The imaginary Puritan interlocutor with whom he is debating takes issue with Canon XXI of the 1604 Canons, which required the Words of Institution to be repeated over additional Bread and Wine required for the purposes of Communion. The Puritan condemns this, "As if the words were incantations, and the table like an Altar which sanctifieth the sacrifice".
Rogers' response affirms the use of both 'consecration' and 'altar', terminology that some historical accounts suggest to be Laudian 'innovations'. Rogers' use of such terms, however, is an example of the continuity between conventional Conformity and the concerns of the avant garde and Laudians. In the words of Charles Prior:
some aspects of churchmanship that appear 'new' in the Laudian context were ... deeply entrenched in conformist thought.
Also significant is the 'ecclesial patriotism' which was increasingly significant in the debate Conformist and Puritan. The latter bewailed a but 'half-reformed' English Church which required the example of the 'best' Reformed churches overseas. The latter, by contrast, rejoiced in the glories of what Clarendon at the Restoration described as "the best and the best reformed church in the Christian world".
Finally, the warmth of the sacramental piety which Rogers expresses should be noted: "She would have us to approach unto the holy Supper, as to an heavenly banquet". Such warm eucharistic piety was to be an enduring feature of the High Church tradition, rooted in - as Rogers notes - the Prayer Book liturgy.
Ye are most unkind to your Mother, the church of England, which hath conceived, and tenderly fed you with the food of God's word, and refreshed you with the heavenly comforts of his Sacraments.
This our mother and the holy Sacrament will have us put in mind, both who is the author of those holy mysteries; and why they are instituted, and all to raise up in us a more reverend respect of those sacred signs, when she doth nothing but well, and to our singular good, shall we unkindly turn her good directions, and instructions into evil, and say she is faulty, when she deserveth praise? She would have us to approach unto the holy Supper, as to an heavenly banquet; you belike would have us thither to repair as unto a common feast. Is she that inspireth us with divine thoughts, or you rather which receive, or would have us to resort unto the supper, as unto a common feast; she enjoining the divine words of institution, you leaving them quite out as if we were but at a civil, and homely dinner or supper, faulty?
And what herein doth she contrary to Gods word? Or differing from the example of Christ, who took bread, and wine, and before he distributed them, or his Disciples did eat, gave thanks, and shewed what they signified, and why instituted?
Tell what in the words of our book, is erroneous? What in the form superstitious? If you cannot be ashamed to term such divine words Incantations, which are holy instructions, ministering necessary and divine meditations unto our selves, and making the table, yea our Altar, (and all there-upon) most holy unto the Lord, without which, or the like, they differ not from things common, and profane tables ...
You would belike have us blindly to come, and take the Sacrament, as we do our ordinary food; or if we use any words, though never so heavenly, we do Popishly consecrate, in your opinion.
The words and prayers uttered do make the bread, & wine, holy, which before were common: This is consecration, we acknowledge, yet not Popish but Christian.
Comments
Post a Comment