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

Rubric 1. The ministers to be judged of the fitness of their communicants. FROM what has been said just now above, the design of the first rubric sufficiently appears, viz. That the Curate, by knowing, at least some time the day before, the names of all that intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, may judge what quantity of bread and wine will be sufficient, and also may have time enough to learn, whether those that offer themselves to the Communion are fit to receive. For,

§.2. Rubric 2, 3. And have power to repel scandalous offenders. If any of those be an open or notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended; the Curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented, and amended his former naughty life, that the congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended; and that he hath recompensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong, or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.

The same order shall the Curate use with those between whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign; not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord’s table, until he know them to be reconciled. And if any one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive, from the bottom of his heart, all that the other hath trespassed against him, and to make amends for that he himself hath offended; and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly unity, but remain still in his frowardness and malice; the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate.

Now here we must distinguish between absolutely repelling and shutting out any one from the Communion, as by a judicial act, and only suspending him for a time, till the Minister has opportunity to send his case to the Ordinary. The first of these is what the rubric cannot be understood to imply: for by the laws of the land, both ecclesiastical and civil, none are to be shut out from this Sacrament, but such as are notorious delinquents, and none are notorious but such as the sentence of the law hath, either upon their own confession, or full conviction, declared so to be. And this is conformable both to the Imperial Edict, and the practice of the Church, as long ago as St. Austin. The first hath this established law: "We prohibit all, both bishops and presbyters, from shutting out any one from the Communion, before some just cause be shewn for which the holy canons require it to be done." And as to the ancient usage, St. Austin speaks very plain; "We cannot," saith he, "repel any man from the Communion, unless he has freely confessed his offence, or hath been accused and convicted in some ecclesiastical consistory or secular court."

But now all this plainly refers to the power of secluding from the Communion judicially and with authority; whereas the design of this rubric is only to enable the Curate to refuse to administer to any of his congregation (of whose ill life and behaviour he has received sudden notice) till he can have opportunity of laying his case before the Ordinary. For by a clause, added at the last review, it is provided, That every Minister, so repelling any, as is specified in this, or the next precedent paragraph of this rubric, shall he obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary, within fourteen days after at the farthest, and the Ordinary is to proceed against the offending person according to the canon. The hundred and ninth canon, I suppose, is meant, which requires the Ordinary to punish all such notorious offenders by the severity of the laws, and not to admit them to the Communion till they be reformed.

But here I know it may be objected, that the persons, whom the Curate is by this rubric empowered to repel, are declared to be such as are notorious evil livers, and that I have already allowed that none are notorious but such as the sentence of the law has declared so to be. But to this I answer, that notoriety in this place is taken in a lower degree; the rubric using the words open and notorious for the same thing, and explaining those to be notorious by whom the congregation is offended. That it cannot mean those whom the law has declared to be notorious, is plain, because such are supposed to be already shut out from the Communion, and consequently the Curate must himself have received notice from his Ordinary not to admit them: whereas the persons, whom the rubric provides against, are such as the Ordinary is supposed not yet to have heard of, whom therefore it requires the Curate to send him notice of, in order that he may proceed against them according to law; and whom, in the mean while, the Curate is empowered by this rubric (which is itself a law, being established by the Act of Uniformity) to refuse the Communion, if, after due admonition to keep away, he obstinately offers himself to receive: insomuch that no damage from any prior law can accrue to him from a conscientious execution of the latter. And that this is no novel or unnecessary power is plain from the practice of the ancient Church; in which though all open offenders, as soon as known, were put under censure, yet if before censure they offered themselves at the Communion, they were repelled. This is evident from St. Chrysostom, who does not more earnestly press the duty, than he does plainly assert the authority of the sacerdotal power to effect it. "Let no Judas," saith he, "no lover of money be present at this table; he that is not Christ's disciple, let him depart from it. Let no inhuman, no cruel person, no uncompassionate man, or unchaste, come hither. I speak this to you that administer, as well as to those that partake: for it is necessary I speak these things to you, that you may take great care, and use your utmost diligence to distribute these offerings aright. For no small punishment hangeth over your heads, if knowing any man to be wicked, you suffer him to be partaker of this table; for his blood shall be required at your hands. Wherefore, if he be a general, or a provincial governor, or the emperor himself, that Cometh unworthily, forbid him and keep him off; thy power is greater than his. If any such get to the table, reject him without fear. If thou darest not remove him, tell it me; I will not suffer it, I will yield my life rather than the Lord's body to any unworthy person: and suffer my own blood to be shed, before I will grant that sacred blood to any but to him that is worthy."

But here again it has been objected, that "all persons, before they are admitted into any office, are obliged by our laws to receive the sacrament as a qualification; and consequently that the Minister is obliged by the same laws, to admit any person that offers himself upon this occasion, to the holy Communion, however unfit he may have rendered himself by his life and actions." But in answer to this, it must be considered, that the power which Christ himself invested his Church with, of admitting persons into her communion, and excluding them from it, is what no human. laws can deprive her of. And therefore when the laws require men to receive this holy Sacrament to qualify themselves for offices, they always suppose that they must first qualify themselves according to the holy laws of the Church, which are founded on those of the Gospel. So that it would be a very great injury to our legislators (as being a very uncharitable opinion of them) to imagine, that if an unbaptized, or excommunicate person, a deist, or notorious sinner, should happen to obtain an office, that they intend to oblige the Church to admit persons, under these bad dispositions, to be partakers of the blessed Eucharist.

The primitive Church was so cautious in this respect, that even persons in the highest stations were rejected, if they offered themselves unworthily. Of which we have a remarkable instance in the case of the emperor Theodosius, whom St. Ambrose boldly and openly refused, upon the commission of a barbarous crime. The story being worth the reader's notice, I shall therefore give it in a few words. There being a sedition among the people of Thessalonica, the emperor ordered the guard to fall on them in heat, who in that hurry and confusion destroyed several thousands of these poor wretches. Soon after which, he coming to Milan, was going to offer himself at St. Ambrose's church to receive the Communion. But the good bishop (when he heard of it) met him courageously at the church doors, and obliged him to return, and first repent himself of his crime. "With what eyes," saith he, "can you behold the temple of him who is the common Lord of all? With what feet can you tread this holy place? How can you put out those hands to receive the blessed elements, which are yet reeking with innocent blood? How can you take the precious blood into that mouth, which gave out such barbarous and bloody orders? Depart therefore, and take heed that you do not increase your first crime by a second. Submit yourself to the bond which the Lord of the world has been pleased to bind you with, which is only medicinal, and intended to work your cure." This repulse the emperor acquiesced in, and offered himself no more to those holy rites, till he had in tears repented of the sad effects of his hasty anger. I have chosen to give this instance, because it is what the Church of England has thought fit to record in her Homilies, and to mention with. marks of approbation and applause.

Other persons disqualified from communicating are, schismatics; persons not confirmed; and strangers from other parishes. But besides persons excommunicated, and those above mentioned, there are other persons, those above mentioned, there are other persons, by the laws of our Church, disabled from communicatmg: such as are of course all schismatics, to whom no Minister, when he celebrateth the Communion, is wittingly to administer the same, under pain of suspension. But of these too, unless they have been legally convicted, the Minister who repels them is obliged upon complaint, or being required by the Ordinary, to signify the cause thereof unto him, and therein to obey his order and direction. And further, by a rubric at the end of the Order of Confirmation, none are to be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. The like provision is made by our Provincial Constitutions, which allow none to communicate (unless at the point of death) but such as are confirmed, or at least have a reasonable impediment for not being confirmed: and the Glossary allows no impediment to be reasonable, but the want of a bishop near the place. And lastly, all strangers from other parishes; the Minister is by the canons required to forbid and to remit such home to their own parish churches and ministers, there to receive the Communion with the rest of their neighbours.

§.3. Rubric 4. Concerning the situation of the Communion table. The last rubric concerning: the covering and situation of the Communion table, was first added in the second Common Prayer Book of king Edward VI, there being no other rubric in his first book than this, The priest, standing humbly afore the middes of the altar, shall saie the Lord's Prayer, &c.* For altar was the name by which the holy board was constantly distinguished for the first three hundred years after Christ; during all which time it does not appear that it was above once called table, and that was in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of Rome. And when in the fourth century Athanasius called it a table, he thought himself obliged to explain the word, and to let the reader know that by table he meant altar, that being then the constant and familiar name. Afterwards indeed both names came to be promiscuously used; the one having respect to the oblation of the eucharist, the other to the participation: but it was always placed altar-wise in the most sacred part of the Church, and fenced in with rails to secure it from irreverence and disrespect.

But at the beginning of the Reformation, an unhappy dispute arose, viz. whether those tables of the altarfashion, which had been used in the popish times, and on which masses had been celebrated, should still be continued: this point was first started by Bishop Hooper, who, in a sermon before the king in the fourth year of his reign, declared, "That it would do well, that it might please the magistrate, to turn altars into tables, according to the first institution of Christ; to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they have of sacrifice, to be done upon the altars; for as long (says he) as altars remain, both the ignorant people and the ignorant and evil persuaded priest will always dream of sacrifice." This occasioned not only a couple of letters from the king and council, one of which was sent to all the bishops, and the other to Ridley, bishop of London; (in both which they were required to pull down the altars;) but also that, when the Liturgy was reviewed in 1551, the abovesaid rubric was altered, and in the room of it the present one was inserted, viz. The table having at the Communion time a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning and evening prayer are appointed to be said. And the priest standing at the north side of the table, shall say the Lord's Prayer with the Collect following. But this did not put an end to the controversy; another dispute arising, viz. whether the table placed in the room of the altar ought to stand altar-wise, i.e. in the same place and situation as the altar formerly stood? This was the occasion that in some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels, in others at the east part thereof next to the wall; some again placing it endwise, and others placing it at length. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to compromise this matter, and therefore, in St. Paul's cathedral, suffered the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel, which indeed was more agreeable to the primitive custom. Under this diversity of usage, things went on till the death of king Edward; when queen Mary coming to the throne, altars were again restored wherever they had been demolished: but her reign proving short, and queen Elizabeth succeeding her, the people, (just got free again from the tyranny of popery) through a mistaken zeal, fell in a tumultuous manner to the pulling down of altars: though indeed this happened for the generality only in private churches, they not being meddled with in any of the queen's palaces, and in but very few of the cathedrals. And as soon as the queen was sensible of what had happened in other places, she put out an injunction to restrain the fury of the people, declaring it to be no matter of great moment, whether there mere altars or tables, so that the Sacrament was duly and reverently administered: but ordering, that where an altar was taken down, a holy table should be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood, and there commonly covered as thereto belonged, and as should be appointed by the visitor, and so to stand, saving when the communion of the Sacrament was to be distributed; at winch time the same was to be placed in good sort within the chancel, as thereby the Minister might be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said Minister. And after the Communion done, from time to time the same holy table was to be placed where it stood before. Now it is plain from this injunction, as well as from the eighty-second canon of the Church, (which is almost verbatim the same,) that there is no obligation arising from this rubric to move the table at the time of the Communion, unless the people cannot otherwise conveniently hear and communicate. The injunction declares, that the holy table is to be set in the same place where the altar stood, which every one knows was at the east end of the chancel. And when both the injunction and canon speak of its being moved at the time of the Communion, it supposes that the Minister could not otherwise be heard: the interposition of a belfry between the chancel and body of the church (as I have already observed, p. 116, &c.) hindering the Minister in some churches from being heard by the people, if he continued in the chancel. So that we are not under any obligation to move the table, unless necessity requires. But whenever the churches are built so as the Minister can he heard, and conveniently administer the Sacrament at the place where the table usually stands, he is rather obliged to administer in the chancel, as appears from the rubric before the Commandments, as also from that before the Absolution, by both which rubrics the Priest is directed to turn himself to the people. From whence I argue, that if the table be in the middle of the church, and the people consequently round about the Minister, the Minister cannot turn himself to the people any more at one time than another. Whereas if the table be close to the east wall, the Minister stands on the north side, and looks southward, and consequently, by looking westward, turns himself to the people.

§.4. The priest, why to stand at the north side of the table. Wherever it be placed, the Priest is obliged to stand at the north side, (or end thereof, as the Scotch Liturgy expresses it; which also orders, that it shall stand at the uppermost part of the chancel or church) the design of which is, that the Priest may be the better seen and heard; which, as our altars are now placed, he cannot be but at the north or south side. And therefore the north side being the right hand or upper side of the altar, is certainly the most proper for the officiating Priest, that so the assisting Minister (if there be one) may not be obliged to stand above him. And Bishop Beveridge has shewn that wherever, in the ancient Liturgies, the Minister is directed to stand before the altar, the north side of it is always meant.

§.5. The table to be covered with a linen cloth. The covering of the altar with a fair white linen cloth, at the time of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, was a primitive practice, enjoined at first, and retained ever since for its decency. In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, this covering is called palla altaris, the pall of the altar; to distinguish it, I suppose, from the corporis palla, or the cloth that was thrown over the consecrated elements. And the Scotch Liturgy orders, that the holy table at the Communion time should have a carpet, and a fair white linen cloth upon it, with other decent furniture, meet far the high mysteries there to be celebrated. And by our own canons, at all other times, when divine service is performed, it is to be covered with a carpet of silk, or rather decent stuffs thought meet by the Ordinary of the place, if any question he made of it; which was originally designed for the clean keeping of the said [white linen] cloth: though the chief use of it now is for ornament and decency.

Why used at the beginning of the office. THERE can be no fitter beginning for this sacred ordinance, which so peculiarly challengeth Christ for its author, than that divine prayer which owes its original to the same person, and which St. Jerome tells us, Christ taught his Apostles, on purpose that they should use it at the holy Communion. To which the primitive Fathers thought it so peculiarly adapted, that they generally expounded that petition, Give us this day our daily bread, of the body of Christ, the bread of life, which in those times they daily received for the nourishment of their souls.

Why used before the Commandments AS people were to be purified before the first publication of the law, so must we have clean hearts before we be fit to hear it; lest, if our minds be impure sin take occasion by the commandment to stir up concupiscence: for prevention of which, when the Commandments were added in the second book of king Edward, it was thought proper that this form should immediately precede them: not but that the form itself was in our first Liturgy, and, as far as appears, in the oldest offices of the Western Church.

How aptly placed here. THESE divine precepts of the moral law as much oblige Christians as they did the Jews: we vowed to keep them at our baptism, and we renew that vow at every Communion: and therefore it is very fit we should hear them often, and especially at those times when we are going to make fresh engagements to observe them. Upon which account, since we are to confess all our sins before we come to this blessed Sacrament of pardon, the Church prudently directs the Minister, now standing in the most holy place, to turn himself to the people,* and from thence, like another Moses from Mount Sinai, to convey God's laws to them, by rehearsing distinctly all the Ten Commandments; by which, as in a glass, they may discover all their offences, and, still kneeling, may, after every Commandment, ask God mercy for their transgression thereof (i.e. as the Scotch Liturgy expresses it, of every duty therein, either according to the letter, or to the mystical importance of the said Commandment) for the time past, and grace to keep the same for the time to come.

The Collects for the king. ST. PAUL seems to command that we should pray for kings in all our prayers: and in the primitive Church they always supplicated for their princes at the time of the celebration of the holy Eucharist; where, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ's death commemorated, those great requests might be likely to prevail.

§.2. Why placed next after the Commandments In our Liturgy these prayers do not (as in the Roman Missal) disturb the prayer of Consecration, but, as the office is now compiled, are more conveniently placed here: the king is custos utriusque tabulæ, defender of both tables of the law, and therefore we properly pray for him just after the Commandments. Nor do our prayers for him less aptly precede the daily Collect: since when we have prayed for outward prosperity to the Church, the consequent of the king's welfare, we may very seasonably in the Collect pray for inward grace, to make it completely happy.‡ For variety here are two prayers, but they both tend to the same end, and only differ a little in the form.

Of the Collect, &c. IT is evident, that long before the dividing the Bible into chapters and verses, it was the custom both of the Greek and Latin Churches to read some select portions of the plainest and most practical parts of the New Testament, first for the Epistle, and then for the Gospel, at the celebration of the holy Eucharist, in imitation perhaps of the Jewish mode of reading the history of the Passover before the eating of the paschal lamb.

§.2. Why the Epistle is read first. Epistler and Gospeler, why appointed. As for the antiquity, matter, and suitableness of the several Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, I have already spoken at large. I shall only make this one remark more, that as our Saviour's disciples went before his face to every city and place, whither he himself would come; so here the Epistle, as the word of the servant, is read first, that it may be as a harbinger to the Gospel, to which the last place and greatest honour is reserved, as being the word of their great Master. And for this reason I suppose it was ordered by the advertisements published in the seventh year of queen Elizabeth, and by the twenty-fourth of our present canons, that the principal Minister, at the celebration of the Communion, should be assisted with a Gospeler and Epistler agreeably; i.e. with one Minister to read the Epistle and another to read the Gospel, as is still generally the custom in cathedral churches; which was also provided for by the rubrics in king Edward's first book, which orders that the priest, or he that is appointed, shall read the Epistle in a place assigned for that purpose, (which from the modern practice I take to be on the south side of the table;) and that immediately after the Epistle ended, the priest, or one appointed, (which, as appears from the next rubric, might be a deacon) shall read the Gospel.

§.3. The custom of saying, Glory be to thee, O Lord, &c., of what antiquity. The custom of saying Glory be to thee, O Lord, when the Minister was about to read the holy Gospel, and of singing Hallelujah, or saying, Thanks be to God for his holy Gospel, when he had concluded it, is as old as St. Chrysostom; but we have no authority for it in our present Liturgy. The first indeed was enjoined by king Edward's first Common Prayer Book, and so the custom has continued ever since; and I do not find how it came to be left out of the rubric afterwards. It certainly could have nothing objected against it, and therefore it is restored in the Scotch Liturgy; which also ordered, that, when the Presbyter shall say, So endeth the holy Gospely the people shall answer. Thanks be to thee, O Lord. In our own Common Prayer Book the Priest has no direction to say, The Gospel is ended; the reason of which some imagine to be, because it is still continued in the Creed that followeth.

§.4. Standing up at the Gospel, why commanded. In St. Augustine's time the people always stood when the Lessons were read, to shew their reverence to God's holy word: but afterwards, when this was thought too great a burden, they were allowed to sit down at the Lessons, and were only obliged to stand (as our present order, which was first inserted in the Scotch Common Prayer Book, now enjoins us) at the reading of the Gospel, which always contains something that our Lord did, spoke, or suffered in his own person. By which gesture they shewed they had a greater respect to the Son of God himself, than they had to any other inspired person, though speaking the word of God, and by God's authority.

Why placed after the Epistle and Gospel. AS the Apostles' Creed is placed immediately after the daily Lessons, so is this after the Epistle and Gospel: both of them being founded upon the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. As therefore in the foregoing portions of Scripture we believe with our heart to righteousness, so in the Creed that follows, we confess with our mouth to salvation.

§.2. An account of it. This is commonly called the Nicene Creed, as being, for the greatest part, the Creed that was drawn up by the first general Council of Nice, in the year 325, but enlarged by a fuller explication of some articles about the year 381, especially in relation to the divinity and procession of the Holy Ghost, in order to a more particular confutation and suppression of the Arian and Macedonian heresy. For which reason it was enjoined by the third Council of Toledo to be recited by all the people in Spain before the Sacrament, to shew that they were all free from heresy, and in the strictest league of union with the catholic Church. And since in this sacrament we are to renew our baptismal vow, (one branch of which was, that we would believe all the Articles of the Christian faith) it is very requisite that, before we be admitted, we should declare that we stand firm in the belief of those articles.

The rubric of directions. AFTER the Creed follows a rubric of directions, instructing the Priest what he is to publish, or make known to the people. I do not find any such rubric in the first Common Prayer Book of king Edward VI; and in all the rest, quite down to the Restoration, a declaration of the holy-days only was ordered to be made after the Sermon or Homily was ended.

§.2. Why the Curate is to bid holy-days. This is the first thing our rubric mentions now, viz. that the Curate shall declare unto the people what holy-days or fasting -days are in the week following to be observed. The first reason of which was, lest the people should observe any such days as had been formerly kept, but were laid aside at the Reformation: and therefore the Bishops inquired in their visitations, whether any of their Curates bid any other days than mere appointed by the new calendar. This danger is now pretty well over; there being no great fear of the people's observing superstitious holy-days. But there is still as much reason for keeping up the rubric, since now they are run into a contrary extreme, and, instead of observing too many holy-days, regard none; which makes it fit that the Curate should discharge his duty, by telling them beforehand, what holy-days will happen, and then leaving it upon his people to answer for the neglect, if they are passed over without due regard.

§.3. When to give notice of the Communion. And then also (if occasion be) shall notice be given of the Communion: though by another rubric, just before the first exhortation, this is supposed to be done after sermon. For there it is ordered, that when the Minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy Communion, (which he shall always do upon the Sunday y or some holy-day immediately preceding) after the Sermon or Homily ended, he shall read the exhortation following. The occasion of this difference was the placing of this rubric of directions, at the last review, before the rubric concerning the Sermon or Homily. For by all the old Common Prayer Books, immediately after the Nicene Creed, the Sermon was ordered; and then after that the Curate was to declare unto the people, whether there were any holy-days or fasting-days in the week following, and earnestly to exhort them to remember the poor, by reading one or more of the sentences, as he thought most convenient by his discretion. This was the whole of that rubric then. All the remaining part was added at the Restoration, as was also the rubric above cited just before the exhortation. Now it is plain by that rubric, that the warning to the Communion was intended to be given after the Sermon; and therefore I should have imagined that there was no design to have changed the places of the two rubrics here, but only to have added some other directions concerning the proclaiming or publishing things in the church: and that consequently the placing of them in the order they now stand, might have been owing to the printer's, or some other mistake; but that I observe in the next rubric the priest is ordered to return to the Lord's table, which supposes that he has been in the pulpit since he was at the table before; and therefore inclines me to believe that the rubrics were transposed with design; and that the intent of the revisers was, that when there was nothing in the Sermon itself preparatory to the Communion, both this and the other rubric should be complied with, viz. by giving warning in this place, that there will be a Communion on such a day, and then reading the exhortation after Sermon is ended.

§.4. What things to be published, and what not. At this time also briefs, citations, and excommunications are to be read. But nothing is to be proclaimed or published in the church, during the time of divine service, but by the Minister: nor by him any thing but what is prescribed in the rules of the Common Prayer Book, or enjoined by the king, or by the Ordinary of the place. All this was undoubtedly added, to prevent the custom, that still too much prevails in some country churches, of publishing the most frivolous, unbefitting, and even ridiculous things in the face of the congregation.

The antiquity and design of it. SERMONS have been appointed from the beginning of Christianity, to be used upon all Sundays and holy-days, but especially when the Lord's Supper was to be administered. For by a pious and practical discourse suited to the holy Communion, the minds of the hearers are put into a devout frame, and made much fitter for the succeeding mysteries.

§.2. Formerly performed by bishops. This province indeed, in ancient times, was generally undertaken by the bishops, who at first voluntarily, and afterwards by injunction, preached every Sunday, unless hindered by sickness: but however, in the absence of the bishop, this duty was performed by presbyters, and by his permission in his presence.

§.3. Why ordered here. The reason of its being ordered here, is because the first design of them was to explain some part of the foregoing Epistle and Gospel, in imitation of that practice of the Jews mentioned in Nehemiah 8:8. For which reason they were formerly called Postillis, (quasi post illa, sc. Evangelia,) because they followed the Gospel.

§.4. Of the Homilies. The Homilies mentioned in the rubric, are two books of plain sermons, (for so the word signifies,) set out by public authority, one whereof is to be read upon any Sunday or holy-day, when there is no sermon. The first volume of them was set out in the beginning of king Edward VI's reign, having been composed (as it is thought; by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, and Latimer, at the beginning of the Reformation, when a competent number of Ministers, of sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation, was not to be found. The second volume was set out in queen Elizabeth's time, by order of Convocation, A.D. 1563. And that this is not at all contrary to the practice of the ancient Church, is evident from the testimony of Sixtus Sinensis, who, in the fourth book of his Library, saith, "That our countryman Alcuinus collected and reduced into order, by the command of Charles the Great, the homilies of the most famous doctors of the Church upon the Gospels, which were read in churches all the year round." He says they were all in number 209: but where that work lies hid, is not known.

§.5. Bidding of prayers enjoined by the Church. I designed in this place to have added a paragraph concerning the form of Bidding of Prayers, which the Church enjoins, by the fifty-fifth canon, to be used by every Minister before his Sermon, Lecture, or Homily: and from thence to have taken occasion to have hinted at the irregularity and ill consequences of the Petitionary Form, which is now the general practice. But finding it necessary to be more particular than I at first foresaw, if I proposed to give any tolerable satisfaction; the design immediately swelled into too large a compass to be inserted in a work of so general a nature. For this reason I have chosen to publish it in a little treatise by itself: by which means too I hope it will be more known, than if it had only been treated of in a few pages here. For the sake of those who may be desirous to look into the question, I have inserted the title at the bottom of the page, not without hopes that my sincere endeavours may contribute a little to put a stop to the custom of praying in the pulpit, which the reader will there see has once been attended with fatal consequences, and which has been discountenanced and prohibited almost in every reign, since the Reformation, by our governors and superiors both in Church and State.

Almsgiving, a necessary duty. AFTER the confession of our faith in the Nicene Creed, or else after the improvement of it in the Sermon or Homily, follows the exercise of our charity, without which our faith would be dead. The first way of expressing which, is by dedicating some part of what God has given us to his use and service, which is frequently and strictly commanded in the Gospel, hath the best examples for it, and the largest rewards promised to it; being instead of all the vast oblations and costly sacrifices which the Jews did always join with their prayers, and the only chargeable duty to which Christians are obliged. It is, in a word, so necessary to recommend our prayers, that St. Paul prescribes, and the ancient Church, in Justin Martyr's time, used to have collections every Sunday.

However, when we receive the Sacrament, it is by no means to be omitted. When the Jews came before the Lord at the solemn feasts, they were not allowed to appear empty; but every man was required to give as he was able, according to the blessing of the Lord which he had given him. And our Saviour (with respect, no doubt, to the holy table, as Mr. Mede excellently proves) supposes that we should never come to the altar without a gift, but always imitate his practice, whose custom of giving alms at the passover made his disciples mistake his words to him that bare the bag. And it is very probable that at the time of receiving the Sacrament were all those large donations of houses, lands, and money made. For when those first converts were all united to Christ and one another in this feast of love, their very souls were mingled; they cheerfully renounced their property, and easily distributed their goods among those to whom they had given their hearts before. None (of ability) were allowed to receive without giving something; and to reject any man's offering, was to deny him a share in the benefit of those comfortable mysteries.

§.2. The design of the Sentences. Why called offertory. Alms and other devotions, how distinguished. Wherefore, to stir us up more effectually to imitate their pious example, as soon as the Sermon or Homily is ended, the Priest is directed to return to the Lord's Table, and begin the Offertory, saying one or more of the sentences following, as he thinketh most convenient in his discretion, i.e. according to the length or shortness of the time that the people are offering, as it was worded in king Edward's first Common Prayer, and from thence in the Scotch one.* These are in the place of the antiphona or anthem which we find in the old Liturgies after the Gospel, and which, from their being sung whilst the people made their oblations at the altar, were called offertory. The sentences which our Church has here selected for that purpose are such as contain instructions, injunctions, and exhortations to this great duty; setting before us the necessity of performing it, and the manner of doing it. Some of them (viz. those from the sixth to the tenth inclusively, unless the ninth he excepted) respect the clergy. And it was with an eye, I suppose, to this difference, that in the last review there was a distinction made in the rubric that follows these sentences, between the alms for the poor, and the other devotions of the people. In the old Common Prayer there was only mention made of the latter of these, viz. the devotions of the people, by which alms for the poor were then meant, as appears from its being then ordered to be put into the poor man's bow. But then the clergy were included in other words, which ordered, that upon the offering-days appointed, every man and woman should pay to the Curate the due and accustomed offerings. But of this I shall have occasion to say more, when I come to treat of the rubrics at the end of this office. I shall only observe further here, that the words alms for the poor being added at the last review, by which undoubtedly must be understood all that is given for their relief; it is plain, that by the other devotions of the people is now intended something distinct from the said alms. And if so, then the offerings for the clergy, or their share in the collections, must certainly be meant, as is plain from the design of the above-mentioned sentences, which have a direct and immediate regard to them. It is well known, that in the primitive times the clergy had a liberal maintenance out of what the people offered upon these occasions. Now, indeed, whilst they have a stated and legal income, the money collected at these times is generally appropriated to the poor: not but that where the stated income of a parish is not sufficient to maintain the clergy belonging to the Church, they have still a right to claim their share in these offerings.

II. By whom to be collected. And in what manner. The deacons are the most proper persons for this business, it being the very office for which their order was instituted. And for this reason the Scotch Liturgy does not allow the church-wardens to do it, but at such times when there are no deacons present.* It is now indeed grown a custom with us for the churchwardens to perform this office, viz. to gather the alms and devotions of the congregation, which, by all the books before the Scotch Liturgy, they were ordered, as I have observed, to put into the poor man's box; not, I presume, into that fixed in the church, but into a little box which the church-wardens or some other proper persons carried about with them in their hands, as is still the custom at the Temple church in London. Now indeed they are ordered to make use of a decent basin to be provided by the priest for that purpose.† With which, in most places, especially here in town, they go to the several seats and pews of the congregation. Though in other places they collect at the entrance into the chancel, where the people make their offerings as they draw towards the altar. This last way seems the most conformable to the practice of the primitive Church, which, in pursuance of a text delivered by our Saviour, ordered that the people should come up to the rails of the altar, and there make their offerings to the priest.

And with an eye, I suppose, to this practice, the deacons, or church-wardens, or whosoever they be that collect the alms and other devotions of the people, are ordered by the present rubric to bring it reverently to the priest (as in their name) who is humbly to present and place it upon the holy table; in conformity to the practice of the ancient Jews, who, when they brought their gifts and sacrifices to the temple, offered them to God by the hands of the priest.

The bread and wine, when and by whom to be placed on the table. Which rubric being added to our own Liturgy at the same time with the word oblations, in the prayer following, (i.e. at the last review,) it is clearly evident, as Bishop Patrick has observed, that by that word are to be understood the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer solemnly to God, as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his creatures, and that from thenceforth they might become properly and peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made God's by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man's, but as God's provision; who, by thus entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled and again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessed Saviour, when he instituted the new sacrifice of his own body and blood, first gave thanks and blessed the elements, i. e. offered them up to God as Lord of the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage: who, for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the Communion to God, upon the altar, by this, or some such short ejaculation, Lord, we offer thee thy own, out of what thou hast bountifully given us. After which they received them, as it were, from him again, in order to convert them into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son. In the ancient Church, they had generally a side-table near the altar, upon which the elements were laid till the first part of the Communion service was over, at which the catechumens were allowed to be present; but when they were gone, the elements were removed and placed upon the holy altar itself, with a solemn prayer. Now though we have no side-table authorized by our Church, yet in the first Common Prayer of king Edward VI the priest himself was ordered in this place to set both the bread and wine upon the altar:* but at the review in 1551, this and several other such ancient usages were thrown out, I suppose, at the instance of Bucer and Martyr. After which the Scotch Liturgy was the first wherein we find it restored: but there the presbyter is directed to offer up and place the bread and tome prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's table, that it may be ready for that service. And Mr. Mede, having observed our own Liturgy to be defective in this particular, was probably the occasion, that, in the review of it after the Restoration, this primitive practice was restored, and the bread and wine ordered by the rubric to be set solemnly upon the table by the Priest himself. From whence it appears, that the placing the elements upon the Lord's table, before the beginning of morning prayer, by the hands of a clerk or sexton, (as is now the general practice) is a profane and shameful breach of the aforesaid rubric; ana consequently that it is the duty of every Minister to prevent it for the future, and reverently to place the bread and wine himself upon the table, immediately after he has placed on the alms.

IV. Mixing water with the wine, a primitive practice, but not essential to the Sacrament. In the rubric I have given, out of king Edward s first Liturgy, the Minister, when he put wine into the chalice, was directed by the rubric to put thereto a little pure and clean water. This was ordered in conformity to a very ancient and primitive practice, and with an eye perhaps to our Saviour's institution. For the wine among the Jews being very strong, it was generally their custom, as at their ordinary meals, so also at the passover, to qualify it with water: and therefore, since the cup which our Saviour blessed was probably one of those which were prepared for that feast, some have concluded that, at the time of the institution, he made use of wine in which water had been mixed. But of this they can produce no certainty of proof. For though it is allowed that the Jews often mingled their wine, yet it does not appear that they always did so, or thought it necessary. For Dr. Lightfoot observes, that he that drank pure wine performed his duty; and Buxtorf adds further, that it was indifferent whether it was mixed or not, and that they drank it sometimes one way and sometimes the other: so that we must not affirm that our Saviour's cup was certainly mixed, before we are assured whether the wine which he had prepared for his last passover was so. Our Saviour intimates, that what he had delivered to his Apostles was the fruit of the vine; and Dr. Lightfoot observes, from the Babylonish Talmud, that this was a term which the Jews used in their blessing for wine mixed with water, to distinguish it from pure wine, which they called the fruit of the tree. But now, not to insist upon the absurdity of calling it the fruit of the vine, from its being mixed with water, which makes it less the fruit of the vine than it was in its purity; it is plain that this expression, wherever we meet with it in other places of Scripture, is used to denote the pure product of the tree. From whence we may be assured, that in the time of our Saviour, no such distinction as this had obtained: nor indeed does the Mishna itself allow of it: for the determination of the wise men is, that wine is to be called the fruit of the time, as well before the mixture as after it. And the reason why they give it a particular blessing, calling it the fruit of the vine, instead of the fruit of the tree, is not upon the account of its being mixed with water, but because the vine is more excellent than any tree besides. And if this distinction fail, I do not know that there is so much as a hint given in Scripture, from whence we may judge whether the wine used by our Saviour was mixed or not; which yet we might reasonably expect to have found, if our Lord had designed the mixture as essential. Though were it ever so clear, that the cup was mixed; yet if it does not also appear that it was mixed with design, our Saviour's practice would no more oblige us to mix it now, than it would that we should consecrate unleavened bread. For it is certain that our Saviour, at the time of institution, used unleavened bread: and yet since the reason of his doing so was, because there was no other at that time in the house; our Church thinks it sufficient, in her present rubric, to prescribe such bread as is usual to be eaten. Consequently since he made use of wine that was mixed, only because he found it ready prepared, or at most because the strength of the wine used in that country required it; therefore our Church thinks it not necessary to mix it with us, because we ordinarily drink it pure. But I say this upon supposition that it could be clearly proved that the cup which our Saviour used was mixed; whereas I have shewn that there is no intimation in Scripture about it. Nor do any of the first Fathers assert or mention it. Origen (who is the first that speaks either one way or the other) says, that our Saviour administered in wine unmixed, which he would not sure have done, had there been any certain tradition, or so much as a general opinion, to the contrary. We do not indeed deny, but that, before his time, the mixture was the general practice of the Church: but then it is no where said, that this was done in conformity to our Saviour's institution; but since the same wine, perhaps, that was prepared for the Communion, served also for the love-feasts, (which, in the first ages of the Church, were always held at the same time) water might be mixed with it, for what we know, to prevent those disorders, which, even in the Apostles' time, were, apt to arise from their drinking of it to excess: or possibly it might be instituted as an emblem of the indissoluble union between Christ and his Church, as St. Cyprian explains it; or, lastly, (as is asserted by some other of the ancients,) to be more expressive and significant of that blood and water which flowed from our Saviour's side, when he was pierced upon the cross. St Cyprian indeed pleads strenuously for me mixture, and urges it from the practice and example of our Lord; but then it is to be observed, that he is arguing against those who used water alone, (for fear the heathens should discover them by the smell of the wine) and therefore might insist upon the mixture as necessary, because otherwise the wine was the part that was wanting; which he plainly enough allows to be the only essential in the cup, when he asserts that wine alone would be better than pure water. For if both of them were essential, neither of them could be said to be better than the other. And for the same reason it is, that some other Fathers and Councils enjoin the mixture so strictly, viz. because the Encratites and others, who looked upon wine and flesh to be forbidden, would administer the cup in the sacrament of the eucharist, with pure water alone. Though it is true the Armenians, who administered in pure wine alone, are equally condemned by the Council in Trullo, who produce the authority of St. James's and St. Basil's Liturgies against them: to which may be added, the Liturgies under the name of St. Mark and St. Chrysostom, and that which is contained in the eighth hook of the Constitution. And indeed it must he confessed, that the mixture has, in all ages, been the general practice, and for that reason was enjoined, as has been noted above, to be continued in our own Church, by the first reformers. And though in the next review the order for it was omitted, yet the practice of it was continued in the king's chapel royal, all the time that Bishop Andrews was dean of it; who also in the form that he drew up for the consecration of a church, &c., expressly directs and orders it to be used. How it came to be neglected in the review of our Liturgy in king Edward's reign, I have not yet been able to discover. I am apt to suspect that it was thrown out upon some objection of Calvin or Bucer, who were no friends to any practice for its being ancient and catholic, if it did not happen to suit with their fancy or humour. But whatever may have been the cause of laying it aside, since there is no reason to believe it essential; and since every Church has liberty to determine for herself in things not essential; it must be an argument sure of a very indiscreet and over-hasty zeal, to urge the omission of it as a ground for separation.

How properly used here. THE alms, and devotions, and oblations of the people being now presented to God, and placed before him upon the holy table; it is a proper time to proceed to the exercise of another branch of our charity, I mean that of intercession. Our alms perhaps are confined to a few indigent neighbours; but our prayers may extend to all mankind, by recommending them all to the mercies of God, who is able to supply and relieve them all. Nor can we at any time hope to intercede more effectually for the whole Church of God, than just when we are about to represent and shew forth to the divine Majesty that meritorious sacrifice, by virtue whereof our great High Priest did once redeem us, and for ever continues to intercede for us in heaven. For which reason we find that the ancient and primitive Christians, whenever they celebrated these holy mysteries, used a form of intercession for the whole catholic Church. But there is this difference between our practice and theirs, that whereas we use it immediately after the placing the elements upon the table; it is in all the ancient Liturgies, except in St. Mark's and the Ethiopian, deferred till after the consecration.

Due preparation necessary to the receiving the Sacrament. GREAT mysteries ought to be ushered in with the solemnities of a great preparation: God gave the Israelites three days' warning of his design to publish the Law, and ordered their festivals to be proclaimed by the sound of a trumpet some time before. The Paschal Lamb (the type of Christ in this sacrament) was to be chosen and kept by them four days, to put them in mind of preparing for the celebration of the passover: and Christians, having more and higher duties to do in order to this holy feast, ought not to have less time or shorter warning. Wherefore, as good Hezekiah published, by particular expresses, his intended passover long before; so hath our Church prudently ordered timely notice to be given, that none might pretend to stay away out of ignorance of the time, or unfitness for the duty, but that all might come, and with due preparation.

Glory be to God on high, &c. To conclude this office with an hymn, is so direct an imitation of our Saviour's practice, that it hath ever been observed in all Churches and ages. And though the forms may differ, yet this is as ancient as any now extant. The former part of it is of an heavenly original, being sung by angels at our Saviour's nativity; and was from thence transcribed into the oriental Liturgies, especially St. James's, where it is thrice repeated. The latter part of it is ascribed to Telesphorus about the year of Christ 139; and the whole hymn, with very little difference, is to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions, and was established to be used in the Church-service by the fourth Council of Toledo about a thousand years ago. In the present Roman Missal it stands in the beginning of this office, as it does also in the first Common Prayer of king Edward VI, where it immediately follows the Collect for Purity; though it is now, I think, placed much more properly at the close of the Communion, when every devout communicant being full of gratitude, and longing for an opportunity to pour out his soul in the praises of God, cannot have a more solemn and compact form of words to do it in than this. In the Greek Church it makes a constant part of the morning devotions, as well upon ordinary days, as upon Sundays and holy-days; only With this difference, that upon ordinary days it is only ready whereas upon more solemn times it is appointed to be sung.

The peace of God, &c. THE people were always dismissed from this ordinance by a solemn blessing pronounced by the Bishop if present, or, in his absence, by the Priest: and none were allowed to depart till this was given by the one or the other.

The form here used is taken chiefly from the words of Scripture: the first part of it from Philippians 4:7, and the latter part being no other than a Christian paraphrase upon Numbers 6:24, &c.

Of the additional prayers. LEST there should be any thing left unasked in this excellent office, the Church hath added six Collects more to be used at the Minister's discretion: concerning which it will be sufficient to observe, that they are plain and comprehensive, and almost every sentence of them taken out of the Bible, and are as proper to be joined to any other office as this. For which reason the rubric allows them to be said as often as occasion shall serve, after the Collects either of Morning or Evening Prayer, Communion or Litany, by the discretion of the Minister.

The rubric before these Collects, how to be reconciled with the first rubric after them. When they are added to the Communion-office on Sundays and holy-days that have no Communion, they are ordered to be said after the offertory: from whence some have imagined that the Prayer for the Church militant is part of the offertory; because in the first rubric, at the end of the whole office, that prayer, on such days, is always to be used, and then one or more of these Collects are to follow. But that the offertory only signifies the sentences that are read whilst the alms and other devotions of the people are collecting, I have already had occasion to mention. To reconcile this difference, therefore, the reader must observe, that by the first book of king Edward VI. the prayer for Christ's Church was never to be read but when there was a Communion. So that then if there was no Communion, these Collects were properly ordered to be said after the offertory. But the Communion-office being afterwards thrown into a different form, the prayer for the Church militant was added to that part of the service, which was ordered to be read on Sundays and other holy-days that had no Communion, without altering the rubric of which I am now speaking. And this is that which makes the rubrics a little inconsistent. However the difference is not much. For the Collects are still to be said after the offertory, though not immediately after, as formerly, the prayer for the Church militant coming in between.

Daily Communions in the primitive Church. IN the primitive Church, while Christians continued in their strength of faith and devotion, those who were qualified generally communicated once every day; which custom continued till after St. Augustine's time: but afterward, when charity grew cold, and devotion faint, this custom was broke off; and they fell from every day to Sundays and holy-days only, and thence at Antioch to once a year and no more.

Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, why prescribed times of communicating. In regard of this neglect, canons were made by several Councils to oblige men to receive three times a year at least, viz. at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, (probably in conformity to the ancient Jews, who were commanded by God himself to appear before the Lord at the three great feasts that correspond to these; viz. in the feast of unleavened Breads and in the feast of Weeks, and in the feast of Tabernacles) and those that neglected to communicate at those seasons were censured and anathematized.

The care of the Church about frequent Communion. At the Reformation our Church took all the care she could to reconcile her members to frequent Communion. And therefore in the first Common Prayer Book of king Edward VI it was ordered that upon Wednesdays and Fridays, though there were none to communicate with the Priest, yet (after the Litany ended) the Priest should put upon him a plain alb or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at the altar, (appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord's Supper) until after the offertory, — And the same order was to be used all other days, whensoever the people were accustomably assembled to pray in the Church, and none were disposed to communicate with the Priest. From whence it appears they took it for granted, that there would always be a sufficient number of communicants upon every Sunday and holy-day at the least; so that they could not so much as suppose there would be no Communion upon any of those days. But it seems they feared that upon other days there might sometimes be none to communicate with the Priest, and so no Communion: and therefore they ordered, that if it should so happen for a whole week together, yet nevertheless upon Wednesdays and Fridays in every week so much should be used of the Communion-service as is before limited.

Rubric 1. Part of the Communion-office to be read on every Sunday and holy-day, though there be no Communion. But afterwards, as piety grew colder and colder, the Sacrament began to be more and more neglected, and by degrees quite laid aside on the ordinary week-days. Ana then the Church did not think it convenient to appoint any of this service upon any other days than Sundays and holy-days. But upon those days she still requires that (although there he no Communion, yet) all shall be said that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the general prayer, [for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth] together with one or more of the Collects at the end of the Communion-office, concluding with the blessing.

The reasons of it. One reason of which order seems to be, that the Church may still shew her readiness to administer the Sacrament upon these days; and so that it is not hers nor the Minister's, but the people's fault, if it be not administered. For the Minister, in obedience to the Church's order, goes up to the Lord's table, and there begins the service appointed for the Communion; and goes on as far as he can, till he come to the actual celebration of it: and if he stop there, it is only because there are none, or not a sufficient number of persons, to communicate with him. For if there were, he is there ready to consecrate and administer it to them. And therefore if there be no Communion on any Sunday or holy-day in the year, the people only are to be blamed. The Church hath done her part in ordering it, and the Minister his in observing that order; and if the people would do theirs too, the holy Communion would be constantly celebrated in every parish church in England, on every Sunday and holyday throughout the year. But though this may hold in some places, yet I cannot say it will in all; especially in populous towns and cities; where my charity obliges me to believe, that if the Ministers would but make the experiment, they would find that they should never want a sufficient number of communicants, whenever they themselves should be ready to administer the Sacrament. And even in other places it were to be wished, that the Elements were placed ready upon the table on all Sundays and holy-days: for then the people could not help being put in mind of what the Church looks upon as their duty at those times; and I persuade myself, that the Minister would generally find a number sufficient ready to communicate with him.

But another reason why so much of this service is ordered to be read, though there be no Communion, is because there are severed particular things in that part of it, which ought to be read as well to those who do not communicate, as to those who do. As, first, the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, of Almighty God, the supreme Lawgiver of the world, which it is requisite the people should often hear and be put in mind of, especially upon those days which are immediately dedicated to his service. Secondly, the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, proper to all Sundays and holy-days, without which those festivals could not be distinguished either from one another, or even from ordinary days, nor consequently celebrated so as to answer the end of their institution. Thirdly, the Nicene Creed, wherein the divinity of our blessed Saviour is asserted and declared, and therefore very proper to be used on those days which are kept in memory of him and of his holy Apostles, by whom that doctrine, together with our whole religion grounded upon it, was planted and propagated in the world. Fourthly, the offertory, or select sentences of Scripture, one or more of which are to be read, to stir up the congregation to offer unto God something of what he hath given them, as an acknowledgment that they receive from him all they have; which, howsoever it be now neglected, the people ought to be put in mind of at least every Lord's day. Fifthly, the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth, in which we should all join as fellow members of the same body, especially upon the great festivals of the year, which are generally celebrated by the whole Church we pray for. Most of these things made up the Missa Catechumenorum of the ancient Church, i.e. that part of the service at which the catechumens, who were not admitted to the reception of the Eucharist, were allowed to be present. And in our own congregations, when there is a Communion, those who do not communicate never depart till the end of the Nicene Creed, for the abovesaid reasons: which shews, that there is nothing in that part of the service but what may very properly be used upon any Sunday and holy-day when there is no Communion. Nor is this a practice of our own Church alone, but such as is warranted both by Greeks and Latins. Socrates tells us, that in Alexandria, upon Wednesdays and Fridays, the Scriptures were read and expounded by their teachers, and all things were done in the Communion, but only consecrating the mysteries. And as for the Latin Church, Durandus gives direction how the Communion-service might be read without any Communion.

§.2. This part of the Office is to be said at the altar, though there be no Communion. I have supposed in one of the former paragraphs, that this part of the Communion-office (though there be no Communion) is yet always read at the Communion-table or altar. I know indeed it is very frequently performed in the desk. But I think the very reason why the Church appoints so much of this office upon the Sundays and other holy-days, though there be no Communion, is also a reason why it should be said at the altar. For the Minister's reading the office till he can go no further for want of communicants, I have observed, was designed in order to draw communicants to the table. And therefore is it not fit that the Minister himself should be ready at the place, whither he himself is inviting others? For this reason, in the first book of king Edward, the rubric above cited ordered expressly that it should be said at the altar. Bucer indeed thought this tended too much towards creating in people's minds superstitious notions of the Mass; and in the second book of king Edward, which was modelled according to his directions, those words were left out. Though it is not improbable that as the word altar was thrown out every where else in this office, so it might be left out of this rubric upon dislike of the name; without any intention to alter the place where this part of the service on such days should be said. And indeed I cannot understand how this alteration could give any authority for the using any part of this office at any other place than the Lord's table; so long as there was another rubric at the beginning of it, which still ordered that the Priest should stand at the north side of the table, and there say the Lord's Prayer with what follows, without any allowance or permission to say it any where else when there was no Communion. It is certain that our bishops still apprehended, that it was to be said there; since several of them, in their visitations, enjoined the Ministers to read it at the holy table; and there, Mr. Hooker tells us, it was in his time commonly read. And that the Episcopal Commissioners appointed to review the Liturgy at the Restoration of king Charles II supposed and intended it should continue to be performed there, appears from the Account of the Proceedings of the Commissioners of both persuasions. The Puritans had desired, " That the Ministers should not be required to rehearse any part of the Liturgy at the Communion table, save only those parts which properly belong to the Lord's Supper; and that at such times only when the said holy Supper is administered." How this was received by the Episcopal Ministers, may be gathered from the Puritans' reply. "You grant not," say they, "that the Communion-service be read in the desk when there is no Communion: but in the late form, (i.e. I suppose some occasional form that was then published,) instead thereof it is enjoined to be done at the table, (though there be no rubric in the Common Prayer Book requiring it.") Now from hence I think it is plain, that they, who were commissioned to review the Liturgy, designed that this office should be always read at the altar, though they did not add any new rubric to order it, because, I suppose, they thought the general rubric above mentioned sufficient.

§.3. The care of our Church about frequent Communion. Rubric 8. But to return to the care of our Church in relation to frequency of Communions: how zealous she is still to bring her members to communicate oftener than she can obtain, is apparent from her enjoining, that in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Colleges, where there are many Priests and Deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with the Priest every Sunday at least, except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary; and from her further requiring every Parishioner in general to communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one;* because at that time Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, and by his death (which we commemorate in this Sacrament) obtained for us everlasting life.

§.4. Rubric 2, 3. Solitary Masses not allowed of. Every one may communicate as much oftener as he pleases: the Church only puts in this precaution, that there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the Parish of discretion to receive the Communion, yet there shall be no Communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the Priest. And this is to prevent the solitary masses which had been introduced by the Church of Rome, where the Priest says mass, and receives the Sacrament himself, though there be none to communicate with him: which our Church disallows, not permitting the Priest to consecrate the elements, unless he has three at least to communicate with him, because our Saviour seems to require three to make up a congregation.

§.5. Rubric 5. The Bread, whether to be leavened or unleavened. The fifth rubric is designed to take away all those scruples which over-conscientious people used to make about the Bread and Wine. As to the Bread, some made it essential to the Sacrament to have leavened, others unleavened; each side, in that, as well as in other matters of as small moment, superstitiously making an indifferent thing a matter of conscience. Our Saviour doubtless used such bread as was ready at hand: and therefore this Sacrament being instituted immediately after the celebration of the passover, at which they were neither to eat leavened bread, nor so much as to have any in their houses, upon pain of being cut off from Israel, does perfectly demonstrate that he used that which was unleavened. But this perhaps was only upon the account of the passover, when no other but unleavened bread could be used by the Jews. After his resurrection he probably celebrated (if he celebrated at all) in leavened bread, and such as was in common use at all other times, except the time of the passover. And that the primitive Church always used common bread, appears, in that the elements for the holy Eucharist were always taken out of the people's oblations of Bread and Wine, which doubtless were such as they themselves used upon other occasions. But when these oblations began to be left off about the eleventh or twelfth century, the Clergy were forced to provide the elements themselves; and they, under pretence of decency and respect, brought it from leavened to unleavened, and from a loaf of common bread, that might be broken, to a nice wafer, formed in the figure of a denarius, or penny, to represent, as some imagine, the thirty pence for which our Saviour was sold. And then also the people, instead of offering a loaf, as formerly, were ordered to offer a penny; which was either to be given to the poor, or to be expended upon something belonging to the sacrifice of the altar. However, this abuse was complained of by some discerning and judicious men, as soon as it began. But when once introduced, it was so generally approved, that it was not easy to lay it aside. For even after the Reformation, king Edward's first book enjoins these unleavened wafers to be used, though with a little alteration indeed in relation to their size. The whole rubric, as it stood then, runs thus: For avoiding all matters and occasions of dissension, it is meet that the Bread prepared for the Communion be made, through all this realm, after one sort and fashion; that is to say, unleavened and round, as it was afore, but without all manner of print, and something more large and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in diverse pieces: and every one shall be divided in two pieces at the least, or more, by the discretion of the Minister, and so distributed. And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

The bread, I suppose, was ordered to be round, in imitation of the wafers that had been used both in the Greek and Roman Church ever since the eleventh century: upon which was stamped the figure either of a Crucifix or the Holy Lamb. But in the rubric above, it is ordered to be made without all manner of print, and something more large and thicker than it was: the custom before being to make it small, about the size of a penny, to represent, as some imagine, the thirty pence for which our Lord was sold. These superstitions the Reformation had laid aside; but the rubric above mentioned still affording matter for scruple, it was altered at the review in the fifth of king Edward, when, in his second book, this rubric was inserted in the room of it: And to take away the superstition which any person hath, or might have, in the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usually to be eaten at the table with other meats, but the best and purest wheat-bread that conveniently may be gotten.

Wafer-Bread enjoined by queen Elizabeth. And the same rubric, with some little difference, is still continued in our present Liturgy. Though, by the Injunctions of queen Elizabeth, wafer-bread seems to have been again enjoined: for among some orders, at the end of those Injunctions, this was one: Where also it was in the time of king Edward the Sixth used to have the Sacramental Bread of common fine bread; it is ordered, for the more reverence to be given to these holy mysteries, being the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that the said Sacramental Bread be made and formed plain, without any figure thereupon, of the same fineness and fashion, round, though somewhat bigger in compass and thickness, as the usual Bread and Wafer, heretofore named singing-cakes, which served for the use of private Mass. Though Bishop Cosin observes upon our present rubric, that "It is not here commanded that no unleavened or wafer-bread be used; but it is only said, that the other bread may suffice. So that though there was no necessity, yet there was a liberty still reserved of using wafer-bread, which was used in diverse Churches of the kingdom, and Westminster for one, till the seventeenth of king Charles."

And allowed by the Scotch Liturgy. For which reason perhaps, though the Scotch Liturgy continues the rubric that was first insertcd in the fifth year of king Edward; yet a parenthesis is inserted, to shew that the use of wafer-bread is lawful; (though it be lawful to have wafer-bread) it shall suffice, and so on, as in the rubric of our own Liturgy.

§.6. Rubric 6. The remainder of the Elements how to be disposed of. Another thing about which there might be discussion, is, how the Elements that remain should be disposed of afterwards, and therefore it is provided by another rubric, that if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use.* For though it hath not been actually consecrated, yet by its being dedicated and offered to God, it ceases to be common, and therefore properly belongs to the Minister as God's steward.

But if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the Priest, and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.† In the primitive Church, whatever of the consecrated Elements were left after all had communicated, were either reserved by the Priest to be administered to infirm persons in cases of exigency, that they might not die without receiving the blessed Sacrament; or else were sent about to absent friends, as pledges and tokens of love and agreement in the unity of the same faith. But this custom being abused, was afterwards prohibited by the Council of Laodicea, and then the remains began to be divided among the Clergy; and sometimes the other communicants were allowed to partake with them, as is now usual in our Church, where care is taken to prevent the superstitious reservation of them formerly practised by the Papists. However, it would be convenient if the Scotch rubric were observed, by which, to the end there may be little left, he that officiates is required to consecrate with the least.

§.7. Rubric 7. The Bread and Wine, how to be provided. The seventh rubric is a direction how the Bread and Wine shall be provided. How they were provided in the primitive Church I have already shewed. Afterwards it seems it was the custom for every house in the parish to provide in their turns the holy Loaf, (under which name I suppose were comprehended both the Elements of Bread and Wine) and the good Man and good Woman that provided were particularly remembered in the prayers of the Church. But by the first book of king Edward, the care of providing was thrown upon the Pastors and Curates, who were obliged continually to find, at their costs and charges in their cures, sufficient Bread and Wine for the holy Communion, as oft as their parishioners should be disposed for their spiritual comfort to receive the same. But then it was ordered, that, in recompense of such costs and charges, the parishioners of every parish should offer every Sunday, at the time of the offertory, the just value and price of the holy Loaf (with all such money and other things as were wont to be offered with the same) to the use of the Pastors and Curates, and that in such order and course as they were wont to find, and pay the said holy Loaf. And in Chapels annexed, where the people had not been accustomed to pay any holy Bread, there they were either to make some charitable provision for the bearing of the charges of the Communion; or else (for receiving of the same) resort to the parish church. But now, since, from this method of providing, several unforeseen inconveniences might, and most probably did, arise, either from the negligence, or obstinacy, or poverty of the parishioners; it was therefore afterwards ordered, that the Bread and Wine for the Communion should be provided by the Curate and the Churchwardens, at the charges of the parish; and that the parish should be discharged of such sums of money, or other duties which hitherto they have paid for the same, by order of their houses every Sunday. And this is the method the Church still uses; the former part of this rubric being continued in our present Communion-office, though the latter part was left out, as having reference to a custom which had for a long while been forgotten.

§.8. Rubric 8. Ecclesiastical duties what, and when to be paid. The next rubric, as far as it concerns the duty of communicating, has already been taken notice of. But the chief design of it is to settle the payment of Ecclesiastical Duties. For it is hereby ordered, that yearly at Easter every parishioner shall reckon with his Parson, Vicar, or Curate, or his or their deputy or deputies, and pay to them or him all ecclesiastical duties, accustomably due, and then at that time to be paid.* What are the duties here mentioned is a matter of doubt: Bishop Stillingfleet supposes them to be a composition for personal tithes, (i.e. the tenth part of every one's clear gains) due at that time; but the present bishop of Lincoln imagines them to be partly such duties or oblations as were not immediately annexed to any particular office; and partly a composition for the holy Loaf, which the Communicants were to bring and offer, and which is therefore to be answered at Easter, because at that festival every person was, even by the rubric, bound to communicate. They both perhaps may have judged right: for by an act of parliament in the second and third of Edward VI such personal tithes are to be paid yearly at or before the feast of Easter, and also all lawful and accustomary offerings, which had not been paid at the usual offering days, are to be paid for at Easter next following.

§.9. The money given at the offertory, how to be disposed of. The last rubric is concerning the disposal of the money given at the Communion, and was not added till the last review; but to prevent all occasion of disagreement, it was then ordered, that after the divine service ended, the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the Minister and Churchwardens shall think fit; wherein if they disagree it shall be disposed of as the Ordinary shall appoint. The hint was taken from the Scotch Liturgy, in which immediately after the blessing this rubric follows: After the divine service ended, that which was offered shall be divided in the presence of the Presbyter and the Churchwardens, whereof one half shall be to the use of the Presbyter, to provide him books of holy divinity; the other half shall be faithfully kept and employed on some pious or charitable use, for the decent furnishing of that church, or the public relief of their poor, at the discretion of the Presbyter and Churchwardens.