Page images
PDF
EPUB

The first Prayer Book of King Edward VI., in the year 1549, may be considered, according to the observation of the present Bishop of Sodor and Man, as a connecting link between the Missal and the Prayer Book-the Prayer Book which we now have. It was to be expected that it should exhibit some traces of the Missal, and accordingly the word altar occurs in its Communion Service at least three times but in the Service of 1552, the second Prayer Book of Edward VI., it is in every instance struck out; and if another expression is used in the place of it, that expression is the Lord's table. This circumstance is the more worthy of remark, because wherever in the older of these books the phrase GOD'S BOARD was adopted as descriptive of the Lord's table, it was allowed to remain. Now let me use here an argument of analogy.

In the book of 1549 is a prayer commencing thus, "Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's church;" including, in the term "Christ's church," the dead as well as the living. The corresponding prayer of 1552 says,' ,""Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's church militant here on earth," thus excluding all allusion to the dead. Further, whereas the former prayer recommended to the mercy of God those "which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace," this was wholly omitted in the second book. Precisely, therefore, as we argue from this twofold alteration that the Church intended to withhold its sanction of prayers for the dead, so likewise do we conclude, that the omission or change of the word altar was meant to guard against the perversions and superstitions to which the use of it might again conduct us.

But on this point we are not left either to probabilities or to analogy.

In the interval between 1549 and 1552 the marked attention both of the King and of the Reformers had been drawn to the subject; and in the injunctions of Bishop Ridley, at his visitation of 1550, and in the letter afterwards sent to that good Bishop from the King in Council, in order to enforce the injunctions, we have, perhaps, all the information which on this head can be desired.

We know, as an historical fact, that with the declining influence of Popery, altars began to disappear. To this circumstance allusion is made in the Bishop's injunctions: the following short extract is taken from Strype's summary of them: "Whereas some used the Lord's board after the form of a table, and some of an altar, therefore wishing a godly unity to be in all the diocese, and considering that the form of a table might more move the hearts of the simple from the old superstitious opinion of the Popish mass, and to the right use of the Lord's Supper, the Curates and Churchwardens were exhorted to erect and set up the Lord's board after the fashion of an honest table, decently covered, in such place of the choir or chancel as should be thought most meet by their discretion," &c. When this was urged against Ridley by the Commissioners, a little before he suffered at the stake, he replied, "It was done upon this consideration among others, for that altars seemed to come nigh the Jews' usage;" meaning, I suppose, that they implied a sacrifice.

The King's letter to Bishop Ridley, after some preliminary 'obser

vations concerning the removal, "on good and godly considerations," of the altars within most part of the churches in the realm, and concerning the importance of putting an end to divisions in this matter, adds, "We have thought good, by the advice of our Council, to require you, and nevertheless specially to charge and command you, for the avoiding of all matters of further contention and strife about the standing or taking away of the said altars, to give substantial order throughout all your diocese, that with all diligence all the altars in every church or chapel (as well in places exempted as not exempted), within your said diocese, be taken down, and instead thereof a table be set up in some convenient part of the chancel, within every such church or chapel, to serve for the ministration of the blessed Communion."

Similar orders having been sent to all the other Bishops in November 1550, "altars were generally every where taken away."

The Diocese of Chichester was an exception. For particulars, reference may be had to Strype and other writers. But the mention of it here is not irrelevant, because both the reason alleged by the Bishop for his disobedience to the Royal command, and his deprivation on account of that disobedience, prove that the matter was deemed on both sides to be of high importance. The Bishop did not object, it seems, either as to the form of the altar, or the materials of it but he felt that the commandment to take down the altars was an "abolishment both of the name and the thing, in the use of the Holy Communion ;" and this he could not bring himself to execute. In May 1551, another order was issued, of a most stringent and peremptory nature, for putting down forthwith all altars within this diocese, and setting up tables in their stead. So clear is it that these changes in the Prayer Book as to the term altar were the result of serious and deliberate judgment on the part of the Reformers. It was to be expected that in Queen Mary's days, when Popery was again in the ascendant, the altars should be restored; and such was the fact. They were finally removed after the accession of Elizabeth.

In accordance with what was done as to this expurgation of the Prayer Book is the 82nd Canon, requiring a Communion table in every Church.

But if our Church, in abolishing the altar meant to abolish" both the name and the thing," it would scarcely stop here: on the same principle it would change or omit whatever other expressions tended to uphold the doctrine of the mass. Such alterations it accordingly made carrying its caution almost to an extreme of scrupulosity. But it was felt then, as the necessity has arisen for our feeling now, that phrases harmless in themselves, may, by conventional use, lead to disunion, and even to false views of Scriptural truth.

In pointing out some of these alterations, I shall be led to notice certain kindred terms, which, like the word altar, are liable to misconception; I advert especially to the word sacrifice, and the word priest.

suffice.

For the illustration of the subject, a few references may In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. are these words: "When he (the Priest) delivereth the Sacrament of the body of Christ, he shall say to every one these words: The body of our

6

Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.'

"And the Minister delivering the sacrament of the blood, and giving every one to drink once, and no more, shall say, "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."

For these addresses were substituted in the second Book the following words:

"When he (i. e. the Minister) delivereth the bread, he shall say, ‹ Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.'

"And the Minister that delivereth the cup shall say, 'Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.'"

Further, a following Rubric in the first Book, after directing that the portions of bread prepared for the Communion be divided into two pieces at the least, or more, by the discretion of the Minister, and so distributed, adds, " And men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesus Christ." This is entirely omitted in the second Book.

I will adduce but one more illustration. The Prayer Book of 1549, although it forbade, after the consecration of the elements, any elevation or shewing the Sacrament to the people, furnishes an address to Almighty God, which has sometimes been thought-although surely on very slight grounds-to offer up the consecrated elements in the way of sacrifice.

This was left out in the Book of 1552, and a part of it was appointed to be read after the Communion. But after the Communion there could be no offering of a sacrifice; this must have been immediately after the consecration, and before the Communion, or not at all.

If the compilers of our Prayer Book really thought that some lingering notion of a propitiatory sacrifice was likely to be connected with the address as it originally stood, they could scarcely have taken a more effectual mode to get rid of it.

I have said that our Reformers seem to have gone in these matters to the extreme of scrupulosity. This appears especially by the forms adopted in the second Book, on the delivery of the bread and wine.

Of these it has been said, that if the forms in the first Book were thought to savour too much of the real presence, in the corporal sense of the word, those of the second Book, on the contrary, seemed to reduce the Sacrament to a bare eating and drinking in remembrance of the death and passion of our Lord. Hence, "They were in a little time," says Wheatley, 66 as much disliked as the former: and therefore, upon Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne (whose design and endeavour was to unite the nation as much as she could in one doctrine and faith), both these forms were enjoined to be used (as we have them still), to satisfy both parties." It is scarcely necessary to add, that while these forms were thus combined with a view to both parties, they accord with the principles of the Reformation.

The immediate inference from all this is, that the Church of Eng

land does not consider the body and blood of Christ as, in any literal sense, incorporated with the bread and wine; but, on the contrary, as Hooker expresses it, that "the real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.

Let us, however, turn to the statements of the Church itself on the subject.

[ocr errors]

With the following sentences we are all familiar. "What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper? "Bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received." "What is the inward part or thing signified?" "The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper." What is meant in this sentence by the words "the faithful," may be learned from the 29th Article: "The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith), the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation do they eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing."

The cautionary Rubric, at the end of the communion Service, shews much anxiety on the part of the Church not to be misunderstood as to this subject. In reference to the order that the communicants shall receive the Lord's Supper kneeling, "It is hereby declared," says the Rubric, "that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here."

To the same purport is the 28th Article.

"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." There is therefore a spiritual presence, but not a bodily presence. Such a notion, in every sense, our Church rejects.

It admits, therefore, in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, no propitiatory sacrifice. It acknowledges no other sacrifice but" that full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction," which our blessed Lord, by his one oblation of himself once offered," made upon the cross for the sins of the whole world." With this language of the Communion Service corresponds the 31st Article, "Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the cross."

"The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in which it was

commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.'

[ocr errors]

The Homily, on this subject, is to the same general purport: bidding us especially beware, lest," of the memory," the Lord's Supper

"be made a sacrifice."

That there are senses in which the word sacrifice may be properly applied to the Lord's Supper is not denied. We find the term in our own service; but the way in which it is introduced strengthens the argument. We entreat God "to accept this our sacrifice." What sacrifice? "Our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." We offer a second sacrifice; and of what nature? "We present ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto" God. The word is also used in the same prayer in reference to "our bounden duty and service." These are the only instances in which it occurs in that service, so as to bear upon the point before us; and it is here obviously used in a figurative sense.

It is further admitted, that both the ancient Fathers and some of our own great Divines speak of the Lord's Supper under the name of a sacrifice, and that not in express terms, as a sacrifice of ourselves, or of praise and thanksgiving, but with apparently greater latitude; and even in a way, if partially quoted, which might seem to give some colour to the Popish doctrine.

In reference to this matter 1 would repeat an observation already made, and say.

Firstly. That a practice, under some circumstances harmless, may, under different circumstances, be very injurious. At particular periods, familiarity with the language of Rome may greatly predispose the mind for an admission of Romish principles.

Secondly. That as a Minister of the Church of England, I acknowledge the authority of no private individual, ancient or modern, in a question of doctrine. With true respect for all who are entitled to it, and with a just acknowledgment of the valuable instruction to be derived from their works, yet, be they of what age or of what country they may, ante-Nicene or post-Nicene, Popish or Protes tant, they are not to stand with me, as a Christian, in place of the Holy Scripture, or, as a Christian Minister, in place of my own church.

Thirdly. In looking to ancient as well as other writers, we must carefully examine when a word is used by them in different senses— as for instance, the word sacrifice-what is the sense which they intended in the passage adduced? If we place in juxta-position various passages from various writers, merely because the same term is found there, and then reason as if this term had in all cases the very same meaning, no great dependence surely is to be placed in our conclusions.

Fourthly. As to the ancient Fathers, we have, in the Preface of Archbishop Usher's Reply to a Jesuit, the following conclusive statement; and I cite it in the belief that few men were ever more conversant with their works, or more competent to give an opinion.

66

The doctrine," says Usher, "that here I take upon me to de

« PreviousContinue »