{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67247/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67247","id":"gutenberg_67247","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67247","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Doctrines","Lord's Supper -- Church of England","Ritualism"],"text":"THE REAL QUESTION\n\nAS TO\n\nALTAR LIGHTS.\n\n  CHRIST\u2019S BODY PRESENT BY CONSECRATION, AND\n  OFFERED IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.\n\n\nA LETTER\n\nTO\n\nTHE REV. JOHN W. H. MOLYNEUX,\n\nBY\n\nEDWARD J. PHIPPS,\n\nRECTOR OF STANSFIELD.\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  LONGMANS, GREEN, READER AND DYER.\n\n  SUDBURY: HENRY S. PRATT.\n  1865.\n\n\n\n\n  _Stansfield Rectory, Oct. 13th, 1865._\n\n  MY DEAR MR. MOLYNEUX,\n\nI have read with much interest your correspondence with the Bishop\nof Ely on the subject of Altar Lights, and as the course which the\nBishop has taken, makes it of serious importance to every clergyman,\nespecially to those in the diocese of Ely, I have been giving it my\nbest consideration.\n\nI believe the facts were as follows:--The Bishop had given notice to\nhold a confirmation in S. Peter\u2019s Church, Sudbury, on the 1st May last,\nbeing the festival of S. Philip and S. James.\n\nAccording to your custom you prepared for the celebration of the Holy\nCommunion, and as the Bishop was staying at your house, informed him of\nit, of course anticipating his attendance.\n\nHis Lordship, however, intimated that he understood you had Lights\non the Altar at the Communion, that he objected to them, and in\nconsequence, after discussing the matter with you, ended by absenting\nhimself altogether from the service.\n\nSome time after, his Lordship sends you Dr. Twiss\u2019s opinion as given\nin your correspondence--pronounces Altar Lights illegal, and informs\nyou that though he acquits you of wilful disobedience on account of\nyour ignorance of the Law, yet that no other course was open to him but\nthat which he had adopted, viz., to abstain from Communion with you,\nand therefore in future, with any other clergyman who may presume to\nintroduce or retain them.\n\nI am moreover informed that in accordance with this arrangement, his\nLordship has intimated his intention to transfer the place of holding\nhis visitation at Sudbury, from S. Peter\u2019s to All Saints, that is\nto say from a Church where to say nothing more, Morning and Evening\nPrayer are said daily throughout the year, to a Church where this most\npositive and essential Law of the Church, is wholly and habitually set\nat nought.\n\nI certainly had not considered that the question of Altar Lights was of\nsuch vital importance. The Bishop has not even personal knowledge of\ntheir being used, and yet without even complaint made, without legal\ninvestigation or trial, you are at once subjected to the heaviest\npunishment it is in the power of the Church to inflict--you are cut off\nfrom Communion with your Bishop, _ipso facto_ excommunicate.\n\nThis result makes it, I repeat, highly important that it should be\nthoroughly ascertained, whether and upon what grounds Altar Lights are\nillegal.\n\nI believe the ordinary authority quoted for the use of Altar Lights, is\nthat they were \u201cin use\u201d in the second year of Edward VI., and that the\nRubric of our present Common Prayer, directs all such ornaments to be\nretained, as were \u201cin use\u201d in that year by authority of Parliament.\n\nIn the case of Liddell _v._ Beal, the Crown by its supremacy has\ndecided that the ornaments here spoken of are confined to those\narticles the use of which is prescribed by the first Book of Edward VI.\n\nIt will be seen on reference to that Book, that the articles so\nprescribed are The Altar--Vestments, copes, albe, surplices, tunicles,\ncorporals, paten, chalice, and some other things.\n\nAltar Lights are not mentioned amongst them, and therefore cannot\naccording to this decision be supported by this Rubric.\n\nBut the advisers of the Crown in the above case, intimate their\nopinion, that there were other things lawfully in use, though not\nsupported by express parliamentary authority, such as crosses, bells,\norgans, &c.\n\nAnd it would seem therefore, that it is upon this ground that Altar\nLights are to be supported.\n\nIn virtue of the supremacy transferred by parliament to the crown, all\necclesiastical powers before exercised by the Pope, have been claimed\nand exercised by the Sovereign. And on the accession of Edward VI.,\nInjunctions were issued, and Commissioners appointed by the Crown, to\nvisit and reform all Churches throughout England.\n\nAmongst the injunctions so issued, was one expressly directing two\nLights to be kept upon the Altar. And by no subsequent authority,\neither of the Crown or Parliament, have these Lights been directed to\nbe removed.\n\nIn common with all other good church observances, they have at\nvarious times, been violently opposed. Queen Elizabeth, however, \u201cthat\nbright occidental star,\u201d King James I. and the successive English\nSovereigns, have uniformly continued them in the Royal Chapels--they\nwere constantly in use in the chapels of Laud--Bishop Andrewes (a\npredecessor of the Bishop of Ely) and Lord Burleigh--and they are to be\nfound still, on the Altars of, I believe, all the Cathedrals, and most\nof the Collegiate and greater Churches of the Land.\n\nThere is indeed one peculiarity connected with the present use of them;\nthe Church prescribes _Lights_, the present practice proscribes Lights,\nand sets up \u201cdead lights,\u201d (_un_lighted candles). Whether this proceeds\nfrom that slovenly and irreverent carelessness, which has crept into so\nmany of our Church arrangements, or from that weak and miserable system\nof compromise, which never does and never ought to succeed, it is\nequally to be deprecated. If the Law orders Lights, to have candles and\nnot to light them is to disobey the Law. It reminds me of the \u201cguinea\nin the pocket with strict injunctions never to change it\u201d--of the sage\nconclusion of the humorous poem, \u201cWhen nose used the spectacles, eyes\nshould be shut;\u201d it becomes thus an idle vanity, and an inconsistent\nunlawful superstition.\n\nBesides, the subject of Altar Lights has been regularly mooted in the\nEcclesiastical Courts, and no question made of their legality. Dr.\nTwiss, indeed, in a curt and obscure statement, says the injunction\ndoes not apply to Communion Tables. I confess I cannot see upon what\ngrounds he makes this assertion, or rather perhaps I do not comprehend\nwhat he means by it. If it is intended to say that the Altar is taken\naway, and therefore all that is commanded to be set upon it is taken\naway also, in that case the Holy Sacrament itself must disappear, for\nthe command is express also, to set the Holy Elements upon the Altar.\n\nBut in truth, is there any sufficient authority to be quoted, for the\nabolition of Altars throughout England? The Crown order to Ridley in\n1550, was for his own diocese alone. The order in 1559, was, for the\nsetting up Communion Tables where Altars had been violently pulled\ndown; and I am not aware, that any other Crown or Parliamentary\nauthority has ever directed the destruction of English Altars.\n\nAnd here I think we ought to be on our guard, against being led away\nby irregular proceedings, or the opinions and acts of individuals. The\nonly authorities which can bind the English Church are the Crown and\nParliament.\n\nNo violent acts of mobs--no opinions of \u201cReformers,\u201d even though called\n\u201cVenerable,\u201d are of the slightest legal force in determining doctrine\nor practice; legal, political and religious reformers may all be of\nuse in their generation, but their acts and opinions are those of\nindividuals, and nothing more.\n\nAnd if the acts and opinions of religious reformers of a past\ngeneration, are to be considered, why are we to shut out those of\nthe reformers of this present reforming generation? Why \u201cbuild the\nsepulchres of the Prophets\u201d and despise or persecute their successors?\nIn the very matter of \u201cornaments\u201d now in question, we hear of the\nBishops of Oxford and Salisbury each assuming the ancient ensign\nof their office--the pastoral staff. Only a short time since the\nArchdeacon of Sudbury, himself a Venerable Reformer in the Church,\nintroduced the Queen of Hawaii at Bury, and pleaded for the Church\nMission established in those islands. And yet a few weeks before at\nthe confirmation of the young King of Hawaii the Anglican Bishop was\nvested in albe and cope, mitred, with episcopal ring and pastoral\nstaff. And this is also as it ought to be. As majesty without its\nexternals is a jest, so religion has no right to dispense with them.\n\nUnder these circumstances I cannot but think that there is amply\nsufficient _prima facie_ evidence, to warrant an honest belief that you\nhave legal authority for your Altar Lights--and I confess, therefore,\nthat I cannot understand why the very suspicion of adopting them,\nshould cut off a Priest from Communion with his Bishop.\n\nBut by far the most important aspect of this question, is that in\nconnection with the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.\n\nIndependently of its being an obedience to the Law, you, with many\nothers, have restored Lights to their place on the Altar, as a much\nneeded aid to revive something of that reverence and faith which is\nso grievously deficient in the English Church. I believe they have\na certain limited power in conducing to this end. But a far more\npowerful, indeed as I think, the only efficient means, under God, of\ncreating faith and reverence, is to have a clear, definite, positive,\nbelief ourselves, and to endeavour to express it in the simplest and\nplainest language.\n\nThere is no doctrine on which plain unmistakable language is more\nnecessary, than that of the Holy Eucharist.\n\nI fear a vast number of Church people do not know what to believe.\nA great multitude of poor honest people believe the Eucharist to be\nnothing but a simple ceremony, and not a few, even of the clergy,\nbelieve the very contrary to the truth.\n\nFormerly, in my recollection, to believe in the Real Presence, was\nuniversally held to be the distinguishing and erroneous doctrine of\nCatholics, in opposition to Protestants. We have now advanced so far\nas to teach a Presence, which however no one can understand to be a\nPresence, obscured as it is with terms of \u201ca spiritual presence,\u201d and\n\u201cthe means of apprehending it being faith.\u201d\n\nAnd thus in our Communion, the great service of the Church is almost\nentirely forsaken of the masses of the people, the great bulk of the\npeople are uncommunicated, and have substituted for the Catholic faith\nand religion, a system of mere sermon hearing.\n\nBut in reality the true doctrine of the Church is plain enough. The\ncommanded Elements of Bread and Wine are placed on the Altar, they are\nthen, simply Bread and Wine; in virtue of the words of Institution or\nConsecration they become, and, are Christ\u2019s Body and Blood; present,\nnot indeed in an ordinary, natural, physical manner, such as our\nexternal senses can take cognizance of, but in a special, mystical,\nsupernatural manner, as we sometimes call it spiritual; not meaning\nhereby, mere spirit, in opposition to body, but as the Apostle tells\nus, \u201cthere is a spiritual Body.\u201d It is not Christ\u2019s _natural_ Body,\nsubsisting according to the ordinary operation of what we call the\nLaws of Nature, but it is His glorified Body, that Body, which came\nsuddenly, and stood in the midst of his disciples when the doors were\nshut; which vanished out of their sight; which was seen of S. Stephen,\nand appeared to S. Paul; the archetype of that perfection, in which our\nbodies were first created in the image of God, and to which they shall\nbe restored and made like when He shall subdue all things to Himself.\n\nThe Holy Elements having thus become Christ\u2019s Body, they are the source\nof life, and grace, and blessing of every kind, to those who, to use\nthe divine language, \u201ceat,\u201d become partakers of,--are united with them.\n\nIn discoursing of, and admitting the supernatural, we at once put\naside the consideration of physical laws; we at once admit that things\nsupernatural pass the limits of our finite intelligence. But, as the\nHoly Scriptures describe the operations of God to us, in terms of human\ncomprehension, such as eyes, hands, arms, &c., so in the word \u201ceat,\u201d we\nunderstand not alone a physical perception, but far more. To describe\nthe divinely appointed method, the external means, the connecting\nlink, (so to speak) by which the Divine agency is pleased to operate\non Christians, we are bidden to Take, eat, and by it we understand\nsoul-feeding, a uniting of the glorified Body of Christ with ours.\n\n\u201cHe that eateth me shall live by me,\u201d saith our Lord. There is a deep\nmeaning here; \u201cThe words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and\nthey are life.\u201d In this full sense of eating therefore, we understand,\nnot only the act of \u201ccarnally pressing with the teeth, the Sacrament of\nChrist\u2019s Body,\u201d as S. Augustine saith (for it _is_ Christ\u2019s Body that\nall do so press), but those further dispositions of mind, which enable\nChristians to unite with Him, and which are described in the language\nof the Church as \u201ca true and lively faith.\u201d\n\nAnd thus it follows, that they who have not the due dispositions of\nmind, obtain not that full and perfect union of Christ\u2019s Body with\ntheir own, which is appointed by our Lord, to be the great Christian\nsource of life and grace. John vi. 53, 54.\n\nAfter the elements have been consecrated, they become Christ\u2019s Body.\nThe \u201cFaith\u201d or qualifications of the receiver have nothing to do with\nthe Real Supernatural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; and this\npoint cannot be too strongly insisted on, when, as at present, the most\nsolemn and positive doctrines of the Church of all ages and nations,\nare concealed, avoided, or explained away, in deference to a miserably\nshort-sighted policy of expediency, under the name of moderation.\n\nThat therefore which has been consecrated--which is \u201cgiven, taken, and\nreceived\u201d by all communicants, is, as the 28th Article, and the solemn\nwords of delivery expressly declare--the Body of Christ--and this is\nto be understood in the simplest, plainest sense of language without a\nshadow of ambiguity or refinement.\n\nTo every one receiving therefore, there is a sacramental impartation\nof Christ\u2019s Body--to the humble, faithful Penitent, it is not only the\nPresence of, but union with his Lord--according to his fitness is the\nbenefit he receives--\u201cAccording to your faith be it unto you.\u201d\n\nBut to the mocker, the godless, the profane; the actual receiving of\nChrist\u2019s Body is no benefit, but rather injury--as was said of the\nunbelieving Jews--\u201cSeeing, they see not, and hearing, they hear not.\u201d\nSo these, eating, they eat not--not having the necessary spiritual\npowers and faculties for receiving and uniting themselves with Christ;\nthey have not that identification of their life with Him, that personal\nactual knowledge of Him, in which standeth or consisteth eternal\nlife--they are like the multitude who thronged and touched our Lord,\nderiving no benefit from the contact; not having the simple earnest\nfaith of the poor woman who touched Him for her disease--they cannot\nbe made whole by the virtue that proceedeth from Him.\n\nThere is another great doctrine, in connection with the Holy Eucharist,\nwhich has of late been grievously neglected; I mean the Doctrine of the\nSacrifice.--\n\nTo state this doctrine in full, to discuss and remove objections, would\nrequire a treatise of itself.\n\nBriefly then, I would state, that the sacrificial character of the\nEucharist is perhaps its highest and chief end. The glory of God--the\nfulfilment of His will and work, is the supreme object of man\u2019s\nexistence--man\u2019s own welfare is but secondary. Operating therefore to\ncounteract the treasonable idolatry with which man serves and loves\nthe creature rather than the Creator, God has ever instituted certain\nmaterial observances by which He has appointed man to recognize and\nserve Him, and to become vehicles of Communion with His Creature. Thus,\ndays have been taken from time--places from the earth--substances and\npersons from His creatures, which He has required to be wholly diverted\nfrom their ordinary use, and devoted in special ways to Himself--the\nSabbath--the Sanctuary--the Sacrifice--the Priesthood, were thus\nappointed to the Jews--The Lord\u2019s Day--the Parish Church--the Holy\nSacrifice of the Eucharist and the Priesthood--have the same object\nand office with us Christians. They are our means of worshipping\nand serving God--our first great duty, irrespective of all personal\nconsiderations, although in the merciful Providence of God, our\nfulfilment of these obligations, is fraught with the greatest benefit\nto ourselves.\n\nOn the sacred time then, at the sacred place, we come to offer the\nsacred offering; but what shall we bring? Ourselves, our substance, our\ndevotions, are all imperfect and stained with sin. All were too little\nto testify our duty--all utterly impotent to obtain our needs.\n\nIn the service then, of the Holy Communion, we offer unto God, an\noffering far more precious and acceptable than any earthly object--we\noffer, present, the Consecrated elements, the sacred Body of our Lord\nsupernaturally present, after, and by means of consecration. Before the\nThrone of Grace no sacrifice can be so perfect, no plea so prevailing,\nas when we interpose between ourselves and the Majesty of God, the\nPerson of His Adorable Son.\n\nThis then, is the great doctrine of the Eucharist--this, the highest\nact of religion that we can celebrate; and to assist, be present\nat, take part in this great act of religious duty, is the bounden\nobligation of every member of the Church.\n\nI do not now attempt to prove these things--they have been, thank God,\nrepeatedly asserted and enforced by ancient and modern divines of the\ngreatest piety and learning in the Church of England; nor have any of\nthe Church Rulers ventured to deny the doctrines, or repress, or punish\nthose who teach them.\n\nBut what is needed, is to have these things set forth in plain\nlanguage, \u201cunderstanded of the people,\u201d in earnest, vigorous, popular\n(in the sense of common) methods. If these great doctrines of the\nChurch were taught in their fulness without reserves and refinements,\nthe plain honest people would come to understand what the Church meant;\nthat there was a distinction between the Church and dissent, beyond\npersonal prejudices and feelings.\n\nIf the boundaries were well defined--if the separation was by a wall\n(even a low one), instead of a ragged hedge, Churchmen and dissenters\nwould have fewer occasions of quarrel; for bad boundaries make bad\nneighbours: there would be more charity, they might converse amicably,\nand shake hands over it, each clearly knowing and keeping within his\nlimit.\n\nAnd if the doctrine of the Real Presence were taught, believed, and\nfelt, there would be less of that grevious, crying sin of irreverence,\nwhich is so lamentably and universally prevalent in the Church; people,\neven clergy, now enter a Church without even any attempt to manifest\nreverence; they stare about, talk loud, on the most ordinary and\ntrifling matters; the only attitude you never see them assume is that\nof reverence and prayer. In the Churches of the Roman obedience--enter\nthem when you will--you see people on their knees, absorbed in their\ndevotions.\n\nEven putting aside the principle of duty, is it wise to persevere\nin this system of disingenuous ambiguity? does it commend itself by\nits success? The majority of the upper classes (ten thousand they\nhave been termed) are probably supporters of the Church--Churchmen.\nAre the tradesmen and middle classes so? are they not the chief\nstrength and support of dissent. And the poor people--the masses in\nmodern phrase--the real life and strength of the nation, as they are\nproclaimed to be when their support is needed; are they Churchmen? I\nthink they are; their humble quiet spirit warms to her teaching, and\nonly looks for more emphatic and clear enunciation of it.\n\nIf the Church rose to the discharge of her duty, plainly taught her\ngreat doctrines, and gave warrant for her sincerity by a speaking and\nglorious ritual, then would the people rally to her support.\n\nBut at present, though Churchmen, it is to be feared that the masses\nare but nominally so. They go to Church where there is no meeting\nhouse; but if one be at hand, they will frequent it, as readily as the\nChurch. In fact, they are not taught, and they see no difference; and\nthey are too plain and honest not to act on their convictions.\n\nI do hope then that we may be entering on a better system, a system\nof plain dealing, calling things by their own names, irrespective of\npossible consequences.\n\nLord Capel, one of the most consistent and high-minded amongst the\nRoyalist Leaders under Charles 1st., immediately before his execution\nfor the defence of Colchester, solemnly charged his family to make Ps.\nxxvii. 11, as he always had done, a part of their daily prayers--\u201cTeach\nme Thy way O Lord, and lead me in a _plain_ path.\u201d\n\nThe question of Altar Lights then derives its whole importance from\nits relation to the great doctrines of the Sacrament; they are, as it\nwere, the Colours of the Regiment, of which the late Sir William Napier\nused to say, they were the pivot on which everything turned--Defend\nthe Colours--Form on the Colours--Recover the Colours, was an appeal\nunderstood by all, and stirred the strongest and deepest energies\nof every man. I can only hope in conclusion, that the candles which\nyou have lighted may \u201crekindle such a flame in England, as by God\u2019s\nblessing, shall never be extinguished,\u201d and only wishing that the first\ndiscussion of the matter had fallen into more learned and abler hands,\n\n  I am, my Dear Mr. Molyneux,\n  Yours very sincerely,\n  EDWARD J. PHIPPS.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n6 JA 66\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nIn this file, text in _italics_ is indicated by underscores.\n\nNo changes were made by the transcriber to the text as printed.","title":"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","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":3630}