the due administration of the sacrament. alterations were as follows:

The principal of these

1. The omission of the introit, or proper psalm appointed for each Sunday or holiday, and which, from its being said or sung when the priest first made his entrance within the rail of the altar, was called introitus, or introit.

2. The discontinuance of the oblation of the bread and wine by the priest, who was directed in the First Book to place them himself upon the altar, which order was omitted in the Second Book.

3. The discontinuance of the mixed cup.

4. The omission of the thanksgiving for the example of the saints in the prayer for the whole state of Christ's church.

5. The limiting of that prayer to the living by the addition of the words "militant here in earth," and by the omission of the latter part of the prayer, in which those "who are departed from us with the sign of faith, and now rest in the sleep of peace," were commended to God.

6. The omission of the petition in the consecration prayer, that God would bless and sanctify with his Holy Spirit and word these his creatures of bread and wine; the discontinuance of the crossing in that prayer, and the omission of the direction to the priest to take the bread and cup into his hands.

7. The omission of the commemoration of the death of Christ, which followed the consecration of the elements.

8. The forming the petition for the acceptance of this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the oblation of ourselves, and the petition for the worthy receiving of the communion which followed this commemoration, into a separate prayer, and placing it in the post communion service, as it stands at present.

9. The omission of the petition at the conclusion of this prayer, that God would command our prayers and supplications to be brought up into his holy tabernacle by the ministry of his holy angels.

10. The substitution of the last half of our present form at the delivery of the elements for the first half.

11. The omission of a rubric at the end of the service, directing that the bread to be used in the communion should be unleavened, and made in a particular form.

12. The omission of another rubric, directing that the people should receive the bread in their mouths from the priest's hands, and the restoration of the primitive practice of delivering it into their hands.

Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the propriety of some of these alterations, it can hardly be denied that the effect of them altogether was to lower the holy communion into little more than a merely commemorative rite, with no proper oblation or consecration of the elements, and with a novel form at the delivery of them, introduced apparently with the intention of doing away with the opinion that there is in the communion a real participation of the body and blood of Christ.

Upon the accession of Mary, both the acts of 1548 and 1552 were repealed, and the use of the English liturgy abolished.

On the accession of Elizabeth, a committee of divines was appointed to review the two books of Edward VI., and to frame from them both a liturgy for the use of the church. After some debate it was decided to establish the Second Book, with some few alterations. The only alterations of any consequence in the communion service were, the uniting of the two forms of the First and Second Books, at the delivery of the elements, into one, as it stands at present; and the omission of the explanation at the end of the Second Book, respecting the kneeling at the receiving of the communion.

No alteration, that I am aware of, was made in the communion service at the review of the liturgy in James the First's time; but either at this or in that of Elizabeth the word "minister" was generally substituted for "priest."

Immediately after the Restoration, a commission was appointed, empowering twelve bishops and twelve presbyterian divines, including Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich, with nine assistants on each side, to revise the liturgy. These commissioners met at the Bishop of London's (Sheldon) lodgings in the Savoy; but not being able to agree, the conference broke up without any result. Some alterations were proposed by the episcopal divines, which the May following were considered and agreed to by the convocation. The alterations which were made at this review in the communion service tended greatly to restore the primitive doctrine and practice respecting that sacrament. The principal of them are the following:

1. The order, that when there is a communion the priest should himself place upon the Lord's table (after presenting and placing upon it the alms which had been collected) so much bread and wine as he should think sufficient for the communicants, was restored; and the word "oblations" inserted after "alms," in the prayer for the whole state of Christ's church. By this alteration the oblation of the elements, which had been for so many years omitted, was restored and enjoined and it becomes those of the clergy who are in the habit of neglecting this injunction, and of allowing the bread and wine to be placed upon the Lord's table before the beginning of the service by the clerk, or other official, to consider well what excuse they can make for omitting this important part of the service, or (if unhappily they do not themselves attach importance to the oblation of the elements) for refusing to comply with a rubric which has, in itself, nothing difficult or inexpedient, and to which it is plain our church attaches considerable importance.

2. The commemoration of the faithful dead was restored in a general form at the end of the prayer for Christ's church; the words, "and we also bless thy holy name for all thy servants," &c., being then added to the foregoing petitions.

3. The two exhortations which, up to that time, had been used on the days of celebration of the communion, were altered, and appointed to be used on the Sunday, or some holiday, immediately preceding the day of celebration; the practice which these exhortations, in their former state, adverted to, of persons not intending to communicate remaining in the church during the celebration of the communion,

which had grown up in Roman-catholic times, having then probably ceased.

4. In the exhortation, "ye that do truly and earnestly repent," &c., the words "with faith" were added to the invitation to "draw near and take this holy sacrament;" and the people were exhorted simply to make their humble confession to Almighty God, the words "before this congregation gathered together in his holy name," which occurred in the old form, and which seemed to sanction the presence of noncommunicants, being omitted.

5. The general confession was directed to be made, in the name of all those that are minded to receive the holy communion, by "one of the ministers," instead of, as before, " either by one of them" (i. e., of the communicants), "or else by the minister himself”—a permission for the introduction of which into the First Book of Edward VI., and its continuance through all the previous reviews of the liturgy, it is impossible to account.

6. The rubric before the prayer of consecration, "When the priest, standing before the table," &c., was added. In the former book it was only "then the minister standing up shall say as followeth."

7. The directions in the First Book of Edward VI., about taking the bread and the cup into the priest's hands, were restored, with the addition of those of his breaking the bread, and the laying of his hands upon the bread, and upon every vessel in which there is any wine to be consecrated. The rubric also, after the communion for the consecrating of more bread and wine, in case that which had been consecrated should be all spent before all have communicated, was added. By these alterations we have now a perfectly valid and sufficient consecration of the elements, so that how much soever any persons might prefer the form in the First Book of Edward VI., they may nevertheless be satisfied that they have in the present form all that is absolutely essential.

8. The rubric, "when all have communicated, the minister shall return to the Lord's table," &c., was inserted; and an addition was made to the rubric at the end of the service, which directed that the curate should have what remained of the bread and wine for his own use, for the purpose of shewing further reverence to the consecrated elements. In the former book this rubric was only, "if any of the bread and wine remain, the curate shall have it to his own use." This was altered to, "if any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated," &c., and the latter part, "but if any remain of that which was consecrated," &c., was added. By this addition, the consecration of the elements, and the consequent impropriety of putting them to any common use, which had been permitted by the former rubric, was acknowledged and enforced.

9. The explanation respecting kneeling, which occurred at the end of the Second Book of Edward VI., and which had been omitted by Elizabeth, probably with a view to conciliate the Roman catholics, who were offended by the declaration which it contained against the adoration of the Host, was restored; but the expression "real and VOL. XIV.-Dec. 1838. 5 H

essential presence" in that declaration was altered into " corporal

presence.

Several other alterations of less importance may be observed on comparing the two forms; in particular, the word "priest" is, in most places, substituted for "minister," and "the whole church," for "the whole congregation," in the first collect for the king. The priest is also directed to pronounce this absolution," instead of merely say thus;" to turn to the Lord's table before the repeating of the trisagion, &c. All of these alterations, though slight in themselves, yet tended to the same object, the reviving of primitive notions.

66 to

Every churchman must see great reason to be thankful for these various alterations; and although I may still, as an individual, prefer, upon the whole, the form in the First Book of Edward VI., yet, at the same time, I am disposed to think that we have reason not merely to be contented with our present form, but to feel satisfied that it is better for us that the first form was not entirely restored. There can be no doubt but that many particulars of that form, however unobjectionable they may in reality be, would have been very much assailed in the present day, and have afforded what to many persons would appear a more reasonable ground than any which can now be produced for a revision of the liturgy,-an event which could hardly fail, under present circumstances, to be productive of serious injury to the church.

Such being the case, it is surely our duty to be very cautious how we find fault with our present form. It contains everything that can be proved to be necessary to the due celebration of the holy communion; and we all have it in our power to make any additions which we may think desirable by secret prayer. In most respects, however, it will bear comparison for beauty and propriety of expression, and for energy of devotion, with any other form existing in the world; and truly grateful ought we to be to those holy men who, by God's blessing, have delivered it to us.

H.

ON THE RUBRIC OF THE COMMUNION SERVICE.

MY DEAR SIR,-Your correspondent "On the term Altar and Church Homage," in the November number of the British Magazine, appears to me to have taken a wrong view of the intention of the words "Draw near" in the exhortation to confession in the communion service. He considers that the congregation should go from their seats towards the altar when the invitation beginning with the words "Draw near" &c. has been read.

This is the practice in some churches, and wherever I have witnessed it I have invariably remarked that it has been productive of great confusion, as only a small portion of the communicants can at one time follow the concluding injunction, "meekly kneeling on their knees," while the rest must continue standing throughout the remainder of the service until it comes to their turn to kneel at the table, which arrangement is manifestly both inconvenient and inconsistent.

But the rubric preceding the general exhortation, commencing, "Dearly beloved in the Lord," &c., orders that, "at the time of the celebration of the communion, the communicants being conveniently placed for the receiving the holy sacrament, the priest shall say this exhortation." I have underlined the words "being conveniently placed," because I think that they quite as fully imply that there should be no subsequent movement on the part of the communicants previously to their communicating, as that the words "Draw near" &c. imply a movement in consequence.

The communicants cannot literally be conveniently placed for the receiving the holy sacrament if they have to move again previously to their doing so, which they must do even if they stand about the table, as they are compelled to wait until the foregoing set of communicants have retired, when they take their places, and so on until all have communicated. I therefore think that the plan most in accordance with the instructions in the rubrics is that usually adopted, in which the congregation arrange themselves in the seats in the more immediate neighbour. hood of the altar, whereby less disturbance is caused in walking to and fro, and there wait for a fitting opportunity, when they may approach a few at a time, according to the number the table will accommodate; and that the words "Draw near" are a general injunction to approach the table, there to receive the elements, instead of waiting, as had been the practice, until they were brought to them in their seats by the minister, which appears even by your correspondent's own shewing; or rather, that they are subsidiary to the words "with faith," advising, without reference to time, the proper spirit in which persons are to approach and partake of the holy communion.

Your correspondent's true remark, that "there is much difference in the time at which congregations in different churches go from their seats towards the altar at the celebration of the communion," has induced me to trouble you with these observations, knowing at the same time that you permit a portion of your Magazine to be the medium of amicable discussion upon topics of this description.

I remain, dear Sir, yours very truly,

E. J.

PRESBYTERIAN MODE OF ADMINISTERING THE COMMUNION.

SIR, Allow a correspondent to thank Dr. Hook for the very clear and satisfactory statement of the recent occurrence in the church at Leeds, which Socinianizing churchmen have so cruelly misrepresented against him and others who entertain scriptural views of the sacrament of the Lord's supper. By their way of treating this occurrence, the "Recordites" have shewn their utter ignorance, or their wilful disregard, of the doctrines and principles of the catholic church. The occurrence, and the dust and noise which have been so unnecessarily raised respecting it, are likely to do good in more places than Leeds, to excite serious inquiry, and in the end to lead to a more correct view respecting the mysteriously solemn nature of the eucharistic feast