point to the evening of a day rather than the morning。 In the face of
these facts； to denounce evening munion as irreverent and profane is
neither reasonable nor wise。
23。 Is it needful； advantageous； and desirable to receive the Lord's
Supper fasting？
It is certainly not necessary； because the practice is neither
manded nor remended in Scripture。 Moreover； it is perfectly clear
that at the first institution of the sacrament； the Apostles could not
have received the elements fasting； because they had just eaten the
passover。 There cannot； therefore； be anything very important in this
point； and every believer may use his liberty； and do what he finds
edifying to himself without condemning others。 But it may be feared
that there lies in the minds of many who attach immense value to
fasting munion； a vague belief that the consecrated bread and wine
which we receive are in some mysterious way not real bread and wine；
and ought not therefore to be mixed with other food in our bodies！ Such
a belief cannot be praised。 Those who teach that fasting munion is a
rule obligatory on all take up a position which is not only
unscriptural； but cruel。 To go fasting to an early morning munion is
likely to cause the death of delicate persons。
24。 Is it necessary； or desirable； or useful for municants to
confess their sins privately to a minister； and to receive absolution；
before they e to the Lord's Supper？
Necessary it cannot be。 There is not a single verse in the New
Testament to show that the Apostles remended such confession； or
that the first Christians practised it。 Desirable or useful it
certainly is not。 The habit of private or auricular confession to a
minister； under any circumstances； is one of the most mischievous and
dangerous inventions of the corrupt Church of Rome； and has been the
cause of enormous immorality and wickedness。 Moreover； it is so
expressly condemned in the 〃 Homily of Repentance；〃 that no minister of
the Church of England has any right to remend； encourage； or permit
it； if he is honest； and faithful to his ordination VOWS。
25。 But is not private confession before munion sanctioned by that
passage in the munion Service of our Prayer Book； in which the
minister says； 〃If any of you cannot quiet his own conscience； but
requireth further fort or counsel； let him e to me or some other
discreet and learned minister of God's Holy Word； and open his grief；
that by the ministry of God's Word he may receive the benefit of
absolution〃？
It is impossible； with any fairness； to extract auricular confession
and sacramental absolution out of this passage。 The simple meaning is；
that people who are troubled in mind with some special difficulties of
conscience； are advised to go to some minister and talk privately with
him about them； and to get them cleared up and resolved by texts of
Scripture； that is；〃 by the ministry of God's Word。〃 This is exactly
what every wise minister in the present day does with those who seek
private interviews with him； or wait for an after…meeting at the end of
a sermon。 But it is as utterly unlike the mischievous practice of
habitual confession before munion； as wholesome medicine is unlike
opium…eating； and water is unlike poison。
26。 Does a minister do anything wicked or wrong if he pronounces the
words of administration； once in giving the bread and wine to a number
of municants altogether； and not to each one separately he certainly
does nothing wrong according to Scripture。 he does exactly what our
Lord Jesus Christ did when He first instituted the Lord's Supper。 In
each of the four accounts given in the New Testament； He used the
plural number and not the singular。 In each He pronounced the words
once； and only once； and then gave the bread and wine to the whole
pany of the Apostles。 In the face of our Lord's own example； to
blame and condemn ministers who find it necessary to do the same； is
surely not wise。
27。 Does not the rubric of the Prayer Book order that the minister
shall say the words of administration to each municant separately？
Most certainly it does。 Yet reason and mon sense point out that the
pilers of the Prayer Book could not have meant this rubric to be
interpreted and obeyed literally and exactly； when such obedience is
seriously inconvenient； if not impossible。 When a clergyman with only
one curate has to give the elements of bread and wine to 300 or 400
persons； the service must necessarily be so long； that aged and
delicate people are wearied； and any following service is interfered
with； or prevented altogether。 No doubt； when the rubric was drawn up；
parishes were small； municants were few； there were no Sunday
Schools； and few clergymen had more than one full service a day。 Rules
drawn up at that date； under such circumstances； are not to be
rigorously applied to this day； especially when the application injures
the Sunday services； and does more harm than good。
28。 Does any clergyman literally obey all the rubrics of the munion
Service in the Prayer Book？
It is probable that there is not one who obeys then： all； and certainly
no one obeys the four which immediately precede the munion Service。
The order to place the table 〃in the body of the church〃 is never
attended to by any one！ Custom in this matter has pletely overridden
the rubric。 But this being the case； there must evidently be some
discretion allowed in interpreting the munion rubrics。
29。 Are municants more likely to be edified if the words of
administration are said to each one separately； than they are if they
are said to the whole rail collectively？
It is impossible to answer this question。 It is a matter of feeling and
opinion。 It is certain that many municants feel pained and offended
if they do not each hear the words addressed to themselves。 It is
equally certain that many others strongly dislike the incessant
repetition of the words of administration； and especially where seven
or eight ministers are employed； some giving the bread and some the
wine； at the same time。 Many plain that it confuses and distracts
their minds。 On such a point we must think and let think； and not judge
one another。 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind。 The
argument that some clergymen will not repeat the words to each
municant separately； because they hold the doctrine of 〃particular
redemption；〃 is an absurd； baseless； and ignorant suggestion； destitute
of truth。
30。 In receiving the bread and wine； are any bodily actions； attitudes；
or gestures specially obligatory on municants？
None are prescribed in Scripture。 The Apostles at the first institution
of the Lord's Supper were evidently reclining after the manner of the
times。 Kneeling is wisely ordered in the Prayer Book； to use the words
of the rubric： 〃For a signification of our humble and grateful
acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ given in the sacrament to all
worthy receivers； and for the avoiding of profanation and disorder。〃
Whether we should receive the bread with our fingers or upon the open
palm of our hands； seems an open question； which each must decide for
himself。 Let it only be remembered； that to refrain to touch the bread
with our hands； and to require it to be put into our mouths； has a
strong appearance of superstition。 As to bowing down till we almost
grovel on the ground like serfs； it is a posture unworthy of Christ's
freemen； and is a painfully suspicious symptom of ignorance of the real
nature of the consecrated elements。
31。 Does it add to the value and usefulness of the Lord's Supper； or
promote the edification of the municants； to have the sacrament
administrated with the following acpaniments； viz。
1。 Lights on the munion Table in broad day；
2。 Mixing water with the wine；
3。 Clothing the minister in a peculiar dress called a chasuble；
4。 Burning incense？
These things cannot be shown to be of any real value。 Not one of them
is remended； or even named； in the New Testament。 Not one of them is
prescribed or ordered in the Prayer Book； and the best English lawyers
pronounce them illegal。 They are borrowed from the corrupt Church of
Rome； and not a few clergymen； after beginning by using them； have
ended by believing the sacrifice of the Mass； and joining the Romish
munion。 Such things no doubt have 〃a show of wisdom；〃 and 〃satisfy
the flesh〃 （Col。 2：23）。 They suit the many ignorant people who like a
mere outward religion。 But it is vain to suppose that they please God。
In the nature of things； they tend to distract and divert the minds of
municants from the true； scriptural； and simple view of the Lord's
Supper。 No one in his senses can dare to say that they are essential to
the validity of the sacrament； or that our Lord or His Apostles ever
used them。 They are neither more nor less than 〃will…worship；〃 and the
invention of man （Col。 2：23）。 The clergyman who persists in using these
illegal ceremonial acts； in defiance of his bishop's monitions； causes
divisions； offences； strife； and controversy in the Church about things
not essential； and is justly deserving of censure。
32。 Did the reformers of the Church of England； to whom we owe our
Articles and 。Prayer Book； attach much weight to right and true views
of the lord's Supper； and especially of the real meaning of the
presence of Christ in that sacrament？
Yes！ most certainly。 It was precisely on this point that our Protestant
Reformers differed most widely from the Church of Rome。 It was
precisely because they would not admit that the natural body and blood
of Christ were corporally present under the forms of bread and wine
after the words of consecration were pronounced； that many of them were
condemned to death and burned at the stake in Queen Mary's r