« AnteriorContinuar »
an absolute failure. How many of those who to-day rejoice over the restoration of the city to Christian ownership realize just what did happen when in one of the Crusades Christian armies did for a time regain the city? So far from advancing the Church's cause and fulfilling the Christian hope, the setting up of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem under Godfrey de Bouillon was attended by the high-handed papal act of establishing a Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem where already was a Patriarch of the Eastern Church, with the result of consummating the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches which endures to-day to the scandal of Catholic unity. Kingdom and Patriarchate both collapsed because of the false principle underlying each. What is liable to happen to-day is analogous. What shall be the status of Jerusalem ecclesiastically? Shall it be British, with an Anglican Bishop? But it belongs to the Eastern Church and by rights should have a native Bishop and be an independent see. Will the Pope allow the prestige of the see to be lost to his own obedience? Impossible, from the ultramontance standpoint. We have even seen the suggestion that the Pope, might remove from Rome, where he is the self-interned "prisoner of the Vatican," to the city which is the cradle of Christianity. Shall the city be made the common rallying-ground of Jew, Protestant, and Catholic? What a sacrilege! A score of similar problems present themselves, all capable of raising fresh controversies and animosities in the religious world. The simple solution, the reversion to its old status of a patriarchal see of the Eastern Church is the least likely to be accepted. Of course the sentimentalist and the Jew and the Unitarian, possibly the Protestant, care not at all, but the Catholic Christian does care.
HE really vital question at issue is whether Jerusalem in Judaea is any longer, or has been for eighteen centuries, the Holy City, in a unique sense; whether one gains anything essentially by visiting the place; whether one is nearer to God on the site of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre than elsewhere. The answer is emphatically, No. The Catholic Church
is "Jerusalem above." The Altar and its Sacrament are our Bethlehem, the House of Bread. The Font is our Holy Sepulchre where we " are buried with Him in Baptism wherein also we are risen with Him." As the Ascended and Reigning Christ He is with us in the Holy Eucharist to be worshipped and adored as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Every communicant is in the closest possible nearness to Him and worships with the whole company of heaven. No one could be nearer Him in the earthly Jerusalem than the humble worshipper before any Altar of the Catholic Church where He continually vouchsafes His Presence. Those who cry out against "localizing worship" in Tabernacle of the Reserved Sacrament fail to see that the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is the true answer to the soul's desire which finds a false answer in visiting the earthly city of Jerusalem.
THE disquieting point about the widespread attitude towards the recent military conquest in Palestine is that it illustrates to how large an extent Protestant Christianity is Jewish and Old Testament in its outlook. This is the heritage, developed to an extreme, from the disciplinary Puritanism of Hooker's day which that great divine is continually meeting and exposing by insistence upon the Incarnation as the central truth from which all Christian truth and practice proceed. Those who hold the false conception as to the modern Jerusalem are all the time turning back to the past and there they are likely to remain. True Christianity begins with the present moment, Jesus present, Jesus reigning, Jesus now and here the Object of worship. The Church, His Bride, His City, He Himself now crucified afresh, now absolving, now with His Church and Ministers - these supersede for significance all else and come first in order. Those who cling to the city of the Old Dispensation are liable to ignore the Holy Spirit Who came to the heavenly Jerusalem as He never was in the earthly city and Who unites the Bride to her Husband. The earthly city was and is of transitory importance. The New and Heavenly Jerusalem is "eternal in the heavens."
THE nomination of Dean Hensley Henson to the Chapter
of Hereford for election to be their Bishop comes with something of a shock, not because it emanates, as in all probability is the case, from the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, but as having the consent of the King. One recalls the incident reported of King Edward when the Prime Minister suggested Canon Henson's name among others for vacant dioceses. King Edward bluntly refused to listen to the suggestion, saying: "I am still Defender of the Faith." The present nomination is very likely purely political and supposedly politic. The Prime Minister is not a Churchman and does not appreciate, even if he understands the Church's position. Dean Henson is very likely to be a sort of an ecclesiastical demagogue in the popular estimation who will be an aid in dealing with the workingman and socialists as opposed to conventions and customs. The very well-known fact that he ignores the laws and traditions of the Church of England and exploits his personal views may commend him to the enemies of the National Church. But there is a deeper side of the situation which should cause grief and foreboding to the loyal Churchman. The ordination promises of those set apart to the priesthood and episcopate of the Church are very clear and definite and are taken before God and man. Dean Henson puts his own interpretation upon those vows and upon the formularies, Creeds and Canons which he has solemnly undertaken to uphold. He retains his preferments and uses his position in violation of corporate authority. He has entered into compact with Christ's Churcha Body not possessed of or willing to employ physical force to combat him. Is not this of the nature of Teutonic methods in the Church? Are the promises of Bishops and priests at their ordination, and the words they use in Creed and Sacrament "scraps of paper?" It may be a very dangerous thing for the English Sovereign to have weakened before the demands of hostility in his capacity as only Supreme Governor of the welfare of the National Church. Albert, King of Belgium, did not weaken before the threats and invasion of the German army and King Charles the Martyr did not give way in the face of puritan demands to betray episcopacy.
1. The Sacrament Reserved. By W. H. Freestone, M.A., Alcuin Club Collections, No. xxi, Milwaukee. The Young Churchman Co., 1917.
2. The Reserved Sacrament. By Darwell Stone, D.D. (Handbooks of Catholic Faith and Practice). Milwaukee. The Young Churchman Co., 1917.
3. The Theological Bearings of Certain Extra-liturgical Uses of the Blessed Sacrament. By C. Gore, D.D., Bishop of Oxford. London. Longmans, Green & Co., 1917.
4. Reservation. Address by the Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of Chelmsford to the Clergy of the Diocese of Chelmsford, together with a series of Questions and Answers. London. R. Scott, 1917.
5. Considerations Concerning the Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood. By the Bishop of Vermont. New York. Longmans, Green & Co., 1917.
6. Our Use of the Reserved Sacrament. By the Rt. Rev. H. M. Burge, D.D., Bishop of Southwark (Church Quarterly Review, Oct., 1917). 7. Eucharistic Doctrine and Reservation. By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D. (American Church Monthly, November, 1917).
It is a great satisfaction to possess a book like Father Freestone's "The Sacrament Reserved." One feels that at last one is in possession of all the facts relating to the subject of reservation for the first 1200 years of the history of the Church in such form that they are easily accessible. One is henceforth relieved of the tedium of seeking through encyclopedias and indexes for the facts one needs.
Of course, we knew that reservation of the Blessed Sacrament was a primitive practice. Our earliest records of Christian services include allusions to that practice. And it appears that reservation was not practised with special reference to the needs of the sick, but that what was stressed was the need of Communion, whether one were well or ill. Reservation was not for the sick, but for the absent. The deacons, our first witness, St. Justin Martyr, says, carry the Sacrament" to those who are not present." Naturally, the sick would be the most prominent of those not at the services, and their need of the Sacrament would be specially emphasized. Still it is important to remember that the practice of reservation was founded in the sense of the unity of the Church in every place and the desirability of all members of the Body sharing in the Body's act of Communion. While Christian Communities in any place were small, the simplest way of providing for the communion of the absent was that indicated by St. Justin distribution from the Liturgy. There grew up, however, a custom of private reservation by the laity,
whereby the Sacrament was taken to private houses and there reserved and received as seemed desirable. This practice was favored by the circumstances of persecution and grew to be common during those centuries in which the Church was passing through the fire. Such reservation was plainly subject to great abuses and as soon as the persecution was passed it began to be legislated against. It is to be noted that the Celebration of the Eucharist in private houses was always exceptional. As soon as the Church had its own buildings, Celebrations outside of them were restricted by law.
Under the circumstances of freedom when persecution had passed every care was taken to provide for the needs of the sick by official reservation, which superseded the private reservation of the earlier periods. While there are instances of reservation in both kinds, it is certain that the private reservation of the first centuries was usually in one kind, and "there is every reason to suppose that originally the Eucharist was reserved officially in the same form." During the Middle Ages there was "in some areas a pronounced tendency to insist upon the use of both species conjointly for such Communion," but the earlier practice of Communion under the form of bread prevailed. "There is no evidence for the existence of any regular practise of reserving the species of wine." Father Freestone does not follow the history of reservation beyond the twelfth century, as after that there are no new features in the practice.
In view of this history of the practice of reservation, it is rather difficult to understand why there should be any discussion of the legality or desirability of it. But here we have a considerable number of Episcopal pronouncements either deprecating the practice, or insisting that it shall be allowed only under very restricted circumstances. It is, of course, impossible to deny the sick the right to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but it appears to be the Episcopal point of view, that this can only be practiced if reservation can be so restricted that no worship shall be addressed to our Lord sacramentally present. But why should we not worship our Lord in the Eucharist? One can understand that if one does not believe in the Real Presence one does not worship. This would appear to be the case of the Bishop of Vermont :- Where He works, there of course He is, in a sense, personally present; but this is different from the idea of His person descending either to our hearts or to our altars." And again:-" The Object of our worship is enthroned at God's right hand. He has not returned to earth to be personally present on the altar." This is very astonishing, but it would seem to be sufficiently clear. This is not the position of the Bishop of Oxford, who 1 Considerations, pp. 8, 9.