Page images

namely, on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday; and two of these
Celebrations were Afternoon Celebrations, and only one of them was
early. It is a complete mistake to suppose that the early Church had
any objection to Afternoon or Evening Celebrations." 31

Ritualists are never tired of exhorting us to take the
Primitive Church as our model. Why, then, should the
C.B. S. every month in the year pray to God that the truly
Primitive custom of Evening Communion “may cease" ?
Surely it cannot be wrong to follow a custom sanctioned by
the practice of our Lord Himself at the first Lord's Supper ?
Possibly the authorities of the C. B. S. were not altogether
satisfied with “Father” Puller's candid acknowledgment
on this important subject, for at their annual conference on
June 1st, 1893, a paper specially devoted to the question of
“Evening Communion,” was read by the Rev. T. I. Ball,
Provost of Cumbrae College. This gentleman tried to get
out of the Scriptural difficulty in a very daring, not to say
wicked, manner. While he admitted that “our Lord Jesus
Christ instituted the Eucharist on the Paschal evening," 32 he
boldly declared that,

“As Holy Scripture does not help us (Ritualists] much in this
matter, we may boldly say, that it was not intended to help us in this ;
but that we were meant to learn all that we need to learn from the
practice and precept of the faithful companion of the Bible—the
Catholic Church." 33

Is not this a case of “ Down with the Bible, and up with
the Church”? Or, rather, does it not remind us of the
conduct of those Pharisees—the Ritualists of their day-
of whom our Saviour said :—"Full well ye reject the
commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition”? (Mark vii. 9.) Mr. Ball proceeded to heap up
insult and abuse on a custom which certainly had the
Saviour's Holy sanction. “Evening Communion," he said,
“is an act of schism, in the gravest sense of the term." 34
“ They are spiritually and morally dangerous." 35 “It is

31 Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of C. B. S., p. xxiii.
52 Thirty-First Annual Report of C. B. S., p. xv.
33 Ibid., p. xv.
34 Ibid., p. xvii.

3 Ibid., p. xxi.

[blocks in formation]

profane to invite men by Evening Communion to undertake
a religious duty." 36

The members of the C. B. S. are required to pray " That
obstacles to the due and reverent Reservation of the Blessed
Sacrament for the Sick may be removed, and that the use
of the Sacrament of Holy Unction may be restored through.
out the Anglican Church.” 37

As to the first of these I shall have some comments to
make further on. It may, therefore, suffice if I here simply
quote the words of Article XXVIII. :—"The Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved,
carried about, lifted up or worshipped.” And there is
certainly no trace in the New Testament of either of these
customs being observed by the Apostles. As to the
worshipping of the Sacrament, this is a practice which is
much encouraged by the C. B. S. It would be easy to
multiply proofs of this, but I will here content myself with
quoting the Altar Book for Young Persons, issued by the
Confraternity itself :-

“I worship Thee, Lord Jesu,

Who on Thine Altar laid,
In this most awful service,

Our Food and Drink art made.
“I worship Thee, Lord Jesu,

Who, in Thy love divine,
Art hiding here Thy Godhead

In forms of Bread and Wine.” 38
On this important point of adoration of the consecrated
Sacrament the teaching of the Confraternity is indentical
with that of the Church of Rome. This was acknowledged
by its Superior General at the annual conference on
May 31st, 1877. I may here be permitted to mention that
the anniversaries of the Confraternity are always held on


of the flood

36 Ibid., p. xxii.
37 Intercession Paper, May, 1897, p. 15.
** Altar Book for Young Persons, p. 69. Twenty-sixth thousand, 1884.
dumber printed shows how widely the spiritual poison has been spread.


“ Corpus Christi Day,” a Popish festival not to be found in the Kalendar in our Prayer Books. It was instituted by the Popes in the Dark Ages in honour of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Superior General said :

“Whatever other differences, therefore, there may be between us and the Church of Rome (and I do not wish to question the fact that there are important differences) yet no such difference as is commonly supposed exists between us on this great doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration. We adore the same mysterious presence of our Blessed Lord, veiled from mortal eyes, through the grace of a like consecration.” 30

As to the "Sacrament of Extreme Unction " it may be sufficient to remark that the Church of England knows no such Sacrament. At the Reformation she ejected it from her system, for wise and sufficient reasons. I am not aware that the C. B. S. has published any form of service for the administration of Extreme Unction. Probably its Priests. Associate use that provided in the Priest's Prayer Book. In this form the priest is required to anoint the five senses of the sick person with oil “on his right thumb.” When the time comes for anointing the sick person's nose, the following directions are given :

Then upon the nostrils, saying,

“Through this anointing, and His most loving mercy, the Lord pardon thee whatever thou hast sinned by smelling." 40

Another subject for the intercessions of the Associates was “That there may be true repentance and due use of Sacramental Confession on the part of those needing it.” 41 The Confraternity is very fond of Auricular Confession, even though the Church of England, in her Homily of Repentance, Part Second, teaches :—" It is most evident and plain, that this Auricular Confession hath not the warrant of God's Word.” In its Altar Book for Young


39 Fifteenth Annual Report of C. B.S., p. x. 40 Priest's Prayer Book, pp. 91, 92. Seventh edition, 1890. 41 Intercession Paper, May, 1897, p. 16.

[blocks in formation]

Persons the Confraternity prints a form of Confession in the presence of a priest (p. 29).

The Associates are also required to pray :—"That there may be a more widespread belief in the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.” 42 It would be easy to fill many pages with extracts from the documents of the Confraternity showing what its teaching is on these subjects. To commence with a sermon preached before the Confraternity by the Rev. A. H. Ward, in 1871. That gentleman then declared

“That the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine, that therein is Christ Himself, His Body, Soul and Divinity, as truly as at Bethlehem, or Nazareth, or Calvary, or at the right hand of God, we take as certain." 43

On the following year the annual sermon on behalf of the Confraternity was preached by the Rev. George Body, now Canon of Durham. We find that gentleman declaring that

“The Eucharistic Sacrifice is a necessary consequence of the Real Presence. If the Bread and Wine become, by the action of the Holy Ghost in consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ, it follows that when we offer the Sacrament we offer the Body and Blood of Christ, i.e., Christ Himself under the forms of Bread and Wine.” 44

A remarkable sermon was preached before the C. B. S. at its anniversary, June 20th, 1889, by one who has since made a name for himself in the world, viz., the Rev. Charles Gore, now Canon Residentiary of Westminster, and Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln. Canon Gore said:

“Christ is present in the Eucharist indeed externally to us, objectively and really ; He is present as the Bread of Life, the Sacrifice for sins, the Object of worship. He is present wherever the consecrated elements are." 46

42 Ibid., p. 12.

43 The Holy Eucharist and Common Life, by Rev. A. H. Ward, p. 8. London: Hodges.

41 Jewish Sacrifices and Christian Sacraments, p. 27. London: Rivingtons, 1872.

45 The Eucharistic Sacrifice, by Charles Gore, p. 13. Privately printed for the Confraternity.




This teaching is undoubtedly strong, and quite without warrant from the formularies of the Church of England. Many hundreds of volumes have been written on the Real Presence, and it is manifestly impossible for me to give space to an exhaustive treatise on the subject in this book. But I may point out that a localized presence of Christ “ wherever the consecrated elements are” is contrary to the teaching of the great English Divine, Richard Hooker, who wrote: “The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacraments."46 The Church of England teaches that there may-in her sense of the words—be a real eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ, without the aid of a consecrating

priest-a theory which is certainly inconsistent with the ; Ritualistic idea that the Presence is only the result of

priestly consecration. In one of the Rubrics attached to “The Communion of the Sick" the Church orders that

“If a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, the Curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed His Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks therefore, He DOTH EAT AND DRINK THE BODY AND BLOOD Of Our Saviour Christ, profitably to his soul's health, ALTHOUGH HE DO NOT RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT WITH HIS MOUTH."

In this case the Body and Blood of Christ is certainly not eaten with the sick man's mouth. It is an act of faith, not of the body. And is not this the same way in which ordinary communicants are said by the Church of England to eat the 66 Hooker's Works, Vol. II., Book V., lxvii., 6, p. 84. Oxford edition, 1865.


« PreviousContinue »