"A change as to effect and power": Jelf's Bampton lectures echoing Calvin and Jewel on the Eucharist

In the sixth of his 1844 Bampton Lectures, An inquiry into the means of grace, their mutual connection, and combined use, with especial reference to the Church of England, Jelf - one of those whom Nockles lists as the 'Zs', the post-1833 continuation of the Old High tradition - addresses Eucharistic doctrine.

Having, as seen last week, rejected Transubstantiation on high Reformed grounds, Jelf takes care to note that this does not at all equate to a denial that any change takes places in the bread and wine. This, of course, reflects the Reformed understanding, expressed by Calvin:

if it be asked whether the bread is the body of Christ and the wine his blood, we answer, that the bread and the wine are visible signs, which represent to us the body and blood, but that this name and title of body and blood is given to them because they are as it were instruments by which the Lord distributes them to us.

This is the sacramental change which occurs in the elements, the change which Jewel declares in the Apologie:

We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, and that by them Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his body and his blood

Jelf reaffirms this understanding of sacramental change:

And yet, while our Church thus denies the doctrine of Transubstantiation, she does not seem to maintain that the consecrated elements are in all respects the same as they were before consecration. There are few persons who would not acknowledge that here is a change as to effect and power. Many of our best divines have held that a sacramental and spiritual conversion, though not a natural and bodily one, is wrought as in a mystery by God's invisible power; and our own Church has evidently determined that the elements, so consecrated, should not be treated as common bread and wine ...

Why not content ourselves with believing, that, as some of the ancient Liturgies expressed it, the bread and wine are made to us the Body and Blood of Christ; that there is that in them, which is, by Divine appointment, capable of working, and, received with faith, does work within us the true Presence of the Lord's Body and Blood.

The emphasis by Jelf on "for us" is almost certainly taken from Cranmer's refutation of Gardiner, regarding the invocation in the 1549 rite that the bread and wine "maie be unto us the bodye and bloude of thy moste derely beloved sonne Jesus Christe":

And therefore 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.

(We might note, by the way, that this was also Laud's defence of the same invocation in the 1637 Scottish rite.)

The Hookerian-sounding phrase "work within us the true Presence of the Lord's Body and Blood" is further emphasised by a footnote: "That this operation does not take place irrespectively of the spiritual state of the receiver, is expressly maintained by our Church. Art. xxix".

The contrast with the Eucharistic theology that was emerging from Tractarianism is stark. Jelf is reaffirming, not rejecting, the high Reformed sacramental teaching of the Formularies, Jewel, and Hooker. In doing so, he was providing a sacramental theology which had the potential of both renewing Anglican sacramental piety and practice, and providing a unifying, coherent centre for an Anglicanism increasingly divided in the 19th century. Mindful of the incoherence of contemporary Anglican eucharistic theology, Jelf's approach has much to teach us in the 21st century. No less significantly, it also provides an important corrective to the 'table fellowship' understandings which have followed in the wake of the Parish Communion movement.

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 ...

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...

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School. Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979. We ...

laudable Practice

Search This Blog