A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

The whole communion office consists of four parts. First, a more general preparation to the communion, and as either common to the whole congregation in the exercise of, 1. Repentance, by the Lord’s Prayer, the collect for Purity, and the ten commandments. 2. Holy desires, by the collects for the King and the Day. 3. Of obedience, by the hearing of the Epistle and Gospel. 4. Of faith, by repeating the Creed. 5. Of charity, by the Offertory and the prayer for the holy Catholic Church: or else this general preparation is proper to those who ought to communicate, namely, the warning before the communion, and the exhortation to it. Secondly, there is the more immediate preparation, contained in, 1. The proper instructions, in the exhortation at the communion, and the immediate invitation. 2. The form of acknowledging our offences, in the confession. 3. The means of insuring our pardon, by the absolution, and the sentences. 4. The exciting our love and gratitude, in the preface, and the hymn called Trisagium. Thirdly, there is the celebration of the mystery, consisting of, 1. The communicant’s humble approach, in the address. 2. The minister’s blessing the elements, in the prayer of consecration. 3. His distributing them according to the form of administration. Lastly, there is the post-communion, containing, 1. Prayers and vows, in the Lord’s Prayer, the first and second prayers after the Communion. 2. Praises and thanksgiving, in the Gloria in excelsis. 3. The dismission by the final blessing.—Dean Comber.

This service is called “The Communion Service” in the liturgy; and well it were that the piety of the people were such as to make it always a communion. The Church, as appears by her pathetical exhortation before the communion, and the rubric after it, labours to bring men oftener to communicate than she usually obtains. Private and solitary communions, of the priest alone, she allows not; and therefore, when others cannot be had, she appoints only so much of the service as relates not of necessity to a present communion, and that to be said at the holy table: and upon good reason; the Church thereby keeping, as it were, her ground, visibly minding us of what she desires and labours towards, our more frequent access to that holy table: and in the mean while, that part of the service, which she uses, may perhaps more fitly be called “the second service” than “the communion.” And so it is often called, though not in the rubric of the liturgy, yet in divers fast-books, and the like, set out by authority. If any should think, that it cannot properly be called the second service, because the morning service and Litany go before it, which indeed are two distinct services,—whereby this should seem to be the third, rather than the second service,—it is answered, that sometimes the communion service is used upon such days as the Litany is not; and then it may, without question, be called the second service. Nay, even then, when the Litany and all is used, the communion service may be very fitly called the second service; for though, in strictness of speech, the Litany is a service distinct, yet in our usual acceptation of the word service,—namely, for a complete service with all the several parts of it, psalms, readings, creeds, thanksgivings, and prayers,—so the Litany is not a service, nor so esteemed, but called “the Litany,” or supplications; and looked upon sometimes, when other offices follow, as a kind of preparative, though a distinct form, to them, as to the Communion, Commination, &c. And therefore it was a custom in some churches, that a bell was tolled while the Litany was saying, to give notice to the people that the communion service was now coming on.—Bp. Sparrow.

Of the many compellations given to this sacrament in former ages, our Church has very wisely thought fit to retain these two (namely, the exhortation before and the rubric after the communion service) in her public service, as those which are most ancient and scriptural. As for the name of “the Lord’s supper,” which name the Papists cannot endure to have this sacrament called by, because it destroys their notion of a sacrifice, and their use of private mass, we find this given to it, as its proper name in the apostles’ time, by St. Paul himself, “when ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” (1 Cor. xi. 20.) And this name is frequently given to it by ancient writers. So for “the communion;” this is plainly another scriptural name of the same holy sacrament. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Which name is given to it, partly, because by this we testify our communion with Christ our Head; partly, because it unites us together with all our fellow-Christians; partly, because all good Christians have a right to partake of it; hence, with St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, “to communicate” is the common word to express the participation of this sacrament.—Dr. Nicholls.

The reason why it is enjoined that notice shall be given to the minister when we intend to communicate is, that the minister of the parish may have time to inform himself of the parties who design to receive: so that, if there be any among them who are not duly qualified, he may persuade them to abstain for some time; or, in case of their refusal, repel them. Now, in several cases, persons may be unqualified to partake of this sacrament, either by the prescript of God’s word, or by the canons of the Church.

1. A want or a contempt of the rite of confirmation unqualifies persons to receive; for the rubric of the Common Prayer, which is confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, says, “No one shall be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” This is agreeable to the provisions of the ancient Church; and the only reasonable impediment to confirmation is the want of a bishop near the place.

2. Persons excommunicate, or who are doing penance by church censure for any notorious fault, are unqualified to receive; for such persons are shut out from the communion, and therefore called excommunicate.

3. Persons under phrensy are unqualified to partake of the holy communion. And all persons, under the foregoing want of qualification, may lawfully be refused admission to the communion by the minister; for the ecclesiastical law imposes great penalties upon the minister, who shall give them the communion in such cases.

4. A person may be unqualified by notorious wickedness, or flagitiousness of life. But of this more in the next note.—Dr. Nicholls.

In the primitive times, when discipline was strictly maintained, all such persons, as soon as known, were put under censure; but if, before censure, they offered themselves at the communion, they were repelled. And indeed such severe discipline might not be amiss, whilst it was grounded only upon piety and zeal for God’s honour, as it was in those devout times. But, afterwards, some persons being debarred from the communion out of private pique and resentment, an imperial injunction prohibited all, both bishops and presbyters, from shutting out any one from the communion, before just cause be shown that the holy canons do give them power so to do. And the canon law did not allow a discretionary power to the priest to thrust away every ill person from the sacrament: “a vicious person, offering himself to receive the communion, is not to be expelled, but is to be carried privately aside, and to be exhorted not to receive the communion.” Indeed the later canonists did interpret this only of occult crimes, and such as were not generally known; allowing only persons “notoriously guilty” to be expelled; and of this opinion were the compilers of our rubrics in Edward the Sixth’s time, as appears from their wording this rubric, “If any be an open and notorious evil liver,” &c. But, however, they limited this discretionary power of the minister, obliging him, even in “notorious” crimes, to “admonish” such persons first to abstain, and only upon obstinacy to repel. But, nevertheless, this formerly gave occasion to several exceptions and disputes; and therefore, in the last revision of the Common Prayer, repulsion was not left to the absolute power of the minister, but he was obliged to give notice thereof to the diocesan, and to take his advice therein. And still it remains so uncertain, what is “notoriety,” both in presumption, law, and fact, that a minister is not out of danger of transgressing his rule, if, before judicial conviction of a crime, he goes further than admonishing any person to abstain.—Dr. Nicholls. Our law in England will not suffer the minister to judge any man as a notorious offender, but him who is convicted by some legal sentence.—Bp. Andrewes.

Notoriety in fact is one thing, and notoriety in presumption is another. And in either case it should be a notoriety in law too, to indemnify the minister for proceeding upon the rubric, or to render him safe, in point of law, for repelling any person from the communion.