Church, beginning "Good men and women, y charge you by the Auctoryte of holy churche." 1

THE INVITATION (as it is called in the Scottish service), "Ye that do truly, etc," is really part of the Exhortation immediately before the celebration, and may be regarded as a substitute for the ancient "Kiss of Peace," as in the Liturgies, or "Holy Kiss," or "Kiss of Charity," as in the Epistles.2 The Clementine Liturgy says: "Let the Deacon say to all, 'Salute one another with a holy kiss; and let them of the Clergy salute the Bishop; the laymen, laymen; the women, women.' . . . The ancient custom appears to have been well kept up in the West until the thirteenth century, when we first read of an instrument [deosculatorium] which, after being kissed by the Priest, and the Deacon after him, was by the latter handed to the Communicants who thus, in another manner, expressed their mutual love, viz., by all kissing the same thing."3 The ancient "Kiss of Peace" occupied the same place, before the Sursum Corda, as it does at present.1

1 Maskell, Mon. Rit., 348, 349. It is important to observe that the "warnings" are not "notices." The place for the "notice" is provided for immediately after the Creed. In the English Book the "warning" is to be read "after the sermon." As the Holy Eucharist is the normal service for every Lord's Day at the least, it is not intended that either "notice" or "warning" should be given every Sunday, but only "if occasion be," as is said in the rubric after the Creed. See Dearmer, Parson's Handbook, pp. 317, 318, and Blunt, Ann. Pr. Bk., p. 176. So full and clear, however, is the teaching of these warnings concerning the Holy Sacrament, and the necessary preparation for it, that one or other might well be read before the three great feasts.

2 Rom. xvi, 16; 1 Cor. xvi, 20; 1 Peter v, 14.

Scudamore, Not. Euch., pp. 497, 501.

The mistaken interpretation of this Invitation which would make it apply to all persons in the congregation who are "in love and charity with their neighbors, etc.," and irrespective of their being confirmed, is explicitly

...

contradicted by the rubric at the end of the Confirmation Office, which says, "There shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." The same interpretation would logically include the unbaptized, as no mention in the Invitation is made of Baptism any more than of Confirmation. The plea that the rubric in the Confirmation service was adopted in 1281 by Archbishop Peckham of Canterbury only goes to show the sad "neglect of the sacrament of Confirmation . . . in evil days. . . . To cure this damnable neglect," he adds, "we ordain that none be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood that is not confirmed, except at the point of death, unless he have a reasonable impediment." So far from this showing that Confirmation was 'an informal service," and one of many "mediæval ceremonies," it clearly sets it on the high position which Holy Scripture and the whole Catholic Church give it, namely, as the completion of Holy Baptism, the instrument appointed by our Lord for the "receiving of the Holy Ghost" in all His fulness by penitent and believing souls, and one of the six "foundations," or "principles of the doctrine of Christ" (Acts viii, 15, 16; xix, 2, etc.; Heb. vi, 1, 2). This does not imply that every devout Christian, unconfirmed through ignorance or prejudice or lack of opportunity, is under all circumstances to be rejected from the Holy Communion. We may well rejoice that "the pure river of water of Life" overflows its banks, and that "the cup of blessing which we bless," "runneth over," to those who are, as an old Father of the Church expressed it, of the soul of the Church, though not externally of its body (Rev. xxii, 1; 1 Cor. x, 16; Ps. xxiii, 5).

It is told of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce that he once asked an Irish maidservant if she thought he, a heretic from the Roman point of view, could possibly enter Heaven, and she replied, "Certainly, your lordship." When he asked her how could that be, she promptly answered, much to the amusement of the Bishop, but with sound theology and common sense, "By your invincible ignorance, my lord"! It is to be remembered that for 177 years (1607-1784) no Churchman in the English colonies, now the United States, was able to receive Confirmation, and yet, if otherwise fitted, he was admitted to the Holy Communion. See also chap. xxx.

IN the First Book the CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION were placed immediately before the Communion of the people, but the present place is manifestly better inasmuch as it is a preparation not only for Communion, but also for the Consecration, Oblation, and Intercession. In the old English, as in the Roman Liturgy, there was a confession (the Confiteor), "first prescribed, so far as appears, by the Council of Ravenna in 1314." But this is only a mutual confession by the Priest and his assistants to each other, and a mutual prayer for pardon. "It may appear singular that there was no Confession to be said by all the people in the medieval Liturgies; but not to mention the obstacle arising from the use of the Latin language, we must remember that the laity communicated rarely; and that, when they did so, their Communion was generally preceded by an act of private Confession to the Priest." 1

It is well known that there was no compulsory confession to a Priest anywhere in the Church in early days, as a con

1 Scudamore, Not. Euch., pp. 510, 511.

dition of Communion. Even heinous offences were required to be confessed in public, and the custom was continued until it was found to be the occasion of needless scandal. Auricular confession to a priest in private (literally, to the ear) was only made obligatory in the Western Church by the fourth Lateran (Roman) Council in 1215. It is not the rule today, and never has been, in the Oriental Churches of Greece, Russia, Armenia, etc.

Our present rule is simply a return to the primitive custom of voluntary confession to a Priest in a case of necessity.1 The first "Warning" in the English Book does not forbid such private confession, and private absolution, but says, "And because it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means [self examination] cannot quiet his own conscience therein but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word and open his grief; that, by the ministry of God's holy Word, he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." Concerning this Mr. Blunt writes: "One of the most remarkable of the peculiar features of the Anglican Communion Offices is the anxious carefulness shown by the Church to ensure that communicants shall approach the Lord's Table after due preparation and with right dispositions. The mixture of grave warning and tender encouragement in this Service is indeed truly

1 Speaking of private confession as a habit, Mr. Baring-Gould says, "It enfeebles the moral fibre, and makes weak natures become weaker ... I have often enough heard young Romanists talk of being 'whitewashed"" (The Church Revival, p. 306).

wonderful. There is nothing like it in the Offices of any other Communion." 1

The ABSOLUTION, which is the same as that in both the First and Second Books, is taken, with a slight change, from the prayer of the assisting "Ministers" for the absolution of the Celebrant after he has said the Confiteor in the old English Use. "Authority thus to remit sin, as to exercise in other ways 'the Ministry of Reconciliation',2 is derived from the original grant of our Blessed Lord to the first rulers of His Church:-'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.'s The Priest is acting on this commission whenever, as the guardian of any spiritual privilege [for instance, the 'one Baptism for the remission of sins,' as in the Nicene Creed, and Acts ii. 38], he imparts it to one whom he deems worthy, and denies it to another whom he deems unworthy."

1 Ann. Pr. Bk., p. 179. Liddon says of Dr. Pusey, "Neither now [1844], nor at any other time in his life, did he treat the practice of private confession as a matter of absolute obligation on the part of anyone. Besides, he had extreme difficulties in his own case. He was so overwhelmed with the consciousness of his sins that he shrunk from making a confessor of one of those friends with whom he was associated in common work, and outside this circle, there was no one whom he could choose as a spiritual guide." Life of Pusey, III, p. 96. The American Prayer Book alone omits "that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution," but in view of our Lord's solemn words, which are repeated over the Priest at his ordination, omission in this case does not necessarily mean prohibition. The Scottish and Irish Books retain the words.

2 2 Cor. v, 18.

S. John xx, 22, 23.

⚫ Scudamore, Not. Euchar., p. 515. See also chaps. xxxiii and xxxvi. Archbishop Bramhall (of. Armagh, 1660-1663) says the power of "the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" (S. Matt. xvi, 19), to loose or bind, is exercised in many ways: "By Baptism, by the Sacrament of the Lord's