The Hackney Hub

Reforming the Diocese from within

2012-02-23T16:59:00.001-08:00

An excellent article written by the Rev. John Richardson. I hope all Episcopalians read this, especially those in more liberal dioceses and consider starting a Bible Fellowship.

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_123_ReformingDiocese.pdf

The English High Church Tradition (Part I)

2012-02-22T19:02:00.000-08:00

(This is a revision of the earlier series on this blog "The Curious Case of the Old High Churchmen" - I will likely be revising it further)

This reflection stems from a personal fascination with Anglican High Churchmanship, partially stemming from my own experience of the Anglican tradition in its High Church form. My own experience of Anglicanism was heavily influenced by a combination of Anglo-Catholicism and three-streams convergence theology. My own intellectual fascination with this topic began nearly a year ago when I read Peter Nockle’s, “The Oxford Movement in Context,” a truly fascinating read, obligatory for anyone who is interested in this subject. In my mind, I began to question the “trinity” of Anglican churchmanship (high, broad, low) discovering older paradigms which challenged our contemporary summation of the complex phenomenon known as Anglican churchmanship. Another influence on my thought and consequently the hypothesis presented in this work was the article, “High Church Varieties: Continuity and Discontinuity in Anglican Catholic Thought,” by Mattijs Ploeger. Ploeger’s work reinforced my previous suspicion of the homogeneity of the High Church tradition in Anglicanism. Through a variety of primary and secondary sources, I have come to the conclusion that the Anglican High Church tradition is not homogeneous and therefore the particular strand known as “Anglo-Catholicism” should not be the sole proprietor of the label. I propose that Anglo-Catholicism is only one facet of Anglican High Churchmanship which has come to dominate High Churchmanship but that does not encompass the whole of it.

The necessary question which arises in discussing churchmanship is a simple one, what is High Churchmanship? The question might seem simple but the proposed answer is anything but simple. Likewise, the modern association with ceremonial seems entirely inadequate and in disconnect with the original meaning of the terms. As it has already been mentioned, Anglo-Catholicism is often equated with High Churchmanship; however, I have come to question this assertion. I also propose a sharp historical contrast between pre-Tractarian High Churchmanship and post-Tractarian High Churchmanship, which primarily manifests itself with the appearance of Anglo-Catholicism and Ritualism. As I mentioned above, I believe the High Church strand of thought in the Anglican tradition is anything but homogenous and I propose temporal, geographic, and theological substrata within this type of Anglican churchmanship, which I intend to explore in this work.

Historical Summary

The differences between “high” and “low” church were not necessarily evident in the time of the Reformation, but we can see a general trend of development beginning with the reforms under Henry VIII.
Most of us are familiar with Henry VIII and his dilemma with Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon, at least if you've seen the popular series, The Tudors. Henry's role in the English Reformation is extremely complex and subject to historical interpretation beyond the scope of this work, however, it seems that he was generally in favor of modest reform while maintaining traditional ceremonial. Many important things happened during his reign which set the stage for the further reforms under Edward VI and later monarchs. First, Henry appointed Thomas Cranmer to the archbishopric of Canterbury on October 1, 1532, who was quickly recruited to help determine the best way forward in regards to the King’s “great matter”. After just two years of legislation, the break with Rome was finalized in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy which declared Henry, "supreme head in earth of the Church of England." This act did not start a theological reformation but it did provide the base from which that would come. Later manifestations of early reform include the Dissolution of the Monasteries led by Cromwell. Henry issued several doctrinal statements beginning with the Ten Articles of 1536 and later the Six Articles of 1539. They were conservative documents but looked to German Lutherans for inspiration. There wasn’t a concept of “churchmanship” as we know it during Henry’s reign but there were divides between the clergy’s reaction to the reforms. Eamon Duffy mentions “traditionalists” and “reformists” in his book, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580. It is important to note that no modern church party has exclusive claim to the English Reformers, for example, it is erroneous to say that the Reformers were “Evangelicals” in the nineteenth century meaning of the term (they were “evangelical” in the sense that they loved the Gospel). Henry's reign produced the English Litany (1544), English Bible (1537), standardization of the Salisbury or Sarum Use as the national use, and the introduction of many of the cast of characters for Edward's Reform.

Liturgical reform commenced almost immediately after Henry's death with the first Prayer Book in 1549 and revised in 1552. Cranmer released his 42 Articles of Religion in 1553, only to be revoked by Queen Mary after ascending to the throne in the same year. Elizabeth followed her as queen and reinstated Protestantism with the Act of Uniformity and the 1559 Prayer Book. Cranmer's 42 Articles were revised to 38 in 1563 and then the current 39 Articles of Religion were agreed by Convocation in 1571. This was the beginning of Anglicanism as we know it. However, the Elizabethan church, at least in the beginning, can hardly be classified as “Anglican” especially before the finalization of the Articles of Religion in 1571. Hylson-Smith adds his reflection on this period of the Church, “The 'complex of ideas described by the word "Anglican" did not exist in the Elizabethan church, any more than the word did'. The early Elizabethan church was 'an enforced coalition of contrary religious traditions and tendencies, crudely distinguishable as very protestant, not-so-protestant and crypto-papist.” (Patrick Collinson, quoted in Hylson-Smith, 3). Tensions were building up during Elizabeth's reign but because of her policy of toleration, there was no conflict.

During James' reign, churchmanship differences became more pronounced and eventually full-blown conflict became apparent at the end of Charles I’s reign. Churchmanship at the time was beginning to develop, Davies offers a summary of the differences forming at the time, "On the right stood the recusants, those who still remained faithful to the Church of Rome. Next came ‘those who in a later age have been called high churchmen, but were then more generally known as Arminians’. Next came the episcopalian Calvinists, those who were content with the episcopal nature of the Church of the Elizabethan settlement. Next came the Calvinists who still looked for their model of a reformed Church to the European models of presbyterian and congregational churches. Still further to the left came the sectaries, separatists or independents: ‘whereas the upper-middle-class man tended to adopt an Erastian form of presbyterianism, the lower-middle-class man often became a separatist’ (1937:193). Finally came ‘the lunatic fringe – the Fifth Monarchy men, the Seekers, the Levellers, and so forth’"

The presbyterians won for a time under the leadership of Cromwell and the Protectorate. The prayer book was abolished and bishops replaced by presbyteries. This came to an end in 1661, when Charles II ascended the throne and reinstated the Prayer Book in 1662 and bishops. This narrowed the theological comprehensiveness of the Church to exclude presbyterians and congregationalists and those who were not in favor of the prescribed liturgy. This led to the expulsion of over 2,000 ministers from the Church. There was a debate at the time as to what to do with Puritans and Dissenting Christians. This debate led to the first codification of churchmanship terms. There was a group of churchmen who wanted to revise the prayer book to allow for more diversity of opinion and eventually graft these groups back into the national church. They presented a revised prayer book in 1689, called the Liturgy of Comprehension. Another group of churchmen were opposed to these efforts of comprehension and stated that the puritans and dissenting Christians must use the authorized liturgy of the Church (1662 BCP). Those who favored comprehension were called latitudinarians or "low churchmen" because they had a "low" view of the Established Church which allowed them to vision compromises to include more in the Church. Those who opposed were called "high churchmen" because they had a "high" view of the Established Church and would not tolerate deviations from the standard liturgy. Kenneth Hylson-Smith introduces the concept of High Churchmanship around this point in the history of the Church of England,

"Certainly, prior to the Restoration, 'High Churchmanship' was largely a response to Puritanism on the one hand and Roman Catholicism on the other. It was, to this extent, a defensive upholding of a via media, a sort of Church of England middle ground consensus, without having such a definite form and content as either Puritanism or Roman Catholicism. Puritanism to a certain extent, but more especially Roman Catholicism, had very clear beliefs, codes of practice, and systems of authority, structures and organisation. High Churchmanship lacked all of these marks of a fairly clearly defined tradition and school of thought, and was undoubtedly somewhat imprecise, unstructured and unselfconscious. It has in fact been asserted that the term 'High Church Party' 'was not used in an ecclesiastical sense until the last years of the seventeenth century, and the party so described was not sufficiently distinguished from the rest of the Church of England to require a name until that time'... Throughout the latter part of the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth century High Churchmen were characerised by their opposition to Latitudinarianism and by their alliance with Toryism against Whig and nonconformist assertions..." (Hylson-Smith, introduction)

The High Churchmen won and, weary from the Civil War and the Cromwellian period, there was no effort at comprehension.

The reigning monarch at that time was James II. A Dutch Prince, named William, invaded England and James II fled to France. (This is a very simplified explanation of the situation!). He was held captive by William but later released and fled. William convened a parliament and many Englishmen supported him as the new king because they believed that James had abdicated the throne by fleeing. William was eventually proclaimed king, however, many High Churchmen could not, in conscience, swear loyalty to him because they did not believe that their oath to James had expired. Thus a large number of high church bishops and priests seceded from the Church, they became known as the Non-Jurors. The Non-Jurors went on to have a life of their own as a sect, apart from the national church. While the national church fell into the power of the Latitudinarians, the High Church Non-Jurors were divided amongst themselves about the question of Prayer Book revision. The pro-revision group or Usagers, wanted to revise the English liturgy along the lines of the 1549 rite and introduce four alleged apostolic usages to the liturgy. The four usages included: he mixed chalice, the prayers of epiklesis and invocation and prayers for the dead. The opposing group, called the Non-usagers, wanted no change to the English liturgy.

Meanwhile, in the national church, the "long eighteenth century" began. This is a term used by historians to refer to the period of time from Toleration Act of 1689 until the 1833, or the beginning of the Oxford Movement. During this time the Church was battling Enlightenment issues of science and deism. This age was generally characterized by "cautious and
Latitudinarian Anglicanism,” although this characterization has been questioned by many historians and, for all intents and purposes, it is probably a false description of this rich period of Anglican history. It was in this climate that the clergyman, John Wesley, lived and preached. Wesley was originally a high churchman, who started the society of Methodists who met for regular Bible study and encouraged fasting and regular Communion. After a conversion experience, Wesley became one of the forerunners of the Evangelical Movement which stressed individual conversion in response to the Holy Spirit. Wesley's Methodist Society was meant to be a renewal movement within the Church of England but after being denied a bishop for his American followers, Wesley provoked a schism by consecrating his own bishops. Some Evangelicals left the national church for other dissenting bodies or the new Methodists. It is important to remember that many of these evangelicals stayed within the Church of England because, "on the whole they rejected Wesley’s concept of a travelling ministry, regarding the parish as the place where the Lord’s work was primarily to be carried on." Another feature characteristic was that, "Anglican Evangelicals were generally Calvinists, whereas Methodists were generally Arminians."
Besides Wesley’s movement, there was a strong High Church tradition in the Church of England in the “long eighteenth century,” which grew and flourished during this period.

Theological Portrait of the English Old High Churchmen

At this point, I want to provide a basic theological portrait of the English Old High Churchmen to provide some context in the historical section of this post. I believe it is important at this point to clarify what the Old High Churchmen believed on certain points which will later diverge from Tractarian teaching on the same subjects. I also have concluded that there was enough theological and ceremonial divergence from the Non-Jurors to separate them from the English High Churchmen. I also find it important to note the theological harmony that existed between High Churchmen and Evangelicals before the turmoil of the Oxford Movement. Later on, Anglo-Catholics would seek to accentuate the differences between the groups, however, at this point they were very much similar. Nockes offers a concise summary of an Old High Churchman,

“A High Churchman in the Church of England tended to uphold in some form the doctrine of apostolical succession as a manifestation of his strong commitment to the Church’s catholicity and apostolicity as a branch of the universal church catholic, within which he did not include those reformed bodies which had abandoned episcopacy without any plea of necessity. He believed in the supremacy of Holy Scripture and set varying degrees of value on the testimony of authorised standards such as the Creeds, the Prayer Book and the Catechism. He valued t he writings of the early Fathers, but more especially as witnesses and expositors of scriptural truth when a “catholic consent” of them could be established. He upheld in a qualified way the primacy of dogma a nd laid emphasis on the doctrine of sacramental grace, both in the eucharist and in baptism, while normally eschewing the Roman Catholic principle of ex opere operato. He tended to cultivate a practical spirituality based on good works nourished by sacramental grace and exemplified in acts of self-denial and charity rather than on any subjective conversion experience or unruly pretended manifestations of the Holy Spirit. He stressed the divine rather than popular basis of political allegiance and obligation. His political principles might be classed as invariably Tory though by no means always in a narrowly political party sense, and were characterised by a high view of kingship and monarchical authority. He upheld the importance of a religious establishment but insisted also on the duty of the state as a divinely-ordained rather than merely secular entity, to protect and promote the interests of the church” (Nockles, 25-26).

Predestination

The Article on predestination is not very clear and early on there was debate over whether or not the article taught double predestination or just single predestination. Generally speaking, Evangelicals tended to be Calvinists, meaning they espoused double predestination, and Old high Churchmen were Arminians. The key here is that English Arminianism tended to diverge from Dutch Arminianism because it still held to a concept of single predestination. Archbishop Robinson expands, “Theologians such as Lancelot Andrewes objected not to the idea of Predestination as such, but to the doctrine of double Predestination promoted by some Calvinists… they saw double predestination as inconsistent with a loving and merciful God. They also regarded Predestination as preached by some of the Puritans as being anti-sacramental, and the Caroline Divines seem to have held with the idea that Christians exist in a state where we are both saved and being saved. This notion also explains the strong sacramentalism of the Caroline High Churchmen, and of their modern successor of the Central stripe.” For the Old High Churchmen, to be justified by faith alone through Christ implied a call to a holy life, they often emphasized this in their sermons and this emphasis was perceived as moralism by some outsiders. The main problem with these terms is that are fluid and do not reflect the beliefs of English churchmen at the time. Essentially, High Churchmen were often labeled “Arminians” to distinguish them from Calvinist clergy, while their theological system was very different from the continental system. “English Arminianism” reflected a turn from individualistic piety and a turn to a sacramental and communal religious life. Hylson-Smith supports this notion,

“The term Arminian has commonly been used to describe this body of anti-Calvinistic opinion, but it does not mean that the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius was normally the source of the ideas so labeled… In England, although the Arminians asserted the orthodoxy of free will and universal grace, they also stressed the hierarchical nature of both church and state against the incipient egalitarianism of Calvinism… ‘the English Arminian mode, as it emerged during the 1630’s, was that of communal and ritualized worship rather than an individual response to preaching or Bible reading’” (38).

Baptism

High Churchmen had strong views of the relation between regeneration and baptism, this was one of the marked differences between Evangelical churchmen and High Churchmen. Evangelicals had as many as four distinct views regarding baptism and regeneration, which are documented in this quote from Peter Toon’s book, Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856 : A Response to Tractarianism,

“"First of all there were those who, following the Augustinian footsteps of Archbishop Ussher, affirmed that all who are regenerated are regenerated in or at baptism.38 Baptism was thus seen as the ‘instrument’ of regeneration, as taught in Article XXVII (‘.... as by an instrument, they that receive baptism are grafted into the Church’)... Regeneration is here understood in terms of the implantation by the Holy Spirit of the principle of new life in the soul. This approach, a modification of that found in the Lutheran formularies, connects regeneration with both divine election and with baptism so that all who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God are regenerated in baptism, being born ‘of water and of the Spirit’

Secondly, there were those who, influenced by Henry Budd, and including Edward Bickersteth and Hugh McNeile, also closely connected baptism with both regeneration and eternal electíon.39 They claimed that on the analogy of the baptism of adult believers regeneration (again understood as the implantation of eternal life and incorporation into the mystical Body of Christ) occurred prior to baptism in response to the prayer of God’s people (the prayer beginning ‘Almighty, everliving God ... ) in order that baptism could be a full sign of an inward spiritual change and a seal of God’s gracious promises towards the child.

Thirdly, there were those who understood regeneration as being synonymous with conversion and as being impossible without being accompanied by repentance towards God, saving faith in Jesus Christ and the visible fruit of the Spirit in the life. Biddulph, Wilson and M’Ilvaine, with perhaps the majority of Evangelicals held one or other form of this approach.40 They could not allow that divine life implanted in infancy at baptism could take ten, fifteen or twenty years to manifest itself in a conversion experience. For them regeneration had to be a visible change of character and attitude. The baptism of infants was approached through a simple covenant theology; the promises of salvation were declared and a sign and seal of them given because of the belief in the faithfulness of God to honour his covenant-promise which is ‘to you and to your children’ (Acts 2.39). Thus baptism involved no immediate, inward change but the confirmation of God’s covenant promise that he would, when the child reached an age of discretion, work salvation in the life.

Fourthly, there were those who made a distinction between ecclesiastical (or sacramental) and spiritual regeneration. Henry Ryder, the first Evangelical bishop, felt obliged to do this and wrote of ecclesiastical regeneration: ‘I would… wish to generally restrict the temr to the baptismal privileges and considering them as comprehending, not only external admission into the visible church – not only a covenanted title to the pardon and peace of the Gospel but even a degree of spiritual aid vouchsafed and ready to offer itself to our acceptance or rejection, at the dawn of reason.’"

High Churchmen would stand in agreement with the first position outlined above as espoused by Archbishop Ussher. I have provided the full quote to emphasize that Evangelicals valued baptism as much as High Churchmen but in a different fashion. Likewise, one would not find the concept of “believer’s baptism” in Evangelical literature then. Likewise, Archbishop Robinson adds some clarity to misconceptions about the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,

“in the absence of any positive will to the contrary on the part of the minister or of the person being baptised, Baptism confers regeneration; the child or person receiving baptism is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, and is made a child of Christ. If they continue in the profession and practice of the Christian Faith they will be saved. It is the duty of parents and godparents (and by extension of the whole Church) to ensure that the child or person baptized is brought up in the Faith. The one thing we have to be quite clear about though, is that Baptismal Regeneration is not some “hocus-pocus” that works independently of the faith of the Church and the faith of the individual, but part of the economy of salvation left to us by Christ Himself.”

Many High Churchmen subscribed to Waterland’s thoughts on baptismal regeneration. Waterland was a prominent theologian in the first half of the 18th century who wrote extensively on many topics including a well known defense of Trinitarianism against Arians and other heretical groups in the Church. Waterland distinguishes between “regeneration” and “conversion” and defines baptismal regeneration as such,
“Regeneration on the part of the grantor, God Almighty, means admission or adoption into sonship, or spiritual citizenship: and on the part of the grantee, viz. man, it means his birth, or entrance into that state of sonship or citizenship. It is God that adopts or regenerates, like as it is God that justifies. Man does not adopt, regenerate, or justify himself, whatever hand he may otherwise have (but still under grace) in preparing or qualifying himself for it. God makes the grant, and it is entirely his act: man receives only, and is acted upon; though sometimes active in qualifying himself, as in the case of adults, and sometimes entirely passive, as in the case of infants. The thing granted and received is a change from the state natural into the state spiritual; a translation from the curse of Adam into the grace of Christ. This change, translation or adoption carries in it many Christian blessings and priviliges, but all reducible to two, viz. remission of sins, (absolute or conditional,) and a covenant-claim, for the time being, to eternal happiness. Those blessings may all be forfeited, or finally lost, if a person revolts from God...; and then such person is no longer in a regenerate state, or a state of sonship, with respect to any saving effects: but still God’s original grant of adoption or sonship in Baptism stands in full force, to take place as often as any such revolter shall return, and not otherwise: and if he desires to be as before, he will not want to be regenerated again, but renewed, or reformed. Regeneration complete stands in two things, which are, as it were, its two integral parts; the grant made over to the person, and the reception of that grant. The grant once made continues always the same; but the reception may vary, because it depends upon the condition of the recipient.”

Holy Communion

There were three generally recognized theories about the real presence: receptionism, virtualism, and memorialism (or Zwinglianism). The first was the theory of Calvin, Bullinger, and Bucer, it teaches that, although there is no change in the elements, when the faithful partake of the bread and the wine they receive Christ's body and blood by faith, this was held by a majority of Evangelicals and High Churchmen. Virtualism was the belief of the Non-Jurors and it maintained that although the bread and the wine were not changed into the body and blood of Christ, they were changed to be the power or benefit of Christ is present, as if Christ were present. This allowed for the Non-juror theories of eucharistic sacrifice in addition it, “protects the notion that Christ is really present, but avoids the murky waters of mediaeval philosophy and the concept that the Eucharistic bread and wine, undergoing some sort of change of substance” (Robinson). The memorialist or Zwinglian view was also accepted by some Evangelicals and many Low Churchmen but not by High Churchmen. Hylson-Smith offers his understanding of the two strands of thought regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist,

“Two principal schools of thought guided the understanding of the Eucharist for eighteenth century High Churchmen. The first derived from Andrewes, Overall, Heylyn, Thorndike, and Mede… found expression in works such as The Unbloody Sacrifice (1714) by John Johnson of Cranbrook. This tradition stressed the continuity of the Eucharist with the Old Testament sacrifices, and asserted that Christ was offered in every Eucharist, not hypostatically, as supposed by the Tridentine Church of Rome, but representatively and really, ‘in mystery and effect.’ … The second school of thought was derived from Cranmer, Laud, Taylor and Cudworth and was expounded in Waterland’s Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (1737).” (85).

High Churchmen rejected the idea of ex opera operato and the whole sacramental system of the Romans, maintaining that Christ established two sacraments only. Likewise, they rejected the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. They held that the Eucharist was a commemoration of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, once made, as the only relation of sacrifice with the Eucharist. Likewise, the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and an oblation of, “ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee” (BCP). Waterland offers the classically Anglican understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice, “The Eucharist was a commemorative and representative service, which possessed a sacrificial aspect from the remembrance of Christ’s death, and the sacramental Presence was to be understood as the virtue and grace of the Lord’s Body and Blood communicated to the worthy receiver” (quoted in Hylson-Smith, 85). Hylson-Smith then offers his summary of Old High Church theories of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist,
“Three Eucharistic theories… “The most extreme conceived of the Eucharist as a proper and propitiatory sacrifice, in which the bread and wine were themselves offered to God as symbols of Christ’s oblation, begun not on the cross but when the rite was instituted at the Last Supper… A broader band of High Church opinion affirmed that the Eucharist was a commemorative or memorial sacrifice: one by which, in the word of Prebendary George Berkeley, Christians do not ‘barely commemorate their Saviour’s death’, but also ‘powerfully plead in the court of heaven the merits of his vicarious sufferings’… Thirdly, there were many eighteenth century divines who were anxious to uphold the sacrificial character of the Lord’s Supper, but who took special pains to guard against any suggestion that the Holy Communion service possessed any virtue of its own distinct from the one, sufficient sacrifice once offered on Calvary. They regarded the Eucharist as a feast upon that sacrifice: a banquet in which the faithful communicant made a covenant with his God by doing symbolically what Jewish and pagan sacrificers had effected literally, namely consuming a portion of the victim slain” (95, 96).

Apostolic Succession and Catholicity

There have been two approaches to the episcopacy in Anglican history; the first called the bene esse view has been the most held view by both High Churchmen and Evangelicals alike. The other view is the esse view which was held by the Non-jurors and some High Churchmen. The first view maintains with the Ordinal that, “it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church,” it holds that bishops are good, ancient, and desirable for the church but not essential for the existence of the Church. Within the Church of England, ministers are required to be ordained by their diocesan bishop and bishops are to be consecrated by at least three other bishops, however, the bene esse view maintained that other reformed churches still held valid orders even though they had departed from the historic episcopacy; the fact that they held to the catholic faith was enough to make their church’s orders valid. The other view, the esse, view affirms that bishops are necessary for the existence of the Church, obviously looking to St. Ignatius as a guide here, “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans). The esse view would look at reformed ministers with suspicion of their validity. Another important element in High Church rhetoric about orders was the distinction between national reformed churches and dissenting bodies. They were willing to grant validity to national reformed churches such as the Church in Geneva or Holland and the Lutheran churches but not to dissenting bodies in England such as English Presbyterians and Baptists. The thought was that the foreign reformed churches had to depart from the episcopacy to maintain the catholic faith and thus had just cause. The dissenting bodies had separated themselves from the reformed Church of England with no warrant. Laud even held that the superintendent in the Lutheran church was the bishopric in substance but not in name.

Obviously the Tractarians adopted the latter position; however, they did so with a twist which separated them from the earlier High Churchmen. First, they adopted essentially the Roman position which maintained that through the apostolic succession, priests who were ordained gained an ontological change within themselves to have the priestly power to consecrate the elements into the body and blood of Christ. This departed from High Church teaching in a number of ways, first, High Churchmen rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass and the local presence of Christ in the elements. They denied an ontological change of the priest at ordination but rather thought of apostolic succession as the link with the apostolic church. Secondly, Newman began to equate the problem with foreign churches not as the lack of episcopacy but as being Protestant, which he believed was opposed to the Church of England and catholicity. The High Churchmen rejected such claims and were very comfortable with being Protestant and accepted the general teachings of the Reformation. In 1841, there was a controversial idea presented to Parliament, involving a shared bishopric in Jersualem. This controversy was a manifestation of the theological issues involved between Old High Churchmen and the Tractarians. The idea of the bishopric was that it was to be a shared see between the Church of England and the united Evangelical Church of Prussia which was Lutheran. The candidate for the bishopric was to alternate between the respective churches. In general, Old High Churchmen favored the scheme as an opportunity to provide the episcopate for the Lutheran churches. Tractarians opposed it on two grounds. First, it was an “unequal yoke” with Protestantism which Newman was denouncing as heretical now. Secondly, the Tractarians viewed the bishopric as an insult to the Eastern Orthodox Christians there.

Anglican High Churchmen differed with the Roman Catholic Church over the understanding of what the catholic church really is. The Roman Catholic Church necessitates a dogmatic center from which catholicity flows. High Churchmen, following the Caroline Divines, did not view catholicity in this manner; rather, they viewed the catholic church as a federation of separate, national churches each upholding the fundamentals of catholic faith and apostolic order. Therefore, the Anglican Church was not “The Catholic Church,” but rather a part of it. The High Church concept of catholicity did not imply a necessary intercommunion in between the separate national churches. Neither does one jurisdiction of the universal church have seniority over another.

Political Theory

Many times, Old High Churchmen are described as “Erastians” in their political outlook. This is at best a gross oversimplification of their political views and at worst a blatant misrepresentation of their ideas of the relation between Church and State. Erastianism is named after Thomas Erastus, a Swiss theologian, who believed that the State was superior to the Church. While, it is true that the relation between the Church and the State in England could sometimes be characterized by Erastian principles. I cannot effectively summarize Old High Church principles here in any sense adequate that is deserved. I recommend heartily Peter Nockles’s book, “The Oxford Movement in Context,” which will give a rich and thorough study of the matter. In short, though, this quote from, “The Last of the Prince-Bishops,” gives a good summary of High Church attitude towards the Settlement,

"He [Van Mildert] dreamed the Church of England as the soul of the State, as the servant of every citizen, the custodian of true learning and wisdom, as an act of loving homage offered to God in the consciousness of unworthiness but with a confidence founded on Divine Grace. Never blind to the disparities between the Church as he dreamed and as he knew her, he spent his time, energy and (when he had any) money trying to bring her into closer comformity with his vision of her true nature and mission; but he never lost the passionate love for the Church of England, her liturgy, her history, her faithful membership both lay and clerical, which first drew him into her ordained ministry."

The Church as the “soul of the State,” is something entirely different from simple Erastianism. Likewise, High Churchmen viewed the monarchy as being a sacral, quasi-sacramental, office, provided by God to nurture the Church.

Ceremonial and Liturgy

Before the Cambridge Camden Society, most Church of England parishes looked alike and used the same ceremonial, that provided specifically by the Prayer Book. The decorations and ritual were scant. The minister stood at the north end of the Table in surplice and scarf and read the Communion service from there, using only the manual acts in the Prayer of Consecration. Mattins and Evensong were read from the desk. There was an attempt in the later 18th century and early 19th to revive some aspects of Laudian ceremonial which had fallen into disuse likewise there was a resurgence of “Prayer Book loyalty” meaning the strict following of the rubrics and holy days. The Laudian idea of the “beauty of holiness” allowed some ceremonial which was not expressed in the Prayer Book. Old High Churchmen were keen to follow the 1604 canon which required reverence at the name of Jesus:

“[In the] time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised” (Canon 18, Canons of the Church of England, 1604).

A High Churchman, “bows at going into the Chapell, and at the name of Jesus” (Every, 1). To an Old High Churchman a good church which represented the “beauty of holiness” contained, “a decent chancel, altar hangings, and communion rails,” (Nockles, 210). There was some escalation of this as the 1800’s approached where in Bath, a cross was put over the altar and pulpit in Daubeney’s church (Nockles), likewise, Old High Churchmen complained about the Evangelical attitude towards images and crosses. However, old High Churchmen did not support the aims of the Ritualists and viewed their suggestions as a breach of common prayer just as they had criticized Evangelicals earlier of departing common prayer. The Old High Church attitude to the Book of Common Prayer was generally positive, although privately some High Churchmen did express an affinity for the 1549. However, most High Churchmen viewed the 1662 as having sufficiently corrected abuses in the 1552 and a faithful witness to the catholic and apostolic faith of the Church of England.

It is also important to remember that the Tractarians were not concerned with ritual at first and generally did not follow the path of the Ritualists, at least first generation Tractarians. Pusey is known to have rejected the Ritualist movement and continued to minister in surplice and scarf during his ministry.

Repost: The Practice of the Reformed Catholic Religion: Fasting

2012-02-21T15:25:00.000-08:00

As Lent approaches tomorrow, I thought I would repost this article on fasting according to the Book of Common Prayer. It is noteworthy that the Prayer Book calls us to stricter fasting than that of the Roman Catholic Church. We are expected to fast on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and all Fridays of Lent, the Lenten Ember Days, and all the weekdays of Lent.

I offer my own rule as an example of how to approach the Lenten fast. I will strictly fast and abstain from meat products on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the Ember Days, and the Fridays of Lent. I define "fasting" as abstaining from meat, alcohol, and only partaking of one meal per day. On the weekdays of Lent I will fast and abstain, meaning I will eat one full meal and two

************************

This is the second post in a series designed to introduce the reader to a Protestant High Church understanding of the religious life and godly piety. I want readers to know that the renewal of Protestant High Churchmanship is not simply an academic pursuit by the author out of an eclectic curiosity but, rather, a real opportunity to revive Anglicanism in North America.

Fasting is an essential part of Christian practice and especially within the context of Anglicanism. It is important to note the teaching of Jesus on the subject, "And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matthew 6:16-18). We note that Jesus says, "When you fast," not "if." Our Lord expects that we will fast within our life as a Christian, meaning it is not an option for Christians. The Prayer Book realizes this call from our Lord and gives us some suggestions as to when to fast. Notably, the Prayer Book does not define fasting for us. We can look to certain sources to define fasting. Within the Bible there are three types of fasting: partial fast, full fast, and the absolute fast. Three biblical figures used these types of fasts to grow closer to God. Daniel fasted partially from meats and wine, "In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks" (Daniel 10:2-3). Jesus is most known for the full fast during his time in the wilderness. Paul used the absolute fast in the Damascus Road experience. The last fast is something supernatural that God must specifically call one to and must be maintained by the Holy Spirit. The Western tradition distinguishes between fasting and abstinence. Abstinence is simply the practice of not eating meat. Fasting is the practice of eating only one full meal and two smaller meals. The Roman Catholic Church today requires fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and abstinence on all Fridays of Lent. (Thanks to this site for an explanation of biblical fasting). The Prayer Book does not define fasting so I think it is something that the individual can decide on their own. I tend to follow the Roman Catholic practice of fasting (a partial fast) but adding the following observances from the Prayer Book.

The 1662 BCP calls for fasting or abstinence on the following days:

1. The Forty Days of Lent
2. The Ember Days
a. The Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the First Sunday in Lent
b. The Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the Feast of Pentecost
c. The Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after September 14 and December 13, respectively
3. The Three Rogation Days being the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before Holy Thursday or Ascension Day
4. All Fridays throughout the year, except Christmas Day

The 1662 BCP also calls for fasts on the vigils of certain feasts:

1. The Nativity of Our Lord
2. Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
3. The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
4. Easter Day
5. Ascension Day
6. Pentecost
7. St. Matthias
8. St. John the Baptist
9. St. Peter
10. St. James
11. St. Bartholomew
12. St. Matthew
13. Ss. Simon & Jude
14. St. Andrew
15. St. Thomas
16. All Saints

Obviously, this is a rigorous fasting program. I would not advise anyone to start this program "cold turkey." It is crucial when fasting to start slow and work your way up. If you have never fasted or not done so in a long time, start with something very small. Try giving up coffee on Friday mornings or cutting out snacks. After you've mastered that small discipline, try to make it more difficult. Try cutting out a meal or making your meals smaller. Remember to listen to the Holy Spirit and follow His lead.

An Attempt at Translating the 1662 BCP into Modern English

2012-02-16T17:13:00.000-08:00

The talk around the Anglican world seems to be pushing for "modern" editions of the 1662 BCP. While I would rather use the original language and offer commentary on the service sheet, I think many modern "translations" are too literal. In order for the BCP to be "translated" into modern English, we have to do more than change "thou" to "you" and remove the -eth and -est. Many words have changed in meaning since the 16th century or shifted in degree. These words must be changed to reflect current usage. Likewise, a common complaint consists of the idea that modern people cannot understand 16th century idiom. If this is the case, then we cannot use "Prayer Book language" and must look for alternatives to words that the "common person" will understand.

A note about the "gender neutrality" in some of the language contain herein. The modern English language does not use the masculine gender as an all-inclusive neutral gender as it did in the 16th century. The modern equivalent of "him" in that sense is "they". For this purpose, I have employed current usage to reflect the syntax of modern English.

Another note, the Lord's Prayer is not maintained in traditional language. If one adopts the view that traditional language is not "understood by the people" then nothing in the Liturgy can remain as such.

THE ORDER FOR MORNING PRAYER, DAILY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR

The minister reads one or more of the following Scriptural sentences.

When a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Ezekiel 18:27

I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me. Psalm 51:3

Hide Your face from my sins,
And blot out all my iniquities. Psalm 51:9

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise. Psalm 51:17

Rend your heart, and not your garments;
Return to the Lord your God,
For He is gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm. Joel 2:13

To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against Him. We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets. Daniel 9:9-10

O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger,
Nor chasten me in Your hot displeasure. Psalm 6:1

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Matthew 3:2

I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you" Luke 15:18-19

Do not enter into judgment with Your servant,
For in Your sight no one living is righteous. Psalm 143:2

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:8-9

Then he says the following,

DEARLY beloved brothers and sisters, the Scripture moves us, in various places, to acknowledge and confess our sins and wickedness, so that we should not disguise or hide them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of them, by His infinite goodness and mercy. And although we should, at all times, humbly acknowledge our sins before God; yet we should especially do so, when we assemble and meet together to offer thanks for the many benefits that we have received at His hands, to set forth His most worthy praise, to hear His most holy Word, and to ask those things which are required and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Therefore I pray and plead, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and a humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying—

The people say the following Confession, with the minister,

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from your ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the desires and plots [plottings] of our own hearts. We have offended against your holy laws. We have left undone those things which we should have done and we have done those things which we should not have done; there is no health in us. O Lord, have mercy upon us, hopeless [miserable] offenders. Spare those, O God, who confess their faults. Restore those who are penitent, according to your promises declared to us [, and all men,] in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; that we may continue to live a godly, righteous, and temperate life, to the glory of your holy Name. Amen.

If a priest is not present, a layperson or deacon may read the following, in place of the above Absolution,

GRANT to us, your faithful people, O merciful Lord, forgiveness and peace, that we, being cleansed from all our sins, may serve you with untroubled minds, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The priest and people then say,

Our Father, [who is] in Heaven, may your name be held holy. May your Kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Give us the bread that we need today and forgive us our wrongdoing, as we forgive those who have wronged us. Lead us away from temptation and deliver us from evil. For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, both now and evermore. Amen.

O Lord, open our lips,
And our mouths will proclaim your praise.
O God, make speed to save us.
O Lord, make haste to help us.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, ever without end. Amen.
Praise the Lord.
The Lord's Name be praised.

Then the following psalm shall be said or sung, except on Easter Day, when a proper anthem is appointed in its place. And Note, that when the psalms is appointed in the Psalter, it should not be read twice.

VENITE EXULTEMOS DOMINO

O COME let us sing to the Lord:
let us rejoice in the strength of our salvation.
Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving:
and be glad in him with psalms.
For the Lord is a great God:
and a great King above all gods.
In his hand are all the corners of the earth:
and the strength of the hills is his also.
The sea is his,for he made it:
and his hands prepared the dry land.
O come, let us worship and fall down:
and kneel before the Lord our maker.
For he is the Lord our God:
and we are the people of his pasture; the sheep of his hand.
Today if you will hear his voice, do not harden your hearts:
as they were provoked in the day of temptation, in the wilderness;
when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works.
For forty years I was grieved with this generation, and said:
They are a people which err in their hearts, for they have not known my ways.
Unto whom I swore in my wrath:
that they would not enter into my rest.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, ever without end. Amen.

The psalm(s) appointed for the day are said or sung.

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS

WE praise you, O God : we acknowledge you to be the Lord.
All the earth worships you : the Father everlasting.
To you, all Angels cry aloud : the Heavens, in all its power.
To you, Cherubin and Seraphin : continually cry,
Holy, Holy, Holy : Lord God of Hosts;
Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty : of your glory.
The glorious company of the Apostles : praises you.
The great fellowship of the Prophets : praises you.
The noble army of Martyrs : praises you.
The holy Church throughout all the world : acknowledges you;
The Father : of an infinite Majesty;
Your honourable, true : and only Son;
Also the Holy Ghost : the Comforter.
You are the King of Glory : O Christ.
You are the everlasting Son : of the Father.
When you took on the deliverance of man: you did not abhor the Virgin's womb.
When you overcame the sharpness of death : you opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.
You sit at the right hand of God : in the glory of the Father.
We believe that you will come : to be our Judge.
We, therefore, implore, help your servants : whom you have redeemed with your precious blood.
Make them to be numbered with your Saints : in glory everlasting.
O Lord, save your people : and bless your heritage.
Govern them : and lift them up for ever.
Day by day : we magnify you;
And we worship your Name : ever without end.
Vouchsafe, O Lord : to keep us this day without sin.
O Lord, have mercy upon us : have mercy upon us.
O Lord, may your mercy lighten upon us : as our trust is in you.
O Lord, in you, have I trusted : let me never be confounded.

BENEDICTUS

BLESSED be the Lord God of Israel : for he has visited and redeemed his people;
And has raised up a mighty salvation for us : in the house of his servant David;
As he spoke by the mouth of his holy Prophets : which have been since the world began;
That we should be saved from our enemies : and from the hand of all that hate us.
To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers : and to remember his holy Covenant;
To perform the oath which he swore to our forefather Abraham : that he would give us;
That we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies : might serve him without fear;
In holiness and righteousness before him : all the days of our life.
And you, Child, will be called the Prophet of the Highest : for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people : for the forgiveness of their sins,
Through the tender mercy of our God : through which the dawn from above has visited us;
To give light to those who sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death : and to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit;

As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, ever without end. Amen.

I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth :

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, died, and was buried: He descended into hell; On the third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, And sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From there, he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost: The holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. Amen.

The Lord be with you.

And with your spirit.

Let us pray.

Lord, have mercy upon us.

Christ, have mercy upon us.

Lord, have mercy upon us.

Our Father, in Heaven, holy is your name. May your Kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. Give us the bread that we need today and forgive us our wrongdoing, as we forgive those who have wronged us. Lead us away from temptation and deliver us from evil. For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, both now and evermore. Amen.

  O Lord, show your mercy to us.
  Answer. And grant us your salvation.
  Priest. O Lord, save the State.
  Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon you.
  Priest. Gift your Ministers with righteousness.
  Answer. And make your chosen people joyful.
  Priest. O Lord, save your people.
  Answer. And bless your inheritance.
  Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
  Answer. Because there is no other who fights for us, but only you, O God.
  Priest. O God, make our hearts clean within us.

Answer. And do not take your Holy Spirit from us.

COLLECT OF DAY

COLLECT FOR GRACE

O GOD, the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom rests our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom; Defend us your humble servants in all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in your defence, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

COLLECT FOR PEACE

O LORD, our heavenly Father, Almighty and everlasting God, who has safely brought us to the beginning of this day; Defend us in the same way, with your mighty power; and grant that this day we fall into no sin, neither run into any kind of danger; but that all our deeds may be ordered by thy governance, to do always what is righteous in your sight; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Laudian Ceremonial (Part Two)

2012-02-09T19:31:00.000-08:00

This is the second installment (and final) of the Laudian ceremonial series. The themes are similar to the other ceremonial pieces I have written and I hope to have demonstrated that there was a limit to ceremonial that was acceptable under canon law in the English Church, as we see in these accounts. All the page numbers in parentheses refer to the Hierurgia Anglicana which is an excellent book in researching ceremonial practices in the English Church after the Reformation.

I might have to edit the format a bit (as copy/pasting from Word always seems to be an issue).

Likewise, in this installment, I have limited my own comments to the bare minimum so as to let the authors speak for themselves.

3. Specific Practices

3.1 Bowing at the Name of Jesus

One of the coregoals of the Laudian movement was the enforcement of the rubrics of the Book ofCommon Prayer and the canons of the Church of England. One such canon which they felt was indesuetude was Canon 18, part of which dictates that:

“in time of DivineService the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall bedone by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by theseoutward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian resolution,and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Son ofGod, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, andpromises of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to come, are fully andwholly comprised.”

The dedicationto this gesture characterized the Laudians, “When JESUS is named, then offgoeth the cap, and down goeth the knees” (H.A., 109); “And; with theirversicles, one to be said by the priest, the other by the parish clerk orpeople; with their times when to kneel, when to sit, when to stand, when tocurtsey at the Name of JESUS, when to glory their LORD at the beginning oftheir Gospel, or at the end of their Psalms; with their collects andanthems..." (96).

Coupled with this gesture towards the holyname of Jesus, the Laudians also seem to encourage bowing towards the altar,which, predictably, was not something the Puritans appreciated. There is ample evidence of the Laudiansbowing at the name of Jesus and towards the altar. “At Winton… [Archbishop Laud] required them …to rail the Communion-tables, place it altarwise, to bow towards it…” (H.A.,159), likewise at Winchester there were, “adorations towards theCommunion-table,” and at Hereford, the communicants were required to, “bow sooften as the Name of JESUS was mentioned,” and, it was required that, “everyone should bow toward the altar” (H.A., 160). One man writes, “He does not say the mass indeed in Latin: but his hood,his cope, his surplice, his rochet, his altar railed in, his candles,and cushions and book therein, his bowing to it, his bowing, or rather noddingat the Name of JESUS, his organs, his violins, his singing-men, hissinging-boys, with t heir alternate jabbering and mouthings (as unintelligibleas Latin service), so very like popery” (H.A., 167). This gesture (and others) were often comparedto the practices of the Roman Church, “The great conformity and likeness, bothcontinued and increased, in our Church to the Church of Rome… praying towardsthe east; the bowing at the name of JESUS; the bowing to the altar, towards theeast” (H.A., 194). The list ofcomplaints continues, “Upon these and other reasons it was, that manyceremonies introduced into the mass-books and other popish breviaries, such asducking and bowing to the East” (H.A., 328). Likewise, an interesting work titled Pointsof Popery in the Elizabethan Church lists this practice at numberforty-one, “Putting off the caps at the Name of JESUS.” A comparison of difference of practice in theEnglish Church lists the following differences among churchmen:

“Some bow at thename of JESUS, while others of the same Communion pay no more reverence to thatthan to the Name of CHRIST.

“Some bow to the east or altar(which you will), while others that would be thought as good churchmen condemnthat practice as superstitious.”

As we can see the gesture ofbowing at the name of Jesus was one which the Laudians emphasized but which thePuritans disagreed with seriously. TheLaudians really had not stepped beyond the limits of the Prayer Book and were,in fact, encouraging the practice of a gesture that was required by canonlaw. Perhaps, it is better to note thatthe Puritans disagreed with the canon itself and not with the Laudians’practice of it.

3.2Copes and Vestments

In matters of vesture, theLaudians were not innovative; they solely enforced the canonical requirementson their clergy. The Canons of 1604specify that,

“24. IN all Cathedral and CollegiateChurches, the holy Communion shall be administered

upon principal feast-days,sometimes by the Bishop, if he be present, and sometimes by the

Dean, and at sometimes by a Canonor Prebendary, the principal Minister using a decent

Cope, and being assisted with theGospeller and Epistler agreeably, according to the

Advertisements published Anno 7Eliz”

“25. IN the time of DivineService and Prayers in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches,

when there is no Communion, itshall be sufficient to wear Surplices; saving that all Deans,

Masters, and Heads of CollegiateChurches, Canons, and Prebendaries, being Graduates,

shall daily, at the times both ofPrayer and Preaching, wear with their Surplices such Hoods

as are agreeable to their degrees”

These canons represent theofficial interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric by the Elizabethan, Jacobean,and consequently, the Caroline Church. In summation, in divine service, where there was a Communion, the principalminister, as well as the gospeller and epistler, were to vest in cassock,surplice, hood, tippet, and cope. Intimes of service when the Communion was not administered, the cope was not tobe worn. The Laudians did not deviatefrom this standard but it seems that the Puritans were not fans of the officialpolicy.

3.3Facing East

Another feature of the Laudianprogram was the orientation of the priest towards the east in the parts of theliturgy which were directed to God in prayer. Sometimes this is simplified to mean that the Laudians encouraged facingeast during the prayer of consecration but it is more accurate to say that theyencouraged facing east for all prayer. As one would expect, this was not popular with the Puritans who complainedof, “their Epistles, their Gospels, the one to be read with the priest's facetowards the west, the other with his face towards the east” (H.A., 96).

“He hath causeda bell to be hung up in his chancel, called a sacring-bell, which the clerkalways rings at the going up to the second service, which he performs withvariety of postures, sometimes turning his face towards the south, sometimestowards the east, and sometimes towards the west.” 262, against Dr. Pocklington

“That hecommanded the Deans of the said College to severely punish according to theexpressed infliction, who would not likewise convert their faces towards theeast at ‘Glory be to the FATHER,’ &c. and many times in the Divine Service,so that he did luxuriously introduce Popish innovations.”

One mancomplains of Dr. Cosin’s posture at Communion and at Morning Prayer, “Theyoffended likewise in turning their faces to the east, and forcing the people soto do… In this Dr. Cosins offended, not only in turning the reader’s desk atmorning prayer, and the Dean’s pue [sic], that they could not sit with theirbacks to the east; but also when he administered the Communion he stood on thewest side of the Table with his face towards the east, and back towards thepeople; which is a ceremony the Pope’s priests are enjoined to use at Mass.” The adorientam position was closely identified with the Roman Church (as it wasmandated then), “They constantly observe that unlawful ceremony of turningfaces to the east, not allowed by the Church; and some, when they officiate atthe Communion Table, look toward the east, turning their backs to the people,after the manner of Mass priests.”

3.4Postures

Besides the specific Laudianpostures and those contained in the 1604 canons, there was also considerableresistance to the enforcement of Prayer Book ceremonial postures, particularlyof the standing at the Gospel. It seemsthat the complaint was against an unequal reaction to Scripture, i.e. why notstand at all readings? Here are someexamples of this type of complaint,

“When the OldTestament is read, or the lessons, they make no reverence; but when the Gospelcometh, then they all stand up...... “ (109)

"Thestatutes of Hereford being imperfect, he caused to be cast in a new mould... Inwhich it was required... Secondly, that they should officiate on Sundays andholydays in their copes. Thirdly, thatthey should stand up at the Creeds and Gospel, and Doxologies. Fifthly, that the prayer afore their sermonsshould be made according to the 55th canon..." (160)

“That the saidMatthew Wren, being Bishop of Norwich the said year, 1636, in the Tower churchin Ipswich, and other places, did in his own person use superstitious andidolatrous actions and gestures in the administration of the LORD’s Supper,consecrating the bread and wine, standing at the west side of the Table withhis face to the east, and his back towards the people: elevating the bread andwine so high as to be seen over his shoulders, bowing low either to or beforethem when he, after the elevation and consecration, had set them down on theTable.”

3.5 Incense

There isconsiderable evidence that incense was used in churches during thisperiod. The difficulty is establishinghow the incense was used. There are twoways of using incense, first is in a purely perfumatory function, or to makethe church smell better. This is alsoused to symbolize the prayers of the saints in calling the passage fromRevelation to mind. The other use is touse incense to cense things or to bless them. There is ample evidence for the former practice but for the latter it ismore difficult to establish. As we sawearlier, Bishop Andrewes’ chapel was equipped for the use of incense in publicworship with, “"A triquertral censer, wherein the clerk puttethfrankincense at the reading of the first lesson. The naricula, like the keel of a boat,with a half cover and foot, out of which frankincense is poured." BishopAndrewe's Chapel 181). Likewise, and notsurprisingly, Bishop Cosin also used incense, “"In Peter House there wason the altar a pot, which they usually called the incense pot... Alittle boat, out which the frankincense is poured, which Dr. Cosin had made useof in Peter House, here he burned incense" (182). I add my own reflection here, it does notseem that incense was used as it is in the Roman Rite or in modern Anglicanchurches by the Laudians, except perhaps by Bishop Andrewes. It seems to have been used in more of aperfumatory sense, or to fragrance the church in other words. It appears that the use of incense in worshipwas a later development, at least according to some sources, I point to DavidBrattson’s “Incense in Ante-Nicene Christianity,” although its association withthe Church Society does question its bias.

3.7 Altars, candles, and linens

As with theadornment of the priest, the adornment of the altar, as it was called, was metwith much opposition from the part of the puritans. Besides placing the altar against the eastend of the church and railing it off, as it had been in times past, theLaudians also adorned the altar with linens, candlesticks, basins, corporals,and other cloths, and with the cross or crucifix. The Puritans viewed this as a return to thePapacy or a desire so to do by the part of the Laudian bishops. They also saw it as introducing anun-reformed theology of the Sacrament into the worship of the Church ofEngland. While the theology of theCaroline Divines was more open to moderate realism than some of the othertheologies of the Eucharist at the time, it was well within Reformed orthodoxy. It is also important to remember that thePrayer Book requires a “white linen cloth” to cover the altar and another tocover the elements after the Communion. Likewise, the Prayer Book requires the paten and chalice for thedistribution of the elements as well. However,their fascination with the patristic altar was beyond the tolerance of thePuritans as we can see in the following examples.

In BishopCosin’s church, we see many adornments to the altar, which are recorded bypeople who went to these services and complained of the ceremonial complexitycontained in them. "First of all itis enjoined, that the table or altar should be spread over with a clean linen cloth,or other decent covering, upon which the Holy Bible, the Common Prayer-book,the paten and chalice are to be placed: two wax candles are to be seton" (Bishop Cosin, 188). The“decent covering” was probably the “Laudian frontal” as we know them, althoughthe text does not say this in itself. Aninteresting curiosity that is explored elsewhere in further detail is thatalthough there were often two candlesticks with candles in them on the altar,they remained unlit unless they were needed to provide light, in most places,such as we see in the Defence of Laud for his practices, he says, “there werecandlesticks with tapers, but not burning” (162). However, Bishop Cosin seems to have litcandles during the day, when they weren’t “necessary” in their naturalpurposes. The following offers a similarobservation of an English church with unlit candles on the altar, “that Iprofess, when I came from beyond sea, about the year 1660 to Paul's andWhitehall, I almost thougt at first blush that I was still in Spain orPortugal; only the candles on our altars, most nonsensically, stand unlighted,to signify, what? The darkness of our noddles,or to tempt the chandlers to turn down-right papists, as the more suitablereligion for their trade; for ours mocks them with hopes only. He gapes, and stares to see the lucky minutewhen the candles should be lighted; but he is chated, for they do not burn outin an age." 167

The followingoffers another description,

"When thedeacon hath lifted the text of the Gospel from the altar, he gives it to thesub-deacon to carry at his back; two wax candles are lifted from the altar bytwo acolytes, to be carried burning before him so long as the Gospel is inreading; the cross or crucifix is also on the festival days carried before theGospel, and also a censer with fire and incense; the book is crossed andperfumed, and when the lesson is ended the book by the deacon is kissed... Fromnone of these superstitions we can be long secured: our deacons are begunalready to be consecrate; the chief part of their office is their service atthe Sacrament and their reading of Scripture; the orders of sub-deacons andacolytes are proclaimed to be convenient, if the church had maintenance forthem, by Andrewes: the wax candles are standing on the altar already; thesilver crucifix is avowed by Pocklington to have a mete standing upon the samealtar; the crossings, and perfumings, and lights are maintained by Andrewes, asCanterbury sets him forth; the kissing of the book is now daily practiced"192,193

Likewise, withBishop Wren, we see similar adornments in his church. "Now what an Arminian and popishinnovator this prelate [Wren] was in all particulars, the popish furniture ofwhose chapel, with basins, candlesticks, corporals, altar-cloth, a chalice witha cross upon it, and other popish trinkets" (189-191). It is interesting to note the equation of anadorned table or altar with Popery by this man writing against the Bishop. It also interesting to note that the chalice“with a cross upon it,” which perhaps could be the basis of his complaintagainst the chalice for not being “decent” to use the terminology. For instance, in Durham Cathedral, there werecomplaints against the “indecent” cope of Bishop Cosin which had an image on it.

In the Cathedralat Peterborough, there were many “additions” to the altar besides thoserequired by the Prayer Book.

"The Tableitself was thrown down, the table-cloth taken away, with two fair books invelvet covers, the one a Bible, the other a Common Prayer-Book, with a silverbasin gilt, and a pair of silver candlesticks.

"Now behindthe Communion-table there stood a curious piece of stone-work, admired much bystrangers and travellers; a stately screen it was, well wrought, painted andgilt, which rose up as high almost as the roof of the church in a row of threelofty spires, with other lesser spires growing out of each of them, as it isrepresented in the annexed draft. Thisnow had no imagery-work upon it, or anything else that might justly giveoffence; and yet, because it bore the name of the High Altar, was pulled alldown with ropes, laid low and level with the ground" (194).

We see atPeterborough the adornment of the Prayer Book and Bible used in divine worshipas well. And a concern with the “silver”maybe a bit too much adorned for the Puritans.

We come now toArchbishop Laud himself, who did not escape criticism for his practiceseither. In addition to the usualcomplaints against candlesticks, etc. Laud seems to have had several adornmentswith images on them, as is seen below in the quote.

“Upon this newaltar he had much superstitious Romish furniture, never used in hispredecessor’s days, as namely, two great silver candlesticks with tapers inthem, besides basons and other silver vessels (with a costly Common Prayer-Bookstanding on the altar, which, as some say, had a crucifix on the bosses), withthe picture of CHRIST receiving His last supper with His disciples in a pieceof arras, hanging just behind the midst of the altar, and a crucifix in thewindow directly over it… This new altar furniture of his was proved andattested upon oath by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Dr. Featly, Dr. Haywood (his ownpopish chaplain), who justified his lord that he did it in imitation of theking’s chapel at Whitehall, where he had seen not only tapers and candlesticksstanding, but likewise burning in the day-time, on the altar.” ( 338, 339).

Laud defendsseveral of his practices, in this instance the setting up of a credence table,

"The thirdsort of innovations in my chapel charged against me, is the setting up of a Credentia,or side-table, my own and my chaplains' bowing towards the table or altar atour approaches to it, our going in and out from the chapel; my chaplains'with my own using of copes therein, at the celebration of the LORD'S Supper,and solemn consecration of Bishops... that the bread, when the Sacramentwas administered, was first laid upon the Credentia, from whence he tookit in his hand, and then carried it to, and kneeling down upon his kneelpresented it, laid it on the LORD'S Table, on which there were candlestickswith tapers, but not burning, as he had seen them at Whitehall..."Archbishop's Laud Defense 162

Most of theexamples given are of cathedral churches or episcopal chapels but parishchurches also adopted the adornment of the altar such as the example given hereof St. Mary’s, Bruton, “A correspondent has obligingly furnished us with thefollowing examples of village churches, in which the rubrick that requires twolights to be placed upon the high altar, is at this day observed: S. Mary’s,Bruton, Somersetshire, where the candlesticks are silver, and bear the legend‘The gift of Mr. John Gilbert to Bruton church, 1744’” (339).

4. Abnormalities

It appears thata few over-enthusiastic clergy attached themselves to the Laudian program andconsequently “overdid” the ceremonial program as envisioned by Charles I andArchbishop Laud. These clergy appear tohave been either ignorant (meaning uneducated) or recusants, or both. Among the practices we find them doing that arebeyond the standard Laudian program include the elevation of the Host, the inclusionof Ps. 43 at the beginning of the service, prayers to the saints, a belief inpurgatory, the belief that auricular confession is necessary for salvation, anda veneration to the Virgin Mary. It isimportant to note that these practices do not represent the locus of theceremonial program envisioned by Charles and Laud but were aberrations fromit. It is beyond the scope of this pieceto determine whether or not these men knowingly strayed from the Laudian vision.

We learn ofthese abnormalities from charges brought against certain vicars in theperiod. I have found three examples inreading the material for this piece. First, Nicholas Andrewes, Rector of Guilford was accused of, “deliveringthe bread in the Sacrament, he elevateth it, looks upon it, and bows low untoit, and useth other frequent bowing in administering the Sacrament,” his errorwas the elevation of the Sacrament. Another rector, John Mountford was accused of adding to the servicewhen, “in his going up to the Table to read the second service, usually causedthat part of the 43^rd Psalm to be sung, viz. ‘Then shall I to thealtar go, of GOD, &c.’” (265), which was not part of the authorizedliturgy, although certain divines, such as Lancelot Andrewes, would probablynot have regarded this addition as an error. Edward Marten was charged as praying, “for the saints and peopledeparted this life, and that they may be eased and freed of their pains inpurgatory’” (265). James Buck, vicat ofStradbroke, Suffolk, was charged with stating that, “’auricular confession tothe priest is absolutely necessary to salvation, once a year, or at least oncein man’s life.’” He also venerated theVirgin Mary in the same way that the name of Jesus was venerated, “He used tomake as low obeisance at the mentioning of the Virgin Mary’s name as he doth atthe name of JESUS,” and he also encouraged adoration to the altar in the samemanner, “and doth not only bow thrice at his going [to] and thrice at hisreturn from, the Communion-table set altarwise; but teacheth ‘that adoration isdue to it, when the holy Mysteries are absent,’ &c. and hath denied the cupto divers to whom he gave the bread” (265, 266).

5. General Complaints against Liturgical Worship

While thepurpose of this article was to discuss the practice of the Laudians, I foundseveral interesting accounts against liturgical worship in general which Ithought would be good to put in an “appendix” of sorts to this post.

The first comesfrom a work titled “A Short View of thePrelatical Church of England,” which voices a general complaint against theChurch of England and more particularly of her “wearisome Liturgy”:

"Theprelatical service is the cathedral service, consisting in these things. (1.) In a long wearisome Liturgy, read aftera singing manner, syllables and words drawn out into a tedious length; whichLiturgy is framed out of three Romish books, the Breviary, Purtuis [sic],and the Mass Book, so as King James said of it, 'that it's an ill saidmass from which it needeth purging, and from some vain repetitions, and from acorrupt translation of Holy Scriptures, and other abuses thereof.' (2.) In an unedifying singing and piping onorgans. (3). In superstitious cringingto the Name of JESUS, towards the altar, towards the east. (4). In a form observations of habits,surplices, hoods, copes, variety of gestures, and ceremonious devotionsdevised by men" (161).

They dislikedthe whole of the catholic heritage of the Church of England, both in theauthorized ceremonial and the amplification sponsored by the Laudians:

"It remainsthat we should parallel with our Book the accidental parts of the Mass, so tocall them. The most of these we haveactually -- their vestments, hoods, surplices, rochets, mitres, copes of allcolours filled with numbers of images, palls, corporals, chalices, patens,offertory basins, wax candles, veils, rails, stalls, lavatories, repositories,reclinatories (for confessions within the chancel), bowings, duckings, crosses,kissings, coursings, perfumings. Thesewe have already; and what of the ceremonies we want, it were easy to fetchtestimonies from our party's writs for their lawfulness, or at least to shewthe necessity of taking them, whenever they shall be imposed by our Bishops"193

Puritans, whowished to further “reform” the Church of England thought that at its currentstate, the Church was not adequately reformed and was encouraging Englishpeasants to superstition and Romanism,

"The greatconformity and likeness, both continued and increased, in our Church to theChurch of Rome, in vestures, postures, ceremonies, and administrations, namely,as the Bishops' rochets and in the lawn sleeves, the four-cornered cap, the copeand surplice, the tippet, the hood, and the canonical coat; the pulpitsclothed, especially now of late, with the Jesuits' badge [IHS] upon them everyway; the standing up at Gloria PATRI and at the reading of the Gospel;praying towards the east; the bowing at the name of JESUS; the bowing to thealtar, towards the east; cross in baptism; the kneeling at the Communion; theturning of the Communion-tables altarwise; setting images, crucifixes, andconceits over them, and tapers and books upon them, and bowing and adoring toor before them; the reading of the second service at the altar, and forcingpeople to come up thither to receive, or else denying the Sacrament to them;terming the altar to be the Mercy-seat, or the place of GOD ALMIGHTY in the church,which is a plain device to usher in the Mass" 194

“They [theCaroline Divines] tell us… that the Church of England (they take that Churchcommonly, by a huge mistake, for their own prevalent faction therein) doth notonly keep innumerable images of CHRIST and the Saints in the most eminent andconspicuous places of their Sanctuaries, but also daily erect a number of longand large ones, very curiously dressed; and that herein they have reason torejoice and glory above all other reformed Churches.”

Perhaps thispiece is the best demonstration of anti-liturgical spirit against the Church ofEngland. Ironic that it is a litany ofsorts against liturgical worship.

“Do they kneelat confession and absolution? So we.

“Do they repeatthe Pater noster, kneeling, after thepriest? So we.

“Do they standup and repeat the Apostle’s Creed? Sowe.

“Do they, uponthe reading or singing Quicunque vult,or Athansius’ Creed, stand? So we.

“Do they, uponsaying or singing litanies, make responses by the people? So we.

“Do they, uponthe rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, kneel asking mercy and grace after everycommand? So we.

“Do the priestand people read the psalms alternately, verse by verse? So we.

“Do they sit atreading the lessons? So we.

“Do they uncoverthemselves in churches? So we.

“Do they singtheir anthems, and canticles, and psalms, and prayers with music, vocal andinstrumental, as organs, flutes, viols, &c.? So we in our cathedrals.

“Do they bow tothe east, and Name of JESUS? So we.

“Of all wwhichnot one word in all the New Testament.

“Is there not asymbolizing with popery in the places of worship?

“The places ofour worship are either such as were built and consecrated by papists, which wetook from them, retaining the saints’ names they were dedicated to, as SS.Mary, Peter, Paul, All-Saints, or such places as we have built by theirexample, posited east and west: consecrated, and dedicated to some saint andangel, and which we take to be more holy than any other place, as they did, andgive great reverence by uncovering the head, and bending the kneel and uponentrance into it, bowing to the east and altar placed therein: and keep theannual feast of dedication, wake or paganalia, as the papists, and the heathenbefore them, did. Of all which, not oneword in all the New Testament.

“Do we not alsosymbolize with them in the priesthood, who are principally to minister in thoseplaces of worship?

“Have theysuperior priests, viz. bishops and archbishops, in the room of the heathenflamens and archflamens, for sacerdotal service in provinces and dioceses? So have we.

“Have theyinferior priests, distinguished by dignities, names, and services, as deans,chapters, prebends, archdeacons, to minister in cathedrals; and parsons,vicars, and curates to officiate in parishes? So we.

“Have theyproper distinguishing habits for the clergy, and particular vestments for theirholy ministrations, as albs, surplices, chasubles, amicts, gowns, copes,maniples, zones, &c.? So we.

“Of all whichnot one word in all the New Testament.”

“Some bow at thename of JESUS, while others of the same Communion pay no more reverence to thatthan to the Name of CHRIST.

“Some bow to theeast or altar (which you will), while others that would be thought as goodchurchmen condemn that practice as superstitious.

“Some use theLORD’s Prayer kneeling, others pay no more respect to that than to any otherprayer.

“Some are veryclamourous in their responses, others there are more modest, and a less noisysort still, content themselves with an Amenonly at the end.

“Some only sayover their prayers, while a more merry sort sing them out; nay there are notwanting some jovial sparks that cant into their very Creed.

“Some preach inthe surplice, while most pull it over their own ears before they go into thepulpit.

“Some makeprayers in the pulpit after the Litany’s over; some are only pray wees that bidprayer.

“Some read theservice in the desk, while others go with a part of it to the Communion Table.

“The CommunionTable in some places is railed about; in many ‘tis e’en left as open as anyother part of the church.

“In some toppingchurches you shall see huge unlighted candles (for what use nobody alive cantell); but the meaner churches are forced to shift without them.

“Some are for aconsort of musick, others only for organs; some dislike both, and others canget neither.”

Sources

Adrian, JamesM. ‘George Herbert, parish ‘dexterity’,and the local modifications of Laudiansm.’

Dorman,Mariane. 1999. “Andrewes and English Catholics’ Response toCranmer’s Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552”. Reformation Studies Conference,1999. Westminster College,Cambridge.

Stevenson,Kenneth. 2006. “Worship and Theology: Lancelot Andrewes inDurham, Easter 1617”. International Journal for the Study of theChristian Church. 6. 223-234.

Via Media? A Response to Fr. Longenecker

2012-02-07T18:23:00.000-08:00

(This article is a response to Fr. Longenecker's post Via Cafeteria or Via Media? )

Fr. Longenecker is a Roman Catholic priest who had been an Episcopal priest before his conversion to the Roman Church. He is part of the Pastoral Provision, meaning that he has a special dispensation to be a married priest. He has written an article criticizing the Anglican via media. Before I unpack some of his statements, I would like to mention that "via media" is not a core "doctrine" of Anglicanism, and, in fact, is a rather novel term, being coined by John Henry Newman (who left for Rome, which should raise suspicions about the term). However, Fr. Longenecker treats the term as some sort of foundational idea in Anglicanism, so I will try to do that, even though it is not the case.

For a long time Anglicans have promoted the idea that their church was a via media--a middle way--between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Not quite. The "via media" (if there is one), is a "via media" between Geneva and Wittenberg. The English Reformers and nearly every Anglican divine up to Alexander Knox (just before the Oxford Movement) rejected the errors of Romanism, fully. They recognized the chasm between us, as we reject transubstantiation and justification by works.

They taught that their church was the ancient Catholic Church of the British Isles--but reformed properly by Protestant doctrine and customs of worship. However, in practice, as John Henry Newman himself pointed out, the via media was never more than a beautiful idea. This is because Anglicans inevitably fell into one camp or the other. If they were inclined to Protestantism they joined the Evangelicals. If Catholicism, they joined the Anglo Catholics, if they preferred to adjust their Christian faith to the spirit of the age they joined the Liberal establishment.

I take issue with the latter half of this statement. Of course Anglicans believe the first part and it is true that the Church of England is the Catholic church of England, as the Protestant Episcopal Church is of the United States. The latter half, however, is not true. Anglo-Catholicism is a relatively new development in Anglicanism, beginning in the latter part of the 19th century (I'm not counting Tractarianism as "Anglo-Catholicism" because of the lack of ritual complexity in that movement). Evangelicalism became a "party" after Anglo-Catholicism evolved into a party. Evangelicalism arose earlier than Anglo-Catholicism in the 1700's with the revivals. Latitudinarianism is actually the oldest of the "church parties" stemming from the Cambridge Platonists in the 17th century. Longenecker does not mention the old High Church school which, although weakened, is still around, in societies such as the Prayer Book Society.

The via media was impossible to maintain for there was no defining dogma or ways of worship.

Fr. Longenecker is completely wrong here. Anglicanism is commonly defined as having a proper liturgy, in fact, that is one of the "trademarks" of Anglicanism. I have no idea where he conjured up this image in his head. The definition of Anglican worship is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, all Anglican worship must reflect the theology of that book. Likewise, Anglicanism has a defining theology as contained in the Articles of Religion, together with the Prayer Book, Ordinal, and Homilies form the "formularies" or those defining documents which clearly state what Anglicanism teaches and confesses and that which it does not. I quote the declaration of King Charles I, prefixed to the Articles of Religion:

"That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which our clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's word: which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles; which to that end we command to be new printed, and this our declaration to be published therewith..."

For those who wished to walk that middle way, it was more a via cafeteria than a via media. Any Anglican attempting the via media would have to pick and choose from among the different streams of Christian customs and beliefs to formulate his own personal medley of convictions. The via media was therefore not so much a middle road as a road to nowhere.

Fr. Longenecker points out a common misrepresentation of “via media” or even Anglicanism itself. Often people think that Anglicanism is more of a “pick and choose” religion. However, further observation will reveal that Anglicanism does have a set of teachings and a liturgical tradition of its own. It is true that Anglicanism has not defined itself to the same precision that the Roman Catholic Church has but our Church has all of our formularies. One also wonders about the use of the term “cafeteria” to describe Anglicanism. “Cafeteria Catholicism” is a commonplace term used to describe the Roman Catholic Church. I do not wish to point fingers but the criticism can go both ways.

The reason the via media never worked within Anglicanism is because it had no rock on which to build. It had no magisterium and no apostolic authority. The middle way had no one to define what it was, no one to say, “This is the way: walk in it.” This is precisely what the personal ordinariate provides. As the Anglicans come into full communion with the Catholic Church, they will be catechized in the fullness of the faith. Their liturgies will be purged of the anti Catholic elements. They will profess, like all converts do, to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God.

Fr. Longenecker is implying (either knowingly or not) that Anglicanism can only be fulfilled in the Roman Church. Anglicanism has both magesterium and apostolic authority, on its own. The Church of England perserved the apostolic succession of bishops at the Reformation and the magesterium of our Church is the Holy Scripture. The Holy Spirit does not give authority to men to elevate themselves above the Word of God, such an interpretation is alien to the early Church and the Scripture. Anglicans do not need to come into communion with the Catholic Church because we already are the Catholic Church, or rather a part of it. The whole of the Church does not reside in the patriarchal sees. The Church is the assembly of faithful men and women where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments duly administered. Our Liturgy has no “anti-Catholicism” in it but is rather the best Catholic Liturgy available.

There are many thinking Evangelical Christians who are conservative and orthodox in their faith. They have little patience with the razzmatazz of the mega churches and the post modern, self help versions of contemporary Protestant Christianity. They have come to appreciate the historic church. They are longing for liturgy, solid doctrine, strong moral teaching and unity with the apostolic church.

However, if they are drawn to the Episcopal or Lutheran churches they are repulsed by the radical political and sexual agendas, the dumbed down liturgy and ‘up to date’ approach. They wanted tradition, prayer and reverence and they find trendiness, politics and relevance. Sadly, if they visit their local Catholic church it may very well be indistinguishable from what the Episcopalians and Lutherans have on offer. Should they find a more traditional Catholic church they may find the cultural aspects too daunting. They’d spot the Infant of Prague or Our Lady of Fatima and hear rosaries being muttered and their old anti Catholic bias will rear its head and they’ll stay away.

Fr. Longenecker seems to suggest that Protestant Evangelicals will rush to the Catholic Church because the Ordinariate has been established. I highly doubt this. First, many Evangelicals are still entering the Episcopal Church after discovering liturgical Christianity. Next, Fr. Longenecker does not consider the Anglican Church in North America. Lastly, Fr. Longenecker overestimates the importance of justification by faith alone and the firm rejection of works righteousness by Protestant Evangelicals.

All in all, Fr. Longenecker makes some interesting points but fails to see the point of historical Anglicanism nor does he firmly grasp what classical Anglicanism is.

On Roman Catholicism (1)

2012-01-22T11:59:00.001-08:00

In this piece, I wish to address you my brother Roman Catholic. As you may or may not know, this year marks the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate in the United States, which I will address in detail later. The time has come, for me at least, to think again about the things which unite and divide us as equal Churches, at least from our perspective. I hope to explain everything to you in detail and to the extent of my knowledge. I hope to lay out in considerable detail the things which, I believe, we hold in common and should be the basis of further discussion of unity among us. Following that, I prepare to address those things which divide us and, perhaps more importantly, why they divide us. Thirdly, I propose to offer suggestions, humble as they may be, in ecumenical discussion such as ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission).

First, I would like to begin by offering a bit of explanation as to why many Anglicans use the term “Roman Church” instead of “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic Church,” which perhaps you might find distasteful. Anglicans find offensive the notion that the entirety of the Catholic Church is contained in that one portion of it that resides in Rome. This stems from a fundamentally different understanding of catholicity than it is understood by your Church. You might be surprised to know that the Anglican Communion perceives itself as just as much a part of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, as your Church. Every week we pray in our Liturgy for the “one, Catholick, and Apostolick Church” (curiously “holy” was dropped from one printing of the Prayer Book and it wasn’t corrected before distribution, we are slow to change the Liturgy). Another of our treasured prayers, the Prayer for All Conditions of Men includes this petition, “we pray for the good estate of the Catholick Church; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life.” Anglicans have never denied that your Church is a true Church and it is quite rightly part of the Catholic Church but not the whole of it.

Another note about quotations from earlier times, they will include terms such as "papist" "Romish" etc. these were not meant always as offensive (although sometimes they were) but the term "Catholic" was not something wholly owned by Roman Catholics yet, for the Reformers claimed (and still do) that they were equally Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury has said, "the Reformation debate was not one between self-designated Catholics and Protestants; it was a debate about where the Catholic Church was to be found.” It will help in reading these quotes from earlier times to have this in mind so that you understand them rightly.

This year marks the establishment of the American Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, which is a response to the papal initiative contained in the encyclical Anglicanarum coetibus. This document allows "groups of Anglicans" (the translation of the Latin) to enter into the Catholic Church together and to retain some of their "Anglican patrimony" as they term it. I believe this is a positive development in the life of the Church, which I will outline through this piece in certain instances. I will offer a few brief reflections here before I begin the main body of this essay. First, the Ordinariate is a good thing because it ends a chapter in the Anglican Churches, known as "Anglo-Papalism" or “Anglican Papalism.” This movement grew out of the Oxford Movement and Ritualist movements of the 19th century and began to adopt the beliefs and positions of the Roman Catholic Church. The goal of Anglican Papalism was union with the See of Rome, however, in a corporate nature. They worked in the Church of England (the movement was not prominent in the American Church) to make the Church of England more "Catholic" in order that the Pope would accept the Church of England in a full, corporate union. As time has passed that dream has faded in those circles and, I believe, the Ordinariate is a generous offer from the Pope to those who want corporate union with Rome. In addition to that corporate unity, the Pope has authorized special liturgies for use by those groups which are influenced by the Book of Common Prayer, most notably the treasured services of Mattins and Evensong, which are based on the old Offices of the Roman Rite. The numbers of people joining the Ordinariate is not significant (~60 clergy, ~1,000, laity in this country) but the gesture is historically significant.

The point of this first installment is to lay out in considerable detail the areas in which I believe there is considerable unity among us. Before getting to the particulars of the matter at hand, it must be said that our Churches share the primitive, catholic, and apostolic doctrines of Christ, his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, as well as the mysteries of the Trinity and the nature of God. These likewise our shared with the Churches of the East, both those in communion with the See of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Communions as well.

Beginning with the time in which our Churches parted ways, in the sixteenth century. The English Reformation took a radically different shape than that of the Continent. The English Reformation originated in the King, desiring an annulment (not a divorce) from the Pope in order to secure a male heir to the throne. Unfortunately, due to political circumstances in Germany and Rome, the Pope denied this request. Based off historical precedence, Henry VIII doubted the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy (based off the East and earlier monarchs in England) and sought the temporal independence of the Church in England from Rome. Henry favored moderate reform along the Lutheran lines but was attached to the old forms of service (hence an English liturgy was not adopted till after his death). The nature of the English Reformation allowed the English Church to retain the whole of the medieval, parochial system and canon law (which was revised), along with the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon. In fact, the Church of England holds the ancient sees and dioceses of England, not the English Catholic Church. Gradually, the English Church reformed itself doctrinally and liturgically with the publication of the English Bible and later the Prayer Book in 1549. After subsequent doctrinal statements were released, the 42 Articles of Religion were published in 1552, later revised to thirty-nine in 1571 (after the reign of Mary, 1553-1558). Subsequent revisions of the Prayer Book occurred in 1559, 1604, and the final version was released in 1662, although the textual variance in between those revisions is slight and not easy to notice (unless you know what you are looking for). The Prayer Book tradition arrived in the United States with the arrival of American colonists in the 1600’s. After the Revolution, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States was established as the American Church, with its Prayer Book revised to fit the new political situation in 1789. Subsequent revision occurred in 1892 and 1928; likewise, the Episcopal Church adopted the Articles of Religion in 1801. This is one of the areas where our Churches are in more agreement than in disagreement. The reformation of the liturgy was thoroughly conservative, sharing this feature with Lutheran liturgies, of maintaining all of the medieval ceremonies that were not contrary to Scripture and tradition. In addition, Thomas Cranmer, the chief architect of the Book of Common Prayer, was ahead of his time in also trying to reform the liturgy to make it less complex and more accessible to the laity (an attitude adopted by the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council in the 20th century).

Our Liturgy is, in fact, a revision of the Roman Rite as it was in the 1500's, based off the Sarum Use of it in England. The Book of Common Prayer is not a translation of the Sarum Use but it is a reformation of it, according to the principles of the Reformation. For instance, Thomas Cranmer, the architect of the project, insisted that everything "shall be proved, by testimony of the old authors, to be the true and old faith of the catholic Church." This notion of adhering to catholic principle instead of medieval innovations is one of the things that divides us and will be discussed in the next installment. But some portions of the Prayer Book are simple (yet equally complex) translations of the Latin, in fact, most parts of the book are based on texts in the Roman Missal, except for a few places where Cranmer inserted his own compositions (the Prayer of Humble Access, the 2nd Collect in Advent, most notably), Continental material (the Exhortations, Comfortable Words, etc.), and material from the Orthodox liturgies (such as the Prayer of St. Chrysostom in the Daily Offices). Bishop William Van Mildert of Durham says this of the Roman liturgy, "The Ritual of the Romish Church, though composed in the Latin tongue, and clogged with many superstitions and exceptionable forms, was yet in many parts of it, truly Scriptural, and well calculated for the comfort and edification of pious worshipers... some of the most admired parts of our Book of Common Prayer are taken almost literally from the Romish Ritual: and this, far from being any just objection to it, proves that the compilers were guided by the genuine spirit of moderation and Christian candour." Our Churches follow the same calendar (ours with a great simplification of the number of feasts), we honor many of the same Saints and Feasts throughout the year. We honor the Blessed Virgin in our calendar as well and many of the saints too. In contrast to the Continental Reformation, our service very much feels like the Mass, so much so that Thomas Cartwright, a prominent Puritan minister said that the Prayer Book was, "an unperfect book, culled and picked out of that Popish dunghill, the Portuise [breviary] and Mass-book, full of all abominations." Specifically, the Puritans disliked the retention of the sign of the cross, vestments, kneeling to receive Holy Communion, and other gestures and ceremonial maintained by the Church of England (and the rest of the Anglican Communion).

In fact, our Church was one of the only Reformation Churches to never officially demonize the Roman Catholic Church (although private individuals may have). Most other Reformation Churches declared the Papacy to be "AntiChrist" but the English Church never did. This did not mean that we trivialized the real theological differences between us but we did not rob the Roman Catholic Church of the title of "Church" for it has always been a true Church. Richard Hooker, one of the earlier Anglican theologians got himself into a lot of trouble for acknowledging that Roman Catholics could be saved without leaving the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, our Church has been much more generous towards the Roman Catholic Church than vice versa. Roman Catholic priests are received into communion with our Churches without re-ordination and likewise, Roman Catholic laity is always received without re-confirmation. This is not so the other way around, where our Church has never doubted the orders or Catholicity of the Catholic Church, the latter has never acknowledged our Church as such. While Anglicans have always acknowledged the differences between our Churches, the desire for unity has always been strong and the attitude towards Roman Catholicism has always been slightly more positive than in other Churches. Later Churchmen such as Alexander Knox continued in this tradition when he says, "The Romish Church is like a garden overrun with weeds; but there are in this garden some old fruit trees which bear fruit of extraordinary mellowness. Viewed from without nothing could be more uncouth or revolting; but, under that rubbish, must be all the rich results of a providential training of Christ's mystical Kingdom for fourteen centuries," which might sound quaint, even offensive, to modern ears but in the 19th century this was an incredibly generous thing to say, on either side of the split.

In addition to our common polity and liturgy, our Churches agree much on the communal nature of our religion and the necessity of the sacraments in the communication of divine grace. While I cannot say that our Churches agree completely on this matter (for there are many differences), there is the common agreement that salvation is a communal aspect as are other matters of religion. The Anglican Churches never adopted the individualistic piety of the Pietist tradition. Our Christian life looks much like yours. We enter into the spiritual life through baptism in our earliest days and later claim that baptismal faith for our own in confirmation (in fact, our Church retains ancient custom and permits confirmation only by the bishop) and subsequently receive Holy Communion to our spiritual nourishment. We believe that baptism conveys spiritual regeneration to us and that we truly receive Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, although in both ways differently than you believe those things to occur. We have the ministry of absolution or confession of sins available to be received by private confession to a priest, although this is not necessary as in your Church. We have Holy Orders and Matrimony and Anointing as you do. We likewise oppose divorce and remarriage as you do and we uphold the Apostolic Succession of our bishops to maintain the faith of the early Church.

Beyond all of these things which we hold in common, the greatest of all is the common mission to spread the Gospel in this world and to strive to model ourselves after the lives of those earliest Christians. We strive just as much as you do to be the early Church in this modern world, although, it is true we have come to different conclusions that you have. The most comforting reality in all the messes that human beings have created, especially in the past 2,000 years of shared life together as the Church is the fact that all will be fixed and return to how it was, either in this life, or in the next.

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:4-6)

6,000 Pageviews

2012-01-22T10:10:00.001-08:00

The Hackney Hub has reached 6,000 pageviews since its creation in June of 2011. I wanted to thank all the readers who have e-mailed or commented on the blog. Keep reading!

On the horizon...

Part two of the Laudian ceremonial series.
Revision of the "Curious Case" series.
A piece on the Ordinariate and Roman Catholicism.

Browne on the Lord's Supper

2012-01-17T14:13:00.000-08:00

Article  XXVIII

Of the Lord’s Supper.

      The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

      Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

      The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.  And the mean, whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

      The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

De Coena Domini.

      Coena Domini non est tantum signum mutuae benevolentiae Christianorum inter sese, verum potius est sacramentum nostrae per mortem Christi redemptionis.  Atque adeo, rite, digne et cum fide sumentibus, panis quem frangimus est communicatio corporis Christi; similiter poculum benedictionis est communicatio sanguinis Christi.

      Panis et vini transubstantiatio in Eucharistia ex sacris literis probari non potest; sed apertis Scripturae verbis adversatur, sacramenti naturam evertit, et multarum superstitionum dedit occasionem.

      Corpus Christi datur, accipitur et manducatur in Coena tantum coelesti et spirituali ratione.  Medium autem, quo Corpus Christi accipitur et manducatur in Coena, fides est.

      Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex institutione Christi non servabatur, circumferebatur, elevabatur, nee adorabatur.

Section  I – History

      This Article treats generally of the Lord’s Supper, but more especially of the presence of Christ in that Sacrament, and of the mode in which He is received there.  On this mysterious doctrine there have been four principal opinions: 1, Transubstantiation; 2, Consubstantiation; 3, The real spiritual presence; 4, The denial of any special presence altogether.

      1.  Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Church of Rome.  As stated by school authors, and other more subtle reasoners among them, it means that in the Eucharist after the words of consecration the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; so that the bread and wine no longer remain, but the Body and Blood of Christ are substituted in their places.  This, however, is said to be true only of the substance, not of the accidents.  The accidents (such as colour, shape, taste, smell, consistence, &c.) all remain unchanged.  The substance, which is interior to, and not necessarily dependent on these external accidents, is that which is converted.  Yet we are not to call it a mere spiritual change (though some of their writers have allowed even this) but the change is a real and miraculous conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the very Body of Christ, which was born of the blessed Virgin and crucified on Calvary.

      2.  Consubstantiation is considered to be the doctrine of Luther and the Lutherans.  It differs from transubstantiation in that it does not imply a change in the substance of the elements.  Those who hold this doctrine teach that the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine; but that with, and by means of the consecrated elements, the true, natural Body and Blood of Christ are communicated to the recipients.

      3.  The doctrine of a real, spiritual presence is the doctrine of the English Church, and was the doctrine of Calvin and of many foreign reformers.  It teaches that Christ is really received by faithful communicants in the Lord’s Supper; but that there is no gross or carnal, but only a spiritual and heavenly presence there; not the less real, however, for being spiritual.  It teaches, therefore, that the bread and wine are received naturally; but the Body and Blood of Christ are received spiritually.  “The result of which doctrine is this: it is bread, and it is Christ’s Body.  It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are: each as they can; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and the wine as they can; and to the same real purposes to which they were designed; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctify the soul as the elements the body.” {Jer. Taylor, On the Real Presence, sect. I. 4.}

      4.  The fourth opinion is that of Zuinglius, who taught that the Eucharist is a bare commemoration of the death of Christ, and that the bread and wine are mere symbols and tokens to remind us of his Body and Blood.

      The subject on which we are entering is one which has produced folios of controversy; alas! what should have been for our peace becoming to us an occasion of falling.  But a brief view is all that is here possible.

      When we consider the language of the fathers, one or two cautions are necessary.  Of course their words were not measured and guarded, as ours have been in our times of trouble.  Their writings are often rhetorical, that we say not sometimes turgid.  They treat such questions as these practically, not argumentatively.  Now in such writings it may be very difficult to tell the exact intention of the writer when subsequent ages have drawn subtle distinctions.

      Thus much we must premise as unquestionable.  The whole primitive Church evidently believed in a presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  All spoke of feeding there on Christ; eating His Body and drinking His Blood.  But then was it a spiritual presence or a carnal presence?  Did they teach a carnal eating and drinking of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood? or did they intend a spiritual manducation, – an eating spiritually and a drinking in by the soul of the life-giving efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood shed?  Did they believe the bread and wine to be actually and literally transmuted into Flesh and Blood? or did they think the bread and wine still to remain bread and wine, though constituted Sacraments of Christ, means in God’s hand of conveying to us Christ’s Body and Blood, and so, after Christ’s own example, to be called by the name of His Body and Blood?

      Here is the question; and it must be carefully noted.  If there were no other alternative, but that the fathers must have been either Papists or Zuinglians, – must have held either a carnal presence, or none at all; then we must perforce acknowledge that they believed in a carnal presence, and were transubstantialists.  For some presence they undoubtedly taught; some mode of feeding on Christ they undeniably believed in.  But another alternative is possible, and has been acknowledged as possible, even by eminent scholastic and Romanist divines.  They may have believed a spiritual presence.  They may have thought that the Eucharist conveyed Christ really, and yet spiritually, to the recipient; and they may have taught that the soul was truly nourished by spiritually feeding on His Flesh and Blood, as truly as the body is nourished by carnally feeding upon bread and wine.

      Whichever they held, a carnal or a spiritual presence, they may easily have used language which would sound like the carnal presence.  There can be little doubt that their faith and feelings inclined them to the mysterious, and there was no controversy, no apparent need of caution.  But then we may observe that one clear statement that the presence was spiritual, or that the substance of the bread and wine remained, must outweigh statements innumerable, which merely sound like a belief in transubstantiation or in a carnal presence.  For the latter would naturally occur where people believed in a real presence, and had never learned the necessity of guarding their words, lest they should be thought to teach a carnal and natural presence; but the former could never come from the lips or pens of those who acknowledged a literal change of the elements, and that the natural Body of the Lord was actually eaten by all who communicate.

      For instance, Roman Catholics will never say that the bread and wine remain unchanged, and that the feeding is only spiritual.  But Protestants of many different communions have freely declared that Christ’s “Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken.”  Nay! it is acknowledged by them that the Body of Christ then received is the very Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead, and buried.  For there is no other Body, no other Blood of Christ.  Christ’s Body is now glorified, but still it is the same Body, though in its glorified condition.  It is not even denied that we receive that Body really, substantially, corporally: for although the word “corporally” seem opposed to “spiritually,” yet it is not so of necessity.  And, as we acknowledge that it is a Body which we receive, so we cannot deny its presence corporally, i.e. after the manner of a Body.  Only, when we come to explain ourselves, we say, that, though it be Christ’s very Body we receive in the Eucharist, and though we cannot deny even the word corporal concerning it; yet as Christ’s Body is now a spiritual Body, so we expect a spiritual presence of that Body; and we do not believe, that we naturally and carnally eat that which is now no longer carnal and natural; but that we spiritually receive Christ’s Spiritual Body into our souls, and spiritually drink His life-giving Blood with the lips of our spirit. {See this excellently laid down by Bp. Taylor, On the Real Presence, sect. I. 9–11.}  Moreover, it has been abundantly acknowledged, not only by our English divines, but by Protestants of all sorts, that the elements after consecration may be called by the name of those things which they represent.  But then we call them so, not because we believe them to have lost their original nature and to have ceased to be what they were, but because, being hallowed to a new and higher purpose, they may be called that which they are the means of communicating.

      It was necessary to say thus much, that we might not be startled by strong terms ; and so conclude at once that we had found a doctrine, before it had yet entered even into men’s dreams.  With this precaution, we shall readily see in the fathers abundant evidence that the carnal doctrine of transubstantiation had not risen in their days. Let us take one or two of the strongest expressions, and which, if not explained and qualified by other statements, would seem conclusive for transubstantiation and a natural presence.

      St. Jerome and others speak of the clergy as making the Body of Christ. {“Absit ut de his quidquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi Corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos et nos Christiani sumus; qui claves regni coelorum habentes,” &c. – Hieron.  Ad Heliodorum, Epist. V. Tom. IV. part II. p. 10.}  Yet, as the words of consecration make the bread the Sacrament of Christ’s Body, and so the means of conveying His Body to the communicant, and as it was an acknowledged mode of speech and fully sanctioned by the language of our Lord to call the consecrated bread by the name of that of which it was the type and Sacrament; it was not unnatural that the priest by his consecration should be said to make Christ’s Body and Blood, even by those who believed no more than a spiritual and sacramental communication of them to the faithful.

      St. Chrysostom writes, “When you behold the Lord sacrificed and lying, and the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, and the congregation sprinkled with that precious Blood (και πάντας εκείνω τω τιμίω φοινισσομένους αίματι) ... are you not immediately transported to Heaven, and dismissing from your soul every fleshly thought, do you not with naked spirit and pure mind see the things which are in Heaven?  Oh wonderful!  Oh the love of God! who, seated with the Father above, is held at that moment by the hands of all; and who gives Himself to those who desire to receive Him.  And all see this by the eyes of faith.” {De Sacerdot. III. § 4.}  “Behold thou seest Him, thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him.  He gives Himself to thee, not only to see, but to touch, to eat, and to receive within ...  How pure should he be who partakes of that sacrifice! the hand that divides His Flesh, the mouth filled with Spiritual fire, the tongue empurpled with His awful Blood!” {Ιδου αυτον ορας, άπτη, αυτον εσθίεις ... αυτος δε εαυτόν σοι δίδωσιν, ουκ ιδειν μόνον, αλλα και άψασθαι και φαγειν και λαβειν ένδον ... τίνος ουν ουκ έδει καθαρώτερον ειναι τον ταύτης απολαύοντα της θυσίας; ποίας ηλιακης ακτινος την χειρα την ταύτην διατέμνουσαν την σάρκα, το στόμα το πληρούμενον πυρος πνευματικου, την γλωσσαν την φοινισσομένην αίματι φρικωδεστάτω. – Chrys.  Hom. 83 in Matt. C. 26.}  Now these expressions are so strong that even believers in transubstantiation could hardly use them without a figure.  The Roman Catholics allow that the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged; and would hardly therefore in literal language speak of the tongue as assuming the purple colour of Christ’s Blood.  But hyperbolic expressions are common with St. Chrysostom and his contemporaries; and they use such language, that they may exalt the dignity of the blessed Sacrament; that they may induce communicants to approach it with devotion and reverence; that they may turn their minds from the visible objects before them to those invisible objects which they represent, and which as St. Chrysostom says, they may “see by the eye of faith”.

      Still more remarkable perhaps are the expressions used by others of the Greek, especially the later Greek fathers, concerning the change (μεταβολη, μεταστοιχείωσις) in the Sacraments.  So Gregory Nyssen says, “These things He gives by virtue of the benediction upon it, transmuting the nature of the things which appear.” {ταυτα δε δίδωσι τη της ευλογίας δυνάμει προς εκεινο μεταστοιχείωσας των φαινομένων την φύσιν. – Gregor Nyssen.  In Orat. Catechet.}  And Theophylact (the last of the Greek fathers, A. D. 1077), “Therefore the merciful God, condescending to us, preserves the form of bread and wine, but transforms them into the virtue of His Flesh and Blood.” {Δια τουτο συγκαταβαίνων ημιν ο φιλάνθρωπος·  το μεν ειδος άρτου και οίνου φυλάττει·  εις δύναμιν δε σαρκος και αιματος μεταστοιχειοι. – Theophyl.  In Evangel. Marc. cap. CXIV.}  Those who translate μεταστοιχειουν by transelementare think that we have here the very word made use of, which exactly answers to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, namely, a change of the elements into something different from their original substance.  Yet first of all transelementare is not certainly, nor probably, a right translation. { Suidas has μεταστοιχείουσα, μετασχηματίζουσα, μεταπλάτουσα.  Suicer argues at length that transelementare will not properly express its sense.  (See Suicer, II. pp. 363, 364.)  Jer. Taylor (On the Real Presence, sect. XII. num. 5) adduces the words of Suarez, the learned Jesuit, in acknowledgment that μεταστοιχείωσις does not properly convey the meaning of transubstantiation.}  Secondly, Gregory Nyssen is speaking not only of a change in the Eucharist, but in the Sacraments generally; and whatever sanctifying efficacy may have been attributed to the water in baptism, no change of its substance was ever believed to take place.  Thirdly, Theophylact only says that the elements are changed into the virtue or efficacy, not into the substance of Christ’s Flesh and Blood – a very notable distinction.  Fourthly, he uses the same word (μεταστοιχείωσις) of changes very unlike transubstantiation, e. g. the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption, and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united to Christ. {Theophyl.  In Luc. xxiv. et in Joh. VI apud Jer. Taylor, ubi supra.}  Lastly, we shall find abundant proof from Greek fathers, centuries before Theophylact, to show that a conversion of substance was not believed by the early Greek Church; and therefore, that Theophylact’s transelementation must have meant something else, or that he himself must have adopted comparatively modern views.

      The same observations apply to the passages cited from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, where he speaks of Christ’s changing the water into wine, and then adds, “Let us therefore with full assurance receive Christ’s Body and Blood; for His Body is given to thee in the figure of bread, and His Blood in the figure of wine.” {εν τύπω γαρ άπτου δίδοταί σοι σωμα, και εν τύπω οίνου δίδοταί σοι το αιμα. – Cyril Heiros. Catec. Mystagog. IV. 1.}  But here St. Cyril happily explains himself; for soon after he speaks of the Capharnaite Jews as offended at our Lord’s sayings in John 6:53.  And this, he says, was from their carnal interpretation of His words: “They, not receiving His saying spiritually, being offended went backward, thinking that He invited them to the eating of flesh.” {εκεινοι μη ακηκοότες πνευματικως των λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες, απηλθον εις τα οπίσω, νομίζοντες ότι επι σαρκοφαγίαν αυτους προτρέπεται. – Ibid.}  He then compares the Eucharist to the shewbread, and says that, “as the bread is fitted for the body, so the Word for the soul.  Look not therefore as on bare bread and wine, for they are, according to the Lord’s saying, His Flesh and Blood.” {Μη πρόσεχε ουν ως ψιλοις τω άρτω και τω οίνω·  σωμα γαρ και αιμα Χριστου κατα την δεσποτικην τυγχάνει απόφασιν. – Cat. Myst. IV. 2}  The context plainly shows the conversion to be spiritual, not as the Jews had understood our Lord, as indicating a literal σαρκοφαγία or banquet upon flesh.

      There is a famous passage which the Roman Catholic controversialists coupled with the last from St. Cyril and much insisted on as plainly in their favour.  It comes from the tractDe Coena Domini, in former times attributed to St. Cyprian, but which the Benedictine editors assign to Arnoldus, of Bona Vallis, a contemporary of St. Bernard.  It speaks of the bread as “changed, not in form, but in nature.” {“Panis iste, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura, mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro.” – De Coena Domini.  The tract is usually printed in the Appendix of the works of Cyprian.  In the Oxford edition it is in Appendix, p. 39, and the above passage, p. 40.  In the edition of Venice, 1729, it is App. p. xcix.  There is also a famous passage from St. Ambrose, De Myst. IX. § 52, where he speaks of Christ’s words as changing the properties of the elements: “valebit Christi Sermo ut species mutet elementorum”: and again, mutare naturas.  The answer in the text to the passage from the Pseudo-Cyprian equally applies to this from St. Ambrose.  See also Bp. Cosin, Hist. of Transubstant. ch. VI. 14.}  The words of our own reformer shall explain that, even if the language were (as it is not) St. Cyprian’s, it would not prove him a supporter of transubstantiation.  “The bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, as Cyprian truly saith; not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clean gone, but that by God’s word there is added thereto another higher property, nature and condition, far passing the nature and condition of common bread, that is to say, that the bread doth show unto us, as the same Cyprian saith, that we be partakers of the Spirit of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually fed with His Flesh and Blood: so that now the said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul.” {Cranmer, Remains, II. p. 340; Defence of the Catholic Doctrine, Bk. II. ch. XI.}

      We must not omit one passage from St. Hilary which contains certainly some startling expressions.  He is arguing against heretics who held that the Unity of the Father and the Son was unity of will, not unity of nature.  He quotes against them John 17:21, 23: “That they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one.”  And he contends that the unity of the Father and the Son must be an unity of nature, not merely of will; inasmuch as the indwelling of Christ in His people is not by concord of will, but by verity of nature; for He took the nature of our flesh, on purpose that He might dwell in us according to that human nature; and by His human nature He dwelleth in us and we in Him.  Hence our union with Him is by unity of nature, i.e. human nature.  So in like manner, His union with the Father is by unity of nature, i.e. Divine nature.  In the course of this argument he says, “If Christ therefore really took flesh of our body, and He is truly that Man who was born of Mary, and we truly under the mystery receive His Flesh by means of which we shall be one; for the Father is in Him and He in us; what room is there for mere unity of will, when the natural property effected by the Sacrament is the Sacrament of perfect unity?  Christ Himself says concerning the truth of His nature in us, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth, in me, and I in him.  Concerning the truth of His Body and Blood there is no room for doubt; for now by our Lord’s witness and our own faith, it is truly Flesh, and truly Blood.  And these received and taken in by us make that we be in Christ and Christ in us.”*

            {*“Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse; quia in Christo Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum in his esse nos faciunt.  Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus; (et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et Ille in nobis;) quomodo voluntatis unitas aperitur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas, perfectae sit sacramentum unitatis: De naturali in nobis Christi veritate ipse ait: Caro mea vere est esca, et sanguis meus vere est potus.  Qui edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinern meum, in me manet, et ego in eo.  De veritate carnis et sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus: nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et fide nostra, vere caro, et vere sanguis est.  Et haec accepta et hausta efficiunt ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis sit.” – Hilar. De Trinitate, Lib. VIII. § 13, p. 222.  Edit. Benedict.}

      The passage, strong as it is, does not stagger those who admit a true but spiritual presence of Christ’s Body in the receiving of the Eucharist, and a true but spiritual union of Christians to the human nature of their Lord.  “For as concerning the word truly,” they say, “it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial presence; for Christ is truly in all His faithful people, and they truly eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and yet not by a real and corporal, but by a spiritual and effectual presence.” {Cranmer’s Answer to Gardiner, Works, p. 254.}  “And although he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be naturally in Him.  And nevertheless in so saying, he meant not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s Body and of ours; for as our bodies be not after that sort within His Body, so is not His Body after that sort within our bodies ... And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual ... so likewise our union with Christ in His holy Supper is spiritual ... and therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the Sacraments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in baptism and our union with Him in His holy Supper.” {Cranmer’s Defence of the Catholic Doctrine, &c. Works, II. pp. 406, 407.  N.B.  Just before the passage above quoted, Hilary had spoken of the union of Christians to Christ in baptism, as he speaks afterwards of their union in the Eucharist: “Docet Apostolus ex natura sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem, ad Galatas scribens, Quotguot enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis,” &c. – De Trin. Lib. VIII. p. 218. Ed. Ben.}

      Now, although such passages admit of an explanation, whether we adopt the transubstantialist theory or the doctrine of a true but spiritual presence in the Eucharist; yet it must be conceded that if all the language of the fathers was similar to the above-quoted sentences, there would be just reason to suspect that from the first transubstantiation, or something near akin to it, was the doctrine of the Church.  But it is easy to bring a chain of testimonies, from the very earliest ages through many centuries which cannot be interpreted to mean transubstantiation or a carnal presence, but which declare, though plainly for a real, yet as plainly for a spiritual feeding upon Christ.

      The apostolical fathers for the most part speak in terms so general that it is often almost doubtful, whether they speak of the Eucharist or of that spiritual feeding upon Christ as the bread of life, which all allow to be possible even without the Eucharist.  Thus Ignatius, “I delight not in the food of corruption, nor in the pleasures of this life; I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Christ, and His Blood I desire as drink, which is love incorruptible.” {Ignat.  Ad Roman. VII.  The passage is in the Syriac.}  Again, “Let no one be deceived; if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.” {Ignat.  Ad Ephes. V.}  His high esteem for the grace of this Sacrament he shows in general expressions, e. g. “breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, our antidote that we die not, but live forever in Christ Jesus.” {Ad Ephes. XX.}  One passage in this early father alludes to certain sects of the Gnostics or Docetae, who not believing that the Saviour had ever taken real human flesh, refused to receive the Eucharist, because they would not acknowledge it to be the Body of Christ.  “They abstain from the Eucharist and public prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised from the dead.” {Ad Smyrn. VII.  The passage is not in the longer epistles, but it is in the shorter (esteemed the genuine) epistles of Ignatius, and it is cited by Theodoret (Dial. 3) and is maintained to be genuine by Cotelerius, Tom. II. p. 37, note in loc.  The Greek is ευχαριστίας και προσευχης απέχονται, δια το μη ομολογειν την ευχαριστίαν σάρκα ειναι του Σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου, την υπερ αναρτων ημων παθουσαν, ην χρηστότητι ο Πατηρ έγειρεν.}  From which we may fairly conclude, that the fathers called the consecrated bread the Body of Christ, and that some early heretics did not admit the language, or perhaps even the Sacrament, because they disbelieved in the existence of Christ’s Body.  But even Bellarmine allows that the question between Ignatius and the heretics was not the doctrine of the Eucharist, but the doctrine of the Incarnation. {De Eucharistia, I. 1, cited by Bp. Cosin, Hist. of Transubstantiation, ch. VI. 11.}  Whatever may have been the belief of the Church as to the mode of receiving Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, the heretics would have been equally likely to reject the Eucharist, as not acknowledging that Christ had a body at all.  For the Eucharist, which symbolizes, and is the means of receiving His Body, presupposes its reality.  Another passage from Ignatius is as follows: “Hasten therefore to partake of the one Eucharist; for there is but one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the unity of His Blood; one altar, as also one bishop,” {Σπουδάσατε ουν μια ευχαριστία χρησθαι·  μία γαρ σαρξ του Κυρίου ημων Ιησου Χριστου, και εν ποτήριον εις ένωσιν του αίματος αυτον, εν θυσιαστήριον ως εις επίσκοπος, κ. τ. λ. – Ad Philadelph. IV.} &c.  Here the exhortation is to avoid schism, partaking of the one Eucharist, where is exhibited to us the oneness of the Saviour we receive, and so the unity of the Church.

      Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic feast to the heathen emperor.  He speaks first of the bread and wine as blessed by the presiding presbyter; and then says, “This food is called by us Eucharist, which no one is allowed to take but he who believes our doctrines to be true, and has been baptized in the laver of regeneration for the remission of sins, and lives as Christ has enjoined.  For we take not these as common bread and common drink.  For like as our Saviour Jesus Christ, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we are taught that this food, which is blessed by the prayer of the Word that cometh from Him, by conversion of which our flesh and blood are nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus.” {ου γαρ ως κοινον άρτον, ουδε κοινον πόμα ταυτα λαμβάνομεν, αλλ ον τρόπον δια λόγου Θεου σαρκοποιηθεις Ιησους Χριστος ο Σωτηρ ημων, και σάρκα·  και αιμα υπερ σωτηρίας ημων έσχεν, ούτως και την δι ευχης λόγου του παρ αυτου ευχαρισθεισαν τροφην εξ ης αιμα και σάρκες κατα μεταβολην τρέφονται ημων, εκείνου του σαρκοποιηθέντος Ιησου και σάρκα και αιμα εδιδάχθημεν ειναι. – Justin. Apol. I. p. 98.  “As it appears to me, Justin in this passage does not intend to compare the manner, in which Jesus Christ being made flesh by the Word of God hath flesh and blood for our sake, with that in which the bread and wine ...  became the Flesh and Blood of Christ; but only to say that as Christians were taught that Christ had flesh and blood, so were they also taught that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are the Body and Blood of Christ; ον τρόπον is merely equivalent to as.” – Bishop Kaye, Justin Martyr, pp. 87, 88, note.}  There is manifestly in this passage what may be called High Eucharistic doctrine.  Justin was plainly no Zuinglian.  The Christians of his day took not the consecrated elements “for common bread and common wine.”  But, if Justin was no Sacramentarian, neither was he a transubstantialist.  Whereas he says it is not common bread, he evidently believes it to be yet bread; otherwise he would naturally have left out the epithet common, and have said, that they esteemed it no longer bread at all.  Moreover, he speaks of the elements as changed into the nourishment of our flesh and blood.  But he would never have said this had he believed them to have literally become the unchangeable and incorruptible Body of the Lord.  It is evident, therefore, that he held no change in the elements, but a Sacramental change; although he undoubtedly declares that in the Eucharist the Christians were taught that there was a reception of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Dr. Waterland argues, that consubstantiation is as much excluded by this passage as transubstantiation, {Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. VII.} though Bishop Kaye appears to admit that it sounds not unlike the former. {Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 74.}  Still he has justly added, that in the Dialogue with Trypho Justin states the bread to be in commemoration of Christ’s Body, and the cup of His Blood; {περι του άρτου ου παρέδωκεν ημιν ο ημέτερος Χριστος ποιειν εις ανάμνησιν του τε σωματοποιήσαθαι κ. τ. λ. – Dialog. p. 296.} and in another place applies to them the expression “dry and liquid food”; {της τροφης αυτων ξηρας και υγρας, εν η και του πάθους ο πέπονθε δι αυτου ο Θεος του Θεου μέμνηται. – Dial. p. 345.} and such language would scarcely have been used by a believer in the natural, though the language of the former passage might be readily adopted by a believer in the spiritual presence.

      Our next witness is Irenaeus.  “As the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly andheavenly; so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have hope of eternal resurrection.” {Ως γαρ απο γης άρτος προσλαμβανόμενος την έκκλησιν του Θεου, ουκέτι κοινος άρτος εστιν, αλλ ευχαριστία, εκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυια·  ούτως και τα σώματα ημων μεταλαμβάνοντα της ευχαριστίας μηκέτι ειναι φθαρτα, την ελπίδα της εις αιωνας αναστάσεως έχοντα. – Irenae. Lib. IV. 32 (Lib. IV. 18. Bened.)}  Here we have evidently the substance of the bread remaining, still an earthly element.  Yet it is no longer common bread, for by consecration there is a heavenly or spiritual grace united to it, which makes it not mere bread, but the Eucharist.

      Irenaeus had to contend against the Gnostics who denied the reality of the Body of Christ.  In more than one place he argues, from the real substantial character of the Eucharistic elements, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ, of which they were the representatives, must be substantial and real.  This will make his language sometimes sound as though he believed in a natural presence of that Flesh and Blood; yet, if we remember his object and attentively observe his words, we shall think otherwise.  “That cup,” he says, “which is a creature, He recognized to be His Blood which is shed, with which He imbues (δεύεί) our blood; and the bread which is a creature, He affirmed to be His own Body, by which our bodies grow.  When, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the word of God and become the Eucharist of Christ’s Blood and Body, and by them the substance of our flesh grows and consists, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, namely of life eternal, when it is fed by Christ’s Body and Blood, and is a member of Him?” {Adv. Haer. v. 2.  Of this passage we may observe that if Irenaeus had meant that the elements were changed in substance into Christ’s Body and Blood, he would never have spoken of them as nourishing our bodies, which implies the idea of digestion acknowledged to be blasphemy.}

      In a fragment edited by Pfaff, we have a clear explanation of Irenaeus’s view that by the Holy Spirit descending on the Eucharist, the Elements become so the Body and Blood of Christ, that though they yet remain figures or emblems, still the partakers of those emblems obtain pardon and eternal life. {και ενταυθα την πρόσφοραν τελέσαντες εκκαλουμεν το Πνευμα το άγιον, όπως αποφήνη την θυσίαν και του αρτον σωμα του Χριστου·  ίνα οι μεταλάβοντες τούτων των αντιτύπων της αφέσεως των αμαρτιων και της ζωης αιωνίου τύχωσιν. – Irenaei Scripta Anecdota, fragmen. 2. p. 29.}  In another fragment quoted from him by OEcumenius, we read, that during persecution some slaves had informed against their masters, having misinterpreted the language used concerning the Eucharist, and so supposing that their masters fed on human flesh.  This, Irenaeus says, arose from their having heard the divine Communion called the Blood and Body of Christ; “and they, thinking it was in reality flesh and blood, gave information accordingly.” {οι δουλοι ουτοι, μη έχοντες πως το τοις αναγκάζουσι καθ ηδονην ερειν, παρ όσον ήκουον των δεσποτων, την θείαν μετάληψιν αιμα και σωμα ειναι Χριστου, αυτοι νομίσαντες τω όντι αιμα και σάρκα ειναι, τουτοεξειποντοιςεκζητουσι. – Fragmentum ab OEcumenio in Comment. ad 1Petri Epist. cap. 3, p. 498, allegatum; Irenai Op. Grabe, p. 469.}  The inference obviously is that Irenaeus did not think the bread and wine to have become really Flesh and Blood.  So he, like Justin Martyr, is a witness against the Roman doctrine, and yet perhaps, as Waterland observes, still more against the mere figurists or memorialists.  For it is certain, that he believed the Body and Blood of Christ to be verily and indeed taken in the Eucharist; but still he gives no indication of a belief in a change of the elements, acknowledging them to be emblems(αντίτυπα), and not thinking that those who partook of them were indeed feeding upon flesh and blood. {There is an excellent chapter in Beaven’s Irenaeus on the subject of Irenaeus’s statements concerning the Eucharist.}

      Tertullian says, “The petition, Give us this day our daily bread, may be spiritually interpreted.  For Christ is our bread.  I, said He, am the bread of Life: and just before, The Bread is the Word of the Living God, who came down from Heaven: and also because His Body is understood in Bread, This is My Body.  (Tum quod et Corpus Ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est Corpus Meum.)  Therefore, by asking our daily bread, we seek perpetuity in Christ and to be undivided from His Body.” {De Oratione, c. 6.}  Again he writes, “Our body is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that our soul may be fattened of God.” {“Caro Corpore et Sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur.” – De Resur. Carn. c. 8.}  He speaks of Christ, ascalling bread His Body. {“Christus ... panem corpus suum appellans.” – Adv. Judae. C. 10.}  “Bread,” again we read, “by which He represents His very Body.” {“Panem, quo ipsum Corpus suum repraesentat.” – Adv. Marcion. Lib. 1. C. 14.  “Reprasento – to exhibit as present; υποτυπόω, praesentem esse facio, ob oculos pono, refero.  Repraesentare dicuntur pictores.  Item oratores graphice quippiam describentes.” – Facciolati.}  So also, “Having taken bread and distributed it to His disciples, He made it His body by saying, This is my Body, i.e. the figure of My Body.  But there would be no figure if there were no true Body.  A mere phantom, without substance, would admit no figure.” {“Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est Corpus Meum, dicendo, id est, figura Corporis Mei.  Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset Corpus.  Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasms, figuram capere non posset.” — Adv. Marcion. Lib. IV. C. 40.}  In the last passage, he is arguing, like Ignatius and Irenaeus, against those who denied a Body to our Lord.  Now surely this testimony is plain.  The bread is not really Christ’s Body but a figure of His Body with which however He is pleased to recall (repraesentare) His Body to His followers.  In this bread His Body is understood (censetur) or accounted; and so our bodies are fed with His Body, that our souls may be nourished of God.  Though the bread then is a figure; yet the feeding on Christ is not merely figurative, but real, and spiritual.  He is the Bread of life; and by feeding on Him we receive perpetual and indivisible union to His Body.

      Clement of Alexandria, of the same date with Tertullian, says, “The Blood of the Lord is twofold: the one natural or carnal, whereby we are redeemed from corruption; the other spiritual, whereby we are anointed; and this is to drink the Blood of Jesus, to be partakers of the Lord’s incorruptibility.  Also the Spirit is the power of the Word, as the Blood is of the flesh.” {Διττον δε το αιμα του Κυρίου·  το μεν γαρ εστιν αυτου σαρκικον, ω της φθορας λελυτρώμεθα·  το δε πνευματικον, τουτέστιν ω κεχρίσμεθα·  και τουτ έστι πιειν το αιμα του Ιησου, της Κυριακης μεταλαμβάνειν αφθαρσίας·  ισχυς δε του Λόγου το πνευμα, ως αιμα σαρκός. – Paedag. Lib. II.C.2, p. 177.}  He then goes on to speak of the wine mingled with water; and says that the mixture of the drink and of the Logos is called the Eucharist – “Blessed and glorious grace, by which those who partake in faith are sanctified both body and soul.”  “Christ,” he says a little farther on, “partook of wine; for He was a man.  He blessed it too, saying, Take, drink, this is My Blood, the blood of the vine.  He thus calls allegorically the Word, who was poured forth for many for the remission of sins, the sacred stream of gladness ... He showed that what He blessed was wine, by saying to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it with you in My Father’s Kingdom.” {Ευ γαρ ίστε, μετέλαβεν οίνου και αυτος·  και γαρ άνθρωπος και αυτός.  Και ευλόγησέν γε τον οινον, ειπων, λάβετε, πίετε·  τουτό μου εστι το αιμα, αιμα της αμπέλου·  του Λόγον, τον περι πολλων εκχυνόμενον εις άφεσιν αμαρτιων, ευφροσύνης άγιον αλληγορει ναμα ... ότι δε οινος ην το ευλογηθεν, απέδειζε πάλιν, προς τους τους μαθητας λέγων.  Ου μη πίω εκ του γεννήματος της αμπέλου ταυτης, μέχρις αν πίω αυτο μεθ υμων εν τη βασιλεία του Πατρος ημων. – Paedag. Lib. II. C. 2, p. 186.}  Clement was a very mystical writer; but we can discern this much at least from the foregoing passages that whilst he attached great spiritual blessings to the Eucharist; he yet believed the substance of the wine to remain in it, and the Blood received therein to be spiritual, not natural Blood.

      In Origen, as in his predecessors, we perceive at the same time deep reverence for the Body of Christ received in the Eucharist, and yet a belief that the reception of that Body was spiritual and heavenly, not carnal and natural.  “When ye receive the Body of the Lord, with all caution and reverence ye preserve it; lest any, the least thereof, be lost, or any portion of the consecrated gift pass away.” {“Cum suscipitis Corpus Domini, cum onmi cautela et veneratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur.” – In Exod. Hom. XIII.}  “Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes ; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the old Testament is there a letter which killeth; but also in the new there is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Except ye eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth.” {“Agnoseite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales et non tanquam carnales examinate et intelligite quae dicuntur.  Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, laedunt vos et non alunt.  Est enim et in evangeliis litera quae occidit.  Non solum in veteri Testamento occidens litera deprehenditur; est et in novo Testamento litera quae occidat eum qui non spiritaliter quae dicuntur adverterit.  Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinein meum, occidit litera.” – In Levit. Hom. VII. n. 5.}

      St. Cyprian, in his 63d Epistle, is very full on the subject of the cup in the sacrament. He is writing there against the Aquarii, who rejected wine as evil, and so used water at the communion.  He argues that the tradition of the Lord should be preserved; and that nothing should be done but what Christ did before: that therefore “the Cup, which is offered in commemoration of Him, be offered mixed with wine.  For whereas Christ says, I am the true Vine, the Blood of Christ is surely wine, not water.  Nor can it appear that in the cup is His Blood, with which we are redeemed, if wine be absent, by which Christ’s Blood is represented.” {“Ut calix, qui in commemoratione Ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.  Nam cum dicat Christus;Ego sum vitis vera; sanguis Christi, non aqua est utique, sed vinum.  Nec potest videri sanguis Ejus, quo redemti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.” – Cyprian. Epist. LXIII; Coecilio Fratri, p. 148. Oxf.}  There is much there to the same purpose.  But these words alone prove that Cyprian, whilst calling the consecrated wine the Blood of Christ, and believing (as is abundantly evident through his writings everywhere) that there was in the Sacrament a real partaking of Christ, yet considered that there was still remaining the substance of the wine; for, says he, “The Blood of Christ is wine,” i.e. that cup which We drink, acknowledging it to be the Blood of Christ, is wine.  Moreover, he considered the wine to be a representation or means of showing Christ’s Blood, and the cup to be offered in commemoration of Him.

      St. Athanasius, quoting John 6:16–63, observes, “Christ distinguished between the flesh and the spirit, that believing not only what was apparent, but also what was invisible, they might know that what He spake was not carnal but spiritual.  For to how many could His Body have sufficed for food that this might be for nourishment to all the world?  But therefore He made mention of His ascension into heaven, that He might draw them from understanding it corporally; and that they might understand that the Flesh He spoke of was heavenly food from above, and spiritual nourishment given them by Him.  For, says He, the things that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life.  Which is as though He had said, My Body, which is shown and given for the world, shall be given in food, that it may be spiritually distributed to every one, and become to each a preservative unto the resurrection of eternal life.” {το πνευμα προς τα κατα σάρκα διέστειλεν, ίνα μη μόνον το φαινόμενον, αλλα και έ[?] λέγει ουκ έστι σαρκικα αλλα πνευματικά·  πόσοις γαρ ήρκει το σωμα προς βρωσιν, ίνα και του κόσμου παντος τουτο τροφη γένηται; αλλα δια τουτο της εις ουρανους διαβάσεως εμνημόνευσε του υίου του ανθρώπον, ίνα της σωματικης εννοίας αυτους αφελκύση και λσιπον την ειρημένην σάρκα βρωσιν άνωθεν ουράνιον, και πνευματικην τροφην παρ αυτου διδομένην μάθωσιν.  α γαρ λελάληκα, φησιν, υμιν πνευμα εστι και ζωή.  ισον τω ειπειν, το μεν δεικνύμενον και διδόμενον υπερ του κόσμου δοθήσεται τροφη, ως πνευματικως εν εκάστω ταύτην αναδίδοσθαι, και γίνεσθαι πασι φυλακτήριον εις ανάστασιν ζωης αιωνίου. – Athanas.  In illud Evangelii, “Quicumque dixerit,” Op. Tom. I. p. 979.}

      We have already heard St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the contemporary of Athanasius, declare his belief, that the Body and Blood of Christ are given us under the figure of bread and wine, and that the Capharnaites were misled by interpreting our Lord carnally, as though He meant a banquet upon flesh, not, as He ought to be interpreted, spiritually. {Cyril.  Cateches. Mystag. IV. 1, cited above.}  So, in a former lecture, speaking of the unction, which was given with baptism, figuring the anointing of the Holy Ghost, he writes, “Beware of supposing this bare unction.  For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer mere bread (ουκ έτι άρτος λιτος), but the Body of Christ; so also this holy ointment is no longer simple ointment, nor common, after the invocation, but the gift of Christ .... While thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy, life-giving Spirit.” {Cat. Myst. III. 3.}  Here is a denial that the bread is mere bread, not that it still continues really bread; and a statement that it is the Body of Christ, but so the Body of Christ, as the unction was believed to be the Holy Ghost; i.e. not in a natural change of the substance, but in spirit, and power, and life.

      St. Jerome clearly distinguishes between the natural Body and Blood of Christ, which were crucified and shed, and the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, which are eaten and drunken by the faithful.*  And so we must explain that language of his which, as we saw above, appeared to savour of the later doctrine of the Latin Church.  St. Chrysostom too, who used such glowing terms of the real presence of Christ, elsewhere explains himself that we should look on all Sacraments not outwardly and carnally, but spiritually and with the eyes of our souls. {τί δέ εστι το σαρκικως νοησαι; το απλως εις τα προκείμενα οραν, και μη πλέον τι φαντάζεσθαι.  τουτο γάρ εστι σαρκικως.  χρη δε μη ούτω κρίνειν τοις ορωμένοις, αλλα πάντα τα μυστήρια τοις ένδον οφθαλμοις κατοπτεύ[?]ειν.  τουτο γάρ εστι πνευματικως. – Chrysost.  In Joann. c. vi.; Homil. XLVII. Tom. VIII. p. 278.}  And in the Epistle to Caesarius, which is mostly esteemed to be his, and if not his, was certainly by a contemporary of his, we read that “before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread; but, when it is consecrated, it is no longer called bread, but is held worthy to be called the Body of the Lord, yet still the substance of the bread remains.”**

            {*“Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa et divina, de quo Ipse dixit: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus: et, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam aeternam: vel caro et sanguis quae crucifixa est et qui militis effusus est lancea.  Juxta hanc divisionem et in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis et carnis accipitur, ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei, alia caro et sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere.” – Hieronym.  In Ephes. cap. i. v. 7.  Tom. IV. pt. I. p. 328.}

            {**“Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis; dignus autem habitus Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unum Corpus Filii praedicamus,” &c. – Chrysost.  Ad Caesarium Monach. Tom. III. p. 743.  On the history and genuineness of this Epistle see Cave, Histor. Literar. Tom. I. p. 315; Routh’s Scriptor. Eccles. Opuscula, p. 479; Jenkyns’s Cranmer, II. p. 325, note.}

      We must now proceed to St. Augustine whom all agree to honour.  He has so much to the purpose that how to choose is difficult.  “Prepare not thy teeth, but thy heart.” {“Noli parare fauces, sed cor.” – De Verbis Domini, Serm. 33, Tom. V. p. 566.}  “Why make ready thy teeth and thy belly?  Believe, and thou hast eaten.” {“Quid paras dentes et ventrem Crede et manducasti.” – In Joann. Tract. 25, Tom. III. pars. II. p. 489.}  “Our Lord hesitated not to say, This is my Body, when He gave the sign of His Body.” {“Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus Meum, cum signum daret Corporis sui.” – Contra Adimantum, Tom. VIII. p. 124.}  “Spiritually understand what I have spoken to you.  You are not to eat that Body, which you see, and drink that Blood, which they will shed, who will crucify me.  I have commended to you a Sacrament.  Spiritually understood, it will quicken you.  Though it must be visibly celebrated, yet it must invisibly be understood.” {“Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum: non hoc Corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, et bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri stint qui me crucifigent.  Sacramentum aliquod vobis cornmendavi.  Spiritaliter intellectum, vivificabit vos.  Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi.” – In Psalm. xcviii. Tom. IV. p. 1066.}  “What you see is bread and the cup.  But as your faith requires, the bread is Christ’s Body, the cup His Blood.  How is the bread His Body? and the wine His Blood?  These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood.  What appears has a bodily form: what is understood has a spiritual fruit.”  {“Quod videtis, panis est et calix, quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant: quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est Corpus Christi, calix sanguis Christi ... Quomodo est panis corpus Ejus? et calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis Ejus?  Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia an eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur.  Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritalem.” – Serm. 272 ad Infantes, Tom. V. pars I. p. 1103.}  “The Body and Blood of Christ will then be life to each, if what is visibly received in the Sacrament be in actual verity spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk.” {“Vita unicuique erit Corpus et Sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur.” – Serm. 2, De Verbis Apostoli, Tom. V. pars I. p. 64.}

      Theodoret may be our last witness, a witness against transubstantiation, but not against the truth of Christ’s presence, nor the real participation in His Body and Blood.  “Our Saviour,” he tells us, “changed the names of things; giving to His Body the name of bread, and to the bread the name of His Body.  His object was that those who partake of the mysteries should not have regard to the nature of the visible elements but, by the change of names, might believe that change which is wrought by grace.  For He, who called His own Body food and bread, and again called Himself a vine, He honoured the visible symbols with the name of His Body and Blood, not changing the nature, but adding to the nature grace.”*  And afterwards he says, “The mystic symbols depart not after consecration from their own nature, for they remain in the former substance; yet we understand what they have become, and believe and adore, as though they were what they are believed to be.”**

            {*Ο δέ γε Σωτηρ ο ημέτερος ενήλλαξε τα ονόματα·  και τω μεν σώματι το του συμβόλου τέθεικεν όνομα, τω δε συμβόλω το του σώματος.  ούτως άμπελον εαυτον ονόμασας, αιμα το σύμβολον προσηγόρευσεν.

            Δηλος ο σκοπος τοις τα θεια μεμυημένοις.  εβουλήθη γαρ τους των θείων μυστηρίων μεταλαγχάνοντας, μη τη φύσει των βλεπομένων προσέχειν, αλλα δια της των ονομάτων εναλλαγης πιστεύειν τη εκ της χάριτος γεγεννημένη μεταβολη.  ο γαρ δε το σωμα σιτον και άρτον προσαγορεύσας, και αυ πάλιν εαυτον άμπελον ονομάσας, ουτος τα ορώμενα σύμβολα τη του σώματος και αίματος προσηγορία τετίμηκεν, ου την φύσιν μεταβαλων, αλλα την χάριν τη φύσει προστεθηκώς. – Dial. 1. ed. Sirmond. Tom. IV. p. 17.}

            {**Ουδε γαρ μετα τον αγιασμον τα μυστικα σύμβολα της οικείας εξίσταται φύσεως·  μένει γαρ επι της προτέρας ουσίας και του σχήματος και του είδους, και ορατά εστι και απτα, οια και πρότερον ην, νοειται δε άπερ εγένετο και πιστεύεται, και προσκυνειται ως εκεινα όντα άπερ πιστεύεται. – Dial. 2, ed. Sirmond. Tom. IV. p. 85.}

      Space and time will not allow us a longer list of authorities.  Those already adduced have been fairly chosen and should be fairly weighed.  The Christian student must not argue for victory but search for truth.  That search is seldom unattended by difficulties.  Yet may it not in this case be safely concluded that, weighing all considerations and notwithstanding some remarkable phrases, the doctrine of the early ages was not in favour of a miraculous change in the consecrated elements, not in favour of a carnal presence of the natural Body of the Lord, but in favour of a real, effectual, life-giving presence of Christ’s spiritual Body communicated to the faith, and feeding the souls, of His disciples?

      There is, perhaps, another possible alternative.  The early Church held firmly Christ’s presence in His Sacraments.  The tendency was for the most part not to explain but to veil such subjects in a reverential mystery.  It may therefore have been that, whereas a spiritual presence was originally and generally recognized, yet some may have suffered their reverence to degenerate into superstition, and have spoken, and perhaps thought, as though there were a carnal presence.  There was probably a vagueness of apprehension on the subject among some.  Their very religion tended to foster this.  But one thing is certain, namely, that the doctrine of a carnal presence was never the ruled doctrine of the primitive ages, was not received, or rather was emphatically denied, by many of the greatest of the fathers, and that it does not come down to us with the sanction and authority of that which was always, everywhere, and by all men, anciently acknowledged (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est).  And another thing is most certain, namely, that if any of the fathers did contemplate any beside a spiritual presence, it was not in the way of transubstantiation, but rather of consubstantiation.  For, let us take the example of St. Hilary, who, if any one, used language most like the language of later ages.  Still the very object of his reasoning was to prove that in Christ’s Person there are two natures: one not extinguished because the other is added.  He illustrates this by the bread of the Eucharist which still retains the nature of the bread unchanged, although the nature of Christ’s Body is added to it.  Now, interpret this how we may, it is a plain witness against transubstantiation.  It may mean consubstantiation; it may mean a spiritual presence; but transubstantiation it cannot mean: for it was an error of Eutyches, not of the orthodox St. Hilary, that the human nature of the Saviour was absorbed and transubstantiated into the Divine. {See above under Article II.}

      We must now pass on to the controversies of the Middle Ages.  About A. D. 831, Paschasius Radbert, a monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie, maintained the corporal presence. {Cave places him A. D. 841.}  Whether even he taught the full-grown doctrine of transubstantiation, or only consubstantiation, our divines have questioned.  Certainly he speaks some things very unlike the former, and even more resembling the doctrine of spiritual feeding. {“Christus ergo cibus est angelorum, et sacramentum hoc vere caro ipsius et sanguis, quam spiritualiter manducat et bibit homo.” – De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, C. 5.}  Yet he says that “after the consecration nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ are to be believed”; an expression nearly approaching, if not fully expressing, the Roman doctrine. {“Quia voluit (Dominus), licet in figura panis et vini, haec sic esse, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt.” – Ibid. cap. 1.  Bishop Cosin gives several specimens of his language (Hist. of Transubstantiation, ch. XXV. s. 29), and argues, that there is nothing in his whole book “that favours the transubstantiation of the bread, or its destruction or removal.”  However, he quotes Bellarmine and Sirmondus as esteeming him so highly, that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had written to the purpose concerning the Eucharist; but there are some spurious additions to his book, which speak a stronger language than the hook itself.  See also Cave, H. L. Tom. I. p. 535.}

      Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, a divine of the highest credit in the Church, wrote against the statements of Paschasius.  The work is lost indeed; but the evidence of its former existence is strong and clear. {See Cave, H. L. p. 542.}

      Johannes Scotus Erigena, who at this period lived at the court of Charles the Bald, and sometimes with our own king Alfred, and who at his death was esteemed a martyr and placed in the Roman Calendar, wrote a book by the command of the Emperor Charles, against the substantial change in the Sacraments; a book which, two hundred years afterwards, was condemned at the council of Verceil upon the ground that it made the bread and wine to be mere empty signs. {Ibid.  Tom. I. p. 549.}

      Bertram too, or Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, wrote, also at the desire of Charles the Bald, concerning this doctrine which now began to agitate the Church.  The book is still extant and is well worthy to be read.  Its genuineness has been attacked by the Roman Catholic writers but with little success.  Others have charged him with heresy; whilst others again have allowed him to be Catholic, but yet, like other Catholics, not free from some errors. {Index Expurgator.  Belgic. jussu et auctoritate Philip. II., cited by Aubertin. De Eucharist. p. 930; Cosin’s Hist. of Transubst. ch. V. § 35; Bishop Taylor, On the Real Presence, § XII. 32.}  The book was finally prohibited by the Council of Trent.  Bertram’s statements are clear for the spiritual and against the carnal presence in the Eucharist.  “The change,” he says, “is not wrought corporally, but spiritually and figuratively.  Under the veil of the material bread and wine the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ exist. ...  Both (the bread and wine), as they are corporally handled, are in their nature corporal creatures; but, according to their virtue, and what they become spiritually, they are the mysteries of Christ’s Body and Blood.”*  “By all that hath been hitherto said, it appears, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are received by the mouths of the faithful in the Church, are figures in respect of their visible nature; but in respect of the invisible substance, that is the power of the Word of God, they are truly Christ’s Body and Blood.  Wherefore, as they are visible creatures, they feed the body; but as they have the virtue of a more powerful substance, they do both feed and sanctify the souls of the faithful.”**

            {*“At quia confitentur et Corpus et Sanguinem Christi esse, nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed spiritualiter facta sit, necesse est ut jam figurata facta esse dicatur: quoniam sub velamento corporei panis, corporeique vini, spirituale corpus Christi, spiritualisque sanguis existit ... Secundum namque quod utrumque corporaliter contingitur, species sunt creaturae corporae; secucdum potentiam vero, quod spiritualiter factae sunt, mysteria sunt Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.” – Ratramnus, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini.  London, 1686, p. 24.}

            {**“Ex his omnibus, quae sunt hactenus dicta, monstratum est quod corpus et sanguis Christi, quae fidelium ore in ecclesia percipiuntur figurae sunt secundurn speciem visibilem: At vero secundam invisibilem substantiam, i.e. divini potentiam Verbi, Corpus et Sanguis vere Christi existunt.  Unde secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, juxta vero potentioris virtutem substantiae, mentes fidelium et pascunt et sanctificant.” – Ibid. p. 64.}

      The Middle Ages, if favourable to a reverent, were not less favourable to a superstitious spirit.  Hence the principles of Paschasius were more likely to gain ground than those of Bertram; yet there are not wanting testimonies for some time later in favour of the spiritual and against the carnal presence.  Especially it has been observed that the doctrine of the Anglo-Saxon Church was more than others in accordance with the primitive truth.  The famous AElfric was born probably about A. D. 956, and died about 1051.  He was abbot, some say of St. Albans, others of Malmesbury or Peterborough; and afterwards Archbishop of York. {See Cave, H. L. Tom I. p. 588; Soames’s Anglo-Saxon Church, ch. IV. pp. 218–229.  There appear to have been two AElfrics, one Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other of York.  The latter, a friend and disciple of the former, is generally supposed to have been the author of the Homilies.  See Hardwick, Ch. Hist. of the Middle Ages, p. 187.}  Some valuable fragments of his writings remain in Latin and Anglo-Saxon, full of clear statements on the doctrine in question.  “This is not,” he says, “that Body in which He suffered for us, but spiritually it is made His Body and Blood.” {“Non sit tamen hoc sacrificium Corpus Ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, ueque Sanguis Ejus, quem pro nobis effudit: sed spiritualiter Corpus Ejus efficitur et sanguis.” – AElfrici Epistola ad Wulfstanum; Routh. Opuscula, p. 520.}  “That housel” (i.e. the Eucharist) “is Christ’s Body, not bodily but ghostly: not the Body which He suffered in, but the Body of which He spake, when He blessed bread and wine to housel, a night before His suffering,” {From AElfric’s Epistle to Wulfsine, Bishop of Sherburn, Routh. p. 528.  The passage quoted is from the Old English translation of the reign of Queen Elizabeth.  The Anglo-Saxon is given by Dr. Routh (loc. cit.) with the English and Latin versions.} &c.

      Not much later than AElfric was Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers, who appears to have been a man of great piety.  He strenuously maintained the doctrine, which had been taught by Bertram, Scotus, and AElfric, teaching that the bread and wine remained in their natural substance, yet not denying the invisible grace of the Sacrament.  It is probable that many of the Gallican Church sided with him.  He was condemned, however, and with him the writings of Johannes Erigena, by a Council at Verceil under Leo IX, A. D. 1050, on the ground. that they taught the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be only bare signs.  Under Victor the Second, another Council was held at Tours, A. D. 1055, at which Hildebrand presided as legate, where Berengarius freely declared that he did not believe the bread and wine to be mere empty shadows.  Under Nicholas II a new council was called at Rome (A. D. 1059); where Berengarius was forced to recant and to declare that the “bread and wine after consecration became the very Body and Blood of Christ, and that they are touched and broken by the hands of the priests, and ground by the teeth of the faithful, not sacramentally only, but in truth and sensibly.”  After a time, however, he again maintained the doctrine of the spiritual presence; and Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, entered the lists of controversy against him, in whose work are fragments preserved to us of the writings of Berengarius.  At length Hildebrand came to the papal chair, as Gregory VII.  He summoned another council at Rome, A. D. 1078; and another A. D. 1079.  At the former Berengarius acknowledged that the real Body and Blood of Christ were present at the Eucharist without saying anything of transubstantiation; and it is supposed that the Pope was satisfied with this and unwilling to proceed further.  But at the latter, the enemies of Berengarius prevailed, and he was forced to declare that the bread and wine are substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, which Body after consecration is present, not only sacramentally, but in verity of substance.*

            {*“Corde credo et ore profiteor panem et vinum quae ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrm orationis et verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram ac propriam et vivificatricem carnem et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et post consecrationem esse verum Christi Corpus, quod natum est de Virgine, et quod pro salute mundi oblatum in cruce pependit – non tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed et in proprietate naturae et veritate substantiae.” – Concil. Tom. X. p. 378.  See Cosin’s Hist. of Transubst.; also Mosheim, E. H. cent. XI. part II. ch. III.}

      It is very doubtful when the term transubstantiation was first used.  It is said to have been invented by Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100, in his book De Sacramento Altaris. {In B. Patrum, Tom. x. p. 412. See Jer. Taylor On the Real Presence, sect. /HI. 32.}

      Under Innocent III, A. D. 1216, sat the famous Council of Lateran, by which that term and the full form of the doctrine were sanctioned and made authoritative.  Seventy chapters were drawn up by Innocent himself.  When proposed to the Council, they were received without debate, and silence was supposed to imply consent.  The first chapter is directed against the Manichaean heresy, and among other things, declares that in the sacrifice of the Mass, “Christ’s Body and Blood are really contained under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into His Body, and the wine into His Blood.” {Concil. Tom. XX. p. 117.}  It has been acknowledged by the Schoolmen and Romanists that before this Council the doctrine of transubstantiation was not an article of the faith. {See Bramhall’s Answer to M. de la Milletière, pt. I. disc. I; Works, Anglo-Cath. Lib. I. p. 14; Jer. Taylor, On the Real Presence, § I. 2.}  From this time, however, it became established as part of the Creed of the Roman Church. The Council of Constance, A. D. 1415, in the eighth session, condemned Wicliffe for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the corporal presence.  The Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, at which Greek bishops and deputies were present, left the doctrine untouched.  But the instruction to the Armenians, which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius and was not submitted to the Council, but which Roman Catholic authors often cite as a synodical decree, says that “by virtue of the words of Christ, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of His Body and Blood.” {See Cosin, On Transubstantiation, Bk. VII. § 30.}  At length the Council of Trent, A. D. 1551, decreed that by “consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.” {Sess. XIII. cap. iv.}  An anathema is pronounced against all who deny such change of the substance (the forms yet remaining), a change which the Church Catholic aptly calls transubstantiation. {Sess. XIll.  De Eucharist. can. IV.}  Finally in the Creed of Pope Pius IV (A. D. 1563) there is a profession of faith that the Body and Blood of Christ, together “with His Soul and Divinity, are truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist, and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood; which conversion the Church Catholic calls transubstantiation.” {“Profiteor pariter in missa offerri Deo, verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis, atque in sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento esse vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiationem appellat.”}

      The doctrine then of transubstantiation, and (as it is improperly called) the real presence, is the established doctrine of the Roman Church.  There is still, however, a room for difference of statement and difference of thought upon the subject.  It appears to be ruled that the substance only, not the accidents, undergo a change.  Now it is almost questionable whether the accidents do not comprise all the properties of matter.  If so, the change may still be spiritual rather than material.  And here we get a phenomenon by no means without parallel in other Roman Catholic articles of faith.  For, as in saint worship some only ask departed friends to pray for them, whilst others bow down to the stock of a tree; so in the Eucharist, the learned and enlightened appear to acknowledge a far more spiritual change than is taught to the equally devout but more credulous multitude.  For the latter all kinds of miracles have been devised, and visions, wherein the Host has seemed to disappear, and the infant Saviour has been seen in its room; or where Blood has flowed in streams from the consecrated wafer, impiously preserved by unbelieving communicants.  But on the other hand, by the more learned and liberal, statements have been made perpetually in acknowledgment of a spiritual rather than a carnal presence; and such as no enlightened Protestant would cavil at or refuse.

      St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the immediate forerunner of the schoolmen (A. D. 1115), acknowledged no feeding but a spiritual feeding. {“Eadem Caro nobis, sed spiritualiter utique, non carnaliter exhibeatur.” – Sermo. De S. Martino.  See Jer. Taylor, Real Presence, § I. 8; Cosin, On Transubstantiation, ch. VII. § 13, who gives several quotations from St. Bernard to this effect.}  Peter Lombard, the famous Master of the Sentences (A. D. 1141), though speaking of the conversion of the bread and wine, declines to determine whether that conversion be formal or substantial, or of some other kind. {“Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio, an formaliter an substantialiter, vel alterius generis, diffinire non sufficio.” – Sent. IV. Dist. 10.  See Cosin, as above, § 15.}  Aquinas (A. D. 1255) spoke of Christ’s Body as present, not bodily but substantially; {See Jer. Taylor, as above, § XI. 20.} a distinction not easy to explain.  Durandus (A. D. 1320) said that though we believe the presence, we know not the manner of the presence.  {“Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus.” – Neand.  Synops. Chron. p. 203, quoted by Jer. Taylor, as above, § I. 2.}  Cuthbert Tonstal, Bishop of Durham, said that “Before the Lateran Council it was free to every one to hold as they would concerning the manner; and that it would have been better to leave curious persons to their own conjectures.” {Tonstal, De Eucharist. Lib. I. p. 46; Jer. Taylor, as above.}  Cardinal Cajetan writes, that “The real Body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, yet not corporally but spiritually.  Spiritual manducation, which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ, which is in the Sacrament.” {“Manducatur verum Corpus Christi in sacramento, sed non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter.  Spiritualis manducatio, quae per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sacramento existentem pertingit.” – Opusc. Tom. II. Tract. 2, De Euch. C. V; Jer. Taylor, as above, § VII. 8.}  And Gardiner, in his controversy with Cranmer says, “The Catholic teaching is that the manner of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal nor carnal, not natural, not sensible, nor perceptible, but only spiritual, the how and manner whereof God knoweth.” {Cranmer’s Works, III. p. 241, Answer to Gardiner.}

      Let us now pass to the doctrines of the Reformation, merely observing by the way, that the dogma of transubstantiation, though formally decreed by the Roman Church, has never been adopted by the Greek.  Luther, if not the inventor, has been esteemed the great patron of the doctrine of consubstantiation.  Whilst rejecting the idea of a change in the substance of the elements, he believed in a presence with the elements, of the material substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.  He appears to have had recourse to the same illustration which had been used to explain the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ; namely, that, as in red-hot iron there is the nature both of iron and fire, so in the Eucharist there is both the bread and the Body of the Lord.  Strong as are his expressions in the arguments which he used with the Sacramentarians, still from his less controversial statements, we may almost be led to think that Luther did not much go beyond a faith in the spiritual presence.  Controversy often produces extreme statements: and it may have been so with him. {See, for instance, De Sacramento Altaris, Opp. Tom. I. p. 82.}  He does indeed say in a comparatively uncontroversial tract that there are “the real Body and Blood of Christ in and under the bread and wine.” {“Esse verum corpus et sanguinem Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, in et sub pane et vino per verbum Christi.” – Catechimus Major, Tom. V. p. 641.}  But then he speaks of faith as the means whereby we obtain the benefits of the Sacrament, as that to which they are exhibited. {Ibid.}

      As to the public documents of the Lutherans, the Confession of Augsburg simply declares that the Body and Blood of Christ are really given with the bread and wine. {“De Coena Domini docent quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi, vescentibus in Coena Domini.” – Confess. August. Art. X; Sylloge, p. 172.}  But the Saxon Confession says that “In this communion Christ is truly and substantially present, and His Body and Blood are truly exhibited to those who receive.” {“Vere adesse Christum, et vere exhiberi sumentibus corpus et sanguine Christi” – Sylloge, p. 282.}

      The great leader among the reformers, of those who took an opposite view to Luther, was Zuingle.  He was not satisfied to reject a material presence; but he even denied a presence of any sort.  With him the bread and wine were empty signs.  Feeding on Christ was a figure for believing in Him.  The Communion was but a ceremony to remind us of Him.  Spiritual manducation was resting upon the mercy of God.*  He probably may have modified these statements afterwards; yet they thoroughly belonged to his system.

            {*“Sacramentaliter edere esse aliud non potest quam signum aut symbolum edere.” – De Vera et Falsa Religione, Opera Zuinglii, pars 2, Tom. I. fol. 215.  He denies that there can be any spiritual Body of Christ, except His Church, fol. 216.  Again: “Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum.  Cum ergo Sacramentum Corporis Christi Domino, non quicquam aliud, quam panem, qui Corporis Christi pro nobis mortui figura et typus est, intelligo.” – De Coena Domini, Ibid. fol. 274.  “Spiritualiter edere Corpus Christi nihil est aliud, quam spiritu ac mente niti misericordia et bonitate Dei, propter Christum.” – Fidei Christianae Expositio, Ibid fol. 555.}

      Calvin took a middle course between Luther and Zuingle.  With the former he acknowledged a real presence of Christ in His Supper; with the latter he denied a corporal or material presence.  Having stated the view of the Sacramentarians that to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ is merely to believe on Him, he says, “But to me Christ appears to have intended something more express and sublime in that famous discourse of His, where He commends to us the eating of His flesh; namely, that by a real participation of Him we be quickened; which He therefore designated under the words eating and drinking, lest any should think that the life we derive from Him is received by simple cognition.  For as not the sight, but the eating of the bread gives nourishment to the body, so it is needful that, for the soul to be wholly partaker of Christ, it should be quickened by His virtue to life eternal.” {Institut. IV. xvii. 5.}

      The elements, according to him, receive the name of Christ’s Body and Blood, “because they are, as it were, instruments whereby Christ distributes them to us.” {“Corporis vero et sanguinis nomen eis attributum, quod sint velut instrumenta, quibus Dominus Jesus Christus nobis ea distribuit.” – Calvinus, De Coena Domini, Opuseula.  Genevae, 1552, p. 133.}  And, “if we believe the truth of God, we must believe that there is an inward substance of the Sacrament in the Lord’s Supper joined to the outward signs; and so, that as the bread is given by the hands, the Body of Christ is also communicated, that we be partakers of Him.”*  “That Body, which you see not, is to you a spiritual aliment.  Does it seem incredible that we are fed by the Flesh of Christ which is so far from us?  We must remember that the work of the Spirit is secret and wonder-working, which it would be profane to measure by our intelligence.” {“Corpus, quod nequaquam cernis, spirituale est tibi alimentum.  Incredibile hoc tibi videtur, pasci nos Christi carne, quae tam procul a nobis distat?  Meminerimus, arcanum et mirificum esse Spiritus Sancti opus, quod intelligentiae tuae modulo metiri sit nefas.” – Calvin. In 1 Cor. 11:24, cited by Waterland, On the Eucharist, C. VII.}  Thus then to receive Christ in the Eucharist is not merely to believe in Him; yet it is by faith we are enabled to receive Him.  By believing we eat Christ’s Flesh, because by faith our feeding on Him is effected; and that feeding is the fruit of faith.  “With them,” (i.e. the Zuinglians,) he writes, “the feeding is faith: with me the power of feeding comes as a consequence of faith.” {“Illis manducatio est fides, mihi ex fide potius consequi videtur.” – Institut. IV, xvii. 5.}

            {*“Ita in communione, quam in Christi corpore et sanguine habemus, dicendum est, mysterium spirituale esse, quad nec oculis conspici, nec ingenio humano comprehendi potest.  Figuris igitur et signis, quae sub oculorum sensum cadunt, ut naturae nostrae imbecillitas requirit ostenditur; ita tamen ut non sit figura nuda et simplex, sed veritati sum et substantire conjuncta ....

            “Necesse est igitur nos in Coena vere corpus et sanguinem Christi recipere, cum utriusque communionem Dominus repraesentet.  Quid enim sibi vellet, nos panem comedere ac vinum bibere, ut significent carnem ipsius cibum esse nostrum, et sanguinem potum, si veritate spirituali praeterrnissa, vinum et panem solummodo praeberet ....

            “Itaque fatendum est si vera sit repraesentatio quam adhibet Deus, in coena substantiam interiorem sacramenti visibilibus signis conjunctam esse, et quemadmodum panis in manu distribuitur, ita Corpus Christi, ut Ejus participes simus, nobis communicari.  Hoc certe etiam, si nihil aliud esset, nobis abunde satisfacere deberet, cum intelligimus Christum nobis in Coena veram propriamque corporis et sanguinis sui substantiam nobis donare – ut pleno jure ipsum possideamus, et possidendo in omnem bonorum suorum societatem vocemur.” – Ibid. pp. 133, 134.}

      Melancthon, the disciple, friend, and successor of Luther, is supposed to have hesitated between a material and a spiritual presence.  In the Confession of Augsburg, which is due to him, we have already seen strong words which sound like consubstantiation.  He is said to have used in earlier days the word corporaliter to express the mode in which Christ communicates His Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, but to have avoided such expressions after much intercourse on the question with OEcolampadius. {See Jer. Taylor, On Real Presence, § I. 9.}  After Luther’s death, he had the chief voice and influence among the Lutherans; and through his peaceful counsels in Germany, and Calvin’s sound views in Switzerland, much greater concord prevailed on this question among the continental Protestants than had existed during the lifetime of the great reformer of Wittemberg; the Lutherans and Zuinglians both consenting to modify their views and statements. {See Mosh. E. H. Cent. SVI. sect. III. pt. II. ch. I. 27, and ch. II. 12.}  Insomuch that Hooker observed concerning them: “By opening the several opinions which have been held, they are grown for aught I can see on all sides, at the length to a general agreement concerning that which alone is material, namely, the real participation of Christ, and of life in His Body and Blood by means of this Sacrament.” {Hooker, E. P. Bk. V. ch. LXVII, 2.}

      From the continental Protestants, we must turn to England.  Cranmer and Ridley appear to have retained the doctrines of the corporal presence and of transubstantiation throughout the reign of Henry VIII.  The formularies of that reign all seem to teach it.  Ridley is said to have been converted to a belief in the spiritual (instead of the natural) presence by reading the treatise of Bertram or Ratramn, probably about the year 1545. {Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 166.}  At this time Cranmer was zealous for transubstantiation.  But Ridley communicated to the Archbishop what he had discovered in the writings of Ratramn; and they then set themselves to examine the matter with more than ordinary care. {Burnet. Hist. of Reformation, pt. II. Bk. I. p. 107.}  Ridley indeed refused to take the credit of converting Cranmer; {Ridley’s Life, p. 169.} but Cranmer himself always acknowledged his obligations to Ridley. {Cranmer’s Remains, (Jenkyns) IV. p. 97.}  It has been thought that Cranmer went through two changes: to consubstantiation first, and then to the spiritual feeding; and most probably there may have been some gradual progress in his convictions. {The subject is discussed by Dr. Jenkyns, note to Cranmer’s Works, IV. p. 95.}  Yet it was constantly affirmed by him that before he put forth the translation of the Catechism of Justus Jonas, commonly called Cranmer’s Catechism, he had fully embraced the spiritual doctrine, and that the strong phrases there used concerning the real presence and the real feeding on Christ, were intended of a spiritual presence and a spiritual feeding, not of consubstantiation. {Cranmer’s Works, II. p. 440, III. pp. 13, 297, 344.}

      After this both Cranmer and Ridley, to whom we are chiefly indebted for our formularies, maintained a doctrine nearly identical with that maintained by Calvin, and before him by Bertram.  With the latter Ridley expresses his entire accordance. {See Enchiridion Theologicum, I. p. 56.}  He constantly declares that whilst he rejects all presence of the natural Body and Blood in the way of transubstantiation, he yet acknowledges a real presence of Christ, spiritually and by grace, to be received by the faithful in the Communion of the Eucharist.*  Cranmer has by some been thought to incline nearer to Zuinglianism; yet, if fair allowance be made for hasty expressions in the irritation of controversy, it will probably appear that he, like Ridley, followed the doctrine of the ancient Church and held a real reception of Christ in the Spirit.  Certainly we find him writing as follows: “I say (as all the holy fathers and martyrs used to say) that we receive Christ spiritually, by faith with our minds eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood: so that we receive Christ’s own very natural Body, but not naturally nor corporally.” {Remains, III p. 5.}  “It is my constant faith and belief that we receive Christ in the Sacrament, verily and truly ...  But ... you think a man cannot receive the Body of Christ verily, unless he take Him corporally in his corporal mouth ... My doctrine is that ... He is by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth in the midst of all them that be gathered together in His Name; and this feeding is spiritual feeding and an heavenly feeding, far passing all corporal and carnal feeding, in deed and not in figure only, or not at all, as you most untruly report my saying to be.” {Remains, III. pp. 288, 289.}  “I say that the same visible and palpable Flesh that was for us crucified, &c. &c., is eaten of Christian people at His Holy supper ...  The diversity is not in the Body, but in the eating thereof; no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, figuratively.” {Ibid. p. 340.  See also II. p. 441, IV. p. 16.}

            {*“I say that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, but yet sacramentally and spiritually (according to His grace) giving life, and in that respect really, that is, according to His benediction, giving life. ... The true Church of Christ doth acknowledge a presence of Christ’s Body in the Lord’s Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace and spiritually, as I have often showed, and by a sacramental signification, but not by the corporal presence of the Body of His Flesh.” – Works, Parker Society, p. 236.

            “That heavenly Lamb is (as I confess) on the table: but by a spiritual presence, and not after any corporeal presence of the Flesh taken of the Virgin Mary.” – Ibid. p. 249.

            “Both you and I agree in this, that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Christ, even that which is born of the Virgin Mary ...  We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there.  I confess Christ’s natural Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit and grace ...  You make a proper kind of being, inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of bread and wine.” – Fox, Martyrs, II. p. 1598. Lond. 1597, cited by Laud against Fisher, § 35.}

      These sentiments of our reformers are undoubtedly embodied in our Liturgy and Articles.  One thing indeed has been thought to savour of a tendency to Zuinglianism.  The first Service Book of Edward VI, drawn up undoubtedly after Cranmer had embraced the doctrine of the spiritual presence, contained, as did all the ancient Liturgies, an invocation of the Holy Ghost to bless the bread and wine; “that they might be unto us the Body and Blood of Christ.”  This was omitted in the second Service Book, probably lest the grace of the Sacrament should thus seem to be tied to the consecrated elements.  But a still more remarkable departure from the ancient forms was this.  Whereas in the first Service Book the words of administration were, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life”; in the second Service Book they were merely, “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” {Two Liturgies of Edward VI. p. 297. Oxf. 1838.}  This seemed to imply that the reformers believed in no real spiritual reception of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, but only in a remembrance of His death and passion.  Accordingly, in the reign of Elizabeth the two forms were combined together, and have ever since continued in use in the Church.  But though this change looked like an inclination on the part of the earlier reformers to the doctrine of the mere figurists, yet it is by no means certain that some of the alterations in the Service Book were agreeable to our leading divines; {See above, Introduction, note on Strype’s Cranmer.} and notwithstanding this alteration, there remained numerous statements in our formularies to prove that a real but spiritual presence of Christ was and is the doctrine of the reformed Church of England.

      Thus we are told in the exhortation to communion that God “hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament.”  It is said that “if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament ... we spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood.”  In what is called the “prayer of humble access”, we ask that God would “give us grace so to eat the Flesh of His dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious Blood.”  In the prayer of consecration we speak of being “partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood”; and in the post-communion we thank God that He doth “vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.”  So likewise in this Article it is professed that “to them who worthily receive, ... the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.”  All these are expressions in the second Service Book of Edward VI, and in the Articles drawn up in that reign.  The latter part of the Catechism is of later date but in strict accordance with the earlier documents.  Its words are that “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.”

      In this XXVIIIth Article, as first drawn up A. D. 1552, there was a clause stating that Christ in bodily presence is in Heaven, and therefore that we ought not to confess “the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”  This nearly corresponds with the statement of the rubric at the end of our present communion Service.*  Both the clause in the Article and the rubric were omitted in Elizabeth’s reign, lest persons inclined to the Lutheran belief might be too much offended by it; and many such were in the Church, whom it was wished to conciliate.  The rubric was again restored in the reign of Charles II.  The meaning of it clearly is not to deny a spiritual, but only a “corporal presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood,” “and a consequent adoration of the elements, as though they did not remain still in their very natural substances.”

            {*Concerning that rubric see above, notes under Article IV.

            Luther much insisted on the ubiquity of the human nature of our blessed Lord, derived to it from the union with the Divine nature.  But we must not believe the human nature transubstantiated into the Divine, as Eutyches taught.

            St. Augustine observes that Christ, according to His human nature, is now on God’s right hand, and thence shall come to judgment; and according to that nature He is not everywhere.  “Cavendum est enim, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem Corporis auferamus.” – Epist. 187, Tom. II. p. 681, quoted above, note under Article IV.  See this subject most admirably handled by Hooker,E. P.  V. 55.}

      The Homilies are very express.  “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent(Matt. 26); but as the Scripture saith, The table of the Lord, the bread and cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of His death, yea, the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvelous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our conjunction with Christ) is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality” (1 Cor. 10). {Second Book of Homilies, “First part of the Sermon Concerning the Sacrament.”}

      Bishop Jewel, who perhaps was the chief writer of this Second Book of Homilies, says in his Apology: “We plainly pronounce in the Supper the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Flesh of the Son of God, to be truly exhibited to those who believe.” {“Diserteque pronunciamus in coena credentibus vere exhiberi Corpus et Sanguinem Domini, carnem Filii Dei.” – Juelii Apologia. Ench. Theolog. p. 126.}  And again, after protesting against transubstantiation, he says, “yet when we say this, we do not lower the Lord’s Supper nor make it a mere frigid ceremony.  We assert that Christ exhibits Himself really present in the Sacraments; in baptism that we may put Him on, in His Supper that we may feed on Him by faith and in spirit ... and this we say is not done perfunctorily, nor frigidly, but in very deed and truly.” {“Non tamen cum ista dicimus, extenuamus Coenam Domini aut eam frigidam tantum caeremoniam esse docemus. ...  Christum enim asserimus, vere sese praesentem exhibere in sacramentis suis; in baptismo, ut Eum induamus, in coena, ut Eum fide et spiritu comedamus, et de Ejus cruce et sanguine habeamus vitam aeternam; idque dicimus non perfunctorie et frigide, sed re ipsa et vere fieri.” – Ibid. p. 129.  Compare Noel’s Catechism, Ench. Theol. p. 320, where the same doctrine is propounded.}

      It appears, then, that our reformers symbolized herein with Calvin, though it is not likely that they learned their doctrine from him.  Points of difference may be discovered between them; but in the main, Calvin, Melancthon in his later views, and the Anglican divines, were at one.  There have, no doubt, been different ways of explaining the spiritual presence among those who have agreed to acknowledge such a presence.  But perhaps the safest plan is to say that because it is spiritual, therefore it needs must be mystical.  And so Bishop Taylor concludes that our doctrine differs not from that of ancient writers, who acknowledged Christ’s presence but would not define the manner of His presence.  For he observes that we say, “the presence of Christ is real, and it is spiritual; and this account still leaves the Article in its deepest mystery; because spiritual perfections are indiscernible, and the word “spiritual” is a very general term, particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural.” {Jer. Taylor, § I. 2.}

      It would be endless, and it is unnecessary, to say much concerning our divines since the Reformation.  Some perhaps, who have followed Calvin in his predestinarian theory, have followed, not him, but Zuingle, upon the Sacraments.  And this too may have been the bent of those who afterwards more especially followed Arminius, both here and on the Continent. {There is a very pious work by one of the Arminian writers in the English Church (Horneck’s Crucified Jesus).  It has much to edify and spiritualize, but if I understand it, its doctrine is purely Zuinglian.}  But from the time of the Reformation to the present, all the great luminaries of our Church have maintained the doctrine which appears in the face of our formularies; agreeing to deny a corporal, and to acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the Supper of the Lord.  It is scarcely necessary to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes, Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall, Usher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Waterland.  All these have left us writings on the subject, and all have coincided, with but very slight diversity, in the substance of their belief.  They have agreed, as Hooker says, that “Christ is personally present; albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent”; {Book V. lxvii. 11.} that “the fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ” – but that “the real presence of Christ’s most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament (i.e. in the elements); but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.” {Book V. xvii. 6.}

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      I.  The Words of Institution.

      We know that almost all the sacrifices among both Jews and Gentiles were succeeded by a feast upon the body of the sacrificed victim; the persons who thus fed upon the sacrifice declaring their interest in the sacred rite, and through it entering into covenant with the God. {See Cudworth, True Notion of the Lord’s Supper, ch. I.}  Now the Passover was the most solemn and significant of all the sacrifices of the Law, the most remarkable of all the types of our redemption.  In its first institution it was ordained that the lamb should be slain, evidently in the way of a propitiatory offering, {See the true sacrificial nature of the Passover proved, Cudworth, as above. ch. 11.} in order that the destroying angel, which smote the Egyptians, might not destroy those for whom this offering was made.  Yet no one had a claim to exemption from the destruction except those on whose lintels and doorposts the blood of the lamb was sprinkled, and who had partaken of the feast upon the lamb slain, – they and all their households. {Exod. 12:2–13.}  The feast was, as it were, the consummation of the sacrifice; the efficacy of the latter being assured only to those who partook of the former.

      It is not a little observable then that our blessed Saviour, the night before He suffered, or (if we take the Jewish reckoning from evening to evening) the very day on which He suffered, superseded the typical feast of the Passover by the commemorative feast of the Eucharist.  He first, according to the Law, ate the Passover with His disciples.  Then, supper being ended, {μετα το δειπνησαι, Luke 22:20.} and probably after He had washed the feet of His disciples, {John 13:2, seq.} He instituted a new rite appropriate to the New Covenant, but with peculiar reference to the rite under the Old Covenant.  With the Passover, by Divine ordinance, there had been always eaten unleavened bread; and by immemorial custom there had been four cups of wine poured out; over each of which thanks were offered up, “and of which the third cup was specially called the cup of blessing.” {Buxtorf, De Coena Dom. § 22; Lightfoot, H. H. on Matt. 26:26, 27.}  Now the bread and the wine, thus eaten and drunk solemnly at the Passover, our Lord adopts as the signs or elements for the institution of His new Sacrament.  The bread at the Passover was blessed and broken, the wine was blessed and poured out. {Lightfoot, Ibid.}  These same ceremonies our Lord now uses.  He breaks the bread and blesses it; He pours out the wine and blesses it.  In the feast of the Passover the bread and wine had been but subordinate; the latter not even of Divine authority.  Our Lord makes them now the chief.  Before, the chief place had been occupied by the Paschal Lamb.  It was slain and eaten in commemoration of the first Passover, in type and anticipation of the Saviour Himself.  But now that the type was succeeded by the antitype, and that the feast must therefore be commemorative, not anticipatory, our Lord puts the bread and wine in place of the flesh of the Lamb; that, as the latter had been eaten as a type of Him, so the former should be eaten and drunk in remembrance of Him.

      It has been observed, that the lamb, when set on the table to be eaten at the Passover, was commonly called by the Jews “the body of the Paschal Lamb”; and it seems not unnatural to suppose that our Lord, as adopting otherwise on this occasion their customs and language, should here also have alluded to their common phrase.  They had spoken of eating “the body of the lamb” (הַפֶּסַח כֶּבֶש שֶׁל נּוּפוֺ), and when He blessed the Bread, He said of it, “This is My Body”; as though He would say, “Heretofore you ate the body of the Lamb, a type of Me to be delivered to death for you.  Now I abrogate this forever; and instead, I give you My Body to be crucified and broken for you; and so hereafter, when you eat this bread, think not of the Paschal Lamb, which, like all types, is now done away in Me; but believe that you feed on My Body broken, to deliver you, not from Egyptian bondage, but from the far worse bondage of death and hell.”  {Buxtorf, De Coena Dom. § 25; Lightfoot, H. H. on Luke 22:19.}

      Again, when our Lord had broken and blessed the bread, and giving it to His disciples, had called it His Body, He then took the cup, poured it out, blessed it, and called it His Blood.  And it is observable that, as when Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of the sacrifice, he said of it, “Behold the blood of the Covenant”; {Exod. 24:8; Heb. 9:20.} so our Lord and Saviour, in giving His disciples this cup to drink, said of it, “This is My Blood of the New Covenant” (Matt. 26: 27; Mark 14: 24).

      In almost all respects then, the institution of the Eucharist was likened to the sacrificial feasts of the Jews; most especially to the feast of the Passover.*  It had only this point of difference: that, whereas in all the ancient feasts the victim was actually killed, and then its natural body was eaten; here the feast was instituted (though on the day of His death, yet) before our blessed Lord was crucified, and bread and wine were substituted in the room of His natural Flesh and Blood.  Yet the bread and wine He called His Body and Blood; even as the flesh of the lamb was called the body of the Paschal lamb.  And we can scarcely fail to infer that, as the flesh of the old sacrifice was never called the Body of Christ, but (what it really was) the body of the lamb, and as on the contrary the elements in the newly founded feast were called the Body and Blood of Christ, so the new festival must have had a closer connection with the great and true sacrifice than had the slaughtered victim, which represented Him in the old festival.  The bread and wine were His Body and Blood, in a sense beyond that in which the Paschal lamb was Christ; that is to say, not merely in a figure, but in more than a figure.

            {*A question has been raised whether our Saviour and His disciples had been eating the Paschal lamb or not, before He instituted the Eucharist; the ground for the question being that other well-known doubt, namely, Was the Thursday or the Friday the day on which the Passover ought to be eaten?  However this latter may be solved, there seems no possibility of evading the force of Luke 22:15: “With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (Comp. Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16).  The true solution of the difficulty has always appeared to me to be this.  The commandment was that the Passover should be slain on the 14th day of the month, “between the two evenings,” בֵּיןהָעַרְבַּיִם (Exod. 12:6); that is to say, from the evening of the 14th to the evening of the 15th day of the month, according to the common Jewish mode of counting time.  Thus our Lord ate the Passover on the right day, i.e. on the evening of the 14th; yet He was crucified on the same day; for from evening to evening was but a single day.  And this will solve all the difficulty in John 18:28; for many of the Jews may not have eaten the Passover on the morning of the Friday, though our Lord had eaten it on the evening of the Thursday.  See Duty of Observing the Christian Sabbath, by Samuel Lee, D. D.. &c. note 16; where he quotes the Gemara on the Jerusalem Talmud in confirmation of this interpretation of Exod. 12:6.}

      Now this the very nature of the case would lead us to expect.  Under the Law were mere lifeless ceremonies; but under the Gospel there is substance, instead of shadow.  Under the Law there were sacrifices of slain beasts; and the feast was therefore on the flesh of slain beasts.  But under the Gospel there is no sacrifice, but of the Lamb of God; and a feast upon the sacrifice must therefore be a feeding upon Him; and we may add, that though the Law were true as coming from God, yet emphatically and peculiarly the Gospel is the truth.  Hence, if in the legal ceremony there was a true feeding upon the victim, we cannot doubt that in the Gospel Sacrament there is a true feeding on the Saviour.  And yet once more, the Law was carnal, but the Gospel is spiritual.  And so, whereas the Paschal festival involved a carnal eating of the typical sacrifice, we infer that the Eucharistic festival would involve a spiritual eating of the true Sacrifice.  And hence, as in all respects the Passover squared well with the place it occupied in its own dispensation, the Eucharist would fall into its place in the higher dispensation.  The one a feast on a sacrifice; the other a feast on a Sacrifice.  The one on the lamb; the other on the Lamb of God.  The one true; the other true.  But the one carnally true; the other spiritually, and therefore even more true.

      There are three things especially to be observed in the form of institution: 1, the blessing; 2, the declaration; 3, the command.

      1.  The blessing.  “Jesus took bread and blessed it”: so say St. Matthew (26:26) and St. Mark (14:22).  This was the custom with the Jews.  The master of the house pronounced over the bread a form of benediction, placing both his hands upon it.  And this blessing, we are told, was by them called קִדּוּשׁ i.e. sanctification. {Buxtorf, as above, § 46.}  Whether or not our Lord adopted the common form of words, we cannot tell.  At all events, He gave utterance to some words of blessing, whereby He set apart the bread from its common use to a new, sacramental and sacred purpose.

      For blessed (ευλογήσας) St. Luke (22:17) and St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:24) have gave thanks (ευχαριστήσας).  The words seem nearly synonymous.  They are so used concerning the blessing of the bread, when our Lord fed the four thousand with the seven loaves (Mark 8:6, 7): the Vulgate translates (ευχαριστια) by benedictio (1 Cor. 14:16): and the Hebrew wordבֵּרֵדּ to bless, is rendered indifferently by words which signify either blessing or thanksgiving.  And so, no doubt, our Lord and Saviour, when consecrating this bread to a sacred ordinance, gave thanks to God His Father, and with the thanksgiving joined a blessing; which changed the bread, not in substance, not in quantity, not in quality – but in use, in purpose, in sanctity; so that what before was common, now became sacramental bread; even the sacrament and mystery of the Body of Christ. {Ibid. § 48.  Compare Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. V. 3.}

      2.  From the blessing we pass to the declaration: –

      “Take, eat; this is My Body.”  So St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. Paul.  St. Luke adds, “which is given for you” (22:19).  St. Paul, “which is broken for you” (1 Cor. 11:24).

      There is a little more difference in their account of the cup.  St. Matthew and St. Mark say, “This cup is My Blood of the new Testament which is shed for many.”  St. Luke and St. Paul say, “This cup is the new testament in My Blood.”

      We have already compared these phrases with the Jewish form of speech, and have seen how the one throws light upon the other.  We have seen also reason to infer, that the ordinance thus instituted was for the purpose of a spiritual feast upon the one true Sacrifice, a feeding on the Body and the Blood of Christ.  But we have now come to a point, where those who believe in the verity of the feeding upon Christ, branch off from each other into two opposed and unhappily hostile divisions.  The Protestant admits that the words of institution assure us of the blessing of feeding upon Christ, and give us ground to call the consecrated elements Christ’s Body and Blood.  But the Romanist maintains that they moreover assure us that the bread, when blessed, no longer remains bread, but has become the very natural Flesh of Christ, and in a like manner the wine His natural Blood.  The Romanist reasons from the plain meaning of the words and the duty reverently to believe what Christ has spoken.  “This is My Body”; therefore it is no longer bread.  And to make it clearer, they say that whereas the substantive “bread” (άρτος) is masculine, the relative “this” (τουτο) is neuter; and that therefore the word this means not, “This Bread is My Body”; but on the contrary means, “This, which is no longer bread, is My Body.” {Bellarmine, Lib. I. De Eucharistia, ch. X.}  The grammatical argument is too futile to keep us long.  Bread, being a thing without life, though in Greek and Latin it is expressed by a masculine substantive, in well-nigh all languages might be referred to by a neuter pronoun; and though we could not sayHoc est frater meus; yet we may say Hoc est aqua, or Hoc est panis.  Nay! would it not have been a more singular mode of speech, if our Lord, when He took the bread in His hand, instead of saying concerning it, τουτο, hoc, this thing, had said, ουτος, hic, he?

      But more weight lies in the verb εστι, is; and yet, if no better argument than its use could he adduced, we must admit that the mere figurists have almost as strong ground as the transubstantialists.  If the simple use of the substantive verb proves an absolute change of substance, how are we to interpret “The seed is the word; the field is the world; the reapers are the angels; the harvest is the end of the world; I am the door; I am the vine?” {See Taylor, Real Presence, sect. VI.}  We cannot here understand a substantial change, but must admit a figure of speech.  And so, in truth, we must admit in the Eucharist; for though we acknowledge Christ’s presence, and not only acknowledge but rejoice in it; yet we hold not that presence to be in the material bread; nor can these words prove that it is there.  The passage which perhaps most nearly corresponds to this is that wherein St. Paul says that “That Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4).  It is indeed generally contended that the Rock was Christ by a mere figure of speech; and hence the illustration is urged to support the doctrine of the figurists.  But this is scarcely true.  If the illustration be correctly interpreted, it will prove the real but the spiritual presence of the Body of Christ.  The Apostle’s argument is strictly this: The Israelites, in their pilgrimage in the wilderness, were like Christians, subjects of grace.  Christ followed, and Christ fed them.  They had bread from Heaven, and drank out of the rock; and as the literal manna fed their bodies, so there was a heavenly manna prepared for their souls.  And as from the rock of stone Moses called forth the stream of water; so there was with them also a spiritual Rock, by which their souls were watered; and that spiritual “Rock was Christ.”  It was not then, we may observe, that the spiritual Rock was a figure of Christ.  The rock of stone was a figure of Christ; but the spiritual Rock – “that Rock was Christ”.  So it is in the Eucharist.  The bread in the Eucharist is an emblem of the Bread of life: but that Bread is Christ.  As with the natural rock in the wilderness there was present the Spiritual Rock, which is Christ: so with the natural bread in the Sacrament there is present the Spiritual Bread, which is Christ’s Body.

      And next for the cup.  Our Lord calls it, “My Blood of the new Covenant”; or, according to St. Luke, “The new Covenant in My Blood {I unhesitatingly translate Covenant, not Testament, believing that διαθήκη should always in the Bible be rendered Covenant.  The only apparent exception is in Heb. 9:15–20.  Even here, however, Covenant will probably make the more pertinent sense.  See Professor Scholefield’s Hints for a New Translation, ad h. l.} which is shed for you.”  The reference here to the language of the old Testament and to the rites of sacrifice has been already noticed. {τουτο το ποτήριον η καινη διαθήκη εν τω αιματί μου, το υπερ υμων εκχυνόμενον (Luke 22:20).  The participle properly agrees with ποτήριον, though it may by a solecism refer to αιμα.  Lightfoot H. H. in loc. says, “This seems to have reference to that cup of wine which was every day poured out in the drink offerings in the daily sacrifice, for that also was poured out for the remission of sins.  So that the bread may have reference to the body of the daily sacrifice, and the cup to the wine of the drink offering.”}  If we take the words as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, “This is My Blood of the new Covenant,” they will mean, “As in the old dispensation God made covenant with Israel with the blood of beasts, so now He makes covenant with Christians through the Blood of Christ; and this wine is the emblem of that Blood, and the means of partaking of its benefits.”  If we take St. Luke’s version (which is also St. Paul’s), then we must understand, “The blood of old was the sign and pledge of the Covenant, the medium of its ratification.  This cup is the sign and pledge of the new Covenant, which is now to be ratified in My Blood.”

      In either case we see obviously in the Eucharist a federal rite.  As sacrifices, and especially feasts on sacrifices, were the means of ratifying covenants between man and man, or between man and God; so the Eucharistic feast upon the Sacrifice is the means of ratifying the covenant between the Lord and His people.  The Blood of the covenant was shed upon the cross.  So peace has been made.  But the peace is accepted, and the covenant assured by this sacred banquet; where we are God’s guests, and where the spiritual food spread for us is the Lamb slain for our sins, and where our souls may be washed by His most precious Blood. {See Cudworth, as above, ch. VI.}

      3.  The third thing to be observed in the institution of the Eucharist is the command, “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25).

      This do, τουτο ποιειτε.  Hoc facite.  Do what?  Make My Body?  Sacrifice Me?  If our Lord had commanded them to make His Body, why did He say “in remembrance of Me”?  Remembrance and actual bodily presence are scarcely compatible ideas.  Besides, did our Lord then sacrifice Himself?  Surely not.  It was the next morning that He offered up Himself a Sacrifice; not then, when He sat with them at meat.  But, just as when the first Passover was instituted the Israelites were commanded “to keep this feast by an ordinance for ever” (Exod. 12:14, 13:10), – to sacrifice the lamb and eat it, as they had been instructed by Moses: so the disciples are commanded to observe this new feast, even as they were instructed by their Master and Lord.  “Do this,” i.e. “Do what you now see Me do.”  Break the bread, bless it, and consecrate it; then distribute among yourselves, and eat it; and likewise with the wine.  And this all is to be done “in remembrance of Me”.  The Passover was in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt and from the destruction of the first-born; and when it was kept, the Israelites were to tell their children what the ordinance meant (Exod. 13:8).  But this Sacrament is a remembrance of greater deliverance, and of that gracious Master who wrought the deliverance; and “as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do shew the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Cor. 11:26).  In all ways therefore it may be a remembrance of Christ; but specially it is a remembrance of His death.  It is a memorial, a showing forth of that sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and which we feed upon in our souls.  As it is a commemoration of the sacrifice, so may it be called a commemorative sacrifice.  But, as Christ was Himself present alive when He instituted the ordinance, and as He did not then offer up Himself a sacrifice on the cross, nor hold in His own sacred hands His own crucified Body; so we believe not, that we are commanded to offer Him up afresh, or that we are to expect to feed upon His natural Flesh and Blood.  His Body has been offered up once for all, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice.  We may present the remembrance of that sacrifice to God, may tell it out to the world, may believe that whilst we eat the symbols with our mouths, we feed upon the Saviour in our spirits; but we have no warrant to believe, and we could find no greater comfort in believing, that Christ was to be newly sacrificed every day, and His very Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk by our bodily mouths.

      II.  Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum.  John 6.

      A great many, both of the Roman Catholic divines and of the mere figurists, have denied that the discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John has any reference to the grace of the Eucharist.  The motive of such denial is obvious; for it is next to impossible to admit that the Eucharist is there referred to, without also admitting that no material presence is tenable, and at the same time that some real spiritual feeding of the soul is promised.  It is said indeed that the discourse was delivered before the Eucharist was instituted, and therefore could not have applied to it: an argument which must surely seem very strange if we consider how very much our Lord’s discourses are anticipatory and prophetic.  Indeed almost all His teaching seems suitable to instruct His followers in “the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” the things that were to be in His Church and reign upon earth, rather than suitable to the time of His bodily presence.  So His discourse with Nicodemus was as much anticipatory of the institution of baptism, as this discourse at Capernaum was of the institution of the Holy Communion.  And, to bring but one more example, if our Lord be never supposed to speak and to teach but concerning things already revealed and manifested, what could have been His meaning in His many declarations that Christians “must take up their Cross, and follow Him”; {See Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34, 10:21; Luke 9:23, 14:27.} when as yet all those who heard Him knew not for certain that He would die at all, and most assuredly understood not “what death He should die”?

      It is quite clear then, that the mystery of the discourse in St. John 6 required something to make it intelligible.  Many even of our Lord’s disciples were so offended at it that they at once “went back, and walked no more with Him” (ver. 66).  What so sorely puzzled them must doubtless have sunk deep into their memories; and when next our blessed Saviour used the same language as He had used on this memorable occasion, is it not certain that His first words would recur with all their force, and that the teaching of the first discourse would be coupled with that of the second?  Now the only occasions on which we read that Jesus said anything about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood were first in this instance at Capernaum, secondly at the last Passover when He instituted the Eucharist.  How the disciples who heard both discourses could fail to couple them together it is hard to conceive.  In the former, inestimable blessings were said to accompany the eating and drinking of Christ’s Body and Blood: in the latter, a special mode appeared to be pointed out by which His Body and Blood might be eaten and drunken.  Both, no doubt, sounded strange and wonderful.  Those who wondered at them both would naturally compare the one with the other to see if the one would not explain the other.

      And surely the one does explain the other.  In the sixth chapter of St. John we read that our Lord had just fed five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes.  They who had seen the miracle on the next day followed Jesus; but as He well knew, not for spiritual blessing, but that they might again be fed and be filled (v. 26).  To this carnal and unbelieving multitude He enjoins “that they should labour not for earthly, but for spiritual food, which endureth unto everlasting life” (v. 27); and taking occasion of their own reference to the manna in the wilderness (v. 31), He tells them, that, as God gave their fathers manna, so now He would give them “true bread from Heaven” (v. 32).  He then declares Himself to be “the Bread of life”: and adds, “he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst” (v. 35), i.e. neither hunger nor thirst, because, thus coming and believing, he shall be fed upon the Bread of life.  The Jews who were present now begin to murmur.  They disbelieve the Saviour’s saying that He had come down from Heaven, supposing that they knew both His father and His mother.  He then goes on, not to explain His statements, but to enforce, and rather put them with more mystery and difficulty.  He tells them that, not only had He come down from Heaven, that not only was He the Bread of life, but that, whereas the fathers ate manna and died, yet those who should eat that Bread should never die.  And then most startling words of all, He says that the bread which He should give was His Flesh, which he would give for the life of the world (v. 51).  And when this saying caused fresh striving amongst them, He adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you. ... My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. ... As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me “ (vv. 53–57).

      Now those who tell us that this had no reference to the Eucharist say that nothing is here meant but that faith in the death of Christ is the great means of union to Christ, and that which raises us to life and immortality.  But surely Calvin’s belief that something more express and sublime is intended by such striking language must commend itself to our reason.  It is not the way of Scripture to expound to us simple doctrines by such mysterious language; but rather by simple figures and analogies to bring down deep doctrines in some degree to the level of our capacities.  Yet, if all this discourse be merely to teach us that we must believe in the death of Christ, we have an example of most difficult language, and, we may add, language most likely to give offence, in order to express what requires no figures to make it intelligible when simply and plainly stated.  But if it be true that to those who believe in Christ, to those who come to Him believing, He in some manner far above our comprehension so communicates His blessed Self, so joins them to Him by an ineffable union, that they may be said to be one with Him, and He with them, that He dwelleth in them and they in Him, that as He liveth by the Father so they live by Him; – if this and the like of this be true, then can we understand that some deep language, some strong metaphors, may be needful to express the doctrine, and that the greater and more mysterious the blessing, the stranger and more hard to understand may be the language.

      Now, certainly it is true that the faithful Christian lives by union to the glorified, divine humanity of His Lord.  Christ, who is one with the Father by His Godhead, becomes one with His disciples by His manhood: and by an union with us, which is ineffable, and to be comprehended only by a devout and reverent believing, He supports, sustains, and feeds that spiritual life which He creates in us.  That this is one chief fruit of His incarnation, all Scripture bears witness.  That this, and perhaps much more than this, is taught in the chapter we are considering, there can be no reasonable question.  And, although faith is an essential instrument for enabling us to receive such blessing (see v. 35), yet something much deeper and sublimer than the mere act of believing is plainly intended by it, – even that in spirit we are truly joined to the Man Christ Jesus, our great Head and Lord; that our whole spiritual man is sustained and nourished by Him; that by His life we live; by His might and power our weakness is upheld and strengthened.  We do not presume to say that this is all the mystery conveyed to us by the language of our Lord.  But this we may boldly affirm is the character, though it be not the sum of the mystery.  And when we come to find the like language used by Him concerning the holy ordinance which He established at His passion, can we fail to infer, that with that ordinance, rightly and faithfully partaken of, are communicated those very blessings which in the discourse at Capernaum are so marvelously expressed?

      Such thoughts must free us from the frigid notions of the disciples of Zuinglius; but will they lead us to the carnal notions of the transubstantialists?  Most surely, No!  There are two statements in the chapter we are considering quite fatal to the doctrine of the material presence.  One is, where our Lord tells us that whosoever eats of the bread of life shall “not die” (ver. 51), “shall live for ever” (ver. 58): that “he who eateth His Flesh and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life” (ver. 54).  Now, if the bread and wine in the communion are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood, then every unworthy partaker, notwithstanding his unworthiness, partakes of Christ’s Body and Blood; and hence, according to this chapter, eating the bread of life shall “not die” – “shall live for ever” – “hath eternal life.”  He cannot, as St. Paul says, eat to condemnation, but must eat to salvation.  The other statement is stronger still.  When those who heard murmured at our Lord’s promise to feed them with His Flesh and Blood, Jesus said unto them, “Doth this offend you?  What and if ye shall see (εαν ουν θεωρητε) the Son of Man ascend where He was before?  It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (vv. 61–63).  Do my words offend you?  If ye see Me ascend where I was before, how then will ye judge?  Will ye then be still more offended, thinking my words still more impossible?  Or will ye then begin to understand the truth, and to know that they must be spiritually interpreted?  The mistake ye have made, is that ye have interpreted them carnally.  But it is the spirit which profiteth; the flesh profiteth nothing.  The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.  Such was the obvious meaning of our Lord’s reply; and it penetrates to the very depths of the difficulty.  The meaning of the discourse was all spiritual.  The feeding on Christ’s Body and Blood is a spiritual feeding.  No other feeding profits.  It would do no good.  To eat the material substance of His Flesh and drink the material substance of His Blood would be useless.  It is the spirit only which gives life, and the words which He had spoken were spirit and life.  And be it noted, whether the discourse did, by anticipation, concern the Eucharist, or whether it did not, yet this much is clear: we have it revealed in the unfailing and unerring words of our Redeemer, that carnally to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood would profit us nothing; and therefore we may be assured infallibly, that such a carnal feeding, being profitless, would never have been ordained by Him in a Sacrament for His Church.

      III.  The statements of St. Paul.

      These occur in 1 Cor. x. and 1 Cor. xi.

      The argument from the former chapter (1 Cor. 10) is of this nature.  The Christians of Corinth, living among idolaters, were tempted to join in idol-feasts, at which meats that had been offered in sacrifice were solemnly and religiously eaten.  However innocent it may be to eat meat of any kind, St. Paul points out that it is no longer innocent when the eating it implies a participating in an idolatrous ceremony, especially an idolatrous sacrifice.  He that partakes of a sacrificial feast declares thereby his respect for the sacrifice, and his interest in it.  He claims to be a partaker of the sacrifice.  The Apostle illustrates this in three ways: first, by our participation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist (vv. 16, 17); secondly, by the Jews’ participation in the sacrifices of which they eat; thirdly, by the heathen’s participation of the sacrifices of demon gods.  To take the last two illustrations first.  He observes with regard to “Israel after the flesh,” that “they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers (κοινωνοι) of the altar.”  That is to say, by eating of the meat of the sacrifice they have a share, a participation in the benefit of that which is offered on the altar (v. 18).  As for the Gentiles, he says, that they offer sacrifice, not to God, but to demon gods (δαιμονίοις); and it is unbecoming in Christians to be partakers or communicants (κοινωνοι) of demon gods.  Nay! it is altogether inconsistent to drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of demon gods; to partake of the Lord’s table, and the table of demon gods (vv. 20, 21); the “table of demon gods” here meaning the feast upon the heathen sacrifices, “the table of the Lord” meaning the banquet of the Holy Communion, and probably alluding to Malachi 1:7, 12; where the expression “table of the Lord” is used in immediate connection with the word “altar,” and refers to the sacrificial feasting connected with the Jewish sacrifices.  In juxtaposition then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the Eucharist; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord’s table.  But more than this, he asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a joint partaking (κοινωνία) of the Blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not a joint partaking of the Body of Christ?  For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (vv. 16, 17).  The natural signification of the word κοινωνία, and the sense deducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as above, joint partaking or joint participation. {κοίνοςcommon, κοινόω to make common, impart, κοινωνος a partaker, κοινωνία participation.  This is the natural meaning.  κοινωνία means also close communion or joint partnership.  St. Paul ordinarily uses κοινωνίαfor partaking.  See 2 Cor. 8:4, 9:3.  Comp. κοινωνοι 9:18.  In Rom. 15:26, Heb. 13:16, κοινωνία is communication.}  The parallel is between partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, i.e. Christ.  And the 17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His whole Body the Church.

      Now, what must we infer from this teaching?  Does it not plainly tell us that the feeding at the Lord’s table corresponds with the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol feasts.  That, as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their demon gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ’s Body and Blood!  This much we cannot, and we would not deny.  The bread and wine are to us means or instruments whereby through God’s grace we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.  But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer that we partake of Christ’s Body, naturally and materially?  The very words appear to teach us otherwise.  If there were a real change of the elements into Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood, it seems altogether unaccountable that the force of the argument should have been weakened by the introduction of the word κοινωνίαparticipation.  If the bread be literally and substantially the Body, it would have been more natural to say, “Is not the bread which we break, Christ’s Body?”  And the inference would be immediate; Can we eat Christ’s Body and demon sacrifices together?  The word κοινωνία, on which the peculiar strength of the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partaking, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they represent.  They are ordained that we may partake of Christ; but they are not Christ themselves.

      The other passage of St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:19–30) has the same object as that which we have just considered; namely, to increase our reverence for “the dignity of this holy mystery.”  The early Christians appear to have joined with the reception of the communion an agape or love feast.  In such a feast it was seemly that the rich should provide for the poor, and that all things should be in common.  But in Corinth, a city long famous for luxury, the richer Christians appear to have overlooked the Christian principle, and to have made their feasts of charity minister to their own indulgence, rather than to their poor neighbours’ wants.  This was in itself wrong; it was not, as the Apostle says, to eat the Lord’s supper;* and it was despising the church of God, – shaming those who had no houses to feast in.  And what made it worst of all was this, that with these feasts of charity was joined a reception of the Holy Communion; and to receive that at a time when some were feasting gluttonously, and others suffering from hunger, was to treat contemptuously the most sacred and blessed ordinance of the Lord.  It was receiving that Sacrament unworthily.  It was not only treating the agape as a private feast, and one in which self-indulgence was permissible, but it was making the Eucharist itself a common thing.

            {*κυριακον δειπνον φαγειν, v. 20.  This probably does not refer to the Eucharist, but to the Agape, the feast of charity, which was joined with it.  See Hammond and Whitby, in loc.; Waterland,On the Eucharist, ch. I. 3; Suicer, s. v. Αγαπαι; Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt. I. ch. II; Bingham, E. A. Bk. XV. ch VII. §§ 6, 7, 9.}

      To enforce his lesson on this subject, the Apostle reminds the Corinthians of the mode and the words in which our Lord had instituted the Eucharist.  This part of his teaching we have already considered.  But he goes on to reason that as our Lord had instituted bread and wine as Sacraments of His Body and Blood, “therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord,” ver. 27.  He then exhorts to self-examination, ver. 28, and adds, ver. 29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh to himself condemnation, not setting apart as holy the Body of the Lord” (κρίμα εαυτω εσθίει και πίνει, μη διακρίνων το Σωμα του Κυρίου). {διακρίνων, discernens, separating, setting apart as holy.  So the Syriac, [letters uncertain].  To discern, as we in modern English use that word, is only a secondary and improper sense of διακρίνειν, as it is also of discernere.  The natural meaning is to separate, to make a distinction of one thing from another.  It is used in classical as well as in Hellenistic Greek, with the sense of to set apart for  holy purposes.  So Pinder, Olymp. X. 54–56: Περι δε πάξαις άλτιν μεν όγ εν καθαρω διακρίνει.  The plain meaning therefore of St. Paul is, that people who mixed up the Eucharist with a profane feast, treated the Lord’s Body, which is given us there, as no better than a common thing, not as sacred and holy.}  The Lord’s own words of institution pointed to this Sacrament as the means of participating in His Body and Blood; he therefore who received that Sacrament, not as a thing most sacred and venerable, but as part or adjunct of a common feast, was guilty of great and heinous impiety, because he did not set apart as a holy thing the Body of the Lord.  This is the plain meaning of the passage, according to the obvious rendering of the original; and it certainly teaches a lesson of deep reverence, and speaks home plainly to our faith.  It seems an unanswerable argument against those who esteem the Eucharist as “a bare sign of a thing absent”.  We of the Church of England who believe Christ really present in His Sacraments and spiritually there feeding our souls, as much as those who look for a natural reception of Him, can feel the truth and awfulness of such apostolic warnings.  We do not differ with the believers in transubstantiation, so far as their statement goes, that in the Eucharist there is a real presence of the Lord.  And therefore we feel, as they do, that to receive unworthily is to do dishonour to the Body of Christ.  Our difference with them is not concerning the truth of Christ’s presence, which the Apostle’s words seem forcibly to teach us; but we differ with them only concerning the mode.  That they define carnally, whilst we believe it mystically.  And herein we can scarcely use words more apposite than the words used long ago by Calvin: “If any ask me concerning the mode, I am not ashamed to confess the mystery to be more sublime than my intellect can grasp, or than words can tell; and, that I may speak more openly, I essay rather than understand.  Therefore here I embrace without controversy the truth of God, in which I may safely acquiesce.  He pronounces His Flesh the food of my soul, His Blood the drink.  I offer my soul to be fed with such aliments.  In His sacred Feast He bids me, under symbols of bread and wine, to take His Body and Blood, to eat and to drink.  I doubt not but that He really offers, and that I receive.  All I reject is what is in itself absurd, unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, or alien from the verity of His nature as man.” {Institut. IV. xvii. 32.}  So Calvin; and so our own Hooker: “What these elements are in themselves it skilleth not.  It is enough that unto me that take them they are the Body and Blood of Christ.  His promise in witness hereof sufficeth.  His word He knoweth which way to accomplish.  Why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant; but, O my God, Thou art true: O my soul, thou art happy?” {E. P. Bk. V. ch. LXVI. 12.}  It is in this way that the Scriptures have left it: so the devout soul has ever embraced it: and so we may safely and thankfully receive it, – not speculate curiously, nor expound carnally; but believe and live.

NOTE.

      I have confined myself in this Article almost wholly to the presence in the Eucharist, and the mode of receiving Christ’s Body and Blood.  The latter part of the Article has thereby been deprived of its due attention.  It is, however, but a simple corollary.  Elevating the host resulted from a belief in transubstantiation.  If that doctrine be rejected, we shall not believe the water to have been really transformed into Christ’s Body, and so shall not worship it, nor elevate it for worship.  There is evidently no Scriptural authority for the elevation of the Host, the command being, “Take, eat.”  The Roman ritualists themselves admit that there is no trace of its existence before the 11th or 12th centuries; and no certain documents refer to it till about A. D. 1200.  See Palmer, On the Church, Vol. I. part I. ch. XI. p. 311.

      [Two particulars of the Tridentine doctrine of Transubstantiation are especially to be noted for their contrast to the Anglican doctrine of the real Spiritual Presence in the Eucharist.

      (1)  The annihilation of the elements.  With regard to which, remember:

            (a) The absence of Scriptural proof.

            (b) The patristic teaching that the elements remain in their original substance; especially the use by Gelasius and others of the accepted Eucharistic doctrine as an argument against the Eutychians.  See Pearson On the Creed, p. 247, and note.

            (c) That if this view is correct, it is a solitary instance of a miracle which contradicts the senses, instead of appealing to them.

      (2)  The identification of the consecrated elements not with the Body and Blood of Christ, but with His entire Personality by affirming the presence in them of His Human Soul.  With regard to which, remember: –

            (a) The absence of Scriptural proof.  The language is, “this is my Body,” “this is my Blood,” not “this is I-myself”; the sole exception being St. John 6:57: “He hat eateth me, even he shall live by me,” where the manner of feeding upon Christ had been explained in the preceding verse to be the eating of His flesh and drinking of His Blood.

            (b) The language of the Fathers is similar.

            (c) So also is the statement of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Guettée, Exp. a la Doctrine, p. 135.

      On the subject of the Eucharistic Presence, see the invaluable Introduction to Part II of the Principles of Divine Service by Archdeacon Freeman. – H. A. Y. – J. W.]

A Rationale for Staying in the Episcopal Church

2012-01-12T14:45:00.001-08:00

I have written here a brief response to those who question my decision to stay in the Episcopal Church. I know that this is a controversial topic and that many will disagree with the conclusions that I make here. The important thing to remember is that this is not a debate about the validity of each others' ministers so that I am not saying that any of the other Anglican bodies are not churches. I have many friends in ACNA, AMiA, REC, etc. and I do not doubt for a moment their piety or ministry. This is a personal belief that I have come to but that could change.

In my mind, the issue needs to be addressed from a few different angles to properly understand the reasons for staying in the Church. First, we must define what "the Church" is in Anglican ecclesiology, according to the formularies and Scripture. Second, we must consider our Lord's exhortation to unity. Thirdly, we must consider the nature of heresy and what the Christian's response to it should be. And lastly, we must consider whether or not heresy is a justification for schism.

What is the Church?

The first question that must be answered is "What is the Church?" I look to the formularies and to Scripture to answer this question. Article 19 defines the church as the, "congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." The Articles do not address the question of episcopacy, which I will not either, although acknowledging the long tradition of associating a valid historic succession to the validity of the Church is nothing new in Anglicanism. Ironically, the Article was written during a time of schism and was written to provide a counter-ecclesiology than that of the Roman church in order to justify the Reformation. The ecclesiology here presented seems simple but as Gerald Bray points out it is more complex t han meets the eye.

The word "faithful" is one of those complexities. Bray notes that the word means "orthodox" not dedicated. Obviously, there has never been a pure church and Cranmer would have noted that when he penned this statement as the Church of England then was full of people who disliked his doctrines and wanted (and eventually did for a time) rejoin the Roman Catholic Church.

The second part of the Article defines the marks of the Church which are the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Both of these marks has a presupposition though. First, in order to preach the Gospel, the minister has to know what it is and he must also preach the right Gospel, unlike our Presiding Bishop. The second issue is that the Sacraments must be "duly ministered," i.e. by the proper authority. This means that the person administering the Sacraments must have the authority to do so by the Church, ie. must be ordained. Which leads us to the key element here presented by the Article, that is the visibility of the Church. The Article is not concerned with the "invisible church" or the Church as it is seen by God but by the visible Church on the earth.

The issue of unity

This leads to the next point, which is the consideration of the unity of the visible Church here in earth. Obviously, throughout its 2,000 year existence, the Church has not done a good job of maintaining the unity desired by our Lord. We could look to any period of the Church and see splits and schisms, starting near the beginning with the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Churches. The infamous split in 1054 between East and West as well as the Protestant Reformation mark the larger and more noticeable splits in Church history, however, there are thousands of lesser schisms which have occurred. One can think of the "Old Believer" movement in the Russian Orthodox Church, the SSPX in the context of Rome, or the Continuing Churches in our own Anglican context, who have chosen to break away from the main body of the Church and have faded into a shadow in the history of the Church.

The unity of the people of God is reiterated throughout Scripture, even in the Old Testament, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). It is, of course, a chief concern for Jesus as he expressed in his High Priestly prayer, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21-22). Disunity was apparently a major problem in the Church in Corinth, for Paul exhorts the Corinthian Church to unity many times throughout his epistles to that body. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10), "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" (1 Cor. 3:3), "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it" (11:18). Paul notes that, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (14:33). The urgency in unity is seen throughout the New Testament. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17), and this beautiful passage from Ephesians, "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (4:1-6).

For me, seeing such an appeal for unity in the Scriptures leads me to believe that we should not consider division lightly in today's Church. However, as this is not a simple issue, we must move on to the next consideration which is what to do about heresy, especially when it invades the Church.

The issue of heresy

Heresy is not a light thing and the Scriptures speak plainly of the dangers of false teaching. Consider the following passages. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not" (2 Peter 2:1-3), consider how Paul considers heresy and schism as equally bad sins as well, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21). We are told to beware false teachers, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15), "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision" (Phil. 3:2), "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness" (2 Peter 3:17). Heretics have condemned themselves by their own false teaching, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3:10-11). We are to avoid heretics as well, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 John 1:10).

Based on these portions of Sacred Scripture, we know that we are to avoid heresy and not to receive those who are heretics. The question inevitably arises as to how the faithful in the Episcopal Church can stay when so many of her bishops and priests and laity teach and believe things that are contrary to Scripture. This leads to the final consideration, does heresy justify schism?

Does heresy justify schism?

The big question here is does heresy justify schism? I would say, No. But this is not a simple question so it cannot be answered simply.

First, the Episcopal Church is still a valid Church and her ministers are valid ministers (without entering into the women's ordination debate). Her teaching is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, which teaches the catholic faith as contained in Scripture and tradition and as explained in the Formularies, although the present addition is flawed in several important aspects, it still contains this teaching. The Articles of Religion are included in the Book, although in a less than desirable place, they still hold authority in the Church. The Sacraments are administered within the pattern of the historic episcopate and ministers are ordained accordingly (again without considering the ordination of women and how that affects this). Also, the Articles of Religion teach that the worthiness of a minister does not affect the validity of a sacrament, i.e., that Donatism is wrong:

"Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."

Secondly, the Church has never been pure, in the sense that there have always been false teachers among her clergy. One can look in the Scriptures and see Paul's comments in Galatians to the Judaizers, an early heresy. Or to the early Church's struggle with all forms of Gnosticism and Christological heresies. In the Middle Ages we see Catharism and other dualistic heresies. During the Reformation we saw the heresies of Anabaptism and millennarianism. In the 1700 and 1800's we saw the Enlightenment and rationalism. In the 20th we have seen liberalism, modernism, and the "inclusive gospel" which plagues the Church today. This is nothing new in the life of the Church.

Let us consider this famous passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew,

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (13:24-30).

Like the field, the Church has within her wheat and tares, those who believe and follow the Gospel and those who, for whatever reason, do not believe the Gospel but are yet members of the Church externally. The problem is when these people enter into the leadership of the Church and begin to teach the people. They cannot be trusted to preach the Gospel for they do not believe it. In my opinion, it is the duty of faithful Christians to combat these heresies at the national and local level and not to leave. At this point in the Church's life, leaving the Church only diminishes the orthodox voice and allows the progressive gospel to further advance in the ranks of the clergy. What the Episcopal Church needs is a group of orthodox and faithful Christians dedicated to not leaving but rather to preaching the Gospel, teaching the Bible, and defending the faith "once delivered to the saints." If that were to happen, the orthodox in the Church might have a flying chance of reviving and renewing the Church.

New URL

2012-01-12T10:34:00.001-08:00

I will be changing the URL to the blog on Feb. 1st so that it is easier to find, the new URL will be:

thehackneyhub.blogspot.com

Laudian Ceremonial (Part One)

2012-01-09T12:09:00.001-08:00

1. Introduction to Laudianism

Before we dive into the ceremonial practice of the Laudians, it is important to discuss briefly what Laudianism was. There is no one answer as to what Laudianism was, though, for it is a far more historically complex movement than it is sometimes portrayed. Modern historical scholarship dedicated to the study of this part of history tries to analyze the goals of the movement, its motivation for such goals, who was the primary architect of the movement, and how the various players interacted with each other.

John M. Adrian characterizes Laudianism as a push for uniformity in the Church of England from Charles and Laud, as opposed to the laxity practiced by Elizabeth and James, which ultimately “disturbed the peace” and eventually led to the Civil War. Adrian speaks of the increasing diversity of the Jacobean church, encouraged by the laxity of the reigning monarch and preceding one. James’ concern was with driving out radical Puritanism and recusants, beyond an acknowledgment of the Prayer Book, he did little to enforce doctrinal or ceremonial uniformity. The laxity in discipline was encouraged by the style of bishops appointed during Elizabeth’s reign who preferred a style of episcopacy “which overlooked divisive issues of nonconformity in favour of the common endeavour of bishop and puritan to spread the gospel and resist Roman Catholicism” (Adrian, 28). The bishops wished to pursue a general Protestant unity with an evangelical concern to spread the Gospel. They were not concerned with strictly enforcing the use of the Prayer Book, etc. on the ministers of the Church of England. In fact, Adrian claims that the only thing which held the Jacobean church together and, in fact, its “genius” was this laxity in uniformity. The real enemy of James’ church was the radical Puritan and the recusant, moderate Puritanism flourished during his reign because the necessity of wearing a surplice or using the ritual of the Prayer Book was not forced on the church. Adrian quotes Peter White who believes that, “the Jacobean church… was more of a broad spectrum of beliefs [rather] than a pair of polarized camps” (30). This would all change with the ascendancy of Charles I to the throne of England.

When Charles assumed the throne, it appears that he did not adopt the religious policy of previous English monarchs. He shared a vision with a host of divines named collectively “the Caroline Divines” who held to a system of thought known as “Laudianism” which Peter Lake defines as “a coherent, distinctive and polemically aggressive vision of the Church, the divine presence in the world and the appropriate ritual response to that presence” (30). As mentioned earlier, there is much debate in scholarly circles over whether this system should be called “Laudianism” and whether or not Charles was a more active participant in the program. It seems that the Laudians began to view the Jacobean church and its tolerance as a bad thing and turned to the official canons and Prayer Book of the Church for guidance. They began to require strict conformity to these rules and regulations.

The top-level clergy of Charles I all viewed the laxity of the Jacobean church with some suspicion and “tended to view Jacobean ‘unity’ as illusory… for them, flexibility and accommodation really only masked disorder and division; this they sought to rectify with a programme of order, obedience, and uniformity” (30). Adrian suggests that this push towards uniformity actually stemmed from a desire for greater inclusivity in the English Church on the part of the Laudians and their ‘Arminian’ convictions, a term used for the system of thought opposed to the individualism of English Calvinism. In their attempt to construct a more communal and objective salvation, the Laudians emphasized the worship of the Church and the divinely-instituted sacraments as the means of grace. This emphasis on the ritual of the Church necessitated a greater enforcement of the standards of the Church. I would also contrast the style of episcopacy that Laud and other supporters envisioned. Instead of being “gospel partners” with nonconformists, Laudian bishops thought of themselves as apostolic pastors, an image which would dominate later High Church theology, especially in America.

The Laudians sought to implement their program through the cathedrals. The Laudian program was fully implemented in cathedrals and the cathedrals, in turn, were to be exemplars for the rest of the parishes in the Church of England. It is important to realize that the Laudians desired for their program to be implemented by the local parishes. In addition to the cathedrals, the King’s chapel was viewed as the best example of what an English parish should look like, “The king’s chapel… or the king’s practice in his chapel… is the best interpreter [of the] rubrics, laws and canons of the Church” (Peter Heylyn quoted in Adrian, 32).

In addition to their ceremonial concerns, the Laudians also sought to enforce official church doctrine. In the Royal Instructions of 1629, Charles sought to restrict “lectures, tightening ordination procedures, and increasing the presence of the liturgy – particularly the practice of catechizing” (33). In essence, Charles was attempting to control the Puritans at the pulpit and emphasize the standard liturgy over the subjective pulpit.

And finally, to introduce briefly some of the objectives of the Laudian program, which all were intended to bring more continuity between the English Church and the early Church. They were all external, and usually ceremonially, concerns, largely stemming from the disregard for the canons of 1604. Things such as the wearing of authorized vestments (surplice, tippet, and cope) for divine service, the kneeling to receive Communion, the sign of the Cross at baptism, the wedding ring, the placing of the Table at the east end of the chancel with rails about it, bowing at the name of Jesus, and facing the east for prayers, were all visible manifestations of the Laudian concern for a more objective spirituality, rooted in the liturgy of the Church and the sacraments as divinely-constituted means of grace.

2. Specific Persons and Places

2.1 Bishop Andrewes and His Chapel

Lancelot Andrewes is known as somewhat of a “traditionalist” among the Caroline Divines both in theology and liturgy. Kenneth Stevenson reflects on a particular Easter service in 1617, describing the choral tradition in place at Durham and the vesture of the choristers and clergymen in cope and surplice. Stevenson suggests that, perhaps, the ceremonial complexity which Andrewes encouraged at his chapel stemmed from his differing Eucharistic theology from the Calvinistic consensus in the Church of England at that time. Stevenson quotes Brian Gerrish and his terminology of Reformation Eucharistic theology. Gerrish coins the term “symbolic instrumentalism” for Calvin’s thought, which he then contrasts with the “symbolic memorialism” of Zwingli and the “symbolic parallelism” of Bullinger, all of which are different from Lancelot Andrewe’s theology. Stevenson then quotes Jeffrey Steel who describes Andrewe’s theology as “effectual instrumentalism” (229). “When he [Andrewes] speaks of signs that ‘show and work both’, and, furthermore, are ‘a seal or pledge, to us, of our own, that what we see in him this day shall be accomplished in our own selves at his good time’ we have evidence of a sacramental theology that is keenly aware of the pitfalls of all that the Reformation found unacceptable in late mediaeval theology and piety; that looks to sacraments in what they do in the faithful believer, as well as what they are in themselves; but still holds on to an understanding that is strong without being impersonal, and humanward without becoming entirely subjective” (229). It seems likely that Andrewe’s theology of the Lord’s Supper would lead to a “higher” ceremonial in the time of Divine Service.

The furnishings of Andrewe’s private chapel are somewhat famous in Anglican history as being a bit more “high” than most of the other Church of England parishes at the time. It is notable that Andrewe’s private chapel was the place with these ceremonial accretions and not a parish church. However, the interior of Andrewe’s chapel must have been a site to see. “The focal point was the altar, raised on a foot-board and adorned with its lavish frontal against the eastern wall where it had been in the ancient and medieval churches. It was railed off from the rest of the chancel to denote it was sanctum Sanctorum” (Dorman, 1999: 2). Obviously, the placement of the table or altar against the east end of the chancel was in accordance with Elizabethan and later standards for the Church of England. However, Andrewes had taken it a step further by elevating the altar above the nave by a platform to emphasize the holiness and presence of God at that place. The altar itself was also adorned with “two candlesticks with tapers, basin for the oblation, and a cushion of violet and crimson, damask which matched the altar frontal, for the service book,” in addition, “when the Eucharist was celebrated a chalice, paten, and tricanale for mixing the wine with the water were also placed upon it, whilst on the credence table were the ‘silver and gilt canister for the wafers like a wicker-basket and lined with cambric laced,’ a small barrel for the communion wine, ‘a basin and ewer’ and towel for the ablutions” (2). This description shows several things about Andrewe’s ceremonial. First, he continued in the tradition of having candlesticks upon the altar with tapers, which had been abandoned by much of the Church at that time. Andrewes was intent on using wafers and mixing water with the wine in the Eucharist, in continuation with the pre-Reformation traditions. More notable was that Andrewes kept another small table where was placed, “a ‘navicula’ (i.e. boat shaped vessel) from ‘which frankincense is poured’ into a ‘triquestral censer’ for censing at the appropriate places in the Liturgy.” The use of incense by the Caroline Divines and other pre-Tractarian High Churchmen has been of some particular interest to me, although, I cannot find any description as to how it was used, but it is evident that it was used. The evidence seems to indicate that incense was used as a fragrance more than in the action of censing things in the Liturgy but perhaps Andrewes is an exception to that general rule. “The censer hung in the chancel behind the lectern during the services to symbolize the offering of worship to God,” probably reminiscing the imagery in Revelation, “And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand” (8:4). In addition, there was, “a hanging depicting the story of Abraham and Melchizedek,” emphasizing Andrewes’ belief in the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

Not only was the altar itself adorned but also the ornaments on it were adorned beyond the standards of the time. The paten and chalice, which departed from the Reformation use of a communion cup, had engraved images on them. They had an image of the Good shepherd on the chalice and the star of Bethlehem on the paten. These images were apparently very popular in the early Church according to Andrewes, “In the old Ritual of the Church, the wise man’s star was engraved on the cover of the canister, wherein was the Sacrament of his body to show that now the star leads us thither, to his body there” (3).

Beyond the adornment of the ornaments of the church and the vessels for the Lord’s Supper, Andrewes also adorned the Liturgy by “amplifying” it and making it conform more with the Liturgy of the 1549 Prayer Book and the medieval ritual. Andrewes used the lack of rubrics in the 1559 Prayer Book to elaborate the ceremonial to reflect a pre-Reformation celebration of the Liturgy. Dorman offers several examples where Andrewes differed from the standard Liturgy, notably in the offertory. “The bishop or celebrant ascended the altar steps with treble adoration and knelt at the altar. Meanwhile the priest took the basin from the back of the altar and placed it at the front,” it is important to note that the treble adoration was employed by the Caroline Divines in the Liturgy, which is an example of a civil custom being used in a religious sense, for the treble adoration was used towards the monarch. “Next he brought the canister and wine-barrel to the bishop who offered them on behalf of the congregation and placed them on the altar. The bishop then put his own alms in the basin, after which he went to the entrance to the chancel to read the offertory sentences, which were of Andrewes’ devising” (3). Andrewes separated the preparation of the elements from the reception of the peoples’ gifts. The elements were prepared immediately before the consecration, an intentional departure from the standard Liturgy. Andrewes used wafers and wine mixed with water, as per ancient custom. Andrewes incorporated the lavabo in his celebration of the Liturgy, which was not included in the Prayer Book. “‘The priest after adoration pours water upon the napkin and cleanses his hands’, saying as he does the traditional words from psalm twenty-six, verse six, ‘Lavabo in innocentia manus, meas, et sic introibo ad altare Dei, ut annunciem vocem.’” (4). It is unclear whether Andrewes recited the portion of Ps 46 in Latin or English.

During the prayer of consecration, Andrewes restored the manual acts as they had been in 1549 (recalling that the 1552-1604 Prayer Books did not have the manual acts but they were restored in 1662), but he did not elevate the elements at the Canon. He also preferred the order of 1549 editing the ritual of the Prayer Book by inserting the prayer of oblation in the prayer of consecration (Dorman, 8).

2.1.2 Andrewes’ Customary

Dorman gives an excellent summary of how the liturgy was celebrated in Andrewes’ chapel, giving a step by step description of the actions of the ministers at the Liturgy. I will give a summary here.

The Liturgy begins with an introit (presumably the provisions of the 1549 Book but this is not specifically stated); the ministers enter and make a treble adoration towards the altar. The celebrant, epistler, and gospeller, assumed their position at the altar, and if there were only two ministers officiating, they were to stand at the north and south ends of the altar, “as it were ‘the two Cherubims at the mercy-seat’” (4-5). The celebrant sings the collect at his place at the altar and then “descends to the door of the septum” (5), presumably the rood screen. He bows towards the altar and leads the Decalogue. He then returns to the altar and “kneels to say ‘the collect of the day.’ The epistler and gospeller bow to the altar respectively before reading their part of the service. The Creed and Sermon followed as they were prescribed in the Prayer Book, although Andrewes included a Gradual in his service.

After the offertory, the prayer for the Church followed, which was led by the deacon, according to ancient customs. Andrewes preferred the second Exhortation since it encouraged private confessions of sins. When the general confession was to be said, the deacon or a priest would “descend to the door, and kneeling, said the confession, the people repeating after him” (6).

The Sursum corda was sung, as were all other parts of the service which traditionally were sung. As I mentioned earlier, Andrewes differed from the standard Liturgy significantly in this part of the service. In addition to altering the order of the prayer of oblation, Andrewes rearranged the entire prayer of consecration as follows: the Sanctus, the prayer of consecration, the prayer of oblation, the Lord’s Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, and finally, the Agnus Dei.

The rest of the service followed the standard Liturgy with the Thanksgiving prayer, Gloria, and Blessing in their usual places. It is interesting that Andrewes preferred and defended the post-communion position of the Gloria instead of its ancient place at the beginning of the liturgy. The only other instance in which Andrewes preferred the Reformation standards was in the preference of the cope over the chasuble.

2.2 John Cosin and Cathedral at Durham

Looking at individual persons during the period, we can get a clear picture of the ceremonial practices associated with the Laudian program. Dr. Cosin stands as one of the key players in the Laudian reforms, due to his personal connection with Laud and support of the program by implementing the ceremonial associated with it at Durham Cathedral. As in other articles in this series, we can gather a lot of information about what was going on based on Puritan accounts of things they found troubling in the Laudian church. Perhaps a bit of caution should be exercised when trusting the Puritans’ accounts, especially in regards to their accuracy. One, the Puritans were not acquainted with the ritual actions promoted by the Laudians and could have misinterpreted them. Likewise, they are completely biased and could have used their accounts to exaggerate the actual practices of the Laudians.

The ritual at Durham Cathedral is probably one of the best representations of the full Laudian ceremonial program in force that we have recorded. Consequently, the features typically associated with Laudianism are clearly visible in the ceremonial at Durham Cathedral, especially under Dr. Cosin (practices which survived until the end of the 18th century – See “Eighteenth Century Ceremonial”). As in other treatments of ceremonial so far, we can see that objections to ceremonial stem from several origin points: the ornaments of the church; the ornaments of the minister; and the actions of the minister. The Puritans disliked the Established Church’s position on ornaments in general, being opposed to the retention of chancels, naves, rood screens, etc. in addition to surplices and copes. In particular, they disliked the ceremonial being promoted by Laud which was not obligatory on English clergy by canon law.

Regarding the ornaments of the church, Cosin seems to have followed the canons of 1604 in keeping the parish church as it had been, to an extent. As the Puritans disliked the official standards, they obviously disliked the Laudians’ encouragement and endorsement of those standards. The complaints against Dr. Cosin by Peter Smart are one of the sources that reveal the type of ornaments that Cosin was employing in Durham Cathedral, for example, Smart writes, “That the said Dean and Prebendaries set up and renewed many gorgeous images and pictures, three whereof were statues of stone; one of which standing in the midst represented the picture of CHRIST, with a gold beard, a blue cap, and sun-rays upon his head” (Hierurgia Anglicana, 36). Obviously the image of Christ was related to idolatry in the mind of the Puritans. Likewise, they were not pleased with the use of candles in Durham Cathedral, both upon the altar and elsewhere in the church (the use of candles on the altar was technically illegal except to provide light), Mr. Smart’s complaint continues, “That the said Dean and Prebendaries did use an excessive number of candles, more upon a Saint's Day than upon the Lord's day; and caused the same candles to be lighted in the said church in a new, strange, and superstitious manner, burning two hundred wax candles in one Candlemas night... The manner of lighting the candles was this: they caused two choristers in their surplices to come from the west end of the quire, with lighted torches in their hands, who, after sundry bowings by the way to and at the altar, did light the candles upon the same with their torches;” (H.A., 37). Although the illegality of Cosin’s actions is questionable since the 1604 canons and the Ornaments Rubric require the church to be kept as it had been “in times past,” a plea to peace and civility from Elizabeth I. Mr. Smart includes one more complaint against the ornaments of Durham Cathedral; this last one is a case special to the cathedral. It seems in many places that wafer bread was preferred to common bread but at Durham Cathedral, common bread was used. However, Mr. Smart seems to scruple with the fact that, “a knife to be kept in the vestry for cutting of the sacramental bread, being appropriated only for that use” (H.A., 37), which probably “cancelled out” the commonness of the bread by providing a sacred knife for its cutting in the Liturgy. These cases were special in their application to Durham Cathedral, however, the Laudians all encouraged the placing of the holy table at the east end of the chancel, closing it with communion rails, and facing towards it during the prayer of consecration, which all infuriated the Puritans but because these were not unique to Durham, I have left out Mr. Smart’s comments on that matter. Dr. Cosin responds to the needs for the chancel to be kept as it was in times past, “And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past. That is, distinguished from the body of the church by a frame of open work [rood-screen], and furnished with a row of chairs or stools [stalls] on either side: and if there were formerly any steps up to the place where the altar or Table stood, that they should be suffered to continue so still, and not to be taken down and laid level with the lower ground, as lately they have been by violence and disorder, contrary to law and custom” (H.A., 67).

The Puritans offer a description of the actions of the liturgy as they occurred in Durham Cathedral. “And for the order of the Communion, when they come first to the Communion-table, at the entering of the door every one doth make a low congie to the altar, and so takes their place... And then the priest goeth up to the Table, and there he makes a low congie...Taketh up the basin, and maketh a low congie. He goeth to all the communicants, the quire excepted, and taketh the offerings in that bason; he goeth up to the table, maketh a congie, and setteth down the bason. Then he goeth to the end of the Table, and beginneth the exhortation, and goeth on until he cometh at Lift up your hearts, that he singeth, and the quire answereth, singing in strange tunes, so far as priest and answer goeth: then for the rest, one of the priests reads some part of it at the end of the Table. And another sitting on his knees at the middle of the table, and after the prefaces, the priest begins Therefore with angels and archangels, until he come to the three Holies, and then the quire singeth until the end of that: so in order he doth administer the Communion” (H.A., 38). The description of the Communion Service at Durham obviously reveals the extent of the Laudian scheme as a ceremonially more complex affair than the majority of English parishes at the time. “Congie” in this context means a bow. Therefore, we can determine the times when the bow was used during the service at Durham. According to this account, a bow was made towards the altar at the entrance of the minister to the chancel, as the priest approaches the Table, at the Offertory both before the collection is taken and at the presentation of the basin. From the context, it looks like one priest would stand at the north end and another kneeling in the midst of the altar, or at the west end, but the account is vague in this regard. The account seems to indicate that the service was chanted and also sung by the choir.

One curiosity which seems to be limited to John Cosin was his blessing of objects associated with the administration of Communion. He seems to have blessed the cushions at the communion rails before divine service. “Dr. Cosin did consecrate the cushions and forms by crossing them, before the people came to the Communion” (H.A., 37). The 1552 Liturgy had not allowed for the consecration of material objects as it removed the consecration prayer for the baptismal water. The 1662 BCP restored this prayer, perhaps at the influence of Cosin.

Sources

Adrian, James M. ‘George Herbert, parish ‘dexterity’, and the local modifications of Laudiansm.’

Dorman, Mariane. 1999. “Andrewes and English Catholics’ Response to Cranmer’s Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552”. Reformation Studies Conference, 1999. Westminster College, Cambridge.

Stevenson, Kenneth. 2006. “Worship and Theology: Lancelot Andrewes in Durham, Easter 1617”. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church. 6. 223-234.

The Conciliar Anglican

2012-01-05T12:34:00.001-08:00

Fr. Jonathan at The Conciliar Anglican has posted a video on his blog. All Hackney Hub readers should check it out.

My truth, your truth, and a cheap shot at Pat Robertson

Bishop Cosin's Conditions for Unity

2012-01-05T09:03:00.000-08:00

Upon reading this passage from Bishop Cosin (found in Kenneth Hylson-Smith's book High Churchmanship in the Church of England), I thought I'd post this here at the Hackney Hub. I am rewording it a bit and proposing that it serve as a statement of belief or purpose for High Churchmen.

I would like to hear the opinions of the readers of this blog.

“We that profess the Catholic Faith and Religion in the Church of England do not agree with the Roman Catholics in any thing whereunto they now endeavour to convert us… If the Roman Catholics would make the essence of their Church (as we do ours) to consist in these following points, we are at accord with them in the reception and believing of:

1. All the two and twenty canonical books of the Old Testament, and the twenty-seven of the New, as the only foundation and perfect rule of our faith.

2. All the apostolical and ancient Creeds, especially those which are commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Creed of St. Athanasius; all which are clearly deduced out of Scripture.

3. All the decrees of faith and doctrine set forth, as well in the first four General Councils, as in all other Councils, which those first four approved and confirmed, and in the fifth and sixth General Councils besides (than which we find no more to be General), and in all the following Councils that be thereunto agreeable, and in all the anathemas and condemnations given out by those Councils against heretics, for the defence of the Catholic Faith.

4. The unanimous and general consent of the ancient Catholic Fathers and the universal Church of Christ in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and the collection of all necessary matters of Faith from them during the first six hundred years, and downwards to our own days.

5. In acknowledgment of the Bishop of Rome, if he would rule and be ruled by the ancient canons of the Church, to be the Patriarch of the West, by right of ecclesiastical and imperial constitution, in such places where the kings and governors of those places had received him, and found it behooveful for them to make use of his jurisdiction, without any necessary dependence upon him by divine right.

6. In the reception and use of the two blessed Sacraments of our Saviour; in the Confirmation of those persons that are to be strengthened in their Christian Faith, by prayer and imposition of hands, according to the examples of the holy Apostles and ancient Bishops of the Catholic Church; in the public and solemn benediction of persons that are to be joined together in Holy Matrimony; in public or private absolution of penitent sinners; in the consecrating of Bishops, and the ordaining of Priests and Deacons, for the service of God in His Church by a lawful succession; and in visiting the sick, by praying for them, and administering the Blessed Sacrament to them, together with a final absolution of them from their repented sins.

7. In commemorating at the Eucharist the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood once truly offered for us.

8. In acknowledging his sacramental, spiritual, true, and real Presence there to the souls of all them that come faithfully and devoutly to receive Him according to His own institution in that Holy Sacrament.

9. In giving thanks to God for them that are departed out of this life in the true Faith of Christ’s Catholic Church; and in praying to God, that they may have a joyful resurrection, and a perfect consummation of bliss, both in their bodies and souls, in His eternal kingdom of glory.

10. In the historical and moderate use of painted and true stories, either for memory or ornament, where there is no danger to have the abused or worshipped with religious honour.

11. In the use of indulgences, or abating the rigour of the canons imposed upon offenders, according to their repentance, and their want of ability to undergo them.

12. In the administration of the two Sacraments, and other rites of the Church, with ceremonies of decency and order, according to the precept of the Apostle, and free practice of the ancient Christians.

13. In observing such Holy days and times of fasting as were in use in the first ages of the Church, or afterwards received upon just grounds, by public or lawful authority.

14. Finally, in the reception of all ecclesiastical constitutions and canons made for the ordering of our Church; or others which are not repugnant either to the Word of God, or the power of kings, or the laws established by right authority in any nation."

Reflecting on the Prayer Book: To Serve the Lord with a Quiet Mind

2012-01-02T07:34:00.001-08:00

[The first in a series of reflections on the Prayer Book this year.]

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace, that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Collect for the Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity, read by laymen in place of the Absolution in the Daily Offices, reflects the comforting nature of the Book of Common Prayer for the faithful believer. The prayer begs that the Lord grant his people “pardon and peace” to the end that they may be “cleansed from all their sins” and subsequently serve Him “with a quiet mind.” What does it mean to serve the Lord with a quiet mind? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers several meanings of the adjective quiet in the English language, among which could include, calm, gentle, still, or secluded. However, perhaps the best definition in the context of this prayer is the sentiment of being “free from noise or uproar.” The Lord extends to us in peace through the grace of forgiveness to be loosed from our sins that bind us. The “uproar” we often feel upon pondering our own weakness is the burden of guilt. Through the merits of Christ on the Cross, the “uproar” of our burdened souls can be cured and, through Him, we can obtain the peace we most deeply desire. The only thing that we must do is to reach out to Him, in faith, and by His grace, to receive the benefits of His Sacrifice for us, and thereby receiving the peace we desire.