The practice of reserving the sacred elements for the purpose of
subsequent reception prevailed in the church from very early times. The
Eucharist being the seal of Christian fellowship, it was a natural
custom to send portions of the consecrated elements by the hands of the
deacons to those who were not present (Justin Martyr, _Apol_. i. 65).
From this it was an easy development, which prevailed before the end of
the 2nd century, for churches to send the consecrated Bread to one
another as a sign of communion (the [Greek: eucharistia] mentioned by
Irenaeus, _ap_. Eus. _H.E._ v. 24), and for the faithful to take it to
their own homes and reserve it in _arcae_ or caskets for the purpose of
communicating themselves (Tert. _ad Uxor_. ii. 5, _De orat_. 19; St
Cypr. _De lapsis_, 132). Being open to objection on grounds both of
superstition and of irreverence, these customs were gradually put down
by the council of Laodicea in A.D. 360. But some irregular forms of
reservation still continued; the prohibition as regards the lay people
was not extended, at any rate with any strictness, to the clergy and
monks; the Eucharist was still carried on journeys; occasionally it was
buried with the dead; and in a few cases the pen was even dipped in the
chalice in subscribing important writings. Meanwhile, both in East and
West, the general practice has continued unbroken of reserving the
Eucharist, in order that the "mass of the presanctified" might take
place on certain "aliturgic" days, that the faithful might be able to
communicate when there was no celebration, and above all that it might
be at hand to meet the needs of the sick and dying. It was reserved in a
closed vessel, which took various forms from time to time, known in the
East as the [Greek: artophorion], and in the West as the _turris_, the
_capsa_, and later on as the _pyx_. In the East it was kept against the
wall behind the altar; in the West, in a locked aumbry in some part of
the church, or (as in England and France) in a pyx made in the form of a
dove and suspended over the altar.
In the West it has been used in other ways. A portion of the consecrated
Bread from one Eucharist, known as the "Fermentum," was long made use of
in the next, or sent by the bishop to the various churches of his city,
no doubt with the object of emphasizing, the solidarity and the
continuity of "the one Eucharist"; and amongst other customs which
prevailed for some centuries, from the 8th onward, were those of giving
it to the newly ordained in order that they might communicate
themselves, and of burying it in or under the altar-slab of a newly
consecrated church. At a later date, apparently early in the 14th
century, began the practice of carrying the Eucharist in procession in a
monstrance; and at a still later period, apparently after the middle of
the 16th century, the practice of Benediction with the reserved
sacrament, and that of the "forty hours' exposition," were introduced in
the churches of the Roman communion. It should be said, however, that
most of these practices met with very considerable opposition both from
councils and from theologians and canonists, amongst others from the
English canonist William Lyndwood (_Provinciale_, lib. iii. c. 26), on
the following grounds amongst others: that the Body of Christ is the
food of the soul, that it ought not to be reserved except for the
benefit of the sick, and that it ought not to be applied to any other
use than that for which it was instituted.
In England, during the religious changes of the 16th century, such of
these customs as had already taken root were abolished; and with them
the practice of reserving the Eucharist in the churches appears to have
died out too. The general feeling on the subject is expressed by the
language of the 28th Article, first drafted in 1553, to the effect that
"the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance
reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped," and by the fact that
a form was provided for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist for the
sick in their own homes. This latter practice was in accordance with
abundant precedent, but had become very infrequent, if not obsolete, for
many years before the Reformation. The first Prayer-Book of Edward VI.
provided that if there was a celebration in church on the day on which a
sick person was to receive the Holy Communion, it should be reserved,
and conveyed to the sick man's house to be administered to him; if not,
the curate was to visit the sick person before noon and there celebrate
according to a form which is given in the book. At the revision of the
Prayer-Book in 1552 all mention of reservation is omitted, and the
rubric directs that the communion is to be celebrated in the sick
person's house, according to a new form; and this service has continued,
with certain minor changes, down to the present day. That the tendency
of opinion in the English Church during the period of the Reformation
was against reservation is beyond doubt, and that the practice actually
died out would seem to be equally clear. The whole argument of some of
the controversial writings of the time, such as Bishop Cooper on
_Private Mass_, depends upon that fact; and when Cardinal du Perron
alleged against the English Church the lack of the reserved Eucharist,
Bishop Andrewes replied, not that the fact was otherwise, but that
reservation was unnecessary in view of the English form for the
Communion of the Sick: "So that reservation needeth not; the intent is
had without it" (_Answers to Cardinal Perron, &c._, p. 19, Library of
Anglo-Catholic Theology). It does not follow, however, that a custom
which has ceased to exist is of necessity forbidden, nor even that what
was rejected by the authorities of the English Church in the 16th
century is so explicitly forbidden as to be unlawful under its existing
system; and not a few facts have to be taken into account in any
investigation of the question. (1) The view has been held that in the
Eucharist the elements are only consecrated as regards the particular
purpose of reception in the service itself, and that consequently what
remains unconsumed may be put to common uses. If this view were held
(and it has more than once made its appearance in church history, though
it has never prevailed), reservation might be open to objection on
theological grounds. But such is not the view of the Church of England
in her doctrinal standards, and there is an express rubric directing
that any that remains of that which was consecrated is not to be carried
out of the church, but reverently consumed. There can therefore be no
theological obstacle to reservation in the English Church: it is a
question of practice only. (2) Nor can it be said that the rubric just
referred to is in itself a condemnation of reservation: it is rather
directed, as its history proves, against the irreverence which prevailed
when it was made; and in fact its wording is based upon that of a
pre-Reformation order which coexisted with the practice of reservation
(Lyndwood, _Provinciale_, lib. iii. tit. 26, note q). (3) Nor can it be
said that the words of the 28th Article (see above) constitute in
themselves an express prohibition of reservation, strong as their
evidence may be as to the practice and feeling of the time. The words
are the common property of an earlier age which saw nothing
objectionable in reservation for the sick. (4) It has indeed been
contended (by Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury) that reservation was not
actually, though tacitly, continued under the second Prayer-Book of
Edward VI., since that book orders that the curate shall "minister," and
not "celebrate," the communion in the sick person's house. But such a
tacit sanction on the part of the compilers of the second Prayer-Book is
in the highest degree improbable, in view of their known opinions on the
subject; and an examination of contemporary writings hardly justifies
the contention that the two words are so carefully used as the argument
would demand. Anyhow, as the bishop notes, this could not be the case
with the Prayer-Book of 1661, where the word is "celebrate." (5) The
Elizabethan Act of Uniformity contained a provision that at the
universities the public services, with the exception of the Eucharist,
might be in a language other than English; and in 1560 there appeared a
Latin version of the Prayer-Book, issued under royal letters patent, in
which there was a rubric prefixed to the Order for the Communion of the
Sick, based on that in the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI. (see above),
and providing that the Eucharist should be reserved for the sick person
if there had been a celebration on the same day. But although the book
in question was issued under letters patent, it is not really a
translation of the Elizabethan book at all, but simply a reshaping of
Aless's clever and inaccurate translation of Edward VI.'s first book. In
the rubric in question words are altered here and there in a way which
shows that its reappearance can hardly be a mere printer's error; but in
any case its importance is very slight, for the Act of Uniformity
specially provides that the English service alone is to be used for the
Eucharist. (6) It has been pointed out that reservation for the sick
prevails in the Scottish Episcopal Church, the doctrinal standards of
which correspond with those of the Church of England. But it must be
remembered that the Scottish Episcopal Church has an additional order of
its own for the Holy Communion, and that consequently its clergy are not
restricted to the services in the Book of Common Prayer. Moreover, the
practice of reservation which has prevailed in Scotland for over 150
years would appear to have arisen out of the special circumstances of
that church during the 18th century, and not to have prevailed
continuously from earlier times. (7) Certain of the divines who took
part in the framing of the Prayer-Book of 1661 seem to speak of the
practice as though it actually prevailed in their day. But Bishop
Sparrow's words on the subject (_Rationale_, p. 349) are not free from
difficulty on any hypothesis, and Thorndike (_Works_, v. 578, Library of
Anglo-Catholic Theology) writes in such a style that it is often hard to
tell whether he is describing the actual practice of his day or that
which in his view it ought to be. (8) There appears to be more evidence
than is commonly supposed to show that a practice analogous to that of
Justin Martyr's day has been adopted from time to time in England, viz.
that of conveying the sacred elements to the houses of the sick during,
or directly after, the celebration in church. And in 1899 this practice
received the sanction of Dr Westcott, then bishop of Durham. (9) On the
other hand, the words of the oath taken by the clergy under the 36th of
the Canons of 1604 are to the effect that they will use the form
prescribed in the Prayer-Book and none other, except so far as shall be
otherwise ordered by lawful authority; and the Prayer-Book does not even
mention the reservation of the Eucharist, whilst the Articles mention it
only in the way of depreciation.
The matter has become one of no little practical importance owing to
modern developments of English Church life. On the one hand, it is
widely felt that neither the form for the Communion of the Sick, nor yet
the teaching with regard to spiritual communion in the third rubric at
the end of that service, is sufficient to meet all the cases that arise
or may arise. On the other hand, it is probable that in many cases the
desire for reservation has arisen, in part at least, from a wish for
something analogous to the Roman Catholic customs of exposition and
benediction; and the chief objection to any formal practice of
reservation, on the part of many who otherwise would not be opposed to
it, is doubtless to be found in this fact. But however that may be, the
practice of reservation of the Eucharist, either in the open church or
in private, has become not uncommon in recent days.
The question of the legality of reservation was brought before the two
archbishops in 1899, under circumstances analogous to those in the
Lambeth Hearing on Incense (q.v.). The parties concerned were three
clergymen, who appealed from the direction of their respective
diocesans, the bishops of St Albans and Peterborough and the archbishop
of York: in the two former cases the archbishop (Temple) of Canterbury
was the principal and the archbishop of York (Maclagan) the assessor,
whilst in the latter case the functions were reversed. The hearing
extended from 17th to 20th July; counsel were heard on both sides,
evidence was given in support of the appeals by two of the clergy
concerned and by several other witnesses, lay and clerical, and the
whole matter was gone into with no little fulness. The archbishops gave
their decision on the 1st of May 1900 in two separate judgments, to the
effect that, in Dr Temple's words, "the Church of England does not at
present allow reservation in any form, and that those who think that it
ought to be allowed, though perfectly justified in endeavouring to get
the proper authorities to alter the law, are not justified in practising
reservation until the law has been so altered." The archbishop of York
also laid stress upon the fact that the difficulties in the way of the
communion of the sick, when they are really ready for communion, are not
so great as has sometimes been suggested.
See W.E. Scudamore, _Notitia eucharistica_ (2nd ed., London, 1876);
and art. "Reservation" in _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_, vol.
ii. (London, 1893); _Guardian_ newspaper, July 19 and 26, 1899, and
May 2, 1900; _The Archbishops of Canterbury and York on Reservation of
the Sacrament_ (London, 1900); J.S. Franey, _Mr Dibdin's Speech on
Reservation, and some of the Evidence_ (London, 1899); F.C. Eeles,
_Reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the Scottish Church_ (Aberdeen,
1899); Bishop J. Wordsworth, _Further Considerations on Public
Worship_ (Salisbury, 1901). (W. E. Co.)