"For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (xi. 26, 27). St. Paul here speaks of the sacraments after blessing, or what we now call consecration. He speaks of them before eating, and after their being eaten, and he calls them bread and wine. We ask, what authority is higher than his ?-and say that no man, let him be who he may, ought to use other language than St. Paul. The opinions of the whole host of fathers, Greek and Latin, of our own or any other Church, will not warrant the words of Bishop Overall. Our liturgy uses the language of St. Paul, and the term used is "sacramental bread and wine."

Moreover, St. Paul does not call the bread the body of Christ, nor the cup the blood of Christ, but the communion of the body of Christ, and the cup the communion of the blood, and not the blood. The expressions are widely different, and the difference will lead to as wide a difference in the interpretation. To the very last part of the communion, the language of our Church is, "We receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine." But if they were, as Dr. Pusey supposes them to be through his mystification, the body and blood of Christ, they would be no longer creatures, but the host that you might elevate and adore. For our Saviour always admitted the worship of his disciples; and if there is a presence, either corporeal or spiritual, in the bread and wine, there is no reason why they should not be adored; but there is no such circumstance with them. The spiritual presence is within our souls and bodies, through the operations and transmutations of faith and the Holy Spirit. This is the kind of presence meant; to this presence the bread and wine are accessaries, being part of the communion. But they are not changed themselves, neither are they the immediate instruments of the change made in our own bodies. We understand St. Paul when he speaks of the communion or fellowship, the koivavia of the Holy Ghost, God being a Spirit, and infinitely divisible. We can comprehend our having within us that fellowship. But the communion or fellowship, or кowwvia, of the body and blood of Christ is not so easily comprehended: for it cannot become infinitely divisible if we can take the words in a material sense; and if in a spiritual, they confound our intelligence much more than the communion of the Spirit. When our Saviour said, "This is my body;" he certainly meant his personal body* about to be sacrificed. But St. Paul's expression, "The fellowship of the body," is a variation from that term: it is one remove from the personal body, and seems to mean the mystic body, the abstract body, considered as a nature or species; and the next verse carries out this signification: "For we, being many, are one bread and one body "-that is, we are one body, one species and nature, as bread is one material, one kind of composition; "for we are all partakers of that one bread." (x. 17). St.

That is, the sign or type of his body.

Paul here speaks spiritually, and he says partakers, and not eaters; and our communion and catechism follow the same turn of expression. The communion or fellowship is formed, after partaking of the bread and wine, in the bodies of the communicants, and not in the bread and wine themselves, which are only one, and the last and lowest parts of the instruments in creating the communion, which, in some cases, our Prayer Book teaches may be communicated without any eating at all, by the feeding "in the heart by faith with thanksgiving." The rubric, in our Sick communion, admits this case; and Dr. Pusey quotes St. Austin to the same effect, when he says: Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy table? Believe, and thou hast eaten; for in this mystic eating, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost, we do invisibly receive the substance of Christ's body and blood as much as if we eat and drink both visibly. In this case, the consecrated bread and wine cannot be accounted necessary to form the body and blood of Christ."

66

"And the mystery is formed by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost, without even contact with the bread and wine."-Bishop Cosin.

The declaration that we have to deal with is made by Dr. Pusey in his Preface, which is-" That conscious of my own adherence to the formularies of the Church of England, and having repeatedly expressed myself on this subject, and on the very outset of the Sermon conveyed at once, that I believe the elements to be in their natural substances, and that I did not attempt to define the mode of the mystery, but that they are also the body and blood of Christ." It was Dr. Pusey's duty, after having thus identified himself with the formularies of the Church of England, to have proved from those forms that he spoke their language and kept to their principles, or that he was in accordance with the Scriptures: but he has not done this he has entirely overlooked these examinations, and has quoted instead a variety of opinions, some of them proving one thing and some another, and few of them coming to the point he has to prove; which is, that somehow or other the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine, through, and on account of, their consecration. The quotations are very curious, and the questions asked, and the reasoning in them, very subtle and learned; and they show that some of our divines have expressed themselves very loosely, some very contradictorily, and others very presumptuously, as Bishop Overall. They admit the presence in the communion-the taking and receiving of the body and blood in the communion; but the passage ought to show the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine in consequence of consecration. This it has not done, neither can it be done; although Bishop Overall has been quoted, somewhat unfairly, in order to bring the proof. The general tendency of these quotations is certainly to reconcile the differences between the English and Romish Churches, to which no one would object if it could be done without surrendering the truth, and returning to the old corruptions. Neither has Dr. Pusey quoted the authors he names fairly; and he stands self-convicted in the case of

Bishop Overall, when he tries to infer that Overall anticipated his own mysterious mode.

"Probably (says Dr. Pusey) had Overall lived before the tenth century, he would have thought he had sufficiently stated his belief in the above expressions; but placed, as he was, in other circumstances, it was expedient for him not only to maintain ancient truth, but to protest against erroneous innovation." And he quotes from Overall" Yet not in any bodily, gross, earthly manner, as by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, or any like devices of human reason; but in a mystical, heavenly, spiritual manner, as is rightly laid down in our Articles." This passage brings Bishop Overall to Dr. Pusey and his mystical mode. He has done the same with Dean Comber, from whom he adduces many ambiguous expressions; but he overlooks the passages which precede them, in which Comber himself repeatedly calls the bread and wine signs, types, representations, symbols, and quotes several of the fathers to support him; and when once the notion of a sign or representation is admitted, actual presence in those signs cannot be admitted also. Some of Dr. Pusey's quotations may be turned against him, even as they stand in his own book. "The word eucharist is not in the Prayer Book, and it is often used to mean the whole communion. As, for instance, the disagreement is only in the de modo presentia-the thing is yielded on either side, and there is in the holy Eucharist a real presence."-Bishop Bilson.

In this passage we believe the word eucharist means the whole communion. "God forbid (says Bishop Bilson) we should deny that the flesh and blood are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's table." But is this saying what Dr. Pusey imputes falsely to the Church of England :-"Conscious of my own adherence to the formularies of the Church of England, and having repeatedly expressed myself on this subject, and in the very outset of the Sermon conveyed at once, that I believe the elements to be in their natural substances, and that I did not attempt to define the mode of the mystery, but that they were also the body and blood of Christ."

Does Bishop Bilson say, as Dr. Pusey, that "the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine, and that these substances are, by a mysterious mode, the body and blood of Christ?” Bishop Bilson speaks a very different language. He says that "the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received, not eaten, at the Lord's table-that is, during the stay of the communicants at the whole ceremony, in prayer and faith;" but he does not say that the bread and wine themselves are the body and blood.

In the same manner Dr. Pusey misquotes and mistakes Hooker, the whole of whose inimitable writing in the fifth book is directly contradictory of Puseyism; for Hooker calls the bread and wine "instruments." He says, speaking of his own and the opinions of Tertullian, Ireneus, and Theodoret, that "consecration changeth the consecrated elements, so that supernatural efficacy is added to them, changeth them, and maketh them to us that which otherwise

they could not be; such instruments as mystically, truly, yet invisibly, really work our communion or fellowship with the person of Jesus Christ." But does Dr. Pusey say this? Does he say the bread and wine are instruments only, working in us? Does he not say they are themselves the very body and blood, by a mysterious mode?

Moreover, Hooker says-" The consecrated elements work our communion or fellowship with the person of Jesus Christ. The instrument that works to produce a thing, can never be the thing itself; and if it works to produce the fellowship of the blood and body of Christ, it is not the very same word or the very same thing as the body and blood of Christ itself." Then he proceeds to carry out an idea, which has been spoken of before in former numbers of the Churchman, and which, if carried out and expanded, would put an end to all the mistaken views of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and the mystified, prevaricating, Puseyite mode of the presence in the bread and wine. After having spoken of the bread and wine as instruments, so changed as to have efficacy by virtue of consecration, Hooker says, that "they really work our communion, or fellowship, with the person of Jesus Christ, as well in that he is Man as God; our participation also in the fruit, grace, and efficacy of his body and blood. Whereupon there ensueth a kind of transubstantiation in us-a true change of body and soul, an alteration from death to life." (Hooker, book v., sect. 67).

Add to this interpretation the understanding of the definition St. Paul gives to the sacrament, that it is communion, or fellowship of the body-not those corporeal particles ever in contact with the person of Christ, but his mystic body-his body considered as a nature and species in himself, which the whole mysteries in the communion, not the bread and wine alone, but faith and the Holy Spirit, create, and create in the communicants receiving worthily; then in time all disputes concerning a de modo presentia would cease, for neither the Catholic Church nor the Church of England ever denied a real presence. Though no man has a right to say that such a presence is in the bread and wine, which are instruments, and nothing more; for if they were, they might be adored; and even as it is, Dr. Pusey adores the mystery, but the mystery is a work of God. But the commandments teach that God only is to be adored; but the mystery of the consecrated bread and wine, thus corrupted, Dr. Pusey creates. He then falls down to his own creation and adores it and he adores nothing.

That the sacrament is an holy mystery our canons and our liturgy assert, and that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are in the sacrament in the whole ceremony of the communion is readily allowed; but it is denied that it is in only a part of it-it is denied that it is in the consecration alone. It is denied that the canons, the articles, or the liturgy of the Church of England assert, as Dr. Pusey affirms, that the bread and wine are in their natural substances, and at the same time, and point of time, the body and blood of Christ. As the natural body of Jesus Christ was not formed until the over

shadowing of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, so the body and blood of Jesus Christ are not formed until the conse crated bread and wine enter the body of the communicant, worthily eating in faith. The consecrated bread and wine are (as Hooker calls them) "instruments;" and, being attended with the energies and powers of the Holy Spirit, they contribute to form within the man the body and blood of Christ, which is then verily and indeed taken and received in the Lord's Supper; but it was not there before the bread and wine came in contact with the bodies of the communicants. God formed Adam, by his Spirit, from red earth, and Eve he formed out of Adam, and Christ he formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary by overshadowing her; and after the same way the body and blood of Christ are formed; the consecrated bread and wine being partly the instruments, and acting in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, they form the body and blood of Christ, acting on the human body, and not before; and this is the opinion of Hooker, quoted by Dr. Pusey.

Fourthly, that the effect thereof on us is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness—from death to corruption, to immortality and joy.

And again, book v., c. 67: "It is evident how they teach, &c.: that Christ, assisting this divine banquet with his personal and true presence, doth by his own divine power add to the natural substance thereof such supernatural efficacy; which addition to the consecrated elements changeth them and maketh them that to us which otherwise they could: that to us they are thereby made instruments, as mystically yet truly, invisibly yet really, work our communion or fellowship with the person of Jesus Christ, as well in that he is Man as God. Our participation, also, in the fruit, grace, and efficacy of his body and blood, whereupon there ensueth a kind of TRANSUBSTANTIATION IN US, a true change both of body and soul in us, a change from life to death. In a word, it appeareth not, that of all the ancient fathers of the Church, any one did ever conceive or imagine other than only a mystical participation of Christ, both body and soul, in the sacrament; neither are their speeches, concerning the change of the elements themselves into the body and blood of Christ, such that a man can thereby in conscience assure himself it was their meaning to persuade the world, either of a corporal consubstantiation of Christ with those sanctified and blessed elements before we receive them, or of the like transubstantiation of them into the body and blood of Christ: which both, to our mystical union with Christ, are so unnecessary, that the fathers, who held but this mystical communion, cannot easily be thought to have meant any other change of sacramental elements, than that which the same spiritual communion did require them to hold."

The spiritual communion here meant is a very different thing from the mystic transubstantiation and consubstantiation of Dr. Pusey; for his mode includes both. All that Hooker and the fathers apply to the change of the bread and wine before they are received (for to note this point of time is of much importance) applies with