'Many Churches, throughout the kingdom, have monthly Communions': the 1662 Holy Communion, 18th century Anglicanism, and frequency of reception

In them were said ancient prayers, giving thanks to God for the whole congregation, as partakers of the Body and blood of Christ, when not one of them received the Sacrament. The people were mere spectators, while the priest pretended to act in the name of the whole congregation, and to communicate without any real Communion.

So does John Shepherd - in his A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer, Volume II (1801) - describe non-communicating and private Masses. We might note, by the way, that this description accords with Eamon Duffy's account of pre-Reformation English spirituality: "for most people, most of the time the Host was something to be seen, not to be consumed". Shepherd is here commenting on one of the concluding rubrics in the 1662 Holy Communion:

And note, that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one.

Shepherd accepts that this falls short of patristic Christian practice of regular reception. He notes, for example, that "Austin testifies that the Sacrament was administered every Lord's day at least". That said, Shepherd recognises that the context faced by the English Reformers made  "frequent, and general Communion" impossible:

In this state of degeneracy, the compilers of our Communion office, found the Church of England: And one of the first attempts of our Reformers, after the death of Henry, was to rectify this abuse, and to restore frequent, and general Communion. They succeeded so far as to abolish private masses: though they were unable to re-establish the practice of communicating every Lord's day. 

We might add to this that the pastoral realities were also greater than the difficulties posed by the custom of non-communicating Masses. As Rowan Williams has recently stated, we should not be too quick to dismiss the very common Christian experience over centuries - before and since the Reformation - of infrequent reception of Holy Communion. Williams, speaking from his own experience, acknowledges how this can encourage "'spiritual communion'; of quieting myself down to focus on the great gift of God in Jesus" - a reality experienced as, for example, we feed on the Word at Morning Prayer.

While recognising that the restoration of "frequent, and general Communion" did not occur at the Reformation, Shepherd points to two ways in which the practice of the Church of England regarding frequency of reception of the Sacrament - and, remember, he is writing in 1801 - is to be commended. Firstly, he looks north of the border:

Still the Church of England was happier in her attempts to restore frequent Communion, than her sister Church of Scotland.

A footnote expands this:

In Scotland the Communion is administered but once a year, and never on Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, or any other great festival.

In other words, even on the basis of this minimum, the post-Reformation practice of the Church of England, extending well into the 19th century, was superior to that of "her sister Church of Scotland" - and, of course, of the then similar provision in the Roman tradition.

Secondly, and significantly, Shepherd notes how more frequent administration of the Holy Communion was - despite the portrayal of the pre-1833 Church by later Tractarian accounts - a reality in the Church of England:

Though the people are not absolutely required to receive the Sacrament oftener than three times a year, yet many Churches, throughout the kingdom, have monthly Communions. In some the Sacrament is administered on all the Holidays, and in several parish churches in London, as well as in cathedrals, and collegiate churches, on every Lord's day.

It is very appropriate that Shepherd draws to a close his commentary on the 1662 Holy Communion by acknowledging that monthly Holy Communions were to be found in "many Churches, throughout the kingdom", and with weekly Holy Communions also in cathedrals and some London parishes. 

One of the consistent themes throughout this long series of posts reflecting on Shepherd's commentary on the 1662 Holy Communion - the series began on 5th June 2024 - has been how he demonstrates a much richer sacramental practice and piety than found in later Tractarian accounts of pre-1833 Anglicanism. This also applies, as shown in today's final post in the series, to the frequency of the administration of the Sacrament. In a 2020 essay for the North American Anglican, I set out the compelling evidence for disregarding Newman's claim that the "the Eucharist [was] scantily administered" in the pre-1833 Church. Shepherd is further evidence for monthly Communions being normative in towns and cities. When his commentary on the 1662 rite is set alongside this and the rich eucharistic teaching of pre-1833 Anglicanism, not only do we see the significant inaccuracies in the Tractarian portrait of 18th century Anglicanism; more importantly, we also see a lively, vibrant sacramental piety, theology, and liturgy upon which contemporary Anglicanism should confidently draw.