66 are spirit and they are life? They are to be understood spiritually. Dost thou understand them spiritually? They are spirit and they are life. Dost thou understand them carnally? Even then they are spirit and life; but not to thee." Such is Augustine's answer. Doctor Pusey has confessed that his authors, at the end, are not always consistent, or we might rest an argument upon Brett's words,* who paraphrases them—" Therefore I will a little explain myself, and tell you." Or we may refer to Bishop Beveridge again, who says, "Whereupon he explained himself, and said, 'The flesh,' &c." We might still further use Bishop Morton's words against Rome, and call "the Capernaites old heretics (as all know), even because they are set down in Scripture to have perverted the sense of Christ, his words of eating his flesh." We might even accuse Dr. Pusey of participating in this, which that bishop defines as "Capernaitical" heresy. Perhaps, also, we should not grievously err, if we adduced Jeremy Taylor once more, who says, "The men of Capernaum understood Christ to speak these words of his natural flesh and blood, and were scandalised at it; and Christ reproved their folly, by telling them his words were to be understood in a spiritual sense; so that, if men would believe Him that knew best the sense of his own words, there need be no scruple of the sense. I do not understand these words in a fleshly sense, but in a spiritual, saith Christ." (Then follows the text.) Now, besides that the natural sense of the words hath in it too much of the sense of the offended disciples, the reproof and consultation of it are equally against the Romanists as against the Capernaites: for if we contend it is spiritual, so Christ affirmed it. They that deny the spiritual sense, and affirm the natural, are to remember that Christ reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual." There is no further necessity to add such plain contradictions to such hardy assertions; but there is a question which at once arises in the mind of every one acquainted with the Eucharistical controversy-How is it that Dr. Pusey has introduced this sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel? There is, also, another question which we must ask-Why does Dr. Pusey omit certain passages in that glorious chapter, while he quotes the verses which precede and which follow immediately after them: for instance, Dr. Pusey quotes the 50th verse, and omits the beginning of the next, "I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven." There is no indication of this omission. That it should be omitted is very much to be regretted, since the verse points to the Holy Saviour as coming down from heaven, and therefore refutes the idea that it refers to Christ's flesh, since that was born of the Virgin, and did not come down from heaven, if we may so speak. Again, Doctor Pusey, in continuing his quotation, omits entirely the 55th verse: "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Again, a part of the 58th verse is omitted. These passages may have been omitted unintentionally; but when an author professes to give the * Catena, p. 83. + P. 334. P. 441, vol. 2, ix.; Real Presence, sec. iii. 5. sense of the whole passage, he should surely allow hearers to judge by the context; for "none of God's words can be unimportant:" each occupies the place appointed it in the fabric of Christian doctrine. And now for the previous question-the introduction of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel. Dr. Pusey, after concluding the quotation above referred to, says, "No one can observe how this whole discourse circleth round this gift of life, and how our Lord, with unwearied patience, bringeth this one truth before us in so many different forms, without feeling that He means to inculcate that life in him is his chief gift in the Sacrament, and to make a reverent longing for it an incentive to our faith."* These words are sufficiently surprising for any one who has ever read the controversy between Romanists and Protestants upon the chapter. The assertion of Dr. Pusey would make his followers believe that the point had never been disputed, whether this referred to the sacramental eating or not. "No one can observe," &c. This is truly a creation of a quod semper, &c., with this addition, that Dr. Pusey vouches for the future as well as past. Now, we are prepared to show, by the testimony of Jeremy Taylor and Waterland, that this chapter does not refer to that Sacramental eating; and be it observed, their testimony is historical, and therefore comes with the force which their character for honesty can add to their high theological attainments.† Jeremy Taylor, in the 3d section of his Treatise on the "Real Presence," declares a difference of opinion to exist among Romanists upon the point. Bellarmine declares, "Solum igitur quæstio est de illis verbis, the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world, et de sequentibus pene ad finem." The reader will observe that Dr. Pusey's quotation commences one verse before this, so that he has the power of falling back upon Bellarmine's Defence; and that this is not improbable may be easily seen by a reference to p. 21, in which Dr. Pusey makes this verse, from its being in the future, to explain his own sentiments. The answer to Bellarmine will also be suitable for both Divines. Jeremy Taylor's words are, "The reason which is pretended for it, is because Christ speaks in the future, and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year, but this is a trifle; for the same thing, in effect, is before spoken in the future tense, and by way of promise." He then instances St. John, vi. 27; Revelations ii. 7, 17; and says, the places are exactly parallel; and yet as this is not meant of Baptism, so neither is the other of the Eucharist; but both of them of the spiritual sumption of Christ." He then calls it frivolous to refer this text to corporal manducation in the Sacrament. "But the secret," says he, "of the thing was this: the arguments against the Sacramental sense of these words, drawn *P. 7. We must again remark that Waterland and Jeremy Taylor have been recommended by Tractarians as illustrative of the principles inculcated in the "Tracts for the Times." We might, perhaps, consider them such, but in a different sense. Lib. de Euchar. cap. 5. from the following verses between this and the 51st verse, could not be so well answered, and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick, &c." Again, he says, Very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation, or of the sacrament at all; Johannes de Ragusio, Biel, Cusanus, Ruard, Tapper, Cajetan, Hessels, Jansenius, Waldensis, Armachanus-save only that Bellarmine, going to excuse it, says in effect that they did not do it very honestly, for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans, about the communion under both kinds: and if it be so and not be so, as it may serve a turn-it is so for transubstantiation, and it is not so for the half communion-we have but little reason to rely upon their judgement or candour in any exposition of Scripture."* He concludes his iii. 20, by saying, "But the truth is this: it is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament: neither, if it were, would it prove anything of transubstantiation." To add more from Jeremy Taylor is unnecessary, but we will refer to Waterland.+ "Albertinus will furnish the reader with a competent list of Schoolmen, and others of the Roman Communion, who have rejected the Sacramental interpretation of John vi. A more summary account of the same may be seen in Archbishop Wakeman." Again, after speaking of some Romanists' defence of this Sacramental view, he goes on, "But the Reformers in general, for very weighty reasons, have rejected the same." He says he shall content himself with pointing out two or three of the most eminent; and, commencing with Cranmer, after inserting the quotation, says, "Thus far this excellent person has shown by convincing reasons, drawn from the chapter itself, that John vi. ought not to be interpreted of the Eucharist." Waterland also shows that Cranmer did not deny that it might be "applied" or "accommodated" to the Eucharist, and with very great weight. We would refer our readers to Waterland's summary of Cranmer's doctrine for the beautiful clearing up of this matter: he also quotes Peter Martyr. We, with Waterland, are ready to allow that the Fathers applied this chapter to the Eucharist; for if there is spiritual food in the Eucharist, and that chapter refers to Christ as the only spiritual food of the Christian, then the one must include the other; but Dr. Pusey has assumed the only question, and denied that any one can understand that our Lord is not referring to his gift of life in the Sacrament. By this means he confines to Sacramental feeding those glorious and mighty benefits which fill heaven and earth; and in narrowing these he forgets controversy on the subject, and assumes that " no one" can avoid seeing the doctrine of life in the Sacramental act. differ, and in our difference follow holy men who were quite as capable of understanding it as the Tractarians; but in this difference we enter a protest against principles, to say the very least, careless and dogmatical. No hearer could hear that discourse with any We Taylor on the Real Presence, p. 437. See also the passage quoted for a different purpose, in a previous page. † Pp. 187, 188, on the passage. Waterland. * degree of confidence in the preacher, without being satisfied in mind, that the Eucharist might not merely be rested upon the sixth chapter of St. John, but that even its very doctrines were conveyed therein as self-evident truths. These are dangerous even as paradoxes, which rest upon the character of a leader, since we hear from late authority that the very gait of their leaders is imitated, and action copied. Upon the subject of quotations, we have now no more to remark, except that there is a surprising deficiency of our Liturgical authority. Two or three quotations in a garb which we can hardly recognise, show themselves stealthily, as though half ashamed of the company in which they are involuntarily placed. But the broad outline which onr beloved mother fills up so beautifully is entirely neglected; and yet we remember the time when the writer of this Sermon could say, upon this very subject,+ "For myself, I have preferred keeping to the words of our formularies: they are so full of doctrine, that one seems to need no more, and they come with authority." There has been, since this time, an approach to Littlemore rather than Lambeth. The writer of the Sermon seems to have felt with Mr. Newman, that our Reformers "mutilated the tradition of fifteen hundred years;" or, perhaps, with Mr. Ward, “ that we have a longer train of sympathy with the ancient Church than with our own;" § or, again, he may have felt our Church uncatholic after perusing Mr. Oakeley's pamphlet. || This may in measure account for the careful introduction of the so-called Liturgies of St. Mark and others; but we must defer this point, with many others, for a further consideration; for it would be a task of no trivial value, to place in juxta-position the vague and shadowy theories of modern Tractarianism, and the deep and solid doctrines of our Anglican Church. The one presents no tangible substance, but rather an evading phantom; while our Church has a rock-like form, on which the brokenhearted can lean, and by which the penitent can receive a full assurance of God's mercy; and yet it builds up no grand spectacle which can allure the sinful and profligate to rest upon the mere outward form. Our Church founds no doctrine upon the theory of abstractions, as Rome has done, which no poor man can understand, and which few rich can grasp. We do not stand at the heavenly banquet and discuss the possibility of a change in the materia prima, while accidents are the same. The very mention of it causes a thrill of wonder and pain. Our Church acts out her heavenly Father's will, and desires to give understanding to the simple! The load of useless ceremonial she has scattered to the four winds, and leaves it to be gathered in its fragments by Tractarians. piety; and these she has well attained. her teaching, or diminish her fidelity. some Her aim is unity, her glory Let not men dare to obscure The simple Christian in her + Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 57, on Art. xxviii. * Palmer's Letter. This communion knows no want, for all her teaching is reality. With the judicious Hooker, he can say, "Oh, my God, thou art true; oh, my soul, thou art happy." There he finds no angel, with a flaming sword, terrifying the truly penitent and fainting sinner; but he acknowledges that all at her board can and must say, "The remembrance of our sins is grievous unto us, the burden is intolerable." There he joins in the cry for mercy, there he repeats his repentance, and there is the holy joy of eating spiritually his Saviour's body, and drinking his holy blood, by faith. He knows not how to find any deficiency in that service. he does know; that, since his youthful years, there he hath been satisfied with grace from heaven. In that holy ground hath he offered the sacrifice of prayer and praise; and, giving up his soul and body to Christ, which is his reasonable service, he hath not vainly discussed trifles, or encouraged unspiritual thoughts, and defined scholastic subtleties; but he hath grasped the substance rather than felt after the shadow. If, indeed, of later years he hath sometimes been harassed by disputes and doubts, engendered by modern revivals of ancient difficulties, he raises his heart in silent praise, that the Author of all good has made him a child by birth of that Church which sets forth practice rather than theory, spiritual rather than nominal blessings. In her communion was he born; for this he praises God. In her communion he hopes to die, for her food is heavenly, her object is God's glory in man's salvation. LAY-CLERICAL AGENCY.* A YEAR has rolled by since Dr. Arnold passed away from us, and the cloud still hangs over us which his death produced. Even now we can scarcely speak with calmness of the great loss we have sustained, not only as a nation, but as individuals. And yet, if there be any consolation, any supporting thoughts, to buoy up the afflicted spirit when a great and good man departs from a world of which he has been the salt, surely such consolation, such thoughts, abounded on the occasion to which we allude. Dr. Arnold lived a life of much self-denial: he sacrificed the praise of men, which he might so easily have secured, to something higher and better, yet open only to the eye of faith-the approval of his God; he lived a life of comparative obloquy, misunderstood and misrepresented; but he died, as it were, in a blaze of glory. Friends and enemies, political as well as religious, vied with each other in weaving his funeral wreath, and for weeks after his death the press, in all its myriad shapes, was pouring forth its praises and gladly proclaiming his surpassing worth. All felt that one had passed from the earth who was not of the earth-one who love dtruth and righteous * "Christian Life; its Course, its Hindrances, and its Helps." Sermons, preached mostly in the Chapel of Rugby School, by Thomas Arnold, D.D. London: Fel lowes. 1841. |