Obrazy na stronie

will be found in pp. 167, 464, 467, 475,* 483, 490-3, 500-4, 520, 548, 551, 601, 620, 708, 711-18, 733, 760, 765, 781, 785, 797, 798. In common, however, with the extracts here given, it will be found that they alike mainly aim at destroying the notion of a physical, carnal Presence; as if that were the point continually prominent in Jewel's mind and the one which he felt he must ever present to his adversary; though it must be owned that he did not always avoid, at least seeming, inconsistencies which blunted its sharpness, or, at least apparent, exaggerations which weakened its force; and though, like other anti-Roman writers of that period, he not only at times deals with his opponent as though he thought it impossible for him to employ a fair or sound argument; but also often himself uses language which seems barely, if at all, capable of, what the advocates of the Real Presence, would consider a Catholic meaning. But, I repeat, it is essential to a fair judgment of his words (as also in the case of Cranmer and other writers of the same period already quoted) to bear constantly in mind—that he was ever aiming at the destruction of that belief in a natural Presence, which had become so popular, and which was extremely likely to be sustained by any concession, however small, to the current phraseology of its advocates. It is, therefore, both fair and necessary, whenever possible, so to interpret what may be called his lower and laxer Doctrinal statements as to make them harmonize with his stricter and higher ones; while it would be an error, and unfair to Jewel himself, to interpret his statements by the opposite method, unless we determined wholly to ignore his repeated professions of submission to the teaching of the Catholic Church during the first six centuries. Perhaps Mr. Goode, like other writers on his side of the controversy, is not wholly free from this erroneous mode of dealing with Jewel and his sixteenth century contemporaries.

"That we verily and undoubtedly receive Christ's body in the Sacrament, it is neither denied, nor in question."-This is the sentence quoted by Bishop Guest [I.] 8. (See p. 199).

In noticing Mr. Goode's "Supplement" my purpose was not to make any general answer to it, but only to consider his observations upon Bishop Guest's Letters: it seems to me, however, not out of place here to advert to some other passages which bear upon the subject of this Letter; this relevancy must be my excuse for noticing Mr. Goode's criticisms upon the statements and arguments of those for whom it would, else, be a presumption in me to attempt any reply: though, indeed, Mr. Goode himself invites it; for in no less than seven places within the short compass of twenty-four pages (23 to 47) does he "leave" points, which (as in fact his own notice of them proves) are far from unimportant, to "the reader to choose " between, or "to be disposed of" by him, or "to pass judgment" upon, or "to make his own comments " on, and the like.

First of all I must notice a strange oversight on the part of Mr. Goode; he complains (p. 18) of Dr. Pusey having written thus :

"Mr. Goode frequently excepts against the belief in the oral reception of the Holy Eucharist. Isidore, embodying in his own statement the words of St. Augustine, states it as explicitly as words could express it: that in honour of so great a Sacrament the Lord's Body should enter the mouth of a Christian before any other food.' ([Real Presence] p. xxv.)"

[blocks in formation]


"in this passage there is a double attempt to mislead the reader; [1] for according to the sense in which the terms Holy Eucharist' and the Lord's body' are used by Dr. Pusey's opponents, I have, of course, never excepted against the belief in the oral reception of the former; [2] and Isidore states nothing of the kind imputed to him by Dr. Pusey."

But surely Mr. Goode need not fear that any reader of ordinary discernment could be misled by Dr. Pusey's words: the passage itself plainly shews that he there used the term "the Lord's Body" as equivalent to "the Holy Eucharist;" and that it was in "the sense" of Its being "the Lord's Body" that he spoke of Mr. Goode's exception to "the belief in the oral reception" of It: the whole context of the passage makes this still clearer.

To prove the second [2] part of the "attempt to mislead" Mr. Goode says (p. 19) :—

"As to the extract from Isidore, if the context had been given, there could not have been quoted, as I have already shown, a passage more clearly showing the error of Dr. Pusey in affixing the meaning he does to the words he has cited; for Isidore immediately afterwards says:-'Bread, inasmuch as it strengthens the body, is therefore called the Body of Christ; but wine, inasmuch as it produces blood in the flesh, is therefore referred (or, likened) to the blood of Christ."

The Italics are Mr. Goode's.

Now will it be believed that Dr. Pusey had actually given this very "context" and that it is only separated by two lines from the passage ("Mr. Goode frequently," etc.) of which Mr. Goode complains? The two lines are these, they follow the words "the blood of Christ," and Mr. Goode would have done well to quote them in order to assist his readers in understanding his "context" from S. Isidore:

"These, then, as being visible, yet sanctified by the Holy Ghost, pass into the Sacrament of the Divine Body."—(Real Presence, p. xxv.)

It is, however, very unfortunate that while Mr. Goode calls the passage he has cited from Dr. Pusey "an apt specimen of the unfairness of the mode of argumentation usually adopted by Dr. Pusey and his party" and blames Dr. Pusey for not quoting a context which he had quoted—(or perhaps, to be accurate enough for Mr. Goode, I ought to say-for not re-quoting a context which could only have benefitted the Printer)—it is, I say, unfortunate that Mr. Goode himself should have been guilty of a more serious omission than the one he deprecates: he tells us that "Isidore immediately afterwards" he had used the words. "the Lord's Body should enter the mouth of a Christian before any other food," says, "Bread inasmuch,'" etc.

Now, really, when Mr. Goode alleges that it is "the unfairness of.... Dr. Pusey and his party, which renders it impossible for any one, perusing their works alone, to have an

"See my Work on the Eucharist, p. 242, where other testimonies will be found of the sense in which such terms were used by the Fathers."

idea of the nature of the points in dispute" (p. 19), he ought not to have made it incumbent upon his own readers to refer to Dr. Pusey's own extract from S. Isidore in order to ascertain whether he (Mr. Goode) has used the word "immediately" in an exact, or in a loose "sense." Yet what does. the reference reveal? Why that S. Isidore interposes the following most important words between the two passages which I put in brackets to shew the connexion of the whole paragraph-passages which Mr. Goode says follow "immediately" upon each other :—

"[For this took place then, as a mystery. I mean, that the disciples at first did not receive the Body and Blood of the Lord fasting. But now by the whole Church it is received fasting. For so it pleased the Holy Ghost through the Apostles, 'that in honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord's Body should enter the mouth of a Christian before any other food,] and therefore is that custom kept throughout the whole world." For the Bread which we break, is the Body of Christ, Who said, 'I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven.' But the wine is His Blood, and this it is, which is written, I am the true vine;' but [bread, because it strengthens the body, is therefore called the Body of Christ: but the wine, because it produces blood in the flesh, is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ]."-(Real Presence, p. xxv.)

I would, then, beg Mr. Goode carefully to consider whether the passage beginning, "and therefore," etc., and ending "true vine;' but" (which, indeed, he has also omitted in his "Work on the Eucharist, p. 242," to which he refers us— See p. 252) does not tell much more against him than the, alleged, omitted "context" makes for him, even though one could allow that he has so printed that context as to furnish the true index to its meaning?

But has he thus truly indicated the purpose of S. Isidore? I speak only with the diffidence which becomes me when I say that Mr. Goode appears to me to have entirely missed the intention of that writer in the latter part of the paragraph.

For, first of all, his way of quoting it is calculated to mislead; he prints it (See p. 252) as though the word "Bread" began the sentence, instead of occurring, as it does, nearly in the middle of it: next, his italicizing of the sentence is quite partial, for he omits thus to treat the words "referred to the

Blood of Christ :" thirdly, he appears not to perceive, what seems to me observable, that S. Isidore is only explaining why "bread," and not "wine," is "called the Body of Christ;' why" wine," and not "bread," is "referred to the Blood of Christ;" it matters nothing whether his theory of the relative nutritious properties of bread and wine would be sanctioned or not by modern Chemists and Physiologists; his purpose was simply to furnish, what seemed to him to be, the reason for the Sacramental bread being termed "the Body" "of Christ" which God graciously gives for "the strengthening;" and the wine being termed "the Blood" "of Christ" which is mercifully afforded for "the refreshing of our souls."

There is yet a fourth way in which Mr. Goode seems to me to have misrepresented (however unintentionally) S. Isidore's meaning: whether he has merely quoted Dr. Pusey's translation or not I cannot say; however, they coincide verbatim, except Mr. Goode's Italics: but then Mr. Goode has thought it right to insert the words "(or, likened)," See p. 252, by way of explaining S. Isidore's expression "referred:" but surely to make "likened" the equivalent of "referred," though it may seem to serve Mr. Goode's argument by making “referred" the synonym of " called," wholly perverts S. Isidore's purpose, which, as I think, was only to shew that the "bread" and the "wine" were each 66 REFERRED" respectively and only to the "Body" and "Blood" of Christ, on the grounds which S. Isidore mentions: I cannot doubt that we were meant to explain (if indeed explanation be needed) "called" by "referred," and are not to interpret "referred" by "likened ;" and this, as it appears to me, removes all pretence for saying that S. Isidore (among the other Fathers whom Mr. Goode names) in giving "us reasons why the bread in the Eucharist is called Christ's Body, and the wine His Blood," shews that he "did not consider them so really, but only representatively." (The Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, p. 241.) On the contrary, it seems well nigh impossible for him to have spoken of them in stronger terms,

"Refertur ": Mr. Goode gives the original of this "context" in his "work on the Eucharist, p. 242."

« PoprzedniaDalej »