'An unimportant variation': the union of the 1549 and 1552 words of administration in the Prayer Book Communion
In the primitive Church the Priest pronounced these words, "The Body of Christ, or the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ," and the communicant answered "Amen." Afterwards the priests said, " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto eternal life," as appears from the Sacramentary of Gregory.
The latter was, of course, preserved in the first reformed English liturgy of 1549, as Shepherd notes:
The forms in Edward's first book, were "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." And when the cup was presented, "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."
Once again, Shepherd - decades before 1833 - understands the Prayer Book Communion liturgy as standing in continuity with patristic forms (a commonplace understanding, of course, in the tradition of Prayer Book commentary over the 'long 18th century'). What, however, of the revised words of administration introduced in Edward's second book?
Shepherd at this point refers the reader to the first volume of his commentary. There he had spoken warmly of the process which lead to the 1552 revision:
This public revision of the Liturgy, to the improvement of which the judicious remarks made by Bucer and Martyr had essentially contributed, was undertaken in 1551, that is about two years after its first publication. The forms of the Liturgy were now generally followed , and the prejudices against it , arising from former habits, had considerably abated. This was therefore judged by Cranmer to be a convenient season for the introduction of those various Improvements, which he had already digested in private with his friends.
Indeed, he goes on to wish that events had allowed the Church of England had been permitted to peacefully enjoy the 1552 Book of Common Prayer:
When we consider the purity and excellence of this Liturgy, joined to its favourable reception with the people, we are naturally led to reflect upon the satisfaction and pleasure, with which its venerable Authors must have contemplated the successful issue of their labours; and to indulge a secret wish that they had been permitted to enjoy upon earth a protracted sense of so sublime a gratification.
As can be seen, Shepherd is in no way embarrassed by the 1552 revision, as would later be the case with Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics. Nor was the involvement of Bucer and Peter Martyr any cause for concern: indeed, the opposite is the case. All of this explains why Shepherd offers no criticism of the 1552 words of administration. And so, when Elizabeth's 1559 revision combined the two forms - 1549 and 1552 - Shepherd regards it not as 'salvaging' English eucharistic doctrine from Reformed influence but, rather, as entirely insignificant:
Some other unimportant variations were made. At the delivery of the elements in the Eucharist, the two different forms, appointed in the first and second Books of Edward, were united, as they still remain.
He uses the same word, "united", in his second volume:
These two forms were afterwards united, as I have already stated in the Introduction.
While Shepherd provides no further commentary, I think we can suggest from what he does say why he does not criticise the 1552 words of administration and why he sees the 1559 combination as "unimportant". It is when the Reformed eucharistic theology of 1552 is assumed - entirely wrongly, of course - to be a denial of our participation in the Lord's Body and Blood in the sacrament that particular theological significance is attached to the 1552 form and the 1559 combination. By contrast, Shepherd's praise for the 1552 book and understanding that the 1559 change to the words of administration was "unimportant" can be read as standing in profound continuity with Hooker's defence of the Swiss Reformed eucharistic theology represented by Zwingli and Oecolampadius:
But seeinge that by openinge the severall opinions which have bene held, they are growen (for ought I can see) on all sides at the lengthe to a generall agreement, concerninge that which alone is materiall, Namelye the reall participation of Christe and of life in his bodie and bloode by meanes of this sacrament (LEP V.67.2).
In other words, 1552 gives expression to that which the 1549 form, and the patristic usage on which it was based, expressed: "and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving". This is, in Hooker's words, "that which alone is material" - and it is affirmed by both 1549 and 1552. Combining - 'uniting' - both forms in 1559 ensured that this was confirmed and made evident. Placing contradictory sentences beside one another at the administration of the holy Sacrament, after all, would be entirely incoherent.
Shepherd's commentary at this point, therefore, helpfully challenges what has become the received orthodoxy within much Anglican commentary regarding 1552 in general and the words of administration in particular. There was no doctrinal difference between the 1549 and 1552 words of administration. It is this which allowed their 'union' - to play on Shepherd's insightful word - in 1559.
Comments
Post a Comment