A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

At the Restoration the custom revived, and the subject was again discussed; but as there was no authorized office, (Laud, having been prevented from drawing up a form, as he intended, in the convocation of 1640,) the preparation of one was committed to Bishop Cosin in the convocation of 1661. When prepared it was presented to the house, and referred to a committee of four bishops for revision, but nothing seems ultimately to have been done about it. Since that period each bishop has adopted any form he thought best, though perhaps the form of consecrating churches, chapels, and churchyards, or places of burial, which was sent down by the bishops to the lower houses of convocation, (1712,) and altered by a committee of the whole house, is the one, not that it is enjoined by any competent authority, now most generally used.—Teale.

Different rites were prepared by Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, Patrick, bishop of Ely, and King, bishop of London.—Palmer; Supplement. (See Harrington, on the Consecration of Churches.)

CONSECRATION OF THE ELEMENTS. The following is the rubric with reference to the consecration of the elements in the Lord’s supper: “When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer of consecration.” If it be asked, whether the priest is to say this prayer standing before the table, or at the north end of it, I answer, at the north end of it; for, according to the rules of grammar, the participle “standing” must refer to the verb “ordered,” and not to the verb “say.” So that, whilst the priest is “ordering the bread and wine,” he is to stand before the table; but when he says the prayer, he is to stand so as “that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people,” which must be on the north side. For if he stood “before” the table, his body would hinder the people from seeing; so that he must not stand there, and consequently he must stand on the north side; there being, in our present rubric, no other place mentioned for performing any part of this office. In the Romish Church indeed they always stand “before” the altar during the time of consecration, in order to prevent the people from being eye-witnesses of their operation in working their pretended miracle; and in the Greek Church they shut the chancel door, or at least draw a veil or curtain before it, I suppose, upon the same account. But our Church, that pretends no such miracle, enjoins, we see, the direct contrary to this, by ordering the priest so “to order the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread and take the cup into his hands before the people.” And with this view it is probable the Scotch liturgy ordered, that, “during the time of consecration, the presbyter should stand at such a part of the holy table, where he may with the more ease and decency use both his hands.”—Wheatly.

The consecration of the elements being always esteemed an act of authority, and standing being therefore a more proper posture, as well as a more commodious one, for this purpose, the priest is here directed to stand.—Collis.

We do not eat our common food without first praying for a blessing on it; which pious custom is so universal, that it is certainly a piece of natural religion; how much more then are we obliged, before we eat and drink this bread and wine, which Christ designed to set forth the mystery of his death, to consecrate it and set it apart by a solemn prayer; especially since Christ himself in the institution of this sacred ordinance, while he was teaching his apostles how to celebrate it, did use a form of blessing over it (Matt. xxvi. 26); which St. Paul calls “giving thanks.” (1 Cor. xi. 24.) Wherefore all churches in the world, from the apostles’ days, have used such a form, the ancient and essential part of which is the words of our Saviour’s institution; for, since he makes this sacramental charge, it hath been thought fit by all churches to keep his own words, which being pronounced by a lawful priest, do properly make the consecration; wherefore our Church has cut off all the later superstitious additions, by which the Roman Church hath corrupted this form, and given us a prayer of consecration, consisting only of the words of our Saviour’s institution, and a proper prayer to introduce it. The first part is a prayer directed to “Almighty God our heavenly Father,” commemorating his mercy in giving his Son to die for us, and the all-sufficient merit of his death, together with his command for our remembering it in this sacrament; and on these grounds desiring that, since we obey him in thus celebrating it, we may therein receive Christ’s body and blood. The second part is the repetition of the words and actions of our Lord at the institution, concerning both the time and the manner of its institution.—Dean Comber.

If it be here demanded, to what words the consecration of the elements ought to be ascribed, I answer, to the prayer of the faithful offered by the priest, and to the words of institution repeated by him. This was the sense of the ancient Church of Christ, which used them both in their eucharistical offices; and never held, that the elements were changed from their common to a more sublime use and efficacy by the bare repeating of the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” as the Papists absurdly hold. To bring about this change must be the work of the Holy Ghost; and thereupon it is requisite, that we should pray to God, to endue the elements with this life-giving virtue. Now the words of institution can by no means be called a prayer: they were addressed by our Saviour to his disciples, and not to God: to them he said, “Take and eat.” When we use them, they are historical, recounting what our Lord said and did, when he ordained this sacrament. And though when he said, “This is my body, this is my blood,” these words effectually made them so, showing that it was his will and pleasure that they should be taken as his sacramental body and blood; though the virtue of those words, once spoken by Christ, doth still operate towards making the bread and wine his body and blood; yet, as now used and spoken by the priest, they do not contain in them any such power, unless they be joined with prayer to God.

Our Lord himself did, besides pronouncing them, give thanks and bless the elements. Thus our Church uses prayer, as well as the words of institution; and doth not attribute the consecration to the one without the other. “If the consecrated bread or wine be all spent, before all have communicated, the priest,” it is true, is ordered by the rubric to “consecrate more,” by repeating only the words of institution. But the virtue of the prayer, which the Church hath last made, is to be understood as concurring therewith; and this is only a particular application to these particular elements. Hence comes the propriety of saying “Amen” at the end of those words; which would not be so properly added, unless it referred back to the preceding petitions. And that this is the sense of the Church of England is further plain, in that she in her rubric calls this “the prayer of consecration,” in which the words of institution are contained; and it is addressed to Almighty God, &c., whereas the words of Christ were not supplicatory to God, but declaratory to his disciples.

After the same manner, in the “Office of Public Baptism,” in imitation of the custom of the ancient Christians, who dedicated the baptismal water to the holy and spiritual use for which it was designed, our Church not only repeats the words of institution of that other sacrament, but likewise adds a solemn prayer, that God would “sanctify the water to the mystical washing away of sin.” And, as in that sacrament she joins the prayer of the faithful to the words of Christ, so in the sacrament of the altar she thinks them both necessary to complete the consecration.—Archdeacon Yardley.

A prayer of consecration, or setting apart the bread and wine to the sacred purpose in which they are about to be employed, hath been used for that end at least 1600 years. And the mention which ours makes of the institution of the Lord’s supper, from the words, “who in the same night that he was betrayed,” to the conclusion, is in every old liturgy in the world. The Romanists have put into their prayer of consecration names of saints, and commemorations of the dead which we have thrown out. And indeed we have left nothing that so much as needs explaining, unless it may be useful to observe, that our Saviour’s “one oblation of himself” is opposed to the various kinds of oblations under the law; and, “once offered,” to the continual repetition of them: though probably a further view was to intimate, that he is not, as the Papists pretend, really sacrificed anew in this holy ordinance.—Abp. Secker.

The death of Christ, if we regard the persons for whom it was undergone, is a “sacrifice;” if we regard him who offered it, it is a free “oblation;” if we consider him to whom it was offered, it is a “satisfaction;” and, in every one of these respects, it is “full, perfect, and sufficient:” or, particularly, it is a “full satisfaction,” a “perfect oblation,” and a “sufficient sacrifice;” not, like the legal offerings, for the sins of one kind, or the offences of one nation or of one person, but for the sins of all the world. Let none therefore mistake, or imagine we are about to sacrifice Christ again, as the Roman Church falsely teacheth; for that is not only needless and impossible, but a plain contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that Jesus was offered only “once” (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10, 12); and by that “one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (ver. 14); so that there needs “no more offering for sin” (ver. 18).—Dean Comber.