The Scottish Book of Common Prayer, introduced unsuccessfully for a short while into Scotland in 1637, gives some clues as to the thinking of the Scottish bishops about the Eucharist.  The Scottish episcopal succession was restored in 1610 with the consecration of Archbishop Spotswood, Bishop Lamb and Bishop Hamilton.  They in turn consecrated other bishops for the Scottish Church (Stone, 1909: II, 270).  One of the tasks of the Scottish bishops was to write and put into practice a Scottish Book of Common Prayer.  The Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 has wrongly been assumed to be principally the work of Archbishop William Laud.  Laud did have some influence in its production and it bears his mark and influence.  Jardine Grisbrooke rejects the view that it was:

“compiled by a distant archbishop, inflicted on the Scottish Church by a distant king; calculated, wherever it departed from the English book, to offend the Reformed sentiment of the Scots; representative as it was of the new Anglican theology of which Laud was the outstanding exponent, and of that theology alone – such is the grossly inaccurate picture of the book of 1637 which even yet is by no means discarded” (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 1).

In one of Laud’s later pieces of writing, written while he was a prisoner and called the History of the Troubles and Trial of the Most Reverend Father in God William Laud, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Laud expresses the opinion however, in regard to the 1637 Prayer Book, that he must “bear the burden” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 336) of it.  Despite this admission it seems that the main authors of the book were the Scottish bishops (The 1637 Scottish Prayer Book, Online, 1, and Donaldson, 1954).  Bishop Wedderburn, the Bishop of Dunblane, and Bishop Maxwell, the Bishop of Ross, significantly influenced the design of the 1637 book in a markedly Catholic direction.  They rejected the idea that they should simply adopt the English book (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 2) and Laud rejected the even more radically Catholic additions they wanted, particularly in relation to the ordering of the service.  Wedderburn’s desire to return to the complete rite of 1549 was not acceptable to Laud (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 3) although it seems that Laud’s view did not prevail.

In style and wording, the Scottish book of 1637 resembles the 1549 BCP, although it is not identical.  In the theology of the Eucharist however, it is similar to the 1549 book, presenting the view that Christ is really present in the consecrated elements.  Using the pattern of the 1549 BCP an epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit is made over the bread and wine in the 1637 book.  The words used are:

“Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee and of thy almighty goodness vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify with thy word and Holy Spirit these thy creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son: so that we receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of the same his most precious body and blood.” (Prayer of Consecration, Holy Communion, from The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, Online, 16).

The bread and wine is blessed and sanctified by the power of the word and Holy Spirit so that they ‘may be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ.  The implication is clearly that Christ’s body and blood is present in the bread and wine and that the receiving of the elements is the means whereby the body and blood of Christ is given to those who receive communion.  The view expressed is one of moderate realism.

The notion of a eucharistic sacrifice is also present in the 1637 book.  This can be seen in the words from the Prayer of Consecration which say:

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and made here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.” (Prayer of Consecration, Holy Communion, from The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, Online, 16).

The memorial of the death of Christ and his resurrection is made in close connection with the gifts of bread and wine.  In fact the celebration of the memory is said to be made with the gifts of bread and wine.  There is no suggestion of immoderate realism but a clear statement of moderate realism using the notion of anamnesis, whereby the effects of the historic sacrifice are operative in the present through the celebration of the Eucharist and with the gifts of bread and wine.  The sense of an offering is also heightened by the inclusion of a new set of scriptural sentences following after the sermon (Sentences, Holy Communion, from The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, Online, 5-7).  These sentences make frequent reference to the notion of offering to God.  The placement of these sentences at the time when the bread and wine, as well as the collection of money, are being brought forward, suggests a sacrificial element in the service and that the bread and wine are seen as an offering to God.  The rubric following the sentences refers to the ‘offertory’, although it is unclear whether this means the money or the bread and wine.  The rubric however is specific in directing that, “the Presbyter shall then offer up and place the bread and wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord’s Table” (Rubric following Offertory Sentence, Holy Communion, from The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, Online, 7).  All this is suggestive of moderate realism in relation to the notion of sacrifice in the Eucharist.  Indeed this was the meaning attributed to the 1637 book at Laud’s trial.  The Scottish Commissioners argued that the 1637 Eucharist “restored the unreformed doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, and the unreformed doctrine of a corporal presence.” (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 10).  Laud in response to this criticism says:

“First, I think no man doubts but that there is and ought to be offered up to God at the consecration and reception of this Sacrament sacrificium laudis, the sacrifice of praise; and that this ought to be expressed in the Liturgy for the instruction of the people.  And these words, ‘We entirely desire Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’, etc., are both in the book of England and in that which was prepared for Scotland.  And if ‘Bellarmine do call the oblation of the body and the blood of Christ a sacrificium of praise’, sure he doth well in it; (for so it is) if Bellarmine mean no more by the oblation of the body and the blood of Christ than a commemoration and a representation of that great sacrifice offered up by Christ Himself, as Bishop Jewell very learnedly and fully acknowledges.  But if Bellarmine go further than this, and by ‘the oblation of the body and blood of Christ’ mean that the priest offers up that which Christ Himself did, and not a commemoration of it only, he is erroneous in that, and can never make it good.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 358-359).

Laud at this place adds a note in the text which is a quote from Grotius.  It reads in the Latin: “Differentia est in modo; illic enim Christus vere occisus est: hic mortis fit representatio”, which means, “the difference is in the method; for in that case Christ was really slain: in this case His death is set forth” (cited in Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 12).  It seems that what Laud is saying here with the support of Grotius, although he did not of course use these exact words which follow, is that an immoderate realist notion of the sacrifice in the Eucharist speaks of an actual slaying.  This he rejects.  Moderate realism however speaks of a setting forth, a commemoration or representation of the once only sacrifice in the Eucharist.  This he accepts.  The moderate form of eucharistic sacrifice is that which is meant by the term anamnesis, that is, where the effects of Christ’s once only sacrifice are made known and proclaimed in the present in the Eucharist.  Such an interpretation seems quite defensible within the framework which Laud, and by implication the 1637 Scottish Eucharist, sets out.

The Scottish book of 1637 also restores the structure of the ancient Canon as one continuous prayer, as it was in the 1549 BCP, with the anamnesis and epiclesis included.  In the 1552, 1559 and 1604 revisions of the BCP the ancient Canon was broken up with the Prayer of Oblation being placed after the reception of Holy Communion, in order to avoid any suggestion of a re-sacrificing of Christ in the Eucharist.  The prayer became essentially one of grateful thanks for communion received and for the past death and resurrection of Christ, rather than one of thanks and offering in relation to the effect of Christ’s sacrifice in the present.  In the 1637 Eucharist the Prayer of Oblation became part of the Prayer of Consecration, as it had been in the 1549 BCP.  This meant that the language of offering was used in the presence of the consecrated bread and wine.  Such a conjunction of ideas and elements had been specifically excluded in the 1552 BCP and the 1559 BCP in order to limit any sacrificial notions being associated with the elements of communion.  The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving was something done after the receiving of communion as a thankful response. 

The Scottish Commissioners at Laud’s trial specifically objected to the placement of the Prayer of Oblation before the administration of communion and suggested that this was done “for no other end but that the memorial and sacrifice of praise mentioned in it may be understood according to the popish meaning, not of spiritual sacrifice, but of the oblation of the body of the Lord.” (cited in Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 10).  The criticism was therefore, that the 1637 Eucharist contained a theology of immoderate realism in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in regard to eucharistic sacrifice.  Laud rejects this criticism although he admits that the order of the prayers is changed in the 1637 Eucharist.  He says:

“ ‘This book [the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637] (they say) inverts the order of the Communion in the Book of England’.  Well, and what then?  To invert the order of some prayers, in the Communion, or any other part of the service, doth neither pervert the prayers, nor corrupt the worship of God.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 343)

Laud seems to place no great significance on the placement of the Prayer of Oblation before the reception of communion.  Clearly he does not see this as a theological difficulty.  He argues that in fact the order of the prayers in the Scottish Eucharist of 1637 more accurately reflect the primitive practice of the Church (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 343).  Since he also rejects immoderate realism (see various quotes in the Laud case study) it must be assumed that Laud is also rejecting any suggestion that immoderate realism is implied or intended in the Eucharist in the 1637 book.

The Prayer of Consecration in the 1637 book, like that in the 1549 BCP, did not lead directly to the communion as it did in the 1552, 1559 and 1604 English books.  This leading directly to communion was done in order to avoid any suggestion of adoration of Christ in the bread and wine as they remained on the altar (see Cranmer cast study and the 1559 BCP case study).  There were no prayers prayed in the presence of the elements in these earlier prayer books (apart from the 1549 book) and the receiving of communion followed immediately after the Prayer of Consecration.  Instead in the Scottish book however, the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access followed the Prayer of Consecration.  The placement of these prayers, before communion and in the presence of the consecrated elements, strongly suggests a real presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  There is no suggestion however, that this presence is more than that of moderate realism.

The words of administration in the 1637 Scottish book were those used in the 1549 BCP.  At the delivery of the bread these words were said:

“The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.  Amen.”

and at the delivery of the wine these words were said:

“The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.  Amen.” (Words of Administration, Holy Communion, from The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, Online, 18).

The association of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ is clear in these words of administration.  This is intensified by the dropping of the new words introduced in the 1552 BCP (and maintained together with the original 1549 words, in the 1559 and 1604 BCP).  There seems to be little doubt about what is given to the communicant in the 1637 Scottish words of administration, that is, the body and blood of Christ.  The 1552 BCP had not used these words and had only stated that the communicant ‘take and eat this/ drink this’ without specifying what the ‘this’ was.  The 1559 and 1604 BCP had been content to live with both a definite and indefinite statement of what was delivered to the communicant, in an attempt to satisfy all parties and to maintain both a view of real presence and a view of memorial only.  No such hedging or indefiniteness can be attributed to the 1637 Scottish book and the words of administration suggest a moderate realism where Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but not in any immoderate or fleshy manner.  The Puritan critics of the 1637 Eucharist argued that the notion of ‘feeding on Christ by faith’ and ‘eating and drinking in remembrance that Christ died for thee’ (cited in Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 15) and found in the English Prayer Book, were deleted from the Scottish service.  In response to criticism of the words of administration as found in the 1637 Eucharist Laud says that:

“Before, they went about to prove an intendment to establish the doctrine of ‘corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament’, by some positive words; and here, they go about to prove the same by the omission of some words of the Book of England.  For they say (and ‘tis true), that those words are expressed in the English Liturgy, at the delivery of the elements, and are left out of the Book prepared for Scotland.  But it is altogether false, either that this omission was intended to help to make good a ‘corporal presence’, or that a ‘corporal presence’ can by any good consequence be proved out of it.  For the first, ‘of feeding on Christ by faith’, if that omission be thought to advantage anything towards a ‘corporal presence’; surely, neither the ‘Scottish bishops’, nor myself, were so simple to leave it out here, and keep these words in immediately after: ‘which have duly received those holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Thy Son’.  For ‘the feeding on Christ by faith’, and ‘the spiritual food of the Body and Blood of Christ’, are all one; and ‘tis hard, that the asserting of a ‘spiritual food’, should be made the proof of a ‘corporal presence’; or, that the omitting of it in one place, should be of greater force than the affirming it in another.  The like is to be said of the second omission, ‘of eating and drinking in remembrance that Christ died for us’.  For that remembrance of His death and passion is expressed immediately before.  And would not this have been omitted, as well as the other, had there been an intention to forget the remembrance, and to introduce a ‘corporal presence’?  Besides, St Paul himself, in I Cor. xi, adds this, ‘in remembrance of Me’; but in I Cor. x, ‘The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?’.  Which interrogation there, is a pressing affirmation; and these words, ‘in remembrance of Christ’, are omitted.  And what then will these my learned adversaries say, that St Paul omitted this to establish a ‘corporal presence’?  I hope they will not.

But whatsoever this omission may be thought to work, it cannot reflect upon me.  For when I shall come to set down (as I purpose, God willing, to do) the brief story, what hand I had in this Liturgy for Scotland; it shall them appear, that I laboured to have the English Liturgy sent them, without any omission or addition at all, this or any other; that so the public Divine service might, in all his Majesty’s dominions, have been one and the same.  But some of the Scottish Bps. prevailed herein against me; and some alterations they would have from the Book of England, and this was one, as I have to show under the then Bp. Of Dunblane, Dr Wetherborne, whose notes I have yet by me, concerning the alterations in the Service-book.  And concerning this particular, his words are these: ‘The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: and so, the Blood of, &c.’ whereunto every receiver answered, Amen.  There is no more in King Edward VI. his first Book.  And if there be no more in ours, the action will be much the shorter.  Besides, the words which are added since, ‘Take, eat, in remembrance, etc,’ may seem to relish somewhat of the Zwinglian tenet that the Sacrament is a bare sign taken in remembrance of Christ’s passion.’  So that for my part, first, I see no hurt in the omission of those latter words, none at all.  And next, if there be any, it is proceeded not from me.  That which follows, is a mere flourish in the general.  For they say-

Many evidences there be in this part of the Communion of the bodily presence of Christ, very agreeable to the doctrine taught by the sectaries’ which this paper cannot contain.  They teach us, that Christ is received in the Sacrament corporaliter, both objective and subjective.  Corpus Christi est objectum, quod recipitur; at corpus nostrum est subjectum, quo recipitur.

Many weak collections and inferences are made by these men out of this part of the Communion of the bodily presence of Christ; but not one evidence is, or can be showed.  As for ‘sectaries’, I have none, nor none can have in this point.  For no men can be ‘sectaries’, or followers of me in that, which I never held or maintained.  And ‘tis well known, I have maintained the contrary, and perhaps as strongly as any my opposites, and upon ground more agreeable to the doctrine of the primitive Church.  Among these ‘sectaries’, which they will needs call mine, they say, ‘there are, which teach them, that Christ is received in the sacrament corporaliter, both objective and subjective.’  For this opinion, be it whose it will, I for my part do utterly condemn it, as grossly superstitious.  And for the person that affirms it, they should have done well to name him, and the place where he delivers this opinion.  Had this been done, it had been fair; and I would then have clearly acknowledged what relation (if any) the person had to me; and more fully have spoken to the opinion itself, when I might have seen the full scope together, of all that he delivered.  But I doubt there is some ill cause or other, why this author is not named by them.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 355-358).

Laud sees little significance in the deletion of particular words, but at the same time he is at pains to deny any immoderate notion of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  For Laud there can be no corporal presence (corporaliter – objective or subjective) in the bread and wine.  The presence can only be that of a moderate, yet real and spiritual presence.  Laud’s views, by his own admission, are not as advanced as that of the Scottish bishops, although he does not express any disagreement with them or their views.

Laud in his History of the Troubles comments on the order of the prayers in the 1637 Scottish book in the following way:

“Though I shall not find fault with the order of the prayers as they stand in the Communion-book of England (for, God be thanked, it is well), yet, if a comparison must be made, I do think the order of the prayers as now they stand in the Scottish Liturgy to be the better, and more agreeable to use in the primitive Church; and I believe they which are learned will acknowledge it.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 344).

Laud is affirming the 1637 Eucharist as superior to that of England since it corresponds to the primitive use.  This must be taken therefore as an affirmation of moderate realism, where Christ is seen to be present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, in a real, yet spiritual fashion, with no immoderate or fleshy meaning.

In relation to the accusation that the 1637 Eucharist taught that Christ was corporally present in the sacrament, Laud stated:

“They say, ‘the corporal presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament is to be found in this Service-book’.  But they must pardon me; I know it is not there.  I cannot be myself of a contrary judgment, and yet suffer that to pass.  But let’s see their proof. ‘The words of the Mass-book, serving to that purpose, which are sharply censured by Bucer in King Edward’s Liturgy, and are to be found in the Book of England, yet are taken into this Service-book’.  I know no words telling to this purpose in King Edward’s Liturgy, fit for Bucer to censure sharply; and therefore not tending to that purpose; for did they tend to that, they could not be censured too sharply.  The words, it seems, are these: ‘O merciful Father, of Thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify with Thy word and Holy Spirit these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine that they may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son’.  Well, if these be the words, how will they squeeze corporal presence out of them?  Why, first, ‘the change here is made a work of God’s omnipotency’.  Well, and a work of omnipotency it is, whatever the change be.  For less than Omnipotence cannot change these elements, either in nature or use to so high a service as they are put in that great Sacrament.  Any by them is no proof at all of intending the ‘corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament’.  ‘Tis true this passage is not in the prayer of consecration in the Service-book of England; but I wish with all my heart it were.  For though the consecration of the elements may be without it, yet it is much more solemn and full by that invocation.  Secondly, ‘these words’, they say, ‘intend the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament because the words in the Mass are ut fiant nobis’, ‘that they may be unto us the body and blood of Christ’.  Now for the good of Christendom I would with all my heart that these words ut fiant nobis, - that these elements might be ‘to us’, worthy receivers, the blessed body and blood of our Saviour, - were the worst error in the Mass.  For then I would hope that this great controversy, which to all men that are out of the Church is the shame, and among all that are within the Church is the division of Christendom, might have some good accommodation.  For if it be only ut fiant nobis, that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ, it implies clearly that they ‘are to us’ but are not transubstantiated in themselves into the body and blood of Christ, nor that there is any corporal presence in or under the elements.  And then nothing can more cross the doctrine of the present Church of Rome than their own service.  For as the elements after the benediction or consecration are, and may be called, the body and blood of Christ without any addition in that real and true sense in which they are so called in Scripture; so, when they are said to become the body and blood of Christ nobis, to us that communicate as we ought; there is by this addition, fiant nobis, an allay in the proper signification of the body and blood: and the true sense, so well signified and expressed that the words cannot well be understood otherwise than to imply not the corporal substance but the real and yet the spiritual use of them.  And so the words ut fiant nobis import quite contrary to that which they are brought to prove.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 353-355).

Laud is denying any immoderate or corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament and affirming a ‘real and yet spiritual’ presence of Christ in the sacrament.  This real and yet spiritual sense is an expression of moderate realism and one which he sees as being expressed in the Scottish Book of Common Prayer of 1637.

What final assessment then is to be made of the 1637 book.  It has been argued that this book represents the first attempt on the part of Anglican bishops to move outside the Reformation model of the Eucharist, both doctrinally and liturgically, established by Cranmer (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 18).  Although the 1637 book made use of Cranmer’s prayers, it understood them in a different way, as is indicated by the inclusion of the anamnesis and the epiclesis, and the clearer statements of moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist of that book.  It seems that the 1637 book “was but expressing practically what had already been formulated doctrinally” (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 17).  The 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer establishes a tradition where moderate realism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, is clearly intended.  It is on this tradition that further liturgical development occurred, for example the Scottish Liturgy of 1764 and the various prayer books of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and where the doctrine of a real, yet spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist and a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, based on moderate realism, were firmly established within the Anglican tradition.  It is this tradition which is inherited and used in the many of the Anglican eucharistic liturgies in the present day.