Imágenes de páginas

Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one.'

"Mr. Bennett has, however, been apprised of the error into which his slight acquaintance with the subject has led him, and in his latest edition this reprehensible language is withdrawn and the following language substituted for it:- Who myself adore and teach the people to adore Christ present in the Sacrament, under the form of bread and wine, believing that under their veil is the sacred body and blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

"I have dealt with the question as to the expression 'under the form of bread and wine,' and have decided that it may be lawfully used. It remains to be considered whether to profess and teach the adoration of Christ present in the sacrament is unlawful.

"Such a doctrine is not at variance with the declaration of kneeling, which discountenances the worship of the elements and of the corporal presence of Christ.

"Nor is it repugnant to the 28th Article of Religion, as suggested by the promoter, for it contains no declaration against the adoration of the spiritual presence of Christ in the holy eucharist."

The case came twice before the Privy Council; the first time In the Privy by way of appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Court Council. of Arches directing the criminal articles to be reformed (x); the second time on appeal from the final sentence ().

On the first occasion the Privy Council held that the doctrine of the Real Presence is not contrary to the 29th Article of Religion. On the second occasion they confirmed Sir Robert Phillimore's decision in the Court of Arches, and acquitted Mr. Bennett. It was then holden by the Privy Council as follows:I. That the Church of England in her Articles, and Formularies, and Catechism holds and teaches affirmatively that in the Lord's Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are given to, taken and received by the faithful communicant. She implies therefore to that extent, a Presence of Christ in the ordinance to the soul of the worthy recipient. As to the mode of this Presence she affirms nothing except that the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and that "the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." Any other Presence than this-any Presence which is not a Presence to the soul of the faithful receiver-the Church does not by her (y) Ibid. p. 371.

(2) L. R. 4 P. C. p. 350.

[ocr errors]


Articles or Formularies affirm, or require her ministers to accept; and consequently the maintaining by a clergyman of a "real actual and objective" Presence of our Lord in the Sac rament of the Holy Communion "upon the altar under the form of Bread and Wine" was not, in the affirmance, a doetrine so contradictory or repugnant to the Articles or Formularies of the Church as to be properly made the ground of a criminal charge against him, and a clergyman cannot be condemned for maintaining that the change in 1662, "corporal" for the words "real and essential" in the declaration of kneeling, appended to the service of the Holy Communion, was an intentional substitution, implying that there may be a real or essential presence in contradistinction to a corporal presence, if he does not in terms allege a corporal presence of the natural Body of Christ in the Elements, or that the Body of Christ is present in a natural or corporal manner.

II. That the 31st Article of Religion, after laying down the proposition (which is adopted also in the Prayer of Consecration) that "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual," and that "there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone," proceeds on the strength of these propositions to say that "the Sacrifice of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. It is not lawful for a clergyman to contradict expressly or by inference either the proposition which forms the first part of the 31st Article, or any proposition plainly deducible from the doctrine as to propitiatory masses, which forms the second part of it, and is stated as a corollary to the first. Neither is it lawful for a clergyman to teach that the Sacrifice, or offering of Christ upon the Cross or the redemption, or propitiation, or satisfaction wrought by it, is or can be repeated in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper; nor that in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper 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 the punishment of sins. The word "sacrifice" has been applied to the Lord's Supper by divines of eminence not in the sense of a true propitiatory or atoning sacrifice, effectual as a satisfaction for sin, but of a rite which calls for remembrance and represents before God that one true Sacrifice.

III. That the doctrine that adoration is due to the consecr elements is contrary to law. The Church of Englan

bidden all acts of adoration to the Sacrani

that the consecrated elements. She ha
any act of adoration on the part of th
consecration of the elements, and to
ing prescribed by the rubric. T

"the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." In the 25th Article it is affirmed that "the Sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them." But in the absence of a charge of any outward act of adoration, Mr. Bennett's language was held not to be so plainly repugnant to these Articles as to warrant conviction in a penal proceeding. This last conclusion was stated to have been reached "not without doubt and division of opinions," and by the "majority of their lordships" only.

In "the statement published by authority," London, Decem- Statement on ber 9, 1841, which accompanied the foundation of the Anglican foundation of bishopric in Jerusalem, was this passage:-"Germans intended Anglican bishopric at for the charge of such congregations are to be ordained according Jerusalem. to the ritual of the English Church, and to sign the articles of that church, and in order that they may not be disqualified by the laws of Germany from officiating to German congregations, they are, before ordination, to exhibit to the bishop a certificate of their having subscribed, before some competent authority, the Confession of Augsburg."

The 10th article of this confession asserts the real presence in the plainest language:

"De Coena Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in cœna Domini."

Or according to the words in another edition :

"De Coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur vescentibus in cœna Domini; et improbant secus docentes."


What it is.

History of the ordinance.



THE sorrow for the consequences of sin which divines call attrition is distinct from the sorrow for the sin itself which they call contrition. This latter penitence naturally leads to confession, and thence or thereby to reconciliation with God, which reconciliation the Church pronounces by the sentence called absolution.

It would appear, however, that neither private confession nor private absolution was ordered in the early times of the Church

that penance was imposed after open and public confession before the offender was restored, generally by the bishop, to his former right to receive the eucharist (a).

Public penances (b), however, were gradually discontinued in medieval times, and the practice of private confession increased, till in 1215 Innocent III. promulgated the 21st Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran, by which "omnis utriusque sexus" were to confess their sins once a year at least to their parish priest. This order was enforced by provincial councils in England. The sacredness which the common law attached to such confessions will be presently considered.

At the Reformation the Church of England, without formally repealing the old canons on this subject or directly depreciating private confession, led by her ordinances to a discouragement of it as a general practice, recommending it only in particular


"It standeth with us," Hooker says, "in the Church of England, as touching public confession, thus: First, seeing day by day we in our Church begin our public prayers to Almighty God with public acknowledgement of our sins, in which confession every man prostrate as it were before his glorious Majesty, crieth guilty against himself, and the minister with one sentence pronounceth universally all clear, whose acknowledgement so made hath proceeded from a true penitent mind; what reason

(a) Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, tit. Confession of Sins. See form of Confession and Absolution of Prisoners under Sentence of Death,

prepared by the Irish Synod of 1711 in the Irish Prayer Book of 1723, vide supra, p. 467.

(b) This subject is treated of in Part IV., Chap. X., Sect. 3.

is there every man should not, under the general terms of con-
fession, represent to himself his own particulars whatsoever, and
adjoining thereunto that affection which a contrite spirit worketh,
embrace to as full effect the words of divine grace, as if the
same were severally and particularly uttered with addition of
prayers, imposition of hands, or all the ceremonies and solemni-
ties that might be used for the strengthening of men's affiance
in God's peculiar mercy towards them? Such complements are
helps to support our weakness, and not causes that serve to pro-
cure or produce his gifts. If with us there be truth in the
inward parts, as David speaketh, the difference of general and
particular forms in confession and absolution is not so material,
that any man's safety or ghostly good should depend upon it.
"And for private confession and absolution it standeth thus
with us:-


"The minister's power to absolve is publickly taught and pro- Power of fessed, the Church not denied to have authority either for abridg- minister to ing or enlarging the use and exercise of that power, upon the people no such necessity imposed of opening their transgression unto men, as if remission of sins otherwise were impossible; neither any such opinion had of the thing itself, as though it were either unlawful or unprofitable, save only for these inconveniences which the world hath by experience observed in it heretofore. And in regard thereof, the Church of England hath hitherto thought it the safer way to refer men's hidden crimes unto God and themselves only; howbeit, not without special caution for the admonition of such as come to the holy Sacrament, and for the comfort of such as are ready to depart the world" (c).


Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was born in 1657, Archbishop and died in 1737, says, "The Church of England refuses no sort of confession, either public or private, which may be any way necessary to the quieting of men's consciences, or to the exercising of that power of binding and loosing, which our Saviour Christ has left to his church. We have our penitential canons for public offenders; we exhort men, if they have any the least doubt or scruple, nay sometimes though they have none, but especially before they receive the holy sacrament, to confess their sins. We propose to them the benefit not only of ghostly advice how to manage their repentance, but the great comfort of absolution too, as soon as they shall complete it. When we visit our sick, we never fail to exhort them to make a special confession of their sins to him that ministers to them; and when they have done it, the absolution is so full, that the Church of Rome itself could not desire to add anything to it" (d).

[blocks in formation]


of the Church of England, in Gib-
son's Preservative against Popery,
vol. iii. p. 31.

« AnteriorContinuar »