his integrity: his children are blessed after him." (Prov. xx. 7.) "The promise is to you and to your children," (Acts ii. 39) &c.

To repeat the whole in few words: It was natural that our Lord should institute a rite of initiation for his church. For this purpose he adopted an ancient rite,-baptism: those who joined his church by this rite in the apostolic times, did so at the peril of their lives: hence we may reasonably regard them, as the Apostles seem to have done, as generally sincere: to one thus abandoning all things for Christ, his baptism would be a great event, the turning-point in his life, the beginning of a new existence: disciples, thus joining the Church at the hazard of their lives, were not regarded as leaving their children in heathenism; but all were admitted together: the real value of the rite would depend on the sincerity of the convert; and its import would be, to his children, correlative to what it was to himself.

The real point in controversy, at the present moment, between Protestants and Anglo-Catholics, is this:-Protestants maintain, with the Church of England, that the actual value of a sacrament depends on the faith of the recipient. Anglo-Catholics, with Roman Catholics, assert, that, independently of the faith of the recipient, the Church has to give, and does give, spiritual life in the water of baptism, and spiritual food in the Lord's supper; and so that all, penitent or impenitent, are regenerated in baptism; and all, penitent or impenitent, do receive Christ in the supper. The mischief of the latter view, in the encouragement it holds out to the ungodly, is past all description or calculation.

As a sort of postcript, we add one remark. Some readers will doubtless be stumbled at the distinction we draw, between regeneration and the new birth. We refer them to scripture alone for our justification. But we might also quote the language of the writer now before us, Mr. Armytage, who, without dreaming of any such distinction, speaks thus:

"These (repentance and faith) are rather the throes which precede the new birth, than the new birth itself. For, as there is natural life before natural birth, as well as after; so there must needs be a spiritual quickening into repentance and faith, before there can be a spiritual birth.”

Here is a distinction as clear and as strong as that we have advocated. But the same reasoning might be carried farther. For the quickening unto life, which considerably precedes natural birth, is itself preceded by various stages of growth, all consequent upon, generation. If the parallel is to be employed at all, it is evidently fatal to that which is the source of so much confusion, the making regeneration and the new birth identical.

THE HOLY EUCHARIST A COMFORT TO THE PENITENT. A Sermon preached before the University of Oxford, &c. By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, &c. Oxford: Parker. 1843.

A SERMON ON GALATIANS I. 6-12. Preached in the Temple Church, June 11, 1843. By CHRISTOPHER BENSON, M.A. Master of the Temple. London: J. W. Parker. 1843.

We have risen with a strange mixture of feelings from the perusal of Dr. Pusey's extraordinary discourse. We are sure that in many parts of it we do not understand the writer, and we very much doubt whether, in some parts, the writer understands himself. There is enough of obscurity, if not of depth,-of mystery, if not of vastness, to content the most devoted and enthusiastic disciples of the metaphysical or mystical school; and,-alas, that we should say it !-enough of evangelical Platonism, to beguile unstable souls, and pervert the Gospel of Christ. Never, to our recollection, did we feel the word of God, as contrasted with the word of man, more sweet to the taste and more refreshing to the soul, than when, with aching head and heavy heart, we sought relief from the mysticism of the theologian in the simplicity of the Apostle, and turned from Dr. Pusey to St. Paul!

What we then did for ourselves, we would now do for our readers. We would raise another and a more earnest and a more heart-awakening cry than the watchword of the leaders of the movement, "HEAR THE CHURCH:" our admonition should be, "HEAR THE WORD." Dr. Pusey alleges, as a reason for the elaborate display of patristical authorities, which are embodied in the notes to his discourse, his desire to "show those who were to pronounce upon it that he had not used high language of his own mind; and that they might not unconsciously blame the Fathers, while they thought they were blaming only him." Now this "high language; "-this language of the "the deepest expositors, the Fathers;"-invested as it is by this school with an approximation at least to the attribute of infallibility, is the very thing that reminds us of Him who said, "Call no man your father upon earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ."

We propose then, in reviewing this discourse-the sacredness of the subject of which precludes the application of the ordinary tests of criticism-simply to take St. Paul's plain language for the text,

and Dr. Pusey's "high language," whether patristical or personal, for the comment. We will then leave our readers to determine, whether of the two is more in accordance with the mind of the Anglican Church, as expressed and developed in her formularies. We shall not attempt to convict Dr. Pusey of heresy, for it is no part of our critical prerogative to constitute ourselves assessors with the six Doctors at a Board of Heresy; we shall simply enquire, and leave the question to be answered by others, how far such a mode of teaching as Dr. Pusey has adopted in this discourse, can be reconciled with the practice and spirit of our Church, and consequently, with the duties and obligations of her ministers.

"I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take eat this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor. xi. 23―30.

Such is the sermon on "the holy eucharist " as preached by St. Paul, some eighteen hundred years ago, to an auditory not less intelligent and philosophical than that of Dr. Pusey at Oxford. "In Corinth," says Mr. Benson," the Jews displayed the greatest readiness to stumble, and the dissolute and philosophical Greeks were almost sure to ridicule, yet that was the place where most clearly and simply he urged offensive truth." For clearness and simplicity, indeed, this address, though upon a most mysterious and most momentous subject, is eminently distinguished; and had the aisles of St. Frideswide been filled with the spruce farmers and frocked ploughmen of the neighbouring villages, instead of the "gens togata," who are nurtured in academic halls, there would not have been a single attentive listener, who would not have been instructed and edified thereby; not one who would not have meditated with as much reverence on the awful themes suggested by the phrases" showing forth the Lord's death," and "discerning the Lord's body," as the most practised scholar in the dialect of metaphysical theology, can meditate on the elaborate and we must say bewildering details of Dr. Pusey. Let us observe, in proof of

this, the comment which is to be substituted for, or added to, or engrafted on, the simple and lucid and most impressively touching statement of the apostle, "The Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, took bread."

"This is (if we may reverently so speak) the order of the mystery of the Incarnation, that the Eternal word so took our flesh into Himself, as to impart to it His own inherent life; so then we, partaking of It, that life is transmitted on to us also, and not to our souls only, but our bodies also, since we become flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, and He Who is wholly life is imparted to us wholly. The Life which He is, spreads around, first giving Its own vitality to that sinless Flesh which He united indissolubly with Himself and in It encircling and vivifying our whole nature, and then, through that bread which is His Flesh, finding an entrance to us individually, penetrating us, soul and body and spirit, and irradiating and transforming into His own light and life. In the words of a father, who, in warfare with the Nestorian heresy, lived in the mystery of the Incarnation, 'He is life by nature, inasmuch as He was Begotten of the Living Father; but no less vivifying also is His Holy Body, being in a manner brought together (ournveyμévov) and ineffably united with the all-vivifying Word; wherefore It is accounted His, and is conceived as one with Him. For, since the Incarnation, it is inseparable; save that we know that the Word which came from God the Father, and the Temple from the Virgin, are not indeed the same in nature; for the Body is not consubstantial with the Word from God, yet is one by that ineffable coming-together and concurrence; and since the Flesh of the Saviour became life-giving, as being united to That which is by nature Life, The Word from God, then, when we taste It, we have life in ourselves, we too being united with It, as It to the indwelling Word.'" (pp. 11, 12).

The latter part of this passage is a quotation, it seems, from Cyril of Alexandria. We confess ourselves utterly unable to unravel the venerable Father's mysterious meaning, and not having the original at hand for reference, we can hardly conceive that his words are correctly "done into English." "done into English." But we are quite sure, if they be, that there is as little resemblance between Cyril and St. Paul, as between the plains that are bathed in sunshine, and the dark unfathomed caves of ocean: where the flowers blush unseen, and the weeds only float upon the surface. Whatever this "high language" may be to the few who understand it, to the great mass of mankind it is nothing better than preaching in an unknown tongue; and five words of the apostle spoken with the understanding, would outweigh ten thousand such as these. The strangeness of the comment, however, is most striking when taken in direct connection with the word of truth; and our next extract therefore shall be a paragraph which commences and concludes with a text, and has the further advantage of illustrating the proportion which exists in Dr. Pusey's mind, between the teaching of the (socalled) ancient Church, and the teaching of the word of God.

"Doubtless, God's highest and holy' gift, is as the Ancient Church proclaimed, chiefly for the holy.' Ye cannot be partaker of the Table of the Lord, and the table of devils.' And as Holy Scripture, so also the Ancient

grace ex

Church, when alluding to the fruits of this ineffable gift, speak of them mostly as they would be to those, who, on earth, already live in Heaven, and on Him Who is its life and bliss. They speak of those clothed in flesh and blood, drawing nigh to the blessed aud immortal nature;' of 'spiritual fire; ceeding human thought and a gift unutterable;' spiritual food, surpassing all creation visible and invisible,'' kindling the souls of all and making them brighter than silver purified by the fire ; ' 'removing us from earth, transferring us to heaven,'' making angels for men, so that it were a wonder that man should think he were yet on earth,' yea, more than angels, 'becoming that which we receive, the Body of Christ.' For that so we are 'members of Him, not by love only, but in very deed, mingled with that Flesh, mingled with Him, that we might become in a manner one substance with Him,' the one Body and one Flesh of Christ;' and He the Eternal Son and God the Word in us, 'commingled and co-united with us,' with our bodies as with our souls, preserving both for incorruption; re-creating the spirit in us, to newness of life, and making us partakers of His Divine Nature; the bond of our unity with the Father, bidding us to Himself as Man,' Who is 'by nature, as God, in God His own Father;' descending to our nature subject to corruption and to change, and raising it to Its own excellencies,' and by commingling it with Itself, all but removing it from the conditions of created Nature, and 're-forming it according to Itself.' 'We are,' adds S. Cyril, perfected into unity with God the Father, through Christ the Mediator. For having received into ourselves, bodily and spiritually, Him Who is by Nature and truly the Son, Who hath an essential Oneness with Him, we, becoming partakers of the Nature Which is above all, are glorified.' 'We,' says another, 'come to bear Christ in us, His Body and Blood being diffused through our members; whence, saith St. Peter, we become 'partakers of the Divine Nature.' -(pp. 15-18.)

6

Of this passage we would observe, that the two texts which it contains, display two of the prevailing defects of Dr. Pusey. First, preterition; for the passage cited from 1 Cor. x. 21, is dismissed without a word of comment, to make room for the testimony of the "Ancient Church;" and, secondly, misapplication,-inasmuch as St. Peter has been speaking, not of the body and blood diffused through our members, but of the exceeding great and precious promises (Ta μenioтa kai tiμia ezayyeλuara) "whereby," he says, "having escaped the corruption that is in the word through lust, ye have been made partakers of a divine nature." And if confirmation of this view were needed, we should find it in a corresponding passage of St. Paul, (2 Cor. vii. 1.) "Having therefore these promises," (TAUT as Taç exayyeλias) "let us cleanse ourselves from all (ταυτας τας επαγγελίας) filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." Here then the reference clearly is, in either case, not to any sacramental assurance, but to the acceptance and application of the promises of God; and the distinction is doctrinally important, because it represents faith, and not the sacraments, to be the means or instrument of justification. Again, we think Dr. Pusey's high language objectionable, on the ground of an hyperbolical phraseology, which implies an unnatural and an impossible intensity of devotional ecstacy and transport. Can any persuade them