A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology a Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology

A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Volume 1: The Reformation to the 19th Century

By Brian Douglas

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Douglas, Brian (Brian E.) A companion to Anglican eucharistic theology / by Brian Douglas. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-21930-4 (v. 1. : hardback : alk. paper) 1. Lord's Supper–Anglican Communion–History. 2. Anglican Communion–Doctrines–History. I. Title.

BX5149.C5D68 2012 234'.163088283–dc23 2011040698

ISBN 978 90 04 21930 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 90 04 22132 1 (e-book)

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. CONTENTS

PART 1 INTRODUCTION

.AnglicanEucharisticTheology?...... 3 IsThereanAnglicanEucharisticTheology?...... 3 The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition 16 Realism and Nominalism and the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition 20 TheProblemofUniversals...... 25 RealismandNominalismAgain...... 28 StatesofAffairs...... 34 StatesofAffairsandtheEucharist...... 36 FurtherAnglicanReflectiononRealism...... 39 RealismandtheScriptures ...... 47 TheQuestionofTruth...... 51 ATheoreticalModeloftheAnglicanEucharisticTradition...... 55 ModerateRealism...... 55 ImmoderateRealism...... 57 ModerateNominalism...... 58 ImmoderateNominalism...... 59 The Model in the Discourse of the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition 60

PART 2 CASE STUDIES

.ThePeriodoftheReformation ...... 67 Overview...... 67 Themes...... 68 The Early Period of the Reformation—Up to  ...... 68 ReformedDoctrine...... 68 RealismandNominalism...... 69 The Later Period of the Reformation—– ...... 73 TransubstantiationandImmoderateRealismDenied...... 73 ModerateRealism...... 74 Nominalism...... 81 vi contents

Receptionism...... 81 MannerofPresenceNotCloselyDefined...... 82 SacrificeandtheEucharist...... 82 TheCaseStudies...... 85 ThomasCranmer ...... 87 The Book of Common Prayer,  and  ...... 91 NicholasRidley ...... 97 HughLatimer...... 102 ThomasBecon ...... 104 JohnBradford...... 107 RichardHooker...... 110 JohnHooper ...... 115 RogerHutchinson ...... 118 JohnJewell ...... 121 AlexanderNowell...... 124 WilliamsPerkins...... 126 EdwinSandys ...... 129 EdmundGrindal...... 131 TheBlackRubric...... 133 LancelotAndrewes...... 136 LewisBayly...... 143 JohnBramhall...... 145 JohnCosin ...... 149 RichardCrakanthorp...... 157 RalphCudworth...... 160 RichardField...... 162 WilliamForbes...... 165 JohnHales...... 169 HenryHammond...... 171 GeorgeHerbert ...... 174 AnthonyHorneck...... 178 ThomasJackson...... 180 WilliamLaud...... 184 HamonL’Estrange...... 188 RichardMontague...... 191 ThomasMorton...... 192 WilliamNicholson...... 196 Scottish Prayer Book of  ...... 203 ChristopherSutton...... 209 JeremyTaylor ...... 214 contents vii

TheWholeDutyofMan...... 232 TheArticlesofReligionconcerningtheEucharist...... 234 The  Book of Common Prayer...... 247 The  Book of Common Prayer...... 253 Liturgies Other Than the Book of Common Prayer ...... 258 Catechisms...... 270 JohnOverall...... 287

.TheSeventeenthandEighteenthCenturies...... 291 Overview...... 291 Themes...... 293 RealismandNominalism...... 293 ModerateRealism...... 293 ImmoderateRealismSpecificallyDenied...... 297 Nominalism...... 298 EucharisticSacrifice...... 298 TheRoleoftheHolySpirit...... 302 Reservation...... 303 SymbolsNotAdored...... 303 OfferingatLastSupperandNotattheCross...... 303 TheCaseStudies...... 304 The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper ...... 306 HenryAldrich...... 309 WilliamBeveridge...... 311 ThomasBrett...... 316 DanielBrevint...... 322 GeorgeBull...... 326 ThomasComber...... 330 ThomasDeacon...... 338 RobertForbes...... 342 BenjaminHoadly ...... 345 JohnJohnson...... 348 ThomasKen...... 354 WilliamLaw...... 360 RobertNelson...... 364 SimonPatrick...... 365 ThomasRattray...... 369 The Scottish Liturgy of  ...... 375 AnthonySparrow...... 380 viii contents

The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper ...... 384 The Whole Duty of a Communicant ...... 388 HerbertThorndike...... 390 JohnTillotson...... 400 WilliamWake...... 402 DanielWaterland ...... 408 ThomasWilson ...... 422 Catechism of the  Liturgy of Comprehension ...... 425 NonjurorsLiturgies...... 427 JohnandCharlesWesley ...... 436

.TheNineteenthCentury...... 451 Overview...... 451 Themes...... 451 ModerateRealism...... 451 The Sacramental Principle—A Moderate Realist Notion ...... 457 WorshipofChristintheEucharist...... 458 TypeofWorshipSuggestsRealism ...... 459 ImmoderateRealismExcludedinRelationtoPresence...... 460 ModerateRealismRegardingEucharisticSacrifice...... 462 TheRoleoftheSpiritintheEucharist...... 464 ImmoderateRealismExcludedinRelationtoSacrifice...... 466 RealismWhichAppearsImmoderate...... 466 TransubstantiationDenied ...... 467 NominalismRelatingtotheEucharist ...... 468 IncreasinglySophisticatedPhilosophicalAnalysis...... 470 TheCaseStudies...... 471 WilliamBennett ...... 473 RichardMeuxBenson...... 475 WilliamBright...... 478 GeorgeArthurDenison ...... 481 RichardW.Enraght...... 484 AlexanderPenroseForbes...... 490 GeorgeHayForbes...... 497 WilliamGoode...... 499 WalterKerrHamilton...... 502 CharlesHebert...... 504 AlexanderJolly...... 505 JohnKeble...... 508 contents ix

AlexanderKnox...... 517 HenryParryLiddon ...... 520 RichardFrederickLittledale...... 523 FrederickDenisonMaurice ...... 525 FrederickMeyrick ...... 530 Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury,  ...... 532 JamesBowlingMozley...... 534 JohnMasonNeale ...... 541 JohnHenryNewman...... 545 FrancisPaget...... 557 WilliamPalmer ...... 560 HenryPhillpotts ...... 564 EdwardBouveriePusey...... 567 JohnCharlesRyle...... 579 Saepius Officio...... 584 VernonStaley ...... 587 FrederickTemple ...... 590 TheTractariansandtheEucharist...... 592 ThomasStuartVogan...... 607 RobertIsaacWilberforce...... 610

PART 3 RAMIFICATIONS

.DialogueandtheAnglicanEucharisticTradition...... 627 Overview...... 627 Dialogue:TowardsCriticalInterest ...... 628 HabermasandtheTheoryofCommunicativeAction...... 631 RamificationsfortheAnglicanEucharisticTradition...... 637 SacramentalTheologyafterHabermas...... 645 Dialogue—OtherPerspectives ...... 650 DialogueandtheAnglicanTradition ...... 654

Index...... 667 PART 1

INTRODUCTION chapter one

ANGLICAN EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY?

Is There an Anglican Eucharistic Theology?

Is there an Anglican eucharistic theology and if so what is its nature? This book seeks to explore and promote dialogue on this question through the provision of case studies of Anglican eucharistic theology and through contemporary philosophical reflection on the Anglican eucharistic tradition. This exploration aims to provide greater integrity for the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, such that the discourse is really talking about what it says it is talking about. In so doing this book also aims at providing access to what many theologians, theological statements and eucharistic liturgies have said about the Eucharist in the Angli- can tradition. Perhaps the answer to this specific question: ‘Is there an Anglican eucharistic theology and if so what is its nature?’ can best be approached by looking to the more general question of the nature of Anglicanism itself. John Whale argues that Anglicanism will remain multifarious since “it taps multiple sources, in the present as in the past”1 with the main sources being scripture, tradition and reason. Each of these sources, argues Whale, attracts its partisans, who value one source over the others. The Preface to the  Book of Common Prayer hints at this partisanship within the Anglicanism when it speaks of the task of liturgical revision as one which seeks “not to gratify this or that party in any their unreason- able demands”.2 This suggests that there is a difference of emphasis among Anglicans on some of the most fundamental questions, such that Angli- cans will divide into various interests. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in speaking of membership of the Anglican Communion

1 John Whale, The Anglican Church Today: The Future of Anglicanism (London and Oxford: Mowbray, ), p. . 2 The Preface, The Book of Common Prayer  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. viii. chapterone as an important part of Anglicanism heritage,3 also points out, for example, that some within the Communion in the pursuit of their particular interests are more committed to federalism and pluralism than others.4 Some Anglicans, he argues, instead place greater value on the seeking of structures that work towards “mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making” as expressions of “mutual responsibility”.5 It is within these different interests that the Archbishop recognises the possibility “of a ‘two-track’ model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage”6 whilst at the same time arguing that any “competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated”7 even thoughatthesametimeheacknowledgesthatthereare“differentvisions of the Anglican heritage”8 which result in “the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family”.9 Williams, it seems, is acknowledging the existence of different interests within the one Angli- cantraditionandsuggeststhatonsomeofthefundamentalquestions related to being an Anglican Communion there is more than one track to follow. More pragmatically Whale describes these differences in interests amongst Anglicans as: “low church, high church and broad church; individualism, authority and latitude; Evangelicalism, Catholicism and the middle way”.10 Ian Bunting provides details of these party group- ings11 which he terms Evangelical, Catholic or Liberal, and Mark Chap- man12 doesmuchthesameasheanalyseswhathecallsEvangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism within the Anglican Communion. It seems that within Anglicanism there is a recognition of difference which often is reduced to particular interests or party names. Bruce Kaye refers to this

3 Rowan Williams, Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future, Reflections on the Episcopal Church’s  General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion,  July, , paragraph . Online at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/. Accessed  July, . 4 Ibid, paragraph . 5 Ibid, paragraph . 6 Ibid, paragraph . 7 Ibid, paragraph . 8 Ibid, paragraph . 9 Ibid, paragraph . 10 Whale, The Anglican Church Today: The Future of Anglicanism,p.. 11 Ian Bunting, Celebrating the Anglican Way (London: Hodder and Stoughton, ). 12 Mark Chapman, Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), pp. –. anglican eucharistic theology? 

‘naming game’ that operates within Anglicanism, which he says, “is really part of the rhetoric of claiming publicly defensible parts of the tradition for oneself and ascribing other less defensible parts to others”.13 Stephen Sykes and John Booty in the Preface to the first edition of The Study of Anglicanism reflect on the difficulty of their task and refer to “the well-known breadth of conviction which Anglicanism has traditionally embraced”.14 In the second edition of this work, Stephen Sykes, John Booty and Jonathan Knight, continue this reflection and comment that the churches of the Anglican Communion have shown a “tendency to drift into an indefinite pluralism of options”.15 In recent years this drift into pluralism has sometimes resulted in hostility between varying parts of the Anglican Communion, especially in relation to questions of authority in general and more specifically in relation to sexual ethics.16 This in turn has led to threats to split the church, and, leaders have strug- gled to maintain unity.17 This is not a new issue for the Anglican Com- munion and indeed the second Lambeth Conference of  set as one of itsagendaitems,“thebestmodeofmaintainingunionamongthevarious Churches of the Anglican Communion”18 and subsequent Lambeth Con- ferences, not least that held in , have grappled with the issues of unity amongst the Churches of the Anglican Communion. In response to these issues and in an attempt to maintain unity, the Anglican Communion has developed An Anglican Covenant19 intended to provide a unified statement of what it is and how it is that the various churches of the Anglican Communion are in communion with one another. An Anglican Covenant

13 Bruce Kaye, Reinventing Anglicanism: A vision of confidence, community and engagement in Anglican Christianity (Adelaide: Open Book, ), p. . 14 Stephen Sykes and John Booty (eds), The Study of Anglicanism (London: SPCK, ), p. xi. 15 Stephen Sykes, John Booty and Jonathan Knight (eds), The Study of Anglicanism (London: SPCK, ), p. xv. 16 See The Windsor Report published by the Anglican Communion. Online at: http:// www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor/index.cfm. Accessed  August, . 17 See Jonathan Clatworthy, Liberal Faith in a Divided Church (Winchester UK and Washington USA: O Books, ), p. . 18 The Lambeth Conferences (–) The Reports of the  and  Conferences, with Selected Resolutions from the Conferences of , , ,  and  (Lon- don: SPCK, ), p. . 19 An Anglican Covenant, Introduction and The Third (Ridley Cambridge) Draft, On- line at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/ridley_cambridge/ intro_text.cfm and http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/ridley_ cambridge/draft_text.cfm. Accessed  August, . chapterone recognises that God has called all members of the church into communion in Jesus Christ but at the same time acknowledges divisions within the Communion, the struggles and weakness requiring constant repentance for failures, the misuse of God’s gifts and the exploitation of others. Despite the differences among the churches, at times strongly expressed and put into action, An Anglican Covenant argues that each still contributes to the whole of what Anglicanism is, thus suggesting that part of the integrity of the tradition is to be found in the diversity of particular interests which work together to renew and enrich the common life of the Anglican Communion. This is picked up by Rowan Williams in his reflection on the place covenant has in the life of the Communion and the way in which this defines its future.20 Bruce Kaye echoes this diversity of interest in reflecting on the Anglican Communion. He defines Angli- canism as “a continuing response to God in particular circumstances” which exists “as a dynamic force” and which brings to the contemporary encounter “a complex mix of practices and beliefs that have developed over many generations”.21 This suggests that the integrity of the Anglican traditionisinpartviewedinthecontextandthecomplexityofdifference, formed through history and in the context of different cultural and theological settings. Different interests, often expressed in church parties, are integral to what it is to be Anglican, but such partisan interest is not the sole defining characteristic of Anglicanism. The complexity includes different theological and philosophical assumptions and it is knowledge of this complexity that assists in understanding the nature of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. It is in the face of this complex mix which is Anglicanism that Christo- pher Cocksworth, speaking more specifically about Anglican eucharistic theology, argues that at an empirical level it seems quite true to say that there is no such thing as Anglican eucharistic theology since Anglican- ism is such an amorphous phenomenon which presents a wide range of views on the Eucharist.22 Henry McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson also refer to “much debate in Anglican circles about the Eucharist”23 and “a

20 Williams, Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future. 21 Bruce Kaye, An Introduction to World Anglicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, ), p. . 22 Christopher Cocksworth, ‘Eucharistic Theology’, in K. Stevenson and B. Spinks (eds), The Identity of Anglican Worship (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Moorehouse, ), p. . 23 Henry McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (Norwich: Canterbury Press, ), p. vii. anglican eucharistic theology?  range of Anglican thinking on the Eucharist” which nonetheless is com- plemented by “a profound coherence in that thinking”24 which centres on Christ’s personal action in the Eucharist but which at the same time does not hide differences in Anglican eucharistic theology. It may therefore be true to say that part of the Anglican phenomenon in relation to its eucharistic tradition is the notion of difference in view and yet at the same time a joining together in the eucharistic action. Rowan Williams, prior to his appointment as the Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke to the Lambeth Conference of this very notion of difference and oneness at the same moment. He argued that the most profound service people can do for one another is staying alongside one another and pointing to Christ despite the differences. He argued that even though the difference may at times be frightening because of the differences in priorities and their discernment, the staying together remains important “because of where we all stand at the Lord’stable, in the Body”25 as people listen to one another and struggle to make recognisable sense of each other. It is for Williams at the eucharistic table that the struggle for unity in the face of difference is greatest, since it is here that there is “the vision of a Living Lord whose glory I must strive to make visible”.26 The struggle to listen and to make sense of difference is fundamental to being part of the Body and one place where this is obvious is at the eucharistic table. At a more pragmatic level, Cocksworth observes: “when one considers the breadth of country and culture which worldwide Anglicanism spans, it is hardly surprising that, in the absence of an authoritative mag- isterium, multiformity rather than uniformity, is the name of the theological as well as the liturgical game”.27 If this is true of Anglicanism generally, it also seems to be true of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, where a multiformity of view also seems to exist. These differences have been explored by Douglas28 using a phenomenological

24 Ibid, p. viii. 25 Rowan Williams, ‘Making moral decisions’,in R. Gill (ed) The Cambridge Compan- ion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 26 Ibid,p.. 27 Cocksworth, ‘Eucharistic Theology’, p. . 28 Brian Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition: Ramifications for Theological Education, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Newcastle: University of Newcastle, Australia, ), available online at http://hdl.handle .net/./. Accessed  August, . See also Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, ‘The Integrity of Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition: A Consideration of Philosophical Assumptions’, The Heythrop Journal,  (), pp. –. chapterone methodology where case studies of Anglican eucharistic theology were analysed in terms of the underlying philosophical assumptions in the eucharistic theology expressed. The results of this work confirm that Anglican eucharistic theology is indeed multiform in terms of the philosophical assumptions which underlie that theology, varying in the main between moderate realist and moderate nominalist philosophical assumptions. These philosophical assumptions will be explored more thoroughly below. Case studies in the subsequent chapters of both Volume  and Vol- ume  of this work called A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology attempt to access and present this multiformity of philosophical assumptions and in so doing to give integrity to the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition through the application of contemporary philosophical reflection. Such exploration is aimed at letting the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition say what it is actually articulating. This suggests that if the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition can be accessed through the use of a case study methodology then dependence on exclusive party position will be lessened and the integrity of the discourse of the tradition increased. Paul Avis has pointed out, “what a church believes, teaches and practises about the Eucharist is crucial to its ecclesiology”,29 in the sense that the Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist. If the essential nature of Anglican eucharistic theology is difference of view in underlying theological and philosophical assumptions, or what Cocksworth30 andLovatandDouglas31 call ‘multiformity’,then there will therefore be differences in ecclesiology throughout the Anglican Com- munion in regard to eucharistic theology and it will be these ecclesiological differences which in turn influence Anglican eucharistic theology and account for the multiformity. At times this multiformity as it relates to ecclesiology is seen in the competing views of different voices within the one Anglican tradition. Some of these voices come from within the various church parties of Anglicanism, with some such as John

29 Paul Avis, The Identity of Anglicanism: Essentials of Anglican Ecclesiology (London: T&T Clark, ), p. . 30 Cocksworth, ‘Eucharistic Theology’,p. . 31 Terence Lovat and Brian Douglas, ‘Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucha- ristic Theology: A Habermasian Breakthrough’, Australian EJournal of Theology, (March, ), online at http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:/vital/access/manager/Repo sitory/uon:. Accessed  August, . anglican eucharistic theology? 

Macquarrie, presenting an Anglican Catholic perspective32 and others, such as Christopher Cocksworth, presenting and Anglican Evangelical perspective.33 There will be those who value the sacramental realism of Anglican eucharistic theology more than others and at the same time those who value the reformed heritage of the Anglican tradition. Valu- ing different aspects within the one tradition affects eucharistic theology and the ecclesiology of different parts of the one tradition. Whilst both Macquarrie and Cocksworth are reasoned and critical voices of the tradition, others make more strident ecclesiological and sacramental claims and argue that they have more of the ‘truth’ or an exclusive interest for their particular party position than other voices in the tradition. Silk34 argues in this way from an Anglican Catholic perspective and Doyle35 presents a particular view of truth from an Anglican Evangelical perspective. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Anglican Communion has addressed this issue of exclusive commitment to a party interest arguing, “that it is true that witness to what is pas- sionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity”.36 This suggests that some lack a commitment to finding unity in diversity and so pursue exclusive versions of truth based on partisan positions. Where this is the case, it may be difficult for the partisan voices of one position to appreciate and acknowledge the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Such difficulty can limit the integrity of the discourse since it appeals to exclusive positions and denies multiformity. Other commentators have observed that these dissociated voices may actually represent a struggle for political power by the adherents of church parties, rather than necessarily being about doctrine.37 What this

32 John Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments (London: SCM Press, ). 33 Christopher Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). 34 David Silk, The Holy Eucharist: Alternative and Additional Texts for Use with the order of the Eucharist in AAPB and APBA (Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, Australia, /). 35 Robert Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in catholic and evangelical theology’,in I. Head (ed) Who May Celebrate? Boundaries of Anglican Order (Sydney: Doctrine Commission of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, ). 36 Rowan Williams, The challenge and hope of being an Anglican today: A reflection for the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Anglican Communion (Anglican Communion News Service, ACNS ,  June, ), p. . Online at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ acns/news.cfm////ACNS. Accessed  August, . 37 Kaye, Reinventing Anglicanism: A vision of confidence, community and engagement in Anglican Christianity,p..  chapter one suggests is that the Anglican Communion may well, as Williams argues, lack “a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety”.38 Part of this difficulty regarding the insistence on party position and commitment to exclusive versions of ‘truth’ revolves around a failure to adopt a critical interest in relation to differenceinthefaceofthemultiformityoftheAnglicantraditiongen- erally and the Anglican eucharistic tradition more specifically. This book attempts to present a critical interest in relation to Anglican eucharistic theology through analysis of the philosophical assumptions underlying the Anglican eucharistic tradition. The book argues that party position and particular interest, while being part of the tradition, and as such impacting on ecclesiology, are not sufficient to evaluate the tradition as a whole in a critical manner. The contribution of modern philosophical analysis therefore features prominently in this book in the consideration of assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology, since it is argued that the multiformity of view present in the Anglican eucharistic tradition is an integral part of the discourse and that the multiformity is inherently related to different philosophical assumptions. Atthesametimeitmustberememberedthatanydiscussionofdiffer- ence or multiformity in the Anglican Communion generally and more specifically in the Anglican eucharistic tradition, needs to be balanced by the fact that Anglicanism has never claimed to be ‘the’ one Church. John Whale puts the case that “more than other denominations, Angli- canism has long lived with doubt. The logical awkwardness of religious certainty has been openly acknowledged by Anglicans”.39 Anglicanism’s appeal to both a Catholic and Reformed heritage makes it only one part of the wider church and so any claim about a specific Anglican eucharistic theology will always take into account the wider claims of the Christian tradition, as well as the differences within Anglicanism itself, and so be tentative about any one specific ideology. Bruce Kaye in discussing the Anglican tradition and the theological character of Anglicanism states that: The emphasis on the presence of God in the particular, is coupled with modesty about the extent and detail of our knowledge of God. Wonder at the essential central truth of God’s redemptive incarnation is more the note

38 Williams, The challenge and hope of being an Anglican Today,p.. 39 Whale, The Anglican Church Today: The Future of Anglicanism,p.. anglican eucharistic theology? 

than the confident articulation of sets of detailed theological propositions. This tradition of faith underlies a real presence of the divine in the ongoing life of the community, but yet with restraint, modesty and humility in the fact of the wonder of the divine and a sense of the limited and fallible character of the human response to God.40 For Kaye, all this acknowledges “the continuing ambiguities in the history of Anglicanism in the relation between the divine and the human”41 but it can be argued that at the same time that Kaye’s words point to the power of philosophical analysis in relation to Anglicanism. The argument that the presence of God is found in the particular and the very doctrine of the incarnation and more specifically the notion of a real presence of the divine in the ongoing life of the community suggest that philosophical analysis may well be central to any understanding of Anglican thinking. Indeed this is exactly the argument put in this book in an exploration of one of the persistent philosophical assumptions underling Anglican eucharistic theology, that is, sacramental realism. Balancing the ambiguities seems to be a feature of the Anglican tradition and once again this is perhaps where philosophical analysis can be of use. This book attempts such a process in relation to Anglican eucharistic theology in particular but there may well be wider implications for the Anglican tradition as a whole which allow the tradition to pursue critical self-analysis and encourage open and meaningful dialogue in the face of multiformity. These wider implications will be explored in the final chapter of this book. Balancehowever,ismorethanasimplisticappealtotheso-called via media or conceiving of Anglicanism as the middle way between extremes as some rather simplistically advocate.42 Rather, balance is seen as a much more critical appreciation of difference which requires self-understanding and acceptance of difference or multiformity which eventually leads to emancipation from the constraints of a particular interest and engages in a more critical process of reflection. This is exactly whatRowanWilliamsspeaksofwhenhearguesthatwemustlistentoand struggle with difference as we stand together at the eucharistic table.43 The via media seemsunlikelyasawaytodothissinceStephenSykesasks

40 Kaye, An Introduction to World Anglicanism, p. . 41 Ibid,p.. 42 Caroline Miley, The Suicidal Church: Can the Anglican Church be saved? (Annan- dale, Sydney: Pluto Press, ), p. . 43 Williams, ‘Making Moral Decisions’, p. .  chapter one whether the via media “is but an unhappy compromise, born of practical or even political motivation”.44 Sykes presents a valuable corrective to such a via media position, speaking of the notion of comprehensiveness in Anglicanism. He puts the view that if Anglicanism presents a comprehensive theological position (which may in fact include difference of view and multiformity) then this does not mean that anything goes in terms of the definition of Anglican fundamentals. The Lambeth Confer- ence of  commented on this notion of comprehensiveness arguing that it was “an attitude of mind which Anglicans have learned from the thought-provoking controversies of their history”.45 The  Lambeth Conference went on to say that: Comprehensiveness demands agreement on fundamentals, while at the same time tolerating disagreement on matters in which Christians may differ without feeling the necessity of breaking communion. In the mind of an Anglican, comprehensiveness is not compromise. Nor is it to bargain one truth for another. It is not a sophisticated word for syncretism. Rather it implies that the apprehension of truth is a growing thing: we only gradually succeed in ‘knowing the truth’. It has been the tradition of Anglicanism to contain within one body both Protestant and Catholic elements. But there is a continuing search for the whole truth in which these elements will find complete reconciliation. Comprehensiveness implies a willingness to allow liberty of interpretation, with a certain slowness in arresting or restraining exploratory thinking.46 This suggests in terms of the focus of this book that there are some limits on what can genuinely be called Anglican eucharistic theology both in terms of extreme views and a so-called middle way. Sykes casts doubt on the view that Anglicanism is a via media since the idea is compromised by both practical and political considerations and smacks of “a poverty of thought and of a sheer reluctance to attempt to come to grips with intractably difficult theological material”.47 Such a via media view of Anglicanism has been put by Miley48 who views true Angli- canism as a middle way between extremes. Miley in her consideration of the extremes within Anglicanism (such as the conservative views of

44 Stephen Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism (London and Oxford: Mowbrays, ), p. . 45 Lambeth Conference of , Resolutions and Reports (London and New York: SPCK and Seabury Press, ), p. . 46 Ibid, p. . 47 Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism,p.. 48 Miley, The Suicidal Church. anglican eucharistic theology? 

Evangelicals within say the Diocese of Sydney) is critical of any privileging of a particular interest, but her characterisation of the Anglican tradition as a via media fails to acknowledge in any adequate way what Sykes suggests, that is, there is a robust comprehensiveness within Angli- canism. It also fails to acknowledge that within any via media there is an inability to tackle the difficult issues of Anglican theology and its various interests. By arguing that that Anglicanism is a via media, Miley is really failing to come to grips with the comprehensiveness or multiformity of the Anglican tradition in any serious way. Miley’s view is distinct from any attempt to engage with different lifeworlds in the process of dialogue and critical engagement, such as Sykes seems to be envisioning in his discussion of coming to grips with difficult theological material. The work of modern philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas49 has important con- tributions to make to this discussion and will be explored in greater detail in the final chapter of this book, suggesting once again that philosophical analysis may be helpful in understanding the Anglican tradition and in the promotion of dialogue. The via media idea however, does have the potential nonetheless to recognise that the outcomes of the Reformation for Anglicanism are distinctive in that the Anglican Communion possesses both a consistent catholic and protestant strain within it and that this in turn suggests for Anglicanism there is “the idea of elements held in tension with each other”.50 This however, seems to be a wider and more multiform definition of Anglicanism as a via media than the one Miley presents. Such a suggestion of complementarity, Sykes argues, has the difficulty of finding a way in which it can be used in a rational manner. There is, says Sykes: “a great difference between saying that a body like a church has found it practically possible to contain people who hold opposed and contradictory views, and saying that that the church believes that all of the contradictory views are true and in some hitherto undiscovered way reconcilable.”.51 This seems to reflect Williams’52 argument for finding developed structures which can cope with diversity and multiformity

49 Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume . Reason and Rationalization of Society (trans. T. McCarthy) (Boston: Beacon Press, ) and The The- ory of Communicative Action: Volume . Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Boston: Beacon Press, ). 50 Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism, p. . 51 Ibid,p.. 52 Williams, The challenge and hope of being an Anglican today.  chapter one while at the same time acknowledging that there are different interests. This search for such developed structures is also part of what this book attempts to do, that is, to present a structure, assisted by philosophical analysis, which allows for a critical examination of the Anglican eucharistic tradition while at the same time acknowledging the multiformity of different interests. If such a critical interest can be achieved then perhaps greater integrity for the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition can also be achieved. Those who adopt the latter of Sykes’ two identified positions, that is, that the church believes that all of the contradictory views are true and in some hitherto undiscovered way reconcilable, are seeking for what Sykes describes as a “tame and Anglicanised tertium quid”. 53 Sykes rejects this and opts for the former view, that is, seeking a rational manner in which different ideas can be contained and viewed without seeking a tertium quid. It is this former view that implies a critical analysis of and engagement with difference or multiformity and a rejection not only of a tertium quid, but also of any simplistic appropriation of party view in an exclusive manner such that any other view is seen as wrong. The via media view is therefore found wanting in terms of critical interest. In contrast to the via media view, Cocksworth argues that a critical view in relation to Anglican eucharistic theology is one which seeks after ‘unitive categories’ or a significant core of doctrinal content which functions as the deep structures of Anglican eucharistic theology.54 Such an approach allows the discourse of Anglican eucharistic tradition to move beyond the prosecution of mere party interest and to engage with the tradition in a more critical manner. This is indeed the intention of this book and this will be explored in relation to philosophical analysis and in such reflection on the case studies of Anglican eucharistic theology. If it can be assumed then that the Anglican eucharistic tradition exists, with all its multiformity of theological and philosophical assumptions, what then is the nature of the theological discourse in this tradition? This book attempts to answer this question by examining the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition from the Reformation to thetwenty-firstcentury using a casestudy analysis and a methodologyof

53 Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism,p.. 54 Cocksworth, ‘Eucharistic Theology’,p. . anglican eucharistic theology?  phenomenology.55 It presents the argument, based on the phenomenological research of Douglas,56 that the discourse of Anglican eucharistic theology is multiform, that is, there is difference of voice and view and indeed a multiformity of philosophical assumptions within the one Anglican eucharistic tradition. This book therefore investigates the philosophical assumptions that underpin Anglican eucharistic theology and argues that it is this difference in philosophical assumptions that accounts for the difference of voice and view in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and indeed the different ecclesiological understandings of the church and its sacramental life. The case studies (Volume : Reformation to the Nine- teenth Century and Volume : th Century to the Present)presentthese different voices of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and so explore the multiformity of the discourse. Philosophical analysis assists in the exploration of the discourse and its multiformity and hopefully leads to a more critical analysis of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. A model of the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology is also advanced at the end of this chapter and used as a means for critically analysing the case study material. The difference of view in Anglican eucharistic theology is often understood ecclesiologically, in terms of church parties, such as Anglican Evan- gelical and Anglican Catholic or Reformed and Catholic or even in terms of high and low church traditions. Often each party of the Anglican tradition has its own view of eucharistic theology, related to the way the church and its sacraments are viewed, attempting to answer technical questions like, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’ ‘How is Christ present in the Eucharist?’ ‘Is there a eucharistic sacrifice?’ and ‘How does the Eucharist function in the life of the church and believers?’. Often parties attempt to present a particular interest or lifeworld and work to have adherents appropriate that interest or lifeworld. When Anglican eucharistic theology is conceptualised as competing party interests it has the potential to set up one view against another, at best attempting to explore one view in an exclusive manner and at worst presenting one view as the correct view, sometimes to the exclusion of all other views. Such exclusive party interests sometimes involve acrimonious debate.

55 Phenomenology implies the description of phenomena of the Anglican eucharistic tradition with assessment and judgement suspended until a later time in the light of the wider evidence of the case studies. 56 Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition.  chapter one

This book does not advocate a particular party view but rather argues on the basis of the phenomenological research that the discourse of Anglican eucharistic theology is in essence multiform, resting on not only a difference of theological view, but also on different philosophical assumptions. Such an approach has the potential to avoid the acrimony of particular party views but more importantly to present a critical interest regarding the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, not only in terms of theology and the culture of church parties but also in regard to the multiformity of the philosophical assumptions underlying the discourse of the tradition. This in turn has the potential to eman- cipate the Anglican eucharistic tradition from the specific interests of church parties and engage the discourse at a more critical level, emancipating the whole tradition to consider itself and its discourse with the greater integrity. Such critical engagement is in part the aim of this work in addition to the presentation of the voices of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and so this introductory chapter turns now to a consideration of these philosophical underpinnings of the Anglican eucharistic tradition.

The Integrityof Discourse in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, asks an important question for Christian theology to consider, that is: “What makes us say of any discourse that it has or that it lacks ‘integrity’?”.57 He answers his own question by arguing that “usually we can answer this in terms of whether such a discourse is really talking about what it says it is talking about”.58 This is not as simplistic an answer as a first glance may suggest, since a discourse which lacks integrity may not really be talking about what it purports to be talking about because the discourse itself deceptively con- ceals its real interest or agenda and provides instead a set of propositions which operate at two levels, one level acknowledged and one level not acknowledged. This type of discourse is for Williams, “one which steps back from the risks of conversation”59 in that it does not provide for critical and reflective subject to subject conversation and dialogue. Any true

57 Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, ), p. . 58 Ibid,p.. 59 Ibid,p.. anglican eucharistic theology?  conversation provides for the fact that conversation is always unfinished, and allows for the possibility of correction. If the conversation is a closed and predetermined exclusive discourse, as is often found in the conversation of church parties, then the conversation fails to acknowledge the true interest of the participants in that conversation and presents “to the hearer a set of positions and arguments other than those that are finally determinative of its working”.60 The discourseof theAnglican eucharistic tradition hasbeen examined by Douglas61 through analysis of case studies of Anglican eucharistic theology. The major conclusion of this research and case study work was that the Anglican eucharistic tradition is multiform, that is, it is not found in one uniform lifeworld or expression. It was also concluded that the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition centred around the difference between the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology. The work of several contemporary philosophers was used by Douglas to assist in the critical discussion of these philosophical assumptions and their application to the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Significant use of the work of David Armstrong (formerly Challis Pro- fessor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, Australia) was made in developing a model of eucharistic theology based on the distinction between the philosophical notions of realism and nominalism to the moderate and immoderate degrees. These philosophical distinctions will be examined in greater detail below and a philosophical model of Angli- can eucharistic theology is presented and explained at the end of this chapter. Lovat and Douglas62 also examined the multiformity of the Angli- can eucharistic tradition in terms of different ways of knowing ways, making considerable use of the work the philosopher Jurgen Haber- mas. The implications of this work for Anglicanism will be picked up in the final chapter of this book, however at this stage it is sufficient to know that Habermas was concerned with answering the question: “How is reliable knowledge possible?”.63 His answer to this question involved exploring three different ways of knowing, which he defined as

60 Ibid,p.. 61 Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition. 62 Lovat and Douglas, ‘Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucharistic Theology: A Habermasian Breakthrough’. 63 Jurgen Habermas, Theory and Practice (trans.J.Viertel)(Boston:BeaconBooks, ), p. .  chapter one

‘empirical-analytic or technical’,‘historical-hermeneutic’ and ‘self-reflective or critical’ where each way of knowing differed according to what he called ‘cognitive interest’.The different and particular cognitive interests impelled different ways of knowing. The ‘technical’ cognitive interest related to the storing up of essential facts and figures in order to control and manage a person’s world. The historical-hermeneutic or ‘interpretative’ way of knowing had the goal of understanding a person’s world and often involved the appropriation of this knowledge by others. The third way of knowing, the ‘critical’, had the goal of coming to know one’s self and allowing a person to access reliable knowledge rather than the type of partisan or party knowledge that is often accepted uncritically as safe and politically correct or which comes from a process of indoctrination or appropriation. As Lovat and Smith comment: For Habermas, it is only when we have reached the third level that we are guaranteed true knowledge because true knowledge demands that we be free.Atthefirsttwolevels,wearestillliabletobecontrolled,tobeinsulated from critiques that are outside our immediate frame of reference. The so- called ‘truth’ that we receive at these levels can be the result of ideology or ‘unreflective action’.64 Lovat and Smith argue that Habermas’sthird way of knowing, the critical cognitive interest, points to the power of rejecting unreflective action and embracing the approach of ‘critical theory’.In explaining this they say: Without the third level of reflection, any learning does little more than offer information about data which is outside and apart from ourselves. It is critical theory, implicit in the third level of reflection, which forces us to scrutinize and appraise the adequacy of this information and to evaluate its meaning for ourselves. Without critical theory, the information which comes from any subject can become a means of bondage, rather than emancipation, a way of oppressing people or keeping them in strait- jackets.65 Unreflective action, of which Lovat and Smith speak, has sometimes been in evidence in the Anglican eucharistic tradition as people prosecute their particular technical and hermeneutic interests.66 Such cognitive interests take the form of ideology,67 from either an Anglican Catholic or

64 Terence Lovat and David Smith, Curriculum: Action on Reflection (Sydney: Social Science Press, ), p. . 65 Lovat and Smith, Curriculum: Action on Reflection, p. . 66 See Silk, The Holy Eucharist and Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in Catholic and Evangelical Theology’. 67 See the previously cited works by Doyle and Silk. anglican eucharistic theology? 

Anglican Evangelical perspective, and as such may prohibit critique on the basis of a privileged or ‘sacred’ status. Thomas McCarthy,interpreting Habermas’s book The Theory of Communication Action (Volumes  and ) calls this type of unreflective action ‘hermeneutic idealism’.68 Lovat and Douglas argue that where hermeneutic idealism is found it is: Conceptualising of reality that is totally dependent on one’s own (or one’s ‘communal groups’) beliefs, values and interpretations, whilst at the same time remaining blind to their causes, backgrounds and those wider connections that would contextualise them and help those holding them to see that they are just one set of beliefs, values and interpretations in a sea of related and unrelated sets.69 If hermeneutic idealism becomes the focus of Anglican eucharistic theology then the integrity of that discourse is potentially threatened since the discourse remains in the realm of technical or hermeneutic knowledge without any engagement of a critical cognitive interest. This book therefore argues that the integrity of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition can be enhanced by a more critical consideration of the multiformity of the philosophical assumptions underlying the tradition and by considering such multiformity as an essential feature of the tradition. Philosophical analysis, it is argued, assists greatly with the promotion of reflective thinking and a critical interest for the tradition and in turn limiting and acknowledging the existence of hermeneutic idealism. In addition, this assists the tradition to engage in genuine conversation and dialogue such that integrity can be recovered. As Rowan Williams argues: “integrity can be recovered . . . to the extent that [those involved in the discourse] show themselves capable of conversation”.70 This type of conversation can be facilitated in the Anglican eucharistic tradition by an analysis of the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology. This is in turn works to enhance the integrity of the discourse in the Anglican eucharistic tradition by engaging with critical cognitive interest. All this is based on a discourse that accepts the value of dialogue amidst difference where Anglican eucharistic theology is seen as being composed of more than one lifeworld or technical and hermeneutic interest. In advocating such a critical approach Lovat and Douglas

68 Thomas McCarthy, ‘Translator’s Introduction’, in J. Habermas, The Theory of Com- municative Action: Volume ,p.xxvi. 69 Lovat and Douglas, ‘Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucharistic Theology’, p. . 70 Williams, On Christian Theology,p..  chapter one state that, “there is no one position that should be allowed the privilege of being hermetically sealed within its own solipsism and so denied the potential for inter-subjective understanding”.71 The power of this intersubjectivity will be explored at length in the final chapter of this book but now it is intended to explore the philosophical notions of realism and nominalism, both moderate and immoderate, as these are seen to impact on the discourse of Anglican eucharistic theology.

Realism and Nominalism and the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition

The distinction between the philosophical notions of realism and nominalism as part of the problem of universals has been a perennial issue in philosophy72 but also has a long history in sacramental theology, especially eucharistic theology, concerning the relationship between particular signs or symbols and the reality they signify. Whilst some accept this relationship between signs and what they signify and are called realists, others, called nominalists, do not and argue for a world of particulars only. This distinction has been debated in both medieval thinking73 and in more modern times.74 More specifically in relation to Anglican eucharistic theology of the Reformation period, the presence of nominalist thought has been noted in the writings of some of the early Reformers, such as Thomas Cranmer in his writings on the Eucharist.75,76,77 Mascall

71 Lovat and Douglas, ‘Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucharistic Theology’, p. . 72 Henry Veatch, Realism and Nominalism Revisited, The Aquinas Lecture, , under the auspices of the Aristotelian Society of Marquette University (Milwaukee: Milwaukee University Press, ), p. . 73 Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Medieval Philosophy (London and New York: Continuum, ), pp. –. 74 William DiPuccio, The Interior Sense of Scripture: The Sacred Hermeneutics of John W. Nevin (Marcon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, ), pp. –. See also Sue Patterson, Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) and Peter Byrne, God and Realism (Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, ). 75 Cyril Richardson, Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist. Cranmer Dixit and Con- tradixit (Evanston, Illinois: Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, ), p. . 76 E. McGee, ‘Cranmer and Nominalism’, Harvard Theological Review, , , July , pp. –. 77 Francis Clark, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (Chulmleigh, Devon: Augustine Publishing Company, ), p. . anglican eucharistic theology?  argues that Cranmer was “hamstrung by nominalism”78 while others argue that Cranmer was never conscientiously a nominalist.79 Still others, in the years of the Reformation and beyond, argue for realist philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology80 while others expressed a eucharistic theology based on nominalist assumptions.81 This trend of both realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions continued throughout the succeeding centuries as reference to the case studies in the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries will reveal.82 In modern Anglican eucharistic theology the distinction between realism and nominalism has been less articulated but not entirely absent. William Temple83 and John Macquarrie84 for example as Anglican theologians, speak of a ‘sacramental universe’ which is inherently based on the notion of realism where the signs of the Eucharist are linked in a real way with what they signify. Temple and Macquarrie argue therefore that Christ is in some way present in the Eucharist and in the eucharistic elements of bread and wine. Other modern Anglican theologians such Broughton Knox,85 Paul Zahl86 and Peter Jensen87 argue, using nominalist assumptions, that there is no real link between the signs and what they signify and so suggest that the signs function only as named (hence nominalism) reminders of what Christ has done in the past. For these theologians there can be no sense of Christ being present in the elements of bread and wine or active in their offering in the Eucharist, even though they may argue that Christ is present spiritually to those who come to the Eucharist with faith.

78 Eric Mascall, Corpus Christi: Essays on the Church and the Eucharist (London: Longmans Green and Co, ), p. . 79 G. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London: Lutterworth, ), p. . 80 See for example the case studies on Andrewes, Cosin, Taylor, Johnson and Law. 81 See for example the case studies on Becon, Hooper, Morton, Hoadly and Perkins. 82 See for example the case studies on the realist positions of Newman, Pusey, Robert Wilberforce, Stone, Dix and Williams and the nominalist positions of Goode, Ryle, Griffith Thomas, Dimock, Doyle, Stibbs and Zahl. 83 William Temple, Nature, Man and God: Being the Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Glasgow in the Academical Years – and – (London: Macmillan, ), pp. –. 84 Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments, pp. –. 85 D. Broughton Knox, The Lord’s Supper from Wycliffe to Cranmer (Exeter: The Pater Noster Press, ), pp. –. 86 Paul Zahl, A Short Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, ), p. . 87 Peter Jensen, ‘Law Service: Come to the Lord’s table to share a meal’, online at http: //www.sydneyanglicans.net/senior_clergy/archbishop_jensen/articles/a. Acces- sed  March, .  chapter one

The notion of realism and the relationship between spiritual reality and finite sign or symbols has occupied the attention of many Anglican theologians, not only in the modern age, but throughout the expanse of Anglican history and reflection. David Ford argues that: “the question of how or whether one maintains some sort realism . . . is central to much current theological debate”.88 Whilst many accept this, others in the Anglican eucharistic tradition do not, and this accounts for the multiformity of the philosophical assumptions underlying the tradition. The case studies in this book show ample evidence of those whose eucharistic theology is based on realist philosophical assumptions, but at the same time there is evidence to support the view that other assumptions in relation to eucharistic theology are based on nominalism. Real- ism affirms that the spiritual reality can have an objective reality, such that bread and wine conveys or contains the body and blood of Christ in a real way. Nominalism affirms only the objective reality of individual things and so there are names of things (bread or wine on the one hand and body and blood on the other) which do not instantiate spiritual realities in any real way. This philosophical distinction will be explored in much greater detail below. The philosophical notions of realism and nominalism, which this book proposes are useful for analysis of the assumptions underlying Angli- can eucharistic theology, operate within the larger philosophical question of the problem of universals, explored by modern philosophers such as David Armstrong. Armstrong states that “the problem of universals is the problem of how numerically different particulars can nonetheless be identical in nature, all of the same ‘type’”.89 The problem of universals is an old one, going back to Plato90 at least who postulated universals as FormsorIdeaswhereparticularshavethepropertiestheyhavebypar- ticipating in or imitating the unchanging and divine Forms. Plato argued foruniversalsonthebasisofgeneralwordssuchas‘white’or‘horse’, since these are not the names of any particular white thing or particular horse. Hence, for Plato, the general words name the universal ‘whiteness’ or ‘horseness’.Many philosophers, including Christian theologians, after

88 David Ford, ‘Hans Frei and the Future of Theology’, Modern Theology,  (), , –, p. . 89 David Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism. Universals and Scientific Realism Vol- ume I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 90 Plato, Parmenides, e–b, Online at Perseus Project, http://www.perseus.tufts .edu/hopper/. Accessed  August, . anglican eucharistic theology? 

Plato found this philosophical scheme attractive and theologians such as Augustine took up Plato’s notion of participation of particulars in transcendent universals which he called ‘unchangeable truth’.91 These truths for Augustine were transcendent, ultimately being found in God, but nonetheless in a real way participating in and identifying with material objects such that in relation to eucharistic theology, Augustine is able to speak of the Eucharist as “the feast in which He set before and entrusted to us His disciples His own body and blood under a figure”.92 This participation of the divine in the material was realist and so Augustine could say: “That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the blood of Christ”.93 It does not seem that Augustine was suggesting that real flesh and real blood was on the altar in the Eucharist and so he also says: What, then, does it mean, ‘the flesh profits nothing’? It profits nothing, but as they understood it; for, of course, they so understood flesh as is torn to pieces in a carcass or sold in the meat market, not as is enlivened by a spirit. . . . So too, now, ‘flesh profits nothing’, but flesh alone; let spirit be addedto flesh, . . . and it profits very much. For if flesh profited nothing, theWord would not have become flesh to dwell among us.94 Augustine is clear, nonetheless, in his use of realism and argues that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real such that the bread and wine and their offering participate in a real way in the eternal and heavenly Forms of Christ’s body and blood. Aquinas, however, basing his work on Aristotle, spoke rather of properties and relations to explain the link between particulars and universals in an immanent fashion, resisting the idea of too simply identifying particulars with universals beyond this world as eternal and divine Forms and instead bringing universals down to the world of particulars. For

91 Augustine, Eighty-three Different Questions, (trans. D.L. Mosher) in The Fathers of the Church, Volume  (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, ), pp. –. 92 Augustine, On the Psalms, (trans. S. Hebgin and F. Corrigan) in St Augustine on the Psalms, Volume I, Psalms – (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. . 93 Augustine, Sermon ,(transM.S.Muldowney)inThe Fathers of the Church, Volume , Sermons of the Liturgical Seasons, Nos – (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, ), p. . 94 Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, J.W. Rettig (trans) in The Fathers of the Church, Volume , ,  (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, ), p. .  chapter one

Aquinas, if two things have the same property, essence or substance, then the property, essence or substance is ‘in’ both of them. Different particulars may therefore have the same property, essence or substance and be identical in nature, although numerically distinct. This led to the formulation of Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation as a classic expression of eucharistic theology based on immanent realism, where two particulars, bread and wine on the one hand and Christ’s body and blood on the other, have the same property, essence or substance, that is, the nature or inner reality of Christ. The two particulars are therefore, according to Aquinas, identical in nature and of the same type, even though the outward appearance or accidents of bread and wine remain, such that the identity in nature or essence is compatible with complete numerical diversity. As Aquinas says in his work Summa Theologiae: The body of Christ is not in this sacrament in the way a body is in place. The dimensions of a body in place correspond with the dimensions of the place that contains it. Christ’s body is here in a special way that is proper to this sacrament. For this reason we say that the body of Christ is on different altars, not as in different places, but as in the sacrament. In saying this we do not mean that Christ is only symbolically there, although it is true that every sacrament is a sign, but we understand that Christ’s body is there, as we have said, in a way that is proper to this sacrament.95 Aquinas’ theology of the Eucharist and the philosophical assumptions of realism on which it was based, greatly affected eucharistic theology in general in the Catholic tradition of Christianity and continue to do so. By the time of the Reformation however, there was a concerted swing away from this realist eucharistic theology and a theology of the Eucharist emerged which emphasised a distinct nominalist separation of the sign from the signified reality. Nominalism was the natural reaction to the extreme and uncompromising realism that had developed in the Middle Ages.96 Zwingli is a case of a reformer who rejected realist assumptions in relation to the Eucharist and accepted nominalist philosophical assumptions. In his  work On the Lord’s Supper Zwingli argued that: A sacrament is the sign of a holy thing. When I say: The sacrament of the Lord’s body, I am simply referring to that bread which is the symbol of the body of Christ who was put to death for our sakes. . . . But the very

95 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Volume , a. ,  (ed. W. Barden, Blackfriars Edition) (London and New York: Eyre and Spottiswoode and McGraw Hill, ) p. . 96 Meyrick Carre, Realists and Nominalists (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . anglican eucharistic theology? 

body of Christ is the body which is seated at the right hand of God and the sacrament of the body is the bread, and the sacrament of his blood is the wine, of which we partake with thanksgiving. Now the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same. Therefore the sacrament of thebody of Christ cannot be the body itself.97 For Zwingli it is inconceivable that the sign should instantiate the signified in any real way and so there is a nominalist separation between sign and signified where there is no identity in nature between sign and signified and where all that exists are particulars. Nominalist and realist philosophical assumptions have continued to be present in eucharistic theology generally, and more specifically in Anglican eucharistic theology98 and reference to the case studies in this book will illustrate the different philosophical assumptions of Anglican theologians from the Reformation to the present, based as they are on both realism and nominalism. Before some of those differences are considered in more detail it is necessary to pursue some philosophical thinking as this will be basis of analysing the Anglican eucharistic tradition as shown in the case studies.

The Problem of Universals

The work of David Armstrong (born in Australia in  and who from  to  was the Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, Australia) has been mentioned above. One of Armstrong’s interestsistheancientproblemofuniversals,thatis,“theproblemofhow numerically different particulars can nonetheless be identical in nature, all be of the same ‘type’”.99 Armstrong points out that the nineteenth century American philosopher C.S. Peirce100 in discussing the problem of universals made the useful distinction between ‘token’ and ‘type’.This distinction is not unknown in Anglican reflection on sacramentality and

97 Huldrych Zwingli, On the Lord’s Supper,inG.W.Bromiley(ed)The Library of Chris- tian Classics. Volume XXIV. Zwingli and Bullinger. Selected Translations with Introductions and Notes (London: SCM Press, ), p. . 98 Brian Douglas, Presence and Sacrifice in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition,AThesis submitted for the degree of Master of Theology (Honours) (Canberra: Charles Sturt University, ) and Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition. 99 Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism, p. . 100 David Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction (Boulder: Westview Press, ), p. .  chapter one the Eucharist in particular, although the use of terms sometimes differs. Edward Pusey speaks of ‘types’ and ‘archetypes’ in his unpublished  Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament,whereheusesthe word ‘type’ for Peirce’s ‘token’ and ‘archetype’ for Peirce’s word ‘type’. Here Pusey speaks of “a sort of sacramental union between the type and the archetype, so that the type were nothing, except in so far as it represents, and is the medium of conveying the archetype to the mind, so neither can the archetype be conveyed except thro’ the type”. This leads Pusey to conclude that “tho’ the consecrated element be not the sacrament, yet neither can the soul of the sacrament be obtained without it”.101 Although Pusey’s use of the word ‘type’ is confusing here in relation to Peirce and Armstrong, it is the same realist analysis which underlies his thinking and which has emerged from previous Anglican reflection on this matter and at the same time had a strong influence on Anglican sacramental theology.102 Armstrong, following Peirce and in harmony, despite the confusion of terminology,with the realist views expressedby Pusey,uses the following display to make the distinction between ‘token’ and ‘type’:

the the

He asks the question: ‘How many words are there in the display?’. There are of course two answers. One answer would be that there are two words andanotheranswerwouldbethatthereisoneword.Therearetwotokens of the one type.103 This distinction between ‘token’ and ‘type’ is ubiqui- tous and applies to words as it does to almost everything else there is. “The chief philosophical problem here is posed by sameness of type. Two different things, different particulars, can be of the same type”.104 The meaning of the word ‘same’ needs careful consideration. ‘Same’ could mean ‘identical’ in a strict sense, but the two tokens are in a different place spatially, one being at the right side of the display and the other being at the left. Is there therefore something else then that makes them ‘of the same type’?. The two tokens have the same property (i.e. the com-

101 Edward Pusey, Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament (Unpublished manuscript of lectures held in the Library of Pusey House, Oxford, ), p. . 102 Alf Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist (Uppsala: Acta Univer- sitatis Uppsaliensis, ). 103 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction, pp. –. 104 Ibid,p.. anglican eucharistic theology?  bination of letters in a particular order and of a particular size and font style)buttheyarenotstrictlyidenticalsincetheyeachoccupyadifferent spatial position. Armstrong suggests that a better way of looking at the problem is to distinguish between ‘strict identity’ and ‘loose or popular identity’.He therefore argues that: “Strict identity is governed by a principle that is called Indiscernibility of Identicals. This says that if a is strictly identical with b,thena and b have exactly the same properties. Sameness of thing gives sameness of properties”.105 In the display above this principle cannot apply. ‘THE’ can only be strictly identical with ‘THE’ if they share exactly the same properties (e.g. size, position, colour, orientation etc). It is obvious using this definition that the two tokens are not strictly identical since the property of position is not exactly the same. Identity, Armstrong argues, in the display may better be described in the ‘loose sense’.Something can therefore be ‘the same’ (in the loose sense) without being‘thesamething’(inthestrictsense).106 Armstrong reiterates this argument in his later  book, A World of States of Affairs,arguing, “there are two senses of the word ‘same’,one strict, classical, identity, and the other a looser sense of the word”.107 Moderate realists, as Armstrong terms them, are those who argue for this loose sense of identity, whereas immoderate or Platonic realists argue that being the same implies a strict identity.108 Nominalists, on the other hand, argue that a loose and popular identity applies to “two things of the same type because the same word is applied to them”.109 This is what Michael Loux calls ‘metalinguistic nominalism’.110 The two words ‘THE’ are of the same type in a nominalist analysis because the predicate ‘are words’ or the mental concept ‘word’,or a resemblance can be applied to both the words in a propositional manner. Sameness of type in the nominalist analysis is heavily dependent on semantics in the form of propositional statements. This is what another modern philosopher, Catherine Pickstock, calls “a textual calculus of the real”111 where such a world is “disposed to treat words as capital”.112

105 Ibid,p.. 106 Ibid,p.. 107 David Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 108 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction,p.. 109 Ibid,p.. 110 Michael Loux, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, ), p. . 111 Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, ), p. . 112 Ibid,p..  chapter one

Another example, offered by Armstrong,113 may be useful here. Exam- ine this display:

the a

Are the two tokens of the same type? The two tokens are obviously not the same word, but they are of the same type (words). The two tokens have a number of properties in common (e.g. capitals, font, words) but differ in others (e.g. position in the display, number of letters, configuration of letters and of course the letters themselves). The two tokens are not strictly identical but they are identical in a loose sense, being of the same type, that is they are both words.

Realism and Nominalism Again

Michael Loux makes the following distinction between realist and nominalist claims, arguing that: Realists claim that where objects are similar or agree in attribute, there is some one thing that they share or have in common; nominalists deny this. Realist call these shared entities universals; they say that universals are entities that can be simultaneously exemplified by several different objects; and they claim that universals encompass the properties things possess, the relations into which they enter, and the kind to which they belong.114 Loux makes the point that there are “objective similarities among things” and that if such a claim is made then it is “not a claim from of any metaphysical theory”.115 For Loux, such a claim is described as “a prephilosophical truism” and as such “one that has given rise to significant philosophical theorising”. Further, he argues, that this goes back to the very origins of metaphysics itself and is about “whether there is any general explanation for the pre-philosophical truism that things agree in attribute”.116 There are also differences between people who take a realist position. Plato and subsequently Augustine spoke of things participating in a divine or eternal Form, whereas Aristotle and subsequently Aquinas,

113 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction,p.. 114 Loux, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction,p.. 115 Ibid,p.. 116 Ibid,p.. anglican eucharistic theology?  said that things ‘instantiate’, ‘exhibit’ or ‘exemplify’ a single property, quality or attribute. Despite the difference in terms, Loux states that these philosophers are called ‘metaphysical realists’ or simply ‘realists’. These realists make the distinction between two types or categories, that is, particulars and universals. On the other hand, nominalists: . . . deny that there are universals; and the central motivation for their view is the belief that our metaphysics should exhibit simplicity of theory. [Nominalists] believe that it is possible to provide fully satisfactory accounts of attribute agreement, subject-predicate discourse, and abstract reference that posits only particulars or individuals.117 Different forms of nominalism are also to be found where “the most extreme version endorses an ontology incorporating only particulars and holds that all claims apparently about universals are just disguised ways of making claims about concrete particulars”.118 This so-called austere or immoderate form of nominalism is not accepted by all those who espouse nominalism and so a more moderate or metalinguistic form of nominalism is favoured. “This view agrees that the only things that exist are concrete particulars, but holds that claims apparently about universals are really disguised ways of talking about linguistic expressions”.119 So how does all this relate to the discourse of Anglican eucharistic theology? It centres principally on the distinction between those whose eucharistic theology involves a linking in a realist way between particulars or signs, such as bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist, anduniversals,inthecaseoftheEucharist,thenatureofChrist.120 It is this realist philosophical assumption that allows a realist theologian to argue that in a sacrament not only does God reveal God’s self, but it is in thesacramentthatGodgivesthegracetoallowpeopletoperceiveGod.121 Whilst realists put a case for such a linking between sign and signified, that is between the particulars and the universal, where the signs of bread and wine and their offering instantiate, or are an instance of the signified, nominalists do not admit this. They argue instead that any apparent linking is optional and unconstrained by any properties and relations that may appear to or are argued to exist between signs and what they signify, and as such are merely examples of propositional thinking and semantic

117 Ibid,p.. 118 Ibid,p.. 119 Ibid,p.. 120 This view is espoused by Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments. 121 Ibid,p..  chapter one structures.122 Whereas the realist adopts what is sometimes called ‘the sacramental principle’,that is, God chooses to use signs or things of this world, such as bread and wine, to convey and contain a signified spiritual reality: things such as the nature of Christ being instantiated in bread and wine and received by those who receive them, the nominalist will deny this analysis. Instead of accepting a sacramental principle, the nominalist will argue that knowledge of the divine comes about through rational and semantic propositionalism, perhaps through hearing of or preaching on the text of Scripture. Doyle for example argues for a ‘word ontology’ rather than a ‘sacramental ontology’ such that “God does not work in the world by way of sacraments or signs, but that he works directly, by his Word”.123 For nominalists therefore, sacraments function only as promises or assurances of grace already accomplished and in no way, as arealistwouldargue,asameansofdeliveringgrace.Itisexactlythisdis- tinction between realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions that can be usefully applied to Anglican eucharistic theology. This distinction has been pursued in the case studies of this book. David Armstrong’s philosophical reflection contributes to this discussion by further distinguishing between ‘nature’ and ‘identity’. He says that: “It is an intelligible possibility that there should be two particulars with exactly the same nature”124 where by use of the word ‘nature’ Arm- strong means the “single, all embracing spatio-temporal system”125 where “to speak of the nature of a thing . . . is to speak of the properties of that thing”.126 There can be, for example, two numerically different particulars, a piece of paper and a pen, where each particular shares exactly the same nature, that is, the property ‘white’,in that there is a white pen and a whitepieceofpaper;andwhereeachparticularsharesthesamerelation of being, ‘on the table’,in that both the pen and the piece of paper are on the table. Armstrong goes on to argue that: “It is universals [properties and relations] that give a thing its nature, kind or sort”,127 meaning that universals are strictly identical in their different instantiations128 which

122 This view is espoused by Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in Catholic and Evangelical Theology’. 123 Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in Catholic and Evangelical Theology’, p. . 124 Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism, p. . 125 Ibid, p. . 126 Ibid, p. . 127 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction,p.. 128 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs,p.. anglican eucharistic theology?  means, crucially for any exposition of a realist sacramental theology, that universals are therefore “strictly identical in their different instances” and “the ‘powerful truism’,entails that for two instantiations of the same universal, the sameness of type involved must be strict identity”,129 that is, for the universal but not the particular. In such a scheme there is a difference between particulars in that one is a pen and one is piece of paper, and therefore they are not strictly identical, but at the same time each particular shares a universal property, that is ‘whiteness’ and a universal relation, that is ‘on the table’,such that the universal, the property and the relation, is strictly identical in the case of both particulars. Whereas there is no strict identity between particulars, there is a strict identity of the universal. It is this philosophical assumption that is applicable to any scheme of moderate realism in eucharistic theology where there is an ‘identity’ between particulars. This will be further developed below in relation to eucharistic theology in general and referred to frequently in the specific case studies and the eucharistic theology they present in subsequent chapters. Of course those who adopt nominalist assumptions in relation to eucharistic theology reject this analysis and see only particulars which are connected by rational and propositional language structures. Armstrong further assists by clarifying the word ‘identity’. He argues that: “Different particulars may be (wholly or partially) identical in nature”.130 This assists the discussion here since he points out that there can be ‘identity in nature’ and ‘numerical identity’.131 To use the example cited above: the pen and the piece of paper share an ‘identity in nature’, in that they both have the property ‘white’ and are both in the relation ‘on the table’, but they do not share ‘numerical identity’, since the particular ‘a piece of paper’ is not the particular ‘a pen’, even though they share the same universal, the property and the relation as a strict identity. Identity in nature can also be referred to as ‘loose identity’ or ‘moderate realism’ and numerical identity can also be ‘strict identity’ or ‘immoderate realism’. These terms ‘moderate realism’ and ‘immoderate realism’ will be adopted in the analysis of the case studies. Armstrong also uses the words ‘relational realism’ and ‘non-relational realism’ to assist in the distinction between numerical identity and identity in nature and this has been picked up by some Anglican

129 Ibid,p.. 130 Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism, p. . 131 Ibid, p. .  chapter one theologians.132 Armstrong describes ‘relational realism’ as being the case where “particularity and universality are related constituents of particulars”.133 Relational realism (sometimes called immoderate or strict realism) can only occur where there is numerical identity, that is, where the particularity of say the piece of paper and the property ‘white’ are related constituents of the pen. This is implausible and so Armstrong rejects this analysis of the example and opts for a situation of identity in nature (loose or moderate realism) which is also non-relational realism, since the con- stituentsofapieceofpapercannotbetheconstituentsofapen,even though they might share the same universal, the property ‘white’ and stand in the same relation to one another ‘on the table’. In a similar way Anglican theologians have also rejected the implausibility of immoderate realism since bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist cannot stand in strict or numerical identity to the body and blood of Christ and Christ’s sacrifice, even though at the same time some Anglican theologians accept that there is a loose identity or identity of nature between the particulars. As Armstrong argues: “What is required is some more intimate union between the particularity and universality of particulars than mere relation. We require a non-relational form of immanent realism”.134 Non- relational realism therefore recognises that different particulars, such as a piece of paper and a pen, do not possess numerical identity in that the paper can never be strictly identical with the pen, but at the same time, non-relational realism acknowledges that universals are shared as properties and relations. This means that non-relational realism or moderate realism does not require numerical or strict identity. It is exactly this distinction between relational or immoderate realism and non-relational or moderate realism that is applied in this book to the realist analysis of Anglican eucharistic theology in the case studies found in subsequent chapters. David Ford, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, has used this analysis in relation to eucharistic theology. He puts the case that the type of identity between bread and wine in the Eucharist and Christ’s body and blood is not a relational (or immoderate realism

132 David Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’, Scottish Journal of Theology, (), pp. –. 133 Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism, p. . 134 Ibid, p. . anglican eucharistic theology?  which is fleshy and carnal) but a non-relational or moderate realism where the bread and wine instantiates the nature of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist as identity in nature.135 Like Armstrong, Ford’s argument suggests that the nature of Christ is strictly identical in both instantiations of bread and wine on the one hand and body and blood on the other, but that the particulars themselves are not strictly identical, even though both sets of particulars instantiate the same universal nature of Christ in a strictly identical manner. This analysis makes the useful distinction between a eucharistic theology which is based on relational or immoderate realism where particulars are strictly identical and therefore implies a fleshy and carnal presence of Christ in the Eucharist and a eucharistic theology which is based on non-relational or moderate realism where particulars are identical in nature and therefore non-fleshy but nonetheless strictly identical in terms of the shared nature. This distinction is the basis of the analysis in the case studies which are to be found in the following chapters, such that various theologians or theological statements are classified according to whether their eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism or a nominalist analysis. It needs to be noted that little or no evidence of relational or immoderate realism is found in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and the main distinction, in terms of philosophical assumptions, appears to be in terms of either moderate realism or nominalism. The lack of acceptance by Anglican theologians of the relational or immoderate realist position is mirrored by theologians in the Roman Catholic tradition who also opt for moderate realism. Aquinas argues in this way136 as does The Catechism of the Catholic Church which cites Aquinas and states that the body and blood of Christ “cannot be apprehended by the senses ... but only by faith”. 137 Edward Schillebeeckx, a contemporary Roman Catholic theologian, also argues for the distinction between sacraments as symbolic activity or as sacramentality on the one hand and physical realities and a physical approach to these realities on the other.138 This is a useful distinction, with ecumenical support, that helps to facilitate

135 Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’. 136 See Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, a. , , p. , where he states that: “The conversion, however, is not like any natural change, but it is entirely beyond the powers of nature and is brought about purely by God’s power”. 137 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Homebush, Sydney: Society of St Paul, ), paragraph , p. . 138 Edward Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist (London: Sheed and Ward, ), pp. –.  chapter one the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and consideration of its philosophical assumptions, while at the same helping to make clear what is meant and what is not meant by Anglican theologians (in terms of philosophical assumptions) as they discuss eucharistic theology. If this distinction between relational or immoderate and non-relational and moderate realism is made, this helps to dispel the criticism that is sometimes made by Anglican Evangelicals139 that any realist discussion of the real presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist necessarily means a fleshy or immoderate realism.140 Careful understanding of the moderate realist philosophical assumptions proposed by Anglican Catholics141 and some Anglican Evangelicals142 in their discussion of eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice however shows that no such fleshy or immoderate realism is meant and that a moderate realism based on identity in nature is meant instead. Such use of philosophical assumptions in analysing the Anglican eucharistic tradition suggests that the distinction between immoderate and moderate realism on the one hand and realism and nominalism on the other, has been pervasive in the tradition and that its use helps to avoid assumptions which are based perhaps more on hermeneutic idealism of a particular church party than any critical assessment of the discourse in Anglican eucharistic theology. Such an approach enhances the integrity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition since it helps people to see what the Anglican eucharistic tradition is actually talking about.

States of Affairs

Armstrong, in pursuing the notion of moderate realism, also usefully argues for what he calls ‘states of affairs’. An understanding of what he is saying will also assist in the analysis of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition.

139 Robert Doyle, ‘“Here we offer you a spiritual sacrifice”—an estimate’, Online at http://www.acl.asn.au/old—Go to ‘Resources’ section and then ‘Prayer Book and Liturgi- cal Resources’. Accessed  August, . 140 Doyle’s analysis of the eucharistic liturgies in the  A Prayer Book for Australia for example suggest that some of these liturgies represent a return to what he describes as a fleshy presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. 141 Macquarrie’s analysis in A Guide to the Sacraments is an example of the use of moderate realism. 142 Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England. anglican eucharistic theology? 

Armstrong argues that, “a state of affairs involves both particulars and universals and exists if and only if a particular has a property or, instead, a relation holds between two or more particulars. The properties and relations are universals, not particulars”143 such that “we should think of the world as a world of states of affairs, with particulars and universals only having existence within states of affairs”144 where states of affairs are the “fundamental tie between particulars and universals”.145 Particulars, in a state of affairs, instantiate universals as properties and relations such that a particular piece of paper instantiates the property ‘white’ and a particular pen instantiates the relation ‘on the table’. In arguing for a realist scheme the question arises for Armstrong however, “Why recognise states of affairs?” and “Why not recognise simply particulars, universals (properties and relations) and instantiation of universals by particulars?”.146 Armstrong answers his question in the following abstract manner: if a (a particular) is F (a universal), then a exists and F exists. a being F therefore involves something more than a and F.Thereis something more than the fundamental tie or nexus of instantiation. The existence of a and F and the instantiation does not amount to a’s being F (i.e. a could exist and F could exist yet it fails to be the case that a is F, e.g. F is instantiated but not in a). This something more must be a’s being F. This ‘being’ is a state of affairs,147 dependent on moderate realism and identity in nature, or loose and non-relational realism. It is possible to express the above abstract argument in a more concrete form in the following way: a particular piece of paper instantiates the universal ‘white’, so the particular piece of paper and the universal ‘white’ exists. The particular piece of paper being an instantiation of the universal ‘white’ involves something more than the particular piece of paper and the universal ‘white’.There is something more than the fundamental tie or nexus of instantiation. The existence of the particular piece of paper and the universal ‘white’ and the instantiation of ‘white’ in the particular piece of paper does not amount to all pieces of paper being ‘white’,that is, the particular piece of paper could exist and the universal ‘white’ could exist, yet it fails to be the case that the particular piece of paper is white, since being ‘white’ is instantiated but not in the particular

143 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs,p.. 144 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction,p.. 145 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, p. . 146 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction,p.. 147 Ibid,p..  chapter one piece of paper if that particular piece of paper is a colour other than white. The something more must be pieces of paperbeing ‘ white’. It i s w h a t e v e r this ‘being’isthatisastateofaffairs.Allthisofcoursedependsonthe distinction between nature and identity and the acceptance of a moderate realist analysis.

States of Affairs and the Eucharist

The above argument can be applied to eucharistic theology where moderate realist assumptions are accepted. Armstrong’s argument and Ford’s reflections148 are useful in the analysis of such moderate realist assump- tionsinrelationtoAnglicaneucharistictheologyandindeedthisiscar- ried forward in the case studies which follow in the subsequent chapters. In relation to the Eucharist, therefore, the following argument is proposed. The particulars bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist can have the same nature as the particulars of Christ’s body and blood andChrist’ssacrifice(whatcouldbecalled‘Christ’sidentityofnature’or whatever it is that Christ is) without those particulars having a strict, relational, immoderate or numerical identity. This suggests that bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist can instantiate Christ’s identity of nature and that this instantiation is not the particular of literal flesh and blood or literal sacrifice, even though the identity of nature, as a universal, is strictly identical in both particulars. The two particulars, bread and wine and their offering on the one hand and Christ’s body and blood and sacrifice on the other, in such a moderate realist analysis, share the same identity in nature, that is, Christ’s identity in nature or whatever it is that Christ is, without the two particulars sharing any immoderate or fleshy realism. Rowan Williams has argued in exactly this way in his book Tokens of Trust149 where in speaking of the Eucharist he tries to hear the words, ‘This is my body; this is my blood’ “as Jesus saying of the bread, ‘This too is my body; this is as much a carrier of my life and my identity as my literal flesh and blood’ ”.150 In the same way that Armstrong argues that the universal is identical in both instantiations, Williams argues that Christ’s identity of nature, is strictly identical in

148 Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’. 149 Rowan Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Norwich: Canterbury Press, ). 150 Ibid, p. . anglican eucharistic theology?  both instantiations, that is, whatever it is that Christ is, is in both instantiations. Williams says that “the force of the Gospel text . . . seems to be more to do with a kind of extension of the reality of Jesus’ presence to the bread and wine. They too bear and communicate the life of Jesus, who and what he is. By eating these, the believer receives what the literal flesh and blood have within them, the radiant action and power of God the Son, the life that makes him who he is”.151 This means nothing more than Christ’s identity of nature is in both instantiations of bread and wine and their offering on the one hand, and Christ’s body and blood and Christ’s sacrifice on the other. Crucially the distinction which Armstrong has made, and which is picked up by Williams, is in relation to the word ‘identity’. There is logically possible both a loose or moderate realist identity, such has been described above, which those adopting moderate realist assumptions would describe as the state of affairs called the Eucharist, and a strict or immoderate realist identity which is not instantiated in the Eucharist as a state of affairs and which has generally been rejected as such by the Christian tradition. For Williams it is this moderate realist sense that is meant in relation to the Eucharist. Williams’ thinking is reflected in the much earlier work of William Forbes152 who in his writ- ing153 argues that “in the Supper, moreover, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we invisibly communicate with the substance of the body [and blood] of Christ, of which we are made partakers no otherwise than if we visibly ate and drank his flesh and blood.”154 For both Williams and Forbes, instantiation of the nature of Christ is seen to be present in both theliteralbodyandbloodofChristandintheEucharist.Themoderate realist philosophical assumptions operating here are in accord with and amplified by the philosophical reflection of David Armstrong. Interpreting Armstrong, therefore, the above suggests that in such a moderate realist analysis, the Eucharist is a state of affairs, acting as the fundamental tie between the particulars and the universal. In a very important sentence Armstrong says: “identities run across the state of affairs”,155 meaning that the universal, Christ’s identity of nature, runs

151 Ibid, p. . 152 William Forbes (–) was Bishop of Edinburgh. See separate case study in Chapter  of this volume. 153 William Forbes, A Moderate and Peaceful Consideration of the Present Very Serious Controversy Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist,(volumes)(ed.G.H.Forbes) (Oxford: Parker, ), II, pp. –. 154 Ibid, II, p. . 155 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, p. .  chapter one across the state of affairs that is the Eucharist and that there is an identity of nature between the various particulars. This is essentially the argument also put by Ford156 when he speaks of non-relational realism (moderate realism) and at the same time distinguishes this from relational realism (immoderate realism). It should be noted that whereas Ford speaks in the context of the Eucharist, Armstrong never does, and so application of Armstrong’s work on states of affairs to Anglican eucharistic theology is a product, legitimate it is suggested, of the analysis presented in this book. This application of Armstrong’s work to eucharistic theology will now be pursued in more depth. It is the proposition of this book that Armstrong’s work on states of affairs can be applied to a critical analysis of Anglican eucharistic theology where that theology expresses realist philosophical assumptions. The work of David Ford157 suggests this is both legitimate and possible. This therefore necessarily implies that the Eucharist is a state of affairs. Following Armstrong argument therefore and inserting relevant details in relation to eucharistic theology, the following argument is proposed. If bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist (each a particular) is (that is, instantiates in a moderate realist analysis) Christ’s identity of nature (a universal), then bread and wine and their offering exist and the nature of Christ exists. It needs to be noted that the word ‘is’inthe previous sentence refers to an identity of nature (moderate realism) and not numerical identity (immoderate realism). Bread and wine and their offering being Christ’s identity of nature therefore involves more than what Armstrong has called the fundamental tie or nexus of instantiation. The existence of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist and Christ’s identity of nature could exist but it may be that bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist involves something more than bread and wine and their offering and the nature of Christ. This suggests that bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist could exist and the nature of Christ could exist, yet it fails to be the case that bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist is thenatureofChrist,sincethenature of Christ is instantiated but it may not be in bread and wine and their offering, as indeed the nominalists argue. The something more needed, in any moderate realist analysis, must therefore be bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist being Christ’s identity of nature. This is

156 Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’ 157 Ibid. anglican eucharistic theology?  a state of affairs where, following a moderate realist set of assumptions, bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist being the nature of Christ is the state of affairs called the Eucharist.

Further Anglican Reflection on Realism

Sue Patterson, in her  book entitled Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age, has twin concerns: the nature of theology and the nature of reality, where the issue that links them both is the role of language.158 She examines realism in relation to Christian theology, arguing that: Theological realists . . . regard theology as having a scientific character in that, like scientific observation and theory-building, it is governed by its object. The being of God reflected in contingent creaturely being has an intrinsic rationality which the human knower comes to know in the same way that he or she comes to know worldly reality—that is, by ‘grasping it in its depths’ through participating in the given (revealed) structures of its being. This approach, therefore, asserts a universal rationality that is inthe first place divine and in the second place, contingently, cosmic or worldly. The argument is that our concepts become true concepts as they come to be coordinated with the rational structure of reality (whether divine or worldly) through our indwelling of that reality.159 There is resonance here with the work of Habermas who speaks also of the science of critical reflection160 and who is careful not to interpret the word ‘science’ in an empirical sense relying on scientific method and logical positivism. Habermas also speaks of the rationality of communicative action and its sharing of understanding through intersubjective dialogue.161 Patterson’s view, seemingly in harmony with Habermas, presents an inherent realism as she speaks of the ‘intrinsic rationality’ of the human knower, operating as the science of critical reflection. Such critical reflection occurs as a person knows and grasps reality in its depths. For Patterson there is something universal about this process of knowing, where, “realist theology asserts that Christian truth claims only make sense if they correspond to an extra-linguistic reality beyond inherited traditions of belief and practice and the claims of

158 Patterson, Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age,p.. 159 Ibid, pp. –. 160 Jurgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (trans. J.J. Shapiro) (Boston: Beacon Press, ), p. . 161 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action,Volumeand.  chapter one human religious experience”.162 There is an inherent acknowledgement of universals here—entities which exist beyond language, traditions and religious experience. She goes on to say that: “On this realist reckoning, the dynamic and innovative character of Christian thought and practice is a function of its participation in a reality transcendent of human formulations” and then continues to compare this with what she calls the ‘revisionist view’ where Christian thought “is a function of (‘classic’ text enabled) engagement with the ‘limit-character of common human experience’ through which we encounter and are able to interpret divine transcendence”.163 This seems to be a clear distancing of the discussion from the idea of an exclusive plausibility for any nominalist analysis and a suggestion that such textual analysis alone is insufficient as a base for theological reflection in a postmodern age. The type of classic text enabled structures to which Patterson refers is akin to the kind of hermeneutic interest or the textual determination of reality and its appropriation which often is to be found within a particular tradition.164 Such a hermeneutic interest is often to be found in particular church parties of the Anglican tradition, where a textual calculus and words function to determine meaning without adequate attention to critical and reflective interests. Patterson goes on to argue that Christians sometimes couch their beliefs in terms of their allegiance to certain views and that any interpretation of reality is often in line with these views. She says that, “inevitably, then, hermeneutics will be done from some position of commitment to certain beliefs . . . so that to employ a so-called general hermeneutic will be simply to operate from some faith position other than the one upon which the hermeneutic is being brought to bear”.165 For Patterson it seems, “there is reality outside of texts and their interpreting traditions, a reality which awaits conversion to the text and the tradition, but which itself brings aspects of itself in a dialectical encounter with the special revelation”.166 Thisissuggestiveofacriticalandreflective interest that has moderate realist philosophical assumptions. Patterson explains this more fully in relation to signs and how they work, saying:

162 Patterson, Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age,p.. 163 Ibid,p.. 164 This has been pointed to by Catherine Pickstock when she refers to a “textual calculus of the real”,Pickstock, After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy, p. . 165 Patterson, Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age,p.. 166 Ibid,p.. anglican eucharistic theology? 

For when we adopt something, sensible or intelligible, as a sign for something else our attention does not rest upon the sign but on what it indicates or points to: it is, so to speak, a transparent medium through which we operate. That is to say, the natural orientation of the human mind is,in this sense at least, quite ‘realist’. Accordingly, a sign, if it is to do its job properly, must be to some extent arbitrary, detached from the signified, incomplete or discrepant, or it will be confused with the things it is supposed to be representing. On the other hand, a complete arbitrariness in which the sign has ‘no natural bearing on the reality for which it is said to stand’ renders it ‘semantically useless’.In other words, it is necessary to be able to distinguish between sign and signified, but not to the extent that the connection is purely arbitrary. . . . A middle way must be trodden between nominalism and the idealist consequence of the total substitution of concept for object, which is the logical conclusion for correspondence.167 Patterson is rejecting both nominalism and immoderate realism. Im- moderate realism is rejected by the suggestion that the sign must in some way be detached from the signified, thus preventing the sign being strictly or numerically identical with the signified. Nominalism is rejected since the sign cannot be completely arbitrary in such a way that the sign and the signified become self-enclosedand separated entities. The talk of the sign being ‘a transparent medium’ which ‘indicates or points’ to the signified suggests moderate realism. Immoderate realism is clearly excluded in the discussion of the sign being ‘detached’ from the signified. If the sign is not detached from the signified then it is confused with the thing it is representing. This detachment of sign and signified is though, not purely arbitrary, since such nominalism renders the sign useless. The middle way that Patterson is seeking here is moderate realism, although she does not specifically define it using this term. Patterson’s work in rejecting strict identity and opting for what she calls ‘a middle way’,can be assisted by a more rigorous philosophical analysis of moderate realism. Strict identity between universal and particular is of course not possible in a moderate realist analysis, but this, as David Armstrong suggests168 does not limit the strictly identical nature of the universal in its different instantiations in the same moderate realist analysis. This point, taken up more fully below, suggests that Anglican theological reflection on eucharistic theology which opts for a moderate realist analysis would benefit from the insights of secular philosophical reflection such asis found in the work of David Armstrong.

167 Ibid, pp. –. 168 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, pp. –.  chapter one

Patterson argues further that in Christian theology: We cannot avoid correspondence in the realism required by Christianity, butitisnotthecorrespondencewethoughtitwas.Wearetalking,rather, of a correspondence between God’s world-under-God’s-description and a regenerated, redeemed world-under-human-description. The name and the means of the correspondence is incarnation, where this is taken to embrace the whole of human history and rationality, including its eschatological judgment and fulfilment. Its method of verification is revelation.169 The incarnation clearly functions in Patterson’s analysis in a moderate realist way, where the incarnate Christ corresponds to the divine reality, but in a moderate realist way by loose rather than strict correspondence. Toput this another way, perhaps the way Armstrong’sanalysis would put it, the incarnate Christ instantiates Christ’s identity of nature. Indeed she argues that: Christian theology’s internal logic is such that it is required to be realist, in that its self-consistency requires the upholding of certain central truth claims. However, while on a realist view physical reality has an existence independent of our cultural and linguistic structuring, this view must reckon with the postmodern insight that language (and the language-user) has for good or for bad the power to construct a reality which is also an integral component of the universe, and that both construction and discovery are not only inevitable and inherent in human linguisticality, but also inevitably partial, flawed, perverse and idolatrous.170 For Patterson there is a correspondence element inherent in realism (as opposed it seems to anti-realism and nominalism). This implies for Patterson that, “the World under human description seeks verification and redemption in terms of the world under God’s description, that is, in the person of Jesus Christ who is the incarnate meeting place of divine and creaturely reality.”171 At the same time however, Patterson is clearly acknowledging that for some, such realism is not a viable option, and that meaning is to be found, for such people, in a reality constructed in human linguisticality, that is, where there is a nominalist separation of sign and signified and a dependence on semantic propositionalism. Evidence of both realism and nominalism in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and cited in the case studies of Anglican eucharistic theology presented in this

169 Patterson, Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age,p.. 170 Ibid, pp. –. 171 Ibid,p.. anglican eucharistic theology?  book seems to accord with this view. There are those who adopt a realist position in relation to the Eucharist, linking sign and signified, and those who adopt a nominalist position, separating sign and signified. Another modern Anglican theologian who speaks of realism is An- drew Moore, who in his recent book, Realism and Christian Faith. God, Grammar and Meaning, makes the claim that: when Christian faith is subjected to philosophical scrutiny, typical realist claims are that () God exists independently of our awareness of him and of our will, but that () despite this, we can know him and that () human language is not an inadequate or inappropriate medium for truthful speech about God.172 Further Moore argues that philosophy has a legitimate place in a Chris- tocentric realism and theology. He says that: “the Christian faith is a proper object of philosophical scrutiny” and that “theology is bound to ‘take every thought captive to obey Christ’ (Cor. :), and that includes philosophical thoughts” since “Christianity and philosophy are conversation partners”.173 Moore argues that realism has three sets of claims, which are: . Ontologically, the realist holds that there is a reality external to human minds and that it exists as it does independently of the concepts and interpretative grids in terms of which we think about it. Its being what it is does not depend on our conceiving of it (as idealists hold), or on our conception of it (as Kantians hold), or indeed our conceiving it at all. Reality is there to be discovered as it objectively is; it is not subjectively invented, constructed or projected. . Epistemologically, the realist holds that reality can be (approximately) knownasitisandnotjustasitappearstoustobe(asempiricismholds). . Semantically, the realist holds that it is possible to refer successfully to, and so make (approximately) true statements about reality. That is, in classical terms, the truth of a proposition is a matter of its corresponding to reality independently of our being able to verify or otherwise confirm it.174 As an example of the use of philosophical reflection in theology Moore argues, “that we cannot know things as they are ‘in themselves’ (their noumenal reality)butonlyasthey‘appear’toustobe(theirphenomenal

172 Andrew Moore, Realism and Christian Faith: God, Grammar and Meaning (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. –. 173 Ibid,p.. 174 Ibid,p..  chapter one reality)”.175 This has particular relevance to any moderate realist analysis of Anglican eucharistic theology since it suggests we cannot know the physical body and blood of Christ and its offering (immoderate realism or noumenal realism as Moore calls it) but this does not preclude us from knowing the body and blood of Christ and its offering as they appear to us in the phenomena of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist in a moderate realist analysis or as phenomenal reality. Indeed Moore argues “the grammar of the Christian faith is God himself”176 and that “when I say that God himself is the grammar of faith I mean that it is he who regulates our practices (including theological ones), teaches us their point, and thereby keeps our language in good order: God enables us to show his independent reality because he shows himself through the practices of faith”.177 Among these ‘practices’ Moore includes the Eucharist, arguing that, “these practices assume a grammar of faith and see themselves as open to the authority of God because he reveals himself through them”.178 This is a moderate realist statement about the Eucharist. Moore also argues that “the link between practices and presence is contingent; there is no necessity by which the practices automatically convey the character of God”.179 This suggests that any presence in the Eucharist is dependent on God and not on the performance of the practice, as the Corinthian experience of not discerning the body suggests (Cor. : –). As Moore explains: Paul assumes that the crucified and risen Lord will make this food and meal a (the?) primary locus of his activity in the church, and that that activity brings to present effect the reality of judgement and grace enacted in Christ’s reconciling death. Thus, the Lord’s Supper is celebrated in grateful obedience to the one whose death is memorialised in it, and who is now alive as transforming presence giving meaning to Christian practices in the present.180 This seems to be equivalent to what Armstrong has called moderate realism and what many within the Anglican eucharistic tradition term real presence and anamnesis. Moore’s view contrasts with anti-realists, such as David Hart, who put the case that in the sacraments “much of what occurs . . . occurs in the perception of the participants and is

175 Ibid,p.. 176 Ibid, p. . 177 Ibid, p. . 178 Ibid, p. . 179 Ibid, p. . 180 Ibid, p. . anglican eucharistic theology?  not something that happens irrespective of these perceptions”.181 Moore points out, in relation to such anti-realist views that, “this anthropocen- tric construal of the sacrament’s meaning combines conveniently with post-Structuralism so that Hart elides ‘discerning the body’ into ‘the importance of discerning the signifiers’”.182 This means for Moore that the anti-realist puts the view that “eucharistic significance or meaning is a human creation: there is no transcendental signified, no signified body, only an endless chain of naturalistically interpreted signifiers”. Clearly Moore is rejecting such a non-realist or anti-realist view in favour of a realist position in relation to practices such as the Eucharist. Moore’s realism though is in regard to the whole of the Eucharist where the sign of the signified is a practice rather than linking specific signs, such as bread and wine and their offering, with the signified body and blood and sacrifice of Christ. Indeed he says that, “where word and sacrament are duly administered, God is their self-presencing grammar. These practices are means of God’s presence to those who participate in them whether or not the realist meta-rule is explicitly admitted. Paul adds his realist meta-rule to bring out what is happening amongst the Corinthians”.183 Thisisbrought out when he speaks of anamnesis in ICorinthians, saying, he [Paul] issues reminders about what lies before our eyes, reminders of what we were in danger of forgetting because of confusions about grammar, reminders, in this case, that turn remembering into anamnesis. Anamnesis is eschatological: it looks forward by looking back to Christ’s death and resurrection as the proleptic consummation of God’s purposes. Anamnesis expects the Lord to make the eucharist the holy place where he meets his people in judgement and grace, and equips them to bear witnesstohim.Inshort,injudgingandgivinggraceGodactsinsucha way that our lives are interrupted and brought into correspondence with him.184 This argument limits the sense of instantiation and heightens the sense of remembering in a particular holy place where theological concepts (judgement and grace) are what seem to be instantiated rather than the nature of Christ as a universal. Moore even goes as far in his realism to reject external means, saying that, “just as the Lord’s act in calling Paul to apostleship [the Damascus road experience] cannot be proved by

181 David Hart, Faith in Doubt: Non-realism and Christian Belief (London: Mowbray, ), p. . 182 Moore, Realism and Christian Faith: God, Grammar and Meaning, p. . 183 Ibid, pp. –. 184 Ibid, p. .  chapter one external means, so neither can the Lord’sacting as Paul teaches he does in the eucharist”.185 While this certainly seems to reject immoderate realism in relation to external means it also has the consequence of limiting the sense of instantiation implied in moderate realism, pointing away from the signified through the signs and restricting the realism of the Eucharist to some sort of powerful reminder or memory and reducing the realism of the Eucharist to a psychological event. Despite this Moore argues that when a person names Jesus as Lord, this is to affirm that Jesus is the object we have in knowing God.186 For Moore this means that: “The church . . . cannot avoid speaking of Jesus as an object since it is a person in space and time of whom we are talking, but not only a person in space and time but of this particular person in relation to the one he addressed as Father”.187 This is very realist language since it is the object (Jesus) that allows people to know God. This realism does not seem to be carried over as effectively to the Eucharist though, such that the sign of the Eucharist (bread and wine and their offering) is the vehicle for allowing people to know God, that is, in a moderate realist manner. Indeed Moore seems very suspicious of any approach that attempts to do this and rejects theological realism. He argues that in theological realism “an ideal and representationally perspicuous language is sought, founded on the new universal: abstract, theoretical rationality. Science is seen as the supreme exemplar of this and the end to which theological speech should strive. However, as we have seen, the loss to theology is its own distinctive internal logic”.188 Moore’semphasisisaChristocentric realism and for him this means that neither “philosophy nor theology should be regarded as a universal method rendering the particular fully perspicuous”.189 Further he argues that his: understanding of the relationship between theology and philosophy might broadly be described as fideistic. That is, my claim is that knowledge of God is given by him as a gift of faith; neither is it a product of a priori reasoning nor is it deduced from what is evident to the senses. Faith does not have an empirical component, but it is the history of God’s involvement with his people, consummated in Jesus Christ. . . . Christian belief is based not on reason but on revelation.190

185 Ibid, p. . 186 Ibid, p. . 187 Ibid, p. . 188 Ibid, pp. –. 189 Ibid, p. . 190 Ibid, p. . anglican eucharistic theology? 

Moderate realism, it should be noted, is not the means of faith by reasoning on the part of human beings, but rather a philosophical way of speaking about how God’s revelation occurred. In a moderate realist account the divine was instantiated in the person and work of Jesus Christ and also in the signs of the Eucharist. Moore seems to accept the former but is much less accepting of the latter. Indeed Moore’s reticence to embrace realism in its philosophical form is signalled by the distancing of his argument from what he describes as “the Scholastic debate between ‘nominalists’ and ‘realists’ over the status of universals” arguing that this “is somewhat, though not wholly, remote from our present concerns”.191 This dismissal of the distinction between realism and nominalism not only ignores the current modern usage of these terms in the work of present day philosophy (e.g. David Armstrong) which is not dependent on the Scholastic debate and which remains viable in its own modern usage but it also ignores the use of the distinction between realism and nominalism which arises from the critical analysis of the phenomena of the Anglican eucharistic tradition such as is presented in the case studies of this book and is isolated in the work of Douglas.192

Realism and the Scriptures

The notion of realism can also be inferred from the Scriptures. In John’s Gospel the words, “And the Word became flesh and lived among us”193 suggest that Christ’s identity of nature is Word or Logos,asauniversal, instantiated in particular flesh (the particular historic person of Jesus) and that the two, divine and human, become one. This is confirmed by reference to John : –. Here the incarnate Jesus speaks of himself as “the true bread from heaven”194 that “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world”.195 Further Jesus describes himself as “the bread of life”196 and as “the living bread that comes down from heaven.”.197 He also says, “Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh”.198 Finally Jesus declares:

191 Ibid,p.. 192 Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition. 193 John :  (NRSV). 194 John :  (NRSV). 195 John :  (NRSV). 196 John :  (NRSV). 197 John :  (NRSV). 198 John :  (NRSV).  chapter one

Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my fleshand drink my blood, abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.199 The instantiation of the universal, Christ’s identity of nature as Word or Logos, in the person and work of Jesus has universal applicability, since those who eat his flesh abide in him, and he in them, and they will live for ever. The question to be resolved however is what does Jesus mean by eating his flesh. It seems unlikely that he meant eating and drinking his actual, physical and carnal flesh and blood (immoderate or fleshy realism), although theoretically this would have been possible (but unlikely) for those listening at Capernaum in the first century of the common era. Rather it seems that he was encouraging those who listened to share in his nature by eating and drinking bread and wine, not in some carnal or fleshy manner, but rather in what could be called moderate realism. It must surely have occurred to the early Christians that this eating and drinking were linked with the Eucharist, as well as with faith and the hearing of the word in the eucharistic celebration and assembly. A denial of any carnal or fleshy eating and drinking is confirmed in the next few verses when he says, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.”200 This of course in no way suggests that any form of spiritual eating and drinking is not a real eating and drinking, just that the eating and drinking is not a fleshy action. The reality of the eating and drinking is a reality that depends on identity of nature (moderate realism) not strict identity (immoderate realism) in relation to the particulars of bread and wine on the one hand and the particular Christ’s body and blood on the other. What the various passages from the Gospel of John seem to be saying, interpreting them in Armstrong’s ‘states of affairs language’, is that Christ’s identity of nature as the Word or Logos was instantiated in the particular, the person and work of Jesus, and that this had universal

199 John : – (NRSV). 200 John : – (NRSV). anglican eucharistic theology?  applicability for all people and for all time. Christ’s identity of nature was instantiated in a physical way in the person Jesus, during the first century of the common era, however, that particular instantiation is no longer physically present. John’s witness seems to suggest, and an application of Armstrong’s concept of moderate realism supports this, that the universal, Christ’s identity of nature, is indeed available and receivedinthepresent,notonlyintheEucharist,butalsointhechurch by faith and in the hearing of the words of Scripture in the Christian assembly. For the early Christians these passages from John must certainly have had meaning in the context of the Eucharist201 as they reflected on how Christ was present with them as the Body of Christ. Robert Jenson argues that the reflection of modern ecumenical ecclesiology suggests the same meaning. He argues for a “mutuality of ecclesiology and sacramentology” where “we are called upon to interpret the Church by the sacraments that occur in her and the sacraments by the church in which they occur.”202 Christ’s identity of nature (the Word or Logos)isinstantiatedinthe Eucharist, not by physical flesh and blood, but by bread and wine, as well as by the reading of the Scriptures and in the eucharistic celebration as the members of the Church meet together as the Body of Christ, that is, as Jenson suggests, ecclesially. Paul in Corinthians uses language to support this idea of ecclesial instantiation in the context of the Church, arguing, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing of the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”203 Paul’s words suggest that it is the particular of the cup and the bread that instantiate (by taking, blessing, sharing and breaking) the universal, Christ’s identity of nature, the Word or Logos, as a real presence of his body and blood in the context of the Church as the Body of Christ. It is this intertwining of the two concepts of body (soma)andcommunion(koinonia) that Jenson emphasises. It is, he argues, when we come to Paul’s accusation against the Corinthians of violating the body and blood of Christ by their behaviour to each other

201 Lucien Deiss, It’s the Lord’s Supper: The Eucharist of Christians (London: Collins, ), p. . 202 Robert Jenson, ‘The Church and the Sacraments’, in C.E. Gunton (ed) The Cam- bridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 203 Corinthians : – (NRSV).  chapter one in the meal assembly of the Church204 that we must ask the question, “Is the violated body the church, or is it the bread and the cup of the table?”205 Jenson answers that plainly Paul, by the intertwining of the concepts of body and communion, intends them both at once, since “the bread and the cup are the body of Christ and the assembly is the same body of Christ. A closer mutuality of church and sacraments is hardly conceivable.”206 Jenson’s argument lends support to a general theme of moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist. Christ’s identity of nature is instantiated, not only in the sacramental elements of bread and wine but also in the Church, both of which are the body of Christ. This, of course, in no way means that the body is a physical, carnal or fleshy body, but a body nonetheless. As Jenson puts it: “Of course the church is not an organism of the species homo sapiens and so not what we will first think of as a human body. But Paul was not so ontologically inhibited as we are.”207 Indeed it could be argued, that the particulars of the Eucharist (bread and wine) are not an organism of the species homo sapiens (in this case the human body of Jesus), nor are they what we normally think of as a human body. Rather, they like the Church, are an instantiation of the universal, Christ’s identity of nature. Moderate realism is the philosophical assumption that underlies this type of thinking. Paulalsosays,“Forasoftenasyoueatthisbreadanddrinkthiscup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”.208 Paul’s words here suggest that the particulars of the bread and the cup instantiate (by proclaiming) the universal, Christ’s identity of nature, as his sacrifice. It is in the Eucharist that the particulars of bread and wine and the eucharistic celebration instantiate the universal, Christ’s identity of nature, the Word or Logos, in the present. The historic presence and sacrifice of the man Jesus (his physical or carnal presence and sacrifice on earth) no longer instantiate the universal, that is, Christ’s identity of nature, in the same way they did in the first century of the common era, since Christ’s pres- enceandsacrificeisnotandcannotbephysicallypresentorre-iteratedon earth in the present as an immoderate realism. Christ’s identity of nature has universal applicability, for all time and all people, but Christ does

204 Corinthians : – (NRSV). 205 Jenson, ‘The Church and the Sacraments’,p. . 206 Ibid, p. . 207 Ibid, p. . 208 Corinthians :  (NRSV). anglican eucharistic theology?  not instantiate the universal (his identity of nature) in the same physical way today as he did in the person of Jesus. In line with Armstrong though, it is crucial to emphasise that the universal (Christ’s identity of nature) is strictly identical in both instantiations (historic and eucharistic), although the particulars (the historic and the eucharistic presence and sacrifice) are not strictly identical even though they share an identity of nature. The particulars have a loose identity or identity in nature in both their historic and eucharistic instantiations, whereas the universal is strictly identical in both cases. This is what makes such a state of affairs realist, or more strictly, following Armstrong,209 moderate realist. Christ’s identity of nature (the universal) is strictly identical in both his historic form (Jesus) and in the eucharistic form (bread and wine). This does not mean that the bread and wine are literal flesh and blood, but that Christ’s identity of nature is in both Jesus’ body and blood and the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The witness of John and Paul seems to support this line of argument by suggesting that Christ’s identity of nature, rather than his physical presence, is instantiated in the Eucharist (as well as in the word and the church as the Body of Christ). The argument of scripture seems to have much in common with the realist analysis put forward by Armstrong210 and assists here with understanding the nature of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, at least that part of it that bases its eucharistic reflection on assumptions of moderate realism.

The Question of Truth

Armstrong in his discussion of states of affairs also considers the question of truth. This has significant relevance for any critical analysis of eucharistic theology and the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition in particular. Armstrong puts the following: Consider the truth that a is hot and that a’s molecules are in more or less violent motion. The two statements are surely not the same statement: the difference in their meaning ensures that here we have two different truths. Yet we do not have here two different states of affairs. . . . So two truths with only one truthmaker.211

209 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, pp. –. 210 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs and David Armstrong, Truth and Truthmak- ers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). 211 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, p. .  chapter one

For Armstrong, truthmakers (that is, states of affairs and their constituents) entail truths. Truth therefore, according to Armstrong’s analysis, attaches in the first place to propositions that have a truthmaker212 and so Armstrong concludes: When we say that the world is a world of states of affairs, and when we say that it is a spatio-temporal system, we are describing the one world in two different ways, ways that are linguistically and conceptually to a degree orthogonal to each other but which describe one realm, a realm which is truthmaker for the true statements in both vocabularies. The hypothesis I advance is that the description of reality in terms of states of affairs is, if rather abstract, ontologically more fundamental. The description in terms of a spatio-temporal system is, undoubtedly, much more accessible epistemically and conceptually. But the two descriptors are describing the same reality.213 This argument can be applied to eucharistic theology as a state of affairs, noting of course that Armstrong never made this specific analysis and that such an analysis is, in this book, an application of Armstrong’s work. For Armstrong there must be something about the world that makes it to be the case, that serves as the ontological ground for truth. The truthmaker or ground cannot be merely the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist, at any rate if bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist are taken as what Armstrong calls, ‘thin particulars’, that is, particulars apart from their properties. Is it then the pair, the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist on the one hand and the identity of Christ’s nature on the other? For Armstrong this is somewhat more likely, but what appears to be decisive against this suggestion is that it is possible that the particulars of bread andwineandtheirofferingandtheidentityofChrist’snatureshould exist and yet bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist not be the identity of Christ’s nature, in that the identity of Christ’s nature may be instantiated elsewhere. The identity of Christ’snature could, for example, be instantiated in Scripture or in the eucharistic assembly of president and people, as well as in the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist. What is therefore being asked is: What in the world will ensure, make true, underlie, serve as the ontological ground for, the truth that the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist is the identity of Christ’s nature? In the states of affairs

212 Ibid, p. . 213 Ibid, pp. –. anglican eucharistic theology?  language used by Armstrong, the answer to this question could be: The stateofaffairsoftheparticularsofbreadandwineandtheiroffering in the Eucharist being the identity of Christ’s nature, or the Scriptures being the identity of Christ’s nature, or the eucharistic assembly being the identity of Christ’s nature. This implies that the particulars and the universal are brought together in the Eucharist as an immanent moderate realist state of affairs where the particulars (bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist) instantiate the universal (the identity of Christ’s nature). In such a moderate realist analysis the truthmaker argument for the Eucharist as a state of affairs can be accepted. Whilst it seems clear from these comments that Armstrong, philosophically, but not in any specific way in relation to the Eucharist, is optingforamoderaterealistanalysisasontologicallymorefundamen- tal, there is also a suggestion that there is an orthogonal world running alongside this moderate realist analysis of a world of states of affairs which is linguistically and conceptually based. This is not unlike the Anglican eucharistic tradition which seems to possess both a moderate realist, state of affairs analysis (or ‘world’) of eucharistic theology, and a nominalist analysis (or ‘world’) based on linguistic, conceptual and propositional assumptions. In the Anglican eucharistic tradition these two ‘worlds’ seem to be orthogonal, having been present throughout the Anglican tradition from the time of the Reformation.214 Whereas there are many within the Anglican eucharistic tradition who adopt moderate realist assumptions in terms of what happens in the Eucharist,215 there is also a large number who adopt what Loux216 calls, a metalinguistic approach, that is a ‘metalingusitic nominalism’, where sameness of type in such a nominalist analysis is heavily dependent on semantics in the form of propositional statements.217 Thisbookarguesthattheexistence of this orthogonal world in the Anglican eucharistic tradition, with its multiformity of philosophical assumptions, represents the nature of the tradition. Accordingly the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism and nominalism are used to describe the discourse of that tradition in the case studies presented in subsequent chapters.

214 This is the conclusion of Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition. 215 See Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition. 216 Loux, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, p. . 217 See the case studies on Broughton Knox, Peter Jensen and Robert Doyle in Vol- ume , Chapter .  chapter one

The question of ‘truths’ is therefore a vital matter in both Armstrong’s argument and in any analysis of Anglican eucharistic theology. In the Eucharist it seems that there is more than one truth or instantiation, as the Anglican eucharistic tradition appears to reveal but only one state of affairs. The particulars of bread and wine and their offering inthe Eucharist on the one hand and the body and blood of Christ and Christ’s sacrifice on the other, are two truths which instantiate Christ’s identity of nature and which have served as a focus in eucharistic theology. Other particulars may also be seen to instantiate Christ’s identity of nature. These include Christ’s identity of nature being instantiated in the reading of Scripture, in the gathered eucharistic assembly and celebration of Christ’s body the Church as president and people make Eucharist together and in the personal interaction of a faithful believer with Christ in the Eucharist. There are therefore several instantiations of Christ’s identity of nature yet there is only one state of affairs in a moderate realist analysis, that is, the Eucharist, in which the universal, the identity of Christ’s nature, is known. This means that there is more than one truth, but there is only one truthmaker or state of affairs. This accords with Armstrong’s philosophical analysis218 but of course not in specific relation to the Eucharist. Nonetheless it is the proposition of this book that such a moderate realist analysis, along with the metalinguistic propositionalism of nominalism, allows for a more critical analysis of the Anglican eucharistic tradition in its multiformity. This critical analysis is undertaken in each of the case studies presented in subsequent chapters where moderate realist and moderate nominalist philosophical assumptions feature in Anglican eucharistic theology from the time of the Reformation to the present, and where in addition it is argued that immoderate realist and immoderate nominalist philosophical assumptions do not feature in Anglican eucharistic theology in the same period. This analysis has important ramifications for the integrity of the discourse in the Anglican eucharistic tradition since it suggests that the philosophical assumptions underlying that tradition are multiform. To deny this multiformity in the presence of the different philosophical assumptions underlying the Anglican eucharistic tradition is to be content with hermeneutic idealism which in itself limits the integrity of the discourse of the tradition since it remains outside the level of critical analysis and in the solipsism of particular and party interest alone. In order to

218 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs, p. . anglican eucharistic theology?  make the philosophical assumptions and the multiformity more accessible, the discussion moves now to the development of a theoretical model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition.

A Theoretical Model of the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition

Thefollowingmodelisadvancedasabasisforconsideringthemultifor- mity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and for advancing the integrity of discourse related to that tradition. The model suggested by Douglas219 attempts to bring together much of the former discussion in relation to a critical analysis of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and derives principally from the work of the philosopher David Armstrong.220 The model (see below) is a matrix with four sections, two of which relate to realism (both moderate and immoderate) and two of which relate to nominalism (both moderate and immoderate).

Immoderate Moderate Realism Realism

Immoderate Moderate Nominalism Nominalism

Figure : A Theoretical Model of the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition

Each of the quadrants of the theoretical model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition will be discussed with examples to assist understanding.

Moderate Realism A philosophical notion referring to identity of nature or loose or non- relational realism. Particulars are seen to instantiate universals as an identity of nature rather than as a strict identity. In terms of Anglican eucharistic theology those who adopt a moderate realist analysis of the Eucharist will argue that the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist as a state of affairs instantiate the identity of

219 Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition, pp. –. 220 Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction.  chapter one

Christ’s nature. For some221 within the Anglican tradition this means that the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist instantiate the identity of Christ’s nature in the same moderate realist manner found in the doctrine of the incarnation. The identity of Christ’s nature, as Word or logos, was instantiated in the human person of Jesus (“And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth”).222 Jesus instantiated the identity of Christ’s nature as Word or logos on earth as a human person in the first century of the common era. For theologians who argue in this way, the particulars of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist also instantiate the identity of Christ’s nature as Word or logos in the present in the Eucharist, not as the fleshy Jesus or in his bloody sacrifice, but in a loose, non-relational or moderate realist way. Some moderate realist theologians will therefore speak of the ‘real presence of Christ’ in the Eucharist, not as a literal presence of strict or numerical identity, such that there is real flesh and blood present, but as an identity of nature, where the universal, the nature of Christ, is instantiated in particulars such as bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist, just as the universal, the nature of Christ, is strictly identical in other instantiations, such as the Scriptures or the eucharistic assembly. Moderate realist theologians will also speak of eucharistic sacrifice, where the effects of the same historic sacrifice of Christ on the cross are instantiated in the Eucharist as a dynamic remembrance (known as anamnesis, where the effects of Christ’ssacrifice as an identity of nature are known in the present in the Eucharist). Once again this is not a strict and numerical identity (immoderate realism) of the particulars of the eucharistic sacrifice with the particular of the historic and fleshy sacrifice, such that Christ is re-sacrificed on the altar in abloodymanner,butratherasanidentityinnaturewheresuchidentity as a universal is strictly identical in each instantiation. In a moderate realist analysis of eucharistic theology then, the statement:‘Thisismybody’,meansthattheparticularsorsignsofbreadand wine in the Eucharist instantiate the identity of Christ’s nature and the offering of these particulars or signs are the vehicles through which the benefits of Christ’s presence and sacrifice are conveyed to people inthe

221 See case studies in subsequent chapters on theologians such as Lancelot Andrewes, Charles Gore, William Temple, Eric Mascall and John Macquarrie. 222 John :  (NRSV). anglican eucharistic theology? 

Eucharist. Some theologians call this ‘the sacramental principle’,meaning that God chooses to work through particulars or signs in this world (e.g. bread and wine and their offering as memorial remembrance) in order to convey God’s grace to people. People therefore in consuming bread and wine are not consuming literal flesh and blood but rather are feeding on the nature of Christ, instantiated in the particulars, which function as the means of receiving what they signify as an identity of Christ’s nature. John Macquarrie223 and Christopher Cocksworth,224 are by their writings examples of Anglican theologians who adopt moderate realist philosophical assumptions in the expression of eucharistic theology.

Immoderate Realism A philosophical notion referring to strict identity between the particulars or signs of bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist and what they signify. In terms of eucharistic theology immoderate realism means the signs of the Eucharist, the particulars of bread and wine are seen to be and become the fleshy and physical body and blood of Christ on the altar following the consecration. Immoderate realism also leads to the conclusion that Christ is sacrificed again in a real way in the Eucharist, that is, a re-immolation or re-iteration of Christ’s sacrifice in a physical, fleshy and bloody manner in the Eucharist, as Christ was sacrificed in the first century of the common era. There is therefore in an immoderate realist analysis a strict identity between particulars. Immoderate realism is rejected by both Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians. It should be noted that in any discussion of transubstantiation (as defined by Aquinas and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church) the notion of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist are moderate realist and not immoderate in any way. Both Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians who adopt realist philosophical assumptions in relation to eucharistic theology do so in the moderate realist sense of identity of nature and specifically reject any strict and numerical identity between bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist on the one hand and Christ’s physical body and blood and physical sacrifice on the other, as would be implied in immoderate realism philosophical assumptions.

223 Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments. 224 Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England.  chapter one

In an immoderate realist eucharistic theology (if it could be found or perhaps imagined), the statement: ‘This is my body’ has the meaning of the particulars or signs becoming the literal and fleshy presence of Christ’sbody on the altar such that physical flesh and blood are consumed by the communicants in a gross manner. No evidence of immoderate realism was found by Douglas225 in his investigation of the philosophical assumptions underlying the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Despite this evidence some conservative Evangelical Anglicans226 suggest that such an immoderate realist view of eucharistic presence and sacrifice is found amongst other Anglicans who adopt moderate realist philosophical assumptions in their reflection and eucharistic liturgies. In can only be assumed that such suggestions are based on a lack of understanding of the difference between a moderate and immoderate realist analysis oron the total rejection of realism itself. Perhaps also this rejection of moderate realism arises as part of a response based on the hermeneutic idealism of party position alone.

Moderate Nominalism A philosophical notion referring to the idea that whatever exists is a particular and nothingbut a particular. Such an analysis denies theexistence of universals. The nominalist does not admit signs or particulars instantiating universals, nor is the nominalist prepared to talk about identity in nature. All that exists for the nominalist are particulars. A nominalist analysis of the Eucharist admits the particulars of bread and wine and their use in the Eucharist as well the particulars of Christ’s body and blood which existed on the earth in the first century of the common era. Christ’s body and blood are no longer seen to exist on earth, even though they may be said to exist in heaven227 and Christ body and blood and Christ’s sacrifice are not identified with the bread and wine and their offering in the Eucharist in any real way by identity of nature.

225 Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition and in the case studies presented in the subsequent chapters of this volume. 226 SeeDoyle,‘“Hereweofferyouaspiritualsacrifice”—anestimate’andRobertDoyle, ‘Expressing the Heart of the Gospel: A Review of the Three Orders of Holy Communion in A Prayer Book for Australia’, Online at http://www.acl.asn.au/old—Go to ‘Resources’ section and then ‘Prayer Book and Liturgical Resources’.Accessed  August, . 227 See the views of Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ,InThe Works of Thomas Cranmer (ed. G.E. Duffield) (Appleford, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtenay Press, /), p. . anglican eucharistic theology? 

In a moderate nominalist analysis the Eucharist functions as a way of remembering the work of Christ in the past and receiving the benefits of that work by faith alone in a propositional manner. The benefits of that work are not received in, through or with the particulars of the Eucharist but only by faith. The particulars are nonetheless powerful reminders of a past and completed event but some argue that it is misleading to focus on a ‘bread/body analogy’ too closely and instead view the Eucharist as a sort of wake where a past action is remembered powerfully but not in the sense of moderate realism where there is an identity of nature.228 In a moderate nominalist eucharistic theology the statement: ‘This is my body’ means that the particulars or signs (‘this’) help in the faithful remembering of other particulars, that is, the body and blood of Christ and Christ’s sacrifice which may have historic constraints or be seen to exist only in heaven and not in any real sense in the Eucharist. In this sort of propositional and linguistic analysis the particulars do not become or instantiate the body and blood of Christ or the sacrifice of Christ in any real way. The particulars, the bread and wine in the Eucharist on the one hand and the body and blood of Christ in heaven on the other hand, are separated entities which do not share any identity in nature or act as vehicles of Christ’s presence or grace. The notion of identity of nature, expressed as the sacramental principle, is therefore denied.

Immoderate Nominalism A philosophical notion referring to the idea that whatever exists is a particular and nothing but a particular. The existence of universals and the instantiation of universals by particulars by identity of nature or strict identity is therefore denied. All that exists for the immoderate nominalist are particulars such that bread and wine exist as particulars in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ exist as particulars in heaven, having once existed as particulars on earth in the first century of the common era, but no longer existing in this way in the world or in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is therefore not the means by which Christ is remembered in faith since this is seen only to occur through rational and propositional statements found in the words of Scripture. Whereas

228 Peter Jensen, Come to the Lord’s Table to Share a Meal, A sermon preached at the Law Service, St James’ King Street, Sydney,  January, , online at http://www .sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/articles/a/. Acces- sed  August, .  chapter one the moderate nominalist admits that the benefits of Christ are known by faith in the remembering that occurs in the context of the sacrament of the Eucharist and with the particulars of bread and wine acting as reminders, without any identity of nature occurring between bread and wine and their offering and the body and blood of Christ, the immoderate nominalist does not admit this and argues instead that the benefits or presence of Christ can only be known in a propositional manner through the words of Scripture.229 This knowing the Word (Scripture) occurs through the promises of God which Scripture presents, as the Word is read and proclaimed. Immoderate nominalism therefore denies any identity of nature in the sense that there is a presence of Christ in the particulars of the Eucharist and in fact denies any sacramentality at all. Sacraments are seen as human creations and not God’s way of working in the world but as signs of God’s promises which can only be known through the Word. People participate in Christ by faith alone in the promises of the Word, not through sacraments. Robert Doyle and Broughton Knox would be examples of Anglicans who adopt this immoderate nominalist analysis. Very few Anglicans seem to express this view.

The Model in the Discourse of the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition

The use of the model outlined above (Figure ) will serve as the basis for analysing the philosophical assumptions of the Anglican eucharistic tradition in the case studies which follow in the subsequent chapters. The eucharistic theology expressed by various theologians and other theological and liturgical works will be classified according to either realist or nominalist philosophical assumptions. The work of Douglas230 suggests that in general moderate realism and moderate nominalism are the predominant philosophical assumptions of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, with moderate realism being by far the most frequently

229 See Robert Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in Catholic and Evangelical Theology’, p. . In this work Doyle argues for what he calls a ‘word ontology’ as opposed to what he also calls a ‘sacramental ontology’ and states that Christ is only present through his Word since God does not work in the world through sacraments but only through his Word. 230 Douglas, Ways of Knowing in the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition. anglican eucharistic theology?  used philosophical assumption. It seems that immoderate nominalism is found very infrequently and immoderate realism not at all in the Anglican eucharistic tradition. It needs to be noted that Anglican eucharistic theology has not usually been assessed in this way using philosophical reflection, although various theologians have referred to the existence of realist notions or the absence of realist notions in the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition.231 The advantage of using the model proposed above and the classification it presents is that more definition can be gained in the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. This innovation is seen to enhance the integrity of the discourse in describing what the tradition is saying. Perhaps this goes some way towards providing a contemporary philosophical reflection on the Anglican eucharistic tradition which did not previously exist. John Macquarrie232 has argued that such a contemporary philosophical scheme is needed in Anglican eucharistic theology as a replacement for the substance metaphysic which no longer has great currency in contemporary philosophical reflection. Macquarrie argues that modern philosophical reflection may well provide a contemporary way of understanding what happens in the Eucharist and that such reflection may well do for the modern age what transubstantiation did for a former age. The use of the philosophical reflection of David Armstrong allows this contemporary philosophical reflection to proceed and in so doing enhances the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition by recognising the multiformity of that tradition. This seems to be exactly the same methodology followed by Augustine, who adapted the work of Plato and Aquinas who adapted the work of Aristotle, in the formation of philosophical assumptions underlying their expressions of eucharistic theology. It is the contention of this book that the contemporary work of Armstrong allows for and encourages an examination of the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology and at same time gives a critical account of its multiformity. The recognition of multiformity allows for the consideration of various views in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and does not privilege any one theological position and its philosophical assumptions as an example

231 See Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’. Ford points the way to philosophical analysis of the Anglican eucharistic tradition through his use of the terms ‘relational’ and ‘non-relational’ realism, but considers only realism. 232 Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments, p. .  chapter one ofhermeneuticidealism.Atthesametimetheuseofthemodelallows for the prevailing essences of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, that is, moderate realism and moderate nominalism, to emerge in the examination of a wide variety of case studies of eucharistic theology. This suggests that when the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic is examined it can be done with integrity, that is, in its multiformity, rather than through the prosecution of hermeneutic idealism where only one party view is presented. Such a use of the model and the dialogue that can potentially follow depends on the acceptance by all members of the tradition of the notion that there is a multiformity of philosophical assumptions inthetradition.TheanalysispresentedinthecasestudiesofAngli- can eucharistic theology certainly suggests that such a multiformity is present in the Anglican tradition. If hermeneutic idealism is pursued in an exclusive manner, then the possibility of dialogue is limited and the integrity of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition is threatened. Rowan Williams has argued that when participants enter into the discourse of Christian theology “integrity can be recovered . . . to the extent that they show themselves capable of conversation”.233 Dialogue in the context of multiformity where different interests are admitted is therefore an important matter in the discourse of Christian theology since it “makes clear that it accepts, even within its own terms of reference, that there are ways in which it may be questioned and criticized. . . . It sets out a possible framework for talk and perception, a field for debate, and so a field for its own future transmutations”.234 This type of discourse has integrity in Williams’ view since it does not enter into what he describes as, “the total perspective mode”, that is, “declining the attempt to take God’s point of view”.235 This makes the point that a Christian theology, such as Anglican eucharistic theology, in its workings brings the complexity of its human world to judgement before God and does not seek to articulate or complete that judgement in the way that hermeneutic idealism sometimes does.236 It is, argues Williams, as if the incomplete- ness and the openness to further discussion and dialogue bring about the possibility of re-formation and it is this possibility which can give the

233 Williams, On Christian Theology,p.. 234 Ibid,p.. 235 Ibid,p.. 236 Ibid,p.. anglican eucharistic theology?  discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition an honesty and integrity since it turns in on itself and surrenders itself to God rather than to the privileged interests of hermeneutic idealism.237 The model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition proposed above and theanalysiswhichfollowsinthecasestudiesofthetraditionseekto follow the argument Williams sets out. This book therefore seeks to argue that the Anglican eucharistic tradition has integrity when it moves past the hermeneutic idealism which sometimes surfaces in the claim to be the only valid interpretation, but is in reality only the solipsism of one view, functioning as party position and interest.238 The philosophical analysis undertaken by use of the model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition is therefore seen as a way of moving past hermeneutic idealism and enhancing the integrity of the discourse in the tradition. Following the presentation of the case studies in the subsequent chapters, the question of dialogue will be revisited in the final chapter. Here significant use will be made of the work of another contemporary philosopher, Jurgen Habermas and his theory of communicative action, in an attempt to enhance further the integrity of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition as an effective means of dialogue.

237 Ibid,p.. 238 See Lovat and Douglas, ‘Dialogue Amidst Difference in the Anglican Eucharistic Theology’. PART 2

CASE STUDIES chapter two

THE PERIOD OF THE REFORMATION

Overview

The period of the Reformation is defined here for convenience sake as the period between Henry VIII’s break with the Church of Rome in  up until the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in . This was a period of continuing reform in which the theology of the Eucharist was explored by many Anglican theologians of several traditions and parties, from both the catholic and the reformed heritage of Anglicanism. The philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology in the period of the Reformation were multiform, being both realist and nominalist. Where realist assumptions were expressed these were in the form of moderate realism, that is, a realism not dependent on fleshy, corporal or immoderate notions of presence and sacrifice, but nonetheless a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and memorial remembrance of Christ’s work, where the effects of the one historical sacrifice were seen to be present and available in the Eucharist and its celebration. These moderate realist assumptions linked the signs of the Eucharist (bread, wine and their offering) with what they signified (Christ’s body and blood and Christ’s sacrifice) and the signs were often viewed as vehicles of God’s grace. Where nominalist philosophical assumptions were expressed the signs and signified in the Eucharist were not linked in any real way and the communicants were often exhorted to thankful remembrance of a past and completed event, that is, the historic sacrifice of Christ in the past, in the context of the Eucharist where bread and wine were used as symbols only. Notions of eucharistic sacrifice, such that the effects of Christ’s sacrifice were available in and through the Eucharist, were excluded. Nominalist assumptions also kept distance between the signs of the Eucharist, the bread and wine, and any real presence of Christ. Christ was seen to be present to faith alone and there was no real link between his body and blood and the signs of bread and wine.  chapter two

While the case studies of this period reveal the presence of both realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions in relation to eucharistic theology, the early years of the period (from  to the accession of Queen Elizabeth I in ) however suggest that nominalist assumptions were more prevalent but that realist assumptions were not absent.

Themes1

The Early Period of the Reformation—Up to  The case studies of the early period of the Reformation (extending up until the accession of Elizabeth I in ) present a variety of themes underlying eucharistic theology. Detailed references are to be found in each of the specific case studies which follow the discussion of themes.

Reformed Doctrine Case studies suggest that many of the Anglican theologians of this period were committed to a Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist. Not only was transubstantiation rejected as a way of speaking of and explaining the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but the various medieval abuses were also rejected. None of the cases studies of the early period of the Ref- ormation accept transubstantiation and some specifically reject it (e.g. Cranmer; Ridley; Latimer; Becon; Bradford; Hooper; Jewell; and The Black Rubric). Richard Hooker argues that speculation on the means of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as is found in transubstantiation, is unnecessary, and rather the certainty of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is all that it is needed. Notions of a carnal presence of Christ or a fleshy re-iteration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist (that is, immoderate realism) are also frequently rejected (e.g. Cranmer; Book of Common Prayer;Ridley;Bradford;Hooker;Hooper;Jewell;Nowell; and The Black Rubric) in this early period of the Reformation. Cran- mer’s Defence of  and Answer of  are a sustained expression of Reformed eucharistic doctrine. The  and  Book of Common Prayer are despite their traditional liturgical shape, also an expression of Reformed doctrine (e.g. the change from ‘become’ to ‘be to us’ in the

1 Detailed references are not listed in the overview and themes. These details can be found in the separate case studies. the period of the reformation  epiclesis of the  BCP and the offering not of a sacrifice but of praise and thanksgiving in the prayer following communion). Jewell’s use of the term ‘figure’ to describe Christ in the Eucharist is a distinct change from the idea that Christ was really present (either in the moderate or immoderate senses) and picks up on Reformed doctrine, whilst Perkins adopts the agenda of the extreme Reformers and questions whether sacraments are really necessary at all. Further Perkins expresses the Reformed view that sacraments are only reminders or props to faith and perform the function of assisting the believer in understanding, rather than being a means of delivering grace.

Realism and Nominalism There is substantial evidence to suggest that there is a multiformity of views in regard to the philosophical assumptions underlying the eucharistic theology in this early period of the Reformation, with both nominalism and realism being present. Cranmer, using nominalist assumptions, separates the signs of bread and wine from the signified body and blood of Christ on the basis of an empirical separation of Christ’s heavenly presence from the earth, even though he sees Christ as being spiritually present by the power of divinity in the ministration of the sacrament. Cranmer argues that if Christ is present (as an empirical thing) in heaven then he cannot logically be present in any real way on earth. The substance of Christ (whatever Christ is) can only in Cranmer’s mind be present in an empirical manner and not in any metaphysical or realist manner as an instantiation of Christ’s nature on earth. The same nominalist separation between sign and signified applies for Cranmer in regard to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ was sacrificed in the past and that sacrifice cannot be present in any way in the present, other than in the thanks and praise of the faithful communicant as a memory or remembrance of a past and completed action. Cranmer’s theology of the Eucharist is heavily dependent on a nominalist separation of sign and signified. Becon speaks of the communicant receiving the promises of God in the Eucharist and not the body and blood of Christ because the sign for him cannot be the thing itself. Spiritual eating (by faith) is distinguished and separated from sacramental eating (on earth) in that Christ ispresenttothecommunicantbyfaithbutisnotpresentinthesacramen- tal signs. There is for Becon a distinct nominalist separation of sign and signified. Hooper admits no participation of Christ in the Eucharist and no instantiation of the nature of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist.  chapter two

For Hooper, the dominical phrase, ‘This is my body/blood’,means ‘This represents my body/blood’ without any realist philosophical assumptions linking sign and signified. Signs are for the purpose of remembering only and cannot be the signified thing itself. Signs function as a token of God’s promises, to be given by faith and sacraments relate to memories of completed events. Hutchinson also distinguishes the sign from the signified, only admitting that the name of the signified is given to the sign (i.e. bread and wine are called Christ’s body and blood but are not Christ’s body and blood in any real sense other than in the sense of a linguistic proposition). Christ can only be present in the Eucharist as a house is present in a lease—not really, but in effect. Jewell expresses a nominalist separation of sign and signified in the Eucharist. Christ’s body is in heaven and not on earth, but the eucharistic elements are not bare signs. Jewell affirms a nominalist separation of sign and signified, arguing that the divine nature is not present in the signs. The Puritan, Perkins, separates sign and signified, arguing that the grace and mercy of God cannot be tied to signs. His theology of the Eucharist rests on a propositional structure, where actions in the Eucharist nonetheless occur (e.g. bread is broken and wine is poured) but there is no realist linking of the sign and signified. All that happens in the Eucharist for Perkins is that the actions cause the faithful to meditate. The application of the actions is to the faithful and not the signs. Sandys acknowledges sign and signified but also distinguishes them in a nominalist separation. Bread and wine for the faithful are declared to be a mystical participation in the body and blood of Christ, but there is no realist linking of the sign and signified, the participation occurring by faith apart from the signs at the time the bread and wine are received. Grindal states categorically that the sacrament is not Christ. Not only is this a denial of immoderate realism, but it is also a denial of moderate realism, since he argues that receiving Christ can be by faith alone. For Grindal Christ is empirically in heaven and so cannot be present in any real way on earth in the Eucharist. Realist philosophical assumptions in relation to the Eucharist are however present in this early period of the Reformation albeit in a muted fashion. Ridley argues that Christ is present by his divinity in the Eucharist, in that Christ is present by his working. This suggests realism, where the divine nature is instantiated in the Eucharist as a divine action. Indeed Ridley goes so far as to say that the bread is converted into the body of Christ, by an operation of divinity, and is not merely a figure. Ridley also speaks of ‘the Lamb’ being present at the the period of the reformation  table and not just in the people that receive communion. He is careful to qualify all this talk of presence though by calling it an ‘unbloody’ presence. This suggests moderate realism, whereby the divine nature of Christ is instantiated in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. Latimer speaks of a spiritual true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He says that the same ‘substance’ is present in both Christ’s flesh and the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This suggests moderate realism where the divine nature of Christ is instantiated not only in the flesh of Christ but in the elements of the Eucharist. He argues in the same way that the divine nature of Christ’s sacrifice is also present in the earthly Eucharist, thereby suggesting a moderate realist instantiation of the divine nature of Christ. Bradford speaks of a ‘coupling’ of the sign and the signified in the Eucharist, thereby also suggesting a moderate realist framework. Hooker speaks of ‘participation’ such that there is a real participation of Christ by means of the sacrament. This suggests moderate realism, whereby the divine nature is instantiated in the Eucharist. The basis of Hooker’s theology lies in the incarnation, such that the divine nature wasinstantiatedinJesusChristandborninhumanflesh.Inthesame way the divine nature is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist that Hooker describes as conducts and conveyances of divine grace. The signs for Hooker convey the signified and there is a givenness of gift. The divine and the earthly participate in one another so that there is what Hooker calls a ‘conjunction’ between the two. This is a realist philosophical assumption. Some of those theologians who adopt nominalist assumptions in relation to the signs and signified of the Eucharist, also speak of a presence of Christ in the administration of the Eucharist. Cranmer excludes both immoderate realism and moderate realism in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist but argues at the same time that the force, grace and virtue of Christ’s body are present spiritually in those who receive thesacrament.ForCranmer,thereseemstobearealistlinkingbetween Christ’s body and those who receive, despite his nominalist separation of the signs and signified of the Eucharist. Cranmer’s descriptions of the faithful receiving Christ, after lifting their hearts and minds heavenward, are very realist. The communicants are said to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood springing from his side, but this is totally unrelated to the sacramental actions on earth. These earthly actions are separated fromthedivinenatureofChrist,whichcanonlybeaccessedbyaspiritual ascension of the faithful to the presence of Christ in heaven. Hutchin- son makes similar comments, arguing that Christ is present in the faith  chapter two of the communicant and in the ministration alone. Realism is therefore present in some ecclesial sense where the spiritual linking of Christ with his faithful people occurs in a heavenly and spiritual manner only. Jewell also argues that Christ is not present in the bread and wine but only in the faithful during the holy ministration. Perkins also adopts this view arguingthatgraceispresentinthesacramentonlyintherightuseof the sacrament. In this line of argument the presence of Christ is a moral not a physical instrument, where Christ in present, not by signs but by faith in ministration. In this sense the signs function only as reminders and do not instantiate the divine nature of Christ in any real way. Like Cranmer, Perkins distinguishes between a ‘mystical’ and a ‘sacramental’ presence. There is no mystical presence of Christ associated with the elements since the things signified can only come to the mind byuse of the signs. The signs serve a sacramental purpose only with no realist linking to the signified divine nature or presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This position of the presence of Christ in the ministration alone is based on the philosophical assumptions of nominalism where the signs of the Eucharist are not linked in any real way with the signified divine nature or body and blood of Christ. Linking of the faithful communicant with Christ occurs only in a spiritual and mystical manner. The Black Rubric was printed in the  BCP and spoke of there being no ‘real and essential’ presence of Christ in the Eucharist, thereby not only rejecting immoderate realism but also it seems any moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist that might be suggested by the words ‘real and essential’. This further suggests that the insertion of this Black Rubric in BCP  was aimed at rejecting the idea that there was any link between the signs of the Eucharist and the signified nature of Christ and therefore based on the philosophical assumption of nominalism. Some of the theologians who adopt a realist philosophical assumptions in relation to the Eucharist, speak of a change in the nature of the signs of the Eucharist, but not in their substance. Ridley for example speaks in this way, arguing for a change in ‘nature’ or a change ‘properly’ but not in substance. There is, says Ridley, a ‘change in being’ but ‘no mutation of substance’. Bradford and Hooker speak in this way also. Jewell admits no change in substance but does speak of a change in nature. It seems that some theologians at this early Reformation period are attempting to distance themselves from the doctrine of transubstantiation (i.e. a change in substance of the bread and wine, such that they become the substance of Christ’s body and blood, with the accidents the period of the reformation  remaining) but not from a moderate realist position based on a change in nature. The words ‘change in nature’, although problematic in that the words depend on technical distinctions between nature and substance, nonetheless suggest that theologians such as Ridley, Bradford and Hooker are using aspects of moderate realism in their search for an acceptable eucharistic theology, whereby there is an instantiation of the divine nature of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Brad- ford for example distinguishes between signs as figures and signs that give the signified. Signs as figures suggest a nominalist separation of sign and signified (such as Jewell would argue) but signs which give the signified suggests moderate realist philosophical assumptions, whereby sign and signified are clearly linked (as Hooker argues). Others speak ofthe Eucharistasameansofgrace.Hookerforexamplespeaksofthesignsof bread and wine as conducts of life and conveyances of Christ’s body and blood. The early period of the Reformation presents a variety of philosophical assumptions relating to the Eucharist. Both nominalist and realist philosophical assumptions are present in the eucharistic theology of this period, suggesting that there was from the very beginning of the Ref- ormation period, following the break with Rome, more than one theol- ogyoftheEucharistpresentandavarietyofphilosophicalassumptions underlying eucharistic theology.

The Later Period of the Reformation—– The case studies of the later period of the Reformation extend from the accession of Elizabeth I () to the publication of the  Book of Common Prayer. A variety of philosophical assumptions underlie the eucharistic theology of this period. Detailed references are to be found in each of the specific case studies which follow the discussion of themes.

Transubstantiation and Immoderate Realism Denied Most of the case studies from the later period of the Reformation deny both immoderate realism and transubstantiation. Those that do not specifically deny immoderate realism or transubstantiation do not commit to these notions either. Laud rejects transubstantiation but acknowledges that moderate realism (real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the elements) may be accepted without accepting any notion of a conversion of the substance of the bread and wine.  chapter two

Moderate Realism Moderate realism is a common feature of the eucharistic theology of this later period of the Reformation, although there are several ways that this moderate realism is expressed. Some of these moderate realist interpretations will be reviewed below. Many writers use the idea of a sacramental principle in expressing eucharistic theology. Some base their theology on the incarnation of Christ and others speak of a hypostatical union between the human and divine natures of Christ. Andrewes bases his moderate realist theology of the Eucharist on the incarnational principle, where the divine nature is seen to participate in the Eucharist in the same way that the divine nature participated in the incarnate Jesus. Andrewes speaks of a hypostatical union of sign and signified in the Eucharist where the two natures of Christ (human and divine) are united, each in its own nature without any conversion of substance. He therefore expresses a moderate realism while denying transubstantiation. Instead of arguing, as Cranmer did, that the communicant ascends to heaven in heart and mind and there receives Christ, Andrewes argues that Christ comes down from heaven to hallow people. In the receiving of the bread and wine people receive Christ’s body and blood, therefore suggesting that Christ is in and with the sacraments. Andrewes’ eucharistic theology speaks of types and antitypes meeting, based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism and suggesting an instantiation of the nature of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in the same way that there was an instantiation of the nature of Christ in the incarnation. Bramhall also refers to a hypostatical union between deity and elements where the divine nature is conveyed by earthly elements, thereby suggesting instantiation based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. Herbert argues that the things or signs of the Eucharist bring God to people, such that Christ is present and given to people by signs of bread and wine. Jackson expresses the means of Christ presence in the Eucharist as moderate realism in the same way that the incarnation of Christ is based on moderate realism. Nicholson speaks of a relation between the sign and the signified which is ‘a mutual union’ and which is also a ‘mystical union’ or ‘conjunction’. In this way the sacraments are seen a ‘conduit pipes’ of grace. This way of speaking has much in common with Richard Hooker’s eucharistic theology. Taylor argues, affirming the sacramental principle, that by sensible signs spiritual grace is received. Taylor also makes the distinction between ‘species’ and ‘genus’ in the Eucharist. For the period of the reformation  him ‘species’ implies a carnal or immoderate realism, whereas ‘genus’ implies a moderate realism. In the Eucharist he argues Christ’s body is made “more universal by being made more particular”.2 It is this reference to the particular in the Eucharist that suggests the instantiation of the genus, Christ’s nature, in the Eucharist, rather than any change in the substance of the species. Taylor’s eucharistic theology is expressed in his Eucharistic Office of  where the liturgy prays that the bread and wine ‘become’ Christ’s body and blood. This epiclesis prays that the communicants partake of Christ body and blood in a real way in the Eucharist. The  BCP combined the  and  BCP words of administration to produce a more realist wording. The words ‘The body/blood of our Lord Jesus Christ’ were now linked with the elements as they were administered indicating use of the sacramental principle. The  BCP also made some more definite realist statements. The word ‘offertory’ was now used at the time of placing the bread and wine on the altar, although this prayer book did not go as far as the Scottish Prayer Book of  which spoke of the bread and wine being ‘offered up’. The Black Rubric was also restored to the Eucharist in the  BCP but with a significant change. The denial of any ‘corporal presence’ was now made but the previous words excluding a ‘real and essential presence’ were omitted. This prevented any immoderate realist doctrines of Christ’s presence but did not prohibit moderate realist doctrines. The Puritan, Richard Baxter, in his eucharistic liturgy entitled The Reformation of the Liturgy or The Savoy Liturgy,usedmoderaterealistconcepts.Henamedtheserviceinareal- ist manner, calling it the ‘sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ’.He argued that signs and signified were linked, stating that, “flesh and blood be to us meat and drink”.3 Baxter expresses in this liturgy the moderate realist view that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. Various catechisms speak of the Eucharist in this period. In  Cranmer in a catechism spoke in a very realist manner, saying that Christ’s body and blood were truly present in the Eucharist and received with the bodily mouth under the form of bread and wine. Some saw this as teaching transubstantiation and Cranmer in his Defence

2 Jeremy Taylor, The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation (London: Bohn, ), II, p. . 3 Richard Baxter, ‘The Savoy Liturgy’, in B. Thompson (ed) Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, ), pp. –.  chapter two of  denied that this is what he meant. In the Defence he speaks only of a presence in the use or ministration of the sacrament. Later editions of Cranmer’s catechism did not contain these realist statements. Writers also speak of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a ‘true’ or ‘real’ presence that is nonetheless spiritual, mystical, ineffable, miraculous and imperceptible. Where this occurs there is a linking between the sign and the signified in a realist manner. Bramhall affirms what he calls ‘a true real presence’, where the elements are spoken of as ‘instruments’ and where they convey the merits of Christ’s passion in the Eucharist in the present. Cosin links the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist in what he calls a ‘real presence’. Early in his writings he speaks of an objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist but moderates this over time to a more spiritualised view, even though Christ is still seen to be really present at both stages of his thinking. Christ is present in a mystical and real manner, although later in his life his views move closer to receptionism in that the presence of Christ is expressed in relation to the use of the elements. Moderate realism nonetheless under- pins what he says throughout his life and the elements are seen to be more than mere figures or bare signs. The signs are seen to be linked with the signified and to experience change to a different use in the eucharistic celebration. Crakanthorp speaks of the signs in the Eucharist as not only figures but also as bestowing the real body of Christ instrumentally and spiritually. Forbes states that the body and blood of Christ is received in a spiritual manner which is miraculous and imperceptible, arguing that it is a ‘substantial presence’, meaning that by the power of God people partake of the substance of Christ’s body and blood. Ham- mond speaks of Christ’s corporal body and blood being in heaven and not on earth in the Eucharist, but also argues for an ineffable and mystical manner of change in the elements whereby the communicant receives both bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood, with the bread and wine remaining in their natural substance. He calls this a ‘eucharistical action’ where the body and blood of Christ is communicated to people, not locally but really. He also calls the Eucharist a federal rite in that it unites Christ and people. L’Estrange states that God blesses the elements in the Eucharist so that they become the body and blood of Christ and refers to the  BCP model where the epiclesis and the manual acts of the priest sustain a moderate realist view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Morton says that the sign communicates the thing signified and sealed, with the gift of Christ’s body and blood conveyed by word and sacrament. Real presence for Nicholson is not imagined (a mental the period of the reformation  or semantic structure) or corporal (immoderate realism) but spiritually, divinely and sacramentally in true believers and in the sacrament. ‘Real’ is here distinguished from ‘corporal’.‘Real’ is not seen as an empirical things (as Cranmer saw it and so excluded it from his eucharistic theology) but mystical. This mystical sense of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not however seen as anything less than real. The Scottish Prayer Book of  presents a realist theology of the Eucharist in its request for the bread and wine to be blessed and sanctified, so that ‘they may be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ. This epiclesis presents a realist linking of sign and signified. Sutton speaks of Christ’s body and blood being conveyed ‘under’ bread and wine. The substance of the bread and wine is not removed but the grace of Christ’s body and blood is said to be joined to them in an ineffable and spiritual manner. Real presence for Taylor is not carnal, nor is it merely a figure or bare sign. Real presence is also more than what is implied by receptionism, since the nature of Christ is instantiated in the elements apart from the moment of reception. The devotional manual The Whole Duty of Man links the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ as a seal of the covenant between God and people and as a means of grace. In the  Articles of  however, the body of Christ was said to be ‘given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith’. There was a definite change in theology from previous statements of the Articles since the body of Christ was not said to be ‘given’ by faith, only ‘received and eaten’.Carnal presence (immoderate realism) was still denied but the presence is affirmed as ‘given’,suggesting moderate realism as the means of this givenness. The  Articles of  maintained this distinction between ‘given’ on the one hand and ‘received and eaten’ on the other, thereby also presenting a moderate realist notion of Christ’spresence in the Eucharist. Overall argues that in the Eucharist the body and blood, the whole Christ, is present, received and united to the sacramental signs, which not only signify the grace of Christ, but convey it to those who receive. There is a linking of sign and signified here. Some writers such Field and Jackson refer to the virtue, grace or power of Christ’sbody and blood being mystically communicated to the faithful by the signs of bread and wine. Field argues that the signs communicate the virtue, grace and power of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, and that these are mystically communicated to people. Signs not only represent but also communicate the signified. Jackson says that there is  chapter two no local presence of Christ in the Eucharist but links sign and signified, arguing that Christ’s Spirit from heaven brings virtue to the earth in such a way that Christ’s body and blood is ‘with’ the elements of bread and wine. Other writers talk of a gift being given in the Eucharist which not only represents but presents or exhibits Christ to the communicant. Andrewes and Bramhall state that the presence of Christ is a gift in the elements of bread and wine, which not only represents Christ but presents Christ to those who receive the elements. Nicholson says that God by sacraments presents, exhibits, and seals redemption. Sacraments function as instruments to convey Christ’s merits with the signs linked to the signified. God is the source of the grace not the sacrament but the grace is nonetheless given in and by the sacrament. Jackson goes so far as to say that there is an objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist because it is received by the worthy as well as the unworthy and therefore not dependent on the faith of the communicant. Others deny any receptionist interpretation of the Eucharist. Forbes specifically denies receptionism and affirms a givenness of presence in the elements. Givenness suggests an instantiation of the nature of Christ in the Eucharist. The  BCP according to the interpretation of the Laudians presents a lessening of any receptionist doctrine by the inserting of the manual acts of the priest in the Prayer of Consecration. Consecration is therefore specifically associated with the manual acts of the priest (taken, breaking, laying on of hand on the bread and cup) rather than the act of reception. The ‘Amen’ at the end of the Prayer of Consecration in the  BCP (not present in the  BCP) also suggests a separation of the consecration from any reception and therefore a lessening of receptionist doctrines. Some writers speak of a change in the elements. Andrewes says that the Word has the power to change the nature of the elements with the substance remaining, such that there is a union between the visible sacrament and the invisible reality. Cosin, Crakanthorp and Sutton say there is change in use but not in substance. Field speaks of a ‘change’ or ‘mutation’ in the elements of the Eucharist such that the earthly signs become the sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ. Montague speaks of ‘change’, ‘alteration’, ‘transmutation’ and ‘transelementation’ of the elements so that they become more than ordinary bread and wine and assume a ‘sacramental being’ such that Christ is imparted to the communicant by the bread and wine. Morton speaks of a divine alteration whereby Christ is exhibited in a spiritual and supersubstantial manner which is based on a moderate realist presence of Christ in the period of the reformation  the Eucharist, dependent on an alteration and not only on the use or ministration of the sacrament. Nicholson argues that the substance of the bread and wine is not changed but that there is a change brought about nonetheless by the relationship between the elements and Christ. Taylor argues that the elements are changed after a sacramental manner following consecration and that Christ is really and effectually received bythecommunicant.Hesays,‘Itisbread.ItisChrist’sbody’.Whilethese writers speak of a ‘real’ presence which is the result of some sort of change or alteration of the bread and wine, they are clear in asserting that this is not a carnal or fleshy change. Moderate realism is the basis of any discussion of a real presence although some (e.g. Andrewes) speaks of a linking between the signs of bread and wine and the nature of Christ, whereas others (e.g. Field) speak about the link between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. The  Articles of  specifically deny any immoderate realist presence of Christ, however they do this by denying any ‘real or bodily’ presence. It seems that the term ‘real’ as used here means ‘bodily’ (i.e. immoderaterealistpresence)butthattheterm‘real’isalsousedbyothers in a moderate realist manner (e.g. Taylor says that spiritual in this sense is more real than corporal, even though ‘real’ does not equate with ‘natural’). Hammond speaks of the bread and wine remaining in their natural substances, even though he affirms Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Laud argues against any conversion of the substance of the bread and wine but at the same time affirms a mysterious, secret, spiritual and ineffable manner of the Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Taylor suggests that it is the genus (the divine nature) which is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist rather than suggesting any change in the substance of the species of bread and wine. The Catechisms of this period present a variety of opinions—some affirming moderate realism and others denying it. A Short Catechism of  presented a nominalist separation of sign and signified, however the  BCP Catechism added questions concerning the Eucharist which some have interpreted in a realist manner. Others have however interpreted the same questions in a nominalist manner. The  BCP Catechism maintained these questions and the variety of interpretation also seems to have been maintained in various commentaries on the Catechism. Others argue that Christ is adored in the Eucharist, thereby suggesting a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Andrewes says that wherever Christ is he is adored, including in the sacrament, but that it is Christ that  chapter two is adored and not the sacrament. Bramhall, Cosin and Sutton state that Christ is adored in the sacrament. Forbes says that Christ is worshipped in the Eucharist although the reverence given to the sacrament is a lesser kind than that given to Christ himself. Some writers in this period argue for an increased use of outward signs (candles, incense, vestments, altar frontals etc) in worship to correspond to philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. Andrewes advocates increased use of ritual and ceremonial in the Eucharist. Laud suggests that acts of bodily worship (e.g. bowing towards the altar as a place worthy of praise) be used. The  BCP included what became known as ‘The Ornaments Rubric’, stipulating that the ornaments to be used in churches were those of the second year of Edward VI (i.e.  Jan- uary, – January, ). This meant that the traditional eucharistic vestments and altar fittings were stipulated to be used as late as , although in practice this was not always done. The  BCP used the word ‘offertory’ at the time the bread and wine were placed on the altar andalsostipulatedthatanyconsecratedbreadandwineshouldbe‘veiled’ after the administration to show reverence to them and that they should be consumed in the church and not given to the priest for his use as the  BCP had directed. These ceremonial directions suggest reverence towards the Eucharist in general and the elements in particular and are in line with a eucharistic theology based on moderate realism. Such increased use of outward ritual and ceremonial represents a significant departure from the early period of the Reformation which presented a style of worship that was outwardly plain. Despite this increase in outward forms of worship, it is argued that the philosophical assumptions of realism underlying eucharistic theology were not an innovation in this later period of the Reformation. Those who suggest that this later period of the Reformation was abandoning some form of pure Reformation theology due to increased outward forms4 fail to consider in any adequate manner the evidence of moderate realism present in the eucharistic the- ologyoftheearlyperiodoftheReformation(e.g.Ridley,Bradfordand Hooker), even though it was not accompanied by the outward forms of worship adopted by people such as Lancelot Andrewes in the later period of the Reformation. The assumption that there was one genuine

4 See Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, – (Hounds- mills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, ) and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London: Penguin, ). the period of the reformation 

Reformed theology of the Eucharist in the early period of the Reforma- tion fails to take into account the diversity of philosophical assumptions pointed to in the case studies of the early period of the Reformation. It also confuses and equates outward ceremonial with the underlying philosophical assumptions, ignoring the fact that moderate realism was found in the early period of the Reformation, despite the limited use of outward ceremonial in the eucharistic worship of the period.

Nominalism Several writers in the later period of the Reformation base their eucharistic theology on philosophical assumptions of nominalism. Bayly speaks of the sign and the signified in the Eucharist being separated and states that Christ is not brought down to earth, but the faithful receiver lifts heart and mind up to Christ in heaven, thus separating the elements from the body and blood of Christ. Hales states that there is only bread and wine in the Eucharist and that these signs do not exhibit Christ nor is Christeateninthesacramentinanysense—literally,metaphoricallyor really. For Hales the Eucharist is a commemoration alone and testimony to the union with Christ and other people. Horneck speaks of subjective eating which is spiritual and where the bread and wine are figures or remembrances alone. Christ is not seen to be ‘in’, ‘with’ or ‘under’ the elements and there is a distance between sign and signified. The communicant contemplates on Christ’s crucified body and eating Christ means to apply the benefits of Christ’s passion. Morton although he expresses a moderate realism in some places, also separates the sign and the signified in other places in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In some of the liturgies other than the Book of Common Prayer there are nominalist assumptions underlying eucharistic theology. John Knox in The Form of Prayers expresses a theology of the Eucharist which separates sign and signified, with a thanksgiving over the bread and wine only and no prayer of consecration. In the Westminster Directory there is a nominalist separation of bread and wine from the body and blood of Christ, despite the fact that the words of administration seem to link them.

Receptionism Some writers express receptionist doctrines of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Bayly says that Christ gives his body and blood at the moment of receiving. Christ is in the use of the sacrament and not in the elements. Horneck and Morton state that Christ is only present by the faith of the  chapter two sincere believer. Receptionism is a form of realism, since Christ is seen to be present at the moment of reception although Christ’s presence is limited to that moment (not prior to or after it) but is effective by means of the communicant’s faith.

Manner of Presence Not Closely Defined Several writers express the view that it is a mistake to attempt to define the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist too closely. Andrewes states that the manner of the presence is not a matter of faith but a matter of theory. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is said to be real but the manner of the presence is not closely defined by Andrewes. Bramhall believes that the manner of the presence is not an article of faith but subject to theory. Laud sees transubstantiation as defining the manner of the presence too closely. He accepts that Christ is present but rejects transubstantiation as a manner of explaining that presence. Montague argues that people should be content to know that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood and not worry about ‘how’ the presence of Christ comes about. Sutton says that the manner of the presence cannot be closely defined and Taylor says that it is a mistake to define the manner of the presence too closely. The Catechisms and Overall say that Christ is received in the Eucharist but the manner of that presence is not closely defined. The Catechisms seem to allow fora variety of interpretations in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, such that different interpreters have used them to validate a realist view while others have used them to express a nominalist view.

Sacrifice and the Eucharist Discussion of sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist is frequently part of the writings of theologians in the later part of the Reformation. Where sacrifice is seen to be part of eucharistic theology it is based on assumptions of moderate realism. Some speak of sacrifice in the Eucharist as a renewal of the covenant where the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are shown forth. Andrewes says that in the Eucharist there is a renewal of the covenant by virtue of the sacrifice in the present. He is careful to deny immoder- aterealismbutatthesametimehesaysthatthesacrificeismorethana memory of a past event. Rather he says that there is one sacrifice (that of the cross) but there is also a continual showing forth in the Eucharist ofthatonesacrifice.Thishearguesisnotamentalorverbalactivitybut a thing done, where there is breaking of bread and pouring of wine in the period of the reformation  which Christ’s sacrifice is shown forth. Hammond speaks of a sacrifice of supplication and praise but also of commemoration of the continual sacrifice of Christ in heaven, which is a ceremony of the covenant. As such it is an offering up of thanks and praise and it is a eucharistical action where the benefits of Christ’s passion are received in the Eucharist. Talk of a ‘sacrifice eucharistical’ here is based on moderate realist assumptions. Bramhall states that sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist is not propitiatory but distinct nonetheless from the cross. It is commemorative, in that the sacrifice of Christ is represented in the Eucharist and the benefits of the sacrifice are received. Bramhall describes this as ‘impetrative’ sacrifice, whereby the fruit of sacrifice is applied in the Eucharist. Cosin also speaks of a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist. Crakanthorp states that the sacrifice in the Eucharist is not propitiatory but eucharistic and commemorative. Cudworth speaks of a feast on the past and true sacrifice in the Eucharist where the Eucharist is what he calls a ‘federal’ rite. He distinguishes between ‘typical’ sacrifice (i.e. once only onthecross)andfeastsuponthatsacrificewhicharesymbolicallycontin- ued and repeated but not as new sacrifices. Cudworth thereby expresses a moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice. Laud affirms that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice in broken bread and poured wine and that it is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving as well as a sacrifice of self.HeiscarefultosaythatsacrificeintheEucharistisacommemoration of the historic sacrifice and not a re-iteration of it. L’Estrange argues that the Eucharist is ‘elemented of nothing but sacrifices and oblations’ and that there are four senses in which the Eucharist is a sacrifice: presenting of bread and wine at the altar; consecrating and presenting the bread and wine to God so that they become sacramental; sacrifice of prayer and praise; and self oblation. He also says that the Eucharist is more than a mere calling to mind, but a commemoration in the present as a ‘sacred action’.Montague denies that the Eucharist is propitiatory but admits that it is representative of Christ’s sacrifice and that it is remembrative and spiritual. The devotional work The Whole Duty of Man sees the sufferings of Christ set out in the Eucharist with a moderate realist linking of sign and signified. Baxter in his ‘Savoy Liturgy’ of  says that the Eucharist does not merely remember Christ’s death but represents it. He acknowledges that the grace of Christ is given through the sacraments and that thereisarenewalofsacrificebythelinkingofthesignsoftheEucharist with the signified sacrifice of Christ, the benefits of which are received in the Eucharist. There is however no specific offering of the elements in Baxter’s liturgy. There is nonetheless realist language expressed by Baxter  chapter two when he says: “See here Christ dying in this holy representation! Behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world! It is his will to be thus frequently sacrificed before our eyes”.5 In view of Baxter’s Puritan stance it seems however that this language can only be moderate in its realism. Taylor says that the Eucharist is a commemoration and representment of Christ’s death and commemorative sacrifice offered still in heaven and onearthintheEucharist.Itisthesamesacrificehesaysofferedinboth, whereby the purpose of the Eucharist is to ‘celebrate and exhibit the Lord’s death’ in sacrament and symbol. This suggests that the historic sacrifice of Christ is strictly identical with the eucharistic in its universal nature even though the particulars are linked by a loose identity only. There is a linking a sign and signified based on moderate realist assumptions, where the ministry of people on earth are able to represent Christ’s sacrifice and to apply it in present and future ministries. There is therefore propitiation, adoration, impetration and homage in the Eucharist where the benefits of Christ’s passion are obtained for people. Taylor is clear that the Eucharist does not repeat the sacrifice of Christ (immoderate realism) but it applies it and obtains its benefits for people. This is a eucharistic theology based on moderate realism which Taylor develops in his eucharistic liturgy of . In this liturgy there is an anamnesis,not only as thanksgiving but as a uniting to and pleading of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist. Some speak of the Eucharist as propitiatory, not in the sense that the work of the Eucharist forgives sins, but in the sense that the benefits of Christ’ssacrifice are impetrated in the Eucharist. Field argues that Christ’s sacrifice once offered has everlasting force and efficacy and therefore it can be said that Christ is offered daily on our altars by commemoration and lively representing. This is moderate realism where the outward form and inward form are linked such that there is an eternal and perpetual propitiatory sacrifice, not re-iterated but having eternal significance. Forbes also speaks of the Eucharist as propitiatory—not that it effects the propitiation and forgiveness of sins (i.e. the work of the cross) but as ‘impetrating the propitiation’. Jackson speaks of propitiation in the Eucharist because Christ is really present and therefore the Eucharist is more than a mere calling to mind of a past event. For Jackson the Eucharist is an assurance in the present of the virtue of Christ’s body and

5 Baxter, ‘The Savoy Liturgy’, pp. –. the period of the reformation  blood. He is careful to state that the cross was a bloody sacrifice and that the Eucharist is a ‘present exercise of His everlasting priesthood’ whereby Christ’s blessing communicates the virtue and efficacy of his sacrifice. This he says ‘distils’ from heaven to the worthy receiver, thereby suggesting an instantiation based on moderate realism. Nicholson speaks of ‘Christ crucified before our eyes’ in the Eucharist and by this means that the benefits of Christ’s passion are before the eyes of the communicants in a real way in the Eucharist, but not in any bloody or re-iterative manner. The Scottish eucharistic liturgy of  makes a memorial of Christ’s passion in close association with the bread and wine of the Eucharist, stating that the memorial is made ‘with these thy holy gifts’.This suggests an offering in moderate realist terms that is more than the offering of grateful thanks alone but an offering linked with the eucharistic signs.

The Case Studies

The case studies of the period of the Reformation are listed below. These case studies present the evidence of the Anglican Eucharistic tradition and demonstrate the multiformity of philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology in the period of the Reformation up until the publication of the  Book of Common Prayer:

Thomas Cranmer The Book of Common Prayer,  and  Nicholas Ridley Hugh Latimer Thomas Becon John Bradford Richard Hooker John Hooper Roger Hutchinson John Jewell Alexander Nowell Williams Perkins Edwin Sandys Edmund Grindal The Black Rubric Lancelot Andrewes Lewis Bayly John Bramhall John Cosin Richard Crakanthorp Ralph Cudworth  chapter two

Richard Field William Forbes John Hales Henry Hammond George Herbert Anthony Horneck Thomas Jackson William Laud Hamon L’Estrange Richard Montague Thomas Morton William Nicholson Scottish Prayer Book of  Christopher Sutton Jeremy Taylor The Whole Duty of Man The Articles of Religion concerning the Eucharist The  Book of Common Prayer The  Book of Common Prayer Liturgies Other Than the Book of Common Prayer Catechisms John Overall the period of the reformation 

Thomas Cranmer

As Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer (–) had a major role in the affairs of the Church in England following its break with Rome and in the formulation of the first English Book of Common Prayer in  and its successor in . He also had a major hand in the formulation of doctrine concerning the Eucharist in the Articles of Religion and in his own writings, principally his Defence of 6 and Answer of ,7 written in defence of a reformed doctrine of the Eucharist and in answer to the criticisms of this doctrine by the bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner (c. –). In Defence and Answer, Cranmer makes a major contribution to the doctrine of the Eucharist at the time of the English Reformation, presenting his mature thinking on the nature of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. Cranmer argues that his doctrine of the Eucharist is based on the authority of Scripture and the ancient Fathers of the Church.8 In so doing he argues against the doctrine of transubstantiation, claiming that it is the source of error and superstition.9 Cranmer argues that Christ is not present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist but only in the administration and use of the sacrament when this is done according to Christ’s direction.10 He argues therefore against a corporal presence of Christ in the signs of bread and wine or in those who receive them, and for a spiritual presence of Christ in the receiving of the Eucharist, saying: Lest any man should mistake my words, and think that I mean, that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive them, this is to advertise the reader, that I mean no such thing; but my meaning is, that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ’s body that was crucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really and effectually present with

6 Thomas Cranmer, ADefenceoftheTrueCatholicDoctrineoftheSacramentofthe Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ,inG.E.Duffield(ed)The Works of Thomas Cranmer (Appelford, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtenay Press, ). 7 Thomas Cranmer, An Answer to the Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation devised by Stephen Gardiner,inJ.E.Cox(ed),Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Cambridge: The Parker Society, ). 8 Cranmer, Defence,p.. 9 Ibid,p.. 10 Cranmer, Answer,p..  chapter two

all them that duly receive the sacraments: but all this I understand of his spiritual presence . . . Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lord’s supper.11 Cranmer emphasises the ministration and use of the sacrament and the faithful receiving of the sacramental signs by the people. He excludes any idea of a corporal or carnal presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacramental signs and in those who receive them, that is, an immoderate realist notion of Christ’s presence. At the same time he is also excluding any suggestion that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in any real way, such as a moderate realist notion of Christ’s presence implies. There is a nominalist separation in Cranmer’s eucharistic theology between the signs of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. The presence of Christ’s body and blood is purely spiritual, with any realism being related only to the ministration and the act of reception and not to the elements of bread and wine. Christ is really present for Cranmer in the ministration but not in the signs of bread and wine. In order to account for this seeming inconsistency, whereby Cranmer can use both nominalist and realist philosophical assumptions in his eucharistic theology, Cranmer argues that there is a diversity between the divine and human natures of Christ saying that: all the old writers that speak of the diversity of Christ’s substantial presence and absence, declare this diversity to be in the diversity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanity he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his divinity,) and not that in divers respects and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent.12 For Cranmer, Christ’s humanity is a thing, an empirical object and must therefore be located in a definite place (i.e. heaven) and therefore not capable of being in two places at once (i.e. in heaven and on an altar at the same time). Substance is in Cranmer’s terms an empirical concept, limited to place and time, and not a metaphysical one. There is no sense for Cranmer of a spiritual real presence in the bread and wine either, but only in the ministration and by faith, in the sense: “that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chewed, and digested; but all is spiritually with faith, not with mouth”.13 Cranmer can therefore say:

11 Ibid,p.. 12 Ibid,p.. 13 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation 

The bread, a vain token, but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receiver, what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretly and invisibly. And therefore as the bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord’s supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten indeed of all them that come.14 Cranmer’s moderate realist thinking is shown in relation to the ministration, even to the extent of sounding immoderate realist in its wording (‘eaten, chewed, and digested’ and ‘the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten’), but this wording applies only to the sacramental use and not to the bread and wine. For Cranmer, the bread and wine ‘sheweth and preacheth to the godly receiver’,and so has an effective purpose. The eating is by faith in the promises of God, although the sacrament proclaims these promises as well. For Cranmer there is bread and wine on earth and the carnal body and blood of Christ is in heaven without any realist link between the two. There can be no real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine, since Christ’s body and blood is in heaven. The communicant must therefore see Christ by faith alone and lift up the mind to heaven. He explains this nonetheless in very realist sounding language, saying: as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouths very bread, and see also and drink very wine, so we lift our hearts unto heaven, and with our faith we see Christ crucified with our spiritual eyes, and eat his flesh thrust through with the spear, and drink his blood springing out of his side with our spiritual mouths of faith. . . . So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and very wine, and spiritually eat and drink Christ’s very flesh and blood, yet may we not rest there, but lift up our minds to the deity, without the which his flesh availeth nothing, as he saith himself.15 The earthly eating and drinking and the heavenly communion are separated entities. There can be no participation of or instantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine, even in a spiritual sense. Any idea of a presence of Christ in the bread and wine is condemned as a carnal presence. Sign and signified are separate, self-enclosed entities in the Eucharist on earth, such that they do not participate in or instantiate each other. Bread and wine can only be figures of the body and blood of Christ.16 The description however, of the spiritual eating in heaven, is very realist sounding. In the heavenly eating and drinking the very flesh

14 Ibid,p.. 15 Ibid, p. . 16 Ibid, p. .  chapter two and blood of Christ are eaten and drunk, but in a spiritual manner by faith. This realist understanding in no way applies however, to the earthly Eucharist or the bread and wine. Cranmer also separates the sacrifice of Christ from the earthly Eucha- rist, arguing that there are two types of sacrifice: the propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross and the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by people in the Eucharist.17 In Cranmer’s thinking these two sacrifices do not share any identity. He says: And although it be one Christ that died for us, and whose death we remember, yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himself upon the cross, and that we make of him upon the altar or table. For his sacrifice wasthe redemption of theworld,oursis notso:his wasdeath, oursis buta remembrance thereof: his was the taking away of the sins of the world; ours is a praising and thanking for the same: and therefore his was satisfactory, ours is gratulatory. It is but one Christ that was offered then, and that is offered now; yet the offerings be divers: his was the thing, and ours isthe figure; his was the original, and ours is as it were a pattern. . . . And seeing then that the offerings and sacrifices be divers, if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory, ours cannot be so, except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory.18 Cranmer is separating the particulars of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the Eucharist as self enclosed entities without any realist identity between the two. There is for Cranmer no instantiation of the power of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist. Cranmer’s writings suggest that the underlying philosophical assumption of his theology of the Eucharist is principally that of nominalism.

17 Cranmer, Defence, p. . 18 Cranmer, Answer, p. . the period of the reformation 

The Book of Common Prayer,  and 

Cranmer expresses his theology of the Eucharist in a liturgical form.19 The  eucharistic liturgy adheres to the pattern of the Mass of the Sarum Missal20 although it is reduced in size and complexity21 while still maintaining the title ‘mass’.22 This suggests connection with the realist assumptions present in the eucharistic liturgies of the pre-Reformation period, however Cranmer makes significant changes to the words and phrases of the pre-Reformation material he uses. A comparison the pre- Reformation Sarum Canon23 with the  BCP Canon24 shows the similarity in wording and shape, however, Cranmer seems to preserve the traditional shape whilst at the same time changing words and phrases to reflect Reformed theology.25 The  Canon contains a Preface and Sanctus,aninvocationofthesaints,anepiclesis and the signing of the elements “to bless and sanctify these thy gifts”26 and an anamnesis all reflecting traditional Catholic use. The epiclesis prays however that “these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine . . . may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ”.27 The words ‘be unto us’ suggest at first glance a realist identification between the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood. Significantly however this varies from the Canon of the Sarum Missal which prays that the bread and wine “may become to us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ”.28 The difference between ‘be’ in the  Canon and ‘become’ in the Sarum Missal is a significant change in a Reformed direction. Whereas ‘become’ suggests a change in nature or substance, ‘be’ does not so clearly or necessarily suggest this change in substance or nature since it could be argued that the bread and wine ‘be’ Christ’s body

19 John Ketley (ed), The Two Liturgies A.D. and A.D.: with other Documents set forth by authority in the Reign of King Edward VI, viz The Order of Communion, ; The Primer, ; The Catechism and Articles, ; and Catechismus Brevis,  (Cambridge: The Parker Society, ). 20 Peter Brooks, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of the Eucharist: An Essay in Historical Development (London: Macmillan, ), p. . 21 Geoffery Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy (London: Macmillan, ), p. . 22 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 23 The Sarum Missal: Missale ad Usum Insignis et Praeclarae Ecclesiae Sarum (London: The Alban Press, ), pp. –. 24 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, pp. –. 25 Brooks, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of the Eucharist,p.. 26 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 27 Ibid,p.. 28 The Sarum Missal, p. .  chapter two and blood on the basis of faith alone without any realist identification of one with the other. The  Canon goes on to say, in an ambiguous fashion, that it is by ‘partaking’ of this Holy Communion, the bread and wine are not received but the Holy Communion, that is, the body and blood of Christ is received.29 For Cranmer, the partaking was the important aspect not any ‘becoming’ or changing of the substance of the bread and wine. Despite this, the traditional catholic ambience of the Eucharist in the  BCP is affirmed by the rubrics which order vestments, wafer bread and choral elements, such as the Benedictus and Agnus Dei. These are suggestive of realist assumptions in the Eucharist, but it seems that the underlying philosophical assumptions of the  BCP are really nominalist, following Cranmer’s own eucharistic theology. The traditional elements of the Eucharist are not it would seem linked with any realist philosophical assumptions in relation to Christ’s presence or sacrifice in the Eucharist. When Cranmer speaks, for example, of offering in the  BCP it is the prayers that are offered and not the gifts of bread and wine (“We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to receive our prayers, which we offer unto thy divine Majesty”).30 It was these ‘prayers and supplications’ that were to be brought before God,31 not the gifts of bread and wine, as the Sarum Missal directed.32 The signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist are separated from the signified body and blood of Christ. At the end of the Canon, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is spoken of in terms of “our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”33 lessening the idea of any offering of the sacrifice in relation to the gifts of bread and wine orthe past sacrifice of Christ in the present. This is despite the fact that ear- lierinthesamesectionoftheCanonthecelebrationandthememorial of Christ is made “with these thy holy gifts”.34 It may be that the  Eucharist was a compromise of both Catholic and Reformed material. Any idea of the sacrifice of the Mass, as understood in a Medieval sense of renewing the sacrifice in either an immoderate or moderate fashion, is also lessened in the  Canon, with the word ‘oblation’ being qualified as ‘once offered’.35

29 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 30 Ibid,p.. 31 Ibid,p.. 32 The Sarum Missal, p. . 33 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 34 Ibid,p.. 35 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation 

The  Eucharist makes more drastic in the revision of the Sarum material. The Canon is broken up, with the intercessions being placed earlier in the service, after the Offertory, so there could be no suggestion of a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, offering the bread and wine asa sacrifice for the living and the dead by associating the prayers for them with the central action of the Eucharist. The oblation or offering following the Institution Narrative was placed after the reception of Com- munion as an alternative to the prayer after Communion in the  Eucharist. Any offering concerned only self, and praise and thanksgiving, and was only used after the bread and wine had been received. The central action therefore became the recitation of the prayer containing the Insti- tution Narrative with the bread and wine being consumed immediately after this prayer was finished to lessen any chance of adoration before the consecrated elements. The absence of an ‘Amen’ at the end of the Prayer of Consecration suggests that the central action of the Eucharist is the reception of the bread and wine36 with the ‘Amen’ occurring during the words of administration after the faithful had received. It was faithful, spiritual and heavenly reception that Cranmer emphasised in both the Defence and Answer and this is echoed in the design of the  Eucharist. The only appropriate response to the spiritual and heavenly reception was seen as praise and thanksgiving using one of the two alternative prayers. The Gloria was also moved from the beginning of the service to the end to encourage this idea of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving37 after reception. The material placed after the  Canon (Lord’s Prayer, Christ our paschal Lamb, You that do truly, Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words, We do not presume) was also moved to a place earlier in the service or deleted so that there was no separation of the Institution Narrative from the act of Communion and so that the act of reception became the highlight of the service. This lessened any suggestion of eucharistic adoration since the bread and wine did not remain on the altar for any length of time while prayers were said, and before they were consumed, as had been the case in the  Eucharist. This meant that there was little opportunity for the bread and wine to be used as an object of devotion or adoration Doctrinal changes were also signalled by significant changes in language. The changed words of administration in  lessened any ideaof

36 Ibid, p. . 37 Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy, p. .  chapter two a real presence by deleting the words, “The body/blood of Christ . . .”38 and substituting, “Take and eat this/Drink this”.39 There was therefore no association of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ and no clear identification of what ‘this’ was. The theology expressed in the Defence and Answer seems to suggest that the ‘this’ refers to the sacramental bread and wine alone, unchanged in any way, and not to the body and blood of Christ, which could only be consumed in a heavenly and spiritual manner. All this therefore suggests that the underlying philosophical assumption in the  Eucharist was a nominalist separation of sign and signified. The  words of administration suggest that the bread and wine were eaten/drunk as an act of remembrance, with the real feeding on the body and blood of Christ occurring in a spiritual and heavenly manner, by faith alone and not occurring in any realist manner. The  Canon had prayed that the bread and wine “may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ”.40 This was altered in the  Eucharist so that it became “may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood”,41 eliminating any suggestion of a change in the bread and wine or any identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. This also meant that the  Eucharist emphasised ‘partaking’ or ministration as the essential action of the Eucharist, in line with the theology expressed by Cranmer in the Defence and Answer. The epiclesis itself was removed in the  Eucharist and the bread and wine were no longer blessed and sanctified as was the case in the  Eucharist. This lessened any sense of change in the bread and wine, such that they became the body and blood of Christ. The anamnesis also disappeared in the  Eucharist as did the Benedictus and Agnus Dei. It is argued that these last two deletions removed any suggestion of a real or physical presence42 based on realist philosophical assumptions and presented a theology of the Eucharist which saw eating and drinking in thankful remembrance of Christ’s death as the most likely interpretation.43 An emphasis on right receiving also appears in the

38 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 39 Ibid, p. . 40 Ibid,p.. 41 Ibid, p. . 42 Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy, p. . 43 Ronald Jasper and Geoffery Cuming, (eds) Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed. Texts translated and edited with commentary (New York: Pueblo, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

 Eucharist in the Prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion. Instead of the  words which said, “hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries”,44 the  Prayer of Thanksgiving becomes, “dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries”.45 The receiving is now seen as less objective and more dependent upon the fact that Christ’s body and blood is now ‘duly received’. The prayer became one seeking fruitful reception46 rather than one suggesting any real presenceof Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Ceremonial features were greatly reduced in the  Eucharist. The title ‘Mass’ was removed, eucharistic vestments were abolished, singing was limited, the manual acts drawing attention to the bread and wine, where the priest takes them in his hands, were abolished and ordinary bread was ordered in place of wafer bread. The surface features of the  Eucharist were deliberately intended to have less resemblance to the traditional form of the  Eucharist and the Medieval missals. At the same time they brought the English eucharistic liturgy more closely into line with Reformed models and practice and limited any realist notions of presence and sacrifice. Cranmer’s liturgical revisions in the  Eucharist were certainly more in the Reformed direction than the  Eucharist had allowed, however, Cranmer viewed the sacraments as ‘effectual signs of grace’, even though he refused to acknowledge any real presence of Christ in the bread and wine and any notion of eucharistic sacrifice other than that of self and praise and thanksgiving.47 Cranmer’s theology of the Eucharist seems to be most clearly worked out in a propositional and polemical manner in his Defence and Answer. In the eucharistic liturgies contained in the two editions of the Book of Common Prayer, published in  and , Cranmer expresses this theology in a liturgical form. The ambiguity of the philosophical assumptions in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist and the traditional character and shape of the  Eucharist, with the possibility of an assumption of moderate realism, was to a great degree modified in the  Eucharist, so that the Eucharist more closely resembled Reformed models and practice and with clearer nominalist philosophical

44 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 45 Ibid, p. . 46 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, p. . 47 Ibid, p. .  chapter two assumptions underlying the eucharistic theology. Whereas there are several signals to realism in the  Eucharist (traditional shape, epiclesis, anamnesis) there is considerably less suggestion of realism in the  Eucharist. Both the  and the  Eucharist seem to have a realist linking of Christ’sbody and blood (heavenly and spiritual) with the ministration or use of the sacrament, but limit any realist linking between the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. It seems therefore that the prevailing philosophical assumption of the eucharistic theology which Cranmer expresses in these liturgies is that of nominalism, where the signs (bread and wine) and the signified (Christ’s body and blood and its offering) are separated and mutually exclusive entities. the period of the reformation 

Nicholas Ridley

Nicholas Ridley (c. –) was Bishop of London from  and assisted Cranmer with the production of the Book of Common Prayer in its first two editions of  and . His writings on the Eucharist have much in common with Cranmer, but also have significant differences. In the debate on the Eucharist which took place in the House of Lords in ,48 Ridley maintained that the bread and wine of the Eucharist remain in their natural substances after consecration but at the same time he argues that the Christ’s body and blood are present in the Eucharist by grace and power. He says: “The human nature being in heaven may be said to be here, not in unity of nature but in the unity of Person. Where the one nature is, the other may be said to be.”49 Ridley in the debate affirms in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist that: Concerning the outward thing it is very bread. But according to the power of God is ministered the very body. The carnal substance sitteth on the right hand of the Father. After this understanding of the presence he is not in the Sacrament. His is absent for he saith he will leave the world. And inanothersense(hesaith)hewillbewithusuntiltheendoftheworld. . . . The manhood is ever in heaven; his divinity is everywhere present. . Christ sits in heaven. And is present in the Sacrament by his working.50 This says somewhat more than Cranmer admits. For Ridley, Christ is present in the sacrament by his ‘working’ and indeed when Ridley is asked about conversion of the bread in the Eucharist he says that: “It is converted into the body and Christ”.51 Significantly Ridley also denies that the bread is but a figure. In fact he says that it is more than a figure and that a transformation is involved after the consecration, arguing that: “besides the natural bread there is an operation of Divinity, for my Senses when they taste and eat, perceive but a figure. . . . In that bread is the communion of the body of Christ in the good. . . . It is transformed, for of the common bread before, it is made a Divine influence.”52

48 See J.T. Tomlinson, The Great Parliamentary Debate in  on the Lord’s Supper. From the Original MS now in the British Museum. With an introduction and notes (London: Shaw and Co., undated). 49 Ibid,p.. 50 Ibid,p.. 51 Ibid,p.. 52 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

This ‘operation of Divinity’ is a crucial phrase. Clearly Ridley is denying any change in the natural substance of bread and wine, but at the same time he is arguing for a transformation on the basis of Christ’s divinity. Such a transformation of bread and wine is suggestive of moderate realist philosophical assumptions where there seems to be an instantiation of what Ridley calls ‘a Divine influence’.This is distinguished from any carnal, fleshy or immoderate realism. Indeed Ridley goes on to argue that: “It is changed in nature, that is to say in property”.53 By ‘nature’ and ‘property’ he does not mean ‘substance’.Rather he specifies that Christ’s body is present by grace.54 This means for Ridley that Christ’s body is “real in his benefits”55 although it is not the carnal substance in the Eucharist. Ridley insists that the bread remains since he says: “Carnal reason cannot believe that bread is his body. Therefore grossly he imagineth, that thinketh bread remaineth no more.”.56 This seems to be a statement of moderate realism since it affirms the continuing presence of the bread and wine but does not deny the communion of the body of Christ to be received ‘in that bread’. In other places Ridley when speaking of the Eucharist admits that following consecration “by the word of god the thing hath a being that it had not before” and that “there is a mutation of the common bread and wine spiritually into the Lord’s bread and wine . . . but I deny that there is any mutation of the substances”.57 Immoderate realism seems to be excluded and he also distances himself from transubstantiation,58 however the idea that there is a ‘being’ after consecration which was not there before suggests a linking a sign and signified. While denying a corporal presence in the Eucharist, Ridley is not so definite about other sorts of presence. He says for example: Of Christ’s real presence there may be a double understanding. If you take the real presence of Christ according to the real and corporal substance which he took of the Virgin, that presence being in heaven cannot be on earth also. But if you mean a real presence secundum rem aliquam quae ad corpus Christi pertinet, that is, according to something that pertaineth to Christ’s body, certes the ascension and abiding in heaven are no let at all

53 Ibid,p.. 54 Ibid,p.. 55 Ibid,p.. 56 Ibid.p.. 57 Nicholas Ridley, ‘Disputation at Cambridge’, cited in D. Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 58 Nicholas Ridley, Works (ed H. Christmas) (Cambridge: The Parker Society, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

to that presence. Wherefore Christ’s body after that sort is here present to us in the Lord’s Supper, by grace, I say.59 For Ridley, Christ is not present in the Eucharist in a real way that is corporal, but he is present in a real way that is not corporal, which he calls “theverityofthebody”.60 This‘verity’isapresencewhichis“inmysteryto the faithful in the Supper, to be received after a spiritual communication, and by grace”.61 For Ridley there is less of an empirical sense of Christ’s presence only in heaven, as Cranmer argues, and more of a metaphysical sense of Christ’s presence on earth in the Eucharist. This conclusion is strengthened when the following words of Ridley are considered: I grant, . . . the bread to be converted and turned into the flesh of Christ; but not by transubstantiation, but by sacramental converting or turning. ‘It is transformed,’ saith Theophylact . . . ‘by a mystical benediction, and by the accession or coming of the Holy Ghost unto the flesh of Christ’. He saith not, by expulsion or driving away the substance of the bread, and by substituting or putting in its place the corporal substance of Christ’s flesh. And whereas he saith, ‘It is not a figure of the body’,we should understand that saying, as he himself doth elsewhere add ‘only’,that is, it is no naked or bare figure only. For Christ is present in his mysteries; neither at any time, as Cyprian saith, doth the Divine Majesty absent himself from the divine mysteries.62 Ridley at his trial suggests that he should expound the words, Hoc est corpus meum, i.e. ‘This is my body’ as ‘a figure of my body’ and says: I never said that Christ gave only a figure of his body; for indeed he gave himself in a real communication, that is, he gave his flesh after a communication of his flesh. . . . I say, he gave his own body verily; but he gave it by a real, effectual, and spiritual communication.63 I also worship Christ in the Sacrament, but not because He is included in the Sacrament, like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures, not because He is really included in them. Notwithstanding 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. Furthermore, I acknowledge gladlythetruebodyofChristtobeintheLord’sSupperinsuchsortas theChurchofChrist, ... bygraceandspiritually,... butnotbycorporal presence of the body of His flesh.64

59 Ibid, p. . 60 Ibid, p. . 61 Ibid, p. . 62 Ibid, pp. –. 63 Ibid, p. . 64 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

The suggestion that the ‘true body’ of Christ is in the Eucharist cannot be the fleshy body of Christ since Ridley clearly denies such an immoder- aterealistpossibility.Thepresenceofthe‘truebody’isaspiritualpresence by grace and suggests a moderate realist presence. This is confirmed when Ridley speaks of what is in the chalice at the Eucharist. He says: It is his true blood which is in the chalice, I grant, and the same which sprang from the side of Christ. But how? It is blood indeed, but not after the same manner, after which it sprang from his side. For here is the blood, but by way of sacrament. Again I say, like as the bread of the sacrament and of thanksgiving is called the body of Christ given for us; so the cup of the Lord is called the blood which sprang from the side of Christ: but the sacramental bread is called the body, because it is the sacrament of the body. Even so likewise the cup is called the blood also which flowed out of Christ’s side, instituted of the Lord himself for our singular commodity, namely for our spiritual nourishment.65 It is the manner of the presence of the blood that is crucial to Ridley— not an immoderate but seemingly a moderate realist presence. Ridley confirms this by saying that: “The Lamb of God is in heaven, according to the verity of the body: and here he is with us in a mystery, according to this power; not corporally”66 and also by saying, “That heavenly Lamb is, as I confess, on the Table, but by a spiritual presence by grace, and not after any corporal substance of His flesh taken of the Virgin Mary”.67 To say that the ‘heavenly Lamb’ is ‘on the Table’ seems to suggest moderate realism in terms of the bread and wine, not the faithful communicants, since it must be assumed that the communicants are not on the table! The presence of the ‘heavenly Lamb’ is ‘on the Table’ in a sense other than a subjective response of faith in the ministration of the sacrament. It is this presence, associated with the bread and wine, on the table, that suggest a moderate realist philosophical foundation for Ridley’s eucharistic theology. When questioned about whether there is an unbloody sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, Ridley says: “I say, it is well said, if it be rightly understood. . . . It is called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice; and he doth not lie, who saith Christ to be offered”.68 This suggests a moderate

65 Ibid, pp. –. 66 Ibid, p. . 67 Ibid, p. . 68 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  realist interpretation of eucharistic sacrifice, where the sacrifice is present in the Eucharist not in a bloody manner (immoderate realism) but in an unbloody manner (moderate realism). One of the judges at Ridley’s trial (Weston) raises the question of wor- shippingthesamebodyintheEucharistwhichthewisemenworshipped in the manger. To this Ridley replies: Weworship,Iconfess,thesametrueLordandSaviouroftheworld,which thewisemenworshippedinthemanger;howbeitwedoitinamystery, and in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, . . . not in carnal servitude, that is,wedonotworshipservilelythesignsofthethings,...Butwebehold with the eyes of faith Him present after grace, and spiritually set upon the Table; and we worship Him which sitteth above.69 Again the idea of Christ being present on the table (spiritually) suggests a realist linking of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, but not in a fleshy manner. If Christ is present, and if that presence is linked with the bread and wine, as Ridley’s words suggest, then that presence must be a moderate realist presence. Weston continues, arguing that Mary did hold in her womb the same thing that the priest holds in his hand in the Eucharist. Ridley answers by saying: “I grant that the priest holdeth the same thing, but after another manner. She [Mary holding Christ in her womb] did hold the natural body; the priest holdeth the mystery of the body.”.70 Ridley means the holding in the priest’s hand in the sense of “spiritually”.71 At the same time this also suggests the idea of different instantiations of the presence of Christ—one physical in the womb of Mary and the other spiritual in the bread and wine on the table. Christ was presentinthewomboftheVirginMaryinoneway(fleshy)andisnow present in the bread (that is, the thing held by the hand of the priest is the bread and presumably not the faithful communicant). This suggests the nature of Christ present in the womb of the Virgin Mary is also present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist after a different manner (or instantiation), but that it is nonetheless present. Ridley’s Eucharistic theology seems to be based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.

69 Ibid, p. . 70 Ibid, p. . 71 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

Hugh Latimer

Hugh Latimer (c. –) was Bishop of Worcester from , and a contemporary of Cranmer and Ridley. Latimer’s writings on the Eucha- rist suggest that he sees the Eucharist as a reminder of Christ’s work and as an augmentation to faith, although he acknowledges that the Eucharist is more than a bare sign. Latimer argues that there is a spiritual nature to any eating and drinking in the Eucharist72 and firmly rejects transubstantiation on the basis of a lack of biblical evidence.73 Any presence of Christ in the Eucharist is seen to be a spiritual one, clearly rejecting any receiving of Christ’s body with the mouth, but at the same time stating that Christ “gave the sacrament to the mouth” and “his body to the mind”.74 Latimer says that “Christ’s true flesh” is “spiritually to be eaten, in the supper, by faith and not corporally”.75 Thisissuggestive of moderate realism since it argues that the ‘true flesh’ of Christ can be known in two instantiations: corporally and by faith. This is confirmed by Latimer’s assertion concerning different manners of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. He says: “The substance of blood is drunk; but not in onemanner.Itisthesamething,notthesamemanner.”.76 Here he is distinguishing between corporal and sacramental drinking. It is crucial however that he maintains that it is the same substance in both. This seems to be an indication of two instantiations of the one presence, that is, the blood of Christ. Latimer also calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice. He says: “I do say, that the holy communion beareth the name of sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice memorative.”.77 Atthesametimehoweverhealsoallowsthat the Lord’s Table may be called an altar on the witness of many ancient doctors78 butsaysthatevenifitissocalled,“thereisnopropitiatory sacrifice.”.79 Crucially though he distinguishes between ‘a propitiatory

72 Hugh Latimer, Sermons (ed. G. Corrie) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), pp. – . 73 See Latimer’s Conference with Ridley, in Nicholas Ridley, Works (ed. H. Christmas) (Cambridge, Parker Society, ), p. . 74 Hugh Latimer, SermonsandRemainsofHughLatimer(ed. G. Corrie) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 75 Ibid, p. . 76 Ibid, p. . 77 Ibid, p. . 78 Ibid, pp. –. 79 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  sacrifice’ and ‘a sacrament of the propitiation’ by saying: “I have but one word to say: panis sacramentalis,thesacramentalbread,iscalleda propitiation, because it is a sacrament of the propitiation.”.80 All this seems to suggest that Latimer is using a moderate realist argument here in relation to both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, but it needs to be noted that the realist assumptions in Latimer’s eucharistic theology are not between the historic sacrifice of Christ and the signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist, but between the historic sacrifice and the sacrament as a whole.

80 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

Thomas Becon

Thomas Becon (c. –) was one of Thomas Cranmer’s Chaplains. His views on the Eucharist are characteristic of the more extreme views of the Reformers.81 He rejected the idea of a sacrifice in the Eucharist and believed that there was no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, either to a moderate or immoderate degree. For Becon the Eucharist was merely a symbol of Christ and his eucharistic theology separated the particulars of the Eucharist (the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ) using nominalist philosophical assumptions. For Becon the sacraments are “memorials, to put us in remembrance”82 of the promises of God. The communicant receives the Lord’s supper and partakes of the promises, not the body and blood of Christ. Becon is careful to exclude any realist presence and receiving of Christ’s body and blood. He says that: “in receiving the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ we receive not only the sacrament, but also Christ himself, with all his fruits, benefits, and merits of his glorious passion and healthful death.”.83 When speaking of the meaning of the words Hoc est corpus meum in the Eucharist, Becon says: His body, I grant in mystery and figure, but not in nature and substance. For the body of Christ was made of the substance of Mary the virgin, and not of the substance of bread. Though Christ called the bread his body, yet doth it not therefore follow, that the bread is his natural body; but so termed for certain resemblances and likenesses between the body of Christ and the creature of bread. . . . Christ calleth the bread his body; not that it is his natural body indeed, not that it is his natural body indeed, but because it representeth, signifieth, declareth, preacheth, and setteth forth his body unto us.84 The bread and wine of the Eucharist are for Becon only a figure (albeit mysterious) which is separate from the nature and substance of Christ’s body and blood in a nominalist philosophical framework. For Becon the sign can in no way be the signified thing as is made clear in the following passage, where Becon says:

81 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Greeen and Co., ), p. . 82 Thomas Becon, The Catechism of Thomas Becon, Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, Prebendary of Canterbury, With other pieces written by him in the reign of King Edward VI (ed. J. Ayre) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 83 Ibid, p. . 84 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

The sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is not the very self real and natural body and blood of Christ, but an holy sign, figure, and token of hisblessedbodyandpreciousblood.Forthisword‘sacrament’isasmuch to say as a sign of an holy thing. Now that which is the sign of thing cannot be the thing itself. And though the Son called the bread his body, and the wine his blood, because the disciples should the better remember the breaking of his body and the shedding of his blood (as he likewise called himselfavine,adoor,arock,whennotwithstandinghewasneithernatural vine, material door, or stony rock, but only likened unto them for certain properties which he hath with the vine, door, and rock), yet is neither the bread his natural body, nor the wine his natural blood, as divers of the ancient doctors do declare and prove, but only a figure of his body and blood. The bread is called Christ’s body because it visibly preacheth and bringeth to our remembrance the breaking of Christ’s body. The wine also is called Christ’s blood, because it putteth us in remembrance of the shedding of Christ’s blood.85 This analysis hangs on the distinction between a sacramental eating anda spiritual eating which in Becon’s mind are not the same. Indeed he argues that Christ is received in two manners: sacramentally and spiritually. Becon argues his case saying: Christ is eaten or received in two manners or ways: that is to say, sacramentally and spiritually. He is received or eaten sacramentally, when we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, according to the institution of Christ; which thing is done not only of the faithful but also of the unfaithful. He is also eaten or received spiritually, when we believe in Christ, embrace him as our alone Saviour, put our whole hope, trust, and confidence for our redemption and salvation in that one and alone sacrifice, which Christ offered on the altar of the cross, having his body there broken, and his blood there shed, for the remission of our sin: again, when we earnestly consider in our minds the passion and death of Christ, with all the benefits thereof, chawing and digesting them with the stomach ofthe heart, be thankful for them to God the Father, and labour to the uttermost of our power to live worthy his kindness, daily increasing more and more in all godliness and honesty. And after this manner the godly and faithful only eat and receive Christ. Other eating or receiving of Christ there is none.86 The sacramental and the spiritual eating and drinking are separate and self-enclosed entities from the body and blood of Christ. There is no

85 Thomas Becon, ‘The Flower of Godly Prayers’, in Prayers and Other Pieces of Thomas Becon, Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, Prebendary of Canterbury (ed. J. Ayre) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 86 Becon, The Catechism of Thomas Becon, pp. –.  chapter two realist linking of the signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist with the signified body and blood in the theology of Thomas Becon. Becon’s theology of the Eucharist seems to be based upon a framework of nominalist philosophical assumptions. the period of the reformation 

John Bradford

John Bradford (–) was a fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge and a Prebendary of St Paul’s Cathedral, London. Bradford argues that in the Eucharist what is seen, tasted, smelt, handled and reasoned is bread and wine, and that there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine87 buthedoesargueforachangeinthenatureofthebread and wine.88 For Bradford a change in nature relates to something other than a change in substance. He therefore denies transubstantiation but nonetheless also suggests a link between the sign and the signified in the Eucharist. He says for example: Now his words be manifest and most plain. ‘This’ saith he, ‘is my body’; therefore accordingly should we esteem and take and receive it. If he had spoken nothing, or if he had spoken doubtfully, then might we have been in some doubt. But in that he speaketh so plainly, saying, ‘This is my body’, who can, may, or dare be so bold as to doubt it? He is ‘the truth’ and cannot lie: he is omnipotent and can do all things: therefore it is his body. This I believe, this I confess, and pray you all heartily to beware of these and such like words, that it is but a sign or a figure of his body; except you will discern betwixt signs which signify only, and signs which also do represent, confirm, and seal up, or (as a man may say) give with their signification. . . . But in the other signs, which some call exhibitive, isthere not only a signification of a thing, but also a declaration of a gift, yea, ina certain manner of giving also. . . . In the Lord’s supper the bread is called ‘a partaking of the Lord’s body’, and not only a bare sign of the body of the Lord. This I speak, not as though the elements of these sacraments were transubstantiate (which I have already impugned); either as though Christ’s body were in the element, either were tied to the element otherwise than sacramentally and spiritually; either that the bread, water, and wine may not and must not be called sacramental and external signs; but that they might be discerned from significative and bare signs only, and be taken for signs exhibitive and representative.89 Here there is a linking between the sign and the signified on the basis of Christ’s words, where Christ’s body is described as being tied to the elements in a sacramental and spiritual manner. The sign, ‘this’,is clearly

87 John Bradford, The Writings of John Bradford containing sermons, meditations, examinations &c (ed. A. Townsend) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 88 Ibid, p. . 89 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two more than a ‘bare sign’ but one that gives signification by representing and exhibiting Christ’sbody and blood. The sign is said to declare the gift, in the sense that the sign is exhibitive of the signified. Transubstantiation is excluded, but the sign is linked with the signified in a sacramental and spiritual manner in such a way that the sign exhibits and represents the signified. This description is suggestive of moderate realism. The linking however has nothing to do with the outward appearance of the sacramental sign, but much to do with the words of Christ. If Christ said it then it must be so. This linking becomes even plainer when Bradford speaks of the Fathers again, saying: For with great admiration some of the fathers do say that the bread is changed or turned into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood, meaning it of a mutation or changing, not corporal, but spiritual, figurative, sacramental, or mystical; for now it is no common bread nor common wine, being ordained to serve for the food of the soul. . . . Not that I mean any other presence of Christ’s body than a presence by grace, a presence by faith, a presence spiritually, and not corporally, really, naturally, and carnally, as the papists do mean; for in such sort Christ’s body is only in heaven, ‘on the right hand of God the Father Almighty’, whither our faith in the use of the sacrament ascendeth, and receiveth whole Christ accordingly.90 Immoderate realism seems to be excluded by Bradford, since that breaks the link between the sign and the signified, and it necessitates “then Christ’s natural body must needs be in many places”.91 In opposition to this, Bradford is arguing, along with the Fathers, that there is a change or a mutation in the signs of bread and wine such that they are turned into or changed into the body and blood of Christ, not in an immoderate but a moderate sense, by faith, by grace and spiritually. Moderate realism seems to be underlying philosophical assumption here, with a linking of sign and signified suggested. Not referring to the bread and wine as Christ’sbody and blood, says Bradford, is in opposition to Christ’swords. Bradford is therefore arguing that any theology of the Eucharist which lessens the sense of the bread and wine being called the body and blood of Christ is problematic. For Bradford the linking of Christ’sbody and blood and the sacrament is a spiritual but real linking which he describes as a ‘coupling’, saying, “the coupling of Christ’s body and blood to the sacrament is a spiritual

90 Ibid, pp. –. 91 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation  thing”.92 He also more specifically links the signs of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, saying: “I have told you that it is not simply bread and wine, but rather Christ’s body, so called of Christ and to be called and esteemed of us”.93 By this he is not arguing for any immoderate sense of realism, since he argues that Christ’s literal body is not present in the Eucharist, nor is the literal body and blood broken and shed in the Eucharist. Indeed Bradford argues that “Christ’s body is no dead carcase”.94 Rather the presence of Christ’sbody and blood occurs through the‘coupling’withthesacramentandthebreadandwineoftheEucharist. This seems to be a statement of moderate realism. Bradford’swritingsontheEucharistareforthemostpartanexpression of moderate realism. Sign and signified are said to be coupled or linked in such a way that the sign instantiates the signified. Whilst Bradford rejects transubstantiation and the idea of any change in the substance of the bread and wine, he does not reject the idea of a change in nature whereby the bread and wine are ‘coupled’ with the sacrament and Christ’s body and blood. It is talk of such a change in nature that is suggestive of moderate realism as the underlying philosophical assumption in Brad- ford’s work.

92 Ibid,p.. 93 Ibid, p. . 94 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

Richard Hooker

Richard Hooker (c. –) was an Anglican divine who provided both a philosophical and devotional basis for the Elizabethan church95 in his major work entitled Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.96 Hooker’s eucharistic theology is centred on the idea of “the real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of the sacrament.”97 It is this motif of a participation of Christ and union with Christ which pervades the whole of the Polityand which is central to Hooker’sthinking on the Eucharist. This motif is based on a moderate realism expressed most fully in the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore for Hooker, God cannot be found beyond or behind the incarnation, and “wherever the Word is it hath with it manhood else the Word be in part or somewhere God only and not man, which is impossible.”98 It is this joining of the divinity and the manhood in the doctrine of the incarnation that Hooker carries over into his theology of the Eucharist. The manhood of Christ cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. His theology is therefore realist in its philosophical assumptions, expressing the view that by means of the sacrament the communicant has a real participation in the body and blood of Christ and thereby in Christ himself. Hooker was less definitive on the means of the presence and whether or not Christ was present in the consecrated elements, although he did describe them as ‘instrumentally a cause’ of the participation in Christ. Hooker was prepared to accept those facts dictated by Scripture and reason alike, but to suspend judgment on metaphysical problems, such as transubstantiation, consubstantiation and the manner of the real presence, where no clear guidance was given by Scripture or reason.99 TheEucharistwasforHookeraneffectivemeansofgrace.Hesays therefore: In the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us, the degrees of our own increase in holiness and virtue we see and can judge of them, we understand that

95 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 96 Richard Hooker, The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr Richard Hooker (ed. J. Keble) ( volumes) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). 97 Ibid, V, lxvii, . 98 Ibid, II, V, lv, . 99 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

the strength of our life begun in Christ is Christ, that his flesh is meat and his blood drink, not by surmised imagination but truly, even so truly that through faith we perceive in the body and blood sacramentally presented the very taste of eternal life, the grace of the sacrament is here as the food which we eat and drink.100 Hooker denies that the sacrament is “only a shadow, destitute, empty andvoidofChrist”101 and affirms that there is a ‘givenness’ of gift in the sacrament. Hooker argues that in the sacrament there is “real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of this sacrament.”102 The question however, which Hooker acknowledges and which has been the subject of debate, is where Christ is, or in what does he participate in the sacrament? No one denies, he says, that Christ’s presence is in the soul of the faithful communicant, but is Christ’s presence also within the consecrated elements? Hooker sees speculation on this matter as unnecessary and argues instead that all need to realize that “those mysteries should serve as conducts of life and conveyances of his body and blood unto them”.103 It seems that Hooker is presenting a realist notion of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist when he speaks of participation in the soul of the faithful communicant. Any participation of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist however, seems less clear, since Hooker refers more generally here to ‘those mysteries’ or the Eucharist as a whole as the means of participation in Christ’s body and blood. Indeed Hooker says: “The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.”.104 This is a crucial sentence emphasizing the presence of Christ in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. It must be noted however, that Hooker does not deny that the real presence of Christ’s body and blood is ‘in’ the sacrament, rather he states that it is not to be sought for in the sacrament. This sentence could imply that Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist is a receptionist doctrine, that is, a doctrine implying Christ’s body and blood is only present as the communicant receives the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This means that Christ’s body and blood is not present before or after the reception but only during the

100 Hooker, Works, II, V, lxvii, . 101 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, . 102 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, . 103 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, . 104 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, .  chapter two act of receiving. Receptionism, it should be noted, is not opposed to any idea of a real presence. Crockett argues that: “‘receptionism’ is a doctrine of the real presence, but a doctrine of the real presence that relates the presence primarily to the worthy receiver rather than to the elements of bread and wine.”.105 This seems to be the view of Cranmer and there are aspects of receptionism in the writings of Ridley, Latimer and Bradford. There also seems to be an element of this doctrine in Hooker’s writing as well and to deny receptionism in Hooker would be to misrepresent his theology.106 Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist however, needs to be read in its broadest sense. Hooker is being quite judicious in that he attempts to address both the aspect of gift and the aspect of faith. For him it seems that there is both a ‘givenness’ of the gift and a need for faithful reception. He says for example that, “in the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us”107 and “This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold.”.108 The first statement seems to indicate that the gift of God is given in the Eucharist. The second suggests that there is a ‘givenness’ or something beyond the particular of the bread and that it is not solely dependent on the faith of the worthy receiver, and indeed apart from what is visible. At the same time Hooker argues that participation in Christ in the Eucharist is dependent on the faith of the worthyreceiver,forexamplesaying,“throughfaithweperceiveinthe body and blood sacramentally.”.109 Conjunction is therefore an important aspect of Hooker’s theology and philosophy where he is attempting to redress the disjunction in theology that was so much part of the tension between Anglicans and Puritans in his day. While Hooker acknowledges the gift and its ‘givenness’ he also acknowledges the need for faithful reception. A balance or conjunction between both aspects of the presence seems to be an integral part of what Hooker is saying about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. To emphasise or to ignore one aspect, at the expense of the other, would be to misrepresent Hooker’s views on the eucharistic presence of Christ.

105 William Crockett, Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation (New York: Pueblo, ), p. . 106 Henry McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson, What Happens at Holy Communion? The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (Norwich: Canterbury Press, ), p. . 107 Hooker, Works, II, V, lxvii, . 108 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, . 109 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, . the period of the reformation 

What then, for Hooker is the matter of concern in the Eucharist? He explains it as follows: It is on all sides plainly confessed, first that this sacrament is a true and a real participation of Christ, who thereby imparteth himself even his whole entire Person as a mystical Head unto every soul that receiveth him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite himself unto Christ as a mystical member of him, yea of them also whom he acknowledgeth to be his own; secondly that to whom the person of Christ is thus communicated, to them he giveth by the same sacrament his Holy Spirit to sanctify them as it sanctifieth him which is their head; thirdly that what merit, force or virtue soever is in his sacrificed body and blood, we freely fully and wholly have it in this sacrament; fourthly that the effect thereof is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life; fifthly that because the sacrament being of itself a corruptible and earthly creature must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in man, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogether upon the strength of hisgloriouspowerwhoisableandwillbringtopassthatthebreadand cup he giveth us shall by truly the thing he promiseth.110 Herein seems to be a fuller indication of what Hooker perceives the bread and wine to be and to contain. Whilst the body and blood of Christ is not to be sought for in the sacrament, nonetheless, God’s power gives the communicant the thing or gift (Christ’s body and blood) by means of the instruments of the bread and wine (the ‘causes instrumental’ as Hooker calls them). The elements however, remain in their natural substances and are not changed into the fleshy presence of Christ’s body and blood. How this happens Hooker is unable to explain, other than it is by God’s power. Hooker’s discussion of sacrifice and the Eucharist follows the same balanced and judicious path. He has a reluctance to accept sacrificial imagery in his discussion of the Eucharist in any sense other than the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the sacrifice of thanksgiving and the sacrifice of the people,111 but his use of the notion of sacrifice is stronger than earlier Anglican theologians, such as Cranmer, because he has a more powerful notion of a eucharistic presence of Christ.112 Indeed Hooker argues that the proper use of sacrificial language in the Eucharist has a metaphorical rather than a literal use.113 He also describes the Eucharist

110 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, . 111 Ibid, II, VI, v, . 112 Kenneth Stevenson, Eucharist and Offering (New York: Pueblo, ), p. . 113 Hooker, Works, II, VII, xi, .  chapter two as “proportionabl to ancient sacrifices, namely the Communion of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice.”.114 Hooker seems to be rejecting any form of immoderate realism (reiteration of the sacrifice) in relation to the eucharistic sacrifice since the Eucharist has properly no sacrifice in the present, but not the concept of sacrifice entirely. What then can be concluded about Hooker’s views on the Eucharist? His views on the question of eucharistic presence seems to be much more defined than those related to eucharistic sacrifice. What he says in relation to both notions though is set within the idea of ‘participation’and ‘conjunction’. It seems Hooker is saying that by receiving the bread and wine, the faithful communicant is made one with Christ in a mysterious and ecclesial participation. It also seems that there is some sense in which Hooker says that the nature of Christ (the ‘givenness’ of gift) is received, such that this nature is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is an expression of moderate realism. At the same time however, Hooker affirms that Christ’s physical body is present in heaven and therefore cannot be present in the elements in a fleshy manner.115 Despite this Hooker argues that because of the unity of Christ’s person, bothhumananddivine,thehumannatureparticipatesintheuniversal presence of the divine nature by ‘conjunction’. This gives it a “presence of force and efficacy” and an infinite “possibility of application”.116 The substance of the body and blood of Christ are in heaven only, but on the earth people partake of its “force and efficacy” through “mystical participation”.117 There is no immoderate realist presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, as Hooker argues the case, but there is the possibility of an application of a presence and sacrifice of Christ in force and efficacy in what could be termed a moderate realist sense, by conjunction. Such a conjunction seemingly rests on the infinite power of God. This means that for Hooker the nature of Christ participates in or is instantiated in the Eucharist, both ecclesially and in the elements, by conjunction, both in terms of his presence and his sacrifice. Moderate realist philosophical assumptions underlie Hooker’seucharistic theology.

114 Ibid, II, V, lxxviii, . 115 Ibid, I, V, liv,  and lv, – and II, V, lxvii, . 116 Ibid, I, lvi, . 117 Ibid, II, V, lxvii, –. the period of the reformation 

John Hooper

John Hooper (c. –) was Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester. His writings on the Eucharist deny any alteration or transubstantiation of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.118 He interprets the meaning of the words, Hoc est corpus meum,tobethat: The bread was no more the body, nor the wine his blood, than Christ wasa lamb, as John called him, Ecce agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi,Johni.So, though he said the wine was his blood, and the bread his body, he meant none otherwise but that it represented his body; and he that corporally, with true repentance, did eat of that corporal bread and corporal wine in faith, did eat spiritually Christ’s body and blood.119 Furthermore Hooper argues that the word est has the meaning ‘represents’ or ‘figure’ and does not have the meaning of the Latin verb fit (made). Accordingly Hooper suggests that those who propose the doctrine of transubstantiation interpret Hoc est corpus meum to mean ‘This is made my body’.The view which Hooper supports however has the meaning, ‘This represents my body’. In addition Hooper argues that hoc does notrefertothebreadandwinebuttotheactionofthewholesupper.120 According to Hooper the “body of Christ is only in heaven, and nowhere else”.121 Hooper declares that the ‘one nature’ of Christ is taken out of the world.122 Nature is not seen to be a metaphysical concept but a purely empirical one. He therefore denies any realist understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, since Christ can only be present in heaven. Hooper declares that the witness of Scripture must “let this false imagination of Christ’s body pass, that they speak of to be in the sacrament, . . . be they realists or formalists.”.123 Hooper’s use of the word ‘realist’ may relate to carnal or fleshy ideas of presence and therefore mean ‘immoderate realist’ since his denial of any presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not seem to include any notion of moderate realism. Hooper seems to be advocating a nominalist view of the Eucharist where sign and signified are separated entities without any instantiation of the signified in the sign.

118 John Hooper, Early Writings of John Hooper (ed. S. Carr) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 119 Ibid, p. . 120 Ibid, pp. –. 121 Ibid, p. . 122 Ibid, p. . 123 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

What then is the manner of Christ’s presence according to Hooper? He declares it in these words: Though Christ be absent bodily from his church, yet with his aid, help and consolation, he is present in spirit, which sufficeth until the end of the world, where as we shall see his glorious body indeed really and corporally, that now have but a sign and sacrament thereof, which sufficeth to keep that holy sacrifice in memory, and is profitable, so thatthe christian man may be well instructed what difference is between the sign and the thing represented by the sign, and taketh not the one for the other.124 For Hooper then the sacrament is a sign, but the sign is not linked with the signified or the thing represented (i.e. Christ’sbody and blood). Such separation of sign and signified marks Hooper’s thinking on the Eucharist out as nominalist. In his definition of sign Hooper says: “Asign is a thing subject to the senses, whereby is remembered the thing signified by the sign.”125 It seems though that the sign for Hooper is merely a sign of memory and has no power of mediation. Hooper emphasises his definition and goes on to say: “And whatever virtue be represented by the sign, yet must we judge of the sign according unto the nature of the sign.”126 Further he argues that there can be no sense in which the sign contains within it the thing signified and the reality (the thing signified) is received apart from the sign and the sacrament. The body and blood of Christ can therefore only be received by faith and not by signs and sacraments (that is, in a moderate realist sense). For Hooper: “No sign, inasmuch as it is a sign, can be the sign of the thing meant by the sign. . . . So these signs in the sacraments, because of God’spromise and contractmade with his church, are tokens that God will give the thing signified by the sacraments.”127 GivingbyGodissignifiedinthesacramentsbutthepromisesdonot seem to be given by the sacraments. It is therefore: “The Spirit of God by faith maketh present the fact past, . . . and this sacrament is a memory thereof, and not the thing itself; though it be the manner of the Holy Ghost in the scripture, to call the signs by the name of the thing signified by the sign.”128

124 Ibid, p. . 125 Ibid, p. . 126 Ibid, p. . 127 Ibid, p. . 128 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

The influence of Reformed sacramental theology (especially that of Zwingli) seems apparent in the writings of Hooper. His frequent correspondence with Reformed leaders such as Bullinger, attest to his belief that he favoured their views129 Hooper’s theology of the Eucharist is based on nominalist philosophical assumptions.

129 See Henry Robinson (ed), Original Letters – Relative to the English Refor- mation written during the reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI and Queen Mary, Volumes (Cambridge: Parker Society,  and ).  chapter two

Roger Hutchinson

Roger Hutchinson (d. ) was a fellow of St John’s College Cambridge and later a fellow of Eton College. He argues that Christ’s humanity cannot be in the Eucharist but his divinity is “in all places”.130 How then does Hutchinson see that the body of Christ is received? He argues in this way: You will ask me then, whether we receive Christ’s body? Yea, truly, from heaven, from the right hand of the Father; not out of bread, nor in the bread. For unless we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we shall not dwell inhim;weshallnotriseatthelastday;weshallnothaveeternallife.... When Christ said, ‘This is my body’, he ordained a sacrament, that is, he gave the name of the thing to the sign; so that notwithstanding, the matter, nature, and substance of the sign remaineth: unless the substance remain, the bread is no sacrament. For sacraments, saith St Augustine, are so called of the similitude of those things to which they be sacraments. Take away the matter, the substance, and the nature of bread and wine; and there remaineth no more similitude.131 For Hutchinson the sign is distinguished from the thing signified, and it is only the name of the thing signified that is applied to the sign. This is an expression of nominalism. There is no presence of Christ in the bread and wine since they bear only a ‘similitude’ between these elements and Christ’s body and blood. There is no gift within the bread and wine, yet Christ’s body and blood is received from heaven, by faith. For Hutchinson eating Christ’s body and blood is only a matter of faith. He says: To eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood is to believe that the Son ofGod took on him our humanity; to believe that his body was nailed upon the cross, and that his blood was let forth and shed for the remission of our sins, for our transgressions and offences, and to repose us into his Father’s favour again, who was displeased with us. To teach us this, he calleth himself the bread of God, that came from heaven to give life unto the world: which chapter is a manifest probation of this matter, that his flesh is never eaten, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, but only by belief.132 There is a nominalist distinction in Hutchinson’s work, between the historic death of Christ and any remembrance of that death in the

130 Roger Hutchinson, The Works of Roger Hutchinson (ed. J. Bruce) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), pp. –. 131 Ibid, pp. –. 132 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  elements of the Eucharist. There is no participation of Christ’s body and blood or the effects of his death in the elements, although he does concede aparticipationofChrist’sbodyandbloodinthefaithofthecommunicant in the ministration of the sacrament. Further he says: You shall understand, well-beloved in the Lord, that when we receive Christ in faith, that this receipt joineth and coupleth us effectually and really unto Christ. Not only our hearts and minds, but also our bodies and flesh be purified, be washed, and cleansed by this receipt, so that Christ our head and Lord dwelleth and abideth in us hereby, and nourisheth and feedeth us continually with faith in his blood and with the comfort of hisholySpirit;makinguslively,holy,andverymembersofhismystical body. This is the effect and meaning of Chrysostom’s words, in whichhe affirmeth that we are made the body of Christ really, truly, and effectually.133 For Hutchinson the presence of Christ’s body and blood is not to be found in the bread and wine of the Eucharist but in the faithful. It is this ecclesial dimension which Hutchinson emphasises, together with rational thought, whereby the faithful are joined and coupled with Christ in the sacrament by faith. In this sense alone Hutchinson admits some realist concept, whereby Christ dwells in the faithful, and are made to be Christ’s body, really, truly and effectually. No such realism can be found in Hutchinson’s discussion of the sacrament and the elements of bread and wine. Hutchinson also speaks of similitude and how Christ’s body is present intheEucharist.Hesays: And this similitude declareth very aptly and fitly how his body and blood are present in his holy supper. The body and blood of Christ be in his holy supper, as thy house, with thy garden and other commodities, is in thy lease, which thou hast by the college seal of Eton or of Windsor; or as thy living is in thy patent, which thou has confirmed and ratified with broad seal of England. The words of Christ’s supper be, as it were, a lease or patent. The sacrament is, as it were, his broad seal and his stamp, to certify the weak faith, that God the Father doth love and favour thee, and dwell in thee by the grace of his holy Spirit, for his sake. Thy house and garden be not locally, not really, nor corporally, in thy lease; but effectually and sufficiently for thy profit and commodity. So Christ’s body and blood bein bread and wine.134

133 Ibid, pp. –. 134 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

Christ’s body and blood can be said to be in the Eucharist and even in the bread and wine, but not in any local, real or corporal sense. Christ’s body and blood is in the bread and wine effectually and sufficiently, as property is contained in a lease document, not locally but effectually. Roger Hutchinson’s views on the Eucharist suggest that the philosophical assumptions underlying his theology are based on nominalism. He clearly distinguishes between the sign and the thing signified, without any realist linking, and argues that the body and blood of Christ is not present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, except through the analogy of a lease. There is no suggestion of any moderate realism in Hutchin- son’swritings relating to the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist. There is however, some realism in regard to the body and blood of Christ being present in the faithful and in the church, Christ’s body. the period of the reformation 

John Jewell

John Jewell (–) was Bishop of Salisbury and considered one of the intellectual leaders of the English Reformation135 Jewell preached a sermon at Paul’s Cross in November, , in which he expressed a nominalist separation of the eucharistic signs of bread and wine from the body and blood of Christ. He said: The body of Christ, sitting above all heavens, is worshipped of us, being here beneath in earth. Therefore the priest at the communion, before he enter into the holy mysteries, giveth warning unto the people to mount up with their minds into heaven, and crieth unto them, Sursum corda:Liftup your hearts. . . . The eating thereof and the worshipping must join together. But where we eat it, there must we worship it; therefore must we worship it sitting in heaven. . . . Christ’s body is in heaven: thither therefore must we direct our hearts; there we must feed; there must we refresh ourselves; and there must we worship it.136 Realism for Jewell in regard to eucharistic sacrifice is in relation to the faithful or the eucharistic community being offered up and not in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist or the actions and words of the priest. Jewell expresses realism in regard to the eucharistic sacrifice, butonlyinrelationtotheeucharisticcommunityofthefaithfulasthe sacrament is administered. Jewell says: This sacrifice notwithstanding is revived, and freshly laid out before our eyes, in the ministration of the holy mysteries. . . . by way of a sacrament he is offered every day unto the people, not at Easter only, but every day. . . . For if sacraments had not a certain likeness of the things whereof they be sacraments, then should they indeed be no sacraments. . . . Thus is the sacrifice of Christ’s passion expressed in the holy ministration; and yetnot . . . by any action there done by the priest alone, but by the communion and participation of the people; . . . This sacrifice of Christ on his cross is called the ‘daily sacrifice’ not for that it must be renewed every day, but for that, being once done, it standeth good for all days, and for ever.137 Jewell’s realist sounding language is not meant in any immoderate or fleshy manner. The unbloody sacrifice he states is the sacrifice of prayers and other devotions. He says:

135 F. Cross andE. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 136 John Jewell, Works,  Volumes (ed. J. Ayre) (Cambridge: Parker Society, , , ), I, p. . 137 Ibid, I, p. .  chapter two

For this cause the sacrifices of prayers and other like devotions are called unbloody, for that they require no fleshy service or shedding of blood . . . but are mere ghostly and spiritual, and stand wholly in the lifting up and elevation of the mind. In like manner the ministration of the holy communion is sometimes of the ancient fathers called an ‘unbloody sacrifice’; not in respect of any corporal or fleshy presence that is imagined tobe there without blood-shedding, but for that it representeth and reporteth unto our minds that one and everlasting sacrifice that Christ made in his body upon the cross. . . . This remembrance and oblation of praises and rendering of thanks unto God for our redemption in the blood of Christ is called of the old fathers ‘an unbloody sacrifice’ . . . This kind of sacrifice, because it is mere spiritual, and groweth only from the mind, therefore it needeth not any material altar of stone or timber to be made upon. . . . In these respects our prayers, our praises, our thanksgiving unto God for our salvation is called an unbloody sacrifice.138 Any oblation or offering in the Eucharist is confined to a mental activity and expressed in prayers, praises and thanksgivings. Despite this Jewell argues that the Eucharist does not contain bare signs. He says: We feed not the people of God with bare signs and figures, but teach them that the sacraments of Christ be holy mysteries, and that in the ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified on the cross; and that therein we may behold the remission of our sins, and our reconciliation with God; and as Chrysostom briefly saith, ‘Christ’s great benefit, and our salvation’.Herein we teach the people, not that a naked sign or token, but that Christ’s body and blood indeed and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it; that we verily drink it; that we verily be relieved and live by it; that we are bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh; that Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him. Yet we say not, either that the substance of thebreadandwineisdoneaway;orthatChristisletdownfromheaven, or made really or fleshly present in the sacrament. We are taught according to the doctrine of the old fathers, to lift up our hearts to heaven, and there to feed upon the Lamb of God. . . . Thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, even as verily as his body was verily broken, and his blood verily shed upon the cross. . . . Indeed the bread that we receive with our bodily mouths is an earthly thing, and therefore a figure, . . . but the body of Christ that thereby is represented, and there is offered unto our faith, is the thing itself, andno figure. . . . To conclude, three things we must herein consider: first, that we put a difference between the sign and the thing itself that is signified. Secondly, that we seek Christ above in heaven, and imagine not him to

138 Ibid, II, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

be present bodily upon the earth. Thirdly, that the body of Christ is tobe eaten by faith only, and none otherwise. . . . For we place Christ in the heart, according to the doctrine of St Paul: M. Harding placeth him in the mouth. We say, Christ is only eaten by faith: M. Harding saith, he is eaten with the mouth and the teeth. . . . it be better to use this word ‘figure’ [than] these new-fangled words, ‘really’, ‘corporally’, ‘carnally’ &c.139 Jewell here distinguishes sign and signified and seeminly denies realism. The word ‘ministration’ in the above quote is significant. For Jewell the presence of the Christ in the Eucharist is not in the signs of bread and wine, but in the gathering of the people together to administer and receive the sacrament, that is the ministration. It is in this context that they are joined to Christ and Christ is joined to them, by faith. This occurs not in the earthly Eucharist but in heaven as the communicant seeks the body of Christ above. In denying that the divine nature of Christ is represented or present in any sacraments, Jewell is also denying any realism, in relation to the signs and the signified of the Eucharist. Jewell admits realism in that the faithful are incorporated into Christ and he in them, but denies it as regards the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. He speaksofeatingthebodyofChrist,butonlybyfaith,separatingthesigns and the signified of the Eucharist on the basis of nominalist philosophical assumptions.

139 Ibid, I, pp. –.  chapter two

Alexander Nowell

Alexander Nowell (c. –) was Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, Lon- don and the author of several catechisms140 which expressed eucharistic doctrine. Nowell saw the purpose of the Eucharist as celebrating and retaining a continual thankful remembrance of the Lord’s death and as the means for receiving spiritual benefits.141 He denied that Christ’s body was offered in sacrifice to God in the Eucharist since Christ had commanded his follows to eat his body and not to offer it.142 Despite this Nowell affirmed that the Eucharist “sendeth us to the death of Christ, and to his sacrifice once done upon the cross” so that Christ “by the bread and wine, the signs, is assured unto us, that as the body of Christ was once offered a sacrifice for us . . . and his blood once shed, . . . so now also in his holy supper both are given to the faithful”.143 It seems that the linking of bread and wine with the signified sacrifice is a form of assurance only functioning in some rational way rather than a linking based any realist assumptions. The purpose of the signs is to express an image of Christ’s death more plainly which helps people to understand the significance of Christ’s sacrifice.144 Christ’s body and blood is received by the faithful in the Eucharist but not through any real presence in the signs of the Eucharist. The means for the reception of the body and blood of Christ is faith alone since Nowell says: “that he as surely makes them that believe in him partakers of his body and blood”.145 This partaking is distinguished from any partaking of bread and wine with the mouth and the stomach. Any linking with Christ is by faith as “we lift our souls and hearts from earth, and raise them up by faith to heaven, where Christ is”.146 Nowell specifically denies that there is any change in the bread and wine, rather it is the efficacy of the word of God and heavenly grace which comes tothe bread and wine, such that the receiver of the bread and wine is grafted into the body of Christ.147 Nowell uses the word ‘conjunction’ not in

140 Alexander Nowell, A Catechism written in Latin by Alexander Nowell, Dean of St Paul’s: Together with The Same Catechism translated into English by Thomas Norton (ed. G. Corrie) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ). 141 Ibid, p. . 142 Ibid, p. . 143 Ibid, p. . 144 Ibid, p. . 145 Ibid, p. . 146 Ibid, p. . 147 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  relationtothesignsofbreadandwineandthesignifiedbodyandblood of Christ, as Hooker does, but rather in relation to the faithful receiver and the body and blood of Christ, where the “peculiar manner” by which Christ is given to the faithful is not by “any gross joining” but through the power of God and faith.148 While Nowell distances himself from any immoderate realist presence he bases his analysis of Eucharistic theology on an empirical notion of substance where Christ’s presence can only be physically present in heaven and not on earth in any way. Nowell’s Catechism presents a puzzling mixture of both a receptionist form of realism where the faithful are linked with the body and blood of Christ but a nominalist separation of the signs of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.

148 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

William Perkins

William Perkins (–) was a Puritan theologian.149 Perkins described a sacrament as “not absolutely necessary” and as “a prop and stay for faith to lean on” since it is “only by reason of faith going before it, it doth seal that which before was bestowed upon us”.150 Perkins sees the Eucharist: “not as an instrument having the grace of God tied to it, or shut up in it: but an instrument to which grace is present by assistance in the right use thereof: because in and with the right use of the sacrament, Godconfersgrace;andthisitisaninstrument,andnootherwise,thatis moral and not a physical instrument”.151 It is the use or ministration of the sacrament that confers grace and not thesacramentitself,sincegraceisnottiedtoorpresentinthesacraments, and sacraments therefore only have effect in their performance. This means that the sign and the signified cannot be linked in any realist sense since Perkins says: “The grace and mercy of God is free, and not tied or bound to the outward elements”.152 This does not mean that Perkins denies any real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but he does deny that such presence is associated with the signs of the Eucharist. He says for example: “We differ not touching the presence itself, but only the manner of presence. For though we hold a real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, yet do we not take it to be local, bodily, or substantial, but spiritual and mystical, to be signs by sacramental relation, and to the communicants by faith alone.”153 In the Eucharist then the outward signs and actions are the means whereby the receiver is reminded of the covenant between God and people. Sacraments therefore, such as the Eucharist, help the receiver to ‘understand’ the covenant or as a seal of that covenant procured in the past through the actions of Christ, predestined as grace to the elect by

149 Bryan Spinks notes that there is no modern edition of works by Perkins and so he refers to the three volumes printed by J. Legatt and C. Legge, dated –, as Perkins Works.SeeBryanSpinks,Two Faces of Elizabethan Anglican Theology: Sacraments and Salvation in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker (Lanham, Maryland and London: The Scarecrow Press, ), p. . References to Perkins in this case study will therefore be cited from Spinks’ book. 150 William Perkins, ‘Works’, cited in Bryan Spinks, Two Faces of Elizabethan Anglican Theology: Sacraments and Salvation in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker (Lanham, Maryland and London: The Scarecrow Press, ), p. . 151 Ibid,p.. 152 Ibid,p.. 153 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation 

God. Christ’s grace is not apprehended and received by sacraments, but by the faith of the elect in the past actions of Christ. This does not mean however that the word ‘sacrifice’ cannot be applied to the Eucharist. Indeed Perkins, in referring to the early Church Fathers observes that they used the name sacrifice, “metonymically, because in these oblations there was a representation of that sacrifice that was offered upon the cross, or like a spectacle or show wherein the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood accomplished on the cross, is shown and delineate unto the eyes of the faithful. Described as it were in a table: and in this sense is called Unbloody.” 154 The sacrifice of Christ then is representation only, not linked to signs in any realist sense. Indeed the representation of the sacrifice is a state of mind for the communicant, with Perkins arguing that “when we see the breadbroken,andwinepouredout,wearetomeditateonChrist,that was crucified for us”.155 This meditation has an inward application for the communicant on Christ and not on the Eucharist or the elements. Perkins saw three meanings for the term ‘the body of Christ’,since he argued: “The body of Christ in the Fathers’ writing, is threefold; Real,that is, the body assumed: Mystical,theChurch:Sacramental, the bread in the supper.ThebodyofChristtakenfromthealtarisafigure,ifweviewthe outward forms of bread and wine: but the truth, when we believe the body and blood of Christ to be truly there within.”156 Christ’s real body was assumed to be in heaven, yet mystically it was the church and sacramentally it was the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Outwardly it was only a figure, but by belief, Christ’s body and blood is truly present. The presence of Christ however, is related to faith, and not to the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Even though Perkins was able to say that “We hold and believe a presenceof Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the Lord’sSupper”157 he does not seem to mean this in a realist sense, since he goes on to say: we hold and teach that Christ’s body and blood, are truly present with the bread and wine, being signs in the sacrament: but how? Not in respect of place or coexistence: but by Sacramental relation on this manner. When a word is uttered, the sound comes to the ear; and at the same instant, the thing signified comes to the mind; and thus by relation the word and the

154 Ibid,p.. 155 Ibid,p.. 156 Ibid,p.. 157 Ibid,p..  chapter two

thing spoken of, are both present together. Even so at the Lord’s table bread and wine must not be considered barely, as substances and creatures, but as outward signs in relation to the body and blood of Christ.158 For Perkins, the bread and wine are more than ordinary bread and wine, but they are not identified with the body and blood in any realist sense. Even though he says that ‘Christ’sbody and blood, are truly present with the bread and wine’ he does not seem to mean this is any realist sense. Hiswords,‘tothemind’areimportantsincetheyconfirmthenominalist separation of bread/wine and body/blood. In fact Perkins makes this clear in saying, “when the elements of bread and wine are present to the hand and to the mouth of the receiver, at the very same time the body and blood of Christ are represented to the mind: thus and no otherwise is Christ truly present with the signs”.159 Real presence is for Perkins a heavenly thing, obtained by lifting the heart and mind heavenward and not associated in any real way with the outward signs of the Eucharist.160 Perkins eucharistic theology is based on a nominalist philosophical assumptions where there is a separation of sign and signified.

158 Ibid, pp. –. 159 Ibid,p.. 160 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation 

Edwin Sandys

Edwin Sandys (c. –) was Archbishop of York and speaks of the Eucharist in his sermons.161 Sandys taught that in the Eucharist there was a visible sign and invisible grace. The visible sacramental sign was the bread and wine and the thing or matter signified was the body and blood of Christ. The sign was an earthly matter and the signified was a spiritual heavenly matter. All who received communion received the visible sign but only the faithful received the heavenly and spiritual matter which feeds the soul. The natural body and blood of Christ was only in heaven and not on any table on earth. The bread and wine nourish the body but the heavenly and spiritual body and blood of Christ nourish the soul of the faithful communicant.162 The purpose of the bread and wine were to declare to the faithful a mystical participation in the body and blood of Christ. Sandys explains this by saying: In the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord our corporal tasting of the visible elements bread and wine showeth the heavenly nourishing of our souls unto life by the mystical participation of the glorious body and blood of Christ. For inasmuch as He saith of one of these sacred elements, ‘This is My body which is given for you’, and of the other, ‘This is my blood’, He giveth us plainly to understand that all the graces which may flow from the body and blood of Christ Jesus are in a mystery here not represented only but presented unto us. So then, although we see nothing, feel and taste nothing, but bread and wine, nevertheless let us not doubt at all that He spiritually performeth that which He doth declare and promise by His visible and outward signs; that is to say, that in this Sacrament there is offered unto the Church that very true and heavenly bread which feedeth and nourisheth us unto life eternal, that sacred blood which will cleanse us from sin and make us pure in the day of trial. Again, in that He saith, ‘Take, eat: drink ye all of this’,He evidently declareth that His body and blood are by this Sacrament assured to be no less ours than His, He being incorporate into us, and as it were made one with us. That He became Man, it was for our sake: for our behoof and benefit He suffered: for us He rose again: for us He ascended into heaven; and finally He will come again in judgment. And thus hath He made Himself all ours; ours His passions, ours His merits, our His victory, ours His glory; and therefore He giveth Himself and all His in this Sacrament wholly unto us. The reason and course whereof is this. In His word He hath promised and certified us of remission of sins, in

161 Edwin Sandys, The Sermons of Edwin Sandys (ed. J. Ayre) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ). 162 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

His death; of righteousness, in His merits; of life, in His resurrection; and in His ascension, of heavenly and everlasting glory. This promise we take hold of by faith, which is the instrument of our salvation; but because our faithisweakandstaggeringthroughthefrailtyofourmortalflesh,Hehath given us this visible Sacrament as a seal and sure pledge of His irrevocable promise, for more assurance and confirmation of our feeble faith. . . . To bear our infirmity, and to make us more secure of His promise, to His writing and word He added these outward signs and seals, to establish our faith, and to certify us that His promise is most certain. He giveth us therefore these holy and visible signs of bread and wine, and saith, ‘Take and eat, this is My body and blood’,giving unto the signs the names which are proper to the things signified by them; as we use to do even in common speech, when the sign is a lively representation and image of the thing.163 Sandys speaks here in realist terms of ‘the mystical participation of the body and blood of Christ’. It is the corporal tasting of the bread and wine that shows the heavenly nourishment of the soul by this mystical participation. He goes on to say that the grace of Christ’s body and blood are mysteriously not only represented but presented. The ‘presentation’ however, does not appear to be in the bread and wine, since they serve the function of assuring the faithful that Christ’s body and blood are incorporate in them. The presentation is in the incorporation of the faithful into Christ and he in them. ‘Participation’ appears to mean that Christ participates in the faithful and that they participate in him, but that this is a spiritual experience through faith. There seems to be no sense in which ‘participation’ means that the body and blood of Christ, in either an immoderate or moderate realist sense, participates in the bread and wine of the Eucharist as an instantiation. The Eucharist is therefore an assurance of the incorporation into Christ and a visible seal and pledge of Christ’s promise to the faithful. The signs can therefore only have the names body and blood attached to them in the sense that they represent or are an image of the thing, that is, Christ’s body and blood. As such the bread and wine cannot be or instantiate the nature of Christ since they function only as a means of allowing people who are weak in faith to have something concrete to consider as a seal and pledge of the real participation which is a spiritual and heavenly matter. Concerning the linking between signs of bread and wine and the signified body and blood of Christ Sandys is a nominalist, however there are realist links in his theology concerning the presence of Christ in the faithful.

163 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

Edmund Grindal

Edmund Grindal (c. –) was the Archbishop of Canterbury from . In a work entitled Fruitful Dialogue between Custom and Verity,164 Grindal says concerning the Eucharist. It is not strange, nor a thing unwont in the Scriptures, to call one thing by another’s name. So that you can no more of necessity enforce the changing of the bread into Christ’s body in the Sacrament because the words be plain, ‘This is My body’, than the wife’s flesh to be the natural andreal body and flesh of the husband because it is written, ‘They are not two, but one flesh’, or the altar of stone to be very God because Moses with evident and plain words pronounced it to be ‘The mighty God of Israel’ . . . Nothing is done in remembrance of itself. But the Sacrament is used in the remembrance of Christ. Therefore the Sacrament is not Christ. Christ never devoured himself. Christ did eat the sacrament with His Apostles. Ergo, the Sacrament is not Christ himself.165 In the following passage Grindal emphasises that the receiving and taking of the body of Christ must be by faith. The receiving and taking is a heavenly experience, with the language used in relation to the ‘springing’ up to heaven being very realist sounding. The communicant is bid- den to leave the world below and to ‘creep into his wounds’ and then to ‘suck the blood’ of Christ. All this is described as ‘spiritual’ but ‘true eating’. This rising heavenward and eating spiritually is very much sim- ilartothewritingsofCranmer.Thesacramentisveryearthlyandthe eating is very heavenly and spiritual and yet realist sounding. Grindal says: Whereas I say that Christ’s body must be received and taken with faith, I mean not that you shall pluck down Christ from heaven and put Him in your faith as in a visible place; but that you must with your faith rise and spring up to Him, and leaving this world dwell above in heaven, putting all your trust, comfort, and consolation in Him which suffered grievous bondage to set you at liberty and to make you free, creeping into His wounds, which were so cruelly pierced and dented for your sake. So shall you feed on the body of Christ; so shall you suck the blood that was poured out and shed for you. This is the spiritual, the very true, the one eating of Christ’s body.166

164 Edmund Grindal, The Remains of Edmund Grindal (ed. W.Nicholson) (Cambridge: Parker Society, ). 165 Ibid, pp. –. 166 Ibid,p..  chapter two

The sacrament cannot be the body of Christ for Grindal since the body of Christ is in heaven. As such it can only be in one place, that is heaven, and not on many altars. The body of Christ is an empirical concept for Grindal, present only in heaven and not present in any metaphysical sense of a real presence of Christ in the sacrament. The philosophical assumptions underlying Grindal’s eucharistic theology are those of nominalism since there is a clear separation of sign andsignifiedintomutuallyexclusiveentities. the period of the reformation 

The Black Rubric

In the  Book of Common Prayer a ‘Declaration on Kneeling’, commonly called ‘The Black Rubric’, is found at the end of the Eucharist.167 This declaration, printed in black instead of the usual red for rubrics, was inserted as the  BCP was being printed and was an attempt, by persons unknown, without the authority of Parliament, to deny any connection between kneeling and the corporal presence of Christ in the sacramental elements of bread and wine.168 Averythoroughanalysisof the history of the insertion of the Declaration can be found in Mac- Culloch.169 MacCulloch argues strongly that Cranmer was vehemently opposed to the insertion but was unable to prevent its inclusion in BCP (). The  Declaration read, in part, in relation to kneeling at the time of receiving the bread and wine: “Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine thereby bodily received, or to any real and essential presence, there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood.”.170 The Declaration on Kneeling was significantly altered in BCP (). This was done it seems, to avoid any confusion between the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the one hand and the doctrine of transubstantiation on the other.171 Transubstantiation is specifically rejected by the Thirty Nine Articles (Article XXVIII), however, there is no specific rejection of the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist, where there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, as could be inferred by the words ‘real and essential presence’ in the Declaration. In BCP () the Declaration therefore became in part: “yet, lest the same kneeling should

167 John Ketley (ed), The Two Liturgies A.D. and A.D.: with other Documents set forth by authority in the Reign of King Edward VI, viz The Order of Communion, ; The Primer, ; The Catechism and Articles, ; and Catechismus Brevis,  (Cambridge: The Parker Society, ), p. . 168 John Blunt, The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Being an Historical, Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional System of the Church of England (London: Longmans, Green and Company, ), p. . 169 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ), pp. –. 170 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 171 Frederick Proctor and Walter Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London: Macmillan, ), p. .  chapter two by any persons either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, 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.”.172 Significantly the words ‘real and essential presence’ in BCP () were changed to ‘corporal presence’ in BCP (). Some argue that the change is merely verbal, and not theological, since the words ‘real and essential’ were no longer properly understood and could be misconstrued to mean the denial of any true form or presence.173 Others however, argue more forcefully for the change in wording as indicating an affirmation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.174 The achievement of the framers of BCP () in changing the wording from ‘real and essential presence’ to ‘corporal presence’ was that they maintained the protest against transubstantiation, whilst at the same time removing any risk of the Declaration on Kneeling being misconstrued as a denial of the real presence. Any continued use of ‘real and essential’ would have been misconstrued into a denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist per se. ‘Corporal’ makes it clear that material body (immoderate realism) is meant to be excluded and that this is distinguished from a real and spiritual presence (moderate realism). If ‘real and essential’ is maintained in the Black Rubric then moderate realism is excluded as a way of describing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. By replacing ‘real and essential’ with ‘corporal’, immoderate realism is excluded as a way of describing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist but moderate realism seemingly is

172  Book of Common Prayer, The Declaration on Kneeling or The Black Rubric. 173 J. Tomlinson, The Prayer Book Articles and Homilies: Some Forgotten Facts in their History which may decide their interpretation (London: Elliot Stock, ), p. . 174 See C. Wheatly, Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: being the substance of every thing liturgical in Bishop Sparrow, Mr L’Estrange, Dr Comber, Dr Nichols, and all former ritualists, commentators, and others, upon the same subject (London: Bell and Daldy, ), pp. –; L. Pullan, The History of the Book of Common Prayer (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. ; J. Blunt, The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Being an Historical, Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional System of the Church of England (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. ; E. Daniel, The Prayer Book. Its History, Language and Contents (London: Wells Gardner, Darton and Co, ), pp. –; Harford et al., The Prayer Book Dictionary (London: Pitman, ), p.  and C. Neil and J. Willoughby, The Tutorial Prayer Book (London: The Harrison Trust, ), pp. –. the period of the reformation  not. The fact that this change was made suggests that a realist conception is inferred in the BCP () and that such realism was to the moderate degree and the philosophical assumptions of the framers of the  BCP.  chapter two

Lancelot Andrewes

Lancelot Andrewes (–) was Bishop of Winchester and is described as “the progenitor of the High Church tradition and its guiding spirit”175 with many later Anglican theologians being nurtured in the tradition of Andrewes (e.g. Bramhall, Cosin and Thorndike). Andrewes worshipped using a rich array of signs and symbols, such as silks, candles, incense, mixed chalice, copes and ornamented prayer books176 and this not only represented a distinct departure from the earlier practice of the Reformation period, which following the pattern of the  BCP was usually plain, but suggested a more definite realist link between signs and what they signified. In this sense Andrewes was an innovator, even though the expression of realist eucharistic theology in Anglicanism seems not to begin with Andrewes, as there is a muted realism in some of the Anglican theologians of the early Reformation period (e.g. Ridley, Latimer and Bradford) and a more distinct realism in others (e.g. Hooker and the Black Rubric). Andrewes’ writings make frequent mention of the Eucharist and moderate realism is seemingly the basis of his eucharistic theology. For Andrewes the principle behind the incarnation is the same principle to be found in the Eucharist. The divine nature participates in the signs of the Eucharist just as the divine nature participates in the incarnate Jesus. In the Eucharist Andrewes sees both a presence of Christ and a gift, and that presence and gift is Christ himself, which stands in direct relationship to the presence and gift of Christ, the incarnate. He argues his case in this way: Of the Sacrament we may well say, Hoc erit signum.Forasignitis,and by it invenietis Puerum, ‘ye shall find this Child’ [Luke : ]. For finding His flesh and blood, ye cannot miss but find Him too. And a sign, not much from this here. For Christ in the Sacrament is not altogether unlike Christ in the cratch [cradle or manger]. To the cratch we may well liken the husk or outward symbols of it. Outwardly it seems little worth, but it is rich of contents, as was the crib this day [the sermon was preached on Christmas Day] with Christ in it. For what are they but infirma et egena

175 William Crockett, Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation (New York: Pueblo, ), p. . 176 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England. Book . I From Cranmer to Hooker, – and II From Andrewes to Baxter and Fox, – (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

elementa, ‘weak and poor elements’ [Galatians : ] of themselves? Yet in them find we Christ. Even as they did this day in praesepi iumentorum panem angelorum, ‘in the beast’s crib the food of angels’, which very food our signs both represent and present unto us.177 Andrewes speaks of the gift being in the elements and of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist being like Christ in the manger. The signs of bread and wine in the Eucharist not only represent the presence of Christ but present Christ to the communicant. This moderate realist view is again expressed by Andrewes in these words: For as there is a recapitulation of all in heaven and earth in Christ, so there is a recapitulation of all in Christ in the Holy Sacrament. You may see it clearly: there is in Christ the Word eternal for things of heaven; there is also flesh for things of earth. Semblably, the Sacrament consisteth ofa heavenly and a terrene part (it is Irenaeus’ own words); the heavenly— there the word too, the abstract of the other; the earthly—the element. . . . The gathering or vintage of these two in the blessed Eucharist is as Imaysay a kind of hypostatical union of the sign and the thing signified, so united together as are the two natures of Christ. . . . That even as in the Eucharist neither part is evacuate or turned into the other, but abide each still in his former nature and substance, no more is either of Christ’s natures annulled, or one of them converted into the other . . . but each nature remaineth still full and whole in its own kind. And backwards; as the two natures in Christ, so the signum and signatum in the Sacrament, econverso.178 Andrewes denies any immoderate realism, since he insists that the heavenly part of the Eucharist (Christ’s body and blood) and the earthly part (the bread and wine) remain in their own natures without any evacua- tion or conversion of substance. At the same time however, he affirms a moderate realism using the language of the hypostatical union of Christ’s natures, human and divine. He also is therefore denying any form of transubstantiation. The signs (the bread and wine) and the things signified (the body and blood of Christ) are therefore seen to be united as the two natures of Christ, human and divine, are united. It is the uniting of the sign and the signified, together with the earlier use of the word ‘participation’, that suggests that moderate realism is the basis for Andrewes argument.

177 Lancelot Andrewes, Works,  Volumes (ed. J. Wilson and J. Bliss) (Oxford: Parker, –), I, p. . 178 Ibid, I, pp. –.  chapter two

In Andrewes’ book of private devotions, The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes179 Andrewes includes prayers for use at the Eucharist.180 In the prayer called An Act of Preparation, Andrewes prays in realist terms that the Lord will allow him “to the touch and partaking of the immaculate, awful, quickening and saving mysteries of thine allholy Body and precious blood.”.181 AttheoffertoryhepraysthattheLordwill,fromheaven, “come to hallow us. Thou that sittest on high with the Father, and art here with us invisibly, come to hallow the gifts that are set forth, and them for whom and them by whom and the ends whereunto they are brought.”.182 At the consecration Andrewes prays: “we beseech Thee, O Lord, that with the witness of our conscience clean, receiving our share of thy hallowed things, we may be united to the holy body and blood of thy Christ, and receiving them not unworthily may have Christ indwelling in our hearts.”.183 The bread and wine are seen to be hallowed and the communicant is seen to be united to the body and blood of Christ in a realist sense, but this is in no way in an immoderate sense of realism, since the indwelling of Christ is in the heart of the communicant. Andrewes in his Response to Cardinal Bellarmine argues against Bel- larmine (–), speaking of the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, but not willing to be drawn on the manner of that presence. He does however reject the doctrine of transubstantiation since he argues witness to it cannot be found in the Scriptures. He also affirms that the presence of Christ, not the sacrament, is to be worshipped in the Eucharist. He says: Christsaid,‘ThisisMybody’.Hedidnotsay,‘ThisisMybodyinthisway’. We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the ‘This’, we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the ‘this is in this way’ (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By transition there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith. . . . We

179 Lancelot Andrewes, The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester (ed. F. Brightman) (London: Methuen, ). 180 Ibid, pp. –. 181 Ibid, p. . 182 Ibid, p. . 183 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

believe no less than you that the presence is real. Concerning the method of the presence, we define nothing rashly, and, I add, we do not anxiously inquire, any more than how the blood of Christ washes us in Baptism, any more than how the human and divine natures are united in one Person in the Incarnation of Christ.184 Andrewes rejects transubstantiation, arguing that evidence for it cannot be found in the first  years of the Church. Andrewes does not however deny that the elements are changed, but he does deny that there is a change in substance of the elements. Speaking of early authorities he says: “But there is no mention there of a change in the substance, or of the substance. But neither do we deny in this matter the preposition trans; and we allow that the elements are changed (transmutari). But a change in substance we look for, and we find it nowhere.”185 The way in which the change is brought about, argues Andrewes, is through the power of God. Andrewes explains this as follows: At the coming of the almighty power of the Word, the nature is changed so that what before was the mere element now becomes a divine Sacrament, the substance nevertheless remaining what it was before . . . There is that kind of union between the visible Sacrament and the invisible reality (rem) of the Sacrament which there is between the manhood and the Godhead of Christ, where unless you want to smack of Eutyches, the manhood is not transubstantiated into the Godhead.186 Andrewes is arguing that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a kind of hypostatical union between the visible and the invisible, in the same way that the manhood and the Godhead of Christ is united. There is a change in ‘nature’ such that the reality of the sacrament, as Andrewes calls it, that is the nature of Christ, is united to the visible elements and as such they become divine, not in a fleshy or immoderate manner, but inthemannerofmoderaterealism. This does not mean however that for Andrewes there is any argument being advanced that the communicant adores the sacrament. He says concerning Cardinal Bellarmine’s question about whether the Anglicans adore the sacrament: About ‘the adoration of the sacrament’ he stumbles badly at the very threshold. He says, ‘of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ the Lord present by a wonderful but real way in the Sacrament’. Away with this. Who will

184 Andrewes, Works, VIII, p. . 185 Ibid, VIII, p. . 186 Ibid, VIII, p. .  chapter two

allow him this? ‘Of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ in the Sacrament’. Surely, Christ Himself, the reality (res) of the Sacrament, in and with the Sacrament, outside and without the Sacrament, wherever He is, is to be adored. Now the king laid down that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and is really to be adored, that is, the reality (rem)ofthe Sacrament, but not the Sacrament, that is, the ‘earthly part’, as Irenaeus says, the ‘visible’, as Augustine says. We also, like Ambrose, ‘adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries’,and yet not it but Him who is worshipped on the altar. For the Cardinal puts his question badly, ‘What is there worshipped’, since he ought to ask, ‘Who’, as Nazianzen says, ‘Him’, not ‘it’. And. Like Augustine, we ‘do not eat the flesh without first adoring’. And we none of us adore the Sacrament.187 Andrewes believes that Christ is adored in the Eucharist, but at the same time he is clear that the sacrament is not adored. It is Christ that is the reality of the sacrament. In no way can the sacrament be the reality even though Christ, as the reality, is in and with the sacramental elements. In regard to the eucharistic sacrifice Andrewes also makes comment in his Sermons.Hesaysforexample: Many among us fancy only a Sacrament in this action, and look strange at the mention of a sacrifice, whereas we not only use it as a nourishment spiritual, as that it is too, but as a means also to renew a ‘covenant’ with God by virtue of that ‘sacrifice’, as the psalmist speakest. So our Saviour Christ in the institution telleth us, in the twenty-second chapter of Luke and twentieth verse, and the Apostle, in the thirteenth chapter of Hebrews andtenthverse.Andtheoldwritersusenolessthewordsacrificethan Sacrament, altar than table, offer than eat; but both indifferently, to show there is both.188 The eucharistic sacrifice has the function of renewing the covenant in the present. The words ‘sacrifice’,‘altar’ and ‘offer’ therefore, are appropriate to theEucharist,notinanyimmoderatesenseofrealismwherethehistoric sacrifice is re-enacted, but in the moderate realist sense, where the effect ofthepastsacrificeisrenewedinthepresent. The eucharistic sacrifice for Andrewes is more than mere remembering or a verbal description, since the symbols of bread and wine are the means for the renewing of the covenant and can therefore be described as an immolation in the moderate sense of realism. The actual

187 Ibid, VIII, pp. –. 188 Ibid, V, pp. –. the period of the reformation  sacrifice occurred only once, that is at Calvary, but in the Eucharist there is a continual showing forth of that once only sacrifice. For Andrewes the language of sacrifice can therefore be applied to the Eucharist in the sense of moderate realism. This is expressed by Andrewes in this extended passage: Two things Christ there gave us in charge: . νμνησις ‘remembering’, and . λ ψις ‘receiving’.The same two St Paul, but in other terms, . καταγ- γελλα ‘showing forth’; . κινωνα ‘communicating’. Of which, ‘remembering’ and ‘showing forth’ refer to celebremus, ‘receiving’ and ‘communicating’ to epulemur here [Corinthians : ]. The first, in remembrance of Him, Christ. What of Him? Mortem Domini, His death, saith St Paul, ‘to show forth the Lord’s death’ [Corinthians : ]. Remember Him. That we will and stay at home, think of Him there. Nay, it must be hoc facite. It is not mental thinking or verbal speaking, there must be actually somewhat done to celebrate this memory. That done to the holy symbols that was done to Him, to His body and blood in the Passover; break the one, pour out the other, to represent κλμενν, how His sacred body was ‘broken’, and κυμενν, how His precious blood was ‘shed’. And in corpus fractum and sanguis fusus there is immolatus. This is it in the Eucharist that answereth to the sacrifice of the Passover, the memorial to the figure. To them it was, hoc facite in Mei praefigurationem, ‘do this in prefiguration of Me’: to us it is, ‘do this in commemoration of Me.’ [Luke : ; Corinthians : ]. To them prenuntiare,tousannuntiare;thereisthe difference. By the same rules that theirs was, by the same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech, neither of them; for to speak after the exact manner of divinity, there is but one sacrifice, veri nominis,‘properly so called’, that is, Christ’s death. And that sacrifice but once actually performed at His death, but ever before represented in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated in memory, to the world’s end. The only absolute, all else relative to it, representative of it, operative by it. The Lamb, but once actually slain in the fulness of time, but virtually was from the beginning, is and shall be to the end of the world. That the centre, in which their lines and ours, their types and our antitypes do meet. While yet this offering was not, the hope of it was kept alive by the prefiguration of it in theirs. And after it is past, the memory of it is still kept fresh in mind by the commemoration of it in ours. So it is the will of God, that so there might be with them a continual foreshadowing, and with us a continual showing forth, the ‘Lord’s death till he come again’. Hence it is that what names theirs carried, ours do the like, and the fathers make no scruple at it; no more need we. The Apostle in the tenth chapter compareth this of ours to the immolata of the heathen [Corinthians : ]; and to the Hebrews habemus aram, [Hebrews : ] matcheth it with the sacrifice of the Jews. And we know the rule of comparisons, they must be eiusdem generis. ... From the Sacrament is the applying the Sacrifice. The Sacrifice in general, pro omnibus. The Sacrament in particular, to each several receiver, pro  chapter two

singulis. Wherein that is offered to us that was offered for us; that whichis common to all, made proper to each one, while each taketh his part of it; and made proper by a communion and union, like that of meat and drink, which is most nearly and inwardly made ours, and inseparable for ever.189 This extended and complex passage makes the case for moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist. The sacrifice of Christ is not known in the present as a purely mental activity but is known through the actions associated with the Eucharist (the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine). According to such a sacramental principle, things of this world such as bread and wine, make known the Lord’s death, where the sacrament applies the sacrifice. The idea of eucharistic sacrifice is also picked up in Andrewes private devotions where he prays: “For we have held the remembrance of thy death, we have seen the figure of thy resurrection, we have been filled with thine unending life, we have had the fruition of thine inexhaustible delight”.190 The sacrifice, once offered is held in remembrance in the Eucharist and the life of Christ is given to those who receive the sacrament, the power ofthesacrificebeinginexhaustible. Andrewes’ theology of the Eucharist is founded on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.

189 Ibid, II, pp. –. 190 Andrewes, Preces Privatae, p. . the period of the reformation 

Lewis Bayly

Lewis Bayly (d. ) was the Bishop of Bangor. In a work entitled The Practice of Piety,191 Bayly devoted much space to the Holy Communion. In this work Bayly says that: “Christ in the action of the Sacrament, really giveth His very body and blood to every faithful receiver”.192 He presents a receptionist doctrine, saying that “in the same instant of time that the worthy receiver eats with his mouth the bread and wine of the Lord, he eateth also with the mouth of his faith the very body and blood of Christ. Not that Christ is brought down from heaven to the Sacrament, but that theHolySpiritbytheSacramentliftsuphisminduntoChrist.”193 Bayly’s view is described as “a more definitely Receptionist view”.194 Christ is in the Sacrament but in its use only, not in the elements. He sees a distinct distance between the signs of bread and wine and the signified body and blood of Christ which is in heaven. The reception of the body and blood of Christ is distinguished from the reception of the bread and wine. Christ is not ‘brought down from heaven to the Sacrament’,rather ‘the Holy Spirit by the Sacrament lifts up his mind unto Christ’. This is a nominalist separation of entities in relation to the earthly Eucharist, where the bread and wine are on earth and the body and blood of Christ areinheavenandanyrealismisrestrictedtoalinkingofthebodyand blood of Christ and the reception of the elements which occurs by the lifting of the mind to heaven. There is no instantiation of the nature ofthe body and blood of Christ in the elements in a moderate realist manner, and the signified body and blood remains at a distance from and separate from the signs of bread and wine until the moment of reception. Bayly argues that there is no change in the elements, saying: “The Divine Words of Blessing do not change or annihilate the substance of the Bread and Wine; (for if their Substance did not remain, it could be not Sacrament) but it changeth them in use and in name: For that which was before but common Bread and Wine, to nourish Men’s Bodies; is after the Blessing destinated to an holy use, for the feeding of the Souls of Christians.”195

191 Lewis Bayly, The Practice of Piety: Directing a Christian how to walk, that he may please God (London: Daniel Midwinter, ). 192 Ibid, p. . 193 Ibid, p. . 194 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. . 195 Bayly, The Practice of Piety, p. .  chapter two

Any change related to the Eucharist is seen by Bayly to concern those who receive the Sacrament. For Bayly the mystery of the eucharist is chiefly in the change it brings about in the lives of those who, through grace, seek “to lodge so blessed a Guest in so unclean a stable”.196 Bayly argues: Not that Christ is brought down from Heaven to the Sacrament, but that the holy Spirit by the Sacrament, lifts up his mind unto Christ; not byany local mutation, but by a devout affection; so that in the holy contemplation of the faith, he is at that present with Christ, and Christ with him. And thus believing and meditating how Christ his Body was crucified; and his precious Blood shed for the remission of his sins, and the reconciliation of is soul unto God; his soul is hereby more effectively fed in the assurance of eternal life, than bread and wine can nourish his body to this temporal life.197 This view of change in the receiver seems to accord with some of the views of the early Reformers, such as Cranmer. Lewis Bayly’s eucharistic theology seems to be firmly placed within a nominalist framework in relation to any link between the signs of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ in the earthly Eucharist since sign and signified are separate, self enclosed entities, however his receptionist doctrine implies a realist linking between the moment of reception and Christ’s body and blood as the mind is lifted to heaven.

196 Ibid, p. . 197 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

John Bramhall

John Bramhall (–) was Archbishop of Armagh (Ireland). His eucharistic theology is mainly set out in his  Answer to de la Mil- letiere which was later published as part of his Works.198 Regarding transubstantiation he spoke in adversarial disputation with de la Milletiere, saying: I find not one of your arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation, but only to a true real presence, which no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny, no, nor your adversary himself. Christ said, ‘This is My body’; what He said, we do steadfastly believe. He said not, after this or that manner, neque con neque sub neque trans. And therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the articles of faith.199 Bramhall in suggesting that he cannot find an argument in favour of transubstantiation, only real presence, is still willing to concede that transubstantiation is one of the theories to explain what happens in the Eucharist (i.e. ‘among the opinions of the school’) even though he himself does not subscribe to it. Transubstantiation is a theory of moderate realism therefore, but he is not willing to concede that transubstantiation is among the articles of faith. In relation to the elements of the Eucharist, Bramhall says: “We deny not a venerable respect unto the consecrate elements not only as love- tokens sent by our best Friend but as the instruments ordained by our Saviour to convey to us the merits of His passion.”200 The elements are not only tokens but also instruments whereby the merits of Christ’s passion are conveyed to those who receive them. This is moderate realism, since Bramhall is stating that the material elements are the means for the conveying of the merits of the passion. There is no suggestion of immoderate or fleshy realism, but rather words suggestive of instantiation when he speaks of ‘instruments’ which ‘convey’ the ‘merits’. The merits of Christ’s presence and sacrifice are available in the present by means of these consecrated elements as instruments. Bramhall goes on to say:

198 John Bramhall, Works ( Volumes) (ed. A.W. Haddam) (Oxford: Parker, – ), I, pp. –. 199 Ibid,I,p.. 200 Ibid,I,p..  chapter two

But for the Person of Christ, God forbid that we should deny Him divine worship at any time, and especially in the use of the Holy Sacrament; we believe with St Austin that ‘no man eats of that flesh but first he adores’; but that which offends us is this, that you teach and require all mento adore the very sacrament with divine honour. . . .. We dare not give divine worship unto any creature, no, not to the very humanity of Christ in the abstract (much less to the host), but to the whole Person of Christ, God and Man, by reason of the hypostatical union between the Child of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the eternal Son, ‘who is God over all blessed for ever’. Show us such a union between the deity and the elements or accidents, and you say something. But you pretend no such things. . . . We rest in the words of Christ, ‘This is My body’, leaving the manner to Him that made the Sacrament. We know it is sacramental, and therefore efficacious. Because God was never wanting to His own ordinances, where man did not set a bar against Himself: but whether it be corporeally or spiritually (I mean not only after the manner of a spirit but in a spiritual sense); whether it be in the soul only or in the host as also; and if in the host, whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation; whether by production or addition or conservation or assumption or by whatsoever other way bold and blind men dare conjecture: we determine not.201 Adoration of the whole Christ is what Bramhall sees as appropriate. Worship of the humanity (the fleshy presence of Christ) or to the elements (the host) is not appropriate—only worship to ‘the whole Person of Christ, God and Man’ in the hypostatical union. Bramhall then goes on to suggest that this idea of a hypostatical union is where the divine nature is united with and given by means of the earthly element. This is moderate realism using the notion of instantiation, where the divine is instantiated in the earthly, as Christ was instantiated in the person of Jesus. Bramhall argues that the divine nature of Christ is found in the Eucharist in a union with the elements of bread and wine, and that in this way it is sacramental and efficacious. This union of the divine nature and the elements is expressed in moderate realist assumptions. In relation to eucharistic sacrifice Bramhall considers the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, in that it commemorates and represents the sacrifice ofthe cross, whilst at the same time obtaining and applying the benefits of the passion and death of Christ. Bramhall says: You say we have renounced your sacrifice of the Mass. If the sacrifice of the Mass be the same with the sacrifice of the cross, we attribute more unto it than yourselves; we place our whole hope of salvation in it. If you understand another propitiatory sacrifice distinct from that (as this

201 Ibid, I, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

of the Mass seems to be; for confessedly the priest is not the same, the altar is not the same, the temple is not the same); if you think of any new meritorious satisfaction to God of the sins of the world, or of any new supplement to the merits of Christ’s passion; you must give us leave to renounce your sacrifice indeed, and to adhere to the Apostle, ‘Byone offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (Hebrews : ). Surely you cannot think that Christ did actually sacrifice Himself at the Last Supper (for then He had redeemed the world at His Last Supper; then His subsequent sacrifice upon the cross had been superfluous); nor that the priest now doth more than Christ did then. We do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical sacrifice of prayers and praises: we profess a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross: . . . we acknowledge a representation of that sacrifice to God the Father: we acknowledge impetration of the benefit of it: we maintain an application of its virtue: so here is a commemorative, impetrative, applicative sacrifice. Speak distinctly, and I cannot understand what you can desire more. To make it a suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects of the only true sacrifice of the cross, I hope both you andI abhor.202 Bramhall here denies any concept of immoderate realism or re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross but nonetheless allows a eucharistic sacrifice. The sacrifice of the Eucharist is not a propitiatory sacrifice, being distinct from the sacrifice of the cross. The eucharistic sacrifice does notfor Bramhall, supplement the sacrifice of the cross. Rather the eucharistic sacrifice is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, whereby that sacrifice is represented in the Eucharist and the benefits of the sacrifice of the cross are received and its virtue applied. This is a statement of memorial remembrance or anamnesis whereby the effects of the once only sacrifice are made present and available (applicative as Bramhall describes it) in the present in the Eucharist. This is again made clear when Bramhall says in a work entitled A Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon’s Survey of the Vindication of the Church of England from Criminous Schism. The eucharistic sacrifice is more than praise and thanksgiving, since Bramhall goes on to say: We acknowledge an eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a commemorative sacrifice, or a memorial of the sacrifice of the cross; a representative sacrifice, or a representation of the passion of Christ before the eyes of His heavenly Father; an impetrative sacrifice, or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of His passion by way of real prayer; and, lastly an applicative sacrifice, or an application of His merits unto our souls.203

202 Ibid, I, pp. –. 203 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two

He also says: We have a meritorious sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of the cross; we have a commemorative and applicative sacrifice, or a commemoration and application of that sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. A suppletory sacrifice, to supply any wants or defects in that sacrifice, he dare not own; and unless he do own it, he saith no more than we say.204 Bramhall’s theology of the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. He denies any immoderate notions of both presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. He maintains that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real and that the benefits of the sacrifice of the cross are available in the Eucharist. In addition Bramhall argues a theology of the Eucharist based on the hypostatical union of the humanity and divinity of Christ. In the same way that the human nature and divine nature of Christ are to be found in the person of Christ, so he argues that there can be a union between the elements of bread and wine and the divine nature of Christ in the Eucharist.

204 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

John Cosin

John Cosin (–) was Bishop of Durham. He seems to have modified his views on the Eucharist over time, lessening the strength of his realist notions, but not abandoning them. Cyril Dugmore describes Cosin as moving from high church beliefs to more central church beliefs.205 In the Articles of Enquiry used in his visitation of the Archdeaconry of East Riding of York in , Cosin, as Archdeacon, asked this question regarding the action of the priest in relation to the consecrated elements of the Eucharist: “Doth he deliver the body and blood of our Lord to every communicant severally.”206 In this question it seems that Cosin considered the body and blood of Christ was given to the communicant in the Eucharist. Since the bread andwinewerethethingsdelivered,itseemsprobabletoconcludethat Cosin meant that the body and blood of Christ were delivered to the communicant in or with the bread and wine and that the assumption behind the question was that of moderate realism. Other evidence suggests that Cosin’s early views on the Eucharist were those of the high church party. Cosin’s defence of Richard Montague’s realist views on the Eucharist207 expressed in Montague’s books, AGagg for the New Gospel? No. A New Gagg for an Old Goose,andAppello Caesarem: A Just Appeal from the Two Unjust Informers208 suggests an association with high church views. Cosin also prepared in  a Book of Hours for the ladies at the Court of Queen Henrietta, that had elements suggesting a high church view of the Eucharist (A Collection of Private Devotions: in the Practice of the Ancient Church, called the Hours of Prayer: as they were after this Manner published by Authority of Queen Elizabeth—).209 Horton Davies210

205 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. . 206 John Cosin, Works, ( volumes) (Oxford: Parker, –), II, p. . 207 Ibid, II, pp. –. 208 See Richard Montague, A Gagg for the New Gospel? No. A New Gagg for an Old Goose and Appello Caesarem: A Just Appeal from the Two Unjust Informers, sections reprinted in D. Stone A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ). 209 Cosin, Works, II, pp, –. 210 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England. Book , I From Cranmer to Hooker, – and II From Andrewes to Baxter and Fox, – (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, ), p. .  chapter two comments that the Collection was both notable and controversial and pointed towards the rapid growth of the high church movement in the Church of England during the early years of the reign of Charles I. As a specific example, the Collection contained a hymn to be used at the consecration in the Eucharist that said in part: Christians are by faith assured That by faith Christ is received, Flesh and blood most precious: What no duller sense conceiveth, Firm and grounded faith believeth, In strange effects not curious. Guided by His sacred orders, Heavenly food upon our altars For our souls we sanctify.211 The hymn strongly suggests the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The language used is moderate realist, suggesting that the presence of Christ in the heavenly food is on the altar and that this is sanctified in the Eucharist. Cosin’s views on the Eucharist seem however, to have moderated from the high church to the central church view while he was in France during the period of the Commonwealth.212 Evidenceforthisisfoundina sermon preached in France on the Sunday after Ascension in  where Cosin speaks of the nature of Christ’spresence after the ascension. In this sermon he says: A cloud came over Him and took Him out of their sight. . . . it parts Christ’s presence clean from us . . . this cloud has taken His bodily and fleshly manner of being here, from among us all. It is His spiritual presence that we must hold to now, and that is as real a presence as any His body or His flesh ever was, or ever can be. . . . by His spirit He can be everywhere, truly and really everywhere, where it pleaseth Him; and so with us.213 Change in Cosin’s thinking is evident here. Earlier Cosin spoke of a real presence strongly associated with the bread and wine in an objective and localised manner, but he seems, in this sermon, to place greater weight on a spiritual real presence and avoids associating the real presence with the elements in a localised and given manner. Both the earlier and later

211 Ibid, II, p. . 212 Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland, p. . 213 Cosin, Works, I, pp. –, . the period of the reformation  period it should be noted are suggestive of a moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however the later period suggests a less localised presence in the elements than the earlier. Cosin wrote in  while in France a work entitled Regni Angliae Reli- gio Catholica. This work was intended to provide a description of the Church of England’s doctrine for those living outside England. In this work Cosin says that the Church of England rejects: “the fable of Tran- substantiation” and “the repeated sacrifice of Christ to be offered daily by each priest for the living and the departed.”214 In describing the Eucharist in the Church of England he says that the ancient ceremonies, prayers and vestments are retained and that when the priest says the Prayer of Consecration he “blesses each symbol, and consecrates them to be the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ” and that the kneeling communicants “adore Christ, not the Sacrament”.The Eucharist is described as “the solemn Eucharist or sacrifice of praise of the Church, offered to God Most High as a commemoration of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ once for all offered on the cross.”215 Immoderate realist notions of presence and sacrifice are rejected but moderate realist notions of a real presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist are affirmed. Horton Davies argues that even though there was some movement in Cosin’sviews, from a high church to a more central church position, there was a desire in him for more than the position of dynamic receptionism allowed. This ‘more’ he suggests is focused on the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice.216 The moderate realist views on eucharistic sacrifice expressed by Cosin in the quotations cited above suggest that this may well be the case. In another work entitled A Paper Concerning the Differences in the ChiefPointsofReligionbetwixttheChurchofRomeandtheChurchof England, not published until , Cosin, in referring to the differences betweentheChurchofRomeandtheChurchofEngland,disagreeswith any view that suggests that in the mass there is a real propitiatory sacrifice and that the whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into Christ’s body and blood.217 When he speaks however of the agreements betweentheChurchofRomeandtheChurchofEngland,Cosinsaysthat the two churches are in accord:

214 Ibid, IV, p. . 215 Ibid, IV, pp. –. 216 Davies, Worship and Theology in England. Book , I From Cranmer to Hooker, –  and II From Andrewes to Baxter and Fox, –, p. . 217 Cosin, Works, IV, p. .  chapter two

In commemorating at the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ’sbody and blood once truly offered for us:

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.218 Cosin is in these differences and agreements, denying immoderate realism in relation to the eucharistic presence and sacrifice and affirming moderate realism in relation to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. He denies that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice but not that there is a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist. He denies the doctrine of transubstantiation but not the doctrine of a spiritual, true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In , while still in France, Cosin wrote a work called Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis. This work was not published until , three years after his death. In this work Cosin presents what he sees asthe doctrine of the Church of England regarding the Eucharist in opposition to that of the Church of Rome. He says: The bread and the cup are in no way changed in substance, or removed, or destroyed; but they are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ for this purpose, that they may most surely serve for the communication of His body and blood. . . . The words both of Christ and of the Apos- tles are to be understood sacramentally and mystically, and no gross or carnal presence of the body and blood can be supported by them. . . . It was the design of Christ to teach not so much what the elements of bread and wine are in their nature and substance as what they are in signification and use and office in this mystery; since not only are the body and blood of Christ most suitably represented by these elements, but also through their instrumentality Christ Himself by His own institution is most really presented (exhibiteatur) to all, and is sacramentally or mystically eaten by the faithful. . . . None of the Protestant Churches doubt the actual (reali), that is, the real (vera) and not imaginary presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; nor is there any reason for suspicion that in this matter they have the smallest degree departed from the Catholic faith. For it is easy to produce the consent of reformed writers and Churches by which it can be most clearly shown to all who have intellects and eyes that they are all most tenacious of this truth and that they have not in any way departed from the ancient and Catholic faith.219

218 Ibid, IV, p. . 219 Ibid, IV, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

In this passage Cosin denies both immoderate realism and transubstantiation, stating that there can be no gross or carnal presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Bread and wine though, following consecration are seen to serve as the communication of Christ’s body and blood. There is no change in the substance of the bread and wine but there is a change in signification, use and office. This change is not just that of representation, but the bread and wine are ‘through their instrumentality Christ Him- self’. In the Eucharist Christ is presented in a sacramental and mystical manner, which is actual and real. It needs to be noted though that Cosin here places emphasis on the signification, use and office of the bread and wine. It is the instrumentality of the elements that he describes as the means of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. There is a movement away from any form of presence in the bread and wine, both in an immoderate and moderate realist sense. In discussing this further Cosin uses the analogy of deeds to an estate to explain how what is locally absent may yet be really and truly given and received. He says: Assume a testator were to deliver from his hand into the hands of his heir title deeds or documents, adding these words, ‘Receive the house which I leave to you’, no one would suppose that paper document to be the very house made of wood or stone, nor yet would anyone think on that account that the testator had spoken obscurely or falsely. Clearly in the same manner Christ delivered to His disciples the sacred symbols, sanctified by His words and prayers, like seals attached to this writings of the New Testament.220 The view expressed here is quite some way from the Articles of Visitation of  cited at the beginning of this case study. Instead of speaking of the body and blood of Christ being delivered to the communicant, Cosin now speaks of sacred symbols being delivered. The level of realism in relation to what is delivered and how it is delivered is lessened, although the gift received is still seen to be the body and blood of Christ. This does not mean that Cosin is arguing for something other than a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist based on moderate realist assumptions since he also says concerning the words of institution that: Those words which Our Blessed Saviour used in the institution ofthe Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, ThisisMyBody,whichisgivenforyou, This is My blood which is shed for you, for the remission of sins,areheld

220 Ibid, IV, p. .  chapter two

and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible; and, if any one dares oppose them, or call in question Christ’s veracity, or the truth of His words, or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a mere figment or bare figure of them, we cannot, and ought not, either excuse or suffer him in our Churches; for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture. And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith, My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed, which, according to St Paul, are both given to us by the consecrated elements. For he calls the bread the communion of Christ’s Body,andthecupthe communion of His Blood.221 CosinisinthispassagearguingforarealpresenceofChrist’sbodyand blood given by the consecrated elements, but this seems more related to their use than to any objective presence of Christ in them. The elements are more than ‘a mere figment or bare figure’, and the body and blood of Christ is seen to be ‘given’ to the communicant in the bread and wine following consecration and the recitation of Christ’s words of institution. It is the manner of this presence that is crucial here. The question that needs to be asked then is what is the nature ofthe flesh that is presented in the Eucharist. The following quotation seems to addressthisquestion. The reformed Churches place the constitution (formam)ofthisSacrament in the union of the sign with the thing signified, that is, the presenting (exhibitione) of the body and blood of Christ, the bread remaining bread and being dedicated to sacramental uses, whereby these two so become one by the appointment of God that, although this union is not natural or substantial or personal or local (by the one being in the other), yet it is so well adjusted (concinna) and real that in the eating of the consecrated bread the real body of Christ is given to us, and the names of the sign and of the thing signified are reciprocally changed, and what is of the body is attributed to the bread, and what is of the bread is attributed to the body, and they are together in time, though separated in place. For the presence of the body of Christ in this mystery is opposed not to distance but to absence; and absence, not distance, prevents the use and enjoyment of the object. Hence it is clear that the present controversy between the reformed and the papists can be reduced to four heads: first, concerning the signs; secondly, concerning the thing signified; thirdly, concerning the union of the signs and the things; fourthly, concerning the participation in them. As to the first, we differ from them, because they make the accidents only tobe the signs, while we regard the substance of bread and wine as the signs in

221 Ibid, IV, p. . the period of the reformation 

accordance with the nature of Sacraments and the teaching of Scripture. As to the second, we do not say that which they through misunderstanding our opinion ascribe to us. For we do not say that only the merits of the death of Christ are signified by the consecrated symbols, but that the real body itself which was crucified for us, and the real blood itself which was shed for us, are both represented and offered, so that our minds may enjoy Christ no less certainly and really than we see and receive and eat and drink the bodily and visible signs themselves. As to the third, since the thing signified is offered and presented (exhibetur)tousasreallyasthe signs themselves, in this way we recognise the union of the signs with the body and blood of the Lord, and we say that the elements are changed into a different use from that which they had before. But we deny the assertion of the papists that the substance of bread and wine disappears, or is changed into the body and blood of the Lord that there is nothing left but the bare accidents of the elements, which are united with the same body and blood. Further, we deny that the Sacrament outside the use appointed byGodhasthenatureofaSacramentsoastomakeitrightorpossiblefor Christ to be reserved or carried about, since He is present only to those who communicate. Lastly, as to the fourth point, we do not say that in this holy Supper we are partakers only of the death and passion of Christ, but we join the ground with the fruits which come to us from Him, declaring with the Apostle, ‘the bread which we break is a Communion of the body of Christ, and the cup a Communion of His blood’,yea, in that same substance which he took in the womb of the Virgin and which He raised on high to heaven; differing from the papists in this only, that they believe this eating and union to take place bodily, while we believe it to be not in any natural way or in any bodily manner, but none the less as really as if we were joined to Christ naturally and bodily.222 The flesh that is presented in the Eucharist, for Cosin, seems tobe identified in a union between the sign (bread and wine) and the things signified (the body and blood of Christ). This union and therefore the flesh presented, as Cosin says, is not a local or immoderate flesh, but a real flesh or body of Christ nonetheless which is given to the communicant. This is so since ‘what is of the body is attributed to the bread’ and ‘they aretogetherintime,thoughseparatedinplace’.ThebodyofChristis therefore present, not absent. With the immoderate sense of realism excluded, it seems that Cosin is arguing for a moderate sense of realism. The nature of the body and blood of Christ (the thing signified) is instantiated in the bread and wine (the signs) with the same substance present in the incarnation and ascension, being present in the bread and

222 Ibid, IV, pp. –.  chapter two thecup.Thisisamoderaterealistnotionwherethesamesubstanceis seen to be instantiated not only in the nature of Christ but also in the elements of the Eucharist. Cosin also presents a moderate realist view of sacrifice in the Eucharist. He argues that the real body and blood of Christ are not only signified, but they are also represented and offered in the Eucharist. Again this sounds as if it could be immoderate realism, where the sacrifice of Calvary is re-iterated or re-offered in the Eucharist. This however, seems not to be the case, in light of Cosin’s denial of any carnal or local notions in the Eucharist and since he argues that the offering and presenting can only be said to happen because of the union between the sign and the signified. The sacrifice of Christ at Calvary (the signified) is therefore instantiated in the Eucharist (the sign) through a union of the sign with the signified, not in the immoderate sense but in the moderate sense of realism. It is the talk of a union between the sign and the signified that indicates moderate realism and the notion of instantiation and which at the same time excludes any immoderate notions of realism. Cosin’seucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. the period of the reformation 

Richard Crakanthorp

Richard Crakanthorp (–) was an Anglican divine described as a central churchman. Crakanthorp’s most famous work is entitled Defen- sio Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra M. Antonii de Dominis, D. Archiepiscopi Spalatensis, Injurias.223 In this work Crakanthorp presents an extended argument against transubstantiation and rejects the assertion of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Marco Antonio de Dominis (–) that: “The real and bodily presence of the Lord’s body and blood is in the most holy mysteries of the Eucharist is to us most certain”.224 Crakanthorp argues his view of what happens in the Eucharist, saying: See how easy and clear is our explanation of Christ’s words. Christ took bread; He blessed the bread; by that blessing or prayer He consecrated it to this holy, lofty, heavenly, and mystic use, that it should be asign not only signifying but also effectual and bestowing His body to believers instrumentally but spiritually. Of this bread so blessed, consecrated, and changed by the blessing of Christ . . . from common and ordinary use to this sacred and heavenly use He said, ‘This is My body’; this which I have taken, which I have broken, which I have consecrated, ‘This is My body’ . . Because it is most certain that the bread is not the body of Christ properly speaking, it necessarily follows that the words of Christ are not literal but figurative and tropical, and that the bread was called His body by Christ because it is a sacred sign not only signifying by also bestowing the real body of Christ on believers instrumentally but spiritually. . . . There is not change in the substance, as there is none in the stones of the altar, or in a man elevated to the priesthood, or in water sanctified for Baptism; but the change is only accidental in the use, in the effect, in the power, in the office of the bread and wine, as is the change in the stones, in a priest, in the water of Baptism.225 Crakanthorp’sview of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was one that was figurative, not literal. In this way he denies any form of immoderate realism in the Eucharist, regarding Christ’s presence. He does however, argue that by consecration the elements are changed, in that what was previously intended for a common and ordinary use of bread and wine,

223 See sections quoted in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), pp. – and Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 224 See Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland, p. . 225 Crakanthorp, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ch lxxii. Sections ,  and ch lxxiii. Section , cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. .  chapter two is now intended to a sacred and holy use. The elements are seen to be the means or the instruments by which the body and blood of Christ are given to those who receive communion in a spiritual but not corporal fashion. This is a statement of moderate realism. In relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist, Crakanthorp similarly expresses a position of moderate realism. He says: From what we have said about your Transubstantiation two, besides many others, consequences follow. First, the sacrifice of the Mass is not really a propitiatory sacrifice, as the Council of Trent defines, and your men teach; but it is only Eucharistic and commemorative. A properly propitiatory sacrifice is one which makes God propitious to sinners of its own force without relation to anything else, and obtains the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God of its own merit, value, price and worth. [Darwell Stone comments at this point in his use of this material from Crakanthorp that “this sentence entirely, though probably unintentionally, misrepresents the Tridentine teaching.”226 and refers the reading to the actual teaching of Trent] 227 Such a sacrifice there never was or will be except Christ alone, offering His body and blood to God on the cross. He Himself, and noone besides Him, is ‘the propitiation for our sins’ [John : ]. Christ is not in theEucharistbodily,aswehavealreadyshown;andthereforeHisbodyand blood cannot be offered except in a figure and by way of commemoration. Therefore that which is offered actually and by the hands of the priest in the Mass cannot be really and properly a propitiatory sacrifice. Neither is there in the Mass any real and properly so-called sacrifice, not such as the Council of Trent defined and your men with one mouth profess. This is laid down as one of many requisites to the essence of a real and properly so-called sacrifice, and it is put in your own definition, that ‘what is offered to God is changed’; that is, as Bellarmine himself explains, ‘Itis wholly destroyed, that is, it is so changed that it ceases to be that which it was before’, in such a way that ‘not only its use but also its substance is consumed’. And in what way the substance of that which is offered is to be consumed he explains according to the differences in the things which are offered. . . . See now on the showing of your Cardinal either that, if Christ is not really and actually slain, there is no real and proper sacrifice in the Mass, or that, if He is really and actually slain by the priests, your priests are really sacrilegious and slayers of God. . . . The second consequence of which I spoke is the Church of Rome is really idolatrous, and all those who belong to it are properly and formally idolaters. For you adore with the service of worship the Eucharist and that body which is contained under the species of bread and wine. That this body is in substance nothing else than bread and wine has already been abundantly shown. Therefore you

226 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 227 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

give to bread and wine, that is, to creatures, the worship and service which are due to the Creator alone, than which there is nothing more properly idolatry.228 He denies that there is a propitiatory sacrifice but says that there is a eucharistic or commemorative sacrifice. This eucharistic or commemorative sacrifice is distinguished from any propitiatory or fleshy sacrifice in the Eucharist. Crakanthorp’s eucharistic theology is based on moderate realism.

228 Crakanthorp, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ch lxxiv. Sections –, cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, pp. –.  chapter two

Ralph Cudworth

Ralph Cudworth (–) was a Cambridge Platonist. In of book of  entitled A Discourse Concerning the True Nature of the Lord’s Supper229 he discusses the Eucharist. In the Introduction to this work Cudworth argued that “all great errors have been intermingled with some truth” and “that falsehood is pure nonentity, and could not subsist alone by itself” and that the “grand error of the papists concerning the Lord’s Supper” is no exception to this rule, but “perhaps at first did rise by degeneration from a primitive truth, whereof the very obliquity of this error yet may bear some dark and obscure intimation”.230 Cudworth in the body of the work argues that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice but a feast on the past and true sacrifice of Christ and that the Eucharist is a federal rite between God and people. He says: Having thus shown that both amongst the Jews under the law and the Gentiles in their pagan worship (for paganism is nothing but Judaism degenerate) it was ever a solemn rite to join feasting with sacrifice, and to eat of those things which had been offered up, the very concinnity and harmony of the thing itself leads me to conceive that that Christian feast under the Gospel called the Lord’s Supper is the very same thing, and bears the same notion, in respect of the true Christian sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, that those did to the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices; and so is epulum sacrificiale, a sacrificial feast, I mean, a feast upon sacrifice, or epulum ex oblatis, a feast upon things offered up to God. Only this differencearisingintheparallel,thatbecausethoselegalsacrificeswerebut types and shadows of the true Christian sacrifice, they were often repeated and renewed as well as the feasts which were made upon them; but now, the true Christian sacrifice being come and offered up once for all, never to be repeated, we have therefore no more typical sacrifices left amongst us, but only the feasts upon the one true sacrifice still symbolically continued and often repeated in reference to that one great sacrifice, which is always as present in God’s sight and efficacious as if it were but now offered upfor us.231 Cudworth affirms that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is eaten and drunk and describes this as a feast upon the sacrifice once offered up to God for people on the cross. The feast upon the sacrifice

229 See section quoted in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), pp. –. 230 Ralph Cudworth, A Discourse Concerning the True Nature of the Lord’s Supper, Introduction, cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, pp. – . 231 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  is also said to be ‘the one true sacrifice symbolically continued and often repeated in reference to that one great sacrifice’.The feast (the Eucharist) is therefore continued and repeated, as ‘the very same thing’, but the sacrifice (the sacrifice of the cross) is not repeated. Cudworth’s theology of the Eucharist seems therefore to be that of moderate realism, where the one true sacrifice is instantiated in the feast, that is, the Eucharist, where the body and blood of Christ is received and the effect of the one true sacrifice is renewed. Cudworth bases his theology of the Eucharist on moderate realist assumptions.  chapter two

Richard Field

Richard Field (–) was the Dean of Gloucester. Richard Field’s views on the Eucharist are expressed as part of a five volume work called Of the Church, volumes I–IV being published in  and volume V in .232 The following quotations are taken from this work. That body and blood which all true Christians do know to be mystically communicated to them in the Sacrament to their unspeakable comfort.233 The thing that is offered is the body of Christ, which is an eternal andper- petual propitiatory sacrifice, in that it was once offered by death upon the cross, and hath an everlasting and never-failing force and efficacy. Touch- ing the manner of offering Christ’s body and blood, we must consider that there is a double offering of a thing to God. First, so as men are wont to do that give something to God out of that they possess, professing that they will no longer be owners of it, but that it shall be His, and serve for such uses and employments as He shall convert it to. Secondly, a man may be said to offer a thing unto God in that he bringeth it to His presence, setteth it before His eyes, and offereth it to His view, to incline Him to do something by the sight of it, and respect had to it. In this sort Christ offereth Himself and His body once crucified daily in heaven, and so intercedeth for us, not as giving it in the nature of a gift or present, for He gave Himself to God once, to be holy unto Him for ever, nor in the nature of a sacrifice, for He died once for sin, and rose never to die any more, but inthat He setteth it before the eyes of God His Father, representing it unto Him, and so offering it to His view, to obtain grace and mercy for us. And inthis sort we also offer Him daily on the altar in that, commemorating His death and lively representing His bitter passions endured in His body upon the cross, we offer Him that was once crucified and sanctified for us on the cross, and all His sufferings, to the view and gracious consideration of the Almighty, earnestly desiring, and assuredly hoping, that He will incline to pity us and show mercy unto us for this His dearest Son’s sake, who in our nature for us, to satisfy His displeasure, and to procure us acceptation, endured such and so grievous things. This king of offering or sacrificing Christ commemoratively is twofold, inward and outward: outward, as the taking, breaking, and distributing the mystical bread, and pouring out the cup of blessing, which is the Communion of the blood of Christ; the inward consisteth in the faith and devotion of the Church and people of God so commemorating the death and passion of Christ their crucified Saviour,

232 See quotations in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ). 233 Field, Of the Church, III, ch. xxxviii, in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

and representing and setting it before the eyes of the Almighty, that they fly unto it as their only stay and refuge, and beseech Him to be merciful unto them for His sake that endured all these things, to satisfy His wrath, and work their peace and good.234 All agree in this, that they understand such a mutation or change to be made that that which before was earthly and common bread by the words of institution, the invocation of God’s name and divine virtue, is made a Sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ, visibly sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, and yet after an invisible and incomprehensible manner present in the Church; and that the body and blood of Christ are in the Sacrament, and exhibited and given as spiritual meat and drink for the salvation and everlasting life of them that are worthy partakers of the same.235 The true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament, the exhibition of them to be the food of our souls, and such as change of the elements in virtue, grace, and power, of containing in them, and communicating to us, Christ’s body and blood, as the nature of so excellent a Sacrament requireth.236 Field’s views on eucharistic presence and sacrifice are those of moderate realism. He holds that Christ’s body and blood is mystically communicated in the Eucharist. He also holds that the Eucharist is ‘an eternal and perpetual propitiatory sacrifice’ and that it is right to call the Eucharist a ‘sacrifice’.BythishedoesnotmeanthatthepropitiatorysacrificeofChrist is re-iterated in the Eucharist, but rather that the once only propitiatory sacrifice has an eternal and perpetual force and efficacy. As such there can be an offering to God, both something that a person owns and by way of bringing Christ’s sacrifice before the eyes of God. This representing is a memorial remembrance or anamnesis, not a re-iteration of the historic sacrifice. It is in this sense that Field goes so far as to say that ‘we offer Him daily on the altar’ as Christ offers himself in heaven. This statement is not meant in an immoderate realist sense where the body of Christ is offered again physically as at Calvary, but rather, in terms of what he says more generally, in a moderate realist sense. This form of offering takes both an outward and inward form: outward in the form of taking, blessing, breaking, distributing and pouring; and inward in the form of faith and devotion in which Christ’s death and passion is commemorated.

234 Field, Of the Church, III, ibid, II, pp. –. 235 Field, Of the Church, III, Appendix, part i, ibid, II, p. . 236 Field, Of the Church, III, Appendix, part i, ibid, II, p. .  chapter two

Field also argues that there is a change or a mutation in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, so that the earthly is made ‘a Sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ’. By using the word sacrament, Field here distinguishes between the immoderate and moderate realist sense of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The moderate sense of Christ’s presence is real though, in Field’s view, since the bread and wine exhibit and contain what it represents, and it truly communicates the benefits of Christ’s presence to those who receive it. The philosophical assumptions underlying Field’s theology of the Eu- charist are moderate realist. the period of the reformation 

William Forbes

Williams Forbes (–) was appointed the Bishop of Edinburgh by Charles I in  but died two months later. His thoughts on the Eucharist are contained in a book entitled Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controverseriarium de Justificatione, Purgatorio, Invocatione Sanctorum, Christo Mediatore, et Eucharistia,whichwaspublishedafter his death in 237 and again in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology edition of his work with Volume I being published in  and Volume II in . Reference to the Eucharist is found in Volume II and entitled A Moderate and Peaceful Consideration of the Present Very Serious Controversy Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist238William Forbes specifically denied the views of the European reformer Zwingli, that the Eucharist was only a signification and affirmed that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is really and actually received in a spiritual, miraculous and imperceptible manner.239 Forbes argues that: “The Body and Blood of Christ is truly, really, and substantially present and taken in the Eucharist, but in a way, which is incomprehensible to the human understanding, and much more, beyond the power of man to express; which is known to God alone, and not revealed to us in Scripture; a way, not indeed corporeal or by oral reception, but not by the mere understanding and simple faith either, but by another way, known (as has been said) to God alone, and to be left to His omnipotence.”240 Forbes affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, going so far as to say that the presence is a substantial presence. The manner of this presence is beyond human understanding and explanation. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist has for Forbes a givenness about it, since it is, he says, not only dependent on faith, but on the power of God. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot therefore be said to be confined to faithful reception alone, but must exist apart from the act of receiving. Immoderate realism is denied since Forbes argues that the presence is not received by bodily and oral reception. It is important to note that Forbes states that Christ is really present, but the presence is said to be in the Eucharist. The presence is not associated with the bread and wine of the

237 William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controverseriarium de Justifi- catione, Purgatorio, Invocatione Sanctorum, Christo Mediatore, et Eucharistia,(volumes) (ed. G.H. Forbes) (Oxford: Parker, ). 238 Ibid, II, pp. –. 239 Ibid, II, p. . 240 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two

Eucharist specifically, but more generally with the Eucharist. Moderate realism however is expressed, since Forbes’ argument indicates that the body and blood of Christ can be said to be in the Eucharist. In another place however Forbes, while acknowledging that faith is necessary for understanding that people are united to the flesh of Christ, associates the presence more closely with what it is eaten and drunk in the Eucharist. He says: “We also hold that there is a kind of spiritual conjunction of the true and real Flesh of Christ with out soul and even with our body, which we cannot better designate that by calling it sacramental, that is, which is done by way of eating: so that while we eat the sacred bread, along with the bread not in a corporeal way, but in another way which is known to God alone, and which we call spiritual because it is certain that it cannot be corporeal; but with the Father confess it to be ineffable, inexplicable, unsearchable.”241 Here Forbes closely associates the presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the signs, such that there is a spiritual (that is not corporeal) conjunction of the sign with the signified. The bread is said to have the presence ‘along with’ it in a way that is unknown to humans, but only to God. Here then the moderate realism links the signs with the signified. ForForbesthismeansthat“HistrueBodyitselfisexhibitedtous,and that we receive the true Body of Christ in our very body, not be mere and bare faith in the understanding alone”.242 This receiving of the true body of Christ is not however seen to be through the mouth (that is in an immoderate realist sense) even though “in the very eating and digesting of the bread and wine Christ’s true Body is communicated even to our body”.243 Receiving therefore of the true body of Christ for Forbes is both by understanding and spirit as well as with the body, even though this is not through the mouth. Forbes attributes the communication of the substance of the body and blood of Christ to the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: “In the Supper, moreover, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we invisibly communicate with the substance of the body [and blood] of Christ, of which we are made partakers no otherwise than if we visibly ate and drank his flesh and blood.”244

241 Ibid, II, p. . 242 Ibid, II, p. . 243 Ibid, II, p. . 244 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

This passage indicates that Forbes theology of the Eucharist is compatible with the notion of Christ’s nature being instantiated in the Eucharist basedonphilosophicalassumptionsofmoderaterealism.Hereheargues that the ‘substance’ of Christ’s body and blood is received by the communicant, and that this receiving of the substance is the same as if the communicant were to receive his actual flesh and blood. Forbes is not arguing here for an immoderate realism and suggesting that the actual flesh and blood of Christ is consumed in the Eucharist. Rather it seems that he is using the word ‘substance’ to indicate that something other than a fleshy presence is found in both the Eucharist and the actual body and blood of Christ, and that therefore the communicant receives this ‘substance’ or nature when the Eucharist is received. This is compatible with the notion of instantiation and moderate realism. Forbes addresses the question of worship of the bread and wine in the following passage, where he debates with various Roman Catholic theologians, saying: As regards the first assertion of Bellarmine about venerating the symbols with a kind of lesser worship, we admit it . . . yet it belongs also to the symbols insofar as they are as one in a certain respect with Christ Himself whom they contain, and to whom they are a covering and concealment like garments, is false and repugnant to the opinion of many others. For these species do not belong to the Person of Christ, nor do they make one with it. . . . To use the words of the Archbishop of Spalatro, ‘Christ is to be adored with true latria, since His living and glorious Body is present to the worthy receiver by a certain inexplicable miracle; and this adoration is due and is paid, not to the bread, not to the wine, not to the participation, not to the eating, not to the signs, but immediately to Christ’s Body itself exhibited through the partaking of the Eucharist’.245 Here Forbes states that veneration of the symbols, that is the bread and wine, is acceptable, as a lesser worship, but that there is no immoderate realism implied since the symbols or signs are not the same as Christ’s person or one with him in any fleshy manner. He also argues, using the words of the Catholic Archbishop, that the supreme type of worship given to Christ cannot be given to the symbols, but only to Christ’s body itself which is exhibited in the Eucharist. This suggests that there are moderate realist philosophical assumptions underlying Forbes’ eucharistic theology.

245 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two

In speaking of eucharistic sacrifice, Forbes acknowledges that it is possible to call the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice, saying: “The more moderate Romanists rightly affirm that the Mass is not merely a sacrifice of thanksgiving and latruetic or expressive of honour, but that it may also be called hilastic or propitiatory, if this expression be used in a proper meaning; not indeed as if it effected the propitiation and forgiveness of sins, for that exclusively belongs to the sacrifice of the cross; but as impetrating the propitiation which has already been made, in the same way that prayer, of which this sacrifice is a kind, may be called propitiatory.”246 Along with those he describes as ‘moderate Romanists’ Forbes affirms that the Eucharist is first a sacrifice of thanksgiving and service or honour, and secondly propitiatory. Forbes use of propitiatory in relation to the Eucharist is not in any immoderate sense, where the Eucharist effects propitiation or the forgiveness of sins, since that can only apply to the historic and fleshy sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. Forbes use of propitiatory here is in the moderate realist sense that he describes as ‘impetratingthepropitiationwhichhasalreadybeenmade’.Thisisdone as prayer and the sacrifice in the Eucharist as a kind of the once only sacrifice at Calvary. If this is accepted, Forbes argues, the eucharistic sacrifice can be called propitiatory. Forbes is arguing that the nature of Christ’ssacrifice, its benefits and effects, are instantiated in the Eucharist, made real in the lives of the communicants in the present, not in the fleshy manner of a re-iteration of the once only sacrifice, but as memorial remembrance. This is a statement of moderate realism. Forbes’ concept of eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. For him Christ’spresence and sacrifice is instantiated in the Eucharist in a manner impossible for humans to understand. The manner of the eucharistic presence and sacrifice is not a fleshy or immoderate manner but real nonetheless.

246 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

John Hales

John Hales (–), an Anglican divine wrote a work entitled, On the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.247 He says concerning the Eucharist that: First, In the Communion there is nothing given but bread and wine. Secondly, The bread and wine are signs indeed, but not of anything there exhibited, but of somewhat given long since, even of Christ given for us upon the cross sixteen hundred years ago and more. Thirdly, Jesus Christ is eaten at the Communion Table in no sense, neither spiritually by virtue of anything done there nor really, neither metaphorically nor literally. Indeed that which is eaten (I mean the bread) is called Christ by a metaphor, but it is eaten truly and properly. Fourthly, The spiritual eating of Christ is common to all places as wellas the Lord’s Table. Last of all, The uses and ends of the Lord’s Supper can be no more than such as are mentioned in the Scriptures, and they are but two. . The commemoration of the death and passion of the Son of God, specified by Himself at the institution of the ceremony. . To testify our union with Christ, and communion one with another, which end St Paul hath taught us. In these few conclusions the whole doctrine and use of the Lord’s Supper is fully set down; and whoso leadeth you beyond this doth abuse you.248 Hales denies realism and affirms nominalism. He denies both moderate and immoderate realism, arguing that Christ is not eaten in the Eucharist or the bread and wine in any literal, metaphorical or spiritual sense. There is no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for Hales, since the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are self-enclosed and separate entities. Christ’s body and blood are not present in the Eucharist, only bread and wine as signs. As signs they do not contain or exhibit anything, but serve only as reminders of the past event of Christ’s death. Christ however, is said to be spiritually eaten in several

247 John Hales, ‘Of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper’, in Several Tracts by the Ever- memorable Mr John Hales etc,  edition, pages –, downloaded from Google Books at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bNQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA&dq=On+the+ Sacrament+of+the+Lords+Supper+by+Halesv=onepage&q=&f=false. Accessed  October, . 248 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two places, including in the Eucharist, but this seems to mean in light of the first three propositions, that the spiritual eating has nothing to do with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The Eucharist therefore serves the purposes of commemorating Christ’sdeath at his command (in the sense of remembering a past and completed event but not it seems in the sense of memorial remembrance or anamnesis) and of testifying union with Christ and communion with others. There is no sense in Hales’ view of Christ’s body and blood being instantiated in the Eucharist or the bread and wine in any realist sense (moderate or immoderate) and there is no sense in which the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are instantiated in the Eucharist in any realist sense (moderate or immoderate). The presence ofChrist’sbodyandbloodandthesacrificeofChristareseparated from the Eucharist and the bread and wine, which serve the purposes ofsignsandremindersofpast,completedevents.Hales’viewstherefore correspond with that of immoderate nominalism, whereby there can be no instantiation of Christ’s presence or sacrifice in the Eucharist itself or the bread and wine, and where the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist, remain separate and self-enclosed entities. the period of the reformation 

HenryHammond

Henry Hammond (–) was an Anglican divine whose views on the Eucharist are expressed in his works entitled, APracticalCate- chism,249 published in  and Of Fundamentals in a Notion referring to Practice,250 published in . In A Practical Catechism, Hammond says: “This Sacrament, which was after the commemorative Passover, is to be conceived a confederation of all Christians one with another, to live piously and charitably, both by commemorating the death of Christ, . . . and by making His blood, as it was the fashion in the eastern nations, a ceremony of the covenant, mutual betwixt God and us”.251 He also says: The full importance of the words . . . ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’ . is, first, a commission to His Apostles to continue the ceremony now used by Him as a holy ceremony or Sacrament in the Church for ever. Secondly, a direction that for the manner of observing it they should do to other Christians as He had now done to them, i.e, ‘take, bless, break this bread, take and bless this cup’, and then give and distribute it to others, settling this on them as part of their office, a branch of the power left them by Him, and by them communicable to whom they should think fit after them. Thirdly, a specifying of the end to which this designed, a commemoration of the death of Christ, a representing His passion to God, and a coming before Him in His name, first, to offer our sacrifices of supplication and praises in the name of the crucified Jesus (as of old, both among Jews and heathens, all their sacrifices were rites in and by which they supplicated God. See Sam. xii, ), and secondly, to commemorate that His daily continual sacrifice or intercession for us at the right hand of His Father now in heaven.252 Hammond expresses a moderate realism in the notion of commemorating the death of Christ in the Eucharist. He does not call the Eucharist a sacrifice as such, other than to say that it is a sacrifice of supplication and praise. He does however refer to the Eucharist as a commemoration of the continual sacrifice of Christ in heaven. The Eucharist, following on from the direction received from Christ, is, to use the Old Testament image he employs, a ceremony of the covenant. This equates with the idea

249 Henry Hammond, A Practical Catechism (ed. N. Pocock) (Oxford: Parker, ). 250 Henry Hammond, Of Fundamentals, in a Notion referring to Practice,(ed.N. Pocock) (Oxford: Parker, ). 251 Hammond, A Practical Catechism, p. . 252 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two of memorial remembrance or anamnesis and expresses a moderate realism. The covenant expressed in Christ’s death is commemorated inthe Eucharist. In so doing Hammond argues that the Eucharist is a representation of the death and passion of Christ to God. These are expressions of a moderate realism. Hammond in an exchange between Scholar and Catechist253 denies any notion of immoderate realism, that is, any fleshy eating and drinking of Christ’sbody and blood. Any realism expressed is to a moderate degree only. Hammond presents the position that Christ’s corporal body is in heaven and so cannot be on earth, in the Eucharist, in the bread and wine or in the receivers of the sacrament in any corporal sense. Hammond however, argues that there is another sense of the presence. Using the arguments of the early Fathers he puts the case that bread and wine of the Eucharist is changed following consecration, but that the change is not in any way related to the substance of the bread and wine or to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Rather he argues for a mystical and ineffable manner of the change so that the communicant receiving the bread and wine receives the body and blood of Christ, but the bread and wine remain bread and wine in substance. This Hammond describes as a ‘eucharistical action’ where there is an ‘offering up’ which is said to be in addition to the offering of thanks and praise. There seems to be for Hammond a notion of offering in the Eucharist which goes beyond the offering of thanks and praise. It is in this ‘eucharistical action’ that the benefits of Christ’s passion are received and the body of Christ is communicated to the faithful. The body of Christ that is communicated is clearly not the corporal body (immoderate realism) but the body nonetheless, with all its benefits (moderate realism). Christ’s body is therefore not sent down ‘locally’ but ‘really’. He argument for the idea of Christ’s body being ‘really’ present and received in the Eucharist, as the rays of the sun are really received on earth without the sun itself being on the earth, fits well with the idea of moderate realism and the nature of Christ being present in the Eucharist for the benefit of those who communicate. In Of Fundamentals in a Notion referring to Practice, Hammond describes the Eucharist in five ways: a solemn commemoration, a sacrifice eucharistical, a communication of the body and blood of Christ with all its benefits, a federal rite between the soul and Christ, and an emblem

253 Ibid, pp. –, , –. the period of the reformation  of Christ’s charity.254 The solemn commemoration is moderate realism in relation to memorial remembrance in the Eucharist. The sacrifice eucharistical relates to the sacrifice of self and praise and thanksgiving. The communication of Christ’s body and blood is a real presence, not just a bare sign. The federal rite so unites a person to Christ that they enter into the full benefit of Christ’sdeath. The emblem shows a person Christ’s charity and inspires them to live in the same way. Hammond’s view of the Eucharist is that of moderate realism in relation to both the real presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. Any immoderate notion of presence and sacrifice is denied. The Eucharist is seen to be an effective means of communicating Christ’s body and blood and of making a solemn remembrance of Christ’s passion and death. Hammond is less keen to apply the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist, but restricts the term sacrifice to that of praise and thanksgiving. At the same time, nonetheless, he speaks of an offering apart from that of praise and thanksgiving in the sense of a moderate realist view.

254 Hammond, Of Fundamentals, in a Notion Referring to Practice, pp. –.  chapter two

George Herbert

George Herbert (–) was an Anglican divine and poet whose views on the Eucharist are to be found in his treatise called APriesttothe Temple, or the Country Parson, his character, and rule of holy life,which was published after his death in .255 In various poems Herbert gives some other clues about his theology of theEucharist.InapoemfromThe Temple, called The Priesthood he says: But th’ holy men of God such vessels are, As serve him up, who all the world commands: When God vouchsafeth to become our fare, Their hands convey him, who conveys their hands, O what pure things, most pure must those things be, WhobringmyGodtome!256 The priest is for Herbert the person who by his sacramental action makes Christ present, in that the priest ‘serves him up’.It is in the Eucharist that God becomes ‘our fare’ and it is by the hands of the priest that this occurs. The means by which God is brought to the communicant is therefore to be considered ‘pure’. In another poem called The Holy Communion,Herbertspeaksagain of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He says: Not in rich furniture, or fine aray, Nor in a wedge of gold, Thou, who for me wast sold, To me dost now thy self convey; For so thou should’st without me still have been, Leaving within me sinne: Butbythewayofnourishmentandstrength Thou creep’st into my breast Making thy way my rest, And thy small quantities my length; Which spread their forces into every part, Meeting sinnes force and art. Yet can these not get over to my soul, Leaping the wall that parts Our souls and fleshy hearts;

255 George Herbert, The Works of George Herbert (ed. T. Cook) (Ware, Hertfordhsire: Wordworth Poetry Library, ). 256 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

But as th’ outworks, they may controll My rebel-flesh, and carrying thy name, Affright both sinne and shame. Onley thy grace, which with these elements comes, Knoweth the ready way, And hath the privie key, Op’ning the souls most subtile rooms; While those to spiritis refin’d, at doore attend Dispatches from their friend. Give me my captive soul, or take My bodie also thither. Another lift like this will make Them both to be together. Before that sinne turn’d flesh to stone, And all our lump to leaven; A fervent sigh might well have blown Our innocent earth to heaven. Thou hast restor’d us to this ease By this thy heav’nly bloud; Which I can go to, when I please, And leave th’earth to their food.257 Herbert’s poem expresses the view that Christ is present and conveyed (‘To me dost now thy self convey’), not in rich or golden things, but in the ordinary elements of bread and wine. The presence of Christ is able to be fully in the person who receives (‘Which spread their force in every part’) and to deal effectively with sin (‘Meeting sinnes force and art’). The elements convey what they signify (‘Onley thy grace, which with these elements comes’) and are the means of grace in the life of the person who receives them. The idea of the heavenly communion is again mentioned (‘My bodie also thither’) and it is in this communion that a person is joined to Christ (‘Them both to be together’). For Herbert the Eucharist is distinguished from other earthly food in the final verse and so the implication of the poem is that the presence of Christ in the elements is not a fleshy or immoderate presence, yet a real presence, to ‘which I can go’.Herbert’s theology of the Eucharist is that of moderate realism. In The Invitation, Herbert speaks of the communicant being invited to come and receive communion. He says:

257 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

Come ye hither all, whose taste Is your waste; Save your cost, and mend your fare. God is here prepar’d and drest, And the feast, God, in whom all dainties are. Come ye hither all, whom wine Doth define, Naming you not to your good: Weep that you have drunk amisse, And drink this, Which before you drink is bloud. Come ye hither all, whom pain Doth arraigne, Bringing all your sinnes to sight: Taste and fear not: God is here In this cheer And on sinne doth cast the fright. Come ye hither all, whom joy Doth destroy, While ye graze without your bounds: Here is joy that drowneth quite Your delig ht, As a floud the lower grounds. Come ye hither all, whose love Is your dove, And exalts you to the skie: Here is love, which having breath Ev’n in death, After death can never die. Lord I have invited all, And I shall Still invite, still call to thee: For it seems but just and right In my sight, Where is all, there should be.258 ThepresenceofGodinChristintheEucharistisspokenofinthispoem (‘God is here prepar’dand drest’). The presence of Christ is seen to be real (‘And drink this, Which before ye drink is bloud’) and (‘God is here In

258 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation  this cheer’). The Eucharist is seen to be an effective means of grace (‘on sinne doth cast the fright’). The communion with Christ is a heavenly experience and not a fleshy or earthly one (‘exalts you to the skie’), but nonetheless there is a presence on earth in the Eucharist (‘Where all is, thereallshouldbe’).Onceagainthepoemsuggeststhatthepresenceof Christ in the Eucharist is one of moderate realism. Herbert’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.  chapter two

AnthonyHorneck

Anthony Horneck (–) was an Anglican divine who originally came from Germany to England in the ’s. He published a devotional work entitled, The Crucified Jesus in .259 In this work he speaks with intense feeling about spiritual communion with the Lord. He denies transubstantiation and consubstantiation and sees the words ‘This is my body’ in the Eucharist referring to a sign or figure or remembrance only. The eating of Christ in the Eucharist is only possible as a spiritual and subjective act of the soul. For him there is no sense in which Christ can be present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist ‘in’, ‘with’ or ‘under’ the elements. The only sense in which Horneck sees Christ can be present in the Eucharist is through the faith of sincere believers and in the worthy receiving. He is placing distance between the sign and the signified and seems to be working within a nominalist framework. Christ’s body can only be said to be in the Eucharist in the sense that it is an emblem, sign or figure. It can also be present as a memorial or in the expression Christ’s body the Church. The notions of real presence and memorial remembrance do not seem to be part of Horneck’s theology of the Eucharist.260 In another passage from the same work, Horneck says: From what hath been said it is easy to conclude what it is to eat Christ’s body in this Holy Sacrament. . It is to contemplate Christ’s crucified body, and the cause and reasons of that crucifixion, to view all this with our warmeth thoughts, to make serious reflection on His death and agonies, and the bitterness of His passion. . . . . To eat Christ’s body is to apply the benefits of His death and passion to our souls, and to rejoice in them as our greatest treasure. . . . . To make this crucified body a persuasive and motive to holiness and obedience.261 A nominalist theology of the Eucharist is present in this passage. The presence of Christ is a matter of subjective thought, contemplation and reflection as a person engages in spiritual discipline. There is no suggestion that there is any linking of the sign with the signified outside the mental processes of the communicant.

259 Anthony Horneck, The Crucified Jesus or A Full Account of the Nature, End, Design and Benefits of the Sacraments of the Lord’s Supper. With Necessary Direction, Prayers, Praises and Meditations to be used by persons who come to the Holy Communion (London: Lowndes, ). 260 Ibid, chapter xi, sections I–III, pp. –. 261 Ibid, chapter xi, section IV, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

The theology of the Eucharist Horneck expresses is based on a nominalist separation of sign and signified. There are the signs of bread and wine and there are the signified body and blood of Christ, but the two are not connected in any realist sense. The signs serve as reminders only of the signified, which the communicant knows by spiritual exercise and contemplation on the work of Christ. Horneck’s eucharistic theology is based on nominalist assumptions.  chapter two

Thomas Jackson

Thomas Jackson (–) was a theologian and President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford and Dean of Peterborough. In Jackson’s extensive writings262 there is mention of the Eucharist in his commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed.263 Jackson denies any immoderate realist presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. At the same time though he asserts a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. There is propitiation for sin in the Eucharist because Christ is really present in it (moderate realism), but there is no propitiatory sacrifice or local presence of Christ in it (immoderate realism). The receiving of the bread and wine is more than mere remembrance, as in calling a past event to mind, but a memorial remembrance, whereby the communicant is assured in the present of the ‘virtue’ of Christ’s body and blood and its power in the present. This is an expression of memorial remembrance or anamnesis, whereby the benefits or the effects of Christ’s passion are known in the present in the Eucharist. Jackson emphasises this point by arguing that we receive the benefits of Christ’s passion not by the ‘sole serious remembranceofHisdeath’(thepasteventatCalvary),butby‘thepresent efficacy or operation of His body which was given for us, and ofHis blood which was shed for us’ (the anamnesis of Christ’s death in the Eucharist). Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary being efficacious in the present in the Eucharist is anamnesis.264 Jackson argues for a moderate realist nature of Christ’spriestly offering in the Eucharist. The sacrifice of the cross was a bloody sacrifice, andit is by this sacrifice that Christ is a priest for ever. In the Eucharist there is a ‘present exercise of His everlasting priesthood’ which is a priesthood of ‘blessing’ and not of ‘sacrifice’. It is the exercise of the priesthood of blessing that communicates ‘the virtue and efficacy of His everlasting sacrifice’ in the Eucharist. This is anamnesis.265 Concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Jackson associates this strongly with the elements of bread and wine. There is for him somevirtue,throughtheinfluenceofChrist’sSpirit,fromtheheavenly

262 Thomas Jackson, The Works of Thomas Jackson ( Volumes) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ). 263 See Books X and XI. 264 Thomas Jackson, Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed, Book X, lv, , . 265 Ibid,BookX,lvi,,,. the period of the reformation  sanctuary to the earthly sanctuary where the Eucharist is celebrated. Jackson goes so far as to describe the presence of Christ as going out “from His human nature now placed in His sanctuary”266 and argues that unless this happens the communicant does not really receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Jackson is therefore confident to say that the body and blood of Christ is ‘with’ the elements of bread and wine267 and that unless this happens we do not receive the benefits of Christ’s passion, nor are we joined to him. All this Jackson distinguishes from any notion of a local presence of Christ. It is the ‘virtue’ of Christ that makes him present through the action of Christ’s Spirit. Therefore he says, that Christ is ‘really present’,though ‘locally absent’.268 The idea of a real presence is not because of on any local notions of presence but rather faith. This does not mean however that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is dependent on the faith of the receiver, since Jackson distinguishes a givenness of the presence. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine is real in the moderate realist sense, just as Christ’s presence is at the right hand of God in heaven is also real. In another place Jackson also says: “This distillation of life and immortality from His glorified human nature is that which the ancient and orthodoxal Church did mean in their figurative and lofty speeches of Christ’s real presence, or of eating His very flesh and drinking His very blood in the Sacrament. And the sacramental bread is called His body, and the sacramental wine His blood, as for other reasons so especially for this, that the virtue or influence of His bloody sacrifice is most plenti- fully and most effectually distilled from heaven unto the worthy receivers of the Eucharist”.269 Jackson affirms that the notion he presents of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something of his invention, but rather that notion which comes from the Fathers of the early Church. Jackson argues, from the position of the Fathers, as he perceives it, that the virtue or the influence of Christ historic sacrifice, is present in the worthy receiver in the Eucharist. It should be noted that Jackson does not present the idea of the communicant lifting heart and mind to heaven for a heavenly joining to the body and blood of Christ as do many of the early Anglican Reformers (e.g. Cranmer’s view). Rather he argues that the virtue or

266 Ibid,BookX,lvi,,,. 267 Ibid,BookX,lvi,,,. 268 Ibid,BookX,lvi,,,. 269 Ibid, Book XI, iii, .  chapter two influence of Christ and his sacrifice ‘distill’ from heaven to those who receive the Eucharist. This suggests the language of instantiation where the nature of Christ, as opposed to any physical presence, is instantiated in the elements of bread and wine. A further quotation states: All that are partakers of this Sacrament eat Christ’s body and drink His blood sacramentally, that is, they eat that bread which sacramentally is His body, and drink that cup which sacramentally is His blood, whether they eat or drink faithfully or unfaithfully. . . . May we say then that Christ is really present in the Sacrament as well to the unworthy as to the faithful receivers? Yes, this must we grant; yet must we add withal that He is really present with them in quite contrary manner, really present He is, because virtually present to us both, because the operation or efficacy of His body and blood is not metaphorical but real in both. Thus the bodily sun, though locally distant from its substance, is really present by its light and heat as well to sore eyes as to clear sights, but really present to both by a contrary real operation; and by contrary operation it is really present to clay and to wax, it really hardeneth the one, and really softeneth the other. So doth Christ’s blood by the invisible but real influence mollify the hearts of such as come to the Sacrament with due preparation, but harden such as unworthily receive the consecrated elements. . . . When we say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, our meaning is that as God He is present in an extraordinary manner, after such a manner as He was present before His incarnation in His sanctuary; . . . and by the power of His Godhead thus extraordinarily present He diffuseth the virtue or operation of His human nature either to the vivification or hardening of their hearts who receive the sacramental pledges. . . . No man can spiritually eat Christ but by believing His death and passion; yet sacramental eating adds somewhat to spiritual eating, how quick and lively soever our faith be whilst we eat Him only spiritually. But though our faith were in both the same as for degree as quality, yet the object of our faith is not altogether the same in sacramental and in spiritual eating. Christ’s body and blood are so present in the Sacrament that we receive a more special influence from them in use of the Sacrament than without it, so we receive it worthily or with hearts prepared by spiritual eating precedent, that is, by serious meditation of Christ’s death and passion.270 Jackson in the above passage affirms again that Christ’sbody and blood is present sacramentally in the Eucharist. He thereby again states a position of moderate realism. This is so, he argues, because Christ is present in the sacrament, not metaphorically, but really, through the power and

270 Ibid,BookXI,iv,,. the period of the reformation  operation of his Spirit. This means that there is a givenness of presence or an objective nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, according to Jackson, and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not dependent on the faith of the receiver. The givenness of the presence is not a local presence, but the type of presence Christ had with people before his incarnation. As God he is present in an extraordinary manner and it is in this manner that he gives life to the worthy. The unworthy though, receiving the givenness of Christ’s body and blood, do not receive life as the worthy receiver receives, but hardening of heart, due to their lack of worthy preparation. All this is through the power of God and the virtue and operation of Christ’s human nature in the Eucharist. Jackson does not deny that sacramental eating and drinking involve faith, yet he distinguishes the objective nature of sacramental eating from that of spiritual eating. Thomas Jackson’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.  chapter two

William Laud

William Laud (–) was Archbishop of Canterbury from . His theology of the Eucharist is principally found in a work called A Relation of a Conference between William Laud, then Bishop of St Davids, now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr Fisher the Jesuit,whichwas published in .271 He rejects transubstantiation272 but nonetheless suggests that there are some parts of the doctrine of transubstantiation which may in fact be accepted. Perhaps he is pointing to moderate realism while at the same time rejecting any immoderate or carnal realist doctrines. This conclusion can be supported by the way Laud comments on Cardinal Bellarmine’s work where Laud says: “The conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is substantial, but after a secret and ineffable manner, and not like in all things to any natural conversion whatsoever.”.273 He also says that if Bellarmine: “had left out ‘conversion’, and affirmed only Christ’s ‘real presence’ there, after a mysterious, and indeed an ineffable manner, no man could have spoken better.”274 It seems therefore that Laud’s chief objection to the doctrine of transubstantiation is not that it argues Christ is really present, rather that the doctrine defines the manner of the presence too closely. Laud is content to say that Christ is really present in the bread and wine, a significant admission of the givenness of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but that the manner of the presence is mysterious, secret and ineffable. Laud seems to have no difficulty with the idea of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but considerable difficulty with the idea that the substance of the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, with the substance of the bread and wine being gone, but the accidents remaining. For Laud there is “the true substantial presence of Christ”275 in the Eucharist and the Church of England “believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist”.276 On the question of eucharistic sacrifice Laud argues that:

271 William Laud, The Works of Archbishop William Laud ( Volumes) (ed. W.Scott and J. Bliss) (Oxford: Parker, –). 272 Ibid, II, pp. , –. 273 Ibid, II, p. . 274 Ibid, II, p. . 275 Ibid, II, pp. –. 276 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

As Christ offered Himself up once for all, a full and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the whole world, so did He institute and command a memory of this sacrifice in a Sacrament, even till His coming again. For, at theend of the Eucharist we offer up to God three sacrifices: One by the priest only, that is, the commemorative sacrifice of Christ’s death, represented in the bread broken and wine poured out. Another by the priest and the people jointly, and that is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for all the benefits and graces we receive by the precious death of Christ. The third, by every particular man for himself only, and that is the sacrifice of every man’s body and soul, to serve Him in both all the rest of his life, for this blessing thus bestowed on him. Now, thus far these dissenting Churches agree, that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of duty, and a sacrifice of praise, and a sacrifice of commemoration of Christ. Therefore, according to the former rule (and here in truth too) it is safest for a man to believe the commemorative, the praising, and the performing sacrifice, and to offer them duly to God, and leave the Church of Rome in this particular to her superstitions, that I may say no more.277 Laud is arguing that the eucharistic sacrifice is more than that of praise and thanksgiving. The commemorative sacrifice, as he terms it, and which he says is offered up by the priest, is clearly not a re-iteration of the once only sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. Any such immoderate view is dismissed as superstitious. The eucharistic sacrifice that is offered up therefore, seems to be a commemoration of the historic sacrifice, but not a re-iteration of it. The language that Laud is using here is that of moderate realism. Laud advocated acts of bodily worship in connection with the Eucha- rist, such as bowing towards the altar278 thereby suggesting a presence of Christ in the elements which requires respect and acknowledgement. AtthesametimeheemployedsarcasmagainstthosePuritanswhowere accusing him of innovation, saying: And you my Honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great Solemnities, you do your Reverence, and to Almighty God, I doubt not, but yet it is Versus Altare, toward his Altar, as the greatest place of God’s residence upon the earth. (I say the greatest, yea greater than the Pulpit. For there ‘tis Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body. But in the Pulpit, ‘tis at most, but; Hoc est Verbum meum, This is my Word. And a greater reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body, then to the Word of the Lord. And so, in relation, answerably to the throne, where his Body is usually present; then to the

277 Ibid, II, pp. –. 278 William Laud, Speech in the Starr Chamber, , page , online at: http://justus .anglican.org/resources/pc/laud/laud.html. Accessed  October, .  chapter two

Seat, whence His Word useth to be proclaimed . . .). And this Reverence ye do when ye enter the Chapel, and when you approach nearer to offer. And this is no innovation, for you are bound by your Order, and that’s not new. And idolatry it is not, to worship towards God towards His Holy Table; for had it been idolatry, I presume Queen Elizabeth and King James would not have practised it, and not in those Solemnities. And being not idolatry, but true Divine Worship, you will, I hope, give a poor priest leave to worship God, as yourselves do. For if it be God’s worship, I ought to do it as well as you: And if it be idolatry, you ought not to do it more than I.279 Laudarguesthatbodilyworshipisappropriatetowardsthealtarsincethis is the place where the Eucharist is celebrated, and that the altar is worthy of greater worship than the pulpit. He accuses the Puritans of giving greater reverence to the pulpit, as the place where the sermon is preached, but at the same time not wanting to reverence the altar where the body of Christ is present. His previous statements suggest that any presence of Christ at the altar would not be an immoderate or fleshy presence, but a moderate, spiritual, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Laud is also accusing the Puritans of double standards, since they themselves as members of the Order of the Garter are required to bow before the altar. In a volume of private devotion published in  after his death entitled Summary of Devotions Compiled and Used by Dr William Laud, Laud affirms the spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and denies any immoderate or fleshy notion of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. In this work Laud says in his devotions in relation to the Eucharist: O Lord, into a clean, charitable, and thankful heart give me grace to receive the blessed body and blood of Thy Son, my most blessed Saviour, that it may more perfectly, cleanse me from all dregs of sin. Behold, I quarrel not the words of Thy Son my Saviour’s blessed institution. I know His words are no gross unnatural conceit, but they are spirit and life, and supernatural. While the world disputes, I believe. He hath promised me, if I come worthily, that I shall receive His most precious body and blood, with all the benefits of His passion. If I can receive it and retain it (Lord, make me able, make me worthy), I know I can no more die eternally than that body and blood can die, and be shed again. HowIreceivethebodyandbloodofmymostblessedSaviourJesusChrist, the price of my redemption, is the very wonder of my soul, yet my most firm and constant belief upon the words of my Saviour.

279 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation 

Lord, I have received this Sacrament of the body and blood of my dear Saviour. His mercy hath given it, and my faith received it into my soul. I humbly beseech Thee, speak mercy and peace unto my conscience, and enrich me with all those graces which come from that precious body and blood, even till I be possessed of eternal life in Christ.280 Laud’s theology of the Eucharist speaks of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and is based on realist philosophical assumptions to a moderate degree.

280 Laud, The Works of Archbishop Laud, III, pp. –.  chapter two

Hamon L’Estrange

Hamon L’Estrange (–) was a writer who produced a commentary on The Book of Common Prayer,entitledThe Alliance of Divine Offices,281 first published in , just prior to the revision of the Prayer Book in . The full title of L’Estrange’s work gives considerable indication of the contents: The Alliance of Divine Offices exhibiting all the Liturgies of the Church of England since the Reformation; as also the Late Scotch Service-Book, with all their respective variations; and upon them all Annotations, vindicating the Book of Common Prayer from the main objections of its adversaries, explicating many parcels thereof hitherto not clearly understood, shewing the conformity it beareth with the primitive practice, and giving a fair prospect into the usages of the Ancient Church. To these is added at the end The Order of the Communion set forth  Edw. VI.The purpose therefore of this work was not only to set out all the liturgies of the Church of England since the Reformation, but to also show that the liturgy of the Church of England and that current for L’Estrange, that is, the Prayer Book of , were consistent with primitive liturgical practice and theology. L’Estrange presents a commentary on the service of Holy Commu- nion282 and this commentary will be used in this case study to assess L’Estrange’s eucharistic doctrine. When speaking of the Offertory L’Estrange says that: “The whole action of the sacred Communion is elemented of nothing but sacrifices and oblations. So in our Church, so in the Apostolic, which should be the grand examplar of all; and though our Church varieth somewhat in the mode, from the first original, yet in the substance her practice is conformable.”283 The sacrifices and oblations to which he refers are four in kind, with all seen to be in both the primitive and the English Eucharist. These four are: The first is the bringing of our gifts to the Altar, that is, the species and elements of the sacred symbols, and withal some overplus, according to ourabilitiesforthereliefofthepoor. The second sacrifice is the consecration of the elements, and presenting them up to God by the prayers of the minister and congregation, whereby they become that Sacrament for which they are set apart and deputed.

281 Hamon L’Estrange, The Alliance of Divine Offices (Oxford: Parker, ). 282 Ibid, pp. –. 283 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

The third is the sacrifice of praises and prayers unto God which are styled sacrifices. The fourth is the oblation of ourselves, of our souls and bodies.284 The Eucharist can therefore in L’Estrange’s understanding rightly be called a sacrifice in four ways, in accordance with primitive practice in the Church. The offertory is seen to be more than the giving of alms, since it also relates to the offering of bread and wine, praise and thanksgiving and self. It seems that L’Estrange is careful here to distinguish between moderate and immoderate notions of realism. The second sacrifice is not that of the literal or fleshy body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, whereby the elements are set apart and deputed, with no re-iteration of the historic sacrifice implied, but nonetheless presented ‘up to God’.The offering of bread and wine is that set apart and deputed, that is, to exhibit the body and blood of Christ in a sacramental manner. L’Estrange speaks of the “the creatures destined for bodily or mystical refreshment”285 when he speaks of the bread and wine of the Eucharist and of the prayers used in relation to them, saying that the prayers were of two kinds, “εαριστα ‘thanksgiving’ to God for those benefits” and “ελγα ‘invocation’ of His blessing upon them”.286 He also describes the elements as “separated for the holy Communion”.287 This separation or consecration is brought about by: ThewordofGodandprayer,theverywaybywhichourSaviourHimself sanctified those elements in His first institution, Matt. xxvi. , ελγ σας ‘calling upon God for His blessing’, and εαριστ σας ‘giving thanks’, in which action it must be supposed that Christ had more than a general design of saying grace, as we phrase it, for those elements as creatures ordained for common nutrients, viz. and intention of invocating God’s blessing upon them, in reference to those ends for which He meant by His institution to separate and depute them.288 L’Estrange then notes that in the  BCP both calling upon God for his blessing of the elements (epiclesis and directions to the priest to take the bread into his hands) and giving thanks were used, but the  BCP removed the calling upon God for the blessing of the elements (both the epiclesis and the directions). L’Estrange observes that one of the

284 Ibid, p. . 285 Ibid, p. . 286 Ibid, p. . 287 Ibid, p. . 288 Ibid, p. .  chapter two constituents of the consecration is therefore missing and that it would be better to restore this to the English liturgy, as the Scottish Prayer Book (i.e. that of ) had done.289 The argument for the re-inclusion of an epiclesis in the Eucharist did not carry through to the revision of the  BCP, however L’Estrange’s suggestion nonetheless gives some hint of his theology of the Eucharist. The seeking of God’s blessing on the elements such that they become or ‘be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ is indicative of moderate realism, as expressed in the  BCP and in the Scottish Prayer Book of .290 In seeking the re-insertion of an epiclesis and the directions to the priest, L’Estrange also seems to be advocating moderate realism in relation to eucharistic presence. L’Estrange also argues that: “This blessed Sacrament is commemoratio Dominicae passionis, ‘a commemoration of our Saviour’s passion’”, since this “was His express command when he instituted the holy rite, τυτ πιετε ες τν μν νμνησις ‘do this in remembrance of Me’: which words import somewhat more than a calling of His passion to mind, a meditating and thinking upon it when we are conversant about the sacred action, as it vulgarly apprehended. Sure I am the primitive Church stretched it farther, and held herself obliged thereby, not only to a mental, but a vocal commemoration”.291 Citing evidence from the Scripture and the Fathers, L’Estrange makes the point that commemoration was part of the ancient liturgies. In approving of the ancient example he gives approval to the moderate realist notion of commemoration, where Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension become part of the offering or pleading in the Eucharist or as he calls it the ‘sacred action’. L’ E s t r ange in h is wor k The Alliance of Divine Offices gives indica- tions of moderate realism in relation to both eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice and oblation and the bread and wine are known as the body and blood of Christ. Sign and signified are linked together in a moderate realist fashion. At the same time immoderate realism is denied.

289 Ibid, pp. –. 290 See Joseph Ketley (ed) The Two Liturgies, A.D. and A.D. with Other Documents set forth by Authority in the Reign of King Edward VI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/The Parker Society, ), p.  and Gordon Donaldson, The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book of  (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ), p. . 291 L’ E s t r ange , The Alliance of Divine Offices, p. . the period of the reformation 

Richard Montague

Richard Montague (–) was the Bishop of Norwich. He expresses his theology of the Eucharist in a work entitled AGaggfortheNew Gospel? No. A New Gagg for an Old Goose published in  and in another work entitled Appello Caesarem: A Just Appeal from the Two Unjust Informers, published in .292 He calls transubstantiation a “monster of monsters”, but argues that there is no difference between theviewoftheChurchofEnglandandtheChurchofRome“inthe point of the real presence”, except “only in de modo praesentiae”, t h a t i s in the mode of the presence.293 For Montague the mode of the presence cannot be transubstantiation, but there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist nonetheless. Montague also argues that there is “change”, “alteration”, “transmutation”, and “transelementation” in the elements of the Eucharist and that the consecrated elements are “somewhat more than mere ordinary bread and wine”. This is because he says that there is “a sacramental being of them, and not only a natural, in their use and designment” and that “no man otherwise believeth but that the natural condition of the bread consecrated is otherwise than it was; being disposed and used to that holy use of imparting Christ unto the communicants”. He therefore says that people should “be content with That it is, and do not seek nor define How it is so”. 294 In relation to sacrifice, Montague states that the Eucharist is a sacrifice but that it is “not propitiatory for the living and dead” and “not an external, visible, true, and proper sacrifice, but only representative, rememorative, and spiritual sacrifice”. He therefore concludes that there is “no such sacrifice of the altar”,thereby rejecting any immoderate realist view of sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist.295 Montague’s theology of the Eucharist rejects any form of immoderate realism and accepts a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist.

292 See sections of these books cited in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. . 293 Montague, AGaggfortheNewGospel, pp. –, –, ibid, p. . 294 Montague, Appello Caesarem, pp. , , , , , ibid, p. . 295 Montague, Appello Caesarem, pp. , , ibid, p. .  chapter two

Thomas Morton

Thomas Morton (–) was the Bishop of Durham. His views on the Eucharist present at different times both realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions. Morton’s views on the Eucharist are found in his work called Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ, by some called the ‘Mass of Christ’, Discovering the Superstitions, Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Abominations of the Romish Mass, Together with the Consequent Obstinacies, Overture of Perjuries, and Heresies discernable in the Defenders thereof, published in .296 Morton denies transubstantiation and the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well as maintaining that Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper were figurative and not literal.297 The faithful he argues receive Christ’s body and blood spiritually by faith. He explains this more fully saying: There lieth a charge upon every soul that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he discern the Lord’s Body; which office of discerning (according to the judgement of Protestants) is not only in the use but also in the nature to distinguish the object of faith from the object of sense. The first object of Christian faith is the Divine alteration and change of natural bread into a Sacrament of Christ’s Body; this we callaDivinechange,becausenonebutthesameOmnipotentPowerthat made the creature and element of bread can change it into a Sacrament. The second object of faith is the Body of Christ itself Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the faithful communicants. There are then three objects in all to be distinguished. The first is before consecration, the bread merely natural; secondly after consecration, bread Sacramental; thirdly, Christ’s own body, which is spiritual and supersubstantial bread truly exhibited by this Sacrament to the nourishment of the souls of the faithful.298 Morton here states the discerning of the Lord’s body involves more than ‘use’ or ministration but also in nature. This suggests instantiation whereby there is ‘divine alteration’ or change in the bread and wine

296 See sections of this book cited in Darwell Stone, (ed) A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, pp. – and in Paul More and Frank Cross, Anglicanism. The Thought and Practice of the Church of England, illustrated from the Religious Literature of the Seventeenth Century (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 297 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book II, chapter I, citied in Stone, p. . 298 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book III, chapter i, section , cited in More and Cross, p. . the period of the reformation  which is not a physical alteration (immoderate realism) but an alteration nonetheless. This results in Christ being ‘verily exhibited’ which also suggests a givenness of presence in what he calls ‘bread sacramental’.This exhibition is spiritual and beyond notions of substance. All this seems to suggest that Morton is advocating a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. He associated sign and signified when speaking of this presence, thereby suggesting realist philosophical assumptions. At other times however, Morton presents nominalist philosophical assumptions in relation to the Eucharist. Morton denies any immoderate notions of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, but he also seems to be arguing for a figurative model of presence, whereby sign and signified have no real relationship to one another, other than signification. Morton does not deny the “receiving of Christ spiritually by faith” but states that the devout communicant is “possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the soul”.299 This suggests that the presence of Christ has little or nothing to do with the outward signs of bread and wine and that the reception of Christ is a purely spiritual act. There seems to be a definite nominalist separation of sign and signified. The idea of any change in the bread and wine is limited to a sacramental use, whereby the elements are set aside for a sacred sacramental purpose of signifying Christ’s body and blood.300 There is no suggestion of an instantiation of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the elements, only a spiritual exhibition of Christ’s body. Morton seems to be presenting a nominalist view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, separating the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ into self-contained entities. In other places however, Morton seems to express a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.301 Here Morton argues for four kinds of truth in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist: sign, revelation, seal and exhibition. In regard to sign he says, “in the signs of bread and wine is represented the true and real Body and Blood of Christ”. In relation to exhibition he speaks of “a truth exhibiting and

299 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book I, Chapter iii, Section , cited in Stone, II, p. . 300 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book III, Chapter i, Section , cited in Stone, II, p. . 301 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book IV, Chapter i, Section , cited in Stone, II, pp. –.  chapter two delivering to the faithful communicants the thing signified and sealed”. Here the signs of bread and wine are given much higher status, purpose and presence, than they were in the previous quotations. Not only are the bread and wine a sign of Christ’s body and blood, but they also exhibit and deliver it to the communicant. This is an indication that Morton sees the gift of Christ’s body and blood as being given by the bread and wine. He confirms this in another work, entitled, ACatholicAppealfor Protestants, where he says, “the gift is His precious body and blood . . . conveyed unto mankind by the word and sacrament, as by a visible deed of gift under the signs and seals of common elements of bread and wine, consecrated to that use.”.302 These are seemingly expressions of a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, where the body and blood of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in a moderate realist fashion. Morton is careful to avoid any immoderate realism though, since in another place he argues that the inward part of the sacrament, the body and blood of Christ, is spiritual, thereby denying any corporal (immoderate) presence.303 There is some lack of consistency in Morton’s treatment of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This tendency is confirmed by Cyril Dugmore who refers to the group of central churchmen, including Morton, as having thoughts which were confused and divergent.304 Perhaps at times Morton was distracted by the power of the polemic against the Church of Rome, a church with which he sees no opportunity of toleration and reconciliation.305 The writings of Morton on eucharistic sacrifice are more of a unity thanhiswritingsoneucharisticpresence.Whenhespeaksofsacrifice and the Eucharist, he argues for a moderate realist view. He denies any immoderate form of eucharistic sacrifice, such as a propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist.306 He argues though for “a sacrifice Eucharistical”.307

302 Morton, ACatholicAppealforProtestants, II, ii, , cited in Cyril Dugmore, Eucha- ristic Theology in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), II, p. . 303 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book V, Chapter i, Section , cited in Stone, II, pp. –. 304 Dugmore, Eucharistic Theology in England from Hooker to Waterland,p.. 305 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book IV, Chapter i, Section , cited in Stone, II, p. . 306 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, Chapter vii, Section , cited in Stone, II, p. . 307 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, Chapter vii, Section , cited in Stone, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

By this eucharistic sacrifice Morton means more than just remembering. He states the offering is commemorative, that is, a “sacramental representation, commemoration and application”308 of Christ’ssacrifice on the cross. This coincides with what is considered to be a moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice. The eucharistic theology of Thomas Morton expresses both moderate realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions.

308 Morton, Of the Institution of the Sacrament, Book VI, Chapter vii, Section , cited in Stone, II, p. .  chapter two

William Nicholson

William Nicholson (–) was the Bishop of Gloucester whose views on the Eucharist are based on the notion of relationship.309 Nichol- son in  published a work entitled A Plain Exposition of the Church Catechism. A second edition entitled An Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England, was published in 310 and it is this second edition that is referred to here. Nicholson speaks of the sacraments in a realist manner. He says: “That GodbyHisSondidredeemtheworld,istaughtintheCreed.Inthispart [that is, this part of the Catechism] is taught how God by the Sacraments doth present, exhibit and seal to us that redemption.”311 Sacraments, Nicholson states, are “the means instrumental, and ordinary seals, by which God hath promised to convey and assure Christ’s merits unto us, and commanded us in this way to receive them.”312 The sacraments are seen to be effective means or instruments of conveying and receiving the grace of Christ and as such the sacraments are more than bare signs separated from what they signify. For Nicholson the grace of Christ (the signified) is conveyed by the sacraments (the sign). Indeed Nicholson refers to the sacraments as “visible marks by which God gives notice of His approach, and purposeth to impart the vital or saving grace of Christ to all that are capable thereof.”313 The source of the grace imparted, however, is God, not the sacrament itself, since Nicholson also says: “Which grace a worthy receiver partakes of, not from any natural or supernatural quality in the Sacrament, but from God Himself which is the Author of the Sacraments; it is received from Him, and not from them.”314 For Nicholson there is no immoderate realism in the sacraments where Christ is present in a fleshy manner, yet the grace of Christ is however presented in the sacrament. In discussing what he calls the true knowledge of a sacrament, Nichol- son reflects on the sacrament as a visible sign. He mentions:

309 Henry McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (Norwich: Canterbury Press, ), p. . 310 William Nicholson, An Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England (Ox- ford: Parker, ). 311 Ibid, p. . 312 Ibid, p. . 313 Ibid, p. . 314 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

. The matter of the Sacrament, that whereof they outwardly consist, and of the secret grace which is represented. For it is a ‘visible sign of an invisible grace’. . The essential form, consisting in that relation, which that sign hathto grace, or grace to that sign, which generally ariseth not out of the elements themselves, but from the institution; so it was ‘ordained’. . The efficient cause, or who it was this ordained them; it was Christ. ‘Ordained by Christ himself’. . The end or final cause. . ‘To be a means whereby we receive grace’. . ‘To be a pledge to assure us thereof’.315 The grace of Christ is represented in the sacraments with the essential form of a sacrament being ‘that relation’ which exists between sign and grace or grace and sign. The ‘relation’ does not arise from the elements but from the institution of the essential form. The relation nonethelessinvolvesthesignandthesignifiedanditisthisrelationwhich marks Nicholson’s sacramental theology as realist. This is made clear as Nicholson says: “This grace is altogether inward, it is spiritual; the soul only of him that hath it sealed to him is conscious to it; but outwardly and visibly it is conveyed unto him by these external elements, symbols, and signs, or images.”316 He also says: The form of the Sacrament consists in relation, which is a mutual respect betwixt the sign and the thing signified; . . . For in these there is such a mutual union and reference of one to the other, that the one term being removed, the other is removed also; . . . They stand and fall together. It is so in this case, take away the signs and there will be no Sacrament; and take away the thing signified, though the outward sign be there, yet they represent and seal nothing. The reason is because both want that to which they relate. The relation then is the mystical union and conjunction of these two, which is neither natural, nor local, nor yet corporal, but merely sacramental; of which, if you shall ask a reason, no other can be given, but because Christ hath ordained it should be so. For the Sacraments are that altogether, and nothing else, which God by the word of His divine institution doth testify He will have them to be. As therefore our union with Christ is wholly mystical, so also in the Sacrament the union of the things and the signs is altogether mystical and spiritual, and depends merely upon Christ the ordainer’s will and counsel.317

315 Ibid, p. . 316 Ibid, p. . 317 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

Nicholson here affirms that grace is conveyed by the outward symbols. It is the relation between the sign and the signified that is the form of the sacrament. This relation is a ‘mutual union’ where the sign cannot be separated from the signified and remain the sacrament. The notion of a sacrament for Nicholson is much more than a sign to remind someone of the presence or sacrifice of Christ in the case of the Eucharist. In words similar to Hooker, Nicholson speaks of conjunction, whereby the sign and the signified relate to each other. This is the language of moderate realism. Immoderate realism is excludedsince Nicholson says that the union and conjunction is not natural, local or corporal, but sacramental. By sacramental it is clear that he means more than bare symbols dependent on the faith of the recipient. The union or conjunction seems to have the character of mystical and spiritual presence between ‘the things and the signs’ and Christ. This is moderate realism and seems to relate well to the notion of an instantiation of Christ’s nature by sacramental instrumentality. In describing the purpose of the sacraments, Nicholson says they represent, exhibit and seal.318 He describes these three purposes more fully as follows: . They represent and set before our eyes under corporal and visible elements what Christ hath done for us. For example, the bread broken, Christ’s Body crucified; and the wine poured out, His blood shed for us. And in this respect they are called signs and monuments of His love; signs of heavenly things. . But this is not all, for they exhibit also. In them that grace is truly given, which by the signs is represented. All indeed receive not the grace of God that receive the Sacrament of grace. But by them grace is offered to all the Church, though exhibited only to the faithful; for upon the performance of this order He actually makes over and conveys so much grace and favour unto us as at that time is useful for us; such is pardon for sin, reconciliation to, and acceptance of, our persons, strength to do what He requires; of all which the Sacrament is a means, canalis gratiae, ‘the conduit-pipe of grace’. . They are pledges to assure us of this grace. For the Sacrament is asitwerea pawn left us by God in the hand of the minister, to give us acquiescence and ground of confidence that the graces promised shall be surely performed. Ofwhichthatwedoubttheless,itiscalledaseal.ForGod,notcontent with the general offer of His promises, out of His mere mercy hath though fit to seal them to every particular believer, having a regard thereby to their infirmity.319

318 Ibid, p. . 319 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

For Nicholson sacraments represent what Christ has done for people. The representation of Christ’s body is in the bread broken and the blood shed is represented in the wine. The grace of God is exhibited in the sacraments and conveyed to the recipient in the sacrament. The sacrament is described as a ‘conduit-pipe’ whereby the grace of God is sealed for each person who receives the sacrament. This representation, exhibition and sealing of the signified in the sign is an expression of moderate realism. In the Exposition Nicholson speaks of how Christ is present in the Eucharist. He says: Now if it be demanded how so small a piece of bread, or a spoonful of wine can produce this effect? the answer is easy, that it proceeds not from the elements, but from the will and power of Christ, who ordained these to be means and instruments for that end. They remain in substance what they were; but in relation to Him are more. It is spiritual bread and spiritual wine, so called, not so much because spiritually received, but because being so received, it causes us to receive the Spirit, and by the power of the Spirit as man may be enabled to do all things.320 It is the relationship between the elements and Christ that changes the bread and wine, but this does not refer to any change in the substance of the bread and wine. The change is one of relationship or use and this is what McAdoo calls ‘personalist’.321 The elements remain what they were in substance, that is, bread and wine, but in relationship to Christ, they are more, that is, means and instruments of Christ’s presence and power in the Eucharist. This change in relationship is distinguished from any change in substance. Indeed Nicholson argues that theories related to a change of substance in the bread and wine, such as transubstantiation, “clearly take away the relation, and the essence of a Sacrament.”322 This does not mean however, that Nicholson sees the elements as bare figures. In speaking of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist Nicholson speaks of a real presence, saying that “such a real presence must be admitted, or else the communicant receives nothing”.323 It is in relationship to Christ that the elements are more, not in any sense another substance, but another sense in relationship and use. Further Nicholson speaks, with obvious references to the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer (‘verily and indeed taken and received’) of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying:

320 Ibid, p. . 321 McAdoo and Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition,p.. 322 Nicholson, An Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England, p. . 323 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

For what is here represented, is verily and indeed taken and received. It is on all hands confessed that in this Sacrament there is a true and real participation of Christ, who thereby imparts Himself, even His whole entire Person, as a mystical head, unto every soul that receives Him, and that every receiver doth thereby incorporate and unite himself to Christ as a mystical member of Him, and of them also, whom He acknowledges to be His own. This though mystically, yet it is truly; though invisibly, yetit is really done.324 When Nicholson speaks of the change in the elements he says: “That which is more material to know is the change of these, which is wholly sacramental, not in substance, but in use. For they remain bread and wine, such as before in nature: but consecrate and set apart to represent our Saviour’s passion, and exhibit and seal to a worthy receiver the benefits of that passion.”325 This is a crucial passage. Nicholson seems to be putting a view of moderate realism in the Eucharist in relation to the elements and the sacrifice of Christ. Christ is present not only ‘in’ the Eucharist but ‘in’ the elements (see below also). The elements remain unchanged in substance but Christ is present in them. This is based on moderate realism, where the nature of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine oftheEucharist,with thesubstanceoftheelementsunchanged. The means of the presence is instantiation, whereby the elements are changed in use and relationship. Nicholson defines the words ‘presence’ and ‘real’ in the following passage and relates the use of these words to the Eucharist. He says: Christ is said to be present four manner of ways: . Divinely, as God, and so He is present in all places. Whither shall I fly from Thy presence? I, the Lord, fill heaven and earth. . Spiritually, and so is He present in the hearts of true believers. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. . Sacramentally, and so is He present in the Sacrament, because He hath ordained the Sacrament to represent and communicate Christ’s death unto us. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ, etc.? . Corporally; so present in Judea in the days of His flesh. And as the word ‘presence’, so the word ‘really’, is diversely taken: for sometimes, . It is opposed to that which is feigned, and is but imaginary, and importsasmuchas‘truly’.

324 Ibid, p. . 325 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

. It is opposed to that which is merely figurative, and barely representative, and imports as much as ‘effectually’. . It is opposed to that which is spiritual, and imports as much as ‘corporally’ or ‘bodily’. We then believe Christ to be present in the Eucharist Divinely after a special manner, Spiritually in the hearts of the communicants, Sacramentally or relatively in the elements. And this presence of His is real, in the two former acceptions of ‘real’; but not in the last, for He is truly and effectually there present, though not corporally, bodily, carnally, locally.326 The great value in what Nicholson has done lies in the categorization of the views in relation to both ‘presence’ and ‘real’. He does not reject the presence by means of faith and so he admits the ‘spiritual’ presence, but at the same time he also admits a ‘Divine’ and ‘Sacramental’ presence. These three, spiritual, divine and sacramental are all manners in which Christ is present in the Eucharist and also examples of moderate realism, whereby the nature of Christ is instantiated in ‘all places’, in ‘the hearts of true believers’ and in ‘the sacrament’. Christ is present divinely in the Eucharist, spiritually in the hearts of the communicant and sacramentally in the elements. It is these three manners of the presence which make Nicholson’s view on the Eucharist realist to a moderate degree. At the same time he excludes any immoderate realism, denying any ‘corporal’ presence as the means whereby Christ is in places, people and sacraments. In the same way Nicholson argues that the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist is ‘true’ and ‘effectual’,but not ‘corporal’ or ‘bodily’. Christ is really present in the Eucharist, in the communicants and in the elements, and the effects of his death are known in the Eucharist, but this is in the form of moderate realism only. Nicholson’s system of classification for ‘presence’ and ‘real’ also gives some clues as to his views on eucharistic sacrifice, since he says that the sacramental presence, not only represents, but also communicates Christ’s death to the faithful in the Eucharist. Indeed Nicholson argues that in the Eucharist “we have Christ crucified before our eyes, represented lively before us as upon the cross”.327 In view of his exclusion of a corporal sense of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, this crucifixion ‘before our eyes’ must also be read in a moderate realist sense. This seems to be confirmed by the use of the word ‘represented’. He also says the purpose of the Eucharist is not only “to represent our

326 Ibid, p. . 327 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

Saviour’s passion” but also to “exhibit and seal to a worthy receiver the benefits of that passion”.328 Thisismoderaterealisminrelationtosac- rifice in the Eucharist. The benefits of Christ’s death are made known in the Eucharist ‘effectually’ and ‘truly’. In no way does Nicholson see any place for immoderate realism in relation to the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, since he specifically excludes any corporal notion of either ‘presence’ or ‘real’ in relation to sacrifice. Nicholson’s contribution to the Anglican eucharistic tradition is significant and represents an analysis of the real presence. His views fit well with the idea of instantiation and moderate realism being proposed here as part of the model of Anglican eucharistic theology. Indeed Nicholson describes the Eucharist as “the conduit”329 of grace. It is in the Eucharist that thegrace of Christis instantiated and conveyed. Perhapsthe greatest contribution that Nicholson makes is to distinguish ‘real presence’ from ‘corporal presence’. Earlier Anglican writers, such as Cranmer, seemed incapable of doing this, and frequently used ‘real presence’ to mean ‘corporal or bodily presence’.330 Nicholson’s approach distinguishes the ‘real’ from the ‘corporal and bodily’ and so places ‘real presence’ within the notion of moderate realism, whilst at the same time excluding any suggestion of an immoderate presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.

328 Ibid, p. . 329 Ibid, p. . 330 Thomas Cranmer, Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist,inThe Works of Thomas Cranmer, (ed. G. Duffield) (Appleford, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtenay Press, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

Scottish Prayer Book of 

The Scottish Book of Common Prayer, introduced unsuccessfully fora short while into Scotland in , gives some clues as to the thinking of the Scottish bishops about the Eucharist.331 The Scottish episcopal succession was restored in  with the consecration of Archbishop Spotswood, Bishop Lamb and Bishop Hamilton. They in turn consecrated other bishops for the Scottish Church.332 Oneofthetasksofthe Scottish bishops was to write and put into practice a Scottish Book of Common Prayer. In style and wording, the Scottish book of  resembles the  BCP,althoughitisnotidentical.InthetheologyoftheEucharisthowever, it is similar to the  book, presenting the view that Christ is really present in the consecrated elements. Using the pattern of the  BCP an epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit is made over the bread and wine in the  book. The words used are: Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee and of thy almighty goodness vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify with thy word and Holy Spirit these thy creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son: so that we receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of the same his most precious body and blood.333 The bread and wine are blessed and sanctified by the power of the word andHolySpiritsothatthey‘maybeuntous’thebodyandbloodofChrist. The implication is that Christ’s body and blood is present in the bread and wine and that the receiving of the elements is the means whereby the body and blood of Christ is given to those who receive communion. The view expressed is one of moderate realism. The notion of a eucharistic sacrifice is also present in the  book. This can be seen in the words from the Prayer of Consecration which say: Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy

331 For an account of the  Prayer Book see Gordon Donaldson, The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book of  (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ). 332 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longman, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 333 Donaldson, The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book of , pp. –.  chapter two

holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.334 The memorial of the death of Christ and his resurrection is made in close connection with the gifts of bread and wine. In fact the celebration of thememoryissaidtobemadewiththegiftsofbreadandwine.There is no suggestion of immoderate realism but a statement of moderate realism using the notion of anamnesis, whereby the effects of the historic sacrifice are operative in the present through the celebration of the Eucharist and with the gifts of bread and wine but without any re- iteration of the historic sacrifice or addition to it. The sense of an offering is also heightened by the inclusion of a new set of scriptural sentences following after the sermon.335 These sentences make frequent reference to the notion of offering to God. The placement of these sentences at the time when the bread and wine, as well as the collection of money, are being brought forward, suggests a sacrificial element in the service and that the bread and wine are seen as an offering to God. The rubric following the sentences refers to the ‘offertory’, although it is unclear whether this means the money or the bread and wine. The rubric however is specific in directing that, “the Presbyter shall then offer up and place the bread and wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord’s Table”.336 All this is suggestive of moderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist. The Scottish book of  also restores the structure of the ancient Canon as one continuous prayer, as it was in the  BCP,withthe anamnesis and epiclesis included.337 In the ,  and  revisions of the BCP the ancient Canon was broken up with the Prayer of Oblation being placed after the reception of Holy Communion, in order to avoid any suggestion of a re-sacrificing of Christ in the Eucharist. The prayer became essentially one of grateful thanks for communion received and for the past death and resurrection of Christ, rather than one of thanks and offering in relation to the effect of Christ’s sacrifice in the present. In the  Scottish Eucharist the Prayer of Oblation again became part of

334 Ibid, p. . 335 Ibid, pp. –. 336 Ibid, p. . 337 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation  the Prayer of Consecration, as it had been in the  BCP.Thismeant that the language of offering was used in the presence of the consecrated bread and wine. Such a conjunction of ideas and elements had been specifically excluded in the  BCP and the  BCP in order to limit any sacrificial notions being associated with the elements of communion. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving was only something done after the receiving of communion as a thankful response.338 The  Scottish Eucharist changes this and reverts to the association of the signs with the signified offering of Christ. The Scottish Commissioners at Archbishop Laud’s trial which began in  specifically objected to the placement of the Prayer of Oblation before the administration of communion and suggested that this was done “for no other end but that the memorial and sacrifice of praise mentioned in it may be understood according to the popish meaning, not of spiritual sacrifice, but of the oblation of the body of the Lord.”.339 The criticism was therefore, that the  Eucharist contained a theology of immoderate realism in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in regard to eucharistic sacrifice. Laud rejects this criticism although he admits that the order of the prayers is changed in the  Eucharist from other earlier eucharistic liturgies (i.e. the , the  and the  English BCP). He says: “‘This book [the Scottish Prayer Book of ] (they say) inverts the order of the Communion in the Book of England’. Well, and what then? To invert the order of some prayers, in the Communion, or any other part of the service, doth neither pervert the prayers, nor corrupt the worship of God.”340 Laud seems to place no great significance on the placement of the Prayer of Oblation before the reception of communion and does not see this as a theological difficulty. He argues that in fact the order of the prayers in the Scottish Eucharist of  more accurately reflects the primitive practice of the Church. Since he also rejects immoderate realism (see various quotes in the Laud case study) it must be assumed that Laud is also rejecting any suggestion that immoderate realism is implied or intended in the Eucharist in the  book.

338 Ibid, p. . 339 Cited in W.Jardine Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London: SPCK, ), p. . 340 William Laud, The Works of Archbishop Laud ( Volumes) (ed. W. Scott and J. Bliss) (Oxford: Parker, –), III, p. .  chapter two

The Prayer of Consecration in the  book, like that in the  BCP, did not lead directly to the communion as it did in the ,  and  English books. This leading directly to communion was done in order to avoid any suggestion of adoration of Christ in the bread and wine (see Cranmer case study and the  BCP case study). There were no prayers prayed in the presence of the elements in these earlier prayer books and the receiving of communion followed immediately after the Prayer of Consecration. Instead in the Scottish book however, the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access followed the Prayer of Consecration.341 The placement of these prayers, before communion and in the presence of the consecrated elements, strongly suggests a real presence of Christ in the bread and wine remaining on the altar for a time before the reception by the communicants. There is no suggestion however, that this presence is anything more than that of moderate realism. The words of administration in the  Scottish book were those used in the  BCP. At the delivery of the bread these words were said: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Amen.”,342 and at the delivery of the wine these words were said: “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Amen.”343 The association of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ is clear in these words of administration. This is intensified by the dropping of the new words introduced in the  BCP (and maintained together with the original  words, in the  and  BCP).Thereseemstobelittledoubtaboutwhatissaidtobegiventothe communicant in the  Scottish words of administration, that is, the body and blood of Christ. In relation to the Puritan accusation that the  Eucharist taught that Christ was corporally present in the sacrament, Laud stated: They say, ‘the corporal presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament isto be found in this Service-book’. But they must pardon me; I know it is not there. I cannot be myself of a contrary judgment, and yet suffer that to pass. But let’s see their proof. ‘The words of the Mass-book, serving to that purpose, which are sharply censured by Bucer in King Edward’s Liturgy, and are to be found in the Book of England, yet are taken into this

341 Ibid, p. . 342 Ibid, p. . 343 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

Service-book’. I know no words telling to this purpose in King Edward’s Liturgy, fit for Bucer to censure sharply; and therefore not tending to that purpose; for did they tend to that, they could not be censured too sharply. The words, it seems, are these: ‘O merciful Father, of Thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify with Thy word and Holy Spirit these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine that they may be untous the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son’. Well, if these be the words, how will they squeeze corporal presence out of them? Why, first, ‘the change here is made a work of God’s omnipotency’. Well, and a work of omnipotency it is, whatever the change be. For less than Omnipotence cannot change these elements, either in nature or use to so high a service as they are put in that great Sacrament. Any by them is no proof at all of intending the ‘corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament’. ‘Tis true this passage is not in the prayer of consecration in the Service-book of England; but I wish with all my heart it were. For though the consecration of the elements may be without it, yet it is much more solemn and full by that invocation. Secondly, ‘these words’, they say, ‘intend the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament because the words in the Mass are ut fiant nobis’, ‘that they may be unto us the body and blood of Christ’. Now for the good of Christendom I would with all my heart that these words ut fiant nobis,—that these elements might be ‘to us’, worthy receivers, the blessed body and blood of our Saviour,—were the worst error in the Mass. For then I would hope that this great controversy, which to all men that are out of the Church is the shame, and among all that are within the Church is the division of Christendom, might have some good accommodation. For if it be only ut fiant nobis, that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ,itimpliesclearlythatthey‘aretous’butarenottransubstantiatedin themselves into the body and blood of Christ, nor that there is any corporal presence in or under the elements. And then nothing can more cross the doctrine of the present Church of Rome than their own service. For as the elements after the benediction or consecration are, and may be called, the body and blood of Christ without any addition in that real and true sense in which they are so called in Scripture; so, when they are said to become the body and blood of Christ nobis, to us that communicate as we ought; there is by this addition, fiant nobis, an allay in the proper signification of the body and blood: and the true sense, so well signified and expressed that the words cannot well be understood otherwise than to imply not the corporal substance but the real and yet the spiritual use of them. And so the words ut fiant nobis import quite contrary to that which they are brought to prove.344 Laud is denying any immoderate or corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament and affirming a ‘real and yet spiritual’ presence of Christ inthe

344 Laud, Works, III, pp. –.  chapter two sacrament. This real and yet spiritual sense is an expression of moderate realism and one which he sees as being expressed in the Scottish Book of Common Prayer of . What final assessment then is to be made of the  Scottish Eucharist and Prayer Book. It has been argued that this book represents the first attempt on the part of Anglican bishops to move outside the Reforma- tion model of the Eucharist, both doctrinally and liturgically, established by Cranmer.345 Anglican bishops were able to do this in Scotland since they did not have the restraints against such action there were in England. Although the  book made use of Cranmer’s prayers, it understood them in a different way, as is indicated by the inclusion of the anamnesis and the epiclesis, and the clearer statements of moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist of that book. It seems that the  book “was but expressing practically what had already been formulated doctrinally”.346 The  Scottish Book of Com- mon Prayer establishes a tradition where moderate realism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, is intended. It ison this tradition that further liturgical development occurred, for example the Scottish Liturgy of  and the various prayer books of the Epis- copal Church of the United States of America which were significantly influenced by the Scottish models, and where the doctrine of a real, yet spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist and a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, based on moderate realism, were firmly established within the Anglican tradition.

345 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 346 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation 

Christopher Sutton

Christopher Sutton (–) was a Canon of Westminster and Lin- coln and a devotional writer. His devotional writings were very popular andwerewrittenwithgreatfervour.Inhismostusedwork,Godly Medi- tations upon the Most Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,347 published in , he sought to argue a position of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that was midway between that of transubstantiation and Zwingli. He deprecates controversy, but at the same time argues that although consecration of the bread and wine in the Eucharist brought about no change in their substance, it radically altered their use. John Henry Newman reis- sued a new edition of the book in  and wrote the preface. The  edition is used in this case study. The book was popular with the Tractar- ians348 and used to support the Tractarian theology of the Eucharist. The following quotations from Godly Meditation will help to establish his views concerning the Eucharist. Consider the divine wisdom of the Son of God, who respecting our weakness hath conveyed unto us His body and blood after a divine and spiritual manner under the forms of bread and wine.349 Consider the high and worthy effect of this heavenly food, which is not so much changed into the substance of the eater as it does rather change theeaterintothesubstanceofit;themeatbeingdivinedothmakeusalso divine.350 Now of long time, yea, too long, O holy Christ, have we Christians con- tended about Thy holy institution; from the fathers to Thy Apostles: yea, O blessed Saviour, we come with all reverence, and let us come hand in hand, to consider the first pattern instituted by Thyself. And here first, let the devout Christian call to mind that He that said of the wine, ‘This is My blood’, and of the bread, ‘This is My body’, said also of St John the Baptist, ‘This is that Elias’, and of Himself, ‘I am the door’, ‘the true vine’, etc. These—‘Receive My covenant in your flesh’, ‘By Baptism we are buried with Him’, ‘Being many, we are one bread, one body’—are usual phrases in Holy Writ. Again, what more meet than in a spiritual food to admit a spiritual sense? ‘We did all eat of the same spiritual meat’,saith the

347 Christopher Sutton, Godly Meditations Upon the Most Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Oxford: Parker, ). 348 F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 349 Sutton, Godly Meditations Upon the Most Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, p. . 350 Ibid,p..  chapter two

Apostle. Was it not given after supper, and in small quantity? It is the Spirit that giveth life. I go forward, but by the way this pious consideration gathered out of the words of Christ our Saviour concerning His own institution doth easily show that to be the nourishment of our souls which is delivered in the Lord’s Supper, and doth withal manifest the great excellency thereof. From the words of Christ I come unto the Apostle St Paul, a good interpreter of the same words, one who wanted not care of stirring up the Corinthians to reverence and devotion about this mystery. Now, what saith the Apostle? He commands no adoration; he speaks not a word of Transubstantiation; but only showeth the dignity thereof in showing both the Author and the end. . . . To break off the mentioning of the fathers, lest in multiplying their names we might seem ambitious, we hear them all, as it is meet, speaking with great reverence of so great a mystery: but for disputing or reasoning about Transubstantiation we hear not a word. Let their writings be read over, and read over again, and we shall find that they admit of a change, but what a one? of the substance? nothing less; for it remains the same: of the use? it is right, for sure in the Lord’s Supper it is heavenly and divine. Whereas oftentimes in the fathers we meet with the words ‘nature’, ‘substance’, applying them to the efficacy of the Sacrament, we are to understand that by these words they intended, first, to draw the people from the outward signs to the substance, and next to kindle in their affections both reverence and love. Antiquity therefore is silent in the plea or the defence of Transubstantiation. Sure, yea, most sure it is that the figurative speeches of ancient fathers do in no way patronise this paradox. The sobriety of the same fathers let us, their posterity, their praise and imitate.351 We acknowledge that the dignity of this Sacrament is greater than words can express, yea, than the mind of man is able to conceive. If any will exact the efficacy of these five words, ‘For this is My body’, we answer, It is a great mystery. Truly we give, and that justly, great respect and reverence to the Holy Eucharist; for whereas bread and wine are elements naturally ordained for the sustenance of the body, by the power of divine benediction they do receive a virtue that, being received of the faithful, they become nourishment of the soul, nay, they become means whereby we are sanctified both in body and soul, and are made the members of Christ.ButChrist,somesay,inexpresswordscalleththebreadHisbody, and the wine His blood; true, in express words also He calleth Himself a rock. Right well saith Eusebius Emisenus, ‘Comest thou to the Sacrament, consider there the body and blood of Christ: wonder at it with reverence, touch it with thy mind, receive it with the hand of they heart’; do not say with the Capernaites, Master, how comest Thou hither? but with the disciples asking no question be glad thou doest enjoy Him. He is honoured in this mystery that was once offered upon the cross. Yea, but how can this

351 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

be that Christ sitting at the right hand of God in heaven should dispose of His body to us poor inhabitants of earth? Take here the answer of the angel Gabriel, The Holy Ghost hath overshadowed it. ‘From hence’, saith St Bernard, ‘to search is temerity, to know is life eternal.’ Is it not a hard saying, ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of God’, etc.? It is a hard saying to them that are hard of believing. The disciples hearing of their Lord and Master, ‘Take, eat, this is My body’,they take, they eat, asking no question. . . . The Capernaite hearing dreameth of eating naturally, grossly; the godly are assured of eating spiritually, and yet withal really.352 The sun remains a splendent body, though bats and owls cannot endure it; the Holy Sacrament remains an unspeakable mystery, though the carnal man doth not perceive it. In this case silence is the safest eloquence, and the best expressing is not to express. A godly meditation is safer than a Socratical disputing. Discourse of controversy doth often abate devotion; discourse of piety about the mystery is sweeter than the honey or the honey-comb.353 To take a survey of the beginnings and progress to the doctrine of Tran- substantiation, . . . one Berengarius in the year  was the first that came upon the stage to act this tragedy, by him were kindled such sparks as after brake out into great and fearful flames. . . . In the year  Beren- garious abjured his former assertions: were his later thoughts the wiser? This I stand not to discuss, dispute it that will. The Church in the meanwhile, who ought to have followed the counsel of St Paul to Timothy in suppressing questions that cause strife, did clean contrary in adding more and more daily a multitude of questions so long that those sparks kindled by Berengarius began to increase, and set all as it were into a most hideouscombustion. ... TheCouncilofLateran ... promulgateda new and unheard of doctrine of Transubstantiation. . . . After this the question comes to be handled by the Master of the Sentences, whom the school divines do follow. . . . At one time the doubt is about the power of God, at another about His will; now of the existing of substance with accidents, then of accidents with a substance; sometimes of annihilating of former natures, sometimes of transelementing the same. In this chaos there is nothing found certain save that uncertain dream of Transubstantiation. . . . The Church of Rome was happy while it enjoyed the presence of this holy mystery, had she known her own happiness for a thousand years together therewasneverheardofthenameof‘ubiquity’,‘sacramentary’,orthelike; no division of the East against the West Church, or the West against the East; all agreed about the truth of this holy mystery; but when once men would press into depths inaccessible, rend away the veil, and intrude themselves in to the Holy of Holies, good Lord, with what a spirit of giddiness were they whirled to and fro. . . . In this mean space all things now tossed

352 Ibid, pp. –. 353 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

and turmoiled there arise upon the contrary part a kind of men prone and apt not so much to the alteration as indeed to the utter ruinating of things. . . . Is the Communion celebrated well? A badge it is of our profession, a familiar assembly of guests, a remembrance of somewhat passed: Take ye, eat ye, stand ye, there is no other gesture required than what is used at public meetings; what need any mention of the body of Christ, which was broken and given for us, of the blood of Christ, which was shed for us? Take ye, eat ye, drink ye:—O blessed Paul, if thou didst live, thou wouldst tell these men they ought upon fear of judgment to discern the Lord’s body. . . . Albeit then the manner be not of us over curiously inquired or searched after, yet the same presence of Christ is acknowledged which Christ Him- selfwouldhavetobeacknowledged.WesaywithStAmbrosethatthereis not taken from the bread the substance thereof, but that there is adjoined the grace of Christ’s body after a manner ineffable. . . . Concerning the controversy about the Holy Eucharist, between two extremes, whereof we have heard, let us embrace the means, let us with sincere faith apprehend the truth; apprehending, let us keep it; keeping, let us adore it with godly manners.354 Let us forbear on both sides needless and unprofitable disputes. Unless thou, Lord, hadst said it, ‘This is My body, This is My blood’, who would have believed it? Unless thou hadst said, O holy Christ, ‘Take, eat, drink ye all of this’, who durst have touched it? Who would have approached to so heavenly a repast, hadst Thou not commanded it, hoc facite,‘doyethis’;but Thou commanding, who would not joyfully come and communicate? Let us then hold captive human reason, and prepare ourselves unto the fruit of this heavenly manna. Unnecessary disputes bring small profits; we may with greater benefit wonder than argue. Then are the works of God most truly conceived when they are devoutly admired.355 FromthequotationsaboveitseemsthatSutton’sviewisthatChrist’sbody and blood is given to the communicant, spiritually and under the forms of bread and wine. This assertion both denies immoderate realism and makes a realist association between the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood. The manner of the presence is spiritual but nonetheless given with the elements. Any change in the ‘heavenly food’ is in relation to the substance of the eater, rather than the substance of the bread and wine. It is because of the divine power of the ‘heavenly food’ that those who eat also become divine. The ‘heavenly food’ therefore cannot be a bare token or sign, butratheraneffectualmeansandconveyerofgrace.Anychangeinthe

354 Ibid, pp. –. 355 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  substance of the bread and wine is denied, but change is assigned to the bread and wine in regard to their use. In addition to this statement Sutton also admits of the bread and wine, that through “the divine benediction they do receive a virtue that being received of the faithful, they become the nourishment of the soul, nay, they become means whereby we are sanctified both in body and soul, and are made members of Christ”.356 For Sutton the bread and wine, following consecration, are no longer ordinary bread and wine. Indeed he argues, using Ambrose, the fourth century Bishop of Milan, as the authority, that while the substance of the bread and wine is unchanged “that there is adjoined the grace of Christ’s body after a manner ineffable”.357 The bread and wine has joined to it Christ’s grace. Grace is therefore effectually given and received in the bread and wine. It is, says Sutton, a mystery how this occurs, but it is nonetheless something that is to be accepted. Sutton’s view concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine is that of moderate realism.

356 Ibid, p. . 357 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

JeremyTaylor

Jeremy Taylor (–) was Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore in Ireland and a spiritual writer. His writings on the Eucharist are exten- sive358 and reference will be made to some of these works in this case study. In relation to eucharistic sacrifice reference will be made to Taylor’s  work entitled The History of the Life and Death of the Holy Jesus.359 He describes the Eucharist as a “commemoration and representment of Christ’s death”, but also as a “commemorative sacrifice”.360 He expands this by saying: Whatsoever Christ did at the institution, the same he commanded the Church to do, in remembrance and repeated rites; and himself also does the same thing in heaven for us, making perpetual intercession for his church, the body of his redeemed ones, by representing to his Father his death and sacrifice. There he sits, a High Priest continually, and offers still the same one perfect sacrifice; that is, still represents it as having been once finished and consummate, in order to perpetual and never-failing events. And this, also, his ministers do on earth; they offer up the same sacrifice to God, the sacrifice of the cross, by prayers, and a commemorating rite and representment, according to his holy institution. And as all the effects of grace and the titles of glory were purchased for us on the cross, and the actual mysteries of redemption perfected on earth, but are applied to us, and made effectual to single persons and communities of men, by Christ’s intercession in heaven; so also they are promoted by acts of duty and religion here on earth, that we may be ‘workers together with God’, (as St Paul expresses it, Cor. : ) and, in virtue of the eternal and all-sufficient sacrifice, may offer up our prayers and our duty; and by representing that sacrifice, may send up, together with our prayers, an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation. . . . we ‘celebrate and exhibit the Lord’s death’, in sacrament and symbol; and this is that great express, which, when the church offers to God the Father, it obtains all those blessings which that sacrifice purchased. . . . As Christ is a priest in heaven for ever, and yet does not sacrifice himself afresh, nor yet without a sacrifice could he be a priest; but, by a daily ministration and intercession, represents his sacrifice to God, and offers himself as sacrificed: sohedoes upon earth, by the ministry of his servants; he is offered to God, that is, he is, by prayers and the sacrament, represented or ‘offered up to God, as

358 Jeremy Taylor, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor. D.D. LordBishop of Down, Connor and Dromore, with an Essay, Biographical and Critical in three volume (London: Bohn, ). 359 Jeremy Taylor, The History of the Life and Death of the Holy Jesus, ibid, pp. I, –. 360 Ibid, I, p. . the period of the reformation 

sacrificed’; which, in effect, is a celebration of his death, and the applying it to present and future necessities of the church, as we are capable, by a ministry like to his in heaven. It follows, then, that the celebration of this sacrifice be, in its proportion, an instrument of applying the proper sacrifice to all the purposes which it first designed. It is ministerially, andby application, an instrument propitiatory; it is eucharistical, it is an homage, and an act of adoration; and it is impetratory, and obtains for us, and for the whole church, all the benefits of the sacrifice, which is now celebrated and applied; that is, as this rite is the remembrance and ministerial celebration ofChrist’ssacrifice,soitisdestinedtodohonourtoGod,toexpressthe homage and duty of his servants, to acknowledge his supreme dominion, to give him thanks and worship, to beg pardon, blessings, and supply of all our needs.361 Taylor in this passage expresses the view that that which was instituted at the Lord’sSupper is repeated and remembered in the Eucharist. The same is seen to be true of the sacrifice which Christ offers in heaven and the sacrifice which is offered on earth in the Eucharist. The church andher ministers are seen to offer the same sacrifice as Christ, that is, the sacrifice of the cross, in the sacrifice of the Eucharist. This is not to say that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same as the sacrifice of the cross, but rather that that which was offered on the cross is also offered in the Eucharist (both particulars, the historic and the eucharistic sacrifices, instantiating the same universal, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice). Immoderate notions of realism in relation to sacrifice are excluded, since Taylor argues that Christ does not offer himself ‘afresh’, but Christ by his offering and the church by her offering in the Eucharist, represents the sacrifice to God and is offered up, as sacrificed. The idea of memorial remembrance or anamnesis is what Taylor is arguing here, since he says that the ‘celebration of Christ’s death’ is ‘applied to the present and the future’. The effects of the sacrifice are available in the present and the future in the Eucharist. It is in this sense that the Eucharist can be described as ‘propitiatory’, since it is an instrument applying the sacrifice. It is also ‘eucharistical’ and ‘impetratory’, when it is celebrated and applied in the Eucharist as a ‘remembrance and ministerial celebration of Christ’s sacrifice’.The nature of the sacrifice of the cross is instantiated in the Eucharist, being known as the eucharistic sacrifice. The sacrifice of the cross is not repeated, but the nature of the sacrifice is available in the Eucharist in the present. Tay- lor’stheologyisexpressedintermsofmoderaterealism.

361 Ibid, I, p. .  chapter two

In relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist reference will be made to Taylor’s work of  entitled The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, Proved against the Doctrine of Tran- substantiation.362 In this work Taylor presents a sustained treatment of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a presence which he argues is spiritual, but also real. This work is “an outstanding example of the classical Anglican three-fold appeal to Scripture, to the teaching of the Primitive Church, and to reason”.363 In Section I of The Real Presence Taylor affirms in relation to the Eucharist that “by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces; by the creatures it brings us to God; by the body it ministers to the spirit.”364 Taylor also begins by arguing that it is a mistake to inquire too deeply into the manner of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that it is better merely to believe, with Erasmus, that the “true body of Christ was present, whether under the consecrated bread or any other way”.365 Transubstantiation is therefore seen to be a problem since it attempts to define the manner of the presence too closely and was unnecessary during almost the first thousand years of the church’s history. Taylor’s preference is to say that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is “real and spiritual”.366 By this term ‘spiritual presence’ he implies “that it excludes the corporal and natural manner” and that the spiritual presence “is to be understood figuratively, that is, not naturally, but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things. . . . Christ is present spiritually, that is, by effect and blessing; which, in true speaking, is rather the consequent of his presence than the formality.”367 Taylor expresses these thoughts in a fuller manner, saying: The doctrine of the church of England, and generally of the protestants, in this article is,—that after the minister of the holy mysteries hath rightly prayed, and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine, the symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ, after a sacramental, that is, in a spiritual real manner: so that all that worthily communicate, do by faith receive Christ, really, effectually, to all the purposes of his passion.

362 Jeremy Taylor, The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation (London: Bohn, ), II, pp. –. 363 Henry McAdoo, The Eucharistic Theology of Jeremy Taylor Today (Norwich: Canter- bury Press, ), p. . 364 Taylor, The Real Presence, II, p. . 365 Ibid, II, p. . 366 Ibid, II, p. . 367 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

. . . The result of the doctrine is this: It is bread, and it is Christ’s body. Itis 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 be given; the bread and wine as they can; and to the same real purposes to which they are designed; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctify the soul, as the elements do the body.368 Change is envisioned in the elements, but this change is not any form of immoderate realism. Rather the change is after a sacramental, but nonetheless,real and spiritual manner. The communicant receives Christ fully (‘really, effectually, to all purposes of his passion’). This wording implies a moderate realism, where the nature of Christ is instantiated in the Eucharist and received by the communicant. There is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, but there is a sacramental change in that Christ is in the Eucharist, not carnally or in an immoderate manner, but really and spiritually. In support of this view Taylor cites the Catechism of the Church of England, referring to the ‘inward part of thing signified’ by the consecrated bread and wine as being ‘the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord’s supper’.369 Taylor is also careful to make the point that a ‘spiritual presence’ is also a ‘real presence’ and that the two terms are “hugely consistent”.370 Indeed he goes so far as to say: That the gifts of the Holy Ghost are real graces, and a spirit is a proper substance...intelligiblethings...[andthat]thingsdiscernedbythemind of man, are more truly and really such, and of more excellent substance and reality, than things only sensible. And therefore, when things spiritual are signified by materials, the thing under the figure is called true, andthe material part is opposed to it, as less true or real.371 The focus of Taylor’s argument here is away from the idea of any change of substance in the material elements and onto the reality of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Indeed he says, “the spiritual presence of Christ is the true, real, and effective”372 so that “Christ is more truly and really present in spiritual presence than in corporal, in the heavenly

368 Ibid, II, p. . 369 Ibid, II, p. . 370 Ibid, II, p. . 371 Ibid, II, p. . 372 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two effect than in the natural being”.373 Taylor’s position of the spiritual being more true and more real than the natural conforms well to the moderate realist argument that says Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way, but the manner of this presence is not carnal or immoderate, rather it is an instantiation of the nature of Christ in the Eucharist. Taylor is careful to distinguish the word ‘real’ from ‘natural’ in any discussion of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In speaking of attempts to deny that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, Taylor says: And when the real presence is denied, the word ‘real’ is taken for ‘natural’; and does not signify ‘transcendenter’, or, in his just and most proper signification. But the word ‘substantialiter’ is also used by protestants in this question: which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the article of Trent; ‘sacramentaliter prasesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest’, ‘in substance, but after a sacramental manner’: which words, if they might be understood in the sense in which the protestants use them, that is, really, truly, without fiction or the help of fancy, but‘in rei veritate’,... it might become an instrument of a united confession; and this is the manner of speaking St Bernard used in his sermon of St Martin, where he affirms, ‘In sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam, sed spiritualiter, non carnaliter’: ‘In the sacrament is given us the true substance of Christ’s body or flesh, but not carnally, but spiritually’; that is, not to our mouths, but to our hearts; not be chewed by teeth, but to be eaten by faith.374 ‘Real’ for Taylor seems to imply moderate realism, whereas ‘natural’ implies a fleshy immoderate realism. Confusion occurs when the two words ‘real’ and ‘natural’ are equated. When this occurs ‘the just and most proper signification’ of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is denied. This ‘just and most proper signification’ can be interpreted to mean instantiation of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist as moderate realism. Substance therefore for Taylor does not necessarily mean a ‘natural’ presence, that is an immoderate realist presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. Substance here can be taken to mean instantiation of the nature of Christ as his body and blood in the Eucharist or substance in a sacramental manner. Indeed Taylor argues that the word ‘substance’isahighergenusthan‘corpus’ or body and that substance “is made more special by a superadded difference”.375 This means for Taylor that a body becomes not a species but a genus, “that is, more universal

373 Ibid, II, p. . 374 Ibid, II, p. . 375 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation  by being made more particular”.376 ‘Species’ implies immoderate realism, suggesting the carnal or fleshy body and blood of Christ, whereas ‘genus’ does not. Indeed ‘genus’ lends itself to the notion of moderate realism and suggests instantiation of the nature or kind of Christ as Word or logos.It is Christ, the Word or logos, that is instantiated in the Eucharist as genus, not the physical species, Christ’s fleshy body and blood. It is perhaps unfortunate that Taylor persists in the use of the word ‘substance’ since this seems to bring with it the connotations of ‘natural’ or immoderate realism and requires considerable intricate explication to deny any such meaning. The idea however, that he is attempting to express, seems to be that of Christ’s nature being instantiated in the Eucharist in a moderate realist framework. This is confirmed in the quotation from St Bernard, where reference is made to the ‘true substance’ of Christ’sbody and blood, in a spiritual, as opposed to a carnal manner. Taylor goes so far as to say that the word ‘corporaliter’canalsobeused in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying that “the expression may become warrantable, and consonant to our doctrine; and means no more than ‘really’ and ‘without fiction’,or ‘beyond a figure’”.377 Any presence that is ‘corporaliter’, in the way in which Taylor speaks of it, is not in any natural or immoderate sense, nor is it merely a figure or imagined, rather it is real and more than a figure. This form of words corresponds to a moderate realist view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. For Taylor this description of presence in the Eucharist is akin to Paul’s words in regard to Christ’s relationship to the Godhead (‘In Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ Colossians : ). The fullness of God is to be found (instantiated) in the person of Christ. Therefore Taylor says “in St Paul σκα κα σ μα are opposed, ‘what are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ’ (Colossian : ) that is ‘the substance’,‘the reality’, the correlative of type and figure, the thing signified”.378 ForTaylorthismeans:“thatwe,receivingChristinthe sacrament ‘corporally’ or ‘bodily’, understand, that we do it really, by the ministry of our bodies receiving him into our souls. And thus we affirm Christ’s body to be present in the sacrament: not only in type or figure, but in blessing and real effect; that is, more than in the types of the law;

376 Ibid, II, p. . 377 Ibid, II, p. . 378 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two the shadows were of the law, ‘but the body is of Christ’ (Colossians : ). And besides this; the word ‘corporally’ may be very well used, when by it is only understood a corporal sign.”379 Taylor draws a powerful distinction, as he sees it, in regard to the word ‘spiritual’ as used by the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Taylor argues: We say that Christ’s body is in the sacrament, ‘really, but spiritually’. They say it is there ‘really, but spiritually’. . . . Where now is the difference? Here, by ‘spiritually’ they mean ‘present after the manner of a spirit’; by ‘spiritually’ we mean, ‘present to our spirits only’; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith and spiritual susception; but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossible, and implies a contradiction; a body not after a manner of a body, a body like a spirit; a body without a body; and a sacrifice of body and blood without blood: ‘corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus’. Th e y s a y, that Christ’s body is truly present there, as it was upon the cross, but not after the manner of all or any body, but after that manner of being asan angel is in a place:—that it is there spiritually. But we, by the real spiritual presence of Christ, do understand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the faithful, by blessing and grace; and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence.380 The phrase ‘present to our spirits only’ is crucial here. For Taylor this use of the word ‘spirits’ seems to mean ‘faith’ and ‘spiritual susception’ as he calls it. This implies that the presence is not a carnal or immoderate realist presence but a presence perceived by faith. Such a presence can be seen as one in nature, that is, an instantiation in a moderate realist sense. The communicant does not perceive the carnal or bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but rather, by faith, the nature of Christ, instantiated in the Eucharist. Taylor’s language, interpreted in this way, is akin to the language of moderate realism advanced. Any notion of a bodily substance is avoided, but at the same time, a real and spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist is affirmed. Taylor does not dispute that Christ’s body is really in the sacrament, but he does dispute the manner of the presence. He addresses this in the following question and answer: Whether, when we say we believe Christ’s body to be ‘really’ in the sacrament, we mean, ‘that body, that flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary’, that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer, I know none else that he

379 Ibid, II, p. . 380 Ibid, II, pp. –. the period of the reformation 

had, or hath: there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified; but he that says, that body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner: and so it is in the sacrament; we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, that was broken and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood, of Christ; but though it is the same which we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner: and therefore, when any of the protestant divines, or any of the fathers, deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, to be eaten in the sacrament,—as Bertram, as St Jerome, as Clemens Alexandrinus, expressly affirm; the meaning is easy;—they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense; and then calling it ‘corpus spirituale’, the word ‘spiritual’ is not substantial predication, but it is an affirmation of the manner, though in disputation, it be made the predicate of a proposition, and the opposite member of a distinction. ‘That body which was crucified, is not that body that is eaten in the sacrament’,—if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being; but ‘that body which wascrucified,thesamebodywedoeat’,—iftheintentionbetospeakofthe same thing in several manners of being and operating.381 This passage affirms Taylor’s belief that Christ’s body is eaten in the sacrament,butitisnotpresentinthesamemannerasitwasonearth in the flesh of Jesus. The manner of the presence and the eating isnotin a natural sense but it is nonetheless the same body, present not naturally but spiritually, not as a spirit but to the spirit of those who receive it. There are therefore ‘several manners of being and operating’. There are those who claim that the manner of the presence is purely figurative (e.g. Zwingli) and Taylor does not claim to be one of these. There are those who claim that the manner of the presence is natural and fleshy (e.g. distorted view of transubstantiation) and immoderate in its realism, and Taylor is not one of these. There are also those who claim that the manner of the presence is real and spiritual in the sense of moderate realism and it seems that Taylor is one of these. Taylor confirms this in the last paragraph of Section I of The Real Presence,whenhesaysin summary: So that now the question is not, whether the symbols be changed into Christ’s body and blood or no? for it is granted on all sides: but whether this conversion be sacramental and figurative? or whether it be natural and bodily? Nor is it, whether Christ is really taken, but whether he be taken in a spiritual, or in a natural manner? We say, the conversion is figurative, mysterious, and sacramental; they say it is proper, natural, and corporal: we affirm that Christ is really taken to faith, by the Spirit, to all real effects

381 Ibid, II, pp. –.  chapter two

of his passion; they say, he is taken by the mouth, and that the spiritual and virtual taking of him, in virtue or effect, is not sufficient, though done also in the sacrament.382 Taylor’s distinction is between the natural and the sacramental. Change into the body and blood of Christ is admitted—the conversion being sacramental and figurative. The manner of the taking is spiritual but nonethelessreal and not merely figurative, with all the benefits of the passion being received by the communicant. There is therefore, for Taylor, a givenness about what is received in the Eucharist. In Section IV Taylor also examines the words of institution in the synoptic gospels and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.383 Here Taylor analyses the way in which the words of institution have been interpreted, arguing that the words of institution are seen as ‘words of consecration’ in the Latin church, such that Hoc est corpus meum, when said by the priest are interpreted as having the effect of changing the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. This change he asserts is called ‘transubstantiation’. However if the words do not effect this change, then Christ’s body and blood can be present before the words are spoken. The means for the presence is therefore either the prayer of the priest or in the use and eating and drinking of the elements. If the prayer of the priest is the means of the change then it is uncertain when the change takes place.ThisTaylorarguesistheviewoftheGreekChurch.384 This means that the particular words Hoc est corpus meum effect nothing and that it istheprayerasawholethatbringsaboutthechange.Ifthepresenceis effected after the words have been said, then Christ’sbody is present only in the reception and the words ‘take and eat’ are as effective as ‘this is my body’.This means that any use of the elements other than taking and receiving them (e.g. reservation, carrying about, adoration, elevation) has no meaning since the meaning is in the taking and the eating. Taylor argues against the idea that the words Hoc est corpus meum are words of consecration which effect a change in the elements such that they become the body and blood of Christ. He says: If they make these words to signify properly and not figuratively, then it is a declaration of something already in being, and not effective of anything after it. For else est does not signify is but it shall be;becausetheconversion is future to the pronunciation: and by the confession of the Roman doctors

382 Ibid, II, p. . 383 Ibid, II, pp. –. 384 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation 

the bread is not transubstantiated till the um in meum be quite out, till the last syllable be spoken; but yet I suppose, they cannot show an example, or reason, or precedent, or grammar, or any thing for it, that est should be an active word. . . . they affirm that it is made Christ’s body, by saying, ‘It is Christ’s body’; but their saying so must suppose the thing done, or else their saying so is false; and if it be done before, then to say it, does not do it at all, because it is done already.385 It seems that Taylor’s argument applies to any sense of a natural change, such as might be found in a distorted or immoderate view of transubstantiation. The application of his argument to transubstantiation in the moderate sense (where there is no natural change but only a change in substance with the accidents remaining) is however less clear. Tay- lor rejects any immoderate form of transubstantiation but his argument against any moderate form of transubstantiation is less clear. Taylor’s rejection of transubstantiation seems to be based on the distorted form of transubstantiation rather than any moderate realist view since he argues that transubstantiation involves a change of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood rather than adopting the more usual view that the change is one of substance only. Taylor goes on to speak about the effect of Christ’s blessing on the bread and wine. He asks whether it had any effect or none. He concludes that the effect of the blessing was that the bread and the wine became ‘eucharistical’. 386 It is in this sense that the bread and wine can be called the body and blood of Christ. Therefore Taylor concludes that: “since thechangethatismadeismadenotnaturally,orbyacertainnumber of syllables in the manner of a charm, but solemnly, sacredly, morally, and by prayer, it becomes also the body of our Lord to moral effects, as a consequent of a moral instrument.”387 Thisseemstobeanaffirmationofamoderaterealism,whereany natural or immoderate presence is excluded, but where the presence of Christ is nonetheless real. At the same time however, Taylor’s moderate realism can be seen together with a receptionist sense since he argues that: “‘Take’, ‘Eat’,and ‘This do’,are as necessary to the sacrament as‘Hoc est corpus’; and declare that it is Christ’s body only in the use and the administration; and therefore not ‘natural’ but ‘spiritual’”.388

385 Ibid, II, p. . 386 Ibid, II, p. . 387 Ibid, II, p. . 388 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two

This does not seem to limit the reality of the presence but merely the manner. Any change in the elements: “is not natural and proper, but figurative, sacramental, and spiritual: exhibiting what it signifies, being real to all intents and purposes of the Spirit.”.389 Moderate realism as a spiritual real presence is affirmed and immoderate realism in the form of a natural or fleshy presence is denied. This moderate realism however, is not a localised presence in the bread and wine alone. Taylor also (Taylor, The Real Presence, edn. Bohn, : II, –) speaks of the presence in the whole action of the Eucharist and not just in the bread and wine, although he acknowledges that the bread and wine serve as a focus of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.390 He says: Thoughthebreadbethenearestpartofthethingdemonstrated,yetitisnot bread alone, but sacramental bread; that is, bread so used, broken, given, eaten, as it is in the institution and use: Τ"τ ‘This’ is my body; and τ"τ refers to the whole action about the bread and wine, and so τ"τ may be easily understood without an impropriety. And indeed it is necessary that τ"τ, ‘this’,should take in the whole action on all sides: because the bread neither is the natural body of Christ, nor yet is it alone a sufficient symbol or representment of it. But the bread ‘broken, blessed, given, distributed, taken,eaten’;thisisChrist’sbody.391 For Taylor the presence of Christ is really in the Eucharist, in the whole action, including reception, with a focus on the bread, although this is not in any local or natural manner. Indeed concerning the elements, Taylor concludes by saying “that it is bread and Christ’s body too; and that is the doctrine of the protestants.”392 The presence of Christ is in the bread in the sense that the bread is broken, blessed, given, distributed, taken and eaten. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist requires more than an instantiation in bread and wine, although Taylor states it is both bread and Christ’s body. Rather it requires an instantiation in the whole action of the Eucharist of which the bread and wine are part. This is something more than pure receptionism, since the presence is in the breaking and blessing as well as the giving and distributing, and also in the receiving (taking and eating). Receptionism is part of what Taylor sees as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but, in Taylor’s view, it is not all there

389 Ibid, II, p. . 390 Ibid, II, pp. –. 391 Ibid, II, p. . 392 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation  is concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is related to both the symbols and the use for Taylor, since he says: Symbols of the blessed sacrament are called ‘bread’ and ‘the cup’, after consecration; that is, in the whole use of them. This is twice affirmed by St Paul: ‘The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communication (so it should be read) of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ?’ as if he had said, ‘This bread is Christ’s body’,that is, the exhibition and donation of it, not Christ’s body formally, but virtually, and effectively; it makes us communicate with Christ’s body in all the effects and benefits: . . . and so is the cup of benediction, that is when the cup is blessed, it communicates Christ’s blood, and so does the blessed bread; . . . Hence the argument is plain; That which is broken, is the communication of the Christ’s body; but that which is broken, is bread, therefore bread is the communication of Christ’s body.393 Bread and wine for Taylor remain bread and wine, but they are nonethe- lessthemeansofthe‘communication’ofChrist’sbodyandblood.Thereis no change of substance in the bread but the bread has a higher purpose and use than ordinary bread—“by blessing, the bread becomes better, but therefore it still remains.”394 Immoderate notions and change of substance are rejected but the instantiation of the body and blood of Christ is accepted as the bread and wine serves as the communication of Christ’s body and blood and as common bread “is sublimed to become the body of Christ”.395 Echoing Justin Martyr he goes on to say, “that, which, before the consecration was known to be natural bread, and therefore, now to say it was not common bread, is to say it is bread and something more.”396 ForTaylorthecommunicationofthebodyandbloodofChrist is real but spiritual, not natural, and it is the spiritual presence of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine which constitutes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Taylor concludes this section by saying: “Since therefore (as I have proved) the bread remains, and of bread it was affirmed ‘This is my body’, it follows inevitably, that it is figuratively, not properly and naturally, spoken of bread, that it is the flesh or body of our Lord.”397 This type of language seems compatible with the language

393 Ibid, II, p. . 394 Ibid, II, p. . 395 Ibid, II, p. . 396 Ibid, II, p. . 397 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two of moderate realism and instantiation. For Taylor what happens in the Eucharist is real and spiritual. Immoderate realism is denied and moderate realism affirmed. Taylor’s order for the Eucharist entitled An Office or Order for the Administration of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper according to thewayoftheApostolicalChurches,andtheDoctrineoftheChurchof England was published in 398 and is found amongst other liturgies he wrote in a work called A Collection of Offices, or Forms of Prayer in cases Ordinary and Extraordinary; Taken out of the Scriptures, and the Ancient Liturgies of Several Churches, especially the Greek.399 These liturgies were published during the Commonwealth period (around the year ) and were intended to provide services when use of the Book of Common Prayer was forbidden.400 The eucharistic liturgy designed by Taylor sought to revise the English use according to ancient use, especially those of the Eastern Church.401 Taylor’s eucharistic office has been characterised by W. Jardine Grisbrooke as inferior to the Book of Common Prayer in terms of its liturgical craftsmanship, but superior to the Book of Common Prayer in its eucharistic theology. Grisbrooke has said that: “What Taylor’s liturgy loses in the matter of liturgical artistry, when compared with Cranmer’s, it more than gains by its reverence for ancient and traditional models, and its adherence to a more normal— and, incidentally, more typical Anglican—theology of the eucharistic action.”402 Taylor’s An Office for the Holy Communion403 has three sections: Ante- communion, Communion and Post-communion. Some analysis of the prayers in this office will be now be made in order to assess the theology of the Eucharist found therein. In the Ante-communion there is a Prayer of Preparation which prays in part that the communicants will present themselves: “at thy holy table to represent a holy, venerable, an unbloody sacrifice for our sins”, and in relation to the celebrant of the Eucharist, that “by the power of the Holy Ghost, make me worthy for this ministry, accepting this service

398 Ibid, III, pp. –. 399 Ibid, III, pp. –. 400 W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Cen- turies (London: SPCK, ), p. . 401 Henry Porter, Jeremy Taylor: Liturgist (London: Alcuin Club/SPCK, ), p. . 402 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 403 Taylor, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, III, pp. –. the period of the reformation  for his sake, whose sacrifice I represent, by whose commandment I minister, even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”404 The Eucharist is described as a sacrifice in the moderate realist sense (unbloody) and as representing the sacrifice of Christ. Indeed “the whole emphasis is on sacrifice and communion”.405 No previous English liturgy had used such a prayer.406 The next prayer carries this theme forward, speaking of “presenting a holy sacrifice holily unto thee, that thou mayest receiveitinheavenandsmellasweetodourintheunionoftheeternal sacrifice, which our blessed Lord perpetually offers.”407 The Eucharist is therefore seen to be a holy sacrifice, received in heaven and joined with the eternal sacrifice. This implies moderate realism in that the Eucharist is not a re-iteration of the eternal sacrifice in the sense of strict identity, but rather possessing a loose identity or identity in nature as a state of affairs, such as is implied by moderate realism. The prayer also asks that theEucharistmaybeacceptedaswere“thegiftsofAbel,thesacrificeof Noah, the services of Moses and Aaron, the peace offering of Samuel, the repentance of David, and the incense of Zacharias”.408 As these were offered by those of old, so may the Eucharist in the present be offered, “by the hands of us miserable sinners, to finish and perfect this oblation, that it may be sanctified by the Holy Ghost and be accepted by the Lord Jesus”.409 The idea of offering or oblation is clear in reference to the Eucharist, although it is also clear that this does not mean the historic sacrifice of the cross. Even so this offering is described as an ‘oblation’ which is to be sanctified. Once again a notion of moderate realism is applied to eucharistic sacrifice. The next section of Taylor’s eucharistic office is the Communion, where a ‘Prayer of Consecration’ is said. The consecration begins with an epiclesis whereGodtheFatherisaskedtosendtheHolySpirit,“tosanctify and enlighten our hearts” and to “bless and sanctify these gifts” so that “this bread may become the holy body of Christ” and “this chalice may become the life-giving blood of Christ”.410 It is important to note that the breadandthechalicearesaidto‘become’thebodyandbloodofChrist.

404 Ibid, III, p. . 405 Porter, Jeremy Taylor: Liturgist, p. . 406 Ibid,p.. 407 Taylor, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, III, pp. . 408 Ibid, III, p. . 409 Ibid, III, p. . 410 Ibid, III, pp. –.  chapter two

These words imply a change in the bread and the wine as a result of the action of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Prayer of Consecration. This language represents a distinct departure from the tradition of the BCP. In the  BCP at this point the words were “with thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ”.411 In the  BCP (and in subsequent prayer books) the words became “grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour’s Jesu Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood”.412 The word ‘become’ was not used in either the  or  BCP, lessening any suggestion of a change in the bread and wine and making the association between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ was now less obvious. By  the emphasis had become on the ‘institution’ and the ‘receiving’, that is, the use and ministration, not on any moderate realist sense of a real presence in the bread and wine. The communicants were ‘partakers’ of Christ’s body and blood but the partaking was more associated with the institution than with the bread and wine. Taylor’s usage therefore represents not only a significant departure from the prevailing English prayer book pattern, but goes further, in a realist sense, than the  BCP. There is no sense of any immoderate realism, where the fleshy body and blood of Christ is seen to be present in the Eucharist. Following the institution narrative, Taylor inserts a prayer which he calls the Prayer of Oblation. This prayer is the slightly altered anamnesis from the Liturgy of St James.413 The use of the word ‘oblation’ and the content of the prayer are important in assessing Taylor’s doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice as he expresses it in this liturgy. Following the recitation of the events of Christ’s death and passion, the prayer prays that the communicants may: “humbly present to thee, O Lord, this present sacrifice of remembrance and thanksgiving”.414 The Eucharist is here described as a sacrifice, not only of thanksgiving, but also of remembrance, which is presented to God.

411 Joseph Ketley (ed), The Two Liturgies, A.D. and A.D. with other documents set forth by Authority in the Reign of King Edward VI (Oxford: Parker, ), p. . 412 Ibid, p. . 413 Porter, Jeremy Taylor: Liturgist, p. . 414 Taylor, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, III, p. . the period of the reformation 

This prayer is followed by another short prayer which is ordered to be said by the minister at the time of receiving communion. This prayer asks that the communicant “religiously, thankfully, and without reproof, partake of thy blessed body and blood for the remission of my sins, and unto life eternal.”.415 In the communion the communicant is seen to ‘partake of thy blessed body and blood’ and this suggests that Christ’s body and blood is really present and received. The words of administration which follow use the formula, “The body/blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”416 at the time of the delivery of the bread and wine, thereby associating the presence of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine in a realist sense. The prayers following reception ask that the Lord will “make me this day partaker of thy heavenly table”417 thereby associating the earthly altar with the heavenly one. Another prayer also asks that Christ will “lodge in my soul”418 suggesting that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual manner (moderate realism) and not a fleshy or carnal presence (immoderate realism). Following Communion a number of prayers are set in the section entitled The Post-Communion. Amongst these the following words are found: Receive, O eternal God, this sacrifice for and in behalf of all christian people. Glory be to thee, O God, our Father, who hast vouchsafed to made us at this time partakers of the body and blood of they holy Son. Glory be to thee, O Christ, our King, the only begotten Son of God, who wert pleased to become a sacrifice for our sins, a redemption for calamity, the physician and the physic, the life and the health, the meat and the drink of our souls; thou, by thy unspeakable mercy, didst descend to the weakness of sinful flesh, remaining still in the perfect purity of spirit, and hast made us partakers of thy holy body and blood.419 These prayers point once again to a moderate realist notion of both presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is described as a ‘sacrifice’ for all people, by which they are partakers of the body and blood

415 Ibid, III, p. . 416 Ibid, III, p. . 417 Ibid, III, p. . 418 Ibid, III, p. . 419 Ibid, III, pp. –.  chapter two of Christ. The final prayer suggests that Christ comes down to earth, to ‘the weakness of sinful flesh’ in the Eucharist, and that this perfection of spiritual presence is the means whereby people become partakers of the body and blood of Christ. This comes very close to describing the process of instantiation, where the nature of Christ, as Word or logos,ispresent in the Eucharist in a real and spiritual manner. Harry Porter observes that this eucharistic liturgy was the opportunity for Taylor “to frame a complete liturgical expression of his own eucharistic belief and devotions.”420 It seems that this expression is one of moderate realism, where the real presence of Christ and eucharistic sacrifice as memorial remembrance or anamnesis, are integral parts of the liturgy. Taylor’s arrangement of material represents, however, a number of different perspectives. The words of administration and the placement of the epiclesis before the institution narrative reflect the model of the  BCP and the Scottish BCP of . The less realist words of administration and the dropping of the anamnesis and epiclesis in the  BCP are avoided by Taylor, thereby making his eucharistic rite reflect a more realist position of presence and sacrifice. At the same time, the arrangement of the rite reflects much of the typical Anglican order of the seventeenth century,421 especially as regards the rearrangement of traditional and early liturgical material. This is most apparent in the reception of communion almost immediately after the consecration (reflecting Cranmer’s  BCP order). Early liturgies had included several prayers after the consecration and before reception, with the consecrated elements remaining on the altar as a possible source of devotion and as a lessening of the cli- max of reception. This pattern was followed by Cranmer in the  BCP but abandoned in the  BCP. Whereas Cranmer’s  BCP seems to have justified this emphasis on reception and lessened any suggestion of eucharistic devotions by having reception follow immediately after the consecration, Taylor’s view is somewhat different. Porter comments that Taylor’s eucharistic theology, as expressed in another of his works called The Rule and Exercise Holy Living422 indicates that by receiving Christ’s body and blood very soon after the consecration the people are sacrificers too423 and may plead the benefits of this sacrifice for themselves.424

420 Porter, Jeremy Taylor: Liturgist, p. . 421 Ibid,p.. 422 Taylor, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, I, pp. –. 423 Ibid, I, p. . 424 Porter, Jeremy Taylor: Liturgist, p. . the period of the reformation 

This is the language of moderate realism, and differs markedly from that of Cranmer. Whilst Taylor’s order of liturgical elements coincides with Cranmer’s  order, his theology of the Eucharist does not. Porter suggests that while modern liturgists would reject his order of liturgical elements, they would not reject his eucharistic theology (moderate realism).425 Taylor’s views on the Eucharist seem to indicate both a figurative and realist element. He emphasises that Christ is really present and that the sacrifice is pleaded in the Eucharist, but he also emphasises that this isa ‘spiritual’ not a ‘carnal’ sense. It seems also that Taylor does not emphasise the spiritual at the expense of the real. Taylor therefore bridges any gap between figurative and realist language, with the power of this bridging or joining being assigned to the Holy Spirit. Taylor develops this in another of his works entitled The Worthy Communicant.426 It is this linking of the spiritual and the physical, the figurative and the real, which demonstrates the moderate realism of Taylor. There is no sense of immoderate realism as a carnal presence in what Taylor says, but there is, in Taylor’s theology, a mystical, personalist and dynamic presence of Christ and availability of the effects of Christ’s sacrifice, in the Eucharist, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Moderate realism is therefore seen to be prevailing philosophical assumption behind Taylor’s eucharistic theology.

425 Ibid,p.. 426 Taylor, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, I, pp. –. See particularly p. .  chapter two

The Whole Dutyof Man

This work, The Whole Duty of Man,waspublishedinLondonineither  or  and reprinted in the nineteenth century.427 Although its author is unknown it was widely used as a devotional manual for those who were to receive Holy Communion. It has been suggested that the author could have been Richard Allestree, John Fell or Henry Ham- mond.428 The work encourages the prospective communicant to express deep sorrow for sin during the preparation for reception and at the time of receiving. The following quotation is useful in assessing the view of this work in regard to the Eucharist. The quotation says: When thou art at the Holy Table, first humble thyself in an unfeigned acknowledgment of thy great unworthiness to be admitted there; and to that purpose remember again between God and thine own soul some of thy greatest and foulest sins, thy breaches of former vows made at that Table, especially since thy last receiving. Then meditate on those bitter sufferings of Christ which are set out in the Sacrament. When thou seest the bread broken, remember how His blessed Body was torn with nails upon the Cross; when thou seest the wine poured out, remember how his precious Blood was spilt there.429 This passage links the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist, associating the breaking of the bread with the breaking of Christ’s body and the pouring out of the wine with the pouring out of Christ’s blood on the cross. The sign and the signified are linked, but there is no suggestion that the fleshy body and the actual blood of Christ arepresentintheEucharist. In another passage the work says: When thou art about to receive the Consecrated Bread and Wine, remember that God now offers to seal to thee that New Covenant made with mankind in His Son. For since He gives that His Son in the Sacrament, He gives with Him all the benefits of that Covenant, to wit, pardon of sins, sanctifying grace, and a title to an eternal inheritance. And here be

427 The Whole Duty of Man. Laid down in a plain and familiar way for the use ofall, but especially the meanest reader. Divided into XVII chapters: one whereof being read every Lord’s Day, the whole may be read over thrice in a year. Necessary for all families. With private devotions for several occasions. New Edition (London: SPCK, ). 428 Paul Moore and Frank Cross (eds), Anglicanism: The Thought and Practice of the Church of England, illustrated from the religious literature of the seventeenth century (London: SPCK, ), p. . 429 The Whole Duty of Man, p. . the period of the reformation 

astonished at the infinite goodness of God Who reaches out to thee so precious a treasure. . . . And therefore settle in thy soul the most serious purpose of obedience, and then with all possible devotion join with the Minister in that short but excellent prayer, used at the instant of giving the Sacrament, ‘The body of our Lord, etc.’430 Moderate realism is expressed in this passage. The consecrated bread and wine are associated with the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a seal of the new covenant and as the means by which the benefits of Christ are given. The author states that it is God who reaches out to those who receive in the Eucharist, thereby once again associating the bread and wine with the gift of God. The final sentence refers to the words of administration, which is used at the ‘instant of giving’. There is no sense of immoderate realism, rather there is a linking of the sign with the signified, in the form of moderate realism.

430 Ibid,p..  chapter two

The Articles of Religion concerning the Eucharist

During the time of the Reformation the reformers had a desire to list fundamental ‘articles of faith’ to form an agreed profession of faith.431 In the Anglican tradition the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, as printed in the Book of Common Prayer (), previously adopted by the Convo- cation of the Church of England in  are the doctrinal standard of the Church.432 In this case study the historical development of the various articles in the Anglican tradition will be considered in relation to the Eucharist.

The Ten Articles— The Ten Articles were issued in  by the authority of Henry VIII and were signed by many of the bishops, including some of the reforming party, such as Cranmer and Latimer. The Ten Articles were the first attempt by the English Church to state its doctrinal position in the period of transition from the power of Rome to that of the English Church433 being formulated just two years after the separation from Rome.434 They were a compromise between the conservative theological position and that of the Reformers, being essentially “an attempt to for- mulate a statement upon which the moderate advocates of the traditional doctrines and the more conservative adherents of the Lutheran theology could agree”.435 The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was strongly asserted, but there was no mention of transubstantiation. The Ten Articles declared in relation to the Eucharist: That under the form and figure of bread and wine, which we there presently do see and perceive by the outward senses, is verily, substantially, and really contained and comprehended the very self-same body and blood of our

431 Gerald O’Collins, ‘Articles of Faith’, in A. Richardson and J. Bowden (eds), ANew Dictionary of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, ), p. . 432 Stephen Sykes, ‘Thirty-nine Articles’,in A. Richardson and J. Bowden (eds), ANew Dictionary of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, ), p. . 433 Edgar Gibson, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Explained withan Introduction (London: Methuen, ), p.  and Edward Bicknell (Revised by H. Carpen- ter), A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church England (London: Longmans, ), p. . 434 William Henry Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology. An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. xxxvii. 435 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . the period of the reformation 

Saviour Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross for our redemption; and that under the same form and figure of bread and wine the very self-same body and blood of Christ is corporally, really, and in the very substance exhibited, distributed, and received of all them which receive the said sacrament.436 The Ten Articles of  seem to express an immoderate form of realism where the historic body and blood (‘very self-same body and blood’ and ‘corporally’) is identified with the eucharistic bread and wine. Despite this some commentators make mention of the lack of any reference to transubstantiation437 as being suggestive of an attempt to distance the articles from Medieval abuses such as those which suggested a physical or fleshy presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The lack of reference to transubstantiation may indicate the transitional nature of the articles, in that they were a movement towards a more reformed position.438 In view of the seemingly immoderate form of realism used in the articles, both of these suggestions seem implausible. The words of the articles are actually more extreme than transubstantiation, since they do not express themoderateformofrealismadvocatedbythisdoctrine,asAquinas expresses it, but rather are suggestive of an immoderate form of realism where the historic body and blood is equated with the eucharistic bread and wine (‘the very self-same body and blood of Christ’), even though the words ‘form’ and ‘figure’ are used.

The Thirteen Articles— The Thirteen Articles of  may have resulted from a conference between Lutheran and English divines439 and were found among Cran- mer’s papers.440 The Thirteen Articles express a realism regarding the Eucharist which is less extreme that The Ten Articles of , saying: “Concerning the Eucharist we firmly believe and teach that in the Sacra- ment the body and blood of the Lord, the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially and actually present under the species of bread

436 Cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 437 See Gibson, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England,p.andBick- nell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, p. . 438 Gibson, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England,p.. 439 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 440 George Maclear and William Williams, An Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England (London: Macmillan, ), p. .  chapter two and wine; and that under the same species they are really and actually present (exhibentur) and administered to those who receive the sacrament, both good and bad.”441 The Thirteen Articles declare that the body and blood of Christ are present but do not specify the presence to be the very self-same body and blood as was present in Jesus Christ. The underlying philosophical assumption here seems to be moderate realism since there is no suggestion of the historic or fleshy body and blood being instantiated in the bread and wine.

The Six Articles— The Six Articles of  resulted from Henry VIII’s wish to have the House of Lords consider different opinions concerning religion. Some442 argue that the conservative tone of The Six Articles was Henry’s direct response to the more reforming nature of The Thirteen Articles.TheAct itself however, suggests that the purpose of The Six Articles was a desire for unity.443 Concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the First Article stated: “that in the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word (it being spoken by the priest), is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary; and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread or wine, nor any other substance, but the substance of Christ, God and man.”444 The article in using the words, ‘natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary’, points to an instantiation of the historic body and blood in the Eucharist. The article seems to teach an immoderate realism by the use of the words ‘natural body’. Such a use is more extreme than the moderate realism of transubstantiation or other theologies of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist which are not fleshy.

441 Cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 442 Maclear and Williams, An Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England,p. . 443 The Six Articles are listed in Henry Gee and William Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Compiled from original sources (London: Macmillan, ), pp. –. See p.  where the desire for unity is expressed. 444 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

The King’s Book— The King’s Book or more fully titled A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, was a revision of the earlier work entitled The Bishop’s Book. The material related to the Eucharist in The Bishop’s Book was essentially that of The Ten Articles of .445 In relation to the Eucharist The King’s Book stated the moderate realism of transubstantiation, without using the word transubstantiation. It said: The Sacrament of the altar . . . among all the Sacraments is of incomparable dignity and virtue, forasmuch as in the other Sacraments the outward kind of the thing which is used in them remaineth still in their own nature and substance unchanged. But in the most high Sacrament of the altar the creatures which be taken to the use thereof, as bread and wine, do not remain still in their own substance, but by the virtue of Christ’s word in the consecration be changed and turned to the very substance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesu Christ. So that, although there appear the form of bread and wine after the consecration as did before, and to outward senses nothing seemeth to be changed, yet must we, forsaking and renouncing the persuasion of our senses in this behalf, give our assent only to faith, and to the plain word of Christ, which affirmeth that substance there offered, exhibited, and received to be the very precious body and blood of our Lord,asitisplainlywrittenbytheEvangelistsandalsobyStPaul,where they entreating of the institution of this Sacrament, show how our Saviour Christ sitting at His Last Supper with His Apostles took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it unto His disciples and said, ‘Take ye and eat; this is My body’. And also when He gave the cup, He said, ‘This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins’. By these words it is plain and evident to all them that with meek, humble and sincere heart will believe Christ’s words, and be obedient unto faith, that in the Sacrament the things that be therein be the very body and blood of Christ in very substance.446 This article is careful to avoid any reference to the ‘self-same body and blood’ or ‘natural body’ as found in the person of Jesus, thereby distancing itself from any suggestion of immoderate realism where the historic body and blood was seen to be present in the Eucharist. The view expressed is that of the moderate realist doctrine of transubstantiation, without the use of the word transubstantiation, such that the substance ofthebreadandwineisreplacedbythesubstanceofChrist’sbody and blood with the accidents or outward appearance of the bread and

445 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 446 Ibid, II, pp. –.  chapter two wine remaining. As such The King’s Book expresses a moderate realism concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, more realist than the view expressed in The Thirteen Articles, but less extreme than that expressed in The Six Articles.

The Articles of Religion— and  In  Edward VI and his council ordered Cranmer to draw up articles of religion. A draft of forty-five articles was supplied by Cranmer tothe bishops for their consideration. Over the next year further amendments were made. The articles drawn up referring to the Eucharist were four in number and said in part: xxix. 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 it is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. And therefore to such as duly and 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.

xxx. Of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation of the bread and wine in the Eucharist cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and has given occasion to many superstitions.

xxxi. Of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Forasmuch as the truth of man’s nature requires that it cannot be at the same time in many places but in some certain and fixed place, therefore thebodyofChristcannotbepresentatthesametimeinmanyanddivers places. And because as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into heaven, and will there remain until the end of the world, no one of the faithful ought either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist.447 These articles represent a significant shift in thinking about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist from earlier articles. Not only is transubstantiation denied (Article xxx) but ‘the real and bodily presence’ (Article xxxi) is also denied. This denial precludes any instantiation of the body and

447 Ibid, II, p. . the period of the reformation  blood of Christ in the Eucharist as moderate realism. Further Article xxix states that there is ‘a partaking’ of the body and blood of Christ in the EucharistbutmakesnostatementaboutwhetherornotChristispresent. In fact Article xxxi states that the body of Christ cannot be present at the same time in different places and it is on this basis that the ‘real and bodily presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist is denied. These articles therefore introduce a nominalist view of the presence of Christ, where the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist are self- enclosed entities, having no identity one with the other—Christ’s body and blood is seen to be in heaven only and on earth we have bread and wine. Each of the entities—Christ’sbody and blood and bread and wine— are self-enclosed. In such a nominalist view there is no instantiation of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. The presence of Christ is dependent upon the ‘partaking’ in a worthy and faithful manner by the communicant. The former realist expressions of eucharistic theology do not seem present in these articles. The Forty-Five Articles of  were the basis of the Forty-Two Arti- cles of . The four articles on the Eucharist in  articles were combined into one, called ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’. The partaking, duly, worthily and with faith of the body and blood of Christ was affirmed in the articles of  and transubstantiation and ‘the real and bodily presence’ in the Eucharist were condemned. The statement that “it cannot be atthesametimeinmanyplaces”(The Forty-Five Articles of ,Arti- cle xxxi) was altered to “the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in diverse places”,448 suggesting an empirical or technical distinction which placed Christ’s natural body in heaven without instantiation, in a strict or loose sense in any other place such as on earth in theEucharist.Thechangeinwordingaffirmedthenominalistviewand denied the realist view of an instantiation of the nature of Christ in the Eucharist.

Convocation of Canterbury, October,  Edward VI died in July,  and Mary I became queen. Her accession meantthatthetheologicalpositionofEnglandwassignificantlychanged in the direction of Rome. The changes that had occurred during the reign of Edward were reversed, the Latin Mass was restored and the doctrinal

448 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two position prior to the reforms under Edward VI was re-established. The doctrine of the Eucharist was discussed by both the Upper and Lower Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury in October, . The statements concerning the Eucharist expressed by this Convocation presented realist assumptions concerning the Eucharist. They said in part: Concerning the Sacrament of the altar. In the Sacrament of the altar duly administered we teach that by the words of Christ the real and actual substance of the body and blood of Christ are present and contained under the species of the bread and the wine mixed with water. And since Christ can no longer be divided, or His blood separated from His flesh, because He dieth no more, therefore, we believe that the whole Christ, God and Man, is contained under either species.

Concerning Transubstantiation. Since Christ declared that the one sacrifice and unique mystery, which he instituted at the Last Supper and commanded to be received by the faithful, is His body which was betrayed for us, we do not believe that this is only bread, or that the body of Christ is with the bread or in the bread, apart from our calling it the Bread of life who came down from heaven. And since the manner of the existing there is by the Transubstantiation and transition of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord, the accidents of bread and wine meanwhile remaining for the sake of our weakness and the signification of the mystery, the pastors of the Church lawfully assembled in the Lateran Council fittingly expressed the ancient truth of the Catholic faith by the new word Transubstantiation. 449 Transubstantiation is affirmed by the Convocation in a moderate realist sense. The words ‘real and actual substance’ are usually interpreted as moderate realism in any discussion of transubstantiation, however the words ‘His body which was betrayed for us’, suggest a reference to the historic body, apart from the substance, and so may indicate some movement towards immoderate realism. Further statements from the Convocation said in part: “Concerning the adoration and reservation of the Eucharist. Since we confess that the real body and real blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are in the Eucharist, how shall we do otherwise than adore Him who never has been and never ought to be without adoration among Christians?”450

449 Ibid, II, pp. –. 450 Ibid, II, pp, . the period of the reformation 

The use of the words ‘real body’ and ‘real blood of Christ’ and ‘the whole Christ’ without the qualification of the word ‘substance’ further suggest immoderate as opposed to moderate realism. Concerning eucharistic sacrifice, the Convocation stated: We celebrate the holy and life-giving and bloodless offering in the churches, not believing that what is offered is the body of some ordinary man, but that it is the body which the Word who gives life to all things made His own, being at once the medicine for healing weaknesses and the burnt offering for cleansing offences; and we hold that on the Holy Table is placed the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, who is sacrificed by the priests without shedding of blood. And this new offering of the new covenant instituted and commanded by Christ, the Church. Receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the whole world.451 Once again there is a mixing of moderate and immoderate realism in the discussion of eucharistic sacrifice. The sacrifice is described as ‘bloodless’ and one that is ‘sacrificed by the priests without shedding of blood’ (moderaterealism)butthesacrificeisalsodescribedasbeing‘anew offering of the new covenant’ (suggestive of immoderate realism) with the implication of a re-immolation apparent.

Declaration and Confession— Following the death of Mary I in , Elizabeth I became queen. Eliz- abeth was sympathetic to the Reformers but also wanted to follow the tradition of her father Henry VIII. A Declaration and Confession was presented to the queen by some of the Reformers in . This consisted of a series of articles largely based on the Forty-Two Articles of . In regard to the Eucharist the articles declared: To such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. Likewise the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ. So that in the due administration of this holy Supper we do not deny all manner of presence of Christ’s body and blood; neither do we think or say that this holy sacrament is only a naked and a bare sign or figure, in which nothing else is to be received of the faithful but common bread and wine, as our adversaries have at all times most untruly charged us. And yet do we not allow the corporal, carnal, and real presence which they teach and maintain, affirming Christ’s body to be sensibly handled of the priest, and also corporally and substantially to be received with the mouth as well

451 Ibid, II, pp. –.  chapter two

of the wicked as of the godly. For that were contrary to the Scripture, both to remove Him out of heaven where concerning his natural body He shall continue to the end of the world, and also by making His body bodily present in so many sundry and several places at once to destroy the properties of His human nature. Neither do we allow the fond error of Transubstantiation or the change of the substances of bread and wine into the substances of the body and blood of Christ, which, as it is repugnant to the words of the Scriptures and contrary to the plain assertions of the ancient writers, so doth it utterly deny the nature of a Sacrament. But we affirm and confess that, as the wicked in the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament eateth and drinketh his own damnation, so to the believer and worthy receiver is verily given and exhibited whole Christ, God and Man, with the fruits of His passion. And that in the distribution of this holy Sacrament, as we with our outward senses receive the sacramental bread and wine, so inwardly by faith and through the working of God’s Spirit we are made partakers vere et efficaciter of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and we are spiritually fed therewith with everlasting life. And we also confess, and ever have done, that by the celebrating and right receiving of this mystery and holy Sacrament we enjoy divers and singular comforts and benefits. For herein we are assured of God’s promises of forgiveness of sins, of the pacifying of God’s wrath, of our resurrection and everlasting life. Herein also by the secret operation of God’s Holy Spirit our faith is increased and confirmed, we are made one with Christ and He with us, we abide in Him and He in us, we are stirred up to unity and mutual charity, to joyfulness of conscience and patient suffering for Christ’s sake, and finally to continual thanksgiving to our merciful heavenly Father for the wonderful work of our salvation purchased in the death and bloodshed of our Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ.452 This statement presents a variety of views concerning the Eucharist. It maintains the view of right use and administration as did Cranmer but at the same time it does not deny all manners of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, apart from a corporal presence. There is a view that the signs of bread and wine are not a ‘naked or bare sign or figure’ such that only bread and wine are received. There seems to be a givenness about the bread and wine stated, but this givenness is not a corporal presence since it is maintained that Christ’s bodily presence can only be in heaven. The moderate realist doctrine of transubstantiation is specifically denied but moderate realism as a general concept is not. Christ’s natural body is seen to be heaven, separated from the bread and wine, each being self-enclosed entities, but there is a partaking of Christ in the due and

452 Ibid, II, pp. –. the period of the reformation  right administration of the Eucharist with faith. The communicant is said to receive ‘the whole Christ’ by the eating and drinking, thereby linking the bread and wine with the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but in a moderate realist manner. Christ’s presence is an effectual one, with the benefits of his passion being received and renewed in the Eucharist, where the nature of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine and ‘given and exhibited’ along with the benefits of Christ. While it seems that a moderate realist assumption concerning Christ’s presence is stated it is not clear whether this rests on a receptionist framework alone or whether the presence of Christ is more objectively given in the bread and wine apart from the act of reception. Both receptionism and givenness seem equally likely in this statement. It should be noted however, that ‘real presence’ as used in this statement is linked with immoderate realism. This is problematic since it suggests that a ‘real presence’ must by definition be fleshy and corporal, that is, a form of immoderate realism. Earlier Anglican eucharistic theology suggests that there were many who saw a ‘real presence’ according to the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism (e.g. Taylor) where the presence was real but not fleshy. The article referring to the ‘perfect oblation of Christ made upon the cross’,maintains a nominalist separation of the historic oblation from the Eucharistinanimmoderateway.Thereisnosenseofa‘partaking’ofthe historic sacrifice in the Eucharist. It condemns any immoderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice, but says nothing of a moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice. The articles states: Of the perfect oblation of Christ made upon the cross. The offering of Christ made once for ever is the perfect redemption, the pacifying of God’s displeasure, 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 sacrifice of the Masses, in which itis commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or sin, are forged fables and dangerous deceits.453

The Eleven Articles—/ The Eleven Articles were compiled by the bishops in  or  as a temporary statement of doctrine until more formal and permanent articles could be drawn up. The Eleven Articles were framed in order

453 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter two that clergy give their assent to each article. The articles denied that the sacrifice of the Mass was a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, but most surprisingly made no mention of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Thirty-Eight Articles of  In  Convocation considered the Forty-Two Articles of , revised them and reduced their number to thirty-eight. These articles received the assent of Convocation and were ratified by the queen. Significant changes were made in relation to the Eucharist. The article in the earlier Forty-Two Articles entitled ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ had condemned belief in ‘the real and bodily presence’.These words were omitted in the articles of  and the following was put in its place: “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.”454 Whereas the article of  had denied “the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ’s flesh and blood” in the sacrament, the article of  affirmed that the body of Christ was given, taken and eaten in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The words denying a ‘real and bodily presence’ were removed. Whereas the article of  seems to exclude a realist conception of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the article of  does not preclude such a conception. This change made in the article of  has been interpreted as an affirmation of the great truth that safeguards the doctrine of the real presence.455 Bishop Gibson argues that whereas the body of Christ is ‘given, taken and eaten in the Supper’, it is ‘received and eaten’ by faith. The body of Christ is ‘given’ not by faith, but is there first, orelse it cannot be received.456 This analysis of a givenness of Christ in the Eucharist fits well with Bishop Guest’s argument457 for a real presence and distinguished between a ‘natural’ presence (immoderate realism) and ‘real’ presence (moderate realism). Interpreted in this way the article of  supports a moderate realist view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

454 Ibid, II, p. . 455 Bicknell, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, p. . 456 Ibid, p. . 457 See below. the period of the reformation 

The Thirty-Nine Articles of  The articles of  were revised in , ratified by the queen and issued with the twenty-ninth article, entitled ‘Of the Wicked which do not Eat the body and blood of Christ in the Use of the Lord’s Supper’, inserted, making a total of thirty-nine articles. It is in this form that the articles presently exist in the Anglican Communion.458 The change in the article ‘Of the Lord’s Supper’ introduced in the articles of  was maintained in the articles of  (see above) thereby making possible a moderate realist assumption regarding the presence of Christ’s in the Eucharist. The denial of ‘the real and bodily presence of Christ’s flesh and blood’ (present in the articles of ) was not present in the articles of  and . Edmund Guest, the Bishop of Rochester, comments in a letter to Sir William Cecil how the Bishop of Gloucester, Richard Cheyney, objected to the use of the word ‘only’ in the twenty-eighth article.459 Guest comments that the use of this word was seen to exclude the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however he concludes that: This word ‘only’ in the aforesaid article did not exclude the presence of Christ’s body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof. For I said unto him though he took Christ’s body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally, as the doctors do write, yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it. And therefore I told him I would speak against him therein, and the rather because the article was of mine own penning. And yet I would not for all that deny anything that I had spoken for the presence. And this was the sum of our talk. And this that I said is so true by all sorts of men that even D. Harding writeth the same, as it appears more evidently by his words reported in the Bishop of Salisbury’s [i.e. John Jewell] book, pagina , which be these, ‘Then ye may say, in deed; substantially, that is, in substance; and corporally, carnally, and naturally; by the which words is meant that His very body, His very flesh, and His human nature is there, not after corporal, carnal, or natural wise, but invisibly, unspeakably, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way unto Him only known’.460 What Guest seems to be arguing for is moderate realism. He specifically excludes immoderate realism (‘grossness and sensibleness’), where the historic body and blood is instantiated in the Eucharist, but at the same

458 See The Book of Common Prayer of  and A Prayer Book for Australia of . 459 See Guest’sletter cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,pp.II, –. 460 Ibid, II, pp. –.  chapter two time affirms moderate realism, where Christ’s nature is instantiated in the Eucharist. Guest is affirming a real and spiritual presence (moderate realism) and denying any carnal presence (immoderate realism) and at the same time rejecting any nominalist view. The development of the Articles seem to present varying philosophical assumptions relating to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. The argument presented above suggests however that the Arti- cles as they were finally framed in  present a moderate realist view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. the period of the reformation 

The  Book of Common Prayer

Following the death of the Roman Catholic Mary I in , Elizabeth I became Queen on  November,  when the Latin Missal and Bre- viary were still in use and there was uncertainty about what might happen.461 Elizabeth was not a Roman Catholic but she decided to move carefully in the matter of religion. Parliament met to discuss revision of the Prayer Book on  January, . An Act of Uniformity was passed by the parliament on  April, ,462 whereby the  Book of Com- mon Prayer was authorised for use. The return to the  book was by no means unanimously popular since the Act met with strenuous opposition in the House of Lords, even though it passed easily in the Commons.463 Many of the clergy were less than enthusiastic about the use of this book.464 Convocation meeting in January,  had asserted the three propositions put to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer at their trials in . These propositions asserted that the real presence of the natural body and blood of Christ was under the species of bread and wine, the lack of any substance of bread and wine remaining after the consecration and the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. These propositions were agreed to by the bishops.465 Henry Gee argues that the affirmation of these propositions by the bishops was a protest against the Communion service in the  BCP466 and accordingly a protest against any view which denied a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The debate on the  BCP was delayed until after Easter, . Some bishops continued to oppose its introduction vigorously467 on the grounds that the  Communion service contained no realist notions such as an oblation, no real sacrifice and no consecration performed or intended.468 When the

461 John Booty (ed), The Book of Common Prayer,  (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, ), p. . 462 Henry Gee and William Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Compiled from original sources (London: Macmillan, ), pp. –. 463 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, pp. –. 464 William Clay (ed), Liturgical Services. Liturgies and Occasional Forms of Prayer set forthintheReignofQueenElizabeth(Cambridge: The Parker Society, ), p. xii. 465 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 466 Henry Gee, The Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments with an Appendix of Documents (London: Macmillan, ), p. . 467 See the speech of Bishop Scot in ibid, pp. –. 468 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two vote was taken in the House of Lords, the Act of Uniformity of  was only narrowly passed with a majority of three votes, thereby abolishing the Latin mass and approving the Elizabethan Prayer Book of .469 Despite the varying opinions, the  BCP became the authorised form of common prayer, now known as the  Book of Common Prayer,470 butwithsomesignificantmodificationsinregardtotheEucha- rist. These changes in  were deliberately intended to include amore Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist which some argue was Elizabeth’s wish.471 Elizabeth I had for example, declared to the Spanish ambassador, de Feria, that “she held that God was really present in the Sacrament”.472 In her Injunctions of  Elizabeth spoke in realist terms about “the blessed communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ.”473 In relationtothewaferbreadtobeusedattheEucharisttheInjunctions refer to “these mysteries, being the sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”474 Elizabeth was hesitant concerning the elevation of the host and this may suggest that she was wary of any adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist which might suggest immoderateorfleshyrealism,butatthesametimeitseemsthatshe was firmly convinced of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in the sense of moderate realism. There were changes in the words of administration, such that the words of the  BCP were combined with the words of the  BCP. In  the words of administration had read: The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve they body and soul unto everlasting life. The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.475

469 Ibid, p. . 470 For text see Booty, The Book of Common Prayer, . 471 Leighton Pullan, The History of the Book of Common Prayer (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. . 472 Ibid, p. . 473 Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Compiled from original sources, p. . 474 Ibid, p. . 475 John Ketley (ed), The Two Liturgies A.D. and A.D.: with other Documents set forth by authority in the Reign of King Edward VI, viz The Order of Communion, ; The Primer, ; The Catechism and Articles, ; and Catechismus Brevis,  (Cambridge: The Parker Society, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

In  the words became: Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in they heart by faith with thanksgiving. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.476 In the  BCP the combined form became: The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life: and take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving. The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve they body and soul into everlasting life: and drink this in remembrance that Christ’sbloodwasshedforthee,andbethankful.477 The realist words of , said as the bread and wine were administered, were significantly altered in , removing them and exhorting the communicant to remembrance only. What ‘this’ meant in the  words was not specified thus reducing any likelihood of a realist interpretation. ‘This’ could simply be the bread and wine in the  words and not the body and blood of Christ. Such a conclusion could scarcely be reached concerning the words of  where the words ‘the body of Christ’ and ‘the blood of Christ’ were said as the bread and wine were administered. The words of , as a combination of  and , were a compromise between those who advocated a realist view where Christ’sbodyandbloodwasseentobepresentinthesacramentandthose who denied it.478 Two matters, one a deletion and one an addition to the  BCP do however, give some indication that the Eucharist in the  book was leaning towards the realist direction. The Declaration of Kneeling or the Black Rubric479 added to the  BCP, was omitted in the  BCP. This  rubric specifically denied any real and essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacramental bread and wine. With this rubric deleted there was therefore no specific denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the  book. Booty observes that “the

476 Ibid, p. . 477 Booty, The Book of Common Prayer, , p. . 478 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 479 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. .  chapter two

Queen needed no defence for kneeling at the Communion. Furthermore, the rubric was altogether too explicit, too detailed on a controversial matter that had best be left alone in a Prayer Book intended for the entire realm”.480 A rubric was also added to the  BCP at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer. This rubric said: “And here is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration,shallusesuchornamentsinthechurchaswereinuseby authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of king Edward the Sixth according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this book.”.481 The book referred to as being in use in the second year of the reign of Edward VI was of course the  BCP. The addition of this rubric in the  BCP therefore meant that eucharistic vestments and other ornaments of the church, usually associated with a realist theology of the Eucharist, were ordered. These had been specifically denied in the  BCP in the rubric before Morning and Evening Prayer.482 The Elizabethan Act of Uniformity in  also therefore ordered the use of the ornaments as at the second year of the reign of Edward VI and added the words that they should be used: “until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the queen’s majesty, with the advice of her commissioners appointed and authorized, under the great seal of England, for causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm.”483 It is important to note that these modifications are not seen to be doctrinally significant by all writers, and some484 deny their importance since it is argued that none of the changes went back behind the  BCP. Henry Gee concludes that even if there is some uncertainty about the meaning of the ‘second year of King Edward’,the ornaments ordered for use in the Elizabethan Prayer Book of  “cannot have been less than those of the book of  and they may have been more”.485 Indeed Gee goes on to say that, “on any interpretation ‘vestments and copes’

480 Booty, The Book of Common Prayer, , p. . 481 Ibid,p.. 482 Ketley, The Two Liturgies, p. . 483 Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Compiled from original sources, p. . 484 Roger Beckwith, ‘The Anglican Eucharist: From the Reformation to the Restoration’, in C. Jones, G. Wainwright and E. Yarnold (eds) The Study of Liturgy (London: SPCK, ), p. . 485 Henry Gee, The Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments with an Appendix of Documents (London: Macmillan, ), p. , note . the period of the reformation  were lawful by the Ornaments Rubric”.486 Stone however, concludes that these changes have implications in regard to a realist theology of the Eucharist, saying: “This retention of the Eucharistic vestments is of some importance in view of Guest’s [a bishop] criticism of the use of them; and the change in the words of administration in combining those that were associated with the doctrine that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ with those which were most congenial to the deniers of this doctrine may be taken as significant of the policy which was to mark the reign of Elizabeth.”487 Despite the addition of the rubric ordering the use of the vestments, it seems that it was not followed strictly, as is indicated by Archbishop Parker’s Advertisement of , where only asurpliceandacopeareordered.488 Despite this the practice of the Queen suggests otherwise. In October, , for example, a wedding was held in the Chapel Royal. The Spanish Ambassador, Quadra, described the marriage, saying: The Queen ordered the marriage of one of her lady-servants to take place in her own chapel, and directed that a crucifix and candles should be placed upon the altar, which caused so much noise amongst her chaplains and the Council that the intention was abandoned for the time; but it was done at vespers on Saturday, and on Sunday the clergy wore vestments as they do in our services, and so great was the crowd at the palace that disturbance was feared in the city. The fact is, that the crucifixes and vestments that were burnt a month ago publicly are now set up in the Royal Chapel, as they soon will be all over the kingdom, unless God forbid, there is another change next week.489 It seems possible to conclude that there was a great deal of variation, both in official statements and in actual practice. This seems therefore to suggestthatatthebeginningofElizabeth’sreigntheremayalsohavebeen a great deal of variation in the philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology as well—some favouring a realist theology and some not. In order to judge this the works of authors contemporary to the BCP of  need to be consulted. This can be done by examining some of the case studies of this work which suggest that both moderate realism

486 Ibid, p. , note . 487 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . 488 Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Compiled from original sources, p. . 489 Gee, The Elizabethan Prayer-Book and Ornaments with an Appendix of Documents, pp. –.  chapter two and nominalism were part of the eucharistic theology of the time. See, for example, the case studies for Hooker, Herbert, Andrewes, W. Forbes, Jackson and Nicholson which present a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist and those of Bayly, Grindal, Hales, Perkins and Sandys which present a nominalist theology of the Eucharist. Writers at the time of the  BCP and its almost identical successor (the  revision of the BCP) present a picture of theological diversity and a multiformity of philosophical assumptions in relation to the Eucharist. the period of the reformation 

The  Book of Common Prayer

The principal changes to the Eucharist which occurred in the  BCP were:

. The word ‘offertory’ was used in the rubric directing the priest ‘to begin the offertory’ as he had been in the  BCP.490 No such direction had been in the prayer book of . In the  Eucharist the bread and wine was placed on the altar at this stage, although there was no direction to ‘offer up’ the oblations as the Scottish Prayer Book of  had done491 or as was the suggested format of the Book of Common Prayer, called The Durham Book492 which was not taken up. The rubric at the Offertory in  clearly states that the bread and wine are to be placed on the altar at this place in the service. In the Prayer for the Church, the prayer asks that God “accept our alms and oblations”.493 The meaning of the word ‘oblations’ has been the subject of some debate. Whilst some see the word oblations referring to the bread and wine, offered to God, others do not. Evan Daniel argues that “there is little doubt, therefore, that ‘oblations’ refers to the bread and wine, here formally offered, though not consecrated, as an oblation to God”.494 This opinion is supported by others.495 Others496 argue that the word ‘oblations’ referred

490 Joseph Ketley, The Two Liturigies, A.D. and A.D. (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 491 See Gordon Donaldson, The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book of  (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, ), p. . 492 Geoffrey Cuming (ed), The Durham Book: Being the First Draft of the Revision ofthe Book of Common Prayer in  (London: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 493  Book of Common Prayer,PrayerfortheChurch. 494 Evan Daniel, The Prayer Book. Its History, Language and Contents (London: Wells, Gardner, Darton and Co, ), p. . 495 See Charles Wheatly, Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: being the substance of every thing liturgical in Bishop Sparrow, Mr L’Estrange, Dr Comber, Dr Nichols, and all former ritualists, commentators, and others, uponthesamesubject(London: Bell and Daldy, ), p. ; W. Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica. A Commentary, Explanatory, Doctrinal and Historical on the Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion according to the use of the Church of England (London: Rivingtons, ), p. ; John Blunt, The Annotated Book of Com- mon Prayer. Being and Historical, Ritual and Theological Commentary n the Devotional System of the Church of England (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. ; F. War- ren, The Book of Common Prayer with Commentary for Teachers and Students (London: SPCK, ), p. ; Francis Proctor and Walter Frere, A New History of the Book of Com- mon Prayer with a rationale of its offices (London: Macmillan, ), p. . 496 See John Dowden, Further Studies in the Prayer Book (London: Methuen, ), pp. –; Charles Neil and J. Willoughby, The Tutorial Prayer Book for the Teacher,  chapter two to money apart from the alms, given for pious purposes and not to the bread and wine placed on the altar. Whichever of these arguments is correct, the fact still remains that at the Offertory, bread and wine was directed to be placed on the altar by the priest. This simple ceremony was additional to the earlier editions of the prayer book (,  and ) and represented a specific form of setting these elements apart for holy use.497

. The eucharistic prayer was entitled ‘the Prayer of Consecration’ thereby suggesting that the bread and wine were in some way set apart and consecrated for use in the Eucharist.

. Manual acts were restored to the eucharistic prayer or the Prayer of Consecration. These had been removed in the  BCP.Themanual acts directed the priest to take the paten and the chalice in his hands, to break the bread, to lay his hand upon the bread and upon the chalice. The fraction was clearly directed by these rubrics. Both the Laudians and the Presbyterians were pleased about the addition of the manual acts. The Presbyterians had complained that the consecrating of the elements was not specific enough. The Laudians were pleased to see the return of these traditional actions in the eucharistic prayer since they focused the eucharistic action in the Prayer of Consecration and on the elements. This lessened any possible receptionist interpretations and emphasised the elements in a moderate realist manner.

. The addition of the ‘Amen’ at the end of the  Prayer of Conse- cration separated the reception of communion from the consecration. This heightened the idea of an objective real presence of Christ inthe Eucharistwhichwasnotdependentontheactofreceptionalone.The absence of an ‘Amen’ at the end of this prayer in the  BCP had suggested that the central action of the Eucharist included the reception of the bread and wine.

the Students, and the General Reader (London: The Harrison Trust, ), pp. – ; Donald Robinson, ‘Eucharist and Offertory: The Anglican Tradition’,in Churchmen Speak: Thirteen Essays (Appleford, Abington, Berkshire: Marcham Books, ), pp. – .; William Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith. A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England (London: Church Book Room, ), p. . 497 Geoffrey Parsons, The Holy Communion. An Exposition of the Prayer Book Service (London: Hodder and Stoughton, ), p. . the period of the reformation 

. Several aspects of the Scottish Liturgy of  were included in the  Eucharist. These were provisions for additional supplies of bread and wine; the remaining elements were to be veiled and then consumed, but could not be taken out of the church for the use of the priest as the  BCP had suggested. This suggests a givenness of Christ’spresence in the elements which was not restricted to its reception alone and therefore required respect.

. The Declaration on Kneeling (The Black Rubric) was restored to the Eucharist (as the final rubric) but with a significant change in wording from the original. The words ‘corporal presence’ in the  BCPreplaced the previous ‘real and essential presence’ of the  BCP,therebydeny- ing any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The omission of this rubric in  BCP was one of the chief Puritan objections, and therefore its replacement, with amendment, was a concession to the Presbyterian party.

Although the  Eucharist was substantially that of the previous prayer books (i.e. ,  and ) there were slight, but significant changes (as outlined above). These suggested a more realist conception of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, although there was no return to the much more realist form of the  BCP.Thefactthat the  revisers choose to follow the more Reformed model of ,  and  in the main, and not to return to the more Catholic model of , indicates both a satisfaction with the Reformed model and a desire for conciliation between the various parties. The propos- alsoftheLaudians,asexpressedinThe Durham Book,498 were not, in the main, adopted. The proposals of the Presbyterians in The Excep- tions and The Reformation of the Liturgy,499 were also, in the main, not adopted. The previous prayer book model was substantially maintained with only slight, although important changes to the Eucharist. The changes were suggestive of moderate realism and these have been discussed above.

498 Cuming, The Durham Book. 499 See Bard Thompson (ed), Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), pp. – and Geoffrey Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy (London: Macmillan, ), pp. –.  chapter two

The eucharistic theology of the  BCP is indicated as much as, if not more than, by what it does not include, as what it does. For example, the omission of sacrificial language at the Offertory, with a specific ‘offering up of the elements’ such as is found in the Scottish Liturgy of  or in The Durham Book,andthefailuretoinclude an epiclesis in the Prayer of Consecration, suggest that the revisers, despite the small number of significant changes, were keen to maintain the previous model. The failure of the revisers to include any of the more radical Puritan suggestions (e.g. those found in Baxter’s Savoy Liturgy)500 also suggests that they were satisfied with the prayer book at it existed. Judith Maltby501 supports the view that there was considerable conformity to the Prayer Book in England in Elizabethan and Stuart times. Herworkarguesthathistorianshaveoftenbeenoverlyconcernedwith the positions of non-conformity (Puritan and Presbyterian) and the Lau- dian position (e.g. The Durham Book) to the exclusion of the considerable conformity which existed in England. Historians have often focused, she argues, on the hostility towards the BCP rather than on the conformity to it. Some historians, for example, quote Puritan views condemning the prayer book. Frere and Douglas in Puritan Manifestos quote the charge of the Puritans that the prayer book was “an unperfect book, culled and picked out of the popish dunghill, the Mass book full of all abominations” and that it contained “much superstition”502 suggesting that there was considerable opposition to the use of the prayer book in England among some.Totakesuchaviewhowever,suggestsMaltby,ignorestheconsider- able degree of conformity to the prayer book which existed in England. Evidence for conformity to the prayer book emerges during periods of official persecution, for example during the reign of Mary I and during the Puritan Commonwealth period.503 At other times, when there was no official persecution, the conformity to the prayer book is obscured by its legality.504 Further, Maltby argues that it is misleading to suggest that only Puritans and non-conformists were vigorous and successful in

500 Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, pp. –. 501 Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Stuart England (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, ). 502 Walter Frere and C. Douglas, Puritan Manifestos (London: SPCK, ), p. . 503 Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Stuart England, pp. –. 504 Ibid,p.. the period of the reformation  the Church of England505 and that the vigorous contribution of committed conformists, of the prayer book Protestants, has been overlooked.506 Examples of this conformity to the prayer book among parishioners can be found in the referrals to the church courts507 and in the many petitions made to Parliament in support of the BCP and the episcopate in the first half of the seventeenth century.508 Maltby concludes by saying that: While acknowledging the vigour of Marian Protestantism, Elizabeth’s reign can rightly be seen as the crucial period of consolidation. Backed by the laws of parliament and the protection of the ‘godly prince’,the most pervasive agent of change, the Book of Common Prayer, gained a place in the religious consciousness and even the affections of the English laity. Its success may be explained in part by the element of continuity it gave its users along with innovation. That it succeeded as an agent of change as well as continuity from the middle of Elizabeth’s reign forwards, is the chief argument of this study. A goodly proportion of the English people became ‘people of the book’—but as much of the Prayer Book as the Bible. For conformists that association represented no conflict, but rather a happy alliance at best, a manageable partnership at worst.509 If Maltby is correct, then this may help to explain why the bishops were happy to maintain the prayer book in much the same form as it previously existed and why they generally rejected the proposals for change from both the Laudian and Presbyterian parties. In so doing the theology of the eucharist expressed in the  BCP, made slight concessions to moderate realism.

505 Ibid,p.. 506 Ibid,p.. 507 Ibid,p.. 508 Ibid,p.. 509 Ibid,p..  chapter two

Liturgies Other Than the Book of Common Prayer

In this case study various liturgies of the Reformation period, other than The Book of Common Prayer, written for English congregations, will be considered.

John Knox and The Form of Prayers, John Knox’s liturgy entitled The Form of Prayers510 was written in Geneva in , but later used in both England and Scotland. The Form of Prayers had a definite Reformed and Calvinist character about it, but with some elements reflecting the  BCP.ItwasnotafixedriteliketheBCP and the minister could use his discretion about what he included, as long as he honoured the intent of the liturgy.511 It contained an extended Exhor- tation said to be compiled according to Christ’s word and warrant, in the vernacular and without traditional symbols, vestments and ceremonial. The exposition of the word was given the prominent place and the celebration of the Eucharist was only occasional. The first rubric suggested a monthly celebration, but it seems that quarterly became the pattern.512 There was no prayer of consecration, but a recitation of the institution narrative in the presence of bread and wine. As Bard Thompson comments: The Form of Prayers made no provision for a consecration of the elements. The Word, which supplied validity and reality to the sacrament, wasnot addressed to the bread and wine, as if to change them; it was addressed to the people, so (said the appendix) that ‘Christ might witness unto our faith, as it were, with his own mouth’, promising us the communion of his body and blood. Thus, the essential point was the lively preaching ofthe promises of Christ, which underlay the Lord’s Supper; and such preaching, whether it be the sermon or the Words of Institution, was addressed to those who proposed to communicate.513 He then goes on to describe the manner of celebrating the Eucharist, saying:

510 See Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), pp. –; Ronald Jasper and Geoffrey Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed. Texts translated and edited with commentary (New York: Pueblo, ), pp. –. 511 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. . 512 Ibid, p. . 513 Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, p. . the period of the reformation 

At the end of the Exhortation, the minister left the pulpit and took his place at ‘the holy table’. The communicants likewise came forward and sat down at the table, which was ample in size and usually arranged in a U or T shape in the chancel or on the floor of the nave. Such was the setting for the fourfold action. The minister took bread.Hegave thanks, using an original prayer that was truly Eucharistic in its scope; it included adoration, thanksgiving for creation and redemption, a brief anamnesis, and a doxology. Some ministers, who found the liturgy deficient in the matter of the Consecration, supplied an epiclesis at this time. Then the minister broke the bread, taking care to make the Fraction a distinct feature of the action. Finally, having partaken himself, he delivered the bread to the people, who ‘divided’ the same among themselves. The manner of delivery, . . . was conceived to be at Christ’s command; and it obviated kneeling at the reception, which was so abhorrent to Knox. It also implied that the Lord’s table was appointed for the whole family of God. By sitting down together and by serving the elements to one another, the people were able to realize their fellowship and mutual priesthood in the Body of Christ.514 Some analysis of the eucharistic doctrine contained in The Form of Prayers will now be undertaken. The institution narrative from Corinthians  was read by the minister as the warrant for the Eucharist. Worthy eating and drinking was emphasised and the dangers of unworthy eating and drinking were pointed out. The minister then read an exhortation, the first half of which was from Cranmer ( BCP) and the second from Calvin.515 The exhortation again mentioned worthy eating and drinking but went on to argue that the eating and drinking was spiritual, saying: “we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, we be one with Christ, and Christ with us.”516 The potential communicants were exhorted to consider: That this sacrament is a singular medicine for all poor sick creatures, a comfortable help to weak souls, and that our Lord requireth no other worthiness on our part, but that we unfeignedly acknowledge our naughtiness and imperfection. Then, to the end that we may be worthy partakers ofhis merits and most comfortable benefits, which is the true eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, let us not suffer our minds to wander about the consideration of these earthly and corruptible things, which we see present

514 Ibid, pp. –. 515 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. . 516 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

to our eyes and feel with our hands, to seek Christ bodily present in them, as if he were enclosed in the bread and wine, or if these elements were turned and changed into the substance of his flesh and blood.517 This passage of the exhortation indicated that the merits and benefits of Christ are available to the communicant as a medicine and help through partaking in the sacrament. At the same time any immoderate notion of realism is denied. Christ was not seen to be present in them, nor was there any way in which the elements were turned into or changed into the body and blood of Christ. The presence of Christ is distanced from the elements in that the potential communicants are advised not to consider the earthly elements as the source of spiritual nourishment. This is suggestive of nominalism in that the signs are separated from the signified. This is confirmed in the exhortation that goes on to explain: “the only way to dispose our souls to receive nourishment, relief and quickening of his substance, is to lift up our minds by faith above all things worldly and sensible, and thereby to enter into heaven, that there we may find Christ, where he dwelleth undoubtedly very God and very Man, in the incomprehensible glory of his Father . . .”.518 Moderate realism seems unlikely. There appears to be no instantiation of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Christ in heaven is separated from the elements on earth. It seems that The Form of Prayers is expressing a nominalist theology of the Eucharist, where Christ’s body and blood and the bread and wine of the Eucharist are separate self- enclosed entities. At the table the minister prays, principally giving thanks for the work of Christ. There is no actual consecration in this prayer, the previously read warrant of Scripture being seen as sufficient. The rubric at the end of the prayer states that the bread and wine is broken and distributed to the people who then share it amongst themselves. The rubric specifically distances the spiritual nourishment from the elements by saying: “During the which time, [i.e. the eating and the drinking] some place of scriptures is read, which doth lively set forth the death of Christ, to the intent that our eyes and senses may not only be occupied in these outward signs of bread and wine, which are called the visible word: but that our hearts and minds also may be fully fixed in the contemplation of the

517 Ibid, p. . 518 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

Lord’s death which is by this holy Sacrament represented.”519 There seems to be no linkage between sign and signified and in fact it seems to be argued that any concentration on the bread and wine will distract from themeaningoftheEucharist.Knox’sThe Form of Prayers expresses a nominalist theology of the Eucharist.

The Middleburg Liturgy of the English Puritans,  Some of the English Puritans went to Middleburg, an English trading community, seeking religious freedom and it is here they began to use the liturgy more freely. From this beginning the liturgy became known as The Middleburg Liturgy of the English Puritans.520 The Middleburg Liturgy was very similar to Knox’s The Form of Prayers, but it had some notable differences. In the eucharistic part of this liturgy, words of delivery for the bread and wine were added, to be used while the previous practice of sitting at the table to receive the elements was continued. The words of delivery were: “Take and eat, this bread is the body of Christ that was broken for us, Do this in remembrance of him. . . . Drink ye all of this: This Cup is the new Testament in the blood of Christ, which was shed for the sins of many: Do this in remembrance of him.”521 The words of delivery associate the bread and wine (cup) with the body and blood of Christ, indicating a closer realist association of sign with signified than was present in Knox’s liturgy.

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, The Directory was authorised by Parliament and became the sole official liturgy of England in January, , and in Scotland in February, 522 during the time of the Commonwealthup until the reintroduction of the Book of Common Prayer in . The Eucharist was to be celebrated “frequently”523 although it seems this direction was widely ignored.524 The Eucharist was introduced by an exhortation which spoke of “the inestimable benefit we have by this

519 Ibid, pp. –. 520 Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, pp. –. 521 Ibid, p. . 522 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. . 523 Thomas Leishman (ed), The Westminster Directory, edited with an introduction and notes (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood, ), p. . 524 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. .  chapter two

Sacrament, . . . setting forth the great necessity of having our comforts andstrengthsrenewedthereby...withhungeringandthirstingsouls after Christ and His benefits”.525 The communicants were encouraged to come to “the Lord’s Table” as a way in which they could “reach out unto a greater progress in grace than yet they can attain unto”.526 The Eucharist therefore seems to be seen as a means of grace, whereby those who received communion, received the benefits of Christ. The table was to be covered and the communicants were instructed to“orderlysitaboutit,oratit”andthentheministerwas“tobegin the Action with sanctifying and blessing the Elements of Bread and Wine set before him”.527 The minister was also instructed to show by his words “that those Elements, otherwise common, are now set apart and sanctified to this holy use, by the words of Institution and Prayer”.528 The prayer, thanksgiving or blessing directed the minister: “Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of all mercies, and God of consolation, to vouchsafe His gracious presence, and the effectual working of His Spirit in us; and so to sanctify these Elements both of Bread and Wine, and to bless His own Ordinance, that we may receive by faith the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, crucified for us, and so to feed upon Him, that He may be one with us, and we with Him; that He may live in us, and we in Him, and to Him who hath loved us, and given Himself for us.”.529 The use of the words ‘sanctifying’ and ‘blessing’ in relation to the elements, served the purpose of showing that they were ‘set apart’, ‘sanctified’ and no longer ‘common’.The sanctifying and blessing was achieved by means of the words and institution and the prayer of the minister, which invoked the Holy Spirit to sanctify the communicants and the elements. The result was that the bread and wine were no longer ‘common’ and the communicants received the body and blood of Christ by faith, although the wording suggests that this was not specifically associated with the bread and wine. It was the sanctifying and the blessing, together with the work of the Holy Spirit that enabled the receiving of the body and blood of Christ by faith, rather than any action on the bread and wine themselves. This seems to lessen any notion of realism where the signs are associated with the signified. Any suggestion of immoderate

525 Leishman, The Westminster Directory, pp. –. 526 Ibid,p.. 527 Ibid,p.. 528 Ibid,p.. 529 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation  realism is denied since there is no suggestion that the physical body and blood of Christ is present or the sacrifice of Calvary is re-iterated, but moderate realism does not seem to be affirmed. At the same time the directions for the Eucharist pray that the benefits of Christ’s grace and the body and blood of Christ are received by the communicants by faith. Moderate realism in relation to the elements at this point seems unlikely and continues to be so in the words following the prayer of sanctifying, thanksgiving and blessing. Here the minister is directed to use words like: “According to the holy institution, command, and example of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, I take this Bread, and, having given thanks, break it, and give it unto you.”.530 The essential aspect here seems to be a following of the scriptural warrant of Christ’s actions without any interpretation. The purpose of the fraction (breaking) seems to be part of this warrant, rather than specifically associating the bread with the broken body of Christ on the cross. Moderate realism again seems unlikely. Any connection between the sign and the signified in the form of moderate realism is strengthened however, by the words of delivery, which say: “Take ye, eat ye; This is the body of Christ which is broken for you: Do this in remembrance of Him” and “This cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ, which is shed for the remission of the sins of many; Drink ye all of it.”531 Here the signs (the bread and wine or cup) are associated with the signified, the body and blood of Christ, and as such are suggestive of moderate realism. While the sign and signified are distanced from each other in the prayer before the communion with the emphasis on the reception of Christ’s body and blood by the faithful without specific linking to the bread and wine, the words of delivery confusingly seem to associate the signs and the signified more closely with one another.

The Reformation of the Liturgy or The Savoy Liturgy,  Richard Baxter was one of the  Presbyterians invited to the Savoy Con- ference, along with  bishops, as part of the commission appointed by Charles II to review and propose alterations to the liturgy. Follow- ing the restoration of the monarchy The Westminster Directory was now no longer to be used and so the commission was called to consider whatliturgyshouldbeusedinEngland.TheSavoyConferencefirst

530 Ibid,p.. 531 Ibid,p..  chapter two met in March, . The Presbyterians, following a request from the bishops, were invited to submit their criticisms of the liturgy and their proposals for its reform. This they did in two documents: The Excep- tions and The Reformation of the Liturgy.532 The Exceptions contained the criticisms. Another document compiled by Richard Baxter and entitled The Reformation of the Liturgy, was also submitted for consideration. The liturgy in this document contained a combination of Anglican and Genevan elements. Baxter’s plan was that the Prayer Book, even though he saw fault with it, be reintroduced, but that another alternative liturgy also be used. The Reformation of the Liturgy or The Savoy Liturgy533 as it is sometimes known, was this alternative liturgy. Bax- ter wrote the liturgy in a fortnight using only the Bible, a concordance, The Westminster Directory and The Book of Common Prayer as source material.534 Baxter’s aim was to write a liturgy with a distinct scriptural warrant.535 Baxter’s liturgy was intended to be used at the conclusion of the normal Sunday worship536 and was headed with the realist sounding words, ‘The Order of Celebrating the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ’.537 ItbeganwithanoptionalExplication which explained the nature, use and benefits of the sacrament. In the suggested words, Baxter begins by reciting the work of Christ on earth and on the cross and then goes to speak of the Eucharist, saying: “He did institute this Sacrament of his body and blood at his last supper, to be a continual representation and remembrance of his death, and therein of his own and his Father’s love, until his coming: appointing his ministers, by the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of these sacraments, to be his agents without, and his Spirit within effectually to communicate his grace.”538 The Eucharist for Baxter, not only remembers Christ’s death, but also represents it. Sacraments are the agent in an outward sense of God’s graceandtheSpiritiseffectivewithinthesacrament.Thissuggests

532 See Bard Thompson (ed), Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), pp. – and Geoffrey Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy (London: Macmillan, ), pp. –. 533 See Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, pp. – and Jasper and Cum- ing, Prayers of the Eucharist, pp. –. 534 Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, p. . 535 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. . 536 Ibid, p. . 537 Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, p. . 538 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  that there is an outward and inward part of the Eucharist, and it is through the sacrament in the power of the Spirit that the grace of God is communicated. Baxter goes on to explain the Eucharist more fully, saying: The Lord’s Supper, then, is an holy Sacrament, instituted by Christ: wherein bread and wine, being first by consecration made sacramentally, or representatively, the body and blood of Christ, are used by breaking and pouring out to represent and commemorate the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood upon the cross once offered up to God for sin; and are given in the name of Christ unto the Church, to signify and solemnize the renewal of his holy covenant with them, and the giving of himself unto them, to expiate their sins by his sacrifice, and sanctify them further by his Spirit, and confirm their right to everlasting life. And they are received, eaten and drunk by the Church, to profess that they willingly receive Christ himself to the ends aforesaid, (their justification, sanctification, and glorification) and to signify and solemnize the renewal of their covenant with him, and their holy communion with him and with one another.539 Here Baxter associates the sign (bread and wine) with the signified (the body and blood of Christ) and describes the bread and wine as being ‘made sacramentally or representatively, the body and blood of Christ’. The use of the words ‘sacramentally and representatively’ imply that any notion of immoderate realism is denied, but at the same time they suggest a moderate realism regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist by linking the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. Bax- ter also suggests a moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice, using ‘breaking and pouring out’ of the bread and wine to represent and commemorate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The relationship which the Church and its members have with Christ is not only signified by the breaking and pouring, but solemnised, as the covenant between Christ and his people is renewed in the Eucharist. This is anamnesis or memorial remembrance. The Eucharist for Baxter is the renewal of a mutual covenant between God and people and it is here that “we commemorate Christ’s sacrifice, and receive him and his saving benefits”.540 The notion of offering is however, limited to “ourselves, ashis redeemed, sanctified people, to be a living acceptable sacrifice, thankfully and obediently to live unto his praise”.541 The idea of offering the

539 Ibid, pp. –. 540 Ibid, pp. –. 541 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two bread and wine, or the Eucharist as whole, is seemingly absent from Baxter’s liturgy and his eucharistic theology. An Exhortation follows in which the Eucharist is described as “a feast of the body and blood of Christ” and “the salvation that is now revealed andtenderedtoyou”.542 The congregation is told in very realist sounding words: “See here Christ dying in this holy representation! Behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world! It is his will to be thus frequently crucified before our eyes. . . . See here his broken body and his blood. . . . Receive now a crucified Christ here represented.”543 Baxter here uses very realist sounding language, especially in relation to Christ being frequently crucified before the eyes of those who come to the Eucharist. The manner of this dying and crucifixion needs to be interpreted in relation to his other statements, concerning representation and commemoration. Despite the immoderate realist sounding language, it seems more likely that Baxter’s theological position in relation to the Eucharist is that of moderate realism. In the prayer following the Exhortation the minister expresses sorrow for sin and in the course of the prayer asks that in the sacrament Christ’s “flesh and blood be to us meat and drink”.544 The rubrics then direct that bread and wine be brought to the minister and set upon the table. This being done, the rubric further directs that the minister “bless them”.545 The suggested form of words for the blessing say in part, that Christ: “hath instituted this holy Sacrament to be celebrated in remembrance of him till his coming. Sanctify these thy creatures of bread and wine, which, according to thy institution and command, we set apart to this holy use, that they may be sacramentally the body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ.”546 Moderate realism is again expressed here. The bread and wine is associated with the sacramental body and blood of Christ, being sanctified and set apart so ‘that they may be’ Christ’s body and blood sacramentally. The implication is that the bread and wine are now no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Christ’s body and blood in a sacramental manner. There is no suggestion of immoderate realism here, since following the recitation of the institution narrative from the witness of Paul, the words ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ continue to be used. Following

542 Ibid, p. . 543 Ibid, pp. –. 544 Ibid, pp. –. 545 Ibid, p. . 546 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation  the sanctifying, the setting apart, the praying ‘that they may be’ Christ’s body and blood and the recitation of the institution narrative, Baxter sees the elements as remaining bread and wine. They have not changed in substance, but they are nonetheless, Christ’s body and blood, sacramentally. He says this in the following declaration to the congregation: “This bread and wine, being set apart, and consecrated to this holy use by God’s appointment, are now no common bread and wine, but sacramentally the body and blood of Christ.”547 For Baxter, the meaning of ‘sacramentally’ emerges at this point. The bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood sacramentally in their use, that is, in the context of the Eucharist. This is emphasised in the words of fraction for the bread which are said as the minister breaks the bread in the sight of the people. The minister says: “The body of Christ was broken forus,andofferedonceforalltosanctifyus:beholdthesacrificedLamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.”548 This meaning is also emphasised in the words of libation for thewine which are said as the minister pours out the wine in the sight of the congregation. The minister says: “We were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.”549 The bread and the wine are here associated with the body and blood of Christ, but not in any immoderate fashion. Note that the words of fraction for the bread state that Christ was ‘offered once’ and the words of libation for the wine say that ‘we were redeemed’. There is no sense in which the action of the cross is said to occur again in the Eucharist in Baxter’s liturgy. The act of redemption is in the past, but its effects are said to be available in the present in the Eucharist as memorial remembrance or anamnesis. This conclusion is supported by statements of moderate realism, e.g. ‘behold the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world’.The words of administration also operate in a moderate realist fashion, saying “Take ye, eat ye; this is the body of Christ, which is broken for you” and “This cup is the New Testament in Christ’s blood”.550 The sacrifice of Christ is also part of what Baxter sees as happening in the Eucharist, since the prayer before the fraction prays asking Christ that: “by thine intercession with the Father, through the sacrifice of thy body and blood, give us the pardon of our sins, and thy quickening

547 Ibid, p. . 548 Ibid, p. . 549 Ibid, p. . 550 Ibid, p. .  chapter two

Spirit.”551 Christ is seen to plead his death before the Father, and for Baxter, the Eucharist is the place where this is recounted. It is by the intercession of Christ and through the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, that the sins of people are pardoned. All this is contextualised in the eucharistic sacrifice as moderate realism. It is the effect of his once and for all sacrifice that Christ pleads before the Father, and this becomes the intent of the prayer, just before the fraction and libation: the sacramental actions of Christ’s passion. The passion and the sacrifice are associated closely with the eucharistic action in the manner of moderate realism. The liturgy ends with another exhortation which says in part: “Dear brethren, we have been here feasted with the Son of God at his table, upon his flesh and blood. . . . You have seen here represented what sin deserveth, what Christ suffered, what wonderful love the God of infinite goodness hath expressed to us.”552 Moderate realism is again expressed in this final exhortation, both in relation to the presence and the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. Those who have received communion are said to have received the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally, and Christ’s sacrifice is said to have been represented in the Eucharist. Baxter’s achievement in this liturgy is the combining of elements of the liturgy of Geneva with that of The Book of Common Prayer.Atthe same time he uses some of the more ancient liturgical material, such as the echoing of the Agnus Dei in the fraction. The Savoy Liturgy has been described as being “nearer to the historic Western tradition than the conception which Cranmer embodied in the Communion Service of the Prayer book of ”.553 Despite all this The Savoy Liturgy had little impact on the conference to which it was submitted and equally little impact on the revision of the Prayer Book which resulted in the  BCP. The Savoy Liturgy in spite of its rejection displayed a mood of adoration, sometimes missing in other Reformed liturgies, often more noted for sombre attention to human sinfulness. It was also scriptural and incited the faithful to holiness of life. It blended Reformed and traditional material in a creative manner. Its efforts and qualities were however, to no avail.554 PerhapsasJasperandCumingsuggest,itwastoofaraheadof

551 Ibid, p. . 552 Ibid, pp. –. 553 Edward Ratcliff, ‘The Savoy Conference and the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer’, in Geoffrey Nuttall and Owen Chadwick (eds), From Uniformity to Unity, –  (London: SPCK, ), p. . 554 Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, p. . the period of the reformation  its time.555 The philosophical assumptions underlying Baxter’s theology of the Eucharist are seemingly those of moderate realism and suggest that moderate realism was not limited to the more catholic elements at work in England at the time of the formulation of the  BCP.

555 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. .  chapter two

Catechisms

The Reformation brought with it an insistence on religious instruction, which resulted in many new catechisms being written and used as an educational tool and method of religious education for both adults and children alike.556 This case study examines various catechisms in use in the Anglican Church at the time of the Reformation (up to the publication of the  Book of Common Prayer) and the theology of the Eucharist expressed in these catechisms. Cranmer had published a catechism in , entitled Catechismus, That is to say, a short Instruction into Christian Religion for the singular commodity and profit of children and young people. Set forth by the most reverend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury,inthiscase study known as the Catechism of .557 It was based on an earlier work of the German Reformer Osiander, published at Nuremberg in 558 and, as the title indicates, it was intended for the purposes of educating the young in the Christian religion. Cranmer used a Latin version of this catechism, translated by Justus Jonas in , to produce the Catechism of ,559 although it has been suggested that the principal work of producing this catechism, especially the third and subsequent editions, was left to one or more of Cranmer’s chaplains, possibly Becon, Ponet or Taylor.560 The Catechism of , in its first two editions at least, had unfortunate consequences for Cranmer due to the theology of the Eucharist it expressed and it caused him the embarrassment of having to defend what seemed like inconsistent eucharistic doctrine.561 It appears there was some rush to finish the job and that in the process “robustly realist language about eucharistic presence”562 was included. The actual words referring to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist were: Christ saith of the bread, This is my body, and of the cup, This is my blood. Wherefore we ought to believe, that in the sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ. For God is almighty (as ye heard in the Creed).

556 F. Crossand E. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 557 Cited in D. Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’, Journal of Theo- logical Studies, n.s., XV, –. 558 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer. A Life (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ), p.  and p. . 559 Ibid, p. . 560 Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,p. . 561 MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer. A Life, pp. –. 562 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation 

He is able therefore to do all things what he will. And as saint Paul writeth he calleth those things which be not, as if they were. Wherefore when Christ taketh bread, and saith, Take, eat, this is my body, we ought not to doubt, but we eat his very body. And when he taketh the cup, and saith, Take, drink, this is my blood, we ought to think assuredly, that we drink his very blood. And this we must believe, if we will be counted Christian men.563

Although this certainly shifts the thought from the more localised view in the Latin original that had said: “Ideo credere debemus, quod vere corpus et sanguis eius sit” or ‘therefore we ought to believe that his body and blood are truly there’564 to that of a more moderate realist doctrine with some reference to the sacramental ministration (‘in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ’), it did not shift it far enough to exclude any notions of immoderate realism (e.g. ‘very body’ and ‘very blood’). The English translation of the Latin, in another place, certainly suggested that the body and blood of Christ were there in the bread and wine, and that they were received with the “bodily mouth” under “the form of bread and wine”.565 It also censured those who: “of very forwardness, will not grant, that there is the body and blood of Christ, but deny the same, for none other cause, but that they cannot compass by man’s blind reason, how this thing should be brought to pass”,566 and then instructed those young readers who were to use the catechism, to: “eschew such erroneous opinions, and believe the words of our Lord Jesus, that you eat and drink his very body and blood, although man’s reason cannot comprehend how and after what manner the same is there present. For the wisdom of reason must be subdued to the obedience of Christ, as the Apostle Paul teacheth.”567 For some Reformers all this was too much to bear. John Ab Ulmis, a Reformer and a disciple of Bullinger, wrote from London to Zurich about the eucharistic theology expressed in the Catechism of .He said in a letter dated  August, , in regard to Cranmer, “he has lately published a Catechism, in which he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the papists in the holy supper of our Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently

563 Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,pp. –. 564 Ibid,p.. 565 Ibid,p.. 566 Ibid,p.. 567 Ibid,p..  chapter two well-grounded, perspicuous, and lucid.”.568 Cranmer later denied that he had meant to argue for transubstantiation or any Lutheran view and blamed the readers who had interpreted it in this way for their lack of sophistication in knowing how to read ancient authors.569 It seems that advanced Reformers such as Ab Ulmis, interpreted Cranmer’s realist sounding words as implying transubstantiation or perhaps even an immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist on what seems to be an inadequate understanding of the traditional moderate realist definition of transubstantiation. Cranmer’s view of how Christ was present in the Eucharist was, by the time the first and second editions of the Catechism of  were published, certainly not that of transubstantiation or any immoderate or fleshy notion, but seemingly a moderate real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine, as is shown in his refutation above. What Cranmer meant in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist however, had changed significantly again by the time he had written the Defence in . For Cranmer, in these later writings, Christ was present in the ministration or in the receiving alone.570 He completely denied any notion of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the bread and wine, saying: “for he is not in it, neither spiritually, as he is in man; nor corporally, as he is in heaven; but only sacramentally, as athingmaybesaidtobeinthefigure,wherebyitissignified.”571 This view seems to be quite distinct from what Cranmer had said was the correct view in the first two editions of the Catechism of ,thatis, a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. The Defence was published in , only two years after the Catechism of , and it seems likely that Cranmer’s views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist had significantly changed over these two years or else by  he felt confident enough to express what he really thought. Whatever the case, it seems that the strong expression

568 John Ab Ulmis, ‘Letter CLXXXV. John Ab Ulmis to Henry Bullinger, dated at Oxford, Aug. , ’, in Hastings Robinson (ed), Original Letters relative to the English Reformation written during the reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary: Chiefly from the Archives of Zurich (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), II, p. . 569 Thomas Cranmer, ‘Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, ’, in G. Duffield (ed), The Works of Thomas Cranmer (Appleford, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtney Press, ), pp. –. 570 Thomas Cranmer, ‘An Answer to a Craftly and Sophistcal Cavillation devised by StephenGardiner’,inJohnCox(ed),Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 571 Cranmer, ‘Defence’,p. . the period of the reformation  of realism in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine, expressed in the first and second editions of the Catechism of , became a very different view in  in the Defence and in the third edition of the Catechism of .Inthefirstandsecond editions of the Catechism of , the wording relating to the significant notion of receiving with the ‘bodily mouth’ had been: “For he doth not only with his bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth also believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that his blood was shed for us. And he that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.”572 In the third edition of the Catechism of ,however,this became: “For he doth not with the bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that his blood was shed for us. And he that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.”573 By the deletion of the words ‘only’ and ‘also’ in the third edition (in italics in the version of the first and second edition above) Cranmer (or perhaps one of his chaplains)574 had removed the idea of a moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist and focussed attention solely on the promises of the words of Christ and the assurance received through them. The third edition removed the suggestion that Christ was present in the bread and wine and therefore received with the ‘bodily mouth’ and as such represented a thoroughly Reformed position in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ was present now in the ministration and the receiving only, a receptionist doctrine, not part of the first and second editions of the Catechism of . This introduction of a receptionist doctrine is also made very clear in a significant alteration of the first and second editions of the catechism in the third edition. Whereas the first and second edition had said: “Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but there is the body and blood of our Lord, which we receive in the Lord’s Supper.”,575 the third edition of the catechism said: “Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but in the Lord’s Supper we receive the body and blood of Christ.”576 Whereas the first and second editions had affirmed that Christ’s body and blood were

572 Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,p. . 573 Ibid,p.. 574 Ibid,p.. 575 Ibid,p.. 576 Ibid,p..  chapter two in the Lord’s Supper, the third edition had focussed on the receiving of the body and blood only. The moderate realism of the first and second editions was based on the givenness of gift, that is Christ’sbody and blood received by the bread and wine, but the moderate realism of the third edition was based on receptionism alone. There seems to have been a significant shift in theological understanding although the philosophical assumption of realism remained in the receptionism. Despite Cranmer’s protestations to correct any misrepresentation of his views on the Eucharist and despite subsequent crude attempts to change the wording of the catechism (see above) to less offensive forms in the later editions (the third edition onward), Cranmer’s argument that the theology of the Eucharist presented in the Catechism of  was consistent with his later writings on the Eucharist,577 seems unconvinc- ing578 in view of these significant changes in the catechism as they relate to the doctrine of the Eucharist. Although Cranmer admitted that the Catechism of  was his own work, being “translated”, “written” and “set forth”579 by him, this assertion may only apply to the first two editions of the catechism. This is supported by the admission from Cranmer at his trial that the Catechism of  had “two printers”580 suggesting two editions. Perhaps the changes of the third and subsequent editions were made by one of the chaplains in an attempt to bring the catechism more into line with accepted Reformed thinking. This could explain the removal of statements indicating a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. This view is supported by Selwyn since he comments that Cranmer never even remotely alludes in any of his writings to any changes in the wording of the catechism in later editions.581 Even Stephen Gardiner, Cranmer’s opponent in the Defence () and Answer (), was of this opinion since he argues that the work of translation was not Cranmer’s but that of “his man”,and goes on to state that it was “translated into English in this author’s name.”582 Another piece of evidence presented by Selwyn adds

577 Cranmer, ‘Defence’,p. . 578 Selwyn,p.. 579 Cranmer, ‘Defence’,p. . 580 Thomas Cranmer, ‘Examination before Brokes’, in John Cox (ed), Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr,  (Cam- bridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 581 Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,p. . 582 StephenGardiner,citedinCox,Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, p. . See also p. . the period of the reformation  further weight to the view that Cranmer was some distance from the revisions of the Catechism of ,particularlyinthethirdandsubsequent editions. Selwyn observes that in the Preface to the first and second editions of the Catechism of , the work is described as being “overseen and corrected”583 by Cranmer, but that in the Preface of the third edition, these words are dropped and the work is described as being “set forth”584 by Cranmer. All that can be concluded, it seems, is that considerable uncertainty surrounds the questions of authorship and revision of the Catechism of , even though Cranmer does claim responsibility for the work of two printers. Despite this doubt, it must be assumed, as Selwyn suggests, that even if Cranmer did not undertake the work of translation and the issuing of later editions, “it is difficult to believe that he [Cranmer] did not supervise the translation”.585 This suggests, and Sel- wyn agrees, that Cranmer himself was responsible for the changes and approved of them in the later editions, despite what he said at his trial. This conclusion certainly seems to be supported by the letter written by John Ab Ulmis to Bullinger in the autumn of  when the third edition was published. Ab Ulmis says in his letter of  November, , that “even Thomas himself . . . is in great measure recovered from his dangerous lethargy”.586 Selwyn concludes therefore that despite any statement Cranmer may have made at his trial, “some time during  Cranmer seems to have abandoned the doctrine of the real presence” and that this change was first demonstrated in the Reformed opinions present in the third edition of the Catechism of . Indeed it may be possible to say that “the evidence of the third edition suggests that the earlier period of uncertainty was now at an end.”587 Gardiner, in written debate with Cranmer, argued that the eucharistic theology used in the  Catechism presented a view inconsistent with Cranmer’s other eucharistic teaching.588 Gardiner thereby attempted to discredit Cranmer and the force of his arguments. At Cranmer’s trial, Martin, one of the interrogators, referred to the Catechism of ,

583 Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,p. . 584 Ibid,p.. 585 Ibid,p.. 586 Ab Ulmis, ‘Letter CLXXXVI. John Ab Ulmis to Henry Bullinger, dated at Oxford, Nov. , ’, II, p. . 587 Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,p. . 588 Stephen Gardiner, Cited in Cox, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, pp. –.  chapter two suggesting that Cranmer was inconsistent in his eucharistic doctrine, arguing in the catechism for a real presence and in other places (e.g. Defence) for a much more Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist.589 The examination noticed, it seems, that Cranmer’s moderate realism linking sign and signified in  had become receptionism alone by . There seems no easy way of determining what Cranmer’s position really was, or of how his views changed in relation to eucharistic theology in this Catechism of . Doubt must always remain about Cranmer’s views on the Eucharist. What does seem certain is that those who criticised Cranmer were able to use the inconsistencies in his writings to considerable effect. The difficulty Cranmer experienced with the Catechism of  could explain why it was not included in the  Book of Common Prayer and why the theology of the Eucharist remains unexplored in the catechism attached to the service of Confirmation in the  Book of Common Prayer. Perhaps Cranmer’s views had by this time changed so radically that he could no longer express a realist sounding concept of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist590 or perhaps Cranmer merely wanted to avoid controversy and confusion in his eucharistic projects.591 Whatever the case, the Catechism printed in the  BCP makes no reference to the Eucharist at all.592 This situation continued in the  BCP593 and the  BCP.594 It was not until the prayer book was revised in , during the reign of King James I, that additions were made to the catechism that made any mention of the sacraments. These additions will be discussed below, but first some reference will be made to other catechisms written andusedataboutthesametimeasthefirstthreeeditionsoftheBook of Common Prayer.

589 Dr Martin, ‘Examination before Brokes’, in Cox, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, , p. . 590 This is suggested by Selwyn, ‘A Neglected Edition of Cranmer’s Catechism’,pp. –  and in MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer. A Life, p. . 591 Basil Hall, ‘Cranmer, the Eucharist and the Foreign Divines in the Reign of Edward VI’, in Paul Ayris and David Selwyn (eds), Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, ), p. . 592 See Catechism printed as part of the Service of Confirmation in the  BCP,in Ketley, The Two Liturgies of A.D. and A.D., pp. –. 593 See Catechism of  BCP, ibid, pp. –. 594 See Catechism in  BCP,inJohnBooty(ed),The Book of Common Prayer, . The Elizabethan Prayer Book (Charlottesville and London: The University of Virginia Press, ), pp. –. the period of the reformation 

Other Reformers wrote catechisms to assist in the process of educating people in the Christian faith. Some of these have been analysed in depth in other case studies in relation to their expressed theologies of the Eucharist (see material in this work on Becon and Nowell). Both the catechisms of Nowell and Becon expressed a nominalist conception of the Eucharist, arguing that the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist were separate, self-enclosed entities. In both these cases there was no realist identity or instantiation of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist or in the bread and wine. Another catechism however, was published in , possibly written by John Ponet, the Bishop of Winchester from  to .595 This catechism was said to be “set forth by the King’s Majesty’s Authority”596 and so must be assumed to have had credibility at the time. This catechism was intended for use by schoolmasters in teaching the Christian faith to children. Ponet’s Catechism of ,otherwiseknownasAShortCat- echisme, since there is some doubt that Ponet actually was the author, made reference to the Eucharist and therefore has relevance for this case study. The following quotations relating to the Eucharist are taken from Ponet’s or A Short Catechisme of : Master. What is the use of the Lord’s Supper? Scholar. Even in the very same, that was ordained by the Lord himself, Jesus Christ: which (as S. Paul saith) the same night, that he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, brake it: and said, This is my body, which is broken for you: Do this in remembrance of me. In like manner, when the supper was ended, he gave them the cup, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood. Do this, as oft as ye shall drink thereof, in remembrance of me. This was the manner and the order of the Lord’s supper: which we ought to hold and keep; that the remembrance of so great a benefit, the passion and death of Christ, be always kept in mind; that, after that the world is ended, he may come, and make us to sit with him at his own board.597 Master. What declareth and betokeneth the supper unto us, which we solemnly use in the remembrance of the Lord?

595 John Ponet, ‘AShort Catechisme’,in T. Parker (ed), English Reformers (The Library of Christian Classics Volume XXVI) (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, ), pp. – . 596 Ketley, The Two Liturgies of A.D. and A.D., p. . 597 Ponet, ‘A Short Catechisme’,p. .  chapter two

Scholar. The Supper (as I have shewed a little before) is a certain thankful remembrance of the death of Christ: forasmuch as the bread representeth his body, betrayed to be crucified for us; the wine standeth in stead and place of his blood, plenteously shed for us. And even as by bread and wine our natural bodies are sustained and nourished: so by the body, that is the flesh and blood of Christ, the soul is fed through faith, and quickened to the heavenly and godly life. Master. How come these things to pass? Scholar. These things come to pass by a certain secret mean, and lively working of the Spirit: when we believe that Christ hath, once for all, given up his body and blood for us, to make a sacrifice and most pleasant offering to his heavenly Father; and also when we confess and acknowledge him our only Saviour, high Bishop, Mediator, and Redeemer: to whom is due all honour and glory. Master. And all this thou dost well understand. For me thinketh thy meaning is: that faith is the mouth of the soul, whereby we receive this heavenly meat, full both of salvation and immortality, dealt among us, by means of the Holy Ghost.598 The Eucharist in A Short Catechisme of  is seen to be a ‘thankful remembrance’ of Christ’s death. It seems that the remembrance however is that of a past event, that is, the death of Christ on the cross and there is no suggestion of a moderate realist notion of the effects of that sacrifice being active in the present through the Eucharist. All that seems to be required is that people remember the past event with thanks and faith in order to gain the benefits of that past event. The bread and wine are figures of the body and blood of Christ. There is no suggestion of Christ’s body and blood being present in the elements or in the Eucharist itself. Christ’s flesh and blood seem quite distinct from the bread and wine, which only have the ability to represent the body and blood of Christ as figures. The bread and wine sustain the human body, but the body and blood of Christ sustain the soul. These two forms of sustaining seem to be quite separate and self-enclosed entities. The means for sustaining the soul is the body and blood of Christ but this is carried out through the mouth of faith, not through any sacramental sign, presence or memorial remembrance. Comparison between A Short Catechisme of  and the first two editions of the Catechism of  demonstrates a significant differenceintheuseoftheword‘mouth’.IntheCatechism of ,the ‘bodily mouth’ is said to be the means for receiving the body and blood

598 Ibid, pp. –. the period of the reformation  of Christ, but in A Short Catechism of , the ‘mouth of the soul’ is the means whereby the heavenly food is received. Whereas the Catechism of  uses ‘mouth’ to refer to a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the bread and wine and the means by which Christ’s body and blood is received, A Short Catechism of  uses ‘mouth’ to refer only to a spiritual receiving by faith. In A Short Catechism of ,thereisa separation between the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist, each being seen as self-enclosed entities. It must be concluded therefore that the Short Catechism of  presents a nominalist analysis of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The historic sacrifice and the Eucharist are self-enclosed entities as are the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ. There is no moderate realist notion of instantiation of either presence or sacrifice indicated in the catechism in these particular questions and answers. Whilst AShortCatechismpresents a nominalist understanding of Christ’spresence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, it presents a realist understanding in relation to other aspects of Christ’s presence in the world. When the Catechism speaks of Christ following his ascension it says that Christ performs his work of governing the Church while he is absent from the earth.599 The Catechism however, makes the statement that, “Christ is not so altogether absent from the world, as many do suppose.”600 By this statement the Catechism means that although Christ’s fleshy and carnal body is not in the earth, but in heaven, nonetheless Christ’s: “Godhead [is] perpetually present with us: although not the subject of our eyes,”601 and, Spiritual things are not to be seen, but with the eye of the spirit. Therefore he that in earth will see the Godhead of Christ: let him open the eyes, not of his body, but of his mind, but of his faith: and he shall see him present, and in the midst of them, wheresoever be two or three gathered together in his name: he shall be present with us, even to the end of the world. What said I? Shall he see Christ present? Yea, he shall both see and feel him dwelling within himself: in such sort as he doth his own proper soul. For he dwelleth and abideth in the mind and heart of him which fasteneth all his trust in him.602

599 Ibid, pp. –. 600 Ibid, p. . 601 Ibid, p. . 602 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter two

These statements, while not applying to the Eucharist, but rather to the ascension and continuing presence of Christ with the Church, are moderate realist in nature. Christ is actually present with the faithful in a spiritual and real manner—a moderate realism. The manner of this real presence is not however immoderate in any way since the presence is not a fleshy presence but a dwelling and abiding of Christ in the mind and the heart of the person who trusts in him. While this type of real presence is spoken of at some length in the catechism (extending over several pages), it is not used to speak of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist rather, there is a nominalist separation of sign and signified with no instantiation of the signified in the sign. This same inconsistency has been pointed out in Cranmer’s eucharistic theology. Richardson, for example, says concerning Cranmer that: “to speak of thebodyofChristasonlyinheaven,andtogivethisastheleading reason why it cannot be present in the elements, is inconsistent with a doctrine which speaks of us being ingrafted into the body, partaking of its immortal nature, being ‘knit and united spiritually to Christ’s flesh and blood’, receiving ‘Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead into everlasting life’, or having Him in us ‘substantiatially, pithily and effectually’”.603 The Reformation debates of the Eucharist seemed to focus on whether Christ can have any bodily presence on earth in the Eucharist. For some, suchasCranmer,Christ’sbodywasseentobeinheavenandnotonearth, whilst at the same time maintaining a realist view of the incarnation and the ecclesiological theology of the Church being the body of Christ. The more extreme Reformers, such as Ab Ulmis, in the debates on the Eucharist excluded not only a fleshy presence, but also it seems the idea of a spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. This was precisely the difficulty Cranmer experienced in his translation of the catechism of Justus Jonas or the Catechism of  (discussed above). Any idea of a moderate and spiritual real presence was immediately presumed by Ab Ulmis to be an immoderate and fleshy presence of Christ (see Ab Ulmis’ letter to Bullinger quoted above where he accuses Cranmer of presenting “that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the papists in the holy supper of our Saviour”).604 The result of this type

603 C. Richardson, ‘Cranmer and the Analysis of Eucharistic Doctrine’, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., XVI, Pt , October, , . Note that Richardson makes several references to Cranmer’s Answer, p. , p.  and p. . 604 John Ab Ulmis, ‘Letter CLXXXV. John Ab Ulmis to Henry Bullinger, dated at the period of the reformation  of condemnation was that all forms of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist were excluded, including the idea of moderate realism. A Short Catechism of  sees the only means of being present with Christ in the Eucharist as a heavenly presence. The Short Catechism says: “So Christ’s body, which at his glorious going up was conveyed from us: which hath left the world, and is gone to the Father: is a great way absent from our mouth, even then when we receive with our mouth the holy sacrament of his body and blood. Yetis our faith in heaven: and beholdeth the Sun of righteousness: and is presently together with him in heaven, as such sort as the sight is in heaven with the body of the sun, or in earth the sun with the sight.”605 The Short Catechism while maintaining a strict nominalism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, inconsistently presents a realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the incarnation and with the Church. It could be that the refusal to consider moderate realism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist on the part of these early Reformers, was principally a result of the great Reformation controversies in relation to the Eucharist and in reaction to extreme realism which included immoderate or fleshy notions of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The additions to the Catechism in  in the Book of Common Prayer in regard to the Eucharist are usually attributed to Bishop Overall, who at the time of writing these additions was the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, London.TheadditionsseemtohavebeenmadeattherequestofthePuri- tans who attended the Hampton Court Conferences in January,  and who had requested more detail about the sacraments.606 Overall seems to have made the additions incorporating elements of the catechisms written by Dean Nowell in the ’s and ’s.607 In relation to the Eucharist the following questions and answers were added to the Catechism of the prayer book in :

Oxford, Aug. , ’, in Hastings Robinson (ed), Original Letters relative to the English Reformation written during the reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary: Chiefly from the Archives of Zurich (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), II, p. . 605 Ponet, ‘A Short Catechisme’,p. . 606 Francis Proctor and Walter Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London: Macmillan, ), p. . 607 James Hartin (Revised by Jonathan Knight), ‘Catechisms’, in Stephen Sykes, John Booty and Jonathan Knight (eds), The Study of Anglicanism (Revised Edition) (London and Minneapolis: SPCK/Fortress, ), p. .  chapter two

Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained? Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and [ BCP adds ‘of’ here] the benefits which we receive thereby.

Question. What is the outward part or sign in the Lord’s Supper? Answer. Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.

Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified? Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily [ BCP adds ‘and indeed’ here] taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.

Question. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? Answer. The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine.608 The additions to the Catechism in  present some significant differences to the other catechisms discussed above. Not only did the catechism in the  BCP refer to the sacraments, whereas prayer books prior to  did not, but they also make some moderate realist claims for Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. The additions of  are therefore significant in that they represent a development in eucharistic theology and a re-emergence of realist notions of presence and sacrifice at an official level. The answer to the first question above suggests that the Eucharist is the continuing means whereby the sacrifice of Christ is remembered. The remembering of the sacrifice has been variously interpreted. Those from the Anglican evangelical tradition within Anglicanism interpret ‘remembrance’ to mean simply ‘in memory of’, that is an act of memory where a person thinks about something that has occurred in the past, in that the remembering is of a finished sacrifice which can in no way be perpetuated or re-presented in the present. This means that the Eucharist cannot be a ‘memorial sacrifice’ but instead a ‘memorial service’.609 In modern times the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on Australia’s

608 Catechism in the  Book of Common Prayer. 609 Charles Neil and J. Willoughby, The Tutorial Prayer Book for the Teacher, the Students and the General Reader (London: The Harrison Trust, ), p. . the period of the reformation  latest prayer book, A Prayer Book for Australia,610 has presented the same point in relation to the idea of remembering as memorial (anamnesis)as presented in this newest Australian prayer book. The report says in part: The Commission does not accept that this understanding of ‘remembrance’ is either Biblical or in accordance with the doctrine of BCP. In the Bible the great acts of God are ‘remembered’ in order to recognise our participation in the past event (see, e.g. Deut : –). But the event remains a past event. Our participation in it consists in the fact that it was ‘for us and for our salvation’. Likewise the ‘perpetual memory of that his precious death’ retains the normal distinctions between past, present and future (cf. Cor : –). The idea of moving into ‘a world where time as we know it does not exist’ threatens to empty ‘remembering’ of its proper meaning.611 The Sydney Doctrine Commission Report sees a danger in the use of ‘remembering as memorial’ (anamnesis) in that it may “establish the idea that in the Eucharist the death of Christ at Golgotha is being re-offered or re-presented.”.612 The sacrifice of Christ is therefore seen a past event that cannot be instantiated in any way in the present, apart from the simple concept of remembering it as a past event and receiving the benefits of that past event by faith. The past sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist in the present and future are therefore self-enclosed entities, sharing no identity with one another in a realist sense. Any idea of an instantiation of the sacrifice of Christ in the present in the Eucharist is seen to be an immoderate realist re-offering or re-presenting of a past, completed and separate event, and this cannot be accepted from this evangelical viewpoint. Such a view of remembering the sacrifice of Christ is therefore nominalist. Catholic Anglicans tend to interpret the first of the  additions somewhat differently. Evan Daniel, for example, sees ‘remembrance’ as meaning not only “in memory of” but also as “to plead before God a memorial sacrifice.”.613 Daniel’s interpretation implies more than a mere reminder, but a solemn commemoration and pleading of the sacrifice of

610 Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Broughton Books, ). 611 Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission, / A Prayer Book For Australia. A Special Report from the Standing Committee, printed in the  Year Book of the Diocese of Sydney (Sydney: Anglican Diocese of Sydney, ), p. . 612 Ibid, p. . 613 Evan Daniel, The Prayer Book. Its History, Language and Contents (London: Wells Gardner, Darton and Co, ), p. .  chapter two

Christ, that is, anamnesis, whereby in the Eucharist in the present, the merits of Christ’s sacrifice are pleaded anew.614 This is not immoderate realism, since that would mean re-sacrificing or re-immolating Christ in a fleshy manner, but rather moderate realism, where the nature of Christ’s sacrifice is instantiated in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine and their offering to God. Others in reference to this question express this somewhat differently again, saying that, “the Holy Eucharist brings to remembrance not only the death of Christ, but also the benefits we receive thereby.”.615 It is this instantiation of the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice in the present in the Eucharist that distinguishes this approach as moderate realism and which at the same time excludes any immoderate realism. Wand argues that the meaning of the words of the catechism as amended in , that is, ‘continual remembrance of the sacrifice and death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby’,mean that in the Eucharist there is a “continual renewal of the atmosphere of the Upper Room on the night before Jesus was crucified when he broke the bread and blessed the wine and called them his Body and Blood.”.616 Wand goes on to argue in relation to this question and answer in the catechism that any talk of a continual remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice implies a eucharistic sacrifice. He goes so far as to use the term ‘sacrifice of the altar’ but does so in careful and moderate realist terms. He says: The sacrifice of the altar is not a new sacrifice, it is not a reproduction or representation of an old sacrifice: it is part of the one eternal sacrifice which in space-time was made on Calvary. We are caught up in Christ’s one offering of himself and are permitted to share with him in that sacrifice and to offer ourselves, our souls and bodies with him. This is the acmeof Christian worship, it links us directly with the adoring hosts of heaven, and it is the highest point to which we can aspire during our life on earth.617 The second question in the  additions to the Catechism asks about the outward and visible parts or signs of the Lord’s Supper. The answer states that these signs are the bread and wine and that they are used because of the Lord’s command. The inward and spiritual part or thing

614 Ibid, p. . 615 A. Allen, The Church Catechism. Its History and Contents (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. . 616 J. Wand, ‘The Necessary Learnings of a Christian Man’, in J. Wand, C. Eastaugh, G.Huelin,C.PockneeandR.Tatlock(eds),The Confirmation Book. For Members of the Anglican Communion (London: Cassell, ), p. . 617 Ibid, p. . the period of the reformation  signified in the Lord’s Supper is addressed in the third question ofthe  additions. These are seen to be the body and blood of Christ and they are said to be ‘verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’. Some evangelical writers argue for a lessening of the realist notion implied by these words, arguing on the basis of Article XXVIII of The Thirty-Nine Articles that the body and blood of Christ is “taken and received ‘only after a heavenly and spiritual manner’. Christ is present by his Spirit whom he sent to apply to His Sacrifice. Hence to take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ, is to receive the grace and benefits procured by the offering up of His Body once given and His Blood once shed for sin.”.618 The Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA () in an attempt to argue against any idea of a realist notion of eucharistic presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, states that: In BCP the elements of bread and wine (or the bread and the cup) do not represent the presence of Christ either before or after consecration. That the risen Christ is present by his Spirit with his body the Church when it meets in his name, is not doubted, and we have biblical assurances of this (e.g. Matthew : ). But the sacramental elements are not symbols of that spiritual presence. Rather, they are symbols or signs of ‘his meritorious cross and passion’, . . ., and they have that significance when we partake of them by faith, and not otherwise.619 Daniel, however, expressing a catholic Anglican view argues that: “The consecrated elements are not mere symbols of the body and blood, nor are they converted into the carnal body and blood; and yet in some mysterious way, which we cannot, and therefore need not, comprehend, but of which we are none the less certain, Christ conveys Himself to the faithful communicant.”620 Wand argues that perhaps the easiest way to understand the relationship between the outward and visible signs and the inward and spiritual grace, and the assertion in the catechism that the body and blood of Christ ‘is verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’, is:

618 Neil and Willoughby, The Tutorial Prayer Book, p. . 619 Sydney Doctrine Commission Report, / A Prayer Book For Australia. A Special Report from the Standing Committee, printed in the  Year Book of the Diocese of Sydney, p. . 620 Daniel, The Prayer Book. Its History, Language and Contents, p. .  chapter two

To understand the force of this assertion is to remember that the body is the instrument of the personality. Indeed, in Hebrew thought the body was actually an essential part of the individual. When we receive the Body of Christ it is his personality of which we partake. He communicates himself to us in such a way that while we remain ourselves his exquisite virtue in all its beauty and strength is made available for us in so far as we are prepared to let him live out his life in us.621 Wand is expressing a realist notion of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, where the outward sign conveys to the communicant the very power and strength of the personality and life of Christ. There is no sense however, in which the outward sign is changed in its nature or substance. The outward signs remain bread and wine, but nonetheless are effective means of communicating the body and blood of Christ to the faithful in the Eucharist. The views of Neil and Willoughby and the Sydney Doctrine Commis- sion Report separate the bread and wine from the body and blood of Christ and emphasise that the means for the receiving of the body and blood of Christ are not these elements. Such a view is one of nominalism. The views of Daniel however, show realism, whereby the bread and wine are seen to be more than symbols and in fact the means whereby the body and blood of Christ are given to the communicant. This in no way denies the role of faith and that the taking and receiving is spiritual,butatthesametimecatholicAnglicans,suchasEvanDaniel,would argue, rejecting receptionism, that: “the body and blood of Christ have an existence external to the recipient, for the recipient is represented as ‘taking’ and ‘receiving’ them. The external existence is spiritual, for the body and blood are received after a heavenly or spiritual manner. The reality of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is not dependent upon the faith of the recipient; what is dependent on his faith is the partaking of Christ.”.622 The questions concerning the Eucharist, added to the  Book of Common Prayer and maintained in the  Book of Common Prayer, have been interpreted according to both a moderate realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions.

621 Wand, The Confirmation Book, p. . 622 Daniel, The Prayer Book. Its History, Language and Contents, p. . the period of the reformation 

John Overall

John Overall (–) was the Bishop of Norwich and his views on the Eucharist have been partly considered in the case study above on Catechisms. The additions to the Catechism in  relating to the Eucharist are generally attributed to Overall.623 In answer to the question: ‘Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained?’, the following answer was given: “For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”624 Darwell Stone argues that this answer can be used to justify the opinion that the Eucharist is simply a reminder of Christ’s death and to also justify the opinion that the remembrance of Christ in the Eucharist is a presentation of Christ before God,625 thereby indicating both a realist and a non-realist view of Christ’s sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist. The three questions in the  catechism relating to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist argue that the outward part of the Eucharist is bread and wine, which the Lord commanded to be received; that the inward part or thing signified is the body and blood of Christ which are ‘verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’sSupper’; and that the benefits for the partakers are strengthening and refreshing of the soul by the body and blood of Christ, as the body is strengthened and refreshed by the bread and wine. It is important to note the wording added to the catechism in  states that body and blood of Christ are received in the Eucharist, but the way in which they are received is not clearly stated. It could be implied that the body and blood of Christ are received in the sacrament and that Christ is present in the sacrament, in a realist sense, in that the body and blood of Christ is instantiated in the sacrament or in the bread and wine. Others may conclude from this answer that the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are self-enclosed entities which remain separate in a nominalist sense, but that Christ is received by faith or in a heavenly and spiritual sense, without any realist participation of the body and blood of Christ in the

623 See Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p.  and James Hartin (Revised by Jonathan Knight), ‘Catechisms’,in Stephen Sykes, John Booty and Jonathan Knight (eds), The Study of Anglicanism (Revised Edition) (London and Minneapolis: SPCK/Fortress, ), p. . 624 Catechism in the  Book of Common Prayer. 625 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. .  chapter two earthly Eucharist or the elements of bread and wine. Stone argues that the possibility of drawing both these conclusions was a deliberate intention of the framer of these words, reputedly Overall, so as to avoid controversy and so as not to exclude either of the opinions then held on Eucharist.626 Some clue as to Overall’s opinion may be gained by reference to his writing in other works. In a work entitled Praelectiones seu Disputationes de Patrum et Christi anima et de Antichristo,Overallsays: In the Sacrament of the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are indeed really present, and are really received by us, and are really united to the sacramental signs, as signs which not only signify but also convey, so that in the right use of the Sacrament, and to those who receive worthily, when the bread is given and received, the body of Christ is given and received; and when the wine is given and received, the blood of Christ is given and received; and therefore the whole Christ is communicated in the Communion of the Sacrament. Yet this is not in a carnal, gross, earthly way by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, or any like fictions of human reason, but in a way mystical, heavenly, and spiritual, as is rightly laid down in our Articles.627 This passage argues for a moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine of the Eucharist and that the ‘whole Christ’ is really present and received. The body and blood of Christ is said to be ‘united’ to the bread and wine and ‘conveyed’ to the receiver by them. When bread and wine are given and received, the body and blood of Christ are given and received also. Overall’s words are compatible with the notion moderate realism, suggesting that the nature of Christ’s body and blood are instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Immoderate or any ‘carnal, gross, earthly’ presence are excluded. The meaning of the words ‘whole Christ’, which Overall says is present in the Eucharist, in the receiver and in the bread and wine, do not therefore refer to any fleshy presence or immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the elements. ‘Whole Christ’ could therefore be interpreted in the sense of the nature of Christ’s body and blood, being thereby distinct from any fleshy body and blood, but nonetheless instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist for Overall therefore,

626 Ibid, II, p. . 627 John Overall, Praelectiones seu Disputationes de Patrum et Christi anima et de Antichristo, cited in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, pp. –. the period of the reformation  seems to be a real presence, given and received in the Eucharist and the elements, and so one based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. chapter three

THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES

Overview

The case studies presented in this chapter are taken from the writings of theologians, liturgies and other documents related to the Eucharist for the period of the seventeenth century, following the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in  and through to the end of the eighteenth century. Both realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions underlie the expression of eucharistic theology in this period. One of the main themes in this period is the expression of moderate realism in terms of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist (e.g. Aldrich and Beveridge). There is a persistent denial of any immoderate or fleshy realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist and at the same time a consistent stream of thought which argues that there is nonetheless a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist which is a spiritual presence but no less real presence. For many of the writers in this period there is an admission of mystery about the eucharistic presence and sacrifice (e.g. BrevintandKen)butatthesametimeafirmbeliefthatChristwaspresent in a real way in the Eucharist and that his sacrifice was commemorated. Some in this period, such as Aldrich and Wake, continue their polemic with the Roman Catholic Church, especially in denying the legitimacy of transubstantiation, but at the same time they continue to present moderate realist philosophical assumptions regarding eucharistic presence and sacrifice. Moderate realism itself does not seem to be the issue of debate but rather the form of moderate realism. Transubstantiation is not seen as an acceptable form of moderate realism to many but moderate realism is frequently discussed by Anglican theologians in this period as the philosophical assumption underlying their eucharistic theology. The increasingly sophisticated philosophical analysis of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice is a theme of this period in the Anglican eucharistic tradition. The careful use of words such as ‘figure’ and ‘shadow’ and the distinction between ‘true being’ and ‘virtue’ is found. The moderate realism of this period is not afraid to say that there is  chapter three the ‘full value’ of Christ in the Eucharist. There is also an increasingly clear distinction between the historic and the eucharistic presence and sacrifice of Christ (e.g. Bull). Thorndike also is careful to distinguish between what he calls a ‘proper’ manner of presence and sacrifice (fleshy or immoderate realist which relates to an historical period) and an ‘improper’ manner of presence and sacrifice (spiritual and real or moderate realist which relates to the present). Wake is able to say that ‘Christ is with the elements’,while Comber argues in relation to sacrifice that the Eucharist is ‘in conjunction’ with Christ’s heavenly work. Waterland uses the terms ‘strict’ and ‘proper’ to refer to any fleshy presence and sacrifice and distinguishes this from the presence of Christ found in the Eucharist which he sees as real but not in any immoderate or fleshy sense. Mod- ern philosophers, such as Armstrong (), use the term ‘strict’ to refer to immoderate realism and ‘loose’ to refer to moderate realism where the notion of instantiation features (see Chapter ) and it seems that these terms fit with what Waterland is arguing. With this careful distinction and philosophical sophistication it becomes possible for some such as Bull to apply the terms ‘oblation’ and ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist ina moderate realist sense, while at the same time excluding any immoderate realist notions. Some, such as Deacon and Ken, are also able to argue that there is a change in the quality of the elements following the consecration, such that they have a heightened efficacy, although at the same time they are clear that there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine. Ken goes so far as to say that God ‘makes’ them the body and blood of Christ. Others (such as Wake and the devotional manual The New Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper)speak of Christ’s invisible grace and power that is ‘in and with’ the elements of bread and wine, suggesting strongly there is a moderate realist link between the signs and what they signify. Whilst there is a strong moderate realist tendency in the period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there is a continuing nominalist tradition as well. Benjamin Hoadly speaks of the Eucharist remembering a ‘past transaction’ and thereby suggesting that the purpose of the Eucharist is only thankful remembrance without any realist linking of the signs with what they signify. For Hoadly this remembrance of a past transaction excludes any corporal presence of what is remembered and therefore the sacrifice and the sacrificer are ‘not present in the Lord’s Supper’.Hoadly argues for a nominalist separation of sign and signified. The Eucharist is viewed as a public meeting where bread and wine are eaten and drunk in Christ’s honour. Tillotson takes up the same theme the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  and presents a eucharistic theology based on nominalist philosophical assumptions. In his view the Eucharist is a ‘solemn remembrance’ where Christ is absent and where the Eucharist functions as a reminder to people of what Christ has done. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also demonstrate considerable development of eucharistic liturgies other than the  Book of Common Prayer. The developments in Scotland and in the life of the Nonjurors show that moderate realism was the underlying philosophical assumptions in these eucharistic liturgies. Both ancient sources and more realist contemporary material were developed as a practical expression of a moderate realist eucharistic theology. The effect of these liturgical developments had considerable influence in the later life of various churches throughout the world, significantly guiding and influencing further liturgical development in a moderate realist direction.

Themes1

Realism and Nominalism Both realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions are found in the eucharistic theology of various theologians and liturgical products, however, it seems that the majority of writers base their eucharistic theology on moderate realist assumptions.

Moderate Realism Moderate realism is the dominant philosophical assumption behind the eucharistic theology of the case studies reviewed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Many writers speak about ‘partaking’ of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (Aldrich; Beveridge; Tillotson; and Wake) and also affirm a ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist (Aldrich; Beveridge; Brett; and John and Charles Wesley). Some of the eucharistic theology presented in this period contains quite realist phrases. A eucharistic manual entitled A Week’s Preparation Towards the Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper talks of Christ being set forth in the Eucharist and speaks of that presence as ‘meat’ and ‘blood’ which is ‘true food’.Implications of immoderate realism by the use of such expressions

1 Details of references are not found in the overview and themes. These details can be found in the separate case studies.  chapter three are lessened when the writer qualifies the presence as Christ being received by the communicant in a spiritual manner, such that the communicant partakes of Christ’s divine nature and not the corporal nature. Another manual entitled, The Whole Duty of the Communicant also states that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are Christ’s body and blood but denies what is called any ‘gross opinion’ about the nature of the presence and affirms that the presence is according to faith. Yet another manual, The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper also says that the bread and wine are called Christ’s body and blood, but denies any natural or corporal presence of Christ’s body and blood. Forbes also says that the consecrated bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood but qualifies this realist statement by also saying that the presence of Christ’s body and blood is not natural but spiritual. Beveridge speaks of the bread as the ‘very body’ and the wine as the ‘very blood’,but at the same time is careful to distinguish between the outward and inward natures of the elements, thereby suggesting that the ‘very’ body and blood is not a physical presence, but a presence that is nonetheless really present and received. Ken makes the same distinction between ‘inward’ and ‘outward’,suggesting that the inward is spiritual and conveys the grace of the blessed body and blood ‘under’ the bread and wine. Aldrich states that the communicant is ‘put in possession of Christ’ but at the same time affirms that Christ is locally absent. The eucharistic hymns of John and Charles Wesley also present some startlingly realist expressions in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, such as in hymn  where they speak of Christ being before the communicants with ‘Thy vesture dipp’din blood’ and in hymn  where they speak of the communicant seeing the blood which seals their peace. Despite the very realist imagery, the Wesley brothers seemingly do not imply any physical presence of blood, only a symbolic one, thereby suggesting that a moderate realist eucharistic theology must be implied in these hymns. Other writers present a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist but are less likely to present such startling images. Brett argues that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a sacramental manner by representation that makes the bread and the cup Christ’s body and blood by power and effect, such that a life-giving effect is received bythe communicant. Johnson also argues that material bread and wine is the sacramental body and blood of Christ but this is not a literal presence, nor is the presence in the form of Christ’s human nature. The Nonjurors in their eucharistic liturgies were greatly influenced by Johnson and put much the same view. Wake affirms that the Eucharist is more than a the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  bare commemoration of Christ and also affirms that the bread and wine remain in their natural substances, but at the same time states that the body and blood are received spiritually by the faithful in a heavenly and real manner. Many writers specifically link the ‘sign’ of the Eucharist (bread and wine) with the ‘signified’ (Christ’s body and blood and the benefits received thereby). The Old Week’s Preparation towards the Worthy Receiv- ing of the Lord’s Supper links sign and signified in the Eucharist. Ken argues that the elements or signs signify invisible grace and as such the bread and wine are the signs of Christ’s body and blood that are ‘verily and indeed’ taken and received by the faithful. Law says that the sign and the signified are linked in that Christ is signified and exhibited inthe signs. Rattray identifies the signs with the signified as does Sparrow. The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper says that the sign is the means for receiving the signified and the Wesley brothers in hymn  state that ‘the sign transmits the signified’.Waterland says that the symbols of Christ’s body and blood are in ‘construction and certain effect’ but not substance, the same as what they stand for, such that the bread is a symbol ‘exhibitive’ of the one true body of Christ which is truly present in a spiritual sense. Waterland also argues that the sign cannot be the thing signified, that is, the sign (bread and wine) cannot be the literal body and blood of Christ, rather the signs allow people to receive Christ’s body and blood but are not the literal or fleshy body and blood itself. Waterland puts the case that is seemingly a mid-way position between those who deny the invisible and inward grace in the Eucharist (e.g. Zwinglians) and those who destroy the visible and outward sign by asserting a change in the substance of the signs (e.g. some extreme and immoderate view of eucharistic presence that were present in the popular piety of the medieval period). At the same time Waterland is careful to make the point that there is not a ‘spiritual Christ’ distinct from the ‘natural Christ’,since this would make two Christs. Rather Waterland argues, using moderate realism, that there is one true body of Christ which in the Eucharist is most truly present in a spiritual sense as opposed to any physical or fleshy sense. Wilson argues that the bread and wine, while not common food, are holy representations of Christ’s body and blood. Many writers also argue that in the Eucharist, spiritual effects and benefits are received. Brevint states that sacraments make the thing they represent. Bread and wine are said to remain in their natural forms but are also said to have an additional ‘character’ given by God and received by the communicant. The signs therefore are not bare representations even  chapter three though they maintain their ordinary use as bread and wine, but are given a ‘glorious character’ that is the value of Christ’s body and blood given in the Eucharist. Ken argues in a similar way that when the bread and wine are taken and received by the faithful there is a real communication of Christ’s body and blood with its spiritual grace. Law says that in the Eucharist, by the signs, we receive the ‘nature’ and ‘being’ of Christ but not in the form of his physical flesh. The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper speaks of spiritual and real effects being affirmed in the Eucharist but denies that these have any natural form. Rather the bread and wine convey grace as Christ’sbody and blood convey natural flesh and blood and the bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ to all spiritual intents and purposes with the grace and blessing of Christ ‘annexed’ to the holy rites. Wake speaks of the Eucharist as Christ’s last will and testament given to a son and heir, whereby Christ conveys to us all his benefits and we receive them in the Eucharist. Aldrich however argues that more than effects and benefits are received in the Eucharist and that Christ is really present and received, even though there is no local presence. In affirming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and linking the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ, several writers address the question of change in the bread and wine. While all writers deny immoderate realism (that is, a change in the bread and wine such that they become the literal body and blood of Christ), several speak of other kinds of change in the signs. Deacon says that the bread and wine are not destroyed or annihilated following consecration, but the signs are nonetheless sanctified, with the result that they are not changed in substance but in quality. Comber in stating that the symbols are Christ’s body and blood by his order, also says that they have the ‘image of God’ stamped on them in the Eucharist. This does not produce a substantial change, but it produces a linking of sign and signified such that Christ’s power makes the elements ‘become’ sacramentally the body and blood of Christ. Thorndike speaks of the bread and wine remaining but also of Christ’s body and blood ‘brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist’. The Scottish Liturgy of  invokes the Holy Spirit so the bread and wine will ‘become’ Christ’sbody and blood, thereby suggesting some sort of change in the elements. Rattray also argues that in the Eucharist the Holy Spirit is invoked to ‘make’ the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ, also suggesting some sort of change. Sparrow argues that Christ is present in the Eucharist and that before consecration the elements are the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  bread and wine, but that after consecration the elements are ‘profitable to salvation’ because the action of Christ ‘makes’ them Christ’s body and blood. Patrick while denying any local presence of Christ in the Eucharist, states that Christ is present by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that any change is in the souls of the communicants and not in the elements. Wake states that after the prayers have sanctified the bread and wine (being careful to exclude any notion of transubstantiation) they have a ‘holy use and signification’ where Christ is now really present in the Eucharist but in a manner other than local or physical. Some writers in this period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries present a deeper philosophical analysis of the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist suggestive of the moderate realist notion of instantiation where the nature of Christ is present in the particulars of the Eucharist. Bull talks of a ‘hypostatical union’ between the signs of the EucharistandthebodyandbloodofChrist,pickinguponthelanguageof the early Church Fathers who spoke of ‘antitypes’, ‘corresponding types’, ‘figures’ and ‘images’. Bull is however clear that he does not imply any transubstantiation in his discussion of what happens in the Eucharist. Wake picks up the same language and speaks of the bread and wine as ‘types and figures’ which convey the signified in such a manner that there is a ‘co-existence’ of Christ’s natural body in heaven at the same time as the Eucharist. Waterland also speaks of a ‘hypostatic union’ of Christ’s body and blood and the elements of the Eucharist where Christ ‘accompanies’ them as a union of ‘concurrence’ but not in any sense of infusion or inherence. Patrick also speaks of Christ being present ‘with’ the bread and wine, but not ‘in’ the bread and wine. Patrick’s words suggest some sort of relational presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Thorndike however, in suggesting that the elements of the Eucharist are no mere signs, speaks of them as a ‘mystical representation’ whereby a person receives Christ, not only figuratively and symbolically, but also ‘in’ and ‘under’ the elements.

Immoderate Realism Specifically Denied Many writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries specifically distance themselves from any presence of Christ in the Eucharist that could be described as fleshy or physical (that is, immoderate realism). Some speak of a spiritual presence alone and of spiritual eating (The Old Week’s Preparation) while others also deny any physical or corporal presence of ChristintheEucharist(Aldrich;Beveridge;Brett;Bull;Comber;Deacon;  chapter three

Johnson; Ken; Law; Nelson; Patrick; New Week’s Preparation; Whole Duty of Communicant; Thorndike; Wake; Waterland; Wilson; and the Wesleys). Comber argues that any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist would be in vain. Others argue that the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist are present in power and effect (Deacon; and Rattray). There is a clear stream of evidence denying any immoderate realist notions of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist but at the same time affirming a moderate realist presence.

Nominalism Hoadly views the Eucharist as a ‘remembrance of a past transaction’ and argues that the sacrifice is not present at the Eucharist. He separates the sign from the signified, arguing that the bread and wine are memorials only, taken to assure us and call us to remembrance. Hoadly’s work of , A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was in response to the realist devotional manuals of his day (e.g. A Week’s Preparation). For Hoadly, the Eucharist was only about a meeting together of Christians where they ate bread and drank wine in remembrance of Christ’sbody and blood. Some writers describe Hoadly’s theology of the Eucharist as Zwinglian. The signs are purely figurative for Hoadly without any real linking with the signified body and blood of Christ. Tillotson sees the Eucharist as a solemn remembrance with no link between the signs and the signified, since the Eucharist is a pledge only of a past event by reason of the fact that Christ is now absent from us.

Eucharistic Sacrifice There is considerable evidence to support the view that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Anglican theologians considered the Eucharist to be a sacrifice in some sense. In all cases the realism used in relation to eucharistic sacrifice was to the moderate degree. Beveridge said that the sacrifice was not a true or proper sacrifice buta commemoration or representation. He distinguishes fleshy sacrifice from eucharistic sacrifice and argues that there is no propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist although Christ’s sacrifice is shown but not repeated. Brett states that in the Eucharist the elements are offered to God as an oblation and sacrifice. Christ’s words ‘do this’ are seen to have sacrificial meaning as an offering, but importantly, this offering is not a new offering, but the one offering of Christ. Brevint talks of ‘memorial remembrance’ the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  where the effects of Christ’s sacrifice are available in the present as if ‘it were newly done’. The sacrifice for Brevint is not available in its ‘true Being’ (immoderate) but by its virtue (moderate). Bull sees the Eucharist as a prayer of oblation and a Christian sacrifice. The sacrifice however is described as a ‘reasonable’ sacrifice without blood and as a commemorative sacrifice that is more than mere remembering ofa pastevent.ForBull,intheEucharist,wepleadthesacrificeofChrist and receive the blessings of that sacrifice. Comber believes that the Eucharist is a visible sign that sets forth the passion of Christ since it ‘imitates’ and is in ‘conjunction’ with the heavenly intercession of Christ. The Eucharist is therefore seen to plead the virtue and merit of Christ’s sacrifice and as such is an oblation and a sacrifice. Comber also describes the Eucharist as a perfect oblation and sufficient sacrifice, but denies any suggestion that Christ is sacrificed again. For Comber the Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice since Christ is not offered up again. The offering of the Eucharist is nonetheless an effective means of grace since it is a lively representation which is offered up to both remember and receive the benefits of Christ’s one sacrifice. Deacon describes the Eucharist as a ‘feast upon Christ’s sacrifice’,where Christ’s body is offered mystically under bread and wine. Forbes talks of a ‘constant’ and ‘lively’ remembrance with effects in the present, by which he distinguishes the Eucharist from mere remembrance of a past event. Johnson also speaks about an unbloody sacrifice which he describes as rational and spiritual and states that this sacrifice in the Eucharist is more than a mere mental or figurative sacrifice. Law says that in the Eucharist we offer, present and plead by faith before God the atonement of Christ’sbody and blood. Nelson says that in the Eucharist the consecrated bread and wine is presented to God as symbols of Christ’s body and blood, in the sense that they plead his sacrifice. Patrick states that anamnesis in the Eucharist is not a bare recording or registering in the mind of Christ’s sacrifice, but a solemn declaration of sacrifice performed before God, such that it is a spiritual sacrifice of corporal elements that show forth and plead the sacrifice of Christ. Rattray argues that the Church offers a sacrifice in the Eucharist that communicates the divine mysteries of the altar to nourish us. The perpetual offering of Christ in heaven is linked to the offering in the Eucharist where bread and wine are offered as a memorial sacrifice, which is a pleading and oblation of an unbloody sacrifice. The Scottish Liturgy of  speaks of offering bread and wine in the prayer of oblation that is placed after the prayer of consecration and before the communion of the people. The prayer of oblation contains words of  chapter three offering where the signs of bread and wine are linked with the signified sacrifice of Christ (the words ‘our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ do not refer solely to self offering but to the offering of bread and wine in the Eucharist). Sparrow speaks of the priest offering up the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist as praise, thanksgiving and of self. The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper says that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice presented in heaven and in the Eucharist. There is commemoration and representation of the Passion in heaven and on earth, such that there is pleading of the sacrifice with effect. The Whole Duty of the Communicant argues that the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are conveyed to the soul of the communicant in the Eucharist. Wake argues that the Eucharist communicates to people the real and spiritual grace of Christ’s death and passion. Wilson says that the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are received in the Eucharist. For Wilson, Christ’s words, ‘do this’,mean that bread and wine are offered as a sacrifice to God, not as a real body but in a sacramental manner, as a memorial of the real body. The Catechism of the  Liturgy of Comprehension (a failed attempt at liturgical revision) argued that ‘the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’, thereby suggesting that in the Eucharist there is more than mere remembrance of the past sacrifice of Christ. The Nonjurors Liturgies also present the suggestion thatthereismorethanmereremembranceofthesacrificeofChrist in the Eucharist. The Wesleys in their eucharistic hymns state that the signified grace of Christ’s sacrifice is applied by means of the signs in the Eucharist. Waterland says that ‘oblation’ can be used in the offering of Christ himself in the sacrament but not of Christ absolutely. This seems to be distinguishing between an immoderate sense of the offering of Christ in the Eucharist (absolutely) and a moderate sense (offering of Christ himself in the sacrament). This is confirmed when Waterland speaks of the grand sacrifice of Christ (the signified) and of the representation and commemoration of that grand sacrifice in the sign. Sacrifice and oblation can therefore be used in relation to the Eucharist, says Waterland, but not in the strict or proper sense of sacrifice and oblation, since Christ is not sacrificed again in the Eucharist. There are therefore two types of sacrifice, according to Waterland: the historic sacrifice of the cross, which isstrictandproperanddescribedassmokyorbloody;andtheeucharistic sacrifice, which is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ and which is described as unsmoky and unbloody. The historic sacrifice was on the the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  cross alone, but there is a memorial of that sacrifice in the Eucharist. This means, for Waterland, that the material elements of bread and wine cannot be the Christian sacrifice. The only sacrifice that is proper for Christians in the Eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice, where Christians feast upon the grand sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. The grand sacrifice was offered but once, however, its virtue is commemorated, exhibited and participated perpetually in the Eucharist. Such a commemoration is described by Waterland as a ‘gratulatory’ sacrifice and not a ‘propitiatory’ sacrifice. A gratulatory sacrifice is one where the signs allow peopleto gain the benefit of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, but the signs are not the sacrifice. Waterland is expressing a moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice. In contrast to Waterland, Thorndike uses both ‘propitiatory’ and ‘impetratory’ in relation to the prayers of the Eucharist. He says that the ‘species’ or elements are properly called ‘sacrifices’ in a commemorative or representative sense and that when they are consecrated by the prayers they are truly counted as oblations and sacrifices. Thorndike argues that the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross since it ‘represents’, ‘renews’,‘revives’ and ‘restores’ it and at each representation it is the same thing that it represents since it ‘tenders’ and exhibits’ what it signifies. If the sacrifice of the cross is propitiatory and impetratory, then the sacrifice of the Eucharist must be also, since the ‘that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it presenteth’. Thorndike goes so far as to say that the Eucharist, by virtue of the consecration, becomes the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Despite the implication of immoderate realism here, Thorndike is clear in saying that the elements are not the sacrifice of the cross. Rather it is the representing, renewing, reviving and restoring in the Eucharist that presents the nature of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. Any immoderate realism would be what Thorndike describes as an ‘improper nature’, and he specifically excludes ‘an action done in the person of Christ’, however what is described as a ‘proper nature’ could be interpreted in term of moderate realism where the nature of Christ’s sacrifice is instantiated in the Eucharist. Johnson also argues that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is true and real and calls it both expiatory and propitiatory for the remission of sins. He is careful however to distinguish the sacrifice in the Eucharist from the sacrifice of the cross, thereby limiting any immoderate realist notion. Reference to eucharistic sacrifice is extensive in the period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and although there is considerable variation and different emphases in the way the Eucharist is described  chapter three as a sacrifice or in the way sacrificial language is used, the prevailing philosophical assumptions behind these references is moderate realism.

The Role of the Holy Spirit Several Anglican theologians in this period refer to the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Eucharist. Brett states that the power of the Holy Spirit is essential to consecration and that the spiritual presence is a real presence. The Spirit, he says, ‘makes’ the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. Bull argues that by sacerdotal benediction the Spirit of Christ descends on the elements so that they are the body and blood of Christ. Comber speaks of the sanctifying of the bread and wine (presumably by the power of the Holy Spirit) so that they may ‘become’ sacramentally Christ’sbody and blood. Both Forbes and Johnson say that the Holy Spirit performs the operation to ‘make’ bread and wine Christ’s body and blood by ‘power and effect’. Patrick attributes the power of the Eucharist to the Holy Spirit, while Rattray says that the Holy Spirit makes the bread and wine ‘verily and indeed His Body and Blood’.For Rattray the Spirit is united to the bread and wine so that they have the virtue, power and efficacy no longer of ordinary bread and wine. The Scottish Liturgy of  invokes the Holy Spirit over the bread and wine so that they ‘become’ Christ’s body and blood. Wilson says that the Holy Spirit ‘accompanies’ the elements and makes them an effective means of grace by making them Christ’s spiritual body. The Holy Spirit, he says, ‘makes’ the bread the body of Christ and the cup the blood of Christ. The Wesleys in their eucharistic hymns invoked the Holy Spirit to realise the sign and infuse life into the bread and power into the wine (e.g. hymn ). Thorndike argues that the Holy Spirit comes upon the elements to make them the body and blood of Christ, not in a natural sense, since the substance of the bread and wine remain, but in the sense of instruments of God to convey the grace of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore, for Thorndike, bread and wine can be called Christ’s body and blood and any change in the elements is a mystical one, where they are changed, translated, turned into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, as a sacrament by consecration and not by the faith of the communicant. There is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, but an ‘accumulation’ of that substance with the substance of the body and blood of Christ as a spiritual grace, as a result of the action of the Holy Spirit. Waterland rejects the view that the Holy Spirit can be invoked on the elements, ‘enriching’ them with virtues and graces of the personal body the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  of Christ and thereby making them the very body and blood of Christ. Rather, Waterland accepts that the Spirit of Christ (which he describes as the logos) descends on the elements uniting them to their Lord as Christ’s human body was united to Christ in the incarnation. The hypostatical nature of the incarnation is emphasised here. Waterland goes on to argue that the role of the Holy Spirit translates or changes the elements from the common to the sacred, from elements to sacraments, from natural to supernatural, so that they become exhibitive symbols of our Lord’s natural body and blood in a mystical and spiritual way. There is however, for Waterland, no change of substance in the bread and wine, only change totheoutwardstate,useorofficeoftheelements.

Reservation Some Anglican writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth century allow for the reservation of the elements of the Eucharist for the sick, following the administration of the elements in the service. This suggests moderate realism in that the objective presence of the body and blood of Christ is seen to persist past the consecration and past the act of reception. Ratttray, Sparrow, Thorndike and the Nonjuror Litrugies say that the elements can be reserved for the sick. Thorndike goes on to say that once reserved the elements are worthy of ‘reverence’ as the Lord is present in the sacrament.

Symbols Not Adored Several of the Anglican theologians who present moderate realist philosophical assumptions in relation to the Eucharist, also make the point that the symbols of the Eucharist should not be adored. These include Aldrich and Sparrow who argue that the elements should not be adored and Beveridge who opposes both adoration of the elements and their reservation. Bull specifically objects to the elevation of the elements in the Eucharist since this suggests idolatry, while Johnson argues that we cannot worship what is seen. The main reason for opposing any adoration of the symbols seems to be the possibility of an immoderate realist interpretation.

OfferingatLastSupperandNotattheCross A number of Anglican theologians in this period argue that the sacrifice of Christ was offered (or began to be offered) at the Last Supper and  chapter three not at the cross. Deacon argues that Christ’s sacrifice was not offered on the cross but that he was slain there and that in fact the offering of the sacrifice was made at the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Johnson says that Christ offered his body and blood at the Last Supper as a feast upon a sacrifice to come and that Christians offer this same feast upon a sacrifice but not in any fleshy sense in the Eucharist. Rattray says that the offering of the Eucharist by Christ at the Last Supper was followed by Christ being slain on the cross. Wilson connects the offering of the sacrifice of Christ with the institution of the Eucharist and not with Christ’sdeath at Calvary. The priest therefore, offers the same sacrifice in the Eucharist as Christ offered at the Last Supper, but this sacrifice so offered is not the sacrifice of the cross.

The Case Studies

The case studies of the seventeenth and eighteenth century presented in this chapter are: The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper Henry Aldrich William Beveridge Thomas Brett Daniel Brevint George Bull Thomas Comber Thomas Deacon Robert Forbes Benjamin Hoadly John Johnson Thomas Ken William Law Robert Nelson Simon Patrick Thomas Rattray The Scottish Liturgy of  Anthony Sparrow The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper The Whole Duty of a Communicant Herbert Thorndike John Tillotson William Wake Daniel Waterland Thomas Wilson the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Catechism of the  Liturgy of Comprehension Nonjurors Liturgies John and Charles Wesley  chapter three

The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper

The devotional work The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper,2 was published in , becoming a standard work of the period and then passing through fifty-one editions by .3 The work contains a number of meditations and prayers aimed at assisting those preparing for Holy Communion to do so worthily and thereby obtaining the benefits of the life and death of Christ and the spiritual presence of his body and blood. The following material from this work will help to establish its view of the Eucharist. O my Jesus, Thou savest me by Thy blood! In this Thy Sacrament Thouart set forth crucified, and I behold Thy wounds, from whence by the hand of faith I pluck forth these comfortable words of life, ‘My Lord and my God’. My God! Mine, for Thou hast partaken of my human nature, and Thou hast made me to partake of Thy divine nature; Thou hast taken upon Thee my flesh, and Thou has communicated unto me Thy Spirit. In thisThy Holy Sacrament Thou communicatest body and blood, flesh and spirit, Thy whole manhood, yea, Thy very Godhead too.4 The bread and wine I eat and drink is not more really my food than Thou, my Jesus, in whom I believe and trust, art my God.5 The faithful communicant doth receive that which the Word found, to wit, preservation unto life everlasting both to his body and soul. For the humbled sinner, believing in the Incarnation, death, and passion of Jesus, and receiving this bread and wine in token that God hath given Him for our sins, and relying on Him as his only Redeemer; this doth convey to such a penitent believer all the benefits of the birth and the death of Jesus. And, as the bread and wine, being received, do communicate to us all the strength and comfort that they contain, so the worthy receiver, by apprehending and embracing a crucified Saviour, draws persuasions of his pardon and encouragement to his graces, and so spiritually eats the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood.6

2 The edition used in this case study is edited by William Fraser and entitled The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper, after warning in the Church for its celebration (Oxford: Parker, ). 3 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), pp. –. 4 Fraser, The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, pp. –. 5 Ibid,p.. 6 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Christ,toshewHislovetowardsus,hasgivenusHisownbread,andof His own cup; nay, He hath given us His own body as bread, His own blood as wine, for the nourishment of our souls.7 This passage suggests a moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucha- rist. The crucified Christ is said to be set forth in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ is received by the communicant. This is not done in an immoderate manner since the work states that the communicant ‘spiritually eats the flesh of Christ, and drinks His blood’. The communicant is said to partake of Christ’s ‘divine nature’ in the Eucharist, whereby Christ’s communicates his Spirit, to the effect that in the ‘Holy Sacrament Thou communicatest body and blood, flesh and spirit’. This is suggestive of the idea of Christ’s nature being instantiated in the Eucharist in a moderate realist manner which does not depend on carnal or immoderate realism. In what is a very realist expression, the work states that in the Eucharist Christ communicates his ‘whole manhood’ and ‘very Godhead’.It is the bread and wine which is said to communicate ‘in token’ all the benefits of Christ. This is suggestive of both divine and human forms of Jesus being communicated in the Eucharist. This mixing of immoderate and moderate elements of realism continues in the following passage: O most good and gracious Jesus, Thou before Thy sufferings and death didst bequeath a most excellent gift unto Thy children as a pledge ofThy love,leavingforusThymostsacredbodytobeourmeat,andThymost precious blood to be our drink. O Thou true food of my soul, receive me, who am to receive Thee, quicken me with Thy Spirit, feed me with Thy flesh, satisfy me with Thy blood, and let me receive life from Thee toact andtoliveuntoThee.8 Jesus’ body is described in this passage as meat and his blood is described as drink. This immoderate sounding language is however, modified bya description of this food as a food of the soul, suggesting that the food is spiritual food, implies a moderate realism. Another passage continues this theme, saying: I am not worthy, O Lord, I am not worthy to come into Thy presence, much lesstoeatatThyTablethefleshofthesacrificedLamb.9

7 Ibid, pp. –. 8 Ibid,p.. 9 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

Vouchsafe, good Lord, I humbly beseech Thee, so to work in my heart with Thy grace and Holy Spirit that I may worthily receive these holy mysteries to the reviving and refreshing of my sinful soul; that I may purge out the old leaven of my corrupt and wicked nature by hearty and unfeigned repentance; that I may spiritually eat Christ’s flesh, and drink his blood by a true and lively faith; that I may effectually feed upon the merits of His Incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension by virtue of Thy sweet and comfortable promises made unto us in the word of Thy Holy Gospel; finally, that I may be partaker of all the fruits and benefits of that most precious and perfect sacrifice which He in the body of His flesh offered up once for all upon the cross for the redemption and salvation of mankind.10 Here it seems that despite the immoderate sounding language of this passage the meaning is cast in terms of moderate realism. The author speaks of eating the flesh of the sacrificed lamb, but doing this eating spiritually, with the grace of Christ working in the heart. It is by this spiritual eating that the communicant receives the benefits of Christ’s passion. The philosophical assumptions underling this work are those of moderate realism.

10 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

HenryAldrich

Henry Aldrich (–) Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, published a pamphlet in  entitled, A Reply to Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist,11 writtenagainstRomanCatholicviewsontheEucharist.In this pamphlet Aldrich replies to one Roman Catholic saying he supposed: “the Church of England to hold such a Real Presence of Christ’s natural body in the Eucharist, as he thinks a sufficient ground to adore the Elements: To which we need only reply; That as the Church ever held a real, so she ever denied a corporal i.e. a local presence; and for that reason forbids the adoration of the Symbols.”12 Aldrich denies any immoderate realism (natural, corporal or local) in regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and states his view regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as taught by the Church of England. He says, denying any assertion that Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, that: “We do not hold that we barely receive the Effects and Benefits of Christ’s Body;butweholditReallyPresentinasmuchasitisReallyreceived, and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us”.13 Here Aldrich affirms moderate realism and denies immoderate realism. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not a local presence in the elements specifically. Aldrich speaks of the benefits and effects of Christ’s body being really present in the Eucharist. For Aldrich, Christ is really present and really received, but this presence and reception can in no way be local or immoderate. He says that the term ‘real presence’ however, is not used in the formularies of the Church of England: Yetitmustnotbedeniedbutthetermmaybesafelyusedamongscholars, and seems to be grounded upon Scripture itself . . .. Which when we of the Church of England use, we mean thus: A thing may be said to be really received, which is so consigned to us, that we can really employ it to all those purposes for which it is useful in itself . . . and a thing thus really receivedmaybesaidtobereallypresent,twoways,eitherphysicallyor morally, to which we reduce sacramentally . . . In the holy Eucharist, the Sacrament is physically, the res sacramenti morally present; the elements

11 Henry Aldrich, ‘AReply to Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist’,cited in Cyril Dugmore, Eucharis- tic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 12 Ibid, pp. –. 13 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

antecedently and locally; the very body consequentially and virtually, but both really present . . . When we say that Christ is present . . . in the Sacrament, we do not mean in the elements, but in the celebration.14 The view Aldrich puts forward to counter Roman Catholic authors is that of moderate realism. The moderate realism that Aldrich advances is however, in regard to the celebration and not to the elements.

14 Henry Aldrich, ‘AReply to Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist’, cited in Henry McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson (eds), The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (Norwich: Canterbury Press, ), pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

William Beveridge

William Beveridge (–) was the Bishop of St Asaph. He cites both Scripture and the Fathers in the expression of his views on the Eucharist in his extensive writings.15 He says: “Scripture and fathers holding forth so clearly that whosoever worthily receives the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper doth certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ.”16 At the same time he denies that: “the bread and wine which is used in the Sacrament is the very body that was crucified on the cross and that the wine after consecration the very blood that gushed out of His pierced side.”17 For Beveridge the words ‘This is my body’ suggest that the bread is a sign or sacrament of his body and in no way suggest a real change of bread into Christ’s body. Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist can therefore only be present “in a figurative or sacramental sense” with “His body only represented by the bread” to the effect that what “we eat at the Sacrament is bread, and not the very body of Christ”.It is therefore “only after a spiritual, not after a corporal manner, that the body and blood of Christ are received and eaten in the Sacrament.”18 For these reasons Beveridge opposes both reservation and adoration of the sacrament.19 While Beveridge affirms that those who receive the sacrament partake of the body and blood of Christ, he is firm in his rejection of any immoderate sense of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The means for the presence of Christ’sbody and blood in the Eucharist is spiritual presence. In his discussion of sacrifice, Beveridge distinguishes between sacrifice and sacrament. He argues that: “in a Sacrament God offereth something to man, but in a sacrifice man offers something to God. What is offered in a sacrifice is wholly or in part destroyed, but what is offered ina Sacrament still remaineth. And there being so great a difference betwixt the one and the other, if it be a Sacrament it is not a sacrifice, and if it be asacrificeitisnotaSacrament,itbeingimpossibleitshouldbeabotha Sacrament and a sacrifice too.”20 Having argued in this way, Beveridge admits that the Fathers of the Church did call the Eucharist a sacrifice, but that this is not in the

15 William Beveridge, The Theological Works of William Beveridge, D.D. Sometime Lord Bishop of St Asaph ( Volumes) (Oxford: Parker, –). 16 Beveridge, The Theological Works, Volume VII, , p. . 17 Ibid, p. . 18 Ibid, p. . 19 Ibid, p. . 20 Ibid, p. .  chapter three sense of a true and proper sacrifice, “but only the commemoration or representation of that one true and proper sacrifice offered up by Christ Himself ”.21 It seems that Beveridge is distinguishing between the idea of a fleshy sacrifice (immoderate realism) offered once upon the cross, and a commemorative or representative sacrifice offered in the Eucharist (moderate realism). In discussing The Catechism, Beveridge also speaks of the Eucharist, saying: The outward part or sign of this Sacrament is only bread and wine, which the Lord commanded to be received, that is, to be received into our bodies.22 But the inward part, or thing signified by that sign in the Lord’s Supper, is ‘the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’.23 He [that is, our Lord] plainly signified that what He now gave them to eat and drink, He would have them look upon it and receive it, not as common bread and wine, but as His body and blood, the one broken, the other as shed, for their sins. Which therefore are not in show and appearance but verily and indeed (according to the sense wherein the Lord instituting the Sacrament spoke those words) taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper; by the faithful, even by all such, and only such, as believe the Gospel, and what our Lord said, and accordingly receive what he now gives them with a true faith. Which being ‘the substance of things hoped for’ as well as ‘the evidence of things not seen’, it causeth that which our Lord said, and what they therefore hope for and receive upon His word, to subsist really and effectually in them, to all intents and purposes to which the body and blood of Christ can possibly be communicated and received.24 Though the thing signified in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper bethe body and blood of Christ, yet it is not received, as the sign is, into our bodies only, but into our souls. It is the inward and spiritual part in the Sacrament, and therefore hath respect only to the inward and spiritual part of him that receives it.25 Our souls are strengthened by the body and blood of Christ received by faith in this Sacrament, because by this means we have Christ Himself to dwell in our hearts by faith.26

21 Ibid, p. . 22 Beveridge, The Theological Works, Volume VIII, , p. . 23 Ibid, pp. –. 24 Ibid, p. . 25 Ibid, p. . 26 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Here Beveridge speaks of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist which is moderate realist but at the same time spiritual. He also speaks of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in this way: When we hear the words of consecration repeated as they came from our Lord’s own mouth, . . . we are then steadfastly to believe that, although the substance of the bread and wine still remain, yet now it is not common bread and wine as to its use, but the body and blood of Christ in that sacramental sense wherein he spake the words, insomuch that whosoever receives these His creatures of bread and wine according to Christ’s holy institution in remembrance of His death and passion are partakers of Hismostpreciousbodyandblood,asitisexpressedintheprayerof consecration.27 For Beveridge there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, yet they are not merely common bread and wine, but distinguished from otherbreadandwinebytheiruse,andindeedforthosewhoreceivethem, they are the body and blood of Christ, although this presence is not in any immoderate or fleshy sense. When Beveridge speaks of sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist, he denies that there is any propitiatory sacrifice, but affirms that Christ’s sacrifice is shown in the Eucharist. He says: “The Apostle doth not say that Christ’s death is repeated, or that He is offered up again every time this Sacrament is administered, but only that the Lord’s death is shown by it. And therefore, that this is not, as the papists absurdly imagine, a ‘propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead’, but only ‘commemorative’ and ‘declarative’ of that one sacrifice which Christ once offered to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.”28 (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, –: VIII, ). Beveridge denies any immoderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist. The sacrifice of Christ is not repeated in the Eucharist, but Christ’s death is shown in the Eucharist and the merits of that sacrifice are received by those who partake. Beveridge’s argument in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist is that of moderate realism, expressed using the notions of memorial remembrance or anamnesis. When he speaks of the action of distributing the bread and wine in the context of theEucharist, Beveridge also speaks in a very realistsense,but still maintains the moderate degree. He says:

27 Beveridge, The Theological Works, Volume VII, , p. . 28 Beveridge, The Theological Works, Volume VIII, , p. .  chapter three

When we see the minister distributing the sacramental bread and wine to the several communicants, we are then by faith to look upon our Lord as offering His blessed body and blood and all the benefits of His death to all that will receive them at His hands, entertaining ourselves all the while others are receiving these or suchlike meditations: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world! Behold the Son of God, theonly-begottenoftheFather,wholovedusandgaveHimselfforus, who Himself bare our sins in His own body on the tree, and washed us from them in His own blood! . . . Methinks I see Him yonder going about by His minister from one to another, and offering His most blessed body and blood with all the merits of His most precious death to all that will receive them faithfully.29 There is a strong sense of realism in this passage—so strong it seems that the author perceives that he can see the Lord himself going about the distribution ‘offering His most blessed body and blood with all the merits of His most precious death’. In the context of the Eucharist there is an offering of Christ’s body and blood and the showing forth of the merits of his death. Taken in the full context of Beveridge’s other writing on the Eucharist, these words can hardly be interpreted as immoderate. Perhaps it is a mystical sense that is prompting these words. If this is the case then the realism here is moderate in degree. Christ is really present and the merits of his death are shown, but this is done mystically and spiritually, not in a fleshy sense of presence and not with any idea of a re-iteration of thesacrificeofthecross.ThisisconfirmedwhenBeveridgesays: When it comes to our turns to receive it, then we are to lay aside all thoughts of bread and wine and minister and everything else that is or can be seen, and fix our faith, as it is ‘the evidence of things not seen’, wholly and solely upon our blessed Saviour as offering us His own body and blood, . . . steadfastly believing it to be, as our Saviour said, ‘His body and blood’,‘which’,as our Church teacheth us, ‘are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’,by which means, whatsoever it is to others, it will be to us who receive it with such a faith the body and blood of Christ our Saviour, the very ‘substance of all things hoped for’, upon account of His body that was broken, and His blood that was shed, for us.30 Beveridge affirms that in the Eucharist in the bread and wine, Christ is specially present. This presence is not an immoderate or fleshy presence, but a moderate realist, spiritual, yet real presence. In the Eucharist the

29 Ibid, p. . 30 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  body and blood of Christ is offered to those who come to receive. For Beveridge those who receive the bread and wine at the Eucharist, feed spiritually on the body and blood of Christ. Moderate realist assumptions underlying the eucharistic theology expressed by Beveridge.  chapter three

Thomas Brett

Bishop Thomas Brett (–) was a Nonjuror Bishop, that is one of those members of the Church of England who after  refused to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to William I and Mary II on the grounds that if they did so they must break their previous oaths toJamesIIandhissuccessors.31 As a result nonjurors were deprived of their positions in the Church of England but they continued to worship separately from the Church of England, maintaining that through their bishops they had apostolic succession. In a work of , entitled A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, used by the Christian Church in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist: particularly the ancient, viz. the Clementine, the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, &c. Translated by several hands. With a dissertation upon them, shewing their usefulness and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and interpolations,32 Brett speaks of the theology of the Eucharist, saying: I do not believe the Bread and Wine to be annihilated, and the Substance of them, the Accidents remaining, to be changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered on the Cross, and is now in Heaven, which is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Neither do I believe with the Lutherans, that the Substance of the Bread and Wine remaining, the very individual Body and Blood of Christ is by a certain Ubiquity so united and incorporated with them, as to be eaten and drunk by the Faithful in the Lord’s Supper. Neither do I believe with the Calvinists, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are now in Heaven, are Sacramentally or in an inconceivable Manner, united to the Bread and Wine, so as to be received together with them by the Faith of the Communicants. But I do believe the Bread and Wine to be the only BodyandBloodappointedtobereceivedintheEucharist.AndIbelieve them to be made this Sacramental Flesh and Blood, that is, the full and perfect Representative of his Body and Blood, his very Body and Blood in Power and Effect.33

31 F. Crossand E. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 32 Thomas Brett, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, used by the Christian Church in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist: particularly the ancient, viz. the Clementine, the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, &c. Translated by several hands. With a dissertation upon them, shewing their usefulness and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and interpolations (London: King, ). 33 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Here Brett rejects both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, along with the Reformed eucharistic doctrine. At the same time, however, he affirms that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, given and received in the Eucharist. This body and blood of Christ he describes as sacramental flesh and blood, that it represents Christ’s body and blood and that it is Christ’s body and blood in power and effect. This seems to be a rejection of immoderate realism andan affirmation of moderate realism. Sign and signified are linked, without any fleshy notions of presence. In another work, entitled The Christian Altar and Sacrifice. A Sermon, Shewing that the Lord’s Table is a Proper Altar, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Proper Sacrifice,34 published in , Brett speaks more of ‘representation’, stating: How is the Lord’s Body there to be discerned? It cannot be meant of the literal, natural Body of the Lord, as the Church of Rome blasphemously teaches; . . . How then can the Lord’s Body be discerned otherwise than by Representation? For it be still Bread and Wine, even at the very time it is to be eaten and drunk, as St Paul clearly declares it to be, and yet theBodyandBloodofChrististherealsotobediscern’dorseen,as the same Apostle also teaches, then must the Bread and Wine fully and perfectly represent the Body and Blood of Christ, and we must believe it to do so, and discern or see it by the Eye of Faith, that is, by that Belief which is founded on the Word of God. . . . The Bread and Wine therefore representing Christ’s Body as broken, and his Blood as shed and poured out from it, can by no means represent, much less really be, the very individual glorified Body of Christ now in Heaven, and Personally united, not only to the Human Soul, but also to the Divine Nature. But it plainly represents Christ’s Body as given, that is, offered or sacrificed for us; for so our himself appointed it to do saying, This is my Body which is given, or offered for you. It is evident therefore from the very Institution, that the Bread and Wine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, represent Christ’s Body and Blood as given, offered or sacrificed for us; and are so full and perfect Representatives thereof, that our Lord thought fit to give to the Bread and Wine the Name of His Body and Blood. The Consequence of all this is, That the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist do by the very Institution represent the sacrifice of Christ’s Body broken, and his Blood shed.35

34 Thomas Brett, The Christian Altar and Sacrifice. A Sermon, Shewing that the Lord’s Table is a Proper Altar, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Proper Sacrifice (London: Wyat, ). 35 Ibid, pp. xiii–xv.  chapter three

Representation then, does not mean representing Christ’s actual body and blood in heaven, rather it means, representing Christ’s body and blood as given, offered and sacrificed. Again this cannot be meant in a fleshy or immoderate fashion, and Brett rejects this understanding of any such form of presence in the Eucharist. The presence however, is real (‘there to be discern’dor seen’). The real presence of Christ therefore cannot, for Brett, be limited to any fleshy presence. The real presence of Christ must have a much firmer foundation than that, and for Brett, that foundation is faith in the Word of God. The knowledge of this lies in the Institution of the sacrament, as found in the Word of God. Brett, like the other Nonjurors and like John Johnson,36 draws specific attention to the Institution of the Eucharist as the offering of Christ’s body and blood. In another work entitled A Discourse concerning the Necessity of discerning the Lord’s Body in the Holy Communion, With a Preface, Giving an Account of the erroneous Opinions of the Papists, Lutherans, and Calvin- ists, upon this Subject,37 published in , Brett also set out his theology oftheEucharist.Herehesaid: It is impossible the Bread should be converted into that individual natural Body; But the Holy Ghost descending upon, and operating in the Bread and the Cup, may give it a quickening, life-giving Virtue, and so make it Christ’s Body in Power and Effect; and it may then as properly be called Christ’s Body and actually be so. . . . This quickening Virtue therefore being communicated to the Eucharistical Bread and Cup, that Bread and Cup being eaten and drank by us, and so incorporated with our Bodies, communicates such a quickening Virtue to them, as shall raise us again to a joyful Resurrection at the last Day. For it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the Flesh profiteth nothing. Therefore there is no need of eating or drinking the natural Body and Blood of Christ for this Purpose; his Sacramental or Spiritual Body, that is, Bread and Wine mixt with Water, made his Body and Blood in full Power and Effect by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, is as effectual by Virtue of his Institution, as his natural Body and Blood could be.38 ForBrettitwasthepoweroftheHolySpiritthatwasanessentialaspect of the consecration of the bread and wine. This conclusion, argued Brett, had considerable support from the witness of the early church. He wrote in his  A Collection of the Principal Liturgies that:

36 See Johnson case study below. 37 Thomas Brett, A Discourse concerning the Necessity of discerning the Lord’s Body in the Holy Communion, With a Preface, Giving an Account of the erroneous Opinions of the Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists, upon this Subject (London: King, ). 38 Ibid, pp. xvii–xviii. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

The primitive Church understood the Words of our Saviour, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, to denote that the Flesh and Blood, which whoever eat and drank, should have eternal Life, should have his quickening Spirit communicated to them, because without it the bare Flesh could be of no Advantage for that purpose. And as the Flesh and Blood he there spoke of was his sacramental Body and Blood which he afterwards gave to his Apostles, and commanded them and their Successors to give the same to all under their Charge ‘till his coming again; therefore the primitive Church did understand that the Holy Ghost descended on the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, to infuse into them this quickening Virtue; without which, material Elements could have no quickening Virtue. And therefore they supposed not the Elements to be fully consecrated and made the Body and Blood of Christ in Power and Effect, that Flesh and Blood which communicated eternal Life to the worthy Receivers, ‘till they had prayed that the Holy Ghost might come downupontheElements,andmakethemthebodyandBloodofChrist; because his Descent upon them, and Operation in them and with them is that alone which can make them the Food of eternal Life, since, as our Saviour expressly teaches, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing.39 The power and effect of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is seen asa spiritual matter for Brett. He specifically rejects the notion that the ‘flesh’ is of value, and emphasises the value of the spiritual presence. This does not mean that the spiritual presence is not seen as being real, since Brett describes how the Spirit ‘makes’ the bread and wine, the body and blood ofChrist.Thebreadandwinearenot‘made’thebodyandbloodofChrist inanyfleshywaywithachangeofsubstance,butratherinpowerand effect. Again he states, in an earlier work, a moderate realism, saying: “The substance of the Bread and Wine and Water still remains; the Elements are changed indeed sacramentally or spiritually, but not substantially; theystillremainthesamenaturalSubstance,aswellasthesameAcci- dents.”40 There is a notion of ‘change’ in Brett’s writing, but the change is not related to the substance of the bread and wine. The change that he speaks of is a ‘sacramental’ or ‘spiritual’ change, with the substance of the bread and wine remaining with their outward appearance maintained. Immoderate realism is here rejected and moderate realism is affirmed.

39 Brett, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, pp. –. 40 Brett, A Discourse concerning the Necessity of discerning the Lord’s Body in the Holy Communion,p..  chapter three

In relation to the eucharistic sacrifice he says: Now by an Oblation or a Sacrifice, we understand a Reverend and Solemn Presentation of some visible material Gift, to the God we worship, and whereby we honour and acknowledge him to be God and Lord, which being so presented or offered, is afterwards to be put to no common Use, buttobedisposedof,andconsumedinsuchmannerasourGodhas appointed: And the Place whereon we offer, present, or lay this material visible Gift or Element, is that which we therefore call the Altar; because this Element or Gift being there laid, from that Moment becomes God’s peculiar Property, and is no more common, nor can after that Time he put to any ordinary Use, unto which before it might have been applied.41 The elements of the Eucharist are offered to God, as an oblation and sacrifice, and therefore they are no longer ordinary bread and wine. Itis for this reason that they cannot, in Brett’sopinion be used for ordinary or common use. The linking of the sign with the signified here in indicative of moderate realism. Brett concludes that the oblation of the elements is an essential part of the institution of the Eucharist, saying: Now if we minister the Holy Communion according to the Institution, as Christ himself ministered it, we must offer the Bread to God: For so Christ did; he first offered the Gifts or Elements of Bread and Wine, by presenting them to God and giving Thanks, thereby acknowledging his Father tobe God and Lord, and also consecrated the Elements, or separated them from all common Use; so that they could not after be disposed of, otherwise than according to Divine Ordinance, and so he disposed of them, by giving them to his Disciples to eat and drink as representative Body and Blood.42 He also comments on the use of the word ‘do’ in Christ’s command, saying: Christ . . . plainly made a Sacrificial Oblation of the Bread and Wine to God, he first presented them to him as an Offering, . . andthen Consecrated them to represent his own Body and Blood; and having done so he disposed of them to be eaten and drank, as the Sacrifices sometimes were in the Holy Place in which the Oblation had been made. And we are commanded to DO, or make this Sacrifice or Oblation in Remembrance of him. For the Word which is here translated DO, is frequently used in the Holy Scriptures, to signify the offering a Sacrifice; . . . Our Saviour therefore commanded us to DO this, and thereby plainly enjoyned us to make or offer a Sacrifice as he had done.43

41 Ibid, pp. –. 42 Brett, The Christian Altar and Sacrifice, p. . 43 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Any discussion of eucharistic sacrifice, derives for Brett, from the example of Christ, who offered bread and wine to God at the Last Supper (giving thanks). This action of Christ, the ‘do’, is the clear direction for the Church to also ‘do’ or offer the sacrificial oblation of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Brett though, was however putting forward a moderate realist position in relation to eucharistic sacrifice, since he says: Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice perfectly representing by Virtue of its Institution, that great and truly meritorious Sacrifice of Christ himself, so that the Bread and Wine which we offer is accepted in the sight of God, as the very Body and Blood of his only begotten Son, and as such is communicated to us, that whensover we rightly and duly make this Oblation, we set before God the Memorial of his Son’s Death, put him in Mind of that meritorious Sacrifice which has made full, perfect and compleat Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World. . . . So when we set before God the Memorial of his Son’s most meritorious Sacrifice, we plainly engage and induce him to confer on us all the Mercies and Graces purchased for us by that All-sufficient Sacrifice: As Pardon of Sin, Reconciliation to God, Union with Christ, a Pledge or Earnest of Eternal Life, and Grace and Strength to enable us to work out our own Salvation.44 The writings of Thomas Brett present his theology of the Eucharist. This theology seems to be based on a moderate realist notion of eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice, where sign and signified are linked. Any immoderate notions of a fleshy presence of Christ or a fleshy re- iteration of Christ’s sacrifice, are denied, and moderate realist notions of both a eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice are affirmed.

44 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three

Daniel Brevint

Daniel Brevint (–) was Dean of Lincoln. He published a work on the Eucharist in  entitled, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice.45 This work made such an impression on John and Charles Wesley that they used an abridged form of it as the Preface to their hymn collection entitled Hymns on the Lord’s Supper published in .46 Brevint described the Eucharist as “one of the greatest mysteries of godliness”47 and “a great mystery, consisting of Sacrament and Sacri- fice.”.48 When speaking the sacrament Brevint says it “makes the thing which it represents, as really present for our use, as if it were newly done”.49 Thisissuggestiveofmoderaterealism.Thereisnosenseinhis writing of a fleshy or immoderate notion of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. He does however, state that the bread and wine “besides their ordinary use, bear as it were on their face the glorious character of their divine appointment”50—“How deep and holy is the mystery.”51 The bread and wine remain in their natural form, but in addition to this they have an additional ‘character’ given them by God. The communicant receives this additional ‘character’ and becomes a “partaker of Christ inanothermanneranddegree ... thanwhen ... wedoheartheholy Gospel”52 and therefore in the Eucharist we “seek not a bare representation or remembrance of Christ crucified at this holy table. . . . I want and seek my Saviour himself”53 and “I come to God’s Altar . . . with a full persuasion, that these words, this is my body, promise me more than a figure: that this holy banquet is not a representation made of outward shews without substance.”.54 Brevint is here rejecting any view which sees the bread and wine of the Eucharist as bare figures or the Eucharist as a

45 Daniel Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice. By way of discourse, meditation and prayer upon the nature, parts and blessings of the Holy Communion (th Edition) (London: Walthoe, Bonwicke, Rivington and Fletcher, Wickstead, Woodfall, Johnston, Davey and Law, ). 46 See J. Ernest Rattenbury (American Edition Timothy Crouch, ed), The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley (Akron, Ohio: The Order of Saint Luke, ). 47 Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice,p.. 48 Ibid,p.. 49 Ibid,p.. 50 Ibid,p.. 51 Ibid.p.. 52 Ibid,p.. 53 Ibid,p.. 54 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  bare memorial. For him Christ is present in the Eucharist and Christ’s sacrifice is remembered in a dynamic manner. He therefore describes the Eucharist not only as a sacrament but also as a sacrifice. His writings on the sacrifice suggest that he considered the Eucharist as a memorial remembranceinthesenseofanamnesis.TheeffectsofChrist’ssacrifice are available in the present, since Brevint suggests that in the Eucharist it is as if ‘it were newly done’.Brevint’s writing presents a moderate realism where sign and signified are clearly associated with one another. Brevint also describes the Eucharist as “an authentic Memorial”55 and that Christ at the Last Supper did “ordain this Sacrament, as a holy Memorial, Rep- resentation, and Image of what He was about to suffer”.56 For Brevint this memorial, representation and image has great significance for Christian people who look upon them in the Eucharist, since he says: “this Bread, this Wine, the breaking of the one, the pouring out of the other, and the Participation of both; this sacred Mystery might expose to faithful Beholders as a present and constant Object, both the Martyrdom and the Sacrifice of this crucified Saviour, giving up his Flesh, shedding his Blood, and pouring out his very Soul for the Expiation of their sins.”57 The sign and the signified are linked here in a moderate realist fashion, for both the eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice of Christ. This is expressed in another passage when he says: “these Signs and Monu- ments, besides their ordinary Use, bear withal as it were on their Face the glorious Character of their Institution from above, and with this Institu- tion the most express Design that God hath thereby to revive in a manner, and to expose to all our Senses, his Passion and Sufferings as if they had still their true Being (as they have still the same virtue).”58 Brevint’spositionhereisthatthesignsmaintaintheirordinaryuse, that is they remain bread and wine, but they also bear a ‘glorious character’ derived from the Christ and the institution of the Eucharist. The Eucharist therefore is able to ‘expose to all our Senses’ Christ’s passion. This exposure is real, for Brevint, since in the Eucharist it is as if the passion and suffering of Christ is present in its ‘true Being’, but in fact is present only by its virtue. ‘True being’ seemingly implies immoderate realism (that is, the fleshy presence of Christ and a re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross) whereas ‘virtue’ may imply moderate realism, in that

55 Ibid,p.. 56 Ibid,p.. 57 Ibid,p.. 58 Ibid,p..  chapter three

Christ is present and the sacrifice is offered in the power of its nature or virtue. Brevint is clear that the presence and sacrifice are real in the Eucharist, but they are real in a moderate realist sense where it seems that Christ’s nature is instantiated in the Eucharist. When Brevint speaks in another place of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist he says: “Christ’s body and blood have everywhere, but especially in this sacrament, a true and real presence”.59 ... “Thus this great and holy mystery, sends and communicates the death of the Lord, both as offering himself to God, and as giving himself to men. As he offered himself to God, it enters me into that mystical body . . .for which he was pleased to die”60 ... “Thetablepurposefullyset,toreceive those mercies that are sent down from his altar.”61 The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a ‘true and real’ presence and Christ’s sacrifice is offered on earth as it is offered in heaven. The Eucharist on earth is also seen to be a reflection of the heavenly altar. He makes these points again saying: Those in worshipping ever turning their eyes, their hearts, their hopes, toward that Altar and Sacrifice, when the High Priest was to carry the Blood into the sanctuary; and these looking towards the cross and their crucified Saviour there, through his sufferings hope for a way towards heaven; being encouraged to this hope by the very memorial which both take to themselves, and shew to God, of these sufferings. Lastly, Jesus, our eternal Priest, being from the cross, where he suffered without the gate, gone up into the true sanctuary, which is heaven, there above doth continually present his body in true reality . . . and, on the other side, we beneath, in the church, present to God his Body and Blood in a memorial, that this shadow of his cross, and image of his sacrifice, we may present ourselves before him in very deed and reality.62 Christ presents his body and blood to God in heaven and on earth the church presents his body and blood as a memorial. The pleading of the sacrifice takes place in heaven and on earth. Brevint is careful though to avoid any immoderate notions of sacrifice in this description of the Eucharist. He does this by speaking of the Eucharist as a ‘shadow’ of Christ’s cross and a ‘image’ of Christ’s sacrifice. The words ‘shadow’ and ‘image’ are however, suggestive of moderate realism, with the sign and the signified being associated with one another but not equated.

59 Ibid,p.. 60 Ibid, pp. –. 61 Ibid,p.. 62 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Brevint emphasises mystery in his writing, arguing that the eucharistic presenting of Christ is mystery, the manner of the presence is mystery and the elements themselves are also mystery. Despite this emphasis on mystery, Brevint outlines a threefold content of the Eucharist, saying: And these three parts, put together, make up the proper and true sense of those words, Take eat; this is my body. For the consecrated bread is not said to be the Lord’s Body, only because it represents the Lord’s Body, but because also, as to our present use on earth, it doth as good exhibit it; as to our happiness in heaven, bought with the price of this Body, it is the most solemn instrument to assure our title to it.63 [Christ] delivers into their hands by way of instrument and conveyance, the blessed sacrament of his body and blood; ... in the same manner ... as kings use to bestow dignities . . . and fathers pass as much as they please of their estates on their children.64 So the body and blood of Jesus Christ is in full value, and heaven with all its fullnessisinsure title instated on true Christians by those small portions which they receive in the blessed communion.65 Brevint here has made a substitution of ‘value’ in place of ‘substance’.66 The value is given through the receipt of what is put into the hands of the communicant, that is, the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Sign and signified are closely associated in the work of Daniel Brevint. His theology of the Eucharist is based on assumptions of moderate realism. The ‘value’ is not of a fleshy or immoderate substance, but rather of areal presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist which conveys the ‘value’ of Christ’s body and blood and his sacrifice to the communicant.

63 Ibid,p.. 64 Ibid,p.. 65 Ibid,p.. 66 Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in Henry McAdoo and Ken- neth Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (Norwich: Canter- bury Press, ), p. .  chapter three

George Bull

George Bull (–) was Bishop of St David’s and a theologian.67 In discussing the Eucharist he speaks of “the prayer of oblation of the Christian sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper”68 as being of ancient origin. The Eucharist for Bull is therefore both a prayer of oblation and a Christian sacrifice. The ancient form however, argues Bull, has been improperly changed. In criticising the Roman Catholic Church he cites as examples of this improper changing, the cup being removed from the people69 and the doctrine that Christ is fully present in only one of the elements (that is, the bread).70 Against this, Bull argues that “it is the bread only that doth sacramentally signify andexhibit thebody ofChrist,and thewineonly thatdothsacramentally signify and exhibit the blood of Christ”.71 Bulldeniesthedoctrineof transubstantiation and affirms that the bread and wine “after the words of Consecration still remain in substance the same, . . . that is, bread and wine”.72 Whilst immoderate notions of presence are denied, moderate notions of presence are affirmed in the words ‘sacramentally signify and exhibit’. Christ’s body and blood are signified and exhibited in the bread and wine, but not in any fleshy or immoderate fashion. The words of institution (This is my body/blood) must therefore be interpreted in a figurative sense and not a true or proper sense such as would be implied by immoderate realism.73 This meaning Bull explains in Christ’s words as: “What I do now is a representation of My death and passion”.74 In relation to sacrifice Bull argues that “that which doth not perfectly represent and set forth the death and passion of our Lord is no perfect Sacrament”.75 The sacrament of the Eucharist therefore must represent and set forth the death and passion of Christ but at the same time he also denies that in the Eucharist there is any “true, proper, and

67 George Bull, The Works of George Bull (E. Burton, ed) ( Volumes) (Oxford: Parker, ). 68 Bull, The Works of George Bull, Volume I, p. . 69 Ibid, p. . 70 Bull, The Works of George Bull, Volume II, pp. –. 71 Ibid, p. . 72 Ibid, p. . 73 Ibid, p. . 74 Ibid, p. . 75 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead”.76 Bull therefore denies anyimmoderaterealisminrelationtosacrificeintheEucharist,butatthe same time admits that it contains a prayer of oblation and is a Christian sacrifice. Christ’s death and passion is set forth and represented in the Eucharist, but not in any immoderate sense. Any suggestion “that in the Eucharist the very body and blood of Christ are again offered up to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men” is considered to be “an impious proposition, derogatory to the one full satisfaction of Christ made by His death on the cross, and contrary to express Scripture”.77 Despite this Bull admits that the Eucharist is frequently called an oblation and a sacrifice by the ancient fathers, but any such use is in the sense of “a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice without blood”.78 Further he describes the sacrifice of the Eucharist as a “commemorative sacrifice”.79 Such commemorative sacrifice is not: A bare remembering, or putting ourselves in mind of Him. For every sacrifice is directed to God, and the oblation therein made, whatever it be, hath Him for the object, and not man. In the Holy Eucharist therefore, we set before God the bread and wine, as ‘figures or images of the precious blood of Christ shed for us, and of His precious body’ (they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy), and plead to God the merit of His Son’s sacrifice once offered on the cross for us sinners, and in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us.80 The Eucharist is clearly more than mere remembering. For Bull it pleads the once only sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and by it the heavenly benefits of Christ are bestowed. This is moderate realism in the sense of anamnesis or memorial remembrance. The benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are pleaded by the Church in the present and the benefits of that sacrifice are available in the present in the Eucharist. This is more than mere remembering, but delivery of gift in the Eucharist. Christ is the object of any eucharistic sacrifice, since it is Christ’s sacrifice that is pleaded. The sacrifice is not pleaded for the benefit of human beings, but as an oblation to God, whereby human beings plead the merit of Christ’s sacrifice. In so doing however, the benefits of the sacrifice are available to people in the present.

76 Ibid, p. . 77 Ibid, p. . 78 Ibid, p. . 79 Ibid, p. . 80 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

The sacrament of bread and wine Bull sees as a rite appointed by Christ to give thanks and to make supplication to God in the name of Christ.81 “This Eucharistical sacrifice, thus explained, is indeed λγικ #υσα a reasonable sacrifice”.82 Bull’sargument concerning the Eucharist is therefore that it is “an ν- μνησις or commemoration, by the symbols of bread and wine, of the body and blood of Christ, once offered up to God on the cross for our redemption”.83 This means that “it could not therefore be then thought an offering up again to God of the very body and blood of Christ, substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine; for these two notions are inconsistent, and cannot stand together”.84 While Bull, citing the evidence of the ancient Church Fathers and liturgies refers to the bread and wine as “antitypa, ‘correspondent types’,figures, and images of the precious body and blood of Christ”,85 he also recognises that ancient use speaks of the bread and wine of the Eucharist as becoming and being made the body and blood of Christ by virtue of the consecration. He says: “Some of the most ancient doctors of the Church, as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, seem to have had this notion, that by and upon the sacerdotal benediction, the Spirit of Christ, or a divine virtue from Christ, descends upon the elements, and accompanies them to all worthy communicants, and that therefore they are said to be, and are the body and blood of Christ, the same divinity, which is hypostatically united to the body of Christ in heaven, being virtually united to the elements of bread and wine on earth.”86 While he admits these ideas, he sees them as distinct from any notion of transubstantiation and argues that the ancient writers did not use this language in the sense of transubstantiation. Bull’s position seems to be that of moderate realism, however he modifies this in his discussion of some of the traditional practices associated with the Eucharist. In regard to the elevation of the host he says, for example, when speaking of the practices of the Church of Rome, that: The worst ceremony of all is the elevation of the host to be adored by the people as very Christ Himself under the appearance of bread, whole Christ, Θεν#ρωπς, God and Man, while they neglect the old sursum corda,the

81 Ibid, p. . 82 Ibid, p. . 83 Ibid, p. . 84 Ibid, p. . 85 Ibid, p. . 86 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

lifting up of their hearts to heaven, where whole Christ indeed is. A practice this is which nothing can excuse from the grossest idolatry but their gross stupidity, or rather infatuation, in thinking that a piece of bread can by any means whatsoever, or however consecrated and blessed, become their very God and Saviour.87 Bull’s language here expresses a moderate realism in terms of a divine virtue and a hypostatical union between the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ. There is no fleshy or immoderate presence but there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, expressed as moderate realism. Clearly however, he does not see the bread and wine, especially in the elevation, as worthy of adoration. The bread and wine of the Eucharist are called the body and blood of Christ, with the same divinity being virtually united to the elements of bread and wine on earth, but they are not the actual fleshy body and blood itself, since that, together with the divinity (the whole Christ) is in heaven. Bull’s opposition to the elevation seems to rests on what he states is a belief that in this particular practice the fleshy Christ is present, and elevated, in the host. This however, does not detract from his earlier stated position that the divinity of Christ is virtually united to the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Bull’s writings on the Eucharist indicate that he adopts a moderate realist approach to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. He denies immoderate realism, yet speaks of the virtue of Christ’s divinity being united to the bread and wine in the Eucharist, as they become or are made the body and blood of Christ. He also states that the benefits of Christ’s death and passion are bestowed in the Eucharist and that the sacrifice of Christ is pleaded in the Eucharist as memorial remembrance or anamnesis. Moderate realist philosophical assumptions underlie Bull’s eucharistic theology.

87 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

Thomas Comber

Thomas Comber (–) was Dean of Durham. In his work entitled A Companion to the Altar. Or, an Help to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s supper, By Discourse and Meditations upon the whole Communion Office,88 he presents an extensive reflection on the Eucharist. In The Introduction to A Companion to the Altar,Comberspeaksof the Communion service in general, saying: Whatsoever benefits we now enjoy, or hope hereafter to receive from Almighty God, are all purchased by the Death, and must be obtained through the Intercession of the Holy Jesus. And for a perpetual memorial hereof, we are not only taught to mention his name in our daily prayers, John .  & . . but also commanded by visible signs to Commemo- rate, and set forth his Passion in the Lord’s Supper, Cor. . .wherein by a more forcible rite of Intercession we beg the Divine Acceptance. That which is more compendiously expressed in the Conclusion of our Prayers [though Jesus Christ our Lord] is more fully and more vigorously set out in this most holy Sacrament; Wherein we Interceed on Earth in Imitation of and Conjunction with the great Intercession of our High Priest in Heaven; PleadinghereintheVertueandMeritsofthesameSacrifice,whichhedoth urge there for us.89 Here are statements of moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice. The Eucharist is a perpetual memorial, therefore continuing past the events of Calvary, whereby visible signs are used to commemorate the passion of Christ in the Eucharist. The Eucharist identifies with the perpetual offering of Christ in heaven, since it ‘imitates’ and is in ‘conjunction’ with the heavenly intercession of Christ. The two, the earthly and the heavenly, are not separated but linked in a realist way. On earth the offering of Christ is pleaded, in the merits and virtue of Christ’s sacrifice and in heaven the same offering is also pleaded by Christ. This suggests moderate realism, since the pleading is not a re-iteration of the sacrifice, but one in merit and virtue. The nature of Christ’s sacrifice and his pleading in heaven is present in the Eucharist, but in a moderate realist fashion. The events of the pleading, in heaven and on earth, are different in a localised sense, but it is the same offering that is pleaded in

88 Thomas Comber, A Companion to the Altar. Or, an Help to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s Supper, By Discourse and Meditations upon the whole Communion Office (London: John Martyn, ). 89 Ibid, pp. i–ii. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  both. This type of thinking is explained by the language of instantiation where the nature of Christ is instantiated in two particulars, being the same nature in each. When he speaks more specifically about the idea of sacrifice in the Prayer of Consecration, Comber says: “And where is it more proper to set forth that one all-sufficient Sacrifice in all its glories, than here [i.e. inthe Prayer of Consecration of the Eucharist]? Where we come peculiarly to celebrate it with our highest praises, and to make an everlasting memorial thereof: If we regard the persons for whom this was done, it is a Sacrifice, if we respect him that did offer, it is a free Oblation,ifweconsiderhimto whom it was offered, it is a Satisfaction,aperfect Oblation,andasufficient Sacrifice.” 90 Here Comber is speaking in very realist terms. In what sense then does he call the Eucharist a sacrifice, a free oblation, a satisfaction, a perfect oblation and a sufficient sacrifice? It seems that it is not inany immoderate sense, since he also says: Letnonethereforemistake,orimagineweareabouttoSacrificeChrist again (as the Roman Church falsly teacheth) for that is not only needless and impossible, but a plain contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that Jesus was to be offered but only once, Heb. .  Chap. .  & .andbythat one oblation he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified, ver. .so that there needs no more offering for sin, ver. . And besides, if we think that in this Sacrament Christ is daily offered up, it seems, we do not believe that which he did on the Cross to have been sufficient, and so we should exceedingly derogate from that most meritorious Sacrifice, to which we pretend to do honour by this Commemoration. . . . Wherefore we do deny this Communion to be any new sacrificing of Christ. . . . This is only a memorial which the Lord hath delivered to us instead of a Sacrifice. . . . The Sacrifice need not be reiterated, it is sufficient to remember itwith Eucharist and Thanksgiving. . . . Let no man deceive you, for Christ on the Cross assured you, that the work of expiation was then finished, there is nothing left for you now to do, but only to pray that these outward Elements may be blessed as to convey unto you the benefit thereof.91 Immoderate realism is here denied. Christ’s sacrifice is not re-iterated in the Eucharist according to Comber. The work of the cross was sufficient and there is no need for a new sacrifice. The sacrifice of the Eucharist can therefore only be a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, but this is no mere bringing to mind of a past event for Comber, rather it is an offering of

90 Ibid, p. . 91 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three

Eucharist and thanksgiving. Indeed the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an effective means of grace, since by it, the blessed elements ‘convey into you the benefits’ of Christ’ssacrifice. The memorial is “a perpetual memorial” whereby the Church moves “our Lord to sanctify these Elements, because we celebrate this mystery in obedience to his Command: Do this (saith he) in remembrance of me . . . and we are bid to show forth the Lord’s Death till he come”. Christ therefore “will make these Symbols to be his Body and Blood to us, because we are about to receive them purely by his Order, no doubt he will establish that which he hath wrought for us.”.92 The memorial and the presence of Christ is real as the symbols ‘behis Body and Blood’ and the grace of Christ by memorial and presence ‘will establish that which he hath wrought for us’. The signs and signified are closely associated, and the grace of Christ is effectively conveyed by the signs to those who receive them. Comber states that Christ: “hath appointed this Blessed Sacrament, on purpose to purify us and unite us to our Saviour.”93 The Eucharist therefore is an effective and Christ-given means of giving grace and bringing people into unity with Christ. This being so he then says: In vain therefore should we desire in the following Prayer of Consecration that these Elements should become the body and blood of Christ, if we did not first pray that we might worthily receive them. There must be a change in us, or else though Christ’s natural flesh and blood were here, and we should eat and drink thereof everyday, we could not partake of Christ. It is our eating with Faith and penitence, love and holy purposes, that makes it to be Christ’s body and blood to us; most wisely therefore hath the Church ordered, that before we pray for the Consecration of the Symbols we should desire to be Consecrated our Selves.94 The role of faith, penitence, love and holy purpose is significant for Comber, since it is by these, along with the change in the communicant, that the Elements become the body and blood of Christ. Even if the natural body and blood of Christ were present in the Eucharist and received each day, this would be in vain, without the change in the communicant by faith. In so arguing Comber is really denying that the natural presence of Christ’s body and blood is in the Eucharist and therefore denying immoderate realism. He must therefore be affirming moderate realism when he speaks of the consecration of the symbols such that they become the body and blood of Christ.

92 Ibid, p. . 93 Ibid, p. . 94 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

The communicant is told to respond to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist with reverence. Comber says: O let us then revere this Ordinance which hath so divine an Author, on which the Image of God is so plainly stamped; let us with a mighty affection embrace our dying Saviour’s love who was so much afraid we should forget him,andsodesiroustobeeverwithus:letuscheerfullygoonwithout doubts or fears, knowing that he who hath bid us Do this, is able to make it, whatsoever he will, or whatsoever we need; let us not startle at the difficulty of this Sacramental change, but rest satisfied in the power of the Author and Enjoyner: let us call on him earnestly, and then believe that he will so be present by his Spirit, and his Grace, as that we shall feel the virtue and efficacy thereof from time to time, from one Communion to another, even till we come to see him unveiled, and face to face at his coming again in glory.95 Comber here states that the very ‘Image of God’ is stamped on the Eucharist. The Eucharist is therefore worthy of reverence. The power of God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, is here affirmed, so that in ‘this Sacramental change’ God can make the Eucharist whatever he will. Comber is aware of how closely he steps here to implying that the sacramental change could be interpreted as a change in the substance of the bread and wine, and so he tells his readers not to ‘startle at the difficulty’ of any notion of change. Comber is careful to deny that there is any substantial change implied in what he is arguing, since he says: We behold the Creatures of Bread and Wine, and we know them to be as yet no more. But we desire they may be made the body and blood of Christ to us; that although they remain in substance what they were, yet to the worthy Receiver they may be something far more excellent, which nothing can effect, but that word which made all things out of nothing. . And in this manner he hath chosen to communicate himself, therefore we may cheerfully request, that by the receiving this Bread and Wine, which he hath chosen, we may become partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood, for St. Paul assures us, the Bread thus blessed is the Communion or Communication of Christ’s Body: There needs no real change in the substance of the Elements, for this participation is not by sense but by Faith. . . . By Faith we lay hold upon him, as the only satisfaction for our sins, and then the Power of God doth by these Symbols communicate our Lord unto us, and convey unto our Souls all the salutary benefits of that greatexpiation.Wehavealltherealeffects,thevirtueandthecomfortof receiving Jesus, though we do not tear his flesh with our teeth: And if it may

95 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

please God to make us partakers of the benefits of Christ’s Passion, we will not inquire into the manner, but we will believe, because we feel the effects, and rejoice in the graces that flow from him; nor shall we desire more.96 Faith is thekey for Comber. It is by faith that thecommunicants ‘lay hold upon him’ and receive the benefits of his expiation. Moderate realism is also affirmed here since the signs are the means by which the presence and the benefits of Christ’s passion are conveyed. It is important to note that Comber speaks of the elements becoming ‘something far more excellent’, that this is achieved through the power of ‘that word which made all things out of nothing’. It is the ‘word’ that brings about the sacramental change in the elements. Immoderate realism is denied since there is no substantial change in the elements and no re-iteration of the sacrifice of Christ. At the same time however, the elements are made something that they were not before the consecration. In discussing the Prayer of Consecration in the Prayer Book, Comber speaks of the Eucharist as an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ saying: “God hath provided his own dear Son, whose blood being already spilt, is so efficacious and all-sufficient that there is now no need of any other, but this unbloody sacrifice to be offered, and that in memorial of that great Sin-offering which taketh away the sins of the world, Pet. . .Andforthispur- pose Christ himself hath appointed these Creatures of Bread and Wine, ordaining that because they are designed to express so great a Mystery they shall have a peculiar Consecration.”97 The reference to an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ indicates that there isno immoderate or bloody sacrifice intended here and that moderate realism is intended, yet it is affirmed at the same time that the unbloody sacrifice is offered as a memorial of the historic sacrifice. The unbloody and the bloody sacrifices are linked as sign and signified. The bread and wine are described as being ‘designed to express’ the mystery of the Eucharist through their consecration. This consecration occurs through “the words of the Priest over this mysterious food of our Souls” in imitation of Christ, who “did not deliver this Bread and Wine until he had consecrated it by giving thanks”,yet “it is not the power of the Priest, but the efficacy of the Author, which makes the Elements to become sacramentally the body and blood of Christ.”98 The elements are here

96 Ibid, pp. –. 97 Ibid, pp. –. 98 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  described as ‘becoming’ the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, that is,inthemannerofmoderaterealism.Thereisnochangeinthesubstance of the bread and wine, but the bread and wine are no longer ordinary bread and wine, but sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. ‘Becoming’ therefore implies sacramental change and not change in substance. This sacramental change is brought about by beseeching God “to sanctify these Elements, that they may be his body and blood to us, because the divine appointment hath made them to be the means, whereby we may become partakers of the benefits of that Holy Passion.”99 Here Comber seems to echo the invocation in the Prayer of Consecration found in the  BCP, which invokes the power of the Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine ‘may be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ100 but Comber does so even more clearly, saying ‘may be his body and blood’ not somewhat conditionally ‘may be unto us his body and blood’. Considering the date of Comber’s work (i.e. ) some  years later, this is a remarkable affirmation of moderate realism in the form of an epiclesis, even more clearly expressed than in the form in the  BCP. Up until this time no official English Prayer Book after  (i.e. , ,  and ) included an invocation or epiclesis,withsucha phrase as ‘may be to us’ and therefore Comber is arguing for not only consecration by rehearsal of institution narrative and dominical words, but also by the sanctification of God, so that the bread and wine ‘may be to us’ the body and blood of Christ sacramentally. The use of this form of invocation is therefore associated with a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist. In another work of Comber’s, published in  and called The Church Catechism. With a Brief and Easie Explanation thereof,101 Comber speaks again of his theology of the Eucharist. He prints the Prayer Book Cat- echism on the left hand page and on the right hand page asks and answers questions which explain the meaning of the Catechism questions and answers. In speaking of the nature and parts of a sacrament, Comber affirms that the sacraments are “signs of inward and spiritual grace”, that they are the “means to convey grace to the Soul” and that

99 Ibid, p. . 100 See Joseph Ketley, The Two Liturgies, A.D. and A.D. (Cambridge: Parker Society, ), p. . 101 Thomas Comber, The Church Catechism with a Brief and Easie Explanation thereto, for the help of the meanest Capacities and weakest memories, In order to the establishing them in the Religion of the Church of England (London: Robert Clavell, ).  chapter three they are “Pledges to assure us, that the Graces signified shall be conveyed to Believers”. He also affirms that the eye sees the outward part of the sacrament but the inward part can only be discerned by faith.102 In speaking of the end and use of the Lord’s Supper, Comber states that Christ is not offered up as a sacrifice to his Father in the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist is “a lively representation of that Sacrifice of himself offered upon the Cross once for all” and that the Eucharist “was ordained to revive in us the memory of Christ’sdeath, and of the benefits purchased for us thereby”.103 The outward part of the Eucharist is stated to be bread and wine, but he denies that the substance of the bread and wine is changed by consecration into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.104 In discussing the inward part of the Lord’s Supper, Comber affirmsthat“thebreadbrokenintheLord’sSupper,signifytheBody of Christ broken upon the Cross for us” and that “the Wine poured out represent his Blood shed for us”. Further he states “believers feed on the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, as truly and really as they do on the Bread and Wine”. This however is not “done after a Corporal or Carnal manner” but “after a Spiritual manner, while by Faith they apply to themselves the benefits of Christ’s death”. These benefits are seen to be the nourishing and strengthening of souls and comforting and refreshing of them. Souls are “as truly and really hereby strengthened and refreshed, as our Bodies are by Bread and Wine”.105 The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is seen to be real, but its effectiveness is dependent on the faith of the person who receives communion. Comber therefore states that people who are “ignorant, unbelieving, or unthankful”106 do not partake of the comforts of the spiritual food of the Eucharist. Furthermore those who are “injurious, malicious, and uncharitable” do not receive “pardon or grace from God in this Sacrament”.107 Althoughthepresenceisrealitisdependenton being met by faith in the receiver for the full operation of its power. Comber’s theology of the Eucharist is that of moderate realism. He affirms that Christ’s is really present in the Eucharist and that the body and blood of Christ is received in and by the elements. The Eucharist is

102 Ibid,p.. 103 Ibid,p.. 104 Ibid,p.. 105 Ibid,p.. 106 Ibid,p.. 107 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  also seen as a sacrifice in that it is a perpetual memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, once offered for all on the cross, but now pleaded on earth in the Eucharist, as Christ also pleads it in heaven at the throne of God. Sign and signified are linked with one another in Comber’s theology, with the bread and wine conveying the sacramental body and blood of Christ and the memorial of the sacrifice conveying the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to the communicants. The linking of sign and signified with the signs conveying grace mark Comber’s theology of the Eucharist as that of moderate realism. Notions of immoderate realism are denied as being of no worth and notions of moderate realism are affirmed as being efficacious signs of God’s grace.  chapter three

Thomas Deacon

Thomas Deacon (–) was a member of the Nonjuror party, those members of the Church of England who refused to swear allegiance to William and Mary and maintained that the heirs of James II had the succession. He was consecrated a Nonjuror bishop in . Deacon’s beliefs on the Eucharist are found in his Shorter Catechism,whichwas part of a longer work, entitled A Full, True, and Comprehensive View of Christianity, published in .108 Deacon says of the Eucharist: The Eucharist is a sacrifice and a Sacrament. As a sacrifice, it is theoffering of the representative body and blood of Christ to God the Father; as a Sacrament, it is a feast upon that sacrifice. It was at the institution of the Eucharist that our Saviour began to offer Himself to His Father for the sins of all men. The sacrifice which He then offered was His natural body and blood, as separate from each other, because His body was considered as broken, and His blood as shed, for the sins of the world. But because it would have been unnatural for Him to have broken His own body and shed His own blood, and because He could not as a living High Priest offer Himself when He was dead, therefore, before He was so muchas apprehended by His enemies, He offered to the Father His natural body and blood voluntarily and really though mystically under the symbols of bread and wine mixed with water; for which reason He called the bread at the Eucharist His body, which was then broken, given, or offered for the sins of many, and the cup His blood, which was then shed or offered for the sins of many. All the sacrifices of the old law were figures of this great oneof Christ; and the Eucharist or sacrifice of thanksgiving, which we celebrate according to His institution, is a solemn commemorative oblation of it to God the Father, and procures us the virtue of it.109 Deacon here presents a view of the Eucharist based on moderate realism. He affirms that the Eucharist is a sacrifice offered representatively toGod. He also affirms that the Eucharist is a feast upon the sacrifice of Christ, that is, the offering of Christ at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as opposed to the sacrifice of the cross. In this sense then, the offering is that of moderate realism, since it is not directly connected to the fleshy sacrifice of the cross, but to the offering to God of Christ himself at

108 Both of these works are accessed in part in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ) and Henry Broxap, The Later Non-Jurors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). 109 Thomas Deacon, Shorter Catechism, Part II, Lesson xxvii, cited in Stone, AHistory of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  the institution of the Eucharist. For Deacon, the Eucharist is an effectual offering, since he states that it is the continuation of what Christ began to offer (at the institution) for the sins of people. Deacon also distinguishes between the historic sacrifice of the cross when Christ’snatural body was broken and blood shed, and the eucharistic sacrifice when the body and blood of Christ was offered mystically under the symbols of bread and wine. It is for this reason that in the Eucharist the bread and wine can be called the body and blood of Christ, not because of any natural presence of flesh and blood (immoderate realism) but because of the mystical presence of the body and blood (moderate realism). Deacon also affirms memorial remembrance in the Eucharist as a moderate realist notion, calling it a ‘solemn commemorative oblation’. Another passage similar to the above is more specific in some parts. Deacon says that the Eucharist is: “both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. Our Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist when he began to offer Himselfforthesinsofallmen,i.e. immediately after eating His Last Passover. He did not offer the Sacrifice upon the Cross; it was slain there but was offered at the Institution of the Eucharist.”110 The offering of the sacrifice of Christ is seen to be at the Last Supper and not on the cross of Calvary. Christ was slain there but the offering is separate from the slaying. This view strongly connects the Eucharist (instituted at the Last Supper in Deacon’s view) with the offering of the sacrifice, such that the symbols of bread and wine become the authoritative symbols of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no re-iteration of the slaying of Christ at Calvary, but in the Eucharist, the priest does as Christ did, offering Christ’s body and blood to God. Deacon expresses this is in a moderate realist sense. Deacon speaks of the consecration of the Eucharist, saying: The consecration of the Eucharist is thus performed. The priest, after hav- ingplacedthebreadandmixedcupuponthealtar,firstgivesGodthanks for all His benefits and mercies conferred upon mankind, especially those of creation and redemption: he then recites how Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament the night before His passion, and performs His command by doing what He did, he takes the bread into his hands and breaks it, which broken bread represents the dead body of Christ pierced upon the cross: he takes the cup into his hands, which cup, consisting of wine and water, represents the blood and water that flowed from the dead body of Christ

110 Thomas Deacon, A Full, True, and Comprehensive View of Christianity,citedin Broxap, The Later Non-Jurors, p. .  chapter three

upon the cross: he then repeats our Saviour’s powerful words over them, by which the bread and the cup are made authoritative representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified body and offered blood: and being thus ina capacity to be offered to God, he accordingly makes the oblation, which is the highest and most proper act of Christian worship. After God has accepted of this sacrifice, He is pleased to return it to us again to feast upon, that we may thereby partake of all the benefits of our Saviour’s death and passion; in order to which the priest prays to God the Father to send His Holy Spirit upon the bread and cup offered to Him, that He may enliven those representations of Christ’s dead body and effused blood, and make them His spiritual life-giving body and blood in virtue and power, that the receivers thereof may obtain all the blessings of the institution. After which he continues his prayer and oblation in behalf of the whole world, particularly of the Church, bishops, clergy, king, and in general of all the faithful, whether living or dead. Thus we see that by the consecration of theEucharistthebreadandmixedwinearenotdestroyed,butsanctified; they are changed not in their substance but in their qualities; they are made not the natural but sacramental body and blood of Christ; so that they are bothbreadandwineandthebodyandbloodofChristatthesametimebut not in the same manner. They are bread and wine by nature, the body and blood of Christ in mystery and signification; they are bread and wine to our senses, the body and blood of Christ in power and effect. So that whoever eats and drinks them as he ought to do, dwells in Christ and Christ in him, he is one with Christ and Christ with him.111 In this passage Deacon associates the bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ, stating that the bread and wine, brokenandpouredout,represents‘thedeadbodyofChristpiercedupon the cross’ and ‘the blood and water that flowed from the dead body of Christ upon the cross’. The sign and the signified are here linked ina moderate realist sense. He also associates the benefits of Christ’s death on the cross with the benefits given in the Eucharist. The benefits of the historic sacrifice are available in the eucharistic sacrifice. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the ‘representations’ (the bread and wine) ‘are enlivened’ and made the ‘spiritual life-giving body and blood’ of Christ. This is moderate realism, since fleshy notions are denied and the nature of the presence is said to be spiritual, yet real and ‘enlivened’. Deacon also affirms here that the bread and wine are not changed in substance, but in quality, meaning that they do not become the natural body and blood of Christ but the sacramental body and blood of Christ.

111 Thomas Deacon, Shorter Catechism, Part II, Lesson xxix, cited in Stone, AHistory of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

This means that the elements are both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ at the same time, but not in the same manner. The distinction then is between nature on the one hand and mystery and signification on the other, between senses in one way and understanding and faith in another. The body and blood of Christ are therefore present notbynature,butbypowerandeffect.Immoderaterealismisdeniedand moderate realism is affirmed. Deacon’s views regarding the Eucharist are based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.  chapter three

Robert Forbes

Robert Forbes (–) was Bishop of Ross and Caithness, and the practical expression of his eucharistic theology, together with Bishop Falconer, is found in the Scottish Communion Office of  of which they were the authors.112 Forbes’ eucharistic theology is also found in a work entitled A Catechism Dealing Chiefly with the Holy Eucharist,whichwas published in –. In this catechism the following questions and answers help to establish Forbes’ eucharistic doctrine: Q. What is the end and design of its institution? A. To keep up a constant and lively remembrance in our minds of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby, which can only be done by frequent communicating.

Q. What does the breaking of the bread represent? A. The breaking or the piercing of the body of Christ.

Q. What does the pouring out of the wine represent? A. The shedding of the most precious blood of Christ.

Q. Is this Sacrament only a bare remembrance or memorial of Christ’s death and sufferings? A. No, it is more than that; for by receiving it we solemnly renew our baptismal vow; and, if we partake worthily, we therein have the pardon of our former sins sealed unto us, and we receive new supplies of the grace of God to repair those breaches the enemies of our salvation have made, and to assist us to perform our duty for the time to come.

Q. Are not Christians to believe that the consecrated bread in the Holy Eucharist to be the body of Christ, and the consecrated wine to be the blood of Christ? A. Yes certainly they are; because our Saviour Himself in His institution of this most holy Sacrament has expressly declared the bread to be His body and the wine to be His blood.

Q. In what sense are we to believe this mysterious doctrine? A. Though we cannot believe that the bread and wine are the very natural and substantial body and blood of Christ that were upon the cross, yet we are to believe them to be so in a spiritual manner, that is to say, that the

112 See case study on the Scottish Communion Office of . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in power, virtue and effect.

Q.Bywhatpoweristhiswonderfulchangemadeupontheseweakele- ments of bread and wine? A. ‘Tis certain (as I have already said) from the words of institution that Christ did make the elements to be his body and blood; for He expressly tells us they are so; but no power inferior to His own could make them so. As therefore the Holy Ghost is His divine Substitute upon earth, by which He is present with His Church unto the end of the world, so whatever operations He now performs in His Church are wrought by that divine Spirit. Therefore, that the bread and wine may become His body and blood, though not in substance, yet in power, virtue and effect, it is necessary that this Holy Spirit should bless and sanctify them, and work in them and with them. . . . The bread and wine are the body and blood, not in themselves considered, nor merely by their resembling or representing the sacred body and blood of the adorable Jesus, but by the invisible power and operation of the Holy Ghost, by which the sacramental bread and wine, in the act of consecration, are made as powerful and as effectual for the ends of religion as the natural body and blood themselves could be, if they were present before our eyes. . . . Even so, in the Holy Eucharist the Consecrated Bread and Wine are called by Christians, and believed to be, the Body and Blood of Christ, according to his own positive declaration, because attended with the same power, virtue and effect for the ends of religion, that his natural Body and Blood could be were they existing with us.113 Forbes’ work shows that he was presenting a moderate realist doctrine in relation to eucharistic sacrifice and presence. His answers show that he believed the Eucharist to present a ‘constant’ and ‘lively’ remembrance. Such a notion is more dynamic than mere remembrance, and in fact one of Forbes’ answers specifically denies that the Eucharist is a mere remembrance. The Eucharist is the source of the benefits of Christ’sdeath, the pardon of sins and the supply of grace. He sees the Eucharist as an efficacious means of making available the benefits of Christ’s death in the present. The effects of Christ’s sacrifice are therefore available inthe present in the Eucharist as memorial remembrance or anamnesis. This is moderate realism. In discussing the eucharistic presence Forbes denies any immoderate realism, stating that the natural and substantial body and blood of Christ are not present in the Eucharist, and that instead the body and blood of

113 Robert Forbes, A Catechism Dealing Chiefly with the Holy Eucharist, pp. –, cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ) II, pp. –.  chapter three

Christ are present in power, virtue and effect. It is the Holy Spirit that brings about this presence and indeed Forbes refers to the Holy Spirit as Christ’s divine substitute upon earth. This implies that the nature of the presence of Christ on earth in the Eucharist is a spiritual presence and that the power, virtue and effect of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is achieved through the power of the Holy Spirit. The presence of Christ is real in the Eucharist as a spiritual presence. This does not mean that the bread and wine are just a resemblance or representation of Christ’s body and blood, but that in the power of the Holy Spirit (that is spiritually) they are the body and blood of Christ. Forbes theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realism. He denies any sense of an immoderate presence and sacrifice in the Eucha- rist, but at the same time affirms a realist link between the sign and the signified. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Benjamin Hoadly

Benjamin Hoadly (–) was Bishop of Winchester and published a work anonymously in  entitled A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.114 Hoadly’s work was a response to what was seen as the exaggerated stress of many of the high church devotional manuals of the period, on the need for preparation and devotion before communion.115 Hoadly distanced himself in his work from any notion of realism, arguing that an act done in remembrance of Christ required that Christ be bodily absent and that a memorial could not be a sacrifice. He stated this as follows: The very Essence of this Institution being Remembrance of a past Transac- tion, and this Remembrance necessarily excluding the Corporal presence of what is remember’d, it follows that, as the only Sacrifice and the only Sacrificer in the Christian Dispensation are remember’d, and therefore not present in the Lord’s Supper, so the only Christian Altar (the Cross upon which Christ suffer’d) being also by consequence to be remember’d, it cannot be present in this Rite, because that presence would destroy the very Notion of Remembrance.116 Hoadly is here separating sign and signified and thereby affirming a nominalist conception of the Eucharist. Hoadly’s emphasis on a ‘past transaction’ separates the action of the Eucharist from the historic presence and sacrifice of Christ. Christ can only be remembered as a past transaction and therefore not be present in the Eucharist in any realist way, since ‘presence’ for Hoadly has nothing to do with ‘remembrance’. For Hoadly the Eucharist was a “meeting together for religious worship and eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ’s body and blood”.117 The status of the bread and wine therefore is that they are not

114 Benjamin Hoadly, A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in which all texts in the New Testament, relating to it, are produced and explained: and the Whole Doctrine about it, drawn from Them alone. To which are added, Forms of Prayer (Third Edition) (London: James, John and Paul Knapton, ). 115 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. . Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p.  cites these manuals as including Anthony Horneck’s, The Crucified Jesus, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice and The Old Week’s Preparation. See case studies of these works in this book. 116 Hoadly, A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, pp. –. 117 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. .  chapter three tobetaken“asThingsinthemselves,inRemembranceofwhichThey were ordained to be received”118 but “considered and taken as Memorials of the Body and Blood of Christ our Master” such that they “lead Us, by their peculiar Tendency, to all such Thoughts and Practices, as are indeed the Improvement and Health of our Souls”.119 The Eucharist was therefore able, through its celebration, to lead the people in the growth of faith, but it was no more than this, since “The whole Tenor and Form of this Institution, is in the Figurative way of speaking”.120 The presence of Christ with people therefore was not intrinsic to the Eucharist, but rather to the activity of assembling in his name as his followers and disciples. Hoadly explains this by saying: Christians, meeting together for religious worship, and eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ’s body and blood, and in honour of Him, do hereby publicly acknowledge Him to be their Master, and themselves to be His disciples; and by doing this in an assembly own themselves, with all other Christians, to be one body or society under Him the Head; and consequently profess themselves to be under His government and influence, to have communion or fellowship with Him as Head, and with all their brethren as fellow-members of that same body of which He is the Head.121 In a fuller passage Hoadly discusses what happens in the Eucharist. He says: As bread and wine, taken at an ordinary meal, are the food of our bodies, so bread and wine, taken in a serious and religious remembrance of Christ as our Master, may (in a figurative, spiritual, or religious sense) be styled the food of our souls, or the nourishment of us considered as Christians; as the receiving them duly implies in it our believing and receiving the whole doctrine of Christ, which is the food of the Christian life; and leads our thoughts to all such obligations and engagements on our part, and all such promises on God’s part, as are most useful and sufficient for improvement in all that is worthy of a Christian. And Almighty God on His part requiring and accepting our due performance of this part of our duty, does by this assure us who come to profess ourselves the disciples of Christ that we are in His favour. Or, in other words, the Lord’s Supper, being instituted as the memorial of His goodness towards us in Christ Jesus, may justly be looked upon as a token and pledge to assure us of what it calls to

118 Hoadly, A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, p. . 119 Ibid, p. . 120 Ibid,p.. 121 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

our remembrance, namely, that God is ready to pardon and bless us upon the terms proposed by His Son; and consequently that we are received by Him as the disciples of Christ, members of His body the Church, and heirs of happiness promised to Christians, if we be not wanting to ourselves in other parts of our duty.122 Stone argues that Hoadly’s theology of the Eucharist was Zwinglian, in that he saw Christ’s words at the institution as purely figurative, so that Christ was bodily absent and that the memorial was not a sacrifice.123 By this analysis Hoadly’s theology of the Eucharist is nominalist, with a separation of sign and signified. The Eucharist for Hoadly is a meeting only, which like other religious meetings, puts people in mind of the sacrifice of Christ, which is a past and completed event, in no way present in any realist sense in the Eucharist. The words ‘figurative’ and ‘spiritual’ as Hoadly applies them to the Eucharist have no realist connotations, andsuggestonlyabringingtomindofthepastandcompletedeventof the cross, whereby those who receive become more fully aware of what Christ’s death on the cross means for them. It is concluded therefore that Hoadly presents a nominalist conception of the Eucharist, with sign and signified self-enclosed and separated entities.

122 Ibid, pp. –. 123 Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, p. .  chapter three

John Johnson

John Johnson (–) was not himself a Nonjuror but expressed similar views to many of the Nonjurors. Johnson’s substantial work on the Eucharist was entitled The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unvailed and Supported, in which the Nature of the Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the Christian Church in the first four centuries, Proving that the Eucharist is a proper material Sacrifice, that it is to be offered by proper officers, that the Oblation is to be made on a proper Altar, that itis properly consumed by manducation: To which is added, A Proof, that that our Saviour speaks concerning eating His Flesh, and drinking His Blood, in the vith Chapter of St. John’s Gospel, is primarily meant of the Eucharist. This work was published in parts, with the first part published in  and the second in . A complete second edition containing both parts was published in  and again in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology as The Theological Works of the Rev John Johnson, M.A.124 Johnson’s argument in The Unbloody Sacrifice is that the early Church Fathers often called the Eucharist a sacrifice in the sense that it was an unbloody, rational and spiritual sacrifice, and by this they did not mean “a mere mental figurative sacrifice”125 but a true material sacrifice,126 although this did not mean a fleshy or immoderate re-iteration of the sacrifice of Calvary. This was so he argued since it was wrong to think that nothing without life and blood could be called a sacrifice127 and therefore anything offered at an altar, whether alive or not, is truly a sacrifice.128 Johnson picks up these ideas in his full definition of sacrifice which is as follows: “Sacrifice is, . some material thing, either animate or inanimate, offered to God, . for the acknowledging the dominion and other attributes of God, or for procuring divine blessings, especially remission of sin, . upon a proper altar (which yet is rather necessary for the external decorum than for the internal perfection of the sacrifice), . by a proper officer, and with agreeable rites, . and consumed or otherwise disposed of in such a manner as the Author of the sacrifice has appointed.”129

124 John Johnson, The Theological Works of the Rev. John Johnson, M.A.(Volumes) (Oxford: Parker, ). 125 Ibid,I,p.. 126 Ibid,I,p.. 127 Ibid, II, p. . 128 Ibid, II, p. . 129 Ibid,I,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

These five points Johnson specifies are necessary for a sacrifice. He also states that the Eucharist possesses all five and is therefore a ‘proper sacrifice’. He explains these five points more fully saying: “That material bread and wine, as the sacramental body and blood of Christ, were by solemn act of oblation in the Eucharist offered to Almighty God in the primitive Church, and that they were so offered by Christ Himself in the institution.”130 He also says: “That the Eucharistical bread and wine, or body and blood, are to be offered for the acknowledgment of God’s dominion and other attributes, and for procuring divine blessing, especially remission of sins”131 and, “That the Communion Table is a proper altar.”132 He carries this theme forward speaking of the role of the ordained, saying, “That bishops and priests are the only proper officers for the solemn offering and consecrating of the Christian Eucharist.”133 Within the ecclesial context he says, “That the sacrifice of the Eucharist is rightly consumed by being solemnly eaten and drunk by the priest, clergy, and people.”134 Johnson, along with the Nonjurors concluded that Christ, “did, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, under the pledges of Bread and Wine” and “that He was afterwards slain as a Sacrifice on the Cross.”135 Johnson supports this conclusion by saying: “we have the express words of Christ Jesus Himself . . . that He did, in the institution of this Sacrament, actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood; and that He commanded His Apostles to do the same.”136 In what sense did Johnson intend that Christ did ‘actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood’ and in what sensedoeshemeanthathisApostlesshoulddothesame?Johnsonsays: “We are so far from believing, that Christ literally offers Himself in the Eucharist, that we do not believe Him to be personally there present in His human nature.”137

130 Ibid,I,p.. 131 Ibid, I, p. . 132 Ibid, I, p. . 133 Ibid, I, p. . 134 Ibid, I, p. . 135 Ibid, II, p. . 136 Ibid, I, p. . 137 Ibid, I, p. .  chapter three

Cyril Dugmore138 in his analysis of Johnson’s views on sacrifice argues that Johnson saw Jewish meal-offerings as a type of the Eucharist139 and that the Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice,140 but not in the way that others, such as Cudworth and Patrick used this expression. Cudworth and Patrick argues Dugmore: Maintained that the Eucharist is a feast upon the sacrifice offered once only on the Cross, and denied that the sacrifice is offered in the Eucharist. Upon this supposition [i.e. Johnson’s], Christ made a feast upon the sacrifice before the sacrifice had been offered. Moreover, if the consecrated bread and wine were not offered by Christ as the representatives of his body and blood, and are not now so offered by the Church, then it cannot be said that the Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice without maintaining the conversion of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, i.e. Transubstantiation.141 This means that Johnson, along with the Nonjurors concluded that Christ at the institution, “did, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, under the pledges of Bread and Wine” and “that He was afterwards slain as a Sacrifice on the Cross.”142 Johnson supports this by saying: “. . . we have the express words of Christ Jesus Himself . . . that He did, in the institution of this Sacrament, actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood; and that He commanded His Apostles to do the same.”143 The question must be asked: In what sense did Johnson intend that Christ did ‘actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood’ and in what sense does he mean that his Apostles should do the same? Does Johnson imply an immoderate realism here? The answer must be sought in another passage from Johnson’swriting where he says: “We are so far from believing, that Christ literally offers Himself in the Eucharist, that we do not believe Him to be personally there present in His human nature.”144 Johnson is denying any form of immoderate

138 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. . 139 Johnson, The Theological Works, II, p. . 140 Ibid, I, pp. –. 141 Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland, p. . Note that Dugmore draws attention to Johnson’s own words on this matter in The Theological Works, II, p. . 142 Johnson, The Theological Works, II, p. . 143 Ibid, I, p. . 144 Ibid, I, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  realism. Christ does not literally offer himself in the Eucharist, in the sense that there is a re-iteration of his death, where he is once again slainonthealtar.Johnsonisaffirmingamoderaterealism.Johnson’s view is that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is real, but it is not a bloody sacrifice, such as that which occurred on the cross. The proof of this, for Johnson, lies in the assertion that Christ offered his own body and blood at the Last Supper, as a feast upon the sacrifice to come. It is this feast upon a sacrifice that Christians continue in the Eucharist. The sacrifice for Johnson is clearly more than a mental reminder of a past and completed event. The eucharistic sacrifice for Johnson is true and real, as well as expiatory and propitiatory and for the remission of sins, but not in any fleshy or immoderate sense. By the eucharistic sacrifice the faithful receive the benefits of Christ. The eucharistic sacrifice is therefore linked to the historic sacrifice but it is not the same thing. The sign of the sacrifice is linked to the signified for Johnson in a moderate realist sense. Johnson also addresses in the question of the eucharistic presence of Christ in his discussion of the unbloody sacrifice. He says that: “The Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood, in themselves considered [i.e. actually], nor merely by their resembling or representing the Body and Blood, but by the inward invisible power of the Spirit; by which the Sacramental Body and Blood are made as powerful and effectual for the ends of religion, as the natural body Itself could be if It was present.”145 Johnson is here expressing a moderate realist position in relation to eucharistic presence. Christ is present, not in a fleshy or immoderate fashion, but by the inward and invisible power of the Spirit, and this meansofpresenceisaspowerfulandeffectualasthenaturalbody.The Spirit makes the bread and wine as powerful as the natural body and blood of Christ, through the Spirit’s power. Sign and signified are linked. This is moderate realism. Johnson speaks not of the ‘sacramental bread and wine’ but in a realist manner, of the ‘sacramental body and blood’.In qualifying this however, he says: Though the Eucharistical elements are not the substantial Body and Blood; nay, they are the figurative and representative symbols of them; yet they are somewhat more too; they are the mysterious Body and Blood of our ever-blessed Redeemer. By the mysterious Body and Blood . . . I mean neither substantial nor yet merely figurative, but the middle between these

145 Ibid, I, p. .  chapter three

extreme, viz. the Bread and Wine made the Body and Blood of Christ by the secret power of the Spirit; and apprehended to be so, not by our senses, but by our faith, directed and influenced by the same Holy Spirit; and made the Body and Blood in such a manner as human reason cannot perfectly comprehend.146 Here it seems Johnson is keen to distance himself from an accusation of a fleshy or immoderate presence of Christ in the elements or in the Eucharist, but at the same time to affirm the reality of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements and the Eucharist. One of the important matters to consider here is that, for Johnson, the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ through the faith of the receiver or through the use and ministration of the sacrament, but through the power of the Holy Spirit working on them. The presence of Christ in the bread and wine is therefore an objective and given presence, not dependent on the subjective state of faith in the recipient. Receptionism is no part of Johnson’s scheme. The real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements of bread and wine is the basis of his eucharistic theology. It was for this reason that he approved of reservation of the sacrament. The effect of the consecration was permanent and in no way restricted by the faith of the communicant. The bread and wine remained the body and blood of Christ and therefore holy, outside the Eucharist as well as in it.147 Adoration of the presence of Christ in the sacrament was also acceptable to Johnson, since he says that people are “not worshipping what is seen and passes away, but what is believed and understood”.148 Johnson’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realism, both in relation to the eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice. The sign and the signified are linked in his thinking, with both the presence and the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist being seen as true and real. The scheme that Johnson puts forward has much in common with the notion of instantiation which functions as part of a moderate realist analysis. Johnson’s notion however emphasises the power of the Holy Spirit in transforming the bread and wine by invisible power and grace. For Johnson the bread and wine are seen to remain in their natural substances and the sacrifice in the Eucharist is not a fleshy re-iteration,

146 Ibid, I, p. . 147 Ibid, I, . 148 Ibid, II, . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  but a feast upon the sacrifice in the way Christ offered it at the Last Supper. Moderate realist philosophical assumptions underlie Johnson’s eucharistic theology.  chapter three

Thomas Ken

Thomas Ken (–) was the Bishop of Bath and Wells. In a devotional work first published in  and entitled Manual of Prayers for the Use of Winchester Scholars,149 he speaks of a ‘mysterious presence’ of Christ’sbody and blood in the Eucharist and of this body and blood being received by those who communicate. He says: On the Inward Part, or Thing signified I know, O my God, that I must look through the outward elements, and fix my faith on that which they signify, and which is the inward and invisible grace, even Thy own blessed body and blood, which is verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord’s Supper. But tell me, O Thou whom my soul loveth, how canst Thou give us Thy flesh to eat? Lord, Thy hast told me that Thy words, they are spirit and they are life, and are therefore not carnally to be understood; Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief. John vi. I believe Thy body and blood to be as really present in the Holy Sacrament, as Thy divine power can make it, through the manner of Thy mysterious presence I cannot comprehend. Lord, I believe that the bread that we break, and the cup that we drink, are not bare signs only, but the real communication of Thy body and blood, and pledges to assure me of it; and I verily believe that, if with due preparation I come to Thy altar, as certainly as I receive the outward signs, so certainly shall I receive the thing signified, even Thy most blessed body and blood, to receive which inestimable blessing, O merciful Lord, do Thou fit and prepare me. I adore Thee, O blessed Jesu, my Lord and my God, when I consider that this holy Sacrament was thy own Institution; . . . O blessed Saviour, let thy Divinity thus stamped on it, strike into my Soul and holy Awe and Reverence in approaching it.150

What Benefit we receive by it. I adore thee, O Blessed Jesu, my Lord, and my God, when I consider the BenefitswhichthroughThymercywereceivebyThyHolySacrament.

149 Thomas Ken, A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Scholars of Winchester College and other devout Christians, to which are added, three hymns for Morning, Evening and Midnight (nd Edition) (London: Aris, ). 150 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Glory be to Thee, O Lord, who there makest Thy own body and blood to become our spiritual food to strengthen and refresh our souls. Glory be to Thee, O Lord, who by this heavenly food dost mystically unite us to Thyself; for nothing becomes one with our bodies more than the bodily food we eat, which turns into our very substance; and nothing makesusbecomeonewithTheemorethanwhenThouvouchsafestto become the very food of our souls. Glory be to Thee, O Lord, who by this immortal food dost nourish our souls to live the life of grace here, and dost raise is up to life everlasting hereafter. Lord, do Thou evermore give me this bread.151 Ken in this passage distinguishes between outward elements and inward graces. The outward are seen but the inward are not, although the outward (bread and wine) ‘signify’ the inward, which is the body and blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ, in words echoing the prayer book catechism, are said to be ‘verily and indeed taken and received’ by those who communicate. The question which follows asks in what seems to be very immoderate words, how Christ can give his ‘flesh’ to those who communicate. The answer to this question however, suggests that no such immoderate notion is implied since the ‘flesh’ is described as ‘spirit and life’ and ‘not carnally to be understood’.This is also clarified in a statement of moderate realism, where the body and blood of Christ is said to be ‘really present in the Holy Sacrament’ as a mysterious presence beyond understanding. Ken states that God, by divine power ‘can make it’ Christ’s body and blood. This idea of ‘making’ implies some sort of change in the bread and wine, although this is not a change of substance, since elsewhere he denies that any such change occurs in the Eucharist. Any change must be one of mystery and spirit. For Ken this mysterious presence is more than mere remembrance since he describes the bread and wine as more than ‘bare signs’. They are a ‘real communication’ of Christ’s body and blood, whereby through the outward signs the signified is received and adored. In the Eucharist the benefits of Christ are received. Moderate realism is affirmed by Ken in this passage, as a real, yet spiritual and mystical presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. In another work, originally published in , entitled The Practice of Divine Love: Being An Exposition on the Church Catechism,152 Ken speaks

151 Ibid, pp. –. 152 Thomas Ken, ‘The Practice of Divine Love: Being An Exposition of the Church Catechism’,in W.Benham (ed), The Prose Works of the Right Reverend Thomas Ken, D.D.,  chapter three of the Eucharist and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a realist way. In the second paragraph this is particularly so, and this language was modified in subsequent editions. The second paragraph of the edition of  is produced in italics for purposes of comparison and shows the changesmadefromthefirsttothesecondedition.Kensays: Parts Outward Glory be to Thee, O adorable Jesus, Who under the outward and visible part, the Bread and Wine, things obvious and easily prepared, both which Thou hast commanded to be received, dost communicate to our souls the mystery of Divine Love, the inward and invisible grace, Thy Own most blessed Body and Blood, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in Thy supper, for which all Love, all Glory, be to Thee.

Invisible O God Incarnate, how Thou canst give us Thy flesh to eat and Thy Blood to drink, how Thy flesh is meat indeed and Thy Blood is drink indeed, howhe that eateth Thy flesh and drinketh Thy Blood dwelleth in Thee, andThou in him, how he shall live by Thee and shall be raised up by Thee to life eternal, how Thou Who art in heaven art present on the altar, I can byno means explain; but I firmly believe it all, because Thou hast said it, and I firmly rely on Thy Love and on Thy Omnipotence to make good Thy Word, though the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend. [O God incarnate, how the bread and wine, unchanged in their substance, become Thy body and Thy blood, after what extraordinary manner Thou, who art in heaven, art present throughout the whole sacramental action to every devout receiver, how Thou canst give us Thy flesh to eat and Thy blood to drink, how Thy flesh is meat indeed and Thy blood is drink indeed, how he that eateth Thy flesh and drinketh Thy blood dwelleth in Thee and Thou in him, how he shall live by Thee and be raised up by Thee to life eternal, I can by no means comprehend, but I firmly believe all Thou hast said, andI firmlyrelyinThyomnipotentlovetomakegoodThyword,forwhichalllove, all glory, be to Thee.]

Real Presence I believe, O Crucified Lord, that the Bread which we break in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries is the Communication of Thy Body, and the cup of Blessing which we bless, is the Communication of Thy Blood, and that Thou dost as effectually and really convey Thy Body and Blood to our souls by the bread and wine, as Thou didst Thy Holy Spirit by Thy Breath toThy disciples; for which all Love, all Glory be to Thee.

Sometime Bishop of Bath and Wells. Now collected and edited with a biographical sketch (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden and Welsh, ), pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Lord, what need I labour in vain to search out the manner of Thy mysterious presence in the Sacrament, when my Love assures me Thou art there? All the faithful who approach Thee with prepared hearts, they well know Thou art there; they feel the virtue of Divine Love going out of Thee,to heal their infirmities and to enflame their affections, for which all Love,all Glory be to Thee. O Holy Jesus, when at Thy Altar I see the Bread broken and the Wine poured out, O teach me to discern Thy Body there. O let those sacred and significant actions create in me a most lively remembrance ofThy sufferings, how Thy most blessed Body was scourged and wounded and bruised and tormented, how Thy precious Blood was shed for my sins; and set all my powers on work to love Thee and to celebrate Thy love in this dying for me.

Both Kinds Glory be to Thee, O Jesus, Who didst institute the Holy Eucharist in both kinds and hast commanded both to be received, both the Bread and the Wine,bothThyBodybrokenandThyBloodshed.Thylove,OLord,has given me both, and both are equally significative and productive of Thy Love. I do as much thirst after the one as I hunger after the other; Iequally want both, and it would be grievous to my love to be deprived of either. Ah Lord, who is there that truly loves Thee, when Thou givest him two distinct pledges of Thy Love, can be content with one only? What lover can endure to have one half of Thy Love withheld from him? And therefore all Love, all Glory be to Thee for giving both.153 In paragraph one Ken distinguishes between the outward and inward parts of the Eucharist. It is important to note that he states that Jesus is ‘under the outward and visible part, the Bread and Wine’ and that it is by this means that the inward part, the body and blood of Christ is communicated. There is a clear linking between the sign and the signified in a realist manner. The second paragraph is produced in two forms above—the version of the first edition of  (plain type) and that of the second edition of  (italic type). There are important differences between the two. In the  edition Ken speaks of Christ giving his flesh to eat and his blood to drink in the Eucharist. This very realist language is modified in the  edition, emphasizing that the bread and wine remain in their substances, but that they become Christ’s body and blood. The presence of Christ in heaven is found in both versions but in the  edition Ken asks how despite the heavenly presence Christ is still present on

153 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three the altar in a mysterious manner. By  reference to any presence on the altar had been removed, and reference was made simply to the fact that Christ was present. There is some distancing in the second edition from any presence in the elements on the altar and more emphasis on a sacramental presence in the action of the Eucharist and in the receiver. There seems to be some form of receptionism introduced into the second edition of , although there is still a realist sense of Christ’s presence in the eucharistic action as well as the receiver. The reason for the change in wording from the first edition of  to the second of  is stated by Ken as being “to prevent all misunderstandings for the future”.154 It seems that the first edition wording was too realist and gave rise toan immoderate or fleshy interpretation regarding Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, although Ken himself states that he “made some few little alterations, not at all varying his meaning”.155 The third paragraph makes it clear that the bread which is broken and wine that is blessed ‘effectually and really’ convey the body and blood of Christ to the souls of those who receive. Once again there is linking betweensignandsignifiedintheformofmoderaterealism. The manner of the presence is addressed in paragraph four, with Ken stating that this is mysterious. Even so Ken assures the reader that ‘Thou are there’, that the ‘virtue of Divine Love’ is felt and the healing and enflaming benefits of Christ are present. Paragraph five confirms that for Ken the sign and signified are linked, since he advises that the communicant should look at the broken bread and poured out wine and discern Christ body and blood there. Any remembrance of Christ’s passion is described as a ‘lively remembrance’ in the Eucharist in which Christ’s love is celebrated. The final two paragraphs speak of the equality of both elements in the Eucharist. ThissignificantpassageofKen’swritingsuppliesevidencetoshow that he links sign and signified together strongly using moderate realist language and philosophical assumptions. In the first edition this realist linking is focused on the elements and on the presence of Christ’s body and blood in them on the altar. In the second edition of this work, the realist language continues, although the linking between sign and signified is now less focused on the bread and wine alone, even though

154 Thomas Ken, The Prose Works of the Right Reverend Thomas Ken (ed. W. Benham) (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden and Welsh, ). p. . 155 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  he does introduce the notion in the second edition that as the bread and wine remain in their substances they ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is now also referred to in the action of the Eucharist and in the reception of communion. Taken as whole Ken’s words in both editions of this work present strong evidence for moderate realist philosophical assumptions underlying his theology of the Eucharist.  chapter three

William Law

William Law (–) belonged to the second generation of Non- jurors156 with his eucharistic doctrine being very much opposed to that of Benjamin Hoadly’s Plain Account of .157 Law158 rejected the view that the Eucharist was a mere or bare memory of Christ’s sacrifice and that there was no presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In a work published in  entitled A Demonstration of the Gross and Fundamental Errors of a Late Book Called a Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacra- ment of the Lord’s Supper, Law made an answer to the claims of Benjamin Hoadly’s Plain Account, also published in . Here Law said: When our Saviour says, ‘Do this’, it is the same thing as if He had said, Do these two things appointed in the Sacrament as your act of faith that I am both the atonement for your sins and principle of life to you. Don’t say bare and outward words when you say, ‘This is My body which is given for you’, and ‘This is My blood which is shed for the remission of sins’; but let faith say them and acknowledge the truth of them. When you eat My body and drink My blood, don’t let your mouth only eat or perform the outward action, but let faith, which is the true mouth of the inward man, believe that it really partakes of Me, and that I enter in by faith. And, when you thus by faith perform these two essential parts of the Sacrament, then, and then only, may what you do be said to be done in remembrance of Me, and of what I am to you. . . . Since our Saviour says, ‘This is My body which is given for you’, ‘This is My blood which is shed for the remission sins’, what He says, that we are to say, and what we say, that we are to believe, and therefore what we are to do is an act or exercise of faith. And, since in these words He says two things, the one, that He is the atonement of our sins; the other, that this bread and wine are the signification or application of that atonement, or that which we are to take for it; therefore we in doing this are by faith to say and believe these two things; and therefore all that we here do is faith, and faith manifested is this twofold manner. Again, seeing ourSaviourcommandsustoeatHisbodyanddrinkHisblood,weareto say and believe that His body and blood are there signified and exhibited to us; and that His body and blood may be eaten and drunk as a principle of life to us; and therefore faith is all, or all is faith, in this other essential part of the Sacrament; and we cannot possibly do that which are Saviour commandsustodounlessitbedonebyfaith.159

156 See Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), p. . 157 See Hoadly case study. 158 William Law, The Works of the Reverend William Law, M.A., sometime Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (Nine Volumes) (London: Richardson, , Reprinted by Moreton, –). 159 Ibid,V,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Law’s words here show that he is linking the signs of the sacrament with the signified body and blood of Christ. When people act in the Eucharist according to Christ’s command then ‘His body and blood are there signified and exhibited’ and ‘His body and blood may be eaten and drunk’. Faith is the means for this occurring, and therefore immoderate notions of realism are denied. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real and the communicant ‘really partakes’, since he argues against ‘bare and outward words’, and the bread and wine are linked with the body and blood of Christ. Moderate realism seems to be affirmed therefore, in Law’s argument. In regard to eucharistic sacrifice, Law expresses this by saying that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are a signification or application of the atonement of Christ. The benefits of the atonement are received in the Eucharist as ‘a principle of life’. This again is moderate realism, since the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are seen to be available in the present in the Eucharist. Law argues more specifically concerning the Eucharist, saying: “The institution consists of those two essential parts just mentioned; that is, in offering, presenting, and pleading before God by faith the atonement of Christ’sbody and blood, and owning Him to be a principle of life to us by our eating His body and blood: that is, the entire, whole institution.”160 Law is saying, using concepts of moderate realism, that in the Eucharist there is an offering, a presentation and a pleading before God. The bread and wine and the Eucharist itself are linked with the offering, presenting and pleading. Law distances himself from the views of Hoadly and those who argue that the Eucharist is a mere bringing to mind of a past event. He says of Hoadly: This poor man (for so I must call one so miserably insensible of the greatness of the subject he is upon) can find nothing in the institution, but, first, bread and wine, not placed and offered before God as first signifying and pleading the atonement of His Son’s body and blood, and then eaten and drunk in signification of having our life from Him, but bread and wine set upon a Table to put the people that see it in mind that by and bye they are to exercise an act of memory. And then, secondly, this same and bread and wine afterwards brought to every one in particular, not for them to know or believe that they are receiving anything of Christ or partaking of anything from Him, but only to let them know that the very instant they take the bread and wine into their mouth is the very time for them actually to excite that act of memory for the exciting of which bread and wine had been before set upon a Table.161

160 Ibid,V,p.. 161 Ibid, V, pp. –.  chapter three

Law argues that Hoadly’sview of the Eucharist lacks any depth and that the only purpose the Eucharist serves in Hoadly’s view is the exciting of communicants to an act of memory. The realism of placing bread and wine on the Table for the signifying and offering of a eucharistic sacrifice is not present in Hoadly’s view, but suggested in that of Law. For Law the Scriptures provide sufficient evidence to justify the view he takes in regard to the Eucharist. He says: Do not the Scriptures plainly and frequently enough tell us of the benefit of the new birth in Christ, of the putting on Christ, of having Christ formed in us, of Christ being our life, of our having life in Him, of His being the bread from heaven, that bread of life, of which the manna was only a type, of His flesh being meat indeed and His blood drink indeed, of our eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and that without it we have no life inus; and are not all these things so many plain and open declarations of that which we seek to obtain by eating the body and blood of Christ? For we eat the sacramental body and blood of Christ to show that we want and desire and by faith lay hold of the real spiritual nature and being of Christ; to show that we want and desire the progress of the new birth in Christ; to put on Christ, to have Christ formed and revealed in us, to have Him our life, to partake of Him, our second Adam, in the same fullness and reality as we partake of the nature of the first Adam. And therefore all that the Scripture says of the benefits and blessings of these things, so much it says of the benefits and blessings that are sought and obtained by the eating the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. For to eat the body and blood of Christ is neither more nor less than to put on Christ, to receive birth and life and nourishment and growth from Him, as the branch receives its being and life and nourishment and growth from the vine.162 Law uses language here again which shows that his theology of the Eucharist is realist to a moderate degree. He speaks of eating the sacramental body and drinking the sacramental blood by faith so that the communicant receives the ‘real spiritual nature and being of Christ’.What is received is real, but it is also spiritual and it is the ‘nature’ and ‘being’ of Christ (whatever Christ is) that is received in the Eucharist. It is this ‘nature’ and ‘being’ of Christ that brings all the benefits and blessings of Christ to the person who receives him in the Eucharist. The actual physical flesh and blood of Christ is not present in the Eucharist, but the nature and being of Christ is, in a real and yet spiritual moderate realist manner.

162 Ibid, V, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

In discussing the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, Law says that: “The reason why this Sacrament is said in one respect to be a propitiatory or commemorative sacrifice is only this, because you there offer, present, and plead before God such things as are by Christ Himself said to be His body and blood given for you. But, if that which is thus offered, presented, and pleaded before Him only for this reason, because it signifies and represents both to God and angels and men the great sacrifice for all theworld,istherenotsufficientreasontoconsiderthisservicetrulya sacrifice?”163 Law here again speaks of the Eucharist as an offering, a presenting and a pleading. It is for this reason that the Eucharist can therefore be called a propitiatory or commemorative sacrifice since it signifies and represents to God what Christ offered in his sacrifice on the cross. The sacrifice in the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice as on the cross, however it offers, presents and pleads that sacrifice before God, and can therefore be called asacrificeaswell.Thisismoderaterealism,wherethesign(theoffering, presenting and pleading in the Eucharist) is linked with the signified (the offering, presenting and pleading of Christ at Calvary) such that there is an identity in nature between them. Law’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realist assumptions. He connects the sign with the signified in his discussion of eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice and denies any form of immoderate realism in the Eucharist.

163 Ibid, V, pp. –.  chapter three

Robert Nelson

Robert Nelson (–) was a Nonjuror layman. In a treatise on the Eucharist, entitled The Great Duty of Frequenting the Christian Sacrifice and the Nature of the Preparation Required, with Suitable Devotions,164 originally published in , he presents a doctrine of the Eucharist much like that of John Johnson.165 Nelson advocates frequent communion and argues that the eucharistic sacrifice is a presentation to God of consecratedbreadandwinewhichstandassymbolsofthebodyand blood of Christ, and as such they plead the merits of Christ’s passion. In speaking of the need for Christians to receive “the Holy Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood”166 frequently, Nelson says: “But that Chris- tians otherwise very devout and not lawfully hindered, who have Fear of God before their Eyes and who aim at pleasing Him in all their Actions, should ever turn their Backs upon his Holy Table, and when invited to commemorate the meritorious Sacrifice of the Death of Christ should refuse to give such an easy Instance of a thankful Heart, is really Mat- ter of Astonishment. Because they do thereby neglect the most effective Means of growing in Grace and overlook the best Method of attaining what they most sincerely purpose and desire.”167 Here Nelson seems to affirm moderate realism. He speaks of Christ’s body and blood being received in the Eucharist but in a sacramental manner. He speaks of a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice and death in the Eucharist as an act of thanksgiving. There is no suggestion here of any immoderate realism, yet the Eucharist is described as an effective means of growing in grace and the best method of attaining purposes and desires. The Eucharist is seen to be an effective means of conveying grace to those who receive, and it is such frequent receiving that Nelson advocates. Sign and signified are linked with Christ’s body and blood being received in a sacramental manner and the sacrifice of Christ being commemorated in the Eucharist. Nelson’s doctrine of the Eucharist is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.

164 Robert Nelson, The Great Duty of Frequenting the Christian Sacrifice, and the nature of the preparation required; with suitable devotions; partly collected from the ancient liturgies, to which are affixed Instruction for Confirmation (New Edition) (London: SPCK, undated). 165 See John Johnson case study. 166 Ibid,p.. 167 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Simon Patrick

Simon Patrick168 (–) was Bishop of Ely and published a work entitled Mensa Mystica or a Discourse concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,169 in the year . In this work Patrick discusses the Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice, saying:νμνησις “ (anamnesis) doth not signify barely ‘recordatio’, recording or registering of his favours in our mind; but ‘commemoratio’,a solemn declaration that we do well bear them in our hearts, and will continue the memory, and spread the fame of him as far, and as long as ever we are able.”170 Patrick’s view here is that the Eucharist is not just a calling to mind of Christ’s sacrifice (recordatio)butrathercommemoratio or solemn commemoration or declaration of sacrifice based on moderate realist assumptions. The commemoration is clearly more than the simple recording or marking in the mind, since he says: “I would not be so mistaken, as if I though the Christian thanksgiving consisted only of inward thoughts and outward words. For there are eucharistical actions also whereby we perform a most delightful sacrifice unto God. . . . The spiritual sacrifice of ourselves, and the corporal sacrifice of our goods to him, may teach the papists that we are sacrificers as well as they.”171 Here Patrick speaks of ‘a most delightful sacrifice unto God’—the spiritual sacrifice of self, thereby speaking of those who make such spiritual sacrifices as ‘sacrificers’. It would be a mistake however, to infer from this that Patrick only means spiritual self-sacrifice when he speaks of eucharistic sacrifice, since in outlining the nature of the commemorationintheEucharist,Patrickgoesontoarguethatthenature of the Christian sacrifice is not restricted to ‘the spiritual sacrifice of ourselves’. He says: As the bread and wine do commemorate the truth of his body; so do bread broken and wine poured out, commemorate the truth of his sufferings for us. . . . We do show it forth and declare it unto men, which is sufficiently clear by all that hath been said. We do publish and annunciate unto all that he is Saviour of the world, and that he hath died for us and purchased blessings thereby beyond the estimate and account of human thought. And

168 Simon Patrick, The Works of Simon Patrick, D.D. Sometime Bishop of Ely. Including his autobiography (A. Taylor, ed) ( Volumes) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ). 169 Patrick, The Works of Simon Patrick, I, pp. –. 170 Ibid, I, pp. –. 171 Ibid, I, p. .  chapter three

further, the word καταγγ%λλειν may import, that we do extol, predicate, magnify, and highly lift up in our praises this great benefit, so that allmay come to the knowledge of it, as far as is in our powers to procure.172 The Eucharist therefore shows forth Christ and his sufferings to all people, and it is through the Eucharist that the benefits of Christ are available in the present. This is memorial remembrance or anamnesis, or as Patrick describes it commemoratio. The eucharistic sacrifice is more than self-sacrifice—the Eucharist is also a showing forth and a declaring of Christ’s sacrifice in the present. Further Patrick goes on to argue that in the Eucharist: “We keep it (as it were) in his memory, and plead before him the sacrifice of his Son which we show unto him, humbly requiring that grace and pardon with all other benefits of it may be bestowed on us.”173 Sacrifice for Patrick is not re-iterated in an immoderate sense, but pleaded before God as the grace, pardon and benefit of the once only sacrifice is renewed in the present. Patrick argues that: “the Holy Sacrament is a feast upon the sacrifice which Christ offered, as the Jewish feasts were made with the flesh of those sacrifices which offered to God.”174 The nature of the sacrifice spoken of by Patrick is that of commemorative sacrifice. It is a sacrifice expressed in terms of moderate realism, affirmed by saying that in relation to the institution of the Eucharist “we do nothing but what Christ did, and therefore if he offered no sacrifice, neither do we, but only commemorate that sacrifice which hewas then about to offer”.175 He does say however, that the Eucharist “may be called a sacrifice, because with the Action we do offer to God all good things”.176 For Patrick the idea of eucharistic sacrifice includes more than mere remembrance or bringing to mind since it includes also the notion of self-sacrifice and the concept of memorial remembrance or anamnesis. Patrick’s theology of eucharistic sacrifice is based on moderate realism. In regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Patrick was clear in his rejection of transubstantiation, as he understood it. He says: “Christ does not descend locally unto us that we may feed on him, but as the Suntouchethusbyhisbeamswithoutremovingoutofhissphere,so

172 Ibid, I, pp. –. 173 Ibid, I, p. . 174 Ibid, I, p. . 175 Ibid, I, p. . 176 Ibid, I, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

ChristcomesdownuponusbythepoweroftheHolyGhost,movingby its heavenly virtue into our hearts, though he remain above.”177 For Patrick there was no sense of a local or physical presence possible in the bread and wine of the Eucharist (immoderate realism), but he did not at the same time subscribe to any view which said that there was no presence of Christ at all in the Eucharist. In a work written in , entitled An Answer to a Book spread abroad by the Romish Priests, entitled, The Touchstone of the Gospel,178 Patrick denied that: “the bread of the Supper of our Lord was but a figure or remembrance of the body of Christ received by faith, and not his true and very body.”179 For Patrick, anyone who argues that he did not see a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was spreading a “fiction and false representation”180 which could be disproved by reference to Article XXVIII of The Thirty-Nine Articles. Patrick saw Article XXVIII as teaching a notion of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Immoderate realism is denied and moderate realism is affirmed. In Mensa Mystica Patrick speaks also of how Christ is present in the Eucharist. He says: “The change is our souls and not in the Sacrament; . . . his presence is with the bread, though not in it. Though it be only in us, yet it comes with it unto us if we receive him.”181 Patrick is here affirming that the bread remains bread and that there is no change in it. Christ is not ‘in’ the bread through some change occurring; rather Christ is present ‘with’ the bread. This presence ‘with’ is not the physical presence of Christ, since Patrick has already denied any form of immoderate realism, but it is nonetheless a ‘real’ presence. Any notion of change can only apply to those who receive the sacrament and not to the bread and wine of the Eucharist. As McAdoo and Stevenson point out, Patrick’s words here suggest that his notion of presence is ‘relational’.182 The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is therefore ‘with’ the bread and wine and at the same time Christ is present ‘with people’ in a sense other than by physical change and immoderate realism. This sense of presence is that of relation.

177 Ibid, I, p. . 178 Patrick, The Works of Simon Patrick, Volume VII, pp. –. 179 Ibid, p. . 180 Ibid, p. . 181 Ibid, I, p. . 182 Henry McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition (Norwich: Canterbury Press, ), p. .  chapter three

Earlier Patrick has spoken of a ‘heavenly virtue’ present by the work of the Holy Spirit. For Patrick the role of the Holy Spirit is very important, even crucial, in the way in which Christ is present ‘with’ the bread and wine and ‘with’ people. Indeed in speaking of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Patrick says: “And this is all that is meant by the real presence of Christ in this Sacrament, which the Church speaks of and believes; as it is one reason likewise of the change which is so much noised, because by his power these things become effectual to so great purposes, when they are holily received. Our Lord doth call these signs by the things they signify, because in a spiritual manner his body and blood are present in us, viz. by the communication of that to us which did purchase for us.”183 It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, with the elements and with the people, becomes effectual. It is therefore legitimate to call the bread and wine of the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ, since this is following the Lord’s example. It is by the reception of the bread and wine that Christ communicates to those who receive his body and blood and the benefits of his passion. Patrick’s idea of the real presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is based ona philosophical assumption of moderate realism.

183 Patrick, The Works of Simon Patrick, I, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Thomas Rattray

Thomas Rattray (–) was Primus of Scotland. His principal work, published in , following his death, was entitled The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, being the Liturgy of St. James, being freed from all latter Additions and Interpolations of whatever kind, and so restored to its Original Purity: By comparing it with the Account given of that Liturgy by St Cyril in his fifth Mystagogical Catechism, And with the Clementine Liturgy.184 This work, as the name suggests, was an attempt to restore the Liturgy of St James to its original state and thus provide a pure liturgical product, free from later additions. As a result of his work on the Liturgy of St James, a eucharistic liturgy entitled An Office for the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, being the Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, to which Proper Rubricks are added for Direction, and some few notes at the foot of the page, &c.185 also published posthumously in . Even though Rattray’s Liturgy was little used it had a profound influence upon later liturgical development in Scotland (i.e. the  Scottish Liturgy)186 andinturnonotherAnglicanliturgicalproducts.187 Thomas Rattray’s theology of the Eucharist will be examined in this case study, through reference to his works, including the liturgy of . In Rattray’s eucharistic liturgy of , the Offertory of bread and wine mixed with water, are ordered to be brought to the priest at the altar, who reverently places them on the altar. This was preceded by the reading of offertory sentences, taken from various editions of the Book of Common Prayer.188 The content of these offertory sentences seem to relate bothto the offering of alms and the offering of bread and wine. There is no set offertory prayer, as in the Nonjurors’ Liturgy of ,189 but the rubrics

184 Thomas Rattray, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, being the Liturgy of St. James, being freed from all latter Additions and Interpolations of whatever kind, and so restored to its Original Purity: By comparing it with the Account given of that Liturgy by St Cyril in his fifth Mystagogical Catechism, And with the Clementine Liturgy (London: James Bettenham, ). 185 See text of Rattray’s liturgy in W. Jardine Grisbrooke (ed), Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 186 See Scottish Liturgy of  in W. Jardine Grisbrooke (ed), Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 187 See the Prayer Books of the American Episcopal Church. 188 Rattray, An Office for the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist,inGrisbrooke,Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, pp. –. 189 See case study on the Nonjurors Liturgy of .  chapter three direct that the priest should pray silently at the time of the offertory.190 There is however, no specific direction about what the content of this silent prayer should be. The eucharistic prayer begins with the dialogue, ‘Lift up your hearts, etc.’ and then the priest, turning to the altar says the Preface, based on the Liturgy of St James, followed by the Ter Sanctus and Benedictus.191 The eucharistic prayer continues with prayer of praise to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and then praise for creation of the world and humanity. This is followed by a summary of salvation history leading to the coming of Christ into the world.192 This leads to the institution narrative, which is reproduced here: And when the Hour was come, that he who had no Sin, was to suffer a voluntary and life-giving Death upon the Cross for us sinners, in the same Night that he was betrayed, or rather offered up himself for the Life and Salvation of the World, taking Bread into his holy and immaculate Hands, [Here the priest is directed to take the paten into his hands] looking up to heaven and presenting it to Thee his God and Father, he gave Thanks, sanctified, and brake it, [Here the priest is directed to break the bread] and gave it to His Disciples, saying Take, eat, THIS IS MY BO+DY which is broken and is given for you: For the Remission of Sins. In like manner after Supper he took the Cup, [Here the priest is directed to take the chalice into his hands] and having mixed it of Wine and Water he gave thanks, sanctified, and blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this, THIS IS MY BLO+OD of the New Testament, [Here the priest is directed to lay his hands on each vessel of wine to be consecrated] which is shed and given for you and for many, for the Remission of Sins. Do this in Remembrance of me.193 The offering up of Christ is here associated with the institution ofthe Eucharist and the death of the cross. The image of Christ presented in this institution narrative is that of him offering up the bread and wine to God as himself. The signs of the bread and wine are closely linked with the body and blood of Christ in a moderate realist fashion. The use of small black crosses (marked as ‘+’) in the text indicates the signing of the bread and the wine by the priest, following the example of Christ who sanctified and blessed the elements at the institution of the Eucharist. Such signing is suggestive of setting the bread and wine apart and of indicating a higher state for it than common bread and wine.

190 Rattray, An Office for the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist,inGrisbrooke,Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 191 Ibid, p. . 192 Ibid, p. . 193 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

An anamnesis follows with the offering of the sacrifice being described as an “unbloody sacrifice”.194 The epiclesis is next in the following words: Have Mercy upon us, O Lord God, Almighty Father, have Mercy upon us according to thy great Mercy, and send down thy holy Spirit upon us, and upon these Gifts which are here set before Thee, that by his Descent upon them, he may make this Bread [Here the priest is directed to lay his hands upon the bread] the holy BO+DY of thy Christ, and this Cup [Here the priest is directed to lay his hands on each chalice] the precious BLO+OD of thy Christ; that they may be to all who partake of them, for the Sanctification of Soul and Body, for bringing forth the Fruit of good Works, for Remission of Sins, and for Life everlasting.195 The request of the epiclesis is that God will send the Holy Spirit on both thepeopleandthegiftsofbreadandwine,whichhavebeenplacedon thealtar.ThepurposeofthisrequestisthattheHolySpiritwill‘make this Bread the holy Body of thy Christ, and this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ’.The word ‘make’ suggests that the bread and wine is in some way changed, so that it is no longer common bread and wine. Rattray is in no way suggesting a change in substance here, such that the bread and wine are made the fleshy body and blood of Christ (immoderate realism) but he is arguing that they are made something more than they were. The association of the sign with the signified is heightened by the use of the word ‘make’. It would appear that it is the presence of the Holy Spirit ‘invigorating’ the bread and wine that makes them the body and blood of Christ. The sense of them being made something that they were not is not in terms of any natural substance, but rather in a spiritual sense and in virtue and power. This is the language of moderate realism. Following the intercession prayer the Deacon is directed to pray the following prayer ‘for the Gifts’. He says: “Let us pray for the Gifts which are offered to the Lord God; that the Lord our God, receiving them upon his heavenly Altar for a sweet-smelling Savour, would send down upon us the divine Grace, and the Gift of his holy Spirit.”196 It seems that the gifts are viewed as being effective in winning the favour of God, since through them and their worth, divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit is more likely to be received in the Eucharist. Rattray sees the gifts as powerful and efficacious.

194 Ibid, p. . 195 Ibid, p. . 196 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

The words of administration taken from St Cyril197 are simply, “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ”, to which the communicant answers “Amen”.198 These words suggest a realist understanding of the presence of Christ in the bread and wine. As the bread is placed into the hands and as the wine is drunk by the communicants, these actions are associated with the statements ‘The Body/Blood of Christ’,suggesting that what is being delivered to the communicant is in fact the body and blood of Christ. In view of Rattray’s moderate realism (i.e. the bread and wine being Christ’s body and blood in virtue and effect) in his other works and in other parts of the liturgy, it is fair to conclude that, despite the very realist words of administration, the meaning here at the time of the delivery of the elements is also moderate realism. The bread and wine remain bread and wine, but they are nonetheless the body and blood of Christ in virtue and effect. The final rubrics direct that the priest “shall always consecrate more than is necessary for the Communicants; and he shall carefully reserve so much of the consecrated Elements as shall serve for the Use of the Sick,orotherPersonswhoforanyurgentcausecannotcometothepub- lick Service.”199 The direction to reserve the sacrament is supplemented by another direction to keep the reserved sacrament in the vestry “con- stantly” and “under a safe lock”.200 These directions indicate that for Rat- tray there was a belief in the continuing sacramental presence of Christ in the bread and wine, following consecration, as well as after the reception and indeed after the service was completed. The continuing presence of Christ in the bread and wine was therefore seen to be a real presence, with the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism underpinning such a theology. Rattray’s eucharistic liturgy of  expresses a moderate realism in relation to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The sign and the signified are linked. Moderate realism is affirmed and immoderate realism is denied. In another work published posthumously in  and entitled Some Particular Instructions Concerning the Christian Covenant, and The Mys- teries by which it is Transacted and Maintained, Collected from the Sacred

197 Mystagogical Catechesis,BookV. 198 Rattray, An Office for the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist,inGrisbrooke,Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, pp. –. 199 Ibid, p. . 200 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Scriptures, and earlier Writers of the Christian Church; and from approved Divines of the Church of England,201 Rattray speaks of the New Covenant which Christians enter through Christ, the divine Word or Logos.Here he argues that Christians enter the Covenant by Baptism, but that the Eucharist perpetually renews them in that Covenant. He explains this in these words: When we are thus initiated into the Christian Covenant, regenerated both by water and the Holy Ghost, and made living members of Christ’s mystical body, the Church, we have then access to the Father by Him, and freedom to draw near unto God, and join with the Church in offering to Him the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, the proper worship of the faithful, and communicating in the divine mysteries of His holy Altar; which is as necessary for continuing and maintaining our interest in this Covenant, as Baptism is for entering us into it; and by which we are nourished and grow up in the spiritual life, which must languish and decay without this heavenly food, in the same manner as our animal life would do without our daily bread.202 Rattray argues that the offering in the Eucharist is derived from the institution of the Eucharist, and that it was at the institution that Christ tookbreadandwineandhavingblessedthem,offeredthemtoGod, as symbols representing his body and blood. This is an expression of moderate realism, since the signs are identified with the signified, but not in any immoderate manner. The signs are symbols, representing Christ’s body and blood and the offering of Christ as a sacrifice. Rattray also states that the offering in the Eucharist was followed by Christ being slain on the cross and that in heaven he continues his offering for ever. This perpetual offering of Christ is linked with the offering in the Eucharist whereby the bread and cup are said to be offered in commemoration of Christ and as a memorial of his sacrifice. The sacrifice in the Eucharist is therefore a pleading of the merits of Christ’s sacrifice on earth, and as such is an expression of moderate realism. He also argues that the bread and wine are ‘oblations’ which are to be offered to God on the altar in the Eucharist. The offering in the Eucharist is linked with the offering of Christ’s body and blood, under the symbols of bread and wine. There is no new offering in a fleshy or immoderate manner, but rather a pleading of the sacrifice following the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. The role of

201 See Thomas Rattray, The Works of Thomas Rattray (Burnt-Island: Pitsligo Press, ). 202 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three the Holy Spirit is crucial for Rattray. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the bread and wine ‘to be verily and indeed His Body and Blood’.The Spirit is united to the bread and wine, with the effect that they are invigorated with virtue, power and efficacy, clearly being no longer ordinary bread and wine. Rattray speaks of the role of the Spirit, saying that by the descent and operation of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine, ‘are made that very Body and Blood in virtue and effect’.This again is moderate realism, since while emphasising that the Spirit makes the bread and wine Christ’sbody and blood, this is not in a fleshy or immoderate manner, but in virtue and effect.203 Rattray’s eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

203 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

The Scottish Liturgyof 

The  Scottish Communion Office204 had no rubrics at the beginning, and so directions about the placement of the altar, the priest and the people are unclear. Local custom may well have been the rule. The Offertory was emphasised with the collection of alms separated from the offertory of bread and wine. The Sentences to be read during the collection of alms refer both to the giving of money and the offering of sacrifice.205 The rubric at the Offertory directs: “And the Presbyter shall then offer up, and place the bread and wine prepared the sacrament upon the Lord’s table.”206 The idea of ‘offering up’ indicates that the bread and wine were seen as an oblation, or eucharistic sacrifice, given to God in a realist manner. The eucharistic prayer207 proceeds as in the  Book of Common Prayer,uptotheSanctus.ItshouldbenotedthatthereisnoBenedictus in the Scottish Communion Office of . The first part of the eucharistic prayer continues much like , with some significant changes. The word ‘own’ is substituted for the word ‘one’ and the word ‘there’ found in  is omitted in the sentence which reads: “who [‘made there’ in ] (i.e. by his own [‘one’ in ] oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world”.208 The omission of the word ‘there’ accords with the practice of the Nonjurors, whereby the oblation was said to be offered by Christ at the Last Supper and not at the cross. The substitution of ‘own’ for ‘one’ emphasises that it was Christ’s oblation and that the oblation is not restricted to one event in time, that is, the cross of Calvary. The word ‘memory’ in  is changed to ‘memorial’ in  and the word ‘sacrifice’ is added in the sentence which reads: “and did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue a perpetual memorial of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again”.209 The use of the word ‘memorial’ instead of ‘memory’ suggests a more realist interpretation, in that ‘memorial’ is related to the idea of eucharistic

204 See text in W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eigh- teenth Centuries (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 205 Ibid, pp. –. 206 Ibid, p. . 207 Ibid, pp. –. 208 Ibid, p. . 209 Ibid, p. .  chapter three sacrifice as the more dynamic idea of memorial remembrance, whereas ‘memory’ could be suggestive of the more Reformed notion of merely bringing Christ’s death to mind in the context of eating bread and wine, without any realist connection between the sign and the signified. The addition of the word ‘sacrifice’ in the same sentence as ‘memorial’ lends support to the idea of eucharistic sacrifice as memorial remembrance. The institution narrative follows in the form of  BCP,however, the prayer does not end here as it does in the  form. The prayer continues with ‘The Oblation’, so named at the side of the prayer. The words of the oblation are: “Wherefore O Lord, and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make before thy divine majesty, with these thy holy gifts, WHICH WE NOW OFFER UNTO THEE, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion, and precious death, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.”210 The printing in block capitals is suggestive of Nonjuror influence and practice211 with the intention of conveying in a very definite way the moment and nature of the eucharistic oblation. The words ‘which we now offer unto thee’ clearly associate the sign with the signified in the matter of the oblation. The gifts of bread and wine are offered to God as the memorial (more than mere memory or bringing to mind, but as a pleading of Christ’s offering of himself) whereby those who participate in the Eucharist ‘celebrate’ and ‘make’ the memorial. This is indicative of moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice. The words of ‘The Invocation’, so named at the side of the prayer, are: “And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy word andholySpirit,thesethygiftsandcreaturesofbreadandwine,thatthey may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son.”212 There is here a moderate realist identification of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are to ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ. In view of the prevailing doctrine of the Nonjurors in this liturgy,

210 Ibid, p. . 211 See case study on the Liturgy of the Nonjurors. 212 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, pp. – . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  this ‘becoming’ must be considered to be realism to a moderate degree. The Nonjurors and others (e.g. Rattray) spoke of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ in power, effect and virtue and not in any fleshy or immoderate manner of presence. In the  Scottish Communion Office, the idea of sacrifice is included in the eucharistic prayer. Following the Invocation for example, the prayers ask that God will “accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”.213 The ‘this’ in this sentence could just as likely refer to the eucharistic sacrifice as it does to a personal act of sacrifice. In view of the fact that the personal act of sacrifice is spoken of in the next section oftheprayer,however,itseemsmorelikelythatthe‘sacrificeofpraiseand thanksgiving’ refers at this point to the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice, since they are used in the presence of the bread and wine which has been consecrated and offered to God. In the  BCP the words ‘accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ are placed after the Prayer of Consecration and after the reception of Holy Communion, distancing them from any possible notion of eucharistic sacrifice and heightening the idea of a personal sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. The eucharistic prayer in the  Scottish Communion Office also prays for worthy reception of “the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ” and being filled “with thy grace and heavenly benediction”214 while the consecrated elements are still on the altar awaiting reception. This again heightens the association between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ in a moderate realist manner.This conclusion is strengthened by the use of the words “offer unto thee any sacrifice” and “accept this our bounden duty and service”215 which also occur in the eucharistic prayer in the presence of the consecrated bread and wine and before the reception. The idea of accepting a sacrifice seems to be linked with the offering of the bread and wine in the Eucharist in a moderate realist fashion. In the  BCP these words are not used in the presence of the consecrated elements, but only after Communion had been received, thus lessening any notion of realism in regard to the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood. In the  Scottish Communion Office the consecrated elements continue to remain on the altar during the Prayer for the Church, the Lord’s Prayer, the Invitation, the Confession and Absolution, the Comfortable

213 Ibid, p. . 214 Ibid, p. . 215 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

Words and the Prayer of Humble Access. This is also suggestive of a continuing presence or givenness of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine, especially in the recitation of the Prayer of Humble Access. The realist notions in this prayer, for example, “so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood”216 are therefore closely associated with the consecrated elements, still on the altar, and suggestive of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in power, effect and virtue. All of these prayers were placed before the Prayer of Consecration in the  BCP in order to avoid the strength of these realist connotations and to avoid prayers in the presence of the consecrated elements. The words of administration suggest realism also, making no mention of receiving by faith (as they did in the  BCP). The words of administration are: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life” and “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life”.217 To these words the communicants answer “A m e n”. The service then concludes in the way of the  BCP (Prayer of Thanksgiving, Gloria and Blessing), with the exception of a prayer to be used after all have communicated. The prayer begins with the words, “Having now received the precious body and blood of Christ, let us give thanks to our Lord God . . .”.218 The prayer suggests that what the communicant has just received is the body and blood of Christ, therefore distancing itself from any view that there is no real presence or gift in the Eucharist. The Scottish Communion Office of  presents a moderate realist view of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The sign is associated with the signified in terms of both the eucharistic offering and the eucharistic presence of Christ. Moderate realism is affirmed throughout the liturgy. The influence of The Scottish Communion Office of  has been substantial in Anglican liturgical development. Ronald Jasper argues that  liturgy “marked a watershed in Anglican liturgical history”219 since it gave approval to liturgical services based on primitive models. This has

216 Ibid, p. . 217 Ibid, p. . 218 Ibid, p. . 219 Ronald Jasper, The Development of the Anglican Liturgy, – (London: SPCK, ), p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  come to be the norm in modern liturgical development. The  liturgy also marked the beginning of a new family of eucharistic rites based more on the model of the  BCP, rather than the  BCP. This idea of different families of eucharistic liturgies based on either the model of  or  has also been affirmed by Massey Shepherd220 and Jasper and Cuming221 who argue that some provinces of the Anglican Communion (e.g. The Episcopal Church of the United States of America, the Episco- pal Church of Scotland and the Anglican Church of South Africa) follow the  model, while others (e.g. the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Australia and the Church of Ireland) have traditionally followed the  model. In recent times many of these differences have begun to disappear with provinces such as Australia and England adopting liturgies based on more primitive models and reflecting .222 A process of liturgical convergence has occurred throughout the Angli- can Communion, with the  Scottish Communion Office remaining a seminal influence and watershed in this development and basing its eucharistic theology on philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

220 Massey Shepherd, ‘Our Anglican Understanding of Corporate Worship’,in P. Daw- ley (ed), Report of the Anglican Conference,  (London: SPCK, ). 221 Ronald Jasper and Geoffrey Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (New York: Pueblo, ). 222 SeeTheAnglicanChurchofAustralia,A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Brough- ton Books, ) and The Church of England, Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England (London: Church Publishing House, ).  chapter three

AnthonySparrow

Anthony Sparrow (–) was Bishop of Norwich and at the time of the Restoration seems to have taken an influential role in the revision of The Book of Common Prayer.HewasoftheHighChurchpartyand is best known for his work A Rationale Upon the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England,223 the oldest known edition of which dates from . His object in this work was to show that liturgy of the Church of England was neither Roman in its contents nor schismatically new. In his treatment of the consecration, Sparrow argues that: “consecration consists chiefly in rehearsing the words of our Saviour’s institution, This is my body and this is my blood, when the bread and wine is present upon the Communion Table.”224 Bread and wine are here closely associated with the body and blood of Christ in a realist manner. For Sparrow the institution is mirrored in the actions of the priest, since Sparrow says: “The holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which the Priest now makes, is the same that Christ gave to his Apostles. This is nothing less than that. For this is not sanctified by men, but by him that sanctified that: for as the words which God our Saviour spake are the same, which the Priest now uses, so is the Sacrament the same.”225 There is an identification here between the words and actions of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ and the continuation of that institution in the Eucharist celebrated by the priest. The Eucharist in the present is clearly not the same event as the institution by Christ, but the Eucharist identifies with it in a realist way, through the words and actions of Christ being rehearsed. What then does Sparrow see as present in the Eucharist? He answers in this way: Christ is present at the Sacrament now, that first instituted it. He consecrates this also: It is not man that makes the body and blood of Christ by consecrating the holy Elements, but Christ that was crucified for us. The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest, but the Elements are consecrated by the power and grace of God, THIS IS, saith he, MY BODY: By this word the bread and wine are consecrated.

223 Anthony Sparrow, ARationaleUpontheBookofCommonPrayeroftheChurchof England (London: Pawlet, ). 224 Ibid, pp. –. 225 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Beforethesewords[THISISMYBODY]thebreadandwinearecommon food fit only to nourish the body: but since our Lord hath said, Do this, as oft as you do it in remembrance of me, This is my body, this is my blood: as often as by these words and in this faith they are consecrated, the holy bread and blessed cup are profitable to the salvation of the whole man.226 Again there are statements of realism present here. Christ is said to be present in the sacrament and the elements are said ‘to make’ the body and blood of Christ through their consecration. The dominical words of Christ (This is my body/blood) are crucial for Sparrow and he distinguishes between common bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood, following the saying of these words. Sparrow’s realism revolves around the rehearsal of the institution narrative and the saying of the particular words of Christ in the presence of the elements. Regarding the administration of the sacrament, Sparrow observes, quoting St Augustine, that: “It is to be given to the people KNEELING: ‘for a sin it is not adore when we receive the Sacrament’.”227 It seems that Sparrow is not implying any immoderate realism here, in the adoration of the elements, but rather moderate realism in linking the adoration of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine. In another place he argues that: “Is it not possible to hear these words, This is my Body, take and eat it; Drink ye all of this, This is my blood: and not be filled, as with a kind of fearful admiration.”228 The adoration here seems to be towards Christ’s body and blood revealed sacramentally. Regarding fasting he says: “it is for the honour of so high a Sacrament, that the precious body of Christ should first enter into the Christian’s mouth before any other meat.”.229 At the moment of reception Sparrow suggests thecommunicantanswer,‘Amen’,saying:“WhenthePriesthathsaidat the delivery of the Sacrament, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life, the Communicant is to answer, AMEN. By this Amen professing his faith of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament.”230 The bread and wine is here again closely identified with the body and blood of Christ. The communicant’s ‘Amen’ is said to profess faith in the presence of Christ’s body and blood ‘in’ the sacrament. Christ’s body and blood is really present, received and in the sacrament.

226 Ibid, pp. –. 227 Ibid, p. . 228 Ibid, p. . 229 Ibid, p. . 230 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

In relation to eucharistic sacrifice, Sparrow argues, using the examples of the early Church, that: “Offerings or Oblations are an high part of God’s service and worship”.231 Although he refers here to the offerings and oblations of alms, he has previously referred to the ancient practice of offering the bread and wine at the time of the offertory,232 although he does not make this specific connection in regard to the Eucharist of the BCP. Sparrow does however speak more specifically about ‘offering up the sacrifice’ when he treats the consecration, saying: “The Priest shall receive whensover he offers up the Sacrifice” and “Are not they which eat of the Sacrifice, partakers of the Altar?”.233 The meaning here is more plainly expressed though when Sparrow speaks of the prayer following the reception of Communion. Here he says: “This done, the Priest offers uptheSacrificeoftheHolyEucharist,ortheSacrificeofpraiseand thanksgiving for the whole Church, as in all old Liturgies it is appointed, and together with that is offered up that most acceptable Sacrifice of our selves, souls and bodies devoted to God’s service.”234 The offering up by the priest, referred to here by Sparrow, is the Prayer of Oblation, in the  Prayer Book, whereby a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is offered on behalf of the church. Sparrow cites primitive practice (‘old Liturgies’) to justify this offering, since such an offering was, he says, part of the worship of the early church. This offering is then distinguished from the sacrifice of souls and bodies as a response to the gift of Christ in the Eucharist, since it is said to be offered ‘together’ with thatofsoulsandbodies.Thereisthenanofferingofthesacrificeofthe Eucharist and an offering of self in response. In the  Prayer Book, this offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist occurs after the reception, although in the  Prayer Book, this Prayer of Oblation was part of the Prayer of Consecration and the offering was made prior to reception of Communion. Sparrow is of the opinion that the offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist can still be made in the  position, following reception. Thisofferingofthesacrificeishowever,moderaterealism,sinceitis a ‘Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’. There is no suggestion of any immoderate realism here in relation to the offering of the sacrifice (e.g. re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross).

231 Ibid, p. . 232 Ibid, pp. –. 233 Ibid, p. . 234 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

In relation to the  Prayer Book Service, Communion of the Sick, Sparrow refers to the rubrics, saying: “If the same day (that the sick is to receive the Communion) there be a celebration of the holy Communion in the church, then shall the Priest reserve (at the open Communion) so much of the Sacrament of the body and blood as shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall communicate with him. And as soon as he may conveniently, after the open Communion ended in the Church, shall go and minister the same first to them that are appointed to communicate with the sick, if there be any; and last of all to the sick.”235 By these words Sparrow is justifying reservation of the sacrament and the carrying of it out of the church, for use with the sick, as the  Prayer Book directed and as the subsequent Prayer Books (, ,  and ) did not direct, in an attempt to lessen any possibility of eucharistic adoration and procession. This suggested practice of reservation by Sparrow implies that he believed there was a continuing and objective presence of the bodyandbloodofChrist,sacramentally,inthebreadandwine,following the service, apart from the reception and apart from the faith of the receiver. This therefore implies a moderate real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, which functions in a continuing manner held over and present until the person who is sick has received the bread and wine as the sacramental body and blood of Christ. Anthony Sparrow’s theology of the Eucharist, as expressed in his Rationale, implies moderate realism in relation to eucharistic presence and sacrifice. He associates the bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ, both in the Eucharist and outside the Eucharist through reservation of the sacramental elements for the use of the sick. He also speaks of the Eucharist being an offering of the sacrifice, not in an immoderate manner, but as ‘praise and thanksgiving’,apart from self- offering. Sparrow employs moderate realism here, since the sacrifice of the Eucharist is identified with the sacrifice of Christ and pleaded in the Eucharist by the offering of praise and thanksgiving, not by re-iteration.

235 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper

The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper236 was a devotional manual, first published in , with the intention of superseding the older work The Old Week’s Preparation towards a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper, first published in .237 The New Week’s Preparation went through many editions and continued in use into the early years of the nineteenth century.238 The following material, taken from The New Week’s Preparation demonstrates the eucharistic theology presented. The Eucharist is spoken of as a commemorative sacrifice, whereby the passion of Christ is presented in heaven and in the Eucharist. In discussing the purpose of the Eucharist, the manual says: “It was for our sakes,andtodrawusuptoThylove,thatThouhastcommandedusto commemorate and represent Thy passion, and present the merits ofit before Thy Father on earth, as Thou dost present them to Him in heaven. It was for our sakes, and to help the infirmities of our nature, that Thou didst appoint a commemorative sacrifice of that one oblation of Thyself once offered upon the cross, and bread and wine so offered and blessed as symbols of Thy body and blood.”239 The commemorative sacrifice in the Eucharist is one which represents Christ’s passion, presenting it before God on earth, as Christ presents it before God in heaven. This suggests a realist view, where sign and signified are linked. Immoderate notions are denied in that the oblation is said to be offered only once, that is, on the cross and the bread and wine are seen as symbols, not the oblation itself. Realist notions are therefore moderate in degree. The nature of the commemorative sacrifice is further explained in this passage. The New Week’s Preparation,asksthatGodwill:

236 The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper as recom- mended and appointed by the Church of England: Consisting of Suitable Meditations, and Some Necessary Forms; also, Meditations and Morning and Evening Prayers for the Closet or Family, &c. Together with instructions how we should conduct ourselves after partaking of the Lord’s Supper; and Scriptural Explanation of the same. To which is prefixed An Essay of Faith, shewing its Nature, Origin, Operation and Connection with Good Words (Dublin: Wogan, ). 237 See case study in this chapter. 238 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 239 The New Week’s Preparation for a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Accept this representation we make before Thee of that all-sufficient sacrifice which Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ made upon the cross: letthe merit of it plead effectually for the pardon and forgiveness of all my sins, and render Thee favourable and propitious to me a miserable sinner; let the wisdom of it make me wise unto salvation; and let the peace of it reconcile me unto thee, and bring to me peace of conscience. And then, O Blessed Jesus, my Redeemer, I shall be enabled to adore Thee, who didst endure the painful and shameful death of the cross to recover me from the state of sin and misery. . . . With all my souls, O dear Jesus, I love and praise Thee for the stupendous expression of Thy bounty and goodness towards me. O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon me; O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant me Thy peace. Amen, Lord Jesus. Amen.240 When speaking of what is received in the Eucharist The New Week’s Preparation says: “I beseech Thee, O Lord, to cure my infirmities, and let me not only receive the outward and visible sign, but the inward and spiritual grace.”241 It was not merely the outward sign that was received in the Eucharist, but the inward and spiritual grace as well. This ‘inward and spiritual grace’ is distinguished from any fleshy or natural presence in the following statement: “A Sacrament which at once by the bread broken signifies thebodyofChristbrokenonthecrossandbythewinepouredout signifies the blood of Christ shed at His crucifixion. But guard against that doctrine which teaches that we eat the natural body and blood of Christ; for the natural body and blood of Christ are in heaven and not here, it being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one; and therefore we cannot eat and drink Christ’s natural body and blood in the sacrament.”242 Immoderate realism is denied. It is less clear however, whether moderate realism is implied here in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is emphasised in the following: “It cannot be the natural body and blood of Christ which is eaten and drank in the Lord’s Supper, but something else, namely, bread and wine, in remembrance of them.”243 There is some distance suggested in this passage between the sign and the signified and this is indicative of nominalism in relation to eucharistic presence. Despite this in another passage we find the following: “The real

240 Ibid, pp. –. 241 Ibid, p. . 242 Ibid, p. . 243 Ibid, p. .  chapter three presence maintained by Protestants is not the presence of Christ’snatural body, but the real presence of Christ’s invisible power and grace so in and with the elements of bread and wine as to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of such as duly receive them; . . . Now, spiritual food and sustenance is doubtless the food and sustenance of the spirit; so to eat and drink spiritually is a figurative expression, and signifies the feeding upon Christ’s body with our heart by faith.”244 Here then are suggestions of moderate realism. Immoderate notions of any natural presence of Christ’s body are denied, but real presence is affirmed as ‘Christ’s invisible power and grace’ which is ‘in and with the elements of bread and wine’ to the effect that they ‘convey spiritual and real effects to the souls’ of those who receive them. This is in line with the notion of instantiation and seemingly moderate realism. The use of the term ‘figurative’ therefore for The New Week’s Preparation seems to be suggestive of moderate realism. This is confirmed by the statement that: “breadandwine...maybytheblessingandappointmentofGodbeas communicative of grace as the true natural flesh and blood of Christ itself can be.”245 Bread and wine are seen as the means of communicating the grace of Christ to those who receive them since Christ’s invisible power and grace is in and with the bread and wine. All this is again confirmed in this passage: Wherefore it is my firm belief that, as this Sacrament is matter of mere institution and appointment, I am concerned to know nor more either what the Sacrament is, or how it operates, than it hath pleased God to reveal in the Holy Scriptures. And it will be sufficient for me to believe that the consecrated elements are both called and made the body and blood of Christ so verily and indeed to all spiritual intents and purposes as to convey to the faithful receiver whatever grace and blessing of Christ hath annexed to the due performance of those holy rites which He hath ordained as pledges of His love and for our joy and comfort.246 The author is less interested in how the presence occurs, but more interested in its certainty and operation. It is important to note that the author speaks of the bread and wine being not only ‘called’ the body and blood of Christ, but also being ‘made’ the body and blood of Christ. This suggests that there is some conversion of the bread and wine asa

244 Ibid, p. . 245 Ibid, p. . 246 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  result of consecration which allows the bread and wine to have ‘annexed’ (with and in) to it the grace and blessing of Christ. This is not in any way meant to be a natural or fleshy presence (immoderate realism) since this has previously been denied, but a real presence nonetheless (moderate realism) which is truly received by the communicant. There is in this sense a linking between sign and signified in a moderate realist sense. The philosophical assumptions underlying this work are those of moderate realism.  chapter three

The Whole Duty of a Communicant

The work, The Whole duty of a Communicant, first published in , has been attributed to John Gauden (–), who became Bishop of Worcester in . The book went through many editions and appears to have been popular and well used.247 The eucharistic theology expressed in this work is shown in these passages: We deny not a true and real presence and perception of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament, which in reality even they of the other gross opinion do not imagine is to sense, but to faith; which perceives it objects as really according to faith’s perceptions as the senses do theirs after their manner. I believe, therefore, that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there are both objects presented to and received by the worthy receiver. First, the bread and wine in their own nature and substances distinct do remain as well as the accidents, which are true objects of our sense. . . . Also there are spiritual, invisible, and credible, yet most true and earnestly present, objects of faith, the body and blood of Christ, that is, Christ Jesus Himself.248 The work expresses a belief in the true and real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. This is not seen as an immoderate presence (‘the gross opinion’) but according to faith. Bread and wine do not change in substance, but there are at the same time spiritual objects of faith, that is, the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are not so much linked in this passage, but spoken of in close proximity. The objects of faith, the body and blood of Christ, Jesus himself, are seen to be truly and really present in the Eucharist. Moderate realism is suggested by this passage. In relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist, the following passage is quoted: “I adore Thee, O most righteous Redeemer, that Thou art pleased to convey unto my soul Thy precious body and blood, with all the benefits of Thy death and passion; I am not worthy, O Lord, to receive Thee, but let Thy Holy and Blessed Spirit, with all His purities, prepare for Theea lodging in my soul, where Thou mayest unite me to Thyself for ever.”249

247 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), p. . 248 The Whole Duty of a Communicant, cited in Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, pp. –. 249 Ibid, II, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

It is in the context of the Eucharist that the benefits of Christ’s death and passion are seen to be conveyed. This is memorial remembrance or anamnesis where the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are available in the Eucharist in the present. The close proximity of the sign and the signified are suggestive of philosophical assumptions of realism to a moderate degree.  chapter three

Herbert Thorndike

Herbert Thorndike250 (–) was a theologian who published in  as part of this work a book entitled An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England,251 in which he presents material related to the Eucharist. Thorndike denies the various opinions regarding the Eucha- rist, that is, transubstantiation, Zwinglianism, Calvinism and Lutheran- ism. He goes on to argue, in opposition to these opinions: “that the bodily substance of bread and wine is not abolished nor ceaseth in this Sacrament by virtue of the consecration of it.”252 Thorndike’s view is that while “the nature and the substance of the bread and wine” remain “in the Sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a Sacrament, that is, when it is received”, it is also the presence “of Christ’s body and blood, brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by making it to be that Sacrament.”253 For Thorndike therefore the Eucharist is no mere sign of the body and blood of Christ and he says that “we receive the body and blood of Christ, not only when we receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but also by receiving it”254 and that “the flesh and blood of Christ be said to be eaten and drunk in the Sacrament”255 and that this occurs “by virtue of the consecration of the elements into the Sacrament”.256 He also says: “Supposing the bread and the wine to remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as sense informs and the word of God enforces; if the same word of God affirm there to be also the body and blood of Christ, what remaineth but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance be also the bodily flesh and blood of Christ by

250 Herbert Thorndike, The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike, Sometime Preben- dary of the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster (A. Haddan, ed) ( Volumes) (Oxford: Parker, –). 251 Herbert Thorndike, ‘An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, being a Necessary Consideration and Brief Resolution of the Chief Controversies in Religion that divide the Western Church; occasioned by the Present Calamity of the Church of England: in three books, viz. of I. The Principles of Christian Truth; II. The Covenant of Grace; III. The Laws of the Church’, in Herbert Thorndike, The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike, Volumes I, II, III and IV. 252 Ibid, IV, p. . 253 Ibid, IV, p. . 254 Ibid, IV, p. . 255 Ibid, IV, p. . 256 Ibid, IV, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  mystical representation (in that sense which I determined even now) and by spiritual grace?”257 The idea of ‘representation’ is applied to the sacrifice of Christ, saying: Which kind of presence you may, if you please, call the representation of the sacrifice of Christ, so as you understand the word ‘representation’ to signify, not the figuring or resembling of that which is only signified, but as it signifies in the Roman laws, when a man is repraesentare pecuniam who pays ready money: deriving the signification of it arepraesenti,not from the preposition re; which will import, not the presenting of that again to a man’s senses, which once is past, but the tendering of that to a man’s possession, which is tendered him upon the place.258 In the Eucharist therefore the presence and sacrifice of Christ is said to be not only figurative or symbolic, but the ‘possession’ of the person who receives. Therefore he argues that: “the body and blood of Christ should be sacramentally present in and under the elements (to be spiritually received of all that meet it with a living faith, to condemn those for crucifying Christ again that receive it with a dead faith), can it seem any way inconsequent to the consecration thereof by virtue of the common faith of Christians, professing that which is requisite to make true Christians, whether by a living or a dead faith?”259 Here he says that the body and blood of faith is present ‘in’ and ‘under’ the elements and that even those who have a ‘dead faith’receive it in some way. This suggests that for Thorndike, there is an objective givenness of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is independent of the faith of the communicant. This is a statement of moderate realism. The consecration of the elements, Thorndike argues, is effected by the use of prayer and not by the specific words, ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’. This, he argues, is so since Christ made the elements to be his body and blood by the use of prayer and since the ancient liturgies also agree that the use of prayer is the means of consecration, not specific words.260 Thorndike goes on to elaborate this idea in the following passages: If it can be any way shewed that the Church did ever pray that the flesh and blood might be substituted instead of the elements under the accident of them, then I am content that this be counted henceforth the sacramental

257 Ibid, IV, p. . 258 Ibid, IV, p. . 259 Ibid, IV, p. . 260 Ibid, IV, pp. –.  chapter three

presence of them in the Eucharist. But, if the Church only pray that the Spirit of God, coming down upon the elements, may make them the body and blood of Christ, so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of His Spirit; then it is not the sense of the Catholic Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the elements in their bodily substance: because, supposing that they remain, they may nevertheless become the instrument of God’s Spirit, to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it, no otherwise than His flesh and blood conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth. And that, I suppose, is reason enough to call it the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, that is to say, as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not here to be denied that all ecclesiastical writers do with one mouth bear witness to the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Neither will any of them be found to ascribe it to anything but the consecration; or that to any faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it. And upon this account, when they speak of the elements, supposing the consecration to have passed upon them, they always call them by the name, not of their bodily substance, but of the body and blood of Christ which they are become.261 Here Thorndike denies any immoderate realism in relation to the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. It is the Spirit of God coming upon the elements that makes them the body and blood of Christ. There is no sense in which the flesh and blood of Christ is substituted for the elements, such that the bodily substance of the elements is abolished. The elements, by the power of the Spirit, become the instrumentsofGodto conveytheefficacyofChrist’sgraceonearthinthe Eucharist. The elements may therefore be called the body and blood of Christ, not in the immoderate realist sense, but in the sense of moderate realism. In relation to change in the elements, Thorndike says: “The fathers . . all acknowledge the elements to be changed, translated, and turned into the substance of Christ’s body and blood; though as in a Sacrament, that is, mystically; yet therefore by virtue of the consecration, not of his faith that receives.”262 While the elements remain in their natural substance, they are nonetheless ‘changed, translated and turned’ into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, not in an immoderate sense (fleshy) but in a moderate sense (sacramentally). The way in which this occurs remains mystical, but nonetheless real.

261 Ibid, IV, p. . 262 Ibid, IV, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

In this important passage, Thorndike speaks of the elements becoming Christ’s body and blood. He says: The canon of the Mass itself prays that the Holy Ghost coming down may make this bread and this cup the body and blood of Christ. And certainly the Roman Mass expresses a manifest abatement of the common and usual sense of the body and blood of Christ unto that sense which is proper to the intent and subject of them who speak of this Sacrament; when the Church in the consecration prays, ut nobis corpus fiat dilectissimi Filii Tui Domini nostri Jesu Christ, ‘that they may become the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to us’.No man, that understands Latin and sense, will say it is the same thing for the elements to become the body and blood of Christ as to become the body and blood of Christ to those who receive; which imports no more than that which I have said. And yet there is no more said in those liturgies which pray that the Spirit of God may make them the flesh and blood of Christ to this intent and effect, that those which received them may be filled with the grace of His Spirit. For the expression of this effect and intent limits the common signification of the words to that which is proper to this action of the Eucharist; as I have delivered it.263 Once again the power of the Holy Spirit is the means for the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ. There is, says Thorndike, a proper sense in which this ‘becoming’ is understood. He distinguishes between ‘becoming the body and blood of Christ’ and what he sees as the proper sense, that is, ‘becoming the body and blood of Christ to those that receive’. This means that for those who receive the elements, following the prayer of consecration, where the Holy Spirit has been invoked over the elements, the elements become the body and blood of Christ and the person who receives them receives the grace of Christ’s Spirit. This again is a statement of moderate realism where Thorndike is distinguishing between an immoderate sense of becoming (fleshy) and a moderate sense (for those who receive). He says: “As it is by no means to be denied that the elements are really changed, translated, turned, and converted into the body and blood of Christ (so that whoso receiveth them with a living faith is spiritually nourished by the same, he that with a dead faith is guilty of crucifying Christ), yet is not the change destructive to the bodily substance of the elements, but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of Christ’sbody and blood; so that the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament turns to the nourishment of the

263 Ibid, IV, pp. –.  chapter three body, whether the body and blood in the truth turn to the nourishment or the damnation of the soul.”264 Here Thorndike again argues for moderate realism. The change brought about in the consecration of the elements is not destructive of their bodily substance (bread and wine) but cumulative, in that the substance of bread and wine remains, but the spiritual grace of Christ’s body and blood is also in and under the sacrament. Therefore there is both nourishment of the body (by the natural substance of the bread and wine) and also nourishment(ordamnation) ofthesoul (by thebody and blood of Christ). In relation to eucharistic sacrifice, Thorndike makes the following comments, connecting the idea of eucharistic sacrifice with the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements: HavingshowedthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristinthe Eucharist because it is appointed that in it the faithful may feast upon the sacrifice of the cross; we have already showed by the Scriptures that itis the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross in the same sense and to the same effect as it containeth the body and blood of Christ which it representeth; that is, mystically and spiritually and sacramentally (that is, as in and by a Sacrament) tendereth and exhibiteth. For seeing the Eucharist not only tendereth the flesh and blood of Christ, but separated one from the other, under and by several elements, as His blood was parted from His body by the violence of the cross; it must of necessity be as well the sacrifice as the Sacrament of Christ upon the cross.265 Eucharistic sacrifice seems, for Thorndike, to be realist to a moderate degree. The faithful ‘feast upon the sacrifice of the cross’ in the Eucharist, but they do this in a mystical and spiritual manner. The sacrifice of Christ is represented in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ is represented, mystically and spiritually. Immoderate realism seems to be excluded by Thorndike, since he does not advocate any sense of a fleshy or physical presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. Thorndike uses the terms ‘propitiatory’ and ‘impetratory’ in relation to the Eucharist, arguing that there are four parts to eucharistic sacrifice. These are: the oblation of the unconsecrated elements at the offertory; the intercessory prayers in union with the heavenly prayer of Christ; the consecration of the bread and wine; and the dedication to God of those who receive the sacrament.266 In discussing the first part (the oblation

264 Ibid, IV, pp. –. 265 Ibid, IV, pp. –. 266 Thorndike discusses this in depth: ibid, IV, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  of the unconsecrated elements at the offertory) he says: “Those species, set apart for the celebration of the Eucharist, are as properly to be called sacrifices of that nature which the Eucharist is of (to wit, commemorative and representative) as the same are to be counted figurative under the Law from the time they were deputed to that use. This is then the first act of oblation by the Church, that is, by any Christian that consecrates his goods,notatlargetotheserviceofGod,butpeculiarlytotheserviceof God by sacrifice; in regard whereof the elements of the Eucharist before they are consecrated, are truly counted oblations or sacrifices.”267 The Eucharist is here referred to as both a commemorative and representative sacrifice and the elements, before consecration, are oblations and sacrifices, because they are offered to God. In relation to the second part (the offering of prayers) Thorndike says: After the consecration is past, having showed you that St Paul hath appointed that at the celebration of the Eucharist ‘prayers, supplications, and intercessions, be made for all’ estates of the world and of the Church; and that the Jews have no right to the Eucharist (according to the Epistle to the Hebrews) because, though eucharistical, yet it is of that kind of blood whereof is offered to God within the veil, with prayers for all estates ofthe world, as Philo and Josephus inform us: seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded us the accomplishment of that figure in the offering of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to the Father in the highest heavens to obtain the benefits of His passion for us; upon earth of that which is done there: these things, I say, considered, necessarily it follows that whoso believes the prayers of the Church made in our Lord’s name do render God propitious to them for they are made, and obtain for them the benefits of Christ’s death (which he that believes not is no Christian), cannot question that those which are made by St Paul’s appointment at the celebration of the Eucharist, offering up unto God the merits and sufferings of Christ there represented must be peculiarly and especially effectual to thesamepurposes.AndthattheEucharistmayveryproperlybeaccounted a sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory both in this regard—because the offering of it up to God with and by the said prayers doth render God propitious, and obtain at His hands the benefits of Christ’s death which it representeth—there can be no cause to refuse, being no more than the simplicity of plain Christianity enforceth.268 Prayers are seen to be the means by which the Eucharist is propitiatory and impetratory, and since they are offered to God in the Eucharist they obtain the benefits of Christ’s death. It is the offering up to God of the

267 Ibid, IV, p. . 268 Ibid, IV, pp. –.  chapter three

Eucharist with prayers that can rightly be called a sacrifice ‘propitiatory’ and ‘impetratory’.The benefits of Christ’s death are therefore represented and available in the sense of moderate realism. When speaking of the third part (the consecration) Thorndike says: Having maintained that the elements are really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament; and that in virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives: I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth: namely, that the elements so consecrate are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ crucified are contained in them, not as in a bare sign, which a man may take up at his pleasure, but as in the means by which God hath promised His Spirit; but not properly the sacrifice upon the cross, because that is a thing that consists in action and motion and succession, and therefore once done can never be done again, because it is contradiction that that which is done should ever be undone. It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is represented, renewed, revived, and restored by it, and at every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth; taking ‘representation’ here, not for barely signifying, but for tendering and exhibiting thereby that which it signifieth.269 Letusthereforehavethenatureofasacrificesosoonastheconsecrationis past. It shall have that nature improperly, so long as it is not the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross; though truly, so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth.270 I will not grant that this sacrificing (that is, this consecrating the elements into the sacrifice) is an action done in the person of Christ: though they are agreed that it is done by the rehearsing of the words of Christ. For the rehearsing of Christ’s words is not an action done in the person of Christ; nor do I take upon me His person whose words I recite. And I have showed that the consecration is done by the prayers of the Church immediately; though these prayers are made in virtue of Christ’s order, commanding to do what He did, and thereby promising that the elements shall become that which He saith those which He consecrated are.271 Having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and blood of Christ crucified, or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof, as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ; and the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both; it

269 Ibid, IV, p. . 270 Ibid, IV, p. . 271 Ibid, IV, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the cross (as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth), is also both propitiatory and impetratory by virtue of the consecration of it, whereby it becometh the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.272 In this passage Thorndike states that elements are mystically changed from the state of ordinary bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ and that this change does not depend upon the faith of the receiver. The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist has therefore an objective character in the bread and wine, not being any mere sign. Further Thorndike argues that the consecrated elements are ‘truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross’ in the sense that Christ’s body and blood ‘are contained in them’.Having said this he is careful to exclude any immoderate realism since he also says that the elements are ‘not properly the sacrifice upon the cross’.The presence of Christ’sbody and blood and the sacrifice of Christ is ‘represented, renewed, revived, and restored’ in the Eucharist. This strong expression of realism must however, still be considered to be moderate, since the proper sense (fleshy and physical) of both presence and sacrifice is denied. For Thorndike the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is one of ‘nature’, following the consecration. The nature is described as being an ‘improper nature’, that is, not a physical, fleshy or immoderate presence and sacrifice, but at the same time the nature of Christ’s presence and sacrifice means that ‘the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth’. This idea of an ‘improper nature’ is that nature based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. It equates to the notion of Christ’s nature as word or logos being instantiated in the Eucharist in a moderate realist sense. Thorndike’s ‘proper nature’ equates with immoderate realism and his ‘improper nature’ equates with moderate realism. Immoderate realism isexcludedbyThorndikesincehesaysthathewillnotgrantthatthe sacrificing in the Eucharist is ‘an action done in the person of Christ’,but moderate realism is affirmed. In discussing the fourth element (dedication to the service of God) Thorndike says: Hereupon ariseth a fourth reason why this Sacrament is a sacrifice; to wit, of the bodies and souls of them who, having consecrated the goods to God for the celebration of it, do by receiving it profess to renew that

272 Ibid, IV, pp. –.  chapter three

consecration of themselves to the service of God according to the law of Christ, which their Baptism originally pretended.273 Breaking, pouring forth, distributing, eating, drinking, are all parts of the sacrifice; as the whole action is that sacrifice, by which the covenant of grace is renewed, restored, and established against the interruption of our failures.274 The sacrifice, which is dedication to the service of God, is linked with the elements of the Eucharist in a realist sense. It is through the outward breaking, pouring, distributing, eating and drinking that the grace of Christ is known in the Eucharist. The objective nature of the presence and sacrifice of Christ inthe Eucharist is emphasised by Thorndike in these words: If from hence any man would infer that, seeing the Sacrament of the Eucharist (that is to say, the body and blood of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the consecration) is a propitiatory and impetratory sacrifice for the congregation there present, for their relations, and for the Church, therefore it is so, whether they proceed to receive the Eucharist or not; therefore it is so, whether they proceed to offer up the Eucharist present by their prayers for the necessities of the Church or not; therefore it is so whether they pray with the Church or not; the consequence will straight appear to fail; because those reasons which make it such a sacrifice make it so in order to the receiving, or to the offering of it by prayers of the Church in behalf of the Church.275 Here Thorndike defines the Eucharist first of all as ‘the body and blood of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the consecration’ and then goes on to say that it is both propitiatory and impetratory for those who are present, whether thy receive the sacrament or not. This suggests that the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is independent of the faith and prayers of those who are in attendance. The presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist has for Thorndike therefore, an objective givenness, which he has stated elsewhere not to be a fleshy or physical presence and sacrifice. The realism he speaks of here is that of moderate realism. This idea of an objective presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist is also spoken of in another of Thorndike’s works, called The Reformation of the Church of England better than the Council of

273 Ibid, IV, p. . 274 Ibid, IV, p. . 275 Ibid, IV, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Trent,276 written between  and . In this work Thorndike states that he believes the sacrament can be reserved for the benefit of the sick or dying. He says: “Thus far I will particularise as concerning the Eucharist, that the Church is to endeavour the celebrating of it so frequently that it may be reserved to the next Communion. For in the mean time it ought to be so ready for them that pass into the next world that they need not stay for the consecrating of it on purpose for every one.”277 Thorndike also agrees that it is right for reverence in the Eucharist and in the elements and that “this reverence to be tendered to our Lord as present in the Sacrament; and that presence a just occasion of tendering the reverence”,278 since “when it passes the streets in order to communion, it may be then so well understood, that it may be then but due reverence to that great office”.279 Both of these references imply that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist remains outside the reception of the bread and wine and that the presence is continuing outside the Eucharist. The nature of this continuing presence, as reservation for the sick and dying and as passing in the streets, is still though that of moderate realism. The ‘improper nature’ of Christ’spresence and sacrifice (that is, the moderate realist presence and sacrifice) is for Thorndike a continuing presence and sacrifice outside the Eucharist, as the nature of Christ, but not as a ‘proper nature’ or immoderate realist presence and sacrifice in any fleshy sense. Thorndike’s writing on the Eucharist is based on philosophical assumptions of realism.

276 Herbert Thorndike, ‘The Reformation of the Church of England better than that of the Council of Trent: or a Short Resolution of the Controversies between the Churches of England and Rome’, in The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike (A. Haddan, ed) (Oxford, Parker, ), V, pp. –. 277 Ibid, V, p. . 278 Ibid, V, p. . 279 Ibid, V. p. .  chapter three

John Tillotson

John Tillotson (–), Archbishop of Canterbury, was strongly opposed to the doctrine of transubstantiation, arguing there was no evidence for it in Scripture or in the Fathers, and he saw it as contrary to reason and giving rise to scandals and absurdities.280 His own view about the Eucharist is revealed in this passage from a sermon entitled, A Persuasive to Frequent Communion,281 where Tillotson says: If this be the end and use of this Sacrament, to be a solemn remembrance of the death and sufferings of our Lord during His absence from us, that is, till His coming to judgment, then this Sacrament will never be out of date till the second coming of our Lord. The consideration whereof should mightily strengthen and encourage our faith in the hope of eternal life so often as we partake of this Sacrament, since our Lord hath left ittousas a memorial of Himself till he comes to translate His Church into heaven, and as a sure pledge that He will come again at the end of the world, and invest us in that glory which He is now gone before to prepare for us.282 There is no linking here between the sign and the signified. The purpose of the Eucharist is to be a ‘solemn remembrance’ of Christ, used in the period of his absence before his second coming, to remind us of him and his work for us. Those who partake of the sacrament on earth do so as a ‘memorial’ and by it they have a ‘pledge’ of his coming again. Thesenseof‘memorial’seemstobethatofreminderandnotthatof memorial remembrance. Instead the Eucharist seems to function as a useful reminder to the faithful of the past work of Christ and the hope of his return in the future. Tillotson’s view of the Eucharist is based on nominalism. The sign and the signified seem to have some distance between them, each a separated and self-enclosed entity. This does not mean that Tillotson did not value the Eucharist. Indeed in a work entitled A Discourse to His Servants Concerning Receiving the Sacrament,283 Tillotson explains a very positive belief in the Eucharist, saying:

280 Cyril Dugmore, Eucharistic Doctrine in England from Hooker to Waterland (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 281 John Tillotson, ‘Sermon XXV: A Persuasive to Frequent Communion’, in Sermons on Several Subjects and Occasions (London: Ware, Ward and Knapton, Longman, Hett, Hitch, Hodges, Austen, Tonson, Pemberton and Rivinton, ), pp. –. 282 Ibid, p. . 283 John Tillotson, ‘A Discourse to His Servants Concerning Receiving the Sacrament’ in Several Discourse on the Following Subjects (London: Chiswell, ), pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

It is the most solemn institution of our religion; and, as we are Christians, we are obliged to the frequent receiving of it, and we cannot neglect it withoutagreatcontempttoourblessedSaviourandHisreligion.He hath appointed it for a solemn remembrance of His great love for us in laying down His life for us; and therefore He commands us to do it in remembranceofHim;andSt.Paultellsusthat‘asoftenasweeatthisbread, anddrinkthiscup,wedoshowforththeLord’sdeathtillHecome’.Boththe comfortandthebenefitofitaregreat.Thecomfortofit,becauseitdoesnot only represent to us the exceeding love of our Saviour in giving His body to be broken, and His blood to be shed, for us, but it likewise seals to us all those blessings and benefits which are purchased and procured for us by His death and passion, the pardon of sins, and power against sin. The benefit of it is also great, because hereby we are confirmed in goodness, and our resolutions of better obedience are strengthened, and the grace of God’sHolySpirittoenableustodoHiswillisherebyconveyedtous.284 The Eucharist is seen as valuable and frequent reception is encouraged, but the underlying theology of the Eucharist which Tillotson expresses here is nominalist. There is no obvious linking of the sign and the signified. Tillotson was however, able to say that those who participated in the Eucharist in a worthy manner, did partake of the body and blood of Christ. In another sermon he says: “Therefore let Christians take heed of coming to the sacrament, but, Let them come prepared and with due reverence, not as to a common meal, but to a solemn participation of the body and blood of Christ.”285 This seems to be in the sense of participation in the sacrament as a whole without any obvious realist linking of the sign with the signified. Tillotson is of the view that those who receive in a worthy manner, participate in the body and blood of Christ, but he does not link the signs of the bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ in any realist sense. The sign and the signified remain separate in a nominalist conception of the Eucharist. The emphasis in Tillotson’s work is upon the use of and the participation in the sacrament in a worthy manner.

284 Ibid, pp. –. 285 Tillotson, ‘Sermon XXV: A Persuasive to Frequent Communion’, p. .  chapter three

William Wake

William Wake (–) was the Archbishop of Canterbury and like Henry Aldrich rejected the assertion made by some Roman Catholics that Anglican theology did not teach the doctrines of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be adored. Wake in a work entitled ADiscourse of the Holy Eucharist: in the Two Great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host286 published in  argues a rebuttal to the view that the Church of England did not teach a doctrine of the real presence and stated that: Whilst we thus oppose the errors of some by asserting the continuance of the natural substance of the elements of bread and wine in this Holy Eucharist, let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others, as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a mere rite and ceremony, a bare commemoration only of Christ’s death and passion. Our Church indeed teaches us to believe that the bread and wine continue still in their true and natural substances, but it teaches us also that it is the body and blood of Christ which every faithful soul receives in that Holy Supper, spiritually indeed and after a heavenly manner, but yet most truly and really too. The primitive fathers, of whom we have before spoken, sufficiently assure us that they were strangers to that corporeal change that is now pretended; but for this divine and mystical, they have openly enough declared for it. Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change, and that a very great one too, made in this Holy Sacrament. The bread and the wine which we here consecrate ought not to be given or received by any one in this mystery as common ordinary food. Those holy elements which the prayers of the Church have sanctified, and the divine words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them, though not transubstantiated, yet certainly separated to a holy use and signification, ought to be regarded with a very just honour by us; and, whilst we worship Him whose death we herein commemorate, and of whose grace we expect to be made partakers by it, we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the types and figures by which He has chosen to represent the one and convey to us the other. Thus therefore we think we shall best divide our piety if we adore our Redeemer in heaven, yet omit nothing that may testify our just esteem of His Holy Sacrament on earth, nor suffer the most zealous votary for this new opinion to exceed our care and reverence of approaching to His Holy Table. We acknowledge Him to be no less really present, though after

286 William Wake, A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist: in the Two Great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host. In answer to the two discourses lately printed at Oxford on this subject. To which is affixed a large historical preface relating to the same argument (London: Chiswell, ). the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

another manner than they, nor do we expect to communicate of His body and blood with our souls than they who think they take Him carnally in their mouths.287 Wake denies immoderate realism, but at the same time denies that the Eucharist is a ‘mere rite or ceremony’ and ‘a bare commemoration’.While the natural substances of the bread and wine are not changed, Wake affirms that that the body and blood of Christ is really received ina spiritual and heavenly manner, and that this manner of receiving the body and blood of Christ is as real as any other. The idea of change in the elements can only be conceded in relation to their use. They are changed from a common to a holy use. This change occurs by the prayers of the Church and the dominical words of Jesus, which sanctify the elements. They are in this way separated to a holy use. Worship is due to Jesus alone, but the elements are to be regarded with honour because of their use and signification. It is important to note that Wake affirms that Christ’s death is commemorated in the Eucharist and that the grace of Christ is conveyed by the types and figures (‘we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the types and figures by which He has chosen to represent the one [the commemoration of his death] and convey to us the other [the grace of Christ]’). This is a clear indication of moderate realism in Wake’s theology of the Eucharist. The elements are worthy of regard because they commemorate Christ’s death and convey his grace. The sign and the signified are linked. In another passage he speaks again of the real presence, saying: TostatethenotionoftherealpresenceasacknowledgedbytheChurchof England. I must observe, first, that our Church utterly denies our Saviour’s body to be so really present in the Blessed Sacrament as either to leave heaven or to exist in several places at the same time.288 Secondly, that we deny that in the sacred elements which we receive there is any other substance than that of bread and wine distributed to the communicants, which alone they take into their mouths and press with their teeth. In short, ‘all which the doctrine of our Church implies by this phrase is only a real presence of Christ’s invisible power and grace so in and with the elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men. As the bodies assumed by angels might be called their bodies while they assumed them, or rather, as the Church is the body of Christ because of His Spirit quickening and enlivening the

287 Ibid, pp. –. 288 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three

souls of believers, so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and mystical body of Christ’.289 Thus has that learned man, to whom T.G. first made this objection, stated the notion of the real presence professed by us; and that this is indeed the true doctrine of the Church of England in this matter is evident not only from the plain words of our twenty-eighth Article and of our Church Catechism, but also from the whole tenor of that Office which we use in the Celebration of it.290 This passage is a statement of moderate realism from Wake. He denies that Christ can leave heaven to be in the Eucharist or that Christ can be in more than one place at a time in his natural body. He also denies that there can be any other substances in the elements than the natural substances of bread and wine, but he affirms, quoting from the Answer to T.G.’s Dialogues, that ‘Christ’s invisible power and grace’ is ‘in and with the elements’ at the time of receiving. This is a crucial sentence. Wake, in approving the words of the quotation, is arguing that Christ is ‘in’ and‘with’thebreadandwine,notinanylocalorimmoderatesense,but by Christ’s invisible power and grace. This is a statement of moderate realism, closely aligned to the notion of instantiation of Christ’s nature as word or logos. The invisible power and grace of Christ (or Christ’s nature as word or logos) are instantiated in the bread and wine. Wake is linking sign and signified, in relation to both the use and celebration of the Eucharist and the elements as well, not in an immoderate sense, but in a moderate sense of realism. Wake also addressed the question of real presence in a discussion of Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist as it was raised in Woodhead’s pamphlet. He also spoke of Christ’s presence with people in terms of title deeds. This is revealed in the following passage: I know but one objection more that is, or can be, offered against what I have said, and, which having answered, I shall close the point, ‘For, if this be all the Church of England understands when it speaks of a real presence, namely, a real sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood in the holy signs, and a real spiritual presence in the inward Communion of them to the soul of every worthy receiver, will not this precipitate us into downright Zwinglianism, and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they are?’ Indeed, I am not able directly to say whether it will or no, as to this matter. But yet, first, if by Zwinglianism he means that which is more properly Socinianism, namely, a mere commemoration

289 Ibid, p. . Wake cites as being on page  in a work entitled Answer to T.G.’s Dialogues, published in London in . 290 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

of Christ’s death, and a thanksgiving to God for it, it is evident it does not, forasmuch as we positively confess that in this Holy Sacrament there is a real and spiritual grace communicated to us, even all the benefits of that death and passion which we there set forth. And this, or something like it, I find sometimes to have been maintained by Zwinglius. But now, secondly, if by Zwinglianism he understands such a real presence as denies only the co-existenceofChrist’snaturalbodynowinheavenatthesametimeinthis Holy Sacrament, but denies nothing of that real and spiritual Communion of it we have before mentioned, this is indeed our doctrine, nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill names he is able to put upon it.291 I shall close up this discourse of the real presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament with a plain familiar example, and which may serve at once both to illustrate and confirm the propriety of it. A father makes his last will, and by it bequeaths his estate and all the profits of it to his child. He delivers it into the hands of his son, and bids him take there his house and his lands, which by this last will he delivers to him. The son in this case receives nothing but a roll of parchment with a seal tied to it from his father; but yet by virtue of this parchment he is entituled to his estate performing the conditions of his will and to all the benefits and advantages of it; and in that deed he truly and effectually received the very house and lands that were thereby conveyed to him. Our Saviour Christ in like manner, being now about to leave the world, gives this Holy Sacrament as His final bequest to us; in it He conveys to us a right to His body and blood, and to all the spiritual blessings and graces that proceed from them. So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist as we ought to do, we receive indeed nothing but a little bread and wine into our hands, but by the blessing and promise of Christ we by that bread and wine as really and truly become partakers of Christ’s body and blood as the son by the will of his father was made inheritor of his estate; nor is it any more necessary for this that Christ’s body should come down from heaven, or the outward elements which we receive be substantially turned into it than it is necessary in that other case that the very houses and lands should be given into the hands of the son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them, or the will of the father be truly and properly changed into the very nature and substance of them.292 Wake effectively exploits the various positions taken in regard to Zwing- lianism to dispute with Woodhead. At the same time he denies that the position of the Church of England on the Eucharist is nothing more than a mere commemoration of Christ’s death and a thanksgiving for it. Wake affirms that for the Church of England the view must be that there is

291 Ibid, pp. –. 292 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three real and spiritual grace communicated in the Eucharist. Following his analogy to the last will of the father given to the son, Wake applies this to Christ,theChurch and theEucharist. Here in a crucial sentence he again affirms that Christ is present in the bread and wine. He says, as quoted above, ‘We receive indeed nothing but a little bread and wine into our hands, but by the blessing and promise of Christ we by that bread and wine as really and truly become partakers of Christ’s body and blood’. The sign, the bread and wine, is linked to the signified, the body and blood of Christ, in a moderate realist sense. Christ coming to earth in any natural or immoderate fashion does not achieve this. The manner of Christ’spresence and the reality of the benefits of the sacrifice are present by Christ’s invisible power and grace. This presence which Wake speaks of in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist is that of moderate realism. In relation to the question of whether or not it is possible to adore Christ in the Eucharist, Wakes quotes from various Anglican theologians, including Lancelot Andrewes, and says that: “As in all other Holy Offices, in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us, but especially in this Sacred Mystery. And thus we adore him, both in and with, and without the sacrament; we confess him to be truly present, and therefore to be truly adored by us”.293 Indeed in the Preface to this work Wake had already declared, expressing opposition to the Roman Catholic position, “the impossibility of the pretended substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament”.294 This did not however preclude Wake from speaking of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In another work295 Wake in discussing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist says that, “if we rightly understand the Presence . . . we may say it is Really, Essentially, nay Corporally present: that is, it is present in as much as it is Really received to all intents and purposes for which the Res ipsa theEssence,theSubstancetheverybody would be useful to us, if it were Physicallly and Locally present. And the difference between us and the Papists is plain. They understand a local presence, which we deny and then reject their expression. We . . . mean only a Spiritual and Virtual Presence, and explain the term we make use

293 Ibid,p.. 294 Ibid,Preface,p.i. 295 William Wake, A Reply to Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford Concerning the Adoration of our blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist (Oxford: The Theater, ). the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  of to that effect”.296 He goes on to say that “it is likewise evident, that when we say Christ is present, or Adorable in the Sacrament, we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration”297 In relation to this presence of Christ’s body he goes on to argue that “we hold it Really Present in as much as it is Really received and we are actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us. So that while we Spiritually eat Christ’s Flesh and drink his Blood we through Faith in a mysterious and ineffable manner, dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us: and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation, we receive the Benefits consequent to it; even the remission of our Sins and all other Benefits of Christ’s Passion”.298 Wake’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.

296 Ibid,p.. 297 Ibid,p.. 298 Ibid,p..  chapter three

Daniel Waterland

Daniel Waterland (–) was a theologian. His great work on the Eucharist was published in  and entitled AReviewoftheDoctrine of the Eucharist.299 Waterland also wrote four charges related to the Eucharist for the clergy of Middlesex in his role as Archdeacon. A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist will be considered first. Waterland acknowledges that the Eucharist can be called an ‘oblation’ (πρσ&ρ) since it is an ancient name for the Eucharist found in the early Church Fathers, whereby gifts are said to be offered by sacerdotal hands, having first been brought to the altar by the people. The gifts as oblations include both alms and the bread and wine of the Eucharist.300 Waterland points out though that the oblations spoken of are never of Christ’s body and blood in the early church until Cyprian speaks in this way. The oblations were always seen as prior to consecration, with the elements specifically being offered in order to be consecrated.301 Waterland is keen here to establish the point that any language relating to the offering of Christ or his body and blood is meant as a “Eucharistical commemoration” or “of offering Christ himself in this Sacrament, unto God, but under the symbols of consecrated bread and wine” or “the commemorating of Christ” or “commemorating his passion”302 but not any oblation of “Christ absolutely”.303 Waterland seems to allow the use of the word ‘oblation’ in relation to the gifts of bread and wine in the Eucharist in this moderate realist sense, but to exclude any immoderate sense of the word whereby Christ is seen to be offered in an absolute or fleshy and physical sense in the Eucharist. The word ‘sacrament’ is also said to be of ancient origin, butits meaning is by no means certain, and its signification various, sometimes meaning the outward sign, sometimes the thing signified and at other times both the sign and the signified or the whole action or service.304 Waterland nonetheless is critical of any view which is opposed to the notion of a sacrament—both those which reject the invisible and inward

299 Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, with Four Charges to the Clergy of Middlesex connected with the same subject (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). 300 Ibid,p.. 301 Ibid,p.. 302 Ibid,p.. 303 Ibid,p.. 304 Ibid,p.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  grace (Socinian) and those which destroy the visible or outward sign (Roman).305 It appears that Waterland’s view of the Eucharist is somewhere between these two extremes and can be accommodated within the use of the word ‘sacrament’ dependent on a moderate form of realism. ‘Eucharist’ is seen to denote a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving306 andwasandiswidelyusedthroughoutthewholechurch. Waterland sees ‘sacrifice’ (#υσια) as being ancient in its use concerning the offerings in the Eucharist. This usage is seen to be distinct from any notion of a spiritual sacrifice. Sacrifice therefore, is seen to have several uses in the early tradition of the church.307 Most commonly though the word is seen to denote “the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated” with “the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified”.This meant that “the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as well as an oblation” because “partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tremendous sacrifice of Christ God-man”. This meaning Waterland states is “the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the Eucharist. But those who styled the Eucharist a sacrifice on that account, took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice rather than a strict or proper sacrifice”.308 Waterland here distinguishes two type of sacrifice. There is the eucharistic sacrifice which is a memorial of a sacrifice and there is an historic sacrifice of Christ, which is, as he calls it, ‘a strict or proper sacrifice’. The strict and proper sacrifice of Christ (immoderate) does not occur in the Eucharist since it occurred only once on the cross, but the memorial of the sacrifice (moderate) occurs more than once, in fact, often, in the Eucharist. Commemoration (νμνησις) and memorial (μν μν)arealsomen- tioned by Waterland as having ancient origin and used to denote the whole service of the Eucharist. The commemoration or memorial is a eucharistical remembrance and refers to Christ only, his incarnation and passion, his body and blood. This is based on Christ’s words at the institution where Christ speaks of remembering him.309 Waterland then sees

305 Ibid, pp. –. 306 Ibid,p.. 307 Ibid, pp. –. 308 Ibid,p.. 309 Ibid,p..  chapter three the Eucharist as a commemoration and memorial of Christ’s body and blood as well as of the sacrifice of Christ. It is in this sense then that the Eucharist can be called a sacrifice, since it is a memorial or commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice. In his discussion of the term Passover, Waterland refers to early use of this term for the Eucharist (e.g. Origen) who spoke of the Eucharist of theChristianPassoverfeast,where“thefleshoftheLogosmaybeeaten also out of the Eucharist; for the receiving spiritual nutriment any way, is with him eating the flesh of Christ”.310 Here Waterland, following Origen, speaks as a moderate realist. The flesh of Christ is eaten in the Eucharist and is associated with it, but the eating is a spiritual eating and not a fleshy or immoderate eating. Waterland’s discussion of the names for the Eucharist suggests that the prevailing theology of the Eucharist he expresses is that of moderate realism. He distances himself from any immoderate views of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist and in his discussion of the names, particularly oblation, sacrament, Eucharist, sacrifice, memorial and commemoration and Passover, presents a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist. Sign seems to be aligned with the signified. Waterland’s charges will now be considered. The first charge, The Doctrinal Use of the Christian Sacraments,311 was delivered on  May, . In the context of discussing the sacraments in general, Waterland speaks of the Eucharist specifically, saying: For as the consecrated bread and wine were the authentic symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and were, in construction and certain effect (though not in substance), the same with what they stood for, to all worthy receivers; it was manifest, that bodies so incorporated with the body of Christ must of course be partners with it in a glorious resurrection. Thus was the Eucharist considered as a sure and certain pledge to all good men of the future resurrection of their bodies, symbolically fed with the body of Christ. For like as the branches partake of the vine, and the members of the head, so the bodies of the faithful, being by the Eucharist incorporate with Christ’s glorified body, must of consequence appertain to it, and be glorified with it.312 Waterland here advocates moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist. The bread and wine are authentic symbols of Christ’s body and blood, but more than this, they are in ‘construction and certain effect’ the

310 Ibid,p.. 311 Ibid, pp. –. 312 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  same as what they stand for, that is, the body and blood of Christ, although they are not the same in substance. Bread and wine remain bread and wine in substance, but they are also what they stand for. The Eucharist also joins or identifies the faithful with the resurrection, providing a pledge of new life and spiritual feeding with the body of Christ. The faithful are ‘incorporate with Christ’s glorified body’ through the Eucharist. The signs and signified are closely associated with the signs being conveyances of God’s grace. Waterland’s second charge together with an Appendix, was delivered on  April, , and was entitled The Christian Sacrifice Explained.313 In this charge Waterland begins by stating that the Eucharist: “is a federal rite between God and man, so it must be supposed to carry something in it something that God gives to us, and something also that we give, or present, to God. These are, as it were, the two integral parts of that holy ceremony: the former may properly be called the sacramental part, and the latter, the sacrificial.”314 For Waterland there is a correct meaning of sacrifice in the Eucharist and an incorrect meaning. The incorrect meaning is the suggestion that “the material elements of the Eucharist were properly the Christian sacrifice”.315 The correct meaning is rather ‘spiritual sacrifices’,which are more than “mental service only” but “true sacrifice and direct homage”,316 without any confusion of the material elements with the fleshy sacrifice of Christ. The fleshy (immoderate) sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not to be found in the Eucharist. Sacrifice for Waterland, based on Scripture and early Church writers means “spiritual sacrifice, without giving the leasthintthatitwasnottruesacrifice,orsacrificeproperlysocalled”.317 Spiritual sacrifices might be called ‘proper sacrifices’ but they arenot immoderate (that is, with the material elements being seen to be the Christian sacrifice properly). The correct meaning for sacrifice in the Eucharist is that of moderate realism where the sacrifice is a spiritual, and yet a true sacrifice. The correct meaning for Waterland implies “work or service” rather than “material elements”.318 Bread and wine then, cannot be to us an expiatory sacrifice. “It is no more possible that the blood of the grape, representing Christ’s blood,

313 Ibid, pp. –. 314 Ibid, p. . 315 Ibid, p. . 316 Ibid, p. . 317 Ibid, p. . 318 Ibid, p. .  chapter three should purge the conscience, and take away sins now, than the blood of bulls or of goats, representing the same blood of Christ, could do it aforetime”.319 This being so, Waterland concludes that “our expiations now are either spiritual or none: and therefore such of course must our sacrifices also be, either spiritual or none at all.”320 Waterland argues that some Protestants have denied that there is a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist because of the confusion between sign and signified which developed after primitive Christian times.321 Other Protestants have maintained however, the spiritual sacrifice meaning and so avoided any immoderate realism. He cites many Reformers322 in the category (both English and other continental Reformers) to justify his view that moderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist means spiritual sacrifices. Waterland’s third charge, that of the Easter Visitation of , is entitled The Sacramental Part of the Eucharist Explained.323 Waterland refers here to the great stress that has been placed by some on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, especially regarding the invocation or epiclesis. He argues that some in their stress on the work of the Holy Spirit, state that this is: Not barely to make them sacred signs and pledges, or exhibitive symbols of Christ’s body and blood to every faithful communicant (which might reasonably be admitted), but even to make them the very body, or verily the body of Christ: not the natural body, but another true body, called a spiritual body, consisting, as is presumed, of elements changed in their inward qualities, and replenished either with the Holy Spirit himself, or with graces, or virtues, or energies of the Spirit; supposed to be intrinsic to them, inherent in them, permanent with them, and received by worthy and unworthy communicants.324 Whilst acknowledging that there is no change in the natural substance implied, he suggests that some believe that the Holy Spirit changes the inward qualities, such that the graces, virtues or energies of the Spirit are now within the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The effect of this

319 Ibid, pp. –. 320 Ibid, p. . 321 Ibid, pp. –. 322 Ibid, pp. –. 323 Ibid, pp. –. 324 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  he argues is that, the Holy Spirit, once invoked, descends upon the bread and wine on the altar, enriching them with all the virtues and graces with which the personal body and blood of Christ did abound, and thereby making them to be the very body and blood of Christ. Waterland rejects this view on the basis of Scripture and the Fathers. He argues that in the first three centuries nothing was heard of the descent of the Spirit on the elements in the Eucharist, but that the Fathers interpreted passages such as Luke :  (the annunciation of the Blessed Virgin by the Spirit coming upon her) as being attributable to the Logos.325 Waterland explains by saying: The similitude made use of anciently with respect to the Eucharist, was that of the incarnation, intended only in a confuse, general way, and not for any rigorous exactness. For like as our Lord, in his incarnation, made and fitted for himself a natural body to dwell in; so, in regard to the Eucharist, he has appointed and fitted for himself a symbolical body to concur with, in the distributing his graces and blessings to the faithful receivers. As to the third Person, his more immediate presence and energy was by the ancients assigned to Baptism, . . . while to the Eucharist was assigned the moreimmediatepresenceandenergyoftheLogos.326 It seems that Waterland is prepared to admit that the Spirit of Christ (Logos) descends upon the elements, being united to them as the Lord was to a human body in the incarnation, that is, the Logos being “hypostatically united to the humanity of Christ”327 but he is not prepared to admit that the Holy Spirit descends upon the elements, nor will he admit that it is united to them. He argues though, that the Spirit of Christ: “is not said to reside in the elements, but to accompany them, and to the worthy only: so that the virtual union can amount only to an union of concurrence (not of infusion or inherence), whereby Christ is conceived to concur with the elements, in the due use of them to produce the effects in the persons fitly disposed.”328 There seems to be some inconsistency here, since he argues that the Spirit of Christ (Logos) in its hypostatic union with the humanity of Christ, is the model for the Spirit of Christ descending on the elements, but he also says that the Spirit of Christ does not reside in the elements. If the hypostatic union is the model, then the relationship between

325 Ibid, p. . 326 Ibid, p. . 327 Ibid, p. . 328 Ibid, p. .  chapter three the Spirit of Christ and the elements should properly be stronger than the case he argues. The union he says is only one of concurrence and accompaniment, hardly that of hypostatic union. Despite this, Waterland is putting forward a moderate realist notion of the presence of Christ in the sacramental elements—not a natural or immoderate union of flesh, but a virtual union of concurrence. Such a union can be described as moderate realist, since the sign is seen to be united with the signified. The work of the Holy Spirit, properly conceived for Waterland is not “to make the sacramental body a compound of element and spirit”329 but “the work of the Holy Spirit upon the elements was to translate or change them from common to sacred, from elements to sacraments, from their natural state and condition to supernatural end and uses, that they might become holy signs, certain pledges, or exhibitive symbols of our Lord’s natural body and blood in a mystical and spiritual way. Not that any change was presumed, either as to the substance or the inward qualities of the elements, but only as to their outward state, condition, uses, or offices.”330 This change, or transmutation as Waterland calls it,331 is attested by the early Fathers, and relates not to any change of substance or inward quality, but to outward state, use or office of the elements. For Waterland the use of symbolical language is important. He argues: So long as symbolical language was well remembered and rightly understood, and men knew how to distinguish between figure and verity, be- tweensignsandthings:whileduecareandjudgmentwasmadeuseof,to interpret the literal expression of Scripture and Fathers literally, and figurative expressions according to the figure: I say, while these things were so, there could be no room for imagining any change in the elements, either as to substance or internal qualities, nor for supposing that Lord’s words, ‘This is my body’, were to be otherwise interpreted than those parallel words of the Apostle, ‘that rock was Christ’ [Corinthians : ]. For as the word ‘Christ’, which is the predicate in one proposition, is to be literally understood, and the trope lies in the verb ‘was’, put for ‘signified’, or exhibitively signified; so the word ‘body’, which is the predicate in the other proposition, is to be literally interpreted of the natural or personal body of Christ, and the trope lies in the verb ‘is’,put for ‘represents’,or exhibitively signifies. And as it would not be right to say that the rock was a spiritual Christ, distinct from the real Christ, making two Christs; so neither can it be right to

329 Ibid, p. . 330 Ibid, p. . 331 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

say or conceive that the bread in the Eucharist is a spiritual body of Christ, makingtwotruebodiesofChrist.Butastherockwasasymboloftheone true Christ, so is the sacramental bread a symbol exhibitive of the one true body of Christ, viz. the natural or personal body, given and received in the Eucharist: I say given and received spiritually, but truly and really; and the more truly, because spiritually, as the spiritual sense, and not the literal, is thetruesense.332 Here then is Waterland’s symbolic view of the presence of Christ in theEucharist.Christ’swords,‘Thisismybody’aresymbolic,with‘is’ meaning ‘represents’. The two however, the bread and the body, are not entirely separate in Waterland’s scheme, since the representing is an exhibitive signification and the true body of Christ is given and received in the Eucharist, but in a spiritual sense. The sign and the signified remain linked in a moderate realist sense and cannot seemingly be interpreted therefore in any nominalist theology of separation. In the fourth charge, delivered at the Easter Visitation, , and entitled Distinctions of Sacrifice,333 Waterland considers four types of sacrifice: Patriarchal, Pagan, Mosaic, Christian. Christian sacrifices: “are the things signified, the truth, the substance, the antitypes or archetypes of those types, signs, figures, shadows. Christians have a sacrifice of which they participate, and whereupon they feast, which is no other than the grand sacrifice itself, . . . and Christians have sacrifices, which they devoutly offer up as presents to the Divine Majesty: those are the spiritual sacrifices (all reducible to one, namely, self-sacrifice), whereof the patriarchal sacrifices were signs or symbols.”334 Waterland classifies sacrifices as either active or passive. An active sacrifice is offered up to God and a passive sacrifice is participated inby thepeoplewhofeastuponit.InrelationtoChrist’ssacrifice,Waterland argues that Christ actively offered the sacrifice, and people participate of him in a passive manner, feeding upon him. Christ’s sacrifice was offered once but the virtue of that sacrifice is for ever commemorated, exhibited and participated.335 He goes on to say that, “In such a sense his sacrifice abides, and we perpetually participate of it; sometimes symbolically, as in the two sacraments; and at other times without symbols, by faith only and good life. In this sense it is that Christians are said to ‘have an altar

332 Ibid, p. . 333 Ibid, pp. –. 334 Ibid, p. . 335 Ibid, p. .  chapter three whereof to eat’ [Hebrews : ]: and if an altar, they must have a sacrifice, for the same reason, and in the like sense.”336 Christians therefore are seen to feast upon the body and blood of Christ, which is the grand sacrifice. For Christians the eucharistic sacrifice is passive though, since they cannot offer it in any literal or immoderate sense. Other sacrifices, spiritual in nature, are seen however, as being active.337 Another distinction concerning sacrifice is that of extrinsic and intrinsic. The only extrinsic sacrifice is that of Christ. The sacrifices of Chris- tians are intrinsic, for example, “good thoughts, good words, or good ways”.338 Christians therefore do not offer up Christ in the Eucharist in an extrinsic manner, but only soul and body, heart and mind, in an intrinsic manner.339 Sacrifices are also seen to be visible and invisible. “Pagan and Jewish sacrifices were visible; but Christian sacrifices were deemed invisible; not every way, but in respect of their invisible source, as arising from within, from the heart and mind, which is seen only to God”.340 Waterland however quotes341 Augustine, who says that, “the visible sacrifice is the sacrament, the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice”,342 to support his argument that sacrifices are not invisible in all ways for Christians. The visible sacrifice in this sense though, “is really no better than the sign, shell, shadow, of true sacrifice”.343 Waterland concludes that the true sacrifices for Christians are the invisible sacrifices of the heart and mind or self-sacrifice. This means that: “The sacramental elements are notthe true sacrifice . . . but the signs of it”.344 Waterland also distinguishes between material and immaterial sacrifices, or corporeal and incorporeal sacrifices. Christian sacrifices can only be immaterial or incorporeal, unlike Jewish and Pagan sacrifices, which were material or corporeal. God has no need of the material or corporeal sacrifices, but nonetheless accepts the self-sacrifice of Christian people.

336 Ibid, pp. –. 337 Ibid, pp. –. 338 Ibid, p. . 339 Ibid, pp. –. 340 Ibid, pp. –. 341 Ibid, p. . 342 Augustine, Concerning The City of God Against the Pagans (H.Bettenson,trans) (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, ), p. . 343 Ibid, p. . 344 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

In the Eucharist, the material part, the bread and wine, is not offered to God but to people. All that people can offer to God is thanks, praise, hymns and the like.345 The distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice is also made. Water- land cites the Patristic evidence for this use346 and concludes that the Fathers use of the term ‘unbloody sacrifice’ in relation to the elements of the Eucharist, was “a metonymy” since they “have been sometimes called tremendous sacrifice, often body and blood, or Christ slain, and the like”.347 Waterland also distinguishes the term ‘smoky’ from ‘unsmoky’.Jewish and Pagan sacrifices are seen to be smoky, in that a material sacrifice was made in a fire, but “the Gospel sacrifices were free from fumes andvapours,andinflamedonlywiththefireoftheHolySpirit”.348 This mention of the Holy Spirit and its role in the Gospel sacrifices stands in contrast to the earlier denial of a role for the Holy spirit in the consecration through an epiclesis. The Eucharist must therefore be an unsmokysacrifice.TheHolySpiritwasseenintheFathersasthemeans of consecrating and sanctifying the elements into holy signs and sacred symbols “representative and exhibitive of the body and blood of Christ: not to make holocausts or sacrifices of them, but sacraments only; signs of the grand sacrifices of them, but sacraments only, spiritually given and received in and through them”.349 A distinction is also drawn between legal or literal sacrifices and spiritual or evangelical sacrifices. Waterland observes that spiritual is in many ways opposed to corporeal or material, in the sense of material and immaterial considered above, but this is not the sense in which he opposes legal/literal and spiritual/evangelical. Instead Waterland uses the New Testament distinction of Law and spirit (Romans : , : , :  and Corinthians : ). The Law he sees as the outward shell and the Gospel he sees as the inward kernel. The Law is carnal and the Gospel spiritual.350 Jewish sacrifices are seen as literal, carnal, terrene, typical and symbolical, while Christian sacrifices are spiritual and true. Spiritual and true sacrifices (Peter : ) are opposed to type, figure, shadow,

345 Ibid, pp. –. 346 Ibid, pp. –. 347 Ibid, p. . 348 Ibid, p. . 349 Ibid, p. . 350 Ibid. p. .  chapter three symbol or emblem and are true worship on the basis of Jesus’ words is ‘in spirit and in truth’ (John : ).351 Waterland links this to the Eucharist, saying that Christ: Performed his sacrifice in the active and transient sense, once for all, upon the cross: he distributes it daily in the passive and abiding sense of it, to all his true servants, to every faithful communicant. His table here below is a secondary altar in two views; first, on the score of our own sacrifices of prayers, praises, souls, and bodies, which we offer up from thence; secondly, as it is the best of the consecrated elements, that is, of the body and blood of Christ, that is, of the grand sacrifice, symbolically represented and exhibited, and spiritually there received; received by and with the signs bearing the name of the things.352 The right view of sacrifice in the Eucharist is what Waterland describes as Melchizedekian sacrifice, which is the sacrifice partaken of in the Eucharist. This is preferred to and compared to the Aaronical sacrifices. Whereas the Aaronical sacrifices are literal and carnal, the Melchizede- kian sacrifices were spiritual and true.353 Waterland also distinguishes between external and internal sacrifices,354 private and public,355 and lay and clerical sacrifices.356 Whereas all Christians are seen as priests as members of Christ’s body, ordained persons are priests in a more emphatic manner. This however, does not exclude all people “from being, properly speaking, sacrificers, but so only as to exclude them from being emphatically and eminently such as the clergy”.357 All are equal sacrificers, but not all are equal administrators of the sacrifice, “in a public, and solemn, and authorised way”.358 It is in this sense then that ‘sacerdos’ is considered to be a ‘steward of the mysteries of God’ who offers to God in the name of or in the person of the Church, that is the whole Church. The offering of the priest in the Eucharist is not animmoderateone(e.g.acarcase)butamoderateone(e.g.ainternal, invisible and spiritual sacrifice).359 Gratulatory and propitiatory sacrifices are also distinguished. There is only one propitiatory sacrifice in Waterland’s view and that is Christ’s

351 Ibid, p. . 352 Ibid, pp. –. 353 Ibid, p. . 354 Ibid, pp. –. 355 Ibid, pp. –. 356 Ibid, pp. –. 357 Ibid, p. . 358 Ibid, p. . 359 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  sacrifice performed once upon the cross. Even though there is one performance of this sacrifice it is “in virtue always abiding”.360 This seems to indicate moderate realism, since there is no re-iteration of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, but its virtue is always present. He says: “The sacrifice of Christ from without is the meritorious cause of propitiation: our own qualifying sacrifices from within are the conditional: and the two Sacraments, ordinarily, are the instrumental”.361 What then is the place of the elements? He answers in this way: As to the material elements, in either Sacrament, they are neither an extrinsic expiation nor an intrinsic qualification, and therefore cannot, with any propriety, be called an expiatory or a propitiatory sacrifice, no not in the lowest sense of propitiation. Indeed, the religious use of them is propitiatory, in such a sense as Christian services are so: therefore our so using them, that is, our service, is the sacrifice, and not they; and it is an intrinsic and qualifying sacrifice, not extrinsic or expiatory. . Sacraments,assuch(notsacrifices),aretherightsofapplication:themeans and instruments of conveyance and reception, with respect to the benefits of the great atonement. . . . The Eucharist is eminently so now.362 Sacrifice for Waterland is not propitiatory, but gratulatory only. Waterland’s final distinction is “between sacrifice real and nominal, between sacrifice truly such, and sacrifice in name only”.363 He argues that it is impossible to argue from the name of a thing to the real thing itself. In relation to the Eucharist he says: “as the bread and wine represent the real body and blood, which were a real sacrifice, so they have the names of body, and blood, and sacrifices: and there is no more room for arguing, barely from the name of sacrifice, to real sacrifice in the one case, than there is for arguing, barely from the names of body and blood, to real body and blood (that is to say, to transubstantiation), in the other sense.”364 Real here seems to indicate an immoderate sense of Christ’s presence and sacrifice, whereas nominal represents name only, with no immoderate sense of either presence or sacrifice. Real in this sense is distinguished from the verbal name given to the sacrament. The Fathers for example called the elements the body and blood of Christ and the Eucharist a sacrifice, but they did not mean this is in a real sense. They called the thing

360 Ibid, p. . 361 Ibid, p. . 362 Ibid, pp. –. 363 Ibid, p. . 364 Ibid, p. .  chapter three by the name which represented it. It is this that has become the difficulty, in that for some the sign was seen, mistakenly, to be the thing signified.365 Waterland argues, citing Chrysostom, that “the real sacrifice in the Eucharist . . . does not mean the signs, but the things signified by them, namely Christ himself, the one sacrifice”.366 This means that even though the Eucharist is “a commemorative sacrifice” it “is the same as a nominal sacrifice, opposed to a real one; a sign opposed to the thing signified; a memorial of a sacrifice, not that sacrifice”.367 Despite this, Waterland still admits, that even though: “Christians cannot partake of a any sacrifice in a literal sense . . . we may indeed partake of Christ’s sacrifice, a proper sacrifice, but not in a literal sense; for the participation is spiritual: we may literally partake of the elements; but they are not a proper sacrifice, but symbolical, and commemorative, being that they are memorial signs of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself”.368 The spiritual sacrifice which Waterland speaks of is something that is really partaken of, but the sense of real is not that of a literal or immoderate sacrifice. This does not mean however, that Christians do not offer a proper sacrifice. The proper sacrifice they offer is a spiritual sacrifice. The elements are a proper sacrifice when participated of inthe Eucharist, since the feeding upon them is a feast upon a sacrifice. “The words are so exactly chosen, as plainly to exclude the elements from being a proper sacrifice, and at the same time not to exclude our religious services from really being so”.369 When he speaks of the memorial in the Eucharist, Waterland distinguishes between the memorial as applied to the elements and the memorial as applied to prayers, praises and eucharistical actions. He says: “As to the name memorial, it may be noted, that it is capable of a twofold meaning, according as it may be applied. Apply it to the elements, and so it means a memorial sign, no sacrifice at all; apply it to the prayers, praises, and eucharistical actions, and then it means a memorial service, and is a sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice”.370 It seems that here Waterland is rejecting any view which sees the eucharistic sacrifice as being in name only (nominal). The real or proper eucharistic sacrifice as a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, cannot bethe

365 Ibid, p. . 366 Ibid, p. . 367 Ibid, p. . 368 Ibid, pp. –. 369 Ibid, pp. –. 370 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  elements, since they are signs only, rather, the real eucharistic sacrifice is the spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist as a memorial service. Service is a sacrifice, spiritually, but objects are not. The important distinction here seems to be between the objects themselves (the elements) and the eucharistical actions that are done in the service, including it would seem, those done with the elements. The elements are a memorial sign only, but the memorial service (including the eucharistical actions with the elements, as well as prayers and praises) is the real spiritual sacrifice and not a sacrifice in name (nominal) only. Waterland’s writings on the Eucharist establish that he is operating within a framework of moderate realism. He does not however, associate the sign and the signified too closely, assigning the term ‘real’ to the participation of Christ in the Eucharist. It is in the administration of the Eucharist that Christ’s body and blood is received and that the memorial of his sacrifice is real. The elements remain memorial signs alone, and there is no immoderate sense of presence or sacrifice associated with them. The realism of his scheme applies only to what he calls the ‘memorial service’ (prayer, praises and eucharistical actions) which includes the elements of bread and wine.  chapter three

Thomas Wilson

Thomas Wilson (–) was Bishop of Sodor and Man. The Eucha- rist was for Wilson an effectual means of spiritual food and sustenance, andhebelievedthat:“AllChristiansareboundattheperiloftheirsoulsto observe this ordinance of Christ. The blessings which attend the worthy receiving of this Sacrament are invaluable; no less than the pardon of all our past sins: the continuance of God’s Holy Spirit; the increase of His graces here, and eternal happiness hereafter”.371 Wilson’s defined the Eucharist in these words: “that very ordinance” “which Jesus Christ Himself appointed on purpose to keep us in remembrance of what He has done and suffered for us, that our own death, whenever it shall happen, may be a comfort to us, and when nothing in this world, nothing but a firm faith in Jesus Christ, can support or comfort our dying spirit.”372 When he spoke of the consecrated bread and wine, he said: “These being pledges to assure us that, as certainly as bread and wine do nourish our bodies, so do these seal to us all the benefits which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by His sacrifice and death.”373 He also says regarding the bread and wine: “Let a man, I say, be never so unlearned, yet he will easily understand that he is not to look upon and receive this bread and wine as common food, but as holy representatives of Christ’s body and blood, made such by an especial blessing of God.”374 In regard to the offering in the Eucharist, Wilson says: ‘Do this’, that is, this that I do, offer bread and wine as a sacrifice to God (when consecrated). They could not offer His real body, but only His sacramental body, as a memorial of His real body. . . . When the bread and wine are by consecration made the sacramental body and blood of Christ, we have then a sacrifice to offer which is worthy to be received

371 Thomas Wilson, ‘Sermon ix The Shame and Danger of being Christians without Christianity’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), II, p. . 372 Thomas Wilson, ‘Sermon xxvi The Necessity of Coming to Some Certainty whether we are in the way of Salvation of not’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), II, p. . 373 Thomas Wilson, ‘AShort and Plain Instruction for the Better Understanding of the Lord’s Supper’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), p. . 374 Thomas Wilson, ‘Sermon lxxvi The Lord’s Supper practically explained’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), IV, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

and to prevail with God. . . . The power of the Holy Spirit accompanies these elements, and makes them effectual means of grace and salvation. . . . Christ’s spiritual body, that is, made such by the Spirit of God. Not by the faith of the receiver, for they were such before.375 Wilson is of the view that there is an offering of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. The signs (bread and wine and the eucharistic sacrifice) are closely associated with the signified (the body and blood of Christ and the offering of Christ at the institution) in a moderate realist sense. The signs are more than ordinary food and the offering in the Eucharist is real and received by God. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an objective presence, not dependent on the faith of the receiver. Wilson distances himself from any receptionist view. At the same time he denies any immoderate realism since he says that the real (i.e. natural body and blood of Christ) could not be offered in the Eucharist. The offering of the sacramental body and blood, associated with the signs of bread and wine, is indicative of moderate realism in the Eucharist. As with the Nonjurors, such as Deacon, and as with others, such as John Johnson, Wilson also connects the offering with the institution and not with the death of Christ at Calvary. He says: “The priest by doing what Christ did, by prayer and thanksgiving, by breaking the bread and pouring out the wine, obtaineth of God that these creatures by the descentoftheHolyGhostbecomeafteraspiritualmannerthebodyand blood of Christ, by receiving of which our souls shall be strengthened and refreshed, as our bodies are by bread and wine.”376 Wilson confirms this by saying that: “He then, at that instant, [that is, at the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper] gave His body and blood as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. He then offered as a priest Himself under the symbols of bread and wine, and this is the sacrifice which His priests do still offer. And let it be observed that Jesus Christ did this before He was apprehended, when He was at His own disposal; it was then that He offered Himself a sacrifice to God.”377 Wilson here indicates that the priests of the Church are continuing and offering the same sacrifice that Christ offered at the institution of the sacrament. The offering of the sacrifice is seen to be at a time prior

375 Thomas Wilson, ‘Sacra Privata’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), V, p. . 376 Thomas Wilson, ‘Parochialia’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), VII, pp. –. 377 Thomas Wilson, ‘Notes on the Holy Scriptures’, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Wilson, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ), VI, p. .  chapter three to the slaying of Christ on the cross and it is this offering, at the time of the institution he says, that the priests continue to offer in the Eucharist. Wilson does however in another place quantify the offering of the priests as “a spiritual sacrifice to God”.378 It seems that by ‘spiritual’ he means that the offering of the priest in the Eucharist is no less real. By aligning the offering with the institution and not with the slaying, he avoids (as do the Nonjurors and Johnson) the implication of fleshy or immoderate realism and re-iteration of the sacrifice of the Calvary. In a realist passage, Wilson, speaks of the time of the consecration and advises the use of the following meditation: Immediately after the Consecration. We offer unto Thee, our King and God, this bread and this cup. We give Thee thanks for these and for all Thy mercies, beseeching Thee to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, that He may make this bread the body of Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of Thy Christ; and that all we who are partakers thereof may thereby obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His passion. . . . May I atone Thee, O God, by offering to Thee the pure and unbloody sacrifice, which thou hast ordained by Jesus Christ.379 Bishop Wilson presents a moderate realist view of both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. His words suggest however, that in the Eucharist, by the offering of the pure and unbloody sacrifice, there is atonement. There is no suggestion here that he is adding to the atonement of Christ on the cross, since the offering he speaks of, is the offering of the institution and not of the slaying. The atonement that Wilson speaks of here is in the form of moderate realism, where the nature of the atonement is instantiated in the Eucharist. As such this view does not suggest a re-iteration in the Eucharist of any fleshy or immoderate death of Christ on the cross. Wilson’s eucharistic theology is based on assumptions of moderate realism.

378 Wilson, ‘Sacra Privata’, V, p. . 379 Ibid,V,p.andp.. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Catechism of the  Liturgy of Comprehension

An abortive attempt at revision of the Book of Common Prayer know as The Liturgy of Comprehension,380 was produced in  with the intention of enabling those called Dissenters to return to the Established Church.381 Dissenters were not only Roman Catholics, whose interests became more urgent with the accession of a Roman Catholic king to the throne of England, that is, James II (–, king from – ). With the arrival of William and Mary of Orange as King and Queen however, Protestants were again on the throne, and the need to reconcile Dissenters was just as urgent for non-Catholics.382 The revision of the prayer book in  was an attempt to win over the various Dissenters, but it came to nothing and the BCP () continued in use as the official liturgy of the Church of England. In the catechism of this abortive  prayer book however, there are some changes in the answers to the questions that are of particular relevance in relation to eucharistic theology. In answer to a new question, “What is the inward and spiritual grace?”,383 the following was given: “The benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord’sSupper.”.384 This answer suggests moderate realism in the form of memorial remembrance or anamnesis, since the benefits of Christ’ssacrifice are seen to be taken and received by the faithful in the Eucharist in the present. The answer implies a great deal more than mere remembering of the sacrifice as a past event, but rather that the inward and spiritual grace is the benefit of this past sacrifice in the present in the Eucharist. Any idea of immoderate realism or a fleshy re-offering of Christ in the Eucharist is excluded by the previous question and answer, where in answer to the question, “What are the things signified by the Bread and Wine?”,the answer is given, “The Body and Blood of Christ, which were offered for us upon the Cross once for all”.385 The offering described as ‘once for all’ excludes immoderate

380 See the text in T. Fawcett (ed), The Liturgy of Comprehension, . An Abortive Attempt to Revise the Book of Common Prayer (London: Alcuin Club/Mayhew-McCrim- mon, ). 381 Geoffrey Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy (London: Macmillan, ), p. . 382 F. Cross andE. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 383 Fawcett, The Liturgy of Comprehension, , p. . 384 Ibid, p. . 385 Ibid, p. .  chapter three realism, but seemingly in light of the question on the nature of the inward and spiritual grace, it does not exclude moderate realism in the form of memorial remembrance or anamnesis. Despite the fact that The Liturgy of Comprehension of  came to nothing, it is significant that parts of the revised book chose to base material on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. This suggests that those who were carrying out the work of revision held a theology of a spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist through the use of a memorial remembrance or anamnesis. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

Nonjurors Liturgies

The Nonjurors were those people who refused to swear the oath of allegiance to William and Mary of Orange when they became king and queen in . The word ‘nonjuror’ comes from the Latin, meaning ‘not swear- ing’.The Nonjurors maintained the throne of England rightfully belonged to the heirs of James II. The results of the failure to swear allegiance to William I and Mary II, who succeeded James II, was that many members of the Church of England were deprived and lost their positions. Those who left the Church of England included the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft (–), and others, such as Thomas Deacon.386 Eight other bishops and some four hundred clergy, together with many eminent lay people also left the Church of England.387 The Nonjurors consecrated bishops and ordained priests and deacons and continued a separate, but dwindling and divided ministry until early in the nineteenth century. They also developed their own liturgical forms of worship, including the Eucharist.388 In this case study the eucharistic liturgies of the Nonjurors will be considered, principally those of  and . John Johnson, the Rector of Cranbrook in Kent, was not himself a member of the Nonjuring party, however, his major work, The Unbloody Sacrifice389 had a major impact on the Nonjurors. Johnson’s work set out a theology of the Eucharist based on the Fathers of the Early Church and was considered to be the mature product of high Anglicanism. Although it had minimal impact on the Church of England at the time of its writing, it was all-powerful among the Nonjurors, allowing them to translate Johnson’s theory into practice.390 In  some Nonjuror priests asked their bishops not only for a greater degree of uniformity in worship but also for the inclusion of four matters in the Eucharist (prayer of oblation, the epiclesis, prayers

386 See separate case study. 387 Ronald Jasper, The Development of Anglican Liturgy, – (London: SPCK, ), p. . 388 See the study on the eucharistic doctrine of the Nonjurors by James David Smith, The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Later Nonjurors: A Revisionist View of the Eighteenth- Century Usages Controversy (Ridley Hall, Cambridge: Grove Books, ). This work is particularly useful in summarising the various controversies regarding eucharisitic doctrine which raged among the Nonjurors and further divided them. 389 John Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice ( Volumes) (Oxford: Parker, ). Also see separate case study. 390 W. Jardine, Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Cen- turies (London, SPCK, ), p. .  chapter three for the dead and the mixed chalice).391 A later meeting of the Nonjuring bishops however, could not agree on what the form of liturgy should be. Some wanted the  BCP in its published form, while others desired the addition of various additional usages, such as those listed above. The meeting ended in both disarray and schism for the Nonjurors, with some (the Non-usagers) preferring to follow the  BCP, and others (the Usagers) deciding to draw up a new liturgy based on primitive liturgical models and incorporating the various usages they saw as important. The  Liturgy of the Nonjurors392 was probably drawn up by several of theUsagerNonjurorbishops,perhapsCollier,BrettandDeacon.393 It owes much to primitive liturgies, especially the Clementine Liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions, with Brett considering this liturgy to be the oldest written liturgy available, and therefore the pattern for liturgical revision.394 Brett believed that the Clementine Liturgy was pure, because ithadremainedunusedforsolong,anddidnotcontaintheerrorsand corruptions that had crept into other liturgies.395 Although the  Nonjuror eucharistic Liturgy did not follow the Clementine Liturgy in a slavish manner, it was greatly influenced by it, nonetheless, especially in the Prayer of Consecration. The principles on which the  Liturgy was to be drawn up were set out by Thomas Brett, who indicated that the  BCP would be used where its practice was considered acceptable, that the  BCP text and order would be used where this was preferable, and that where both  and  were considered defective, the ancient liturgical models and materials would be used instead.396 The Nonjurors particularly considered the eucharistic prayer in both the  and  Prayer Books to be defective and so preferred to follow primitive models. The  Nonjuror Liturgy used the word ‘altar’ instead of ‘holy table’ as found in the  BCP and the rubrics directed that it should be against the east wall (the traditional position of the priest and the

391 Ronal Jasper and Geoffrey Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (New York: Pueblo, ). p. . 392 See text in Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Cen- turies, pp. –. 393 Ibid,p.. 394 Thomas Brett, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, used by the Christian Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist: particularly the ancient, viz. the Clementine, the Liturgies of S. James and S. Mark, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil &c. With a dissertation upon them, showing their usefulness and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and interpolations (London: King, ), p. . 395 Ibid,p.. 396 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  position encouraged by Archbishop Laud) with “the Priest and People standing with their faces towards the Altar”.397 The use of the word ‘altar’ was suggestive of a sacrificial element in the eucharistic liturgy, as well as maintaining traditional terminology. The service proceeded in much the same way as the  BCP (Lord’s Prayer, Collect for Purity, Commandments (summary), Prayer for the King, Collect, Readings, Creed, Sermon, Exhortations). From the Offertory onwards however, the model of  was used with some additions from the ancient liturgies.398 This prayer prayed in part: May it please thee, O Lord, as we are ministers of the New Testament, and dispensers of thy holy mysteries, to receive us who are approaching the Holy Altar, according to the multitude of thy mercies, that we may be worthy to offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice for our Sins and the Sins of the People. Receive it, O God, as a sweet smelling savour, and send down thy Holy Spirit upon us. And as thou didst accept this worship and service from thy Holy Apostles: so of thy goodness, O Lord, vouchsafe to receive these Offerings from the hands of us sinners.399 The Offertory Prayer expresses realist thinking in regard to the offering ofthesacrificeintheEucharist.Whilsttheofferingisrealandeffective against sin and is received by God, it is also reasonable and unbloody, thereby suggesting a moderate realism and not any form of fleshy or immoderate sacrifice. The role of the Holy Spirit is here limited to that of being sent down upon the people, not upon the elements, although in the eucharistic prayer the Holy Spirit was invoked to ‘make’ the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. The rubric at the Offertory specifically separates the collection of money from the offering of the elements, instructing the priest to place the bread and wine on the altar. The priest is directed, following traditional and ancient Catholic practice, to place a small amount of water in the chalice (mixed chalice), before saying the Offertory prayer. These specific directions concerning the Offertory and the Offertory Prayer itself, had been missing in the  Prayer Book. Following the Offertory the liturgy proceeds much according to the  BCP (Sursum Corda, Sanctus, Benedictus and Proper Prefaces).400 The prayer following the Benedictus however is taken from the ancient

397 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 398 For example the Offertory Prayer based on the rite of St Basil as suggested by Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, p. . 399 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 400 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter three model rite of St James401 and presents a prayer extolling the holiness of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, as well as a thanksgiving for creation and redemption. The prayer continues with the words of institution (with the addition of the black crosses that had been placed in the  BCP, following the model of the pre-Reformation Sarum Liturgy, to indicate the blessing of the bread and wine by the priest).402 Thisissuggestiveofsettingthebreadandwineapartandof special blessing that is specifically associated with them, as opposed to the ministration of the sacrament as a whole, thereby concentrating on the elements. The prayer following contains anamnesis,oblationandepiclesis,taken almost verbatim from the Clementine Liturgy.Itsays: Wherefore, having in remembrance his Passion, Death and Resurrection from the dead; his Ascension into heaven, and second coming with glory and great power to judge the quick and the dead, and to render to every man according to his works; we Offer to Thee, our King and our God, according to his holy Institution, this Bread and this Cup; giving thanks to thee through him, that thou hast vouchsafed us the honour to stand before thee, and to Sacrifice unto thee. And we beseech thee to look favourably on these thy Gifts, which are here set before thee, O thou self-sufficient God: And do thou Accept them to thy honour of thy Christ; and send down thine Holy Spirit, the witness of the passion of our Lord Jesus, upon this sacrifice, that he may make this Bread the Body of thy Christ, andthis Cup the Blood of thy Christ; that they who are partakers thereof, may be confirmed in godliness, may obtain remission of their sins, maybe delivered from the Devil and his snares, may be replenished with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of thy Christ, and may obtain everlasting life, Thou, O Lord Almighty, being reconciled unto them through the merits and mediation of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with Thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth ever one God, world without end. Amen.403 This prayer sets out a moderate realist expression of both eucharistic presenceandsacrifice.Thebreadandwineis‘offered’toGodasa sacrifice, not as re-iteration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, butin accordance with Johnson’s view,404 as an unbloody sacrifice, done to follow Christ’s offering at the institution of the Eucharist, not at the

401 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, p. . 402 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 403 Ibid, pp. –. 404 See John Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice (Oxford: Parker, ) and separate case study. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  sacrifice of the cross. The link between the sign and the signified is clear, with the bread and wine (the gifts) being set before God, the Holy Spirit being invoked over them to ‘make’ them the body of Christ and thebloodofChrist.Thosewhopartakeofthebreadandwinearethen effectually seen to be given all the benefits of Christ (e.g. remission of sins, Holy Ghost, everlasting life). Moderate realism is affirmed here and immoderate realism is denied. The intercessions followed the eucharistic prayer, as they did in the Clementine Liturgy, however, the words are those of the  BCPand the  Scottish BCP.405 Significantlytheprayersareofferedinthepresence of the consecrated elements, thereby departing from the practice of the  and  Prayer Books of receiving communion immediately following the Prayer of Consecration. The  and  Prayer Books intended in this way to limit any idea or suggestion of a continuing eucharistic presence of Christ in the elements on the altar, which could be the subject of eucharistic devotion. The  and  moved directly to reception as the highlight of the service, without any prayers or space between consecration and reception. These scruples had no part in the  Nonjurors’ Liturgy. The administration did not occur until after the Lord’s Prayer, the peace, the hymn ‘Christ, our Paschal Lamb’, the invitation, confession, absolution, comfortable words and prayer of humble access had been said. All this occurred in the presence of the consecrated elements. The words of administration were those of ,406 that is, words without reference to feeding by the faith of the communicant, such as in  and . The words of administration associated the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in a moderate realist fashion. Following the administration, the elements were directed to be placed reverently on the altar and covered with a linen cloth,407 suggesting a continuing presence of Christ in the elements apart from the moment of reception. The final rubrics of the Nonjuror’s Liturgy of 408 directed the priest to reserve the sacrament for any who were sick or for urgent cause so that it could be taken to them. This indicates that there was seen to be a continuing presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements

405 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, p. . 406 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 407 Ibid, p. . 408 Ibid, p. .  chapter three following the reception of communion and indeed the conclusion of the service. The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist was not restricted to the reception alone and did not thereby depend on the faith of those who received. It was also seen to be possible to have the presence of Christ in a lasting and objective manner outside the context of the service. This is indicative of moderate realism in relation to the eucharistic presence of Christ in the bread and wine. The Nonjurors’ Liturgy of , not only provided a practical application of the theology of John Johnson, but it also expressed the moderate realist understanding of the Nonjurors in regard to eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The Nonjurors who constructed this liturgy were of the mind that Christ was present in the bread and wine in a real way and that the Eucharist represented a reasonable and unbloody sacrifice to God. The liturgy depended on a moderate realist conception of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist to a moderate degree. As Jasper and Cuming comment in summary on this liturgy: “Of all the rites produced in England in the post- period, this was the most practical and satisfactory. Restrained and largely familiar in language, reasonable in length and primitive in structure, it is not surprising that it was a model to which others—notably Scotland and America—were glad to turn in the creation of a new family of Anglican liturgies which took  rather than  as their parent. It was certainly more widely followed than the later Nonjuring rite of , which was longer and more complicated and produced when the movement was past it zenith.”.409 AnattemptatreunitingtheUsagersandNon-Usagers,withanInstru- ment of Union, signed by some of the bishops in both parties in April, , actually resulted in more disunity amongst the Nonjurors. Instead of two groups, the Usagers and the Non-Usagers, there were now three— those who followed the Instrument of Union,signedbytheUsagerBishop Brett, and by some of the Non-Usagers; those who continued as Non- Usagers, unconvinced that the union could be trusted; and those Usagers who refused to have anything to do with the union since they saw it as a surrendering of essential parts or usages of the eucharistic liturgy. It is this third group of continuing Usagers that developed the Nonjurors’ Liturgy of , and it is this liturgy which forms the next part of this case study.

409 Jasper and Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

ThegroupwhocontinuedasUsagersandhadnopartintheInstrument of Union were led, at first, by Bishop Archibald Campbell. They continued to use the Nonjurors’ Liturgy of  until , when Bishop Thomas Deacon became the leader and introduced a liturgy he had written in . The Nonjurors’ Liturgy of , it was argued, was derived from Apostolic authority and “perfectly pure and free from interpolation”.410 For Deacon the material of the first four centuries was a benchmark, and any revision was to be based on the example of the liturgies from this period, such as the Clementine Liturgy. Deacon, in his work entitled A Full, True, and Comprehensive View of Christianity,411 originally published in , gives a commentary of this liturgy, which sets out the eucharistic theology of the liturgy in some detail. Grisbrooke comments that the theology expressed here shows “that Deacon had moved very far indeed beyond the position of the Church of England”.412 Deacon entitled his eucharistic liturgy, The Holy Liturgy; or, The Form of offering the Sacrifice, and of administering the Sacrament of the Eucha- rist.413 The  liturgy resembled the  liturgy, except that the Eucharistic Prayer was taken almost completely from the Clementine Liturgy, with the Lord’s Prayer added. The theology of the Eucharist expressed in the  Liturgy corresponds with that of John Johnson414 and is also expressed in Deacon’s Shorter Catechism published as part of A True, Full, and Comprehensive View of Christianity of .415 The  Liturgy had much in common with the  Liturgy, however, the Lord’s Prayer and the Summary of the Law was omitted at the beginning, while the Eucharistic Prayer was taken almost entirely from the Clementine Liturgy. Following a long series of prayers referring to

410 Thomas Deacon, A Compleat Collection of Devotions, both Public and Private, taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, the Ancient Liturgies and the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England ( parts) (London: printed for the author and sold by the booksellers of London and Westminster, ), p. iv. 411 Thomas Deacon, A Full, True and Comprehensive View of Christianity: containing a short historical account of religion from the creation of the world to the fourth century, as also the complete duty of a Christian, laid down in two catechisms, a shorter and a longer, to which is prefixed A discourse upon the design of these catechisms (London: Newton, ). 412 Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, p. . 413 ThomasDeacon,‘TheHolyLiturgy;or,theFormofofferingtheSacrifice,andof administering the Sacrament of the Eucharist’, in A Compleat Collection of Devotions, pp. –. Also see text in Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eigh- teenth Centuries, pp. –. 414 See separate case study on John Johnson’s eucharistic theology. 415 See Thomas Deacon case study for details of Deacon’s eucharistic theology.  chapter three salvation history,416 the institution narrative is recited.417 This is followed by anamnesis,oblationandepiclesis418 and then the intercession for the Church419 followed by the Lord’s Prayer. Like the  Liturgy, the  Liturgy expresses a moderate realism in relation to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The sign and the signified are associated with one another, the priest praying that the bread and wine be made the body and blood of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the offering of the bread and wine in the Eucharist being like the offering of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. The peace follows the Lord’s Prayer and then a prayer prays in a very realist manner that all “may partake of the mystick blessings now lying on thine altar”.420 The words of administration were simply, “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ, the cup of life” to which the communicant replied “Amen”.421 Following the administration the rubrics direct either consumption of the remaining elements or the carrying of these into the vestry.422 Carrying about of the consecrated elements was discouraged by the Thirty-Nine Articles of  to avoid any suggestion of devotions to the elements in processions but this does not seem to be an issue in the  liturgy. The prayers after communion and the blessing were again from the Clementine Liturgy.423 Permission was granted for some of the remaining elements to be reserved for the sick or for urgent need424 once again suggesting a continuing and objective presence of Christ in the elements, which existed apart from the reception and the service itself. This is indicative of realist notions of the presence of Christ in the elements, The  Liturgy of the Nonjurors presents a moderate realist theology of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. It does this by relying heavily on the primitive liturgical forms and their use of realist assumptions. The liturgy did not enjoy the same level of acceptance as the  Liturgy, perhaps partly due to its antiquarian nature and partly due to its length and complexity. Perhaps also the  Liturgy suffered

416 See text in Grisbrooke, Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Cen- turies, pp. –. 417 Ibid, p. . 418 Ibid, p. . 419 Ibid, pp. –. 420 Ibid, p. . 421 Ibid, pp. –. 422 Ibid, p. . 423 Ibid, pp. –. 424 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  from the fact that the Nonjuror movement was now splintered and past its peak period. The legacy of the  Liturgy, unlike that of , for future generations of liturgical development, was limited, but nonetheless was based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.  chapter three

John and Charles Wesley

John Wesley (–) and Charles Wesley (–) were the founders of the Methodist Movement, but both were also ordained cler- gymen of the Church of England. In  the Wesleys published a collection of hymns entitled Hymns on the Lord’s Supper. These hymns were analysed by J. Ernest Rattenbury in his  and republished in a work entitled The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley.425 This book will be the source for these eucharistic hymns in an attempt to assess the eucharistic theology of the Wesley brothers. In the Introduction to the American Edition of Rattenbury’s book, Don Saliers puts the view that the Wesley’s hymns contributed a profound convergence between Catholic and Evangelical theology in relation to the Eucharist, although “the Catholicism of the Wesleys was much more ante-Nicene than medieval”426 and indeed the Wesleys were very anti- Romaninrelationtotransubstantiation.427 Saliers also observes that the Wesley’s hymns show a devotion to the wounds of Christ and make considerable use of the language of blood atonement. All this is done while expressing “the intense joy of Eucharistic participation”.428 The Wesleys in their hymns presented a liveliness of sacramental imagery and sharing which was revolutionary in the th century Anglican context. There is a prominence of sacrificial themes and sacrificial imagery in the hymns which many Evangelicals found difficult, but this reflects more than anything else the Wesleys wish to “articulate the relationship between the self-giving of Christ for the salvation of the world and the Church’s own self-offering in union with Christ”.429 The concept of sacrament and sacrifice is in fact at the centre of the hymns written by the Wesleys, the genesis of which owe much, claims Saliers and Rattenbury, to the influence on the Wesleys of Daniel Brevint’s  treatise The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice.430

425 J. Ernest Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley (American Edition, edited by T. Crouch) (Akron, Ohio: The Order of St Luke, ). 426 Don Saliers, ‘Introduction’, in Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.vi. 427 Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.. 428 Saliers, ‘Introduction’, in Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.vi. 429 Ibid, p. vii. 430 See separate case study on Daniel Brevint. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

The important point to consider in speaking of sacrificial notions in the eucharistic hymns of the Wesleys is to note that they seem to be “anti- Roman yet strongly sacrificial”.431 Saliers argues that there is nothing of the repetition of Calvary as a propitiatory sacrifice in their hymns, yet their hymns give the notion of sacrifice in the Eucharist a definite place. The theology of the Wesley brothers also affirms a realism where there is an efficacy of the Eucharist as a means of grace. Saliers quotes this line from one the Wesley hymns (Hymn ): The sign transmits the signified . to make the point that sign and signified seem to be linked in some of the Wesley hymns.432 This suggests that moderate realism is involved in the underlying philosophical assumptions in the eucharistic theology of the hymns of the Wesleys. Saliers also argues that the Wesleys are careful in their hymns when they speak of the concept of eucharistic presence. They consistently reject any notion of transubstantiation and mere memorialism, and seem to accept the Calvinist doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.433 Despite Saliers opinions it appears that some of the Wesley hymns have a distinct memorialist tenor to them (e.g. Hymns –).434 Hymn Number , for example, calls to mind the historical event of the Last Supper in a purely memorialist fashion. In the sad memorable night When Jesus was for us betray’d, He left His death-recording rite, He took, and bless’d and brake the bread, And gave His own their last bequest, And this His love’s intent express: Take, eat, this is My Body, given To purchase life and peace for you, Pardon and holiness and heaven; Do this My dying love to show, Accept your precious legacy, And thus, My friends, remember Me.435

431 Saliers, ‘Introduction’, in Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.vi. 432 Ibid, p. vii. 433 Ibid, p. vii. 434 Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley, pp. –. 435 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

The hymn stresses the memorial nature of the Eucharist in the way in which it records the events of the Last Supper. It also stresses how Christians should do this in memory of Christ. There is no specifically realist element in this hymn, since sign and signified are not linked in any real or objective way, but only in the memorial act of the communicant. The prevailing concept here in one of theological reflection and devotion, rather than a realist linking of sign and signified. Rattenbury in his consideration of the Wesley’s doctrine of the real presence however, observes that they definitely held a theology of the Eucharist which was more than memorialist, but which used very specific language.“Whatisclearis,thatwhentheycommunicated ... theWesleys did not only remember Calvary, but expected to meet the Lord at His Table”. 436 In other hymns however, the Wesleys present a theology of the Eucharist where symbol is presented as a means of grace (e.g. Hymns –).437 Hymn  for example, says: Jesu, dear, redeeming Lord, MagnifyThydyingword; In Thy ordinance appear, Come and meet Thy followers here. In the rite Thou hast enjoin’d Let us now our Saviour find, Drink Thy blood for sinners shed TasteTheeinthebrokenbread. Thou our faithful hearts prepare, Thou Thy pardoning grace declare; Thou that hast for sinners died, Show Thyself the Crucified.438 There seems to be a definite association here between not only the Eucharist as a whole and Christ (e.g. ‘In Thy ordinance appear’) but also between the sign and the signified (e.g. ‘Drink Thy blood for sinners shed’ and ‘Taste thee in the broken bread’). It was expected that Christ would be present in the Eucharist and the hymn entreats Christ to show himself. These quotes strongly suggest a realist interpretation where the sign (either the Eucharist as a whole or the bread and wine) is linked withthesignified(Christ’sbodyandblood).Atfirstglanceitcouldeven be said that there are immoderate realist overtones here (e.g. ‘Drink Thy

436 Ibid,p.. 437 Ibid, pp. –. 438 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  blood’ and ‘Taste Thee’) but such a conclusion is untenable in view of the Wesley’s rejection of such views in other places. Hymn , for example, makessuchaconclusionplainwhenitspeaksoftheEucharistas: Author or our salvation, Thee With lowly thankful hearts we praise, Author of this great mystery, Figure and means of saving grace. The sacred true effectual Sign Thy Body and the Blood it shows Thy glorious Instrument Divine Thy Mercy and Thy strength bestows. We see the blood that seals our peace, Thy pardoning mercy we receive: The bread doth visibly express The strength through which our spirits live.439 Here the words ‘figure’ and ‘means’ are applied to the ‘mystery’ and the bread and wine are described as ‘sacred true effectual signs’ and as an ‘instrument’,thus suggesting not immoderate realism or carnal presence, but rather a moderate and yet real presence of the body and blood of ChristinandthroughthesignsoftheEucharist.Thepresenceisrealsince the third verse speaks of seeing the blood and bread visibly expressing the presence of Christ, but it is clear that the strength which this supplies is something that makes the spirits of the communicants live. It seems more likely to conclude that the presence spoken of here, in admittedly very realist terms, is a real, yet spiritual presence. If this conclusion is accepted then moderate realism is the basis of the eucharistic theology presented. Hymn  clarifies the type of realism of which the Wesleys speak, by saying: Jesu, at whose supreme command We thus approach to God, Before us in Thy vesture stand, Thy vesture dipp’din blood. Obedient to Thy gracious word, We break the hallow’d bread, Commemorate Thee, our dying Lord, And trust on Thee to feed.

439 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

Now, Saviour, now Thyself reveal, And make Thy nature known; Affix the sacramental seal, And stamp us for Thine own. The tokens of Thy dying love O let us all receive And feel the quickening Spirit move, And sensibly believe. The cup of blessing, blest by Thee, LetitThybloodimpart; ThebreadThymysticbodybe, And cheer each languid heart. The grace which sure salvation brings Let us herewith receive; Satiate the hungry with good things, The hidden manna give.440 Here the ‘vesture’ in which Christ stands at the Eucharist appears to be the bread and wine, but this sign is closely associated with the signified, since the sign has been ‘dipp’d in blood’.The feeding that results from the receipt of the bread by the communicant is real since it is on Christ that the person feeds (verse ), but this is qualified as a ‘sacramental seal’,thus suggesting moderate realism. This conclusion is strengthened in verse  when the bread and wine are described as ‘tokens’ and where belief is described using the word ‘sensibly’. ‘Sensibly’ is closely associated with ‘quickening Spirit’ (in the previous line) suggesting that the nature of this sensible experience is a spiritual and yet real one (suggestive of moderate realism) and not a natural or carnal one (such as immoderate realism implies). The last verse describes the ‘manna’ (presumably the gift of the Eucharist or the signified blessings of the body and blood of Christ) as ‘hidden’.This suggests that the signified is not available to the human eye in a physical fashion, but available as to faith. This is confirmed by Hymn  which describes the Eucharist as: The heavenly ordinances shine, And speak their origin Divine.441 The Eucharist does not depend upon the faith of the communicant for its origin. Rather the Eucharist is of divine origin. Faith is essential to the reception of the sacrament but the sacramental grace is independent of

440 Ibid, p. . 441 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  faith. The sacramental elements must therefore have an objective value and power apart from the faith of the communicant. This does not mean however, that the elements are changed from their natural condition, since when speaking of the bread and wine in Hymn , the Wesleys say: Thesethevirtuedidconvey Yet still remain the same.442 The bread and wine contain the grace, but the manner of this occurring is unknown, since in the same hymn these words are found: Sure and real is the grace The manner be unknown.443 The grace is conveyed by the symbol. The grace does not depend on the faith of the communicant and so the symbol possesses an objective or divine quality, and the manner of all this occurring is unknown but nonethelessreal. Perhaps some sense of how this occurs is given in Hymn  where the words say: Thy power into the means infuse, And give them now their sacred use.444 Although the manner of the grace being conveyed to the symbol is uncertain, it is certain that it is God who is the source of the grace and it is God who ‘infuses’ the grace into the ‘means’, that is, the symbols. The source of the infusion seems to be the Holy Spirit though, since in Hymn  is found these words: Come,HolyGhost,Thineinfluenceshed, And realize the sign; Thy life infuse into the bread; Thy power into the wine. Effectual let the tokens prove, And made, by heavenly art, Fit channels to convey Thy love To every faithful heart.445 Once again the signs are spoken of as being ‘effectual’ and ‘tokens’, but they are not empty signs, since it is the Holy Spirit who infuses life and power into them. Once the Holy Spirit has done its work then the signs

442 Ibid, p. . 443 Ibid, p. . 444 Ibid, p. . 445 Ibid, p. .  chapter three are ‘fit channels to convey’ God’s love to the faithful communicant. This is seen as a spiritual happening and not a natural one since the words of the hymn speak of ‘heavenly art’,not some natural happening. All this continues to suggest that the realism being spoken of here is moderate, since the linking of the grace, value and power of the signified with the sacramental elements (the signs) is not a natural or fleshy linking. Furtherevidenceofaclearexpressionofmoderaterealism,wheresign and signified are linked, is found in Hymn . In this hymn is found these words: Draw near, ye blood-bespeckled race, And take what vouchsafes to give; The outward sign of inward grace, Ordain’d by Christ Himself, receive: The sign transmits the signified, The grace is by the means applied. Sure pledges of His dying love, Receive the sacramental meat, Andfeelthevirtuefromabove, The mystic flesh of Jesus eat, Drink with the wine His healing blood, And feast on th’ Incarnate God. Gross misconceit be far away! Through faith we on His body feed Faith only cloth the Spirit convey, And fills our souls with living bread, Th’effects of Jesu’s death imparts, And pours His blood into our hearts.446 Moderate realism is here affirmed by the reference to outward signs and inward grace and by the words, ‘The sign transmits the signified’. The Wesleys were of the view that the signs of the Eucharist, the bread and wine, were the means whereby the inward grace, the blessings of the bodyandbloodofChrist,weregiventothecommunicant.Inreceiving the signs, the signified was received, since it is by the outward means that the inward grace was seen to be applied. The outward signs are referred to as ‘pledges’, assuring the communicant of the presence of Christ in the outward signs. Through the pledges the communicant is assured of the heavenly virtue present in the sacrament, in such a way that Christ’s flesh is eaten and his blood is drunk. God incarnate is present in

446 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  the Eucharist and available for feasting (verse ). Verse  makes it clear that no immoderate realism is intended by dispelling any idea of ‘gross misconceit’ in the Eucharist. It is through faith that the communicant is aware of the spiritual and yet real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The notions of moderate realism are the underlying idea of real presence in this hymn. It is important to note that even though the Wesley’s express moderate realism in their hymns regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, this presence is usually generalised to the whole Eucharist, with some reference to the signs as being the means of the real presence. Rattenbury argues that it would be going too far to argue that the Wesleys had any notion of the real presence being confined to the eucharistic wafer.447 They certainly excluded any notion of a local presence in the immoderate sense of realism, as is shown by reference to Hymn , which states: No local Deity We worship, Lord, in Thee:448 The sense of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was not oneof being locked up in the elements, although the bread and wine were seen as the means whereby the grace was given. This is made clear in Hymn  where the words speak of Christ’s presence in a more generalised manner. This hymn says: We need not now go up to heaven, To bring the long-sought Saviour down; Thou art to all already given, Thou dost even now Thy banquet crown: To every faithful soul appear, And show Thy real presence here!449 Here is a picture of Christ crowning the banquet, as host and guest, present already and not confined in any way to a eucharistic element. Such a narrow localised form of the eucharistic real presence of Christ is not part of the theology present in the hymns of the Wesleys, but the real presence, expressed as a moderate realism, most certainly is. This is confirmed by the frequent use of the word ‘chiefly’ in the hymns. In Hymn , for example, is found the line:

447 Ibid,p.. 448 Ibid, p. . 449 Ibid, p. .  chapter three

If chiefly here Thou mayst be found.450 This suggests that Christ is found in places other than the Eucharist, but that ‘chiefly’ he is found here, that is, in the sacrament of the Eucharist ina general sense and where the Eucharist serves as the focus for the presence of Christ. The presence of Christ spoken of here is really a personal presence, not one beneath or in the elements. Rattenbury concludes therefore that the notion of the real presence held by the Wesleys is not that of transubstantiation or any Anglo-Catholic equivalent451 but only that of actual instruments or material channels by which the grace of Christ was communicated. Rattenbury’s point is a necessary one, however it seems that he is overstating the case for both transubstantiation and Anglo-Catholicism. Transubstantiation in its moderate sense does not imply a fleshy or localised presence. Anglo-Catholics are not limited to such notions either. What Rattenbury seems to overlook is that the Wesleys in their eucharistic hymns are really expressing a moderate realism, in common with transubstantiation as set forth by say Aquinas and by many Anglo- Catholic theologians, without committing themselves to either the position of the Roman Catholic Church or to positions taken by Anglo- Catholics. In both cases, transubstantiation and most Anglo-Catholic expressions, immoderate realism and localised presence are excluded. The difference seems to be in the way that transubstantiation and Anglo- Catholicism, whilst acknowledging a more generalised presence of Christ in the Eucharist (e.g. in the word, in the congregation, in the president), see the elements as the focus of the presence. The Wesleys seem prepared to acknowledge that the sign is linked with the signified, but not prepared to acknowledge that the elements are alone the focus of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For them the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is in the whole institution and celebration. Evidence for the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice is to be found in Hymns –.452 Rattenbury argues that the Wesleys believed in the offering of a sacrifice by those authorised to do so. In a letter written on  December,  to his brother-in-law, Westley Hall, John Wesley wrote: “We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church (whether dependent on the Bishop of Rome or not), an outward

450 Ibid, p. . 451 Ibid,p.. 452 Ibid, pp. –. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein by those authorised to act as Ambassadors of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God.”453 Rattenbury concludes that since this letter was written at the end of , the year in which Hymns on the Lord’s Supper,waspublished,then “the hymns dealing with Eucharistic Sacrifice must be judged as products of men who believed that there were priests who made an offering of an outward sacrifice”.454 It seems unlikely that the Wesleys would continue to publish hymns relating to eucharistic sacrifice unless they believed in such a concept. The Wesleys concept of eucharistic sacrifice appears to be realist, since the outward sign (the eucharistic sacrifice) is linked with the inward signified sacrifice (the historic sacrifice of the cross). The Wesleys repudiated any notions of the Eucharist as a meritorious or propitiatory sacrifice such as an immoderate realism would imply, but they did not repudiate eucharistic sacrifice entirely. Rattenbury puts the case that Charles Wesley’s hymns concerning eucharistic sacrifice were inspired by the a passage in Brevint’s  work entitled, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice. Here Brevint says: “The main intention of Christ herein, was not, the bare Remembrance of his Passion; but over and above, to invite us to his Sacrifice, not as done and gone many Years since, but, as to Grace and Mercy, still lasting, still new, still the same as when it was first offer’d for us.”455 If Rattenbury is correct then Charles Wesley is distancing himself from mere memorialism in the Eucharist and associating himself with a living tradition of eucharistic sacrifice. This theology of eucharistic sacrifice is expressed by Wesley in Hymn . Here he says: VICTIM DIVINE, Thy grace we claim While thus Thy precious death we show Once offer’d up, a spotless Lamb, In Thy great temple here below, Thou didst for all mankind atone And standest now before the throne. Thou standest in the holiest place, As now for guilty sinners slain Thy blood of sprinkling speaks, and prays,

453 Letters of John Wesley, Standard Edition, Volume II, pp. –, cited in Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.. 454 Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.. 455 Daniel Brevint, The Christian Sacraments and Sacrifice, cited in Rattebury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p..  chapter three

All-prevalent for helpless man Thy blood is still our ransom found, And spreads salvation all around. The smoke of Thy atonement here Darken’d the sun and rent the veil, Made the new way to heaven appear, And show’d the great Invisible; Well pleased in Thee our God look’d down, And called His rebels to a crown. He still respects Thy sacrifice, Its savour sweet doth always please; The offering smokes through earth and skies, Diffusing life, and joy, and peace; To these Thy lower courts it comes, And fills them with divine perfumes. We need not now go up to heaven, To bring the long-sought Saviour down; Thou art to all already given, Thou doest even now Thy banquet crown: To every faithful soul appear, And show Thy real presence here!456 Wesley here in very realist language refers to Christ as a divine victim, whosegraceisclaimedinthepresentandshownintheEucharist.The sign (the Eucharist) is linked with the signified (the sacrifice of Christ). It is true that the sacrifice was offered in the past (‘Once offer’dup’) but it is also true that it is offered now (‘In Thy great temple here below’) inthe earth or the Church. Christ’s atonement was in the past, but the fact of Christ standing ‘now before the throne’ is an indication of the continuing and present offering of the sacrifice. The ‘blood of sprinkling speaks, and prays’, suggesting the current work of the sacrifice—a pleading of the sacrifice before the throne of God and in the Eucharist. The blood once offered is not limited to the past since it ‘is still our ransom found’ and its present work ‘spreads salvation all around’.The eucharistic sacrifice is an effectual sign of the sacrifice of Christ. The ‘savour sweet’ of Christ’s sacrifice is not limited to a past event since it ‘doth always please’ diffusing its effect (life, joy and peace) through earth (‘these lower courts’) and heaven.

456 Rattembury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 

The connection of Hymn  to Brevint’s earlier work is clear when the following passage from Brevint’s The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice is considered. Brevint says: This Victim having been offered up in the Fullness of Times, and inthe midst of the World, which is Christ’s Great Temple, and having been thence carried up to Heaven, which is his Sanctuary; from thence spreads Salvation all around, as the Burnt-offering did its Smoke. And thus his body and Blood have every where, but especially at this Sacrament, a true and Real Presence. When he offered himself upon Earth, the Vapour of his Atonement went up and darkened the very Sun: And by rending the Great Veil, it clearly shew’d, he had made a Way into Heaven. And since he is gone up, he sends down to Earth the Graces that spring continually both from his everlasting Sacrifice, and from the continual Intercession that attends it. So that we need not say. WhowillgoupintoHeaven?Since without either ascending or descending, this sacred Body of Jesus fills with Atonement and Blessing the remotest Parts of this Temple.457 The connections between Brevint’s work and Hymn  are apparent and both speak of a moderate realism regarding eucharistic sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice was a past event but it is closely linked with the present sacrifice of the Eucharist—sign and signified are linked, with the sign identifying with the signified in real and effectual manner. Hymn  also provides evidence of a realist theology of eucharistic sacrifice. Here the words of the hymn proclaim: Let all who truly bear The bleeding Saviour’s name, Their faithful hearts with us prepare, And eat the Paschal Lamb. Our Passover was slain At Salem’s hallow’d place, Yet we who in our tents remain Shall gain His largest grace. The eucharistic feast Our every want supplies And still we by His death are blest And share His sacrifice: By faith His flesh we eat, Who here His passion show, And God out of His holy seat Shall all His gifts bestow.458

457 Daniel Brevint, The Christian Sacraments and Sacrifice, cited in Rattebury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley,p.. 458 Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley, p. .  chapter three

Moderate realists concepts of sacrifice are present in this hymn in the words speaking of eating the Paschal Lamb and yet remaining ‘in our tents’. It is in the earthly form of the signs of the Eucharist that the signified grace of the heavenly and spiritual sacrifice is gained. The sharing in the sacrifice is by faith and the passion is shown ‘here’ in the Eucharist, where all the gifts of God are bestowed. The concepts of eucharisticsacrificearethoseofmoderaterealism,real,yetknownby faith. Moderate realist notions of eucharistic sacrifice are again put forward in Hymn  which says: O Thou eternal Victim, slain A sacrifice for guilty man, By the eternal Spirit made An offering in the sinner’s stead, Our everlasting Priest art Thou, And pleads Thy death for sinners now. Thy offering still continues new, Thy vesture keeps its bloody hue, Thou stand’st the ever-slaughter’d Lamb, Thy priesthood still remains the same, Thy years, O God, can never fail, Thy goodness is unchangeable. Othatourfaithmaynevermove, But stand unshaken as Thy love! Sure evidence of things unseen, Now let it pass the years between, And view Thee bleeding on the tree, My God, who dies for me, for me!459 Christ is not a victim at one point in time, but an eternal victim, who pleads his death for sinners in the present. The offering of Christ continues in the present in the Eucharist (‘Thy offering still continues new’) and Christ’s ‘vesture keeps its bloody hue’. The sign is vividly linked with the signified in a realist way and with the priesthood of Christ current in the Eucharist as ‘sure evidence of things unseen’. It is through the effectual sign that the communicant is able to ‘view Thee bleeding on the tree’. Moderate realism again dominates in this hymn. The Eucharist therefore is more than a mere memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, but a real and effectual sign in the present, conveying the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to the

459 Ibid, p. . the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries  faithful communicant. It is Christ crucified, risen and ascended, not the crucifixion itself, which is brought into the present and contextualised in the Eucharist. These thoughts are expressed in Hymn , which says: To Thee his passion we present, Who for our ransom dies, We reach by this great Instrument Th’eternal sacrifice. The Lamb as crucified afresh Is here held out to Men, The Tokens of Blood and Flesh Are on this Table seen.460 The Eucharist (‘this great Instrument’) is the means by which people reach the eternal sacrifice. In what seems to be an immoderate realism the hymn states that in the Eucharist the Lamb is crucified afresh and held out to humanity in ‘the tokens of Blood and Flesh’ on the eucharistic table. It must be concluded, in view of the totality of the eucharistic theology presented by the Wesleys that any suggestion here of immoderate realism is improbable. Hymn  speaks of a solemn offering up of Christ’s sacrifice as it says: With solemn faith we offer up, And spread before Thy glorious eyes That only ground of all our hope, That precious bleeding Sacrifice Which brings Thy grace on sinner down, And perfects all our souls in one.461 There is association of sign and signified with the signs being offered up in the Eucharist as an identification with the signified sacrifice, but this is done by faith. The mention of faith excludes any notion of immoderate realism and focuses the attention of this hymn on moderate realist notions. The offering is real and effectual since the blessings andthe grace of the sacrifice of Christ are received in the Eucharist, but all this is accomplished by faith, not in any natural or immoderate manner. Some words of Rattenbury are appropriate to conclude this discussion on eucharistic sacrifice as this relates to the eucharistic hymns of the Wesleys and the eucharistic theology they express. Rattenbury says: “It is quite clear that these hymns, if they are taken out of their context,

460 Ibid, p. . 461 Ibid, p. .  chapter three are tolerant of a Roman interpretation. But such an interpretation is really not reasonable when the symbolic character of the figures in themiskeptinmind.Itmustneverbeforgottenthatthesymbolsin the Holy Communion are operative symbols: the sign itself, in some sense communicating the end that is signified. The real meaning of this symbolism is, that just as the Priest-victim in heaven pleads the cause of the sinful for whom He died, so on earth by means of the bread and wine, the tokens of His love, we plead the death of Christ.”462 The eucharistic hymns of both John and Charles Wesley show a moderate realist theology of eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The theology of the hymns links the sign with the signified for both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. The signs convey to the communicant in some real and effectual manner what they actually signify, the body and blood of Christ and the benefits of his sacrifice. Any notion of immoderate realism is however, excluded by the Wesleys, but at the same time their theology of the Eucharist is much more than mere memorialism. The eucharistic theology of the Wesleys is based on philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

462 Ibid,p.. chapter four

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Overview

The case studies presented in this section are taken from the writings of theologians, liturgies and important documents related to the Eucharist for the period of the nineteenth century. Both realist and nominalist philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology continue to be expressed in this period. A number of themes emerge in the writers of this period.

Themes1

Moderate Realism Many Anglican theologians expressed the view in the nineteenth century that Christ was in some way present ‘in’ or ‘under’ the signs of the bread and wine of the Eucharist or that the bread and wine ‘become’ in some sense the body and blood of Christ, thereby asserting philosophical assumptions of moderate realism and often described using the term ‘the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist’.In general these writers were careful to deny that Christ is present in any physical or fleshy manner (immoderate realism). Bennett said that Christ was present ‘in’ the sacrament under the form or veil of bread and wine. Benson argues that the bread and wine acquire a heavenly virtue by incorporation into Christ’s glorified substance, such that Christ comes to us by ‘an inflow of divine force’ which is substantive, personal, affectionate, regenerating, nutritive, purifying, divine, sanctifying, glorifying and ‘a stream of supernatural power’.By use of the word ‘substance’ however, Benson excludes any fleshy presence, stating that Christ died in the natural body but rose

1 No detailed references are listed in the overview of themes. These details can be found in the separate case studies.  chapter four in a spiritual body incapable of any earthly measurement or form and so is not in space. It is the nature of this spiritual body and presence that enables Christ to be present on many altars in the Eucharist without any multiplication of Christ’s body. Bright argues that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is based on the incarnation where the Word becomes flesh in order to impart spiritual life to believers and that the same efficacy is present in the Eucharist, such that there is a mysterious participation of the sacred body and blood of Christ present and imparted in a spiritualised and glorified state in the Eucharist. Denison states that the consecrated elements ‘become’ the sign of the body and blood of Christ without any change in their natural substance, in that the inward part or signified is the body and blood of Christ, received by all in the Eucharist in an objective way which is not dependent on the faith of the communicants. Enraght expresses a similar belief in an ‘objective real presence’,where following consecration bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine but, by the ‘miracle’ of consecration ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ—both God and Man. The sign and signified are linked by the ‘infusion’ of Christ into humanity, such that Christ’s body and blood is eaten in a real way (not corporal, but heavenly and spiritual). Enraght uses the term ‘type’ to indicate the sign and ‘antitype’ to indicated the signified. Both the type and the antitype he says are eaten in a real way in the Eucharist since Christ’s body and blood is ‘under the form of bread and wine’. A.P. Forbes says that Christ is present in the Eucharist really and rejects any view that argues that Christ is present in ‘power’ and ‘effect’ only. He also presents an ecclesial view of Christ’s presence, where people not only receive Christ’sbody and blood, but also ‘become’ Christ’s body and blood. Forbes also argues for a change in the elements following consecration in that the elements ‘become’ the body andbloodofChrist.G.H.Forbesstatesthatthebreadandwineare‘made’ the body and blood of Christ not only in a symbol, type and figure, but in ‘quickening energy, spirit and power and efficacy’ without any change in their substance or nature. He says that bread and wine ‘become another thing’ incomprehensibly. Hamilton presents the view that bread and wine become (supernaturally, heavenly, invisibly, incomprehensibly and spiritually) the body and blood of Christ as a result of consecration by means of a ‘hypostatic’ union but that they remain in their natural substance. The bread and wine (the outward) he says, receive an inward part (the body and blood of Christ), which is really present in the Eucharist in such awaythatitispresent‘withoutus’andnot‘onlyinthesoulsofthefaithful receiver’.Jolly argues that bread and wine are ‘sure pledges of the real sub- the nineteenth century stance’ of Christ’s body and blood and ‘His virtual flesh and blood’. The signs, he says, are linked with the signified and ‘raised’ to a ‘value’ beyond ordinary bread and wine by consecration. Keble sees Christ imparting his true self to the hand of the communicant in the Eucharist but also speaks of a presence in people’s hearts which is not a fleshy presence but a real presence, nonetheless, ‘under the form of bread and wine’.This presence is a ‘real objective presence of Jesus Christ in the holy Eucharist’ and in the ‘especial tokens’ which remain in their own nature. Real presence for Keble means a ‘substantial’ presence where substance means Christ’s body and blood but not in any ‘proper’ sense (i.e. a fleshy presence). Knox argues that bread is the ‘communion’ of the body of Christ and the cup is the ‘communion’ of the blood of Christ. These external and visible signs are seen as the ‘medium’ through which Christ’s body and blood is received and the grace of Christ is ‘conveyed to us in and through this visible ordinance’.For Liddon, the body of Christ is received sacramentally and the Eucharist is seen as a channel of grace where the sign conveys the signified. The signified is seen as Christ’s divinity not his flesh. Littledale says that after consecration, the body and blood of Christ are present on the altar under the form of bread and wine and that the body and blood in the Eucharist are the same body and blood of Christ conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, but not present in the same manner as when Christ was on earth. He describes the manner of the presence in the Eucharist as notnaturallybutsupernaturally.MauricesaysthatChristispresentinthe Eucharist and that the signified presence is associated with the bread and wine. Bread and wine are described as the ‘transparent medium’ through which Christ is manifested to people, thus linking sign and signified. The elements, he says, are not changed in essence or virtue following consecration, but changed in ‘use’ so that they become ‘purely sacramental’. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not seen as being dependent on the faith of the communicant nor is the presence of Christ dependent upon a descent of some power upon the elements. Maurice also presents an ecclesial sense of presence, where people become the body of Christ. In the Memorial presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury in , the writers state that the signified body and blood of Christ are really present in a spiritual and ineffable manner in the Eucharist ‘under’ the outward and visible sign or form of bread and wine. Mozley rejects transubstantiation because the idea of change it presents is described as too ‘definite’, but nonetheless does not reject a more ‘indefinite’ idea of change in the elements which makes them the true and real body and  chapter four blood of Christ. The change for Mozley is from a physical to a spiritual food, in that the Lord’s body is external to the mind but is ‘joined to bread and wine’ such that it is ‘co-existing with it in one sacrament’. It is not a natural substance but a spiritual substance that is eaten spiritually, and this does not happen by means of the natural mouth. The bread and wine are the signs of the body and blood of Christ and the ‘medium’ by which the spiritual is eaten is by faith. Neale says that the signs show a deeper reality, such as the real presence, where signs of bread and wine reveal a sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood. Newman states that Christ is present in the Eucharist ‘on the table’ and it is this presence that faith adores. Presence is spiritual, not in the sense of just a word, but a presence that is not seen or heard. The presence is not carnal but a real presence nonetheless which is a mystery and which ‘is’ given to people in the Eucharist, thereby being more than a figure or a presence dependent on the faith of the communicant. Christ therefore is to be found objectively ‘under the veil of sensible things’ in the sense that Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is a ‘type’ of the incarnation. Paget states that the signified is unseen in the Eucharist, but the sign delivers the signified in the same way the Word was made flesh in the incarnation. In the Eucharist thematerialishallowedtoeffecttheworkofGodandbearunseengrace. Paget speaks of this as an ‘invasion and penetration of the material by the spiritual’. Palmer argues that a real, spiritual and heavenly presence of Christ’s body is in the Eucharist but not according to a change in substance. A change occurs after the ‘blessing’ and ‘consecration’ where there is change from an earthly to a heavenly or divine thing. Phillpotts’ view is that the elements are offered on earth and invisibly sanctified such that they are made the body and blood of Christ, not carnally but sacramentally and ineffably. Pusey speaks of a ‘true, real, actual, though spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements’.The spiritual presence, Pusey says, is more real than a natural presence and independent of a person’s faith, and yet a channel of his blessed presence to the soul. Pusey is wary of specifying the mode of the presence apart from a spiritual and ineffable ‘mode’, but he does affirm that the elements ‘remain in their natural substance’,not becoming a carnal substance. The mode is mystical, sacramental and spiritual in an ineffable and supernatural way. ‘Real’ for Pusey does not mean ‘natural’ and being present ‘in’ a real way does not always mean ‘local’ but ‘in a supernatural, divine, ineffable way’ which is Christ present ‘under the form of bread and wine’.A real presence is ‘under the outward veil’ on our altars and so it is an objective presence. The ‘miracle’ therefore through the nineteenth century which Jesus makes his word of power present is ‘above’ but not ‘against’ the senses, and yet people cannot know ‘the hidden cause’.The body and blood of Christ are present as a substance, since Pusey argues there is no other way for them to be present, but the substance does not involve the ordinary properties of a body or conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, since by ‘substance’,Pusey means essence or σα, that is, its quidditas or whatever it is. Under the veil of an unseen presence, therefore, the &'σις or nature is understood, but there is no contradiction here for Pusey, if the natural properties of bread and wine remain. The Tractarians in their writings on the Eucharist argue that there is an objective truth (a dogmatic principle) beyond the individual, thereby putting a realist view, dependent on universals. It is these universals, they argue, which participate in things as a sacramental principle, in what Pusey calls a ‘medium of figures’, by which is understood both ‘types’ and ‘archetypes’. Types (or signs) resemble the archetypes (signified) and so the types can be divine. God therefore, according to the Tractarians, performs works through the ‘instrumentality’ of people and things which become channels of grace. This sacramental principle used by the Tractarians, based on the philosophical assumptions of realism, was influenced by both the Romanticism of the nineteenth century (that is, the divine is known through nature) and the works of earlier Anglicans who spoke of a sacramental principle (e.g. Bishop Joseph But- ler) and those who applied this principle to eucharistic theology (e.g Lancelot Andrewes—see Chapter ). Realism, for the Tractarians, meant that things of this world (the signs of the Eucharist) made the divine present (the signified) in a way that was described as a ‘real presence of Christ in the Eucharist’. Faith, for the Tractarians, did not produce grace, even though grace came through the sacraments, however faith was seen as the path for grace. Wilberforce, a Tractarian, presents an extended and philosophically developed account of the eucharistic presence using realist assumptions. He argues that the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally present in the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine. Sacraments are seen to be ‘the extension of the Incarna- tion’ where the signified is ‘joined’ to a visible sign by consecration, such that the thing signified and the benefits of the sacrament are communicated through the outward sign. The sign, therefore, is not only a pledge of the inward gift given, but the means by which it is communicated. Wilberforce speaks of a ‘hypostatic union’ of Christ’sbody and blood and theGodheadintheincarnation,whichisthesameintheEucharist.Inthe  chapter four

Eucharist he states there is a hypostatic union of the Godhead with the bread and wine of the Eucharist as an order of grace not nature. Such a union is not carnal but supernatural, sacramental and real. Contro- versially, since it presents that image of a fleshy or immoderate realist presence, he argues that what is given in the Eucharist is Christ’s humanity, and not his Godhead, since if the incarnation is admitted, then it is the body of Christ not the Godhead of Christ that is the medium for the gifts of Christ. In the same way, he argues, the gifts of Christ’s Godhead are communicated through Christ’s body and blood. For Wilberforce, the ‘is’ in Christ’s words, ‘This is my Body’, can mean either ‘representation’, which is subjective, with the efficacy of the Eucharist depending on the disposition of the receiver, or ‘identification’, which is objective, with the manner of the presence being supernatural, functioning as a ‘mysterious law of consecration’ where sign and signified are ‘whole’ as a ‘sacramental identity’. Some, he says, have emphasised the subjective view and so lessened the importance of the ‘sign’ (e.g. Zwingli) while others have emphasised the objective view and so overemphasised the importance of the sign, such that it becomes a fleshy or natural presence. Wilberforce sees problems with both of these emphases and argues for a proper balance between the two, which he summarises in a three-fold process: . The Godhead imparts itself to the Son in an eternal generation; . The Son unites himself to human nature in the incarnation; . Christ communicates himself to people as a real presence in the Eucharist. All of these three are in Wilberforces’s view a communication of ‘substance’ and so, for Wilberforce, it is proper to argue that there is a communication of substance in the Eucharist. This reasoning is based on the assumptions of moderate realism. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York in , in Saepius Officio, speaking somewhat differently to the Tractarians state that the consecration in the Eucharist means that the gifts ‘may become to us the Body and Blood of Christ’. Staley states that bread and wine are consecrated at Christ’s command to be his body and blood. Such a real presence, so consecrated, ‘becomes’ Christ’s body and blood as a spiritual reality. Frederick Temple argues that realism in regard to the Eucharist is nowhere condemned by the Church of England and so it is a possible interpretation for its members, just as non-realist views are also possible. the nineteenth century

Despite the differences of emphasis, the Anglican theologians of the nineteenth century, reviewed above, present extensive evidence of a moderate realist position in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Sacramental Principle—A Moderate Realist Notion Several nineteenth century Anglican writers in speaking of the Eucharist use moderate realist philosophical assumptions in discussing what is called the sacramental principle, that is, the idea that God uses material things to communicate grace in the sacraments. Those who advocate the sacramental principle believe that God has chosen to use the means of earthly and common things (such as the signs of bread and wine) for the communication of grace and the benefits of Christ sacrifice to people. Benson says that God raises the things of nature to become the supernatural and that this is the natural action of God. Denison specifically links the sign and the signified in the sacramental scheme. Enraght sees God communicating the divine to things of this world. A.P. Forbes affirmsthenecessityofthesubstanceofthesignasthemeansbywhich God works in the world through the sacramental principle. He specifically objects to transubstantiation in relation to the Eucharist since it involves the desition (termination of being) of the sign, thereby denying the sacramental principle. Knox sees the elements of the Eucharist as the vehicles of saving and sanctifying power and representatives of Christ’s incarnate person. Liddon says that sacramentality is based on the incarnation where sacraments are channels of supernatural grace. He rejects the idea that the sacraments are merely tokens and badges and the view that the sacraments are purely human acts in which God takes no part. Rather, Liddon sees the sacraments as ‘effectual signs’ of grace where God works in people. Neale states that sacramentality provides ‘divine illustration’ where ordinary objects and human actions are elevated beyond their common use and thereby serve a higher purpose. Sacraments therefore are channels and instruments of God’s grace and Neale argues (on the basis of realism) that there is a connection between the spiritual and matter in the linking of the sign and the signified. Newman sees outward rites and devotional acts as channels of invisible gifts. The sacraments are the means of sacramental presence which is not dependent on immoderate notions. Paget argues for a sacramental system where God uses ‘sensible’ objects, agents and acts as instruments of divine power. Pusey advocates ‘sacramental mediation of God’s gifts and graces’,where God’s own unity  chapter four puts itself forward in a variety of manners, but with one cause. In reference to bread and wine in the Eucharist, Pusey says that ‘they can be elements of this world and yet His very Body and Blood’ following the doctrine of the incarnation where the eternal Word takes human flesh into itself, that is, where Christ gave his life to flesh. In the same way, he argues, Christ puts life into bread and wine. The Tractarians, expressing the sacramental principle, believed that God used things of this world to convey grace. They were influenced not only by Romanticism, believing that the divine is present through nature, but also by earlier Anglicans who argued for a sacramental principle. Keble for example, in his poetry speaks of God making a direct impression on people using things of this world and Newman acknowledges the debt to earlier writers such as Joseph Butler, who spoke of a sacramental principle. Pusey in his Lectures on Types and Prophecies, speaks of ‘types’ and ‘archetypes’ and applies these to a ‘sacramental union’ which is the work of God depending on the mediation of the type (sign) where the sign is ‘knit together’ with the archetype (signified). The archetype, Pusey argues, is only conveyed to the mind through the type in such a way where God has joined together the signs as types in the Eucharist with the signified archetypes. Wilberforce states that sacraments derive their efficacy from the perpetual intervention of God’s will. God, he argues, appoints external forms to bestow gifts, not according to the order of nature, but according to the order of grace. The application of a sacramental principle to the theology of the Eucharist is based in these writers on philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

Worship of Christ in the Eucharist For many in the nineteenth century who adopted the sacramental principle on the basis of moderate realism the logical conclusion was that Christ could be worshipped in the Eucharist. Hamilton however, clearly excluded any adoration due to the bread and wine. Denison said the body and blood of Christ could be worshipped in the Eucharist supernaturally and invisibly, but that Christ’s body and blood were really present under the form of bread and wine. He was careful however to exclude any notion of worshipping the elements. Forbes argued that adoration was due to the body and blood of Christ mysteriously present in the gifts of bread and wine without any change in their substance. He too was careful to exclude any worship of the gifts even though he believed that Christ was adored the nineteenth century

‘in’ the gifts. Keble argued for the worship of Christ in the Eucharist, where Christ was present after consecration and before communicating. Keble argued that ‘the Person of Jesus Christ our Lord, wherever it is, is to be adored’ and therefore could be worshipped in the Eucharist since it was present there in the consecrated signs of bread and wine. Keble too was careful to exclude any worship of the signs of bread and wine. Littledale said that Christ is both God and man and that therefore Christ’s true nature was forever joined in one person. Christ’s Godhead therefore, must be wherever Christ’s body is and if the body of Christ is in the Eucharist, then it can be worshipped there. The Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury repudiates adoration of the sacramental bread and wine since that was seen as idolatry, but at the same time regards the signs with reverence because of their sacramental relation to the body and blood of Christ. Mozley points to the confusion which arises when the signs of the Eucharist are associated not only with the body and blood of Christ but also with the divinity of Christ. Where this happens, says Mozley, the signs become the object of the worship of Christ’s divinity (an immoderate realist possibility emerging) and this detracts from the real linking of the signs (bread and wine) with the signified (the body and blood of Christ). Pusey states that adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is possible. He compares the worship of Christ present in human flesh by the Magi to the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Christ is seen to be present in both places (the human flesh of the baby Jesus at his birth and the bread and wine of the Eucharist) and can therefore be worshipped and adored in both places. In a similar but less specific way, Frederick Temple argues that Christ is present in the Eucharist and can therefore be worshipped there. The idea of the worship of Christ in the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. There is no fleshy or immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist implied by such worship in the work of the writers reviewed above, but Christ is worshipped truly because Christ is seen to be present in a real way in the Eucharist and in the signs of bread and wine.

Type of Worship Suggests Realism Some nineteenth century writers and theologians in their discussion of worship express moderate realist philosophical assumptions in relation to the worship conducted as part of the Eucharist. Bennett argues that  chapter four outward forms of worship, such as candles, incense at the holy sacrifice, eucharistic vestments and the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, are signs which link to the signified in eucharistic worship. Enraght agrees, stating that ritualistic practices are associated with eucharistic worship. Neale argues that architecture, symbols and ornaments present a cere- monialism that suggests realism and a sacramental principle, providing what Neale calls a ‘divine illustration’ of catholic teaching in relation to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and eucharistic sacrifice. Neale cites the use of a pyx containing the consecrated elements and the reservation of the consecrated elements in a tabernacle as means of allowing people to be closer to the sacramental presence of Christ on the understanding that the sacramental elements were the body and blood of Christ as a sacramental but not natural presence. Phillpotts cites the specific eucharistic prayer called the Agnus Dei as indicating realism inthatitsays,‘LambofGodthattakest[nottookest]awaythesinsof the world’. The use of the present tense in this prayer is important for Phillpotts since it suggests a continuous presence of Christ’s propitiatory and sacrificial work in the Eucharist, not restricted to the moment of the cross.

Immoderate Realism Excluded in Relation to Presence Notions of immoderate or fleshy realism are rejected in the period of the nineteenth century in relation to the expression of eucharistic theology. Benson says that Christ’spresence is not measured by earthly means or by space. Enraght states that carnal eating is distinguished from spiritual eating in the Eucharist, but both are real, and the carnal type of eating is not present in the Eucharist. Enraght quotes John  saying that flesh profits nothing to support his view opposed to carnal eating. Hamilton argues that the substance of the bread and wine does not change. Keble says the presence of Christ is real in the Eucharist in the heart and hand but with the bread and wine remaining in its own nature. Christ, says Keble, is ‘feasted upon’ but not in any carnal manner. Knox denies what he calls the ‘gross’ sense of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Liddon states that sacraments point to Christ’s divinity and not to his flesh. The writers of the Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury deny that there is a corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood and that there is any change in the natural substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Mozley rejects any idea of a natural eating of Christ’s body the nineteenth century and blood in the Eucharist and states that there is only spiritual eating. Newman says there is no carnal presence in the Eucharist and asserts only a heavenly or spiritual presence, rejecting all local notions of presence. Palmer also rejects carnal notions which he describes as ‘corporal’ or ‘organical’. Phillpotts rejects the idea of carnal presence in the Eucharist. Pusey says that a spiritual presence is more real than a physical and denies that he holds any physical, corporeal or carnal idea of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and instead argues for a spiritual, sacramental, divine and ineffable presence which has no ‘physical union’ of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Staley argues that a real presence in the Eucharist is a spiritual reality and that such a spiritual presence is not unreal or figurative but supernatural and not in any way carnal. Frederick Temple states that the idea of a carnal presence in the Eucharist is excluded. The Tractarians in advocating a sacramental principle and a sacramental union of sign and signified argue that such a view ‘is opposed to fleshy or carnal since it depends on mediation of thetype’.TheTractariansarguethatanyviewofthepresenceofChrist in the Eucharist which clings to the type (sign) without looking to the archetype (signified) is an error since it produces a carnal view of the presence and that a mistake is also made if the sign and the signified are separated (nominalism). The type they argue does not exist for itself, therefore those they call ‘pseudo-spiritualists’ (those who advocate a spiritual religion) and those who advocate a carnal religion (those who cling to the type) see nothing but the bare element (either separated from the signified or too closely associated with the sign) and that by so doing they deprive themselves of the spiritual benefit. Wilberforce states that the Eucharist is not a physical but a moral instrument of salvation, not in the order of nature but in the order of grace. For Wilberforce there is a hypostatic union of Christ’s Godhead and Manhood (body and blood) such that they are joined inseparably in the eucharistic presence as they were joined in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, but in the Eucharist, this joining is not fleshy or carnal but is of grace rather than any physical nature. Several Anglican theologians who adopt nominalist philosophical assumptions in regard to the Eucharist, also exclude any idea of a carnal presence. Goode denies both a local or superlocal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, either spiritually or supernaturally. Ryle and Vogan state that there is no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in any sense at all in the elements.  chapter four

Moderate Realism Regarding Eucharistic Sacrifice Many Anglican theologians and writers refer to eucharistic sacrifice using the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. Some talk of ‘pleading’ the sacrifice of Christ. Bright speaks of pleading thesacrificeofChristintheEucharistasapleadingoftheatonementas propitiation. Bright does not mean that the eucharistic sacrifice is associated withwhatChristdid onthecrossbut withwhatChristis continually doinginheavenandsacramentallyintheEucharist.Hamiltonspeaksof the Eucharist as a sacrifice where that sacrifice is pleaded on earth asit is in heaven by Christ. Keble speaks of pleading Christ crucified in the Eucharist and presenting to God the body and blood of God’s incarnate Son with his wounds, merits and mercies, that these may be accepted. Remembrance for Keble is a perpetual presentation of Christ’s body and blood in heaven and on earth. The Memorial to the Archbishop of Canter- bury spoke about Christ ever offering himself before God and pleading by his presence his sacrifice of the cross and argued that on earth the same body and blood is offered and pleaded before the Father by the priest. Phillpotts stated that he saw the Eucharist joined with the one great sacrifice of Christ, pleading it before the Father, such that the atonement was seen to be finished on the cross but the sacrifice is continuous and its propitiatory virtue is also continuous. Pusey speaks of a ‘pleading of our Lord’s passion in act’ where we present bread and wine to be ineffably and supernaturally the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Saepius Officio also speaks of pleading and representing before God the sacrifice of the cross. Staley says the pleading of the sacrifice in the Eucharist occurs as Christ pleads in heaven, not as a bloody sacrifice and not in line with the sacrifice of Calvary but as the pleading of that sacrifice in heaven. Enraght says the historic sacrifice and its benefits are continually applied in the Eucharist. A.P. Forbes argues that the eucharistic sacrifice is the same ‘substantially’ with that of the cross. He does not argue that the cross is re-iterated in the Eucharist but by speaking of the same substance of the cross in the Eucharist he argues that Christ is commemorated and pleaded in the Eucharist. The substance, he says, is the same in both but the events are different—one being the historic event of the cross and the other being the event of the Eucharist. This language contains the sense of a strict identity of the universal in both the instantiations of thecrossandtheEucharist,butalooseidentityfortheparticularsofthe eucharistic and the historic sacrifice. Mozley distinguishes between the the nineteenth century original propitiation of the cross (a fleshy sacrifice) and the ‘borrowed propitiation’ in the Eucharist (a non-fleshy sacrifice). G.H. Forbes says that bread and wine by their very placement on the altar with or without words are offered to God as a memorial of Christ’s oblation, not only in symbol, type and figure but in energy, spirit and power and efficacy. Knox speaks of the ‘ineffable virtues’ of Christ’s crucifixion and death being received through the Eucharist whereas Liddon argues that Christ’s divinity is pointed to by the Eucharist, such that the divinity ‘irradiates the perpetuity and the reality of their power’. Maurice also speaks of the power of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist through the signs, where the eucharistic ‘feast’ is sacrificed. Newman is cau- tious about dismissing the idea of eucharistic sacrifice. He distinguishes between the ‘sacrifices of the masses’ (a re-iteration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist) and the ‘sacrifice of the mass’ where Christ’s sacrifice is remembered in the present in the Eucharist but not re-iterated. Palmer also argues against re-iteration but not against eucharistic sacrifice per se. Pusey says that the forgiveness of sins is real and effective in the Eucharist, as a work of the cross, given through the Eucharist in a real way. He describes this as ‘an application of His [Christ’s] One Oblation once made upon the cross, poured out for us now, conveying to our souls, as being His Blood, with other benefits of His Pas- sion, the remission of sins also’. For Pusey there is application of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, not a re-iteration of it. The Arch- bishops in Saepius Officio affirm eucharistic sacrifice, saying that the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition is not a ‘nude commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross’. Rather they affirm the offering of giftsin the Eucharist to signify oblation and sacrifice which is the perpetual memory of the death of Christ. Staley also says that there is a perpetual memory of Christ’s death before the Father in the Eucharist. He describes it as a feast upon a sacrifice, where ‘do’ in Christ’s words, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’, means ‘offer’ and where ‘remembrance’ has a sacrificial meaning. The sacrifice of the mass he says is an ancient and Catholic sense of the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ where there is feeding of souls through the Eucharist. Wilber- force states that the Eucharist is a sacrifice and that the eucharistic oblation is real. Christ, according to Wilberforce, is not just a store of grace but a great high priest through whose flesh people have access to God. Chiefly through the Eucharist people have access to the benefits of Christ’s death, but not in the strict sense of slaughter. In the Eucharist there is a perpetual sacrifice which is not restricted to the  chapter four moment of Christ’s death. The Eucharist is not only a ‘feast upon a sacrifice, but likewise of a sacrifice itself’, where the sacrifice is in reference to the one, perfect propitiation and by virtue of the one abiding sacrifice in heaven. In this sense Wilberforce argues that it is a real sacrifice where sign (the external signs of bread and wine presented before God in the Eucharist) and the signified (the very sacrifice of the cross) are linked. Keble speaks in his poetry of Christ bleeding in the Eucharist and of days when the Eucharist is not celebrated as the day when the priest keeps back ‘our glorious sacrifice’.Not only is Keble saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but he also argues that the priest has the power to control it. Keble however, calls the eucharistic sacrifice an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ which nonetheless is an offering up of Christ’s sacrifice and argues that the Eucharist is the place where Christ comes to be ‘feasted upon’ but not sacrificed; where there is ‘the transference for the time to earth ofthe great perpetual commemorative sacrifice in heaven’. Jolly presents a view of the eucharistic sacrifice which has much in common with the view of the Nonjurors (see Chapter ) and others like Johnson (Chapter ), who argue that the oblation of Christ was performed at the Last Supper and that Christ was then subsequently slain at the cross. The oblation is linked with the bread and wine and Christ is said ‘to suffer and die, under the symbols or substitutes of bread and wine’.Jolly however presents this view in a moderate realist sense since, although he argues that the sacrifice is presented in a real way in the Eucharist, it is offered as a ‘memorial of the infinitely meritorious passion and death of His Son’. Many Anglican writers in the nineteenth century present a moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice based on philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. They argue that the sacrifice of Christ is presented, pleaded and offered in a real way in the Eucharist, using the signs of bread and wine as they are offered to God, but they exclude the view that the eucharisticsacrificeisofferedinabloodymannerorthatChrist’ssacrifice is re-iterated or added to in the Eucharist.

The Role of the Spirit in the Eucharist A number of Anglican theologians in the nineteenth century, adopting moderate realist philosophical assumptions, affirm with theologians from earlier periods, a specific role to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, where the Spirit is seen to act in the Eucharist and to be the source of the nineteenth century power and effect in relation to the signs of bread and wine Benson says that the ‘sacraments are the means through which the Spirit acts’ with the Spirit taking the consecrated bread and wine into the body of Christ. G.H. Forbes sees the Spirit as the source of changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ without any change in the nature or the substance of the bread and wine. Forbes speaks of the Spirit bringing about a ‘quickening energy’.Jolly argues that by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit, the elements, without change in substance, become the body and blood of Christ in spirit and power, in divine virtue and life-giving efficacy. The Holy Spirit, Jolly says, acts so that the bread and wine is ‘highly enriched and consecrated’ and by the power of the Holy Spirit ‘made Christ’s body and blood in virtue, power and efficacy’, so that it conveys the benefits of his death. Knox speaks ofthe operation of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ as bringing about the ‘vivifying influences of His incarnate Person, and the ineffable virtues of His crucifixion and death’.The Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury says that the Holy Spirit is involved in consecration in such a way that the signified body and blood of Christ are really present ‘under’ the outward signs or form of bread and wine. Newman argues that the Holy Spirit’s role is that of agency for the presence of Christ ‘in’ and ‘by’ the sacrament. Staley speaks of the power to consecrate by the power of the Holy Spirit, such that bread and wine ‘become’ Christ’s body and blood. Frederick Temple similarly argues that the power of the Holy Spirit makes the bread and wine of the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ. Wilberforce states that the Spirit and the Word have a crucial role in that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is brought about by their efficacy. Anglican theologians in the nineteenth century, adopting nominalist assumptions in relation to the sign and the signified in the Eucharist, interpret the role of the Holy Spirit in a different manner to those who use moderate realist assumptions. Goode, for example, sees the Spirit as enabling the communicant to know the presence of Christ through the power and the influence of Christ’s body and blood, but does not allocate a role to the Spirit in relation to the consecration of the bread and wine of the Eucharist. For Goode, the Spirit does not have any effect on the elements but only an effect on the communicant, since, for him, it is the faith of the communicant which determines the presence of the benefits of Christ’s presence and sacrifice and not any linking between the signs of bread and wine and the signified body and blood of Christ.  chapter four

Immoderate Realism Excluded in Relation to Sacrifice Bright and Enraght exclude notions of the repetition of the atonement, new redemption or satisfaction by eucharistic sacrifice. For Bright, using Article XXXI of The Thirty-Nine Articles as an authority, there is no re- iteration or supplementation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist in an immoderate realist sense. Hamilton says that the sacrifice is not re- iterated. Jolly argues that in the eucharistic oblation there is no physical suffering of Christ and no re-iteration of his sacrifice. Keble says there is no blood in the eucharistic sacrifice and describes it as an ‘unbloody sacrifice’. The writers of the Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury say there is no fresh sacrifice and oblation in the Eucharist apart from the all sufficient sacrifice and oblation of the cross. Palmer excludes carnal notions (e.g. sacrifices of the masses) from the Eucharist and describes these as the ‘vulgar and heretical doctrine of re-iteration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist’. Pusey speaks of ‘application’ of the sacrifice of Christ and not of re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross, since that sacrifice was ‘once made upon the cross’. Staley excludes the idea of offering in the Eucharist by the priest for the quick and the dead. He uses the term ‘sacrifices of the masses’ to describe this sort of carnal sacrifice and distinguishes it from the eucharistic sacrifice which is not carnal and not a distinct sacrifice from Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, nor it is a repetition of it either. Wilberforce excludes any strict sacrifice in the sense of slaughter from the eucharistic sacrifice. Several writers who present nominalist philosophical assumptions in relation to the Eucharist also exclude immoderate realist (as well as moderate realist) notions of sacrifice in the Eucharist. Ryle argues that no sacrifice in the Eucharist can be inferred from the New Testament evidence and that there is no need for further sacrifice in the Eucharist following Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Vogan states there is no sacrifice in the Eucharist apart from that of praise and thanksgiving and the offering of the self. Immoderate notions of sacrifice in the Eucharist are excluded from the writings of many Anglican theologians in the nineteenth century.

Realism Which Appears Immoderate Despite the frequent denial of immoderate realism in the Eucharist, some Anglican writers in the nineteenth century used language which gave the impression of a natural or fleshy presence of Christ in the Eucharist the nineteenth century and of a repetition of or addition to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross in the Eucharist. Bennett spoke of the ‘real, actual, and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches’. Bennett went so far as to argue that the consecrated elements should be adored. This led to the suggestion by some that he was arguing for the adoration of the outward elements and not the inward presence. The immoderate suggestions here were modified in later editions of his work so as not to refer to any adoration of the elements. Denison said that the body and blood of Christ are naturally present in heaven but supernaturally, invisibly and really present in the Lord’s Supper through the elements by virtue of the act of consecration. Denison described this as Christ’svery body and very blood present ‘under the forms of bread and wine’, thereby suggesting an immoderate realist presence. A.P. Forbes argued that ‘the bread of the Eucharist is the natural body of Christ or his incarnate flesh’ and that the eucharistic sacrifice is the same substantially with that of the cross. His argument suggests that the sign is the signified in the strict or immoderate sense, eventhoughinotherplaceshedeniesthisinterpretation. Jolly describes the bread and wine of the Eucharist as sure pledges of Christ’s flesh and blood and says that Christ suffers and dies under the symbols or substitutes of bread and wine. This immoderate realist sounding language is qualified by the argument that there is no physical manner to the presence or sacrifice in the Eucharist and that it is ‘in effect’. Newman says that Jesus ‘vouchsafes to us his flesh’,but this immoderate expression must be judged alongside Newman’s other predominant moderate realist theology. Palmer talks of people receiving in the Eucharist, not only the flesh and blood of Christ, but Christ himself, both God and man. He does however deny a corporal presence in other places. Wilber- force says that the same substance is in both the sign and the signified, but is careful not to speak of any carnal or fleshy presence or sacrifice in the Eucharist. When Wilberforce says that the outward and the inward are identical in the Eucharist he is speaking of the substance of Christ being the same in both the sign and the signified and not of an immoderate or fleshy presence or sacrifice.

Transubstantiation Denied Transubstantiation is frequently denied by Anglican writers in the nineteenth century. It is not seen as having a place in Anglican eucharistic theology (e.g. Benson, Forbes and Hamilton). Often this is on the basis of the  chapter four exclusion of transubstantiation in Article XXXI. Others deny the specific form of moderate realism called transubstantiation and the notion of any change in the substance of the bread and wine (the philosophical basis), but not moderate realism per se (e.g. Enraght, Forbes, Moz- ley, Newman and Temple). Forbes argues that transubstantiation may have an ‘innocent interpretation’ (i.e. moderate realist real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) but argues at the same time that transubstantiation involving any change in the substance of the bread and wine relies on the desition (termination of being) of the sign and therefore works against the sacramental principle. Newman and Palmer while rejecting the notion of change in substance implied by transubstantiation do not reject the idea of change of substance completely. Where the change of substance is related to a change from a natural to a spiritual or supernatural substance (not bound by distance, place or movement) then, they argue, it can be accepted. Pusey puts the view that transubstantiation must be denied in the sense that it implies a physical change, but that Anglican statements (e.g. the Articles—see case study Chapter ) do not excludechangecompletely(suchasinthecaseofchangefromthenatural to the spiritual). The implication of this for Pusey is that transubstantiation can be accepted where it does not imply a change of physical substance and does not overthrow the nature of a sacrament. On the basis of sacramentality, expressed in the sacramental principle, Pusey puts that case that Anglicanism does not deny transubstantiation in all senses. The important point to note from the discussion of this essence is that the basis for the acceptance or rejection of transubstantiation seems to be whether or not it involves moderate realism. If moderate realism is meant then transubstantiation can be accepted by some theologians and if it is not meant then transubstantiation is denied by these theologians in the Anglican eucharistic tradition.

Nominalism Relating to the Eucharist Several Anglican writers and theologians in the nineteenth century deny realist assumptions in relation to the Eucharist and adopt nominalist philosophical assumptions in their theology of the Eucharist. Goode emphasises a real presence to the faithful receiver only and separatesthesignsofbreadandwinefromthesignifiedbodyandblood of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is present, he says, only by faith and the sign only reminds the communicant of the spiritual blessings derived the nineteenth century from Christ’s work. Any realism can only be associated with receptionism or with the presence of Christ with the faith of the communicant at the moment of reception, not the elements, which as sensible objects are only prompts to faith in the spiritual blessings of Christ. In a similar way the effects of Christ’s sacrifice are present, not by the linking of the sign with the signified in the Eucharist, but by participation of the soul in the body and blood of Christ by faith. ‘Real’,for Goode, means the real encounter of faith alone. Christ’s sacrifice is therefore limited to a past event. Hebert states that Christ’s body and blood are in heaven and not here on earth, except in the thought of the faithful communicant. Limiting the presence and sacrifice of Christ to the mind and heart of the believer suggests that there can be no real presence or sacrifice in the Eucharist and that there is an empirical separation of sign and signified in the Eucharist. Meyrick although admitting that the Eucharist is a remembrance, a sacrifice, a means of feeding, a means of incorporation and a pledge, qualifies all this by saying that: Remembrance only calls to mind Christ’s sacrifice. Sacrifice is an offering of worship to God where the bread and wine are gifts of homage with no propitiation implied in their offering. Feeding is not by the elements but only by faith. Incorporation is only of people into the body of Christ which is Christ’s mystical body. The pledge assures people of God’s past forgiveness with no linking of that pledge with the signs in the present in the Eucharist in a realist fashion.

Ryle says that the Eucharist is a remembrance of the death of Christ and the benefits received by that death. The bread and wine for Ryle, only function to remind people of Christ’s body given on the cross with no linking of the sign and signified in any real way in the present in the Eucharist. The signs serve only the purpose of an aid to memory, albeit a forcible manner. The death of Christ, says Ryle, is the ‘hinge and turning point’ on which benefits depend and not the Eucharist. For Ryle Christ’s words therefore, ‘This is my body/blood’ mean ‘This is a symbol of my body/blood’. The Eucharist therefore is entirely about remembrance and in Ryle’s view this was the position of the Reformers of the sixteenth century. For Ryle the promises of God are pledged in the Eucharist and this, not the signs, is the source of the Eucharist’s power. The signs are not seen as the means of delivering grace since this can only be achieved through the promises of God. The Eucharist therefore in Ryle’s view does  chapter four not deliver grace nor does it make peace with God since only the action ofChristinthepastandthepromisesofGodinthepresentcanachieve this. ‘Real presence’ for Ryle can only mean ‘Christ in the heart’ and so moderate realism and the sacramental principle forms no part of Ryle’s eucharistic theology. Vogan was another nineteenth century Anglican writer who saw no real link between the sign and the signified in the Eucharist. For him the use of the words ‘body and blood of Christ’ was only figurative since Christ’sdeath and sacrifice were in the past and not contextualised in any real way in the present in the Eucharist. There was therefore no possibility of speaking of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the pleading or offering of the eucharistic sacrifice. Sacrifice in the Eucharist was for Vogan only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and a sacrifice of self in worship. For Vogan any feasting on a sacrifice in the Eucharist was a feasting upon a past sacrifice by remembering it and not upon a present sacrifice in any real way. Negative reactions to the eucharistic theology of the Tractarians in the nineteenth century was expressed by many Evangelicals who rejected the moderate realism of the Tractarians and spoke instead of a ‘spiritual religion’ which had no need of sacramental mediation. Outward signs in the sacraments were considered by many Evangelicals to be tokens and emblems only and were not seen as objective or instrumental causes or means of grace. This line of thinking was common among writers such as J.B. Sumner, C.R. Sumner and Charles Simeon. Others, particularly those labelled liberals by the Tractarians, favoured a more rational type of religion and so rejected the mysterious elements of both Romanticism and the sacramental principle because they were not easily and clearly definable. Writers such as Thomas Arnold and Renn Hampden rejected the idea of sacramental mediation because it seemingly lacked empirical verification. In rejecting sacramental mediation these writers rejected the moderate realism inherent in the sacramental principle advocated by the Tractarians.

Increasingly Sophisticated Philosophical Analysis Writers in the nineteenth century made increasingly sophisticated use of philosophical analysis in their discussion of eucharistic theology. Enraght for example introduces the terms ‘types’ and ‘antitypes’ in his eucharistic theology whereas A.P.Forbes makes a careful analysis of substance in different particulars whereby the same substance (the substance the nineteenth century of Christ) is seen to be in both the historic sacrifice and the eucharistic sacrifice without any immoderate notions of sacrifice compromising his scheme. Pusey speaks also of the nature of Christ being present in the Eucharist. By nature he means the fullness of the Godhead, present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Presence for Pusey is based on notions of nature rather than substance. In much the same way Pusey speaks of the ‘application’ of Christ’s one oblation in the Eucharist as an effective means of conveying the benefits of Christ’s passion to the communicant. The philosophical assumptions on which this eucharistic theology are built are those of moderate realism.

The Case Studies

The case studies of the nineteenth century are: William Bennett Richard Meux Benson William Bright George Arthur Denison Richard W. Enraght Alexander Penrose Forbes George Hay Forbes William Goode Walter Kerr Hamilton Charles Hebert Alexander Jolly John Keble Alexander Knox Henry Parry Liddon Richard Frederick Littledale Frederick Denison Maurice Frederick Meyrick Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury,  James Bowling Mozley John Mason Neale John Henry Newman Francis Paget William Palmer Henry Phillpotts Edward Bouverie Pusey John Charles Ryle Saepius Officio Vernon Staley Frederick Temple  chapter four

The Tractarians and the Eucharist Thomas Stuart Vogan Robert Isaac Wilberforce the nineteenth century

William Bennett

In  William Bennett (–), a tractarian and the Vicar of Frome-Selwood, published a pamphlet entitled A Plea for Toleration in the Church of England: In a letter to Dr Pusey.2 In this work Bennett made some doctrinal statements relating to the Eucharist. These statements provoked a great deal of controversy that resulted in Bennett being tried by an ecclesiastical court. In the first edition of the pamphlet () Bennett argued for: “the real, actual, and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches”.3 He also said: “I am one of those who burn candles at the altar in the day-time, who use incense at the holy sacrifice, who use the Eucharistic vestments, who elevate the Blessed Sacrament, who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them, believing that under their veil is the sacred body and blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”.4 Bennett’s words are suggestive of a fleshy presence of Christ in the elements which is honoured and adored. Christ is seen to be present ‘in’ the bread and wine and the body and blood is ‘under’ their veil. There is no direct suggestion here that any immoderate realism was implied, such that the fleshy presence of Christ was to be found in the Eucharist. His words ‘real, actual and visible presence’ and his suggestion that the consecrated elements were adored, however, are open to the suggestion that an immoderate realism is meant. Instead of suggesting that the inward part of the sacrament (the res sacramenti) was adored, Bennett argued that it was the outward part (the sacramentum)whichoughttobe adored. It was under the influence of Edward Pusey that Bennett agreed in subsequent editions of his pamphlet to amend his wording regarding theEucharist.Inthethirdeditionofthepamphlet,forexample,healtered the wording of the passage cited above so that it now read: “I am one of those . . . who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, Christ present in the Sacrament under the form of bread and wine, believing that under the veil is the sacred body and blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”.5 This latter opinion expressed by Bennett was ruled in 

2 William Bennett, A Plea for Toleration in the Church of England, in a letter to Dr Pusey (London: J.T. Hayes, ). 3 Ibid,p.. 4 Ibid,p.. 5 William Bennett, A Plea for Toleration in the Church of England (rd Edition), cited  chapter four by the Court of Arches and in  by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as not unlawful in the Church of England.6 Bennett’s corrected opinion is that of moderate realism and does not create the impression of a fleshy presence in the Eucharist which is adored. The sign and the signified are linked with Christ’sbody and blood being seen to be present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the philosophical assumptions underlying his eucharistic theology are those of moderate realism.

in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 6 Ibid, II, p. . the nineteenth century

Richard Meux Benson

Richard Meux Benson (–) founded a religious order within the Church of England known as the Society of St John the Evangelist (SSJE) and served as its first Superior. Benson was a supporter of the Oxford Movement. His opinions on the Eucharist can be gathered from a letter he wrote in a journal entitled The Cowley Evangelist in July, . Part of this letter said: Ihearthatsomepersons...arestrivingtolaughthetruedoctrineofour Lord’s presence out of court by representing it as a miracle. Of course, it is a miracle; all the operations of the living God in this material world are a miracle; birth, nourishment, growth, all are miracles, ‘but seen too oft are miracles in vain’. They are not miracles in the sense of being contrary to nature, wrought by divine power in order to attest the divine mission of One whom God has sent, but they are miracles as being acts of God’s continuous though secret power by which He raises the things of nature to become the channels of operations which in their original nature they could not have effected. God’s work must be supernatural. He acts by infusing some new law, by which the lower creation is raised to do the higher work. . . . Christ takes the bread and wine into his His glorified body. If He did not do so, the Church, which is His body in its earthly form, would die. The Church requires as an earthly organisation to be nourished by earthly elements, but those elements must have a heavenly substance. Christ must take them into the substance of His glorified body. Otherwise, they would not be capable of nourishing His body upon the earth. Without this continuous feeding upon the body of Christ, the Church upon earth would die of starvation. . . . The word ‘Transubstantiation’, true of our natural food, fails to express the truth of the change which is effected in the bread and wine when they become the body and blood of Christ. The true bread is given to us ‘from heaven’. It has a heavenly nature in itself; the bread and wine acquire a heavenly virtue by incorporation into His glorified substance. We are made Christ’s members, and need to feed upon Christ’s glorified body. . . . From Christ, the Head, must come the life of each successive generation of the Church, which is His body. His body has nourishment administered to it by sacramental joints and bands from Himself, the Head, as St Paul teaches us. . . . Christ comes to us in this Holy Sacrament, not leaping down from His central throne of divine love. . . . But He comes by an onflow of divine force—substantive, for it is in His human nature that He comes to be the food of man; personal, for in ChristthehumanitycannotbewithoutthedivinePerson;affectionate, for He comes with the love of God; spiritual, for He acts in the power of the Holy Ghost; regenerating, for He lifts us up into a heavenly life; nutritive, for He makes His members to grow in grace by this feeding upon Him, purifying, for our sinful bodies are made clean by His body; divine, because our souls are washed by His ever-living blood; sanctifying, for He,  chapter four

of God, is therein made to us sanctification and redemption; glorifying, for His hidden presence shall be revealed in us hereafter in the glory of His kingdom. . . . In such a stream of supernatural power, surely the provision of the food by which this grace streams forth cannot but be a miracle. If it were not, it would be an act altogether unworthy of its relation as ordained by God to raise us from earth to heaven. The consecration of the sacred elements is not a tentative action, from which great things may follow, but it is a covenant, ordained in all things, and sure. Hereby, Christ comes to us. Hereby, we, as His members, appeal to God, that God may remember us as speakingtoHiminChrist’sname....PeopletalkaboutChrist’sbodyasif it were the body of any other man. They do not realise that it is ascended to the right hand of God. They think of Christ sitting in heaven as He may be represented in a picture, with the form which He might have had during His earthly life. They do not realise what is meant by His ascension. He did not ascend to some place in the sky miles and miles away from earth. He ascended by passing up from an earthly form of existence, measured by space and outline, to an entirely new sphere and manner and capacity of life. He ascended up a little way above the heads of the bystanders, and then He vanished out of their sight. He was not lost in distance. Nor did he cease to exist. He was crucified in a natural body. He rose again asa spiritual body. The spiritual body is incapable of any earthly measurement or form. It is a heavenly power such as we can in no wise apprehend. It is no longer in space, but is at the right hand of God, exercising a power by the inherent glory of the Holy Ghost. It is no longer in space, but it acts independently of space, so that however many may be the altars on which the Holy Eucharist is celebrated, there is no multiplication of Christ’s body. His body, being now a spiritual body, is a force divinely operating in every crumb of the consecrated bread, communicating the existence of its glorified state to each who feeds thereon. This is what people aretoo apt to ignore, so that it seems as if each individual received into himself aseparateChrist,andnotthedivineundividedChrist.OneChrist,one living Force acting throughout the whole of the Church, which is His body, and acting completely in every individual communicant. . . . We must not think of the sacred elements as if they were transubstantiated into human flesh like our own, but as being lifted up by the divine indwelling soasto be the mediatorial channel of life uniting us as the members of Christ to a vital fellowship with Christ, the Head of the body. . . . The Sacraments are the means through which the Spirit acts. The bread and wine consecrated by the Spirit are taken into the body of Christ, so as to be a channel of communication. If the bread and wine were an empty symbol, they could not effect bodily union between ourselves and Christ. Our bodies are made membersofChrist’sbody,ofHisflesh,andofHisbones.Theremustbe a material substance to act upon our bodies, as there must be a spiritual substance with which we are united. . . . The miracle is not our work. It is the work of the Holy Ghost in the body of Christ. We cannot work the miracle, it is not we who consecrate the bread and wine. There is only onePriestintheChurchofGod.OneVictim,oneAltar.Thepriestwho the nineteenth century

celebrates can neither help the miracle, nor can he nullify it. However little he believes in the sacramental change, that change is just the same as if he believes in it most fully. . . . We must realise that it is by the power of the Holy Ghost descending from heaven at Pentecost that we are called to consecrate the bread and wine, and make them channels of mediatorial grace by their identification with the mediatorial Head of the covenant.7 Benson’s view of the Eucharist as a miracle is intended to deny any suggestion that a miracle was apart from nature. The miraculous nature of the Eucharist is due to the power of God through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The miracle is that through this power, things of this world, bread and wine, become channels for things of the heavenly or spiritual world. This says Benson changes the nature of the things of this world, not that they are transubstantiated, but that they are taken into a higher realm, that is, the glorified body of Christ. It is because of the heavenly virtue given to the bread and wine, by the fact they are taken into or incorporated into the glorified body of Christ, that the bread and wine can be said to be changed and it is because of this change that the communicant can be said to feed on the body and blood of Christ. Benson associates the signs of bread and wine with the signified grace and presence of Christ in the Eucharist. His view is that of moderate realism. It is by the signs that Christ comes to people and this is in an objective manner. It does not matter what the earthly priest or communicant thinks of the gift, it is nonetheless present in the sign ina real and objective way. Benson is careful however to exclude immoderate realism since he affirms that the presence of Christ cannot be measured by earthly means (space and outline). Christ’s body is not multiplied in some physical and fleshy manner, but is present on numerous altars as a spiritual body, with the grace of Christ present in the bread and wine in a real, but not immoderate realist manner. The bread and wine do not become flesh, but rather they are lifted up by divine indwelling so that they become a mediatorial channel, whereby the communicant and Christ are united. The bread and wine, the signs, become the channel of communication for the signified, the body and blood of Christ. The signs therefore cannot be mere empty symbols, but they are rather identified with the signified in a real way, containing and delivering the grace with which they are identified. The philosophical assumptions underlying Benson’s eucharistic theology are those of moderate realism.

7 Richard Benson, ‘Letter’, The Cowley Evangelist, July, , cited in Stone, AHistory of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, II, pp. –.  chapter four

William Bright

William Bright (–) was the Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford and a younger contemporary of Edward Pusey. In a volume entitled Selected Letter of William Bright, published in  and after his death, aspects of eucharistic doctrine were discussed. In a letter written in , Bright said: “As for the sacrifice, I should begin by sweeping off the ground all notions of a repetition of the atonement, of a new redemption, ‘satisfaction’.etc., so as to show that nothing like that is intended. Then, and only then, would it be opportune to show that our Lord, as the Lamb that was slain, must always be still pleading His atonement, and thus acting as our propitiation, and that the Eucharisticmemorialisaformofsuchpleading,inasmuchasHeisinan especial manner present in the Eucharist, and if present must be present as the Lamb.”8 Sacrifice for Bright is understood as moderate realism. No immoderate notions of repetition or addition can be ascribed to the sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist as Bright expresses it. The Eucharist can only serve as a pleading of the one, sufficient sacrifice, and cannot be a physical sacrifice. Bright affirms that the Eucharistic memorial is a way of pleading the sacrifice, since in the Eucharist Christ is present in his sacrificial character (‘as the Lamb’). In another letter dated , Bright states that: The distinction to be taken between our partaking of Christ in Baptism and our partaking of Him through His body and blood in the Eucharist is that the recipient of Baptism is incorporated into Christ’s body mystical, which is itself formed and sustained by His body and blood, but that He does not directly come into spiritual contact with the body and blood till he communicates. Why does he need such contact? What is the rationale of this further privilege? Must we not find it in the Incarnation? The Word became flesh, as for other reasons so for this, that His flesh, being the ‘flesh of God the Word who is the Life-giver’ [quoting Cyril of Alexandria], may become a medium of imparting a fresh energy of spiritual life to believers. As it has an efficacy which no other ‘flesh’ could have, so it has powerof contact or presence which belong to no other. These powers are exercised, this efficacy is imparted, in the Eucharist. I think, then, that although the phrase ‘sacred humanity’ is quite sound, yet one might add a little by way

8 William Bright (ed. B.J. Kidd), Selected Letters of William Bright, D.D. with an introductory memoir by the Rev. P.G. Medd (London: W. Gardner, Darton and Co, ), p. . the nineteenth century

of bringing out the idea of a mysterious participation of the sacred body and blood of Christ, present or imparted under conditions belonging to their spiritualised or glorified state, and this for the purpose of sustaining spiritual life in the whole being of the faithful or devout receivers. I am sure that the best way of removing or lessening difficulties as to the Eucharistic presence is by linking it as closely as possible to the Incarnation, regarded as in order to the sustentation of spiritual life in Christians. This will help people to see how those great verses in John vi. are the legitimate carrying out of John i. –, and to see, that is, that not Christ’s spirit only, or His grace, has a function in regard to their spiritual life, but His body and flesh also, as being His.9 Bright’suse of the doctrine of the incarnation is the basis for the moderate realism he presents in relation to the Eucharist. The eucharistic presence is linked with the incarnation in the sense that, as the flesh of Christ was present in the person of Jesus Christ, so the flesh of Christ is present intheEucharist.ThisdoesnotmeanthatBrightissuggestingthatthe same physical presence of Christ as was present on earth in the person of Jesus, is present in the Eucharist, since that would imply an immoderate realism. Rather he is arguing for an instantiation of the Word, which was made flesh. It is the ‘mysterious participation of the sacred body and blood of Christ’ which is of concern to Bright. The sacred body and blood of Christ was present in the person of Jesus in a fleshy manner, and it is the same sacred body and blood of Christ which is present in the Eucharist, but this is in a spiritualised or glorified manner, but nonetheless a real presence. The same sacred body and blood is instantiated in each case, but each instantiation is in a different manner, one historic and physical and the other eucharistic and spiritual. The distinction Bright is making is between that of moderate and immoderate realism, although he does not use these words. Bright is also arguing that there is no repetition of the fleshy sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, but that there is an imparting of a ‘fresh energy of spiritual life’ in the Eucharist, which is said to be efficacious. The effects of Christ’s sacrifice being present in the Eucharist, Bright, in a letter of , attributes to the “heavenly self-presentation”10 and not with the cross. This opinion Bright discusses in an earlier work originally published  entitled, Ancient Collects and Other Prayer, selected from various rituals. Here Bright says:

9 Ibid, pp. –. 10 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

The Eucharistic sacrifice, even in its highest aspect, must be put inone line (if we may say so), not with what Christ did once for all upon the cross, but with what He is doing continually in heaven; that, as present naturally in heaven, and sacramentally in the Holy Eucharist, the Lamb of God exhibits Himself to the Father, and pleads the atonement as once finished in act, but ever living in operation; that in neither case does He repeat it or add to it. The notion that it was no unique or perfect, but could be reiterated or supplemented in heaven or on earth, was justly denounced as a ‘blasphemous fable’ in Article xxxi. But this should not lead us to forget that ‘the lamb as It had been slain’, ‘appearing in the presence of God for us’, ‘is the propitiation for our sins’, and even now tollit peccata mundi by an intercession consisting in the presentation of Himself.11 The philosophical assumptions underlying Bright’s theology of the Eucharist are those of moderate realism. Any notions of immoderate realism are rejected.

11 William Bright, Ancient Collects and Other Prayers, selected for devotional use from various rituals with An Appendix, on the Collects of the Prayer Book (rd Edition) (Oxford and London: Parker, ), pp. –. the nineteenth century

George Arthur Denison

George Denison (–) was Archdeacon of Taunton and came to prominence following the preaching of a sermon12 in Wells Cathedral in  upholding a position which “taught an Objective understanding of the Real Presence, while condemning Transubstantiation”.13 Denison’s view differed from that of receptionism, accepted by many at the time, thereby leading to the conclusion that grace in the Eucharist was objective and did not depend on the faith or the worthiness of the receiver. Denison was subsequently prosecuted in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s court and condemned and deprived in the Bath Judgment of  (later overturned on appeal) for teaching a doctrine of the Eucharist seen to be directly contrary and repugnant to Articles  and  of the Thirty- Nine Articles. Denison’s view was said to represent a development in eucharistic theology in England in that it “implied an Objective if not material presence in the sacrament itself, rather than one confined to the heart of the recipient”.14 Denison’s views were set out in eight propositions, put forward by him following the charges brought against him. These propositions were: . That the bread and wine become, by the act of consecration, ‘the outward part or sign of the Lord’s Supper’; and, considered as objects of sense, are unchanged by the act of consecration, ‘remaining still in their very natural substances’. . That ‘the inward part or thing signified’ is the body and blood of Christ. . That ‘the body and blood of Christ’, being present naturally in heaven, are supernaturally and invisibly but really present in the Lord’s Supper through theelementsbyvirtueoftheactofconsecration. .Thatby‘therealpresenceofthebodyandbloodintheLord’sSupper’is not to be understood the presence of an influence emanating from a thing absent, but the supernatural and invisible presence of a thing present, of His very body and very blood present ‘under the forms of bread and wine’. . That the ‘outward part or sign’ and ‘the inward part or thing signified’, being brought together in and by the act of consecration, make the Sacra- ment.

12 George Denison, The Real Presence. A Sermon preached in the Cathedral Church of S. Andrew, Wells, on Sunday, August , , with a Preface explaining the circumstances under which the sermon has been preached and published and Appendix (London: Masters, ), pp. –. 13 Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship – (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 14 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

. That the Sacrament, that is, ‘the outward part or sign’ and ‘the inward part or thing signified’, is given to, and is received by, all who communicate. . That ‘in such only as worthily receive the same [the Sacraments of the body and the blood of Christ] they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation as St Paul saith’. . That worship is due to ‘the body and blood of Christ’ supernaturally and invisibly but really present in the Lord’s Supper ‘under the form of bread and wine’ by reason of that Godhead with which they are personally united. But the elements through which ‘the body and blood of Christ’ are given and received, may not be worshipped.15 It is important to note that in proposition  Denison is arguing that there is a change in the bread and wine such that they become the sign of the Eucharist through the act of consecration but that there is no change in the natural substances of the bread and wine. The change is not brought about by faith on the part of the recipient (receptionism) but by the act of the priest in the consecration. This means that there is an objective change in the elements but this is not an immoderate realist change. Proposition  confirms that the signified is the body and blood of Christ, while proposition  states that the natural body and blood is in heaven, but that there is nonetheless a real, supernatural and invisible presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a result of the consecration. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is therefore a moderate realist presence which results from the change in the bread and wine following consecration. Proposition  makes it clear that the real presence is of a thing present and not of a thing absent. Christ’s very body and blood is said to be present ‘under the form of bread and wine’. Proposition  is a definitive statement of moderate realism, where sign and signified are said to ‘brought together’. Nominalism, or the separation of the sign and the signified, is excluded. Consecration is seen as the means by which the sign and the signified are brought together. The objective nature of the presence of Christ is shown in proposition  where Denison states that all who receive the sign also receive the signified. It is not merely, in Denison’sview, the worthy or those who receive with sufficient faith that receive the signified. All receive the signified in an objective manner. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not dependent on the subjective spiritual state of the person who communicates but on the objective

15 George Denison, The Defence of the Archdeacon of Taunton (London: Masters, ), pp. –. the nineteenth century presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This objective presence of Christ is further emphasised in proposition , since Denison states that worship is due to the body and blood of Christ really present (supernaturally and invisibly) ‘under the form of bread and wine’, such that Christ is united to the elements. This objective presence in the bread and wine does not mean however, that the bread and wine are worshipped. Rather it is the body and blood of Christ that is worshipped, united to the bread and wine. Denison’s writing expresses a moderate realism in regard to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. He links the sign with the signified in a real presence that is supernatural and invisible and at the same time he distances himself from any immoderate realist views. Despite this, Deni- son’s views represent a significant development in Anglican eucharistic theology in that they attempt to define the presence of Christ in the Eucharist more objectively, albeit in a moderate realist sense. Peter Nock- les supports this view, citing the opinion of the high churchman Edward Churton, who argued that Denison’s views were a development from the views of previous Anglican theologians and in particular contradicted the eucharistic theology expressed by the Caroline Divines and the Non- jurors.16 In Nockles view this development was not without effect since it served the purpose of bringing about a rapprochement between the previously diverging views of the Tractarians and Old High Churchmen.17 It seems therefore that Denison’sviews succeeded in bringing more unity to those within the Church of England who valued and emphasised sacramental ministry and the notion a real and yet moderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The philosophical assumptions underlying the eucharistic theology of Denison are those of moderate realism.

16 Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship – , p. . 17 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

Richard W.Enraght

Richard Enraght (–), an Anglican priest, was imprisoned in Warwick Gaol in  for illegal ritualist practices. His views on the Eucharist are expressed in a work he wrote in , entitled The Real Presence and Holy Scripture. This work will be used to assess Enraght’s theology of the Eucharist. Enraght’s purpose in writing this work was put forward the witness of Scripture to “the truth of the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Eucharistic Adoration”.18 Enraght rejected both the figurative and symbolic views of the Eucharist and adopted the view that: “the Catholic Church has, from the beginning, held the doctrine of the objective Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. By this is meant—() That Christ our Saviour makes Himself really present, both in His divine and human natures, in the Holy Eucharist; () That such Presence depends altogether upon the consecration, and in no wise whatever upon either the belief or the unbelief of the communicants.”.19 Enraght here rejects the figurative view (where the bread and wine are merely tokens and reminders of a past event) and the symbolic view (where the presence of Christ is associated with the faith of the communicant, that is, receptionism), and adopts a realist view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Enraght also distinguishes what he calls the view of the Catholic Church, from that of the Roman Church. He says: “forseveralagesintheRomanChurchthebeliefthat,uponconsecration, the substance of the bread and wine becomes transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ; so that the bread and wine remain only in their accidents,—that is, their appearance, taste, smell, and so forth. Into the merits of this philosophical theory, current for a long time in the Roman Church, I need not enter. I will merely say in reference to it, that upon its truth or falsehood in no wise depends the truth or falsehood of the Real Presence.”20 Enraght then, is rejecting the nominalist figurative view and the receptionist symbolical presence as well as the realist philosophical view of transubstantiation.Thepositionthatheadopts,callingittheviewofthe Catholic Church, is a moderate realist view that asserts the real presence

18 Richard Enraght, The Real Presence and Holy Scripture (London: Hayes, ), p. . 19 Ibid, pp. –. 20 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century of Christ in the Eucharist but, he argues, this does not depend on the theory of transubstantiation to assert the presence. The view that he posits for the Church of England is stated as follows: The Church of England believes she follows the ancient Church in holding that by and after consecration the bread and wine do not cease tobe bread and wine; but that, by the miracle of consecration, they inexplica- bly become the Body and Blood of Christ,—that is, Christ himself, whole living Christ, both God and Man, for He cannot be separated from His Body and Blood. Further than this, she makes no attempt to explain the matter. Regarding the fact of the Real Presence, there is no difference of opinion whatever between the Church of Rome and England. The difference of opinion that exists is with reference to that further explanation of the mode and manner of the Presence which has been put forth by the Church of Rome.21 Here then is Enraght’s expression of a moderate realist view. Sign and signified are identified with one another. The manner of the presence is however, not carnal (immoderate realism) since Enraght states that the feeding which is received and which sustains in the Eucharist is “after a heavenly and ineffable manner”.22 This is not a figurative or symbolic presence since Enraght also argues that in the Eucharist: “we are renewed and restored to the image of God, not merely by the intercourse of our minds and spirits with God, or even by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, but by the very infusion into our fallen humanity of the perfect humanity of Christ.”.23 The intercourse of mind and spirit, such as the symbolic view would imply, is not denied by Enraght, but another type of presence is affirmed as Enraght speaks of an ‘infusion’ of the humanity of Christ into the humanity of people by the means of the elements of the Eucharist. The notion of an ‘infusion’ suggests that the presence of Christ is much more objectively realist than any intercourse of minds or spirits. For Enraght there is a distinction between eating carnally and eating in a spiritual and heavenly manner, but with the overriding notion of both forms of eating being real. Enraght is denying any immoderate realism in the Eucharist since he is not arguing for a carnal eating of Christ’s body and blood, but he is arguing for a moderate realism, where Christ’s body and blood is eaten in a real way (not carnal, but heavenly and

21 Ibid,p.. 22 Ibid,p.. 23 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four spiritual). The distinction which he makes between ‘type’ and ‘antitype’24 is an important one in terms of his reference to the ancient Hebrews in the desert. They ate both the ‘type’ (the sign) and the antitype (the signified) and the way that Jesus uses this in John , suggests to Enraght that Jesus’ meaning here in relation to the Eucharist, concerns both type andantitypealso.Thetype(thesignsofbreadandwine)andtheantitype (the body and blood of Christ) are, by analogy with the reference to the manna in the wilderness, said to be eaten in the Eucharist in a real way. It is the eating of both type (sign) and antitype (signified) as a real eating which places Enraght’s discussion within a moderate realism, where sign andsignifiedarelinked. The relationship between sign and signified is further interpreted by Enraght in light of the relationship between Jesus and the Father. He argues in relation to John, chapter , where he argues: In ver. , our Lord declares, ‘As . . .. I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me’.That is, ‘As is the relation of My Father’sDivine Nature to My Divine Nature: so is the relation My Human Nature to the renovated humanity of the members of My Mystical Body, the Church’. By which our Lord declares that the mode by which He quickens and vivifies His Mystical Body is similar to that by which He Himself derives life from the Father in His Divine Nature. But the mode by which He derives life from the Father is by unity of nature. Therefore, if the parallel which He here draws is to have any real force and meaning, the mode and manner by which He vivifies His Mystical Body must likewise be by actual communication of nature, and not merely by the infusion into His people of the gracious sanctifying influences of His Holy Spirit. Consequently, ‘eating Him’ must mean the actually receiving Him into ourselves by His communication to us of His Human Nature, and cannot mean the merely looking to Him by faith, and trusting in Him, in order to receive from Him the gracious influences of His Holy Spirit.25 What Enraght seems to be saying here, is an anticipation of the notion of instantiation, where Christ’s nature is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist and really received by those who communicate by eating the bread and drinking the wine of the Eucharist. This is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. For Enraght then, when Christ says, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing’ (John ), the meaning is not a disparaging of the incarnation, or a denial of the real receiving of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

24 Ibid,p.. 25 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

Rather he “teaches His hearers that ‘the Spirit’,that is, His Divine Nature, must be united to His Human Nature, His Flesh, in order that it may be quickening, that is, life giving”.26 This hypostatical union of the Godhead with the Manhood is seen as the truth revealed by Christ in John , meaning that, “The flesh [only, or alone] profiteth nothing. It is the Spirit that quickeneth”.27 This means for Enraght that: This Real Presence the faithless ‘world’ cannot ‘see’, but the truly faithful ‘see’ it by faith. Christ in the Sacrament is ‘the hidden manna’ (Rev. ii. )— ‘hidden’ from the eye of the sceptical world, but ‘discerned’ (Cor. xi. ) by the eye of faith. Our Lord, also, of course, means to include in these words the truth that a fleshly, merely carnal, unspiritual understanding of His teaching, whether on this or any other subject and occasion, will avail persons nothing for salvation. His words and teaching must be spiritually discerned. . . . He teaches that His Flesh gives us life, and saves us, by its union with His Divinity; and that we can savingly listen to His teaching, so as to learn from it how to be sacramentally united to Him, and, in consequence, be able to walk in His steps—not by a carnal hearing, but only through the assistance of the one Divine Spirit.28 This implies then “that if His Body could ascend, it could surely also be pluri-present, and life-giving”.29 The real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharistic elements is one of these ‘pluri-presences’ that Enraght speaks of. It is also the idea of ‘pluri-presence’ that shows the moderate realism of his eucharistic theology. Such a presence is “not an earthly, cannibal sense [immoderate realism] but as setting forth heavenly, spiritual, supernatural truth and divine mysteries [moderate realism]”.30 In his discussion of Corinthians : , Enraght states that: The Bread broken is the communion (or communication to the communicant) of the Body of Christ, and the Cup blessed is the communion of the Blood of Christ. . . . The communication to the communicant of Christ’s Body and Blood depend,—not upon the faith of the receiver, but upon the consecration: ‘The bread which we [the clergy] break’,and ‘the cup of blessing, which we bless’ alluding to the words and acts of consecration. Again, in the th chapter of this same Epistle, and the th and th verses, he again sets forth the Eucharistic or Consecration Prayer, the ‘Blessing’, as that which makes Christ to be present.31

26 Ibid,p.. 27 Ibid,p.. 28 Ibid,p.. 29 Ibid,p.. 30 Ibid,p.. 31 Ibid,p..  chapter four

The consecration is the means whereby the sign becomes the signified, such that, in the Gospel accounts of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, Enraght argues that “the Real Presence of Christ is plainly made to depend exclusively upon the consecrating words and actions, whether Christ Himself at the institution, or of Him working through His ministers at all subsequent celebrations”.32 In reference to the eleventh chapter of the First Letter to the Corinthi- ans, Enraght states that there is: “overwhelming evidence for what is termed the objective Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist: that is, His Real Presence upon the Altar ‘under the form of bread and wine’, solely by and upon consecration, entirely independent of the belief or unbelief of the celebrant and communicants, and therefore of course existing external to the communicants previous to their reception of the Sacrament.”33 For Enraght the presence of Christ’s body and blood is seen to be ‘under the form of bread and wine’,thus linking the sign and the signified in a realist manner. In rejecting the receptionist theory Enraght argues that since the theory teaches that the real presence of Christ is only to be found in the heart of the truly faithful receiver of the sacrament, and since consecration is not seen to bring about any change in the elements, apart from their use, then receptionism teaches that it is the faith of the true receiver and not consecration that makes Christ present. He then argues that in a hypothetical case where the celebrant and all the communicants were lacking in faith and therefore not true receivers, there could be no presence of the body and blood of the Lord, since there is no true faith in order to bring the presence about. If this was the situation at Corinth, which Paul condemns, then argues Enraght, how could anyone be guilty of not discerning the Lord’s body, if there was no body present due to a lack of faith. Enraght concludes therefore: “His Presence cannot depend upon faith. . . . Whereas this passage distinctly implies that, at certain celebrations at Corinth, the communicants has not true faith, and yet takesforgrantedthatChristwasReallyPresentintheSacramentonthose occasions. His Real Presence, then, must have been altogether distinct from, and independent of, the communicants and their state of mind.”34

32 Ibid,p.. 33 Ibid,p.. 34 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

The consequence of this argument is then that consecration (the words and acts of blessing the bread and cup) done by the minister, is the means whereby Christ is made really present in the Eucharist. Enraght next discusses Hebrews, chapter , stating that the author of this letter affirms that the way back to God is through ‘the Blood’ and ‘Flesh’ ‘of Jesus’. Although the author of Hebrews does not specifically mention the Eucharist in this context, there is mention of the necessity of not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. Enraght assumes that this ‘assembling’ is the Eucharist, since it was a distinctly Christian service at the time of the early church. He also argues that any ‘forsaking’ of the sacred assembly limits the opportunity for people to have the benefits ofthesacrificeofChristcontinuallyappliedtothem.35 Enraght is therefore arguing that the historic sacrifice of Christ and its benefits for people are made present (continually applied) in the context of the Eucharist. His view is confirmed, for him, by reference to the wording of this tenth chapter of Hebrews which refers also to the ‘flesh of Christ’ and ‘the blood of the covenant’. The view that Enraght is putting forward is essentially that of the moderate realist concept of eucharistic sacrifice. The benefits of Christ’s historic sacrifice are made present in the Eucharist (as anamnesis or memorial remembrance) although there is no re-iteration of or addition to the sacrifice of Calvary in any carnal or immoderate manner. Following the review of biblical evidence Enraght concludes his work by stating that: “We conclude, therefore, that when our Lord ‘took bread and wine’ into His hands, ‘and gave thanks, and brake the bread’, ‘and blessed’ them, ‘and said, “This is My Body”,“This is My Blood”,“Do this in remembrance of Me” ’, He meant what He said and did.”36 The analysis presented shows that Enraght saw “an objective Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament, and a real and actual participation of Him”.37 The presence is not merely the receiving of virtues,powers,giftsandgraces,norisitdependentonthefaithof the communicant, but the “Lord’s own sovereignty lovingly exercised in consecration”.38 Enraght’s theology of the eucharistic presence and sacrifice of Christ is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

35 Ibid,p.. 36 Ibid,p.. 37 Ibid,p.. 38 Ibid,p..  chapter four

Alexander Penrose Forbes

In  Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes (–), Bishop of BrechininScotland,deliveredhischargetothesynodofhisdiocese.39 In this Charge Forbes, following Justin Martyr, argued that: “the bread of the Eucharist is the flesh of the incarnate Jesus”.40 This statement is suggestive of immoderate realism, in that it is implied that the bread of the Eucharist is the natural body of Christ or his incarnate flesh. Forbes at the same time rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation since it involved “the terminology of philosophy which may be wrong”, and even though it was “capable of innocent interpretation” it tended “to promote a very material view” such that “a physical change took place in the consecration”.41 This rejection suggests that any assumption that Forbes was teaching that the natural body of Christ or his incarnate flesh, was present in the Eucharist, cannot be sustained. Many however interpreted his words in this immoderate realist sense.42 Forbes also rejected the idea, put forward by others, such as Jolly, Robert Forbes and his own brother George Hay Forbes, of “the rational- istic theory of the real presence which makes it one of power and efficacy only” and described this as an “imperfect view”.43 Forbes also argued that “in some sense the wicked do receive Christ” when they receive Com- munion, but this is “to their condemnation and loss”.44 He also affirmed that “supreme adoration is due to the body and blood of Christ mysteriously present in the gifts which yet retain their own substance” and that “worship is due not to the gifts but to Christ in the gifts”.45 In regard to eucharistic sacrifice he stated that “the Eucharistic sacrifice is the same substantially with that of the cross”.46 There were strong reactions to Forbes’ Primary Charge,whichresulted in a protest by the other Scottish bishops, who in  wrote a Pastoral Letter to the members of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, criticising

39 Alexander Forbes, A Primary Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese at the Annual Synod (London: Master, ). 40 Ibid,p.. 41 Ibid,p.. 42 For a full account of this and other matters see the biography of Forbes written by Rowan Strong, Alexander Forbes of Brechin: The First Tractarian Bishop (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). 43 Ibid,p.. 44 Ibid,p.. 45 Ibid,p.. 46 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

Forbes’ Charge. In  Forbes was formally presented to the Episcopal College of the Scottish Church for his teaching and subsequently sent to trial in . The judgment of the court, delivered on  March,  “was to the effect that the teaching of Bishop Forbes in regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice and to Eucharistic adoration was ‘unsanctioned by the Articles and formularies of the Church’ and ‘to a certain extent inconsistent therewith’”.47 Forbes was censured and admonished for his teaching. Looking at Forbes’ words it seems that they could be interpreted as containing a suggestion of immoderate realism, for example, in the statement that ‘the bread of the Eucharist is the flesh of the incarnate Christ’ and that ‘the Eucharistic sacrifice is the same substantially with that of the cross’.Here it seems that the sign is not merely identified or linked with the signified, but the sign is the signified in a strict or numerical manner, with no distinction between the two in the sense of loose identity or moderate realism. Forbes’ words however must be interpreted carefully and in light in other statements he makes. Forbes, for example, criticised transubstantiation since it presented a ‘very material view’ ‘as if physical change took place in the consecration’. This seems to suggest a denial of immoderate realism with a preference for moderate realism. His words relating to the eucharistic sacrifice also suggest that there were not two sacrifices, at the cross and on the altar, as immoderate realism would demand, but there were two aspects of the same sacrifice, one historical it seems and the other eucharistic. This suggests that Forbes was arguing that the same nature was present in both the historic presence and sacrifice and the eucharistic presence and sacrifice in a moderate realist sense. Some other works written by Forbes may however, shed some light on the question of Forbes’ eucharistic theology. At his trial in  Forbes submitted a Theological Defence,48 arguing that his views were consistent with the Fathers, Anglican writing and formularies. Part of this Theological Defence was an explanation of the sense in which he used the word ‘substantially’ in the sentence ‘the Eucharistic sacrifice is the same substantially with that of the cross’. He argued that he had used ‘substantially’ “in its strict theological sense”

47 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 48 Alexander Forbes, Theological Defence for the Right Rev. Alexander Penrose Forbes, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin on a presentment by the Rev. W. Henderson, and others on certain points concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Masters, ).  chapter four to mean “the Sacrifice, in respect to its substance, viz., the Body and Blood of Christ, is the same as that of the cross”.49 This explanation of the word ‘substantially’ helps to explain what kind of realism, immoderate or moderate, Forbes is using in his Charge. Forbes seems to be saying that the substance of the historic and eucharistic presence and sacrifice is the same, but that they are not the same event in time, since the presence of Christ in the first century ad is not the same as the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the sacrifice of the cross is not re-iterated in the Eucharist. The substance is the same, but the events and the particulars are different. Arguing in this way Forbes is therefore saying that, despite the lack of clarity in his words, he is speaking in a moderate realist fashion as opposed to an immoderate realist fashion. Further evidence concerning Forbes’ eucharistic doctrine can be ascertained from another of his works, An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles,50 first published in . In this work Forbes speaks again of the doctrines he originally presented in his Primary Charge and Theological Defence.Hesays: The word koinwnia everywhere in Holy Scripture means an actual participation or communion of that which is spoken of. The Scripture word koinwnia as applied to the body and blood of Christ, means not only that we receive that body and blood, but that we become one body and blood with him. . . . It is not said in the Article that we are partakers of Christ, or of a grace from Christ, but the bread which we break, that is, the bread which has been blessed and consecrated by our Lord’s words, ‘This is My body’, through the operation of the Holy Ghost is the communion or participation of the body of Christ; and the cup of blessing, that is, the cup blessed by the words, ‘This is My blood’, is the partaking of our communication of the blood of Christ.51 It is important to note that Forbes here speaks of an ‘actual’ participation or communion, deriving from the concept koinwnia. For Forbes, an actual participation or communion seems to mean not only that those who communicate receive the body and blood of Christ, but that there is an ecclesial meaning as well, whereby they ‘become one body and blood’ with Christ. Such an interpretation he sees as consistent with The Thirty- Nine Articles. It also suggests that the same nature or substance of Christ is in the Eucharist as was in the sacrifice of cross, but the two are not

49 Ibid,p.. 50 Alexander Forbes, An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles (Oxford: Parker, ). 51 Ibid, p.  and p. . the nineteenth century the same event or particular. If this is correct, then Forbes is setting out a moderate realist, rather than an immoderate realist, notion of both presence and sacrifice. In order to assess this more fully it is necessary to look closely at what Forbes means by eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice. When he speaks of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he says: The doctrine of the real objective presence being certainly true, as being contained in our Blessed Lord’s words, ‘This is My body’, and attested by the whole Christian Church from the times of the Apostles, it follows that some sort of change must have taken place as the elements through consecration. . . . This change was in the oldest times expressed by the simplest terms, ‘It is’,‘It becomes’, or in prayer to God ‘consecrate’, ‘perfect’, ‘appoint’, ‘make’. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, and others following him, use the words, ‘changing by Thy Spirit’.There are also other more emphatic, yet rare words, occurring once or twice only in each father who used them, ‘transmake’, ‘transelement’, ‘transfashion’, ‘re-order’, ‘transfigure’, ‘transfer’. AgainstanyofthesetheEnglishChurchhasnevermadeanyexception,but only to a specified sense of the word ‘transubstantiate’, which is popularly taken, not as implying a change in the ousia or ‘essence’ of a material thing, but the desition of the material substances of which that creature of God is composed.52 There are some important points to note here. Forbes speaks of a real objective presence as being derived from the dominical words of Christ, ‘This is My body’. If the presence of Christ is ‘objective’ it is apart from the faith of the communicant and exists independently of an individual’s or a group’s spiritual awareness. It is this notion of an objective presence, without dependence on the receivers that means a ‘change’ must have occurred in the elements. The difficulty here is that Forbes does not further discuss the meaning of ‘objective’.Does he mean a spiritual objective presence (moderate realism) or a more fleshy objective presence (immoderate realism)? Forbes also makes an interesting and useful point regarding the nature of the change. He notes that the English Church in The Thirty-Nine Articles has specifically excluded ‘transubstantiation’ in one form (that is, where the substance or essence of the bread and wine is changed with the accidents remaining), but has not specifically excluded other words implying change, including transubstantiation, but in other interpretations. He further discusses this by saying that: “The Article does not charge Transubstantiation with the common incorrect argument that

52 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four it contradicts the senses, but that it overthrowsthe nature of a Sacrament. Now this greatly helps us in our view that it is not the abstract theory of a change, but the incorrect physics which are condemned. Such a change only is excepted against as would involve a physical desition of what before existed in such wise that the visible sign of That which is invisible should have no real existence.”53 Forbes seems to be arguing that the doctrine of transubstantiation can only be excluded by the Anglican formularies on the basis of the incorrect physics (that is, change of substance with the accidents remaining) which in effect result in the desition or termination of the being of the sign, but that it can be accepted as is applies to a notion of change and real objective presence. The nature of a sacrament, for Forbes, seems to imply that there isnochangeinthesubstanceortheessenceofthebreadandwine(the sacramental principle based on moderate realism), but there is change in the elements nonetheless, and transubstantiation, along with other concepts, is a useful term to speak of the change, even though Forbes distances himself from transubstantiation. Forbes also argues54 that the views of the Church of England and the Christian Church from the time of the Apostles are one, in that both argue that Christ is present in the Eucharist ‘by His substance sacramentally’. The difference lies in what he describes above as ‘the physics’. Whereas the Church of Rome states that the substance of the bread and wine cease to exist and the accidents remain and that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present, the Church of England, in order to maintain the nature of a sacrament, states that the substance of the bread and wine remain and the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present. The Church of England then can accept transubstantiation, Forbes argues, if transubstantiation takes the meaning of what he calls the ‘old words’, that is, ‘become’ and ‘is’. The bread and wine ‘become’ or ‘is’ the body and blood of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit. The difficulty again with Forbes’ wording here is that while he presents a realist notion of presence in the Eucharist, he has not distinguished adequately between moderate and immoderate realism. The reader is left to wonder about the nature of the presence and the nature of the substance sacramentally. If he meant that the presence was not fleshy or immoderate, that is, a moderate realist presence, then his words have not made this sufficiently clear. This limits the usefulness of Forbes’ work.

53 Ibid, pp. –. 54 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

In regard to the idea of sacrifice, Forbes in An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, says: “The sacrifice in the Eucharist is substantially thesameasthesacrificeofthecross,becausethePriestisthesamein both, and the Victim is the same in both, just as the sacrifice which Christ the eternal Priest is now presenting to His Father in heaven is the same which He offered upon the cross, because He Himself is the same Victim and Priest both in one. But there is a difference. There is a difference in the manner of offering. In heaven Christ is not offering Himself in the same manner as He did upon the cross.”55 Sacrifice has different manners for Forbes. There is the sacrifice inthe Eucharist,thesacrificeofthecrossandtheeternalsacrificeofChristpre- sented in heaven. There is a difference in manner, but Forbes argues, they are substantially the same. The word ‘substantially’ has been discussed above, where substantially was seen to mean that the events or particulars (in this case, the Eucharist, the cross and the heavenly presentation) are not the same, but the substance is. In his discussion of sacrifice Forbes seems to make clear that immoderate notions have no part in what he is saying about the Eucharist. The oblation of Christ’s body and blood is sacramental in the Eucharist, not fleshy or immoderate. The eucharistic oblation can therefore only be a pleading of the once and all-sufficient sacrifice of the cross. It cannot be a sacrifice in itsown right, but a sacrifice only as it is united to the sacrifice of Christ onthe cross. It is in this ‘union’ of the historic sacrifice and the eucharistic sacrifice (as well as the heavenly sacrifice), that there is difference of event, but sameness of ‘virtue’. Forbes rejects immoderate realism since he says in the Eucharist ‘Christ dieth no more’, but he at the same time affirms moderate realism by saying that in the Eucharist ‘the fruit of that death is made over to the faithful’.Here then is an expression of moderate realism without the difficulties experienced in any discussion of eucharistic presence with immoderate realist overtones. It seems probable to assume that if Forbes means moderate realism in his discussion of the eucharistic sacrifice, then he also meant moderate realism in his discussion of the eucharistic presence. The problem may be that Forbes was not operating within a sufficiently developed philosophical model which allowed him to overcome the difficulties his statements sometimes create. In addition the use of the words ‘the same substantially’ and ‘victim’ tend to direct thinking towards immoderate realism, although the term ‘unbloody

55 Ibid, p. .  chapter four sacrifice’ direct it towards moderate realism. Some difficulties seem apparent in the overall scheme that Forbes is using based on the continuing use of notions of substance. Forbes doctrine of the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. He associates the sign with the signified in the Eucharist, arguing that Christ is really present in an objective manner, and that the sacrifice of Christ is pleaded in the oblation or offering of the Eucharist. Some difficulty in wording in his writings concerning the eucharistic presence of Christ remains, where the distinction between an immoderate and a moderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not sufficientlydrawninanadequatemanner.Thisdistinctionishowever, more clearly stated in Forbes’ discussion of eucharistic sacrifice, where immoderate notions are distinguished from moderate notions of sacrifice, although some difficulties in terminology continue to exist in hisdis- cussion of eucharistic sacrifice. Forbes’ contribution to the debate seems to be that he distinguishes between manners of presence and sacrifice and the substance of the presence and sacrifice on Christ in the Eucharist. He also suggests that there are ways of using the word ‘transubstantiation’ which accord with primitive practice and do not offend Anglican formularies. The very use of the word ‘substance’ however, seems to have created difficulties associated with the notions of eucharistic presence, sincewhileForbesdeniesthatthesubstanceceasestoremaininthebread and wine, he does not distinguish clearly enough between the nature of the presence, that is, moderate or immoderate realist notions. It may be that a more satisfying philosophical model would have assisted Forbes in the clearer definition of the eucharistic theology he puts forward. Despite this it seems that Forbes’ eucharistic theology is based on the assumptions of moderate realism. the nineteenth century

George HayForbes

George Hay Forbes (–) was the brother of Alexander Forbes, Bishop of Brechin.56 He was a priest of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and a patristic scholar. He was greatly influenced by John Johnson’s work The Unbloody Sacrifice57 and by the English Tractarians.58 His teaching on the Eucharist appeared in three parts (,  and ) in his work entitled, The Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, or the Communion Office of the Church of Scotland Conformable to Scripture and to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Christ in the First Four Centuries. The following extract from this work exemplifies his eucharistic doctrine: The Catholic doctrine . . . is that the bread and mixed wine are solemnly devoted to God’s service, and offered as a thank-offering to Him for having bestowed upon us the fruits of the earth, by being placed upon His altar by a priest, with or without a verbal oblation, the want of which is supplied by the significant action. . . . By the recital of the institution our commission to celebrate this mystery is declared; and by the words used by our Lord at the delivery of the gifts the bread and mixed wine are deputed to be, and are made, the pledges and representatives of Christ’s natural body crucified and dead, and of His blood shed for us; as such they are straightway, in accordance with Christ’s command, which had just before been recited, offered or given to God as a memorial of our Lord’s own oblation of Himself, with a thankful commemoration of what He did and suffered, and thus become truly a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. God the Father is then besought to accept the sacrifice, and to send down upon the gifts the co-eternal Comforter, the Source and Fountain of all sanctification, by whom the body of Christ was formed in the womb of the ever-blessed Virgin, that He may perfectly sanctify and hallow them, andmakethebreadthebodyofChrist,andthemixedwineHisblood,not only in symbol, type, and figure, but also in quickening energy, in spirit and power and efficacy, nay more, in such wise as no other thing inthe whole creation, retaining its own proper substance and nature, can become another thing, and the precise mode and manner of which change is far above the comprehension, not only of men, but of angels also.59

56 See separate case study. 57 See separate case study. 58 F. Cross andE. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 59 George Hay Forbes, The Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, or the Communion Office of the Church of Scotland Conformable to Scripture and to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Christ in the First Four Centuries, cited in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. .  chapter four

G H. Forbes presents a view much like that expressed by Johnson, Rattray, Robert Forbes and Jolly,60 however, he does have some individual aspects to his work. He, like these others, uses the words ‘spirit, power and efficacy’ to speak of the nature of the presence of Christ inthe Eucharist and he follows the line that the oblation by Christ was at the institution of the Eucharist and not on the cross. He does however, argue thatthebreadandwineoftheEucharist,followingtheconsecration, ‘become another thing’. Even though the manner of this ‘becoming’ is incomprehensible, Forbes suggests that change occurs in the bread and wine, with the elements remaining in their own substance. The source of this ‘change’ is seen to be Holy Spirit. Forbes also describes the presence of the Holy Spirit and its operation in the bread and wine as a ‘quickening energy’ which is suggestive of something being added to the bread and wine which was not there before the work of the Holy Spirit. Forbes also seems to be less insistent on certain forms in the liturgy. He is for example able to accept that the oblation occurs, with or without certain words, and that it is the ‘significant action’ of the priest placing the bread and wine on the altar that constitutes the oblation. G H. Forbes presents a theology of the Eucharist which seems to be based on philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. Sign and signified are associated in Forbes’ work. Moderate realism is affirmed and immoderate realism is denied.

60 See separate case studies. the nineteenth century

William Goode

In , William Goode (–), the Dean of Ripon, published a work entitled The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, or the True Doctrine of the Real Presence Vindicated in Opposition to the Fictitious Real Presence asserted by Archdeacon Denison, Mr (late Archdeacon) Wilberforce, and Dr Pusey.61 As the name of this work suggests, Goode’s book was written in order to counter the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist proposed by other writers. In this work Goode said: The doctrine . . . maintained in the formularies of the Church of England and, speaking generally, by all her great divines . . . is that, though the act of consecration makes the bread and wine sacred symbols or Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, in the participation of which by the faithful there is vouchsafed a real spiritual presence to the soul of the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed received and spiritually eaten and drunk to the soul’s health, yet that the presence of the body and blood of Christ is not communicated to (though in the case of the faithful connected with the participation of) the bread and wine, and His body and blood are not given to, or partaken of by, the faithless. In short, it is a real presence to the receiver and not to the elements.62 Goode presents the view here that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are sacred symbols only of the body and blood of Christ, and that the means of receiving the body and blood of Christ is not the elements, but the faith of the receiver. The presence of Christ is therefore a subjective presence, found in the faithful response of the receiver. The presence is not objective, he argues, since the ‘faithless’ do not receive the presence even though they receive the bread and wine. Consecration therefore sets the bread and wine apart as sacred symbols, alongside which there is spiritual presence to the soul of the faithful believer of the body and blood of Christ. Sign and signified are therefore separated in Goode’s theology of the Eucharist, indicating a nominalist understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no denial that Christ is present, but there is a denial of any real presence in the bread and wine and no real linking of the sign and the signified.

61 William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, or the True Doctrine of the Real Presence Vindicated in Opposition to the Fictitious Real Presence asserted by Archdeacon Denison, Mr (late Archdeacon) Wilberforce, and Dr Pusey ( Volumes) (London: Hatchard, ). 62 Ibid, I, pp. –.  chapter four

Goode denies any notion a real presence63 in the sense of moderate realism. Christ is present only by faith. The sign and the signified are not identified with one another in a realist sense, such that the sign conveys the signified, with any real presence of Christ united to the bread and wine. The purpose of the sign is to remind the communicant only of the spiritual blessing derived from Christ’s work. In the Eucharist, Goode argues, there is a ‘bodily absence’ of Christ, but a spiritual presence by faith. Any eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist can only occur by faith. Christ’s human nature is however, said to be present with those who communicate in a spiritual, and not a bodily sense. Any realism in Goode’s work concerns a linking of spiritual presence with the faith of the communicant. This spiritual presence is not however, associated with the elements, but with the faith of the communicant. It is this separation of the sign from the signified that demonstrates nominalism in Goode’s eucharistic theology. The role of the Spirit has a place in Goode’s theology of the Eucharist, in that it is the Spirit that enables the communicant to know the presence of Christ, through the power and influence of the body and blood of Christ. This body and blood is given through faith, with the bread and wine acting as ‘sensible objects’ to prompt faith in the spiritual blessings derived through the Eucharist.64 Any realism in Goode’s work is restricted to the relationship between the body and blood of Christ and the soul of the faithful receiver. Christ’s body and blood is therefore seen to be ‘truly present’ when the soul, fed by faith, is spiritually united to the body and blood of Christ. For Goode, this encounter resulted in the faithful communicant partaking of the life- giving efficacy of Christ. It is in this sense then that the effects of Christ’s sacrifice are present in the Eucharist, not by the linking of the sign with the signified, but by the participation of the soul in the body and blood of Christ. Goode therefore goes on to argue that: There is to the faithful a real, though not substantial, presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, and a true spiritual eating and drinking of His body and blood, not because the elements are made by consecration to include within themselves, either locally or superlocally or spiritually or supernaturally or in any other way which men may like to imagine, a real substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, for then the wicked would be partakers of the same, but because the faithful in receiving the

63 Ibid, I, pp. –. 64 Ibid, I, pp. –. the nineteenth century

consecrated elements do, through faith on their part and a gracious gift on Christ’s part, become in a spiritual way partakers of the body and blood of Christ.65 ‘Real’ for Goode refers only to the real encounter of faith, and has nothing to do with any realist linking of sign and signified. Consecration therefore does not perform any function of linking sign and signified or ‘making’ the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. Goode is careful to exclude all forms of a real presence in the elements as he sees it (i.e. local, superlocal, spiritual, supernatural). ‘Real’ is related to the subjective state of faith in the receiver and means that the ‘wicked’ (presumably not part of the faithful) cannot receive the body and blood of Christ, since there is no faithful encounter with Christ in a spiritual way. In regard to the eucharistic sacrifice, Goode argues that the sacrifice of Christ is a past event that is not linked with the Eucharist in the present in any realist sense, either moderate or immoderate.66 Goode’s theology of the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of nominalism since he argues there is no linking of the sign and the signified in the Eucharist. He denies that there is any real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that there is a eucharistic sacrifice. The notion of ‘real’ that Goode admits in relation to the Eucharist is that of a real encounter of faith, whereby the soul of the faithful believer becomes a partaker of Christ’sbody and blood, and where the soul of the faithful believer receives the spiritual benefits of Christ’s work. This real encounter does not involve any receiving of Christ’s body and blood in, through or under the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but only through the faith of the recipient.

65 Ibid, II, p. . 66 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter four

Walter Kerr Hamilton

In a Charge67 delivered to the clergy and churchwardens of the Diocese of Salisbury in , Bishop Hamilton (–) spoke on the Eucharist. Hamilton expresses a position of moderate realism. He argues that the bread and wine are made and become the body and blood of Christ, but that the bread and wine remain bread and wine in substance. He denies the type of moderate realism expressed by transubstantiation, but he affirms that there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. The bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ is said to occur as a result of the consecration. He denies immoderate realism, arguing that the change in the elements whereby they are made the body and blood of Christ occurs in a supernatural, heavenly, invisible, incomprehensible and spiritual manner, is by means of a hypostatic union, but not by any bodily means. The body and blood of Christ, the inward part, is really received in the Eucharist, and the gifts (bread and wine) are said to receive an inward part, which is the body and blood of Christ.68 Moderate realism is also stated in related to the sacrifice of the Eucha- rist. The sacrifice is said to be pleaded on earth as it is pleaded in heaven by Christ. Hamilton also argues for an objective notion of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist following consecration, which does not depend on the faith of the communicant. He says: “Through consecration the body and blood of Christ become really present, and by this I mean ‘present without us’, and not ‘only in the soul of the faithful receiver’”.69 In another passage Hamilton speaks of those beliefs that can be denied with confidence by the Church of England. These he lists as: thesubstanceofthebreadandwineisnotchanged the sacrifice of Christ’s natural body is not re-iterated and repeated in the Eucharist adoration is not due to the consecrated bread and wine the presence of Christ is not that of an organical body of a material quality.70

67 Walter Hamilton, A Charge to the Clergy and Churchwardens of the Diocese of Salisbury: at his triennial visitation, in May,  (Salisbury, Brown and Co, ). 68 Ibid, pp. –. 69 Ibid,p.. 70 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

Hamilton’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. He links the sign and the signified in a moderate realist fashion and argues for a real presence of Christ and a pleadingofthesacrificeofChristintheEucharist.Atthesametimehe denies any notion of immoderate realism in relation to both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.  chapter four

Charles Hebert

In  Charles Hebert (–), the Vicar of Ambleside, published aworkentitledThe Lord’s Supper: Uninspired Teaching.71 Hebert’s contribution to the debate on the Eucharist was principally concerned with bringing together many passages related to the Eucharist from a variety of writers. His own views were expressed in the process of editing the works of others. Hebert’s views may be summarised in the following passage: The body and blood of Christ are now in heaven, and not here, except in thought. I can grasp no more that that the thought of the body and blood of Christ given and shed is in my mind, and moves my heart to gratitude and love, and in calling upon God in such deeply affecting meditations I receive all blessing and grace to enable me to feel my union with Him and with all His people in every age, and to supply me with power to overcome sin and to act after His pattern till He comes to earth again or I go to Him. The more I read and the more I meditate on the subject, and the longer my experience of this present earthly conflict continues, the more I do find this view full the whole horizon.72 Hebert’s doctrine of the Eucharist is based on nominalism. He argued that Christ’s body and blood can in no way be present on earth in the Eucharist, since it is in heaven. There is an empirical separation of entities, where bread and wine are on earth and Christ’s body and blood are in heaven, without any realist identification of one in the other. All thatcanbepresentonearthinregardtothebodyandbloodofChrist are thoughts in the mind of the communicant. These thoughts are seen to convince the communicant of the appropriateness of a thankful response of faith and assure the communicant of the receipt of the benefits of Christ. Sign and signified are separated without any realist identification using nominalist philosophical assumptions.

71 Charles Hebert, The Lord’s Supper: Uninspired Teaching. The First Volume from Clement of Rome to Photius and the Fathers of Toledo (from A.D. to A.D.) and The Second Volume from Alfric to Canon Liddon of St Paul’s London (from A.D. to A.D.) ( Volumes) (London: Seeley, Jackson and Halliday, ). 72 Ibid, II, p. . the nineteenth century

Alexander Jolly

Alexander Jolly (died ) was the Bishop of Moray, Scotland. He expresses a similar doctrine of the Eucharist to that of Robert Forbes and the Nonjurors (see Chapter ). In his book entitled The Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist Considered as it is the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, Embraced by the Universal Church of the First and Purest Times, by the Church of England, and by the Episcopal Church of Scotland,73 published in , Jolly presents his eucharistic doctrine. In relation to the eucharistic sacrifice and oblation, Jolly, like the Nonjurors, proposes that the oblation of Christ was performed by Christ at the Last Supper and that Christ was then slain on the cross. The oblation is identified with the symbols of bread and wine, in that Christ is said ‘to suffer and die, under the symbols or substitutes of bread and wine’.Jolly is careful however, to exclude any form of immoderate realism from this oblation and offering, since he argues that it is impossible to imagine that Christ would offer himself in a physical manner. It seems then that Jolly is affirming that the oblation at the Last Supper is realist to a moderate degree. Bread and wine are seen to be ‘sure pledges of the real substance’ of his body and blood and ‘His virtual flesh and blood’. The signs of bread and wine are therefore linked closely with the body and blood of Christ but in a moderate realist fashion. Whilst he uses very realist terms to describe the bread and wine (e.g. flesh and blood) he is careful to exclude immoderate notions of realism by expressions such as ‘virtual’.74 Jolly also says concerning the oblation in the Eucharist, that Christ: “Making the voluntary oblation or sacrifice of Himself under the symbols of bread and wine, and calling them, and in effect making them, His body and blood, broken and shed, while His natural substantial body, with His blood in His veins, unbroken and unshed, stood divinely ministering, and as yet untouched by any hostile hand.”75 Here again Jolly affirms moderate realism, arguing that the oblation and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist was ‘under the symbols of bread

73 Alexander Jolly, The Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist Considered as it is the Doctrine of Holy Scripture, Embraced by the Universal Church of the First and Purest Times, by the Church of England, and by the Episcopal Church of Scotland (Aberdeen: Brown and Co, ). 74 Ibid, pp. –. 75 Ibid,p..  chapter four and wine’. The sign is here associated with the signified in a moderate realist sense. Christ he says was ‘making’ the bread and wine his body and blood, however, this was not in a fleshy manner, but ‘in effect’. Immoderate notions of making the bread and wine the natural flesh of Christ are denied and moderate realism is affirmed as Jolly states that the bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ in their effect. Jolly states this in another place saying that the bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit: “By the almighty power and grace of this Spirit these elements without any change of their substance become the body and blood of Christ in spirit and power, in divine virtue and life-giving efficacy, to all intents and purposes of grace and glory.”76 In another passage, Jolly speaks of the bread and wine being ‘raised’ to a ‘value’ beyond ordinary bread and wine through the consecration of them in the Eucharist. He says: “The bread and wine are thereby [through the rehearsal of the institution narrative and the consecration] separated and set apart from all common use, and raised to value beyond all the bread and wine in the universe, being by Christ’s institution and authority made the figures and symbols of His body and blood who, of His wondrous love and desire for our salvation, offered Himself a sacrifice for our redemption under such tokens or substitutes, and commanded that we should by the apostolic priesthood plead the merits of His death under these representations to the end of the world.”77 In the Eucharist therefore, the Church follows the command of Christ, in setting apart the bread and wine and pleading the sacrifice of Christ, as symbols of his presence and his sacrifice. Eucharistic sacrifice therefore, forJolly,isrealbuttoamoderatedegree,sincethesacrificeofChristisnot re-iterated (immoderate realism) but pleaded, with its benefits available in the present in the Eucharist. It is in remembering the passion that the oblation is made and in which “the Eucharistic sacrifice is actually offered and presented to the Father as the memorial of the infinitely meritorious passion and death of His Son”.78 The oblation then is an essential aspect of the Eucharist, as is the invocation or epiclesis. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ in effect. Jolly expresses this as follows:

76 Ibid, p. . 77 Ibid,p.. 78 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

Communion consists in giving and receiving; and this representative sacrifice of the Eucharist, accordingly, is, first, by Christ’s commissioned servant the priest offered or given to God as the mysterious body and blood of His Son, in whom He is ever well pleased, and then again given by God to us, thesamebreadandwinethatwereofferedtoHim,withoutanychange of substance, but highly enriched and consecrated by the Holy Spirit, the Author of all consecration, and thus made Christ’s body and blood in virtue, power and efficacy, conveying to the well-disposed receiver all the benefits purchased by the sacrifice of His death, pardon of sins, increase in grace, and pledge of eternal glory, upon the condition of repentance, faith and future obedience.79 The bread and wine is still, for Jolly, bread and wine following the consecration, but it is ‘enriched’ by the Holy Spirit. This suggests that the bread and wine is something more than it was before the consecration and that this something more is a spiritual addition. The sign and the signified are closely associated in this passage. Jolly’s theology of the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism in relation to both the eucharistic sacrifice and presence. Sign and signified are associated, with moderate realism being affirmed and immoderate realism being denied.

79 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

John Keble

John Keble’s (–) was one of the Tractarian leaders whose most popularworkwasaseriesofthoughtsinverseforSundaysandHoly Days throughout the year and based on The Book of Common Prayer. This collection was called The Christian Year80 and was first published in . In the poem entitled Holy Communion81 Keble expressesthe view that theEucharistwasinsomewayasacrifice.Itwasalsoaneffectivemeans of supplying spiritual food for the soul. He says: Fresh from th’ atoning sacrifice The world’s Creator bleeding lies, That man, His foe, by whom He bled, May take Him for his daily bread. O agony of wavering thought When sinners first so near are brought! ‘It is my Maker—dare I stay? My Saviour—dare I turn away?’82 Christ and the power of his sacrifice were associated with the Eucharist in realist terms (‘The world’s Creator bleeding lies’) and the Eucharist was seen to be the daily bread taken by the faithful. When the communicant drew near to the Eucharist it was to the presence of the Saviour that they were drawn and this presence was ‘fresh’ deriving from the ‘atoning sacrifice’ of the cross. The presence and sacrifice of Christ are described as being available in the Eucharist in moderate realist terms. Sign and signified are clearly linked in a realist fashion. In the poem entitled Commination83 the following reference to the Eucharist describes it as a sacrifice. Keble says: The white-rob’d priest, . . ., Keeps back our glorious sacrifice to-day.84 On the Sunday when the Eucharist was not celebrated, it was described as the ‘glorious sacrifice’.

80 John Keble, The Christian Year. Thoughts in verse for the Sundays and Holy Days (London: Church Literature Association, ). 81 Ibid, pp. –. 82 Ibid, p. . 83 Ibid, pp. –. 84 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

In the poem entitled Gunpowder Treason85 Keble refers to the Eucha- rist in these words: If with thy heart the strains accord, That on His altar-throne Highest exalt thy glorious Lord, Yet leave Him most thine own; O come to our Communion Feast: There present, in the heart As in the hands, th’ eternal Priest Will His true self impart.86 Here Christ is described as being present on the altar, but the presence is not an immoderate presence since it is a presence in the heart and yet in the hand. The bread (‘in the hands’) is not a fleshy and immoderate presence but a spiritual presence (‘in the heart’) which is no less realist and capable of imparting Christ’s ‘true self’. Keble was among those who dissented from the decision of Arch- bishop Sumner of Canterbury regarding the eucharistic theology of George Denison.87 In conjunction with Edward Pusey, Keble signed a declaration of protest in which the following views were expressed in regard to the Eucharist. The declaration said: We therefore, being convinced: . That the doctrine of the real presence of ‘the body and blood ofour Saviour Christ under the form of bread and wine’,has been uniformly accepted by General Councils, as it is also embodied in our own formularies; . That the interpretation of Scripture most commonly held in the Church has been that the wicked, although they can ‘in no wise be partakers of Christ’,nor ‘spiritually eat His flesh and drink His blood’, yet do in the Sacrament not only take, but eat and drink unworthily to their own condemnation the body and blood of Christ which they do not discern; . That the practice of worshipping Christ then and there especially present, after consecration and before communicating, has been common throughout the Church. And, moreover, that the Thirty- nine Articles were intended to be, and are, in harmony with the faith and teaching of the ancient undivided Church;

85 Ibid, pp. –. 86 Ibid, p. . 87 See separate case study.  chapter four

Do hereby protest earnestly against so much of the opinion of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the case of Ditcher v. Denison, as implies, directly or indirectly, that such statements as we have cited above are repugnant to the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles. And we appeal from the said opinion, or sentence of his Grace, in the first instance, to be a free and lawful Synod of all the Churches of our communion, when such by God’s mercy may be had.88 ThisdeclarationaffirmsthatthedoctrineoftherealpresenceofChristin the Eucharist is of ancient origin and that it is part of the formularies of the Church of England. It also recognises an objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist in that Christ is seen to be present apart from the act of receiving the elements (‘after consecration and before communicating’). This being so the declaration therefore affirms that in this period between consecration and reception there is the possibility of worshipping Christ present in the eucharistic elements. In  Keble first published a work entitled On Eucharistical Adora- tion.89 The edition referred to here is the second edition of . Keble argues that, “The Person of Jesus Christ our Lord, wherever it is, is tobe adored”.90 This being so, Keble argued that if the person of Jesus Christ is to be found in the Eucharist then “that Person of Christ is to be adored in that Sacrament, as there present in a peculiar manner, by the presence of His Body and Blood”.91 This conclusion led Keble to consider the question of “the real objective presence of Jesus Christ in the holy Eucharist”.92 He reflected on the manners of Christ’s presence, saying: Whereas the Divine nature in Christ is everywhere and always equally present, and so everywhere and always alike adorable; but to us frail children of men He had condescended at certain times and places to give especial tokens of His Presence, which it is our duty to recognise, and then especially to adore: thus far, I suppose, all allow who in any sense believe the Creeds of the Church, that in the holy Eucharist we are very particularly bound to take notice of His divine Presence, as God the Word, and to worship Him accordingly. That which some in modern times have denied is, that He is then and there present according to His human nature,

88 Declaration of Protest, , cited in Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, pp. –. 89 John Keble, On Eucharistical Adoration. Or, the worship of Our Lord and Saviour in the Sacrament of Holy Communion (Oxford: Parker, ). 90 Ibid,p.. 91 Ibid,p.. 92 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

really and substantially present, as truly present as He was to any of those with whom He conversed when He went in and out among us; or again, as He is now present in heaven interceding for us. Both of these last two mentioned are modes of His human Presence, acknowledged by all who confess Him come in the flesh. But that which some affirm, some deny, as part of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, is a third and special mode of Presence of the holy Humanity of our Lord, denoted and effected by His own words—‘This is My Body, this is My Blood’; a Presence the manner of which is beyond all thought, much more beyond all words of ours, but which those who believe it can no more help adoring, than they could have helped it had they been present with S. Thomas, to see in His hands the print of the nails. . . . It is no more natural for them to think, one way or the other, of worshipping the Bread and Wine, than it was for the woman with the issue of blood to think of worshipping the garment which she touched, instead of Him who was condescending to wear it and make it an instrument of blessing to her.93 Here Keble suggests that adoration is due not only to Christ present everywhere by his divinity, but also in what he terms ‘especial tokens’, such as in the divine presence of God the Word and in the human presence of Christ on earth and in heaven interceding before the Father. A special mode of Christ’s presence as ‘holy Humanity’ is also recognised in the Eucharist. This eucharistic presence of Christ can be, says Keble, the subject of adoration, however the adoration is not due to the bread and wine. Keble goes on to say that: If we may reverently say it, . . . ‘as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man’, and as ‘God and Man is one in Christ’,so the consecrated Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, are one sacrament. And as we know the soul of a man, which we cannot see, to be present by the presence of the living body, which we can see, so the presence of that Bread and Wine is to us a sure token of the Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood. . . . So no plain and devout reader of Holy Scripture and disciple of the Church would, of his own accord, find a difficulty in adoring the thing signified, apart from the outward sign or form; or in believing that theone may surely convey the other by a spiritual and heavenly process, known to God, but unknown to him, and to all on earth.94 The sign and the signified are linked here as ‘one sacrament’ and the sign conveys the signified by a ‘spiritual and heavenly process’. The sign and the signified, even though they are linked, are also distinguished, in that

93 Ibid, pp. –. 94 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four the thing signified (Christ’s body and blood) is the subject of adoration and the bread and wine are not. This means that the bread and wine remain in their natural substances (that is, without any transubstantiation) while they are one and the same sacrament with the body and blood of Christ. This is the language of moderate realism, since there is a linking of the sign and the signified without any suggestion of the bread and wine becoming the fleshy or immoderate realist body and blood of Christ. Keble also considers the notion of eucharistic sacrifice, saying: The Word of God presents to us the Sacrament of the Eucharist under another, a sacrificial, aspect: which must be considered, if the truth is adequately to be told concerning either the Real Presence, or the adoration claimed for it. The Eucharist, as the Fathers speak, is the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament; unbloody, though it be in part an offering of blood: ωαιμακτ(ς,not)ναιμς. No blood shed in it, but the living Blood of Christ with His living Body offered up to the Father, for a memorial ofthe real blood-shedding, the awful and painful Sacrifice once for all offered on the Cross. This memorial Christ offers in heaven, night and day, to God the Father: His glorified Body, with all its wounds, His blood which He poured out on the cross, but on His resurrection took again to Himself, and with it ascended into heaven. With that Body and Blood he appears continually before the throne, by it making intercession for us; by it reminding God the Father of His one oblation of Himself once offered on the cross.95 The Eucharist is here described as having a sacrificial aspect. The eucharistic sacrifice is however, an unbloody sacrifice, though it is linked with the bloody sacrifice of the cross. The sign (eucharistic sacrifice) is therefore linked with the signified (the historic sacrifice) in a moderate realist manner. Immoderate realism is excluded since Keble states that in the Eucharist no blood is shed. Eucharistic sacrifice relates to a memorial of the sacrifice of the cross and to the continual pleading of that sacrifice in heaven by Christ. Keble links the notion of sacrifice in the Eucharist with the sacrificial word νμνησις, where this word is seen to mean “remembrance, memory, memorial”.96 The Eucharist is therefore a memorial offering, described as “the Christian memorial Sacrifice”97 whereby there is: “pleading with the Father by Christ crucified; presenting to Him the Body and Blood of His Incarnate Son, with all His wounds, and all his

95 Ibid, pp. –. 96 Ibid,p.. 97 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century merits and mercies, that in Him and by Him we may be accepted; that the remedy provided for all may be applied to, and taken by, each one in particular. This is the proper drift of the word remembrance in our Lord’s institution of the Sacrament.”98 Keble therefore links the notion of sacrifice with the Eucharist. He says: Now, if the holy Eucharist as a sacrifice be all one with the memorial made by our High-Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, and Offering, by the perpetual presentation of His Body and Blood; then, as the blessed inhabitants of heaven cannot but be thought of as adoring Him in both His aspects, of Priest and Sacrifice,—so how should His holy Church throughout all the world not adore Him in like manner, as often as she ‘goeth up to the reverend Communion’ to offer up spiritual sacrifices, and ‘tobesatisfied with spiritual meats?’ For there Heisin Hisholy and perfect Manhood, virtually present, as our Priest, with him that ministereth, being one of those to whom He said, ‘Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the end of the world’; and really present, as our Sacrifice, according to that other word, ‘This is My Body, and this is My Blood’,—‘Do this in remembrance of Me’.99 When he comes to a consideration of the Anglican definitions of what occurs in the Eucharist, Keble refers to the Prayer Book Catechism. He interprets the Catechism in the following manner: The Man Christ Jesus, according to the Catechism, isthus virtually present, as the true Consecrator, in our Eucharist. Still more distinctly are we there instructed concerning the real Presence of His Body and Blood in that Sacrament,—to be first our Oblation, and then our spiritual Food. Combining the several statements, they amount to this: the Sacrament of the Lord’s supper, in that it is a sacrament, has always two parts, whereof the inward and spiritual part is the Body and Blood of Christ;—and it has two purposes: . to be a continual remembrance, or memory, or memorial before God as well as man, not a repetition or continuance, of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ; . to be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful for the strengthening and refreshing of our souls, as our bodies are strengthened and refreshed by bread and wine. I cannot understand these statements to imply less than a real and substantial Presence of Christ by the Presence of His Body and Blood; nor can I imagine any one believing Him so present, and not acknowledging the same special adoration.100 Real presence here for Keble has the meaning of substantial presence also. What substance is he speaking of? It seems that for Keble a substantial

98 Ibid,p.. 99 Ibid, pp. –. 100 Ibid,p..  chapter four presence means that Christ “comes down in a manner to offer Himself anew for each of us in particular, receiving Him worthily; and that under the poor and ordinary veil, or form, which we all know, thereby subjecting Himself to many indignities.”101 The real and substantial presence is that of Christ’s body and blood under the veil of bread and wine. There is no suggestion of a change in the substance of the bread and wine, as is implied by transubstantiation, but the presence of the body and blood is nonetheless ‘real and substantial’. Kebleclarifiesthisandlinksittoadoration,saying:“Hecomestobe feasted upon, not sacrificed only; as a Peace-offering to apply His own merits, not as a proper sin-offering, as when on the Cross he merited all for us; and therefore He yields His Body and Blood, i.e. Himself, to be partaken of by us sinners. As partakers of the altar, we are permitted to eat of the sacrifice; which sacrifice in this case is that Man who is the Most High God. That, therefore, of which we eat, the same we are most humbly to worship.”102 The presence and the sacrifice are real, but they are not ‘proper’ (i.e. immoderate) in the realist sense. The communicant shares in the sacrifice and receives the presence of Christ, but not in any fleshy manner. The presence and the sacrifice are however, no less real and substantial and therefore an appropriate object of adoration in the Eucharist. He pursues the logic of this in the following statement, saying: “If we really believe that that which He declares to be His own Flesh and Blood in Jesus Christ giving Himself to us under the form of Bread and Wine, how can we help thanking, and therefore adoring (for to thank God is to adore), the unspeakable Gift, as well as the bountiful Giver? seeing that in this case both are one.”103 Sign and signified are linked in a moderate realist fashion, with the gift and the giver being one. Christ’s body and blood are under the form of bread and wine, truly received and truly the object of adoration. The sacrifice of Christ is also seen to be present in the Eucharist. Indeed Keble says: “The rationale of the Holy Eucharist is to be a sacrifice offered by the Son to the Father; it is the transference for the time to earth of the great perpetual commemorative sacrifice in heaven.”104

101 Ibid,p.. 102 Ibid, pp. –. 103 Ibid,p.. 104 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

In  Keble published a work entitled Considerations suggested by a late pastoral letter on the doctrine of the most Holy Eucharist.105 This work was in response to the pastoral letter of Bishop Trower (Bishop of Glas- gow and Galloway, –) who had written regarding the eucharistic view of Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes106 (Bishop of Brechin in Scotland). Forbes’ views had been the subject of a trial and his condemnation in Scotland since they were seen to advocate a doctrine of the eucharistic presence which was considered by the other Scottish bishops to be so realist that it was heretical. Keble in replying to Trower set out a series of statements concerning his views on the Eucharist. Keble said: At the risk of officiousness and unnecessary repetition, I am tempted to set down here a series of dogmatic statements, which I had occasion not longsincetodrawupforprivateuse.Theymayperhapshelptorelieve some of tedious, haunting, bewildering thoughts, setting forth, as they endeavour to do, the special bearing of the doctrine of the Incarnation on these Eucharistical questions. . I believe that there is one, and only one, true body of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the sense in which any man’s natural body is called his own. That body, I mean, which He took of the Blessed Virgin Mary when He came into the world. . That neither this body nor the reasonable soul which He took to Himself at the same time, nor His manhood consisting of both together, have ever had any distinct personality, but have subsisted, and ever will subsist, as taken into the Person of the Eternal Son of God. . That, as the divine Word or Person of Christ is everywhere and always present and adorable, so ever since the Incarnation the presence of the body of Christ, or the presence of the soul of Christ, or of both united, whenever and wherever and however He wills to notify it, is to be taken as a warrant and call for especial adoration on the part of all His reasonable creatures, to whom the knowledge of the two natures has been revealed, adoration to Him as to God most high, and to His holy manhood, not separately but as subsisting in His divine Person. I believe, therefore:- . That His sacrificed body, hanging on the cross and laid in the grave, was adorable.

105 John Keble, Considerations suggested by a late pastoral letter on the doctrine of the most Holy Eucharist (Oxford: Parker, ). 106 See separate case study.  chapter four

. I understand the words, ‘This is My body which is given (broken) for you’, literally taken, to affirm that what He gives us in the Sacrament isthesamebodywhichwassacrificedonthecross. . And I believe that those words ought to be literally taken. Therefore:- . Ibelievethat thatwhatHegives usintheSacrament, underthename of His body, is adorable.107 Here Keble affirms that the same body of Christ which was sacrificed on the cross is given in the Eucharist. Does this imply a carnal or immoderate realism in what Keble is arguing? It seems that such a view cannot be sustained since Keble goes on to argue that: The objections usually taken to such statements as the above are taken, some to their evidence, some to their substance. The latter may be referred (speaking broadly) to one or more of the following heads:- . Men cannot in their own minds separate what is said from notions of carnal and natural presence, as of an earthly body among earthly things; or:- . They are religiously afraid of encroaching on the verity of Christ’s human nature by believing His body to be verily and indeed present anywhere but in one place in heaven. With the principle of both these objections, I need hardly say, the main- tainers of the presence have entire and perfect sympathy. They would rather die than accept a carnal heathenish doctrine as against the one, or as against the other a notion which would spiritualise away the whole Gospel. But they claim to be believed when they say that they cannot of themselves discern, nor has it ever been enforced on them by any authority to which they are bound to defer, that their doctrine involves either of these notions.108 Keble’s eucharistic theology presents a denial of any immoderate notions of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. At the same time he affirms that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real, being the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary and which was sacrificed on the cross. Christ present in this way is, for Keble, to be adored. The Eucharist is seen as a sacrifice offered by Christ to the Father, with that sacrifice being present on earth in the Eucharist. The eucharistic theology presented by John Keble is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

107 Keble, Considerations suggested by a late pastoral letter on the doctrine of the most Holy Eucharist, pp. –. 108 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

Alexander Knox

Alexander Knox (–), an Anglican lay writer, published a work in  entitled, Treatise on the Use and Import of the Eucharistic Sym- bols.109 In this treatise Knox argued that the Eucharist was the means appointed by God for conveying the benefits of the incarnation to Chris- tian people. Knox stated that: The ancient writers of the Church were agreed in ascribing to the consecrated elements in the Eucharist an unutterable and efficacious mystery in virtue of our Saviour’s words of institution, by which He had made those elements, when consecrated after His example, the vehicles of His saving and sanctifying power, and in that respect the permanent representatives of His incarnate Person. But, notwithstanding this exalted estimate of the Eucharist, the notion of a literal Transubstantiation, such as was subsequently introduced into the Western Church, would appear never to have entered into their mind.110 The elements, following ancient writers, are seen to be linked with the saving and sanctifying power of Christ following consecration. The incarnate person of Christ is therefore seen to be present in the elements. This is a moderate realist view. The use of the term ‘literal Transubstantiation’ is interesting. What does Knox mean by this term? Is he implying that there is a non-literal form of transubstantiation? Could such a non-literal form of transubstantiation be akin to moderate realism? It seems that Knox was excluding any immoderate form of realism from his discussion of the Eucharist. Knox says: “To understand the mysterious term of the Lord’s body in any such gross sense as has been fancied in the Church of Rome would be to overlook our Redeemer’s expressions, already in part quoted, “It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”111 The difficulty for Knox in any discussion of the doctrine of transubstantiation seems to be the gross sense in which some in the Church of Rome mistakenly used it. Knox therefore excludes immoderate realism but he is careful not to exclude a moderate realist form of Christ’s real presence and the effect of his sacrifice in the Eucharist. He says:

109 AlexanderKnox,‘TreatiseontheUseandImportoftheEucharisticSymbols’,in Remains of Alexander Knox, Esq. ( Volumes) (London: Duncan, ), II, pp. –. 110 Ibid, II, p. . 111 Ibid, II, p. .  chapter four

But let us not therefore rush into an opposite extreme, nor treat the words of the inspired Apostle as we would not treat those of any common intelligent writer. Let us observe that every expression St Paul uses tends, as it were, more and more, to invest the sacramental symbols with an ineffable manner of derivative dignity and instrumental virtue. He gives no shadow of pretext for any carnal interpretation; but he says all that could be said to make us regard ‘that bread and that cup’ not only as the visible pledge, but the effective organ, of a vital communication form the invisible, but then specially operative and therefore specially present, Redeemer. For He alone it is who could make those symbols to be in virtue and efficacy His body and blood.112 Knox’s view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is closely linked with the doctrine of Christ incarnate. Knox argues that: The richest treasures of grace and virtue are provided for us in the adorable Person of our incarnate Saviour; . . .. And those treasures are communicated to our minds and hearts by the continued agency of the Holy Spirit.113 But the express designation of the Holy Eucharist by our Lord Himself as His own virtual body and blood, and St Paul’s appeal to the receive belief of the Church that the blessed cup was the communion of the blood of Christ, and that the broken bread was the communion of the body of Christ, established beyond question that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is to serve as the external and visible medium through which the disciples of Christ in all ages are to expect, through the co-operation of the Eternal Spirit, the divinely vivifying influences of His incarnate Person, and the ineffable virtues of His crucifixion and death.114 As the treasures of grace are communicated to people by the agency of the Holy Spirit, through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, so too are these graces communicated by the agency of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. The divine graces are instantiated in the person of Christ and are also instantiated in the Eucharist. The instantiation in the person of Jesus was seen to be a living, breathing, fleshy man, however the instantiation in the Eucharist in bread and wine is not fleshy but spiritual and yet no less real. In both the person of Jesus and in the Eucharist there is an instantiation, one historical (carnal) and the other eucharistic (moderate and not fleshy). This is the language and conception of moderate realism. In speaking of the mystery of Christ, Knox links this with the mystery of the Eucharist, saying: “That grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which

112 Ibid, II, p. . 113 Ibid, II, p. . 114 Ibid, II, pp. –. the nineteenth century alone we can live, much more grow up and advance, as Christians is, according to our Church, eminently and peculiarly conveyed to us in and through this visible ordinance.”115 Knox links the sign with the signified in a moderate realist fashion in his discussion of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. He employs language and concepts suggestive of instantiation and his eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

115 Ibid, II, pp. –.  chapter four

HenryParryLiddon

Henry Parry Liddon (–) was a Tractarian academic and Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral. London. He belonged to the second phase of the Oxford Movement. A convinced High Churchman he came under the influence of Pusey. Liddon was not sympathetic to liberal theology and so worked to restate classic High Church orthodoxy. This is particularly apparent in his 116 work entitled The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,117 where he attempted as McGrath118 argues to justify the Chalcedonian definition of the identity of Jesus Christ. Liddon asserted that our Lord’s Divinity was the truth illuminating and sustaining the world-redeeming virtue of Christ’s death. He argued that “in like manner it explains and justifies the power of the Christian Sacraments, as actual channels of supernatural grace”.119 Liddon therefore rejected those views of the sacraments which saw them as nothing more than badges or tokens where Christians, by partaking of the sacraments, identified their belief with one another in opposition to those who were not Christians. He also rejected any view which saw the sacraments aspurelyhumanactsinwhichGodgavenothingandinwhichtherewas no special relation to God. He saw sacraments as more than external ceremonies with merely moral ideas associated with them, such as recalling the memory of a person from the past as is found among the Zwinglians or Socinians.120 In Liddon’s estimation: The church has always seen in them not mere outward signs addressed to the taste or to the imagination, nor even signs (as Calvinism asserts) which are tokens of grace received independently of them, but signs which, through the power of the promise and words of Christ, effect what they signify. They are ‘effectual signs of grace and God’s good-will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us’ [Article XXV] . . . And ‘the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’ [ Prayer Book Catechism].121

116 The  edition is used in this case study. 117 Henry Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (London: Long- mans, Green and Co, ). 118 Alistair McGrath (ed), The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (London: SPCK, ), p. . 119 Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, p. . 120 Ibid, p. . 121 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

Liddon links the sign and the signified in the sacraments in a moderate realist manner. This linking does not depend on subjective human tastes and experience but on the promise and words of Christ. The signs are seen to effect what they signify and so are not mere tokens, but effective channels of grace. Liddon’s conception of sacramental efficiency is “intimately connected with belief in the Divinity of the Incarnate Christ”122 such that “the Eucharist will be a real ‘communion of the Body and Blood’ of the Incarnate Jesus”.123 For Liddon: ‘The Body of Jesus Christ which was given for us’ should now, when received sacramentally, ‘preserve our bodies and souls unto everlasting life’. In view of our Lord’s Divinity, we cannot treat as so much profitless and vapid metaphor the weighty sentences which Apostles have traced around the Font and the Altar, any more than we can deal thus lightly with the precious hopes and promises that are graven by the Divine Spirit upon the Cross. The Divinity of Christ warrants the realities of sacramental grace as truly as it warrants the cleansing virtue of the Atoning Blood. If it forbids our seeing the Great Sacrifice for sin, nothing higher than a moral exemplar, it also forbids our degrading the august institutions of the Divine Redeemer to the level of the dead ceremonies of the ancient law. And conversely, belief in the reality of sacramental grace protects belief in a Christ Who is really Divine. Sacraments, if fully believed in, furnish outworks in the religious thought and in the daily habits of the Christian, which necessarily and jealously guard the prerogatives and honour of his adorable Lord.124 For Liddon also: If we imagine that the Sacraments are only picturesque memorials of an absent Christ, we are already in a fair way to believe that the Christ Who is thus commemorated as absent by a barren ceremony is Himself only and purely human. Certainly if Christ were not Divine, the efficacy of Sacraments as channels of graces that flow from His Manhood would be the wildest of fancies. Certainly if Sacraments are not thus channels of His grace, it is difficult to shew that they have any rightful place in a dispensation, from which the dead forms and profitless shadows of the synagogues have been banished, and where all that is authorized is instinct with power of heavenly life. The fact that such institutions as the Sacraments are lawful in such a religion as the Gospel, of itself implies their real efficacy: their efficacy points to the Godhead of their Founder. Instead

122 Ibid, p. . 123 Ibid, pp. –. 124 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

of only reviving the thought of a distant past, they quicken all the powers of the Christian by union with a present and living Saviour; they assure usthatJesusofNazarethistousatthismomentwhatHewastoHisfirst disciples eighteen centuries ago; they make us know and feel that He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, unchanging in His human tenderness, because Himself the unchanging God. It is the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity to which they point, and in turn irradiates the perpetuity and the reality of their power.125 Liddon’s view of the sacraments and their efficacy is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. He associates sign with signified when he speaks of the sacraments, arguing that through the sign the signified is channelled to people. He rejects those views which distance sign from signified and which see the sacraments as memorials only.

125 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

Richard Frederick Littledale

Richard Littledale (–) was a Tractarian who published a work in  entitled The Real Presence.126 Here he made some statements on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist which were expressed as moderate realism. Littledale said: The Christian Church teaches, and has always taught, that in the Holy Communion, after consecration, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ are ‘verily and indeed’ present on the altar under the forms of bread and wine, The Church also teaches that this presence depends on God’s will, not on man’s belief, and therefore that bad and good people receive the very same thing in communicating, the good for their benefit, the bad for their condemnation. Further, that, as Christ is both God and Man, and as these two natures are for ever joined in His one Person, His Godhead must be wherever His body is, and therefore He is to be worshipped in His Sacrament. The body and blood present are that same body and blood which were conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, ascended into heaven, but they are not present in the same manner as they were when Christ walked on earth. He, as Man, is now naturally in heaven, there to be till the Last Day, yet He is supernaturally, and just as truly, present in the Holy Communion in some way which we cannot explain, but only believe, knowing, as we do, that since He rose from the dead His body has more than human powers, as He showed by passing through closed doors.127 In this passage Littledale affirms a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Following consecration, there is a presence of Christ ‘on the altar under the forms of bread and wine’.This is an objective presence, not dependent on the subjective faith of the communicant, but on the will of God. Littledale in his description of the presence of Christ’s body and blood affirms that the presence in the Eucharist isthe same presence that was in and given through the incarnation, but the manner of the presence in the Eucharist is not the same as the manner of the presence to be found in the person of Jesus Christ who was present on earth. This suggests that the nature is the same but the particular instantiation is not strictly identical. Littledale is therefore distinguishing

126 Richard Littledale, The Real Presence (London: Palmer, ). 127 Ibid,p..  chapter four between a eucharistic and an historic presence on the basis of different instantiations. He argues that it is same body and blood that is present in both the eucharistic and the historic presences. Littledale’s eucharistic theology is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. the nineteenth century

Frederick Denison Maurice

Frederick Denison Maurice (–) was an Anglican divine who discussed the Eucharist in his work of , entitled The Kingdom of Christ; or Hints to a Quaker Respecting the Principles, Constitutions, and Ordinances of the Catholic Church.128 The  edition will be used in this case study. Maurice presents a realist view of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. He says in relation to the words of institution that: They might only signify that a person who had been deeply beloved was leaving with the friends from whom He was about to be separated a token and memorial of His intercourse with them. The words, indeed, ‘This isMy body,thisisMyblood’,mightsoundstrangeandhyperbolical,especiallyin a moment of what seemed final separation, for then the utterance of such a friend would be especially simple and awful, as we know that His other utterances were; but yet they might only signify, This will remind you of My Person, and this of the blood which is about to be so unrighteously shed. Such an explanation, however embarrassing, would be the easiest, nay, it would be the only possible one, unless there were some circumstances connected with the whole character of Him who spake the words, with His other acts and purposes, with the time when they were spoken, which determined them to a different sense. Suppose now that the Person who spoke these words was the Son of Man and the Son of God; suppose at the very same time He spoke them He had been declaring Himself to be the way through which men must come to the unseen Father, to be the truth, to be the life, to be in that relation to His disciples in which the vine is to its branches, to be about to bestow upon them a Spirit who should guide them into the knowledge of the Father and the Son; suppose Him to have told His disciples that they were the appointed messengers of these truths to men; suppose Him to have prayed that not only they, but all who should believe in Him through their word might be one in Him as He and the Father are one; suppose Him to have connected all these mysterious words with the giving up of Himself to death; suppose death to have been felt in all ages and in all countries which attained to anything like national fellowship and consistency to be the means whereby they could approach that Ruler’s presence, obtain His favour, remove His wrath; suppose sacrifices to have been the most essential part of the Jewish institutions, the most important element in their worship, the only way whereby they could draw nigh, as members of a nation, to the God of their nation; suppose them, however,

128 Frederick Maurice, The Kingdom of Christ; or Hints to a Quaker respecting the Principles, Constitutions, and Ordinances of the Catholic Church ( Volumes) (London: Rivingtons, ).  chapter four

to have been taught, both by the law which appointed those sacrifices and by the prophets who expounded it, that they were not valuable for their own sakes, but were accepted when they were performed by God’s appointment through His priests as a confession on the part of the offerer that he had violated his relations to the head of the commonwealth and to its members, as a submission of the will, as a prayer to be restored to that position which through self-will had been lost, or else as a means of expressing that entire self-surrender which was implied in the fact of belonging to the divine society; suppose that the feast which the disciples were keeping with their Master was the most purely national and strictly sacrificial of all the feasts, that one which celebrated the first deliverance and establishment of the nation, and which recalled the fact that it was a nation based upon sacrifices in which every Jew realised the blessings of His covenant, rejoiced that God was His King, knew that he was indeed an Israelite; suppose all this, and then consider whether that which seemed the only possible interpretation of Christ’s words, though a most difficult and perplexing one, do not become actually irrational and monstrous? Consider whether any one who believed that we know the Apostles did believe respecting their Master, His Person, His Kingdom, could attach any but the very highest significance and language concerning His body and blood. Consider whether any persons who believed what we know they believed respecting their own office and work, could imagine that this significance was limited and temporary. Consider whether persons who connected, as we know they did connect, the kingdom whereof they were ministers with the earlier dispensations, could believe otherwise than that, by the same simple, wonderful method that had been used in all countries, and had been appointed, as they believed, by the authority of God Himself in their own, by the method which enabled the Jews to enter into the fruition of their covenant and its privileges, and the neglect of which had again and again cheated them of it, He meant to put them in possession of all the substantial good things which He came to bestow upon mankind? Could they doubt that when they ate this bread and drank this wine, He meant that they should have the fullest participation of that sacrifice with which God had declared Himself well-pleased, that they should really enter into that presence, into which the Forerunner had for them entered, that they should really receive in that Communion all the spiritual blessing which, through the union of the Godhead with human flesh, the heirs of this flesh might inherit? Could they doubt that the state of individual death which they had claimed for themselves in Baptism was here to be practically attained by fellowship with Christ’s death; that the new life which they had claimed for themselves, as members of Christ’s body, was here to be attained through the communication of His life? Could they doubt that, if their spirits were to be raised up to behold the infinite and absolute glory, here they were admitted into that blessedness? that,iftheirheartsandaffectionsdesiredamanifestedandembodiedKing, here they became united to Him? that, if spirit, soul, and body were to be subjected to the government of God’s Spirit, that each might be delivered the nineteenth century

from its own corruption, receive its own quickening, and exert its own living powers, here each received that strength and renewal by which it was enabled to do its appointed work, to overcome its peculiar temptations, to be fitted for its future perfection? Could they doubt that, if they were baptised into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and if this deepest unity were the foundation of such a union among men as no barrier of time, or space, or death could break, here they were actually received into communion with that awful name, and into communion with all the saints who live by beholding it and delighting in it? Could they doubt that here the partial views, and one-sided words, and opposing thoughts of men, found their meeting-point, and complete reconciliation? that here lay the clear vital expressions of those distinctions which in verbal theology become dry, hard, dogmatic oppositions? that here it is apprehended how faith alone justifies, and how faith without works is dead? how it is we that act, and yet not we, but Christ in us? how he that is born of God cannot commit sin, and yet if we say that we have sin we deceive ourselves? how we may be persuaded that neither death nor life, nor things present, nor things to come, shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ, yet may tremble lest should be castaways? Could they doubt that it was their office to present Christianity in its different aspects to the different wants and circumstances of their own age and of ages to come; that it was theofficeofthisSacramenttoexhibitasawholetruth,atoncetranscendent and practical, surpassing men’s thoughts, independent of men’s faith and opinions, and yet essentially belonging to man, the governing law of his being, the actuating power of his life? Could they doubt that they were to lay the foundation of the Church on earth, and that this Sacrament was to give it permanency, coherency, vitality, throughout all generations? And, if this were their faith, why, I ask, is it not be ours.129 It is through the Eucharist that the presence and the power of Christ’s sacrifice is made present to people. This signified presence and power is associated with the signs of bread and wine since he speaks of eating the bread and drinking the wine and in so doing having the fullest participation of Christ’s sacrifice. For Maurice the nature of Christianity is being of one body with Christ. He argues that: Our Lord says, ‘This is My body’. St Paul addresses the Ephesian converts as sitting in the heavenly places with Christ. He tells the Philippians that their bodies shall be made like unto Christ’s glorious body. Surely this is Christianity. It is the Gospel of the deliverance of the spirit and soul and body from all the fetters by which they are held down and prevented from fulfilling each its own proper function, from maintaining their right relations to each other. And this emancipation is connected with and

129 Ibid, II, pp. –.  chapter four

consequent upon our union as member of one body with Christ, the crucified, the risen, the glorified Lord of our race. Now, if these bethe privileges of Christian men, and if these privileges, whatever they be, are in this Sacrament asserted and realised, what a low notion it is that we are invited to hold communion, not with Christ as he is, not with his Body exalted to the right hand of God, but with the body consubstantiated in the elements. . . . What we need is that they [the bread and wine] should be made a perfectly transparent medium through which His glory may be manifested, that nothing should be really beheld by the spirit of the worshippers save He into whose presence they are brought. For this end the elements require a solemn consecration from the priest, through whom Christ distributes them to His flock, not that they may be clothed with some new and peculiar attributes, not that they may acquire some essential and miraculous virtue, but that they may be diverted from their ordinary uses, that they may become purely sacramental. . . . We need some pure untroubled element which has no significancy except as the organ through which the voice of God speaks to man, and through which he may answer, ‘Thy servant heareth’. Such we believe are this bread and wine when redeemed to His service: let us not deprive them of their ethereal whiteness and clearness by the colours of our fancy or the clouds of our intellect.130 This union as members of one body with Christ is both ‘asserted and realised’ in the Eucharist. This union is not with a ‘body consubstantiated in the elements’,but with Christ as he is at the right hand of God. The bread and wine then serve the function of being a ‘transparent medium’ through which Christ body is manifested to people. The elements following consecration are not changed in the sense of essence or virtue, says Maurice, but in terms of use in that they are ‘purely sacramental’.By this he seems to mean that the elements are conduits of sacramental grace. This sacramental union with Christ is not associated with the faith of the communicant but with the elements. It seems that Maurice’s theology of the Eucharist in this passage is that of moderate realism, where sign andsignifiedareassociatedandwherethesignisthe‘medium’orthe conduit by which the signified presence and gifts of Christ are given to the communicant. This is further reinforced when Maurice says: “I have maintained that the character of the Eucharistic feast is sacrificial, that Christ is really present in it, and that the words of institution are to be taken literally.”131

130 Ibid, II, pp. –. 131 Ibid, II, p. . the nineteenth century

What does Maurice mean by taking the words of institution literally? In view of earlier comments stating that there is no change in the essence or the virtue of the elements, it seems that he is not implying an immoderate realist presence when he speaks in this way. He is keen not to suggest that the elements are drained of all but a vague presence of Christ in the mind of the communicant. Rather he is suggesting that the bread and wine are the medium of the real presence and grace for the communicants, not in an immoderate or fleshy fashion, since this is in fact less than the reality, but in a real way nonetheless. He states that: I have maintained that in order to the full acknowledgment of Christ’s spiritual presence, we must distinctly acknowledge that He is clothed with a body; that, if we lose this belief, we adopt a vague pantheistic notion of a presence hovering about us somewhere in the air in place of a clear spiritual apprehension of a Person in who all truth and love dwell; that the spiritual organ therefore does demand an actual body for its nourishment; that through that spiritual organ our bodies themselves are meant to be purified and glorified; that his Sacrament meets and satisfies the needs both of the human spirit which is redeemed and of the body which is waiting for its redemption. But all these admissions only bring out the difference with the Romanist into stronger relief. To enter into fellowship with Christ as He is, ascended at the right hand of God, in a body of glory as we as his spirit to be raised and exalted. On this ground then he must reject all theories which involve the imagination of a descent into the elements; on this ground, also, he must feel that the intellectual contradictions which such theories contain, and even boast of, is the counterpart of a spiritual contradiction still more gross and dangerous.132 Here Maurice admits a realist view of the Eucharist, in that he affirms that the presence of Christ is more than a pantheistic notion ‘hovering in the air’, but at the same time he denies any immoderate notions of presence (where there is a descent of Christ’s actual body into the elements). For Maurice the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real, but it is not immoderate. Maurice’s conception of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can therefore be described as having philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.

132 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

Frederick Meyrick

Frederick Meyrick (–) was Rector of Blickling and a Non- residentiary Canon of Lincoln. Meyrick published a book in  entitled The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion. Restated as a Guide at the Present Time.133 The third edition of this book, published in , will be used in this case study. In this book Meyrick claimed that: The Holy Communion is a remembrance, a sacrifice, a means of feeding, a means of incorporation, a pledge. It is a remembrance in so far as its object is to recall to the minds of Christians the love of Christ as exhibited in the sacrifice of His death; in so far as it commemorates by an outward act that divine sacrifice; and in so far as it is a memorial of Christ and His death before man and before God. It is a sacrifice inasmuch as it is an offering made to God as an act of religious worship—a spiritual sacrifice, as being a sacrifice of the death of Christ; a material sacrifice, in so far as the bread and wine are regarded as gifts of homage to God in acknowledgment of His creative and sustaining power; a commemorative sacrifice, inasmuch as it commemorates the great sacrifice of the cross—the words ‘commemorative sacrifice’ meaning in this acceptation a commemoration of that sacrifice. But it is not a sacrifice of Christ to His Father, whereby God is propitiated and man’s sins expiated. It is a means of feeding upon Christ; but this feeding is not effected by the elements to be eaten being changed into Christ. . . . Nor is our feeding on Christ effected by our eating His material body together with the bread and wine. . . . But it is effected by the spiritual presence of Christ, andthe benefits of the blood-shedding on the cross being conveyed to the soul of thehumblerecipientqualifiedbyfaithandlovetowardsGodandman. It is a means of incorporation, inasmuch as by it we are more and more part of the mystical body of Christ, and united with its other members. It is a pledge inasmuch as it serves to the humble Christian as a symbolical assurance of God’s past forgiveness, and of His present favour towards Him, and of a future inheritance graciously reserved for him.134 Meyrick’s eucharistic theology suggests that he is adopting a nominalist view in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The Eucharist recalls to the mind of the communicant the past action of Christ on the

133 Frederick Meyrick, The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion. Restated as a Guide at the Present Time (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ). 134 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century cross. He does not link the signs of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, but rather speaks of the outward act as recalling and commemorating the sacrifice of Christ. The elements of bread and wine are, in Meyrick’s view, separated from the feeding upon Christ. The feeding on Christ is not effected by the bread and wine being linked in some way to the material body and blood of Christ. This is a denial of immoderate realism through the reference to thematerialbodyandbloodofChrist,butatthesametimethereisno linking of the bread and the drinking of the wine to the spiritual presence of Christ, since the conveyance of the presence and the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice is conveyed to the soul of the communicant by faith. Meyrick’s theology of the Eucharist is based on nominalist philosophical assumptions where there is a separation of entities. The sign and the signified are not linked in any realist sense, but only in the mind of the communicant by faith.  chapter four

Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 

On  June, , a Memorial was addressed to the Archbishop of Canter- bury by twenty-one prominent clergy associated with the Oxford Move- ment (including Pusey, Liddon, Denison, Carter and Littledale). This Memorial was concerned with eucharistic doctrine and contained, in part, the following: . We repudiate the opinion of a ‘corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood’,that is to say, of the presence of His body and blood as they ‘are in heaven’, and the conception of the mode of His presence which implies the physical change of the natural substances of bread and wine, commonly called ‘Transubstantiation’. We believe that in the Holy Eucharist by virtue of the consecration through the power of the Holy Ghost the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, ‘the inward part or thing signified’, are present really and truly but spiritually and ineffably under ‘the outward visible part or sign’ or ‘form of bread and wine’. . We repudiate the notion of any fresh sacrifice, or any view of the Eucharis- tic sacrificial offering as of something apart from the all-sufficient sacrifice and oblation on the cross, which alone ‘is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual’, and which alone is ‘meritorious’. We believe that, as in heaven Christ our great High Priest ever offers Himself before the eternal Father pleading by His presence His sacrifice of Himself once offered on the cross, so on earth in the Holy Eucharist that same body once for all sacrificed for us and that same blood once for all shed for us, sacramentally present, are offered and pleaded before the Father by the priest, as our Lord ordained to be done in remembrance of Himself when He instituted the Blessed Sacrament of His body and blood. . We repudiate all ‘adoration’ of ‘the sacramental bread and wine’, which would be ‘idolatry’,regarding them with the reverence due to them because of their sacramental relation to the body and blood of our Lord; we repudiate also all adoration of a ‘corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood’,that is to say, of the presence of His body and blood as they ‘are in heaven’. We believe that Christ Himself, really and truly but spiritually and ineffably present in the Sacrament, is therein to be adored.135

135 Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury, , cited in Darwell Stone, AHistory of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . the nineteenth century

The Memorial teaches a doctrine of the Eucharist based on moderate realism. Immoderate notions of realism (e.g. corporal presence of the natural flesh and blood and an offering apart from that of the cross) are denied. Christ is seen to be really present in the Eucharist, with the signs of the bread and wine being associated with the signified body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are seen as remaining in their natural substances. The inward part of the Eucharist is distinguished from the outward part and adoration is seen as being directed towards the inward part alone. The sacrifice of Christ is seen to be pleaded in the Eucharist as it is pleaded by Christ in heaven. The Memorial is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.  chapter four

James Bowling Mozley

James Bowling Mozley (–), a post-tractarian theologian, delivered a lecture on the Eucharist whilst he was the Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, sometime in the period between  and .136 This lecture is included in a book published in  after Mozley’s death, entitled Lectures and Other Theological Papers.137 In his lecture on the Eucharist Mozley argued that the Church of England: “at the Reformation rejected Transubstantiation, and fell back upon the earlier and more indefinite idea of a change in the elements, as a change, namely, which was true and real for all the purposes of the Sacrament, by which the elements became, from being mere physical food, spiritual food.”138 Mozley here argues that the Church of England rejects the type of moderate realism that is called transubstantiation (change in substance of the bread and wine with the accidents or outward appearance of the bread and wine remaining the same) but does not reject moderate realism completely. He speaks of a ‘more indefinite idea of a change in the elements’ which is nonetheless ‘true and real’. The nature of this change is from a physical food to a spiritual food. This he bases on earlier doctrines of the Eucharist. He says that: “The ground taken by the early Church with respect to the spiritual part of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of our Lord, was not that the spiritual part was only an internal matter, a moral effect of the act of participation upon the mind. The Lord’s body and blood was regarded as a reality external to the mind, even as the bread and wine was; it was considered as joined to the bread and wine, and co-existing with it in one Sacrament.”139 Mozley seems to be distancing himself from any receptionist idea where the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is linked to the faith or mind ofthecommunicant. Insteadheargues that Christ’sbody and blood hasa reality independent of this act of faith and mind and that it is this external reality which is connected to or co-exists with the bread and wine of the

136 Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 137 James Mozley, Lectures and Other Theological Papers (London: Rivingtons, ). 138 Ibid, p. . 139 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

Eucharist. The sign and the signified are joined together so that whenthe bread and wine are received so is the body and the blood of Christ. For Mozley this meant that: The body and blood of Christ is not a natural, but a spiritual substance. It can only therefore be eaten spiritually. To suppose that a man’s natural mouth and teeth can eat a spiritual thing would be a simple confusion of ideas. The eating of it must be wholly in the sense of, and correspond tothe nature of, the food. It is in a spiritual sense alone that a spiritual substance can be eaten. Although, then, the natural mouth and the teeth can eat the bread and wine, which is the sign of the body and blood, and the sign by which it is by divine ordinance joined, the natural organs cannot eat the body and blood of Christ, which is wholly spiritual. Only the soul or spirit of man can take in and feed upon a spiritual nutriment. Faith, therefore, as being the spiritual faculty in man, must in its own nature be the medium by which the body of Christ is eaten; and that body, though present in the Sacrament, must remain uneaten by the partaker of the Sacrament unless he has faith. Without faith it can only be eaten sacramentally, by eating the bread which is the sign or Sacrament of it.140 This passage rejects any immoderate realism in the Eucharist, denying that the body and blood of Christ is a natural substance and affirming that it is a spiritual substance. By ‘spiritual’ however, Mozley does not mean that the body and blood of Christ is not real in the Eucharist, rather he argues that the signified is joined to the sign in a real way, and that this real presence is received in a spiritual manner, not a natural manner. Faith is the medium by which the real relationship between the sign and the signified is realised. In other words the presence of Christ does not depend on the faith of the communicant since the presence exists apart from faith as an external reality. The faith of the communicant is the medium by which this presence or reality external to the mind, is known. Those who receive without faith, although they receive the bread and wine, they do not receive the power of the external spiritual reality of the body and blood of Christ, since they do not have the faith necessary to appreciate this external reality. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is an objective spiritual presence, with the sign and the signified conjoined, but faith is the medium whereby the communicant knows the objective spiritual reality. Mozley’s thinking has implications for the matter of eucharistic devotion and he addresses this in two senses. He says:

140 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

There are . . . two wholly different kinds of statements mixed together in the general language relating to the adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist. One of these kinds of statements expresses only an adoration accompanying the act of receiving, the other expresses an adoration of Him as contained in some sense in that which is received: one denotes only the worship of Christ as generally present in and at the Eucharistic rite; the other signifies a worship of Him as specially present under the species of bread and wine. Of these two kinds of statements one, as I have just said, has no real bearing upon the particular question of adoration in the Eucharist, as that phrase is understood in controversy. All Christians, of whatever church or party, would admit the adoration of our Lord in this general sense in the Eucharist, namely, that when a man partakes of the Eucharist, he does worship Christ. But this is not worshipping Him as present or in any way contained in the bread and wine.141 The body and blood in the Sacrament is not the object of the worship, but only the occasion of it. . . . There is a great difference of course between a general presence of Christ in the act of Communion, and a particular presence united to the bread and wine. Separating this general language then from that particular body of language which asserts an adoration in special connection with the material elements, we find in the first place that in all earlier language, and in the language of our own divines which represents the earlier ages, adoration is addressed to the body and blood of our Lord, and that that, and that only, is the object to which it is addressed. Our divines, indeed, when speaking of the partaking in Communion, speak of Christ simply being received, not making any distinction between the body and blood and the divinity of Christ; nor is such an extension of the res sacramenti other than natural, nor can any injurious consequence follow it, in connection with the Sacrament as spiritual food; the boundaries and limitations of mystical language are not to be accurately restricted where no practical danger can ensue. But as regards the adoration in the Eucharist, the act of adoration has been assigned specially to the body and blood of Christ as its object, that being the strict and proper res sacramenti, and not to the divinity of Christ, which is not properly or strictly the res sacramenti or united with the material elements. The whole language of antiquity establishes the body and blood as that which is in sacramental connection with the bread and wine. The divinity is not represented as placed in this sacramental union with the material elements. It is quite true indeed that wherever the body and blood of Christ are, there by strict reasoning must be the human soul and divinity of Christ; it is impossible to separate what are in their own nature united. But it must be remembered that this is a mystical subject, and that in mystical doctrine we must take the form of statement which is

141 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

given to us, and not exceed it; because if the truth is given in a certain form and measure, and with certain limits and confines, we must assume that this it is intentionally so given, and for a divine purpose. Earlier writers and our own divines then adhere cautiously and faithfully to Scripture in speaking of the body and blood of Christ as the res sacramenti in the Eucharist, and in assigning the act of adoration in the Eucharist to the body and blood. It was therefore a qualified and conditioned kind of adoration which patristic theology connected specially with the Eucharist. For the body and blood of Christ are not in themselves objects of divine adoration and worship; they only admit of a worship which is paid to them indirectly by reason of their intimate connection with that which is the object of direct adoration, namely, the divinity of Christ; they can only receive that reflected divinity which comes from the Person of Christ, and consequently only a secondary worship.142 The reverence . . .. that is paid to sacred signs and symbols, and to all objects which are associated with the divine majesty, is a worship or adoration in a secondary sense; and a fortiori may our Lord’s body and blood, as being joined not by association but by the truth of nature with His divinity, receive that worship. But the worship given specially in the Eucharist was such subordinate worship, worship paid to that which was intimately connected with the divinity, not to the divinity itself. The mind of the worshipper was necessarily carried indeed to the direct worship of the divinity of Christ, but in so doing it went out of the area and limits of the Sacrament, and worshipped the God of Gods, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, by whom all things were made. But, when later theology took up the subject of adoration in the Eucharist, it instituted a very different kind of adoration. In later theology, in the first place, the res sacramenti was not only the body and blood of Christ, but was the whole Christ, body, soul, and Godhead.143 But, the inward part of the Sacrament being thus defined, when it came to the adoration of the res sacramenti, that adoration necessarily became, not the indirect worship of what was in natural conjunction with the divinity, but the direct adoration of the Godhead itself existing under the species of bread and wine. But, without entering into the question of the criterion by which we define idolatry, or at all asserting that the worship of the true God, though under an unauthorised material form, is idolatry, we must still see that this express adoration of the Godhead, as subsisting under the visible material form of bread, holds a place very distinct from, and is divided by a great interval from, the primitive adoration of the body and blood.144

142 Ibid, pp. –. 143 Ibid, pp. –. 144 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

Mozley distinguishes between two kinds of language which have been used to refer to the worship of Christ in the Eucharist: that which occurs when a communicant partakes of the sacrament and that which occurs when a person worships Christ present in the bread and wine. Mozley is here distinguishing between a general presence of Christ (partaking) and a particular presence of Christ in the elements. Mozley further distinguishes between the worship given to the body and blood of Christ (the res sacramenti) and the divinity of Christ. In the Eucharist he contends it is the body and blood of Christ that is the object of worship and not the divinity of Christ. The divinity of Christ can only be worshipped in a secondary sense, since the body and blood of Christ is associated with the divinity of Christ. It is important to note that Mozley is not suggesting that there are two kinds of worship, but that there are two kinds of language that have been used in regard to worship in the Eucharist. It is also important to note that, in Mozley’s view, the body and blood of Christ is not the object of worship in the Eucharist, but the occasion for it. This specifically denies the particular language of adoration of the body and blood in the Eucharist in the elements, but does not deny eucharistic worship of Christ per se. This is suggestive of moderate realism, in that immoderate notions of worshipping ‘the body and blood’ are denied, and yet moderate realist notions of worshipping Christ present in the Eucharist in a real way are affirmed. The adoration of the Eucharist is therefore addressed to the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, in the general sense of partaking, but not in the particular sense of the body and blood of Christ in the elements. This is not to deny that there is sacramental connection between the body and blood of Christ and the elements (affirmed by early writers and Anglican divines states Mozley) but the divinity of Christ is not part of this sacramental connection. The adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystical subject (moderate realism) and not an object of direct worship (immoderate realism). Direct worship can only be towards the divinity of Christ and the body and blood of Christ can only receive a reflected and so secondary worship. Where direct worship of the body and blood (immoderate realism) has occurred in the Church this has meant that such worship has gone past what is in the area and limit of a sacrament (moderate realism). Confusion occurred, suggests Mozley, in later Christian theology whenthe res sacramenti came to be associated not only with the body and blood of Christ but also the divinity of Christ, meaning that eucharistic worship became direct worship of Christ (immoderate realism) and not secondary or reflected worship of Christ (moderate realism). Such direct the nineteenth century worship of the Godhead, under the species of bread and wine, Mozley sees as being far from the primitive notion of the adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. InspeakingofthesacrificeofChristintheEucharistMozleymakes the same distinction between original and secondary propitiation, as he made in discussing the direct and secondary worship of Christ in the Eucharist. He speak of eucharistic sacrifice in the following way: There are two distinct senses in which an act may be said to be propitiatory. The act of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross had an original propitiatory power, that is to say, it was the cause of any other act, or any act of man, or any rite, being propitiatory, that is, appeasing God’s anger, and reconciling Him to the agent. We may allow that in common language a man may do something which will reconcile God to him, and restore him to God’s favour; but then all the power that any action of man can have for this end is a derived power, derived from Christ’s sacrifice, from which any other sacrifice, the Eucharistic one included, borrows its virtue, and without which it would be wholly null and void. There is, then, an original propitiation and borrowed propitiation, a first propitiation and a secondary one.145 The distinction that Mozley is making here in regard to sacrifice isthat there is an historic sacrifice and a eucharistic sacrifice. The historic sacrifice is fleshy, whereas the eucharistic is not. The historic sacrifice isnot present in the Eucharist in any direct and physical manner (immoderate realism) but only in a borrowed and secondary manner (moderate realism). The virtue of the historic sacrifice is really present in the Eucharist but the actual fleshy and physical event is not. Mozley’sview is that the Church of England at the time of the Reforma- tion through its formularies and theologians returned to a more primitive view of the Eucharist which did not contain immoderate notions of realism.146 While Mozley’s thinking places great store in the work of the Reforma- tion it fails in another sense to do real justice to the distinction between thephilosophicalconceptsunderlyingoftheEucharist.Mozley’scon- ception, for example, fails to distinguish between transubstantiation as one form of moderate realism (e.g. Aquinas’ conception) and the corruptions of transubstantiation which led to immoderate realism and the notion of a fleshy presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. His criticisms seem to be limited to one theory, that of transubstantiation, rather than to

145 Ibid, pp. –. 146 Ibid, p. .  chapter four the underlying philosophical concepts of theories. He hints at the varying philosophical notions to explain eucharistic theology but does not develop these ideas. Indeed he dodges the question somewhat, siding with Hooker in the view that an understanding of the doctrine of the Eucharist is not necessary.All that is necessary, he argues, is a belief in a true participation of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. He states: Amid the various explanations of the manner in which the mystery of the Sacrament is to be expressed, the mode of change, the kind of change, the relation of the material element or sign to the inner part or thing signified, the relation of the whole Sacrament to the mind and faith of the partaker, one central truth remains, retaining which we retain the true substance of the doctrine of the Eucharist, namely that it is a true participation of the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in that Sacrament. Various degrees of importance may attach to circumstantial points, to Transubstantiation in the Romanist’s view, to Consubstantiation in the Lutheran, and different ideas may be entertained among ourselves as to the sense in which the body and blood are contained in the Sacrament, or the Sacrament transmuted into them, antecedently to the participation of the receiver. I do not by any means intend to say that upon this latter question there is not a grave truth and a grave error; but I must say with Hooker that the question does not relate to necessary belief in regard to the doctrine of the Sacrament, and that a true participation of the body and blood of Christ is the fundamental truth of the Eucharist.147 Here Mozley seems to be deliberately distancing himself from any philosophical analysis of the mode of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, even though his discussion specifically raises these points. At the same time, however, he is affirming in the strongest terms that there is, for the communicant, a true participation of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Mozley acknowledges the different positions that have been taken to explain the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, but avers from any analysis of these positions. Mozley’s work, nonetheless, is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. He affirms a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the reality of eucharistic sacrifice, whilst at the same time denying any immoderate notions of either presence or sacrifice. He affirms that the sign and the signified of the Eucharist are connected and his discussion of these matters is in a moderate realist manner.

147 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

John Mason Neale

John Mason Neale (–) was an author and hymn writer and together with Benjamin Webb, was the founder in  of the Cambridge Camden Society for the study of ecclesiastical art. In  Neale and Webb published a translation of a work by the medieval continental Bishop William Durandus (c. –) entitled The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments; A translation of the first book of the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum written by William Durandus, sometime Bishop of Mende. With an Introductory Essay, Notes and Illustrations.148 Bishop Durandus’ work was a compendium of liturgical knowledge with mystical interpretation.149 Neale and Webb’s purpose in translating and publishing this work was to explain the value and need for proper church architecture, symbols and ornaments.150 Indeed “it was Cambridge rather than Oxford, and more especially John Mason Neale, who first treated ceremonial seriously”.151 Neale displayed an inde- pendence from Oxford and the Tractarians, not because he disapproved of their teaching, but because their doctrines lacked outward expression in ceremonial.152 In the introductory essay of their translation of Durandus’ work Neale andWebbprovidedaclearapologeticforritualandsymbolisminwor- ship where “the principle for symbolism in all areas of worship is developed”153 with an emphasis upon the Medieval period. De Hart comments that Neale identified Gothic architecture: “as the paragon of Christian symbolism . . . to be viewed as much more than an aesthetically pleasing example. For Neale it was nothing short of Divine illustration of catholic teaching. Through the surpassing beauty of Gothic architecture God was vividly displaying a liturgical and theological principle. The unrivalled

148 John Neale and Benjamin Webb (eds), The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments; A translation of the first book of the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum written by William Durandus, sometime Bishop of Mende. With an Introductory Essay, Notes and Illustrations (Leeds: Green, ). 149 F. Cross and E. Livingstone (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 150 Alastair MacGrath (ed), The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (London: SPCK, ), p. . 151 Kenneth Hylson-Smith, High Churchmanship in the Church of England: From the Sixteenth Century to the Late Twentieth Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ), p. . 152 S. de Hart, The Influence of John Mason Neale and the Theology of Symbolism,PhD Dissertation, Oxford University, , p. . 153 Ibid,p..  chapter four symbolic beauty of the Medieval Church was providentially intended as a timeless principle illustrating how sacramental signs and instruments convey the grace of God.”154 It was this concern for the aesthetic that allows for an examination of Neale’s sacramental theology. This “higher principle behind symbolism Neale described as Sacramentality. Symbolism and ritual were established according to the providence of God for the purpose of elevating ordinary objects and human actions beyond their common use and thereby enabling them to serve a higher purpose”.155 Neale and Webb make this specific connection with the Eucharist when they say: “Indeed, almosteverygreatdoctrinehadbeensymbolisedataveryearlyperiodof Christianity. The resurrection was set forth in the Phoenix, rising immortal from its ashes: the meritorious Passion of our Saviour, by the Pelican, feeding its young with is own blood: the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, by grapes and wheat ears, or again by the blood flowing from the heart and feet of the Wounded Lamb into a chalice beneath.”156 Sacraments are proof of the principle of symbolism and ritual such that “the sacraments are in reality not only signs of things unseen, but channels and instruments of God’s grace”.157 Sacramentality therefore means that “we mean to convey the idea that, by the outward and visible form, is signified something inward and spiritual: that the material fabrick symbolises, embodies, figures, represents, expresses, answers to, some abstract meaning”158 such that “everything material is symbolical of some mental process, of which it is indeed only the development”.159 Sacramentality has a realist philosophical base, expressed here where there is a linking between the outward sign and the inward signified spiritual meaning and where the material sign conveys the spiritual grace. Neale and Webb argue that: If it be granted that there is this mutual connexion between the abstract and its material exhibition in every case, it will be readily admitted that a principle of Sacramentality must be especially a condition of all religious acts. If we were merely spirits, without bodies or any necessary connexion with matter, it would be possible perhaps for us to worship the Great

154 Ibid,p.. 155 Ibid,p.. 156 Neale and Webb, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments, p. xxxv. 157 de Hart, The Influence of John Mason Neale and the Theology of Symbolism,p.. 158 Neale and Webb, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments,p.xxvi. 159 Ibid,p.li. the nineteenth century

Spirit in an abstract way by a sort of volition of devotion; but not being so, our souls cannot engage in adoration without the company of their material home. Hence every effort of devotion is attended by some bodily act. Whenever we lift our eyes to heaven, or kneel in prayer, we shew forth this necessity of our being: our body has sinned, has been redeemed, will be punished or glorified, no less than the soul: it must therefore worship with the soul. . . . It has been felt not only right but necessary, in all ages and places to accompany the inward feeling of devotion with some outward manifestation of it.160 Realism is inherent here in the connection made between matter and the spiritual, between sign and signified. What was outwardly obvious in architecture and use of matter had behind it and expressed by it, a much deeper theological significance. As Rowell observes, “Church architecture spoke sacramentally of a Catholic theology”.161 This deeper theological significance, which Neale embraced, was essentially a view of sacramentality dependent on realism. This view of sacramentality was inherent in Neale’s work of , later republished in the early twentieth century, entitled Hierurgia Angli- cana,162 which dealt with many of the rites, usages and ceremonies of the Church of England which had fallen into disuse following the early years of the Reformation. These rites and usages were considered not to possess power in themselves, but to be signs of a deeper reality. Neale argued that the people: “may be taught the Real Presence of their Saviour in that ordinance [i.e. the Holy Communion]: but how are they to believe it, when they see the altar itself and its furniture such as no man would presume to set before an earthly superior: when month after month they behold the miserable deal table (loaded, except on Sunday, with hassocks), the ragged linen cloth, the battered pewter vessels, and the black bottle?”.163 Neale’s view was that the outward signs had deeper meaning and that so used those who partook of the mystery and those who administered it would: “consider that Mystery as something apart from, and higher than, the other offices of the Church. We do not say that a golden chalice and

160 Ibid, p. lii. 161 Geoffrey Rowell, The Vision Glorious: Themes and Personalities of the Catholic Revival in Anglicanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), p. . 162 John Neale, Hierurgia Anglicana (ed. V. Staley) ( Volumes) (London: The De La More Press, ,  and ). 163 Ibid, I, xxiv.  chapter four paten will of themselves lead any one to realise the awfulness of ‘verily and indeed taking and receiving’ the Body and Blood of his Saviour; but it will at least teach him that those who have provided them consider that Bread and that Wine as worthy of all reverence.”164 In speaking of the rites and usages there is a linking of sign and signified in the Eucharist. The signs of bread and wine are said to beas worthy of all reverence as the body and blood of Christ are also worthy of reverence. Neale is expressing a moderate realist view of the celebration of the Eucharist, where material things (bread and wine) are seen to be linked with the signified body and blood of Christ in such a way that the bread and wine instantiate the signified body and blood of Christ. This belief in a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is also affirmed by Neale’s eucharistic devotions. In the late ’s for example, as part of the practice of the Society of St Margaret, an Anglican sisterhood established by Neale, a pix and a tabernacle were obtained by Neale and installed in the oratory with instructions to the sisters that they should visit the Blessed Sacrament daily so that they could be near to the sacramental presence of Christ.165 It was Neale’s view that Christ was present in the bread and wine and that by being in proximity to the bread and wine, a person was also in proximity to the body and blood of Christ as a sacramental but not natural presence Neale’s eucharistic theology was based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism. He linked the signs of the Eucharist with the signified body and blood of Christ, however he distinguished this presence as a ‘sacramental’ presence. There was no suggestion of an immoderate realist presence, but rather that of a moderate realist presence in the form of a sacramental presence. Neale’s moderate realism saw the material elements as vehicles or channels of God’s grace delivered in the sacraments through the linking of the signified with the sacramental signs.

164 Ibid, I, xxiv. 165 Rowell, The Vision Glorious, pp. –. the nineteenth century

John HenryNewman

John Henry Newman (–) was an academic and early Tractarian. His Anglican thinking on the Eucharist will be examined in this case study up until  when he left the Church of England and became a Roman Catholic. As early as , just three months before Keble’s famous sermon entitled National Apostasy,166 seen as the beginning of the Oxford Move- ment, Newman preached a sermon in the Ambassador’schapel in Naples, which not only indicated that he, like Keble, was concerned for the future of the Church, but also showed his understanding of the sacraments in general. Newman saw the danger for the Church as not coming from outside, but from within. “The sad truth”, he said is that there are “persons who think that Christianity will flourish more, when the Church is removed”.167 Hardelin observes that what Newman was complaining about was the type of ‘spiritual’ religion which has no place for the outward forms or rules. Newman characterised these people as “believers indeed in Christianity, except that they do not see the use of outward rites, and devotional acts” which Newman saw as “the channel of invisible gifts to our souls”.168 Newman saw the sacraments, as outward rites and devotional acts, and as such, channels of invisible gifts to the soul (a realistconcept)andnotjustpartofapurelyspiritualreligion.Inspeaking of those who like Bishop Hoadly169 adopted a Zwinglian doctrine of the Eucharist (a nominalist concept), Newman characterised them as having “no notion of a real Presence”. 170 Newman also recommends Bishop Cosin171 as having a “true view”172 in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Newman also seems to distinguish between a moderate realist view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and an immoderate

166 John Keble, National Apostasy Considered in A Sermon preached in St Mary’s, Oxford before His Majesty’s Judges of Assize on Sunday, July ,  (Oxford: Parker, ). 167 John Newman, Sermon , p. , cited in Alf Hardelin, The Tractarian Understand- ing of the Eucharist (Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, ), p. . 168 Ibid, pp. –. 169 See separate case study in Chapter  of this volume. 170 John Newman, Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman during his Life in the English Church (ed. A. Mozley) ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 171 See separate case study in Chapter . 172 Newman, Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman during his Life in the English Church, II, p. .  chapter four realistviewofthatpresence(althoughhedoesnotusetheseterms).In replying to Froude’s criticism of Newman’s decision to publish Bishop Cosin’s History of Popish Transubstantiation,Newmanstatesthat,“surely no member of the Church of England is in any danger of overrating the miracle of the Eucharist”.173 By overrating the miracle, an immoderate realist view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is implied. Newman rejects such an overrated view. His accepted realist view is in based on moderate realist assumptions. In a sermon entitled Christ Hidden from the World174 Newman speaks of the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist, on the table. He says: “WhenHewasbornintotheworld,theworldknewitnot.Hewaslaidin a rude manger, among the cattle, but ‘all the Angels of God worshipped Him.’ Now too He is present upon a table, homely perhaps in make, and dishonoured in its circumstances; and faith adores, but the world passes by.”175 As Christ was born into the world and is present, so he is also found in the Eucharist and present. It is this presence ‘on the table’ that faith adores and it is this presence that those who do not recognise him, ignore.ThepresenceofChristisspokenofhereinamoderaterealist fashion, where the presence on the table is identified with the signified body and blood of Christ. In a sermon entitled The Eucharistic Presence176 Newman in discussing the sixth chapter of St John’s Gospel argues that there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He says: The text speaks of the greatest and highest of all the Sacramental mysteries, which faith has been vouchsafed, that of Holy Communion. Christ, who died and rose again for us, is in it spiritually present, in the fullness of His death and of His resurrection. We call His presence in this Holy Sacrament a spiritual presence, not as if ‘spiritual’ were but a name or mode of speech, and He were really absent, but by way of expressing that He who is present there can neither be seen nor heard; that He cannot be approached or ascertained by any of the senses; that He is not present in place, that He is not present carnally, though He is really present. And how this is, of course is a mystery. All that we know or need know is that He is given to us, and that in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.177

173 Ibid, II, p. . 174 JohnNewman,‘ChristHiddenfromtheWorld’,SermonXVI,inParochial and Plain Sermons ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), IV, pp. –. 175 Ibid, pp. –. 176 John Newman, ‘The Eucharistic Presence’, Sermon XI, in Parochial and Plain Ser- mons ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), VI, pp. –. 177 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

The Eucharist is described as being of great importance. It is the most important of the sacramental mysteries and in it Christ is seen to be spiritually present, not only in the power of his death but also in the power of his resurrection. Newman is careful to speak of ‘spiritual’ as being more than a name only for someone who is absent. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not a physical presence, where he can be seen or heard or a presence of place, nor is it a carnal presence, but it is however, a real presence. The way in which this real presence comes about remains mysterious, but Newman is certain that Christ is really received. Although he speaks of a real presence ‘in’ the sacrament, he does not specifically link sign with signified at this point. Newman goes on however, to make a clearer identification of sign with signified, saying: The bearing, then, of our Lord’s sacred words would seem to be as follows, if one may venture to investigate it. At Capernaum, in the chapter now before us [John ], He solemnly declares to His Apostles that none shall live for ever, but such as eat and drink His flesh and blood; and then afterwards, just before He was crucified, as related in the other three Gospels, He points out to them the way in which this mystery of grace was to be fulfilled in them. He assigns the consecrated Bread as that Body of which He had spoken, and the consecrated Wine as His Blood; and in partaking of the Bread and the Cup, they were partakers of His Body and Blood.178 Here then is a specific identification of bread with body and wine with blood, such that those who partake of the bread and wine also partake of the body and blood of Christ. This is indicative of a moderate realist view, where sign and signified are identified with one another. In the Eucharist there is a definite gift given and received. Newman explains this saying: “it requires no proof at all how great is the gift in that Sacrament. If this chapter does allude to it, then the very words ‘Flesh and Blood’ show it. Nor do they show it at all the less, if we do not know what they precisely mean; for on the face of the matter they evidently mean something very high, so high that therefore we cannot comprehend it.”179 Newman rejects transubstantiation and any view which suggests that there is a corporal presence of the gift in the Eucharist. Immoderate realismseemstohavenopartinNewman’stheologyoftheEucharist. It is clear though that he also rejects any figurative sense of the presence

178 Ibid, p. . 179 Ibid, p. .  chapter four of Christ in the Eucharist. Quoting from John  he argues: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed’. About these words I observe, first, that they evidently declare on the face of them some very great mystery. How can they be otherwise taken? If they do not, they must be a figurative way of declaring something which is not mysterious, but plain and intelligible.”180 The mysterious nature of the words suggests to Newman a presence in the Eucharist which is more than figurative. The sense of Jesus’ words is taken to be that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is more than a figure. How then are the words to be interpreted? Newman answers as follows, saying: Are they without a real object, and the mere consequence of a general mistake on all hands, of what Christ meant as imagery, for literal truth? Surely this is very improbable. Persons there are who explain our eating Christ’s flesh and blood, as merely meaning our receiving a pledge of the effects of the passion of His Body and Blood; that is, in other words, of the favour of Almighty God: but how can Christ’s giving us His Body and Blood mean merely His giving us a pledge of His favour? Surely these awful words are far too clear and precise to be thus carelessly treated. Christ, as I have said, surely would not use such definite terms, did He intend to convey an idea so far removed from their meaning and so easy of expression in simple language.181 For Newman the words of Christ recorded in John  refer to a real object. They are not merely pledges and tokens to put people in mind of apast event. The Eucharist: “is what our Lord says it is, the gift of Hisown precious Body and Blood, really given, taken, and eaten as the manna might be (though in a way unknown), at a certain particular time, and a certain particular spot; namely, as I have already made it evident, at the time and spot when and where the Holy Communion is celebrated.”182 The body and blood of Christ is here linked with a particular spot and time, that is the spot and time when the Eucharist is celebrated. The Eucharist is the time and place where Christ “vouchsafes to us His

180 Ibid, pp. –. 181 Ibid, pp. –. 182 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century flesh, and that the Holy Communion is a high and heavenly means of giving it”.183 It is not faith but the Eucharist which is the means of giving the body and blood of Christ. This is distancing Newman’s view from any receptionist doctrine and suggesting a realist interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This moderate realist theology is developed as Newman links the Eucharist with the incarnation, saying: Let us pray Him then to give us such a real and living insight into the blesseddoctrineoftheIncarnationoftheSonofGod,ofHisbirthofa Virgin, His atoning death, and resurrection, that we may desire that the Holy Communion may be the effectual type of that gracious Economy. No one realizes the Mystery of the Incarnation but must feel disposed towards that of Holy Communion. Let us pray Him to give us an earnest longing after Him—a thirst for His presence—an anxiety to find Him—a joy on hearing that He is to be found, even now, under the veil of sensible things,—and a good hope that we shall find Him there.184 The wording here is strongly realist, since Newman argues that Christ is to be found ‘under the veil of sensible things’. The body and blood of Christ is ‘under the veil’ of bread and wine. The presence of Christ in the elements is said to be a type of the incarnation. As Christ was present in the person of Jesus, so Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist. As the nature of Christ was instantiated in the person of Jesus, so the nature of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, not in a corporal or immoderate fashion, but in a real and moderate fashion. This moderate realist interpretation is not designed to lessen the role of faith, since Newman also argues that those who partake of the Eucharist “have their reward in believing”.185 It seems that the moderate realist model of the Eucharist which Newman puts forward does not exclude or lessen the role of faith, and at the same time, the role of faith, does not exclude or lessen the objective real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. In another sermon entitled Attendance at Holy Communion186 New- man links the presence of Christ with the elements of the Eucharist. He says: “He has shown us, that to come to Him for life is a literal bodily action; not a mere figure, not a mere movement of the heart towards Him,

183 Ibid, p. . 184 Ibid, p. . 185 Ibid, p. . 186 John Newman, ‘Attendance on Holy Communion’, Sermon XI, in Parochial and Plain Sermons ( Volumes) (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), VII, pp. –.  chapter four but an action of the visible limbs; not a mere secret faith, but a coming to church, a passing on along the aisle to His holy table, a kneeling down there before Him, and a receiving of the gift of eternal life in the form of bread and wine.”187 The action of receiving the elements in the Eucharist is no mere figure but a literal bodily action where the gift of life is communicated. This bodily action is not just a subjective response of faith, but a physical moving towards Christ, present on the holy table in the form of bread and wine. He confirms this presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying: “What is the good of sitting at home seeking Him, when His Presence is in the holy Eucharist?”.188 The nature of this presence is explained in the linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ. Newman argues that Jesus: “says of the bread which He had broken, ‘This is My Body’; and of the cup, ‘This is My Blood’; is it not very plain, then, that if we refuse to eat that Bread, and drink that Cup, we are refusing to come unto Him that we may have life?”. The signs (this)are linked with the signified in a moderate realist fashion. A fuller treatment of the Eucharist is to be found in Newman’s famous Tract . Tract , published in  was one of the series entitled Tracts for the Times, circulated between  and . The full name of Tract  was Remarks On Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles,189 and in this Tract Newman sought to show that there was no inconsistency between the Church of England’s The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Catholic faith as expressed by the Council of Trent.190 Indeed Newman sought in this tract “to take our reformed confessions [The Thirty-Nine Articles] in the most Catholic sense they will admit” and asserted that, “In giving the Articles a Catholic interpretation, we bring them into harmony with the Book of Common Prayer”.191 The publication of Tract  met with considerable opposition from those who saw it as a betrayal of the doctrine of the Church of England and a futile attempt to reconcile the theology of the Church of England with that of the Church of Rome.192 Despite the fierce opposition to Tract , it nonetheless gives

187 Ibid, p. . 188 Ibid, p. . 189 John Newman, Tracts for the Times No. . Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), pp. –. 190 Ibid,p.. 191 Ibid,p.. 192 See examples of the fierce opposition to Tract  published as Certain Documents Connected with Tracts for the Times, No.  (Oxford: Baxter, ), pp. –. the nineteenth century much information in regard to Newman’s theology of the Eucharist and this will be used in this case study to outline Newman’s later Anglican views. In his discussion of Article XXVIII (which speaks of transubstantiation) Newman begins by rejecting any view which teaches that the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist in any way other than a heavenly or spiritual way. Newman rejects the view that Christ’s body: “is a body or substance of a certain extension and bulk in space, and a certain fig- ureandduedispositionofparts”.193 Instead Newman holds “that the only substance such, is the bread which we see”.194 Thisisarejectionof immoderate realism. Christ cannot be present in the Eucharist in any carnal manner. In interpreting the use of the word ‘transubstantiation’ in Article XXVIII Newman argues that the rejection of the word in the article does not also mean the necessary rejection of all means of Christ’s presence in theEucharist.Hesays: We see then, that, by transubstantiation, our Article does not confine itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at any definition of the word substance, nor in rejecting it, rejects a word, nor in denying a ‘mutatio panis et vini’, is denying every kind of change, but opposes itself to a certain plain and unambiguous statement, not of this or that council, but one generally received or taught both in the schools and in the multitude, that the material elements are changed into any earthly, fleshly, and organized body, extended in size, distinct in its parts, which is there where the outward appearances of bread and wine are, and only does not meet the senses, nor even that always.195 The type of change in the bread and wine that is implied by transubstantiation (i.e. a change in the substance of the bread and wine with the accidents remaining) is rejected by Newman and by Article XXVIII inhisview.Thishowever,doesnotmeanthatchangeinthebreadand wine of the Eucharist is rejected completely. All that can be said, argues Newman, is that change in the elements in the form described as transubstantiation, is rejected. Newman is less critical of the terminology used and more critical of the specific abstract theory, known as transubstanti- ationandtaughtbytheChurchofRome,sincehesaysthat:“Objections

193 Newman, Tracts for the Times No. . Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles,p.. 194 Ibid,p.. 195 Ibid,p..  chapter four against ‘substance’,‘nature’,‘change’,‘accidents’,and the like, seem more or less questions of words, and inadequate expressions of the great offence which we find in the received Roman view of this sacred doctrine.”196 Newman rejects immoderate realism, seemingly understood as transubstantiation, but not the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He asks the question, “How can there be any presence,yetnotlocal?”.197 The answer to this question, Newman suggests, lies not in Scripture, but in philosophy. He argues this on the basis of the wording of Article XXVIII in the following way: That there is a real presence, Scripture asserts, and the Homilies, Cate- chism, and Communion Service confess; but the explanation before us adds, that it is philosophically impossible that it should be a particular kind of presence, a presence of which one can say ‘it is here’, or which is ‘local’. ...Thetruthis,wedonotatallknowwhatismeantbydistanceorintervals absolutely, any more than we know what is meant by absolute time. . . . It is equally difficult to determine what we mean by distance, or why we should notbeatthismomentclosetothethroneofGod,thoughweseemfarfrom it. Our measure of distance is our hand or our foot; but as an object a foot is not called distant, though the interval is indefinitely divisible; neither need it be distant either, after it has been multiplied indefinitely. Why should any conventional measure of ours—why should the perception of our eyes or our ears, be the standard of presence or distance? Christ may really be close to us, though in heaven, and His presence in the Sacrament may but be a manifestation to the worshipper of that nearness, not a change of place, which may be unnecessary.198 Newman’s argument here rejects any simplistic concept of presence restricted by a measured or physical distance. The fact that Christ is present in the Eucharist is not dependent on some conventional measure of distance from heaven or by some change of place, such that the body and blood of Christ physically comes down from heaven through a change of place (i.e. physically moving from heaven to earth). The body andbloodofChrist,thoughinheaven,mayalsobeintheSacrament, near to the worshipper, but not present in the sense of physical place, physical distance or physical change of place. Newman’s conception of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not restricted by empirical or physical concepts, but at the same time it is none the less real. He clarifies this by saying that: “the Body of Christ is not locally present, in the sense

196 Ibid,p.. 197 Ibid,p.. 198 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century in which we speak of the bread as being locally present. . . . [But] the Body of Christ is in a mysterious way, if not locally,yetreally present, so that we are able after some ineffable manner to receive It. Whereas, the objection stands, ‘Christ is not really here, because He is not locally here’, our formularies answer, ‘He is really here, yet not locally’.”199 The distinction between ‘real’ but not ‘local’ is a crucial one. For Newman presence “of a thing is a relative word, depending, in a popular sense of it, upon the channels of communication between it and him to whom it is present; and thus it is a word of degree”.200 Thisishis definition of presence as it relates to a thing or material object. For Newman however, the conception of presence is very different when “the presence of spirit with spirit”201 is the matter under discussion. For Newman the most intimate presence is that of a spiritual presence in the soul, since this form of presence is nearer than any material object can ever be, since there are natural bounds to the body’s ability to know the presence of an object—distance for example. These bounds, Newman argues, do not apply to a spiritual presence, which is “of a more perfect and simple character than any presence we commonly call local. [Such] presence has nothing to do with the degree of nearness”.202 Aspiritual presence does not require “a transit through space” nor does it exist in space, although the incarnate Son does.203 The mystery related to the Lord then is: He has a body,andthatspiritual. He is in place; and yet, as being a Spirit, His mode of approach—the mode in which He makes Himself present here or there—may be, for what we know, as different from the mode in which material bodies approach and come, as a spiritual body is more perfect. As material bodies approach by moving from place to place, so the approach and presence of a spiritual body may be in some other way,—probably is in some other way, since in some other way (as it would appear), not gradual, progressive, approximating, that is, locomotive, but at once, spirits become present,—may be such as to be consistent with His remaining at God’s right hand while He becomes present here,—that is, it may be real yet not local, or, in a word, is mysterious. The Body and Blood of Christ may be really, literally present in the holy Eucharist, yet not having become present by local passage, may still literally and really be on God’s right hand; so that,

199 Ibid,p.. 200 Ibid,p.. 201 Ibid,p.. 202 Ibid,p.. 203 Ibid,p..  chapter four

though they be present in deed and truth, it may be impossible, it may be untrue to say, that they are literally in the elements, or about them, or in the soul of the receiver. These may be useful modes of speech according to the occasion; but the true determination of all such questions may be this, that Christ’s Body and Blood are locally at God’s right hand, yet really present here,—present here, but not here in place,—because they are spirit.204 For Newman there is a real presence in the Eucharist, not a local presence, but a real presence none the less. The presence of Christ’sbody and blood in heaven is distinguished from any real presence in the Eucharist. They arenotthesamesortofpresence.One(inheaven)isapresenceaccording to place, the other (on earth in the Eucharist) is a presence according to spirit. Newman’s language here is that of moderate realism, where the signified (the body and blood of Christ) is said to be present in the sign (the Eucharist). He speaks of this more specifically, saying: “this is what the Catholic Church seems to hold concerning the Lord’s Presence in the Sacrament, that He then personally and bodily is with us in the way an object is which we call present: how He is so, we know not, but that He should be so, though He be millions of miles away.”205 The mode of this presence Newman suggests may be something in addition to the five senses, perhaps a dormant energy, capable of having Christ present to it. This mystery shows that God has opened the heavens in the sacramental rite, dispensing with time and space and yet making Christ present in a real way.206 This occurs, argues Newman: “by the agency of the Holy Ghost, in and by the Sacrament. Locomotion is the means of a material presence; the Sacrament is the means of His spiritual presence. As faith is the means of our receiving It, so the Holy Ghost is the Agent and the Sacrament is the means of His imparting It; and therefore we call It a Sacramental Presence. We kneel before His heavenly throne, and the distance is as nothing; it is as if that Throne were the Altar close to us.”207 Here then is a more specific and developed realism in relation to the Eucharist. The signified is identified with the sign and not with faith alone. Faith is the means of receiving the signified, however the signified is present in the Eucharist by the agency of the Holy Spirit. There is something objective implied about the presence, since it does not depend

204 Ibid, pp. –. 205 Ibid,p.. 206 Ibid,p.. 207 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century on faith alone, but is a sacramental presence brought about by the power of the Spirit. The throne of God and the presence of Christ are identified with the altar in the church and the presence of Christ there. On the basis of previous discussion, Newman is not implying any immoderate realist presence. The realism of which he speaks here is that of the moderate degree. This he confirms in his conclusion to the discussion onArticleXXVIIIwhenhesaysinanswertothosewhoquestionthe real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: “Let them but believe and act on the truth that the consecrated bread is Christ’s Body, as He says, and no officious comment on His words will be attempted by any well- judging mind.”208 Here again Newman affirms a moderate realism, since the sign (the bread) is identified with the signified (Christ’s body). The words of Christ in instituting the sacrament are seen to state this and the consecration by the priest in the Eucharist is seen to be the distinguishing factor which causes the bread to be the body of Christ. Newman also discusses Article XXXI in Tract , under the heading of ‘Masses’. Article XXXI argued against the sacrifices of Masses, stating that the belief that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead in theEucharistwasablasphemousfableanddangerousdeceit.Newman is quick to distance himself from such a blanket condemnation, stating that: Nothing can show more clearly than this passage that the Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken into its system or not. Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced; but ‘the sacrifice of Masses’, certain observances, for the most part private and solitary, which the writers of the Articles knew to have been in force in time past, and saw before their eyes, and which involved certain opinions and certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, ‘in which it was commonly said’; which surely is a strictly historical mode of speaking.209 What Newman is arguing here is that while the article rejects the idea of ‘the sacrifices of Masses’, it does not reject the idea of ‘the sacrifice of the Mass’.This distinction, between ‘masses’ and ‘mass’,suggests that any immoderate realist notion of a re-iteration of the sacrifice of Christ in the ‘masses’, where there is sacrifice for sin other than Christ’s death, is

208 Ibid,p.. 209 Ibid,p..  chapter four rejected, but that the moderate realist notion of eucharistic sacrifice in the ‘mass’ (anamnesis orthedynamicsenseofmemorialremembrance) is not rejected. It also suggests that the idea of eucharistic sacrifice in the ‘mass’ is an ancient concept, entirely consistent with the doctrine and formularies of the Church of England, but that ‘the sacrifices of Masses’ is not ancient, is not consistent with the Church of England and is only an opinion and teaching of some within the Church of Rome. Newman is willing to acknowledge in his conclusion to Tract  that the authors of the Articles may not have taken the meaning that Newman proposes, however he states that: Anglo-Catholics then are but the successors and representatives of those moderate reformers; and their case has been directly anticipated in the wording of the Articles. It follows then that they are not perverting, they are using them, for an express purpose for which among others their authors framed them. The interpretation they take was intended to be admissible; though not that which their authors took themselves. Had it not been provided for, possibly the Articles never would have been accepted by our Church at all. If, then, their framers have gained their side of the compact in effecting the reception of the Articles, let Catholics have theirs too in retaining their own Catholic interpretation of them.210 Whether or not Newman’s analysis of the intentions of the framers of The Thirty-Nine Articles can be sustained, remains difficult to determine, however, his analysis does point to the possibility of different interpretations for the Articles. In effect what Newman is proposing is quite consistent with the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism and atthesametimeheisacknowledgingamultiformityofphilosophical assumptions within the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Newman’s theology of the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism, where the sign and the signified are linked in relation to eucharistic presence and sacrifice.

210 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

Francis Paget

Francis Paget (–) was the Bishop of Oxford and contributed a chapter entitled Sacraments211 to the work edited by Charles Gore and published in  under the title of Lux Mundi.212 Lux Mundi was a series of studies in the religion of the incarnation and its purpose was to examine the Catholic faith in relation to modern intellectual and moral problems. Paget in his study argued for the sacramental system and the idea that God used ‘sensible’ objects, agents and acts as instruments of divine energy. The sacramentality expressed by Paget is based on moderate realism. Signs are the means and instruments by which divine power is given to people. These signs are material objects which communicate the signified to the human senses. The signified is unseen but the sign is seen as an outward implement for the delivery of the signified.213 This linking between the sign and the signified is further explained in Paget’s discussion of what he sees as the twofold nature of life which is a union of the spiritual and bodily or material.214 The union of the bodily and the spiritual is important for the sacramentality being advanced by Paget. The sacraments cannot be wholly spiritual, but rather a combination of the material and the spiritual. The pattern for this linking between the material and the spiritual is to be found in the incarnation since Paget argues that: “when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, He took up the lines of a history replete with forecasts of the consecration of material things” such that the Church “seemed indeed irrevocably and essentially committed to the principle that when man is brought near to God it is with the entirety of his manhood: that God is to be glorified alike in the body and the spirit”.215 This unity of the spiritual and the material is also reflected inthe life of Christ since: “our Lord Himself by repeated acts sustained and emphasised this acceptance of the visible as the organ or vehicle of the Divine. His blessing was given by the visible laying on of hands, and His miracles were wrought not by the bare silent energy of His Almighty will,

211 Frances Paget, ‘Sacraments’,in Lux Mundi. A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation (ed. Charles Gore) (London: Murray, ), pp. –. 212 Charles Gore (ed), Lux Mundi. A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation (London: Murray, ). 213 Paget, ‘Sacraments’,pp. –. 214 Ibid, p. . 215 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four not even in many cases by the mere utterance of His word, but through the employment of acts or objects, impressive to the bodily element in man, and declaring the consecration of the material for the work of God.”216 For Paget, this example of Christ, shows that there is “no disparage- ment of the body” and “no unreal abstraction would be demanded, and no part of humanity be disinherited” and that “this great hope is greeted in the Sacramental system”.217 Further Paget argues “that that system has been from the beginning an integral part of Christianity”.218 For Paget God acts in the world through the world, using the material of the world to complete God’s work. This principle, Paget suggests, is in the nature of God’s plan for redemption and in the renewing of the world through the Spirit. God does not reject the material, but embraces it in what Paget describes as the sacramental system. His analysis is based on moderate realism. When Paget speaks specifically of Baptism and the Eucharist he states that there is an “especial fitness of the very elements thus chosen from the material world to be the vehicles of saving grace:—for the water and thebreadandwinearecalledtotheirplaceintheDivineworkwith deep and far-reaching associations already belonging to them”.219 This means that there is “sacramental participation in the atoning sacrifice of Christ”220 where: “material and visible means are thus hallowed to effect the work of God, to bear His unseen grace. For it must not be thought that in this Sacramental union of the visible and the invisible we have only an interesting parallel to the twofold nature of man, a neat and curious symmetry, a striking bit of symbolism and accommodation.”.221 The linking between the sign and the signified is much more than this. Paget describes it by saying that: “its surpassing glory is in its primary essential character, as the regular employment of visible means for the achievement of Divine mysteries. For thus our whole estimate of this world is affected. Its simplest objects have their kindred, as it were, in the court, in the very presence chamber of the Most High; and actions such as we see in it day after day have been advanced to a supreme distinction.”222

216 Ibid, p. . 217 Ibid, p. . 218 Ibid, p. . 219 Ibid, pp. –. 220 Ibid, p. . 221 Ibid, p. . 222 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

For Paget there is an “invasion and penetration of the material by the spiritual” and this is “the very ground of all our hope for the redemption of the body”,223 such that “His word of power even now goes forth towards this work, and in the Holy Eucharist has its efficacy throughout our whole nature” where “the ministry of Sacraments is a perpetual prophecy of the glory that shall be revealed in us”.224 Paget’s realism is not restricted to the past being effective in the present, but extends to the eschatological dimension as well. In the sacraments there is a glimpse of the future glory that will be known.225 Paget distances himself from any view of the sacraments which sees the efficacy of the sacrament dependent on individual moments of feeling or experience. He looks instead to something beyond the human moment and its knowing to something more universal which God, in God’s wisdom and plan, has identities with or is instantiated by particular material objects and acts. The universal reality therefore is known within and by the particular material experience of things and in time. This is an expression of a moderate realist philosophy underpinning the work of God in general and the particular work of God in the sacraments, including the Eucharist. There are no suggestions that material things are in some way eliminated or that Christ’s sacrifice is repeated or added to the Eucharist, rather it is that the universal nature of God’s work in creation and in Christ, is expressed in the particular material objects that God chooses to use in both the incarnation and in the sacraments.

223 Ibid, p. . 224 Ibid, p. . 225 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

William Palmer

William Palmer (–) was a Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, who was associated with the Tractarians at the beginning of the Oxford Movement. He later came into conflict with Newman and Froude and was seen by Pusey to have a different spirit from himself and from the Tractarians in general.226 Palmer published in  a work entitled ATreatiseontheChurchof Christ.227 In this work he makes reference to the Eucharist, arguing that the Church of England in The Thirty-Nine Articles: “in denying Transub- stantiation does not condemn absolutely all change of substance in any sense, but the particular change called by the Romanists Transubstantia- tion, which supposes the bread to cease to exist.”228 Palmer’s point here seems to be that the Articles deny only the doctrine of transubstantiation but not the idea of change of substance per se, as based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions. He also states that even though the Church of England denies the doctrine of transubstantiation, “it is not opposed to the real, spiritual, and heavenly presence of Christ’s body”.229 In Palmer’s view the Catholic and Apostolic Church: TakingasherimmovablefoundationthewordsofJesusChrist,‘ThisisMy body...ThisisMybloodofthenewcovenant’,and‘WhosoeatethMyflesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life’,she believes that the body, or flesh, and the blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Redeemer of the world, both God and Man united indivisibly in one Person, are verily and indeed given to, taken, eaten, and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper under the outward sign or form of bread (and wine), which is on this account the ‘partaking or Communion of the body and blood of Christ’. She believes that the Eucharist is not the sign of an absent body, but the reality itself. And, as Christ’s divine and human natures are inseparably united, so she believes that we receive in the Eucharist, not only the flesh and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, both God and Man. Resting on these words, ‘The bread which we break, is it not the Commu- nion of the body of Christ?’ and again, ‘I will not drink henceforth of this

226 Alf Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist (Uppsala: Acta Univer- sitatis Upsaliensis, ), p. . 227 William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ: designed chiefly for the use of students in theology ( Volumes) (London: Rivington, ). 228 Ibid, I, pp. –. 229 Ibid, I, p. . the nineteenth century

fruit of the vine’, she holds that the nature of the bread and wine continues after consecration, and therefore rejects Transubstantiation, or ‘the change of the substance’ which supposes the nature of bread entirely to cease by consecration. As a necessary consequence of the preceding truths, and admonished by Christ Himself, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life’, she holds that the presence (and therefore the eating) of Christ’s body and blood, which is inexplicable by any carnal or earthly experience or imagination, even as the Sonship of the eternal Word of God, and His Incarnation, and the procession of the Holy Spirit are immeasurable by human understandings. Believing, according to the Scriptures, that Christ ascended in His natural body into heaven, and shall only come from thence at the end of the world, she rejects for this reason, as well as for the last, any such real presence of Christ’s body and blood as is ‘corporal’ or organical, that is, according to the known and the earthly mode of the existence of a body. Following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Apostles, and supported by their authority, she believes that ‘the blessing’ or ‘consecration’ of the bread and wine is not without effect, but that it operates a real change; for, when the Sacrament is thus perfected, she regards it as so ‘divine a thing’,so ‘heavenly a food’ that we must not ‘presume’ to approach it with unprepared minds, and that sinners, although they only partake of the bread and wine, partake of them to their own condemnation, because they impiously disregard the Lord’s body, which is truly present in the Sacrament. Our doctrine leaves this subject in the sacred mystery with which God has enveloped it. It is not to be denied that the Roman doctrine of Transub- stantiation facilitates the mental conception of that mystery; but it has the fatal defect of being opposed to the plain language of Scripture.230 Transubstantiation for Palmer, although it ‘facilitates the mental conception’ of the mystery of the Eucharist is what he describes as an attempt to define the mystery too minutely. Palmer recognises the doctrine of transubstantiation as a legitimate philosophical system, with a worth that enables people to understand something of the mystery of the Eucharist, but rejects it according to Scripture. He rejects the particular philosophical position known as transubstantiation but not the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, nor it seems philosophical systems entirely. The Church of England, Palmer argues, echoing the words of Lancelot

230 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

Andrewes231 in his debate with Bellarmine, has not attempted to define thenatureofthepresenceofChristintheEucharisttooclosely.Palmer does, however, state that following the ‘blessing’ and the ‘consecration’, there is a real effect which can be described as a real change from an earthy to a heavenly or divine thing. It is in this sense of a philosophical assumption based on the notion of moderate realism that Palmer can argue for a change in substance, but this is in no way transubstantiation as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Palmer’s attempt at definition rests on what he can find in Scripture and here he relies on the hypostatical union of the human and the divine in the person of Jesus Christ. As the human and the divine are united in the person of Jesus Christ, so the body and blood of Christ is united with the elements of the Eucharist. This linking of the sign with the signified is on the basis of a realist philosophy. Despite the immoderate realist sounding words at times, such as, “we receive in the Eucharist, not merely the flesh and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, in the unity of his person”,232 there is no immoderate sense implied here. The receiving of ‘the flesh and blood’ does not mean for Palmer the literal flesh and blood (corporal or organical) since he specifically rejects such an interpretation. By receiving the flesh and blood of Christ he is referring to a real and spiritual presence (moderate realism). In speaking of the notion of eucharistic sacrifice, Palmer argues that: “The articles condemning ‘the sacrifices of the Masses, in which it was commonly said that Christ was offered for the quick and the dead, for the remission of pain and guilt’, rightly censures that erroneous view of the sacrifice, but does not declare against the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice rightly understood.”233 Here Palmer distinguishes between the notion of eucharistic sacrifice as it was used by the Roman Catholic Church and the notion of eucharistic sacrifice per se.HeseestheChurch of England as teaching a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice different from any corrupted version taught by the Church of Rome. Palmer here rejects the immoderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice (that is, reiteration of the sacrifice of the cross for the sins of the living and the dead) but not the moderate realist view of eucharistic sacrifice or the sacrifice of the mass as taught by the early Church Fathers.

231 See separate case study in Chapter . 232 Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ, II, p. . 233 Ibid, I, p. . the nineteenth century

Palmer links sign and signified in a moderate realist fashion in relation to both the eucharistic presence and the eucharistic sacrifice. His eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.  chapter four

HenryPhillpotts

Henry Phillpotts (–), who became the Bishop of Exeter in , wrote a letter to the clergy of his diocese in  entitled, APastoralLetter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter on the Present State of the Church.234 In this letter he made the following comments on the Eucharist: I see the same high authority number among the errors of Rome, which our own church has renounced, that ‘a propitiatory virtue is attributed to the Eucharist’. I am not aware of our Church having anywhere condemned such a doctrine. That it has condemned (as we all from our hearts condemn) as ‘blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits’ ‘the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission from pain and guilt’,we know and heartily rejoice. But this is very far indeed from saying or meaning that the Eucharist hath not ‘a propitiatory virtue’; and we must be very careful how we deny that virtue to it. The consecrated elements ought not to be separated in our minds from the propitiation for our sins, continually presented for us before the throne of God. Whether we regard them in correspondence with the meat-offerings and drink-offerings of the Old Testament as memorials of the one great sacrifice, and so, in union with that sacrifice, by virtue of Christ’s appointment, representing and pleading to the Father the atonement finished on the cross, or as answering to those portions of the typical sacrifice which were eaten by the priests and offerers, in either case they are intimately united with the altar in heaven, and with its propitiatory virtue. ‘In these holy mysteries’ in an especial manner heaven and earth are brought together. . . . The partakers of the sacrifice are partakers of the altar, and of all its inestimable benefits, the first of which is the propitiation of our sins. For in the Eucharist, as a Sacrament, ‘we eat our ransom’, as St. Augustine says, we receive spiritually ‘the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for us’, ‘His blood which was shed for us’; in the same Eucharist, as a sacrifice, we, in representation, plead the one great sacrifice, which our great High Priest continually presenteth for us in heaven. In heaven He representeth ever before the Father in Per- son Himself, mediating with the Father as our Intercessor; on earth He invisibly sanctifies what is offered, and makes the earthly elements which we offer to be sacramentally and ineffably—but not in a carnal way—His bodyandHisblood.For,althoughonceforalloffered,thatsacrifice,be it remembered, is ever living and continuous, made to be continuous by the resurrection of our Lord. Accordingly St. John tells us in Rev. v. , , that he ‘beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne stood a Lamb as it had been slain’, and to Him is continually addressed the triumphal song of the

234 Henry Phillpotts, A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter on the present state of the church (London: Murray, ). the nineteenth century

heavenly hosts, ‘Worthy is the Lamb as it had been slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing’. To Him His ally cries, ‘O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world’. Not that tookest away, but still takest away, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi. As, then, the sacrifice is continuous, its propitiatory virtue is continuous, and the fullness of the propitiation is pleaded for the whole Church whensoever the commemoration of it is exhibited in the Eucharist.235 Phillpotts is in this Letter affirms both a moderate realist understanding of eucharistic sacrifice and of eucharistic presence. He condemns any view affirming that Christ is offered again in the Eucharist for the living and the dead (immoderate realism) but he believes that the Eucharist nonetheless contains a ‘propitiatory virtue’,which the Church of England must be careful not to deny. In explaining this ‘propitiatory virtue’ he links the consecrated elements of the Eucharist with the propitiation of sins. The sign (the elements) is linked with the signified (the propitiation of sins by Christ). The sign and the signified, he asserts, cannot be rightly separated. This is an expression of moderate realism. Christ’s work on the cross is completed and finished, but in the Eucharist the sacrifice is pleaded as Christ before the Father pleads it in heaven. Heaven and earth are seen to meet in the Eucharist and the effects of the ‘one great sacrifice’ (the historical sacrifice of the cross) are present in the sacrifice of the altar (the eucharistic sacrifice). The eucharistic sacrifice is spiritual and cannot be a carnal re-iteration of the once and for all sacrifice of the cross. The eucharistic sacrifice is not only remembered, but it isalso living and continuous, through the power of the resurrection of Christ. The words of the Agnus Dei are quoted to assert that the offering of the sacrifice is continuous on earth in the Eucharist as it is in heaven (the Lamb of God that takest [not tookest] away the sins of the world). For Phillpotts this means that ‘the sacrifice is continuous’, ‘the propitiatory virtue is continuous’ and the fullness of the propitiation is exhibited in the Eucharist. Phillpotts also expresses moderate realism in relation to the eucharistic presence of Christ. He argues that the elements offered on earth are invisibly sanctified such that they are made the body and blood of Christ, not carnally, but sacramentally and ineffably. Immoderate realism is denied and moderate realism is affirmed.

235 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

Phillpotts Letter advocates a position of moderate realism in relation to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice. Sign and signified are linked and immoderate realism is denied. Phillpotts eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of realism. the nineteenth century

Edward Bouverie Pusey

Edward Pusey (–) was a Tractarian whose writings on the Eucharist are numerous. The following extracts will be used to assess his theology of the Eucharist. Reference should also be made to the case study entitled ‘The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist’ which further comments on Pusey’s eucharistic theology are made. In  Pusey published a work addressed to the Bishop of Oxford (Bishop Richard Bagot), entitled A Letter to the Right Rev. Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Oxford, on the Tendency to Romanism imputed to Doctrinesheldofold,asnow,intheEnglishChurch.236 Here Pusey stated that: In the communion there is a true, real, actual, though spiritual (or rather the more real because spiritual), communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements; that there is a true, real, spiritual presence of Christ at the Holy Supper, more real than if we could with Thomas feel Him with our hands, or thrust our hands into His side; that this is bestowed upon faith, and received by faith, as is every other spiritual gift, but that our faith is but a receiver of God’s real, mysterious, precious gift; that faith opens our eyes to see what is really there, and our hearts to receive it; but that it is there independently of our faith.237 Pusey is making a realist link between the sign and the signified when he states that there is a communication of the body and blood of Christ through the elements of the Eucharist. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is described as true, real and actual though it is nonetheless spiritual. It seems that Pusey’s view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in this letter to Bishop Bagot is that of moderate realism, where the presence is real, but not fleshy or immoderate. Spiritually the bread andwineismadethebodyandbloodofChrist.Substantiallyorcor- poreally the bread and wine remains bread and wine. Pusey sees no change in the physical substance of the bread and wine, although he argues that the body and blood of Christ is present in the bread and wine in an objective manner (‘independently of our faith’). Further- more Pusey rejects what he calls the “modern novelties” of “Zurich or Geneva” (essentially a rejection of nominalism and the separation of

236 Edward Pusey, A Letter to the Right Rev. Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Oxford, on the Tendency to Romanism imputed to Doctrines held of old, as now, in the English Church (Oxford: Parker, ). 237 Ibid, p. .  chapter four sign and signified) and at the same time he rejects any corrupted Roman view of a “carnal” presence in the Eucharist.238 In  Pusey preached a sermon before the University of Oxford entitled The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent.239 In the Preface to this sermon, seemingly added after the sermon had been preached, Pusey, in addressing the communicant, described the comforting character of the Eucharist as “the Body and Blood of his Lord” and spoke of them as “the channel of His Blessed Presence to the soul”.240 The Eucharist was in Pusey’s estimation more than a mere memory of a past event, but a current means of supplying the presence of Christ’s body and blood to the communicant. Pusey goes on to make a moderate realist connection between the sign and the signified in the Eucharist, saying: While I believe the consecrated elements to become, by virtue of his consecrating Words, truly and really, yet spiritually and in an ineffable way, His Body and Blood, I learnt also to withhold my thoughts as to the mode of this great Mystery, but ‘as a Mystery’ to ‘adore it’.With the Fathers, then, and our own great Divines, . . . I could not but speak of the consecrated elements, as being, what, since He has so called them, I believe them to become, His Body and Blood; and I feared not, that, using their language, I should, when speaking of the Divine and ‘spiritual’ things, be thought to mean otherwise than ‘spiritually’, or having disclaimed all thoughts as to the mode of their being, that any should suppose I meant a mode which our Church disallows.241 Here Pusey is affirming a true and real presence of Christ’s body and bloodintheEucharist,butatthesameaffirmingthatthispresence is spiritual only, that is, not carnal or immoderate. The way in which Christ’s body and blood is present in the Eucharist (what Pusey describes as mode) remains a mystery, but this does not preclude Pusey from stating that the presence can be adored in the Eucharist. The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist can be adored because it is true and real, that is, the body and blood of Christ. It seems, from the Preface, that some had misunderstood Pusey’s sermon, in that they see any description of a true and real presence to mean a carnal rather than a spiritual presence (immoderate realist rather than

238 Ibid, pp. , , , , . 239 Edward Pusey, The Holy Eucharist A Comfort to the Penitent. A Sermon preached before the University in the Cathedral Church of Christ, in Oxford on the Fourth Sunday after Easter (Oxford: Parker, ). 240 Ibid,p.iv. 241 Ibid,p.v. the nineteenth century moderate realist presence). Pusey is at pains to affirm, however, that it is a spiritual presence that he means, that he has not attempted to define the mode of the presence and that he has only attempted to express a view allowed by the Church of England. Pusey also states that when he talks of the consecrated elements becoming the body and blood of Christ he does not imply any change in the natural substances of the bread and wine. He says: “I believed the elements to ‘remain in their natural substances’”.242 In the sermon Pusey begins by advocating a position of sacramental mediation of God’s gifts and grace. He argues that God’s own unity puts “Itself forward in varied forms and divers manners, yet Itself the one Cause of all that is.”243 This is essentially a position of moderate realism, where God works through outward forms and manners (signs) to display God’s own self (signified). In relation to the Eucharist Pusey therefore argues regarding the bread and wine of the Eucharist, “they canbeelementsofthisworldandyetHisveryBodyandBlood”.244 This linking of the sign and the signified is found also in the doctrine of the incarnation, where Christ (the signified) is joined with the earthly body of Jesus. Pusey says: “This is . . . the order of the Mystery of the Incarnation, that the Eternal Word so took our flesh into Himself, as to impart to it His own inherent life.”245 The incarnation is linked with the Eucharist in the following way, when Pusey says: “The Life which He is, spreads around, first giving Its own vitality to that sinless Flesh which He united indissolubly with Himself and in It encircling and vivifying our whole nature, and then, through that bread which is His Flesh, finding an entrance to us individually, pen- etrating us, soul and body, and spirit, and irradiating and transforming into His own light and life.”246 As the life of the signified Christ lives in the sign of the human body of Jesus, so the signified Christ is in the sign of the bread and wine in the Eucharistinarealway.Puseycommentsthatthis:“isundoubtedCatholic teaching, and the most literal import of Holy Scripture, and the mystery of the Sacrament, that the Eternal Word, Who is God, having taken to Him our flesh and joined it indissolubly with Himself, and so, where His

242 Ibid,p.iv. 243 Ibid,p.. 244 Ibid,p.. 245 Ibid,p.. 246 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

Flesh is, there He is, and we receiving It, receive Him, and receiving Him are joined on to Him though His flesh to the Father, and He dwelling in us, dwell in Him, and with Him in God.”247 There is a linking of the sign and the signified in both the incarnation and the Eucharist. This linking is in the form of moderate realism and Pusey describes it as being one of nature. He says that, “the unity of the Father and the Son, was not of will but of nature, because our union with the Son is by unity of nature, not of harmony of will only.”248 This means that: “He, by the truth of the Sacrament, dwelleth in us, in Whom, by Nature, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth.”249 The nature of Christ, the fullness of the Godhead, is therefore present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, not the substance of Christ’s body and blood (in an immoderate sense). For Pusey the nature of Christ takes a moderate realist meaning, implying that the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist is in no way fleshy or immoderate, but rather a moderate presence by virtue of the nature of Christ. In discussing the fruits of the Eucharist and the gift thereby, Pusey argues that the benefits for the sinner are real and effective. The Eucharist, as sign, is specifically associated with the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s death on the cross (the signified), in a moderate realist fashion. Pusey argues that “In each place in Holy Scripture, where the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist is taught, there is, at least, some indication of the remission of sins”.250 For Pusey, the gift of the Eucharist is so effective because the sign is so closely aligned with the signified. In receiving the sign, the signified is also received. The communicant receives the body and blood of Christ and the effects of his work on the cross, that is, forgiveness of sins, ina real way, in the Eucharist. Elements of the material world are seen to be Christ’s body and blood and to convey a real gift to the communicant. The Eucharist is therefore seen as an “application of His One Oblation once made upon the cross, poured out for us now, conveying to our souls, as being His Blood, with the other benefits of His Passion, the remission of our sins also”.251 The ‘application’ is real but it is not a re- iteration of the sacrifice, since the sacrifice is ‘once made upon the cross’.

247 Ibid,p.. 248 Ibid,p.. 249 Ibid, pp. –. 250 Ibid,p.. 251 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

Any immoderate realism in the form of re-iterating the sacrifice on the altarisdeniedandthemoderateformofrealismisaffirmed.Thesign however (the eucharistic sacrifice) bestows the gift and benefit of that once only sacrifice on the cross in a moderate realist sense. “The words of Consecration”, therefore, “develop the sense that they relate not only to the past act of His Precious Bloodshedding on the Cross, but to the communication of that Blood to us now”.252 In , Pusey published a work entitled ALettertotheRightHon. and the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of London in Explanation of some Statements Contained in a Letter by the Rev. W. Dodsworth.253 In this letter Pusey stated that in the Eucharist there is: “a pleading of our Lord’s passion in act, a memorial of it, not to ourselves, but to God. . . . We present before Him not mere bread and wine, but that which, without physical change of substance, consecrated by the words of our Lord and the power and the grace of God, is verily and indeed, not carnally, but mystically, sacramentally, spiritually, and in an ineffable and supernatural way, the body and blood of our Lord.”254 Pusey’s words here confirm that in the Eucharist he sees a dynamic pleading of the once only sacrifice and that there is no carnal aspect to either the eucharistic presence or the eucharistic sacrifice. He also affirms that there is no physical change of substance in the bread and wine. The elements therefore remain physically what they were before the consecration, but they nonetheless cannot remain ‘mere bread and wine’. There is a heightened efficacy and presence in the bread and wine asa result of the consecration and this is described as mystical, sacramental, spiritual, ineffable and supernatural. In a fuller passage Pusey expands this saying: I have never taught anything physical, corporeal, carnal, but spiritual, sacramental, divine, ineffable. And, when I have said, as I could not but acknowledge, that I could not see how the Roman Catholics could mean less by ‘the accidents of bread and wine’ than we by the substance, this was not to draw our doctrine to theirs, but theirs to ours. If it be granted, as they must grant, that all the natural properties remain, size, form, solidity, the same distribution of particles, whereof the elements are composed, the same natural powers of nourishment or exhilaration, the same effect upon

252 Ibid,p.. 253 Edward Pusey, A Letter to the Right Hon. and Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of London, in explanation of Some Statements contained a letter by the Rev. W. Dodsworth (Oxford: Parker, ). 254 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

the nervous system and every other physical property, I do not know what remains which we mean to affirm and they to deny. But I have said this, not as adopting their mode of explanation, which is not acknowledged by the Greek Church any more than by our own, but as hoping that our differences were not irreconcilable, and that we are condemning a popular physical interpretation which they cannot consistently hold. . . . I have said that it appears from our Article itself that it condemns Transubstantiation in the sense of implying a physical change. . . . If any imply not a physical change, the Article does not apply to them.255 This is a very significant passage, since here Pusey argues not only that a physical, carnal and corporeal presence (immoderate realism) cannot be accepted, and only a spiritual, sacramental, divine and ineffable presence (moderate realism) can be accepted, but he also argues that the Articles of the Church of England only condemn explanations of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist which imply a physical change in the elements. This means that, in Pusey’s view, transubstantiation as defined in the moderate sense (e.g. Aquinas’ view where there is no physical change in the elements, but only a change in their substance) can be accepted by the Church of England, since it is not prohibited by the Articles. This represents a significant development from his former view when he expressed in his  work ALettertotheRightRev. Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Oxford256 the view that the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation implied a carnal mode of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.257 In the Letter of  he seems to imply that the Roman view of transubstantiation is based on a corrupted and immoderate view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and cannot be accepted, whereas in the Letter of  he argues that any view (seemingly including that of transubstantiation as expressed by Aquinas) not based on any physical change of substance, can be accepted. His reasoning seems to be that moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist (including transubstantiation, expressed as moderate realism, where no change of substance is involved) is acceptable, since no physical change of substance is meant or implied. Perhaps Pusey was confused about the doctrine of transubstantiation and was referring to the popular, yet corrupted, view of transubstantia-

255 Ibid, pp. –. 256 Pusey, A Letter to the Right Rev. Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Oxford, on the Tendency to Romanism imputed to Doctrines held of old, as now, in the English Church. 257 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century tion as carnal and physical, when he condemned transubstantiation as untenable (Letter of ). Perhaps also his implied acceptance of transubstantiation (Letter of ) was on the basis of a moderate realist interpretation of transubstantiation, such as that expressed by Aquinas. This means that Pusey is specifically rejecting any immoderate and corrupted view of transubstantiation and accepting any moderate view of eucharistic presence, including that of transubstantiation, where transubstantiation does not refer to any physical change of substance in the breadandwine,butwherechangeofsubstancecanbeinterpretedas something other than a physical change (e.g. spiritual, mystical, ineffable, sacramental or divine). Whatever is the case regarding Pusey’s interpretation of transubstantiation, he consistently maintained nonetheless, a moderate realist view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In a sermon preached in  entitled The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist,258 Pusey maintained as he had done earlier that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was “sacramental, supernatural, mystical, ineffable, as opposed not to what is real, but to what is natural”259 and that Christ’s words ‘This is my body’ aretobetaken“solemnlyandliterally”260 since they mean that what is consecrated and what is received are the “body and blood of Christ . . . not in any physical or carnal way, but spiritually, sacramentally, divinely, mystically, ineffably, through the operation of the word of Christ and of God the Holy Ghost”.261 This sermon was followed in  by a long treatise supporting the teaching of the sermon and setting out the evidence gathered from the works of the Fathers. This treatise was entitled The Doctrine of the Real Presence as contained in the Fathers.262 This work principally contained evidence gathered from the Fathers, but Pusey also at times expressed hisownviewsabouttheEucharist.Hestatesforexample:

258 Edward Pusey, The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. A Sermon preached before the University in the Cathedral Church of Christ, in Oxford on the Second Sunday after Epiphany,  (Oxford: Parker, ). 259 Ibid,p.. 260 Ibid,p.. 261 Ibid,p.. 262 Edward Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence as contained in the Fathers from the death of S. John the Evangelist to the Fourth General Council, vindicated, in Notes on a Sermon, ‘The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist’, preached A.D., before the University of Oxford (Oxford: Parker, ).  chapter four

The term ‘in’, as used by the fathers, does not express any ‘local’ inclusion of the body and blood of Christ; it denotes their presence there after the manner of a Sacrament.263 The presence of our Lord’s body and blood in the Holy Eucharist isin a supernatural, divine, ineffable way, not subject to the laws of natural bodies. The word ‘in’, like the word of our Book of Homilies,‘underthe form of bread and wine’,only expresses a real presence under that outward veil. But the term does imply the existence of the elements, in which the body and blood of our Lord are said to be.264 Pusey also says: “What is consecrated upon the altars for us to receive, what under the outward elements is there present for us to receive, is the body and blood of Christ, by receiving which the faithful in the Lord’s Supper do verily and indeed take and receive the body and blood of Christ.”265 Pusey specifically denies any immoderate realism in the Eucharist by denying that there is a local presence. This conforms with the view of Aquinas, who also denied any local presence of Christ in the elements. Pusey, like Aquinas, affirms a moderate realist presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Pusey’s treatise of evidence from the Fathers was followed in  with another work entitled The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ: the Doctrine of the English Church, with a Vindication of the Reception by the Wicked and of the Adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ Truly Present.266 This work was also a collection of evidence regarding the Eucharist, but it did at times express Pusey’s own view. He says for example: “there is no physical union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine”267 and “where the consecrated bread is, there sacramentally is the body of Christ; where the consecrated wine is, there sacramentally is the blood of Christ”.268 He also says that: “The heavenly part is conveyed to us through the earthly symbol consecrated by His word of power.”269

263 Ibid, p. . 264 Ibid, pp. –. 265 Ibid, p. . 266 Edward Pusey, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ: the Doctrine of the English Church, with a Vindication of the Reception by the Wicked and of the Adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ Truly Present (Oxford: Parker, ). 267 Ibid, p. xvii. 268 Ibid, p. xvii. 269 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

Moderate realism is again apparent here, since he links the sign with the signified, but does this by saying that the bread and wine is ‘sacramentally’ the body and blood of Christ. He also denies immoderate realism by arguing that there is no physical union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Speaking of adoration in the sacrament, Pusey stated: Believing as we believe, we should with the magi have fallen down and worshipped the speechless Infant, knowing Him to be God the Word. We should have thought His raiment as Man no hindrance to our adoring Him. Why then should we think it too strange a thing for His marvellous condescension that He should now give us ‘His blessed body and blood under the form of bread and wine’? Or how should His body, which He gives us, not be His living, life-giving body? Or how should His life-giving body be apart from His Godhead, which makes it life-giving? Or how, since His Godhead is present there, should we not adore? We do not adore the Sacrament,as,whenHewasupontheearth,weshouldnothaveadoredHis raiment, even though the touch of it conveyed the hidden virtue from Him, the Source of life and healing. But Himself, wheresoever or howsoever He is present, we are bound to adore.270 The logic of Pusey’s argument regarding adoration in the Eucharist lies in what is for him the reality of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is really present, then for Pusey, Christ is to be adored. He is careful to exclude worship of the bread and wine, but he is also careful to maintain that the ‘hidden virtue’ of Christ is really present. He is not implying an immoderate realist presence, whereby the faithful worship the carnal flesh of Christ, rather he is implying a moderate realist presence, where the faithful worship the ‘virtue’ of Christ ‘in’ or ‘under the form of bread and wine’. The word ‘sacrament’,as Pusey seems to be using it here, implies the outward and visible thing or sign (not the object of worship) as opposed to the signified ‘in’ or ‘under’ the form of bread and wine. It is also clear that Pusey is linking the sign and the signified, such that by receiving the sign, the signified is also received. Many of Pusey’s sermons are printed in a volume entitled Ten Ser- mons Preached before the University of Oxford.271 In this collection Pusey preached a sermon, entitled, ThisisMyBody,272 in . In this sermon Pusey said:

270 Ibid, pp. –. 271 Edward Pusey, Ten Sermons preached before the University of Oxford between – . Now collected in one volume and A Sermon preached at the Opening of the Chapel of Keble College on S. Mark’s Day,  (Oxford: Parker, ). 272 Edward Pusey, ‘This is my body’, in Ten Sermons preached before the University of  chapter four

The senses can tell us of form, size, colour, weight, taste, smell. Experience tells us of the power of nourishing. They cannot tell us more than these phenomena. Since then they cannot tell the hidden cause of these phenomena, neither are they entitled to deny the hidden presence of the life-giving body of Jesus. because they cannot discern it. The miracle, through which JesusbyHiswordofpowermakesHisbodyreallypresentunderthesebod- ilyforms,isabove,butitisnomoreagainst,oursensesthanthoseequally miraculous operations of His love, whereby He, through His infused grace or the outpouring of His Spirit, converts the averted soul, and, uniting, binds it to Himself with the indissoluble bond of love.273 Senses for Pusey are incapable of knowing what he calls ‘the hidden cause’, therefore they cannot be used to know or deny Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, since the real presence of Christ is hidden and not available to sense perception. This is really a denial of any carnal or immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist, since a fleshy presence would be capable of discernment by the senses. What is in the Eucharist, Pusey describes as ‘objective’. He states: “Finding that the words ‘real presence’ were often understood of what is in fact a ‘real absence’, we added the word ‘objective’, not as wishing to obtrude on others a term of modern philosophy, but to express that the life-giving body, the res sacramenti,isbyvirtueoftheconsecration present without us, to be received by us. . . . The doctrines of the Eucharis- tic sacrifice and of Eucharistic adoration are involved in the doctrine of the real presence.”274 By ‘real presence’ Pusey is implying that there is an objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist not dependent on the faith of the communicant. The signified exists apart from the communicant in an objective sense of the real presence ‘in’ or ‘under’ the signs and it is this objective presence that the communicant receives with all its benefits. Once again the linking of sign and signified is made in a moderate realist sense. In his work entitled The Church of England a Portion of Christ’s One Holy Catholic Church, and a Means of Restoring Visible Unity, an Eireni- con, in a Letter to the Author of The Christian Year,275 published in ,

Oxford between –. Now collected in one volume and A Sermon preached at the Opening of the Chapel of Keble College on S. Mark’s Day,  (Oxford: Parker, ), pp. –. 273 Ibid, pp. –. 274 Ibid,p.. 275 Edward Pusey, The Church of England a Portion of Christ’s One Holy Catholic Church, and a Means of Restoring Visible Unity, an Eirenicon, in a Letter to the Author of ‘The Christian Year’ (Oxford: Parker, ). the nineteenth century

Pusey argues that there is no essential difference between the view of the Church of England and the Church of Rome as regards eucharistic doctrine. He states in regard to transubstantiation: “Clearly the doctrine which the Church of England rejects under the term ‘Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine’, is only one which ‘overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament’ in that the sign and the thing signified became the same.”276 He also says that: “My own conviction is, that our Articles deny Transubstantiation in one sense, and that the Roman Church, according to the explanation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, affirms it in another.”277 Pusey is therefore arguing that there is a sense in which transubstantiation as put forward by the Church of Rome, can be accepted by the Church of England, as long as there is no appeal to immoderate realism which overthrows the nature of a sacrament. Pusey’sargument along these lines is advanced in a work of , entitled Is Healthful Reunion Impossible? A Second Letter to the Very Rev. J.H. Newman.278 In this work Pusey states that: “we cannot doubt that the Council of Trent, in regard to the real presence, expresses the ancient faith, and we could willingly accept its terms as expressing our belief.”279 Pusey explains this sharing of doctrine, as he sees it, in the following passage: Since then the body and blood of Christ are present in their substance (for otherwise they could not be present at all), but the presence of that ‘substance’ does not involve the presence of any of the ordinary properties of a body, so neither does the conversion of the substance of the bread and of the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ involve the conversion of any of the properties of the bread and wine. We may then (as I said) think that by ‘substance’ is meant the ‘essence’ or ousia of a thing, that which it is (whatever it is), its quidditas; and under the ‘species’ which remain, and which are the veil of the unseen presence, we may understand ‘the &'σις or nature, including all those properties of which the senses are cognizant, and with them, or among them, the natural power of supporting and nourishing our bodies’.280 But, if the species, that is, that which the Roman church also believes to remain as the outward veil of our Blessed Lord’s presence, retains those

276 Ibid,p.. 277 Ibid, p. . 278 Edward Pusey, Is Healthful Reunion Impossible? A Second Letter to the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D. (Oxford: Parker, ). 279 Ibid,p.. 280 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

natural powers of nourishing and refreshing, then, as I have for many years said, I can see no contradiction.281 For Pusey, the ‘substance’ of the body and blood of Christ does not mean ‘the ordinary properties of a body’ (e.g. carnal) and the conversion of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, does not mean that the properties of the bread and wine are converted. For Pusey, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are under the veil of the bread and wine in a hidden way. The veil is the sign, and the substance, as essence or nature, is the signified, and the two, the sign and the signified, are linked in a moderate realist fashion, such that by receiving the sign the signified is also received. In this interpretation of the position of Rome, Pusey sees no contradiction with the position of the Church of England. Pusey puts forward a moderate realist view of both presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, where sign and signified is linked, where the true and real body and blood of Christ is ‘in’ or ‘under’ the signs and where the benefits of Christ’s passion (forgiveness of sins) is effectively conveyed to the communicant as a gift. Pusey’s eucharistic theology is based on moderate realist philosophical assumptions.

281 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

John Charles Ryle

John Ryle (–) was Bishop of Liverpool. Ryle fought against higher critical views of scriptural interpretation and remained a strong advocate of the Evangelical party within the Church of England attempting to preserve the Protestant theology and character of the Anglican Church at the height of the Ritualist movement in the latter part of the nineteenth century.282 In a work entitled Practical Religion,283 originally published in  and republished in , Ryle presents a chapter called Going to the Table 284 in which he discusses the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper. Here Ryle argues that the Lord’s Supper is an important part of Christian faith but it has sadly been the source of much misunderstanding and bitterness. In discussing why the Lord’s Supper was ordained Ryle states that: It was ordained ‘for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby’. The bread which in the Lord’s Supper is broken, given, and eaten, is meant to remind us of Christ’s body given on the cross for our sins. The wine which is poured out and received, is meant to remind us of Christ’s blood shed on the cross for our sins. He that eats that bread and drinks that wine is reminded, in the most striking and forcible manner, of the benefits Christ has obtained for his soul, and of the death of Christ as the hinge and turning point on which all those benefits depend.285 Ryle sees the purpose of the Eucharist as remembering or reminding and explanation. The Eucharist allows the communicant to look back to a past and completed event and to remember the benefits received by this event. The bread and wine therefore remind the communicant of Christ’s body on the cross and Christ’s blood poured out. There is no identification suggested between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ in any realist sense, since the signs in the Eucharist act only as an aid to memory and not as the means of conveying the signified presence and grace of Christ to the communicant. Ryle’s theology of the Eucharist is based on philosophical assumptions of nominalism where

282 Alastair McGrath (ed), The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 283 John Ryle, Practical Religion: Being Plain Papers on the Daily Duties, Experience, Dangers, and Privileges of Professing Christians (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, ). 284 Ibid, pp. –. 285 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four there is separation of sign and signified, and where the signs exist in the present to remind people of the signified work of Christ on the cross. The sign and the signified remain self-enclosed and separated entities. Basing his analysis on the words of the four accounts of the Eucharist in the New Testament, Ryle argues for a simple analysis of these accounts where the meaning is that the Lord’s Supper is intended to assist people in remembering what Christ has done. He sees no need for any more complex theological explanation or elaboration than this. He explains what he sees as the meaning of the Lord’s words in this way, saying: Does the New Testament authorize men to say that the Lord’s Supper was ordained to be a sacrifice, and that in it Christ’s literal body and blood are present under the forms of bread and wine? Most certainly not! When the Lord Jesus said to the disciples, ‘This is my Body’,and ‘this is my Blood’,He evidently meant, ‘This bread in my hand is an emblem of my Body, and this cup of wine in my hand contains a emblem of my Blood’.The disciples were accustomed to hear Him use such language. They remembered His saying, ‘The field is the world’, ‘The good seed are the children of the kingdom’. (Matt. xiii. ). It never entered into their minds that He meant to say He was holding His own body and His own blood in His hands, and literally giving them His literal body and blood to eat and drink. Not one of the writers of the New Testament ever speaks of the sacrament as a sacrifice, or calls the Lord’s Table an altar, or even hints that a Christian minister is a sacrificing priest. The universal doctrine of the New Testament is that after the one offering of Christ there remains no more need of sacrifice.286 Ryle is denying immoderate realism here by suggesting that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice and that the bread and wine is not the literal body and blood of Christ. He also means that there can be no realist sense in which the words ‘This is my body/blood’ are used and suggests instead that they areonlysymbolicofChrist’sbodyandblood.Bysymbolic,Ryleisarguing for a nominalist separation of the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are in no sense (either a moderate and immoderate realist sense) Christ’s body and blood. In the same way there canbenosacrificeinrelationtotheEucharistinthepresentbecause the sacrifice of Christ is a completed event in the past. The event of the EucharistandthesacrificeofChristarethereforeseparatedself-enclosed entities in a nominalist philosophical scheme. The priest therefore can never be described as a sacrificing priest in that the priest offers a sacrifice and so the word altar cannot, in Ryle’s opinion, be used in connection with the Lord’s Supper.

286 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century

All this means that there can be no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ryle therefore states that: Throughout the Communion Service the one idea of the ordinance continually pressed on our attention is that of a ‘remembrance’ of Christ’s death. As to any presence of Christ’s natural body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, the rubric at the end of the Service gives the most flat and distinct contradiction to the idea. The rubric expressly asserts that ‘the natural body and blood of Christ are in heaven, and not here’.Those many Churchman, so called, who delight in talking of the ‘altar’, the ‘sacrifice’, the ‘priest’, and the ‘real presence’ in the Lord’s Supper, would do well to remember that they are using language which is entirely unused by the Church of England.287 There can be no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for Ryle since Christ’s body and blood is seen as an empirical object having a natural quality about it such as fleshiness. This he argues can only be present in heaven and not on earth in the Eucharist. The basis of Ryle’s theology is the Bible and that of the Reformers. He argues that the consistent theology of the Reformers concerning the Eucharist was in line with his analysis. He argues this case in these words: The point before us is one of vast importance. Let us lay hold upon it firmly, and never let it go. It is the very point on which our Reformers had their sharpest controversy with the Romanists, and went to the stake, rather than give way. Sooner than admit that the Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice, they cheerfully laid down their lives. To bring back the doctrine of the ‘real presence’, and to turn the good old English communion into the Romish ‘mass’,is to pour contempt on our Martyrs, and to upset the first principles of the Protestant Reformation. Nay, rather, it is to ignore the plain teaching of God’s Word, and do dishonour to the priestly office of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches expressly that the Lord’s Supper was ordained to be ‘a remembrance of Christ’s body and blood’, and not an offering. The Bible teaches that Christ’s vicarious death on the cross was theone perfect sacrifice for sin, which never needs to be repeated. Let us stand firm in these two great principles of the Christian faith. A clear view of the intention of the Lord’s Supper is one of the soul’s best safeguards against the delusions of modern days.288 Ryle also argues that the Eucharist is of no benefit to a person unless that person has repentance, faith and love. These three characteristics are described as allowing a person to be “scripturally qualified for the

287 Ibid, p. . 288 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

Lord’s Supper”.289 For Ryle then, the power of the Lord’s Supper lies not within the ordinance itself in the sense of the presence of an objective grace conveyed by the outward signs, but only in the promises of God and in the rightful preparation and spiritual characteristics of the person who receives the sacrament. This is further evidence of a nominalist separation of sign and signified in the thinking of Ryle. The sign of the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper has no real linking with the signified grace of Christ, since that grace is obtained by repentance, faith and love alone. ThisisexpressedbyRyleinthesewords: Let us settle it firmly in our minds that the Lord’s Supper was not given to be a means either of justification or of conversion. It was never meant to give grace where there is no grace already, or to provide pardon when pardon is not already enjoyed. It cannot supply the absence of repentance to God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. It is an ordinance for the penitent, not for the impenitent, for the believing, not for the unbelieving, for the converted, not for the unconverted. The unconverted man, who fancies that he can find a ‘shortcut’ to heaven by taking the Lord’s Supper, without treading the well-worn steps of repentance and faith, will find to his cost one day, that he is totally deceived. The Lord’s Supper was meant to increase and help the grace that a man has, but not to impart the grace that he does not have. It was certainly never intended to make our peace with God, to justify, or to convert.290 Any notion of realism is dismissed here and the emphasis falls on the spiritual health of the individual communicant, such that the Lord’s Supper confirms what is already in existence—that is, repentance, faith and love, whereby the soul is refreshed and strengthened because the communicant has a clear view of what Christ has done in the past and the benefits of that past action in the present. This means therefore that: “Hethateatsthebreadanddrinksthewineinarightspirit,willfind himself drawn into closer communion with Christ, and will feel to know Him more, and understand Him better”.291 The effects of the reception are humility in that the communicant realised how great sin is to require the death of Christ; a cheering of the soul, in that the ‘emblems’ remind us of the grace of Christ obtaining through his death on the cross; a sanctifying effect in that they remind the communicant of the need for gratitude to the Lord; and a restraining effect in that the communicant is reminded

289 Ibid, p. . 290 Ibid, p. . 291 Ibid. p. . the nineteenth century of the cost of salvation and the need to live a life apart from sin. Ryle’s four effects rest heavily on an ethical dimension in that they cause the communicant to reflect on the life being lived and to amend it in response to the death of Christ and his benefits given to humanity, rather than on any objective sense of grace being given in the Eucharist. The Eucharist seems to serve the function of a means of right reflection for those who seek to follow Christ in which the believer remembers with thanks the greatness of the work of Christ done for them in the past. Real presence, as used by Ryle, can therefore only mean “Christ in his heart”.292 Ryle’s sacramental theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of nominalism. He argues for a separation of sign and signified and although he does not totally deny the need for signs he does deny that the signcaninanywaybethemeansbywhichthesignifiediscommunicated to the believer. He argues against any idea of a sacrifice and real presence in the Eucharist and states the benefits of Christ can only be assured by receiving the bread and wine of the Eucharist. There can be no sense of an objective gift of grace in the Eucharist since the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are dependent on the spiritual well-being of the communicant. Ryle’s eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of nominalism.

292 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

Saepius Officio

Saepius Officio or Answer to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII293 was written in  by the Archbishops of England (Frederick Temple, Arch- bishop of Canterbury, – and William Maclagan, Archbishop of York, –) in reponse to Pope Leo XIII’s apostolic letter of  entitled Apostolicae Curae.294 Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae pronounced that ordinations which took place under the ordinals of Edward VI ( and ) “should be considered null and void”.295 Leo held that: “the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to con- stitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’, certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of ‘of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord’ (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Canon ) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross”.296 Leo XIII in pronouncing Anglican order to be invalid did so on the basis of an argument that the sacerdotal function of priests in relation to the Eucharist was the central aspect of priesthood. He argued that the Anglican Ordinals did not express this essential sacerdotal function correctly in both form and matter and so he concluded that both Anglican Orders and Anglican eucharistic liturgies were defective. Leo stated in relation to the Anglican Ordinal that “in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offer- ingsacrificebut,aswehavejuststated,everytraceofthesethingswhich had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out”.297 Leo’s argument

293 Archbishops of England, ‘Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII on English Ordinations. Addressed to the Whole Body of Bishops of the Catholic Church’ or ‘Saepius Officio’, in Anglican Orders. The Bull of His Holiness Leo XIII September ,  and the Answer of the Archbishops of England March ,  (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 294 Pope Leo XIII, ‘Bull of His Holiness Leo XIII by Divine Providence, Pope, Concern- ing Anglican Orders MDCCCXCVI’ or ‘Apostolicae Curae’,in Anglican Orders. The Bull of His Holiness Leo XIII September ,  and the Answer of the Archbishops of England March ,  (London: SPCK, ), pp. –. 295 Ibid,p.. 296 Ibid, pp. –. 297 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century depended on what he saw as a deliberate Anglican intention in the construction of Ordinals to delete any material which referred to the sacerdotal function of priests in the Eucharist. For him this meant that the Anglican Orders and Eucharists were invalid and so he concluded that “we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void”.298 In response to Leo XIII’s Apostolic Letter, William Maclagan (Arch- bishop of York) and Frederick Temple (Archbishop of Canterbury) wrote as the Archbishops of England the response Saepius Officio in . Temple and Maclagan addressed the issues raised by Leo XIII. The Archbishops dispute much of the material presented by Leo XIII in Apos- tolicae Curae, especially concerning the form and matter of ordinations carried out in England following the break with Rome. They also commented on the theology of the Eucharist as they understood and taught it. The Archbishops said: We make provision with the greatest reverence for the consecration of the holy Eucharist and commit it only to properly ordained Priests and not to other ministers of the Church. Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be a ‘nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross’ an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made at the Council [of Trent]. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist— while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,—to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father, and the propitiation for our sins, according to His precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord’s Passion for all the whole Church, and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic Sacrifice.299

298 Ibid,p.. 299 Archbishops of England, ‘Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII on English Ordinations. Addressed to the Whole Body of Bishops of the Catholic Church’ or ‘Saepius Officio’, p. .  chapter four

The Archbishops are arguing for a realist view of both presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. They deny that the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition is merely a remembering of the sacrifice of the cross brought to mind in the Eucharist by the communicant. Instead they link the signs of the Eucharist with the signified sacrifice of Christ in a realist manner. The gifts of bread and wine are said ‘to become to us’ Christ’s body and blood and the sacrifice which is offered in the Eucharist by the priest is a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross, whereby the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is ‘pleaded’ and ‘represented’ before God in the Eucharist. The language used here suggests that in the Archbishops’ view the nature of the presence and the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist as not a repetition or an addition to the sacrifice of the cross. Rather they argue that it is a ‘perpetual memory’ whereby Christ’s body and blood becomes present through the signs of bread and wine and the once and for all sacrifice is pleaded and represented to the Father in the Eucharist. Moderate realism is being advocated by the Archbishops. They do not shrink from saying that Christ’s body and blood is present in the Eucharist or from saying that there is a eucharistic sacrifice. Eucharistic presence and sacrifice are however distinguished from historic presence and sacrifice by means of the moderate realism they present in their eucharistic theology. Realist philosophical assumptions underlie the eucharistic theology of the Archbishops expressed in Saepius Officio. the nineteenth century

Vernon Staley

Vernon Staley (–) was a prolific writer on theological matters. In his  work entitled The Catholic Religion. A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Anglican Communion300 (Revised ) Staley speaks of the Eucharist. Staley, in speaking of the institution of the Eucharist comments that: “Jesus our Lord instituted the Holy Sacrament of his body and blood, commanding his apostles and their successors to consecrate bread and wine, as He had done, to be his flesh and blood, and to make a perpetual memorial of his death before the Father.”301 From the beginning of his discussion of the Eucharist Staley associates the signs of the Eucharist (bread and wine) with the signified body and blood of Christ in a realist manner. In discussing the eucharistic sacrifice Staley takes the view, picking up the language of some of the earlier Anglican Divines, that the Holy Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice, where “the body and the blood of Christ are first offered to the eternal Father, and then partaken of bythe communicants”.302 Staley interprets the meaning of the word ‘do’ in ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ (Corinthians : ) as meaning ‘offer’ and sees the word ‘remembrance’ as having a distinctly sacrificial meaning, where remembrance is before God and not before people.303 The meaning of eucharistic sacrifice for Staley is expressed in Article XXXI of The Thirty-Nine Articles. Here, he argues, that the suggestion of immoderate realism, in that Christ was offered by the priest for the quick and the dead, so that others would have remission of sins, is excluded. Staley specifically rejects the idea that the eucharistic sacrifice is a distinct sacrifice apart from Christ’s on the cross or that it is a repetition of that sacrifice. This exclusion Staley bases on the plural in the phrase ‘the sacrifices of the masses’ in Article XXXI which suggests more than the one sacrifice. As Newman had previously argued in Tract ,304 more than one sacrifice is excluded but the sacrifice of the mass is not. By eucharistic sacrifice Staley means: “that in the Holy Eucharist, we plead before God the One

300 Vernon Staley, The Catholic Religion. A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Anglican Communion (Golden Jubilee Memorial Edition revised by Brian Goodchild) (London and Oxford: Mowbray, ). 301 Ibid, p. . 302 Ibid, p. . 303 Ibid, p. . 304 See Newman case study.  chapter four

Sacrifice offered once upon the cross, even as Christ himself presents the same offering in heaven. Thus, the fathers spoke of the Holy Eucharist as ‘the unbloody sacrifice’. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is not so much ona line with the sacrifice on Calvary, as with the pleading of that sacrifice in heaven.”305 Staley therefore affirms the one sacrifice of Calvary, but also affirms that: “The Sacrifice of the Mass, or Eucharistic Sacrifice, understood inits ancient and Catholic sense as ‘the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ’,the English Church has never disowned”.306 Staley also argues that the Eucharist has two purposes. These he lists as: “Our Lord Jesus Christ ordained the sacrament of the Eucharist in order that we might be able to plead his sacrifice before the face of God, even as he does in heaven. But there was a further object of supreme importance, namely, that He might feed our souls with his sacred body and blood.”307 Pleading of the sacrifice and feeding the souls of those who partake of the Holy Communion are these two purposes. Both purposes depend on realism. The sacrifice of Christ at Calvary is identified with the eucharistic sacrifice and the body and blood of Christ is identified with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. He says: That we may thus be able to feed upon him, He has given to his Church authority to consecrate, by the power of the Holy Spirit, bread and wine to become his body and blood. When we receive the bread and wine thus consecrated, we verily and indeed receive the sacred body and blood of Christ. The certainty of this depends on the truth known as the Real Presence. The term Real Presence signified the presence of a reality. Our Lord’s presence in the Eucharist is a spiritual reality. By a spiritual presence we are not to understand that which is unreal, or figurative; but a presence which is not merely natural, or material. A spiritual presence is a presence of a supernatural order. Our Lord is present in the blessed Sacrament in a manner which is beyond our understanding. The Real Presence is a holy mystery.308 Realism is the basis of the theology of eucharistic sacrifice and eucharistic presence in Staley’s analysis. Sign and signified are linked (historic sacrifice with eucharistic and Christ’s body and blood with bread and

305 Staley, The Catholic Religion. A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Anglican Communion, p. . 306 Ibid, p. . 307 Ibid, p. . 308 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century wine) but this is not in any immoderate sense. The eucharistic sacrifice is not the historic sacrifice of Calvary but a pleading of it and the presence of Christ’sbody and blood in the Eucharist is not a natural or carnal presence, but a spiritual and yet real and mysterious presence. Staley’s conception of both eucharistic sacrifice and eucharistic presence is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.  chapter four

Frederick Temple

Frederick Temple (–) was Archbishop of Canterbury from . In his Visitation Charge309 of  he spoke extensively of the Eucharist. Temple’s analysis discusses two opinions concerning the Eu- charist. One, as he sees it, is essentially nominalist, although he does not usethisterm,wherethevalueoftheEucharistisintheeffectproducedon the soul with no special gift being associated with the elements. The other is essentially realist, although again he does not use this term, where the elements are the means of conveying the gift to the communicant and where Christ is present as a real presence. In Temple’s view the nominalist opinion has no real presence of Christ attached to the elements, whereas the realist view does. The realist view, argues Temple, is nowhere condemned by the Church of England and is, as he sees it, a possible interpretation for members of the Church of England. Although Tem- ple allows for a realist interpretation, he specifically excludes any realist interpretation on the basis of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, as he understands it. For Temple it is quite legitimate for a member of the Church of England to speak of the bread and wine being made the body and blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, but it is not possible to describe this through the doctrine of transubstantiation, since this doctrine,inTemple’sview,lacksphilosophicalvalidity.310 Despite Temple’s criticisms of transubstantiation, it is he contends: “allowed to a man to adore Christ present in the Sacrament if he believes Himtobetherepresent,butitisnotallowedtoanyonetouseanyother external mark of adoration except of kneeling to receive the consecrated elements. The priest is not allowed to elevate the elements before the people, lest, perchance, they should be tempted to worship those elements, and not only Christ Himself.”311 While Temple admits a realism in the Eucharist, in that he speaks of a presence of Christ attached to the elements from the moment of consecration, the reasons for his prohibition of the elevation of the elements suggests that the realism he advocates is moderate and not immoderate. He advises against elevation of the elements on the grounds that people could assume that they were worshipping the elements, rather

309 Frederick Temple, Charge Delivered at his First Visitation (London: Macmillan, ). 310 Ibid, pp. –. 311 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century than a real, but not immoderate presence of Christ. Christ for Temple is really present, and the presence is in some mysterious way attached to the elements, but the elements themselves are not that presence. The presence of Christ however seems to be instantiated in the elements with the elements remaining in their natural form. Temple’s view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.  chapter four

The Tractarians and the Eucharist

Alf Hardelin in his classic study of the eucharistic theology of the Oxford Movement, entitled The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,312 sets out the views of both Tractarians and those opposed to the Tractarians in regard to the Eucharist. Hardelin’s book will be used extensively in this case study, together with other material, to assess the way in which the Tractarians viewed the Eucharist. Hardelin sets out what he sees as the Tractarians ecclesiological basis in into two main areas: The dogmatic principle and the doctrinal authority of the Church The sacramental principle and the nature of the church. Each of these major divisions, isolated by Hardelin, will be considered here in attempt to bring some understanding to how the Tractarians understood the Eucharist.

The Dogmatic Principle and the Doctrinal Authority of the Church Hardelin argues that a zeal for orthodoxy runs through the Tractarian works. This he describes as ‘the dogmatic principle’. Newman is keen to establish it, saying: “the Gospel Faith is a definite deposit,—a treasure, common to all, one and the same in every age, conceived in set words, and such as admits of being received, preserved, transmitted.”313 Faith therefore is “not a mere temper of mind or principles of action”, butitisrather,“somedefinitedoctrine”.314 For Newman religion was by definition dogmatic, containing the doctrines received as a definite and divine deposit and therefore quite distinct from any suggestion of relativism, where revelation is seen as being determined solely by individual experience and power of reason. For Newman such an anti-dogmatic principle was called ‘liberalism’. This liberalism, or latitudinarianism, or rationalism, was an attempt to substitute reason for belief in what has been received as revelation. Newman rejects subjective truth and

312 Alf Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist (Uppsala: Acta Univer- sitatis Upsaliensis, ). 313 John Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 314 Ibid, II, p. . the nineteenth century personal interpretation in favour of the deposit of received truth. He expresses this, saying: “Accordingly, instead of accepting reverently the doctrinal Truths which have come down to us, an attempt is made by the reasoners of this age to compare them together, to weigh and measure them, to analyse, simplify, refashion them; to reduce them to system, to arrange them into primary and secondary, to harmonise them into an intelligible dependence upon each other.”315 Richard Hurrell Froude (–), another Tractarian, defined ‘rationalism’ as that which attempts: “to attach undue weight to human experience in the interpretation of Scripture”316 and which opposes “sight”317 (reliance on the evidence of the senses) to “faith”318 (reliance on testimony or revelation). The Tractarians were careful not to systematise too deeply since this they believed led to reductionism, where the mystery of belief was drained off and replaced by the products of reason. The correct system- atisation was the Catholic faith and tradition, expressed not so much in historic dogmas, such as were to be found in the creeds and councils of the Church, but in what Newman describes as the ‘Prophetical Tradi- tion’. This Prophetical Tradition Newman aligns with “what St Paul calls ‘the mind of the Spirit’, the thought and principle which breathed in the Church, her accustomed and unconscious mode of viewing things, and the body of her received notions, than any definite and systematic collection of dogmas elaborated by the intellect”.319 This argument is suggestive of the existence and acceptance of universals instantiated in particulars (realism) and the rejection of a dependence on the enquiring mind through language (nominalism). The living, sacramental word is received as a universal instantiated in matter (realism) and found in the outward formularies, rites, devotions and articles of the Church. These signs of the living, sacramental word are identified with and instantiate the signified living, sacramental word itself.

315 Ibid, II, p. . 316 Richard Froude, ‘Essay on Rationalism as Shown in the Interpretations of Scripture’, in Remains of the Late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude, M.A. ( Volumes) (London: Rivington, ), II, p. . 317 Ibid, II, p. . 318 Ibid, II, p. . 319 John Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church. Illustrated in Lectures, Letters and Tracts. Written between  and  ( Volumes) (London: Pickering, ), I, p. .  chapter four

For the Tractarians ‘the sacramental word’ was not a mere set of words, but the realisation that “the Word is greater than the words, and the Spirit greater than the letters” such that “the word through which the revelation is conveyed is a living, sacramental word”.320 The words are an outward form of the inward mystery—the Word. Newman expresses this when he says that Scripture truth is: “a Mystery, or (what was anciently called) a Truth Sacramental; that is, a high invisible grace lodged in an outward form, a precious possession to be piously and thankfully guarded for the sake of the heavenly reality contained in it.”321 Newman is adopting a realist position here, where he affirms that the sign (the outward words) is linked with the signified (the inward Word). To describe this in another way, the Word is instantiated in the words. This is a clear statement of moderate realism. Edward Pusey (–) also speaks of the sacramental word in his discussion of the interpretation of Scripture.322 He speaks, using a realist philosophy, as he criticises those he describes as ‘moderns’,saying: When moderns then attempt to translate into plain terms the figurative language of Holy Scripture, and to substitute abstract, and as they would fain have it, clearer terms for the types and typical language of the Old Testament, they uniformly by this transmutation evaporate much of their meaning. We have not, it is true, visible propitiatory sacrifices, a visible theocracy, a visible temple; but it is still through the medium of these figures that we understand (as far as we do understand), the reality; .by translating God’s language into man’s, you will not have changed the type into the archetype, but have stripped the type of that whereby it resembled the Archetype,—that in it which was divine.323 Here realist philosophy is being employed to argue for the linking of sign and signified (type with archetype). The meaning of Scripture, argues Pusey, is most clearly revealed through the use of figures, since it is by figures that the reality is best understood. If this realist use of figures is not followed, then the linking between the type and the archetype (the sign and the signified) is broken, with only the type remaining, no longer resembling the archetype. The linking between the type and the

320 Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p.. 321 Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, II, p. . 322 Edward Pusey, Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament (Unpublished lectures held in the Library of Pusey House, Oxford, ). 323 Pusey, ‘Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament’,cited in Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p.. the nineteenth century archetype is crucial here, since Pusey argues that type can be changed into archetype and that the type by its resemblance to the archetype can be divine. The linking of the type and the archetype is not merely a construction of language and of the mind (nominalism) but a realist linking, where the signified (archetype) is identified in the sign (type) and where the sign instantiates the signified. Pusey’s view is that of moderate realism. He specifically excludes immoderate realism by arguing that we do not have visible propitiatory sacrifices, but we do have nonetheless a ‘medium of these figures’ whereby we understand the ‘reality’. This understanding of the reality through the medium of figures is another way of describing moderate realism, where sign instantiates signified, but not in immoderate ways. John Keble (–) in Tract 324 expresses the same realist idea when he speaks with some reverence of the presence of Christ in the words of Scripture. He speaks of a “receiving our Lord in His Scrip- tures”, and a “perception of our Lord’s presence, through the veil of the letter”.325 Keble extends this to include the Eucharist when he says: “As therefore God’s people are continually to be told, concerning the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, that it is infinitely dangerous to come to it unworthily . . .. so it is with this mystical presence of Jesus Christ in every part of the Scriptures.”326 Keble is here suggesting that the same realist philosophy applies to the EucharistasitdoestoScripture.Christispresentinboth,thesignand the signified are linked in both, and it is dangerous to receive either inan unworthy manner since it is by the sign that a person participates in the signified.

The Sacramental Principle and the Nature of the Church Hardelin begins his examination of what the Tractarians called ‘the sacramental principle’ by observing that: “The central doctrine of the Tractar- ians is undoubtedly the doctrine that the Church is to be understood as a visible society, having divinely empowered ministers, and having sacraments and rites which are the channels of life-giving grace.”327

324 John Keble, On Mysticism Attributed to the Early Fathers of the Church (Tract  of The Tracts for the Times) (London: Rivington, ). 325 Ibid, pp. –. 326 Ibid, p. . 327 Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p..  chapter four

For the Tractarians this meant that: “God performs His works through the instrumentality of men and of material things which He makes the channels of grace in the economy of salvation.”328 This sacramental principle is a moderate realist principle, where the signified grace is linked with the sign or material things, such that the sacramentsconveygracethroughtheoutwardforms(e.g.theChurchand things like water and bread and wine). Hardelin argues that Tractarian sacramentalism is based on three things: the Romantic concept of nature, Bishop Joseph Butler’s sacramental principle and the patristic doctrine of ‘economy’.Each of these will now be considered.

The Romantic Concept of Nature Romanticism influenced the thinking of the Tractarians. Romanticism saw nature acting as a stimulus to the imagination, with nature being the way to objective reality and to God. Wordsworth and Keats for example have been described as having “a sense of fellowship with essence” and “a pantheistic mysticism, where subject and object are fused together, rather than a subjective sensationalism”.329 This elevation of the material and the fusing of object and subject are indicators of realism, and it was this realist approach to nature that influenced many of the Tractarians in the expression of their sacramentalism. Keble himself was a poet and Profes- sor of Poetry at Oxford University from  to . His famous work The Christian Year,330 together with his Lectures on Poetry331 (dedicated to William Wordsworth), reflect this Romantic influence where God is found under the veil of nature. Keble, for example says in his poem for Septuagesima Sunday: The works of God above, below, Within us and around, Are pages in that book, to show How God Himself is found.332 For Keble, what the poet sees is not the product of his own imagination or reason, but the universality of God instantiated in nature. The underlying

328 Ibid,p.. 329 Ibid,p.. 330 John Keble, The Christian Year. Thoughts in Verse for the Sundays and Holydays throughout the Year (London: Church Literature Association, ). 331 John Keble, Keble’s Lectures on Poetry, – (trans.E.K.Francis)(Volumes) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). 332 Keble, The Christian Year, p. . the nineteenth century concept here is that of realism, where the sign (nature) instantiates the signified universal (God). The poet is offered or comes across signs in nature in order to know the author of nature. Keble pulls all this together in his  Lectures on Poetry, when he says: “Poetry lends Religion her wealth of symbols and images: Religion restores these again to Poetry, clothed with so splendid a radiance that they appear to be no longer merely symbols, but to partake . . . of the nature of sacraments.”333 What the poet sees then is, for Keble, no mere imagination or invention of the mind, but an objective reality present in created things, which gives humanity access to the invisible and to God. Keble is rejecting any subjective concepts and espousing objective reality. PuseyexpressesmuchthesamethoughtsinhisunpublishedLectures on Types and Prophecies,whenhesays: Nor indeed would external reality convey such direct interests to the soul, and that stronger in proportion to the purity of each, unless it had in it somewhat of God; for it acts upon us not by reflection of the understanding, but by direct impression, not by our own reasoning about the wisdom of contrivances and the like, whereby men now deem (as I said) that they ‘ascend from nature up to nature’s God’, but by immediate influence: so that nothing exercises so congenial an influence over man’s soul, or so harmonized with it, as the visible works of God, except His words or His works in other human souls. . . .. Instance of this expressiveness of nature in conveying moral and religious truth will have been felt by every one; and they will have felt also, that these religious meanings were not arbitrarily affixed by their own minds, but that they arose out of, and existed in, the things themselves. . . . A proof that this expressiveness really lies in the objects and is not the work of the imagination (otherwise than as imagination is employed in tracing out the mutual correspondence of images with their reality, or with each other), is furnished by, that when religious poets (as Wordsworth or the author of The Christian Year) have traced out such correspondence, the mind instantly recognises it as true,notasbeautiful only, and so not belonging to their minds subjectively, but as actually and really existing (objective).334

For the Tractarians, nature was a living thing, full of symbolic meaning. This belief had much import for the sacramental principle which they employed, since it was the natural things (water, bread and wine) which were seen to convey the living God to people in a real way.

333 Keble, Keble’s Lectures on Poetry, II, p. . 334 Pusey, ‘Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament’,cited in Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist, pp. –.  chapter four

Butler and the Sacramental Principle Newman in his Apologia pro Vita Sua,335 first published in , refers to The Analogy of Religion,336 published in  by Joseph Butler (– ), Bishop of Durham, as teaching him that: “the very idea of an analogy between the separate works of God leads to the conclusion that the system which is of less importance is economically or sacramentally connected with the more momentous system”337 and “the Sacramental system; that is, the doctrine that material phenomena are both the types and the instruments of real things unseen.”338 Newman’s lesson from Butler is that of realism—signs are identified with the signified and signs are the means of conveying the signified to people.IndeeditwasNewman’sviewthat“giftsandgracesgotogether”.339 For Newman, Butler’s “wonderfully gifted intellect caught the idea which had actually been the rule of the Primitive Church, of teaching the more sacred truths by rites and ceremonies”.340 Newman also introduces the doctrine of ‘economy’ here, derived from the Alexandrian Fathers. He says that the teaching of the Alexandrian Fathers was: “based on the mystical or sacramental principle, and spoke of the various Economies or Dispensations of the Eternal. I understood these passages to mean that the exterior world, physical or historical, was but the manifestation to our senses of realities greater than itself”.341 The sacramental principle, as Newman seems to have understood it, influenced by the Alexandrian Fathers, interpreted ‘symbol’ in a way that does not correspond with the modern understanding of ‘symbol’. Hardelin points out that symbol in the modern sense “usually stands opposed to the reality and the thing it symbolizes”.342 The doctrinal stance of the Tractarians is quite different to this general modern view. What the Tractarians meant by symbol, as did the Alexandrian Fathers (such as Origen) is “sensible sign of a transcendent mystery” where

335 John Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (London: Oxford University Press, ). 336 Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion. Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature (London: Oxford University Press, ). 337 Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. . 338 Ibid, p. . 339 Ibid, p. . 340 Letter of Newman to J. Stephen,  March, , cited in Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship – (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 341 Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. . 342 Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p.. the nineteenth century

“symbol conveys to us under sensible signs things which are eternal, and itself participates in these eternal realities”.343 This seems to be the sense in which Newman uses the word ‘symbol’ when he says that they are “economically and sacramentally connected” with divine things, and as such are not only “types” but also “instruments of real things unseen” which are “the manifestation to our senses of realities greater than itself”.344 Thistypeoflanguageisthatofmoderaterealism,where the sign identifies with, participates in and instantiates the signified, so that by experiencing the sign, the signified is also experienced in a real way. The sacramental theology emerging from this type of thinking was based on realist philosophical assumptions.

The Evangelicals and ‘Spiritual’ Religion The realism espoused by Butler and the Tractarians was not found amongst the Evangelicals of the nineteenth century. The Evangelicals spoke instead of a ‘spiritual’ religion where the gifts of God were communicated by the Spirit of God and where the gifts were available directly to the soul of the believer without the need for any external mediation through the sacraments. The outward signs of the sacraments (water, bread and wine) were seen as tokens or emblems only and were not as an objective and instrumental cause of grace. This theology was nominalist (separating sign and signified) and is found, for example, in the writing of John Bird Sumner (–) (Archbishop of Canterbury) and his brother Charles Richard Sumner (–), Bishop of Winchester. J.B. Sumner argued that justification by faith is the essential doctrine of the Christian system. Faith is the “means through which we claim and appropriate to ourselves the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ procured”.345 Hardelin comments that: “The ‘spiritual’character of theChris- tian religion means then to the Evangelicals that external and material sacraments are excluded as effectual means of grace”.346 C.R. Sumner speaks specifically of the use of objects by Christ and links this with the sacraments. He argues that Christ only used objects for the purposes of instruction and as illustrations of his doctrinal

343 Ibid,p.. 344 Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, pp. , , . 345 John Sumner, Apostolical Preaching Considered, in an examination of St Paul’s Epistles (London: Hatchard, ), p. . 346 Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p..  chapter four instructions.347 Outward actions, such as accompanied Christ’s healings, only had the purpose of “attracting attention to the cure about to be performed”.348 In same way the outward signs of the sacraments were not regarded as real instruments or vehicles of spiritual grace. In the Eucharist the bread and wine are merely “symbols of the actual body of Christ” and become “sanctified only by the spiritual application; and through the medium of visible things, things invisible and hard to be understood are rendered more obvious to human capabilities”.349 Hard- elin concludes that for the Evangelical, “religion, then, is essentially a matter for the mind, and there is consequently no place for any sacramental instrumentality”.350 Such a view, denying sacramental instrumentality, is that of moderate nominalism, where the sign and the signified are not linked in any real or objective fashion but only in the subjective faith of the individual believer or communicant. Charles Simeon (–), another leading Evangelical, argued that even though great good was given to the soul through the sacraments, because the person enters into the covenant with God through the sacraments, there was nonetheless no “change of nature”351 brought about by the sacraments. Simeon distances the sign from the signified in a nominalist separation by speaking of baptism in the following way: “As the circumcision of the heart did not always accompany the circumcision of the flesh, so neither does the renovation of the soul always accompany the outward rite of baptism, which shadows it forth; and if only our opponents will distinguish the sign from the thing signified, and assigns to each its proper place and office, there will be an immediate end of this controversy.”352 Realism is excluded from the Evangelical sacramental theology of the Sumners and of Simeon, and a nominalist separation of sign and signified is asserted, with any notions of realism (where there is said to be a linking of sign and signified) being described as ‘this controversy’.

347 Charles Sumner, The Ministerial Character of Christ Pastorally Considered (London: Hatchard, ), p. . 348 Ibid, p. . 349 Ibid, p. . 350 Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p.. 351 Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae: or Discourses (principally in the form of skele- tons) Now digested into one continued series, and forming a commentary upon every book of the Old and New Testament to which is annexed an improved edition of a translation of Claude’s Essay on the Composition of a Sermon (In Twenty-One Volumes) (Volume XVI  and Corinthians) (London: Holdsworth and Ball, ), XVI, p. . 352 Ibid, XVI, p. . the nineteenth century

The sign and the signified are related but not in any objective sense with nominalist philosophical assumptions underlying the expression of this type of sacramental theology. The relationship between sign and signified is only in connection with the faith of the individual believer or communicant.

The Liberals and ‘Rational’ Religion Richard Whately (–), an academic and later Archbishop of Dublin, spoke of those he called ‘liberals’ in the early nineteenth century who adopted a rational religion in which there was seen to be no mysteries or mysterious doctrines, since all that had been concealed was now disclosed.353 Thomas Arnold (–), Headmaster of Rugby School, for example, argued that there were no mysterious virtues given through the sacraments354 thereby rejecting sacramental mediation. The rationalism of Arnold saw “reason resting on faith” and this “assures us of the utter incapability of any outward bodily action to produce in us an inward spiritual effect”.355 He went further and stated that any belief in “the mystic virtue of the sacraments”356 is really “Judaizing superstitions”,357 since the importance of sacraments is in the inward change of heart, with the reception of the elements being only symbolic and the grace of the sacraments being conveyed “morally” and as such only “beneficial to our moral nature”.358 Any suggestion that consecration attaches or imparts a virtue (the signified) to the external elements (the signs) is rejected.359 Renn Dickson Hampden (–), Bishop of Hereford, argued that any suggestion of grace being instrumentally communicated is based on an error, that is, “the application of processes in the mind to processes in nature”.360 ThisarguesHampdenwastheerrorofscholasticism.What

353 Richard Whately, Essays (Third Series) on the Errors of Romanism having their origin in the human nature (London: Fellowes, ), pp. –. 354 Thomas Arnold, Fragment of the Church (London: Fellowes, ), p. . 355 Ibid,p.. 356 Ibid,p.. 357 Ibid,p.. 358 Ibid,p.. 359 Ibid,p.. 360 Renn Hampden, The Scholastic Philosophy considered in its relation to Christian Theology in A Course of Lectures delivered before the University of Oxford in the Year MDC- CCXXXII at the Lecture founded by John Bampton, M.A. Canon of Salisbury (Oxford, Parker, ), p. .  chapter four

Hampden is rejecting is actually realism and any linking of the sign and the signified in any real way other than in the mind or through language. Hampden expressed this more fully by saying: Rightly, then, to understand, the [scholastic] doctrine of the Sacraments in general, we must look to the theory of secret influences on which it is based, the mysterious power, conceived to belong to certain things, or actions, or persons, of effecting changes not cognisable to the senses, and changes, as real as those apparent to observation. It is true indeed, that, in the Christian application of this theory, the power was not conceived to belong intrinsically to the things themselves. They were only subordinate, instrumental causes, by which Divine Agency accomplished its ends. Christ was held to be the sole primary cause of Grace, however given. In this respect, the mystical philosophy of secret agents in nature was chris- tianised. But, though it might thus be denied, that any proper efficacy was attributed to the symbol employed in the administration of a Sacrament, still its power of communicating grace instrumentally, was asserted in the strongest manner.361 Hampden is rejecting both the idea that a power can belong to a thing intrinsically and the idea that sacraments are able to communicate grace instrumentally. In Hampden’s analysis realist sacramental theology is based on secret influences and his description of it as having mysterious power suggests he considers it almost superstitious. He therefore, along with other Evangelicals and Liberals of his time, is rejecting not only the sacramental principle, but also the realist philosophy on which it is based. It seems that many Evangelicals and Liberals accepted a nominalist philosophy where sign and signified were separate entities and where grace was not instrumentally conveyed by the sacraments in general or the sacramental signs in particular. Hampden seems to be expressing a moderate nominalist view of the sacraments, since he denies that any ‘proper efficacy’ (instantiation) can be attributed to the sign, but he does not deny that grace is communicated to the person who receives the sacraments (e.g. by faith).

The Tractarian Position The Tractarian position regarding the Eucharist is dependent on the sacramental principle with the external and internal aspects of the Church and its sacramental system together as one whole. Not only does

361 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century this link sign with signified, but it also excludes any individualistic or ‘spiritual’ concept of religion based solely on personal affections, mental acts and faith. The Church and the sacramental system are therefore seen as the means for delivering grace and an integral part of God’s design. The signs were seen to deliver grace instrumentally and therefore to convey the signified. Newman expresses this in Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day,362 when he says that God: “has not acted against the appointments of this world, but through them. He has made those which in themselves were weak and unprofitable, good, by His blessing.”363 This means that as far as the sacraments are concerned, God has adapted material elements (bread and wine) from the creation and endowed them with the divine presence so that they can be used for the purposes of conveying supernatural grace. Pusey in his reaction to the Evangelicals and Liberals connected the sacramental system with the incarnation. In his Lectures on Types and Prophecies364 he speaks of the types and archetypes found in the Old and New Testaments and applies these to the sacramental system, speaking of what he calls a ‘sacramental union’. This ‘union’ is the work of God and is opposed to the fleshy or carnal (immoderate) since it depends on mediation of the type. The sign is knit together with the signifies. In criticising those who advocate a ‘spiritual’ religion, Pusey says in some detail: It has been well said that God has appointed, as it were, a sort of sacramental union between the type and the archetype, so that the type were nothing, except in so far as it represents, and is the medium conveying the archetype to the mind, so neither can the archetype be conveyed except through the type. Though the consecrated element be not the sacrament, yet neither can the soul of the sacrament be obtained without it. God has joined them together, and man may not and cannot put them asunder. We think ourselves in no danger of the fleshy system, which clung to the type, without looking to the archetype; but in truth, in looking to separate the archetype from the type, by this pseudo-spiritual system we are adding this error to that which is more peculiarly our own. For whereas the type never did exist for itself, but always bearing the character of the archetype impressed upon it, we by separating it therefrom, do as thoroughly empty it of its meaning, as they who saw nothing in it beyond

362 John Newman, ‘The Church and the World’, Sermon VIII, in Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day (London, Oxford and Cambridge: Rivingtons, ), pp. –. 363 Ibid,p.. 364 Pusey, Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament.  chapter four

its outward form. The pseudo-spiritualists and the carnal man alike see in the water, the bread or the wine nothing but the bare element, and thereby each alike deprives himself of the benefit intended for him: the carnal will live on bread alone, the pseudo-spiritualist without it: the carnal mistakes the clouds and darkness for Him who is enshrined within it, the pseudo-spiritualist would behold Him, Whom ‘man cannot see and live’, the ‘Light inapproachable, Whom no man hath seen or can see’: the carnal neglects the revelation, the pseudo-spiritualist will know the unrevealed God. The danger of an age which thinks itself enlightened, is of course this last; only it should be borne in mind that a pseudo-spiritual mind is also unspiritual, though in a different way, equally uncapable of seeing things spiritual. The whole system of religion, contemplative and practical, is one of God’s condescension: God cometh down to us, not we mount up to God. Its corner-stone and characteristic is ‘God manifest in the flesh’. And with this, as God has appointed it, all is in keeping. Neither the letter without the Spirit, not yet the Spirit without the letter—prayers, which God cometh into the midst of us to hear; earthly Sacraments, yet full of heaven, earthly words, yet full of the Word, logoi proceeding from and setting forth the logos. And we, as we walk still by faith and not by sight, must be content to see still the reflected light, ‘as in a glass darkly’,not ‘face to face’.365 Pusey’s use of the words ‘type’ and ‘archetype’ accord well with what the notion of ‘sign’ and ‘signified’.His argument, proceeding to and from the incarnation, bases sacramental theology on a philosophical foundation of moderate realism. In what seems to be a description of a nominalist separation of entities, Pusey speaks of those who are opposed to the realist position, as those who separate type and archetype. Pusey is distancing himself from any such nominalist view of what happens in the sacraments.Atthesametimeheisrejectinganywhoadvocateanimmoderate realism, since the focussing on the type (the signs) is at the expense of the archetype (the signified). For Pusey then immoderate realism and nominalism are problematic in that they both separate the sign from the signified, one (immoderate realism) by concentrating too much on the sign and neglecting the signified and the other (nominalism) concentrating too much on the signified and neglecting the sign. Pusey’s preference is that of moderate realism since it links the signs with the signified and maintains the balance through sacramental instrumentality.

365 Pusey, Lectures on Types and Prophecies of the Old Testament, p. f., cited in Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist, p. . the nineteenth century

Faith and Sacraments Another crucial area of difference between the Tractarians and the Evan- gelicals in the nineteenth century was the relationship between faith and the sacraments. The Evangelicals had no place for objective sacramental grace and saw the communion between humanity and God as one of spirit communing with Spirit. The sacraments therefore were only outward signs and did not contain or convey grace in any way. The outward signs served to remind people of the grace of Christ which they received byfaithalone.HowthendidtheTractariansrelatefaithandthesacra- ments? Newman argued that human faith “makes the Sacrament open their hiddenvirtue,andflowforthinpardonandgrace”.366 The sacraments contain the grace objectively and it is faith that opens a path to grace. Faith does not, in Newman’s analysis, produce grace. Pusey also argued for the objective presence of grace in the sacraments. He stated that the sacraments are “full of life and honour and immortality, for that they are full of Christ”.Newman addressed this issue at some length in his Lectures of Justification.367 Here Newman in response to Article  of the Thirty- Nine Articles, which states that ‘we are justified by Faith only’, argued that faith is the sole internal instrument, but that sacraments were the outward instruments.368 For Newman, faith “coalesces with the Sacra- ments, brings them into effect, dissolves (as it were) what is outward and material in them, and through them unites the soul to God”.369 The role of faith and the sacraments is affirmed in Newman’s scheme such that, “the doctrine of justification by Sacraments is altogether consistent, or rather coincident with St Paul’s doctrine in the text”.370 Both Newman and Pusey affirmed the place of faith and sacraments in the delivery of grace, but emphasised the sacraments such that “faith, then, considered as an instrument, is always secondary to the Sacrament”.371 Their discussion was based on a realist philosophical assumptions, expressed by a

366 John Newman, Sermon XI ‘Divine Decrees’, in Parochial and Plain Sermons (Lon- don: Longmans, Green and Co, ), II, p. . 367 John Newman, Lectures on Justification (London: Rivington, ). 368 John Newman, Lecture X, ‘Justification by Faith’,in Lectures of Justification, pp. – . 369 Ibid, p. . 370 John Newman, Lecture XII, ‘Faith Viewed Relatively to Rites and Works’,in Lectures of Justification, p. . 371 Newman, Lecture X, ‘Justification by Faith’,p. .  chapter four sacramental principle, where outward means (signs) contained and delivered inward grace (the signified). Realist philosophical assumptions were the basis of the Tractarian eucharistic theology. the nineteenth century

Thomas Stuart Vogan

Thomas Vogan (died ) was a Canon of Chichester and published a book in  entitled The True Doctrine of the Eucharist.372 In this book Vogan argued that: The letter [that is, in the words of institution] does not speak of the Lord’s body in any other condition than in that of ‘being given for us’, or of His blood in any other condition than in that of being poured out for sin. The letter sets forth the Lord’s body as a sacrifice for sin; it sets forthHis blood as poured out from His body for sin. It sets forth His body and blood separately for each other; and, since blood is the life of the body, the body from which the blood is poured out has its life taken away, and is dead. . . . As the bread and the wine were distinct things, and were given separately for each other, so He gave His body and His blood separately from each other, and therefore it was His dead body which He gave. . . . ThebreadisthebodyofChrist,andthewineisthebloodofChrist,ina way beyond the nature of earthly things. The bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ so far as one thing can be another, the nature of each being unchanged. They are called what He called, and by calling made them to all the intents and purposes for which He so made them. The wine is His blood poured out, the bread is His body given, the life being taken from it, and the body therefore dead, but both in spiritual effect, not in positive and absolute reality. . . . The dead body of our Lord, and His blood shed, cannot be, and therefore are not, present either in the Eucharist or in its elements. The letter speaks only of the given body and the poured out blood. It says nothing of our Lord’s living body or of His glorified body. It says nothing, and implies nothing of His soul or His Godhead. . . . The ancient fathers of the Church for many centuries and ... the great divines of the Church of England . . . agree that it is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for us which we receive, and that it is His blood which was shed for us which we receive. They do not teach that it is the living glorified body of our Lord, His living glorified body present inthe bread and wine, which we receive. But they teach us that by receiving His body given, and His blood shed for us, we are made one with Him, are united to His glorious body, dwell in Him, and have Him also dwelling in us.... Theletter... showsthatourLordwasnot,andisnot,presentinthe bread and wine of the Eucharist, and therefore it compels the conclusion that He is not to be adored as present in them. . . . The literal interpretation admits of no sacrifice to be offered by us, in fulfilling His words thatwe should do as He did, but that which is comprehended in the sacrifice of thanksgiving. . . . Since there is not, nor can be, any real presence of the

372 Thomas Vogan, The True Doctrine of the Eucharist (London: Longmans, Green and Co, ).  chapter four

body and blood of Christ in or with or under the elements or their form, no sacrifice can be offered of Him, or of His body and blood, in or withor under them, whether they remain in their proper natural substances or do not. The Eucharistic sacrifice, therefore, which is offered by us is not Christ or of His body and blood or of His presence. The letter has nothing of such oblation to be made by us. He only could, He only himself did, offer that all-sufficient sacrifice. And, having made it, He now makes us not offerers but partakers of it. And we plead that sacrifice before the throne of God. We rely on it as all-sufficient and all-pervailing with the Father. We embrace its benefits, and render our souls and bodies, as a reasonable, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God.373 Vogan affirms that Christ’s body was given and blood poured out, but stops short of linking the bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ in any realist manner. Although he admits that the bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ, this is in a spiritual sense only and not in any ‘positive and absolute reality’. It is unclear if by ‘positive and absolute reality’ Vogan is denying moderate or immoderate realism. It seems that there is no identification of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist other than the bread and wine being called the body and blood of Christ. Vogan’s reference to the ‘dead body of our Lord’ places the presence of Christ’s body firmly in the historic period of the first century and not inthe present. He is also firm in stating that the ‘dead body of our Lord’ cannot be present in the Eucharist or in the elements. This seems to be denying any linking of sign and signified in both moderate and immoderate degrees of realism. This is confirmed by his specific denial of any living or glorified body and soul and Godhead of Christ in the Eucharist. It seems that while Vogan is prepared to admit that the body of Christ is given and received in the Eucharist and that his shed blood is received in the Eucharist, he is not prepared to admit that it is given and received in any living or glorified manner. He does admit that the communicant receives the body and blood, that the communicant is made one with Christ, being united to Christ’s glorious body, dwelling in Christ, and Christ dwelling in the communicant, however, he does not admit that this is achieved in any way through the elements of the Eucharist, since Christ was not and is not present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. There can be therefore no real presence or any sacrifice in the Eucharist for Vogan. Any suggestion of a eucharistic sacrifice and a pleading of that

373 Ibid, pp. ix–xiv. the nineteenth century sacrifice refers not to Christ’s body or blood or action on the cross, but only to the ‘oblation of ourselves, our souls and bodies, as a reasonable, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God’. These words, echoing the prayer after Communion in the  Book of Common Prayer, refer to thankful partaking in what Christ has already offered in an all-sufficient manner on the cross, and do not refer to any offering of Christ joined with the Eucharist. The means of partaking in the body and blood of Christ and in Christ’s sacrifice, is faith, since Vogan says: “They who have not faith are not ‘verily and indeed’ partakers of the inward part, the inward and spiritual grace, of the Sacrament; they do not receive or partake of that body of Christ which the bread is not, or of that blood of Christ which the wine is not.”.374 The communicant partakes of the body and blood of Christ, dwells in Christ and has Christ dwelling in the communicant, by faith alone. The bread and wine of the Eucharist are not seen to be the means of partaking of or receiving Christ’s body and blood in any realist sense. InrelationtothesacrificeofChristandtheEucharist,Vogansays: “We feast upon the sacrifice which He once made, upon a past and not upon a present sacrifice; and we are therein worshippers of God, and have communion in its benefits.”375 The idea of feasting upon the sacrifice (a term used by earlier Anglican writers such as Simon Patrick—see Chapter ) takes the line that there is no realist identification between the sacrifice of Christ (made on the cross in the past) and the idea of a joining with that sacrifice in the Eucharist. There is no linking of the sign (the eucharistic sacrifice) with the signified (the historic sacrifice) in the moderate realist sense of anamnesis,where the effects of Christ’s sacrifice in the past are seen to be available in the present in the Eucharist. Vogan’s theology of the Eucharist separates sign and signified in relation to both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist. His theology presents a moderate nominalist approach, where sign and signified are not linked in any realist sense, and where the communicant’s participate in Christ’spresence and sacrifice by faith alone. The subjective response of faith is emphasised and any objective ideas of presence and sacrifice are denied. Vogan’s eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of nominalism.

374 Ibid, p. . 375 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

Robert Isaac Wilberforce

In his book, The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,376 published in , Robert Wilberforce (–), Archdeacon of the East Riding, presented the first scholarly and systematic treatment of the Eucharist by a Tractarians. The book has been described as “the crowning effort of Tractarian thinking on this subject”.377 In this work Wilberforce maintains that the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally present in the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Wilberforce begins by linking the incarnation and the sacraments. He asserts that “sacraments are the extension of the Incarnation”.378 He goes on to lay the ground work for his argument, asserting that in any discussion of whether Christ is present in the Eucharist and whether the Eucharist is a sacrifice, the evidence of Scripture and the primitive church must be the source.379 It is on this basis that he is able to declare his purpose at the beginning of the book in these words: The manner in which Christ’s presence is bestowed, whether itbeby transubstantiation, or according to any other law, is a point which did not come under consideration during the first eight centuries. On this subject therefore it will not be necessary to enter. But that Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist is a real presence; that the blessing of the new life are truly bestowed in it through the communion with the New Adam; that consecration is a real act, whereby the inward part of thing signified is joined to the outward and visible sign; and that the Eucharistic oblation is a real sacrifice—these points it will be attempted to prove, by the testimony of Scripture and of the ancient Fathers.380 Wilberforce then argues that consecration is the essential characteristic of the Eucharist and that the words of institution have supreme importance.381 In considering the words (‘This is my body’) he states that ‘this’ refers to “‘the inward part or thing signified’, which was the real object under consideration; but that they had also an indirect relation to the ‘outward and visible sign’”.382 Signandsignifiedarethereforelinked.

376 Robert Wilberforce, The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London and Oxford: Moz- ley and Parker, ). 377 Hardelin, The Tractarian Understanding of the Eucharist,p.. 378 Wilberforce, The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,p.. 379 Ibid,p.. 380 Ibid, pp. –. 381 Ibid,p.. 382 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

Wilberforce argues that our Lord’s words show that the “consecrated gifts were supposed to be the subject-matter of His declaration”.383 This gives the elements a certain objectivity apart from the faith of the individual communicant, whereby there is a real presence of Christ and the effective communication of the presence of Christ by the elements. Wilberforce says therefore that “it is not the element at large which is spoken of [i.e. bread and wine in general], but this bread,andthis cup”andthatwithout consecration, the essential part of the sacrament of the Eucharist, “the inward part and the outward part cannot be brought together”.384 The consecration then results in the linking of the sign and the signified, with the specific signthis ( bread and this cup, particulars) being linked to the signified (Christ’s body and blood). If the consecration is seen as the first truth of the Eucharist, the inward blessing bestowed through the outward form, is the second truth. In discussing this Wilberforce distinguishes the res sacramenti (the thing signified) from the virtus sacramenti (the benefit of the sacrament). These two are communicated through the outward sign (the bread and wine), with the sign being not only a pledge assuring that the inward gift is given, but the means through which the gift is communicated.385 In speaking in this way Wilberforce is careful not to suggest that the sacrament is as he calls it: “a physical, but only a moral instrument in man’s salvation . . . whichactsofitself,bymeansofthosequalitieswhichareinherentinit: by a moral instrument, one which derives its efficacy from the perpetual intervention of its employer’s will.”386 Here Wilberforce is distancing himself from any immoderate sense of realism in the Eucharist. He adds that: “when it is said that certain inward gifts are bestowed through a sacrament, it is not meant that they are so physically associated with its outward form, as to follow from it in the way of natural consequence: the inward gifts are dependent altogether upon the ordaining will of Almighty God, who appoints a certain external form as the means whereby He bestows His gifts. So that a sacrament is a moral instrument, which derives its efficacy from the perpetual intervention of the Being by whom it has been appointed.”387

383 Ibid,p.. 384 Ibid,p.. 385 Ibid,p.. 386 Ibid,p.. 387 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four

Sacraments then do not function according to the order of nature, but rather according to the order of grace.388 In the Eucharist thereforeChrist is present according to the order of grace (moderate realism) and not according to the order of nature (flesh or immoderate realism). This does not mean that “sacraments are less certain in their effects than physical agents; nor yet that their reality depends upon those circumstances in their receivers”.389 The reality of the Eucharist therefore has an objective character to it, not depending on the faith of the receiver, but on the gracious gift of God. This means that “the outward part is consecrated to be the instrument through which there is a continuous ministration of the inward blessing. . . . Our Lord’s words indicated that This,whichHe heldinHishands,wasthefixedmediumofconveyingthehiddengift”.390 The sacramental reality that Wilberforce is referring to here is therefore an objective and mediating means of grace, apart from the faith of the believer. This real and objective presence and grace in the sacramental elements results from the linking of the sign and the signified. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not carnal or immoderate, but rather a presence in the manner of moderate realism. Having argued that the ‘this’ in Our Lord’s words, ‘This is My Body’, refer to the consecrated elements and not to bread and wine at large, Wilberforce goes on to consider what is present in the Eucharist—My Body and My Blood. He states that the ancient writers, when referring to Christ’sbody and blood, all refer to his human nature, however, since the human nature of Christ was taken into God (the incarnation), then the body and blood of Christ involves his Godhead also. This he explains as follows: But though the mention of Our Lord’s Body and Blood implies the presence of His man’s nature, yet by virtue of that personal union, whereby the manhood was taken into God, it involves the presence of His God- head also. For since these two natures have been perfectly joined together, never to be divided, in the Person of Christ, it follows that His Godhead must needs participate in some measure in all acts and sufferings, in which His Manhood is concerned. For though it is the law of His nature, that His Manhood is not every where present, as is His Godhead—since the first does not partake in that attribute of omnipresence which belongs to the last—yet His Godhead is every where present with His Manhood, and has

388 Ibid,p.. 389 Ibid,p.. 390 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century

part in all its actings. Whatsoever was meant therefore by the giving the Body and Blood of Christ, as by the force of the terms it implied the gift of His Manhood, so by virtue of the Hypostatic Union it involved that of His Godhead also. Whatsoever was done by the Man Christ Jesus, was done by one who consisted not only of soul and body, but of Godhead also; and that which implied the action of His lower, implied likewise that of His higher nature. When Our Lord, then, spoke of His Body and Blood as bestowed upon His disciples in this sacrament, He must have been understood to imply that He Himself, Godhead, Soul, and Body, was the gift communicated. His Manhood was the medium through which His whole Person was dispensed.391 Here then is a fuller explanation of what Wilberforce meant when he declared at the beginning of his book, “Sacraments are the extension of the Incarnation”.392 As the manhood and the Godhood of Christ are joined together inseparably in the person of Jesus Christ, so the Godhead, soul and body are joined together inseparably in the eucharistic presence of Christ. In the case of the incarnation this is known as the hypostatic union. In the case of the Eucharist this is the real presence of Christ. The manhood of Christ served as the medium for the communication of the gift, that is, ‘through which His whole Person was dispensed’. The point to be raised here must be, however, is the manhood dispensed in the Eucharist and further, does the manhood, if so dispensed, imply a carnal or immoderate presence in the Eucharist? The answer seems to be, according to Wilberforce’s own interpretation that the gift is of the order of grace and not of the order of nature.393 This suggests that by manhood is not meant flesh and blood, but manhood as human nature, joined inseparably with the hidden gift of the Godhead.394 Wilberforce therefore concludes: That which Our Lord affirmed to be present then, by the words of Insti- tution, was His own Body and Blood. These were the Predicates which He connected with those elements of bread and wine, which He took into His own hands and blessed. The nature of the connexion . . . though it was real it was not carnal: as yet we are concerned with the Predicates themselves, that is, with the Body and Blood which He bestowed. We have seen that it was that self-same Body and Blood which He had taken of the blessed

391 Ibid, pp. –. 392 Ibid,p.. 393 Ibid,p.. 394 Ibid,p..  chapter four

Virgin, of her substance; and which so shortly afterwards He offered upon the cross. This it is which forms the link between Him and man’s nature; it was bound by the unalterable tie of personality to Himself; and as He then gave it Himself to His twelve apostles, so He still communicates it by the ministration of their successors to the faithful, in the Holy Eucharist.395 The realism that Wilberforce advocates here is that of moderate realism. He specifically denies that the connection between the elements and Christ’s body and blood is carnal or immoderate, yet it is real. The manhood of Christ, as human nature, is therefore present in the Eucharist as is the Godhead, as divine nature, and the two, human and divine nature cannot be separated. The manhood, as human nature, is however, in no sense carnal or immoderate. This seems to be a moderate realism. Wilberforce’s analysis of the words of Christ (‘Take, eat, this is My Body’) is that the medium through which the gifts of the Eucharist are extended, that is, taken and eaten, is not Christ’s deity, but Christ’s manhood.396 Quoting Cyril, he argues that Christ did not say, ‘Take, eat, this is My Godhead’, but ‘Take, eat, this is My Body’.397 What is given, taken and eaten therefore, it is argued, is not the divinity of Christ, but Christ’s humanity. The sense in which humanity or manhood is meant here is crucial to any consideration of whether he is presenting a moderate or immoderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. On the basis of the patristic authors, Wilberforce argues, that they uniformly assert that the efficacy of the Eucharist depends on the communication of Christ’s humanity. “They maintained it [the Eucharist] to be the appointed medium through which that re-creation of man’s nature, which began in Christ, was extended to His brethren”.398 Talk of ‘man’snature’ seems to suggest that the sense of manhood, as Wilberforce uses it, is in the moderate sense of realism. There is no suggestion that a fleshy or immoderate manhood is communicated in the Eucharist, even though Wilberforce is clear that in the Eucharist, as in the incarnation, there is “that Body which once was humbled, but now exalted, the self- same Body, which He took of the virgin, and which suffered on the Cross.”.399 If the incarnation is admitted, then it is the body of Christ, not the Godhead of Christ, that is the medium through which the gifts,

395 Ibid,p.. 396 Ibid,p.. 397 Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius,iv,. 398 Wilberforce, The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,p.. 399 Ibid,p.. the nineteenth century coming from the Godhead, are communicated. It follows for Wilberforce then that in the Eucharist, the gifts of the Godhead are communicated through the medium of the body and blood of Christ. Having considered the subject of Christ’s words, This is My Body,that is ‘this’,and the predicate, that is, ‘body’, Wilberforce goes on to consider the connection or copula between them, that is, ‘is’. There are, he says, two interpretations which the word ‘is’ can receive. Either ‘is’ implies ‘representation’ or it implies ‘identity’.400 The interpretation of representation Wilberforce links with the views of those such as Zwingli, while the interpretation of identity links with the views of the ancient church. Rep- resentation depends on the opinion of the spectator where the efficacy of the Eucharist is seen to come from the disposition of the receiver.401 The interpretation of identity however, implies that the presence of the Lord is not bestowed according to the laws of material creation (immoderate realism) but according to a “specific and supernatural” manner.402 Iden- tity in the Eucharist depends, argues Wilberforce, on what he calls “the mysterious law of consecration” where “by virtue of this act, the Subject and the Predicate make up together a real, but heterogenous whole”.403 This ‘sacramental identity’ is really a linking between the sign and the signified in a moderate realist sense. The subject ‘this’ refers to the bread and wine (the sign) and the predicate ‘body/blood’ refers to the body and blood of Christ (the signified). The linking of the sign and the signified comes about through the consecration of the elements of the Eucharist. This is very much states of affairs language based on moderate realism, although Wilberforce does not use these terms. Wilberforce says: “Hence it comes to pass that this sacrament consists of two things, a Subject and a Predicate, which are united into one by a law of identity which is without parallel”.404 This linking Wilberforce sees as being stated in the Cate- chism of The Book of Common Prayer,whichtalksofan“outwardpart or sign”, and also of an “inward part or thing signified”. This, for Wilber- force means that: When it is said, then, that the relation between the Subject and the Predi- cate in Our Lord’s words of Institution, is that of sacramental identity, it is meant that the outward and inward parts, the sacramentum and res sacramenti, are united by the act of consecration into a compound whole. The

400 Ibid,p.. 401 Ibid,p.. 402 Ibid,p.. 403 Ibid,p.. 404 Ibid,p..  chapter four

two therefore are so united, that they must needs go together; and whoso receives the one, receives the other. So long as we remain in the region of the senses, and take account only of that which is visible to the outward world, the sacramentum is all which we know of; but judge of the matter by faith and revelation, and we are sure that the res sacramenti is present also. Such was the efficacy of Our Lord’s benediction; such continues to be the force of the same words, when pronounced by Him through the mouth of His ministers. For they are creative words; like those which called the world into existence: they effect that which they declare.405 Sacramental identity means therefore the uniting of the sign and the signified through the act of consecration, such that they become one (‘a compound whole’ as Wilberforce describes it). All this occurs without any change in the substance of the bread and wine. Wilberforce expresses this by arguing that: “Since the principle, then, of the Holy Eucharist is that two dissimilar things, the outward and the inward, retaining each their own character, are united into a heterogeneous whole, it follows that the complete idea of this sacrament implies, not only the maintenance of the two portions of which this whole is composed, but the law of their combination.”406 The outward and the inward retain their own character (substance) and yet are united to make the ‘whole’. Immoderate realism is therefore denied and moderate realism affirmed. The sign and the signified are a ‘whole’. In putting this theology of the Eucharist forward, Wilberforce argues that since the Eucharist consists of an outward and an inward part and since the two parts must be joined, the nature of a sacrament would be denied if one of the parts was omitted, confused with the other or separated from the other. The sacrament must consist of both the sacramentum (thesignsofbreadandwine)andtheres sacramenti (the body and blood of Christ). In the past some (the Capernaites or those who take a carnal view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist) have emphasised the res sacramenti, while Zwingli has emphasised the sacramentum. Luther, he argues, confused the sacramentum with the res sacramenti, and Calvin unduly dissociated the res sacramenti from the sacramentum. Wilberforce’s view, which he sees as the correct one, is that there is a sacramental identity, whereby the sacramentum and the res sacramenti are bound together by the consecration, such that the consecrated elements are bound to the body and blood of Christ.407

405 Ibid, p. . 406 Ibid, p. . 407 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

In asserting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (as opposed to a symbolical or a virtual presence) Wilberforce takes a position which can be defined as moderate realism. He argues that the presence is supernatural not natural and that it is also sacramental not sensible.The words supernatural, sacramental and real are defined by Wilberforce in the following way: Supernatural: “To say that Our Lord’s presence in the Holy Eucharist is supernatural, is to affirm that while His Humanity has a presence, which, except when He wills it otherwise, is accordant to the laws of material existence, it has also a presence of another sort, which is independent of those laws.”408 Sacramental: “Our Lord’s Presence in the Holy Eucharist is sacramental, and not sensible. This is a consequence from the fact . . . that the Subject and Predicate in the Our Lord’s words of Institution were united together by sacramental reality. For this was shown to imply that the Holy Eucharist consisted of two parts, a sacramentum and a res sacramenti—the first an object to the senses, the second an object only to faith and to the mind. And further, it was shown to be the purpose of consecration, to unite these two together, so that they might have that peculiar relation to one which belongstothissacrament.”409 Real: “Our Lord’s Presence in the Holy Eucharist is real, and not merely symbolical or virtual. Such is the necessary consequence of believing not only in a sacramentum and a virtus sacramenti,butinares sacramenti also. If the Holy Eucharist were nothing but a sacramentum or symbol, as Zuinglius maintained, the utmost which could be affirmed would be, that Our Lord’s Presence was symbolical.If,asCalvintaught,thevirtus sacramenti was all which was to be added, it would be natural to say that it was nothing more than a virtual presence. But if res sacramenti be admitted, and that res sacramenti the Body of Christ, it is impossible to deny that He is really present. And hence it must be suggested that such was the truth, which our Catechism was designed to inculcate, since it affirms that the inward part, or thing signified, is the Body and Blood of Christ.”410 Wilberforces’s definition of supernatural affirms that there is both a human presence of Our Lord and another presence, one he terms ‘supernatural’. This supernatural presence is said to be not subject to the laws of material existence or to analysis through the senses. Wilberforce however, goes further than this and argues that: “Our Lord’s Human Body

408 Ibid, p. . 409 Ibid, pp. –. 410 Ibid, pp. –.  chapter four is not subject to the laws of material existence, because His Body is a glorified Body, and therefore not an object of our senses, unless such be His own will. That we do not commonly discern it is not owing, surely, to distance of place, but to the fact that glorified beings cannot be discerned by those who are in our present state, except at their own pleasure.”411 This argument distinguishes the ordinary human body from the glorified body, adding what seems to be another layer to the doctrine of theincarnation.ThereisChrist’shumanity(thepersonofJesus)and Christ’s divinity (as Word or logos), but there is also a glorified body, which is not subject to the senses, unless Christ wills it to be so. It remains unclear whether or not this ‘glorified body’ is human or divine or both, or whether the ‘glorified body’ is ‘supernatural’, since he says that the supernatural is not subject to the senses unless it be Christ’s will to be so subject (such as in his appearances to his followers following the resurrection). This human presence (or could it be the appearance of a human presence) was in Wilberforce’s analysis, different from his former human existence, in that it was a human presence where “Our Lord’s Body existed under conditions very different from those which are usual to men” and whereby “it is by virtue of those new qualities which Our Lord’s Humanity has gained by oneness with Deity, that it exists under those conditions in which it is given to men in the Holy Eucharist”.412 And again, “by virtue of that union with the Godhead, to which manhood was exalted by the agency of the Holy Ghost, Our Lord’s Humanity possesses a character peculiar to itself, and this circumstance renders it ‘the Bread of life’”.413 There is an inherent elevation here of the humanity of Christ which stands in almost opposition to the divinity of Christ. Wilberforce’s distinction between supernatural, natural and glorified, as a means of explaining the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, seems unnecessarily complex. It could also be interpreted as elevating the human presence to a level which is overly realist (a glorified presence), therefore intro- ducing a suggestion of immoderate realism and indeed an impending separation of the sign and the signified which departs from the nature of a sacramental identity. Wilberforce’s words seem to introduce this suggestion by saying that: “the natural conditions even of a glorified body—the

411 Ibid, p. . 412 Ibid, p. . 413 Ibid, pp. –. the nineteenth century conditions, that is, which pertain to it by reason of its material character and human existence—are, that it is present under a definite form, and in a definite place.”414 Wilberforce’s discussion of the word ‘sacramental’ however, distin- guishesitsuseasmoderaterealism.Thepresenceoftheres sacramenti is a sacramental presence, not natural, but supernatural and therefore not an object to the senses of humans.415 Despite this Wilberforce goes on to argue that: There is one way in which Our Lord’s Body may be said to be present with form and place in the Holy Eucharist. For there is a connection between the sacramentum and res sacramenti, and form and place belong to the first, though they do not belong to the second. So that though the res sacramenti, in itself, has neither place nor form, yet it has them in a manner through the sacramentum, with which it is united. Christ’s Body therefore may be said to have a form in this Sacrament, namely, the form of the elements, and to occupy that place, through which the elements extend. As the spirit may be said to be present in that place where the body is situated, and as light may be said to assume the shape of the orifice through which it passes, so it may be said that the res sacramenti borrows place and shape from the sacramentum, with which it is united by consecration.416 Once again it seems that although the basic use of the word ‘sacramental’ is that of moderate realism, further discussion reveals that the possibility of an immoderate realist interpretation remains in Wilberforce’s argument, whereby he attributes shape and form to the res sacramenti,‘in a manner’, where there is a union of shape and form by consecration. There is a seemingly inherent contradiction between the denial of any possible interpretation of ‘sacramental’ as an object of the senses and the suggestion that nonetheless the res sacramenti can have shape and form by virtue of the consecration. In discussing the use of the word ‘real’, Wilberforce affirms that the Lord’s body is real in the Eucharist, because it is the res sacramenti,the instrument through which the purposes of the Lord’sbody are effected. It is, according to Wilberforce, the Eucharist which performs the purposes, since he says that the agency of the Lord’s body is employed, as being the res sacramenti, in the Eucharist. Wilberforce argues that: “The thing designed,istoaffirmthatOurLord’sbody,whichistheres sacramenti,is

414 Ibid, p. . 415 Ibid, p. . 416 Ibid, p. .  chapter four the instrument though which those purposes are effected, which the Holy Eucharist is intended to perform. Not that a spiritual action is meant to be excluded, . . . But besides this spiritual action, and independently of it, the agency of Our Lord’s Body is mercifully employed, as being the res sacramenti in the Holy Eucharist.”417 Once again there is an inherent danger here of attributing too much to the Lord’s body in that there is a suggestion of immoderate realism in that the Lord’sbody is said to have an agency independent of any spiritual action in the Eucharist. The effect seems to be attributed to the Eucharist, rather than the effect of Christ’s saving work, being made effective and real in the Eucharist (anamnesis). There seems to be too much attributed to the agency of the Lord’s body in the Eucharist (independent of the spiritual action) as something apart from the spiritual (presumably the Lord’s body, but not in a spiritual sense), and too much attributed to the Eucharist itself. Rather than seeing the Eucharist in the moderate realist sense of the context in which the effect of Christ’s work is made real and effective, the Eucharist, where the Lord’s body and the res sacramenti are united, is seen as the instrument in which the purposes of effected and performed. It is useful also to consider Wilberforce’s conclusion to the discussion of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In conclusion he says: If Our Lord’s Humanity had no other than that natural presence which belongs to common men, His Real Presence would in like manner be confined to that one place which He occupies in heaven. But by reasonof those attributes which His Manhood possesses through its oneness with God, He has likewise a supernatural presence; the operations of which are restricted only by His own will. And His will is to be present in the Holy Eucharist; not indeed as an object to the senses of the receiver, but through the intervention of consecrated elements. So that His Presence does not depend upon the thought and imaginations of men, but upon His supernatural power, and upon the agency of the Holy Ghost. He is present Himself, and not merely by His influence, effects, and operation; by that essence,andinthatsubstance,whichbelongstoHimasthetrueHeadof mankind. And therefore He is really present; and gives His Body to be the res sacramenti,orthingsignified.418 Whilst there is no direct suggestion that Wilberforce is arguing for a re-immolation of Christ on the altar in a bloody manner or a fleshy presence (immoderate realism), and indeed Wilberforce makes a valuable

417 Ibid, p. . 418 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century contribution in distinguishing between a ‘dynamic’ and a ‘natural’ presence,419 there is nonetheless, a suggestion of the contextualisation of the Lord’s body in the Eucharist in a manner independent of the spiritual or supernatural form. The ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ referred to seem to be too closely linked with the word ‘body’ apart from ‘influence, effects and operation’. The objection here is not against realism per se,sincethe spiritual and supernatural are real in such a scheme and independent of faithfulreflectiononandthanksgivingforthepastworkofChrist,but rather against the suggestion of immoderate realism, where the form of the ‘real’ (the res sacramenti)istoocloselylinkedtothebodilyorfleshy presence or work of Christ (‘His Body’). It seems that Wilberforce’s analysis fails to distinguish clearly enough between the historic presence and sacrifice of Christ (the bodily and fleshy presence and sacrifice of Christ) and the eucharistic presence and sacrifice of Christ (the dynamic and effective presence and sacrifice of Christ in a supernatural, sacramental and real sense). The meaning of ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ remains unclear and this blurring of the distinction between the historic and the eucharistic is seen as a limiting factor in Wilberforce’swork and a confusing of the idea of realism in the moderate sense with that of realism in the immoderate sense. Despite these criticisms is important to note that the general intent of Wilberforce’s work is towards moderate realism. His discussion of ‘sacramental identity’ and ‘real presence’ are indicative of moderate realism, where sign is seen to identify with and to instantiate the signified. His scheme however, is limited by a lack of clarity between the historic body and the eucharistic body of Christ, thus resulting in an implied suggestion of immoderate realism, in that the presence of Christ’s manhood is in the Eucharist and too closely associated with the res sacramenti. In Chapter VII of The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,Wilberforce argues that the sixth chapter of the Gospel According to St John represents a reflection on the Eucharist. In this discussion Wilberforce says that: “Our Lord bestows Himself substantiallyin the Holy Eucharist, inasmuch as to be of one substance with the Father, is the characteristic of His Godhead”.420 ‘Substantially’ here seems to imply moderate realism, in that the type of presence referred to is the same presence that Christ has with the Father, that is, the a substance of the Godhead. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is described as being a ‘dynamic’ presence, and

419 Ibid, p. . 420 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

‘dynamic’isseentoderiveitspowerfromthefactthatitis‘substantial’421 (Wilberforce, : ). For Wilberforce, this dynamic/substantial category,cannotbedetachedfromChrist,since“itisthePresenceofaPerson, not the effect of a power”.It is the presence of a person that takes prece- dence over the effect of any power. This is explained more fully in this way: As His Godhead flows into Him by necessary derivation from His eternal Father, so does He assure us that He communicates His Manhood by merciful gift to His earthly brethren. Thus there are three stages in this great work. The Godhead imparts itself to the co-equal Son. This is His eternal generation. The Son unites Himself to man’s nature. This is His Incarnation.HecommunicatesHisManhoodtoHisbrethren.ThisisHis real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. As the first, then, is the communication of that substance whichiscommontotheThreePersonsintheblessed Godhead, so is the last the substantial communication of that manhood which has been hallowed by the taking it into God.422 Here Wilberforce argues that it is the manhood of Christ that is communicated to people in the Eucharist and that this is known as the real presence in the Eucharist. For Wilberforce, the real presence then, is the communication of the humanity of Christ and not the divinity of Christ. This communication of humanity (manhood) is described as a ‘substantial communication’. Again it is this emphasis on the humanity of Christ in the Eucharist which raises the danger of an interpretation suggesting immoderate realism. Moderate realism suggests that the divine nature of Christ, as Word or logos, is really present in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine as a focus. Wilberforce, although he speaks in earlier chapters of a ‘sacramental identity’,involving a supernatural, sacramental and real presence of Christ, seems to move beyond any meaning of a spiritual and yet real presence, to a human and real presence. Immoderate realism seems to be a possible interpretation here in such an explanation, despite Wilberforce’searlier denial of any natural presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the serious doubt that this is what he means. The humanity (manhood) of which Wilberforce speaks derives from his lack of a clear distinction between the historic and eucharistic presence of Christ and his affirmation of an enhanced human presence of Christ following the resurrection.

421 Ibid, p. . 422 Ibid, p. . the nineteenth century

In his discussion of the notion of eucharistic sacrifice, Wilberforce argues that Christ “not only merits pardons, but applies it”.423 Christ is seen not merely as a store of grace, to which people make access through their own voluntary efforts, but as a great High Priest, through whose flesh,peoplehaveaccesstoGod.ItisthroughtheChurch,andchiefly through the Eucharist, that people have access to the benefits of Christ’s death.424 The Eucharist then as an act of Christian sacrifice is not a strict sacrifice in the sense that slaughter is involved (immoderate realism), but a perpetual sacrifice before God, not restricted to the moment of Christ’s death. For this reason then Wilberforce argues that the Eucharist “consists not only of a feast upon a sacrifice, but likewise of a sacrifice itself ”.425 The Eucharist therefore can be a sacrifice if it is in reference to the one perfect propitiation on the cross and by virtue of which it is an abiding sacrifice in heaven426 butatthesametimeitisnonethelessareal sacrifice. In speaking of the eucharistic sacrifice in this way, Wilberforce distinguishes between the sacramentum (the external sign presented before God in the Eucharist) and the res sacramenti (the very sacrifice offered on the cross), present in the Eucharist in an effective manner. He says that: “The Holy Eucharist, therefore, is fitly called the Christian Sacrifice, not only because it is the chief rite of common worship, but because it is the peculiar act, wherein the effectual intercession which is exercised in heaven by the Church’s Head, reaches down to this lower sphere of our earthly service. It is no repetition of the sacrifice of the cross, nor any substitution of another victim.”427 Wilberforce’s discussion of eucharistic sacrifice reveals that he is presenting a moderate realist view without the possibility of an immoderate realist interpretation as can be suggested in relation eucharistic presence. He specifically denies immoderate realism, both in terms of repetition and substitution and distinguishes between the sign and the thing signified.Atthesametimehespeaksofthe‘effectualintercession’,whereby the Christ’s work on the cross is exercised in the Eucharist, being presented before God by Christ himself as the great high priest. He connects this with the doctrine of the real presence, saying: “The whole system of the Church . . . has been designed to bring out the efficacy of Our

423 Ibid, p. . 424 Ibid, pp. –. 425 Ibid, p. . 426 Ibid, p. . 427 Ibid, p. .  chapter four

Lord’sIntercession, and to show that He still continues to be the sole agent ‘which taketh away the sin of the world’.Thus does the general doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice grow out of the Mediation of Christ. It is nothing more than the admission of this truth, taken in connexion with the fact of the Real Presence.”428 Wilberforce’sdoctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice links the sign with the signified in a moderate realist fashion, while at the same time clearly excluding any immoderate notion of the repetition or adding to the sacrifice of the cross in the Eucharist. Christ’s sacrifice is however, effective in the Eucharist and the benefits of that sacrifice continue in the eucharistic celebration. For Wilberforce, the role of the Spirit and the Word is crucial, since he states that the Eucharist: “is the act whereby, through the efficacy of the same Blessed Spirit, the Incarnate Word bestows the Real Presence of His very Flesh and Blood, for the food of His people.”429 Christ’s presence though, by Spirit and Word, is still closely associated with his humanity, since Wilberforce also states that: “the Man Christ Jesus is really present in the Holy Eucharist, by reason of the presence of His Body and Blood”.430 Wilberforce’s doctrine of the Eucharist is principally that of moderate realism in relation to eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice. He associates the sign (the bread and wine and the eucharistic sacrifice) with the signified (the body and blood of Christ and the sacrifice of the cross) in a closely identified but moderate realist manner. It is through the receiving of and the celebration associated with the sign that the signified is received. He argues against immoderate realism, but his insistence on the human presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, remains suggestive of immoderate realism, although it seems this is not his intention. The philosophical assumptions underlying Wilberforce’s eucharistic theology are those of moderate realism.

428 Ibid, p. . 429 Ibid, p. . 430 Ibid, p. . PART 3

RAMIFICATIONS chapter five

DIALOGUE AND THE ANGLICAN EUCHARISTIC TRADITION

Overview

The evidence presented in the case studies of this book shows that the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology are multiform. The case studies indicate that the most frequently occurring expression of eucharistic theology in the Anglican tradition is that of moderate realist philosophical assumptions, associating the signs of the Eucharist with what they signify in that the particular signs instantiate universals. The case studies also show that moderate nominalist philosophical assumptions are also found in the Anglican eucharistic tradition, but less frequently than moderate realist assumptions. These moderate nominalist philosophical assumptions see both the signs and what they signify as particulars with the connection between them being in the form of metalinguistic propositionalism. In a moderate nominalist analysis the instantiation of universals by particulars and any real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and any identity between the historic and eucharistic sacrifice is denied. The case studies also show that immoderate nominalist philosophical assumptions, denying sacramentality and so any sacramental links between the signs and what they signify, in a real or propositional manner, are infrequently found. Lastly the case studies show that immoderate realist philosophical assumptions, linking the particulars signs with what they signify in a strict or numerical way, is virtually absent from the Anglican eucharistic tradition. The philosophical distinction between realism and nominalism to both moderate and immoderate degrees and the model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition (Figure ) has therefore functioned in the analysis of the case studies as a way of understanding what the various hermeneutic interests of the Anglican tradition are saying about eucharistic theology. These philosophical assumptions describe the different ways of knowing in the Anglican eucharistic tradition. If there is to be a critical awareness of the Anglican eucharistic tradition apart from the particular technical  chapter five and hermeneutic interests of church parties and traditions, then such awareness of ways of knowing, based on the multiformity of philosophical assumptions in the Anglican eucharistic tradition, provides greater integrity for the discourse of that tradition, ensuring that the representatives of the tradition are saying what they think they mean.

Dialogue: Towards Critical Interest

This chapter aims to draw out the ramifications of the multiformity of the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and suggest that dialogue among the particular interests of the Anglican eucharistic tradition is essential to allow the tradition to move past hermeneutic idealism and towards a more critical awareness of what the whole tradition is actually saying. Such an aim also has important ramifications for the broader Anglican tradition and more specifically for programs of theological education and ecumenical dialogue. If multiformity is the prevailing essence of the Anglican eucharistic, in terms of not only the philosophical assumptions but also theological assumptions, such as ecclesiology, then genuine dialogue between those who hold different assumptions is essential to promote understanding and critical interest in the tradition as a whole, as opposed to the exclusive prosecution of technical and hermeneutic interest by some in church parties who have little interest in prioritorising dialogue. In such a situation of multiformity there are competing and conflicting interests which particular groups seek to prosecute and which are both accepted and rejected by other particular interests within the Anglican tradition. A dialogue approach to engaging the discourse of the Angli- can eucharistic tradition, such as that put forward by Jurgen Habermas1 holds promise as a way forward for the Anglican eucharistic tradition and itsprogramsoftheologicaleducation.Suchdialogueholdsthepromiseof allowing not only the prosecution of particular technical and hermeneutic interests but also the critical interest of intersubjectivity. A dialogue approach, based on communicative action, provides for intersubjectivity among the participants of the Anglican tradition seeking understanding of differing points of view.

1 Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume . Reason and Rationalization of Society (trans. T. McCarthy) (Boston: Beacon Press, ) and The The- ory of Communicative Action: Volume . Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Boston: Beacon Press, ). dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Habermas in The Theory of Communicative Action speaks of the importance of ‘interactions’ among speakers and hearers rather than ‘actions’ by particular groupings or individuals. It is this emphasis on the experience of people and the sharing of that experience with others that moves dialogue and communicative action beyond what McCarthy calls ‘hermeneutic idealism’2 or the conceptualising of society from the perspective of participants whilst at the same time remaining blind to the causes, connections and consequences that lie beyond the horizon of everyday practice. Any criticism of, or rejection of hermeneutic idealism is founded on the belief that a person’s hermeneutic interest or the hermeneutic interest of a particular tradition is not sufficient to understand the complexity of experience and society as a whole. Anglicanism, and in turn, the Anglican eucharistic tradition seems to suffer from this hermeneutic idealism, where particular parties want to conceptualise Anglican theology, such as eucharistic theology, solely from the perspective of particular participants and their particular parties or hermeneutic interest (be they Anglican Evangelicals or Anglican Catholics) without sufficient reference to the tradition or system as a whole. In addition hermeneutic idealism often leads to the assumption that the appropriation of a particular hermeneutic interest is the focus of the Anglican tradition and any programs of theological education.3 This in turn limits adequate consideration of the ways in which the tradition and its theological education should be conceptualised and whether or not it should proceed with critical interest. Appropriation of a particular hermeneutic interest can idealise the knowledge and interests of that hermeneutic and so exclude the knowledge and interests of other hermeneutics by privileging the knowledge of particular interests over the knowledge and interests of other hermeneutics. If this is the case then it may mean that a tradition as a whole remains unconsidered in any adequate fashion and that education within that tradition can become impoverished and fetishised through its concentration on the supposed purity (its sacredness of particular knowledge and interests) of particular technical and hermeneutic

2 Thomas McCarthy, ‘Translator’s Introduction’,in Habermas, The Theory of Commu- nicative Action: Volume ,p.xxvi. 3 Moore College in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is an example of this kind of hermeneutic idealism since it endorses a specific tradition, that is, “the Protestant Reformed Christian tradition as expressed in the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion”—‘Moore College Faculty’,online at http://www.moore.edu.au/faculty.Accessed  January, .  chapter five interests and by seeking the appropriation of any one interest.4 Lovat and Douglas,5 in discussing theological education in Australian higher education, note that where theological education remains under diocesan control, rather than being in the main stream of a local public university, there is a great possibility of perpetuating hermeneutic idealism and limited critical interest. When this privileging of technical and hermeneutic knowledge occurs, the system (in this case the Anglican tradition of Christianity in all its complexity and forms) which incorporates Anglican eucharistic theology and the educative processes associated with that theology, is impoverished and fetishised since it is deprived of critical interest. This is particularly the case in relation to the Anglican eucharistic tradition since the evidence of the case studies cited in this book suggests that eucharistic theology in the Anglican tradition is multiform and not uniform, incorporating more than one hermeneutic interest and that any critical interest in relation to Anglican eucharistic theology needs to take into account that there are several philosophical assumptions and hermeneutic interests underlying this eucharistic theology. Any suggestion that there is a pure form of Anglican eucharistic theology or that Anglican eucharistic theology is uniform according to one hermeneutic interest is counter to the evidence of multiformity presented in the case studies in previous chapters. An attempt is therefore made in this chapter to move the debate on Anglican eucharistic theology beyond the technical and hermeneutic interests of church parties and to propose a means whereby the discourse of Anglican eucharistic theology and theological education can be engaged in a more critical interest. This critical interest is seen in the dialogue approach and the rationality of communicative action. It is proposed therefore to examine Habermas’ concept of communicative action more closely as a way of promoting dialogue and critical interest in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and then address some of the ramifications of this concept that apply to the Anglican eucharistic tradition and to Anglican theological education.

4 See Terence Lovat and Brian, ‘Dialogue Amidst Difference in Anglican Eucharis- tic Theology: A Habermasian Breakthrough’, Australian EJournal of Theology,(March, ), online at http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:/vital/access/manager/Repository/ uon:. Accessed  August, . 5 Terence Lovat and Brian Douglas, ‘Theology in Australian Higher Education: The “Newcastle Model” bring Theology Home to the Academy’, Higher Education Research and Development,  (), pp. –. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Habermas and the Theoryof Communicative Action

Habermas acknowledges that since the beginning of the modern Enlight- enment era, Western thought has often taken the view that science and technology hold out the promise of limitless advances, with accompanying moral and political improvement.6 Not all commentators, including Habermas, agree with this vision. Stephen White, for example, points out that one of the most distinctive features of the intellectual activity of the final years of the twentieth century has been the doubts raised about the conceptual foundations of Western modernity, with hard questions being asked about these predominant understandings of reason, subjectivity, nature, progress and gender.7 Habermas does not however advocate the abandonment of the project of the Enlightenment, but rather argues for its redirection. This he does in his two volume work, The Theory of Com- municative Action, where he puts the case that reason can be defended only by way of a critique of reason. In so doing his concept of rationality is one that is no longer tied to and limited by subjectivistic and individualistic premises, but rather argues for an integration of what he calls the ‘lifeworld’ and system paradigms. ‘System’and‘lifeworld’Habermasviewsasthefundamentalproblem of social theory, that is, how to connect in a satisfactory manner these two conceptual strategies.8 Systems are understood as open, maintaining themselves even in the face of unstable and hypercomplex environments through interchange processes across their boundaries.9 Systems are concerned with the maintenance of society and their fundamental nature and identity is the means by which a society stands or falls. The concerns of system paradigms include matters such as culture, social integration and socialisation, and it is these that function as boundary-maintaining systems for the society as a whole. System paradigms steer society in powerful and persistent ways with universal significance, whereas lifeworlds are often characterised by the separation of culture, society and personality.10 ‘Lifeworld’ for Habermas has a particularity about it and is made up of the “culturally transmitted and linguistically organised

6 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume  and Volume . 7 Stephen White, ‘Reason, modernity and democracy’, S.K. White (ed), The Cam- bridge Companion to Habermas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . 8 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 9 Ibid, p. . 10 Ibid, p. .  chapter five stock of interpretative patterns”11 often sedimented in texts, traditions and cultural artefacts or in organised institutions, systems and structures, such that ideas are embodied in cultural value spheres, in personality structures and in social institutions with their particular conflicts and interests12 based on the organization of authority and political power.13 Lifeworlds often differ from the normal world-concepts or system in that lifeworlds are often associated with particular individuals or groups of people and the traditions they see as sacred. World-concepts or system paradigms are seen as more fundamental, involving criticisable validity claims, based on a frame or categorical scaffolding that serves to order problematic situations,14 involving “suppositions of commonality”.15 Communicative action therefore points beyond the particular to the more universal aspects of society. Habermas says that: “the aspects of the rationality of action we found in communicative action should now permit us to grasp processes of societal rationalization across the whole- breadth, and no longer solely from the selective viewpoint of purposive rational action.”.16 World-concepts and system paradigms point beyond the circle of those immediately involved and have claims valid for outside interpreters as well, whereas ‘lifeworlds’ are seen as being already substantially interpreted and as such often prevent those in such a lifeworld from stepping outside of it.17 Lifeworlds therefore are the unquestioned ground of everythinggiveninaperson’sexperienceandtheunquestionableframe in which all the problems a person has to deal with are located. Lifeworlds are said to be intuitively present and therefore familiar and transparent as well as being a vast and incalculable web of presuppositions that need to be satisfied if an actual utterance is to be meaningful, that is, valid or invalid. Lifeworlds are very much taken for granted and maintain themselves beyond the threshold of criticisable convictions.18 Lifeworlds therefore can take the form of sacred truth, and for those who find it impossible to free themselves from the naïve, situation-oriented attitude of being actors caught up in the communicative practice of everyday life

11 Ibid, p. . 12 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 13 McCarthy, ‘Translator’s Introduction’, p. xiv. 14 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 15 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 16 Ibid, p. . 17 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 18 Ibid, p. . dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  within their lifeworld, it is impossible to grasp the limitations of that lifeworld since these actors cannot get behind the context of their lifeworld and examine it with critical intent. Further they see their lifeworld in the sense that it cannot in principle be exhausted and so their critical interest is limited by their hermeneutic idealism.19 Habermas’ response to this decline of the paradigm of consciousness, where a person is prevented, by the very constraints of their lifeworld, from stepping out of their lifeworld and engaging with world-concepts, is to propose an explicit shift to the paradigm of language—not to language as a syntactic or semantic system, but to what he calls language-in-use or speech or communicative action.20 Habermas says that: the concept of communicative action refers to the interaction of at least two subjects capable of speech and action who establish interpersonal relations (whether by verbal or by extra-verbal means). The actors seek to reach an understanding about the action situation and their plans of action in order to coordinate their actions by way of agreement. The central concept of interpretation refers in the first instance to negotiating definitions ofthe situations which admit of consensus. . . . Language is given a prominent place in this model.21 Communicative action involves a shift of focus from the teleological to the communicative dimension where the analysis of language as social action is the basic medium of communication. The teleological aspect refers to the realising of one’s aims or the carrying out of one’s plan of action, whereas the communicative aspect refers to the interpretation of a situation and arriving at some agreement.22 Rationality therefore, for Habermas, “has less to do with the possession of knowledge than with how speaking and acting subjects acquireanduseknowledge”. 23 Earlier in this book Habermas’ three ways of knowing (technical, hermeneutic and critical) were discussed (see Chapter ) and the particular interests of groups were seen as important determinants in the way people come to know things. Habermas’ earlier works24 were important in this discussion concerning the role interests play in education. This suggests that

19 Ibid, p. . 20 McCarthy, ‘Translator’s Introduction’, p. ix. 21 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume ,p.. 22 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 23 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume ,p.. 24 Jurgen Habermas, Theory and Practice (trans.J.Viertel)(Boston:BeaconBooks, /) and Knowledge and Human Interests (trans.J.J.Shapiro)(Boston:Beacon Books, /).  chapter five the means of reaching understanding are important matters to be considered in a process of education and for Habermas this involves intersubjective recognition for the various validity claims of those who may hold differing positions and views, and that the reasons and grounds of these differing positions become important. Habermas argues that: “In communicative action, the very outcome of interaction is even made to depend on whether the participants can come to an agreement among themselves on an intersubjectively valid appraisal of their relations to the world. On this model of action, an interaction can succeed only if those involved arrive at a consensus among themselves, a consensus that depends on yes/no responses to claims potentially based on grounds.”.25 Habermas argues that it is possible to reach agreement about differing and disputed positions by means of argument and shared insights that do not depend on force, but rather on reasons and grounds. It is this process of critique or argumentation that allows communicative action and rationality to proceed.26 Agreement between parties then rests on the sharing of common convictions27 and functions as communicatively shared intersubjectivity where reflection on one’s own affective and practical nature means that people act in a self-critical attitude. Haber- massaysthat:“thisconceptofcommunicative rationality carries with it connotations based ultimately on the central experience of the unconstrained, unifying, consensus bringing force of argumentative speech, in which different participants overcome their merely subjective views and, owing to the mutuality of rationally motivated conviction, assure themselves of both the unity of the objective world and the intersubjectivity of their lifeworlds.”.28 Notonlydoesthisresultinmutualconvictions,butalso“incoordinat- ing their actions by way of intersubjectively recognizing criticisable validity claims, they are at once relying on membership in social groups and strengthening the integration of those same groups”.29 There are therefore important benefits deriving from communicative action, not only for mutual understanding but also for group integration and harmony within a tradition as a whole.

25 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 26 Ibid, pp. –. 27 Ibid, p. . 28 Ibid,p.. 29 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Thiswayofactinghowever,meansthatpeople,inordertoadopt a critical interest and engage in communicative action, would need to objectify their lifeworld as a boundary-maintaining system rather than assuming that their lifeworld is ‘the’ system and the way things are in a universal sense. Here Habermas distinguishes between ‘instrumental mastery’ and ‘communicative action’, such that instrumental mastery is often employed in the appropriation of a hermeneutic where communicative action maintains a critical focus.30 This means “an interpreter can go beyond this subjectively purposive-rational orientation and compare the actual course of action with the constructed case of a corresponding objectively purposive-rational course of action”.31 Communicative action or communicative rationality therefore,Habermas argues, pays attention to the seams between system and lifeworld, since it is the seams that hold the potential for emancipation from the power of particular hermeneutic interestsaswellasresistancetomoreself-criticalattitudes.These‘seams’ are the points of intersection, where there can be both harmony and conflict, and it is these seams that form the basis for the dialogue that isthe argumentation of communicative action and rationality. Any process of dialogue is severely constrained by a desire to maintain control and ownership of the system in the sense that the system is seen by some to be equivalent to the lifeworld of an individual, group or tradition. Habermas therefore states that “in the context of communicative action, only those persons count as responsible who, as members of a communicative community, can orient their actions to intersubjectively recognized validity claims”.32 This greater degree of communicative rationality in turn expands, says Habermas, “the scope for unconstrained coordination of actions and consensual resolution of conflicts”.33 Habermas argues that the Enlightenment’s promise of life informed by reason cannot be redeemed so long as the rationality that finds expression in society is deformed by capitalist modernisation or by the laws of history.34 Ownership exerts itself through ‘hermeneutic idealism’, where the view or views of some participants in society are taken, by these participants and others, to be ‘the’ view or ‘the’ system paradigm and where such a perspective only succeeds in blinding the participants to causes,

30 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume ,p.. 31 Ibid, p. . 32 Ibid,p.. 33 Ibid,p.. 34 McCarthy, ‘Translator’s Introduction’,p. xxxvii.  chapter five connections and consequences that lie beyond the lifeworld of the everyday practice of an individual, groups or institutions. For Habermas therefore, intersubjective understanding, based on communicative expression, cannot be carried out in a solipsistic manner. Participation with others in a process of reaching understanding is therefore seen as essential. Where understanding is seen to be hermetically sealed in a particular tradition or hermeneutic interest, the lifeworld remains closed and can only be opened when there is a desire and competence to speak and act in a spirit of participation and where there is communication which encourages people to become at least potential members of a lifeworld.35 This means that the “processes of reaching understanding are aimed at a consensus that depends on the intersubjective recognition of validity claims; and these claims can be reciprocally raised and fundamentally criticized by participants in communication”.36 Thissuggeststhatthepur- pose of rational communicative action is not egocentric ownership of knowledge or power but the act of reaching understanding. Participants can still be oriented to their own interests but they do this under conditions that harmonise their plans of action on the basis of common situation definitions.37 ThisiswhatHabermascalls“anidealcommunica- tive community”38 where critical interest is beyond the understanding of a particular hermeneutic interest and where communicative action performs the task of coordinating and mediating. This suggests that such critical interest brings about “the emergence of a higher-level form of life characterized by a linguistically constituted form of intersubjectivity that makes communicative action possible”.39 In such a form of life, language functions as a medium of not only reaching understanding and transmitting cultural knowledge, but it also functions as a means of socialisation and social integration. These take place through acts of reaching understanding40 where the authority of the holy (that is, the lifeworld and its particular hermeneutic interest) is gradually replaced by the authority of an achieved consensus.41 This suggests a moving beyond a particular hermeneutic interest (that is, the holy) and into the area of the

35 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume , p. . 36 Ibid, p. . 37 Ibid, p. . 38 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume ,p.. 39 Ibid, pp. –. 40 Ibid, pp. –. 41 Ibid,p.. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  binding and bonding force of criticisable validity. When this occurs there is a movement towards social integration that is no longer dependent on institutionalised values but on intersubjective recognition of validity claims.42 When a situation is communicatively mediated, the action norms of the participants depend on shared situation definitions that refer simultaneously to the objective, the normative and the subjective facets of the situation in question.43 Dialogue or communication rationality in action does not therefore mean the abandonment of subjective meaning or particular technical or hermeneutic interests and the focussing on the intersubjective alone, but rather an acknowledgement of the ‘ego’ of the speaker who has expressed his or her experiences (the subjective aspect of a hermeneutic interest) but also the ‘ego’ that refers to someone as a member of a social group who is entering into an interpersonal relation (the intersubjective) with (at least) one other member.44 Communicative action seeks this type of shared understanding.

Ramifications for the Anglican Eucharistic Tradition

Habermas’ theory of communicative action can function as a way of enabling theology to resolve questions of access, because Habermas bases his work not on ‘action’ but ‘interaction’.45 As Garrigan argues, Habermas’ contribution to philosophy, “has been to shift it from the ‘work’ model of activity to one based on communicative action. Prior to Habermas, the essence of philosophy of the subject was that the subject was defined by his or her ‘work’; after Habermas, philosophy is required to explore the ramifications of a theory of the subject wherein it is the subject-subject relation, not the subject-object relation, that gives the point of access to the subject”.46 Garrigan’sanalysisofHabermaspointsthewaytoanemphasisinany one area of intellectual endeavour, such as Anglican eucharistic theology, where the importance of interactions between speakers and hearers (subject-subject) is emphasised rather than the work of individual thinkers (subject-object). This suggests that the work of Habermas has

42 Ibid,p.. 43 Ibid,p.. 44 Ibid,p.. 45 Siobhan Garrigan, Beyond Ritual: Sacramental Theology After Habermas (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, ), p. . 46 Ibid,p..  chapter five relevance to any relationship between humanity and God, since it is not about acts, actors and actions, but about interactions between speakers andhearers.ItisinthissensethatHabermas’insightshaveparticular relevancefortheAnglicaneucharistictraditionandforAnglicanthe- ological education since they suggest the value of dialogue and interaction (subject-subject) as opposed to the division and acrimony that often occurs when there is too much or exclusive concentration on the object, that is ‘my work’ or particular hermeneutic interest, as subject- object. Habermas’ suggestion that reason be transformed, rather than abandoned, implies that rationality can no longer be tied to and limited by the subjective and individual hermeneutic interests of church parties and the particular theologians and theological views that inform those interests. As Garrigan points out, there is a distinction here between ‘communication’ and ‘communicative action’.This distinction rests on the idea of “speech acts as bringing about an understanding (through ‘communicative action’) rather than presuming, or even necessarily arriving at the point of understanding (‘communication’)”.47 There is a case then to be made for viewing the Anglican eucharistic tradition as a system paradigm (within a larger system paradigm of the Anglican tradition of Christianity, which itself exists within the even larger system paradigm of Christianity and perhaps even the system paradigm of human society) rather than viewing the Anglican eucharistic tradition as separate and particular lifeworlds such as those that exist within the various church parties of Anglicanism (e.g. Anglican Evan- gelicals and Anglican Catholics). These lifeworlds are often distinct from system paradigms since they are substantially determined and interpreted, perhaps even hermetically sealed, and so lacking in critical interest. In order to become a true ‘communicative community’,reflection on eucharistic theology and theological education in the Anglican tradition needs to recognise that lifeworlds, such a party positions or the appropriation of a tradition within a specific educational institution, really function as boundary-maintaining devices, which are important and perform the valuable function of defining a hermeneutic, but that they themselves are not the system paradigm of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. The case studies of this book supply ample evidence to show that the system paradigm of the Anglican eucharistic tradition is not solely the lifeworld of Anglican Evangelicals or Anglican Catholics. The evidence of the case

47 Ibid,p.. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  studies suggest that the basis of the Anglican eucharistic tradition’s system paradigm is a multiformity of Anglican eucharistic theology and that the system paradigm or world-concepts revolve around this multiformity which this book has argued functions according to the philosophical concepts of moderate realism and moderate nominalism. The case studies suggest that this multiformity is pervasive throughout the Anglican eucharistic tradition, not only historically but also across the various theological and philosophical assumptions, and that uniformity is not a characteristic essence of the Anglican eucharistic tradition, despite the efforts of some to argue for one lifeworld for Anglicanism, for example, Doyle48 in his expression of reformed, evangelical Protestantism, Silk49 in regards to his ‘correct’ Catholic view or Miley50 in her assumption that Anglicanism is a via media.Theevidencepresentedinthecasestudies suggests that the essence of the Anglican eucharistic tradition is not limited to either the Evangelical lifeworld or the Catholic lifeworld or any othersinglelifeworld.Thecasestudieshowever,havesuppliedample evidence to suggest that some within the Anglican eucharistic tradition often present particular lifeworlds and the particular hermeneutic interests they hold as the only lifeworld of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. For example, eucharistic texts and their particular points of emphasis for various Anglican traditions and provinces throughout the Anglican Communion suggest that the lifeworld of some parts of the Anglican Communion has become tied to particular texts, traditions and artefacts and their appropriation, which themselves present and perpetuate narrow interests.51 Such an analysis of the Anglican eucharistic tradition is distinctly different from the characteristic and pervasive multiformity isolated in this book as the essence of the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Any program of theological education needs to take such multiformity into account in order to engage critical interest or it will only remain a partisan endeavour, intent on the perpetuation and appropriation of a particular interest.

48 Robert Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in catholic and evangelical theology’,in I. Head (ed) Who May Celebrate? Boundaries of Anglican Order (Sydney: Doctrine Commission of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, ). 49 David Silk, The Holy Eucharist: Alternative and Additional Texts for Use with the order of the Eucharist in AAPB and APBA (Ballarat: Anglican Diocese of Ballarat, Aus- tralia, /). 50 Caroline Miley, The Suicidal Church: Can the Anglican Church be saved? (Annan- dale, Sydney: Pluto Press, ). 51 This has been explored at some depth in the case study called ‘Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the th and st Centuries’ in Volume , Chapter  of this book.  chapter five

A consideration of the work of Habermas when applied to the Angli- can eucharistic tradition, and as analysed by the case studies of this book, leads to the conclusion that there is not just one lifeworld for the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Further, the case studies suggest that the system paradigm for the Anglican eucharistic tradition involves recognition of the distinction between realism and nominalism to the moderate degree. This further suggests that unless programs of theological education within the Anglican tradition concede that a plurality or multiformity of view is the essence of the tradition, then the benefits of communicative action will not be accessible to the Anglican tradition as a whole. While hermeneutic idealism persists in the Anglican eucharistic tradition, the critical interest of the tradition, its theological education and the Anglican tradition itself, will be impoverished and fetishised. Habermas’ work also implies that if a process of communicative action is to be part of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and associated theological education programs, then the seams between the lifeworld of particular hermeneutic interests and the system need to be explored and acknowledged more fully, both in terms of their intersections and their conflicts. Habermas takes what has been described as a middle path, which focuses on the process of truth-making or rational discourse rather than on the idea of truth as an outcome.52 Thissuggeststhattruthisapro- cess, not an outcome or presumed ideal or goal but a universal regulatory idea. Following this line of argument, it can be said that sacramental theology is then more a process of interpretation, negotiated between speakers and hearers, than instrumental outcomes adopted by various parties. This is what Williams seems to mean when speaking of sacramentality he says, “we make signs, and make ourselves through signs”.53 This suggests a dynamic process of interaction between participants rather than the mere appropriation of a party line. The philosophical insights of people such as David Armstrong (reviewed extensively in Chapter  of this book) has much to offer here as well, since Armstrong’s work also speaks of truth-making54 and provides a model which can be applied to the system paradigm of at least the Anglican eucharistic tradition and perhaps for the Anglican tradition as a whole. Armstrong’s insights for example,

52 Garrigan, Beyond Ritual, p. . 53 Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. –. 54 David Armstrong, Truth and Truthmakers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  have important implications in relation to the analysis of philosophical frameworks that guide the development and sharing of eucharistic theology. The distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘identity’ in its strict and loose senses leads to important reconsiderations of the theology (and writings) of the Anglican eucharistic tradition by allowing a more sophisticated level of analysis. The realisation, taken from Armstrong,55 that universals are strictly identical in their different instantiations and yet not in their particularity, is crucial for understanding moderate realist eucharistic theology based on an Aristotelian philosophical framework and its application by various Anglican theologians. Without this level of nuanced and sophisticated philosophical reflection, Anglican eucharistic theology and any program of theological education is doomed to remain at the level of technical and hermeneutic interest alone. The model employed in this book (Figure ) as a means of conceptualising the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology is based on Armstrong’s work and the idea of instantiation of universals in particulars. This model represents an exploration of the system paradigm of the Anglican eucharistic tradition that is multiform (interpretative as Habermas calls it) rather than uniform (instrumental as Habermas calls it). The benefits of such an approach for the tradition and for theological education lie in the potential that exists for emancipation from narrow technical and hermeneutic interests as well as for a clearer understanding of the philosophical notions underlying statements of eucharistic theology in the Anglican tradition. The distinction here is between those whose action is normatively regulated and those whose action is communicative. Normative action expects that people will comply with a norm and that the members of a group will expect certain behaviour, but where action is communicative there is more than one actor and the focus is on interpretation and the subjects trying to reach understanding with one another. The difficulty of course presents itself in any situation where a lifeworld of a particular hermeneutic interests claims to be ‘the’ system paradigm. Such claims, dependent on a sacred or holy view of the lifeworld and the possession of privileged knowledge, limit the chances for communicative action and the benefits of shared understanding. This is particularly apparent in the views of some Anglican theologians. Some Anglican Evangelicals,

55 David Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ).  chapter five for example, in their claim to be interpreting ‘the plain words of Scripture’ or the ‘purity’ of Reformation Anglican doctrine (such as is found in particular interpretations of foundational Anglican documents like the Thirty-Nine Articles or the  Book of Common Prayer)believethat their lifeworld (Reformed Anglican Evangelicalism) is the essence of Anglicanism and Anglican eucharistic theology (e.g. Robert Doyle and TheAnglicanDioceseofSydney—seecasestudiesinVolume,Chapter of this book). Others, who are Anglican Catholics, in their claim to be interpreting the ‘correct Catholic’ position on the Eucharist, claim that their lifeworld is the essence of Anglicanism and Anglican eucharistic theology.56 The problem here is not the legitimacy or reasonableness of these lifeworlds and their hermeneutic interests, but that they each claim to be the one legitimate essence of the Anglican eucharistic tradition on the basis of being the protectors and possessors of holy and sacred knowledge aimed at providing these particular hermeneutic interests with a privileged status. Habermas’ work suggests that if ownership of particular hermeneutic interests is the focus of Anglicanism, its eucharistic tradition and its theological education, then the society that is Anglicanism will be deformed. On the other hand, Habermas’ work also suggests that if communicative action is part of the everyday practice of Anglicanism, its eucharistic tradition and theological education, then agreed understanding and critical interest will be the focus of Anglicanism, such that there is intersubjective recognition of validity claims in speech acts—people talking to one another in dialogue and seeking shared meaning as an ideal communicative community rather than adversarial exchange springing from the ownership of particular knowledge in a particular hermeneutic interest and the presumption of a privileged status. Moving beyond this deformed position requires that a person be prepared to leave the situation of self and subjective opinion and move towards the situation of sharing in another person’s experience, which may or may not be different to their own. This recognition of the need for a communicative aspect rather than a teleological aspect, requires a person be prepared to step outside their own lifeworld, despite the fact that the lifeworld is already substantially interpreted, and reflect critically on their own lifeworld and the lifeworld of others. This does not mean that a person needs to dismiss their lifeworld, indeed they should not, since as Knitter57 observes, we need to

56 Silk, The Holy Eucharist. 57 Paul Knitter, ‘Beyond a Mono-religious Theological Education’,in B.G. Wheeler and dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  acknowledge and keep hold of who we are and how we have been formed,butatthesametimeweneedtobeabletostepoutsideour lifeworld and share intersubjectively with others so that we can appreciate the system paradigm as a whole. Some of the modern case studies cited in this book have provided examples of those who are prepared to move outside their particular lifeworld and to surrender ownership and seek to pay attention to the seams between system and lifeworld. Christopher Cocksworth58 isanexampleofanAnglicanEvangelical who has done this in his investigation of eucharistic theology in the Anglican tradition when he affirms sacramentality. Rowan Williams59 as an Anglican Catholic does this as well when he steps outside his lifeworld to question the very nature of sacramentality. Others, such as David Ford60 and Catherine Pickstock61 use philosophical concepts to investigate a model for eucharistic theology, thereby stepping outside the traditional theological pathways. Douglas and Lovat62 apply this Habermasian framework using the case study of the development of eucharistic liturgies in the Anglican Church of Australia. They argue that hermeneutic idealism is alive and well in the Anglican Church of Australia, especially in relation to the development of the latest Australian Anglican prayer book.63 Douglas and Lovat suggest that instead of applying a subject-object approach to the development of eucharistic liturgies, where subjects debate their particular object (apartyposition)andtrytofindorconvinceothersofanobjectsuitable to all, the emphasis should be on a subject-subject approach. In such an approach, the acrimony of party position is avoided and the existence of different hermeneutic interests is recognised as being part of the multiformity which is the essence of Anglican eucharistic theology. Instead of

F. Farley (eds) Shifting Boundaries. Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, ), p. . 58 Christopher Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). 59 Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. – and –. 60 David Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’, Scottish Journal of Theology, (), pp. –. 61 Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, ). 62 Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, ‘Dialogue Amidst Multiformity: A Habermasian Breakthrough in the Development of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies’, Journal of Anglican Studies, . (), pp. –. 63 The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia (Sydney: Broughton Books, ).  chapter five attempting to mute or deny the hermeneutic of another party, the aim of such a process of communicative action, is to recognise the multiformity and to work with it. The process of developing eucharistic liturgies therefore becomes one of dialogue rather acrimonious prosecution of party position and interest. The final product, under such a process of dialogue, would be the development of a multiformity of eucharistic liturgies representing the multiformity of philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology, rather than any attempt to find a consensus, which if not impossible, would be acceptable to few. The futile attempt to find consensus on the Third Thanksgiving Prayer in the Sec- ond Order Eucharist in A Prayer Book for Australia, is an example of this failedattemptatconsensus.64 Habermas’ work leads to the conclusion that if Anglicanism is to become an ideal communicative community where the coordination of actions leads to the consensual resolution of actions, based not on the possession and appropriation of particular knowledge within a particular hermeneutic interest, but on the way knowledge is acquired and used, then there will be a rationality of shared understanding instead of the acrimony of party spirit. This is a redirection of reason and not its abandonment, as Habermas advocates. The common conviction or shared understanding becomes the idea that the system paradigm of Anglican- ism is not one lifeworld or hermeneutic interest. Subjectivistic and individualistic premises need not be the centre of rationality in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and in Anglican theological education if a dialogue approach based on communicative action is adopted. Rather the shared understanding and common conviction is that the Anglican eucharistic tradition is multiform and not uniform—that there is a complexity which extends beyond individual texts, traditions, cultural artefacts and institu- tional forms, and this can be known when a communicative community takes shape. A supposition of commonality becomes more powerful and more fundamental than particular technical or hermeneutic interests. This also means that participants must be able to step outside their own lifeworld and consider the system as a whole free of hermeneutic idealism to the maximum extent that is possible for them. At no point does this mean that the particular hermeneutic traditions or lifeworlds need to

64 See the details in the case study called ‘Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the th and st Centuries’ in Volume , Chapter  of this book in the section referring to the Anglican Church of Australia and the General Synod of . dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  surrender their own presuppositions or propositional content, but it does mean that each of the lifeworlds needs to acknowledge the existence of other lifeworlds and their presuppositions and propositional content. A participant in a lifeworld needs to acknowledge that their lifeworld is a boundary-maintaining system for that particular tradition, but that their lifeworld is not the system paradigm itself. It is this process of communicative action or dialogue and shared understanding that has the potential of emancipating the system paradigm of the Anglican eucharistic tradition from the deformity of an impoverished and fetishised world- view.

Sacramental Theologyafter Habermas

Some of the ramifications for Anglican eucharistic theology arising from the work of Habermas have been drawn out above. Habermas’ work has wider implications for sacramental theology and in turn for theological education on the basis of his theory of communicative action. This book attempts to draw attention to these implications. Several theological educators have attempted to use the work of Habermas, and indeed communicative action and dialogue, in the broader work of theological education.65 The work of these educators is important work but for the purposes of this book, the specific link between sacramental theology and the work of Habermas is in need of greater clarification and explication. What implications are there for sacramental theology on the basis of the work of Habermas?

65 See Thomas Groome, Christian Religious Education: Sharing our Story and Vision (San Francisco: Harper and Row, ); Charles Wood, Vision and Discernment: An Orientation in Theological Study (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, ); Edward Far- ley, The Fragility of Knowledge: Theological Education in the Church and the University (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ); Paul Knitter, ‘Beyond a Mono-religious Theological Education’, in B. Wheeler ad E. Farley (eds) Shifting Boundaries: Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, ); Barbara Wheeler, ‘Introduction’ in B. Wheeler ad E. Farley (eds) Shifting Boundaries: Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, ); Don Browning, ‘Towards a Fundamen- tal and Strategic Practical Theology’,in B. Wheeler ad E. Farley (eds) Shifting Boundaries: Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, ); Dan Hardy, Finding the Church: The Dynamic Truth of Anglicanism (London: SCM Press, ); Terence Lovat, What is this thing called RE: ADecadeOn?(Katoomba, Australia: Social Science Press, ).  chapter five

Siobhan Garrigan in her recent book, Beyond Ritual: Sacramental The- ology after Habermas, has addressed the implications of Habermas’ work for sacramental theology. She speaks of Habermas’ work as a “challenge to the very concept of ‘sacrament’ by simple virtue of the explicit anti- metaphysical premises of critical theory”,66 butatthesametimeacknowl- edges that Habermas has made a valuable contribution to sacramental theology through “a useful conversation between a contemporary philosopher’s interest and those of theology”.67 Habermas in his notion of the ‘linguistification of the sacred’ has led to thinking which has questioned the very nature of a sacrament and whether that nature is intrinsic to ritual or to society as a whole. Rowan Williams when he speaks of sacraments being irreducibly bound up with language and culture as transformative signs, where “there is action, the making of new things”68 is engaging in this sort of questioning. Williams pursues this point in his treatment of the sacramental principle, not as the divine presence in all things, but by seeing in all things their difference, their particularity, their ‘not-God-ness’.69 Garrigan, in much the same way, speaks of sacraments as acts rather than texts, technical problems or articles of faith70 and moves the discussion of sacraments beyond technical and hermeneutic interests. This she argues is essential in any Habermasian analysis dependentasitisonacontextasocialjustice-orienteddiscourse.71 If sacraments are to be interpreted as being about relationship with God and God’s self, then sacraments are about much more than the unique experience of interacting subjects. This type of thinking can lead to a crisis for any institution that insists that it has privileged or holy information, since it challenges the notion of ‘the’ truth existing in a particular hermeneutic interest. This is the type of thinking and the challenge that Garrigan sees as needed in any discussion of sacramental theology from a Habermasian viewpoint. Garrigan’s questioning leads her to admit that sacramental theology in the late twentieth century has increasingly drawn on the work of scholars from the social sciences in the relocation of any theology of the sacraments. For Garrigan the work of Habermas is important in helping to

66 Garrigan, Beyond Ritual, p. vii. 67 Ibid, p. viii. 68 Williams, On Christian Theology, p. . 69 Ibid, p. . 70 Garrigan, Beyond Ritual, p. viii. 71 Ibid,p.ix. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  form this shift, but it has also been shown through the case studies of this book that this trend is equally important for many modern Anglican theologians. The work of Ford,72 Macquarrie,73 Mascall,74 Pickstock75 and Williams76 shows evidence of this trend among contemporary Anglican theologians to engage with the social sciences in the relocation of their eucharistic theology. Indeed this book itself has attempted to do exactly the same type of relocation in the application of the philosophical work of David Armstrong to the expression and analysis of Anglican eucharistic theology. Armstrong’s reference to the powerful truism of universals being strictly identical in their different instantiations,77 discussed in Chapter  in relation to the predominant philosophical assumption ofmoderaterealisminAnglicaneucharistictheology,suggeststhatuse of this sort of philosophical reflection allows the Anglican eucharistic tradition to apply a more sophisticated level of analysis to its eucharis- tictheology.ThisispreciselywhatGarriganmeanswhenshespeaksof drawing on the work of the social sciences in the relocation of sacramental theology. Garrigan argues that such a shift indicates “a recognition of the human being, inseparable from his or her context-dependence on the living organism of the earth, as the conduit through which any and all theology is construed”.78 Instead of an emphasis on the context- dependence of a particular hermeneutic interest, Garrigan, on the basis of Habermasian thinking, argues for an emphasis instead on the experience of Christians, thereby suggesting attention towards their interactions in a communicative sense.79 Garrigan believes that at the heart of Habermas’ theory of communicative action is the idea of communicative rationality which functions as the goal and criterion of discourse. With this as the standard, Garrigan suggests that Habermas’ work is very useful for contemporary theology if its concern is the negotiation of understanding in a post-metaphysical environment.80 The same conclusion has been reached by this book in its consideration of Anglican eucharistic

72 Ford, ‘What happens in the Eucharist?’. 73 John Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments (London: SCM Press, ). 74 Eric Mascall, Corpus Christi: Essays on the Church and the Eucharist (London: Longmans Green and Co, ). 75 Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. 76 Williams, On Christian Theology. 77 Armstrong, A World of States of Affairs,p.. 78 Garrigan, Beyond Ritual, p. . 79 Ibid,p.. 80 Ibid,p..  chapter five theology on the basis of work by Armstrong and others and the ramifications for those findings for theological education, particularly as they relate to eucharistic theology and as suggested above in the development of eucharistic liturgies. For Habermas81 the central idea of his theory of communicative action is dominance-free communication. In any speech act there are three validity claims (truth, rightness and truthfulness) and when these are challenged an exchange or argumentation can begin whereby claims are examined. The aim of this exchange is to find a rationally motivated consensus that introduces an ideal speech situation into the context. Speaker and hearer must therefore make their exchanges in a fair way that results in an agreement reached solely by rationally motivated argument without dominance, coercion or manipulation. It would not be appropriate therefore for any one lifeworld or hermeneutic interest to enforce their view on other lifeworlds. Anglican Evangelicals or Anglican Catholics should not therefore impose their views on each other but rather seek an agreement on the basis of their rationally motivated argument. The evidence of case studies in this book suggest that such a rationally motivated argument wouldbeonebasedonthemultiformityoftheAnglicaneucharistictra- dition and one which recognises the persistent essences of realism and nominalism to the moderate degree throughout the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Such an approach could be part of theological education as well where those making a study of eucharistic theology in the Angli- can tradition are exposed to the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and to the philosophical concepts of realism and nominalism and the distinction between both moderate and immoderate realism and nominalism, as well as differing philosophical frameworks. The witness of the Anglican eucharistic tradition would be essential in this process in order to expose those learning about Anglican eucharistic theology to this inherent multiformity in the Anglican eucharistic tradition. This means that access to material such as that contained in the case studies of this book is an important resource for Anglican theological education, since it is through exposure to the multiformity of the tradition and the various philosophical assumptions underlying the work of theologians, that participants in the Anglican eucharistic tradition are in a position to appreciate the diversity of the tradition apart from their particular hermeneutic interest. Access to this material is not always easy, due to

81 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volumes and. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  its age and lack of availability, and so there emerges a need for an organised and representative sample of the Anglican eucharistic tradition such as that which has been assembled in the case studies of this book. With- out such ready access any awareness of the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and the philosophical assumptions underlying tradition will be difficult for students of Anglican eucharistic theology to appreciate. Skilled use of this material by theological educators, intent on making students aware of the multiformity of the tradition is needed. This cannot occur in a situation where one particular hermeneutic interest is given privileged status and where the appropriation of that particular hermeneutic interest becomes the focus of theological education. Sacramental theology in the Anglican tradition after Habermas is in need of some relocation in order to accommodate these recommendations. Garrigan makes specific recommendations (based on Habermas) about how this process would proceed. She argues that: . Each actor has to have an equal chance to initiate and continue communication; . Each actor has to have equal chance to propose, explain and challenge justifications; . Each actor has to have an equal chance to express their wishes and feelings; . Each actor has to have an equal chance to order and resist order, to promise and to refuse, to be accountable for one’s conduct and to demand accountability from others.82 Using such a methodology in theological education on sacramental theology suggests that any fixed idea of what a sacrament is, is rejected by Garrigan, with a preference instead for broader parameters of what a sacrament ‘is’.Rowan Williams has also given a lead here for the Anglican Communion in his reconsideration of the very nature of sacramentality.83 What a sacrament ‘is’ could be a product of different lifeworlds within the totality of the system paradigm of Anglican eucharistic theology. This sort of question needs to be asked and made the subject of the intersubjective communicative action forming part of a dialogue approach in the theological education of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and the Anglican tradition generally. The model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition (Figure ) proposed in this book could also be useful in this process, since it acknowledges the multiformity of what a sacrament ‘is’ in the Anglican eucharistic tradition

82 Garrigan, Beyond Ritual, p. . 83 Williams, On Christian Theology.  chapter five and at the same time recognises the varying philosophical assumptions underlying eucharistic theology in the Anglican tradition. Anglican theological education would however need to allocate more space than it presently does in its syllabuses to philosophical analysis (e.g. the problem of universals, realism and nominalism to both moderate and immoderate degrees) if this model is to be capable of interpretation and dialogue by participants in the Anglican eucharistic tradition. The model of the Anglican eucharistic tradition (Figure ) provides a system paradigm for the Anglican eucharistic tradition which recognises multiformity as the essence of what the Eucharist ‘is’ in the Anglican tradition.

Dialogue—Other Perspectives

Other theorists have also addressed the issue of dialogue. Some of these other perspectives will now be reviewed and the ramifications of their work linked to theological education in the area of eucharistic theology in the Anglican tradition. Gadamer speaks of dialogue as ‘conversation’ and argues that it: is a process of two people understanding each other. Thus it is a characteristic of every true conversation that each person opens himself to the other person, truly accepts his point of view as worthy of consideration and gets inside the other to such an extent that he understands not a particular individual, but what he says. The thing that has to be grasped is the objective rightness or otherwise of his opinion, so that they can agree with each other on a subject.84 Knowledge in this analysis is not fixed or a commodity to be packaged and grasped, but rather it is a process arising from interaction. Gadamer uses the metaphor of the horizon to make his point, arguing that each person brings prejudices and pre-judgments to an encounter in what he calls their own ‘horizon of understanding’. By this he means “the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular van- tage point”.85 These prejudices and pre-judgments are involved in what is said in conversation or dialogue, but at the same time a person makes an attempt, if the dialogue is genuine, to understand an horizon that is not his or her own and does this in relation to his or her own horizon. ‘Horizon’ in Gadamer’s terms functions in much the same way as

84 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Sheed and Ward, ), p. . 85 Ibid, p. . dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Habermas’ lifeworld. It is in attempting to grasp another person’s horizon or lifeworld that people learn from the other person, intersubjectivity is promoted and understanding is shared. Bernstein argues that this does not necessarily entail agreement but rather, in the to and fro play of dia- logue86 thereisanattempttodiscoverthestandpointorhorizonofothers. Gadamer makes the same point, arguing that in conversation the ideas of others become intelligible without necessarily having to agree with them.87 This model of seeking to understand the horizon or lifeworld of another is useful for the Anglican tradition, not only in interaction between individuals but also between church parties and between particular technical and hermeneutic interests. Dialogue recognises that Angli- can Evangelicals and Anglican Catholics may have distinctly different views on the Eucharist on the basis of the philosophical assumptions that undergird their eucharistic theology, but at the same time dialogue has the potential to promote a seeking after mutual understanding and the recognition that there is more than one view on the nature of the Eucharist within the Anglican tradition.88 Dialogue on philosophical assumptions and frameworks would also be needed to assist participants in understanding the philosophical notions underlying particular expressions of eucharistic theology. Theological education may benefit from this realisation of the need for dialogue in terms of the interaction between students and theologians of different Anglican traditions as they share views with one another, but also in the interaction of students and theologians with the historical tradition of Anglicanism and its eucharistic theology. This is where the case study material provided in this book has an important role to play. Interaction or conversation with the people of the past, as well as thepresent,performsthevaluablefunctionofbroadeninghorizonsand helping to establish that multiformity is a prevailing essence of the Angli- can eucharistic tradition. Those in conversation or dialogue do not aim to win the argument in a defensive manner but rather to promote understanding, tolerance and acceptance. This involves the conversation partners in the testing of their prejudices and pre-judgments in a way that

86 Richard Bernstein, The New Constellation. The Ethical-Political Horizons of Moder- nity/Postmodernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, ), p. . 87 Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. . 88 See Brian Douglas and Terence Lovat, ‘Dialogue Amidst Multiformity: A Haber- masian Breakthrough in the Development of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies’.  chapter five assists in the continual forming and re-forming of horizons. This is why the interaction with both the historical material and the significant voices ofthepresentaresoimportantsinceitallowspeopletoevaluatetheirown horizon in terms of what their own lifeworld and the lifeworld of others are saying, with perhaps some acceptance of what another lifeworld is saying. Christopher Cocksworth89 in expressing Anglican Evangelical thoughtinrelationtotheEucharistandRowanWilliams90 as an Anglican Catholic, grappling with the idea of sacramentality, are two examples of people acting as participants in the dialogue of the Anglican eucharistic tradition who are considering their own horizons as well as other horizons and reaching new meaning and understanding on the basis of this dialogue. Cocksworth reaches a position where memorial remembrance in the Eucharist, a position rejected by many Evangelicals, is expressed in adynamicwayasanamnesis within his Evangelical lifeworld.91 Williams reaches a position where he can question the sacramental principle, a position generally accepted by Anglican Catholics, through a redefinition of the reasoning behind it.92 It seems possible therefore that participants in communicative action, while still claiming allegiance to one or other of the parties within Anglicanism, can be speakers of their own lifeworld but at the same time hearers of another lifeworld. It also seems possible, following Gadamer, that their can be a fusion of some or all of one lifeworld with another, while at the same time realising that no such outcome may be possible. Conversation or dialogue exists, though, when one partner in the dialogue at least hears and recognises what another is saying and in so doing enriches and gains knowledge of themselves as well as others. More specifically and practically Burbules93 specifies some of the conditions that are necessary for dialogue to occur. Burbules suggests that the following are important: – Concern: being with partners in conversation, engaging with them and allowing them to engage with each other in a social bond that involves interest in and commitment to another.

89 Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England. 90 Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. – and –. 91 Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England, p. . 92 Williams, On Christian Theology, p. . 93 Nicholas Burbules, Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice (New York: Teachers College Press, ). dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

– Trust: taking what others say on faith and acknowledging the risk in this. – Respect: acknowledging that there may be differences between conversation partners but allowing the dialogue to continue with mutual regard. This suggests an acknowledgement of equality is essential and that fair-mindedness has a part to play, while degrading and exploiting the partners has no part to play. – Appreciation: valuing the uniqueness of others and their contribution to the dialogue. – Affection: dialogue should involve a feeling with and for the partners. – Hope: dialogue holds out possibility. It is possible that conversation partners will learn from each other and that the dialogue process will carry the partners forward.94 It is Bernstein’sview that when these processes are put in place partners in dialogue and in society as a whole have “a powerful regulative ideal that can orient our practical and political lives”.95 This is indeed the argument of Douglas and Lovat96 as they advocate a Habermasian breakthrough in the development of Anglican eucharistic liturgies. Freire argues that such dialogue cannot however exist, between people who want to own and name the world and those who do not want the meaning that can result from genuine dialogue. Dialogue cannot exist, he argues, when some people are denied the right to speak and where others deny this right.97 Dialogue is also difficult to achieve if particular hermeneutic interests believe that they have a privileged status in the dialogue by virtue of the holy and sacred knowledge that they and their hermeneutic interests possess and control in an exclusive and oppressive manner. It is essential therefore in any theological educational process that basic rules of dialogue are agreed upon, that exclusive ownership of the system by particular lifeworlds is resisted and that all have the right to express their views. Anglican theological education and the development of Anglican eucharistic liturgies, if operating exclusively within a party

94 Ibid,p.. 95 Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis (Oxford: Blackwell, ), p. . 96 Douglas and Lovat, ‘Dialogue Amidst Multiformity: A Habermasian Breakthrough in the Development of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies’. 97 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ), p. .  chapter five hermeneutic, prevent such a process of dialogue from taking place and in fact when operating in this way there is deformation of theological education and the experience of the Anglican eucharistic tradition such that it becomes impoverished and fetishised. Dialogue as part of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and its theological education must seek to avoid this deformation of the tradition by realising that no one lifeworld (whether it be Anglican Evangelical, Anglican Catholic or any other Anglican lifeworld) can claim exclusive ownership of the system (the Anglican eucharistic tradition) through its commitments to particular technical or hermeneutic interests. In such a situation genuine dialogue cannot proceed and share meaning based on the intersubjectivity of communicative action will be limited.

Dialogue and the Anglican Tradition

The Anglican tradition has typically organised itself into party positions and adopted varying theological understandings. The case studies of this book establish at length the complexity and the persistence of these party positionsinrelationtoeucharistictheology,firmlybasedonowner- ship of particular theological positions, often institutionalised in various texts and traditions of Anglicanism. Extensive evidence for this situation in relation to the development of eucharistic liturgies in the Angli- can Communion in the twentieth century is available on the case study which examines eucharistic liturgies in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.98 This perpetuation of a model based on the idea of the ‘holy’ and the ‘sacred’ as Habermas describes it, militates against an ideal speech situation and communicative community. Despite this, it is reasonable to ask what evidence is there to suggest that dialogue has played a role in the Anglican tradition, specifically for the purposes of this book in the area of Anglican eucharistic theology? This will be examined in relation to some of the twentieth and twenty-first century case study material.99 It is in this historical period that some evidence is emerging of a lessening of party position and an engagement with dialogue. There have been several significant discussions of eucharistic theology conducted by Anglicans in the twentieth century, however not all of these have been strictly in the style of dialogue as outlined above. The Anglo-

98 See case study in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 99 These case studies are found in Volume , Chapters  and  of this book. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Catholic Congresses100 of the early twentieth century were focussed on the presentation of a specifically Anglican Catholic hermeneutic interest and any discussion of the Eucharist reflected this interest. There was no attempt to enter into dialogue with other hermeneutic interests. Such partisan interest was however not present in the work of the Commission on Christian Doctrine appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in .101 The tone was set by the Chairman, William Temple, in his Introduction,102 which spoke about the spirit of the discussions held in producing the report. Temple spoke of a need to escape “from that false responsibility which consists in a sense that a man ‘represents’ some section of ecclesiastical opinion”,103 even though he acknowledged at the same time that the members of the commission “had our apprehensions of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ”.104 In Temple’s opinion this resulted in a situation of work where “our minds moved freely”105 from the constraints of party position. This resulted in a dialogue where agreement was possible in regard to some issues and divergent views were also expressed. This resulted in a report which aimed “to promote unity and mutual appreciation with the Church of England, partly by the interpretation of one school of thought to another, and partly by pointing to the fullness of a truth diversely apprehended in different quarters”.106 Sadly this spirit of dialogue has not been present at other times in the Anglican Communion. Synodical discussions of various provinces of the Anglican Commu- nion on eucharistic theology, meeting for the production of eucharistic liturgies and the authorisation of their use, have sometimes been conducted in the heat of acrimonious and adversarial debate that reflects little of a dialogue approach. The workings of the General Synod in the Anglican Church of Australia in the years before and up to , which produced and authorised A Prayer Book for Australia107 demonstrate

100 See case study in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 101 See the report of this commission, Doctrine in the Church of England (London: SPCK, ). See also the case study on this report in Volume  , Chapter  of this book. 102 William Temple, ‘Chairman’s Introduction’, in Doctrine in the Church of England, pp. –. 103 Ibid, pp. –. 104 Ibid,p.. 105 Ibid,p.. 106 ‘Introduction’, in Doctrine in the Church of England, p. . 107 The Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia.Seealsothecom- ments on this prayer book in the case study Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the th and st Centuries in Volume , Chapter  of this book.  chapter five the unwillingness of some to enter into dialogue and the prosecution of particular hermeneutic interests in relation to the eucharistic theology contained in the liturgies of that prayer book.108 Some responses to A Prayer Book for Australia represented a continued prosecution of these hermeneutic interests. In the Diocese of Ballarat, following the publication of A Prayer Book for Australia in , Bishop Silk’s publication of the manual The Holy Eucharist109 became the response of an Angli- can Catholic hermeneutic interest, while in the Diocese of Sydney, the eucharistic liturgies contained in Sunday Services110 was a response of an Anglican Evangelical hermeneutic interest. The effect of these responses seems to entrench hermeneutic interests and to privilege these interests as holy and sacred knowledge in opposition to or in preference to the nationally accepted standard of eucharistic liturgies as found in APrayer Book for Australia. Such a situation is hardly conducive to effective dialogue and the establishment of an ideal communicative community. As Douglas and Lovat111 argue a better way would be to acknowledge the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition in a more open way and to operate within a climate of different lifeworlds rather than trying to find some middle way acceptable to all. This was certainly the approach advocated by William Temple in the Report Doctrine in the Church of England, published in . Other gatherings of Anglican theologians have however shared more of a dialogue approach focussed on the sharing of understanding as a communicative community. The Conference at Fulham Castle112 in October,  adopted a method where various hermeneutic interests were able to share their views on the Eucharist. William Temple in his

108 See case study on Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the th and st Centuries in Volume , Chapter  of this book and Douglas and Lovat, Dialogue Amidst Multiformity: A Habermasian Breakthrough in the Development of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies. 109 Silk, The Holy Eucharist. See also the case study on Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the th and st Centuries in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 110 Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Sunday Services. A Liturgical Resource prepared by the Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel (Sydney: Anglican Press Australia, ). See also the case study on Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the th and st Centuries in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 111 Douglas and Lovat, Dialogue Amidst Multiformity: A Habermasian Breakthrough in the Development of Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies. 112 Henry Wace (ed), The Doctrine of Holy Communion and its Expression in Ritual. Report of a Conference appointed by the London Diocesan Conference held in October,  at Fulham Castle (London: Longmans Green and Co, ). See also the case study in Volume , Chapter  of this book. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Chairman’s Introduction to Doctrine in the Church of England acknowledged that Eucharistic doctrine was the area of sharpest controversy113 but at the same time acknowledged that a spirit of dialogue brought peopletorealisethatoftendivergenceinviewwasaproductofparty division alone and that this division could be exposed and reflected on in “humility in any controversial statement of our own views or reflection on the views of others”.114 The International Anglican Liturgical Consultations (IALC-V)115 also allowed for the exchange of information between various interests. There is evidence to suggest fusion of various interest occurring following dialogue. Charles Sherlock, for example, an Anglican Evangelical expresses a realist theology of the Eucharist where he distinguishes between ‘eucharistic atonement’ and ‘eucharistic sacrifice’, but at the same time admits his prejudice for the Evangelical and Reformed views of Thomas Cranmer in relation to eucharistic theology.116 There is evidence here of a philosophical distinction between ‘atonement’ and ‘sacrifice’ based on moderate realism while maintaining a particular Evangelical hermeneutic interest and at the same time being in dialogue with other Anglican theologians. The document produced by the Church of England, entitled Thinking about the Eucharist,117 presents a set of occasional papers on eucharistic theology. The various hermeneutic interests represented here are presented however, without any apparent dialogue, other than the interests being placed in the same volume. By far the most significant example of dialogue on eucharistic theology in the twentieth century, and continuing into the twenty-first century, is however, the dialogue process undertaken by the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) begun by Pope Paul VI and Michael Ramsey, the Archbishop

113 Temple, ‘Chairman’s Introduction’, p. . 114 Ibid,p.. 115 David Holeton (ed), Our Thanks and Praise. The Eucharist in Anglicanism Today. Papers from the Fifth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC-V) (Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre, ). See also the case study on IALC-V in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 116 Charles Sherlock, ‘Eucharist, Sacrifice and Atonement: The “Clarifications” of ARCIC’,D.Holeton(ed),Our Thanks and Praise. The Eucharist in Anglicanism Today. Papers from the Fifth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre, ), pp. –. This specific paper is discussed in the case study of IALC-V in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 117 Ian Ramsay (ed), Thinking about the Eucharist. Paper by Members of the Church of England Doctrine Commission (London: SCM Press, ). See the case study on Thinking about the Eucharist in Volume , Chapter  of this book.  chapter five of Canterbury in . Both churches entered into a process that was not adversarial but rather respectful and aimed at understanding, rather than proving rightness. Statements of agreement such as those contained in The Final Report118 represent a commitment to dialogue where there is clear agreement and clarifications of important aspects of eucharistic theology (e.g. anamnesis, sacrifice and presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the role of the Holy Spirit) although the later Clarifications119 has less adequately explored the philosophical distinctions of eucharistic theology. Nonetheless the ARCIC process, reflected in its documents, represents what could be seen as the clearest example of a dialogue approach in the discussion of eucharistic theology in the twentieth century. At the same it is important to note that some within Anglicanism, especially Anglican Evangelicals, have rejected the work of ARCIC on the basis of a lack of fit with their own hermeneutic interest and lifeworld position.120 The typical expression of Anglican eucharistic theology in the modern era has however, generally not attempted a dialogue approach but more often instead the presentation of particular hermeneutic interests. Anglican Evangelical interests such as those expressed in the written works of Dimock,121 Griffith Thomas122 and Moule123 are set alongside the Anglican Catholic interests in the written works of Farrer,124 Gore,125

118 Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation (ARCIC), The Final Report (London: Catholic Truth Society and SPCK, ). See also the case study on the work of ARCIC in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 119 Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), Clarifications on Eucharist and Ministry (London: Catholic Truth Society and SPCK, ). See also the case study on ARCIC in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 120 Peter Jensen, The latest report of Anglican-Vatican relations spells either the end of the Anglican Church or ARCIC, Online at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/ a. Accessed  August, . 121 Nathaniel Dimock, The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Two Lectures with an Appendix on the Augmentation Theory (London: Longmans Green and Co, ). See also case study on Dimock in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 122 William Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith. A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England (London: Church Book Room Press, ). See also case study on Griffith Thomas in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 123 Handley Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, ). See the case study on Moule in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 124 Austin Farrer, The Glass of Vision (Westminster: Dacre, ). See the case study on Farrer in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 125 Charles Gore, The Body of Christ. An Enquiry into the Institution and Doctrine of Holy Communion (London: John Murray, ). See the case study on Gore in Volume , Chapter  of this book. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Hicks,126 Newbolt127 and Ramsey128 inthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcen- tury. Later in the century and into the twenty-first century it seems that while the particular hermeneutic interests continue to be expressed (e.g. Dix,129 Macquarrie130 and Mascall131 as Anglican Catholics and Doyle,132 Jensen,133 Stott,134 Packer135 and Zahl136 as Anglican Evangelicals) there isatthesametimesomeevidenceofdialogueamongtheologiansinthe expression of eucharistic theology. Cocksworth137 putsthecaseforthe Anglican eucharistic tradition being multiform rather than uniform and is prepared to step outside his own Evangelical hermeneutic interest to acknowledge the existence and worth of other lifeworlds, particularly acknowledging aspects of what is normally seen to be Catholic Anglican eucharistic theology and is prepared to integrate these into his own lifeworld in his written works.138 Cocksworth’s conclusion of multiformity as normative for the Anglican eucharistic tradition demonstrates a willingness to dialogue with the tradition as a whole and makes the case for what he calls ‘deep structures’ within the Anglican eucharistic tradition

126 Nugent Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice. An Essay in Reconciliation (London: SPCK, ). See the case study on Hicks in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 127 William Newbolt, The Sacrament of the Altar (London: Longman Green and Co, ). See case study on Newbolt in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 128 Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (London: SPCK, /). See case study on Ramsey in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 129 Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: A & C Black, /). See case study on Dix in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 130 Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments.SeecasestudyonMacquarrieinVolume, Chapter  of this book. 131 Mascall, Corpus Christi. See case study on Mascall in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 132 Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in catholic and evangelical theology’. See case study on Doyle in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 133 Peter Jensen, ‘Law Service: Come to the Lord’s table to share a meal’, Online at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/senior_clergy/archbishop_jensen/articles/a. Accessed  March, . See case study on Jensen in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 134 John Stott, Christian Basics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, ). See case study on Stott in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 135 James Packer, Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Address given at the Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen (London: Church Book Room Press, ). See case study on Packer in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 136 Paul Zahl, A Short Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, ). See case study on Zahl in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 137 Christopher Cocksworth, ‘Eucharistic Theology’, in K. Stevenson and B. Spinks (eds) The Identity of Anglican Worship (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Moorehouse, ), pp. –. See case study on Cocksworth in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 138 See also Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England.  chapter five which exist alongside ‘unitive categories’.139 The admission of multiformity is in itself a moving away from a position of an exclusive lifeworld. Macquarrie’s conviction that participation in and reflection on religious faith seeks expression through language140 suggests that dialogue is heavily dependent on what Habermas calls the linguistification of understanding and implies a dialogue among the voices of the tradition. Macquarrie’s preference for a phenomenological approach to the investigation of eucharistic theology implies a “dialectical interplay among the factors”141 rather than the sole expression of hermeneutic interests. This book has attempted to pick up on this dialectical interplay in its analy- sisofeucharistictheologyintheAnglicantradition.Thecasestudiesare evidence of this dialectical interplay occurring which can be interpreted as the multiformity of theological and philosophical assumptions underlying the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Pickstock in her writing discusses the meaning of ‘word’ in relation to the Eucharist where she argues that the Eucharist is situated inside language. Christ’s word, she argues, connects sign and signified in a realist manner. She distinguishes this clearly from those who view ‘word’ asmerelythetextoftheBible.Doyleforexampleuses‘word’inthis exclusive way and Pickstock distances herself from this view, describing such views as “a textual calculus of the real”,142 where there is a privileging of what Doyle describes as a ‘word ontology’ over any sacramental understanding.143 Phillip Jensen’s144 privileging of an Evangelical Anglican interest is an example of the way hermeneutic idealism limits dialogue since he argues there is only one genuine Anglican position regarding the Eucharist and that it is defined as reformed, protestant and evangelical. Other positions (such as a Catholic Anglican hermeneutic and realist eucharistic theology) are described by Phillip Jensen as not genuine since they are not seen to be loyal to the stated privileged characteristics to which he is committed.

139 Cocksworth, ‘Eucharistic Theology’,p. . 140 John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, ), p. . SeecasestudyonMacquarrieinVolume,Chapterofthisbook. 141 Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology,p.. 142 Pickstock, After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy,p..Seecase study on Pickstock in Volume , Chapter  of this book. 143 Doyle, ‘Word and Sacrament in catholic and evangelical theology’, p. . 144 Phillip Jensen, An Evangelical Agenda, Online at http://acl.asn.au/old/pdj_ dinner.html. Accessed  August, . See also comments on Phillip Jensen in the case study ‘The Anglican Diocese of Sydney’ in Volume , Chapter  of this book. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Stephen Sykes presents valuable comments on a dialogue approach when he speaks of the notion of comprehensiveness in Anglicanism. He puts the view that if Anglicanism presents a comprehensive theological position (this book describes this as a multiformity in relation to eucharistic theology) then this does not mean that anything goes in terms of the definition of Anglican fundamentals. This suggests that there are some limits on what can genuinely be called Anglican eucharistic theology. At the same time however, Sykes casts doubt on the view that Anglicanism is a via media since the idea is compromised by both practical and political considerations and smacks of “a poverty of thought and of a sheer reluctance to attempt to come to grips with intractably difficult theological material”.145 Such a via media view of Anglicanism has recently been put by Miley146 who views Anglican- ism as a middle way between extremes. Miley in her consideration of the extremes within Anglicanism (such as the conservative Evangelicals within the Diocese of Sydney) is critical of the privileging of a particular hermeneutic interest but her characterisation of the Anglican tradition as a via media fails to acknowledge in any adequate way, as Sykes suggests, that there is a comprehensiveness within Anglicanism and that there is an inability to tackle the difficult issues of Anglican theology and its various hermeneutic interests. By arguing that Anglicanism is a via media, Miley is really failing to come to grips with the comprehensiveness or multiformity of the Anglican tradition in any serious way. Miley’s view is distinct from that of a communicative community that attempts to engage with different lifeworlds in the process of dialogue such as Sykes seems to be envisioning in his discussion of coming to grips with difficult theological material. The via media does have the potential nonetheless to recognise that the outcomes of the Anglican Reformation are distinctive in that the Anglican Communion possesses both a consistent catholic and protestant strain within it and this in turn suggests that for Anglicanism there is “the idea of elements held in tension with each other”147 but this seems to be a wider and more multiform definition of Anglicanism as a via media than the one Miley presents.

145 Stephen Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism (London and Oxford: Mowbrays, ), p. . 146 Caroline Miley, The Suicidal Church: Can the Anglican Church be saved? (Annan- dale, Sydney: Pluto Press, ). 147 Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism, p. .  chapter five

Sykesseeksarationalmannerinwhichdifferentideascanbeviews without seeking a “tame and Anglicanised tertium quid”. 148 Adialogue approach, based on communicative action could be such a rational methodology based on the intersubjectivity of participants seeking shared understanding. This conclusion has relevance since this book is arguing in relation to the specific issue of eucharistic theology within Angli- canism, that there is a rational manner in which the distinctly different theologies of the Eucharist can be held in tension. The model developed as part of this project (Figure ), with dimensions of realism and nominalism, to both moderate and immoderate degrees, suggests that within Anglicanism there are consistent but distinctly different philosophical underpinnings and understandings of the Eucharist and that within philosophy itself there are important distinctions to be drawn in relation to notions and frameworks. The model put forward in this thesis (Figure ) does not seek to reconcile differences, but seeks instead to recognise the distinctive differences and hermeneutic interests within the same tradition of Christianity and provide a rational means of discussing and conceptualising these differences, not in terms of reconciling them but in terms of recognising that they exist. Such a means is to be found in dialogue and critical reflection based on the intersubjectivity of communicative action as is suggested by Habermas.149 The model of the Angli- can eucharistic tradition (Figure ) recognises the multiformity of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and provides a philosophical framework in which dialogue can proceed in the rational manner which Sykes150 sees as being needed in the Anglican tradition. Sykes’ discussion151 presents the view that contemporary theology, if it is to make any progress, deserves a level of attention to its historical sources that it rarely receives. This dialogue, focussing on attention to historical sources within the Anglican eucharistic tradition has been the focus of the case studies in this book and adds weight to the argument that dialogue has a valuable role to play in the Anglican eucharistic tradition and in theological education, not only because it promotes understanding between differing lifeworlds in the present, but also between differing lifeworlds from the past which impact on the present. By combining the insights of Sykes with the model of realism and nominalism

148 Ibid,p.. 149 Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume and. 150 Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism. 151 Ibid, pp. –. dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition  presented in this project (Figure ), the “quality of attention”152 to both dialogue with participants as historical sources and face to face interactions can be improved. Those who argue for example that the eucharistic theology of Thomas Cranmer and of the Reformation are normative for Anglicanism,153 are, in light of this analysis, required to reassess their position, whilst those who argue that Cranmer’seucharistic theology was purely Zwinglian154 are also required to assess their position. Such dialogue in the present depends heavily on analysis of the tradition from the past with the addition of rational means (principally the philosophical assumptions of both realism and nominalism to the moderate degree) to assist the dialogue of communicative action. As has been pointed out above, such a process requires ready access to the extensive material that forms the phenomena of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and to material that addresses the philosophical assumptions of realism and nominalism undergirding the Anglican eucharistic tradition. Rowan Williams discusses dialogue in a more interactive form, suggesting that by speaking and hearing and by engaging with the material world we come to express truly and respond to the real otherness of God.155 It is in this sense that he questions the traditional understanding of the sacramental principle since he believes symbolic forms are not just lying around waiting to be discovered and recognised. Rather he argues thesymbolicformsarewhathumanslivethrough,sincehumans“are being capable of recalling and re-moulding what is given us, taking it forward and so re-moulding ourselves, the horizons of our understanding and hope”.156 The echo of Gadamer here, in Williams’ talk of horizons, suggests a dialogue approach, where the Eucharist is seen to function in both an educative and emancipatory way, such that a person sharing in the dialogue of a eucharistic community comes to know more about themselves, about others and about God. This suggests therefore, as Williams proposes, that not only do people make signs but also that they make themselves through signs as they reach new understandings about themselves and others. It is Williams’ view that in the knowing of self, people are truly emancipated. This whole idea connects with the notion

152 Stephen Sykes, Unashamed Anglicanism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, ), p. . 153 Broughton Knox, The Lord’s Supper from Wycliffe to Cranmer (Exeter: Pater Noster Press, ), pp. –. 154 Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, pp. –. 155 Williams, On Christian Theology, p. . 156 Ibid, p. .  chapter five of the Eucharist functioning as education for emancipation, since Christ as sacrament: “means in practice an authoritative and creative freedom, whose effects slowly break the mould of the existing Israel, so that the life of God’s people under law can now be read as a sign not only of God but of the new work of God in Jesus and the Church.”.157 Linear models of education (‘the existing Israel’ which could be seen as a particular lifeworld or hermeneutic interest) are surpassed by the freedom that the eucharistic community brings in “an ultimate intimacy between God and his people, a radicalising and consummation (and therefore revolutionary modification) of the covenant bond”.158 In such a scheme Christ “is the sign both of the active pressure and creative grace of God”.159 Christ is therefore not just a ‘thing’ which can be quantified in some technical manner, rather Christ is instantiated as ‘sign’, the nature of God’s active and creative grace, which means that: “Christ proclaims theimperativesofthekingdom,realizestheminhislifeanddeath,and sobeginstomakethepossiblecommunityactualinthepost-Easter experience of his followers. He is thus an effective sign, a converting sign.”.160 ThisispreciselythepositionofPickstockwhenshearguesthecase for the realist linking of the sacramental and ecclesial bodies of Christ, as opposed to too closely associating the sacramental body with the historical body of Christ, such as occurred during the Middle Ages in what is now seen as a corruption of eucharistic theology161 focussing on immoderate realism (that is, the carnal or fleshy presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist). All this suggests that when this sort of dialogue within the Anglican eucharistic tradition, based on the rationality of a system paradigm, takes place then new meaning and understanding also takes place. Williams argues for this in current discussions in the Anglican Communion related to questions of covenant and communion as these impact the very nature of communion. For Williams there is a need for all interests “to recognise different futures for different groups” and such recognition “must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions”.162

157 Ibid, p. . 158 Ibid, pp. –. 159 Ibid, p. . 160 Ibid, p. . 161 Pickstock, After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy, pp. –. 162 Rowan Williams, Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future, Reflections on dialogue and the anglican eucharistic tradition 

Such an argument lifts the discourse beyond the technical and engages the critical. Theological education when it practises this methodology is much more than a technical process with the mere accumulation and appropriation of knowledge, but rather education functioning as emancipation, where the gift of what is known is not some immobilised object (Christ’s body and blood immobilised in bread and wine and locked within an aumbry or tabernacle) and how it can be controlled, accumulated and measured, but rather a process where the learners comes to know self in the context of making signs and as participants join in the life of a eucharistic community as both speakers and hearers. Williams puts this succinctly by stating that: “The eucharist hints at the paradox that material things carry their fullest meaning for human minds and bodies—the meaning of God’s grace and of the common life thus formed—when they are the medium of gift, not instruments of control or objects of accumulation.”.163 Such a dialogue requires a stepping apart from any lifeworld that aims to control and manipulate signs or people and a seeking after meaning and freedom for those who enter into the dialogue. For Williams, where the Eucharist becomes a ‘symbol of mutuality’ it incorporates not only the individual’s interests but what is beyond the individual’s interests and it is here that emancipation takes place, for the participant and for the wider Anglican tradition in its functioning as a eucharistic community engaged in communicative action which uses the intersubjectivity of dialogue. The Christian faith, of which the Anglican Communion is a part, seeks freedom for its members. John’s Gospel has Jesus proclaiming: “and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free”.164 This suggests that truth is aimed at an emancipatory quality and potential in the lives of people and that this was perhaps the aim Jesus had in mind. The argument of this book has been to promote the same aim of which Jesus speaks. A dialogue approach in the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and to theological education concerned with eucharistic theology seeks to free people from the constraints of technical and hermeneutic interests and promote the freedom of critical

the Episcopal Church’s  General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion,  July, , paragraph . Online at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/. Accessed  July, . 163 Williams, On Christian Theology, p. . 164 John :  (NRSV).  chapter five interest through the intersubjectivity of communicative action while at the same time recognizing the value and legitimacy of these technical and hermeneutic interests. This is the truth that makes people free. It is hoped that this book and the dialogue approach it recommends for the discourse of the Anglican eucharistic tradition and for Anglican theological education can contribute to allowing people to know the truth and in so doing making people free. INDEX

A Prayer Book for Australia () Anglicanism, –, , , – (APBA), , ,  , , –, –,  Absence, , , , , , , , Anglicans, –, ,  , , ,  Appropriation, –, , – Acrimony, , –,  , ,  Aldrich, Henry, , –, – Aquinas, Thomas, –, , , , , –, – , , , , – Altar, –, –, , , –, Archetype,  , , , , , , , Aristoelian, ,  –, , , , , – Aristotle, , ,  , , , , , –, Armstrong, David, , –, –, , -, , , –, –, , –, –, , , , , , , , , , –, – , –, , , –, Artefacts, , ,  –, , , –, , Articles of Religion, , , , , , , –, , – , –, , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , –, , , –, –, , , –, – , , , , , –, , , , –, , , –, , , –, , , , , ,   Assumption, –, –, –, , An Anglican Covenant, – –, –, –, –, – An Australian Prayer Book () , –, , , –, , (AAPB), ,  , , – Analysis, –, –, , , , Avis, Paul,  –, –, –, –, , –, –, , , , Ballarat, Anglican Diocese of, , , , , , –,   Anamnesis, –, , , , , , Bayly, Lewis, , , –,  , , , , , , , Becon, Thomas, , –, –, , , , , –, , ,  , , , , , , , Bennett, William, , , , , –, , , , , – , ,  Benson, Richard, , , , , Andrewes, Lancelot, , , , – , , ,  , , , –, , , Berstein, Richard, – , , ,  Beveridge, William, , –, Anglican, –, –, –, , –, , – , , , –, , , Black Rubric, , , , , – –, –,  , , ,   index

Booty, John,  –, –, –, , Brett, Thomas, –, –, –, –, –, , , , –, ,  –, , , , –, Brevint, Daniel, , , –, –, , –, – , –, , ,  , –, –, –, Bright, William, , , , – –, –, –, ,  , –, , , –, Bromiley, G., ,  , , , –, , – Browning,Don, , –, –, –, Bull, George, , , , – , –, –, –, , – –, –, , , – Bullinger, Heinrich,   Bunting, Ian,  Burbles, Nicholas,  Calculus, , ,  Byrne, Peter,  Calvin, John, –, , , Book of Common Prayer, , –, , , , – , , , , –, –, Carnal, , , , , , , , – , , , , –, , –, , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , – –, –, –, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –  , –, , , –, Book of Common Prayer, , – , , , , , , , ,  –, , , –, , Book of Common Prayer, , – –, –, , , – Book of Common Prayer, , – , –, ,   Carre, Meyrick,  Book of Common Prayer, , – Catechism, , –, , , ,  –, –, , , , Bradford, John, , –, , , , , , –, , , –, ,  , , , , –, , Bramhall, John, , , , , – , , , , , , , , , –  Bread, –, –, –, –, Catechism of the  Liturgy of –, –, , –, , – Comprehension, , , – , –, –, –,  –, –, , –, Catholicism, , ,  , –, –, –, Catholic, , ,-, –, , , , –, , –, –, , , –, –, , , , , –, –, –, –, –, , , , –, –, –, , , , –, , , –, –, –, , , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , –, – , –, , –, , , , –, –, –, –, –, –, – –, –, –, Celebrate, , , , , , , index 

, , –, , , , , , –, , , , –, , –, , , , , , –, –, , –, , , , , , , , –, , –   Celebration, –, , , , , Claims, , –, –,  , , , , , , , Clatworthy, Jonathan,  , , , , , , , Clergy,,, , ,  Cocksworth, Christopher, –, , Chapman, Mark,  , ,  Characterisation,  Cognitive, – Christianity, , , , –, – Comber, Thomas, , , , , , , , , , , –, , , – , ,  Commitment, –,  Christians, , , –, , , Communication, , , , , , , , , , , , –, – , , –, –, , Communicative Action, , , , , , , , , –, , –, –, –, , , , , , –, , ,  , , ,  Communion, –, –, –, – Christocentric,  , , , ,  Church, –, –, , , –, Comprehensiveness, – , , , –, , , , , Compromise,  , , , , , –, Concept, , , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, –, –, , , , –, , –, ,  –, , , , – Conceptual, , ,  , –, , –, , Concrete, ,  , –, , –, , Conduit,  , , , –, –, Conflict, , ,  , –, –, –, Consecrated, ,  , –, , , , – Consecration, , – , –, , , , , Consensus, –, ,  , , , –, , , Contextual, , , ,  –, –, , , , Controversy, , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , –, –, – , , , ,  , –, –, –, Conversation, –, , , , –, , , , , – – , –, , , , , Conversion, ,  , –, , –, Convey, , , ,  –, –, , , , Conviction, , ,  –, –, , –, Coordination, –,  , , , , , , – Copleston, Frederick,  , –, –, –, Corinthians, , – –, –, –, Corpus, , ,-, , , , –, –, –, , , , , –, , , –, , , –, – , ,   index

Correspondence, –,  Divine, , –, , , –, , Cosin, John, , , , , , ,  –, – Divisions, ,  Crakanthorp, Richard, , , , , Dix, Dom Gregory,  – Doctrine, , , , , , , , Cranmer, Thomas, –, , , –, , , – , –, –, –, , , Douglas, Brian, –, , , , –, –, , , , ,  , , , , , , – Doyle, Robert, , , , , , , , –, , , , , ,  , –, , ,  Drinking, , , , , , , Critical, –, –, , –, , , , , , –, , , –, –, ,  –, , , , , , Cudworth, Ralph, , , –,   Culture, , , ,  Eating, , –, , , , , , Cyril, St,  , , , , , –, –, –, , , – Deacon, Thomas, , –, , , , –, , , , –, , –,  –, , , , , , Deiss, Lucien,  –, , –, , , Denison, George, , –, , , , , –, , , –, , –,  , , ,  Development, , , –, Ecclesial, –, , , , , , , , –,  , , , ,  Dialectical, ,  Ecumenical, , ,  Dialogue, , , , , –, –, Education, –, –, – , –, , , , – , –, – , , , –, –, Effectual, , , , , –, , – , , –, –, – Differences, , –, , ,  , , , , , , , Dimock, Nathaniel,  , , , , , , , DiPuccio, William,  , , , –, , , Discourse, , –, –, –, , –, , , , , , , , –, –, , , , – , –, –, , , Elements, –, , , –, , , , , –, , , , –, , –, – , , , – , –, , , –, Distinction, , –, –, – , –, –, , , –, , –, , , , , –, , –, , –, , , –, –, –, , –, , , –, , , – , , , , , –, , –, , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , –, , –, –, –, , , –,  –, –, , – Diversity, , –, , , , , , , –, –, –,  –, , , –, index 

–, , , , –, Fetishised, –, , ,  –, , , –, – Field, Richard, , , –, , , –, –, –, –, – , –, , –, – Flesh, , –, –, , –, , –, –, , , –, , , , , –, –, , –, –, , –, –, – , –, –, –, , –, –, –, , , , –, , , –, –, , –, , , –, , , , –, , –, , , –, –, , –, , , , , , , – , , –, –, – , –, , , –, ,  , –, , , , – Elevation, , , , , – , , , –, –, , , , ,  , –, –, –, Emancipation, , , , , , –, –, , –, , , – –, , –, –, Emphasis, , , , , , , , , –, –  , –, –, –, Empiricism, , , ,  –, –, , –, Engagement, , , , –, , , , , , , , –,  , –, , –, – Enlightenment, ,  , –, –, –, Enraght, Richard, , , , , –, –, , –, , , –, – , –, , , –, Epistemically, ,  , –, , , –, Eschatological, ,  , –, –, , , Essence, , , –, , , , –, –, –, –, –, , – –,   Fleshy, –, , ,  Eucharist, , –, –, –, Focus, , , , , , , –, –, –, – –,  , –, –, –, Forbes, Alexander, –, – –, –, –, , –, –, –, –, –, , –,  –, –, –, , Forbes, Robert, –,  , –, –, , , Forbes, William, , , , , , –, – , –, , , , , Evangelical, , , , –, , ,  –, , –, , , Ford, David, ,  , , , , , –, Framework, , ,  , , –, –, , Freire, Paulo,  –, ,  Functions, , , , , Extremes, – 

Faith, , , , , , –, , Gadamer, Hans-Georg, – ,  Garrigan, Siobhan, –, , Feast, ,  –,   index

Gift, , , , , , , –, Hooper, John,  –, –, , –, Horizon, , – , , , , , , , Horneck, Anthony, , , –, –, , , , , ,  , , , , , –, Humanity, –, , , , , –, –, , ,  , –, , –, , Hutchinson, Roger, , , – , , , –, , , –, , , –, , Idealism, , , –, , , , –, ,  , – Goode, William, , , , – Idealist, ,  , , – Identity, , , –, , –, – Gospel, , , – , –, , , , , , Grace, , , – , , , , , , , Grammar, – –, , ,  Griffith Thomas, Henry,  Ideology, ,  Grindal, Edmund, , , –, Idolatrous,   Immanent, –, ,  Groome,Thomas, Immoderate, , , , , –, Groups, , –,  –, , , , , , –, Gunton, Colin,  –, , , , –, , , –, , –, – Habermas, Jurgen, , –, , , , , , , –, –, –, –,  , –, –, – Habermasian, , , , , – , –, –, , , , ,  , –, –, –, Hales, John, , , –,  –, –, , , , Hammond, Henry, , , , – –, –, , , ,  , –, –, –, Hardelin,Alf,  , , , –, –, Hardy, Dan,  –, , –, –, Hebert, Charles, , ,  , –, –, –, Herbert, George, , , –, –, , –, , ,  , , –, , –, Hermeneutic, –, , , , , , , , , –, – –, –, , –, , , –, –, , –, , – , –, , –, , Hermeneutic idealism, , , , –, –, , , – , –, –, , , , –, –, –, ,  –, –, , , – Hermetic, ,  , –, , , –, Hoadly, Benjamin, , , , , , –, –, , , –, –,  , –, , , , , Hooker, Richard, , –, , , –, –, , –, –, –, , , – –, –, –, , , , , , , , , –, , –, –, , , ,  , ,  index 

Immolation,  Interpretation, –, –, Implications, , , , – –, , –, , Impoverished, –, , ,   Intersubjective, , –, , Incarnate, , , , , , , , ,  , , , , –, – , , ,  Jackson, Thomas, , –, , , Incarnation, –, , , , , –,  , , , –, –, Jensen, Peter, ,  , , , , –, , Jenson, Robert, – , , , –, , , Jewell, John, –, –, , – –, , , , , – ,  , , –, ,  Johnson, John, , , –, Insights, , ,  –, , –, , – Instantiate, , , –, , – , , , –, , , , , , –, , –, ,  , , , , , , – Jolly, Alexander, , –, , , , –, , , , , , – –, , , –, , Judgement, , –, – , –, –, – , , , , , , , Kaye,Bruce,,,– , , , , , , , Keble, John, , , –, , , –, , , , , , , –, , –,  – Instantiation, –, , –, Ken, Thomas, – –, –, , , , , , Knitter, Paul, ,  –, , , –, , , Knox, Alexander, – , , , –, , , Koinonia,  , , –, , , , –, –, , , – Lambeth Conferences, , ,  , , , –, –, Latimer, Hugh, , , –, , , , , , , , , , ,  , , -, , –, Laud, William, , –, , , –, ,  –, –, –, , Institution, , ,   Instrumental, , , –, Law, William, – , , , , , , , Laws, –,  , –, , – L’Estrange, Hamon, , – Integration, , , – Liddon, Henry, , , , , Integrity, , –, –, , , , , , –,   Lifeworld, , , , , , – Interaction, , –, –, , –, –, –, , –, –  Intercession, – Linguistic, , , , – Interests, –, , –, , , Linked, , , , – –, –, , –, – Liturgical, , , , , , , , , –, , , – ,   index

Liturgies, , , , –, , , –, –, –, , – –, –, , –, Littledale, Richard, , , , , –, –, – –,  , –, –, –, Logic, , , , –,  –, –, –, Logos, –, , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , ,  –, –, –, Loux, Michael, –,  –, –, , – Lovat, Terence, –, –, , , , –, –, –, , , ,  –, , –, , – , , , –, –, Macquarrie, John, , , , ,  –, , –, – Manhood, – , –, –, –, Manner, –, , , , –, –, , – , ,  , –, –, –, Mascall, Eric, –,  –, –, , –, Maurice, Frederick, , , , –, , , – , – Montague, Richard, , –, , Meyrick, Frederick, , , – ,   Morton, Thomas, , , , , , McAdoo,Henry, – McCarthy, Thomas, , , –, Mozley, James, –, –, –,  , , –, –,  McGee, E.,  Multiformity, –, , , , , Meal, , ,  –, , , , , –, Means, , , –, , , , – , –, –, –, ,  ,  Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury, , – Neale, John, , , , , – Metalinguistic, , , ,   Metaphor,  Negotiation, , ,  Metaphysical, –, ,  New Revised Standard Version of Method, , ,  the Bible (NRSV), – Miley, Caroline, –,  Newman, John Henry, , , , Model, , , , , , –, –, , , , –, , –, , –,  , –, , , , – Moderate, , , , , , –, , –, ,  , , , –, –, –, Nicholson, William, , , –, , , , –, –, –, , –,  –, –, , , – Nominalism, , , –, –, , –, –, –, –, , –, , –, – , –, , , – , , , , , , , , , –, –, –, , –, , , , , –, , –, –, , , , , , , – , –, , –, – , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , , , , –, , –, , –, , –  index 

Nonjurors Liturgies, – –, , , –, , Nonrelational,  , , , , –, , Notion, , –, , –, , , , , , , , , , –, , , –, , , –, –, , , ,  ,  Noumenal, – Particulars, , –, –, –, Nowell, Alexander, , , –, , –, , , ,  ,  Parties, , –, –, , –, Numerical, , –, –, , , , , , –  Partisan, , , , , ,  Partner, – Object, , , , , , , – Patrick, Simon, – , –,  Patterson, Sue, , – Offering, , , –, , –, Peirce, C.S., – –, –, , , , , , Perkins, William, , –, , , , –, , , , , , –,  , , –, , , , Perspective, ,  , , –, , , , Phenomena, , ,  , , , , –, – Phenomenological, –, – , , , , , , , Philosophy, , –, –, –, –, , –, –, –, –, –, –, , –, –, , –, –, , , , –, , –, , , –, , , –, –, – –, –, –, , Phillpotts, Henry, , –, , –, –, , –, – –, , –, , – Pickstock, Catherine, , , , , –, –, ,   Ontology, –, , , – Plato, –,  Orthogonal, – Platonic,  Outcome, , , , ,  Pluralism, –,  Overall, John, , , , , – Positions, , , ,  ,  Positivism,  Ownership, –, –, – Postmodern, , –, ,   Practices, , – Praxis,  Paget, Francis, , , , – Prayer, –, –  Predicate, ,  Palmer, William, , , , – Prephilosophical,  , , , – Presence, –, , , –, , Paradigm, –, , –, –, –, , –, –, –, – –, –, , –, – Parmenides, , , –, , –, Partake, , ,  –, –, , –, Participant, , , –, – , –, –, – , , –, , – , –, –, –, Participate, –, , –,  –, –, –, Participation, , , –, , –, –, –,  index

Presence (cont.), –, , , , –, –, – , , , , –, – , , –, , –, , –, –, –, , –, –, – –, , , –, – , , –, , , , , –, , –, , , , –, – –, –, –, , –, , –, , –, , –, – , –, –, – , –, , , –, , –, –, –, –, , –, –, , –, –, –, , –, , , –, –, , , –, – , –, , –, – , –, –, –, , –, –, –, –, , –, , –, –, –, –, , , –, , –, –, –, –, , , –, – –, –, , –, , –, –, , , –, –, , –, , –, –, – , , , –, , , , –, , –,  , , –, –, , Principle, ,  –, –, –, Priorities, ,  , –, –, –, Privileged, –, –, , , –, –, –, , ,  –, –, –, , Processes, –, ,  , –, –, , , Programs, –,  , –, –, , – Properties, –, –, , ,  , –, , , – Prophecies,  Reality, –, , , , , , Propitiation,  –, ,  Propositional, , , , –, , Reasoning, – –, –, ,  Reflection, –, –, , , , – Prosecute, ,  , , –, , –, –, Protestant, –, ,  , , , , , , – Purity, ,  , ,  Pusey, Edward, , , –, Reformation, , –, –, – –, –, , , , , ,  , , , , , , , Reformed, ,  –, –, , – Relations, , –, , , –  Ramifications, , , , , Remembering, , ,  , ,  Remembrance, –, , , , , Rationality, , , , , –, , –, , , , , –, , – , , , , –, , Realism, –, , , –, –, , , –, , –, –, –, , –, , – , , , , –, , , –, –, –, –, –, , –, , , –, –, – –, , , –, , , –, –, , , , , , –, –, –, –, , , , , –, , –, , index 

, , , , –, , , –, , –, , –, , , –, , , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , –, , –, – –,  , –, –, –, Res, , –,  , –, , –, Ridley, Nicholas, , , , –, , –, –, – , –, , ,  , –, , , –, Ritual, , –, ,  –, –, , –, Ryle, Charles, , , , –, , –, –, – – , –, –, –, –, –, –, Sacrament, , , , , –, , –, –, – –, –, , –, – , –, , –, , , –, –, –, –, –, –, , – –, –, –, –, , –, –, , , –, –, –, –, –, , –, –, –, , – , , , –, –, , –, , –, , –, –, , , – , –, , –, , , –, –, –, –, , –, – –, –, –, , , –, –, –, –, –, –, , –, , –, –, –, –, –, , –, –, , –, , , –, ,  –, –, , –, Saepius Officio, , –, , , , –, –, – – , –, –, –, Sameness, –, ,  –, –, –, Sandys, Edmund, , , –, –, –, , , –  , , –, , –, Schillebeeckx, Edward,  –, –, , –, Scholastic,  –, , , –, – Scottish Liturgy of , – , , , –, , , Scottish Prayer Book of , – , , –, –, –  , –, , –, , Scripture, , , , , , –, , –, –, , –  , , –, , –, Semantics, , , ,  –, , –, –, Senses, , , , –,  , –, –, , – Signify, –, –, –, –, , –, –, , , –, , –, –, –, , –, , ,  –, – Sign, , –, –, –, – Sacramental, , , , –, –, , –, , –, , , , , , , – –, –, –, –, Sacramentality, , ,  –, –, , – Sacrifice, , , , , , –, , –, –, –, , –, , –, –, , –, –, –, , –, , , –, –, – , –, , –,  index

Sign (cont.), –, –, , Sydney, Diocese of, , , , –, –, , –, – , , , , –,  , , , , , –, Sykes, Stephen, , – –, , –, –, Symbol, , , ,  –, , –, , , , , –, –, – Taylor, Jeremy, , –, , , , , , –, ––, , , – –, , , –, Teleological, ,  –, –, , –, Temple, Frederick, , , , –, –, –, , , , , – –, –, , –, Temple, William, , , – –, , –, – Terms, , , , , – , , –, –, , Text, , , , , , , , , , –, –, – ,  , –, , , –, Thanksgiving, ,  –, , , , –, The New Week’s Preparation for a –, –, , – Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s , –, –, –, Supper, – , –, –, –, The Old Week’s Preparation toward –, , –, – a Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s , –, –, –, Supper, – –, –, –, The Whole Duty of Man, , , , –, , , , , , – , , , – The Whole Duty of the Communi- Silk, David, ,  cant, – Spatio-temporal, ,  Theologian, , –, , , –, Speaker, , –, , , , , , –, ,   Theology, , –, , –, –, Speech, –, , , ,  –, , –, , –, Spinks,Bryan, –, –, – Spirit, –, , ,  Theory, , –, –, , , State of Affairs, , , , –, , , , –, ,  –, , , –, , , Things, , ,  , ,  Thinking, , –, –, –, Staley, Vernon, , –, – , , , – , , , – Thordike, Herbert, , , – Stevensen, Kenneth,  , –, – Stibbs, Alan,  Tillotson, John, –, , , Strict Correspondence, –, – – , , ,  Token, –,  Subjects, , , ,  Tractarian, , , –, , Substantially, , , ,  , , –, , , , Summa Theologiae, ,  , , , , , , , Supernatural, – , –, , –,  Supper, , –, , ,  Tradition, –, , –, –, Sutton, Christopher, –, , , , , , , , , , – –, , – , – index 

Transcendence, , ,  Waterland, Daniel, , , ,- Transubstantiation, , , , – , –, – , , , –, , –, Wesley, John and Charles, –, , –, –, –, , , , , , – , –, , , , – Wilberforce, Robert, , –, , , –, , –, , , –, , , – –, , –, , ,  , , , , , , , Williams, Rowan, , , , , , , , , –, , ,  , –, , , –, Wilson, Thomas, , , , , –, –, , , , , – , , , –, –, Wine, –, –, –, – , –, –, , , , –, –, –, ,  –, –, –, – Truth, –, , , , , –, , –, –, , , –, , , , , – –, , –, , – , , –,  , –, –, –, Truthmaker, –,  , –, –, –, Types, ,  , –, –, – , –, –, –, Underlying assumptions, , –, –, –, –, –, , –, , , , , –, , –, –, , , , , – –, –, , –, Uniformity,  , –, –, – Universals, , –, –, –, , –, –, –, –, –, –, , , , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , –, –, , –, , , –, , , , , , –, , –,  , –, –, –, , –, –, –, Validity, , –, ,  –, –, –, , Via Media, –, , , , , –, , , –, , , ,  , –, , –, , Views, , , , –, , ,  –, , , –, – Virtue, –, , ,  , –, –, –, Vision, , ,  –, –, , – Vogan, Thomas, , , , , Words, , , –, , , –, – –, –, 

Wace, Henry,  Zahl, Paul,  Wake, William, –, , – Zwingli, Huldrich, , – 