ter the holy sacrament to two communicants at once, addressing them, of course, in the plural number.'—p. 27.

This is mighty well for the two cups!-but the bread is also to be delivered; and when the minister had a paten of bread in each hand, he would need two hands more to deliver that element. Why, to be sure, that is a difficulty! But Mr. Price, with great ingenuity, adds a note at the foot of the page, which sets all right:

'With regard to the delivery of the consecrated bread to two communicants at once, the best mode, I think, would be for the priest to deliver the bread to one communicant at the words "Take and eat this;" and to the other, at the words "and feed on him in thy heart."

2

The absurdity of these schemes is so great, that our observations, if we were to enter into details, would have an air of levity which-though the fault would not be ours-we are anxious to avoid; and we shall, therefore, only say, that these worthy gentlemen need not take such extraordinary precautions on this point, for if their earlier propositions be adopted, we think we can engage that their altars will not be surrounded by an inconvenient number of communicants.

But, after all, what is the amount of the inconvenience? The extreme delay alleged is three-quarters of an hour; but suppose it were twice as much; when does it occur?-only in very populous parishes, and not more, we fear, than two or three times in the year! and on an occasion so rare and so solemn, where a pause for self-examination and devout contemplation is essentially necessary, nay, where it is absolutely enjoined, we cannot think that three-quarters of an hour, nay, double the period, so spentand for which the communicants come prepared-is such an enormous sacrifice of our precious time.

We learn from these pamphlets that this division of the communicants into gangs or platoons, who are to perform their exercises by one word of command, is already practised in several populous parishes. We are sorry to hear it. We never saw it— if we had, we should certainly have never joined such companies again. And on what ground can such a violation--not of the rubrick alone, but (as we think) of reason and decency-be justified? Could not the minister exhort his congregation to come on different days-for instance, on Good Friday and Easter Day-on Trinity and the following Sunday-on Christmas Day and some neighbouring feast. By a little care of this sort, the duty on any given day might easily be alleviated. But suppose a strong desire is shown to communicate on Easter Sunday or Christmas Day, or any other marked occasion-could there not

be

be two communions on these days (as there now are in many places)? Besides, the numbers are only inconvenient in great parishes the parsons of great parishes are, or ought to be, adequately assisted by curates-great parishes, moreover, are generally rich benefices, and the incumbent, if he and his ordinary curates do not suffice to the work, ought to provide further assistance. If every minister will do his duty, in his own person and by such additional assistance as may be easily procured, there would be rarely even a pretence for the very revolting changes which the reformers propose.

But let us not blind ourselves to the real motive. It is not form, it is doctrine that is struck at-convenience is the pretence, latitudinarianism is the object. The Lord's Supper, the peculiar symbol of Christianity, is to be secularized into a kind of social meeting, at which the guests may kneel, sit, or stand, as they please -or walk about-or, peradventure, lie along the benches*; while suitable persons (the clerk and sexton, for example) might circulate the bread and wine through the assembly, as Mr. Riland proposes -or where, as Mr. Cox suggests, the guests might help themselves. p. 92. Of any decent form or posture, adopted from conscientious motives, and reverently practised by the whole congregation, (as, for example, sitting is in the Church of Scotland,) we do not mean to speak disrespectfully; though we infinitely prefer (for the reasons given in the Anglican rubrick)—the practice of kneeling and individual reception. But if a discretional variety and conflict of modes and attitudes were to be permitted -what scenes-if indeed such practices did not extinguish the sacrament altogether-what scenes might not our churches present ? What bustle, what scrambling, what indecencies, what disorders! Alas, alas! that such devices should even be suggested! But it is a blessing that they are so early and so boldly avowed!

As to the OCCASIONAL SERVICES-though they, like the rest of the book, are the object of innumerable verbal cavils, there are but two points which have even the shadow of importance. One is an objection to the form of absolution in the Visitation of the Sick ;-the other to two expressions in the Burial Service. In the former the minister thus addresses the dying penitent :'Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy, forgive thee thy sins, and by his authority committed to me I

*An anonymous reformer, of the old and consistent school, seems to have doubted whether the Lord's Supper should not be eaten, like the Passover, staff in hand and girt up as for a march; though, on the whole, he inclined to think the recumbent posture was that used by our Saviour and his disciples;-and if we once begin to change, we shall, no doubt, soon have another crazy Henley propounding his wild notions of the Primitive Eucharist.

absolve

absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!'

This,' says Mr. Cox, has been reprobated as an unjustifiable and arrogant elevation of the authority of the priesthood, and the word absolution (which has a grating sound to the ears of many protestants) should be expunged from all the services.'-p. 36. And Mr. Cox's Liturgy accordingly omits, from the absolution in the Morning Service, these words

'Who hath given power and commandment to his minister to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins.'

Here Mr. Cox is, for once, consistent-but as far as we can discover, he stands alone. Yet by what logic can those who affirm in the daily service the power and commandment given to ministers to declare and pronounce absolution,' object in the Visitation Service to the minister's doing what it is acknowledged he is by God not only empowered but commanded to do? But why, they say, should the minister in the latter case give absolution in such special and direct terms, while in the former the expression is studiously general? The answer does not seem to have occurred to any of these critics, yet it is obvious enough. The general form is prescribed for the public service after a general confession. In the Visitation of the Sick the special absolution is to be given after a special confession-the principle is the same, but the form is judiciously varied to suit the varied circumstances. Let us picture the case. See the poor agonized creature on the verge of death, he has unbosomed himself by a special confession of his sins-he is gasping for the words of comfort which may tend to quiet his mental sufferings, and even to alleviate (by tranquillizing his mind) his bodily pain; and then imagine that—instead of those words of special comfort which his special penitence has earned and which his personal peril requires-imagine that he is to be put off with the same general formulary which is pronounced every Sunday from the readingdesk to the whole parish: could we approve such a cold generality, so likely in a sensitive mind-and at that moment all minds are sensitive to produce mental despair and to aggravate bodily danger? But no! our Church, in the true tenderness of Christianity, endeavours to tranquillize and support the sufferer by that direct and personal consolation for which his soul is thirsting! Hear what Jeremy Taylor-assuredly no favourer of poperysays. After citing the various passages of Holy Writ which sanction the forgiveness of sins, he adds,

Particularly that unanswerable one from St. James, (v. 14, &c.)—Let the elders af the Church pray over the sick man, and if he has committed sins they shall be forgiven him.

See also St. John xx. 23,

'As

As to confess sins to any Christian in private may have many good ends, and to confess them to a clergyman may have many more; so to hear God's sentence at the mouth of his minister-pardon pronounced by God's ambassador-is of huge comfort to them that cannot otherwise be comforted, and whose infirmity needs it; and, therefore, it were very fit it were not neglected in the days of our fears and dangers-of our infirmities and sorrow.'-Holy Dying, c. v. § iv.

But there is a most remarkable ingredient in this case which all these reformers have kept out of sight, namely, that the rubrick provides that after the sick person shall have unburdened his conscience, expressed his repentance, made worldly amends for any wrong he may have done, and declared himself to be in charity with all the world,' then,

' if he humbly and heartily desire it, the minister shall absolve him after this sort.'

Here, then, can be no scandal or violence to any conscience;-for the absolution is not to be given, save at the humble and hearty desire' of the penitent himself; and it seems as if the Church wished carefully to provide for the infinite variety of individual cases, by saying the absolution is to be given-not in these words,' but after this sort'—still leaving to the minister—though a form be given for his general guidance-a discretion, to fit it by necessary variations to the individual case.* And, finally, the prayer that follows the absolution inculcates most carefully that it is not an absolute judgment pronounced by the priest, but merely conditional on the reality of the repentance. Reformers may think us blind or bigotted to our habits and prejudices, but we most conscientiously declare that we cannot imagine that human prudence and Christian tenderness were ever more successfully combined than in the whole of this admirable provision.

To the Burial Service there are two objections raised. The first is to the expression—

We give thee hearty thanks for that it has pleased thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world.'

The second is to the phrase

'We commit his body to the ground-earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.'

To the former, it is objected that it is false and hypocritical 'to thank God for removing from us a parent or a friend.' We reply, that it is false and hypocritical to put such a gloss on the words; we thank God for removing the departed, not from our affectionate eyes and hearts, but from the miseries of a sinful world!' If the deceased has been suffering the miseries of a

We know not whether the commentators confirm this interpretation; but reason seems to require, and the expression to justify it. Indeed, it is observable, that the rubricks of this service appear to leave, very wisely, much to occasion and discretion.

sinful world,' the reformer would admit the phrase to be proper ; and such must have been the state of the vast majority over whom the service is to be read. But if he dies in apparent prosperity, (and how much, alas! of human prosperity must be only apparent!) is it wrong to thank God for having, by a happy death, saved him from the risk of suffering the sad reverse-and as a reverse doubly sad—of 'the miseries of this sinful world.' Let the whole of this sublime service be considered-the reformers themselves all agree in its general merits, its pathos, and the topics of consolation it affords to the bereaved mourners'—(Cox, p. 111); — let the whole service, we say, be considered, and it will be seen that it is, from first to last, a pathetic enumeration of the ills of life; every line inculcates consolation by a picture of the miseries of the world. The passage which the reformers would reject is a clear logical consequence of all the rest which they would retain. And these topics of consolation are drawn, not from the events of the physical world or from gospel revelation only, but also from the natural workings of the human heart. Which of us have ever lost a beloved friend, or a darling child, that have not experienced that the usual—we had almost said the common form of consolation-is, that we should be thankful that the dear departed has exchanged a miserable for a better world?-But that expression which is always the first on the tongue of consolation and first in the ear of mourning, our cold-blooded critics would expunge from the last sad and solemn offices of the grave.

Hear, again, the angelic voice of Jeremy Taylor :

'As our life is short, so it is very miserable, and so it is well it is short. God, in pity to man, lest his nature should be an intolerable load, hath reduced our state of misery to an abbreviature. We should in reason be glad '—(not merely thankful, but glad)—' to be out of a place of sorrows and tears, of so great evils and of such constant calamity; and when God sends his angel with a scroll of death, let us look on it as an act of mercy. For a man, at least, gets this by death, that his calamities are not immortal.'-Holy Dying, c. 1, § iv.; c. 2, § vii.

The other objection is of a nature somewhat analogous. How, they ask, can the Church pronounce over the body of a notorious sinner a hope for his resurrection to eternal life?' The Church does no such thing; the phrase is not his resurrection,' but the resurrection, and is only an application to the individual case of the great truth-(which we suppose even Dublinized Reformers will not deny)-of a future state; the subsequent words clearly prove this general meaning:

'-resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body,' &c.—

not