w 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii^^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 T^ 
 
 i 
 
 ! .•
 
 a I B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 UN 1VER5ITY 
 Of ILLI NOIS
 
 ^:'
 
 On the Doctrine of the Real Presence. 
 
 COEEESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 EARL OF EEDESDALE 
 
 AND THE 
 
 HONOUBABLE CHARLES L. WOOD, 
 
 President of the English Church Union. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN MUERAY, ALBEMARLE STREET^ 
 
 1879.
 
 LONDON : 
 I'KINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, 
 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
 i
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Batsford Park, December 1st, 1878. 
 
 Dear Mr. Wood, 
 
 I find in the Oxford Journal a report of a 
 speech made by you at a meeting of the University 
 Branch of the English Church Union, in which, com- 
 menting on a memorial addressed to the Bishop on 
 the subject of Cuddesden College, you said that he 
 ought to have told the memorialists that the ques- 
 tion was not one of ritual, but the whole principle of 
 the sacramental system ; the doctrine of the Eeal Pre- 
 sence being at the bottom of the present controver- 
 sies. What, then, is the true doctrine of the Real 
 Presence ? I send you a leaflet on the subject which 
 I published a short time ago, setting forth the 
 Apostolic Doctrine thereon, derived, as Apostolic 
 Doctrine can alone be obtained, from Scripture. I 
 have not yet found anyone able to controvert the 
 arguments therein set forth, or the doctrine derived 
 from them. St. Paul's teaching on the subject ap- 
 pears very clear. The paper is very short, and I 
 should really be much obliged to you if you would 
 tell me in what respect the doctrine I have expressed 
 is in any respect contradicted or modified in any 
 
 B 2
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 Apostolic teaching, or by any words of Christ Him- 
 self; or if your time is too much occupied, if you 
 would get some friend of yours to answer me, as I am 
 very anxious to learn the truth on the subject. The 
 matter is in so short a compass that the work with 
 anyone who knows the subject must be very light if 
 my reasoning is erroneous. 
 
 Believe me 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 Redesdale. 
 To Hon. C. L. Wood. 

 
 ( ) 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE EARL OF REDESDALE. 
 
 All Scripture teaches the Omnipresence of God, 
 and Christ as God is ever with us in the Omnipresent 
 Godhead. When the Holy Sacrament is given He 
 is there without any priestly intervention, equally 
 before, during the celebration, and after. This is 
 the only real presence of Christ as God, then and 
 always to be adored. 
 
 When Christ instituted the Holy Sacrament, and 
 said, " This is my body which is given for yon, this 
 is my blood which is shed for you," He spoke of His 
 human and mortal body and blood. God is a spirit, 
 Christ had body and blood as man only, and as snch 
 could alone be made a sacrifice. His Godhead could 
 not be given for us. His Godhead could not die for 
 our sins. When He cried out, "- My God, my God, 
 why hast Thou forsaken me ? Father, into Thy hands 
 I commend my spirit," He declared that He was 
 leaving His human body alone on the Cross. How 
 could God forsake God ? and how could Christ's body 
 die if God was still in and part of it? Christ as 
 perfect man had soul as well as body. When His 
 body died, the soul (His departed spirit), " never to 
 be divided" from His Godhead, went down with it 
 into Hell, as the Apostles' Creed teaches. His dead 
 body did not go down into Hell, but remained on
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 earth in tlie sepulchre till raised on the third day, 
 when the Godhead and soul re-entered it in strict 
 fulfilment of David's prophecy, Psalm xvi. 10 : " For 
 thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, neither wilt 
 thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." The 
 separation was necessary for resurrection. How 
 could Christ be raised from the dead on the third 
 day if His body was not then dead ? His body 
 which died on the Cross, and was buried, is the body 
 which was given for us, and from it, while dead, 
 came the blood which was shed for us. The bread 
 and wine have consequently nothing of the Godhead 
 in them. 
 
 This body Christ has made His Church here on 
 earth, mystical and invisible, and of it all Christians 
 are members. This is distinctly set forth by St. Paul 
 in Ephes. v. 30-32 : "For we are members of His 
 body, of His flesh, and of His bones. This is a great 
 mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the 
 Church." It is impossible to have used words which 
 could more clearly indicate that the membership is 
 with the human body of Christ than that we are 
 members of His flesh and bones. We cannot in any 
 way through this membership become members of 
 His Godhead, for then we should become members of 
 the Father and Holy Ghost also. 
 
 The Sacrament was instituted by Christ, that those 
 thus receiving, in remembrance of and in the manner 
 ordained by Him, His pure and undefiled body and 
 blood, might have their membership with Him 
 thereby confirmed and strengthened. That the body 
 and blood given through the bread and wine are the 
 mortal body, and the same mystical and invisible 
 body of which the recipients are already members, is
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 clearly shown by St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17 : '' The 
 cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- 
 munion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we 
 break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? 
 For we being many are one bread, and one body : for 
 we are all partakers of that one bread." The bread 
 and wine, the means whereby and through the re- 
 ception of which His body and blood are conveyed 
 into that mystical and invisible body of which we are 
 members, are, when eaten, passed through our human 
 body with our ordinary food. To adore them is to 
 adore an image, and to adore the human body of 
 Christ which is to be communicated to us through 
 them, is to adore the body of which we are ourselves 
 members, and which through that membership is 
 ever really present with us. 
 
 The Apostolic doctrine herein shortly set forth 
 derives its authority from Scripture alone. No 
 contradiction of it is worth anything unless taken 
 from the same Apostolic source, and all who in any 
 way hold the Roman doctrine of the Real Presence 
 are hereby challenged so to contradict it, if they 
 can.
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 10, Belgrave Square, December 2nd, 1878. 
 
 Dear Lord Redesdale, 
 
 I am exceedingly obliged to you for your letter 
 and its inclosure, which I have just read. If you 
 will let me, as I am on the point of leaving town for 
 a few days on some business which is just now taking 
 up all my time, I will delay answering your letter 
 till I come back. When I do, I think and hope I 
 can prove to you that what you say about the Eu- 
 charist is based upon a mistake as to the consequences 
 of the Incarnation ; and if so^ it is only another proof 
 that a defective view as to the means by which the 
 Incarnation is extended to us has its root in a defec- 
 tive view of the Incarnation itself. 
 
 I know you will not accuse me of presumption for 
 writing in this way, or think anything else but that 
 I am truly grateful to you for writing to me on 
 the subject. As Dr. Pusey so well says in his last 
 sermon, which I think would interest you — " Science 
 and Unscience" — we ought not to wish to make 
 Scripture accord with our ideas, but our ideas with 
 Scripture. 
 
 Believe me 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 Charles L. Wood.
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 Batsford Parky December ^rd, 1878. 
 
 Dear Mr. Wood, 
 
 I thank you for your reply to my letter, and 
 am glad to learn from you that you will send me a 
 carefully-prepared answer to it. 
 
 I entirely agree with the opinion you express that 
 " we ought not to wish to make Scripture accord with 
 our ideas, but our ideas with Scripture." 
 
 Believe me 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 Redesdale. 
 
 Batsford Park, December 11th, 1878. 
 
 Dear Mr. Wood, 
 
 As more than a fortnight has passed since you 
 thanked me for the letter I addressed to you on the 
 subject of the " Eeal Presence,'* and told me that you 
 were " truly grateful to me for writing to you on the 
 subject," I hope you will excuse me for asking for 
 the reply to it you promised. My leaflet is very 
 short, and I only desire you to show me where my 
 statements in it are incorrect, where my reasonings 
 on Christ's words and Bible records are unsound, 
 and in what respect my interpretation of the plain 
 words of St. Paul is erroneous. 
 
 Believe me 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 Redesdale.
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 Hickleton, December 18</i, 1878. 
 
 My dear Lord Eedesdale, 
 
 I have been putting off answering your letter, 
 partly because I have had a great deal to do since you 
 wrote, partly because controversy as a rule is so use- 
 less and unsatisfactory that I felt I had been guilty of 
 some conceit in thinking that it might be my business 
 to embark upon the discussion of such a subject with 
 you, and partly because such thoughts as these and 
 my business together had indisposed me to begin my 
 letter. For this idleness I beg your pardon, and 
 will try to make up for it by answering your letter 
 at once. 
 
 If I understand your argument aright, it is based 
 upon an affirmative and two negative propositions. 
 
 The affirmative proposition being this, that in the 
 Holy Eucharist we really do receive the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, by means of which (" His pure and 
 undefiled Body and Blood ") we have " our member- 
 ship with Him confirmed and strengthened." 
 
 The negative propositions being : 1. ** That the body 
 and blood given through the bread and wine are the 
 mortal body of Christ." 2. That the mortal body of 
 Christ is not to be adored, because the dead body of 
 Christ is separate from the Godhead, has nothing of 
 the Godhead in it, and is moreover only that body of 
 which we are ourselves the members. 
 
 These propositions in regard to the Eucharist are 
 further based on certain propositions as to our Lord's 
 person and nature, as, e.g., that when our Lord died 
 on the Cross the Godhead was separated from His
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 body, and did not re-enter it till the Resurrection. 
 This is drawn out in the expressions, " How could 
 Christ's body die if Grod was still in and part of it ?" 
 and " when His body died, the soul never to be 
 divided from His Godhead went down with it into 
 Hell," the inference from the context being that the 
 Godhead though united to the soul was divided from 
 the body. 
 
 Now, in regard to the affirmative proposition I 
 have nothing to say except the pleasure that I have 
 in finding we are at one. You assert the presence of 
 our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist ; you 
 reject the interpretation of those who see in the 
 Eucharist only the figure of an absent reality ; you 
 believe with me that it is not mere bread and wine 
 which we receive in Holy Communion, but that His 
 Body and Blood, in the words of the article, are given, 
 taken, and received in the Eucharist, and that we are 
 thereby made one with Him and He with us. 
 
 I therefore go on at once to the negative pro- 
 positions, and address myself to the point upon 
 which they turn — those assertions as to our Lord's 
 nature and person, which are the real kernel of the 
 matter. 
 
 By way of preface let me, however, just remark 
 that the way you connect Eucharistic doctrine vdi\\ 
 doctrine touching our Lord's person is an illustration 
 of what I ventured to say before, viz., how close the 
 connection is between the doctrine of the Incarnation 
 and the doctrine of the Sacraments by means of 
 which the Incarnation is extended to us. A fact 
 
 c 2
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 which invests the controversies of the present day 
 with their real importance. 
 
 Now, with respect to our Lord's person and the 
 natures which are united in Him, is there not some 
 confusion in your words ? You say (speaking of 
 them in relation to His death) " Christ had body and 
 blood as man only, and as such could alone be made 
 a sacrifice." And again, " His Godhead could not be 
 given for us ; His Godhead could not die ;" or again, 
 '* He declared He was leaving His human body alone 
 on the Cross," z.^., separating His Deity from it. 
 
 But surely the truth is that God took a body and 
 soul in order that He might die in it. Who was 
 conceived of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary ? 
 God. Who was born ? God. Who came and went 
 clothed in mortal form on earth ? God. Who was 
 crucified ? God. Whose blood redeemed us ? St. 
 Paul replies, the blood of God. Who was buried ? 
 God. Who rose again ? God. But let me put it in 
 the words of one whose authority you will, I am sure, 
 accept. Bishop Pearson, on that article in the Creed, 
 He was crucified dead and buried, writes as follows : 
 " But because Christ was not only man but also God, 
 and there was not only an union between His soul 
 and body while He lived, but also a conjunction of 
 both natures (i.e., the divine and human) and an 
 union in His person, it will be further necessary, for 
 the understanding of His death, to show what union 
 was dissolved, what continued, that we may not make 
 the separation either less or greater than it was. 
 Whereas there were two different substantial unions in
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 Christ, one of the parts of His human nature (ix., His 
 body and soul) each to other, in which His humanity 
 did consist, and by which He was truly man ; the 
 other of His natures human and divine, by which it 
 came to pass that Grod was Man and Man God. 
 First, it is certain that the union of the parts of His 
 human nature was dissolved on the Cross, and a real 
 separation made between His soul and body. As far, 
 then, as humanity consists in the essential Union of 
 the parts of human nature, so far the humanity of 
 Christ upon His death did cease to be ... . But, 
 secondly, the union of the two natures (the divine 
 and the human) remained still as to the parts (i.e„ 
 the body and soul), nor was the soul or body separated 
 from the Divinity, but still subsisted as they did before 
 by the subsistence of the second Person of the Trinity. 
 
 The truth of this assertion appeareth from the 
 Creed, for as we proved before that the only begotten 
 and eternal Son of God, God of God, ver^r God of 
 very God, was conceived, born, and suffered .... so 
 while the Creed, speaking of the same Person that 
 He was buried and descended into Hell, it sheweth that 
 neither His body, in respect of which He was buried, 
 nor His soul, in respect of which He was generally 
 conceived to descend into Hell^ had lost that Union 
 .... The Word was once, indeed, without either 
 soul or body, but after it was made flesh it was never 
 parted either from the one or the other .... Thus 
 Christ did really and truly die according to the 
 condition of death to which the nature of man is 
 subject ; but although He was more than man, yet
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 He died no more than a man can die : a separation 
 was made between the soul and body, but no disunion of 
 them and His Deity. They (His body and soul) were 
 disjoined from one another, but not from Him who 
 took them both together; rather by virtue of that 
 remaining conjunction they were again united after 
 their separation." 
 
 Of Christ's body then it is as true, as it is true of 
 His soul, that never for an instant was it, or could 
 it be, divided from His Deity. It was the tabernacle 
 of God, the temple of the Word during the three 
 days when it lay in the grave, just as truly as 
 during the thirty-three years when He walked the 
 earth. Where it is present there is the Incarnate 
 Presence of God the Son, and where God manifests 
 His Incaruate Presence there He is to be worshipped, 
 as it is urged in the first chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews by the allusion, in reference to the 
 Incarnation, to the words, " When He bringeth the 
 first begotten into the world, let all the angels of 
 God worship Him." 
 
 God is omnipresent, yet of God the Word it is said, 
 " I am come into the world, and again I go to the 
 Father." But what means this coming and going of 
 the Omnipresent Word of God, except the Incarnation, 
 in respect of which He manifests Himself in time and 
 space, abhorring not for nine months the Virgin's 
 womb, just as to-day He condescends to make use of 
 the material elements of bread and wine as the points 
 of contact between Himself and us ? 
 
 Let me add to this, that if those words, " My God,
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ?" could signify 
 a solution, as Bishop Pearson says, of the Union of 
 the Deity with the human body and soul which the 
 Word had assumed, that separation would have taken 
 place not at our Lord's death, but during His life, 
 which, involving as it does a double personality in our 
 Lord, is Nestorianism. Whereas, indeed, to quote 
 Bishop Pearson again, those words infer no more 
 than that " He allowed His humanity to be bereft of 
 such joys and comforts from the Deity as should 
 assuage and mitigate the acerbity of His present 
 torments." 
 
 But^ in truth, is not the whole discussion of this 
 subject already settled by the fact that " Christ being 
 dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion 
 over Him " ? It is not Christ's mortal body that is 
 given to us in the Eucharist, but His glorified 
 humanity, which, having passed through the grave 
 and gate of death once for all in the days of His 
 humiliation, has now entered into the heavenly 
 places made without hands, and there, as the Lamb 
 that had been slain but now alive for evermore, 
 pleads for us upon the altar in Heaven. 
 
 The real question at issue is the relation of the 
 Church's worship on earth to the continual abiding 
 intercession of her head in Heaven ; and if it is iden- 
 tical with it, as every line of the Bible appears to me 
 to assert, and as most certainly historical Christianity 
 from the very earliest time has ever believed, because 
 both in heaven and earth the offering and the offerer 
 are the same, Jesus Christ our High Priest after the
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 order of Melchizedeck visibly appearing before the 
 Father for us there, invisibly here under earthly 
 forms and by the intervention of earthly representa- 
 tives, then all controversy is at an end between us. 
 
 In conclusion, let me ask, in reference to the 
 following words on page 4 of your paper^ " We 
 cannot in any way through this membership (with 
 His body) become members of His Godhead, for 
 then we should become " members of the Father and 
 the Holy Ghost also ;" assuming that " members " 
 here means united to^ which is the sense of the 
 passage as I understand it, whether this union of 
 ourselves with the ever blessed Trinity is not the 
 precise object and scope of the Christian religion ? 
 
 Made in the image of God and for union with 
 Hira, we had marred that image and separated 
 ourselves from Him ; but He who had originally 
 formed us in His image, would not thus leave us to 
 ourselves. He re-stamps human nature with more 
 than its former glory by His assumption of it to 
 Himself. He fills it with that life which He is by 
 nature. In it He expiates and satisfies for the sins 
 of the whole world, and then imparting that nature 
 to us by the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who is the 
 bond of Union in the adorable Trinity, He re-unites 
 us in His own person to the Father. One with the 
 Father in the Son by the Spirit, that is, lifted up 
 into the fellowship of the Holy Trinity, abiding in 
 the Father and the Son by the Spirit ; continuing, 
 as St. John says, in the Son and in the Father, or to 
 quote our Lord's own words at the institution of the
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 Eucharist, " If any man keep my words, my Father 
 will love him, and We will come unto him and make 
 our abode with him." What is all this but the sum 
 of our belief as Christians, the revelation of our glory 
 as members of the Beloved ? 
 
 One word more. If there is a confusion in the 
 conception apparently defended in the paper which I 
 am venturing to criticise, that our Lord's Godhead 
 was severed from His human body after His death on 
 the Cross, is there not also a confusion between our 
 Lord's Sacramental body and His mystical body, 
 the Church ? Is there not, too, a mistake in sup- 
 posing that anyone adores the bread and wine ? 
 It is Christ's Presence under them that is adored, 
 not the external veil by which that Presence is 
 shrouded. 
 
 If the Eoman theory be that the change of the bread 
 and the wine in the Eucharist involves the destruc- 
 tion of the elements as material substances, which is 
 what I understand by our denial of transubstantia- 
 tion, I do not know that anyone has defended such 
 a theory as to the mode of the Eeal Presence; 
 but this is a further question into which I need not 
 enter. I will only ask you to believe two things, — 
 one, that I should not have written as I have done, 
 except at your own request. It is so very disagree- 
 able to me to be in the position of attempting to 
 criticise anything you have written. It seems to me 
 unfitting, and clearly not my business ; and next, 
 speaking for myself, that though I have written as if 
 the subjects under discussion were open questions, I
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 cannot for one minute admit them to be really such. 
 They are questions which have either been definitely 
 settled by those general councils which, accepted by 
 the whole Church, East and West alike, have pro- 
 claimed what that faith is which has been held from 
 the beginning with respect to them, or they are 
 questions upon which, though they may not be 
 alluded to in the ipsissima verba of an Oecumenical 
 Council, are yet really closed questions to those who 
 are content to take the sense of the whole Church, 
 the quod semper, the quod uhique, and the quod ah omni- 
 hus as to the meaning of Scripture rather than their 
 own. To that authority I frankly submit myself, and 
 I can honestly say that, so far as my experience goes, 
 what maybe accepted on authority in the first instance, 
 and without a full comprehension of all it involves, 
 ends by making itself clear to the intelligence, till 
 like the Samaritans we can say, " Now we believe, 
 not because of thy saying (that is, the authority of 
 others), but because we have heard Him ourselves." 
 
 I should be sorry not to have added this, for 
 yielding to none as I trust in my reverence for the 
 written Word of God, I must hold with that Word 
 that " no Scripture is of private interpretation," and 
 that it is possible, nay probable, if we separate our- 
 selves from the consensus of Christendom as to its 
 true meaning, that we shall wrest its words to our 
 own destruction. I think half our difficulties at the 
 present time come from this very fact, from the fact, 
 I mean, that people interpret the Bible for them- 
 selves, without any reference to the proportion of
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 faith, often omitting great portions of Scripture 
 altogether from consideration. Were it not so, I 
 cannot help also thinking that they would see that 
 our present controversies involve much deeper sub- 
 jects than the mere externals of religion, and that 
 just as it was the relation of the Son to the Father 
 that occupied the attention of the first centuries, so 
 it is the relation that exists between us and the Son 
 that is now in question. Will you consider this, 
 and believe me to be 
 
 Ever yours most sincerely, 
 
 Charles L. Wood. 
 
 Batsford Fark, December 22nd, 1878. 
 
 Dear Mr. Wood, 
 
 I cannot sufficiently thank you for your letter, 
 and the pains you have taken to comply with my 
 request. 
 
 1 will endeavour to be as short as possible in com- 
 menting on the different points in it on which I may 
 not go altogether with you, and on which I differ 
 from you. 
 
 First, on what you call my affirmative proposi- 
 tion — 
 
 I believe that in substance we probably agree, but 
 you go beyond me in considering that I assert the 
 presence of our Lord's body and blood in the Eucha- 
 rist ; I believe that the bread and wine are the 
 means ordained by Christ whereby through faith we 
 receive His body and blood, but I cannot accept
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 the doctrine that His body and blood are in the 
 elements when consecrated, and are to be revered as 
 such by the wayfarers in the street through which 
 they are carried. 
 
 Next, on what you call my negative propositions — 
 I do not find that you in any way meet my objec- 
 tion that Christ's Grodhead could not be given for us, 
 and that His Godhead could not die for our sins. 
 He was made man with a mortal body to enable 
 these things to be done. How could God be offered 
 as a sacrifice to Himself? You ask whose blood 
 redeemed us ? and answer, St. Paul replies the blood 
 of God. I cannot find any such words of St. Paul. 
 The blood of Christ or of Jesus Christ is the expres- 
 sion used by him and St. Peter. No doubt Christ 
 was God as well as man, but it was as perfect man 
 that His blood was shed by which we are redeemed. 
 I do not understand your reasoning that if the 
 words " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken 
 me ?" could signify a solution of the Deity with the 
 human body and soul, that separation would have 
 taken place, not at our Lord's death, but during His 
 life. Nor can I accept the interpretation that they 
 mean no more than that God allowed His humanity 
 to be bereft of such joys and comforts from the 
 Deity as should assuage and mitigate the intensity 
 of his present torments. Did martyrs in the flames 
 cry out that God had forsaken them? Does the 
 Christian believe himself to be forsaken of God be- 
 cause He allows him to suffer torments ? Is it 
 possible to conceive that Christ at that moment used
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 words of equivocal meaning? As man he used 
 David's prophetic words in that remarkable psalm 
 which so wonderfully describes the crucifixion, and 
 I ask again how could God forsake God? What 
 right have we to give any other than the plain 
 meaning to His words ? 
 
 You object to my statement that in becoming 
 members of Christ we cannot become members of 
 His Godhead, for then we should become members 
 of the Father and the Holy Ghost also, and say, 
 If "members" here means "united to," which is 
 the sense of the passage as I understand it, is not 
 this union of ourselves with the ever Blessed Trinity 
 the precise object and scope of the Christian religion ? 
 The passage you so understand is, " We are members 
 of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." Where 
 do you find flesh and bones connected with the other 
 persons in the Trinity ? 
 
 Now as to the meaning of our membership, and 
 our union with the Trinity through that membership. 
 St. Paul explains it thus — " Know ye not that you 
 are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
 dwelleth in you." The temple of God is not God, 
 though the Spirit of God dwelleth in it. 
 
 You omit to notice the quotation from St. Paul 
 which appears to me conclusive on the subject, ac- 
 cording to its plain interpretation. He tells the 
 Corinthian Christians that they are members of 
 Christ's body, of His flesh, and of His bones, that 
 the cup is the communion of the blood of Christ and 
 the bread of His body, and that they being many are
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 one body and one bread. What can that mean, but 
 that the bread is the same body as that of which they 
 are members ? The spiritual body in which they will 
 be raised from the dead. I cannot believe that the 
 body of which I hope I am a member is God as well 
 as man, but I can accept it as a temple into which, if 
 I keep it pure, the Spirit of God may enter and 
 dwell. 
 
 In conclusion, I ask you, in your own wise words 
 in your former letter, not to wish to make Scripture 
 accord with your ideas, but your ideas with Scripture. 
 St. Paul is a higher authority than any QEcumenical 
 Council, or than Bishop Pearson. 
 Believe me, 
 
 Yours most sincerely, 
 
 Pedesdale. 
 
 I enclose a little pamphlet which I published some 
 time ago, in which you will find an article on the 
 Peal Presence, which explains more fully my under- 
 standing on the subject. 
 
 [ Vide Appendix.] 
 
 Hickleton, December 26th, 1878. 
 
 My dear Lord Pedesdale, 
 
 I am glad to think from your letter that you 
 were not vexed with anything I said. 
 
 The expression '* Blood of God " is in Acts xx. 
 xxviii. 
 
 It does not seem to me that I shall advance what I
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 believe to be the cause of truth by saying more on 
 the subject, so that I shall not do more in thanking 
 you for your second paper than add the following 
 observations : — 
 
 It pleased God for the purpose of reconciling the 
 world to Himself — of carrying out the At-one-ment — 
 to unite Himself with our humanity in the womb of 
 the Blessed Virgin. Does it not then appear to be a 
 denial of the truth of the Incarnation to assert that 
 He ever dissociated Himself from that nature which 
 He so assumed ? 
 
 The Blessed Virgin bore within herself for nine 
 months God the Word, while He was taking to Him- 
 self of her substance, our nature from its very first 
 beginning. 
 
 The Deity contained in her bosom was recognised 
 by St. John the Baptist, himself unborn, and when 
 (as we say in the Psalms on Christmas Day) that 
 Deity, rejoicing like a giant to run His course, came 
 out of His chamber, and was laid in the manger. He 
 was worshipped by the angels ; as it is written, " Let 
 all the angels of God worship Him." 
 
 Believing then that the Word has been made flesh, 
 that that flesh which He gave for the life of the 
 world is given to us in the Eucharist, " The bread 
 which I give is my flesh," and that " Whoso eateth 
 that flesh," as He Himself says, " dwell eth in Me and 
 I in him," how can a Christian refuse to worship 
 Him to-day under the forms of bread and wine, as 
 St. John worshipped Him still concealed in bis 
 mother, or as the shepherds wori^hipped Him in the
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 manger at Bethlehem, which (and it is surely a fact 
 to be remembered) is by interpretation the " House 
 of Bread." 
 
 This to me is the plain teaching of the Bible. I 
 cannot read St. John's Gospel in any other light, and 
 you would be the last person, in deference to that 
 principle of private judgment advocated in your 
 paper, to ask me to accept opinions which do not 
 commend themselves to my judgment as consistent 
 with Scripture, and which, if I understand them 
 (about which I am by no means sure), appear to me 
 to be open to the charge of confounding the persons 
 of the Blessed Trinity, and of denying the abiding 
 reality of the Incarnation of the Son. 
 
 Please forgive me for saying this, but I am quite 
 
 sure you would wish me to say what I really think, 
 
 and again thanking you for taking the trouble to 
 
 write to me. 
 
 Believe me to be, 
 
 Dear Lord Eedesdale, 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 Charles L. Wood. 
 
 The whole subject is so important and the respon- 
 sibility of writing and speaking about it is so great, 
 that I cannot help asking you, if you have not seen 
 it, to look at Saddler's " Church Doctrine and Bible 
 Truth." It is a book which deserves your attention.
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 Batsford Park, December 2Sth, 1878. 
 
 My dear Mr. Wood, 
 
 I am very sorry that you decline to meet the 
 arguments in my last letter. T can understand your 
 thinking that . " you would not advance what you 
 believe to be the cause of truth by saying more on 
 the subject." I am afraid that on the point in ques- 
 tion you are more inclined to make Scripture agree 
 with your ideas than your ideas with Scripture. 
 
 I assure you that I acknowledge the Divinity of 
 Christ as fully and sincerely as yourself. The sole 
 point on which we differ is that I hold that His God- 
 head could not die, and that His body which died 
 for our sins, was His human body only, which could 
 not have died if His Godhead was still in and part 
 of it. 
 
 Scripture tells us that the body which died for us 
 is that which we receive through the bread, and that 
 we are members of that body. Therefore, whether 
 you or I are right, Christ's body at the Holy Com- 
 munion is as really present with us as with the bread. 
 He has told us that where two or three are gathered 
 together in His name. He is in the midst of them, 
 and He is therefore present in His Godhead at the 
 Holy Communion, and as such to be adored, before, 
 during, and after its celebration, without any re- 
 ference to the bread or ourselves. Deny this if you 
 can. 
 
 I will not trouble you with more. I propose to 
 publish our correspondence, as I hope it may induce
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 some one to enter more fully into the contest than 
 you are inclined to do. 
 
 Believe me, 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 • Eedesdale. 
 
 HicMeton, December 29 tJi, 1878. 
 
 My dear Lord Redesdale, 
 
 It never occurred to me that you would wish 
 to publish our letters. Had it done so, though there 
 is nothing, so far as I recollect, that I should wish 
 to modify, I should have taken more pains in the 
 form of my letters ; but this is a detail which does 
 not touch the merits of the question. 
 
 I cannot think that there is any advantage in 
 publishing such a private correspondence, but if you 
 really wish to do so, I will only add that you should 
 state in some form that my letters were written to 
 one whom having known for so many years, I never 
 looked upon as anything else but a friend, and that 
 they were written without any idea of publication, 
 although of course I could have no objection to such 
 publication, if it was wished. 
 Believe me. 
 
 Yours most sincerely, 
 
 Charles L. Wood.
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 Batsford Park, December SOth, 1878. 
 
 My dear Mr. Wood, 
 
 I cordially acknowledge our private friend- 
 ship, but I did not address my first letter to you as 
 a private friend, but to ask for your criticism of a 
 publication of mine on the Real Presence in con- 
 sequence of a public speech made by you as President 
 of the English Church Union. Indeed so little did 
 I consider it private that I asked you, if you had not 
 time or inclination to answer it, to get some friend 
 of yours to do so, knowing from your position in the 
 Union that you could easily find a substitute. 
 
 You gladly undertook the work, asking for time 
 to do so properly, and you have so ably expressed 
 the views of those you act with, though declining 
 for the most part to enter into the criticism I par- 
 ticularly desired, that I have no hesitation in avail- 
 ing myself of your permission to publish, sending 
 the proof to you for revision. 
 Believe me, 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 Redesdale.
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 FROM 
 
 REASONINGS ON SOME DISPUTED POINTS OF DOCTRINE, 
 
 BY 
 
 LOED EEDESDALE. 
 
 The Real Presence. 
 
 There are few points of doctrine which have given 
 rise to more differences, or have more disturbed the 
 peace of the Church, than that touching the pre- 
 sence of Christ, in one way or another, in the 
 Eucharistic elements, and the manner in which those 
 elements, when consecrated, are to be regarded. 
 And yet how entirely all difficulties vanish before 
 a real sense of His omnipresence. We lower His 
 Divinity if we do not believe that He is everywhere ; 
 and once convinced of this, what is there worth 
 disputing about ? If He is everywhere. He is nearer 
 to us in His G-odhead, and therefore more worthy to 
 be adored, when we are at the west end of the 
 church, than He can be to us with or in the sacred 
 elements at the east end, and which at most are 
 only held to be or to represent His flesh and blood. 
 To doubt this is to ignore — indeed, to deny His 
 omnipresence. 
 
 Let no one undervalue the holy Sacrament, or 
 the benefits conferred by it, but let us consider the 
 purpose for which it was ordained. Those who are 
 accepted of God become members of Christ's body,
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 of that body, as has been before shown^ in which He 
 appeared on earth, and by and in which He was 
 directly connected with our nature in this world. 
 But our membership is not a visible incorporation, 
 but a mystical one, and the flesh and blood which 
 we receive in the sacrament through the bread and 
 wine must also be mystical, in order to be in proper 
 relation to the mystical body of ours, which is to 
 receive and be nourished by it. Christ has said, 
 " Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood ye 
 have no life in you ;" and, " He that eateth My 
 flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I 
 in him ;" and has instituted the means by which 
 this is to be effected, telling us that in eating the 
 bread we partake of His body, and that in drinking 
 the wine we drink His blood, and that is all we 
 know and all we have to believe. Anything else 
 is simply human conception and fancy, and any 
 attempt to explain or account for the mystery, by 
 supposing a change to take place in the elements 
 when consecrated, fails to make the effect to be pro- 
 duced clearer to the understanding. It gratifies the 
 vanity of some to make their followers believe that 
 they make Christ present through the bread and 
 wine ; but what is that to those who believe in His 
 omnipresence, and know that without any such aid 
 He is with them always ; that when they sin He is 
 there to judge, and when they truly repent that He 
 is there to pardon ? The question really is, whether 
 it is right to hold that by man's action something is 
 put into the bread and wine which was not there 
 before, or that when we eat ih^ bread and drink 
 the wine something is put into us by Christ's action 
 which was not there before.
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 Let us examine the teaching of those who hold 
 and inculcate that after consecration there is a real 
 presence of Christ in the elements, which is to be 
 adored. God alone is to be adored. What Christ 
 gives us in the bread and wine is His body which 
 was sacrificed for us, and His blood which was shed. 
 His Godhead was not given for us, nor was it 
 sacrificed when His body was on the cross, and His 
 blood shed. His grace has made the faithful 
 members of His body, that is, of His flesh and 
 blood ; and when they receive the sacrament He 
 strengthens and refreshes that membership by a new 
 supply of His flesh and blood. Is the member to 
 adore that which is only part of the body to 
 which he belongs, and not God who makes it so to 
 him ? 
 
 The working of the miracle appears to be best 
 explained by another miracle performed by Christ, 
 and as He did nothing without a purpose, probably 
 as the means whereby it should be understood. The 
 miracle alluded to is that recorded in the ninth 
 chapter of St. John's Gospel, of the gift of sight to a 
 blind man. Christ had only to say, as in many 
 other instances, Receive thy sight; and the man 
 would have seen ; but on this occasion ^' He spat on 
 the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and He 
 anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 
 and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. 
 He went his way therefore, and washed, and came 
 seeing." Here clay and water were the means 
 whereby, as He willed it, sight was given, and no 
 one can suppose that the clay became anything but 
 clay, or the water but water. Thus bread and wine 
 have been made by Him the means whereby we
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 receive His flesh and blood, and there is no more 
 reason for believing that any change in them is 
 necessary in order to effect what He has ordained, 
 than that a change was necessary in the clay and 
 water for the gift of sight to the blind man. There 
 can be no doubt that if the faith of that man had 
 failed, and he had not gone and washed in the pool, 
 his eyes would not have been opened. The water in 
 addition to the clay in that case was required to 
 perfect the miracle, as the wine is in addition to the 
 bread in the other ; and yet a large body of Christians 
 submit to an ordinance of man, which refuses the 
 cup to them in direct opposition to the command of 
 Christ. This is the result of adding human invention 
 to the plain Word of God. When once that is 
 admitted further error is sure to creep in, and when 
 men accept the teaching of man in such matters, 
 without inquiring what Q-od has ordered, divisions 
 and doubt must affect and disturb the Church. No 
 wonder that the Church which withholds the cup 
 bids her followers not to inquire, for inquiry must 
 prove the iniquity of her teaching. It is sad to 
 think how many millions live and die year after year 
 without ever having been allowed to receive the 
 sacrament as Grod has ordained, and have therefore 
 had no claim to the enjoyment of those benefits 
 which it was instituted to give. 
 
 LONDON: riUNTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONf, STAMFORD STREET AND CIIAKING CKt/?S.