Waterland the Receptionist and the 1549 invocation

The past two posts have emphasised that the invocation contained in the 1549/Non-juror/Scotch liturgies, rather than representing a separate, distinctive stream in classical Anglican liturgy, actually had no doctrinal significance as it was seen as giving expression to a Virtualism also held by many more who administered the sacrament according to the 1662 rite.

This, however, could also be true of those who adhered to the more dominant Receptionist understanding in the High Church tradition.  While Waterland was strongly critical of Virtualism - "it seems to carry in it some obscure conception either of an inherent or infused virtue resting upon the bare elements" - he offered only a very cautious critique of the 1549 invocation:

And since an ill use had often been made, by Romanists, of those words of the Communion Office, in favour of transubstantiation, (for which there appeared some colour, though colour only, and owing to misconstruction and wrong inferences,) prudence might require some alteration, under such circumstances.

It was not, then, a case of the 1549 invocation necessarily requiring condemnation.  Indeed, he states that the 1662 petition before the Words of Institution "expresses the thing formerly prayed for".  As to the focus of the 1549 invocation - "That they may become to us the body and blood of Christ" - he quotes both Thorndike and Cranmer to show that this can be understood in a Receptionist sense.  First, Thorndike:

These words "to us," make an abatement in the proper signification of the body and blood. For the elements may be said to become the body and blood of Christ without addition, in the same true sense in which they are so called in the Scriptures; but when they are said to become the body and blood of Christ to them that communicate, that true sense is so well signified and expressed, that the words can not well be understood otherwise than to import, not the corporal substance, but the spiritual use of them.

Then Cranmer:

In the book of the holy Communion we do not pray absolutely, that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us, in that holy mystery, they may be so: that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ's body and blood, and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished.

What is more, this reflected what he understood to be "what the ancients taught concerning the descent or illapse of the Holy Spirit upon the symbols":

Though the elements are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and thereupon become relatively holy, as being now sacred symbols and representatives of our Lord's body and blood, yet they are not beneficial to unholy persons, but hurtful, and therefore are not to them the body and blood of Christ in real grace, virtue, energy, or effect ... the intent and meaning of that invocation, by the beneficial effect of the illapse of the Spirit upon the communicants in the use of the symbols, and not by the Spirit's making the symbols absolutely the body and blood.

Even for Receptionists in the High Church tradition, then, the 1549 invocation while not required by Scripture or early patristic practice, and prudentially removed from 1552, expressed no doctrine different to that of 1662: indeed, it could be interpreted in perfectly Receptionist fashion.  Again, the centrality of 1662 can be seen.  What appears to be the most distinctive aspect of the Non-juror/Scotch Communion Offices becomes little more than a rather odd, perhaps obscure, and certainly unnecessary means of giving expression to the doctrine of 1662.

(All quotes are from Waterland's A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as laid down in Scripture and Antiquity.)