinction grew, Bishop Jewel gives this reason, “that they might not be disturbed in the office of their ministry.” I may assign another, because, at that time, the choir was not susceptible of both states; for, without dispute, the clergy were then surpassing numerous, so as Nazianzen speaks complainingly, εἰσὶ σχεδόν τι πλείους κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν,: ἣ ὁπόσων ἄρχουσι, “they were very near as many as the flock under their cure.” In the Church of Constantinople there were, by imperial determination, sixty priests, a hundred deacons, a hundred and ten readers, and twenty-five singers.

The people being thus shut out of the choir, some place they must of necessity be allotted, to which the phrase “draw near” (for it was of ancient usage) must have respect; this was the chancel door, or entrance into it; for the clergy having communicated, “‘the superior orders within the rails, at the Communion table, the inferior within the body of the choir,” the priest went down to the chancel door, opened both leaves, which before were kept shut; upon which occasion St. Chrysostom hath this excellent advertisement; ὅταν oe ions ἀνελκόμενα τὰ ἀμφίθυρα, τότε νόμισον διαστέλλεσθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἄνωθεν, καὶ κατιέναι τοὺς ἀγγέλους, “when thou beholdest the two doors of the cancellum, or traverse doors opened, think with thyself thou then beholdest heaven itself displayed, and the Angels descending from above,” there, μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, φρικτῇ τῇ Bon, καθάπερ Tis κήρυξ, THY χεῖρα αἴρων εἰς τὸ ὕψος, ὑψηλὸς ἑστῶς, πᾶσι κατάδηλος γεγονὼς, τοὺς μὲν καλεῖ, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπείργει, “with a loud voice, and thundering noise, like a crier, lifting his hand on high, mounted up visible to all men, these he inviteth to participate, those he driveth away.”

The form of invitation, if we may credit the liturgy which beareth St. Chrysostom’s name, was this, μετὰ φόβου Θεοῦ καὶ πίστεως προσέλθετε, “in the fear of God with faith draw near; and the very same is in the liturgy ascribed to James. Certain it is the priest did not run ambling with the elements up and down from man to man, but that the communicants came to him; and this is farther manifest by the Constitutions, called Apostolical; μεταλαμβανέτω ἑκάστη τάξις καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν, τοῦ κυριακοῦ σώματος, καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος, ἐν τάξει μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας ὡς βασίλέως προσερχόμενοι σώματι: “let every order by itself, in course, participate of the body of the Lord, and of His precious blood, with all fear and reverence, as approaching to the presence of a king.”

E. Then shall this general confession be made.] The Church very aptly disposeth confession at the beginning of the Communion service; for considering that solemn penance, of so laudable practice in the primitive Church, is laid aside, and the necessity of auricular confession worthily abolished; reason good some account should be given to the Church, and in the Church, of our humble acknowledgment of our sins, and hearty contrition for them, as preparatives necessary to the ensuing duty.

During the whole time of the priest’s officiating at the Communion, setting aside in the very instant of his receiving, you find him but twice upon his knees, whereof this is the first; at all other times, and parts of the service, he is ordered to stand, and so was the practice of the primitive Church: so the Constitutions, ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς λαμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα μετενδὺς, Kal στὰς πρὸς τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ εὑξάμενος: “the bishop in a white and shining vestment, and standing at the Altar praying.” So Augustine very often, especially where he expostulateth, Quis audivit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium Petre vel Paule? &c., “What one of all the faithful ever heard the priest, standing at the Altar, say in his prayers, I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or thee, Paul?” This posture was taken up by the Christian Church, in imitation of the Temple service, where the legal sacrifices were offered by the priest standing.

Now the correspondence betwixt the legal and our evangelical sacrifice being such as is betwixt the substance and the shadow, why should we not agree in the posture also? For the priest performing the agenda of this office, is employed in several oblations; first, to offer τὸ εὐχῶν θυμίαμα, “the incense of prayers and praises,” those of the congregation. Secondly, the oblation of our alms. Thirdly, the oblation of ourselves, souls and bodies. Lastly, the grand sacrifice of all, the Lamb of God slain for us, and His death represented in the blessed symbols. But why then doth he not stand at this prayer also? I answer, because it is not part of the former oblations, but an humble confession of his own and the congregation’s transgressions.

Then follow for great daies some proper Prefaces, containing the pecullar matter or subject of our thanks that day, which are to be said seven daies after, Rubr. ibidem. except Whitsunday Preface, which is to be said but six daies after; because Trinity Sunday is the seventh day after, which hath a peculiar Preface. By this it appears that the Church intends to prorogue and continue these high Feasts several daies, even eight daies together, if another great Feast comes not within the time, which requires a peculiar Service. But when we say that the Church would have these high Feasts continued so long, it is not so to be understood, as if she required an equal observance of those several daies, for some of those daies she commands by her Canons and Rubricks. Some she seems only to commend to us to be observed; some are of a higher festivity, some of less. The first and the last, namely, the Octave of the first, are usually the chief daies for solemn Assemblies; yet every of those daies should be spent in more than ordinary meditation of the blessings of the time, and thanksgiving for them: according to that which the Lord commanded to the Jews concerning the Feast of Tabernacles, Lev. 23. 36. Upon every one of the daies of that Feast an offering was to be made, but the first and last were the solemn Convocations.

The reason of the Churches proroguing and lengthning, out these high Feasts, for several days, is plain. The subject matter of these Feasts, as namely, Christs Birth, Resurrection, Ascension, the sending of the holy Ghost, is of so high a nature, so nearly concerning our salvation, that one day is too little to meditate of them, and praise God for them as we ought; a bodily deliverance may justly require a day of thanksgiving and joy; but the deliverance of the soul, by the blessings commemorated on those times, deserve a much longer Feast. It were injurious to good Christian souls to have their joy and thankfulness for such mercies confined to a day, therefore holy Church upon the times when these unspeakable blessings were wrought for us, by her most seasonable commands and counsels here invites us, to fill our hearts with joy and thankfulness, and let them overflow eight daies together. See above, of the Continuation of great Solemnities, pag. 128. 174. 180. and of the service of Octaves. p. 178.

But two Quaeries here may be fit to be satisfied. First, why eight dayes are allowed to those high Feasts, rather than another number?

For which the reasons given are divers; one is from the example which Almighty God sets us, commanding his people the Jews, to keep their great Feasts some of them seven daies, and one, namely, the Feast of Tabernacles, eight daies, Lev. 23. If the Jews were to keep their Feasts so long by a daily Burnt-offering (which were but as types of the Christians great Feasts) the Christians ought by no means to come short of them, but offer up to God as long, daily, hearty thanksgivings, presenting our selves souls and bodies, a reasonable, holy and lively Sacrifice unto him. Other reasons, for an Octave to great Feasts, are given, which are mystical. The Octave or eighth day, signifies Eternity, for our whole life is but the repetition or revolution of seven dayes. Then comes the eighth day of Eternity, to which, by Gods mercy we shall be brought, if we continue the seven daies of our life in the due and constant service and worship of God; or else, which is much the same in sense; the eighth day is a returning to the first, it is the first day of the week begun again, signifying, that if we constantly serve God the seven days of our life, we shall return to the first happy estate that we were created in.

The Second Quaere is, how the Prefaces appointed for these eight daies can be properly used upon each of them: for example, how can we say eight days together, Thou didst give thine only Son to be born this day for us? as it is in the Preface.

To which the Answer may be, That the Church does not use the word Day, for a natural day of 24. hours, or an ordinary artificial day, reckoning from Sun to Sun; but in the usual acception of it in holy Scripture, where by the word Day, is signified the whole time designed to one and the same purpose, though it lasts several natural days. Thus all the time that God appoints to the reclaiming of sinners by merciful chastisements or threatnings is called, The day of their visitation, Luke 19. 42, 44. So all the time allotted us for the working out of our salvation, though it be our whole life long, is called a day, Work while it is day, the night comes when no man can work; and most directly to our purpose speaks S. Paul, Heb. 3. 13. Exhort one another daily, while it is called to day, or this day, that is, while you live here in this world. In like manner all that time which is appointed by the Church, for the thankful commemoration of the same grand blessing, for the solemnity of one and the same Feast, is as properly called a day, and all that time it may be said daily, to day, as well as all our life S. Paul saies is called Hodie, this day.

H. Proper prefaces.] In the Church of Rome there were ten proper prefaces, which our reformers, desirous to contract the office into more ease, reduced to five, proper to days of more eminent remark.

After which follows the thrice holy and triumphant song, as it was called of old [Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven we laud and magnifie thy glorious name, evermore praising thee and saying, holy, holy, holy, &c.] Here we do, as it were, invite the heavenly host to help bear a part in our thanks to make them full. O praise the Lord with me, and let us magnifie his name together. And in this hymn we hold communion with the Church triumphant.

Which sweet hymn, in all Communions is appointed to be said; and though it should be said night and day, yet could it never breed a loathing. Conc. Vasen. c. 6. All that is in our Service from these words, Lift up your hearts, to the end of the Communion-service, is, with very little difference to be seen in S. Chrys. Liturg. and in S. Cyrils Catech. mystag. 5.

I. Holy, holy, holy, &c.] This hymn was anciently called Trisagium, because it consisted of three Holies. I find in antiquity two forms of hymns under this name. One thus: “Aγιος ὁ Θεὸς, ἅγιος ἰσχυρὸς, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ᾿ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς '᾿- “holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, have mercy on us.” This is that hymn mentioned in the Trullan Council, as the frame, τῶν παλαιῶν ἁγίων πατέρων, “of the ancient Fathers,” which Balsamon interpreteth to be the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon; extant it is in the liturgy ascribed to St. Basil, but not in that of St. Chrysostom; and therefore either that liturgy must not be St. Chrysostom’s, (who I conceive may best pretend to it,) or else this hymn was not used in the Constantinopolitan Church, until Proclus’s time, who upon the event of a miracle had advice from heaven to order the singing of it in his church, if there be any faith in those historians who deliver it for truth.

The other form of Trisagium is this retained by our Church, expressly and almost to a syllable agreeing with that in the Gregorian service, in St. Chrysostom’s liturgy, and before them in the Constitutions, The composition is most excellent, wherein the celestial choir are drawn into concert with the Church, joining as a chorus in the words of the people, magnifying His humanity, saying, “Glory be to Thee, O Lord most high;” or rather, as in the original, “Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, Hosanna in the highest,” for so it is in the Latin translation, set forth 2 Eliz. Osanna in excelsis, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Osanna in excelsis.

Part. 3. Next is the CONSECRATION. So you shall find in Chrysost. and Cyril last cited. Which Consecration consists chiefly in rehearsing the words of our Saviours institution, This is my body, and this is my blood, when the Bread and Wine is present upon the Communioncable. Can. Anglie. 21. S. Chrys. Ser. 2. in 2. ad Tim. The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which the Priest now makes, is the same that Christ gave to his Apostles. This is nothing less than that. For this is not sanctified by men, but by him that sanctified that: for as the words which God our Saviour spake are the same, which the Priest now uses, so is the Sacrament the same. Again, Ser. de Iuda, lat. Ed. tom. 3. Christ is present at the Sacrament now, that first instituted it. He consecrates this also: It is not man that makes the body and blood of Christ by consecrating the holy Elements, but Christ that was crucified for us. The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest, but the Elements are consecrated by the power and grace of God, THIS IS, saith he, MY BODY: By this word the bread and wine are consecrated.]

Before these words [THIS IS MY BODY] the bread and wine are common food fit only to nourish the body; but since our Lord hath said, Do this, as oft as you do it in remembrance of me, This is my body, this is my blood: as often as by these words and in this faith they are consecrated, the holy bread and blessed cup are profitable to the salvation of the whole man: Cyprian de coena Dom. The same saies S. Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. & 5. S. Aug. ser. 28. de verb. Dei. And others.

K. Saying, Take eat, this is My body.] The recital of these words pass in the common vogue for a consecration; were I Romishly inclined, I should rather impute unto them the power of transubstantiation, for that a bare narrative can be qualified to consecrate is certainly new divinity, unknown to Scripture, and antiquity interpreting it. Therefore I must adhere in judgment to those learned men who derive consecration from the word of God and prayer, the very way by which our Saviour Himself sanctified those elements in His first institution, Matt. xxvi, 26, εὐλογήσας, “calling upon God for His blessing,” and εὐχαριστήσας, “giving thanks,” in which action it must be supposed that Christ had more than a general design of saying grace, as we phrase it, for those elements as creatures ordained for common nutriment, viz. an intention of invocating God’s blessing upon them, in reference to those ends for which He meant by His institution to separate and depute them.

And though the primitive fathers, in the act of consecration, did usually join the narrative of Christ’s institution with the words of blessing and thanksgiving, thereby as it were shewing their commission; yet were they far from imagining that the elements were sanctified any other way than by prayer, if they must be thought (as sure none will question it) to mean as they said: Justin Martyr is express, τὴν δι᾿ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι, i. 6. “those viands by which our flesh and blood are nourished, being blessed by the prayer and thanksgiving of the priest, we are taught, became thereby the body and blood of Christ, who was incarnate.'' Cyprian, panis ille supersubstantialis et calix benedictione solemni consecratus, i.e. “that supersubstantial bread and wine, consecrated by solemn benediction.” Nyssen, ἁγιάζεται διὰ λόγου θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως, i. 6. “the Eucharist is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Cyril, ἐπικλήσεως γινομένης ὁ μὲν ἄρτος γίνεται σῶμα Χριστοῦ, i.e. “itivocation being made, the bread becomes the body of Christ.” Jerome, quid patitur mensarum minister, ut supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur, i.e. “what aileth this table-servant and deacon, that he carrieth himself so loftily above those with whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is effected in the Eucharist.” His convert, St. Austin, Benedicitur et sanctificatur illud quod est in Domini mensa oratione, i. 6. “the symbols lying on the holy table, are blessed and sanctified by prayer.’'

Nor do I find in all antiquity any one genuine piece of a different sense, only St. Ambrose in his de Sacramentis (if it be his) seemeth to vary, antequam consecretur, panis est; ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi; “before consecration it is mere bread; but when once Christ’s words of institution are recited, it becomes the body of Christ.” Which yet is not directly opposite to what I have delivered before, especially taking Ambrose entire, for he begins his chapter thus: Vis scire quia verbis celestibus consecratur? Accipe que sunt verba. Dicit sacerdos, fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Qui pridie quam pateretur, &c., i.e. “But will you know that the elements are consecrated with heavenly words? Hear the words themselves. The priest saith, Make this sacrifice, which is the figure of the body and blood of Christ, imputable, reasonable, acceptable for us. Who the night before He suffered,” &c., reciting Christ’s action at the institution from the Evangelists, where the narrative of the institution being continued with the prayer of the priest, the consecration may seem to be completed by those words, though in truth the prayer it was that operated the main, and without it the words could have effected nothing; and this is the reason why both in the now canon of the Mass, and the ancient liturgies, there is always affixed a prayer of benediction, that εὐλογία mentioned before, whose forms I shall here exhibit in reference to my former promise.

In the Romish canon thus, ut hec oblatio nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tut Domini nostri Jesu Christi, “that this oblation may become to us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the liturgy of St. Basil*, God is invocated “that He would send His Holy Spirit,” ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦj Ta Kal εὐλογῆσαι αὐτὰ Kal ἁγιάσαι, “upon the gifts there present, that He would bless and sanctify them.” That of St. Chrysostom more fullt; εὐλόγησον δέσποτα τὸν ἅγιον ἄρτον ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου: “bless, O Lord, this holy bread, make it the precious body of Thy Christ.” Elder than these the Clementine Constitutions. Having premised the words of institution, (a mode observed by all Greek liturgies, herein differing from the Latin,) he adds, ἀξιοῦμέν ce, ὅπως εὐμενῶς ἐπιβλέψῃς ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα ἐνώπιόν cov, σὺ ὁ ἀνενδεὴς θεός καὶ καταπέμψης τὸ ἅγιόν σου πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην τὸν μαρτύρα τῶν παθημάτων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅπως ἀποφήνῃ τὸν ἄρτον τούτον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου, καὶ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου, i.e., “we beseech Thee that Thou wouldest graciously behold these oblations presented before Thee, Thou God that wantest nothing, and send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, being the commemoration of the passions of our Lord Jesus, to exhibit this bread as the body, and this cup as the blood of Thy Christ.” Now it were, I say, vain to prefix with the Latins, or to affix with the Greeks, such an invocation, if the bare affirmative words of our Saviour’s institution were consecration all-sufficient.

By the marginal ascription of the 1 B. of Edward VI. we may observe from whence the custom is derived for the minister to take the elements into his hands upon his pronouncing of the words of institution. I humbly offer it to better judgments, whether that direction being expunged by our second reformers, it would not be a safe and as proper a course to begin that action at these words, “Grant that we receiving these Thy creatures,” &c., and to continue the rite until the words of institution be past. For as I said before, the words of invocation of God’s blessing, jointly with those of Christ’s institution, constitute the consecration. Now if the blessing of the symbols be, as it is, an essential part of consecration, then reason good, that with the words whereby it is accommodated and applied, the ceremony proper to it, that I mean of imposing of hands, should be used also. Nevertheless, I see not how the either precept or use thereof, as Bucer suspected, can at all officiate to the error of transubstantiation, considering that the direction referreth not to the words of institution, which the papists make the great operators in the conversion, but to the words “took bread,” and “took the cup,” as is rightly noted in the Scotch Liturgy, where the same direction is revived.

As to the words of institution, I must here note, against all who pretend our service is taken out of the Mass-book, that the Church of Rome hath halved them, as well as the Communion itself. For whereas our Church, agreeable to the general manner of all other liturgies, indeed agreeable to St. Paul and his associate St. Luke, (who supplied what St. Matthew and St. Mark had omitted,) after these words, “This is My body,” continueth, “which is given for you,” the canon of the Mass chops off the words, guod pro vobis traditur, contenting itself with hoc est corpus meum.

Though all our liturgies stand silent in it, yet may I not omit what here by the way doth offer itself as observable, viz. that at the close of the Eucharistical prayer, the ancient manner was for the people to contribute their Amen; which the annotator, Mr. Thorndike, and some other learned men, conceive to be the mind of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 16, “How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks?” applying ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ to the consecrating prayer, which included thanksgiving fitly and concinne enough, and the practice of the primitive fathers gives the same interpretation, ἄρτος προσφέρεται Kat οἶνος, Kal ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαριστίας bon δύνα- μὲς αὐτῷ ἀναπέμπει, καὶ λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ, λέγων τὸ ᾿Α μήν, saith Justin Martyr; “bread and wine is brought forth, and the president, with all intention of spirit, poureth forth prayers and thanksgivings, and all the people acclaim Amen.” Here is evidence clear enough to serve my turn, if my translating ὅση δύναμες, “with all intention of spirit’,’ gives check to so many of Smectymnuus as yet survive, who will have it “according to his ability,” and thereby advance extempore prayer, I must tell them their own Beza renders the phrase quanta potest contentione; I must tell them that the words in their native and proper energy can signify nothing else, witness Gregory Nazianzen, who understood them better than they or I. Φέρε, ὅση δύναμις τὴν ἐπινίκιον ἄδομεν ἐκείνην ὠδὴν ἥν πότε ἦσεν ὁ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐπὶ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις τῇ ἐρυθρᾳ καταληφθεῖσιν', &c.; “Come, let us with all intention of spirit chant that triumphant ode which sometime the Israelites sang upon the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red sea.” Oon δύναμις being limited precisely to ἐκείνην ὠδὴν, utterly shuts out all arbitrary conceptions. To pursue my former purpose, one who was baptized by heretics, became somewhat afflicted in his conscience, suspecting his baptism for illegitimate, thereupon he resorts to Dionysius Alexandrinus, desiring that he might be re-baptized. Dionysius replied no, and assigned this reason for it, why he might not re-baptize, εὐχαριστίας ἐπακούσαντα Kal συνεπιφθεγξάμενον τὸ ᾿Α μὴν, “one who had been present at the mystical thanksgiving, and had with the congregation joined his Amen.” The same fashion is extant in all the Greek liturgies, that of the Clementine Constitutions excepted. For the Latin Church let St. Ambrose speak; ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur, et tu dicis Amen; “before the consecration,” wherewith thanksgiving was joined, “‘it is called somewhat else, but after consecration it is styled the blood of Christ, and thou sayest Amen.”

L. Having in remembrance His blessed passion.] This blessed Sacrament is commemoratio Dominice passionis, a commemoration of our Saviour’s passion.” So was His express command when He first instituted this holy rite, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς THY ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, “do this in remembrance of Me:” which words import somewhat more than a calling of His passion to our mind, a meditating and thinking upon it when we are conversant about that sacred action, as is vulgarly apprehended. Sure I am the primitive Church stretched it farther, and held herself obliged thereby, not only to a mental, but a vocal commemoration; therefore witness her liturgical formulas, constantly running after one tenor importing as much, μεμνημένοι ὧν δι’ ἡμᾶς ὑπέμεινεν, εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι Θεὲ παντοκράτορ', καὶ τὴν διάταξιν αὐτοῦ πληροῦμεν; “making commemoration of what He suffered for us, we give Thee thanks, Almighty God, and so fulfil His appointment.” So the Constitutions, whereby it is manifest not only that such commemoration was made, but that it was made upon the account of divine institution. In all the liturgies ascribed to St. James, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, &c., the like commemoration passeth current. For the Latins listen to St. Ambrose; sacerdos dicit, Ergo memores gloriosissine ejus passionis, et ab inferis resurrectionis, et in ceelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi, &c.; “the priest says, Therefore commemorating His most glorious passion, resurrection from the dead, and ascension into heaven, we offer up unto thee,” &c. Agreeable to which is the now canon of the Mass; whence it is that the same Ambrose of the words, “do this in remembrance of Me,” gives this paraphrase, mortem meam predicabitis, resurrectionem meam annuncia- bitis, adventum sperabitis, donec iterum adveniam, “ye shall set forth My death, declare My resurrection, and hope for My coming, until I shall come again.” Indeed St. Paul himself seems so to interpret them, saying, “for as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew the Lord’s death till He come,” 1 Cor. xi. 26, implying that annunciation or declaration of Christ’s passion was usually made at the celebrating the Eucharist, which could no otherwise be than by verbal commemoration.

After the Consecration, the Priest first receives himself. So is it ordain'd Conc. Tolet. 12. 5. Wherein it is decreed that, The Priest shall receive whensoever he offers up the Sacrifice. For since the Apostle hath said, Are not they which eat of the Sacrifice, partakers of the Altar? 1 Cor. 10. it is certain, that they who sacrifice and eat not, are guilty of the Lords Sacrament.]

After he hath received, he is to deliver it to the people in their hands. So was it in Cyrils time, Cat. mystag. 5. and Let every one be careful to keep it, for whosoever carelesly loses any part of it, had better lose a part of himself, saies he, And Whosoever wilfully throws it away, shall be for ever excluded from the Communion, Conc. Tolet. 11. c. 11.

It is to be given to the people KNEELING. for a sin it is not to adore when we receive this Sacrament, Avg. in Psal. 98. And the old custome was to receive it after the manner of Adoration, Cyril. ibidem.

This Sacrament should be received fasting. 3. Counc. of Carthag. can. 29. And so was the practice of the universal Church, says S. Aug. Epist. 118. which is authority enough, (in things of this nature, namely, circumstances of time, &c.) to satisfie any that do not love contention, 1 Cor. 11. 16. Yet it will not be amiss in a word to shew the reasonableness of this Catholic usage. And the first reason may be this, because our minds are clearest, our devotion quickest, and so we fittest to perform this most high service, when we are in our Virgin spittle, as Tertullian expresses it. A second is this; it is for the honour of so high a Sacrament, that the precious body of Christ should first enter in to the Christian’s mouth before any other meat. S. Aug. Ep. 118.

It is true that our Saviour gave it to his Disciples after Supper; but dare any man quarrel the universal Church of Christ, for receiving it fasting? This also pleased the holy Ghost, that, for the honour of so great a Sacrament, the body of Christ should first enter into the Christian’s mouth, before all other meats. Neither, because our Saviour gave it to his Disciples after Supper, will it necessarily follow that we should receive it so, mingling the Sacrament with our other meats: a thing which the Apostle seems to reprehend, 1 Cor. 11. There was a special reason for our Saviour’s doing so, his Supper was to succeed immediately to the Passeover; and therefore as soon as that was over, he instituted his; and that he might the more deeply imprint the excellency of this mystery into the minds and hearts of his Disciples, he would give it them the last thing he did, before he went from them to his Passion, knowing that dying men’s words move much: but he no where appointed what hour and time it should afterward be received; but left that to be ordered by them that were after his departure, to settle the Churches, namely, the Apostles, and accordingly we find S. Paul 1 Cor. 11 rectifying some abuses, and prescribing some rules for the better ordering of some Rites and Ceremonies about the Sacrament, and promising when he should come, to settle and order for the rest, verse 34. from whom S. Aug. seems to think that the Catholic Church received this custom of receiving the Sacrament fasting, Ep. 118.

When the Priest hath said at the delivery of the Sacrament, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life. The Communicant is to answer, AMEN. Cyril, Myst. 5. By this Amen professing his faith of the presence of Christs Body and Blood in that Sacrament.

The people were of old called out of the Body of the Church into the Chancel, even up to the Rails of the Holy Table, there to receive it of the Priest, Niceph. l. 18. c. 45. So Clement Const. l. 2. c. 57. these be his words in English, Afterwards let the Sacrifice be made, all the people standing and praying secretly; and after the Oblation let every Order apart receive the Body and precious Bloud of the Lord, coming up in their Order with fear and reverence as to the Body of a King. Where you see they were to come up to the Sacrament, and to, or near the Railes of the Holy Table, saies S. Chrys. Liturgy. For after the Priest and Deacons have received, the Deacon goes to the door of the Rails, πρὸς τὴν θύραν τοῦ ἁγίου βήματος, and lifting up the holy Cup, shews it to the people, saying, In the faith and fear of God προσήλθετε, come hither, or as our Liturgy saies, draw near, the people Answer, Amen, Amen, Amen, Blessed be he that comes in the Name of the Lord, and so come and receive in both kinds.

Every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, whereof Easter to be one. Rubr. last after the Communion.

In the Primitive Church, while Christians continued in their strength of Faith and Devotion, they did communicate every day. This custome continued in Africa till S. Cyprians time, Orat. Dom. We daily receive the Eucharist, for to be our food of salvation. And after him till S. Augustines time Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Insomuch as these words in our Lords Prayer, Give us this day our daily bread, they interpreted of the Eucharist, as being daily to be celebrated. But afterward when charity grew cold and devotion faint, the custome grew faint withal; and within a small time began to be left by little and little; and some upon one pretence, and some upon another, would communicate but once a week. In the East-Church they grew to a worse custome betimes, which in after Ages came into the Latin Churches too. They fell from every day to Sundaies and Holy daies only, and from thence to once a year, and no oftner. S. Ambr. is cited for the proof of this, De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. But this wicked custome of receiving the Eucharist but once a year, was but of some Greeks in the East, saies S. Ambrose there; which cannot properly be understood of any but the Diocess (as it was anciently called) or Patriarchate of Antioch. For though the Eastern Empire, whereof Constantinople was the Metropolis, contained many Provinces, yet the Eastern Church, or Greeks in the East, were properly those of Antioch, Theodor. Hist. l. 5. c. 9. And possibly some of these might be so supine, as hath been observed; but of the Greeks in general, no such careless custome can be affirmed: for S. Chrysost. tells us that in his time, in every meeting or congregation of the Church, the healthful mysteries of the Eucharist are celebrated, Hom. 26. in Matth. In regard of this neglect, after-Councels did, as the Church of England, make Canons, that if men could be got to receive it no oftner, yet they should be forc'd to receive it, at least three times in the year; Christmas, Easter and Whitsontide. Nor was he to be reckoned amongst good Catholick Christians, that did not receive at those feasts, Conc. Agat. c. 18. [Eliber. c. 81. as they are cited by Gratian. de Conscr. dis. 2.]

Three times a year at the least they were to receive, whereof Easter to be one; and good reason: For when Christ our Passeover was Sacrificed for us, then, of all times, let us keep a Feast with this holy banquet, 1 Cor. 5. 7. These Canons were made for the Laity, but for those of the Clergy that lived in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, (where there were enough of themselves, to make a sufficient company to receive the Sacrament) they were bound to receive much oftner, every day, Edw. 6. Liturg. every Sunday at the least, Rubr. 4. after the Communion. Thus we see holy Church her care to bring all her Children; Clergy and Laity, to the heavenly banquet of the body and blood of Christ; she invites all to a frequent and due receiving of this holy Sacrament in most passionate and kind manner, in that most excellent exhortation, next after the prayer for the Catholick Church militant here on earth. An exhortation, fit to be read weekly by the Priest, and seriously considered daily by all the people. In which holy Church one while exhorts us by the mercies and bowels of Christ, to come to this holy feast; another while terrifies us by the indignation of God against those that despise his so great love, and refuse to come, she sends her Ministers, as the man in the Gospel S. Luke 14. to tell them all things are ready, and to bid them in the Name of God, to call them in Christ's behalf, to exhort them as they love their own salvation, to come to this holy Supper; and those, that, notwithstanding all this bidding, shall go about to make excuses, because they had bought a Farm, or would try their yoke of Oxen, or because they were married, holy Church by her Canons and Laws endeavours to compel to come in at least three times in the year. And it were to be wished that all those that despise the Churches passionate exhortations, and contemn her wholsome Canons and commands in this particular, would seriously at last, think of that dreadful sentence of our Lord, upon those that still refuse so great mercy, I say unto you that none of those men which were bidden, shall taste of my Supper. S. Luke 14. 24. None of those that are thus bidden by Christ and his Church to his holy Supper, the holy Communion, and shall refuse to come, shall ever taste of his great Supper hereafter, or eat and drink with him at his Table in his Kingdom S. Luke c. 22. 29.

If any of the Bread and Wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use. [Rubr. 5. after the Communion Service.] That is, if it were not consecrated: for if it be consecrated, it is all to be spent with fear and reverence by the Communicants, in the Church Gratian de Consecr. dist. 2. c. 23. Tribus Concil. Constant. Resp. ad Qu. 5. Monachon. apud Balsam. Theophil. Alexand. cap. 7.

M. To the people in their hands.] So was the celebration observed by Christ Himself, and so the primitive custom; the scrupulous person, mentioned before in Eusebius, is said yeipas εἰς ὑποδοχὴν τῆς ἁγίας τροφῆς προτείνειν, “to stretch out his hands for the receiving of the sacred food.” So St Cyprian, speaking of persons lapsed, who intruded to the Communion before they had performed those solemnities of penance which the Church required, saith, plus modo in Dominum manibus et ore delinguunt quam cum Dominum negaverunt, “They did more heinously offend God with their hands reached out to take, and their mouths open to devour, those precious symbols, than they did with their tongues when they denied Him.” To the same purpose this father elsewhere very often, so also Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustine — who not? In tract of time some indiscreet persons, pretending greater reverence to the mysteries, as if they were defiled with their hands, were at the cost to provide certain saucers, or little plates of gold, (why not as well golden mouths and stomachs?) to receive it, until they were forbidden by the sixth council in Trullo. Another abuse the Church of Rome brought in, where the priest puts it into the people’s mouths, lest a crumb should fall beside, which, favouring transubstantiation, is by our Church discontinued.

N. Kneeling.] The ancients made it their study to adorn the blessed Eucharist with all the appellations of honour they could devise, some called it τελετῶν τελετὴν, i. 6. “the perfection of perfections;” some φρικτὰ μυστήριαϑ, “the dreadful mysteries;” some τῶν μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἀντίτυπον , “the exemplar of high mysteries.” The table on which it was laid was called τράπεζα ἱερὰ, “the holy table;” τράπεξα μυστικὴ, “the mystical table;” τράπεζα ἢ φρικώδης, “the terrible and dreadful table.” Much cost to slender purpose; if after all it be now discovered they were in the wrong, and that this Sacrament hath nothing of that veneration, nothing of that dreadfulness which they imputed to it, and that it is so tame and despicable an ordinance as will admit of any negligent posture, and that kneeling is too good for it.

Miserable infatuation! Good God! how well mayest Thou say to those misled souls, as Augustus to him who entertained him meanly, “I did not think you and I had been so familiar.” Blessed Jesus! wert Thou so gracious to us wretches, as to leave and bequeath us this mystery of our eternal redemption, and great charter of all Thy benefits, and shall we dare to receive it in any other than the lowest and humblest posture? What is, if this be not, μὴ διακρίνειν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου, “not to discern the Lord’s body?” and what the consequence of that indistinction is, let all them consider who would avoid it.

But it may be said, that kneeling was not the gesture of the primitive Church. Confessed, generally it was not; because their fashion was, upon Communion days, to pray standing; nevertheless the communicant was enjoined to receive those mysteries κύπτων τρόπῳ προσκυνήσεως Kal σεβάσματος, “bowing himself after the manner of veneration and adoration.” How can Augustine’s words be otherways truly interpreted, nemo carnem illam manducat, nist prius adoraverit, “let none presume to eat that flesh until he hath done his obeisance.” Nor was this ecumenical and universal practice, for Sozoment tells a story of a woman, which to please her husband, coming to the Communion, took the bread when the priest gave it her, and kneeling down, as if it had been to secret prayer, conveyed it away, her maid (then by) privily stealing a piece of common bread into her hands, which she ate instead of the other; whence it appeareth that kneeling was not then interdicted. A gesture used by the Protestants of Bohemia, upon whose custom, mentioned in their Confession, the French and Dutch Churches passed this judgment, in hoc ritu suam cuique Ecclesia libertatem salvam relinquendam arbitramur, “as to this ceremony, we hold it fit that every Church be left to her own liberty.” A gesture which by Beza’s own confession, olim potuit cum fructu usurpari, “might in times past have been used with edification.” In time past, why not now as well? yea, much rather, when, as the fear of reverting to popish idolatry is altogether vain, so the danger of apostatizing from Christ is very great, and no way sooner occasioned than by a sitting posture, it being observed by the Polish Church, that the men who lapsed there into the Arian heresy were all such as addicted themselves to that posture at the Communion.

Part 4. After all have received, we say the LORDS PRAYER according to ancient Custome, Ambr. l. 5. de Sacram. c. 4. The people are to repeat every Petition after the Priest. Rubr. If the Church did ever devise a thing fit and convenient, what more than this; That when together we have all received those heavenly Mysteries, wherein Christ imparts himself to us, and gives visible testification of our blessed Communion with him, we should in hatred of all Heresies, Factions, and Schisms declaredly approve our selves united as Brethren in one, by offering up with all our hearts and tongues that most effectual prayer, Our Father, &c. In which we profess our selves Sons of the same Father, and in which we pray for Gods pardon no otherwise than as we forgive them that trespass, &c. For which cause Communicants have ever used it, and we at that time do shew we use, yea every syllable of it, as Communicants, saying it together with one consent and voice.

This done, the Priest offers up the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, or the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the whole Church, as in all old Liturgies it is appointed, and together with that is offered up that most acceptable Sacrifice of our selves, souls and bodies devoted to Gods service. Of which see Rom. 12. and S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 6.

Q. And here we offer and present, &c.] This high and eminent place looketh big upon all those false clamours that our service is extracted from the Mass, challenging the authors thereof to exhibit where it is to be found in the canon of that Mass. No, to the utter shame of the Romish party, our Church upbraideth them, that whereas they contend so much for the propriety of the sacrifice of their Mass, the whole canon of that Mass hath not one syllable of this most proper sacrifice, this ἀμεριστὸς θυσία, “indivisible sacrifice,” of both bodies and souls, a sacrifice enjoined by Apostolical precept, Rom. xii. 1; and which did, in the primitive times, constitute an illustrious part of the Eucharistical office.

Glory be to God on high. The Lord's Supper is called an Eucharist, because it is a thanksgiving to God for giving his Son to die for us; and therefore this hymn is so fitly sung by men on earth at the commemoration of his death, as it was by the choir of heaven at the celebration of his birth. For our reconciliation and peace with God is ascribed in holy scripture to Christ’s passion especially: Romans 5:10, Hebrews 9:12,15.

Some make three parts of this song (which if you please) call the Treble: Glory to God on high, Bass: Peace on earth, Mean: Goodwill toward men. Others have divided it into two: The first, concerning God's glory; the second, touching our good. For peace on earth and goodwill toward men are both one, because our peace with God is not from our goodwill toward him, but altogether from his goodwill toward us. It is God (faith Paul) that makes in you both the will and the work: and therefore the Rheims translation, In earth peace, to men of goodwill, and the Romanist gloss, that Christ brings no peace but to such as be of goodwill, are insufficient, and condemned even by their own mouth, as we may read in the commentaries of Arboreus, Caietan, Iansenius, Maldonatus upon the place. Concerning other scholastic or scholastic observations upon the text, I refer the reader to Beauxamis, Erasmus, Calvin, and other learned expositors; especially to Iacobus Perez de Valentia, who compiled a whole treatise on this hymn.

It was first used in the Communion (as it is thought) by Thelesphorus, a good man and a glorious Martyr, in the year 254. Iahuar 5. That which followeth in our Communion book, We praise thee, we bless thee, was added by that famous Bishop Hilarie, singing it first in his own Church in the year 340, and after brought into other Churches by Pope Symmachus in the year 510. The Churches of Scotland use the like form of thanks at their Communion. And therefore the noveltist can mislike nothing in this hymn, but that which all others like most, Antiquity.

Then we say or sing the Angelical Hymn, GLORY BE TO GOD ON HIGH, &c. wherein the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does admirably imitate the Heavenly, singing this at the Sacrament of his Body which the Angels did at the Birth of his Body.

And good reason there is to sing this for Christs being made One with us in the Sacrament, as for his being made One of us at his Birth. And if ever we be fit to sing this Angels song, it is then, when we draw nearest to the estate of Angels, namely, at the receiving of the Sacrament. After the receiving of the holy Sacrament, we sing an Hymn in imitation of our Saviour; who after his Supper sung an Hymn, to teach us to do the like. Chrys. Hom. 83. S. Matth. And when can a Psalm or Hymn of thanksgiving be more seasonable and necessary, than after we have received this heavenly nourishment? Is it possible to hear these words, This is my Body, take and eat it; Drink ye all of this, This is my Blood: and not be filled, as with a kind of fearful admiration, so with a sea of joy and comfort for the Heaven which they see in themselves? Can any man receive this Cup of Salvation, and not praise and bless God with his utmost strength of soul and body? The Ancients did express their joy at this time in the highest manner that they could. Some were so ravished with joy, that they immediately offered themselves to martyrdom, impatient of being longer absent from their so gracious Lord, unable to keep themselves from expressing their love to Christ, by dying for him; the highest expression of love. All men then counted it a sin, to sully the day of their receiving the Eucharist with any sorrow or fasting, these days they called daies of mirth, daies of remission, daies of Immunity, solemn days, Festival daies.

This Angelical Hymn was made of old by Ecclesiastical Doctors, and who refuses it, let him be excommunicated, Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 4.

R. Glory be to God on high.] Antiquity called this the angelical hymn; and, in truth, being angelical, it must be a hymn; ai ἄνω δυνάμεις ὑμνοῦσιν, οὐ ψάλλουσιν, saith Chrysostom, ‘angels and the celestial choir send forth hymns, they sing not psalms.” And so Clemens Alexandrinus, ὕμνοι ἔστων Tov Θεοῦ ai ὠδαὶ, “let hymns be only the praises of God:” the reason is, οὗ ψαλμοὶ πάντα ἔχουσιν, οἱ δὲ ὕμνοι πάλιν οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον: “psalms contain all things both divine and moral, hymns only the praises of God.” Called it is the angelical hymn, because the first part thereof is the nativity-carol, mentioned Luke ii. 13, sung by the Angels; the rest was composed by ecclesiastical doctors; some think St. Hilary; and the fourth council of Toledo seemeth to imply as much: but the Constitutions of Clemens persuade me it was of earlier entrance, it being there completely the same with ours in all materials, but disposed in two several prayers, and is that ἐωθινὸς ὕμνος, that morning hymn, as I “suppose, to which Epiphanius, a great follower of Clemens, relateth in a place formerly cited.

Part it was of the Missa-Catechumenorum, in the Mass-book, but worthily translated into the Communion service by our discreet Reformers, it being formerly mislaid; this being its proper udi, or place, for two reasons: first, because it is a hymn. To sing a hymn after the distribution of the elements is conformity to the mode of Christ; ὁρᾷς ὅτι ἡ ἐσχάτη μετὰ τὴν θυσίαν εὐχὴ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον γίνεται τὸν τύπον; i. 6. “thou seest that the last prayer after the Eucharist is celebrated, is made in imitation of our Saviour’s practice.” Again, it is a compound piece, made up partly of doxology, partly of prayer; and of prayer addressed to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God: now it is improper to apply ourselves to Christ, before the action of participation is past: the reason is, because the blessed Eucharist is a sacrifice, wherein our Saviour Christ is considered as an immaculate lamb, offered upon the Altar to God the Father for the remission of our sins. And this I take to be the meaning of the third council of Carthage decreeing, ut nemo in precibus, vel Patrem pro Filio, vel Filium pro Patre nominet, et cum Altari assistitur, semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio: “that no man name the Father for the Son, nor the Son for the Father, in public prayers, and when any officiate at the Altar,” viz. before distribution of the elements, “that the prayer be always directed to the Father.” For which I can assign no other reason, but because Christ is then the great sacrifice, and the Father is the person to be appeased.

The Hymn being ended we depart with a BLESSING, Goar. in Euch. pag. 154. tells us, That of old, when the Communion Service was ended, and the Deacon had dismist the people, they would not for all that depart till they had the Blessing; by this Stay, saying in effect the same to the Priest, that Jacob did to the Angel. We will not let thee go unless thou blessest us. The Priest therefore departing from them, as our Saviour from his Disciples, with a Blessing; but first he comes down from the Altar, by this descending shewing his condescension to the people in affection as well as in Body; and standing behind the Pulpit (Retro Ambonem, whence the Blessing was called εὐχὴ ἐπὶ θάμβωνος) in the midst of the people, in this also imitating our Saviour, S. John 20. 9. who there gave the Blessing or peace of God standing in the midst, by the place shewing how equally he stood affected to all, how he would have his Blessings spread upon all.

S. The peace of God.] This benediction is a peculiar of the bishop’s office, if present, because “the less is blessed of the greater,” Heb. vii. 7; ὁ ἱερεὺς ποιεῖ ἀπόλυσιν, “the principal priest dismisseth the people with his blessing.” After this pronounced, the deacon usually said, πορεύεσθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, “Go in peace:” when the people received it they bowed down their heads; κλινόντων αὐτῶν τὰς κεφαλὰς, εὐλογείτω αὐτοὺς ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, “let the bishop give the benediction, the people bowing down their heads.” ‘This gesture imports a kind of adoration. Ecclus. 1. 21, the Jews are said to “bow down themselves to worship the Lord:” so in the primitive Church the Energumeni were commanded to bow their heads, and τῷ σχήματι τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖσθαι τάς ἱκετηρίας, “in that fashion to perform their bodily reverence.”

T. Upon the holy-days, if there be no Communion.] Anciently, upon holy-days, Communions were constant, and consequently oblations, wherefore Proclus saith, ἑορτή ἐστι πενήτων Oepos, “a festival is the poor man’s harvest,” because he had then his dividend of offerings. But afterward, as devotion relaxed, they were content with Sundays, appointing, nevertheless, that which they called Missam Catechumenorum, the service of the catechumens, to be used upon such days as there was no Communion; and this went under the appellation of Missa sicca, dry mass. To speak in particular of our Church, this rubric is a very pious and prudent provision: what pity were it the congregation should, for default of a Communion, be deprived of that excellent exhomologesis, confession of sins implied in that κύριε ἐλέησον, “Lord have mercy upon us,” and invocation of God’s gracious assistance, which the decalogue service constrains us to? What is there in those collects succeeding, what in the Constantinopolitan Creed, what in the prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church, which createth in them an inseparable relation to the Eucharist, or which may not exceedingly officiate to the edification of the assembly at all times, would leisure permit? Nay, how absurd would it seem to celebrate those holy-days, and merely for the defect above said to turn out of doors so large portions of holy Scripture as the epistles and gospels, these last, with their collects, giving us the only account why these days are observed. Under the notion of holy-days 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-days, in the act of parliament, and order of our Church.

But it is ordered here only what shall be said for the second service, without determining the place where, and this hath been a very intricate, and almost interminable question. The visitation articles of some bishops enjoined it to be read at the holy table, placed at the east end of the chancel, and the late archbishop inferreth direction for it from the rubric before the Communion, appointing that the “priest standing at the north side of the holy table, shall say the Lord’s prayer with that which followeth.” But this order hath reference to the Communion time, the rubric is expressly so; and in Communion time, I have evidently demonstrated before, the table was to be placed in the middle of the church or chancel, and consequently I conceive this rubric referreth not to this service out of Communion time; where then is it to be read? I agree, at the holy table set altarwise, at the east end; and in this, I persuade myself the bishops were right, though they perhaps mistook the reason; so it was, I am certain, in the first Reformation, the rubric parallel to ours ordering all these things to be said at the Altar. But it may be said, the second Reformation expunging this rule, as to this particular, we may presume it meant to reform the practice also. I answer, our Reformers are best understood by their own orders; now this rule constitutes this service either as a label annexed to morning prayer, or parcel of the Communion service: take which you will, by the order of the Church it must be said at the holy table set altarwise, at the east end; for there regularly ought both the morning and the Communion office to be read out of Communion time. As for the morning prayer, both it and evening prayer shall be used in the accustomed ancient course of the Church is by and by called an innovation. Secondly, with this the rubrics of the Common Prayer-book agree; so that not only the Communion, but the prayers which accompany the Communion (which are commonly called the second service) are to be read at the Communion-table. Therefore, if this be an innovation, it is made by the rubric. The accustomed place was then, without dispute, the choir; for all along Queen Mary’s days, nay, from her death, being the 27th of November, to the Feast of St. John Baptist, when this common prayer was to commence by the statute, Matins and Mass, yea, all divine offices were performed after the popish manner, and that was undoubtedly in the choir, at the high Altar, and consequently to that place must the word accustomed have relation in this rubric. True it is, there is an exception against this rule, in case the ordinary shall otherwise determine: so that till the ordinary shall state it otherwise, the rule holds firm, and consequently, morning prayer with all its appendants (not otherwise settled by express order) is to be said at the Altar. Now if it be considered as part of the Communion service, the words of the rubric are express; “the priest standing at the north side of the table shall say,” &c. So he is to stand and officiate at the north side of the table, and this, out of Communion time, must be situated at the east end, and consequently the service to be read there.

W. And if any of the bread or wine remain, &c.] In the primitive Church, the bread and wine was taken from a large table (which was the receptacle of all the offerings), so much in quantity as the priest officiating judged sufficient for the communicants. These elements, thus separated from their fellows, were consecrated apart for the service to which they were destined; but because so great a portion was usually blessed, as did afford some overplus, it was therefore judged necessary some order should be taken for a decent disposal of those analects and remains: this was done at first by sending some parcels to absent friends, as pledges and tokens of love and agreement in the unity of the same faith, whereof Eusebius’ maketh mention in Irenaeus’s epistle to Pope Victor. But this custom being abused, was interdicted by the council of Laodicea; περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὰ ἅγια εἰς λόγον εὐλογίας κατὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν τοῦ Πάσχα εἰς ἑτέρας παροικείας μεταπέμπειν: “that the consecrated bread be no more sent abroad to other parishes at Easter, under the notion, and in resemblance of the blessed loaves.” After this the remains began to be divided amongst the clergy; τὰς περισσευούσας ἐν τοῖς μυστικοῖς εὐλογίας κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἤ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων οἱ διακόνοι διανεμέτωσαν τῷ κλήρῳ, saith Clemens: “what is left of the consecrated elements, let the deacons divide among the clergy:”’ and sometimes the other communicants were allowed their share; τὰ προσφερόμενα εἰς λόγον θυσίας, μετὰ TA ἀναλισκόμενα εἰς τὴν τῶν μυστηρίων χρείαν, οἱ κλήρικοι διανεμέσθωσαν, καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτοῖς πιστοὶ ἀδελφοὶ:“let the clergy, and with them the faithful brethren, divide amongst themselves the oblations of the Eucharist, when every one hath participated.” As for the order of our Church, it is very circumspect, for, by saying the curate shall have it to his own use, care thereby is taken to prevent the superstitious reservation of this Sacrament, as the papists formerly practised.

X. At the least three times in the year.] So did the council of Agatha decree, prescribing these very days. Qui in natal Domini, Paschate et Pentecoste non communicaverint, catholici non credantur, nec inter catholicos habeantur: “they which do not communicate at the nativity of our Lord, Easter, and Pentecost, let them not be accounted amongst the members of the Catholic Church.” So also the Belgic Church; commodum erit die Paschates, Pentecostes et nativitatis salvifice, Dominicam cenam celebrari: “it is very convenient that the Lord’s supper be celebrated on Easter, Whitsuntide, and on the birthday of our Saviour.” The word parishioner must here be understood according to several qualifications and capacities. First, it intendeth the laity, and therefore this rubric is no dispensation to the clergy belonging to cathedrals, who are still obliged to receive every Sunday, “unless they shew cause to the contrary.” Secondly, it meaneth such as can say their catechism, and have been confirmed, as is in the rubric at the end of Confirmation. Lastly, it importeth infants also, which in the second qualification it excluded, for it is said, “every parishioner shall also receive the Sacraments,” &c., meaning when infants, baptism, and when of riper years, the Eucharist; else we make more than two Sacraments, contrary to our Church catechism.