THE BENNETT CASE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1
SIR,--Will you grant me space for one remark, suggested by your very sensible article on " The Bennett Case Panicmongers " ?
All communication of divine grace, and every mode of God's presence, must be mysterious in relation to human faculties. But mysteriousness is not, I apprehend, the ground of any orthodox Protestant's objection to the alleged scripturalness of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
The plain literal sense of Scripture distinguishes between, and separates, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, one element (the Bread) being a veil and channel for the Body, the other (the Wine) for the Blood. If, therefore, the Protestant figurative interpretation is excluded, the words of institution spoken by our Lord, and repeated by St. Paul, do not affirm the Catholic doctrine—viz., that an entire Christ is given and received under each outward symbol—but a doctrine which no Church holds, viz., that Christ is divided, his Body being imparted ender the appearances of Bread, his Blood under the appearances of Wine.—I am, Sir, &c., JOHN BARTON, Curate of Sevenoaks.
[The question is not what the sense of Scripture is, but what limits are permissible, in assigning interpretations to Scripture on these difficult subjects.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
