Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Now when Mr. Goode assigns his reasons for saying, "These remarks are perfectly true," he makes a statement which is certainly not the counterpart of Woodhead's argument; that writer considers "the reason" of the Declaration to be fatal to the "real and essential" no less than to the corporal and natural" Presence; and that, too, whether the Presence is held to be to the Receiver, or in the Elements: Mr. Goode seems to ignore the distinction between these two sorts of Presence, viz., the real and the corporal, by saying what, in fact, the Declaration more accurately expresses-viz., that there is not "any real bodily Presence of our Saviour at all in the Eucharist;" consistently enough, therefore, he contends that the restored Declaration “precludes...... from holding any bodily Presence." But he is here fighting with a phantom; for the writers whom he is opposing have nowhere set up the notion of such a Presence; on the contrary, they distinctly put forward the teaching of the Declaration: so that, unless Mr. Goode means by "any bodily Presence" something really different from "any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood," his argument is useless, and may only mislead.

It is clear, however, from his other language, that Mr. Goode's objection travels beyond some real or supposed doctrine of "any bodily Presence," and runs up into, what he calls, the doctrine "that the presence is by priestly consecration IN THE ELEMENTS, and to be adored as in the elements:" by the expression "the Presence " I presume Mr. Goode does not mean that "bodily Presence" of which he had just been speaking, but such other Presence as the Church of England believes: here, however, I am not concerned to discuss the abstract questions of Consecration, or of the nature and mode of the Presence; though, indeed, they have been noticed already in different parts of these pages, so far as was necessary for the elucidation of points in the historical survey which they take; it is only needful, therefore, to enquire-whether the terms of the Declaration exclude "the doctrine" here stated by Mr. Goode to "be

.....

decidedly opposed, . . . . . by those who held the highest doctrine of the Real Presence ever maintained in our Reformed Church?" And I think it may be somewhat confidently answered that, having regard to the evidence which I have already offered, the statements of those who were responsible for the introduction and re-introduction of the Declaration, prove that no such exclusion was contemplated.* In saying this I do not mean to imply that their contemporaries, of whom Mr. Goode speaks, are to be wholly disregarded; but that any statements of theirs which are, or seem to be, opposed to those authorities I have cited, must not be allowed to outweigh them. But as Mr. Goode invokes Woodhead's admissions in support of his own opinion as to the teaching of the writers he mentions, it is desirable to consider what that author states in proof of their holding that "the Real bodily Presence was," as Mr. Goode says, "a Presence to the receiver, but not to the elements."

In referring to the first of his two Publications + which Mr. Goode cites (See p. 359), it is important to notice at the outset that Woodhead seems to have been ignorant or unmindful of one important circumstance as to the Declaration; and this may therefore have coloured his views of its meaning, and of the language of its authors and maintainers: speaking of the change in the form of delivering the Sacrament, he says (p. 2) that it was made by "the Composers of the

• Even Woodhead (p. 4), to whom Mr. Goode here refers, says that the authors of the present Declaration "either leave this undetermined, whether there be not another Presence of Christ's Flesh and Blood as real and true as is the Corporeal, to which an adoration is at this time due: or else do determine, as seems concludable from their present Proposition [viz., that the natural Body of Christ is not there] that there is not any such real Presence of the Body at all, and so no adoration due in any such respect."

The following extract seems to explain a Typographical peculiarity in these two Publications, viz., the frequent insertion of passages in square brackets, apparently by some one else than Woodhead himself; and also removes the doubt, which has been sometimes entertained, whether the author was Abraham Woodhead or Obadiah Walker:-" In October following [i.e., 1686] Mr. Walker obtained a License from his Majesty [James II.] to print certain books lying by him, because he knew they would not pass through the Licenser's hands, and in Jan. following that, he published, Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist,' etc., penned by his quondam tutor, Abraham Woodhead."-Wood, Ath. Oxon, vol. iv., p. 440, London, 1820.

[ocr errors]

A A A

Second [Prayer Book of Edward VIth.] ..... suitable to their Declaration, which denies any real or essential presence of this Body [of Christ] in the Eucharist:" Whereas the fact is that the Declaration was subsequent to the completion, and even printing of many copies, of the Book: the proof of this has already been given, so that there is no need to relate it here: I need scarcely add that a perusal of Woodhead's book plainly shews him to have been uninformed of those other important matters in the history of the Declaration which are now for the first time, I believe, published. It is well to notice, too, that Woodhead does not here accurately represent the teaching of the Original Declaration; it condemned the notion of "any reall and essencial presence .... of Chryste's natural Fleshe and Bloude:" this does not necessarily mean the same thing as "real or essential Presence of [Christ's] Body," though Woodhead may have designed to interchange the language.

I pass over some other difficulties which Woodhead (p. 2) raises as to the omission of the Invocation and the Manual Acts, in the Second Book of Edward VIth.; merely drawing attention to what has been already stated (See pp. 34 and 35) in proof that those who were responsible for the Revision of 1552 did not intend it to teach a different Eucharistic Doctrine from that which the First Book set forth; and of which Bishop Gardiner could say (See p. 26) that "touching the truth of the very Presence of Christ's most precious Body and Blood in the Sacrament, there was as much spoken in that book as might be desired."

Now Woodhead discusses Three Subjects:

"1. That here [i.e., in the Declaration] the present Clergy do profess expressly, that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not in the Blessed Sacrament."—p. 4.

With reference to this he says:-
:-

[ocr errors]

"....the learned Protestant writers seem to me, at least in their most usual expressions, to have heretofore delivered the contrary; viz., That the very substance of Christ's Body, that His natural Body, that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin, and crucified on the cross, etc., is present, as in heaven, so here in this

Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy Receiver; or to the Symbols."-p. 5.

But this is certainly not the same thing as saying (in Mr. Goode's words)-that they only held "a Presence to the Receiver, but not to the Elements."

In proof, Woodhead cites Calvin on 1 Cor. xi. 21; Instit. 4, 1. 17, c. 11 §; ib. §§. 16 and 19: "Beza, and others of the same sect, related by Hospinian, hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251": Hooker, Eccl. Pol., 5, 1. 67, §: Bp. Andrews, Resp. ad. Apol. Bell., 1 c., p. 11; ib., 8 c., p. 194: "Is. Causabon's Letter written by the King's command to Card. Perron," §. 11, n. 2: Bp. Hall, De pace Ecclesiastica, §. 12: Bp. Montague, Appeal, pp. 289 and 779: Abp. Laud, Conf. with Fisher, §. 35, n. 3 and 6: "Bp. Taylor, one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject, 1. §., 11 n., p. 18, and §. 12: Bp. Forbes, de Eucharistia, 2. 1., 2 c., 9 §., and 3. l., 1 c., 10 §.: the Archbishop of Spalato, de

And

Though I am unwilling to multiply quotations, it seems desirable here to give the passage cited from Bp. Taylor:-" It is enquired whether, when we say we believe Christ's body to be really in the Sacrament, we mean that body, that flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer I know of none else that He had, or hath; there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified: but he that saith that body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner; and so it is in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood of Christ: but though it is the same we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner. therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny, that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, to be eaten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as St. Hierom, as Clemens Alexandrinus expressly affirm; the meaning is easy, they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense: and then calling [it] Corpus spirituale, the word spirituale is not a substantial predication, but is an affirmation of the manner; tho in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition, and the opposite member of a Distinction. That Body which was crucified is not the Body that is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that Body which was crucified, the same Body do we eat, if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating; and this I noted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is certain and easy. And thus far is the sense of our doctrine in this Article."-p. 9.

"Again, §. 12, p. 288:- They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us, let them be Anathema. But quo modo is the question,' etc."- Conf., Bp. Heber's Ed., 1839, vol. x., p. 73.

The reference here is to "Bp. Ridley's Answer to Curtop's first argument in his Disputation at Oxford, Fox, Martyrol, p. 1451, vet. Edit."-See Bp. Heber's Edit., 1839, vol. ix., p. 431. (See p. 59.)

Rep. Eccl.., 7.1., 11 c., 7 §.: and Mr. Thorndyke, Epilogue to the Tragedy, 3.1., 3 c.; Ib., 2. c.; 3. 1. 23 c.; 3. l., 5. c.; and 3. 1., 30 c.

Of these twelve writers ten speak as distinctly as possible, in the passages quoted,* of the Real Presence being in or under the Elements, or in the Sacrament: Hooker, the eleventh referred to, in the place cited, represents the controversy as being "whether, when the Sacrament is administered, Christ be whole within man only, or else His Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves:" while Bishop Hall, the twelfth writer quoted, observes that the difference between the Calvinists and Lutherans is not as to the Thing present, but as to the manner of Its Presence.

While, however, this disposes, I think, of Mr. Goode's conclusions from Woodhead's reference to these writers so far; it is of equal importance to notice that they none of them maintain a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body; and therefore I cannot see that Woodhead has proved his allegation that they have "delivered the contrary" of the protest in the Declaration against "any Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood" in the Eucharist for even granting to the full, for argument's sake, that they all allowed (as he says) " the very substance of Christ's Body" to be "present," it cannot be maintained, I think, that they accounted It present " as in heaven, so here in this Holy Sacrament;" if by so is meant in such manner : indeed, it appears to me, that Woodhead really reconciles his own alleged difference between the Writers and the Declaration, when he says, in commenting upon Bishop Taylor's language, now by exclusion of the natural manner is not meant (surely) the exclusion of nature, or of the thing itself, (for, then, to say a thing is there, after a natural manner, were as much as to say, the thing is not there :) but the exclusion of

[ocr errors]

I am not here concerned to enquire whether the passages are accurately quoted (though the accuracy of the citation from Bp. Taylor favours the supposition of their fidelity) because, like Mr. Goode, I have only to deal with them as quoted.

« PoprzedniaDalej »