J ti

¦»»,**'. i«w ^

-*'••

¦ r * jS?'-! ¦"*¦»**"+' ' ¦**¦* *

* »

««

J
' I
J"
, I-
>Sr "in
Mi ¦j=5
Q

"fS'^vetJitft.-Baoiiyiiy,
//>}¦.. the foundmg if t ColUgi'ai, iHii Colonyin

I " Yi^ILIE«¥MII¥IlI^SIIir¥»

Gift of
George L. Fox

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSET.

' If any learned man of all bur adversaries, or if all the learned men that
' be alive, be able to bring one suificient sentence out of any old Catholic
' Doctor or Father, or out of any old General Council, or out of the Holy
' Scriptures of God, or any one example of the Primitive Church, whereby
' it may be clearly and plainly proved that for the space of six hundred
' years after Christ . . . the people was then taught to believe that Christ's
' body is reaUy or substantially in the sacrament ; or that His body is, or
' may be, in a thousand places, or more, at one time, . . I promised then
' that I would give over and subscribe unto him ; . . . but I am well
' assured that they shall never be able truly to allege one sentence, and
' because I know it, therefore I speak it, lest ye haply should be deceived.'
— Bishop Jewel, Wortcs, vol. i., pp. 20-22.
'The following evidence [400 pp.] that the belief in the Eeal Presence
' was part of the faith of Christians from the first, is more than enough to
* convince one who is willing to be convinced. If this convince not, neither
' would any other. There is no flaw, no doubt, I might almost say no loop-
' hole, except that man always finds one, to escape what he is unwilling to
' accept. ' I have now . . . gone through every writer who, in his extant works,
' speaks of the Holy Eucharist, from the time when St. John the Bvan-
' gelist was translated to his Lord, to the date of the Fourth General
' Council, A. D. 451, a period of three centuries and a-half. I have sup-
' pressed nothing ; I have not knowingly omitted anything ; I have given
' every passage, as far as in me lay, with so much of the context as was
' necessary for the clear exhibition of its meaning. ' — Dr. PnsBT, Doctrine of
the Real Presence, pp. 316, 317, 715.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY

AN EXPOSUEB OF HIS UNFAIE, TREATMENT
OF THEIR EVIDENCE ON THE

DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE.

BY

JOHN HAKEISON, D.D. Edin.,
VICAK OF FENWICK, NEAK DONCASTEE, AUTHOE OF ' WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS ? ' 'AN ASSWE^TO
DE. PUSEY'S CHALLENGE RESPECTING THE DOCTEINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE.'
'ON THE PKIMITIVE MODE OF MAIONG BISHOPS ; ' ETC.

LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
1873.

TUEHBULL AND SPEAES, PKINTEES, EDINBUEGH.

TO THE LAITY OF THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND.

Dear Brethren, If, as it can be shown, the
laity reaUy form the Church of Christ, the wisdom of
appealing to you on the subject of this book will be
self-evident. St. Paul almost uniformly, in writing to Christian
Churches, addresses the laity only. In one solitary
instance, the ministry of the Church is named. In
writing to the Church at Philippi, he addresses it as
follows : — ' Paul and Timotheus, the servants of
' Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which
' are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.'
Chrysostom, however, considers that St. Paul,
contrary to his usual practice in this case, rather
addressed his epistle to the clergy than to the laity.
He understands St. Paul to have said, not ' with the
' bishops and deacons,' but ' feUow-bishops and
' deacons ; ' and he remarks : ' Here one might rea-
' sonably inquire how it is that, though he nowhere

VI PREFACE.
' else writes to the clergy, neither in Eome, nor in
* Corinth, nor in Ephesus, but in general, to all the
' saints, or believers, or beloved, yet here he writes to
' the clergy"?' This is really a private opinion of
Chrysostom, which his copyists and imitators, such as
Theopylact, have not followed. It is, in fact, a mis
take on the part of Chrysostom ; and so far from
being an exception to the general rule, is a striking
instance of the confirmation of it. What the
Apostles themselves did, was also done throughout
the apostolic age. Clement of Eome addresses his
epistle to the Church at Corinth thus — ' The Church
' of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of
' God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called
' and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord
' Jesus Christ.' Polycarp, writing to the Church at
Philippi, addresses his epistle thus — ' Polycarp, and
' the presbyters with him, to the Church of God
' sojoiu-ning at Philippi.' All the five Ignatian
epistles sent to Churches are addressed after the
same manner. In modern times, ' plenary powers '
have been claimed for a certain order of ministers in
the primitive Churchy and they have been spoken of
as ' exercising a princely regency.' If there really
were such an order of men in the Church, how came
it to pass that devout and inteUigent men, in writing
to Churches where such an order was known to

PREFACE. VU

exist, did not recognise them according to their dig
nity 1 And why do we always find the Churches
and not the clergy addressed 1 This recognition of
the supremacy of the laity in the Church is not only
exemplified in early practice, it is also maintained in
theory. Here I shall adduce for your consideration
the testimony of an impartial witness, a learned
Roman Catholic commentator, who lived about 100
years before the Reformation, Tostatus, Bishop of
Avila. He raises the questions, ' whether a commu-
' nity or a Church can have the exercise of jurisdic-
' tion, and whether Christ gave the keys especially to
' Peter only, or to the whole Church, and how the
' authority of the keys is transferred from one
' prelate to another ;' and ' whether the Church now
' has the power of binding and loosing ;' and to the
first question gives the following answer : — ' The
' Church received the keys from Christ, and the
' Apostles received them as ministers of the Church ;
' and the Church has them now, and the prelates
' also, but the Church has them otherwise than the
' prelates ; for the Church has them in respect of
' origin and virtue, but the prelates have them only
' in respect of use. The Church is said to have the
' keys in respect of their virtue ; for she can confer
' them on a prelate by election. She is also said to
' have them originally ; for the power of the prelate

VUl PREFACE.
' does not take its origin from itself, but it originates
' from the power of the Church by election. For the
' Church which elected him gives to him that juris-
' diction, but the Church receives it from no one
' after she has once received it from Christ. She
' has the keys originally and virtually ; and when
' she confers them on a prelate, she does not confer
' them upon him in that manner in which she has
' them, to wit, not so much originally and virtually,
' but as to their use. . . . But if the Church could
' administer the keys by herself, she would not com-
' mit them to a certain prelate. But here was the
' same thing ; for the jurisdiction was in the people,
' yet the whole people did not administer the juris-
' diction, but only the appointed judges, and they
' coEiimanded him to be put in ward.' — In Num. xv.
33, 34. QucBSt. 48, 49. Tom. iv., pt. i, pp. 387, 388.
This theory of Church authority is in exact ac
cordance with the teaching of early antiquity, as I
have shown in my book entitled, ' Whose are the
' Fathers V
In this peculiar crisis in the history of our Re
formed Church, the only human authority to whom
an appeal can be made, with any hope of success, is
the body of the faithful laity ; and as supreme autho
rity is vested in you as an inalienable right, I make
no apology in commending to your consideration and

PREFACE. IX

judgment the following pages, not only with a view
of making known to you the utter untrustworthiness
of the evidence adduced from the Fathers by Dr.
Pusey in favour of his doctrine of the Real Presence,
but also to invite you to such action as shall best com
mend itself to your own judgment, in order to rescue
our Church from the threatened danger of a return
to the thraldom and darkness which blighted the
Church in the middle ages, and from which the Re
formation freed it.
The decision of the Privy Council in the Bennett
Case has indeed brought matters to a crisis, and the
question now is. Whether the Roman Cathohc doc
trine of the real and actual presence of Christ's body
and blood in the consecrated elements, as held by Dr.
Pusey and his ardent disciple, Mr. Bennett, ought to
be tolerated in the Church of England, or not?
Whatever view may be taken of the decision of their
Lordships, the practical efiect is that the alien and
superstitious doctrine in question is tolerated. Even
if their Lordships had pronounced not that Mr.
Bennett was perilously near holding in ivords the
doctrine with which he was charged, but if they had
pronounced that he actually held it, and had accord
ingly given judgment against him, that would not
have settled the controversy ; it would still have had
to be argued out on other grounds, much the same as

PREFACE.

at present, and even then the appeal which I now
make to you would have been needful and urgent.
The defence set up by Archdeacon Denison, and
approved by Dr. Pusey, assumed the following shape :
— ' Proposition to be proved. ,A, negatively. The
' doctrines or positions of the accused may not law-
' fully be ruled to be contrary or repugnant to the
' doctrine of the Church of England ; for it cannot
' be shown that these doctrines or positions are con-
' trary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church
' primitive. B, affirmatively. The doctrines or posi-
' tions of the accused are true doctrines or posi-
' tions ; for they are the same doctrines or positions
' %vith those which have been " collected out of the
' Old and New Testament by the Catholic Fathers
' and ancient Bishops," and which are embodied in
' the ancient Liturgies.'— The Defence, etc., p. 121.
The Archdeacon, in the margin of his book, alleges
as CAddence of the doctrines of the Catholic Fathers
and ancient Bishops, the great work of Dr. Pusey,
who also himself speaks of it as * a vindication of
' his belief before the trial of Archdeacon Denison
' should be concluded.' From this work it is that
the examples given in the following pages of the
unfair treatment which the evidence of the Fathers
has received at the hands of Dr. Pusey, have been
adduced.

PREFACE. XI

It is plain from the two propositions of Arch
deacon Denison, that it is of little consequence to him
what the Church of England may teach. With Dr.
Pusey and his brethren and disciples, the all-import
ant question is. What does the early Church teach ?
1st, You will do well to consider what the Church
of England has been pronounced to teach on the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper by her legal and
highest constituted authority ; and 2nd, whether the
doctrine thus pronounced is, or is not, in substance
in accordance with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper
as held by the early Church.
I reply to the first question that our Church, by
her own supreme authority, has avowed a doctrine
exactly the opposite of that which is maintained in
Archdeacon Denison's proposition. What he denies
it has afiirmed, and what he has afiirmed it has
substantially denied. The doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, as held by Archdeacon Denison, is doubtless
the same as that held by Mr. Bennett ; and Sir
Robert Phillimore, in his judgment in the Bennett
case, has pronounced — 'I say that the objective,
' actual, and real presence, or the spiritual real
' presence, or presence external to the act of the
' communicant, appears to be the doctrine which the
' formularies of our Church, duly consideTed and
' construed so as to be harmonious, intended to

xii PREFACE.
' maintain.' — Judgment, Sheppard, v. Bennett, pp.
135, 136. It is needless to remark that this doc
trine is the same as that held by Archdeacon
Denison. Again, in this same judgment his Lordship speaks
thus of the doctrine of Hooker : — ' There is a doc-
' trine as to the mode of the Presence which has
' obtained the name of the Receptionist Doctrine.
' It is thus expressed by Hooker : — " The real pre-
' sence 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." To
' whatever cause this opinion of Hooker may be due,
' whether, as has been suggested, to his respect for
' Calvin, or his sympathy with the sufferings of
' Reformers on the Continent, or to the result of his
' own convictions on the subject, it was certainly not
' his intention to maintain that no other mode of
' the Presence could be lawfully holden by clerks of
' our Church.' — Ibid., p. 89. But this very doctrine
which Hooker held, and neither Mr. Bennett nor
Archdeacon Denison believes, the Privy Council have
affirmed to be the doctrine of the Enghsh Church,
and have in effect condemned the other doctrine as
being contrary to the Church of England. For
their Lordships conclude their judgment by express
ing their regret at certain passages in the judgnient

PREFACE. xiii
of the Dean of Arches, and especially that passage
in which he states his belief that 'the objective and
' real presence, or the spiritual presence, external to
' the act of the communicant, is the doctrine which
' the formularies of our Church intended to main-
' tain.' With regard to the doctrine of Hooker, which the
Dean of Arches seems to regard as the doctrine of
Calvin and the Continental Reformers rather than
that of the English Church, the Privy Council thus
remarks upon it : — ' Their Lordships have already
' said that any presence which is not a presence to
' the soul of the faithful receiver, the Church does
' not by her articles and formularies affirm. They
' need not ask whether there is really any doubt as
' to the admissibility of the doctrine of Hooker and
' Waterland, who appear to be described as " Recep-
' tionists" in the Church of which they have been
' two of the greatest ornaments.'
In order fully to appreciate the judgment of their
Lordships on this point it will be necessary to know
what is the exact teaching of Hooker which they
so distinctly affirm to be in accordance with the
articles and formularies of the Church of England.
It may appear to some to be incredible that the
doctrine of the Presence, and the evidence on which
Hooker founds it, are in exact accordance with the

XIV PREFACE.
same doctrine and the evidence on which it is
founded as maintained by Zwingle. By many these
men are believed to have held opposite views re
specting the nature of the consecrated elements ;
but they agree in one most important point, viz.,
that the elements by virtue of their consecration do
not contain in them any presence whatever beyond
their own substances of bread and wine. For both
so explain the order of the words of institution as
to make it certain that in their minds that which
the consecrated elements represented or signified was
not in the consecrated elements themselves.
That you may judge for yourselves, here follow
their own statements of the doctrine in question, and
the respective grounds upon which they held it, be
ginning first with Zwingle : — ' If it please him to
' call bread body and wine blood, let us also do
' that ; but as we say that baptism puts away sins,
' when not dipping (for baptism is dipping) puts
' aways sins, but faith ; so by a loose use of speech
' let us call bread body and wine blood, because
' through them Christ has freed and made us clean ;
' not because bread frees or wine spiritually exhilar-
' ates the mind, but faith which Christ has com-
' manded to be had in His body and blood ; because
' by the former He redeemed us, by the latter He
' washed us. . . . Christ said, " Take and eat." Lo,

PREFACE.

' it is taken for this use that it may be eaten ; and if
' you look more deeply into the words themselves,
' He commands to eat before He says that it is His
' body. And unless He had intended to teach by
' this order of the words that He delivered His body
' only to be eaten. He would doubtless have said,'
' " Lo, this is my body which is given for you !
' therefore take and eat." By which order it cer-
' tainly could have been understood that the body of
' Christ could be somewhere where it could not be
' eaten ; but now when He commands to eat, before
' He says that it is His body, it appears that it is
' done for this cause, that it is only there where it is
' eaten. And as it is baptism, only, whilst believing
' one is washed, not whilst the water is kept in a
' sacred place, so bread indeed is made use of, which,
' whilst the use requires, we bring forth, and by faith
' eat, that we may receive in us the body and blood
',of Christ ; and unless we do eat, it is bread and a
' material which we keep for the use of the Eucharist.
' . . . I am accustomed to use the example of
' Christ to this effect also before those with whom T
' confer concerning this thing, that there is not fire
' in flint, save only whilst it is struck, then it flows
' forth abundantly ; so Christ is not held under the
' form of bread {sitb panis specie), save only whilst
' in faith He is there sought and found, now to be

XVI PREFACE.
' eaten, but in a wonderfid manner, which a faithful
' man does not anxiously inquire into.' — Zuinglius
ThomcB Wyttenbachio S. Epist. xxxvii. Opera, vol.
vii., pp. 298-300.
The following is the doctrine of Hooker, with the
grounds on which he rests it : —
' 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 sac-
' rament. And with this the very order of our
' SaAdour's words agreeth : first, "Take and eat;"
' then, " This is my body which was broken for you.
' First, "Drink ye all of this ;" then foUoweth, "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 reaUy exhibit, but for aught we can gather
' out of that which is written of them, they are not
' really, nor do reaUy contain in themselves, that
' grace which with them, or by them, it pleaseth
' God to bestow. If on aU sides it be confessed
' that the grace of baptism is poured into the soul
' of man ; that by water we receive it, although it
' be neither seated in the water, nor the water

PREFACE. xvii
' ch-anged into it, what should induce men to think
' that the grace of the Eucharist must needs be in
' the Eucharist before.it can be in us that receive
' it ? The fruit of the Eucharist is the participation
' of the body and blood of Christ. There is no sen-
' tence of Holy Scripture which saith that we can-
' not by this sacrament be made partakers of His
' body and blood, except they be first contained in
' the sacrament, or the sacrament converted into
' them.' — JSccles. Pol, b. v. 67.
You have only to compare these statements of
doctrine as given by Hooker and by Zwingle to be
perfectly certain that on the doctrine of the presence
in the Lord's Supper there was no difference between
them, but both held one and the same doctrine.
You will do well to bear in mind that the doctrine
commonly attributed to Zwingle by both friends and
foes was not the doctrine which he really held, as I
have very fuUy shown in my ' Answer to Dr. Pusey 's
Challenge,' and where I have given copious extracts
from the writings of Zwingle, by which the reader
may see for himself what his real doctrine is.
It was common in the sixteenth century to call
Zwingle, and all the Reformers excepting Luther
and those who agreed with him, Sacramentarians.
They were commonly so called both by Roman
Catholics and Lutherans. That Hooker was of this

XVUl PREFACE.
school is certain from his own statements. Of
Zwingle he speaks thus : — ' This was it that some
' did exceedingly fear lest Zuinglius and CEcolampa-
' dius would bring to pass that men should account
' of this sacrament but only as of a shadow, desti-
' tute, empty, and void of Christ. But, seeing that
' by opening the several opinions which have been
' held, they are grown, for aught I can see, on aU
' sides at the length to a general agreement concern-
' ing that which alone is material, the real participa-
' tion of Christ, and life in His body and blood by
' means of this sacrament' Hooker then speaks,
' first of the Lutheran interpretation ' of the conse
crated elements, secondly of ' the Popish construc-
' tion ' of them, and then, thirdly, he gives the views
of the school to which he belongs. But those of this
school were called Sacramentarians by the other
two, both Lutheran and Popish ; yet Hooker classes
himself among them. He says, ' It seemeth, there-
' fore, much amiss that against them whom they
' term Sacramentaries so many invective discourses
' are made, all running upon two points — ^that the
' Eucharist is not a bare sign or figure only, and
' that the efficacy of His body and blood is not all
' we receive in this sacrament. For no man having
' read their books and writings which are thus tra-
' duced can be ignorant that both these assertions

PREFACE. XIX
' they plainly confess to be most true. They do
' not so interpret the words of Christ as if the
' name of His body did but import the figure of His
' body.' You wUl see from these extracts from Hooker
that he was one of those who considered that, in the
consecrated elements, by virtue of consecration, there
was no presence whatever beyond their own mate
rial presence of bread and wine. AU who took
this view of the consecrated elements were com
monly caUed Sacramentarians or Sacramentaries,
and Hooker plainly regarded himself as one of
them. Such, then, is the doctrine of Hooker, which their
Lordships of the Privy Council have pronounced to
be in accordance with the Articles and Formularies
of the Church of England, than which nothing could
be more condemnatory of the doctrine of the Real
Presence as held by Dr. Pusey, Mr. Bennett, Arch
deacon Denison, and the entire school of Romanists
and Romanizers.
But now arises the inquiry. Is the doctrine which
is decided by the highest legal authority to be that
of the Church of England that also of the early
Catholic Church 1 And this leads to the second
question which I wish you to consider, viz.. Whether
the doctrine thus pronounced is or is not in sub-

PREFACE.

stance in accordance with the doctrine of the early
Church 1
Perhaps some of you, with some of the clergy,
will consider this a dangerous point for one to raise
who has subscribed to ' Articles of Religion,' the 6th
of which contains the following : — ' Holy Scripture
' containeth all things necessary to salvation ; so
' that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
' proved thereby, is not to be required of any man
' that it should be believed as an article of the faith,
' or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.'
The ground on which the appeal to the early Church
is made you wiU find considered in the introductory
chapter to the present volume, at pp. 9-11. Dr.
Pusey and his party, in making their appeal to the
Fathers, regarded their testimony as final. The
Fathers themselves, however, do not accept any
human authority as final. It is true they used
human tradition to refute any new doctrine or
practice which they believed to be contrary to the
Christian faith. It is after this manner only that I
use the testimony of the Fathers. I have also fuUy
stated, in my 'Answer to Dr. Pusey 's ChaUenge,'
what is the teaching of Holy Scripture on the doc
trine in question ; but in the present volume I shaU
confine myself exclusively to the testimony of the
Fathers. Dr. Pusey has made the most distinct

PREFACE.

choice of language to express in as strong a manner
as possible his belief that the Fathers teach his doc
trine. In company with such men as Bishop Jewel,
Archbishop Usher, Albertinus, and Dean Goode, I
confidently deny that they do teach it; and I allege
the evidence in the following pages in proof that they
do not teach it, where it wiU be seen that the Fathers
not only do not maintain the doctrine, but maintain
what is absolutely subversive of it.
You are especially requested to note well Dr.
Pusey's unfair treatment of the testimony of the
Fathers. You wUl see, in the introductory chapter
to this volume, that various causes have been
assigned for his mistranslations, garbled extracts,
and most striking instances of omission of well-
known passages of the Fathers, which for a thou
sand years have been quoted against his doctrine,
so as not to call in question his honesty, or give
occasion to doubt the truth of his strong affirma
tions respecting his fair treatment of the testimony
of the Fathers. Of this much you may be quite
certain, that their testimony is widely different from
that which Dr. Pusey represents it to be ; and had
he been accurate in adducing it, or in having it
adduced, he himself might have come to an exactly
opposite conclusion. That that is the conclusion
to which he ought to have come, I think you

XXll PREFACE.
will believe, from the evidence adduced in the fol
lowing pages, which you are besought carefuUy to
examine, and to form on it your own impartial
judgment. If only a fair proportion of the laity of the
Church of England take up the subject, examine it
for themselves, and make known to others with
whom they come in contact the decision to which
they have come, the controversy might very soon
be settled. That you should pursue this course is
the more necessary, because the side of the question
advocated in this book is ignored both by Ritualists
and High Anglicans, and also to a great extent by
many of the Evangelical clergy. If a doctrine of
the Real Presence is ascribed to the Fathers by Dr.
Pusey which was reaUy unknown to them, as I
think I have shown, and if I have at the same time
made manifest the utter untrustworthiness of Dr.
Pusey's treatment of the patristic testimony, what
could be more important than such a refutation of
the comparatively modern Roman Catholic super
stition from which our Church was once delivered,
but with the return of which she is now danger
ously threatened? Of late years you have done
much in restoring the material buddings of the
Church, by removing unsightly incrustations, repair
ing what had been delapidated, and by putting into

PREFACE. XXIU

operation such means as are best calculated to keep
the entire buildings in a proper state of preservation.
You have done well in this work ; but you wiU do
better if your zeal and interest in behalf of the
Church of our fathers are made also to bear upon
her spiritual fabric, as 'built upon the foundation
' of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself
' being the chief corner stone.' This is your own
inheritance, and it is your right and interest to use
your best endeavours to protect it. This volume
maintains, as the title page shows, that the Fathers,
to whom Dr. Pusey appeals in proof of his doctrine
of the Real Presence, are against it, and not in
favour of it, and that the testimony of the Fathers
has been treated most unfairly by him. If this is
the case, as I maintain it is, the present crisis in
the history of our Church makes it especially de
sirable that it should be made known. In a review
in the Christian Advocate of my ' Answer to Dr.
' Pusey's Challenge,' it was stated, ' Dr. Harrison
' has applied himself in these volumes to a task,
' than which nothing can at the present moment be
' possibly more important. This is the task of
' testing the accuracy of Dr. Pusey's appeal to the
' Fathers in support of the doctrine of the Real
' Presence.' In that much larger work I had many
other important tasks to perform, but in the present

XXIV PREFACE.
volume I have confined myself almost wholly to
that one task.
To you, dear brethren, this volume is dedicated,
and if by you it is candidly read, and if the evi
dence which it adduces should become widely
known, then the cause of Romanizers and Ritualists
is lost. In the firm belief that I am inviting you to assist
in the cause of truth and in the defence of our
Church, I have thus ventured to commend to your
notice the following pages, and pray that the bless
ing of Him who is the Head of the Church may, in
these days of scepticism and superstition, guide His
members into all truth, and keep them in the same.
I am. Dear Brethren,
Your obedient Servant,
JOHN HARRISON.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
PAGE
The Ebeoe of conceding on insufeioient gbounds that the
Fathers substantially held the same Docteinbs on the
Lord's Supper as those now held by Modeen Romanists. —
Such a Concession not only contradicts the Repoemers and
all the leading Protestant Divines, but gives an immense
ADVANTAGE TO ROMANIZEES. — A NOTICE OE De. PuSEY's FAILURE
TO DO WHAT HE PUEPOSED IN THE TEAE 1857 ON THE EESTORATION
OF HIS THEN FAILING HEALTH, NAMELY, TO VINDICATE THE LITERAL
INTEEPEETATION OP OUR LoED's WOEDS, 'THIS IS MY BODY;' TO
MAINTAIN THE BELIEF OF THE FATHERS IN THE ReAL OBJECTIVE
Presence ; to contrast our English Articles on the Saoea-
MENTS with the CONFESSIONS OF THE ZwiNGLIAN OR CaLVINISTIC
Bodies, and to consider Dean Goode's Chaptee on the
Fathees. — The Refoembes and geeat Peotestant Divines
FOLLOWED the EXAMPLE OP THE FaTHEES IN ACCEPTING THE
SCEIPTUEES ONLY AS THE ABSOLUTE EULE OF ChEISTIAN FaITH
AND Practice, but, like the Fathers, employed Human Tra
dition TO refute Modern Docteinbs. — The steong but mis
placed confidence of Dr. Pusey's Disciples in his supposed
pair treatment of the Testimony of the Fathers. — The
statement of an Evangelical Reviewer that the authority
op the Fathers is on the side op the Evangelical view op
the Saceaments, and his zealous endeavour to show that
although De. Pusey's quotations aee utteely unteust-
woethy, yet he himself in making them, or having them
MADE, HAS BEEN QUITE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL. — Ds. PuSEY'S
INACCURACY OP QUOTATION AS MAINTAINED BY THE REVIEWER,
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF OPENLY DISPLAYING IT, URGED AS A
PLEA FOB THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME, . . .1-16

XXVI CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE II.
PAGE
An Examination op the Fountain and Origin op the Patristic
USE OP Sacrificial Words in connection with the Observ
ance op the Lord's Supper, as drawn prom a Prophecy of
Malachi. — Those Saoeificial Words are shown to be used in
A Spiritual and Metaphorical Sense quite incompatible with
THE Roman Doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice. — It is also
SHOWN that Dr. Pusey has almost entirely omitted this
IMPORTANT PART OP THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, NOTWITH
STANDING HIS PEOFESSION OF HAVING GIVEN THE WHOLE IMPAR
TIALLY,  . 17-24

CHAPTER III.
The Fathers are shown to have so spoken of our Lord's calling
His body bread as if with them it would have made ko
DIPPEEENCE IN THE INTEEPEETATION OP HiS WOEDS IP He HAD
SAID, 'My body IS THIS BREAD,' INSTEAD OF, 'ThIS BREAD IS MY
' BODY.' — The Consensus of the Fathers on this point is
shown FROM THE APPLICATION OP THE WOEDS, 'COME LET US
' PUT WOOD UPON His bread,' as given in THEIE VERSIONS OF
Jeeemiah XL 19. — De. Pusey's mistranslation op theie
WOEDS IS pointed OUT, AND THEIE STATEMENTS MOEE OOERECTLT
GIVEN. — An important OMISSION BY Dr. Pusey op a part of
THE TESTIMONY OF CYPEI.iN, WHEEE HE REPRESENTS CHRIST AS
CALLING His BODY BREAD AND HiS BLOOD WINE, AND THE
MANNER NOTICED IN WHICH HE MISUSES THE TEACHING OF CyPRIAN
AND Augustine by the use of artificial means, and by sup
pressing OTHER PAETS OP THEIR TEACHING, WHICH, HAD THEY
been fairly given, it would have APPEARED THAT THEY NO
MOEE TEACH THE ReAL PeESENCE OF ChEIST'S BODY AND BLOOD
IN THE Consecrated Elements than they teach the Real
Presence of Christ's body of believing people in them. —
This kind of testimony is confiemed and illusteated by
Cheistian authoes as late as the tenth centuey. — A
FUETHEE INSTANCE GIVEN OP Dr. PcSEY'S MISREPRESENTATION OP
THE TEACHING OP AUGUSTINB BY GIVING A PART OP HIS EXPOSI
TION AND SUPPRESSING A MORE IMPORTANT PART, WHICH WAS

CONTENTS, XXVn PAGE
ESSENTIAL TO THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OP WpAT HE INTENDED
TO TEACH, AND WHICH, SO PAR FROM SHOWING THAT HE TAUGHT
THE Roman Doctrine of the Real Presence, shows that he
TAUGHT that WHICH WAS SUBVERSIVE OP IT. — An INSTANCE 18
GIVEN IN WHICH BERTRAM EMPLOYED THE WHOLE PASSAGE IN
OPPOSING TEE Doctrine of Paschasius, the Father of the
HERESY OP THE RoMAN DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. —
A CASE SHOWN IN WHICH Dr. PuSEY MANIFESTLY PERVEETS THE
PLAIN TEACHING OP BeETBAM, SO AS TO MAKE HIM A WITNESS
FOB THE Roman Doctrine op the Real Presence, whereas
HE IS OPPOSED TO IT. — OTHER INSTANCES ADDUCED WHERE FATHERS
SO EXPRESS THEMSELVES THAT, IP THEY BELIEVED ANY SUBSTAN
TIAL CHANGE TO BE EFFECTED BY THE ACT OF CONSECRATION, IT
WOULD NOT BE OP THE BREAD INTO ChEISt's BODY, BUT OP
Christ's body into the beead. — Dr. Pusey attributes a state
ment used in the defence op the Paschasian heresy to
A ugustine, which, 80 far prom being used by him, was actu
ally USED AGAINST HIM IN ANSWEE TO SOME QUOTATIONS WHICH
HAD BEEN MADE FEOM HIM IN DEFENCE OP THE TEUE DOCTEINE, 25-48
CHAPTER IV.
Instances given in which Dr. Pusey has suppressed the more
ESSENTIAL PAETS OP THE PaTEISTIC TESTIMONY IN BEGAED TO THE
INTEEPEETATION OP THE SiXTH OP St. JoHN, TESTIMONY WHICH IS
FATAL BOTH TO Db. PuSET'S INTEEPEETATION AND TO De. WiSE-
man's. The liteeal inteepeetation op the l^ttee is given,
and the former is shown to follow him. The striking testi
mony op Tertcllian, Oeigen, Ambrose, Eusbbids, Basil, and
Augustine is then given, and De. Pusey's omissions, misee-
peesentations, and most unfair treatment of it abe noticed, 49-63
CHAPTER V.
The IMPORTANCB OF CONSIDERING THE PATRISTIC PRINCIPLES OF IN
TERPRETATION AS LAID DOWN BY THE FATHERS WITH REGARD TO
THE INTEEPEETATION OF THE SACRAMENTAL PhEASEOLOGY WHICH
Db. Pusey appeaes to have ignoeed. The peinciples op
INTERPRETATION AS GIVEN BY AUGUSTINE IN REGARD TO SaCBA-
MENTS AND SiGNS, SHOWING THAT, ACCOBDING TO HIS TEACHING,

XXVni CONTENTS. PAGE
THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL DIFFEEENCB BETWEEN THEM, AND, CON-
TEAEY TO THE TEACHING OF De. PuSEY AND ROMANISTS, NEITHEE
Sacraments nor Signs were that of which they were the
Saceaments or Signs. Augustine teaches that the Sacra
mental OR Religious Signs op the Israelites, though difpee-
ING in nature, were THE SAME IN SIGNIFICATION AS THE CHRISTIAN
Saceaments ; and it is shown that Beetbam, in anbweb to
Paschasius, taught the same Doctrine, and the same kind of
evidence is brought against Dr. Pusey. A remarkable
INSTANCE IS GIVEN IN WHICH ^LFRIC QUOTES A PASSAGE FROM
AUGU.STINE IN WHICH HE USES SEVERAL METAPHORS IN RELATION
TO Christ, amongst which He includes Eucharistic Bread.
An important bulb of Augustine in belation to the inteepee
tation OF Holy Sceiptueb which, as applied by himself,
shows that he understood the words op institution in the
Lord's Supper figuratively. The principles of interpre
tation, AS LAID down by OrIGEN AND BASIL, STATED AND CON-
SIDEBED in OBDEB TO A EIGHT UNDEESTANDING OF SaOEAMENTAL
Language. Both Ambrose and Chrysostom, in using Meta-
PHOEicAL Language in eelation to Cheist, include in it the
names of the Conseceated Elements. It is noticed that this
kind op Evidence poems no paet of Dr. Pusey's extracts
PROM THE Fathers,  64-77

CHAPTER VI.
It is shown that De. Pusey misleads his Readees by quoting
Fathers who apply the phrase, ' Daily bread ' to Christ as
IF THEY understood THE PHRASE IN EELATION TO THE CONSE-
CEATED Beead of the Euchaeist, wheeeas they genbeally
EMPLOY IT AS A TITLE OF ChEIST HmSELF. INSTANCES GIVEN OF
Dr. Pusey's garbled quotations upon this point, . . 78-82

CHAPTER VII.
The word Presence, with various adjuncts so frequently used
BY De. Pusey to denote the existence of Cheist's body in
the Conseceated Elements, does not appear to have been

CONTENTS. XXIX PAGE
employed by the Fathers in that connection, nor does Dr.
Pusey give in his Extracts from them any instances of it.
— A case given, in which a writer in the ' Church Review '
suggests that the term 'Presence' should be eliminatbd
prom theological discussions, and gives this advice to De.
Manning, a Roman Bishop. — Instances given peom Augus
tine, IN which he speaks op Chbist's body and op His bodily
absence until His Second Coming, so as to imply that he
could not have conceived of the peesence of His body
and soul in the Consecrated Elements. — It is shown that
although augustine has given, under various aspects, very
pull statements upon this point, yet those statements
POEM NO PORTION OF Dr. PuSEY's EXTRACTS FROM ACGUSTINE.
— The evidence of Chrysostom given, in which he plainly
teaches that the consecrated elements, in regard to
what they abb, stand pbecisely in the same relation to
THE BODY OF ChEIST'S BELIEVING PEOPLE AS THEY DO TO HiS
BODY.— Specimens are given op De. Pusey's most unfaie
TEEATMENT OF THIS POETION OF ChEYSOSTOm's TESTIMONY, . . 83-98

CHAPTER VIII.
De. Pusey's Dooteine that the Elements in the Loed's Suppee
ABE by the act OF CONSECRATION SO MADE ChRIST's BoDY AND
Blood that whoever receives them receives also the Body
AND Blood, fully answered and refuted. — De. Pusey is
shown to use Saceamental Woeds in a modeen and pefvate
sense, so as to make them consonant with the Roman Doo
teine op the Real Peesence. — The Peimitive Meaning op
these Woeds is given, and they are shown not only not to
be in favour op the Doctrine of the Real Presence, but
against it. — Cases given in which he quotes passages from
THE Fathers to prove his Doctrine, shown, when fairly
QUOTED WITH A SUFFICIENCY OF THE CONTEXT, SO AS TO GIVE
THE FULL Meaning, to contradict it.-^The Mannee in which
THE Fathers speak op the Consecrated Elements in regard
to what they signify oe represent shown to be bepugnant to
Db. Pusey's Dooteine. — Direct Proofs given prom the writ
ings OP Augustine that the wicked do not with the Signs
IN the Lord's Supper also receive the things signified, 99-131

XXX CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IX.
PAGE
General Cases of Db. Pusey's garbled Quotations from Am
brose, Jerome, Gaudentius and Augustine examined and
illustrated and shown to be quite fatal to the roman
Doctrine of the Real Presence,  132-168

INDEX OF FATHEES AND LATIN AUTHOES,
with the editions of their writings, from which the extracts in this
book have been made.

Alchwini Opera, ed. Lut. Par., 1717, fol.
-Ajnalarius. See Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., torn. 9.
Ambrosii Medio! Opera, ed. Paris, 1632. 5 vols. fol.
Augustini Opera, ed. Paris, 1586. 10 vols. fol.
BasUii Opera, ed. Paris, 1638. 3 vols. fol.
Bedse Opera, ed. Colon., 1688. 8 vols. fol.
Berengar. See Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. 11.
Bertrami de Corpore at Sanguine Domini, ed. Gen., 1541. 12mo.
Bibliotheca Magna Veterum Patrum, ed Colon., 1618. 15
vols. fol.
Chrysostomi Opera, ed. Lut. Par., 1614. 10 vols. fol.
dementis Alex. Opera, ed. Colon., 1688, fol.
Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Lugd., 1671. 3 vols. fol.
Cypriani Opera, ed. Brem., 1690. 2 vols. fol.
CyrUli Hieros. Opera Omnia, ed. Oxon., 1703, fol.
Eusebii Demons, ed. Colon., 1688, fol.
"Fulgentius. See Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. 6.
Gaudentius. See Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr, tom. 4.
Hieronymi Opera, ed Basil, 1553. 9 vols, fol
Irensei Opera, ed. Genev., 1570, fol.
Isidori Hispal. Opera. Mad., 1599.
Justini Mart. Opera, ed. Commel, 1593, fol.
Lanfrancus. See Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. 11.
Origenis Opera Omnia, ed. Bero, 1831. 25 vols. 12mo.
Pascbasius. See Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. 9, pars. i.
Babani Mauri Opera, ed. Colon., 1626. 6 vols. fol.
TertuUiani Opera, ed. Franck., 1597, fol.
Theodoreti Opera, ed. Schulz. Halie., 1769-1774. 5 vols. 8vo.
Tostati Abulensis Opera, ed. Colon., 1613. 27 vols. foL
Zuinglii Opera, ed. Zuriph, 1828. 8 vols. 8vo.

THE PATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY, &c.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
The Eeeoe op conceding on insufficient GRouNits that the Fathers
SUBSTANTIALLY HELD THE SAME DOCTRINES ON THE Loed's SuPPER AS
those NOW HELD BY MODERN ROMANISTS. — SCCH A CONCESSION NOT
ONLY CONTRADICTS THE RBFORMEHS AND ALL THE LEADING PROTESTANT
Divines, but gives an immense advantage to Romanizers. — A
NOTICE OP Dr. Pusey's failure to do what he purposed in the
YEAR 1857 on the eestoeation of his then failing health, namely,
TO VINDICATE the LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF OUR LoeD's WOEDS,
'This is my body ;' to maintain the belief of the Fathers in the
EEAL objective PEESENCE ; TO CONTRAST OCR ENGLISH AETICLES ON
THE Saceaments with the Confessions or the Zwinglian or Cal-
viNisTic Bodies, and to consider Dean Goode's Chaptee on the
Fathees. — The Refoemers and geeat Peotestant Divines fol
lowed the example of the Fathers in accepting the Sceiptuees
only as the absolute EULE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH AND PRACTICE, BUT,
LIKE THE Fathees, employed Human Tradition to refute Modern
Doctrines. — The strong but misplaced confidence op Dr. Pusey's
Disciples in his supposed fair treatment of the Testimony of the
Fathers. — The statement op an Evangelical Reviewer that the
authority of the Fathers is on the side op the Evangelical
view op the Saceaments, and his zealous endeavour to show that
although Dr. Pusey's quotations aee utteely untrustworthy, yet
he himself in making them, OE having them made, has been quite
HONEST AND TECTHFUL. — De. PuSEY'S INACCUEACY OF QUOTATION AS
MAINTAINED BY THE REVIEWER, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF OPENLY DIS
PLAYING IT, URGED AS A PLEA FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRESENT
VOLUME.
Dr. Pusey and his followers have somewhat obtrusively
put forth the claims that they have the sanction of the
Fatherg for their doctrine of the Real Presence, and it

2, THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
gives some plausibility to this unfounded pretension in
that some Protestants rashly admit the claim. Such a
concession not onlj^ confirms Romanists in their views,
but condemns the Reformers and all the great Protestant
Divines since the Reformation,' who have with great
ability maintained the contrary view. As a specimen of
the kind of concession to which I allude, I will here give
the statement of a learned evangelical author from a
recently published work. ' To speak distinctly, my alle-
' gation is, that the Church system of the Nicene period,
' i.e., in the third and fourth centuries, or before the
' death of Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other
' contemporary Fathers, was in all essential respects the
' same as that of the more modern Romanism ; and
' hence that, in all consistency, if we protest against the
' one, we must protest against the other ; if we denounce
' the one as having departed from the faith once delivered
' to the saints, and having overlaid the formal orthodox}^
' of the acknowledged creeds with a mass of superstition,
' our denunciation must extend equally to the other.
' And, contrariwise, if the earlier system is admired and
' accepted, the same admiration and acceptance cannot
' be justly withheld from its later counterpart.'
How differently one of the later Reformers, who had
profited from the evidence adduced and the arguments
accumulated by the earlier Reformers, and who had read
and studied antiquity, may be seen from a challenge
made by Bishop Jewel in a sermon on the institution of
the Lord's Supper, part of which here follows : — ' 0
' merciful God, who would think there could be so much
' wilfulness in the heart of man ? 0 Gregory ! O Augus-
' tine ! 0 Hierome ! 0 Chrysostom ! 0 Leo ! 0 Dionyse !
' O Anacletus ! 0 Sixtus ! O Paul ! 0 Christ ! If we be
' deceived herein, ye are they that have deceived us.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 3
' You have taught us these schisms and divisions, ye
' have taught us these heresies. Thus ye ordered the
' Holy Communion in your time, the same we received
' at your hand, and have faithfully delivered it unto the
' people.' 'And that ye may the more marvel at. the wilfulness
' of such men, they stand this day against so many old
' Fathers, so many Doctors, so many examples of the
' primitive Church, so manifest and so plain words of the
' Holy Scriptures; and yet have they herein not one
' Father, not one Doctor, not one allowed example of the
' primitive Church to make for them. And when I say
' not one, I speak not this in vehemence of spirit or heat
' of talk, but even as before God, by the way of sim-
' plicity and truth, lest any of you should haply be de-
' ceived, and think there is more weight in the other
' side than in conclusion there shall be found. And,
' therefore, once again 1 say, of all the words of the Holy
' Scriptures, of all the examples of the primitive Church,
' of all the old Fathers, of all the ancient Doctors, in
' these causes they have not one.'
After some further remarks, he begins his challenge,
' If any learned man of all our adversaries, or if all the
' learned men that be alive, be able to bring one sufficient
' sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor or Father, or
' out of any old General Council, or out of the Holy
' Scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive
' Church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved
' that for the space of six hundred years after Christ
' . . . the people was then taught to believe that
' Christ's body is really or substantially in the sacrament;
' or that His body is, or may be, in a thousand places
' or more, at one time ; or that the priest did then hold
' up the sacrament over his head; or that the people

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
did then fall down and worship it with godly honour ;
. . . or that whosoever had said the sacrament is a
figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's
body, had therefore been judged for a heretic; — ... if
any man alive were able to prove any of these articles
by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of
the Scriptures or of the old Doctors, or of any old
General Council, or by any example of the primitive
Church, I promised then that I would give over and
subscribe unto him. [In a sermon preached the year
before.] Wherefore, besides all that I have said already,
I will say further, and yet nothing so much as might
be said. If any one of all our adversaries be able
clearly and plainly to prove, by such authority of the
Scriptures, the old Doctors, and Councils, as I said
before, . . that when Christ said, Hoc est corpus
meuon (" this is my body"), this word hoc (this) pointed
not to the bread, but individuam vagum, as some of
them say, ... or that the sacrament is a sign or token
of the body of Christ that lieth hidden underneath it ;
if any one of all our adversaries be able to avouch any
one of all these articles, by any such sufficient authority of
Scripture, Doctors, or Councils, as I have required, as I
said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield
unto him and to subscribe. But I am well assured
that they shall never be able truly to allege one sen
tence, and because I know it, therefore I speak it, lest
ye haply should be deceived. . . But keep your hold;
the Doctors and old Catholic Fathers, in the points that
I have spoken of, are yours; ye shall see the siege
raised ; ye shall see your adversaries discomfited and
put to flight.' — The Copy of a Sermon pronoimiced,
by the Bishop of Salisbury, at St. Paul's Gross, in the year
of our Lord God, 1560. Works, Vol. I., pp. 20-22.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 5
An answer was given to the challenge by M. Harding,
a Roman Catholic, to which Jewel gave a reply. Both
were published; and, at a subsequent period, the whole
works of Jewel were ordered to be placed in the churches;
and some remain, so placed, even to the present day.
Jewel, in maintaining this ground, did but tread in the
steps of the early Reformers ; and the great Protestant
Divines ever since the time of Jewel have held the same
ground. Archbishop Usher, who was regarded as the most able
and learned Divine of his time, sixty-four years after
Jewel made his challenge, felt himself called upon in his
' Answer to a Challenge made by a Jesuit,' to re-assert
the well-considered sentiments of Jewel. In the epistle
dedicatory to the above-named work, he states, ' Now
' true it is if a man do only attend unto the bare sound
' of the word (as in the question of merit, for example),
' or to the thing in general, without descending into the
' particular consideration of the true ground thereof (as
' in the matter of praying for the dead), he may easily
' be induced to believe that in divers of these contro-
' versies the Fathers speak clearly for them and against
' us; neither is there any one thing that hath won more
' credit to that religion, or more advanced it in the con-
' sciences of simple men, than the conformity that it
' retaineth in some words and outward observances with
' the ancient Church of Christ. Whereas, if the thing
' itself were narrowly looked into, it would be found that
' they have only the shell without the kernel, and we
' the kernel without the shell ; they having retained
' certain words and rites of the ancient Church, but
' applied them to a new invented doctrine ; and we, on
' the other side, having relinquished these words and
' observances, but retained, nevertheless, the same primi-

6 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' tive doctrine, unto which by their first institution they
' had relation.'
In the same work, in the ' Address to the Reader,' he
says, ' The doctrine that here I take upon me to defend
' (what different opinions soever 1 relate of others) is
' that which by public authorityis professed in the Church
' of England, and comprised in the Book of Articles
' agreed upon in the Synod held at London in the year
' 1562, concerning which I dare be bold to challenge our
' challenger and all his accomplices, that they shall never
' be able to prove that there is either any one article of
' religion disallowed therein which the saints aiul Fathers
' of the primitive GJturch did generally hold to be true
' (I use the words of my challenging Jesuit), or any one
' point of doctrine allowed, which by those^ saints and
' Fathers was generally held to be untrue.'
Thirty years after this the most complete work on the
Lord's Supper that ever appeared, was published, in
which was adduced not only the full testimony of all the
Fathers on the doctrine of the Real Presence, but also an
answer given to the errors of all the leading Roman Doctors.
The title of this noble and magnificent work is as fol
lows : — ' De Eucharistife sive Ccence Dominicse Sacramento
' libri tres. Primus ex Scripturis, et ratione petitus.
' Secundus ex Patribus sex priorum serse Christianas
' seculorum depromptus. Tertius, quomodo et quibus
' gradibus primseva de hoc sacramento fides ad errores
' hodiernos, multis piis et doctis repugnantibus, defecerit,
' ad oculum demonstrat. Contra Prsecipuos Adversari-
' arum Partium Scriptores, &c. Authore, Edmundo
' Albertino. Daventrise. 1654.'
Coming down to a very recent period, when attempts
began to be made by such men as Arcjideacon Wilber-
force and Archdeacon Denison to re-introduce the Roman

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 7
doctrine of the Real Presence into the Church of England,
Dean Goode published his most valuable unanswered and
unanswerable work on ' The Nature of Christ's Presence
in the Eucharist,' to repel this most dangerous heresy.
Of the 1000 octavo pages of this work, nearly 400 pages
are devoted to the ' Testimony of the Fathers in favour of
' the Doctrine maintained in this Work,' by Dean Goode.
The doctrine maintained is the real absence of that in the
consecrated elements which Dr. Pusey and Romanists
believe to be present therein.
It is truly painful to find that a great work like this
has been ignored both by High Anglicans and Ritualists;
but it is still more painful that any of those who hold
substantially the doctrine of Dean Goode's book, should
not only ignore it, but in effect condemn it, by affirming
respecting the testimony of the Fathers what it denies,
and denying what it affirms — just as Dr. Pusey and the
Romanists do. The extract from a work of an evangeli
cal author, given at page 2 above, is a case in point.
It should be borne in mind that Dean Goode's work is
not a direct answer to Dr. Pusey's chief work on the
Eucharist. The Dean, in allusion to this work, says,
' Dr. Pusey, however, in a volume which has appeared
' while this work is passing through the press, &c.' — Vol.
I., p. 231. Nor did Dr. Pusey regard it as an answer to
his work, for he says, 'On the other main subject, the
' belief of the Fathers, Mr. Goode's work is chiefly directed
' against that of the late Archdeacon Wilberforce, and
' only incidentally against mine.' — The Real Presence of
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ the doc
trine of the English Church. Preface, p. xiii.
Dean Goode had well answered Archdeacon Wilber
force and Archdeacon Denison ; the latter of whom Dr.
Pusey was straining his health to defend ; for he says.

8 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' It was my intention, in addition to the chapters here
' published, to have written three chapters (1) to vindi-
' cate the literal interpretation of our Lord's words,
' " This is my body ;" (2) to maintain the belief of the
' Fathers in the Real Objective Presence ; (3) to contrast
' our Enaiish Articles on the Sacraments with the Con-
' fessions of the Zwinglian or Calvinistic bodies. But
' the effort, in the midst of my other duties, to complete
' this vindication of my belief as a member and a priest
' of the English Church, before the trial of Archdeacon
' Denison should be concluded, has involved a strain,
' under which my health for the time, if it so please God,
' has so far suffered, that it becomes a duty to desist.'
— Lbid., p. xi.
On the like account he excused himself from giving an
answer to Dean Goode's work, for he states, ' Mr. Goode,
' in his chapter on the Fathers, has addressed himself,
' not so much to the consideration of what the Fathers
' say directly on the Real Objective Presence, as to prove
' that they believe certain other things which he holds
' to be inconsistent with that belief. These I hope to
' consider when it shall please God to give me health.' —
Lbid., p. xiv.
Since the year 1857, Dr. Pusey has written and
published several works. Is it then in consequence of
want of health that he has not yet performed what he
purposed ? Or rather is it not from prudential reasons,
finding it far easier to- ignore such a work of Dean
Goode's than to answer it ? That High Anglicans and
Ritualists should disregard such writings as those of Dean
Goode on the Eucharist, especially when they find they
do not admit of an easy answer, is what might be ex
pected ; but for evangelical Protestants to find that so
easy which Romanists find so hard, viz., to answer such

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. '9
writings as those of, Jewel, Usher, Albertinus, and
Dean Goode, is unaccountable. These Protestants de
precate any appeal on faith and practice except to the
Holy Scriptures; and, in regard to the foundation of
faith and practice they are right ; but, respecting those
who are in error on these points, it has ever been the
practice from the earliest history of the Church, to refute
such errors, not only from the Holy Scriptures, but also from
the known faith and practice of the Church. The chief
writers of the second and third centuries, in refuting the
gross heresies of their day, not only appealed to Holy
Scripture, but also to the tradition of the Church. Their
argument was to this effect : — ' Not only is there no
' foundation for your heresy in Scripture, but our prede-
' cessors neither knew nor taught your heresy.' The
Fathers generally did not build their faith on tradition,
but they freely used it to pull down what was unknown
to it. Such writers as those above quoted, appealed to
tradition for no other purpose. Daille has so well and
accurately expressed the practice of the Reformers on this
point, that I am constrained to give his statement — 'They
' all rely upon the authority of the Scriptures only, and
' admit not of the authority of the Fathers as a sufficient
' ground whereon to build any article of their belief It
' is true, I confess, that some of their first authors, as
' Bucer, Peter Martyr, and J. Jewel [Bishop] of Salisbury,
' and, in a manner, all the later writers, also allege the
' testimony of the Fathers ; but (if you but mark it) it is
' only by way of confutation, and not of establishing
' anything; they do it only to overthrow the opinions of
' the Church of Rome, and not to strengthen their own.'
— On the Right Use of the Fathers, chap, vi., p. 296.
Usher, in his ' Answer to a Challenge made by
' a Jesuit,' from which quotations have been made at

10 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
pages 5, 6 above, distinctly maintains that the Holy Scrip
tures are the only absolute rule of Christian faith and
practice. The work consists of twelve chapters. The
first contains ' A General Answer to the Jesuit's Chal-
' lenge ; ' the second is on ' Tradition.' Here he quotes
various passages from twelve different Fathers, to show
that in the early Church Holy Scripture alone, in matters
of Christian faith and practice, was regarded as the abso
lute authority. The following are specimens of the pas
sages which he quotes : — ' Basil teacheth further, " That
' every word and action ought to be confirmed by the
' testimony of the Holy Scripture, for confirmation of the
' faith of the good, and the confusion of the evil ; and
' that it is the property of a faithful man to be fully per-
' suaded of the truth of those things which are delivered
' in the Holy Scripture, and not to dare either to reject
' or to add anything thereunto. For if whatsoever is
'- not of faith be sin, as' the Apostle saith, and faith is by
' hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, then whatso-
' ever is without the Holy Scripture, being not of faith,
' must needs be sin." Thus far, S. Basil.' — P. 38.
' S. Augustine saith, " In those things which are laid
' down plainly in the Scriptures, all those things are
' found which appertain to faith and direction of life."
' And again, " Whatsoever ye hear from the Holy Scrip-
' tures, let that savour well unto you; whatsoever is
' without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud." ' —
P. 39.
Albertinus, in the preface to his great work on the
Eucharist, dwelling ' on the authority of the Fathers con-
' cerning controversies of faith,' quotes several Fathers to
show in what light they regarded mere human authority
in comparison with that of the Holy Scriptures. The
following from Augustine is a specimen of the kind of

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 11
evidence on this point which Albertinus adduced from
the Fathers : — ' For I confess to thy charity that I have
' learnt to pay such deference to the books of Scripture,
' and to them alone, that I most firmly believe that none
of their writers has ever fallen into any error in writing.
' . . . But others, however distinguished they may be
for holiness and learning, I so read as not to think any-
' thing true because they thought it to be so, but because
' they are able to persuade me, either by those canonical
' authors, or by some probable reason, that it is agreeable
' to the truth.'
It is almost needless to say that Dean Goode has proved
unanswerably, from the writings of the Fathers, that Holy
Scripture was their only absolute rule of faith and practice.
Jewel, Usher, Albertinus, and Dean Goode strictlj'" fol
lowed the canon of the Fathers in accepting the Scrip
tures alone as the absolute rule of Christian faith and
practice. They nevertheless freely used the testimony of
the Fathers to pull down what Romanists had falsely
built upon them. Without violating this excellent canon
of the Fathers, I have used their testimony, as the above-
named authors have been shown to have used it, in my
former works, entitled ' Whose are the Fathers ? ' etc.,
and ' An Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge,' etc., and
shall use it after the same manner in the present volume.
In an able review of my ' Answer to Dr. Pusey's Chal-
' lenge ' in the Christian Advocate, contrary to the evan
gelical author quoted at page 2 above, it is stated —
' We believe that the authority of the Fathers is on the
' side of the evangelical view of the sacraments, as firmly
' as we believe that view, and that view alone, to be in
' accordance with the Word of God.' But the reviewer
considers that I have not made Dr. Pusey's inaccuracy of
quotation from the Fathers so conspicuous as it might

12 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
have been made. He says, ' Could the proofs of Dr.
' Pusey's inaccuracy be marshalled in a pointed and
' effective manner, so as to bring them within the exa-
' mination of ordinary readers, a blow would be struck
' at sacerdotal theology, of which it would be difficult to
' overrate the effects.' The reviewer thinks that in some
of the conditions of the work I have failed. He seems
to assume that the chief aim and object of my work was
intended to expose the inaccuracy of Dr. Pusey's quota
tions ; but this is a misapprehension, for, as the title of
the work shows, I had other points of greater importance
to consider. The task I had undertaken was to examine
and discuss the entire doctrine of the Lord's Supper, both
from a scriptural and patristic point of view. In carry
ing out that object, I followed that order of discussion
which apjDeared to me the most simple and natural. In
prosecuting that plan. Dr. Wiseman, Dr. Pusey, Arch
deacon Denison, Mr. Bennett, Bishop Hamilton, and Mr.
Shipley are cited along the whole course of the argument,
and their various errors are considered and exposed in
those parts of the argument where it would be most suit
able to introduce them ; and Dr. Pusey's inaccuracy
of quotation, garbled passages, and mistranslations, are
noticed after the same manner. Moreover, in the first
218 pages of the second volume, consisting of extracts
from the Fathers, those parts of them which have been
cited by Dr. Pusey are included in strong brackets, from
which may be seen the important passages he has omitted
to cite, as well as many important passages which he has
only partially cited, and which, had he cited fairly, as the
context shows, would have been against him, and not for
him. It is intended in these pages to meet in part the
wishes of the reviewer, and give a fair specimen of Dr.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 13
Pusey's great inaccuracy and his extreme unfairness in
his treatment of the testimony of the Fathers.
The reviewer has well said, ' The number of Ritualists
' who have themselves studied the Fathers is probably
' very small. The bulk, at all events, will have rested
' on Dr. Pusey's quotations, and will probably repudiate
' with indignation the very suggestion that they are not
' to be depended upon. . . If the authority of the great
' Anglican Doctor, as he has been called, cannot be
' trusted, in whom shall confidence be placed ? If this
' authority be overthrown, the main pillar of sacerdotal
' theology is overthrown, and its cause is lost.'
The implicit confidence which Archdeacon Denison
and Mr. Bennett place in Dr. Pusey's alleged testimony
of the Fathers in favour of his doctrine of the Real Pre
sence is shown from their own statements, as given in my
' Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge.' — Vol. I., pp. 3, 4.
Mr. Keble is another striking instance of misplaced
confidence in Dr. Pusey's supposed fair treatment of the
evidence of the Fathers. He says, ' The whole Chris-
' tian world had with one voice been declaring its faith
' in such a presence, as no man could believe without
' adoring. He adds, ' This I do not profess to demon-
' strate, but accept it as demonstrated by Dr. Pusey.' —
Euchar. Ador., Preface, pp. vi., vii.
Dr. Pusey, I maintain, has deceived Archdeacon Deni
son, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Keble, and all who have accepted
his account of the testimony of the Fathers concerning
the doctrine of the Real Presence as true, whether inten
tionally or otherwise. Dr. Pusey, before citing his 400
pages of extracts from the Fathers, remarks — ' The fol-
' lowing evidence, that the belief in the Real Presence
' was part of the faith of Christians from the first, is
' more than enough to convince one who is willing to be

14 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' convinced. If this convince not, neither would any
' other. There is no flaw, no doubt, I might almost say
' no loophole, except that man always finds one, to escape
' what he is unwilling to accept. — Doctrine of the Real
Presence, pp. 316, 317. After citing the 400 pages,
he says, ' I have now, as I could in the space of time
' which seemed open to ijie, before this fundamental doc-
' trine might be disputed before a legal tribunal, gone
' through every writer who in his extant works speaks of
' the Holy Eucharist, 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. I have suppressed nothing ; I
' have not knowingly omitted anything; I have given
' every passage, as far as in me lay, with so much of the
' context as was necessary for the clear exhibition of its
' meaning. — Ibid., p. 715. Whoever accepts these state
ments for truth is gi'ossly deceived, whether Dr. Pusey
intended it or not. The reviewer in the Christian
Advocate, after citing the above declaration of Dr. Pusey,
remarks — ' We cannot answer for Dr. Harrison, but we
' can answer for ourselves, that we fully accept this
' assurance. Firmly as we believe Dr. Pusey to be in
' total error, his quotations to be untrustworthy, and his
' conclusions false, yet we do not for a moment impute
' dishonesty to him. The paradox, strange as it is, must
' find its explanation in the inconsistencies of human
' nature, and the unconscious influences of long-formed
' habit upon the judgment.' The reviewer, after noticing
some useless citations, goes on to remark — ' But when
' all the passages of this character are taken away, the
' greater number of the Ritualistic authorities are taken
' away. The great bulk of Dr. Pusey's Catena is at
' once put aside as proving nothing, and wholly irre-

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 1 5
levant to the dispute. Dr. Harrison remarks somewhat
severely on this accumulation of useless authorities —
" In Dr. Pusey's 400 pages of extracts from the Fathers,
we find the common sacramental language of Holy
Scripture, in which the sign takes the name of the
thing signified. But repeating the same figure of
speech or form of expression many thousands of times
adds nothing to the argument. The question is. What
is the meaning of the figure of speech or form of
expression ? He affixes his own meaning to the sacra
mental language of the Fathers, and assumes that they
teach his doctrine. Nearly the whole of Dr. Pusey's evi
dence from the Fathers consists of sacramental phrases,
in which the signs take the names of the things which
they signify. Of these perhaps there are some thou
sands, and every leaf containing them is conspicuously
headed. Testimony to the belief in the Real Presence in
the early Church. But one assumption once made, is
intrinsically of as much value as if it were 5000 times
repeated. Why, then, has Dr. Pusey indulged in this
kind of repetition ? Probably a reason might be given
from the practice of some modern advertisers, who,
though a line expresses all that they wish to be made
public, yet repeat this line by the column." '
' But there still remains another and a graver question,
and one which, for the sake of the truth involved in
this controversy, it is impossible to blink — Are the
quotations made by Dr. Pusey trustworthy, and do they
fairly represent the true opinion of Christian antiquity
on the subject of the Sacraments ? It is very difficult
to conceive that this question can truly be answered in
the negative. Misrepresentation of authorities is the
gravest offence of which a controversialist can be guilty.
Dr. Pusey's high position in the University of Oxford

16 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
and the confidence placed in his personal character, alike
render the supposition one which the mind shrinks from
entertaining, save on the most positive and conclusive
evidence ; nevertheless, this evidence is at hand, and it
'. compels us to answer the question in the negative. The
quotations of Dr. Pusey are not trustworthy. Not only
do they not authorise the conclusions drawn from them,
but they do not fully represent the real sentiment of
the very passages whence they have been selected. We
repeat, and we do it with sincerity, our full conviction
that there is no conscious dishonesty in Dr. Pusey's
mind. He puts forward what appears to him to be the
truth ; but, whether it is from the force of one habitual
mode of regarding the Fathers ; whether it is from
quoting, in some cases at all events, second-hand, with
out personally submitting the quotation to verification;
whether it is that the work of extracting the passages
from his Catena has been entrusted to others ; or,
whether it- is that the mind has become so wholly
tinctured with a preconceived conception as to colour
everything with its own hues, we are unable to say.
But the fact appears indisputable ; and Dr. Harrison's
bulky volumes teem with evidence of it. We said that
no task could be more important than that of testing
the real theological value of Dr. Pusey's Catena. Its
importance does not relate to Dr. Pusey himself, but to
the interest of the truth.'
The point which the reviewer has singled out and exhi
bited with so much force, in a popular point of view, is of
great importance, and I am glad of the plea for calling
attention to it in the following pages, connecting how
ever with it, as the title-page shows, evidence to prove
that the real testimony of the Fathers on the doctrine in
dispute, is against Dr. Pusey, and not in favour of him.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 17

CHAPTER IL
An Examination op the Fountain and Origin of the- Patristic use op
Saceipioial Words in connection with the Obseevanob op the
Lord's Supper, as drawn from a Prophecy op Malachi. — Those
Sacrificial Woeds aee shown to be used in a Spiritual and Meta
phorical Sense quite incompatible with the Roman Doctrine of
Eucharistic Sacrifice. — It is also shown that Dp. Pusey has
almost entieely omitted this impoetant part of the Testimony
OF THE Fathees, notwithstanding his profession of having given
THE WHOLE IMPARTIALLY.
Justin Martyr is the first Father from whom any
definite information can be obtained in regard to the
nature and observance of the Lord's Supper, and next to
him, Irenseus ; and both, as will be noticed, commonly
use sacrificial language respecting it, as do all the Fathers.
This they found upon the following passage from the
Prophet Malachi : — ' For 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 :
' and my name shall be great among the heathen, saith
' the Lord of Hosts.' — i. 11.
To examine the very fountain and origin of the use of
sacrificial language in connection with the Lord's Supper,
is essentially important in the present controversy; and
it should be well noted that this kind of evidence forms
no part of Dr. Pusey's 400 pages of extracts from the
Fathers. He has omitted the following passage from
Justin Martyr : — ' We are the true high-priestly race of
c

18 THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
' God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying, "That
' in every place among the Gentiles, sacrifices are pre-
' sented to Him well-pleasing and pure." ^ — Mai. i. 11.
' Now God receives sacrifices from no one, except through
' His priests. Therefore, God, anticipating all the sacri-
' fices which we do through His name, and which Jesus
' the Christ enjoined us to do, i.e., in the thanksgiving
' of the bread and of the cup, and which are done by
' Christians in all places throughout the world, bears
' witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He
' utterly rejects those presented by you and by those
' priests of yours, saying, "And I will not accept your
' sacrifices at your hands ; for, from the rising of the sun
' to its setting, my name is glorified among the Gentiles"
' (He says); "but ye profane it." — Mai. i. 10-12. Yet
' even now, in your love of contention, you assert that
' God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt
' then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that
' He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that
' nation then dispersed; and calls their prayers sacrifices.
' Now, that prayers and giving of thanks when offered
' by worthy men are the only perfect and well-pleasing
' sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Chris-
' tians have undertaken to do, and in the remembrance
' made by their food, both solid and liquid, in which
' the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is
' brought to remembrance.' — Dialog, cum Trypho, cc.
116, 117, pp. 269, 270.
Here both Trypho the Jew, and Justin the Christian,
give a spiritual interpretation of this part of the prophecy
of Malachi, and regard the sacrifice as denoting prayers.
In the Chaldee Paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, this
part of the prophecy is thus translated — ' For from the
' rising of the sun, even to the going down thereof, my

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 19
' name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and, at what-
' ever time ye shall perform my will, I will receive your
' prayer, and my great name shall be sanctified by you,
' and your prayer shall be as a pure oblation before me,
' since my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the
' Lord of hosts.' — i. 11. The spiritual interpretation which
these Jews, Justin Martyr, and, as will be shown presently,
the Christian Fathers generally, give to this text, may
not be the correct one, but with that I have no concern,
my purpose is answered if, while the Fathers generally
interpret this text (Mai. i. 11) in relation to the Lord's
Supper, and freely use sacrificial language, they do not
thereby teach any material or visible sacrifice, but only
an immaterial, invisible, and spiritual one. That they
thus teach will now be shown.
Dr. Pusey has quoted a portion of the testimony of
Irenseus upon this point ; but, by transposition, mistrans
lation, and omissions, has falsified it. Dr. Pusey's usual
practice in his Catena, is to cite extracts from any given
Father in the order in which they stand in his writings.
He has departed from this practice in regard to the
writings of Irenseus, and, by placing a passage out of its
natural order, mistranslating a part of it, or, translating
from an incorrect reading and italicising it, has produced
a witness well calculated to deceive his readers. The
extract is, ' This oblation the Church alone offers pure
'to the Creator, offering it to Him with thanksgiving
' from His creation. But the Jews do not offer ; for
' their hands are full of blood ; for they have not received
' the Word Which is offered to God.' — P. 321. Irenseus
had said a little before, ' The Church makes offerings
' through Jesus Christ ' (per Jesum Christum), and the
words italicised by Dr. Pusey ought to have been, ' The
' Word, through Whom it (the oblation) is offered to

20 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' God {Verbum, per quod off^ertur Deo),' instead of ' Tlie
' Word, Which is offered to God.' Dr. Pusey not only
makes Irenseus teach a doubtful doctrine on the Real
Presence, but doubtful on other matters a,s well. The
Word is doubtless inclusive of Christ's Divinity, but in
the original sacrifice, once offered, the Divinity was not
offered. Theodoret, as cited by Dr. Pusey, says, ' The
' Lord Himself promised to give, not His invisible nature,
' but His body, for the life of the world. For He saith,
' ¦" The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will
' give for the life of the world." And, when delivering
' the mysteries. He took the symbol and said, " This is
' my body, which is given," or "broken," according to
' the Apostle, " for you." And nowhere, in discoursing
' of His passion, did He mention the Impassible God-
' head.'— P. 675.
Dr. Pusey then cites another passage from Irenseus,
which, coming immediately after the other, and having
been duly prepared, seems well adapted to teach the
doctrine of the Real Presence. As given by Dr. Pusey,
it is, ' He took that which of His creation is bread, and
' gave thanks, saying, " This is my body." And likewise
' the cup, which is of that our creation, He confessed to
' b^ His blood, and taught that it is the new Oblation of
' the New Testament, of which, among the twelve pro-
' phets, Malachi thus presignified" (Mai. i. 10, 11). —
P. 322. And thus given, it is no fault of Dr. Pusey's
if those who have him for their teacher do not under
stand the word ' oblation ' to refer to the Word, the Lord
Jesus, Body, Soul, and Divinity. But the extract
correctly given is, ' New oblation of the New Testa-
' ment; which (quam) the Church receiving from the
' Apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him
' who gives us as the means of subsistence, the first-fruits

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 21
' of His own gifts in the New Testament, of which {de
' quo),' etc.
It appears all but certain that Irenseus, with the rest of
the Fathers, is speaking of a pure, spiritual, immaterial
oblation, not even calling the consecrated elements by
that name. Waterland has truly said, in his ' Review of
' the Doctrine of the Eucharist,' ' Those Eucharistical
' oblations were in Irenseus' account, contributions to the
' Church and to the poor, as is plain by his referring to
' Prov. xix. 17, and Phil. iv. 18.' — P. 498. Thus,
immediately preceding the former of the above passages
cited by Dr. Pusey, we have, ' Inasmuch, then, as the
' Church offers with single- mindedness, her gift is justly
' reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says
' to the Philippians, " I am full, having received from
' Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the
' odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleas-
' ing to God." ' In proof of the spiritual and immaterial
nature of the sacrifices to which IrenEens alludes, he con
cludes his remarks thus, ' Therefore, it is also His will
' that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently
' and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven
' (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations
' directed) ; the temple likewise is there,' etc.
TertuUiah, after quoting the prophecy (Mai. i. 11),
states, ' For that it is not by earthly sacrifices, but by
' spiritual, that offering is to be made to Gad, we thus
' read — Psalm 1. 14, li. 17; Isaiah i. 11. And thus, as
' carnal sacrifices are understood , to be reprobated, so
' spiritual sacrifices are foretold. . . . But of spiritual
' sacrifices, he adds, " And, in every place they offer pure
' sacrifices to my name, saith the Lord."' — Adversits
Judceos, c. v., pp. 95, 96. Elsewhere, after citing the
words of the prophet (Mai. i. 11), he explains the pure

22

THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY.

sacrifice to be ' Such as the ascription of glory, and praise,
' and hymns.' — Adver. Mar., lib. iii., c. 22, p. 399.
In another place he regards the words of the prophet
as ' meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience.' —
Ibid., lib. iv., c. i., p. 404. It is not pretended that
Tertullian founds upon this prophecy any material Chris
tian sacrificing.
Origen, quoting a portion of the prophecy, remarks upon
it as follows : — ' We know that " in every land sacrifice
' is offered to His name." For now that is the time
' when the true worshippers worship the Father neither
' in Jerusalem, nor in Mount Gerizim, but in spirit and
' in truth. God, therefore, dwells not in a place nor in
' a land, but He dwells in the heart. And if God
' requires a place, a pure heart is His place.' — In Gen.,
Hom. xiii. 3, tom. viii., p. 247.
Eusebius of Csesarea is very much to the point; after
quoting the prophecy (Mai. i. 11), he remarks, 'We
' offer, therefore, to God Supreme, the sacrifice of praise ;
' we offer the holy, the venerable sacrifice, which has a
' decorous sanctity ; we offer after a new way, accord-
' ing to the New Testament, the pure sacrifice, for God's
' sacrifice is said to be " a contrite spirit ; therefore, a
' broken and humbled heart God will not despise." And
' now also we burn that incense of the prophet, bringing
' in every place the odoriferous fruits of the best theology
'by them, offering prayers to Him. '\\Tiich thing also
' another prophet teaches, who says, " Let my prayer come
' before thee as incense." Therefore, we offer both
' sacrifice and incense; first, celebrating the memorial of
' the grand sacrifice by those mysteries which He has
' ordained, and presenting our thanksgivings for our sal-
' vation by devout hymns and prayers. Next, we offer
' up ourselves to Him and to His Higli Priest; the

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 23
' Word Himself, resting upon Him both with body and
' soul. Whereupon we endeavour to preserve to Him our
' bodies pure and untainted from all filthiness, and to bring
' Him minds free from all evil affection and stain of
' maliciousness, and take care to honour Him by purity
' of thought, sincerity of affection, and soundness of
' principles; for these, we are taught, are more accept-
' able to Him than a multitude of sacrifices streaming
' with blood, and smoke, and scent.' — Demon. Evang.,
lib. i., cap. 10, pp. 39, 40.
Jerome, in his commentary on the prophecy itself,
states, ' But they know that to. carnal sacrifices, spiritual
' sacrifices will succeed, and that by no means the blood
' of bulls and of goats, but incense, that is, the prayers
' of the saints offered to the Lord, and not in Judea, one
' province of the world, nor in Jerusalem, one city of
' Judea, but in every place, an oblation should be offered,
' by no means impure, as by the people of Israel, but
' pure as in the ceremonies of Christians.' — In Mai.,
cap. i. 11, tom. vi., p. 293.
Chrysostom, after citing the prophecy in question
(Mai. i. 11), remarks, 'See how excellently and clearly
' he interpreted the mystical table, which is an unbloody
' sacrifice. But he calls holy prayer pure incense which
' is offered with sacrifice, for this incense is agreeable
' to God when not taken from the roots of earthly things,
' but which is sent from a pure heart. " Let my prayer
' be set before thee as incense." — Psalm cxli. 2.
' . . . There is then a pure sacrifice ; the first, indeed,
' is the mystical table; a sacrifice heavenly and world-
' wide. But there is also a difference among us of
' many sacrifices.' He then enumerates the Jewish
sacrifices ; and asks, ' Dost thou desire to be taught these
' sacrifices which the Church has, that without blood,

24 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' without smoke, without altar (/Scd/aov), and other things,
' the Gospel gift returns again to God, and that the
' sacrifice is pure and nndefiled?' He then enumerates
the Christian sacrifices as ten, all of which are spiritual
and common to the laity except one, which is confined
to bishops and presbyters, and which he introduces thus
— ' Dost thou wish to see what kind of sacrifices are
' performed by us ? There is also another new sacrifice,
' which is accomplished by preaching the Gospel. That
' is doctrinal discourse, of which the Apostle Paul says,
' " Ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of
' the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the
' Holy Ghost." — Rom. xv. 16. Dost thou see that he
' declared jDreaching of the Gospel was offering to God V
— Hoinilia in Psalmum xcv. [xcvi.], tom. iii., pp.
1031-1033. The Fathers, by one consent, make this prophecy the
ground and plea for Christian sacrifices, and many of
them apply the prophecy to the Lord's Supper. But
such a sacrifice as that which Dr. Pusey requires in every
due celebration of the Lord's Supper, was absolutely
unknown to the Fathers, for if known, how could the
above witnesses speak as they have done. The absolute
silence of the Fathers upon this point is really fatal to Dr.
Pusey's doctrine, and it is much to be regretted that his
knowledge had not extended to these and many such like
passages in the Fathers, for it might, it certainly ought
to, have changed his opinions.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 25

CHAPTER IIL
The Fathees are shown to have so spoken of our Lord's calling His
BODY BEEj\.D as if WITH THEM IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIPFERENOE IN
THE INTEEPEETATION OP HiS WOEDS IF He HAD SAID, 'My BODY IS
'this beead,' instead of, 'This beead is my body.' — The Consensus
OF THE Fathers on this point is shown from the application op
THE woeds, ' Come let us put wood upon His beead,' as given in
theie vbesions op Jeeemiah xi. 19. — De. Pusey's mistranslation
OF their woeds is pointed out, and theie statements MOEE COR
RECTLY given. — An important omission by Dr. Pusey of a paet of
the testimony op Cyprian, where he represents Christ as calling
His body bread and His blood wine, and the manner noticed in
which he misuses the teaching of Cyprian and Augustine by
the use op artificial means, and by suppressing othee parts of
theie teaching, which, had they been paiely given, it would
HAVE APPBAEBD THAT THEY NO MOEE TEACH THE ReAL PRESENCE OF
Christ's body and blood in the Consecrated Elements than they
TEACH THE Real Presence of Christ's body of believing people in
them. — This kind op testimony is confirmed and illustrated by
Christian authors as late as the tenth century. — A further
instance given of Dr. Pusey's miseepresentation of the teaching
OF Augustine by giving a -part of his Exposition and suppressing
A MORE impoetant PART, WHICH WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE EIGHT UNDER
standing op what he intended to teach, and which, so par from
showing that he taught the roman doctrine of the real pre
sence, shows that he taught that which was subversive op it. —
An instance is given in which Bertram employed the whole pas
sage IN OPPOSING THE DOOTEINE OP PASCHASIUS, THE FaTHEE OF THE
HEEESY OF THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OP THE REAL PRESENCE. — A CASE
SHOWN IN WHICH Db. PuSEY MANIFESTLY PEEVEETS THE PLAIN TEACH
ING OP Bertram, so as to make him a witness foe the Roman
Doctrine of the Real Peesence, whereas he is opposed' to it. —
Other instances adduced where Fathers so express themselves
that, if they believed any substantial change to be effected by

26 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
THE ACT OF consecration, IT WOULD NOT BE OF THE BEEAD INTO
Christ's body, but of Cheist's body into the bread. — Dr. Pusey
ATTRIBUTES A STATEMENT USED IN THE DEFENCE OF THE PaSCHASIAN
heresy TO A UGUSTINE, WHICH, SO FAR PROM BEING USED BY HIM, WAS
ACTUALLY USED AGAINST HIM IN ANSWER TO SOME QUOTATIONS WHICH
HAD BEEN MADE FROM HIM IN DEFENCE OF THE TEUE DOCTEINE.
The Fathers very commonly, and perhaps correctly,
understood our Lord's words, ' This is my body,' much
in the same sense as if He had said, ' My body is this
' bread.' Their sentiments appear on this point in their
comments on the words as they stood in the version of
the Scriptures which they used, ' Come let us put wood
' on His bread.' — Jer. xi. 19. Rabanus Maurus has
truly said, ' This is the consensus of all the Churches,
' that under the person of Jeremiah they understood
' that these things were said of Christ. . . . And they
' said, " Let us put wood on His bread," that is, the
' cross on the Saviour's body. For it is He himself
' who says, " I am the bread which came down from
' heaven." '
Plainly in the mind of Rabanus — and it was the
opinion of all the Churches — the body of Christ is
represented under the form of bread. It should be
borne in mind that if by the act of consecration (or, as
Romanists and Dr. Pusey represent it, by Christ's say
ing, ' This is my body,') the bread really became His
body which was born of Mary, it would be utterly unac
countable for any Christian Father to affirm that Christ
called or made His body bread. But if the words,
' This is my body,' are figurative, the bread not being
Christ's body really, but only so sacramentally or figura
tively, as the Fathers in fact plainly teach, then it is of
little consequence whether they say, Christ called His
body bread, or bread His body. That they did think it

the FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 27
of little consequence it is certain, from the fact that they
use those forms of expression interchangeably, which
proves beyond all question how oblivious they must have
been of the doctrine of Paschasius and that of Dr. Pusey,
for had they believed that the bread, when ' This is my
' body' was said, became really the body of Christ which
was born of Mary, it would have been monstrous in the
extreme for any of the Fathers to say that Christ called
or made His body bread. That they commonly do say
this will now be shown, and some of Dr. Pusey's mis
representations of their statements upon that point will
be exposed. Tertullian, on the text, ' Come let us put
' wood on His bread,' remarks — ' For so Christ revealed,
' calling His body bread, whose body the prophet figured
' in bread.' But in this, and in some other instances. Dr.
Pusey has made it appear that Tertullian said, ' Calling
' bread His body.' Dr. Pusey has quoted five instances
where this kind of phrase occurs, which, given in the
original, are as follows : —
1. ' Panem corpus suum appellans.'
2 . ' Panem corpus suum appellans. '
3. ' Corpus suum ilium (panem) fecit.'
4. 'Panem corpus suum appellat.'
5. 'Corpus suum vocans panem.'
The two last phrases, numbered 4 and 5, Dr. Pusey,
where he could not well do otherwise, has rendered thus
— ' But why doth He call His body bread V ' Galling
' His body bread.' — P. 335. As the above phrases
have reference to one and the same thing, they should
have one uniform rendering ; and if we are to- be guided
by the words on which Tertullian founds his remarks, viz.,
' Wood upon His bread,' and the like phrases used by
the Greek Fathers, which are more definite than the

28 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
Latin, from the use of the article, we must conclude that
the proper rendering of the phrases in question ought to
be, ' Calling His body bread,' and not ' Calling bread His
' body.' Theodoret, in his commentary on the words, ' Come
' let us put wood upon His bread' (Jer. xi. 19), says,
' The word of prophecy chiefly agrees with the Lord
' Christ. For He called the (to) body of Himself bread.
' For He said, " The bread which I will give is my flesh,
' which I will give for the life of the world." They
' affixed this bread to the wood, thinking that His
' memorial would be blotted out.' — -Inter. Jerem., c. xi.,
tom. ii., pp. 472, 473.
The phrase numbered 3 ]perhaps might be an exception.
That the reader may judge for himself, the original here
follows, with the translation of Dr. Pusey, and a more
recent one. ' Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis,
' corpus suum ilium fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo,
' id est figura corporis niei.' — Adv. Mar., iv. 40, p.
449. ' He made the bread, which He took and distributed
' to His disciples, that His own body, saying, " This is my
' body," i.e., the flgure of my body.' — P. 334.
' Having taken the bread, and given it to the disciples,
' He made that His own body, by saying, " This is my
' body," that is, the figure of my body.'
I cannot but notice in passing, that from this account
of Tertullian's it would seem that he considered that it
was not until after- actual participation by the disciples
that He said, ' This is my body ' (but not as translated
by Dr. Pusey), favouring the opinion so distinctly enun
ciated by Zwingle, and repeated by Hooker, that the
bread is only the body of Christ on reception by the
believer, and not before.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 29
It is of little importance whether we understand Ter
tullian to say, ' He made His own body bread,' or ' He
' made bread His own body.' He plainly interprets the
phrase, ' This is my body,' to mean, ' This is a figure of
' my body.' Further light, however, will be thrown upon
this by treating the first and second phrases after the
same manner, beginning with the first —
' Utique in corpus ejus lignum missum est. Sic
' enim Christus revelavit, panem corpus suum, appel-
' lans, cujus retro corpus in pome prophetes figuravit.'
— Adver. Jud., cap. x., p. 103.
' For so Christ revealed, calling bread His body, of
' whose body afore the Prophet spake figuratively, as
' bread.' — P. 97.
' Certainly wood is put upon His body; for so Christ
' has revealed, calling His body bread, whose body the
' Prophet afore figured in bread.'
The second phrase —
' Venite, mittamus lignum in panem ejus, utique in
' corpus. Sic enim Deus in evangelio quoque vestro
' revelavit, panem corpus suum ctpjpdlans, id et hinc
' jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse,
' cujus retro corpus in panem prophetes figuravit, ipso
' Domino hoc sacramentwm postea interpretaturo.' —
Adver. Mar., lib. iii., c. xix., p. 396.
' For so God revealed in your Gospel too [which the
' Marcionites acknowledged], calling bread His body, that
' hence, too, thou mayest at once understand that He
' gave to bread to be a figure of His body, of which body
' the Prophet aforetime spake figuratively as bread, the
' Lord himself being about to explain this mystery after-
' wards.' — P. 97.
' Come, let us put wood upon His bread, certainly on
' the body. For so did God in your own Gospel also

30 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
' reveal, calling His body bread ; so that for the time to
' come you may understand that He has given the figure
' of His body to bread, whose body the Prophet afore-
' time figured into bread, the Lord Himself afterwards
' being about to interpret this sacrament.'
If the candid reader -will weigh these extracts, he can
come to no other conclusion than that Tertullian no more
believed that bread in the Lord's Supper became Christ's
body really, than he believed that Christ's body became
bread really, and that the extracts, when fairly given, are
not in favour of Dr. Pusey's doctrine of the Real Pre
sence, but exactly against it.
Before leaving Tertullian there is one more quota
tion to notice. In connection with one of the above
extracts. Dr. Pusey quotes Tertullian most unfairly, by
leaving out an explanatory clause. The quotation here
follows, with the clause enclosed in brackets : — ' Much
' rhore clearly did Genesis, in the blessing of Judah, from
' whose tribe the descent of Christ, after the flesh, was to
' proceed, delineate Christ even then in Judah. " He
' shall wash," saith he, " His garments in wine, and His
' clothes in the blood of grapes " [showing the garments
' and clothes to be His flesh, and the wine to be His
' blood]. So now, too, He hath consecrated His blood in
' wine, who then figured forth wine in blood.' — P. 334.
From the explanatory clause -which Dr. Pusey has
deliberately omitted, we learn very plainly what Tertullian
means. If his language is to be understood literally,
then, in the Eucharist, the blood of Christ is changed into
wine, and in the prophecy the garments and clothes are
shown to be His flesh, and the wine His blood. Beyond
all question, according to the plain teaching of Tertullian,
if his language is to be taken literally, then, in the
Eucharist, the body of Christ is changed into bread, and

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 31
His blood into wine, and not bread into His body, and
wine into His blood.
Cyi'il, in his Catechetical Lectures, speaking of the
prophetical types of the cross, after quoting the words,
' Come, let us put wood upon His bread' (Jer. xi. 19),
observes, ' And if the Lord reckon thee worthy, thou shalt
' hereafter know that His body, according to the Gospel,
' bore the type of bread.' — Cat. xiii., c. 10, p. 76. On
the supposition that bread became Christ's body, as Dr.
Pusey pretends, it could not be said that bread bore a
type of the body. Dr. Pusey's knowledge has not
extended to this part of Cyril's testimony.
Origen, Lactantius, Ambrose, and Jerome express
themselves after the same manner.
But, before leaving this point, there are graver instances
of omissions of patristic evidence, and more apparent in
stances of perverting it. Cyprian states — 'Moreover, even
' the very sacrifices of the Lord do show Christian unani-
' mity knit together by firm and inseparable charity. For
' when the Lord calls His body bread, which is made up of
' the union of many grains. He indicates our people, whom
' he bore united together; and when He calls His blood .
' wine, which is pressed from many bunches and clusters,
' and drawn into one, He likewise signifies one flock joined
' together by the mingling of an united multitude. If
' Novatian is united to this bread of the Lord, if he too
' is mingled in this cup of Christ,' etc. (Nam quando
Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de onultoruTui gran-
orum adunatione congestum ; poptdum nostrum quem
portabat, indicat adunatum ; et quando sanguinem
suum vinum appellat, de botris atque acinis plurimis
expressum atque in unum coactum.)
It cannot be a mistake to assert that Cyprian intended
to say here that Christ rather calls His body bread, and His

32 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
blood wine, than bread His body and wine His blood ; for
not only does the natural order of Cyprian's words show
this, but it is confirmed by his speaking of Novatian in
connection with ' the Bread of the Lord ' and ' this Cup
' of Christ.' Augustine, alluding to this very sentiment
of Cyprian, confirms this view of the case — ' For to this
' end (as also men of God who were before us have un-
' derstood this matter) did [our Lord Jesus Christ com-
' mend His body and blood in those things which are out
' of many reduced into some one. — Ser., p. 40]. For out
' of many grains is several made into one thing [bread],
' and several doth out of many berries flow into one
' thing [wine].'
The part included in strong brackets in the above
extract is quoted by Dr. Pusey ' as saying that we re-
' ceive the body and blood of our Lord in or under the
' elements (Sermon, p. 40, above).' — Notes, etc., p. 498.
Dr. Pusey garbles the testimony of Cyprian after the
same manner, and by the use of italics greatly imposes
upon his unlearned readers. ' Nor can His blood, where-
' by we have been redeemed and quickened, appear to be
' in the cup, when the cup is without that wine whereby
' the blood of Christ is set forth, as is declared by the
' mystical meaning and testimony of all the Scriptures.'
—P. 133.
Dr. Pusey has cited these two passages, one from
Augustine and the other from Cyprian, to prove that the
body of Christ, which was born of Mary, and the blood
which was shed by the soldier's spear, are actually in or
under the elements ; but in whatever sense Christ's body
and blood are considered to be in or under the elements
by Augustine and Cyprian, in that same sense they con
sider Christ's body of believing people to be in or under
the elements also. Dr. Pusey's knowledge has not ex-

THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 33
tended to this portion of patristic evidence, which is here
supplied. What he has cited from one of the epistles of
Cyprian will be given in square brackets, and what he
has not cited will not be so distinguished. ' The cup
which is offered in remembrance of Him should be
offered mixed with wine. For whereas Christ says, " I
am the true vine," the blood of Christ is not surely
water, but wine. [Nor can his blood, whereby we have
been redeemed and quickened, appear to be in the cup],
videri esse in calice [when the cup is without that wine
whereby the blood of Christ is set forth] ostenditur, is
shown [as is declared by the mystical meaning] sacra
mento, sacrament [and testimony of all the Scriptures]
effusus, was shed. . . . Teaching by the example of
His own authority, that the cup should be mingled with
a union of wine and water. ... I wonder very much
whence has originated this practice that, contrary to
evangelical and apostolical discipline, water is offered in
some places in the Lord's cup, which water alone cannot
represent (expriinere) the blood of Christ. . . . For
the waters signify peoples. Holy Scripture declares in
the Revelation, saying, " The waters which thou sawest
on which the whore sitteth, are peoples,'' etc., which
we evidently see to be contained in the sacrament
of the cup (in sacramento calicls contiiteri). For
because Christ bore us all, who also bore our sins, we
see that in the water the people are understood {in-
telligi), but that in the wine is shown (ostendi) the
blood of Christ. But when in the cup water is mingled
with vv'ine. His people are united to Christ, and the
multitude of believers are united and conjoined with
Him in whom they believe. Which union and con
junction of water and wine is so mingled together in the
cup of the Lord, that the commixture cannot again be
D

34 THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
' separated. . . . Thus, then, in consecrating the cup of
' the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, as neither can
' wine alone. For if any should offer wine alone, this is
' as though the blood of Christ were without us; but if
' there be water alone, the people begin to be without
' Christ. But when both are mingled, and by an infused
' union each is joined with the other, then the spiritual
' and heavenly sacrament is perfected. Thus, then, the
' cup of the Lord is not water alone, or wine alone, unless
' both are mingled together ; as also the body of the Lord
' cannot be flour alone, or water alone, unless both be
' united and joined together, and compacted into one co-
' hering bread. In which sacrament, also, our people are
' sho^vn (ostenditur) to be united, so that many grains
' collected and ground and mingled together, make one
' bread ; so in Christ, who is the heavenly Bread, we may
' know that there is one body wherewith our whole num-
' ber is conjoined and united.' — Epist. 63, tom. ii., pp.
148-154. Had Dr. Pusey cited Cyprian fairly, his readers would
have seen that he no more speaks of the real presence
of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine than he
does of the real presence of Christ's body of believing
people being in them. Dr. Pusey has accepted Bertram
as a witness, and as his testimony on this point is mqst
valuable, it shall be here given, — ' It is further to be
' considered that in the bread not the body of Christ
' alone is figured, but also that of the people who believe
' in Him. Wherefore it is made of many grains of corn,
' as the body of faithful people is made up of many that
' believe through the word of Christ. For which reason,
' as the bread is understood to be the body of Christ in
' a mystery, so likewise are the members of the joeople
' that believe in Christ signified in a mystery; and as

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 35
' the bread is called the body of believers, not corporally,
' but spiritually, so also must we understand the body of
' Christ, not corporally, but spiritually. So, too, with the
' wine, which is called the blood of Christ, water is
' ordered to be mixed, nor is one allowed to be offered
' without the other; because as the head cannot be with-
' out the body, nor the body without the head, so neither
'•can the people be without Christ, nor Christ without
' the people. Moreover, the water in that sacrament
' beareth the image of the people. If, therefore, that
' wine, when consecrated by the office of the minister, is
' corporally changed into the blood of Christ, the water
' also, which is mixed with it, must necessarily be corpor-
' ally changed into the blood of the faithful people. For
' where the consecration is one, there foUoweth also one
' operation; and where the cause is the same, the mystery
' which foUoweth is the same also. But we see no change
' made in the water as to bodily substance; and, therefore,
' there is no corporeal change in the vrine. Whatever in
' the water signifieth the people of Christ is taken spiritu-
' ally ; whatever, therefore, in the wine representeth the
' blood of Christ must be taken spiritually too.'- — De
Corpore et Sanguine Dor)vini, cc. Ixxiii.-lxxv.
Dr. Pusey's suppression of the above kind of evidence
from Cyprian is all the more remarkable from the circum
stance of its being commonly used during the seventh, the
eighth, and the ninth centuries in the treatises on Church
Offices, in that part of them touching the Eucharist, and
more especially in relation to the use and signification of
the consecrated elements.
Isidore, early in the seventh century, in his treatise on
Church Offices, in the part relating to the Lord's Supper,
states, ' For the bread which we break is the body of
' Christ, who said, "I am the living bread which came

36 THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
' from heaven." But the wine is His blood, and this is
' that which was written, " I am the true vine ;" but the
' bread, because it strengthens the body, is therefore called
' the body of Christ; but the wine, because it works blood
' in the flesh, therefore it is referred to the blood of Christ.
' Just as when the most holy Cyprian said, " The Lord's
' cup is offered mixed with water and wine, for we see
' that the people are understood in the water, but in the
' wine is shown the blood of Christ," ' etc. — For the
remainder see pages 33, 34 above. — De Eccle. Off'., lib.
i., c. 18; Opera, pars altera, p. 331.
Bede, at the close of the seventh century, exjDresses
nearly the same sentiments when commenting on the
words of institution, — ' When the solemnities of the old
' passover were ended, which were done in commemora-
' tion of the ancient deliverance from Egj^pt, He passed
' to the new j)assover, which the Church desires to cele-
' brate in memory of her redemiDtion. That is to say,
' for the flesh or blood of the lamb substituting a sacra-
' ment of His flesh and blood in the figure of bread and
' wine, to show that it was He Himself to whom " the
' Lord swore and will not repent, thou art a priest for
' ever, after the order of Melchizedek." Because, there-
* fore, bread strengthens the flesh, and the wine works
' blood in the flesh, the bread is referred mystically to
' the body of Christ, the wine to the blood. But
' because it is necessary that we also abide in Christ,
' and Christ in us, the wine of the Lord's cup is mixed
' with water. And no one is allowed to offer water alone,
' nor wine alone ; so neither the corn of wheat without
' the admixture of water and making into bread — that is
' to say, not such an oblation as might signify that the
' Head is separated from the members, and pretend either
' that Christ could suffer without the love of our redemp-

THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 3 t
' tion, or that we, without Christ's passion, could be saved
' and offered to the Father.' — Comment, in Luc., lib. vi.,
tom. v., col. 424.
Alcuin, about the middle of the eighth century, in his
treatise on Divine Offices, in the chapter on the Mass,
says, ' In which oblation water is mixed with wine. Christ
' is signified by wine, but the people by water ; and if
' wine is offered without water, it seems to signify that
' the passion of Christ availed nothing for the human
' race. But if the water is without wine, it seems to
' signify that the people can be saved without the passion
' of Christ. Therefore, both are mixed together, that it
' might be understood that the world is saved by the
' passion of Christ, and that without it it cannot be
' saved.' — De Divinis Of. re Celebra. Miss, etc., c. Ix.;
Opera, col. 1101.
Amalarius, early in the ninth century, in his treatise on
Ecclesiastical Offices, states, ' The deacon mixes water
' with the wine. Why he does this Cyprian shows to
' Quirinus on the sacrament of the Lord's cup, saying,
' "But when in the cup the water is mingled with the
' wine," ' etc. For the remainder of the passage see pages
33, 34, above.— De Eccle. Off., lib. i., c. 19 ; Bib. Mag.
Vet. Patr., tom. ix., pt. 1, pp. 351, 352.
Rabanus Maurus, about the middle of the ninth cen
tury, in his chapter on the body and blood of Christ,
says, ' Then, because bread strengthens the heart of the
' body, therefore, that bread is suitably named the body
' of Christ. But the wine, because it works blood in
' the fle.sh, therefore it refers to the blood of Christ. . . .
' Therefore, neither of these without the other, ought to
' be offered in the sacrifice, neither wine without water,
' nor water without wine; for we ought to dwell in Christ,
' and Christ in us, which St. Cyprian shows thus, saying.

38 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' " The Lord's cup is offered mixed with wine," ' etc. For
the other part of this passage, and other passages which
he quotes from Cyprian, see pp. 62-65 above. — De Inst.
Cleri., lib. i., c. xxxi.; De Sac. Corp. et Sang. Dom.
Opera, tom. vi., p. 12.
Walafridus Strabo, a disciple of Rabanus Maurus,
towards the close of the ninth century, in his book on the
origin and increase of ecclesiastical things, states, 'After
' the solemnities of the ancient passover the Lord de-
' livered the sacraments of His body and blood in the
' substance of bread and wine to the same disciples, and
' led thein to celebrate those sacraments in commemora-
' tion of His most holy passion. Nothing, therefore, can
' be found more suitable than those forms to signify the
' unity of the Head and members. For, as bread is
' reduced from many grains by a coagulum of water into
' one body, and wine expressed from many grapes ; so
' also the body of Christ is made of a united multitude
' of saints. Whence it has been designed by our prede-
' cessors, that wine be not offered in the sacrifice without
' an admixture of water. That is to say, by this indi-
' eating that the people who, according to John, are the
' water, ought not to be divided from Christ, whose blood
' is in the cup. Therefore, neither wine without water,
' nor water without wine, is offered ; for Christ is not
' otherwise than He suffered for His peo23le ; nor are the
' people otherwise than they can be saved by the passion
' of Christ.' — De Exor. et Inere. Rerum Eccles., c. xvi.;
Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. ix., pt. 1, p. 956.
Let the reader carefully . consider these extracts from
the several most distinguished authors of the ages in
which they lived, and he can come to no other conclusion
than that, from the manner in which they express their
sentiments in regard to the nature and sianification of

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 39
the consecrated elements, and the use they make of
Cyprian's words, or his exact thoughts, they could not
have believed that the body of Christ, which was born
of Mary, was in the consecrated bread, and the blood
which was shed on the Cross, was in the consecrated
wine, for the language used by them, as explained by
Bertram, and given at pages 34, 35, above, no more
teaches that the real presence of Christ's body and
blood is in the consecrated elements, than the real
presence of Christ's body of believing people is in them.
This admits of still further confirmation from the
writings of Augustine. The passage to be quoted is a
striking instance of the manner in which Dr. Pusey
imposes on his readers by giving one part of the truth
and suppressing the other. What Dr. Pusey has quoted
will be distinguished by brackets, what he has suppressed
will not be so distinguished. [' This which ye see on the
' altar of God ye saw last night also ; but what it was,
' what it meant, of how great a thing it contained the
' sacrament, ye have not yet heard. What ye see, then,
' is bread and a cup, what your eyes also report to you ;
' but what your faith requires to be taught, the bread is
' the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.] This
' is but briefly stated, and it may suffice for faith; yet
' faith requireth instruction. For the Prophet saith, "If
' ye will not believe, ye shall not . understand." — Isaiah
' vii. 9 . Ye may therefore say to me. Thou hast bidden
' us to believe ; explain that we may understand. [But
' some such thoughts as these may arise in the mind of
' some one, " Our Lord Jesus Christ we know whence
' He took flesh of the Virgin Mary, He was nursed as an
' infant," etc. (going briefly through His life, death, resur-
' rection); He ascended into heaven; thither He lifted
' aloft His body; thence He is to come to judge the

40 THE FATHERS VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' quick and the dead; there He is now sitting at the
' right hand of the Father. How is the bread His
' body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how is
' it His blood ? These things, brethren, are therefore
' called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen,
' another understood. What is seen hath a bodily form;
' what is understood hath a spiritual fruit.] If, then,
' you wish to understand the body of Christ, hear the
' Apostle saying to the faithful, "Ye are the body of
' Christ and His members." If, therefore, ye are the
' body of Christ and His members, the mystery of your-
' selves is placed upon the Lord's table ; ye receive the
' mystery of yourselves. To that which ye are, ye answer,
' Amen ; and, by answering, subscribe to it. For you
' hear, " The body of Christ," and you answer, Amen.
' Be a member of Christ's body that your Amen may be
' true. Why, therefore, in the bread ? Let us here say
' nothing of our own ; let us constantly hear the Apostle
' himself, who, when he was speaking of that sacrament,
' said, " We, being many, are one bread and one body." '
— Sermo. 272, ad Infantes.
If the reader will look over the whole of the above
quotation, and compare what has been quoted with what
has been suppressed, he cannot fail to see how grossly
Dr. Pusey has misrepresented the teaching of Augustine.
He represents his hearers as saying, ' Explain, that we
' may understand.' Dr. Pusey has suppressed this, and,
what is still worse, has also suppressed that part of the
passage in which Augustine explains the body of Christ
that they may understand it. By thus giving a part,
and suppressing the most important part. Dr. Pusey has
falsified the testimony of Augustine. The whole of the
above passage was quoted by Bertram in answer to
Paschasius, the father of the heretical doctrine of the

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 41
real presence in the consecrated elements of the body of
Christ which was bom of Mary. The use which Bertram
made of the passage shall now be shown. He first quotes
the part cited by Dr. Pusey, and then remarks, 'This
' venerable author, in these words, instructeth us what
' we ought to think of our Lord's proper body, which
'was born of Mary, and now sitteth at the right hand
' of the Father, and in which He will come to judge the
' quick and the dead, and what of that which is placed
' upon the altar and received by the people. The former
' is entire, is neither cut nor divided, nor veiled under
' any figure ; the latter, which is set upon the Lord's
' table, is a figure, because it is a sacrament : as it is out-
' wardly seen, it hath a corporeal nature, which feedeth
' the body ; as it is inwardly understood, it hath a
' spiritual fruit which quickeneth the soul.' — De Corpore
et Sanguine Domini, c. xciv.
Bertram then introduces that part of the above passage
from Augustine which Dr. Pusey has suppressed, as fol
lows : — ' When Augustine would speak somewhat more
' openly and clearly of this mystical body, he added the fol-
' lowing words : — "Wherefore, if ye wish to understand the
' body of Christ, etc.," ' and remarks thereon, ' St. Augus-
' tine sufficiently teacheth us that, in the bread which
' is placed on the altar, the body of Christ is signified, as
' well as the body of the people who receive, to the in-
' tent he might plainly show Christ's proper body to be
' that in which He was born of the virgin, in which He
' was suckled, in which He suffered, in which He died,
' in which He was buried, in which He rose again, in
' which He ascended into heaven, in which He sitteth at
' the right hand of the Father, and in which He shall
' come to judgment. But that which is placed on the
' Lord's table containeth the mystery of that body, as

42 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' also, again, it containeth the mystery of the body of
' believing people, as the Apostle testifieth, " We, being
' many, are one bread and one body in Christ." Your
' wisdom, most iUustrious prince, may understand that it
' hath been most clearly shown by the testimony of Holy
' Scripture, an.d the words of the Holy Fathers, that the
' bread, which is called the body of Christ, and the cup,
' which is called the blood of Christ, is a figure, because
' it is a mystery; and that the difference is not small
' between the body which existeth in mystery and the
' body which suffered, died, and rose again. For the one
' is the proper body of our Saviour — no figure, no hidden
' signification, but the manifestation of the reality itself
' is there acknowledged. . . . But in this other, which
' is celebrated in a mystery, there is a figure not only
' of the proper body of Christ, but also of the people
' that believe in Christ. For it beareth the figure of
' either body, that is, of the body of Christ which suffered
' and rose again, and of the people who in Christ are born
' again and quickened from the dead.' — De Corpore et
Sanguine Domini, cc. xcv.-xcviii.
Thus did Bertram, in obeying the command of his
prince to declare his opinion in regard to the doctrine of
the Lord's supper as held in the ninth century, for the
first time, by Paschasius, employ the doctrine of the great
Augustine to refute it ; and the same is now again as
well employed against Pusey for the same purpose who,
in the nineteenth century, would introduce the same
doctrine into the Church of England.
The reader should note well in the above quotation
from Bertram in what sense he uses the word mystery
and sacrament — not that a mystery is really that of
which it is a mystery ; not that a sacrament is that of
which it is a sacrament; but that the consecrated bread

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 48
is a mystery or sacrament of that which is not really in
itself, but sig-nifles what is external to itself, is not itself
the thing or reality but a sign or representation of it.
Bertram, after the manner of Augustine, uses the word
mystery or sacrament in the same relation to Christ's
body of believing people as he does to His body which
was born of Mary. Now no one pretends that there is
the real presence of Christ's body of believing people in
the consecrated bread, and surely no one ought to pretend
that in the consecrated bread there is the real presence of
Christ's body which was born of Mary. Now, can it be
believed, for it seems almost incredible, that Dr. Pusey
has either wilfully or ignorantly changed the language of
Bertram so as to make him contradict himself, and use
the word mystery after the manner of Paschasius and his
disciples? Dr. Pusey says, ' Bertram had two questions put
' to him by Charles the Bald : whether "the mystery of the
' body and blood of Christ, celebrated daily in the Church,
' took place under no figure or veil, but with a naked
' manifestation of the mystery."' — The Real Presence, etc.,
p. 205. But Bertram does not use the words 'naked mani-
' testation of the mystery,' but, 'naked manifestation of the
' reality itself (sed ipsius veritatis nuda manifestu-
tione). The passage, with a little more of the context, is,
' For whilst some of the faithful say that the mystery of the
' body and blood of Christ, celebrated daily in the Church,
' is performed under no figure or veil, but with a naked
' manifestation of the reality itself (ipsius veritatis),
' others testify that these things are contained under the
' figure of a mystery, and that it is one thing which
' appeareth to the bodily senses, and another upon which
' faith gazeth.' — De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, c. ii.
Dr. Pusey, by changing the words of Bertram, has made
it appear that he made no distinction between the mys-

44 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
tery and the reality of which it was a mystery. Of the
two views above given, Bertram defended the latter, so
that with him the mystery is one thing which appeareth
to the bodily senses, and another thing upon which faith
gazeth. Now on what, according to the teaching of
Bertram, does faith gaze ? Upon the reality of the
mystery, namely, the body of Christ, and also His body
of believing people. But neither of these, according to
the teaching of Bertram, as given above (pages 34, 35,
41, 42), is contained in the consecrated elements. He
says, ' The difference is not small between the body which
' existeth in mystery and the body which suffered, died,
' and rose again. For the one is the proper body of our
' Saviour — no figure, no hidden signification, but the
' very manifestation of the reality is there acknowledged.
' . . But in this other, which is celebrated in a mystery,
' there is a figure not only of the proper body of Christ,
' but also of the people that believe in Christ. For it
' beareth the figure of either body, that is, of the body of
' Christ which suffered and'rose again, and of the people
' who in Christ are born again and quickened.' Such
being the teaching of Bertram, it is impossible to make it
agree with that of Paschasius and his modern disciples.
It is strange that Dr. Pusey should ever have made the
attempt, and stranger still that he should do it by alter
ing the words of Bertram, whereby his doctrine is made
that of Paschasius, whom he undertook to refute, and he
is made to contradict himself.
From these citations from Cyprian and Augustine,
and from their doctrine, illustrated and confirmed by
Bertram and others, we have still further confirmation
that, in their opinion, the words of Christ, ' This is my
' body,' mean no more than saying, ' My body is this
' bread,' but that, in the same sense in which the body

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 45
of Christ is in, or under, the bread, so also is His body,
the people. Respecting the former point, CjqDrian says
plainly, in his words above quoted, ' The blood of Christ
' is wine,' and both he and Augustine plainly teach that
not only Christ, but His people with Him, are repre
sented both under the compound substance bread and
the compound substance wine; so that with them the
sacramental change is not of the compound substance
bread into the body of Christ which was born of Mary,
but rather the body of Christ and that of His believing
people into the compound substance bread.
In a commentary on St. Mark, universally accepted as
accredited patristic testimony, under the name of Jerome,
we have the following : — ' Jesus took bread, and, blessing,
' broke, transfiguring His own body into bread (trans-
' figurcms corpus suum in panem).' This passage is
quoted with approval as from Jerome in the Catena
Aurecc of Aquinas and in the Commentaries of Nicolas
de Lyra. Augustine, on the words, ' Why persecutest
' thou me ? ' remarks — ' That is, my members. The
' Head cried out for the members, and the Head trans-
' figured (transfigurabat) the members into Himself —
In Psalm, xxx. [xxxi.], tom. viii. p. 65. The above
forms no part of Dr. Pusey's 400 pages of extracts from
the Fathers, but he has cited a passage from Macarius,
which confirms this view of the case — ' For the Lord
' embodieth Himself even into meat and drink (as it is
' written in the Gospel, " 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, "I am the
' bread of life." In like way also [He embodieth Him-
' self] into drink of a heavenly fountain, as He saith,
' " He who drinketh of this water, which I shall give
' him, it shall be in him a fountain of living water

46 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' springing up into eternal life." And " they aU drink
' of the same drink." ' — Pp. 447, 448. Dr. Pusey, in a
note to this quotation from Macarius, adds — ' The whole
' passage nearly recurs in the " De Elevatione Mentis,"
' where the words relating to the Holy Eucharist are —
' " For He embodieth Himself, as into spiritual food, so
' also into array and unspeakable beauty, that so He
' might fill it with spiritual joy. For " I," he saith, " am
' the bread of life, etc." ' The etc. which Dr. Pusey omits,
is, ' And " he who drinketh of this water, which I shall
' give him, it shall be in him a fountain of living water
' springing up into eternal life." ' There probably is no
allusion to the Eucharist in either of these quotations,
and most certainly not in the last. In neither case,
where Macarius represents Christ as embodying Himself
in water, can he allude to the sacrament of the Supper;
and the words, ' I am the bread of life,' as cited in the
second quotation, is generally admitted by Roman Catholics
to have no allusion to the sacrament. Dr. AViseman
himself, whom Dr. Pusey follows in his Eucharistic doc
trine, in his remarks on the sixth chapter of St. John,
says, ' In the first part [of the sixth of St. John] our
' Saviour speaks of Himself as bread which came do-wji
' from heaven.' — Vv. 32, 35. 'The figurative applica-
' tion of bread or food to wisdom or doctrines, by which
' the mind is nourished, was one in ordinary use among
' the Jews and other Orientals ; consequently it could
' present no difficulty here. The figure is used by Isaiah,
' Iv. 1, 20 ; also Deut. viii. 3 ; Matt. iv. 4 ; Jer. xv. 16 ;
' Amos viii. 11; Prov. ix. 5; and Ecclesiasticus xv. 3.'
— Lectures on the Real Presence, pp. 50, 51.
It may be justly concluded that, from this specimen
of the teaching of the Fathers, they just as much regarded
Christ's body to be sacramentally changed into bread, as

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 47
bread sacramentally changed into His body. There is one
other instance to be given of Dr. Pusey's unfair dealing
with the Fathers, which I forbear to characterise. Dr.
Pusey makes Theodoret say ' that God hath called bread
' His own body, and contrariwise He hath called the
' flesh corn. . . For He who called the natural body
' corn and bread, and Himself again a vine, honoured
' the symbols which are seen with the title of bread and
' wine.' — Pp. 87, 88. But Theodoret really says 'that
' God entitled (to) His own body bread, and elsewhere
' (erepaGi) also named His flesh wheat. . . . For He that
' entitled His body, that is so by nature, wheat and bread,
' and again named Himself a vine. He honoured the
' visible symbols with the title of body and blood' (tov
crcofiaToi; koX acfiaro';).
If these Fathers had had the remotest conception that
Christ's body which was born of Mary was really in the
consecrated bread, they could not possibly have spoken
as they have done ; and Dr. Pusey is much to be blamed
both for suppressing patristic evidence, and misrepresent
ing it in the case which has now been considered, whether
it arose from want of knowledge or not.
Before going to another subject, this is the place to
notice how completely Dr. Pusey has misrepresented the
teaching of Augustine, by assigning to him what he
never said, and by omitting what he really did say. Dr.
Pusey states, ' S. Augustine says again, " Receive ye that
' in- the bread which hung on the cross ; receive ye that
' in the cup which flowed from the side." S. Augustine
' again, as quoted in the " Sentences of Prosper," " We
' drink His blood under the flavour of wine." ' — P. 132.
Dr. Pusey almost invariably gives chapter and verse for
his quotations ; but for the first of these he has given no
reference, and the sentence is not found in the writings

48 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
of Augustine. Paschasius, however, uses the words as
those of Augustine in his heretical treatise, ' On the
' Body and Blood of Chris,t.' He probably quoted from
memory, which was more convenient than accurate. Dr.
Pusey assigns the other passage to the ' Sentences of
' Prosper,' but it cannot be found there. The words are
in fact those of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, the
hot defender of the heresy of Paschasius, and the oppo
nent of Berengar, who held the orthodox faith. He had
cited several important passages from Augustine, the last
of which is, ' As the sacrament of the body of Christ,
' after a certain manner, is the body of Christ, and the
' sacrament of the blood of Christ, after a certain manner,
' is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith is
' faith.' To this Lanfranc gives the following answer
(the words in italics form the part which Dr. Pusey has
assigned to Augustine) : — ' The sacrament of the body of
' Christ i,'! His flesh, as far as it has respect to that
' which was on the cross, the Lord Christ Himself having
' been sacrificed, which flesh we receive in the sacrament
' concealed in the form of bread, and we drink His blood
' under the form and flavour of wine.' — De Eucharist.
Sacra. Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. xi., p. 342.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 49

CHAPTER IV.
Instances given in which De. Pusey has suppeessed the more essential
PARTS of the Patristic Testimony in regard to the interpretation
of the Sikth op St. John, testimony which is fatal both to Dr.
Pusey's interpretation and to Dr. Wiseman's. The literal intee
peetation of the lattee is given, and the foembe is shown to
follow him. The striking testimony of Tertullian, Oeigen,
Ambeose, Eusebius, Basil, and Augustine is then given, and Dr.
Pusey's omissions, miseepebsbntations, and most unfaie tebatment
OP IT ABE noticed.
Among the most important omissions of essential parts
of the patristic testimony by Dr. Pusey are those relating
to the interpretation of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of
St. John, which cannot be well accounted for on the gi-ound
that he has ' not knowingly ' omitted them, for some of
them have been commonly quoted from the time of
Paschasius to the present, including the English Re
formers, especially Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Becon,
Bradford, and Jewel. Dr. Pusey maintains, with Dr.
Wiseman, whom in his teaching he for the most part
follows, that the eating of the flesh of Christ is a literal
eating by the human mouth. The master. Dr. Wiseman,
teaches, ' We have the strongest testimony that we can
' require to our Saviour's having passed in His discourse
' to the literal eating of His flesh. One thing now only
' remains to decide the question finally — Were the Jews
' right in so understanding Him, or were they wrong 1
' If they were right, then so are the Catholics [meaning E

50 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' the modern Roman ones], who likewise take His words
' literally ; if wrong, then Protestants are right when
' they understand Him figuratively.'- — The Real Presence,
p. 92.
To confine his readers to this literal interpretation, he
argues thus — ' If the phrase, to eat the flesh of a person,
' besides its literal sense, bore among the people whom
' Jesus addressed a fixed, proverbial, unvarying, meta-
' phorical signification, then, if He meant to use it meta-
' phorically, I say that He could use it only in that one
' sense ; and hence our choice can only lie between the
' literal 'sense and that usual figure. Now, I do assert
' that, whether we examine the phraseology of the Bible,
' etc., we shall find the expression, to eat the flesh of a
' person, signifying invariably, when used metaphorically,
' to attempt to do him some serious injury, principally
' by calumny or false accusation. Such, therefore, was
' the only figurative meaning which the phrases could
' present to the audience at Capharnaum. It is so in
' Hebrew. " While the wicked," says the Psalmist,
' "draw near against me, to eat my flesh." — Ps. xxvii. 2.
' . . . Job xix. 22 is the same phrase, but spoken of
' calumniators, " Why do you persecute me, and are not
' satisfied with (eating) my flesh ?" Again, Micheas iii.
' 3, we have, " Who also eat the flesh of my people." —
Ibid., pp. 64-66.
Dr. Pusey, the disciple, reproduces this very argument,
and quotes the same texts in a recent sermon. — ' This
' is my body :' A Sermon, etc., pp. 21, 22. If these
two men, and those whom they represent, are right, then
the great leading Fathers of the early Church were egre-
giously wrong, as will appear from the following extracts
from their writings : —
Tertullian states, ' For because they thought His say-

THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY. 51
' ing hard and intolerable, as if He had determined His
' flesh to be eaten by them, that He might dispose the
' state of salvation in the Spirit, He set forward, " It
' is the Spirit that giveth life ; " and then subjoins, " The
' flesh profiteth nothing." — John vi. 63. There follows
' also what He would have us understand by " Spirit."
' " The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and
' they are life." As also above, "He that beareth my
' words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath ever-
' lasting life, and shall not come unto judgment, but hath
' passed from death to life." — John v. 24. Appointing,
' therefore, the Word to be the vivifier, because the Word
' is spirit and life, He calleth the same " likewise His o-wn
' flesh;" for since "the Word was made flesh," it was
' thence to be sought for the purpose of life, and was to
' be devoured in the hearing, and was to be ruminated
' upon in the intellect, and vjas to be digested by faith.
' Hence He had shortly before pronounced His to be also
' heavenly bread.' — De Resur. Car., cap. xxxvii., p. 332.
Nothing could be more fatal to the teaching of Dr.
Wiseman and Dr. Pusey, and those whom they represent,
than this plain testimony of the most distinguished Latin
Father of the second century. This important extract
has no place in Dr. Pusey's list, nor in that of the work
caUed ' The Faith of Catholics ' (meaning modern Roman
Catholics). Origen says, ' When " the Jews strove among them-
' selves, saying. How can this man give us His flesh to
' eat?" We show that they were not so foolish as tosup-
' pose that when saying these things He invites the
' hearers to come and to eat His flesh.' — Comoyient. in
Evang. Joannis,. tom. xx. 33; tom. ii., p. 298.
' Our Lord and Saviour says, " Except ye eat my flesh
' and drink my blood, ye have no life in you, for my

52 THE FATHERS VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
' — John vi. 53, 55. Because Jesus, therefore, is alto-
' gether and wholly clean. His whole flesh is food, and
' His whole blood is drink ; because every work of His is
' holy, and every word of His is true. And therefore
' His flesh is true food, and His blood is true drink. For
' with the flesh and blood of His own word, as with
' clean food and drink. He gives drink to and recruits
' the whole race of men. In the second place, after the
' flesh of Him, Peter is clean food, and Paul, and all the
' Apostles. In the third place, their disciples ; and thus
' each according to the extent of his deserts and the
' purity of his perceptions is made clean food to his
' neighbour. He who cannot endure to hear these
' things may perhaps turn aside and avert his ears, ac-
' cording to those who said, " How will He give us His
' flesh to eat ? Who can hear it ? And they went no
' more with Him." But ye, if ye are sons of the
' Church, if imbued with the gospel mysteries, if the
' Word made flesh dwelleth in you, ye know the things
' which we say, because they are of the Lord, lest perad-
' venture he who knows them not should not be known
' of Him. Acknowledge that they are figures, the things
' that are written in the inspired Book ; and therefore,
' as .spiritual and not as carnal persons, examine and
' understand what is said ; for if as carnal persons you
' understand them, they injure and do not nourish you.
' For there is also in the gospel a letter which kills ; a
' killing letter is not found in the Old Testament alone.
' There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills
' him who does not understand spiritually the things
' which are spoken. For if, according to the letter, thou
' followest the very thing which is said, " Except ye eat
' my flesh and drink my blood," this letter kills.' —

THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 53
Omnment. in Lev'ot., Hom. vii. 5, tom. ix., pp. 305,
306. Could there be a more sweeping condemnation of the
carnal interpretation of the eating and drinking of Christ's
flesh and blood, as so zealously advocated by Dr. Wise
man, Dr. Pusey, and their allies, than this administered
by the most illustrious of all the Fathers ? Dr. Pusey's
knowledge extended to a portion of this homily, atid from
it he has given an extract worthless for his purpose ; but
he has omitted the above quotation, though, according to
his own account, ' not hioiuingly.'
The next case of most unfair treatment which the
testimony of Origen has received at the hands of Dr.
Pusey bears such marks both of omissions and commis
sions that they must have been made knowingly, and not
'unknowingly. The quotation to be given is from a
homily of Origen's, which consists, in my edition, of nine
paragraphs, and it is from the last of these that the quota
tion is made. What Dr. Pusey has cited will be included
in strong brackets, and what he has not cited will not be so
included. ' Therefore they may say to us, [Who is that
' people who are accustomed to drink blood ? These
' were the things, which when in the gospel also, those
' of the Jews who followed the Lord heard, they were
' offended, and said, " Who can eat flesh and drink
' blood ? " But the Christian people, the faithful
' people, beareth these things and embraceth them, and
' foUoweth Him who saith, " Except ye eat my flesh and
' drink my blood, ye have no life in you ; for my flesh
' is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." And
' in truth He who said these things was wounded for
' men ; for " He was wounded for our sins," as Esaias
' saith. But we are said to drink the blood of Christ
' not only in the way of sacraments, but also when we

54 THE FATHEES VEESUS Dl!. PUSEY.
receive His word, in which is life; as also Himself saith,
"The words which 1 speak unto you, they are spirit
and they are life."] He therefore Himself has been
wounded whose blood we drink, tliaf is, %ve receive the
tuords of His doctrine. But nevertheless they also
have been wounded who have preached to us His word,
for we also read their words, that is, the words of His
Apostles; and we who are following the life which is from
them, drink the blood of the wounded. Therefore he
says, " He shall not lie down until he have eaten the
prey." For this people who are compared to a lion's
whelp or a lion, will not rest nor lie down until they
take the prey, that is, until they take the kingdom of
heaven ; for " from the days of John the kingdom of
heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it hy
force." [But that thou mayest clearly understand
that these things are written of our people, who are
confederated in the sacraments of Christ, hear how in
other places also Moses declares the like, saying, " But
ter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and
rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat
of kidneys of wheat; and wine they shall drink, the
blood of the grape." And this, then, which is called
" the blood of the grape," is blood of that grape which
springs of that vine whereof the Saviour saith, " I am
the true vine," the disciples " the branches," the
Father "^the husbandman," who j)urgeth them, that
they may bring forth very much fruit. Thou, then, art
the true people of Israel, which canst drink blood, and
canst eat the flesh of the Word of God, and drink His
blood, and canst suck up the blood of that grape which
is of the true Vine, and of those branches which the
Father purgeth.] The fruit of these branches is de
servedly ccdled the blood of those who are wounded.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 55
' which we drink froon their words and doctrine.' —
Comment, in Nwm., Hom. xvi. 9, tom. x., p. 199.
The two parts in the above passage included in brackets
Dr. Pusey gives as two citations with two independent
references, under the heading ' Testimony to the belief
' in the Real Presence in the early Church.' But in these
quotations, as made and perverted by himself, we have
no proof whatever that Origen teaches a literal eating of
the flesh of Christ. But if Dr. Pusey had done as he
declares he has done when he says, ' I have suppressed
' nothing ; I have not knowingly omitted anything ; I
' have given every passage, as far as in me lay, with so
' much' of the context as was necessary for the clear ex-
' hibition of its meaning ' (p. 715), he would have given
his readers the most indubitable proof that Origen did
not understand our Lord in his discourse in the sixth
chapter of St.. John to teach a literal eating of His flesh,
nor a literal drinking of His blood, but a spiritual eating
and drinking of them, as the parts omitted show. It
seems incredible that Dr. Pusey could ' have not know-
' ingly omitted ' the parts of the above passage which
explain Origen's meaning, and to a certainty plainly teach
a doctrine the very opposite of that taught by Romanists
and Dr. Pusey. But there is far worse to come ; for Dr.
Pusey has not only omitted these important parts of
the paragraph from which he quotes, but has perverted
and falsified the first part which he has quoted. Origen
really says, 'But we are said to drink the blood of Christ
' not only in the way of sacraments, but also when we
' receive His words, in which is life,' etc. (Bibere autem
dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solum sacramentorum
ritu, set et cum sermones ejus recipimus, in quibus vita
consistit.) Here it is certain that Origen says that the blood of

56 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
Christ can be drunk not only in the sacraments, but
apart from the sacraments, in the words of Christ. But
the words of Christ do not really contain His blood, so
no more do His sacraments, meaning by sacraments the
consecrated elements. This is a doctrine fatal to that
of Dr. Pusey. By substituting ' Word ' for ' words,' and
adding the words, 'As we say, not only sacramentally but
' spiritually,' in a footnote (p. 343), Dr. Pusey has
changed Origen's real meaning, and has made him teach
what is very like the modern Roman doctrine, which, as
expressed by Dr. Pusey, is that all who receive the sacra
ment at the same time, receive that of which it is a
sacrament ; but the faithful only eat Christ, or receive
Him spiritually, in the sacrament. It is certain Origen
is not speaking of these two modes of drinking the blood
of Christ in the sacrament, but of one only ; the other
mode is not in the sacrament, but in receiving the words
of Christ apart from the sacrament. By changing
Origen's words, and by the addition of a footnote, the
reader might well suppose that the second mode of parti
cipation to which Origen refers, was a real but spiritual
participation of the Word — that is, Christ Himself But
Dr. Pusey, in thus tampering with the testimony of Origen,
deceives his readers and brings disgrace upon his own
cause. Dr. Wiseman's and Dr. Pusey's interpretation of eating
Christ's flesh and drinking His blood, requires that the
words, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
' nothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are
' spirit and they are life,' should have an interpretation
consonant to their doctrine. Dr. Pusey says, ' And
' against all this simplicity in receiving His words
' [respecting, as Dr. Pusey maintains, the actual eating of
' Christ's flesh with the human mouth] there is nothing

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 57
' but those so often misalleged words, "The flesh profiteth
' nothing." What? That flesh which He had said He
' would give for the life of the world ? That flesh, the
' eating of which was the condition of the world's life ?
' That flesh, without eating which we have no life ? That
' flesh, through eating which we have His life derived
' into us?' — This is my Body : A Sermon, p. 23.
It has been shown from Tertullian, that he understood
the eating to be spiritual and not carnal or natural, as
quoted above (pages 50, 51), and as founded upon the
verse under consideration. How Ambrose and Eusebius
interpret the verse will now be shown.
Ambrose says, ' For he neglects the hunger of the body
' who increases the food of reading, nor can he regard the
' stomach who receives the nourishment of the heavenly
' Word ; for it is the verj- nourishment which feeds the soul,
' which fattens the inward powers, when we receive the food
' of the never-failing eloquence from the Divine Scriptures.
' It is the very food which gives, eternal life and drives
' from us the snares of diabolical temptation. But that
' the reading of the Holy Scriptures is life, the Lord
' witnesses, saying, " The words which I speak unto you,
' they are spirit and they are life.' — Feria vi. ; Domin.,
i. ; Quad. Sermo xxxvii., tom. v., col. 54.
Ambrose could not have conceived that eating the
flesh of Christ literally in the Lord's Supper was neces
sary to eternal life, as is plain from his speaking thus.
Elsewhere, when giving a twofold interpretation of a text
of Scripture, one interpretation as relating to the Lord's
Supper, and the other as not relating to it ; yet, in this
latter interpretation is included the giving of the flesh of
Christ, and an eating of Him as the bread of life. Dr.
Pusey has quoted both of these two interpretations, but
has not quoted the one text on which they were founded,

58 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
and has given them as two independent quotations, each
Avith a distinct reference, and it is not his fault if his
readers do not understand Ambrose in both interpreta
tions to refer to a sacramental participation. Dr. Pusey's
tAvo quotations Avhich, in my edition of Ambrose, form a
connected portion of one paragraph, given as one and
Avith the text on which they are founded, are as follows : —
Asher, his bread shall be fat, and he shall give food to
princes.' — Gen. xlix. 20. . . 'He, therefore, is a rich
treasure; his is the bread of fatness. And [(1) rich
indeed is that bread which, Avhoso eateth, cannot hunger.
This bread He gave to the Apostles to divide to the
believing people, and at this day He giveth it to us,
seeing He Himself daily, the priest, consecrates it with
His OAvn words], or rather, it to us, Avhich, with His
Avords, the priest Himself consecrates daily.' — Nobis eum,
quem ipse, quotidAe sacerdos consecrat suis verbis. ['This
bread, then, is become the food of saints. (2) We
too may understand the Lord Himself who giveth His
own flesh to us ; as He Himself said, " I am the bread
of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,
and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down
from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not' die."
And lest any one should think that He says this of the
death which takes place through the severance of soul
and body, and rightly stand in doubt, knowing that the
Apostles did die this death. He added, "I am the living
bread Avhich came down from heaven ; if any one eat
of this bread he shall live for ever," i.e., I sjDoke above
not of temporal death, nor of the death of this life, of
which if any were even dead, yet if he have received of
my bread, he shall live for ever. For he receiveth who
proveth himself; but Avhoso receiveth shall not die the
sinner's death, for this bread is the remission of sins.' —

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 59
Pp. 456, 457.] — De Ben. Pat., c. ix., tom. i., col.
410. In the work called ' The Faith of Catholics,' the real
teaching of Ambrose is concealed from the reader after
another fashion. Unlike Dr. Pusey, the Romanist has
given the passage as one quotation, and not as tAVO, and
also the text Avith it on Avhich the two interpretations are
founded, but he has very unfairly blended the two inter
pretations into one. What Dr. Pusey has given thus,
' This bread, then, is the food of saints.'
' We, too, may understand the Lord Himself, Avho
' giveth His oAvn flesh to us,' etc. The Romanist has
given as follows : — ' Therefore this bread became the food
' of saints. We can also receive the Lord Himself
' (Possumus et ipsura Dominum accipere), who gave us
' His oAvn flesh,' etc.
The translation is literally correct, but is morally
wrong, because it deceiA^es the reader. For Ambrose is
not speaking of receiving the Lord Himself, as the reader
would naturally suppose, but of receiving the meaning of
the text as referring to the Lord Himself, which is cor
rectly expressed by Dr. Pusey, — ' We, too, may under-
' stand the Lord Himself.'
Here Ambrose plainly teaches that the flesh of Christ
is given, and' that Christ Himself is eaten as the bread of
life out of, or apart from, the sacrament. It may doubt
less, therefore, be inferred that Ambrose had no concep
tion that our Lord Avas referring in the sixth chajDter of
St. John to an actual eating of His flesh in the conse
crated bread, or that He even referred to a sacramental
participation of it.
Eusebius of Csesarea, after quoting John vi. 53-56,
60-63, remarks, 'By Avhich words He instructed them to
' understand spiritually the Avords that He had spoken

60 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' concerning flesh and blood ; for you must not consider
' me to speak of the flesh Avhich I carry about me, as if
' you Avere to eat that ; nor suppose that I command you
' to drink sensible and corporal blood. But understand
' Avell that the Avords that I have spoken to you are spirit
' and life ; so that His words and discourses are the flesh
' and blood, of Avhich he who ahvays partakes, as one fed
' upon heavenly food, shall be a partaker of heavenly life.
' Therefore, let not. He says, this offend you, that I have
' spoken of the eating of my flesh and the drinking of
' my blood; nor let the bare hearing of the things spoken
' by me concerning flesh and blood disturb you; for these
' things profit nothing if apprehended according to sense.
' But it is the spirit that quickens those able to appre-
' hend them spiritually.' — Contra Marcel, de Eccles.
Theo., lib. iii., cap. 12, pp. 179, 180.
It is marvellous that these and such like passages
should never have come within the range of Dr. Pusey's
knowledge. Had they done so, it might justly be con
cluded that Avhat he has affirmed respecting the interpre
tation of the sixth chapter of St. John, he would have
denied, and what he has denied he would have affirmed.
Basil, on the words, ' Taste and see how SAveet the
' Lord is ' (Ps. xxxiv. 8), remarks, " We have observed,
' in many places, that the faculties of the soul are called
' by the same names as the external members of the body ;
' and since our Lord is the true bread, and His flesh the
' true meat, it is necessary that the pleasure and joy de-
' rived from that bread should accrue to us through a
' mental taste.' — In Psalm, xxxiii. (xxxiv.), tom. i., p.
190. Again, on the Avords, ' And he that eateth me, even he
' shall live by me,' he states, ' For we eat His flesh and
' drink His blood by being made partakers through His

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 61
' incarnation and life of sense of the word and wisdom.
For He called His whole mysticcd course and conversa-
' tion on earth His flesh and blood, and signified by
' them that doctrine consisting of practical and natural
' and theological teaching, by which the soul is nourished
' and is prepared for the contemplation of things.' —
Epistola 148, tom. iii., p. 167.
But Dr. Pusey has not only omitted this kind of evi
dence from Basil, but by his manner of quoting him has
in effect falsified his evidence. In proof that Basil
believed in the real presence of Christ's body and blood
in the consecrated elements. Dr. Pusey cites the foUoAV-
ing : — 'Rule 21, c. 1. That the participation of the body
' and blood of Christ is necessary, even to everlasting life
' itself. — St. John vi., 53 sqq., p. 424.' Basil quotes in
proof of his rule the following words : — ' " 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. Whoso
' eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
' life," and the rest.' For Dr. Pusey to assume, in oppo.si-
tion to the plain teaching of Basil, that he here refers
only to a sacramental eating of Christ's flesh and blood,
and adduces it as proof of the doctrine of the Real Pre
sence in the consecrated elements, is extremely inaccurate
and unjust.
Of all the omissions which Dr. Pusey has made on
this point, the most remarkable and unaccountable is one
from Augustine, who says, ' If a form of speech is pre-
' ceptive, forbidding either a disgraceful thing or a crime,
' or commanding what is useful or beneficent, it is not
' figurative. But if it seems to command a disgTaceful
' thing or a crime, or to foi'bid Avhat is useful or bene-
' ficent, it ia figurative. " Except ye eat the flesh and
' drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in

62 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
' you." He seems to command a disgraceful thing or
' a crime, therefore it is figurat'ive, commanding us to
' contmuaicate in the passion of the Lord, and sweetly
' and profitably to treasure up in our memory that His
'flesh 'Was crucified and tvounded for us.' — De Doct.
Christ., lib. iii., c. 16, tom. iii., p. 23.
Bertram, after citing this passage against the heresy of
Paschasius, in the ninth century, as I now do against the
same heresy of Dr. Pusey, in the nineteenth century, well
remarks, ' We see this Doctor saith that the mystery of
' the body and blood of Christ is celebrated by the faith-
' ful under a figure ; for carnally to receive His body
' and blood is not, he saith, an act of religion, but a
' cr'bvie.' — De Corpore et Sanguine Dotnini, c. xxxiv.
The treatise of Augustine containing this important
passage is the nearest approach we have in the early
Church to a system of biblical interpretation. The
quotation is a rule for ascertaining Avhether a portion of
Scripture is figurative or not, and the text respecting
eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of
Man is given as an illustration of the rule. But unless
this text Avas universally admitted to have a figurative
and not a literal interpretation, it would have been use
less for Augustine to illustrate his rule by it, or found
his rule upon it. A literal eating of the flesh of Christ
by the natural mouth is a gross and degrading opinion
falsely ascribed to the early Fathers by such men as Dr.
Wiseman and Dr. Pusey ; for not only do those ancient
men not teach it, but their very rules of biblical inter
pretation forbid it, and brand it as a crime. Yet Dr.
Pusey says, '/ have suppresserl -nothing; I have not
' knowingly omitted, anything.' — See pp. 13, 14, above.
It seems incredible that a man of position and reputed
patristic learning should not have known of such pas-

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 63
sages as those given above, but especially the last, Avhich
has been commonly quoted for the last thousand years
against the Paschasian heresy on the Lord's Supper. In
accordance with the above canon of interpretation, Augus
tine interprets the eating of Christ in the sixth of St.
John, not as performed by any member of the human
body, but simply as an act of faith. Explaining the
words, ' Jesus answered, and said unto them, This is the
' Avork of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath
' sent,' he remarks, ' This, then, is to eat, " not that
' meat that perisheth, but that which remaineth unto
' eternal life." Why make ready the teeth and belly?
' Believe, and thou hast eaten.' — Expos, in Evang.
Joannis, Tract, xxv., tom. ix., p. 90. Dr. Pusey, 'not
' knowingly,' has omitted this commonly-quoted passage
from Augustine.
The last instance of omission on this point is an im
portant passage from Chrysostom. On the words, ' It is
' the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing,'
he remarks, ' This meaning is, ye must hear spiritually
' Avhat relateth to me, for he who heareth carnally is not
' profited, nor gathereth any advantage. . . . They ought
' to have understood the matter mystically and spirit-
' ually.' — In Joannem, Hom. xlvii., tom. viii., pp. 240,
241. Here are two important questions which I do not
undertake to ansAver. How can Dr. Pusey maintain a
doctrine plainly contrary to the testimony of his own
chosen witnesses ? And Avhy has he, contrary to his OAvn
solemn declaration, suppressed the most important parts
of their testimony ?

64 THE FATHEES A'ERSUS DR. PUSEY.

CHAPTER V.
The impoetance op consideeing the Patristic Principles of Interpre
tation AS laid down by the Fathers avith eegaed to the Interpre
tation OF the Sacramental Phraseology which De. Pusey appears
TO have ignoeed. The peinciples op inteepeetation as given by
Augustine in eegard to Sacraments and Signs, showing that, ac
cording to his teaching, there is no essential DIFFEEENCB BETWEEN
THEM, AND, CONTEAEY TO THE TEACHING OF DE. PuSEY AND ROMANISTS,
NEITHEE Sacraments nor Signs were that of which they were the
Sacraments or Signs. Augustine teaches that the Sacramental
OR Religious Signs op the Israelites, though differing in nature,
WEBB the same IN SIQNIPICATION A3 THE ChEISTIAN SaCEAMBNTS ; AND
IT IS SHOWN THAT BERTRAM, IN ANSWER TO PASCHASIUS, TAUGHT THE
SAME Doctrine, and the same kind of evidence is brought against
Dr. Pusey. A eemabkable instance is given in which jElpeic
QUOTES A passage FEOM AUGUSTINE IN WHICH HE USES SEVERAL META
PHORS IN RELATION TO CHRIST, AMONGST WHICH He INCLUDES EUCHAR
ISTIC Bread. An important rule of Augustine m relation to the
INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE WHICH, AS APPLIED BY HIMSELF,
shows THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE AVORDS OF INSTITUTION IN THE Loed'S
Suppee figuratively. The principles op interpretation, as laid
down by Oeigen and Basil, stated and consideeed in oeder to a
eight undeestanding op sacramental language. both ambrose
AND Chrysostom, in using Metaphorical Language in relation to
Christ, include in it the names of the Consecrated Elements. It
is noticed that this kind op Evidence forms no part of De.
Pusey's exteacts from the Fathers.
The principles of Scripture interpretation as laid down
by the Fathers, and their explanation of signs and sacra
ments. Dr. Pusey has passed over entirely, although this
kind of information is essential to a right understanding
of their sacramental phraseology. One remarkable omis-

THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY. 65
sion from Augustine in relation to this point has been
noticed at page 61 above, to which the reader is re
ferred. Augustine, in the same treatise, states, 'AU
teaching consists either of realities or of signs, but
realities are learned by signs. . . . There are other
signs whose entire use is for signification, just as words
are ; for no one uses words except for the sake of signi
fying something.' — De Doctrina Christiana, lib. i., c. 2,
tom. iii., p. 4. Again he states, 'Discoursing on signs,
I make this remark, that no one must fix his attention
on them in what they are, but rather that they are
signs, that is, that they signify something. For a sign is
a thing which, besides the form which it presents to the
senses, causes something else external to itself to come
into the mind. ... Of signs, therefore, by which men
communicate among themselves their ideas, some per
tain to the sense of sight, many to the sense of hearing,
very few to other senses. For when we give a nod Ave
do not give a sign except to the eyes of him whom we
intend by that sign to make a participator of our inten
tion ; and certain movements of the hands signify many
things ; and actors, by the motions of all their members,
give certain signs to those who know and converse as if
with their eyes, . . . and all these things are, as it
were, visible words. But those things which relate to
the ears, as I have said, are more numerous, especially
words. For both trumpet, pipe, and harp, for the most
part, giye not only a sweet, but also a significant sound.
But all signs are very feAv compared with words ; for
among ftien words certainly obtain the pre-eminence of
signifying whatever things are conceived in the mind, if
any one wished to utter them. For the Lord also, by
the odour of the ointment by Avhich His feet were
anointed, gave some sign, and by the sacrament of His
F

66 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' body and of His blood being eaten beforehand. He signi-
' fled what He intended.' — Ibid., lib. ii., cc. 1, 3, tom. iii.,
p. 10.
He yet further teaches, 'Care must be taken lest thou
' understand figurative language literally. For AA'hat the
' Apostle said appertains also to this — "The letter killeth,
' but the spirit giveth life." For when that spoken
' figuratively is so taken as if spoken in the proper sense,
' it is carnally tasted. No death of the soul is more
' suitably called than when that Avhich is in it excels the
' beasts, that is, knoAvledge is brought under the flesh in
' foUoAving the letter. For he who foUoAvs the letter re-
' gards figurative words as proper words; nor does he
' refer that which is signified in a proper Avord to another
' signification. And when he hears of a sacrifice, he
' does not exceed in thought that which is accustomed to
' be done concerning sacrifices of cattle and fruits of the
' earth. It is indeed a miserable slavery of the mind to
' take the signs for realities, and not be able to lift the
' eye of the mind above the corporeal creature to imbibe
' the eternal light.' — Ibid., lib, iii., c. 5, tom. iii., p. 21.
The next quotation from Augustine contains the only
citation made by Dr. Pusey from this most important
treatise, and it is distinguished by being included in
brackets. [' But at this time, since, through the resur-
' rection of our Lord, there hath dawned the clearest
' manifestation of our freedom, we are no longer laden
' with the burdensome operation of those signs, whose
' meaning Ave now knoAv ; but the Lord Himself, and the
' apostolic discipline, have handed doAvn certain few] signs
' [instead of many] signs, [and those most easy to perform,
' most majestic in meaning, most pure in the observance,
' such as are the sacrament of Baptism, and the celebra-
' tion of the body and blood of the Lord, — ^pp. 508,

THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY. 67
509], Avhich signs every man, Avhen he receiveth, being
' initiated, knoweth to Avhat they should be referred, not
' to venerate them with a carnal servitude, but rather
' Avith a spiritual freedom. And as it is a mark of vile
' bondage to follow the letter and take the signs for the
' things signified by them ; so to interpret the signs to
' no profit is a mark of 'evil, wandering error.' — Ibid.,
lib. iii., c. 9,. tom. iii., p. 22.
It should be observed that, according to Avhat Augus
tine teaches in these extracts, there is no real difference
between a sacrament and a sign beyond the mere na.me.
He elsewhere says, ' It is too long to discourse con-
' veniently concerning the variety of signs which, when
' they appertain to divine things, are called sacraments.'
— Epist. V. ad Marcellinuvi, tom. ii., p. 9. Again, he
states, ' Therefore a visible sacrifice is a sacrament of an
' invisible sacrifice, that is, it is a sacred sign.' — De Civi-
tcde Dei, lib. x., c. v., p. 109.
Dr. Pusey, with Romanists generally, teaches that the
sacrament of the Lord's body is the Lord's body, or con
tains it. The reader has only to glance over the above
quotations from Augustine to be assured that Avhatever
may be affirmed of a sacrament may equally be affirmed
of a sign. If a sacrament is or contains that of Avhich it
is a sacrament, so a sign, Avhether verbal or otherwise, is
or contains that of which it is a sign. Berengar and
others, in opposing the heresy of Paschasius, quoted such
passages as — ' A visible sacrifice is a sacrament of an in-
' visible sacrifice, that is, it is a sacred sign. ' ' A sign
' is a thing which, besides the form which it presents to
' the senses, causes something else external to itself to
' come into the mind.' Gratian and his glossers, in
Corpus Juris Canonici, to ansAver such men as Berengar,
and make Augustine agree Avith Paschasius, Avere com-

68 THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
polled to explain the Avord sign as they did the Avord
sacrament, and make both to contain that of Avhich they
were a sign or a sacrament. Surely Augustine rebukes
by anticipation all those Avho thus teach, Avhen he states,
as given above, ' It is indeed miserable slavery of the
' mind to take the signs for realities, and not be able to
' lift the eye of the mind above the corporeal creature, to
' imbibe the eternal light.'
In one of the extracts above, Augustine, in illustrating
the nature of signs, no more teaches that the sacrament
of Christ's body was that Avhich it signified, than the
odour of the ointment Avas that of Avhich it gave some
sign. In the same quotation Augustine speaks of a cer
tain class of signs as visible words ; but such signs are
no more that, or contain that of which they are the signs,
than ordinary words used as signs are that or contain
that of Avhich they are the signs. ElscAvhere he states,
' For what else are all corporal sacraments but, as it
' were, certain visible words, very holy, indeed, but
' nevertheless mutable and transient.' — Contra Faustum,
lib. xix., c. xvi., tom. vi., p. 145. The sacrament of Bap
tism he calls a visible word. 'The word is added to the
' element, and it becomes a sacrament, itself, as it Avere,
' a visible word.' — In Evang. Joan., Tract. Ixxx., tom.
ix., p. 182. Sacraments, or ' -visible words,' according
to the plain teaching of Augustine, no more contain in
themselves that for which they are used as signs, than
spoken words contain in themselves that for which they
are used as signs.
Augustine, in one of his discourses, descants on cer
tain metaphors applied to Christ, shoAving that He is
often called that which He is not really. Thus he says,
' So rock is called rock, and it is not rock, for it signifies
' another thing. . . . He who shall say that the Rock

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 69
' Avas Christ in proper signification blasphemes.' — De
Diversis, Sermo xliv., tom. x., p. 505. Now Augustine,
in various parts of his writings, most certainly maintains
that the manna and the rock were to Israel sacramentally
exactly what the consecrated elements are to communi
cants, and the same in mystery. He says, ' In mystery,
' therefore, theirs was the same meat and drink as ours,
' also in signification the same, but not in form, because
' the same Christ Avas Himself figured to them in a
' Rock.' — Enar. in Psahn. Ixxvii. (Ixxviii.), tom. viii.,
p. 347. On 1 Cor. x. 1-4, he remarks, 'Meaning, of
' course, that as spiritual it was the same ; for as cor-
' poral it was another, because they ate manna, we
' something else [consecrated bread] ; but they ate the
' spiritual meat Avhich we do.' — In Evang. Joan., Tract.
xxvi., tom. ix., p. 94. 'So also the "same drink;" "for
' the Rock Avas Chri.st." Therefore they drank the same
' drink as we do, but spiritual ; that is, that which is
' taken by faith, not that Avhich is drunk by the body.
' . . To the believer they were the same as noAV. For
' then Christ was about to come, noAv Christ has come.
' " About to come" and "has come" are different phrases,
' but it is the same Christ.' — Hom. xxvii., tom. x., pp.
175, 176.
Bertram, in answer to Paschasius, who first openly
taught the real presence of Christ's body and blood in
the consecrated elements, used the same evidence. He
says, ' St. Paul affirnieth that our Fathers did eat the
' same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink.
' Perchance you ask, Avhat same ? The very same Avhich
' at this day the company of the faithful eateth and
' drinketh in the Church. For we may not think them
' diverse, since one and the same Christ gave His own
' flesh for food and His own blood for drink to that

70 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' people A^¦ho, in the desert, Avere baptised in the cloud
' and in the sea, and noAv in the Church feedeth the
' congregation of the faithful Avith the bread of His
' body, and giveth them to drink of the stream of His
' blood.' — De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, cc. xxii.,
xxiii. There can be no mistake in bringing this portion of
Augustine's teaching against the heresy of Dr. Pusey,
since Bertram used the very same argument against
Paschasius, its founder.
Augustine, then, plainly teaches that the consecrated
elements are no more really that which they represent
than Averc the manna and the rock, and this is confirmed
by the testimony of Bertram. But Augustine has said,
' He Avho shall say that the Rock Avas Christ in proper
' signification blasphemes ; ' and, from Augustine's teach
ing, it may justly be inferred that he who shall say that
the consecrated elements are Christ's body and blood in
proper signification blasphemes.
iElfric, an English archbishop, about the year 1000,
in a sermon in ansAver to the Paschasian doctrine of the
Real Presence, actually cites a portion of the passage
from Augustine, of which the above forms a jjart, and to
the metaphors used by Augustine adds the Avord bread,
and reasons thus — ' Christ is said to be bread by signifi-
' cation, and a lamb, and a lion, and a mountain. He
' is called bread, because He is our life and angels' life.
' He is said to be a lamb for his innocency, and a lion
' for strength. But Christ is not so, iiotAvithstanding,
' after true nature, neither bread, nor a lamb, nor a lion.
' Why is then the holy housel called Christ's body, or
' His blood, if it be not truly Avhat it is called ? Truly,
' the bread and the Avine, Avhich by the mass of the
' priest be hallowed, shoAvs one thing Avithout to human

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 71
' understanding, and another thing within to believing
' minds.' There remains to be noticed a very important canon
of Scripture interpretation which Augustine commended
to his brethren, which, like the above citations from him,
has not come Avithin the grasp of Dr. Pusey's knowledge.
' Brethren, I must tell you and teach you according to
' my poor abilities, . and must convey to you what
' you may hold as a rule in the interpretation of all
' Scripture. Everything that is said or done is to be
' understood either in its literal signification, or else it
' signifies something figuratively, or at least contains both
' of these at oiice — both its own literal interpretation
' and a figurative signification also. Thus 1 have set
' forth three things ; examples of them must now be
' given, and from whence but from the Holy Scriptures ?
' (1.) We may take what Avas said in the proper sense,
' that the Lord suffered, that He rose again, and ascended
' into heaven; that we shall rise again at the end of the
' world, that we shall reign Avith Him for ever, if Ave do
' not despise Him. Take all this as spoken in the proper
' sense, and look not out for figures. As it is expressed,
' so it really is. And so also with divers actions. The
' Apostle Avent up to Jerusalem to see Peter, the Apostle
' actually did this, it actually took place, it Avas an action
' peculiar to himself It is a fact Avhich he tells you —
' a simple fact, according to its literal meaning.'
(2.) ' " The stone which the builders refused, is
' become the head of the corner," is spoken in a figure.
' If we understand " the stone " in the proper sense,
' what stone did the builders refuse Avhich became the
' Head of the corner ? If Ave take " the corner," in the
' proper sense, on the head of what corner Avas this stone
' figuratively made ? If we admit that it Avas figuratively

72 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' expressed, and take it so, the corner-stone is Christ ;•
' the Head of the corner is the Head of the Church.
' Ye have heard an instance of a literal expression as,
' " That we shall rise again ;" of a literal action as that,
' according as it is said, " Paul went up to Jerusalem to
' see Peter." " The stone Avhich the builders refused,"
' is a figurative expression.'
(3.) ' There is now due to your expectation an example
' made out of both together, something which is at once
' a literal fact and which also signifies something else
' figured by it. " We know that Abraham had two sons;
' the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman."
' This Avas literally a fact ; not only a story, but a fact ;
' are you looking out for that which was figured in it ?
' "These are the tAvo Testaments."' — Semno ix., Appen-
' dix, tom. X., pp. 370, 371.
The important question is. By which of the three rules
would Augustine interpret the words, ' This is my body,'
'This is my blood?' Let us try the first rule — (1.)
Literally, ' This is my body, this is my blood.' ' Take
' all this As spoken in the proper sense, and look not out
' for figures ; as it is expressed so it really is. It is a
' fact which He tells you ; a simple fact according to its
' literal meaning.' The small fraction of evidence already
given in this paper proves it to be impossible that Augus
tine could interpret the words of institution by this rule.
Dr. Pusey himself has quoted from Augustine the Avords,
' The Lord hesitated not to say, " This is my body,"
' when He gave a sign of His body.' — P. 108. But
these Avords are not quoted in his 400 pages of extracts
from the Fathers, where they ought to have appeared
Avith a sufficiency of the context to show for what purpose
they were employed by Augustine. Had they been fully
and fairly quoted in Dr. Pusey's Catena they would have

THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY. 73
marred the whole. What Dr. Pusey faded to do shaU
noAV be done. ' Of that which is written, that blood
' should not be eaten, because blood is the life of the
' flesh. To this judgment of the Old Law the Mani-
' chseans oppose that from the Gospel Avhere the Lord
' says, " Fear not them Avhich kill the body, but are not
' able to kill the life." And they argue, saying, ' If the
' blood is the life how have men not power over it.
' For of that which is Avritten, that the blood of an
' animal is its life, beside that which I have said above,
' Avhat is urged respecting the life of an animal does
' not concern me, I can even interpret that command to
' be set down in sign (figuratively). For [the Lord
' hesitated not to say, "This is my body," Avhen He gave
' a sign of His body. — P. 108.] For the blood was
' so life as the Rock Avas Christ. Thus the Apostle says,
' " For they drank of that rock which followed them, and
' that Rock Avas Christ." But it is knoAvn that the
' children of Israel drank of the smitten rock in the
' Avilderness, of whom the Apostle spoke when he said
' these things ; he did not, ho av ever, say the rock signi-
' fied Christ, but said the Rock was Christ. Which,
' again, that it might not be tEvken carnally, he calls it
' spiritual ; that is, he teaches that it should be under-
' stood spiritually.' — Contra Adiman., c. xii,, tom. vi.,
pp. 77, 78.
Augustine is here endeavouring to convince a man
that the phrase, ' Blood is the life,' is not to be under
stood literally, but figuratively, and to show that there
were such figures of speech in Scripture ; among others,
he, cites the phrase, 'This is my body,' which is not to
be understood literally, but figuratively; and the inter
pretation is, ' This is a sign of my body,' though Christ
hesitated not to say, ' This is my body.' And the blood »

74 THE FATHEES VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
was so life as the Rock Avas Christ ; Avhich was not
Christ literally, but signified Christ, although the Apostle
said, ' That Rock Avas Christ.' Beyond all question,
Augustine, according to his OAvn plain teaching, could in
terpret the Avords of institution by his second rule only,
that is, figuratively. ' This is my body,' ' This is my
' blood,' ' is spoken in a figure.' Whether Romanists
and Ritualists interpret the Avords of institution by
Augustine's first or third rule, or both, it Avould be diffi
cult to determine ; that they do not interpret them by his
second rule, as he himself does, is certain. Dr. Wise
man maintains that the Avords, ' This is my body,' is not
to be interpreted by the words, ' The Rock was Christ,'
but by the words, ' The Word Avas God.' Dr. Pusey
asks, ' What reason, then, is there for not receiving the
' Avords, " This is my body,'' as literally as the Avords,
' "The Word was with God; the Word was God?'"
The answer is, that such evidence as that already given
in these pages, most of Avhich Dr. Pusey has ignored, but
which is only a fraction of the whole, proves that the
phrase never was so interpreted by the Fathers.
Nothing is more common in Holy Scripture than to
speak of God as if He had body, parts, and passions,
and of the soul, or spirit of man, as if it Avere a material
body, and capable of eating and drinking. The Fathers
very freely imitate Scripture in this respect, but they
occasionally explain to their hearers and readers the nature
and proper meaning of such language. The following
are a few instances: —
Origen laid doAvn certain broad principles of interjjre-
tation, in order to a right understanding of certain figura
tive Avords and phrases, Avhich are of much importance in
the present controversy. Thus, in his introduction to
his Commentary on Solomon's Song, in order to guard

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 75
his less learned readers from understanding that Avhich
related only to the soul as applying to the body, he shoAvs
how important it is to discriminate betAveen what belongs
to one, and what belongs to the other. Thus, he says,
' There is therefore a meat and drink of this material
' man, which is also called the outer man, suitable to its
' nature, to wit, that Avhich is corporeal and earthly.
' And in like manner also, there is an appropriate meat
' of that spiritual man, which is called the inner man, as
' that living bread which came down from heaven. But
' there is also that drink of that water which Jesus pro-
' mised, saying, " Whosoever drinketh of the Avater that
' I shall give him shall never thirst." Thus, therefore,
' in all things there is used a similarity of phrases as it
' respects both the inward and the outAvard man ; but the
' property of the things is preserved unmixed to each,
' and to that which is corruptible, corruptible things are
' given, and to that Avhich is incorruptible, incorruptible
' things are offered.'- — Comment, in Cardie. Can. Pro-
logus, tom. xiv., pp. 294, 295.
In the body of the same Commentary he especially
shows how certain Avords are applied to Christ, Avhich
must not by any means be understood literally. He
states, ' Therefore Christ is also called the true Light,
' that the eyes of the soul may have that by which they
' may be enlightened ; therefore, also, He is called the
' Word, that the ears may haA'e that which they may
' hear; therefore, also. He is called the Bread of Life,
' that the taste of the soul may have what it may taste.'
— Ibid., lib. ii., tom. xiv., p. 431.
BasU, commenting on the thirty-fourth Psalm, remarks,
' How can the mouth of him who is eating and drinking
' set forth the praise of God ? To this we say, that there
' is a certain spiritual mouth of the inner man, by Avhich

76 THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' he is nourished, receiving the Avord of life, Avhich is the
' bread that came doAvn from heaven.' On the words,
' Taste and see how sAveet the Lord is,' of the same Psalm,
he states, ' We have observed in many places that the
' faculties of the soul are called by the same names as
' the external members of the body. And since our Lord
' is the true bread, and His flesh the true meat, it is
' necessary that the pleasure and joy derived from that
' bread should accrue to us through a mental taste.' — In
Psalm, xxxiii. (xxxiv.), tom. i., pp. 185, 190.
Ambrose, after the manner of his predecessors, includes
drinking the blood of Christ among figurative phrases
which cannot admit of a literal interpretation. If he
knew of Dr. Pusey's doctrine, and believed it, such a
mark of irreverence in so good and able a man as Ambrose
is unaccountable. Thus, he says, ' Drink the cup both
' of the Old and New Testament ; because thou drinkest
' Christ in both. Drink Christ because He is the Vine.
' Drink Christ because He is the Rock which pours forth
' water. Drink Christ because He is the Fountain of
' Life. Drink Christ because He is the River whose
' stream makes glad the city of God. Drink Christ
' because He is Peace. Drink Christ because out of His
' belly floAv living Avaters. Drink Christ that thou mayest
' drink the blood by which thou wast redeemed. Drink
' Christ that thou mayest drink His words. The Old
' Testament is His Word. The New Testament is His
' Word. The Divine Scripture is drunk, the Divine
' Scripture is devoured, when the energy of the eternal
' Word descends into the veins of the mind and the
' strength of the soul. Finally, man does not live on
' bread alone, but on every word of God.' — Enar. in
Psalm, i., tom. ii., col. 663.
Chrysostom, explaining certain metaphors in relation

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 77
to Christ, includes the flesh and blood of Chjist among
them. He says, ' For He, our Lord, being one as to
' substance, framed for all things. How for all things ?
' On account of our salvation. Thou art made a branch,
' and He makes a root. For He is the Vine, but ye are
' the branches. . . . Dost thou wish to eat ? He is
' 'made to thee a table. Dost thou wish to drink ? He
' is made to thee a cup. " He that eateth my flesh, and
' drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." ' —
Sermo de Pentecos., tom. vi., p. 229.
These, and such like passages from the Fathers, where
they explain the figurative language of Scripture, and
their own figurative language, Dr. Pusey has ignored.
No such passages form any portion of his 400 pages of
extracts from the Fathers.

78 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.

CHAPTER VL
It is shown that De. Pusey misleads his Readers by quoting Fathees
who apply the phrase, ' Daily bread ' to Christ as if they undee-
stood the phease in relation to the consecrated bread of the
Eucharist, whereas they generally employ it as a title of Christ
Himself. Instances given of Dr. Pusey's garbled quotations
UPON this point.
Dr. Pusey very much misleads his readers by quoting
Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, where they interpret
the phrase, ' Daily bread,' as it occurs in the Lord's Prayer,
in relation to Christ, as if it referred to the sacramental
bread; whereas, with Tertullian, Cyprian, an author under
the name of Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Jerome,
there is no necessary reference to sacramental bread, but
to Christ Himself, the Bread of the sacramental bread,
Avhether in the sacrament or apart from it. So fully con
vinced of this Avas Bertram — that the phrase, ' Daily
bread ' was a title of Christ, and had no reference to
sacramental bread — that, when proving, in opposition to
Paschasius, that the words, ' This is my body,' must be
understood figuratively, by Avay of showing what a figure
was, he states, ' Figure, is a certain outshadoAving, which
' exhibiteth what it meaneth under some sort of veil; for
' instance, when we would speak of the Word, we say
' " bread ; " as in the Lord's Prayer, we pray that God
' Avould give us our "daily bread."' — De Corpore et
Sangvjine Donnini, c. vii.

the fathees versus dr. pusey. 79
Augustine, hoAvever, in one or tAvo instances, speaks of
' daily bread ' as if sacramental bread was one of its
meanings, though he freely concedes that the Greek
Church did not admit that there Avas any reference to
sacramental bread, or the bread of the sacrament. In
stances will now be given of the unfair manner in
which Dr. Pusey has quoted Augustine on this point.
The part cited by Dr. Pusey will be indicated by
brackets. ' For what is it we pray for, but that we may commit
' no evil, for which we .should be separated from that
' Holy Bread (meaning Christ Himself), and the word of
' God which is preached daily is bread. For because it
' is not bread for the stomach, it is not on that account
' not bread for the soul. But [when this life shall have
. ' passed away, we shall neither seek that bread Avhich
' hunger seeks, nor shall we have to receive the sacrament
' of the altar, because we shall be there with Christ, whose
' body Ave do now receive,' p. 524], ' nor will those words
' which Ave are now speaking need to be said to you, nor
' the sacred volume to be read, Avhen Ave .shall see Him,
' who is Himself the Word of God, by whom all things
' are made.' — De Tempore, Sermo cxxv., cap. 3, tom. x.,
p. 314.
' [There is spiritual food also, which the faithful knoAV,
' which ye, too, will know when ye shall receive it at the
' altar of God. This also is " daily broad," necessary
' only for this life, For shall Ave receive the Eucharist
' when Ave shall have come to Christ Himself, and begin
' to reign with Him for ever ? So, then, the Eucharist is
' our daily bread ; but let us in such Avise receive it that
' we be not refreshed in our bodies only, but in our souls.'
p. 524. J ' For the virtue which is there apprehended is
' unity, that gathered together into His body, and made

80 the fathers a'ersus de. pusey.
' His members, we may be AA'hat Ave receive. Then Avill
' be, indeed, our daily bread. Again, what I am handling
' before you now is "daily bread;" and the daily lessons
' which ye hear in church are "daily bread;" and the
' hjrmns ye hear and repeat are "daily bread." For all
' these are necessary in our state of pilgrimage. But
' when Ave shall have got thither, shall we hear the book ?
' We shall see the Word Himself; we shall hear the Word
' Himself; we shall eat Himself, as angels only do. Do
' the angels need books, and interpreters, and readers?
' Surely not. They read in seeing ; for the reality itself
' they see, and are abundantly satisfied from that fountain,
' from which we obtain some few drops,' — De Diversis,
Sermo ix., c. 7, tom. x., p. 459.
Dr. Pusey could not well have cited these Iavo extracts
had he been obliged to give more of the context with
them. In the first extract occur the Avords, 'Whose body
we now receive,' and th^t is the reason for Dr. Pusey's
making the citation ; and this is a specimen of seven-
tenths of his citations. Augustine, however, in various
parts of his writings, repeatedly explains the nature and
use of such language ; even Dr. Pusey himself has given
one instance, which is, — ' For if sacraments had not a
' certain resemblance to those things of which they are
' the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all.
' But from this resemblance they receive, for the most
' part, the names even of the things themselves. As,
' therefore, after a certain manner, the sacrament of the
' body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of
' the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacra-
' ment of faith is faith.' — P. 507. Doubtless Augustine,
in using the words, ' Whose body Ave do now receive,' as
cited by Dr. Pusey, meant -the sacrament of His body, as
may be inferred from this small portion of Augustine's

THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 81
exposition of sacramental language as quoted by Dr.
Pusey himself; but had he cited, and not suppressed, the
few lines which foUoAv, his readers would have had what
here follows : — ' As speaking of baptism itself, the Apostle
' says, " We are buried with Christ by baptism into
' death." He does not say. We signify burial ; but he
' says outright, " We are buried." Therefore the sacra-
' ment of so great a thing he called by no other name
' than that of the thing itself — Epist. xxiii. ad Boni-
facium, tom. ii., p. 36.
Elsewhere Augustine gives such rules as the foUoAV-
ing: — 'Nor mayit be denied that sometimesthe thingwhich
' signifies, receives the name of that thing which it signi-
' fies. . . . For so also is the rock called Christ, because
' it signifies Christ.' — Epist. cii. ad Evodium, tom. ii.,
p. 173. In another part of his writings, he states, ' A
' thing which is a sign, is accustomed to be called by the
' name of the thing which it signifies ; as it is written,
' " The seven ears are seven years," for he did not .say
' they signify seven years; and many things of this kind.
' Hence there is that which is said, " The Rock was
' Christ." For he did not say the Rock signified
' Christ, but, as it were, was this very thing ; though,
' indeed, it was not this in substance, but in signi-
' fication.' — Qucest. in Levit., lib. iii., q. 57, tom. iv., p.
95. These important explanations of sacramental language
form no part of Dr. Pusey's 400 pages of 'Testimony to
' the belief in the Real Presence.'
Had Dr. Pusey, in the second extract, quoted but three
lines more, the reader would have plainly seen that
Avhatever it may be which the devout communicant
receives in the consecrated elements, ' he may be what
' he receives.' Had not Dr. Pusey suppressed this part
G

82 THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
of Augustine's testimony, the reader must have seen that he
considered the body of Christ's belicAing people as much
present in the sacrament as the body of Christ. What
he teaches on this point has been briefly noticed at pages
39, 40, above.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 83

CHAPTER VIL
The woed Peesence, avith vaeious adjuncts so fbequently used by Dr.
Pusey to denote the existence op Christ's body in the Conse
crated Elements, does not appear to have been employed by the
Fathers in that connection, nor does De. Pusey give in his Ex
tracts FROM them any INSTANCES OF IT. — A CASE GIVEN, IN WHICH A
WEITER IN THE ' CHURCH REVIEW ' SUGGESTS THAT THE TERM 'PRESENCE '
SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS, AND GIVES THIS
ADVICE TO Dr. Manning, a Roman Bishop. — Instances given from
Augustine, in which he speaks op Christ's body and of His bodily
absence until his second coming, so as to imply that he could
not have conceived of the peesence op his body and soul in the
Conseceated Elements. — It is shown that although Augustine
HAS GIVEN, under VARIOUS ASPECTS, VERY PULL STATEMENTS UPON THIS
POINT, YET THOSE STATEMENTS POEM NO PORTION OP De. PuSEy's
EXTEACTS PEOM AuGUSTINE. — ThE EVIDENCE OP CHRYSOSTOM GIVEN, IN
WHICH HE PLAINLY TEACHES THAT THE CONSECRATED ELEMENTS, IN
EEGARD TO WHAT THEY AEE, STAND PBECISELY IN THE SAME EELATION
TO THE BODY OF ChRIST'S BELIEVING PEOPLE AS THEY DO TO HiS BODY.—
Specimens aee given of De. Pusey's most unfaie teeatment op this
POETION OF ChBYSOSTOM's TESTIMONY.
Dr. Pusey entitles his sermon, ' The Presence of Christ
' in the Holy Communion ' [meaning in the consecrated
elements]. The notes on this sermon, consisting of 722
pages, are entitled, ' The doctrine of the Real Presence.'
The extracts from the Fathers in this volume are called
' List of Ancient Authors from the Apostles' Time to
' A.D. 451, on the Real Objective Presence in the Holy
' Eucharist ' [meaning the consecrated elements]. And
every leaf is headed, ' Testimony to the belief in the
' Real Presence in the early Church.' It might be sup-

84 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
posed from these sounding titles, which ring so much
with ' Presence,' ' Real Presence,' and ' Real Objective
' Presence,' that the writings of the Fathers were, full of
what Dr. Pusey would fain ascribe to them. But, will
it be believed, that notwithstanding then- voluminous
Avritings, neither the word ' presence ' nor its equivalent
as used by Dr. Pusey in relation to the consecrated ele
ments, appears ever to have been used by them. In my
' Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge,' I stated, ' The words,
' " real presence," in relation to the consecrated elements,
' are of modern use, and for the most part have arisen
' ot.it of the heresy of Paschasius. Out of the numerous
' extracts from the early Fathers made by Dr. Pusey, the
' phrase, " real presence," or the word " presence," does
' not appear to occur.' — Vol. i., p. 236. That work was
revieAved in the Church Review in January of the present
year (1872), and in the same periodical of March foUoAV-
ing, there was, ' A Review of Manning's Sermons,' where
the reviewer says, ' We hail with pleasure these state-
' ments of Eucharistical doctrine, seeing that they reflect
' the teaching of the great master of that doctrine who
' Avrote before the divisions of Christendom arose on this
' topic. We hope that this sermon of Archbishop Mann-
' ing is an earnest of the healing of those divisions.
' May we suggest to him and to his one step further in
' improvement, that the philosophical term presence
' should be discouraged and eliminated from theological
' discourse on this sacrament ? The word is of compara-
' tively modern use on this subject. The idea of real
' presence is better expressed by the terms life-giidng
' Body, and life-giving Blood. These latter phrases are
' more ancient, more full of meaning, and more theo-
' logical, and are not open to controversy.' Dr. Pusey
then is greatly at fault in laying so much stress upon a

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 85
word which is confessedly of modern origin. He, how
ever, gives one solitary seeming instance from Chrysostom,
Avhich is, ' Christ is really present, because the sacrament
' is His body.' — Sermon, Presence of Christ in the Holy
Eucharist, p. 52. This would seem to be very much
like a real presence in the consecrated elements ; but such
a notion is entirely dissipated when Chrysostom is fully
and fairly quoted. He, in his homily on the Seraphim,
says, ' 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 Avho with
' an evil conscience, with unclean and foul thoughts and
' wicked deeds.' — Hom. in Seraph., tom. iii., p. 893.
Assuredly there is no allusion here to the presence in
the consecrated elements of the body of Christ which Ava.s
born of Mary, but to His spiritual presence. The nearest
approach to Dr. Pusey's doctrine is a passage from Augus
tine, where he speaks of Christ ' present by the meat and
' drink of the altar;' but this, viewed in the light of the
context, is subversive of Dr. Pusey's doctrine ; and for
this reason, probably, he has not given it a place in his
Catena, though it was commonly quoted by the Reformers
against the Roman doctrine. On the words, ' The poor
' ye will always have with you, but me ye Avill not always
' have,' he asks, ' For what is "not always?" and what
' is "always?" If thou art a good man, thou belongest
' to the body which Peter denotes ; thou hast Christ both
' in the present and in the future, — in the present \>y
' faith, in the present by the sign, in the present by the
' sacrament of baptism, in the present by the meat and
' drink of the altar. It may also be thus understood
' Let the good also take this, but let them not be alarmed
' for He Avas speaking of His bodily presence. For, in

86 THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' respect of His majesty, in respect of His providence, in
' respect of the ineffable and invisible grace, that is in ful-
' filling that Avhich Avas spoken by Him : "Lo, I am Avith you
' alway, even unto the end of the Avorld." But in respect of
' th'e flesh which the Word assumed, in respect that He was
' born of the Virgin, in respect that He was laid hold on by
' the Jews, that He was nailed to the tree, that He was taken
' down from the cross, that He Avas wrapped in linen cloths,
' that He Avas laid in the sepulchre, that He was mani-
' fested in the resurrection, " ye will not always have Him
' with you." Why? Because He conversed, in respect
' of His bodily presence, forty days Avith His disciples,
' and by them attended homeward, their eyes following,
' not themselves, ascending into heaven ; and He is not
' here. For He is there ; He sitteth at the right hand
' of the Father, and yet is here ; for the presence of
' the majesty hath not quitted us.' — Exposi-tio in Evang.
Joannis, Tract. 1., tom. ix., p. 152. We could not have
a direct and formal denial of the heresy of Dr. Pusey,
for this plain reason, Paschasius, its father, did not invent
it until 500 years after Augustine. Is it conceivable
that he could have written thus, if in his mind he be
lieved that the human nature of Christ Avas present in
the consecrated elements? Had he knoAvn and believed
such a doctrine, it is incredible that he could have so
plainly ignored it. In this extract we have by antici
pation a formal denial of Avhat Paschasius taught, and
what .Dr. Pusey now believes. Paschasius says, ' Cer-
' tainly nothing but the flesh and blood of Christ must
' be believed after consecration. . . And that I may
' speak more AvonderfuUy, plainly no other than was born
' of Mary, and suffered on the cross, and rose from the
' sepulchre.' — De Corpore et Sanguine Doviini, c. i.; Bib.
Mag. Vet. Pcdr., tom. ix., pt. i., p. 121. Augustine

THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 87
says, ' But in respect of the flesh which the Word as-
' sumed, in respect that He was born of the Virgin, Avas
' nailed to the tree, that He was laid in the sepulchre,
' and that He was manifested in the resurrection, "ye
' will not always have Him with you." Why ? Because
' He ascended into heaven, and is not here.' That Avhich
Paschasius believed to be really present in this Avoiid,
' under the form of bread and wine upon the altars of
' our churches,' which also Dr. Pusey now believes, the
illustrious and great-minded Catholic, Augustine, believed
to be really absent.
A little earlier in the same tract from Avhich the above
quotation is made, Augustine says, ' Let the Jews hear
' and lay hold on Him. They answer, How shall 1 lay
' hold on one who is absent? how- dart forth a hand
' unto heaven, to lay hold on Him that sitteth there ?
' Dart forth thy faith, and thou hast laid hold. Thy
' fathers laid fleshly hold on Him ; do thou lay hold
' Avith the heart ; for Christ, being absent, is also present.
' Were He not present. He could not even by us be
' holden. But since that is true what He saith, " Be-
' hold I am Avith you alway, even uhto the end of the
' world," He is gone, and yet He is here, — is gone back,
' and yet He quits us not ; for His body He hath taken
' with Him into heaven. His majesty He hath not taken
' away from the world.' Dr. Pusey has actually cited
a passage from this same tract which comes between the
jjassage just cited and the one above. He must have
' knowingly ' omitted these, or he must know little of
the writings of Augustine.
Elsewhere Augustine speaks still more explicitly of
the body of Christ being confined to a given locality, and
not supposed to be, as Dr. Pusey teaches, in a thousand
pla-ces whole and entire at the same moment of time.

88 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
Thus he says, ' And He is to come, according to the
' angelic testimony, as He was seen to go into heaven,
' that is, in the same form and substance of flesh; to
' which, indeed. He gave immortality, but did not take
' away its nature. As it respects this form. He is not
' supposed to be spread abroad everywhere. For we
' must take heed that we do not so maintain the divinity
' of the man as to take away the truth of the body. For
' it does not foUoAV that what is in God is everywhere, as
' God is. For even of us the perfectly true Scripture
' says, " That in Him Ave live and move and have our
' being ; " and yet we are not everywhere, as He is. But
' that man is otherwise in God, inasmuch as that God
' Avas otherwise in man, namely, in a peculiar and singular
' manner. For God and man is one person, and both
' make one Christ Jesus ; He is everywhere by that which
' is God, but He is in heaven by that which is man.
. . Doubt not that Christ is wholly present every-
' Avhere as God, and is in the same temple of God as
' indwelling God, and in some one place of heaven on
' account of the measure of a true body.' — Epist. Ivii.,
ad Dardanum, tom. ii., pp. 104, 109. Nothing could
be more fatal to the doctrine of Dr. Pusey and his school.
This important part of Augustine's testimony Dr. Pusey
has passed by as unknown to him.
In another place Augustine says, ' Lo, this is the same
' Jesus. He hath gone up before you. " He shall so
' come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into
' heaven.'' His body is removed indeed from your eyes,
' but God is not separated from your hearts. See Him
' going up, believe on Him absent, hope for Him coming ;
' but yet through His secret mercy, feel Him present.
' For He who ascended into heaven that He might be
' removed from your eyes, promised unto you, saying.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 89
Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
' Avorld." ' — Enar. in Psalm, xlvi. (xlvii.), tom. viii.; p.
174. Again, 'Christ left the world by corporeal de
parture ; He went away unto the Father by ascension
of the manhood ; yet quitted not the world by govern
ance of His presence. He was about to go to the right
' hand of the Father, whence He shall come to judge
the quick and the dead once more in bodily presence,
according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine ; for
' by spiritual presence He was, we know, to be with them
' after His ascension, and with His whole Church in this
' world, " even unto the end of' the world." Therefore,
' we do not rightly understand Him to have spoken these
' words, " While I was with them I kept them," save of
' those whom, believing on Him, He had already begun
' to keep by bodily presence, and whom He was about to
' leave by bodily absence, that He might, together with
' the Father, keep them by spiritual presence.' — Expositio
'in Evang. Joannis, Tract, cii. et cvi., tom. ix., pp. 20.5,
209. In these and such like portions of the writings of
Augustine we see how he spoke of the presence of the
humanity of Christ, or His bodily presence, and of the
presence of His divinity, or His spiritual presence ; the
former he limits to one place, the latter he speaks of as
omnipresent. But Dr. Pusey's doctrine requires a pre
sence of the body of Christ which was born of Mary, to
be on earth before His second coming, a presence, too, of
this body, whole and entire, in a very large indefinite
number of particles of consecrated bread at the same
moment of time. Is it credible that if Augustine had
known of such a doctrine he could have made such care
fully weighed statements Avhich are absolutely subversive
of it ? It is truly marveUous that this portion of

90 THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
Augustine's teaching did not come within the compass of
Dr. Pusey's knowledge ; for he says, ' I have not knoAV-
' ingly omitted anything. I have in my Avork, " The
' Doctrine of the Real Presence as contained in the
' Fathers, from the Death of St. John the Evangelist to
' the Fourth General Council," A.D. 451, set doAvn, to the
' utmost of my knowledge, every passage bearing upon the
' doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, from which any argument
' could be drawn.' — Real Presence, etc., Pref, p. xxviii.
Chrysostom so speaks of the body of Christ's believing
people and His OAvn body, in connection with the sacra
ment of the Lord's Supper, that he makes no real dis
tinction between them. This kind of evidence has already
been given from Cyprian, Augustine, and Bertram, in an
earlier part of this volume, where it Avas required for the
argument of the chapter. — See ch. iii., pp. 33-42.
That Avhich, in the following passage from Chrysostom,
is distinguished by brackets is cited by Dr. Pusey, what
is not so distinguished has been suppressed by him.
[' The " bread which we break, is it not the com-
' munion of the body of Christ ?" Wherefore said he
' not, the jDarticipation ? Because he intended to express
' something more, and to point out how close was the
' union ; in that we communicate, not only by participat-
' ing and partaking, but also by being united. For as that
' body is united to Christ, so also are we united to Him by
' this bread. But why adds he also, "which we break?"
' For although in the Eucharist one may see this done,
' yet on the cross not so, but the very contrary. For " a
' bone of Him," saith one, " shall not be broken." But
' that which He suffered not on the cross, this He suffers
' in the oblation for thy sake, and submits to be broken
' that He may fill all men.] Further, because he said,
' " The communion of the body," and that which com-

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 91
municates is another thing from that whereof it com-
' municates ; even this, which seemeth to be but a small
difference, he took away. For having said " the com-
' munion of the body," he sought again to express some-
' thing nearer. Wherefore also he added, " For we being
' many are one bread, one body." [" For why speak I of
' communion ?" saith he. " We are that self-same body."
' For what is the bread ? The body of Christ. And
' what do they become who partake of it ? The body of
' Christ ; not many bodies, but one body. For as the
' bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that
' the grains no where appear — they exist indeed, but
' their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunc-
' tion — so are we conjoined, both with each other and
' with Christ, there not being one body for thee, and
' another for thy neighbour, to be nourished by, but the
' very same for all.' — Pp. 580, 581. J ' "For we are all
' partakers of that one bread." Now, if Ave are all
' nourished of the same, and all becoine the same, why do
' Ave not also show forth the same love, and become also
' in this respect one.' — In Epist. i. ad Cor., Hom. xxiv.,
tom. ix., pp. 533.
If the reader will carefully consider the parts of the
above extract which have been quoted by Dr. Pusey,
without even regarding the parts which he has suppressed,
he cannot fail to see that the body of which the faithful
partake in the Holy Communion is as much the body of
the faithful as the body of Christ ; but by due considera
tion of the parts suppressed, he may be absolutely certain
that in the mind of Chrysostom there was no difference
Avhatever. He says, ' That which communicates is another
' thing from that whereof it communicates ; even this,
' Avhich seemeth to be but a small difference, he took
' away. For having said " The communion of the body,"

92 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' he sought again to express something nearer,' namely,
that we not only have communion of the body, but we
are that self-same body of which we have communion,
and that we are not only nourished of the sccme bread or
body, but we all become the same bread or body. But
what Chrysostom here teaches is exactly what the other
Fathers also teach, as we have already seen in part in a
preceding chapter. That Chrysostom considered that
Avhat he taught was the doctrine of Scripture is plain
from the following statement : — ' The Scripture is accus-
" tomed to call both the mysteries [the consecrated
' elements of the Eucharist] and the whole Church by
' the name of flesh, saying, that they are the body of
' Christ.' — In Epist. ad Gal., tom. x., p. 1022. This
forms no part of Dr. Pusey's quotations from the Fathers.
If in the mind of Chrysostom the mysteries were really
the flesh and blood of Christ, is it credible that he
could have uttered the above statements ? We learn
with certainty from these sentiments of Chrysostom that,
in his judgment, in the same sense in which the sacra
mental symbols or mysteries were the body of Christ,
they were also the body of His believing people.
The above opinions of Chrysostom admit of still fur
ther confirmation from two additional passages. It should
be borne in mind that of all the Fathers he is the most
rhetorical. Sometimes, when he is in his highest flights
of rhetoric. Dr. Pusey cites him, and interprets him
literally as a witness in support of the modern doctrine
of the Real Presence. But his rhetoric is not always on
the side of Dr. Pusey, but frequently very much against
him, if understood literally, as in the instance about to
be quoted. He is speaking of the sacrifice of a Christian
layman, and of the altar at which he ministers.
' For the merciful man is not arrayed in a vest reach-

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 93
' ing to the feet, nor does he carry about bells, nor Avear
' a crown; but he is wrapped in the robe of loving-
' kindness, a holier than the sacred vestment, and is
' anointed with oil, not composed of material elements,
' but manufactured by the Spirit, and he beareth a crown
' of mercies, for it is said, "Who crowneth thee with
' pity and with mercies ; " and instead of wearing a plate
' bearing the name of God, is himself like to God. For
' how ? " Ye," saith He, " shall be like unto your Father
' which is in heaven." Wouldest thou see his altar also ?
' Bazaleel buUt it not, nor any other but God Himself;
' not of stones, but of a material brighter than the
' heaven, of reasonable souls. But the priest entereth
' into the holy of holies. Into yet more aAvful places
' mayest thou enter when thou offerest this sacrifice,
' where none is present but " thy Father which seeth in
' secret," where no other beholdeth. . . . This altar is
' composed of the very members of Christ, and the body
' of the Lord is made thine altar. That, then, revere ;
' on the flesh of the Lord thou sacrificest the victim.
' This altar is more awful even than this which we noAV
' use, not only than that used of old. Nay, clamour
' not. For this altar is admirable, because of the sacri-
' flee that is laid upon it ; but that, the merciful man's,
' not only on this account, but also because it is even
' composed of the very sacrifice, which maketh the other
' to be admired. Again, this is but a stone by nature ;
' but become holy, because it receiveth Christ's body;
' but that is holy, because it is itself Christ's body. So
' that this, beside which thou, the layman, standest, is
' more awful than that. Whether, then, does Aaron
' seem to thee aught in comparison of this, or his crown,
' or his bells, or the holy of holies ? For what need is
' there henceforth to make our comparison refer to Aaron's

94 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' altar, when, even compared Avith this, it has been shown
' to be so glorious ? But thou honourest indeed this
' altar, because it receiveth Christ's body; but him that
' is himself the body of Christ thou treatest with con-
' tumely, and, when perishing, neglectest.' — In Epist. ad
2 Cor., Hom. xsr., tom. ix., pp. 885, 886.
From the contrast here made by Chrysostom between
a Christian layman and a Christian priest or minister,
Ave learn the real sentiments of this eloquent Father.
The altar of the merciful Christian layman is composed of
reasonable souls, which themselves are the sacrifice placed
on the altar or communion table of the Christian minister.
But these souls and this sacrifice is the body of Christ's
believing people. The Christian minister's altar is holy,
because it receiveth Christ's body of believing people ;
but the merciful man's altar is holy, because it is itself
Christ's body of believing people. Again, he s'ays, ' Thou
' honourest this altar or communion table, because it
' receiveth Christ's body; but him that is himself the
' body of Christ,' etc. On the same principle that Dr.
Pusey quotes a 'few passages from Chrysostom to prove
the real presence of Christ's body which was born of
Mary to be in the consecrated elements, this and many
such like passages might be quoted to prove the presence
of Christ's body of believing people to be in the elements.
If Chrysostom had believed Dr. Pusey's doctrine, he could
not have spoken thus. It is needless to say that this
quotation forms no part of Dr. Pusey's Catena.
The next quotation from Chrysostom is, ' " And gave
' Him to be Head over all things to the Church." — Eph.
' i. 22. Amazing ! Look, again, whither He hath
' raised the Church ! as though He were lifting it up by
' some engine. He hath raised it up to a vast height, and
' set it on yonder throne ; for where the Head is, there

THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY. 95
' is the body also. There is no interval to separate
' between the Head and the body; for were there a
' separation, then were the one no longer a body, then
' were the other no longer a Head. ..." The fulness
' of Him that filleth all in all." As though this were
' not sufficient to show the close connection and relation-
' ship, what does he add 1. " The fulness of Christ is the
' Church." And rightly, for the fulness of the Head is
' the body,' and the fulness of the body is the Head.
' Mark what great arrangement Paul observes, how he
' spares not a single word, that he may represent the
' glory of God. " The fulnegs," he says, i.e., the Head
' is, as it were, filled up by the body, because the body
' is composed and made up of all its several parts, and
' hath need of every one. . . It is of Him which God
' speaketh, of our Lord Jesus Christ, not of God the
' Word. Let us feel awed at the closeness of our relar
' tion, let us dread lest any one should be cut off from
' this body, lest any one fall from it, lest any one should
' appear unworthy of it. If any one were to place a
' diadem about our head, a crown of gold, should we not
' do everything we could that we might seem worthy of
' the lifeless jewels ? But now it is not a diadem that is
' placed about our head, but, what is far greater, Christ
' is made our very Head, and archangels and all those
' powers above, and shall we, which are His body, be
' aAved neither on the one account nor the other ? . . .
' Since our discourse is concerning the Lord's body, come
' and let us turn our thoughts to thcd which was crucified,
' which was nailed, which Avas sacrificed. If thou art
' the body of Christ, bear the cross, for He bore it ; bear
' the spitting, bear the buffeting, bear the nails. Such
' was thxit body, that body was sinless. . . . (Our dis-
' course is concerning the body, and this [body of Avhich

96 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
' Christ is the Head] differs nothing from that [which
' was crucified], nor is it separate, as many of us as are
' partakers of the body [the consecrated bread], as man}'
' of us as taste of the blood [the consecrated wine], con-
' sider that we taste of that [body] which sitteth above),
' which is adored by angels, which is next to the poAver
' that is incorruptible. Alas ! how many ways to salva-
' tion are open to us ! He hath made us His own body,
' He hath imparted to us His own body, and yet not
' one of these things turns us away from what is evil '
— In Epist. ad Eph., Hom. iii., tom. x., pp. 1048-1050.
The reader, on carefully considering this quotation,
cannot fail to see that Chrysostom is speaking of a
spiritual and mystical participation of the bod}' and blood
of Christ, that we are so one with Him, so the body of
Avhich He is the Head, that there is no separation
between the body and the Head, and that both sit on
yonder throne ; for where the Head is there is the body
also. After dwelling upon this point he makes a transi
tion in his discourse, from speaking of this body of Avhich
Christ is the Head, to that which was crucified, and
asserts that this differs nothing from that, nor is it sepa
rate — that as many as are partakers of the consecrated
bread, called the body, and as many as taste of the con
secrated wine, called the blood, must consider that they
taste of thcd body which sitteth above; and he further
teaches that Christ makes us His OAvn body, and also
imparts to us His own body. But the body imparted to
us is the body AA'hich we are. From this teaching Ave
certainly must conclude that if Ave taste of the body of
Christ Avhich was crucified, and which sitteth above, Ave
taste of the body which Ave are, ' The Church raised to
' a vast height and set on yonder throne ; for where the
' Head is there is the body also. There is no interval

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 9 7
' to separate between the Head and the body. . . . The
' fulness of the Head is the body, and the fulness of
' the body is the Head. Chrysostom beyond all question
is teaching the very same doctrine, in other words, as
that wliich has been considered in the previous passages
quoted from him at pages 90-94 above.
Now, Dr. Pusey has most egregiously misrepresented
the latter part of the above extract from Chrysostom,
and has made him to appear to teach modem Roman
doctrine. The part misrepresented is as follows : —
' Since our discourse is concerning this body [of Christ
' crucified], as many of us 'as partake of that body and taste
' of that blood, consider that we are partaking of that
' which is in no wise different from that body, nor
' separate as regards participation, that we taste of that
' body that sitteth above,' etc. — P. 590.
By a Avrong interpolation and a mistranslation. Dr.
Pusey has made it appear that Chrysostom is speaking
only of the body of Christ which was crucified, and is
comparing thcd body with that body itseff. But Chrysos
tom, as it has been shown, is really speaking of two
bodies, the one of which Christ is the Head, and the
other His body which is crucified, and he is comparing
this body of which Christ is the Head, which he says
is the subject of his discourse, with that body which
was crucified, and to which he only alludes. That the
reader may see and judge for himself, here follows the
original : — irepl o-co/MaTc; ¦rjiilv 6 \6jo^ Kac tovtov ovBev
eKetvov BiacfjipovTO's ovBe SiecrTMTo^. oaoi fieTe'XP/j.ev tov
cra)fiaTO<;, oaot tov aifiaro^ u'Troyevo/j.eda, ivvoeiTe on eKelvov
TOV avco fiad'Tj/Mevov . . . a-Tro^evofieOa. For the transla
tion see the part in round brackets above. Chrysostom
in this passage, when fairly represented and understood
in connection with the context, no more teaches that the
H

98 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
devout communicant really tastes of the body which
sitteth above than he tastes of his own body, which is^
represented by Chrysostom as sitting there as a portion
of the body of Christ.
I cannot but notice in passing, that whatever the
reader not accustomed to read the Fathers, may think
of Cyprian, Augustine, and Chrysostom, in regard to their
doctrine of the believer's union with Christ, it is a doc
trine plainly revealed in Scripture, and is there repre
sented as capable of being realised to the consciousness
of the believer. These holy men considered the believer's
union with and incorporation into the body of Christ, to
be specially represented in the Lord's Supper, more
particularly from the account given of it by St. Paul in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in the tenth chapter.
A believer's union with Christ, and an eternal interest in
all that He as the Head of that body of which the believer
is a member, has done and has promised to do for that
body, is to him a subject of infinite moment, and the
holy Fathers, such as Cyprian, Augustine, and Chrysos
tom, considered that in the divinely appointed use of the
Lord's Supper is represented to the faith of the devout
communicant not only what he has become, but also by
anticipation what he ultimately will become, so that the
consecrated elements are not only tokens of blessings
received, but are also pledges of yet greater blessings still
to be received.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 99

CHAPTER VIIL
De. Pusey's Dooteine that the Elements in the Lord's Supper abb by
THE ACT OP CONSECEATION SO MADE ChEIST'S BODY AND BlOOD THAT
WHOEVEE BECEIVES THEM EECEIVES ALSO THE BoDY AND BlOOD, FULLY
ANSATERED AND REFUTED. — Db. PuSEY IS SHOWN TO USE SACEAMENTAL
Woeds in a modeen and peivate sense, so as to make them con
sonant WITH THE Roman Dooteine of the Real Presence. — The
Primitiatb Meaning of these Words is given, and they are shoavn
NOT ONLY not TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE REAL PRE
SENCE, BUT AGAINST IT. — CaSES GIVEN IN WHICH HE QUOTES PASSAGES
PROM THE Fathers to peove his Docteine, shown, when faiely
quoted with a sufficiency op the context, so as to give the full
Meaning, to conteadict it. — The Mannee in which the Fathees
SPEAK of the Conseceated Elements in eegaed to what they signify
OE represent shown to be repugnant to Db. Pusey's Docteine. —
DlEECT PeOOFS GI^EN FEOM THE AVEITINGS OP AUGUSTINE THAT THE
WICKED DO NOT WITH THE SiGNS IN THE LoEd's SuPPER ALSO RECEIVE
THE THINGS SIGNIFIED.
If, as I have shown in the preceding chapter, the Fathers
considered that the believer's union with Christ and his
incorporation into His body is specially represented in
the Lord's Supper, the question might well be raised.
How can an unbeliever or an unworthy communicant
receive not only the Sacramental signs, but with them
also the realities or things signified ? In the judgment
of the Fathers, the things or realities of which the con
secrated elements are the signs are as much the body of
Avhich Christ is the Head as they are His body, and that
the one reality cannot be received without the other. A
communicant, then, not a member of the body of which

100 THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
Christ is the Head, in receiving the consecrated elements,
could only receive the signs ; he could not receive the
things signified by them, — he could not receive himself
as any portion of that body of which Christ is the Head,
he not being a member of it ; and if he could not receive
any portion of that body he could not receive Christ's
body, for the two, according to the most certain teaching
of the Fathers, are inseparably connected in the Lord's
Supper. The unworthy communicant, then, according to
this doctrine, can in nowise be a partaker of the things
signified in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Pusey teaches that
the' effects of consecration on the elements are such that
whoever receives them receives in or with them the body
and blood of Christ, and his statements distinctly imply
that the unworthy communicant who receives the elements
thus consecrated, receives also the body and blood of Christ.
I will now consider and answer these opinions. Archdeacon
Denison, Avhom Dr. Pusey undertook to defend, states
in his 'Defence,' — ' The proposition which I have under-
' taken to prove from Holy Scripture is this : that there
' is a real presence, . . . and that the body and blood of
' Christ, being really present in the consecrated bread and
' wine, . . . are given, therein and thereby, to all, and
' are received by all who come to the Lord's Table.' — P.
90. It is important to give the plain statement of the
Archdeacon, as it was in his defence that Dr. Pusey's
principal Eucharistic writings were published. Dr. Pusey
himself has stated, 'Mr. Goode says of me, "The doctrine
' of Dr. P. is precisely the same as that of Archdeacon
' Denison. He has indeed cautiously abstained from
' foUoAving it out to the conclusion so boldly advanced by
' both Archdeacons [the other is Archdeacon Wilberforce],
' in open defiance of the 29th Article, namely, that the
' wicked eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 101
' the Lord's Supper, as well as the faithful ; but he has
' distinctly maintained that, by consecration, that effect
' is produced upon the bread and wine, from which this
' conclusion clearly follows." Certainly it does follow from
' the doctrine of the real, objective, presence, that, unless
' Almighty God interfere, the wicked Avould receive
' sacramentally the body and blood of Christ, although
' they cannot receive Christ to dwell in their souls, or be
' "partakers of Christ."' — -TJie Real P'resence, etc., the
Doctrine of the Church of England, p. 257.
When Dr. Pusey says, ' the wicked would receive
' sacramentally the body and blood of Christ,' he uses the
word 'sacramentally' in an uncatholic and private sense.
Augustine, the Fathers generally, and Divines of the
Reformation period, held that the wicked might receive
in the sac^-ainent, or sacramentally, the body and blood
of Christ, and no well-informed Protestant disputes the
fact that the Avicked may, and do, receive the body and
"blood in the sacrament or sacramentally. ZAvingle him
self holds this. He cites the foUoAving passage from
Augustine : ' Therefore, he who dAvelleth not in Christ,
' and in whom Christ dwelleth not, Avithout doubt doth
' neither spiritually eat His flesh nor drink His blood,
' albeit carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the
' sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; but rather
' doth unto judgment to himself eat and drink the sacra-
' ment of so great a thing.' On this quotation Zwingle
remarks, ' What, I ask, could be spoken more clearly or
' appropriately than these words ? What, at the same
' time, could be said more cautiously ? For when he had
' said, " albeit carnally and visibly he press with his
' teeth," then, lest you should think that this ought to be
' understood of the corporal flesh of Christ, he subjoins,
' " the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,"

102 THE FATHERS VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' maintaining that this is to eat carnally, Avhen it is
' eaten sacramentally [only], but to eat sacramentally
' cannot be any other thing than to eat the sign or
' symbol. Again, lest any one should think that he
' said that to eat sacramentally was a trifling thing, as if
' this eating disparaged the Avord of St. Paul, " For he
' that eateth and drinketh unAvorthily, eateth and
' drinketh judgment to himself," etc., for who could say,
' if I eat only sacramentally, how then can I be made
' guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ? Augus-
' tine therefore checks this rashly formed objection when
' he says, " But rather doth unto judgment to himself
' eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing." But
' of what thing? Of this which we are by faith in
' Christ, and He Himself in us.' — De Vera et Fcdsa Relig.
Cominent., tom. iii., p. 268.
Elsewhere he says, ' We have spoken above of sancti-
' fied and consecrated bread, which we intend in no
' manner to be taken in the sense of the Papists, as
' if the bread was converted into the body of Christ
' really or naturally, but into the sacramental body, for
' example, if daily bread is sanctified by word and
' prayer, much more that bread which is changed that it
' may now be the sacramental body of Christ.' — Ad
Principes Gertnan. Epist., tom. iv., p. 36.
In another place, he states, ' You eat sacramentally
' properly, when you do the same thing inwardly which
' you perform outwardly, when the mind is renewed by
' that faith which you testify in the symbols. But they
' are said to eat sacramentally improperly who indeed
' eat the visible sacrament, or public symbol, but have
' not faith in the Lord. These, therefore, by eating
' provoke judgment, that is, the punishment of God
' against themselves.' — Fidei Christ. Expos. ,tom.'\Y., p. 54.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 103
-A^ regards mere sacramental eating, ZAvingle here well
expresses the teaching of all antiquity. Paschasius for
the first time in the history of the Church began to
teach that ' The sacrament is rightly called the reality
' and figure at the same time.' . . . Therefore, the
' real sacrament of His flesh, which by the priest is
' divinely consecrated upon the altar by the Holy Spirit
' in the word of Christ, is the real flesh of Christ Avhich
' was crucified and buried ; whence the Lord Himself
' exclaims, "This is my body." — De Corpore et Sanguine
Domini, c. iv.. Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. ix., pt. 1,
p. 123.
Dr. Pusey and all the disciples of Paschasius herein
follow their teacher. Dr. Pusey, as above quoted, alludes
to a statement of Dean Goode's respecting himself, which
is, ' He (Dr. Pusey) has distinctly maintained that, by
' consecration, that effect is produced upon the bread
' and wine from which this conclusion clearly follows,
' namely, that the wicked eat and drink the body and
' blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper as Avell as the
' faithful.' How this comes to pass shall noAv be shoAvn. Disre
garding the ancient definition of a sacrament, as given by
Augu.stine (see page 67), Dr. Pusey holds with Pas
chasius that the consecrated bread called a sacrament is
or contains that of which it is a sacrament. He says,
' The proposition, " This bread is my body," could have
' no other meaning than that it was in some way both.
' This which is in its natural substance bread, is sacra-
' mentally my body, through the presence of my body
' under its form.' — Notes, The Doctrine of the Real
Presence, etc., p. 258. But the Fathers not only call
the consecrated elements a sacrament, but also a mystery,
type, antitype, figure, symbol, image, likeness, and sign.

104 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY,
and Dr. Pusey maintains that all these terms when
applied to the consecrated elements, besides being what
they are in themselves, are also that which they are
used to denote.
What Dr. Pusey has affirmed of a sacrament in this
connection, may be affirmed of these other words in the
same connection. Thus, ' This which is in its natural
' substance bread consecrated into a sacrament, is sacra-
' mentally my body, through the presence of my body
' under it.' 'This, which is consecrated into a mystery, is
' mystically my body, through the presence of my body
' under it.' ' This, which is consecrated into a type, is
' typically, or in type, my body, through the presence of
' my body under it.' ' This, which is consecrated into an
' antitype, is antitypically my body, through the presence
' of my body under it.' ' This, which is consecrated into
' a figure, is figuratively my body, through the presence
' of my body under it.' ' This, which is consecrated into
' a symbol, is symbolically my body, through the presence
' of my body under it ' ' This, which is consecrated into
' an image, is representatively my body, through the
' presence of my body under it.' ' This, which is con-
' secrated into a likeness, is in resemblance my body,
' through the presence of my body under it.' ' This,
' which is consecrated into a sign, is significantly my
' body, through the presence of my body under it.'
It may seem incredible that Dr. Pusey should main
tain that the Fathers when they use such nomenclature
as ' in the type,' or ' typically,' etc., in relation to the
consecrated elements, believed that the types, images,
etc, of which they spoke, really contained that of which
they were the types, images, etc. The following is a
specimen of his teaching, ' The word in, like the word
' of our Book of Homilies, " Under the form of bread

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 105
' and Avine," only expresses a real presence under that
' outward veU. S. Cyril of Jerusalem says, "In the type
' of bread, is given to thee His body, and in the type of
' wine. His blood."' — P. 132.
The Fathers cannot by any possibility in the use of
such words as type, image, etc., in connection with the
Eucharist, be made to teach Dr. Pusey's doctrine, except
by some such addition as that given above, viz., 'Through
' the presence of my body under it,' which is not an
explanation of the real teaching of the Fathers, but a
perversion of it. In different controversies which they
had, not in any way connected with the present one, they
had occasion to speak of the relation which a figure bore
to that of Avhich it was a figure, of an image to that of
which it was an image, from which it will be seen that
in their judgment images and figures could not be or
contain that of which they were the figures or images,
especially material insensible figures and images. Theo
doret states, 'For images not living have not the essence of
' the substance of those things of which they are the images.'
— Interpret. Epist. ad Col., tom. iii., p. 477. Else
where he says, ' An image has figures, but not things or
' realities.' — Irderpret. Dan., tom. ii., p. 1091. Again
he says, ' A type has not all the things which the reality
' has.' . . . ' All things have not whatever the arch^-
' type has.' — Dialog, ii., Inconfessus, tom. iv., pp. 85, 86.
The next and last passage on this point to be quoted
from Theodoret is of much importance, for, from the con
nection in which it stands, it is most destructive of Dr.
Pusey's doctrine, and as such he has suppressed it. Here
foUoAvs the quotation made by Dr. Pusey, Avith the pas
sage suppressed by him as obnoxious to his teaching,
given in brackets.
' The mystical symbols offered to God by the priests.

106 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' whereof are they the symbols ? Of the body and blood
' of the Lord. Of that which is truly a body or no?
' Of that which is truly. [Very right. For there must
' be an archetype of an image, for painters imitate nature,
' and draw the images of visible things.] If, then, the
' Divine mysteries are antitypes of a true body, then the
' Lord's body is a body still, not changed into the nature
' of the Godhead, but is filled Avith the Divine glory.' — P.
112 (Dialog, ii., Inconfessus, tom. iv., p. 125). Theo
doret, in this dialogue, implies that the sacramental
symbols are images, and states that an image must have
an archetype — not that the image is itself the archetype,
any more than images of visible things drawn by painters
are themselves the visible things. We cannot, then, infer
that the antitypes, Avhich Theodoret says the Divine
mysteries [meaning the consecrated elements] are, are
the true body of which they are the antitypes. The
illustration which Theodoret uses, and which Dr. Pusey
has suppressed, forbids such an outrageous conclusion.
Other Fathers have explained the nature of images and
figures after the same manner as may be seen in my
' Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge,' vol. i., p. 380.
Not only do modern Roman Catholics and Dr. Pusey
pervert such patristic phrases as ' in the type of bread,'
etc., so as to teach the doctrine as now held by them,
but also the phrase, ' Under the form of bread,' which is,
in fact, only another form for the words, 'In the type of
' bread,' etc. All this has been fully discussed and shown
in my 'Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge,' vol. i., pp.
362-386. The concluding part is here added — 'We
' may come to the certain conclusion that the phrase,
' " In or under the form," is a more general way of
' expressing a number of equivalent phrases. Thus, all
' the various symbolical terms contained in the citations

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 107
' from the Fathers, as given above, might be substituted
' by the word form, Avithout affecting the sense, as fol-
' lows : — The body or blood in or under the form (the
' antitype), in or under the form (the figurative repre-
' sentation), in or under the form (the symbol, figure,
' image, sacrament, likeness, type, pledge, or sign). It
' has been shown that the Fathers, by using such phrases
' as " in the likeness," " in the type," " in the image,"
' etc., did not teach that the body and blood of Christ
' were actually and really in the consecrated elements.
' It has been proved that the phrase, " in or under the
' form," is exactly equivalent to such phrases as those
' just given, consequently it is demonstrated that the
' phrase in question was not originally intended to teach
' the real and actual presence of Christ's body and blood
' in the consecrated bread and wine.'
If, according to Dr. Pusey, the bread and wine by
consecration become not only a sacrament but also that
of which they are a sacrament, it certainly follows that,
whoever receives the sacrament, receives with it also the
thing signified, ' unless,' as he says, ' Almighty God
' interfere.' He does not, however, believe that God
interferes to prevent the wicked from receiving with the
sacrament that of which it is a sacrament, for elsewhere
he says, ' In the Holy Eucharist, the grace of the' sacra-
' ment comes through the right reception of the res
' sacramenti (reality of the sacrament), or " the inward
' part or thing signified." To the faithful recipient, the
' "thing signified" and the "grace" of the sacrament
' come in one. In receiving the outward part we receive
' the inward, the body and blood; in receiving the in-
' ward part, we, if faithful, receive " the grace." ' — Real
Presence, etc., DoctiAne of the English Church, pp. 163,
164.

108 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
Here, beyond all question, it is implied that there
may be a wrong reception of the inward part or thing
signified — the body and the blood — and that they may
be received by an unfaithful communicant. In receiving
the outAvard the inward is received also, whether the
communicant is faithful or not, but the grace of the
sacrament is received only by the faithful communicant.
It is certain, from this statement of Dr. Pusey, that he
teaches that the real body and blood of Christ can be
received by the wicked, Avhich is a doctrine plainly con
tradictory to the 29th Article of our Church. The
fallacious distinction between the reality of the sacrament
and its grace. Dr. Pusey boldly maintains, is the exact
doctrine of the Catechism of the Church of England ;
for although to ordinary minds the Catechism appears
to teach that there are only Iavo parts in a sacrament, he
plainly asserts that it teaches that there are three parts,
which he enumerates as follows : — ' There is (1) the
' sacrament, the bread and wine; (2) the res or sub-
' stance of the sacrament, the body and blood of Christ ;
' (3) the grace of the sacrament, the strengthening and
' refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ.'
— The Reed Presence, etc., the Doctrine of the Church of
England, p. 164. He not only attempts to square the
Catechism to his doctrine, but he submits the writings of
Augustine to a similar treatment. His bold attempt to
do Avhat is impossible, and his manifest failure therein,
are fully shown in my ' Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge,'
voL i., pp. 297-303.
We have another remark on this point by Dr. Pusey,
where he explains the modern use of the word objective
in connection Avith the phrase real presence. He says,
'Finding that the words "Real Presence" were often
' understood of what is in fact a " real absence," we

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 109
' added the word "objective," not as wishing to obtrude
' on others a term of modem phUosophy, but to express
' that the life-giving body, the res sacra'menti [the reality
' of the sacrament] is, by virtue of the consecration,
' present without us, to be received by us in the words
' of the Fathers, " For us to lay up Christ in ourselves
' and place the Saviour in our breasts." ' — This is 'my
body, p. 40.
Here is the same doctrine, but less distinctly stated
than in the former citation. It has been adduced here
to show how outrageously Dr. Pusey can quote the
Fathers, notwithstanding his pretensions to deal fairly
with them. The above quotation is from Clement of
Alexandria, and for the passage Dr. Pusey refers to his
400 pages of extracts from the Fathers. What he has
given there will be quoted here with more of the context.
The part Dr. Pusey has cited will be distinguished by
brackets, the parts suppressed by him will not be so
distinguished. ' As nurses nourish new-born children on milk, so do
' I also by the Word (tS Aoym), the milk of Christ in-
' stilling into spiritual nutriment. Thus, then, the milk
' which is perfect is perfect nourishment, and brings to
' that consummation which cannot cease. Wherefore,
' the same milk and honey were promised in the rest.
' Rightly, therefore, the Lord again promises milk, to the
' righteous, that the Word may be clearly shown to be
' both "the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end;" the
' Word being figuratively represented as milk. . . . "I
' have given you milk to drink, and not given you meat,
' for ye are not yet able," regarding the meat not as
' something different from the milk, but the same in
' substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mUd
' as milk, or solid and compact as meat. . . . Elsewhere

110 THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought
this out by symbols, when He said, " Eat ye my flesh
and drink my blood ;" describing distinctly by metaphor
the drinkable properties of faith, and the promise by
means of which the Church, like a human being con
sisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is
Avelded together and compacted of both ; of faith, Avhich
is the body, and of hope which is the soul; as also the
Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of
faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital
principle. . . . The blood of the Word has been also
exhibited as milk. . . And the nutriment suitable
and Avholesome for the new-formed and new-born
babe, is elaborated by God, the nourisher and the
Father of all that are generated and regenerated, as
manna, the celestial food of angels, flowed down from
heaven on the ancient Hebrews. Even now, in fact,
nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same
name as that food — manna. Further, pregnant women,
on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord
Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the
breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give
nourishment ; but when the kind and loving Father
had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual
nourishment to the good. 0 mystical marvel ! [One
is the Father of all. One also the Word of all ; and
the Holy Spirit one and the same everywhere. And
one only virgin mother is formed. I would call her
Church. This mother alone had not milk, because
she alone never became a woman ; but she is at once
a virgin and a mother ; undefiled as a virgin ; full of
love as a mother ; and, calling her children to her, she
nurses them with holy milk, the Infant Word. There
fore she had not milk, because this her own beautiful child

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. Ill
was milk, the body of Christ, nourishing for the Word]
Tw Aoyu) by or Avith the Word, as may be seen both
above and below [that new progeny with whom the
Lord Himself travailed with bodily pang, whom the
Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. 0 holy
birth ! 0 holy swaddling bands ! The Word is all to
the infant. Father, and mother, instructor and nourisher.
"Eat ye," He saith, "my flesh and drink my blood."
This food from Himself the Lord provideth for us, and
off'ereth flesh and poureth out blood, and nothing
is wanting to the chUdren's growth. 0 marvellous
mystery ! He bids us put off from us the old corrup
tion of the flesh, as also 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 that we may correct the
passions of our flesh. — Pp. 328, 329.] But you are
not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more
generally. Hear it also in the following way. The
flesh flguratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for
the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to
us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been
infused into life ; and the union of both is the Lord,
the food of babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word.
The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word
of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sancti
fied. The nutriment alone is the milk of the Father,
by which alone we infants are nourished. The Word
Himself then, the beloved One and our nourisher, hath
shed His own blood for us, to save humanity, and by
Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word, "the
care-soothing breast " of the Father, and He alone, as
is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love,
and those only are truly blessed who suck this breast.

112 THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
' Wherefore also Peter says, " Laying therefore aside all
' malice, and all guile, and hypocrisy, and envy, and evil-
' speaking, as new-born babes desire the milk of the
' Word that ye may grow by it to salvation, if ye have
' tasted that the Lord is Christ." [Xjoto-ro?] ... If,
' then, the digestion of the food results in the production
' of blood, and the blood becomes milk, then blood is a
' preparation of milk, as blood is for a human being, and
' the gTape for the vine. With milk, then, the Lord's
' nutriment, we are nursed directly we are born ; and as
' soon as we are regenerated we are honoured by receiv-
' ing the good news of the hope of rest, ..." And the
' bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give
' for the life of the world." Here is to be noted the
' mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as
' flesh. . . . Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively
' described as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and
' blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoy-
' ment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one
' then think it strange when we say the Lord's blood is
' flguratively represented as milk. For is it not figura-
' tively represented as wine ? " Who washes," .it is said,
' "His garment in Avine, His robe in the blood of the
' grape." In His own Spirit, He says. He Avill deck the
' body of the Word; as certainly by His OAvn Spirit He
' Avill nourish those who hunger for the Word. . .
' Wherefore the Holy Spirit in the Apostle, using the
' voice of the Lord, says mystically, " I have given you
' milk to drink." For if we have been regenerated
' into Christ, He Avho has regenerated us nourishes us
' with His OAvn milk the Word (tw Aor^ai); for it is proper
' that what has procreated should forthwith supply
' nourishment to that Avhich has been procreated. And
' as the regeneration was conformably spiritual, so also

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 113
' was the nutriment of man spiritual. In all respects,
' therefore, and in all things, we are brought into union
' with Christ, into relationship through His blood, by
' which we were redeemed ; and into sympathy, in con-
' sequence of the nourishment Avhich flows from the
' Word ; and into immortality, through His guidance.
' . . . The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore
' the symbol of the Lord's passion and teaching. Where-
' fore each of us babes is permitted to make our boast in
' the Lord, while we proclaim —
' " Yet of a noble sire and noble blood I boast me sprung." '
— Pedag., lib. i., c. vi., pp. 98-106.
This is a long quotation, but its length is justified by
its importance in relation to the present controversy. It
seems incredible that Dr. Pusey, out of his 400 pages of
extracts from the Fathers, should fix upon the words,
' For us to lay up Christ in ourselves, and place the
' Saviour in our breasts,' as the best calculated to con
vince his hearers and readers of the truth of his doctrine
of the Real Objective Presence. I am certain it is not
taught by any of the Fathers, and, perhaps, out of all
the seeming proofs which he has brought together, this is
perhaps the most seeming. In his judgment it was
doubtless the best he could select. But could anything
by any possibility be more unsatisfactory ? The reader
has only to make himself acquainted with the context of
this gem of a quotation to convince himself that Clement
is not referring to sacramental eating or oral participa
tion at all ; and so far from interpreting certain parts of
the sixth chapter of St. John literally, he, according to his
own statement, as given above, interprets them spiritually
and figuratively. He does not teach an actual and real
eating of the body of Christ which Avas born of Mary, as
I

114 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
Dr. Wiseman and Dr. Pusey do, but a participation of
the Word. It is not pretended that the Word was given
to be crucified, nor is it orthodox to conceive that a par
ticipation of the Word is necessarily an actual eating of
the body of Christ which was crucified. Clement, more
over, represents the Word as milk, and asserts that as
such it is received. In the above quotation from him he
speaks thus — ' As nurses nourish new-born children on
' milk, so do I also by the Word, the milk of Christ.'
' The Lord again promises milk to the righteous, that
' the Word may be clearly shown to be both . . . the
' Word- being figuratively represented as milk.' ' The
' food of the Word has been also exhibited as milk.'
' Her own beautiful child was milk, the body of Christ,
' nourishing by or with the Word that new progeny.'
' The nutriment alone is the milk [viz., the Word"] of the
' Father, by which alone we infants are nourished. The
' Word Himself then, the beloved one and our nourisher,
' hath shed His own blood for us, to save humanity.'
' With milk, then, the Lord's nutriment, we are nursed
' directly we are born.' ' Thus, in many ways, the Word
' is figuratively described as meat, and flesh, and food,
' and bread, and blood, and milk.' ' He who has regene-
' rated us nourishes us with His oAvn milk, the Word.'
' The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the
' symbol of the Lord's passion and teaching.'
It is needless to say that this kind of teaching is fatal
to that of Dr. Pusey. One of the above phrases, which
occurs in the extract made by him, as included in square
brackets at page 111 above, is misrepresented by an unfair
translation, and is thereby rendered less obnoxious to the
doctrine he intended it to support. Thus, instead of the
words 'by,' or 'with the Word,' he has given 'for the
' Word.' If we allow Clement to be his OAvn interpreter.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 115
by such of his phrases as those given above, the render
ing should be ' with,' or, ' by the Word,' and not for the
' Word.' In the book called ' The Faith of Catholics,'
the same passage is falsified thus — ' Was milk feeding the
' new people with the Word.' — Vol. ii., p. 206. To
render the passage less seemingly fatal to the Roman
doctrine, the words 'the body of Christ' are suppressed.
With those words supplied, the phrase would be, ' Was
' milk, the body of Christ, feeding the new people with
' the Word.' Both parties, perhaps, considered that ' feed-
' ing,' or ' nourishing the new people,' or ' progeny ' with
the Word, rather than with the body of Christ, might
seem repugnant to Roman doctrine. A real Romanist of
Rome avoids startling a believer of Roman doctrine by
suppressing the words, ' the body of Christ,' another
real Romanist, but of Canterbury, accomplishes the same
thing by making it appear that the feeding or nourishing
is not by or tvith the Word, but that it is the body of
Christ nourishing for the Word.
The reader should note well the two different inter
pretations which Clement gives of eating the flesh and
drinking the blood of Christ. It is urged that the first
interpretation from which Dr. Pusey has made his quota
tion (pages 110, 111 above) is not spiritual or figurative,
but literal. The second, which immediately follows his
quotation, is admitted to be figurative, or allegorical.
If Clement speaks at all of a literal eating and drinking,
it is not the body and blood of Christ, but the milk of
Christ. But no one pretends that this can be understood
literally. He, however, rather speaks of a participation
of the Word, Avhich he says ' is fluid and mild as milk, or
' solid and compact as meat.' But the Word participated
of is no more really flesh or meat than it is really mUk ;
nay, as Ave have already seen, the Word is represented

116 THE FATHERS VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
under the aspect of milk. Moreover, he distinctly speaks
of that as symbolical which Dr. Wiseman and Dr. Pusey
would understand as a literal eating to be received by
the mouth, viz., the flesh and blood of Christ. He says,
' The Lord brought this out by symbols when He said,
' " Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood.'" — See page 110
above. A little before Dr. Pusey's quotation begins he
.says, ' The Father had rained down the Word, Himself
' became the spiritual nourishment of the good.' Clement
is here speaking of Christ as the heavenly manna, under
the aspect of the Word, referring rather to the Divinity
of Christ, or His spiritual nature, than to His humanity,
and only as spiritual nourishment. Suppose, for instance,
Clement does, in the quotation in question, really inter
pret our Lord's teaching in the sense Dr. Pusey and
Romanists require, then assuredly he must believe and
require others to believe steadfastly Avhat is there taught.
If our Lord taught a literal eating of His flesh and
drinking of His blood, and Clement so believed, as Dr.
Pusey thinks the belief is so tremendously important
that it is not conceivable so earnest and devout a Chris
tian as Clement could lightly set it aside or relinquish
it, yet this is Avhat he really does with the gTeatest
apparent indifference, giving those whom he instructs
another interpretation. He says, ' But perhaps you are
not inclined to understand it thus, bat, perchance, more
generally. Hear it also in the following way. The
' flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit,' etc.
If Clement had understood this portion of our Lord's
teaching as Dr, Pusey and Romanists would fain persuade
all men, it is impossible that, with so much indifference,
he should render it of none effect by an allegorical inter
pretation. So far as Clement is capable of being under
stood in the first interpretation, he explains eating the

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR, PUSEY. 117
flesh and drinking the blood of Christ allegorically of the
Word ; in the second interpretation allegorically of the
Holy Ghost.
Clement concludes his remarks as follows : — ' Thus in
' many ways the Word is figuratively described as meat,
' and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk.
' The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us Avho
' have believed in Him.' For this passage and its con
text, see page 112 above.
Origen, a successor to Clement in the catechetical chair
of Alexandria, represented Christ after the same manner.
He says, ' Nor do thou marvel because the Word of God
' is also called flesh and bread, and is called milk, and is
' called herbs, and, for the capacity of believers, or the
' possibility of their receiving Him, He is diversely
' named.' — Coinment. in Exodu'm, Hom, vii, 8, tom,
ix., p. 86. This part of Origen's writings forms no
part of Dr. Pusey's 400 pages of extracts from the
Fathers. It is important to notice that ' the Word,' according to
the general teaching of the Fathers, can be received as well
in the Holy Scriptures as in the sacrament, and that the
Word of God revealed in the Holy Scriptures, whether
through the medium of spoken or Avritten signs, is en
titled the Word of God in the same sense as the Lord
Jesus Christ is. Mr. Keble, remarking on a citation from
Origen, correctly says, ' The Word, standing sometimes
' for'the Scriptures, sometimes for the Person of our Lord.'
— On the Mysticism attribided to the Early Fathers
of the Church, No. Ixxxix. of the Tracts for the Times,
p. 129. Full proof of this is given in my 'AnsAver to Dr.
' Pusey's Challenge,' vol. i., pp. 404-420. Dr. Pusey
has quoted a considerable number of pslssages from the
Fathers (as the one from Clement at pages 110, 111 above)

118 THE FATHEES A'ERSUS DE. PUSEY.
Avliere Christ is represented as being received under the
title of the Word, to shoAv that He is received in the con
secrated elements, whereas, in many of the passages thus
quoted, as Avell as in a multitude not quoted, the Fathers
speak of Christ the Word being received in the Holy
Scriptures. It is needless to say that as Christ is not
actually in the signs of Holy Scripture, whether written
or spoken, by which He is represented to the believing
soul, so no more is He actually present in the sacramental
signs or symbols.
But if this portion of Clement's teaching is not in
favour of the doctrine of the Real Presence as held by
Dr. Pusey and Romanists generally, as it certainly is not, it
is indirectly most condemnatory of it. Let the reader look
over the entire quotation as given at pages 110-113 above,
and he Avill find that it is not only silent in regard to the
doctrine in question, but that it abounds with phrases and
forms of expression Avhich plainly shoAv how oblivious
Clement Avas of that doctrine Avhich Dr. Pusey assumes
Avas so very ancient. If Clement had knoAvn of this doctrine
as believed everywhere and by all, it is impossible to con
ceive that Avhen speaking so fully and in so striking a
manner of Christ, as the Word, being the food of His
people, he could have omitted all mention of it.'
I have shoAvn in the earlier part of my first volume in
ansAver to Dr. Pusey's Challenge, that his doctrine of the
Real Presence is plainly repugnant to the plain teaching
of Holy Scripture. But if Clement by any means had
believed the doctrine, with his enormous power of alle
gorising, and his apparently unlimited use of it, he could
have made it out from any or almost every text of Scrip
ture. It is certain, hoAvever, that he has not exercised
his gifts in this direction, for, like Clement of Rome,
Hennas, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Ejjistle to Diognetus,

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 119
Lactantius, and Ruffinus, he does not make in his writ
ings any distinct allusion to the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper. Having pointed out the erroneous doctrine of Dr.
Pusey, namely, that consecration effects such a change in
the elements that whoever receives them receives also in
or under them the body and blood of Christ, it remains
now to be shown that consecration, according to the
teaching of the Fathers, not only does not effect what
Dr. Pusey teaches, but that it does effect what is abso
lutely fatal thereto, as intimated at the beginning of this
chapter, to which the reader is referred.
It is certain that the Fathers with one consent re
garded the bread and the Avine each as compound sub
stances, and that by consecration one became sacrament
ally or mystically not only the body of Christ, but also
the body of His believing people, and the other became
sacramentally or mystically not only the blood of Christ,
but also the blood of the faithful people. On this point
Bertram well expresses the teaching of all antiquity Avhen
he says, ' For where the consecration is one, there fol-
' loweth also one operation ; and where the cause is the
' same, the mystery which folloAveth is the same also.
' But we see no change made in the water [of the mixed
' cup] as to bodily substance, and therefore there is no
' corporal change in the Avine [of the mixed cup]. What-
' ever in the water signifieth the people of Christ, is
' understood spiritually ; whatever, therefore, in the Avine
' representeth the blood of Christ, must be understood
' spiritually too.' — For this and more on the same point,
see pages 33-38.
From this plain teaching of Bertram it is distinctly
seen that consecration no more makes the elements that
of which they are a sacrament or mysteiy Avith regard to

120 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
Christ than it makes them that of which they are a
sacrament or mystery with regard to Christ's body of
believing people ; and that the sacrament or mystery of
the one cannot be received without the sacrament or
mystery of the other, both being contained in the mixed
cup. Cyprian perfectly establishes this point where he
says, ' Thus, then, in consecrating the cup of the Lord,
' Avater alone cannot be offered, as neither can wine alone.
' For if any should offer Avine alone, this is as though the
' blood of Christ were without us ; but if there be water
' alone, the people begin to be without Christ. But
' when both are mingled, and by an infused union each
' is joined with the other, then the spiritual and heavenly
' sacrament is perfected. Thus, then, the cup of the
' Lord is not water alone, or wine alone, unless both
' are mingled together ; as also the body of the Lord
' cannot be flour alone, or water alone, unless both be
' united and joined together and compacted into one
' cohering bread. In which sacrament, also, our people
' are shown to be united, so that many grains collected
' and ground and mingled together make one bread ; so
' in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know
' that there is one body wherewith our whole number is
' conjoined and united.' — For this passage, and more to
the same effect, see pages 33-38 above.
The reader cannot fail to see from this teaching- of
Cyprian that a communicant not conjoined and united
AAith the one body, Christ, the heavenly Bread, however
he may receive the sacrament, cannot receive the thing
signified thereby, viz., a union with the one body of
Christ, seeing that in regard to himself no such union
exists; but according to the most certain teaching of
Cyprian, the union of the things signified in the sacra
ment is such that the one cannot be received without the

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 121
other. If an unworthy communicant cannot receive the
thing signified Avith regard to the body of Christ's faithful
people, seeing he is not one of them, he cannot receive in
the sacrament the thing signified with regard to the body
of Christ, for one cannot be received without the other.
This point is still further conflrmed by the teaching of
Augustine, which, like the teaching of Cyprian, Dr. Pusey
has suppressed. Augu.stine says, ' If, then, you wish to
' understand the body of Christ, hear the Apo.stle saying
' to the faithful, " Ye are the body of Christ and His
' members." If, therefore, ye are the body of Christ and
' His members, the mystery of yourselves is placed upon
' the Lord's Table ; ye receive the mystery of yourselves.
' To that which ye are, ye answer. Amen, and by
' answering subscribe to it. For you hear, "The body of
' Christ," and you answer, Amen. Be a member of
' Christ's body, that your Amen may be true. Why,
' therefore, in the bread? Let us here say nothing of
' our oAvn, let us constantly hear the Apostle himself,
' Avho, when he was speaking of that sacrament, said,
' " We, being many, are one bread and one body; " under-
' stand and be joyful, — unity, truth, piety, charity.
' "One bread." What is one bread? "We, being
' many, are one bread." Recollect that bread is not
' made of one grain, but of many. . Be what ye see,
' and take what ye are.' — For this passage, Avith more of
the context, see pages 39, 40 above. From this teaching
of Augustine, the reader cannot fail to see that an
unworthy communicant, or one that is not of the body of
Christ, could not possibly receive the thing signified in
the sacrament in regard to that body. In the above
extract Augustine speaks of the mystery or sacrament,
and that of Avhich it is a mystery or sacrament. Now,
the reality of which it is a mystery or sacrament is here

122 THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
shown to be ' the body of Christ and His members,' and
that a communicant must be the reality or thing signified
before he can receive it. It should be noted well
with what discrimination Augustine here addresses the
newly baptised. He does not take it for granted that all
whom he addressed were really members of Christ's body;
he speaks hypothetically, — 'If, therefore, ye are the body
' of Christ and His members, the mystery of yourselves is
' placed upon the Lord's Table.' ' Be a member of the body
' of Christ, that your Amen may be true.' But if any Avere
not the body of Christ and His members, the mystery of
themselves was not placed on the Lord's Table, although a
mystery was there and they might receive it, but not as
a mystery of themselves, and although they heard the
Avords, ' The body of Christ,' and answered Amen, yet
their Amen was not true. It is quite certain from
this teaching of Augustine that in his mind a com
municant not of the body of Christ could not receive
the reality signified in the sacrament so far as it
related to the members of the body ; and it is just as
certain that they could not receive the reality signified in
the sacrament in regard to the body and blood of Christ.
The reader has only to turn to pages 39, 40 above, where
the passage is given from Augustine, with more of the con
text, and he Avill see that Dr. Pusey has quoted a portion
of the context which seems to suit his purpose, where
Augustine says, ' The bread is the body of Christ, the-
' cup the blood of Christ ; ' but from the entire passage
it certainly appears to be the opinion of Augustine, that
as a communicant, not being of the body of Christ, could
not receive the reality of the sacrament with relation to
Christ's body of faithful people, so neither could he
receive the reality of the sacrament with regard to Christ's
body and blood, it not being possible to receive one with-

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 123
out the other. A comment or application of the passage
to this effect was given by Fulgentius, who lived more
than a hundred years after Augustine. Fulgentius, to
correct the erroneous opinion of some who doubted whether
a man could be saved who had died without receiving the
body, and blood of Chtist in the Eucharist, since Christ
Himself had said, ' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
' man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you,'
reasoned as follows : — ' For the blessed Apostle says to
them, " Ye are the body of Christ, and members in par
ticular." — 1 Cor. xii. 27. Whom he shows not only to
be partakers of the sacrifice itself, but to be themselves
the holy sacrifice itself. . . . Whence the blessed Paul,
when in a certain place he had said, " The cup of bless
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the
blood of Christ?" — 1 Cor. x. 16. In order that he
might show that we are the real bread itself, and the
real body, immediately added, " For we, being many, are
one bread and one body, all of us who partake of that
one bread." . . . Wherefore, since " Ave, being many,
are one bread and one body," then does each one begin
to be a partaker of that one bread when he begins to
be a member of that one body, Avhich, in each of its
members, when it is joined in baptism to the Head
Christ, is then, etc. Therefore, hoAv can it be that he
who becomes a member of the body of Christ does not
receive that which he becomes ? when, in truth, he be
comes a true member of that body, of Avhich body there
is a sacrament in the sacrifice-. Therefore, by the
regeneration of holy baptism, he becomes thcd which he
is about to take from the sacrifice of the altar. Which
also we well know that the holy Fathers, without hesita
tion, believed and taught. The blessed Augustine also
made a very excellent sermon on this point, also suited

124 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' for the edification and instruction of the faithful, which
' entire sermon I prefer to subjoin to my epistle.' Here
follows the sermon, the most important part of which has
been quoted at pages 39, 40 above. Fulgentius then
concludes his epistle thus, ' I think that my argument
' is confirmed by the sermon of the celebrated Doctor,
' Augustine ; and that there is no room for any one to
' doubt that each one of the faithful is then 'made apar-
' fcdi-er of the body and blood of the Lord when in baptism
' he i.s- 'made a 'tnetnber of the body of Christ, and is not
' separated from that communion of the bread or cup, he
' may depart from this Avorld belonging to the unity of
' the body of Christ. To Avit, he is not deprived of the
' participation and benefit of that sacrament, when he
' himself is found to be whcd that sacrament signifies.'
— Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. vi., pt. 1, pp. 185, 186.
Nothing could be more conclusive to show that the
Avicked cannot receive the thing signified in the conse
crated elements than this sermon of Augustine, and espe
cially the remarks, and the use made of it by Fulgentius.
Had Dr. Pusey quoted Augustine as he declares he has
quoted from all his Avitnesses (see pages 13, 14, 90 above),
and not imposed upon his readers by suppressing the most
important part of Augustine's testimony, and had he
quoted in his notes, as he ought to have done, the above
remarks of Fulgentius, he would have destroyed even the
seeming value of all his other extracts from the Fathers.
We are taught with certainty by Fulgentius that ' with
' each one of the faithful doth Christ mingle Himself in
' the mysteries,' to use the words of Chrysostom, and that
Avhatever the realities of the sacrament are, they can only
be received by the faithful, and must be received as a
whole. Fulgentius had occasion to speak of some believers
taken off suddenly by death, and ' not permitted to eat

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 125
' the flesh of the Lord, and drink His blood' sacrament
ally, yet he shows that they did eat His flesh and drink
His blood, and that they were not only partakers of the
sacriflce, but were ' themselves the holy sacrifice itself '
He asks, which is only another way of affirmation, ' Hoav
' it can be, that he who becomes a member of the body
' of Christ does not receive that which he becomes ? ' and
concludes that a baptised believer is made a partaker of
Christ's body and blood ' when he himself is found to
' be what that sacrament signifies.'
Chrysostom, as it has already been noticed at pages
90-98 above, plainly teaches that in the sacrament there
is no difference between the body of Christ which was
crucified and His body the Church, and shows from the
language of the Apostle that the body of Christ who
partake in the Lord's Supper is the same as that of
which they partake.
What Fulgentius teaches respecting the body and blood
of Christ being received in baptism is the common doc
trine of the Fathers. I will only give one instance from
Chrysostom out of many which might be adduced of the
unfair treatment Avhich the testimony of the Fathers has
received at the hands of Dr. Pusey. He quotes the
following from Chrysostom : — ' For He that giveth the
' greater, that is, hath set Himself before thee, much
' more will He not think scorn to distribute unto thee
' of His body.' — P. 568. If it is asked. When did Christ
give the devout communicant the greater, and set Him
self before him ? The answer is. In the sacrament of
Baptism. Dr. Pusey quotes a passage from Chrysostom.
in which Christ is spoken of as if He administered His
own sacrament of the Supper, but suppresses the feAv
lines where he speaks in the same style of the sacrament
of Baptism. Had Dr. Pusey done as he says he has

126 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
done, and ' given every passage, with so much of the con-
' text as Avas necessary for the clear exhibition of its
' meaning,' instead of quoting Chrysostom in this dis
jointed fashion, his readers would have seen that the
testimony of Chrysostom, when correctly given, is against
the Roman doctrine of the Real Presence, and not in
favour of it.
I have to quote one or two more passages from
Augustine, Avhich shoAV the indissoluble union in the
sacrament of the Supper of the things signified, viz., the
body of Christ and His body the Church. He says,
' Because Christ hath suffered for us, He hath com-
' mended unto us in this sacrament His own body and
' blood, Avhich also He hath even made us ourselves.
' For we also have been made His body, and through
' His mercy are what we receive. Call to mind and ye
' were not, and ye CLre created. . . . You have, as it
' Avere, come to the cu]3 of the Lord, and there ye are on
' the table, and there ye are in the cup.' — Quoted by
Bede as a commentary on 1 Epist. to Cor., c. x., 17,
tom. vi., col. 365.
Dr. Pusey has not quoted this passage from Augustine,
but one in style very much like it, which he ascribes to
Augustine, but does not inform his readers where they
may find it. He states, ' S. Augustine says again,
' " Receive ye that in the bread which hung upon the
' cross ; receive ye that in the cup which .flowed from
' the side." ' — P. 132. These words are what Paschasius,
the author of the heretical doctrine of the Real Presence,
ascribes to Augustine. But if Ave accept them as his words,
they do not necessarily teach Dr. Pusey's doctrine, as may
be seen on comparison with the former quotation, which is
exactly the same in style. Communicants, as the body
of Christ, are not really in the bread upon the table.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 127
nor are they really in the cup ; no more is the body of
Christ which hung upon the cross really in the bread,
nor is that really iii the cup which flowed from the side.
As a communicant, not being a member of the body of
Christ, could not possibly be on the table nor in the cup,
he could not receive in the bread nor receive in the cup
that which he was not, viz., the body of Christ. It is
quite as certain that such a communicant could not receive
that in the bread which hung upon the cross, nor receive
that in the cup which flowed from His side, inasmuch as
the union of Christ's body, the Church, and His own
body are so one in the Eucharist, according to the
teaching of Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, and all
antiquity, that the one could not be received without
the other.
But what is here logically inferred from the teaching
of Augustine he elsewhere all but plainly states. He
says, ' For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only
' sacramentally, but really, being incorporated in His
' body, as the Apostle says, " We, being many, are one
' bread, one body." ' — De Civitate Dei, lib. xxi., c. 20,
tom. v., p. 286. What more plain than that they only
who are incorporated in the body of Christ eat His body,
and that they who are not thus incorporated eat the
body sacramentally only, that is in sign, but not in
reality. Still more to the point, Augustine states,
' Neither can these persons be said to eat the body of
' Christ, for they cannot even be reckoned among His
' members. For, not to mention other reasons, they can-
' not be at once the members of Christ and the members
' of a harlot. In fine. He Himself says, " He that eateth
' my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I
' in him," shows what it is in reality, and not sacra-
' mentally, to eat His body and drink His blood; for

i28 THE FATHERS A^ERSUS DE. PUSEY.
' this is to dAvell in Christ, that He also may dwell in
' us. So that it is as if He said, He that dwelleth not
' in me, and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or
' think that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.' —
Ibid., lib. xxi., c. xxv., tom. v., p. 289. This passage,
beyond all question, is most repugnant to the Roman
doctrine of the real body and blood of Christ being-
received in the consecrated elements by all communi
cants, whether saints or sinners.
From this fraction of patristic teaching, the candid
reader cannot fail to see how contrary thereto is the
Roman doctrine and that of Dr. Pusey, viz., that whoever
receives the consecrated elements, does therein also receive
the real body and blood of Christ.
The following is a portion of evidence from Augustine,
which directly contradicts the Roman opinion, that Avho-
ever or whatever receives the sacrament (meaning the
consecrated elements), receives also in or with it that of
which it is a sacrament. The extracts are given in the
order in Avhich they stand in his Avritings : —
' He receiveth the food of life, and drinketh the cup
' of eternity, who dwelleth in Christ and whose indAveller
' Christ is. For he who differs from Christ, neither eateth
' His flesh nor drinketh His blood, although he may daily
' indiscriminately receive the sacrament of so great a
' thing to the condemnation of his own presumption.'—
Prosperi Sent, ex Aug. cccxxxix., tom. iii., p. 435.
Here Prosper, a disciple of Augustine, in a condensed
form, so expresses the sentiments of his master as to
shoAV that both master and disciple had no belief of any
one not of the body of Christ eating His flesh and
drinking His blood ; although such an one might daily
receive the sacrament of so great a thing to the con
demnation of his own presumption.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 129
' This, then, is the bread that cometh doAvn from
' heaven, that whoso eateth thereof may not die. But
' this is in regard of the virtue of the sacrament, not in
' regard of the visible sacrament; of him who eateth
' inwardly, not outwardly; who eateth in the heart, not
' who presseth with the teeth.' — Expos, in Evang.
Joannis, Tract, xxvi., tom. ix., p. 94.
Here, beyond all question, Augustine deflnes a mode of
receiving the sacrament without its reality, namely, eating
the visible sacrament, but not its virtue or reality, eating-
it outwardly but not inwardly, pressing with the teeth,
but not eating in the heart. And, doubtless, after this
manner do they eat who are not of the body of Christ.
' The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of
' the body and blood of Christ, in some places every
' day, in some places at certain intervals of days, is on
' the Lord's Table prepared, and from the Lord's Table
' is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction ; but
' the reality of which it is the sacrament is for every
' man to life, for none to destruction, whosoever shall be
' a partaker thereof.' — Ibid., p. 94.
Here Augustine teaches that some take the sacrament
to life and some to destruction; but the thing of the
sacrament, the reality of which it is a sacrament, is for
every man to life, for none to destruction, whosoever
shall be a partaker thereof. Is it asked how it is that
the sacrament is taken by some to destruction ? Plainly
by receiving the sacrament only, and not with it the
reality of which it is the sacrament.
' " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
' dwelleth in me and I in him." This then it is to eat
' that meat and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ and
' to have Christ dwelling in him. Therefore, he who
' dwelleth not in Christ and in whom Christ dAvelleth
K

130 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
' not, without doubt doth neither spiritually eat His
' flesh nor drink His blood, albeit carnally and visibly he
' press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and
' blood of Christ ; but rather doth unto judgment to
' himself eat and drink the sacrament of so great a
' thing, because being unclean he hath presumed to come
' unto Christ's sacraments, which no man taketh worthily
' save he that is clean.' — Ibid., tom. ix., p. 94.
On pages 101, 102, above, there are some remarks
on this quotation by Zwingle, and to them the reader is
referred. ' " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
' dwelleth in me and I in him." The sign which shows
' that one hath eaten and drunk is this, if he dwelleth
' and is dwelt in, if he inhabiteth and is inhabited, if
' he cleaveth that he be not abandoned. This then it
' is that He hath taught and admonished us in mystical
' words that we be in His body, under Himself the
' Head, in His members eating His- flesh, not forsaking
' the unity of Him.' — Ibid., Tract, xxvii., tom. ix., p. 95.
If every one, in partaking of the consecrated elements,
eats the flesh of Christ and drinks His blood, as Dr.
Pusey and all Romanists maintain, why does Augustine
speak of a sign which shows whether one hath eaten
or not ? Perhaps Dr. Pusey or one of his disciples will
answer this question.
' Let all this, I say, hereunto avail us, my dearly
' beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ
' only in the sacrament (tantum in sacramento, sacra-
' mentaUy), which thing do also many wicked men, but
' that even unto participation of the Spirit we do eat
' and drink that in the Lord's body we dwell as members,
' that with His Spirit we may be quickened.' — Ibid.,
tom. ix., p. 97.

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 131
From this we learn that there is a mode of eating
the flesh of Christ only in the sacrament, that is, sacra
mentally, and that this is done by evU men. But with
Augustine, eating the fle.sh of Christ only in the sacra
ment, is eating the sign without receiving the thing
signified ; this is not only confirrned by the above quota
tions, but also by the one which here follows : —
' What is it to eat Christ ? It is not only to receive
' His body in the sacrament. For many unAvorthy
' receive, of whom saith the Apostle, " Whoso eateth the
' bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily,
' eateth and drinketh judgment to himself" But how
' is Christ to be eaten ? How, He Himself says, " He
' that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in
' me, and I in him." If he abideth in me, and I in him,
' then he eateth, then he drinketh. But he that abideth
' not in me nor I in him, although he receive the sacra-
' ment, he getteth great torment.' — Quoted by Bede.
Comment, in \st Epist. ad Corin. Opera, tom. vi., col.
382. Such is a portion of the testimony of Augustine with
regard to the wicked not receiving the thing or reality
of the sacrament in the Lord's Supper, from which it is
rightly inferred that the reality, namely, the body and
blood, are not so in the sacrament, or consecrated elements,
as that whoever receives the one receives the other also.

132 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.

CHAPTER IX.
General Cases op Dr. Pusey's garbled Quotations from Ambrose,
Jerome, Gaudentius, and Augustine examined and illusteated,
AND shown to be QUITE FATAL TO THE ROMAN DOCTEINE OP THE REAL
Presence.
In this chapter will be considered certain quotations
from the Fathers Avhich do not admit of any distinct
classification, and which have been unfairly treated by
Dr. Pusey. I begin with a passage from Ambrose, from
Avhom Dr. Pusey makes the following quotation : — ' First,
' then, the shadow went before, the image followed, the
' truth [reality] will be. The shadow in the Law ; the
' [true, verci] image in the gospel ; the truth [reality]
' in the heavenly places. The shadow of the gospel and
' of the congregation of the Church in the Law; the
' image of the truth [reality] to come, in the gospel;
' the truth [reality] in the judgment of God. Therefore,
' of those things which are now celebrated in the Church,
' the shadow was in the discourses of the Prophets, the
' shadow in the deluge, the shadow in the Red Sea, since
' our fathers were baptised in the cloud, and in the sea ;
' the shadow in the rock, which brought forth water, and
' followed the people. Was not that sacrament a shadow
' of this all-holy mystery ? Was not the water from the
' rock a shadow? the water, as it were the blood of
' Christ, which followed the people, while fleeing, that
' they might drink, and not thirst, might be redeemed,
' and not perish ? But now the shade [shadow] of night

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 133
' and of the darkness of the Jews departed ; the day of
' the Church hath drawn nigh. [Now we see good
' things by an image, and we hold the good things of the
' image.] We have seen the High Priest coming to us,
' Ave have seen and heard Him offering for us His blood ;
' Ave priests foUoAv as we can ; that we may offer sacrifice
' for the people : although weak in deserts, yet honour-
' able in sacrifice : since, though Christ is not now seen
' to offer, yet Himself is offered on earth when the body
' of Christ is offered ; yea Himself is plainly seen [mani-
' festatur, is shown] to offer in us, whose word sanctifieth
' the sacrifice which is offered. And Himself indeed
' standeth by us, as an Advocate with the Father, but
' now Ave see Him not ; then shall Ave see Him, when
' the image shall have passed aAvay and the truth [reality
' shall] have come. Then at length, not in a glass, but
' face to face, shall be seen that Avhich is perfect.' —
Pp. 454-456.
It is not certain for what purpose Dr. Pusey quoted
this passage. It may be to exhibit the priestly character
of the minister, for it is one of the most striking passages
on this point that can be quoted from the Fathers. But
this much is certain from it — viz., the priest can only
sacrifice the image, and not the reality of it. The pas
sage, as quoted by Dr. Pusey, and especially with the
sentence supplied in brackets, which he had suppressed,
is not in favour of his doctrine of the real presence of
Christ's body and blood in the consecrated elements, for
an image is no more that of Avhich it is an image than a
shadow is that of Avhich it is a shadow; but had Dr.
Pusey quoted a few words more, and not suppressed
them, this Avould have been made quite certain to the
reader ; for the words immediately foUowing Dr. Pusey's
quotation are — ' Ascend therefore, 0 man, into heaven.

134 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
' and you shall see those things of which here there Avas
' the shadow or the image. You shall not see in part,
' not darkly, but in consummation, not in veil, but in
' light. You shall see the true eternal Light and per-
' petual Priest, Peter, Paul, John, James, MattheAV,
' Thomas. The images of Avhom thou sawest here, you
' shall see a perfect man, not noAv in an image, but
' in reality.' — (Enar. in Pscd')n. xxxviii., tom. ii., cols.
740, 741.
From this the reader cannot fail to see that the real
body of Christ is no more on earth than are the bodies
of the above-named Apostles.
The very circumstance of Ambrose using the word
image in relation to Christ in connection with the mys
tery, or consecrated elements, shows beyond all question
that he did not believe the real presence of Christ's body
and blood to be in them, but to be really absent from
them ; for he emphatically asserts, ' No one can ever
' have been an image of himself.' — De Fide, lib. i., c. 4,
tom. iv., col. 118. Dr. Pusey maintains that after valid
consecration the bread becomes the body of Christ, and
says, ' And since His body is there, there must His soul
' be also, there also His Divinity.' — Eleven Addresses
during a Retrecd of the Companions of the Love of
Jesus, p. 65.
The quotation from Ambrose, as made by Dr. Pusey
in favour of his doctrine of the presence of Christ in the
consecrated elements, does not prove that doctrine, unless
the word image in the n^ind of Ambrose is inclusive of
Christ Himself; but Ambrose says, 'No one can ever
' have been an image of himself But if the image is
not inclusive of Christ Himself, as it certainly is not, then
most assuredly this quotation from Ambrose is directly
against Dr. Pusey's doctrine, and not in favour of it.

THE FATHERS "VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 135
The next passages to be adduced are from Jerome, or
authentic patristic testimony ascribed to Jerome, and
commonly published in his works. All of them have
either not come within the range of Dr. Pusey's know
ledge, or he has knowingly suppressed them. ' For they
' did eat in the Holy Scriptures the bread which came
' down from heaven.' — Comment, in Osee, lib. iii., tom.
vi., p. 49.
' " And filled thee with the fat of wheat." — Ps. cxlvii.
' 14. Except, says he, a corn of wheat fall, itself alone
' is saved. But if it faU, it saves many. The Lord, our
' corn of wheat, fell into the earth, and multiplied us.
' But that corn of wheat is most rich, has marroAV, has
' fat, " and filleth thee with the fat of wheat." Blessed
' is he who understands the fat in this wheat. We read
' the Holy Scriptures. I think that the Gospel is the
' body of Jesus, that the Holy Scriptures lare His doc-
' trines, and since He says, " He who doth not eat my
' flesh and drink my blood," although also it can be
' understood in the mystery [Eucharist] ; yet more truly
' is the word of the Scriptures the body of Christ, and
' the divine doctrine is His blood. If, then, we go to the
' mystery, he who is faithful understands if he fall into sin
' he is in danger. If, when we hear the Word of God,
' the Word of God and the flesh of Christ and His blood
' are poured into our ears, and we are thinking of some-
' thing else, into what danger do Ave run. " And filleth
' thee with the fat of wheat." The Divine Word is most
' rich. It has in itseff all delicacies. Whatever thou
' shalt wish springs from the Divine Word, as the Jews
' have handed down; since the manna which they did
' eat, according to the wish of every one, so it tasted in
' the mouth. And ff he should have said who was eat-
' ing, whether he desired apples, pears, grapes, bread.

136 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' flesh, according to the quality and wish of the eater, so
' also was the taste in the manna. So also in the flesh
' of Christ, which is the Word of doctrine, that is, the
' interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, just as we wish,
' so also we receive the food.' — Ccnnment. in Psalm,.,
tom. viii., pp. 209, 210.
This passage, had Dr. Pusey quoted it as he ought to
have done, would have rendered all his other quotations,
so far as they seemed to be related to a literal eating of
Christ's flesh and drinking of His blood, of none effect.
The last passage to be cited from the works of Jerome
is a commentary upon 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24. 'That is
' blessing us even when He was about to suffer. He left
' His last remembrance or memorial with us, just as if
' one travelling into another country should leave a pledge
' with him whom he loved, that whenever he looked
' upon it he might call to mind his favours and friend-
' ship, which such a person, if he perfectly loved him,
' could not behold without great grief or weeping. " This
' is my body," etc. " He who eateth my body and
' drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
' Whence he ought to knoAv, whoever eats the body or
' drinks the blood, that he do nothing unworthy of Him
' whose body he has been made' (effeet-us est). — Comment.
in 1 Epist. ad Cor., tom. ix., p. 317.
This ancient and authentic testimony is fatal to the
doctrine of Dr. Pusey, and it is all the more important
that it is a commentary, and the entire commentary,
upon the word of institution. How very different his
commentary must have been had he believed the modern
Roman doctrine on the Real Presence.
The next Father to be considered is Gaudentius, whose
testimony Dr. Pusey has very much misrepresented in.
different ways. Before, however, considering more imme-

THE FATHERS 'VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 137
diately the manner in which Dr. Pusey has treated the
testimony of this Father, it wUl be well to point out
some of his peculiarities. In one single discourse, he
appears to say much, which, if quoted partially, would
seem to favour the Roman doctrine of the Real Presence,
and if quoted after the same manner, quite as much in
favour of the opposite doctrine. It is very common with
,. Protestants, who have little or no knowledge of the real
teaching of the Fathers, to affirm tha^t in their teaching,
especially with regard to the Lord's Supper, Father con
tradicts Father, and some Fathers contradict themselves.
When apparently contradictory sentiments are quoted
from different Fathers, or contradictory sentiments from
the voluminous writings of any one of the Fathers, the
allegation appears very plausible. But these apparently
contradictory sentiments are found in a single discourse
of Gaudentius. Some parts of it appear to suit the
doctrine of Paschasius, and other parts appear to suit the
doctrine of Bertram, Rabanus Maurus, and Berengar, who
opposed his doctrine, and refuted it. The author or
authors of ' The Faith of Catholics' and Dr. Pusey have
quoted what seems to suit their purpose; and Zwinglians,
as they are called, might quote what they have sup
pressed, and thereby refute the Paschasian doctrine. We
may be quite sure that Gaudentius is misunderstood
when he is so understood as to be made to contradict
himself. At the time when he lived there was no con
troversy on the Lord's Supper, nor for some hundred
years after. In expressing his views, he was under no
restraint from opposing parties, and he need not there
fore, for the sake of a spurious peace, suppress anything,
or utter opposing and contradictory sentiments.
The question is, does Gaudentius, in this short dis
course, contradict himself, or utter one sentiment which

138 THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
subverts another? I do not believe he does. It wiU
be necessary to examine his doctrine from, his own point
of view, and not from ours, and to put ourselves as much
as possible into his position, that we may understand his
mode of teaching, and that of his contemporaries, on the
Lord's Supper. It is Inost important to bear in mind
that, as there was no controversy such as now exists
on the doctrine in question, his weaker statements, as
viewed from a Roman point of view, must be esteemed
of equal importance with his stronger, as viewed from
the same point. From the weU-known views of the
early Fathers, there were many reasons why they should
strongly state a doctrine Avhich they regarded as being of
great importance, but none Avhy they should feebly state
it. If Gaudentius had believed the doctrine of the Real
Presence as held by Paschasius, and as now held by his
disciples, such as Dr. Pusey, he most certainly would
have avoided making any statement or using any form of
expression that might call that doctrine in question or
in any Avay invalidate it, as Paschasius did, and as his
disciples now do.
The reader must exercise a little patience and give
his most candid attention while this part of patristic
testimony is being fully investigated from its own point
of view, for, so far as I am acquainted Avith the teaching
of the Fathers on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, the
whole compass of their teaching is included in this short
discourse of Gaudentius which here follows, divided into
sections for the sake of reference; Avhat Dr. Pusey has
quoted being included in square brackets, what he has
not quoted not being so distinguished. Where his trans
lation is most inaccurate that will be given, with -the
original and another translation in parallel columns.
' (1.) Exodus xii. 1-11, "And they shall eat the flesh

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 139
that night roasted Avith fire, and unleavened bread with
wild lettuce. You shall not eat thereof anything raw,
nor boiled in water, but only roasted with fire ; you
shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof.
Neither shall there remain anything of it until the
morning. If there be anything left you shall burn it
with fire. And thus shall you eat it : you shall gird
your loins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, hold
ing staves in your hands, and you shall eat it in haste :
for it is the Lord's passover." (2.) Let us learn to eat
the passover, not as the unwise Jews who, after the
advent of the reality (veritatis), still follow the shadow.
For [From the time that He came, of whom that
(Paschal) lamb was a type. He, the Lord Jesus, that
true " Lamb of God, which taketh aAvay the sins of
the world," and said, " Except ye eat my flesh and
drink my blood, ye have no life in you," (from that
time) vainly do the Jews practice carnally that
which, except they perform spiritually Avith us, they
have no life in them. For " the law is spiritual," as
saith the Apostle, and Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed
for us.' — P. 487.] (3.) As regards the spiritual excel
lencies prefigured in the narrative in Exodus, where
the celebration of the passover is recorded, what is
signified by the tenth day, Avhat by the fourteenth,
what by the slaying of a lamb without blemish, a male
of one year, at the evening, what by the blood on the
lintels on the posts, what by the gathering of neigh
bours, what by the shoes, Avhat by the staves, what by
the leaven, we must, with the Lord's help, begin to
explain to-morroAv ; but, at present, those portions only
must be selected which cannot be explained in the
presence of catechumens, and which, nevertheless, must
necessarily be disclosed to the neophytes. (4.) [In the

140

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.

' shadow of that legal passover not one lamb was slain,
' but many. For one was slain in every house, since one
' Avas not sufficient for all. But a figure] figura [is not
' the reality] proprietas [of the Lord's passion. For a
' figure is not the truth,] Veritas, reality [but an imitation
' of the truth. For man, too, was made in the image of
' God, but was not therefore God. Although, indeed,
' in the Avay in which they say he is the " image of God,"
' he may be also called God ; since by nature there is
' one God, by relation many. In this truth, then, in
' which Ave 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. For " the Bread
' which came down from heaven " saith, " The Bread
' which I Avill give is my flesh, for the Iffe of the Avorld.'"]
['Rightly, too, is His
' blood expressed hy
' the kind of wine, in
' that He saith in the
' Gospel, " I am the
' true vine." He Him-
' self plainly declares
' all which is offered in
' the figure of His pas-
' sion to be, in one,
' His blood.'— P. 488.]

Eeote etiam vini
specie tunc sanguis
ejus exprimitur, quia
cum ipse in Evangelio
dicit ; ' Ego sum vitis
vera ;' satis declarat
sanguinem suum esse
omne vinum quod in
figura ejus offertur.

(5.) ' Rightly, too,
' is His blood repre-
' sented under the
' form of wine, for
' when He Himself
' saith, "I am the true
' vine," He sufficiently
' declares that all the
' wine which is offered
' in the figure of His
' passion is His blood.'

(6.) ['Whence the most blessed patriarch, Jacob, pro-
' phesied of Christ, saying, " He shall wash His garments
' in wine, and His raiment in the blood of the grape."
' For the garment, the raiment of our body, he was about
' to wash in His own blood. Himself, then, the Creator
' and Lord of nature, who " bringeth forth bread from
' the earth," of bread again (for He both can and hath
' promised) makes] efficit [His own body; and He who

THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 141
of water made wine, makes] efficit, understood [also of
wine His own blood. — P. 488.] (7.) In what manner,
therefore, this lamb ought to be eaten, we ought to
show from the lesson itself, " You shall not eat thereof
any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted with
fire, the head with the feet and the-! entrails." There
are two spiritual meanings in these words, of which, if
thou dost follow one, thou wilt know both. The whole
body of the Divine Scriptures, as well of the Old as of
the New Testament, contains the Son of God, — either
promising that He will come unto man, or declaring that
He has now come. Whence the blessed Philip, being
found by Christ, finds Nathaniel, and says to him, " We
have found Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, of
whom Moses, in the law, and the Prophets did write."
And what more ? Dearly beloved, in Himself is com
prised the whole law, both old and new ; and, if I may
so say. He Himself is the soul of the law. For He
Himself spoke by Moses when He said to him, " I will
open my mouth, and wdl inspire what thou oughtest to
speak." He Himself also spoke by the Prophets when
He said, " I am He that speaks in the Prophets, Lo, I
am present." — Isa. Iii. 6. He Himself also spoke by
the Apostles, since Paul says, " Ye seek a proof of
Christ speaking in me." It is necessary, therefore, to
take this flesh of the Immaculate Lamb — that is, the
bowels of His doctrine — neither raw, without interpre
tation, nor boiled in water, that is, boiled doAvn and
dissolved by the dissertation of those who, like water,
floAV downward, perceiving nothing lofty ; but "roasted,"
he says, " with fire," that is, roasted and solid, by the
Divine Spirit. For fire extends upwards. Whence
the Lord said to the Jews, " Ye are from beneath, I
am from above." (8.) Therefore, since we have called

142 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
the members of the Lamb of God His Scriptures, let us
see what is " the head with the feet and entrails."
It is clear that in the head thou mayest understand
the Divinity, on the testimony of the four evangelists.
We take the feet for the incarnation, celebrated about
the end of the age ; for the feet are the extreme parts
of the body; but in the entrails thou mayest under
stand hidden mysteries. " There shaU not remain,"
says he, " any thing of it until the morning, and ye
shall not break a bone of it. But if any of it remain
until morning, ye shall burn it with fire :" that is, if
any of the mysteries remain, which cannot now be
understood, they are to be made plain on the morning
of that future resurrection. " For now I know in part,"
says the Apostle, " but then shall I know even as I also
am known." These are to be burned with fire — sur
rendered to the Divine Spirit ; so that those may be
consumed by the spirit of burning faith whose meaning
we do not now understand. But that which he said,
" Neither shall ye break a bone thereof," enjoins this,
that everything which in the Scriptures is more strong
and firm may not be broken nor quashed, but must re
main firm ; which precept they not keeping deservedly
receive woes from Him whose bones they break.
" Woe unto you," He says, " Scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and
cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, mercy, and faith." These are the
bones of the Lamb. And elsewhere He says to them,
" Ye make the word of God of none effect, that ye may
establish your oAvn traditions." But God, in Exodus,
to the aforesaid words added these, " But thus ye shall
eat it (namely, the lamb), your loins girded, and your
shoes on your feet, and staves in your hands, and ye

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 143
shall eat it in haste ; for it is the Lord's passover." . . .
Therefore, a girdle made -of skin signifies mortification
of vices. For a skin, unless it is of the death of a
living being, is not suitable for use. (9.) [We ought,
by the command of God, first to mortify the lusts of
the flesh, and so to receive the body of Christ, who was
slain for us when slaves in Egypt. " Wherefore, let a
man examine himself," as saith the Apostle, " and so let
him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." But
when he says we must " eat it in haste," he teaches that
we receive not the sacrament of the Lord's body and
blood with sluggish heart and languid hps ; but with all
eagerness of mind, as really " hungering and thirsting
after righteousness." For, " Blessed," saith the Lord
Jesus, "are they which hunger and thirst after righteous
ness, for they shall be filled." But the noble lesson set
before you closes what it had said Avith this most worthy
end : — " For it is the Lord's passover." " 0 the depth
of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of
God !" " It is," saith He, " the Lord's passover :" that
is, the passing over of the Lord, that you may not
think that to be earthly which has been made heavenly
through Him who passed into it, and made it His body
and blood. (10.) For what we have already] supra,
above [explained generally, as to eating the flesh of the
Lamb, we must observe, especiaUy in tasting these same
mysteries of the Lord's passion, that you think not, like
the Jew, that it is raw flesh and raw blood, and reject
it, saying, " How can this man give us His flesh to
eat ? " Nor, in the cauldron of a carnal heart, by
nature ever disposed to caprice, boil the sacrament itself
doAvn, deeming it a common earthly thing, but that you
believe that by the fire of the Holy Ghost it is made]
effectum [that which it is declared, since what you

144 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' receive is the body of that heavenly Bread, and the
' blood of that sacred Vine. (11.) For when He reached
' forth the consecrated bread and wine to His disciples,
' He said, ".This is my body, this is my blood." Let
' us believe Him whom we have believed. Truth can-
' not lie. Therefore, when He spoke of eating His flesh,
' and drinking His blood to the multitudes, amazed, and
' muttering, " This is a hard saying, who can hear it?"
' He, that He might by heavenly fire do away those
' thoughts, which I told you were to be avoided, added,
' " It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth
' nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are
' spirit, and they are life." And therefore we are bidden
' to eat, in the mysteries, the head of His Divinity,
' together with the feet of His incarnation, and the inward
' parts; that we may believe all things alike, as they
' have been delivered, not breaking that most solid
' bone of Him, " This is my body, this is my blood."
' But if even now aught remains over in any one's mind,
' which he hath not received in that exposition, let it be
' burnt by the glow of faith. " For our God is a con-
' suming fire," purifying, teaching, and enlightening our
' hearts to the understanding of things divine; that,
' through His unspeakable gift, we may know the cause
' and meaning of that heavenly sacrifice instituted by
' Christ; so shall we give Him endless thanks. (12.)
' For truly this is the hereditary gift of His New Testa-
' ment, which He left us in that night when He was
' betrayed to be crucified, as a pledge of His presence]
' pignus suce prcesentice. [Whence the Lord Himself
' said, " Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood,
' ye have no life in you." For He willed His benefits to
' abide with us. He willed our souls ever to be sanoti-
' fied by His precious blood, through the image] per

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 145
' imaginem [of His own passion. And therefore He
' commanded His faithful disciples, whom first He made
' priests of His Church, unceasingly to put in use those
' mysteries of eternal life, which must needs be cele-
' brated by all priests throughout all Churches of the
' whole world, until Christ should come again from hea-
' ven. And this He did in order that the priests them-
' selves, and all we His faithful people alike, having daily
' before our eyes the pattern] exemplar [of Christ's pas-
' sion, and carrying it in our hands, and receiving it with
' mouth and heart, may hold it in indelible memory of
' our redemption, and may attain the SAveet medicine of
' everlasting defence against the poisons of the devil.
' As the Holy Ghost exhorteth, " Taste and see that the
' Lord is good." But that He appointed the sacraments
' of His body and blood to be offered in the form] in
' specie [of bread and wine, there is a tAvofold reason.
' First, that the immaculate Lamb of God might deliver
' a pure sacrifice] hostiatn inundam, Mai. i. 11 [to be
' celebrated by a purified people, without burning, with-
' out blood, Avithout broth of flesh, and which should be
' ready and easy to be offered by all. (13.) Then since
' bread must needs be made from many grains of wheat
' formed into dough by means of water, and completed by
' fire, reasonably is this taken as a figure] in eo figura acci-
' pitur, in that a figure is understood [of the body of Christ,
' since we know that out of the whole multitude of the
' human race there is made] effectum [one body, perfected
' by the fire of the Holy Ghost. For He was born pf the
' Holy Ghost, who descended upon Him in the form of a
' dove ; thence He returns from Jordan, the Evangelist
' bearing witness, "Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost."
' And since it became Him " to fulfil all righteousness,''
' He enters the waters of Baptism, to consecrate them,
L

146 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' and then, full of the Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan.
' In like way, too, the wine] in that a figure is under-
' stood [of His blood, gathered from very many berries,
' that is, grapes of the vineyard which He had planted,
' is pressed out in the winevat of the cross ; and,
' in the large vessels of those who receive with faith-
' ful heart, ferments by its own , virtue. 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,
' that by our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we believe to be
' in His sacraments, our inmost souls may be sanctified,
' whose inestimable virtue abideth for ever.' — Pp. 488-
492.] — De PaschcB Observatione, Tract, ii. ; Bib. Mag.
Vet. Patr., tom. iv., pp. 806, 807.
(14.) ['To us ' Christ liveth, since for us He rose. For
' He was no more seen of the Jews ; nor did He, after
' His resurrection, enter the synagogue of the Jews, but
' He came to His assembled disciples. He entereth to us
' who are assembled in the house of the Church, and
' shmveth to us the truiK\ veritatem \of His venerable
' body : if indeed we have been or are meet to be His dis-
' ciples.' — Pp. 492,493.] — Ibid., Tract. iv., tom. iv., p. 809.
(15.) ' The true Lamb of God, whom John the Baptist
' shows is Christ. He says, " Behold the Lamb of God
' which taketh away the sins of the world." We the
' faithful, together with all who believe, ought in the
' mystery (or sacrament), as well ds in faith, so to eat
' and commend the flesh of this Lamb to the inner
' recesses of our heart, as not only to have our loins
' girded with chastity, but even our feet shod with the
' preparation of the Gospel of peace.' Ibid., Tract, v.,
tom. iv., p. 809.
(16.) ['The toils of the passion of Christ, both kings

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 147
' (the highest order of priests) and each of lower degree
' following them, whether of the Levitical order [deacons]
' or the faithful of the people, we offer for the well-being
' of our common life in the figure of His body and
' blood (in figura corporis ejus et sanguinis), p. 110],
' and the acknowledged sweetness of the mysteries with
' anxious mouth we testify, " Taste and see that the
' Lord is sweet." — ^Psalm xxxiv. 8.' — Ibid., Tract, xix.,
tom. iv., p. 833.
The first point to be noticed is the unfair manner in
which Dr. Pusey has treated the testimony of this Father.
At section 5 above may be seen at once, by a com
parison of Dr. Pusey's translation with the original, how
he has concealed from the reader the real ¦ teaching of
Gaudentius. He there teaches to a certainty that the
consecrated wine in the Eucharist was Christ's blood in
the same sense, and in no other, than that in which Christ
in St. John's Gospel is a vine. For in explaining what
the blood of Christ is in the Eucharist, he plainly states,
' For when He Himself saith in the Gospel, " I am the
' true vine," He sufficiently declares that all the wine
' which is offered in the figure of His passion is His
' blood.' What Gaudentius has expressed in one sentence
as one thought. Dr. Pusey makes him express in two
sentences as two independent thoughts ; and the words
which necessarily connect the first part of the sentence
with the second. Dr. Pusey has replaced by words not
showing any necessary connection, and the word wine of
the second part of the sentence which is logically con
nected Avith the word vine of the first, he has omitted.
A more unfair treatment of an author's sentiments could
not well be perpetrated.
Again, if the reader wUl turn to section 10 above, at
the commencement he will notice the words, ' For what

148 THE FATHERS VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
' we have above explained generally as to eating the
' flesh of the Lamb, we must observe especially in tasting
' these same mysteries of the Lord's passion.' But
strange to say Dr. Pusey has suppressed what Gauden
tius had above explained, and ' what must be observed
' especially in tasting these same mysteries,' and by this
suppression it is not Dr. Pusey's fault if the reader does
not take the 5th and 6th sections, as unfairly quoted by
himself and separated from the context, to be the por
tion of the discourse to Avhich Gaudentius alluded when
he said, ' For what we have above explained,' etc.,
whereas what Gaudentius alluded to is a spiritual and
flgurative eating, as may be seen in the 7th and 8th
sections, Avhich Dr. Pusey has entirely omitted. This
most important part of the testimony of Gaudentius is
shirked much after the same manner by a Roman
Catholic author, or authors, who gave the statement
thus, ' For Avhat we have expounded higher up as a
' general rule concerning eating of the Lamb, is specially
' to be observed when we taste these divine mysteries of
' the Lord's passion.' But the author here has not quite
ignored Avhat Gaudentius had said above, for he says,
' Having explained verses 8-10 in a mystical sense, he
' adds,' and then commences the quotation, ' We ought,'
etc., as made by Dr. Pusey at section 9 above. — The
Faith of Catholics, vol. ii., pp. 328, 329. But this
section is really a continuation of the mystical interpre
tation of the eleventh verse which had already been
entered upon, the latter part of which he introduces
thus, ' But the noble lesson set before you closes what it
' had said with this most worthy end, "For it is the Lord's
' passover." The Romanist, as we have seen, gives the
words of Gaudentius thus, ' For what we have expounded
' higher up as a general rule concerning eating of the

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 149
' Lamb, is specially to be observed when Ave taste those
' divine mysteries of the Lord's passion;' and Dr. Pusey
as foUoAvs : — ' For what we have already explained
' generally as to eating the flesh of the Lamb we must
' observe especiaUy in tasting these same mysteries,' etc.
But what Gaudentius has explained above respecting
eating the flesh of the Lamb is mystical and spiritual ;
not the remotest hint is given of eating anything
literally by the human mouth as Dr. Wiseman and Dr.
Pusey teach ; and this non-literal or spiritual interpreta
tion must be especially observed in tasting these same
mysteries, that is, the body and blood of Christ. It is
most important to notice how Gaudentius explains eating
the flesh of the Lamb. In a series of discourses explana
tory of the Lord's Supper to the newly baptised, taking
as the foundation of his discourse the institution of the
Jewish passover, and regarding the passover lamb as re
presenting Christ, he proceeds to show how the flesh of
Christ, the paschal Lamb, is to be eaten. Instead of
teaching, like Paschasius and his eminent disciple. Dr.
Pusey, a literal participation by the mouth of the flesh
of the Lamb, he speaks of cordially receiving and firmly
believing all that Christ' has taught both in the Old
and New Testaments. In showing in what manner the
flesh of the Lamb ought to be eaten, he explains the
Lamb as ' The whole body of the Divine Scriptures.'
Thus he says, ' The whole body of the Divine Scriptures,
' as well of the Old as of the New Testament, contains the
' Son of God ; either promising that He Avill come unto
' man, or declaring that He has now come.' Then he
goes on to show him how He spoke by the Prophets of
the Old Testament and by the Evangelists and Apostles
of the New Testament, and also explains taking this.
flesh of the Lamb as denoting the bowels of His doctrine.

150 THE FATHEES A'EESUS DR. PUSEY.
He then adds, ' Therefore, since Ave have called the
' members of the Lamb of God His Scriptures, let us see
' what is the " head with the feet and entrails." It is
' clear that in the head thou mayest understand the
' Divinity, on the testimony of the four Evangelists. We
' take the feet for the incarnation.' — See sections 7 and
8 above. But Gaudentius, as we have seen, informs the
newly baptised, Avhen addressing them, that they must
especially observe this explanation of eating the flesh of
the Lamb in tasting these same mysteries. Doubtless
eating the flesh of the Lamb and the Lord's passover
Avere one and the same thing ; and in this light Gauden
tius explains them. He nearly repeats the same words
in regard to eating the mysteries as he had done in
regard to eating the fle.sh of the Lamb ; thus he says,
' We are bidden to eat in the mysteries, the Head of His
' Divinity, together Avith the feet of His incarnation
' and the inward parts, that Ave may believe all things
' alike as they have been delivered. ' — Sec. 1 1 above.
It is certain Gaudentius is here speaking of a spiritual
eating and not of a literal eating, of a participation of
the reality signified by faith and not by the mouth.
Had this Romanist and Dr. Pusey given the testimony
of Gaudentius fairly, and not suppressed the most im
portant part of it, the ordinary reader would have seen
that Gaudentius so explained the eating of the flesh of
the Lamb and the body and blood of Christ, which he
calls ' these same mysteries,' as to show plainly that he
was a witness against the Roman doctrine of the Real
Presence, and not in favour of it.
Dr. Pusey has quoted the foUoAving passage from
Gaudentius, as being on his side: — 'Himself, then, , the
' Creator and Lord of nature, who bringeth forth bread
' from the earth, of bread again (for He both can and

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 151
' hath promised) makes (efficit) His own body,' etc. For
this and the context see section 6 at page 140, above. Here
Gaudentius uses his words with discrimination, so that those
whom he addressed need not misunderstand his meaning.
He does not use a word which states that Christ recdly
made bread His body. The word he uses to describe the
change effected in regard to the bread was commonly
employed in the Latin version of the Scriptures in use
in his day, in a non-absolute or figurative sense in such
passages as, ' He that is joined to a harlot is made
' (effcitur) one flesh.' — 1 Cor. vi. 16. ' Brethren, do
' not be made or become (effiici) children in sense.' —
Ibid., xiv. 20. It is almost needless to remark how very
much the Fathers Avere accustomed, like ourselves, in
their religious teaching, to use words in the same sense
in which they were used in the copies of the Scriptures
common to their hearers.
There are other tAvo instances of the occurrence of this
word in this discourse. ' But that you believe that by
' the fire of the Holy Ghost it (the sacrament) is 'made
' that which it is declared.' — Sec. 10 at page 143, above.
Again, ' That He appointed the sacraments of His body
' and blood to be offered in the form of bread and wine,
' there is a twofold reason. First, etc. . . . Then since
' bread must needs be made from many grains of wheat,
' formed into dough by means of water and completed by
' fire, in that [bread] a figure of the body of Christ is
' reasonably understood, since we know that out of the
' whole multitude of the human race there is made one
' body, perfected by the fire of the Holy Ghost.' — Sees.
12, 13, page 145, above. In the former passage we are
told that the sacrament by the fire of the Holy Ghost is
made that which it is declared. In the latter passage
we are told that Christ appointed the sacraments of His

152 THE FATHEES VEESUS DE. PUSEY.
body and blood to be offered in the form of bread and wine,
and that in bread a figure of the body of Christ is reason
ably understood, since we know that out of the whole
multitude of the human race there is made one body, per
fected by the fire of the Holy Ghost. Here we certainly
leam that in the form of bread there is a sacrament of
the body of Christ, and that in bread a figure of the body
of Christ is reasonably understood. When, therefore,
Gaudentius says in the former passage that the sacrament
¦;s 'made that which it is declared, that is, the body of
Christ, he does not mean that the sacrament is really
and substantially made the body of Christ, but only, as
Avill be seen presently, a ' figure,' ' pledge,' ' image,' or
' pattern ' of it. Tertullian says, as we have seen,
' Christ, having taken the bread and given it to His
' disciples, made fecit) that His own body by saying,
' " This is my body, ' that is, a figure of my body.' — See
p. 28, above. By adding the words, 'that is, a flgure
' of my body,' Tertullian makes it quite certain that he
did not mean to teach that Christ made bread into His
real, substantial body. Gaudentius meant nothing more,
though he did riot, like Tertullian, add a phrase to
explain Avhat he really meant ; but in the very same
discourse he has described the consecrated bread as a
figure of Christ's body, and, directly contrary to Pascha
sius and his disciples, whether Romanists or Ritualists,
has stated, ' A figure is not the reality of the Lord's
' passion, for a figure is not the reality, but an imitation
' of the reality.' — Sec. 4, page 140, above. If, then,
Gaudentius is made his OAvn commentator, he teaches the
very same doctrine as Tertullian does in the following
words : — ' The Lord, of bread, makes His own body, that
' is, the figure of His body, for a figure is not the reality,
' but an imitation of the reality.'

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 153
Perhaps it may be urged that Gaudentius not only
says that the sacrament is made that which it is declared,
but, after citing the words, ' This is my body,' remarks,
' Let us believe Him Avhom we have believed. Truth
' cannot lie.' — Sees. 10, 11, pages 143, 144, above.
Cyril of Jerusalem, a Greek Father, when, like Gau
dentius, addressing the newly-baptised, expressed himself
much after the same manner, but made it plain that he
did not really teach that the consecrated bread was
really the body of Christ, but only an antitype or figure
of it. Thus he says, ' 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 Avine the blood of Christ ; for whatso-
' ever the Holy Ghost has touched is sanctified and
' changed.' Now Cyril does not mean to teach that the
bread is really changed into the body of Christ, but only
into an antitype or figure of it; for, in the very same
lecture, he says, ' After this ye hear the chanter, Avith a
' sacred melody, inviting you to the communion of the
' holy mysteries, and saying, " 0 taste and see that the
' Lord is good." Trust not the decision to thy bodily
' palate, no, but to faith unfaltering ; for Avhen we taste,
' we are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the
' antitype (or figure) of the body and blood of Christ.'
— Cat, Mysta. v., cc. v. xvii., pp. 297, 300.
The Greek Avord translated antitype or figure is a
word used in the Greek Testament, and doubtless Cyril
Avould use it in the sense in which it is there used, and
in no other. How it is used in the only instances in
which it occurs, may be seen in the tAvo texts which here
follow : — ' For Christ is not entered into the holy places
' made with hands, which are the figures of the true ;
' but into heaven itself, noAv to appear in the presence of

154 THE FATHEES VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' God for us.' — Heb. ix. 24. ' Which sometimes were
' disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited
' in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
' wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.
' The like figure whereunto, even baptism doth also
' now save us ; not the putting away the filth of the
' flesh,' etc. — 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. If these figures Avere
not really that of which they were the flgures, no more
was the figure of the body and blood of Christ that of
Avhich it was a figure.
Gaudentius not only says that the sacrament is made
that which it is declared, but goes on to show what that
is, by saying, ' Since what you receive is the body of
' that heavenly Bread, and the blood of that sacred Vine.'
— Sec. 10, pages 143, 144, above. He does not teach, as
Paschasius and his disciples do, that it is the body Avhich
was born of Mary, and the blood Avhich was shed on the
cross, but by connecting the sacramental bread, called
the body, with the heavenly Bread, and the sacramental
wine, called the blood, with the sacred Vine, he indi
rectly teaches that the consecrated bread is no more
really the body of Christ than He Himself is bread, and
that the consecrated wine is no more the blood of Christ
than He Himself was a- vine. This is still further con
firmed by the fact of his going on to quote : ' It is the
' spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The
' words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they
' are life ; ' and immediately adding, ' and therefore we
' are bidden to eat, in the mysteries, the head of His
' divinity, together with the feef of His incarnation, and
' the inward parts; that we may believe all things alike,
' as they have been delivered.'
The next part of the testimony of Gaudentius to be
noticed is the manner in which he uses certain words in

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 155
relation to the consecrated elements, which proves that
he must have believed the real absence of that which the
Paschasians believe to be in them, namely, the body of
Christ which was born of Mary and crucified on the
cross, and the blood which was shed by the soldier's
spear. The reader should note well how he uses the
word figure. He says, ' In that (meaning the conse-
' crated bread) a figure of the body of Christ is reasonably
' understood.' ' In like way, too, the wine [in that a figure
' is understood] of His blood.' — Sec. 13, pp. 145, 146.
above. Again he says, ' Rightly, too, is His blood repre-
' sented under the form of wine, for when He Himself
' saith, " I am the true vine," He sufficiently declares
' that all the wine which is offered in the figure of this
' passion is His blood.' — Sec. 5, page 140, above. That
the figure in this connection is not that of which it
is a figure, as Paschasius contended, and as Dr. Pusey
now maintains, Gaudentius, in this very same address,
expressly asserts ; for he says, ' A figure is not the reality
' of the Lord's passion. For a figure is not the reality,
' but an imitation of the reality. For man, too, was
' made in the image of God, but was not therefore God.'
— Sec. 4, page 140, above. Here it should be noticed
that as man made in the image of God is not therefore
God, so an image of the Lord's passion is not the passion
itself, that is, Christ's real body which was sacrificed,
and the blood which was shed in consequence of the
sacrifice, as Romanists contend. It is seen, then, what
Gaudentius means by the word image in the following
passage : — ' He willed our souls ever to be sanctified by
' His precious blood, through the image of His own pas-
' sion.' — Sec. 12, pages 144, 145, above. The predeces
sors, contemporaries, and successors of Gaudentius used
the word ' image,' and understood it, in the same sense in

156 THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY.
Avhich he did. Thus Tertullian states, ' Now an image
' is not in any case equal to the reality. It is one
' thing to be like the reality, and another thing to be
' the reality itself.' — Adver. Mar., lib. ii., c. ix., p. 372.
Ambrose says, ' No one can ever have been an image of
' himself.' Augustine asks, ' What can be more absurd
' than to be called an image with respect to one's self ? '
— De Tr'in., lib. vii., c. i., tom. iii., p. 127. Theodoret
says, ' An image has figures, but not things or realities.'
¦ — See page 105, above. These statements respecting
images not being that of which they are the images have
been passed over by Dr. Pusey.
It must be inferred, from what has already been ad
duced from Gaudentius, that he could not have believed
that the consecrated elements contained the real presence
of Christ, but Avhat he has stated need not be inferred,
for he says, ' For truly this is the hereditary gift of His
' NeAv Testament, Avhich He left us in that night Avhen
' He Avas betrayed to be crucified, as a pledge of His
' presence.' — Sec. 12, page 144, above. It is important
to consider in Avhat sense Gaudentius here uses the Avord
pledge, for if, in this connection, it is not that of which
it is a pledge, that is, the real presence of Christ Himself,
such teaching is absolutely fatal to Dr. Pusey's doctrine
of the Real Presence. The word is one which was used
in the version of the Ncav Testament common to those
Avhom Gaudentius addressed, and doubtless the sense in
which it Avas used there Avould be the sense in which
Gaudentius would use it. It is written, ' Ye are sealed
' with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest
' or pledge of our inheritance.' — Eph. i. 13, 14. See
also 2 Cor. i. 22, and v. 5. Dr. Pusey, however, con
ceives that Gaudentius so uses the word ' pledge' as to be
consonant Avith the doctrine of the real presence of

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 157
Christ's body and blood in the consecrated elements.
Thus he says, ' Gaudentius calls the Holy Eucharist " the
' pledge of our Lord's presence." If Christ were not
' present, the Eucharist could be no " pledge of His pre-
' sence." If there were not something distinct, it would
' not be a pledge. Thus far Bertram says truly, " A
' pledge and image are of another thing, i.e., they look
' not to themselves, but to something else ; for a pledge
' is of that thing for which it is given." S. Gaudentius
' says, " This (the Holy Eucharist) is truly the hereditary
' gift of His Testament, which, on the night when He
' was delivered to be crucified. He left as a piledge of
' His presence."'— Pp. 110, 111. Thus far Dr. Pusey
has adduced the evidence of Bertram. It has only to be
adduced a little further, and the right meaning of the
word pledge, as used by Gaudentius, Avill be vindicated,
and Dr. Pusey refuted. The part he has quoted Avill be
printed in italics. ' In the prayers used after the
' mystery of the body and blood of Christ, to Avhich
' the people answer Amen, the priest speaketh thus —
' " We, who have received the pledge of eternal life,
' humbly beseech thee to grant that Ave may receive, by
' manifest participation, that Avhich we touch under the
' image of the sacrament. " Now, a pledge and imacfe
' are the pledge and image of another thing, that is,
' they look not to themselves, but to something else ; for
' a pledge is the pledge of that thing for which it is
' given; an image is the image of that, the likeness
' whereof it showeth forth. For they do not openly
' exhibit, but only signify those things of which they are
' the pledge and the image. Wherefore, it foUoweth that
' this body and blood [meaning the consecrated bread and
' wine which, as Theodoret says, " are honoured with the
' title of body and blood "] are the pledge and image of

158 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
some future thing, whereby that Avhich is noAV exhibited
under a likeness shall hereafter be openly revealed.
Since, then, they now represent that which shall here
after be revealed, it folio Aveth that that which is now
celebrated is one thing, while that which shall be
revealed hereafter is another. Wherefore, that which
the Church celebrated is both the body and blood of
Christ, but yet as a pledge, as an image. The reality
we shall then possess, when pledge and image shall be
no more, but the thing itself in reality shall appear.
And in another prayer, " 0 Lord, we beseech thee, let
thy sacraments work in us that which they contain,
so that what we now celebrate in figure, we may receive
in very reality." He saith that these things are cele
brated in a figure, not in reality ; that is, in the like
ness, not by the exhibition of the thing itself Now, a
figure and reality differ from one another; wherefore
the body and the blood, which are celebrated in the
Church, differ from that body and that blood which is
acknowledged to be already glorified in Christ's body.
This body is the pledge and figure, but that is the
reality itself This will continue to be celebrated till
we come to that other; but when we come to that
body, this shall be taken away. It appeareth, there
fore, that they differ as much from each other as a
pledge doth from that thing of which it is given to us
as the pledge, as much as an image doth from that
thing of which it is the image, as much as the figure
doth from the reality. We see, then, that the mystery of
the body and blood of Christ, which is now received in
the Church by the faithful, is separated by a wide dif
ference from that which was born of the Virgin Mary,
which suffered, was buried, which rose again, which
ascended into heaven, which sitteth at the right hand

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 159
' of the Father. For that which is done on our journey
' is to be spiritually received, because faith believeth that
' which it seeth not ; it spiritually feedeth the soul, and
' maketh glad the heart, and giveth everlasting life, and
' incorruption, while we look not upon that which feedeth
' the body, which is pressed by the teeth, which is
' divided into parts, but upon that which is spiritually
' received in faith. But that body in which Christ suf-
' fered and rose again, stiU existeth as His proper body,
' which He took of the body of the Virgin Mary, which,
' even after His resurrection, could be handled and seen,
' as He Himself said to His disciples, ' Handle me and
' see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
' have."' — De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, cc. Ixxxv.-
Ixxxix. This is a part of the argument which Bertram used
to refute the doctrine of the Real Presence as held by
Paschasius in the ninth century; it is equally suitable to
refute the same doctrine as held by Dr. Pusey in the
nineteenth century. Dr. Pusey, by way of making the
word ' pledge ' as used by Gaudentius of no effect against
the Roman doctrine of the Real Presence, asserts, ' If
' Christ were not present the Eucharist could be no
' pledge of His presence.' — See page 157, above. Dr.
Pusey does not say in those words ivhere Christ is really
present, but apparently leaves it to be inferred that He
is present in His own proper body in the Eucharist,
meaning by Eucharist the consecrated elements, and that
the Eucharist thus understood is not only a pledge, but is
also that of which it is a pledge, that is, the body which
was bom of the Virgin Mary and crucified, and the blood
which was shed on the cross. If this is what Dr. Pusey
wishes his readers to understand in regard to the word
' pledge ' as used by Gaudentius in relation to the presence

160 THE FATHERS A^EESUS DR. PUSEY.
of Christ, the above quotation from Bertram will show
how grievously he is misleading his readers, and especi
ally those who have been so unfortunate as to accept him
as their master.
Gaudentius uses yet another Avord descriptive of the
consecrated elements equally fatal to Dr. Pusey's doctrine
of Christ's real presence in them.
' And this He did [commanded His faithful disciples
' to put in use those mysteries which must be celebrated
' until Christ should come again from heaven], in order
' that the priests themselves and all we His faithful
' people alike, having daily before our eyes the pattern
' of Christ's passion, and carrying it in our hands and
' receiving it with mouth and heart, may hold it in
' indelible memory of our redemption.' — Sec. 12, page
145, above.
It is not to be conceived that Gaudentius would attach
any private meaning to this Avord ' pattern,' but Avould use
it in its catholic sense as it is found in the copy of the
Scriptures common to the Latin Church. How it is
there used may be seen from the following texts : — 'Who
' serve unto the example or pattern and shadow of
' heavenly things as Moses was admonished of God when
' he was about to make the tabernacle ; for see, saith he,
' that thou make all things according to the pattern
' showed to thee in the Mount.' — Heb. viii. 5. 'It was
' therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
' heavens should be purified Avith these ; but the heavenly
' things themselves Avith better sacrifices than these. For
' Christ is not entered into the holy places made Avith
' hands, which are the figures or patterns of the true, but
' into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God
' for us.' — Heb. ix. 23, 24.
No one can pretend that the word ' figiire ' or ' pattern '

THE FATHERS VERSUS DE. PUSEY. 161
can be here so interpreted as to include really that of which
it is a figure or pattern. The holy of holies Avas a
pattern of heaven itself; the former was a pattern, the
latter was the reality ; the pattern was not the reality nor
did it contain it, for no one can be so stupid as to believe
that the holy of holies made with hands was really and
objectively heaven itself into which Christ entered. But
what can with truth be affirmed of the use and meaning
of the word pattern in the authentic version of Scripture
in the time of Gaudentius, can with equal truth be affirmed
of the same word as used by Gaudentius himself; so
that when he calls the consecrated elements a pattern,
which could be seen with the eyes and carried in the
hands, that pattern was no more that of which it was
a pattern, that is, Christ's real flesh and blood, than was
the holy of holies made with hands that of Avhich it
was a pattern, that is, heaven itself
The discourse of Gaudentius has only to be fully and
candidly considered, and the conclusion come to must be
that it is most fatal to Dr. Pusey's doctrine of the Real
Presence, and that, had he quoted the discourse fairly,
even the ordinary reader not acquainted with patristic
sacramental phraseology must have hesitated to accept
Gaudentius as a witness on the side of Dr. Pusey.
The Fathers, whenever they addressed neophytes on
the sacraments, insisted much on the nature and effects of
the act of consecration, and endeavoured to impress,
especially upon the recently initiated, the real difference
between common bread and bread consecrated into a
sacrament, mystery, figure, image, etc., of Christ's body
and blood, so that they could not well fall into the error
of some of the Corinthians in ' not discerning the Lord's
' body.' The practice of the Fathers in this respect may
be accounted for from the circumstance that from some
M

162 THE FATHEES VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
time before the close of the second century, the sacra
ments were so concealed from the uninitiated that they
were in fact mysteries in the ancient and proper sense
of the Avord, that is, unrevealed secrets, and especially
the consecrated elements. The Fathers would frequently
speak of the body and blood of Christ being received
in the presence of the uninitiated ; but of the sacramental
elements, bread and wine, never. What Gaudentius has
said in relation to this point may be seen in section 3,
page 139, above. Hoav the Fathers generally speak upon
this point I have fully shown in my ' AnsAver to Dr. Pusey's
' Challenge,' volume i., pp. 246-248. Special seasons
were set apart for receiving the duly qualified candidates
for the sacraments, at Avhich time definite discourses were
delivered to them, and what up to that time had been
profound secrets, Avere now fully revealed and explained.
It requires no great stretch, of imagination to conceive
hoAV great must be the surprise of those just initiated to
find that the most profound secret of all in the Eucharist
was the use of bread, and wine, and water, the ordinary
food of the body. Their instructors, mostly bishops, had
to meet this difficulty, and had to be at great pains to
convince the neophytes that the bread and wine, by the
act of consecration, were much more in signification and
meaning than what they appeared to be to the eye; that
now in their use they were no longer to be regarded as
common elements, but as symbols, signs, antitypes, or
representations of the body and blood of Christ, and of
the mystical but real union of themselves with that
body. All this is fully explained in the above-named
work, more especially in volume i., at pp. 526-541.
Dr. Pusey, by quoting parts of these discourses delivered
by Fathers to neophytes which seem to favour his doc
trine, and suppressing parts of the same discourses which

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 163
are really fatal to it, greatly imposes upon his readers, and
if they are not deceived thereby they OAve no thanks
to him.
It will now be shoAvn that the discourses of Augustine
have been treated by Dr. Pusey even worse than that of
Gaudentius. Here follows a quotation from Augustine : —
' I promised to you who have been baptised a sermon
' in which I was to explain the sacrament of the Lord's
' Table, which ye have even now seen, and whereof ye
' were made partakers last night. Ye ought to know
' what ye have received, what ye are about to receive,
' what ye ought daily to receive. The 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. By
' these things the Lord Christ willed to commend His body
' and blood Avhich He shed for us for the remission of sins.
' If ye have AA'ell received, ye are Avhat ye have received.'
—Pp. 528, 529.
Here Dr. Pusey stops in his quotation, and the cause
of his doing so probably is the nature of what Augustine
immediately goes on to say, Avliich is as follows : — ' For
' the Apostle says, " We, being many, are one bread and
' one body." He commends in a certain manner to
' you in that bread to love unity. For is that bread
' made of one grain ? Were there not many grains of
' wheat ? . . . and ye Avere made bread, which is the
' body of Christ. And therefore unity is signified in a
' certain manner. Observe ye the sacrament in its
' order. First, after prayer, you Avere admonished to
' lift up the heart. The members of Christ are taught
' this. For if ye are made the members of Christ, Avhere
' is your Head ? The members have a head. If the
' Head had not gone before the members would not

164 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
' follow. Whither went your Head? What do you
' read in the symbol ? " On the third day He arose
' from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the
' right hand of the Father." Our Head then is in heaven.
' Therefore when it is saidj "Lift up your heart," you
' respond, " We lift it up to the Lord." . . Then
' when the people have responded, " We lift up our heart
' to the Lord," the bishop or presb}rter who offers, says,
' " Let us give thanks unto our Lord God," for ye lift up
' your heart and ye attest, saying, "It is meet and
' right " that we also give thanks to Him who made us
' to lift up the heart to our Head. Then, after the con-
' secration of the sacrifice, it is said, in which (consecra-
' tion) He willeth that we ourselves be His sacrifice, and
' that we be God's sacrifice is that which is chiefly to be
' shown, that is, the sign of the thing which we are.
' . . . Therefore the sacraments are great, very great.
' Do you wish to know how they are commended ? The
' Apostle says, "He who eats the body of Christ, or drinks
' unworthily the cup of the Lord, shall be guilty of the
' body and blood of the Lord." What is to receive un-
' worthily? To receive scornfully, to receive contemptibly.
' Let not that appear common to thee which thou seest.
' What thou seest passes away, but that which is signified
' is invisible, does not pass away, but remains. Lo, it is
' received, it is eaten, it is consumed. Is the Church of
' Christ consumed? Are the members of Christ con-
' sumed? Never.'— -De Diversis, Sermo. Ixxxiii., tom. x.
pp. 555, 556.
Dr. Pusey, by quoting a part and suppressing a part
of one and the same explanation of the sacrament, com
pletely misrepresents the, teaching of Augustine. For by
ending the quotation before Augustine had completed the
thought which he intended to express, the reader could

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 165
have no other impression than that he was speaking of the
body of Christ only; whereas he was speaking also of
Christ's body of true believers, and was showing that that
Avas the sacrament of the Lord's Table. Dr. Pusey's
quotation ends Avith the words, ' If ye have well received,
' ye are Avhat ye have received.' Hoav they were what
they received Augustine goes on to show, and among
other things states, ' And ye were made bread, which is
' the body of Christ.' Now, if the Paschasians, includ
ing Dr. Pusey, will interpret the language of Augustine
so as to make him teach the real objective presence in
the consecrated bread of Christ's body Avhich was born of
Mary and crucified on the cross, they must interpret the
same kind of language so as to make him teach the real
objective presence in the consecrated bread of Christ's
body of believing people. Augustine says, ' Then after
' the consecration of the sacrifice is said, in which conse-
' oration He willeth that , we ourselves be His sacrifice,
' and that we be God's sacrifice is that Avhich is chiefly to
' be shown, that is, the sign of the thing which we are.'
Again, ' Let not that appear common to thee which thou
'seest. What thou seest passes aAvay, but that which is
' signified is invisible, does not pass away, but remains.
' Lo it is received, it is eaten, it is consumed. Is the
' Church of Christ consumed ? Are the members of
' Christ consumed ? Never.' It is not to be inferred
from this language that the Church of Christ is really in
the consecrated bread, and each member in its entirety,
body, soul, and spirit. No more is it to be inferred from
the like phraseology, elsewhere used by Augustine, that
whole Christ, God and man, is in the consecrated bread,
yet this is what Dr. Pusey does infer ; and accordingly
he has cited a passage from another discourse of Augus
tine on Avhich he founds his inference, which is well

166 THE FATHERS VEESUS DR. PUSEY.
adapted to mislead the reader, and especially so as one
part Avhich might have aAvakened the attention of the not
too-confiding reader is mistranslated. The quotation Dr.
Pusey makes is, ' When He is eaten, He refresheth,
' and faileth not. Let us not, then, dread, brethren, to
' eat that Bread for fear that we should finish it, and
' afterAvards should not find what to eat. Let Christ be
' eaten ; Avhen eaten, He lives, because when slain He
' rose again. And when we eat it we do not make it
' into parts ; and, indeed, it so happens in the sacra-
' ment. Each one receives his part, Avhence the grace
' itself is called particles [partes, parts]. In parts He
' is eaten, and He, the Avhole, remaineth entire. By
' parts He is eaten in the sacrament, and He, the whole,
' remaineth entire in heaven ; He, the Avhole, remaineth
' entire in thy heart.' — Pp. 541, 542.
If the passage a little above which Dr. Pusey sup
pressed be compared Avith this which he has quoted, it
Avill be seen that he substantially affirms the same things
of Christ's body of believing people as he does of Christ's
body. The former is eaten and is consumed, and is
eaten and is not consumed ; the latter is made into parts
and is not made into parts, and by parts is eaten in the
sacrament, and the Avhole remaineth entire. Augustine
most certainly, in both these instances, distinguishes
betAveen the sacrament and that of which it is a sacra
ment. In neither case is the reality located in the
sacrament or consecrated elements, so that what is
affirmed of the sacramental sign cannot be affirmed of
the reality, and Avhat is affirmed of the reality cannot be
affirmed of the sacramental sign. For certainly Augus
tine teaches, in regard to the body of Christ's believing
people, that the sacrament of that body is eaten and
consumed, but that that body itself is not consumed ;

THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY. 167
and with respect to the body of Christ, the sacrament of
that body is made into parts, and by parts is eaten, but
the body itself, the reality, remains entire. The sacra
ment or consecrated bread is not, nor does it contain,
that of which it is a sacrament, that is, neither the body
of Christ's believing people, nor the body of Christ, nor
of both in union ; for, according to the teaching of the
Fathers, as it has been shown at pages 32-42, 90-98,
above, the one is not without the other, sacramentally
considered. A part of the quotation made by Dr. Pusey, as given
above, was used against the Paschasian heresy soon after
it became the recognised doctrine of the Roman Church.
Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, was one of the
earliest and most distinguished defenders of that heresy,
and from him we learn that Berengar, among other
quotations from Augustine against that heresy, made
also the following : — ' When Christ is eaten, life is
' eaten, nor when we eat do we make parts of Him.' —
Lan. De Euch. Sac. Bib. Mag. Vet. Patr., tom. xi.,
p. 341.
Now this part of Augustine's testimony Dr. Pusey has
greatly obscured by an incorrect translation, as follows :
— ' Let Christ be eaten ; when eaten He lives ; because
' when slain He rose again. And when we eat we do
' not make it into parts, and indeed it so happens in
' the sacrament.' The following is a more correct trans
lation of the latter part of the above passage : — ' Nor
' when we eat do we make parts of Him [Christ], and
' indeed it is so done in the sacrament (nee q'uando
' Tnanducamus partes de Illo facimus. Et quidem in
' sacramento sic fit).'
It seems unaccountable that a passage from Augus
tine, quoted by Berengar against the Paschasian heresy

168 THE FATHERS VERSUS DR. PUSEY.
more than 800 years ago, and commonly used by the
Reformers for the same purpose, should receive such
treatment at the hands of Dr. Pusey as to substitute
the Avord it for the word Him, as if we could speak of
Christ as it.

INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.

.SIfric, in answer to the Paschasian doctrine of the real presence of
Christ's body and blood in the consecrated elements, included bread as a
metaphor of Christ amongst such metaphors of Him named by Augus
tine as it would be blasphemous to understand literally, pp. 70, 71.
Albertinus. — The title of his great work on the Eucharist, in which he
answers the chief Roman authors on the doctrine of the Real Presence,
and maintains that the doctrine has no sanction from the teaching of the
Fathers, p. 6. Shows from the testimony of the Fathers in what light
they regarded mere human authority in comparison with that of the
Scriptures, pp. 10, 11.
Alcuin expresses the identical views of Cyprian in regard to the conse
crated elements standing in the same relation to the body of Christ's
beheving people as they do to His own body, p. 37.
Amalarius quotes very fully the words of Cyprian, in which he teaches
that the body of Christ is present in the consecrated elements no other
wise than as the body of His believing people is present therein, p. 37.
Ambrose, -with other Fathers, so speaks of Christ's body being figuratively
called bread, that he could not have conceived that when He called His
body bread. He meant that it Hterally was so, p. 31. Understood the
words of Christ spoken to the Jews respecting eating His flesh as a part
of the Holy Scriptures in which is life, p. 57. So speaks of eating the
flesh of Christ as to show that it might be eaten other-wise than in the
sacrament, pp. 57-59. Like other Fathers, included drinking the blood
of Christ among figurative phrases which cannot admit of a hteral
interpretation, p. 76. Speaks of the image of Christ in the Eucharist in
the same sense in which the Apostles are images, the realities of which
belonged to a future state, pp. 132-134. Says that no one can ever be
an image of himself, p. 134.
Augustine is quoted by Usher and Albertinus to show that -with him
Scripture alone was esteemed as of Di-vine authority in matters of faith,
pp. 10, 11. Uses stronger and more definite language respecting the
N

170 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
consecrated elements being the body of Christ's beUe-ving people, than of
their being the real body of Christ, and is so understood by Bertram,
pp. 39-42, 121. Speaks of Christ's transfiguring Himself into His mem
bers, p. 45. Represents a literal eating of the flesh and blood of Christ
as a disgraceful thing, and a crime, and considers the eating and drinking
to be a command to communicate in the passion of the Lord, and sweetly
and profitably to treasure up in our memory that His flesh was crucified
and wounded for us, pp. 61, 62. Considers that the eating is effected
by faith only, p. 63. In a treatise especiaUy relating to the figurative
language of the Scriptures, he so explains the meaning of signs and
sacraments as to be subversive of the Paschasian doctrine of the
Real Presence, pp. 61, 62, 66-67. His definition of a sacrament,
p. 67. Lays do-wn a definite rule for the interpretation of all Scrip
ture, which, as followed by himself, shows that nothing could be
further from his belief than that the words, ' This is my body, ' must
be understood literally, or that Christ meant to teach that the con
secrated bread was His very body which was about to be crucified,
pp. 71-74. Did not believe that the consecrated bread was really
Christ's body any more than he behoved that blood was really life, or
that the rock was really Christ, but as blood was the sign of hfe, and
the rock was a sign of Christ, so he believed that the bread was a sign
of the body of Christ and not His body reallj', pp. 68, 69, 72-74. Says
that ' He who 6haU say that the rock was Christ in proper signification,
' blasphemes, ' from which statement it is inferred that in his mind he
who should say that consecrated bread was the body of Christ in proper
signification would blaspheme, and this is confirmed by an argument of
^Ifric, pp. 68-71. Applies the phrase, 'Daily bread,' of the Lord's
Prayer as much to the reading and exposition of the Scriptures, and to
sacred hymns, as to the Eucharist, pp. 79, 80. His explanation of sacra
mental and symbolical language, pp. 80, 81. Contrary to the general
practice of the Fathers, speaks of Christ as present by the meat and
drink of the altar, but says the same thing of the sign of the cross and
the sacrament of baptism, p. 85. So speaks of the presence of Christ
-with His people in His Divinity as to show that he beUeved Him to be
really absent from them in His Humanity until His second coming,
pp. 85-89. So speaks of the consecrated elements as to indicate that in
his mind there was an indissoluble union in them of the things signified,
namely, the body of Christ, and His body the Church, p. 126. Teaches
that unless a communicant is a member of the body of Christ he cannot
in the sacrament participate of the things signified, that is, the body and
blood of Christ, otherwise than merely sacramentally, which will be to
destruction, but the thing or reality of the sacrament is for every man

INDEX OP MATTERS DISCUSSED. 171
to life, for none to destruction ; and he plainly teaches that an unworthy
communicant cannot be a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, or
of the things signified by the consecrated elements, pp. 127-131. Speaks
of Christ's body of believing people in relation to the consecrated
elements in the same style as he does of Christ's own body, pp. 164-167.
Basil quoted by Usher to prove that, in matters of faith, nothing is to be
accepted which cannot be confirmed by the testimony of Scripture,
p. 10. Teaches that the flesh of Christ is food for the soul, and not for
the members of the body, and that Christ called His whole mystical
course and conversation on earth His flesh and blood, and signified by
them the doctrine which consists of practical and theological teaching,
pp. 60, 61. So explains the nature of figurative language as used re
specting Christ and the soul as to be subversive of the Paschasian and
Puseyite doctrine of the Real Presence, pp. 75, 76.
Bede speaks in the same style as Cyprian in regard to the consecrated ele
ments, showing that he considered them as standing in exactly the same
relation to the body of Christ's beheving people as they did to His own
body, pp. 36, 37.
Berengar, in defence of the true doctrine against the Paschasian heresy,
quotes important evidence from the writings of Augustine, and is rephed
to by Lanfranc, part of whose reply is quoted by Dr. Pusey as the lan
guage of Augustine, p. 48. In opposition to the doctrine of the Real
Presence, which had then begun to be held by the Church of Rome,
quotes passages from Augustine, where he defines a sacrament to be a
sacred sign, and says, ' A sign, besides the form which it presents to the
' senses, causes something else external to itself to come into the mind,'
and therefore, contrary to the new doctrine, could not be in itself that
of which it was a sacred sign, p. 67. Quotes, in answer to Lanfranc,
who defended the doctrine of the Real Presence as held by Paschasius,
a passage from Augustine against that doctrine, which Dr. Pusey has
mistranslated and quoted in favour of it, p. 167.
Bertram, in opposition to the doctrine of Paschasius, very correctly inter
prets the language of Cyprian concerning the nature of the consecrated
elements, as teaching that they are as much changed into the members
of Christ's people as they are into the body of Christ, and as much
changed into the blood of the faithful people as into the blood of Christ ;
but as the language of Cyprian respecting the consecrated elements
cannot be understood literally, but spiritually, respecting the members
of the body of Christ and the blood of the faithful people, so the same
language must be understood in this way, and in no other, respect
ing the body and blood of Christ, pp. 34, 35. Treats the language of
Augustine after the same manner and for the same purpose as he does

172 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
that of Cyprian, pp. .41-43. The words and thoughts employed by him
in refutation of the doctrine of Paschasius are so misrepresented by Dr.
Pusey as to make them in harmony with the doctrine which they were
intended to refute, pp. 43, 44. Represents Augustine as teaching that
to eat the body of Christ and drink His blood in the Eucharist, according
to the teaching of Paschasius, would not be an act of religion, but a
crime, p. 62. In refutation of the doctrine of Paschasius, he employs
the same thoughts as those of Augustine where he teaches that the
manna in the wilderness stood exactly in the same relation to the Israel
ites as the consecrated elements in the Eucharist do now to the Christian
Church, pp. 69, 70. So explains the use of the words pledge and figure,
in relation to the Lord's Supper, as to refute the doctrine of the Real
Presence as held by Paschasius, and the same doctrine as now held by
Dr. Pusey, pp. 157-159.
Chrysostom applies Malachi i. 11 to the Lord's Supper, and enumerates
the Christian sacrifices as ten, all of which he regarded as spiritual and
immaterial, and one sacrifice only as peculiar to the Christian ministry,
viz., the preaching of the Gospel, pp. 23, 24. Considers that what our
Lord taught respecting eating His flesh and drinking His blood must be
understood mystically and spiritually, p. 63. Explaining certain meta
phors in relation to Christ, he includes the flesh and blood of Christ
among them, pp. 76, 77. So explains the Eucharist as to show that, in
his mind, the consecrated elements stood exactly in the same relation to
the body of Christ's believing people as they did to the body of Christ,
pp. 90-98. States that if Christ, in baptism, gives Himself, the greater
gift. He will not think it scorn to distribute, in His Holy Supper, of His
body, p. 125.
Clement of Alexandria allegorically and spiritually interprets the parts
of the sixth chapter of St. John which Dr. Wiseman and Dr. Pusey
interpret literally, and so teaches -with regard to a participation of. Christ
as to make it plain that he knew nothing of the doctrine of the Real
Presence, as now held by Dr. Pusey and the Romanists, pp. 109-119.
Corpus Juris Canonici. — In this Roman Catholic work, in answer to
passages quoted from Augustine by Berengar, in which the words ' sign '
and ' sacrament ' are used in relation to the Eucharist, not only the word
' sacrament,' as defined by Augustine, is explained as containing within
itself that of which it is a sacrament, but also a sign, used in the same
connection, is explained as containing in itself that of which it ia a sigTi
pp. 67, 68.
Cyprian a striking instance of one who so speaks of Christ's caUing His
body bread and His blood wine, in regard to the Eucharist, as to make
it certain that he could not have behoved that the bread was consecrated

INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 173
into Christ's real body which was bom of Mary, and the wine into His
blood which was shed on the cross, pp. 31, 32. He so explains the
nature of the consecrated elements, as to show that he no more beheved
the consecrated elements to be, or to contain, the real body and blood of
Christ, than he behoved them to be or to contain the bodies of Christ's
faithful people, pp. 33, 34, 1 20.
Cyril of Jerusalem remarks on the words, ' Come, let us put wood upon
' his bread' (.Ter. xi. 19), as it stood in his version, that, according to
the Gospel, Christ's body bore the type of bread ; from which it is to
be inferred that by the use of such language he coidd not conceive that
Christ made bread into His own real body, p. 31. He speaks of con
secrated bread being made the body of Christ, not meaning His real
body which was born of Mary, but a figure of it, pp. 153, 154.
Daille states that it was the practice of the Reformers not to admit the
authority of the Fathers as a sufficient ground whereon to build an
article of their behef, but that they alleged the testimony of the Fathers
to overthrow the opinions of the Church of Rome, and not to strengthen
their own, p. 9.
Denison, Archdeacon, teaches, contrary to the Fathers and his own
Church, ' that the body and blood of Christ, being really present in the
' consecrated bread and wine, are given therem, and thereby, to all,
' and are received by all who come to the Lord's Table,' and herein is
defended by Dr. Pusey, p. 100.
Eusebius of Csesarea gives a spiritual interpretation to the sacrificial
words of Malachi i. 11, and with the Fathers generally applies them to
the Lord's Supper, pp. 22, 23. Interprets eating the flesh and drinking
the blood of Christ as receiving His words and discourses, pp. 59, 60.
The Fathers are obtrusively claimed by Dr. Pusey and his followers as
teaching their doctrine of the Real Presence ; but more justly claimed
by the great Protestant divines, such as Jewel, Usher, Albertmus, and
others, to be against the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's body
and blood in the consecrated elements, pp. 1-7. Did not recognise any
human authority in matters of faith, and practice as binding, but only
the authority of the Scriptures, pp. 9-11. Their evidence respecting the
origin of sacrificial words and phrases in connection with the Lord's
Supper, as founded on Malachi i. 11, not quoted by Dr. Pusey, pp.'lT-
24. So quote Scripture, and express themselves as to show that they no
more understood our Lord to make the sacramental bread into His real
body than He made His real body into sacr,amental bread, pp. 26-32.
Regarded the bread and -wine each as compound substances, and as by
consecration becoming, sacramentally or mysticaUy, not only the body of
Christ, but also the body of His believing people, pp. 119-124. Fathers

174 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
do not contradict Fathers, nor Fathers contradict themselves, to the
extent commonly supposed, especially in regard to the doctrine of the
Lord's Supper, p. 137. AA^hen addressing neophytes on the sacraments,
they dwelt very fully upon the nature and effects of consecration with
regard to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, showing that the
bread and wine were no longer common, but had become a sacrament,
mystery, figure, image, etc., of Christ's body and blood, pp. 161, 162.
Fulgentius teaches, on the authority of Augustine, that the flesh and
blood of Christ, or the things signified or represented by the consecrated
elements, can be received apart from the Lord's Supper, pp. 123-125.
Gaudentius, in a special discourse to neophytes on the Lord's Supper,
utters apparently contradictory sentiments too commonly ascribed to the
Fathers, but which are shown, when regarded from his o-wn point of
view, not to be really contradictory, pp. 137, 138. Teaches that a
figure is not the reahty of Christ's passion, and that the wine in the
Eucharist is offered in the figure of His passion, pp. 140, 147. States
that the body of Christ is contained in the Old and New Testaments,
and shows how it is to be eaten, pp. 141-143. Says that we are bidden
to eat in the mysteries the head of Christ's Divinity, together with the
feet of His incarnation ; and that Christ, on the night in which He was
betrayed, left a pledge of His presence, p. 144. Shows that in the
Eucharist we have an image andpatier>7 of Christ's passion, pp. 144, 145.
Teaches that the flesh of the Lamb ought to be eaten in the sacrament
as well as in faith, p. 146.
Goode, Dean, claims the Fathers to be against the doctrine of the Real
Presence as held by Archdeacon Denison, Archdeacon AA'^ilberforce, and
Dr. Pusey, pp. 6, 7. With other divines of the English Church, has
proved from the writings of the Fathers that Holy Scripture was their
only absolute rule of faith and practice, p. 11.
Hooker, apparently in imitation of Zwingle, so explains the words of insti
tution as to show that he did not believe that the elements, by virtue of
their consecration, contain any presence whatever beyond their own
substances of bread and wine ; and ranks himself among those whom
Romanists and Lutherans call Sacramentarians, Preface, pp. .xvi. -xix.
Irenseus so speaks of the sacrificial words of Malachi i. 11 in connection
with the Lord's Supper as to show that he understood them spiritually,
pp. 19-21.
Isidore quotes the words of Cyprian with approval where he speaks of
the consecrated elements as standing in the same relation to the body
of Christ's beheving people as they do to His own body, pp. 35, 36.
Jerome interprets spiritually, with the Fathers generally, the sacrificial
words of Malachi i. 11 in relation to the Lord's Supper, p. 23. So

INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 175
speaks of Christ's body under the figure of bread as to show that he could
not have beUeved that Christ made bread into His real body, pp. 31, 45.
Jerome, or an ancient writer taken for him, speaks of Christ's flesh and
blood as being eaten, not only in the Eucharist, but in the Holy Scrip
tures, and of the flesh of Christ and His blood being poured into the
ears, pp. 135, 136. The words of institution in a commentary attributed
to Jerome so interpreted as to be repugnant to Dr. Pusey's doctrine of
the Real Presence, p. 136.
Je-wel, Bishop, claimed the doctrine of the Church of England on the
Lord's Supper to be in accordance with that of the Fathers of the first
six centuries, and boldly challenged any of the Roman Catholics to prove
their doctrine of the Real Presence from the same source of evidence,
promising that if they succeeded he would subscribe to their doctrine,
pp. 2-5.
Jonathan, in his Chaldee Targum or Paraphrase after the manner of the
Fathers, interprets the sacrificial language of Malachi i. 11 spiritually,
pp. 18-19.
Justin Martyr teaches the priesthood of all Christians, and shows that
their sacrifices in regard to the Lord's Supper, as founded on Malachi i.
11, are spiritual, pp. 17-19.
Keble accepted the doctrine of the Real Presence as that of the Fathers,
not as demonstrated by himseff, but as demonstrated by Dr. Pusey,
p. 13. States that The Word stands sometimes for the Scriptures, some
times for the person of our Lord, p. 117.
Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury. — Language used by hmi in
answer to some passages cited from Augustine by Berengar, in refutation
of the doctrine of Paschasius on the Real Presence, Dr. Pusey has
ascribed to Augustine himself, p. 48.
Manning, Roman Catholic Archbishop, is told by a Ritualistic
reviewer * that the philosophical term presence should be discouraged
' and eliminated from theological discourse on the sacrament, as the
' word is of comparatively modern use on this subject,' p. 84.
Macarius speaks of Christ embodying Himself into bread and water,
which is shown rather to be against Dr. Pusey's doctrine of the Real
Presence than in favour of it, pp. 45, 46.
Origen interprets the sacrificial words of Malachi i. 11, which the Fathers
commonly apply to the Lord's Supper, in such a manner as to show that
he understood them spiritually, p. 22. With other Fathers so explains
the phrase, ' Wood on his bread' (Jer. xi. 19), as to show that he no
more understood Christ to say that bread was His real body, than that
His real body was bread, p. 31. So far from interpreting the eating of
the flesh of Christ hteraUy, he considered that the Jews themselves were

176 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
not so foohsh as to suppose that Christ invited them to eat His flesh,
p. 51. He teaches that to understand the words, ' Except ye eat the
¦ flesh,' etc., hterally, is to follow the letter that kills, p. 52. Considers
that the blood of Christ is drunk not only in the way of sacraments, but
also when we receive His words, in which is life ; and that the blood of
Christ is drunk when we receive the words of His doctrine, pp. 53, 55.
Lays down certain broad principles of interpretation in order to a right
understanding of certain figurative words and phrases which are of much
importance in the present controversy, pp. 74, 75. With Clement of
Alexandria shows that Christ, in relation to those who receive Him, is
called flesh and mdk, and is diversely named for the capacity of
behevers, p. 117.
Paschasius. — His doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist
shown to be exactly the opposite of that held by Augustine, pp. 86, 87.
Protestants. — The great Protestant divines have generally claimed the
Fathers as witnesses against the doctrine of the Real Presence as held
by Romanists and Dr. Pusey, pp. 2-7 ; but some Protestants of the
present day rashly, and on insufficient grounds, give up the claim, p. 2.
Do not regard the teaching of the Fathers as of any binding authority
in matters of Christian faith and practice, and herein follow the rule of
the Fathers themselves, pp. 9-11.
Pusey, Dr., claims the Fathers as teaching his doctrine of the Real
Presence, pp. 1, 13, 14. His purpose in 1857 to consider, when it
should please God to give him health, certain portions of Dean Goode's
evidence adduced from the Fathers against his doctrine of the Real
Presence not yet accompUshed, pp. 7, 8. His accumulation of useless
authorities noticed and criticised, pp. 14, 15. An attempt to account
for the untrustworthiness of his quotations from the Fathers without
calling in question his honesty and truthfulness, pp. 14-16. Has omitted
to quote the testimony of the Fathers as to the origin of sacrificial words
and phrases with regard. to the Lord's Supper, as founded on Malachi
i. 11, which words and phrases they explain spiritually, pp. 17-24. The
unfair manner in which he has treated the testimony of Irenseus,
pp. 19-21. Misrepresents the teaching of Tertullian by making it
appear that in some instances where he speaks of Christ calling His
body bread, he speaks of Christ caUing bread His body, pp. 27-30.
An instance in which he has garbled the testimony of Tertullian, p. 30.
His omission of an important statement of Cyprian where he, in relation
to the Eucharist, speaks of Christ's calling His body bread and His blood
-wine, pp. 31, 32. Quotes Cyprian and Augustine to prove that, in
their belief, the real body and blood of Christ were in or under the
consecrated elements, but omits to quote them where, in the same con-

INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 177
nection, they just as much .speak of the body of Christ's believing people
being in or under the consecrated elements, pp. 32-40. His very unfair
treatment of a discourse of Augustine, quoting a part where he is speak
ing of the consecrated elements in relation to the body of Christ, but
omitting to quote stronger language in the same discourse, where he goes
on to speak of the consecrated elements in relation to the body of Christ's
believing people, pp. 39-42. His perversion of the plam language of
Bertram, by which he makes him teach the doctrine of Paschasius, which
he was really refuting, pp. 43, 44. His misrepresentation of the plain
language of Theodoret, so as to make his language compatible -with the
Paschasian doctrine of the Real Presence, p. 47. Attributes a state
ment of Lanfranc, employed in the defence of the doctrine of Paschasius
in answer to a passage quoted by Berengar from Augustine, to Augustine
himself, pp. 47, 48. Quotes a passage from Macarius, where he speaks
of Christ's embodying himself into bread and water, in which probably
there is no allusion to the consecrated elements, as ' Testimony to the
' belief in the Real Presence in the early Church,' pp. 45, 46. In the
reasons which he gives for a literal interpretation of the words of Christ,
' Except ye eat the flesh,' etc., exactly follows the teaching of Dr. Wise
man, pp. 49, 50. Remarkable omissions, contrary to his own affirmation,
of most important and commonly-cited statements of such Fathers as
TertuDian, Origen, Ambrose, Eusebius, Basil, Augustine, and Chry
sostom, where they most certainly interpret the eating of the flesh of
Christ spiritually and by faith only, and condemn a literal interpretation
which would involve an eating by the mouth, pp. 50-63. Garbles and
perverts the testimony of Origen, pp. 53-56. By an unfair treatment of
a passage from the writings of Ambrose, misrepresents what he really
teaches, pp. 57-59. A misrepresentation of the teaching of Basil, p. 61.
Entirely omits those important parts of the writings of such Fathers as
Origen, Basil, and Augustine, in which they explain the figurative nature
of words and phrases in relation to Christ and the soul which are not to
be understood literally, but figuratively, and which have a most important
bearing upon the use of sacramental or symhohcal language in connec
tion with the Lord's Supper, pp. 61, 64-77. Misrepresents the teaching
of Augustine, by giving a part and suppressing a part of what he has
said on the words, ' Daily bread,' of the Lord's Prayer, and contrary to
TertijUian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Cyi-il of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Bertram,
would understand the phrase, 'Daily bread,' as referring to the conse
crated bread of the Eucharist, whereas these Fathers regard the phi-ase
as a title of Christ Himself, the Bread of the sacramental Bread, whether
received in the Eucharist or apart from it, pp. 78-81. Quotes a portion
of a passage from Augustine in which he speaks of the nature of a sacra-
0

178 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
ment, but omits to quote the part which is far more important, pp. 80,
81. The wovd presence, with various adjuncts, is frequently used by Dr.
Pusey to denote the existence of Christ in the sacramental elements,
but in his 400 pages of extracts from the Fathers, gives no instance
where the word presence is used in that connection, pp. 83-85. Omits
most important passages from Augustine, commonly quoted in this con
troversy, where he so speaks as to show plainly that the Humanity of
Christ will be absent until His second coming, and that it is by His
Divinity oidy that He is present everywhere, pp. 85-89. Quotes a pas-
.sage from Chrysostom in proof of the doctrine of the Real Presence in
the consecrated elements, but suppresses the most important parts of it,
where Chrysostom doubtless teaches that the consecrated elements stand
in the same relation to the body of Christ's believing people as they do
to Christ's own body, pp. 90-92. Wrongly interprets and mistranslates
an imijortant passage from the writings of Chrysostom, pp. 94-98.
Teaches, contrary to the Fathers, that the wicked receive in the Eucha
rist not oidy the signs, but also the things signified, pp. 9B-101. After
the manner of Paschasius, gives a private and uncatholic interpretation
of sacramental words and phrases employed by the Fathers and the Re
formers, pp. 101-103. Disregards the ancient definition of a sacrament,
and, contrary to the Fathers, interprets the sacramental or symbolical
words used by them in relation to the consecrated elements so as to make
them to be, or to contain, the very things which they are employed to
signify or represent, pp. 103-107. Treats most unfairly the testimony
of Clement, by quoting a few words from his "writings without any regard
to the context in which they occur, and makes it appear that this Father
teaches his doctrine of the Real Presence, whereas he in fact, as is shown,
refutes it, pp. 108-117. Contrary to his own declaration, quotes a part
of a passage from Aug-ustine and suppresses the most important part,
which, as explained by Fulgentius, a, later Father, is quite fatal to Dr.
Pusey's doctrine of the Real Presence, p. 124. Misrepresents the teach
ing of Chrysostom, by quoting >• part of his statement, which, had he
ipioted the whole, the reader would have seen that Christ gave Himself
the greater gift in Baptism, but in the Eucharist the lesser gift, viz.,
His body, p. 125. Quotes a passage ascribed to Augustine by Paschasius,
to prove the presence of Christ's body and blood in the consecrated
elements, but omits a real passage of Augustine in which he uses stronger
language respecting the body of Christ's believing people, and which, if
interpreted hterally after Dr. Pusey's style, would show that Augustme
believed the real presence of the body of the faithful in the consecrated
elements, pp. 126, 127. Misrepresents the teaching of Ambrose, by
quoting a part of his testimony and suppressing the more important part

INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED. 179
of it, pp. 132-134. Omits, contrary to his own statements, two most
important patristic testimonies against the doctrine of the Real Presence
as held by himself, pp. 135, 136. Treats most unfahly the testimony of
Gaudentius, both by mistranslation and quoting parts of a discourse
which seem in favour of his doctrine of the Real Presence, and suppress
ing parts of the discourse which are quite against the doctrine, pp. 138-
161. Misvepresents the teaching of Bertram by only giving ", part of
what he states concerning the word pledge, as used in relation to the
Eucharist, and omits to give the more important parts where, in the
same connection, he so explains the use of the words pledge and figure
as to refute the doctrine of the Real Presence as held by Paschasius, and
the same doctrine as held by himself, pp. 157-160. Treats the testimony
of Augustine most unfairly by mistranslation, and by quoting where he
speaks of the body of Christ in relation to the consecrated elements, and
omitting to quote in the same connection what he says of Christ's Ixuly
of believing people, pp. 162-167.
Rahanus Maurus states that it was the consensus of aU the Church
to understand the words, ' Come let us put wood upon his bread ' (Jer.
xi. 19), as it stood in ancient versions, as relating to the Lord Jesus
Christ ; by which it is plain the Churches understood our Lord to speak
of His body under the figure of bread, p. 26. Quotes the entire state
ments of Cyprian where he speiKs of the b dy of Christ's people stand
ing in the same relation to the consecrated elements as Christ's own
proper body, pp. 37, 38.
Tertullian interprets spu-itually the sacrificial words of Malachi i. 11,
which the Fathers commonly apply to the Lord's Supper, pp. 21, 22.
So speaks of Christ's calling or making His body bread as to show how
strange the notion was to him that Christ made bread into His real
body, pp. 27;29. His testimony garbled by Dr. Pusey, pp. 30, 31. Very
plainly interprets eating the flesh of Christ, and drinldng His blood, as
an act of faith by the soul, and not as done by the members of the body,
pp. 50, 51.
Theodoret properly states that Christ did not give His Divinity for the
life of the world, but His flesh, p. 20. Speaks distinctly of our Lord's
calling His body bread, and of His honouring the visible symbols with
the title of body and blood, wliich language Dr. Pusey perverts to make
it consonant with his own doctrine of the Real Presence, pp. 28, 47.
Usher Archbishop, maintained that the Roman Catholics have the shell
of the Fathers on their side without the kernel, and that the Protestants
have the kernel without the shell, pp. 5, 6.
Walafridus Strabo expresses the very same sentiments as those of
Cyprian respecting the consecrated elements standing in the same

180 INDEX OF MATTERS DISCUSSED.
relation to the body of Christ's faithful people as they do to His own
body, p. 38.
Waterland. — His statement respecting the Eucharistic oblations in the
time of Irenseus, p. 21. ,
Wiseman, Dr., teaches, in common with most Protestants, that where
Christ speaks of Himself as bread which came down from heaven, there
is a figurative appUcation of bread to doctrines, p. 46. Is closely
_ followed in his interpretation of the latter part of the sixth chapter of
St. John by Dr. Pusey, pp. 49, 50.
Zmringle is shown to use the word ' sacramentally ' in the same sense as
Augustine, whom he quotes, but in an opposite sense to that in which
Dr. Pusey and Romanists use it, pp. 101, 102. He so explains the
words of institution as to show that the elements by consecration do not
contain any other presence beyond their own substances of bread and
wine, and herein is followed by Hooker, Preface, pp. xiv-xix.

Tyii^ "in^^ nn^i

TVENBLLLAKD -trEAR^, PRINTE14S_. EUINBL'KCJH,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 4618

4
*•

V"*^, i" ¦