Geological ®*t AS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/truedoctrineofeuOOvoga THE EUCHARIST. LONDON : PKINTKD BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STKEET SQUARE AND PAKLIAMENT ST It LET THE TBUE DOCTRINE OF THE BUCHAEIST. BY THOMAS S. L. VOGAN, D.D. CANON AND PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER : VICAH OF WALBERTOX-WITH-YAPTOX ! RURAL DEAN*: AXD PROCTOR IN CONVOCATION FOR THE ARCHDFACOXRY OF CHICHESTER. LONDON : LONGMANS, GREEN, 1871. AND CO. PREFACE. This is, in reality, the second edition of a former work pub- lished in 1849 :* but as it has grown to a much larger size, and embraces much more than I then treated of ; as I have pursued a different method in some important respects, though coming, substantially, to the same conclusion ; and as I have adopted a different title, the present edition is not announced in form as a second. The basis of the work is the literal interpretation of the records of the institution of the Eucharist. The Romanist, the Lutheran, and that section of the Church of England which is so ably led by Dr. Pusey, all demand the literal interpretation. And as I think with Dr. Pusey that the literal interpretation is the basis of the true interpretation, I concede and reiterate the demand. But here we are instantly separated : for there is a difference in actual fact, though not in conscious deliberate intention, as to the subject of this literal interpretation ; and, in necessary sequence, a very wide difference as to the interpretation itself. The subject of interpretation professed in the doctrine of the Church of Rome, of Luther, and of Dr. Pusey, is the words, " This is my body, this is my blood " : but, as is shown in the following pages, the actual subject is those four words only, * Nine Lectures on the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Ecclesiastic demurred to the propriety of the title (vol. VLTL 302), as leading to " much miscon- ception " with regard to this Sacrament. It certainly does not well accord with the views which were advocated by that periodical : but it might be recollected by members of the Church of England, and particularly by those who take upon them to deliver her doctrines, that "the Lord's Supper," and " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper," are the only names for the Eucharist to be found in the Catechism, and the Articles of Religion : while the Liturgy is entitled ,; The Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or the Holy Communion." VI PREFACE. " This is my body " ; the second proposition, " This is my blood," being treated as a mere expletive, as having neither any distinct meaning from the other, nor any effect whatever on its interpretation* And not only this ; but the facts of the institution, and the other words of our Lord in it, are totally ignored, so far as the doctrine is to be influenced by them. It would therefore follow, in logical necessity, that an inter- pretation even of the four words subjected to it, would be neither literal nor true. This, however, has been the manner of theologians, and the result of their dissertations and disputations, for many centuries. For a thousand years the general doctrine, how varied soever the forms of expression might be, from age to age, was, that the consecrated bread is the body of Christ given for us, and that the wine is his blood shed for us. It was, in fact, in substantial and plain agreement with his own words at the institution : and the manifold varieties of expression in which it was set forth, were, in reality, no more than a reiteration of them. And the words were understood, not in the grossly carnal and Capernaite sense, which was imposed Upon Berengarius ; but in the spirit- ual sense to which the literal interpretation necessarily leads. But when Berengarius had been required by the rulers of the Church, to profess that " that mystical bread is substantially converted into the true and proper flesh of Christ," and that the true body and blood of Christ " are sensibly, not only in a sacrament, but in truth, handled by the hands of the priests, broke and ground by the teeth of the faithful " : * the natural rationalism of men's minds was excited, and was impelled to attempt an explanation of this doctrine, and to reconcile it with undeniable facts. The natural elements remained, after conse- cration, unchanged to sense ; though changed to faith ; but the substance of them, the unseen reality, by which they are that which they are called, was supposed to be affected in some manner, so as to make way for the body and blood of Christ. * Sec below, pi 03. PREFACE. vii It was supposed by some to be annihilated, and by others to be changed into the substance of that body and blood. And this was conceived to be possible, only by the presence of our Lord Himself, contained under the appearance or species of the elements. Thus He was conceived to be equally present, the same presence was conceived to be contained, in one species as well as the other, in the species of wine as well as of bread : whole Christ under and in each. And hence, in effect, the whole doctrine was regarded as contained in the four words, " This is my body n : while the doctrine was professedly founded upon the literal interpretation of all our Lord's words on the subject, and was conceived to be logically developed from them. It was never suspected, that this doctrine involved an entire and absolute surrender of the literal interpretation : although it was so obvious, that " This is," cannot literally mean " This contains " ; and that the one assertion implies a contradiction to the other. Nor did the opponents of this doctrine pursue a much more legitimate method. Luther, in order to avoid the difficulties of transubstantiation, maintained that the elements suffered no change, but that the body and blood of Christ are present with them. And thus, while he contended for the literal interpre- tation, he, in reality, took " This is " to mean, " This has with it " : and implied again a contradiction to the original words. Others opposed the literal interpretation, and the doctrines which were imagined and professed to be drawn from it ; and contended that our Lord's words must be understood figura- tively ; and, therefore, that " This is," means " This represents " ; involving, again, no less than a contradiction to the words. And others would have it, that " This is," means something very like " This is not," in explicit contradiction again to the words. The Tractarians, — of whom I use the name, only because T know not what other name to give them, — have combined the Roman and the Lutheran exegesis ; and, in effect, though not viii PREFACE. formally, propose " This lias in it the real objective presence of," as the literal interpretation of " This is." Tims the grand debate, during the last eight hundred years, has, in real substance, been the right interpretation of these four words, " This is my body," and of them only. And they who have contended for the literal interpretation, have entirely overlooked it, and have failed to see, that " This is," in literal interpretation, can mean no more than " This is," neither more nor less : while they who have contended against a literal interpretation, and have asserted that the words are a figure, have alike failed to see, how uncertain their argument is, and how much better foundation, and how much truer a guide, the literal interpretation, is, for doctrine, than the figurative. * But the whole of the record must be taken for the subject of the literal interpretation which is demanded. This, no one, whatever his views may be, can possibly doubt. And there can be as little doubt, that the literal interpretation of the record must be under these rules : first, that it shall not exclude any part of the letter, nor include anything beyond it, or that is not necessarily in strict construction deduced from it : secondly, that it be in perfect and entire consistency with itself : and thirdly, that it be in like consistency with the analogy of the faith. Such will be found to be the interpretation given in the following work ; neither going beyond the letter, nor coming short of it ; nor violating any article of the faith. For the letter is, that " Jesus took the bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave it " : " And He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it." And the literal interpretation is, that that which He gave, was that which He took : that He blessed the bread which He took, and brake the bread which He blessed, and gave * The reader will find a very able and most interesting synopsis of Euchuristic history in my friend Archdeacon Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, Introd. to Part II. The argument, how ever, I am bound to say, is occasionally embarrassed by the notion, on which I have remarked elsewhere, that the body and blood of Christ must be " there," in order that we may receive them : which is to limit spiritual things by the conditions and necessities of material things. PREFACE. IX the bread which He broke : that He gave thanks over the cup which He took, and gave the cup over which He gave thanks : that He took bread and wine, and gave bread and wine. Then the records say, that when He gave the bread, He " said, Take, eat ; this is my body " ; and that when He gave the cup, He said, — " This is my blood." And the literal interpretation of this is, not " This contains," " This has with it," or " This has under its form the presence of, my body " : " This con- tains," " This has with it," or " This has under its form the presence of, my blood " : but " This — is — my body, This — is — my blood." Nor is the literal interpretation, " This represents or is a figure of my body, my blood." The letter and the literal interpretation of that letter is, that the bread — is — the body, and that the wine — is — the blood, of Christ. And He said not these words only, but of that body He said, it was " being given, or broken, for you," and of that blood He said, it was " being shed for you. This is my body which is being given for you ; This is my blood which is being shed for you, for the remission of sins." And the literal interpretation of this is, that it is his body being given, given for us, given for sin, given to God : and that it is his blood being shed, being poured out, for sin, for the remission of sins. The letter does not speak of the Lord's body in any other condition than in that of " being given for us " ; or of his blood in any other con- dition than in that of being poured out for sin. The letter sets forth the Lord's body as a sacrifice for sin : it sets forth his blood as poured out from his body for sin. It sets forth his body and his blood separated from each other ; and since blood is the life of the body, the body, from which the blood is poured out, has its life taken away, and is dead. The letter sets forth the body of Christ, and his blood, separate, the one from the other : as given by Him, separate, the one from the other. As the bread and the wine were distinct things, and were given separately from each other: so He gave his body and his blood, separately from each other: and therefore it was his dead body which He gave. The letter of the records, and the literal interpretation of them, will not suffer us to go beyond this. X PREFACE. The letter, again, is, that He took bread, and said, " This is my body," and that He took wine, and said, " This is my blood." It tells us that He gave one, and afterwards the other. It does not tell us that his body was in, or with, or under, the one ; that his blood was in, or with, or under the other. It does not say that He Himself was in, or with, or under them. The very facts demonstrate, that his body was not in, or with, or under the bread ; that his blood was not in, or with, or under the wine : that He Himself was not in, or with, or under them, or either of them. And the literal interpretation must so declare it. The letter is that one element of the Eucharist is bread, — and — is— the body of Christ : that the other element is wine, — and — is — the blood of Christ. Each of the elements has by the letter, this double character. It is as true of one, that it is the body of Christ, as it is true that it is bread : it is as true of the other, that it is the blood of Christ, as it is that it is wine. But the truth is according to the nature of each. By their nature the elements are bread and wine : but according to the nature of the body and blood of Christ, one poured out, and the other dead, one is not in such a way the body of Christ as it is bread, and the other is not in such a way the blood of Christ as it is wine. The bread is the body of Christ, and the wine is the blood of Christ, in a way beyond the nature of earthly things. The bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ, so far as one thing can be another ; the nature of each being unchanged. They are what He called, and by calling made, them, to all the intents and purposes for which He so made them. The wine is his blood poured out, the bread is his body given, the life being taken from it, and the body therefore, dead : — but both in spiritual effect, not in positive and absolute reality. But here we must remember the analogy of the faith. We believe and know, that now, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not dead. We know that once, for three days, it was dead, and the blood was poured out from it : but after the third day, lie rose again, and death has had no more dominion over Him. PREFACE. XI He ever liveth. His dead body is no more : his poured-out blood is no more. They are not anywhere, they cannot be present anywhere. They were not, when He first gave them. His body was not broken ; it was alive and unhurt, wheu He gave his dead body : his blood was not shed ; it was all still flowing in his veins, when He gave his poured-out blood. Yet He gave, and it was in most real truth that He gave, his dead body and his outshed blood. And now, He gives the same : his dead body, though his body is alive for evermore ; his out- shed blood, though it is impossible, and, since the day that it was shed upon the cross, has been impossible, for it ever to be shed again. Neither the blood remains poured out, nor the body dead. One is no more in the condition of being given, the other is no more in the condition of being shed. They are no more. His dead body is nowhere to be found, his poured- out blood is nowhere to be found. In most certain and absolute fact and reality, they are not. And as that which is not, can- not be present anywhere ; the dead body of our Lord, and his blood shed, cannot be, and therefore are not, present either in the Eucharist, or in its elements. The letter speaks only of the given body, and the poured-out blood. It says nothing of our Lord's living body, or of his glorified body. It says nothing, and implies nothing, of his soul or his Godhead. It says nothing of any presence; nothing of any presence of his Godhead or manhood ; nothing of the presence of his soul, of the presence of his Godhead ; nothing of the presence even of his body and his blood. Nor does the letter necessarily or logically imply, any presence of his body and blood. He spoke of no presence : He gave no presence. To speak of a presence in the case, is to add to the letter ; it is to give an explanation, instead of an interpretation : and the notion of it is pure rationalism. Our Lord gave his body broken, and not his or its presence. He gave his blood shed, and not his or its presence. Nor was it necessary that his body should be present in order that He should give it ; that his blood should be present in order that He should give it. His body was not present, either living or xii PREFACE. dead, in the bread which He gave : his blood was not present, either flowing in his veins, or ponred out from them, in the wine which He gave. He said of the bread, only, " This is my body which is given for you." He said of the wine, only, " This is my blood which is shed for you, for the remission of sins." And when He gave the bread and the wine, He gave also at the same time that which was not. He delivered his body given and broken, before it was, and when, as yet, it was not, given and broken : He gave his blood poured out, before it was, and when, as yet, it was not, poured out. He gave that which, as yet, at the time when He gave it, was not : and therefore He gave that which was not present, and could not be present. Again, keeping to the analogy of the faith, we know that the body of out' Lord Jesus Christ, although it was not given and broken, when He said, " This is my body which is given for you " ; was yet most surely to be given and broken : and that his blood, although it was not shed, when He said, " This is my blood which is shed for you " ; was yet most surely to be shed. And from this it is necessarily to be concluded, that it was, not by a real presence of his body and blood, but spiritually and effectually, that they were given. It was to the faith that his body — was — to be broken, that He gave it: it was to the faith that His blood — was — to be shed, that He gave it. And now that his body has been given and his blood has been shed : they are no longer in those conditions : they now are not. But to faith, and to the faith only, that his body has been given, and that his blood has been shed, He now imparts his body given, and his blood shed, just as He imparted them to his Apostles, the night before He suffered. And this He did and now does, although the presence of his broken body and his out-poured blood was then, and now is, impossible. With this literal interpretation of the whole letter, the doc- trine of the ancient Fathers of the Church, for many centuries, and the doctrines of the great Divines of the Church of England, perfectly agree. All agree that it — is — the body of our Lord Jesus PREFACE. xiii Christ which was given for us, which we receive ; and that it — is — his blood which was shed for us, which we receive. They do not teach, that it is the living, glorified body of our Lord, his living, glorified body, present in the bread and wine, which we receive. But they teach us, that by receiving his body given, — and — his blood shed for us, we are made one with Him : are united to his glorious body, dwell in Him, and have Him also dwelling in us. Again, the letter has it, that our Lord gave bread, — his body broken, and also gave wine, — his blood shed. And therefore, if we are to obey his word, " Do this," both the bread and the wine, both the body and the blood, are to be administered. The letter, likewise, shows that our Lord was not, and is not, present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist ; and therefore it compels the conclusion that He is not to be adored as present in them. In the letter again, we find not one word from which it can be shown, that when our Lord took bread and wine for his Holy Supper, He made either a sacrifice or an oblation of them, or taught us to do so. On the contrary, instead of sacrificing them, and so devoting them to destruction, He blessed them with thanksgiving : and He spoke of no oblation or sacrifice, but of Himself. The literal interpretation admits of no sacrifice to be offered by us, in fulfilling his words that we should do as He did ; but that which is comprehended in the sacrifice of thanks- giving. This is the true Eucharistic sacrifice. And lastly, since there is not, nor can be, any real presence of the body and blood of Christ, in, or with, or under the ele- ments or their form : no sacrifice can be offered of Him, or of his body and blood, in, or with, or under them : whether they remain in their proper, natural substances, or do not. The Eucharistic sacrifice, therefore, which is offered by us, is not of Christ, or of his body and blood, or of his presence. The letter has nothing of any such oblation to be made by us. He only could, He only Himself did, offer that all-sufficient sacrifice. xiv PREFACE. And having made it, He now makes us, not offerers, but par- takers of it. And we plead that sacrifice before the throne of God. We rely on it as all-sufficient, and all -prevailing with the Father. We embrace its benefits ; and render all the return we can make for it, in the oblation of ourselves, our souls and bodies, as a reasonable, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God. But to offer the sacrifice of the Son of God is beyond all created power. The letter of the records has nothing to suggest such blasphemy. I have not undertaken the task of treating of the devotions suitable, and necessary for, receiving the Holy Communion : for this would have been greatly to enlarge my labour and my book. But there are very many Preparations and Aids by far more competent pens. I profess to be only the exponent of the very letter of the records : and must leave the reader to choose his guide in the devotions for Communion, according to the views which, on careful study of this work, he may deli- berately adopt. I would, however, say, that, so far as my knowledge of devotional works on the subject reaches, Dean Goulburn's late work on the Holy Communion may be safely commended for the use of English Churchmen. CONTENTS. PART I. CHAPTER I. NAMES OF THIS HOLY KITE. PAGE Breaking of Bread ........ 1 Lord's Supper ......... 3 Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ . . . . .4 Oblation . . . . . . . . • 4 Sacrament .......... 5 Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . 5 Memorial and Commemoration . . . . . . .5 Sacrifice and Passover ... . . . . .6 Designations of it in our Liturgy . . . . . .6 Descriptions of it in the Homilies . . . . . .7 Enumeration of titles given to it, by Jer. Taylor . . . . .7 CHAPTER II. SACRAMENTS. OUTWARD SIGNS NOT ABOLISHED BY THE GOSPEL, BUT ORDAINED BY IT. Definition of a Sacrament in our Catechism . . . . .9 Definition of a Sacrament by the Church of Rome . . . .10 Number of the Sacraments . . . . . . .10 Rejection of Sacraments by the Quakers . . . . . .10 Refutation of their Arguments . . . . . t . .12 The two Sacraments ordained by Christ generally necessary to Salvation . 15 CHAPTER III. THE OUTWARD PART OR SIGN IN THE LORD'S SUPPER. Bread and "Wine the outward part or sign of this Sacrament . . 1 7 Nothing to be used but what our Lord took and gave . . . .17 What kind of bread to be used . . . . . . .18 Bread of the fine flour of wheat . . . . . . .19 Either leavened or unleavened bread may be used . . . . 21 Practice of the Church . . . . . . . .21 Leavened bread used by the Eastern Church . . . . . .21 Wafers not used in Church of Rome till 11th or 12th centuries . . .21 xvi CONTENTS. PAGE Practice of the Church anciently ruled by the oblations of the people . . 21 Indifferent whether leavened or unleavened . . . . .22 Law of the Church of England . . . . . . .22 Recent judgment of the Court of Arches was wrong, and why . . .23 Size and shape of the bread . . . . . . .24 The Wine : no other liquid to be used instead of it . . . .27 Breaches of the Rule of our Church from private judgment . . .28 Wine necessary . . . . . . . . .29 Heresy of rejecting wine . . . . . . . .31 Total Abstinence Society . . . . . . . .31 Wine used by our Lord ; and ordained by Him in this Sacrament . . 33 Fruit of the vine in its customary condition . . . . .34 Mixing water with the wine . . . . . . .35 Not certain that the Jews always used a mixed cup . . . .36 Mixed cup not obligatory . . . . . . . .37 Rule of our Church . . . . . . . .39 Mixing it unlawful in the Service . . . . . .39 Opinion of Bishop Andrewes . . . . . . .39 Mixing before the Service no open breach of law, but inconsistent with the in- tention of the Church . . . . . . .41 CHAPTER IV. CONSECRATION OF THE SACRAMENT. Our Lord's example the rule of our Liturgy How St. Paul understood the institution . He and the other Apostles delivered it, as they had received it Form of words of consecration : no better or other than our Lord's Prayer naturally joined with it The necessary and sufficient form .... CHAPTER V. THE EFFECTS OF CONSECRATION. Controversies from rationalistic opinions . . . . . .48 Progress of rationalism . . . . . . . .48 Transubstantiation — the name mediaeval . . . . . .51 The doctrine . . . . . . . . .51 Doctrine of Luther . . . . . . . .53 Dr. Pusey's objection to call it Consubstantiation . . . .54 His own doctrine, that of the nineteenth century, very similar . . .54 Archdeacon Wilberforce's statements of doctrine . . . . .55 Agreement of the Roman, Lutheran, and nineteenth century doctrine . . 56 CHAPTER VI. TRx\NSUBSTANTlATION '. CHANGE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ELEMENTS. Transubstantiation . . . . . . . .57 Church of Rome forbids belief of the substance remaining . , .58 Paschasius Radbertus . . . . . . . .59 J J is doctrine . . . . . . . . .60 . 43 . 44 . 45 Lord's own : the . 45 . 46 CONTENTS. XVII PAGE His doctrine not transubstantiation . . . . . .60 Berengarius — his first retractation . . . . . .63 His second retractation . . . . . . . .63 What transubstantiation involves . . . . . .63 Substances and accidents independent of each other, a thing totally unknown . 64 Creation of light before the sun . . . . . . .64 Accidents without their substance contrary to all experience . . .65 Properties a proof of the thing they belong to . . . .65 Our Lord's attributes a proof of his Divinity . . . . .66 Accidents destroyed with their substance . . . . . .67 No attempt by Aquinas to prove that accidents can be separated from their substance . . . . . . . . .67 Is the substance converted ? . . . . . . .68 "We are sure that the elements are bread and wine before consecration . . 68 And have the same proof after consecration . . . . .68 This our senses tell us . . . . . . .69 " The senses may be deceived," but it is rather our judgment which is deceived . 69 All the senses of all men, everywhere, and always, cannot be deceived about the same thing . ... . . . . . .70 Romanists trust their senses as to the accidents . . . . .70 Admission and argument of Bellarmine . . . . . .71 Substance of all material things, material . . . . .72 The verdict of our senses to be relied on, for our Lord required such use of them ; miracles, appeals to them ; the proof of Christ's resurrection de- pends on them ; and faith is founded on their credibility . . .74 If the Apostles trusted their sight, we may ours . . . . .75 Unanswerable argument of Tertullian . . . . . .77 Yet bread and wine are something more after consecration : they are the body and blood of Christ . . . . . . .78 Extract from Jeremy Taylor . . . . . . .79 CHAPTER VII. transubstantiation: WHOLE CHRIST under the species. Substance of the elements supposed to be preserved, but converted : argument of Aquinas . . . . . . . * .80 But no particle of them forming the body of Christ . . . .81 Transubstantiation without transubstantiation . . . . .81 Change into the body and blood of Christ . . . . .82 But the elements have not the properties of Christ's body, and therefore do not contain it . , . . . . .83 Plea of the power of G-od . . . . . . . .83 Some things are impossible with God . . . . . .84 Conditions of the case : they show transubstantiation to be impossible . . 84 It is not shown to be God's will to work it . . . . .85 Transubstantiation, after all, useless . . . . . .85 CHAPTER VHX consubstantiation, and the nineteenth century doctrine of the real objective presence. The doctrine of Luther . . . . . . . .87 The doctrine of Dr. Pusey . . . . . . .88 XV in CONTENTS. PAGE The doctrine of Archdeacon Wilberforce . . . . . .89 The Memorial addressed to Archbishop Longley . . . . .90 Mr. Carter's correspondence with Mr. Marriot, &c. . . . .90 Romanists, Lutherans, and Tractarians assert the presence of Christ's glorified body .......... 91 The term " Eeal Presence " dates about the time of the Reformation, and objected to by our Reformers . . . . . . . .91 CHAPTER IX. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION DEMANDED BY THE TEACHERS OF THE REAL PRESENCE, BUT MISTAKEN BY THEM. The demand is jxist and is conceded : but it is not followed tip by those who make it . . . . . . . .92 The Institution ......... 93 The actual interpretation of Rome . . . . . .93 The interpretation of Luther and of Dr. Pusey, &c. . . . .95 All three systems assert the presence of the glorified body . . .95 Their doctrines respectively translated into the form of our Lord's words . 96 And compared with them . . . . . . .97 They take only the words " This is my body," practically omitting all the rest . 99 Implicitly denying our Lord's words . . . . . .100 CHAPTER X. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION VINDICATED. The words to be interpreted . . . . . . .102 The tenses of the Greek participles ...... 103 Our Lord gave the bread and the cup separately . . . .103 And it was the dead body . . . . . . .104 The literal interpretation excludes the glorified body, and it is beyond the question to speak of its powers . . . . . . .104 All the ancient Fathers agree . . . . . . .105 None of them speak of the glorified body as present . . . .105 By " The flesh and blood of Christ," as our food, they mean his body sacrificed 106 Testimonies of the Fathers — Clement of Alexandria, &c. . . .107 St. Augustine, &c. . . . . . . . .108 Divines of the Church of England . . . . . .109 The notion of the glorified body a late invention . . . .110 The words not, as Archdeacon Wilberforce put it, merely " This is my body, This is my blood" . . . . . . . .111 This the mistake of many, but unintentional . . . . .112 The circumstances of the Institution considered : our Lord not present in the elements then . . . . . . .113 He spoke the words of the bread and the wine . . . . .114 His body not dead, nor his blood shed, when He gave his body broken, and his blood poured out . . • . . . . .115 The words no mere figure . . . . . . .115 They were true then, and are true ever since, in al! necessary reality . .116 CONTEXTS. xix CHAPTER XI. ONE AND THE SAME GIFT IN THE EUCHARIST FROM THE FIRST. PAGE Bishop Moberley's opinion of a fuller offering of the body of Christ now . 117 Similar notion of Archdeacon Wilberforce . . . . .118 St. Augustine's opinion . . . . . . . .120 St. Chrysostom's . . . . . . . . .121 English Divines ......... 121 Another opinion of Archdeacon Wilberforce . . . . .122 The notion of a fuller gift now, unscriptural . . . . .123 The Holy Spirit may impart larger benefits from the same gift . . .123 The true spiritual sense of our Lord's words . . . . .124 St. Paul received as our Lord first instituted . . . . .124 No fresh revelation . . . . . . . .125 The dead body cannot be present . . . . . .125 The body and blood of Christ not necessary to be present : and to make the body glorified is to make a new Sacrament ..... 125 Dr. Pusey's assertion that the body and blood of Christ mustbe " there," in order that we may receive them . . . . . . .125 Bishop Forbes of Brechin ....... 126 The notion is rationalistic . . . . . . .127 Paith can realise the past and the absent . . . . .127 Bearing of the investigation on doctrine of " The Real Presence " . . 128 Differences between literal interpretation and that doctrine . . .128 It contradicts our Lord's words . . . . . .129 CHAPTER XII. OUR LORD GAVE HIS BODY BROKEN, AND HIS BLOOD SHED. HE GAVE NOT NOR PROMISED HIS GLORIFIED BODY. NO PRESENCE OF THAT WHICH HE DID GIVE, AND NO PRESENCE OF THAT WHICH HE DID NOT PROMISE, TO BE EXPECTED. Meaning and force of our Lord's words now . . . . .130 Not a " Real and Objective Presence " ...... 131 Our Lord said nothing of his glorified body . . . . .131 The dead body now is not, and therefore cannot be present . . .132 The sum of all ......... 132 No real objective presence of that which our Lord gave and promised . .132 Bishop Andrewes says we must go " ad cadaver" . . . .132 Our Lord neither gave nor promised his glorified body . . .133 CHAPTER XIII. ST. JOHN VI. AND 1 COR. X. John vi. . . . . . . . , .135 Division or place of division of no moment . . . . .135 VI. 51, &c. recited . . . . . . . .135 Force of our Lord's words . . . . . . .136 He spoke of his Flesh, his body as a sacrifice, and to be eaten when away in heaven : not of his glorified body . . . . . .137 1 Cor. xi. 27-29 . . . . . . . . . 138 True meaning and force of " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord " doubtful 139 a 2 XX CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIV. THE TEACHING OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. PAGE Appeal to the ancient Fathers . . . . . . .140 Question first stated . . . . . . . .140 Testimonies taken as collected by Dr. Pusey . . . . .141 Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, 141 : Tertul- lian, Anonymous author, Hippolytus, Origen, 142: Firmilian, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Lawrence Martyr, Magnes, 143 : Peter of Alexandria, Eusebius of Csesarea, Council of Nice, James of Nisibis, Athanasius, 144: Council of Alexandria, Cyril Hieros., 145 : Basil, Gregory Naz., Macarius, Ambrose, 145 : Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Apostolical Constitutions, Cyril of Alexandria 146 : Leo ...... 147 Discrimination necessary in applying such testimonies . . . .147 What these testimonies amount to . . . . . .148 The doctrine of " The Eeal Presence " not proved by them . . .148 Places alleged for the Presence " in" the elements . . . .149 The Fathers did not understand the two propositions in our Lord's words as identical; but the teachers of " The Eeal Presence " do . . . 150 St. Cyril Hier., " In the figure of bread " . . . . .151 St. Ephrem Syrus . . . . . . . .153 St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine . . . . . . .156 St. Chrysostom . . . . . . . . .157 Distinction between " is," and " is understood " . .... 158 " Local inclusion " . . . . . . . .159 " After the manner of a Sacrament " . . . . . .159 Boman doctrine that Sacraments " contain " grace . . . .160 A finite body cannot be without local inclusion . . , .160 The Fathers do not teach the presence of the glorified body . . .160 CHAPTER XV. TEACHING OF THE DIVINES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. History of the term ' * Eeal Presence " ...... 162 Different senses of the term . . . . . . .165 Bishop Ridley . . . . . . . .. .167 Bishops Montagu and Bilson . . . . . . .170 Richard Hooker . . . . . . . . .175 Bishop Overall ......... 176 Bishop Morton . . . . . . . . .178 Bishop Andrewes . . . . . . . .180 Dr. Donne ......... 181 Dean Jackson . . . . . . . . .182 Dr. Sutton ......... 183 Bishop White ......... 184 Archbishop Laud . . • . . • . .185 Bishop Forbes . . . . . . . . . .189 Joseph Mede ......... 190 George Herbert . . . • • • • • .190 Archbishop Bramhall . . • • . . . .191 Bishop Cosin . . . . . . . . .193 Bishop Sparrow . . . • • • • .199 Dr. Hammond ......... 200 CONTENTS. xxi PAGE Bishop Fell 201 Herbert Thorndike . ... . . . • • .201 Hamon L'Estrange . . . . . . . .204 Bishop Taylor ......... 205 Bishop Ken 207 Bishop Hackett . . . . . . . .208 Bishop Beveridge . . . . . . . . 209 Bishop Bull ......... 211 Dean Hickes ......... 211 Dean Comber ......... 212 Archbishop Wake . . . . . . . .213 John Johnson ......... 213 Archbishop Sharp . , . . . . , .215 Charles Leslie ......... 216 Dr. Brett ......... 217 Charles Wheatley . . . . . . . .218 Bishop Wilson ...... . 219 Dr. Grabe ......... 220 Bishop Phillpotts . . . . . . , .221 Mr. Palmer ........ .222 The term " Real Presence " not so commonly adopted as is supposed . . 225 Declined by 27 out of 37 authors cited . . . . . .228 Use of the term in our Church a mistake ..... 228 CHAPTER XVI. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The Catechism ......... 229 Sacramentum, and res, and virtus, Sacramenti .... 230 St. Augustine made the res and virtus the same . . . . .231 Two parts in both Sacraments ....... 232 Inward part or thing signified the same with the inward and spiritual grace . 232 " Inward " does not mean " in " ...... 233 " Verily and indeed " ........ 233 Compilers of Prayer Book did not use " body " and " blood " as synonymous . 234 The Communion Service ........ 235 Exhortation on giving notice ; exhortation in the celebration . . . 235 Prayer of humble access ; form in delivering the bread and cup . . 236 Prayer in the Post Communion . . . . . . .237 The Articles . , . . . . . . .239 Dr. Pusey assumes "The Real Presence " proved by the rost of the Prayer Book 240 Bishop Greste's statement beside the question ..... 245 The Rubrics ......... 246 The Black Rubric '. . . . . . . .246 A body must be present after the manner of a body .... 249 For a body to be present after the manner of a spirit, no gain, except it can be everywhere . . . . , . . , 250 Rubric after the Service ........ 250 Evidence of formularies summed up . . . . . 251 The Homilies ......... 252 We are not bound by every word in them ..... 252 " No untrue figure of a thing absent " no proof of " The Presence" . . 252 Brief sum of all . . . . . . . . .25 XXII CONTENTS. CHAPTER XVII. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CONTINUED. MISUSE OF THE TERM REAL PRESENCE. PAGE Our Lord really present in his Divine nature . . . . .255 The ancient Fathers spoke not of a presence ..... 256 The bread, the body ; and the wine, the blood, of Christ ; and his body and blood are present in this sense . . . . . . 256 The Church of England ignorant of the term and of the doctrine it implies . 256 Its use in the Church of England a great mistake .... 257 True sense of a real presence . . . . . . .259 The presence of that which we receive, unnecessary, for it is received by faith, and by faith only could it ever be received ..... 260 But this faith is not independent or exclusive of Christ's ordinance . . 261 It works in connection with the word and ordinance of Christ . . . 262 " Sacramental presence " ....... 263 " Spiritual presence" ........ 261 "Presence after a spiritual manner " ...... 265 Spiritual presence of a material body impossible .... 266 " Virtual presence 266 No virtual presence of that which does not exist .... 267 CHAPTER XVIII. WHAT THE WICKED RECEIVE IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. There is no real presence of the body and blood of Christ : they are received by faith and by faith only, and therefore they who are void of faith do not receive them ........ 268 But there are distinctions to be made. The bread is and is not the body of Christ ; and the wine is and is not his blood : and it is in the sense in which the bread and wine are not his body and blood, that the wicked do not receive them ........ 269 Yet even in that sense they are offered to all, but the offer is not necessarily accepted . . . . . . . . . 269 There must be a capacity, and that is faith ..... 269 Our Lord's words, Jno. vi. 54, 56, 53, show that those who have no life, have not eaten . . . . . . . . . 270 Though they eat the outward Sacrament . . . . .271 Dr. Pusey's argument that they who have received the body and blood of Christ, may yet perish, examined and refuted . . . . .271 Archdeacon Denison's plea invalid . . . . . . 272 " Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," does not prove that they receive, but that they profane them . . . . . . .273 Note on an extraordinary expression of Dr. Pusey .... 273 The Doctrine of the Church of England ...... 274 1 for warnings against receiving unwoithily ..... 275 The wickod do not partake of that body and blood of Christ, which the bread and wine are not ........ 276 CONTENTS. xxiii CHAPTER XIX. ON EUCHARISTICAL ADORATION. PAGE Mr. Keble's and Archdeacon Wilberforce's statements of the question: they ignore the very terms, "the body — and— blood of Christ " . . . 277 The body and blood are not the living body . . . .278 Christ everywhere to be adored ; and to be adored even in the elements, if He were in them: but He is not in them ^ 278 Alleged evidence from the Fathers and the Liturgies : Mr. Keble's argument : necessary caution as to the idea of the Eeal Presence . . . 270 St. Cyril of Jerusalem ........ 280 Eemarks on his expression of " receiving the King n . . .281 St. Ambrose ......... 282 St. Augustine ......... 283 Eemark of Bishop Andrewes on these Fathers ..... 284 Theodoret ......... 285 Eule of the Church E ngland : she does not teach the Eeal Presence in the elements, and therefore does not teach adoration of Christ in them . 286 Adores Him present, but not in the elements ..... 287 The "Black Eubric" does not allow adoration of our Lord in them . . 288 So our great Divines teach that He is to be adored as present in the Eucharist ; but they adore not his body and blood or his presence in the elements . 288 Eemarks on an expression of Mr. Keble, "the Person present by the presence of his body and blood " . . . . . . .280 Similar statements of Archdeacon "Wilberforce ..... 200 Alleged over-explaining of Hooker ...... 200 CHAPTER XX. ON COMMUNION IN ONE KIND, AND ADMINISTERING BOTH KINDS TOGETHER. The circumstances of the institution not to be forgotten . . . 202 Consequence of this in Eoman doctrine ...... 202 Denial of the cup, modern : alleged precedents in antiquity . . . 203 Accidental omission ........ 204 The Manichees first objected to the cup : but they were denounced . . 20-i History of Communion in one kind . . . . . .206 The bread sopped in the wine ...... 207 Main incentive to Communion in one kind . . . . . .207 Cases of concession of the cup : it was prohibited at Trent, and concession left to the Pope ......... 207 Enquiry into the grounds for denial of the cup . . . . .208 Dr. Eock on Jno. vi. ....... 208 Our Lord gave both kinds . . . . . . .300 Pretences of Eoman Theologians . . . . . .301 Our Lord at Emmaus ........ 301 It is not, as Eome alleges, the same thing which is received under each kind . 302 Administration of the bread dipped in the wine : the Liturgies : in seven the bread is dipped : in three the dipped bread is administered : in five the elements are administered separately ..... 302 Inconsistency of the practice with our Lord's words .... 303 It changes tho Sacrament : caution with regard to the Eastern Church, which follows it ........ 303 xxiv CONTEXTS. PART II. CHAPTER I. THE EUCHARIST A FEAST UPON A SACRIFICE. PAGE Our Lord's words on the necessity and benefits of eating his flesh and drinking his blood : and He has taught us how to do this, by the institution of the Sacrament ......... 305 By doing this we feast on his Sacrifice ...... 306 The Jewish sacrifices : correspondence of our Lord's sacrifice to them . .306 His sacrifice never to be repeated, and not continuous .... 307 In the Eucharist we feast on a sacrifice made once for all by Christ, and not on a sacrifice made by us : and the Eucharist a proof of his sacrifice . 308 The Eucharist is a feast : enquiry what is the subject of the feast . . 308 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS BY BICKERSTETH AND OTHERS ; HICKES, JOHNSON, AND MOSHEIM : AND THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Mr. Bickersteth's object'ons ....... 310 Charge of novelty : the doctrine not novel if Scriptural : opinions of the Fathers . . ... . . . . .312 Hickes' objections . . . . . . . .314 Johnson's . . „ .. . . . . .314 The Eucharist is not a literal, but a spiritual feast . . . .315 Johnson's doctrine . . . . . . . .315 His shocking words on our Lord's death . . . . .316 Mosheim's objections . . . . . . . .317 They are dissolved by the fact that it is not a literal feast we partake of .318 The objections of the Tracts for the Times . . . . .319 The power of our Lord's sacrifice is for ever : it was the only real and true sacrifice ; and our feast on it is real ..... 320 "We partake of the elements, but this is not a feast: we partake of the body and blood of Christ, and this is the feast . . . . .321 CHAPTER III. FOUR THEORIES OF MATERIAL SACRIFICE IN THE EUCHARIST. Mede's theory : the great authority for a material sacrifice, before consecration 322 Johnson's theory : sacrifice of the elements made the body and blood of Christ, by union with the Holy Spirit ...... 323 Nineteenth century doctrine of material sacrifice .... 325 The Roman theory ........ 327 CHAPTER IV. DEFINITION OF SACRIFICE. It is not of sucrifice in general, but of Scriptural sacrifice . . . 329 Difference between sacrifices and oblations ...... 330 CONTENTS. XXV PAGB In sacrifice there is a destruction of life or being . . . .330 Rule of sacrifices ,* . . . . . . .330 Sacrifice is for sin : it is a confession of sin, and profession of faith and hope . 331 Definition of material sacrifice ....... 333 Examination of other definitions : St. Augustine's ; Aquinas' . . . 333 Definition by Bellarmine, 334 : excludes the sacrifices of the Old Testament ; unsupported by sufficient proof, 335 : unscriptural, 336 : though framed to favour the mass, is opposed to it, 336 : not reconcilable with the definition of Trent ......... 337 More important variance with Roman doctrine ..... 338 His definition opposed to the sacrifice of the cross .... 338 Mede's definition . . . . . . . . .339 Johnson's ......... 340 His definition as well as Bellarmine's opposed to the sacrifice of the cross . 342 Bread and wine alone were not a sacrifice of the law . . . .343 Manducation of a sacrifice is not sacrifice ..... 344 Thorndike says the elements are properly oblations, improperly sacrifices . 344 Archdeacon Wilberforce's definition ...... 345 Mr. Medd's ......... 346 The Ecclesiastic ......... 346 All these theories only beg the question . . . . . .347 CHAPTER V. PASSAGES OF HOLT SCRIPTURE WHICH ARE ALLEGED FOR A MATERIAL SACRIFICE IN THE EUCHARIST. Distinction between the service and the elements of the Eucharist . . 348 Five places only alleged for a direct proof . . . . .348 Mai. i. 11. Mede's interpretation ...... 349 But " incense " and " Mincha " must be taken, both, either spiritually or literally : and spiritual incense and offering agreeable to Scripture . 349 Roman versions ......... 350 " Incense and a pure offering " : no offerings of the law called pure, not even the " Mincha " : the same things pure under the law and the Gospel . 350 The purity spoken of could not belong to any material offering : and the offering could not be of any material thing . . . . . .351 The Mincha was not mere bread and wine, but of fine flour, &c, with oil and salt, and sometimes frankincense ; and not with wine . . . 352 What is the "pure offering'"' ....... 352 Many pure offerings made by Christians ..... 353 The Fathers were not unanimous in their opinions of the 11 pure offering " . 353 Tertullian's opinion . . . . . . .353 Opinions of Eusebius and Jerome ...... 354 Mat. vi. 23, 24. Mede's argument ...... 355 The place not to be confined to Christians, but to have application at the time and thenceforth . . . . . . . .356 The Christian Altar. The Gospel has spiritual sacrifices, a spiritual priesthood, and a spiritual altar . . i . . . .357 The altar to be proved by the sacrifices . . . . . .357 The records of the institution of the Eucharist . . . . .358 Mede's construction ........ 358 But bread and wine were not a meat offering ..... 359 Johnson's argument of our Lord's offering of Himself in the institution . 359 CONTENTS. PAGE It is not true that He did actually offer Himself in it . . . . 360 His body was devoted, but not given then ..... 360 He being alive gave his dead body . . . . . .361 Our Lord in the institution is not said to have offered or sacrificed either Him- self or the elements . . . . ... . . 362 His offering and sacrifice of Himself done only on the cross . . . 363 Jer. Taylor on the sacrifice of Himself in the Eucharist .... 363 On the meaning of the word iroietre ...... 364 Heb. v. 10. The order of Melchisedek . . . . . .365 Line of argument necessary to show a material sacrifice in the Eucharist from Melchisedek . . . . . . . .365 Examination of it . . . . . . . . 366 " Offered" or "brought forth." Gen. xiv. 18, 19 . . . .367 Bellarmine's attempt ........ 367 Unsupported by the Hebrew ; and his argument careless and inconsistent . 367 Opinions of St. Augustine and St. Cyprian . . . . .369 Josephus and Philo ........ 369 The Hebrew particle is copulative ...... 370 It is probable that Melchisedek offered sacrifice on meeting Abraham ; but only- probable ......... 371 We are never told that bread and wine were used as a sacrifice to God . .372 Offering of Cain and Abel . . . . . . .372 Cain's rejected because it had no shedding of blood .... 373 The assertion that a priest after the order of Melchisedek must offer bread and wine . . . . . . . . . 373 The interpretation of " Thou art a priest for ever," &c. .... 373 Christian Priests wrongly asserted to be after the order of Melchisedek. . 374 The Ep. to the Heb. does not refer to a sacrifice of Melchisedek . . 376 The silence unaccountable, if the writer intended any correspondence between Melchisedek and Christ as to sacrifice . . . . .376 Melchisedek himself a type of Christ, but his bread and wine not a type of any offering by Christ . . . . . . . . 378 Divine authority alone can make the relations of type and antitype . .378 Definitions of a type ........ 370 Johnson's arguments on the silence in Heb. ..... 379 It is the perpetuity of our Lord's priesthood which makes Him a priest after the order of Melchisedek . . . . . . .382 CHAPTER VL OPINIONS OF TEE ANCIENT FATHERS ON MELCIIISEDEK's ALLEGED SACRIFICE. No mention in the Bible of any sacrifice of Melchisedek . . . 384 The authority of the Fathers cannot make a type . . . .384 Distinction of doctrines put forth merely as their own, from those which they ascribe to the Church ....... 384 Opinions of Clem. Alex., Cyprian, 385 ; Eusebius Cses., 386 ; Ambrose, 387 ; Jerome, Augustine, 388 ; Chrysostom, Theodoret, Arnobius jun., Cassio- dorus, Primasius, 389 ; Joannes Damasc, (Ecumenius, 390; Theophylact . 391 Analysis of their opinions . . . . . . .391 There is next to nothing in them to show that they regarded the bread and wine of Melchisedek as a sacrifice ...... 394 No proof, therefore, that they are a type of a sacrifice, proving a sacrifice of them in the Eucharist ....... 395 Heb. xiii. 10 does not prove a material altar. A material altar is for a sacrifice by fire. The priesthood being changed, so are the sacrifices . . 396 CONTEXT?. XXVII CHAPTER VII. THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS ON THE ECCHAEISTIC SACRIFICE. PAGE Did they believe a sacrifice of the bread and wine ? . . . .398 It is not sufficient to heap up places from many centuries, and to put them forth as the opinion of antiquity . . . . . . .398 Evidence must be carefully traced from the first .... 399 Clem. Eom. 399; Ignatius, 400; Justin Martyr, 401 ; Irenseus, 403; Tertullian, 405 ; Negative evidence : Justin Martyr, 406 ; St. Barnabas, Athenagoras, 407 ; Irenaeus, Tertullian, 408 ; Minucius Felix, Clem. Alex., Origen, 409 ; they repudiated material sacrifices . . . . . .410 Enumeration of sacrifices by St. Chrysostom, excluded material sacrifices . 412 The practice of the Church: Justin Martyrs account of the Eucharist, 414; Cyril's of Jerusalem ; have nothing of oblation or sacrifice of the elements . 414 A gradual advance from primitive doctrine and practice . . .416 Special notice on Archdeacon Wilberforce's opinion, which is shown to be illogical and inconclusive . . . . . . . .419 The Eucharist was held to be a sacrifice by the ancient Church ; but that it held the elements to be a sacrifice, has not been proved . . .419 Illicit process in argument from oblation to sacrifice .... 420 CHAPTER VIII. ON THE ALLEGED SACRIFICE OF THE " SACR AMENTUM " WITH THE "RES SACRAMENTI.'' The sacrifices with respect to the elements, which are claimed as the system of 31 ede, of the nineteenth century, and of Rome . . . .421 The Res Sacramenti of these theories is not the same .... 422 Of Johnson's theory, it is the Holy Spirit ..... 422 His alleged evidence from the ancients ...... 424 Theodoret and Cyril Alex., Chrysostom, 425; Augustine, 426; Gaudentius, 427 ; Ephrem Syrus, 428 ; Ambrose, 429 ; Gregory Xyssen, 430 ; Optatus, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, 431; Cyril of Jerusalem, 432; Julius Eirmicus, Gelasius, 433 ; The Liturgies ..... 434 No change conceived in the nature or substance of the elements ; nor any imagination that the body and blood of Christ was in them, though, in a sense, they were his body and blood . . . . .436 The Holy Spirit was invoked to make them what they were called ; but no in- fusion of the Spirit into them imagined : and so far as requisite, they were what they were called . . . . . . .437 What the evidence brought by Johnson amounts to : but first it is necessary to observe that such testimonies must not be used cumulatively, as the evidence of Scripture ; but taken only so far as they all agree . .437 Examination of the evidence of Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Liturgies ......... 438 Difference of language in the Liturgies before and after the consecration . 442 They had no sacrifice of the elements or the sacramentum, or of the Spirit with them as the Res Sacramenti ...... 444 In the Tractarian and Roman systems, the Res Sacramenti is the body and blood Qf Christ, or rather Christ Himself ..... 445 But He cannot be offered . . . . . . .417 The " Continuous Sacrifice " ....... 448 Memorial addressed to Archbishop Longley by Mr. Carter and others . . 41S XXY111 CONTEXTS. FACE History of the doctrine : it is traced no farther back than to Archdeacon Manning . . . ... . . . . 449 Not found in Aquinas or Bellarmine ...... 449 Aquinas had no thought of the continuous sacrifice . . . .451 Bellarmine held a continual offering on earth ..... 452 Growth of Roman errors on this subject and others . . . .453 Opinions of English divines ....... 454 Waterland, Field, Taylor . . . . . . .454 Cosin, Jolly ..... .... 455 Phillpotts ......... 456 Archdeacon Manning considered to be the first who broached the doctrine of the " continuous sacrifice 456 Archdeacon Wilberforce followed . . . . . .457 Observations of Bellarmine ....... 458 A nearer approach by Harding ....... 459 The doctrine an addition to Roman doctrine ..... 460 Correspondence of Mr. Marriott and Mr. Carter .... 460 " Tracts for the Day " . . . . . . .461 The doctrine briefly described ....... 462 Its supposed foundations examined ...... 463 Christ offered once for all . . . . . . . 464 And by that one offering made " a priest for ever " .... 465 His priesthood imposes no necessity that He should offer sacrifice any more . 465 He offered Himself once, and by his offering " obtained eternal redemption for us" . . . . . . . . . .466 Plea of Mr. Carter from Rev. v. 6, " a lamb as it had been slain" . . 466 But He was not offering: He was standing not before an altar, but " before the throne" ......... 467 Another plea from Heb. ix. 24, " appearing in the presence of Cod for us " . 467 Another argument from the High Priest entering with the blood into the Holy of Holies ......... 468 Examination of this type: its signification opened out in Ep. to Hebrews . 469 Our Lord was not " in a victim state " during the forty days after his resurrec- tion : and He ascended not as one to offer, but as one who had offered . 471 Mr. Shipley's argument . . . . . . . .471 Mr. Carter is refuted by Mr. Marriott . . . . . .472 The true doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ ..... 472 CHAPTER IX. THE TRUE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. The Eucharist is a feast, not on the elements, but on that which they signify . 474 None could offer Christ, but Himself ...... 475 We have no material sacrifices imposed upon us, but we have spiritual sacrifices to offer ......... 475 The sacrifice of confession and contrition, 476 ; of faith, of thanksgiving, 477 ; of ourselves, of all that we have, of prayers, intercessions, and thanks for all men ......... 477 In addition to these sacrifices we may add material oblations . . . 477 The spiritual sacrifices are the true Eucharistic Sacrifice . . . 477 CONTENTS. xxix CHAPTER X. ON OBLATIONS IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. PAGE Oblations in the Church at Jerusalem ...... 479 Made with prayer ; religiously presented for Divine acceptance . . . 480 Accounts by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian .... 480 Oblations of bread and wine ; out of which were taken the elements for the Sacrament ......... 481 Citations from Tertullian and Cyprian . . . . . .481 Chrysostom. Justin Martyr's account of the celebration of the Sacrament : no oblation of the elements found in it . . . . .482 Nor in that given by Cyril of Jerusalem ..... 483 Oblation of the elements as such, not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament 483 No oblation in our " Communion of the Sick" ..... 483 We must not make that essential, which is not ..... 4S3 In the practice of the Church, the elements are not sacrificed . . . 485 No sacrifice or oblation of them is to be implied in our Lord's words or action . 485 The elements are not to be set forth as an adjunct to a Jewish sacrifice . . 4S6 No trace of oblation or sacrifice of the elements found in the New Totament, or in the early records of the Church . . . . .486 Our Lord has commanded them to be taken ; He has not commanded them to be offered ......... 487 They may be a memorial of a larger oblation ; but they are, with whatsoever legitimate ceremonies ordained by the Church, to be ready for consecration 488 The mind of the Church of England : the Prayer for the Church Militant, and the previous Rubric . . . . . . . 488 The bason with the alms directed to be M reverently" brought, and "humbly" presented and placed upon the Table : but of the elements it is said merely that the priest shall place them upon the Table .... 489 What is the intention of the Church ? . . . . . 490 Second Book of Ed. VI. . . . . . . . .490 Proposal to insert in our Rubric a direction that the Priest should "offer up" the elements, rejected at the last revision ..... 490 Rubric of the Prayer for the Church Militant ..... 491 Intention of our Church to restore " the godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers," who, as has been seen, had no special oblation of the elements . 492 Testimony of Clement of Rome, 492 ; of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom . . 493 The true primitive practice ....... 494 Evidence of the Liturgies . . . . . . .494 An appeal to them useless on this subject ..... 495 The English Liturgy has no verbal oblation of the elements . . . 495 It is not contended that there is no oblation of them in any sense ; but that the oblation of them is not an essential part of the sacramental rite . . 496 Our altar is for spiritual sacrifices and for such oblations as may fitly accompany them ......... 497 Our Priesthood corresponds to the Altar and its Sacrifices . . .499 CHAPTER XL CONCLUSION. Parti. .......... 500 Part II. .......... 507 XXX CONTENTS. APPENDICES APPENDIX A. PAGE On the " large tipper room." It would be the same in which the Apostles as- sembled after the institution, and to which they returned after the Ascen- sion : the " house " in which they broke " the bread." It was afterwards enclosed with a goodl* church, known by the name of the Church of Sion .......... 511 APPENDIX B. The Sacrament is not to be consecrated without wine, or one element without the other ......... 514 APPENDIX C. Meaning of Sacramcntum ....... 516 APPENDIX D. On the expression in the Homily : " no untrue figure of a thing absent " .517 APPENDIX E. Peter Lombard on the Sacraments ...... 518 APPENDIX F. Application of the name, and number of the Sacraments . . .519 Brief history with regard to the number ..... 520 Only two Sacraments held at first, 520 ; Luther held three : Hugo de S. "Victore and Peter Lombard, the first who held seven . . . ,521 Doctrine of the Church of England . . . , . .521 APPENDIX G. On thc'name " Quakers " ....... 522 CONTEXTS. xxxi APPENDIX H. PAGE The reception of disciples in baptism with water by our lord. Quaker objec- tions. Our Lord baptized not ; but his disciples baptized with water by his authority, and it was understood to be his act . . . .523 APPENDIX I. The necessity of water in baptism ...... 525 APPENDIX K. Connection of St. John vi. 32-63 with the institution of the Eucharist . . 525 APPENDIX L. The necessity of using the means appointed for eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ . ....... 526 APPENDIX M. The way in which the true believer is instructed that he is to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ . . . . . . .527 Mr. Gurney on feeding spiritually ...... 527 Spiritual eating and drinking, indeed, have no necessary connection with any external ceremony: for that would come to the doctrine of the "opus operatum" .......... 528 Note on the " opus operatum " . . . . . . . 528 But the connection between the grace and the rite is strong enough for faith . 530 Sacraments themselves will not save ; but will they who reject them live? No light thing to reject any Divine ordinance . . . .530 We are to eat the bread because the Lord said it is his body, and to drink the wine because He said it is his blood . . . . .531 APPENDIX N. L'Arroque's account of the origin of the mixed cup , 532 APPENDIX 0. The supposed symbolisms of the mixed cup Statement of them from St. Cyprian Note from the *' Library of the Fathers " Summary of the symbolisms .... They are not Catholic, nor Scriptural To find and to introduce mystical significations are different True doctrinal uses of the Sacraments The Trent reasons for the mixed cup llomanist speculations on the mixed cup . 533 . 534 . 536 . 537 . 537 . 538 . 539 XXII CONTENTS. APPENDIX P. PAGE Defective doctrines of the Eucharist ...... 540 Zuingle, 540 ; Socinus, 541 ; Remonstrants, Doddridge, Wesley, 542 ; Dwight 543 APPENDIX Q. The decree of transubstantiation ....... 543 APPENDIX S. Archbishop Bramhall's catalogue of the questions and debates which arose from transubstantiation ........ 544 References to arguments in our great Divines against transubstantiation, from the reason and nature of things ...... 546 Remarks of Archbishop Cranmer, 547; of Tracts against Popery, and Leslie . 548 Mr. Stanley Faber's opinion that transubstantiation is a question of extrinsic evidence: his opinion controverted ...... 518 ** Truth in what kind soever is by no truth gainsaid " . . . 550 APPENDIX R. Bom m admission that the species may still be called bread and win© , . 550 APPENDIX S. On our Lord's coming out of the tomb ; on his entering the room when the doors were shut ; and on his vanishing out of sight at Emmaus . . . 551 Outline of the facts of the resurrection, 551. The entrance when the doors were shut v . , 554 His entrance through the substance of the door remaining shut, would have been evidence against his resurrection or the truth of his body . . . 554 Note on the opinions of the Fathers ...... 556 ** He vanished out of their sight." It is not explained how ; and it may be differently accounted for 558 A miracle confessed in all the three cases ; but it is not known, neither can it be confidently stated, in what the miracle consisted . . , 559 The alleged miracles might be believed, if they had been declared . . 560 But they are, at best, only probable ; and . probability is no foundation for doctrine ......... 561 "Nor, if they were certainly proved, would they be sufficient to show that our Lord's body could be in more places than one .... 561 CONTENTS. XXXlll APPENDIX T. PAGE Consubstantiation ... . . . . . 562 Luther's statement of his doctrine ...... 562 Confession of Augsburg, Melancthon's Apology, Gerhard . . . 504 Trent decree " de usu admirabilis hujus Sacrameuti " .... 066 Mosheim, Gerhard, the Augsburg Confession, and Melancthon's Apology . 567 Comment of St. Augustine ....... 568 Ubiquity, and St. Augustine upon it ... . 568 Hooker on the retention by each nature in the Person of Christ of its distinct properties ......... 569 APPENDIX V. The Roman Canon of the Mass, and conversion of the substances . .571 The Canon, and how it differs from the true words . . . .571 Bellarmine on the kinds of conversion . . . . . .572 But he, and those who defend transubstantiation, may give explanations, and yet leave the subject as incredible as they find it . . . 574 APPENDIX W. We eat not a living but a dead body . . . . . .575 APPENDIX X. The bread is, and is not, the body of Christ : the wine is, and is not, the blood of Christ . . . . . . . . . 575 Citation from Archdeacon Freeman in connection with this statement. . . 575 Remarks on the Archdeacon's opinion . . . . . .577 APPENDIX Y. On the steeped Eucharist . . . . . . .577 Decree of the Council of Braga, 577 ; of another Council under Urban II. . 578 APPENDIX Z. The use of the steeped Eucharist leading to the disuse of the cup . . 578 The steps by which the disuse of the cup came about .... 578 Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, that whole Christ was given under the species of bread . . . . . , , 579 Coronation of Richard II. . . . . . . 530 APPENDIX A A. The decree of the Council of Constance for disuso of the cup The decree ...... Opposed to two Popes before .... b 580 580 582 xxxiv CONTEXTS. APPENDIX B B. PAGE The concession of the cup to the Bohemians ..... 582 Granted also to the Moravians, to the king of England, Ed. III. . . 582 Charles V. permitted it; Ferdinand of Hungary, and Albert of Bavaria, granted it . . . . . . . . . 583 Petitions to the Council of Trent for it, 583 ; but the Council at length left it to the discretion of the Pope ....... 584 Custom at coronation of the French kings ..... 584 Proposal of the Pope to sanction our Liturgy . . . . .584 APPENDIX CC. Relaxation of the Constance decree by the Pope in favour of deacons and others 1 f / • . • • • ? fr«ri?' " « 584 Testimonies given by J. Arroque from Cassander . .... 584 APPENDIX DD. On the breaking of bread at Emmaus . . , . . .585 APPENDIX EE. On the time when our Lord offered Himself ..... 586 Mr; Milton's opinion that He offered the lamb at the Passover, and with it offered Himself ........ 586 It is unfounded on Scripture, and untheological ..... 589 Our Lord never offered any sacrifice but of Himself .... 590 The distinction is not true between the sacrifice of the spirit and soul, and the sacrifice of the body ....... 590 The feast on his sacrifice being spiritual, could be before as well as after He suffered ......... 591 The feast is on his body given for us, and his blood shed for us ; and the feast could never be but by faith ....... 591 APPENDIX FF. On the use of the word 7rot€?T€ ....... 592 Mr. Malan's observations ....... 592 His observations from Chrysostom on the " continuous sacrifice " . . 593 APPENDIX GG. Archdeacon Freeman on Cain's sacrifice ...... 594 But Abel's a "larger" sacrifice than Cain's, because it had shedding of blood . 595 CONTENTS. XXXV APPENDIX HH. PAGK Our Lord offered no sacrifice but of Himself ..... 595 He had no sin to offer for, and therefore could not offer . . . 595 To sa}' that He offered sacrifices of the law is to impute sin to Him . . 596 APPENDIX II. On the alleged sacrifice of Melchisedek ...... 596 Canon Trevor's remarks, showing that Cyprian was the first to take the alleged sacrifice for a type of the Eucharistic sacrifice .... 596 Citation from Outram ........ 597 Letter of the late Dr. Burton on the order of Melchisedek. and on Malachi i. 11 598 APPENDIX EK, The body and blood of Christ are not whole Christ .... 600 Inaccurate words of Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, and St. Augustine ......... 600 Passage imputed to Overall by Knox ...... 600 We must not deny that Christ had a soul as well as flesh — this were heresy . 601 THE TEUE DOCTRINE OF THE EUC HARI S T. PART I. CHAPTER L NAMES OF THIS HOLT EITE. This rite of the Church, of Christ has many different appella- tions,1 of which some are found in Holy Scripture, and others are derived from its real or supposed nature and uses.2 The first mention we find of it, after the ascension of our Lord, is under the name of "Breaking of bread " in Acts ii. 42, where we are informed that the multitude of converts " continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in break- ing of bread, and in prayers." Some commentators and divines, indeed, are doubtful whether the Sacrament is here meant by the expression, "breaking of bread; " especially because it is said in the forty-fourth and forty-sixth verses, that " all that believed had all things common ; — and continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house,* did 1 " Nihil prohibet idem pluribus nominibus nominari secundum diversas proprietates et effectus." Nothing forbids that the same thing should be called by many names according to its diverse properties and effects. — Aquinas, 3a. q. 73, art. 4. 2°. 2 For the names of this Sacrament, see Waterland's Review of the Eucharist, c. i. Works, Oxford, 1823, vii. 20, &c. ; also Casaubon's Exercitationes ad Baron. Prolegom. An. xxxiv. Numm. xlv.-lxiii. G-enev. 1655, pp. 441-517 ; and Suicer. Thesaur. in voce. Suirvov, euxapto'Ti'a, dvala, KXaais, Koivaivia, fxvcrrripiov, irpocrcpopd, k.t.K. ; Albertin. de Euch. Sacramento, Daventrise, 1654,1. i.; Binchii Mellificium Theologicum, Amstelodami, 1658, Loc. XXVII. i. ; Hospinian. Historiee Sacramentarise, Tigur. 1598, I. ix. 175. * See Appendix A. B NAMES OF THIS HOLY RITE. [Ch. I. eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," where it seems clear that by " breaking of bread " is meant a partaking of ordinary food. Now this appears to me to be one of the many instances, in which objections are founded on an ambiguity in the English, when a reference to the Greek would at once show that there is no ground whatever for them. For, on looking at the original, it is instantly plain, that the more accurate translation would be " they continued steadfastly in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the fellowship, and in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers ; " or — " in the doctrine and fellowship of the apostles, and in their breaking of the bread, and in their prayers;" that is, not merely in the doctrine and fellowship of the apostles, but also in their breaking of the bread, — the sacramental bread,3 — and in their prayers, — the prayers spoken by them. For, wherever common bread is meant, the word is used without the article, unless there be a reference to some bread previously mentioned. Thus in St. Mark vii. 2, " when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, unwashen hands," the word is without the article : but in the fifth verse, where we read, " why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" it is " the bread," — the bread which they had seen them thus eat. We may add that if St. Luke had meant common bread in Acts ii. 42, as well as in the forty-sixth verse, he would, doubtless, have omitted the article in the former, and have inserted it in the latter ; instead of doing the very contrary, as he has done. And the connection in which it occurs in the forty-second verse, I cannot but think, is a sufficient proof of the matter in question. For the sacred writer would hardly have introduced a reference to their common meals, between "the apostles' doc- trine and fellowship," and their " prayers ; " particularly when he was about to make mention, a verse or two afterwards, of their " breaking bread from house to house and eating their meat." The unwillingness of some to interpret the passage as mean- ing the Lord's Supper, seems to have arisen from this : that some controversialists of the Church of Rome have endeavoured to draw an argument from the place so interpreted, in favour of their practice of communion in one kind only. But, as has been 8 The Syriac version (which is of great antiquity) renders it " breaking of the Eucharist." — Waterland, Ee v. Works, 1823; vii. 20; Mede, Discourse on Churches. Works, Lond. 1664, ii. 409. Ch. L] NAMES OF THIS HOLY BITE. 3 well remarked,* if it be argued from there being no mention of wine, that the Sacrament was celebrated or administered without it, it must be admitted that it was consecrated also without it ; and as the Church of Rome maintains, and that rightly, that the Sacrament ought not to be consecrated without wine,f the argument for communion in one kind altogether fails. No real difficulty, therefore, or impediment, is occasioned by the Romanist application of the place. In accordance with this name, of "breaking of bread," we find, Acts xx. 7, ifhe disciples coming " together on the first day of the week to break bread : " and St. Paul speaks % of this Sacra- ment, as " the bread, which we break, and the cup of blessing, which we bless." In the former place, it is true, the word " bread " is without the article : but the circumstances are suffi- cient to show what bread is meant : for it was " on the first day of the week," the Lord's day, that "the disciples came together; " their assembly was for the special purpose of breaking bread ; and preaching was a part of what was transacted in that assembly : all which circumstances indicate the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and agree but little with the enjoyment of a common meal. We do not elsewhere find that the disciples met together in this manner to partake of a common meal; but we do find, from St. Paul's remonstrances with the Corinthians, § that they did come thus together to celebrate this Sacrament. The designation of u The Lord's Supper " is taken from the place just now referred to, where St. Paul says : " when ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper." This name was adopted for the rite, because our Lord Jesus Christ and his disciples were eating the supper of the Passover,4 (Matt. xxvi. 26) when He instituted it, and because He used for it the viands of which they had been partaking. Some, however, as Thorndike,5 think that " the Lord's Supper" in the meaning of the apostle, comprehended the Agape or Love-feast, as well as the Sacrament : taking the * Whitby, in loc. f See Appendix B. % 1 Cor. x. 16. § 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20-34. 4 " Vetustissimi quidem patres, Apostoli " The most eminent fathers, indeed, fol- auctoritatem secuti, coense etiam nomine lowing the authority of the apostle, have saeram Eueharistiam interdum vocarunt, sometimes called the sacred Eucharist by quod in illo novissimse coense salutari the name even of the Supper, because it mysterio a Christo Domino sit instituta." was instituted by Christ the Lord in that — Cat. Cone. Trid. de Euch. v. saving mystery of his last supper." 8 Review of the Service of God at Religious Assemblies, Works, Oxford, 1814, I. 8o9. 4 IsAMES OF THIS HOLY RITE. [Ch. t name to mean the whole transaction, and calling the Agape the Lord's Supper, and the holy rite, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But since there is no record that our Lord instituted the Love-feast, while He did institute the Sacrament at his last supper, it would seem unreasonable to give the name to the Agape, and refuse it to his own institution. The Church of England has adopted this name for the Sacra- ment, and her divines and members generally have followed her example. But of late years a party has sprung up, some of whom have objected to the name as " the cause at the present day of much misconception : " just as Dens objects to it as opposed to the precept, that the Sacrament should be taken fasting.* The misconception, I suppose, is in views of the Sacrament, inconsistent with their doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. But even the Supper and their Eucharistic Sacrifice are not inconsistent ; for that, which they suppose to be sacri- ficed, is eaten by our Lord's command. St. Paul has also said : " the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? "f Therefore also this Sacrament is called The Com- munion of the Body and Blood of Christ. About forty years after (a.d. 96), it was called Oblation ; because at its celebration gifts were offered, consisting " partly of alms for the poor, and partly of oblations to the Church ; 99 and out of these oblations the bread and wine were taken. So ancient, we may observe by the way, is the practice followed by our own Church, which directs " alms for the poor and other devotions of the people " to be collected in the Communion ; and when the bread and wine have been placed upon the table, puts into our mouths the prayer that God would " most merci- fully accept our alms and oblations, and receive our prayers, which we offer unto his Divine Majesty." There is also an offering up of ourselves to God, as we say in the Post-Com- munion. 66 And here we offer and present unto Thee, 0 Lord, ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Thee." For it was deemed " one great part of this office to dedicate ourselves to God," in humble acknow- ledgment of the inestimable benefits, represented and conveyed to us in this Sacrament, according to these words of St. Paul .* * The Ecclesiastic, viii. 302, Dens,. Theologia : De Eucharistia, Dublin, 1832, I. i. p. 251. t 1 Cor. x. 1G. Ch. L] NAMES OF THIS HOLY RITE. 5 " I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." * The name of Sacrament seems to have been given to it about the year of our Lord 104 ; as we find from the celebrated letter of Pliny to Trajan, where he says that " the Christians, meeting on a certain day, bound themselves by a Sacrament, to commit no wickedness, but to lead good lives : " for as Pliny there repeated what the Christians had told him, it is reason- able to judge, that they had made use of the word Sacrament to him, which they understood in a Christian sense, however Pliny or Trajan might take it.f They might use it as an illustration to show that the holy rite imposed as strong an obligation upon them as the Sacramentum which bound the Romans to the duties with which it was connected : that it was in a way, to them, what the Sacramentum was to the Romans. J Very soon afterwards we find it called by the name of Eucharist, which signifies Thanksgiving : and this name was given to it because the giving of thanks and praise was con- sidered an indispensable part of the service : — the Church herein following the example of our blessed Saviour Himself ; of whom the sacred writers inform us, that when He ordained this holy mystery, He gave thanks before He brake the bread, and likewise also when He took the cup. The honiiry of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, § says that " the godly Fathers named it Eucharistia ; as if they should have said, now, above all other times, ye ought to laud and praise God. Now you may behold the matter, the cause, the beginning, and the end of all thanksgiving. Now, if you slack, ye show yourselves most unthankful, and that no other benefit can ever stir you to thank God, who so little regard here so many, so wonderful, and so profitable benefits." And in this particular, again, we may perceive how close our Church keeps to the scriptural and primitive pattern : for both in and after the celebration of the Communion, there is a hymn of praise, " lauding and magnifying God's holy name," and" giving thanks to Him for his great glory." It was also called by the names of Memorial and Commemo- ration, signifying some of the objects for which it was ap- * Rom. xii. 1. t Waterland's Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. Works, Oxford, 182.'), VII. 32. J See Appendix C. § Second Tart, near the beginning. 6 NAMES OF THIS HOLY RITE. [Ch. L pointed, according to the injunction : " Do this in remembrance of Me ; 99 and according to the declaration of the apostle, that " as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do shew the Lord's death till He come." * And, lastly, it was called Sacrifice and Passover : — Sacri- fice, because we make in the celebration of it a " sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," as our Prayer Book expresses it ; and because it is the memorial and commemoration of the one oblation of Himself offered once for all, by which our Saviour Christ did make "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world : " — Passover, because, as not only the ceremony itself which was observed by the Israelites on the night when they went out of Egypt, but also its annual feast or commemoration, was called the Pass- over ; and Christ was called and is our true Passover, which was sacrificed for our deliverance from spiritual bondage : so might the commemoration of his sacrifice be called by the same name. Other appellations were given in the course of time to this Sacrament ; 6 but these which I have mentioned are the earliest, the most considerable, and the most appropriate. Let us just glance at the manner in which our own Church speaks of it. The formal designation of it in our Liturgy is, the Lord's Supper, or the Holy Communion; or, as in the running title of the office, the Communion. In the Catechism and the Thirty- nine Articles, it is called the Supper of the Lord. In the Communion Service, it is spoken of as " the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; " " the holy eom- * 1 Cor. xi. 26. 6 In the Church of Eome it is called Viaticum, " because it offers to us here a way of reaching heaven" (Dens, v. 251) : and, most commonly, The Mass ; on which name Bishop Morton says : — " Nomen Missa secum omen suum ap- portat, qucd cum a dimittendis iis qui Eucharistise participes esse nolunt, ortum suum traxerit, Romanam Missam plane jugulat, quae (veluti Amasios suos) specta- tors meros omnibus lenociniis ad se alli- cit at que invitat ; ac si in illo uno theatrico Spectaculo Religio ipsa Christi- ana frre tota consist eret : quos tamen (modo Eucharistise capaces) antiquitas Catholica a pud Gravcos a.ir4\Qeiv, apud Latinos dis- cedere jussit." — De Each. Epist. Dedicat. ii. '* The name Mass bears its own omen, because, sjnce it drew its origin from sending away those who desire not to be partakers of the Eucharist, it plainly destroys the Roman Mass, which (as [a woman does] her gallants) entices and in- vites to itself mere spectators by every allurement ; as if almost the whole Chris- tian religion consisted in that one thea- trical show: and yet these people (if admissible to the Eucharist) Catholic an- tiquity amongst the Greeks ordered to go away, and amongst the Latins to depart." Ch. L] NAMES OF THIS HOLY RITE. munion of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ ; " " holy mysteries, and a heavenly feast," in which we receive " pledges of his love," and set forth a " remembrance of his death to our great and endless comfort." In the Homilies, it is termed "a mystery of peace, and Sacrament of Christian Society ; " " high mysteries ; " " sacred and fearful mysteries ; " " the reverend communion ; " "a celes- tial banquet and feast ; " " a heavenly memory of the death and passion of Christ." In the office for the Communion it is also said to be a divine and comfortable thing to them who re- ceive it worthily, and dangerous to them that will presume to receive it unworthily.* The Homily thus expatiates upon the Sacrament : " in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent ; t but, as the Scripture saith, the Table of the Lord ; the Bread and Cup of the Lord ; the Memory of Christ; the Annunciation of his death; yea, the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous incorporation ; which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost — ■ the very bond of our conjunction with Christ — is, through faith, wrought into the souls of the faithful ; whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality. The true understanding of this fruition and union, which is betwixt the body and the head, betwixt the true believers and Christ, — the ancient Catholic fathers, both perceiving themselves, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this supper; some of them, the Salve of Immortality, and Sovereign Preservative against Death ; other, a Deifical Communion ; other, the Sweet Dainties of our Saviour, the Pledge of Eternal Health, the Defence of Faith, the Hope of the Resurrection; other, the Food of Immortality, the Healthful Grace, and the Conservatory to Everlasting Life." And lastly, one of our most esteemed divines, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, says that there are some who, " both in their right and in their wrong, enumerate many glories of the Holy Sacrament, which they usually signify in these excellent appellations, calling it — the Bread of elect souls, and the Wine of angels, the New Testament, and the Chalice of benediction, Spiritual food, the Great supper, the Divinest and Archisymbolical * Homily of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, f See Appendix D. 8 NAMES OF THIS HOLY RITE. [Ch. I. feast, the Banquet of the Church, the Celestial dinner, the Spiritual, the Sacred, the Mystical, the Formidable, the Rational Table, the Supersubstantial bread, the Bread of God, the Bread of life, the Lord's mystery, the great Mystery of salvation, the Lord's sacrament, the Sacrament of piety, the Sign of unity, the Contessaration of the Christian communion, the Divine grace, the Divine-making grace, the Holy thing, the Desirable, the Communication of God, the Perfection and Consummation of a Christian, the Holy particles, the Gracious symbols, the Holy gifts, the Sacrifice of commemoration, the Intellectual and Mystical good, the Hereditary donation of the New Testament, the Sacrament of the Lord's body, the Sacra- ment of the chalice, the Paschal oblation, the Christian Pass- port, the Mystery of perfection, the Great oblation, the Worship of God, the Life of souls, the Sacrament of our price and our Redemption." * * "Worthy Communicant, Lond. 1683, I. i. 14. Cn. IL] DEFINITIONS OF SACRAMENT. 0 CHAPTER II. SACRAMENTS. OUTWARD SIGNS NOT ABOLISHED BY THE GOSPEL, BUT ORDAINED IN IT. It has been stated that Sacrament is one of the names of the Eucharist. But the name is not confined to it. In a wide or improper sense it is applied to various other rites ; while, in its proper sense, it embraces Baptism and the Eucharist only. The Catechism of the Church of England, and its other authentic documents, teach that the Lord's Supper is one of those two Sacraments,7 which " Christ has ordained in his Church as generally necessary to Salvation." And a Sacra- ment, in this sense, is defined to be " an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof."* According to this definition, then, there is, first, an outward and visible sign, ordained by Christ Himself, that is, by Christ Himself, personally, and in the time of his sojourning among us ; secondly, there is an inward and spiritual grace given to us ; thirdly, the outward sign is a means whereby we receive the inward grace, and a pledge to assure us of it; fourthly, the Sacraments are ordained by Christ in his Church ; and fifthly, they are generally necessary to salvation.8 7 " The two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper existed before such a sys- tematic definition of the two Sacraments had been formed as to include both. — As Tertullian, generally speaking, is the author of the later dogmatic terminology (comp. the phrases, Novum Testamentum, trinitas, peccatum originale, satisfactio), so he is the first writer who uses the term Sacramentum Baptismatis et Eucharistise, adv. Marc." — Hagenback, History of Doctrines, lxxiv. I. 205 ; Clarke's- Foreign Theol. Library. * See Appendix E. 8 It is necessary, however, to notice that the word Sacrament is very commonly used sometimes for the outward signs,. sometimes for the sign and the thing signified, and sometimes for "the whole ministration and receiving of the Sacraments." — Cranmer on the Lord's Supper, I. ; Pref. Parker Society's Ed. The Augsburgh Confession defines Sacraments thus: — "Signs and testimonies of God's will towards us, by which God moves our hearts to believe." Calvin says : — " We hold Sacraments to be for testimonies of the grace of God, that it may be more and more confirmed to us, and also for external signs and marks by which we profess Christianity before men." — Confessio Fidei Nomine Ecclesiarum Gallic. Ep., Arastelo- dami, 1667: p. 251, 10 NUMBER OF SACEAMEXTS. [Ch. n. The Church of Eome adopts a looser definition, for the purpose of increasing the number of the Sacraments : some- times calling a Sacrament ie a visible sign of an invisible grace, appointed for our justification ; " * sometimes adding, that the sign is divinely appointed,f which, indeed, is implied in the other expression : " appointed for our justification." And the Council of Trent goes so far as to anathematize everyone who denies that all the seven reputed Sacraments of the Church of Eome were instituted by Christ Himself. J But warned by the mischiefs which the Roman doctrine of the Sacraments had caused, and perceiving the errors involved therein, our Church has wisely drawn her line more closely ; receiving for Sacraments those two only which were ordained by Christ Himself while He sojourned upon earth, and disallow- ing the personal necessity of other reputed Sacraments to the salvation of a Christian man. And she declares, in her twenty- fifth Article of Eeligion, that " those five, commonly reputed Sacraments " (by the Roman Church), " that is to say, Confir- mation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." The words of the Homily § on this point are very deserving of our attention. " As for the number of the Sacraments, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for the visible signs expressly com- manded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ ; there be bnt two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although Absolution hath the pro- mise of forgiveness of sin, yet, by the express word of the New Testament, it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign — I mean laying on of hands — is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and therefore Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Com- munion are. And though the Ordering of Ministers hath * Catc chismus Cone. Trid., part u., ch. i., sect. 5. f Ibid. sect. 10. I Sess. 7, Can. 1. § Homily of Com. Prayer and Sacraments. Ch. II.] NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS. 11 this9 visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other Sacraments besides the two above- named do. Therefore neither it nor an)' other Sacrament else, be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acceptation, the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to anything, whereby an holy thing is signified.* In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the Seven Sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like : not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are. And, therefore, St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and the exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the Third Book of 1 Christian Doctrine,' affirmeth, that the Sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number;10 and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. And, although there are retained by the order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the Institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of Children, by ex- amining them of their knowledge in the Articles of the Faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the Visitation of the Sick,; yet no man ought to take these for Sacraments in such signification and meaning as the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ; but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity, by the ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ's Church." But if the Church of Rome has multiplied the number of the Sacraments, there is a small, but by no means obscure, body of religionists, which takes away the Sacraments altogether : for, like the Ascodrutse 1 1 in ancient times, the Quakers f also 9 " This visible sign" of n laying-on of hands/' just before mentioned. , * See Appendix F. ,# " Saeramentis quidem paucissimis : — quaedam pauca pro multis ; sicuti est Baptismi saeramentum, et celebratio corporis et sanguinis Domini." — JEp. M ad Lib. III. ix. f See Appendix Gr. 11 " The Ascodruta?, who were a sort of Gnostics, placed all religion in knowledge; and under pretence of spiritual worship, would admit of no external or corporeal syni- 12 QUAKERS' REJECTION OF SACRAMENTS. [Cn. JL deny that there are any signs under the Gospel. To enter at length into an examination of this question, would be beside our purpose ; and, therefore, I shall refer the student to Leslie's " Discourse on Water Baptism," for a clear and satis- factory refutation of this tenet of the Quakers, and for a vindication of the Sacraments which Christ has ordained in his Church. Having, however, referred to this strange tenet of the Quakers, it may be well for me to give some brief specimen of the argu- ments by which they endeavour to support it ; more especially because the spirit of these arguments has much more extensive influence than at first sight appears : and it will be well also to suggest a summary proof, that our Lord Jesus Christ did insti- tute outward signs 12 — water in baptism, and bread and wine in his hory Supper, as of perpetual obligation — till his coming again to judgment. " They say, that all figures and signs are shadows, and that when Christ, who is the substance, is come, the others cease of course."* But a very simple person might answer, that there may be a shadow behind as well as before a thing, according as the light shines upon it ; and that it by no means follows, that because the types of the law, which were " a shadow of good things to come,"f were abolished by their fulfilment, no sign can be admitted to prove that those good things are come. A person waking out of sleep can tell whether it is morning or evening, whether the sun has passed his meridian, by the direc- tion of a shadow, as it may point westward or eastward : and so, as the types of the law prefigured a Saviour to come, the Sacraments of the Gospel demonstrate a Saviour who has come, and is yet once more to come again.13 bols whatsoever." They pretended " that faith and knowledge and spiritual worship were the only things that were required of Christians." — Bingham, XI. ii. 1, and XV. ii. 9. So the Simonians and Menandrians, who disbelieved the Incarnation, rejected the Eucharist, because it necessarily assumes, and evidently sets forth, that " Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 12 " Respect the time of their institution, and it thereby appeareth, that God hath annexed them for ever unto the New Testament, as other rites were before with the Old,"— Hooker, Eccl. Polity, v. 57. "Theodoret speaks of some Christians who were called Euohitce, because they were for prayer without sacraments ; and of some who conceived so highly of the spiritual nature of Christianity, that they would allow of' no matter or element whatsoever." — Hey's Lectures, Camb. 1841, ii. 454. * Leslie on Water Baptism, sect. 11. Works, Lond. 1721, vol. ii. p. 702. t Heb. x. 1, and Col. ii. 17- 13 " Sacramenta Novi Testamenti dant " The Sacraments of the New Testament ealutem, sacramenta Veteris Testamenti give salvation, the Sacraments of the Old promiserunt Salvatorem." — August, in Testament promised the Saviour." Ps. Ixxiii. "Ilia (sacramenta legis) fuerunt pro- "The Sacraments of the law were pro- Cn. II.] REFUTATION OF QUAKERS' ARGUMENTS. But the Saviour, they say, is come, and abides with us. Now, as He came in the flesh, He is also in the flesh gone away up into heaven, " where He ever sits on the right-hand of God, till his enemies be made his footstool,"* returning no more in the flesh until the last and great day. Yet when the Lord Jesus was actually dwelling in the flesh upon earth, when the sub- stance was come, and the true light and Sun of righteousness was present and shining upon the world, so far was He from doing away with all signs and shadows, that He received his disciples by baptism with water, f and enjoined the same mode of making disciples amongst " all nations, always, even unto the end of the world." J Again : they plead that it is the spiritual coming and in- dwelling of Christ which they mean. But Christ was spiritual] y present with the Israelites in the desert, for St. Paul tells us that they " did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them ; and that rock was Christ." § And if the spiritual presence must, as a matter of course, abolish all signs, then were the types and shadows of the law of as little obligation before the coming of Christ in the flesh, as they would make the Sacraments of the Gospel to be. They also allege the words of our Saviour to the woman of Samaria : " The hour cometh, and now is, when the true wor- shippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth : for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth and they argue thus : — " The new worship which was thus to distinguish Christianity, was to be in spirit, because it was to consist, not in outward rites of a formal and ceremonial nature, but in services dictated by the spirit of the Lord, and in direct communion of the soul with its Creator. It was to be in truth ; not simply as arising out of a sincere heart — a description which might apply with equal force to the abolished worship of the Jews — but because it was to consist in sub- stantial realities. It was to be carried on, not through the old medium of types and figures, but by the application to the heart of the great and essential truths of the Gospel dispensa- missiones rerum complendarum ; hsec mises of things to be fulfilled ; these [the sunt indicia completarum." — Id. Cont. Sacraments of the New Testament] are Faust. XIX. xiv. marks of things that have been fulfilled." * John xvi. 28 ; Heb. x. 12, 13 ; Acts iii. 21. t John iv. 1, 2, and iii. 26, 23. i Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. § 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. |i John iv. 23, 24. 14 SPIRITUAL, DOES NOT EXCLUDE BODILY, WORSHIP. [Oh. II. tion ; for tlie type was now to be exchanged for the antitype ; the figure for the thing figured ; the shadow for the substance."* Now it is at once evident that this argument, if it can be called an argument, is, in reality, no better than an attempt to prove a thing merely by supposing that it is proved. But it is not the same thing to say, that we must worship the Father in spirit, and to say that we must worship Him in spirit only, as this argument implies ; or else it would hold good that the out- ward ordinances and rites of the law forbade, and excluded spiritual worship, just as much as that the spiritual worship required of Christians excludes all outward forms and signs. And if we were to understand that we must worship in spirit only, exclusive of forms, as the Quaker argument requires, then it is plain, that not the Sacraments only, but the reverence and worship of the body, and the utterance of any of our devotions in words must be excluded also ; for one is as much a form and sign as the other. Whereas, since God made the body as well as the spirit of man, He is entitled to the worship of both ; or else we rob Him of the honour due unto his name. And so the apostle tells us, that we are to glorify God in our bodies and in our spirits, for they are both his.f So far. we may observe by the way, from being acceptable to the Father, is the worship of those who, in their unconcern, self-indulgence, or self-will, sit at their ease in public prayer, nattering them- selves all the while that they are worshipping God in their hearts, but withholding from Him the worship and humble reverence of that body, which is as much the work of his hands as the soul, and which, no less than the soul, has been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. No worship is spiritual but that which is real and true ; and no worship is real and true unless it be that of the whole man, of body as well as of soul, where that worship can be given.14 I have alluded to the reception of disciples in baptism with water by our Blessed Lord, J and his injunction to the apostles before He went up into heaven, to make disciples of all nations * Gurney on the Religious Peculiarities of the Society of Friends, p. 63, 2nd ed. 8vo, 1824. t 1 Cor. vi. 20. " Our Lord's actions must be taken as the best interpreter of his words. He mo$t undeniably worshipped in spirit and in truth ; and He worshipped with the body as well as with the soul. He even fell down upon his facetn his prayers. So the Apostles, in conformity with the true sense of his instructions and with his practice,' knelt down in prayer, sometimes even on the sea-shore, where kneeling must have been somewhat inconsistent with bodily ease. \ See Appendix H. Ch. IL] BAPTISM WITH WATER ORDAINED BY CHRIST. 15 and to baptize them, must be taken in the same way, as intend- ing a baptism also with water. For as He had accustomed them to baptize with water, they could only understand Him, as we find from their practice that they did understand Him, when He commissioned them to baptize all nations, as enjoining the same rite ; though it may have been for the first time that He then added, that they were to baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Quakers allege, indeed, that the commission to baptize was not with water, but with the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as our Saviour did not expressly make mention of water r* but having been accus- tomed, as I have said, to baptize with water, by his authority and in his presence, for the admission of disciples into their company, they needed no mention of water in the case ; for they would unavoidably understand that water was intended.15 If anything else was intended, it was plainly necessary that it should be expressed. Nor can it be maintained that our Lord intended they should understand Him as sending them to baptize with the Holy Ghost : for this baptism was peculiar to Himself ; as it was revealed from heaven to the Baptist : 66 upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." f For though we look in baptism for baptism by the Holy Ghost, yet this is altogether his own peculiar gift, according to his promise : " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." J Having thus, as I would hope, disproved the dogma, that there are no signs under the Gospel, and having shown the perpetual obligation of baptism with water, we need only, at present, refer to the relation made by the Evangelists, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, to the practice of the Church while under the immediate government of the apostles, and to the special revelation by the Lord Himself to St. Paul, as related in the eleventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Corin- thians,— for proof of the perpetual obligation of the Eucharist. * Appendix I. 15 "Manichaei lavacrum regenerations, " The Manichaeans say that the laver of id est, aquam ipsam dicunt esse super- regeneration, that is, the water itself, is fluam, nec prodesse aliquid profano corde superfluous, and with profane heart con- contendunt.— Manichaei visihile destru- tend that it profits nothing.— The Mani- unt elementum." — August, contra Epp. chseans destroy the visible element." Pelagianorum, ed. Migne, x. 573, II. ii. Is there not a very considerable likeness to these Manichaean tenets in some religious systems of the nineteenth century? Regarding too much the weakness of the creature, they forget the power and ordinance of the Redeemer. f John i. 33. J Matt, xxviii. 20. 16 THE TWO SACRAMENTS NECESSARY. [Ch. n. The Sacraments are declared by the Church of England to be 66 generally necessary to salvation;" that is, as the office for the Public Baptism of " such as are of riper years," expresses it, necessary, " where they may be had." 16 For, as our Lord Jesus Christ said : " Except one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God : " so has He also said : " Except ye eat the flesh * of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." For whether He used these words directly of his holy Supper, or not, yet as He has appointed it to be the special means of receiving that of which He did assuredly speak, — of partaking of his body and his blood, — it is plain, that if any one neglect the means, f he cannot hope to attain the object for which it was appointed ; and he is wanting in that faith, without which the participation of his body and blood is impossible. When our Saviour said on the night that He was betrayed : u This is my body — This is my blood;" He answered the question 17 formerly put by the Jews : t£ How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?" He, in effect, said: "It is by eating this bread and drinking this cup, in remembrance of me, — as the grateful memorial of my sacrifice for the life of the world, — that you are to do that of which I spake to the Jews, when I said : c Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,' — except ye feast upon and partake of the sacrifice of my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, — c ye have no life in you.'" And so St. Paul, according to the revelation to him of the Lord Himself, says : " the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the commu- nion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? " This is the way in which the true believer, — he who has faith to eat spiritually, — is instructed that he is to do it. J 16 And with this limitation, necessary to all men ; not as matrimony is advisable or expedient for some, and Orders are necessary for those who are to minister in the Church. The words " generally necessary to salvation " are, no doubt, intended as a distinction of the proper Sacraments from those other rites called Sacraments, which are not necessary to the salvation of those who receive them ; not necessary to the salvation of man in general. All men do not need Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, or Extreme Unction, even if they were Sacraments. Some of them cannot be received by all men ; for none of them are necessary to infants. Whereas Baptism is neces- sary to all of every age, and the Eucharist to all who are of fit age to receive it. * Appendix K. t Appendix L. 17 I find that Bishop Van Mildert has the same thought. See his Life of Waterland, 1823, p. 278. \ See Appendix M. Cn. in.] THE OUTWARD PART OR SIGN. 17 CHAPTER m. THE OUTWARD PART OR SIGN. Having shown that our Lord Jesus Christ has ordained the Sacrament of his Holy Supper, as of perpetual obligation in his Church, and that it is generally necessary to salvation ; we have next to show that it is " bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received," as " the outward part or sign " of this Sacrament. From the conjoint testimony of the Evangelists and of St. Paul, the facts of the institution are these : " Jesus took the bread (Mat. Gr.), and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disci- ples, and said, Take, eat ; this is my body,* which is broken," f or, " given for you ; this do in remembrance of me ; " J and u after the same manner also He took the cup," § filled with "the fruit of the vine,"|| " and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it : H For this is my blood of the New Testament," or, " this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you," ft and " for many, for the remission of sins : ii this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of nie."§§ In the institution of the Lord's Supper, then, bread and wine, and only bread and wine, were used : and as the apostles had received it, so also they taught and practised ; as we may find from St. Paul's words to the Corinthians, where he tells them that " as often as they did eat this bread, and drink this cup, they did shew forth the Lord's death till He come." || j| And throughout the universal Church, bread and wine have ever been the recognised elements or signs in this Sacrament. Nothing but what our Lord used in the institution ; nothing but what He took, blessed, and brake, and gave, has ever been allowed in the Church for the matter or elements of the Eucharist. He did not say, " Do this," in reference to anything whatever, but to bread and wine. Nor has He left the trace * Matt. xxvi. 26. t 1 Cor. xi. 24. % Luke xxii. 19. § 1 Cor. xi. 25. I! Malt. xxvi. 29. «" Ibid. v. 27. ** Ibid. v. 28. ff Luke xxii 20 ;; Matt. xxvi. 28. §§ 1 Cor. xi. 25. || Ibid. v. 26. C 18 BREAD. [Ch. m. of any principle, upon which any other substances might be adopted. They, therefore, who under any circumstances take any other things than bread and wine for the elements in this Sacra- ment, follow only their own wisdom and devices, not his will. Questions have been raised as to the fitness of the ordained elements ; and Aquinas discusses the suggestion, that " the flesh of such animals as were the matter of the sacraments of the old law, more expressly represent the passion of Christ than bread and wine ; " 18 but he rejects the suggestion, for the unanswerable reason, that it was bread and wine in which our Lord instituted the Sacrament. That, unquestionably, which He used must be the fittest ; that which He used, He ipso facto ordained; for that which He did not use, there can be no warrant ; and, therefore, that which He used must be neces- sary. Some schismatics of old used cheese with the bread of the Eucharist ; and were therefore called Arto-tyritse, or -turitse : but they were justly condemned as heretics for their wilful and profane innovation. Bread, then, being one of the necessary elements of the Eucha- rist, it has been debated of what material the bread should be made, how it should be made, and of what size and shape it should be made. Coarse wheaten meal, barley, oats, rye, peas, beans, spelt, millet, cummin, chestnuts, dates, potatoes, and even wood, are all materials from which, as well as from pure flour of wheat, an article is produced, which people call by the name of bread. It is therefore necessary to distinguish by the name of the material from which it is made, what kind of bread is to be used : for it is evident, that if anything which, properly or improperly, may be called bread, may be taken for the Eucha- rist, there would be endless diversity of practice ; and the Sacrament, instead of being a bond of union, would be fruitful of disunion. Nor can it be imagined that our Lord intended 18 3a q. 74, art. 1. Bingham. XV. ii. 3, notices from Walafrid Strabo a practice in the Roman Church of consecrating a lamb with a peculiar benediction, on Good Friday, of which they partook on Easter day. Strabo " severely censured " the practice, but Ratramn and ./Eneas Parisiensis defended it. It would seem, however, from an account and representation in a number of the Illustrated London News (April 16, 1870), that it still continues. The writer says that " two paschal lambs to be killed at Easter for the Pope's table are blessed on St. Agnes' day, Jan. 21, in the Church of St. Agnes. — The animals are laid upon the altar. After the celebration of High Mass, they were sprinkled with holy water, and a formal sentence of bene- diction was pronounced over them. The wool of these lambs is carefully preserved, spun into yarn by the nuns of St. Agnes, and woven into cloth for the sacred pallium." Cn. m.] BREAD OF WHEAT FLOUR. 10 that these several kinds of bread might be used indifferently. But his intention must be learned, as it is most certainly and sufficiently to be learned, from his action. It was but one particular kind of bread which He took, one loaf of bread made from the flour, the fine sifted flour of wheat ; for that is the only kind of flour which we read to have been used in the religious rites of the Jews. The bread which He used at the Passover, and consequently for the Eucharist, was made from wheat, from the finest wheat flour, not from the coarse unsifted meal. This, therefore, is the only kind of bread, for the use of which in the Eucharist we have any warrant or authority. It is of no use to suggest that which He did not use. The only authority is for that which He did use. Various other reasons may confirm this conclusion, as, for instance, the excellence of such bread, representing the heavenly food ; while barley bread would represent the bondage and hardships of Egypt, or as Aquinas, after Augustine, thought, *• the hardness of the old law, and not the sweet yoke of Christ, the manifestation of His truth, and His spiritual people." Then the question follows, how this bread is to be made. That the bread, indeed, which our Lord used, was unleavened, cannot, with sufficient reason, be denied. He was celebrating the Passover, in which, and during its whole solemnities, leavened bread was most strictly forbidden. Nor does it at all affect this question, whether He anticipated the day, or kept to the precise day appointed by the law and observed by the Jews : for if He kept the Passover, as we know He did, it cannot be sup- posed but that He kept it with all its due and prescribed rites ; and, therefore, that He used for his supper in this feast, not such bread as was ordinarily used at other times, but unleavened bread, as the law prescribed. From this it follows, that the use of unleavened bread by any Church cannot be condemned on any Scriptural grounds. But the real question is, is it necessary that the bread of the Eucharist should be unleavened ? And a sufficient answer may be obtained to this question by a careful consideration of the language of Scripture. St. Matthew, certainly, tells us in the Greek, that " Jesus took the bread," the unleavened bread which formed part of the previous feast, the only bread which might then be eaten. But St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, all say c 2 20 UNLEAVENED BREAD FIRST USED : [Ch. m. that He " took bread," omitting the definite article ; abstaining thus from hinting to Gentile readers and hearers, any distinction between leavened and unleavened bread ; and leaving it to be supposed that ordinary bread 19 was sufficient to be understood : whereas, if unleavened bread were requisite, they would surely have been careful to intimate this. Then, if, as some have thought, our Lord celebrated the Sacrament at Emmaus, it is said that He " took the bread," the bread, namely, which had been set before the party for their repast. It was, indeed, within the days of unleavened bread, and, therefore, the bread which He took was such. But He took the bread, evidently, as that which was usually employed for common meals. Again, if we read the passage in the second chapter of the Acts, " breaking bread in the house," as I think with many that we ought ; and if we interpret it of the Eucharist, as some have done, we find that " bread " is here indefinite, and must admit that the kind used was most probably leavened, since it was not in time of the Passover. And, lastly, in the notice of the cele- bration of the Eucharist at Troas, it is said that " the disciples came together to break bread," without anything to intimate a distinction between leavened and unleavened bread : and, indeed, from the statement in the verse before, that it was " after the days of unleavened bread " we might conclude, that the bread in this case was such as was commonly used at the time, and therefore leavened. In short, it may be said, that there is a studious abstinence throughout from every form of expression which could suggest, that the kind of bread intended to be used, or actually used, was any other than that which was in common use at the time. There is absolutely nothing to lead Gentile Christians to suppose that azymes, or unleavened bread, must be used for the Sacrament. Amongst Jewish Christians, at the time of the Passover, it would very likely be unleavened bread which they would have for the Eucharist, since they were " all zealous of the law :" but at other times, they would hardly consider themselves bound in this particular, when the law did not prescribe unleavened bread for their ordinary food. Amongst Gentile Christians there would be nothing to bind them, but the common practice which they had learned, and which would naturally be not more strict than that of their Jewish brethren, excepting where the rulers ,!' Ordinary bread is always meant by bread without the definite article. Barley bread is always distinguished by its own name: Jud. vii. 13; 2 Kings iv. 42; John vi. 9, 13. Fermentum was a very usual name for the Sacramental bread. See Bingham XV. ii. 5. Ch. in.] LEAVENED BREAD AFTERWARDS. 21 of the Church might consider it necessary to resist the impo- sition of ceremonies of the law. The practice of the Church over all the world was conform- able to this view. In the Eastern Church, so tenacious of ancient forms, leavened bread, such wheaten bread as was in common use, has been, with a certain qualification, always and universally taken for consecration, excepting, as I think is said, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Such, at least, the practice and doctrine of the Greek Church would seem to prove. It was the same in the Western Church for many centuries. Pope Alex- ander I., it is true, ordered that " the oblation should be made of unfermented, and not of fermented, bread, as before but his order does not seem to have been much regarded; for it is stated, with the testimonies of many learned men of the Roman Church, that " the use of wafers or unleavened bread was not known in the Church till the eleventh or twelfth century : " f that is, I suppose, the compulsory or general use. It then be- came a subject of fierce controversy between writers of the Eastern and Western Churches ; the former insisting upon leavened, the latter upon unleavened bread. The practice of the Church was, in fact, for a long time de- termined by the oblations of the people, out of which the elements for the Holy Communion were taken : but when the oblations began to cease, and the bread was to be made for this particular purpose, and to be provided by the clergy themselves, the private opinions of these gradually changed the practice : for they, "under pretence of decency and respect, brought it from leaven to unleaven, and from a loaf of common bread, that might be broken, to a nice and delicate wafer, formed in the figure of a denarius or penny, to represent the pence (as some authors about that time will have it) for which our Saviour was betrayed : " { a very inappropriate notion, it must be allowed. The rule of the Roman Church, however, which requires un- leavened bread, is sufficiently fair and reasonable. It is held that " whether the bread be leavened or unleavened is a cir- cumstance of pure discipline, which does not touch the essence of the Eucharist." § And in the Roman Missal the priest is instructed, that " if the bread be not unleavened, according to the custom of the Latin Church, the consecration is valid, but the priest greatly sins : " 20 that is, a priest in that Church : for * Platina. De Vitis Pontiff. f Bingham XV. ii. o. J Bingham, XV. ii. 5. § Rook's Hierurgia. Lond. 1851, EC. ii. xv. 206. "° •' Si non sit azymus, secundum morem Eeelesise Latinae, confieitur, sed confident gravitcr peccat."— i)e Defectibus, iii. 22 WHICH OF THE TWO KINDS, INDIFFERENT, [Ch. HI. though she requires the bread to be unleavened, and declares any of her priests who should consecrate otherwise, without necessity, to be guilty of sin, it is as transgressors of her common order, and not as doing that which in itself is un- lawful : and it is held to be equally the duty of priests in the Greek Church to use leavened bread, and that they likewise would be guilty of sin if they should use unleavened. It is justly said, that whether leavened or unleavened, each kind " has the true and proper nature and name of bread," and that " Christ required usual bread, that which is properly called bread." 21 Therefore, wheaten flour mixed with water, that is, in the condition of dough, or unbaked, or sodden, is clearly im- proper for the Sacrament. Such would not be called bread, and therefore ought not to be used for this purpose ; though it is possible that some might deem that their use would be justifi- able under circumstances, and that it would be hard and over- scrupulous to object to it. The use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist is most un- questionably and clearly sanctioned by the fact, that it was such bread which our Lord Himself gave, and it is advocated by the mystic plea, that it represents or indicates the assumption of our flesh by Him without confusion of substance ; while it is admitted both that the use of unfermented bread in other Churches is sanctioned by a like plea, namely, that it represents the Word of the Father clothed in flesh, true God and true man ; and also, that whether the bread which we break be leavened or unleavened, we are equally made the living body of the Lord our Saviour.22 21 Dens, v. 268. " Christus requirit panem usnalem et proprie dictum." — DeEuch. 13. " Neque tarn en ea qualitas adeo necessaria existimanda est, ut si ilia pani desit, sacra - mentum confici non potest : utrumque enim panis genus verum et propriuin panis rationem et nomen habet." — Cat. Cone. Trid. II. xv. 22 " De usu fermentati et azymi panis in Coena sic scripsit Gregorius in Registro : Romana ecclesia offert azymos panes, propterea quod Dominus sine ulla com- mistione susceperit carnem. Alise vero ecclesiae fermentatum offerunt, pro eo quod Verbum Patris indutum est carne, et est verus Deus et verus homo. Nam et ferraentum commiscetur farina : sed ta- men tarn azymum quam fermentatum dum sumimus, vivum corpus Domini Servatoris efficimur." — Hospinian. I. 191. " On the use of fermented and unfer- mented bread in the Supper Gregory in his Register [of Epistles] wrote thus : The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because that the Lord took flesh without any commixture. But other Churches offer fermented, for the reason that the Word of the Father was clothed in flesh, and is true God and true man. For the leaven also is mixed with the flour ; but yet while we take unfermented or fer- mented, we are made the living body of the Lord our Saviour." Ch. HI.] AXD TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CHURCH. 23 The use, then, of leavened or unleavened bread being acknowledged to be a matter of indifference, it is clearly within the authority of the Church, either Catholic or national, to determine, if it be necessary or expedient to determine, which of the two kinds should be taken. In the" exercise of this in- alienable privilege, the Church of England, in order " to take away all occasion of dissension or superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the bread and wine," has determined, that " it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten, but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten." She has thus left it to be deter- mined in any particular place or country under her ministry, whether leavened or unleavened bread is to be used in the Sacrament. And it is evident that the introduction of any- thing as an ingredient into the bread, which would make it different from " such as is usual to be eaten," is inconsistent with the rule here laid down. But before dismissing this part of my subject, I must be allowed to make some remarks on a recent decision of the Court of Arches. The question was, whether wafer bread is lawful in the Church of England, and whether, in the adminis- tration of the Sacrament, a whole wafer or a part should be given into the hands of each communicant. It was decided that there was " no evidence that the wafer was not broken." But the very able and learned judge was, if I may venture to say it, clearly mistaken in two points ; the first, in assuming unleavened bread and wafers to be the same ; and the second, in deciding from the Eubric that unleavened bread is lawful in the province of Canterbury. Wafer bread is, indeed, a self-contradictory term, unless it mean loaves of such kind of bread as may be made into wafers. But if it be in wafers, it is not properly called bread. To call wafers, therefore, wafer bread, is an oversight. Wafers are certainly unleavened : but unleavened bread may be made up in many other ways than in wafers. I have seen it made up into large square thick pieces, for use in a Presbyterian meeting-house. It is, therefore, not by any means a necessary conclusion, that if unleavened bread be lawful, unleavened wafers are lawful. They are not synonymous. But it is a very obvious mistake to pronounce that the use of unleavened bread is lawful everywhere in this province of Canterbury; for this, in effect, is the decision pronounced. 24 LATE DECISION IN THE COURT OF ARCHES. [Cn. III. The Rubric of our present Prayer Book, which, as the latest law of the Church, must override all previous Rubrics, says : " It shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten." This cannot mean that other kinds of bread, however unusual to be eaten, may be used. It can refer only to " the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten ; " and must mean that the decision whether it is to be leavened or unleavened in any particular case, is to be taken from the common custom in meals.23 If it be usual in any place for the people to eat unleavened bread, then unleavened bread is to be taken for consecration : but if the people of the place usually eat leavened bread in their meals, then this is the kind to be used in the Sacrament. Such is the clear and necessary mean- ing of the Rubric. Now it is notorious, that the bread which is usual to be eaten in this province of Canterbury, and in the place where the defendant exercised his ministry, is leavened, and is not unleavened, bread. Leavened bread, therefore, is that which the law of the Church requires in that province ; and un- leavened bread is inconsistent with that law. Again, in the spirit of St. Paul's words : " Because it is one bread (loaf), we being many are one body ; for we are all par- takers of that one bread the Church of England requires bread in the same sense, bread that can be broken into " divers pieces : " and her mind unquestionably is, that it should not be wafers so small that they cannot be broken, or can only be broken into so very few pieces that they cannot symbolise the " many 99 members of the one body of Christ. The conclusion is, that the lawfulness in any place under the Church of England, of unleavened bread as one of the elements of the Eucharist, does not amount to a sanction of wafers ; and that unleavened bread is not lawful, where " such bread " is not " usually eaten." With regard to the size of the bread, reason requires that there should be enough for the number of communicants, whether in one or in several loaves, or suitable parts of loaves : and one of the mystic significations of the Sacrament taught us in Holy Scripture, requires that it should be of such a size that it can be broken into " many " pieces, or at least as many 23 The Second Book of Edward VI. and the Prayer Book of Elizabeth have, " such as is usual to be eaten at the table with other meats." * 1 Cor. x. 17. Cn. III.] SIZE AND FORM OF THE BREAD. 25 as there are to communicate. Small thin wafers, therefore, which cannot be so broken, cannot rightly be used ; and so, 1 take it, the Dean of Arches intimated, when he said : " There is no evidence that the wafer was not broken." The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., which some desire to have re- instated in use, directs that the bread should be " something more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in divers pieces." The shape one wo aid think a matter of indifference. But authorities in the Church of Eome have it that it is to be " orbicular." Orbicular means globular,* but use and Dr. Eock say : " It is made thin and circular, and bears upon it either the figure of Christ, or those initials, I.H.S."t In the use of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom in the Greek Church, Dr. Covel describes the bread thus : " In the middle of the loaf on the upper side is imprinted in a square a plain cross, with IC. XC. NL KA. in the four corners between the sides of the long square, and the respective lines of the cross. These letters stand for '\r)crovs Xpiarbs vlkol (Jesus Christ overcometh)" % The First Book of Edward VI. directs, " that the bread prepared for the Communion be made through all this realm, after one sort and fashion : that is to say, unleavened, and round, as it was afore, but without all manner of print, and something more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly divided in divers pieces." But the present Rubric, which requires " such bread as is usual to be eaten," supersedes the necessity of all such directions. Wafers are not usual to be eaten anywhere. The use of wafers is a purely Eomish practice ; and having been introduced only in the eleventh or twelfth century, and that against the reclamations of various authors of weight ; § while unleavened bread is unused by the Eastern Church; it is, most evidently and unquestionably, not Catholic. One expression, however, in the Rubric remains to be noticed. TIATIOX. 57 CHAPTER VL TRANSUBSTANTIATION : CHANGE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ELEMENTS. The doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are changed by consecration into the body and blood of Christ, by the conversion of their whole substances respectively into the whole substance of his body and blood ; so that their accidents only remain without any part of the substances to which they belonged. It is not at all necessary to enter into or to notice the scholastic definitions of substance and accidents. The sense in which the Church of Rome employs these words in her decrees on the Eucharist is sufficiently intelligible. By the substances of the bread and wine, she means the reality of these things, that which makes them bread and wine, and without which they could not be bread and wine. And by the accidents or species, she means everything of the bread and wine, but this substance. It is said, indeed, that the philosophy which divides all created things into substance and accidents, has been long since exploded : and it is therefore tacitly inferred, that any investigation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the ground of such philosophy, is out of date and must be fruitless. But the Church of Rome has not given up that philosophy. She retains it still, in her decrees, so far at least, as to dis- tinguish between the substance and accidents or species of the elements, and to speak of the substance of the body and blood of Christ. And the philosophical apologist, Dr. Moehler, says, " that Almighty God — changes the inward substance of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ."* The doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on this * Symbolism, translated by J. B. Robertson, Esq., Lond. 1843, I. 334. Dr. Pusey also seems to use the terms without objection : " The Presence of Christ," pp. 16, 24, 35,37,41,46. 58 SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENTS. [Ch. VL philosophy : — if it had been founded on it, it would have gone, we must suppose, with it. But the philosophy and its terms ,were used merely to express, and in a way to explain, the doctrine. This doctrine assigns the mode in which the Church of Rome believes that our Lord fulfils his word and makes the bread his body and the wine his blood. This she holds is done, by putting the substance of his body into, or making it to be contained in, the elements : and this by changing them from bread and wine into his body and blood. But these elements are, to all appearance, unchanged. To our outward senses, they are the same which they were before. The change, therefore, being supposed to be real, must be in the inward invisible substance ; which, consequently, has left all its out- ward properties, its species, or accidents, by themselves. That is to say, all that makes the elements bread and wine, and without which they could not be bread and wine, is said to be gone : and nothing remains but those outward properties which exhibit themselves to our senses. With this explanation, then, as to substance and accidents, we proceed to deal with the question before us : and for this purpose the terms " substance and accidents," are more con- venient than any others. The Church of Rome forbids the belief that any part of the substance of the elements remains ; but allows that all the acci- dents or properties of the elements remain ; so that while the bread and wine, or their substances, are no longer under, or in, the things, which to the outward senses are bread and wine still, the consecrated elements may be, nevertheless, called by their original names.34 The Council of Trent declared that " the Catholic Church, 84 " Si qnis dixerit, in sacrosaneto Eucharistise sacramentoremanere substan- tiam panis et vini, una cum corpore et sanguine Domini nostri, Jesu Christi ; negareritque marabilem illam et singu- larem conversionem totius substantias panis in corpus, et totius substantive vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat Bpeciebus panis et vini: quam quidem conversionem CatholicaEcclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat, anathema sit." — Cone. Trid. sess. 13, can. 2. " Ipse Lominus dixit : Hoc est corpus men in : vocis enim, hoc, *a vis est, ut omnem rei prfesenris substantiam demon- stret: quod si panis substantia remaneret, " If any one shall say that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist the sub- stance of the bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species only of bread and wine remaining: which con- version the Catholic Church most fitly *ealls Transubstantiation ; let him be anathema." " The Lord Himself said : This is my body : for such, is the force of the word, this, that it shows the whole substance of Cn. YL] NAME OF TRANSUBSTAOTIATION MEDLEY AL. 59 instructed by Jesns Christ Himself, our Lord, and by bis apostles, and taught by the Holy Spirit, continually suggest- ing to her all truth, has ever held this doctrine, and will hold it even to the end of the world." * But, in the first place, the very name of the doctrine was not invented, as we have seen, till about the end of the eleventh century : and this fact is a strong presumptive proof, that the doctrine had not been professed or received until about that time. It would, by itself, seem to prove, that although there might have been controversy on the subject before, controversy had not advanced so far as the distinct enunciation of the doctrine. And this, in fact, was the case ; for during eight hundred years, the doctrine of the Eucharist, although very variously expressed, continued, in the main, unchanged and uncontroverted. Throughout all this period, the faith of the Church on this Sacrament was preserved substantially in- corrupt ; though in the progress of time language of a doubtful character was more and more used by individual writers ; inso- much that many passages are to be found, which, if taken by themselves, and without any regard to other places of the same writers, seem to come near the doctrine of transubstantia- tion. But it was not until the ninth century, that any clear and distinct approach to this doctrine was made. Early in this century, Paschasius Radbertus, a monk of Corby, near Amiens, is stated by Bellarmine and Sismondus, to have been " the first who seriously and copiously wrote con- nullo modo vere dici videretur: Hoc est corpus meum. M Cum ergo, tarn claris et perspicuis verbis " (S. Johan v. 52. 54, 56), u carneni suam panem et cibum verum ; sanguinem item verum potum nominaverit, satis videtur declarasse nullam in Sacramento suUtantiam panis et villi remanere." — Cat. Cone. Trid. II. iv. 37. •• Moneant pastores hoc loco mirandum non esse, si post consecrationem panis etiam vocetur: hoc enim nomine Eucha- ristia appellari consuevit: turn quia panis speciem habeat, turn quia naturalem Itlendi et nutri^ndi corporis vim quae panis propria est, adhuc retineat. Earn autem fsse Sacrarum Literarum consue- tudinem. ut res ita appellet, eujusmodi esse videntur, satis ostendit quod in Genesi dictum est, tres viros Abraham apparuisse. qui tamen tres angeli erant." — Ibid. 38. * Sess. 13, c. 1. a present 'thing ; but if the substance of the bread remained, it would seem to be in no way truly said, This is my body. " Since, therefore, in so clear and plain words, He called his flesh bread and meat indeed, his blood likewise drink indeed : He seems sufficiently to have declared that no substance of bread and wine remains in this Sacrament. " Here let the pastors warn them that they must not wonder, if it b° still called bread after consecration : for by this name the Eucharist has been wont to be called ; as well because it has the species of bread, as because it yet retains the natural power of sustaining and nourishing the body, which belongs to bread. That, moreover, such is the custom of Holy Scripture, that it calls things such as they appear to be. that which is said in Genesis sufficiently shows, that three men appeared to Abraham, who, howc ver, were three angels."' 60 PASCHASIUS EADBERTUS. [Ch. VI. cerning tlie truth of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist," and to have " so explained the genuine sense of the Catholic Church, that he opened the way to the rest, who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same argument." 35 But his doctrine met with great opposition as novel and erroneous; and his assailants suffered no reproofs from Popes or Councils, which we may be sure would have been administered, if the doctrine had been commonly received.36 The doctrine of Paschasius, however, was far short of the doctrine of Tran substantiation. Bishop Cosin justly says that " in that whole book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the transubstantiation of the bread, or its destruction, or re- moval."* He wrote against some who held that "this bread and cup was nothing else than what is seen with the eyes and is tasted with the mouth ; " and that " it is not the true flesh of Christ, nor his true blood, which is celebrated in the Sacra- ment, but only a certain virtue of his body and blood." And he represented such opinions as virtually imputing a lie to Christ, since they made it "not his true flesh, nor his true blood, in which his true death is shown forth ; whereas the very Truth says, ( This is my body,' and likewise of the cup, ' Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testa- ment,' not any kind whatsoever, but that 6 which shall be shed for you for the remission of sins.' " 37 35 "Hie author primus fnit qui serio et copiose scripsit de veritate corporis et san- guinis Domini in Eucharistia contra Bertramnum presbyterum. qui fuit ex primis qui earn in dubio revoeavit." — Bellarmin. De Script. Eccl. verbo u Paschasius." li Genuinum Eeelesiae Catholiese sensum ita primum explicuit, ut viam ca^teris aperuerit qui de eodem argumento postea scripsere.'" — Sirmond. in Vita Radberti. There is, however, a little misstatement in this place of Bellarmine: for Paschasius did not write his work against Bertram ; but Bertram's work was written against that of Paschasius at the request of Charles the Bald. 36 In " Mr. Albertin's elaborate book of the Eucharist," is to be seen " what opposi- tion was made to the new hypothesis of Paschasius Eathbertus (which was rather a consubstantiation than a transubstantiation) as soon as it appeared, by Rabanus Maurus, Amalarius, Walafridus Strabo. Heribaldus. Lupus, Frudegardus, Joannes Erigena, Prudentius Tricassinus, Christianus Druthmarus, Alfricus, and the Saxon homilies. Fulbertus Carnotensis, Leuthericus Senonensis. Berno Augiensis, and. others, to the time of Bercngarius ; after whom it met with greater opposition from Honorius Augustodunensis, Amalricus, Peter and Henry de Bruis, Guido Grossus, Archbishop of Narbonne, Francus Abbas, the "Waldenses and Albigenses. the Bohemians, and followers of John Huss, and Jerom of Prague, the Wicklevists here in England, among whom was the famous Reginald Peacock, and many other learned men. to the time of the Reformation.'' — Bingham's Christ. Antiq. XV. v. 4. See Albertin., De Sacram. Euch. pp. 920. &e. ; and see also L'Arroque's Hist, of the Eucharist, chapters xiii., &c ; Cosin's Hist, of Transubstantiation, v. 29, &c. * History of Transubstantiation, v. 29. 37 "In his mysticis rebus plures aliud sapiunt, et csecutiunt multi, dumpanis iste et calix nihil aliud eis esse videtur, quam quod oculis cernitur, et ore sentitur. Audiant qui volunt extenuare hoc verbum corporis, quod non sit vera caro Christi, quae nunc in Sacramento eelebratur in Ecclesia Christi, neque ?erus sanguis ejus: nescio quid volentes plaudere vel fingere, quasi virtus sit carnis et sanguinis in eo admodum Cn. VL] PASCIIASIUS RADBEKTUE 61 He, therefore, asserted on the contrary, that " nothing else than the flesh and blood of Christ is to be believed after the consecration " of the bread and wine : — that flesh " which was born of Mary, and suffered on the cross, and rose again from the tomb : "—that it is the " true flesh and true blood, in a mystery," which the unworthy did not receive, but, on the contrary, judgment : that " the body and blood of the Lord, according to truth, are received by faith : " that the mystery " remains in the figure of bread and wine : " that " we cannot deny that the Sacrament is a figure," while " it is at the same time rightly called truth : " and that since it behoved our Lord to penetrate the heavens, according to the "flesh, in order that they who are born again in Him might have their desire more confidently directed thither, He has left to us this visible Sacrament for a figure and image of his flesh and blood, that fey these our mind and our flesh may be more fruitfully nourished to lay hold of invisible and spiritual things by faith." And he thus illustrates the sense in which he asserted both figure and truth in the Sacrament :38 citing Heb. i. 3, he says sacramento, ut Dominus mentiatur, ut ncm sit vera earo ejus, neque verus sanguis, in quibus vera mors Christ! annuntiatur, cum ipsa Veritas dieat. 'Hoe est corpus nieum,'" &c— Expositio in Matth. xxvi. ; Migne, pp. 896, 890. vel. 1100, 1093. '• Et ideo nullus moveatur de hoe corpore Christi et sanguine, quod in mysterio vera sit caro et verus sit sanguis, duni sic voluit ille qui ereavit : — et quia voluit, licet in figura panis et vini maneat, ha?c sic esse omnino. nihilque aliud quam earo Christi et sanguis post consecrationemcredenda sunt : et ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane quam qua?nata est de Maria et passa in cruee, etresurrexit de sepulcro." — De Corp. et Sang. Domini, I. ii. ; Migne, p. 1269. "Alius carnem Christi spiritaliter manducat et sanguinem bibit, alius vero non, quamvis buceellam de mauu sacerdotis videatur per- cipere. Et quid accipit, cum una sit eonsecratio, si corpus et sanguinem Christi non aecipit? vere, quia rem indigne accipit. sicut Paulus apostolus ait : Judicium sibi manducat et bibit."' — VL ii. 1282. " Corpus et sanguis sit Domini secundum veritatem, licet in Sacramento accipiatur per fidem." — II. ii. " Quia niysticum est Sacramentum, nec figuram illud negare possumus. — Si veraciter inspicimus, jure simul Veritas et figura dicitur. — Sed quia ilium secundum carnem ccelos opportuit penetrare, ut per fidem illuc in illo renati, eonfidentius appeterent.reliquit nobis hoc sacramentum visibile in figuram et characterem carnis et sanguinis, ut per h?ec mens nostra et caro nostra ad invisibilia et spiritalia capessenda per fidem uberius nutriatur." — IV. i. ii. 1278, 1279. 38 " Quibus profecto verbis duas in Christo substantias deducit. et utrasque veras. Nam cum dicit, 'qui cum sit splendor gloria?' divinitatis, consubstantialem pnedieat. Cum vero figura vel character substantia? ejus, humanitatis designat naturam, ubi corporaliter plenitudo inhabitat Divinitatis, et tamen in utroque unus et verus Christus Deus catholice commendatur. Unde unam rem sumit ad demonstrationem duarum substantiarum, quam figuram substantia? vel characterem nominavit: quia sicut per characteres vel fiffuras literarum intantia nostra prius pertingit gradatim ad lectionem, deinde ad spiritales Scripturarum sensus et int^lligentiam ; sic ex humanitate Christi, ad Divinitatem Pati-is pervenitur ; et ideo jure figura vel character substantia? illius vocatur. Quid enim aliud sunt figura? literarum quam characteres earumdem, ut per eas vis et potestas, ac spiritus prolatio oculis demonstretur ? Sic itaque formatur V erbum caro, ut per carnem nostra infantia ad divinitatis intelligentiam nutriatur. Veruntamen neque characteres literarum, falsitas, neque aliud quam litera? : neque Christus homo falsitas dici potest, neque aliud quam Deus. licet figura, id est, character substantia?, Divinitatis jure dicatur." — IV. ii. 1278, 1279. 62 PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS. [Ch. YI. that, " in these words the apostle sets forth two substances in Christ, and both of them true. For when he says, 6 who, being the brightness of the glory ' of the Divinity, he declares Him to be consubstantial. But when he says ' the figure or image of his substance,' he designates the nature of his humanity, where the fulness of the Divinity dwells bodily, and yet in both [forms of words], the one and true Christ God is celebrated in accordance with Catholic truth. Whence he takes one thing for the demonstration of two substances, which he called the figure or image of the substance : because, as by images or figures of letters our childhood first gets on gradually to reading, and then to the spiritual senses and intelligence of the Scriptures ; so from the humanity of Christ we come to the Divinity of the Father: and, therefore, He is rightly called the figure or image of his substance. — Neither may the man Christ be called an untruth, nor any other than God, although He be rightly called a figure,, that is, an image of the substance of the Divinity." It follows, therefore, that Paschasius, in calling the Sacra- ment of the Eucharist both a figure and the truth, intended to set forth two substances, the substance of the bread and wine, and the true flesh and the true blood of Christ. And, on the one hand, however literally he may assert the true flesh and the true blood of Christ in the Sacrament, he does not teach what is called the real presence of that flesh and blood in or with the elements ; but that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, the true body and blood : a distinc- tion the importance of which will be seen in another place : while, on the other hand, he teaches no transubstantiation of the elements, no change or annihilation of their substance. Paschasius, however, in insisting upon the letter of our Lord's words, overlooked the fact that he was taking only part of the letter ; and failed to see that the whole would have led him by the same system of interpretation to another and sounder doctrine. Many writers succeeded Paschasius in the endeavour to elucidate the true doctrine of the Eucharist ; some taking one side, and some the other in the controversy which he had provoked. But it was a long time before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was actually hammered out. The reader may see the whole history set forth in Hospinian, Albertin, L'Arroque, or Cosin. Ch. VI.] "BERENGARIUS, 63 About two hundred years after Paschasius, Berengarius incurred the censures of Eome for his doctrine of the Eucharist. He was condemned by several successive Councils, and was obliged to sign a recantation, and to say that " the bread and wine which are set on the altar are not, after the consecration, a sacrament only, but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that [the body and blood] are sensibly, not only in a sacrament, but in truth, handled by the hands of the priests, broken and ground by the teeth of the faithful." 39 This was a grosser form of doctrine than £hat of Paschasius, who said that " it is not right [or possible] that Christ should be devoured by men's teeth."40 Yet it did not amount to Transubstantiation, though it was the authorised doctrine of Eome in the middle of the eleventh century. But having retracted this recantation, and continuing to defend and propagate his doctrine, Berengarius was summoned to another Council, and by it was compelled to sign another form, in which it was professed that " that mystical bread is substantially converted into the true and proper flesh of Christ:''41 an advance, certainly, beyond his previous recan- tation, but still not amounting to Transubstantiation. For it did not assert a conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of our Lord's flesh, though a substantial con- version may seem to be equivalent : nor did it assert a residuum of the species or accidents only. The philosophy of the time, however, culminated at length, about one hundred and fifty years after Berengarius ; the Council of Lateran, in the year of our Lord 1215, having issued a decree imposing the doctrine of Transubstantiation as an article of faith. Kow this doctrine of Transubstantiation comprises these three things : first, a change in the bread and wine, by which their proper substance is taken away, and their accidents are left subsisting together by themselves : secondly, a change of their whole substance into the whole substance of the body and 39 " Panem et vinura, quae in altare ponuntur. post consecranonem non solum sacra- nienrum. Bed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi es>e. et sensualitrr. non solum Sacramento, sed in veritate manibus saeerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri." — Hospinian. Hist. Sacrum. IV. iii. vol. i. 33S. 40 "Christum reran fas dentibus non est.*' — IV. i. 1277. 41 " Panem ilium mvsiicum substantialiter converti in veram et propriam carneni Christi."— Tho. Waldens. torn. ii. c. 42 ; [" De Sacram. Euch. c. 42, 43 '"] cited in Cosin, vii. 12, Oxford, iv. 121. 64 NO INSTANCE OF SEPARATION [Ch. VI. blood of Christ : and thirdly, the real presence of Christ under the species of the bread and wine. We must consider each in its order. T. The first question is whether, according to the constitution of earthly things, a material substance can be separated from all its accidents or properties, and whether the accidents can be left as if the substance still remained to support them. Now this is a phenomenon of which human experience affords no example, and human imagination can have no conception. No man has ever yet known, or can conceive, such a change as that in which, as Archbishop Cranmer says, " there remaineth white- ness, but nothing is white : there remaineth colours, but nothing is coloured therewith : there remaineth roundness, but nothing is round : and there is bigness, and yet nothing is big : there is sweetness, without any sweet thing ; softness, without any soft; thing ; breaking, without anything broken ; division, without anything divided : and so other qualities and quantities, with- out anything to receive them."* There is not one fact ascer- tained by the experience of man from the creation until now, which can afford an example of such a change : there is not one valid argument which the subtlest speculations have ever produced to prove its possibility : there is not a word from the beginning to the end of the Bible from which it may be believed, that the properties, or, if you please, the accidents of a thing can subsist of themselves when the substance is gone. Bellarmine, indeed, cites St. Basil as saying " that the light of the sun was created on the first day, and remained without a seat or vehicle for three days, and at length, on the fourth day, the solar body wa^ created, and in it, as in a, subject, was placed that light which had been created on the first day." But, in the first place, without questioning the genuineness of this quotation, there are several obvious inaccuracies in it. The inspired history does not say that on the first day, when the Spirit of God was moving " on the face of the waters," God created light. He said, " Let there be light, and there was light." He called it forth. And there may be a very pregnant dis- tinction in this. Light may have been in existence millions of years before the earth was being brought into " form," and its " void " filled up. For many millions of years stars may have been giving light ; and the summons of light to the earth may have been, not the creation of light, but the admission of light * On the Lord's Supper, i. 43, p. 45, Parker Society's edition. Cn. YL] OF " SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENTS." 65 to the earth by a medium instituted by that command. Xor does the Scripture say that the light which God called forth upon the earth on the first day, "was the light of the sun : nor that the light of that day " remained without a seat or vehicle for three days : " nor that this light was placed in the sun, " as in a subject." In the second place light is either a substance or an accident. If it be a substance, then the argument fails : for the addition of one substance to another cannot prove that a substance and its accidents can exist separately from each other. If the cor- puscular be the true theory of light, light consists of particles of matter emitted from the luminaries of heaven, and is an ever-emanating portion of their substance. But if the modu- latory theory, which seems to meet all the known phenomena of light, be the true theory, it is certainly an accident, or an effect of which the sun is but one of many causes, though it be the chief cause to us : and the sun, instead of having the light laid up in it, has merely the power of exciting light. And as there is no effect without a cause, the undulations of the ether, of which light consists, must have been excited in the atmo- sphere of the earth by some other power than that of the sun, which was not yet made. What that power may have been, we know not: for, according to the account in Genesis, the sun being not yet made ; and the earth, therefore, having not yet begun her circuit round him ; it is impossible to determine by what means or power of created things the waves of the ether were in the meantime originated or sustained, in order to produce light. It does, therefore, not follow from the creation of light or bringing it to the earth, before the creation of the sun, that accidents can subsist without their proper substance. Universal and invariable experience, on the contrary, teaches that where all, and only all, of the properties or accidents of any substance exist together, there is that substance itself. So does nature, so does logic, so does true theology, teach. It is an axiom which no one ever doubts, and on which we uncea- singly act. If, for example, a man, having to pay a debt, puts d<»wn a certain substance, which has the colour, the shape, the weight, the size, and the exact impression, of a sove- reign ; the creditor is perfectly satisfied that it is the genuine and lawful coin of the realm, and accepts it in discharge of the debt ; although neither debtor nor creditor knows anything of F 66 PROPERTIES PROVE THE SUBSTANCE. [Ch. VI. the substance of the coin, more than we know of the substance of the bread and wine. So in all the affairs of life, physical and moral. It is on the certainty of this truth, that we take our daily meals. If the chemist find that the subject of his analysis has all, and no more than all, the properties of some known substance, he instantly pronounces it to be the same. Give also the mathematician certain elements, and he will in- fallibly pronounce that the figure which has them, is a circle, a square, or a triangle, as the case may be : for that which has all the properties of a circle, is a circle, and -cannot be anything else. JSTor is it in things of this lower world only, that the rule holds good. We apply it to the Highest of all, the Lord of heaven and earth. It is only by his attributes, and by reve- lations from Him, that we know God : and we consider that one of the strongest proofs of the Godhead of Christ, is his having all the attributes or perfections of God. He is almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal : He has all the perfections of God, and therefore is God. We prove, too, that He is man, because He had the proper- ties of man. We prove that He is truly man, — " come in the flesh," as St. John speaks, when we show that He was born as a man of the Virgin Mary ; that He had the form of a man ; that He " increased in wisdom, and stature " as a man ; that He ate and drank ; spoke, heard, and saw ; lay down and rose up ; walked and was weary ; slept and awoke ; wept and was angry ; suffered and died, — as a man. From his having these and all other essential properties, or " accidents " of man's nature, — from the action and passion of these things, — we are infallibly certain, that He had man's nature and substance. And for this mode of proof we have his own warrant and example : as in those places, where from doing the works, and manifesting the power, of God, He taught the Je ws to infer that He is God. To speak, indeed, of accidents being separated from their substance, and subsisting of themselves without it, is only to substitute words for things. But though we can talk of them separately, and as if they were separable, we cannot conceive such a separation of accidents from their substance as this doc- trine involves. Almighty power, most certainly, can annihilate, as well as create, a substance : for all created substances were made out of nothing ; and the power which made them can reduce them to nothing again. But so long as the substance exists, it will Ch. VI.] ARGUMENT OF AQUINAS. G7 retain the properties inseparable from all material things : it must have its accidents or properties, according to its state : for otherwise it would be no substance : — that is to say, that so long- as it is a substance, it must be a substance. And if the substance be destroyed, its accidents, — all that belonged to it, — are ipso facto destroyed likewise ; or else they would become substances themselves, which is absurd. As Leslie argues, u They cannot be accidents of bread, when there is no bread : and you will not endure that they should be called the accidents of the body and blood of Christ : Therefore they are the accidents of nothing, that is, they are accidents, and no accidents : they are accidents without the essence of accidents, which is inherence. And if these accidents stand by themselves, why are they not sub- stances? for that is the definition you give of substance. If you say they stand by miracle, then by miracle they are substances : and there is an end of the jargon." * Nothing, indeed, but the very plainest and most incontro- vertible assurance from God could give credibility to the sub- sistence, either separately or together, of the properties or accidents of any material substance, when the substance itself was taken away. I cannot find that that very subtle theologian, Aquinas, made any attempt in his " Summa " to prove that a material substance could be separated from its proper accidents, or from the accidents which belong to all material substances in what- soever condition they might be ; or, which is yet more impor- tant to the present enquiry, that the accidents of any material substance can subsist together without their proper substance, or any substance to support them : that the texture, the colour, the size, the taste, of bread, with its power of nourishing, can subsist together, and be bread to all intents and purposes for which bread is used, when the substance of the bread itself was taken away. Aquinas, on the contrary, deduces this amazing proposition from his doctrine of Transubstantiation, instead of proving the doctrine by it. He argues that the true body and blood of Christ are in the Sacrament ; that his body cannot begin to be in it but by the conversion of the substance of the bread into it : that the words, " This is my body " would not be true, if the substance of the bread remained there ; that therefore it must * The Case stated between the Churches of England and Rome. Works, London. 1721, I. 520. 63 WHAT IS THE FACT? [Ch. VI. be confessed that the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in the Sacrament : and that therefore, as is evident to our senses, all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after consecration, not indeed according to the order of nature, which requires accidents to be in their subject ; but for a special reason according to the order of grace.42 Thus the argumentation of Aquinas comes to this : that acci- dents are not without their substance in any case except this one only of the Eucharist; but in this case they are and therefore may be, and may subsist together, without it. Bellarmine and others handle the abstract question : but I can- not report of their disquisitions, that they are anything better than a mere jargon of metaphysics and a play upon words. A summary of the arguments on both sides, with testimonies from ancient philosophers and Fathers in opposition to this doctrine of the Schoolmen, will he found in the work of Albertinus on the Sacrament of the Eucharist."* But what is the fact ? Is the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist so converted as to be taken away from the accidents ? are their accidents left subsisting together by themselves ? And how is the fact to be determined ? First, then, we know that the things which are set forth for consecration are truly bread and wine. We are absolutely sure that they are bread and wine. But whenee come this knowledge and certainty ? They come from our senses alone. We are commanded to take bread and wine, and we obey the command. We are careful to take that which is commanded : and we use our senses for this purpose. But after the conse- cration of the bread and wine, there are the very same reasons for calling them and believing them to be, bread and wine, as there were before. We have precisely the very same evidence, the same means, and the same powers, to determine that they are bread and wine. Before consecration they looked like bread 42 " Dicendum quod verum corpus Christi et sanguinem esse in hoc sacrameuto." 3 shew the Lord's death till He come." And then he speaks a very awful warning that none should eat " this bread and drink this cup un- worthily." f The apostle thus calls them bread and wine after consecration as well as before. To all our sensesr therefore, the elements of the Eucharist are no less bread and wine after consecration, than they were before ; and if to all our senses, then to all our understanding ; and since " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," then also, to our faith, they are precisely the same. We must know and believe that no such change takes place in the elements of the Eucharist, as the removal of their substance, and the subsisting of their accidents together by themselves alone : and that being bread and wine before consecration, they are bread and wine after consecration, in every sense, and as much as they were before it. It must, certainly, be admitted, that every one of our senses may be disordered, and therefore deceived. We know that the taste is sometimes so vitiated as to mistake sweet for bitter : that there are people who cannot distinguish one colour from another. And all the rest of our senses may be similarly dis- ordered or incapable. It may be said, too, that they may be deceived even when they are perfect : as the sight, by mistaking ice for glass, or glass for precious stones, or the mirage of the * 2 Kings xix. 16. f 1 Cor- x- 1G» xi- 26-29. 70 CERTAINTY OF THE SENSES. [Ch. VI. desert for water: or again, as the hearing, by mistaking dis- tant noises for thunder, or the voice of a parrot for that of a man. But the deception in such cases is not of the senses. Their perception is true and accurate : and the mistake is only in our judgment. We see a pellucid substance, and conclude that it is glass, or a diamond : the mirage is like water, and we conclude it is water : we hear a noise like that of thunder, and conclude that it is thunder : and we hear a voice speaking like man's voice, and conclude that it is a man who uttered it. But certain as it is, that one or more of the senses of some men may be disordered, or even, in a way, deceived ; it cannot be pretended that the senses of all men, everywhere, and always, have been, or can be, deceived about the same thing. Yet the argument from the imperfection of the senses, or the possibility of their being disordered or deceived necessarily involves this proposition. It would have no force without it. We may, indeed, allow that where one man sees what another with the same opportunities does not see ; there may be room for doubt, or for further enquiry. One may be near-sighted, or blind ; or the other, like St. Stephen and St. Paul, may be permitted to see what the mere natural sight cannot perceive. But where all men see alike, there can be no doubt or uncer- tainty as to what they do see. And where all, everywhere and always, not only see, but taste and feel alike, there must be absolute certainty, if anything can be certain to us. But in the case of the holy Eucharist, the senses of all men, everywhere and always, are in perfect harmony. All see alike ; none see less, none more, none differently, from others. One sense confirms another : the feeling confirms the sight, and the taste confirms both. All see, feel, and taste bread, whether it be consecrated or un consecrated. And if, by any chance, consecrated and unconsecrated wafers were to be mixed together, no human authority, not even the pretended infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, could detect the difference, Romanists, indeed, confess that there are all the properties, — which they call accidents, of bread, in the consecrated host : and that it may even be called bread. They trust their senses so far, as to be sure that the thing which they take for conse- cration, is bread : and so far also, as to determine that all the accidents of the bread remain after consecration. The great catechism of Rome says that it is one of the " three things, Ch. VI.] THE SENSES NOT DECEIVED. 71 maxime admiranda atque suspicienda, — to be most admired and looked up to," in this Sacrament, " that the accidents, which are either perceived by the eyes, or are apprehended by other senses, remain without the substance."* They declare that the colour, shape, smell, taste, and all other accidents or proper- ties of the bread and wine remain : while they deny that the substance remains. In point of fact, therefore, it is not the senses nor the evidence, which is discredited, but it is the in- ference from that evidence, — the conclusion to be drawn from the premisses which the senses establish. It is denied that the * things which are bread and wine to the sight, the touch, and the taste, are bread and wine any longer : and this, although it was determined by the same means, and for the same reasons, that they were most certainly bread and wine before they were consecrated. Bellarmine (De Euch. III. 24) admits that the senses cannot be deceived about their proper objects : but he argues that the accidents of a thing only are their proper object, and not the substance ; which he says, is not an object of the senses, but by its accidents. But if this applies to the consecrated elements, it applies equally to the unconsecrated : so that one can with no more certainty say of the unconsecrated, that it is bread, than of the consecrated. They can have no more certainty that they take bread for consecration, than that it is bread after conse- cration. If it be bread before consecration, it is, as certainly and for the self-same reasons, bread after consecration. They must have bread, for this is commanded : and they can be sure that they have bread, only from the accidents : and the acci- dents tell the same thing after, as well as before, consecration. The accidents are the same : and from the same accidents we must judge that there is the same substance, as infallibly as logicians must draw the same conclusions from the same pre- misses, or arithmeticians with the same numbers must make up the same sum. If the senses are deceived in the consecrated host, they are deceived in the unconsecrated : and if it be not bread after con- secration, they cannot be sure that it is that which they are commanded to consecrate. The accidents tell the same thing, at the end as at the beginning of the Liturgy : they are not less reliable and the conclusion is not less certain, at the one time than at the other : if it was bread before consecration, it is * Cat. Codc. Trid, II. iv. 25. See also Ccnc. Trid. sess. 13, c. 1. 72 MATTER AMENABLE TO THE SENSES. [Ch. VI. bread after consecration, if we are not to take leave of our senses and reason together, and make faith impossible. And again, the substance of all material things must be ma- terial : or else we must come to the original nothing out of which they were created. To resolve any material body into its ultimate elements may, I suppose, be considered to be beyond all human power : to annihilate it, or reduce it to its original nothingness, is in the power of God alone. But it is * in the power of man to reduce all or most material things which he can reach, into very simple elements, which he can wTeigh and measure, see and feel, taste and smell. And if, as Sir Humphrey Davy said, they "may perhaps ultimately be resolved into still fewer elements," and found at length, to "be different forms of the same material : " :* yet even then, so long as the material thing exists in any condition, it is amenable to the human senses. A material body or thing must have a material substance : and this substance must be more than a metaphysical quiddity : if the substance be ma- terial, it must ultimately, pursue it as far as we may, be an object of the senses, and cognisable by them. Now let the bread and wine be taken, and submitted to any process known or conceivable by the most experienced analyst ; let them be desiccated, or burnt, or treated by any chemical agent whatsoever : a residuum will still be found, which can be weighed or measured, seen, felt, tasted, and smelt. And there will be no difference in the result, whether the bread and wine be consecrated or unconsecrated. The very same results precisely will be obtained from the consecrated and unconsecrated elements. But these results, the mere accidents of bread and wine, alone, never could yield, or even be conceived to yield. Their substance will be found still remaining. If, then, the consecrated bread and wine will ultimately yield some material substance cognisable by the senses ; and if their accidents alone could not yield this result : the substance of the bread and wine still remains, and their accidents do not subsist together without it. But here some Romanists may say that they have a ready answer. They will assert that as soon as ever the analyst lays his hands upon the host and chalice, the body and blood of Christ depart, and the substance of the bread and wine returns. And a complete answer, certainly, it would be, if it were true. But this is a mere invention and subterfuge of the rationalism which * Elements of Chemical Philosophy, p. o03. Ch. VI.] ALL OUR SENSES AGREE. 73 pervades the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and its ramifi- cations. Nor have the theologians of Rome been of one mind on this point. Aquinas, for example, thought such a supposition erroneous, derogatory to the truth of the Sacrament, and a diminution of the dignity of Christ's body.43 Of substance, abstract substance, metaphysical substance, we certainly can have no idea. We can imagine that there is or may be such a thing, an universal, homogeneous simple thing, the basis of all material entities : and we can go no fur- ther. But of the concrete, actual substances of bread and wine, we can and do have a perfectly true idea and perception, when we eat and drink them. To our sight, to our feeling, our taste, and our smelling, — in short, to all our senses, the elements of bread and wine receive consecration in the Eucharist without change in themselves : the senses of all before whom they are placed give the same testimony : and universal reason delivers the same verdict. 43 " Circa hoc quidam antiqui errave- runt, dicentes, quod corpus Christi nec etiam saeramentaliter a peccatoribus snmi- tur, sedquamcitolabiis peccatoris contin- gitur, tarn cito sub speciebus sacramen- talibus desiuit esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc est erroneum : derogat enim veritati hujus sacramenti, ad quam pertinet quod inanentibus speciebus corpus Christi sub eis esse non desinat. Species autem ma- nent. quamdiu substantia panis maneret, si adesset. Manifestnm autem est quod substantia panis assumpta a peccatore, non statim esse d^init, sed manet quam- diu per calorem naturalem digeratur. Unde tamdiu corpus Christi sub specie- bus sacramentalibns manet a peccato- ribus sumptis. Unde dicendum est quod peccator saeramentaliter corpus Christi mandueare potest, et non solum justus. Dicendum quod si mus vel canis hostiani consecratam manducet, substantia cor- poris Christi non desinit esse sub specie- bus, quamdiu species ilia? manant. Nec hec vergit in detrimentum dignitatis corporis Christi, qui voluit a peccatoribus cruciflgi absque diminutione suae dignita- tis : pra\sertim cum mus aut canis non tangat ipram corpus Christi, secundum propriam speciem, sed solum secundum species sacramentales. Quidam autem dixerunt, quod statim cum saeramenrum tangitur a mure vel cane, disinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Quod etiam derosxat veritati sacramenti." — III. Ixxx 2 and 3. " Those ancients have erred, who say- that the body of Christ is not even sacra- mentaily taken by sinners, but that, as soon as ever it is touched by the lips of a sinner, the body of Christ ceases to be under the sacramental species. But this is erroneous, for it derogates from the truth of this Sacrament, to which it per- tains, that while the species remain, the body of Christ ceases not to be under them. Now the species remain as long as the substance of bread would remain, if it were present there. But it is manifest that the substance of [common] bread taken by sinners does not immediately cease to be, but remains until it be di- gested by natural heat. Hence the body of Christ remains so long under the species that are taken by sinners. "We must therefore say that a sinner can sacramentally eat the body of Christ, and not the just only." Nay, " if even a mouse or a dog eat the consecrated host, the body of Christ does not cease to be under the species, so long as those species remain. Nor does this approach to a lessening of the dignity of the body of Christ, who willed to be crucified by sinners, without diminution of his dignity : particularly when a mouse or a dog cannot touch the body of Christ it- self according to its proper species, but only according to the sacramental species. But some have said that immediately when the sacrament is touched by a mouse or a dog. the body of Christ ceases to be there, which also derogates from the truth of the Sacrament." 74 THE EVIDENCE OF OUK SENSES [Cn. VI. Are we then to receive or to reject this verdict ? In all other like matters, such a decision, on such grounds, and by such means, would be accepted without doubt or hesitation, and would be implicitly allowed to rule our conduct. We con- tinually act upon the evidence of our senses, and the conclusions of oar reason from it, in the affairs of everyday life. In matters of infinitely higher moment, our Lord Himself appealed to our natural judgment, and required its exercise; when He asked : " why even of your own selves judge ye not what is right ? " * And when He refuted the Saducees, by proving the resurrection from the Books of Moses ; and silenced the Pharisees by his question : " if David then call Christ his Lord, how is He his Son ? 99 f He set an example of reason- ing upon some of the highest points of faith, and of finding them out, and drawing them out, by reasoning. His miracles were reasons, first to be apprehended by the senses, and then to be applied by the judgment, in proof of his Divine mission. They were appeals to the senses, and by direct consequence, are attestations of their authority. He ordained his apostles also, " that they should be with Him," to see and to hear the things which He was to do and speak : and they, in due time, were " his witnesses unto the people," X declaring " the things which they had seen and heard, and which their hands had handled of the Word of life." § In particular, read the accounts of the resurrection, and mark how entirely its proofs depend on the credibility of the senses, especially of that sense, which the patrons of Transub- stantiation would have us distrust most of all. Some saw the place where the Lord had lain, and that He was not there. Others saw the linen clothes lying, and the napkin that had been about his head. He Himself also appeared to them : and said, u Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself : handle me, and see ; for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."\\ Some who had not seen Him, He afterwards " up- braided with their unbelief and hardness of heart," because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." % He ate and drank with the eleven and He was seen of his disciples many days.ff And these things are called infallible proofs:—" He shewed Himself," says St. Luke, "alive after his * Luke xii. 57. t Matt. xxii. 31, 32, 45. + Acts xiii. 31. § Acts iv. 20 ; Holm i. 1-3. || Luke xxiv. 39. f Majrk xvi. 14. ** Luke xxiv. 43 ; Acts x. 3. ft Acts xiii. 30., 31. Oh. VI.] MUST BE DEPENDED UPON. 75 passion by man)' infallible proofs,44 being seen of the apostles forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the king- dom of God." * Observe also with what confidence, and with how " great power, the apostles gave witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus : " f — what perils they braved, because they could " not but speak the things which they had seen and heard : " J — and how they founded their preaching on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, and held out the assurance of forgiveness and grace to men. § Now we believe in the resurrection of Christ, from the testimony of those "which from the beginning were his eve- witnesses and ministers," || and "who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead." 1 They knew that He had died, and was buried : He showed Himself to them alive again, and they knew that it was He Himself. They saw and believed. They gave up this world, and staked their hopes of the next, on the certainty of their sight. We hear their testimony, and therefore also believe. And so, we build our faith on the evidence of their senses. They saw : we believe : and our faith rests on their sight. Let us remember how much this comprises. St. Paul says : " If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain : ye are yet in your sins." ** If Christ be not risen, we cannot be raised with Him either from sin here, or from corruption hereafter. On the resurrection of Christ, then, depend our faith, our hope, and our love. It is the foundation of the Christian doctrine, and the argument of the Christian life : — it is its reason, its type, and its earnest. If, then, we are to use the senses and. the reason which God has given us, not only in the common affairs of life, but also in matters pertaining to righteousness and faith : — if we are taught to " hear and understand," ft to go on from faith to faith.ij " comparing spiritual things with spiritual,"§§ and thus to reach so high as even to the " great mystery of godliness : " || || — if it has been the order of the Divine economy from the beginning, 41 TtK^i-npioi^ i.e. nriixua vLuayKoua, Arist. Bhet. T. 2, 40. Signa neeessaria. Quintil. Inst. \ . 9, 3. Notes on the Four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. Pickering, 1838 ; a work, in which a mass of most valuable information, the fruits ot' very learned research, is condensed into the smallest space. * Acts i. 2. f Acts iv. 33; ii. 32 ; iii. lo ; v. 29-32 ; x. 39-43. I Ibid. iv. 20. § Ibid. iii. 26; v. 31 ; x. 40-43. || Luke i. 2. ■ Acts x. 41. ** 1 Cor. xv. 17. ft Matt. xv. 10. ft John xlv. 1. §§ 1 Cor. ii. 13. |||| Matt. xxii. 22, 42-4,3; 1 Tim. iii. 16. 76 OUR FAITH IS BUILT UPON IT. [Ch. VL that from things seen, men were to believe the things heard, and ascend to the faith of things unseen : — if, more especially, it was from seeing, or from the report of those who were chosen to see, the works of Christ, that men were to believe his word : * — yet more, if our faith be vain, unless Christ be risen ; if our belief of his resurrection depend on the testimony of those who saw Him after He had risen ; and thus the whole fabric of our faith and hope stand upon the evidence of sense : — if the dis- pensations of heaven have made it our duty thus to use our senses and understanding, and have also given so strong attestations of their certainty and their authority over us ; and if, accordingly, we do use them in all other things which come within their reach : — why should we discredit and reject them in this one thing ? If the apostles had so much confidence, — if we, " with all the whole Church " of Christ, have so much con- fidence,— in their sight ; why may we not have confidence in our own ? If we cannot trust our own senses, how can we trust to theirs, or believe their report, which is founded upon them ? If the apostles believed, and were sure of what they saw ; we may believe, and be suaie of what we see ; and may trust our senses and understanding, so much, at least,, as not to go in direct opposition to them. Our right, indeed, to judge is demonstrated by the conduct of those who would deny it. They " dispute and urge arguments, — they cite councils and fathers, — they allege Scripture and tradition." All this would be fruitless, if we were not to judge : " and if we must judge, then we must use " and depend upon " our reason i " but " if we mustnot judge, why do they produce evidence ? " If they decree the thing as by infallible authority, " we may choose whether we will believe them or no : or if they say we must believe them, they must prove it, and tell us why. But all these coming into question, submit themselves to reason ; that is, to be judged by human understanding. So that Scrip- ture, tradition, councils, and fathers are the evidence in a question, but reason is the judge.'7 f " That which is one of the firmest pillars," says the same author, " upon which all human notices, and upon which all Christian religion does rely, cannot be shaken ; or if it be, all science and all religion must be in danger." " St. John hath placed the whole religion of a Christian upon the certainty and evidence of sense, as upon one most unmoveable foundation." J * John x. 37, 38. f Bishop Jer. Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, sect. 10. I 1 John i. 1-3. Ch. VI.] JEREMY TAYLOB AND TERTULLIAN. 77 And again : " Faith comes by hearing, and evidence by seeing ; and if a man in his wits and in his health can be deceived in these things, how can we come to believe ? — For if a man or an angel declares God's will to us, if we may not trust our hearing, we cannot trust him : for we know not whether, indeed, he says what we think he says ; and if God confirms the proposition by a miracle, an ocular demonstration, we are never the nearer to believing him, because our eyes are not to be trusted. But if feeling also may be abused, when a man is, in all other capa- cities, perfectly healthy, then he must be governed by chance, and walk in the dark, and live upon shadows, and converse with phantoms and illusions, as it happens ; and then at last it will come to be doubted, whether there be any such man as him- self, and whether he be awake when he is awake, or not rather, then only awake when he himself and all the world thinks him to have been asleep."* The argument of Tertullian44 is unanswerable. "What art thou doing, 0 most extravagant academician ? Thou over- turnest the whole state of life ; thou disturbest all the order of nature ; thou makest blind the providence of God Himself, [as if] He has set the senses pver all His works, to be deceitful and lying guides, in understanding, inhabiting, dispensing, and enjoying them. Is not our whole condition regulated by our senses ? Is it not by their means that a second order, also, has come upon the world ; so many arts, so many inventions, so many pursuits, occupations, duties, dealings, remedies, councils, comforts, manners of life, improvements, embellish- ments ? — all these have produced the whole relish of life : while by these senses man alone of all is distinguished as a rational animal, capable of understanding and knowledge, and of [the studies of] the Academy itself. We may not bring into doubt those senses, lest there be a question of their certainty even in Christ.f Lest it may perhaps be said, that He did not in truth behold Satan cast down from heaven : or * On the Real Presence, sect. x. ] . "Works (Heber), X. i. 3. 4i " Quid agis, procacis.sime aeademice ? Totum vitae statum evertis, omnem naturae ordinem turbas, ipsius Dei providentiam excsecas, qui cunctis suis operibus intelli- gendis, incolendis, dispensandis, fruendisque fallaees et mendaces dominos pncfecerit s iimis. An non istis universa conditio subministratur ? An non per istoa secunda quoque mundo instructio accessit, tot artes, tot ingenia, tot studia, negotia, offieia, connnercia, remedia, consilia, solatia, victus, cultus, ornatusque? omnia totum vitae saporem condiderunt, dum per hos sensus solus omnium homo animal rationale dig- noscitur, intelligentire et scientipe capax, et ipsius Academne." t That is, whether the bodily senses of Christ Himself were to be trusted: and whether his sight, his hearing, his feeling, his smelling, and his taste, were not all deceived. 78 THE BREAD IS YET THE BODY, [Ch. VL did not in truth hear the voice of the Father which testified of Him : or that He was deceived, when He touched the mother- in-law of Peter : or perceived afterward a different odour of the ointment, which He accepted for His burial: or another taste afterward of the wine, which He consecrated for the memorial of His blood. For thus also Marcion preferred to believe Him a phantom, disowning the truth of the whole body in it. But not even in His apostles was nature deceived. Faithful was both sight and hearing in the Mount: faithful also the tasting of that wine, although water before, at the marriage in Galilee : faithful also the touch of the thenceforth believing Thomas. Recite the testimony of John : 6 That which we have seen,' he says, 6 which we have heard, seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the word of life.' False, certainly, is the testimony, if nature deceives the senses of eyes, and ears, and hands."45 Yet, when we thus demonstrate the certainty with which our senses show, and our reason determines, that the substances of the elements are not taken away from their accidents ; and the necessity of our believing that which our senses and reason so determine ; we must not be understood as intending to infer that the bread and wine are nothing more after consecration than they were before. Faith has its province, as well as sense and reason. We are not required to disbelieve what we see and know : but there are things which we do not see, and yet must believe. And while we see and know that the conse- crated elements are still bread and wine, we must believe faith- fully the words of Christ Himself, that they are, nevertheless, his body and blood. As, when we prove that He is indeed ' Since they believe and confess that the power of God is supreme over all things, it is necessary that they should also be- lieve that the power is not wanting to Him of effecting this most excellent work, which we admire and worship in the Sacrament of the Eucharist." He is omnipotent to do all things which He has willed to do. For I speak of how great things He could not do. He cannot die, He cannot lie. He cannot be deceived. So great things He cannot do ; which, if He could do, He would not be omnipotent." Ch. VII.] TBAXSUBSTAXTIATTOX USELESS. 85 stance, which shall be without its own accidents, and shall be contained under the accidents of the substance it has displaced : and whether this and that piece of bread, and hundreds of thousands of pieces of bread, in hundreds of thousands of places, in England, at Rome, at the Antipodes, can each of them, and each fragment of them, contain " whole Christ,'5 in the whole complex notion of his adorable person : and jet that there should be but one Christ, sitting all the while in heaven at the right hand of God. These and many other like inevitable conditions,- would show that the conversion for which the Romanists contend, is impossible ; however possible it might be, in itself, without any opposing conditions. Yet more i if it were even proved to be possible under all the conditions of the case^ it would still remain to be proved that it is the will of God to do it. And that it is not his will to do it, we may be assured from these few considerations : first, tha t his holy word nowhere declares that such is his will ; but on the contrary teaches us- that " the flesh profiteth nothing," * that "the letter" of the flesh " killeth :"f secondly, that it is not necessary to be done ; for that " it is the spirit that quickeneth : M and thirdly, that so far from being conducive to salvation, it would be " a heinous wickedness and crime," as St. Augustine says, in the letter, to eat the flesh, or drink the blood of Christ. But after all, " the doctrine of Transubs-tantiation," as Bishop Taylor says, is " infinitely useless, and to no purpose : for by the words of our blessed Lord, by the doctrine of St. Paul, and the sense of the Church, and the confession of all sides, the natural eating of Christ's flesh, — if it were there or could be so eaten alone., or of itself — does no good, does not give life; but the spiritual eating of Him is the instrument of life to us : and this may be done without the transubstantiated flesh ; it may be done in baptism, by faith and charity, by hearing and understanding, and therefore it may also in the blessed Eucharist, although there also, according to our doctrine, to be eaten only sacramentally, and spiritually. And hence it is, that in the Mass book, anciently it is prayed after consecration k Qiuesumus, omnipotens Deus, ut, de perceptis muneribus, gr.itias exhibentes, beneficia potiora sumemus : ' [We beseech thee, Almighty God, that we rendering thanks for the benefits received, may take greater benefits :] J — which, besides that it * John vi. 63. f 2 Cor. hi. 6. \ Serni. vi. 4. temp. Septem. post Consecrat. 86 TEANSUBSTANTIATION USELESS. [Ch. VII. concludes against the natural presence of Christ's body, (for what greater thing can we receive, if we receive that ?) it also declares, that the grace and effect of the sacramental communion are the things designed before all corporal sumption." * * Jer. Taylor on the Eeal Presence, iii. ix. 446, 447. Cn. VIII. ] OONSUBSTANTIATION, 87 CHAPTER VIII. COXSUBSTANTIATIOX, AND THE NINETEENTH CENTUEY DOCTBIXE OF THE EEAL OBJECTIVE PEESEIsCE. With the doctrine of " the Real Presence," as taught by the Church of Rome, the doctrine of Luther, — by whatsoever name it may be called, — and the doctrine of a party which has lately sprung up in the Church of England, entirely symbolise : for though they deny the transubstantiation of the elements, they maintain that, after consecration, our Lord's glorified tody, and therefore, necessarily, his soul and divinity, are with, or under the forms of the bread and wine. Luther asks, " Why may not Christ contain His body within the substance of the bread, as well as in the accidents ? Behold the two substances, tire and iron, are so mingled in glowing iron, that every part is iron and fire. Why much more may not the glorious body of Christ be thus in every part of the substance of the bread? "52 The doctrine which Luther adopted and so zealously pro- pounded was further explained, or accounted for, by the notion of ubiquity, or power of being everywhere present, which some Lutherans supposed to be possessed by the human nature of Christ. But this notion is altogether inconsistent with the truth of Christ's body, and is much more allied to the heresy of Alarcion in ancient times, and of the rationalists and pan- theists of our own, than to sound doctrine. For it has been justly said, that this notion of ubiquity " gives no more to the Sacrament than to everything else. Christ's body may be said to be in everything, or rather, everything may be said to be his body and blood, as well as the elements in the Sacrament." If the body of Christ be a true human body, it is also finite ; and it is, therefore, as impossible for it to be everywhere present, as for the finite to be infinite. That He is everywhere °2 '* Cur autem non possit Christus corpus suum intra su!>stamiam panis continere, siv ut in accidentibus ? Ecce ignis et ferrura duse substantive, sic miscentur iu iVrro ignito, ut quaelibet pars sit ferrum et ignis. Cur non multo magis corpus gloriosum Chxisti sic in omni parte substantias panis esse possit? " — De Capt. Bab. Eccl. 264a. 88 LUTHERAN AND TRACT ABIAN DOCTRINES. [Ch. VIII. present in his divine nature, we know and believe ; but we must ever remember, that as there is no "conversion of the Godhead into flesh," so there is no " confusion of substance " in his person : that each nature, the Manhood and the Godhead, remains for ever distinct from each other, though joined to- gether in his one person, " by taking of the Manhood into God : n and that " as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man," each retaining its distinct properties, " so God and Man is one Christ," without any conversion of substance, or any confusion ; u any diminution or obliteration of the one nature by the other:"* "but each nature retaining its distinct properties; the Godhead its perfections, the Manhood its essential imper- fections and limits." There are some peculiar difficulties which attend upon the doctrine of Consubstantiation ; as, for instance, the supposition of two corporeal substances occupying the same space at the same time. It has also other difficulties in common with Transubstantiation, as "the impossibility of a body's being without extension, or in more places " f than one at the same time. But, after what has been said, we need not spend time upon these difficulties : since they have only to be clearly stated to be shown to be insuperable. Dr. Pusey teaches the objective Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, and that this "Eeal and objective Presence does not involve any physical change in the natural elements, which are the veils and channels of our Lord's Unseen Presence." % He sometimes calls this, indeed, " the real Presence of the Body of Christ : " § but he means the living, glorified body, as is evident from the above-cited words. In another place, in order to account for the inconsistency of his doctrine with the " law — impressed upon physical nature, that two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time," he refers to our Lord's resurrection, as a passage, " in His spiritual Body — through the sealed tomb : to His appearance to the disciples when the doors were shut, as a passage through the closed doors, as He had passed before, illcesa vvrgiwitaie, through the doors of the Virgin's womb." And he says that "the substance of" our Lord's " Body passed through the substance of the doors," and that "as it passed, it must have been in the same place, pene- trating, but not displacing them." || And, in another work, he * Plimpton Lectures, 1837, p. 211. t Burnet on the Articles. Art, 28. \ The Presence of Christ a Comfort to the Penitent, vii. § Ibid. 14. J| Ibid. 23. See Appendix S. Ch. VIII.] TRAOTARIAN, 89 Bays : " Where God's Almighty Word causes His Body to be, there His Godhead is, because it is inseparable; there is Christ Himself, our Redeeming* Lord, the Object of our thankfulness and reverence, and love, and adoration."* And again : " Why then shoul'd we think it too strange a thing for His marvellous condescension, that He should now give us His blessed Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine? Or how should His Body which He gives us, not be His living, life-giving Body ? Or how should His life-giving Body be apart from His Godhead, which makes it life-giving? Or how, since His God- head is present there, should we not adore ? " f With equal learning, but more logical method, Archdeacon WiJberforce upheld the same views in his work on " The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist." I know not whether his sad defection from our Church has lessened the esteem in which this work was at first regarded : but its great ability and deep piety will ever secure a high character for it amongst works on this subject. At all events, as I cannot but regard it as a storehouse of learning and argument on the questions of which it treats, I must make frequent references to its statements of doctrine, and to the testimonies and arguments by which he endeavours to establish and maintain them. He says that " in the Holy Eucharist " the " inward reality is the Body and Blood of Christ; "J with which expression he uses, "the Presence of our Lord's Body," § as synonymous : " that Body which was once humbled, but is now exalted; " "that self-same Body — which He had taken of the Blessed Virgin." || This " Presence of our Lord's Body," he calls " the very Presence of His Humanity," " the actual Humanity of the Son of God : " *[ and "the Presence of His Body,"** "which has taken" up its dwelling in the consecrated elements, ft " is the reason why He Himself is present." But while "the mention of our Lord's Body and Blood implies the Presence of His man's nature, yet by virtue of that personal union, whereby the manhood was taken into God, it involves the Presence of the Godhead also," and our Lord " must be understood to imply that He Himself, Godhead, Soul, and Body, was the gift communicated," % % and, therefore, it would be argued, present. And the presence of our Lord's very true personal body is * The Real Presence the Doctrine of the English Church, 1857, c. 3, p. 330. f Ibid. pp. 335, 336. X P. 3*7: § P. 108. || Pp. 1, 93, 9+. <[ Pp. 42, 38, 39. ** Pp. 173, 174. ft P. 172. X\ Pp. 90, 91. 90 OR NINETEENTH CENTURY, DOCTRINE. [Ch. VIII. thus argued to be possible : " our Lord's Human Body is not subject to the laws of material existence, because His Body is a glorified Body," * which has " new qualities — gained by oneness with Deity," f for it is " the Body of God." J This he says is " the res sacramenti," and is " contained in, and communicated through " — the " outward " elements. § A Memorial or Declaration was addressed to Archbishop Longley in the year 1867, by Mr. Butler, and twenty others, " exercising the office of the Priesthood within the Church of England," in defence of " the Doctrines of the Real Objective Presence, of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and of the Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament." They " repudiate the opinion of a 4 Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood ; ' that is to say, of the Presence of His Body and Blood as they 6 are in Heaven ; ' and the conception of the mode of His Presence which implies the physical change of the natural substances of the bread and wine, commonly called £ Transub- stantiation.' " They u believe, that in the Holy Eucharist, — the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, 6 the inward part, or Thing signified,' are present, really and truly, but spiritually and ineffably, under 'the outward visible part or sign,' or ' form of Bread and Wine : ' and also, 4 that Christ Himself, really and truly, but spiritually and ineffably, Present in the Sacrament, is therein to be adored.' " || The doctrine, then, of this Declaration is that of " the Real Objective Presence— of the Body and Blood of Christ," — of Christ Himself, really and truly — Present in the Sacrament," and " therein to be adored : " that is, of the living and glorified body of our Lord, with his Soul and Godhead. The same doctrine is indirectly maintained by Mr. Carter in his correspondence with Mr. Marriott : and in a Letter to his parishioners he maintains "The Presence of our Lord in His very Body, and His very blood, alive, and life-giving." (1867, p. 111.) And in the "Tracts for the Day," edited by Mr. Orby Shipley, it is declared that, " at the moment of con- secration, Christ unites Himself, Body, Soul, Divinity, in an ineffable manner, with the Elements of Bread and Wine ; anil so near does this approach to the union of the Divine and Human in the Incarnation, that Bishop Andre wes' calls it, 6 a kind of Hjpostatical Union of the Sign and the Thing signi- * P. 1,53. f P. 155. t P. 96. § P. 123. || First Report of the Commissioners on the Rubrics, Append. 128, 129. Cn. VIII.] "REAL PRESENCE," A TERM OF A LATE ERA. 91 fied, so united together as are the Two Natures of Christ.' " (Sermon 10, On the Nativity.)* It would be superfluous to accumulate further proof, that, excepting the tran substantiation of the bread and wine, the doctrine of Luther and of a party in the Church of England perfectly agrees with the doctrine of the Church of Rome, in asserting the Real Presence, or the Real Objective Presence, of our Lord Jesus Christ, of his glorified body, his Soul, and his Godhead, in or with the bread and wine, or under the forms of bread and wine. Now, first, as to this use of the name or term — the Real Presence, I do not find that it is of earlier date than the era of the Reformation. I have diligently searched, and I cannot find one instance of the use of this term, before the year a.d. 1-504, when the Hussites in Bohemia, in a letter to Ladislaus, asserted that " the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ — said nothing of the Real Presence." f Of our Lord's dwelling in heaven, the term Real Presence was used by Bernard us Clarsevallensis, a.d. 1115: | but in all the authorities alleged for the doctrine of " the Real Presence under the form of bread and wine," I cannot find one before the sixteenth century. Bishop Jewell affirms that " the Fathers never used these terms 6 really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally, present in the Sacrament.' " § And in the proposition : " that in the Sacrament of the Altar, by virtue of God's word pronounced by the priest, there is really and naturally the very body of Christ present, as it was conceived of the Yirgin Mary, under the kinds of bread and wine," Bishop Latimer said : " methiuketh it is set forth with certain new terms, lately found." || And Archbishop Cranmer spoke of " new fangled novelties of wrords : " U and Bishop Ridley objected to the " diversity and newness of the phrase."*"* Therefore, adopting Mr. Trevor's words on the novelty of the term " Real Objective Presence.," I must submit that the more ancient form " Real Presence," " cannot escape the suspicion which justly attaches to every innovation on the terminology of the Church. We are not now to learn that new and unau- thorised words imply new and unauthorised conceptions." ft * No. 5, The Real Presence, pp. 16, 17. t L'Arroque, II. xix. p. 510. X Bospinian, I. iv. 3, vol. i. p. 342. § Adv. Harding, Parker Society's Ed., p. 455. || Remains, pp. 251. 252, Disputation at Oxford. i[ Disputations at Oxford. Works, Cambridge, 1844, p. 395. ** Ibid. Works, Cambridge, 1843, p. 195. ft Catholic Doctrine, v. pp. 82, 83. 92 THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. [Ch. IX. CHAPTER IX. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION DEMANDED BY THE TEACHERS OF THE REAL PRESENCE, BUT MISTAKEN BY THEM. This doctrine of the Real Presence in the bread and wine, the Church of Rome declares is set forth in the words of our Lord in " their proper and most plain signification." * Luther said that, " as far as can be done, the divine words are to be kept in the most simple signification, and unless a manifest cir- cumstance compel it, they are not to be taken out of their grammatical and proper signification." f And Dr. Pusey says : " All things combine to make us take our Lord's words solemnly and literally ; " and through many pages he presses the literal sense. J Archdeacon Wilberforce says : "that our Lord's words of institution were to be taken in their simple and natural sense, was the belief of all ancient writers." § And Bishop Moberley speaks in yet stronger words, contending for the very strictest interpretation ; and that * we are rigidly and abso- lutely bound to the exact words," and to take " neither more nor less," than "that which they exactly convey." || This demand of a literal construction is just. I join in it,- and accept the reasons on which it is founded. I think and maintain, that it must be allowed, and cannot " be excluded ;" and this, for the very sufficient reason,- that, as Dr. Pusey most rightly says, it " is the basis of the spiritual sense," *|f the neces- sary basis of the spiritual and true sense. But, strange indeed to say, none of those who have made this demand, and professed to make the literal interpretation the ground of their doctrine, have themselves adhered to it, or rightly applied it. This, I admit, is a most serious charge ; but serious as it is, and reflecting upon generations of learned * Cone. Trid., sess. 13, C 1. f ,Sec Appendix T. \ The Presence of Christ, p. 20, &c. § Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, c. 4, p. 92. jj Bumpton Lectures, pp. 171, 172. The Presence of Christ, p. 34. ch. ix.] the Words to be interpreted? 93 and able writers, I am prepared, and now proceed, to demon- strate and establish it. Now, in the first place, we have to consider what are the words, of which the strictly literal sense is to be ascertained. There is, indeed, no controversy or doubt about them, what they are : the whole of Christendom would, with one voice, reply that they are the words which were spoken by our Lord, when He celebrated the first Eucharist. But unhappily for the cause of truth and sound doctrine, systems of Eucharistic faith have been universally built upon a mutilation of them. "Now the Divine records tell us that " as they were eating- " the Passover, " Jesus took the bread,* and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat : this is my body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, = this cup is the New Testament in my blood, t which is shed for you J and for many,§ for the remission of sins ; || this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remem- brance of me.c For I say unto you, I will not drink hence- forth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Several propositions are here expressed or implied ; some of more, some of less, but all of them of some consequence. But the chief importance belongs to the words which our Lord spoke in delivering the bread and the cup : " Take, eat ; this is my body which is given for you ; this do in remembrance of me. This is my blood which is shed for you ; this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me." These are the words of which we are to find " the proper and most plain," and " the most simple, grammatical, and proper signification," "the simple and natural sense," and " neither more nor less" than "that which they exactly convey." But first let us see how these words have been dealt with, and what is the sense, which, pursuant to these demands, has been assigned to them. 1. The Church of Eome, in consecrating** the bread, takes * St. Matt. f St. Luke and St. Paul. J St. Luke. § St. Matt, and St. Mark. 1) St. Matth. f[ St. Paul. ** See Appendix V. 94 FORM OF ROMAN CONSECRATION. [Ch. IX. only the words, " Hoc est corpus meum," " This is my body^" the instantaneous effect of which words is stated to he the con- version of the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance of the body of Christ, " His true body, which was born of the Virgin, sitteth at the right: hand of the Father in heaven," and "is to die no more :" 53 that is to say in shorter form, the glorified body of Christ. The conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance of the Lord's glorified body, is stated to be the effect, and is put for " the proper and most plain signification" of the words "This is my body." The cup is consecrated with this fuller form : " This is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament : the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins." And the effect of these words is stated to be the instantaneous conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of the blood of Christ : — But, be it observed, the body and blood of our Lord separate in neither : neither the body without the blood, nor the bipod without the body ; and neither again without the soul : but the body, and the blood, and the soul together, under each species, "by force of that natural connection and concomitance, by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who is risen from the dead, to die no more, are joined together." In short, it is declared to be " most true, that just as much is contained under either species as under both ; for Christ, whole and perfect, is under the species of bread, and under every particle of it ; and whole under the species of wine, and under every particle of it." * Thus under the form of the bread is declared to be contained our Lord's body with the blood, and under the form of the wine his blood with the body ; exactly the same under each sepa- rately : under the form of the bread, by virtue of the words, " This is my body ; " under the form of the wine, by virtue of the words, " This is the chalice of my blood : " by concomitance also, the soul of our Lord under each ; and by the hypostatic union, his divinity under each. In short, by transubstanti- ation, by concomitance, and by hypostatic union, Christ whole and perfect, God and man, is contained, according to the Romish doctrine, under the form of bread and under the form of wine, and equally under each. 53 << Vernm Christi Domini corpus, illud idem quod, natum ex Virgine, in ccelis scdet ad dexteram Patris." — Cat. Con. Trid., II. xxt. " Non amplius moriturus." — Con. Trid., sess. 13, c. 3. * Con. Trid., sess. 13, c. 3. Cn. IX.] ROME, LUTHER, AND THE NEW DOCTRIXE AGREE. 95 And this is said to be in strict accordance with " the proper and most plain signification " of the words of institution : which is to say, that the words : " This is my body which is given for you," mean, in "the proper and most plain significa- tion," " This contains my glorified body ; " and the words, " This is my blood which is shed for you," mean, " in the proper and most plain signification," " This contains the blood of my glorified body." 2. The doctrine of Luther, as has been shown, is that " the glorious body of Christ is in or with the bread : " and Gerhard says that the words of the institution, " This is my body," are most fitly resolved by " In, with, or nnder, this bread, I exhibit my body." * 3. And the doctrine of Dr. Pusey, and of those whom he so ably leads or represents, is, as has been shown, that the living body of Christ, together with his Godhead, is present under the form of the bread and wine : that our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect man and perfect God, is really in them. In all these systems, then, — the Roman, the Lutheran, and the Tractarian, — it is the living, glorified body of our Lord, which is believed to be nnder the species, in or with the outward forms. It is our very living Lord Himself who is believed to be really present in each. There is a slight difference as to the causes of that presence, whether consecration or otherwise ; and as to the time when his presence actually begins and termi- nates ; but the presence itself is in all believed to be precisely the same. Since, therefore, it is the glorified body of Christ into which the Roman system teaches that the substance of the bread is converted ; which the Lutheran system asserts to be present, taken, and received with the bread; and which the Tractarian system declares to be present under the outward forms : and since this is nnanimonsly asserted by all the three systems and their advocates, to be " the proper and most plain, the gram- matical, most simple, and natural signification " of our Lord's words, and to be " neither more nor less " than " that which they exactly convey; " — in one word, is asserted to be their literal * Loc. Theol. de Sacra Ccena, X. lxix. Opp. Francof. 1647, vol. v. 55, 56. and xcvi. 96 THE FORM OF OUR LORD'S WORDS. [Ch. IX. sense : we must examine into the truth of this allegation ; and see whether the literal sense be indeed that which it is thus asserted to be. But these several statements of the "Real Presence" must first be translated into the form of our Lord's words, and reduced to categorical propositions like his. Now, there is no question necessary to be noticed here as to the subjects of the propositions into which our Lord's words form themselves : for the questions which have been raised about the meaning of them, and have been so variously deter- mined, have arisen only from a supposed meaning of the pre- dicates, and from the necessity of making subject and predicate reconcilable with each other. We must therefore take the " This " of our Lord's words for the subject of each of the pro- positions which declare the Roman, Lutheran, and Tractarian doctrines. Then, although, in logical strictness, the copula must neces- sarily be the same: yet, instead of the simple copula, " is," each of the three systems substitutes, in reality, what I shall here, for con- venience, call a compound copula : because the use of the simple logical copula would require an awkward and unnecessary periphrasis. And since the Roman doctrine is, that whole Christ glorified is contained under the species of the bread; this, being brought into the form of our Lord's words, will read : " This contains, or has, under its species, my glorified body." Since the Lutheran doctrine is, that the glorified body of Christ is in, with, or under the bread ; this, in the form of our Lord's words, will read : " This has with it my glorified body." And since the Tractarian doctrine is that the glorified body of Christ is present in the bread or under the form of bread ; this, again, in the form of our Lord's words, will read : " This has in it, or under its form, the presence of my glorified body." Thus, therefore, as equivalent to the simple copula " is," in our Lord's words, the Roman doctrine has the compound copula, " has under its species : " the Lutheran doctrine presents the com- pound cupola, " has with it : " and the Tractarian doctrine, again, has the compound copula, " has under its form the pre- sence of." And, lastly, the predicate given by each of these three systems is, "my glorified body." It might be enlarged in all the three propositions by such additions as may be collected ©EL IX.] CHRIST'S WORDS, AND 97 from the statements of the respective doctrines which have been before made : but this is sufficient for the present purpose. Thus, then, the proposition which the Church of Eome virtually and in reality presents, as expressing " the proper and most plain signification of the words, ' This is my body which is broken for you,' 99 is — " This 54 contains, or has, under its species, my glorified body." The Lutheran proposition for the grammatical and proper signification, is — " This55 has with it my glorious or glorified body." And the Tractarian proposition for the strictly literal mean- ing is — " This has under its form the presence of my glorified body." These propositions are, in absolute truth and reality, as any logician who will set himself to the task must acknowledge, those which are implicitly set forth for the literal meaning of our Lord's words ; and as, in fact, identical propositions with the propositions which those words express. Xow let the original words be put down3 with the three so- called literal significations under them, and it will be at once manifest that there is a great difference between them. This j is | my body which is given for you. R. TlIIS=6 HAS UNDER ITS SPECIES . . MY GLORIFIED BODY. L. This has with it . . .my glorified body. mm { HAS UNDER ITS FORM THE ) 1. 1HIS -j - MY GLORIFIED BODY. I PRESENCE OF . . J 54 What " This" means has been much disputed by the theologians of Eome. They will not allow it to be the bivad. for this would overthrow Transubstantiation. Bellarmine decide- it to i]ih;,d. - This thing which is contained under the species of bread." But if the subject be as he thus determines, then the proposition, fully expressed, will be : " This thing which is contained under the species of bread has under its species my glorified body :*' which virtually makes the subject and predicate the same thing. The definition is suicidal. 45 ■ Luther correctly pointed first to the fact that we naturally use the neuter when speaking of a thing which lies before us." — Stier on the Words of the Lord Jesus, Matt. xvi. 26-28 ; Clarke, vii. 94. Bengel has : " Hoc quud vos sumere jubeo : " " this thing which I command you to take." It is unnecessary to mark the difference here, or in the words with which our Lord gave the cup. 98 THREE INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM. [Ch. IX. Thus, instead of tlie simple word or copula, " is," the Roman system reads, " has under its species : " the Lutheran reads, " has with it : " and the Tractarian reads, " has under its form the presence of." And, instead of " my body which is given for you," all the three read, " my glorified body." Even if they went no farther than saying " my body," the propositions would be essentially and most importantly different from our Lord's words. " Has under its species my body : " " has with it my body : " " has in it the presence of my body : " are not identical in meaning with " is my body ; " but far from it. And still more important is the remaining difference. Our Lord said, " my body which is given for you;" but these systems say, "my glorified body," "I myself." We must turn now to those other words : " This is my blood which is shed for you." The three systems of doctrine under review interpret these words in apparent harmony with their interpretations of these other words, " This is my body which is given for you;" but the interpretation of one proposition is given in entire oblivion of the consequences of the interpreta- tion of the other. Let these words be placed in juxtaposition with the several interpretations of them, as we have placed the other words with their interpretations. This R. This L. This T. This is • HAS UNDER ITS SPECIES HAS WITH IT (HAS UNDER ITS FORM) ( THE PRESENCE OF J MY BLOOD WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU. MY BLOOD WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU. MY BLOOD WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU. MY BLOOD WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU. The subject and the copula, or the compound copula, are the same respectively as before ; and the predicates are the same as in our Lord's words, with the exception of the Eoman pro- position, which, not to mention interpolations and additions not as yet noticed, has " which shall be shed," instead of "in shed." And there is an important distinction, as may appear presently. Now it is obvious that a proposition asserting the real pre- sence of our Lord's glorified body under the species, or with the bread, or under the form of bread, is impossible to be reconciled with a proposition asserting the real presence of his Cn. EL] MUTILATION OF HIS WORDS. 99 blood shed with or under the form of wine : for in the glorified body the blood is no longer, nor ever can be, shed. The blood shed, on the one hand, argues the body to be dead on the other hand : for the shedding of our Lord's blood was the pour- ing out of his life,* But the natural consequence of making our Lord's words in delivering the bread an assertion of " The Real Presence," has been, in the first place, a mutilation of the words ; and in the second place, an utter oblivion in argument and in doctrine of those other words : " This is rny blood which is shed for you." From the comparison presented above of the Roman, Lu- theran, and Tractarian senses of our Lord's words in delivering the bread, with the words themselves, it is seen at once that only some of the words are taken,— " This is my body ; " and that the words, " which is given for yon," are altogether left out of consideration. And this is the case, it may be said, in all the treatises of Romanist divines on the Eucharist. Even in the " Canon of the Mass," the consecration of the bread is performed by these words only: "Hoc est corpus meurn and the other words which were spoken with the bread are quite left out. The Council of Trent teaches that " in the precious Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things:"57 thus perfectly ignoring all of the words but " Hoc est corpus meurn." And to instance Bellarmine only of Romanist writers, he has in his treatise on the Eucharist a chapter in which he expounds, each by itself, those four words "Hoc est corpus meurn ;" and takes no notice of the words which our Lord added to them, practically ignoring altogether, throughout his work, the words which He spake in delivering the cup. Luther, in the conference at Marburg, and Melancthon dis- puting with Zuinglius, built all their arguments upon " Hoc est corpus meurn:" and Luther, to keep himself the more strictly to his thesis, and to manifest his immovable opinion, wrote the words in large characters before him on the table. f * Isa. liii. 12. 57 " Docet sancta Synodus, et aperte, et simplieiter profitetur. in almo sanctae Eueharistise Sacramento, post panis et vini conseerationem, Dominion nostrum, Jesum Christum, verum Deum, atque hominem, vere, realiter, ac substantialiter, sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri." — Sess. 13, c. 1. t Hospinian. Hist. Sacr. II., a.d. 1529, vol. ii., Iha. Daubignes Hist, of the Reformation, Book xiii. c. 7 ; Glasgow, iv. 77. h 2 100 CONSEQUENCES OF THIS MUTILATION. [Ch. IX. And amongst the modern advocates in the Church of England of " The Real Objective Presence under the form of bread and wine," Archdeacon Wilberforce is very noteworthy. He takes the words " This is my body ; this is my blood : 99 deals with them in logical form — the subjects, the copula, and the predicates : but goes on throughout his work as if he had only to deal with the words " This is my body." All the other words of institution are, in effect, treated as mere surplusage, and as if they had no meaning or bearing upon the subject. Let anyone who is in possession of the Archdeacon's work take it and blot out every place in which the words " which is given for you, This is my blood which is shed for you," are recited ; and he will find that they have not the least influence upon the argument or the doctrine which it is used to enforce.58 Thus are the words of the institution mutilated, and in part ignored. Portentous error has been the result. The words retained in the consecration of the Mass, and in substance of argument, have been misinterpreted, and in logical consequence, the Sacrament has been mutilated. For when our Lord's living body, when our Lord Himself, is conceived to be present in, with, or under, the bread or its species, the words " This is my blood which is shed for you" have no meaning, but to signify his Presence, so to take it, in, with, or under the wine or its species. But since, according to the doctrine of " The Real Objective Presence," there is nothing in the one element which is not in the other, and the communicant in receiving the bread receives whole Christ, as He is, perfect God and perfect man : there is no need, or indeed fitness, for him to receive the wine also. It adds nothing to what he has already received. And thus the cup is a mere superfluity in the Sacrament, and in consequence has been denied by Rome. But this is not all. The interpretations of those who teach the doctrine of "The Real Presence" are virtually, and neces- sarily imply, a denial of our Lord's words. For he who says with the Romanist, that in the species of bread is contained whole Christ, denies implicitly that the bread is the body of Christ : he who says with the Lutheran that the body of Christ is in, with, or under, the bread, implicitly denies that the bread is the body of Christ : and he who with the Tractarian says M Mr. Palmer takes the same method, and wrongly makes the Church of England rosnonsible for it, in his statement of thfi " Anglo-Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist." — Tr«atise on the Church of Christ, 1838, i. 526, 527. Cn. IX.] DENIAL OF HIS WOIiDS. 101 that the body of Christ is present under the form of the bread, implicitly denies that the bread is the body of Christ. Each and all necessarily imply that the bread itself is not the body of Christ. Whereas He said of the bread, " This is my body." They necessarily imply also a denial that the wine is the blood of Christ. And the denial of his words is the more marked, in that they say that it is the glorified body of Christ which is contained in the species of bread, or is joined with the bread, or is present under its form ; whereas He said, ** This is my body which is given for you," And those other words also are virtually denied which He spake of the wine, " This is my blood which is shed for you : " and the assertion of the glorified body, and of the blood in or under the wine or its form7is also self-contradictory : for the blood of the glorified body is not shed. In short, these systems of doctrine deny the truth declared by his voice, that the bread is his body, his body which is given for us, and that the wine is his blood which is shed for us. A total denial of his words underlies each and all of these doctrines. Such is the way in which the words of our Lord, proposed for interpretation, have been dealt with, and such is the con- sequence of their treatment : a mutilation of the Sacrament, and a denial of our Lord's words. 102 THE TRUE LITERAL INTERPRETATION. [Ch. X. CHAPTEE X. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION VINDICATED. We now proceed to ascertain what is, in truth, the literal in- terpretation of the words, in which our Lord instituted this Sacrament. But, first, we must remember and follow that cardinal rule in the interpretation of Scripture, that the context of a place should always be taken into account with it ; for there is no place in which a consideration of the context is more necessary than in this. We will take, then, the words of our Lord with their context, that is, the account as I have cited it. " Jesus took the bread,59 and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said Take, eat ; this is my body." Now it will be noticed that He did not say, "This signifies my body,'" " This is changed into my body," " This has my body with it," or " This has the real presence of my body in it," as the various theories do, in reality, interpret the words : but that He said " This — IS— my body." And " He took the cup" with the wine which had been poured into it, " and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, This is my blood." Here, again, He said not, " This signifies my blood," " This is changed into my blood," " This has my blood with it," or " This has in it the real presence of my blood," as these theories do in reality interpret the words, if they give them any meaning atall;GC but He said, « This— IS— my blood." Nor did He say merely, " This is my body — This is my blood : " 59 " St. Matthew alone uses the article, rhv txprov, and thereby defines it to have been the unleavened bread then present on the table: the other accounts, which have merely ' bread,' or ' a bread,' serve probably a twofold purpose thereby. They intimate, first, that bread simply as such was sufficient for an ordinance which was not bound to the paschal ceremony, which was not limited to Israel, and which had a far higher mean- ing than the mere continuation of the Old Testament rite. And then, by the generali- sation, which forsakes the historical style, they prepare for the observance of that mystery, in whieh our common earthly bread was so marvellously sanctified." — Stier oii the Words of the Lord Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 26-28 ; Clarke, vii. 8o, 86. WJ Dr. Pusey speaks of " the real Presence of our Lord's Blood in the Cup." — Doctrine Ch. X.] THE TRUE LITERAL INTERPRETATION. 103 but He said, " This is my body which is given for you — This is my blood which is shed for you : " and these added words, which are so commonly overlooked on all sides, are of the utmost importance in determining the interpretation. For in the words " which is given for you/"' " given" means, of necessity, " given to God, offered in sacrifice to Him for the sins of men : " and therefore the body of Christ which is given to God, means in strictly literal interpretation, his body sacrificed, his body dead. And the words "which is shed for you," are more properly and literally, " which is poured out for you."' But looking to the tenses of these participles, it will be seen that they admit of a yet more literal rendering, though in order to express it, we must use the un-idiomatic forms, " which is being given, which is being shed." " This is my body which is being given for you ; This is my blood which is being shed for yon," is therefore the strictly literal and grammatical English for our Lord's words. And " the proper, most plain, simple, and natural signification," which the words " exactly, and neither more nor less, convey," is : " This is my body, which is being given in sacrifice to God for you : — This is my blood which is being shed in sacrifice to God. for you." That is to say, it is the Lord's body in a sacrificial state, a state of sacrifice, his dead body. Thus the letter contains no more. There is no- thing in it of his risen or glorified body : and to interpret the words of the risen and glorified body of our Lord is to impose on them a meaning which it is absolutely impossible for them to bear, and utterly inconsistent with his words. And this circumstance is to be carefully noted, that our Lord gave the bread and the cup separately from each other : He gave his body separately by itself, and his blood separately b}- itself. But since "the blood is the life;" when the blood is poured out, and separated, from the body, the body is dead. The body therefore, which He gave, was his dead body.61 It of the Real Presence. 326. But how is this to be reconciled with the real presence of hi a -lorified body in the bread ? It seems to me that the teachers of the Real Presence of these days are insensible to the force of their own words. 61 Dr. Pusey appeals to Bishop Andrewes as his master in Eucharistic doctrine. But he mu«t have overlooked such passages as the following: " Christ, how or when? Dot every way, nor at every time considered ; but as and when He was ' offered up / immolatue, offered up as a sacrific*?." — Bp. Andrewes' Semi. 7 on the Resurrection : Lib. Aimlo-Cath. Theol. ii. 291. " OhJatus: so He may be, and yet alive ; but the word is irvOr}, imwolatits, 'offered,' and ' offered in sacrifice.' A live lamb is not it. It is a lamb slain must be our Pa^ovcr."— Ibid. 296. " Epulemur doth hero refer to immolatus (1 Cor. v. 8). To Christ, not every way 104 OUR LORD SPOKE NOT OF HIS GLORIFIED, [Oh. X. would be a contradiction to say that it was his living or glori- fied body ; for in his risen and glorified state, it is impossible for the body and blood to be separated. By the very act He showed that it was the dead, and not the living, much less the glorified, body, which He gave. Our Lord said nothing of his glorified body; nor will the literal interpretation admit the notion of his glorified body being in the Sacrament, in, or under, or with the outward forms.62 True, it is the body which is now glorified : but, as Bishop Andrewes" well said, not in that state or condition. We cannot eat the glorified body, — at least, it is contrary to the analogy and all notions of his glorified body ; neither can we drink of the blood of his glorified body ; for it cannot be poured out. We eat not a living body, but a dead body.* It is therefore utterly beyond the question, to speak of the capabilities and powers of the risen or glorified body of Christ : and all the subtle metaphysics63 which have been employed to prove that it can be in heaven, unmoved, at the right hand of considered, but as when He was offered. Christ's body that now is. True ; but not Christ's body as it now is, but as then it was, when it was offered, rent, and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not, as now He is, glorified, for so He is not, so He cannot be immolaU's, for He is immortal and impassible. . But as then He was when He suffered death, that is, passible and mortal. Then, in His passible state did He institute this of ours, to be a memorial of His passibile and passio both. And we are in this action not only carried up to Christ (sv.rsum corda), but we are also carried back to Christ as He was at the very instant, and in the very act of His offering. So, and no other- wise, doth this text teach. So, and no otherwise, do we represent Him. By the in- comprehensible power of His Eternal Spirit, not He alone, but He, as at the very act of His offering, is made present to us, and we incorporate into His death, and inyested in the benefit of it. If an host could be turned into Him, now glorified as He is, it would not serve ; Christ offered is it, — thither we must look. To the Serpent lifted up, thither we must repair, even ad cadaver ; we must hoc/acere, do that is then done. So, and no otherwise, is this epidari to be conceived." — Ibid. pp. 302, 303. I must refer the reader to other parts of this work for more authorities to the same purport. But I will here add one from the Homilies : <; This table is not ( saith Chrvsostom) for chattering jays, but for eagles, who fly thither where the dead body lieth." — Homily concerning the Sacrament. But greater than the Homilies and all our divines, is the authority of our Liturgy : and this is in perfect agreement with the letter of our Lord's words. We pray the " gracious Lord " to " grant us so to eat the flesh of His dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body, and our souls washed through His most precious blood:" and the Priest, " when he delivereth the bread and the wine to any one," is directed to say, " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee— The Blood of Christ, which was shed for thee." 62 Nor in "discoursing of his passion did He mention the Impassible Godhead." — Theodoret in Pusey, p. 67-t. * See Appendix W. M yery wonderful examples of this may be found in Romanist and Tractarian writers, e.g. Bellarmine, Dr. Newman, and Archdeacon Wilberforce. Ch. X.] BUT OF HIS DEAD, BODY. 105 God, and yet can also be in thousands of places upon the earth, that it can remain, whole and perfect, in those places, and that it can be in or under innumerable millions of pieces of bread in those places; — all is to no purpose. If these things were proved, it would only be labour in vain ; since our Lord speaks not of his glorified body, but of his body given for us and his blood shed for us. He speaks of his dead body, of his body as dead, and not as living or glorified. This it is which his words declare, which He gave the disciples, which He told them to take and eat. "With this interpretation all the ancient Fathers, for hundreds of years, so far as they have touched upon the subject, perfectly agree. Under more than eighty names of writers, " from the time when St. John the evangelist was translated to his Lord, to the date of the Fourth General Council, a.d. 451, a period of three centuries and a half," Dr. Pusey has recited " authorities — on the Real Objective Presence in the Holy Eucharist : " but he and many will be astonished at the declaration, that I do not find in all the four hundred pages which this part of his work occupies, one single authority which can prove the belief of such a "Real Objective Presence" as he sets forth, " The Real Objective Presence" of our Lord's glorified body in the Eucha- rist " under the form of bread and wine." These authorities prove, undoubtedly and most fully, a real objective presence, in a certain sense, of our Lord's body and blood, that is, of the things which He called, and ordained to be sacramentally, his body and blood ; his body given, and his blood shed : but they supply no evidence of a belief of " The Real Objective Presence," which Dr. Pusey and his friends so zealously teach. The true nature and effect of these authorities will be con- sidered in another place. I am here concerned only to speak of their accordance with the conclusion we have reached, that the literal interpretation of our Lord's words in the institution, is of the given body, of the crucified, slain, dead body, and not of the living, risen, or glorified body. Now the fact, which may be easily verified by an inspection of them in Dr. Pusey's work, that none of these authorities speak of our Lord's glorified body being in the Eucharist, or as objectively present " under the forms of bread and wine ; " while they do speak of receiving his flesh, his body, and his blood, is, of itself, a clear proof, that they meant the body, not as glori- 106 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS. [Ch. X. fied or living, but as given, as sacrificed, as dead. They must have meant one or the other, although the body is the same : the body which was born of the Virgin, and was crucified ; which also was raised from the dead, was carried up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God in heaven. — The body, the selfsame, one, identical body ; but the conditions different. And where spoken of in one condition, the other condition is not meant, but is necessarily excluded. It is either the body glorified, which was dead ; or the body dead, which is glorified. It is in one or other of these states or conditions, the state of death, or the state of glory : it cannot be both. But in speaking of the flesh and blood of Christ, as in these words of St. Ignatius : " There is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup for the uniting of His Blood, one Altar ; " or in these words of St. Justin Martyr : " The Food, over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the word which is from Him (from which food our blood and flesh are by transmutation nourished), is the Flesh and Blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus : 99 64 the flesh of a living body could not be intended. The Holy Scriptures never speak of the flesh of a sacrifice being eaten, before it is killed : and St. Augustine teaches that to eat the flesh of a living body would be " a heinous wickedness or crime." 05 St. Gregory of Nyssa also says, that " it is plain to every one that a sheep would not be eaten by man unless it were first killed for food. He therefore who gave His Body for Food to His disciples, clearly showeth, under the form of a Lamb, that the Sacrifice was perfected. For the body of the victim would not have been fit for food if it had been alive. When therefore He gave His Body for Food, and His Blood for Drink to His disciples, He had already, after an unspeakable and invisible manner, in will, sacrificed His Body by His Power as Dispenser of the mysteries." Theophylact also says, that no one eats "any body unless it be first killed.""66 When, therefore, the ancient Fathers speak of the Body or 64 In dealing with the authorities cited by Dr. Pusey, I cite them as they are in his work, to which recourse may be had for references to the originals. — The Doctrine of the Eeal Presence, pp. 317,' 319. C5 " Facinus vel flagitium vidotur (John vi. 53) jubere : figura est ergo." Thus he speaks of a human body: and therefore he would have said worse of eating a living human body.- -Do Doct. Christ, iii. 1G. ''''' OuSek -yap icrdic-i tl, iav /rfy irpSrepou iacpay/xeyov efy. — Comm. in St. Matth. c. xxviii. ; Disc. ii. pp. 9o, 1826. Ch. X.] TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS. 107 Flesh of Christ as our food, or as to be eaten, they mean his body as sacrificed, they mean his dead body. And again the authorities cited by Dr. Pusey speak through- out of the body and blood of Christ, clearly in the meaning not of his body with the blood in it, circulating and enlivening it, aud therefore not shed, but of his body given for us, as given ; and his blood shed for us, as poured out from the body, and therefore leaving it dead. They had no notion of such a con- tradiction as a living, much more a glorified body, the blood being separated and poured out from it : nor of so doubly revolting a thing as eating a living body, or so impossible a thing as the blood being shed from our Lord's glorified body. They would have seen what the advocates of the Roman and Tractarian doctrines strangely fail to see, how utterly incon- sistent is " The Real Objective Presence" of our Lord " under the form of bread," with "The Real Objective Presence" of his blood " under the form of wine ; " if such a doctrine had been broached among them. They would have abhorred as cannibalism the idea of eating the flesh of a living body; and never thought of receiving the blood in the body, the glorified body, whose blood cannot be shed, while yet they received it by itself, separated from the body. They would have seen the self-evident, but now for centuries the strangely overlooked fact, that a body is necessarily dead if the blood be poured out from it : that the sacrifices died from the shedding of their blood: that, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ died, when his blood was poured out ; and that when we receive his blood shed for us, his body which we receive is therefore dead. But to come to direct and explicit testimonies of the ancient Fathers. " St. Clement of Alexandria " says : " That rich and fat and abundant and all-sufficing food and delight of the Blessed, 1 the fatted Calf,' is sacrificed, who again is also called a Lamb. — To the sons who approach, the Father giveth the Calf and slave th it, and it is eaten."—" St. James of Nisibis " says : " When His Body was eaten and His Blood drunk, He was * counted among the dead.'" The "Author of the De Sacramentis," commenting on those words of the Psalm, " Thy youth shall be renewed as the eagle's," says : " Good eagles about the altar. For < where the body is, there too the eagles.' The altar is a figure of the Body, and the Body of Christ is on the altar." " St. Gaudentius of Brescia " says : " In this truth in which we 108 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS, [Ch. X. are, One died for all; and the Same in each house of the Church, in the mystery of bread and wine, being sacrificed, refresheth ; believed on, quickeneth ; consecrated, sanctifieth the consecrators. This is the Flesh of the Lamb; this His blood. — This sacrifice of the Passover of the Saviour do ye all, going forth from the power of Egypt and of Pharaoh the devil, receive with us with all eagerness of a religious heart." * St. Augustine says : " The multitude of all the nations, — has filled the Church, has received of the Lord's Table not mean viands or ignoble drinks, but the flesh and blood of the Shep- herd Himself, of Christ Himself slain." 67 St. Chrysostom says : " Thou seest the Lord sacrificed and lying, and the priest standing and praying over the Sacrifice, and all [the people] reddened with that Precious Blood." He speaks of " the sacred Table — where Christ lies slain." And again he says : "We too shall this evening see Him Who was nailed on the Cross, as it were a Lamb slain and sacrificed. — Thou seest the Lamb sacri- ficed and made ready :— thou beholdest the Lamb slain. — Con- sider what it is that lieth before thee.— He hath set before us Himself sacrificed." And " St. Cyril of Alexandria " says : " Let us hasten together to the mystic supper. Christ to-day ban- quets us ; Christ to-day ministers to us ; Christ, the lover of mankind, refreshes us. Awful is it to say? awful what is wrought. The fatted Calf is sacrificed; the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world is slain." f But one of the most remarkable passages is the following from " St. Isaac the Great," or " The Teacher : " I beheld that her cup was mingled, and instead of wine it was full of Blood, and instead of bread, a Body was placed for her in the midst of her table. I saw the Blood and trembled ; and the Body, and fear seized me ; and she [Faith] made a sign to me, £ Eat, and be silent; drink, child, and scrutinize not.' — She showed me a Body slain, and placed thereof between my lips, and cried to me sweetly, ' See what it is thou art eating/ She gave me the pen of the Spirit, and bade me subscribe ; and I took, and wrote, and I confessed, £ This is the Body of God.' " To these testimonies from ancient Fathers a few may be sub- * Dr. Pusey's Doctrine of the Real Presence, pp. 329, 330, 371, 468, 487, 492. 67 " Invitata est postea universarum Gentium multitude), ipsa implevit Ecclesiam, ipsa aceepit de mensa dominica non viles epulas, aut ignobiles potus, sed ipsius pastoris, ipsius occisi Ohristi camera prselibavit et sanguinem." — Serm. 372 ; Migne, v. 1662. t Doctrine of the Real Presence, pp. 545, 551, 556, 557, 568, 493. Ch. X.] AND OF ENGLISH DIVINES. 109 joined from divines of the Church of England. Saravia68 says : 44 We have here, according to Irena?us, the two parts which make up the whole nature of the Sacrament, the earthly and the heavenly, namely, the bread and wine, together with the Crucified Body of the Lord, and His blood poured out, — But since this Sacrament be a commemoration of the Death and Passion of the Lord, it followeth that the bread be not to be referred to the Flesh 6 simpUdter,3 such as the Flesh is now in glorv, but such as it was upon the altar of the Cross ; and in like manner that the wine be to be referred to the Blood ; not that blood which is now in the glorified Body of the Lord, but that which flowed from the wounds of the Body of the Lord. In any other way, how could that be true which is said, 6 As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do show forth the Lord's death till He come ' ? " 69 Bishop Lake asks : " How are His body and blood to be con- sidered '? " and answers the question thus : " Surely not as Christ is glorified, but as He was crucified : for it is that body that was given, and the blood is that blood which was shed." * Bishop Cosin writes : 66 Christ's flesh, not, indeed, simply as it is flesh, without any other respect, (for so it is not given, neither would it profit us,) but as it is crucified, and given for the redemption of the world. — He that doth it worthily receives his absolution and justification, — that is, he that discerns, and then receives the Lord's body as torn, and His blood as shed, for the redemption of the world." f Thomdike says : " If the consecrated elements be the Flesh and Blood of Christ, then are they the sacrifice of Christ crucified upon the cross. For they are not the Flesh and Blood of Christ as in His body, while it was whole ; but as separated by the passion of His cross.' J And Archbishop Wake says : " The body we receive in this 68 Adrian Saravia, Canon of Canterbury, the friend of Hooker. His work On the Holy Eucharist, was published with a translation by Archdeacon Denison, 1855. es "Secundum Irenaei sententiam hie duas habemus partes quibus tota sacramenti natura perfieitur, terrenam et ccelestem ; nempe, panem et vinum cum Corpore Domini crucifixo et Sanguine Ipsius fuso. Quum autem hoc sacramentum sit mortis et passionis Domini coramemoratio, consequitur panem non referri ad carnem simpliciter. qualis nunc est in gloria, sed qualis fuit in ara Crucis : similiter et vinum referri ad Sanguinem, non eura qui nunc est in glorificato Domini Corpore, sed fluentem e vulneribus Corporis Domini. Alias, quomodo verum esset ' Quoties manducamus hunc panem et poculuin bibimus. nos annunciare mortem Domini donee veniat?'" — Pp. 22, 40. It would be worth the reader's while to follow Saravia's argument, in which he will find many passages which might be fitly added, to those given above. ■ Serm. on Matt. xxvi. 26-28 ; Sermons, 1629. t Hist, of Transubstantiation, I. vi. and IV. v. * Just Weights and Measures, XIV. vii., Oxford, 1854, v. 174. 110 FIRST SUGGESTION OF THE GLORIFIED BODY. [Ch. X. holy sacrament is his crucified body ; his body given for us ; his blood shed for us ; which can never be verified in his present glorified body. — It was the design of this sacrament to exhibit and communicate to us the body and blood of Christ, not any way, but in the state of his suffering ; as He was given for us, and became a sacrifice for our sins."* These testimonies from ancient Fathers and from our own divines are sufficient for the purpose of confirming the interpre- tation that the flesh or body, and the blood of our Lord, received in the Eucharist, are the body given to God in sacrifice, the slain and dead body ; and the blood poured out : and are not the glorified body, or the blood belonging to it, which cannot be shed. Our Lord's words themselves declare this ; and the notion of the glorified body is altogether foreign to them. It was the invention of a late age, from a false view of the Sacra- ment ; and from the time of its invention until now it has effected a complete change in the doctrine of the Eucharist. I cannot trace it to an earlier date than the twelfth century, when " Honorius, of Autun," speaking of dividing the Host into three parts, declared that " That which is put into the Cup is the glorified body of our Lord, and that which the priest eats is the Body of Jesus Christ," the Church. He appears also to have said, " That when the Bread is put into the Wine it is represented that the Soul of our Lord returned into his body."t Some had said before that the bread and wine, after conse- cration, were " the Body itself of our Lord deified," and that " the Bread of the Sacrament was joined to the Divinity." J And this opinion seems to have been proposed as a proof that the elements are not types, antitypes, or figures : but are " one and the same thing" with our Lord's body. But the notion of the glorified body in the Eucharist seems to have followed upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as the way in which the diffi- culties of that doctrine were to be surmounted. It would be a waste of words to add anything more for the purpose of showing that the strictly literal interpretation of our Lord's words in the institution, is neither more nor less * Principles of the Christian Religion Explained, Lond., 1827, pp. 364, 365. t L'Arroque, II. xviii. pp. 468, 466. J Ibid. xii. pp. 366, 367. Ch. X.] IT IS THE BODY AS GIVEN. Ill than that which they exactly and most clearly express, — namely, that the words, " This is my body which is given for you," mean, " This bread is my body which is being given for you and the words, "This is my blood which is shed for you," mean, " This cup is my blood which is being shed for you : " the tenses of the participles most clearly denoting the condition of the body and the blood. It is not his body which has been given, but is now living : but his body which is being given, his body now in a sacrificial condition, now slain and dead. Nor is it his blood which has been shed, or, as the Church of Eome, in defiance of the letter, has it, shall be shed ; but his blood which is being shed, is now being poured out in sacrifice, and thus leaves the body in the condition of death. It must now be abundantly manifest that the Roman, Lu- theran, and Tractarian interpretations do not give "the proper and most plain, the most simple and grammatical signification, or the simple and natural sense;" and that they set forth not that " which the words exactly convey," but much more than they convey or will bear ; and in fact impose upon the words a meaning irreconcileable with their plain signification. It has been necessary to bring to the reader's recollection what the words really are which are to be interpreted, and upon which the whole doctrine depends: that they are not merely, as Archdeacon Wilberforce propounds them, " This is my body ; This is my blood ; " but that they are, " This is my body which is given for you ; This is my blood which is shed for you." It has been shown that the copula has been changed in the interpretations, arguments, and doctrines of the advocates of " The Real Objective Presence : " and that to state the pre- dicates to be " my body," and " my blood," is to misstate them. All arguments, therefore, founded upon such misstatements are necessarily and utterly fallacious, and nothing but false doc- trine can result from them. It has been shown also, that not only are the propositions to be examined, thus misstated ; but that one of them is in reality quite left out of the account. Recited, indeed, it is, but it is treated as if it had no meaning, or as if the meaning of it were identical with the meaning of the other proposition. Arch- deacon Wilberforce asks his readers to consider the propositions, " This is my body ; This is my blood :" and after his logical dis- section of these propositions, the enquiry immediately proceeds, 112 GREAT ERROR OF MANY WRITERS. [Ch. X. and is carried on to its results, without any recollection of the second proposition, beyond repeating it occasionally, with no more influence on the argument than a mere expletive. In fact, the proposition " This is my blood," has no place in the doctrine of " The Eeal Objective Presence : " the whole doctrine being deduced and flowing from these four words only, " This is my body." And this observation will be found to be true with regard to innumerable works which for centuries have been written on this subject. " Hoc est corpus meum," " This is my body," has been for ages the text, the only real text on which hosts of learned and able men have written ; the sum and substance of their arguments and conclusions. They have wasted millions of pages on the possibility, the conditions, and the consequences of its accomplishment ; while they have failed to recognise our Lord's proposition in its entirety, overlooked its true and literal significance, and the bearing of the other proposition upon it ; and have, in reality treated the words " This is my blood which is shed for you" as if they had no distinct meaning of their own, and had no influence upon the true doctrine of the Sacra- ment. I must not be understood as insinuating that the writers, to whom I have alluded, were or are conscious of this practical mutilation of our Lord's words ; I think that many would be exceedingly surprised and grieved at the truth of my allegations. They would agree with me that all the words and the circum- stances under which they were uttered must be taken into consideration, and that each must be allowed its full weight, to find the true doctrine of the Eucharist : and I think that they would, one and all, be in consternation at finding that they had in reality founded their doctrine on those four words only, " This is my body," to the entire forgetfulness of all the rest ; and by some unconscious sleight of imagination changing this proposition into others totally different, as : " This has my body," or " the presence of my body, in, with, or under it, or under its species." It is truly amazing to see how numbers of good men, of the highest capacities and most profound learn- ing, have unconsciously practised this deceit upon themselves; and how they have misread the ancient Fathers, whose doctrine was in perfect agreement with the exact words of our Lord, " This is my body given ; This is my blood shed ; " and have taken and proposed their testimony, as if it demonstrated those Ch.X.] the circumstances of the institution. 113 other very different propositions. But this is to be spoken of more fully in another place. The strictly literal interpretation of our Lord's words having been thus developed and vindicated, we have now to consider how, and to what extent, they are affected by the circumstances under which they were uttered, and were then fulfilled. The consideration of the reader, then, is to be directed to this circumstance ; that our Lord's body was external to the bread and wine, of which He said that they were his body and his blood : that He, his body and his blood, was as really and as much external to the bread and wine as to the apostles, or to any other thing on the table. Although, therefore, He was present, so to S£>eak, to the bread and wine, there was no real presence of his body and blood in or under them. It would be an outrage on faith and understanding to assert, that while our Lord was sitting there at the table, unquestionably and to the certain and infallible knowledge of his disciples, personally and bodily ; He was yet, Himself, body, and soul, and Divinity, really, truly, and substantially, in the elements or under their species, instead of their own substance, or united with it. And yet this is what the Eoman, the Lutheran, and the Tractarian doctrines of " The Eeal Objective Presence" must involve. I do not forget that a very high authority among the Fathers spoke of our Lord holding Himself in his own hands ; but this he spoke in a very different sense, as he himself explained. Then, again, it is to be considered, that just as our Lord was not really present in the elements ; if there was not, and could not be, a real substantial presence of his body in the bread, or of his blood in the wine, which He distributed to the twelve ; if the living body was not and could not be in or under the elements or their forms : so also the dead body, of which alone He spoke, was not and could not be in the bread or under its form, nor the outpoured blood in the wine or under its form. For it is another circumstance of the institution, which has a most important bearing on the words, that when our Lord gave his body broken and his blood shed, his body was not broken, and his blood was not shed. His body was not in the condition which the words " given" or " broken" mean : his blood was not in the condition which the word " shed" means. Therefore, the dead body could not be present in the bread, and the outpoured blood could not be present in the wine : for there can be no i 114 THE TRUE LITERAL MEANING [Ch. X. real substantial presence of that which is not; a reason which applies to the presence alike of the glorified, and of the dead, body at the institution. And now to restate the literal meaning of the words of the institution of the Eucharist, as distinguished from the glosses which have for centuries been put upon them, and as illus- trated and limited by the circumstances under which they were spoken i — it must be noted that in the words, " This is my body; This is my blood," the first "This" meant the bread which the Lord took and gave ;70 and the second " This" meant the wine which He took and gave. The letter allows of no other meanings. These pronouns were demonstrative of no other things than the bread and wine. They meant not some indefinite thing under the species, nor any substance into which the elements had been converted, nor any substance which had displaced the substance of the elements : because the things were not indefinite, nor did the letter involve any change or displacement of substance in the things to which these pronouns referred. Our Lord took the bread, and took the wine, the fruit of the vine. He took bread and wine only, and of this bread and wine only did He speak, after He had blessed them, when He said " This is my body, This is my blood." And what He said must be the truth. What He said the bread was and the wine was, that He meant them to be : and what He meant, He was able to make them. What He said, therefore, of the bread and the wine, that they were, in such manner and in such sense as his purpose required. He who made the worlds, by whom all things consist, and all things shall be made new, said it, and ordained it. It was not the faith of the apostles, nor their participation, which made the elements to be what our Lord said they were : for He said it before they received : He said it, and what He said was true, before they could believe it. It was his will and power only which made them to be what He said they were. Of the bread, then, it was that our Lord said, " This is my body ;" and of the wine also it was that He said, "This is my blood." He said not " This signifies," as the Zuinglian doctrine would have it : nor " This contains, this has in it, or under its 70 This is conclusively determined by the words : " This cup is the New Testament in my blood," Luke xxii, 'W ; 1 Cor. xi. 25, for both propositions must be interpreted mi tho same way. ( ii. X.] THE TRUE LITERAL MEANING 115 form," as the Church of Eome has it : nor " This has with it," as the Lutheran doctrine has it : nor " This has in it, or under its form, the real objective presence of: — my body — my blood :" but He said, " This is my body, This is my blood." He said not of the bread, "This contains," or "This has in it, or with it, or under its form," or " This has in it the presence of, my glorified body: " but He said, "This is my body which is being given for you." Nor did He speak only of the bread : He spoke also of the wine, and said, " This is my blood which is being shed for you." And He gave the bread by itself, and the wine by itself ; the body and the blood separately from each other : show- ing by the act, as well as denoting by the words, that it was the body deprived of life — his dead body which He gave. It was his body being given in sacrifice for sin, and it was his blood poured out for the making of that sacrifice, which He gave : for He said, " My body which is given," and " my blood which is shed for you." And giving the body and the blood separately from each other, He showed that the sacrifice was completed, and that the body was dead. But his body was not dead, nor was his blood shed. He gave his body dead, while it was as yet living and unhurt : He gave his blood shed, while it was yet circulating in full, vivify- ing current in his veins. And though He gave his dead body, while his body was living, and his outpoured blood, while it was not poured out : his words were true, and his action was in truth. The words were no mere figure : the act was no mere representation. The words were as literal as those words He had spoken once before : " Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; " and by the act He gave his " flesh," which " is meat indeed, and" his "blood," which "is drink indeed,"* as really and as truly as it was necessary to receive them. Now, since our Lord said of the bread, " This is my body ; " the bread was his body : and since He said of the wine, " This is my blood;" the wine was his blood: for He spoke truth; " The words that I speak unto you," He had before said, " they are spirit and they are truth." Since He said of the bread, " This is my body which is being given for you ;" the bread was his body being given : since He said of the wine, " This is my blood which is being shed for you ; " the wine was his blood * John vi. 44, 4.3, i 2 116 SHOWS THE TRUE SPIRITUAL MEANING. [Ch. X. being poured out of his body: and since He gave his body and his blood separately from each other ; the gift and sacrifice of his body was completed, and the body was dead. Since his body was not in the bread or under its form, and his blood was not in the wine or under its form ; the bread was not his body in fact, neither did it contain his body : and the wine was not his blood in fact, neither did it contain his blood. And since He gave his body broken, when it was not in fact broken ; and since He gave his blood shed, when it was not in fact shed : and yet He did give his dead body and his out- poured blood in all necessary truth and reality : it follows that the bread was the body of our Lord, and the wine was his blood, by his will and all-powerful word, in a mystery, by effectual substitution and representation, in spiritual and life- giving power : but not in literal fact. So far as one thing can be another ; so far as bread can be the body of Christ given for us, and wine can be his blood shed for us ; so far as the bread and the wine can be that which is not anywhere in the world, in heaven, or on earth ; so far, and so far only, is the bread his body and the wine his blood, and so far only did He intend them to be. Such was the Eucharist at its first celebration; and ever since the words have been as true ; and the act of his ministers has been in equal truth : the words true, and the act in truth, neither more nor less, from the first speaking and the first doing of them until now ; and so shall they be till He come again. The words were true when He gave his body broken, while it was not broken; and when He gave his outpoured blood, while it was not yet shed ; and they are true now at this present time ; they have all along been true ; and to the end of the world they will be true : notwithstanding that He is no longer in the condition of a sacrifice, has taken his life again, has ascended into heaven, arid is for ever sat down at the right hand of God. His words are alike true before his passion and in his glory. The bread in the Eucharist is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine is his blood, in the self-same sense, in the self-same degree, and in the self-same way, at this present moment as they were before He suffered. On. XL] THE GIFT ALWAYS THE SAME. 117 CHAPTER XL ONE AND THE SAME GIFT IN THE EUCHAEIST FEOM THE FIRST. It lias been represented, and I find it is thought by some, that in the first Eucharist, our Lord did not impart the same gift, or did not impart an equal measure of the same gift, to the apostles, as He now vouchsafes to us. Bishop Moberley, in his 4 6 Sayings of the great Forty Days," has the following wonder- ful disquisition. "It is most remarkable, that among the (not many) passages which- in the whole Scriptures, attach the mysterious Presence of Christ in his Church to the Ascension, there is one, and that among the most signal of them, which particularly combines the Sacred Presence in the Eucharist with the same event. For when the disciples, after the great Communion discourse in the sixth of St. John, said, 6 This is an hard saying ; who can bear it ? When Jesus knew in Him- self that his disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, Doth this offend you ? If, then, ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life ! ' Herein He points directly to the Ascension, as 6 that day ' in which they should no longer find the saying hard in which they had been taught the vital need of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood. Thus even the spiritual food of the Body and Blood of Christ, the very aliment of the union that is betwixt Christ and his Church, waited for the ascension of the flesh before it was fully offered to the sacred touch of the faithful in communion. Then, indeed, the Church should touch ; touch and be touched ; touch the true Body and Blood of her ascended Lord, to strengthen her in- dwelling grace, to confirm her unity in the Lord, to be assured of the grace and good-will of God, to receive cleansing, holiness, and immortality both of body and soul. The feast, indeed, was instituted, and eleven had partaken of it, while the Sacrifice was in the midst ; but thenceforth, He drank no more of that 118 STRANGE NOTIONS. [Ch. XL fruit of the vine, till He drank it new with them in his Father's kingdom." I forbear a minute examination of this statement : but I have to ask what foundation is there for the assertion, that " the spiritual food of the Body and Blood of Christ — waited for the ascension of the flesh before it was . . . fully offered ... to the sacred touch of the faithful in communion 99 ? This neces- sarily implies that this " spiritual food " was not " fully offered " to the apostles by our Lord in his own personal ministration. But He said to them, " This is my body — This is my blood : " and He says the very same to us now. He says no more to us than He said to them : and the meaning of the words at the first must be the same as it has been ever since. The apostles received that which He gave : and He gave his body which was being given for them, his blood which was being shed for them. Nor can we conceive any fuller offering to us of this gift. It is the same one body which He offered at first, and offers now to his people. He gave no other body : and He gave it, not in parts, though broken. Nor did He give some of his blood, but all. Mediaeval and modern doctrine, indeed, cuts up the words, and in reality casts some of them away. For in representing our Lord's glorified body, in " Eeal Objective Presence," as the gift to us in the Holy Communion, that doctrine does, to all real intents and purposes, cut off and cast away the words, " which is given for you," and not only these, but also, the words " This is my blood which is shed for you : " and it is only by the allegation of the glorified body, and by the virtual sub- stitution of the word " glorified " for all those other words in giving the cup as well as the bread, that the Body and Blood of Christ are conceived to be " more fully offered " since his ascension than before. Archdeacon Wilberforce expressed a similar opinion, but apparently from a different reason. He said : " On our Lord's Ascension, his Disciples returned to Jerusalem to wait for that gift of the Holy Ghost, which was shortly to be dispensed. It had been declared to be the work of the Blessed Comforter to provide some new and closer means of union with that man- hood of the Son, which was to be withdrawn from mortal sense. By this means He who in appearance departed, was in reality to be brought more near. The new Head of the renewed race, Ch. XL] OF A HIGHER OR FULLER GIFT. 119 the second Adam of reformed humanity, was about to provide that principle of supernatural union whereby all his members were to be engrafted into Himself. Now, it is through the Holy Communion that this connection is especially maintained. Its great purpose is to bring the members of Christ into mystic union with their Head. Thereby does the manhood of Christ act upon his brethren. In this circumstance surely we have the reason why, during that first assemblage at Jerusalem, no mention is made of an observance, which so soon as the Hoi}' Ghost had bestowed the fulness of His gifts, became the main act of Christian worship. * These all continued in one accord with prayer and supplication.' But no sooner had the life- giving medium been bestowed, than 'they continued in breaking of bread, and in prayer.' The Holy Communion, it seems, could not have effect, till the pouring out of that quickening spirit, by which the members of Christ mystical are attached to their Head." * I do not perceive what the Archdeacon alluded to in the words : "It had been declared to be the work of the Blessed Comforter to provide some new and closer means of union with that manhood of the Son." But by that " new and closer means of union " is clearly intended, " the Holy Communion, through which this connection is especially maintained : " and in regard to the Holy Communion, the writer said,- that " the new Head of the renewed race, — was,"— as the context here intimates, — while the Disciples stayed at Jerusalem " to wait for that gift of the Holy Spirit, — about to provide that principle of supernatural union whereby all his members were to be engrafted into Himself." So, to put these wonderful statements together in proper order, our Lord, after his Ascension, pro- vided the principle, and the Holy Spirit, after his descent at Pentecost, provided a " new and closer means," than before had been provided, of union between the members of Christ and their Head ; and this means was the Holy Communion. If this be not the true meaning of the place, I cannot conceive what other meaning it will bear : but if it be the true meaning, it is quite enough to point it out. The institution of the Eucharist by our Lord Himself, the night before He suffered appears to be ignored, or perhaps passed over as but a shadow : the " principle " and the " means " were to be provided, when the Spirit should be given. They were not yet provided while * The Doctrine of the Incarnation, c. xiii. ii. pp. 452, 4. 53. 120 NOTION OF ANTICIPATION. [Cn. XL the disciples waited for that gift. Such is the effect, as it appears to me, of this amazing statement. It might be, indeed, that the gift in the Sacrament did not bear its fall, or so much, fruit, until the Holy Spirit was given : but He in whom the Spirit dwelt, and who, breathing on his disciples, said, " Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost," must be believed to have been " not wanting to his Sacrament," from the first. Thus, however, though from apparently different reasons, the Bishop and the Archdeacon are to be understood as setting forth either a fuller or a different gift in the Eucharist, than that which our Lord Himself imparted in person to his disciples. A Eomanist writer gets over the inconsistency and many other difficulties, by the bold assertion, that 4i in fact, the body which Christ gave was by anticipation his glorified body, which was capable of being in many places at once, and had other qualities which our bodies will also possess when they shall have put on incorruption and immortality." * I know not whether many have received this notion of a fuller or different gift subsequent to the institution; although with some to whom the anticipation of the glorified body at the institution may appear to be an anachronism, and logically inconsistent with u The Eeal Objective Presence " at that time, it will be taken for certain truth, that after the Lord Jesus was glorified, a gift was offered in the Eucharist different from the gift offered at the institution ; or if it were the same gift, that it was " more fully offered " in consequence of the Ascension. But from regard to the influence of the Bishop's and the Archdeacon's authority, I must bring forward some countervailing testimonies. St. Augustine certainly did not imagine any difference between the first Eucharist, and the Eucharists which succeeded our Lord's Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit. He writes : u He gave His Supper, He gave His Passion." — His words, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you," are " a figure commanding us to communicate in the Lord's passion, and sweetly and usefully * Husenbeth's Defence against Blanco White, 1826, p. 79. Ch. XL] THE FATHERS AND ENGLISH DIVINES. 121 to lay up in our memory that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us." — " He gave to the disciples the Supper con- secrated with His own hands : but we have not sat down in that banquet ; and yet we daily eat the Supper itself by faith. — Paul was not there who believed, Judas was there who betrayed. How many now too in this same Supper, though they saw not then that table, nor beheld with their eyes, nor tasted with their mouths, the bread which the Lord carried in His hands, yet because it is the same (ipsa) which is now prepared, how many now also in this same Supper, eat and drink judgment to themselves ! " 71 St. Chrysostom says : " This table is the same as that, and hath nothing less." " The first table had no advantage above that which cometh after it. For even to-day also it is He who doeth all, and delivered it even as then. — Believe therefore, that even now it is that Supper at which He Himself sits down. It is the same which Christ gave to His disciples, and which the Priests now minister. This is no wise inferior to that, because it is not men that sanctify even this, but the same who sancti- fied the one sanctifies the other also." * " Of His own Flesh He hath granted us our fill. He hath set before us Himself sacrificed. What excuse shall we have then, if, when feeding on such food, we commit such sins ? It is always a Passion." f It seems that St. Chrysostom thought it necessary to show that the Eucharist celebrated by the ministry of men, was in no respect inferior to that which was celebrated by our Lord Himself. He had no thought of a higher or fuller gift by their ministration. Of divines of the Eeformed Church of England, I will cite only Archbishop Bramhall and Bishop Jeremy Taylor. The Archbishop says : " They who are ordained Priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, to make them present after such manner as they 11 " Ccenam suam dedit, passionemsuam dedit: iUe saturatur, qui imitatur." — Enar. in Ps. xxi. 21, al. xxii. 27. " Facialis vel flagitium videtur jubere : figure est ergo, pracipiena passioni Dominicae, communieandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondeudum in memoria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit." — De Doctr. Christiana, III. xvi. " Coenam manibus suis consecratam discipulis dedit; sed nos in illo con- vivio non discubuimus ; et tamen jpsam coeuam fide quotidie manducamus. — Non ibi fait Paulas qui credidit ; ibi fuit Judas qui tradidit. Quam multi et modo in ipsa ccena, quamvis illam tunc mensam non viderin-t, nec panem quern Dominus gestavit in manibus, oculis suis aspexerint, vel faucibus gustaverint : tamen quia ipsa est quae nunc pneparatur, quam multi etiam nunc in ipsa ccena judicium sibi manducant et bibunt! " Serm. cxii. c. iv. Luc. xiv. ; Migne iv. 178, iii. 74, 75, v. G45. * Horn. 82 ; Matt. xxvi. 34 ; Horn. 27 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24 ; Horn. 2. ; 2 Tim. i. 12 ; Lib. Aug. Cath. Theol. pp. 1092, 377, 184. f Dr. Pusey's Doctrine of the Real Presence, pp. 568, 595. 122 ARCHDEACON WILBERFORCE. [Cn. XL were present at the first institution." * And Bishop Taylor says that " the blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it." I may add two places from Archdeacon Wilberforce's work on the Eucharist, from which it may be gathered that he had changed or modified his opinion, as above cited from his earlier work. He says : " When our Lord spoke of His Body and Blood as bestowed upon His disciples in this Sacrament, He must have been understood to imply that He Himself, Godhead, Soul, and Body was the gift communicated." — "As He then gave it Himself to His twelve apostles, so He still communicates it by the ministration of their successors to the faithful, in the Holy Eucharist. — That which our Lord did in person at His last Supper, He has done ever since by the medium of His ministers. Through them does He still bestow that gift of His Body and His Blood, which He gave to His twelve apostles. He still speaks the words of Institution, and thereby affirms the presence of Himself, of His Body, Soul, and Godhead." t Thus the Archdeacon represents the same gift equally offered at the institution, and in all subsequent time. But since, in the Archdeacon's doctrine, the gift in all subsequent time is the glorified body of Christ, this amounts to an assertion that our Lord gave his glorified body, even before He suffered. And as his body was not at that time glorified, it could only be said to be given " by " Mr. Husenbeth's figure of " anticipa- tion ; " which is as much as to say that it was not given in reality : and then if the gift be the very same at the institution and subsequently, it would follow that it is no more given in reality now. But the assertion that the gift at the institution, or in sub- sequent time, was our Lord's glorified body, is irreconcileable with his own words : for He said " This is my body which is being given for you : " and it absolutely ignores, as the doc- trine of " The Eeal Objective Presence " does ignore, the fact that the true, the very true, real body of our Lord, though pre- sent to the bread and wine, was external to them, as much as it was external to the apostles or anything else that was there: and was really present in its substance no more in the bread and wine than in the twelve. Indeed if we remember the words : * Consecration of Protestant Bishops Vindicated, Disc. V. i. ; Lib. Ang. Cath. Theol. iii. 165. t Chap. iv. pp. 91, 94, 111. Ch. XX] THE SAME SACRAMENT AS AT FIRST. 123 " I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one : " we must acknowledge a spiritual presence in his disci- ples, which our Lord never predicated of the bread or wine in his holy Supper. For this notion of a fuller or a different gift in the Eucharist subsequently to the institution, I cannot find or conceive any Scriptural ground. There is nothing throughout the New Testa- ment to intimate, that the Eucharist was one thing before our Lord's passion, and another thing after his resurrection or ascen- sion ; or that, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, another or a fuller presence is imparted to the elements, or communicated to the faithful, than when the Sacrament was ministered by our Lord Himself. We have, it must be asserted, absolutely no right to imagine, that whereas neither our Lord Himself nor his body was really and substantially present in the bread, nor his blood really and substantially present in the wine, which He gave to the apostles before He suffered ; yet now, they are so present. We have not the shadow of authority in holy Scripture for imagining that He Himself is really, personally, and substan- tially present in the elements by virtue of any powers which his body, living, or risen, or glorified, may be supposed to have had or to have now. It is the self-same institution, the same Sacra- ment, having the same outward signs, the same spiritual grace. The Eucharist which the Church has ever celebrated since the ascension of our Lord to glory, and since the gift of his Spirit, is the self-same as that which He Himself ministered before his passion. We have not a hint in Scripture or in the ancient Fathers of any other gift, or any fuller gift, than the apostles received at the first : nor are we entitled to believe that there is any other presence of our Lord in the elements now, than there was in the elements which He Himself conse- crated and gave. That when and since the Holy Spirit was given, the faithful may have enjoyed larger benefits, a fuller and deeper percep- tion, a more spiritual appreciation, a stronger faith, more vivid and heavenly hope, more fervent charity, as the fruits of com- munion, may be, and no doubt is, true : but the grace and gift has been always the same : the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given, his blood which was shed, for us, was that which the apostles received ; and we can receive it no more fully, in no higher degree, in no other manner, in no other condition. 124 THE TRUE SPIRITUAL SENSE. [Ch. XL We have seen, then, that, at the institution of the Eucharist, and its ministration by our Lord Himself, the bread was not a mere sign or representation of his body, nor the wine a mere sign or representation of his blood : that the bread did not con- tain his body, or " the presence of his body," and the wine did not contain his blood, or t; the presence of his blood ; " that the elements had no such presence in or with them, or under their form : that the bread was his body being given to God for sin, and the wine was his blood poured out for sin : that He gave his body and his blood separately from each other ; that the sacrifice of his body was thus perfected, and his body was there- fore dead : that his body was not dead, nor his blood poured out : that he nevertheless gave his dead body and his poured out blood : and, consequently, we have seen, that the bread and wine were his body and blood, not in fact, but in a mystery, in all necessary truth and reality, by effectual substitution, in spiritual and life-giving power. This is the true spiritual sense of the words, " This is my body which is given for you, This is my blood which is shed for you." It is the only sense which could have been intended; the sense which the strictly literal interpretation demonstrates and establishes; the only sense with which it can be reconciled. We have seen also, that this Holy Sacrament has remained without change in its institution or character, ever since its first celebration. And it may here be added to the remarks which have been made above on this point, that our Lord Him- self delivered the institution to St. Paul in the very same words with which He had first celebrated it : and that St. Paul in his turn delivered it in like manner to the Corinthians : " I have received of the Lord," he says, " that which I also delivered unto you." * And it must necessarily follow from this, that wherever the apostle preached throughout the Gentile world, he celebrated and delivered the Sacrament in the same way and in the same sense. And not only this ; but it would moreover appear, from the care which he took by conference with the authorities at Jerusalem, f to guard against any real difference from them, that the Church in Jerusalem and in Judeea followed the same course. All the apostles had received the same as St. Paul, and as he delivered to those amongst whom he ministered the very same thing which he had " received of the Lord ; " so undeniably must all the other apostles have done. Thus it is * 1 Cor. xi. 23. f Gal. ii. 1, 2. Ch. XL] THE TRUE SPIRITUAL SEXSE. 125 seen, that throughout the whole Church, the Sacrament was, for a number of years, the same as at its original celebration. And since no fresh revelation has been made respecting it, and no change has been made by Him who ordained it : it is the same now as when it was first celebrated. It is celebrated according to his word, who said, " Do this in remembrance of me," and it must be so celebrated therefore " till He come," till his presence shall do away remembrance. It is celebrated with the same elements ; it is celebrated with the same words, and these words have the same sense which they had when first spoken : the true interpretation of them is always the same : and it has the same grace, neither more nor less ; " The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for us, his blood which was shed for us." Since, then, it was his dead body, which our Lord gave, it is his dead body which He gives now : since, in giving that which was not, He gave in a mystery ; so now, in giving that which is not, He gives also in a mystery. As there was no presence then, nor could be, of that which was not : there can be no presence now of that which is not. Our Lord's body is not now in the condition which the word " given " or " broken " means : nor is his blood in the condition which the word " shed" means. It was not his glorified body which He gave. If He gave his glorified body, He gave his glorified blood : but He gave his body and his blood separate from each other, and the glorified body and blood cannot be, or conceived to be, separate without making shipwreck of the faith. To make it the glorified body which is now given, is, therefore, to make a Sacrament entirely different from that which He ordained. To speak, then, of the presence of the Lord's glorified body, and to speculate on the possibility of its presence, is to speak of that which He did not speak of, and to be wise in despite of faith. He said nothing, and promised nothing, of his glorified body. It was his body given, and his blood poured out of it, which He spake of : and to this we are tied. Some, indeed, maintain as a reason to prove the necessity of a real presence in or with the elements, or under their form, of the body and blood of Christ ; that since we must " verily and indeed " receive this body and blood, and since we do so receive them, " they must be there, in order that we may receive them." These are Dr. Pusey's words.* And intuitively feeling the * The Presence of Christ, ccc, p. 22. 126 NO NECESSITY OF A PRESENCE "THERE." [Ch. XI. impossibility of our Lord's broken body and outpoured blood being present : and taking for granted the possibility of his glorified body being present from capacities and powers sup- posed to belong to it ; and taking also for granted our inability to prove the impossibility of its presence : he concludes that he has demonstrated the fulfilment of our need and of our Lord's promise, the " Eeal Objective Presence 99 of his body as it is now glorified in heaven. He and they who think with him are devoutly and rightly impressed with the necessity declared by our Lord Himself, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. They consider, and rightly consider, that this eating and drinking must be done in very truth, whatsoever may be the way in which He would vouchsafe to feed us with this (i most precious food : " and that we must, not in mere figure or representation, but 66 verily and indeed " be partakers of it. But, as it seems to me, they have forgotten or misconceived, the cautions, that u the letter killeth," that " the flesh profiteth nothing," and that " it is the spirit that giveth life ; " when they imagine that this eating and drinking must be literally, though under forms, and so, as they will have it, spiritually : and that a literal, real, substantial presence of the Lord's body and blood " under the forms of the bread and wine," is absolutely necessary for that purpose. And they forget, too, that if the conception of eat- ing his glorified body were possible, it is an outrage against the Catholic faith, to imagine either the eating of his glorified body, or the drinking of the blood. We cannot in faith eat the glorified body, neither can we drink its blood. Dr. Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, has a similar assertion : he says : "If the blessed Sacrament be really what we believe it to be ; if the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, that Body and that Blood, in some supernatural mode, must be there really, to be so taken." * And even Hooker, I must think incautiously, said that " Christ's incarnation and passion can be available to no man's good which is not made partaker of Christ, neither can we participate of Him without His presence." f And from this alleged necessity of our Lord's presence, in order to our par- ticipation of his flesh and blood, it is considered that He, in his human nature, is, truly, really, and substantially in the elements, through which He has ordained that we are to partake of his flesh and blood. And this his presence in the * Primary Charge, 18o7. t Eccl. Polity, v. 10. Ch. XL] NOTION OF SUCH NECESSITY RATIONALISTIC. 127 body is supposed to be, as it could only be, from some capacities, some godlike powers, of his body in its present glorified state. So this presence of the glorified body, of whole Christ, of the whole Person of the incarnate Lord, is conceived to be the intention of his words : and consequently they are handled and interpreted as it has been shown the}r are by the advocates of " The Eeal Objective Presence." To me, I must confess, however painful it be to say it, the statement that the Body and Blood of our Lord " must be there, in order that we may receive them ; " that is, that Christ our God must be under, in, or with, the bread and wine or their forms, in order that we may be partakers of his Body and Blood, seems to savour very strongly of rationalism. It is not of faith, for that is " the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ; " of things that are now, that have been, or shall be 5 of things present, or absent $ of things that have been, and never can be again ; that are not, nor ever have been, but shall be. And to this faith, no presence there is necessary. It is strange, too, that the glaring inconsistency is not perceived between claiming for our Lord's body the power of being present in many places on earth and in heaven at the same time, and yet conceiving it so subject to the laws of material things, that it cannot be received, except it be present. And indeed, after all, what is the Presence, as it is supposed to be? To what is our Lord supposed to be present in the body ? The doctrine of " The Eeal Objective Presence " has it, present in and to the elements of bread and wine or their forms. But they show no signs of his Presence. His body and blood are not present to our sight, they are not present to our feeling ; they are not present to our taste ; they are not present to any of our senses. If they be present, it is only to our imagination or our faith. And to these all things which can be imagined or believed, can be present, effectually and to all purposes, as much as, and often are more present than, things which we can see, and taste, and feel. So it was with martyrs in the fire. So it was with St. Paul, when " none of those things moved him." Faith can range back into the past or forward into the future : it can dive into the depths below ; or ascend into the heights above, and be verily and indeed partaker of what the Lord has promised. And his promise is the only ground of our faith in this matter : for the word of God is the only true ground of faith. If, therefore, the promise does not go before, it is not faith which guides, but 128 NO PRESENCE POSSIBLE OF THAT WHICH IS NOT. [Ch. XL imagination. And to faith there is no such necessity of our Lord's presence, or of the presence of his body and blood, in, with, or under the bread and wine, or their forms, as is thus taken for certain and for granted. The bearing of the preceding investigation and arguments upon the doctrine of " The Real Presence " is obvious. It has been shown that by the literal interpretation of our Lord's words at the institution of his Holy Supper, it is his dead body and his poured-out blood, which He gave, and which the apostles therefore received. It has been shown that He gave his body separately, and his blood separately ; one not joined with or contained in the other: and that therefore, again, it was his dead body which He gave. It has been shown that his body was not in or under the elements or their species, or joined with them ; but was external to them : that his living body, though present to the elements, was present to them only as it was present to the disciples, and was not present in them ; and that there neither was, nor could be, any presence of his given body in the bread, or of his poured-out blood in the wine, inasmuch also as his body was not yet given, and his blood was not yet shed. It has been shown that He gave that which in fact was not, and therefore gave it " not in the letter, but in spirit and in truth." And it has been shown that we have no other or greater Sacrament than that which our Lord Himself instituted : and that although " He has entered into his glory," and has sent his Holy Spirit to be with his Church, He gives no greater gift in the Eucharist now, than that which He gave the night before He suffered, when He said, " This is my body which is being given for you, This is my blood which is being shed for you." But it has been shown, that the doctrine of " The Real Presence," as it is professed by the Romanist, the Lutheran, and the Tractarian, is different from this. And a brief com- parison will now show still more clearly how great the difference is. Our Lord gave his body broken for us : Rome and the others say, it is his body glorified ; and not this only, but his Soul and Godhead. Our Lord gave his body and his blood separate from each other: the doctrine of "The Real Objective Presence" has it, that He gives his body and his blood together. Our Lord gave his body and his blood separated from each other by Ch. XL] DIFFERENCES FROM OUR LORD'S WORDS. 129 death : Eome and the others have it, that He gives his living body, his body and his blood joined together in life. Our Lord's body was not contained in the bread or under its species ; his blood was not contained in the wine or under its species : Rome says that his body is contained under the species of the bread, and his blood under the species of the wine. Our Lord's body was not joined with the bread ; his blood was not joined with the wine : the Lutheran says that his body is joined with the bread, and his blood joined with the wine. There was no presence of our Lord's body in the bread ; there was no presence of his blood in the wine : the Tractarian says that there is a " Real Objective Presence " of his body in the bread, and of his blood in the wine. And the Romanist, the Lutheran, and the Tractarian doctrines have it, that his body and his blood are present both in the bread and in the wine, or with the bread and the wine, or under the species of bread and wine. Thus the Romanist, the Lutheran, and the Tractarian, doctrine contradicts our Lord's words, and contravenes his action. It says, it is not our Lord's body broken : it says, it is not our Lord's blood shed : it says, it is not our Lord's body in death ; it says, it is not our Lord's body and blood separately from each other. And again, our Lord said of the bread, " This is my body which is given for you ; " and of the wine, " This is my blood which is shed for you:" but the Roman doctrine has it; " This, or the species of this, contains my body and my blood, glorified : " the Lutheran has it ; " This has with it my glorified body : " and the Tractarian has it ; " This has in it the presence, 6 The Real Objective Presence,' of my glorified body." And lastly, He said : " This is my body : " but these doctrines say, It is not his body, but it contains, has with it, or has under its form the presence of, Himself. He said : " This is my blood : " but these doctrines say, It is not his blood ; but it contains, has with it, or has under its form the presence of, Himself. So great are the differences between the really literal in- terpretation of our Lord's words in the institution of the Eucharist, and the glosses which the Roman, Lutheran, and Tractarian doctrines impose upon them, as " the most proper and plain, the grammatical, most simple, and natural significa- tion : " and so far beyond and besides " that which the words exactly, and neither more nor less, convey," do these doctrines go. They are a contradiction to our Lord's act and words. K 130 THE BODY BROKEN, THE BLOOD SHED, [Ch. XII. CHAPTER XII. OUR LORD GAVE HIS BODY BROKEN, AND HIS BLOOD SHED. HE GAVE NOT NOR PROMISED HIS GLORIFIED BODY. NO PRESENCE OF THAT WHICH HE DID GIVE, AND NO PRESENCE OF THAT "WHICH HE DID NOT PROMISE, TO BE EXPECTED* Having determined the meaning and force of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, we are here to consider what their meaning and force are now. It has, indeed, been shown that the Sacrament is the very same, neither greater nor less, from its institution until now : that we have the same command, the same words with the same mean- ing, the same outward and visible signs, the same inward and spiritual grace : but it is necessary more particularly to develope and exhibit the bearing of this fact upon the doctrine of " The Eeal Objective Presence." We have seen then, that by the literal interpretation of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ at the institution of this Sacra- ment, it was his dead body, and his blood poured out from it, which He gave to his disciples : but that the context, relating the circumstances and his acts, shows that they were not his body and blood in fact. We have seen that He gave that which was not : and that there was no presence of Himself, either living or dead, in the bread and wine which He called, and therefore made, his body and his blood. But since He gave that which was to be, his body broken, and his blood shed ; He gave them in spiritual and life-giving power. And now, as St. Paul teaches,* " Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over Him." And not only so, but He is now glorified, and He has entered into his glory which He had with the Father before the world was. It is therefore impossible that his body should be broken, that it should be in a state of sacrifice : impossible that his blood should be shed. Bishop Andrewes, therefore, said no more than the Divine word teaches, and true Catholic * Horn. vi. 9. Ch. XR] NOT THE GLORIFIED BODY, GIVEN TO US. 131 antiquity also, taught by it, testifies, that " the body of our Lord is now impassible, and cannot be broken." No Christian, indeed, will imagine that it can. But since it is his body broken which he now gives, and his blood poured out from it, He therefore gives that which is not : and since it has been ; since his body was broken and his blood was shed. He gives them now, not any more in fact than at the first, but equally in spiritual and life-giving power. The bread taken, blessed, broken, and given, is his body in that power : and so also the wine taken, blessed, and given, is his blood : both, as much and as truly now, as when his living voice so called them. Is this, then, by a " Eeal Objective Presence ? 99 By a " Real Objective Presence n of his broken body and of his blood shed ; of his dead body, and of his blood poured out from it, this cannot be : because his body is no longer dead, but living ; his blood can no more be shed, because He is risen again, and is glorified for evermore. I do not know that anyone has ever imagined such an impossibility, unless in those impiously devised fables of Rome, of a bleeding child in the host. The}', certainly, who interpret our Lord's words of his glorified body, would not admit that the " Real Objective Presence " of his body in the condition which the word "given" means, or of his blood in the condition which the word " shed " means, is possible. If this could have been even conceived to be possible, the " Real Presence " of his glorified body would not have been imagined. But our Lord said nothing of his glorified body. He spoke of and gave his body broken and his blood shed ; and that in the very particular condition which the words " broken " and " shed " mean. Nor did he speak of any presence there of that which He gave. He gave not as the world giveth. He gave in spirit, not in the letter. He gave that which was not, but was to be : and now He gives that which is not, but has been. His body now is not, nor can be, broken ; but He gives it broken still, because it was broken : his blood now is not, nor can be, shed ; but He gives his outpoured blood still, because it was once shed. He gives not, nor spoke of, his glorified body ; but He spoke of and gave his dead body. So He does now ; so only He now speaks and gives. He spoke not of, nor gave, his body and blood in vital union together, but He spoke K 2 132 OUR LORD SPOKE NOT OF HIS GLORIFIED BODY. [Ch. XII. of and gave them separated, one from the other, by death. And so only does He, now also, speak and give. But the dead body of Christ is not : it is nowhere in the whole creation of God. It has been given, it has been broken : but now it is not, nor can be in that condition ever again. It is not ; and that which is not, cannot have a " real objective presence." The glorified body has " a real objective presence " in heaven : but the dead body is not and cannot be in heaven or in earth by any real presence. The sum of all, therefore, is, that, although the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is now glorified, and is for ever inseparably united with his Soul and Godhead; and although his body may, therefore, have, or be conceived to have, exemption " from the laws of nature," and to be invested with " new qualities " from " its oneness with Deity : " this is altogether beside the question ; since our Lord neither spoke of, nor gave, his glorified body, and therefore does not give his glorified body now. If it were demonstrated with infallible certainty, and beyond the very possibility of doubt, that his body glorified could be in innumerable places on earth, and in millions of hosts or pieces of bread ; and yet all the while be sitting on his throne with the Father in heaven : it would be but misspent labour, and could never prove, " The Real Objective Presence " of our Lord's glorified body in the Eucharist ; and this for the unanswerable reason, that as He neither spoke of nor gave, his glorified body, He neither promised it nor gives it now. There is no " Eeal and Objective Presence " in the Eucharist, of that which our Lord did not give and promise. Neither again, is there, or can there be, a " Real Objective Presence " of that which He .did give and promise. He gave and promised his flesh, his dead body. He gives it now : but yet it is not : and that which is not cannot have a " Real Objective Presence." Very forcible and memorable are the words of Bishop Andrewes, as before cited : " Christ, — as and when He was ' offered up,' — c offered in sacrifice.' A live lamb is not it, it is a lamb slain must be our Passover. — Christ's body that now is. True ; but not Christ's body as it now is, but as it then was, when it was offered, rent, and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not as now He is, glorified, for so He is not, so He cannot be immolatus, for He is immortal and impassible. But Ok. XII.] TIIE GLORIFIED BODY WOULD NOT SERVE, 133 as He then was when He suffered death, that is, passible and mortal. — We are — carried — back to Christ as He was at the very instant, and in the very act of His offering. — By the incomprehensible power of His Eternal Spirit, not He alone, but He as at the very act of His offering, is made present to us, and we incorporate into His death, and invested in the benefits of it. If an host could be turned into Him now, GLORIFIED AS He IS, IT WOULD NOT SERVE ; CHRIST OFFERED is it, thither we must look. To the Serpent lift up, thither we must repair, even ad cadaver ; we must hoc facer e, do that is then done. So, and no otherwise, is this epulare to be con- ceived." * The teaching of this Mentor in our Israel is in clear and full accordance with the preceding conclusions. It would have been well if it had been better understood in the appeals which have been made to his authority. His wisdom would have pre- cluded the teaching of a presence which has not been promised, as well as of a presence known to be impossible. " If an host could be turned into Him now, glorified as He is, it would not serve; Christ offered is it. We must repair, even ad cadaver.'9 Metaphysical disquisitions about presence and absence are here of no use. They only deceive the disputer himself, and abuse his reader. The presence meant in the doctrines of " The Eeal Presence," is a presence down here upon earth, and comprised within the limits of the elements in the Eucharist ; a presence subject to these elements, so as to be moved in and with them, taken and eaten in and with them. And the very words which express this are an irrefragable proof against the doctrine of " The Real Objective Presence : " for that body of which these words are spoken, cannot be broken, since it is glorified. There is, then, no real presence of the glorified body of Christ in the Eucharist, for the one sufficient reason that He neither gave, nor promised to give, his glorified body. And there is no real presence of his dead body in the Eucharist, for the one sufficient reason that his dead body now is not, and , therefore cannot be present. That which is not, cannot have a real presence. * Sermon on the. Resurrection, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. Works, Lib. Ang. Catk. Theol. ii. 291, 296, 301, 302. 134 THE DEAD BODY CASTNOT BE PEESENT. [Ch. XII, Thus it is clearly and irrefragably deduced from the strictly literal interpretation of our Lord's words in conjunction with the circumstances in which He spoke them, that there is no real presence of his body and blood, or of his body glorified or given, in the Eucharist, or in the elements of the Eucharist, or with them, or under their species or form. ch. he] ST. JOHN VI. 135 CHAPTER XIII. ST. JOHX VI. AND 1 COE. XI. Tee sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, so much relied upon by the teachers of the " Real Objective Presence " of our Lord's body in the Eucharist, will be found no more favourable to their doctrine than the words and facts of the institution of this Sacrament, in their literal construc- tion, have been proved to be. Our Lord's discourse in this chapter has been the subject of much controversy : but, I think, to little purpose. In the opinion of some, it refers to the Eucharist : in the opinion of others, it does not refer to it. But all, no doubt, would agree that it refers to that which is the grace of this Sacrament, whether exclusively belonging to the Sacrament, or conveyed by it, or not. To those, indeed, who consider that, when our Lord took the bread, and said w Take, eat ; this is my body which is given for you ; 93 and when He took the cup and said, " Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood : 93 He appointed and de- clared the way in which that, which, in this discourse, He said was so necessary to be done; there will be a manifest con- nection between the discourse and the Sacrament. And they will be confirmed and justified in this by a like connection between a former passage in this Gospel, and the other Sacra- ment. What the connection in the present case is, is now to be considered. And for this purpose, I think it quite unnecessary to take into consideration the discussions which have been raised about divisions or change of subjects in this discourse, and the verse in which such change may be fixed. The passage to which the reader's attention is here to be directed, is as follows, beginning at the fifty- first verse: " T am the living bread, which came down from heaven : if a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread 136 TJKTVERSAL EFFICACY OF HIS FLESH. [Ch. XIII. that I will give, is mj flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? Jesus, therefore said unto them, Yerily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat in truth, and my blood is drink in truth. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father ; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven : not as your fathers did eat the manna, and are dead ; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things said He in a synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum. Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they had heard this, said : This is an hard saying ; who can hear it ? But Jesus, knowing in Himself, that his disciples murmured concerning it, said unto them ; Doth this offend you ? What, then, if ye should see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ! The Spirit is that which quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words, that I speak unto you, are spirit and are life." Our Lord, then, declares, that He is " the living bread," and that " if a man eat of this bread he shall live for ever : " but that the living bread is to die, in order that it may have that life-giving power : " for the bread," He says, 66 that I will give is my flesh, Avhich I will give for the life of the world." He was to die that the world might live. He declares the uni- versal efficacy of his flesh, that every one of the children of men who should eat it, should 66 live for ever." And next He declares the necessity to certain of the children of men that they should both eat his flesh and drink his blood. For when the Jews asked among themselves : " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? " He said : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." It is observable that He does not say, as He is commonly taken to say, " Except a man eat and drink," but " Except ye eat and drink : " that is, as now to be applied, " Except they to whom the Gospel is preached, eat his flesh, and drink his blood, they have no life in them." He does not say that no man can be saved, who shall not eat his flesh and drink his blood : and thus He distinguishes Ch. Xm.] CHRIST MEANS HIS DEAD BODY. 137 between the universal efficacy and the universal necessity, of doing this. And in order that we may eat his flesh, He first gives it for the life of the world. He gave his life, gave it to God, gave it that the world might live ; gave it an offering, to take away the sin of the world. And of Him thus given to God, He says we are to eat the " flesh and drink the blood ; " for which pur- pose the body and the blood are necessarily to be separate from each other : and therefore it is the flesh of his dead body. To drink his blood it must be separate from his body, and so the blood being the life, and poured forth for sin, the body is dead. Four times in so many verses, one after the other, He speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; setting forth how necessary it was for those who heard Him to do this, and what great benefit should follow. And He represents his dead body, his body and his blood, as the living bread. But he says not a word of eating his living body or his glorified body. And when the people thought that He spoke of tearing his flesh with their teeth, and eating it as the}' would eat the flesh of their sacrifices. He corrects their mistake, telling them that He was to ascend up where He was before, so that such eating would be impossible. But still, leaving the necessity always remaining, that they should eat his flesh and drink his blood, He teaches them that this is to be done spiritually, and not literally and carnally ; and that such eating of his flesh as they imagined, would profit them nothing. "The Spirit is that which quickenetk," which giveth life, and maketh a man to live for ever. " The words that I speak unto you " are not to be taken as ye have carnally taken them, for they " are spirit," and to those who will take them as spirit, they " are life." Thus our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of his flesh yet to be eaten, and of his blood yet to be drunk, when He was gone up into heaven : but He said not a word of his body when glorified in heaven, and invested with new power, being ever present on earth so that they might be partakers of it. He spoke plainly of absence, and not of presence. And He spoke of his dead body, and of his poured-out blood, to be taken when his body should be no longer dead, and his blood should be no longer poured out, and r either his body nor his blood could ever be again in the condition which the words " given " and " shed " mean. But a " Real Objective Presence " of his glorified body, if it were proved to be ever so possible, in heaven and in many 138 1 GOP,. XL THE DEAD BODY MEANT, [Ch. XHI. l)laces on earth, would not " serve," as Bishop Andre wes says, for this. It is the dead body, his body as a sacrifice and not in glory, of which our Lord speaks. And as He speaks not of, nor promises, the glorified body, and it therefore is not present ; the presence, ei The Real Objective Presence," of his dead body and of his outpoured blood is impossible, because they are not. That, which is not, cannot be really present in, or with, or under any elements, or under their species. It cannot be really present anywhere. One other place only of Holy Scripture is to be examined here. St. Paul thus writes, " Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine him- self, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink- eth damnation to himself, not considering the Lord's body." * The apostle had just before related the institution of the Sacrament, as he had " received it of the Lord " Himself, and as it is related in the Gospels : and he had thus taught the Co- rinthians, that the bread is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for us, and that the cup is his blood which was shed for us ; and so that it is the given body and the blood outpoured from it, and therefore the dead body. " For as often," he says, " as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till He come." And in perfect consis- tency with this, he continues in the passage before us to speak of the body and blood of the Lord, and of the dishonour and outrage done to his body by him who receives them unworthily. Here, therefore, again, so far from any reference to the glory of Christ, or to his body as it now is, glorified, it is his death as shown by the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine ; it is his body and blood, which is spoken of : it is not his body only, but his body and blood, the body given, the blood shed ; and therefore his dead body. And " this bread and this cup of the Lord " are in such a way, and so certainly, his dead body, and his poured-out blood, that he who " shall eat and drink unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." " Guilty," he would neces- sarily and certainly have said, " of the glorious body " of the Lord, of offence and dishonour to it, if " The Eeal Objective Presence " of it had been thought of. But, on the contrary, he * 1 Cor. xi. 27-29. Cit. XIII.] AND NO PROOF OP THE REAL PRESENCE. 139 says c< guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," because by eating the bread and drinking the cup unworthily, he discerns not the Lord's body, but takes it as a common or " unholy thing." What the true meaning and full force of the expression, 66 guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," may be, seems, perhaps, doubtful ; but it clearly signifies a guilt connected with the Lord's death, whether of causing it, or of unbelief and dis- regard of it : which, indeed, would both amount to the same. He discerns not the Lord's body slain for him ; treats it with Carnal indifference ; and continues in sin for which Christ died. Thus he is " guilty " of the death, « of the body and blood of the Lord." So, again, in this place of Holy Scripture, no proof or autho- rity is to be found for the doctrine of " The Real Objective Presence " of the glorified body of Christ in, or with, or under the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or their forms or species. But now comes the question, How did the ancient Fathers understand these places of Scripture, the literal interpretation of which has been thus investigated? and especially,, how did they understand them, who were taught by the apostles and by those who bad " companied with " them, and were therefore possessed of advantages for a right understanding of them, which later authorities did not enjoy ? This question most certainly de- mands an answer ; and it shall therefore be the subject of the next chapter. 140 THE TEACHING OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. [Ch. XIV. CHAPTER XIY. THE TEACHING OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. It is well known that the teachers of " The Real Presence," profess that their doctrine is identical with the doctrine of the ancient Fathers ; and that they appeal with confidence to the writings of these venerable authorities. I readily and heartily join in an appeal to them, knowing that their testimony is valid, and that it will, on consideration, be found to confirm the interpretation I have given of those passages relating to the Eucharist, which have been the subject of the previous investi- gation. But in order to prosecute this appeal, the question at issue must first be clearly stated. And the question is, as proposed at the end of the preceding chapter,— Did the ancient Fathers understand the places of Holy Scripture, which we have been examining, in the sense, that it is the body given for us, the dead body, and the blood poured out from it, which our Lord gave and now gives in the Eucharist ; or did they understand Him, and the apostle, to mea% that He is really present in his glori- fied body in, with, or under the bread and wine, or under their forms ; and that it is this glorified body thus present, of which we partake in this Sacrament ? Or in othor form, Did the an- cient Fathers understand the words : " This is/' in the expres- sions, " This is my body,- which is given for you, — This is my blood which is shed for you," as meaning, with the Romanist, "This contains "'; or with the Lutheran, " this has with it" ; or with the Tractarian, " This has under its form the presence of" ? Or let the reader write down our Lord's words : " This is my body, which is given for you, This is my blood which is shed for you : " and, placing them side by side with the testimonies of the Fathers, consider whether they regarded any of these three propositions following as identical with the propositions expressed in our Lord's words: namely, the Roman, " This thing contains or has in it, my glorified body and blood " ; the Lutheran, "This has with it my glorified body and blood " ; or the Tractarian, u This Ch. XIV.] THE AXCIEXT FATHERS. 141 has in it, or under its form, the presence of my glorified body." For these are the propositions to which the several doctrines are respectively to be reduced, in order to make them, as they are intended to be, literal interpretations of our Lord's words in the institution of the Eucharist. We proceed then, with the " evidence " which is proposed to prove " that the belief in the Real Presence was part of the faith of Christians from the first," as that evidence is supplied in English by Dr. Pusey. I select the work of this learned and most industrious Divine, because I take it for granted, that he has not overlooked any place of any Father which seemed to his purpose. And for necessary brevity, I shall cite only so much as is material to the present question : omitting a multi- plication of passages to the same purpose from the same writer, and the many and long extracts which are not pertinent to the question. 1. St. Ignatius. " The Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father in His mercy raised again. — Haste ye to partake of One Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup for the uniting of His Blood, one Altar." 2. St. Justin Martyr. " TVe have been taught that the Food, over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the word which is from Him, — is the Flesh and Blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus." 3. St. Iren^eus. " That bread, over which thanks are given, is the body of their Lord, and the Cup is the Cup of His blood. — Taking bread, of this our creation, He confessed that it was His own body, and He affirmed that the mingled drink of the Cup was His own blood. — The slaves had heard from their masters, that the Divine Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ." 4. Tatian. " Having taken bread, and afterwards the cup of wine, He bare witness that it was His Body and Blood, and bade them eat and drink, for that it was a memorial of His coming Suffering and Death." 5. St. Clement of Alexandria. " Eat ye, He saith, My Flesh, and drink My Blood. This Food from Himself the Lord provideth for us, and offereth Flesh and poureth out Blood— He bids us put off from us the old corruption of the flesh, as also 142 THE ANCIENT FATHERS. [Cn. XIV. the old food, and partaking of* another new nourishment that of Christ, receiving Him as far as possible, to lay Him up in ourselves and place the Saviour in our breast. — Not little is that Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world,- Who was led as a lamb to the slaughter ; that Sacrifice full of marrow, — so well nourished and exceedingly en- larged, as to suffice for all things, and be distributed, and fill those who eat Him, and are satiated with Him ; Who is both Bread and Flesh, and giveth Himself, being both, to us to eat. To the sons, then,- who approach, the Father giveth the Calf and slayeth It, and It is eaten.— I am thy Nourisher, Who give thee Myself as Bread, of Which whoso tasteth, no more tasteth death, and Who daily give thee the drink of immortality." 6;. Tertullian. " The Jews laid violent hands but once upon Christ ; these [makers of idols, chosen info the ministry of the Church] every day assault His body. — What hands ought more to be cut off than those by which the Body of the Lord is offended ? — Christ is our Bread, because Christ is life, and bread is life. — Then again, because in the Bread is understood His Body : ' This is my Body,' — Most think that — when the Body of the Lord has been received, the station must be broken up. Doth, then, the Eucharist break up a service devoted to God ? — When the Body of the Lord hath been received and reserved, both are saved, both the partaking of the sacrifice and the fulfilment of the service. — The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul, too, may be fattened from God. — He [the Heathen convert] is fed with the fatness of the Lord's Body, even the Eucharist. — He made the bread which He took and distributed to His disciples that His own Body, saying, ' This is my body,' i.e. the figure of my Body. But it would not be a figure, unless His Body were a true Body." 7. "The ancient Author of the Carmina adversus Marcionem" " He — said of the bread received, and juice of the vine also, ' This is My Body and My Blood, which is shed for you,' which He bade ever after to be done." 8. HlPPOLYTUS. " 1 And she prepared her Table ; ' the knowledge of the Holy Trinity promised, and His precious and pure Body and Blood, which daily at the mystical and Divine Table are consecrated, being sacrificed in remem- brance of that ever-to-be-remembered and first Table of the Divine and Mystical Supper. — He gave us His Divine Flesh and His precious Blood to eat and to drink for the remission of sins." 9. Origen. " Ye who are wont to be present at the Divine mysteries, know how, when ye receive the Body of the Lord, ye keep it with all care and Ch. XIV.] THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 143 veneration. — He who is imbued with the mysteries knoweth the Flesh and Blood of the "Word of God. — Fearest thou not, approaching the Eucharist to communicate of the Body of Christ, as though clean and pure, and there were nothing in thee unworthy ! — They have been- together frequently at the same Table of the Body of Christ and at the same draught of His blood." 10. St, Firmilian. " They, in communion rashly granted, touch the Body and Blood of the Lord." 11. St. Dionysitjs Alexandrinus. u One, who, — for a long while had partaken of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. — To approach the Holy Table, or to touch the Bod}- and Blood of Christ. — His giving Himself to us in the Mystical Supper, is thus called by God Himself, the New Testament." 12. St. Cyprian. u We fortify them with the protection of the Bod}'- and Blood of Christ; and since the Eucharist was ordained for this, that It maybe a safeguard for them that receive It, those whom we would have safe against the adversary, we must arm with the defence of the fulness of the Lord. For how do we teach or provoke them to shed their blood in confession of the Name, if, when about to engage, we deny them the blood of Christ ? — Let us also arm the right hand with the 1 sword of the Spirit,' that we may boldly reject the deadly sacrifices, and [that] mindful of the Eucharist, the hand which has received the Lord's body, may embrace the Lord Himself. — The fallen threatens the upright, the wounded the sound ; and is imperiously wrathful against the Priests, because he is not permitted at once to take the Lord's Bodv in his denied hands, and drink the Lord's blood with his polluted mouth." 13. St. Lawrence the Martyr. <; To whom hast thou committed the consecrated Blood of Christ ? " 14. Magnes. u It is not a type of the Body, nor a type of the Blood, — but is in truth the Body and Blood of Christ. — Through that union whereby I am united, the Holy with the earthly, I give bread and wine, commanding them to be My Body and Blood. — Christ gave to believers His own Body and Blood, infusing into them the life-giving medicine of Divinity. — That Body which is that mystical Bread, and the Blood, which is that Wine, give from themselves to him who partaketh, the Immortality of the un- dented Divinity." 144 THE AXCIEXT FATHERS. [Ch. XIY. 15. St. Peter of Alexandria. " The participation of the Body and Blood." 16. EUSEBIUS OF C^ESAREA. " You may see those who partake of the holy Food and the Saviour's Body receive It, and after eating, worship Him who giveth and pro- videth the Life-giving Food. — We who are upon earth partake of the Bread which came down from Heaven, and the Word which emptied Itself and made itself small. But they who are in the Kingdom of Heaven partake of it Full and Perfect, nourished by its Divinity." 17. The Council of Nice. " Neither the Canon nor usage has handed down, that those who have no power to offer, should give to them who offer, the Body of Christ." 18. St. James of Nisibis. " Abstain then from all uncleanness, and then receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and carefully guard thy mouth through which the King hath entered. — He kept the Passover, and gave His Body that they should eat, and His Blood that they should drink. — When then His Body was eaten, and His Blood drunk, He was ' counted among the dead.' For our Lord with His own Hands gave His Body for Food, and when He was not yet crucified, He gave His Blood for drink. — Our Lord brought forth for us His own Flesh for food." 19. St. Athanasius the Great. " When the great and wonderful prayers have been completed over it, then the bread becometh the Body, the Cup the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ." * I have reproduced in the above series, faithful abstracts of the passages from the works of these Fathers, which Dr. Pusey has cited, at, as it appears to me, very unnecessary length. f These abstracts reach to the early part of the fourth century, embracing the Council of Nice and the testimony of that great Father, Athanasius. Beyond this period, I do not think it necessary to drag the reader page by page through the remaining three or four hundred pages of Dr. Pusey's work: and shall notice the evidence cited by him from those Fathers only who may be regarded as of chief authority in the Church. * This is given in Note Q., vii. viii., p. 238 of Doctor Pusey's work, t I have also avoided the unnecessary multiplication of passages, which could add nothing to the meaning of those I have noticed. Ch. XIV.] THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 145 20. Council of Alexandria, a.d. 339. 14 To you only it appertains to have the first taste of the Blood of Christ." 21. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. 14 The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the Adorable Trinity was simple (Xltoc) bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ. As the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere (Xiroe) bread no longer, but the Body of Christ ; so also this holy ointment is no more simple [v^t\or] ointment, nor (so to say) common [konor] after the invocation, but the gift of Christ; and by the presence of His Godhead, it causes in us the Holy Ghost. — Since He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, 1 This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer ?' And since He has affirmed and said, 1 This is My Blood,' who shall ever hesitate, saying, That it is not His blood ? — With fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ : for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood, that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. — Contemplate the Bread and Wine not as hare (wq \pi\o~ic) elements ; for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ ; for, though sense suggest this to thee, let faith stablish thee. — We call upon the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him, that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ ; for what- soever the Holy Ghost has touched is sanctified and changed. — We are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the antitype of the Body and Blood of Christ." 22. St. Basil the Great. " We are entrusted with the Body and Blood of Christ." 23. St. Gregory of Nazianzoi. 14 Those who are to be over the people, and to handle the mighty Body of Christ. — With bloodless cutting you divide the Body and Blood of the Lord." 24. St. Macarius of Egypt. " The Lord embodieth Himself even into meat and drink, (as it is written in the Gospel : 1 he that eateth this Bread shall live for ever,') that He may ineffably rest the soul, and fill it with spiritual joy ; for He saith, 4 1 am the Bread of life.' " 25. St. Ambrose. " He must be free from the allurements of various pleasures, — that He may administer the Body and Blood of Christ. — In that Sacrament Christ is : because it is the Body of Christ. — It [the measure of wine] is L 146 THE ANCIENT FATHERS. [Ch. XIV. understood more fully of the Blood of Christ.- — How in such hands wilt thou receive the all-holy Body of the Lord? how wilt thou bear to thy mouth the precious Blood ? " 26. St. Jeeome. " The Bread which the Lord brake and gave to His disciples was the Body of the Lord our Saviour, since He Himself said to them, ' Take, eat, This is My Body ; ' and the Cup was That of which He said again, 1 Drink ye all of this ; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.' — With holy mouth they make Christ's Body. — Nought richer than he who carries the Body of the Lord in a wicker basket, His Blood in a glass. — Those at whose prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is made." 27. St. Augustine. " After a certain manner, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, is the Body of Christ, the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, the Blood of Christ. — There the rock was Christ ; to us That is Christ which is placed on the Altar of God. — How, 1 carried in His Own Hands ? ' Because, when He commended His Own* Body and Blood, He took into His Hands That which the faithful know ; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 1 This is my Body.' — That Bread which ye see -on the Altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is the Body of Christ. That Cup, rather what the Cup holds, sanctified by the Word of God, is the Blood of Christ." 28. St. Cheysostom. "Thou seest the Lord sacrificed and lying, and the Priest standing and praying over the Sacrifice, and all [the people] reddened with that Precious Blood. — Christ is present now too. The same Who adorned that Table, adorneth this too now. For it is not man who maketh what lieth there to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The Priest standeth, filling up a figure, speaking these words ; the power and the grace are of God. ' This is My Body,' He saith. This word re-ordereth what lieth there, and as that Voice, ' increase and multiply,' was spoken once, but throughout all time in effect giveth power to our race to the procreation of children, so also that Voice once spoken doth on every Table in the Churches from that time even till now and unto His Coming, complete the Sacrifice." 29. The Apostolical Constitutions. " Let each order by itself partake of the Lord's Body and the Precious Blood, in order, with reverence and godly fear, as though approaching to the Body of the King." 30. St. Cyeil of Alexandeia. "We receive Him in ourselves through His Holy Body and Blood. — He who has been made partaker of Christ, through partaking of His Holy Flesh and Blood, ought also to have His mind, and. follow His inward acts. — Doubt not that this is true, since He clearly saith, 1 This is My Body and Ch. XIV.] THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 147 This is my blood ; ' but rather receive in faith the Word of the Saviour ; lor being Truth, He doth not lie. — We know it to be the Body of no other, but of Him which is by nature life, having in itself the whole virtue of the united Word, and inqualitied (ttzizouohevov) yea, or rather, filled with His effectuating might, through which all things are quickened, and retained in being. — We celebrate the holy, and life-giving and un- bloody Sacrifice in the Churches, not believing the Offering to be the Body of one of us, and of a common Man : likewise also the precious Blood ; receiving them rather as being His own Body and also Blood of the Word who quickeneth all things." 31. St. Leo the Great. " They [the Manichees] so compromise with themselves in the Com- munion of the Sacrament, as sometimes, lest they should not be able entirely to escape notice, to receive Avith unworthy mouth the Body of Christ, but the Blood of our Redemption they altogether refuse to drink."' Such, is the nature of the evidence produced by Dr. Pusey from the ancient Fathers for his doctrine of " The Eeal Pre- sence." It is, indeed, the evidence on which all the other advocates of that doctrine confidently rely, whether they be Roman, Lutheran, or Tractarian. I have recited it with per- fect impartiality : omitting only, (1) an unnecessary multiplica- tion of passages from the same Father up to the time of St. Athanasius ; (2) so much of the context as it was needless for me to reproduce ; (3) passages of the same purport as the others from Fathers of minor importance ; and (4) passages which do not speak of or refer specifically to the Eucharist, but relate to spiritual communion, with or without the Sacrament. I have omitted all notice of the last kind because it does not appear at all certain, that when any of these venerable authorities speak of the Body and Blood of Christ, they must be understood of the Eucharist ; although it might appear-, as it would, that they believed the bread to be the body of Christ, and the wine to be the blood of Christ. This from Hilary, for example : " 6 Give us this day our daily bread,' for what doth God so will, as that Christ should daily dwell in us, Who is the Bread of life, and the Bread from Heaven? And because it is a daily prayer, daily also it is prayed, that that Bread be given : " is nothing- whatever to the purpose of proving " The Real Presence." It says nothing of any presence, nor is there anything in it to show that it applies to the Eucharist at all. And this part of Dr. Pusey's work is largely made np, I think, of passages, as little pertinent to the purpose. In fact, I find that fully one half in number, and much more in bulk, of the passages he has L 2 148 THE NATUEE OF THEIR TESTIMONY. [Ch. XIV. cited to prove " that the belief in the Keal Presence was part of the faith of Christians from the first," are quite inapplicable ; and consequently tha/fc the number of the Fathers he has called in evidence must be considerably reduced. And now, what does the proper evidence from the ancient Fathers prove ? It simply, and most certainly proves this, that they believed that after consecration the bread is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine is his blood. This also Dr. Pusey says of them : " The Fathers," he asserts, " not only say that the bread becomes the Body of Christ, but that it is the Body of Christ : " and again ; " the Church believed of old that the consecrated element remained in its natural substance, wine," and " the Sacrament to be 6 the Blood of Christ.' " * But the propositions that the bread is the body of Christ, and that the wine is the blood of Christ, are quite distinct from the propositions which assert that the bread or its species con- tains the body of Christ, and that the wine or its species con- tains the blood of Christ : that the bread has the body of Christ with it, and that the wine has the blood of Christ joined with it : that the bread or its form has in it or under it the presence of the body of Christ, and that the wine or its form has in it or under it the presence of the blood of Christ. And the distinc- tion of these propositions from those which express the logical conclusion from the evidence of the ancient Fathers, is so great as to make all the difference between false doctrine and true; between denial of our Lord's words, and the acknowledgment of their truth. For a denial of our Lord's words, " This is my body which is given for you, This is my blood which is shed for you," underlies the doctrines which make the bread and the wine not to be themselves the body and blood of Christ, but to contain them, or to have their presence in or with them. These glosses asserting " The Eeal Presence," whether in the Roman, the Lutheran, or the Tractarian form, have no sanction whatever in the writings of the ancient Fathers, or in the doc- trine of the primitive Church. Yery observable, indeed, is the fact, on the contrary, that for many hundred years from the first institution, they teach with one voice, that the bread in the Eucharist is the body of Christ, and that the wine is his blood. They had no thought that the bread was not his body nor the wine his blood. They had no thought that our Lord's body and * Doctrine of the Eeal Presence, pp. 257, 474. On. XIV.] SPECIAL REMARKS ON SOME OF THEM. 149 blood were contained in the elements, or were present with or in them, or their form. There are, indeed, a few places in which Dr. Pusey imagines that he has found special proofs of his doctrine : so at least, one may conjecture from the italics with which he emphasises them. I am therefore bound to examine these places, and see whether any proof of the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence " is to be found in them. To take them, then, in chronological order, we begin with Tertullian, who is thus cited by Dr. Pusey in his sermon " on the Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist : " " In the bread is understood His body." * And in Note L,f referring to this page, he briefly mentions it as one of the passages in which the use of the word in, (i does imply the existence of the ele- ments in which the Body and Blood of our Lord are said to be : " i.e. one of the passages which say that the Body and Blood are in the elements, the existence of which elements, therefore, is implied. And by the Body and Blood of our Lord being in the elements, is meant, be it remembered, " The Eeal Objective Presence 93 of our Lord's glorified body in the bread and wine. But the whole passage is given in Note S,% and is as follows : — u We may rather understand spiritualty, 1 Give us this day our daily bread.' For Christ is our Bread, because Christ is life, and bread is life. 4 1 am,' saith He, ' the bread of life,' and a little above, 1 The Bread is the Word of the living God, which cometh down from Heaven.' Then again, because in the Bread is understood His Body : 1 This is my Body.' Wherefore, in praying for ' daily bread,' we pray to be perpetually in Christ, and undivided from His body." 72 Row in order to make this a proof of " The Eeal Presence," it must be shown that by , nor the Latin, " in,915 is always a prepo- sition of place : it is often in connection with the cause or manner of a thing. And in this place from St. Cyril, I submit that it is to be taken for Xi by," more properly than for " in," if we are to interpret him in consistency with himself: and in quite as much accordance with grammatical use. I shall therefore, in- stead of Dr. Pueey^s and Mr. Church's 73 translation, cite the words thus ; — as having better warrant : " By the type of bread is given to thee the body of Christ, and by the type of wine his blood." Moreover, it is to be observed, that the expressions " in the figure of bread, and in the figure of wine," are not synonymous or identical in meaning with " in the bread and in the wine." And yet again, St. Cyril, in these passages, and particularly in that on which Dr. Pusey relies for proof of his doctrine, speaks of the body and blood of our Lord, as distinctly from each other as the bread and wine. It was, therefore, not the living glorified body of which Cyril spoke, but of the body and * Lect. xxii. 1, 3, 6, 73 The translator of the Catechetical Lectures in the Library of the Fathers, Oxford, 1838, 271, Mr. Church, in his note on eV tu7tcp, says that "the word tvitos sometimes means that which stands for a thing present, sometimes that which stands for a thing absent." But I find no proof offered that it " stands for a thing present." Nor do I find in Dr. Pusey's note I any such proof, except upon the assumption of " The Real Presence." Overlooking, as he constantly does, the difference which I have so often asserted, and which is so obvious, between " is," and " contains," and unconsciously converting the acknowledgments of the ancient Fathers, that the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine his blood, into the very different doctrine that our Lord's body is present under the form of these elements ; he always takes it fof granted that when the body and blood of our Lord are spoken of, it is the Eucharist which is intended, as having our glorified Lord present in the bread and wine, present under their forms : and then, of course, the bread and wine are " types, antitypes, figures, ■ymbols, images," of " a thing present." But this is only to beg the question. Cn. XIV.] ON ST. EPHREM SYRUS. 153 blood mutually separate, and therefore of the dead body. So far is he from giving sanction to the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence " of our Lord's glorified body in the figure of bread, or under its form. We come now to St. Ephrem Syrtts, of whom Dr. Pusey says, that he " often speaks of our Lord's Presence, under the image of fire in the bread." And the places from this writer are thus briefly cited in the Sermon : — " In Thy visible vesture there chvelleth a hidden power." 11 In Thy Bread is hidden the Spirit that cannot be eaten. In Thy Wine there dwelleth the Fire that cannot be drunk. Instead of that fire which devoured men, ye eat the fire in the Bread and are quickened." "In the Bread and the Cup are fire and the Holy Ghost." " We have eaten Thee, we have drunken Thee, not that we shall make Thee fail, but that we may have life in Thee. Thy garment covered Thy feebler nature • the bread covereth the fire which dwells therein." But these places are given at length in Note K : and we must take them with a somewhat larger reference than even we have them given there. In allusion to the healing of the woman who touched our Lord's garments, Ephrem says : — " Thy garment, Lord, is a fountain of medicines. In Thy visible vesture there dwelleth an hidden power. A little spittle from Thy mouth became also a great miracle of light in the midst of its clay. In Thy Bread is hidden the Spirit that cannot be eaten; in Thy Wine there dwelleth the Fire that cannot be drunk. The [Dr. Pusey, ' Thy '] Spirit in Thy bread, and the Fire in Thy Cup are distinct miracles, which our lips receive. When the Lord came down to the earth unto mortal men, He created them a new Creation, as in the Angels He mingled Fire and the Spirit, that they might be of Fire and Spirit in a hidden manner. The Seraph did not bring the living coal near with his fingers ; it did but come close up to Isaiah's mouth ; he did not himself lay hold of it or eat it ; but unto us the Lord hath given both of them. To the Angels which are spiritual Abraham brought bodily food, and they ate. A new miracle it is, that our mighty Lord giveth to bodily creatures Fire and the Spirit, as food and drink. Fire came down upon sinners in wrath, and consumed them. The Fire of the merciful in bread cometh down and abideth. Instead of that fire which devoured men, ye eat a Fire in bread and are quickened. As fire came down on the sacrifice of Elijah and consumed it, the Fire of Mercy hath become to us a Living Sacrifice. Fire ate up the oblations, and we, O Lord, have eaten Thy Fire in Thy oblation. Who hath ever taken hold of the Spirit in his fists ? Come, and see, O Solomon, what the Lord of thy father hath done. For Fire and Spirit against its nature He hath mingled, and hath poured them into the fists of His disciples. He asked, who hath bound the waters in a garment ? Lo ! the Fountain in a garment, the lap of 154 ON ST. EPHREM SYRUS. [Ch. XIV. Mary ! From the Cup of Life the distilling of life in the midst of the garment do thine handmaids take. " O might hidden in the veil of the sanctuary, that might which the mind never conceives, It hath his love brought down ; and It hath descended and brooded over the veil of the altar of propitiation. Lo ! Fire and Spirit in the bosom of her that bare Thee. Lo ! Fire and Spirit in that river wherein Thou wert baptized, Fire and Spirit in our baptism ! In the Bread and the Cup is Fire and the Holy Ghost. Thy Bread killeth the greedy one who had made us his bread ; Thy Cup destroyeth death, which swallowed us up. We have eaten Thee, O Lord, yea, we have drunken Thee, not that we shall make Thee fail, but that we might have life in Thee." * He says, then, addressing our Lord Jesus Christ : " In Thy Bread is hidden the Spirit that cannot be eaten. In Thy Wine there dwelleth the Fire that cannot be drunk." And again : " Ye eat the Fire in the Bread, and are quickened." " In the Bread and the Cup are Fire and the Holy Ghost." " We, 0 Lord, have eaten Thy Fire in Thy oblation." "The bread co- vereth the Fire which dwells therein." And these passages are proposed as proofs of " The Eeal Presence,"" that is, of " The Real Objective Presence " of our Lord's glorified body in, or under the form of, the bread and wine. But in order to make them prove this, it will have to be shown that by " Fire " and by " The Spirit," this writer meant our Lord's glorified body. And this does not appear to be the case. On the contrary, it appears clearly from another place, that by " Fire " he meant our Lord's Divine nature : for he says : — " Glorious and hidden was His entering in : vile and visible His coming forth, for He was God in His going in, and Man in His coming forth. A wonder and an astonishment to hear! Fire went into the Belly, and clothed Himself with a Body and came forth." f And in another place, he makes Fire to be " threefold ; " and an emblem of God the Father " enrolling heat — as a type of the Son, and — light as a type of the Spirit : " J " Three names are seen in the fire, and each one standeth singly in its sway ; and each one in its functions is seen distinctly ; single powers, and yet they are blended together. The fire marvellously, and the heat distinctly, and the light gloriously, dwell at unity in one another." § And again, in another place, we see an illustration of his meaning, when he speaks of our Lord's Fire in the bread, and the cup, and the Spirit in both : — * Select Works of St. Ephrem the Syrian, Oxford, 1847, 145-147. t Rhythms upon the Faith, 4th Rhythm, Oxford, 1847, 115. { Rhythm 40, p. 233. § 234. Ch. XIV.] OX ST. EPHREM SYEUS. 155 " If then this fire be of a miraculous nature, — that passeth through everything, and grudgeth not; that flieth into bread, and blends itself with water, and dwelleth in everything, while the whole thereof dwelleth in it : a symbol of the Spirit is in it, yea, a type of the Holy Spirit, who is mingled in water that it may become a propitiation, and is blended with bread that it may become a Sacrifice : and though He seemeth to be entirely in all of them, His fulness is far removed. For it is not possible to shadow forth the mysteries of the Trinity." * Thus be regarded the fire by which common bread was baked, as a figure of divine fire or power imparted to the consecrated bread, hidden and dwelling in it : but nothing appears to inti- mate the notion of our Lord's presence in his human nature in the bread ; for he did not call our Lord's human nature by the name of Fire. But the places cited by Dr. Pusey contain a Key for their own interpretation. St. Ephrem says, " Fire and Spirit in that river wherein Thou wert baptized, Fire and Spirit in our baptism. In the bread and the Cup is Fire and the Holy Ghost." And in these three sentences, " Fire " and " Spirit " must have the same meaning. Therefore, if Fire and Spirit in the bread and the Cup, mean " The Real Presence " in these elements, " Fire and Spirit in the river," " Fire and Spirit in our baptism," must mean it also. But as it will not be pretended that there was " The Real Presence " of our Lord's body in the water with which He was baptized, or that " The Real Presence " is in the water of our baptism ; it necessarily follows, that the expression " In the bread and the Cup is Fire and the Holy Ghost," cannot be a proof of " The Real Presence " in the bread and wine. Neither can it be maintained that " the Holy Ghost " is con- tained in them; which would, however, follow, if our Lord's " Real Presence " were in the bread and the Cup : for " the Holy Ghost " is said by St. Ephrem to be " in the bread and the Cup," as well as " Fire." And from the expressions : " Thy garment is a fountain of medi- cines. In thy visible vesture there dwelleth an hidden power. A little spittle from thy mouth became also a great miracle of light in the midst of its clay : " we may see, that, when he imme- diately added : " In thy bread is hidden the Spirit that cannot be eaten ; in thy wine there dwelleth the fire that cannot be drunk ; " if, as has been proved above, " The Real Presence " was not meant, it is a divine power or virtue which was intended. * 235. 156 ST. EPIPHANIUS, [Ch. XIV. St. Ephrem. This writer believed the bread of the Eucharist to be the body, and the wine to be the blood, of Christ : for he said that " He brake His body and divided His blood ; " that the Priests " con- secrate the body and blood ; " that they " distribute His body and His blood." * And he did not conceive that the bread was his body and blood together, or that the wine was his blood and his body together ; as the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence " in reality has it : but he believed the Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist to be as separate and distinct from each other, as the bread and wine are from each other. He said, " He brake His body before thee, and mingled His blood and gave it thee.'' f And again : " The Spirit in Thy bread, and the Fire in Thy Cup, are distinct miracles." Before we finish with this writer, we must notice one or two other places. He says : — " One sitting may not receive the living Body : M u The righteous, with sinners, fill themselves with the living Body which is on the Altar : " from which some might be disposed to argue that St. Ephrem believed that we receive the glorified body, since the living body is glorified. But this cannot be his meaning ; for he says in another place of " the departed," they " ate of Thy body and drank of Thy living blood." And again he says, " I have re- ceived from the hands of the Priests, Thy living body and Thine atoning blood." And yet again, this was not by receiving the Lord's body and blood both in one living body, but separately : for he also says : " If we have sinned, — do Thou turn us to repentance, Who hast fed us with Thy Body, and given us Thy living Blood to drink." " St. Epiphanius says, — " The Bread indeed is food, but the might in it is for giving of life." | But neither is this a proof of " The Eeal Presence " of our Lord Himself in it. Nor do I suppose that it could be really offered as a proof of it : without previous proof that by " might," St. Epiphanius intended " The Eeal Presence." St. Augustine is cited, — but I find no reference where the words are to be found, — as saying : — " Receive ye that in the Bread, which hung on the Cross ; receive ye that in the Cup, which flowed from the Side." * Puscy, 414, 416. f H. 419. J 133. Cn. XIV.] ST. CHRYSOSTOM, ST. CYPRIAN, BEDE. 157 And :— 11 Our Lord Jesus Christ commended His Body and Blood in those things which are, out of many [grains and many grapes], reduced into some one." * Now it is unnecessary to show that St. Augustine believed that the bread of the Eucharist is our Lord's body, and the wine his blood. And from the first of these places, it is clear, that he conceived the body and the blood to be distinct and separate from each other: in the bread, the body which hung on the cross ; in the cup, the blood which flowed from the side : and, therefore, that he conceived it to be our Lord's body crucified and dead ; not his glorified body. The same remarks serve for these passages from St. Chry- sostom : — " This which is in the Cup is that which flowed from the Side, and thereof do we partake : " — " the blood in the Cup is drawn for Thy cleansing, from the undefiled Side." And they will serve also for this of St. Cyprian : — " Nor can His Blood whereby we have been redeemed and quickened, appear to be in the Cup, when the Cup is without that wine, whereby the Biood of Christ is set forth, as is declared by the mystical meaning and testimony of all the Scriptures." And again on this of Bede : — " The poor, i.e. those who despise the world, shall eat really, if this be referred to the Sacraments, and shall be satisfied eternally, because in the bread and wine visibly set before them, they shall understand another invisible thing, i.e. the very Body and Blood, which are true meat and drink, wherewith not the belly is distended, but the mind is enriched: " it is to be remarked, first, that Bede does not say that " the very body and blood " of Christ are in the bread and wine ; but that " in the bread and wine they shall understand the very body and blood : " secondly, that by " the very body and blood," he could not mean our Lord's glorified body, but his body and his blood separately, as the bread and wine, their symbols, were separate ; for none had ever thought, at least, none of the or- thodox had ever thought, with approval of the Church, that they received the body and blood of the Lord in living union. The distinction made above, and elsewhere in this work, * Doctrine of the Real Presence, p. 132. Sermon, p. 40. 158 ST. AUGUSTINE. [Ch. XIV. between " is, and " shall understand," or " is understood," is by no means trivial : for the argument and conclusion, so far, depend on it. It is illustrated by the well-known saying of St. Augustine, that, in the Sacraments, 66 one thing is seen, another is understood.*' He was explaining to youthful hearers, how it was that " the bread is the body of Christ, and the cup his blood," since the body of Christ which was born " of the Virgin Mary— was crucified, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was to come again to judge the quick and the dead, is now Bitting at the right hand of the Father." But he did not show or explain how the bread was the body of Christ, and the wine his blood, by the powers of his glorified body, as he must have done, if he had had any thought of <( The Eeal Presence." Instead of this, he said : — =■ " That which is seen has a corporal species ; that which is understood has spiritual fruit. If therefore you wish to understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying to the faithful, 1 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members.' If therefore ye are the body of Christ and mem- bers, your mystery is placed on the Lord's Table ; ye receive your mystery. To that which ye are, ye answer, Amen ; and by answering give your assent. For thou nearest, the body of Christ; and thou answerest, Amen, Be a member of the body of Christ ; that your Amen be true. — Be ye that which ye see [our bread], and receive that which ye are." 74 No believer in " The Eeal Presence " would ever have written in this way. Dr. Pusey says that " the term e in,9 as used by the Fathers, does not express any local inclusion of the Body and Blood of Christ; it denotes their presence there after the manner of a Sacrament." But I must take leave to think, that, if " it denotes their presence there," it must " express local inclusion." 75 For where is their " presence " supposed to be 74 " Dominus noster Jesus Christus, novimus unde acceperit earnem, de Virgine Maria. In ligno interfectus est, — tertia die resurrexit, — in ccelum ascendit ; illuc levavit cor- pus suum ; inde est venturus ut judicet vivos et mortuos ; ibi est modo sedens ad dexteram Patris : quomodo est panis corpus ejus ! Et calix, vel quod habet calix, quo- modo est sanguis ejus ! Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem ; quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem. Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, Apostolum audi dicentera fideli- bus, ' Vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra ' ( 1 Cor. xii. 27). Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi et membra, mysterium vestrum in mensa dominica positum est : mysterium vestrum accipitis. Ad id quod estis, Amen respondetis, et respondendo subscribes. Audis enim corpus Christi : et respoudes, Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, ut verum sit Amen. Estoto quod videtis (1 Cor. x. 1 7) et accipite quod estis." — Serm. 272. 75 St. Augustine says : "Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt : et quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Take away from the bodies local spaces, and they shall be nowhere ; and because they shall be nowhere, they shall not be." — Ep. ad Dard. vi. ; Migne, ii. 838. Ch. XIV.] tt THE NATURE OF A SACRAMENT." 159 denoted ? Is it not " in 99 the bread, the bread and the wine, so as it is not in the Paten or the Cup, the Table or its cover ; and so as to be received in the bread and the wine ? It is a presence limited to the dimensions of the bread and wine. And if this be not " local inclusion," it would be difficult indeed to define what is. The phrase " after the manner of a Sacrament 99 seems to be sufficient with some to remove every difficulty. But I must say that I think it is very inconsiderately used. For what is the manner of a Sacrament? what is a presence after the manner of a Sacrament ? It refers, of course, to the inward part of a Sacrament, or thing signified, the inward and spiritual grace, which, with the outward sign, is the complete Sacrament. Now as the Church of England acknowledges only two " Sacra- ments of the Gospel," we must suppose that when a Minister of that Church speaks about " the manner of a Sacrament," he intends these two, and these only. Dr. Pusey, therefore, must be understood to mean that it is " the manner 99 of these two Sacraments to have their inward part present in the out- ward. But in one of these Sacraments, this, most undoubtedly, is not the case. The inward part is not present in the out- ward part of Baptism. " A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness," which our Catechism determines to be " the inward and spiritual grace," or the inward part of the Sacrament, is not present in the water which is the outward part. That grace is not "there in order that it may be received." It is an operation by One who is present, accord- ing to his promise to be with his disciples always in the ministry He has laid upon them. But there is no presence of the inward part in the outward. Such a presence is not " after the manner " of this Sacrament. Then, to talk of the inward part of the other Sacrament being present in the outward, call it local or non-local inclu- sion, or what you may, " after the manner of a Sacrament," is, in reality, to beg the question. It is but saying that it is " after the manner " of the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the ; inward part to be present in the outward, and therefore it is present. There is no such presence in the other Sacrament, from which a like presence in this may be inferred. And therefore it is plain to demonstration, that it is not "the manner of the Sacraments," that there should be a presence of the inward in the outward part. The Council of Trent, indeed, anathematised those who say 160 "LOCAL INCLUSION." [Cm XIV. " that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify ; " 76 but the Canons of that Assembly have no authority in the Church of England, nor with any who hold true Catholic doctrine. " Gerhard observes," Dr. Pusey however pleads, " that Holy Scripture says, 6 Christ dwells in our hearts by faith/ Eph. iii. 17; < God walketh in us,' 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; 6 The Holy Spirit dwelleth in us,' 1 Cor. xiii. 16. Holy Scripture does hereby tell us, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost actually dwell in us." And this in-dwelling, he says, " does not, of course, imply local inclusion." There can, certainly, be no local inclusion of the Infinite ; though there may be a presence of the Infinite within a place, and therefore included in it ; a presence of holiness, as in the temple : a presence of power : a presence of favour and love, as in the hearts of God's faith- ful people : a presence so included there, as not to be extended to others who may be even in bodily contact with them. But the impossibility of a strictly " local inclusion " of the Infinite, cannot prove or illustrate the presence of a finite body without " local inclusion." It will illustrate a scriptural and, it may be, a Patristic, use of " the term in" but cannot help to prove the use of the term for the presence of a finite body in the bread and wine of the Eucharist without " local inclusion." On the whole, then, to adopt Dr. Pusey's own words, — " the Fathers — assert, continually, that what is consecrated, and what we receive, are the Body and Blood of Christ, — spiritually, sacra- mentally, Divinely, mystically, ineffabfy, through the operation of the Word of Christ, and of God the Holy Ghost." And, " in this meaning, they do speak of the objective presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, as following upon the consecration. This they teach unvaryingly from the times of the Apostles, as strongly and as distinctly as any other portion of the Faith." * But they do not teach " The Eeal Objective Presence " of our Lord's glorified body, in, with, or under, the bread and wine, or their form. They do not teach the real presence of the Lord's glorified body in the Eucharist. They do not teach that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, by having or containing, or having the presence of his 78 "Si quis dixorit Sacramenta Novas Legis non continere gratiam quam significant, — anathema sit." — Soss. 7, can. 6. * Sermon on the Presence of Christ, pp. 46, 47. Ch. XIV.] THE TRUE DOCTEIXE OF THE FATHERS. 161 body and blood, either separately, or in living union. They teach that the consecrated bread is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for us, and that the consecrated wine is his blood which was shed for us : and as Dr. Pusey rightly says, that they meant that the consecrated elements " are the Body and Blood of Christ, — ineffably ; " they did not conceive or explain this by any mode of presence in, with, or under them, or under their form. Let the reader, remembering that the doctrine of u The Eeal Objective Presence," is, in the Roman form, that whole Christ, — his glorified body, therefore,— -is contained under the species, the outward form and appearance, of the bread, and also of the wine : — in the Lutheran form, that " the glorious body " of our Lord is in, with, or under, the bread and wine : — and in the Tractarian form, that our Lord's glorified body, " the Body of God," is present in the consecrated elements : in one word, that these several doctrines all teach " The Real Objective Presence " of our Lord's glorified body in, or with, the bread — and — wine, or under their form : and placing this brief statement of the doctrine of " The Real Presence," side by side, with the extracts which have been, or may be produced from the Fathers ; he will see that those venerable authorities give no sanction to this doctrine : but that, for well-nigh a thousand years, they proclaim with one voice their belief in our Lord's words, when He said of the bread, " This — is — iny body which is given for you : This — is — my blood which is shed for you : " a belief which Doctor Pusey again and again states and acknowledges, but strangely con- verts into the belief of his own very different, and self-contra- dictory doctrine. M 1G2 THE DIVINES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. [Ch. XV. CHAPTEE XY. THE TEACHING OF THE DIVINES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. I have stated my opinion that the term " Real Presence," as applied to the inward part of the Eucharist, was not used till the era of the Reformation, when the disciples of Huss asserted that " the words of our Lord Jesus Christ — said nothing of the Real Presence." The term had, no doubt, been used in the communication, or charge, to which they were making answer, and may therefore have had a somewhat earlier origin. But we know that, some years afterwards, our Reformers, Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, complained of the " new terms " which were used in the con- troversy with them on this Sacrament. A brief account, however, of the history of the term will not be without interest and importance. The first mention * which I find of the word " Presence," in connection with the Eucharist, is in these words of " St. Gau- dentius of Brescia:" "Truly this is the hereditary gift of His New Testament, which He left us in that night when He was betrayed to be crucified, as a pledge of His Presence. This is that food for our journe}^, whereby in this journey of life we are fed and nourished, until, departing from this world, we go forth unto Himself." t St. Chrysostom says : " What dost thou, 0 man, when Christ is present, when the Angels stand by, when this awful Table is before you ? " — " It is time to approach the awful Table. — Christ is present now too. The same Who adorned that Table, adorn- eth it now. For it is not man who maketh what lieth there to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself." — " When thou art about to approach the Holy Table, think that there the king of all is present ; for He is present indeed, observing the mind of all, and seeth who approacheth with befitting holiness, and who, with an evil conscience." — " There * I cite from Dr. Pusey, as I suppose he has not omitted any places in which our Lord's presence might seem to be spoken of. f P. 490. Ch. XV.] FIRST USE OF THE TERM " REAL PRESENCE." 1G3 is the Sacrifice in hand, and all things laid out duly ordered. Angels are there present, Archangels, the Son of God is there."* St. Cyril of Alexandria says : " Besides this clear know- ledge, ye have the feast, the presence of God, the celebration of the dread Sacrifice." — "If indeed, the Body of God is given them, here is very God, Christ the Lord."f St. Leo says : " Our Lord Jesus Christ is present (as we confess not rashly, but faithfully) in the midst of the faithful ; and although He sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, 6 until He make His enemies His footstool,' yet is not the great High Priest absent from the assembly of His saints." % Thus far I have found in Doctor Pusey's work. In the work of Albertinus, I find Odo, Bishop of Paris, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, to have said : " Let the linen cloths and vestments of the altar be often washed, for the reverence and presence of our Saviour and of the whole court of heaven, which is present with Him as often as Mass is celebrated." § And L'Arroque says, that John of Paris in the beginning of the fourteenth century — in reference to " the Retractation of Berengarius under Nicholas the Second ; to wit, That the Body of Jesus Christ is broken by the hands of the Priest, and ground by the teeth o f believers ; not only in the Sacrament, but in the verity itself; " explains by the " Communication of Idioms," the ex- pression that " The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, and the eating of His Flesh." John said that there is " a true and real existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar," either by " commuta- tion of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ," or " by assumption of the substance of the bread or the paniety in Christ : " and the Faculty of Theology of Paris determined that either of these ways was " a probable opinion," since " no mode had been determined by the Church," and neither was an article of faith. [| Thus it appears that the word " Presence " began to be used in reference to the Eucharist in the end of the fourth century : but in a very different sense from that in which it is now employed. Gaudentius speaks of the Eucharist "as a pledge of our Lord's Presence : " Chrysostom says that " He is * Ibid. pp. 553, 555, 564, 577. f P- 650. J Pp. 694, 695. § P. 969. * I P. 490, 491. m 2 164 " REAL PRESENCE " NOT USED UNTIL [Ch. XV. present, observing the mind of all : 99 Leo says that " He is present in the midst of the faithful." Odo, in the thirteenth century, speaks of " the presence of our Saviour and of the whole court of heaven : " and John of Paris, a hundred years after, says : " the bread is the body of Jesus Christ, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament : 99 that is, " the bread " being " the body of Jesus Christ," is " the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament," or " a true and real existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament." Up to the fourteenth century, then, the presence of Christ was spoken of in that sense in which He promised, " where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them ; " and " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." But at this time, we find that " a true and real existence of Christ," and his "presence, in the Sacrament," was believed. And yet this was not such a presence as the term " Eeal Presence 99 means. It was a presence of Christ, by means of the bread which is the body of Christ. It was not a presence in the bread, or under its form. " The bread," John said—" is the presence." The term " Real Presence " is not, I believe from a careful search, to be found in Aquinas ; neither is it in the Lateran Decree which was issued just before his time. The Decree runs thus : " There is one universal Church of the faithful, out of which no one whatever is saved : in which the self same Jesus Christ is Himself Priest and Sacrifice, whose body and blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine, by transubstantiation of the bread into the body, and of the wine into the blood, by the power of God, that for the accomplishment of the mystery of unity, we ourselves may take of His, that which He Himself took of ours." 77 Whether the term " Eeal Presence 99 was used in the fifteenth century, I have no means at hand of ascertaining : but enough has been advanced to show, that it was unknown till the era of the Reformation, and some considerable time after the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been proclaimed by the fourth Late- ran Council. Indeed, comparing the terms in which the Decree of this Council runs, with the Decree of Trent, we may see that 77 "Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur. In qua idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus, eujus corpus et sanguis in saeramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro." Ch. XV.] THE ERA OF THE REFORMATION. 165 the doctrine must have been considerably developed towards its final enunciation by the later Council, before the term could have been adopted into use. The Lateran Decree says that the body and blood of our Lord are truly contained under the species of bread and wine in the Sacrament, by the transubstantiation of the bread into his body, and of the wine into his blood. And " The Real Pre- sence,'' the real presence of our Lord's glorified body is much beyond this. It could not have been used until the doctrine of the Council of Constance in the fifteenth century, which de- termined that " the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained as well under the species of bread, as under the species of wine," had been ready to be developed into the doctrine propounded at Trent, that the term " Real Presence " was used with reference to the Eucharist. But when it came to be believed, as the Council of Trent teaches, that not only by the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and the existence of the whole body and blood of Christ under its species ; but that **' by concomitance " and "hypostatic union," "'whole Christ," "our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things : " then, and then only, could the term, " Eeal Presence," have been used. — in the signification, at least, which is attached to it in the Roman, Lutheran, and Tractarian systems. Thus the term. " Real Presence." was begotten of false doctrine, and is expressive of it. How, then, it may be pleaded by some, — how has it come that the great Divines of the Church of England, since the Reformation, have accepted the term, and acknowledged or defended the doctrine it expresses, even when they have been contending against the doctrine of Rome ? The question is natural and fair; and it must, as it well can. be answered. That there has been a use of the term by Post-reformation divines of the Church of England, is certainly not to be denied: but with the exception of a few in these days, there has not been any acceptance of the doctrine which it properly ex- presses. And the use of the term is accounted for by its ambiguity, taken by itself: for it may have these several distinct senses : first, it may signify the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in 166 DIFFERENT SENSES OF "REAL PRESENCE." [Ch. XV. his Divine nature : secondly, his presence in his human nature, the presence of his glorified body, and therefore of his soul and Divine nature : and thirdly, the presence of his body which was given for us, and of his blood which was shed for us. And in the first of these senses, our Lord's glorified body, though absent from the earth, and enthroned at the right hand of the Father in heaven, may have an effectual presence upon the earth, by reason of his Godhead. But the term may be called relative : for the notion of presence necessarily involves the idea of some person, thing, or place, to or in which the presence is conceived. In the first sense, then, of the term " Real Presence," our Lord is present everywhere : He is present where two or three are gathered together in his name : He is present to his ministers in the work which He has appointed for them : He is present in the Church which is his body : He is present in the Sacraments. In the second sense, He is present in heaven : and He is alleged to be present in the celebration of the Eucharist ; or in the bread and wine, or under the forms of the bread and wine, in the Eucharist. In the third sense, He is said to be present, by the bread which is his body, and the wine which is his blood : and where these are, He is said to be. In recollection, then, of these different senses of the term " Real Presence," we shall be prepared to consider the use of it by Post-reformation writers of the Church of England, and the allegation that they have acknowledged or defended the doctrine which the term was originally intended to express. And here, again, I cannot do better than avail myself of the Catena, which Doctor Pusey has appended to his Sermon, M The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent : " for I must conclude, that though he may have omitted many writers altogether, and many passages from those whom he has admitted, he has not allowed anything to escape him which might serve his argument, and has given fair specimens of the doctrine of all whom he has cited. Premising, then, that of those divines whom Doctor Pusey has cited, I shall not notice any from whose works passages not sufficiently pertinent to the matter in hand are given ; we begin with — Ch. XV.] DOCTRINE OF RIDLEY. 1G7 Bishop Eidley. He says in his last examination before the Commissioners :* — " Both you and I agree herein, that in the sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead ; only we differ in ?}iodo, in the way and manner of being : we confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I, being fully by God's word thereunto persuaded, confess Christ's natural body to be in the sacrament indeed by spirit and grace, because that whosoever receiveth worthily that bread and wine receiveth effectuously Christ's body, and drinketh his blood (that is, he is made effectually partaker of his passion) ; and you make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, and amoving body, under the shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the ques- tion j" thus I answer, that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural body and blood of Christ, vere et realitei-, indeed and really, for spiritually, by grace and efficacy : for so every worthy receiver receiveth the very true body of Christ. But if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you would include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine, then, in that sense, is not Christ's body in the sacrament really and indeed. " Think not because I disallow that presence which the first proposition J maintaineth (as a presence which I take to be forged, phantastical, and, beside the authority of God's word, perniciously brought into the Church by the Romanists), that I therefore go about to take away the true presence of Christ's body in his supper rightly and duly ministered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and made more plain by the commen- taries of the faithful fathers. — I will in few words declare, what true presence of Christ's body in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper I hold and affirm, with the word of God and the ancient fathers. " I say and confess with the evangelist Luke, and with the Apostle Paul, that the bread on which thanks are given, is the body of Christ in the remembrance of him and his death, to be set forth perpetually of the faithful until his coming. " I say and confess, the bread which we break to be the communion, and partaking of Christ's body, with the ancient and the faithful fathers. " I say and believe, that there is not only a signification of Christ's body set forth by the sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the godly and faithful the grace of Christ's body, that is, the food of life and immor- tality. And this I hold with Cyprian. * I cite from the edition which Doctor Pusey used, but prefer to follow its punc- tuation and small letters. t " That the true and natural body of Christ, after the consecration of the priest, is not really present in the sacrament of the altar." J " In the Sacrament of the altar, by the virtue of God's word spoken by the priest, the natural body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and his natural blood, are really present under the forms of bread and wine." — P. 191. 168 EIDLEY. [Ch. XV. " I say also with St. Augustine, that we eat life and we drink life ; with Emissene, that we feel the Lord to be present in grace ; with Athanasius, that we receive celestial food, which Cometh from above; the property of natural communion with Hilary ; the nature of flesh, and benediction which giveth life, in bread and wine with Cyril ; and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very flesh of Christ, life and grace of his body, the property of the only begotten, that is to say, life ; as he himself in plain words expoundeth it. " I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical advent and coming of Christ, grace and the virtue of his very nature ; the sacrament of his very flesh, with Ambrose ; the body by grace with Epiphanius ; spiritual flesh, but not that which was crucified, with Jerome ; grace flowing into a sacrifice, and the grace of the Spirit, with Chrysostom ; grace and invisible verity, grace and society of the members of Christ's body, with Augustine. " Finally, with Bertram (who was the last of all these), I confess that Christ's body is in the sacrament in this respect ; namely, as he writeth, because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the word of God, which not only feedeth the soul, but also cleanseth it. Out of these I suppose it may clearly appear unto all men, how far we are from that opinion, whereof some go about falsely to slander us to the world, saying, we teach that the godly and faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's table, but a figure of the body of Christ."* To these places extracted by Doctor Pusey, I must add one or two more, in order to show the Bishop's opinion more clearly. He says of the Roman doctrine, that it " Maintaineth a real, corporal, and carnal presence of Christ's flesh, as- sumed and taken of the word, to be in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that not by virtue and grace only, but also by the whole essence and substance of the body and flesh of Christ."* " If he be now really present in the body of his flesh, then must the supper cease." f " In a sense the first article is true, and in a sense it is false : for if you take really for vere, lor spiritually, by grace and efficacy, then it is true that the natural body and blood of Christ is in the sacrament vere et realiter, indeed and really ; but if you take these terms so grossly, that you would conclude thereby a natural body having motion to be contained under the forms of bread and wine, vere et realiter, then really is not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, no more than the Holy Ghost is in Baptism.' J And again : * P. 197. t P. 199. J P. 273. In like manner Archbishop Cranmer said : " If ye understand by the word 'really,' re ipsa, i.e. in very deed and effectually, so Christ, by the grace and efficacy of his passion, is indeed and truly present to all his true and holy members. But if ye understand by this word 'really,' corporal iUr, i.e. 'corporally,' so that by the body of Christ is understanded a natural body and organical; so the first propo- sition doth vary, not only from usual speech and phrase of Scripture, but also is clean contrary to the holy word of God and christian profession: whereas both the Scrip- ture doth testily by these words, and also the catholic church hath professed from the Ch. XV.] RIDLEY. 169 ' inasmuch as they [the bread and wine] are sanctified, and made the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, they have a promise of grace annexed unto them ; namely, of spiritual partaking of the body of Christ to be communicated and given, not to the bread and wine, but to them which worthily receive the sacrament." " This sacrament hath a promise of grace, made to those that receive it worthily, because grace is given by it, as by an instrument, not that Christ hath transferred grace into the bread and wine." * Bishop Ridley, then, was careful to avoid the two extremes of the Roman and the Zuinglian doctrines. He denied the doctrine which " would include a natural, a lively, and a moving- body, under the shape or form of bread and wine : " and he denied the opposite doctrine "that the godly and faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's table, but a figure of Christ's body." And the mean which he accepted between these extremes was a presence of " Christ's natural body in the Sacrament — spiritually by grace and efficacy ; " not a presence of " the whole essence and substance of the body and flesh of Christ," but a presence " by virtue and grace only." This he called " a true presence," in contradistinction to the " Real Presence " of the Romanists. And he acknowledged a true presence for these reasons : — 1. " That the bread on the which thanks are given is the body of Christ." 2. That "the bread which we break" is "the communion of the body of Christ." 3. That it is " made a lively presentation of Christ's body, and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth his body." 4. " That therewith is given to the godly and faithful the grace of Christ's body : " so that " whosoever receiveth worthilv that bread and wine, receiveth effectually Christ's body and drinketh his blood." And as he agreed with the Romanists, " that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of Christ," it is that very true and natural body and blood which they that receive worthily, effectually receive and drink : but this not by a presence under the form of bread and wine, not by grace " communicated and given " to them, or " transfused into " them ; but by a true presence in the Sacrament " by virtue and grace only." For he said in another place : " If you take the • beginning, Christ to have left the world, and to sit at the right hand of the Father 1 till he come unto judgment." — Explication exhibited in the Disputations at Oxford. Writings and Disputations, Cambridge, 1844, 395. | » Pp. 240, 241. 170 RIDLEY, MONTAGUE, [Ch. XV. real presence of Christ according to the real and corporal substance which he took of the Virgin, that presence being in heaven cannot be on the earth also. But if you mean a real presence, 6 secundum rem aliquam quae ad corpus Christi pertinet,' i.e. according to something that appertaineth to Christ's body, certes the ascension and abiding in heaven are no let at all to that presence. Wherefore Christ's body after that sort, is here present to us in the Lord's Supper ; by grace, I say, as Epiphanius speaketh it." * We find, then, that Bishop Ridley did not use the term " Real Presence," to express his own doctrine : and that he chose the term, " True Presence," for that purpose. And so far as he admitted the use of the former, it was with a protest against that sense of the term which the Romanists affixed to it. He rejected the doctrine which it originally and properly expressed. And the true presence which he maintained was a presence " in the sacrament," not in the bread and wine or under their " shape or form." And lastly, since Bishop Ridley disallowed the real presence of " a natural, a lively, and a moving body, under the forms of bread and wine," he thereby disallowed the presence of our Lord's glorified body under these forms ; as he said in another place, that such a presence " is contrary to the word of God, — varieth from the articles of the faith " which confess the Lord's ascension into heaven, his session there with the Father until He shall come again unto judgment, — "and destroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord's Supper." f I have dwelt at some length on the opinion of Bishop Ridley, because I think that most of our divines who have used the term " Real Presence," have used it in his sense, rather than in the sense in which Doctor Pusey seems to take it. The words of Bishop Ridley — " Both you and I agree herein, that in the sacrament is the very true, and natural body and blood of Christ ; — only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being," are echoed by Bishop Montagu, who says : — " The disagreement is only tie modo prcesentio?, the thing is yielded to on either side, and there is in the Holy Eucharist a real Presence." * Ibid. 213. f Pp. 198, 199. Ch. XV.] AND BILSON. 171 And Bishop Bilson says : — k> God forbid we should deny that the Flesh and Blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's table." But on the other hand he says : — " Both your real presence is overthrown, jmd the doctrine which we teach is clearly established. For we confess that Christ worketh in us, and presenteth himself unto us in these mysteries, as it were in certain veils and coverings ; which mystically by way of signification and spiritual operation, contain and clothe his grace and truth ; but not really, nor by material or corporal inclusion, as you affirm. — Christ is signified and received by these signs and figures, — but that Christ is locally or substantially closed within the forms of bread and wine — Dionysius hath no such sense nor words." — " The sacred Scriptures and Catholic Fathers affirm, that the true flesh of Christ is absent from earth, and verily present in heaven." " These be no wrested or maimed alle- gations, but grave and advised authorities of learned and ancient Fathers, plainly concluding with us against you, that the flesh of Christ is not absent only from earth, and now sitteth above at the right hand of God, but also locally contained in some one place of heaven by reason of the truth of his body ; and therefore not dispersed in many places or present in every place, as you would now make the world believe it is in your masses." * These three Bishops agreed with the Romanists in a true presence of the same thing, the true body or flesh and blood of Christ : but they differed from them " in the way and manner of being ; " Ridley and Bilson clearly denying the presence in the elements. It will therefore be a fit place here to consider what this phrase means ; what " modes," " ways and manners of being," or presence, there are, or may be conceived, of the true body and blood of Christ. But it is necessary, first, to as- certain what is meant by " the body and blood of Christ ; " for the term is, and has been, most commonly used with a very vague and inaccurate impression of its meaning ; although le- gitimately it can have but one meaning, that one meaning in which our Lord spoke the words at the institution of the Eucharist. In his meaning, as has been demonstrated, it is his body which was given for us, and his blood which was shed for us, his dead body, and his outpoured blood, separately one from the other. Whereas, in common use it is supposed to mean, the Lord's body and blood together, his blood in his body, his body as it now actually is, living and glorified. * The True Diff.-ivnee between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion Loud. 1586, pp. 716, 717, 640, 649 : cited by Dean (Joode, ii. 798, 802, 803. 172 THE REAL PRESENCE OF A BODY OF FLESH [Ch. XV. Now if the true sense of the term, "the body and blood of Christ," be, his body given, and his blood shed, for us : there can be but one mode, way, or manner of their presence. For as his body and blood are no longer in the condition which " given and shed " signify, a " real objective presence " of them is impossible. There can be no such presence of that which is not. They can be present only " in remembrance : " and they are made present to the soul through faith by the bread and wine. But when the term " the body and blood of Christ," is used for the incarnate person of our Lord Himself, as He now is ; then " the Real Presence " " there " where the Sacrament is celebrated, must be understood to be either in or external to the elements, or with them, or under their forms : or else it would be " spiritual," that is, " by grace, virtue, or efficacy only ; " the Lord Jesus being in his human nature in heaven only, but im- parting the grace of that nature on earth through his Divine nature. The former kind of presence, whether by Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, or whatsoever other conditions, Bishop Ridley calls " a carnal presence," not meaning the word in any but a physical sense. And he rightly calls it " carnal : " for the alleged presence is of the body and blood of Christ : and if it be a real presence, it must be a presence of his flesh, in the flesh ; and therefore fleshly, and therefore carnal. The actual real presence of a body, must be bodily or corporal : the actual real presence of a fleshly body, must be fleshly or carnal : and if it is not a carnal presence, it is no real presence of the body at all. And though our Lord's body is now glorified and spiritual, it is a human body still, it is a body of flesh still ; 78 for He has not abandoned his manhood. And nothing can have a real actual presence divested of its nature. If it be divested of its nature, it cannot be present anywhere : 79 and the presence is not of it, but of something else. " The Real Presence " is, indeed called " spiritual " and " su- pernatural : " and it seems to be imagined that by these quaii- 78 " [Carni] profecto immortalitatem dcdit, naturam non ahstulit. He has indeed given immortality to his flesh, but has not taken away its nature." — August, ibid. Hi. 10; Migne, ii. 835. 79 " Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus eorporum, non erit ubi sint, et ideo necesse est ut non sint. Take away bodies from the qualities of bodies, and there shall not be where they can be, and therefore it is necessary that they be not." — August. Ep. ad Dardan, vi. ; Migne, ii. 838. " The substance of the body of Christ hath no presence neither can have, but only local." — Hooker, v. 56. Ch. XV.] IS CORPOREAL AND FLESHY. 173 fications, the doctrine is relieved from some serious objections. Possibly it may be : but to me it appears that, instead of main- taining the doctrine, they rather explain it away. For I would desire those who satisfy themselves of " The Real Presence," and think to commend it to the belief of others, by the employ- ment of such words, to consider, and to remember their own protest, that " The Eeal Presence " means not the virtual, but the actual presence of a real human body, though it be spiritual, heavenly, and glorious ; and not the presence of a bare, incor- poreal spirit. And also that, though the real presence of an incorporeal spirit may be spiritual ; the actual real presence of an embodied spirit cannot be spiritual in the sense in which the word spiritual must be intended in connection with " The Real Presence." The actual real presence of a body must be bodily and corporeal : the actual real presence of a body of flesh must be fleshly or carnal : and so far not spiritual. The actual real presence of such a body, spiritually, seems to me so supernatural as to be self- contradictory in words, and impossible in fact ; and to amount only to a virtual or effica- cious presence. Indeed, whatsoever epithets may be applied to " The Real Presence," — sacramental, spiritual, Divine, mystical, ineffable, " they too often seem only to oppress reason and faith ; while they are a virtual " negation of the actual reality of the presence " there " of that which is intended. Surely a spiritual presence, merely, of a fleshly, though spiritual body, is a contradiction to its reality. To call it " Divine " savours of a denial of " the verity of the Lord's body." 80 To call it sacra- mental, is but in reality, to beg the question. But to call it " ineffable " seems, to me at least, equivalent to saying, that all positive affirmations on the subject are without understanding " what they say or whereof they affirm." Bat, in truth, if our Lord meant what his words literally ex- press, his body given, and his blood shed, for us ; all specula- tions and distinctions as to modes of presence are out of place 80 " Cavendum est enim, ne ita Divini- " We must beware lest we so speak of tatem astruamus, ut veritatem corporis his Divinity, as to takeaway the truth of mferamus."— Augustin, Ep. ed Dardan, his body."— iii. 10 ; Migne, ii. 835. -'What an impious and sacrilegious; " Quam sit impium et sacrilegum ea, thing it is, to refer those things to the |}uae sunt propria carnis Ohristi, ad property of the Word which are the pro- uaturae Verbi proprietatem referre, et quse perty of the flesh of Christ, and to as- teunt propria Verbi, proprietati naturae cribe those things which are proper to •amis ascribere."— Vigilius, cited by the Word to the property of the nature of Ridley, p. 178. the flesh!" The Bishop also says, that "they which say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist, do take from Him the verity of man's nature." — P. 275. 174 A TRUE AND A REAL PRESENCE MAY DIFFER. [Ch. XV. in the doctrine of the Eucharist: for since, by the strictly literal interpretation, by the natural and plain signification of the words, this was his meaning ; and since his body is not now in the condition signified by the word " given," and his blood is not now in the condition signified by the word " shed ; " since his body given and his blood shed are now no more in the world : there can be but the one only mode of presence of that body, — and — of that blood, which has been before stated ; namely, that they are made present to the soul through faith, by that bread which is his body given, and that cup which is his blood shed. And this, evidently, is the " way and manner " of presence which these three bishops believed : for they believed the flesh, the body and blood, not the body only, but the body— and — blood, of Christ to be " in the sacrament : " and this, not " really,5' in the sense of " carnally," or " corporally ; " but " by virtue and grace only;" not "communicated — to the bread and wine," or " transferred into " them ; but " given " " to them which worthily do receive them." The true body of Christ, they affirmed, is really " in heaven," and therefore " cannot be on the earth also ; " " absent from earth, and verily present in heaven." But they held that " the bread — is now made a lively presentation of Christ's body, and not only a figure, but effec- tuously representeth his body." And such a presence they called " a true presence," because it was " not only a figure : " because the bread is Christ's body and the communion of it. And under protest against the Roman doctrine, and in the sense of a true presence, it was, that Bishops Ridley and Montagu called it a real presence. But a true presence is another thing from " The Real Presence," properly so called. For as the body of our Lord is a true body : it was a true body which was given, and it was true blood which was shed ; and they were truly given and truly shed ; and we receive truly that true body and blood : so that true body and blood are truly present to and in the soul which truly remembers Him. All indeed is real, as real as the body and blood which were given and shed at the first, and as the soul which now receives them. But for this Christ is not brought down from above. Faith carries the soul back to the sacrifice, and enables it to feast on it with a present reality, which the Real Presence of the glorified body would overpower and annihilate. The humility and agony of the sacrifice of the body given and the blood shed would be utterly lost in the glory Cn. XV.] HOOKER. 175 of the Son of God. While " The Real Objective Presence " takes away the truth of his body ; denies that it is a hnman body by making it "the Body of God," with the powers of the Divinity, instead of the faculties of the humanity : and, substituting that which is for that which was, extinguishes faith, or thrusts mere rationalism into its chair. But now returning to the Catena before us, we come to Richard Hooker, commonly called " the judicious." And well-named is he : but still, be it remembered, not infallible ; not always in all things to be accepted with implicit assent. But his name is a tower of strength. Doctor Pusey cites some passages from him, of which the following are extracts : for I think it needless to transcribe more than bears clearly upon the present question. Hooker says that the Apostles " Were warranted by His promise that not only unto them at the present time, but to whomsoever they and their successors after them did duly administer the same, those mysteries should serve as conducts of life and conveyances of His Body and Blood unto them : " And he asks : — u Was it possible they should hear that voice, c Take, eat, this is my Body ; drink ye all of this, this is my Blood ; ' possible that doing what was required and believing what was promised, the same should have present effect in them, and not fill them with a kind of fearful admiration at the heaven which they saw in themselves ? " " If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ, to whom Christ Himself was a school- master, let our Lord's Apostle be His interpreter, content Ave ourselves with his explication, My Body, the Communion of my Body, My Blood, .the Communion of my Blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our Life because through Him we obtain life ; so the parts of this sacrament are His Body and Blood, for that they are so to us who receiving them, receive that by them which they are termed ? The Bread and Cup are His Body and Blood, because they are causes instrumental, upon the receipt whereof the participation of His Body and Blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain sffect, is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our touls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects, the cause whereof is die Person of Christ, His Body and Blood are the true well spring, out of *vhich this life floweth. ^o that His Body and Blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life, not only by effect or operation, ,wen as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in every 176 HOOKER. OVERALL. [Ch. XV. tiling which they quicken, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with Him, even as He and the Father are one." So the passage ends in Doctor Pusey's Catena : and I sup- pose that some unskilled transcriber, upon whom the selection of confirmatory passages devolved, but with insufficient in- struction as to that which they were to confirm, unfortunately thus cut it short. But the fact is, that Hooker goes on im- mediately in the very next words to sa}r : — " The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but, in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. And with this the very order of our Saviour's words agreetb, first, 'Take and eat;' then, ' This is my body which was broken for you ; ' first, ' Drink ye all of this ; ' then followeth, ' This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.' I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is His body, or the cup His blood ; but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them, or by them, it pleaseth God to bestow." * A more explicit denial of the doctrine of " The Eeal Objective Presence " could hardly be expressed : and therefore we pass on to the next authority cited by Doctor Pusey. Bishop Overall. Dean Goode f has, indeed, clearly proved that the work from which the extracts here are placed under Overall's name, is not his : but I wave the objection in deference to such as may think that it nevertheless expresses his opinions. On that passage in the consecration prayer of our Liturgy, — " That we receiving these, Thy creatures of Bread and Wine, &c, may be partakers of his blessed Body and Blood" Bishop Overall is alleged to have written : — " Together with the hallowed elements of the Bread and Wine, we ma)' receive the Body and Blood of Christ, which are truly exhibited in this Sacrament, the one as well as the other." And on these words misquoted from the Post Communion, " These holy Mysteries were the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood," &c. : — " Before consecration, we called them God's creatures of Bread and Wine, now we do so no more after consecration; wherein we have the * V. 67. t On the Eucharist, ii. 831, &c. Ch. XV.] OVERALL. 177 advantage of the Church of Rome, who calls them still creatures in their very mass after consecration ; and yet they will be upbraiding us for deny- ing the Real Presence, whereas we believe better than they : for after con- secration we think no more of Bread and Wine, but have our thoughts taken up wholly with the Body of Christ ; and therefore we keep ourselves to these words only, abstaining from the other (though the Bread remain there still, to the eye), which they do not. And herein we follow the Fathers, who after consecration would not suffer it to be called Bread and Wine any longer, but the Body and Blood of Christ." Again, on the "words of the Catechism, — " Bread and Wine" : — " It is confessed by all Divines, that upon the words of the Consecration the Body and Blood of Christ is really and substantially present ; and so exhibited and given to all that receive it, and all this not alter a physical and sensual, but after a heavenly and incomprehensible manner." And from another work, of the authenticity of which Knox in his " Remains " is the only witness, these places are given : — u In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore the whole of Christ, is verily and indeed present, and is verily partaken by us, and verily combined with the Sacramental signs, as being not only significative, but exhibitory ; so that in the Bread duly given and received, the Body of Christ is given and received ; in the Wine given and received, the Blood of Christ is given and received ; and thus there is a communion of the whole of Christ, in the communion of the Sacrament. Yet not in any bodily, gross, earthly manner, as by transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or any like devices of human reason, but in a mystical, heavenly, and spiritual manner, as is rightly laid down in our Articles." Yet the Bishop is alleged to have written on those words of the Catechism, — " What is the inward part or thing signified ? " — u I cannot see where any real difference is betwixt us about the Real Presence, if we would give over the study of contradiction, and understand one another aright." To this inust be added from Dean Goode's extracts,* this : — " In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, and thus whole Christ, is applied to those who receive worthily, not by the way of transubstantiation, nor by the way of consubstantiation, but by the Holy Spirit working through faith." Bishop Overall, then, said, or is alleged to have said, that he could " not see where any real difference " was u about the Real Presence" as held by Romanists and by himself, if contradictions were avoided: that he believed "better than * II. 829, 830. N 178 OVERALL. MORTON. [Ch. XV. they " about it ; because, with the Fathers, he called the bread and wine not by their own names, but the Body and Blood of Christ : that " the body and blood of Christ is really and substantially present," " is verily and indeed present," " is verily combined with the Sacramental signs," and " so exhibited and given," that "together with the hallowed elements of bread and wine," " in the bread duly given and received, the body of Christ is given and received ; and in the wine given and received, the blood of Christ is given and received : " and thus " his body and blood is verily par- taken by us : " but that this combination " with the Sacra- mental signs," and participation, is " not after a physical and sensual manner," " in any bodily, gross, earthly manner, as by transubstantiation, or con substantiation, or any like devices of human reason, but in a mystical, heavenly, spiritual manner," " after a heavenly, and incomprehensible manner." And on this synopsis of Bishop Overall's doctrine, if it be his doctrine, it may be briefly observed, that it is a presence " in the Sacra- ment," which he acknowledged, and not such a presence in or under or with the elements, or their forms, " as by transub- stantiation, consubstantiation, or any like devices of human reason." He called the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ : and believed that the two parts of the Sacrament are so combined together, that " in the bread duly given and received, and in the wine so given and received, the Body and Blood of Christ is given and received also, "in a heavenly, spiritual, and incomprehensible manner, — by — the Holy Spirit working through faith." Although, therefore, Bishop Overall is thus alleged to have accepted the use of the term " Real Presence," it is clear that he did not use it to denote a presence of our Lord's glorified body in or under the forms of bread and wine. He did not conceive that his body and blood were together in each species: bat that the body was given in or combined with the bread — duly received ; and the blood in the wine — duly received. Bishop Moeton. " The question is not absolutely concerning a Real Presence, which Protestants (as their own Jesuits witness) do also profess. . . . Which acknowledgment of our adversaries may serve to stay the contrary clamour, and calumnious accusations, wherein they use to range Pro- testants, with those heretics who denied that the true Body of Christ was in the Eucharist, and maintained only a figure and image of Christ Vbody, Ch. XV.] MORTON. 179 seeing that our difference is not about the truth or reality of presence, but about the true manner of the being and receiving thereof." Of the use of the term " Real Presence," by Bishop Morton as expressive of his own doctrine, this passage is alone a suffi- cient proof : but it is at the same time to be gathered from it, that his doctrine was not that of the Romanists : for he said in another place of the same work : — " Protestants do teach (as their Cardinal Bellarmine truly witnesseth), that in these words of institution [this is my bodie,~\ the bread is called Christ's bodie, figuratively, as being a sign or figure of Christ's bocHe, yet such a figure as doth truly convey unto us the thing signified thereby, for the which truth's sake Christ said not, This bread is a figure of my bodie, but it is my bodie : wherein we see two things plainly pro- cessed by all Protestants, first that the words of this Sacrament are nor, to be expounded according to their literall and proper sence ; secondly, that the matter of this Sacrament is the very bodie and blood of our Lord truly offered and exhibited unto us." * Bishop Morton, then, disallowed the " literall and proper sence " of the words of institution : but held " that the true bodie of Christ is in the Eucharist," and acknowledged " the truth or reality of presence," while he differed from the Ro- manists " about the true manner of the being and receiving thereof." Now what he meant by " the truth or reality of presence," is to be seen from another work in these words : — " There may be observed Foure kinds of Truths of Christ his presence in this Sacrament : one is Veritas Signi, that is, Truth of Representation of Christ his Body ; the next is Veritas Revelationis, Truth of Revelation ; the third is Veritas Obsignationis, that is, a Truth of Seale, for better assurance ; the last is Veritas Exhibit ionis, the truth of Exhibiting and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithful Communicants. The truth of the Signe, in respect of the thing signified, is to be acknow- ledged so farre, as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Keall body and blood of Christ." And some lines after, he cites Theodoret for witness, that — - " It is a true signe of the true and Keall Body of Christ." f And in another place, he says, speaking of the comment of St. Augustine on John vi. 62 : — "You may plainly discerne the argument of Saint Augustine to be, that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world, that hee being Bodily absent from the Earth, his Flesh could not be here Eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder. Thus hee against the Capernaites, which n.u^t * The Lord's Supper, 1662, 212, 213, IV. i. 2. t Ibid. 332. N 2 180 MORTON. ANDREWES. [Ch. XV. as necessarily confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his Flesh, whether it be by Chewing, or Swallowing ; whether Visibly or Invisibly it mat- tereth not, because it being the same Body that ascended, were it Visibly, or Invisibly, it is equally absent from Earth." * Bishop Morton, therefore, is not justly cited as a believer in " The Eeal Objective Presence." We may appropriately add here, what Bishop Morton says of admitting the real or true presence, but differing as to the manner of the being and receiving : — " It would be a wonder to us, to heare any of our own profession to be so extremely Indifferent, concerning the different opinions of the Maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament ; as to thinke the Romish sect therefore either Tollerable, or lleconciliable, upon pretence that the question is only De Modo, (that is) of the Maner of Being, and that Consequently all controversie about this is but vaine Jangling. Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts, to consider the necessity that lyeth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies, albeit their difference from the Orthodox profession were only De Modo. — To omit many others, take one poynard, which wee are sure will pierce into the intrailes of the cause (to wit) the heresy of the Capernaites, in the days of our Saviour Christ : who hearing his Sermon, teaching men to Kate his flesh ; and conceiving thereby a carnall maner of Eating, irreconciliably, contrary to the spirituall maner, which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ, departed from Christ, and apostated from the Faith. — And that the Romish maner of eating Christ his body is Caper- viaiticall ; her maner of Sacrifice sacrilegious ; her maner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous, and all these maners irreconciliable to the maner of our Church, is copiously declared in the Books following." f Bishop Andrewes. " The Cardinal is not, unless ' willingly ignorant,' that Christ hath said, ' This is my Body,' not ' This is my body in this mode.1 Now about the object we are both agreed; all the controversy is about the mode. The ' This is,' we firmly believe; that it is in this mode (the Bread, namely, being transubstantiated into the Body), or of the mode whereby it is wrought that 1 it is,' whether in, or with, or under, or transubstantiated, there is not a word in the Gospel. — The Presence, I say, we believe, and that no less true than yourselves. Of the mode of the Presence, we define nothing." — " Now ' the Bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body, of the Flesh, of Jesus Christ ? ' It is surely, and by it, and by nothing more are we made partakers of this blessed union." — " The holy Eucharist, the flesh wherein our Redeemer was seen and suffered, and paid the price of our redemption." " I add, ubi Cliristus ; for ubi Corpus, MOT Songuis, ibi Christus, I am sure. And truly here, if there be an ubi Cliristus, there it is. On earth we are never so near Him, nor He us, as * V. iii. 2. f Ibid. 210, 211, IV. i. 1. Ch. XV.] AXDEEWES. DOXXE. 181 then and there. There in efficacid, and when all is done, efficacy, that is it must do us good, must raise us here, and raise us at the last day to the right hand ; and the local ubi without it of no value." " In Christ this sign is a sign, not betokening only, but exhibiting also what it betokeneth, as Sacraments do. For of signs, some shew only and work nothing; such was that of Jonas in itself, sed ecce plus quam Jonas hie. For some others there be that shew and work both — work what they shew, present us with what they represent, what they set before us, set or graft in us. Such is that of Christ. For besides that it sets before us of His, it is further a seal or pledge to us of our own, that what we see in Him this day, shall be accomplished in our own selves, at His good time." — " The Bread which we break is the partaking of Christ's true 4 Body ' — and not of a sign, figure, or remembrance of it. For the Church hath ever believed a true fruition of the true Body of Christ in that Sacrament." Thus Bishop Andrewes believed a presence " no less than " the Romanists ; but he did not believe the mode of presence which they believe. He did " piously believe " the " This is," and that " The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ." He believed the bread and wine to be that which our Lord called them : to be his body and his blood " in efficacid, efficacy; " for that they are a sign, "not betokening only, but exhibiting also what it betokeneth," and " presents us with what it represents : " so that " by it, and by nothing more, are we made partakers of" the flesh of Christ. And thus we have " a true fruition of the true body of Christ in the Sacrament." But he does not, in the extracts offered to us, so much as name " The Real Presence," neither is there a word of our Lord's presence in or under or with the bread and wine, or their forms. He in fact rejected these as modes which he cared not to define or determine. But we know his opinion from another place cited before in this work, that " if an Host could be turned into Him now glorified as He is, it would not serve ; Christ offered is it. Thither we must look ; to the Serpent lift up ; thither we must repair ; even ad cadaver." Here again, nothing is to be found of the doctrine of " The Real Presence " of the glorified body of Christ in, with, or under, the bread and wine, or their forms. Dr. Donne. "And therefore cum non dubitavit Dominns dicer e 1 Hoc est Corpys Meum,' cum signum daret corporis, since Christ forbore not to say, 1 This is my Body,' when He gave the sign of His Body, why should we forbear to say of that bread, This is Christ's Body, which is the Sacrament of His Body ? " 182 JACKSON. [Ch. XV. So neither does this witness give any proof of the doctrine he is called to establish. Jackson. " The implication contained in the connection between these two verses (Jno. vi. 63, 62) and the precedent is this; That Christ's virtual presence, or the influence of life, which His human nature was to distil from His heavenly throne, should be more profitable to such as were capable of it, than His bodily presence; than the bodi1)' eating of His Flesh and Blood could be, although it had been convertible into their bodily substance. This distillation of life and immortality from His glorified human nature is that, which the ancient and orthodoxal Church did mean in their figurative and lofly speeches of Christ's real Presence, or of eating His very Flesh, and drinking His very Blood in the Sacrament. And the Sacramental Bread is called His Body, and the Sacramental Wine His Blood ; as for other reasons, so especially for this, that the virtue or influence of His bloody sacrifice is most plentifully and most effectually distilled from Heaven unto the worthy receivers of the Eucharist." M All that are partakers of this Sacrament, eat Christ's Body and drink His Blood sacra mentally : that is, they eat that bread which sacramenrally is His Body, and drink that Cup which sacramenrally is His Blood, whether they eat or drink faithfully or unfaithfully. For all the Israelites (1 Cor. x.) drank of the same spiritual rock, which was Christ sacra- mentally ; all of them wTere partakers of His presence, when Moses smote the rock. Yet, 1 with many of them, God was not well pleased,' because they did not faithfully either drink or participate of His presence. And more displeased He is with such as eat Christ's body and drink His blood unworthily, though they eat and drink them sacramentally : for eating and drinking so only, that is, without faith, or due respect, they eat and drink to their own condemnation, because they do not discern, or rightly esteem, Christ's Body or Presence in the Holy Sacrament. " May we say then, that Christ i3 really present in the Sacrament, as M'ell to the unworthy as to the faithful receivers? Yes. this we must grant, yet must we add withal, that He is really present with them in a quite contrary manner ; really present He is, because virtually present to both ; because the operation or efficacy of His Body and Blood is not metaphorical but real in both. Thus the bodily sun, though locally distant from its substance, is really present by its heat and light, as well to sore eyes as to clear sights, but really present to both, by a contrary real operation ; and by the like contrary operation, it is really present to clay and to wax, it really hardeneth the one, and really softeneth the other. So doth Christ's Body and Blood, by its invisible, but real influence, mollify the hearts of such as come to the Sacrament with due preparation, but hardens such as unworthily receive the consecrated elements." — " Now when we say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, our meaning is, that as God He is present in an extraordinary manner, after such a manner as He was present (before His incarnation) Ch. XV.] JACKSON. SUTTON. 183 in His Sanctuary, the Ark of His Covenant ; and by the power of His Godhead thus extraordinarily present, He diffuseth the virtue or oper- tion of His human nature, either to the vivification or hardening of their hearts, who receive the Sacramental pledges." It would appear from passages not cited by Doctor Pusey, that Dean Jackson used the term " Real Presence." M If we receive unworthily," he said, " we gain no degree of real union with Him, which is the sole use or fruit of His real presence. Christ might be locally present as He was with many here on earth, and yet not really present. But with whomsoever He is virtually present, that is. to whomsoever He communicates the influence of His Body and Blood by His Spirit, He is really present with them, though locally absent from them. Thus He was really present with the woman, which was cured of her bloody issue, by touching the hem of His garment. But not so really present with the multitude that did throng and press upon Him, that were locally more present with Him." " What need then is there of His Bodily presence in the Sacrament, or of any other presence than the influence or emission of virtue from His heavenly Sanctuary into our souls? He hath left us the consecrated elements of bread and wine, to be unto us more than the hem of His garment. If we do but touch and taste them with the same faith by which this woman touched the hem of His garment, this our faith shall make us whole." * But the real presence which he admits, he describes in such a manner that if Doctor Pusey had not included him amongst his authorities, one would have thought it impossible to be mis- taken for " The Real Objective Presence." He expressly calls it a " virtual presence," an " influence," or " distillation of life and immortality from our Lord's glorified human nature ; " a presence, too, as God, diffusing " the virtue or operation of His human nature," and "more profitable than His bodily presence." For, as he also declares his thought, " Christ might be locally present, — and yet not really present : " and that we have no need " of any other presence than the influence or emission of virtue from His heavenly Sanctuary into our souls," since we touch Him by faith, and are made whole. Sutton. " The faithful receive the blessed Sacrament. Well, what do they receive ? Certainly Christ Jesus, truly and really ; to make further scruple is needless "curiosity ; to give light credence hereunto, is in part incredulity. What the elements of Bread and Wine are in themselves, * Works, 1673, 307; III. x. 55. 184 SUTTOX. "WHITE. [Ch. XV. is one thing ; that they are, being now consecrated to so holy a use, and received of the spiritually minded as the spiritual food of their souls, is another. What they are, I say, Christ's own words are sufficient warrant for a believing world unto the world's end." — " Rerwn absentium (saith an ancient Father) prcesens est fides ; rerum impossibilium, possibilis est fides ; of things absent, faith is present ; of things impossible, faith is possible. Panem vides, verbum audis ; cui potius credis ? Sensuivel Christo ? Thou seest the bread, thou hearest the word ; to which rather dost thou give credit, whether to thy sense, or to Christ ? " — " Whereas bread and wine are elements naturally ordained for the sustenance of the body, by the power of Divine benediction they do receive a virtue, that being received of the faithful, they become nourishment to the soul, nay, they become means whereby we are sanctified both in body and soul, and are made the members of Christ." — " He is honoured in this mystery, that was once offered upon the Cross. Yea, but how can this be, that Christ sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, should dispose of His Body to us poor inhabitants of the earth ? Take here the answer of the angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost hath overshadowed it." " Albeit, then, the manner be not of us over anxiously inquired or searched after, yet the same presence of Christ is acknowledged which Christ Himself would have to be acknowledged. We say with St. Ambrose, that there is not taken from bread the substance thereof, but that there is adjoined the grace of Christ's body after a manner ineffable." " Unless Thou, Lord, hadst said it, 1 This is my Body, this is my Blood,' who could have believed it ? Unless Thou hadst said, O Holy Christ, ' Take, eat, drink ye all of this,' who durst have touched it ? " " Consider the divine Wisdom of the Son of God, who, respecting our weakness, hath conveyed unto us His Body and Blood after a divine and spiritual manner, under the forms of Bread and Wine." Dr. Sutton's belief, then, was in the plain meaning of our Lord's " own words," which he regarded as " sufficient warrant for a believing world unto the world's end." He conceived that the bread and wine, " being now consecrated to a holy use," " receive a virtue," and have " the grace of Christ's body ad- joined" to them, by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost; and that thus " Christ, sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, disposes of His body to us poor inhabitants of the earth," in a " manner to be not of us over curiously inquired or searched after," but " divine and spiritual," and " ineffable." And in these places, Doctor Sutton neither uses the term, nor professes the doctrine of " The .Real Presence." Bishop White. " The more learned Jesuits themselves acknowledge that Protestants believe the Keal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Eu- Ch. XV.] WHITE. LAID. 185 charist ; and our Divines deliver their faith concerning the Sacrament in this manner," namely, in the words cited from Bishop Bilson. Bishop White used the term " Beal Presence," but is not shown to have professed the doctrine which Doctor Pusey means by it. And if we may take the Bishop as in general agreement with " Protestants " on the subject, he certainly did not profess that doctrine. Aechbishop Laud. M As for the Church of England, nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.'" | His Altar, as the greatest place of God's residence upon earth, (I say the greatest) yea, greater than the pulpit. For there 'tis 1 Hoc est corpus meuni,' 'This is my Body.' But in the pulpit 'tis at most, 'Hoc est verb urn meum,' ' This is my word.' And a greater reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body than to the word of our Lord. And so in relation, answerably to the throne, where His Body is usually present, than to the seat where His word useth to be proclaimed." " All sides agree with the Church of England, that in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy receiver is by his faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, truly and really, [ and of all the benefits of his passion.]* I would have no man troubled at the words truly and really, [for that blessed Sacrament, received as it ought to be, doth ' truly and really ' exhibit and apply the body and the blood of Christ to the receiver.] " "f ff Bellarmiue [ ] saith, ' Protestants do often grant, that the true and real body of Christ is in the Eucharist,' and it is most true. [ ] For the Calvinists, at least they which follow Calvin himself, do not only believe that the true and real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist, but that it is there ; and that we partake of it vert et realiier ; [ ] Nor can that place by any art be shifted, or by any violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ, in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist [to any supper in heaven whatsoever.] [ ] And for the Church of England, nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real Presence of Christ, in the Eucharist; unless A.C. can make a body no body, and blood no blood [ — as perhaps he can by transubstantiation, — as well as bread no bread and wine no wine. And the Church of England is Protestant too. So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. — As for the learned of those zealous men that died in this cause in Queen Mary's days, they denied not the real presence simply taken, but as their opposites forced transubstantiation upon them, as if * I must add in brackets much which has been left out in the Catena, which here in about half a page, gives in apparently one continuous extract passages scattered turough ten pages of the original. t This passage is in Note S, Laud s Conference with Fisher, Works, ii. 321. 186 LAUD. [Ch. XV. that and the real presence had been all one. — Nay, Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainly and more home to it, than Frith ; ' For if you -under- stand,' saith he, 1 by this word " really," re ipsa, that is, in very deed and effectually ; so Christ, by the grace and efficacy of His passion, is indeed and truly present [to all His true and Holy members] (sic). But if you understand by this word " really," corporaliter, u corporally," in His natural and organical Body, under the forms of bread and wine it is contrary to the holy word of God.' ] Nay, Bishop Ridley adds yet further, [ — ] ' That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Christ, [even] that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead [ ; only we differ in modo, 1 in the way and manner of being,' we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament [indeed] (sic) by spirit and grace, &c. You make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a natural, [a lively, and a moving] (sic) Body under the form of bread and wine.'] " My words only imply, that Christ's body is truly and really in the Sacrament ; yet not corporally, but in a spiritual manner, and so is received by us " To these places, cited by Dr. Pusey, I have to add the follow- ing:— " They say, ' the corporal presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament,' is to be found in this Service-book. But they must pardon me : I know it is not there. I cannot be myself of a contrary judgment, and yet suffer that to pass." — " The words it seems are these : * O merciful Father, of Thy Almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify with Thy word, and Holy Spirit, these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son.' Well, if these be the words, how will they squeeze corporal presence out of them ? Why, first, the change here is made a work of God's omnipotency. Well, and a work of omnipotency it is, whatever the change be. For less than Omnipotence cannot change these elements, either in nature or use, to so high a service as they are put in that great Sacrament. And therefore the invocating of God's Almighty goodness, to effect this by them, is no proof at all of intending the ' cor- poral presence of Christ in this Sacrament.' — " For if it be only ut jiant nobis, that they may be to us the Body and the Blood of Christ ; it implies clearly, that they 1 are to us,' but are not transubstantiated in themselves, into the Body and Blood of Christ, nor that there is any corporal presence in, or under the elements. And then, nothing can more cross the doctrine of the present Church of Rome, than their own service. For as the elements after the benediction, or consecration, are, and may be called, the Body and Blood of Christ, without any addition, in that real and true sense in which they are so called in Scripture ; so, when they are. said to become the Body and Blood of Christ, nobis, to us that communicate as we ought ; there is by this addition, Jiant nobis, an allay in the proper signification of the body and blood ; and the true sense, so Ca. XV.] LAUD. 187 well signified and expressed, that the words cannot well be under- stood otherwise, than to imply not the corporal substance, but the real, and yet the spiritual use of them. And so the words ut fiant nobis, import quite contrary to that which they are brought to prove." "Many weak collections and inferences are made by these men out of this part of the Communion of the bodily presence of Christ, but not one evidence is, or can be showed. — 'Tis well known, I have maintained the contrary, and perhaps as strongly as any my opposites, and upon grounds more agreeable to the doctrine of the primitive Church." * I Lave made the longer extracts from Archbishop Laud, be- cause his memory has been injured, I think, by friends as well as by enemies, from their both imputing to him doctrines which he in fact did not hold. On the present subject, I think he is especially wronged, as if he had been a maintainer of the doctrine of " The Real Presence," in the Roman or Tractarian sense. Whereas I do not find that he used this term, but I find that he did use one which he would have said was most dis- tinctly and essentially different, " The true and real presence," which, of itself, seems to intimate his opinion, that a real presence was professed which is not " true." The presence he believed was true as well as real. And as to the doctrine pro- perly expressed by the term " Real Presence," that is, that our Lord's glorified body is really present in, with, or under, the consecrated bread and wine, or under their forms, Archbishop Laud most clearly did not hold it. He believed " that Christ's body is truly and really in the Sacrament; yet not corporeally, but in a spiritual manner, and so is received by us " : that " the elements after the benediction, or consecration, are, and may be called, the body and blood of Christ, without any addition, in that true and real sense in which they are so called in Scripture : " that they are, or have " become the body and blood of Christ, to us : " that there is, " a true and real presence," " by spirit and grace," of " the true and real body and blood of Christ," which " the Sacrament doth truly and really exhibit and apply to the receiver," who " by faith " is " made " " spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ, truly and really, and of all the benefits of His passion." He denied that " there is any corporal presence in, or under the elements." He denied the presence of " the cor- poral substance " of our Lord's body in them. He acknowledged no " bodily presence of Christ " in the Eucharist. With Arch- * History of the Troubles and Trials of Archbishop Laud. Works, Oxford, 1853 363-355, 357. 188 LAUD. [Ch. XV. bishop Cranmer he denied that our Lord is present, " corporally, in his natural and organised body, under the forms of bread and wine." And with Bishop Eidley, he rejected the notion of "a natural, a lively, and a moving body under the form of bread and wine." If then, our Lord's body has a " corporeal substance," that is to say, if it be a body, if it be his " natural " body ; if it be " a lively and a moving body; " if it be an " organical body," that is to say, if it be a human body ; Archbishop Laud, not only did not hold, but denied the real presence of it, in or under the forms of the bread and wine. But this is what the doctrine of " The Real Presence " asserts ; and therefore this witness, again, does not prove the case for which he is called. But before we take leave of the Archbishop, it will be well to note what he says about the agreement of all Protestants in a doctrine of a true and real presence. He says : — " Whereas he [A. C] imposes upon the Protestants the i denial or doubting of the true or real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,' he is a great deal more bold than true in that also. For, understand them right, and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it ; for, as for the Lutherans, as they are commonly called, their very opinion of con substantiation makes it known to the world, that they neither deny nor doubt of His true and real presence there. And they are Protestants. And for the Calvinists, if they might be rightly understood, they also maintain a most true and real presence, though they cannot permit their judgment to be transub- stantiated. And they are Protestants too, and this is so known a truth that Bellarmine confesses it ; for he saith, 1 Protestants do often grant, that the true and real body is in the Eucharist ; ' but he adds, ' That they never say, so far as he hath read, that it is there truly and really, unless they speak of the supper which shall be in heaven.' Well, first, if they grant that the true and real body of Christ is in that Blessed Sacrament, as Bellarmine confesses they do, and it is most true, then A. C. is false, who charges all the Protestants with denial or doubtfulness in this point. And, secondly, Bellarmine also shows here his ignorance or his malice — ignorance, if he knew it not ; malice, if he would not know it. — And for the Church of England, nothing is more plain, than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist ; — unless A. C. can make a Body no Body, and Blood no Blood — as perhaps he can by transubstantiation, — as well as bread no bread, and wine no wine. And the Church of England is Protestant too. So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and real presence in the Eucharist." * * Conference with Fisher, sect. 35. Vol. ii. 327, 328. Ch. XV.] FORBES. 189 In another place we may consider this doctrine of a true and real Presence : but we have now to pass on to Bishop Forbes. M The doctrine of those Protestants and others seems most safe and true, who are of opinion, nay most firmly believe, that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist, and received [present and taken in the Eucharist but] in a manner in- comprehensible in respect of [to] human reason, and [much more] ineffable, known to God alone, and not revealed to us in the Scriptures, [in a way] not corporal, [and by oral sumption] yet neither [even] in the mind alone, or [and] through [by] faith alone, but in another way. known, as was said, to God alone, and to be left to His Omni- potence." I have supplied omissions or corrections in brackets, one of which is evidently important ; the Catena having omitted " and by oral sumption." Xow, waving the fact that Bishop Forbes was not of the Church of England, I shall add this also from his work : u Those err most gravely, by whom it is urged that Christ is not really in the Eucharist, upon these trivial reasonings ; 4 Christ is in heaven, circumscribed in place, &e., therefore He is not in very deed or really in the Eucharist.' For no one of sound mind thinks, that Christ visibly or invisibly descends from heaven, or from the right hand of the Father, in order c to be locally present in the Supper or in the symbols ; ' all the faithful, with unani- mous consent and with one voice, profess that they firmly retain as articles of faith, ' He ascended into heaven, He sitteth at the right hand of the Father,' and that they believe that the mode of this presence is not natural, corporal, carnal, local by itself, but without any departure from the heavens, and supernatural."* Bishop Forbes, then, with Protestants, professed " that the body and blood of Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist," in " a manner," which, though " in- comprehensible to human reason," is " not corporal," nor re- ceived " by oral sumption." And he held that our Lord does not " descend — invisibly from heaven or the right hand of the Father, in order to be present in the Supper or in the symbols : " and that the manner of his presence is neither " natural, cor- poral, carnal, nor local of itself:" but consistent with being * Considerationes Modestae, Lib. Angl. Cath. Theology, ii. 422 ; De Euch. I. i. 28. 190 FORBES. MEDE. HERBERT. [Ch. XV. and remaining in heaven. The Bishop speaks nothing to lead one to suppose that he acknowledged a presence in the elements. He acknowledged a presence " in the Eucharist : " and his words disavowing the notion of our Lord coming down from heaven " in order to he present in the Supper, or — in the symbols," plainly show that he thought it one thing to be present in the Eucharist, and another to be present in the symbols. And the presence he acknowledged was such as is not partaken of "by oral sumption." The doctrine of " The Real Objective Presence," therefore, has no suffrage from Bishop Forbes. Mede. " The all-wise God, who knew our weakness, hath so ordained in the mystery of this Holy Sacrament, that it is a mystical Incarnation of Christ into every one who receives it. Whence Gregory Nazianzen defines the Eucharist, Kou iovia ffrrup^uxTEu)^ tov Qeov, a Communion of the Incarnation of God. For in that He affirms the Bread to be His Body, and the Wine to be His Blood ; by receiving this Body and Blood of Christ, and so changing it into the substance of our body and into our blood by way of nourishment, the Body of Christ becomes our body, and His Blood is made our blood, and we become in a mystical manner flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone." " Whose heart is not moved against the Jews, when he hears or reads their villanies and violence offered to our Blessed Saviour ? But Chry- sostom gives us a good take-heed, Take heed (saith he) lest thou be guilty in the like kind, by unworthy receiving of the blessed Sacrament : he that defiles the King's body, and he that tears it, offend both alike ; the Jews tore it, thou defilest it." One may, I suppose, conclude from the words " He affirms the Bread to be His body, and the Wine to be His blood," that Mede believed the elements to be what our Lord called them : and so, that his body is defiled by the unworthy receiver. But there is nothing of " The Real Presence " here. Herbert. " God is here prepared and drest, And the feast God in whom all dainties are. — Drink this Which before ye drink is blood." Translating this from overstrained poetry into plain prose, I take it to mean, that the feast is the body and blood of Christ, Ch. XV.] BRAMHALL. 191 the body and blood of Him who is God : which again is nothing to the point. Archbishop Bramhall. " Having viewed all your strength with a single eye, I find not one of your arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation, but only to a true Real Presence ; which no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny, no, nor your adversary himself. Christ said, 1 This is My Body ; 1 what He said, we do stedfastly believe. " '; They [the primitive Fathers] contented themselves to believe what Christ had said, 1 This is My Body,' without presuming on their own heads to determine the manner how it is His Body ; neither weighing their own words so exactly before any controversy was raised, nor expounding the sayings of other men contrary to the analogy of Faith." — " A positive belief that the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ, — were to contradict the words of Christ, 4 This is My Body.'" "Abate us Transubstantiation, and those things which are consequent of their determination of the manner of Presence, and we have no difference with them in this particular. They who are ordained Priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, to make them present [after such manner as they were present at the first institution]." The brackets include a qualification which I think of impor- tance, though it is omitted in the Catena. Add the following from the Archbishop's answer to M. de La Milletiere : — " It was not for nothing that our Saviour did distinguish His Body from His Blood, not only in the consecration but also in the distribution, of the Sacrament." " We dare not give Divine worship unto any creature, no, not to the very Humanity of Christ in the abstract (much less to the Host), but to the Whole Person of Christ, God and Man, by reason of the hypostatical union between the Child of the Virgin Mary, and the Eternal Son, ' Who is God over all, Blessed for ever : ' Shew us such an union betwixt the Deity and the Elements, or accidents, and you say something. But you pretend no such things. The highest that you dare go is this ; 1 as they that adored Christ when He was upon earth, did after a certain kind adore His garments.' Is this all ? This is ' after a certain kind of manner ' indeed. We have enough. There is no more adoration due to the Sacrament, than to the garments which Christ did wear upon earth." " We rest in the words of Christ, 4 This is my Body.' " * The Archbishop's then, was a simple faith in the words of Christ, " This is my body." This he stedfastly believed, and in these words did he " rest." It is necessarily implied that he had like simple faith in the words, " This is my blood : " that Pp. 20, 21. 192 BEAMIIALL. [Ch. XV. he as stedfastly believed and rested in them, as in the other words of the institution. And he declared that " a positive belief that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ, — were to contradict the words of Christ, 'This is my body.' " In such faith he said the Fathers also " contented themselves." And as our Lord said these words of the bread, " This is my body ; " and these words of the wine, " This is my blood : " and He thus made the bread his body, and the wine his blood ; so also he believed was the effect of consecration by the Lord's ministers : for the Archbishop said in another place : " In the Holy Eucha- rist, our consecration is but a repetition of that which was done by Christ, and now done by him that con seer ateth in the person of Christ; otherwise the Priest could not say, 6 This is my body.' " * By this consecration at the first, the bread instead of com- mon bread, became, or was made, the body of Christ ; and the wine from common wine, became, or was made, the blood of Christ. And to deny this, the Archbishop considered to be a contradiction to the words of Christ. And no less now than at the first, do Priests " consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ : " by which consecration the bread becoming the body of Christ, and the wine his blood, the body and blood of Christ are made present. The bread which is the body of Christ, and the wine which is the blood of Christ, being pre- sent : the body and blood of Christ are present, not to the sight or touch, certainly, but to the soul. And this presence is, not in any of those ways in which men have presumed to define it, %ut " after such manner as they [the body and the blood] were present at the first institution." The Archbishop called this " a true real presence." But he remarked : " it was not for nothing that our Saviour did distinguish His body from His blood, not only in the conse- cration, but also in the distribution." This he said in oppo- sition to the Romish practice of withholding the cup. But it manifests his opinion, that as much was not given by the one kind, by the bread, as by both kinds, the bread and the cup. He could not, therefore, have believed in our Lord's body and blood together present, his body living and glorified, in or under the bread. He could not have believed in " The Real Objective Presence." And the presence he acknowledged, and which he called " a true real presence," was " after such man- ner as the body and blood of Christ were present at the first * Consecration of Protestant Bishops Vindicated, I. xi. III. 165. ch. xv.; BKAMHALL. COSIN. 193 institution." He did not imagine that another or a higher gift was imparted in the Eucharist now, than " at the first institu- tion." And he allowed no other " manner " of presence now, in, with, or under the bread and wine, or under their forms, than there was, when our Lord Himself in his living, unbroken body, gave his broken body, and his out-poured blood. Nor did he believe " such an union betwixt the Deity and the elements, or accidents " or forms, as would warrant any " adoration — to the Sacrament." And this again necessarily implies a rejection of the doctrine of " The Eeal Objective Presence : " for if Christ, the living, glorified Christ, Man and God, be really present in, with, or under the elements or their forms, there can be no question with Christians, but that He is to be adored in, with, or under them. Bishop Cosin. " Where is the danger and what doth he fear as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature and the Eeal and Substantial Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, using that explication of St. Bernard concerning the manner which he himself, for the too great evidence of truth, durst not but admit ? And why doth he own that the manner is spiritual not carnal, and then require a carnal presence, as to the manner itself? As for us, we all openly profess with St. Bernard, that the Presence of the Body of Christ is spiritual, and therefore true and real, and with the same St. Bernard and all the ancients, we deny that the Body of Christ is carnally either present or given. The thing we willingly admit, 1 but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire the manner We confess with the Fathers, that this manner of presence is unaccountable and past finding out, not to be searched and pryed into by reason, but believed by faith. And if it seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend and come to be our food through so great a distance, we must remember how much the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds our senses and our apprehensions, and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure His immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity, and so make our faith to conceive and believe what our reason cannot comprehend. " Yet our faith does not cause or make that Presence, but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ ; and the faith whereby we are said to eat the Flesh of Christ, is not that only whereby we believe that He died for our sins (for this faith is required and sup- posed to precede the sacramental manducations), but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ, 1 This is My Body.' Which was St. Austin's meaning when he said, ' Why dost thou prepare thy komach and thy teeth ? Believe, and thou hast eaten ! For in this nystical eating, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost, we do in- visibly receive the substance of Christ's Body and Blood, as much as if ■ve should eat and drink both visibly." 0 194 OOSIN. [Ch. XV. The reader will perceive five dots nearly in the middle of the first of these two extracts. These dots mark an omission which I think it necessary to supply : — " We believe a presence and union of Christ with our soul and body, which we know not how to call better than sacramental, that is, effected by eating ; that, while we eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine, we eat and drink therewithal the Body and Blood of Christ, not in a cor- poral manner, but some other way, incomprehensible, known only to God, which we call spiritual ; for if with St. Bernard and the Fathers, a man goes no further, we do not find fault with a general explication of the man- ner, but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously enquire what is a spiritual presence, as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of God's Holy Spirit.* I must add some rather copious extracts in addition to the above, from this important witness ; in order more clearly to develope and exhibit his doctrine. 1 will recite them in the order in which they occur in his work, and afterwards will bring the substance of them together in one concise view. " Those words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, i This is My Body, which is given for you : This is My Blood, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins,' are held and acknowledged by the universal Church to be most true and infallible. — We must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth what- ever is taught by divine Scripture. And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith, 1 My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed ; ' which, according to St. Paul, are both given to us by the con- secrated elements. For he calls the bread 1 the communion of Christ's Body,' and the cup 1 the communion of his Blood.' " f " The elements — are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ, that by them His blessed Body and Blood may be communicated to us." J " The expres- sion of Christ and the apostle is to be understood in a sacramental and mystic sense : — no gross and carnal presence of the Body and Blood can be maintained by them." § " Now a sacramental expression doth, with- out any inconvenience, give to the sign the name of the thing signified. And such is as well the usual way of speaking, as the nature of sacra- ments, that not only the names, but even the properties and effects ol what they represent and exhibit, are given to the outward elements. Hence (as I said before) the bread is as clearly as positively called by the apostle, ' the communion of the Body of Christ.' " || " The Body and blood of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the elements, but also by virtue of His institution really offered to all by them, and so eaten by the * History of Transubstantiation, III. 3, Oxford, 1851, iv. 170. f lb. I. i. p. 155. I lb. ii. § lb. iii. 156. || lb. iv. Ch. XV.] COSIX. 195 faithful mystically and sacramentally ; whence it is, that f He truly is and abides in us, and we in Him.' This is the spiritual (and yet not less true and undoubted than if it were corporal) eating of Christ's Flesh, not indeed simply as it is flesh, without any other respect, (for so it is not given, neither would it profit us,) but as it is crucified, and given for the redemption of the world. Neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing, that this eating of Christ's Body is spiritual, and that by it the souls of the faithful, and not their stomachs, are fed by the operation of the Holy Ghost."* "We leave it to the power and wisdom of our Lord, yielding a full and unfeigned assent to His words." f " None of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real (that is, true and not imaginary) presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the sacrament." J " Christ said, This is My Body ; the manner only is controverted. We hold by a firm belief that it is the Body of Christ." " The Protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of Christ in the sacrament. They [the Roman Church] make it [the term spiritual] to signify, ' that Christ is not present in the sacrament either after that manner which is natural to corporal things, or that wherein His own Body subsists in heaven, but according to the manner of existence proper to spirits whole and entire, in each part of the host.' — But all this, and much more to the same effect, was never delivered to us either by Holy Scripture or the ancient Fathers. And, if souls or spirits could be present, as here Bellarmine teacheth, yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise, it being inconsistent with their nature." § " The result of all this is, that the Body and Blood of Christ are sacra- mentally united to the bread and wine, so that Christ is truly given to the faithful. — Now it is said, that the Body and Blood of Christ are joined to the bread and wine, because that in the celebration of the holy Eucharist, the Flesh is given together with the bread, and the Blood together with the wine." \ " None of them [the Protestants] denies altogether but that there is a conversion of the bread into the Body (and consequently of the wine into the Blood) of Christ ; for they know and acknowledge that in the sacra- ment, by virtue of the words and blessing of Christ, the condition, use, and office, of the bread is wholly changed ; that is, of common and ordinary, it becomes our mystical and sacramental food ; whereby, as they affirm and believe, the true Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured, but also given indeed, and by worthy communicants truly received. — Our ordinary is changed into mystic bread, and thereby designed and appointed to another use, end, and office.lf ': He did not say that He gave His disciples a fantastic body, — but that very Body which was given for us, without being deprived of that ex- tension and other accidents of human bodies without which it could not have been crucified." ** * V, vi. f vii. pp. loo, 156. \ II. i. 157 ; ib. r. 159, § III. i. p. 1G9. || v. 171. IT IV. i. 172. ** iji. 173. o 2 196 COSIX. [Ch. XV. " Protestants — firmly believing the words of Christ, make the form of this sacrament to consist in the union of the thing signified with the sign, that is, the exhibition of the Body of Christ with the consecrated bread, still remaining bread : by divine appointment these two are made one ; and, though the union be not natural, substantial, personal, or local, by their being one within another, yet it is so straight and so true, that in eating the blessed bread, the true Body of Christ is given to us, and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally changed — and both are united in time, though not in place : for the presence of Christ in this mystery is not opposed to distance, but to absence, which only could de- prive us of the benefit and fruition of the object." * " Because the thing signified is offered and given to us as truly as the sign itself, in this respect we own the union betwixt the Body and Blood of Christ and the elements, whose use and office we hold to be changed from what it was before. — Christ in the consecrated bread ought not — can- not be kept and preserved to be carried about, because He is present only to the communicants. — Differing from those of Eome only in this, that they will have our union with Christ to be corporal, and our eating of Him likewise, and we, on the contrary, maintain it to be indeed as true, but not carnal or natural. — That Christ (as the Papists affirm) should give His Flesh and Blood to be received with the mouth and ground with the teeth, so that not only the most wicked and infidels, but even rats and mice should swallow Him down, — this our words and our hearts do utterly deny." f M It is not questioned whether the Body of Christ be absent from the sacrament duly administered according to His institution, which we Pro- testants neither affirm nor believe ; for, it being given and received in the communion, it must needs be that it is present, though in some manner veiled under the sacrament, so that of itself it cannot be seen. — We do not say that our blessed Saviour gave only the figure and sign of His Body, neither do we deny a sacramental union of the Body and Blood of Christ with the sacred bread and wine, so that both are really and substantially received together." J " The words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling, that it is with the bread that our Lord's body is given, as His Blood with the wine ; for Christ, having taken, blessed, and broken the bread, said, ' This is My Body ; ' and St. Paul, than whom none could better understand the meaning of Christ, ex- plains it thus : ' The Bread which we break is the communion or commu- nication, of the Body of Christ,' — that whereby His Body is given, and the faithful are made partakers of it. — Certain it is, that the bread is not the Body of Christ, any otherwise than as the cup is the New Testament ; and different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions. Therefore, as the cup cannot be the New Testament but by a sacramental figure, no more can the bread be the Body of Christ, but in the same sense." § * IV. iv. 173. f IV. v. t vi. pp. 174, 175. § V. iv. 180. Ch. XV.] COSIN. 197 M True it is, that to the faithful the element becomes a vivifying body, because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread, the Body of Christ : but to others, who either receive not, or are not believers, to them the bread may be the antitype, but is not, neither doth become the Body of Christ ; for without faith Christ is never eaten." * " The Fathers — understood no other change, than that which is common to all sacraments, whereby the outward natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine, only because it represents it truly and effica- ciously, and makes all worthy receivers partakers thereof : and because by virtue of the Holy Spirit, and of Christ's holy institution, the elements obtain those divine excellencies and prerogatives which they cannot have of their own nature." f " The ancients did not believe — that the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is so inseparably tied to the accidents of bread and wine, that Christ must needs be present as long as these accidents retain any resem- blance of bread and wine, even when they are not put to that use ap- pointed by divine institution." } "Xobody can deny but that the things that are seen are signs and figures, and those that are not seen the Body and Blood of Christ ; and that therefore the nature of this mystery is such, that when we receive the bread and wine we also, together with them, receive at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ, which in the celebration of the Eucharist are as truly given as they are represented." § " Whereas it is far above philosophy and human reason, that Christ from heaven (where alone He is locally) should reach down to us the di- vine virtue of His Flesh, so that we are made one Body with Him, there- fore it is as necessary as it is reasonable that the Fathers should tell us, that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of God, when He saith, 1 This is My Body.' " || M True it is, that the Body and Blood of Christ are sacramentally and really (not feignedly) present, when the blessed Bread and Wine are taken by the faithful communicants ; and as true is it also, that they are not present, but only when the hallowed elements are so taken. — That Body and Blood is neither sensibly present (nor otherwise at all present, but only to them that are duly prepared to receive them, and in the very act of receiving them and the consecrated elements together, to which they are sacramentally in that act united), the adoration is then and there given to Christ Himself." f Bishop Cosin, then, yielded " a full and unfeigned assent to our Lord's words " " This is my body." He embraced and held them " for an undoubted truth : " and so also, of necessity, those other words " This is my blood." But he called the words " a sacramental expression," which gives to the sign the name of the * xv. 186. f VI. i. 201. { ii. 201, 202. § v- 208. Ij VI. x. 208. f Notes on the Book of Common Prayer, Second Series ; Angl. Cath. Lib. v. 345. 198 COSIX. [Ch. XV. thing signified : " and therefore he said they are " to be under- stood in a sacramental and mystical sense : 99 and that " as the cup cannot be the New Testament but by a sacramental figure, no more can the bread be the body of Christ but in the same sense." But the words are truly interpreted by St. Paul, who makes " the bread which we break and the cup of blessing which we bless," to be "the communion of the body and blood of Christ:" and they "are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ, that by them, His blessed body and blood may be commu- nicated to us." He thought thai " the body and blood of our Saviour are — fitly represented by the elements," which are " said to be changed into the inward and divine part, only because they re- present it truly and efficaciously: " — that the body and blood of Christ are " sacramentally united to the bread and wine," and "joined to " them : that this " union is not natural, substantial, personal, or local," nor "by their being one within another : " that they " are united in time, though not in place: " — that this union " is so straight and true, that in eating the blessed bread, the true body of Christ is given to us:" that "the union of the thing signified with the sign is the exhibition of the body of Christ to- gether with the consecrated bread :" " that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the flesh is given together with the bread, and the blood together with the wine :" " so that Christ is truly given to the faithful : " that "the body and blood of our Saviour are — really offered to all by the elements," and "are really and substantially received together " with them, " the flesh " being given together with the bread, and "the blood" together with the wine; so "that when we receive the bread and wine, we also, together with them, receive, at the same time, the body and blood of Christ ; " and " while we eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine, we eat and drink therewith the body and blood of Christ." He says that "the true body, the very body, of Christ is truly given to us," " but as it is crucified, and given for the redemp- tion of the world ; " and is " by worthy communicants truly received ;" " the body and blood of Christ with the sacred bread and wine, both — really and substantially received together." But he believed that "the body of Christ — being given and received in the communion, it must needs be that it is present ; " yet that Christ " is present only to the communicants : " that his body is not " carnally either present or given : " that his presence is not "gross or carnal ; " nor " inseparably tied to the accidents of bread and wine, so that He must needs be present Ch. XV.] COSIN. SPARROW. 199 as long as these accidents retain any resemblance of bread and wine : " that it is " spiritual, and therefore true and real ; " and neither " imaginary " nor " feigned," but " substantial." Then, again, Bishop Cosin thought that " to those who re- ceive not, or are not believers, — the bread — is not, neither doth become, the body of Christ ; " that the body and blood of Christ — are not present, but only when the " hallowed elements are — taken " "by the faithful communicants." And, lastly, the Bishop says, that " Christ is locally in heaven alone : " that his presence is not local : that it is in the sacra- ment, " a presence and union of Him with the soul and body — effected by eating," inasmuch as "while we eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine, we eat and drink therewith His body and blood, which are present to such communicants only as are duly prepared to receive them, and to them in the very act only of receiving them and the consecrated elements together, to which they are sacramentally in that act united." To this may be added the Bishop's opinion, that, " if souls or spirits could be present " as presence is predicated of our Lord's body in, with, or under the elements or under their forms, " yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise, it being inconsistent with their nature. " * I believe this to be an impartial view of Bishop Cosin's doc- trine. I cannot say the doctrine is quite consistent with itself : but it is not my business to reconcile it. It will be sufficient here to recommend a careful perusal of the foregoing passages to those who imagine that Bishop Cosin was a believer and maintainer of the Tractarian doctrine of " The Real Presence : " and to enunciate very briefly the conclusion, that the presence he believed, though true and real, because spiritual, was a presence, not in the elements or under them, but in the sacra- ment, a presence only to the faithful communicant, and to him only in the very act of communion. Bishop Sparrow. " 1 The Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,' says St. Chrysostom, ' which the Priest now makes, is the same that Christ gave to His Apostles,' &c. Again, * Christ is present at the Sacrament now, that first instituted it. He consecrates this also : it is not man that makes the Body and Blood of Christ by consecrating the holy elements, but Christ that was crucified for us. The words are pronounced by the words [mouth] of the * III. i. 169. 200 SPARROW. HAMMOND. [Ch. XV. Priest, but the elements are consecrated by the power and grace of God. " This is," saith He, " My Body ; " by this word the bread and wine are consecrated.' " When the Priest hath said at the delivery of the Sacrament, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life, the communicant is to answer, Amen. By this Amen professing his faith of the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in that Sacrament." Bishop Sparrow was of the same mind with St. Chrysostom, who says, " that Christ is present at the Sacrament/' and that consecration " makes the Body and Blood of Christ," by the words, " This is my body." And it was his opinion, that the communicant, in the Church of England, professes " his faith of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in that Sacra- ment." But granting this, the presence of Christ "at the Sacra- ment," and " the Real Presence of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament," does not amount to the Real Presence of Christ, of his glorified body, in, with, or under the bread and wine, or under their forms. Hammond. " This breaking, taking, eating of the bread, this whole action, is the real communication of the Body of Christ to me — the very giving of Christ's body to me ; that as verily as I eat the bread in my mouth, so verily God in Heaven bestows on me, communicates to me the body of the crucified Saviour. And so all that I told you of the full sense of that phrase, 1 Communication of Christ's Body,'1 is again to be repeated here to make up the sense of those words, ' This is my Body.' " This was written by Doctor Hammond to "shew how the phrase, 6 This is my body,' in the Gospel, interpreted by this taking and eating is my body, was to be understood " But it neither recognises the term of " The Real Presence," nor does it express or imply the doctrine. The Doctor's opinion can be more clearly understood from these places following : — " The meaning of Christ's words of institution, 1 This is my body,' &c," is " not that the bread was His body and the wine His blood, in strict speaking, for He was there in His body, when He so spake ; and when the disciples distributed it among themselves, He was not bodily in any of their mouths. And now His body is in heaven, and there to be contained till the day of 1 restitution of all things,' and is not corporally brought down in every Sacrament, either to be joined locally with the elements, or for the elements to be changed into it ; many contradictions and bar- barisms would be consequent to such an interpretation. — It would make God a liar, and be an argument not of power, but imperfection." Cm XV.] HAMMOXD. FELL. THORXDIKE. 201 11 That the faithful do receive the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, which implies not any corporal presence of Christ on the table, or in the elements, but God's communicating the crucified Saviour, who is in heaven bodily, and nowhere else, to us sinners on the earth, but this mystically, and after an ineffable manner." " And then God's part is the accepting of this our bounden duty, bestowing that Body and Blood of Christ upon us, not by sending it down locally for our bodies to feed on, but really for our souls to be strengthened and refreshed by it : as when the sun is communicated to us, the whole bulk and body of the sun is not removed out of its sphere, but the rays and beams of it, and with them the light, and warmth, and influences, are really and verily bestowed and darted out upon us. And all this is the full importance of 1 This is my body,' or this is the communication of His body." * Bishop Fell. " For this holy ceremony was not instituted by us for eating and drinking, but by the Lord Himself, for a sacred solemn commemoration of His death, and to be approached with all reverence and great preparation, as being the Body and Blood of the Lord." It is a pity to have brought forward this very careless piece of writing ; which shows more carelessness in the collector even than in the author himself. For in its grammatical construc- tion it asserts, that " this holy ceremony is the Body and Blood of the Lord." What the meaning may be, it is hardly for me to enquire : though it seems to be that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ. But it contributes nothing to the case. Thokxdize. "If the Church only pray that the Spirit of God, coming down upon the elements, may make them the Body and Blood of Christ, so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of His Spirit; then is it lot the sense of the Catholic Church that can oblige any man to retain the ibolishing of the elements, in their bodily substance; because, supposing -hat they remain, they may nevertheless become the instrument of God's Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive t, no otherwise than His Flesh and Blood conveyed efficacy thereof upon he earth. And that I suppose is reason enough, to call it the Body and Blood of Christ sacramentally, that is to say, as in the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not here to be denied, that all ecclesiastical writers do, 'vith one mouth, bear witness to the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. — When they speak of the elements, supposing the onsecration to have passed upon them, they always call them by the ame not of their bodily substance, but of the Body and Blood of Christ rhich they are become." f * Practical Catechism, VI. iv. Anglo-Cath. Library. 382. 3S5, 393. t Epilogue III. Laws of the Church, IV. xxii. Anglo-Cath. Library, iv. i. 69. 202 THORNDIKE. [Ch. XV. Here it is to be observed, that Thorndike believed the bread and wine to be made and to " have become," the body and blood of Christ : that therefore " ecclesiastical writers always call them by 93 this name : and that so calling them they " do with one mouth bear witness to the presence of the body and blood of Christ." But his doctrine will be better understood from the following places : — " Shall this evidence of the nature and substance of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a sacrament, that is, when it is received, either deface or efface the evidence, which the same Scriptures yield us, of the truth of Christ's Body and Blood, brought forth and made to be in the sacrament of the Eucharist, by making it to be that sacrament ? Surely we must not suffer such a conceit to possess us, unless we will offer the same violence to the manifest and express words of the Scripture." * " Supposing the bread and the wine to remain in the sacrament of the Eucharist, as sense informs and the word of God enforces, if the same word of God affirm these to be also the Flesh and Blood of Christ, what remaineth, but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance, be also the Bodily Flesh and Blood of Christ by mystical re- presentation— and by spiritual grace ? For what reason can be imagined, why the material presence of bread and wine in bodily substance should hinder the mystical and spiritual presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, as in a sacrament, whereby they are tendered of grace to them that receive ? ""j* " It behoves, indeed, that He procure the Flesh and Blood of Christ to be there by the operation of that Spirit, which framed Them for an habitation to Itself in the womb of the Virgin (that the receiving of His Flesh and Blood may be the means of conveying His Spirit) : but how is it requisite that They be there in bodily substance, as if the mys- tical presence of them were not a sufficient means to convey His Spirit, which we see is conveyed by the mere spiritual consideration and resolu- tion of a lively and effectual faith? "J "This change [wrought in the elements by the consecration of them into the sacrament] consisting in the assistance of the Holy Ghost, which makes the elements in which It dwells, the Body and Blood of Christ; it is not necessary that we acknowledge the bodily substance of them to be any way abolished." " Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted this sacrament, with a promise to make by His Spirit the elements of bread and wine sacramentally His Body and Blood; so that His Spirit that made them so (dwelling in them as in His natural Body), should feed them with Christ's Body and Blood that receive the sacrament of Them Avith living faith." § "Here is the place for me to allege those Scriptures which inform us of the true nature and properties of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, remaining * Laws of the Church, II. 8, p. 11. X xxxii. p. 32. f Ibid. II. xxiii. p. 22. § Ibid. III. v. 37. Ch. XV.] THORXDIKE. 203 in His Body even now that It is glorified. — It behoveth us to understand, how we are informed, that the promise of His Bod}' and Blood in the Eucharist imports an exception to so man)' declarations, before we believe it. Indeed, there is no place of God's right hand, by sitting down at which we may say that our Lord's Body becomes confined to the said place: but seeing the Flesh of Christ is taken up into heaven to sit down at God's right hand, (though, by his sitting down at God's right hand, we under- stand the Man Christ to be put into the exercise of that Divine power and command which His mediator's office requires,) yet His Body we must understand to be confined to that place, where the Majesty of God ap- pears to those that attend upon His throne.'' * M For so are we assured that the elements which the Church consecrates, are the Body and Blood of Christ ; as those were whereof our Lord speaks. — What the thanksgiving used in the services, that are extant, was wont to contain, is there to be seen. But it ended in a prayer: — that the Holy Ghost may come down upon the elements proposed, to make them the Body ' and Blood of Christ." M Is it not change enough, that the elements become ; the Body and Blood of Christ, which they were not before? " 'k Who can deny, that, if the union of the Spirit with the elements con- tinue so long, and to such purposes, as the Church intends by consecrating, the institution of our Lord is made good and His doctrine fully verified ? " \ "They, who make good or receive the covenant of their baptism in re- ! ceiving it [the Eucharist], shall receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and : by consequence His Spirit, hypostatically united to the same, to enable them to perform it.'" ± " Now it [the command of Christ] is executed, and hath always been ' executed, by the act of the Church, upon God's word of institution, pray- !ing, that, the Holy Ghost, coming down upon the present elements, 'may make them the Body and Blood of Christ.' Not by changing them into 'the nature of flesh and blood; as the bread and wine, that nourished our ■ Lord Christ on earth, became the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God by becoming the Flesh and Blood of His manhood, hypostatically united to His Godhead, saith Gregory Nyssen; but immediately and ipso facto by being united to the Spirit of Christ, that is, His Godhead. For the Flesh and Blood of Christ by incarnation, the elements by consecration, become •both one sacramentally, by being both one with the Spirit or Godhead of Christ, to the conveying of God's Spirit to a Christian." § Nothing is said in any of these places of " The Eeal Presence : " nor do I find the term in any of the works of this learned and able writer. He speaks often of the mystical, spiritual, or sacramental presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, but, if [ mistake not, he never uses the term "Real Presence," to * Laws of the Church III. xiv. 47, 48. t Reformation of the Church of England, XXVI. i. ii. iii. y. V. 545, 546. J Just Weights and Measures, XXI. viii. V. 226. § Ibid. XIV. iv. V. 173. 204 THORXDIKE. LESTRAXGE. [Ch. XV. express his doctrine. And different indeed is his doctrine from that to which this term belongs. In brief, as it may be col- lected from the foregoing extracts it is as follows. He believed, as he alleged with " the Catholic Church," "that the Spirit of God, coming down upon the elements, makes them the Body and Blood of Christ : " that there is thus " a union of the Spirit, with the elements ; 99 and they become " sacra- mentally 99 the body and blood of Christ : that on consecration they are "immediately and ipso facto," made the body and blood of Christ, " by being united to the spirit of Christ, that is His Godhead : " that " the flesh and blood of Christ by incarna- tion," and " the elements by consecration, become both one sacramentally, by being both one with the Godhead of Christ : " that " the truth of Christ's body and blood " is " made to be in the sacrament " of the Eucharist by this consecration : that the bread and wine have become and are " the bodily flesh and blood of Christ : 99 and that a mystic, spiritual, and sacramental pre- sence of Christ's body and blood is thus effected. Moreover, he believed, that the Spirit of Christ which made the elements, or changed them into, the body and blood of Christ, "dwelling in them, as in His natural body," feeds "with Christ's body and blood, them that receive the sacrament of them with living faith : 99 that the union of the Spirit with the elements is for the purpose, that the flesh and blood of Christ " may be the means of conveying His Spirit :" and that conse- quently the elements do " convey His Spirit," that is, his God- head. And for this presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, Thorn- dike thought it not " requisite, that they be there in bodily substance ; 99 nor, indeed, possible, inasmuch as " the flesh of Christ is taken up into heaven," and " we must understand His body to be confined to that place." The difference, then, is great between the doctrine of Thorn- dike, and that which Dr. Pusey holds. L'E STRANGE. " That Real Presence which all sound Protestants seem to allow. — Between the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Sacramental com- memoration of His Passion, there is so inseparable a league, as subsist they cannot, unless they consist. A sacramental verity of Christ's Body and Blood there cannot be, without the Commemoration of His Death and Passion, because Christ never promised His mysterious (yet Real) Presence Ch. XV.] LESTRAXGE. TAYLOE. 205 but in reference to such Commemoration; nor can there be a true Com- memoration without the Body and Blood exhibited and participated ; because Christ gave not those visible elements, but His Body and Blood to make that spiritual representation." " Indeed, if consecration be of any import, if with God it reconciled! anything effectual towards the making those elements the Body and Blood of Christ, if in us it createth any greater reverence to those dreadful mysteries, then certainly that consecration must needs excel all others which is made in the full congregation." Here a " Real Presence " is allowed : " the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist " is acknowledged; " a sacramental verity of Christ's body and blood : " "the body and blood " are spoken of as " exhibited and participated," that is, truly offered and re- ceived : and the " import " of consecration, is declared to be " the making those elements the body and blood of Christ." It would seem, therefore, to be L'Estrange's doctrine, that the bread is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the wine is his blood : that they are " a sacramental verity of His body and blood :" and thus, that there is "a mysterious yet real presence of His body and blood." But there is no intimation here of " The Real Presence " of our Lord Himself, or of his glorified body, in the elements, or under their forms. Some statements much beyond those before us, must be produced from this author, to show that he believed in "The Real Presence," as it is now taught. Taylor, " The doctrine of the Church of England, and generally of the Protes- tants, in this article, is — that after the Minister of the holy Mysteries ihath rightly prayed, and blessed and consecrated the Bread and Wine, the symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, after a sacramental, that is, in a spiritual real manner: so that all that worthily communicate, do by faith receive Christ really, effectually, to all the purposes of His Passion; the wicked receive not Christ, but the bare symbol only; but yet to their hurt, because the offer of Christ is rejected, and they pollute the Blood of the covenant, by using It as an unholy thing. The result of which doctrine is this: It is bread, and it is Christ's Body. It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament: and Christ is as really ^iven to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are ; each as they pan; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and wine as they can, and ;o the same real purposes, to which they are designed : and Christ does is really nourish and sanctify the soul, as the elements do the body.'' . " This may sulHce for the word 1 real' which the English Papists use, DUt, as it appears, with much less reason than the sons of the Church of England; and when the Real Presence is denied, the word 'real' is taken 206 TAYLOR. [Ch. XV. for 'natural,' and does not signify 1 transcendenter,' or in his just and most proper signification. But the word 1 substantialiter ' is also used by- Protestants in this question, which, I suppose, may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent, ' sacramentaliter prEesens Salvator sub- stantia sua nobis adest,' in substance, but after a sacramental manner, which word if they might be understood in the sense in which the Pro- testants use them, that is, really, truly, without fiction or the help of fancy, but ' in rei veritate,' so, as Philo calls spiritual things a i/ayjcatorarai ovatai, 1 most necessary, useful, and material substances,' it might become an instrument of a united confession." " One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes ; that, in the explication of this question, it is much insisted upon, that it be enquired whether we believe Christ's Body to be 'really' in the Sacrament, we mean ' that Body, that Flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary,' that was crucified, dead, and buried? I answer, I know none else that He had, or hath : there is but one Body of Christ natural and glorified ; but he that says, that Body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same Body, but not after the same manner: and so it is in the Sacrament; we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, that was broken and poured forth ; for there is no other body, no other blood, of Christ, but though it is the same which we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner." "In this Feast all Christ, and Christ's Passion, and all His graces, the blessings and effects of His sufferings, are conveyed." " Have mercy upon us, 0 heavenly Father, according to Thy glorious mercies and promises, send Thy Holy Ghost upon our hearts, and let Him descend upon these gifts, that by His good, His holy, His Glorious Presence, He may sanctify and enlighten our hearts, and He may bless and sanctify these gifts, that this Bread may become the Holy Body of Christ, and this chalice may become the life-giving Blood of Christ." " Dispute not concerning the secret of the mystery, and the nicety of the manner of Christ's Presence ; it is sufficient to thee that Christ shall be present to thy soul. " The Christian ministry, having greater privileges, and being honoured with attrectation of the Body and Blood of Christ, and offices serving to a better covenant, may with greater argument be accounted excellent, honourable, and royal." The sum of these places of Bishop Taylor, is as follows. He believed that the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Holy Trinity, descends at the prayer of the Church upon the gifts, upon the bread and wine set forth for the Sacrament : that "by His good, holy, and glorious Presence," they " become the Holy body, and the life-giving blood of Christ : " that they are thus " changed into the body and blood of Christ : " that the bread, still remaining bread, " is Christ's body," and, by consequence, that the wine, still remaining wine, is his blood: that this change is "after a sacramental, that is, in a spiritual, real Ch. XV.] TAYLOR. KEX. 207 manner : " that the bread has become and is that " one body of Christ," " that Flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary," so that in the sacrament, " we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, that was broken and poured forth," that is to say, "that all that worthily communicate, do receive Christ really, effectually to all the purposes of His passion ; " " but the wicked receive not Christ, but the bare symbol only: " that they who receive Him, receive Him " by faith : " and that it is sufficient to know and believe that " Christ is present to the soul." Now that the elements are changed into, have become, and are, the body and blood of Christ, is a very different proposition from that which affirms " The Eeal Presence " of his body and blood, of his glorified body, in them or under their forms. And if Bishop Taylor held that the wicked do not receive Christ, he did not believe in such presence. Moreover, he taught that, putting aside all enquiry as to the manner of Christ's presence, " it is sufficient — that Christ shall be present to the soul : " an instruction which he would not have given, if he had been a believer in such a presence as he is brought forward to establish. Indeed, many sayings and arguments might be extracted from his works, which very strongly oppose the Tractarian doctrine. But I will content myself with the .two places following. " We say, as they said, Christ's body is truly there, and there is a .conversion of the elements into Christ's body; for what, before the con- secration, in all senses was bread, is, after consecration, in some sense, Christ's body." " We by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the faithful by .blessing and grace ; and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence."* Bishop Ken. "I believe, 0 crucified Lord, that the bread which we break in the cele- bration of the Holy Mysteries is the communication of Thy Body, and the cup of blessing which we bless is the communication of Thy blood, and that Thou dost as effectually and really convey Thy Body and Blood to our souls by the Bread and Wine, as Thou didst Thy Holy Spirit by IThy breath to Thy disciples." " Lord, what need I labour in vain to search out the manner of Thy I am indebted to Bean Goode for a reference to these passages, the former of .vhich is from the " Dissuasive from Popery," i. p. 97 ; the latter from the Doctrine of he Real Presence, p. 15. 208 KEN. HACKETT. [Ch. XV. mysterious Presence in the Sacrament, when my love assures me Thou art there?" "0 God Incarnate, how Thou canst give us Thy flesh to eat and Thy Blood to drink; how Thy flesh is meat indeed; how Thou who art in heaven art present on the Altar, I can by no means explain: but I firmly believe it, because Thou hast said it." It was the faith, then, of Bishop Ken, that the bread of the Eucharist " is the communication " of our Lord's " body," and the wine " the communication of His blood : 99 that there is a mysterious presence " of Christ" in the Sacrament, " and that although He is in heaven, He gives us His flesh to eat, and His blood to drink," and that this, " as effectually and really," is conveyed " to our souls " by the bread which we break, and the cup of blessing which we bless, as He conveyed His " Holy Spirit by His breath to His disciples." But a "mysterious presence" of our Lord " in the Sacrament" may be, without " The Eeal Presence " of His glorified body in the elements of the Sacrament. And the communication of His flesh to eat, and of His blood to drink, is not stated here to be by His leaving heaven, but while " He is in heaven." The com- munication spoken of by Bishop Ken, is the conveyance " to our souls " of the " body to eat " and of the " blood to drink." I cannot but fear that this investigation is tedious to the reader ; but neither in justice to my subject, can I release him from pursuing it to the end. He will then see the importance of the investigation ; and will yet be astonished that it should ever have been challenged. Bishop Hackett. "That which astonisheth the communicant and ravisheth his heart is, that this Feast affords no worse meat than the Body and Blood of our Saviour. These He gave for the life of the world, these are the repast of this Supper, and these we truly partake. For there is not only the visible reception of the outward signs, but an invisible reception of the thing signified." " Christ did not propose a sign at that hour, but also He gave us a Gift, and that Gift really and effectually is Himself, which is all one, as you would say, spiritually Himself; for spiritual union is the most true and real union that can be. That which is promised, and faith takes it, and hath it, is not fiction, fancy, opinion, falsity, but substance and verity. — But faith is the mouth wherewith we eat His Body and drink His Blood, not the mouth of a man, but of a faithful man, for we hunger after Him not with a corporeal appetite but a spiritual, therefore our eating must be Ch. XV.] HACKETT. BEVERIDGE. 209 spiritual, and not corporeal. Yet this is a real substantial partaking of Christ crucified, broken, His Flesh bleeding, His wounds gaping: so He is exhibited, so we are sure to receive Him, which doth not only touch our outward senses in the elements, but pass through into the depth of the soul. For in true divinity real and spiritual are equipollent." The gift in the Eucharist is here stated to be " really and effectually— Christ Himself;" "Christ spiritually," "Christ crucified, broken, His flesh bleeding. His wounds gaping : so He is exhibited, and so we are sure to receive Him." We are truly and really, because spiritually, partakers of His body and blood, in " substance and verity." And " faith is the mouth where- with we eat His body arid drink His blood, not the mouth of a man, but the mouth of a faithful man." If then, it be " Christ crucified and broken " that we receive, it is his dead body, and his blood poured out, not his glorified body, which we receive. And if " faith " be " the mouth where- with we eat His body and drink His blood ; " if it be not " the mouth of a man," the mouth of the body of a man, " but the mouth of a faithful man " which receives the gift ; then it is not in the elements or under their form : there is no " Real Presence " of our Lord's glorified body in them. Bishop Beveeidge. " When we hear the words of consecration repeated as they came from our - Lord's own mouth, 4 This is my Body which is given for you,' and 'This is my Blood which was shed for you and for many for the remission of sins ; ' we are then stedfastly to believe, that although the substance of the Bread and Wine still remain, yet now it is not common bread and wine, as to its use; but the Body and Blood of Christ in that Sacramental sense wherein He spake the words .... [insomuch, that whosoever duly receives these, His creatures of bread and wine, according to Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, are partakers of His most precious body and blood, as it is expressed in the prayer of conse- cration.]* "When it comes to our turn to receive it, then we are to lay aside all thoughts of bread, and wine, and minister, and everything else that is or can be seen, and fix our faith, as it is 'the evidence of things not seen,' wholly and solely upon our blessed Saviour, as offering us His own Body and Blood to preseiwe our bodies and souls to everlasting life, which we are therefore to receive by faith, as it is 'the substance of things hoped for,' stedfastly believing it to be, as our Saviour said. « His Body and Blood,' which our Church teacheth us, are 'verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,' [by which means, whatsoever it is to others, it will * The passage iu brackets is omitted in the Catena. P 210 BEVEKLDGE. [Ch. XV. be to us, who receive it with such a faith, the body and blood of Christ our Saviour, the very ' substance of all things hoped for,' upon the account of His body that was broken, and His blood that was shed for us.]* " He plainly signified that what He now gave them to eat and drink, He would have them look upon it, and receive it, not as common bread and wine, but as His Body and Blood; the one as broken, the other as shed for their sins." "Our Church requires us to receive the Holy Sacrament kneeling, not out of any respect to the creatures of Bread and Wine, but to put us in mind that Almighty God, our Creator and Eedeemer, the only object of all religious worship, is there specially present, offering His own Body and blood to us." We are to believe, then, that " Almighty God, our Creator and Redeemer — is specially present " in the Eucharist, " offer- ing H is own body and blood to us ; " His " body as broken, His blood as shed, for our sins : 99 since the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood, " in that sacramental sense wherein He spake the words," insomuch that they who " duly receive 1 the creatures of bread and wine " are partakers of His most precious body and blood : " and whatsoever it be to others, to those who communicate with faith, the Sacrament will be " the very substance of all things hoped for," " the body and blood of Christ our Saviour." One or two more places will more clearly show what Bishop Beveridge's opinion was. He says : — "It is bread we eat, and wine we drink, in the sacrament, not the real body and blood of Christ." f " The very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of which our Saviour said, This is my body, was real bread, and so his body only in a figurative and sacramental sense; and, by consequence, that the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only represented by the bread." " It being so clear a truth that the bread and wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ in the holy sacrament, we need not heap up many arguments to prove that it is only after a spiritual, not after a corporal manner, that the body and blood of Christ are received and eaten in the sacrament. For if the bread be not really changed into the body of Christ, then the body of Christ is not really there present ; and if it be not really there present it is impos- sible it should be really eaten and received into our bodies as bread is." { * The passages in brackets are in Bishop Beveridge's Necessity and Advantage of Frequent Communion. Works. Angl. Cath. Lib. viii. 604, 606. f Thesaurus Theologicus, 1 Cor. xi. 26, Angl. Cath. Lib. x. 87. \ On the Articles, Art. xxviii. Angl. Cath. Lib. vii. 477, 482, 483. Ch. XV.] BULL. HICKES. 211 Bishop Bull. '* We are not ignorant that the ancient Fathers generally teach that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, by or upon the consecration of them, do become and are made the Body and Blood of Christ. — Some of the most ancient doctors of the Church, as Justin Martyr and Irenams, seem to have had this notion, that by or upon the sacerdotal Benediction, the Spirit of Christ, or a divine virtue from Christ, descends upon the elements, and accompanies them to all worthy communicants, and that therefore they are said to be and are the Body and Blood of Christ ; the same Divinity which is hypostatically united to the Body of Christ in heaven, being virtually united to the elements of Bread and Wine on earth. Which also seems to be the meaDing of all the ancient Liturgies, in which it is prayed that God would send down His Spirit upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist." Bishop Bull is not here expressing his own sentiments ; but the teaching of the ancient Fathers, in which we cannot doubt that he concurred. And the teaching of some in particular he speaks of, not assenting to it, but referring to it only as having suffered " from the forced and absurd glosses of the Romanists," ( from which they were vindicated by his " learned friend, Mr. ; Grabe." * But that he did not hold the doctrine of " The Real Pre- sence " is manifest from the page before that in which the above- cited passage is to be found : — " Whatsoever our Saviour said was undoubtedly true : but these words could not be true in a proper sense ; for our Saviour's body was not then , given or broken, but whole and inviolate ; nor was there one drop of His blood yet shed. The words, therefore, must necessarily be understood in a figurative sense." * HlCKES. He cites a Iren^eus, St. Polycarp?s contemporary," saying that — ** The Bread which is from the earth, partaking of the invocation of God, 'is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and an heavenly ;" ind remarks that — ' In this passage the holy Father does most expressly assert that the Bread s made the Eucharist, that is, the Body of Jesus Christ by invocation of jod — to wit, by consecration." ^.nd he cites the same Father for the words " When — both the Bread broken and the Cup mixed, have partaken of le Word of God, they become the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Ihrist." * Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Works, Oxford, 1327, ii. 256, 254. p 2 212 COMBER. [Ch. XV. Hickes, no doubt, founded his own opinions expressed in the words of Irenseus : but there is nothing whatever in them for the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence," Dean Combek. " [The elements— truly consecrated] — are now to be esteemed as the very Body and Blood of Christ : let us, therefore, here most devoutly seal all that the Priest hath done, and unfeignedly testify our faith by a hearty Amen. ' Lord, it is done as Thou hast commanded, and I doubt not but the mystery is rightly accomplished ; I am persuaded that here is that which my soul longeth after, a crucified Saviour communicating Himself to poor penitent sinners.' " Still we do believe that every duly disposed communicant doth receive really the Body and Blood of Christ, in and by these elements ; but it is by faith and not by sense. If we receive them in the manner and to the end which Christ appointed, they give us a lively remembrance of His love and all-sufficient merit, and thereby invite our faith to embrace this crucified Redeemer as the satisfaction for our sins ; whereupon He (who is most ready to close with penitent sinners) doth by this rite of His own appointing, give Himself and the salutary benefits of His death unto such, and, although the manner be mysterious, yet the advantages are real, and the effect more certain than if we eat or drank His natural flesh and blood." "I am abundantly satisfied in Thy saying, 'This is my body.'" — "My faith and my experience tell me there is an efficacy therein, beyond the power of any other thing. Alas ! the Flesh would profit me nothing. — Sure I am This is Thy Body in Sacrament, it communicates to us the blessings and benefits thereof, and though presented in a figure, and by a holy rite, yet it is to all its purposes that which it doth represent ; I will therefore receive it as Thy Body." " Thou hast already given me Thy Holy Body to cleanse my nature, and now Thou art preparing Thy precious Blood to wash away my guilt. — Thou hast said This Cup is the Communion of Thy Blood, and Thy truth is unquestionable. I will receive it, therefore, as the Blood of the everlasting Covenant. " The second happiness assured by this Holy Eucharist is, that we are thereby united to Jesus, so as to have fellowship with Him. — We have — participated of that Spirit which quickens the great mystical body o: Christ." It was the opinion, then, of Dean Comber, that the consecratec elements " are to be esteemed as the very body and blood o Christ : 99 that we are to be " abundantly satisfied " in his saying " This is my body : " that we are to have " faith " that " it i done as He hath commanded," to be "sure that it is His body i: a Sacrament," and " receive it as His body," though presente to us in a figure," since " it is to all its purposes that which : doth represent." He believed that " every duly disposed con Ch. XV.] COMBER. WAKE. JOHNSON. 213 rnunicant doth receive really the body and blood of Christ in and by the elements : that He " gives Himself and the salutary benefits of His death," and that "the advantages are real, and the effect more certain than if we ate and drank His natural flesh and blood ; " for " the flesh would profit nothing ; " and " there is an efficacy n in the Sacrament, " beyond the power of any other thing." But that " it is by faith " we receive, and in receiving we " embrace the crucified Redeemer." Dean Comber, then, gives no testimony to the doctrine which asserts " The Eeal Presence " of our Lord's glorified body in the Sacrament. Akchbishop Wake. " The bread which we break is, not only in figure and similitude, but by a real spiritual Communion, His Body. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is by the same Commimion His Blood." Of the Archbishop's doctrine there can be no doubt when one reads this which I shall subjoin : — " That which is given by the priest is, as to its substance, bread and wine ; as to its sacramental nature and signification it is the figure or representation of Christ's body and blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of Christ as yet it is not. But being with faith and piety received by the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, the very body and I blood of Christ." i; As for his Divine nature, that being infinite, he is by virtue thereof everywhere present. But in his human nature, and particularly his body, he is in heaven only ; nor can that be otherwise present to us on earth than by figure and representation, or else by such a communion as I have before been speaking of.'' * Johnson. " He [St. Paul] supposes that the Body and Blood of Christ are com- municated to us by the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist. . . . And— he surely takes it for granted that the Body and Blood are actually there, whether they discern it or not." " The full and true notion of the Eucharist is, that it is a religious Feast upon Bread and Wine, that have first been offered in sacrifice to 'Almighty God, and are become the mysterious Body and Blood of Christ. " It was the universal belief of the ancients, that, by the special presence * On the Catechism, Sect. 48, 49, Lond. 1827, 360, 361, 362. 214 JOHNSON. [Ch. XV. of the Holy Spirit, the Bread and Wine were made the Body and Blood of Christ, in life and power as they were before in figure or representation. As the natural Body of Christ was formed in the womb by the over- shadowing of the Holy Ghost ; so they expected, and prayed that, by the operation of the same Spirit, the Bread and Wine might be made the Body and Blood in a more effectual manner than they were, when offered to God as mere representatives : and it was their certain belief that the Bread thus consecrated by the secret influence of the Spirit, was the ver}*- Body of Christ, in power and energy, and to all intents and purposes of religion, and so far as it was possible for one thing to be made another, without change of substance." " They even affirmed the Bread and Wine to remain after consecration; but that by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost they were Christ's Body and Blood, not only by way of type or figure, but in real power and effect." " The consecrated Bread and Wine being thus, by the secret operation of the Holy Spirit, made the Body and Blood of Christ, did fully answer the characters which Christ gives us of his Flesh and Blood in this sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel." Johnson's doctrine might be justly gathered from these places : but the following places will speak with sufficient clear- ness for themselves. " The Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood, in themselves con- sidered, nor merely by their resembling or representing the Body and Blood, but by the inward invisible power of the Spirit, by Which the Sacramental Body and Blood are made as powerful and effectual for the ends of religion as the natural Body itself could be if It were present. And it is on this account that It is called Christ's spiritual and mysterious Body." " The ancients — believed the material Bread and Wine to be the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, on account of the presence and invisible opera- tion of the Holy Ghost in and by those elements." " The holy Fathers had a just sense of the dignity of the Christian mysteries, and the very centre in which all their reasonings and arguments on this subject meet, is this; that the Holy Ghost, at the prayers of the Priests and people, is in a peculiar manner present, and imparts a secret power to the Sacramental Body and Blood, by which they are made to be in energy and effect, though not in substance, the very Body and Blood which they represent." " And it is to be observed, that by this means — [the invocation of the Holy Ghost upon the elements] the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are made the most perfect and consummate representatives of the Body and Blood of Christ. They are not only substituted by His appointment and command to this purpose, but they are by the power of the Spirit, which is communicated to them so often as the celebration of this mystery is re- Oh. XV.] JOHNSON. SHARP. 215 peated, made the lively efficacious Sacrament of His Body and Blood : for the Holy Spirit is Christ's invisible and Divine deputy in His Church."* The reader must have observed in all these extracts from Johnson, that he does not speak of the presence of our Lord Himself in the Sacrament, or in the elements or under their forms : and that Johnson, conceiving that he had the ancient Fathers with him, held that the bread became the body, and the wine became the blood, through " the special presence of the Holy Ghost," who was invoked to come down upon them : that by the " secret influence " and " operation," " by the inward invisible power," of the Spirit, who is " in a peculiar manner present, and imparts a secret power" to the elements, they " are made the lively efficacious Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ," " His spiritual body," " the most perfect and con- summate representatives of His body and blood," " the very body of Christ, in power and energy, and to all intents and purposes of religion." And from this, he " takes it for granted that the body and blood of Christ, are actually there, whether " it be discerned or not." In all this, there is nothing of the presence of that body of our Lord itself which was born of the Virgin, and suffered upon the cross. Neither are the elements supposed to be his body and blood, by the presence and operation of his Godhead : but by the power, operation, and presence of the Holy Spirit, who u is Christ's invisible and Divine deputy in His Church." Archbishop Shaep. " Do we not in the Sacrament truly partake of the Body and Blood of Christ ? God forbid that any one should deny it. To all worthy re- ceivers the Body and Blood of Christ is both given and likewise received by them. This is the sense of the Church of England, when she doth so often declare that she owns the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood to all that worthily receive the Sacrament." " We do indeed own that Christ is really present in the Sacrament to all worthy receivers." A real presence, certainly, is declared in these places of the Archbishop of York, but it is not "The Eeal Objective Presence " which Doctor Pusey propounds to us. It is a presence " in the Sacrament " which the Archbishop declares. He does not say, in the elements or their form: nor that it is a presence absolute there, a presence whether the Sacrament be received or not, a * The Unbloody Sacrifice, Lib. of Angl. Cath. Divmitv.I. ii. 1, Oxford, 1847, 1. 266, 267, 272. 216 SHARP. LESLIE. [Ch. XV. presence to all, whether they be duly disposed or not ; but he owns that " Christ is really present in the Sacrament to all worthy receivers." But in other places he says that " the literal sense is impossible ; " " that the Body and Blood of Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion ; — our eating and drinking of that Body and Blood, is our being made partakers of those benefits." " Christ hath but one body, and that body is now in heaven, and not here, and she [our Church] declares further, that that body which we eat is for the nourishment of our souls (which the body of Christ in a proper literal sense, though it were here present, could not contribute anything to)."* Leslie. " Nor can the shew-bread in the temple be called the bread of our God so properly, so strictly, so eminently, as the Bread in the Holy Sacra- ment, which is the Body of Christ. [And we being many, are one Bread and one Body ; for we are all partakers of that one Bread, 1 Cor. x. 17.] And does not then holiness and honour belong as much, at least, to the Evangelical Priesthood, who offer this Bread of our God, as the priests under the Law who set the shew-bread upon the holy table in the temple ? And is not the one as properly the office of a priest as the other ? " That "the bread in the holy Sacrament — is the body of Christ," is one thing ; that the bread contains, or that its form has under it, the Real Presence of his glorified body is quite another. And this, which is the doctrine of " The Real Pre- sence," Leslie had no thought of saying. He says : — " There is not one man in your communion [the Roman"] but must own that the words of institution are figurative." — " Our Saviour was then fulfilling a type of himself, which was the Passover, and he kept to the same Phrase or Form of words which was customary with the Jews in their celebration of it, only putting himself in the room of his type, as instead of This is the Paschal Lamb which was slain for us in iEgypt, he said, This is my body which is given for you. And when Moses sprinkled the Blood, it was with this form of words, This is the Blood of the Testa- ment which God hath enjoined unto you. Instead of which Old Testament Christ said, This is my Blood of the New Testament. In which words there is no difficulty at all, for no mortal can understand these words of Moses in a transubstantial sense, and why should they the same words when Christ spoke them, following the very form of the words of Moses ? This made it familiar and easy to the Apostles, who called many things hard sayings which were not so difficult as this, and yet expressed no wonder or astonishment at these words of Christ, which had been impos- sible for them not to have done, if they had taken them in the sense of * Goode on the Eucharist, II. 954. f Cm. XV.] LESLIE. BRETT. 217 Transubstantiation, for it was a new thing, never before heard of or thought of in the world.'' " If all the benefits of the death of Christ be conveyed to us in this Sacrament, by a figurative and symbolical representation of his Body and Blood, and that it be so instituted for this end ; it is to all intents and purposes as beneficial to us, as if we had eat the Flesh of Christ off his bones, or drank the very Blood, that came out of his side ; which is ab- horrent to think, and to avoid which you call this an unbloody Sacrifice. But how is it unbloody, if it be real blood, even the selfsame Blood which was shed upon the Cross ? " * Brett. " How shall they discern the Lord's Body, if they are not taught that the Lord's Body is here present ? " — " I will quicken or give him life by My Spirit, that Spirit by which My Body lives, and whose quickening or life-giving virtue I will impart to that material thing which I shall make my Body and Blood, when I give this natural Body and Blood of mine for the life of the world, or the redemption of mankind. It is not Christ's doctrine that quickens us and gives us life, but His Spirit, that Spirit which gives life to His own Body, and which together with His Body and Blood, or something which He dignifies with that name, which He has appointed to give us life. The Body and Blood, then, or Flesh and Blood, which in this Chapter He promised to give (saying, My flesh ivill I give) lor our food which should nourish us unto eternal life, can be no other than that Bread and Wine which He gave when He instituted the Holy Eucharist or Lord's Supper, at which time He dignified them with the name and virtue of His Body and Blood." " He communicated this Bread and Wine to His disciples, and called these elements His Body and Blood." " But now I will make good that promise to you ; here is Bread and Wine, which I have now offered to God, and have blessed them with My Spirit, and thereby made them My Body and Blood in power and virtue : these I now give to you, eat the one and drink the other, and you shall receive all the benefits and blessings you then heard Me promise to those who should eat My Flesh and drink My Blood." Thus Brett asserts "that the Lord's Body is here present/' but not " His own body." It is " that material thing," " or something," " those elements," " that bread and wine," which He " called," and " dignified with the name and virtue of His body and blood," to which He imparted the " quickening or life-giving virtue " of His Spirit, " that Spirit which gave life to His own body," the " bread and wine," which He " blessed with His Spirit," and " thereby made them His bod}T and blood in power and virtue." * The Case stated between the Churches of Rome and England, sect. 37. Loncl. 1721, I. 517, 518. 218 WHEATLEY. [Ch. XV. Truly the doctrine of " The Real Presence " is not to be dis- covered here. Wheatlet. " These elements are now consecrated, and so become the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ." " A Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and her Cate- chism, particularly in the two latter, in the first of which she tells us, Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no hare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent : — but the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord in a marvellous incorpora- tion, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost — is through Faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, fyc, who therefore (as she further instructs us in the Catechism) verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. This is the doctrine of the Church in re- lation to the Real Presence in the Sacrament." Wheatley says, as so many others say, that the consecrated elements are " become the body and blood of Christ." And un- doubtedly in the same sense in which they — are — become, they really are, the body and blood of Christ ; and therefore the body and blood of Christ are really present — in that sense. To be consistent therefore with himself, it must be in this sense that he speaks of " a Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist." But this is not " The Real Presence " to which he is cited to testify. That is " The Real Presence " of our Lord living and glorified in the bread and wine, or under their forms ; but the presence spoken of by Wheatley is not any other presence, — at least he does not say anything to inform us, or lead to the supposition, that he meant any other, than of the body and blood of Christ he had spoken of before, namely, that body and blood of Christ which the bread and wine by conse- cration had " become." The question of the teaching of the Church of England must be reserved for another place. We have only to remark here, that so far as the words, cited by Wheatley from the Homily, express his own belief, there is a very remarkable abstinence from any expression of "The Real Presence." Stating that " thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent," he goes on to say what it is, in such fervid words, that if he had believed the doctrine of " The Real Pre- sence," as it is propounded in this generation, he must have Ch. XV.] WHEATLEY. WILSON. 219 said something like this : — " but the very Lord Himself, His very body, and His very blood." But leaving out those other words of the Homily drawn from " the Scripture, the Table of the Lord ; the Bread and Cup of the Lord ; the Memory of Christ ; the Annunciation of His Death ; 99 Wheatley says only, that the Supper of the Lord is " the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord in a marvellous incorporation, which by the opera- tion of the Holy Ghost — is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful." No believer in " The Eeal Presence " could have written, or would now write, in such terms as these : especially when his own words, and the tenor of his argument or state- ment, so plainly led the reader to expect him to say, what it is that is not absent, what it is that is present. And I cannot but think that if Wheatley thought of what he was saying, and measured his words to an accurate expression of his thoughts, he would not have said that the " doctrine of our Church in relation to the Eeal Presence in the Sacrament " is " entirely different from the doctrine of Transubstantiation," if he himself believed, or thought, that the doctrine of our Church retained the main point, the very hinge of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that " after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, true God and Man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of these sensible things." A doctrine which retains this dogma, could not be " entirely different from the doctrine of Transubstantia- tion." But this is the doctrine of " The Eeal Objective Pre- sence." I must conclude, therefore, that Wheatley is not justly cited as evidence for it. Bishop Wilson. " Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, that He may make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, and this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ." " May I always receive the Holy Sacrament in the same meaning, in- tention, and blessed effect, with which Jesus Christ administered it to His Apostles in His last Supper." I must add here, immediately from one of Bishop Wilson's Sermons, a few more words : — " Let a man, I say, be never so unlearned, yet he will easily understand, that he is not to look upon, and receive this bread and wine as common food, but as holy representatives of Christ's Body and Blood, made such by an especial blessing of God." * " The Bread and Wine are to represent * Sermon lxxvi. Works, Angl. Cath. Lib. III. 277. 220 WILSON. GRABE. [Ch. XV. the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. And being consecrated and received by us, they are the Body and Blood of Christ, in virtue and power." " The material Bread and Wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ in a spiritual manner, by prayer and the operation of the Holy Ghost." * " He then offered up Himself to God in the symbols of bread and wine, as a pledge of his real and natural body which he was just going to offer to God for the sins of the world. His sacramental body was given, offered, before he suffered. It was made his sacramental body, by his al- mighty word, none but God could do it, we therefore invoke the Holy Ghost one God wTith him, to make the elements what Christ himself made them, his sacramental body, it being the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. . . . It is the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Ghost, sent upon them in the prayer of the priest, which conveys to us the seed of eternal life." " We feed on this bread, now endued with a life-giving Spirit." f It was the doctrine, then, of Bishop Wilson that God the Holy Ghost is sent down upon the bread and wine : that by his " operation " they are made and " do become the body and blood of Christ," his " sacramental body" and blood ; being not " his real and natural body" and blood ; but "holy represent- atives of Christ's body and blood ; " " a pledge of his real and natural body ; " the body and blood of Christ " in a spiritual manner," " in virtue and power : " that " the Holy Ghost, sent upon the bread and wine — conveys to us the seeds of eternal life," and that they are thus " endued with a life-giving Spirit." One must therefore look in vain for any proof that Bishop Wilson taught the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence." Geabe. " The English Divines teach that in the Holy Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species, that is, the signs, of Bread and Wine, are offered to God, and become a representation of the Sacrifice of Christ once made upon the cross, whereby God may be rendered propitious." Whether the allegation as to the teaching of " the English Divines," here made by Grabe, be true or not, is a question which we have not here to consider : but supposing that he has expressed his own sentiments in this extract, we see that he believed " the body and blood of Christ " to be " under the species, — the signs, of bread and wine : " but if, as he says, " the body and blood of Christ — become a representation of the sacrifice of Christ once made upon the cross ; " there is no kind of resemblance of the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence " to be found in his words. * Plain and Short Directions, IV. 121. f I am indebted for these extracts to Dean G-oode's work, pp. 935, 936. Ch. XV.] PHILLPOTTS. 221 Bishop Phillpotts. "When any of us speak of this great mystery in terms best suited to its spiritual nature ; when, for instance, we speak of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, there is raised a cry, as if we were symbolizing with the Church of Rome, and as if this Presence, because it is real, can be nothing else than the gross, carnal, corporeal presence indicated in Transubstantiation." '•It is very true, that none of these declarations or formularies [of our Church] use the phrase 'real Presence,' and therefore, if any should at- tempt to impose the use of that phrase as necessary, he would be justly open to censure for requiring what the Church does not require. But, on the other hand, if we adopt the phrase, as not only aptly expressing the doctrine of the Church, but also as commended to our use by the practice of the soundest Divines of the Church of England, in an age more dis- tinguished for depth, as well as soundness, of theology than the present — such as Archbishops Bramhall, Sharp, and Wake, (all of whom do not only express their own judgment, but also are witnesses of the general judg- ment of the Church in and before their days; 'No genuine son of the Church of England,' says Bramhall, ' did ever deny a true real Presence ; ') if, I say, we adopt the phrase used by such men as these, and even by some of those, who at the Reformation sealed with their blood their testi- mony to the truth against the doctrine of Rome, (I allude especially to Bishops Ridley and Latimer — and even to Cranmer, who, when he avoided the phrase so abused by the Romanists, did yet employ equivalent words,) it will be sufficient for the justification both of them and of us to show that the language of the Church itself does in fact express the same thing, though in different terms. Still, I fully admit, that Christian discretion would bid us forbear from the use of the phrase, if the objection to it were founded on a sincere apprehension of giving offence to tender con- sciences ; and not, as there is too much reason to believe, on an aversion to the great truth which it is employed to express." What was the date of this Charge of Bishop Phillpotts, from which the above passage was extracted, I do not know ; for no date is given with it in the Catena : but I cannot help sus- pecting, that if the Bishop were now living and in full possession of his well-known powers of mind, he might have seen and acknowledged another reason in addition, for avoiding the use of the term, which he here admitted it might in some circum- stances be a matter of " Christian discretion " to " forbear." I may be mistaken in thinking, but I do venture to think, that the Bishop used the term in a very different sense from that which he is here brought in to support. He identified his own opinion with the opinion of those whom he justly called " the soundest Divines of the Church of England ; " and in 222 PHILLPOTTS. PALMER. [Ch. XV. particular, of Archbishops Bramhall, Sharp, and Wake : and being, no doubt, therefore well acquainted with their doctrine, his acute and logical mind would never have identified it with the doctrine of " The Real Presence " as it is taught now-a-days. When Archbishop Bramhall said that he rested in these words of Christ " This is my body, This is my blood ; " Bishop Phill- potts would have seen that this was very different from saying, " This contains or has in it the presence of my glorified body." When Archbishop Wake said : " In His human nature, and particularly His body, He is in heaven only ; nor can that be otherwise present to us on earth, than by figure and represent- ation : " and when Archbishop Sharp said that " the literal sense [of the words of institution] is impossible ; " " that the Body and Blood of Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion ; " that the body of Christ " is now in heaven, and not here ; " and that " that body which we eat is for the nourishment of our souls which the body of Christ in a proper and literal sense, though it were here present, would not contribute anything to : " I cannot pay so ill a compliment to the memory of Bishop Phillpotts, as to imagine for a moment that he would identify the doctrine of these Pre- lates with the doctrine of "The Real Objective Presence," which is taught by Dr. Pusey. Nor can the reader fail to observe, that although the Bishop defended the use of the term " Real Presence," he did not state his own views of the doctrine ; nor even intimate them any further than his reference to Archbishops Bramhall, Sharp, and Wake, may be taken to intimate that his opinions agreed with theirs. The Catena concludes with a " summary of the Anglo- Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist," from Mr. Palmer's treatise on the Church : (not vol. II., but vol. I. part II. c. vii. p. 526, &c.,) from which I select the following passages. "This Catholic and Apostolic Church [the Church of England] has always avoided any attempt to determine too minutely the mode of the true Presence in the Holy Eucharist." — " Taking as her immoveable foundation the words of Jesus Christ : i This is My Body . . . This is My Blood, of the New Covenant ; ' and ' Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life ; ' she believes, that the Body or Flesh, and the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Kedeemer of the world, both God and man, united indivisibly in one Person, and verily and indeed given to, taken, eaten, and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper, under Ch. XV.] PALMER. 223 the outward sign or form of bread and wine, which is, on this account, the ' partaking or communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.' She believes that the Eucharist is not the sign of an absent body, and that those who partake of it receive not merely the figure, or shadow, or sign of Christ's body, but the reality itself. And as Christ's divine and human natures are inseparably united, so she believes that we receive in the Eucharist, not only the Flesh and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, both God and man." " She holds that the presence (and therefore the eating) of Christ's Body and Blood, though true, is altogether heavenly and spiritual." "Believing according to the Scriptures, that Christ ascended in His natural body into heaven, and shall only come from thence at the end of the world ; she rejects for this reason, as well as the last, any such real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood as is 'corporal' or organised, that is according to the known and earthly mode of existence of a body. "Resting on the Divine promise, ' Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life,' she regards it as the more pious and pro- bable opinion, that the wicked, those who are totally devoid of true and living faith, do not partake of the Holy Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, God withdrawing from them so 'divine' a gift, and not permitting His ene- mies to partake of it. And hence she holds, that such a faith is 'the means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten,' ' a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies ; ' because it is the essential quali- fication on our parts, without which that Body is not received ; and because 'without faith it is impossible to please God.' " "The Lord's Body is truly present in that Sacrament. Hence it is that the Church believing firmly in the real Presence of the ' precious Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ,' speaks of the Eucharist, 'as high and holy mysteries,' exhorts us to consider the 'dignity of that holy mystery,' that 'heavenly feast,' that 'holy table,' 'the banquet of that most heavenly food,' even 'the King of kings' table.' " We have not here to consider the accuracy of this represen- tation of the doctrine of our Church. We have only to deal with it as an expression of the doctrine of the author himself : although " the sanction of the Most Reverend the Archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh" is claimed for it in the Catena, somewhat too confidently, I think. This learned and judicious writer, then, asserts the " true Presence," the " real Presence of Christ's body and blood : " but he denies " any such real Presence of Christ's body and blood, as is corporal or organical ; " maintaining that it is " altogether heavenly and spiritual." He believes " that the body or flesh, and the blood of Jesus Christ — both God and man, — are verily and indeed given to, eaten, and received by the faithful," and " regards it as the more pious and probable opinion that the 224 PALMER. [Ch. XV. wicked, those who are totally devoid of true and living faith, do not partake of the holy flesh of Christ in the Eucha- rist : " and therefore " that such a faith — is the essential quali- fication on our part, without which that body is not received." But that the " immoveable foundation " of this doctrine is, " the words of Jesus, c This is my body, This is my blood.' " Mr. Palmer, therefore, building on this " immoveable founda- tion," must be taken to believe that the bread — is — the body, and that the wine — is — the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ : and to mean nothing inconsistent with this. He does not affirm, as the doctrine of " The Real Presence " affirms, the real presence of our Lord's body and blood under the form of bread and wine : though he says, that the body and blood of Christ " are verily and indeed given — and received — under the outward sign or form of bread and wine ; " from which some would infer, that if they are given, they are present, under the form : but he quali- fies this by saying, that it is to " the faithful " they are " given : " that faith is the essential qualification without which that body is not received ; and that " the wicked — do not partake of it." It does not seem, therefore, at all clear, that Mr. Palmer teaches w The Real Objective Presence of our Lord's body and blood under the form of bread and wine." But the " true " and 66 real presence " of the body and blood of Christ, he affirms is not " corporal or organical." The ex- pression is, at least, paradoxical ; and at all events, inconsistent with the doctrine of " The Real Presence," which Dr. Pusey and those who symbolise with him, teach. For Archdeacon Wil- berforce says that " the mention of our Lord's Body and Blood implies the presence of His man's nature," and " by virtue of that personal union, whereby the manhood was taken into God, it involves the presence of His Godhead also : " * in short, it implies the presence of " Himself, Godhead, Soul, and Body; " whole Christ, that is, as the Romanists phrase it. This is the doctrine of " The Real Presence." The whole organism of his body, his whole organical body, his human body, with all its organical parts : his body living ; animated by his soul ; and in hypostatic union with his Godhead. But Mr. Palmer says this body is not organically present, or more strictly in his own words, there is not an " organical presence " of his body in the Eu- charist ; which, I can only conjecture to mean, that it is not the organical body of our Lord which is present ; or else that his * Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 90, 91. On. XV.] "REAL PRESENCE" NOT SO COMMONLY USED 225 organical body is present, but not organically : and in either case, not really. "For a body to be not bodily present, is to be absent ; and any presence attributable to it, is but virtual : and for an organical body to be not organically present, is the same thing in other words. I admit, that this may not be Mr. Palmer's view of the meaning of " a presence not organical : " but there is nothing in the expression of his views here presented to us, to lead to a different conclusion ; nothing from which it is to be concluded that he has taught or intended to teach " The Real Objective Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in His glorified body under the form of bread and wine." Fuller consideration will be given in the proper place to his and other representations of the doctrine of our Church. In this place, we have only to record the conclusion, that not one of the Divines who have been cited as witnesses for the doctrine of " The Eeal Presence," as it is now taught by a party in the Church of England, has been found to give evidence in its favour. As for the term itself, it has been by no means so commonly adopted, as has been imagined. Bishop Montagu, in the second or third decade of the seventeenth century, is the earliest of our Post-reformation writers to whom Dr. Pusey's collections have enabled me to trace its use, as expressive of their doctrine. And there can be little doubt that if there had been any earlier authorities, they would have been brought before us. But Bishop Montagu's doctrine was not of "The Real Presence," as it is now taught. He says : — '"We know not the manner : we do not busy ourselves about [a manner which is] impossible to be traced : we believe the thing done, and em- brace what He said, 1 This is My body, this is My blood.' " " We are ignorantly enough said of late to have denied the real presence." " His body and blood are in a figure given us to eat and to drink." " In the English Liturgy, — we never call [the elements] bread and wine as [^ve do] before [consecration,] but the body and the blood. For these elements exhibit them in reality, as all the Sacraments instituted by Christ [do exhibit] that which they figure." 81 " The body is mystically represented. So also the body of the Church is the true and Real body of Christ but not carnal." 81 " Modnm nescimus : non satagimus impervestigabilem : Rem factam credimus. et amplectimur quod avrbs % o DO 6 either destruction of the life of the victim by bloodshe elding, or destruction of the being of the offering by fire:111 that the sacrifices were a symbolical confession of sin, and required an actual confession of it ; that they were a symbolical acknow- ledgment of its demerit, deprecation of the penalty which was due to it, and profession of hope and trust in the promised mercy of God. From these considerations, we must define a material sacri- fice to be one or more of certain living or inanimate things appointed by Almighty God, and offered to Him by the de- struction of life by blood-shedding, or of being by fire. And by this or some other equivalent definition, must the question be determined, whether we do or do not offer a material sacrifice in the Eucharist. Now the affirmative is maintained on the strength of other definitions, which being granted, the conclusion asserting a material sacrifice must follow. Such definitions are, therefore, now to be examined. These definitions may all be called Post-Tridentine, and are fashioned with a view to the controversies of that period. St. Augustine, indeed, has two well-known definitions of sacri- fice : but they are far wide of the present question. He says that " a true sacrifice is every work which is done in order that by a holy fellowship we may abide in God : 93 but this refers to the act of offering, and not to the thing offered, and is a defi- nition of oblation and not specifically of material sacrifice. So also when he says : " a visible sacrifice is the sacrament of an invisible sacrifice ; " 112 though he refers to some visible, external, material thing offered ; yet the definition covers all oblations, whether sacrificed or not : for every offering is a sign of an invisible sacrifice. The definition, again, of Aquinas, which makes sacrifice to be " something done for the honour properly due to God in order to appease Him," 113 refers to the act of offering, and embraces oblations and sacrifices alike. 1,1 Theophylact says : " Sacrifices are the offerings by blood and flesh ; or, more accurate]}- this, all things which are offered by fire. For 6vvia is properly from dvecrdai, which is. to send forth smoke. Quaiai elfflv ai 5i a'iuaros nal Kpeusv TTpocxayusyaV $1 Toye aKpifSiarspov. -naura treamus Deo. — Sacrificium ergo visibile iuvisibilis sacriticii sacramentum est." — De Civ. Dei, i x. 6. 5. 113 Summa Theol. III. q. 48, art. 3, con. : " Sacrificmm proprie dicitur illiquid factum in honorem proprie Deo debitum ad eum placandum." 334 DEFECTIVE DEFINITIONS. [Pt. H. Another of his definitions is : " Sacrifices are properly so named, when anything is done about things which have been offered to God : as that animals were slain and burnt : that bread is broken, and is eaten, and is blessed : — and this the name itself intimates. For sacrifice is called from this, that the man does some sacred thing. But it is rightly named oblation, when anything is offered to God, although nothing be done about it." 114 This definition is obviously constructed for the purpose of supporting the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist. But, although a writer in the Theologian and Ecclesiastic,* seems to refer to it as a decisive authority, it will not bear a moment's examination. A sacrifice, let us say, is " when anything is done about things which have been offered to God." Let it be granted, then, that bread is offered to God: but let one of many possible things be done about it, as that it be thrown into a river : is it then a sacrifice ? The notion is absurd. Again, the definition says that it is a sacrifice, when " bread is broken, and is eaten, and is blessed " : which is totally to reverse the order of the Sacrament, and of the Roman sacrifice. The bread is first blessed, and then it is broken, and last of all it is eaten. But if it were eaten before it is blessed : then, that which is received is mere bread only ; and there is neither transubstantiation nor sacrifice, but in the stomach of the com- municant. The question whether the bread is sacrificed by being eaten, will be treated more fully, when we come to Johnson's defi- nition. Beliarmine, however, attempts a very full and precise de- finition. He says : " A sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone, by which for the acknowledgment of human infirmity, and the profession of the Divine Majesty, some thing sensible and permanent is consecrated by a legitimate minister in a mystical rite, and is transmuted." And in explanation of this transmutation, he adds : " because it is required for a true sacrifice, that that which is offered to God for a sacrifice, should be wholly destroyed, that is, should be so changed, that it should cease to be that which it was before." 115 114 " Sacrificia proprie dicuntur. qiiando circa res Deo oblatas aliquid fit : sicut quod animalia occidebantur, et comburebantur : quod panis frangitur, et comeditur, et bene- dicilur: et hoc ipsum nomeu sonat. Nam sacrificium dicitur ex hoc quod homo facit aliquid sacrum. Oblatio autem direete dicitur cum Deo aliquid offertur etiamsi nihil circa ipsum flat." — II. 2dse, q. 85, art. 3. * January 18o0, pp. 40, &c. 115 De Missa, I. ii. : " Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo, qua ad agnitionera Os. iv.] BE LL AR MINE "S DEFINITION. 335 But this definition either excludes the sacrifices of the Old Testament, for there is no proof that they were consecrated ; or it assumes that they were " consecrated by a mystical rite " before they were offered. In the one case, the definition totally fails ; in the other its validity depends on the proof of the fact assumed. The proof proposed is this : the etymological signification of the word to sacrifice is to make sacred, 116 to consecrate : and the consecration, moreover, was accomplished by the mystical rite of " the imposition of hands upon the victim, or of the elevation of the oblation." 117 But if to make sacred or to consecrate, was to sacrifice, then everything dedi- cated or offered to God was sacrificed whether the life or being of the offering was destroyed or not : and if, again, the conse- cration, and therefore the sacrifice, was effected by the impo- sition of hands or the elevation of the offering, the sacrifice was made before its life or being was destroyed : which is as much as to say, that the victim was sacrificed before it was slain, that the sacrifice was made before it was sacrificed. Nor is there any proof that the victim was consecrated by the laying on of the offerer's hands. We have seen that the signification of the " mystical rite " of the hands being laid on the head of the victim, was, that it was made to bear the sins of the offerer which had been confessed by him. But it is a mere assumption that the victim was consecrated by that rite. And even if it was consecrated by it ; yet to say, as the argument requires, that the victim was sacrificed by the offerer laying his hands upon its head, is to utter an evident absur- dity. Neither was the victim consecrated by any elevation. The rite or ceremony of elevation, was not confined to sacri- fices,"* which it must have been, if to elevate or heave were to consecrate, and to consecrate were to sacrifice. It was used in the offering of tithes, and of tribute of the spoils taken in war ; t with certain parts of sacrifices already offered and made ; J and with the meat offering which was added to certain humanse infirmitatis, et professionem Divinae Majestatis a legitimo ministro res aliqua sensibilis et permanent ritu mystico consecratur, et transmutatur. — Quia ad verum saerificium requiritur, ut id quod offertur Deo in saerificiuni, plane destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id quod ante erat." 1,6 Aquinas also savs : " Saerificium dieitur ex hoc quod homo facit aliquid sacrum." —II. ii. q. 85, 3. 117 " Ista autem consecratio et dedicatio semper fiebat in lege veteri certo ritu. et caerimonia mysterium continente. ut impositione manuum super victimam, vel eleva- . tione oblationis in altum. Et in hoc distinguitur saerificium a simplici oblatione, • quae non requirit ex se ullam t jusmodi mvsticam conseerationem." — Ibid. * Num. xviii. 24. 28: xxxi." 26-29. 41*. t Num. xt. 19 21 ; xviii. 24, 28; xxxi. 29, 41. J Exod. xxix. 24, 26, 2? ; Lev. x. 15. 336 IT IS DEFECTIVE, UNSOUND, [Pt. EE sacrifices. * But the elevation or heaving of the offering did not signify consecration to the Lord ; for the whole victim, of which parts were heaved, had been already offered to Him : and the heaving or the waving of those parts showed that they be- longed to the priests according to the Divine appointment, and appropriated them to their use. 118 Nor, again, is there any real foundation in Holy Scripture for the assertion that " it is required for a true sacrifice that that which is offered to God for a sacrifice should be wholly destroyed." Life or being, indeed, was wholly destroyed in all sacrifices ; but the matter of the sacrifice was wholly de- stroyed only in one kind of sacrifice. The sacrifice of the Passover was to be wholly eaten ; and all the other sacrifices, save one kind, were to be partly eaten by the priests and their families, or by the offerers and their friends. If it be said that to eat is to destroy, this is to use the word destroy in a very unusual and untrue meaning : and to apply it to the burning of sacrifices by fire, and to the consumption of them by eating, is to abuse it by a double sense. And again, the explanation of a sacrifice being wholly destroyed, as meaning that it " should be so changed that it should cease to be that which it was before," is contrary to the fact ; for the meat offering was not so changed, and a lamb, offered in sacrifice, is still a lamb after its life has been destroyed. It has not " ceased to be that which it was before " it was sacrificed. It was a living lamb : it is now a dead lamb : it is a lamb still. It may be remarked also, that although the definition before us was purposely constructed to fit in with the doctrines of transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Mass, it is alto- gether destructive of them. The definition, it is true, would make a sacrifice of the elements by their elevation : for in the Soman Missal, they are elevated and offered,119 before they are consecrated by the words of the institution, and, we may say, in another and distinct part of the Mass ; their elevation and * Lev. vii. 11-14. 118 Lev. x. 14, 15 ; Num. xviii. 8-12, 24. The heave offering and the wave offering differed in this — that the former was agitated up and down ; the latter from side to side: and one part of the same sacrifice was sometimes heaved, and another part was waved. Exod. xxix. 27; Lev. vii. 30, 32, 34. 119 Accipit Patenam cum Hostia, et ambabus manibus ad pectus earn elevatam tenens. — Accipit maim dextra Calicem discoopertum ; et stans ante medium Altaris, ipsum ambabus manibus elevatum tenens." — "Suscipe, sancte Pater, hanc immacu- latam Hostiam, quam ego indignus famulus tuns offero tibi. — Offerimus tibi, Pomine, Calicem salutaris. — Ohlatis, qupesumus, Pomine, placare mnneribus." — Missale Romanum, Antverpise, 1657, Pe Piribus celebrandi Missam, vii. 2, d ; Ibid. pp. 297, 298; Rock's Hierurgia, pp. 18, 19, 24. Ch. IV.] CONTRARY TO THE TRENT DOCTRINE, oblation being in the " Ordo Missse," and the words of the insti- tution being recited in the " Canon Missse." * And if elevation be " a mystical rite " by which an oblation is consecrated ; and if " to consecrate " is " to sacrifice " : then the elements are sacrificed by this elevation. And again, if they be a true sacri- fice, as the definition assumes; and if it be "required for a true sacrifice that that which is offered to God for a sacrifice should be wholly destroyed ; " and if to "be wholly destroyed " is to " be so changed as to cease to be that which it was be- fore : 33 then by the elevation of the elements which consecrates, and therefore sacrifices, them, they are " wholly destroyed," and so " changed that " they have " ceased to be that which they were before." What are they, then, changed into ? the indi- viduum vagum, which some have fancied " This " in the words of the institution to mean ? or are they become, " by anticipa- tion," 120 " an unspotted Host or Victim " ? What is the change, amounting to total destruction, which they have undergone ? But that the elements are a sacrifice, and have therefore " ceased to be that which they were before," according to Bellarmine's definition, is irreconcileable with the definition of the Council of Trent, which declares, that, not some unknown thing, or the substance of some unknown tiling under the form of bread .and wine, but, " the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine is converted into the sub- stance of His blood : " and this, not by the sacrifice of the bread and wine, but by their formal consecration with the words of our Lord at the institution of the Sacrament.121 The Cardinal's definition makes a sacrifice of the elements by their elevation, and a change in them by which they have " ceased to be that which they were before " : the Council of Trent has it, that, notwithstanding the sacrifice, they are not changed, but are still bread and wine up to the very moment of consecration by our Lord's words. And there is much more important variance between the * Missale Rom. pp. 297, 360. 120 Dr. Rock, ibid. p. 75, note 59. " Anticipation " is a very convenient figure for divines of Rome. Husenbeth said, that " the body -which Christ gave was by anticipa- tion his glorified body, which was capable of being in many places at o>iee,'' ccc. De- fence against Blanco White, Lond. 1826, p. 79. 121 '• Ha?c Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini, conversionem fieri totius substantia; panis in substantiam corporis Christi. Domini nostri, et totius sub- stantia? vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus." — Sess. 13, c. 4. "Sequitur nunc ut de forma, qua ad consecrandum panem uti oporteat agatur. — Itaque a Sanctis evange- , Hstis, Matthseo et Luca, itemque ab Apostolo docemur, illam esse form am, Hoc erf corpus meurn. — Hie est calix sanguinis mei" &c. — Cat. Cone. Trid. II. iv. 20, 21. Z 338 AND OVERTURNS THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. [Pt. H. Cardinal's definition and the doctrine of his Church. That doctrine is that the whole substance of the elements is changed into the body and blood of Christ : that " immediately after con- secration, the true body of our Lord, and His true blood exist under the species of the bread and wine, together with His soul and Divinity : " and that " a true and proper sacrifice," " one and the same sacrifice, which was offered upon the cross," is offered in the Mass to God ; the only difference being between "a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice," 122 or "in the manner of offering " it : in short, that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is offered as a sacrifice, is immolated in the Mass, to God. But by Bellarmine's definition, that which is offered as a sacrifice is " wholly destroyed, that is, has ceased to be that which it was before " : and therefore, Christ our Lord being offered, has ceased to be that which He was before. He is changed by the sacrifice, and his body and blood are no longer his body and blood. By the very act of the sacrifice, the sacrifice made of Christ Himself,123 the Immutable is "transmuted"; He is " wholly destroyed," and ceases to be what He was, if Bellar- mine's definition be right. But it is impossible for Him who is "the same for ever," to be changed or to cease to be what He is : and, therefore, the definition is wrong, as well as at variance with the doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass. And yet again, the definition before us would overturn the very sacrifice on the cross. It decides that a true sacrifice must be " wholly destroyed," so " that it should cease to be that which it was before." Now our Lord could not be " wholly de- stroyed," nor " cease to be that which He was before " : and therefore, if the definition were right, He could not be a true sacrifice. But inasmuch as He has "put away sin by the sacri- fice of Himself," and " by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified ; " * and inasmuch as this offering " is that which was figured by various similitudes of sacrifices in 122 " Si quis dixerit, in Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium ; ant quod offerri non sit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad rnanducandum dari ; anathema sit." — Cone. Trid. sess. 22, can. 1. "Una enim eademque est hostia, idemque nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi rations diversa." — Ibid. c. 2. " Unum itaque et idem sacrificium esse fatemur et haberi debit, quod in Missa peragitur et quod in cruce oblatum est, quemadmodum una et eadom hostia, Christus videlicet Bominus noster, qui seipsum in ara crucis semel tan- tummodo cruentum immolavit. — Neque enim cruenta et iucruenta hostia duse sunt hestise." y-3 " Quid nobis sperandum de eo sacrificio, in quo ille ipse immolatur atque offertur ?"— Cat. Con. Trid. II. 75. * Heb. ix. 26 ; x. 14. Ch. IV.] MEDE'S DEFINITION OF SACRIFICES. 339 the time of nature and of the law ; since, as the consummation and perfection of them all, it embraces all the good things which were signified by them ; ?' 124 and no other sacrifice could put away sin : * his sacrifice was beyond all others a true aud proper sacrifice ; or rather, it is the only true and proper sacri- fice. It alone fulfilled the will of God, and " obtained eternal redemption for" "all that come unto God by Him : " and no sacri- fice which men can make is acceptable to God, but through it.f It would be needless to express the conclusion necessarily to be drawn from these remarks, but for form's sake : namely, that the definition of sacrifice put forth by this great champion of Eomish doctrine, is utterly inconsistent with the sacrifices of Scripture, and is destructive not only of the doctrines which it was constructed to support, but even of the very sacrifice of our Lord Himself upon the cross. I have devoted so much space to the definition of Cardinal Bellarmine, because it seems to be the model on which writers of his Church usually frame their definitions : 125 and because it has been imitated by a very learned writer of the Church of England. Mede, to whom it appears that the theory of a material sacrifice in our Church is chiefly owing, proposes these defini- tions : " A sacrifice is an offering whereby the offerer is made partaker of his God's table, in token of covenant and friendship with him, &c, or more explicitly thus ; An offering unto the Divine Majesty of that which is given for the food of man, that the offerer partaking thereof might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into covenant and fellowship with lu li Hsec denique ilia est, quje per varias saerificiorum, naturae et legis tempore, similitudiues figurabatur ; utpote, quae bona omnia, per ilia significata, velut ilioruni omnium consummatio et perfectio complectitur." — Cone. Trid. sess. 22, c. i. * Heb. x. 4. t Heb. x. 8-10; ix. 12 ; vii. 25. 125 "Sacrifieium stricte et proprie dictum — definiri potest: ' Oblatio externa rei sensibilis et propria existentia permanentis, soli Deo facta, a legitimo Ministro, ad recognoscendum supremum ejus in omnes creaturas dominium : et eoritu ut res oblata destruatur, vel saltern immutatur." Delahogue, De Eucharistia, ii. c. 1, Dubl. 1828, p. 234. " Sacrifieium proprie et stricte sumptum pro actione sacrificativa, de quo hie agimus, sic defiuitur: Oblatio externa, quae res aliqua sensibilis et permanens per egitimimi 3Iinistrum consecratur, perimitur aut aliter immutatur in protestationem •upremi Dei in res omnes creatas dominii, nostrpeque erga eum subjectionis." — Dens, Theologia, Dubl. 1832, v. 354. " Exterior sacrifice, according to the proper acceptat- ion of the term, is an offering or oblation of some sensible thing, by a lawfully ap- lointed minister, in order to acknowledge, by the destruction, or, at least, the change ffected in the offering, the majesty and sovereign power of God : to proclaim his bsolute dominion over everything created : — and while we make a contrite declaration f our sinfulness, and confess our weakness, to deprecate his wrath, and seek his ivour."— Rock's Hierurgia, p. 119. z 2 340 MEDES DEFINITION OF SACRIFICE. [Pt. II. his God, by eating and drinking at his Table." * But these definitions altogether exclude the burnt offerings, and those other sacrifices of which no part was eaten by those who offered them. There was only one kind of sacrifices, the peace offerings, of which the offerer was " made partaker " at " God's table." Mede's definitions must, therefore, be rejected as being definitions not of sacrifice, but of only one kind of sacri- fice. And even with regard to this kind they are defective in one very essential point : they ignore the death of the victim of which the offerer was made partaker at " God's table." They were drawn up for the purpose of making it appear, that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are a strict and proper sacrifice made to God by the worshippers : and, therefore, since these elements are not destroyed, like as part of the meat-offerings was destroyed by fire ; the destruction of life or being in the sacrifices of which the offerers partook is kept out of sight. But as another object of Mede's treatise was to show by the analogy of Patriarchal, Mosaic, and heathen sacrifices, that the elements in the Lord's Supper are not only a sacrifice, but also a Covenant feast, in which God is " the entertainer or maker of the feast, and man the con viva or guest ; " he says : " to which end the viands for this sacred Epiolum were first to be offered unto God, and so made his ; that he might entertain the offerer, and not the offerer him. For we are to observe, that what the fire consumed was accounted as God's own mess, and called by himself the meat of his fire- offerings (Lev. iii. 11, 16, Kum. xxviii. 2, 24) : the rest was for his guests." t Yet even here he forgets the distinction which he himself had laid down between oblation and sacrifice ; and because the bread and wine are, or may be, an oblation offered to God, he assumes that the}r are therefore a sacrifice. He is blind to the critical point of the analogy, namely, that the sacrifices of which the offerees partook were offered to God by the destruction of life or being : whereas there is nothing of the kind done in the Eucharist. There is no destruction of the bread or wine in that Sacrament. The definition of sacrifice proposed by Johnson, the author of The Unbloody Sacrifice, is as follows. " Sacrifice is, 1. Some material thing, either animate, or inanimate, offered to God, 2. for the acknowledging the dominion, and other attributes of * Christian Sacrifice, c. vii. Works, Lond. i. 470. f P. 471. Ch. IV.] JOHNSON'S DEFINITION. 341 God, or for procuring Divine blessings, especially remission of sin, 3, upon a proper altar (which yet is rather necessary for the external decorum than the internal perfection of the sacri- fice), 4, by a proper officer, and with agreeable rites, 5, and consumed or otherwise disposed of in such a manner as the Author of the sacrifice has appointed." 126 Xow this purposely excludes all spiritual sacrifices. He does not say, " a material sacrifice is something animate or inanimate offered to God " ; but, " sacrifice is some material tiling " : and he says in the next page : " that nothing can properly be called a sacrifice, but some material thing offered to God." And in this he follows Bellarmine, who makes sacri- fice " an external oblation " of " some sensible and permanent thing55:* and although acknowledging with St. Augustine that there are invisible as well as visible sacrifices ; that a visible sacrifice is a sacrament of an invisible sacrifice ; that the invisible is more noble and better than the visible ; that the invisible is pleasing to God without the visible ; and that the visible is not pleasing to God without the invisible ; yet strangely contends that " the name of sacrifice does not properly agree with an invisible oblation, but only to one that is visible and external." 127 But, assuredly, it is a very illogical, unreasonable, and in- consistent style of argument, to allow invisible sacrifices, and to show how much nobler and better they are than visible sacrifices ; and yet to deny them the name. Johnson, however, asserts that invisible oblations are sacri- fices, only "in a figurative and improper sense ; " 128 and con- tends that they must have visible and material sacrifices joined with them " to enforce " them and " to render them " the more effectual and prevailing with God." Whereas the Holy Scrip* 1:6 Works, Oxford. 1847. i. 71, introduction. Spencer has: "Mnnera oblata Deo, et in iliius honorem solemniter consumpta," p. 640. Outram: " -rpoacpopa, rite con- sunipta," p. 81. * See his definition in p. 334. 127 11 Duplex enim oblatio, et largo modo, duplex sacrificiura distingui potest, ut S. Angosturas distinguit, lib. 10 de civitate Dei, cap. 5, invisibile, sive internum, et visi- bile, sive externum. Invisibile est pia voluntas, quae Divinae "Majestati se et sua omnia offert : visibile autem est testificatio quaedam externa interni affectus. Quare ibidem Augustinus definiens visibile sacrificium invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est. sacrum signum esse dicit. Quamvis autem invisibilis oblatio sit nobilior, et melior visibili, et placeat Deo invisibilis sine visibili; visibilis sine invisibili Deo non placet : tamen nomen, et ratio sacrificii proprie non couvenit invisibili oblatioui, sed solum visibili et externa?, ut nos in definitione posuimus.'' — De Missa, I. ii. in " There is in Scripture mention made of spiritual sacrifices." — " I deny not but it [prayer] may be, and is. called so by ancient writers in a figurative and improper sense, as likewise a 'contrite spirit' is called a sacrifice by David.'" — II. lod> 152 Part 2, c. ii. sect. 2. 342 JOHNSON'S DEFINITION [Pt. H. tures represent spiritual oblations as not only sacrifices, but sacrifices in the highest sense. " The sacrifices of God are a troubled spirit." "Ye also, as livery stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri- fices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." " To do good, and to communicate, forget not 5 for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." * Most true it is, that no sacrifices, spiritual or material ; no prayers, or praises, no contrition, no devotion of one's self to God, can be acceptable in themselves to Him. There is only one sacrifice that can enforce them, or render them effectual or prevailing with God. They are " acceptable to Him " only, as St. Peter says, " by Jesus Christ." And therefore we may well allow, that material sacrifices offered in faith under the old dispensations, served and were necessary to make spiritual sacrifices effectual and prevailing with God. But the bare visible sacrifices, without the invisible, were not pleasing to God : they were no true sacrifices ; although they were requi- site to express invisible sacrifices, and to render these accept- able through that one Sacrifice not yet seen, which the visible external sacrifices symbolised. This definition of Johnson, again, appears to me, as well as the definition of Bellarmine, to be opposed to the doctrine of our Lord's sacrifice upon the cross. Johnson, indeed, as we have seen,f expressly asserts that our Lord " did offer his body and blood to God when He instituted " the Eucharist ; and that " there is no evidence that He did ao-ain on the cross make the oblation of his body and blood as a Priest." But if that only be a true sacrifice, as Bellarmine asserts, in which there is " an external oblation — of something sensible and permanent " : then it would follow, that our Lord's death was no true sacrifice, since He offered, not any external thing but " Himself." J And if a sacrifice must be " consumed," or if it must be " otherwise disposed of," by which must be meant " destroyed in some other way than by being consumed, so as at least to be no more what it was " : then it would follow, that as the oblation of our Lord Himself, as the soul and the body § which He offered for sin, were neither consumed nor destroyed in any other way ; his oblation was not a sacrifice. * Ps. li. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. It rray here be noticed, that although all material oblations are not sacrifices, yet all spiritual oblations are sacrifices, t P. 316. ♦ Heb. vii. 27 ; ix. 14, 25. § Isa. liii. 10; John x. 15; Heb. x. 10. Cn. IV.] OF SACRIFICE. 343 Whereas He gave Himself, but was not destroyed : He offered his soul and his body, but they were neither " consumed " nor otherwise destroyed. That his soul was " otherwise disposed of," by descending into Hades ; and that his body was " otherwise disposed of," by being buried : were consequent upon his sacri- fice : but the sacrifice was complete, when He said " It is finished," and " yielded up the ghost." * His sacrifice was com- plete and perfect on the cross : for on it He was slain, was killed, and yielded up his life. And in this was his sacrifice ; not in any disposal which was consequently made of that which He offered. Johnson, moreover, following up his definition, contends that because some sacrifices under the law consisted only of a meat offering, that is, of flour with oil and incense ; and be- cause, with the meat offering joined with other sacrifices, wine was used for a drink offering : that therefore bread and wine were a sacrifice under the law, and consequently are a sacri- fice under the Gospel. But first, it is not the fact that bread and wine alone were ever offered as a sacrifice under the institutions of Moses. That bread, either in its unmade con- dition of flour, or made into cakes, might be offered, is true ; but it was always salted with salt and mingled or anointed with oil,f except it was a sin-offering, when the oil was to bo omitted. And that wine was used for a drink offering, is also true : but it was always with a meat offering of flour in some way, mingled with oil ; and this with some animal sacrifice.! And again, if it were ever so certain that bread and wine were a sacrifice under the law ; it would by no means follow that they are therefore a sacrifice under the Gospel : unless it were demonstrated for a certainty, that whatever was a sacri- fice under the dispensation of Moses, was also, or might be, a sacrifice under the dispensation of Christ. But this, at least so far as I am aware, never has been, and never can be, done. One kind of sacrifices, indeed, which was necessary under the law, is alike necessary under the Gospel ; that is, spiritual sacrifices. But all others, all material sacrifices, have been abolished by the one sacrifice of Christ which " has perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Both the major and the minor premisses, therefore, of the syllogism are disproved : and the argument necessarily fails. Again, Johnson contends that inasmuch as the Passover was * .Tno. xix. 30; Mat. xxvii. 50. t Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, fee., &c. t Exod. xxix. 40, 41, &c, &c; Lev. v. 11. 344 JOHNSON'S AND THORNDIKE'S DEFINITIONS. [Pt. II. a sacrifice, and it was to be wholly eaten ; therefore the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine in the Eucharist, answer the same purpose as the burning of the old sacrifices on the altar. But he takes no account of the facts, first, that part of every meat-offering, part of every inanimate sacrifice, was burnt on the altar : secondly, that every animate sacrifice was slain ; whether the whole or part of it was burnt or not : and thirdly, that the Passover was killed, the life of the lamb taken, and its blood poured out, and so the sacrifice was made ; before any part of it was eaten. The eating of the Passover was not the act of sacrifice ; but was merely a feasting upon the sacrifice already offered and made. It was a consequent upon the act of sacrifice and not the act itself. Eating the bread, and drinking the wine, correspond to eating the paschal lamb, but not to the killing of the lamb, and the pouring out of its blood ; nor to the slaying of any other sacrifice, nor to the burning of any sacrifice, or part of a sacrifice upon the altar. The definition, therefore, which is constructed on the as- sumption, that manducation in the Eucharist corresponds to the sacrifice of the Passover, and also to the burning of part of a sacrifice,129 is altogether fallacious: and being adapted purposely to embrace the Eucharist, notwithstanding this essential diffe- rence between it and every material sacrifice in the Scriptures : it is only to prove a thing by itself, or to argue in a circle, to use it for the proof of a material sacrifice in the Lord's Supper. Thorndike, who maintains " that the Eucharist should be counted the sacrifice of Christ crucified, mystically, and as in a sacrament, represented to, and feasted upon by, his people " ; and that " the Eucharist is a sacrifice in a general notion, in regard to the prayers which it is presented to God with," and more particularly, "in regard, first, of the offering of the elements by the people to be consecrated and made that Sacra- ment; secondly, in regard of the offering and presenting of it : " 130 substantially agrees with the argument I have pursued. He says : " I insist, that if sacrificing signify killing and de- stroying in the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the sacrifice 129 To say that manducation is a legitimate way of consuming sacrifice, and so to make the eating of the sacrifice correspond to the altar fire, is only to make an altar of the eater's mouth. Laws of the Church, III. c. v. sect, 6. Works, Oxford, 1852, IV. 102. Service of God, &c, c. x. s. 9, vol. i. 860, 861. He gives, indeed, four reasons for calling the Eucharist a sacrifice: — 1. the oblation of the elements; 2. the prayers for all estates of men ; 3. the consecration ; 4. the oblation to God of the bodies and souls of the receivers, pp. 106, 107, 108, 118. Cn. IV.] DEFINITION BY ARCHDEACON WILBERFORCE. 345 of Christ upon the cross, it is not enough to make the Eucha- rist properly a sacrifice, that the elements are deputed to the worship of God by that change which transubstantiation im- porteth. — The consideration of dedicating the elements to the service of God in this Sacrament, makes them properly obla- tions : but the consideration of their being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, represented as sacrificed upon the cross, makes them properly no sacrifice. In the former con- sideration, being properly oblations, let them be improperly sacrifices." * And Archdeacon Wilberforce fully agrees with this view. He says : " Now what is meant in Scripture by an offering or sacrifice? In a strict sense it is something brought before God, and presented to Him with a view of obtaining His favour. This is the etymological sense of the word offering ; and sacri- fice, which is often used as its equivalent, involves, in common, the further idea of the slaughter of that which is offered." 131 Many other definitions, descriptions, or accounts, of sacrifice * Laws of the Church, III. v. 14, vol. iv. 113. 131 Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, c. xi. Lond. 1S53. 349. He goes on to say: "Now, in this full sense, [involving the further idea of the slaughter of that which is offered.] there is no sacrifice or offering which can be brought before God, except that body of Jesus Christ our Lord, with which He paid the price of our salvation. This true victim complied with every condition by which a sacrifice is characterised, that it might be presented before God as the perpetual ground of man's acceptance." 3Iost truly it did fulfil every condition of a sacrifice: but that sacrifice has been offered and brought before God. by Him who alone could offer it. We may make the memorial of it, and plead it, before God: but we cannot present it before Him in any higher sense : we cannot make that sacrifice and oblation of Christ which He made once for all. It is done, and can never be done again. The Archdeacon says also : " If the Holy Eucharist, therefore, is to be called in any peculiar manner the Christian sacri- fice, it can only be by reference to that one perfect propitiation upon the cross, by virtue of which we have in heaven an abiding sacrifice." By which I understand him to mean, as he had said before, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, only because of the "inward reality" of "the Body and Blood of Christ.*' For, he argues, "Let the presence of this inward part be admitted, and it is obvious that there is something in the sacrament which we can present to God." True : it could be presented, but not immolated. We could make no sacrifice of it. " Whereas, if the Zuinglian hypo- thesis be adopted, there is nothing to offer in the Holy Eucharist ; since it consists of nothing but an empty sign, which cannot seriously be looked upon as a becoming offering'' (pp. 349, 350, 347). Yet there is as much a material sacrifice under " the Zuinglian hypothesis" as under any other, whether the Eoman, or Mede's. or John- sen's. But the Archdeacon most clearly repudiates the idea of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist. Again, the Archdeacon says, that in the full sense in which he had defined sacrifice as distinguished from offering, " there is no sacrifice or offering which can be brought before God. except that body of Jesus Christ our Lord, with which He paid the price of our salvation." It is quite true, that if he meant "can" to apply to the present dispensation, there is no other sacrifice to be brought before God but that of Christ : but it is not true, if the assertion was meant generally : for the sacrifices of the old dispensation come up to the "full sense" of the definition. They were "brought before God," they were " presented to Him with the view of obtaining His favour" ; and there was " the slaughter of that which was offered." Neither again, is it true, that there is no offering which can be brought before God, but the sacrifice of Christ unless offering be synonymous with sacrifice here, and therefore a mere tautology. 346 MR. MEDD AND THE THEOLOGIANS. [pt. n. have been proposed : but I think they may be fitly classed under one or other of the definitions which have been thus reviewed. They are either definitions, descriptions, or accounts, of oblations, as including the subordinate genera or species, of oblations properly so called, of spiritual sacrifices, of material sacrifices, and the action by which any of these three species of oblations may be offered. It will be sufficient to notice two examples. Mr. Medd pro- poses this definition. " The word 6 sacrifice,' means the act of offering or presenting an oblation before Almighty God. Thi3 act does not necessarily imply in every case the offering of a living creature, which is sacrificed by the shedding of its blood. For instance, the offering presented by Melchisedek," [i.e. bread and wine, which he takes, somewhat illogically, for granted, had been a sacrifice offered by the King of Salem, before he brought them to Abraham.] — " Under the Levitical law, there were sacrifices of fine flour and bread, and of cakes of unleavened dough, mingled with oil, as well as of the living victims of sheep and oxen. For the essence of sacrifice as such — is not the material thing offered, but the inward disposition." * This definition, if it may be called a definition, seems to con- found the act and the subject of sacrifice : and, making " the essence of sacrifice " to consist in " the inward disposition j with which it is offered, it is a definition not of sacrifice, but of the higher genus of oblations ; which, whether they be things merely offered, or of things also immolated, necessarily require a suitable " inward disposition." It may be remarked, too, that it seems to assume that bread and wine, that is, bread and wine alone, were sacrifices in the ancient dispensations : an assumption which is very far from being as yet proved. 2. In the Theologian and Ecclesiastiae for January 1850, there is a laboured article on " The Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist," in which the writer says : "If He has commanded us to eat and drink Bread and Wine, which has been presented before Him, in His most solemn worship, and not to satisfy our hunger, but because He is pleased to give us surpassing blessings on that condition, unquestionably such Bread and Wine is con- sumed in His service, although eaten and drunk by His people. And thus the Eucharist is as proper a sacrifice as any that were offered before Christ came into the world, certainly a spiritual sacrifice, but not on this account immaterial, inas- much as it cannot be offered without the use of material * The Church and the World. Ch. IV.] ALL THESE DEFENTTI0N8 INCORRECT. 347 things." — " As in Communion we eat and drink Bread and Wine, and are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ : just so in sacrifice we offer Bread and Wine." And endea- vouring " to give a more exact account of sacrifice," he cites the definitions of Aquinas before noticed, giving the second of them as follows : " Sacrifices are properly named, when any- thing is done about things which have been offered to God ; as that animals were slain and burnt ; that bread is broken, eaten, and blessed ; but it is rightly called oblation when anything is offered to God although nothing be done about it." And with this, the writer seems so far satisfied, as to make no further " endeavour to give a more exact account." He says that " bread and wine " are " the matter of the sacrifice," and that " the manner of their consumption — may be regarded as a neces- sary part of the act of sacrificing, but cannot exclude them from being a sacrifice." * This account of sacrifice mainly agrees with the definitions of Bellarmine and Johnson, and stands or falls with them. From this examination of various definitions of sacrifice which have been proposed at various times, we find that none of them sets forth the true notion of material sacrifice, which is to be drawn from the material sacrifices of the Old Testa- ment. They all take for granted that the elements in the Eucharist are a sacrifice ; and they are constructed for the purpose of showing that they are a sacrifice. They are merely pdiiiones principii, and attenrpts to prove a thing by itself. However much they may be recommended and adorned by great learning and much argumentation, they all fail to meet that one especial distinction between sacrifices and simple oblations, that in all material sacrifices, there was the destruc- tion of life by bloodshedding, or of being by fire. * Pp. 37, 39, 40, 41. MS TEUE NOTION OF MATERIAL SACRIFICE. [Pt. n. CHAPTER V. PASSAGES OF HOLT SCRIPTURE "WHICH ARE ALLEGED FOR A MATERIAL SACRIFICE IN THE EUCHARIST. We have ascertained the true notion of material sacrifice, as it is to be derived from Scripture. We have ascertained that a material sacrifice is one or more of certain living or inanimate things commanded by Almighty God, and offered to Him by the destruction of the life of the victim by bloodshedding, or of its being or substance by fire. And we have found that every description or definition of material sacrifice, which does not include this essential distinction between oblation and sacrifice, of the destruction of life or substance, must be rejected. We have now, therefore, to examine whether there is any proof from Holy Scripture of a material sacrifice in the Lord's Supper. But very important distinctions must first be clearly laid down and understood : the distinctions between the service or rite of the Eucharist, and the elements used in it ; and the distinction in the sense of the word, sacrifice, as employed in either case. The service itself is called the Eucharistic sacri- fice ; and the elements of bread and wine, either by themselves or in combination with that which they signify, are also re- garded as the Eucharistic sacrifice. There are, as has been stated, only five 132 places of Scripture, which are alleged for a direct proof of a material sacrifice under the Gospel. The first is that passage of Malachi: " From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering : for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts." * The times of the Gospel are said to be here spoken of ; and to this, plainly, there can be no objection. But when 182 That is, understanding the four accounts of the institution as one; and the places also as one, which speak of our Lord as being a priest after the order of Melchisedek. * Ch. i. v. 11. Ch. v.] the PROPHECY IN MALACHI: 340 the passage is applied to the Eucharist, a distinction must be recollected between the elements, which are so commonly called the Eucharist, and the service in which they are used. Mede applies it to both. He says : — " Incense (as the Scripture itself, Rev. viii. 3, tells) notes the Prayers of the Saints. It was also that wherewith the remembrance, Isa. lxvi. 3, was made in the sacrifices, or God put in mind. Mincha, which we term Mnnus, a Gift or offering, is oblatio farrea, an offering made of meal or flower, baked or fried, or dried or parched corn. We, in our English, when we make distinction, call it a meat-offering ; but might call it a Bread- offering, of which the Libamen or the Drink-offering being an indivisible concomitant, both are implied under the name Mincha, where it alone is named. The application then is easy : Incense here notes the rational part of our Christian Sacrifice, which is Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Com- memoration ; Mincha the material part thereof, which is Oblatio farrea, a Present of Bread and Wine."* Now the words of the prophet name two material substances — incense, and Mincha, or meat- offering; and Mede, with all that follow him in this application of the passage, takes incense spiritually, mystically, or figuratively; but takes offering literally, and this again with a mystical qualification : for he says, in another place, that the purity of the offering depends on " the disposition and affection of the offerer." f This is, in substance, the interpretation of the theologians of Rome, and of all who advocate the theory of a material sacrifice. But it is clear that no critic or expositor of Holy Scripture would propose or accept such an interpretation, if he had not some special end to serve. He would not take one part of the sentence figuratively, and the other part literally, but would give to the whole one consistent interpretation ; and would take both " incense" and " offering " respectively, either for literal incense and literal offering, or for figurative incense and figurative offering. And taking incense for figurative incense, and offering for figurative offering, that is, for spiritual incense and spiritual offering; there is no difficulty ; the place receives a meaning worthy of its indisputable inten- tion, and the true principles of interpretation are observed. This interpretation seems to be fully authorised and enforced by those words of the Psalmist : " Let my prayer be set forth • before thee as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice." J But more particularly is it authenticated by the words in the * Christian Sacrifice, iii. Works, 1664, 454, 455. f Ibid. \ Ps. cxli. 2. 350 TO BE TAKEN IX OXE CONSISTENT SEXSE. [Pi. H. third chapter : " He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver : and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." Now these sons of Levi, were to be not literally sons or descendants of Levi, but figuratively or spirit- ually, as Bellarmine confesses.133 Now I believe that there is no question or doubt with any who take this passage of Malachi unmutilated, that " incense " is to be taken figuratively and spiritually. And it is only a foregone conclusion, that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are a sacrifice, which leads any to the inconsistency of taking " offering " literally, and thus to argue in a circle. The Church of Rome, indeed, mutilates the place ; giving it in the Yulgate which she imposes as her authentical standard of Holy Scrip- ture, in this way : " in omni loco sacrificetur, et offertur nomini meo oblatio munda : " the Douay version being ; " in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." It is thus cited in the Catechism of the Council of Trent,* and the controversialists of Eome produce it, of course, in the same form ; although Bellarmine acknowledges that the Hebrew and Greek read : " incense is offered, and a pure sacri- fice," and that some of the Fathers interpret incense of prayer.134 These versions of the Church of Rome clearly evade the diffi- culty of an inconsistent interpretation, and are in reality a testimony to the true interpretation, and to the necessity of making not only " incense," but " offering " spiritual. ' But it is not " offering " simply that is spoken of. It is " a pure offering." The " incense " to be offered would, indeed, be " pure," if offered under the old law ; and it would certainly be pure, in the dispensation to which the prophecy refers : but the " offering " under that dispensation was to be especially " pure." Now I cannot find that any offerings or sacrifices of the law, presented under its most rigid conditions, were ever called " pure." The animate things prescribed by it were to be of those which were called " clean " or " pure " : but the offerings of them I do not find to have been ever called " pure." And the flour or cakes which constituted the Mincha or meat-offer- ing, while it was to be of "fine flour," f was never called "a )33 "per filios Levi, non possunt iutelligi Levitae veteris Testamenti." * Pars. II. c. iv. De Euch. Sacram. sect. 81. '** "In Hebrcea et Grseca editione sic legimns : Incensum offertur nomini meo, et sacrificium mundum. Ubi vocem illara incensum Tertullianus interpretatur oraticmem, quod etiam ante eum fecit Irenseus — et post eura Hieron. — Sed posteriorem vocem sacrificium, comnmniter exponunt de Eucharistia." — De Missa Sacrif. c. x. vol. i. 751. f Lev. ii. 1, 4, 7. Ch. V.] "A PURE OFFERING." 351 pure offering." But the same material things under either dispensation would be alike " pure" in themselves. ISTo purer Mincha of flour could be offered under the Gospel, than that which was required under the law, or than that which had been offered by many under the law. The material offering, therefore, of the Mincha according to the law, would not be less pure in itself, than any other such offering would be in itself under the dispensation foretold in the prophecy. For what reason, then, is the " offering " which was to be made " from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same," to be distinguished by its purity ? Some offerings, it is true, of flour or bread were declared to be aholy" or "most holy unto the Lord," and some other offer- ings also : * but none were called " pure " : and this universal offering to the greatness of God's name, of which the prophecy speaks, was to be distinguished by especial purity from all the offerings and sacrifices of the Jews. Let it be granted, then, that this offering was to be material, a literal and actual Mincha : but still the purity by which it was to be distinguished from all the offerings of the law, even from the most holy, could not belong to any material offering : it could not be from any quality in the material offering, and must be from something external to it : and, therefore, the " pure offering " of the prophecy could not be any material offering. A material offering might be the sign and expression of an immaterial offering, but could not be the " pure offering " intended. That offering could only be from the " clean heart " and " right spirit," for which the Psalmist prayed, and which God has promised under the dispensation to which the prophecy refers : that " spirit," with which " the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Hory," has promised to " dwell ; " whose sins and iniquities are no more :emembered by Him, and whose oblations, notwithstanding the mperfections of all human thoughts and works, He has promised to accept, f The purity of the offering is, indeed, said by some to be on .ccount of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine : >ut this question of the real presence has been disposed of in nother place. Again, we may observe, as has been noticed already, that lie word for " offering " in this passage is " Mincha : " and * Lev. ii. 3 ; xxi. 22 ; vi. 25. t Ps. li. 10 ; Ez. xi. 19 ; Isa. lvii. 15 ; Jer. xxxi. 34 ; Ez. xx. 40, 41. 352 THE a PUKE OFFERING." [Pt. II. that the Mincha was not bread and wine, but was " fine flour," or " cakes," or " wafers," all with oil, to which frankincense sometimes, and salt always were added.* This was the Mincha or meat-offering, and when it was offered, it might be offered alone. But a drink-offering of wine was never offered with the meat-offering alone : it was only with the burnt-offerings, that drink-offerings were made in addition to the meat-offerings, f It is, therefore, not true as is so often alleged, that bread and wine were the Mincha of the law. Bread was part of it, but wine was not. Whether these elements alone were capable or " incapable of being a true sacrifice " is not the question. They might be an oblation, as " the fruits of the earth, cakes or honeycombs, gold and silver, wool and milk, and, in a word, all the valuable and useful products of nature," % might be : but there is no record that bread and wine alone were ever appointed for a sacrifice. If God had appointed them to be a sacrifice they would cer- tainly have been as true a sacrifice, as bullocks, or rams, or goats : but He has nowhere appointed them to be a sacrifice, and their capability of being a sacrifice is clearly beside the question. That the prophecy is fulfilled most fully and especially in the Eucharist, cannot be doubted : but what is the " pure offering " which is made in this sacrament ? That it is not the elements of bread and wine, follows inevitably from the fact, that, as has been shown, they are, in themselves, of no greater purity than the Mincha of the law : that there is nothing to distinguish them as alone " a pure offering," in comparison with all the offerings which the law prescribed. And if they are not in themselves, neither can they be by themselves, the " pure offering " intended. If they were offered by wicked people who did not render " honour " or " fear " to God, but " despised His name," and regarded His " table " as " contemptible " ; 135 instead of being "pure," they would be "polluted," and would be as hateful to God, as the " burnt-offerings," the " meat- offerings," and the " peace-offerings of fat beasts," presented by the disobedient Jews. § Nor, again, is it only in the Eucharist, that a fulfilment of * Lev. ii. 1, 4-7 ; Ex. xxix. 40, 41 ; Lev. v. 11 ; Num. v. 15 ; Lev. ii. 15, 13. t Num. xxviii. 12-15, 31 ; xxix. 30, 31, 39. ' \ Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part 2, c. 1, sect. 4, vol. ii. 81. 135 Malachi i. 7. The " polluted bread " which the Jews were charged with offering, is explained in v. 12 to be polluted, because they sai( 1, " The table of the Lord is polluted ; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible." § Amos v. 22. Ch. V.] IT IS NOT THE BREAD AND WINE, the prophecy is to be discovered. For many " pure offerings " are made by Christians ; in their prayers, in their praises and thanksgivings, and in their charitable acts ;-at other times than in the celebration of the Eucharist. But they who "from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same," magnify the name of the Lord, do, by his creatures of bread broken, and of wine poured out, show forth the death and sacrifice of Christ ; and rendering thanks to Almighty God for that inestimable benefit, feasting upon that sacrifice once for all made, and presenting themselves, their souls and bodies to Him, they offer a " reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice " : and thus " incense " is " offered unto his name, and a pure offering." It is not, however, to be denied, that many of the ancient Fathers seem to have thought that the elements themselves of the Eucharist were the " pure offering " intended by the prophecy. But they were neither unanimous nor unequi vocal in the expression of this opinion. We cannot here enter at any length into an examination of their sentiments on this point : but that they were not unanimous is proved by the well-known expositions of Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome. Tertullian having observed that God had commanded sacri- fiees to be offered by the Jews in the holy land only, puts the question, why the Spirit by Malachi speaks so differently '? and David says : " Give unto the Lord, 0 ye kindreds of the people, give unto the Lord glory and strength. Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name : bring an offering and come into his courts " ? and he replies to the question thus : — u Undoubtedly, because the preaching of the Apostles was to go forth in all the earth. For that worship was to be offered to God not with earthly, but with spiritual sacrifices : as it is written : ' The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit ; ' and in another place : ' Offer unto God the sacri- fice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High ' (Ps. 1L 17, and 1. 14). So therefore [the offerings] of praise are designated spiritual sacrifices, and a broken heart is demonstrated to be an acceptable sacrifice to God. Therefore how carnal sacrifices are understood to be reprobated, of which Isaiah speaks (i. 11, 12). — But of spiritual sacrifices He adds, saying: ' In every place pure sacrifices are offered unto my name.' Therefore since it is manifest, that both a temporal sabbath is shewn, and an eternal sabbath is predicted : that carnal circumcision is predicted, and spiritual circumcision is praeindicated : that a temporal law also and an eternal law is proclaimed, that carnal sacrifices and spiritual sacrifices are foreshown : it follows, that after all these precepts given in the time past carnally to the A A 354 IN TrIE OPINION OF SOME OF THE FATHERS. [Pt. n. people of Israel, the time should come, in which the precepts of the ancient law, and of the old ceremonies should cease ; and the promise of the New Law, the acknowledgment of spiritual sacrifices, and the promises of the New Testament, should supervene." 136 There are two other places in which Tertullian cites this passage of Malachi, and explains the " incense and pure offer- ing" to be the "rendering of glory, and benediction, and praise, and hymns : " and again, " sincere prayer from a pure conscience." 137 Eusebius says : " that incense and sacrifice are offered to God in every place, what else does it signify, than that neither in Jerusalem, nor separately in this or that place, but in every place and in all nations, people should offer to Him who is God over all the incense by prayers, and the sacrifice which is called pure not by blood, but by pious deeds." 138 Jerome says : " The word of the Lord now properly comes to the priests of the Jews, who offer the blind, the lame, and the sick for sacrifice : that they may know that spiritual victims are to take the place of carnal victims. And that by no means is the blood of bulls and of he-goats to be offered to the Lord, but Thymiama, that is, the prayers of the saints : and that, 136 u indubitate, quod in omni terra exire habebat praedicatio Apostolorum. Adferte Deo claritatem et honorem, adferte Deo saerificia nominis ejus. Tollite hostias, et introite in atria ejus. Namque quod non terrenis sacrifices sed spiritalibus Deo litandum sit, ita legimus ut scriptura est: Cor contribulatum hostia est Dei ; et alibi : Sacrifica Deo sacrificium laudis, et redde Altissimo vota tua. Sic, itaque saerificia spiritalia laudis designantur et cor contribulatum acceptabile sacrificium Deo demon- stratur: itaque quomodo carnalia saerificia reprobata intelliguntur, de quibus et Esaias loquitur, dicens : Quo mihi multitudinem sacrificiorum vestrorum, dicit Dominus ! Ita •saerificia spiritalia accepta praedicantur, ut prophetae annuntiant. Quoniam ctsi attulcritis, inquit, mihi similam, vanum est: incensum abominatio mihi. Et alibi dicit : Holocaustomata et saerificia vestra et adipem hircorum, et sanguinem taurorum nolo, nee si veniatis videri mihi, quis enim exquisivit hcee de manibus vestris? Spirit- alia vero saerificia de quibus prsedictum est, et sicut supra dicit : Non est mihi vo- luntas a vobis, dicit Dominus. Sacrificium non accipiam de manibus vestris: quoniam ah orientemle usque in occidentem nomen meum clarificatum est in omnibus gentibus, dicit Dominus. De spiritalibus vero sacrifices, addit dicens: Et in omni loco saeri- ficia munda offerentur nomini meo dicit Dominus. Igitur cum manifestum sit, et sabbatum temporale ostensum, et sabbatum aeternum prsedictum: circumcisionem carnalem praedictam, et circumcisionem spiritalem praeindicatum : legem quoque tempo- ralem et legem aeternam denunciatam : saerificia carnalia, et saerificia spiritalia prae- ostensa : sequitur, ut praecedente tempore datis omnibus istis prseceptis carnaliter populo Israel, supervenerit tempus, quo legis antiquee et ceremoniarum veterum prae- cepta cessarent, et novae legis promissio, spiritalium sacrificiorum agnitio, et Nori Testamenti pollicitatio superveniret." — Adv. Jud. cc. 5, 6, Opp. Colon. Agrip. 1617, P- 98- 137 " Glorias, scilicet, relatio, et benedictio, et laus, et hymni." — Adv. Mar. lib. iii. c. 22, p. 488. " Scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura." — Ibid. iii. c. 1, p. 51. 138 T}f yfy £v -jravrX rdircp Ov^iajxa koX Qvuiav avcupepeaOai 0e<£, rl erepov TrapLaTf]u, This is my blood which is shed for you " ; He meant his own personal body ; and that He made the bread and the wine to be, in a most true and effectual sense, that which He declared them to be. He made these elements, as He declared them, to be his body given, sacrificed to God, and his blood shed. And inasmuch as He gave them separately, his bod}- and his blood separately from each other, He showed a sacrifice completed b}- an actual death : for " the blood is the life M ; and the blood poured out from the body, signified the body as dead.140 And this was before He Himself died, and while He was as really and as much alive as any of the j:>ersons to whom He spoke. He, being alive, and as yet unhurt by any deadly wound, gave his dead body to them. And this He could do as well before He died, as He has ever done, since He rose again from the dead. But as He was then alive, and his body unbroken, the sacrifice of Himself was not then at that moment actually made. The body of which He spoke was not then 140 " Sanguis enim separatim consecra- tus. ad passionem Domini, et mortem, et pas^ionis genus ante omnium occulos po- nendum, majorem vim et momentum habet." — " Optimo tamen jure iiistitutuni est ut separatim du?e conseerationes fie- rent. Primo enim passio Domini, in qua sanguis a eorpore divisus est, magis refe- ratur." — Cat. Cone. Trid. II. xxiii. xxxiv. "The blood separately consecrated has greater force and power to place before the eyes of all. the passion of the Lord, and His death, and the nature of His sufferings." — " It was with the best reason appointed that two consecrations should be separately performed ; first, that the Lord's passion, in which the blood was divided from the body, should be more exhibited." Bellarmine says also: "In the Supper the body is consecrated apart, and the blood apart, for this purpose, that we might understand that the presence of the body and blood in the Supper, is after the manner of a slain and dead body. Ideo in ecena seorsim consecratur corpus, et seorsim sanguis, ut intelligamus prsesentiam corporis et sanguinis in ccena esse ad mocum occisi et mortui corporis." — De Missa, I. xli. 757. '• To signify his complete or perfect death, by the separation of his blood from his body— the blood being the life thereof — He took the cup, and consecrated or sepa- rated it, to signify or represent his blood, so shed or poured out . . . calling them [the bread and wine] and in effect making them, his body and blood, broken and shed ; while his natural substantial body, with his blood in his veins, unbroken and uushed, stood divinely ministering, and as yet untouched by any hostile hand." — Bishop Jolly's Christian Sacrifice, c. 3, Aberdeen, 1831, pp. 63, 58. " The bread and wine beins; given to us severally, not both together, do clearly tell us that He was really dead, his vital blood being " separated from his body, and his veins and heart being emptied of it." — Patrick's ITensa Mystica, I. ii. Ed. 7, Lond. 1717, 11. " Whatsoever our Saviour said, was undoubtedly true : but these words could not be true in a proper sense, for our Saviour's body was not then given or broken, but whole and inviolate, nor was there one drop of his blood shed." — Bull, Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Works, II. 254. Aquinas says : M Eucharistia est sacramentum perfectum Dominion passionis, tan- quam continens ipsum Christum passum. The Eucharist is a perfect sacrament of the Lord's passion, as containing Christ Himself in His passion.'' — 3a, q. 73, con. 362 NOR DID HE OFFER THE BREAD AND WINE. [Pt. H. actually offered up to God. It was devoted, certainly : but it was not then as yet actually sacrificed. How, then, shall the sacrifice of the bread and wine, either as the elements for the sacrament, or as " the mysterious body and blood " of Christ, be shown from this ? We do not read of any oblation, much less sacrifice, of the elements, before the consecration. They were neither oblation nor sacrifice in the Paschal rites ; but were part of the feast in which the Passover was eaten. Nor do we read of any sacrifice of the elements in the consecration. Johnson, indeed, asserts that " we have the express words of Christ Jesus Himself — fully attesting this great truth ; namely, that He did, in the institution of this sacrament, actually offer bread and wine to God : " * but there is not a syllable in the accounts given by the Evangelists or St. Paul, of our Lord's then offering or having offered bread and wine, either as oblation or as sacrifice to God. He spoke of his body given, and his blood shed, but said nothing of any oblation or sacrifice of the things which He called by those names. Nor would the consumption of the bread and wine by the communicants be the sacrifice of them : for our Lord said before they did eat and drink, " This is my body given, This is my blood shed, for you " : and so, the bread was the body of Christ given, and the wine was his blood shed, and the sacrifice was therefore complete, before they consumed them. Thus, neither before the consecration, nor in the consecration, were they sacrificed, nor yet after the consecration. Still they were the given body, and the poured-out blood. They were received as his body and blood before He had actually suffered : and while the world lasts, they are to be received as such ; although He " dieth no more," and " death hath no more dominion over Him."f Since the sacrifice upon the cross, He has ever been, and always will be, incapable of suffering : and yet He gives to us his broken body, and his poured-out blood. He that is " alive for evermore," gives us even his flesh to eat and his blood to drink. And how this is, will also explain how He could give his dead body before He died, and his blood poured out before it was shed : how He made the disciples partakers of his sacrifice before it was offered. Our Lord at the institution of the Eucharist, did actually offer or sacrifice neither Himself, nor the bread and wine either as the elements for the sacrament, or as " his mysterious body * P. 160. t Kom. vi. 9. Ch. V.] BISHOP TAYLOR OX THE SUPPOSED OFFERING. 363 and blood." He called, and in a most true and effectual sense so made, the bread his body, and the Trine his blood: for as " He spake ; " so it could not but be " done : " and He u calleth those things which be not,'' yet " as being. "* But this was not to sacrifice the bread and wine, or to offer them as a sacri- fice. And again. He gave his broken body and his poured-out blood, giving the dead body : but there is not a word to warrant the assertion that his body " was now actually given, yielded, offered to God : " that He was, at that very instant of time, actually offering, or that He had actually offered Himself. The actual offering, the actual immolation of Himself was not yet done; and so really not done, that He prayed in the garden, that "if it" were "'possible this cup " might "pass from" Him. But there is no more contradiction or inconsistency in these things than there is in the assured truth, that the Son of God is " the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." + The distinction is, indeed, very important, as will elsewhere be seen, between these two statements ; (1) that Our Lord, in the in- stitution of the Eucharist, actually offered Himself to God, and gave his body and blood so offered, to the Apostles : and 2 simply, that He gave his broken body, and his poured-out blood to them. The former is an addition to the inspired record ; and one of astounding consequence ; for it is said that what our Lord then did his priests are also to do, and thus they are to offer Him. The latter statement is neither more nor less than the exact truth which He expressed. With regard to this doctrine of our Lord having offered up Himself in the Eucharist, Bishop Jeremy Taylor makes these just and forcible remarks : " The blessed Sacrament, " he says. " is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it : but Christ did not really give His natural body in the natural sense, when He ate His last supper ; therefore neither does He now." — If " He then gave His natural body, then it was naturally broken, and His blood was actually poured forth before His passion : fl r He gave to aa)fj.a kXuo^lsvov, to ttoti]piov, or al/xa sK-^vvotxivov, His body was delivered broken, His blood was shed. Now these words were spoken either properly and naturally ; and then they were not true, because his body was yet whole, his blood still in the proper channels, or else it was spoken in a figura- tive and sacramental sense, and so it was true : (as were all the * Ps. cxlviii. 5, Prayer Book version ; Rom. iv. to /*tj oVra ws of to. f Rev. xiii. 8. " 304 " DO THIS " DOES NOT MEAN [Pt. n. words which our blessed Saviour spake ;) for that which He then ministered was the sacrament of His passion." And " If Christ gave His body in the natural sense, at the last supper, then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not : if it was not, then it is not now : " — " if it was propitiatory at the last supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and man- kind was redeemed before the passion of our blessed Saviour, which therefore would have been needless and ineffective; so fearful are the consequences of this strange doctrine. " 141 Another proof of the sacrifice of the elements is attempted from the word, ttolslts, in St. Luke's and St. Paul's accounts of the institution. Hickes and Johnson, and recently the late Bishop Hamilton, maintain that this word means ' 6 sacrifice " ; and therefore that our Lord's words, " Do this in remembrance of me," must be taken to mean, " Sacrifice this bread and this wine in remembrance of me." Bellarmine 142 had previously given the same interpretation : but this was only incidentally, and he did not insist upon it for any proof of his argument. Now ttolsw, like our English word "make," has a large number of very different significations,143 determined by its connection : and it is used in the Septuagint for fifty-two different Hebrew words, and amongst them, one of much the same versatility as itself. Of the various significations which it and this Hebrew- word have, that of " sacrifice " is certainly one : but this is only in connection with words which clearly determine the meaning. Some thirty or forty places of the Septuagint are cited by Hickes for this meaning of " sacrifice : " but in every instance, the word, in whatever form, is joined with others, which show that it must have the meaning of " sacrifice " in that place, and could not have any other meaning.144 Whereas I do not find 111 On the Real Presence, vii. 1-3. Works, ix. 491. " According to this opinion [of His offering up Himself in the Eucharist] Christ offered up Himself before He offered up Himself; I mean, He offered up Himself in the sacrament before He offered up Himself on the cross; which offering up Himself in the sacrament was either a per- fect or an imperfect sacrifice. To say that Christ should offer up an imperfect sacrifice to God is next door to blasphemy; but yet a perfect one that sacrifice could nut b* for then it need not have been repeated again upon the cross." — Beveridge on the 39 Articles: Art. xxxi. Works, Oxford, Angl. Cath. Lib. vii. 506, 507. 142 De Missa, I. xii. 755, A. B. But the Trent Catechism is opposed to this: " That which the Lord commanded to be done, must be referred not only to that which He had done, but also to that which He had said. Quod Dominus facjendurti praecipit, non solum ad id quod egerat, sed etiam ad ea qu£e dixerat referri debet." — De Euch. xx. nota. His words could not be sacrificed. 143 Schleusner gives forty -seven meanings for it. 144 Ex. xxix. 36 it is found with fioaxapiou : Lev. iv. 20 ; 1 Kings xviii. 25, 20, with l.i6axov'- 1 Kings xviii. 25 with fiovv. Ps. lxvi. 15 with @6as : Lev. xxiii. 12 with ■np6l3arou: Ex. xxix. 39, 41 with aixvbv ; Lev. xiv. 30 with jxiav curb twv ipv^ovvv: Cn. V.] " SACRIFICE THIS. 3G5 TToisco in any form joined with aprov koI olvov. So that, there is no authority in the Septuagint for the assertion that tovto 7T0LSLTS in the words of the institution mean " offer " or " sacri- fice, this bread and this wine." Neither is there any authority for supposing that ttoluv sis avaixvr\aiv has a sacrificial significa- tion. The argument, indeed, from the word ttolslts is, in sub- stance, no better than this : that iroisiv sometimes signifies to sacrifice ; therefore it must have this meaning in the words of the institution : a conclusion which would not follow, unless it were to be understood, that it had this meaning always ; which is manifestly false.* From this examination of the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist, I must think it is clear, that they do not show any material sacrifice in that Sacrament : that our Lord did not actually sacrifice the bread and wine either as the elements for the Sacrament, or as " His mysterious body and blood : " that He did not then actually sacrifice Himself : and that He did not command the apostles either to sacrifice the elements, or to offer up Himself as a sacrifice. IV. The fourth place which is alleged in proof of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, is that place in the Epistle to the Hebrews in which our Lord Jesus Christ is said to have been " called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchisedek. '? t And the line of argument by which this place is to be applied ■ for the required proof must be in effect as follows. Starting from the statement in Genesis, that " Melchisedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine : and he was the priest of the ' Most High God. And he blessed Abraham "; % it would have to be laid down, that a priest is a person who offers sacrifices : that Melchisedek, being a priest, offered sacrifices ; that he offered sacrifice on the occasion referred to ; that the sacri- fice he offered was bread and wine ; that a priest after his order must be one who also sacrifices bread and wine ; and therefore that our Lord, being a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, must of necessity have offered a sacrifice of bread and wine ; and that this sacrifice was offered by Him in the institution of the Eucharist. Various ways are taken Ex. x. 25 ; Lev. ix. 16 ; xvii. 4, 9 ; 1 Kings xviii. 29 ; 2 Kings x. 24, with <5A.o/cauT&>/ua : I ' 1 Kings viii. 61 ; 2 Kings x. 25 with bhoKavTwcriv: Lev. vi. 22; 2 Kings x. 21, with Qva'iav. 2 Kings x. 24 with dv/xaTa koI 6\oKavru>iJ.aTa : Lev. ix. 7, 22; xiv. 19, with rb nepl T7?s a/xapTias : Lev. ix. 7 with 5wpa and 4^l\aaai: Deut. xvi. 1 ; 2 Chron. xxx. I 1, 2; xxxv. 1 ; Ezra vi. 19; Num. ix. 2; Joshua v. 9; 2 Kings xxiii. 21 ; 2 Chron. • xxxv. 17 with vdaxa or cpaa'e* : and Ex. xxix. 38 with dvcnaaTrjpiov. I| * See Appendix FF. t Heb. v. 10. J Gen. xiv.' 18, 19. 366 HEB. V. 10. [pt. n for establishing the different propositions of which this argu- ment is composed : but the assertions that he offered sacri- fice on the occasion of meeting Abraham ; that the sacrifice he offered was bread and wine ; and that a priest after his order must be one who also sacrifices bread and wine ; are propositions which require much better proofs than the most learned and ingenious advocates of material sacrifice have yet offered to the world. The propositions in question have not that clear and certain authority of God's word, which is neces- sary for the foundation of Christian doctrine. Holy Scripture does not tell us, that Melchisedek offered sacrifice on this occa- sion : or that bread and wine were the sacrifice. Nor is there any proof from Scripture, that a priest after his order must be one whose sacrifices are bread and wine also. Such statements are additions to that which is written in the Book. They are mere assumptions to meet the necessities of the preconceived theory, that the elements of the Eucharist are a true and proper sacrifice. But it is not sufficient to meet one assertion with another. The evidence for the alleged sacrifice of bread and wine by Melchisedek, on his meeting Abraham, must be produced and examined. Now this evidence is supposed to be drawn from the three statements in Genesis, that Melchisedek was a priest; that he brought forth bread and wine ; and that he blessed Abraham. That he was a priest, then, the sacred history states ; and that a priest is a person who has authority to offer sacrifice must in all reason be acknowledged, as has been just now as- serted : but it does not at all follow, that whenever it is related of anyone, that he is a priest, we must infer that he offered sacrifice upon such an occasion.145 It may be probable that Melchisedek had been offering sacrifice : but nothing more can be proved : and probability may be so different from fact as to be absolutely contrary to it. Perhaps it may be asked, why it is said that Melchisedek " was priest of the Most High God," 1,5 This seems to be Bellarmine's opinion. He says that "Melchisedek offered bread, and wine, as priest of the Most High God. and therefore truly sacrificed [them] :" and from this he infers, that "Christ also, in the institution of the Eucharist, acted as priest, and truly sacrificed ; otherwise He could not have exactly fulfilled that figure." "Melchisedek panem et vinum obtulit, ut sacerdos Dei altissimi, ac proinde vere sacrificavit ; iejitur et Christus in institutione Eucharistise, ut sacerdos egit, et vere sacrificavit, alioque non exacte figuram illam implesisset." — De Missa, I. vi. 7'2'2. This would make every oblation, or even act, by a priest a sacrifice, which is mani- festly false. So that we have here a mere assumption that Melchisedek offered the bread and wine ; and next the false inference that he sacrificed them ; and then to bring the assumption and inference to bear on the Eucharist, the further assumption that Christ acted as a priest in the institution of the Eucharist by sacrificing the ele- ments He employed in it. Ch. V.] BELLA IOIIXE'S ARGUMENT. 367 if it were not to intimate and to be concluded, that he had been fulfilling' the office of a priest by sacrifice. But it may be asked also, in return, why it is said of him that he was king of Salem. Equally probable or likely reasons might be suggested in each case : but they would be only probable ; and, as I have said, they might be the reverse of fact. Again, that Melchisedek " brought forth bread and wine " is also expressly stated. But some will have it that we ought to read " offered" instead of " brought forth." Some, indeed, quietly take it for certain that we may read " offered " : 146 but Bellarmine tries to prove it. Speaking of the word "proferens," " bringing forth," in the Latin Vulgate of the place, he says that, "although the word of itself signifies nothing else than to bring forth, or to bring forward, yet from the exigency of its position [or of the passage] it is often used for the bringing forth of a victim for immolation, as in Judges vi. where the same [Hebrew] word which we perceive in this place in Genesis is twice used, and clearly signifies the bringing of a victim." 147 " The exigency of position," in which the word stands in the two places referred to, certainly does not fix upon it the meaning of bringing forth for immolation. The two places are Judges vi. 18, 19,148 where we read that Gideon said to the angel : " Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee. And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour : the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it." The " present," then, which Gideon wished to " bring forth," and which he " brought out," was the flesh, the boiled flesh of a kid, with cakes, and the broth made by the boiling of the flesh. This was what he brought forth and presented to the angel : and in whatever way the kid had been killed, the bringing forth of its boiled flesh was not a bringing forth of it for immolation or sacrifice to the angel. The Cardinal adds a most extraordinary reason in confirmation 146 "Moses tells us of Melchisedec. that this priest of the 3Iost High God brought forth (or offered) bread aud wine." — Theologian, ix. 41. 1,7 " Quod tamen verbum licet ex se nihil aliud significet, nisi proferre, seu adducere, tamen pro loci exigentia sa?pe usurpatur pro adductione hostia? ad immolationem, ut Jud. 6, ubi bis habetur idem verbum tf^n quod hoc loco in Genesi cernimus, et aperte significat adductionem hostife." And he adds: " Quod idem videmus in verbo Win quod proprie adducere significat, et tamen passim in Scriptura restringitur ad ucrificium, ut idem sit quod offerre, ut patet Genes. 4, ubi describitur sacrificium Jaiii et Abel."— De Missa, I. vi. p. 723, 4. 148 I conclude that the 8th and 30th verses cannot be intended. 368 THE HEBREW PARTICLE IN GENESIS XIV. 18. [Pt. H. of the meaning which he would fix upon the Hebrew word in question, namely, that another Hebrew word, " likewise pro- perly signifies to bring, and yet is everywhere restricted in Scripture to sacrifice, so as to be the same as to offer." I must add that I do not find " to offer," or " to offer in sacrifice," amongst the many significations of the word in Gen. xiv. 18, in the Lexicons. The Hebrew particle, however, for which our authorised translation has " and," is made a causal conjunction by the Latin Vulgate and therefore by the Douay English : and they read the passage thus : " bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the Most High God." And Bellarmine defends this as critically correct : and he argues, therefore, that " it is most effectually proved " by the words, " ' for he was the priest of the Most High God,' that by the bread and wine we are to understand not common food, but food sanctified and offered previously to God : which reason rendered by the Holy Spirit Himself why Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine, absolutely compels us to understand that the bread and wine were brought forth for sacrifice." 149 The argument is somewhat careless and inconsistent with itself : for it represents the bread and wine as offered to God before they were brought forth, and yet as brought forth to be offered on the arrival of Abraham. But that the particle sometimes has the meaning of " for " or " because," " before causal sentences," that is, before sentences which clearly denote a cause of that which is expressed before, there can be no doubt. It is one of a considerable variety of meanings which the particle has, according to the exigency of its position, although it is " properly and most frequently " used as a copu- lative.150 But in order to determine that it is a " causal " and not a " copulative conjunction " in this particular place, it must be shown that the sentence to which it belongs is causal : it must be shown that the bringing forth of the bread and wine by Melchisedek, was because he was a priest. This, however, is not generally thought to have been the case. ]Sot a few, and 1,9 " Oportet igitur per panem et vinum, non prophanos eibos, sed sanctificatos, et Deo prius oblatos intelligere. Denique id probatur efficaeissime ex verbis sequentibus; tubjuagit enim Scriptura: Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. Quae ratio ab ipso Spiritu Sancto reddita, cur Mtdchisedech panem et vinum protulerit, omnino cogit, ut intelligamus panem et vinum prolata fuisse ad sacrificium." — De Missa, I. vii. p. 724. no Qpsenius. Castell gives twenty-six meanings for the particle : all traceable from the original meaning " and," which in the infancy of language is capable of serving in many senses. - - -- - - Ch. V.] ST. CYPRIAN, JOSEPHUS, AXD PIIILO. 369 these of no mean authority, considering the order of the words : " Melehisedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine : and he was the priest of the Most High God; and he blessed" Abraham, refer the two acts of bringing forth the bread and wine, and the blessing of Abraham to the two offices respectively. They conceive that it was as king that he brought forth the bread and wine, and as priest that he blessed Abraham. The Epistle to the Hebrews most clearly connects the blessing with the priesthood.* And St. Augustine cites St. Cyprian as saying : " Melehisedek brought forth bread and wine. But he was the priest of the Most High God, and blessed Abraham." 151 And, indeed, it is acknowledged that he gave his blessing as a priest, whether he gave it as a king also or not. But that he gave it as a king does not appear. On the principle laid down in the Epistle to the Hebrews, " That the less is blessed of the greater," Melehisedek gave his blessing certainly as a priest ; because, as Abraham acknowledged by the payment of tithes to him, Abraham's priesthood was " less " than his. But there is nothing to show that as a king, Melehisedek had any supe- riority over Abraham the conqueror of five kings. Xor do we read that the other kino- the kino; of Sodom, who 4< went out to meet " Abraham, and who owed to him the restoration of his people and his goods, took upon him any authority, as the greater, to bless him. On the other hand, Josephus, speaking of these transactions, makes no mention of any sacrifice in the case, but merely says that " Melehisedek showed hospi- tality to the army of Abraham, and afforded him a great abundance of such things as were necessary." 152 And Philo says that " He brings forth bread and wine which the Ammon- ites and Moabites would not give to him when he saw them. For water let him bring forth wine, and give them to drink, and strengthen their souls." 153 And this is not inconsistent with another place of Philo, where he says that " Melehisedek on seeing Abraham, — stretched forth his hands to heaven, and honoured him with prayers, and offered the sacrifices of thanks- giving for the victory, and splendidly entertained all who had * VII. 4-7. 151 " Melehisedec rex Sal^m protulit panem et vimim. Fuit autem sacerdos Dei sunrmi; et benedixit ei." — De Doct. Christ. IV. xxi ; III. iii. " Sed plane tunc bene- dictus est a Melchisedee. qui erat sacerdos Dei excelsi."— De Civ. Dei, XVI. xxii. VII. 500. 15- €xa'p?777} i;4i>ia, KoH -rroWw av eViT^SeiW Trapc'xf.— Ant. I. x. 2. lo:5 &pTovs "jap Kal ohov Trpoa. — Legis Alleg. Lib. 2, Colon. Allob. 1617, 57, Gr. 58. B. B B 370 THE HEBREW PARTICLE A COPULATIVE. [Pt. II. taken part in the contest:"154 for although by saying "the sacrifices," he seems to intimate a custom on such an occasion, and he certainly says that Melchisedek did sacrifice on this, it is most agreeable to his words to understand that, the sacrifices being offered by Melchisedek as priest, the large and generous hospitality which he showed was from his wealth as a king. At all events, sacrifices, according to Philo, having been offered, — and indeed, it would seem most likely, because, most accordant with the religious character of the two personages who were principally concerned, that sacrifices were offered, — the enter- tainment followed. Bread and wine certainly formed part of the entertainment, but there is nothing to show that they were either a part or the whole of the previous sacrifice. The result also is the same, if the Hebrew particle be taken for a causal conjunction, and we should therefore read: "he brought forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the Most High God " : for this would only prove that the bread and wine were connected with his priestly office, and had relation to the sacrifices which he was accustomed to offer. It would not prove more than that they were an adjunct to his sacrifice, and most certainly could not prove, that his sacrifices consisted, as some contend, of bread and wine only. But all the while, there is a considerable oversight in the arguments of those who will have it, that it was because Melchisedek was a priest that he brought forth or offered bread and wine. The syllogism necessary to produce this conclusion requires a premiss, which has only to be stated, to show how- little grounds that conclusion has. It must be laid down that every priest brought forth or offered bread and wine, in order to deduce from the fact of Melchisedek being a priest, that there- fore he brought forth or offered these things. That he did bring forth bread and wine, and that he was a priest, we are plainly told : but that the action was the consequence of the office, can only be proved by the intervention of a statement so absurd, as that everyone is a priest who brings forth bread and wine. The sentence, therefore, to which the particle is joined, is not a " causal sentence," and consequently the particle is not a " causal conjunction," but is a " copulative " : the result being, that we should read the passage as it is in our authorised English; which is confirmed by the Septuagint, and as it 134 ras x€LPa* OLvarctuas els ovpavhv, evxats abrhv yepaipei, Kal to emviKia tdue, Kal vduras robs avuapafj.4pous ru> ayuvi Kafxnpus eiVr/a. — De Abrahamo, Frankfort, 1691, 382, i$.c, De Abrahamo, 299 d. Cn. V.] MELCHISEDEK PROBABLY SACRIFICED. 371 appears from Walton, by the Syriac and Arabic, and by the Targum of Onkelos : " He brought forth bread and wine : and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed" "Abraham." Again, there can be no doubt of this last fact of the blessing : but to turn this into a demonstration that Melchisedek offered a sacrifice of the bread and wine which he brought forth to him, requires another premiss, which, I suppose, no one would accept. A king may bless, and a priest may bless ; anyone may bless those who are inferior to them : * but one cannot admit an assertion, that the authority to bless another was ever confined to persons who offered a sacrifice of bread and wine. Now it is most probable, as has been admitted, that Mel- chisedek offered sacrifice on meeting Abraham. It belonged to his office of priest to offer sacrifices : "for every priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." f And on an occasion of so great importance and interest, we may well believe that Melchisedek exercised his office. But still this is only a probability. And however probable it may be thought, that his sacrifice was the bread and wine, either by themselves, or with something else, or that they were an adjunct to the sacrifice of something else : the original probability of his hav- ing offered any sacrifice at all on the occasion remains the same. It is not in the least stronger. So that we have only probability depending on probability for any connection whatever of the bread and wine with sacrifice. But probability may be in direct opposition to fact. How probable appeared to the Pharisees the reasons and purposes for which they thought that our Lord received sinners and ate with them : and yet the truth of the fact made the supposed reasons the more inconsistent with the reality. He did receive sinners ; but it was to convert them from their sins, not to encourage them in them. To build any doctrine, therefore, on mere probability, is to build upon a veiy uncertain and fallacious foundation. Xot even the strongest probability can be a foundation for Christian doctrine : for doctrine is to be founded on the certain truth of God's word alone. It is no more than probable that Melchisedek offered sacrifice at the time in question : but the Scripture tells us not that he did. We are only told that he brought forth bread and wine. * Heb. vii. 7. t Heb. v. 1. IB 2 372 THE SACRIFICE OF CAIN NOT ACCEPTED, [Pt. It Nor are we anywhere told that these things were ever used alone as a sacrifice to the Most High God : that a sacrifice of bread and wine only was ever ordained or accepted by Him. On the contrary, the first sacrifice of which we have any account repre- sents the offering of the fruits of the ground, as having obtained no " respect " from God : and bread and wine must be reckoned in the same class. Why the offering of Cain was not accepted, is variously accounted for, as by Philo, who says that he was guilty of " a double crime of a lover of himself : one, in that after some days he gave thanks to God, instead of continually ; the other, in that he offered of the fruits, but not of the first fruits." And in this he represents Cain as acting " from him- self and from his own understanding."155 Thus he agrees with the infallible statement of Scripture, that Cain offered not in faith. But the history itself discloses in what respect faith was wanting in his offering. " The Lord said unto Cain, — If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door."* That is, "If thou be righteous," or " If thou offerest sacrifice rightly, thou shalt be accepted : but I have not had respect unto thee or to thy offering, and thus testify to thee, as thy conscience also testifies, that thou doest not well, and that sin, therefore, lieth at the door " : which last expression means, either, that sin prevented his being accepted, and must be taken away, before God would have re- spect to him ; or that a sin offering was lying at the door ; that he had it in his power to offer a sacrifice which would be ac- cepted as an atonement for his sin.156 And whichever of these two interpretations be accepted, and I believe they are the only ones which can be proposed, they will come to the same thing with regard to our present question. They both charge Cain with sin, as Abel had sin, or as a positive evil doer, and as hav- ing not offered a sacrifice which would be accepted as an atone- ment for his sin. But Abel's sacrifice was accepted ; and in the " respect " which God had " to him and to his offering," " he obtained witness that he was righteous," that God had taken away his sin. And in the difference between the sacri- fices of the brothers, which expressed the faith of the one and the unbelief of the other, is to be seen the cause of the accept- 155 5uo iyK\-f]fxaja rov (piXavrov %v fj.lv rb f.ied' ^ue'pas, a A. A.' ovk ei>9v<> evxapiaTrjaai rul ©ffp ; erepov Se, rb airb rcov Kapirwv, a\\a fxy anb r'&v Trpcvrcov Kapnwv 5>v crvvderov ovofxa Trpccroyevvrjfxara. — 6 8e icp' kavrbv Ka\ tov tdiov vovv. — De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, p. 107i B.A. * Gen. iv. 7. See Appendix G G. 158 See a learned disquisition on the place in the Sermons of the late Alexander Nicolls, Reg. Prof, of Hebrew, Oxford, Serm. 6, Oxford, 1830. Ch. v.] because it had xo shedding of blood. 373 ance of Abel's sacrifice, and the rejection of Cain's. That difference was, that in Abel's sacrifice there was " a shedding of blood ; " but in Cain's sacrifice there was not. This was the characteristic and essential difference between the two oblations. There was sin in Abel as well as in Cain : but by shedding of blood, Abel obtained remission of sins : there was no shedding of blood by Cain, and therefore his sin remained. " Without shedding of blood is no remission," is a principle that extended to the whole system of sacrifice. " It is the blood that inaketh atonement for the soul." * The sin of Cain laid at the door : unatoned sin prevented his acceptance with God. Whatever probability, therefore, there may be conceived to be in the theory, that Melchisedek's supposed sacrifice was of bread and wine ; it is much more than counterbalanced by the probability that it was not. The conclusion is, that while it is very probable, that Mel- chisedek did offer sacrifice on meeting Abraham after the slaughter of the kings, it is not certain that he did ; but that if he did, it is not and cannot be proved by anything like sufficient evidence, and is indeed very improbable, that his sacrifice was bread and wine. It would seem almost superfluous now, to deal with the asser- tion, that a priest after the order of Melchisedek must be one who sacrifices bread and wine : for since it cannot be proved that such was his sacrifice, neither can it be proved that such also must be the sacrifice of a priest after his order. But as it is an assertion which has been so long, so often, and so con- fidently made, it will be well to consider whether, even if Mei- chisedek did sacrifice bread and wine, it must be an essential characteristic of his order to offer the same sacrifice ; so that our Lord could not be a priest after the order of Melchisedek, if He did not offer a sacrifice of bread and wine. Xow one would think that the very words, " Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek," would show in what respect it was, that the priesthood of our Lord and the priesthood of Melchisedek essentially corresponded to each other. The sacred history brings Melchisedek before us as king and priest. Xo mention is made of his departure, or of his death : but accord- ing to the interpretation followed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he " abideth a priest continually." The priesthood of Melchise- dek was a continual priesthood, a priesthood without ending. * Heb. ix. 22; Lev. xvii. 11. 374 CHRISTIAN PRIESTS ARE NOT [Pt. II. And so the priesthood of Christ being after this order, He is " a priest for ever." But the theory of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist has led its advocates to overlook this, and to maintain, that it is especially by offering a sacrifice of bread and wine, that our Lord is a priest after the order of Melchisedek ; and to contend moreover, in consequence, that the first and second order of the Christian ministry are also priests after this order. Some of the Fathers seem to have had such an opinion : and Archdeacon Wilberforce distinctly asserts it. Speaking of our Lord's "unchangeable priesthood," he fails to recognise it as the proof, or as at all proving, that our Lord is " a priest after the order of Melchisedek " ; and discovers such proof, as it would seem exclusively, in the identity of the sacrifices which he assumes to have been offered by Melchisedek and by our Lord after him. He argues that " Priesthood implies a sacri- fice " : that Christ being " a Priest after the order of Melchise- dek," his sacrifice must be of " the nature of Melchisedek's sacrifice " : that Melchisedek's sacrifice was bread and wine : that our Lord offered that sacrifice in the institution of the Eucharist: and "thus — initiated that Priesthood of Melchise- dek, which His Apostles were ordained to perpetuate." * So also Bishop Jolly says : " This perpetual priesthood of His, which is after the order of Melchisedek, and not of Aaron, He committed in delegation, and as far as earth required it, to His Apostles." f Whereas, in the first place, the offering of bread and wine in sacrifice, was not peculiar to Melchisedek, if such was his sacri- fice. It was an appointed rite of the Aaronic priesthood, to offer meat-offerings and drink-offerings : the latter consisting of wine ; and the former being of flour for its constituent part, either with salt only, or also with oil and frankincense. There- fore, although the Aaronic priests offered bloody sacrifices, they did not offer bloody sacrifices only, but they offered unbloody sacrifices also. Nor can they be proved to be of a different order of priesthood from that of Melchisedek, by the species of their sacrifices, unless it can be proved that Melchisedek did not offer bloody, as well as unbloody sacrifices. If this cannot be proved, both orders must be considered to be on an equality with regard to the kind of their sacrifices.157 And if it was * Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, c. xi. pp. 353, 354. See also p. 65. f On the Christian Sacrifice, p. 186. 157 " Qui vero Aaronem aliis rebus, " They who determine that Aaron and aliis Melchisedecum ad sacrificia usum Melchisedek used different sacrifices from Ch. V.] AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK. 375 necessary that our Lord should sacrifice bread and wine, so that He might be a priest after the order of Melchisedek ; that sacri- fice would show him to be of the order of Aaron also : for Aaron and his sons offered like sacrifices. It cannot, therefore, be successfully maintained that the sacrifices, -which it was the office of Melchisedek to make, were bread and wine only ; or that the sacrifice of bread and wine belonged only to his order of priesthood. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews, in commenting on the priesthood of Christ, and showing it to be of the order of Mel- chisedek, does not refer, in any way, to the nature of Melchise- dek's sacrifice ; or suggest or sanction the supposition that the sacrifice of bread and wine was peculiar to him. On the con- trary, the apostle says that Melchisedek "being — without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life ; but made like unto the Son of God ; abideth a priest continually " : and " that after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." 158 Some appear to have thought that the judicant, Aaronem iis, quae ante diximus, animalibus perinde ac inanimis, Melchi- sedecum nihil nisi pane et vino, hi sane, quantum mihi videtur, quare sic judicent, nihil habent. Panem hie et vinurn Abra- hamo et vernis ejus jam ex itinere, prselio- que fessis ad vires refieiendas dedit. Similemque simili in causa morem fini- tiinis fuisse regionibus non obscure docet historia sacra (Deut. xxiii. 4, et Jud. viii. 5, 6, 15): neque Melchisedecus sacerdos dicitur, quia panem ilium et vinum pro- tulit, sed ut hinc quisque intelligeret. qui factum erat, ut Abrahamo solemni ritu benediceret, (id quod saeerdotis fuit,) Deut. xxi. 5, et 1 Par. xxiii. 13, et Num. vi. 23) turn etiam, quare Abrahamus spoliorum decimas ei dederat. — Xihil ergo est, cur Melchisedecum pane solum- modo atque vino, nihil, quare rebus tan- tum inanimis sacrificasse arbitremur. Imo vero est. quamobrem contra judice- mus. Si enim a sacerdotio ejus aliena fuissent cruenta sacra, qui factum est, ut ipse Chnstus, cujus idem, quod Melehi- sedeci fuit, sacerdotii genus esse dicitur, sanguine suo sacrificaret ? " — Outram, De Sacrifices. II. i. ii. pp. 2S8, 289, Lond. 1677 (372). 15S (Ecumenius well says : " See what h chisedek had for father or mother, or of w each other, that Aaron used those which we have before mentioned,, animal and inanimate sacrifices alike; that Melchi- sedek used nothing but bread and wine ; these certainly, so far as I can see, have no reason why they so determine. He here gave bread and wine to Abraham and his servants now wearied with their journey and battle, to recruit their strength. And that the neighbouring countries had a like custom on like occa- sions the sacred history clearly teaches. Nor is Melchisedek called a priest, be- cause he brought forth that bread and wine, but that from his being so called every one might understand how it came to pass, that he blessed Abraham in solemn rite, as it belonged to a priest to do : and also for what reason it was, that Abraham gave him tithes of the spoils. Xo reason therefore is there, why we should think that Melchisedek sacrificed exclusively with bread and wine ; no reason to think that he sacrificed with inanimate things only. But just the reverse: there is reason why we should determine the contrary. For if bloody rites had been alien to his priesthood, how comes it, that Christ Himself, whose priesthood is said to be of the same kind as that of Melchisedek, shoidd sacrifice with His own blood?" e saith : We know not, saith he, whom Mel- •hat race he was, nor when he was burn or 376 THE POINTS OF RESEMBLANCE [Pt. m omission of the parentage and descent of Melchisedek might be taken, according to this way of interpretation, as foreshadowing the mystery of the incarnation : but this appears to be incon- sistent with the Epistle itself, which speaks, on the one hand, in such glowing terms of Christ being the Son of God ; and on the other, of his being of " the seed of Abraham," of " the tribe of Judah ; " * and therefore as of one whose parentage and de- scent were well known. " It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah 93 : and it is therefore impossible to maintain, that there is any typical correspondence to Him in Melchisedek's being " without father, without mother, without descent, hav- ing neither beginning of days nor end of life." He was born, as all Christians know, of the Virgin Mary, and died upon the cross. The single point of resemblance in Melchisedek to Christ, the only point of which the Epistle to the Hebrews takes any notice, is the continual, enduring priesthood. There is not the remotest allusion to any sacrifice of Melchisedek ; nor is there to any sacrifice of our Lord, but the sacrifice of Himself. The great feature of resemblance in the priesthood of Christ to the priesthood of Melchisedek, is its perpetual endurance. As there was no end related or assigned to the priesthood of Mel- chisedek, so there shall be no end to the priesthood of Him whom he thus foreshadowed. There is no intimation of any other point of resemblance, excepting the royal titles, which do not concern this question. And if any resemblance was designed between the bread and wine which Melchisedek brought forth, and the bread and wine in which our Lord instituted the died. And what is this to the purpose ? some one will say. For although we do not know these things, since they are not related in Scripture, yet he had both father, and race, and birth and death. How then is such a one without father, and having neither beginning nor end of life? And he answers: Forasmuch as Melchisedek, since his genealogy is not recounted by the Scripture, does not appear to us who know it not, to have parents, or beginning or ending of life; so Christ in real truth. For as we know not the beginning or end of Melchisedek, so in reality we know not the beginning or end of Christ. But this of Melchisedek, since it is not written, but of Christ, because in truth He had them not. For a type is not in everything conform- able to the truth, (since it would then be found itself to be the truth, and the very thing, rather than the type:) but it has certain images and resemblances. For example: Melchisedek, on account of our ignorance, is said to be without father; Christ in His lower nature is without father. Melchisedek without mother; Christ without mother in His higher nature, in which neither had He beginning of days: for how could He have [time] who is the maker of times ? And so thou shalt understand that all things which Melchisedek had, so far as in our ignorance of the particulars about him [we can speak], these Christ has in truth. If Melchisedek, in the bare names only, was king of peace and righteousness, yet Christ was this in very truth. — " ' But being made like to the Son of God.' Now in what was the likeness ? In that both of him and of Christ, the end and the beginning are not known : of him, because they are not written; but of Christ, because He had no ending or beginning." — In Ep.'ad Heb. c. ix.; Commentar. Lut. Par. 1631, II.. 364. * I. 1, &c; ii. 16; vii. 14. Ch. V.] BETWEEN CHRIST AND MELCHISEDEK. 377 Eucharist ; and if the resemblance were of so great moment, that it was by this use of the bread and wine that our Lord was shown to be a priest after the order of Melchisedek : it is most unaccountable that no notice whatever of this was taken, when it was the purpose of the inspired writer to show that our Lord was of that order. But when it is considered that Melchisedek brought forth the viands, and gave them to Abraham and his host, merely as bread and wine : whereas our Lord gave the elements not as bread and wine, but as his body and blood : although there be a seeming, yet there is no real, resemblance to be found between the feast which Melchisedek made for Abra- ham, and that which our Lord instituted for his Church. A coincidence, a remarkable coincidence, one may readily per- ceive and admit ; that as Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine for bodily sustenance or refreshment ; so our Lord used bread and wine for the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment : and thus the former may be accepted as a kind of figure of the latter. Nay more : if Melchisedek offered sacrifice on the occa- sion, and the bread and wine were his sacrifice, or part of his sacrifice, or an adjunct to it : his sacrifice was over, when he gave the bread and wine to Abraham and his people to eat. The sacrifice having been offered, the feast began : and in it the priest blessed the father of the faithful. So our great High Priest, not probably, but infallibly, representing his sacrifice as offered, brought forth bread and wine, blessing his faithful people ; and by bread and wine, giving to them, not these beg- garly elements, but even his body and his blood. These are the things He gives, and not bread and wine only as did Melchisedek. On the omission in the Epistle to the Hebrews of all mention of a sacrifice of Melchisedek, and of any allusion to it, and on such an argument as has here been drawn from that omission ; Johnson remarks that the " argument proves too much ; for if the Apostle's omission of Melchisedec's offering bread and wine be an argument that he did not offer them ; it may as well from thence be proved, that his bringing forth bread and wine was not a type of the Eucharist at all, even though it be con- sidered barely as a religious feast." * Now our argument is, not, that Melchisedek did not offer or sacrifice bread and wine ; but that it is not proved that he did. And there is, obviously, a great difference between the two propositions : and I must * Unbloody Sacrifice, I. 126, Part 1, c. 2. 378 MERE COINCIDENCES ARE NOT TYPES. [Pt. EC. think that the latter has been clearly and fully established : and that the various proofs and arguments brought to establish the assertion that he did offer such a sacrifice, have nothing like a clear and certain foundation in Holy Scripture. Again, it has not been proved that Melchisedek's bringing forth bread and wine is a type of the Eucharist. We may accept the coincidence, as has been said ; but that one is a type of the other, is far from certain : that is to say, if a type be not a fortuitous correspondence in a thing to something future, but a thing or person found to have a resemblance, clearly intended by Divine wisdom, to some thing or person in the developments of providence or grace.159 That Melchisedek himself was a type of Christ in respect of his priesthood, we know from the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but we have no authority for asserting that his actions were typical of the actions of Christ : that he being a priest, his bringing forth of bread and wine for the entertainment or refreshment of Abraham and his people, was typical, was intended to be a pro- phetical representation, of our Lord's using bread and wine for the symbols of his body and blood.160 We have no authority for exalting the bread and wine of Melchisedek into the rank of a type of the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or of making the action of Melchisedek typical of the action of our Lord ; from the same things being used in both cases. We cannot say that the use of the same things establishes the relation of type and antitype.161 Nor is it every coincidence, correspondence, or re- semblance that can do this. A clear indication of the will of the Almighty, either by a prophetic or by an explanatory declara- 159 Bishop Van Mildert, as cited by Home (Introd. II. 155) says: "It is essential to a type, in the scriptural acceptation of the term, that there should be a competent evidence of the divine intention in the correspondence between it and the antitype, — a matter not left to the imagination of the expositor to discover, but resting on some solid proof from Scripture itself, that this was really the case." — Bampton Lectures, p. 239. "No person or thing in the Old Testament is ever interpreted in the New Testa- ment as typical or prophetical of Christ, except on the ground of the express words of the Old Testament concerning them, and that the very form in which the Holy Spirit puts His narrative belongs inseparably and essentially to the prophecy." — Delitzsch on Heb. vii. 1-3, Clarke's Foreign Library, Edinburgh, 1868, I. 332. Bishop Van Mildert says that a type is "a prefigurative action or occurrence, in which one event, person, or circumstance, is intended to represent another, similar to it in certain respects, but future and distant." — Bampton Lectures, vii. 237. He also says that " sometimes the type differs no otherwise from a simple prophecy, than its being delivered by significant, actions or gestures instead of words." 160 The bread and wine are types of our Lord's body and blood, whatever they may be more: but to make the bread and wine of Melchisedek an intended prefiguration uf the Eucharist, is to say that they are types of types ; a thing which I believe to be unknown to Scripture. 161 Otherwise, Abigail's bringing bread and wine to David would be a type of the Eucharist, 1 Sam. xxv. 18. Ch. V.] JOHNSON'S ARGUMENT* 379 tion, is necessary to constitute such a relation. That only is a type, which is clearly intended by the Almighty, as in the case of Ezekiel ; * or is declared in Scripture, as iu the case of Jonah ; f to be a pre figuration of some action, thing, or person, in the dispensations of providence, or in the economy of grace. A type, in short, is a visible prophecy ; a prophecy addressed to the sight, as other prophecies are addressed to the hearing. Ambrose says : " Typus est umbra veritatis : a type is a shadow of the trnth."— De Fide III. v. Cyril Alex. : " Simulacrum veritatis importat : it imports an image of the truth." Johnson seems to have thought that the opinions of the Fathers were sufficient authority for taking the bread and wine of Melchisedek for a type of the Eucharist : but this could not be maintained until it were demonstrated, that the unrevealed intentions of the Most High can be fathomed and declared by the mere power and authority of men. But the opinions of the Fathers on this question shall be noticed presently, when an- other argument of this author on the omission, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, of all mention of a sacrifice of Melchisedek, shall have been considered. He says : " this seeming argument proves too much on an- other account, I mean, because it would prove that our Saviour never performed any act of the Melchisedecian priesthood : for if the Apostle's silence concerning the oblation of bread and wine be of sufficient validity to prove that none was offered ; then his omission of the particular priestly action or actions, wherein Christ was prefigured by Melchisedek, will as effectually prove that Christ did, in no action performed by Him, execute the functions of a priest according to that order." J Xow the argu- ment from " the Apostle's silence," it must be again noticed, is uot, that Melchisedek did not offer a sacrifice : but that if he did, and if his supposed sacrifice was so peculiar and essential to his order, that Christ could not have been a priest after the order Df Melchisedek, without offering a like sacrifice : "the Apostle's silence " would be most unaccountable. True it is, that the )bject which the apostle had in view was to show, as Bellarmine 5ays, how much greater the priesthood of Christ was than the )riesthood of the law, from his being " a priest after the order )f Melchisedek," who was so much greater than Abraham, and herefore than any of the Aaronic priesthood which descended rom him, that Melchisedek received tithes from him, and * IV. 3; xii. 6; xxiv. 24. f Mat. xii. 40. ♦ Unbloody Sacrifice, I. ii. I. 127. 380 AS THE SACRIFICE SO IS THE PRIESTHOOD. [Pt. H. blessed him. But if a sacrifice offered by Melchisedek was a type of a sacrifice offered by our Lord, and if to constitute Him " a priest after the order of Melchisedek," it was necessary that He should offer the same kind of sacrifice which is attributed to Melchisedek ; there would have been a very important and practical argument, the neglect or omission of which would be very improbable and unaccountable. For since the priesthood of Melchisedek was superior to the Levitical, his sacrifices would also be better than any sacrifices offered by the sons of Aaron. And if his sacrifices were bread and wine only, then they were better than " all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices " that wTere offered by the law. And if a continuing priesthood be greater than an order whose members are always changing by reason of death ; the order of Mel- chisedek would be yet greater by reason of the power of its sacrifices. If, therefore, Melchisedek made a sacrifice of bread and wine, and this sacrifice was typical of a sacrifice of bread and wine to be offered by Christ, and it was necessary that He should offer that sacrifice in order to his being " a priest after the order of Melchisedek 99 ; it is absolutely incredible, and indeed impossible, that no mention should be made of Mel- chisedek's sacrifice, when the sacred writer was showing how much greater his priesthood was than the priesthood of the law ; since his sacrifice of bread and wine would have been of so much greater power than all the sacrifices of bullocks, and rams, and he-goats, which were offered by the law year by year continually. It is the sacrifice which gives effect to the priesthood; and by the power of the sacrifices is the power of the priesthood to be estimated. Whatever sacrifices, indeed, Melchisedek was accustomed to offer, they would be typical and prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ's death, as were the sacrifices of the law : but that Melchisedek offered a sacrifice of bread and wine only, and that this sacrifice was typical of another sacrifice of bread and wine to be made by Christ ; and that consequently, Christ did offer a sacrifice of bread and wine : are very different questions and not at all necessarily connected with each other, or to be in- ferred one from the other. Nay, if there be any meaning in the statements, that Christ offered up sacrifice " once, whdn He offered up Himself"; that He "was once offered to bear the sins of many " ; that He "offered one sacrifice for sins "; and that " by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that Ch. v.] SILENCE OX MELCIIISEDEIvS sacrifice 381 are sanctified " : * the typical relation of sacrifices offered by Melchisedek, was to our Lord's sacrifice of Himself, and not to any other sacrifice. This sacrifice had not the remotest type in the alleged sacrifice of Melchisedek. And it is of the power of his sacrifice by the shedding of his own blood, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the New Testament, speak : nor do they ever tell us that Christ at any time made any other sacrifice. t To talk of his sacrificing Himself under the form, or under the species, of bread and wine, is to acknowledge that it was not the bread and wine which He sacrificed, but Himself : while it is to assert a false theology by the terms of a false and childish philosophy, which nothing could have made men of understand- ing endure or employ, but the necessity of appearing to sub- stantiate in argument, that which the very terms themselves in reality disproved. For if our Lord sacrificed Himself under the form or species of bread and wine, then in reality and naked truth, He made no sacrifice at all at the time, sacrificing neither the bread and wine, nor Himself. The argument that " if the Apostle's silence concerning the oblation of bread and wine " by Melchisedek " be of sufficient validity to prove that none was offered ; then his omission of the particular priestly action or actions, wherein Christ was prefigured by Melchisedek, will as effectually prove that Christ did, in no action performed by Him, execute the functions of a priest according to that order " : does not put the case faiiiv. So far, no doubt, as this particular part of the Epistle to the Hebrews goes, exclusively of all the rest of Scripture, the silence of the writer will prove as much in one case as in the other : but, on the one hand, no sacrifice of Melchisedek is ever spoken of in other parts of Scripture : while the New Testament is full of the sacrifice of Christ, and the Old Testament is full of types and prophecies of it. And if, here, in the very place where the resemblance of our Lord to Melchisedek is specially traced, no mention is found of a sacrifice of Melchisedek ; it is most certain that such a sacrifice cannot be proved to have been offered by 'aim on meeting Abraham : and it must also be concluded, that f he did offer a sacrifice at that time, the kind of sacrifice is lot so essential to the order of his priesthood, that our Lord 4ould not be a priest after that order, if He did not offer a like acrifice. If a sacrifice of bread and wine was essential and >eculiar to the order of Melchisedek, it was essential to the >roof that our Lord was a priest after that order, to declare the * Heb. vii. 27; ix. 23 ; x. 12, U. f See Appendix H H. 382 UNACCOUNTABLE, IF TO OFFER BREAD [Pi. II. type and its fulfilment. But nothing of the kind was done : and, therefore, the only conclusion is, that whatever sacrifice Melchisedek may have offered, it has no such character as is ascribed to it ; that it was neither peculiar to Melchisedek, nor necessary for our Lord to offer it. Whereas, taking Melchisedek himself for a type of Christ in the continuance and perpetuity of his priesthood, in the one offering of our Lord by Himself, taking away the sin of the world, and never again to offer it, inasmuch as eternal redemp- tion was its fruit ; * we find an act of that priesthood of which all the sacrifices, which Melchisedek did offer, would be types. It is the perpetuity of our Lord's priesthood, which makes Him a priest after the order of Melchisedek, and not any simi- larity between sacrifices offered by Melchisedek, and any sacri- fice of Christ, but that of Himself. Melchisedek " abideth a priest continually " : Christ " after the power of an endless life — hath an unchangeable priesthood " : and thus it is that He is " a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek." 102 Bellarmine, indeed, pleads that " the Apostle purposely omit- ted the oblation of bread and wine, lest he should be compelled to unfold the mystery of the Eucharist, which was deeper than that it could then be understood by the Hebrews. For so Paul himself says, ch. 5, of whom we have much to say, and hard to he intelligibly uttered : because you are become weak to hear.\ And truly when the Apostle plainly expounded all things which are said of Melchisedec in Genesis, except the oblation of bread and wine, it does not seem possible to be denied, that by a discourse hard to be intelligibly uttered, for which the Hebrews were not sufficient, must be understood the mystery of the Eucharist."163 But this is an argument suited to very simple people indeed. It was as easy a thing as possible, to say and to understand, * Heb. vii. 27 ; ix. 10, 12. 102 There are also the parallel actions, that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine : and our Lord brought forth the same things. But this does not make the one action typical of the other. It has been contended that the first and second orders of the Christian ministry are priests after the order of Melchisedek, from using in the Eucharist the elements of bread and wine. But this they cannot be, since they are no more " suffered to continue by reason of death" (Heb. vii. 20), than the sons of Aaron, and have not an abiding priesthood. f Rheims version. iu3 "Apostolus dedita opera omisit oblationem panis et vini, ne cogeretur explicare mysterium Eucharistise, quod altius erat, quam ut ab illis capi tunc posset. Sic enira ipse Paulus elicit, cap. 5 : De quo (Melchisedec) grandis nobis sermo, et ininterpretci' bilis ad dicendum, quoniam imbecillcs facti estis ad audiendum. Et sane cum Apos- tolus omnia plane exposuerit, quae de Melchisedec dicuntur in Genesi, excepta oblatione panis et vini. non vidctur posse negari, quin per sermonem iuinterpretabilem, cui non eraut idonei Hebra-i, intelligi debeat mysterium Eucharistia?." — De Missa, I. vi. 729. Ch. v.] and wine were essential to HIS " ORDER." 383 that Melcliisedek offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, if lie did offer such a sacrifice ; and that Christ fulfilled this type, by a sacrifice also of bread and wine, if He did offer such a sacrifice ; and that He was thus a priest after the order of Melchisedek. There would have been no kind of necessity to expound the mystery of the Eucharist : for that mystery is not in a sacrifice of the bread and wine, but in their being the body and blood of Christ. And even if there would have been a necessity to expound the mystery of the Eucharist, the apostle spoke of mysteries at least as great, when he spoke of the eternal Son- ship, the Divine Majesty, and the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor is it the way of Scripture or particularly of the apostle himself, to refrain from speaking of mysteries or things hard to be understood : for there are " things which the angels desire to look into," and it is testified that the apostle " in all his Epistles " spoke of things, some of which are " hard to be understood" and liable to be wrested, in common with the other Scriptures, by the " unlearned and unstable — unto their own destruction." * * 1 Pet. i. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. •384 THE FATHERS OX MELCIHSEDEK. [pt. n. CHAPTEE VI. OPINIONS OP THE ANCIENT FATHERS ON MELCHISEDEK'S ALLEGED SACRIFICE. The enquiry is now to be made, what the opinions of the Ancient Fathers were on this subject of Melchisedek's alleged sacrifice of bread and wine. But these objections present themselves at the outset : that, as is undeniable, there is no mention throughout the whole Bible, of any sacrifice of Mel- chisedek, at least as a sacrifice ; and that, as has been, I must think, made clear, there is absolutely no proof whatever, that he did offer a sacrifice of bread and wine on meeting Abraham : and that though the imagination of various writers may hare discovered parallel actions, coincidences, and similitudes ; the authority of the Fathers is not sufficient to make the actions of Melchisedek typical of the actions of Christ, or his sacrifices typical of any sacrifice of Christ, but the sacrifice of Himself. Within their proper sphere, as witnesses to the teaching of our Lord and his Apostles, and of the Church in their times ; their authority is most valuable and important. But it is not an independent or original authority : that only is in the teaching of which they are witnesses.164 ~Nor are they competent to add anything to the doctrine of our Lord and his apostles, as re- corded and delivered to us in the writings of the New Testa- ment. A distinction, also, must be made, between opinions or doc- trines delivered merely as their own, and those which they ascribe to the Church, to the apostles, or to our Lord Himself.165 And while the opinions of one or a few of the Fathers, however eminent, are not to be taken for the doctrine of the Church : 164 « There is no point of Christian doctrine which is not attested and laid down in the New Testament -- -The Church cannot receive any teaching which does not find its justification in the Bible, and is not — at least, indicated and implied in the New Tes- tament in premisses of which it is the logical sequel." — Bollinger, Christenthum und Kirche, in the Academy, No. 3, p. 67. 16> " The tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy ApostlcP, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the son receiving it from the father." — Clem. Alex. Strom. I. i. Ch. VL] CLEMENS ALEXANDPJNUS. CYPRL1N. 385 yet whatever they all agree in, explicitly or implicitly, from the very first, must be accepted with confidence. Such is the case with the Creeds, infant baptism, female communion, the ob- servance of the Lord's day. Such is not the case with regard to the mixed chalice, lights for signification, and many other things, which are fondly embraced as Catholic by some few members of the Church of England. Bearing these observations, then, in mind, let us examine what the opinions of the Fathers on the subject in hand really were, and what they amount to. 1. Clemens Alexandrintjs,. in the last decade of the second century, is the earliest I can find cited about Melchisedek. He says : — "Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God,, who gave wine and bread, the sanctified nourishment, for a type of the Eucharist." 166 First, he calls the bread and wine brought by Melchisedek, " sanctified nourishment iy : and this Bellarmine will have to mean, by having been offered to God. But St. Paul teaches that the " creature of God " — " is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."* And therefore "sanctified nourishment" does not necessarily mean food that has been brought either as an oblation or as a sacrifice to God. Secondly, Clemens says that Melchisedek gave " the sanctified nourishment for a type of the Eucharist " : which is to be considered together with some similar statements of others. 2. Cyprian, about the middle of the third century, says : — " In the priest Melchisedec we see the mystery of the sacrifice of the Lord prefigured, as the Divine Scripture testifies and' says, 'And Melchise- dec king of Salem brought forth bread and wine ; but he was the priest of the Most High God, and blessed Abraham.' But that Melchisedec bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying in the person of the Father to the Son, ' Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' Which order certainly is this, coming from that sacrifice and thence descending, that Melchisedec was a priest of the Most iigh God, that he oflfered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. ?or who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Jhrist, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered this same vhich Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely, His own 166 MeA^KreSe^, /3ariest of the Most High God, that he offered bread and wine, and that he blessed Abraham : fourthly, that our " Lord Jesus Christ " is also a priest of the Most High God ; and that the sacrifice which He offered to God the Father, is u that same which Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely, His own body and blood 99 : fifthly, that the blessing received by Abraham belongs to Christian people : sixthly, that the figure of the sacrifice of Christ preceded the blessing of Abra- ham : and seventhly, that the Lord accomplished and fulfilled the truth of this figure, by offering " bread and the cup mixed wTith wine." 3. Eusebius C^ESAMENSis, in the second decade of the fourth century, says : — Jesus our Saviour, the Christ of God. after the manner of Melchisedec, still even now performs by his own ministers, the offices of the priesthood ic7 u jn saCerdote Melchisedec sacrificii Dominici sacramentum preefiguratum vide- mus, secundum quod Scriptura divina testatur et dicit : ' Et Melchisedec rex Salem protulit panem et vinuru, fuit autem sacerdos Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham.' ■Quod autem Melchisedec typum Christi portaret, declarat in Psalmis Spiritus Sanctus, ^x persona Patris ad filium dicens — Tu es sacerdos in seternum secundum ordicem Melchisedec' Quis ordo utique hie est de sacrificio illo veniens et inde descendens. quod Melchisedec sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod panem et vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi. quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod 3Ielchi- sedec obtulerat, id est panem et vinum. suuni scilicet corpus et sanguinem? et circa Abraham benedictio ilia praecedens ad nostrum populum pertinebat." — Ep. ad CsedL 63, al. 62, Oxon. p. 2, 149. us "TJt ergo in G-enesi per Melchisedec sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham posset rite celebrari, prseeedit ante imago sacrificii Christi, in pane et vino scilicet consti- tuta : quam rem perfieiens et adimplens Dominus, panem et calicem mixta m viuo obtulit, et qui est plenitudo veritatis veritatem pnefiguratse imaginis adimplevit." — Ibid. p. 160, Ep. ad Csecil. Cn. VL] EUSEBIUS. AMBROSE. 387 among men : for as Melchisedec being a priest of Gentiles, does not at all appear to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with wine onlv and bread: in the very same manner, He, our Saviour and Lord, first, then all the priests from Him, among all the nations, fulfilling the spiritual priesthood, according to the ecclesiastical ordinances, by wine and bread, darkly intimates the mysteries of His body and saving blood, Melchisedec having foreseen these things by a divine spirit, and having used the images of the things to come." 169 Eusebius, then, says : that Melchisedek is not seen to have used corporeal sacrifices : secondly, that he used wine only and bread to bless Abraham with : thirdly, that our Lord after his manner first performed the office of his priesthood : with wine and bread: fourthly, that his ministers after Him, fulfilling their spiritual priesthood throughout the world, do by wine and bread, according to the laws of the Church, darkly signify the mysteries of his body and saving blood : and fifthly, that in usingf bread and wine, Melchisedek acted with foreknowledge, and used the images of the things.170 4. In a work imputed to Ambrose, who wrote in the eighth decade of the fourth century, the writer says : — " We know that the figure of these sacraments preceded the times of Abraham, when Melchisedec offered sacrifice." And again : — " We have said that on the altar is appointed a cup and bread, and wine is put into the cup : and what else ? water. But you say to me, How, then, did Melchisedec offer bread and wine? what means the mixture of the water ? ' ' And in another work imputed to Ambrose, it is said that — " The institution of Mechisedec remains, which is celebrated in all the world in the distribution of the sacraments." 171 ; . % 169 'O 2o:T7?p rj/xcov 'ItjctoCs. 'O Xpiaros tov Qeov, tlv tov MeAxiT7jp nal Krpios V/jlwv, e7reiTC ol e£ Avtov irdvTZS Upe7s ava irdvTa to. tdvT] ttjv TTvevfxariK^v iirn e\ovvTts Kara rovs iKK\rio-iat panis, in calice mittitur vinum: et quid aliud? aqua. Sed tu ruihi dicis, Quomodo c c 2 388 JEROME. AUGUSTINE. [pt. n. This writer, then, thought that Melchisedek offered bread and wine ; and that this offering was a figure of the sacraments. 5. A few years later, Jerome says : — " Go back to Genesis, and you will find Melchisedec king of Salem, prince of this state, who even then offered bread and wine for a type of Christ, and dedicated the Christian mystery in the body and blood of the Saviour." — " Our mystery is signified in the word of the order, not at all in irrational victims to be immolated through Aaron, but in the offered bread and wine, that is, in the body and blood of the Lord Jesus." And in another place he says, that — " As Melchisedec in prefiguration of Christ had done in offering bread and wine, He Himself also intended to represent the truth of His body and blood." 172 In the opinion of Jerome, then, Melchisedek offered bread and wine for a type of Christ : secondly, he dedicated the Christian mystery in the body and blood of the Saviour : thirdly, the Christian mystery is signified in the bread and wine offered by Melchisedek, that is, in the body and blood of our Lord: and fourthly, Melchisedek prefigured Christ in offering bread and wine. 6. Augustine wrote at the end of the fourth century. He says : — " Melchisedec, in bringing forth the sacrament of the Lord's Table, knew how to figure His eternal priesthood " : That in the benediction of Abraham by Melchisedek — " first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered by Christians in the whole world." — " They who read know what Melchisedec brought forth when he blessed Abraham : and if now they are partakers of it, they see such a sacrifice at this time offered to God in all the world." 173 ergo Melchisedec panem et vinum obtulit ? quid sibi vult admistio aquae ? — Constat manere Melchisedec institution, quod toto orbe terrarum in sacra mentorum eroga- tione celebratur."— De Sacramentis, V. i.; in Heb. v.; Paris, 1632, II. 367-369. 172 Recurre ad Grenesin, et Melchisedec regem Salem, hujus principem invenies civi- tatis : qui jam tunc in typo Christi panem et vinum obtulit, et mysterium Christianura in Salvatoris corpore et sanguine dedicavit." — Ad Marcellum, 547. "Mysterium nostrum in verbo ordinis significatur: nequaquam per Aaron irrationalibus victimis immolandis, sed oblato pane et vino, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini Jesu." — Qusest. in Gen. ii. 520. " Ut quomodo in prsefiguratione Ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, Ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis et sanguinis reprsesentaret." — In Matt. c. 26. us "Melchisedec, prolato sacramento mensae Dominicse, novit seternum ejus sacerdo- tium figurare." — Ep. ad Innocent, 12, Vol. II. 769. " Sed plane tunc benedictus est Ch. VL] CHRYSOSTOM PKLMASIUS. 389 Augustine, then, thought that Melchisedek brought forth the sacrament of the Lord's Table : and that in the bread and wine which he brought was the sacrifice now offered by all Christians. 7. Chrtsostom, who is dated two years later than Augus- tine, writes : — " Seeing the type, consider, I pray, the truth also." 174 8. Theodoeet, in the third decade of the fifth century, says : — " We find Melchisedec to be both priest and king : for he was a type of the true priest and king ; and offering unto God not irrational sacrifices, but bread and wine." 175 9. Arnobitts the younger, in the seventh decade of this cen- tury, said, that — " By the mystery of bread and wine Christ was made a priest for ever." 176 10. Cassiodorus, in the second decade of the sixth century, says, that — " The most righteous king instituted the order of Melchisedec by a mysti- cal similitude, when he offered the fruits of bread and wine to the Lord : for it is evident that the victims of cattle have perished, which were of the order of Aaron ; and that the institution of Melchisedec rather remains, which is celebrated in all the world in the distribution of the Sacraments." 177 11. Primasius, in the middle of this century, wrote, that — " Christ was made a priest in the order of Melchisedec, not temporal but eternal ; nor offering legal victims, but like him, bread and wine, His flesh, namely, and blood." 178 1 . a Melchisedec — Ibi quippe primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc a Christianis offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum." — De Civ. Dei, xxii. VII. 500. " Xoverunt qui legunt, quid protulerit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham : et si jam sunt parti- cipes ejus.vident tale sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum." — Cont. Adver. Leg. et Proph. I. xx. 39, VIII. 627. 174 Horn. 35 on Gren. xiv. b'poiv rbv rxmov voei p.oi rr,v aXi)(}eiav. 1,0 Evpio-KO/iev 8e rbv MeAxl0~($*K> Ka^ ieP*'<* ovra Kal {HacriAea- rxnros yap j|r rov 6\\t)- Qivov Upius /cat fiao-iXeas' Kal npoacpepovra Tcp ©e<£ ovk tx\oya 06/j.ara, dAA' &provs Kal olvov.—ln Psalm 109, p. 852. 176 " Christus per mvsterium panis et vini factus est sacerdos in a?ternum." — In Psalm 109. 177 " Quern ordinem Melchisedec per mysticam similitudinem justissimus rex insti- tuit, quando Domino panis et vini fructus obtulit. Constat enim pecudum vietimas periisse, quae fueruut ordinis Aaron: et Melchisedec manere potius institutum, quod toto orbe in Sacramentorum erogatione celebratur." — In Psalm 109. 171 "In cujus ordine sacerdotii Christus factus est sacerdos. non temporalis, sed aeternus ; nec offerens vietimas legales, sed instar illius panem et viuum, carnem vide- licet, et sanguinem suum.'' — In Ep. ad Heb. c. 5. 390 JOHAKBtES DAMASCEXUS. (ECUMEXIUS. [Pi. H. 12. Johannes Damascenus, at the beginning of the fourth decade of the eighth century, says, that — u that table [of Melchisedec] shadowed forth this mystical one, as also that priest bore the figure and image of the true High Priest, Christ." 179 13. CEcumenius, near the close of the tenth century, said, as cited by Bellarmine, that the words " for ever," were not written — 11 in reference to that sacrifice and oblation only, which was once for all, made by God, looking on to the priests of our time, by whom Christ both sacrifices and is sacrificed, and who delivered to them in that mystical feast and supper, the formula of this priesthood." 180 The place, however, is properly this : on the words " a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek," he says : " The ex- pression signifies, that although Christ did not offer an unbloody sacrifice, (since He offered His own body,) yet they who from Him fulfil the priesthood, of whom God vouchsafes to be also High Priest, shall offer without blood : for this 6 for ever,' signifies. For he would not have said 6 for ever ' of that sacri- fice and oblation made by God once for all ; but [he writes it] looking to those who now minister, by whose means Christ ministers and is ministered to : Eom. xv. 16 : who also in the mystic supper delivered to them the manner of such minis- try." 181 The place, with its context, is somewhat obscure : but the writer appears to me distinctly to show, that the bread and wine were not a type of the sacrifice of Christ, or of a sacrifice made by Him, since that of Melchisedek, if it was a sacrifice, was unbloody ; but that Christ Himself " did not offer an un- bloody sacrifice, since He offered His own body," and his sacrifice was both bloody and unbloody : 182 and then, that the priesthood for ever was spoken of, not in regard to the 179 " Mensa ilia mysticam hanc adumbrabat, quemadmodum et sacerdos ille veri Pontificis Ohristi figuram, et imaginem prse se ferebat."- — De Fide, IV. xiv. 180 aepop&v ds robs vvv Upovpyovs, SI 2>v /jLtacov Xpierrbs Upovpysi kcu Upovpyelrai, 6 ko\ irapaSovs avrens kv iw ixverriKw Se'nrvui rbv rpoirov T7js roiavrr]s Upovpylas. — In Ep. ad Heb. c. vi. ; Lut. Par. 1631, II. 348. 181 Ovros TTp&TOS avalfxaicrov Overlay irpoavvfyKe rev ®ew 6.prov xa\ olvov. At)\ovvtos rov \6yov, otl et /j.7] avrbs 6 Xpierrbs avalfxaKrov irpoerriyaye Overlay (irpoaiiyaye yap rb kavrov erco/xa.) oW1 of ye air' avrov fepels uv ©ebs Ka\ apx^p^bs a^iot eivai. avalfiaKTOV •npocro'ieroverr tovto yap 877A0?, to, ets rbv alu.va. ov yap tt\v irpbs a?ra£ yevoufvrjv vnb 0eoC Overlay na\ irpoerepopav clirev hv, ets rbv aluiva, &AA' £v els robs vvv tepovpyovs. Si &v fxeerwv Xpierrbs Upovpyei Ka\ Upovpyeirai, 6 Kal irapa^ovs avro7s iv rS> fxverriKy SelvTTw rby rp6rrov rrjs roiavrrjs Upovpylas. — In Ep. ad Heb. vi. ; Lut. Par. 1631, 348. ^ 182 Et fiT} avrbs 6 Xpierrbs avalfxaKrov irpoerrjyaye Overlay, Trpoerriyaye yap to tavrov oco/xa. — 'O Xpierrbs aval/xaKrov Ova lay irpoeri\vsyKzv, elO" verrepov «at to kavrov erwp.a. Ch. VI.] (ECUMENIUS. THEOPHYLAOT. 391 sacrifice {Ova la) made once for all by Christ our God, but in regard of the ministry (IspovpyLa) which He exercises and with which He is served (Ispovpysl kol lepovpysiTai), by those to whom He has delivered it. He calls that which our Lord offered, dvaia ; but that which He delivered to the apostles, and which He carries on by their successors, he calls Ispovpyla : the former being sacrifice properly ; the latter, any sacred or priestly ministra- tion. It is evident, therefore, that no certain testimony can be extracted from this place of (Ecumenius, for the purpose for which it is cited by Bellarmine. 14. Theophylact, near the end of the eleventh century, says that Christ — * after the manner of Melchisedec sacrificed with bread and wine." And :— "he said for eve?', because daily and for ever, by the ministers of Godr there is offered an oblation, having Christ the Lord and High Priest, and a sacrifice, who, for our sake, sanctifies, breaks, and gives Himself." 183 These fourteen authorities, with four or five others which are not sufficiently to the purpose, are all that Bellarmine has produced to prove that in the opinion of the Fathers, the bread and wine of Melchisedek were a type and figure of the Eucharist. Possibly, a few more might be gleaned : but it is to be presumed that the Cardinal cited all that seemed to him suitable to his purpose. And when these are all, out of about a thousand, or at least, very many hundred 184 writers, from the beginning to the end of the eleventh century ; it must be acknowledged that they are very far from proving a consensus Patrum, on the subject. They are " few and far between " : one in the second century ; one in the third ; five in the fourth ; two in the fifth ; two in the sixth ; none in the seventh ; one in the eighth ; none in the ninth ; one in the tenth ; and one in the eleventh. And when it is remembered that the first of the Fathers cited, Clemens Alexandrinus, dates from the very end of the second century, it must be seen how very far the t}^pical relation con- 1S3 " In morem illhis pane et vino sacriticabat. — In feternum dixit, quia qnotidie offertur, in perpetuum offertur per Dei ministros oblatio, Christum Dominum et Pon- tifieem habens, et sacrificium, qui seipsum nostri ob gratiam sanctiticat, frangit et tribuit." — In c. 5 ad Heb. cited from Bellarmine. 184 Dr. Pusey cites eighty on the subject of the Eucharist in the first five centuries : Bellarmine, nine only here. 392 ANALYSIS [pt. n. tended for by Bellarmine, and after him by Johnson, between the bread and wine of Melchisedek and the Eucharist, is from fulfilling the golden rule, " quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." Nor can one fail to remark how very scanty is the evidence produced from those two great and very voluminous writers, Augustine and Chrysostom : from the former of whom nothing more could have been produced ; while the brief passage from Chrysostom is, in fact, no evidence at all to the point in ques- tion, for it does not relate to the alleged sacrifice, or to Mel- chisedek as offering it. But a slight analysis and comparison of the places cited will be instructive. First, then, we find three only of these Fathers speaking of Melchisedek himself as a type of Christ : Cyprian, who says that he u bore a type of Christ 99 ; Theodoeet, who calls him a type of the true priest and king ; and Johannes Damascenes, who says, that he " bore the figure and image of the true High Priest, Christ." Secondly, with regard to what Melchisedek did, in that he brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abraham, in six of these recited places his actions are made typical of the actions of Christ : Cypeian saying that " Melchisedek — offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abra- ham " ; and that " our Lord Jesus Christ — offered the same," and that his " blessing — belonged to our people ; " Eusebius, that " as Melchisedec blessed Abraham with wine only and bread, in the very same manner our Lord and Saviour fulfils His priesthood": Jeeome, that "Melchisedec in prefiguration of Christ " — offered 46 bread and wine " : Augustine, that M Melchisedec in bringing forth a sacrament of the Lord's Table, knew how to figure His eternal priesthood 99 : Theo- doeet, that " Melchisedec was a type of the true Priest — offering unto God not irrational sacrifices, but bread and wine " : and Aenobius, that " by the mystery of bread and wine Christ was made a priest for ever." Thirdly, six of these Fathers speak of the things brought forth by Melchisedek as typical of the Eucharist : Clemens Alexandeinus culls the "bread and wine — a type of the Eucharist " : the Pseud- Ambeose, says that "the institution of Melchisedec" — "had the figure of the sacraments," and " is celebrated in all the world in the distribution of the sacraments " : Jeeome says, that " our mystery is signified in the offered bread and wine " : Augustine says, that in the bread and wine which Melchisedek Cn. VI] OF THEIR OPINIONS. 393 brought forth was the " sacrifice now offered to God in all the world " : Cassiodorus says, that " the institution of Melchisedec — is celebrated in all the world in the distribution of the sacra- ments " : and Johannes Damascenes says, that the w table of Melchisedec shadowed forth this mystical one." Fourthly, Eusebius says that " Melchisedec does not at all appear to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with bread and wine." Fifthly, Cyprian says, that " in Melchisedec we see the mystery of the sacrifice of the Lord prefigured." Sixthly, two of these Fathers made the offering of Melchisedek identical with the Eucharist ; Cyprian saying that " Christ offered the same which Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely, His own body and blood " ; and Primasius that " like Mel- chisedec," Christ offered, not " legal victims, but bread and wine, His flesh, namely, and blood." So, then, we have only three, out of these fourteen Fathers, finding in Melch'sedek a type of Christ : six of them, types of the actions of Christ in the actions of Melchisedek : six of them finding in the bread and wine of Melchisedek types of the ele- ments in the Eucharist: one of them seeing in Melchisedek a prefiguration of our Lord's sacrifice : and two of them not merely making the bread and wine of Melchisedek types of the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but representing them as the very sacrament of the body and blood of Christ : nay, Jerome says, that Melchisedek " dedicated the Christian mystery in the body and blood of the Saviour." But only two or three, directly or indirectly, speak of the bread and wine of Melchisedek as a sacrifice. Cyprian says that " our Lord Jesus Christ — offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same which Melchisedec had offered." Augustine says, that they who " are partakers " of that which " Melchisedec brought forth — see such a sacrifice now offered to God in all the world." And Theophylact says, that our Lord " after the manner of Melchisedec sacrificed with bread and wine." But Eusebius seems opposed to the notion of a sacrifice of bread and wine by Melchisedek ; for he says that he u does not at all appear to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with wine only and bread." The Pseud-Ambrose, indeed, speaks of Melchisedek having " offered sacrifice : " but Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, Cassiodorus, and Primasius, speak in the places cited, not of a sacrifice, but of an offering of the bread and wine by Melchisedek. Above all, it is to be noticed, that Theophylact alone, out 394 ON THE ALLEGED SACRIFICE [pt. n. of the fourteen, refers to that, at least chief, feature in which Melchisedek was a type of Christ, the continuity and per- petuity of his priesthood : and yet this writer attributes this, not to our Lord Himself, but to his ministers, " because daily and for ever, by the ministers of God, there is offered an oblation having Christ the Lord both High Priest and a sacrifice, who for our sake, sanctifies, breaks, and gives Himself." On the whole, then, there is next to nothing in these citations from the Fathers, to show that they regarded the bread and wine of Melchisedek as a sacrifice. A very few speak of them as an offering: while some speak of them as neither sacrifice nor offering. But of the majority of them, ten only in number in the course of five centuries, from the end of the second cen- tury to the beginning of the eighth, either directly or indirectly make the bread and wine of Melchisedek types of the Eucharist : Clemens Alexandrinus, the Pseud-Ambrose, Augustine, Cassiodorus, and Johannes Damascenus, thus speaking of the bread and wine : Cyprian, Eusebius, Jerome, Augusti::e, Theodoret, and Arnobius, making the action of Melchisedek typical of the action of our Lord : and, consequently, though indirectly, making the bread and wine which Melchisedek brought forth, types of the elements in which our Lord instituted the Eucharist." 185 But the type must be a sacrifice, to prove that the antitype is a sacrifice : and there is no proof that the bread and wine of Melchisedek were a sacrifice. There is nothing in Holy Scripture or in these testimonies of the Fathers which can be made to establish this position. But supposing that the action of Melchisedek was typical, and the things he brought typical ; the requirements of the types are fulfilled in the action of our Lord, taking the bread and wine and giving them with blessing 185 We perceive, however, that " type," as understood by some of these Fathers, had a very indefinite meaning ; for immediately before the first place cited from Cyprian, he says : " We find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord's passion ; that he was made naked in his household ; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exp"S< d ; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest ; and the other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus ex- pressed the figure of the passion of the Lord. Invenimus enim in Genesi circa sacra- mentum Noe hoc idem pra?cucurnsse, et figuram Dominicas passionis illic extitisse, quod vinum Libit, quod inebriatus est, quod in domo sua nudatus est, quod fuit recubans nudis et patentibus femoribus; quod nuditas ilia patris a medio filio denotata est; a majore vero et minore contecta; et caetera qu?e non necesse est exsequi, cum satis hoc solum complecti, quod Noe typum futura? veritatis ostendens, non aquam sed vinum biberit; et sic imaginem Dominica? passionis expresserit." — Ep. ad Csecil. Ch. VL] OF MELCHISEDEK. 395 to liis disciples. It would, however, be the only case in which the type and antitype are identical : bread and wine typifying bread and wine : a fact which I would submit as destructive of the notion of any such typical relation in the case. From all that has been said, then, the conclusion is, that there is no proof that Melchisedek offered sacrifice on meeting Abraham : there is no proof that bread and wine were his sacrifice : there is no proof that in bringing forth bread and wine he was a type of Christ : there is no proof from Holy Scripture that the bread and wine brought forth by Melchisedek were a type of the elements in the Eucharist : there is no suffi- cient proof in the alleged testimonies of the Fathers that the bread and wine of Melchisedek were a sacrifice typifying a sacrifice of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. The discussion may, perhaps, seem tedious ; but it was not the less necessary : because if Melchisedek offered a sacrifice of bread and wine ; and if he was in doing this a type of Christ ; it would necessarily follow that our Lord must have offered a like sacrifice ; and consequently, that there is a sacrifice of the bread and wine, a material sacrifice, in the Eucharist. But since it cannot be proved that Melchisedek did sacrifice bread and wine, or that in bringing forth these things he was a type of Christ ; those conclusions, so far as they depend on the case of Melchisedek, entirely fail.* Y. The last place we have to notice, as alleged in proof of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, is that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle says : u We have an altar, where- of they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." f And the argument in naked form is this, or at least must be this, in order to prove the conclusion desired : The altar, here spoken of, is a material altar : a material altar must have material sacrifices offered upon it : whatsoever, therefore, is offered on this altar is a material sacrifice : but bread and wine are offered upon it in the Eucharist ; and consequently the bread and wine offered upon the altar are a material sacrifice. This is the necessary skeleton of every argument which can be elabo- rated on this text, however able, ingenious, or learned, by which it can be supposed possible, logically, to prove a material * See Appendix I L f Heb. xiii. 10. 396 HEB. X. 13. [pt. n. sacrifice in the Eucharist. And when it is represented in few words and due order, it is easy to see how unsound the argu- ment is. Tor there is nothing to prove that the altar, of which this text speaks, is a material altar.186 A material altar, in its obvious and proper sense, is an altar fitted for material sacrifices : and material sacrifices offered upon an altar, according to the true definition of material sacrifice, as distinguished from oblations, must be consumed by fire. Hence, a material altar is a structure on which the sacrifice can be so consumed. Under the Old Testament, and in all its writings, an altar, wherever spoken of, always meant a structure of this kind. It was always an altar made of such materials, and so constructed, that, as was required in all kinds of sacrifice but the Passover, sacrifice was consumed upon it by fire. But under the New Testament, " the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." * From this change of the law, we have, confessedly, no burnt sacrifices : and, therefore, we require no altars upon which such sacrifices can be made. It is evident that we have no " proper " material altar for sacrifice. Nor, indeed, is it to be supposed that the advocates of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist would contend that we have an altar of this kind : although a fondness for stone altars might indicate the contrary. But it is undeniably evident, that if the apostle meant Christians in opposition to Jews, when he said : " We have an altar " ; the altar he had in view was not an altar in the Old Testament sense, an altar for material sacrifice. Thus, then, the first proposition and foundation of the argu- ment, entirely fails ; and with it the conclusion necessarily fails also. The altar spoken of is not a material altar for material sacri- fice ; and therefore material sacrifice cannot be proved from it. What that altar is, which this place of Holy Scripture tells us we have, is more fitly to be considered in another chapter. 186 Bellarmine gives up the attempt to prove such an altar from this place. "Some, indeed," he says, "as Haymo, and some other authors of weight, think that the Lord's Table is not improbably called an altar expressly in Heb. xiii. — yet because there are some Catholics, who by altar understand in this place, the cross, or Christ Himself, I do not urge the place itself. Existimant quidem aliqui, ut Haymo ; et alii non- nulli graves auctores non improbabiliter mensam Domini expresse vocari altare, Heb. 1.3. — tamen quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui eo loco per altare intelligant crucem, aut ipsum Christum; non urgeo ipsum locum." — De Missa. I. xiv. Aquinas says: ,; Per altare autem significatur ipse Christus : de quo dicit Apostolus Heb. ult. Sa, q. 83, 3, 2. Now by the altar, Christ Himself is signified; of whom the Apostle speaks in the last chapter of Hebrews." * Heb. vii. 12. Ch. VL] COXCLl'SIOX FROM TIHS REVIEW 307 The conclusion of the present chapter, -which I must consider to have been fully proved by our review of the places of Scrip- ture alleged for a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, is, that that there is no place of Scripture which will prove any such sacrifice. 398 THE FATHERS ON THE EUCHAEISTIC SACRIFICE. [Pt. II, CHAPTEE VII. THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS ON THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. The preceding chapter has shown how little evidence there is in Holy Scripture for the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist. It shows that, of the five places alleged in proof of this doctrine, not one supplies such proof. Still it may be replied, and it is in fact virtually replied, that though it be true that such proof is not to be found in those places according to the interpretation given in the preceding pages, yet the ancient Fathers and the Church, for many ages from the beginning, understood them differently, and taught this doctrine of a material sacrifice. And if this were indeed the fact, if the Fathers and the Church did teach this doctrine, and worship according to it, from the beginning : then it would be certain, either that I have interpreted these places untruly, or else that there are other sufficient proofs, for the establishment of the doctrine, to be drawn from the same divine source. For doctrine and worship, maintained from the very first, must have their foundation and evidence in God's holy word. But the latter alternative will hardly be pleaded by any. Illustrations may, indeed, be proposed from many other places of Scripture ; but such illustrations are of little weight in the failure of proof from the places already examined. Here, then, we have to enquire, what was the doctrine of the Fathers, and the practice of the Church from the beginning, in reference to this subject. Did the Fathers believe and teach, that we offer a material sacrifice, a sacrifice of the bread and wine, in the Eucharist ? and did the Church in the celebration of this Sacrament, make, or profess to make, such sacrifice 'P But, first, it must be observed, that it is not sufficient for the purpose of this enquiry, to heap up before the reader a mass of evidence from a number of centuries, and to make it appear to him as if the doctrine of the earliest is identical with the doctrine of the latest, from some shadowy resemblance being ch. vn.] CLEMENT OF ROME. 399 traceable throughout. There must be a strict and careful examination, as we go on, step by step ; and the precise doctrine required to be proved, must be distinctly and sufficiently dis- covered from the very first. This condition will very greatly abridge the enquiry : for if we can find no clear and decisive testimony for a material sacrifice before the end of the second century, we must be convinced that the theory of such a sacrifice, having a later origin, has no sufficient warrant of antiquity to give it a right to a place in the faith of the Church. 1. The first witness cited is Clement of Eome, who is spoken of by St. Paul, as one of his " fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life." * He was appointed Bishop of Eome, according to some writers, about the year of our Lord 61, but according to others not till the year 93 ; according to Johnson and Cave, about 65 ; and the latter says, that Clement held his bishopric till 81. \ Citing Ps. L. 63 according to the Septuagint, " The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, and there is the way in which I will shew him my salvation," Clement says : — " This is the way, beloved, in which we have found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the High Priest of our oblations, the patron and defender of our infirmity." 1§7 In another place, he says : — ;' We ought to do all things in order, whatsoever the Lord has com- manded us to perform at appointed times. He has commanded both the oblations and liturgies to be celebrated, and that it should be done not in a vain or disorderly manner, but at determined seasons and times. Both where, and by whom He will have them celebrated He Himself has ap- pointed by His most high counsel ; that all things that are religiously done according to His good pleasure may be acceptable to His will. They, therefore, who make their oblations at the appointed seasons are both acceptable and happy : for following the ordinances of the Lord they err not. For to the High Priest are given litunries proper to him, and to the Priests their proper place is ordained, and upon the Levites their proper ministries devolve : the Layman is bound by the ordinances per- taining to the Laymen. Let each of you, brethren, give thanks to God, in his proper order, being in good conscience, not transgressing the ap- pointed rule of His service, in gravity. Not everywhere, brethren, are continual sacrifices offered, either of prayers, free-will offerings [or vows], * Phil. iv. 3. 187 " Qucria alveaews Soldiei fxe. Kai ine? odus V 5ji'|co aurw rb curripiov rod Qeov. Auttj V «5gs, aya-rrriroi, 4v fj eupo/xev rb cr&TTjpiov r]fjiu'U, 'Irjaouy Xpiarbv, rbv 'Apxiepe'a ru>v Trpuo-'popwv rifjLui/." — Ep. ad Corinth, co. do, 36. 400 CLEMENT. IGNATIUS. [Pt. II. or sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem alone: and there not in every place is oblation made, but before the sanctuary at the altar, that which is offered having been examined by the High Priest, and the aforesaid ministers. They, therefore, who do anything inconsistent with His will have death for their punishment." 188 And in another place, having shown what care the apostles took to continue a succession of pastors in the Church, he adds : — " For it will be no small sin for us, if we thrust from the Episcopate those who have unblameably and holily offered the gifts." 189 Clement, then, taught that Christians have oblations, and that their oblations are made by ministers and by the people, each according to their " proper ordinances " or " appointed rule of service " : that the place, and time, and order of our oblations ■were appointed by our Lord ; and that He is the High Priest through whom both ministers and people offer them. But there is not a word in these places, of any sacrifice offered by Christians, except the " sacrifice of praise." There is nothing in them of a material sacrifice. Neither is it to be gathered from them what the oblations were, whether material or spiritual ; unless it may be inferred from the mention of " gifts " offered by the Bishops, which, from the light of later authorities we may con- clude to be alms and oblations of material things presented at the Holy Communion. Nor, again, will these places prove that the portion of the bread and wine which was used for the Com- munion, were an oblation by themselves. Neither the sacrifice, then, nor the oblation of the elements is to be proved from Clement of Some. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is said to have conversed with the apostles, and suffered martyrdom at Eome, probably in the 188 "Yldvra Ta|ei Toieiv 6(p€iKofj.ev.'6aa 6 AeaTorris iirireXelv iKeXevcev KaraKaLpovsTeray- fxivovs. Tas re TTpon(popas koX Aeirovpy'ias iiziTeXelo'dai, Hal ovk etK7j r) aratntos iKeXevaev yiveaOai, ah\' cbpio~p.4vois Kaipdis nal upais. Hov re teal 8ta rivcov iiriTehelcrdai QeXei, Avrhs api&ev rrj vTreprdrrj, Avtov fiovXriaet, lv dalcas ixdvra rd yiv6p.eva iv evb'oicrjaei ev- 7rp6o~o~eKTa eft} t<£ 6eXi)p.ari Avtov. Ot oZv rots TTpoffrerayjxivois Kaipots ttoiovvtcs ray 7Tpoa yap 'ApX'ePe' iStai Xeirovpyiai 8e5ojuei>cu elo~\v, koI rois lepevo~iv TSios 6 r ottos it poo~T crater ai, kcu Xev'trais iSlai SiaKovtai iiriKfivrai' 6 XatKbs &v8pwiros ro7s Xa'iKols TrpoardypLacnv 8e5eTcu. "Enao-ros v/xwu, aSeXcpoi, iu ra> ISlcp rdypari euxaPtfrT6'Ta' ©ei/ rhu wpiap-ivov rr:s Xtirovpy'ias avrov Kavdva, iu aep.v6rriTi. Ov wavraxov, d8eAv Xzirovpywv Ol ovv Txapd rh KaQr\Kov tt)s fiouX'qo'ecos avroi) Troiovvris ri, Qdvarov rh TrpSart/xov %x0V0~iV- ' — Ibid. cc. 40, 41. 189 pa tt)s 'ETrio'Konris a7cuf}dXp.ev." — Ibid. C. 44. ch. m] IGNATIUS. JUSTIN MARTYR. vear 107. In his Epistles written on his way to the imperial city, he says : — 14 Unless one be within the altar he is deprived of the bread of God." — " Come all of you together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ." — " He that is within the altar is clean : " — " Be zealous to use one Eucharist : for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the union of His blood, one altar, as there is one Bishop." 190 Thus Ignatius clearly teaches that there is one altar for Christians : but what that altar is, he nowhere says. He does not utter a word from which it might be concluded that he in- tended a material altar : and the only sacrifices or oblations he alludes to are the sacrifice of Him who on the cross " offered Himself for us, an oblation and sacrifice to God " ; and the sacrifice which he asked the Romans to entreat Christ he " might be found to make of himself by means " of the lions.* Justin Martyr wrote two Apologies t or defences of Chris- tianity, and a Dialogue or Disputation with Trypho, a Jew. They were published at different times, embracing the period probably from the year 140 to 162. He says : — " Concerning the sacrifices that in every place are by us Gentiles offered to Him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and the cup likewise of the Eucharist, He speaks before : " — " All those, therefore, who through this name [offer] sacrifices which Jesus Christ commanded to be made, that is at the Eucharist of the bread and of the cup, which [sacrifices] are made in every place of the earth by the Christians, God by anticipation testifies to be well-pleasing to Him. But the [sacrifices] which are made by you and those priests of yours He utterly rejects, saying, ' And your sacrifices I will not receive at your hands : for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified/ He saith, ' among the Gentiles.' But ye profane it, and to this time in your love of strife sajr, that God does not accept the sacrifices of those called Israelites who then dwelt there, but that He said, that He allows the prayers of those men of that race who at that particular time were dispersed abroad, and calls their pravers sacrifices. That, then, both prayers and thanksgivings offered by ihose who are worthy, are alone perfect sacrifices and acceptable to God, I myself also say : for these only have Christians received to offer, and 190 'Eay fjL7) tis y euros rov Ouaiaarr^plov, vcrrepe?rai rov aprov rov Qeov. — Ep. ad Ephes i. 5. Ilai'Tes oi>v ws els eva vaov awepx^^de Qeov, us eirl eu Qvciaart]piov, us eirl 'eva ylrio~ovv tpio~r6v. — Ep. ad Magnes. c. 7. Iirovbd^ere oZv pua euxaP'0"ri(? XPV^o-i' fiia yap v iv itdvri tSitca) vv, ol 8ta rov ovofxaros rovrov dvaias as ■jrapeb'wKev 'iryrovs 6 Xpiarbs ylpea6ai, rovreariv iv\ rrj €vxaPlcrTia T°v <*PT0U Kat T°£ Torripiov, ras iv iravri rdira) tt)s yr\s yivo- ixivas inrb rwv Xpiariavu>v, irpoKafiwv b Qebs, /xaprvpel evaoearovs v-ndpx^v AvrcS' ras oe i(p' v/xuv, Kai Si iKeivuv vllwv rcvv iepewv yivojxevas cnravalverai, Xeyosv, Kai ras Ovaias v/xwv ov itpoaSe^ojiai e>c rwv yeipthv v,uu>v Siori aivb avaroXris tjX'iov ecus bvauwv, rb ovoua /jlov SeSo^aarai, Xeyei, iv ro7s eQveaiv. vfxels Se fiefiriXovre avrb Kai Liexpi ™v cpiXoveiKovvres Xeyere, on ras fiev iv 'lepovaaXri/x iirl rciv eject to'tc oiKovvrwv '\apar]\iruv Ka\ovp.evuv. Ovaias ov irpoaSexerai u ©ebs, ras Se Sia raiv iv rfj Siaairopa rore Si] bvrwv b.irb tov yevovs (Keivov avOpwirwv ebx^s irpoo'ieadai avrbv elpr\nevai, Kai ras evx^s avruv Qva'ias KaXeiv. "On Lcev ovv Kai €>>xctl, Kai ebx*pi(TTiai irnb rwv d|iW yivbfievai, reXeiai (xovat, Kai ebdpearoi elcriv rce Qe'2 Ovalai, Kai abros P 7] reXeia EvwSfa, avfvberjs Kai aTrpoo~8er)s' (indigens et extra se desiderans) a\Aa dveria avriZ neyimr), av yivwcrKuuev ris e^eVeii/e Kai beov avai/xaKTOv duc'iav, Kai tt\v KoyiKv,v irpoaaytiv Karpiiav. — Athenaff. XII. Oxon. 1706, pp. 48, 49. IKEjNJUUS. TJGiKT U -LJL1AIN . l_lJT. 11. Irenseus says : — " It was not because He was angry, like a man, as many venture to say, that He rejected their sacrifices; but out of compassion to their blindness, and with the view of suggesting to them the true sacrifice, by offering which they shall appease God, that they may receive life from Him. As He elsewhere declares : ' The sacrifice of God is an afflicted heart : a SAveet savour to God is a heart glorifying Him who formed it.' For if, when angry, He had repudiated these sacrifices of theirs, as if they were persons unworthy to obtain His compassion, He would not certainly have urged these same things upon them as those by which they might be saved. But inasmuch as God is merciful, He did not cut them off from good counsel. For after He had said by Jeremiah, 1 To what purpose bring ye me incense from Saba, and cinnamon from a far country ? Your whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices are not acceptable to me ; ' He pro- ceeds : ' Hear the Word of the Lord, all Judah. These things saith the Lord, — the God of Israel, make straight your ways and your doings, and I will establish you in this place.' " 157 Tertullian says : — " I offer to Him a rich and a greater sacrifice which He Himself has commanded ; prayer proceeding from a chaste body, from an innocent soul, from a sanctified spirit : not a farthing's worth of frankincense, tears of an Arabian tree, not two drops of wine.198 — That we ought not to offer unto God earthly, but spiritual sacrifices, we so read as it is written : ' the sacrifice of God is a troubled and humbled heart ; ' and in another place : 4 Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High.' So, therefore, the spiritual sacrifices of praise are designated, and a troubled heart is demonstrated to be an acceptable sacrifice to God." 199 197 « ^on en}m gicut homo iratus, ut multi audent dicere, divertit eorum sacrifi- cium ; sed miserans eorum csecitati, et verum sacrificium insinuans, quod offerentes propitiabuntur Deum, ut ab eo vitam percipiant. Quemadmodum alibi ait : ' Sacrificium Deo cor contribulatum ; odor suavitatis Deo, cor clarificans eum qui psalmavit.' Sic enim irascens abnuerat hsec csecorura sacrificia, tanquam qui indigni essent consequi niisericordiam ejus, non utique eisdem ipsis suaderet, per quae salvari posseut. Sed quoniam Deus misericors est, non abscidit eos a bono consilio. Nam per Hierimiam cum dixisset, 4 Quo mihi thus de Saba aflfertis, et cinnamomum de terra longinqua? h'jlocaustomata et sacrificia vestra non delectaverunt me ;' intulit, ' Audite sermonem Domini, omnis Juda. Hsec dicit Dominus Deus Israel : Dirigite vias vestras et studia vestra, et constituam vos in loco isto.'" — IV. (ed Grabe) c. 31, pp. 321, 322, al. Contr. riser. IV. xvii. 2. 198 k Offero ei opimam et majorem hostiam, quam Ipse mandavit ; orationem de came pudica, de anima innocenti, de spiritu sancto profeetam ; non grana thuris unius assis, Arabicse arboris lacrymas, nec duo meri guttas." — Apol. 30. Waterland observes, "that if Tertullian had understood the material elements of the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, how easy it might have been to retort upon him the worthless grains of wheat, and the like." — Review, xii. Works, vii. 367. 199 « ^amque, quod non terrenis sacrifices, sed spiritalibus, Deo htandum sit, ita legimus ut scriptum est : 1 Cor contribulatum et humiliatum hostia Deo est.' Et alibi, ' Saerifica Deo sacrificia laudis, et redde Altissimo vota tua.' Sic igitur sacrificia spiritalia laudis designantur, et cor contribulatum acceptabile sacrificium Deo demon- sti-atur." — Adv. Jud. V. Ch. VII.] MINTJCIUS FELIX. CLEMENS ALEX. 409 Minucius Felix says : — ' A good soul and a pure mind, and a sincere conscience is a propitia- tory sacrifice. Therefore, he who cultivates innocence supplicates the Lord ; he who does justice offers a libation to God ; he who keeps from fraud propitiates God ; he who snatches a man from danger slays a fat victim. These are our sacrifices, these are the holy things of God." 200 Clement of Alexandria says : — u The altar that is with us here, the terrestrial one, is the assembly of those who devote themselves to the prayers, having, as it were their one common voice and one mind. — They will not believe us when we say, that the righteous soul is truly a holy altar ; and that the holy prayer [we make] is the incense [rising] from it. — Therefore, and with reason too, we do not sacrifice to Him who is not overcome by pleasures. — We rightly do not sacrifice to God who needeth nothing, who supplies all with all things : but we glorify Him who was sacrificed for us by sacrificing our- selves.— If, by nature, being in need of nothing, He delights when He is honoured, we not unreasonably honour God by prayer : and this, the best and holiest sacrifice, we send up to the most righteous Word, offering it in His honour with righteousness. — His [the true Gnostic, or the Chris- tian's,] sacrifices are prayers, praises, and readings in the Scriptures before the feast, and psalms and hymns during meals and before bed, and prayers also again during night. — The sacrifice of the Church is a word rising as incense from the holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole purpose being together opened to God." 201 Origen, when it was objected to Christians, that they had no altars, replied that Celsus thus objected : — 200 « putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, si delubra et aras non habemus ? Quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam, cum si recte existimes, sit Dei homo ipse simula- crum? templum quod ei extruam, cum totus hie mundus, ejus opere fabricatus, eum capere non possit? et cum homo latius maneam, intra unam sediculam vim tantse majestatis includam ? Nonne melius in nostra dedicandus est mente? in nostro imo consecrandus est pectore? Hostias et victimas Domino offeram, quas in usum mei protulit, ut rejiciam ei suum munus? Ingratum est: cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus, et pura mens, et sincera conscientia. Igitur, qui innocentiam colit, Domino supplicat; qui justitiam, Deo libat ; qui fraudibus abstinet, propitiat Deum ; qui honiinem periculo subripit, opimam victimam credit. H»c nostra saerificia, ha?c Dei sacra sunt."— Sect. 23, pp. 213, 214. Lugd. Batav. 1672 (p. 352). 201 "Eari yovv t6 Trap ypuv Qvcnao~Ti]piov ivravOa rb iiriydou, rb ddpoicrfxa twv rats evxais dvaKzifxivuv, fiiav &o~irtp ixov «"V tV Koivr\v Kal fxiav yvufxi)V. — Strom. VII. vi. p. 717 ; Lut. Par. 1641. Bw/xbu 5e dXrjdus ayiov, tt]v hiKaiav tyvxW' nal rh an ai/Tys Qvf.ua.fxa, rr\v bcriav €vxvv h-tyoiaiv T)fxiv ain.o~Ti]o~ovo,iv. — Ibid. EIkotws dpa fxr) viKWfxevcp 7)dova7s Ova'iav ov Trpoo~dyofj.ev. — VII. iii. p. 707. Ov dvo/xev zIkStcds awSse? ru flea?, tw to iravra rois iruai irapeaxV^^V T0V 5e virep Tffx&v UpevQtvra 8o£d(,opL€v, oiri6v o~ov. Spas Zircas rcavraxov »5taAa(U7r€tJ' iiriTpiirzrai rfj Aeirovpyia ayyeALKrj ; bpas '6tto)s ov irepiupicrrai oi/re rb diataarrjpiov, ovrt Ch. "TO. ] BY ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 413 According to this place of Chrysostoin, then, there is a mystic altar and a bloodless oblation, in fulfilment of the prophecy in Malachi ; the incense there spoken of being the holy prayer which is carried np in 205 the oblation. This he explains by a reference to " the angelic liturgy," which throws full light upon the prophecy. There is neither altar nor hyhm prescribed for the oblation of the pure incense. But there is, first, "the mystic table, the heavenly, the supramundane victim " (Ovfjua). He does not say altar, a thing or structure on which sacrifice is offered to God ; but he says table, a thing on which a sacrifice which has been offered to Him is presented and communicated to man. And the sacrifice which has been offered to God, and is presented to man, is "the celestial and supramundane victim," not the earthly elements by which that victim is rb aa/j.a ; ev iravrl rotrc? Ovuiajxa irpoacpeperai tu bvoLiari fxov. eari jxev ovv Ovaia Ka.8a.pa, ■7rpa>T7j piev 7) pivariKT) rpdne^a, rb ovpdviov, rb virepK6apiioi> Qiipia. eart 8e Kal ev r\p.~.v oidcpopa ttoKXmv Qvaiav. i-rreioy] yap 6 vofios ei\* iroXXas Ovaias iv rfj iraXaia, Kal rr]v p.ev inrep apiaprioov, rr\v 5e oXo^avrcapia Xeyo/xevrjv. — Kal rrjv fxev alveaews, rr)v 5e auri)piov, aXXyv inrep ruv KnQapixivwv Xeirpojv, ko.1 dXXas rroXXas Kal oiacpopois virep rwv iv jxvpiois ixiacx fxatr iv i^era^oixevccv Kal ttoXvs r)v Kal du.erpos dpiQpibs Ovaiu>v rwv Kara v6p.ov, 7] via X<*PIS iXQovaa Sid [Aids Trepiypdtprj rrdaas, Kal /xiav aXriQivrjv earrjae Qvaiav. eX.op.ev 5e Kal r)ue7s iv eavro7s erepas Ovaias, ou rw vnixca aroixovaas, d\Xa ttj ayyeXiKrj Xdpiri irpeirovaas. Kal fiovXri piaQelv rds Ovaias ravras. &s %X€l V inKXrja.a, ttws £ktos aladros Kal Kairvov, Kal fiwuov, Kil rcov &.\Xwv rb evayyeXiKbv ocapov avaire/xTrerai t(Z 0e«, Kal r) Ovaia KaQapd Kal duiavros ; &Kove rrjs dyias ypacpr/s aacp&s roi 7rapiaruiar]s r-^u oia r<£ Qe<£ Qvaiav Kal irpoo~e TlavKov irapaKaXa i/fxas, ddeXcrav, ayiav, evapearov tb 0e<£. exeu trpS>Tf\v o~a)Tr)pias tt]v Ouaiav, Sevrepav Tyv twv fiaprvpuv, rpiriqv tt]v T7js ei>xvs- KaTevvdr^ru 7] irpoaevx^] M-ov, us Bofxiafxa evunriov aov. eiraipeais rwv x^lP^v Mou- dvaia eairepiv^. rerdpTr] 7] oi aiveaecos, Toureari, 8i v/j.vu>v. Qiaov tu> ©eo) Qvaiav aiveaews. treixirTt] r\ Sia 8iKaioavvr)s. rore ev- $0Kr)aeis ttvaiav oiKaioavvqs. eKTT] T) Sl eKer)/xoavvr}S' duaia, (prjal, Kadapa. Kal afxiavros, eniaKeirreadai tttooxo'ls Kal bpcpavols ev tt; QXfyei avr&v. ePoo^r) f) rov a\a\ayiJ.ov. d\a- \ayjxbs Se eariv iiriv'iKios ev irohefxip Kporos. a\\o -yap 6\oXvyp.bs, Kal a\\o aXaXayixos. orav yap p.fTa v'iktis ev iroKejxu> arparLwrai fiowaiv, aXaXayiios eariv eKelvos, Kal ar)fxavTpov VJK7J9. 8ta r.)vro 6 irpo(pr)Tr}s robs /xeXXovras eidevai rrjv v'iktjv rov Xpiarov, rbv v/xvov fiutovras rbv Kara rwv TroXepiiwv, /xaKapi(ei Xeycav (Ps. lxxxviii. lo; Joan. xvi. 33 ; Ps. xxvi. 6): — byoor) eariv erepa Ovaia rco 0ew, irvevjxa avvrerpi/x/j.evov } Kapdiav avvrerpijxiJievriv Kal reraireivwp.ev7)v 6 ®ebs ovk e^ovbevxaei. Spas TrrjX'iKai Ovaiai Trap' rj/juv iroXirevovrai: eari Kal 6.XXrj Kaivrj dvaia r\ did rod evayyeXiKov Krjpvyuaros irXripovixevr], 6 Xoyos 6 SiSax- rtKbs, irepl ou (p-qaiv 6 diroaroXos TlavKos (Rom. xv. 16). — 'lepovpyouvres — ev rrvev/xari ayicf. Spas onus eSei^ev, on Kal rb Kr,pvyjj.a dvrl Ovaias dvairejxirerai tu> 0ew; e%eis ovv trpurrjv Qvaiav, rb acorripiov oQpov Seirepav, rrjv rSiv fxaprvpcvv rp'nrjv, rrjv ri)s Trpoaevx^s. nrdprTjv, r\]v rov aXaXay/xov- -neuTrrriv, rrjv rrjs diKaioavvris' eKrrjv r^v rr)s iXerip.onvv7]S- eBSofxrjv, rrjv ttjs alveaeoos' byooT]v, r))v rr)s Karavv^eccs' evvdrrjv, ryjv r-qs raireivo(ppoavvr)S' deKarrjv, rr\v rov K7]pvy faros' el Kal ri TrapeXnrot. evvea yap a.irapiQix7)adixevos, et-opuaa 5e/ca irapaoidoadai. ris odv r) irapaXeXeip.Lie'i'ri Ovaia; eari roivvv SeKarr} ■)) rf/s Kaprrocpopias, Trepl ou 6 HavXos (prjaiv (Phil. iv. 18). — e^eis oiiv iroiKiXiav Qvjxdrwv. — 1032, 2. 205 fxerd ri}? Ouaias, I translate " in the oblation": because, taking, as I think we must take, Ovaias for the offering or bitrning of the incense, by which, is signified the utterance of the prayer, it is in the utterance of the prayer, in the burning of the incense, that the pure offering ascends. 414 IT EXCLUDES MATERIAL SACRIFICES. [Pt. II. signified. In this " one true sacrifice," Chrysostom says " the New Grace — has embraced all " the " many sacrifices " of " the law." But as " befitting the angelic grace," " the one true sacrifice," " we have also in ourselves other oblations," " obla- tions which the Church has, — without blood, and smoke, and altar, and the rest." " Without altar," let it be observed, which cuts off material sacrifice : as does also the expression, " the rest," by which material sacrifice, for one thing, must be meant. And " without altar and the rest " " the evangelical gift ascends to God, — the pure and undefiled sacrifice." And those other oblations which, he says, the Church has, are the oblation of oneself, of the martyrs, of prayer, of praise, of righteousness, of alms, of joy in victory, of a contrite heart, of preaching, and of bearing fruit. But not a word of a sacrifice or of an oblation of the elements ; and this at the end of the fourth century. Nothing of a material sacrifice is in any way to be gathered from this place. And when it is considered that this great Father was professedly enumerating the difference and variety of oblations in the Church, going over them twice, and adding one which he found he had omitted ; it must be allowed that the evidence is conclusive against the belief of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist during the four first centuries. We now, therefore, turn to the enquiry, what was the practice of the Church in her services ? did she worship as offering a sacrifice of the bread and wine in the Holy Com- munion ? Passing over the practice during the lives of the apostles, as it is to be learned from the Acts and the Epistles, in which we do not find a trace of anything nearer an oblation or sacri- fice of the elements, than breaking the bread and blessing the cup, we come, about eighty years after the date of the Acts of the Apostles, to Justin Martyr, who gives a sufficiently clear account of the manner in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated in his time. He says : " There are brought to the President of the brethren bread and a cup of wTater and wine. And lie, having taken them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and at great length makes thanksgiving for having counted us worthy of these things from Him : and he having finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people present express aloud their assent, saying, Amen. — And after the giving of thanks by the President, and the loud assent of all the people, they, who with Ch. vil] practice of the PRmmvE CHURCH. 415 us are called deacons, give to each of those present to partake of the consecrated bread and wine and water." 206 And about the middle of the fourth century we have a still fuller account of the ceremonies of the Eucharist by Cyril of Jerusalem. He says : " Ye saw the Deacon give to the Priest water to wash, and to the Presbyters who stood round God's altar. — This washing of hands is a symbol that ye ought to be pure from all sinful and unlawful deeds. — Then the Deacon cries aloud : 4 Eeceive ye one another; and let us kiss one another.' — This kiss is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and have banished all remembrance of wrongs. — After this the Priest cries aloud, ' Lift up your hearts.' — Then ye answer, £ We lift them up unto the Lord.' — Then the Priest says, ' Let us give thanks to the Lord : ' — and ye say, ' it is meet and right.' — After this we make mention of heaven, and earth, and sea ; of the sun and moon ; of the stars and all the creation, rational and irrational, visible and invisible. — Then having sanc- tified ourselves by^ these spiritual hymns, we call upon the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the [gifts] lying before Him (hrl ra irpoKslusva), that He may make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. — Then, after the spiritual sacrifice is perfected, the bloodless service upon that sacrifice of propitiation, we entreat God for the common peace of the Church. — Then after these things we say that prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples. — After this the Priest says : 'Holy things to holy men.' — After this ye hear the chanter, with a sacred melody, inviting you to the communion of the holy lEysteries. — Then having partaken of the body of Christ, approach also to the cup of His blood. — Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries." * 207 In these two accounts, then, of the celebration of the Holy Communion in the four first centuries, no trace is to be found :0G TlpOO~ twv —apovTwv aeraAa- f&elv atro tov evx^picrTy]6ivTOS tkinov Kal olvov Kal vSaTos. — Apol. C. 60. * On the Mysteries, Catechetical Lectures. Oxford, 183S. pp. 273-279. 2o: 'Expd/caTe to'uvv tov hidxovuv tov vlitaadai ZiZovTa tui Upet kc.1 toIs kvk\oZo~i t5 BvaiaTT-rpiov tov Beov Trjea^vripOiS. — avpfioKov icnl tov 5e7v vixas Kadapeveiv ttolvtw auaprvudTuv ro) dvoyLT]ixd 1 uiv, to rtyardcu. — e'na fioi 6 Siavoros, oAATj\ots aAA7j\ai/s da-ira^u-ueta diroAajSeTe. — ayae'iov rolvvv 4(ttI -rb -ras KapS.zs. — eha airoKpi- 416 IT HAD OBLATIONS; [Pt. n. of the sacrificing of the elements of this sacrament, or the offering them as a sacrifice. In Justin's account, indeed, there is not anything to countenance the supposition, that the elements, by themselves, were an oblation. Nor, in the later account, where we find mention of the invocation of the " Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying " upon the altar, is there anything to lead to the conclusion, that the bread and wine, which were used for the Sacrament, were made an oblation separately from the rest of the " gifts," of which they were part. That they were part of an oblation I do not at all dispute : for we know from Clement of Rome, and others, that there were oblations 3 and that they were performed with liturgies, and presented by the bishops. And Irenasus shows that there were oblations of the first fruits of God's gifts made at his altar : that these were the new oblation of the New Testament : that they were partly for such as had need, and partly bread and wine of the creature, which were used both for the Sacrament, and, as we learn from other authorities, for the refreshment of the communicants in the Agapse or love feasts. The question, however, of the oblations and sacrifices which are, or may be, made in the celebration of the Eucharist, will be for consideration in the next chapter. It is sufficient, that we have proved that the Fathers of the two first centuries did not teach the doctrine of a material sacrifice, and that the Church in her worship did not recognise the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist. It may, indeed, be admitted, and it is perfectly true, that, subsequently to the second century, there was a gradual advance of expression among the Fathers ; and that in course of time many things were said by them which appear very strongly to favour the theory of a material sacrifice : but it must also be stated, that there are many other things said by them, which utterly contradict and overthrow that theory. And when we pecrde, ex°/ue,/ ""P^v T0V Kupiov. — e?ra b Uptvs Aeyei, €vxapio-rr)o-a>ix€v t$ Kvplw. — ilra \eyere, &£iov Kal oiKaiov. — /xerd ravra fxvrjfiouevo/xsv ovpauov Kal yrjs kcu OaAanarjs, f)k'iov Kal o-e\r)vr)s, darpwv, Kal irdar^s rr\s fCTi'creau, XoyiK7]s re Kal aXbyov, bparrjs re kcu dnpdrov. — dyidaavres eavrovs 8ia row 7rvevfj.ariKcov rovrwv v/xvojv irapaKaXw/xeu rbv (p l \ dud poor ov debu, rb ayiov rruev/xa i^atroa'reiKai eirl ra -jpoKei/xeva, 'Lva iroiT\ar\ rbv jxkv dprov, o~a>ixa Xpto~TOv' rbv 8e oivov, aiua Xptcrrov. — elra fxerd ib diraprio~9r)va.i ttju nvevjxariKrju dva'iav, rrjv dva'i/xaKrov Karpeiav 4tI rr)s dvaias iKeivrjs rod iKaa/xov, irapaKa- Xov/xev rbv Qeov vnhp Koivr\v £kk\7)(Tiwv dpr)vris. — elra /xerd ravra rr\v ei»xV Xeyo/xev knuvqv. %v b Scorryp irapedojKe ro7s ohaiois avrov fxaOrjraxs. — /xerd ravra Aeyei. b lepevs ra ayia rots ayiois. — /xerd ravra aKovere rov tyaAAovros /xerd /xeAovs Oe'iov, Trporpeiroixevov v'xas €ts rr\v koivw lav r a>v ay 'iojv \xvmr\pioov. — e/ra /xerd rb Koivojvrj'Ta'i ffe rod aoj/xaros Xpiarov, Trpocrepxov t<5 Trorrip'icp rod a'iuaros. — elra dvaueivas rr}v €i»xV, GpKT)(T(t>iAev adpKa Te kol aijxa vpoKelixeva fikeirovTts iv ayiais rpaire^ais tu>v htKXT)isifj.evois hvvafnv Ca,v"'s- koX fxeQ'icyTriaiv avra vpbs ivepyelav T7j? eavrov ixw^v avTa.— Cyril. Alex, apud Victorem Antiochen, Marc. 14. 426 EXAMINATION OF JOHNSON'S [Pt. n. " Thou hast the body and blood of the Lord, and the Spirit instead of the letter, and grace exceeding human reasoning, and an unspeakable gift." — " The priest stands, not bringing down fire, but the Holy Spirit ; and makes his supplication at great length, not that some torch kindled from above may consume [the gifts] set forth, but that grace having fallen upon the sacrifice, may by it kindle the souls of all." 214 Tims Chrysostoni says, that the elements or gifts set forth are not " without the grace of the Spirit " ; but that He " descends, — falls upon, — flies with great abundance over them, — touches them, — and surrounds them on all sides." But he does not say that the Holy Spirit enters into the gifts and unites Himself with them, so that, being the Spirit of Christ, He therefore makes them the body and blood of Christ, and is Himself the inward invisible grace. The next witness cited is Augustine. His evidence is thus represented : — " St. Augustine calls the invisible power of the Spirit, exerting itself in the Eucharist, 1 the virtue of the Sacrament ' ; for, says he, * the Sacra- ment is one thing,' viz. bread and wine, ' the virtue of the Sacrament another,' viz. the efficacious presence of the Divine Spirit ; " And again : — " This is the bread which came down from heaven. — But as to what concerns the virtue of the sacrament, not as to what concerns the visible sacrament, or sign ; and what this virtue is he clearly tells us in these words, where, speaking of the Eucharistical bread, he says that when by the hands of men it is wrought into that visible shape, it is not sanctified into so great a sacrament but by the invisible operation of the Holy Ghost.' " 215 Now, this is not the evidence of Augustine, but of Johnson interpreting Augustine. Augustine does not say, that " the invisible power of the Spirit, exerting itself in the Eucharist," 211 "Orav 8t8a> ttjv x^Piv T^> Uvev/xa, '6rav KareXBrj, tirav ai^TOn twv irpoKtifxcvoiv. — Horn, in Coemet. appel. Et yap jxr] fiv dppafiwv tov Tlv^vjxnos Kal vvv, — ovk av /xvcrT^piwv ufe\- avvafxsv • aw/ma yap Ka\ aJ/xa jxvcrriKov ovk av ir6re yevoiro rrjs tov TlvevjxaTOs x<*PlT0S X^P^- — De Resur. Mort. 2i> ?e ovk iv (paTvrj dpas, aAA' eV dvaiaaT7]p'icp, ov yvvaLKa KaTexov(Tai,> aAA.' lepea irapcaruiTa, Ka\ Tlvevpia fxera ttoKAtis rr\s oatyiXz'ias to7s trpoKeifxevois i(pnrTdjj.€Vov. — Horn. 24, in Ep. 1 ad Corinth. Kal yap Kal ivTavda /cetceTat to o~wjxa to SeairoTiKbv, ovxl eo~irapya.vopi.4vov, KuQdirsp Tore, a\\a Hvevp:aTi iravTaxoBev aylic irepio'TeWop.fvov. — De Beato Philogon. Ov yap xepovfil/j. e%eis, — aWa cra>fj.a Kal aifxa deairoTiKbv. Kal Y]v€v/xa o.vtI ypd/jL/j-aTOS, Kal X^PIV vTfp&aivovcrav Aoyirr/jLov avBp&irivov, Kal Zuptav av€/c5nrj77)TOi/. — In Ps. 133. "EcrT^/ce yap 6 Icpebs, ov irvp KaTacb4pcov, aXKa to Uvevpa to ayiov, Kal tt)v iKSTepiav 4irl iroKv iroitfiTai, ovx 'Lva tIs \a/j.-nus, 'dvw&ev a