ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. IMPORTANCE of the subject. Ritualism not confined to the accessories of public worship. Doctrine involved. Change of phraseology respecting the Holy Sacrament foreign to our Reformed notions. Ritualistic opinions. Mr. Mackonochie's address. Bishop of Salisbury. Address to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Witnesses before the Ritual Commission. Gist of the question. Whether the presence of Christ is to be sought for in the consecrated elements, or in the heart of the faithful receiver. Objective and subjective presence. Presence localised in the elements contrary to Article XXIX. Mr. Keble's explanation. Unsatisfactory. Opinion of our Reformers on the point at issue. Mr. Mackonochie's doctrine identical with Bishop Gardiner's. "Under the form of bread and wine." Extracts from the Homilies with reference to these words. Bishop of Exeter's testimony. Article XXVIII., "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten," &c. 1. If pressed literally, allow a corporal presence. This contrary to the history of the Article 2. Do they allow the real objective spiritual presence? Mr. Taylor's explanation possibly the right one. But whole tenor of the Liturgy and Articles contradicts the notion. The alterations in successive Liturgies as affecting the question. Rubric in the Communion Service for the Sick against impanation. Bishop Guest's opinions contradictory: therefore not to be relied upon as conclusive. But is there a difference between England and Rome on the subject? "The Kiss of Peace.' Bold avowal of identity of doctrine. Opponents of objective presence taunted with a refusal to accept Scripture literally. Unfair. Literal interpretation not always applicable. Dr. Pusey's opinion. Question of sacrifice. Mr. Mackonochie's address. Extracts from devotional writings of the Ritualists. Eucharistic sacrifice and localised ob jective presence in the elements hang together. Former cannot stand without the latter. Homilies do not uphold the doctrine of sacrifice. Hooker's testimony. How evaded. Doctrine of sacrifice carefully eliminated from the revised Liturgy. Judgment in Liddell v. Westerton. Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist. In what sense true. Ritualistic sense different. Extracts from writings. Contrary to the Rubric at the end of the Communion Service. Lukewarmness a betrayal of the Faith. Charity necessary, and prayer that God would guide His people into all Truth. THE DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH STATEMENTS RECENTLY PUT FORTH RESPECTING THAT HOLY SACRAMENT. THE importance of the subject placed at the head of this paper cannot be over-rated. It seems to me that those who oppose ritualism merely as a form of service too elaborate, ornate, or gorgeous, who speak of it as though it only referred to the peculiar shape of a garment or the posture of the ministering clergyman, make a great mistake. Such errors might be condoned for the undoubted zeal, energy, and working power of many of the ritualistic party. But it is otherwise when, as we now see, these outward things are valued only as symbols of doctrine. It is impossible to read the writings of the more thoughtful members of that party without coming to the conclusion that with them it is no mere question of millinery-it is a struggle for doctrine-it is a hand-to-hand fight for what the one side deems truth, the other side deems error. Sad indeed it is that even around the sacred symbols of the Redeemer's Passion such strife should rage. Would that it were otherwise! Would that the pure faith of the reformed Church of England itself were not jeopardied by the assaults made against it. Would that the weapons of defence might be laid up to rust in the armoury, while the soldiers of Christ, without fear of attack, might gather round their Lord's table to the strengthening of their faith and the refreshment of their souls by the spiritual participation of the body and blood of Christ, without the jarring thought of controversy and false doctrine! But it cannot be so. Error on this point is of no trifling importance. It touches the faith in a vital part. It has ere now been resisted even unto death. God grant that the necessity may never again arise! And yet the prayer may surely ascend to the throne of grace, that in this sad doctrinal struggle nothing may be said on either side against the law of charity, for self-glory or for victory, but that an earnest humble search for truth in dependence upon the promised help of God's good Spirit, may if it please Him help to make us all of one heart and one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, "so that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God." The writer of this Essay can honestly say that it is in such a spirit that he has entered upon the task which he has undertaken. Now it is a fact which would not be disputed by any, that within the last few years a certain phraseology has become not uncommon amongst members of the Church of England respecting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which a short time ago would have been well nigh universally repudiated. Such phraseology is pregnant with meaning. It indicates a new phase of feeling respecting this Sacrament. It implies that doctrines which our forefathers at any rate connected solely with the Romish Church are now held by many of those who rank themselves within the pale of the English Church. Nor do words in this matter stand alone. Ritual is the language of dogma, and a new phraseology and a newly introduced ritual go hand-in-hand. The fact indeed that in certain quarters attempts are being made to elevate the general tone of doctrine respecting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not disavowed. Of course those who maintain that the doctrine of the English Church on this subject had fallen below the standard of truth, are right by every available method to attempt to advance their own views respecting it. Those, on the other hand, who think that grievous error is now being openly proclaimed by the more advanced portion of the ritualistic party on this subject, may surely be excused for protesting loudly against the importation of a phraseology foreign to our reformed notions, inculcating errors from which, at the time of the Reformation, our Church was purged. It may be that the language of our formularies may admit of being construed so as to cover very widely different views on the subject of the Eucharist. Upon that I give no opinion, nor indeed is it a subject to be discussed in the present Essay. It belongs to the tribunals proper for the adjudication of such questions. But my firm belief is that the views of moderate Churchmen respecting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper are more in accordance with the general spirit and tenor of our Liturgy and Articles than the opinions which have been recently broached in our Church. I believe that such opinions loudly and pertinaciously set forth are doing our Church grievous harm in the minds of the people. They at any rate associate them with Romish doctrines, they hear statements of the most opposite character asserted as truths by members of the same Church, and they are led to ask somewhat impatiently, "If our spiritual guides thus differ, how are we the uninitiated to know what is true and what is false, what the Church really teaches and what she really repudiates?" That our English Church has ever allowed a certain latitude of opinion within her pale is undeniable. But at the same time a stand must be made somewhere: "Sunt certi denique fines Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum." What then are the opinions which are now agitating our Church? I have no wish to misrepresent those who hold them, or to impute to any that which they would disown, and shall therefore give them in their own words. Mr. Mackonochie, of St. Alban's, in an address issued to his parishioners, thus writes: "Still we feel that a gorgeously conducted service ought to mean something. It does mean something-it means that the Holy Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's body and blood- the body and blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine.' As I have always tried to teach you plainly, without concealing anything which I believe that the Church of England, as part of the one true Catholic Church, bids me teach, I have only here to repeat what I * It seems almost certain now that the question will come before our ecclesiastical law courts, and be finally decided. In the Court of Queen's Bench a rule has been made absolute for a mandamus to the Bishop of London, directing him to hear and determine a complaint against the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of Frome, for the publication of alleged heretical and unsound doctrine within the diocese of London, in his book entitled A Plea for Toleration,' and his essay in a volume entitled 'The Church and the World,' edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, headed "Some results of the Tractarian movement of 1833." The Bishop of London in consequence has issued a Commission for the trying of the case. |