PART II. THE PRAYER BOOK AND WHAT IT TEACHES CHAPTER XIII THE HOLY COMMUNION-THE PREPARATION "Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority bath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.". S. MATT. xxviii, 20, R. Ver. TH HE services of the Prayer Book may be divided into three distinct classes; (1) those intended for public worship (the Holy Communion, the Daily Offices of Matins and Evensong, and the Litany); (2) the Occasional Offices for Priests (Holy Baptism, the Solemnization of Matrimony, Churching of Women, Visitation and Communion of the Sick, Burial of the Dead, etc.,); (3) Occasional Offices for Bishops (Confirmation, Ordination, etc.). "THE ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, OR HOLY COMMUNION," though placed after the daily Offices of Prayer, which are in a measure its preparation, is the core and centre of all Divine Worship as being the only service ordained by our Lord for the united worship of all of His people. For this reason, in the first glow of enthusiastic love for their crucified Lord, the first Christians 1 For the various names given to the Holy Sacrament in Scripture and the Primitive Church see chap. iv. are found celebrating it "daily," and when this became impracticable anywhere, on every Lord's Day at the least.1 This has been the rule of the whole Catholic Church in all ages. And the reason for this is evident. The Holy Communion, according to our Lord's command, is the ordinary and not extraordinary service for all Christian people. Hence the office with which it is celebrated is called specifically "THE LITURGY," literally, "The People's Service" from the Greek laos, the people, and ergon, work.2 The full title given to the Office in the First Book of Edward in 1549 was "THE SUPPER OF THE Lord, and the HOLY COMMUNION, COMMONLY CALLED THE MASS." This last title was omitted in 1552, and has never been restored. The word had come to represent only one essential aspect of the service, namely its "continual remembrance [before God] of the sacrifice of the death of Christ," and that in a manner wholly unwarranted by Scripture or the Primitive Church, to the neglect of the other equally essential aspect which required the faithful to "eat and drink" in fulfilment of Christ's command, in order to obtain the full blessing of the Sacrament. This purpose of the Sacrament as a Holy Communion had been sadly ignored, partly owing to the perverted teaching in regard to its sacrificial character, partly to the novel enforcement of private confession to a Priest as a condition of Communion, and partly to rigid rules in regard to fasting. It is a curious fact that this word Mass has absolutely no theological significance in itself, though it is held in utter disrepute by the great body of the English-speaking world on account of its association with the false views and super 1 Acts ii, 46; xx, 7; 1 Cor. xi, 20; xiv, 6. For a full account of the reasons for this see chaps. xviii and xix. stitious practices connected with its use in mediæval days. The word in early days was innocent enough. It is the English form of the Latin word missa, which means nothing more than "sent," in allusion to the dismission or sending away of the congregation by the Deacon at the close of the service, when he said, Ite missa est, which may be freely rendered, as in the oriental service, "Let us depart in peace." It was used in this general way "for every part of Divine Service," since the fourth century, and it is this lack of any real significance as applied to the Holy Communion, in addition to the ineradicable prejudice regarding it among English-speaking people, that forms the strongest argument against recent attempts to restore it to popular use. Though removed from the title of the Office, we retain a reminder of it in the popular names for the feasts of the Nativity, the Purification, and S. Michael and All Angels (Christmas, Candlemas, and Michælmas). 1 Bingham, XIII, i, 4. 2 Dr. Pusey asks, "Why should people say 'Mass' instead of the Holy Eucharist? . . . They might have gone far to Catholicize England if they would have taught as dear John Keble did. . . . Now they only strengthen a party” (Spiritual Letters, p. 251). 3 S. Ambrose of Milan in the fourth century uses the word in a letter to his sister (Op. ii, 853). Etheria, or Silvia, the author of the newly discovered Peregrinatio, describing a journey which she made to Jerusalem about the year 375, "uses the word for all meetings, for the [daily] offices as well as for the Liturgy" (Duchesne, p. 491). Kellner says that the word came only to be applied, though not exclusively, to the Holy Eucharist in the sixth and seventh centuries (Heortology, p. 432). In Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare puts it into the mouth of Juliet addressing Friar Lawrence, where the reference is to an afternoon service: "Are you at leisure, holy father, now; or shall I come to you at evening Mass?" (IV, i, 38.) Freeman thinks that “perhaps it is connected with the Hebrew Missah, a freewill offering" as in Deut. xvi, 10. (Prin. Div. Ser. II, ii, p. 440, note.) It Before speaking of the Office itself it will be necessary to say something about the rubrics which precede it. The American Church has omitted the first of these requiring notice by intending communicants the day before, but this rule had already in 1789 become a dead letter in England, as it is today. In regard to the rubric concerning the "repulsion" of an unworthy communicant, it is to be remembered that this is not an act of excommunication, which is the exclusive prerogative of the Bishop, but only a temporary exclusion. No person who has been confirmed can be regarded otherwise than as a possible communicant. The last rubric in regard to the place where the Holy Table shall stand has been a source of remarkable and prolonged controversy in England from the sixteenth century to the present day. The Puritan party insisted on having the "Table," as they called it, placed where the Priest could be distinctly heard. This was a natural result of violent reaction against the utter perversion of the old service when the Priest mumbled the Office in a voice inaudible, and in "a tongue not understanded of the people." The alleged object of the Puritans seemed worthy enough, but their method was certainly very objectionable and revolutionary. The Book of 1549 made no change in the place for the Altar, but the Book of 1552 adopted the present rubric directing that the "Table, at the Communion-time, shall stand in the Body of the Church [that is, the Nave], or in the Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said."1 seems strange, however, to find that the popular prejudice against the word does not exist in Germany, or the Scandinavian countries. It is still in use in the Lutheran Prayer Books of Germany, Sweden and Denmark. 1 So far as the actual Communion was concerned, this had some show of precedent in the custom of the Eastern Church in always communicating the people at the gate of the choir or sanctuary. The object of the Puritans, however, was not that of the Eastern Church, namely, to guard the sanc This aim of the Puritan party became for a time completely successful when, on September 1, 1641, a tyrannical and illegal order of the House of Commons, then in rebellion against the King, was issued commanding all church-wardens to "forthwith remove the Communion Table from the east end of the church or chancel into some other convenient place." In 1662, after the Restoration, vigorous efforts were made to correct these abuses; nevertheless, for a long time, the evil custom continued in many country churches, and it was not until the following century that the restoration of the Altar to its ancient place against the eastern wall was accomplished generally throughout the Church.1 All this has an important bearing on the further direction of this rubric concerning the position of the Priest at the beginning of the service where he is bidden to stand "at the north side of the Table." The Puritan party insisted, as we have seen, on its standing with its sides turned north and south, "table-wise," instead of east and west as formerly. But when the altars were put in their ancient place, this direction remained, and as a result the whole question of the position of the Priest at the beginning of the office was tuary from irreverence, but to degrade the character of the Sacrament to that of a mere social religious feast, the people actually receiving in their seats where it "cannot be discovered whether they kneel or no, while they receive, and the Minister cannot possibly come with any convenience at them which are placed farthest in their seats" (Letter of Archbishop Laud to the Bishop of Lincoln). It was a frequent and bitter charge against Laud that "he placed the Holy Table altar-wise at the upper end of the chancel, and placed a rail before it" (Scudamore, pp. 159, 163). 1 A few examples of the former evil custom were still said to exist in England in 1876, but outside of England probably not a single case can be found where the removal to "the body of the church" exists today. It is surely time therefore for removing from our Prayer Book this reminder of days of confusion and irreverence long since past. (See Scudamore, Not. Euch., pp. 161, 162.) |