Skip to main content

Full text of "Benediction and the bishops"

See other formats 


BENEDICTION 

AND  THE 

BISHOPS 


A.  H.  BAVERSTOCK  M.A. 


NOV  i 


BV  197  .B5  B39 
Baverstock,  Alban  Henry, 

1871- 
Benediction  and  the  bishops 


BENEDICTION  AND   THE  BISHOPS 


,/ 


V 


NO 


BENEDICTION 

AND  THE 

BISHOPS 


/ 


BY 


A.  H.   BAVERSTOCK,  M.A 

RECTOR    OF    HINTON    MARTEL,  WIMBORNE 


•*  It  is  most  true  that  the  Divine  Majesty  is  present 
in  all  things.'' — St.  Ignatius  Loyola. 

"  The  manner  of  meditation  which  sees  God  in 
everything  is  more  easy  than  that  other  which  elevates 
the  mind  to  divine  objects." — Id. 

"  After  Mass  he  meditated  by  himself  for  two  hours, 
his  favourite  practice  being  to  kneel  by  a  small  window 
in  his  room  whence  he  could  see  the  tabernacle  of  Santa 
Maria  delta  Strada ;  and  at  these  times  his  face  was 
seen  to  be  irradiated." — Francis  Thompson's  "  Life 
OF  St.  Ignatius." 


MCMXIX     LONDON:    COPE    AND    FENWICK 
8,    BUCKINGHAM    STREET,    STRAND,    W.C.2 


By  Rev.  A.  H.  BAVERSTOCK 

THE 
PRIEST   AS   CONFESSOR 

"  A  very  useful  manual.  .  .  . 
We  should  be  glad  indeed  to  know 
that  it  had  found  a  wide  circula- 
tion."— Church  Times. 

"  A  book  brimful  of  sound 
practical  advice,  founded  on  care- 
ful study  and  long  experience." — 
Church  Union  Gazette. 

"  Its  tone  is  all  that  could  be 
desired." — Catholic  Book  News. 

On  superior  paper,  in  purple 
cloth  binding.  Price  3s.  net ;  post 
free  3s.  3d. 

THE 

SUPREME    ADVENTURE 

OR    THE    LIFE    OF    THE 
THEOLOGICAL   VIRTUES 

Price  2s.  net,  in  cloth  binding ; 
post  free  2s.  3d. 


LONDON  :   COPE   AND   FENWICi 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION 7 

CHAPTER 

I.  THE  IVIATTKR   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY      II 

II.  THE   REAIv  ISSUE    .  .  .  .21 

III.  THE   DOCTRINAI,   BASIS    .  .  .27 

IV.  CANONICAI,   OBEDIENCE  .  .      48 

V.  THE  HONOUR  OF   JESUS  .  .      61 

VI.      BENEDICTION  AND  THE   BISHOPS   OF 

TRURO   AND   BIRMINGHAM  .       77 

APPENDIX    I. — PASSAGES       FROM       EARLY 

CHRISTIAN   WRITERS  .  .       85 

APPENDIX  II. — THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
CANON  LAW  ON  EXPOSITION 
AND    BENEDICTION    .  .  •       QI 


INTRODUCTION 

This  book  has  been  rapidly  written,  after 
some  consultation  with  others  who  share  the 
attitude  of  its  author  towards  the  subject, 
and  from  materials  gradually  accumulated 
during  several  years  of  study,  with  a  sense  of 
urgency.  The  Catholic  clergy  in  the  Church 
of  England  are  face  to  face  with  a  claim 
increasingly  put  forward  by  their  bishops, 
whom  they  desire  to  obey  in  all  things  lawful, 
to  forbid  Exposition  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
and  Benediction.  The  fact  that  not  a  few 
priests  have  felt  it  right  to  admit  this  claim 
and  to  surrender,  sorrowfully  and  under 
protest,  practices  which  they  had  adopted 
for  the  honour  of  our  Lord  and  the  good  of 
souls,  makes  it  the  more  important  for  those 
who  cannot  in  reason  and  conscience  con- 
sent to  such  surrender  to  state  clearly  and 
unequivocally  the  grounds  on  which  they 
base  their  refusal. 

7 


8  INTRODUCTION 

Without  anticipating  at  all  fully  the  state- 
ment of  their  case  in  the  following  pages,  it 
may  be  briefly  said  that  the  real  question  at 
issue  in  the  controversy  between  these  priests 
and  their  bishops  is  not  so  much  the  rights 
of  the  episcopate  as  the  duty  of  priests  and 
bishops  ahke  to  promote  the  adoration  of  our 
Ivord  and  God  Jesus  Christ,  truly  present  in 
the  Sacrament  of  His  Body  and  Blood. 
This  has  been  the  root  matter  of  almost  all 
the  controversies  in  the  Church  since  Bennett 
of  Frome  was  prosecuted  for  teaching  the 
Real  Presence,  although  at  every  stage 
attempts  have  been  made  to  obscure  the  real 
issue.  If  we  are  told  that  it  is  contrary  to 
all  Catholic  practice  for  a  priest  to  refuse 
obedience  to  his  bishop  in  a  matter  which 
throughout  the  Church  admittedly  rests  with 
the  Bishop,  namely,  the  regulation  of  services 
and  ceremonies,  we  can  only  retort  that  for 
the  bishops  of  two  provinces  of  the  Church 
to  set  themselves  for  successive  generations 
in  opposition  to  the  piety  which  seeks  the 
honour  of  our  Lord  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
is  unprecedented  in  the  history  of  Catholic 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Christendom,  and  that  where  bishops  set 
themselves  to  defeat  objects  the  importance 
of  which  has  been  recognized  from  the  earliest 
days  of  the  Church,  unquestioning  obedience 
becomes  a  disaster  and  disobedience  often  a 
duty.  We  have  to  choose,  as  Pusey  and  our 
fathers  in  the  Catholic  Movement  chose, 
between  the  Ciiurch  and  the  bishops.  We 
dare  not  conform  to  the  wishes  of  the  latter 
at  the  expense  of  the  ends  of  the  former. 
Had  such  conditions  obtained  at  any  past  age 
of  the  Church,  in  any  part  of  the  Church,  it 
would  have  been,  we  conceive,  the  undoubted 
duty  of  Catholic  priests  and  the  CathoHc 
laity  to  resist  the  policy,  and  even  the  express 
commands,  of  their  spiritual  rulers. 

I  desire  to  express  my  indebtedness  to 
Mr.  D.  ly.  Murra}^  who  has  been  at  much  pains 
to  verify  for  me  the  references  to  the  Fathers 
and  liturgies  :  also  to  Mr.  Laurence  Hodson 
for  valuable  criticisms  and  suggestions. 

A.  H.  Baverstock. 


BENEDICTION   AND    THE 
BISHOPS 

CHAPTER    I 

THE  MATTER  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  small 
work  to  give  anything  like  a  historical  account 
of  Benediction.  Those  who  are  interested  in 
the  subject  may  be  referred  to  Fr.  Thurston's 
learned  articles  in  The  Month, "^  and  to  his 
forthcoming  book.  Nor  is  it  necessary  for 
our  purpose  to  trace  at  all  fully  the  growth  of 
this  devotion  since  it  was  first  started,  more 
than  half  a  century  ago,  within  the  Church  of 
England. 

It  will  be  enough  to  point  out  briefly  that 
the  increasing  lay  demand  for  both  Exposition 
and  Benediction  has  resulted  from  the  Reser- 
vation   of   the    Blessed    Sacrament    for   the 

*  June,  July,  August  and  September,   1901,  and  September, 
1918. 

II 


13  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

communion  of  the  faithful  in  sickness  and 
other  emergencies.  Before  the  war  there 
had  been  for  some  years  a  steady  increase 
in  the  number  of  churches  in  which  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  was  reserved.  In  many 
of  these  the  practice  had  gone  on  for  a  con- 
siderable number  of  years.  Many  of  the 
faithful  have  thus  grown  up  under  the  forma- 
tive influence  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  con- 
tinually present  in  the  churches  where  they 
worshipped.  lyiving,  as  it  were,  with  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  and  believing,  as  Catholic 
Christians,  that  under  its  outward  forms  they 
had  with  them  the  adorable  Saviour  Himself, 
they  demanded  first  access  to  the  Sacrament 
for  private  devotion,  and,  later,  the  corporate 
and  public  expression  of  devotion  in  forms 
common  throughout  western  Christendom. 
The  war  increased  the  number  of  churches 
in  which  there  was  Reservation.  Partly, 
perhaps,  because  it  brought  death  so  near  in 
the  thoughts  of  all,  apart  from  actual  danger 
from  sea  or  air.  Partly  again  because  of  the 
sacrifice  of  leisure  entailed  upon  many  fre- 
quent communicants  who  could  often  only 


THE  MATTER  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY   13 

make  their  communions  from  the  tabernacle 
outside  the  Mass.  And  certainly  the  war  led 
to  an  increased  demand  for  access  and  devo- 
tion to  the  Blessed  Sacrament.  If  it  did  not 
bring  about  the  widespread  religious  revival 
which  was  hoped  for,  at  any  rate  it  drove 
many  to  more  frequent  intercession.  There 
were  those  who  had  long  known  the  help  of 
the  Presence  in  the  tabernacle  to  intercession  ; 
and  made  fuller  proof  of  it.  Others,  who  had 
only  realised  it  dimly  or  not  at  all,  discovered 
it.  The  pressure  of  anxieties,  pubHc  and 
private,  and  the  increase  of  opportunities  of 
access  to  the  Blessed  Sacrament  led  inevitably 
to  the  demand  for  something  in  the  nature  of 
Exposition  and  Benediction,  and  to  the 
practices  by  which  the  demand  was  met. 
Even  the  Bishop  of  London,  living  outside 
the  circle  in  which  these  influences  were  most 
felt,  was  forced  to  admit  that  he  could  no 
longer  resist  the  demand  for  access.  The 
clergy  inside  the  circle  knew,  what  others  who 
objected  even  to  access  suspected,  that  the 
demand  could  not  stop  there  ;  that  whole 
congregations  would  demand  some  corporate 


14  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

expression  of  their  devotion  to  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  reserved  in  their  midst. 

While  circumstances  at  home  made  for 
such  a  demand,  other  circumstances  served 
to  intensify  it.  For  many  who  had  learned 
devotion  to  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  and  some 
who  had  not,  found  opportunities  in  France 
and  Belgium  of  joining  in  the  eucharistic 
devotions  of  these  CathoHc  countries.  Before 
the  war  it  was  a  comparatively  rare  thing  for 
laymen  of  the  English  Church  to  attend 
Roman  Catholic  services.  In  France  and 
Belgium  they  constantly  went  to  Benediction, 
and  found  it  to  exercise  the  sam^e  attraction 
for  them  as  for  the  faithful  in  those  countries. 
Many  of  them  (alas,  not  all)  have  returned 
to  swell  the  demand  for  Benediction  at  home. 

Benediction  and  the  other  practices  con- 
nected with  it  are  the  fruits  of  a  demand. 
We  may  thankfully  welcome  the  demand  as 
an  evidence  of  increased  faith  and  piety. 
And  we  are  bound  to  challenge  opposition  to 
the  demand,  lest  it  come  from  something  less 
worthy.  The  necessity  of  this  challenge 
brings  with  it  the  necessity,  as  a  matter  of 


THE  MATTER  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY   1 5 

primary  importance,  of  some  definition  of 
terms.  We  need  to  ask,  what  exactly  is 
Benediction  ?  What  is  essential  in  it,  and 
what  accidental  ?  There  is  the  more  need 
to  ask  such  questions  since  there  has  been 
in  some  quarters  a  tendency  to  rule  it  out  as 
an  ''extra  service"  and,  therefore,  subject 
to  episcopal  prohibition  on  the  ground  of 
the  declaration  made  by  the  clergy  that  '*  in 
public  prayer  and  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments"  they  will  use  no  other  forms 
than  those  provided  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  except  so  far  as  authority  shall  allow. 
We  may  note  in  passing  that  the  authority 
referred  to  is  probably  not  that  of  an  in- 
dividual bishop,  and  again  that  it  is  quite 
a  reasonable  supposition  that  **  public  prayer  " 
means  the  same  as  ''  Common  Prayer,"  and 
refers  only  to  the  Oifices  for  which,  with 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments  and 
certain  other  rites,  the  Prayer  Book  provides. 
What  it  is  really  essential,  however,  to  point 
out  is  that  neither  Exposition  nor  Benediction 
necessarily  entail  any  special  service  at  all. 
Exposition  is  simply  the  ceremony  of  exposing 


l6  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BIvSHOPS 

the  Blessed  Sacrament,  unveiled,  or  even 
in  the  pyx,  for  the  veneration  of  the  faithful. 
Benediction  is  the  ceremony  of  making  the 
sign  of  the  cross  over  the  people  with  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  whether  held  by  the 
priest,  exhibited  in  the  monstrance,  or  en- 
closed in  the  pyx,  and  nothing  more.  It  is 
of  some  importance  in  view  of  present  con- 
troversies to  insist  on  this.  Fr.  Thurston, 
commenting  on  the  devotions  generally  con- 
nected with  Benediction,  writes  : — ''  The  word 
salut,  which  is  still  in  French-speaking 
countries  the  name  most  commonly  employed 
to  designate  the  service  of  Benediction,  pre- 
serves the  memory  of  an  institution  which 
most  probably  must  be  regarded  as  the 
primitive  stock,  upon  which  the  Exposition 
of  the  Sacred  Host  and  the  blessing  imparted 
with  It  are  only  an  excrescence."  *  Fr. 
Passmore  once  wittily  suggested  that  the 
Anghcan  equivalent  for  Vespers  and  Bene- 
diction was  ''  Evensong  and  Eleemosynary.'* 
It  would  be  quite  possible  to  have  Benediction 
with  the  Blessed  Sacrament  at  the  end  of 

*  The  Month,  September,  1901. 


THE   MATTER   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY        17 

Evening  Prayer,  very  much  as  many  have 
the  presentation  of  the  alms,  a  ceremony 
which  has  only  the  sanction  of  popular 
custom,  being  nowhere  prescribed.  Exposi- 
tion and  Benediction  could  as  easily  be 
grafted  on  to  the  Prayer  Book  Litany  as  on 
to  the  original  Salut. 

And  this  leads  to  a  point  not  altogether 
unimportant  with  regard  to  the  history  and 
justification  of  Benediction.  Both  Exposi- 
tion and  Benediction  originate  in  the  Mass 
itself.  I  must  confess  to  some  surprise  that 
this  has  not  been  emphasised  by  Fr.  Thurston 
in  his  learned  disquisitions  on  the  origins  of 
these  ceremonies.  The  elevation  at  Mass 
is  an  Exposition,  and  is  m.ade  for  the  same 
purposes  as  Exposition  at  other  times,  to 
elicit  the  devotion  of  the  faithful.  The  sign 
of  the  cross  made  by  the  celebrant  with  the 
Sacred  Host  before  communion  over  himself 
and  over  each  communicant  in  turn  is  Bene- 
diction, and  carries  all  the  implications  of 
Benediction  given  outside  the  Mass.  I  have 
not  been  able  to  discover  when  this  blessing 
with  the  Host  in  the  Mass  first  appeared. 


l8  BENEDICTION  AND  THE  BISHOPS 

It  would  certainly  seem  to  be  ancient.  Its 
idea  is  to  be  found  in  the  practice,  noted  and 
approved  by  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  by  which 
the  people,  on  receiving  the  Sacrament, 
touched  their  eyes  with  it.  And  Exposition 
in  the  Mass  is  certainly  earlier  than  the 
mediaeval  Elevation  at  consecration.  As  I 
shall  show,  it  received  some  emphasis  in 
early  liturgies  when  the  priest  turned  to  the 
people  with  the  Blessed  Sacrament  in  his 
hands. 

Both  Exposition  and  Benediction  have 
their  origin  in  the  I^iturgy  itself.  In  their 
present  customary  form  they  have  developed 
naturally  and  inevitably  from  their  use  in  the 
lyiturgy.  Communicating  the  sick  with  the 
Sacred  Host,  the  priest  would  naturally  show 
it  to  the  sick  man  and  bless  him  with  it, 
before  giving  it  to  him.  When  he  returned 
to  the  Church  with  the  Blessed  Sacrament, 
accompanied  by  those  whose  piety  had  led 
them  to  go  with  him  on  his  errand,  it  was  only 
a  natural  extension  of  principles  already 
recognized  that  he  should  bless  them  with  the 
pyx  before  replacing  it  in  the  tabernacle. 


THE  MATTER  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY   19 

The  custom  of  performing  the  same  ceremony 
at  other  times  involved  no  startHng  departure. 
Solemn  Benediction,  with  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment exposed  in  the  monstrance,  an  **  orna- 
ment," be  it  noted,  required  by  the  Ornaments 
Rubric  to  be  ''  retained  and  be  in  use " 
among  us,  is  merely  a  glorification  of  the  older 
and  simpler  form  of  the  ceremony. 

The  Roman  Church  has  regulated  this 
ceremony,  as  she  has  so  many  others,  by  a 
mass  of  authoritative  prescriptions.  The 
Exposition  and  Benediction  which  occur  in 
the  Mass  may  not  be  omitted.  Lesser  Expo.si- 
tion  and  Benediction,  i.e.  with  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  remaining  in  the  pyx,  are  allowed 
at  any  time.  Solemn  Exposition  and  Bene- 
diction, with  the  Blessed  Sacrament  in  the 
monstrance,  are  allowed  on  Corpus  Christi, 
and  in  the  octave  ;  at  other  times  the  per- 
mission of  the  bishop  is  required. 

In  the  English  Church  there  are  no  written 
prescriptions,  unless  we  except  the  Orna- 
ments Rubric,  as  requiring  the  use  of  the 
monstrance.  Neither  in  the  Mass  nor  out- 
side it  is  the  priest  required  to  expose  the 


2)  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

Blessed  Sacrament  for  the  devotion  of  the 
people,  or  to  bless  them  with  it.  Neither  in 
the  Mass  nor  outside  it  is  he  forbidden  to  do  so. 
It  would  be  in  some  ways  a  gain  if  the 
English  Church  would  adopt  the  regulations 
of  the  rest  of  Western  Christendom  in  this 
matter.  She  is  not  likely  to  do  so  at  present, 
for  these  regulations  rest  on  a  uniform  belief 
in  the  Blessed  Sacrament  and  the  importance 
of  devotion  to  it.  And  our  bishops,  most 
unfortunately,  can  only  be  uniform  in  con- 
demnation. Nor  is  this  uniformity  lasting. 
It  yields  to  the  pressure  of  faith  and  devo- 
tion, so  that  what  is  condemned  in  one  decade 
is  tacitly  senctioned,  if  not  openly  approved, 
in  the  next.  Thus  it  is  that  first  reservation, 
then  access,  then  public  devotions  before  the 
tabernacle,  have  won  episcopal  toleration 
after  being  frowned  upon  and  prohibited. 
There  is  little  room  for  doubt  that  Exposition 
and  Benediction  will  win  a  like  toleration  as 
it  comes  to  be  realized  that  Catholics  demand 
these  expressions  of  their  faith  and  devotion. 
It  is  this  conviction  that  makes  controversy 
worth  while. 


CHAPTER    II 

THE   REAI.   ISSUE 

The  real  issue  at  stake  in  the  present  con- 
troversy is  the  honour  due  to  our  Lord  truly 
present  in  the  Sacrament  of  His  Body  and 
Blood.  We  hold,  as  the  constant  teaching 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  is  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  and,  there- 
fore, to  be  adored  with  the  supreme  homage 
due  to  God.  This  is  the  truth  which  Exposi- 
tion and  Benediction  express.  It  is  true 
that  these  rites,  apart  from  the  Mass,  are 
of  comparatively  late  introduction  in  the 
Western  Church.  But  the  principles  which 
they  involve  are  primitive  and  universal. 
To  surrender  Exposition  and  Benediction, 
practised  solely  in  honour  of  that  Presence 
Whicli  has  been  too  often  and  terribly  denied, 
insulted  and  profaned,  would  be  inevitably 
to  compromise  these  principles,  by  the  m^ercy 
of    God    slowly    gaining    acceptance    among 


22  BENEDICTION  AND   THE  BISHOPS 

English  Christians.  This  demand  is,  in  some 
cases  avowedly  and  in  all  cases  ultimately, 
based  upon  the  prevalent  disbelief  in  the 
CathoHc  doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 
Were  this  doctrine  as  firmly  and  universally 
held  among  us  as  in  the  rest  of  Catholic  Christ- 
endom, it  is  safe  to  say  that  there  would  be  no 
demand  to  cease  from  these  practices,  which 
so  unmistakably  attest  it.  For  every  kind 
of  religious  experiment  which  involved  no 
disputed  doctrine  has  found  a  ready  tolera- 
tion from  English  bishops.  Without  men- 
tioning such  vagaries  as  egg-services,  doll- 
services,  and  the  like,  we  may  point  out  that 
the  late  Jesuit  devotion  of  the  Three  Hours, 
despite  its  novelty,  its  origin  and  its  admitted 
lack  of  sanction  from  our  formularies,  is 
nowhere  forbidden.  The  reason  is  plain. 
It  involves  no  doctrine  which  is  called  in 
question  among  us.  Is  it  not  clear  as  day- 
light that  Exposition  and  Benediction  are 
forbidden  precisely  because  they  do  involve 
a  doctrinal  basis  which  is  called  in  question 
and  that  by  surrendering  them  we  do  in  fact 
compromise  that  basis  ?     This,  at  any  rate, 


THE  REAIv  ISSUE  23 

is  our  conviction.  And  for  this  reason  we  feel 
bound  to  refuse  the  surrender,  at  whatever 
cost  to  ourselves. 

There  is  no  sort  of  parallel  here  between  the 
position  of  a  bishop  of  the  English  Church 
who  forbids  Benediction  throughout  his 
diocese  and  that  of  a  Roman  Catholic  bishop 
who  may  occasionally,  for  specific  reasons, 
refuse  to  sanction  it  in  individual  cases. 
For  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  is  avowedly 
guided  in  his  decision  solely  by  the  desire  to 
promote  the  honour  of  our  Lord  in  the 
Blessed  Sacrament.  Were  the  least  doubt 
possible  as  to  this  desire  on  his  part,  there  is 
an  appeal  beyond  him  to  a  spiritual  authority 
pledged  to  the  doctrinal  basis  on  which  these 
practices  rest.  In  our  case,  no  such  right  of 
appeal  is  recognized. 

Nor  can  the  admitted  fact  that  the  Eastern 
Orthodox  Churches  know  nothing  of  these 
rites  as  practised  in  the  West  *  be  used  as  an 

*  A  form,  of  Benediction,  as  seen  in  Russia  and  described  to 
me  by  an  eyewitness,  may  be  noted.  After  the  communion  of 
newlj^-baptized  infants  (from  the  chahce)  the  mothers  knelt 
while  the  priest  went  from  one  to  another,  and  laid  the  chalice 
containing  the  Precious  Blood  lightly  on  the  head  of  each  in 
turn. 


24  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

argument  for  their  surrender  on  our  part. 
In  these  Churches  there  is  no  question  of  a 
bishop  forbidding  Benediction.  The  matter 
has  never  come  before  them.  Even  were  it 
otherwise,  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the 
bishop  recognizing  the  adorabihty  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament.  Catholic  Christendom, 
East  and  West,  is  agreed  in  the  doctrinal 
basis  on  which  Exposition  and  Benediction 
rest.  It  is  only  among  ourselves  that  this 
basis  is  questioned.  Precisely  for  this  reason 
it  is  vital  that  we  cling  to  the  practices  which 
express  it,  lest  we  seem  to  acquiesce  in  the 
prevalent  disbelief.  For  the  ready  toleration 
of  unbelief  is  the  supreme  danger  which 
menaces  the  English  Church.  The  authority 
of  our  bishops  is  a  spiritual  authority,  given 
to  them  for  the  maintenance  of  Catholic 
truth  and  the  promotion  of  Catholic  devotion. 
We  cannot  set  that  authority  above  the  ends 
for  which  alone  it  exists.  However  readily 
we  grant,  as  we  do  grant  and  have  been  fore- 
most in  teaching,  that  the  bishops  are  jure 
divino  the  spiritual  rulers  of  the  Church,  we 
are  forced  to  question  their  authority  when 


THE   REAL  ISSUE  25 

it  is  used  to  check  a  devotion  which  we  hold 
them  bound,  like  ourselves,  to  promote  by 
every  means  in  their  power. 

When  this  has  been  said,  all  that  is  neces- 
sary to  justify  the  refusal  to  surrender  Exposi- 
tion and  Benediction  has  been  said.  This 
refusal  is  the  latest  of  a  long  line  of  refusals 
based  in  the  last  resort  on  the  same  doctrinal 
grounds.  In  every  case  alike  it  has  been 
sought  to  raise  other  issues  and  to  avoid  that 
of  doctrine.  The  same  attempt  is  made  in 
this  case.  But  it  will  not  stand.  History 
will  see  in  this  controversy,  as  the  ordinary 
Englishman  sees  now,  only  one  more  phase 
in  the  battle  between  opposing  views  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  a  battle  in  which,  alas, 
the  bishops  have  been,  with  a  few  honourable 
exceptions,  on  one  side,  the  priests  who  have 
led  the  Catholic  revival  on  the  other. 

But  it  seems  well  further  to  fortif}^  the 
position  we  are  defending  by  a  more  explicit 
appeal  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  which 
has  been,  we  believe,  mischievously  mis- 
represented, and  by  a  fuller  examination  of 
the  claim  made  by  a  bishop  who  has  won  the 


26  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

affection  and  respect  of  Catholics,  to  demand 
the  surrender  of  Exposition  and  Benediction 
on  grounds  of  canonical  obedience.  These 
subjects  must  be  separately  treated  in  the 
chapters  which  follow. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE  DOCTRINAL   BASIS 

Exposition  and  Benediction  are  held  by  a 
great  number,  probably  the  majority,  of  our 
bishops  to  be  things  wrong  in  themselves. 
This  is  one  of  the  principal  reasons  why  we, 
who  believe  them  to  be  right,  must  feel  our- 
selves bound  to  cling  to  them,  lest  we  com- 
promise the  truth.*  We  may  pass  over  the 
position  of  those  bishops  who  absolutely  deny 
the  Real  Presence  of  our  lyord  in  the  Blessed 
Sacrament,  and  in  consequence  His  right 
to  any  adoration  therein,  as  one  which 
does  not  and  cannot  claim  any  Catholic 
sanction  or  primitive  endorsement.  Inci- 
dentally,  we  may  claim  at  least  one  such 

*  We  are  well  aware  that  there  are  bishops  of  these  provinces 
who  do  not  so  condemn  them,  and  it  is  argued  that  in  this  case 
a  bishop  may  claim  an  obedience  which  we  should  otherwise 
be  justified  in  refusing.  We  cannot  endorse  this  position.  It 
does  not  seem  to  us  reasonable  that  we  should  be  expected  to 
accord  to  an  individual  bishop  an  obedience  which  we  are  not 
able  to  pledge  ourselves  to  render  to  his  successors  or  to  other 
bishops  under  whom  we  may  find  om'selves. 

27 


28  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

bishop  as  justifying  an  important  part  of  our 
own  contention.  For  the  present  Bishop  of 
Exeter  has  said  that  if  any  adoration  of  the 
Sacrament  on  the  part  of  individuals  should 
be  allowed,  no  sane  man  could  disallow 
the  corporate  adoration  involved  in  Exposi- 
tion and  Benediction.  We  are  concerned 
rather  with  the  attitude  of  the  Bishop  of 
Oxford,  one  of  the  few  English  bishops  who 
can  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  theologian. 
Bishop  Gore  condemns  the  extra-liturgical 
cultus  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  on  the 
basis  of  an  appeal  to  Catholic  antiquity. 
Following  a  statement  of  Fr.  Freestone  in 
his  learned  work  on  the  subject  of  Reserva- 
tion, a  statement  for  which  that  author  gives 
no  adequate  evidence,  the  Bishop  makes  the 
modern  cultus  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  to 
be  the  direct  consequence  of  a  new  doctrine 
concerning  the  Eucharist  which  he  supposes 
to  have  emerged  in  the  mediaeval  period, 
''  the  error,**  as  he  calls  it,  '*  of  transubstan- 
tiation.*'  He  draws  a  contrast  between  the 
Roman  Mass  up  to  the  eighth  century,  of 
which  he  gives,  a^  it  seems  to  us,  a  graveh^ 


THE   DOCTRINAI,   BASIS  29 

misleading  account — with  this  we  must  deal 
in  due  sequence — and  that  of  modern  times, 
when,  he  will  have  it,  as  a  result  of  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  attention  is 
concentrated  on  a  certain  moment,  the 
moment  of  consecration  and  elevation,  and 
upon  the  specific  object,  the  Host.  Now  we 
are  convinced  that  Bishop  Gore  is  gravely 
at  fault.  We  admit,  of  course,  the  fact  that 
Benediction  and  Exposition  are  modern. 
We  admit  that  there  is  a  lack  of  testimony 
to  the  adoration  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
outside  the  Liturgy  in  primitive  times.  There 
is  as  a  matter  of  fact  a  striking  lack  of  evidence 
with  regard  to  the  devotions  generally  of 
Christians  outside  the  synaxis  or  gathering 
for  public  worship.  Yet  this  would  not 
justify  the  assumption  that  they  prayed 
little  or  not  at  all  in  private.  Conclusions 
drawn  from  lack  of  evidence  are  precarious. 
We  are  on  stronger  ground  when  we  rest  our 
case  as  against  Bishop  Gore  on  the  undoubted 
fact  that  the  Fathers  of  the  early  Church 
taught  that  the  Blessed  Sacrament  was 
Jesus  Christ  Himself,  and,  therefore,  claimed 


30  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPvS 

the  worship  of  the  faithful :  that  St.  Augustine 
himself  declared  the  neglect  of  such  worship 
to  be  a  sin,  that  the  primitive  liturgies  em- 
phasize this  worship  again  and  again,  while 
the  Fathers  enjoin  it.  The  evidence  of  this 
which  we  shall  give  is  sufficient,  we  believe, 
to  prove  all  that  needs  to  be  proved,  namely 
that  the  primitive  doctrine  and  practice 
provide  a  sufficient  basis,  an  adequate  justifi- 
cation, for  Exposition  and  Benediction  ;  that, 
in  fact,  we  do  find  a  form  of  Exposition  for 
worship  in  the  primitive  liturgies  and  some- 
thing indistinguishable  in  principle  from 
Benediction. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  our  case  to  justify  the 
later  definition  of  transubstantiation.  We 
do  in  fact  adopt  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation as  held  by  modern  Western  eucharistic 
theology,  and  find  in  it  nothing  contrariant 
to  a  right  philosophy,  still  less  to  the  principle 
of  the  Incarnation.* 

We  hold  with  the  great  theologians  of  the 
Middle  Ages  that  while  the  terminology  of 
the  Fathers  was  often  loose,  such  words  as 

♦  Bishop  Gore  in  Reservation,  p.  32,  vide  Note  on  p.  45. 


THE    DOCTRINAL   BASIvS  3 1 

'*  species,"  ''nature/'*  ''substance*'  not 
having  as  yet  acquired  the  preciseness  of 
meaning  which  later  attached  to  them,  yet 
they  teach  unanimously  the  doctrine  of  a 
change,  not  physical  but  spiritual,  by  which 
bread  and  wine  become  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  a  doctrine  which  seems  to  us  best 
described  as  transuhstantiatio,  the  change, 
that  is,  of  the  substantia  or  underlying  reaUty 
behind  the  outward  substances  (in  the  modern 
sense)  of  bread  and  wine.  In  all  physical 
respects  (using  the  word  "  physical  "  again 
in  its  current  modern  sense)  the  bread  and 
wine  remain  what  they  were.  They  lose  no 
single  property  of  their  being.  Yet  by  the 
word  of  God  "  this  "  is  no  longer  bread  and 
wine  because  it  "  is  "  what  Christ  proclaimed 
and  made  it.  His  Body,  His  Blood.  The 
doctrine  of  concomitance,  again,  was  only  so 
formulated  in  late  mediaeval  theology,  but 
the  Fathers  taught  the  fact,   namely,   that 

*  St.  Ambrose  actually  speaks  of  the  word  of  Christ  "  changing 
the  natures  "  (mutare  naturas)  of  bread  and  wine.  But  the 
context  shows  that  by  "  nature  "  he  meant  what  was  later 
called  "  substance,"  for  he  writes,  "  Is  not  the  word  of  Christ 
which  was  able  to  make  out  of  nothing  that  which  was  not,  able 
to  change  things  which  are  into  that  which  they  were  not  ?  " 
{Lib.  de  Mysteriis,  c.  9.) 


32  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

where  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are,  there 
is  He  Himself,  God  and  Man.  It  should  be 
remembered,  too,  that  the  great  teachers  of 
the  Middle  Ages  were  soaked  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Fathers  and  constantly  appealed  to 
their  authority.  We  may  surety  assume 
that  they  were  at  least  as  likely  to  understand 
their  teaching  as  the  Bishop  of  Oxford. 

But  we  may  pass  over  the  dispute  as  to 
the  value  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
as  a  formula  to  embody  the  constant  faith 
of  the  Church.  It  is  enough  for  our  purpose 
to  prove,  as  we  can  prove,  that  the  Church 
from  the  earliest  days  worshipped  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  and  proclaimed  the  duty  of  this 
worship.  For  Exposition  and  Benediction 
rest  on  this  basis  and  on  no  other.  It  is 
idle  to  maintain  that  a  worship  of  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  arose  out  of  the  definition  of 
transubstantiation  and  rested  upon  it  as  its 
basis,  if  it  can  be  proved,  as  it  can  be  proved, 
that  the  Blessed  Sacrament  was  from  the  first 
adored  as  the  very  Body  of  Christ,  God  and 
Man. 

It  seems  best,  in  exliibiting  this  proof,  to 


THE:   DOCTRINAI,   BASIS  33 

summarise  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  and 
early  liturgies,  giving  references  in  footnotes 
to  the  passages  referred  to,  and  exhibiting 
some  of  them  more  fully  in  an  appendix. 

The  Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church  took 
in  their  literal  sense  the  words  of  our  lyord  at 
the  institution  of  the  Eucharist.  They  insist, 
in  the  words  of  Magnes  of  Jerusalem  (third 
century),  that  the  Sacrament  "  is  not  a  figure 
of  the  Body  or  the  Blood,  but  truly  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.''  *  In  the  fourth 
century  we  find  both  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
and  St.  James  of  Saragossa  asserting  explicitly 
that  what  is  on  the  altar  after  consecration 
is  not  bread  and  wine  but  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  t  In  the  same  century  again  we 
find  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  avowing  the  belief 
that  ''  the  bread  sanctified  by  the  word  of 
God  is  changed  into  the  Body  of  God  the 
Word,"  X  while  St.  Ephrem  of  Syria  in  the 
East  and  St.  Ambrose  in  the  West  voice  the 
same  belief  in  a  change  by  which  bread  and 
wine  become  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  § 

*  Adv.  Theost  (Fragments).  f  See  Appendix  I,  p.  85, 

X  Oral.  cat.  xxxxvii.  :    [Lzxy.r.oizXGQ'xi  is  the  word  used. 

§  See  Appendix  I. 
c 


34  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

From  the  third  century  or  earlier  onwards 
there  is  a  constant  stream  of  witness  to  this 
belief.  Every  lyiturgy  endorses  it.  And  side 
by  side  with  this  belief  in  the  objective  reality 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  present  under 
the  outward  forms  after  consecration,  is  the 
conviction  that  these  involve  the  entire 
presence  of  Christ  Himself  as  God  and  Man. 
St.  Chrysostom  speaks  of  the  priest  as 
''  handhng  the  common  lyord  of  all."  *  St. 
Augustine  says  that  Christ  was  borne  in  His 
own  hands  when  He  gave  His  Body  to  the 
disciples,  t  Salvian,  Bishop  of  Marseilles  in 
the  fifth  century,  writes  that  while  the  Jews 
ate  manna  '*we  eat  the  body  of  God."  J 
Here  again  we  have  a  constant  stream  of 
testimony  to  the  age-long  faith  of  the  Charch 
that  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is  Christ.  This 
might  well  be  summ^arized  in  the  words  of 
St.  Augustine  :  "  We  believe  and  are  sure  of 
—what  ?  That  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.  That  is,  that  Thou  art 
life  eternal  itself  :  and  Thou  givest  us  in  Thy 

•  De  Sacerdotio,  I.  6.  t  Enarrat.  in  Ps.  xxxiii. 

X  Lib.  2.     Ad  Eccles.  Cath.  sub  nomine  Timothei. 


THE   DOCTRINAI.   BASIS  35 

Flesh    and    Blood    only    that    which    Thou 
art."  * 

Holding  so  much,  we  should  expect  to  find 
the  Fathers  going  on  to  proclaim  the  ador- 
ability  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament.  And  y/e 
do  actually  find  them  doing  so  again  and 
again.  It  is  St.  Dionysius,  ascribed  in  less 
critical  times,  and  by  some  not  uncritical 
writers  of  a  later  date,  to  the  first  century, 
while  no  critic  places  him  after  the  fifth,  who 
invokes  the  Blessed  Sacrament  in  a  prayer 
beginning,  "  O  m_ost  divine  and  holy  Sacra- 
mxent,"  while  similar  epithets  are  scattered 
through  the  v/ritings  of  the  first  six  centuries. 
St.  Chrysostom.,  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  August- 
ine alike  insist  that,  in  the  words  of  the  first, 
the  altar  "  takes  the  place  of  the  stable  in 
which  Christ  vvas  born."f  And  the  parallel 
thus  suggested  is  found  in  Christian  writers 
of  every  centur^^  after.  When  we  read  in 
the  decrees  of  Trent  that  supreme  worship 
is  due  to  this  sacrament,  and  none  the  less 

*  Trad.  27  in  Evang.  Joann.  c.  9. 

t  De  Philoj.  vi.  cp.  St.  Aug.  Serm.  190.  "  In  praesepi 
jacet  fidelium  cibaria  jiimentorum."  Cp.  also  St.  Ambrose, 
"  Ad  praesepe  accedemus,  cibaria  manducemus,"  Lib.  4  de 
Sacr.  cap.  4. 


36  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

because  it  was  ordained  to  be  received,  ''for 
we  believe  the  same  God  to  be  there  present 
before  whom  the  Magi  fell  down  and  wor- 
shipped/' we  meet  an  argument  which  is  as 
old  as  the  third  century.  Thus  St.  Chrysos- 
tom  warns  Christians  of  his  day  not  to 
approach  our  I^ord  in  the  Sacram.ent  as  Herod 
sought  to  approach  him,  after  proclaiming 
his  purpose  *'  That  I  may  come  and  worship 
Him  also,"  but  to  come  with  the  real  intention 
of  honouring  and  worshipping  Him.*  And 
St.  Augustine  similarly  commenting  on  the 
22nd  Psalm  writes  that  the  rich,  that  is  the 
proud,  ''  have  eaten  and  worshipped,"  while 
it  is  only  the  poor,  that  is  the  poor  in  spirit, 
who  shall  "  eat  and  be  satisfied."  The 
former  ''worship  only;  they  are  not  also 
satisfied,  since  they  imitate  Him  not.  They 
eat  of  the  Poor  Man,  yet  they  disdain  to  be 
poor."t 

Another  passage  from  St.  Augustine  con- 
stitutes a  locus  classicus  on  this  subject,  and 
calls  for  special  notice.  He  is  commenting 
on  the  words  of  the  99th  Psalm  in  the  Latin 

*  Horn.  7  in  Matt.  f  Lib.  ad  Honorat.  (Ep.  140). 


THE   DOCTRINAI.   BAvSIS  37 

version,  Adorate  scahellum  pedum  ejus  (worship 
His  footstool).  He  asks,  how  can  we  wor- 
ship the  earth,  which  is  God's  footstool  and 
be  guiltless  of  idolatry  ?  And  he  gives  the 
answer  that  flesh  is  earth  and  that  Christ 
took  flesh  of  Mary,  and  this  flesh  we  worship 
is  the  Eucharist.  ''Not  only  do  we  not  sin," 
he  says,  "  by  worshipping,  we  sin  if  we  do  not 
worship  it."  For  ''  no  man  eats  that  bread 
without  first  worshipping  it."  *  This  treat- 
ment of  the  passage  in  question  is  much  older 
than  St.  Augustine.  He  probably  learned 
it  from  his  teacher,  St.  Ambrose,  in  whose 
writings  it  occurs,  f  But  it  is  found  alluded 
to  by  Origen  in  the  third  century  as  an  inter- 
pretation which  has  been  put  forward  by 
others  before  him.  J  After  St.  Augustine  it  is 
found  in  Rusticus  §  in  the  sixth  century,  and 
in  other  writers  from  that  time  on.  It  was 
in  fact  almost  a  commonplace  of  Christian 
exegesis  throughout  the  primitive  period. 

Now  this  passage  has  an  important  bear- 
ing   on    two    contentions  which    have    been 

*  Enarral.  sup.,  Ps.  xcviii.  ^  Lib.  3  de  Spirit.  Sancto. 

X  Grig,  in  Ps.  xcviii.         §  Dispiit.  coul.  Accphalos. 


38  BENKDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

made  in  the  course  of  the  Benediction  con- 
troversy. 

First,  it  has  been  argued  that  there  was 
no  adoration  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  out- 
side the  liturgy,  purely  on  the  negative  ground 
of  lack  of  evidence  to  prove  such  adoration. 
We  may  point  out  that  lack  of  evidence  is  not 
a  proof  that  there  was  no  such  adoration. 
There  is  a  singular  lack  of  evidence  as  to  the 
private  devotions  of  Christians  in  the  early 
centuries.  Yet  it  would  not  be  reasonable  to 
conclude  on  this  account  that  they  had  no 
private  devotions.  But  we  may  reasonably 
ask  the  question,  Is  it  likely  that  Christians 
receiving  the  Blessed  Sacrament  in  the 
privacy  of  their  own  homes,  as  we  know  they 
did,  for  exam^ple,  in  Tei'tuUian's  time,  neg- 
lected to  pay  it  the  same  devotion  and  adora- 
tion which  they  accorded  to  it  before  receiving 
it  in  the  liturgy  ?  If  they  did  not  worship 
it,  they  were  guilty,  according  to  the  express 
teaching  of  St.  Augustine,  of  a  sin.  If  they 
did  not  so  sin,  then  we  may  presume  an  *'  extra- 
liturgical  cultus  "  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 
There  is  no  escape  from  this  dilemma. 


THE   DOCTRINAI.   BASIS  39 

Secondty,  this  passage  supplies  a  much 
needed  corrective  to  the  Bishop  of  Oxford's 
misleading  account  of  the  primitive  Eucharist, 
already  alluded  to,  and  his  contrast  between 
it  and  the  later  Mass  which  emphasized 
adoration  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  by  the 
elevation  at  the  moment  of  consecration. 
For  while  St.  Augustine's  words  strictly 
enjoin  adoration  before  all  reception  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  there  is  evidence  in 
plenty  that  they  have  a  very  special  reference 
to  the  ceremonial  adoration  which,  in  the 
primitive  liturgies,  immediately  preceded  com- 
munion. Liturgical  literature  teems  with 
reference  to  this  worship.  Priest  and  deacon 
adored  the  Blessed  Sacrament  before  receiving 
it.  When  the  priest  turned  to  the  people  and 
showed  them  the  Sacrament,  before  their 
communion,  they  prostrated  themselves  to  the 
ground.  This  showing,  or  exposition,  of 
the  Blessed  Sacrament  before  the  communion 
is  emphasize;d  by  St.  Anastasius  of  Sinai 
in  the  sixth  century.*     A  writer  on  the  cere- 

•  "  The  priest  after  consecrating  that  bloodless  sacrifice  lifts 
up  the  Bread  of  Life  and  shows  it  to  all."  Anast.  Sin.  Orat. 
de  S.  Synaxi. 


40  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

monies  of  the  Coptic  Liturgy  in  the  eighth 
century  expressly  says  that  the  priest  is 
directed  to  lift  up  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
'*  as  high  as  he  can,"  and  that  this  is  *'  that 
the  people  may  be  able  to  see  the  sacrifice." 
He  describes  the  congregation  as  prostrating 
themselves  before  it.*  Here  we  have,  not 
merely  the  principles  on  which  the  modern 
Exposition  rests  ;  we  have  actually  a  form 
of  Exposition,  the  only  difference  being  that 
it  is  in  the  lyiturgy,  and  that  the  priest  takes 
the  place  of  the  monstrance.  A  passage  from 
St.  Chrysostom  looks  like  an  allusion  to  this 
*' exposition."  f 

But  what  are  we  to  say,  in  the  light  of  this 
testimony,  to  Bishop  Gore's  account  of  the 
primitive  Eucharist,  which  says  nothing  about 
this  conspicuous  ceremonial,  and  then  pro- 
ceeds to  argue  that  the  elevation  and  the 
focussing  of  attention  on  the  Host  was  the 
result  of  a  new  mediaeval  doctrine  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  ?  It  is  easy  to  exhibit 
the  primitive  liturgy  as  in  contrast  with  the 

*  Trad,  de  Scientia  ccdesiastica,  quoted  by  Boppert,  Scutum 
Fidei,  iv.  199.    Vide  Brightman's  traus.  of  Lit.  of  Coptic  Jacobites. 
t  See  Appendix  I. 


THE   DOCTRINAL   BASIS  4I 

mediaeval,  if  you  have  first  eliminated  from 
your  account  of  the  former  its  principal 
points  of  resemblance  to  the  latter  !  The 
concentration  of  attention  on  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  as  the  principal  object  of  devotion 
is  no  new  feature  of  the  mediaeval  Eucharist. 
It  belongs  to  the  Mass  from  the  first.  In  the 
Liturgy  of  St.  James  the  deacon  bids  the 
people,  "  Bow  your  heads  before  the  God  of 
mercy,  before  the  altar  of  propitiation,  and 
before  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour.''  * 
And,  in  view  of  the  well-known  hymn  from 
the  lyiturgy  of  St.  Basil,  ''Let  all  mortal  flesh 
keep  silence,  and  in  fear  and  trembling  stand  ; 
ponder  nothing  earthly  minded,  for,  with 
blessing  in  His  hand,  Christ  our  God  to  earth 
descendeth  our  full  homage  to  demand,"  f 
with  its  dramatic  picture  of  the  advent  of 
Christ  preceded  b}^  angels  to  take  His  place 
at  the  altar,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the 
liturgies  of  the  primitive  Church  fail  to  empha- 
size the  consecration.  The  Bishop  of  Oxford's 
account  of  the  early  Eucharist  is  vitally  mis- 

*  Quoted  by  Boppert,  Scutum  Fidei,  v.  93,  as  occurring  in  the 
diakonika.     These  are  not  given  in  full  by  Brightman. 
t  Neale  and  Littledale, 


42  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

leading.  And  it  utterly  vitiates  iiis  account 
of  the  ceremonial  development  of  eucharistic 
worship.  It  may  be  well  to  substitute  for  it 
a  brief  but  more  accurate  account. 

The  development  of  eucharistic  adoration 
is  a  genuine  developm-cnt,  in  rite  and  cere- 
mony, of  what  was  im.plicit  from  the  first. 
The  salient  feature,  first  grasped,  and  always 
most  prominent  in  Christian  thought,  is  the 
fact  that  our  X.ord  gives  us  in  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  His  very  Body  and  Blood,  and 
with  them  all  that  He  is.  This  has  involved 
from  the  first  adoration  of  the  Sacrament. 
But  the  first  place  in  which  this  adoration 
would  be  emphasised  is  in  closest  proximity 
to  the  reception  of  the  gift,  as  the  culminating 
moment  in  the  eucharistic  drama.  Hence 
the  exposition  and  adoration  of  the  Blessed 
Sacram.ent  immicdiately  before  the  com.- 
munion  which  form  so  notable  a  feature  of 
the  early  Eucharist.  During  these  early 
centuries  the  Church  is  preoccupied  as  it 
were  with  the  thought  of  the  Sacrament  as 
the  Donum,  and  with  the  point  at  which  it 
is  given  to  the  people.     But  even  in   these 


THE   DOCTRINAI,   BASIS  43 

early  times  we  find  Christian  thought  being 
led  back  to  consider  the  point  in  the  service 
at  which  the  Gift  becomes  present  on  the 
altar.  St.  Ambrose,  with  his  typically  Latin 
mind,  insists  more  than  once  on  the  actual 
moment  of  consecration  * — thus  contradict- 
ing Bishop  Gore's  dating  of  such  insistence 
from  the  period  following  the  definition  of 
transubstantiation.  But  it  takes  some  cen- 
turies for  this  mental  process  to  be  trans- 
lated into  ceremonial.  Beyond  question  the 
ceremonial  when  it  comes  is  a  perfectly  con- 
sistent expression  of  what  has  been  believed 
throughout.  The  elevation,  the  ringing  of 
the  bell,  the  torches,  and  all  the  later  cere- 
monial, testify'  to  no  new  faith  in  the  ador- 
ability  of  our  Lord  there  present.  They  are 
only  fresh  devices  of  inventive  devotion  to 
testify  to  what  it  has  always  believed  and 
alwa3^s,  in  some  way,  expressed.  There  is 
traceable  in  the  history  of  eucharistic  cere- 
monial a  constant  tendency  to  work  back- 
wards from,  the  supreme  moment  of  com- 
munion,  and  gradual^   enrich   the   service, 

*  See  Appendix  I. 


44  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

further    and    further    back,    with    rite    and 
ceremony. 

We  have  seen  then  that  Exposition  is  justi- 
fied from  the  early  Hturgies  and  teaching  of 
the  Church,  and  that  a  form  of  exposition  is 
found  in  primitive  times.  It  remains  to  point 
to  a  similar  conclusion  in  regard  to  Bene- 
diction. I  have  not  been  able  to  discover 
at  what  date  the  actual  practice  of  Benedic- 
tion, in  its  modern  form  of  making  the  sign  of 
the  cross  with  the  Sacred  Host  over  a  com- 
municant or  a  congregation,  is  first  recorded. 
It  may  well  be  of  respectable  antiquity. 
Certainly  a  form  of  Benediction  with  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  is  to  be  found  as  early  as 
the  fourth  century,  being  alluded  to  both  by 
St.  James  Nisibis  and  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.* 
This  was  the  custom  on  the  part  of  com- 
municants of  reverently  touching  their  eyes 
with  the  Sacrament  before  they  placed  it  in 
their  mouths.  Either  the  custom  is  inexplic- 
able, or  it  was  a  form  of  benediction,  f    It 

*  See  Appendix  I. 

t  An  interesting  confirmation  of  what  may  be  called  the 
benediction-idea  is  to  be  foimd  in  the  Armenian  Liturgy  (Bright- 
man,  p.  449),  where  the  deacon  says  to  the  priest,  "  Sir,  bid  a 
blessing,"  and  the  priest  replies  by  lifting  up  the  Blessed  Sacra- 


THE   DOCTRINAI.   BASIS  45 

was  hardly  needed  to  supply  a  basis  for 
Benediction  :  that  basis  is  alniost  self-evident 
to  Catholics  from  their  belief  about  the 
Blessed  Sacrament.  But  it  is  at  least  an 
interesting  confirmation  of  the  naturalness 
of  the  instincts  of  present-day  Catholicism. 
And  it  seems  an  added  rebuke  to  the  sophis- 
tries of  modernist  eucharistic  theology. 

Additional  Note  on  the  Blessed  Sacrament  and 
''the  principle  of  the  Incarnation'^ 

Bishop  Gore  has  said  (Reservation,  p.  32) 
that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
*^  violates  the  principle  of  the  Incarnation, 
the  principle  which  in  the  fifth  century 
was  insisted  on  both  as  regards  our  I^ord's 
Person  and  as  regards  the  Eucharist ;  the 
principle,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  higher 
and  divine  nature  does  not  obscure  or 
destroy  the  human,  and  that  in  the  Eucharist 
the    Divine    Presence    does    not    destroy    or 

ment  "  in  the  sight  of  the  people,"  while  uttering  no  words  of 
blessing  but  an  exhortation  to  "  taste  in  hoUness  of  the  holy 
and  precious  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  The  invited  blessing  consists  of  an  exposition.  This 
exposition  is  followed  by  the  drawing  of  the  cvirtain  which  veils 
the  sanctuary  durin"  the  priest's  communion. 


46  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

obliterate  the  material  substances  of  bread 
and  wine.'*  With  the  implication  that  the 
Fathers  taught  a  different  doctrine  to  that 
embodied  in  the  later  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  we  have  already  dealt.  We  have 
quoted  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  St.  James 
of  Saragossa  as  saying  quite  definitely  that 
what  rem_ains  after  consecration  is  ''  not 
bread  "  and  ''  not  wine,"  but  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ.  While  the  language  of 
early  v/riters  is  loosely  used,  we  do  not  think 
it  is  possible,  on  an  unbiassed  survey  of  their 
teaqhing,  to  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion 
than  that  they  taught  substantially  what 
the  Church  teaches  to-day  on  the  Real 
Presence.  What  we  are  concerned  to  rebut 
here  is  Dr.  Gore's  assertion  that  the  doctrine 
of  a  single  substance  remaining  in  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  violates  the  principle  of  the  In- 
carnation. It  might  indeed  be  maintained 
that  to  predicate  two  substances  co-existing 
in  the  Sacrament,  viz.  the  substance  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  and  the  substance 
of  bread  and  wine,  is  to  ''  violate  the  principle 
of  the  Incarnation,"  which  insists  on  only 


THE   DOCTRINAI,   BASIS  47 

one  Person  in  Christ,  the  Divine  Person  of 
the  Son  of  God.  The  Catholic  doctrine  of  a 
single  substance  in  the  Eucharist  is  strictly 
analogous  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  one 
Person  in  Christ,  while  the  reality  of  the 
species,  insisted  on  by  the  Catholic  doctrine, 
gives  the  required  analogy  with  the  two 
natures  in  Christ.  The  fact  is  that  Dr.  Gore 
seems  to  fall  into  the  common  Protestant 
mistake  of  investing  the  word  '*  substantia  '* 
with  a  material  meaning  ('*  the  material  sub- 
stances ")  and  so  to  evacuate  of  their  reality 
the  accidents  which  remain  in  the  Sacram.ent. 
He  uses  argum.ents  against  the  Catholic 
doctrine  vv^hich  are  only  valid  against  the 
''phantom"  *  theory  which  Catholic  theolog>^ 
rejects.  In  other  words,  he  treats  the  Tri- 
dentine  formula  of  transubstantiation  as 
identical  with  the  doctrine  condemned  by 
the  28th  Article,  a  doctrine  which  *'  over- 
throweth  the  nature  of  a  Sacrament "  by 
denying  all  reality  to  the  outward  species 
after    consecration. 

*  The  proposition,  "  Accidentia  encharisti*  a  non  sunt  acci- 
dentia realia,  sed  merae  illusiones,  et  praestigia  oculonim,"  was 
condemned  by  the  Sacred  Congregation  in  1649. 


CHAPTER    IV 

CANONICAI,  OBEDIENCE  * 

As  has  been  already  maintained,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  canonical  obedience  due  from 
priests  to  their  bishops  is  not  the  main  issue 
in  the  present  controversy.  We  must  insist 
again  that  the  main  issue  is  the  duty  of  bishops 
and  priests  alike  to  promote  the  honour  of  our 
Blessed  lyord,  truly  present  in  the  Sacrament 
of  the  altar  and  for  ever  adorable.  But 
while  the  question  of  episcopal  rights  is  not 
the  main  issue,  it  is  an  important  side-issue, 
and  something  must  be  said  about  it. 

The  Bishop  of  lyondon,  in  a  pronouncement 
reported  in  the  Church  Times  of  January  3, 
1919,  claimed  to  forbid  Exposition  and  Bene- 
diction throughout  his  diocese  and  demanded 
the  obedience  of  the  clergy  in  fulfilment  of 
their  oath  of  canonical  obedience. 

*  For  much  of  the  substance  of  this  chapter  I  am  indebted  to 
the  Rev.  J.  H.  Boudier. 

48 


CANONICAL   OBEDIENCE  49 

While,  as  we  shall  show,  this  claim  cannot 
stand,  we  may  in  a  sense  be  grateful  that  it 
should  have  been  made.  At  any  rate  it 
shows  that  the  constant  refusal  of  priests 
throughout  the  course  of  the  Catholic  Revival 
to  be  bound  in  spiritual  matters  by  the 
decisions  of  State  authority,  or  to  recognize 
the  validity  of  courts  which,  even  where  con- 
sisting of  ''  spiritual  persons,"  have  been 
ultimately  based  on  the  civil  sanction,  has 
borne  some  fruit.  We  refuse  to  yield  to 
Caesar  the  things  which  belong  to  God.  But 
an  authority  which  bases  itself  on  the  appeal 
to  sacred  canons  is  one  we  can  recognize  and 
welcome,  provided  it  can  justify  its  appeal. 
In  the  present  case  we  submit,  with  all  respect 
for  a  bishop  who  has  earned  the  affection  and 
gratitude  of  Catholics,  that  the  oath  of 
canonical  obedience  does  not  apply  to  the 
matter  of  this  controversy.  For  canonical 
obedience  means  obedience  rendered  to  the 
bishop  in  regard  to  requirements  of  the 
Canon  I^aw.  To  quote  a  v/ell-known  legal 
definition  :  ''  The  Oath  of  Canonical  Obedience 
does  not  mean  that  the  clergyman  will  obey 


50  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPvS 

all  the  commands  of  the  Bisnop  against  which 
there  is  no  law,  but  that  he  will  obey  all  sucli 
commands  as  the  Bishop  by  law  is  authorised 
to  impose/' 

Now  there  is  in  these  provinces  no  canon 
law  at  all  which  deals  with  the  matters  of 
Exposition  and  Benediction.     If  there  were 
a  canon  forbidding  them,  the  Bishop  would  be 
within  his  rights  in  claiming  the  obedience 
of  his  priests  to  this  prohibitory  enactment. 
They   might  justly  protest   against  the  re- 
quirement,   for    this    reason.     There    is    an 
enactment  of  the  Canon  Ivaw,  not  only  in 
England  but  throughout  western   Christen- 
dom, bearing  on  the  kindred  matter  of  reser- 
vation of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  which  the 
Bishop  himself  contravenes.     The  Canon  I^aw 
of    Western    Christendom,    promulgated    in 
these  provinces,  never  repealed,  and  therefore 
still  binding,  not  only  requires  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  to  be   reserved  in   every  parish 
church,  but  requires  it  to  be  so  reserved  under 
one    kind    only.     The    Bishop    of    lyondon's 
regulations  require  reservation  to  be  in  both 
kinds.     Even   were   the    Bishop    within   his 


CANONTCAI,    OBKDIKNCJv  f,I 

canonical  rights  in  demanding  from  his  clergy 
the  surrender  of  Exposition  and  Benediction, 
they  might  reasonably  remind  him  of  his  own 
obligation  to  obey  the  Canon  Law  to  which 
he  claimed  their  obedience.  But  in  the  present 
instance  we  find  the  Bishop  claiming  the 
obedience  of  his  clergy  in  a  matter  on  which 
the  Canon  Law  of  these  provinces  is  silent, 
while  he  himself  issues  regulations  Vv^hich 
contravene  the  Canon  Law.* 

But  the  Bishop  of  London  would  seem  to 
base  his  claim  on  the  Canon  Law  which 
obtains  outside  these  provinces.  For  he 
claims,  in  the  pronouncement  referred  to, 
to  exercise  his  authority  in  these  matters 
similarly  to  the  *'  Roman  Catholic  Prelates 
in  this  country.'*  We  are  not  disposed  to 
cavil,  as  some  might,  at  this  reference  from 
a  bishop  of  the  English  Church  to  papal  Canon 
Law.     On  the  contrary  we  consider  it  entirely 

*  There  is  a  noticeable  tendency  among  our  bishops  to  condemn 
communion  in  one  kind  as  wrong  in  itself,  and  thus  undoubtedly 
to  condemn  the  primitive  Church  to  which  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land has  appealed.  See  Freestone,  The  Reserved  Sacrament 
passim.  It  may  be  noted  that  Paulinus  of  Milan,  writing  in  the 
fifth  centurj'-,  describing  the  death  of  St.  Ambrose,  makes  it 
clear  that  he  received  his  viaticum  in  one  kind  from  Honoratus, 
(Vita  S.  Ambrosii.) 


52  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

desirable  that  a  bishop  should  be  guided  by 
the  practice  of  the  rest  of  the  Western  Church. 
And  if  the  Bishop  of  lyondon  would  take  over 
the  whole  Roman  system  in  the  matter  of 
the  regulation  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  we 
should  be  the  last  to  raise  any  objection  on  the 
ground  that  he  claimed  to  act  similarly  to 
Roman  Catholic  bishops.  But  we  have  som.e 
right  to  complain  when  he  claims  the  rights 
of  Rom^an  Catholic  bishops  in  order  to 
suppress  what  Roman  Catholic  bishops  are 
bound  to  promote,  when  he  claim.s  to  exercise 
these  rights  in  a  manner  in  which  no  Roman 
Catholic  bishop  ever  exercises  them..  For 
no  Roman  Catholic  prelate  forbids  Exposition 
or  Benediction  throughout  his  diocese,  as 
the  Bishop  of  lyondon  has  done.  It  is  true 
that,  under  the  Roman  system,  the  bishop 
regulates  such  matters  as  Exposition  and 
Benediction,  and  that  he  has  the  power  to 
forbid  them.  ''  But,''  to  quote  Van  Hove, 
''  in  all  these  matters  his  power  is  not  un- 
limited ;  he  must  conform  to  the  enactments 
of  the  Canon  Law.'*  The  enactments  of  the 
Canon  Law  referred  to  have  one  single  object, 


CANONICAI,   OBEDIENCE  53 

viz.    the    promotion    of    the    honour  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament.     If  a  Roman 
Catholic  bishop  refuses  permission  for  Bene- 
diction in  any  individual  case,  it  is  because 
there  is  danger  of  irreverence  to  the  Blessed 
Sacrament    involved    in    granting    it.     The 
power  of  prohibition  is  used  only  to  guard  the 
Blessed    Sacrament    from    dishonour.     Is   it 
unfair  to  say  that  with  us  the  real  object  of 
prohibition  has  been  to  prevent  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  from,  receiving  too  much  adora- 
tion ?     At  any  rate  the  Bishop  of  London 
has  not  and  cannot  urge  as  a  ground  for  pro- 
hibition of  these  ceremonies  at  St.  Michael's, 
North  Kensington,  or  St.  Saviour's,  Hoxton, 
that  they  have  involved  any  risk  of  dishonour 
to  our  Lord.     If  nobody  had  been  concerned 
to  check  the  Vv^orship  of  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment, there  would  have  been  no  objection 
raised  and  no  episcopal  prohibition  put  forth. 
We  are  brought  back  to  the  main  issue.     The 
real  ground  of  the  prohibition  is  the  unhappy 
disbelief  of  many  English  Christians,  bishops 
included,   in   the    Real   Presence   and   ador- 
ability  of  our  Lord  in  the  most  hol}^  Sacrament. 


54  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

This  being  so,  it  is  idle  to  exploit  the  Roman 
system,  wliich  admittedly  promotes  the  adora- 
tion of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  for  the 
sinister  purpose  of  restricting  such  adoration. 
It  may,  perhaps,  be  maintained  that  we 
have  made  an  unfair  use  of  the  Bishop's 
reference  to  Roman  Catholic  prelates,  and 
that  the  language  of  a  busy  and  overworked 
dignitary  who  is  no  theologian  should  be 
more  generously  interpreted.  Let  us  then 
adopt  a  more  generous  interpretation,  for- 
bearing to  press  the  implications  of  the  phrase, 
''  canonical  obedience,"  and  avoiding  any 
inferences  from  the  reference  to  Roman 
Catholic  bishops  which  might  seem  unfair. 
Let  us  suppose  the  Bishop  of  London  simply 
to  claim  that  the  regulation  of  worship  is  by 
all  Catholic  precedent  a  matter  in  which 
the  bishop  is  concerned  ;  that  obedience  to 
the  bishop  in  such  matters  is  a  Catholic 
tradition.  Such  a  claim,  stated  in  this  form, 
is  incontestable.  Under  normal  conditions 
in  the  Catholic  Church  the  priest  should 
practically  do  nothing  without  the  bishop's 
sp.nction.     This   is   a    far-reaching   principle, 


CANONICAL  OBEDIENCE  55 

and  applies  to  many  more  things  than 
Exposition  and  Benediction.  But  the  con- 
ditions which  obtain  in  the  English  Church 
are  not  normal.  Normally  the  bishop  ad- 
ministers the  law  of  the  Church  for  the 
promotion  of  the  purposes  of  the  Church. 
On  this  account  it  could  hardly  ever  be  right 
for  a  priest  to  disobey  his  bishop.  He  would 
presume  that  the  bishop  was  serving  the 
purposes  for  which  the  Church  exists,  and 
would  bow  to  the  judgment  and  decision  of 
his  superior.  But  the  whole  course  of  the 
Catholic  Revival  has  testified  to  our  abnormal 
conditions.  Its  leadership  has  not  been 
episcopal,  but  frankly  presbyterian.  The 
bishops  have  constantly  been  the  mouth- 
pieces and  instruments  of  the  Protestantism 
which  has  sought  at  eveiy  stage  to  crush  or 
to  check  the  growing  forces  of  the  move- 
ment :  at  the  dictates  of  this  Protestantism 
they  have  persecuted  and  even  imprisoned 
the  faithful  priests  who,  on  their  own  initia- 
tive, proclaimed  forgotten  truths  and 
expressed  them  in  Catholic  practices.  Resist- 
ance to  episcopal  demands,  an  inversion  of  the 


56  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

normal  Catholic  principle,  became  a  tradition 
of  the  Catholic  movement.*  And  to  this 
resistance  we  owe  such  liberty  as  we  have 
to-day  to  teach  the  Catholic  faith  and 
worship  in  the  Catholic  way.  The  resistance 
was  justified  by  the  abnormal  conditions. 
The  bishops,  set  to  defend  and  promote 
Catholic  faith  and  practice,  were  seeking  to 
destroy  both  at  the  bidding  of  Protestant 
prejudice  and  fanaticism.  It  became  neces- 
sary to  insist  that  this  faith  and  practice 
were  more  important  than  the  authority 
which  after  all  existed  for  their  sake.  In 
other  words,  the  principle  emerged  that  the 
authority  of  a  bishop  could  only  be  obeyed 
with  safety  when  it  rested  on  some  higher 
authority  than  the  bishop's  own  claim,  and 
was  directed  towards  the  promotion  of  the 
ends  for  which  it  existed. 

We  claim  that  this  principle  still  holds 
good.  Many  of  our  bishops,  appointed  by 
statesmen  for  other  reasons  than  their  zeal 

*  Not  that  Catholics  refuse  to  obey  the  lawful  commands  of 
their  bishops.  This  they  recognize  that  they  are  bound  to  do. 
But  so  many  demands  have  been  made  which  were  not  in 
accordance  with  any  Church  law  that  o^  necessity  they  have 
been  challenged. 


CANONICAI,   OBEDIENCE  y/ 

for  the  Catholic  faith,  are  notoriously  con- 
temptuous of  the  Catholic  tradition  of  faith 
and  practice.  Bishops  who,  like  Dr.  Ingram, 
have  learned  to  venerate  this  tradition,  are 
subject  to  the  pressure  of  hostile  opinion 
in  the  very  conclaves  of  the  bishops.  Were 
the  Bishop  of  lyondon  surrounded  by  bishops 
who  would  receive  with  approval,  instead  of 
with  a  stony  and  hostile  silence,  his  brave 
words  defending  access  to  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment, an  access  which  he  had  for  some  3^ears 
endeavoured  to  check,  we  believe  he  would  be 
willing  enough  to  sanction  Exposition  and 
Benediction.  We  are  not  without  hope  that 
he  will  3^et  arrive  at  sanctioning  them,  when 
he  finds  that  Catholics  will  not  do  without 
them.  In  truth,  it  is  not  the  Bishop  of 
I/ondon  whom  the  Catholic  clerg^^  in  London 
resist  to-day  in  the  matter  of  Benediction, 
and  have  resisted  hitherto  in  the  matter  of 
access,  but  the  Protestantism  of  which  he 
feels  the  pressure  and  which  has  driven  him 
to  the  uneasy  putting  forth  of  prohibitions 
unsupported  by  any  strong  convictions  of  his 
own.     The  priests  who  refused  obedience  to 


58  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

his  prohibitions  of  the  ceremonial  use  of 
incense,  and  later  of  reservation  in  the  open 
church,  have  lived  to  find  their  actions  allowed 
and  his  ban  removed.  Their  resistance  has 
been  justified.  And  resistance  in  this  matter 
may  claim  a  like  justification  and  achieve 
a  like  result.  lyct  priests  only  continue  to 
honour  and  adore  our  Lord  in  the  Blessed 
Sacrament,  and  to  hold  Him  up  for  the  adora- 
tion of  the  faithful  at  whatever  cost  in  grants 
and  the  bishop's  favour  forfeited,  and  it  will 
be  found  that  their  action  has  led  to  the 
further  promotion  of  that  honour  which  the 
Church  exists  to  pay  ;  that  they  have  been 
missionaries  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  not 
only  to  the  people  and  priests  of  England,  but 
to  the  bishops  themselves.  In  the  providence 
of  God  priests  have  been  set  to  accomplish 
the  work  of  the  Catholic  revival  in  England. 
Over  and  over  again  they  have  found  them- 
selves in  the  painful  position  of  resisting 
their  Fathers  in  God.  They  have  chosen  to 
'*  obey  God  rather  than  man."  They  have 
suffered  for  their  obedience  to  an  authority 
which    is    above    bishops,    an    authority    to 


CANONICAL  OBEDIENCE  59 

which  the  bishops  rather  than  they  were 
disobedient.  They  have  been  reviled  and 
persecuted.  But  they  have  been  the  makers 
of  history  and  the  saviours  of  Israel.  It  is  for 
us  to  follow  in  their  footsteps,  fearless  of 
consequences. 

Additional  Note  on  the  authority  of  the  parish 
priest  in  relation  to  the  reserved  Sacrament, 

The  Church  Times  has  recently  challenged 
the  authority  of  the  parish  priest  to  give  Bene- 
diction with  the  Blessed  Sacramen'^  on  his 
own  initiative.  It  is  of  course  conceded  that 
in  the  Roman  Church  a  priest  requires  the 
permission  of  the  bishop  for  solemn  Benedic- 
tion except  at  Corpus  Christi.  But  this  right 
of  the  bishop  rests  on  positive  enactments 
of  modern  Canon  Law,  and  not  on  ancient 
custom.  The  English  Canon  Law  has  no 
enactments  of  the  kind  :  the  only  prescrip- 
tion being  the  Ornaments  Rubric,  which  by 
implication  requires  that  the  monstrance  be 
retained  and  be  in  use.  The  following  passage 
from  Freestone  justifies  the  conclusion  that 
extra-liturgical   Exposition   and   Benediction 


6o  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

were    originated    by    presbyters    and     onty 
later  regulated  by  bishops. 

"  The  circumstances  that  made  the  pres- 
byter the  celebrant  at  Mass  in  the  bishop's 
stead  made  him  the  custodian  and  normal 
minister  of  the  reserved  Eucharist.  These 
were,  briefly,  the  subdivision  of  the  city  areas 
for  disciplinary  and  administrative  purposes  ; 
the  spread  of  Christianity  from  the  towns 
to  the  countryside  ;  and,  later,  the  develop- 
ment, from  churches  attached  to  isolated 
districts  and  estates,  of  the  regular  parochial 
system  of  the  Middle  Ages.  All  these  causes 
conspired  to  produce  and  to  conserve  pres- 
byteral  autonomy  in  matters  connected  with 
the  sacraments.  We  may  take  note  that, 
long  before  this  development  had  come  to 
its  full  growth,  the  control  of  viaticum  had 
been  placed  by  some  bishops  in  the  hands 
of  the  presbyterate,  even  as  early  as  the 
fourth  centur3^"  {The  Sacrament  Reserved, 
chap.  XV.  p.  220.) 


CHAPTER    V 

THE    HONOUR    OF   JESUS 

There  are  two  objects,  and  two  alone,  for 
w^hich  the  Church  exists.  For  these  objects 
bishops  rule  and  priests  labour.  To  these 
ends  the  whole  machinery  of  the  Church,  her 
sacraments,  her  w^orship,  her  sacred  synods, 
and  all  her  varied  activities  are  directed. 
These  objects  are  tiie  glory  of  God  and  the 
salvation  of  souls.  And,  for  the  Christian,  the 
honour  of  Jesus  Christ  is  bound  up  with  the 
glory  of  God.  For  He  is  not  only  the  supreme 
revelation  of  God,  the  sole  means  of  access 
to  God  ;  He  is  Himself  Very  God  of  Very 
God,  blessed  for  all  eternity.  No  question, 
whether  of  organization  or  of  worship,  can  be 
rightly  considered  apart  from  its  bearing 
on  the  honour  of  Jesus  and  the  salvation  of 
the  souls  for  wliich  He  died.  We  have, 
therefore,  every  right  to  demand,  as  we  do 
demand,  that  the  question  of  the  toleration  of 

6t 


62  BENEDICTION   AND    THE    BISHOPS 

Exposition  and  Benediction  be  considered 
and  decided  by  our  ralers  solely  on  the  merits 
of  this  test.  Do  they  promote  the  honour  of 
Jesus  ?  Do  they  conduce  to  the  salvation  of 
souls  ?  And  to  these  two  questions  we  must 
finally  address  ourselves. 

But  before  we  do  so,  we  are  compelled  by 
the  circumstances  of  the  time,  circumstances 
full  of  distress  to  all  true  believers  in  Jesus 
Christ,  to  raise  an  issue  which  has  an  import- 
ant bearing  upon  the  present  controversy. 
We  are  under  the  painful  necessity  of  allud- 
ing to  the  ready  toleration  in  the  English 
Church,  and  by  the  authorities  of  the  EngHsh 
Church,  of  errors  grievously  dishonouring 
to  our  lyord,  disastrously  inimical  to  the 
welfare  of  souls.  While  priests  are  being 
condemned  unheard,  mulcted  of  grants, 
accused  of  disloyalty,  threatened  with  prosecu- 
tion, for  lifting  up  our  Lord  in  the  Sacrament 
of  His  compelling  love,  and  for  calling  the 
faithful  round  the  altar  to  render  Him  homage 
and  receive  His  blessing,  for  the  increase  of 
their  devotion,  the  lifting  up  of  their  hearts 
and  the  setting  of  their  wills  heavenward, 


THE   HONOUR   OF   JESUS  63 

other  priests  are  setting  forth  strange  doc- 
trines which  call  in  question  the  miracles 
recorded  in  the  sacred  scriptures  and  endorsed 
by  the  Son  of  God,  and  are  preaching  theories 
which  gravely  compromise  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  as  proclaimed  by  centuries  of 
Christian  teaching.  And  this  without  in- 
curring in  most  cases  more  than  the  mildest 
of  rebukes  from  authority.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  give  instances  of  this.  The 
facts  are  notorious.  The  scandal  of  the 
elevation  to  the  episcopate  of  Dr.  Henson, 
who  has  steadily  refused  to  give  any  clear 
assurance  of  his  belief  in  the  virgin-birth  of 
our  lyord,  is  little  more  than  a  year  old.  It 
is  true  that  some  bishops  protested  at  the 
time  ;  that  some  of  them  refused  to  take 
part  in  his  consecration.  But  he  sits  at  the 
conclaves  of  bishops  and  takes  liis  part  in 
their  discussions,  apparently  without  a  voice 
there  being  heard  to  ob j  ect .  When  the  matter 
of  Exposition  and  Benediction  is  raised  among 
them,  will  any  of  the  bishops  suggest  that  a 
prelate  whose  orthodoxy  is  suspect  in  a 
matter  where  the  honour  of  our  Lord  and  His 


64  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

Virgin  Mother  are  vitally  concerned  may  not 
decently  take  any  part  in  such  discussions  ? 
We  do  not  think  so.  Modernfem,  even 
extreme  modernism,  in  the  matter  of  the 
faith  is  indulgently  regarded.  Opinions  which 
verge  on  the  denial  of  the  Godhead  of  our 
Lord  will  have  no  penalties  meted  out  to 
them,  will  involve  no  measure  of  ostracism 
from  the  fellowship  and  comity  of  Christian 
bishops.  Their  reception  is  in  striking  con- 
trast with  that  accorded  to  modern,  yet  far 
less  modern,  ceremonial  developments  based 
on  the  ancient  faith  and  designed  for  its 
safe-guarding.  The  authority  which  frowns 
on  Father  Kilburn  may  be  trusted  to  smile 
on  Bishop  Henson. 

It  may  be  urged  that  this  matter  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  questions  at  issue  in 
the  present  controversy  :  that  regrettable 
laxity  in  one  direction  should  not  be  made 
a  plea  for  laxity  in  another  ;  that  the  failure 
of  authority  to  suppress  doctrinal  error  should 
not  be  pleaded  against  an  attempt  on  their 
part  to  put  down  unauthorized  ceremonies. 
To  this  we  reply  that  we  are  not  pleading  at 


THE   HONOUR   OF  JESUS  65 

all  for  laxity  in  regard  to  ceremonies  in  view 
of  the  notorious  laxity  in  regard  to  funda- 
mental doctrine,  justified  as  we  are  in  con- 
trasting the  sternness  with  which  the  rela- 
tively unimportant  matters  of  ceremonial 
are  treated  with  the  indulgence  shown  in  the 
unquestionably  more  important  matter  of 
doctrine.  We  have  raised  this  issue  for 
quite  other  reasons,  as  having,  we  are  con- 
vinced, a  really  important  bearing  on  the 
Benediction  controversy. 

For  we  are  claiming  that  these  practices 
should  be  judged  solely  as  they  affect  the 
honour  of  our  lyord  and  the  good  of  souls. 
And  the  treatm^ent  of  modernism  shows  that 
these  supreme  objects  are  not  the  guiding 
principles  of  the  policy  of  our  bishops.  If 
they  were,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the 
bishops  who  really  do  value  historic  Chris- 
tianity would  have  gone  to  any  lengths  rather 
than  tolerate,  as  in  the  eyes  of  the  world 
they  have  tolerated,  teachings  which  were 
dishonouring  to  our  lyord  and  subversive  of 
that  faith  by  which  alone  men  may  hope  for 
salvation.     If    they    would    not    apply    the 


66  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

supreme  test  in  such  weighty  matters,  how 
shall  they  be  trusted  to  apply  it  in  the  com- 
paratively minor  matters  of  these  devotions  ? 
And  we  refuse  to  accept  decisions  based  on 
any  other  test. 

It  is  worth  while  to  ask  what  is  the  reason 
of  the  weakness  of  our  authorities  in  the  face 
of  dangerous  speculations  and  modernist 
denials  undermining  the  faith  ?  Why  are 
they  so  ready,  for  instance,  to  mutilate  or 
degrade  the  Athanasian  symbol,  to  expurgate 
the  psalter,  to  prune  the  Prayer  Book  offices 
of  references  to  Old  Testament  miracle  ?  Is 
is  not  because  of  the  quite  noticeable  tend- 
ency among  us  to  conciliate  objectors  rather 
than  to  convert  them,  to  respect  men's 
errors  rather  than  to  press  on  them  the  faith 
by  which  salvation  comes  to  their  souls  ? 
The  bishops  are  anxious  to  remove  offences 
from  the  Christianity  of  which  they  are  the 
official  guardians  and  trustees,  rather  than 
risk  offending  the  intellectualist  or  alienating 
the  worldly.  They  seek  to  throw  overboard 
what  is  objected  to,  so  far  as  they  can  without 
alienating  the  faithful,  and  even  at  this  risk. 


THE   HONOUR   OF  JEvSUS  67 

And  this  is  the  real  secret  of  the  attempt  to  put 
down  Exposition  and  Benediction.  These 
practices,  with  their  unmistakable  testimony 
to  the  supernatural  Presence  which  is  en- 
shrined at  the  heart  of  Christendom,  make 
the  world  uncomfortable.  This  explicit  and 
triumphant  assertion  of  an  unquestioning 
faith  makes  the  intellectualist  uneasy.  Ex- 
position and  Benediction,  like  Bible  miracles 
and  the  Athanasian  Creed,  are  objected  to. 
Therefore  they  must  be  ''  m_ade  to  cease," 
that  we  may  have  peace  in  the  Establish- 
ment. Ceremonies  which  mean  nothing  may 
be  tolerated.  For  who  is  going  to  object 
to  them  ?  the  humble  faithful  will  only  avoid 
them.  Peace  at  any  price,  peace  between  the 
believer  in  the  old  religion  and  the  apostles 
of  the  new,  peace  between  Christ  and  BeHal 
— ^this  is  the  object  which  really  dominates 
the  policy  of  our  authorities.  And  we  will 
have  none  of  it.  We  are  at  grips  with  a 
matter  which  is  one  of  life  and  death  to  us. 
For  we  preach  the  religion  of  Christ,  a  religion 
which  we  know  to  be  a  stone  of  stumbling 
and  a  rock  of  offence  to  many.     Yet  we  can 


68  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

do  no  other  than  preach  it,  and  press  into 
its  service  every  weapon.  We  should  have 
been  allowed  to  wear  any  garments  we  liked 
in  Church,  had  we  been  content  to  evacuate 
them  of  all  doctrinal  significance  :  we  might 
have  as  much  ceremonial  as  we  pleased, 
provided  it  did.  nothing  to  testify  to  our 
supernatural  faith.  But  everything  which 
we  do  becom.es  objectionable  to  the  world  in 
proportion  as  it  involves  the  proclam^ation  to 
it  of  the  supernatural. 

It  is  material  to  ask  here  what  has  occa- 
sioned the  rapid  growth  of  devotion  to  Jesus 
in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  issuing  in  these 
practices   introduced   in   His   honour  ?     We 
believe  there  is  a  two-fold  explanation.     The 
war,  as  has  already  been  said,  had  much  to 
do  with  it.     With  the  ordered  world  we  had 
known  reeling  in  the  confusion  of  a  struggle 
unexampled  in  history,  faith  fell  back  on  the 
supernatural  realities  to  sustain  it.     Anxious 
for  those  dearest  to  them,  anxious  for  the 
future,  the  faithful  gathered  round  the  taber- 
nacles and  found  in  the  presence  of  Jesus 
a  consolation  and  a  power  to  steady  which 


THE   HONOUR   OF   JESUS  69 

they  could  find  nowhere  else.  Grateful  and 
adoring  devotion  led  them  further.  They 
enthroned  Him  in  the  monstrance,  stripped 
of  all  veils  save  those  of  the  sacramental 
species  :  they  bowed  to  His  Benediction. 
Unbelief  may  feel  uneas3^  But  v/ho  that 
believes  will  dare  to  say  they  were  wrong  ? 
And  if  they  were  right  then  to  follow  the 
instincts  of  Christian  faith  and  piety,  can  it 
be  right  to  forbid  them  now  ?  May  not  those 
prayers  before  the  tabernacle,  that  worship 
of  Jesus  in  Exposition  and  Benediction,  have 
done  something  to  gain  us  a  victory  vv^hich 
depended  in  large  measure  on  the  faith  and 
the  ''  nerve  "  of  those  at  home,  as  well  as  on 
the  power  of  their  intercession  for  those  in 
the  field  ?  We  have  won  the  war.  But  the 
future  holds  fresh  dangers  and  anxieties  for 
us.  Is  it  wise — we  need  hardly  ask  is  it 
grateful  to  our  lyord — to  cease  from  the 
devotions  in  which  we  found  His  help  ? 

But  the  war  was  not  the  only  trouble  which 
drove  the  faithful  to  renewed  devotion  to  the 
Blessed  Sacrament.  They  had  yet  another 
cause,  almost  a  graver  cause,  for  trouble  and 


70  BENEDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

anxiety.  After  all,  the  world  could  never 
give  a  peace  to  satisfy  them.  That  peace  they 
sought  in  the  faith,  and  in  the  Author  of 
faith.  But  they  found  all  that  they  held 
most  sacred  called  in  question  by  a  critical 
and  contemptuous  modernism,  which  seemed 
more  and  more  to  invade  the  sanctuary 
where  they  had  looked  for  peace.  They 
found  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  as  it  seemed 
to  them,  dishonoured  by  denial  and  dis- 
belief. An  instinct  of  reparation  drove  them 
to  find  fresh  ways  of  honouring  Him.  Can 
they  be  expected  to  cease  from  this  honour 
because  of  prohibitions  coming  from  the  very 
source  which  has  shown  so  little  energy  in 
protecting  His  honour  ? 

Driven  by  the  stress  of  the  most  terrible 
war  in  history,  and  by  the  consciousness  that 
upon  the  very  Church  at  home  had  come  a 
day  of  trouble,  and  of  rebuke,  and  blas- 
phemy, men  fled  to  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and 
found  reassurance  and  help  for  their  own 
souls  in  Exposition  and  Benediction.  Were 
their  instincts  those  of  a  misguided  piety  ? 
Or  were  thev  a  true  wisdom  ?     We  maintain 


THE   HONOUR   OF   JESUS  71 

that  they  were  the  latter  ;  that  they  honoured 
Jesus  and  promoted  the  salvation  of  souls. 
We  insist  that  they  must  not  be  condemned 
unheard. 

We  who  stand  by  these  practices  sincerely 
desire  the  honour  of  our  lyord,  the  salvation  of 
souls.  And  we  demand  of  bishops  who 
forbid  them  that  they  should  convince  us  first 
that  Exposition  and  Benediction  militate 
against  one  or  other  of  the  two  ends  which 
they,  as  well  as  ourselves,  are  bound  to  pro- 
mote. 

To  those  who  believe  the  Sacrament  to  be 
the  bare  sign  of  an  absent  thing,  doubtless 
these  rites  are  sheer  idolatr>^,  dishonouring 
to  our  Ivord  and  soul-destroying.  But  we 
refuse  to  measure  their  value  with  the  measure 
of  unbelief.  We  cannot  do  other  than  con- 
tend for  the  truth  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
against  all  who  deny  or  deprave  it.  We  can 
only  listen  to  objections  raised  by  those  who 
believe,  as  the  whole  Church  teaches,  that  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  is  our  Lord.  Can  any  of 
them  maintain  that  the  honour  which 
avowedly  we  seek  to  pay  is  mistaken  ;    that 


73  BENEDICTION   AND    THE   BISHOPS 

it  really  dishonours  Him,  that  the  help  for  our 
souls  we  thought  we  found  is  a  delusion ;  that 
these  practices  endanger  spirituality  ? 

Dr.  Gore  has  maintained  a  position  some- 
thing like  this,  and  has  made  it  the  ground 
of  prohibiting  even  access  to  the  reserved 
Sacrament  for  devotion.  In  this  he  con- 
demns not  only  the  thousands  of  his  fellow 
bishops,  including  some  of  the  Anglican  com- 
munion, who  encourage  Exposition  and  Bene- 
diction, but  also  the  Bishop  of  lyondon,  who 
allows  the  piety  of  access  to  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  for  devotion.  All  such  devotions, 
he  would  tell  us,  are  a  misuse  of  a  presence 
given  for  communion,  not  for  adoration. 
We  honour  Christ  more  by  restricting  our 
use  of  the  Sacrament  to  the  purpose  for  which 
He  ordained  it.  They  focus  our  attention  on 
a  presence  external  to  us  :  we  shall  better 
cultivate  spirituality  by  insistence  on  the 
presence  of  Christ  within  us.  But  the  Bishop 
of  Oxford's  arguments,  which  are  bound  up 
with  what  is  practically  a  new  eucharistic 
theology,  do  not  convince  us ;  the  older 
theology  satisfies  us,  and  it  answers  to  our 


THE   HONOUR   OF   JESUS  73 

satisfaction  the  objections  alleged.  Our  Lord 
did  not  ordain  the  Blessed  Sacrament  for 
adoration.  True,  in  a  sense.  In  the  same 
sense  it  is  true  that  He  did  not  come  to  earth 
to  be  worshipped.  He  did  not  ascend  to 
heaven  to  be  worshipped.  Yet  when  He 
came  on  earth  it  was  said  of  Him,  "  Let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  Him."  And  when 
He  was  born  the  wise  m.en  fell  down  and 
worshipped  Him.  In  heaven  saints  and 
angels  worship  the  Lamb.  In  the  Blessed 
Sacrament,  as  in  heaven,  "  the  Lamb  slain  " 
must  be  the  object  of  loving  homage  for  those 
who  believe  in  the  eucharistic  mystery.  Such 
worship  follows  from  the  essential  truth  about 
our  Lord,  that  He  is  Very  God.  Could  it  be 
shown  that  devotions  to  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment have  become,  or  were  in  danger  of 
becoming,  a  substitute  for  communion,  there 
might  be  room  for  a  warning  against  their 
misuse.  But  the  ver^^  churches  where  they 
obtain  are  those  in  which  the  most  frequent 
communion  is  inculcated  and  practised. 
Again,  neither  when  our  Lord  was  on  earth 
maniiesting     there    His    external     presence 


74  BE]>mDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

did  Spirituality  suffer,  nor  in  heaven  do  the 
saints  fail  of  the  closest  interior  union  with 
Christ,  because  they  worship  His  external 
presence.  The  fact  is  that  this  antithesis 
between  an  external  and  an  interior  presence 
is  bad  theology  and  bad  philosophy.  A 
presence  in  a  sanctuary  and  a  presence  in  the 
heart  are  not  in  the  same  category,  and  can- 
not really  be  set  one  against  the  other. 
Devotions  such  as  Exposition  and  Benediction 
are  not  untried  novelties.  They  have  been 
tested  by  experience.  The  verdict  of  Chris- 
tian experience,  confirmed  by  saints,  is  that 
they  deepen  spirituality.  And  this  is  the 
experience  of  those  who  use  them  to-day. 

In  truth  it  is  not  possible  to  deny  that  these 
devotions  honour  our  lyord  and  help  souls, 
save  on  the  basis  of  Protestant  unbelief,  or 
an  individualist  theology  of  the  Eucharist. 
The  instincts  of  faith  and  piety  have  justified 
themselves  against  the  denials  of  unbelief, 
the  sophistries  of  a  critical  intellectuaHsm. 
The  Blessed  Sacrament  is  Jesus,  and  Jesus 
is  God.  When  we  come  before  Him  to  fall 
down  and  worship,  we  honour  Him  and  reap 


THE   HONOUR   OF  JESUS  75 

for  our  souls  the  benefit  which  He  dehghts 
to  bestow  upon  adoring  love. 

The  Bishop  of  lyondon  has  recognized  the 
piety  which  will  not  be  refused  access  to  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  and  has  defended  it 
before  Convocation.  In  the  name  of  Chris- 
tian piety  we  appeal  to  him,  and  to  such  other 
bishops  as  share  his  standpoint,  to  judge 
this  matter  solely  with  a  view  to  the  honour 
of  our  lyord  and  the  salvation  of  souls.  If 
they  will  do  this,  we  are  not  afraid  of  the 
result.  They  will  not  prohibit  these  practices. 
Regulate  them  they  may,  with  a  due  regard 
to  reverence  for  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 
And  such  regulation  will  be  loyally  accepted. 
Where  there  is  no  danger  of  dishonour  to  the 
sacred  Presence,  they  will  not  be  content 
to  permit.  They  will  actively  encourage. 
And  they  will  thus  inspire  with  fresh  con- 
fidence the  hearts  saddened  by  the  prevalent 
heresies  and  denials.  They  will  be  taking 
their  rightful  place  as  leaders  in  the  move- 
ment which  will  yet  save  the  English  Church. 
And  they  will  be  followed  as  no  other  leaders 
have  been  followed. 


76            BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS  I 

j 

To  other  bishops  we  are  content  to  make  \ 
our  appeal  in  the  words  of  Gamaliel.  "  Refrain  \ 
from  these  men,  and  let  them  alone  ;  for  if 
this  counsel  or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  ; 
come  to  naught  :  but  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  can- 
not overthrow  it,  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  j 
to  fight  against  God."  ] 


CHAPTER    VI 

BENEDICTION    AND     THE    BISHOPS     OF    TRURO 
AND    BIRMINGHAM 

Since  the  foregoing  pages  were  written,  two 
documents  of  some  importance  have  been 
published  in  the  pubHc  press,*  which  supply 
abundant  confirmation  of  the  justice  of  the 
contentions  here  advanced,  namely  that  the 
main  issue  is  not  that  of  the  claim  of  the 
bishops  to  a  spiritual  authority  but  that  of 
the  a  dor  ability  of  our  lyord  in  the  Blessed 
Sacrament. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  account  of  the 
opening  of  proceedings  by  the  Bishop  of 
Truro  against  the  Vicar  of  Cury  under  the 
Church  Discipline  Act  of  1840.  Here  the 
exercise  of  spiritual  authority  is  frankly 
abandoned.  The  Bishop  sets  in  motion  a 
procedure  which,  to  quote  from  a  protest 
made  at  the  opening  Commission,  "  begins 
under  an  Act  of  Parliament  and  ends  with 

*  Church  Times,  of  j[arch  14,  191Q. 
77 


y8  BKNKDICTION  AND   THE   BISHOPS 

a  judgment  pronounced  by  the  Privy  Council/' 
a  secular  court.  And  the  grounds  of  objec- 
tion to  Benediction  are  clearly  stated.  We 
may  pass  over  the  charge  that  Benediction 
was  ''  a  ceremony  that  formed  no  part  of  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer."  For  this  is  true  of  many  other 
rites  which  bishops  allow,  and  in  which  they 
take  part.  They  are  not  objected  to,  pre- 
cisely because  they  do  not  involve  any 
Catholic  doctrine.  But  the  really  significant 
part  of  the  charge  against  Benediction  in  the 
Truro  diocese  is  that  it  is  **  directly  opposed 
to  the  Articles  of  faith  and  religion  "  set  forth 
in  the  Prayer  Book.  In  other  words,  the 
appeal  is  to  the  28th  Article,  interpreted  in  a 
Protestant  sense  which  would  make  it  forbid 
not  only  Exposition  and  Benediction,  but 
also  reservation,  which  the  bishops  are  pre- 
pared to  allow,  and  even  the  elevation  at 
Mass.  The  Protestant  conception  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  and  the  Protestant  belief 
in  the  right  of  Parliament  to  judge  spiritual 
matters  are  clearly  behind  the  proceedings 
initiated  at  Truro. 


BISHOPS   OF   TRURO   AND    BIRIVnNGHAM      79 

The    other    document    is     the    memorial 
addressed  to  the  Bishop  of  Birmingham  by 
six  priests  in  his  diocese,  together  with  the 
bishop's  reply.     The  memorialists  announce 
that  they  are  prepared,  ''though  with  great 
reluctance  and  distress  of  heart  and  mind," 
to  obey  the  bishop's  prohibition  of  Benedic- 
tion,   since   they    feel   that   in   this    matter 
they  are  bound  by  their  oath  of  canonical 
obedience.     They  express  a  hope  that  this 
service    will    yet    be    permitted,    and    they 
testify  to  its  value  to  souls.     It  stimulates 
love   for   our   lyord,    tends   to   increase   the 
frequency  and  devotion  of  communions,  and 
proves  an  invaluable  antidote  to  modernism. 
This  is  a  position  with  which  we  must  sympa- 
thize,   although    we    cannot    agree    with    its 
view  of  the  obligations  of  the  oath  of  canonical 
obedience,  for  reasons  already  set  out.     The 
Bishop's    reply    is    really    illuminating.     He 
thanks  the  memorialists  for  their  letter  and 
loyal  submission.     He  commends  the  ''  true 
Churchmanship  "  shown  in  "  the  acceptance 
of  a  loving  request  from  authority  when  it 
involves  the  surrender  of  a  position  which  we 


8o  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

believe  to  be  one  beneficial  to  the  full  expres- 
sion of  the  truth."  He  confesses  that  under 
present  circumstances  in  the  Church  of 
England  he  ''  can  see  no  possible  working 
policy  except  that  where  conscience  will 
allow  there  shall  be  deference  to  the  desire 
of  the  diocesan,"  There  is  no  word  here  of 
anything  like  the  exercise  of  canonical 
authority.  The  clergy  are  represented  as 
acceding  to  ''  a  loving  request  from  authority  '* 
as  showing  '*  deference  to  the  desire  of  the 
diocesan."  And  this  in  a  matter  which 
involves  "the  surrender  of  a  position" 
avowedly  adopted  for  *'the  full  expression 
of  the  truth."  What  this  truth  is,  and 
whether  he  regards  it  as  truth,  the  Bishop 
carefully  abstains  from  saying.  Yet  surely 
he  is  bound  to  say,  if  he  would  claim  a  reason- 
ing and  conscientious  obedience.  The  truth 
involved  is  the  adorability  of  the  Blessed 
Sacrament.  Does  the  Bishop  condemxU  this 
truth  ?  If  so,  he  should  certainly  say  so, 
that  the  clergy  may  know  that  they  are 
fighting  for  the  truth  rather  than  for  any 
particular  expression  of  it.     Does  he  tolerate 


BISHOPS   OF   TRITRO    AND    BIRMINGHAM      8 1 

the  truth,  while  condemning  this  expression 
of  it,  as  bishops  tolerate  modernist  teachings  ? 
If  so,  those  who  hold  that  bishops  are  as 
much  bound  as  priests  to  promote  the  adora- 
tion of  our  lyord  in  the  Sacrament  must 
surely  hesitate  to  accept  even  a  "  loving 
request  "  based  on  an  attitude  which  regards 
such  promotion  as  an  indifferent  matter. 
Does  he  share  their  desire  to  promote  the 
worship  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  while  pro- 
hibiting this  one  form  of  such  devotion  ?  If 
so,  he  is  bound  to  confess  his  faith,  the  more 
when,  n  another  diocese,  a  priest  is  being 
proceeded  against  on  avowedly  Protestant 
grounds.  But  we  venture  to  state  con- 
fidently that  the  Bishop  of  Birmingham  will 
not  make  public  confession  of  that  faith  in 
the  Blessed  Sacrament  which  the  memorial- 
ists have  sought  to  express.  His  avowed 
object  in  securing  the  surrender  is  "  the  peace 
of  the  Body  of  Christ."  In  plain  words, 
Benediction  is  objected  to ;  'therefore  it 
must  go.  It  is  objected  to  precisely  because 
it  is  a  full  expression  of  the  truth  of  the 
Eucharist.     The    bishop's    letter,    by    itself, 


82  BENEDICTION   AND   THE   BISHOPS 

would  certainly  seem  to  put  tlie  memorialists 
in  the  invidious  position  of  making  peace 
at  the  expense  of  the  full  expression  of  the 
truth,  of  showing  deference  to  the  desire  of 
their  diocesan  at  the  expense  of  the  honour 
of  his  lyord  and  theirs. 

lyCt  us  waive,  for  the  moment,  the  question 
of  the  Bishop's  attitude  towards  the  promo- 
tion of  adoration  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament, 
lyet  us  suppose  that  his  orthodox  faith  and 
Catholic  piety  may  fairly  be  presumed.  We 
have  then  only  to  deal  with  the  prohibition 
throughout  his  diocese  of  a  devotion  which 
other  bishops  of  undoubted  faith  and  piety 
not  only  permit  but  actively  promote,  and 
which  no  Catholic  bishop  outside  the  Anglican 
communion  thus  forbids.  Surely  such  a 
prohibition  calls  for  some  explanation.  The 
reply  to  the  signatories,  the  one  public 
expression  from  the  bishop,  gives  no  explana- 
tion. We  understand  that  the  ground  the 
bishop  has  alleged  in  private  is  that  Benedic- 
tion is  ''  not  allowed  by  the  Church  of 
England."  But,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
bishop  does  not  prohibit  other  services  not 


BISHOPS   OF   TRXmO   AND    BIRMINGHAM      83 

"  allowed  by  the  Church  of  England,"  this 
does  not  carry  us  very  far.  Tlie  Bishop  of 
Birmingham  should  certainly  be  pressed  to 
say  publicly  why  he  finds  Benediction  alone 
of  extra-liturgical  services  intolerable.  The 
day  is  surely  past  when  the  arbitrary  "  desire 
of  the  diocesan  "  can  be  accepted  as  a  suffi- 
cient basis  for  prohibitions  or  commands, 
even  if  one  could  presume  that  such  pro- 
hibitions and  commands  were  not  aiming  at 
the  suppression  of  Christian  devotion. 


APPENDIX  I 

Passages  from  early  Christian  writers  attesting 
the  belief  that  the  Sacrament  is  Christ 
and  adorable,  and  witnessing  to  some  kind 
of  Exposition  for  worship  and  Benediction 
with  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 

lyiturgy  of  St.  Sixtus.  Prayer  of  the  priest 
before   communion    (?   second   century). 

''  I  bear  Thee,  I/ord,  in  my  hands,  and  hold 
Thee  in  m^^  fingers  {pugillo  complector),  lyord 
of  the  ages,  whom  creatures  contain  not,  and 
I  place  Thee,  Almight}^  in  my  mouth/* 
(Murator.  De  I^it.  T.I.,  p.  167.) 

St.   James  of  Saragossa   (fourth  century). 

''  From  that  instant  in  which  Christ  took 
bread  and  proclaimed  it  His  Body,  it  was  not 
bread  but  His  Body  :  and  they  ate  it  and 
marvelled  the  while."  (Serm.  66  De  Pass, 
Dom.) 

85 


86  APPENDIX 

And  again,  of  the  faith  of  the  Apostles  he 
writes  :  '*  The  bread  which  He  brake  and 
proclaimed  His  Body  they  recognized  as  His 
Body,  and  believed  so  to  be."  {id.) 


St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (fourth  century). 

''  Having  learned  and  been  assured  of  this, 
that  that  which  seemeth  bread  is  not  bread, 
though  to  be  perceived  as  such  by  the  taste, 
but  the  Body  of  Christ ;  and  that  which 
seemeth  wine  is  not  wine,  though  the  taste 
would  have  it  so,  but  the  Blood  of  Christ 
.  .  .  stablish  thine  heart."  (Catech.  4  mysta- 
gog.  de  Corp.  et  sang.  Dom.  9.) 

St.  Ephrem  of  Syria  (fourth  century). 

''  Deem  not  that  the  bread  and  wine  thou 
seest  remain  here  the  same  :  nay,  brother, 
believe  not  this.  By  the  prayers  of  the  priest, 
and  by  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  bread 
becomes  the  Body,  wine  the  Blood  [of 
Christ]."  (Serm.  i  De  sanctissimis  et  vivi- 
ficantibus  sacr.) 


APPENDIX  87 

St.  Ambrose  (fourth  centur}^). 

''  That  bread  is  bread  before  the  words 
of  the  sacraments.  When  consecration  has 
taken  place,  from  bread  it  becomes  the  Body 
of  Christ."  (Panis  iste  est  panis  ante  verba 
sacramentorum.  Vhi  accesserit  consecratio,  de 
pane  fit  corpus  Christi.) 

*'  ...  How  can  that  which  is  bread  be 
the  Body  of  Christ  ?  By  consecration.  And 
by  what  words  is  consecration  effected,  and 
by  whose  utterances  ?  Those  of  the  lyord 
Jesus.  .  .  .  The  priest  uses  not  his  own 
utterances,  but  he  uses  the  utterances  of 
Christ.  Therefore  the  utterance  of  Christ 
makes  this  sacrament."  (L.  4  de  Sacram. 
c.  4.) 

"  Before  it  is  consecrated,  it  is  bread  ;  but 
when  the  words  of  Christ  have  come,  it  is 
theBody  of  Christ.  .  .  .  And  before  the  words 
of  Christ,  the  cup  is  full  of  wine  and  water  ; 
but  when  the  words  of  Christ  have  been  per- 
formed, there  is  made  the  Blood  of  Christ, 
who  redeemed  His  people.  See  then  in  what 
sort  the  utterance  of  Christ  is  able  to  change 
all  things."  {id.  c.  5.) 


88  APPENDIX 

Theodoret  (fifth  century). 

Q.     After  the  hallowing  how  callest  thou 
them  ? 

A.  The  Body  of  Christ,  and  the  Blood  of 
Christ. 

Q.  And  dost  thou  believe  that  thou 
receivest  the  Body  of  Christ  and  the 
Blood  ? 

A.     So  I  believe. 

"...  and  they  are  seen  and  touched  as 
what  they  were  before  ;  but  are  apprehended 
to  be  what  they  have  become  and  are  believed 
to  be,  and  are  worshipped  as  being  what  they 
are  believed  to  be."  (In  2  dialog.  Orthod. 
inter  et  Eranist.) 

St.  Caesarius  of  Aries  (sixth  century). 

"  The  invisible  Priest  changes  the  visible 
creatures  into  the  substance  of  His  Body  and 
Blood  by  the  secret  force  of  His  word,  thus 
saying,  Take  and  eat,  This  is  My  Body,  etc." 
(Horn.  5  de  Pasch.) 

St.  Chrysostom  (fifth  century). 

**  For  this  mystery  makes  earth  heaven  for 
thee.     Open  then  the  gates  of  heaven  and 


APPENDIX  89 

look  within  ;  nay,  not  of  heaven,  but  of  the 
heaven  of  heavens  ;  and  then  shalt  thou  see 
that  which  hath  been  said.  For  that  which 
is  most  precious  of  all  things  there,  that  will 
I  show  thee  set  upon  the  earth.  For  as  in 
the  king's  palace  that  which  is  more  honour- 
able than  all  else  is  not  the  walls,  nor  the 
golden  roof,  but  the  body  of  the  king  that  is 
set  upon  the  throne,  so  also  is  the  Body  of  the 
King  in  the  heavens.  But  this  it  is  granted 
thee  now  to  behold  on  earth.  For  it  is  not 
angels,  nor  archangels,  nor  heavens  and  the 
heaven  of  heavens,  but  the  lyord  of  these 
Himself  that  I  show  thee  (aot  SeUvu(i.i.). 
Knowest  thou  how  thou  lookest  (6pae)  on 
earth  on  Him  Who  is  of  more  worth  than  all 
beside  ?  and  lookest  not  on  Him  only,  but  also 
touchest  ?  and  toucliest  not  only,  but  also 
eatest  and  departest  homeward  having  taken 
Him."     (Hom.  in  i  Cor.  c.  x.) 

The  emphasis  placed  in  this  passage  on 
"gazing  upon"  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is 
remarkable. 


90  APPENDIX 

vSt.  Cyril  of  Jerasalem  (fourth  century).  j 

"  With  care  having  hallowed  thine  eyes 
by  the  touch  of  the  holy  Body,  receive  it/'      ' 
(Catech.  5.)  I 

St.  James  Nisibis  (fourth  century),  comparing      J 
Christians  to  faithful  dogs,  writes  :  ] 

*'  They  lick  His  wounds,  when  they  receive 
His   Body,   and  place  it   over  their  eyes."      i 
(Serm.  7  De  Poenit.) 


APPENDIX  II 

The  Roman  CathoIvIC  Canon  Law  on 
Exposition  and  Benediction 

Codex  Juris  Canonici.     Can.  1274. 

In  ecclesiis  aut  oratoriis  quibus  datum  est 
asservare  sanctissimam  Eucharistiam,  fieri 
potest  expositio  privata  seu  cum  pyxide  ex 
qualibet  justa  causa  sine  Ordinarii  licentia  ; 
expositio  veto  publica  seu  cum  ostensorio 
die  festo  Corporis  Christi  et  intra  octavam 
fieri  potest  in  omnibus  ecclesiis  inter  Missarum 
sollemnia  et  ad  Vesperas  ;  aliis  vero  tempori- 
bus  nonnisi  ex  justa  et  gravi  causa  praesertim 
publica  et  de  Ordinarii  loci  licentia,  licet 
ecclesia  ad  religionem  exemptam  pertineat. 

RiTUS  Servandus. 

.  .  .  Episcopis  Angliae,  quorum  est  rebus 
ad  Eucharistiam  cultum  pertinentibus  in- 
vigilare  et  providere. 

9i 


92  APPENDIX 

Tandem  sedtilo  adnotandum,  non  licere 
cuilibet  sacerdoti  Benedictionem  SSi  Sacra- 
menti  pro  lubitu,  ne  quidem  ob  graveni 
causam,  populo  impertiri  ;  sed  hoc  omnino 
ab  Episcopi  nutu  pendere,  penes  queni  erit 
definite  quoties  hunc  sacrum  ritum  peragere 
liceat.  Si  ergo  Rector  Ecclesiae  aliquando, 
extra  consueta  tempora,  voluerit  Benedic- 
tionem vel  Expositionem  adhibere,  ad  Epis- 
copum,  seu  Vicarium  generalem,  sibi  recur- 
rendum  esse  noverit. 

I.  Synod  of  Westminster.    Decree  xviii. 

Benediction  of  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament 
cannot  be  given  without  leave  of  the  Bishop. 
Much  less  Processions,  those  excepted  which 
are  prescribed  by  the  Rubrics.  Nor  can 
Solemn  Exposition  of  the  Most  Holy  Sacra- 
ment be  allowed  without  permission  from 
the  Bishop.  That  is,  when  the  Monstrance 
is  used.  For  the  less  solemn  Benediction 
with  the  Pyx  alone  does  not  need  the  Bishop's 
permission. 


THE    LONDON    AND    NORWICH    PRESS,    LIMITED,    LONDON    AND   NORWICH,   ENGLAND 


hill  I  III  I  MVrTl'n'i'  nn';"."f'^"^''^"  '-'""^ 


1    1012  01030  6183