Obrazy na stronie

He does that conformity to the Prescriptions or Usages of His Church, which is so real an evidence of the humble and obedient will.

This device of the Puritans' to adopt any other posture than that of Kneeling, in order to shew "the old superstition" which they considered Kneeling to involve, implies a then continued adherence to that "superstition," i.e., to that Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, which Mr. Goode denies the Church of England to have allowed at that time, or to permit now. This bears upon a statement of his (Supp. p. 32) when commenting upon Dr. Pusey's remark that those words of Art. 28-"the Sacrament was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped'. ... By no honest interpretation can be extended to a worship, not of the Sacrament, but of Christ present there;" for Mr. Goode says:

[ocr errors]

"Now, if Christ is present in an adorable form inside the bread, so that the two form (call the union sacramental, or what you will) one whole, that one whole is a legitimate object of worship, just as Jesus Christ was a proper object of worship. We ought to bow down to that which lies upon the Communion table as the sacrament, because, according to Dr. Pusey, Christ forms a part of it. . . . .

[ocr errors]

It is certain, however, that two at least of the Reformers, who ought to have weight with Mr. Goode, would disagree with him here, for they make just the distinction which he ignores. First, Dr. Redman in 1551 (See p. 29) says"That nothing which is seen in the Sacrament, or perceived with any outward sense, is to be worshipped," i.e., with the honour due to God-words which surely imply that What is not thus cognizable by the Senses is to be so worshipped: next, Bishop Ridley in 1555 (See p. 58), when arguing against Glyn the Romanist, used these memorable words"We adore and worship Christ in the Eucharist. And if you mean the external Sacrament; I say, that also is to be worshipped as a Sacrament." Perhaps Mr. Goode might say that this was a distinction well enough to be made by a Theologian like Ridley, but that it is incapable of being

appreciated by the popular mind. This, however, was just one of those very questions involving popular acts on which the Bishop would be especially careful not to propound an unpractical theory. Are the mass of people, however, so inclined to a practical Eutychianism as Mr. Goode's argument seems to imply? I think not: though, no doubt, the Apostle's words are not inapplicable in this case too— "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made perfect." (1 Cor. xi. 19.) For, if we come to consider it, people do I suppose almost universally, by a sort of natural or religious instinct which recognizes co-existence, separate in their own minds what, to the moral or physical sense, appears to be a commingling. It is so, surely, when men look upon, honour, or dishonour their fellow men; they do mentally separate soul and body, no matter whether it be done consciously or unconsciously. The like was the case with those who, having learned the truth of Christ's Nature, worshipped the God-Man when He was upon Earth-is their condition who, being similarly informed, worship Him now that He sits upon His Heavenly Throne: they did and we do-even the young or the uneducated, no less than the old or the wise-with no great difficulty distinguish between His "unity of Person" and any "confusion of substance." A kindred habit clings to us in viewing a solid body heated to incandesence, or in touching one whose temperature is not visible. Precisely so, it seems to me, is the separation we mentally make between the Res Sacramenti which Faith alone perceives, and the Sacramentum which Sight beholds; though at the same time we no less vividly recognize their Sacramental Union.

It may be that Mr. Goode's proposition, which has led to these remarks, was not unconnected in his mind with an assertion he, elsewhere, makes in the following passage:

"Of the two, I must confess that I had rather have to defend the Romish doctrine than that of Dr Pusey and Archdeacon Denison; for when we read the words, 'This is my Body,' it seems a necessary conclusion that they must mean one of these two things,—either, This is a figure of-represents-my Body,' or, 'This is really and

substantially my Body.' But if the doctrine of Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison is the true one, they must be equivalent to saying, This is bread and my Body together.' Now certainly a compound of two essentially different things cannot be truly or properly described by a name that belongs only to one of them."Work on the Eucharist, p.58.

To this last sentence it is that I refer as apparently raising a difficulty about Sacramental Union, which seems to me to be met at the outset by two of perhaps the best remembered and most commonly quoted texts of Holy Scripture: thus (Gen. ii. 7) we read "man became a living soul;" and again (Ezekiel xviii. 4)" Behold, all souls are mine." It needs no argument surely to prove that in both these places "a compound" man consisting of two essentially different things "soul and body-is both "truly" and "properly described by a name "-soul-" that belongs only to one of them." So then, if He who "formed man of the dust of the ground," when He had "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" called him by a name which no one supposes to have implied any change of his earthly substance into the Divine Afflatus, though the two formed "one whole" (to use Mr. Goode's term): why may not Bread, the product of a like Divinely formed earthy matter, when the Life-giving Breath of the Heavenly Spirit has been invoked upon it, be also called by a name which, though none (not even the Latin Communion) apply it to that material substance, does belong to Him who decreed the Consecrating Benediction "till He come" personally and visibly again? Certain it is that "when" the Minister delivereth THE BREAD to anyone, he shall say, THE BODY of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life;" and certain also it is that "The Body of Christ is given . . . . in the Supper [though] only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Art. xxviii.)—language, which in its plain grammatical sense will, I think, seem to most (as in truth the very objections to it indicate) to imply an intention of recognizing a union which involves the Presence both of the Bread and of the Body of Christ; as Archbishop Cranmer


said (See p. 20), "When I use to speak sometimes (as the old authors do) that Christ is in the Sacraments, I mean the same as they did understand the matter; that is to say, not of Christ's carnal presence in the outward Sacrament, but sometimes of His Sacramental Presence."

It will have been observed, probably, that in the paragraph embodying the sentence just discussed, Mr. Goode thinks one necessarily alternative meaning of "This is my Body" must be" This is a figure of-represents-my Body." But, as the object of all controversies on this subject should be to promote "a godly union and concord," it will be well to enquire whether such a meaning, if rightly understood, is not uniform rather than alternative. What, then, does Mr. Goode understand by his alternative? His meaning appears to be very plainly set forth only eight pages after the above sentence; for he says (p. 66, the Italics are his):

[ocr errors]

Now there is but one way in which bread can be the body of Christ, and that is by representation. It is the body of Christ as a picture is the person whom it represents. There is absolutely no other way of interpreting the words without doing violence to them. There is nothing in the whole account which involves more than a change of character and use."

One obvious answer to this statement is—that it contradicts the Homily which says "that in the Supper of the Lord there is.... no untrue figure of a thing absent;" for this "a picture is [of] the person whom it represents :"

In reference to this point it may be useful to give the following passages from a Letter written by Bucer to P. Martyr, dated Cambridge, June 20, 1549.Bucer is replying to a Letter from P. Martyr at Oxford, June 15, 1549, in which the latter endeavours to reconcile with Bucer's opinions the arguments he had used in his Disputation at Oxford (See pp. 9-13); he thus answers P. Martyr : "I confess that, if you had thought good to consult with me on the framing of your Propositions [See p. 10], I should have entreated you to have expressed the second in these, or in similar words:-2. The Body of Christ is not contained locally in the Bread and Wine, neither is it affixed or adjoined to those things by any manner of this world. And to have added at the end of your third:-3.... so that, to them, that believe, Christ is here truly exhibited; to be seen, however, received, enjoyed, by faith, not by any sense or manner of this world..... The reason why I should have preferred your second Proposition expressed in the words which I have judged [more appropriate.-Ed.], or, in similar terms, rather than in words which deny the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament (or rather in the Eucharist, so that the celebration [actio.-Ed.] and the Sacred assembly, rather than the symbols only, would have been

[ocr errors]

it may be never so speaking a likeness, but no one dreams that it does more than quicken the recollection or the imagination of the absent person. Is this, however, all that the Sacrament of the Altar does? Did our Lord design it to do

expressed), and also that something should have been added to your third, concerning the Exhibition of Christ, are these:

"We ought always to endeavour with the greatest diligence, to edify in the faith and love of Christ whomsoever we can, and to offend no one, since the necessary obedience of Christ does not require that; and for this reason, in order that we should not only think but also speak the same things, especially concerning Mysteries of Christ so great and so generally prized; we should, moreover, take care not to give any occasion to the evil-disposed for criminating, much less of persecuting, the Church of God. Now, among those who can be edified in Christ by the present Disputation, I think there are positively none of those with whom I have ever had any communication on this point (-and I have investigated the Sentiments of very many persons, both in their writings and by personal converse, during that entire septennary in which, rolling as it were the stone of Sisyphus, I have striven for the concord of the Churches as regards this matter-) who imagine an impanation of Christ, or his local connexion with the symbols of this world.-But some, like your Antagonists, contended, that Christ is here exhibited, not in Bread and Wine, but in their accidents, and that, as long as those accidents remain; yet they denied that He is here contained locally.-Or they held, that undoubtedly nothing more is here exhibited than Bread and Wine, as signs of Christ altogether absent, by which we ought to make only a remembrance of Him, and to advance in the faith of Him: however, some hold, that, by this remembrance, their minds are lifted up into heaven, so that there they enjoy Christ.-Or they were of opinion that, in this Sacrament, Christ exhibits himself whole, God and Man; and hence, for the purpose of preserving this their faith, and also of declaring that they do not agree with those who here introduce naked and empty symbols, they like to make use of these forms of speech, and to say, that the Body of Christ is here exhibited Corporally, because His Body is exhibited; Substantially, because His Substance; Carnally, because His flesh.-And there were a very few who chose to use these words after that first fervour of the contention which arose in the early struggle of this Disputation. And those who chose to use these words contended, that at least the right of using those forms of speech ought to be left to them: nevertheless those persons always plainly affirmed that here they thought nothing about a descent from heaven, nothing about a local inclusion: and as to that which they maintained about the eating by the wicked, that also subsisted in collation. *— A good number were of opinion, that the presence of Christ was exhibited to them, in the Sacrament, simply, for their salvation, if they received that [presence.-Ed.] with faith; and altogether withdrew their mind from [any speculation as to.-Ed.] the manner in which He is present.

"I have found these and no other opinions, about the presence of the Lord in the Sacred Supper, among those with whom I have ever conferred on this matter(I have conferred, however, certainly with very many) among whom, some introduced more, some less, of a carnal contention; nevertheless I have decidedly found not one person who insisted either on a local presence of Christ, or on a connexion with the symbols after any fashion of this world. It is for us, however, if we wish to edify and in nothing to offend, to labour with the utmost diligence, that we may lead them into consent, as to the truth of Christ, both

"It not being clear to the Editor what was the precise meaning which convey by this word-collatione'-it has been left in its Latin idiom. intended to signify a mere 'bringing together' of the elements and of the any beneficial effect."

Bucer intended to Probably it was receiver, without

« PoprzedniaDalej »