The Eucharistic Doctrine of The Later Nonjurors: A Revisionist View of the 18th-Century Usages Controversy 9781463219727

Citation preview

The Eucharistie Doctrine of The Later Nonjurors

Gorgias Liturgical Studies

45

This series is intended to provide a venue for studies about liturgies as well as books containing various liturgies. Making liturgical studies available to those who wish to learn more about their own worship and practice or about the traditions of other religious groups, this series includes works on service music, the daily offices, services for special occasions, and the sacraments.

The Eucharistie Doctrine of The Later Nonjurors

A Revisionist View of the 18th-Century Usages Controversy

James Smith

1 gorgias press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-396-0

ISSN 1937-3252

Published first in the U.K. by Grove Books, 2000.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents 1.

Introduction

3

2.

Tradition versus the Sufficiency of Scripture

6

3.

The Usager Liturgy of 1718

13

4.

The Eucharist as a Sacrament

15

The Mixed Cup The Epiclesis 5.

6.

16 19

The Eucharist as a Sacrifice

26

The Prayer of Oblation

27

Prayers for the Dead

30

Conclusion

36

Appendix: A Chronological Table of Nonjuror History and Usages Controversy Tracts

39

Acknowledgments I would gratefully like to acknowledge the assistance of the individuals who have contributed to this paper. The support provided by the staff at the Founders' Library at the University of Wales, Lampeter, especially the Reverend David G. Selwyn, was invaluable in granting m e access to the primary sources. I would also like to thank Bishop Colin Buchanan and Dr Paul Bradshaw for allowing me the opportunity of presenting this work for publication. Finally, I would like to dedicate this to my wife Diana, without whose careful reading this work would not have been possible.

Copyright © James David Smith 2000 First Impression June 2000 ISSN 0951-2667 ISBN 1 85174 435 5

1

Introduction The objective of the present paper is to identify and categorize later Nonjuror eucharistic doctrine for the purpose of placing the later Nonjurors within the spectrum of eighteenth-century Anglican thought. This will be undertaken by examining in detail the writings of the Usages Controversy. The Nonjurors were those members of the Church of England who, after the Revolution of 1688, were unwilling to take the oaths of allegiance to William III and Mary II, since to have done so would have broken the oaths they had taken to James II. The later Nonjurors are defined as those members that remained within the Nonjuring communion after the death of the last of the original Nonjuring bishops in 1710. In 1716, the Usages Controversy split the Nonjurors into two communions on the issue of whether to restore four Usages to the communion service. These Usages were the following: the mixed cup, the epiclesis, a prayer of oblation, and prayers for the dead. One party of the Nonjurors, the 'Usagers', was convinced that these Usages were essential for the proper administration of the communion service. Indeed, in 1718, the Usagers produced their own liturgy in order to incorporate these Usages. Their opponents, the 'non-Usagers', believed that the Usages were not necessary for the administration of the eucharist and would therefore not allow any changes to the liturgy that would include the Usages. Between the years 1717 and 1725, over forty tracts were written by the Nonjurors on the issue of restoring the four Usages to the communion service. These tracts of the 'Pamphlet War' dealt quite extensively with questions concerning the authority of tradition and the sufficiency of scripture, the elements and prayers for the proper ministration of the sacrament of the eucharist, as well as the eucharistic sacrifice.1 The main Usager authors were Bishop Jeremy Collier, Bishop Thomas Brett, Thomas Wagstaffe, and Thomas Deacon. They were joined by Bishop Archibald Campbell, Roger Laurence, John Griffin, and Willoughby Minors. The key non-Usager authors were Bishop Nathaniel Spinckes, William Scott, and Samuel Walker. Other non-Usager authors were Charles Leslie, Matthias Earbery, William Snatt, Thomas Rogerson, Samuel Downes, and Edward Hart.2

1

For a description of the Nonjuror pamphlets see J a m e s David Smith, 'The " P a m p h l e t War" of the Nonjurors, Î717-1725: A Case Study in Early Eighteenth-Century Religious Polemic' in Trivium (in press) and James David Smith, 'The Bowdler Collection as a Resource for the Study of the Nonjurors' i n C. W. Marx (ed), The Founders' Library, University of Wales, Lampeter, Bibliographical and Contextual Studies: Essays in Memory of Robin Rider, Trivium 29 and 30 (Trivium Publications, Lampeter, 1997), pp 155-169. T h e term 'Pamphlet War' was coined in James David Smith, 'The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Later Nonjurors as Revealed in the Pamphlets of the Usages Controversy' (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Lampeter, 1998).

2

For the dates of these authors and their writings, please see the A p p e n d i x on pp 39ff below.

3

THE E U C H A R I S T 1 C

DOCTRINE

OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

Several years after the Pamphlet War, the signing of the Reunion Agreement in 1732 further split the Nonjurors into three separate factions: the extreme Usagers, the extreme Non-Usagers, and the Unionists. The idea contained in this agreement, that the Nonjurors could reconcile their differences in eucharistic doctrine with a simple declaration attached to the established liturgy, was naive at best. Indeed in 1732 a brief controversy between Roger Laurence, writing on the one side on behalf of the extreme Usagers party, and (former non-Usager) Bishop George Smith along with (former Usager) Bishop Thomas Brett, on the other side for the Unionists provides the first indication that the Nonjurors had always represented separate and distinct eucharistic outlooks. The Usages Controversy between the Usagers and non-Usagers was sparked by severe disagreements in eucharistic doctrine. Whereas the former party were doctrinally continuous with the main section of their contemporary High Church brethren within the Established Church, the latter group held views that were much more synonymous with a secondary school of thought which emerged within the contemporary High Church. Consequently, this work directly challenges the traditional view of the place of the Nonjurors within the eighteenth-century Church of England. The Nonjurors have traditionally been viewed as upholders of the Caroline church whose departure from the Establishment Church helped to usher in a period of latitudinariariism and spiritual 'decadence' within the Church of England. In the traditional view, although the two parties of later Nonjurors found themselves at odds over the restoration to the English communion service of the four Usages that had been eliminated from the 1552 English liturgy, there was no doctrinal difference between the two parties. According to the traditional standpoint both parties held Usager doctrinal views and the divergence of opinion between the Usagers and non-Usagers turned merely on the issue whether the liturgy properly expressed these eucharistic views and whether the Nonjurors had the proper authority to change the liturgy in order to include the Usages. Henry Broxap concluded as follows: 'It may be claimed that this [the Usager] standpoint represents the [doctrinal] view of the entire body of Non-Jurors. It is true that [Usager Bishop Thomas] Deacon was not in some important respects in agreement with many of the most distinguished scholars of the body. The main difference [between the Usagers and non-Usagers], however, turned not upon the doctrines themselves, but on the point of their expression in the Book of Common Prayer as it now stands." Broxap's assessment, written in 1924, is still generally accepted today. In 1993, Robert Cornwall's conclusion echoed that of Broxap: The central issue [between the Usagers and non-Usagers] underlying the Usages Controversy was not a difference in liturgical theology but a disagreement as to the ultimate

1

Broxap, The Later Non-Jurors

(Cambridge University Press, 1924), p 319.

4

INTRODUCTION

authority in matters of religious belief and practice/ 1 The last two decades have seen a series of revisionist works on the make-up and role of the Church of England in the eighteenth century.2 In 1985, F. C. Mather challenged the perception that the eighteenth-century English church was largely latitudinarian and without concern for ecclesiological or sacramental matters.3 Unfortunately, the Nonjurors have not received the same revisionist treatment by scholars as their Established Church brethren. In particular, the traditional view of the doctrine of the eucharistic held by the later Nonjurors has not been challenged. It is argued here that the traditional viewpoint does not go far enough to explain the vast number of tracts and the bitter schism that the Usages Controversy spawned. Differences of opinion regarding the ultimate ecclesiological authority within the Nonjuring movement were only an aspect of the two different understandings of the eucharist and its proper liturgical expression held by the later Nonjurors. The issues went beyond matters of ecclesiastical authority and raised fundamental questions about the valid ministration of the sacrament itself. For the later Nonjurors as a whole the eucharist formed the centre of their spirituality and worship. However, a detailed examination of the tracts of the Usages Controversy shows that the Nonjurors did not have a unified system of beliefs or eucharistic doctrine. At the heart of the Usages Controversy were not only questions about the role of tradition versus the sufficiency of scripture in the determination of Christian obligation, but, more importantly, diverging views about the eucharist as a sacrament and as a sacrifice.

1 2

3

Robert Cornwall, 'The Later Non-Jurors and the Theological Basis of the Usages Controversy' in Anglican Theological Review, 75 (1993), p 186. T h e reader is especially directed to John Walsh, S t e p h e n Taylor and Colin Haydon (eds), The Church of England, c.1689-c.7S33: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge University Press, 1993) and J. C. D. Clark, English Society 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime (Cambridge University Press, 1985) F. C. Mather, 'Georgian C h u r c h m a n s h i p Reconsidered: s o m e Variations in Anglican Public Worship 1714-1830' in journal of Ecclesiastical History, 36 (1985), p 255.

5

2.

Tradition versus the Sufficiency of Scripture The idea put forth by the Usagers that tradition could be used to defend essential practices was a major issue that divided the Nonjurors. Bishop Jeremy Collier and the Usagers insisted that where scripture was silent in matters of Christian doctrine and worship, tradition must be used to provide the authoritative guidance. They were firm in their conviction that they must either trust in the credibility of ancient testimony in matters not mentioned in scripture, or risk the confusion of personal opinion. Collier warned that without tradition, 'we shall either wander through enthusiasm, or want a new inspiration to prove the old one.'1 The Usagers argued further that tradition and scripture were on an equal footing with respect to doctrinal conclusions. Collier explained that scripture and tradition were both useful and necessary to determine the essential elements of Christianity. He argued that scripture and tradition were not mutually exclusive concepts but rather two sources of Christian knowledge: 'these two conveyances [scripture and tradition] are not opposite and destructive of one another: they are no more than different ways of publishing the will of God.' 2 The Usagers felt bound to accept a tradition that was both unmistakably clear and not contrary to scripture. However, the reverse was also true. Brett explained that the Usagers accepted only traditional and universal interpretations of scripture: 'as we cannot receive any tradition which is contrary to scripture, so neither can we receive any interpretation of scripture which is contrary to truly primitive and universal tradition.'3 The Usagers went as far as to say that, in the absence of scriptural authority, the consent of all Christendom would pass for an equivalent command by the Holy Spirit.4 Many of the non-Usagers admitted that, if they went beyond the bounds and limits of accepted traditional orthodoxy, they could find themselves in danger of being involved in schism or heresy. However, in matters of salvation, the non-Usagers adamantly contended that only scripture, and not human testimony, could be used to determine the essential requirements. For this side of the debate, scripture and tradition were not on the same footing with respect to salvation. Non-Usager Bishop Nathaniel Spinckes expressly stated that 'scripture, and not tradition, is prescribed by our Saviour to his disciples, as the 1

2 3

4

Jeremy Collier, A Defence of the Reasons, Some Prayers and Directions of King Edward the Sixth's First Liturgy: Being a Reply to a Book, Entitled, No Reason for Restoring Them (John Morphew, London, 1718), pl7. Collier, A Defence of the Reasons, p 18. T h o m a s Brett, Tradition Necessary to Explain and interpret the Holy Scriptures. With a Postscript, In Answer to That Part of a Book Lately Published (call'd, No Sufficient Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King Edward VPs First Liturgy) Which Seems to Depreciate Tradition. And a Preface, Containing Some Remarks on Mr. Toland's Nazarenus (James Bettenham, London, 1718), pp 101-102. Collier, A Defence of the Reasons, p 87

6

TRADITION

VERSUS

T H E S U F F I C I E N C Y OF

SCRIPTURE

rule for them to adhere to, for the guidance of our faith, and worship, and our behaviour in all respects." Any suggestion that tradition should be set in competition with scripture, or that it should be received pari pietas affectu, was dismissed by the non-Usagers as a mere doctrine of the Council of Trent, found neither in scripture nor in the doctrines of the primitive church. Tradition was to be used strictly as an assistant. Spinckes insisted that every Christian was to depend upon the written word as the only sure footing on which to depend, as scripture was 'the only way to have our superstructure firm and durable, like a house built upon a rock'. 2 The non-Usagers were adamant that a tradition or practice that was not described in the scriptures could never be made an essential duty of proper worship or of personal salvation. Spinckes demanded to know what 'tradition alone, when not evidently apostolical, will make that necessary, which is otherwise so?' 3 In general, the non-Usagers accepted tradition when it supported scripture, but they would never accept it as a rule of faith. Matthias Earbery explained that tradition was more like 'the hand-maid of the scriptures, constantly attending to explain or corroborate what was obscurely therein contained'. 4 The more aggressive of the non-Usagers believed that the use of tradition in instances where scripture was silent was a papal invention and could not be used to determine Christian obligation. The Usagers, for their part, could not understand why scripture and tradition should at all be mutually exclusive. Bishop Thomas Brett asked, rhetorically, 'May I not follow scripture and tradition too?' 5 Brett suggested to the nonUsagers that scripture was the chief, or principal, rule, but tradition should be recognized as a subordinate rule to be used as a guide in those instances of unclear doctrines and practices where the scripture was not clear or obvious. Collier explained that there were two ways to prove which parts of Christian worship were necessary to all succeeding generations: one was the authority of scripture, and the other was the general tradition or the practice of the ancient church for at least four of the five first centuries.6 Without specific scriptural

1 2 3 4

5 6

Nathaniel Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King Edward the Sixth's First Liturgy; Part I. By a Non-juror (John Morphew, London, 1718), p 2. Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason for Restoring, Part I, p 34. Nathaniel Spinckes, No Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King Edward VI's First Liturgy. By a Nonjuror (John Morphew, London, 1718), p 53. Matthias Earbery, Reflections upon Modern Fanaticism. In Fwo Letters to Doctor Brett [Concerning the New Separation, in which the four Controverted Points of the Essentialists are brought down to Mr. Leslie's Four Marks!, and the Author of a Pamphlet ironically entitled, Mr. Leslie's defence from some dangerous and erroneous principles. By Matthias Earbery, Presbyter of the Church of England (Na thaniel Mist, London, 1720), First Part, p 69. Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 143. Jeremy Collier, Vindication of the Reasons and Defence be. Part II. Being a Reply to the Second Part of No Sufficient Reason for Restoring Some Prayers and Directions of King Edward VI's First Liturgy. By the Author of the Reasons and Defence (James Bettenham, London, 1719), p 130.

7

T H E E L I C H A R I S T I C D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

command to the contrary, tradition was to be treated as authoritative with regard to the proper method of consecrating the eucharist. It was therefore the primary duty of the Usager bishops to adhere to the practices of the primitive church in order to ensure the salvation of those people under their care. The non-Usagers countered with the assertion that there was no scriptural proof, and only a questionable traditional proof, for the requirement of the Usages. Therefore, the non-Usagers would not accept that there was sufficient authority for the re-installation of the Usages into the English liturgy. The use of scripture was to be the only rule that the non-Usagers would follow to determine all the necessary and essential requirements of worship. Spinckes insisted that scripture was the only authority, and contained all requirements, for salvation.1 The non-Usagers warned that nothing was to be received as faith in Christian doctrine unless it was written in scripture, and that the Usagers, by denouncing this assertion, were risking their own salvation in the process. One of the moderate non-Usagers, Samuel Walker, felt that much use could be made of tradition but he warned that it was important not to rely upon it too much or to mistake it as having apostolic origin when it clearly did not. He reasoned that 'otherwise we may be led into fearful mistakes; the idolatry, and other manifold corruptions of the Church of Rome, are a deplorable instance thereof.'2 Walker argued that the proper question in the dispute was not whether tradition was useful in Christian faith or practice but whether there was any Christian duty, absolutely necessary to salvation, which was conveyed by tradition alone and not by scripture. This was a question that Spinckes firmly answered in the negative. No tradition could alter the nature of Christ's institution or make a practice necessary which Christ himself had not made so.3 In the example of the Usages, Spinckes argued that there was no tradition for these practices until several hundred years after the death of the Apostles. He therefore insisted that they should be dismissed. To this, the Usagers retorted that tradition was required properly to understand the scriptures, particularly for those items necessary for salvation. They argued that it was extremely important to apply the sense of the catholic church to the scriptures and use the catholic church as a guide to navigate through the labyrinth of opinions. Non-Usager Thomas Rogerson claimed that nothing was necessary for Christians except that which was made so by the will of God. In other words, where there was no law, there could be no obligation.4 God had made known his 1 2 3 4

Nathaniel Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King Edward the Sixth's First Liturgy; Part II. By a Non-juror (James Bettenham, London, 1718), p 1. S a m u e l Walker, Tradition is No Rule Now to Christians Either of Faith or Practicc. Being an Answer to Dr. Brett's Treatise on Tradition. By S. W. A.B. ( T h o m a s Bickerton, London, 1721), p 26. Spinckes, No Reason for Restoring, p 49. T h o m a s Rogerson, The Controversy about Restoring Some Prayers, &c. Summed up in Some Plain Propositions upon the Several heads of it. By a Private Person, at the Request of his friend. Noio published for the satisfaction of those, who want the Leisure, or Capacity, to read and examine what has been Completed upon this occasion (Thomas Bickerton, London, 1719), pp 6-7

8

TRADITION

VERSUS

THE SUFFICIENCY

OF

SCRIPTURE

will to his people in one of two ways, either by the light of reason, or by the light of revelation. In the case of the Usages, the will of God concerning these particular practices could not be known by reason, therefore the necessity of the Usages could only be proved from the revealed will of God. Since the scriptures were the only authentic and sacred records available that described the revealed will of God, whatever was made essential to worship must, necessarily, be written in the scriptures. Tradition could not supply any of the essentials of religion, because such a state would be wholly inconsistent with the perfection of the scriptures. Usager Brett complained that this method of reasoning was not correct. He stated that by the logic of the non-Usagers, it would be contrary to the justice of God to make certain practices and beliefs necessary, and yet not write those things in a language that could be understood. As he pointed out, 'if the scriptures are not written in a language which everybody understands, it is certain they cannot, even in what is most necessary to salvation, be understood by persons of the best capacity, who do not understand the language.'1 Brett reasoned that the authors of the scriptures lived in a different age and the things that they wrote were in no way obscure to those to whom they were directed: 'yet that they should at this distance of time become obscure to us where they were clear to them, is not to be wondered at, it being no more than all ancient writings are necessarily subject to.'2 In Brett's view, the scriptures of the New Testament were written for the use of those who already had been taught by tradition. This was why the scriptures were not as specific in details of practice as they might have been if they had been written for the instruction of those who knew nothing of Christianity. The non-Usagers would not accept the notion that the institution of such an important rite as the eucharist would not have all the necessary ingredients expressly detailed and explained for those who were to perform the service. Spinckes could not imagine that anyone would be expected to perform a necessary rite correctly without first being taught all the things that would pertain to it. He argued further that Christ only asked that people offer the eucharist according to his institution. The Usagers, he argued, produced tradition, which was based upon human opinion, to prove that the Usages were necessary components of the liturgy. In Spinckes's view, the Usagers were building their doctrinal position 'on sand'. 3 The Usagers would not accept that the Church Fathers, being early Christians who lived so close to the Apostles, could be misled into superstitious and unauthorized worship. These early Christians lived under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore to deny the sufficiency of early and general tradition was a dangerous opinion. The Usagers asked if it was really possible to be dutiful Christians and yet not respect the beliefs and practices of those in the church that lived before. 1 2 3

Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 29. Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 28. Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason for Restoring,

Part II, p 26-

9

THE EUCHAR1ST1C

D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

The Usagers were convinced that it would have been impossible for the early Church Fathers to have been all so unanimous in their opinion and testimony, unless a set of doctrines and practices had been delivered to them by the Apostles or apostolical bishops. If these early Christians had drawn up the creeds from the scriptures according to their own private opinion, they would not all have agreed upon and written such a short statement. If the creeds had been simply human inventions, then some of the creeds would have been as long and unclear as many contemporary confessions of faith and there would have been little agreement among them. Brett explained that a form of worship was delivered to every apostolic bishop and committed to his trust to keep it pure and unchanged. This form was given to the bishops before many books of the New Testament were written.1 Scripture could not, therefore, be used to determine all the requirements that make up the Christian obligation. The Usagers believed that members of the catholic church ought to be careful to choose only those doctrines which have been believed in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. Brett insisted that 'there is nothing truly catholic (as the word sufficiently declares) but what truly and fully comprehends all this.'2 However, the Usagers were very careful to distance themselves from the Church of Rome's use of tradition. Many of the Usagers made formal declarations of their difference from Rome. Campbell insisted that a tradition could only contain an obligation if it were proved to be both of apostolic origin and universal. He believed that this guarded against papal decrees and errors. The non-Usagers retorted that it was ludicrous to place the Church Fathers on the same level as the compilers of the scriptures. They insisted that if the Church Fathers had written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then there would not have been so many variations and different editions. The more extreme members of the non-Usagers even questioned the validity of using any of the documents relating to the early Church Fathers since they believed these were interpolated. Leslie complained that there was not any certainty as to the true authors of many of the works of the early church. 3 The more militant non-Usagers argued that they could not be certain whether any of the particular ancient writings were edited by the Church of Rome many hundreds of years later. Thus they dismissed the Fathers as irrelevant for the determination of essential Christian doctrine. The Usagers felt it was critical for their church to be in communion with the ancient church. Although the Usagers granted that the liturgies named as James, Peter, and Mark were not written by those Apostles, they would not accept the view that these liturgies were therefore spurious or of no authority. Brett argued that where these liturgies were found to have been used constantly in several churches, they constituted clear evidence of the practice of those churches. 1 2 3

Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, pp 115-116. Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 43. Charles Leslie, A Letter from the Reverend Mr. Charles Leslie, Concerning Morphew, London, 1719), p 12.

10

the New Separation

(John

TRADITION

VERSUS

T H E S U F F I C I E N C Y OF S C R I P T U R E

Consequently, where all liturgies agreed in any particular practice, they could be treated as an undoubted evidence of the universality of that practice. Brett believed that certain liturgies were named after apostles because they were the liturgies of the churches that those Apostles founded. Otherwise, he asked, how could various churches that were remote from each other have had such perfectly uniform liturgies? Brett explained that these 'apostolic' liturgies had been taken from the same foundation, 'that is, the "form of sound words", or traditional liturgy delivered to all of them by the Apostles.'1 The non-Usagers held a completely different attitude towards the ancient liturgies. They argued that all that could be learned from these various liturgies was that some of the Church Fathers looked upon them as true and directed their people accordingly. The fact remained that if these liturgies were not written specifically by the Apostles, as the Usagers admitted, then they could not be binding upon later Christianity. A tradition could not be true if it was inconsistent with Christ's institution. Of the ancient liturgies known at that time, the Usagers believed that the socalled 'Clementine' Liturgy, the liturgy found in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, was undoubtedly based upon an apostolic liturgy. Brett had concluded that the service in the Apostolic Constitutions was the oldest extant liturgy. Although many Usagers admitted that the Clementine liturgy was not written before Basil's time, some forty or fifty years after the Council of Nicea, Brett argued that there was sufficient evidence that this liturgy was used long before that time, even in the days of the Apostles. Brett stated that a prototypical form of the ancient liturgies had been handed down to the bishops who then transcribed it through the generations. He insisted that 'the eucharistical office in the Apostolical Constitutions, is the standard and test by which all others are tried.' 2 Usager John Griffin believed that the Apostolic Constitutions were originally written as a collection of traditions, orders, and pastoral instructions delivered by the Apostles to the bishops and priests of the church.3 The Usagers stressed that these memorials were collected by an early, judicious, and impartial hand and remained in their original purity. Although the Constitutions might not have been actually written by any Apostle, they contained the sense and substance of that liturgical service that was used and delivered to the church by the Apostles.

1 2

3

Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 125. T h o m a s Brett, A Collection of the Principle Liturgies, used by the Christian Church, in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist particularly the ancient, viz. the Clementine, the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, S. Chrysostoiu, S. Basil, &'c. Translated . . . by several hands. With a dissertation upon them, showing their usefulness and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and interpolations (Richard King, London, 1720), p 25. J o h n Griffin, The Common Christian Instructed in some Necessary Points of Religion: In a dialogue between a clergyman and Layman of different Communions: In Answer to Mr. S.D.'s Abridgment of the controversy, &c. with an Appendix, containing some remarks upon the Reverend Mr. Samuel Downes's historical Account of the Reviews of the Liturgy of the Church of England (John Morphew, London, 1722), p 45.

11

THE EUCHAR1ST1C

DOCTRINE

OF T H E LATER

NONJURORS

The non-Usagers complained that tradition was all that these Constitutions could claim for authority. Spinckes argued that the Constitutions were written at too late a period to be of an apostolic authority: 'and I may justly add, the authority of them has been always disputed; and at best they only contain a great part of the worship and discipline of the primitive church.'1 It did not appear to the non-Usagers that the liturgy was ever used in any church and therefore could not be used as proof of universal practice. They were also uncertain as to when the Apostolic Constitutions were written. Spinckes complained that the Clementine liturgy was 'generally looked upon to be interpolated', and therefore very little could be learned from this writing. 2 Samuel Walker complained of the Apostolic Constitutions that 'the title is spurious, the author of it is unknown, and the constitutions, of which it is part, is a wicked piece, wretchedly interpolated'.3 According to the non-Usagers, the ancient liturgies used by the Usagers were no more authoritative than any of the other writings of the church Fathers in matters of essential doctrine.

1 2

3

Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason for Restoring, Part I, p 89. Nathaniel Spinckes, A Reply to the Vindication of the Reason and Defence, &c. Being a Farther Proof that there is No Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King Edward VPs First Liturgy; Nor For Introducing a Nezo Communion Office in it's stead. By " Nonjuror ( T h o m a s Bickerton, London, 1720), p 65. Walker, The Doctrine of the Eucharist Stated, p 46.

12

3

The Usager Liturgy of 1718 In 1718, the Usagers took the opportunity to undertake a thorough revision of the 1662 service based upon the ancient liturgies. The title of this new Usager service, The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion (1718), is significant in that the authors were unwilling to use the word 'Mass' as in the 1549 liturgy.1 The Usagers followed closely the 1549 Communion service but also incorporated features of the 1552 and 1662 English liturgies and, to a much lesser extent, the 1559 English and 1637 Scottish services, as well as the ancient liturgies. The 1549 English liturgy began with a series of preliminary rubrics. These were retained in the 1718 Usager liturgy but there was an additional rubric for the disposition of communicants that required that 'every priest shall take care not to admit any to the holy sacrament of the eucharist, but those he knows to be in the communion of the church, or else is certified thereof by sufficient testimony'. The altar, as it was called, was to stand at the east end of the chapel with a fair white linen cloth. The priest and the people faced the altar except when the priest was directed to face or kneel before the altar. In those cases, the priest was to position himself on the north side of the altar. As in 1549, the Usager service began with an Introit Psalm according to the season of the year. Unlike the established liturgy, the Usager service then continued with the Salutation ('the Lord be with you'), which was followed by an adaptation of the Kyries (three-fold rather than nine-fold) during which the people were to kneel with their faces towards the altar. The service proceeded, as in the established service, with the Lord's Prayer and Collect for Purity ('unto whom all hearts be open'). The Usagers then inserted the Summary of the Law in place of the 1552 Ten Commandments and the singlefold Kyries. This was an innovation, but the Usagers complained that it was not correct to have introduced the Ten Commandments into the altar service, since they had never been used in a Christian liturgy before and the Fourth Commandment, regarding the Sabbath, did not seem to be directed to Christians. The Usagers, as in 1662, said the Collect for the King before the Collect of the Day. This was the reverse of the 1549 service. The Epistle, Gospel, Nicene Creed and the sermon (or homily) followed then as in 1662. The Usagers subsequently followed the obligatory sermon with the three exhortations of the established service, with the only difference being two changes to the first exhortation. Instead of an unworthy reception resulting in 'damnation', it resulted in 'condemnation'. The second change was that 'and open his grief' was changed to 'and confess and open his sin and grief'. It should also be 1

A copy of the liturgy can be found in W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Anglican Eighteenth Centuries'(S.P.C.K., London, 1958).

13

Liturgies

of the Seventeenth

and

THE

EUCHARISTIC

DOCTRINE

OF

THE

LATER

NONJURORS

noted that in the Usager liturgy, almost all references to 'minister' were changed to 'priest'. The Usagers kept all of the offertory sentences from the established liturgy except the two longest, which they substituted with two short verses teaching generosity to the poor. The Usagers also included, from the 1637 service, four of Wedderburn's sentences and all, except the longest, of Laud's sentences retained from the liturgy of 1559.1 The priest was then to prepare the bread and mix water with the wine in view of the people. An offertory prayer, based on the Liturgy of St Basil, was then read which identified the elements with the unbloody sacrifice. The service continued with the Salutation, Sursum Corda ('lift up your hearts'), Preface, Sanctus ('holy, holy, holy'), and Benedictus Qui Venit Cblessed is he'), as in 1549. At this point, the Usagers proceeded to their eucharistic prayer, which began with a thanksgiving for the whole salvation history from creation to redemption. With this doxology, the Usagers completely abandoned Cranmer and the Roman canon and based this prayer instead upon the corresponding prayer in the Liturgy of St James. The Usagers followed mostly the liturgy of 1549 for the anamnesis. But for the prayer of oblation and the epiclesis, they used the prayer found in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions. The two latter elements were moved to a position after the anamnesis. The service continued with the Prayer for the Church from the 1549 liturgy, which included a prayer for the dead and thanksgiving for the saints. This was followed by the Lord's Prayer, Pax (the Peace), Invitation (exhortation to communicants), General Confession, Absolution, and Comfortable Words from the 1549 service. The Usagers then used the Prayer of Humble Access, but, like the 1662 service, omitted the words 'in these holy mysteries'. The Communion followed and used the words of 1549: 'The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life', and T h e blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life'. Finally, the Usager service concluded with the Salutation, the 1549 Post-Communion Thanksgiving, the Gloria in Excelsis. ('Glory be to God on High'), and the Peace and Blessing.

1

Edward Echlin, The Anglican Euchariit in Ecumenical Perspective (Seabury Press, New York, 1967), p. 186.

14

4

The Eucharist as a Saeramerit It is important to keep in mind that the Usagers and non-Usagers held different views of the eucharist as a sacrament. The Usagers insisted that the inclusion of the Usages in the eucharistic service was of the highest consequence because these practices were concerned with the very substance of Christian worship. Brett explained that these Usages were of apostolic origin and were absolutely necessary for catholic worship: 'I am fully convinced that all of these are necessary primitive and catholic parts of divine worship, and therefore that no human authority can abolish or dispense with our obligation to the practice of them.' 1 The Usagers believed that there were several essential practices, which were not found in scripture. The four Usages in question were distinguished from many other primitive usages that were not insisted upon because the latter were only circumstantials. Campbell explained that as a sacrament, that is, as a method by which grace was received, it was essential that the eucharist have proper ingredients and a proper form of consecration. Although eucharistic worship was absolutely necessary, Campbell admitted that the form of that worship was not recorded in scripture but was left for the Apostles to determine. However, he insisted that when the practice of the Holy Apostles was known, as it was with the primitive liturgies, such as the Apostolic Constitutions, people were not at liberty to practise otherwise. The non-Usagers argued that the rites of the Jewish laws and the gospel (for example, circumcision, baptism, and the eucharist) were not instituted for their own sake, but to denote the inward and spiritual meaning behind them. The sacrifices of the Jewish law were only 'typical' of the one true and real sacrifice of Christ, and only the latter could take away sin. The institution of the Lord's Supper was 'figurative' of the spiritual nourishment of souls by faith in what Christ did and suffered in the flesh. Non-Usager Leslie admitted that if God had ordained the Usages as a means whereby the people received spiritual benefits, then, of course, they ought to be practised. However, in reality the Usages were only the letter or outward forms of religion. The inward part to which they refer is the spirit of religion. Leslie did not mean that rites were unimportant. Indeed, he explained that as the separation of the body and spirit in man resulted in death, so when the spirit of religion is separated from the letter of the law, religion is dead: 'The letter or body of it is without life, and a loathsome carcass of religion in the sight of God: therefore we must preserve the outward for the sake of the inward, 1

T h o m a s Brett, The Divine Right of Episcopacy: and the Necessity of an Episcopal Commission for Preaching Cod's Word, and for the Valid Ministration of the Christian Sacraments, Proved from the Holy Scriptures, and the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church: together with an Impartial Account of the False Principles of the Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists, Concerning the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters: also the Valid Succession of our English Bishops Vindicated (Henry Clements, London, 1718), pp 195-196.

15

THE EUCHAR1ST.1C D O C T R I N E

OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

if we separate them, it is death.' 1 Yet, Leslie was assured that maintaining outward forms would not raise the law above the spirit and lessen devotion to Christ at the sacrament, because the more spiritually the eucharist was understood, the more it would be truly known. He was careful to make sure that the Usagers understood the difference between the spirit and the letter and would not be 'feeding on the shell instead of the kernel, yet preserving the shell with care, as knowing that without the shell the kernel would not grow.'2 Earbery noted that a type was not grace itself, but a préfiguration of grace to come. A type was defined as a prophecy that had an outward sign and institution that was to be evidenced when that which was prophesied actually happened. It was also a pledge or token of God's favour. Earbery explained that grace was understood in two senses in scripture. First, it was the assistance that God sent forth by the Holy Spirit to overthrow sin. Secondly, it was the message of the gospel along with the possibility of immortality. A sacrament, to Earbery, was a 'conveyor of grace'. The grace of God was bestowed through the sacrament. He argued that the eucharist was an 'outward means' of spiritual grace, that is, it was a conveyance from which grace was bestowed. It was the spiritual means and not the outward means that conferred grace: 'For how can senseless matter bestow grace? But God may make the performance of an outward institution, the inseparable attendant to his grace.' 3 The Mixed Cup One of the Usages that the Usagers insisted upon restoring was the chalice mixed with water and wine. At the institution of the eucharist, the Evangelists mentioned only that Christ took bread and wine and called them his body and blood. No mention was made of whether the bread was leavened or whether the wine was mixed. Yet the Usagers felt so strongly that the mixed cup was necessary, that they were willing to break communion with the non-Usagers on this issue. The Usagers believed that the mixed cup was an absolutely essential ingredient for the sacrament of the eucharist. The substance of the cup, water and wine, could not be altered. Christ's cup was mixed and therefore the eucharistic cup must be mixed. Usager Thomas Wagstaffe argued that the Jews used a mixed cup at the time of Christ in Palestine.4 This was taken as evidence to show that there was an obligation to repeat this practice. The duty of mixing the cup was interpreted as being part of the institution of the eucharist because

1 2 3 4

Leslie, A Letter from the Reverend Mr. Leslie, p 19. Leslie, A Letter from Mr. Leslie, p 20. Earbery, A Letter to the Author of Mr. Leslie's Defence, p 25. T h o m a s Wagstaffe, The Necessity of an Alteration: or, I. The Mixture of the Sacramental Cup, II. The Oblation of the Elements as the Representative Sacrifice of Christ's Body, III. The Invocation of the Holy Ghost Upon Them, IV. The Recommending the Dead into the Cucharistical Commemoration, Proved to be Essential Parts of the Christian Worship, from the Scriptures Interpreted by the Testimony and Practice of the Primitive Church (James Bettenham, London, 1718), p 51.

16

THE

EUCHARIST

AS A

SACRAMENT

as a Jew, Christ would have necessarily used the paschal cup. However, it was Christ's words, touto poieite, "'do this" in the remembrance of me', that showed the necessity. Christ ordered the people to do what he did: he mixed the cup, therefore everybody must mix the cup. The Usagers stated that although the English Church had not commanded the use of the mixed cup, it was nowhere forbidden. Brett tried to convince the non-Usagers that 'what was neither commanded nor forbidden is left indifferent, and may be done or not done without offending against the law of the Church of England.' 1 Therefore since the mixture was believed to be essential and not contrary to the Church of England, the Usagers argued that all Nonjuring priests should use the mixture as a means of reconciliation between the two sides. Although the Usagers stressed that the mixture of water and wine in the eucharistic cup was a necessary component in Christian worship, they were, however, insistent that this doctrine was entirely inconsistent with the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. Wagstaffe acknowledged that Thomas Aquinas believed that the water in the cup was changed into the blood of Christ, but he insisted that Aquinas founded this opinion not upon any traditional evidence, but merely upon the philosophical arguments of the Schoolmen. 2 The non-Usagers strongly dissented from the Usager opinion about the necessity of the mixed cup. Spinckes accepted that wine was plainly instituted by Christ, but whether any water was mixed with it was not implied in scripture. He challenged the Usagers to demonstrate how something not prescribed in scripture was essential to the worship of the church. The consensus among the non-Usagers was that breaking communion because of the lack of the mixed cup was contrary to the nature of the sacrament. Samuel Walker was a non-Usager with more moderate views. He stated that he would have been pleased to have used the mixture if it had been presented to him by a competent authority or by Convocation. 3 He admitted that the use of the mixed cup would make the Church of England closer in practice to the ancient and primitive church. However, even with a convocational decree, he would not have accepted the mixture as necessary, because he could not declare a practice to be necessary that was not described in scripture. Only that which represented the blood of Christ, that is, the wine, was necessary. As a result, Walker condemned the Usagers for breaking communion with the non-Usagers on the issue of the mixed cup. Another moderate non-Usager, William Scott, did not attack the mixture in itself, but rather its necessity. He insisted that the eucharist was complete without it. Scott admitted that wine

1

2 3

Thomas Brett, The Great Necessaries of Public Worship in the Christian Church, Expressly and Manifestly allowed and provided for in the Use of the present Liturgy; in Answer to a late pamphlet, e'ntituTd, The Indispensable Obligation, &c. with an Appendix, wherein the Union opposed by that Author is justified by several passages extracted from writings formerly published in Defence of the Mixture, &c. (London: [n pub.], 1733), p 14. Wagstaffe, The Necessity of an Alteration, pp 72-73. Walker, Tradition is no Rule, p 48.

17

THE

EUCHAR1ST1C

DOCTRINE

OF

THE

LATER

NONJURORS

and water together would constitute a proper eucharistic element, but he would not accept that water was, in any measure, a constituent matter of the eucharist.1 Most of the non-Usagers were not as tolerant as Walker or Scott. They would not use, and did not like, the mixture. Charles Leslie claimed that by adding water to the eucharistic wine and declaring it essential, the Usagers were enemies of the Reformation and the Church of England. Wine was a eucharistic element and water was not. To claim otherwise, as the Usagers did, was an attack on the Church and its liturgy. Leslie claimed that the Usagers had effectively 'unchurched' the Reformation by insisting upon the mixed cup.2 Leslie insisted that any essential ingredient of the eucharist would have been specifically mentioned in scripture. Earbery agreed with Leslie. He stated that a church without a eucharist was defective, but that the scriptures explicitly required bread and wine, not water. Water could not be essential to the sacrament because it did not have divine sanction. Therefore, the use of water was contrary to the eucharist. In a similar way, non-Usager William Snatt taught that in the eucharist only bread and wine were to be used. The scriptures did not specify whether the bread was to be leavened or unleavened nor whether the wine was to be mixed. However, if water had been necessary, Christ or his Apostles would have specifically taught it.3 Non-Usager George Smith, writing at the end of the Usages Controversy, tried to reconcile both sides. He declared that he saw nothing offensive or unlawful in the mixture. He argued that it was not disclaimed by the Church of England nor condemned in the Book of Common Prayer. Many of the nonUsagers objected to the mixture because the 1549 rubric that ordered the mixture was removed in 1552. Therefore, they insisted that the church intended to remove the mixture and consequently such an order for the mixture must be contrary to the 'Second' Reformation. 4 Smith explained, however, that the

1

2 3

4

William Scott, The New Separation from the Church of England Groundless; Being a Vindication of the No Necessity of Altering the Common-Prayer: in Answer to a late pamphlet, entill'd The Necessity of an Alteration (James Bettenham, London, 1719), p 28. Leslie, A Letter from the Reverend Mr. Leslie, pp 21-22. William Snatt, Mr. Collier's Desertion Discuss'd: or the Holy Offices of Worship in the Liturgy of the Church of England Defended, Against the Bold (but Vain) Attacks of that Gentleman, Late of Her Communion, now of his own. in a letter to a friend (Charles Rivington, London, [n.d.]), p 36. Brett explained that Thomas Cranmer and the 'First' Reformers wanted to strengthen their position against Rome and so they enlisted the services of Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Paul Fagius to purge Roman doctrines out of the liturgy. However, the English Church could only be a valid church, with valid sacraments, if it remained true to primitive doctrine. Brett felt strongly about this point and argued that the greatest folly of the English Church was its 'Second' Reformation. Men like Martin Luther, Huldreich Zwingli, John Calvin, and their followers made the scriptures the only rule of faith in their reformation, although without the benefit of interpretation by the traditions of the ancient churches. These 'Second' Reformers, Brett argued, ignored or purposely destroyed the ancient interpretation of scripture and doctrine (Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 46). The non-Usagers, on the other hand, defended the Second Reformation upon the grounds that it conformed to the supremacy of scripture over tradition. The Second Reformers had thereby purified the English Church against Roman corruptions. Contrary to the Usagers, the non-Usagers insisted that these Reformers had wisely removed unscriptural practices at the Second Reformation (Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason, Part 2, p 5).

18

T H E E U C H A R I S T AS A

SACRAMENT

Second Reformers struck out the rubric about the mixture because they saw it as a relic of popery, but this did not necessarily mean that it was forbidden. The mixture was not commanded in scripture and therefore, the Second Reformers wanted to leave it to the discretion of the priest to use whatever sort of wine he preferred, whether mixed or pure. Smith felt it was in the best interest of the non-Usagers for all Nonjurors to use the mixed cup for the sake of unity. It was Smith's view that, at the time of the 1732 settlement, none of the non-Usagers held the mixture to be unlawful: There are none now among us, God be praised, who are such enemies to the pious practice of the primitive church as to think the mixture is unlawful.'1 It should be realized that, contrary to the opinion of Smith, the non-Usagers could not all have been of the same mind about the lawfulness of the mixture. The minority of non-Usagers that accepted the settlement (the Unionists) would only allow the Usagers to use the mixture in private, and would not mix the cup themselves. The remaining non-Usagers did not accept the 1732 settlement and joined Bishop John Blackburne (the leader of the extreme non-Usager party) in refusing communion to all those that used the mixed cup. The Epiclesis The Usagers also insisted that the inclusion of an epiclesis, or a prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the elements, was an essential requirement for the sacrament of the eucharist. They taught that the prayer was essential for the consecration, and therefore the validity, of the eucharist. This was a bold statement because in insisting upon the epiclesis, the Usagers had, in effect, discounted the established English liturgy as incomplete for obtaining the benefits of Christ's passion. This made a possible future reconciliation with the non-Usagers, or even the Church of England, very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the Usagers viewed the epiclesis as important enough to refuse communion with any church that did not use it. The non-Usagers were appalled by the accusation that they and the Established Church were performing an invalid eucharist. They would never accept that the epiclesis was necessary nor would they allow it to be used. The Reunion Settlement of 1732 specified that the Usagers could interpret the eucharistic prayer in such a way as to assume an inclusion of an invocation of the Holy Spirit. However, a specific petition to that effect was forbidden. The Usagers insisted upon the epiclesis on the ground that all blessings were conveyed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Collier reasoned that a blessing in scripture meant praying for a blessing. Since the Holy Spirit was the conveyor of divine blessings, the blessing of the eucharistic elements must be interpreted as praying for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them.2 He argued that the 1

2

G e o r g e Smith, Two Discourses wherein it is Proved that the Church of England Blesseth and Offereth the Eucharistic Elements. With a Preface, showing in what sense She allows Praying for the Saints departed: and that mixt wine is not contrary to any of her Rubrics (with a letter from O . Brett to the author) (London: [n. pub.], 1732), p x x i . Collier, Vindication of the Reasons, Part II, p 114.

19

THE

EUCHAR1ST1C

DOCTRINE

OF

THE

LATER

NONJURORS

Holy Spirit formed Christ's body and descended upon him at his baptism, and that Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with the power to work miracles. Similarly, Wagstaffe insisted that there could be no sacrament without the consecration and that the epiclesis was an essential part of that consecration. Therefore the epiclesis, or invocation, must be a necessity for the validity of the sacrament.1 Griffin explained that Christ's saying of the bread, which he blessed, 'this is my body, which is given for you', and of the cup, which he had blessed, 'this is my blood, which is shed for you', declared that he had made them his body and blood by blessing them and offering them to God for the sake of humanity. Consequently, since Christ commanded that all should be done at the eucharist as he had done, the blessing of the elements was essential to their consecration. Since the Holy Spirit was the conveyor of all divine blessings, it followed naturally that the Holy Spirit descended upon the elements at the Last Supper, and made them Christ's body and blood.2 The Usagers believed that the epiclesis was a necessary component in the consecration in addition to the words of institution and the oblation of the elements. The words of institution were necessary but not sufficient to the consecration, which was progressive and required all three components, because the performance of the eucharist must include all that Christ did and commanded to be done. Griffin pointed out that as the bread and mixed cup were made the 'spiritual and energetical' body and blood of Christ by the influence of the Holy Spirit upon them, it was the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the elements that helped change the elements to the body and blood of Christ.3 Wagstaffe remarked that the bread was, 'in some sense', the body of Christ after the recitation of the words of institution. The use of these words by a commissioned priest was seen as an authoritative 'intention' to make the bread the body of Christ. The oblation of the bread, which was set apart, derived a higher state of sanctification because the elements were seen to be in a more solemn context and dedicated to God. The invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the elements, thus offered, was believed to be the highest and 'last' act of consecration. This last prayer then fully consecrated the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. Wagstaffe believed that all three components were necessary parts of the consecration and that this view could be substantiated from the testimony and practice of the primitive church.4 The non-Usagers, on the other hand, believed that Christ consecrated the eucharist of bread and wine as his body and blood by a thanksgiving prayer and by his divine word, and then commanded all to do as he did. They viewed a prayer for the invocation of the Holy Spirit as directly contrary to what Christ

1 2 3 4

Wagstaffe, The Necessity of an Griffin, The Common Christian Griffin, The Common Christian Wagstaffe, The Necessity of an

Alteration, p 137. Instructed, p 105. Instructed, p 101. Alteration, p 141.

T H E E U C H A R I S T AS A

SACRAMENT

commanded, and rejected the epiclesis as a non-scriptural interpolation: T h e words of institution then rightly interpreted, do manifest that the holy Jesus sanctified the sacramental bread and wine by a thanksgiving prayer, contrary to the prayer of invocation; which is therefore to be rejected with indignation, as being contrary to the divine institution of the Lord's Supper.'1 Walker described how Christ's actions at the institution of the eucharist demonstrated a consecration by 'thanksgiving'. Christ set the bread and wine apart to be the outward parts of the sacrament. He proceeded to sanctify the bread and wine and made them the symbols of his body and blood by giving thanks to God. He then consecrated those symbols and made them his mystical body and blood by an act of thanksgiving and by his divine word with the saying of the words of institution. In order to consecrate the elements, the officiating minister must do as Christ did. In accordance with Christ's commands and actions, the priest was to set the bread and wine apart on the table. He was then to sanctify them with the words of institution so that they would become the symbols of the body and blood of Christ. At this point, the priest did not use his own words, but Christ's words, by reciting the words of institution. Thus, the priest showed by what authority he acted, and by whom the consecration was perfected. It was by commission from Christ that he performed the rites of the eucharist, as it was the divine word and power of Christ that first made the elements his body and blood in a mystery: These symbols were first made the body and blood of Christ by acts of thanksgiving and his own consecrating word and power: and are still, by virtue of that original consecration, the divine word and power, the divine designation and appointment of the adorable Jesus, made the authentic substitutes, the perfect representatives of his body and blood whenever we celebrate the eucharist according to our Saviour's institution.'2 The non-Usagers denied that the bread and wine were made the body and blood of Christ by an epiclesis. Rather, the elements were consecrated by Christ's 'act' of thanksgiving that made them the representative body and blood of Christ. Leslie insisted that the elements of the sacrament should only be regarded as symbols or representations of Christ. It was indeed argued by the non-Usagers that the bread and cup were the body and blood of Christ sacramentally. The body of Christ was not eaten naturally, as they believed was the case in transubstantiation, but in a 'heavenly and spiritual manner'. The non-Usagers affirmed that the wicked would be guilty of the body and blood of Christ because only the faithful receive Christ's body and share in his salvation.3 Smith explained that the faithful received grace through the consecrated elements. However, he was careful to insist that the consecrated elements of bread and wine were only signs that conveyed grace.4 1 2 3 4

Walker, Tradition is No Rule, p 37 Walker, The Doctrine of the Eucharist Smith, Two Discourses, p 14. Smith, Two Discourses, pp 14-15.

Stated, pp 70-71.

21

T H E E U C H A R 1 S T 1 C D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJIIRORS

The non-Usagers expressly declared that the consecrated bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ only to 'worthy' receivers. Though they still retained their own nature and substance, the elements of bread and wine were raised to the high dignity of being the body and blood of Christ. It was argued that this was affirmed in the Book of Common Prayer because it ordered the priest to take up the bread and cup and to lay his hand upon them and to declare that they were Christ's body and blood. However, the non-Usagers carefully avoided, as Walker put it, the 'absurdities of the Latin, and the extravagancy of the Greek Church'. 1 They did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation as described by the Roman Church because they believed it was contrary to reason. The non-Usagers were also careful to express categorically, that the consecration was not performed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, as implied in the liturgy of the Greek Church, because that would be impossible to be known without divine revelation. Scott explained that this performance of the consecration by the invocation of the Holy Spirit was not the doctrine of the Church of England nor of the rest of the Western church and he vowed that, 'till I see no better reasons than hitherto I have met with, I shall not differ from them.' 2 To the non-Usagers, the sacrament was a mystery, which as Samuel Walker explained, could not be known: 'I am verily persuaded, that whoever attempts to explain this mystery, or that of the Trinity, will plunge themselves into most fatal errors.' 3 Though he was a moderate non-Usager, Walker issued a stern warning of the potential dangers of using the prayer of invocation: 'I am of the opinion, that no one can make use of this prayer without a vast deal of assurance, and a piece of presumption highly criminal; for this prayer of invocation contains an explanation of the mystery of the sacrament. . . This prayer ought to utterly be rejected.'4 The non-Usagers believed that neither tradition nor reason could ever solve the mystery of the sacrament of the eucharist. They argued that the Eastern Church had no more knowledge, right, or authority, to explain an unexplainable sacrament than the Western church. Walker declared that if the doctrine of transubstantiation implied 'greater absurdities', the insistence upon the epiclesis demonstrated 'as notorious and as high a piece of presumption'. 5 Although the non-Usagers admitted that the consecrated bread and wine were the mystical body and blood of Christ, they rejected the idea that the elements became Christ's body in any real sense at all. In outlining the non-Usager view, Walker argued that it was safe to say that the bread and wine were made the body and blood of Christ by

1 2

3 4 5

Walker, Tradition is No Rule , p 4. William Scott, No Necessity to Alter the Common-Prayer; or, the Unreasonableness of the New Being a full Answer to Two Late Books; the One Call'd, Reasons for Restoring Some Prayers and be. and the Other, the Defence of the Reasons (John Morphew, London, n.d.), p 43. Walker, Tradition is No Rule, p 4. Walker, Tradition is No Rule, p 40. Walker, Tradition is No Rule, p 50.

22

Separation, Directions,

THE E U C H A R I S T AS A

SACRAMENT

Christ's thanksgiving prayer and divine word by virtue of his divine consecration, designation, and substitution, performed by a commissioned priest. He warned, however, that the doctrines of memorialism, consubstantiation, transubstantiation, and the three-fold consecration of the Usagers were false and dangerous doctrines: 'I think, that they who say that the consecrated bread is the body and blood of Christ only in a metaphoric sense, do really err. That they who say that the glorified body and blood of Christ are united to the bread and wine in the eucharist, do greatly err. That they who say that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are really changed into the very body and blood of Christ, do miserably err. And that they who say that the sacramental bread and wine are made the mystical body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them to make them so, do strongly err." The Usagers were indignant at being represented by their opponents as 'explaining' the mystery of sacrament. They claimed that it must be through the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ, since the Holy Spirit was the power of all blessings. The institution of the eucharist made necessary the use of the bread and the mixed cup, and the primitive church along with the First Reformed Church of England expressly prayed that the bread and wine may be made Christ's body and blood. The Usagers did not concern themselves with the modus or manner of the process by w h i c h they were transformed. T h e y rejected both consubstantiation and transubstantiation as explanations of the process. Brett explained the Usager position: 'I do not believe the bread and wine to be annihilated, and the substance of them, the accidents remaining, to be changed into the natural body and blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered on the cross, and is now in heaven, which is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Neither do I believe with the Lutherans, that the substance of the bread and wine remaining, the very individual body and blood of Christ is by a certain ubiquity so united and incorporated with them, as to be eaten and drunk by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. Neither do I believe with the Calvinists, that the body and blood of Christ, which are now in heaven, are sacramentally or in an inconceivable manner, united to the bread and wine, so as to be received together with them by the faith of the communicants. But I do believe the bread and wine to be the only body and blood appointed to be received in the Holy Eucharist. And I believe them to be his sacramental flesh and blood, that is, the full and perfect representative of his body and blood, his very body and blood in power and effect.'2 Laurence declared that the omnipotent power of the Holy Spirit could and did make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ 'infinitely more than in bare

1 2

Walker, The Doctrine of the Eucharist Brett, Collection of Liturgies, p 169.

Slated, pp 83-84.

23

T H E E U C H A R 1 S T I C D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

signification, and mere representation'.1 The Usagers did not believe that when the primitive church pronounced the words, 'this is my body7, and 'this is my blood', the bread and wine were made either transubstantial or consubstantial with the body and blood of Christ. If Christ was present in the eucharist, by either changing the elements into his body and blood (as in transubstantiation) or by being united to them (as in consubstantiation) after the words of institution, there would have been no purpose for the early church to have a prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit in order to make the elements the body and blood of Christ The non-Usagers unanimously agreed that, contrary to the Usager view, the invocation was not of such importance and necessity that God could not be worshipped without it. However, there were differences of view between moderate and hard-line non-Usagers. Some of the more moderate non-Usagers, such as Scott and Rogerson, found nothing especially offensive in the invocation of the Holy Spirit in itself, but questioned whether it was proper for the Usagers to break off communion for the lack of it. This group believed that to pray for a consecration from God before enacting the commanded acts of the institution was seen as a pious prayer, but that it was wrong to claim, as the Usagers taught, that there could be no eucharist without it. The eucharist was not defective even though it lacked an epiclesis: 'For my own part, I own it a good prayer, and was it in our liturgy I should think it my duty to make use of it. But the question is not, whether the prayer be good, but whether it be essentially necessary. For if it be not necessary, your separation has been no tolerable pretence.' 2 These moderate non-Usagers argued that as long as there was no essential defect in the forms, the matter must be left to those with the proper authority, both in church and state, to make any improvement. Non-Usager Rogerson argued that the English service contained all that Christ commanded. Therefore, those that used the established liturgy would be free from the guilt of innovation or omission. By this reasoning, the administration of the eucharist with the established liturgy, in a unified church, would be much more acceptable to God than its administration by a perfect and primitive form in a state of schism. Spinckes distanced himself from these moderates by explaining that the question was not whether the epiclesis was a good and inoffensive petition in itself, nor whether if it was in the liturgy it might not be properly used, nor even whether or not it might be proposed at a convocation. The question that the nonUsagers had to ask themselves was whether it was of such importance and necessity, as the Usagers insisted, that they could not worship God without it. The obvious answer to Spinckes and to all the non-Usagers was that it was not.

1

2

Roger Laurence, The Indispensable Obligation of ministering Expressly and Manifestly the Great Necessaries of Public Worship in the Christian Church, Together with a Detection of Talse Reasonings in Dr. B T's Printed letter, to the Author of Two Discourses. And that Doctor's inconsistent notions of the present Liturgy of the Church of England. Addressed to the Doctor by one of his friends (London: n.p., 1732), p 29. Scott, No Necessity to Alter the Common Prayer, p 40.

24

THE

EUCHARIST

AS

A

S A C R A M E N T

Spinckes was one of the hard line non-Usagers along with, for instance, Leslie and Earbery, who saw no good at all in introducing the epiclesis. On the contrary, the insistence of the Usagers upon the epiclesis could, and certainly would, cause a great deal of harm by confusing the people as to whether their salvation was in jeopardy in the Church of England. Earbery also warned against the dangerous doctrines that could arise because of this prayer. He argued that the epiclesis was unnecessary to the consecration and pointed out that the consecration was actually an act of 'substitution'. The role of the bread and wine, as spiritual food, was substituted for their role as natural food. Earbery was convinced that there was no actual conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, except as representations of Christ's body and blood: 'To substitute one body to represent another, requires no conversion, nor, indeed, any actual invocation; for, the consecration is the very act of substitution, and the real, uncorrupted and pious invocation, that the Spirit would attend the mystery, may be a very pious and inoffensive prayer, if it does not border upon that ensnaring and dangerous word conversion.' 1 The Usagers claimed that their beliefs regarding the epiclesis and the threefold consecration had nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of the Church of Rome. Collier declared that, whereas the Church of Rome maintained that the consecration was completed by pronouncing the words: hoc est corpus meum, 'this is my body'; and hie est calix sanguis mei, 'this is the cup of my blood', without any prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Usagers believed that the eucharistie elements received 'a farther mystic force' by the invocation prayer.2 The Church of Rome taught that the natural body of Christ was offered to God in the eucharist, while the Usagers asserted the substance of the bread and wine remained and that only the sacramental or representative body and blood of Christ were offered. Several years after the Pamphlet War, George Smith attempted to expedite a reunion with the Usagers. He argued that the Book of Common Prayer could be interpreted as already containing the invocation. By this reasoning, it was hoped that the Usagers would be able to worship with the non-Usagers and yet maintain their own interpretation of the consecration. Using both Collier's argument that 'blessing' meant 'praying for a blessing' and the fact the English Church prayed for a blessing upon the elements, he asserted that the Holy Spirit was a conveyor of the divine blessings. The Church of England, he argued, prayed for a blessing of the Holy Spirit upon the elements, whether those words were there or not. The fact that he was abandoned by most of the non-Usagers after the failed Settlement Agreement was testimony to his naïveté.

1 2

Earbery, Reflections Collier, Vindication

upon Modern Fanaticism, First Part, p 131. of the Reasons, Part II, p 160.

25

5

The Eucharist as a Sacrifice To the Usagers, the eucharist was not only a sacrament, but both a sacrifice and a sacrament. This, it was argued, was the doctrine of the catholic church in all ages and had been received from the Apostles. It was also viewed as the doctrine of the majority of those in the Church of England who composed the first prayer book of Edward VI. The Usagers observed that in the institution of the eucharist, Christ offered the bread and the cup as pledges of his body and blood to be slain and shed for all people when he used the words, This is my body which is given (or offered) for you.' He did not offer them by speaking the words of institution, since those were addressed to the Apostles and were a declaration of what he had then done. Griffin noted that the words of institution were written in the present tense, 'is given (and shed) for you', and not in the future tense which would have been 'will be given for you'.1 He claimed that Christ had already offered his sacrifice to God through the Holy Spirit before pronouncing those words to the Apostles. The Usagers claimed that Christ offered his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine and that he commanded the Apostles to make an oblation of the elements as a commemorative sacrifice of his body slain and his blood shed. The non-Usagers agreed that the eucharist was not only a sacrament, that is, an outward sign of inward grace conferred, but also a sacrifice, that is, of prayer and thanksgiving. However, they stressed that the eucharist, as a sacrifice, was not a repetition of the original sacrifice by Christ offered for the sins of the world and thus the non-Usagers viewed it as a 'representative' sacrifice and not a propitiatory one.2 They opposed the idea that Christ could be offered more than once or that Christ could be recrucified every time the elements were consecrated. Earbery argued that this would be contrary to the testimony of scripture that Christ died once for all people. He proceeded to explain the differences between the propitiatory sacrifices of the Jews, and the non-Usager eucharistic sacrifice. Every repetition of Jewish sacrifices was an action de novo whereas the non-Usager sacrifice was one and the same with that upon the cross: 'It is absurd therefore to say, that Christ is more than once offered up, or, that there is any fresh propitiation for our sins by the Eucharist; forgiveness, indeed, and grace, may follow the worthy receiving the same but to represent it with all the circumstances of a new complete sacrifice, is not supported by antiquity.'3 1 2

3

Griffin, The Common Christian Instructed, pp 114-115. There is no indication that the non-Usagers actually believed that the Usagers held this doctrine of a repetitive sacrifice; indeed the Usagers did not adhere to this view. This implication seems to have been directed at the u n w a r y reader. Earbery, Reflections upon Modern Fanaticism, First Part, pp 130-131.

26

THE

EUCHARIST

AS A

SACRIFICE

To the non-Usagers, the eucharist was Christ's 'representative' sacrifice in the same sense that the bread and wine were his 'representative' body and blood. It was the representation of his broken body and the representation of his shed blood that was given to God in the eucharist. The eucharist was both a sacrament and sacrifice, 'not in a literal and natural sense, but in a mystical, legal or covenant sense, by being the same thing to us with what it represents, in all the virtue, efficacy or benefits of it'. 1 Spinckes explained that the eucharist was a commemorative sacrifice that truly represented the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross and exhibited the benefits of his passion to the worthy and faithful communicant. This was, however, a figurative sacrifice.2 Earbery explained that, as a figure, it was a sign that pointed to a reality. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was real and yet it was also a sign that sins were forgiven.3 Thus Christ died for sins and his death was a sign that this was accomplished. The eucharist, to the non-Usagers, was therefore not only a representative but also a figurative sacrifice. Scott insisted that the eucharist was a sacrifice even though the Second Reformers removed the word 'sacrifice' from the established liturgy. These reformers performed all that Christ commanded them to do in his remembrance. Scott argued that to be a good Christian did not mean that one had to understand all the subtleties of eucharistic doctrine. One might be a worthy communicant, and a true disciple of Christ, but still have no knowledge of Jewish or Christian theology. The only thing that mattered in the performance of the eucharist was that the death and passion of Christ were truly commemorated and that all that Christ commanded was effectively performed: 'for religion does not consist in words, but things.' 4 Scott argued that there was nothing in the English Communion Service that was incompatible with the eucharist being a representative and figurative sacrifice. The non-Usagers argued that it was Christ's sacramental, and not his real and natural body, which he offered in the company of his disciples. And since his natural body was not then offered, the oblation that was made at that time could not be more than representative of that upon the Cross. Therefore Christ's oblation and the oblation of the elements in the eucharist could not be both one and the same oblation. The Prayer of Oblation The oblatory prayer, or the offering of the elements to God, was also necessary to the Usager concept of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The 1662 service contained an oblatory prayer, but it included no reference to the elements and was said after the distribution of the consecrated elements. The Usagers complained that in this position the prayer was, in fact, not oblatory at all. The non-Usagers, on the other hand, insisted that an oblatory prayer was not necessary either for the consecration or the sacrifice. 1 2 3 4

Rogerson, The Controversy about Restoring, p 21. Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason, Part II, p 110. Earbery, A Letter to the Author of Mr. Leslie's Defence, p 23. Scott, Vindication of No Necessity, p 74.

27

THE

EUCHAR1ST1C D O C T R I N E

OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

The Usagers' claim that the prayer of oblation needed to be used was based on their understanding of the eucharist as a proper sacrifice. This prayer affirmed that Christ at his Last Supper offered the bread and wine to God as the symbols of his body and blood and commanded his Apostles to do the same. The oblation was a necessary offering of the consecrated elements, which were the sacramental body and blood of Christ, in memory of his sacrifice and passion.1 The Usagers did not believe that the established English liturgy of 1662 was a sacrificial rite, because it did not contain an oblatory prayer that was used before the distribution of the consecrated elements. Whereas in the liturgy of 1549, the oblatory prayer stood at the end of the consecration, in the liturgy of 1662 it was partly omitted, partly transposed, and moved to the postcommunion. The Usagers claimed that this prayer, in the order in which it originally stood, demonstrated and taught that the eucharist was a proper sacrifice. For that reason, the Usagers insisted that the prayer ought to be changed back to the wording and position it formerly had in 1549. Griffin argued that the 1662 service implied one of the following two meanings: either a sacrifice may be eaten before it is offered, that is, before it is a sacrifice; or else anything may be offered as a sacrifice after it is eaten and consumed, that is, when it is incapable of being a sacrifice. He argued that neither meaning made sense, 'both which are absurd and impossible, contrary to the common reason and sense of mankind.' 2 The Usagers believed that since the eucharist was a proper sacrifice, it ought to be offered to God before it was distributed. Campbell explained that it would be ridiculous to call the eucharist a sacrifice if the elements were distributed before they were offered: 'For since the world began, there was never any sort of proper sacrifice first consumed, and then offered.'3 Laurence shared this view and complained that it was absurd to offer the body and blood of Christ after the communicants had consumed them. Collier noted that Christ was the only officiating priest at the institution and therefore he must have offered the sacrifice before it was eaten. Christ's command, 'do this', obliged those commissioned by him to perform the oblation before eating and the distribution. Non-Usager Smith tried to show to the Usagers that the 1662 service was, in fact, a sacrificial office with a proper oblation. In his view, the placing of the bread and wine on the altar implied that the church considered that the elements were to be reserved as an oblation. He saw this as a gesture that was as forceful as if there had been an actual prayer of oblation. The elements were offered as the representative sacrifice of Christ's body and blood. At the moment of consecration, the words of institution implied an offering of the eucharistic sacrifice.4

1 2 3 4

Collier, A Defence of the Reasons, p 114. Griffin, The Common Christian Instructed, p 117 Campbell, An Answer to a Printed Letter, p 14. G e o r g e Smith, An Appendix to two Discourses in Answer to a Scurrilous Libel Entiti'd The Indispensable Obligation of ministering Expressly and Manifestly the great Necessaries of Public Worship &c. (London: [n. pub.], 1733), p 23.

28

THE

EUCHARIST

AS

A

SACRIFICE

Samuel Walker's views were more in line with the mainstream non-Usager doctrine. He argued that when Christ instituted the eucharist with his words, 'do this in remembrance of me', he commanded everyone to offer up to God the memorial of his passion rather than the elements. This was the pure sacrifice of the N e w Testament and was offered in commemoration of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice upon the Cross. Consequently, Christ commanded the Christian oblation to be made by an 'act' of oblation rather than by the words of a specific prayer. A prayer of oblation was thus not necessary. Walker explained that a proper material sacrifice could not be offered without an 'act' of oblation but it could without a 'prayer' of oblation. The act, or real action, was the only necessary part of the oblation: 'Our blessed Redeemer did offer up himself a sacrifice upon the Cross, by an act, and not a prayer of oblation; and therefore it cannot be improper to offer up our Christian sacrifice by an act of oblation.' 1 The Usagers did not accept this reading of a sacrifice into the 1662 service, because they believed that the Second Reformers had deliberately changed the order of the communion and placed the oblation after the distribution, precisely in order that it should not represent a true sacrifice before God. Indeed, the Usagers insisted that the notion of the Christian sacrifice was therefore actually excluded from the Second Reformation prayer book of 1552. At its location after the distribution, the oblations that were on the altar were not only the bread and wine but also the money and the other offerings of the people. Laurence argued that it would therefore make as much sense to say that the money and other offerings of the people were Christ's representative body and blood as it would to say that the unconsecrated bread and wine were his representative body and blood. He declared: 'I am really ashamed of this equivocating fallacious way of treating sacred things.' 2 The Usagers suspected that the reasons for the change of location of the oblatory prayer by the Second Reformers were dubious at best. To Collier, the only possible reason for the Second Reformers' action was to deny the eucharistic sacrifice: 'If they believed this Christian sacrifice, why did they invert the natural order of the prayers, practice counter to all ancient liturgies, and contradict the common notion of sacrificial service? 3 Wagstaffe believed that the Second Reformers moved the oblatory prayer on the grounds that the sacrifice was an unnecessary doctrine. As a result, they removed all evidence of the sacrifice because they denied that the nature of the sacrifice was true. The exclusion of the prayer of oblation from the sacrificial part of the solemnity, and its transposition to the post-communion, was interpreted as a compliance with the doctrine of the Calvinists and a disregard of the sacrifice.4 In the Usagers' view, the Second Reformers had strayed too far 1 2 3 4

Walker, Tradition is No Rule, pp 34. Laurence, The Indispensable Obligation, p 31 Collier, Vindication of the Reasons and Defence, Part II, p 150. Wagstaffe, Necessity of an Alteration, p 149.

29

T H E E U C H A R 1 S T 1 C D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

from the teachings of the ancient church. In the opinion of the Usagers, the only sense that could be made out of the established liturgy was a Calvinist one. It was well known to the Usagers that the Calvinists did not believe in a representative sacrifice in the eucharist and, in this light, the Usagers saw that the alterations, deletions, and transpositions were all easily accountable: Thus, they are consistent with themselves, and everything stands in its right place.' 1 The Usagers believed that the new order of the oblation was theologically flawed and that the entire office was therefore compromised. In contrast, the non-Usagers defended both the motives and the actions of Second Reformers. Walker argued that in the established liturgy, the elements were laid upon the altar as a proper sacrifice. The officiating priest performed all essential rites and proper acts of oblation. The bread was declared to be Christ's body sacrificed and the cup was declared to be Christ's blood that was shed for the remission of sins. While the priest repeated the words of institution, he took the bread in his hands, broke it and laid it on the altar. Likewise, he took the cup in his hands and placed it on the table. By these solemn and proper acts of oblation, the priest did really offer the mystical body and blood of Christ to God. The whole office was seen as a sacrificial act and thereby, the eucharist was properly offered by the people as the Christian sacrifice using proper rites. The entire communion service was seen as a sacrifice, although a sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, because in the oblatory prayer, instead of 'We offer this bread and this cup', the liturgy said 'Accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'. Walker declared that: Therefore I am of opinion, that our reformers have fixed our prayer of oblation in its proper place; for those words respect the whole foregoing eucharistical service, which we, in that suitable prayer, properly, in the post-communion, beseech our good God, graciously to accept of.'2 Smith argued that the detailed liturgical changes that were made by the Second Reformers in the 1552 liturgy did not, in fact, imply any devotional change at all. These changes were only an attempt to remove what might be mistaken for 'popish' practices.3 The Usagers disagreed and defended the necessity of a prayer of oblation that was to be offered before the distribution. Collier explained that the eucharist was a proper sacrifice because Christ, at his Last Supper, offered the bread and wine to God as the symbols of his body and blood and commanded his Apostles to do the same.4 Prayers for the Dead The last of the Usages to be examined is the use of prayers for the dead. The restoration of these prayers, like the other Usages, was deemed by the Usagers as essential to the eucharistic service. The Usagers suggested that the first step in restoring the prayers was the removal of the words 'militant here on earth' 1 2 3 4

Collier, Vindication of the Reasons and Defense, Part II, p 153. Walker, The Doctrine of the Eucharist Stated, pp 37-38. Smith, Appendix to Two Discourses, pp 31-31. Collier, Reasons for Restoring, p 27

30

THE

EUCHARIST

AS A

SACRIFICE

from the prayer for the whole church. This suggestion, however, opened up a discussion regarding the condition of the souls of the faithful after death and the purpose of the eucharistic sacrifice as a method of bringing them relief. The Usagers argued that the chief act of Christ's intercession, as a priest, was performed at the institution of the eucharist. Collier explained that since all the faithful deceased from the beginning of the world were saved by virtue of Christ's intercession, then they must have been included in the group of those for whom he offered his sacrifice. Christ offered the sacrifice of himself for the dead as well as for the living. Collier argued that the church of the living and that of the dead were one and the same society If the church 'militant', or living members, withdrew their prayers for the church 'triumphant', or deceased members, then they would not be doing their Christian duty to care for one another. Since it was the opinion of the early church that the prayers of the church militant were of benefit to its members, the Usagers argued that it must also be true that the prayers of the church triumphant would be beneficial to the militant and vice versa. The communion of saints was an article of the Creed and therefore, all Christians were obliged to believe that there was a union of the living with the dead during communion. This was because there was a unity in the mystical body of Christ. Wagstaffe argued that the 'cement' of this union was the eucharist and the prayers for the dead were to be offered up in virtue of the sacrifice. He warned that if the prayers of the living could be of service to the dead then it was an absolute duty to use these prayers at the eucharist.1 Collier claimed that there were two different sorts of petitions implied in the prayers for the dead in a sacrificial Christian liturgy: one related to the day of judgement, and the other to the intermediate period between death and the resurrection. The problem was that no one could ever know to what degree the prayers of the church militant were of help to the church triumphant. How much a dead person's circumstances were benefited by the private or public devotions of the living on their behalf was impossible to tell. It was therefore imperative to include prayers for the dead in the liturgy to ensure that all Christian obligations would be fulfilled. Prayers for the dead were seen as a necessary duty of charity to all Christians because it was important that 'we ought to do them [the dead] all the service within our power'. 2 The non-Usagers, however, argued that the scriptures commanded Christians to pray for one another and to desire each other's prayers but there was no command to pray for the dead, even deceased friends or relatives. Spinckes argued that prayers for the dead were neither commanded nor practised by either Christ or his Apostles: 'Our blessed Lord, his Apostles lost many of their friends and acquaintances, but we do not find that they prayed for them after their death, or ever directed others to do it.'3 1 2 3

Wagstaffe, The Necessity of an Alteration, p 103. Collier, Vindication of the Defence and Reasons, Part II, p 53. Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason, Part II, pp 4-5.

31

THE EIJCHARISTIC

D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

The non-Usagers reasoned that as long as it remained a mystery as to whether the dead were capable of receiving any benefit from the prayers of the living, such prayers should not be used. All communion was designed for advantage and presupposed an intercourse and exchange of offices between all involved parties. However, Spinckes explained: 'It is impossible to be sure, either they can assist us, or we can assist them.'1 If prayers for the dead were a necessary part of the communion of saints, then it would have been expressly commanded in scripture. Spinckes insisted that if prayers for the dead were required in the eucharist, then God would not have failed to have them included in the commandments of scripture: 'Since he has not done it, it will be properest for us to acquiesce, and to stick to what he has revealed.' 2 The non-Usagers insisted that there was a vast difference between the living praying for one another through the merits and intercessions of Christ, and the living praying to God to be merciful to the dead. The danger was that the latter prayers would encroach upon Christ's mediatory office. William Scott and other more moderate non-Usagers admitted that the Church of England had nowhere condemned the prayers for the dead: 'The best defenders of our church, have in their public writings owned it.'3 However, the question they addressed was not whether prayers for the dead, as they were used by many of the primitive Christians, were lawful or useful, but whether they were absolutely necessary. The moderate non-Usagers insisted that the prayers were not necessary for the proper ministration of the eucharist. Other non-Usagers attacked the prayers for the dead as mere superstition. Matthias Earbery complained that the idea that the dead needed the living to pray for them was ridiculous and unscriptural. Samuel Walker asserted that there was not the least intimation in any of the scriptures, that such a prayer ought to be included in the eucharistic service.4 It was dangerous, in Walker's view, to teach that the prayers of the living may benefit the dead. He argued that this doctrine could lead people to take their own salvation and the repentance of their own sins less seriously because they could be saved after death by the living: 'I am utterly against the use of the prayer which they newly restored.' 3 Smith, arguing on behalf of the non-Usagers, claimed that it was the duty of all Christians to pray for the dead as well as of the living, inasmuch as the Christian is to have a love for all people whatsoever, but this did not make it necessary to offer the eucharist for the benefit of the dead, nor to seek intercession. Smith declared that there was no evidence that Christ commanded

1 2 3 4 5

Spinckes, No Sufficient Reason, Part 11, p 77 Spinckes, Reply to the Vindication, p 58. Scott, No Necessity to Alter the Common Prayer, p 24. Walker, Tradition is No Rute, p 28. Walker, The Doctrine of the Eucharist Slated, p 23.

32

THE EUCHARIST

AS A S A C R I F I C E

the practice of praying for the dead: 'I don't deny but our Saviour in the Lord's Prayer commands us to pray for the kingdom of glory, which is a prayer for the benefit as well of the dead as of the living: but I deny that it is necessary explicitly to pray for the dead at the Eucharist or to offer for them.'1 The Usagers complained that the prayers for the dead were not as fully or explicitly expressed in the established liturgy of 1662 as they were in the liturgy of 1549. According to the Usagers, the words 'militant here on earth' were purposely added in 1552 to the prayer for the church in the communion service by the Second Reformers to exclude the dead. The direction to pray for the whole state of Christ's church 'militant here on earth' was argued by the Usagers as a denial of the communion of saints and a restriction of supplications to the living. However, George Smith argued that the words, 'militant here on earth', were, in truth, never intended to exclude the dead. When these words were first used in 1552, there was no mention of the dead at all so they could not be said to exclude them. Smith defended the Second Reformers by claiming that they were trying to guard against the Roman concept of a sacrifice for the living and the dead. The consecration prayer used in 1549 approached too closely that of the C h u r c h of R o m e and could therefore be used to defend transubstantiation. 2 In their defence of the necessity of the prayers for the dead, the Usagers attempted to explain the state of the faithful departed. First, they stated that the interval between death and the resurrection was a state of imperfect bliss and that the dead were capable of spiritual improvement during this period. They claimed that this was the belief of the ancient church. Secondly, the church, both living and dead, were members of the same body and the duties implied in communion bound them to mutual assistance as far as they would be able. The Usagers explained further that the dead could not be completely happy until the resurrection. Since the state of death could only be an imperfect happiness, the Usagers argued that the soul was capable of improvement in satisfaction, knowledge, and charity. The Usager doctrine of the state of the dead was that no souls, whether righteous or wicked, went to heaven or hell before the resurrection and final judgement. They were detained in a middle state; the wicked in one place, in some degree of misery and under an expectation of their final doom, and the faithful in another, enjoying a degree of happiness in light, rest and peace, with an expectation of total absolution and redemption. However, in this intermediate, imperfect state, they were capable of being improved in both holiness and happiness. The prayers of the living, during the eucharist, were helpful and were seen as a means of propitiating God and of procuring a divine blessing upon the whole church. The Usagers looked upon the whole catholic 1 2

Smith, An Appendix to Two Discourses, Smith, Two Discourses, p vi.

pp 32-33.

33

THE EUCHAR1STIC D O C T R I N E

OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

church as one body or society, under Christ as head, that consisted of all faithful, whether living or dead. Death was only a movement of the dead to another place. This did not mean that there was a dissolving of their relationship to the body of Christ. Griffin argued that the communion of the body was to be continued by the living in whatever manner they were capable of performing: The Righteous in their present separate state, pray for their brethren, here upon the earth; so the mutual relation, interests, hopes and expectations, engaged the living faithful to keep up the communion by such offices, as might conduce to the improvement and increase of rest, peace, and happiness of their deceased brethren; among which, none is or can be of greater efficacy, than the oblation of the eucharistic sacrifice.'1 In keeping with their doctrine, the Usagers claimed that if persons died in a state of salvation, they could never be damned, and if in a state of damnation, they could never be saved. The particular state was fixed but the degree of that state was alterable and could be improved. Those that were happy could have their happiness increased. After death, people would be free from a corruptible body but they would still have to await a spiritual and immortal body. Wagstaffe explained: Their state is determined, but their final damnation is deferred to the last judgement, so that there is an intermediate condition both for the good and bad.'2 The non-Usagers complained that due to its very nature there was very little evidence about the precise nature of the intermediate state, that is, the state between death and judgement. All that could be known from the scriptures was that there were two states: a state of happiness for the righteous and a state of misery for the wicked. Both had to remain in their separate states until the last judgement. The former had an expectation of bliss in heaven and the latter had an expectation of torments in hell. However, there could be no knowledge, neither of the place nor nature of this intermediate happiness or misery, or of what the departed souls and the living could do for each other. The non-Usagers argued that it was very probable that the true design of the primitive prayers was not to better the condition of the dead in an intermediate state, though some of the prayers might mistakenly be understood in that sense, but only for a successful completion of happiness at the day of judgement. According to the non-Usagers all Christians, whether alive or dead, would enjoy perfect bliss both in body and soul when Christ's kingdom came, but not before. The souls of the faithful were in a state of only partial or imperfect bliss. This bliss will be perfected at the last day. Any reference to the departed increasing in happiness by the living praying for them at the eucharist or the dead completing their repentance, could only be interpreted as a purgatorial doctrine. In response, the Usagers expressly stated that the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, whereby the dead were supposed to be delivered out of the fiery 1 2

Griffin, The Common Christian Instructed, p p 59-60. Wagstaffe, The Necessity of an Alteration, p Í28.

34

THE

EUCHARIST

AS

A

SACRIFICE

torments by prayers of the living, was directly contrary to their doctrine and that taught by the primitive church. Brett explained: 'We justly reject the doctrine of purgatory invocation of the Saints, worship of relics and images, and other corrupt traditions of the Church of Rome, because we cannot find any evidence from their universality and antiquity." Griffin also outlined the difference between the Usager doctrine of the middle state and Roman doctrine of purgatory. In the Roman doctrine, there was a purgatorial fire in which the souls of the pious are expiated after they have been tormented for a determined time. This was so because nothing that was defiled could enter the eternal kingdom. The Usager doctrine, it was argued, was directly contrary. The souls of the faithful remain in their proper place in the middle state that was prepared for them. This would be in paradise or 'Abraham's bosom' until the resurrection, in varying degrees of peace and joy with an expectation of liberty at the last judgement.2 The non-Usagers were not convinced. They did not believe that the doctrine of the Usagers, with regard to the middle state, significantly differed from the Roman doctrine of purgatory. Scott noted that, according to the Council of Trent, the souls that were detained in purgatory were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the sacrifices of the altar.

1 2

Brett, The Necessary Use of Tradition, p 41. Griffin, The Common Christian Instructed, p 97.

35

6

Conclusion This revisionist work set out to examine the eucharistie doctrine of the later Nonjurors. It has been revealed that the Usagers and non-Usagers held distinct eucharistic doctrines. While both the Usagers and non-Usagers believed that membership in the visible church and the reception of a valid eucharist were necessary requirements for salvation, the two sides of the debate represented two distinct streams of thought and practice which existed within the eighteenthcentury High Church of England.' The non-Usagers were more doctrinally continuous with the seventeenthcentury High Church than were the Usagers. The non-Usagers looked back to the English Reformers for their eucharistie faith and were conscious of sharing a common belief in the real presence in the eucharist with the Caroline divines. This was viewed as the true catholic doctrine that was, in all essential matters, compatible with the early church. In the matter of authority, they believed that scripture was the only touchstone for eucharistic doctrine. The Church Fathers and the creeds could be used, but only in support of scripture. The belief structure of the non-Usagers was compatible with that of the High Church divines of the seventeenth century such as, John Cosin, Jeremy Taylor, and John Bramhall. It was also in line with the beliefs of the 'Orthodox' members of the eighteenthcentury High Church party, such as earlier Nonjurors Thomas Ken and Henry Dodwell, as well as William Beveridge and Daniel Waterland. 2 In their eucharistic doctrine, these writers combined Christian Platonism with biblical typology and saw the eucharistic elements as symbols of God's grace and power. Along with the non-Usagers, the Orthodox party believed in the doctrine of the real presence, but both groups related this presence to the faithful communicant rather than to any presence in the elements of bread and wine. Their focus was on the grace conveyed to the 'worthy' receiver in the eucharist. This theme of a dynamic receptionist interpretation was the dominant High

1

For a synopsis of the various doctrines of the eucharist held within the C h u r c h of England in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the reader is directed to the following: Richard Sharp, ' N e w Perspectives on the High Church Tradition: historical background 1730-1781' in Geoffrey Rowell (ed) Tradition Renewed: Oxford Movement Conference Papers, (Darton, L o n g m a n & Todd, London, 1986); Richard Buxton, Eucharist and Institution Narrative: A Study in the Roman and Anglican Traditions of the Consecration of the Eucharist from the Eighth to the Twentieth Centuries, Alcuin C l u b Collections, no. 58 ( M a y h e w - M c C r i m m o n , Great Wakering, 1976); Peter Doll After the Primitive Christians: The Eighteenth-Century Eucharist in its Architectural Setting, Alcuin C l u b and the G r o u p for Renewal of Worship Joint Liturgical Studies 37 (Grove Books, Cambridge, 1997); and Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context. Anglican High Churchinanship, 1760-1857 ( C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1994).

2

T h e 'Orthodox' school w a s the more popular and the more moderate of the two positions, culminating in the publication of Daniel Waterland's A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist Doivn in Scripture and Antiquity (W. Innys and R. Manby, London, 1737).

36

as Laid

CONCLUSION

Church eucharistic doctrine taught by the Church of England during the years immediately before and during the Usages Controversy. The non-Usagers who took part in the Usages Controversy, for example Nathaniel Spinckes, Charles Leslie and William Scott, no doubt would have been entirely at home in the eighteenth-century Orthodox High Church had their political beliefs not made this extremely difficult. It should be remembered that many of the non-Usagers were Nonjurors in the first place for political rather than religious reasons. It is not be surprising that they were uninterested in liturgical changes, especially if it could be argued that the changes were innovative and non-scriptural. Whereas the non-Usagers looked back in a continuous line to the Reformation for their eucharistic thought and guidance, the Usagers looked back further, to the first four centuries, for their authority. They wanted to recover the 'true' understanding of the sacrament that existed before the medieval corruptions of Rome and the equally dangerous corruptions of the continental Reformers. Unlike the non-Usagers, the Usagers often appealed to tradition on matters of doctrine when scripture was silent or difficult to interpret. The Usagers allowed the Church Fathers the same authority as scripture in matters of eucharistic doctrine and practice, when scripture was not viewed as complete enough for a clear interpretation. The Usagers expressed beliefs and practices which were much more in line with the 'Sacramentarians' of the eighteenth-century High Church, such as earlier Nonjuror Robert Nelson, as well as Herbert Thorndike, Charles Wheatly, John Grabbe, George Bull, William Nicholls and John Johnson.' The Usagers and the Sacramentarians distinguished their view from that of Rome by insisting that the sacrifice of bread and wine in the sacrament was consecrated by the action and operation of the Holy Spirit upon the elements. In many ways, the Usagers were much closer to the Eastern Orthodox than to the English Church. 2 The Usagers connected the eucharistic presence much more closely to the elements than did the non-Usagers. According to the Usagers, the presence was brought about by a three-fold consecration of the elements, using the words of institution, the prayer of oblation, and the epiclesis. The Holy Spirit acted instrumentally in this consecration, independently of the worthiness of its reception. The originality of the Usagers lay in their liturgical innovation. By having the courage to disregard the need for any liturgical continuity with the Reformation Church of England and taking on the important task of creating

1

2

The second school of eucharistic thought was derived from the revived awareness in the late seventeenth century of the liturgies of the early Eastern Church. The main advocate for this school of thought w a s J o h n Johnson of Cranbrook, author of The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar, Unvail'd and Supported. (John Wyat, London, Part 11714, Part II, 1718). The terms 'Orthodox' and 'Sacramentarían' High Church were coined by Smith, 'The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Later Nonjurors as Revealed in the Pamphlets of the Usages Controversy'. The brief Usager attempt at a reunion with the Eastern Orthodox is a testimony of that bond. For details of the correspondence the reader is directed to George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century: Being a Correspondence Between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops (Rivingtons, London, 1868).

37

THE

EUCHAR1STIC

DOCTRINE

OF T H E

LATER

NONJURORS

liturgy that would fully comply with their deepest beliefs, the Usagers were in effect taking the Sacramentarían tradition to its logical conclusion. It is unfortunate that given the outstanding and extraordinary courage of the Nonjurors, insufficient attention has been accorded them by the scholarly community. The Nonjurors fought throughout the Usages Controversy with tremendous zeal because they fully appreciated the significance of the issues with which they were dealing. After all, the Usagers arguments amounted to claiming that the sacrament used by the Established Church had been defective for over two hundred years. The non-Usagers were fighting not only for the Reformation and the sufficiency of scripture, but also for the national liturgy and the eucharistic doctrine that they inherited from the Caroline High Church. For the Usagers, these were minor issues when viewed from the perspective of the history of the entire catholic church. They convinced themselves that the Roman Church as well as the Reformation had changed the ancient liturgies and distorted the original doctrine of the eucharist. Historical continuity with the early church and catholicity in doctrine were two positions from which the Usagers would not be moved.

38

Appendix

A Chronological Table of Nonjuror History and Usages Controversy Tracts 1688 James II's Declaration of Indulgence. Trial of the Seven Bishops includes five future Nonjurors. William of Orange lands at Torbay. Glorious Revolution. 1689 William and Mary offered Crown jointly. Oath of Allegiance required of all clergy. Nine bishops (Archbishop William Sancroft, Francis Turner, John Lake, William Thomas, Thomas White, Thomas Ken, William Lloyd, Robert Frampton and Thomas Cartwright) as well as 400 clergy (known as 'Nonjurors') refuse the oath. Nonjuror Jeremy Collier first to publish against the revolution: Collier, The Desertion Discussed in a Letter to a Country Gentleman. Death of Nonjuror Bishop Thomas. Death of Nonjuror Bishop Lake. Death of Nonjuror Bishop Cartwright. 1691 Nonjurors deprived of their livings. 1692 Archbishop Sancroft delegates Nonjuror authority to Bishop Lloyd. 1693 Death of Nonjuror Archbishop Sancroft. 1694 Nonjurors George Hickes and Thomas Wagstaffe (the elder) consecrated bishops. Death of Queen Mary II. 1696 Fenwicke's Jacobite Plot crushed. 1698 Death of Nonjuror Bishop White. 1700 Death of Nonjuror Bishop Turner. 1700 Nonjuror Henry Dodwell's Case in View, argues that the Nonjuror schism should not be continued after the death of the last of the deprived bishops. 1701 Death of James II. Son James Stuart (the Old Pretender) recognized by France as King James III. 1702 Death of King William III. Succession of Queen Anne. Abjuring Oath required of all clergy. 1704 Queen Anne's Bounty for relief of poor clergy managed by Nonjuror Robert Nelson. 1707 Treaty of Union with Scotland. 1708 Death of Nonjuror Bishop Frampton. Future Nonjuror Roger Laurence's Lay Baptism Invalid. 39

THE EUCHAR1ST1C DOCTRINE

OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

1710 Death of Nonjuror Bishop Lloyd. Ken renounces claim to Bishopric. Trial of Dr. Sacheverell. Dividing line between 'earlier' (those in communion with living deprived bishops) and 'later' Nonjurors. 1711 Death of Nonjuror Bishop Ken. Dodwell's Case in View, Now in Fact. Many Nonjurors take the oaths and return to the Established Church including Henry Dodwell, Francis Cherry and Robert Nelson. 1712 Death of Nonjuror Bishop Wagstaffe. 1713 Nonjurors Jeremy Collier, Nathaniel Spinckes, and Samuel Hawes consecrated bishops by insistence of Hickes. 1714 Death of Queen Anne. Succession of George I. 1715 Death of Nonjuror Bishop Hickes. Second Abjuring Oath. The '15 Jacobite Rebellion defeated at Preston. 1716 Thomas Brett (of Kent) and Henry Gandy consecrated as Nonjuror bishops. Nonjurors attempt union with Eastern Orthodox Church. Petition presented by (future Usager) Nonjuror priests to the bishops requesting adoption of the Usages (Mixed Cup, Epiclesis, Oblatory Prayer and Prayers for the Dead). Bitter debate splits the Nonjurors into two camps with regard to the Usages: the Usagers (led by Bishops Collier and Brett and Scottish Nonjuror Bishops Archibald Campbell and James Gadderar); and the non-Usagers (led by Bishops Spinckes and Hawes). Nonjurors never meet again as unified church. Bishop Benjamin Hoadly attacks Nonjurors in Convocation. Nonjuror William Law's Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor in response to Hoadley. 1717 Usager Bishops Collier and Brett formally excommunicate nonUsagers even though the non-Usagers are the majority party amongst the priest and laity. Bangorian Controversy. 1718 New Usager Communion Service produced. Usager Bishop Collier begins Usages Controversy with Reasons for restoring some Prayers and Directions. Non-Usager Bishop Spinckes replies with No Reason for Restoring. The Usages Controversy continues with: Collier (Usager), A Defence of the Reasons. Scott (non-Usager), No Necessity to Alter the Common Prayer. Leslie (non-Usager), A Letter from Mr. Leslie to a Friend. Campbell (Usager), An Answer to a Printed Letter. 40

APPENDIX

1719

1720

1721

1722

1723 1724 1725 1726 1727

Hart (non-Usager), No Reason to Alter the Present Liturgy. Minors (Usager), The Subtlety of the Serpent. Spinckes (non-Usager), No Sufficient Reason, Part I. Wagstaffe (Usager), The Necessity of an Alteration. Brett (of Kent, Usager), The Necessary Use of Tradition. Spinckes (non-Usager), No Sufficient Reason, Part II. Collier (Usager), Vindication of the Reasons, Part I. Snatt (non-Usager), Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed. Collier (Usager), Vindication of the Reasons, Part II. Spinckes (non-Usager), No Just Grounds. Deacon (Usager), The Plaintiff's Charge Disproved. Scott (non-Usager), Vindication of the No Necessity. Earbery (non-Usager), A Dialogue between Timothy a Churchman and Thomas an Essentialist. Rogerson (non-Usager), The Controvery about Restoring. Brett (of Kent, Usager), A Collection of Principal Liturgies. Laurence (Usager), Mr. Leslie's Defence. Brett (of Kent, Usager), Vindication of the Postscript to Tradition. Earbery (non-Usager), Reflections upon Modern Fanaticism Downes (non-Usager), Abridgement of the Controversy. Wagstaffe (Usager), Reasonableness and Necessity. Spinckes (non-Usager), A Reply to the Vindication. Collier (Usager), Further Defence. Wagstaffe (Usager), A Defence of the Greek Church against the Roman. Walker (non-Usager), The Doctrine of the Eucharist Stated. Walker (non-Usager), Tradition is no Rule. Griffin (Usager), The Common Christian Instructed. Consecration of non-Usagers Hilkiah Bedford and Ralph Taylor. Spinckes' devotional manual: Church of England Man's Companion. Bishop Taylor consecrates two bishops solus without blessing of other non-Usagers: Richard Welton and John Talbot for service in America. Death of non-Usager Bishop Taylor. Consecration of Usager John Griffin. Usager Bishops Collier, Brett, Campbell continue dialogue with Eastern Orthodox Church. Non-Usager Bishops refuse Orthodox dialogue. Death of non-Usager Bishop Bedford. Non-Usagers Henry Doughty, John Blackburne and Henry Hall all consecrated as bishops. Death of Usager Bishop Collier. Death of non-Usager Spinckes. Usager Thomas Brett (of Sussex) consecrated as bishop. Death of King George I Succession of King George II. 41

T H E E U C H A R 1 S T 1 C D O C T R I N E OF T H E L A T E R

NONJURORS

1728 Consecration of non-Usagers Richard Rawlinson and George Smith. Non-Usager William Law's A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. 1730 Death of non-Usager Bishop Doughty. 1731 Death of non-Usager Bishop Hall. 1732 Usager Bishops Brett of Kent and Brett of Sussex signed Settlement Agreement with non-Usager Bishops Gandy, Smith and Rawlinson forming the 'Unionist' party. Usager Bishops Campbell and Griffin refuse the Agreement and form the 'Extreme Usagers' party. Non-Usager Bishop Blackburne also refuses the Agreement and forms the 'Extreme non-Usagers' party. Unionist Bishop Smith continues the Usages Controversy with Two Discourses. Extreme Usager Bishop Laurence answers with The Indispensable Obligation. 1733 The controversy continues with: Smith (Unionist), An Appendix to Two Discourses. Brett (of Kent, Unionist), The Great Necessaries of Public Worship. Consecration of Extreme Usagers (solus by Campbell), Roger Laurence and Thomas Deacon. 1734 Death of Unionist Bishop Gandy. Deacon's Extreme Usager Prayer Book, A Complete Collection of Devotions. 1736 Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Laurence. 1737 Consecration of Unionist Timothy Mawman. 1741 Death of Exteme non-Usager Bishop Blackburne. Death of Unionist Bishop Brett (of Sussex). Consecration of Unionist Robert Gordon. Reconciliation between Extreme non-Usagers and Unionists. 1743 Death of Unionist Bishop Brett (of Kent). 1744 Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Campbell. 1745 The '45 Jacobite Rebellion led by Charles Stuart (the Young Pretender). 1746 Rebellion defeated at Culloden Moor. 1747 Deacon, A Full, True and Comprehensive View of Christianity. 1752 Solus consecration of Extreme Usager Kenrick Price (by Deacon) 1753 Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Deacon. 1755 Death of Unionist Bishop Rawlinson. 1756 Death of Unionist Bishop Smith. 1760 Death of King George II Succession of King George III. 1763 Death of Unionist Bishop Mawman. 1766 Death of James Stuart (the Old Pretender).

42

APPENDIX

1779 Death of Unionist Bishop Gordon. Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Philip Brown (consecrated by Price but date unknown) 1781 Solus consecration of Extreme Usager William Cartwright. 1788 Death of Charles Stuart (the Young Pretender). Scottish Episcopal (Nonjuror) Church abandons Stuart Cause and takes the Oaths of Allegiance 1790 Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Price. 1795 Solus consecration of Extreme Usager Thomas Garnett. 1799 Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Cartwright. 1807 Death of Cardinal Henry Stuart (brother of the Young Pretender, and last of the Stuarts). 1819*Death of Extreme Usager Bishop Charles Boothe, the last of the Nonjuror bishops (consecrated by Garnett but date unknown).

* Many authors put Booth's death in 1805, but there is reason to think he was still alive in Ireland in 1819, which w o u l d therefore be the earliest possible year of his death.

43