A number, accordingly, of our divines' use the language of the Ancient Church that bread and wine become [sacramentally and in a mystery] the Body and Blood of Christ. Bishop Overall says, 'Herein we follow the Fathers, who, after consecration, would not suffer it to be called bread and wine any longer, but the Body and Blood of Christ".

I believe fully and entirely that 'the substance of bread and wine' remains after consecration; that the 'Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner,' and that 'the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith,'-and believing this ex animo, I should think it an invasion of the liberty of conscience to be required to state that about which our Formularies have said nothing.

Bishop Cosin was permitted to state the precise contrary to what is here required. He says, 'Our faith does not cause or make that Presence, but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the Word of Christ, and the faith whereby we are said to eat the Flesh of Christ is not that only whereby we believe that He died for our sins, but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ, "This is My Body ""'

Bishop Overall distinctly rejects their opinion, 'who think that the Body of Christ is present only in the use of the Sacrament and in the act of eating, and not otherwise.' Our Church also by directing that if any remain of that which was consecrated,—the Priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same,' while she allows the Curate to have any unconsecrated' for his own use, seems to show that she regards them extra usum as different from ordinary bread and wine.

To sum up in a few words, I disclaim any interpretation of my words, which implies anything 'fleshly, carnal,' or, as Bishop Overall says, 'physical and sensual.' I declare solemnly that I had in writing that sermon no thoughts except of what was spiritual, and as Bishop Overall again says, 'after an heavenly and incomprehensible manner"." In the very words which have been

The

1 Bp. Taylor, Thorndike, Bp. Sparrow, Johnson, Herbert, Bp. Beveridge, Brett, Bp. Wilson, Wheatley; to the same effect Bp. Andrewes, Archbishop Bramhall, Bp. Montagu, Bp. Cosin, Sutton, Grabe. language that we receive "the very Body and Blood of Christ is used by Sutton, Bailey, Bp. White, Archbishop Laud, Bp. Cosins, Bp. Fell, Bp. Hackett, Bp. Ken, Bp. Beveridge, Archbishop Sharp, Leslie, Johnson. Bp. Taylor directly says that we receive the same which was born of

the Blessed Virgin, though spiritually. I do not add references, as before, to save time.'

2 The language is that of Bishop Cosin: Works, v. p. 121.

3Hist. of Transubstantiation,' ch. iii. § 4. Works, iv. 171.

Here again Pusey quotes Cosin and not Overall. Cf. Cosin's Works, v. p. 131.

i. e. Bishop Cosin, ubi supra. 6 Cosin's Works, v. 131, after an heavenly, and invisible, and incomprehensible manner.'

Appendix to Chapter XXIX.

367

quoted, 'elements of this world, &c.,' I meant to express both my denial of Transubstantiation and that I had no thoughts as to the mode of the Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. This, I may say, has been the constant habit of my mind, in all my teaching, and this I have ever expressed when writing (which I was not here) controversially. In the words of Archbishop Bramhall (translating those of Bishop Andrewes), 'Christ said, "This is My Body"; what He said, we do steadfastly believe. He said not after this manner, that manner, neque con, neque sub, neque trans. And therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the articles of our faith. The Holy Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of peace and unity, ought not to be made the matter of strife and contention.' (Answer to M. de la Milletière, beg.1) I would rather say with Bishop Andrewes, 'Of the mode of the Presence we define nothing rashly, nor, I add, do we curiously inquire, no more than how the Blood of Christ cleanseth us in our baptism; no more than how in the Incarnation of Christ, the human nature is united into the same Person with the Divine 2,

I have given my explanation at greater length than I meant, that I might seem to hold back nothing. It would have been easy for me to have taken the negative propositions exhibited to me, and have expressed my adoption of them, but it did not seem to me honest and satisfactory, because, as being negative, they would not express all my meaning.

Yet having given this explanation, I must say that I do it because I conceive you to have sent me the propositions and objections as an act of kindness, instead of any proposition of my own, which I might be required to retract.

But if this private explanation fail to satisfy you, I must respectfully apply for the other, as the only statutable course. I must say that to me the past course of inquiry into my sermon, such as these 'objections' imply, seems to me an undue extension of the statutes. The statute speaks of certain definite statements which shall be retracted-'ad ea, quae protulit, recantandum adiget.' The passages objected to are not supposed (I conceive) to be such as could be proposed to any one to recant (some of them are words of the Fathers), but only, it is supposed, that a certain opinion is implied in them. I am sure that no proposition could be formed from my sermon contrary to the Formularies of our Church, which I adopt. This sort of 'constructive' disagreement with the Formularies of the Church seems to me something very different from that contemplated by the statute, which refers to definite statements.

Conscious of my own innocence, I cannot contemplate anything ulterior; yet although I am quite sure that you personally mean everything which is kind towards me individually, I must say that I should consider any ulterior measure, founded on such constructive objections as are here alleged, without exhibiting to me what I have asked for in such case, definite propositions of my own and not adhering to our Formularies, as unstatutable as well as harsh and unjust.

I am sure, my dear Mr. Vice-Chancellor, that you will not think these strong words, as meant otherwise than with respect to your office and a sense of personal kindness: but there is too much at stake for me to think it right to withhold my strong feeling on this subject. I remain, my dear Mr. Vice-Chancellor,

Christ Church, May 31 [1843].

Yours very faithfully,

E. B. PUSEY.

THE REV. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR TO E. B. P.1

St. John's College, Saturday evening [June 3, 1843]. MY DEAR PUSEY,

I do not at all press upon you the adoption of the words which I proposed to-day. If anybody were likely to draw from them the inference you suggest they ought to be avoided.

You state your impressions as to what has passed between us: allow me to state mine.

When the decision as to the sermon was pronounced, it remained for me to select one of the two courses prescribed by the statute. To suspension I had the greatest aversion without at least giving you the opportunity of showing whether you could recant. With this view, and in order to spare you from being brought before the tribunal which had given judgement upon the sermon merely to say that you would not recant, I endeavoured with the help of the Provost of Oriel to frame a document to which if you had assented, nothing would have remained but some formal proceeding in accordance with it. But this you did not do: you proposed modifications, and you excepted against a word which was of considerable importance as being an indication of particular opinions. You also objected to adopting words which did not occur in the Formularies of the Church —an objection which I did not consider valid, because having in your sermon raised a suspicion that you held something contrary to what the Church held, it would not have been possible to allay such a suspicion by confining yourself simply to the language of the Formularies. You also requested that if you were called upon to recant you should have the very words of the sermon put before you for that purpose, as the statute (I admit) enjoins. Seeing then that

1 See above, p. 334.

Appendix to Chapter XXIX.

369

you could not adopt the paper first proposed to you, I next endeavoured to ascertain whether you would be likely to recant the very words of the sermon, and for this purpose passages were selected as a specimen of what might be required under that head; but to these also you made objections, and the utmost that could be said of the statements which Dr. Jelf took down from your mouth was that they were qualifications of the language of the sermon. These two attempts to bring about a recantation having substantially failed, and it being strongly impressed on my mind that, besides particular objections, an exception had been taken to the general tenor of the sermon, which, of course, no recantation could touch, I at length made up my mind that no course remained but to proceed to what I felt to be a very severe measure, but nevertheless the only alternative, namely― suspension. This is my version of what has passed, and if it differs materially from yours it is because, as a matter of necessity, it was entrusted to a third person, who, however friendly to both of us and admirably qualified for a peacemaker, could not exactly put himself in the place of either.

With regard to my having consulted the Provost of Oriel, I feel satisfied that when Dr. Jelf returns this can be explained to you without any imputation upon my good faith.

In conclusion I leave you at liberty, as I shall feel myself to be, to say that 'certain private communications were made from me to you without leading to any mutually satisfactory result,' and that secrecy is imposed upon you as to the nature of those communications. I shall also consider you at liberty to publish your account of what has passed, if any reports of their nature affecting your character for truth, traceable to an authentic source, shall be circulated.

Believe me to remain,

VOL. II.

B b

Yours very faithfully,

P. WYNTER.

PUSEY had been suspended at the end of the Summer Term of 1843. Before the next Term began, Newman had resigned the Vicarage of St. Mary's.

He has himself pointed out the significance of this step, and how it followed upon a long series of misgivings which had been created by his study of the Monophysite and Donatist controversies, and fostered by the affairs of the Jerusalem Bishopric, Tract 90, and the reiterated Episcopal Charges which had followed1. Nor can it be doubted that the proceedings in connexion with Pusey's sermon on the Holy Eucharist had had their effect in hastening his resolution. All these events appeared to Newman to show that the English Church, so far as she was represented by Ecclesiastical authority in England, offered no welcome or home to primitive and Catholic teaching, but rather treated it as something foreign to her spirit.

As often happens, an incident of less moment, but touching Newman very closely, at last precipitated his decision. A young man who had been for a year living with him at Littlemore, and whose loyalty to the English Church had been the subject of correspondence between Newman and Pusey in August, 18422, suddenly joined the Church of • See p. 290.

''Apologia,' pp. 333-354.