the elements are delivered; but the Minister is not restrained by the Rubric from giving the bread or the wine to a second, a third, or to several individuals under one repetition. The 21st Canon orders that the bread and the wine be given to every communicant severally; but it does not enjoin that the words should be repeated to each person separately. It was the design of our reformers to enjoin the delivery of the elements into the hands of each individual: but had they deemed it of importance, as is the case with some persons in the present day, that the words should be repeated to each person, or had they intended that they should be so repeated, they would have framed a Rubric, respecting which no difference of opinion could have possibly arisen, as is the case with respect to kneeling and the delivery of the elements, and several other Rubrics in other parts of the Liturgy. Undoubtedly the Archdeacon of Bath has a right to put that construction on the words which he has advanced in his recent charge; but he has no right in such a case to step forward and say that the words will bear no other interpretation, which he has done. No man has any right to force his own interpretation of a defective Rubric on another. I call the Rubric in question defective, because the framers have not said in plain terms that the words are to be repeated to each individual. The Minister is ordered to receive the communion in both kinds first himself; but the form of words to be used when taking it himself is not prescribed. Will the Archdeacon of Bath settle this question ?—will he declare that one view only can be taken of this matter? Will he assert that there is no variation in the particular expressions used by different clergymen? Will he say that there is strict uniformity in practice on this point? I contend, therefore, that where the Rubrics are not sufficiently explicit, or where they are capable of two senses, every Minister is left to his own judgment in the matter. No one is at liberty to violate the Rubrics which are plain and obvious; but in cases in which it cannot be positively declared that one particular mode is the only one that can be adopted, every Clergyman must use his own discretion.

The Archdeacon alludes to the last clause in the preface concerning the service of the Church, and argues that in all doubtful cases we are bound to apply to the Ordinary. This position I fully admit. What, however, is the language of the clause in question ? "The parties who doubt" may appeal to the Bishop. If, therefore, a Clergyman is in doubt about the Sacramental Rubric, he may appeal to the Bishop, and be guided by his judgment; but he is not bound to apply to the Ordinary whenever any captious parishioner takes offence at his mode of administering the communion, nor even when an Archdeacon or any other Clergyman may take a different view from himself, while no doubt exists in his own mind. The appeal to the Ordinary is permitted for the solution of his own doubts; but he is not called upon to appeal in consequence of the doubts of others.*

* The Clergy need not appeal to the Bishop unless they themselves are in doubt. The Bishop's opinion, however, was ascertained, and he stated that under such circumstances as are common in some churches and chapels in this city, it would be impossible to repeat the words to each communicant, and that consequently the practice censured by the Archdeacon was allowable. Here

The conclusion, therefore, to which I come relative to my first position is this, namely, that the Rubric is one respecting which different Clergymen may entertain different views, and that it is not so clear and explicit as to admit of one interpretation only.

Secondly. I contend that the framers of the Rubric in question never intended that it should admit only of one interpretation. They evidently intended that the question should be left undecided, in order that the Clergy might be at liberty, in large parishes and with numerous communicants, to act according to the exigencies of the case.

During the early period of the Reformation, both in the time of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth, the communicants were very numerous-much more numerous than at present. Indeed the great mass of the congregations in many churches were communicants. At that time most of those who attended the churches were deeply concerned for their souls. It is well known, too, that in those days it was the practice to commence the evening service as early as two o'clock. How then would it have been possible in large churches, as in St. Paul's and some others, (when, too, sermons were by no means short, but the preacher's glass was often permitted to run out), to have repeated the words to each communicant? How could the church have been used for evening service? The conclusion is obvious: the Clergy did not in those days repeat the prescribed words to each person, unless the communicants were few. Had they done so the evening service must in many cases have been dispensed with altogether.

But I proceed to establish my second position; and in doing this I shall notice the variations which this Rubric has undergone. In the First Liturgy of King Edward, A.D. 1549, the Rubrics stand thus :"And when he delivereth the Sacrament of the body of Christ, he shall say to every one these words." So of the wine:-" And the Minister delivering the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and giving every one to drink once and no more shall say." Every one knows that the Reformers revised this book, for several things were retained which savoured rather of popery. In 1552 the second book of King Edward was published, in which the Rubric is couched in the following words:-" And when he delivereth the bread he shall say." "And the Minister that delivereth the cup shall say." In this state did the Rubric remain until the review in 1661, when the words " one" were added. The Liturgy was reviewed on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, again on the accession of James I., and then in 1661; yet the direction was not made more explicit. It is not possible to conceive that there was no variation in the practice of the Clergy at the respective periods when the reviews were effected; nor is it possible to suppose that the parties engaged in these reviews would not have settled the question for ever by an explicit Rubric, if they had not intended that the matter should be left to the judgment of the Clergy.* I would

any

then we have the decision of the Archdeacon in opposition to that of the Bishop. * I will put a simple case by way of illustration. Suppose the Book of Common Prayer were to be now reviewed, and, when reviewed, set forth by Convocation

also refer to the Puritan controversy as carried on during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. as reflecting considerable light on the subject, and supporting my position. Many charges were brought against the Puritans of irregularity in administering the Sacrament, such as delivering the elements to the communicants in their seats, and not at the rails, and giving them to the parties in a sitting position instead of requiring them to kneel; but the charge of irregularity in not repeating the words to each person was never alleged, which most assuredly would have been the case if the Churchmen of that day had not considered the Rubric capable of different interpretations, and, moreover, if they had not viewed the matter as indifferent

The argument in favour of my position derived from the consideration of the Puritan controversy is, in my judgment, irresistible; and I am astonished that this matter should be overlooked by any one filling an official station, who stands up to pronounce a decision on the Rubric in question. An Archdeacon may give an opinion in any doubtful case, but he cannot be at liberty to pronounce an authoritative decision; nor ought he to venture publicly a strong opinion without a previous examination of the subject in all its bearings. The Puritan controversy is of immense importance in settling the point at issue. The Puritans were very irregular in their practices, and it is notorious that they had no settled form of administering the Sacrament in their own body-it is as notorious as any other historical fact, and Archdeacon Brymer ought to have been aware of it. Yet the Puritans, though often cited before the Bishops and into the Ecclesiastical Courts, were never charged with irregularity in not repeating the words to each perNow what is the obvious inference from this circumstance ? It is this: that it was not irregular not to repeat the words to each individual, and, moreover, that it was not viewed as irregular by the rulers of the Church during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. It is often asserted that it ever was the practice to repeat the words to each perbut the evidence of history proves the contrary, as Archdeacon Brymer ought to have ascertained previous to the delivery of his charge. The practice with the Puritans was to take the elements to the communicants their seats, and in some churches this irregularity was continued subsequent to the restoration. Nay, when Dr. Hook recently took possession of his church at Leeds he found that this irregularity was still practised there, where it had been continued from the days of the Commonwealth. These facts are conclusive against those who assert that it was always customary to repeat the words to each person; for if such had been the view of the Church, the practice would not have continued uncensured during the primacy of Archbishop Laud.

son.

son,

and by Parliament; and suppose, after all that has been said, and after all the variety as to practice, the Rubric in question were left in the same state, what would be the obvious conclusion? Certainly that the question should be left undecided, and that each Clergyman should follow his own judgment. Let this argument be applied to the last review. No one can say that no difference in practice had existed previous to 1661. As then the Commissioners did not settle the question by an explicit Rubric, it is evident that they intended to leave the matter undetermined.

In none of his articles of inquiry does that Prelate censure those who did not repeat the words to each person. And in the canons of 1640, so well known as being among the causes of the civil war, there is no provision on the subject, though the practice of carrying the elements about the church is expressly alluded to and censured in the sixth Canon. These circumstances taken together furnish a body of evidence in favour of my position so strong that the Archdeacon of Bath can never successfully resist it.

Another species of proof that the Churchmen of former days took the same view which I have now advanced, is derived from the "Book of Common Prayer for the Use of the Church of Scotland," published A.D. 1637. This book was submitted to the revision of Archbishop Laud. The Rubrics respecting the elements are as follows:- "And when he receiveth himself or delivereth the bread to others, he shall say this benediction." So of the cup"And the Presbyter or Minister that receiveth the cup himself, or delivereth it to others, shall say this benediction." Now I argue from these Rubrics that, in the judgment of that celebrated prelate, it was not deemed necessary to repeat the words to each, or he would have so framed the Rubrics, that one interpretation only could have been put upon them yet they are more uncertain than those of our own Liturgy. If Archdeacon Brymer's view is correct, then, according to the Scotch Liturgy, the Minister must address himself as he addresses the other communicants, and use the words, even when receiving himself, "for thee," "thy body," "thy heart," for it will be seen that the Rubrics just quoted enjoin exactly the same words for the Minister as for the people. I can scarcely imagine that Archbishop Laud addressed himself as he would address another person when administering the elements to himself. Yet such must have been the case, if the Archdeacon of Bath's view is correct. me it is perfectly clear that in the time of Laud it was not deemed necessary to repeat the words separately to each person.*

To

But will not the Rubric in The Order of Confirmation reflect additional light on the subject? It is as follows:- "He shall lay his hand upon the head of every one severally, saying." What interpretation is put on this Rubric by our Bishops? Do they interpret it as the Archdeacon of Bath interprets the Rubric in the Communion Service? No! Their practice is evidence that they interpret it with a certain latitude, just as I interpret the Rubric in the office for the Communion : for they place their hands on the whole number, or on two or on four, and then stand and pronounce the words, substituting the plural for the singular. Such is the invariable practice of our Bishops, and yet the

* It is assumed by some individuals that the practice of repeating the words to more than one person is of recent origin: but there is no foundation for such an opinion. I could point to churches where from time immemorial, under successive incumbents, the elements have been delivered to two or three, or even to four persons during one repetition of the words. I also know some parishes, where it has been the custom for the officiating Minister to hold a cup in each hand and to give each cup to a communicant while repeating the prescribed words. Uniformity of practice in the mode of administering the elements never did exist in our Church, as may easily be proved by going into any given number of parishes and inquiring how the sacrament was administered thirty, or forty, or fifty years ago.

Rubric is somewhat more explicit than the one to which this discussion refers. The fact is, that the Rubric was framed so as to suit one individual case whenever the Bishop may administer the rite to a single person as is sometimes done; but our Prelates feel themselves at liberty to vary the form, when numbers are confirmed and the very same observations are applicable to the Sacramental Rubric. By the Bishops, therefore, the interpretation here advocated, and not Archdeacon Brymer's, is put upon the Rubric in the Order of Confirmation; and why will not the Sacramental Rubric bear this interpretation as well as that which is put upon it by the Venerable Archdeacon? If a Bishop chose to repeat the words in the Confirmation Service to each person, he might do so: but his doing so would not render it necessary for all his brethren to adopt the same practice; nor does the view taken. by the Archdeacon of Bath of the Sacramental Rubric render it necessary for all his brethren to agree with him or to concur with him in practice.*

Further, in the office for The Churching of Women, it is not intimated by a Rubric, nor by placing the words this woman and thy servant in a different character, that the Minister is to substitute the plural for the singular when several women are churched at the same time. What line of conduct does the Archdeacon pursue when several women appear in his own church to return thanks after childbirth ? Does he read the Office to each woman separately? Or does he use the singular number though several are placed before him? For after what he has stated relative to the substitution of the plural for the singular in the Communion Service, no one can, for one moment, imagine that he would be so inconsistent as to adopt the plural number in the Service for The Churching of Women, since there is no Rubric nor any change of character to sanction the innovation. I wish to be informed, however, what the Archdeacon's practice is in this matter. If it should be found (though I can scarcely suppose such a thing) that he does use the plural for the singular in the Service in question, it must be admitted that he has passed a sentence of condemnation on himself.†

* It is remarkable that none of our eminent ritualists allude, in the slightest way, to the question. They do not even give an opinion as to whether the Rubric is perfectly clear or otherwise; nor do they state whether the words must be repeated to one person only. It is evident that they all view the Rubric in question as one which admits of more than one interpretation; and, acting the part of modest men, they pass by the subject without remark of any kind. No other view will account for the silence of Wheatly, who, in almost all other cases, descends to the minutest particulars. Le Strange, and Sharp, and Bishop Sparrow also are totally silent on the subject; and, besides these able writers, there are none whose opinions can be much regarded.

I should have no objection whatever to submitting the matter to the decision of the Court of Arches. Let the Archdeacon bring the case fairly into that Court, and I pledge myself to produce evidence, or to take care that Counsel be instructed to produce evidence, of such a nature that the Court could not, and would not, pronounce a decision in favour of the Archdeacon's view. I do not say that the Court would pronounce an authoritative decision in my favour. The probability is, that, in a doubtful case, the Court would evade a decision; but I am convinced that no Judge would ever pronounce an opinion in favour of the Archdeacon's view after hearing the statements which the opposing Counsel would be prepared to produce.