OPEN COMMUNION EST THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.—L

(BY AN ECCLESIASTICAL LAWYER.)

THE law of the Church of England as to the prinuf-fade right of every parishioner to receive the Holy Com- munion rests in the first instance on the words of the statute of 1 Edward 6, c. 1 (repealed in the reign of Queen Mary, but revived by 1 Eliz., c. 1. a. 14). The language of the Act is probably declaratory (see "Jenkins v. Cooke," Law Reports, 1 Probate Division 80); but, however that may be, the Parlia- mentary title is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms, and is repeated in the enactments of the two Acts of Uniformity and Prayer Books of Edward VI., established by them, and in the Acts and Books of Elizabeth and of Charles IL The last-mentioned Act of Uniformity has "annexed and joined" to it our own present Prayer Book, which forms a part of it, The contents of that Book are, therefore, as was pointed out by Lord Justice James in the Privy Council in ** Clifton v. Ridedale " (see Perry'e edition of the Folkestone ritual case, p. 441), part of the statute law of England, and it is there that we must now look to discover, first, what is the right of an English layman to receive the Holy Communion in his parish church, and, secondly, what are the limitations, if any, on that right.

But before doing so it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act and Prayer Book of Elizabeth which regulated the law and practice of the Church from 1559 to 1662, and also to refer, in due course, to the Canons of 1604, which have con- siderable bearing on the subject.. It should, however, be noticed in passing that these Canons do not bind the laity, as they were never assented to by Parliament; nor, indeed, do they bind the clergy either, if they contravene the ordinary common or statute law—otherwise they do bind the clergy in fore conscientias (see "Middleton v. Croft," per Lord Hardwicke 2 Atkyns 650, and "Marshall v. The Bishop of Exeter," Law Reports, 3 House of Lords Cases 17, where the question of the validity of the Canons was very fully discussed). ssed).

Turning, therefore, in the first instance, to the Elizabethan Book, we find in the rubrics preceding and following the Communion Service a complete code of rules regulating the admission of parishioners to be partakers. The language used is almost precisely the same as that of our present Book, and provides that there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except there be a "good number" to communicate with the priest, according to his discretion ; and if there be not above twenty persons "of discretion" to receive the Communion, yet there shall be no Communion, except four or three at the least communicate with the priest, and "note that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one." and shall also receive the Sacraments and other rites according to the Order of this Book appointed. The prefatory rubric authorizes the curate to repel (I) any open and notorious evil liver, so that the congregation is by him offended, or has done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, and (2) any betwixt whom be perceiveth malice and hatred to reign. There is no other lawful cause of repulsion mentioned.

It should also be noted that in this Book the Marriage Service included the administration of the Communion. This took place immediately after the prayer beginning "Almighty God who at the beginning did create our first parents Adam and Eve," &c. The rubric ordering it is as follows Then shall begin the Communion, and after the Gospel shall

be delivered a sermon, wherein, ordinarily, so oft as there is any marriage the office of a man and wife shall be declared according to holy scripture, or if there be no sermon the Minister shall read this that followeth" (i.e., the well-known exhortation beginning "All ye which be married, &a").

Then the Order concludes with a very important and com- pulsory rubric, which enacts that "the new married persons (the same day of their marriage) must receive the Holy Com- munion," and it would seem from the language used that the newly married sometimes received the Communion before the marriage. The injunction is unqualified, but, as will be seen when the practice of the Church for the hundred years or thereabouts during which the Elizabethan Book was used is considered, the vast majority of the parishioners were never confirmed; and even in the case of children born, baptized, and brought up in the Church, the Order of Confirmation, though prescribed for them, and them only, in definite terms, was greatly neglected. Obviously the Order is limited to such children only. This is clear from its title and terms, which are inapplicable to grown-up persons who have been duly baptized, either by purely lay persons, or the ministers of other Christian communities. Lay baptism, it must be remembered, has always been recognized by our Church, as, indeed, by the Church of Rome also—see the cases of "Kemp v. Wickes" in the Archea Court, decided by Sir J. Nichol (3 Phil!. 264); and " Eseott v. Mastin" in the Privy Council (1 Ecc. Notes of Cases 552), confirming a decision of the Arches Court by Sir Herbert Selmer to the same effect as "Kemp v. Wickes." In these two cases the whole question of lay baptism in its widest sense is fully considered.

It may be well before going further to quote the exact terms of the only rubric in the Elizabethan Book which refers to this matter, and which is in the same terms as in the second Book of Edward VI.; nor should the alight change made in 1603 by James I. on his own Royal authority, after the almost fruitless Hampton Court Conference, peas un- noticed. The Catechism for children is included in all these three Books—i.e., the second Book of Edward VI. (1552) and the Books of Elizabeth (1559) and James (1603)—under the title of Confirmation. Thus in 1552 and 1559 we have "Confirmation," wherein is contained "a Catechism for children." In the Book of 1603 the language is somewhat amplified, and we read: "The Order of Confirmation : or laying on of hands upon children baptized and able to render an account of their faith according to the Catechism following." And later in all three Books the " Catechism " is prefaced with these words : "That is to say, an instruction to be learned of every child before he be brought to be confirmed of the Bishop." There is no material difference between the Books in the contents of the "Catechism" (except that in the last some questions as to the Sacraments are added), nor in the directions that none are to be confirmed but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, as well as the answers to such questions of the Catechism as may be put by the Bishop. Finally comes the rubric that "there shall none be admitted to the holy communion until such time as he can say the Catechism and be confirmed." That this directory rubric applies only to the children pre- viously mentioned appears quite plain. In other words, "none" does not in this connexion mean "nobody," but "no child" as previously mentioned in the Confirmation Order, and by no canon of legal construction can the words be held to abridge in any way the right of every parishioner to be a partaker, unless indeed he is an open and notorious evil liver or out of charity with his neighbours. If he happens to have been baptized in proper form by a layman or an ordained minister of another Communion, the rubric obviously has no application whatever to him ; and, having regard to the practice of the Bishops, to which attention will immediately be directed, it seems impossible to hold that even the children themselves could be kept from their rights of Communion by reason of confirmation haying fallen into general disuse. It certainly did become unusual, as is easily capable of actual proof. The evidence on this point which is to be found in the Injunctions of our Bishops and in their Visitation Articles is overwhelming, and commences contemporaneously with the promulgation of the Prayer Book of 1559. In the same year the Queen published a set of Injunctions, of which the 20th and 21st should be mentioned. In the 20th she exhorts "all her faithful and loving subjects oftentimes to receive

the Communion," whilst in the 21st curates are warned not to admit any of their flock who are openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance, or to have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours. 'To these Injunctions the Archbishop and Bishops afterwards drew up " Interpreta- tions" for the better direction of the clergy, and one of these to the 20th Injunction provides 'that children be not admitted to the Communion before the age of twelve or thirteen years, of good discretion, and well instructed before" (Cardwell Doc. Annals, L, 238), and in the same year a set of Visita- tion Articles was issued (Card. Annals, L, 242) to the various dioceses containing, among many others, the following inquiries :—

"Whether they [the parson, vicar, or curate] have admonished their parishioners that they ought not to presume to receive the sacrament of the body or blood of Christ before they can say perfectly the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of the Faith, and the Ten Commandments in English." "Whether they have received any persons to the Communion being openly known to be out of charity with their neighbours or defamed with any notorious crime and not reformed."

The list of subsequent Episoopal Injunctions and Articles of Inquiry, of which the above are the earliest specimens, is a very long one, and is given in full in Appendix E to the second Report of the Ritual Commission published in 1868. It is arranged in chronological order, and extends from 1561 to 1730. The whole series has been transcribed in the appendix verbatim et literatim from the collection in the Bodleian, with one single exception taken from the British Museum. It is of very great value throughout, but for the present we shall confine ourselves to the entries illustrating the practice from 1559 until the establishment of the present Prayer Book in 1662.

The reader will find that all the Bishops, no matter to what warty they belonged, whether they were opposed to the Puritans or in sympathy with them, are practicallyunanimous in the inquiries they make and the Injunctions they give. Never, or hardly ever, is confirmation mentioned_ This may have arisen from many causes. Probably the chief reason was the great strength of the Puritan party in the Church during the greater part of the reign of Elizabeth, and there were doubtless other reasons, such as the comparative rarity of episcopal confirmation in any diocese. The questions about the Communion are substantially always the same, and relate to the age and religious knowledge of proposed com- municants, and to their being free from open and notorious crime, and from any want of charity towards their neighbours. In nearly every case, also, inquiry is made whether all parishioners of suitable age and sufficient religious knowledge receive the Communion three times in the year at least, of which Easter is to be one. The suitable or "convenient." age varies in the earlier entries, but after the promulgation of the Canons of 1604, if any age is mentioned, sixteen years is usually fixed in accordance with Canon 112. A few illustrations are added

(1) Grindal, Archbishop of York (1571). Articles to be answered by the churchwardens of parishes within the Province

Whether your Parson, Vicar, Curate, or Minister bath admitted to the Holy Communion any of his parish being above twenty years of age, either mankind or womankind, that cannot say by heart the Ten Commandments, the Articles of the Faith, or the Lord's Prayer in English, or being above fourteen years and under twenty years that cannot say the Catechism set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. And whether he marry any persons, which were single before, that cannot say the Catechism. And whether he useth to examine his parishioners at convenient times before he administer to them, and namely before Easter yearly, to the intent he may know whether they can say by heart the same which is required in this behalf or no."

An Injunction by him of the same year orders the clergy to examine persons proposing to come to the Communion, and if they cannot answer satisfactorily to put them back until they can. He also orders that the Communion is to be administered at least once a month after due warning to the people, and declaring unto them that "by the laws of this realm every person of convenient age is bound to receive the Holy Communion at the least three times in the year, and namely at Easter for one."

(2) Cox, Bishop of Ely (about 1570-1574): Injunctions (a) not to admit to Communion notorious evil livers or malicious persons who are out of charity with others ; and (b) not to admit persons above twenty years who cannot say by heart the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith, and the Lord's Prayer, nor any above twelve or under twenty years that cannot say the Catechism by heart. (3) Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury (1575). Articles of Inquiry at his Metropolitan visitation as to parishes within the diocese of Winchester, ." Whether the Clergy admit any notorious sinners or uncharitable persons to the Communion, or any that cannot say without book the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of Faith, and the Ten Commandments."

(4) Aylmer, Bishop of London (1577); (5) Sandys, Archbishop of York (1578) ; (6) Overton, Bishop of Lichfield (1584), make similar inquiries; and in regard to Wales, there are (7) & set of Injunctions issued in 1583 by Middleton, Bishop of St. Davide, ordering his clergy "to admit none to Holy Communion but such as the minister, by due examination, shall know can perfectly say the Articles of their faith, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer at the least, yea the younger sort must say the whole Catechism." He further orders that every man and woman do receive the Holy Communion thrice in every year at the least.

It is worth notice that Laud when he became Bishop of St Davide at a later date (1622) made an inquiry in very similar terms. He asks if the minister administers the Communion Service often enough to ensure that "every parishioner may receive the same at least thrice in every year, whereof once is to be Easter," and in another Article asks "whether any of your parish being of sixteen years of age or upwards do not receive the Holy Communion thrice every year, whereof once be Easter, and whether they do not devoutly kneel at the receiving thereof."

It is needless to prolong this catalogue. Some slight varia- tions occur after the promulgation of the Canons of 1604, but nothing very material. The same inquiries are made almost without exception until 1641, when the abolition of episcopacy was at hand. There is then a break until the Restoration of Charles II., when the entries are resumed.

Meanwhile this seems the proper place for drawing particular attention to some of the Canons of 1604 which received the assent of Convocation under the guidance of Bancroft, Bishop of Loudon, who soon afterwards succeeded Whitgift as Arch- bishop. They are not, as we have already observed, binding on the laity proprio vigore, never having received the assent of Parliament, but they do bind the clergy so far as they are not inconsistent with the statute or common law. They form a convincing proof of the prevailing law and practice. Thus in Canon 21 it is enacted that in every parish church the Holy Communion shall be administered by the parson, vicar, or minister, "so often and at such times as every parishioner may communicate at the least thrice in the year (whereof the Feast of Easter to be one) according as they are appointed by the Book of Common Prayer." Canon 22 has a noteworthy recital :— "Whereas," so it runs, "every lay person is bound to receive the Holy Communion thrice every year, and many notwithstanding do not receive that Sacrament once in a year, we do require every minister to give warning to his parishioners publicly in the Church, the Sunday before every time of his administering that Holy Sacrament, for their better preparation of themselves, which warning we enjoin the parishioners to accept and obey under the penalty and danger of the law."

This last is an important clause, reminding all the laity of their duty; a duty the neglect of which in those days, when the Court of High Commission was still a great power in the land, might entail serious consequences. Canons 26 and 27 direct the minister to refuse the Communion to "notorious offenders," or "common and notorious depravers of the Prayer Book," or of anything contained in the Articles agreed on in 1562 by the Convocation, or of anything contained in the Ordination Service ; or to any who have spoken against and depraved the Royal authority in causes ecclesiastical.

Canon 60 seems framed to ensure the more regular per- formance of confirmation. It must by this time have become obvious that for various reasons the Bishops performed their duty in regard to confirming the children of their dioceses very irregularly, and accordingly it is directed that they should confirm once in three years at their triennial visitation. It should be remembered that, by the 25th Article of the Thirty-nine Articles agreed on by Convocation in 1562, it had been provided that there are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel—that is to Bay, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. "Confirmation," it is added, with " Penance, Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction," are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, though commonly called Sacraments ; and Canon 60 describes confirmation aa a "solemn, ancient, and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles' times "; but it is observ- able that there is nothing to suggest that the use or dis- use of this custom in any way abridges the general right of the parishioners to receive the Communion, to which we have already fully referred. Nor does Canon 60 seem to

have made much difference in the episcopal practice. There are, however, occasional references to confirmation in the interval between 1604 and 1640, but they are few. Thus Howson, Bishop of Oxford in 1619, requires children to be prepared for confirmation and for Communion. Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester (1634), asks a question as to admission of parishioners to Communion or to marriage without con- firmation (see, as to this prelate, Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. VIII., p. 132, where some extraordinary facts are stated as to his very close sympathy with the Roman Church, which gave rise to a suspicion that he had secretly joined that Communion); and Land in 1635, two years after his appointment as Archbishop, makes, inquiry as to whether the young people of the parish are tendered, when well instructed in their Catechism, to the Bishop for confirmation. In another inquiry, however, in the same set of Articles, he asks whether any of the parish, being of sixteen years of age or upwards, do not receive the Communion thrice every year, whereof one is Easter. But by this time the end of episcopacy was very near ; only a few years later both Houses of Parliament unanimously resolved (in September, 1642) that "Government by Archbishops, Bishops, &c., was inconvenient and ought to be taken away," and by subsequent Ordinances in 1645-6 the use of the Prayer Book was absolutely prohibited in all ehurches, chapels, or places of public worship in England and Wales, and its use also for- bidden in any private place or family (Cardwelrs Conferences, 3rd edition, p. 242). This dark period did not close until the Restoration of Charles IL in 1660, when the Liturgy of the Church was restored in the King's Chapel and in the two Houses of Parliament, and preparations were made for a