« PoprzedniaDalej »
he makes in commenting upon a statement of the late Archdeacon Wilberforce :
. . . . His main argument [i.e. in "his "Charge,' pp. 2858."] is this, that we are told that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,' and then afterwards it is stated, what the benefits are of which we become partakers by this reception; showing he contends that beyond the reception of certain benefits, there is, besides, the reception of a thing from which these benefits flow; and he reasons as if this proved, that the Body and Blood of Christ must be in the elements.
"But the conclusion does not follow from the premises. No doubt there is a reception by the soul of the Body of Christ. And the consequence of that reception is, the enjoyment of certain benefits by the soul, namely, (as described in the Catechism) its being strengthened and refreshed by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine. But this does not prove a reception of the Body and Blood of Christ by the mouth in conjunction with the elements. . .
"And the Catechism, so far from drawing this distinction between receiving the body of Christ and receiving the benefits derivable from it, remarkably connects (I had almost said, identifies) the two. For in two previous answers it makes the second part of a sacrament, and the inward thing signified by the outward element, to be, an 'inward and spiritual grace;' not the res sacramenti, but the virtus or gratia sacramenti." The Nature &c., p. 695.
Now, though not immaterial in itself, it is immaterial to me to discuss here the remarkable distinction drawn in the Catechism (and not in this place pointed out by Mr. Goode,) between the two Sacraments, by the additional third question as to the "benefits" of the "Sacrament of the Lord's supper." It is enough to observe that he regards the "benefits" of the Eucharist as "the consequence of" the soul's reception "of the Body of Christ:" it seems to me therefore, most probable that he similarly regards "the benefits" named in the Declaration; for, coupling the words just cited with his remarks as to the nature of the Presence quoted before. (See p. 384) I cannot fairly suppose him to maintain so improbable an intention on the part of the Framers of the Declaration as either, a precise identification of "those benefits" as "being" (in the language of Bishop
Wordsworth, see Note. p. 117) "the Sacramental Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour. Jesus Christ:" or an acknowledgment of an efect instead and to the exclusion of a couse: for, while the Bishop's explanation introduces a new Body such as Mr. Goode appears to disavow, it seems too unreasonable to suppose that they the Framers could have been so inexact in the wording of such an important public Theological statement as to lead us to contemplate primarily in the act of Kneeling at Reception the subsequent" benefits” of the Gift of "Christ" then and there bestowed upon “all worthy receivers "-Benefits which, however closely or remotely following upon the Gift, must be (analogically) considered as later than not coincident with that Gift.
Mr. Goode's second reference in support of his opinion as to "the whole object of the Declaration" is thus stated (the Italics are Mr. Goode's) :
“And a similar reason for such a posture (ie. Kneeling] is asigned in the seventh of the Canons of 1640, drawn up under the presidency of Archbishop Laud, where such a gesture in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist is said to be not upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in mystical elements, but only for the advancement of God's Majesty, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and no otherwise.""-Sup. p. 34.
But, first of all, it must be said that the Canon is not treating at all of that "Kneeling" at receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with which the Declaration deals: it refers entirely to another custom which had much fallen into disuse and was then sought to be revived: this will be best seen by an inspection of the entire final Clause of the Canon which runs thus (the Italics are mine) :—
"And lastly, Whereas the Church is the house of God, dedicated to his holy worship, and therefore ought to mind us, both of the greatness and goodness of his Divine Majesty, certain it is that the acknowledgment thereof, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in itself, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others. We therefore think it very meet and behoveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people, members of this Church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgment, by doing reverence
and obeysance, both at their coming in, and going out of the said Churches, Chancels or Chapels, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custom, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the Communion-Table, the East, or Church, or anything therein contained in so doing, or to perform the said gesture, in the celebration of the holy Eucharist, upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy Table, or in mystical Elements, but only for the advancement of God's Majesty, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and no otherwise; and in the practise or omission of this Rite, we desire that the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle, may be observed, which is, that they which use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and that they who use it not, condemn not those that use it."
Now it is clear, from the language of the Canon, that "the said gesture" recommended to be used" in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist" was precisely that "doing reverence and obeysance" which was counselled to be performed at "coming in and going out" of Church: what that gesture was may be pretty certainly inferred from the direction of the 52nd of Elizabeth's Injunctions of 1559 as to bowing at the Name of Jesus in Church; it is there ordered
"that due reverence be made of all persons young and old, with lowness of courtesie, and uncovering of heads of the menkind, as thereunto doth necessarily belong, and heretofore hath been accustomed."
I have no doubt that the traditional practice observed in some Cathedrals and Parish Churches, especially Country Churches, points to an identity of gesture between the Canon and the Injunction. But, as I have before intimated, this has no connexion with kneeling at receiving: that was expressly required by the Rubric of the Prayer Book in use
"Nothing more frequent in the writings of the ancient fathers than adoration towards the East, which drew the primitive Christians into some suspicion of being worshippers of the sun."-Heylyn's Cyprianus Anglicus, Introduction, p. 17. Quoted in " Hierurgia Anglicana.” p. 50.
+ For proofs that this " gesture was bowing and that it still prevailed in many places before the passing of the Canon in 1640, see " Hierurgia Anglicana” pp. 50-58.
both in Elizabeth's days and in Archbishop Laud's time; it was enforced by the, still unrepealed, 27th Canon of 1603 which ordered that "No Minister, when he celebrateth the Communion, shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of suspension:" and, moreover, the circumstance that the Canon of 1640 makes no pretension of dispensing with these then and now existing Laws yet allows a liberty of action with respect to the gesture it recommends seems to me an unanswerable argument that the gesture of the Canon and the gesture of the Declaration are not identical.
Yet if they were, all that can be argued from the Canon is, I think, that it is more explicit than the Declaration; inasmuch as it denies "a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the Holy Table, or in mystical Elements"; but it is equally implicit in not excluding a spiritual Presence Can anything be cited from Archbishop Laud, "under" whose "presidency" (as Mr. Goode says,) the Canon was made, to indicate the reverse of this? I think not. On the contrary, how he would have defended the direction of the Canon, may be pretty certainly inferred from what he said only three years before, and which I suppose no one will think him likely to have unsaid in 1640; his words (which I only met with some time after writing the above) are as follows:
"One thing sticks much in their stomachs, and they call it an innovation too; and that is, bowing, or doing reverence at our first coming into the Church, or at our nearer approaches to the Holy Table, or the Altar, (call it whether you will), in which they will needs have it that we worship the Holy Table, or God knows what.
"To this I answer, first, that God forbid we should worship any thing but God Himself. Secondly, that if to worship God when we enter into His house, or approach His altar, be an innovation, 'tis a very old one. For Moses did reverence at the very door of the Tabernacle. (Numb. xx. 6.) Hezekiah, and all that were present with him, when they had made an end of offering, bowed and worshipped. (2 Chron. xxix. 29.) David calls the people to it with a Venite, O come let us worship and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our maker, (Ps. xcv. 6): and in all these places (I pray mark it) 'tis bodily worship. Nor can they say this was Judaical worship,
and now not to be imitated. For long before Judaism began, Bethel, the House of God, was a place of reverence, (Gen. xxviii. 17); therefore, certainly of and to God. And after Judaical worship ended, Venite adoremus, as far upwards as there is any track of a Liturgy, was the Introitus of the priest all the Latin Church over. And in the daily Prayer of the Church of England this was retained at the Reformation: and that psalm in which is Venite adoremus, is commanded to begin the morning service of every day. And for ought I know, the priest may as well leave out the venite as the adoremus, the calling the people to their duty, as the duty itself, when they are come. Therefore, even according to the Servicebook of the Church of England, the priest and the people both are called upon for external and bodily reverence and worship of God. Therefore they which do it do not innovate . . . For my own part I take myself bound to worship with body, as well as in soul, whenever I come where God is worshipped.
"And you, my honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great solemnities you do your reverence, and to Almighty God I doubt not; but yet it is versus Altare, towards His altar, as the greatest place of God's residence upon Earth-I say the greatest, yea, greater than the pulpit; for there it is Hoc est Corpus Meum, this is my Body; but in the pulpit 'tis at most but Hoc est verbum Meum, this is My word. And a greater reverence, no doubt, is due to the Body than to the word of our Lord; and so, in relation, answerably to the Throne, where His Body is usually present, than to the seat where His word useth to be proclaimed. And God hold it there at His word; for, as too many men use the matter, 'tis Hoc est verbum Diaboli, this is the word of the devil, in too many places: witness sedition and the like to it; and this reverence ye do when ye enter the Chapel, and when you approach nearer to offer. And this is no innovation, for you are bound to it by your order, and that's not new. And idolatry it is not, to worship God towards His Holy Table: for if it had been idolatry, I presume Queen Elizabeth and King James would not have practised it, no, not in those solemnities. And being not idolatry, but true Divine worship, you will, I hope, give a poor priest leave to worship God as yourselves do: for if it be God's worship, I ought to do it as well as you; and if it be idolatry, you ought not to do it more than I. I say again, I hope a poor priest may worship God with as lowly a reverence as you do, since you are bound by your order and by your oath, according to a Constitution of Hen. V. (as appears In Libro Nigro Windasoriensi, p. 65), to give due honour and reverence Domino Deo et altari Ejus, in modum virorum Ecclesiasticorum; that is to the Lord your God, and to His Altar, (for there is a reverence due to that too, though such as comes far short of Divine worship); and this is the manner, as ecclesiastical persons both worship and do reverence . . . . . Now if you will turn this off, and say it was the superstition of that age so to do,