Title: The Real Question as to Altar Lights
Author: Edward James Phipps
Release date: January 25, 2022 [eBook #67247]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024
Language: English
Original publication: United Kingdom: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer
Credits: Mark C. Orton, Thomas Frost and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Books project.)
[Pg 1]
CHRIST’S BODY PRESENT BY CONSECRATION, AND OFFERED IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.
A LETTER
TO
THE REV. JOHN W. H. MOLYNEUX,
BY
EDWARD J. PHIPPS,
RECTOR OF STANSFIELD.
LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN, READER AND DYER.
SUDBURY: HENRY S. PRATT.
1865.
[Pg 3]
Stansfield Rectory, Oct. 13th, 1865.
My Dear Mr. Molyneux,
I have read with much interest your correspondence with the Bishop of Ely on the subject of Altar Lights, and as the course which the Bishop has taken, makes it of serious importance to every clergyman, especially to those in the diocese of Ely, I have been giving it my best consideration.
I believe the facts were as follows:—The Bishop had given notice to hold a confirmation in S. Peter’s Church, Sudbury, on the 1st May last, being the festival of S. Philip and S. James.
According to your custom you prepared for the celebration of the Holy Communion, and as the Bishop was staying at your house, informed him of it, of course anticipating his attendance.
His Lordship, however, intimated that he understood you had Lights on the Altar at the Communion, that he objected to them, and in consequence, after discussing the matter with you, ended by absenting himself altogether from the service.
Some time after, his Lordship sends you Dr. Twiss’s opinion as given in your correspondence—pronounces Altar Lights illegal, and informs you that though he acquits you[Pg 4] of wilful disobedience on account of your ignorance of the Law, yet that no other course was open to him but that which he had adopted, viz., to abstain from Communion with you, and therefore in future, with any other clergyman who may presume to introduce or retain them.
I am moreover informed that in accordance with this arrangement, his Lordship has intimated his intention to transfer the place of holding his visitation at Sudbury, from S. Peter’s to All Saints, that is to say from a Church where to say nothing more, Morning and Evening Prayer are said daily throughout the year, to a Church where this most positive and essential Law of the Church, is wholly and habitually set at nought.
I certainly had not considered that the question of Altar Lights was of such vital importance. The Bishop has not even personal knowledge of their being used, and yet without even complaint made, without legal investigation or trial, you are at once subjected to the heaviest punishment it is in the power of the Church to inflict—you are cut off from Communion with your Bishop, ipso facto excommunicate.
This result makes it, I repeat, highly important that it should be thoroughly ascertained, whether and upon what grounds Altar Lights are illegal.
I believe the ordinary authority quoted for the use of Altar Lights, is that they were “in use” in the second year of Edward VI., and that the Rubric of our present Common Prayer, directs all such ornaments to be retained, as were “in use” in that year by authority of Parliament.
In the case of Liddell v. Beal, the Crown by its[Pg 5] supremacy has decided that the ornaments here spoken of are confined to those articles the use of which is prescribed by the first Book of Edward VI.
It will be seen on reference to that Book, that the articles so prescribed are The Altar—Vestments, copes, albe, surplices, tunicles, corporals, paten, chalice, and some other things.
Altar Lights are not mentioned amongst them, and therefore cannot according to this decision be supported by this Rubric.
But the advisers of the Crown in the above case, intimate their opinion, that there were other things lawfully in use, though not supported by express parliamentary authority, such as crosses, bells, organs, &c.
And it would seem therefore, that it is upon this ground that Altar Lights are to be supported.
In virtue of the supremacy transferred by parliament to the crown, all ecclesiastical powers before exercised by the Pope, have been claimed and exercised by the Sovereign. And on the accession of Edward VI., Injunctions were issued, and Commissioners appointed by the Crown, to visit and reform all Churches throughout England.
Amongst the injunctions so issued, was one expressly directing two Lights to be kept upon the Altar. And by no subsequent authority, either of the Crown or Parliament, have these Lights been directed to be removed.
In common with all other good church observances,[Pg 6] they have at various times, been violently opposed. Queen Elizabeth, however, “that bright occidental star,” King James I. and the successive English Sovereigns, have uniformly continued them in the Royal Chapels—they were constantly in use in the chapels of Laud—Bishop Andrewes (a predecessor of the Bishop of Ely) and Lord Burleigh—and they are to be found still, on the Altars of, I believe, all the Cathedrals, and most of the Collegiate and greater Churches of the Land.
There is indeed one peculiarity connected with the present use of them; the Church prescribes Lights, the present practice proscribes Lights, and sets up “dead lights,” (unlighted candles). Whether this proceeds from that slovenly and irreverent carelessness, which has crept into so many of our Church arrangements, or from that weak and miserable system of compromise, which never does and never ought to succeed, it is equally to be deprecated. If the Law orders Lights, to have candles and not to light them is to disobey the Law. It reminds me of the “guinea in the pocket with strict injunctions never to change it”—of the sage conclusion of the humorous poem, “When nose used the spectacles, eyes should be shut;” it becomes thus an idle vanity, and an inconsistent unlawful superstition.
Besides, the subject of Altar Lights has been regularly mooted in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and no question made of their legality. Dr. Twiss, indeed, in a curt and obscure statement, says the injunction does not apply to Communion Tables. I confess I cannot see upon what grounds he makes this assertion, or rather perhaps I do not comprehend what he means by it. If it is intended to say that the Altar is taken away, and therefore all that is commanded to be set upon it is taken away also, in that case the Holy Sacrament[Pg 7] itself must disappear, for the command is express also, to set the Holy Elements upon the Altar.
But in truth, is there any sufficient authority to be quoted, for the abolition of Altars throughout England? The Crown order to Ridley in 1550, was for his own diocese alone. The order in 1559, was, for the setting up Communion Tables where Altars had been violently pulled down; and I am not aware, that any other Crown or Parliamentary authority has ever directed the destruction of English Altars.
And here I think we ought to be on our guard, against being led away by irregular proceedings, or the opinions and acts of individuals. The only authorities which can bind the English Church are the Crown and Parliament.
No violent acts of mobs—no opinions of “Reformers,” even though called “Venerable,” are of the slightest legal force in determining doctrine or practice; legal, political and religious reformers may all be of use in their generation, but their acts and opinions are those of individuals, and nothing more.
And if the acts and opinions of religious reformers of a past generation, are to be considered, why are we to shut out those of the reformers of this present reforming generation? Why “build the sepulchres of the Prophets” and despise or persecute their successors? In the very matter of “ornaments” now in question, we hear of the Bishops of Oxford and Salisbury each assuming the ancient ensign of their office—the pastoral staff. Only a short time since the Archdeacon of Sudbury, himself a Venerable Reformer in the Church, introduced the Queen of Hawaii at Bury, and pleaded for the Church Mission established in those islands. And yet a few weeks[Pg 8] before at the confirmation of the young King of Hawaii the Anglican Bishop was vested in albe and cope, mitred, with episcopal ring and pastoral staff. And this is also as it ought to be. As majesty without its externals is a jest, so religion has no right to dispense with them.
Under these circumstances I cannot but think that there is amply sufficient prima facie evidence, to warrant an honest belief that you have legal authority for your Altar Lights—and I confess, therefore, that I cannot understand why the very suspicion of adopting them, should cut off a Priest from Communion with his Bishop.
But by far the most important aspect of this question, is that in connection with the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
Independently of its being an obedience to the Law, you, with many others, have restored Lights to their place on the Altar, as a much needed aid to revive something of that reverence and faith which is so grievously deficient in the English Church. I believe they have a certain limited power in conducing to this end. But a far more powerful, indeed as I think, the only efficient means, under God, of creating faith and reverence, is to have a clear, definite, positive, belief ourselves, and to endeavour to express it in the simplest and plainest language.
There is no doctrine on which plain unmistakable language is more necessary, than that of the Holy Eucharist.
I fear a vast number of Church people do not know what to believe. A great multitude of poor honest people believe the Eucharist to be nothing but a simple ceremony, and not a few, even of the clergy, believe the very contrary to the truth.
[Pg 9]
Formerly, in my recollection, to believe in the Real Presence, was universally held to be the distinguishing and erroneous doctrine of Catholics, in opposition to Protestants. We have now advanced so far as to teach a Presence, which however no one can understand to be a Presence, obscured as it is with terms of “a spiritual presence,” and “the means of apprehending it being faith.”
And thus in our Communion, the great service of the Church is almost entirely forsaken of the masses of the people, the great bulk of the people are uncommunicated, and have substituted for the Catholic faith and religion, a system of mere sermon hearing.
But in reality the true doctrine of the Church is plain enough. The commanded Elements of Bread and Wine are placed on the Altar, they are then, simply Bread and Wine; in virtue of the words of Institution or Consecration they become, and, are Christ’s Body and Blood; present, not indeed in an ordinary, natural, physical manner, such as our external senses can take cognizance of, but in a special, mystical, supernatural manner, as we sometimes call it spiritual; not meaning hereby, mere spirit, in opposition to body, but as the Apostle tells us, “there is a spiritual Body.” It is not Christ’s natural Body, subsisting according to the ordinary operation of what we call the Laws of Nature, but it is His glorified Body, that Body, which came suddenly, and stood in the midst of his disciples when the doors were shut; which vanished out of their sight; which was seen of S. Stephen, and appeared to S. Paul; the archetype of that perfection, in which our bodies were first created in the image of God, and to which they shall be restored and made like when He shall subdue all things to Himself.
[Pg 10]
The Holy Elements having thus become Christ’s Body, they are the source of life, and grace, and blessing of every kind, to those who, to use the divine language, “eat,” become partakers of,—are united with them.
In discoursing of, and admitting the supernatural, we at once put aside the consideration of physical laws; we at once admit that things supernatural pass the limits of our finite intelligence. But, as the Holy Scriptures describe the operations of God to us, in terms of human comprehension, such as eyes, hands, arms, &c., so in the word “eat,” we understand not alone a physical perception, but far more. To describe the divinely appointed method, the external means, the connecting link, (so to speak) by which the Divine agency is pleased to operate on Christians, we are bidden to Take, eat, and by it we understand soul-feeding, a uniting of the glorified Body of Christ with ours.
“He that eateth me shall live by me,” saith our Lord. There is a deep meaning here; “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” In this full sense of eating therefore, we understand, not only the act of “carnally pressing with the teeth, the Sacrament of Christ’s Body,” as S. Augustine saith (for it is Christ’s Body that all do so press), but those further dispositions of mind, which enable Christians to unite with Him, and which are described in the language of the Church as “a true and lively faith.”
And thus it follows, that they who have not the due dispositions of mind, obtain not that full and perfect union of Christ’s Body with their own, which is appointed by our Lord, to be the great Christian source of life and grace. John vi. 53, 54.
[Pg 11]
After the elements have been consecrated, they become Christ’s Body. The “Faith” or qualifications of the receiver have nothing to do with the Real Supernatural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; and this point cannot be too strongly insisted on, when, as at present, the most solemn and positive doctrines of the Church of all ages and nations, are concealed, avoided, or explained away, in deference to a miserably short-sighted policy of expediency, under the name of moderation.
That therefore which has been consecrated—which is “given, taken, and received” by all communicants, is, as the 28th Article, and the solemn words of delivery expressly declare—the Body of Christ—and this is to be understood in the simplest, plainest sense of language without a shadow of ambiguity or refinement.
To every one receiving therefore, there is a sacramental impartation of Christ’s Body—to the humble, faithful Penitent, it is not only the Presence of, but union with his Lord—according to his fitness is the benefit he receives—“According to your faith be it unto you.”
But to the mocker, the godless, the profane; the actual receiving of Christ’s Body is no benefit, but rather injury—as was said of the unbelieving Jews—“Seeing, they see not, and hearing, they hear not.” So these, eating, they eat not—not having the necessary spiritual powers and faculties for receiving and uniting themselves with Christ; they have not that identification of their life with Him, that personal actual knowledge of Him, in which standeth or consisteth eternal life—they are like the multitude who thronged and touched our Lord, deriving no benefit from the contact; not having the simple earnest faith of the poor[Pg 12] woman who touched Him for her disease—they cannot be made whole by the virtue that proceedeth from Him.
There is another great doctrine, in connection with the Holy Eucharist, which has of late been grievously neglected; I mean the Doctrine of the Sacrifice.—
To state this doctrine in full, to discuss and remove objections, would require a treatise of itself.
Briefly then, I would state, that the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is perhaps its highest and chief end. The glory of God—the fulfilment of His will and work, is the supreme object of man’s existence—man’s own welfare is but secondary. Operating therefore to counteract the treasonable idolatry with which man serves and loves the creature rather than the Creator, God has ever instituted certain material observances by which He has appointed man to recognize and serve Him, and to become vehicles of Communion with His Creature. Thus, days have been taken from time—places from the earth—substances and persons from His creatures, which He has required to be wholly diverted from their ordinary use, and devoted in special ways to Himself—the Sabbath—the Sanctuary—the Sacrifice—the Priesthood, were thus appointed to the Jews—The Lord’s Day—the Parish Church—the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Priesthood—have the same object and office with us Christians. They are our means of worshipping and serving God—our first great duty, irrespective of all personal considerations, although in the merciful Providence of God, our fulfilment of these obligations, is fraught with the greatest benefit to ourselves.
On the sacred time then, at the sacred place, we[Pg 13] come to offer the sacred offering; but what shall we bring? Ourselves, our substance, our devotions, are all imperfect and stained with sin. All were too little to testify our duty—all utterly impotent to obtain our needs.
In the service then, of the Holy Communion, we offer unto God, an offering far more precious and acceptable than any earthly object—we offer, present, the Consecrated elements, the sacred Body of our Lord supernaturally present, after, and by means of consecration. Before the Throne of Grace no sacrifice can be so perfect, no plea so prevailing, as when we interpose between ourselves and the Majesty of God, the Person of His Adorable Son.
This then, is the great doctrine of the Eucharist—this, the highest act of religion that we can celebrate; and to assist, be present at, take part in this great act of religious duty, is the bounden obligation of every member of the Church.
I do not now attempt to prove these things—they have been, thank God, repeatedly asserted and enforced by ancient and modern divines of the greatest piety and learning in the Church of England; nor have any of the Church Rulers ventured to deny the doctrines, or repress, or punish those who teach them.
But what is needed, is to have these things set forth in plain language, “understanded of the people,” in earnest, vigorous, popular (in the sense of common) methods. If these great doctrines of the Church were taught in their fulness without reserves and refinements, the plain honest people would come to understand what the Church meant; that there was a distinction between the Church and dissent, beyond personal prejudices and feelings.
[Pg 14]
If the boundaries were well defined—if the separation was by a wall (even a low one), instead of a ragged hedge, Churchmen and dissenters would have fewer occasions of quarrel; for bad boundaries make bad neighbours: there would be more charity, they might converse amicably, and shake hands over it, each clearly knowing and keeping within his limit.
And if the doctrine of the Real Presence were taught, believed, and felt, there would be less of that grevious, crying sin of irreverence, which is so lamentably and universally prevalent in the Church; people, even clergy, now enter a Church without even any attempt to manifest reverence; they stare about, talk loud, on the most ordinary and trifling matters; the only attitude you never see them assume is that of reverence and prayer. In the Churches of the Roman obedience—enter them when you will—you see people on their knees, absorbed in their devotions.
Even putting aside the principle of duty, is it wise to persevere in this system of disingenuous ambiguity? does it commend itself by its success? The majority of the upper classes (ten thousand they have been termed) are probably supporters of the Church—Churchmen. Are the tradesmen and middle classes so? are they not the chief strength and support of dissent. And the poor people—the masses in modern phrase—the real life and strength of the nation, as they are proclaimed to be when their support is needed; are they Churchmen? I think they are; their humble quiet spirit warms to her teaching, and only looks for more emphatic and clear enunciation of it.
[Pg 15]
If the Church rose to the discharge of her duty, plainly taught her great doctrines, and gave warrant for her sincerity by a speaking and glorious ritual, then would the people rally to her support.
But at present, though Churchmen, it is to be feared that the masses are but nominally so. They go to Church where there is no meeting house; but if one be at hand, they will frequent it, as readily as the Church. In fact, they are not taught, and they see no difference; and they are too plain and honest not to act on their convictions.
I do hope then that we may be entering on a better system, a system of plain dealing, calling things by their own names, irrespective of possible consequences.
Lord Capel, one of the most consistent and high-minded amongst the Royalist Leaders under Charles 1st., immediately before his execution for the defence of Colchester, solemnly charged his family to make Ps. xxvii. 11, as he always had done, a part of their daily prayers—“Teach me Thy way O Lord, and lead me in a plain path.”
The question of Altar Lights then derives its whole importance from its relation to the great doctrines of the Sacrament; they are, as it were, the Colours of the Regiment, of which the late Sir William Napier used to say, they were the pivot on which everything turned—Defend the Colours—Form on the Colours—Recover the Colours, was an appeal understood by all, and stirred the[Pg 16] strongest and deepest energies of every man. I can only hope in conclusion, that the candles which you have lighted may “rekindle such a flame in England, as by God’s blessing, shall never be extinguished,” and only wishing that the first discussion of the matter had fallen into more learned and abler hands,
I am, my Dear Mr. Molyneux,
Yours very sincerely,
EDWARD J. PHIPPS.
THE END.
6 JA 66
Transcriber’s Note
No changes were made by the transcriber to the text as printed.