CORRESPONDENCE.

CANON GORE UPON THE EUCHARIST.

[To TIM EDITOR OF TRH "SPICITATOR.1

Sin,—Canon Gore tells us in his preface that this book* is in part the result of an attempt to clear up his own thoughts on Eucharistic subjects, in view of the Round Table Conference to which he was summoned by the late Bishop of London. In consequence, it has the advantage over a more formal treatise, that it does not labour points of less importance, but devotes itself to the great underlying principles, and in particular to an examination of certain points of difficulty, about which Churches or parties have differed. Mr. Gore's theological writing has always had two characteristics, which almost amount to distinctions, that we are never in doubt as to his meaning, whether we agree with it or not, and that he never puts us off at a crisis in an argument with a text or a

• The Body of Christ: an Inquiry into the institution and Doctrine of Holy Communion. By Charles Gore. London, Murray. [5s.)

piens phrase, when what is looked for is defence or -a .4:1eAnition. Definition is, indeed, a strong point with Mr.

Gore. Occasionally he seems to share the scholastic faculty of seeing distinctions which have nothing cor- responding to them in real experience,—for example, in the distinction he draws in the following sentence : "By eating Christ's flesh is meant, receiving into ourselves and appropriating by faith what we can only describe as the spiritual principle of His manhood; and by drinking His blood' receiving and absorbing His human but Gcd-united life." What possible difference can there be between the " manhood " and the " life" ? The distinction between the " flesh " and "blood" was inevitable in the mouth of the Founder of the Sacrament, because. in no other way could the great truth that life came through His death and sacrifice be so simply implied. But to give a separate value to each element in what is a single whole seems to me what Mr. Gore in another place calls "over-pressure" of Christ's words. I quite agree with Mr. Gore in his disapproval of the Roman refusal of the cup to the laity in view of our Lord's institution of communion in two kinds ; but I should hesitate to say. that to refuse the wine was to refuse "the life" of Christ. The distinction, referred to in the "Prayer of Hunible Access," between the cleansing of our bodies by the Body, and the washing of our souls by the Blood, is a more obviously rhetorical distinction; but the other distinction is no less really rhetorical. I mean that unless the terms " flesh " and "blood" together are a scientific equivalent for "life," which they plainly are not, it is impossible to assign a definite theological equivalent to each of them. The general idea of both together or either separately is certainly, as Mr. Gore says, " life " or "manhood," and with that even a theologian must be content.

I should be sorry if an instance or two of this sort of over-refinement should blind the thinking but untheological layman to the sterling merits of this little book. I cannot, of course, ask you in these columns to allow me to discuss Mr. Gore's treatise in detail. It is addressed, not to the world in general, but to Churchmen, and rests upon two presuppositions which are assumed, the first being that in a Sacrament a spiritual gift is conveyed through a material means, and the second that the spiritual gift conveyed in this Sacrament is "the communication to believers, by the Spirit, of the life of the Christ, divine and human, or, as we may call it, the spiritual principle and virtue of His manhood." Although these presuppositions are neces- sarily assumed, the writer devotes a good many pages to their elucidation; and it is not unlikely that his statement of them may have some influence in modifying opinion. There is, for example, in regard to the latter, an interesting passage on the Englishman's preference for theories of " faith " over theories of "grace," due to a national lack of imagination uncorrected by theological training. Of this I happen to recollect an almost amusing instance in the reviews that appeared in the daily newspapers on the Report of the Round Table Conference. The reviewers were amazed and disturbed, not at the differences among the members of the Conference, but at their unanimous agreement upon doctrines which to the reviewers had plainly never presented themselves at all. In regard to the former presupposition, there is a parallel worth reflecting upon between the material and spiritual in a Sacrament, and the relation of the individual both to his material body and to society.

Without, then, reviewing this book in the ordinary way, I shall make a few extracts from it upon points which have been recently in the public eye, in order that the intelligent but untheological laity should know what exactly are the views held upon these points by one who speaks with authority for his own party in the Church,—a party upon which it is at present the effort of a small but noisy and not very scrupulous body of people to fix the odious charge of unfaithfulness to the tenets of their own Communion. But, first, I will quote an interesting passage in which the writer makes as clear as possible what he conceives to be the gift given in Holy Communion,—a passage which it is fair• to quote for the additional reason that it shows Mr. Gore on his guard against unmeaning distinctions:—

"It may be said—What does this eating the flesh of Christ and drinking kits blood mean that is not meant also by being baptised 'into Christ' and being 'His members 1P YOU WOni.cl admit that this eating does not mean a consuming of any material atoms or elements of .Christ's body; it means absorbing the spiritual forces of His humanity: but this is what is also meant by membership of Christ. Do we not, therefore, in the true sense eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood also in baptism P It is one and the same spiritual process which is described as being made a member of Christ or being baptised into Christ, and also as eating His flesh and drinking His blood: it is one and the same process which is described as being regenerated by the Spirit in baptism and as receiving Him in confirmation. And the process is a vital thing which cannot be wholly sundered into parts, and in which we cannot draw

sharp lines What we can say is that the fellowship in the ever-continuous supply of the new life is, for the needs of our nature, given to us in stages and by degrees of growing intensity and power; and that each stage of the communication is identified with a separate sacrament which is thus positively characterised only in a certain way."

In regard to what is usually spoken of as the " real " and "objective" presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which Mr. Gore defends from the Fathers, insisting at the same time that what is "objective" can only exist to a "subject.," which in this case is "faith," there is an important caveat against the notion of a local presence :— "I do not think it can be denied that these Fathers would have shrunk from any formulated teaching of Christ made present on the altar under the forms of bread and wine.' They would rather say 'The bread and wine are types of spiritual realities really present. As surely as you see the consecration of the elements by the human priest with your outward eyes, so surely with the eye of faith you are to see the divine Christ present amid the worshipping angels, Himself the consecrating priest as Himself the sacrifice,– present to feed you with the spiritual food of His body and blood in the earthly food of bread and wine."

This idea of a non-local presence is further illustrated by a comparison of modern Roman teaching that Christ comes" at the moment of consecration, with the absence from the old liturgies of any worship of Him as specially made present on the altar, the primitive and Catholic idea being that Christ was already present "when two or three were gathered together," and in the Eucharist as priest no less than as sacrifice. In pursuance of this idea, Mr. Gore has no word but of blame for the Roman practice of reserving the Sacra- ment for the purpose of worshipping it :— " It is God's intention that we should be spiritually lifted up to realise that Christ's presence with us now is a presence in the church, as the life of the body, not amongst Christians as in an outward shrine; and that nearness to Him, or remote- nes. from Him, is a matter of faith and holiness, and not of place."

Another idea, inherent in the notion of a Sacrament, insisted upon by Mr. Gore, is that it exists for a certain divinely defined purpose; consequently, he asks, as this Sacrament was instituted for the purpose of communion, how have Christians a right to feel secure of the divine presence, when it is put to an entirely new purpose ? The same argument is used in deprecation of non-communicating attendance; and many of our readers will be glad to find so zealous a champion of the High Church party as Mr. Gore finding himself at one with the Reformers in their determination "to turn the Mass into a Communion,"—a phrase in which some of the rank-and- file of the party are sometimes bold enough to say they can find no meaning :—

"It needs to be observed that when Chrysostom and other ancient writers are speaking of persons being present at the whole eucharistic service without communicating, they do not speak of their 'taking part in the sacrifice,' but of their 'taking part in the prayers.' It may be much better for churchmen to take part in the prayers than to be absent altogether; but we can never allow ourselves to use language which implies that those who do not communicate can really take part in the sacri- fice, or that non.communicating attendance' is the normal Christian act, without giving currency to a view of sacrifice-

which is less than Christian It cannot be said too strongly that any practice which divorces eucharistic worship and sacrifice from communion, or which rests content at the high service' with the communion of the priest alone, really represents a seriously defective theology."

With these quotations I must leave Mr. Gore's book; but I trust one effect of it will he to allay anxiety among moderate men, who are naturally apt to suppose that the charges so loudly made against the High Church party of disloyalty to English Church' teaching are as true as they are loud. Until the English Church Union expels Mr. Gore, I shall prefer to take its theological views from him, rather than from Mr. Kensit or Mr. Fillingham.—I am, Sir, Sze., -