A Dissatisfying
Blog: Hackney on Old High Churchmanship
Preliminarily,
and I’m not an English Professor, there were too many typos and grammatical
issues. We initially made corrections to
his post as per the below. The long
sentences and an obtuse style distracted Reformation
Anglicanism. Please, we asked,
provide shorter sentences. Keep it
simple. Issue a better thesis statement with greater clarity. In fact, we exhorted, take some composition
courses, just as Reformational
Anglicanism is doing. We all need
improvement and this post surely needs that.
In
fact, at page 11 (of 18), we stopped reading due to the offending grammatical
errors. Do some editing.
Also,
offering the Rt. Rev. Robinson, UECNA, on predestination is quite shallow. In fact, it affords a warrant for
rebuttal. Bishop Robinson on
Calvinism? Let us try all the
Archbishops of Canterbury until Laud.
Robinson is not sure where he is…unlike the English Reformers and unlike
the Articles. Is Hackney posturing for Robinson? Peter affiliates with the ACC, an outfit full
of Marian invokers. I know. I attempted to worship with these 1928 BCP
Churchmen in the ACC, but the invocation of saints during prayers was an
obnoxiousness and rank foulness that Cranmer, like myself, would have rebutted.
Peter knows of his affiliations with
these Tractarians and so do many of us out here. These were some regrettable citations by
Hackney.
The
English Reformers, like the Articles, like Martin Luther, were predestinarian,
period. IT is high time for Anglicans to get over it and time to stop waffling. Start teaching, emphatically and
clearly, single predestination and you will encounter the inevitable results,
like St. Paul in his Epistle to the
Romans. That is, election necessarily entails a positive decree to bypass “others.”
A Theological Portrait
of Old High Churchmanship I
(NOTE: Citations did not make it to the blog
version, they are footnotes in the Word document, if you would like to see the
sources, I can e-mail you the .doc file: thehackneyhub@hotmail.com)
In this section, I attempt to provide a brief sketch of High Church theology.
This is a particularly difficult task because the High Church movement was not
(nor is it now) a monolithic movement. In addition to actual theological
differences in varying camps, the problem of terminology also causes issue in
our post-Ritualistic world. I identify several camps within the old High Church
school: a) centrists; b) Tory High Church (Nockles’ concept); c) advanced. The
first group includes those who embraced a thoroughly Protestant (and Reformed)
theology who placed greater emphasis on the visible church and the visible
means of grace. Daniel Waterland is a good example of the centrist position.
“Tory High Churchmen” were those who placed an emphasis on the Church of
England as the Established Church of England and greatly valued the
church-state relationship. Advanced churchmen were those who pushed the edge of
the Reformed boundaries of the formularies or who went beyond them, this
includes men such as John Johnson in the Established Church and Thomas Brett in
the Non-Juring sect. Cornwall summarizes High Church diversity,
“High Church and Non-Juror divines
did not present a monolithic theological face to the world. Their thought was
characterized by different emphases and nuances. William Beveridge remained
rooted in the Restoration Church, combining a Calvinist theology with an
emphasis on the visible and apostolic church. Francis Atterbury and Henry
Sacheverell continued to espouse the beneficial alliance that existed between
church and state, whereas Henry Dodwell, George Hickes, and Thomas Brett
defended the church’s subsistence as an autonomous society completely separate
from the state….Still…[they] believed that there was any road to God except the
one that led through the episcopal and apostolic church that had existed in
that nation from before the Reformation.”
Within this theological heterogeneity, I maintain that there was substantial,
Protestant consensus among old High Churchmen, with the exception of some
extreme Non-Jurors. However, it is important to remember that they were outside
the boundary of the Established Church and were not subject to the formularies.
In seeking to provide a basic definition of just what a High Churchman was,
Nockles provides this definition.
“A High Churchman in the Church of England tended to uphold in some form the
doctrine of apostolic 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 authorized 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 and 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
There has been much historical debate about
where to “place” High Churchmen, such as the Laudians, and Anglicans in
general, in the “Calvinist” vs. “Arminian” debate. My own reflection is that
Anglicanism’s formularies predate both of these theological systems and it is
rather difficult to neatly place Anglicanism fully within either. Another
problem, in my own view, is the notion that “Calvinism” really reflects the
theology of Calvin. It seems that there were several theological shifts within
the corpus of Calvinist systematic theology after the death of Calvin, whereby
Beza, Calvin’s successor, shifted the emphasis of predestination from
soteriology to a matter of theology proper, dealing with God’s sovereignty,
rather than as a demonstration of his grace. If I were to classify the Anglican
formularies, I would say that they reflect the broad, Augustinian consensus of
Reformation theology which broadly accepted a predestinarian scheme for
salvation, stemming from the core doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide, but
that is rather beyond the scope of this piece.
Within historical discussion, at least from an outside reader, it appears that
there are a number of theses about this matter. One of them seems to indicate
that a distinctive form of Arminianism developed in the British Isles, aptly
styled “English Arminianism;” this system denied the doctrine of double
predestination and the individualistic piety, characteristic of the more
“godly” churchmen, meaning those who sought to further reform the English
Church in the Genevan fashion. For example, Archbishop Peter Robinson of the
United Episcopal Church in North America, explains further his take on this
matter, following the “English Arminian” thesis,
“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.”
Hylson-Smith discusses the latter notion that “English Arminianism” reflects an
attitude towards individualism, rather than predestination per se. The idea is that the Laudians rejected the individualistic
piety and, instead, focused on the communal and visible means of grace,
essentially equating English Arminianism with anti-Calvinism. Hylson-Smith
opines,
“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.’”
There are also theories which deny any sort of “English Arminianism.” Guyer
notes that the works of Arminius were not published widely in England during
the seventeenth century (the “definitive” edition of Arminius in English was
published in the 19th century). Also, according to Guyer, reducing Anglican
theology to anti-Calvinism is contrary to historical fact.
A short word will be said on High Church beliefs regarding justification, which
is the key dividing line between Romanism and true religion. Most Anglican
divines starting with the Reformers themselves up to the Caroline Divines were
strictly Protestant and Reformed in their understanding of the nature of
justification. In the post-Restoration Church, later Caroline Divines, such as
Taylor and others reacted against the Puritan theology of the Interregnum, or
the “solafidianism” that they perceived of as denying the role of good works in
salvation. As Jeremy Taylor said that faith without works was, “like a stomach
poweder faith only works if it purges and purifies.” Ploeger describes the
nuances of this new theology,
“they did not consider the first act of God as the input of a righteous
qualitas inhaerens in the human being (which would be the Roman Catholic view),
but as the external imputation of Christ’s righteousness unto the human being;
however, after that they taught a continuation of the process of justification
by means of good works which were provided by gratia infusa.Without the latter,
the former had no value and could even be lost.”
Along with the strong link between baptism and regeneration and the new-found
emphasis on good works in salvation, many later Evangelicals believed that the
Church of England had lost its zeal for Reformed orthodoxy, which later sparked
the Evangelical Revival. The emphasis on good works was perceived as moralism
by Evangelicals and Dissenting Protestants. Yet, despite these differences,
there was far more Protestant consensus among different church parties than
differences. High Churchmen condemned Roman doctrines of good works and infused
righteousness and affirmed, in general, justification by faith, but rejected
what they perceived to be an under-emphasis of good works.
Baptism
Following the theology of baptism presented in the Book of Common Prayer and Articles, High Churchmen linked the
regeneration of the soul and forgiveness of sins with the sacrament of baptism.
Two essentially questions usually follow this type of assertion, 1) who can be
baptized; 2) what happens in baptism? To the first question, High Churchmen, as
all Anglicans, agreed that un-baptized adults and the children of baptized
adults are welcome to receive the sacrament. Without entering the paedobaptism
debate, High Churchmen believed that infants were possible of being disciples
because, although they could not make their own profession of faith, they were
capable of receiving the “seeds of repentance and faith” which would grow in
them and eventually they would claim this faith for their own in confirmation.
In answer to the second question, High Churchmen affirmed a strong connection
between the sign and thing signified, believing that the forgiveness of sins
was attained in baptism, “which led to new birth in righteousness… [t]he waters
of baptism symbolized the washing away of sins, freeing the recipient from the
power of sin.” Here Charles Wheatly describes the relationship between the rite
and the reception of the benefits,
“For as that is the first office done unto us after our natural births, in
order to cleanse us from the pollution of the womb… so when we are admitted
into the church, we are first baptized, (whereby the Holy Ghost cleanses from
all the pollution of our sins, and renew us unto God, and so become, as it were
spiritual infants, and enter into a new life and being; which before we had
not).”
The relationship between sign and thing signified led to a variety of
interpretations, as Toon explains here, giving the Evangelical interpretations,
“"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 electÃon.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 term 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. Likewise, Archbishop Robinson (UECNA) 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.”
Waterland, representing a centrist-High Church position on matters such as
sacramentology and other theological concerns, presents a centrist
understanding of the relationship between the sign and the thing signified,
“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
privileges, 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.”
Jones goes on to explain some of the nuances of Waterland’s distinction which
help flesh out the intricacies of his system. Waterland distinguishes between
“conversion” and “regeneration”. The former being the Evangelical new birth and
the latter representing, “the ancient word which the Church had traditionally
applied the act of sacramental Baptism itself.”
Confirmation
Like other Protestants, all juring High Churchmen, and most Non-Jurors affirmed
two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These ordinances fulfilled the
requirements for being a sacrament according to reformed theology.
Confirmation, not being a sacrament, was an ancient and desirable custom, but
was not a sacrament. High Churchmen still viewed it as a necessary rite,
conferring upon the believer the Holy Ghost and a completion of baptism. It is
notable that some Non-Jurors went beyond Protestant orthodoxy and included
confirmation as a sacrament, most notably Thomas Deacon, who believed it should
be administered to infants, as was the custom in the Eastern Churches. Wheatly
explains the common understanding of the effects of confirmation, “baptism
conveys the Holy Ghost only as the spirit or principle of life; it is by
Confirmation that he becomes to us the Spirit of strength, and enables us to
stir and move ourselves.” Confirmation was also strongly linked to the
doctrines of apostolic succession and episcopal ministry, for confirmation
could only be performed by bishops. Confirmation made one a member of the one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic church and could only be conferred by a catholic
bishop. The role of the bishops here served as a “confirmation” of the
catholicity of the English Church.
Although confirmation was such an essential rite to the life of the believer,
there were many hindrances to actually receiving it, hence the rubric in the
Prayer Book, “And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until
such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” In
addition to having sometimes huge dioceses, English bishops had duties in
Parliament, in the House of Lords, which slowed down their triennial parochial
visits. In addition to this, many bishops lacked the enthusiasm to regularly
offer confirmation in their dioceses. Although the prayer books from 1549 to
1662 required confirmation for the reception of Communion, most bishops,
especially in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Churches, espoused a
catechetically-driven membership, whereby communicants were prepared for the
reception of the Sacrament by knowledge of the Church’s catechism rather than
by receiving the rite of Confirmation. Although confirmation was neglected by
Protestant bishops in this period, there were conformist apologies of the rite,
most notably, Whitgift, who argued that confirmation was an ancient profession
of faith after a period of catechism. Obviously, this picture would change in
the Caroline reign, for in the Laudian program, the rubrics of the Prayer Book
were taken seriously and strictly enforced, which contrasted with the laxity in
rubrical enforcement from the Elizabethan and Jacobean bishops. A few
theological changes began to surface during Charles’s reign. First,
confirmation was given a sense of necessity by Anglican divines. Ambrose Fisher
maintained that Confirmation was necessary for children, “if t hey come to
years, both Confirmation and the Lord’s Supper may be necessary even as repentance
and the hearing of Sermons may not by you be affirmed to be needless to the
purchase of heaven.” Edward Boughen proposes a conditional necessity, “‘as a
sign, or Ceremony, by which and prayer God conveys his holy Spirit upon those
that heretofore were baptized.’ This gift of the Spirit was made in order ‘that
we may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin.’ The rite
itself was ‘not of necessity to salvation, but of necessity for t he obtaining
of certain gifts of the Spirit.’” John Cosin went beyond previous Anglican
divines in describing Confirmation as a “holy Sacrament” and “a sacred and a
solemn action of religion.” He agreed on its conditional necessity in the life
of a Christian. “They that die presently after Baptism have all things needful
to salvation; they need not fear it; but they that are to live and maintain a
spiritual combat against sin and Satan, they have need of God’s further graces,
which are communicated unto them by imposition of hands” Laud did not ascribe
to confirmation the status of sacrament as did Cosin but he maintained its
ancient status as a rite of initiation and benefit to the Christian. Yet, even
with this sacramentalist tendency, the real gate to Communion remained
catechism, instead of confirmation.
Holy Communion
Scholars have interpreted the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as contained in the
formularies as dynamic receptionism, although some offer slightly different
terms, the idea is the same, which amounts to a, “spiritual reception by faith
of Christ's body and blood,” further implicated by this doctrine is that,
“there is no change in the bread and wine except in the sacred use to which
they are appointed; that the sacrifice in the Eucharist is a "sacramental
representation, commemoration and application of "the real sacrifice on
the cross; that it is the crucified body of Christ now in heaven which is
spiritually partaken, and that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ in the
sacrament.” This doctrine was held by a majority of Evangelicals and juring
High Churchmen, although some Evangelicals espoused a form of Zwinglian
memorialism and some High Churchmen adopted a more realistic virtualism.
Griffin offers a fuller description of the totality of High Church eucharistic
thought, and really that of most Anglicans in the eighteenth century,
1) Christ is really and truly present in the sacrament, objectively "set
before us" and offered wholly and effectually- Jewel emphatically asserted
the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament.
2) Transubstantiation is superstitious, heretical and evil, yet Jewel also
denied that the elements are "bare signs only and as such inefficacious.
Christ is really present in the Sacrament, nevertheless locally absent, for his
body resides in Heaven. The bread and wine retain their own nature and
substance.
3) The change in the elements of bread and wine consists in the having a
"new dignity and pre-eminence which they had not before." They are no
longer common bread and wine, but are the sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, just as the water of baptism remains in all ways water, but not mere
water, for it is the sacrament of our redemption and those washed with it are
truly washed with Christ's blood.
4) Christ is truly received in the sacrament by the faithful recipient – As the
physical elements of bread and wine are eaten by the physical body and nourish
it, the truly present Body of Christ is eaten by "the mouth of faith"
and nourishes the soul 'The presence of the Body of Christ in the sacrament is
not dependent on the subjective condition of the recipient; it is objectively
offered to all communicants, but since it is spiritual, it can only be received
spiritually, that is, by faith Jewel asserted that the faithless and wicked,
though they may receive the sacrament, do not receive Christ." Thus the
benefits of Christ's death cannot be obtained by virtue of a massing priest,
because the individual’s faith is the critical factor. Moreover Jewel asserted
to Harding that "without faith sacraments be not only unprofitable to us
but also hurtful.”
5) According to Jewel, there is a double movement in the sacrament; that of the
heavenly Body of Christ being offered to all faithful recipients, but also of
our lifting up our hearts beyond the sacrament to heaven itself to take hold of
the Glorified Christ. Jewel often made use of a figure from Chrysostom of
eagles flocking to the corpse; we are to be eagles ascending on high to feed on
the real body of Christ." Christ is in heaven; the sacrament, because it
is his body, lifts us there, and its purpose is to cause this flight,"
6) The sacrament is a real eucharistic sacrifice in that the faithful offer the
unbloody sacrifice of prayer, praise and thanksgiving; and the sacrifice of
Christ once offered is revived and represented to us in the holy
mysteries."
He denies as blasphemy the sacrifice of Christ on the altar.
There were three generally recognized theories about the real presence:
receptionism, virtualism, and memorialism (or Zwinglianism).
“The three terms which have been most often used to describe the various shades
of Anglican interpretation are "memorialism,"
"receptionism," and "virtualism," the latter generally
applied to the Non-Jurors' "higher" understanding of the eucharist.
"Receptionism has been further qualified when describing the theology of
the Caroline divines to become "dynamic receptionism." By this is
meant that although the corporeal, bodily presence of Christ in the elements of
the sacrament is denied, there is however something "more" attached
to them," more than simply the belief that Christ is present in the hearts
of the faithful receivers.”
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).”
This position is that of Calvin and Bucer as well of the Caroline Divines and other
juring High Churchmen and of Evangelicals. The position of the Non-Jurors and
certain High Churchmen was more realistic in its conception of the real
presence and was termed virtualism, for it held that the bread and the wine
were not changed into the body and blood of Christ in substance but that the
power or benefit of Christ is present, as if Christ were present. The presence
of Christ was maintained in virtue and in power but not in his natural body.
The essential difference between these two positions is that the Non-Juror
position places more emphasis on the objectivity of Christ’s presence. “They
remained close to Calvin’s position, [yet] moved beyond him by separating the
Spirit’s mediation of Christ’s presence from the recipient’s faith by placing
it in the words of institution and the prayer of invocation. Faith simply made
one worthy to receive the elements.” The relationship of faith to the real
presence is addressed by Johnson who describes, “eating orally (manducatio
oralis) and eating spiritually, or from the heart (manducatio cordalis)… While
recipients of the eucharist ate bread with their mouths, they apprehended the
perfect representation of Christ’s natural body in the bread with their minds.
Though their outward senses perceived only bread, by faith they received the
bread as the body of Christ and ate it rationally” The question remains as to
what exactly “worthy reception” is, since it is required to receive the
presence of Christ. Beverdige defines it to mean to, “receive the outward signs
of bread and wine, without discerning by faith the Lord’s body signified by
them, and therefore without shewing any more regard and reverence to what they
eat and drink there, than they do to any other meat and drink.” It is to be
noted that all High Churchmen and Non-Jurors rejected the doctrine of
transubstantiation and its sister, ex opera operato.
They also rejected the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as per Article
31, yet they held to the idea that the eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice,
that meaning that the rite is a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
Yet, some Non-Jurors held to a propitiatory sacrifice, that going further than
the commemorative sacrifice. Regardless of the persuasion in this matter, all
High Churchmen affirmed that in the eucharist, the believer receives the
benefits of Christ’s passion, most notably the remission of sins. The
difference between centrist and Tory High Churchmen and advanced Churchmen was
that the former affirmed a spiritual sacrifice, while the latter affirmed a
material sacrifice. In addition, they would have supported the notion that the
Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving as well as an oblation
of the whole self to God with other Anglican divines and as the BCP expects an
oblation of, “ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and
lively sacrifice unto thee” (BCP). Waterland explains the centrist
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,” Hylson-Smith further clarifies the nuances in old High
Church sacrificial theology,
“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.”
The signs of bread and wine were not just signs but effectual symbols that
convey to the believer the body and blood of Christ and the benefits won by him
in his death on the cross. Baptism washed one from all the sins committed
before baptism and the Lord’s Supper renewed the covenant made with God in
baptism by washing one from post-baptismal sin. The body and blood of Christ
were received as spiritual nourishment and sanctifying grace.
