Archbishop William Alexander (1824-1911) … almost followed Newman to Rome but for a chance encounter with a Quaker
Patrick Comerford
During my visits to Sion Mills and Strabane in Co Tyrone, and Saint Columb’s Cathedral in Derry earlier this week, I was reminded of the great hymn-writer Cecil Frances Alexander (1818-1895) and her husband, Archbishop William Alexander (1824-1911).
Some of Cecil Frances Alexander’s hymns are said to have been inspired by the scenery around both Sion Mills and Strabane, and her husband, who born in Derry, was Bishop of Derry and Raphoe for almost 30 years years (1867-1896) before his final appointment as Archbishop of Armagh (1896-1911).
William Alexander was born on 13 April 1824, the third child of Canon Robert Alexander. From Tonbridge School, he was sent up to Oxford and Exeter College, where he matriculated in 1841. This was just at the close of the Oxford Movement and he came under the influence of both John Henry Newman, who was then still an Anglican, and of Edward Bouverie Pusey, who was the Regius Professor of Hebrew.
Throughout his life, Alexander’s theology bore the stamp of the ‘Bisley’ school of Tractarianism, gathered around John Keble’s brother, the Revd Thomas Keble, who was Rector of Bisley in Gloucestershire. He put great faith in the idea of putting the Book of Common Prayer into practice, and he read widely not just Anglican theologians, but also French and German writers.
Although Alexander’s health did not allow him to pursue an honours degree, he did so well in the examinations that he was granted an areogatat degree. He was ordained in 1847, and after a brief curacy he was rector successively of the parishes of Derg, Camus and Fahan parishes in the north-west of Ireland.
He became Dean of Emly in 1864. Three years later he was made Bishop of Derry and Raphoe in 1867, and he was the last bishop of the Church of Ireland to sit in the House of Lords before the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871.
Like the other bishops of the Church of Ireland, he opposed disestablishment, but he accepted that disestablishment on good terms was better than prolonging establishment at the price of a further suppression of Bishoprics by the government. The first reduction, from 22 to 12 had been accomplished in 1833-1846 and had sparked the Oxford Movement, and it was felt that a further reduction, from 12 to eight, would adversely affect the efficiency of the bishops.
After disestablishment, Bishop Alexander, along with Archbishop Marcus Beresford of Armagh, Archbishop Richard Chenevix Trench of Dublin, Lord Plunkett and Bishop John Gregg, played his part in derailing a number of proposals that would have given the Church of Ireland a government more Presbyterian than Episcopal in its structure.
Bishop Alexander did not always appreciate the cautious tone of the Irish Canons in ceremonial matters, but the survival of the Book of Common Prayer almost intact encouraged him.
As a bishop, he retained his academic interests. He was the select preacher at Oxford (1870-1872 and 1882), Cambridge (1872-1892), and Dublin (1879), and he gave the Bampton Lectures, a series of prestigious theological lectures, in Oxford in 1876. He was an eloquent preacher and the author of numerous theological works, including Primary Convictions. His collected poems were published in 1887 as St Augustine’s Holiday and other Poems.
Bishop Alexander is also mentioned by James Joyce as part of the procession in the Cyclops episode in Ulysses.
On 25 February 1896, he became the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. He was then 72.
He finally retired in Lent 1911 at the age of 87, and lived briefly in Torbay, where he died on 12 September 1911. His concerns for sound theology, good worship, and lively parishes made him one of the most effective influences on the newly disestablished Church of Ireland.
Cecil Frances Alexander is remembered as the author of many well-known hymns
His wife, Cecil Frances Alexander is remembered as the author of many well-known hymns, including ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ and ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful.’
But she also wrote some tracts in connection with the Oxford Movement, and it is sometimes forgotten that William Alexander was also a strong supporter of the Oxford Movement and the Tractarians. Indeed, through the influence of John Henry Newman he almost became a Roman Catholic, but for the intervention of a Quaker he met on his way to Birmingham.
William Alexander passed his ‘responsions’ in June 1843, the first of the three examinations required for a degree at Oxford until 1960. They were known as the ‘Little Go’ and were generally taken by students prior to or shortly after matriculation, with questions on Latin, Ancient Greek, and mathematics. The Cambridge equivalent was the Previous Examination.
Three months after Alexander passed ‘Little Go,’ John Henry Newman resigned as the Vicar of Saint Mary’s, Oxford, on 25 September 1843, and shortly afterwards he preached his last sermon as an Anglican priest at Saint Mary’s, Littlemore, where he was also the Vicar since 1828. William Alexander went out to Littlemore to hear that sermon in 1843. Immediately, he began to have doubts and to ask questions about remaining an Anglican.
He was a young man and had hung on Newman’s every word. Now he found himself alone in the wilderness. He did not dare to go to Newman for help and guidance, and later when he was asked why, he answered: ‘My awe of him was too great.’
He sometimes wandered out to Littlemore, but he never ventured to knock at Newman’s door. Once or twice he saw the sad white face of Newman passing in the street in Oxford, but drew back trembling with excitement and in reverence.
Newman formally joined the Roman Catholic Church on 9 October 1845. Alexander attended Mass, possibly at the Jesuit Church where Newman preached, and was carried away by all that appeals to the senses. He went again and again, and was worried that he would be expelled from Brasenose. Acting on impulse, he took his name off the books, wrote to his mother on the spur of the moment that he had decided to follow Newman and become a Roman Catholic, packed all his belongings, and left Oxford without any intention of returning.
His brain was whirling, his mind was seething with anger, and his heart was beating with fierce unhappiness, doubt and defiance.
He took a cheap coach that was going to Birmingham but seems to have been unprepared for the long journey. His nearest travelling companion was a Quaker woman who was older than him and was dressed in traditional Quaker dress.
Her presence on the coach seems to have calmed and soothed the disturbed young man, and she began to speak to him gently of peace out of the peace in her own heart. Her journey ended before his, but the coach stayed for half an hour for a change of horses near her cottage. She invited him Alexander to have tea with her, instead of going to the coaching inn for a drink and meal with the other passengers.
‘I have a little book for thee, friend,’ she said to him. ‘The book will do thee no harm, and verily the tea will do thee much good.’ Alexander read the book on the last stage of the journey. He was calmed and elevated by the gentle Quaker, and to the end of his life she remained in his grateful memory as an influence for good. The lost tract threw some light on the darkness of his doubts.
Alexander spent a night in Birmingham in the small attic of a cheap hotel. There the great battle of his life was fought out on his knees. He returned to Oxford, first to New Inn Hall and eventually to Brasenose College, where his friend, Sir George Ferguson Bowen (1821-1899), was then a Fellow and Tutor. Bowen was from Taughboyne, near St Johnston in Co Donegal, where his father, the Revd Edward Bowen, was the Rector. In 1847, Bowen was appointed president of the Ionian University located in Corfu, a post he held until 1851. He later held colonial appointments in the Ionian Islands, Queensland, New Zealand, Victoria, Mauritius and Hong Kong.
Eventually, two years after he almost left Oxford, Alexander graduated with classical honours and was ordained in 1847. He received his MA at Oxford in 1856 and was honoured by Oxford University with two doctorates, as a Doctor in Divinity (DD, 1867) when he became Bishop of Derry, and as a Doctor of Civil Law (DCL, 1876) when he was invited to give the Bampton Lectures.
The name of the Quaker and her simple tract are long forgotten. Without either, would William Alexander have followed Newman to Rome, and would he be remembered to this day?
09 September 2016
How do I understand ‘reverently
consumed’ and ‘thoroughly cleansed’?
Communion vessels in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
I was writing earlier today [8 September 2016] about the Irish-born priest, Father Richard Enraght, and the Bordesley Wafer Case, in which a consecrated wafer was stolen at the Eucharist by one of his churchwardens, John Perkins, and used in his zealous prosecution by the Church Association.
The stolen host was produced in court at his trial as evidence, marked with pen and ink and filed as an exhibit. Eventually, through the efforts of the English Church Union, the Consecrated Wafer was obtained from the court and given over to the care of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who reverently consumed it in his private chapel at Addington on 12 December 1879.
In a comment, my friend the Redemptorist theologian Brendan McConvery, editor of Reality, was particularly struck by this detail. But, of course, the outrage caused by the churchwarden and the subsequent action of the Archbishop of Canterbury were based not solely on Anglo-Catholic practices but on the traditional Anglican attitude to disposing of the consecrated elements after the Eucharist or Holy Communion.
I was shocked some years ago, after a very large service, to see the left-over consecrated wine being poured into the ground in the churchyard outside. Some colleagues report that it is becoming more-and-more a frequent occurrence to see the consecrated wine left over being poured down the sink. Some suggest that this practice is a statement by evangelicals that they do not believe in the real presence.
Other priests pour it back into the bottle. They may think they are being thrifty but it is unhygienic: the germs that have left in the chalice can now grow and thrive in the alcohol in the bottle for the next week or more.
Anglicans have a number of divergent and sometimes overlapping views about the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. But whatever an individual’s theological views may be, the consecration sets apart the elements of bread and wine from common and profane use and so calls for reverent care of the sacrament.
As early as the third century, Tertullian said: ‘We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground’ (De corona 3).
Successive liturgies of the Church of England has insisted that the consecrated elements left over be reverently consumed.
The first Book of Common Prayer in 1549 provides no instructions on what to do with any remaining sacramental elements. Until then, clergy who had used the Latin Mass, were used to consuming the elements, washing the sacred vessels with water, and reverently consuming the water used to rinse them.
Again, no explicit instructions are given in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, although there is some ambiguity when it says:
And to take awaye the superstition, whiche any person hath, or myghte have in the breade and wyne, it shall suffice that the breade be suche as is usual to be eaten at the table, with other meates, but the beste and purest wheate breade, that conveniently may be gotten. And yf anye of the breade or wyne remaine, the Curate shall have it to hys owne use.
The provision for the curate having the bread and wine ‘to his own use’ referred to the elements that had not been consecrated, as the rubric in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes clear:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.
It could be argued that in the 1662 rite, the Eucharistic action continues after the communion of the people, and that the Prayer of Oblation is originally part of the Prayer of Consecration, so any ablutions before the blessing would be premature.
The Non-Jurors made provision for some of the sacramental elements to be reserved for the sick and the housebound, but also insisted on reverent consumption of the remaining elements. Their Prayer Book in 1718 makes this explicit:
If there be any persons who through sickness or any other urgent cause are under a Necessity of communicating at their houses, then the Priest shall reserve at the open Communion so much of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, as shall serve those who are to receive at home. And if after that, or if, when none are to communicate at their houses, any of the consecrated Elements remain, then it shall not be carried out of the Church; but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the Blessing reverently eat and drink the same.
In 1980, the Alternative Service Book of the Church of England similarly said:
Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service.
More recently, Common Worship says the same:
Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service.
‘The Book of Common Prayer’ (2004) says the ‘consecrated bread and wine remaining after the administration of the communion is to be reverently consumed’
In the Church of Ireland, the present edition of The Bok of Common Prayer (2004), includes ‘General Directions for Public Worship’ (pp 75-77), which include the following directions:
14 At the Holy Communion …
(e) The bread to be used shall be the best and purest bread that can be obtained. Care is to be taken that the wine is fit for use.
Any of the consecrated bread and wine remaining after the administration of the communion is to be reverently consumed.
(f) After the communion the vessels shall be carefully and thoroughly cleansed with water.
Direction (e), in my opinion, does not favour the use of sliced pan but does allow wafers. Indeed, I enjoy shopping for ‘the best and purest bread that can be obtained.’ Nor does the spirit of direction (e) allow for wine to be poured back into a bottle in the vestry afterwards.
It is interesting to note, though, that the directions do not say how soon after the administration the remaining elements much be ‘reverently consumed’ or where the sacred vessels should be ‘thoroughly cleansed with water.’
There are different views on what ‘reverently’ means, so that some regard it as appropriate to give bread to the birds and to pour wine into the ground, ‘returning the elements to nature.’ But the word ‘consumed’ does not allow this interpretation, and any appeal to the course of nature is also unconvincing. All God’s good gifts of food and drink are subject to the same physical process. But that is no excuse for treating the consecrated sacrament as refuse or waste material. And certainly this is not the understanding of the word ‘consumed’ in plain English.
As Canon John Goodchild argued in a letter to the Church Times, ‘If your friend serves you a meal as a sign of love and you throw it down the toilet because that is where it would end up eventually, she may not be best-pleased. It may sometimes be hard to consume what remains respectfully, but if there is a lot remaining, others can be invited to take some.’
Others see the consumption of what remains as the most appropriate form of reverence. But I have heard people claim that the public consumption of the remaining elements is indiscreet or offensive. They say, for example, that the washing-up does not usually take place at a dinner table in front of the guests.
Canon Law in the Church of England today says no portion of the bread and wine consecrated at the Eucharist shall be carried out of the church in accordance with the provisions of Canon B 37 (2) except at the express wish of an individual sick communicant. In such cases, this shall be done either during or immediately after the service, or as soon as practicable on the same day.
What is known as ‘tarp-ing’ or ‘taking the ablutions in the right place’ – immediately after the Communion – was encouraged by Anglo-Catholics. This had been the Roman Catholic practice since the 16th century, but it also shortened the length of time during which the celebrant kept thumb and forefinger joined for fear of dropping consecrated particles.
‘Taking the ablutions in the right place’ is also a public witness to belief in the real presence, however that may be understood. From a practical point of view, it allows me time to greet people on their way out of the church or the cathedral.
The sacred vessels on the altar at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin (Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
I was writing earlier today [8 September 2016] about the Irish-born priest, Father Richard Enraght, and the Bordesley Wafer Case, in which a consecrated wafer was stolen at the Eucharist by one of his churchwardens, John Perkins, and used in his zealous prosecution by the Church Association.
The stolen host was produced in court at his trial as evidence, marked with pen and ink and filed as an exhibit. Eventually, through the efforts of the English Church Union, the Consecrated Wafer was obtained from the court and given over to the care of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who reverently consumed it in his private chapel at Addington on 12 December 1879.
In a comment, my friend the Redemptorist theologian Brendan McConvery, editor of Reality, was particularly struck by this detail. But, of course, the outrage caused by the churchwarden and the subsequent action of the Archbishop of Canterbury were based not solely on Anglo-Catholic practices but on the traditional Anglican attitude to disposing of the consecrated elements after the Eucharist or Holy Communion.
I was shocked some years ago, after a very large service, to see the left-over consecrated wine being poured into the ground in the churchyard outside. Some colleagues report that it is becoming more-and-more a frequent occurrence to see the consecrated wine left over being poured down the sink. Some suggest that this practice is a statement by evangelicals that they do not believe in the real presence.
Other priests pour it back into the bottle. They may think they are being thrifty but it is unhygienic: the germs that have left in the chalice can now grow and thrive in the alcohol in the bottle for the next week or more.
Anglicans have a number of divergent and sometimes overlapping views about the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. But whatever an individual’s theological views may be, the consecration sets apart the elements of bread and wine from common and profane use and so calls for reverent care of the sacrament.
As early as the third century, Tertullian said: ‘We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground’ (De corona 3).
Successive liturgies of the Church of England has insisted that the consecrated elements left over be reverently consumed.
The first Book of Common Prayer in 1549 provides no instructions on what to do with any remaining sacramental elements. Until then, clergy who had used the Latin Mass, were used to consuming the elements, washing the sacred vessels with water, and reverently consuming the water used to rinse them.
Again, no explicit instructions are given in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, although there is some ambiguity when it says:
And to take awaye the superstition, whiche any person hath, or myghte have in the breade and wyne, it shall suffice that the breade be suche as is usual to be eaten at the table, with other meates, but the beste and purest wheate breade, that conveniently may be gotten. And yf anye of the breade or wyne remaine, the Curate shall have it to hys owne use.
The provision for the curate having the bread and wine ‘to his own use’ referred to the elements that had not been consecrated, as the rubric in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes clear:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.
It could be argued that in the 1662 rite, the Eucharistic action continues after the communion of the people, and that the Prayer of Oblation is originally part of the Prayer of Consecration, so any ablutions before the blessing would be premature.
The Non-Jurors made provision for some of the sacramental elements to be reserved for the sick and the housebound, but also insisted on reverent consumption of the remaining elements. Their Prayer Book in 1718 makes this explicit:
If there be any persons who through sickness or any other urgent cause are under a Necessity of communicating at their houses, then the Priest shall reserve at the open Communion so much of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, as shall serve those who are to receive at home. And if after that, or if, when none are to communicate at their houses, any of the consecrated Elements remain, then it shall not be carried out of the Church; but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the Blessing reverently eat and drink the same.
In 1980, the Alternative Service Book of the Church of England similarly said:
Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service.
More recently, Common Worship says the same:
Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service.
‘The Book of Common Prayer’ (2004) says the ‘consecrated bread and wine remaining after the administration of the communion is to be reverently consumed’
In the Church of Ireland, the present edition of The Bok of Common Prayer (2004), includes ‘General Directions for Public Worship’ (pp 75-77), which include the following directions:
14 At the Holy Communion …
(e) The bread to be used shall be the best and purest bread that can be obtained. Care is to be taken that the wine is fit for use.
Any of the consecrated bread and wine remaining after the administration of the communion is to be reverently consumed.
(f) After the communion the vessels shall be carefully and thoroughly cleansed with water.
Direction (e), in my opinion, does not favour the use of sliced pan but does allow wafers. Indeed, I enjoy shopping for ‘the best and purest bread that can be obtained.’ Nor does the spirit of direction (e) allow for wine to be poured back into a bottle in the vestry afterwards.
It is interesting to note, though, that the directions do not say how soon after the administration the remaining elements much be ‘reverently consumed’ or where the sacred vessels should be ‘thoroughly cleansed with water.’
There are different views on what ‘reverently’ means, so that some regard it as appropriate to give bread to the birds and to pour wine into the ground, ‘returning the elements to nature.’ But the word ‘consumed’ does not allow this interpretation, and any appeal to the course of nature is also unconvincing. All God’s good gifts of food and drink are subject to the same physical process. But that is no excuse for treating the consecrated sacrament as refuse or waste material. And certainly this is not the understanding of the word ‘consumed’ in plain English.
As Canon John Goodchild argued in a letter to the Church Times, ‘If your friend serves you a meal as a sign of love and you throw it down the toilet because that is where it would end up eventually, she may not be best-pleased. It may sometimes be hard to consume what remains respectfully, but if there is a lot remaining, others can be invited to take some.’
Others see the consumption of what remains as the most appropriate form of reverence. But I have heard people claim that the public consumption of the remaining elements is indiscreet or offensive. They say, for example, that the washing-up does not usually take place at a dinner table in front of the guests.
Canon Law in the Church of England today says no portion of the bread and wine consecrated at the Eucharist shall be carried out of the church in accordance with the provisions of Canon B 37 (2) except at the express wish of an individual sick communicant. In such cases, this shall be done either during or immediately after the service, or as soon as practicable on the same day.
What is known as ‘tarp-ing’ or ‘taking the ablutions in the right place’ – immediately after the Communion – was encouraged by Anglo-Catholics. This had been the Roman Catholic practice since the 16th century, but it also shortened the length of time during which the celebrant kept thumb and forefinger joined for fear of dropping consecrated particles.
‘Taking the ablutions in the right place’ is also a public witness to belief in the real presence, however that may be understood. From a practical point of view, it allows me time to greet people on their way out of the church or the cathedral.
The sacred vessels on the altar at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin (Patrick Comerford)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)