I

The accession of James I. in 1603 made possible the holding of the Hampton Court Conference between the king and representatives of the bishops, and the king and representatives of the Puritan party, in 1604. One of the results of this Conference was the addition to the Catechism of the questions and answers about the Sacraments. This addition was based on the Catechism of Dr. Alexander Nowell. It is usually thought to have been written by Dr. John Overall, then Dean of St. Paul’s and Prolocutor of the Convocation of Canterbury, afterwards Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and later Bishop of Norwich.

In the new part of the Catechism the reply to the question “Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained?” is “For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby”. This answer does not compel the acceptance of any definite opinion in regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice. It can be used by those who regard the memorial in the Eucharist simply as a reminder to Christians of Christ’s death and work, and no less by those who believe that the Church’s remembrance of Christ in the Eucharist is also a presentation of Him before God in the Church’s prayer.

On the Eucharistic presence the Catechism has three questions and answers:—

“Question. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord’s Supper?

“Answer. Bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.

“Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified?

“Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.

“Question. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby?

“Answer. The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine.”

The Catechism thus explicitly asserts that the body and blood of Christ are received in Communion. “The inward part, or thing signified,” it is said, “is the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful.” The phrase that the body and blood of Christ are “taken” as well as “received,” and the division into “the outward part or sign,” “the inward part, or thing signified,” and “the benefits,”—corresponding to the division into the “signum Sacramenti,” the “res Sacramenti,” and the “virtus Sacramenti,”—may not unnaturally be taken to imply that Christ is present in the Sacrament as a result of the consecration and prior to Communion. But this is not stated in so many terms; and it may still be said of the Church of England at the outset of the reign of James I that no action was taken to exclude the holders of any belief about the Eucharist which was consistent with the repudiation of Transubstantiation and Zwinglianism.

With this teaching contained in the Church Catechism may be compared a statement by its supposed author, Bishop Overall, who wrote as follows:—

“In the Sacrament of the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are indeed really present, and are really received by us, and are really united to the sacramental signs, as signs which not only signify but also convey, so that in the right use of the Sacrament, and to those who receive worthily, when the bread is given and received, the body of Christ is given and received; and when the wine is given and received, the blood of Christ is given and received; and therefore the whole Christ is communicated in the Communion of the Sacrament. Yet this is not in a carnal, gross, earthly way by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, or any like fictions of human reason, but in a way mystical, heavenly, and spiritual, as is rightly laid down in our Articles.”

The canons of 1640 were the work of the members of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and received the assent of the Crown. On 5th May, 1640, Parliament was dissolved by King Charles I. It was thought by some that the dissolution would of necessity carry with it the cessation of the sittings of Convocation; but Archbishop Laud signified to the Convocation of Canterbury that they would continue to sit. On the legality of this course being challenged, a legal opinion was obtained from the Lord Chancellor and six judges that “Convocation” “doth continue until it be dissolved by writ or commission under the great seal, notwithstanding the Parliament be dissolved”. Instead of this opinion being acted on, however, a new writ was issued authorising the Convocations of Canterbury and York, under the name of synods, to sit and act. The seventh of the canons subsequently drawn up by the Canterbury Synod and assented to by that of York contained statements bearing on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. It was ordered that the holy tables should stand at the east end of churches; and it was added:—

“We declare that this situation of the holy table doth not imply that it is, or ought to be esteemed, a true and proper altar, whereon Christ is again really sacrificed; but it is and may be called an altar by us in that sense in which the primitive Church called it an altar, and in no other.”

Provision was made for railing in the holy tables, for the administration of Communion near the holy table, and for “doing reverence and obeisance” on entering and leaving church. In regard to this last practice it was added:—

“The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custom we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the communion table, the east, or church, and anything therein contained, in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in mystical elements, but only for the advancement of God’s majesty, and to give Him alone that honour and glory that is due unto Him, and no otherwise; and in the practice or omission of this rite we desire that the rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is, that they which use this rite despise not them who use it not, and that they who use it not condemn not those that use it.”

These statements with their careful expressions rejecting “a true and proper altar, whereon Christ is again really sacrificed,” and “any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in mystical elements,” and their appeal to the primitive Church, closely resemble much in the Reformation documents of the Church of England, and may be compared in particular with the thirty-first of the Articles of Religion and the Declaration on Kneeling. The explanation of the phrases in the mind of any reader will be determined by his view of the documents as a whole.