Page images
PDF
EPUB

and has always included, a commission to minister the sacraments; and this must necessarily include a commission to "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice, in whatever sense the Eucharist be a sacrifice. It has been truly said that "the sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something superadded to the sacrament. It cannot be more than is included in 'Do this in remembrance of me.' Whatever it is or is not, it cannot be more than is covered by 'the perpetual memory of that His precious death until His coming again.' In conferring the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, the Church cannot help conferring the power of sacrifice, even if she would." 1

But,

as was shown under Article XXXI., there is not the slightest ground for thinking that the Church of England ever wished to deny the Eucharistic sacrifice when rightly understood. "The Sacrifices of Masses," as often taught in the sixteenth century, she was rightly concerned to deny. And in her desire to repudiate what was false and heretical, it may be that she went further Chan was necessary in omitting reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice. But this is the utmost that can be fairly said; and it is a simple matter of fact that the commission to offer the Eucharist must be included in the authority to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation," which is given to every Anglican priest at the time of his ordination.

[ocr errors]

There remains the objection that our orders are invalid through lack of "intention." It has been said that "the Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it. When any one has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by the

1 Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. i. p. 189.

1

very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed." This utterance of the highest authority in the Roman Church relieves us from the necessity of considering the private opinions of Barlow or Cranmer, or any others. If the due form be rightly and seriously made use of, that is all that is required. A parody or unseemly jest would not be a valid sacrament, even if the proper matter and form of words were used, because the lack of intention would be "externally manifest"; but where the ceremony is performed as a Church ceremony, there the intention of the Church is present, even if the minister be himself heretical. As Hooker puts it: "Inasmuch as sacraments are actions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious meaning, and what every man's private mind is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine; therefore in these cases the known intent of the Church generally doth suffice, and where the contrary is not manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth the work hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God." 2

That then with which we are concerned is not the "private mind" of any of the Reformers, but the form of the rite as expressing the mind of the Church of England; and if it could be proved that the rite was changed "with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament," then

[blocks in formation]

indeed, it might be fairly held that defect of intention 'was established. But, as a matter of fact, the Church of England has been particularly careful to express her intention, and to make it perfectly clear that it was no new rite which she introduced in the sixteenth century, but that her intention was to continue the ancient orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, which had come to her from the days of the Apostles themselves. In witness to this, appeal may be made to the Preface, which since 1550 has stood in the forefront of the Ordinal.1 It is there stated that "it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church-bishops, priests, and deacons, which offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man by his own private authority might presume to execute any of them except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as were requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, approved and admitted thereunto. And therefore, to the intent these orders should be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, it is requisite that no man (not being at this present bishop, priest, nor deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted, according to the form hereafter following." It is hard to conceive what more could be asked for, since it would be difficult to frame words which should express with greater clearness that the intention of the Church was not to make a new ministry, but to continue that which already existed. But if further proof of the mind of the Church be demanded, it may be found not only in the form of

1 A few verbal changes were introduced in 1662, as may be seen by comparing the Preface as it stands in a modern Prayer Book with the form here given in the text.

"

service used which throughout speaks of "priests" and bishops," but also in the fact that the Church of England recognises the priesthood of the Church of Rome; and while she takes the utmost care to guard her altars from unauthorised ministrations, yet whenever a Roman priest joins the Anglican Communion, he is recognised as a priest at once, and is in virtue of his ordination in the Church of Rome admitted to celebrate the sacraments. This could not be, unless the office were intended to be the same as that which he had already received. We conclude, then, that the objection on the score of defect of intention fails, as the other objections previously enumerated have failed; and that there is nothing to make us feel a shadow of doubt as to the validity of our orders, or as to the statement of the Article, that the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons ... doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering. ... and therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book . . . all such [are] rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.1

1 It has been impossible in the space available to give more than the briefest outline of the objections that have been raised against the validity of Anglican Orders, and of the answers returned to them. Fuller information must be sought in some of the many excellent treatises which exist upon the subject. Among older books, A. W. Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church of England may be mentioned; and reference should also be made to Denny and Lacey, De Hierarchia Anglicana, which brings the subject fully up to date, and considers the objections in the latest form in which they have been presented. See also The Bull Apostolicæ Curæ and the Edwardine Ordinal, by F. W. Puller; and for the practice of the Roman Church as to the reordination in Mary's reign of those who had been ordained according to the Edwardian Ordinal, see W. H. Frere, The Marian Reaction in its relation to the English Clergy. See also Moberly's Ministerial Priesthood, an important work which has appeared since the above note was written.

ARTICLE XXXVII

De civilibus Magistratibus. Regia Majestas in hoc Angliæ Regno ac cæteris ejus Dominiis, summam habet potestatem, ad quam omnium statuum hujus Regni sive illi ecclesiastici sunt sive non, in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externæ jurisdictioni est subjecta, nec esse debet.

Cum Regiæ Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi: non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut sacramentorum administrationem, quod etiam Injunctiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra nuper æditæ, apertissime testantur: sed eam tantum prærogativam, quam in sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso omnibus piis Principibus, videmus semper fuisse attributam, hoc est, ut omnes status atque ordines fidei suæ a Deo commissos, sive illi ecclesiastici sint, sive civiles, in officio contineant, et contumaces ac delinquentes, gladio civili co

erceant.

Romanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliæ. Leges Civiles possunt Christianos propter capitalia et gravia crimina morte punire.

Christianis licet et ex mandato

Of the Civil Magistrates.

The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word, or of Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, doth most plainly testify: But that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The laws of the Realm may

« PreviousContinue »