ANGLICAN AND ROMAN EUCHARISTIC TEACHING.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE ETECTAT0R1
am sorry to have moved your correspondent " D.'s " wrath by a plain and brief statement of the chief difference between Anglican and Roman Eucharistic, or rather sacrificial teaching, which consists in this,—that Rome sees exclusively iu "the pure offering of the Gentiles " a renewal of the finished sacrifice of Calvary, while we, as English Churchmen, recognise not only the memorial of the past, which is admitted on all hands, but the carrying-on of the present work of propitiation (boundless generosity delighting the heart of the Almighty Father), by our High priest after the order of Melchizedek, who brings forth bread and wine in the midst of his brethren, and who abides the Lamb in the midst of the throne. There is no literal offering or presentation of flesh and blood now, either in heaven or on earth. The blood offering is finished and for ever. There is none in "the pure, unbloody offering," as all the Fathers and ancient liturgies call it. Nay, there is no such element as blood in a glorified or heavenly body, for flesh and blood cannot enter or inherit heaven. Our Lord rose from the dead in the same body, but in that body glorified, though that glory was not made apparent at the first. This is why Transubstantiation is meaningless, save in the sense that the consecrated elements shroud our Lord, and convey him to us as life and purity by his body and hisblood. But the offering is himself, his righteous soul, touched with the feeling of all our infirmities. The heavenly body of our Lord is most real, but not natural ; it is impassible, incapa- ble of pain. Our Lord's soul feels all our sorrows as his own, and is grieved by all our sins. He comes amongst us in holy communion, not only to feed us, but to receive our homage as the Lamb that was slain ; and we all, laymen as well as priests, as partakers of " the royal priesthood," are privileged to pre- sent our Lord to God the Father, by his finished. work of satis- faction and his living work of propitiation, for " he ie the pro- pitiation for the sins of the whole world." This I said, and say, Rome practically ignores. She knows not the mediator or the advocate in her present teaching or popular worship. And here I speak with rather more authority than "D.," first, because I have lived much longer, in all probability, than he has done, in Roman Catholic countries—three years in Vienna and thirteen in Paris —and know modern Romanism tolerably well, its strong points and its weak ; secondly, because, as a priest, I am probably somewhat better read both in Latin and Anglican theology than " D." My object was no- wise to attack, but only to defend, and show there was no reasonable ground for persecuting English Ritualists because, as a body, they were not Romanisers. I admitted that Bossuet had grasped the truth of the living propitiation in Heaven and in Heaven's kingdom ; so might " D." have done as a Roman Catholic. And yet, in actual Roman theology, Our Lord is always regarded. as the present Judge, or as the Child, . and never as the Mediator.—I am, Sir, &c.,
The Vicarage, Bhayader, February 8th. ARCHER GUILNIIY.
[We cannot say that we grasp Mr. Gurney's meaning. In any case, this kind of technical controversy is not very appro- priate to these columns, and must end here,—En, Spectator.]
Previous page
