The Rule for the prophets of old was that if they did not prophesy truthfully, or if prophesying truthfully they added a few words of their own, the penalty was death. The reason for this drastic Rule was that, if they added a few words of their own, none of their hearers would know whether the earlier words came from God or not. They could only judge if it was from God, if the whole were genuine. So here, if more is claimed than can legitimately be claimed, it vitiates the whole ceremony. Some of those present will see the addition as bogus, and will inevitably see the whole ceremony as tainted. For them, the ceremony becomes divorced from “all inner relation to reality…and becomes a mere appearance”. In other words, if a clergyman claims consecration turns the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ, then he must be sure that it is so, and his arguments and practice must be entirely convincing. If someone who could heal the sick, make the blind see, and the lame walk, made this claim, most people would believe him. But if this is the only miracle this clergyman claims to perform, it is legitimate to smile at his credulity.
The 39 Articles have much to say on this subject. Article 28 deals with the Lord’s Supper. To those who worthily receive in faith, the bread and wine are a partaking of the body and blood of Christ, but only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And it clearly does not think much about reserving, carrying about, lifting up, or worshipping the sacrament; although it does not forbid it. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) is repugnant and superstitious. Article 30 says the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both parts of the Lord’s sacrament ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. Article 23 says only those who have been lawfully called and chosen should administer the sacraments: appointed by men having public authority given them in the congregation. This presumably means men who have authority in the congregation: not men who obtain their authority from the congregation. Nothing here to prohibit Lay-ministers consecrating; it suggests anyone who can take a communion service, can do the whole thing.
Of course, all this may have been changed by canon law; but it is reassuring to find that the basic document of the Church of England agrees with common sense as regards the ministering of the sacrament, and what happens when this is done. Partaking of the body and blood of Christ is something the congregation does in a heavenly or spiritual manner, and depends on the faith of the participants; it does not depend on the expertise of the minister, because provision is made for unworthy ministers.