Results of the Doctrine of the Real Presence part 2

Continuing from my previous post, I’d like to reflect on how might one respond in faith to such a mystery as the abiding presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine.  Previously, I explored some practical outcomes of the doctrine of the real presence, so now I’m going to zero in on a spiritual perspective.  What do we do with the Reserved Sacrament?  How ought we to behave around it?  Since we take seriously the presence of Christ’s body and blood, it seems that having the Reserved Sacrament around makes for a great opportunity to be with Him.

A common devotion known as the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament has developed over time to encapsulate the varieties of worship opportunities that the Reserved Sacrament affords.  The brief summary is that a few verses of certain ancient hymns are sung, the bread is placed in a monstrance for all to see, some set prayers are said together, and then it’s open for private prayers for however long, before it’s put away again and a short Psalm is prayed or chanted or sung to close the worship service.

This form of Eucharistic adoration is a very Catholic sort of worship, and tends to put non-catholic-types on edge.  Indeed simply as an Anglican I have to think carefully about this practice, because the 39 Articles at first glance seem to cast a disapproving eye on such Benedictions:

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith. (Article 25)

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.  (Article 28)

The key words here are that the Sacrament was not ordained for these purposes.  This is not an outright ban on such practices, but a recall to the real purpose of the Eucharist – to be the food unto everlasting life.  I already took care to assert that fact in my previous post.  All this talk of adoration and Benedictions are additional opportunities that stem from the proper Eucharistic worship of the Church.

Recently an Anglican priest wrote this helpful reflection on the practice of the Benediction from a Catholic Anglican perspective.  In it he makes some very helpful observations about this tradition.  I commend the whole article to your reading, though I will highlight a few thoughts here too.

Psychologically speaking, we need some concrete, visible manifestation toward which to direct our devotion; theologically speaking, this is already provided for us by our Lord’s gracious focusing of his presence in the Blessed Sacrament.

To some degree this is a personality thing.  I am a very visual person when it comes to communication and worship, and very tactile and physical when it comes to relationships and love.  So I, in particular, am a prime example of the value of the visible manifestation of Christ’s presence as a devotional aid.  I know some other people are much less visual and tactile types, and this is less of a big deal to them, but nevertheless, we’re all physical beings.  We can’t completely ignore our nature.

When this is understood, complaints about “idolatry” or “fetichism” are seen to be beside the point. Let us assure any who may be perturbed over such matters that we are not being so stupid as to worship a wafer, nor do we have such an archaic and myth-laden mentality that we believe the object before us to be charged with magical power. Rather, it is in and through the Sacrament that we adore Christ, because we, being men and not angels, have need of an earthly manifestation of the divine presence, and because he, in his grace and mercy, has promised to grant us his presence in this particular manifestation.

By this point that should have been obvious, but it was worth repeating.

Benediction offers a time for adoring the Presence of Christ in such a way as to seek nothing but the assurance that He is ever with us and to offer only that which we are ever commanded to offer: to love the Lord Our God with all of our hearts, all of our souls, and all of our minds.

If you’re a visual worshiper and/or favor the “physical touch” love language, then this is the most natural way to offer God prayer of adoration.  Even if you’re not an especially physical sort of person, the Eucharist presence of Jesus is still a theologically natural opportunity or context for adoration.  After all, the Benediction isn’t just a visual thing:

We do not simply gaze – though that is part of the act for we do look intently with admiration, thought, or surprise. Benediction is not the act of gazing alone though – it is the community’s adoration – the body comes together in love to give our attention, if but for a moment, to the One who calls us and who comes to be with us.

You see, it’s a communal opportunity to be in God’s presence in a special and powerful way, and offer him the praise that He rightfully deserves.  But as I hinted earlier, it is also a deeply personal opportunity to be with God.

For some, that space may feel like a quiet time with Jesus as a friend. Others may find themselves thrown down in awe at the throne of grace. Others may be walking alongside Jesus on the road. Others may simply relish the absolute mystery of it all and watch the beauty of holiness unfold. Some may contemplate the Passion and others may know the joy of the Resurrection. Some may yearn for deeper relationship and others may know themselves not yet ready.

That’s part of the beauty of an encounter with God – He speaks to us in many different ways!  And so our responses will often be various and different also.  Yet, as in the Benediction, there are still touchstones of commonality as we respond to the presence of Christ in our midst, such as this prayer:

O God, who in a wonderful Sacrament hast left unto us a memorial of your Passion:  Grant us, we beseech thee, so to venerate the sacred mysteries of your Body and Blood, that we may ever perceive within ourselves the fruits of your redemption; who lives and reigns now and forever.  Amen!

About Fr. Brench

I'm an Anglican Priest and a sci-fi geek. Therefore, I write about liturgy & spiritual formation, theology & biblical studies, and Doctor Who. But I keep those blogs separate so I don't confuse too many people!
This entry was posted in Devotional, Theological and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Results of the Doctrine of the Real Presence part 2

  1. Matt, I’ve been enjoying your posts and I’m glad you brought up the topic. Though traditionally Anglicans have no liturgy for Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the traditional place for such adoration has been within the context of Communion itself. One of the most distinctive aspects of the Anglican Rite is that it delays the ablutions until after the blessing, permitting space for such adorations. A number of Caroline divines were adamant about kneeling for reception precisely as a means of adoration (of the Presence, not the elements) and Bishop Grafton has an excellent spiritual commentary on the ’28 service in his book ( see Chapter 9, “The Mystical Meaning of the Liturgy). The gloria in excelsis stands at the end of the liturgy while the sacrament remains on the altar precisely as a means for just such an adoration, and as a priest who celebrates from the ’28 every Sunday, it is indeed meaningful. Sadly, the ’79 was one of the first Anglican liturgies in centuries to not provide such an opportunity.

  2. It’s interesting that you would post about this right now, as I am currently researching the formation of the Anglican formularies in general, and in particular right now the role of “Eucharistic sacrifice” among the English Reformers. This topic is, on other words, freshly on my mind as well.

    The Eucharistic liturgy in the Edwardian prayer book contained a stark absence of any kind of language about Christ’s objective presence in the elements. This fact forms a major part of the rejection of Anglican orders by Rome (a separate by very related issue based on the Roman definition of the priesthood), which strikes me as pretty good evidence that such absence was quite intentional on the Reformers’ part. Our own Fr. James has in fact demonstrated quite conclusively that Cranmer’s mature view of the Lord’s Supper (which was quite emphatically “the Lord’s Supper” or “Holy Communion” and NOT “the Mass” or “the Eucharist” (compare the heading for the service between the 1549 Prayer Book and the 1552 Edwardian book)) was that the elements themselves were not tied objectively to the corporeal or even spiritual “presence” of Christ. Their ingestion was, instead, paralleled to a purely inward and spiritual “eating” of Christ, a view which was largely typical in one form or another with most of the Protestant Reformers, with the notable exception of Luther. The rubrics for the Edwardian book therefore state implicitly that the “consecrated” status of the elements terminated at the end of the service by enjoining the curate to take whatever was left over home for his own secular purposes. For Cramner, the real “sacrament” was not the consecration at the altar but the inward receiving of the Lord in the hearts of the faithful, making any “reservation” of the elements not only unnecessary but bordering on idolatrous. When the Articles later condemned “gazing upon” and “carrying about” the elements, their drafters were assuming the Reformed theology of the Communion which they inherited from Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and the continental advisors (Bucer, Matryr, et. al.) which demanded that Christ was not objectively present in the elements at all. So they were, therefore, “banning outright” what you suggest they were not. The notion which you go on to imply that the Reformers were only rejecting abuses of the medieval doctrine of the Sacrament and not that doctrine itself was originally suggested and popularized by the Tractarians, many of whose successors eventually abandoned the thesis as historically untenable (the most famous abandonment was none other than that of Cardinal Newman, the leader and figurehead of the movement, himself). This Tractarian argument has been further and rather conclusively rebutted by the Jesuit scholar Francis Clark in his monumental and extremely well-researched (and surprisingly balanced) book “Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation.”

    Now, whether or not the Reformers were ACCURATE in this theology of the Sacrament is a whole other question. But I do think it is a stretch to interpret the formularies any other way as at no other point was the English Reformers’ “protest” against Rome so emphatic and intentionally incorporated into the wording of the same. The issue here then becomes the extent to which we allow the original intention of the formularies to dictate our current theology, which I submit is also an open question. But on that point I will simply add this: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.

    That’s just to, you know, spice up the conversation a bit.

  3. Also, see pp. 226-227 in Anthony Sparrow’s, A Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, 1672 on the gloria in excelsis.

  4. Fr. Brian, I am a little confused by this comment of yours: “One of the most distinctive aspects of the Anglican Rite is that it delays the ablutions until after the blessing, permitting space for such adorations.” In light of what I said above, this seems very unlikely to me to be in intent of the rite. On the contrary, one of the distinctive things about the Anglican rite from 1552 onwards is that the Administration occurs immediately after the Words of Institution precisely so that there is no time for any kind of adoration. (The American Prayer Book, descending as it does through the Scots from the 1549 rite, does not reflect this, but all English liturgies do.) Cranmer was quite clear that this was his intention in so ordering the rite. What’s more, the 1552 contains the famous “Black Rubric” which states quite clearly that by any kind of bowing or kneeling in the direction of the elements no “adoracion is doone, or oughte to bee doone, eyther unto the Sacramentall bread or wyne there bodily receyved, or unto anye reall and essencial presence there beeyng of Christ’s naturall fleshe and bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall bread and wyne, they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall substaunces, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatrye to be abhorred of all faythfull christians. And as concernynge the naturall body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is agaynst the trueth of Christes true natural bodye, to be in moe places then in one, at one tyme. ” Admittedly this rubric was removed from the Elizabethan prayer book and only reinserted after 100 years, but it certainly summarizes Cranmer’s intent with the rite as he composed it. However, the 1559 does contain this little nugget at the end of the rite: “And yf anye of the breade or wyne remaine, the Curate shall have it to hys owne use.” There is no distinction here between consecrated and unconsecrated, as in the 1662. It seems unlikely to me, then, that even without the Black Rubric, the 1559 rite intends any kind of adoration with language like this. The Caroline divines certainly had some more catholic sensitivities, but I do not think the formularies as written back them up. At any rate, I certainly wouldn’t say such intent to include space for adoration is allowed for in the rites and thus “distintive” of them.

  5. Adoration certainly cannot be attributed to Cranmer’s original intent, but Cranmer’s reformation only lasted until 1553 when it was taken over by other authorities. It was, though, the declared intention of the Caroline Divines that this be the case in their counter-reforms in the Laudian and Post-Laudian era, which produced the formulaic 1662 prayerbook (cf. Anthony Sparrow’s “Rational” and John Cosin’s “Notes”– Cosin, btw was very influential in the reform of the prayerbook and the gentle redactions of the “Black Rubric” echo Cosin who certain affirmed adoration and real presence and was careful in his “notes” to distinguish between adoring the Christ and adoring the elements, as well as to distinguish between the philosophical differences inherent in the terms “real,” “essential,” and “natural” and “corporal”). It is often forgotten that it was not Cranmer’s reformation that became formulaic, but rather the Caroline counter-reform. It’s interesting also that you mention Eucharistic Sacrifice, because a great deal of ink was spilled during the Caroline period all the way through the 18th century, during which a very distinctive doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice (commemorative sacrifice as they called it) was developed by Anglican Divines (esp. Andewes, Cosin, Laud, Sparrow, Taylor, Wheatley…).

  6. This thesis seems to be challenged by the fact that most of the changes to the 1662 Prayer Book were extremely minor and according to historian John Spurr “far from partisan or extreme.” Of the recommendations of the Laudian party, many of those for the Ordinal were accepted but many of those of the Holy Communion were in fact rejected by the revising committee, leaving the final rite largely unchanged. That the Black Rubric was reinserted at all, even under a slightly modified form, suggests that so massive a change to the theology of the rite to permit adoration (especially since the reinserted Black Rubric expressly forbids it and denies the “corporeal” presence of Christ in the elements, whatever that emendation means) seems unlikely to me. The Carolines may have had an influence, but I don’t think it was a significant as you suggest. The overall tenor of Cranmer’s revisions remained largely intact and it was only during the Oxford Movement that the formularies were again reread in a more catholic direction. The Roman Church, for its own part, continues to tacitly reject Tractarian arguments about the rite to this effect when their “Anglican Use” rite entirely replaces the 1662 order of Communion with the an English translation of the Latin Canon of the Mass. The authorities on Eucharistic Adoration, it would seem, do not think the Anglican rite can be stretched that far as written. It is, at any rate, hard to argue that Cranmer’s reform was not that one that became “formulaic” when the 1662 rite basically mirrors his 1552 rite in all the crucial details.

  7. I don’t see how that is historically accurate. Commentaries on the prayerbook all the way through the 18th century up to the eve of the oxford movement (Charles Wheatley’s was very popular and went through several editions through the century) were all based on Sparrow’s (Caroline) understanding the rubric for kneeling as a “posture of adoration.” A number of Cosin’s suggestions did end up in the prayer book, many affirming his eucharistic doctrine, each of which are enumerated in appendix no.1 of his “Notes.” And if we are to depend on Rome’s estimation of Anglicanism, we’d might as well give the whole thing up.

  8. Fr. Brian, thanks for those references. I must confess when it comes to the Carolines I am out of my league. Most of what follows is my own thoughts “out loud” as it were, and in some respects I’m grasping at straws. I appreciate the references and I’ll have to spend more time in the Carolines and in the 1661 Convocation in which Cosin participated.

    That said…

    I’m still not convinced it’s a clear cut as you claim, especially in light of how radically Cranmer’s original revisions (upon which all this commentary you bring to bear is based) undermine any notion of Christ’s essential presence in the elements. I read through Sparrow’s commentary on the communion service, and all he has to say about adoration (unless he brings it up again elsewhere and I missed it) is that “[Communion] is to be given to the people KNEELING; for “a sin it is not to adore when we receive this Sacrament.” [citing Augustine on the Psalm 98] And the old custom was to receive it after the manner of adoration. [citing Cyril of Jerusalem’s 23rd catechesis].” Based on his citation of Cyril and his emphasis on the word “kneeling,” it seems to be more about the manner of the posture, not necessarily adoring Christ’s essential presence in the elements. Granted, the emphasis on proper posture may assume a certain understanding of the nature of Christ’s presence in the elements, but that is by no means explicit. Whatever his intent, it’s certainly very vague, and matters very little in terms of what the rubrics actually say. His commentary on the Prayer Book is not the Prayer Book itself, and does not therefore constitute an Anglican formulary. Coming to Cosin, the Appendix of his Notes to which you directed me only lists his SUGGESTIONS for emendations to the Prayer Book, not necessarily what was actually incorporated in the final revision. Cosin himself seems to have added in the margins which of his suggestions actually made it in and in what form. Most of this stuff is minutia, amounting to a mere rounding out of forms and rubrics where they are vague or incomplete. Interestingly, a lot of the substantive emendations he suggests for the Communion prayer itself were not taken up in the final authorized rite. Of what he suggested that did make it in, it seems to me to hardly constitute a substantial change to the heart of Cranmer’s revisions which as I have already said were emphatically and explicitly opposed to any notion of adoration of [Christ through] the elements. (Which is to say, to incorporate a revision to the theology of the rite on this point which is so emphatic, much more significant emendations will have to made than what came through in the 1662.) For example, he wanted to include a prayer between the Words of Institution and the Administration to break up what Cranmer quite intentionally put together, and that suggestion was not taken. Perhaps most significantly, he did not recommend the reinsertion of the Black Rubric, which certainly was added and sheds a lot of light on how the revising committee wanted their emendations understood. Moreover, he did not recommend any revision to the idea that any consecrated elements left remaining after the service should be consumed, thereby denying the possibility of any kind of reservation. All this is to say that these commentaries, while interesting, and, at least in the case of Cosin bearing in some minor details on the actual text of the rite, have not in the final analysis changed the heart of Cranmer’s reform of the Eucharistic rite. Again it bears repeating because the point is so central: Cranmer’s reform was so emphatic on this issue that had a real change been wanted by the Church they would have had to do a lot more than merely tweak a rubric here and there, which is what Cosin’s emendations largely amount to.

    So there’s that. You wanna beer?

  9. Enjoyable read. I tend to think Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament works best in a community whose Eucharist appears to be most meal like, parishes that use real bread, and wine that reminds people of dinner more than Church. Those communities that have such a clear understanding of the Eucharist as meal, seem very much primed for a deep connection to the Eucharist in Adoration or Benediction. This seems to fulfill your reading of the relevant Articles, and also to stay true to the Collect:

    God our Father, whose Son our Lord Jesus Christ in a
    wonderful Sacrament has left us a memorial of his passion:
    Grant us so to venerate the sacred mysteries of his Body and
    Blood, that we may ever perceive within ourselves the fruit
    of his redemption; who lives and reigns with you and the
    Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen

  10. Well spoken, and you deserve a more significant reply than I can give here.

    First, I ought to clarify so that there is no misunderstanding: I neither practice nor encourage the Roman practice or liturgy of Benediction, especially among Anglicans. To the Caroline Divines, the highest form of adoration was reception, as I think you have perceived, and all other acts in the vicinity of reception were derivative. The sacrament was not ordained to be adored, but to be received, but adoration of Christ is implied in reception, though it may not be separated from reception. Most high churchmen understood this to apply especially to the act of kneeling upon reception and some even went so far as to extend it to the gloria in excelsis. This, and a generally consistent understanding of Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice, is fairly well documented in the high church from Lancelot Andrewes up to the eve of the Oxford movement. I’m not attempting to say that this is the only way to interpret the prayer book, but that the prayer book has certainly left room for such an interpretation (otherwise so many would not have held such a view point). And that’s all I was really saying in my first post–there’s room for such theology within a certain historical understanding of the formularies without having to run off into the follies of Rome, an understanding that I myself find convincing and espouse.

    Second, just a few comments:
    1. “Moreover, he did not recommend any revision to the idea that any consecrated elements left remaining after the service should be consumed, thereby denying the possibility of any kind of reservation.” For this see #65. He was actually a key player in this one, and I would say its pretty significant.
    2. Cosin did not suggest the insertion of the Black Rubric, but the high church party did influence the omission of the words “real and essential,” for “corporeal” and “natural,” which they had already defined in their own writings in the decades prior. Far from being insignificant, and considering the ink spilled on this subject parsing the difference between these very terms during the Caroline era (cf. for instance Cosin’s “History of Popish Transubstantiation,” though many others were also written), the omitting of the terms “real and essential” is a significant score for the High Churchmen. The puritans wanted the black rubric back…the high churchmen said, “OK, but only if it goes like this.” If the revision only intended “spiritual” presence in the Calvinist sense, the revision as it stands would have been entirely unnecessary.
    3. The high church wasn’t concerned and didn’t see themselves as needing in any way to add anything at all to the revision at the Savoy Conference. They already believed the 1559/1604 sufficiently expressed their doctrine to the extent that they literally fought, died, and were imprisoned and exiled for that prayerbook! It was the puritans who wanted the changes, and they got very few of them, and none significant. The high church’s only goal was to keep from loosing ground, and far from loosing ground, they gained a few clarifications.

    That said, I don’t really think that we disagree with one another as much as it seems, we’re only coming at it from different directions. As far as things go from Cranmer’s side of things, I, and I think the Caroline Divines, would agree with you. The 1552 didn’t leave much room for real presence, let alone adoration. Cosin actually laments Bucer’s influence on Cranmer a number of times in his “Notes.”

    I think that our greatest disagreement is actually hermeneutical–whether a liturgy can or should be interpreted according to the original intent of its primary compiler or according to the manner in which it was received and authorized by the “common authority” of the Church. Regarding this, I, and the Caroline Divines, favor the latter. They were well aware of their differences with Cranmer, but they wholeheartedly embraced the Liturgy, understanding it within the organic continuity of liturgical development that flowed back as blood through veins to the very rites of the primitive church. It was with this continuity that the Caroline Divines were most concerned and that mostly influenced how they understood and received the Liturgy. Cranmer’s own private judgments were maybe interesting, but did not hold weight against the consensus of the Church, let alone constitute the doctrine of the Church. That does not mean, though, that they dismissed him entirely, nor do I think any of us should today. Rather, they paid a great deal of service to Cranmer, both linguistically and methodologically in their own writings, recognizing him and the other reformers to be within that organic development of the liturgy, though not the fulfillment of it. As such, they saw no problem in receiving his contributions, and then building on them. It wasn’t until the Caroline Divines that Anglicanism really began to reform into a theology that was distinctive, and that could be clearly distinguished from both Rome and Calvin and Luther. I would dare say, the reformers were largely just pre-Dort Calvinists, but the Caroline Divines had matured into something distinctly Anglican, and I think that’s important.

    That said, I still think that both the high and low church interpretation can be supported by the formularies, which is another reason I prefer the old prayerbooks. The “common authority” of the Anglican Church has never nailed the formularies down to one interpretation or the other. You can have your Anglicanism both ways, if you like (and both have historical support), but we know that the old prayer books at least possess everything essential to both views and can, therefore, hold us together in peace and unity nonetheless. The new books…not so much.

    With that, this has been a fun debate. I don’t get enough of this type thing, and next time I’m in MA, I’ll take you up on that beer. 😉

    • Dcn. Brench says:

      (I’ve been very much enjoying your contributions, Fr. Brian, as well as James and Adam and Joe here and on Facebook. My knowledge of the Anglican divines of any stripe is pretty thin, so I appreciate all the insights that you guys are bringing in.)

      In response to what you wrote about not being willing to endorse the practice of the Benediction in your life or the life of your parish, I quite understand. I don’t think I’d push for it either. As I set up my perspective in the original post and its predecessor, I believe the practice of Reservation is primarily for reception at a later time. Although I sympathize with Joe’s comments on my Facebook timeline about the equality of adoration, reception, &c, it makes most sense to me in the way you first described it – providing for Eucharistic adoration before & during & after the reception at Mass. If people want to get together for a formal Eucharistic adoration, why not just celebrate Mass again?

      Only in the absence of a priest have I seriously considered formalized Eucharistic adoration. Right now, for example, I have my church’s very small amount of Reserved Sacrament. In part, I miss the frequent celebrations I enjoyed when I lived on the north shore near CtR and GCTS (we presently have Eucharist twice a month). Another part of the situation is that the Reserve is small here; it would not be appropriate for me to consume it whenever I was in the mood. Hence I came to idea of simply adoring the presence of Christ without receiving the bread. I agree that this is not what the Eucharist was ordained for, primarily, but I do believe it to be a logical outcome of the realities before us. And in certain situations such as mine, formalizing the opportunity in some way helps give me a form as well as boundaries for enjoying the presence of Christ in a meaningful way that is not frivolous or disrespectful.

      I know it’s not a very classicly Anglican thing for me to, but then again, a church plant with no priest in a large town with no other orthodox Anglican presence for 20 miles in any direction is not a classic Anglican situation either. 😉

      • James Arcadi says:

        Dcn Matt, this is a splendid instance of attempting to put the practical in the conversation with the theoretical. Given what you have outlined, I’m inclined to soften some of my original sentiments.

  11. That is a very helpful clarification, Fr. Brian. Well put, and thanks for sharing. I’ve spent all my time recently in the Reformers up to Elizabeth, and I have not had the chance to look at the Carolines. I will clearly need to spend some time there as well. This idea you suggest of a “distinctive” Anglican identity as birthed in the years between Elizabeth and the Restoration is worthy of additional reflection. Particularly in light of what was a strong defense against Roman practice as well as Puritan that we see in people like Andrews and Cosin (to say nothing of their foundation in this in the likes of Jewel and Hooker), it would be interesting do draw the lines of those distinctives a bit more clearly.

  12. James Arcadi says:

    Fr. Brian,

    Might you suggest a provisional “syllabus” for someone like myself and Dcn. Adam to get up to speed on the Eucharistic theology of the Carolines?

  13. I started with “Anglicanism: The Thought and Practice of the Church of England,” by More and Cross. It’s basically a walk through systematics via excerpts from Caroline writings. GCTS library has it–I had it checked out for months. After that, Andrewes’ “Answers to Cardinal Perron” and Cosin’s “Horae” and “Religion of the Realm of England: Catholic, Primitive, Purified,” are good snapshots of the theology and practices of the Caroline era and the high-church that followed. From there, I just search the names of different divines on google books and read and read and read…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s