Obrazy na stronie

as being "so really," than in saying "..the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ,... ... But the wine is His Blood..."*

To pass on now to another of Mr. Goode's remarks: he says (p. 19):

".... in order to get rid of objections, a terminology is adopted which may enable Dr. Pusey to hold his doctrine, and at the same time deliver him from the necessity of meeting the difficulties attaching to it. Thus he says, 'In the Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ do not (as Mr. Goode often represents us as teaching) form one whole [i.e. with the bread and wine] except sacramentally. There is no physical union of the Body and Blood of Christ with the bread and wine.' (p. xvii.) But what is the meaning of the words except sacramentally? Dr. Pusey holds that the two are so united that they necessarily go together into the mouth of the communicant. Whether Dr. Pusey chooses to call this union sacramental, ....or anything else, is a matter of indifference. The fact of such a union is the question in dispute. And to give it an ambiguous or incomprehensible epithet, in order to make it unassailable, is useless, except to mislead the reader."

But Mr. Goode ought rather to complain of the Reformation writers, who, as he must know, used these very terms: I will just refer to those already quoted in these pages.

FOXE says that the third "conclusion" of P. Martyr's discussion at Oxford was, "The Body and Blood of Christ be united to bread and wine sacramentally."—p. 10.

DR. MADEW replied to Dr. Glyn,-" Forsooth He has but one very Body...; but the same is sacramentally in the Sacrament..."-p. 14.

CRANMER, explaining his uses of the word "Sacrament," says, I use to speak sometimes (as the old authors do). . . of His sacramental presence."-p. 20.

Since the above was in type I have met with the following corroborative passage in Harding v. Jewel:-"Likewise in the Sacrament of the holy communion, as the bread outwardly feedeth our bodies, so doth Christ's body inwardly and spiritually feed our souls. Thus is feeding an effect common unto them both. And therein standeth the resemblance and likeness of the Sacrament. Therefore Rabanus Maurus (lib. i. cap. xxxi.) saith: Quia panis corporis cor confirmat, ideo ille congruenter corpus Christi nominatur; et, quia vinum sanguinem operatur in carne. ideo illud refertur ad sanguinem: Because the bread confirmeth the heart of our body, therefore is the same conveniently called the body of Christ; and, because wine worketh blood in our flesh: therefore the wine hath relation unto the blood of Christ."-p. 793.

Again, answering Gardiner, his words are-"We say, that the Body of Christ. . . . is in the Sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receivers spiritually, without the proper form and quantity of His Body."—p. 23.

".... the bread is called Christ's Body after consecration, as S. Ambrose saith, and yet it is not so really but sacramentally."-p. 88.

"And I express St. Cyprian's mind truly, .... when I say, that the Divinity may be said to be poured, or put sacramentally into the bread; ."-p. 88.

[ocr errors]



Christ is

RIDLEY, replying to Weston, says—“ offered in many places at once sacramentally . . . .”—p. 56. To Smith he answers-“. . . . by the sacramental signification He is holden of all men."-p. 57.

To Ward he replies-"

He bade them take His Body sacramentally in material bread. . . .”—Ibid.

[ocr errors]

"I grant the bread to be converted . by sacramental converting. . . ."—Ibid.

To Glyn he says-". . . . the Body of Christ is present in the sacrament; but yet sacramentally . . . .”—p. 58.

To Tresham his words were- "Evil men do eat the very true and natural Body of Christ sacramentally, and no further, as St. Augustine saith. But good men do eat the very true Body, both sacramentally, and spiritually by grace."―p. 59.

Moreover both forms of the very Declaration on Kneeling, which I am considering in these pages, twice speak of the "sacramental bread and wine" not, as I think, without a designed reference to that change, and union with the Body and Blood of Christ, which Consecration effects; for, else, the word sacramental might well have been omitted without affecting the sense (seeing that no one ever advocated Adoration of the unconsecrated elements) and this, too, seems to be indicated in the expression "there bodily," i.e. materially "received," their "substances" still remaining: thus differing from the res sacramenti Which is incapable of being materially received.-(See p. 31 line 4.)

These authorities for the use of the words "sacramental"

and "sacramentally" ought to content Mr. Goode, and to convince him that "the fact of such a union" was admitted by the English Reformers however much it may be "the question in dispute" now.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

And when he demands from Dr. Pusey "the meaning" of these words, he seems to overlook that Dr. Pusey has so far explained them (p. xvii.) as to point out that "the character of the union is different" from that of the " two perfect Natures" in the "One Person" of "our Blessed Lord," and from "the two parts of one and the same nature . . . . in the one person of each of us;" though "the principle" of the union "is the same." Thus, in saying what it is not, he states what it is, viz. a union peculiar to the Sacrament, and therefore properly called Sacramental: Cranmer (See p. 256) in Scholastic language, defines it to mean "without the proper form or quantity of His body:" to insist upon more than these explanations seems to me to be persisting in a demand which can only be satisfied by denuding the Sacrament of that Mystery which its very name imports.

Mr. Goode proceeds to say (p. 20) that:



on the same ground, Dr. Pusey's work on the testimony of the Fathers, . . . . is noticed by the present Bishop of St. David's only as being one of those compilations which are bringing the name of a Catena into suspicion and disrepute, as equivalent to an organ of polemical delusion.' (Charge for 1857, p. 26.)"

Now it may be that the Bishop intended to include "Dr. Pusey's work on the testimony of the Fathers" in this condemnatory notice of the "compilations;" but certainly his Lordship does not say it is "one of" them, as I think will appear upon reading the whole passage which runs thus:

"I believe however that the so-called catholic teaching, understood as I have said, [i. e., (see Charge p. 25) in the sense attached to it by its opponents] is no less repugnant both to Scripture and to the whole stream of genuine primitive tradition, though, by means of compilations which are bringing the name of a catena into suspicion and disrepute, as equivalent to an engine of polemical delusion, it may be made to appear to have a great mass of patristic evidence in its favour."

It can hardly fail, I think, to strike anyone who reads this


passage that Mr. Goode's quotation of it could never have suggested that the Bishop points to a, not unimportant, distinction-viz., "Catholic teaching" as "understood" respectively "by its opponents" and by its advocates. But I will not dwell on this, as I cited the passage for a different purpose, viz., to ascertain whether Mr. Goode rightly quotes it as a designed condemnation of Dr. Pusey's "Notes" to his Sermon on the Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist." Now the only ground for so regarding it, is a Note, appended by the Bishop to the word "favour," which however Mr. Goode does not give; it is as follows:

“A very large part of the passages collected by Dr. Pusey, in his Notes on his Sermon, The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist' would be deprived of all, even seeming, relevancy and argumentative value, by the simple insertion of the word sacramental or sacramentally.”

The position thus revealed is at least a curious one: Mr. Goode, in no very gentle terms, reproaches Dr. Pusey for the use of "an ambiguous or incomprehensible epithet," which he says must "mislead the reader," and which makes his work "in an argumentative point of view,. . . . . . wholly useless:" the Bishop would have this very same "epithet" employed in order to measure the true value of passages in a book which Mr. Goode could only safely allege the Bishop to have condemned (so far as the Charge is concerned) by refering to this Note which seems to me inconveniently opposed to Mr. Goode's own protest against "sacramental” and "sacramentally."

But it must not be overlooked here-that Dr. Pusey has by anticipation done more than even the Bishop proposes: for he has given a long Note, extending from p. 264 to p. 314, the running title of which is "Illustrations used by the Fathers imply sacramental change only:" while at p. 307 he writes thus explicitly of " the Fathers:"

..... all their instances harmonize in this one point-a power above nature put forth in things of nature; and there is a real, sacramental change, whereby what was before a mere element of this world becomes sacramentally the Body and Blood of Christ."

In passing now from Mr. Goode's notice of the Bishop of

St. David's Charge I cannot forbear remarking-that, whatever his Lordship thinks of the views of the advocates of "Catholic teaching," his tolerant and charitable spirit contrasts strongly with the tone of Mr. Goode towards his opponents on this subject his Lordship referring to the prosecution of Archdeacon Denison, says (p. 25):

"After the closest attention which I could give to the subject, I... have been led to the conclusion that the dispute, though undoubtedly indicating a wide discrepancy of views and feelings, is in itself mainly a verbal one, which would either never have arisen, or have been easily settled, if there had been an earnest desire for mutual understanding, instead of a disposition to widen the breach."

And again (p. 26) :—

"Every man has a right, especially when he is on his trial, to explain his own opinions, and to require that they be judged according to his own interpretation of them, and not by the construction which may be put upon them by his adversaries. It may be that his explanation is perplexed and obscure; it may involve manifest absurdity and contradiction: it may resolve itself into mere nonsense. But these are things for which, as I conceive, the author is fairly amenable to the bar of literary criticism, not to a tribunal which inflicts penalties affecting civil rights. To sustain a charge of unsound doctrine, involving such penal consequences, nothing as it appears to me, ought to suffice, but the most direct unequivocal statements, asserting that which the Church denies, or denying that which she asserts."*

* I cannot but subjoin here an extract from Mr. Fisher (whom I have before quoted) as shewing also the thoughts of a candid mind upon this subject remarking upon the "guarded circumspection in the use of terms" as employed by Dr. Pusey and, more particularly, by the late Archdeacon Wilberforce, he says:

"Of the important bearing of this fact upon the case of the Archdeacon, had his case been actually brought before the Ecclesiastical Courts, those who are still familiar with the details of that of Mr. Gorham will not need to be reminded. It will be remembered, that one of the most effective arguments, employed by Mr. Gorham's Counsel, was an argument that addressed itself in an especial manner to those feelings of deference and respect, which mankind are ever disposed to entertain for the authority of time-honoured names. It was alleged, that opinions, which could not in any important particular be distinguished from those of Mr. Gorham,' had been propounded and maintained, without censure or reproach, by many eminent and illustrious prelates and divines who have adorned the Church, from the time when the Articles were first established. Now the question at once arises-might not this self-same argument have been used, and with equal effect, had the occasion required it, in behalf of Archdeacon Wilberforce ? We believe most assuredly that it might have been thus used; and, if so, what must in all fairness have been the issue of the proceedings brought against him? We are told of Jewel, Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, Pearson, Carlton, and

« PoprzedniaDalej »