John Bramhall

Case Study 1.18

Bramhall

John Bramhall

1594 - 1663

Archbishop of Armagh

John Bramhall’s views on the Eucharist are contained in several of his works and these will be considered in this case study. Bramhall’s writings were mostly written in difficult situations, and all are in the form of replies to others, such as Puritans and Roman Catholics (McGrath, 1998: 87). His eucharistic theology is mainly set out in his Answer to de la Milletiere (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: I, 7-23) originally published in 1653.

Regarding transubstantiation he spoke in adversarial disputation with de la Milletiere, saying:

“I find not one of your arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation, but only to a true real presence, which no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny, no, nor your adversary himself. Christ said, ‘This is My body’; what He said, we do steadfastly believe. He said not, after this or that manner, neque con neque sub neque trans. And therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the articles of faith.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: I, 8).

Bramhall in suggesting that he cannot find an argument in favour of transubstantiation, only real presence, is still willing to concede that transubstantiation is one of the theories to explain what happens in the Eucharist (i.e. ‘among the opinions of the school’) even though he himself does not subscribe to it. Transubstantiation is a theory of moderate realism therefore, but he is not willing to concede that transubstantiation is among the articles of faith.

In relation to the elements of the Eucharist, Bramhall says:

“We deny not a venerable respect unto the consecrate elements not only as love-tokens sent by our best Friend but as the instruments ordained by our Saviour to convey to us the merits of His passion.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: I, 20).

The elements are not only tokens but also instruments whereby the merits of Christ’s passion are conveyed to those who receive them. This is moderate realism, since Bramhall is stating that the material elements are the means for the conveying of the merits of the passion. There is no suggestion of immoderate realism, but rather words suggestive of instantiation when he speaks of ‘instruments’ which ‘convey’ the ‘merits’. The merits of Christ’s presence and sacrifice are available in the present by means of these consecrated elements as instruments.

Bramhall goes on to say:

“ … but for the Person of Christ, God forbid that we should deny Him divine worship at any time, and especially in the use of the Holy Sacrament; we believe with St Austin that ‘no man eats of that flesh but first he adores’; but that which offends us is this, that you teach and require all men to adore the very sacrament with divine honour. … We dare not give divine worship unto any creature, no, not to the very humanity of Christ in the abstract (much less to the host), but to the whole Person of Christ, God and Man, by reason of the hypostatical union between the Child of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the eternal Son, ‘who is God over all blessed for ever’. Show us such a union between the deity and the elements or accidents, and you say something. But you pretend no such things. … We rest in the words of Christ, ‘This is My body’, leaving the manner to Him that made the Sacrament. We know it is sacramental, and therefore efficacious. Because God was never wanting to His own ordinances, where man did not set a bar against Himself: but whether it be corporeally or spiritually (I mean not only after the manner of a spirit but in a spiritual sense); whether it be in the soul only or in the host as also; and if in the host, whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation; whether by production or addition or conservation or assumption or by whatsoever other way bold and blind men dare conjecture: we determine not.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: I, 21-22).

Adoration of the whole Christ is clearly what Bramhall sees as appropriate. Worship of the humanity (the fleshy presence of Christ) or to the elements (the host) is for him, not appropriate – only worship to ‘the whole Person of Christ, God and Man’ in the hypostatical union. Bramhall then goes on to suggest that this idea of a hypostatical union is the way of thinking of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This suggestion is moderate realism using the notion of instantiation. What Bramhall seems to be suggesting is that the divine nature of Christ is found in the Eucharist in a union with the elements of bread and wine, and that in this way it is sacramental and efficacious.

In relation to eucharistic sacrifice Bramhall considers the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, in that it commemorates and represents the sacrifice of the cross, whilst at the same time obtaining and applying the benefits of the passion and death of Christ. Bramhall says:

“You say we have renounced your sacrifice of the Mass. If the sacrifice of the Mass be the same with the sacrifice of the cross, we attribute more unto it than yourselves; we place our whole hope of salvation in it. If you understand another propitiatory sacrifice distinct from that (as this of the Mass seems to be; for confessedly the priest is not the same, the altar is not the same, the temple is not the same); if you think of any new meritorious satisfaction to God of the sins of the world, or of any new supplement to the merits of Christ’s passion; you must give us leave to renounce your sacrifice indeed, and to adhere to the Apostle, ‘By one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (Hebrews 10: 14). Surely you cannot think that Christ did actually sacrifice Himself at the Last Supper (for then He had redeemed the world at His Last Supper; then His subsequent sacrifice upon the cross had been superfluous); nor that the priest now doth more than Christ did then. We do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical sacrifice of prayers and praises: we profess a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross: … we acknowledge a representation of that sacrifice to God the Father: we acknowledge impetration of the benefit of it: we maintain an application of its virtue: so here is a commemorative, impetrative, applicative sacrifice. Speak distinctly, and I cannot understand what you can desire more. To make it a suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects of the only true sacrifice of the cross, I hope both you and I abhor.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: I, 54-55).

Bramhall here denies any concept of immoderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice. The sacrifice of the Eucharist is not a propitiatory sacrifice, being distinct from the sacrifice of the cross. The eucharistic sacrifice does not for Bramhall, supplement the sacrifice of the cross. Rather the eucharistic sacrifice is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, whereby that sacrifice is represented in the Eucharist and the benefits of the sacrifice of the cross are received and its virtue applied. This is a statement of memorial remembrance or anamneis whereby the effects of the once only sacrifice are made present and available (applicative as Bramhall describes it) in the present in the Eucharist. This is again made clear when Bramhall says in a work entitled A Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon’s Survey of the Vindication of the Church of England from Criminous Schism, (edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: II):

“The Holy eucharist is a commemoration, a representation, an application of the all-sufficient propitiatory sacrifice of the cross. If his sacrifice of the Mass have any other propitiatory power or virtue in it than to commemorate, represent, and apply the merit of the sacrifice of the cross, let him speak plainly what it is.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: II, 88).

The eucharistic sacrifice is more than praise and thanksgiving, since Bramhall goes on to say:

“We acknowledge an eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a commemorative sacrifice, or a memorial of the sacrifice of the cross; a representative sacrifice, or a representation of the passion of Christ before the eyes of His heavenly Father; an impetrative sacrifice, or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of His passion by way of real prayer; and, lastly an applicative sacrifice, or an application of His merits unto our souls.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: II, 276).

He also says:

“We have a meritorious sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of the cross; we have a commemorative and applicative sacrifice, or a commemoration and application of that sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. A suppletory sacrifice, to supply any wants or defects in that sacrifice, he dare not own; and unless he do own it, he saith no more than we say.” (Bramhall, Works, edn. Haddan, 1842-1845: II, 276).

Bramhall’s theology of the Eucharist is that of moderate realism. He clearly denies any immoderate notions of both presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. He maintains that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real and that the benefits of the sacrifice of the cross are available in the Eucharist. In addition, Bramhall argues a theology of the Eucharist based on the hypostatical union of the humanity and divinity of Christ. In the same way that the human nature and divine nature of Christ are to be found in the person of Christ, so he argues that there can be a union between the elements of bread and wine and the divine nature of Christ in the Eucharist. This sacramental and efficacious union supports the argument which states that the nature of Christ is instantiated in the Eucharist as moderate realism.

1