莱尔主教upper_room-第99章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
blame and condemn ministers who find it necessary to do the same； is
surely not wise。
27。 Does not the rubric of the Prayer Book order that the minister
shall say the words of administration to each municant separately？
Most certainly it does。 Yet reason and mon sense point out that the
pilers of the Prayer Book could not have meant this rubric to be
interpreted and obeyed literally and exactly； when such obedience is
seriously inconvenient； if not impossible。 When a clergyman with only
one curate has to give the elements of bread and wine to 300 or 400
persons； the service must necessarily be so long； that aged and
delicate people are wearied； and any following service is interfered
with； or prevented altogether。 No doubt； when the rubric was drawn up；
parishes were small； municants were few； there were no Sunday
Schools； and few clergymen had more than one full service a day。 Rules
drawn up at that date； under such circumstances； are not to be
rigorously applied to this day； especially when the application injures
the Sunday services； and does more harm than good。
28。 Does any clergyman literally obey all the rubrics of the munion
Service in the Prayer Book？
It is probable that there is not one who obeys then： all； and certainly
no one obeys the four which immediately precede the munion Service。
The order to place the table 〃in the body of the church〃 is never
attended to by any one！ Custom in this matter has pletely overridden
the rubric。 But this being the case； there must evidently be some
discretion allowed in interpreting the munion rubrics。
29。 Are municants more likely to be edified if the words of
administration are said to each one separately； than they are if they
are said to the whole rail collectively？
It is impossible to answer this question。 It is a matter of feeling and
opinion。 It is certain that many municants feel pained and offended
if they do not each hear the words addressed to themselves。 It is
equally certain that many others strongly dislike the incessant
repetition of the words of administration； and especially where seven
or eight ministers are employed； some giving the bread and some the
wine； at the same time。 Many plain that it confuses and distracts
their minds。 On such a point we must think and let think； and not judge
one another。 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind。 The
argument that some clergymen will not repeat the words to each
municant separately； because they hold the doctrine of 〃particular
redemption；〃 is an absurd； baseless； and ignorant suggestion； destitute
of truth。
30。 In receiving the bread and wine； are any bodily actions； attitudes；
or gestures specially obligatory on municants？
None are prescribed in Scripture。 The Apostles at the first institution
of the Lord's Supper were evidently reclining after the manner of the
times。 Kneeling is wisely ordered in the Prayer Book； to use the words
of the rubric： 〃For a signification of our humble and grateful
acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ given in the sacrament to all
worthy receivers； and for the avoiding of profanation and disorder。〃
Whether we should receive the bread with our fingers or upon the open
palm of our hands； seems an open question； which each must decide for
himself。 Let it only be remembered； that to refrain to touch the bread
with our hands； and to require it to be put into our mouths； has a
strong appearance of superstition。 As to bowing down till we almost
grovel on the ground like serfs； it is a posture unworthy of Christ's
freemen； and is a painfully suspicious symptom of ignorance of the real
nature of the consecrated elements。
31。 Does it add to the value and usefulness of the Lord's Supper； or
promote the edification of the municants； to have the sacrament
administrated with the following acpaniments； viz。
1。 Lights on the munion Table in broad day；
2。 Mixing water with the wine；
3。 Clothing the minister in a peculiar dress called a chasuble；
4。 Burning incense？
These things cannot be shown to be of any real value。 Not one of them
is remended； or even named； in the New Testament。 Not one of them is
prescribed or ordered in the Prayer Book； and the best English lawyers
pronounce them illegal。 They are borrowed from the corrupt Church of
Rome； and not a few clergymen； after beginning by using them； have
ended by believing the sacrifice of the Mass； and joining the Romish
munion。 Such things no doubt have 〃a show of wisdom；〃 and 〃satisfy
the flesh〃 （Col。 2：23）。 They suit the many ignorant people who like a
mere outward religion。 But it is vain to suppose that they please God。
In the nature of things； they tend to distract and divert the minds of
municants from the true； scriptural； and simple view of the Lord's
Supper。 No one in his senses can dare to say that they are essential to
the validity of the sacrament； or that our Lord or His Apostles ever
used them。 They are neither more nor less than 〃will…worship；〃 and the
invention of man （Col。 2：23）。 The clergyman who persists in using these
illegal ceremonial acts； in defiance of his bishop's monitions； causes
divisions； offences； strife； and controversy in the Church about things
not essential； and is justly deserving of censure。
32。 Did the reformers of the Church of England； to whom we owe our
Articles and 。Prayer Book； attach much weight to right and true views
of the lord's Supper； and especially of the real meaning of the
presence of Christ in that sacrament？
Yes！ most certainly。 It was precisely on this point that our Protestant
Reformers differed most widely from the Church of Rome。 It was
precisely because they would not admit that the natural body and blood
of Christ were corporally present under the forms of bread and wine
after the words of consecration were pronounced； that many of them were
condemned to death and burned at the stake in Queen Mary's reign。
Fuller； the famous Church historian； says：〃 The sacrament of the
altar was the main touchstone to discover the poor Protestants。 This
point of the real corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament。； the
same body that was crucified； was the pendious way to discover those
of the opposite opinion。〃Fuller's Church History； vol。 iii。 p。 399；
Tegg's edition。
33。 Why was John Rogers； the protomartyr； Vicar of St。 Sepulchre's and
Prebendary of St。 Paul's； burned in Smithfield； on February 4； 1555？
Let us hear his own account：
〃I was asked whether I believed in the sacrament to be the very body
and blood of our Saviour Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary； and
hanged on the cross； really and substantially？ I answered； ' I think it
to be false。 I cannot understand really and substantially to signify
otherwise than corporally。 But corporally Christ is only in heaven； and
so Christ cannot be corporally in your sacrament。'〃 Foxe in loco； vol。
iii。 p。 101； edit。 1684。
And so he was burned。
34。 Why was Hugh Latimer； sometime Bishop of Worcester； burned at
Oxford； on October 16； 1555？
Let us hear what Foxe says were the articles exhibited against him：…
〃That thou hast openly affirmed； defended； and maintained that the true
and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest； is not
really present in the sacrament of the altar； and that in the sacrament
of the altar remaineth still the substance of bread and wine。〃
And to this article the good old man replied：
〃After a corporal being； which the Romish Church furnisheth； Christ's
body and blood is not in the sacrament under the forms of bread and
wine。〃 Foxe in loco； vol。 iii。 p。 426。
And so he was burned。
35。 Why was Nicholas Ridley； Bishop of London； burned at Oxford； on
October 16； 1555？
Once more let us hear what Foxe says were the words of his sentence of
condemnation：…
〃The said Nic
