Title: The Real Question as to Altar Lights: Christ's Body Present by Consecration, and Offered in the Sacrament of the Altar
Author: Phipps, Edward J.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Real Question as to Altar Lights: Christ's Body Present by Consecration, and Offered in the Sacrament of the Altar" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

LIGHTS ***



THE REAL QUESTION

AS TO

ALTAR LIGHTS.

  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.



  _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 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 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, 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,” (_un_lighted 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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


In this file, text in _italics_ is indicated by underscores.

No changes were made by the transcriber to the text as printed.



*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Real Question as to Altar Lights: Christ's Body Present by Consecration, and Offered in the Sacrament of the Altar" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.