Letters to the Editor
PRAYER BOOK REVISION [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—The letter of the Provost of Worcester deserves attention and reply. It is surprising that he should be unaware that the Thirty-nine Articles are not part of the Book of Conunon Prayer, but are an independent document, that they are, therefore, not within the scope of the plan of revision at all, and could not possibly form part of the Deposited Book— which is only the Prayer Book with permitted variations.
The Thirty-nine Articles are entirely unaffected and remain, with the old unehanged Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, the doctrinal standard of the Church, to which every Minister must still, as hitherto, declare his assent. The assent is untouched by the Measure, as Clause 8 of it expressly enacts ; but the Provost seems to forget that since 1865 the assent is to the doctrine of the Articles and Prayer Book generally and no longer to every proposition contained in them. This change was made in 1865 in order to relieve sincere consciences.
But the Provost must forgive me for saying that even if assent were required to every word of Article xxviii., there is nothing in the Article that condemns Reservation. The Articles, when they touch controversial points, are written with the utmost nicety of exactness : and we read in the Royal Declaration which is printed before them " that no man hereafter shall either print or preach to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof ; and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense."
It seems to me that the Provost precisely transgresses this prohibition : he puts his own sense and comment on Article xxviii. and does not take it in the literal and grammatical sense. The words " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved, carried about," &c., do not in their literal and grammatical sense condemn Reser- vation. They state the fact that Christ did not ordain that the sacrament should be reserved : a fact which implies that the Church is not bound to reserve it, but does not imply that Reservation is to be condemned or prohibited. Kneeling at communion is not part of Christ's ordinance, but it is lawful. The Article teaches that the Church may disuse Reservation, not that it must.
Moreover the Article is not dealing with Reservation for communion of the sick at all. If the words had been intended to cover this kind of Reservation, it might fairly be argued that they are misleading. For may it not reasonably be said that by Christ's ordinance every faithful and devout Christian who desires to receive communion should receive it ? If then Reservation facilitates communion; it is in truth carrying out Christ's ordinance. The language of the Article is justi- liable only if [it is limited to reserving the sacrament in ordei to its being gazed upon and worshipped.
The rubric at the end of the Communion Service certainly does prohibit Reservation, though that was probably not its purpose. It is a rubric of 1662, when Reservation had long been disused, and it is more probably directed against pro- fanation. But the Provost of Worcester argues that the rubric and Article xxviii. imply a doctrine that is incon- sistent with Reservation, whereas in truth they imply just the same doctrine as Reservation implies. The Prayer Book and Articles clearly teach that there is created by the consecration of the Bread and Wine a mystical relation between them and the Person of Christ.
The character of this relation is not precisely determined : the worshipper may believe that it is such as to make the Bread and Wine to be rightly called the Body and Blood of Christ, or he may believe that it is such as to make the Bread and Wine the effectual instruments by which the Body and Blood of Christ are spiritually received, but the reality of a relation (of whatever significance) between Christ and the consecrated Elements is quite unequivocally taught. As elsewhere in the Prayer Book and Articles, so in particular in this rubric and in Article xxviii. is the creation of this mystical relation taught or implied. What else is meant by the different treatment of the consecrated and -unconsecrated
Bread and Wine ? Why should the consecrated Bread and Wine be reverently eaten and drunk, while the Curate may take the unconsecrated for his awn use ? Because the consecrated. Bread and. Wine has been brought into relation with Christ and that relation still subsists. This is the doctrine implied by the rubric, and just the same doctrine is implied bi Reservation.
The fear of profanation means just the same thing as the Reservation of the Bread and Wine--that there is a mystical relation between Christ and the Bread and Wine. And Article xxviii. quite clearly treats the consecrated Elements as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. Article xxix, affirms the same truth in explicit language. This is the doctrine that is implied by communion through the reserved Bread and Wine. Reservation is only deferred communion, and the use of the reserved Elements for communion depends on the belief that the mystical relation created by consecration still subsists. This belief does not vary from the teaching of the Prayer Book and Articles, but conforms to it and in particular to Articles xxviii. and xxix., and the rubricd requiring reverence to the Bread and Wine after consecration.
The practice of Reservation involves, therefore, no doctrinal change. Whether it is expedient or not to reserve the sacra.' ment really depends on how far it facilitates the communion of the sick. I cannot doubt that it does facilitate thai' communion partly by relieving those clergy who think it right to fast before communicating at a celebration, part!? by avoiding the unseemliness of frequently repeated celen brations by the same clergyman in one day. No priest ought to be required to celebrate seven or eight times in a single day. Moreover, we may hope that, if Reservation is permitted, the communion of the sick will become still more frequent than it is now, and that regular communicants whq are temporarily prevented by illness from attending church,' may receive communion at short intervals. All increase of communion is perfectly loyal to the Prayer Book and to the. original ordinance of Christ. Nor is it an answer to say that a person can have spiritual communion even when actual communion is impossible. For it is clearly wrong to rely, on the grace of spiritual communion when but for the negligence of the Church actual communion might be given.
I should hope that all reasonable people would agree that the proposed alternative Order for the Communion of the Sick rightly allows Reservation for the communion of the sick and rightly forbids the use of the reserved sacrament for any other purpose. Certainly this implies no change of doctrine.—I am, Sir, &e., 2 Arlington Street, S.W. 1. HUGH CECIL.
Previous page
