« PreviousContinue »
tion to the Baptismal service. Is every child changed in its substance or elements when it is dipped in the water? The water is neither changed, nor is the substance of the child, nor can we discover how this form can indicate any such conclusion. Nor is it reasonable to think that Tractarians would rest upon it, if their history were more accurate, for Wheatley expressly says, that “the taking of the bread and the cup into the hands has, indeed, since been restored—viz., first to the Scotch Liturgy, and then to our own, even at the request of the Presbyterians, at the last review."'* Yet Mr. Macmullen asserts that these directions were expunged by the Sacramentarian party, and “the restoration” “was vehemently opposed from the same quarter.” This is therefore rather inaccurate, to say the least; but inaccuracy is no longer a singular feature in that party, as we shall see in our further progress.
The argument which next meets us, is one upon the importance of the words with which the sacrament was given to the recipient in Edward's first book. We do not deny or lessen their importance; but we would remind our readers that the words which we now have, are not simply those of the first, nor, indeed, those of the second book, but the two combined in one; each part limiting and explaining the other : and that neither contradicts the other is manifest from the Act of Uniformity, which says that the alterations were made from curiosity rather than any worthy cause.t
The words which were used in Edward's first book were, indeed, in the opinion of Bucer, objectionable ; but we know not on what grounds, unless because they were liable to be misunderstood; but we are sure that none of our readers will see in them any fear, or receive from them any idea of a change in the elements. Nothing is more simple and comfortable than our present form. The latter clause, which alone was used in Edward's second book, would seem to bring the reality of Christ's passion nearer to the believer, and also individualises by the words, “Christ died for thee," “ Christ's blood was shed for thee." If the wording of the first clause had been different—that is, if, instead of the first words, “which was given for thee,” we had, “which is given for thee,” there might have been some colour for Mr. Macmullen's argument, or, rather, assertion. And let us remember that our Church does not say, “ Take the body,” or “Drink the blood ;” but “Take and eat this." “Drink this.” If, however, our author's inference were worth anything, it would only show this : that our Reformers in Elizabeth's reign had combined the ultra-sacramental theory and the sacramentarian. But it is not so: and that they did not alter the rest of the service, is a plain proof that they were well contented with it as it was. In fact, the decision in favour of Edward's second book to the neglect of the first, indicates their sentiments quite as plainly as any written declaration of their opinions. We believe that there is no Sacramentarian who now objects to any part of the words ; but upon
* Wheatley, p. 293.
+ Wheatley, p. 26. Ed. 1839. Mr. Macmullen also uses this very argument to suit his purpose in another point, p. 13.
Tractarian theories, without doubt, all the latter clause must be useless; for the first clause expresses all their doctrine upon the subject, and the only use of such words can be to detract from the mysteriousness of the first. But we have promised our readers another instance of perverted history. Our author writes thus : “ We know that, at a time when the unhappy influence of the Continental Reformers prevailed to the signal deterioration of our Church, the words which now only form the conclusion of the address of delivery of the element to the communicants, stood alone. But when God put it into the hearts of our fore. fathers to seek a return to the old ways they had forsaken, those who were engaged in the restoration of our liturgical offices recovered, in spite of the most determined opposition, those words; which evince the mind of the Church of England to be, in the words of her Catechism, her instruction for the babes in Christ; that it is in and through the consecrated elements of bread and wine ; that not any mere gracious influence, &c., -- but that 'the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper, which is said to be the inward and spiritual grace of the sacrament itself.'” Now, we will first say a word upon the history. We have our author's opinions trongly expressed, that Continental influence signally deteriorated our Church. Let us grant this for argument sake, and what is the consequence? Our Church still remains signally deteriorated by that influence; for we have now, actually, Bucer's service. Let us quote Wheatley, who honestly expresses his dislike of Bucer's corrections : “ But, however the second book of Edward VI. was pitched upon as the book to be proposed to the Parliament to be established, who accordingly passed and commanded it to be used, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany aliered and corrected, and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise."'*
Can this be what our author means by God putting it into the hearts of our forefathers to return to old ways? Wheatley clearly shows, that we have Bucer's service süll, and therefore Mr. Newman was more candid when he confessed, in his preface to No. 90, that he was working in chains and felt his bondage And Mr. Macmullen, also, with one moment's reflection, will feel that his forefathers have not returned into the old ways, after which he piaes. If he believes, and we have every reason to credit his own words, that the Continental Reformers signally deteriorated our Church, he will know that we still remain in the same signally deteriorated state. If he thinks with the Coryphæus of the party, that our formularies are ambiguous and speak with stammering lips, he will be honest enough to attribute it to the influence of Continental Reformers, which still lives in our service. And we may well ask Mr. Macmullen one question: Was it natural that our Reformers, who had so lately been afforded a safe refuge from the fire and the sword of Papal Rome with these very Reformers, should all at once be less friendly to their preservers than before? Is it reasonable to conceive that intercourse so familiar should lessen Continental influence ? Our author knows well the contrary; and if he knows it not, we would recommend him to read the Zurich Letters, and there he will discern that their influence was not lessened. Mr. Macmullen may rest assured that he will not escape his difficulties by these means. He knows that our Reformers altered the Consecration Prayer. He knows that they did confine the Prayer for the Church militant, simply to the militant Church. He knows that they have put the Prayer of Oblation in a position in which it cannot be made to apply to elements, because they have been already consumed; and again, because the Oblation is expressly said to be a “ sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” He also knows that Bishop Overall was so dissatisfied with the omission of the prayer invoking the Spirit, that he changed our service and violated rubrical order. All this Mr. Macmullen knows. He knows in what points we differ from the Ancient Liturgies, and yet, knowing that Bucer's recommendations have in no important point been cancelled, we find him writing as if all that Cranmer and Bucer had done, had been undone by Parker and Grindall, by Pilkington and Sandys. He writes as if the fires of Smithfield and Oxford had burned truth into our Reformers; and as though Mary's mercies had enticed us to Romanism. But history is a stubborn thing. The Old Almanack Chronicles against Popery and her fasti, remain against Tractarian misapplication. It is, indeed, a matter of regret that Mr. Macmullen has not studied it more closely, for he might have seen our Church's truth in her trials; and without boasting, because Continental Influence had been removed, he might have seen that our Reformers knew themselves to be “ brothers in Christ" with all that loved the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth. We leave Mr. Macmullen in a dilemma. On p. 9, he argues against unhappy Continental influence signally deteriorating our Church; but on pp. 13, 14, argues that the doctrine of the first book is not counteracted by the second. We allow that the one explains the other, but it is the last which explains the first; and we may thank our Reformers that they did so change our service, as to put beyond any doubt, those very points which might have been by astute logic wrested to give a colour to Romanist pretences.
* Wheatley, p. 27.
And now for the doctrine of the passage. Mr. Macmullen asserts, that the words of the minister to the recipient show that in and through the elements he receives the body and blood. The words certainly indicate no such near connexion as this, but, as we have shown, point back to the cross. There is no single thing which points to such a conclusion, which we shall see by a reference to the Catechism; and we remind our readers that our author only quotes a part. Surely, if it was his object to prove that our Church maintains a change in the elements, he should have quoted the catechismal words in reference to the elements : “ Bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to be received.” And it carefully specifies that the body and blood are the thing signified by the sign-i. e., the element. And then, in answer to the question, “ What are the benefits whereof we are par
takers thereby?” “The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by The bread and wine.” How we receive the benefits, Hooker distinguishes when he says—“ Whereas Popish doctrine doth hold that priests BY WORDS OF CONSECRATION make the real, my whole discourse is to show, that God by the sacrament maketh the mysTICAL body of Christ.”* Such are Hooker's words; and what can condemn the Exercise more strongly? And so also Cosin : “ The element is so qualified that, being received, it becomes the communion of the body and blood of Christ, which it could not be without the preceding prayers.” Surely not; for before prayer it in no degree differs from common bread and wine. And so Bishop Cosin from first to last shows that there is no material, no substantial change but only in the use, and therefore no change in the elements, which is Romanism, disguise it as men will. It assigns to the priest, power which God has not given him. It creates a mystery where there is none. It works an impossibility, it accomplishes a contradiction; and all this as a mere scholastic distinction, as our author is compelled to allow in the end of his Exercise. Therefore, when our author quotes the Twenty-eighth Article, he will fail in his aim ; for his inference is, that because the body of Christ is said to be given and received,
it must be in the element. Now, mark the futility of this argument: - for, in the first place, it assumes that neither God can give or man receive anything, except by a visible substance and in a visible substance. Is it not possible that God should give us His Body (i. e., as all our writers say)—the effects of His Passion, without passing it within ourselves in the element ? Surely, it is possible; and as we have no evidence that it is in the element, but have convincing proof that it is without the element, we deny the influence. The eating is “heavenly and spiritual,” and that is said by the Homily as well as Article; though, by collocation and transposition, Mr. Macmullen would fain make it otherwise. Had the reference to the Article been continued, our author would have read, that “ the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten is faith.” It is not the tongue, but the hand of faith; not the body, but the soul; not the element, but the Spirit of the Most High God. Mysterious, indeed, it is, why God condescends to dwell in us; but his love unravels the thread of the mysteries. Mysterious, indeed, is the sacrament; for God Himself in an especial manner visits us in it: but we have no authority for placing that mystery in the element; and, with Bishop Cosin, we place the mystery in the presence of the Spirit of God. We know that he dwells in us, not in the elements. We receive out of His fullness and grace for grace; but, though we do not explain it, we can realise it; and we know that he dwells in our purified and renewed heart. The wicked, therefore, receive Him not, for they have not the mean, which is faith ; and this is the only mean.
How, then, can we call elements “ High” and “Holy Mysteries ?” Our
Church does it not, nor does our Church call the elements Christ's body and blood, though they might be called such by a common figure, which is to call the sign and thing signified by one appellation. We therefore deny that they are really changed, and we ask Mr. Macmullen in what part of our Church services they are called the body and blood of Christ, as he asserts on p. 11 ? We, on the contrary, use our author's own words against his opponents, and we say that he is making “ unauthorised and unhallowed efforts to emancipate” himself “from the obedience, and to elude the claims of faith," and that of his own mother Church. Twice in this Exercise is it asserted, that our Church interprets with Catholic antiquity the 6th of St. John, in reference to the Eucharist. Now, surely, Jeremy Taylor and Waterland, and hosts of English divines, may be esteemed as authorities against this gratuitous assertion. Nay, even Rome herself will supply many a denier of it. *But if our author would be more sparing in such assumptions, he would render himself less liable to those severe rebukes which such acts seem to merit. There are too many who read Waterland's irrefutable treatise to allow such sweeping declarations to pass current amongst theologians, even if a perusal did not demonstrate the utter impossibility of any such an interpretation as our author desires. Bat, in reference to liturgical authority, he acts in a similar manner; but this will not avail his argument. The liturgies cannot by Mr. Macmullen be made older than Mr. Palmer has shown, and if they were old, our Church does not recognise them as authoritative. Where, then, is the argument? We have entered upon every semblance of an argument in favour of a change in the elements which was derived from our Liturgy and Articles; and we can leave our readers to judge, whether “ The English Churchman" is very accurate when it says, “ If any person wishes to see the point satisfactorily proved, that the English Church does teach the doctrine of a change in the elements at consecration, he will find it here done in a most clear and convincing way.”
We must be brief in our notice of Mr. Macmullen's testimonies from the Fathers. No one should despise any help in interpretation; but are the Fathers to be introduced to overlay the truth ? for this is clearly Mr. Macmullen's plan. We answer him by Bishop Sparrow, in a book edited by J. H. N., Oriel College, and that very lately : “ You (i. e., the people,) may find and know these necessary truths by the public doctrine of our own Church, delivered in her Liturgy and Articles of religion, by the unanimous consent of all your spiritual guides. Acquaint yourselves thoroughly with that public doctrine, and adhere to that; and if your own teacher teach otherwise, believe him not.”+ This is Anglican doctrine. The Fathers have been examined critically, and have been blamed for inaccuracy by great men in our Church; and with regard to ancient Fathers, even thus we receive them-not as
* We refer to the January Number, Christian's Monthly, in which some few of numberless proofs are adduced.
† P. 367, Rationale of Common Prayer. Ed. 1839.