#Gibson’s Preservative#

I have a friend, a well-known “scholar”, who permits me the use of his extensive library.  I stand in the middle and look about me, and see in the dim shadows walls lined from floor to ceiling with decorous and grave-looking books, bound for the most part in black, many of them fading to green with age.  There are literally thousands of such, and their theme is the pseudo-science of “divinity”.  I close my, eyes, to make the test fair, and walk to the shelves and put out my hand and take a book.  It proves to be a modern work, “A History of the English Prayer-book in Relation to the Doctrine of the Eucharist”.  I turn the pages and discover that it is a study of the variations of one minute detail of church doctrine.  This learned divine—­he has written many such works, as the advertisements inform us—­fills up the greater part of his pages with foot-notes from hundreds of authorities, arguments and counter-arguments over supernatural subtleties.  I will give one sample of these footnotes—­asking the reader to be patient: 

I add the following valuable observation, of Dean Goode:  ("On Eucharist”, II p 757.  See also Archbishop Ware in Gibson’s “Preservative”, vol.  N, Chap II) “One great point for which our divines have contended, in opposition to Romish errors, has been the reality of that presence of Christ’s Body and Blood to the soul of the believer which is affected through the operation of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding the absence of that Body and Blood in Heaven.  Like the Sun, the Body of Christ is both present and absent; present, really and truly present, in one sense—­that is, by the soul being brought into immediate communion with—­but absent in another sense—­that is, as regards the contiguity of its substance to our bodies.  The authors under review, like the Romanists, maintain that this is not a Real Presence, and assuming their own interpretation of the phrase to be the only true one, press into their service the testimony of divines who, though using the phrase, apply it in a sense the reverse of theirs.  The ambiguity of the phrase, and its misapplication by the Church of Rome, have induced many of our divines to repudiate it, etc.”

Realize that of the work from which this “valuable observation” is quoted, there are at least two volumes, the second volume containing not less than 757 pages I Realize that in Gibson’s “Preservative” there are not less than ten volumes of such writing!  Realize that in this twentieth century a considerable portion of the mental energies of the world’s greatest empire is devoted to that kind of learning!