[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SSA,—I am not an
Anglo-Catholic, but I think it scarcely honest of Mr. Fawkes to cite a passage from the Christian Year in support of a contention which the author expressly dis- avowed as soon as he realized the interpretation to which it lent itself.
However clumsy we may consider Keble's " explanation," there is no doubt that he was a sacramentalist of his own generation. And since his day myriads of men and women- " sober, peaceable and truly conscientious sons of the. Church- of England "—have followed him in holding a sane sacramen- talism—a Real Presence (as opposed to a real absence) in Communion. Bishop Barnes a few months ago appealed to his clergy to give up certain " illegal services " on the ground that these " involve the assumption that a priest has the power to give spiritual properties to matter." I am no theologian, . but I venture to think that there could hardly be a briefer-or
more comprehensive definition of a Sacrament than that it " gives spiritual properties to matter."
Of, course, this is not the Zwinglian definition. But the Church of England is not Zwinglian, nor are her formularies. Therefore the Bishops' artillery is directed no less against the " Sober, peaceable " folk aforesaid than against the extremest Romanizers.—I am, Sir, &c., X.
Previous page
