Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Jewel, in his reply, says:—

"But first, for the clearer conceiving of the answer hereunto, understand, good Christian reader, that by the record of the old fathers Christ is present among us sundry ways: by his Holy Spirit, as Cyrillus saith; by his grace, as Eusebius Emissenus saith; by his divinity and majesty, as St. Augustine saith; by faith dwelling in our hearts, as St. Paul says. Thus is Christ most comfortably present in his holy word, in the mystery of Baptism, and in the Sacrament of his body. We deny only that gross and fleshly presence that M. Harding here defendeth; wherein we have the authority and consent of the old learned fathers. For, to allege one instead of many, St. Augustine saith: .... 'The body wherein Christ rose again must be in one place.'"-1bid., p. 486.

Farther on in the argument, Harding quotes the passage from Bucer (already given at p. 73, as cited by Gardiner to Cranmer), comparing Christ's Presence in the Sacrament to the Presence of the sun in the earth: Jewel thus comments upon it:

".... the very similitude or example that he useth of the sun putteth the matter out of all question. For like as the body or compass of the sun, being in one certain place of the heavens, reacheth out his beams, and giveth influence into the world; even so Christ, the sun of justice, being in heaven in one place at the right hand of God, likewise reacheth out his beams, and giveth his influence into the faithful, and so feedeth them, not by bare imagination or fantasy, but truly, substantially, and indeed. And as the sun is more comfortable, and more refresheth the world, being absent, by his beams, than if his very natural substance and compass lay here upon the earth; even so the body of Christ, being in the glory of his father, in the very substance and nature of our flesh, and there evermore entreating mercy for our sins, is much more comfortable unto us, and more quickeneth both our bodies and souls by his heavenly and spiritual influence, than if it were here present fleshly before And as the sun, not coming down from heaven, nor leaving his place, is nevertheless present with us in our houses, in our faces, in our hands, and in our bosoms; even so Christ, being in heaven, not coming down, nor leaving his room there, yet nevertheless is present with us in our congregations, in our hearts, in our prayers, in the mystery of baptism, and in the Sacrament of his body and blood."-Ibid., p. 499.

our eyes.

Moreover, Harding, rejecting a physical presence, says :"And that all absurdities and carnal grossness be severed from our thoughts, where true Christian people believe Christ's body to be in many places at once, they understand it so to be in a mystery

....

."—1bid.,

p.

504.

Jewel, in his answer, makes this remark:

"Again he [St. Augustine] saith: .... 'Christ by his Godhead is ever with us; but unless he had departed away bodily from us, we should evermore carnally see his body.' These words are specially to be noted. If Christ were bodily here, he should carnally be seen therefore, by St. Augustine's judgment, if Christ were bodily present in the Sacrament, we should see him carnally in the Sacrament."-lbid, p. 505.

Another proposition which Jewel challenged the Roman party to prove was :—

"That the people did then fall down and worship the Sacrament with godly honour."

Harding, in taking up the challenge, cited St. Chrysostom; Jewel, in examining the passage, says:—

"In this wise therefore, having removed the people's hearts into heaven, and placed them even in the sight of Christ, he saith further unto them: For this body's sake thou art no longer dust and ashes; this body hath made thee free; this body was broken for thee upon the cross; this body must we adore, as the wise men did; this body not now upon the earth, but at the right hand of God in heaven; this body that thou seest with thy spirit, and touchest with thy faith, whereof the Sacrament that thou receivest is a mystery. So saith Emissenus: With thy faith behold the holy body of thy God, touch it with thy mind, receive it with the hand of thy heart.'

"But M. Harding will reply, Chrysostom saith: 'As Christ was in the stall, so he is now upon the altar; and as he was sometimes in the woman's arms, so he is now in the priest's hands.' True it is Christ was there, and Christ is here; but not in one or like sort of being. For he was in the stall by bodily presence; upon the holy table he is by way of a Sacrament. The woman in her arms held

him really; the priest in his hands holdeth him only in a mystery. So saith St. Paul: Christ dwelleth in our hearts;' and no doubt the same Christ that lay in the stall. It is one and the same Christ; but the difference standeth in the manner of his being there: for in the stall he lay by presence of his body; in our hearts he lieth by presence of faith."—Ibid., p. 539.

Once more; Harding quoted the comment of SS. Ambrose and Augustin upon Psalm xix. 5: Jewel ends his answer in these words :

For

"But they will reply, St. Ambrose saith: We do adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries.' Hereof groweth their whole error. St. Ambrose saith not, We do adore the mysteries, or the flesh of Christ really present, or materially contained in the mysteries; as

it is supposed by Mr. Harding. Only he saith, 'We adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries,' that is to say, in the ministration of the mysteries. And doubtless it is our duty to adore the body of Christ in the Word of God, in the Sacrament of baptism, in the mysteries of Christ's body and blood, and wheresoever we see any step or token of it, but especially in the holy mysteries; for that there is lively laid forth before us the whole story of Christ's conversation in the flesh. But this adoration, as it is said before, neither is directed to the Sacraments, nor requireth any corporal or real presence. . . . ."—Ibid., p. 542.

Another point in the controversy was this:

"that in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, there remain only the accidents, and shews without the substance of bread and wine."

In answering one of Harding's arguments, Jewel says:"The question between us is not, whether the bread be the body of Christ, or no; but whether in plain and simple manner of speech it be fleshly and really the body of Christ."— Ibid., Vol. II., p. 570.

So, too, when discussing the 12th Article:

"that whosoever had said the Sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's body, had therefore been judged for an heretic."

The Bishop, in reference to a quotation which Harding made from S. Hilary, remarks:—

"Further, we may say that Christ's body is in the Sacrament itself, understanding it to be there as in a mystery. But to this manner of being there is required neither circumstance of place, nor any corporal or real presence."-Ibid., p. 604.

Again, comparing a passage from St. Gregory with one which Harding had cited from St. Augustin, Jewel ob

serves:

"Now, as Christ dieth in the Sacrament, so is his body present in the Sacrament. But Christ dieth not there really and indeed; therefore Christ's body is not there really and indeed."—Ibid., p. 618.

"And thus St. Augustine's meaning may well stand upright without any new secrecy or real or fleshly presence."-Ibid., p. 619.

Further, in arguing the 17th Article:

"that the priest had then authority to offer up Christ unto his Father."

Jewel remarks thus upon a sentence of St. Chrysostom :"Thus the death of Christ is renewed before our eyes. Yet Christ indeed neither is crucified, nor dieth, nor sheddeth his blood, nor is substantially present, nor really offered by the priest."Ibid, p. 710.

Later, in the same argument, he observes thus:

...

"Therefore St. Gregory saith: . . . . ' Christ, living immortally in himself, dieth again in this mystery. His flesh suffereth (in the mystery) for the salvation of the people.' I reckon, M. Harding will not say that Christ dieth indeed, according to the force and sound of these words, or that his flesh verily and indeed is tormented and suffereth in the Sacrament."—Ibid., p. 726.

And, once more, he says:

"In like manner the ministration of the holy communion is sometimes of the ancient fathers called an 'unbloody sacrifice;' not in respect of any Corporal or fleshly presence that is imagined to be there without blood-shedding, but for that it representeth and reporteth unto our minds that one and everlasting sacrifice that Christ made in his body upon the cross."— Ibid., p. 734.

Moreover, in their dispute touching the 21st Article :— "that then any Christian man called the Sacrament his Lord and God."

The Bishop of Salisbury replies to his opponent thus :

"In the end, M. Harding confirmeth this doctrine by the confutation of an error, which, for the novelty and strangeness of it, may easily seem to be his own; and therefore ought of right to be called 'M. Harding's error:' for I believe it was never neither defended nor imagined by any other.

"He surmiseth there be some that either have said, or else may say, that Christ's flesh is present really in the Sacrament; howbeit dead and bloodless, and utterly void both of soul and Godhead. This is a new error, never tamed or touched before this time.*

I should be most sorry to misrepresent, in the least degree, Mr. Freeman, and therefore I do not venture to say that he has made the kind of statement which Jewel here condemns; but, in common with others, one hopes to see some explanation in his expected volume of certain passages contained in Sect. xii. (pp. 143-145) of his published "Introduction to Part ii." (J. H. & J. Parker, 1857). I subjoin the following as indicating what I refer to:

....

The Presence of Christ is assumed, without entering into any argument, to be a necessary result of the Presence of His Body and Blood."-p. 149. "...His [Christ's] Death being as real as any man's, His broken Body and His Blood poured out in Death were no more the Man Christ Jesus, than the body and blood of any other man are that man. True it is that from neither His Body nor His soul was the Divinity ever separated, but was so present with Both that neither could the One be left in Hell, nor the Other see Corruption

.."-p. 149.

"As for us we do constantly believe and confess that Christ, the very natural Son of God, received our flesh of the blessed virgin, and that, wheresoever that flesh is, there is also both the Godhead and the soul.

"Of this undoubted truth M. Harding gathereth an impertinent conclusion. For thus he reasoneth: If Christ be verily under the form of bread in the Sacrament, then is he there entire and whole, God and man.' Indeed, the first being granted, the rest must needs follow. But how is M. Harding so well assured of the first? What old doctor or ancient father ever taught him that Christ's body is really and fleshly present under these forms or fantasies of bread and wine?"—Ibid., p. 770.

Other passages, of a like character with these now quoted,

With much deference I cannot but ask Mr. F.-did not this Presence of the Divinity make exactly that distinction of union between Christ's Body and Soul after death, and man's body and soul after death, which points towards one answer to his following question ?—

"

66

"And next, if the broken and poured-out Body and Blood of Christ, in Their natural condition and manner of existence, were not Christ, -as certainly they were not,-have we any reason for saying or conceiving that in Their supranatural and sacramental manner of existence they are Christ ?....' -p. 150. To my mind Ridley seemed to think so when he said (see p. 60), ....that Heavenly Lamb, is (as I confess) on the table; but by a spiritual presence," &c. And again-"I grant the Priest holdeth the same Thing (which the woman did hold in her womb], but after another manner." Pursuing the idea, Mr. F. further says:

46

:

The unreceived Elements are the Body and Blood of Christ, and no more but 'he that eateth and drinketh' of them aright hath in him CHRIST Himself, and no less, and is united to Him."-p. 164.

But, again, to quote Ridley (see p. 56), "....I grant.... Christ is offered in many places at once, in a mystery and sacramentally, and that He is full Christ in all those places," etc.

Once more Mr. F. writes:

....

".. The natural Body of Christ, once slain,.. .was, nevertheless, after being received into the receptacle of God's appointing, the heart of the Earth, reunited to That Soul by the operation of the interposed Divinity; and so CHRIST HIMSELF was once more truly alive, and rose again. And even so, when His Body and Blood, existing in a new and specially provided manner, have been received into the duly qualified bodies and souls of men, does the same vital reunion, as it should seem, take place, and so CHRIST HIMSELF, in Body, Soul, and Divinity, is in them of truth, and raises them, together with Himself, to a glorious immortality."-p. 154.

[ocr errors]

But Jewel says (see above), we do constantly believe and confess.... that, wheresoever that flesh is, there is also both the Godhead and the soul:" Mr. F. admits the "Body and Blood" Flesh, to be "existing in a new and specially provided manner," i.e., I suppose, in the Sacrament; and Jewel only denies the fleshly presence of "Christ's Body.... under these forms or fantasies of bread and wine." therefore it seems necessarily to follow that the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ is CHRIST, and that, as the Declaration seems also to teach," Christ" is "therein given to all worthy Receivers," not formed in them, as Mr. F.'s language appears to teach.

K K

« PoprzedniaDalej »