按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
that idea which does naturally arise from the mon acceptation of it；
may stick deeper； and feed superstition more than all those larger
explanations that are given to it can be able to cure。〃…Burnet on
Twenty…eighth Article。
45。 What does Henry Philpotts； Bishop of Exeter； in his letter to
Charles Butler； say？ 〃The Church of Rome holds that the body and blood
of Christ are present under the accidents of bread and wine； the Church
of England holds that their real presence is in the soul of the
municant at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper。
〃She holds that after the consecration of the bread and wine they are
changed； not in their nature； but in their use； that instead of
nourishing our bodies only； they now are instruments by which； when
worthily received； God gives to our souls the body and blood of Christ
to nourish and sustain them； that this is not a fictitious or imaginary
exhibition of our crucified Redeemer to us； but a real though spiritual
one； more real； indeed； because more effectual； than the carnal
exhibition and manducation of Him could be； for the flesh profiteth
nothing。〃
〃In the same manner； then； as oar Lord Himself said； ' I am the true
bread that came down from heaven' （not meaning thereby that he was a
lump of baked dough or manna； but the true means of sustaining the true
life of man； which is spiritual； not corporeal）； so in the sacrament to
the worthy receiver of the consecrated elements； though in their nature
mere bread and wine； are yet given truly； really； and effectively； the
crucified body and blood of Christ； that body and blood which are the
instruments of man's redemption； and upon which our spiritual life and
strength solely depend。 It is in this sense that the crucified Jesus is
present in the sacrament of His Supper； not in； nor with； the bread and
wine； nor under their accidents； but in the souls of municants； not
carnally； but effectually and faithfully； and therefore most
really。〃Philpotts' Letter to Butler； 8vo edit。 1825； pp。 235； 236。
46。 What did Archbishop Longley say in his last Charge； printed and
published after his death in 1868？
〃The doctrine of the real presence is； in one sense； the doctrine of
the Church of England。 She asserts that the body and blood of Christ
are 'verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's
Supper。' And she asserts equally that such presence； is not material or
corporal； but that Christ's body' is given； taken； and eaten in the
Supper； only after a heavenly and spiritual manner' （Art。 28。）。
Christ's presence is effectual for all those intents and purposes for
which His body was broken and His blood shed。 As to a presence
elsewhere than in the heart of a believer； the Church of England is
silent； and the words of Hooker therefore represent her views： ' The
real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be
sought in the sacrament； but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament。'〃
47。 What did the Judicial mittee of Privy Council declare in the
famous case of Shepherd V。 Bennet。
〃It is not lawful for a clergyman to teach that the sacrifice and
offering of Christ upon the cross； or the redemption； propitiation； or
satisfaction wrought by it； is or can be repeated in the ordinance of
the Lord's Supper； nor that in that ordinance there is or can be any
sacrifice or offering of Christ which is efficacious in the sense in
which Christ's death is efficacious； to procure the remission of guilt
or punishment of sins。〃
〃Any presence of Christ in the Holy munion； which is not a presence
to the soul of the faithful receiver； the Church of England does not by
her Articles and formularies affirm； or require her ministers to
accept。 This cannot be stated too plainly。〃
48。 What is the declaration which； under the 〃Act of Settlement；〃 and
by the law of 。England； every Sovereign of this country； at his or her
Coronation； must 〃make； subscribe； and audibly repeat〃！
It is the declaration； be it remembered； which was made； subscribed；
and repeated by Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria。
〃I； Victoria； do solemnly and sincerely； in the presence of God；
profess； testify； and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the
elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ； at or
after the consecration thereof； by any person whatsoever； and that the
invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint； and the
sacrifice of the mass； as they are now used in the Church of Rome； are
superstitious and idolatrous。 And I do solemnly； in the presence of
God； profess； testify； and declare； that I do make this declaration；
and every part thereof； in the plain and ordinary sense of the words
read unto me； as they are monly understood by English Protestants；
without any evasion； equivocation； or mental reservation； and without
any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any
other authority or person whatsoever； or without any hope of any such
dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever； or without
thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man； or absolved
of this declaration or any part thereof； although the Pope or any other
person or persons or power whatsoever shall dispense with or annul the
same； or declare that it was null and void from the beginning。〃
49。 After all； are these nice and deep questions about a real corporal
presence and a sacrifice in the Lord's Supper of any vital importance？
Do they really interfere with any leading truths of the gospel？ Are
they not all strifes about words which are of no consequence？ Are they
not all mere aesthetic squabbling about ornaments； on which tastes may
be allowed to differ？
The man who can say such things as this； exhibits most woeful ignorance
of Christian theology； as laid down in the New Testament； and has very
much to learn。 The harmless theory； as some people call it； of a real
corporal presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the bread and
wine； if pursued to its legitimate consequences； obscures every leading
doctrine of the gospel； and damages and interferes with the whole
system of Christ's truth。 Grant for a moment that the Lord's Supper is
a sacrifice； and not a sacrament…grant that every time the words of
consecration are used； the natural body and blood of Christ are present
on the munion table under the forms of bread and winegrant that
every one who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated
wine； does really eat and drink the body and blood of Christ…grant
for a moment these things； and the most momentous consequences result
from these premises。 You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ's
finished work when He died on the cross。 A sacrifice that needs to be
repeated is not a perfect and plete thing。 You spoil the priestly
office of Christ。 If there are priests that can offer an acceptable
sacrifice to God besides Him； the great High Priest is robbed of His
glory。You spoil the scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry。
You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and
man。 You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honour
and veneration they were never meant to receive； and produce an
idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians。Last； but not least；
you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ's human nature。 If the body
born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same
time； it is not a body like our own； and Jesus was not the second Adam
in the truth of our nature。 Our martyred Reformers saw and felt these
things even more clearly than we do； and； seeing and feeling them；
chose to die rather than admit the doctrine of the Real Presence。
50。 But may not these unhappy divisions about the； Lord's Supper be
healed and laid to rest by sanctioning a policy of general promise
ant toleration；？ Why should not Churchmen agree to allow every
clergyman to believe and teach just what he likes about the Lord's
Supper？ Why not proclaim by authority； that for peace' sake one
clergyman may call this ordinance a sacrament； and another clergyman in
the next parish may call it a sacrifice； one man may tell his people
that there is a real corporal presence of Christ on the Lord's Table；
and another tell his people that there is no such presence at all？ Why
not permit all this for the sake of peace？ Why not sacrifice all
distinct doctrine in order to avoid controversy？
The answer is plain and obvious。 This 〃policy of promise and
toleration〃 would bring no peace at all； but would rather increase；
emphasize； crystallize； and solidify our unhappy divisions。 It would be
regarded by the laity of the middle and lower classes as a deliberate
attempt to bring back the Romish Mass； and ge