Skip to main content

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.

Comments

  1. David 13 August 2019 at 07:16

    I wonder if you might consider writing a post on the differences between receptionism and virtualism at some point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. laudable Practice14 August 2019 at 15:15

      David many thanks for this suggestion. Yes, I have been thinking along similar lines and will write something. In the meantime, from Nockles:

      "The main difference was that receptionism attached less instrumental efficacy or virtue to the eucharistic symbols than did the virtualist doctrine".

      Brian.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...
25 comments
Read more

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...
19 comments
Read more

Pride, progressive sectarianism, and TEC on Facebook

Let me begin this post with an assumption that will be rejected by some readers of laudable Practice , but affirmed by other readers. Observing Pride is an understandable aspect of the public ministry of TEC.  On previous occasions , I have rather robustly called for TEC to be much more aware and respectful of the social conservatism of the Red states and regions in which it ministers. A failure to do so risks TEC declining yet further into the irrelevance of progressive sectarianism.  At the same time, TEC also obviously ministers in deep Blue states and metropolitan areas - and is the only Mainline Protestant tradition in which a majority of its members vote Democrat .* With Pride now an established civic commemoration, particularly in such contexts, there is a case for TEC affirming those aspects of Pride - the dignity of gay men and lesbian women, their contribution to civic life, and their place in the church's life - which cohere with a Christian moral vision. (I will n...
4 comments
Read more