Nathaniel Spinckes and the non-usage defence of 1662

... the Bread and Wine still retain their own Nature, and are only spiritually, virtually, and sacramentally our Saviour's Body and Blood ... This, saith our Saviour, is my Body which is given for you, that is according to the Jewish and Syriac manner of Expression, and which is not unusual among other Nations, This signifies, or is intended to represent to you my Body crucified for the Redemption of Mankind, This is virtually and sacramentally my Body ...  Now that it is no more common Bread, sufficiently intimates it to be the Bread still, tho' not as it was before; and that it consists of two things shews that it still retains its earthly Nature of Bread, though it has withal a heavenly Virtue and Efficacy added to it - Nathaniel Spinckes The Article of the Romish Transubstantiation, Inquired into, and disproved (1719).

It is clear that Non-juror Nathaniel Spinckes held a Virtualist understanding of the Eucharist.  In and of itself this is not particularly significant: Virtualism was the common Non-juror teaching and was an influential (if minority, with Waterland's receptionism being more representative) stream of thought within the High Church tradition.  What does make it significant, however, is that Spinckes was a leader of the Non-usagers amongst the Non-jurors.  He wrote vigorously against any perceived need to 'restore' the usages associated with the 1549 rite, including - crucially - the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the prayer of consecration.

In other words, Virtualism did not require the invocation which became common to Non-juror liturgies, including the Scotch Communion Office.  Spinckes, in fact, is explicit that this his teaching accords with the Catechism, Articles, and liturgy of the English Church:

The Church of England teaches in her Catechism, that 'the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken, and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper.' And in her XXVIIIth Article, that 'to such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ;' but withal, that 'The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only in a heavenly and spiritual manner'. And hereto agrees also her Communion Service.

It is another example of the historic centrality of the 1662 Communion Office.  Restoring the 1549 invocation did not alter Eucharistic doctrine.  Amongst the Non-jurors, usagers and non-usagers alike were Virtualists.  Outside of the marginal Non-jurors, High Church advocates of Virtualism administered the Sacrament according to the 1662 rite, the same doctrine taught by those Scotch Episcopalians so fiercely proud of their own Communion Office.

There was no material significance to the invocation urged by the usagers and the Scotch Episcopalians.  Eucharistic doctrine remained that which for the vast majority of Anglican Virtualists was to be found in 1662.  What does this mean? It means that were not two streams of classical Anglican liturgy, 1662 and the 1549/Non-juror/Scotch liturgies.  The former was central, both in terms of form and doctrine.  The latter was a digression (regression?) of no doctrinal significance.