Effect on Sacramental Controversies.

471

body, as we are absent from Him, so He is likewise separated from us; we must depart hence, that we may be with Him, in the place whither He is gone to prepare for us. "Who shall ascend into heaven, to bring Christ down thence?" saith St. Paul, intimating where He doth immoveably abide, in exclusion to all other places. These things (beside many other strong reasons) if we do consider it will suffice to guard us from those rampant absurdities, which so long, with such impudence and such violence, have outbraved plain reason and sense.'

Here we are compelled to close this paper, having gone no farther than the mere introduction of the subjects which it was our intention to notice. On another occasion we shall attempt to show how various have been the influences exerted upon theology, before the Reformation and since, by the different views taken of our Saviour's bodily relations to His Church. This will open up the history of the whole sacramental controversy of later times, and bring before us all the shades of doctrine, from Transubstantiation, which re-produces the whole Christ in a thousand places every day upon earth, and Consubstantiation, which in its earlier form united the diffused corporeity of the Redeemer with the consecrated elements, giving to believer and unbeliever alike, 'in, with, and under the bread,' the sacred symbols, and in its later form teaches the impartation, though only to the believing recipient, of the very glorified body of Christ, the sustenance of soul and body, through the various stages of

*We throw the following quotation into a note, as merely suggesting into what mysteries of theological speculation our subject would lead us:-Now arises a bold, yet obvious question-Whither went that blood of the God-man when it was shed; that blood containing in itself bodily and really the spiritual energy of all quickening out of the life of Christ? The Lord's spilt blood, one may suppose, could not actually and bodily come into the holiest of all. Where did it then remain, and what became of it? we ask with all solemnity. Might this sacred blood be lost, absorbed, and come to nothing in the soil of Gethsemane and Golgotha? Far be it froin us to think so! That contradicts the assured truth of a Resurrection and glorification of all the corporeity of the God-man, which once taken upon Him was never to be laid aside. If the Father keepeth all the bones of His Holy One, so that not one of them should be broken in the true Paschal Lamb; (Ps. xxxiv. 20; John xix. 36;) if also the flesh of the Holy One of God lay in the grave secure from corruption and waiting for new life and spiritualisation; (Ps. xvi. 9, 10;) should the blood be lost and perish? Far be it, we say once more. (We may add now- -With us the blood is mere element of physical, mortal life, but the blood in His case was also penetrated and pervaded by the veûua aláviov.) The treatment of this subject by earlier theologians may have been conducted in a very irreverent manner, repulsive even to the faithful, but there is a profound Truth and Light at its foundation. It is plain, at the outset, that the blood of Christ, as pertaining to His humanity, shared in His glorification, since it is present and communicable, in the Sacrament. But if you ask further-Are the outpourings of the blood of Christ, from the first drops in His bloody sweat to the final stream from His side, which indeed the Omnipotence of God could keep in permanent being, just as a similar power works in the resurrection of every human body-restored to His body again, or do they exist independently of it? The word of the Risen Saviour is the first answer, when He said

doctrine which issue at last in too absolute and entire separation between the Divine-human Head and His living members. To trace the history of these variations would be an interesting task. And not less so would it be to note how different have been the feelings of different schools of theology with regard to the humanity of the Redeemer: some losing sight of His human form altogether in the contemplation and worship of the Trinity, and others bringing the human form of the Redeemer into a mystical spiritual-sensuous relation to their thought and devotion which gives their language a peculiar humanitarian or sentimental tinge. And then it would be instructive to consider the effect of different views of the Lord's condition in heaven upon theoretical and practical theology concerning the separate state, and the destiny of the people of Christ, whose place He has gone to prepare. These subjects, with all the bye-topics which they open up, must be reserved for another occasion, when we hope to enter more at large into the Theology of the Ascension.

to His disciples, "Handle Me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." (Luke xxiv. 39.) The Lord did not say, nor could He say, flesh and blood; for, as another Scripture reveals to us, flesh and blood, in that union and combination which belongs to this lower, earthly, mortal life of the body, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor thus enter into incorruption. (1 Cor. xv. 50.) Did then the Ascension unite the blood, collected in the mean while below, and preserved, with the hitherto bloodless resurrection body? For the same reason we answer, No. And what need we ask, when the distinctive and decisive answer is plainly given in the Holy Sacrament? His glorified flesh, which now is called His body of itself, and His shed blood, both, in conjunction one with the other; and independently one of the other, still sundered as they had been separated at the Cross, the offered-up body and the poured-out blood are given us by the Lord to be eaten and drunk.

In

Does not this give us to understand why, after John vi. and the Institution of the Supper, the New Testament speaks so distinctively of the blood of Christ? Moreover, let us read in the Epistle to the Hebrews what is written in chapter xii. 22-24! connexion with the enumerated realities:-" Ye are come to Mount Zion, to the city of God, to the multitude of thousands of angels, to the congregation of the first-born, to the Judge and God of all, to the spirits of perfected saints, to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant"--and then we read at the close, in connexion with and after the person of the glorified Saviour Himself-after the holy seven-number yet another and last reality" and to the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than that of Abel!" Then must this most holy blood exist as separate in heaven.-Let it be observed how the so-called “Johannean Christ," and the so-called “ Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews," coineide, and let us learn to apprehend the whole New Testament as one Ypaph, with a systematic connexion. To acknowledge the authority of the already itself apocalyptic Epistle to the Hebrews, and to submit to be led by it onwards to its Teλcións, (chapter vi. 1,) is both the result and the test of a true understanding of Scripture, just as the Apocalypse itself is. Compare what Beck has said, almost in accord with ourselves, concerning the blood of Christ. (Lehrwissenschaft, S. 626–629, in the note). He, however, protests against Bengel and the "separated existence of the blood in heaven." For my own part I did not derive this doctrine from Bengel, nor from Oetinger, (who holds it fully, see in Auberlen, S. 272-276,) but from the Scriptures alone,--not one word of which can be broken, however paradoxical they may appear-nor from materialism, as Lange intimates. (iii., 614.) This latter thinks that I need no more disturb myself about the shed blood of Christ than about the sweat or the tears! but where then is the scriptural "glory of the Logos as the life of all things ?" Holy Writ surely speaks differently of the blood and of the tears!'-Stier, Discourses, vol. v.

Froude's Henry VIII.

473

ART. VIII.-History of England, from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth. By JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE, M.A. Vols. I.-IV. London: J. W. Parker. 1856-1858.

ALL history must be false :-such, at least, is the conclusion to which a superficial acquaintance with modern investigations would readily lead us. The startling results of the most recent discoveries in physical science find an exact parallel in the fruits which are being daily gathered in the field of history. All our old calculations are being upset; all the old theories are exploded. The helpless confusion wrought in the mind of an ignorant person by the marvels of science is hardly greater than the mingled complication of perplexity and uncertainty with which the well-read student now rises from his researches into the past. Whoever has attended but a little to the phenomena of human nature has discovered how inadequate is the clearest insight which he can hope to attain into character and disposition.' We are separated by impalpable and mysterious barriers from the men of our own generation, born and educated under the same influences as ourselves. How, then, can we expect to surmount the difficulties that intervene to prevent our understanding those who played their part under other outward circumstances,' with other habits, other beliefs, other modes of thought, and other principles of judgment?' As the old man forgets his childhood; as the grown man and the youth rarely comprehend each other; as the Englishman and the Frenchman, with the same reasoning faculties, do not reason to the same conclusions; so is the past a perplexity to the present. It lies behind us as an enigma, easy only to the vain and unthinking, and only half solved after the most earnest efforts of intellectual sympathy alike in those who read and those who write.'

The truth here stated in general terms has been abundantly illustrated by particular instances. Our age is especially fruitful in historians of a high order, and their talents have been largely devoted to reversing the decisions which were current amongst ourselves. We have lately been presented with such narratives of both ancient and modern story as no former age could have produced; and the tendency of each has been to contravene the judgment hitherto accepted upon the subjects of which they treat. How many are the characters which have been reproduced under new aspects in the last few years! Carlyle has stepped forward as the advocate of Cromwell; Hepworth Dixon endeavours to prove Bacon incorruptible; Helps vindicates Spain in her government of her American colonies; Grote VOL. XVI. NO. XXXII.

would rescue Cleon from the imputation of being a demagogue; Froude stands forward to maintain the good name of bluff King Hal. Each of these writers has given us a contribution which the world would not willingly let die; yet how many of them can be said to have determined the questions which they have handled with so much ability and with such minute inquiry? Froude's favourable estimate of Queen Elizabeth is challenged by anticipation in Motley's History of the Netherlands.' All the voluminous learning and extraordinary talent of Macaulay have not saved him from the criticism of a New Examen,' which seriously compromises the accuracy of his conclusions. The judicial impartiality of Hallam does not satisfy us that he understood Luther as well as his opponent the late Archdeacon Hare understood him. History may be philosophy teaching by example; philosophy positive it cannot yet be termed. After so much thought and sympathy and study, how little can be regarded as settled in this branch of human knowledge!

Yet the value of historical investigations is not to be estimated by the positive conclusions to which they may have led us; nay, paradoxical as the statement may appear, the reverse is probably nearer the truth. Who can be ignorant of the varying motives by which men are swayed in action, of the mingled streams of good and evil which combine to form the broad current of any epoch in a nation's history, of the many inconsistencies and contradictions that make up the life of individual men, and which must constantly interfere to modify the sweeping decisions which it is so easy to reach and so tempting to record? And how much is the difficulty increased when this tangled skein is still further ravelled by the exigencies necessarily involved in a political career, and when the special emergencies of a great kingdom may seem-we say not how correctly, but still may really seem to demand a line of action which no private interest could warrant, and no judgment, apart from the peculiar issues at stake, could approve! We do not say for a single moment that there are not broad distinctions between right and wrong; but we are sure that a slight knowledge of human nature will enable us to sympathize with the difficulty of right conduct when the welfare of a whole people depends upon the course which a statesman may adopt. This thought should render us charitable in our estimate of character, and should tend to soften the severity of the condemnation which is ready to rise to our lips; but it will be sure to hamper us in the eyes of the unthinking, who can appreciate only strongly-defined judgments, without having the power to enter into the minuter shades of distinction which the thoughtful historian feels called upon to pourtray.

The right Grounds of a historic Judgment.

475

The task of writing history is still further complicated by the twofold life of its most prominent subjects,-their private and individual existence, and their public acts. A tendency was exhibited not long since to narrow all historical questions to a mere inquiry into the personal character of the chief actors in ⚫ the scene. The personal qualities of one sovereign or his ministers were extolled, whilst the vices of another were prominently set forth and loudly condemned. Mary and Elizabeth, Charles I. and Cromwell, have especially been subjected to this method of treatment; and an endeavour has been made, in behalf of each, to avoid an unfavourable verdict, by calling in witnesses to character. But it was soon felt that this mode of writing history was raising a false issue; and that if we would estimate rightly the influence of any bygone period, it must be upon the acts that emanated from men in their public capacity that our judgment must be based. The tide is now turned, and there is the usual danger of its running into the opposite extreme.

'Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt.'

The general tendency of the public acts is being allowed to overrule the distinctions of right and wrong to an extent against which we feel called upon to protest. A most signal instance of this tendency is to be found in Mr. Hepworth Dixon's 'Personal History of Lord Bacon, in which, neglecting all the experience of the past, and unmindful of the evidence which daily testifies to the strange contrarieties bound up in a single heart, he begins by boldly asserting that the strongest contrasts cannot exist in the same individual, and would prove, à priori, that Bacon could not have been at once the greatest, wisest, meanest of mankind.' Here, too, in the history under consideration, although taking his stand upon a different position, the judge too frequently descends to be an advocate. It is only by the combination of all the different elements to which we have adverted, and to the right use of each in that combination, that the historian fully performs his undertaking.

With these general considerations in mind, we approach the study of Froude's History of England. The principles by which he has been guided in its composition were set forth by himself in an able article that appeared in the Oxford Essays for 1855. We make no apology for inserting the following extract, as it enables us to understand the author's point of view, and permits him to express in his own words the advantages he anticipated from the method he employed. After glancing at existing works as means of teaching English history, he writes, Instead of these, we recommend that there be substituted the