I am aware that this doctrine has been embraced, of late years, by some of the most devout and eminent of our divines. But the history of their adoption of it is such, that we may allege themselves, in the exercise of their own earlier and unbiassed judgment, against their present opinions. The names of those divines are named with reverence and affection, and justly so, wherever the English language is spoken. But the works, on which that estimate was first founded, upheld, explicitly or tacitly, the opposite of that to which they now lend the high sanction of their adhesion. A sermon on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was called forth from one of them by a sentence of suspension from preaching in the University pulpit at Oxford. But this full exposition of his eucharistic views at that time is absolutely devoid of any claim for Divine Adoration as due to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to Christ Himself as present under the Eucharistic Elements. Again, in a well-known stanza of the 'Christian Year,' another honoured divine has said,—
"O come to our Communion Feast;
There present in the heart,
Not in the hands, th' eternal Priest
Will His true self impart."[15]
And it is believed that the first appearance in a modern days of the former doctrine, viz. that worship is due to the Body and Blood of Christ, was in the year 1856, in the case of Ditcher v. Denison.[16] It was through a chivalrous desire to uphold a cause, with the main aspects of which they naturally felt a deep sympathy, that the writers referred to were drawn into countenancing a doctrine, then new to their theology, but of the truth of which, on examination, they seem to have satisfied themselves. Surely we may believe that it was not without misgiving that they thus abandoned the doctrines which they once taught us. They cannot have felt altogether satisfied thus to break with the Church of the First Ages in a matter so momentous as that of the Object of worship, and of the nature and purpose of the Holy Eucharist.
Closely connected with this doctrine, is a practice not merely defended of late, but strongly urged as being of the very essence of exalted Eucharistic duty:—that of being present at the Rite without receiving; for the purpose, it is alleged, of adoring Christ as present under the Elements. But here again the Early Church furnishes thorough condemnation of the practice. In an exhaustive treatise,[17] it has been shown that, except as a deeply penitential act, she knew of no such practice; making no account whatever of attendance on the rite apart from reception: rightly viewing it as a Sacrifice indeed, but a Sacrifice of that class or kind in which partaking was an essential and indispensable feature. And the English Church, it is almost unnecessary to add, though a faint endeavour has been made to disprove it, has given no more countenance than the Church of old to this practice. Contenting herself, at first, at the Reformation, with forbidding non-communicants to remain in the choir, she afterwards so effectually discouraged and disallowed their presence at all, that it became unmeaning to retain the prohibition any longer.[18]
And in truth it is, as might be expected, to the later and corrupt ages of the Church that we owe both of these positions which it is now attempted to revive among us: viz. that in the language of the decrees of Trent,[19] "our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist," i. e. in the Elements, "and is to be adored" as contained therein: and again, that the faithful may be present merely to adore, and may communicate spiritually,[20] though, as has been well said, "they purposely neglect the only mode of doing so ordained by Christ."
The latter position—respecting non-communicating attendance—has been lately discountenanced[21] by one of those eminent divines who are generally claimed as sanctioning the entire system to which it belongs. And though the number of those among the clergy who have embraced these views is not inconsiderable, while their piety and devotedness are unquestionable, yet I cannot doubt that at least an equal number, in no way their inferiors in learning or devotion, deeply deplore these departures from the primitive faith. And it is not too much to hope, that, as the English Church has witnessed a school of postmediæval or unsacramental divinity, which, notwithstanding its piety and earnestness, has ceased to exercise much influence among us, even so it may be with the mediæval and ultra-sacramental school which has lately risen up. Defend their views how they will, what they are seeking to introduce is a new cultus, and a new religion, as purely the device of the middle ages, as non-sacramentalism was the device of Calvin and Zwingle. And the one doctrine as distinctly demands a new Prayer-book as the other does. What the English Church, on her very front, professes, is neither postmediævalism nor mediævalism, but apostolicity. Since choose she must, (for the two are utterly irreconcilable) between symbolising with the mediævalising Churches of the West, and symbolising with the Church of the first ages, she has taken her part, and her deliberate mind is "Sit Anima Mea cum Apostolis."
From Rites, I turn to Ritual, which claims at this moment the larger share of attention.
How, then, are the Services of the English Church to be performed, so as to be in accordance with her mind and principles? It will be answered, that the Services ought to be conducted according to "the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, according to the use of the Church of England."[22] But this, though at first sight the true and sufficient answer, is not, in reality, either true or sufficient. The duty in question, that of conducting the Services of the Church, is laid upon particular persons: and it is by recurring to the exact terms of the obligation laid on those persons, when they are solemnly commissioned to their office, that we must seek for an answer. Now the engagement exacted by the Bishop from candidates for the priesthood, at their Ordination, is, in exact terms, this: "Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same?" The italicised words contain the gist of the whole matter. By the interpretation we put upon them must our standard of Ritual be determined.
What then "hath this Church and Realm received," at the present moment, in the matter of Ritual? Not the Prayer-book standing absolutely, and alone, without any comment or addition whatsoever: but that Book, as interpreted and modified, in certain respects, by subsequent enactments, which have in various ways obtained, practically, the Church's recognition. The truth is, that this country has taken a certain line, and the same line, in her ecclesiastical and in her civil polity. In civil matters, Magna Charta is the broad basis and general draught of her free constitution. But the particulars of that constitution have been from time to time regulated and modified, not by interlining the original document, but by separate statutes. And the Prayer-book, in like manner, is the ecclesiastical Magna Charta of the Church and Realm. For upwards of two centuries—since 1662—it has received no authoritative interlineation whatever; and but few and slight ones (subsequently to its first settlement in 1549-1559) for another century before that. The differences which are found at the present moment in any two copies of the Prayer-book are purely unauthorised. They are merely editions for convenience. The Sealed Book, settled in 1662—that, and no other—is the English Prayer-book. For more than three centuries, then, we may say that a policy of non-interlineation, so to call it—that is, of leaving intact the original document—has been very markedly adhered to. Such alterations or modifications as have, practically, been made and accepted by the Church and Realm, have been effected by enactments external to the Prayer-book. Injunctions, canons, statutes, judicial decisions, have from time to time been allowed, nemine contradicente, to interpret or even contravene particular provisions of the Book. And, not least of all, custom itself has, in not a few particulars, acquired the force of law, and though not as yet engrossed in any legal document, has long been, in practice, part and parcel of our ecclesiastical polity.