Commenting on how Anglicans, similar to many other denominations, are split over important (not “minor”) theological issues (in this instance, the nature of the nature of “Real Presence” and if the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice), Colin Lindsay noted:
[B]y far the most serious defection teaching respecting the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. Since the days of Queen Elizabeth there have existed three streams of tradition, wholly diverse, concerning the Presence of our Lord and the Sacrifice. One part asserting the Real Presence absolutely under the form of Bread and Wine, and the oblation to the Father of the Body and Blood of Christ, under these signs, for the remission of sins: another party, that the Presence is not real and objective, but only spiritual and subjective, manifested alone to the worth receiver; and that the sacrifice is merely commemorative of what occurred more than eighteen centuries ago on Calvary. A third party denies any Real Presence at all—objective or subjective—the opinion being that we merely eat and drink the sacramental elements in remembrance of Christ; at most they only admit a Presence by virtue and effect, which, in point of fact, is no Presence at all.
Now these three sets of opinions respecting one of the most vital doctrines of Christianity, are allowed advisedly to be held and taught by the clergy of the Anglican Church; that is to say, it as allowable to teach that Christ—God and Man—is present under the form of Bread and Wine, in the Eucharist, and, at the same time, and even in the same church, that He is not present at all: and that He is offered by the priest to the Father for the remission of sins; and again, that no sacrifice at all is offered in the Blessed Sacrament. In plain words, it is advisedly allowable for the ministry of the Anglican Church to teach the doctrines both of the Real Presence and of the Real Absence; of the Sacrifice of the Altar, and of no such Sacrifice.
Surely it must be of tremendous importance to any Christian to know whether Christ is or is not really, truly, and substantially, present in the Sacrament; and for this reason, if for no other, that if He be really present, to decline to bend the knee in adoring worship is an act of rebellion and contempt of His Majesty; and if He be not present, to adore the elements is idolatry. Conceive and realise the spectacle which is common in every English church in this land, of one portion of the congregation adoring a present God, as they believe; and other, equally devout in their way, refusing adoration on the ground of His not being really present. In all sincerity, I ask you, Can you imagine a more horrible state of things? For many years I have contemplated in my own mind this hideous spiritual phenomenon with horror and amazement, wondering how any Church could possibly permit such an insult to our Lord (as it always appeared to me, and does so still) to continue.
But is this diversity and contrariety of doctrine accidental or of purpose? Had it been accidental, the late Pan-Anglican Council would not have lost the opportunity of denouncing it, and of defining, with some precision, what the faithful ought to believe. It is, however, not accidental, but of set purpose. It is the boast of Anglicans that their faith is comprehensive, and it includes within the pale of the Church of God (what are called) all shades of orthodox opinion, to the admittance even of diverse and contrary views on some of the fundamental verities of our holy religion. (Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy: As Derived from the Holy Scriptures and From Primitive Antiquity; With an Introductory Epistle [London: Longmans, 1870], liii-liv)
