Is it not a mere mockery, or, worse than a mockery, profanity to GOD, and giving "that which is holy unto dogs ?" In answer to this it may be observed: That our LORD's own words restricting the reception of peace to those alone who are worthy, seem to provide for such a case as this, and to justify the Priest in using the general form, although he may fear that some in the house be unfitted to receive it; for it is said, "it shall return to you again," as seeming to imply that the Priest himself shall be blameless, even though the people be unworthy. And if it be objected that our LORD contemplated missionary salutation in the Apostles, wherein some to whom they bid peace might be unworthy, and they ignorant of it; but that His words. ought not to be applied to a case where the Priest is previously cognizant of the fact that some whom he salutes with peace are really unworthy; it may be answered that our LORD's injunction, taken in connection with His words after His resurrection, is a general one, and was evidently intended not only for the guidance of His disciples at that time, but for the direction of His Church; and that, as our Church has so taken it, and furnished her Ministers with the very words in which to salute the house with peace, we cannot be wrong if we observe her direction.

But it is to be observed that in some of the cases above alluded to, it would seem the term, "the sick man's house" should be understood not of the house in which he is, but of the portion of the house in his occupation. Thus in lodging-houses, or places let in tenements, it seems plain that the sick person has no more relation to the parts of the house occupied by others, than a householder has to other houses in the same street. In such cases, then, it will be proper to pronounce the words of salutation on entering, not the house, but the part of it occupied by the sick man and his family.

Further, this opening rubric, in conjunction with the next, appears to desire that the Minister in any case of serious sickness,* should at once use this Office.

We say "serious" to distinguish between those severer sicknesses which mark the line calling upon the Minister's services,

"When any person is sick, notice shall be given thereof to the Minister, who coming into the sick person's house, shall say," &c. When to this we add the following, "When he cometh into the sick man's presence, he shall say, kneeling down, &c.," we are at once led to the opinion that no other action is contemplated. It would hence appear that in all ordinary cases of severe sickness, the will of the Church is that this Office only should be used on the Priest's first approach to the sick man's bed. It would seem, First, that no other kind of prayers are to be used by way of substitute; Secondly, that in ordinary cases no intermediate step may be taken. We are aware that this Office has been complained of as being "deficient in several cases." We think, however, that this judgment is far from being a true one. The Office is surely perfect for all the uses which are its evident object. We see no apology therefore for interpolations. No departure should be made from this order; except where its own directions admit of a discretionary power on the part of the Priest. And it may be observed that the very fact of its affording a discretionary power in any case shows the jealousy with which the Church desires the prescript form in all other parts to be adhered to. If she carefully points out how far we may deviate, her silence in all other cases is sufficient proof of her desire that no further deviation be made. This is the and those lesser troubles of the body which need not his ministration. The line is not always easily discernible; but generally speaking, what demands the attendance of the physician of the body, demands likewise the help of the physician of the soul.

Wheatley, Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer, xi. Introduction. Sharp, on the Rubric and Canons, 249. Oxford: 1834. See also Dr. Mant, on Visitation of the Sick, Preface and Dr. Dodwell, Prelim. Dissertat. iii. iv. The following unqualified expression of opinion from Coney's Companion for a Sick Bed is important as showing that this view did not universally obtain.

:

"What is here delivered is built upon the foundation of our blessed Church, and is only designed as a larger comment upon some passages of her Divine Office for the Visitation of the Sick. Far be it from me to suppose that Office imperfect, or to presume by any new forms of Prayer to supply the defects of it. I think, that if any part of our excellent Liturgy is better than another, this is the most exact and complete, the most moving and pathetical of all the rest."

point of Bishop Sparrow's short remark: "The prayers are all prescribed, but the exhortation is left arbitrary to the discretion of the Priest."* And let it not be

supposed that the words of the sixty-seventh Canon favour a different view: "When any person is dangerously sick in any parish, the Minister, or Curate, having knowledge thereof, shall resort unto him or her, (if the disease be not known, or probably suspected to be infectious,) to instruct and comfort them in their distress, according to the order of the Communion Book, if he be no preacher; or if he be a preacher, then as he shall think most needful and convenient." Now these words do not, as has been contended, "allow a preaching Minister the liberty of using this order, or any other as he shall see convenient."+ The unpreaching Minister, when this Canon was drawn up, being supposed not to have the ability of exhorting and comforting, had his work prepared, as far as might be, to his hands. He was enjoined to follow closely the order of the Communion Book. In fact, the Church provided, as best she might, against a very serious evil. Her incompetent Ministers might be little able to instruct; little able to comfort. While they might examine a diseased conscience only in a very perfunctory manner, they might convey a message, and perform plain acts of authority. Lest the sick should die altogether without the comforts of religious ordinances, the Church provided that even her unpreaching Ministers should be enabled to bestow the blessings of religion upon them. The preaching Minister, on the other hand, was not so jealously circumscribed in his movements. He could exhort: therefore the rubric provides that he may use, not indeed any, but some like exhortation; and moreover, instead of a mere perfunctory discharge of the rubrical directions concerning the examination of the Sick Man's charity and repentance, &c., it is provided by this Canon that he should have the fullest liberty to amplify his means of reconciling the sick man to GOD, as in his discretion he may see fit. The words of the Canon, however, only allow him that licence which the unpreaching Bishop Sparrow's Rationale, 262. Oxford: 1843. † Wheatley, as before.

Minister could not, from want of ability, claim; i.e. to instruct and comfort, as he shall think most needful and convenient; in fact, to set aside, if he pleases, in his instructions and consolations the form of exhortation provided in the order, agreeably with the rubric which allows of this exhortation "or other like:" but not to set aside the form of prayer itself. Moreover, if the preaching Minister were allowed by the words of this Canon the licence of using another form of prayer than that which is here prescribed, then he would also by the same words be allowed a licence of altering the form of the administration of the Holy Communion to the Sick; for this Office forms part of the order prescribed in what the Canon terms "the Communion Book" for the Visitation of the Sick. Not only, then, is extemporaneous prayer altogether inadmissible here, but the introduction of any other form than the one appointed is forbidden.

Secondly. It seems from a careful consideration of the second rubric, that in ordinary cases no intermediate steps are to be taken; but that the Priest is to kneel down and begin the Office as soon as ever he approaches the sick man; and that an examination of his faith, repentance, and charity, is to be postponed until after the prayers, down to the conclusion of the second Collect (Hear us, Almighty, &c. &c.), have been said. And by ordinary cases we mean, 1. All cases in which the sick man is known to the Minister of the parish to be such, that no valid objection (as for instance, want of Baptism, professed infidelity, or notorious sin unrepented of) exists to saying prayers over him; 2. All cases in which, though the sick man be quite unknown to him, the Minister has, by the inquiries (page 3) made concerning the sick, satisfied himself that he is a baptized person desiring the Offices of the Church. But where the sick person is altogether a stranger to the Priest, and where he cannot ascertain from others anything of his condition or profession, it would seem that a liberty is given to the Minister of making at least general inquiries of the sick before he commences the Office. The second rubric after the exhortation seems to allow, or, at any rate, to imply this. These words before rehearsed may

be said before the Minister begin his prayer, as he shall see cause. We are quite aware that Wheatley considers that this rubric applies only to the latter part of that immediately preceding it; viz. the settlement of temporal affairs, and making a will; and that he supports his views by two reasons: first, that these being secular matters, the Priest may think it more fitting that they should not be mixed up with spiritual things, and with prayer; and secondly, that this rubric, rather differently worded, (This may be done before the Minister begin, &c.) stood in King Edward the Sixth's Prayer Books in the margin opposite to this very clause relating to temporal affairs and the will. But it may be reasonably thought that the Church by removing this rubric to its present place, and by altering its form did, in fact, contemplate a change; for by no longer placing it as a marginal note to the latter clause of the preceding rubric, it seems plain that she meant to give it a more extended application; and by inserting the expression these words before rehearsed, that she intended to apply it to the exhortation, or at least to the examination of faith with which it concludes. And as for the other reason, we altogether dissent from it; for we think that the very wording of the first rubric after the exhortation shows that the Church does think that discharging the conscience, and acts of piety and justice in secular things, are, in a man dangerously ill, so intimately related to his spiritual state, that she specially directs her Minister to make them a subject of exhortation, and doubtless, if he see fit, even of special prayer. On the whole, then, it seems that though in all ordinary cases, the Minister is at once to begin the Office when he enters the sick man's presence; yet in such a special case as we have noted above, the words of the rubric give him an authority to make a general examination of faith; and its position seems to permit him to extend it to a general inquiry as to repentance and charity, as he may see cause. Yet this does not seem to take the place of the more particular examination to be made afterwards, but it is only intended to satisfy the Priest that the sick man is in profession a Christian, and a proper object for the ministrations of the Church.