"There are many instances," says Palmer (Orig. Liturgy, ii. 232), "in antiquity, of the celebration of the Eucharist in private for the sick. Thus Paulinus, bishop of Nola, caused the Eucharist to be celebrated in his own chamber, not many hours before his death. Gregory Nazianzen informs us, that his father communicated in his own chamber, and that his sister had an altar at home (Orat. 19, de Laude Patris. Orat.11); and Ambrose is said to have administered the sacrament in a private house at Rome (Vita A. a Paulino, can. xlvii.). The Church is therefore justified in directing the Eucharist to be consecrated in private houses, for the benefit of the sick; and she has taken care, in the rubric immediately preceding the office, that the sacrament shall be decorously and reverently administered." In the English Church great stress has always been laid upon the reception of the Eucharist by the sick. Archbishop Theodore (A.D. 671) dwells on the matter in his Penitential (cap. 41), which was the first work published by authority in the Western Church, and was the foundation on which all the other "libelli pænitentiales" rested, such as those published by Bede and Egbert (Hook's Archbishops, i. 168). The canon No. 65 of King Edgar (A.D. 960) orders every priest to give "housel" to the sick when they need it; and a canon of the Synod of Westminster (1138) confirms this. In the Prayer Book of 1549 there is a long rubric with regard to the manner of administering the Eucharist to sick persons; but this was set aside in 1552 because it implied reservation of the Holy Sacrament.

II. By the present rubric, before the office for the Communion of the Sick, it is ordered as follows: "Forasmuch as all mortal men be subject to many sudden perils, diseases, and sicknesses, and ever uncertain what time they shall depart out of this life; therefore, to the intent they may be always in a readiness to die whensoever it shall please Almighty God to call them, curates shall diligently from time to time (but especially in the time of pestilence or other infectious sickness) exhort their parishioners to the often receiving of the holy communion of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, when it shall be publicly administered in the church; that, so doing, they may, in case of sudden visitation, have the less cause to be disquieted for lack of the same. But if the sick person be not able to come to the church, and yet is desirous to receive the communion in his house, then he must give timely notice to the curate, signifying also how many there are to communicate with him, (which shall be three, or two at the least,) and having a convenient place in the sick man's house, with all things

COMMUNION

necessary so prepared, that the curate may reverently minister, he shall there celebrate the holy communion."

III. The reservation of a portion of the elements consecrated in the church, for the use of the sick, is probably of primitive origin. Justin Martyr refers to this in his Apology (i. 65), though his words may include more than the sick, as he says, “ καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσι (διάκονοι) ἀποφέρουσι. Eusebius speaks (quoting from Dionysius) of a priest, who being sick, sent by a messenger to a dying person a "morsel of the eucharist" (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 44), and the canons of the early councils imply the conveying of the viaticum. But it was not allowed to be conveyed by any but an ordained minister, except under very particular circumstances. Bona states that reservation in the Church was designed for the sick only (Rerum Liturg. ii. 17), and that this was the idea in the English Church in early times is evident from the excerpt of Archbishop Egbert, "Ut presbyter eucharistiam habeat semper paratam ad infirmos, ne sine communione moriantur." By the Synod of Westminster above referred to, it was ordered that "Ultra octo dies Corpus Christi non reservetur; " nor should it be conveyed "nisi per sacerdotem, aut per diaconum, aut necessitate instante, per quemlibet cum summa reverentiâ (Maskell, Mon. Rit. i. ccxxiii).

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham (A.D. 1279), the sacrament of the Eucharist "shall be carried with due reverence to the sick, the priest having on at least a surplice or stole, with a light carried before him in a lantern, with a bell, that the people may be excited to due reverence; who by the minister's direction shall be taught to prostrate themselves, or at least to make humble adoration, wheresoever the King of Glory shall happen to be carried under the cover of bread."

But by the rubric of the 2 Edward VI. it was ordered, that there shall be no elevation of the host, or showing the sacrament to the people. The rubric of 1549 ordered that, in the case of a sick person, the priest shall "reserve (at the open communion in the church) so much of the sacrament of the body and blood as shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall communicate with him (if there be any), and as soon as he conveniently may, after the open communion ended in the church, shall go and minister the same, first to those that are appointed to communicate with the sick (if there be any), and last to the sick person himself." The curate was charged to use the general confession, the absolution, the comfortable words, and the collect after communion. If there was not open communion

COMMUNION

in the church, the curate was to visit the sick person afore noon, and "having a convenient place," celebrate the holy communion. A second rubric at the end of the office orders that if the curate has to celebrate in any sick man's house, and there be more sick persons to be visited the same day, he shall reserve so much as shall serve the other sick persons, and shall immediately carry it and minister it to them. This was altered in 1552, and private celebrations were alone provided for, the present collect, epistle and gospel in the office for the communion of the sick being then appointed. In the Latin Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth's reign, in the Scottish Church, and by the non-jurors, the practice of reservation was upheld. In cases of great epidemics, it would seem to be in accordance with a primitive practice, and the canons of ancient councils, that it should be retained; and when in the great outbreak of cholera at Leeds, Bishop Longley, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was appealed to on this subject, he said, that "while he could not authorize reservation, he did not feel himself justified in forbidding it in that emergency." (Hist. Considerations, &c., by Rev. T. W. Perry; Blunt's Annot. P. B. p. 290.) The late primate (Dr. Tait) and the bishop of London (Dr. Jackson) are both said to have allowed the sacrament to be reserved, when sickness was prevalent in a populous London parish (Lit. Churchman, Feb. 7, 1885); but at the first meeting of the Upper House of Convocation in 1885 the question was discussed, and the opinion of their Lordships was unfavourable to such a practice (Ibid. p. 87). In view of an epidemic, one rubric orders that "In the time of plague, sweat, or other such like contagious times of sickness or diseases, when none of the parish can be gotten to communicate with the sick in their houses, for fear of infection, upon special request of the diseased, the minister may only communicate with him." And another, that in the distribution of the elements "the sick person shall receive last." This is done, "because those who communicate with him, through fear of some contagion, or the noisomeness of his disease, may be afraid to drink out of the same cup after him." [H.]

In the Sarum Manual provision is made for spiritual communion in cases where actual reception of the elements is impossible; and in the same way our rubric directs that "if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him

of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemp tion; earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor; he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth." COMMUNION OF SAINTS. (See Saints.) This is an article of the Creed in which we profess to believe, as a necessary and infallible truth, that such persons as are truly sanctified in the Church of Christ, while they live among the crooked generations of men, and struggle with the miseries of this world, have fellowship with God the Father (1 St. John i. 3; 2 St. Peter i. 4), with God the Son (1 St. John i. 3; 2 St. John 9; St. John xvii. 20, 21, 23), with God the Holy Ghost (Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 14), as dwelling with them, and taking up their habitations in them; that they partake of the care and kindness of the blessed angels, who take delight in the ministration for their benefit, being "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. i. 14; St. Luke xv. 10; St. Matt. xviii. 10); that besides the external fellowship which they have in the word and sacraments, with all the members of the Church, they have an intimate union and conjunction with all the saints on earth, as the living members of Christ. (1 St. John i. 7; Col. ii. 19.) Nor is this union separated by the death of any; but as Christ, in whom they live, is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, so have they fellowship with all the saints, who, from the death of Abel, have departed in the true faith and fear of God, and now enjoy the presence of the Father, and follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. (Heb. xii. 22, 23.) "Indeed," says Bishop Pearson, from whom this article is taken, "the communion of saints in the Church of Christ with those who are departed is demonstrated by their communion with the saints alive. For if I have communion with a saint of God as such, while he liveth here, I must still have communion with him when he is departed hence; because the foundation of that communion cannot be removed by death. The mystical union between Christ and his Church, the spiritual conjunction of the members with the head, is the true foundation of that communion which one member hath with another, all the members living and increasing by the same influence which they receive from him. But death, which is nothing else but the separation of the soul from the body, maketha no separation in the mystical union, no breach of the spiritual conjunction; and,

consequently, there must continue the same | communion, because there remaineth the same foundation. Indeed, the saint before his death had some communion with the hypocrite, as hearing the word, professing the faith, receiving the sacraments together; which being in things only external, as they were common to them both, and all such external actions ceasing in the person dead, the hypocrite remaining loseth all communion with the saint departing, and the saints surviving cease to have farther fellowship with the hypocrite dying. But seeing that the true and unfeigned holiness of man, wrought by the powerful influence of the Spirit of God, not only remaineth, but also is improved after death; seeing that the correspondence of the internal holiness was the true communion with other persons during life, they cannot be said to be divided by death, which hath no power over that sanctity by which they were first conjoined. But although this communion of the saints in paradise and on earth, upon the mystical union of Christ their head, be fundamental and internal, yet what acts or external operations it produces is not so certain. That we communicate with them in hope of that happiness which they actually enjoy is evident; that we have the Spirit of God given us as an earnest, and so a part of their felicity, is certain. But what they do in heaven in relation to us on earth particularly considered, or what we ought to perform in reference to them in heaven, besides a reverential respect and study of imitation, is not revealed unto us in the Scriptures, nor can be concluded by necessary deduction from any principles of Christianity. They who first found this part of the article in the Creed, and delivered their exposition to us, have made no greater enlargement of this communion, as to the saints of heaven, than the society of hope, esteem, and imitation on our side, of desires and supplications on their side; and what is now taught by the Church of Rome is as an unwarrantable, so a novitious, interpretation." COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. "The principal advocates of Popery at the beginning of the Reformation were not willing to own, that the universal practice of the primitive Church was against the modern sacrilege of denying the cup to the people; and, therefore, though they confessed there were some instances in antiquity, of communion under both kinds, yet they maintained the custom was not universal. So Eckius and Harding, and many others. But they who have since considered the practice of the ancient Church more narrowly, are ashamed of this pretence, and freely confess, that for twelve centuries there is no instance of the people's being

COMMUNION

obliged to communicate only in one kind, in the public administration of the sacrament; but in private they think some few instances may be given."

This is shown by Leo Allatius (de Missa Præsanct. p. 1559), and not denied by Cardinal Bona, who says (Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. c. 18), "It is very certain that anciently all in general, both clergy and laity, men and women, received the holy mysteries in both kinds, when they were present at the solemn celebration of them, and they both offered and were partakers. But out of the time of sacrifice, and act of the Church, it was customary always and in all places to communicate only in one kind. In the first part of the assertion all agree, as well Catholics as sectaries; nor can any one deny it, that has the least knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs. For the faithful always and in all places, from the very first foundation of the Church to the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine; and in the beginning of that age the use of the cup began by little and little to be laid aside, whilst many bishops interdicted the people the use of the cup, for fear of irreverence and effusion." Before this, with the same object of reverence, the wine was in some places administered by the bread being dipped into it, of which custom mention is made in the third Council of Braga, held A.D. 675. (See Intinction.) This was sometimes condemned in the West, sometimes allowed. Ernulf, for instance, bishop of Rochester, wrote in favour of it in 1120, the Synod of Westminster prohibited it in 1175. In consequence of which disputes, according to Bona, the Council of Constance, to settle the matter, withdrew the cup altogether from the laity. (Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. 19, quoted by Bingham, bk. xv. c. 5.) The order runs that," although in the primitive Church this sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, yet for the avoiding any dangers and scandals, the custom has reasonably been introduced, that it be received by the officiating persons under both kinds, but by the laity only under the kind of bread; since it is to be believed most firmly, and in nowise to be doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ is truly contained as well under the species of bread as under that of wine."

"On which we may fairly remark, ‘full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' For Christ, when he celebrated the Eucharist, gave the cup to all who were present: and when He appointed His Apostles His ministers to celebrate it, He bade them do the same, 'Do this in remembrance of Me.' But ye say, whosoever shall dare to do as

generation, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (St. Matt. i. 18, 25.)

"It were not difficult to show that the miraculous conception, once admitted, naturally brings after it the great doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement. The miraculous conception of our Lord evidently implies some higher purpose of His coming than the mere business of a teacher. The business of a teacher might have been performed by a mere man, enlightened by the prophetic spirit. For whatever instruction men have the capacity to receive, a man might have been made the instrument to convey. Had teaching, therefore, been the sole purpose of our Saviour's coming, a mere man might have done the whole business, and the supernatural conception had been an unnecessary miracle. He, therefore, who came in this miraculous way, came upon some higher business, to which a mere man was unequal. He came to be made a sinoffering for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”—Bp. Horsley. And see especially sermon by J. H. Newman for Christmas Day in vol. ii. of Parochial and Plain Sermons.

CONCERNING THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH. The explanatory introduction to, originally the Preface, of the Prayer Book. It is supposed to have been written by Cranmer, and was inserted in its present position in 1661, when the Preface was added. It is derived chiefly from the Reformed Roman Breviary of Quignonez. (See Breviary.)

CONCLAVE. The place where the cardinals meet for the choosing of a new pope: the assembly itself is also called by this name, and it depends upon the members themselves to choose the place, although for some time the Vatican has been constantly used. Here they erect, in a large apartment, as many cells of deal wood as there are cardinals, with lodges and places for the conclavists, who shut themselves in to wait and serve the cardinals. These little chambers have their numbers, and are drawn by lot, so that it often happens that cardinals of different factions lodge near one another.

CONCORDANCE, a dictionary or index to the Bible, wherein all the leading words are ranged alphabetically, and the books, chapters, and verses wherein they occur, referred to, to assist in finding out passages, and comparing the several significations of the same word. I. The earliest attempt at a Concordance is the collection of parallel passages in the margin of the 5th volume of the Complatensian Polyglot. Hugo de St. Caro, or Cardinal Hugo, who is said to have employed 500 monks, compiled a Concordance of the Vulgate in the middle of the thirteenth century. The earliest Concordance

CONCORDAT

of the Hebrew Text is by Rabbi Mordecai Nathan (Venice, 1523); that of Calasio (1621) is the fullest; but there are many others by Buxtorf, Taylor, Noldius, &c. Kircher and Tromm compiled a Concordance of the Septuagint: Williams (1767); and Schmidt (a very beautiful 12mo edition of which was edited by Mr. Greenfield in 1830); and several others of the Greek New Testament.

II. The first English Concordance to the New Testament was "imprinted by Thos. Gybson" before 1540. The first to the entire Bible was published by John Merbeck, Merbecke, or Marbeck, the celebrated English musician, in 1550.

But of English Concordances, Cruden's is the best known and is valued by every biblical student. An excellent Concordance was published by the S.P.C.K. in 1859, including a Concordance to the apocryphal books and to the Prayer Book version of the Psalter. [H.] CONCORDAT. An agreement between the See of Rome and any foreign government, by which the discipline of the clergy, and management and disposal of churches and benefices are regulated. The Concordat of Worms, A.D. 1122, between the Emperor Henry and Pope Calixtus II., regulated the election of bishops and abbots, each side making concessions. The Germanic Concordat, A.D. 1448, made between the Emperor Frederick III. and Pope Nicholas V., and confirmed by Clement VIII. and Gregory XIII., comprehended four parts; in the first of which the pope reserved to himself the conferring of all vacant benefices at Rome, and 100 days' journey from it, of whatever degree, either secular or regular, which before went by election, without exception of cardinals or other officers of the holy see.

The second concerns the elections that are to be confirmed by the pope, with regard to metropolitans, bishops, &c. The third deals with livings that are successively given by the popes and their proper patrons; that the pope has the privilege to confer both secular and regular livings, for the months of January, March, May, July, September, November; and the bishop or archbishop within the district of their dioceses during the other months. The fourth and last part speaks of the annates or firstfruits, after the death or removal of the incumbent. In A.D. 1516 an agreement was made between Francis I. of France and Pope Leo X., which was called a concordat; and by which the pragmatic sanction was abrogated (see Pragmatic Sanction). A concordat was agreed upon in A.D. 1801, between Buonaparte and Cardinal Consalvi, acting in the name of Pope Pius VII., by which the head of the state had the nomination to the vacant sees, but the pope was to confer canonical institution, the clergy were