§ 8.—Transubstantiation

{315} Article xxviii.—"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

What is here opposed as "Transubstantiation," is the shocking doctrine that "the body of CHRIST," as the Article goes on to express it, is not "given, taken, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth;" that It is a body or substance of a certain extension and bulk in space, and a certain figure and due disposition of parts, whereas we hold that the only substance such, is the bread which we see.

This is plain from Article xxix., which quotes St. Augustine as speaking of the wicked as "carnally and visibly pressing with their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST," not the real substance, a statement which even the Breviary introduces into the service for Corpus Christi day.

This is plain also from the words of the Homily:—"Saith Cyprian, 'When we do these things, we need not whet our teeth, but with sincere faith we break and divide that holy bread. It is well known that the meat we seek in this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of the soul, a heavenly refection, and not earthly; an invisible meat, and not a bodily: a ghostly substance, and not carnal.'"

An extract may be quoted to the same effect from Bishop Taylor. Speaking of what has been believed in the Church of Rome, he says,— {316}

"They that deny the spiritual sense, and affirm the natural, are to remember that CHRIST reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual. And by the way let me observe, that the expressions of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crass, that it will be impossible to excuse them from the understanding the words in the sense of the men of Capernaum; for, as they understood CHRIST to mean His 'true flesh natural and proper,' so do they: as they thought CHRIST intended they should tear Him with their teeth and suck His blood, for which they were offended; so do these men not only think so, but say so, and are not offended. So said Alanus, 'Assertissime loquimur, corpus Christi vere a nobis contrectari, manducari, circumgestari, dentibus teri [ground by the teeth], sensibiliter sacrificari [sensibly sacrificed], non minus quam ante consecrationem panis,' [not less than the bread before consecration] ... I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum and the offended disciples ... but I find that Bellarmine owns it, even in them, in their rude circumstances, for he affirms that 'CHRIST corrected them not for supposing so, but reproved them for not believing it to be so.' And indeed himself says as much: 'The body of CHRIST is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the bread in the Eucharist;' and to take off the foulness of the expression, by avoiding a worse, he is pleased to speak nonsense: 'A thing may be manducated or chewed, though it be not attrite or broken.' … But Bellarmine adds, that if you will not allow him to say so, then he grants it in plain terms, that CHRIST'S body is chewed, is attrite, or broken with the teeth, and that not tropically, but properly … How? under the species of bread, and invisibly." [Note 1]Taylor, Real Presence, iii. 5; also Dedic. x. 8, xi. 18.

Take again the statement of Ussher:—

"Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first setters forward of this doctrine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this point, wherein he telleth us, that CHRIST in the sacrament did show himself 'oftentimes in a visible shape, either in the form of a lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood; so that while the {317} host was a breaking or an offering, a lamb in the priest's hands, and blood in the chalice should be seen as it were flowing from the sacrifice, that what lay hid in a mystery might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in a miracle.'" [Note 2]Ussher's Answer to a Jesuit, pp. 62-64. Johnson's Miracles, pp. 27, 28.

The same doctrine was imposed by Nicholas the Second on Berengarius, as the confession of the latter shows, which runs thus:—

"I, Berengarius ... anathematize every heresy, and more particularly that of which I have hitherto been accused ... I agree with the Roman Church ... that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only a sacrament, but even the true body and blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and that these are sensibly, and not merely sacramentally, but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priest, and ground by the teeth of the faithful." [Note 3]Bowden's Life of Gregory VII., vol. ii. p. 243.

Another illustration of the sort of doctrine opposed in the Article, may be given from Bellarmine, whose controversial statements have already been introduced in the course of the above extracts. He thus opposes the doctrine of introsusception, which the spiritual view of the Real Presence naturally suggests:—

He observes that there are "two particular opinions, false and erroneous, excogitated in the schools: that of Durandus, who thought it probable that the substance of the body of CHRIST in the Eucharist was without magnitude; and that of certain ancients, which Occam seems afterwards to have followed, that though it has magnitude, (which they think not really separable from substance,) yet every part is so penetrated by every other, that the body of CHRIST is {318} without figure, without distinction and order of parts." With this he contrasts the doctrine which, he maintains, is that of the Church of Rome as well as the general doctrine of the schools, that "in the Eucharist whole CHRIST exists with magnitude and all accidents, except that relation to a heavenly location which He has as He is in heaven, and those things which are concomitants on His existence in that location; and that the parts and members of CHRIST'S body do not penetrate each other, but are so distinguished and arranged one with another, as to have a figure and order suitable to a human body."—De Euchar. iii. 5.

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 an 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 withdrawn from the senses always.

Objections 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 [Note 4].

In this connexion it may be suitable to quote and observe upon the Explanation appended to the Communion Service, of our practice of kneeling at the LORD'S Supper, {319} which requires explanation itself, more perhaps than any part of our formularies. It runs as follows:—

"Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration of the LORD'S Supper, that the communicants should receive the same kneeling: (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of CHRIST therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should 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 or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of CHRIST'S natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our SAVIOUR 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."

Now it may be admitted without difficulty,—1. That "no adoration ought to be done unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received." 2. Nor "unto any corporal (i.e. carnal) presence of CHRIST'S natural flesh and blood." 3. That "the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances." 4. That to adore them "were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;" and 5. That "the natural body and blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST are in heaven."

But "to heaven" is added, "and not here." Now, though it be allowed that there is no "corporal presence," i.e. carnal, of "CHRIST'S natural flesh and blood" here, {320} it is a further point to allow that "CHRIST'S natural body and blood" are "not here." And the question is, how can there be any presence at all of His Body and Blood, yet a presence such, as not to be here? That is, in other words, how can there be any presence, yet not local?

Yet that this is the meaning of the paragraph in question is plain, from what it goes on to say in proof of its position: "It being against the truth of CHRIST'S natural body to be at one time in more places than one." It is here asserted then, 1. Generally, "no natural body can be in more places than one;" therefore, 2. CHRIST'S natural body cannot be in the bread and wine, or there where the bread and wine are seen. In other words, there is no local presence in the Sacrament. Yet, that there is a presence is asserted in the Homilies, as quoted above, and the question is, as just stated, "How can there be a presence, yet not a local one?"

Now, first, let it be observed that the question to be solved is the truth of a certain philosophical deduction, not of a certain doctrine of Scripture. That there is a real presence, Scripture asserts, and the Homilies, Catechism, and Communion Service confess; but the explanation before us adds, that it is philosophically impossible that it should be a particular kind of presence, viz. a presence of which one can say "it is here," or which is "local." It states then a philosophical deduction; but to such deduction none of us have subscribed. We have professed in the words of the Canon: "That the Book of Prayer, &c., containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God." Now, a position like this may not be, and is not, "contrary to the word of God," and yet need not be true. E.g. we may accept St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, as containing nothing contrary to Scripture, nay, as altogether most scriptural, and yet this would not hinder us from rejecting his account of the Phœnix—as contrary, {321} not to GOD'S word, but to matter of fact. Even the infallibility of the Roman see is not considered to extend to matters of fact or points of philosophy. Nay, we commonly do not consider that we need take the words of Scripture itself literally about the sun's standing still, or the earth being fixed, or the firmament being above. Those at least who distinguish between what is theological in Scripture and what is scientific, and yet admit that Scripture is true, have no ground for wondering at such persons as subscribe to a paragraph, of which at the same time they disallow the philosophy; especially considering they expressly subscribe it only as not "contrary to the word of GOD." This then is what must be said first of all.

However, the philosophical position is itself capable of a very specious defence. The truth is, we do not at all know what is meant by distance or intervals absolutely, any more than we know what is meant by absolute time. Late discoveries in geology have tended to make it probable that time may under circumstances go indefinitely faster or slower than it does at present; or, in other words, that indefinitely more may be accomplished in a given portion of it. What Moses calls a day, geologists wish to prove to be thousands of years, if we measure time by the operations at present effected in it. It is equally difficult to determine what we mean by distance, or why we should not be at this moment close to the throne of GOD, though we seem far from it. Our measure of distance is our hand or our foot; but as an object a foot off is not called distant, though the interval is indefinitely divisible, neither need it be distant, even 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 {322} in the Sacrament may be but a realizing to the worshipper of that nearness, not a change of place, which may be unnecessary. But on this subject some extracts may be suitably made from a pamphlet published several years since, and admitting of some verbal corrections, which, as in the case of other similar quotations above, shall here be made without scruple [Note 5]:—

"It may be asked, What is the meaning of saying that CHRIST is really present, yet not locally? I will make two suggestions on the subject," &c., &c.

There is nothing, then, in the Explanatory Paragraph which has given rise to these remarks, to interfere with the doctrine, elsewhere taught in our formularies, of a real super-local Presence in the Holy Sacrament. {323}

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

§ 9.—Masses

[Note 6] Article xxxi.—"The sacrifice (sacrificia) of Masses, in which it was commonly said, that the priests did offer CHRIST for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits (perniciosæ imposturæ)."

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 a certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, "in which it was commonly said;" which surely is a strictly historical mode of speaking.

If any testimony is necessary in aid of what is so plain from the wording of the Article itself, it is found in the drift of the following passage from Burnet:—

"It were easy from all the rituals of the ancients to show, that they had none of those ideas that are now in the Roman Church. They had but one altar in a Church, and probably but one in a city: they had but one communion in a day at that altar: so far were they from the many altars in every church, and the many masses at every altar, that are now in the Roman Church. They did not know what solitary masses were, without a communion. All the liturgies and all the writings of ancients are as express in this matter as is possible. The whole constitution of their worship and discipline shows it. Their worship always concluded with the Eucharist: such as were not capable of it, as the catechumens, and {324} those who were doing public penance for their sins, assisted at the more general parts of the worship; and so much of it was called their mass, because they were dismissed at the conclusion of it. When that was done, then the faithful stayed, and did partake of the Eucharist; and at the conclusion of it they were likewise dismissed, from whence it came to be called the mass of the faithful."—Burnet on the XXXIst Article, p. 482.

These sacrifices (Missæ) are said to be "blasphemous fables and pernicious impostures." Now the "blasphemous fable" is the teaching that there are sacrifices for sin other than CHRIST'S death, and that masses are those other sacrifices. And the "pernicious imposture" is the turning this belief into a means of filthy lucre.

1. That the "blasphemous fable" is the teaching that masses are sacrifices for sin distinct from the sacrifice of CHRIST'S death, is plain from the first sentence of the Article. "The offering of CHRIST once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 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 masses, &c." It is observable too that the heading of the Article runs, "Of the one oblation of CHRIST finished upon the Cross," which interprets the drift of the statement contained in it about masses.

Our Communion Service shows it also, in which the prayer of consecration commences pointedly with a declaration, which has the force of a protest, that CHRIST made on the cross "by His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."

And again in the offering of the sacrifice: "We entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching Thee to grant that by the merits and death of Thy SON JESUS CHRIST, and through faith in His blood, we and all {325} Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion."

But the popular charge still urged against the Roman system as introducing in the Mass a second or rather continually recurring atonement, is a sufficient illustration, without further quotations, of this part of the Article [Note 7].

2. That the "blasphemous and pernicious imposture" is the turning the Mass into a gain is plain from such passages as the following:—

"With what earnestness, with what vehement zeal, did our SAVIOUR CHRIST drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple of GOD, and hurled down the tables of the changers of money, and the seats of the dove-sellers, and could not abide that a man should carry a vessel through the temple. He told them, that they made His FATHER'S house a den of thieves, partly through their superstition, hypocrisy, false worship, false doctrine, and insatiable covetousness, and partly through contempt, abusing that place with walking and talking, with worldly matters, without all fear of GOD, and due reverence to that place. What dens of thieves the Churches of England have been made by the blasphemous buying and selling the most precious body and blood of CHRIST in the Mass, as the world was made to believe, at dirges, at month's minds, at trentalls, in abbeys and chantries, besides other horrible abuses, (GOD'S holy name be blessed for ever,) which we now see and understand. All these abominations they that supply the room of CHRIST have cleansed and purged the Churches of England of, taking away all such fulsomeness and filthiness, as through blind devotion and ignorance hath crept into the Church these many hundred years."—On repairing and keeping clean of Churches, pp. 229, 230. Place and Time of Prayer, p. 293. Sacrament, pp. 377, 378. Bull's Sermons, p. 10. Burnet, Article XXII., pp. 303, 304.

The truth of representations such as these cannot be better shown than by extracting the following passage from the Session 22 of the Council of Trent:— {326}

"Whereas many things appear to have crept in heretofore, whether by the fault of the times or by the neglect and wickedness of men, foreign to the dignity of so great a sacrifice, in order that it may regain its due honour and observance, to the glory of GOD and the edification of His faithful people, the Holy Council decrees, that the bishops, ordinaries of each place, diligently take care and be bound, to forbid and put an end to all those things, which either avarice, which is idolatry, or irreverence, which is scarcely separable from impiety, or superstition, the pretence of true piety, has introduced. And, to say much in a few words, first of all, as to avarice, let them altogether forbid agreements, and bargains of payment of whatever kind, and whatever is given for celebrating new masses; moreover importunate and mean extortion, rather than petition of alms, and such like practices, which border on simoniacal sin, certainly on filthy lucre ... And let them banish from the churches those musical performances, when with the organ or with the chant anything lascivious or impure is mingled; also all secular practices, idle and therefore profane conversations, promenadings, bustle, clamour; so that the house of GOD may truly seem and be called the house of prayer. Lastly, lest any opening be given to superstition, let them forbid by edict and punishments appointed, the priests to celebrate at any other than the due hours, or to use rites or ceremonies and prayers in the celebration of masses, other than those which have been approved by the Church, and received on frequent and laudable use. And let them altogether remove from the Church a set number of certain masses and candles, which has proceeded rather from superstitious observance than from true religion, and teach the people in what consists, and from whom, above all, proceeds the so precious and heavenly fruit of this most holy sacrifice. And let them admonish the same people to come frequently to their parish Churches, at least on Sundays and the greater feasts," &c.

On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article before us neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its being an offering for the quick and the dead for the remission of sin; but against its being viewed, on the one hand, as independent of or distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy, and, on the other, its being directed to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to celebrate it, which is imposture in addition. {327}

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

§ 10.—Marriage of Clergy

Article xxxii. "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage."

There is literally no subject for controversy in these words, since even the most determined advocates of the celibacy of the clergy admit their truth. Clerical celibacy, as a duty, is grounded not on GOD'S law, but on the Church's rule, or on vow. No one, for instance, can question the vehement zeal of St. Jerome in behalf of this observance, yet he makes the following admission in his attack upon Jovinian:—

"Jovinian says, 'You speak in vain, since the Apostle appointed Bishops, and Presbyters, and Deacons, the husbands of one wife, and having children.' But, as the Apostle says, that he has not a precept concerning virgins, yet gives a counsel, as having received mercy of the Lord, and urges throughout that discourse a preference of virginity to marriage, and advises what he does not command, lest he seem to cast a snare, and to impose a burden too great for man's nature; so also, in ecclesiastical order, seeing that an infant Church was then forming out of the Gentiles, he gives the lighter precepts to recent converts, lest they should fail under them through fear."—Adv. Jovinian, i. 34.

And the Council of Trent merely lays down:—

"If any shall say that clerks in holy orders, or regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that the contract is valid in spite of ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema."—Sess. 24, Can. 9.

Here the observance is placed simply upon rule of the Church or upon vow, neither of which exists in the English Church; "therefore," as the Article logically proceeds, "it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge {328} the same to serve better to godliness." Our Church leaves the discretion with the clergy; and most persons will allow that, under our circumstances, she acts wisely in doing so. That she has power, did she so choose, to take from them this discretion, and to oblige them either to marriage (as is said to be the case as regards the parish priests of the Greek Church) or to celibacy, would seem to be involved in the doctrine of the following extract from the Homilies; though, whether an enforcement either of the one or the other rule would be expedient and pious, is another matter. Speaking of fasting, the Homily says,—

"GOD'S Church ought not, neither may it be so tied to that or any other order now made, or hereafter to be made and devised by the authority of man, but that it may lawfully, for just causes, alter, change, or mitigate those ecclesiastical decrees and orders, yea, recede wholly from them, and break them, when they tend either to superstition or to impiety; when they draw the people from GOD rather than work any edification in them. This authority CHRIST Himself used, and left it to His Church. He used it, I say, for the order or decree made by the elders for washing oft-times, which was diligently observed of the Jews; yet tending to superstition, our SAVIOUR CHRIST altered and changed the same in His Church into a profitable sacrament, the sacrament of our regeneration, or new birth. This authority to mitigate laws and decrees ecclesiastical, the Apostles practised, when they, writing from Jerusalem unto the congregation that was at Antioch, signified unto them, that they would not lay any further burden upon them, but these necessaries: that is, 'that they should abstain from things offered unto idols, from blood, from that which is strangled, and from fornication;' notwithstanding that Moses's law required many other observances. This authority to change the orders, decrees, and constitutions of the Church, was, after the Apostles' time, used of the fathers about the manner of fasting, as it appeareth in the Tripartite History ... Thus ye have heard, good people, first, that Christian subjects are bound even in conscience to obey princes' laws, which are not repugnant to the laws of God. Ye have also heard that CHRIST'S Church is not so bound to observe any order, law, or decree made by man, to prescribe a form in {329} religion, but that the Church hath full power and authority from God to change and alter the same, when need shall require; which hath been showed you by the example of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, by the practice of the Apostles, and of the Fathers since that time." Homily on Fasting, p. 242-244.

To the same effect the Thirty-fourth Article declares, that—

"It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly." {330}

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

§ 11.—The Homilies

Article xxxv.—"The second Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies."

This Article has been treated of in No. 82 of these Tracts [Note 8], in the course of an answer given to an opponent, who accused its author of not fairly receiving the Homilies, because he dissented from their doctrine, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, and that regeneration was vouchsafed under the law. Some portions of the passage in the Tract shall here be inserted.

"I say plainly, then, I have not subscribed the Homilies, nor was it ever intended that any member of the English Church should be subjected to what, if considered as an extended confession, would indeed be a yoke of bondage. Romanism surely is innocent, compared with that system which should impose upon the conscience a thick octavo volume, written flowingly and freely by fallible men, to be received exactly, sentence for sentence; I cannot conceive any grosser instance of a pharisaical tradition than this would be, &c.

"How then are we bound to the Homilies? By the Thirty-fifth Article, which speaks as follows:—'The second Book of Homilies ... doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies.' Now, observe, this Article does not speak of every statement made in them, but of the 'doctrine.' It speaks of the view or cast, or body of doctrine contained in them. In spite of ten thousand incidental propositions, as in any large book, there is, it is {331} obvious, a certain line of doctrine, which may be contemplated continuously in its shape and direction," &c. …

This illustration of the subject may be thought enough; yet it may be allowable to add from the Homilies a number of propositions or statements of more or less importance, which are too much forgotten at this day, and are decidedly opposed to the views of certain schools of religion, which at the present moment are so eager in claiming the Homilies for themselves. This is not done, as the extract already read will show, with the intention of maintaining that they are one and all binding on the conscience of those who subscribe the Thirty-fifth Article; but, since the strong language of the Homilies against the Bishop of Rome is often quoted, as if it were thus proved to be the doctrine of our Church, it may be as well to show that, following the same rule, we shall be also introducing Catholic doctrines, which indeed it far more belongs to a Church to profess than a certain view of prophecy, but which do not approve themselves to those who hold that view. For instance, we read as follows:—

1. "The great clerk and godly preacher, St. John Chrysostom."—l B. i. 1. And, in like manner, mention is made elsewhere of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. Cyprian, St. Hierome, St. Martin, Origen, Prosper, Ecumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, Didymus, Theophylactus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Lactantius, Cyrillus, Epiphanius, Gregory, Irenæus, Clemens, Rabanus, Isidorus, Eusebius, Justinus Martyr, Optatus, Eusebius Emissenus, and Bede.

2. "Infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy, are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins ... and they which in act or deed do sin after this baptism, when they turn to GOD, unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice," &c.—l B. iii. 1. init.

3. "Our office is, not to pass the time of this present {332} life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or justified," &c.—1 B. iii. 3.

4. "By holy promises, we be made lively members of CHRIST, receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. By like holy promises the sacrament of Matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love."—l B. vii. 1.

5. "Let us learn also here [in the Book of Wisdom] by the infallible and undeceivable Word of GOD, that," &c.—l B. x. 1.

6. "The due receiving of His blessed Body and Blood, under the form of bread and wine."—Note at end of Book i.

7. "In the Primitive Church, which was most holy and godly ... open offenders were not suffered once to enter into the house of the LORD ... until they had done open penance ... but this was practised, not only upon mean persons, but also upon the rich, noble, and mighty persons, yea, upon Theodosius, that puissant and mighty Emperor, whom ... St. Ambrose ... did … excommunicate."—2 B. i. 2.

8. "Open offenders were not ... admitted to common prayer, and the use of the holy sacraments."—Ibid.

9. "Let us amend this our negligence and contempt in coming to the house of the LORD; and resorting thither diligently together, let us there ... celebrating also reverently the LORD'S holy sacraments, serve the LORD in His holy house."—Ibid. 5.

10. "Contrary to the ... most manifest doctrine of the Scriptures, and contrary to the usage of the Primitive Church, which was most pure and uncorrupt, and contrary to the sentences and judgments of the most ancient, learned, and godly doctors of the Church."—2 B. ii. 1. init.

11. "This truth ... was believed and taught by the old holy fathers, and most ancient learned doctors, and received by the old Primitive Church, which was most uncorrupt and pure."—2 B. ii. 2. init. {333}

12. "Athanasius, a very ancient, holy, and learned bishop and doctor."—Ibid.

13. "Cyrillus, an old and holy doctor."—Ibid.

14. "Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamine, in Cyprus, a very holy and learned man."—Ibid.

15. "To whose (Epiphanius's) judgment you have ... all the learned and godly bishops and clerks, yea, and the whole Church of that age" [the Nicene] "and so upward to our SAVIOUR CHRIST'S time, by the space of about four hundred years, consenting and agreeing."—Ibid.

16. "Epiphanius, a bishop and doctor of such antiquity, holiness, and authority."—Ibid.

17. "St. Augustin, the best learned of all ancient doctors."—Ibid.

18. "That ye may know why and when, and by whom images were first used privately, and afterwards not only received into Christian churches and temples, but, in conclusion, worshipped also; and how the same was gainsaid, resisted and forbidden, as well by godly bishops and learned doctors, as also by sundry Christian princes, I will briefly collect," &c. The bishops and doctors which follow are: "St. Jerome, Serenus, Gregory, the Fathers of the Council of Eliberis."

19. "Constantine, Bishop of Rome, assembled a Council of bishops of the West, and did condemn Philippicus, the Emperor, and John, Bishop of Constantinople, of the heresy of the Monothelites, not without a cause indeed, but very justly."—Ibid.

20. "Those six Councils, which were allowed and received of all men."—Ibid.

21. "There were no images publicly by the space of almost seven hundred years. And there is no doubt but the Primitive Church, next the Apostles' times, was most pure."—Ibid.

22. "Let us beseech GOD that we, being warned by His {334} holy Word ... and by the writings of old godly doctors and ecclesiastical histories," &c.—Ibid.

23. "It shall be declared, both by GOD'S Word, and the sentences of the ancient doctors, and judgment of the Primitive Church," &c.—2 B. ii. 3.

24. "Saints, whose souls reign in joy with GOD."—Ibid.

25. "That the law of GOD is likewise to be understood against all our images ... appeareth further by the judgment of the old doctors and the Primitive Church."—Ibid.

26. "The Primitive Church, which is specially to be followed, as most incorrupt and pure."—Ibid.

27. "Thus it is declared by GOD'S Word, the sentences of the doctors, and the judgment of the Primitive Church."—Ibid.

28. "The rude people, who specially as the Scripture teacheth, are in danger of superstition and idolatry; viz. Wisdom xiii. xiv."—Ibid.

29. "They [the 'learned and holy bishops and doctors of the Church' of the eight first centuries] were the preaching bishops ... And as they were most zealous and diligent, so were they of excellent learning and godliness of life, and by both of great authority and credit with the people."—Ibid.

30. "The most virtuous and best learned, the most diligent also, and in number almost infinite, ancient fathers, bishops, and doctors … could do nothing against images and idolatry."—Ibid.

31. "As the Word of God testifieth, Wisdom xiv."—Ibid.

32. "The saints, now reigning in heaven with GOD."—Ibid.

33. "The fountain of our regeneration is there [in GOD'S house] presented unto us."—2 B. iii.

36 [sic—NR]. "Somewhat shall now be spoken of one particular {335} good work, whose commendation is both in the law and in the Gospel [fasting]."—2 B. iv. 1.

37. "If any man shall say ... we are not now under the yoke of the law, we are set at liberty by the freedom of the Gospel; therefore these rites and customs of the old law bind not us, except it can be showed by the Scriptures of the New Testament, or by examples out of the same, that fasting, now under the Gospel, is a restraint of meat, drink, and all bodily food and pleasures from the body, as before: first, that we ought to fast, is a truth more manifest, than it should here need to be proved . . . Fasting, even by CHRIST'S assent, is a withholding meat, drink, and all natural food from the body," &c.—Ibid.

38. "That it [fasting] was used in the Primitive Church, appeareth most evidently by the Chalcedon Council, one of the four first general councils. The fathers assembled there ... decreed in that council that every person, as well in his private as public fast, should continue all the day without meat and drink, till after the evening prayer ... This Canon teacheth how fasting was used in the Primitive Church."—Ibid. [This Council was A.D. 451.]

39. "Fasting then, by the decree of those 630 fathers, grounding their determinations in this matter upon the sacred Scriptures ... is a withholding of meat, drink, and all natural food from the body, from the determined time of fasting."—Ibid.

40. "The order or decree made by the elders for washing ofttimes, tending to superstition, our SAVIOUR CHRIST altered and changed the same in His Church, into a profitable sacrament, the sacrament of our regeneration or new birth."—2 B. iv. 2.

41. "Fasting thus used with prayer is of great efficacy and weigheth much with God, so the angel Raphael told Tobias."—Ibid. {336}

42. "As he" [St. Augustine] "witnesseth in another place, the martyrs and holy men in times past, were wont after their death to be remembered and named of the priest at divine service; but never to be invocated or called upon."—2 B. vii. 2.

43. "Thus you see that the authority both of Scripture and also of Augustine, doth not permit that we should pray to them."—Ibid.

44. "To temples have the Christians customably used to resort from time to time as to most meet places, where they might ... receive His holy sacraments ministered unto them duly and purely."—2 B. viii. 1.

45. "The which thing both CHRIST and His apostles, with all the rest of the holy fathers, do sufficiently declare so."—Ibid.

46. "Our godly predecessors, and the ancient fathers of the Primitive Church, spared not their goods to build Churches."—Ibid.

"If we will show ourselves true Christians, if we will be followers of CHRIST our MASTER, and of those godly fathers who have lived before us, and now have received the reward of true and faithful Christians," &c.—Ibid.

48 [sic—NR]. "We must ... come unto the material churches and temples to pray ... whereby we may reconcile ourselves to GOD, be partakers of His holy sacraments, and be devout hearers of His holy Word," &c.—Ibid.

49. "It [ordination] lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are."—2 Hom. ix.

50. "Thus we are taught, both by the Scriptures and ancient doctors, that," &c.—Ibid.

51. "The holy apostles and disciples of CHRIST ... the godly fathers also, that were both before and since CHRIST, {337} endued without doubt with the HOLY GHOST, ... they both do most earnestly exhort us, &c. … that we should remember the poor ... St. Paul crieth unto us after this sort ... Isaiah the Prophet teacheth us on this wise … And the holy father Tobit giveth this counsel. And the learned and godly doctor Chrysostom giveth this admonition ... But what mean these often admonitions and earnest exhortations of the prophets, apostles, fathers, and holy doctors?"—2 B. xi. 1.

52. "The holy fathers, Job and Tobit."—Ibid.

53. "CHRIST, whose especial favour we may be assured by this means to obtain," [viz. by almsgiving]—2 B. xi. 2.

54. "Now will I ... show unto you how profitable it is for us to exercise them [alms-deeds] ... [CHRIST'S saying] serveth to ... prick us forwards ... to learn … how we may recover our health, if it be lost or impaired, and how it may be defended and maintained if we have it. Yea, He teacheth us also therefore to esteem that as a precious medicine and an inestimable jewel, that hath such strength and virtue in it, that can either procure or preserve so incomparable a treasure."—Ibid.

55. "Then He and His disciples were grievously accused of the Pharisees, ... because they went to meat and washed not their hands before, ... CHRIST, answering their superstitious complaint, teaching them an especial remedy how to keep clean their souls, ... Give alms," &c.—Ibid.

56. "Merciful alms-dealing is profitable to purge the soul from the infection and filthy spots of sin."—Ibid.

57. "The same lesson doth the HOLY GHOST teach in sundry places of the Scripture, saying, 'Mercifulness and alms-giving,' &c. [Tobit iv.] ... The wise preacher, the son of Sirach, confirmeth the same, when he says, that 'as water quencheth burning fire,'" &c.—Ibid.

58. "A great confidence may they have before the high {338} GOD, that show mercy and compassion to them that are afflicted."—Ibid.

59. "If ye have by any infirmity or weakness been touched and annoyed with them ... straightway shall mercifulness wipe and wash them away, as salves and remedies to heal their sores and grievous diseases."—Ibid.

60. "And therefore that holy father Cyprian admonisheth to consider how wholesome and profitable it is to relieve the needy, &c. ... by the which we may purge our sins and heal our wounded souls."—Ibid.

61. "We be therefore washed in our baptism from the filthiness of sin, that we should live afterwards in the pureness of life."—2 B. xiii. 1.

62. "By these means [by love, compassion, &c.] shall we move GOD to be merciful to our sins."—Ibid.

63. "'He was dead,' saith St. Paul, 'for our sins, and rose again for our justification' ... He died to destroy the rule of the devil in us, and He rose again to send down His HOLY SPIRIT to rule in our hearts, to endue us with perfect righteousness."—2 B. xiv.

64. "The ancient Catholic fathers," (in marg.) Irenæus, Ignatius, Dionysius, Origen, Optatus, Cyprian, Athanasius, … "were not afraid to call this supper, some of them, the salve of immortality and sovereign preservative against death; other, the sweet dainties of our SAVIOUR, the pledge of eternal health, the defence of faith, the hope of the resurrection; other, the food of immortality, the healthful grace, and the conservatory to everlasting life."—2 B. xv. 1.

65. "The meat we seek in this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly refection, and not earthly; an invisible meat, and not bodily; a ghostly substance, and not carnal."—Ibid.

66. "Take this lesson ... of Emissenus, a godly father that ... thou look up with faith upon the holy body and blood of thy GOD, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it {339} with thy mind, thou receive it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man."—Ibid.

67. "The saying of the holy martyr of GOD, St. Cyprian."—2 B. xx. 3.

Thus we see the authority of the Fathers, of the six first councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally, the holiness of the Primitive Church, the inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of Marriage and other ordinances, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Church's power of excommunicating kings, the profitableness of fasting, the propitiatory virtue of good works, the Eucharistic commemoration, and justification by inherent righteousness, are taught in the Homilies. Let it be said again, it is not here asserted that a subscription to all and every of these quotations is involved in the subscription of an Article which does but generally approve the Homilies; but they who insist so strongly on our Church's holding that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist because the Homilies declare it, should recollect that there are other doctrines contained in them beside it, which they should be understood to hold, before their argument has the force of consistency. {340}

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

§ 12.—The Bishop of Rome

Article xxxviii.—"The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."

By "hath" is meant "ought to have," as the Article in the 36th Canon and the Oath of Supremacy show, in which the same doctrine is drawn out more at length. "No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."

This is the profession which every one must in consistency make, who does not join the Roman Church. If the Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction and authority here, why do we not acknowledge it, and submit to him? To use then the above words, is nothing more or less than to say "I am not a Roman Catholic;" and whatever reasons there are against using them, are so far reasons against remaining in the English Church. They are a mere enunciation of the principle of Anglicanism.

Anglicans maintain that the supremacy of the Pope is not directly from revelation, but an event in Providence. All things may be undone by the agents and causes by which they are done. What revelation gives, revelation takes away; what Providence gives, Providence takes away. GOD ordained by miracle, he reversed by miracle, the Jewish election; He promoted in the way of Providence, and He cast down by the same way, the Roman empire. "The powers that be, are ordained of GOD," while they be, and thereby have a claim on our obedience. When they cease to be, they cease to have a claim. They cease to be, when GOD removes them. He may be considered to remove them when He undoes what {341} He had done. The Jewish election did not cease to be, when the Jews went into captivity: this was an event in Providence; and what miracle had ordained, it was miracle that annulled. But the Roman power ceased to be when the barbarians overthrew it; for it rose by the sword, and it therefore perished by the sword. The Gospel Ministry began in CHRIST and His Apostles; and what they began they only can end. The Papacy began in the exertions and passions of man; and what man can make, man can destroy. Its jurisdiction, while it lasted, was "ordained of GOD;" when it ceased to be, it ceased to claim our obedience; and it ceased to be at the Reformation. The Reformers, who could not destroy a Ministry, which the Apostles began, could destroy a Dominion which the Popes founded.

Perhaps the following passage will throw additional light upon this point:—

"The Anglican view of the Church has ever been this: that its portions need not otherwise have been united together for their essential completeness, than as being descended from one original. They are like a number of colonies sent out from a mother-country … Each Church is independent of all the rest, and is to act on the principle of what may be called Episcopal independence, except, indeed, so far as the civil power unites any number of them together … Each diocese is a perfect independent Church, is sufficient for itself; and the communion of Christians one with another, and the unity of them altogether, lie, not in a mutual understanding, intercourse, and combination, not in what they do in common, but in what they are and have in common, in their possession of the Succession, their Episcopal form, their Apostolical faith, and the use of the Sacraments ... Mutual intercourse is but an accident of the Church, not of its essence ... Intercommunion is a duty, as other duties, but is {342} not the tenure of instrument of the communion between the unseen world and this; and much more the confederacy of sees and churches, the metropolitan, patriarchal, and papal systems, are matters of expedience or of natural duty from long custom, or of propriety from gratitude and reverence, or of necessity from voluntary oaths and engagements, or of ecclesiastical force from the canons of Councils, but not necessary in order to the conveyance of grace, or for fulfilment of the ceremonial law, as it may be called, of unity. Bishop is superior to bishop only in rank, not in real power; and the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Catholic world, is not the centre of unity, except as having a primacy of order. Accordingly, even granting, for argument's sake, that the English Church violated a duty in the 16th century, in releasing itself from the Roman supremacy, still it did not thereby commit that special sin, which cuts off from it the fountains of grace, and is called schism. It was essentially complete without Rome, and naturally independent of it; it had, in the course of years, whether by usurpation or not, come under the supremacy of Rome; and now, whether by rebellion or not, it is free from it: and as it did not enter into the Church invisible by joining Rome, so it was not cast out of it by breaking from Rome. These were accidents in its history, involving, indeed, sin in individuals, but not affecting the Church as a Church.

"Accordingly, the Oath of Supremacy declares 'that no foreign prelate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm.' In other words, there is nothing in the Apostolic system which gives an authority to the Pope over the Church, such as it does not give to a Bishop. It is altogether an ecclesiastical arrangement; not a point de fide, but of expedience, custom, or piety, which cannot be claimed as if the Pope ought to have it, any more than, on the other {343} hand, the King could of Divine right claim the supremacy; the claim of both one and the other resting, not on duty or revelation, but on specific engagement. We find ourselves, as a Church, under the King now, and we obey him; we were under the Pope formerly, and we obeyed him. 'Ought' does not, in any degree, come into the question." [Note 9] {344}

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home


One remark may be made in conclusion. It may be objected that the tenor of the above explanations is anti-Protestant, whereas it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism; accordingly, that it is an evasion of their meaning to give them any other than a Protestant drift, possible as it may be to do so grammatically, or in each separate part.

But the answer is simple:—

1. In the first place, it is a duty which we owe both to the Catholic Church and to our own, to take our reformed confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit; we have no duties towards their framers. Nor do we receive the Articles from their original framers, but from several successive Convocations after their time; in the last instance, from that of 1662.

2. In giving the Articles a Catholic interpretation, we bring them into harmony with the Book of Common Prayer, an object of the most serious moment for those who have given their assent to both formularies.

3. Whatever be the authority of the Declaration prefixed to the Articles, so far as it has any weight at all, it sanctions the mode of interpreting them above given. For its enjoining the "literal and grammatical sense," relieves us from the necessity of making the known opinions of their framers, a comment upon their text; and its forbidding any person to "affix any new sense to any Article," was promulgated at a time when the leading men of our Church were especially noted for those Catholic views which have been here advocated.

4. It may be remarked, moreover, that such an interpretation is in accordance with the well-known general leaning {345} of Melanchthon, from whose writings our Articles are principally drawn, and whose Catholic tendencies gained for him that same reproach of popery, which has ever been so freely bestowed upon members of our own reformed Church.

"Melanchthon was of opinion," says Mosheim, "that for the sake of peace and concord many things might be given up and tolerated, in the Church of Rome, which Luther considered could by no means be endured ... In the class of matters indifferent, this great man and his associates placed many things which had appeared of the highest importance to Luther, and could not of consequence be considered as indifferent by his true disciples. For he regarded as such, the doctrine of justification by faith alone; the necessity of good works to eternal salvation; the number of the sacraments; the jurisdiction claimed by the Pope and the Bishops; extreme unction; the observation of certain religious festivals, and several superstitious rites and ceremonies."—Cent. XVI. § 3. part 2. 27, 28.

5. Further: the Articles are evidently framed on the principle of leaving open large questions, on which the controversy hinges. They state broadly extreme truths, and are silent about their adjustment. For instance, they say that all necessary faith must be proved from Scripture, but do not say who is to prove it. They say that the Church has authority in controversies, they do not say what authority. They say that it may enforce nothing beyond Scripture, but do not say where the remedy lies when it does. They say that works before grace and justification are worthless and worse, and that works after grace and justification are acceptable, but they do not speak at all of works with GOD'S grace, before justification. They say that men are lawfully called and sent to minister and preach who are chosen and called by men who have public authority given them in the congregation to call and send; but they do not add by whom the authority is to be given. They say that Councils called by princes may err; they do not determine whether Councils called in the name of CHRIST will err. {346}

6. The variety of doctrinal views contained in the Homilies, as above shown, views which cannot be brought under Protestantism itself, in its greatest comprehension of opinions, is an additional proof, considering the connexion of the Articles with the Homilies, that the Articles are not framed on the principle of excluding those who prefer the theology of the early ages to that of the Reformation; or rather let it be considered whether, considering both Homilies and Articles appeal to the Fathers and Catholic Antiquity, in interpreting them by these witnesses, we are not going to the very authority to which they profess to submit.

7. Lastly, their framers constructed them in such a way as best to comprehend those who did not go so far in Protestantism as themselves. 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 that they are not perverting, they are using them for an express purpose for which among others their authors framed them. The interpretation Anglo-Catholics take was intended to be admissible; though not that which those 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.

An illustration of this occurs in the history of the 28th Article. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign a paragraph formed part of it, much like that which is now appended to the Communion Service, but in which the Real Presence was denied in words. It was adopted by the clergy at the first Convocation, but not published. Burnet observes on it thus:—

"When these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's reign, this paragraph was made a part of {347} them; for the original subscription by both houses of Convocation, yet extant, shows this. But the design of the government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the body of the nation to the Reformation, in whom the old leaven had gone deep; and no part of it deeper than the belief of the corporeal presence of CHRIST in the Sacrament; therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a definition in this matter; in which the very word Real Presence was rejected. It might, perhaps, be also suggested, that here a definition was made that went too much upon the principles of natural philosophy; which how true soever, they might not be the proper subject of an article of religion. Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this paragraph; though it was a part of the Article that was subscribed, yet it was not published, but the paragraph that follows, 'The Body of CHRIST,' &c., was put in its stead, and was received and published by the next Convocation; which upon the matter was a full explanation of the way of CHRIST'S presence in this Sacrament; that 'He is present in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is the mean by which he is received.' This seemed to be more theological; and it does indeed amount to the same thing. But howsoever we see what was the sense of the first Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's reign; it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's time: and therefore though this paragraph is now no part of our Articles, yet we are certain that the clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the truth of it; we are sure it was their opinion; since they subscribed it, though they did not think fit to publish it at first; and though it was afterwards changed for another, that was the same in sense."—Burnet on Article XXVIII., p. 416.

What has lately taken place in the political world will afford an illustration in point. A French minister, desirous of war, nevertheless, as a matter of policy, draws up his state papers in such moderate language, that his successor who is for peace, can act up to them, without compromising his own principles. The world, observing this, has considered it a circumstance for congratulation; as if the former minister, who acted a double part, had been caught in his own snare. It is neither decorous, nor necessary, nor altogether fair, to urge the parallel rigidly; but it will explain what it is here meant to convey. The Protestant {348} Confession was drawn up with the purpose of including Catholics; and Catholics now will not be excluded. What was an economy in the Reformers, is a protection to us. What would have been a perplexity to us then, is a perplexity to Protestants now. We could not then have found fault with their words; they cannot now repudiate our meaning.

The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.
1841. {349}

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

Note 1 On Section 6, p. 294 of the above Tract

[May 26, 1877.—Section 6th of the above Tract, on its first publication was selected as an object for the remonstrance of Four College Tutors, which will be found infra, p. 359, and towards which I feel very much as I did when I first read it.

The Tutors speak of the "painful character of the impression" which "the contents of the Tract had produced on their minds," inasmuch as "it has to their apprehension a highly dangerous tendency from its suggesting that certain very important errors are not condemned by the Articles of the Church of England as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but only certain practices and opinions which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much as we do."

The best answer to this representation is, that (in 1868) at the end of twenty-seven years, the lamented Dr. Forbes, the Anglican Bishop of Brechin, was suffered to repeat the very same statements without protest, which were considered so disingenuous and disgraceful in Tract 90. Prævalebit veritas. It may be interesting to place his statements and those of the Tract in juxtaposition.

1. "The Romish doctrine:"—

The Tract.—"By the Romish doctrine is not meant the Tridentine, because this Article was drawn up before the Decree of the Council of Trent," supr. p. 287.

Dr. Forbes.—"The questions of Purgatory and Pardons were not discussed [in the Tridentine Council] for many months after the publication of the Article ... and we must come to the conviction that it was not the formularized doctrine, but a current and corrupt practice in the Latin or Western Church, which is here declared to be 'fond' and 'vainly' invented."—On the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 302.

2. Purgatory:—

The Tract.—"There was a primitive doctrine, concerning the fire of judgment ... through which all men will pass ... Here is one purgatorial doctrine, not 'Romish.' Another, said to be maintained by the Greeks at Florence, in which the cleansing, though a punishment, was but pœna damni, not a pœna sensûs ... And another is that in which the cleansing is but progressive sanctification, and has no pain at all. None of these doctrines does the Article condemn."—pp. 288-9.

Dr. Forbes.—"There are ... two sets of statements, both founded on Holy Scripture. The one, … St. Paul's description of that fire which shall try every man's work ... the other, our Blessed Lord's words of that prison into which they who shall be cast shall not come forth, till they have paid {350} the uttermost farthing, ... (p. 328). "While our Church has justly stigmatized popular practices which had become gainful superstitions, she has not condemned either the devotions of the Primitive Church, or the deep truths on which those devotions are grounded ... With regard to the imperfect Christian ... we may rejoice in the thought that, ... through the fire of suffering and the water of affliction, [God] is bringing him into a wealthy place."—p. 346.

3. Pardons:—

The Tract.—"The Pardons, spoken of in the Article, are large and reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money payments," p. 293.

Dr. Forbes.—"It was the shameless traffic in indulgences which burst the barrier, &c. ... A doctrine, which had its roots in primitive Antiquity was preached in a way to destroy all Christian morality ... To call this a 'fond thing,' &c., is a mild censure," p. 352. "When the Articles were promulgated, they were all in their abomination ... The Council of Trent, while it maintained the practice as being the exercise of a power given to the Church by God, and used in the most ancient times also, set itself to check the abuses which it acknowledged."—p. 356.

4. Images:—

The Tract.—"The veneration and worship condemned ... are such as these; kneeling before images, lighting candles to them, offering them incense, going on pilgrimage to them, hanging up crutches, &c., before them, lying tales about them, belief in miracles … decking them up immodestly," &c., &c.—p. 296.

Dr. Forbes.—"There is always a danger of religion among the unlettered becoming superstitious ... As a matter of fact, a cultus of images had grown up which required to be checked and all its coarser manifestations to be condemned," p. 361. "Of the having images or pictures nothing is said in the Article, only of worshipping them," p. 367. "The Homilies illustrate what it was, in regard to the veneration or worship of images, which the framers of the Articles had before their eyes. The Council of Trent reformed in the direction which our writers wished."—p. 369.

5. Relics:—

The Tract.—"In some sentences in the Homily on Peril of Idolatry, … as far as regards Relics, a certain veneration is sanctioned by its tone in speaking of them, though not of course the Romish veneration."—p. 286.

Dr. Forbes.—"People kiss the picture or some relic of one whom they deeply love, as if it were the person," p. 369. "The principle that lay at the bottom of the sentiment was not in itself vicious, and had early established itself in the Church," p. 370. "The coarse attack of the innkeeper Vigilantius was not of a nature to gain him followers, or to disturb the tide of pious feeling," p. 373. "But where will not the idolatry of gain creep in? Even St. Augustine had to complain of the sale of relics, probably {351} … fictitious … The Article relates, not to the reverence of the relics but to 'superstitions in their veneration,' which the Council of Trent had to forbid."—p. 376.

6. Images:—

The Tract.—"By 'invocation,' here, is not meant the mere circumstance of addressing beings out of sight, because we use the Psalms in our Daily Service, which are frequent in invocations of Angels to praise and bless God. In the Benedicite, too, we address 'the spirits and souls of the righteous.' Nor is it a 'fond' invocation to pray that unseen beings may bless us, for this Bishop Ken does in his Evening Hymn," p. 297. "This last passage plainly tells us … what is meant by invocation in its exceptionable sense … sacrificing and falling down in worship."—p. 299.

Dr. Forbes.—"In principle there is no question herein between us and any other portion of the Catholic Church ... Prayer to the Saints in heaven is explained again and again to be the same in kind as the prayers to the Saints on earth ... Had this been all, the Article never could have been written ... The Church of Rome has not stated the practice to be necessary to salvation, nor required it of any, so that he deny not that, as above explained, it is in itself good and useful ... We shall be disposed to accept the conclusion of a pious divine ... Let not that most ancient custom, common in the Universal Church, as well Greek as Latin, of addressing Angels and Saints in the way we have said, be condemned or rejected as impious, or as vain and foolish," &c.—p. 422.]

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

Note 2 On Section 9, p. 323 of the above Tract

[June 14, 1883.—The reasoning in this Section is not satisfactory. The Tract, as a whole, I have been able to defend, but not this portion of it. It argues that what the Article condemns is not the authoritative teaching of Rome, but only the common belief and practice of Catholics, as regards Purgatory and private Masses. But the words in which the Article condemns the so-called abuse are ipso facto a condemnation also of the ordinance itself which is abused. This will be seen at once by comparing the language of the Article with the language of Pope Pius IV. and the Council of Trent. What the Article abjures as a lie, is just that which Pope and Council declare to be a divine truth. The Pope says in his Creed, "I profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." And the Council, "In this divine sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated bloodlessly who did once offer Himself in blood." "And it is offered not only for the sins, pains, &c., of the living, but for the dead in Christ," &c. … On the other hand, the Article says "The sacrifices {352} of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." There is no denying then that these audacious words apply to the doctrinal teaching as well as to the popular belief of Catholics. What was "commonly said," was also formally enunciated by the Ecumenical Hierarchy in Council assembled.

This distinction between what is dogmatic and what is popular being untenable here, nothing can come of the suggested distinction between Mass and Masses, as if "the Mass" was the aboriginal divine Rite, which the Article left alone, and "the Masses" were those private superstitions which the Article denounced. However, this suggestion in aid is as unfounded as the original thesis. "Mass" and "Masses" do but respectively denote abstract and concrete, as can easily be shown.

Thus, in the Rubrics of the Missal we find "de Missis votivis S. Maria" followed by "dicitur Missa de S. Maria;" and "Vigiliis quando Missa dicenda est," by "Vigilias quæ habent Missas proprias," and "Benedictio semper data in Missa, præterquam in Missis defunctorum." Moreover the Council of Trent has distinctly sanctioned private Masses, on which it is attempted to throw the foul language of the Article, in these words: "Nec Missas illas, in quibus solos sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas et illicitas damnat, sed probat, Sacrosancta Synodus."

What then the 31st Article repudiates is undeniably the central and most sacred doctrine of the Catholic Religion; and so its wording has ever been read since it was drawn up. And conformable to it has been the doctrine of Anglican divines, even of those who hold that there was a sacrifice in the Eucharist. They might not like the outrageous language of the Article, but, as far as I know and believe, none of these have maintained with the Church that Christ is really offered up in sacrifice in the Eucharistic Rite. As this appears lately to have been questioned, I think it well here to enlarge upon it.

1. The Tracts of the Times are no exception to their rule. Dr. Pusey is considered to be the author of Tract 81, and whatever he may have held at a later date, which I do not know, his antagonism in it to the Catholic dogma is unequivocal. He distinctly denies that our Lord is literally offered up in the Mass. According to him the real Presence lies, not in the oblation but in the communion. He recognizes this distinction as constituting the cardinal difference between the Roman and the Anglican belief. In the Introduction to the Tract he says, p. 13, "The false doctrine was that ordinary persuasion, that in the Mass the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead." And this "false doctrine" was founded, he says, on the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so much so that, when there was no Transubstantiation, there was no real and literal offering of Christ; for he says, p. 7, "By combining the doctrine of Transubstantiation with that of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, the laity were persuaded that not only a commemorative Sacrifice but that Christ was offered." Accordingly at {353} p. 47 he puts into capital letters these words, "The doctrine of the Sacrifice cannot be the same where Transubstantiation is held and where it is not." This, I suppose, was my own view also; and it explains a passage in my Apologia in which I say, "I claimed" [as an Anglican] "in behalf of who would, the right of holding the Mass all but Transubstantiation, with Andrewes;" but without Transubstantiation, says Dr. Pusey, Christ was not literally offered.

The process then of sacrificing, that is, of offering and of communicating according to the Tractarian doctrine was this: The first solemn act was oblation, the formal oblation of Bread and Wine in their proper nature; thus the material elements went up to God. This was a human act; the second was divine, it was the return of the elements from the Heavenly Throne for communion, permeated and laden with Divine Grace so abundant and special, that it was, or at least might be truly called, the Very Body and Blood of the Redeemer, and His Personal Presence; but from first to last there was no real offering up of Christ, because there was no Transubstantiation. He was really present, but as our spiritual food, and as the Lamb that had been offered once, but not as then being offered; not as the Lamb of the Mass.

This is the categorical teaching of the Tracts. "The early Christians," says Dr. Pusey, p. 5, 6, "presented to the Almighty Father the symbols and memorials of the meritorious Death and Passion, &c., ... they first offered to God His gifts, and placed them on His Altar here … and then trusted to receive them back, conveying to them the life-giving Body and Blood."

According then to Tract 81, there was no Christ present in the Eucharist till after the offering, oblation, or sacrifice, which sacrifice consisted in bread and wine in their natural substances; and thus there was not even the slightest approximation to that doctrine of Christ offered in the Mass for the quick and dead, which was condemned in the 31st Article.

2. The party of Non-jurors and others at the end of the 17th century are considered to have followed the doctrine of the early Church more closely than other Anglicans; but they, as to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, though they sometimes used more emphatic words, did not rise much higher in doctrine than the Tractarians. The latter held that in the Eucharistic Rite there was an oblation of Bread and Wine, which was representative and commemorative of the sacrifice of our Lord's Body and Blood upon the Cross. And the Non-jurors too held that there was no literal offering of our Lord in the Eucharist, as on the Cross; the rite indeed was more than a type and symbol of that sacrifice; but not more than a commemoration and a pleading of it; still, though in its nature merely Bread and Wine, it was endued with the power of a propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice.

Johnson, who, though not a Non-juror himself, was of their school, writes as follows:— {354}

"If the Holy Eucharist, as it is an oblation of Bread and Wine, and as that Bread and Wine are types and symbols of Christ's death, do not expiate and atone for sin, yet ... it does this as it is a full and perfect representation of the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood ... I rather choose the word "representation" as being known to denote in our language not only that which resembles and puts us in mind of something else, but what is deputed or substituted in the stead of another, and is to us what the principal would be, if it were present. They are instituted by Christ, not only to call Him and His sufferings to remembrance, but to be to us all that His natural Body and Blood, crucified and poured out for us, could be if we had them actually lying on our altars ... When St. Paul says that ignorant and profane communicants "do not discern the Lord's body" in the holy Eucharist, he surely takes it for granted that the Body and Blood are actually [Note 10] there, whether they discern it or not ... Such a representation we now see of that which God "set in the clouds," in the time of Noah ... so, though the evangelical Covenant was effectually confirmed by Christ's death on the Cross, yet God has thought fit, for the supporting our faith and hope, to have the representative Sacrifice of His Body and Blood often repeated, and the Gospel Covenant by this means renewed ... I have already declared against the Personal Presence or Sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharistical elements. Nor do I suppose that the Bread and Wine represent His Whole Person, as He is God and man, but only His sacrificed Body and His effused Blood ... Since they are representatives of the only truly propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, I suppose it clearly follows that they also are a propitiatory and expiatory sacrifice ... The Bread and Wine are divinely authorized substitutes for the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, and therefore may justly have the names and titles of their principals," p. 305-8.

This is his positive doctrine, and to make still clearer its agreement with Article 31, we may, on the other hand, add to it his direct repudiation of the Roman doctrine, as being irreconcilable with his own.

1. The Papists hold that in the sacrifice of the Mass the whole Christ, God and man, is offered up hypostatically to the Father in the Eucharist, and is to be worshipped there by men under the species of Bread and Wine. This doctrine is utterly renounced by all Protestants, by those who assert the Eucharistic Oblation as well as those who deny it.

2. The Papists do maintain that the Sacrifice of the Mass is available for remission of sins to the dead as well as to the living. And as this is not asserted by any of our Church, so it is heartily detested by the author of this Treatise.

"The Papists have private Masses, in which the Priest pretends to make the oblation without distributing either the Body or Blood to {355} the people ... All this is condemned by those who defend the Eucharistical Oblation here in England," ibid. pp. 299, 300.

And to the same effect the Non-juring Bishop Hickes,—

"According to the Ancient Church the Bread and Wine were ... the matter which the Bishop solemnly offered up to God by consecration for the heavenly banquet of the Lord's Supper, and which, as they were in the literal sense a proper, external, material offering for sacrifice, which succeeded in the place of the legal sacrifices, so in the sacramental or mystical they were the Body and Blood of Christ, of which they were the representatives," ibid. p. 264.

"The Bread and Wine ... are the symbols of His natural Body and Blood, and by His appointment are to be deemed, reputed, and received as His natural Flesh and Blood," p. 270.

"The ancient notion of this holy Sacrament's being a commemorative Sacrifice, in which we represent before God the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, perfectly secures the holy mystery from that corrupt and absurd notion" [Popish], "it being impossible that a solemn commemoration of a fact or thing should be the fact or thing itself," p. 272.

"Mystical and real differ as much as the substance and its shadow, the verity and its type, or a thing ... from its image," p. 282.

I will add some sentences from Brett, another Non-juring divine, which give the same view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

"It is evident from the Scriptures that it is not the Christ, body, soul, and divinity hypostatically united, as the Papists also blasphemously teach, and from thence as blasphemously infer that it is to be worshipped. That which is represented in the Eucharist is neither the divinity nor the human soul of Christ, but only His Body and Blood separated from both and one another ... The Bread and Wine ... are so full and perfect representatives thereof, that our Lord Himself thought fit to give to the Bread and Wine the name of His Body and Blood," ibid. p. 376.

3. If the Non-juring and Tractarian divinity may not be taken, as regards the Eucharist, as the measure of the nearest approximation of Anglicans to Rome, I do not know where to look for it; however, that the inquiry into it may be taken out of my hands, I will refer the decision to the exact Waterland. This writer, in a question of fact, surely may be trusted, and the more so, if, as I believe, he has been contradicted by no later authority. He writes thus:—

"That the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in whole or in part, in a sense proper or improper, is a Sacrifice of the Christian Church, is a point agreed upon among all knowing and sober divines; but the Romanists have so often and so grievously abused the once innocent names of oblation, sacrifice, propitiation ... that the Protestants have been justly jealous, &c. … The general way, among both Lutheran and Reformed, has been to reject any proper propitiation or proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, admitting however of some kind of propitiation in a qualified sense, and of sacrifice {356} also, but of a spiritual kind, and therefore styled improper or metaphorical. Nevertheless Mr. Mede, a very learned and judicious divine and Protestant, scrupled not to assert a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist (as he termed it), a material sacrifice, the sacrifice of Bread and Wine, analogous to the Mincha of the Old Law. This doctrine he delivered in the College Chapel, A.D. 1635, which was afterwards published with improvements, under the title of 'The Christian Sacrifice.'

"In the year 1642, the no less learned Dr. Cudworth printed his well-known treatise on the same subject, wherein he as plainly denies any proper, or any material sacrifice in the Eucharist, but admits of a symbolical feast upon a sacrifice, that is to say, upon the Grand Sacrifice itself commemorated under certain symbols. This appears to have been the prevailing doctrine of our divines, both before and since. There can be no doubt of the current doctrine down to Mr. Mede; and as to what has most prevailed since" [i.e. from 1635 to 1737] "I need only refer to three eminent divines, who wrote in the years 1685, 1686, and 1688.

"In the year 1702, the very pious and learned Dr. Grabe published his Irenæus, and in his notes upon the author fell in with the sentiments of Mr. Mede, so far as concerns a proper and material sacrifice in the Eucharist; and after him our incomparably learned and judicious Bishop Bull, in an English treatise, gave great countenance to the same."—Vol. vii. pp. 341-343.

4. I will conclude with a passage from Mr. William Palmer's "Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church," in which he gives an account of Dr. Routh's virtual interpretation of the 31st Article, on occasion of his reading a comment of Mr. Palmer's on the xxxix., written in the same spirit as No. 90. This brings up the teaching of the Church of England upon it up to the year 1840.

"He had marked a passage," says Mr. Palmer, "in which I said of the Anglican Liturgy that in it, notwithstanding these changes, by which it now differs from the Roman, 'the Mystical Lamb is still truly immolated, and a sacrifice is offered propitiatory for the quick and for the dead.' Turning to his mark at this page, and pointing with his finger to the passage, he asked, 'What do you say to the Article, sir?' I replied, 'Since this is certainly the doctrine of the Fathers, with which the English canon of 1571 required all preachers to agree,' &c., &c. ... He repeated, 'I say nothing about the doctrine, sir, but what do you say to the Article?'" p. 45.

P.S.—Johnson, I should observe, brings out his theory of "offering" most clearly and completely at Unbl. Sacr. ch. ii. § 1, p. 214, where, as in other places, he insists on (what by itself utterly separates him from Catholics) that "the offering of the Body and Blood" is not only not "the substantial Body and Blood of Christ," but "much less His divinity."]

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home


1. [This is not fair to Bellarmine. He says, in explanation, "Non dicimus corpus Christi absolutè manducari, sed manducari sub specie panis; quæ sententia significat ipsas species manducari visibiliter ac sensibiliter, ac proinde ipsas dentibus atteri, sed sub illis invisibiliter sumitur et transmittitur in stomachum corpus Christi."—Euch. i. 11, col. 390.]
Return to text

2. [Such appearances were apparitions or visions, vouchsafed in order to impress the hidden truth upon the mind.]
Return to text

3. [Afterwards "sacramentally" was the received word; vid. supr. p. 224, note, "in multis aliis locis sacramentaliter præsens." The modern term "Sacramentalists," as the title of the Zwinglians, illustrates how Berengarius used the word.]
Return to text

4. [On this subject, vid. supr. p. 228, note, and p. 231, note.]
Return to text

5. [Vid. for the whole passage, supr. pp. 235-237, where other "corrections" in addition (bearing on its perspicuity, not its sense) have been made.]
Return to text

6. [Vid. infr., Note 2, p. 351 at the end of this Tract.]
Return to text

7. [But we say that the charge is a calumny, and ask for proof.]
Return to text

8. [Vid. supr. pp. 177-185.]
Return to text

9. British Critic, Jan. 1840, pp. 54-58: [Essays, vol. ii. ix. 4.]
Return to text

10. I print this as I find it in Tract 81. The author presently says, "The Bread and Wine may justly have the names of their principles."
Return to text

Top | Contents | Volume contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.