The Real Question as to Altar Lights / Christ's Body Present by Consecration, and Offered in the Sacrament of the Altar: A Letter to the Rev. John W.H. Molyneux

by Edward James Phipps

There is indeed one peculiarity connected with the present use of them; the Church prescribes Lights, the present practice proscribes Lights, and sets up “dead lights,” (unlighted candles). Whether this proceeds from that slovenly and irreverent carelessness, which has crept into so many of our Church arrangements, or from that weak and miserable system of compromise, which never does and never ought to succeed, it is equally to be deprecated. If the Law orders Lights, to have candles and not to light them is to disobey the Law. It reminds me of the “guinea in the pocket with strict injunctions never to change it”—of the sage conclusion of the humorous poem, “When nose used the spectacles, eyes should be shut;” it becomes thus an idle vanity, and an inconsistent unlawful superstition.

Besides, the subject of Altar Lights has been regularly mooted in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and no question made of their legality. Dr. Twiss, indeed, in a curt and obscure statement, says the injunction does not apply to Communion Tables. I confess I cannot see upon what grounds he makes this assertion, or rather perhaps I do not comprehend what he means by it. If it is intended to say that the Altar is taken away, and therefore all that is commanded to be set upon it is taken away also, in that case the Holy Sacrament itself must disappear, for the command is express also, to set the Holy Elements upon the Altar.

But in truth, is there any sufficient authority to be quoted, for the abolition of Altars throughout England? The Crown order to Ridley in 1550, was for his own diocese alone. The order in 1559, was, for the setting up Communion Tables where Altars had been violently pulled down; and I am not aware, that any other Crown or Parliamentary authority has ever directed the destruction of English Altars.

And here I think we ought to be on our guard, against being led away by irregular proceedings, or the opinions and acts of individuals. The only authorities which can bind the English Church are the Crown and Parliament.

No violent acts of mobs—no opinions of “Reformers,” even though called “Venerable,” are of the slightest legal force in determining doctrine or practice; legal, political and religious reformers may all be of use in their generation, but their acts and opinions are those of individuals, and nothing more.

And if the acts and opinions of religious reformers of a past generation, are to be considered, why are we to shut out those of the reformers of this present reforming generation? Why “build the sepulchres of the Prophets” and despise or persecute their successors? In the very matter of “ornaments” now in question, we hear of the Bishops of Oxford and Salisbury each assuming the ancient ensign of their office—the pastoral staff. Only a short time since the Archdeacon of Sudbury, himself a Venerable Reformer in the Church, introduced the Queen of Hawaii at Bury, and pleaded for the Church Mission established in those islands. And yet a few weeks before at the confirmation of the young King of Hawaii the Anglican Bishop was vested in albe and cope, mitred, with episcopal ring and pastoral staff. And this is also as it ought to be. As majesty without its externals is a jest, so religion has no right to dispense with them.

Under these circumstances I cannot but think that there is amply sufficient prima facie evidence, to warrant an honest belief that you have legal authority for your Altar Lights—and I confess, therefore, that I cannot understand why the very suspicion of adopting them, should cut off a Priest from Communion with his Bishop.

But by far the most important aspect of this question, is that in connection with the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.

Independently of its being an obedience to the Law, you, with many others, have restored Lights to their place on the Altar, as a much needed aid to revive something of that reverence and faith which is so grievously deficient in the English Church. I believe they have a certain limited power in conducing to this end. But a far more powerful, indeed as I think, the only efficient means, under God, of creating faith and reverence, is to have a clear, definite, positive, belief ourselves, and to endeavour to express it in the simplest and plainest language.

There is no doctrine on which plain unmistakable language is more necessary, than that of the Holy Eucharist.