r

turgic writers do, though properly all the four paragraphs at the head of this Office make but one Rubric) the Minister seems to have power given him, to deny the Sacrament upon his own per"sonal knowledge of the party's unfitness to receive "it. There is only one instance indeed of this unfitness there mentioned, viz. in cases where he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, in which cases he is to use the same order as before, of admonishing, and upon obstinacy of excluding " from the Communion. And this too without regard to the notoriety of the malice, or the offence given thereby to the congregation. And, by parity of reason, what he is allowed to do upon his "own knowledge in one case, he may be presumed "to have the liberty of doing in any other that is parallel; that is, where he himself is equally con"vinced that he has a just and sufficient cause, according to the Canons, to refuse the Sacrament, though at the same time he cannot produce any legal testimony of the crime for which he debars "the party from communicating.

66

66

66

66

Hence then arises another question different "from the former: viz. Whether a Minister ought "at any time, by denying the Sacrament, to pass a "public and open censure upon secret crimes, to "which none are privy but the parties and himself, "and that perhaps by accident, as may be, and "sometimes hath been declared to be the case?

To this it hath been said, and I think justly, that

66 every

every Minister in the public exercise of his office represents the Church, and is therefore to exclude none from the Sacraments, but such only as by "the laws of the Church he is expressly required to "exclude. That when he is secretly, and in his private capacity, apprized of any just impediment "in any person, though he ought most solemnly "to admonish him to refrain, nay, and ought to " withhold from him a private Communion, (be"cause in that case he is allowed himself to judge "of any just impediment) yet, when he celebrates "in public, he is bound to admit such offending person offering himself, at his own peril; foras"much as the Church is yet ignorant of any crime

or default, for which, according to her rules, the "Communion is to be withheld. That he doth by "his previous admonition liberare animam suam ; "and if the delinquent will still venture to obtrude himself, after such warning given, his blood will "be upon his own head; that is, he only, like other

hypocrites who receive unworthily, will be con"demned for his presumption; while the Minister

shall be held guiltless, having done all that was "incumbent upon him, and indeed all that he could "warrant, to prevent such profanation of the holy mysteries. And this is agreeable to the old Canon law, which did not give Ministers a discretionary power of repelling in such cases. Etiam criminosus, &c. Even a great offender offering himself to partake of the Sacrament is not to be rejected, but taken aside, and seriously exhorted to

66

forbear: Which the Canonists, the later ones especially, interpret of secret and occult crimes, "known to the Minister, but not notorious, or mat"ter of public scandal +.

"To countenance this way of reasoning the in"stance of Judas is brought, whom our Saviour "suffered to partake of the first Supper and Com"munion with his other Disciples; though at the

same time our Lord himself, who administered, "knew the traitor to be absolutely unworthy so sa"cred and divine an institution.

"Which instance indeed would be much to the purpose, were it not liable to two exceptions. "The first is, that it is not a certain and acknow

ledged truth, that Judas did partake of the Sa"crament of the Lord's last Supper. And though "the Compilers of our Liturgy seem to have taken "this for granted, as appears by some expressions "in one of the exhortations in the Communion "Office, where it is said, lest, after taking of that

holy Sacrament, the Devil enter into you as he "entered into Judas; and consequently by our as"sent and consent to the Common-Prayer-Book we

seem to have admitted this for an undoubted "fact; yet the expression doth not necessarily require such construction to be put upon it, but "may be grammatically understood without that supposition.

* EXTR. de Off. Ord. cap. Si Sacerd.

+ LINW. Prov. de Sacr. Unct.

See L'ESTRANGE on one side, and Dr. BENNET on the other.

"The

"The other exception against this instance of "Judas is, that, granting he did partake with the "other Disciples at the institution of the Sacrament, "yet it doth not follow by any necessary conse

Fr

quence, that our Lord's admission of him is any "warrant for his Ministers to admit hypocrites to "the Eucharist. He suffers the wicked even now "to approach his altar, when no power in the "Church can restrain them. But we cannot from "thence argue, that the Pastors of his Church may "therefore permit them so to do, supposing them

privy to their guilt, and well ascertained of their "unworthiness, however secretly or accidentally "they might come by that knowledge.

But, although for these reasons I think no "stress should be laid on this instance of Judas, yet if any Clergyman can satisfy his own mind "in acting upon this distinction, and can persuade " himself that he may lawfully do, in his public

capacity, what he would not do if he thought "himself at liberty to follow his private judgment; " and that to administer the Sacrament to a person "whom he believes unworthy of it, after sufficient "admonition to deter him from it, is no wilful pros❝titution or profanation of it in himself; I say if he "is thus persuaded, I do not see that there is any "thing express enough in this Rubric to oblige him to refuse it in such a case. Malice and hatred are the only offences which the order directly points to, and those too, such as reign, are pre"dominant and implacable, which it is strange if

they be not likewise notorious and offensive to the congregation as well to the Minister. And the "true reason why the Compilers of the Rubric did "not give any express allowance to the Clergy to "exclude from the Communion for occult crimes at "their own discretion, might be for fear of an abuse "that such liberty would be liable to in the hands of

weak men, capable of being swayed by their pri"vate passions and resentments, in the administra"tion of the most solemn Ordinances.

"But it doth not follow, that they are therefore "bound in all cases to administer it, saving those

in which they are prohibited expressly. No doubt "there is an use of their discretion left them, and "some cases may arise so circumstantiated, that it "will go directly against a Clergyman's conscience "to administer the Sacrament; in which cases, as "I before observed, he lies under an obligation to "discharge his duty, superior to that which he owes "to Rubric or Acts of Parliament: And though he "cannot perhaps discharge it with safety if the "statutes be interpreted rigorously; yet it is better "to fall into the hands of men, and patiently suffer temporal inconveniences, than fall with a sin of "presumption into the hands of God.

"The conclusion here then is the same as in the "former point, viz. that every Minister must be his "own judge and guide in extraordinary occurrences "which come not within the letter or supposed "meaning of the rules that are set him by authority for his direction. Only it will greatly concern

5

" him