CHAPTER X.

THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES.

N Chapter VII. we briefly sketched the outline of the Introductory: history of the sacrificial conception of the Eucha

IN

rist from sub-apostolic times to our own day, and in the two chapters which followed we carefully compared the treatment of this subject in the writings of the principal Fathers and theologians with the fundamental positions of the Catholic and of the Modern view. In doing this, however, all reference to Anglican writers of the post-Reformation period was purposely omitted, these being reserved for a separate examination, to which we shall now proceed.

claims that Anglican theo

the modern theory of S.,

Mr. Brightman says: "What is more characteristic Mr. Brightman among our theologians is the theory which is remarkable by its general absence in the Roman writers-the logians hold interpretation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the reproduction on earth, not of the moment of the Cross, but of our LORD's perpetual action in heaven, as the Minister of the True Tabernacle. I do not mean that this interpretation is confined to Anglican theologians, or that it is the only interpretation current among us— but that, while it is extraordinary how far it is ignored by both Protestant and Roman writers, it is the interpretation to which Anglicans tend to gravitate." *

* Brightman, p. 2.

and gives as his authority the catena in Tract 81.

I. Before examining the au

thorities, cer

"I have already said that this type of interpretation is characteristic of Anglican writers. This may easily be verified by looking through Dr. Pusey's catena from the Anglican divines in No. 81 of Tracts for the Times.”*

Mr. Brightman, in making the assertion that it is characteristic of Anglican writers to interpret "the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the reproduction on earth, not of the moment of the Cross, but of our LORD's perpetual action in heaven," gives us his authority for this statement, namely, Dr. Pusey's catena of Anglican divines in No. 81 of Tracts for the Times. It will therefore be very easy, as he says, to verify, or as we should say, to refute, his statement by an examination of the passages to which we are referred.

I. It will help us to reach a fair judgment in the matter if, before taking up the passages themselves, tain facts to be we draw attention to a few points which must be kept carefully before us in order that we may really apprehend the mind of each writer.

noticed.

1. The purpose

not to support

any theory of

the E. S., only

to show a con

sensus of Ang

1. The purpose of the writer of Tract No. 81 was of Tract 81 was not to formulate or support any theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but to show that there was a consensus among a large number of Anglican writers in regard to the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. We therefore find that in the passages selected the various writers speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, some incidentally showing with more or less fulness the sense in which they regard it, while others, indeed no less than twelve, give no indication of their opinion concerning the manner in which it is a sacrifice, but merely state the fact.

lican divines
as to the fact of
the S.

2. The writers themselves by education and environ* Brightman, p. 15.

diced against

ment were deeply prejudiced against everything Ro- 2. The writers man, and this was especially the case in regard to the were prejudoctrine of the Holy Eucharist. However true the everything position of a Roman theologian might be, an Anglican Roman, divine of post-Reformation times would always look

the terminol

ogy of Rome.

askance at it. This led, moreover, to another incon- and so avoided venience, that Roman terminology was largely repudiated, and as there was then no other theological terminology to take its place, new words were introduced, some writers using a word in a loose, others in a strict sense, so that we are compelled to investigate the meaning of the terms used by each writer.

often difficult

to determine

3. From this last circumstance it follows that where 3. Hence it is we find what seems to be an unusual view expressed, we must compare it with other statements of the same writer before reaching a conclusion as to the author's real opinion on the subject.

4. About one matter there is no room for doubt,—that all the great Anglican writers appealed to the Fathers as their authority, and, whether they did so or not, sincerely believed that they were setting forth the patristic view of the Eucharist. As we have shown in Chapter VII., we find in the Fathers no attempt to formulate any theory in regard to the mode of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, although we find abundant witness to the fact, and to its essential relation to our LORD'S Death on the Cross, and further that they regarded the Eucharist as the bond of union between the worship of the Church on earth and in heaven.

The Tract which we are to examine extends to 424 octavo pages, and contains extracts from the writings of sixty-three authors, not including the compilers of the Scotch and American Prayer Books. Of these, twelve, while speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, express

the force of their state

ments.

4. They certainly ap Fathers;

pealed to the

hence little trace of any

clear theory of

the mode of the S. is found

in their writ

ings.

The Tract confrom sixtythree writers, of whom

tains extracts

twelve make

no allusion to

the mode of

the S.

Of the 51 left,

4, Overall, Tayand Philpotts, favour in some Modern view.

lor, Johnson,

measure the

Five others,
Mede, Ham-

mond, Thorn

Scandret, are claimed on insufficient

no opinion as to the manner of the sacrifice. They are Hooker, Duppa, Nicholson, Barlow, Sancroft, Smith, Hooper, Dodwell, Collier, Bennet, Jones, and Horsley.

We therefore have remaining fifty-one writers,—who are certainly representative Anglican divines,—and a careful examination of the passages quoted from their writings seems to show that four, the Pseudo-Overall, Taylor, Johnson, and Philpotts, may fairly be claimed as favourable to the Modern view, at least so far as to relate the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to our LORD's work in heaven rather than to the Sacrifice of the Cross, since statements can be found in their works which may bear this interpretation, although from other parts of their writings we should gather that they held the Catholic view.

Five others- Mede, Hammond, Thorndike, Fell, and Scandret-use expressions which, taken by themdike, Fell, and selves, might seem to favour the Modern view, but in other passages (quoted in the Tract) they make statements which are quite inconsistent with such an grounds as on interpretation. This leaves forty-two writers whose treatment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is unmistakably Catholic. In this majority we find the names of Jewell, Bilson, Andrews, Laud, Forbes, Bramhall, Brevint, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Wilson, Grabe, Brett, Law, and Wheatly; so that the majority is not merely one of numbers, but of overwhelming authority.

the same side.

Forty-two, however, clearly witness

to the Catholic view.

The method pursued in selecting extracts.

To facilitate the examination of these authors, all the passages in which are found a distinct statement of the relation of the Eucharist to the Sacrifice of the Cross, or to our LORD's action now in heaven, have been carefully marked, and are here given.* Where,

*In this the author has had the kind assistance of a distinguished Professor of theology, who favours a very modified

as is often the case (especially in regard to the Sacrifice of the Cross), there are many such passages, the most explicit have been chosen, but in no case is any passage omitted which would tend to modify the writer's opinion, and it is scarcely necessary to add that no passage has been intentionally omitted which would give any support to the Modern view.

not comprehend all Angli

As the author of the Tract points out, these sixty- The Tract does three names do not include every writer of repute during the three centuries which followed the Reformation, but they do cover the representative Anglican theologians who in their works have treated of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

can writers, but repre

sents the best.

with those who favour the

II. Let us now proceed to an examination of the ex- II. We begin tracts which have been selected. We shall begin with those which seem to favour the Modern view, and Modern view. first, with the four in which this view is most clearly expressed.

1. Overall

Cassander.

John Overall, Bishop of Norwich (ob. 1619): "Therefore this is no new Sacrifice, but the same quotes from which was once offered, and which is every day offered to GOD by CHRIST in heaven, and continueth here still on earth, by a mystical representation of it in the Eucharist. And the Church intends not to have any new propitiation, or new remission of sins obtained, but to make that effectual, and in act applied unto us, which was once obtained by the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross. Neither is the Sacrifice of the Cross, as it was once offered up there, modo cruento, so much remembered in the Eucharist, though it be commem

form of the Modern view. All the passages cited by him are here given, although as several do not seem to the author justly capable of this interpretation, they are not included in the first or second class.