munion. To the latter of these a little water is usually added, according to primitive custom, though no direction is given in the Prayer Book.1 Concerning the wine it ought to be unnecessary to say that unfermented juice of the grape, or "must," has never been regarded as wine. It is an assured fact that what is called wine among the Jews was a fermented product. The learned Jewish Christian, Dr. Edersheim, writing to Canon Bright in 1882, quotes from the Talmud in proof of his assertion that "the wine used at the Paschal Supper was undoubtedly fermented and intoxicating. . . . In fact, to avoid intoxication, the Paschal wine was almost always 'mixed' (as was the common custom in drinking wine), the ordinary proportion being two parts of water to one of wine, strong wine in that of three parts Still further, to show that the natural fermentation could not possibly be ranked with leaven, the principle is distinctly laid down in the Talmud that 'the juice of the fruit does not produce leavening.'

water.

This "fruit of the vine," 3 moreover, has been the universal use of the Church from the beginning. No other product of the grape than one with the necessary amount of alcohol could be available in every climate and for "all nations," as our Lord meant it to be. This fact has also a direct bearing on "all" receiving from one cup, as did the Apostles in the Upper Room. Our Lord was assuredly aware of the antiseptic character of wine, as testified, if need be, by His

1 The mixing of water with the wine, though not as a ceremonial act, was pronounced lawful in the trial of Bishop King of Lincoln in 1890. The Scottish Book has the following rubric; "It is customary to mix a little pure water with the wine in the eucharistic Cup."

2 The following references out of many show this beyond a question; Gen. ix, 24; xlix, 12; 2 Sam. xiii, 28; Prov. xx, 1; Eph. v, 18; 1 Pet. iv, 3. S. Mark xiv, 25.

parable of the Good Samaritan,1 and the thought was doubtless in His mind when He first administered it to all from a common cup. This has special significance for the Clergy, who are much more exposed to infection than the laity, inasmuch as they are obliged to consume what remains in the cup after all have drunk. Nevertheless it is a well assured fact, as every insurance actuary can testify, that the Clergy have the highest longevity of any class or profession.

There are doubtless cases, however, as in epidemics of infectious disease, where "intinction," or the dipping of a portion of the consecrated Bread into the wine, might be employed, as is the use of the Oriental Churches. In any case, the novel and utterly irreverent method of "individual cups," in contravention of our Lord's action in the Upper Room, and of the custom of nineteen centuries, and in destruction of the symbolism of the single cup, is wholly unnecessary.2

As to the kind of bread to be used, the First Book explicitly required "unleavened bread." The present English Book, in one of the final rubrics, declares that "bread such as is usual to be eaten shall suffice." In other words, this is the minimum, but whatever is used, it is declared, must be "the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten." It is unquestioned that thin unleavened bread was the kind in which our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist. As the Passover was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when all leaven was commanded to be put away, no other bread was possible to a loyal Jew. The use of unleavened, or "wafer" bread is therefore only following the example of Christ.

1 S. Luke x, 34.

2 For ancient methods of administration see Bingham, XV, v.

Ex. xii, 15; xiii, 7.

• Ex. xxix, 2.

Other reasons for its use are the fact that it is less liable to crumble, and that it is always ready, not being subject to decay like ordinary bread.1

It is to be observed that the rubric, with good reason, and according to ancient usage, distinctly requires that the elements are not to be placed on the altar until after the alms have been placed there. One evident purpose of this is to give opportunity for their preparation at the Credence while the alms are being collected. There is no mention of this table or shelf in the Prayer Book, but some such receptacle is implied of necessity. Its usual place is on the south side of the chancel.2

The position of the "PRAYER FOR THE WHOLe State of CHRIST'S CHURCH MILITANT," which is equivalent to the "Great Intercession" found in every known Liturgy, varies in different offices. In the East its usual place is after the Prayer of Consecration. "In the Roman Liturgy it occurs partly before and partly after the Words of Institution. In the ancient Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies it occurred in the same position which it now occupies in the Anglican Liturgy."3

1 Among Lutherans and Moravians the use of common bread would be regarded as the height of irreverence. Among the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians the use lingered even after their transplantation to America. Mrs. Earle notes in her work on "The Sabbath in Puritan New England" (p. 122), that the custom continued in the Londonderry settlement in New Hampshire during the 17th century, where "thin cakes of unleavened bread were specially prepared for this sacred service." In the Oriental Church the bread is leavened, but a special bread is made carefully for the purpose.

* In the Oriental Church the elements are prepared in, and brought from, the Prothesis, or Sacristy, with a special service, and this is called the Great Entrance, in contradistinction to the bringing in of the sacred books, which is called the Little Entrance.

• Warren, Pr. Bk. Comm. p. 103.

It is as all-inclusive as the Litany, and possesses intercessions for (1) the Catholic Church and its Unity; (2) Christian Rulers; (3) Bishops and other Clergy; (4) the People; (5) the Afflicted; (6) Commemoration of the Departed.1

Though there is no direction here for those who do not intend communicating to withdraw, it has been the unfortunate custom for great numbers not only of non-communicants but of communicants to leave the church after this prayer just when the service is about to rise to its highest point. Even loud organ music, which has been well named by Bishop Cleveland Coxe, the "soul dirge," has been employed to cover (and encourage) their withdrawal. This custom happily

1 In all the Primitive Liturgies there was here a distinct prayer for the Faithful Departed, such as that found on page 65. It was owing to the extreme perversion of this unquestionably Scriptural and Primitive practice in mediæval days, when the greater part of the Intermediate State was turned into an "abbreviated hell" called Purgatory, that direct prayer for the rest, peace, progress and refreshment of the faithful departed was unwisely omitted, and the words "militant here in earth" inserted in 1552. (They are omitted in the Scottish Book.) In the first Post-Communion Prayer of the English Book (which is part of the Consecration in the first Book of Edward, the Scottish, and the American Books) prayer for the Faithful Departed is definite and real in the petition that "we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion." Concerning this clause, Bishop Cosin, one of the most learned members of the committee of revision in 1661, wrote, "By 'all the whole Church' is to be understood as well those that have been heretofore and those that shall be hereafter as well as those that are now the present members of it." For a somewhat full discussion of this question see the author's Some Purposes of Paradise, pp. 67–75. The Russian Metropolitan being asked by Dr. Ingram, Bishop of London, what struck Russian Churchmen as the chief defect of Anglicans, replied, "We marvel at the way you English people forget your dead - by far the largest part of the Church. Our children are taught to think of their dear parents as living in the next room."

is becoming less frequent. In primitive days when the Church was in the midst of heathen, the catechumens not yet admitted to Holy Baptism were required to depart at an earlier part of the service. When this rule ceased to be enforced the custom was for those who did not communicate to remain until the actual Communion of the people began, and then to withdraw during the singing of Communion antiphons by the choir.1 This surely is a custom well worthy of consideration as the lesser of two evils. It would at least avoid the unseemly confusion of withdrawal at the moment when it jars on every reverent mind, while the effect would be almost entirely neutralized if done when communicants begin to approach the chancel.

This, however, is by no means intended as an encouragement of the notion of some quasi sacramental virtue in what is called "non-communicating attendance." It is rather in order that those who remain, "before whose eyes Jesus Christ is openly set forth crucified" 2 may be led on by the attractive power and persuasion of the service to partake of the Divine Food, as well as to plead the atoning Sacrifice. "Was there a Passover heard of," writes Bishop Andrewes, "and the lamb not eaten? Time was when he was thought no good Christian, that thought he might do one without the other, no celebremus without epulemur.'

"3

Two "Warnings" for Communion are placed here in the English Book, but were removed to the end of the Office of the American Book in 1892. The "Exhortation" to Communion which follows has, in several sentences, a remarkable similarity to a form used in the earlier days of the English

1 See Duchesne, p. 187.

2 Gal. iii, 1, R. V.

Sermons, II, 298-9. Concerning the bearing of fasting Communion upon this question see pp. 191, sq..