Project Canterbury

Orthodox Doctrine in the American Prayer Book
by
the Revd Richard D Hatch

A Paper read at Synod Hall, New York, at a Meeting of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union, January 28, 1914.

[New York: The Kane Press, 1914. 22 pp]

---

This paper was written with the purpose of meeting, if possible, some of the objections to immediate Reunion put forth in the "Rejoinder" of the Japanese Orthodox theologians to a paper by the Rev. Charles F. Sweet, American Missionary in Japan and published by him in a Pamphlet entitled "An Attempt at Unity in Japan".

When the Church of England reformed her standards in the 16th century, she sought to free herself from the heresies of Romanism without falling into the errors of Protestantism. In her efforts to perform this difficult work she cast her eyes back for guidance to the Origins of Christianity. She made her appeal to the Primitive Church and the teachings of the early Church Fathers. But what was this action in fact but a rapprochement with Orthodoxy, for in going back to the Church of the first centuries the English divines were brought not only to the East geographically but theologically. They came in touch with Orthodoxy at its source and the Orthodoxy they thus deferred to was the same, practically, as existed in their own day, as it does also in ours. For the distinctive claim of the Eastern Church is, that, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, she changes not. In contrast to the Latin Church with her additions to the Faith and constant alterations of it and Protestantism with its shifting bases, the Orthodox Churches of the East maintain the religion of Christ in the same form in which they did in the days of the Councils and their discipline rests to-day upon the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons themselves.

We should expect to find therefore the English Prayer Book, compiled in this Churchly spirit, exhibiting a likeness in many respects to the standards of the Orthodox Church. And this indeed is so, but especially is it true of the Book in its American form, as put forth by the Church in these United States. To enumerate some of these points of contact between ourselves and the East, as seen in this Book, or rather to exhibit the cases of identity of belief or practice as evidenced by our Service Book is the task we have in view.

It should be noted to begin with, that the Prayer Book is the HIGHEST DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY in our Church. To its statements and rubrics we are all pledged. In speaking of its Orthodoxy, therefore, we are dealing not with the opinions of any set of men, or of any school of thought, not with a lesser authority, but with the Truth as taught by the Church Herself. This makes of great significance whatever facts may be brought out by the discussion of this subject. We do not include in our considerations the Thirty Nine Articles as they are not, strictly speaking. a part of the Prayer Book, for although they are bound up with it, they are placed at the end of the Volume and have prefixed their own distinct title page. Nor have these Articles any binding force upon the members of our Church, neither the Clergy nor the laity being required to subscribe to them.

Palmer, the Anglican divine, says: "The meaning of subscription to a body of Articles is an acknowledgment that the doctrines comprised in them are sincerely those of the subscriber." This is obvious, but the American Church in thus deliberately abandoning the custom of requiring subscription to the Articles, although the English Church which framed them, has never ceased to demand it, made a very significant change, which means that no one need acknowledge that the doctrines comprised in them are sincerely his own—that is, the Articles are not of authority in this Church.

THE EPIKLESIS

Doubtless the first feature of Orthodoxy which would attract the notice of an Eastern theologian is the Epiklesis in the Canon, or as we usually term it, the Invocation in the Prayer of Consecration. The Epiklesis is found also in the Liturgy of the Church of Scotland but not in the Liturgy of the Church of England, though it will doubtless be restored to the English Book at its next revision. It is not found in the Roman Mass. Certain writers have essayed to prove that the prayer "Supplices te rogamus," that the Holy Gifts might be presented upon the celestial Altar, was an equivalent, but without much success. Roman writers generally admit that there is no Epiklesis in the Canon. "The Catholic Cyclopaedia," a Roman work speaking authoritively, says: "It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Roman rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution of this Invocation we have now only a fragment with the essential clause left out.

The Epiklesis, however, is found in all the Eastern Liturgies, and is considered of the utmost importance by Eastern theologians. The Consecration is not deemed complete without it, as it is stated in the Orthodox Catechism: "Question: What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy? Answer: The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament and after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered." The form of the Invocation is quite similar in the East and in the West. The Liturgy of S. James in use by the Church of Jerusalem the structure of which and much of the wording being attributed to S. James: "Send forth on us and on these offered gifts, thy all-holy Spirit, the sovereign and quickening Spirit, that sits upon the throne with thee, our God and Father, and with Thy only-begotten Son reigning with thee and consubstantial and co-eternal, that spoke in the law and in the prophets, and in Thy New Testament; that descended in the form of a dove on our Lord Jesus Christ at the river Jordan, and abode on Him; that descended on Thy Apostles in the form of tongues of fire in the upper room of the holy and glorious Zion on the day of Pentecost: this Thine All-holy Spirit, send down Lord, upon us and upon these offered holy gifts that coming by His holy and good and glorious appearing, He may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Thy Christ, and this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ."

The Liturgy of S. Mark, equally venerable and the work of that Evangelist, perfected possibly by S. Cyril: "Send down upon us also, and upon this bread and upon these chalices, Thy Holy Spirit, that by His all-powerful and divine influence He may sanctify and consecrate them, and make this bread the body and this cup the blood of the New Testament, of the very Lord and God and Saviour and universal King, Christ Jesus."

The Liturgy of S. Chrysostom: "And we beseech and implore thee and offer our supplications unto Thee, that Thou wilt send thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts here spread forth and make this bread the precious body of thy Christ and make that which is in this Chalice the precious Blood of Thy Christ."

The Liturgy of S. Basil: " . . . we pray thee and implore thee, O Holy of Holies, by the favour of thy goodness, that thy Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts here spread forth before Thee, and bless them, and sanctify and manifest them, for this bread is in very truth the precious body of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ: for this Chalice in very truth the precious blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ which was poured out for the life of the World."

The Scottish Liturgy: "And humbly praying that it may be unto us according to His Word, we thine unworthy servants beseech thee, most merciful Father, to hear us and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine that, being blessed and hallowed by his life-giving power, they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son."

And our American Liturgy: "And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that we receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

From these quotations it will be seen how important a mark of resemblance between our Liturgy and the Eastern the Epiklesis is, and what a bond of sympathetic union it should be between us and our Orthodox brethren. Its presence in our Liturgy is due to the influence of Bishop Seabury of Connecticut (the first American Bishop), who promised his consecrators, Bishop Kilgour, Bishop Petrie, and Bishop Skinner, Bishops of the Catholic Remainder of the Church in Scotland, that he would endeavor to introduce the Scottish Communion Office into the American Church. This pledge he was able to redeem, for when he with Bishop White presided over the Convention of the Church in 1789, the most essential parts of that Office were incorporated in the Office for Holy Communion in the American Prayer Book.

Is it not true that as the dogmas of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility and the Temporal Power were pushed in the Latin Church that the office and work of the Holy Spirit in the Church became correspondingly less prominent, and that this may explain the omission of the Invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Latin Canon? That may be one of the results of the dislocation which has occurred in the Roman Body by reason of its altered ecclesiastical Constitution. She has abolished the Ecumenical Council, which was the living voice of the Holy Spirit present in the Body of Christ by substituting an infallible Vicar of Christ at the Vatican, and the pre-eminence of the Holy Ghost in the economy of grace has been in other ways lowered. An indication of this may be found in the small number of Churches which appear to be dedicated to the Holy Spirit in the Latin Communion, much fewer in proportion than in the Orthodox and Anglo-American Churches. In fact the intent of our Church and that of the East is one in magnifying the Holy Spirit as the true Vicar of Christ on earth: the Teacher and Guide of the Church and the Divine Power who alone renders sacraments efficacious and every Christian effort fruitful. This is clearly seen by a study of our Service Book and the Eastern rituals. May we not regard this feature of our Prayer Book as a second link which binds us to Orthodoxy?

HOLY ORDERS

A third point of resemblance and a very striking one is in the matter of Holy Orders. The American doctrine is stated in the Preface to the Ordinal. "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." With this statement the Orthodox Catechism is in entire harmony: Question, "How many necessary degrees are there in Orders Answer, "Three, those of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon." And this is also the teaching of the Church Fathers and of the Divinely inspired Ecumenical Councils. As says the Russian theologian, the Very Rev. A. Lebedeff, "According to the dogmatical definition the Holy Orders have only three grades: Bishop, the Presbyter, and the Deacon. And the grace is distributed perfectly equally among the members of each different grade. For instance, all the Bishops are each others' equals in the grace of the Orders." And like the rules of the Holy Apostles, the Ecumenical Councils also know only three grades of the Holy Orders, the Bishop the Priest and the Deacon." He then discusses the difference between Holy Orders and the other offices of Church service, showing how the theory of the Papacy has mixed the "dogmatical and canonical definitions." "The distinction between the dogmatical and canonical definitions which the Ecumenical Councils proclaimed to be a law and which is so strictly observed in the Eastern Church has long since been forgotten and lost in the Latin Church. The Latin theologian, Thomas Aquinas, enumerated seven grades of the Holy Orders, doorkeepers, readers, exorcisers, lightbearers, subdeacons, deacons, and priests. According to him the first five grades belong to inferior offices and the two later to superior. The grade of Priests is divided into Priests proper and Bishops; in the center of the latter stands the Supreme High Priest, the Vicar and successor of S. Peter, the Father of Fathers, the Pope! This seven-fold division was also accepted by the Council of Trent and is found in the Roman Catechism. More modern Catechisms, however, do not mention the number of the grades in Holy Orders. And they are wise, for their silence covers up the question, What is the exact grade of the Holy Orders the Pope represents? If in the Holy Orders he is no more than a Bishop, then in grace he is the equal of other Bishops and his Papal office is merely a canonical institution. But if the grace of his office is superior to the Bishops', it becomes necessary that the institution of the sacrament for the Papal degree of Holy Orders should be proven, which, needless to say, is an impossible task. The chief cause of all these entanglements is in the idea of Papal Supremacy. If there is to be a Pope, he must be singled out from the ranks of his brother Bishops and placed above them. According to this, the grades of the Holy Orders are not three but four, even if the canonical offices are separated from them. As a result of all this the Roman Catholics understand papacy to be an immutable institution: the Pope judges all, but cannot be judged by anyone. Such an interpretation abolishes the principle of Councils, on whom reposes the whole structure of the Church and by which the episcopal order is preserved from absorption and final disappearance. This is why we see in the papal idea the cause of the hopeless confusion of dogmatical and canonical definitions, their distortion and entanglement. Placing canonical offices among spiritual degrees was necessary for the Papists in order to raise the importance of the Pope, to show the great distance between him and the Bishops." These words are very true, we cannot tell how many grades in Holy Orders Rome teaches. One infers seven, another two, others necessitate four; nor does Rome herself know how many there are or if she does, she does not tell us. The "Catholic Cyclopedia" says: "Though nothing has been defined with regard to the number of Orders, it is usually given as seven—the priesthood is thus counted as including Bishops; if the latter be counted separately we have eight and if we add first tonsure, we have nine. Jumieges' pontifical enumerates eight orders not counting Bishops and adding cantor." One wonders how S. Ignatius would have liked that "enumeration." We see the confusion illustrated well by the placing of Cardinal-deacons above Bishops, by the de-grading of diocesan Bishops to be the mere agents of the Pope and by the pre-eminence given to the sub-deacon.

Now of all these changes and developments the American Book of Common Prayer knows nothing. Her position is identical with that of our Brothers in the East.

We are one with them, too, in not insisting on the delivery of the instruments, an important matter in the eyes of the Latins, though as Bishop Browne, of Winchester, says: "Not a father, not a Council, not one ancient author at any time mentions the delivery of the paten or chalice or the formal words used by The Church of Rome even when they describe the ordination of their days and where this could not have been omitted, if it had been essential."

And that this Orthodox method of ordaining our Bishops, Priests, and Deacons is not a mere form we have inherited from the past, the Prayer Book teaches further that it conveys such peculiar grace that it is quite different from any Protestant ministry, for the preface to the Ordinal goes on to state: "Which offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same and also by public prayer and imposition of hands were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority and therefore to the intent that these orders may be continued and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church or suffered to execute any of the said functions except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordination." And this teaching as to our Holy Orders being entirely different from the ministries among the Protestant bodies is enforced by the prayer for the newly instituted rector, "O Holy Jesus, who hast purchased to thyself an universal Church and hast promised to be with the ministers of Apostolic succession to the end of the world, be graciously pleased to bless the ministry and service of him who is now appointed to offer the sacrifices of prayer and praise to thee," etc. That the Prayer Book teaches that her Holy Orders confer Grace is apparent also from the opening statement in the Preface to the Ordinal, for if these Orders be from the Apostles' time, they must be divine and convey all Grace intended to be conveyed. Many English theologians during the Reformation period thus understand the purpose of ordination, such as Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Beveridge, and Archbishop Bramhall. And it is interesting to note, because it is taught also with great prominence by Orthodox writers, that the opinion was quite universal that our three-fold Order was patterned after and was the successor of the divinely constituted Jewish three-fold Order. Men w ho believed that must have understood that their Holy Orders conferred Grace. Such were Andrewes, Herbert, Usher, Pearson, Taylor, Thorndike, Barrow, Waterland, Beveridge, Hooker, Laud, and Seabury. From these facts we submit that the doctrine of Holy Orders as taught by our American Prayer Book is in complete harmony with the teaching of our Brothers of the Eastern Church.

Though it may transgress the proper limits of this paper it might be well to note the objection which has been raised, without warrant we believe, to wit, that though the statements of our Book are Orthodox and also our practice, in the matter of Orders, nevertheless Orders are not termed a Sacrament. The proper reply to this is that the Anglo-American Churches have adopted a peculiar meaning to the word "Sacrament" and use it in a different sense from the Latins and Orthodox; in a narrower and more restricted sense. This peculiar attitude as to the meaning of the word sacrament is one of the results of the confusion of thought and bitterness of feeling at the time of the Reformation of the English Church, when the distinction was made among the great rites of the Church, between the two sacraments which were of universal obligation and those not necessary to be received by all. It may have been an unhappy distinction but it was a protest against the multiplying of sacred rites as of divine appointment and obligation, which our fathers desired in their return to a purer Faith, to repudiate. Had there been no Roman abuse of the sacramental idea there would have been no such distinction made among the holy rites of our religion. "We deny not Ordination to be a sacrament," says Archbishop Bramhall, "though it be not one of those two sacraments generally necessary to salvation." But after all what matters it, vitally, as to the name given to the sacrament of Orders? We have the thing, we believe in it and we receive grace therefrom, it is the source from which all our grace proceeds, for without Holy Orders the Church herself must cease. The objection is entirely a matter of words not of facts. In the sense in which the East terms Holy Orders a Mystery or sacrament we are at one. The Roman idea of a priestly caste, after the manner of heathen priesthoods, is a modern and un-Christian and we venture to believe an un-Orthodox one. The priestly caste of Rome which removes the clergy so far from the laity and inspires such servility and fear is doubtless necessary to extend and uphold the Vatican Monarchy but it is not the priesthood which is the expression of the priesthood of the whole Body of Christ and in which the clergy, while appointed to rule the Church, are nevertheless its organs. It is the Holy Church which offers and which intercedes. As S. Gregory Nazianzen says, "It is pre-eminently the Eucharistic Oblation in which the Church offers to God the whole life of Christ as well as His death." A careful study of the Pope's condemnation of Anglican Orders leads us to the conclusion that he does not deny the outward succession but the intention. The intention to make priests in the sense in which the Pope regards them he does not find and so refuses to accept the validity of the ordinations, but it is the priesthood in its primitive Apostolic and Orthodox sense that our Church intends to create, not the caste developed by Rome, so we ask our Orthodox friends not to look at us through the Pope's spectacles but through their own and if they do so, we believe they will discover that our teaching, our practice, and our intention, are all identical with their own in this mystery of Holy Order.

It is true that the belief of the Church in the nature of her Orders enters into the question of the Validity of those Orders. What she believes as to their power to convey the grace needed for the different grades, that is her "intention," must also be proved. But the way to prove it is to give in the first place proper weight to the words of the Prayer Book, as the presumption surely is that she "intends" in the traditional sense, rather than that she has not the customary intention or has invented a new intention. Then if that be supplemented by the testimony of early English authorities it becomes reasonably proven. It is not fair to take the opinions of those, even though they be within the Church, which are contrary to this and infer from them that the Church believed formerly or believes now, as they do. We have shown that the words of the Book evidence not only great care in preserving the Succession, but that they teach the Catholic or Orthodox belief regarding the Grace of Holy Orders, and throughout the paper we have added as testimony the opinions of the English and American Divines. They fully attest that they did not hold Holy Orders to be merely of the "Bene esse" of the Church, but of the "Esse" of the Church; that is, that they did not hold nor mean the Prayer Book to teach the Protestant view as to the Sacred Ministry.

BAPTISM

A fourth instance of similarity is the Form of Baptism. This sacrament is permitted to be performed by our Prayer Book by Immersion or by pouring, but by the wording of the rubric the preference is given to immersion and we might add that, though nothing is said of the number of immersions or pourings, it is the universal custom among us to use the triple form. If we compare the rubric with that of the English Church from which it was modelled we may rightly infer that the pouring was allowed in case the infant was weak and that the provision was made for that purpose. Although pouring is the usual method with us, immersion is by no means unknown, so that as regards the mode of administering this sacrament there is this harmony between the American and Orthodox Churches.

THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS

Although it is the object of this paper to bring out the points in our Prayer Book which are significantly Orthodox, yet a word ought to be said in explanation regarding the absence of the Invocation of Saints. Here the explanation is, as in so many other cases, the abuse of the practice by Rome. The existence of Mariolatry in the Roman Church and its development of the Cultus of the Saints into a system of saint-worship, which differs as far as practical purposes are concerned, in no way from Polytheism, has resulted in a rebound of feeling amongst us which evidences itself in a spirit of deep reverence and reserve when the Blessed Birth-Giver of God and the Blessed Saints are commemorated in our Prayer Book. We reverence them no less highly than our Brethren of the East and we think more holily than our neighbors of the Latin Flock. And it seemed wise to the Fathers, in view of the false practices prevalent all around them m the West, to refrain from invoking the Saints in the public services of the Church. Lately the Bishop of London in addressing the Church Congress in England, said that during his recent visit to Russia he had heard many expressions of surprise that the English seemed so cold of heart in this matter and he suggested a deeper entering by us into the truths of the Communion of Saints. Our divines would in all probability not declare that the invocation of the Saints was in any way wrong but owing to the abuses in the West which detract from the pre-eminence of Our Blessed Lord, they have omitted the invocations from the public Offices. Differences of racial temperament enter doubtless into this question as they do into the question of outward ritual observances, in which the one Faith is expressed, but we may not in fairness conclude that the absence of direct invocation either in the case of the Blessed Mother of God or the Saints of God imply any doctrine inconsistent with Orthodoxy.

THE HOLY COMMUNION

Besides the Epiklesis, there are many features of Orthodoxy when we come to our Liturgy which we call in our Prayer Book, "The Holy Communion." The first is the Communion in both kinds. We are commanded to communicate the people with both the Body and Blood of our Lord. This of course is the unbroken tradition of the East. Secondly, in distinction from Protestant doctrine our Orthodox friends will see that our Liturgy teaches the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and a sacrificing priesthood. The former in any case would imply the latter, for where there is a sacrifice there must of necessity be one to offer. Such sentences as these from the beautiful words of our Canon seem to be conclusive to us. "We, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make;" and later on, "And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving"; and to show that this is not praise and thanksgiving in the abstract, this immediately follows: "most humbly beseeching thee that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion."

The calling of the officiant of this service a Priest throughout the Liturgy attests also the teaching of our Prayer Book and Church regarding the character of the Sacred Minister who performs this service.

This of course has a vital bearing on the interpretation which our Church puts on her Ordinal. If she teaches a Sacrifice in the Eucharist she infers a sacrificing priesthood and that proves an Orthodox conception regarding the purpose of her ordination services. Does it not prove both in-tent to make priests and also to use them in the constant Life of the Church? The validity of Orders is attested not merely by regularity in the Succession, but by the belief of the Church in them; by their fruits. Canon Carter says: "Our Reformers claimed a true Priesthood and in retaining the name, they intended to use it in the real sense. He then quotes Archbishop Bramhall and says, "that great writer and other defenders of the Reformation in England proved their belief in Holy Orders by asserting their belief in the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament." "We acknowledge a Eucharistic Sacrifice of Praise and thanksgiving, a commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross, a representative Sacrifice or a re-presentation of the Passion of Christ before the eyes of His Heavenly Father, an applicative Sacrifice or an application of His merits unto our souls. Let him that dare, go one step further than we do and say it is a suppletory Sacrifice—to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross, or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of sacrifice forever." A third thing to be noted is that the rubric in the Holy Communion does not order the Bread used to be unleavened. As no command is given in this matter the use of both leavened and unleavened Bread is permitted, although it would be fair to say that leavened Bread is in much greater use by us than unleavened.

The Divine Presence of our Blessed Lord in this Mystery is also taught by the words of the Liturgy, in distinction from the Protestant views. Before the Canon we pray: "Grant us gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us." In the Epiklesis occur the words, "partakers of his most blessed body and blood"; later on these words, "that we and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us and we in him.'' And as the Holy Gifts are presented to the faithful the words are: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. And that this language during this most solemn moment is not mere rhetoric, the rubric forbids the taking away of any of the consecrated gifts for secular purposes commanding that what remains shall be reverently consumed; this being entirely opposed to the Protestant view that the elements used remain the same as they ever were. The words transubstantiation or transmutation do not occur, as the Church refrains from defining the nature of the Mystery, agreeing, we may believe, with the spirit of the Orthodox Church, who though she uses those terms does so to state thereby her belief in the reality of Christ's Presence rather than as a definition of the mode of the Presence. The great Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, declared, "the Oriental Catholic Church admits the term transubstantiation not in a carnal or physical sense but in a sacramental and mystical sense"; and the renowned Philaret, author of the Russian Catechism, taught that though the bread and wine became truly, really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, Christ's Presence is a mystery to be apprehended by faith, not reasoned about."

Then also the testimony of our Catechism in the Prayer Book is in agreement with this view for it asserts that "The Body and Blood of Christ are spiritually TAKEN and RECEIVED by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. Corrobrative witness to this is afforded by those who early expressed the mind of the Church; that is, interpreted the Prayer Book, the Bishops' Bull, Overall, Lake, Wheatly, Burnet, Taylor, Wilson, and Mant, while Bishop Cosin and Bishop Thorndike declare that all the theologians of their time followed the Prayer Book in upholding the Real Presence.

Our Liturgy bears one more element of similarity to the Eastern and that is in its teaching regarding the nature of the commemorative Sacrifice. The Eucharist is not another Sacrifice but one with the sacrifice upon the Cross. There is no multiplication of masses with us therefore as with the Latins. This doctrine will be evident upon a reading of the words of our Canon. The uniform teaching of the fathers is that the Eucharist is the continual showing forth of the One Offering of the Cross, not a separate and a different sacrifice. S. Gregory Nazianzen extolls "the One sacrifice of Christ which abidingly presented in Heaven, gathers into itself earthly worship and sacrifice." S. Chrysostom says the same thing. "Do we not offer every day? Certainly we so offer, making a memorial of his death. We do not offer another sacrifice but we ever offer the same or rather we make the memorial of that sacrifice." These words are almost the words of our Canon. Nothing here of Christ's forgiving original sin only on the Cross and providing the Mass to be offered for daily sins' forgiveness. Is it not clear, then, that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is understood in the same sense by the Fathers, the East and ourselves, the teaching of Romanism and Protestantism being different.

We cannot follow the Roman Bellarmine then who teaches that "change and destruction" of the thing offered is necessary for a sacrifice. Nor do we believe that the Lord is brought back from His state of glory at every Mass to suffer fresh and constant pain. Canon Mason justly says: "S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose would have been as shocked as we are to read in a modern book of dogmatic theology by a Cardinal Archbishop that in consequence of the "immolation" in the Eucharist a change takes place in the victim; by the Consecration, Jesus Christ is reduced to an unnatural condition and these sacramental words, "This is My Body," "this is My Blood," pronounced separately, are like a sword which separates mystically and as far as may be, the Body and Blood of Christ." To guard against such views the grand words at the opening of our Canon must ever remain. But the true teaching is also insisted on as we have seen, in the wording of the Liturgy. The Eucharist is, as all the fathers have taught, the great Sacrifice of the Christian Church. Our Prayer Book teaches that as Christ is seated now in heaven, a Priest upon His throne ever presenting on our behalf the life he laid down and took again, so at our Liturgy we do the same. We not only plead the Cross before the Father, as the Protestants do, but we offer unto Him the memorial which His Son hath commanded, showing forth the Body and Blood of the living Redeemer who died upon the Cross. The Eucharist like the Cross is therefore a Propitiatory Sacrifice. Anglican Fathers of the Reformation Era teach this such as Overall, Thorndike, Andrewes, and Cosin, the last two quoting S. Augustine. Likewise Bishop Seabury, of Connecticut, one of the compilers of our American Book.

HOLY SCRIPTURE

The attitude of our Church and Prayer Book on the subject of the Holy Scriptures is a very prominent and a very clear one and we have no doubt in harmony with Orthodoxy. The Prayer Book exalts the Scriptures as the Word of God and declares it to be the measure of Orthodoxy. Especially is this brought out in the Ordinal where the Bishop and priest about to be ordained are asked, "Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the same Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same." From this appears not only the high reverence and implicit faith of the Church in the matter of the Divine Scriptures but that she teaches that the Word of God is the truth by which any alleged doctrine shall be tested and established. Just as the Book of the Holy Gospels was enthroned in the Council chamber of the Ecumenical assembly to show that it was the guide of the Fathers in determining what was the Faith handed down from the Holy Apostles so our Prayer Book places the Word of God in that same high position to-day in the American Church. But this is not Protestantism. The Church does not hold the doctrine of the right of private judgment, which is the foundation rock of all Protestant bodies. She holds as firmly to Holy tradition as to Holy Scripture and teaches that the Word of God is to be understood according to the tradition of the Church, for she adds this to the vows of the priest (which remain binding of course upon the Bishops after they are advanced to the higher grade). "Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church hath received the same?" Here the emphasis is laid upon the Words of Our Lord Himself and the Tradition of the Church.

The reason that the faithful are ordered to repeat the Creed of the Church not only at the Liturgy but at Morning and Evening Prayer, is that they shall be ever reminded that their interpretation of the Scriptures shall always conform to the Faith handed down and preserved by the Church, that is to Holy Tradition. The saying which is frequently heard amongst us, "The Church to teach and the Bible to prove," expresses our position and belief. This is certainly far removed from the principles of Protestantism. This high position accorded the Word of God and this relationship between it and Holy Tradition is the teaching also of the Russian Catechism. Question: "What is that which you call holy Scripture?" Answer: "Certain books, written by the Spirit of God, through men sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles." Question: "What does the word Bible mean?" Answer: "It is Greek and means 'The Books'; the name signifies that the sacred books deserve attention above all others." Question: "Must we follow Holy Tradition, even when we possess holy Scripture?" Answer: "We must follow that tradition which agrees with the Divine Revelation and with Holy Scripture as is taught by Holy Scripture itself." The Apostle Paul writes: "Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by epistle." Question: "Why is Tradition necessary even now?" Answer: "As a guide to the right understanding of Holy Scripture," etc. Father Dabovich, of the Servian Church, in his valuable book entitled "The Holy Orthodox Church," says in like manner: "We have in the Church together with holy Scripture, holy tradition" . . . these are two sources of Divine Truth." The East does not fear Holy Scripture. She believes in free investigation, in the open Bible. It is with her as with us the great Measure of the Faith.

In significant contrast to those who burn the Bible and would withhold it from the laity, is the example of Russia, which alone of all Christian nations carries the Holy Scriptures on all her railways throughout her Empire, FREE! And also the attitude of the Ecumenical Patriarch Constantine the Fifth, who wrote thus to the Archbishop of Canterbury upon the erection of the Theodore Memorial Press at Constantinople, "It will not be long before the Word of God be distributed in many thousand copies among the Orthodox population which bears the name of Christ." These facts attest how much at one w e are in the high regard which we have for the Holy Scriptures and in our fearlessness of the Open Bible.

There are other minor features of the Prayer Book which correspond with Orthodoxy. All services for instance, are in the vernacular, which we believe is the custom of the East. Our Evening Prayer is quite similar in structure to the Orthodox Evening Service, having psalms, lessons, and a Dogmatic part, in distinction from the evening service of the Romans; Rosary vespers, and Benediction. And as regards Ceremonies. Our Eastern friends tell us that they regard the differences of outward ritual as of no moment, provided the Faith be held entire, so that conformity of ritual does not enter into the question of Reunion, it being expected that both the East and the West would retain their respective customs. This almost echoes the opening words of the Preface of the American Prayer Book. "It is a most valuable part of that blessed liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free that in His worship different forms and usages may without offence be allowed provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire."

NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS

One final word must be said about the other services provided for in our Book. Criticism has been directed against it, because it does not call the seven sacraments by the name of Sacrament. The Catechism speaks of two sacraments only being ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel and necessary for the salvation of all, but that does not deny that the other sacraments for the administration of which our Book makes provision, are sacraments in the sense in which the Orthodox Church uses the term "sacrament." If one will study our offices for Confirmation and Matrimony, as well as those for Holy Communion Baptism, and Holy Orders which we have mentioned, he will find the true sacramental teaching there put forth. As to Holy Unction we have no office provided for that at present in the Prayer Book, but a reference to it is found in the solemn admonition addressed to the newly consecrated Bishop: "Heal the sick, hind up the broken." etc. The sacrament of Penance is provided for in the office for the Visitation of Prisoners and a form for the pronouncing of absolution indicated, the power of the priesthood to forgive sins being taught, however, most emphatically at the opening of Matins and Evensong and in the words spoken to a priest at the moment of ordination. Jeremy Taylor is a notable example of the early authorities of the English Church who thus interpreted the Prayer Book on Absolution.

If one will look, we repeat, at all these services in our American Book, he must see that it is not a Protestant and not a Romanist Book, but a Book holding up the Primitive faith and worship of the Holy Church of our God.

The English Reformation was a Period lasting from one to two hundred years and our Prayer Book has been a growth. To assist in rightly understanding it, we must give consideration to those whose work it was, and no one can read the debates or the opinions of those concerned intimately with it, and study the action taken at different stages of the Reformation Movement, without seeing that the great Church doctrines in their truest, most spiritual and scriptural and patristic sense were preserved. Canon Carter, an authority amongst us, thus summarizes the English Reformation: "The main difference between the English and foreign Reformation lay in this: that we retained and they lost the sacramental system. The name Priest, which they have consistently rejected and we as consistently preserved, is the token and seal of that system and so of our distinctiveness." But this is not quite all, of course. The Prayer Book must not now be a dead letter. In speaking of the validity of Orders, a Russian writer says quite truly: "Ordination is a visible method instituted by God Himself as a means of sending His grace upon the subject of ordination in the Church, but if the method is not used properly, it would remain as a mere method and thus might have no effect at all"; then quoting Homigakoff, a Russian scholar, he continues: "Sacraments will be realized by the belief of the Church." With this we entirely agree, and so to understand the Prayer Book, one must behold the life of our people. The great Body of our Communicants are living by this Book, they are living the sacramental life therein set forth. This Book is the Life of our Church! by it men are being saved from their sins and saints are being nourished. What blemishes are in it are the result of our struggles in the past but no indication that we have become a Protestant body. As our Bishop Garrett says: "The members live because the Church lives, Drawing her life from Christ the Head, those who inhere in her are one with Him. She perpetuates His presence and dispenses His grace in the World. As the Body of Christ, she is an organism not an organization. Because Christ lives the Body lives. Each member of the Body shares the common life, and lives because of its inherence in the Body. The unity arises from participation in the life of the Organism. The common life is the source of all abilities and powers. Flowing directly from Christ the Head but only through channels divinely appointed for its conveyance, it brings to all the world the revelation of knowledge and love, not otherwise to be obtained. Her Creeds are not merely dead symbols of a buried age but filled with the life of God." These statements depict truly the life of our Church. This is the way she understands the Prayer Book, and that we are here to-night with our Orthodox brethren is proof of the validity of the Intention of the Church and her belief in the Mystery of Holy Orders.

And so may I conclude; if this Book is so full of Orthodox doctrine, if the things which have been said at these meetings are true, are we not much nearer than we ourselves suppose? If I and my Orthodox brother believe alike, we are one, we are in communion, are we not?

The Bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 1888 expressed the "hopeful belief that our differences were either matters of unauthorized opinion or capable of explanation and adjustment"; and our American House of Bishops, showing the genius of our Church to be the same as in the days of the English Reformers, declared in 1886: "We do hereby affirm that the Christian Unity now so earnestly desired can he restored only by the return of all Christian Communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Faith and Order committed by Christ and His Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men." What is this pronouncement but a declaration of our own belief in Orthodoxy and a proof therefore that the first step in healing the breeches of Zion must be the Reunion of the American Church and the Holy Orthodox Churches of the East?

return to Project Canterbury