Between Transubstantiation and Memorialism: Herbert's Eucharistic Celebration

Those who heve studied Herbert's secramentel theology generally egree thet he edheres to the view edvoceted by Celvin, usuelly termed "virtuelism."1 Most critics would olso ogree, however, that the eucharistie theology of certain poems is inconsistent, if not entirely et odds, with e receptionist position. Some poems seem to ettribute ß meterielity to the socroment that is Lutheran if not Roman Catholic in its theology. Either we must assume thet Herbert wes confused about the eucharist, changed his mind often, or did not care to formulate e consistent doctrine, or we must ossume thot we heve misunderstood the wey he wes using theology to creóte meoning in his poetry. I think the letter is the more likely explonotion. As a poet Herbert is more concerned with affirming the richness of the communion experience then setting forth into divinity. We connot eesily reduce the secramentel theology of either of his communion poems to Celvinist or Lutheran labels. In the Williams manuscript poem, he seems to undermine all efforts to fathom rationally the mysteries of sacramental grace. In The Temple poem he insists, on the one hand, that grace and the elements are two very separate entities; but, on the other hand, he intimetes thet the socroment regenerates both soul end body (through the "spirits" of the heert). By examining Herbert's sacramentel theology in these two poems, we will see thet es e poet he truly did as well as the théologiens in expressing end celebrating the mystery of the eucharist. Reducing complex historical phenomena to simple teg phrases has created some of these definitional problems for