Anthony Sparrow at the time of the Restoration seems to have taken an influential role in the revision of The Book of Common Prayer.  He was of the High Church party and is best known for his work A Rationale Upon the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, the oldest known edition of which dates from 1659.  His object in this work was to show that the liturgy of the Church of England was neither Roman in its contents nor schismatically new (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 1297).

In this case study Sparrow’s Rationale will be examined to determine the nature of his eucharistic theology.  The edition used is that of 1684.

In his treatment of the consecration, Sparrow argues that: “consecration consists chiefly in rehearsing the words of our Saviour’s institution, This is my body and this is my blood, when the bread and wine is present upon the Communion Table.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 234).  Bread and wine are here closely associated with the body and blood of Christ in a realist manner.

For Sparrow the institution is mirrored in the actions of the priest, since Sparrow says:

“The holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which the Priest now makes, is the same that Christ gave to his Apostles.  This is nothing less than that.  For this is not sanctified by men, but by him that sanctified that: for as the words which God our Saviour spake are the same, which the Priest now uses, so is the Sacrament the same.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 234). 

There is an identification here between the words and actions of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ and the continuation of that institution in the Eucharist celebrated by the priest.  The Eucharist in the present is clearly not the same event as the institution by Christ, but the Eucharist identifies with it in a realist way, through the words and actions of Christ being rehearsed.

What then does Sparrow see as present in the Eucharist?  He answers in this way:

“Christ is present at the Sacrament now, that first instituted it.  He consecrates this also: It is not man that makes the body and blood of Christ by consecrating the holy Elements, but Christ that was crucified for us.  The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest, but the Elements are consecrated by the power and grace of God, THIS IS, saith he, MY BODY: By this word the bread and wine are consecrated.

Before these words [THIS IS MY BODY] the bread and wine are common food fit only to nourish the body: but since our Lord hath said, Do this, as oft as you do it in remembrance of me, This is my body, this is my blood: as often as by these words and in this faith they are consecrated, the holy bread and blessed cup are profitable to the salvation of the whole man.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 234-235). 

Again there are statements of realism present here.  Christ is said to be present in the sacrament and the elements are said ‘to make’ the body and blood of Christ through their consecration.  The dominical words of Christ (This is my body/blood) are crucial for Sparrow and he distinguishes between common bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood, following the saying of these words.  Sparrow’s realism revolves around the rehearsal of the institution narrative and the saying of the particular words of Christ in the presence of the elements.

Regarding the administration of the sacrament, Sparrow observes that: “It is to be given to the people KNEELING: for a sin it is not to adore when we receive the Sacrament.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 236).  It seems that Sparrow is not implying any immoderate realism here, in the adoration of the elements, but rather moderate realism in linking the adoration of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine.  In another place he argues that: “It is not possible to hear these words, This is my Body, take and eat it; Drink ye all of this, This is my blood: and not be filled, as with a kind of fearful admiration.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 245).  The adoration here seems to be towards Christ’s body and blood revealed sacramentally.  Regarding fasting he says: “it is for the honour of so high a Sacrament, that the precious body of Christ should first enter into the Christian’s mouth before any other meat.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 236-237).  At the moment of reception Sparrow suggests the communicant answer, ‘Amen’, saying:

“When the Priest hath said at the delivery of the Sacrament, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life, the Communicant is to answer, AMEN.  By this Amen professing his faith of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 238). 

The bread and wine is here again closely identified with the body and blood of Christ.  The communicant’s ‘Amen’ is said to profess faith in the presence of Christ’s body and blood ‘in’ the sacrament.  Christ’s body and blood is really present, received and in the sacrament. 

In relation to eucharistic sacrifice, Sparrow argues, using the examples of the early Church, that: “Offerings and Oblations are an high part of God’s service and worship” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 224).  Although he refers here to the offerings and oblations of alms, he has previously referred to the ancient practice of offering the bread and wine at the time of the offertory (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 216), although he does not make this specific connection in regard to the Eucharist of the BCP.  Sparrow does however speak more specifically about ‘offering up the sacrifice’ when he treats the consecration, saying: “The Priest shall receive whensover he offers up the Sacrifice” and “Are not they which eat of the Sacrifice, partakers of the Altar?” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 235).  The meaning here is more plainly expressed though when Sparrow speaks of the prayer following the reception of Communion.  Here he says: 

“This done, [i.e. the reception] the Priest offers up the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, or the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the whole Church, as in all old Liturgies it is appointed, and together with that is offered up that most acceptable Sacrifice of our selves, souls and bodies devoted to God’s service.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 244). 

The offering up by the priest, referred to here by Sparrow, is the Prayer of Oblation, in the 1662 Prayer Book, whereby a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is offered on behalf of the church.  Sparrow cites primitive practice (‘old Liturgies’) to justify this offering, since such an offering was, he says, part of the worship of the early church.  This offering is then distinguished from the sacrifice of souls and bodies as a response to the gift of Christ in the Eucharist, since it is said to be offered ‘together’ with that of souls and bodies.  There is then an offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist and an offering of self in response.  In the 1662 Prayer Book, this offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist occurs after the reception, although in the 1549 Prayer Book, this Prayer of Oblation was part of the Prayer of Consecration and the offering was made prior to reception of Communion.  Clearly Sparrow is of the opinion that the offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist can still be made in the 1662 position, following reception.  This offering of the sacrifice is however, moderate realism, since it is a ‘Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’.  There is no suggestion of any immoderate realism here in relation to the offering of the sacrifice (e.g. re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross).

In the Prayer Book Service, Communion of the Sick, Sparrow refers to the rubrics, saying:

“The Rubrick at the Communion of the sick, directs the Priest, to deliver the Communion to the sick, but does not there set down how much of the Communion-Service shall be used at the delivering of the Communion of the sick; and therefore seems to me, to refer us to former directions in times past [that is, the 1549 Prayer Book].  Now the direction formerly was this:

If the same day (that the sick is to receive the Communion) there be a celebration of the holy Communion in the church, then shall the Priest reserve (at the open Communion) so much of the Sacrament of the body and blood as shall serve the sick person, and so many as shall communicate with him.  And as soon as he may conveniently, after the open Communion ended in the Church, shall go and minister the same first to them that are appointed to communicate with the sick, if there be any; and last of all to the sick.” (Sparrow, Rationale, 1684: 303-304). 

By these words Sparrow is justifying reservation of the sacrament and the carrying of it out of the church, for use with the sick, as the 1549 Prayer Book directed and as the subsequent Prayer Books did not direct in an attempt to lessen any possibility of eucharistic adoration and procession.  This suggested practice of reservation by Sparrow implies that he believed there was a continuing and objective presence of the body and blood of Christ, sacramentally, in the bread and wine, following the service, apart from the reception and apart from the faith of the receiver.  This therefore implies a real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, which functions in a continuing manner held over and present until the person who is sick has received the bread and wine as the sacramental body and blood of Christ.  This is a moderate realist theology of real presence.

Anthony Sparrow’s theology of the Eucharist, as expressed in his Rationale, implies moderate realism in relation to eucharistic presence and sacrifice.  He associates the bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ, both in the Eucharist and outside the Eucharist through reservation of the sacramental elements for the use of the sick.  He also speaks of the Eucharist being an offering of the sacrifice, not in an immoderate manner, but as ‘praise and thanksgiving’, apart from self-offering.  This is also moderate realism, since the sacrifice of the Eucharist is identified with the sacrifice of Christ and pleaded in the Eucharist by the offering of praise and thanksgiving, not by re-iteration.