sueth?" In other words, as Christ is said to be our life, because through him we obtain our life, so the outward parts of the sacrament are said to be the body and blood of our Lord, because through them we receive the body and blood of Christ offered us in the sacrament. And when we reflect that the communion of a thing is something different from the thing communicated, and the channel not the thing conveyed, we may well see how properly the distinction between the outward and visible part of a sacrament, and the inward part or thing signified, is maintained in our catechism and articles, and how pertinently they might have been quoted in illustration of a text couched in language like that of our author.

When our catechisms declare that "a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof ”—we cannot behold in the sacraments, if we agree with that catechism, anything more than such a sign, such a channel, and such a pledge; unless we would confuse the outward and visible parts with those that are invisible, and which, by the terms of the catechism, are manifestly made distinct. For the next question is-"How many parts are there in a sacrament?" And the answer is—“Two: the outward and visible sign, and the inward and spiritual grace." These being declared to be two, must be separately viewed in the exact consideration of the subject. It is true, indeed, that when mention is made of the sacrament of the supper, the teaching of the Church passes through a channel somewhat different from that through which the definition of a sacrament is conveyed, in that for the illustration of the sacrament of baptism. There are three questions instead of two; but though there be three, and though the answer to the last corresponds to the inward and spiritual grace, it does not follow that the first must be identified with the second, or that, the things alluded to in them should be confused. For, although the catechism speaks of the outward part or sign of the Lord's supper, and does not proceed at once to the grace or effect, but interposes a question as to the inward part of that sacrament, which by some may be supposed to be an allusion, at least, to the consubstantiality of the body and blood as of a thing conveyed, as it were, by the bread and wine, it is careful to take this out of such an appearance by the wording of the question alluded to. It is not what is the inward part of the bread and wine? but what is the inward part of the sacrament or mystery? or, as it is immediately added-" What is the thing signified?" And the answer is "The body and blood of Christ, which are verily,

and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;" really and truly—that is, taken by the faithful to the exclusion of those that are not so; present to them-it is not in the passage said how-but present to such as are properly prepared, and not in the bread and wine, which are by human hands given indifferently to those who have no faith and those that have. The Church of England maintains that "the sacraments ordained by Christ be not only badges and tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." With regard to that of the supper of our Lord, our Church maintains that it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death. Insomuch that "to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ." But as "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby it is taken is faith;" and as it is maintained by the Church that "the wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Austin saith), the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing;" so it must be evident that consubstantiation is excluded by the Church equally with transubstantiation, though not in so formal a manner.

In the Articles of Edward the Sixth's reign, the real and bodily presence of Christ was formally excluded in the following words: "Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place; therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places; and because, as holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world; a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper." And the subsequent omission of this paragraph in the twentyeighth Article makes no difference to the point at issue. For as long as those portions of the formularies of our Church which have been cited remain, since they are inconsistent with that tenet, it cannot be argued, from the absence of the paragraph alluded to, that any change in the doctrine before promulged

was intended. It is well known that the passage was omitted to conciliate those who were deeply imbued with the belief of the corporeal presence, and because it was thought that that presence was sufficiently denied without it; so that, while the Church gained nothing by this paragraph, she made enemies of those who, but for this peculiar phraseology, would become her friends. We cannot, therefore, consistently with reason, admit any argument drawn from its absence from the Articles received at present; but, keeping before us the circumstances of the times, and the evidence still remaining of the intention of the Church, must adhere to the position that the doctrines of consubstantiation and transubstantiation, in that they imply the bodily presence, are forbidden by the Church.

That a real presence of Christ, after some method, is held by the Church, it is not intended to deny; because our Catechism teaches us that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken. But to maintain, that to assert, that Christ's body and blood are really present, is to assert that they are materially or substantially present, is by no means an incontrovertible position. For the word really may mean truly, according to its usual signification; and not corporeally or bodily, as in its philosophic sense, and the words used in the catechism point to such an interpretation. The body of our Lord may be verily and indeed taken, though not manducated; and that such was the view of the Church, when it used the words "verily and indeed" in the catechism, must be plain to all who will refer to Article xxviii., which says that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten ONLY in the Supper after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that the mean whereby the body of Christ is received is faith. The passage quoted from Hooker speaks of such a real presence, and is worthy of deep attention; but we could have wished that the author of the sermon before us had gone farther into this part of his subject. We have, however, expressed an intention of contrasting his views with those of others, and we hasten to redeem our pledge. The writings we must bring under the notice of our readers are those of Dr. Pusey, Mr. MacMullen, and Mr. Ward.

The text of Dr. Pusey's celebrated Sermon * is taken from Matt. xxvi. 28. This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." And the ar

* The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent: a Sermon preached before the University, in the Cathedral Church of Christ, in Oxford, on the fourth Sunday after Easter. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christ Church, and late Fellow of Oriel College. Oxford: Parker. London: Rivingtons. 1843,

gument he uses, to prove that the Holy Eucharist is a comfort to the penitent, proceeds in the following way:

"The gifts of God, both in nature and grace, minister to distinct and as it often seems, unconnected ends; and so the two great sacraments have in themselves manifold gifts. Baptism containeth not only remission of sin actual or original, but maketh members of Christ, children of God, heirs of heaven-hath the seal and earnest of the Spirit, the germ of spiritual life; the Holy Eucharist imparteth not life only, spiritual strength and one-ness with Christ, and his indwelling, and participation of him, but in its degree remission of sins also. (pp. 1, 2). The author then proposes to speak of that which, flowing from the throne of the Lamb which was slain, is to the penitent the deepest river of his joy, the holy mysterics; from which, as from paradise, he feels that he deserves to be shut out, from which perhaps, in the holier discipline of the ancient Church, he would have been for a time removed, but which to his soul must be the more exceeding precious, because they are the body and blood of his Redeemer.” (p. 2).

From this point he launches into the general doctrine of the sacrament; and, after speaking of the indwelling of Christ in the righteous through the Encharist, he goes on to speak of the peculiar comfort to be derived to the penitent from the Eucharist, in the following words:

"Yet although most which is spoken belongs to Christians, as belonging already to the household of saints and the family of heaven, and the communion of angels and unity with God still here as elsewhere, in the New Testament, there is a subordinate and subdued notion of sin; and what wraps the saint already in the third heaven may yet uphold us sinners, that the pit shut not her mouth upon us. The same reality of the Divine gift makes it angel's food to the saint, the ransom to the sinner. And both because it is the body and blood of Christ. Were it only a thankful commemoration of his redeeming love, or only a showing forth of his death, or a strengthening only and refreshing of the soul, it were indeed a reasonable service, but it could have no direct healing for the sinner. To him its special joy is, that it is his Redeemer's very broken body. It is his blood which was shed for the remission of his sins. In the words of the ancient Church, he drinks his ransom'-he eateth that 'the very body and blood of the Lord, the only sacrifice for sin.' God poureth out for him yet the most precious blood of his only begotten'-they are fed from the cross of the Lord, because they eat his body and blood;' and, as of the Jews of old, even those who had been the betrayers and murderers of their Lord, it was said- The blood which in their phrenzy they shed, believing they drank'-so of the true penitent it may be said whatever may have been his sins, so he could repent, awful as it is to say, the blood he indeed despised and profaned, and trampled under foot, may he, when himself humbled in the dust, drink, and therein drink his salvation. He who refused not to shed his blood for us, and again gave us of his flesh and his very blood, what will he re

fuse for our salvation? He, says St. Ambrose, is the bread of life. Whoso then eateth life cannot die. How should he die whose food is life? How perish, who hath a living substance? Approach to him and be filled, because he is bread; approach to him and drink, because he is a fountain; approach to him and be enlightened, because he is light; approach to him and be freed, because where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty; approach to him and be absolved, because he is remission of sins." (pp. 18, 19).

In enforcing this doctrine much, very much, stronger lan guage is used, as will be seen by any one who will read the sermon attentively. We would gladly detail it; want of space, however, precludes the possibility. We must content ourselves, therefore, with incidental references.

N

In answer to the question in our catechism, "What are the benefits which we receive thereby?" i.e., from the sacraments, the following words will be remembered to have been given: "The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine." In answer to "Why was the sacrament of the Lord's supper or dained?". '-we are told that it was "for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ and of the benefits which we receive thereby;" so, also, in the statement of that which is required of those who come to the Lord's supper, amongst other things we are taught, that we must have "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death." But all this does not appear satisfactory to the learned doctor. For in the passage already quoted he says, "Were it only a thankful commemoration of his redeeming love, or only a showing forth of his death, or a strengthening only and refreshing of the soul, it were indeed a reasonable service; but it would have no direct healing for the sinner." What! no healing for the sinner! How shall his soul then be strengthened and refreshed? Does the Almighty refresh our souls without pardoning our sins, or through that pardon? There would, to most people, be sufficient proof that their sins were pardoned in that their souls were strengthened sand res freshed; but with Dr. Pusey this is not enough. To him soniething more seems to be necessary for the penitent. To him (i.e., to the penitent, says the Doctor) its special joy is that it is his Redeemer's very broken body, it is his blood, which was shed for the remission of his sins." He is not content with saying that the body and blood of Christ are spiritually taken and received by the faithful; nor that they are sacramentally present as being brought under our contemplation by the bread and wine, which are to us the signs and channels of his presence: but it is the