OPEN COMMUNION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLA110.—IL

(By AN ECCLESIASTICAL LAWYER.) THE Savoy Conference followed in March, 1661, when an equal number of Bishops and Presbyterian divines were nominated by Royal Warrant to meet at the Savoy and consider what changes, if any, should be made in the Prayer Book. The lists on both sides contained eminent names, Bishop Costa, for example, on one side, and Richard Baxter on the other, but the result was very disappointing to the Presbyterian party. There are, however, two or three matters worth notice which are relevant to the question of the rubrics we have been discussing. It must not be forgotten that the Elizabethan Book was undoubtedly to be the basis of the future Liturgy, but that for nearly twenty years the use of that Book had been prohibited, so that large numbers of people had never become familiar with it, and had become accustomed to a different method of publio worship. It was this practical experience of Presbyterianism, which was believed to be popular, that encouraged its repre- sentatives to ask a great deal too much at the Conference, and thus to harden the episcopal attitude towards their demands. In three instances, however, whilst using inflexible language, the Bishops did something to meet the Presbyterian" Excep- tions " against the Book :—

(1) Exception to the last rubric after confirmation "We desire that confirmation may not be made so necessary to the Holy Communion as that none should be admitted to it unless they be confirmed."

(2) Exception to the rubric in the form for solemnization of matrimony ordering the celebration of the Communion.

(3) Exception to the last rubric of the same office ordering the newly married to receive the Communion the same day as their marriage "This rubrick doth either enforce all such as are unfit for the sacrament to forbear marriage contrary to scripture, which approves the marriage of all men or else compels all that marry to come to the Lord's table though never so unprepared, and, therefore, we desire it may be omitted the rather because that marriage festivals are too often accompanied with such divertise- merits as are unsuitable to these Christian duties, which ought to be before and follow after the receiving of that Holy Sacrament"

The Bishops' original answer to (1) was "There is no inconvenience that confirmation should be required before Communion where it may ordinarily be obtained. That which here you fault you elsewhere desire."

And to (2) and (3) was:—

0 This enforces none to forbear marriage bat preserves (as well

it may) that all persons marriageable ought also to be fit to receive the Holy Sacrament; and marriage being so solemn a covenant with God, they that undertake it in the fear of God will not stick to seal it by receiving the Holy Communion, and accordingly to prepare themselves for it. It were more Christian to desire that those licentious festivities might be suppressed and the com- munion more generally used by those that marry. The happiness would be greater than can easily be expressed. Uncle sufficient ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii clued ecolesia conciliat et confirmat oblatio."—(See (Jard well's Conferences, 3rd edition, chaps.

and wit)

Bet the Bishops reconsidered these answers, and the revised Book in its final shape as adopted by Convocation and scheduled to the Act of Uniformity of 1662 (13,14, Car. IL c. 4) contained some modifications both of the rubric at the end of the Confirmation Service, and also of the rubrics of the Marriage Service. With regard to the former, a more elastic form of words was used, and the new rubric ran thus : "And 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 Catechism also appears in the Book under a separate title, but the reader will find that it must still be read with the Order for Confirmation just in the same way as in the former Books, and the new rubric, like the former one, is clearly only applicable to the properly instructed children whom the curate brings to the Bishop. And even as to these actual episcopal confirmation was no longer in all cases to be required. The new form, indeed, corresponds with what we have shown to be the former practice. It is, moreover, per- fectly clear, as Archbishop Tait pointed out during the con- troversy raised in 1869 with reference to the Westminster Abbey Communion of the revisers of the Bible, to which several unconfirmed persons were admitted, that this rubric, like the one it superseded, only applied—to use his own phrase---to "our own people" (L(e, by Benham and Davidson, VoL IL, p. 71). And the same observation applies with equal force to the rubric at the close of the Order for the Baptism of Such as are of Riper Years, which was inserted for the first time in the Book of 1662. No doubt a large number of persons had grown up unbaptized during the troublous times of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and it was thought well to provide a form for those who desired to receive baptism in their parish churches with their godfathers and godmothers present as witnesses, and it was reasonable to add a rubric that "it is expedient that every person, thus baptized, should be confirmed by the Bishop so soon after his baptism as con- veniently may be, that so he may be admitted to the Holy Communion." But it is submitted very confidently to the reader that neither of these domestic or parochial directions can be held to limit the rights of every lay parishioner, con- firmed or unconfirmed, secured to him in the revised Book, by the rubrics of the Communion Service itself, which are practically identical with those of Elizabeth's Book, provided he is not an open and notorious evil liver, and is in charity with his neighbours. There is no other lawful cause in either Book of repelling any parishioners of competent age and sufficiently instructed. The minister has no authority to inquire into the exact theological views of any communicant nor into his previous history. Such matters are for his own con- science only, and if he be " religiously and devoutly disposed" he cannot be refused. His, indeed, possible to exclude—accord- ing to Canon 27—" common and notorious depravers" of the Prayer Book and Articles, or of the Royal Supremacy, but there are many difficulties in the way of using its provisions against a layman. The question was much discussed in the case, referred to at the beginning of the previous article of "Jenkins v. Cooke," where an Evangelical clergyman made an unsuccessful attempt to exclude a parishioner who was alleged to have denied the personality of the devil and the doctrine of eternal punishment for sin.

With regard to the Marriage Service, the Bishops also made a concession. In the revised Book of 1662 it was no longer enacted that the newly married persons must receive the Communion on the same day as they were married, but only that "it is convenient that the new married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage." With these concessions the Presbyterians had to be content. The Bishops were for the time all-powerful, but fortunately they did not attempt to alter the rubrics of the Communion Service itself as to the admission of all

parishioners. These remain to this day the charter of one religious liberties and rights in the National Church.

It remains to say a few words as to the practice since 1662, especially with regard to the controversies as to Occasional conformity in the reign of Queen Anne. But before making any remark as to these we will add is few words as to the general episcopal practice from the Restoration onwards. Turning for this purpose to the evidence of , the Visitation Articles, from which we have already derived so much useful information, we find that in 1662 a great many Bishops (with some Archdeacons) issued Articles of Inquiry. In nearly every case questions are separately asked, first, as to whether the minister prepares and presents the youth Of the parish to be confirmed by the Bishop, and then, secondly, whether there is any person in the parish who, being sixteen years of age and well instructed in religion, cloth not frequently receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or at least three times in the year, of which Easter is always to be one. The Inquiries above referred to are taken from Bishop Coairt's Articles, and the rest of the Bishops sub- stantially ask the same questions separately. The inference appears to be that a serious attempt to revive the practice of confirmation for the children of the parish was made, but at the same time no attempt was made to close the door against anybody simply on the ground of his not having been confirmed His want of actual confirmation bad never stood in his way under the Prayer Book of Elizabeth. Still less could it do so under the new words. His presence at the Lord's Table was indeed considered in itself a sufficient indication of his religious belief and knowledge. In this connexion some remarks of Fleetwood, Bishop of St. Asaph (and after- wards of Ely), seem well worth quoting, as expressing the true view of the National Church on the matter. Fleetwood was a zealous Whig, but, in spite of that, was Queen Anne's favourite Bishop. His fulfilment of the duties of the episco- pate, says Canon Venables (Dictionary of National Biography, article "Fleetwood"), was much above the standard of the age. "Few Bishops have left a more unspotted reputation behind them." Here are the wise words he addressed to the clergy of St. Asaph in 1710. It is evident that he had numbers of unconfirmed persons habitually communicating in his diocese, and while he was rightly desirous that young people should, in accordance with the regular order of the Church, be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed, he adds :— "I hope that nobody will think hiinself not bound to perform his baptismal vows because he bath not solemnly done so by being confirmed ; whether people be Confirmed or no, they are under the same obligation to perform these vows ; Confirmation is by no means necessary or essential to baptism nor completive of it. 'Tis an excellent institution of the Church, and serves- to very good purposes, but it is no Sacrament, and, therefore, those who have not slighted and neglected it, but wanted it . v„ need not be much concerned although they have received the Lord's Supper without being confirmed. It is sufficient (in want of opportunity) that men be ready for it, and desirous of it when and where it may be had. And for such as have received the Lord's Supper without it, they are presumed to have done already all that con- firmation supposes they should do, and, therefore, are not proper subjects of it. Such, therefore, as have received the Lord's Supper should not comet* confirmation."—(Appendix to Second Report of Ritual Commission, 1868, p. 670.) In the very same year that Fleetwood published this states- manlike utterance (1710), the High Church Party, after repeated unsuccessful attempts, managed to induce Parlia- ment to pass the Act against occasional conformity (10 Ann. c. 2). They had during the whole reign struggled to prevent the practice which had grown up of Nonconformists con- forming to the Anglican Liturgy, and taking the Sacrament, if _they wished to hold such public offices as under the Corporation and Test Acts of Charles II. (13 Car. 2. c. 1 and 25 Car. 2. c. 2) required these tests. But the great majority of Bishops were strenuously opposed to any change in the direction demanded. They, with Burnet, Bishop of Sails- bury, the trusted adviser of William and Mary in all religious matters, as their chief leader, had most of them been parties to the Toleration Act of William III. This statute had freed Dissenters from penalties, and if they wished to hold municipal or other public offices it had long been held sufficient for them to receive the Communion occasionally in church, -even whilst regularly attending a Dissenting chapeL The opposition of Burnet and his brethren- to the proposed prohibition of this practice was quite natural, and Burnet in particular is stated to have been glad that Dissenters should be allowed to defeat the Corpora- tion and Test Acts by the device of occasional conformity (see Plummer's Church of England in the Eighteenth Century, p. 49). The triumph of the extreme High Churchmen was, however, very brief. In 1719 the Act against occasional con- formity was repealed (5 (leo. 1. c. 4), never to be re-enacted. Archbishop Tait was of opinion that much could be learnt from the history of this controversy, and although it does not directly affect the general question which we have been dis- cussing, the lawfulness of occasional conformity certainly supports the view which we have been urging as correct. It may be permitted to hope that the advocates of restricted Communion may in our time meet with as complete an over- throw as their predecessors in the reign of George L

To sum up the result of the foregoing memorandum, the following propositions are, it is submitted, clearly estab- lished (1) There is a statutory right conferred by the rubrics of the Communion Service on all parishioners to present them- selves to receive the Lord's Supper.

(2) There is no lawful cause of repulsion except that men- tioned in the prefatory rubric, of notorious evil life, or living out of charity with others.

(3) There is no power whatever to justify any inquiry by the minister into the exact religious belief of a person who proposes to communicate. It is enough if he be "religiously and devoutly disposed," and this is a matter for his own conscience to determine.

(4) The rubrics of the Confirmation Order do not and never have been held since the Reformation to abridge the general rights conferred by the rubrics of the Communion