you must eat, or else there is no life in you. So, it is a plaine item to her, that there may be a sensual touching of Him, here; but that is not it; not the right; it availes little. It was her errour, this: she was all for the corporall presence; for the touch, with fingers. So were His Disciples, all of them, too much addicted to it. From which they were now to be weaned: that, if they had, before, knowne CHRIST, or touched Him after the flesh; yet now, from henceforth, they were to do so no more, but to learne a new touch; to touch Him, being now ascended. Such a touching there is; or else his reason holds not. . . . CHRIST resolves the point, in that very place. The flesh, the touching, the eating it, profits nothing. The words He spake, were spirit: so, the touching, the eating, to be spirituall. And St. Thomas, and Mary Magdalene, or whosoever touched Him here on earth, nisi fælicius fide quàm manu tetigissent, if they had not been more happy to touch Him with their faith, than with their fingers' end, they had no part in Him; no good by it at all. It was found better with it, to touch the hemme of His garment; than, without it, to touch any part of His body. Now,' continues he, if faith be to touch, that will touch Him no lesse in heaven than here: one, that is in heaven, may be touched so. No ascending can hinder that touch. Faith will elevate itself, that, ascending in spirit, wee shall touch Him, and take hold of Him. Mitte fidem et tenuisti: It is St. Augustine. It is a touch, to which there is never a Noli: feare it not. So doe we, then, send up our faith, and that shall touch Him, and there will vertue come from Him: and it shall take hold on Him, as it shall rise up to where He is.' (Serm. 15: Of the Resurrection.)

"Nothing, surely, can be more full, more Scriptural, or more satisfactory than this. It represents Faith as the only means by which the Saviour can be touched by us: the eating even of Christ's flesh, without this, as profitless and unavailing; as it does every sensual approach to them. And again, this approach to Christ, this eating of His flesh, must be a spiritual act, raising the soul even to heaven by faith; and thence is derived the virtue which is to come from Him; and thence only is it to be expected. Could this have grown out of a literal interpretation of the terms of Institution? My own impression is, that, from a literal interpretation, no such sense could have been derived, or could under such be tolerated: and it is the fact, that where the literal interpretation is contended for, no such doctrine is ever found: and of this, your sermon affords sufficient proof."

The proof is quite as clear touching Archbishop Bramhall. We quote part:

"Archbishop Bramhall does determine, that the mode of the Presence of Christ in the sacrament is spiritual. And this must, of necessity, be apprehended by Faith. Which is, as we have seen, just what Bishop Andrewes taught; and is what the nature of the case, and the Scriptures themselves, require; while neither of these has attempted to determine metaphysically, what a Spiritual Presence is, how it acts, or to what extent, at each and every receiving of the Sacrament.

"It must appear from the following passages, also, that Bramhall could not have taken the terms of Institution in their strictly literal sense. I take no notice now,' says he, of those remote suspicions or suppositions of the possibility of want of intention, either in the priest that consecrates the sacrament, or in him that baptised, or in the bishop that ordained him, or in any one through the whole line of succession; in all which cases (according to your own principles) you give Divine Worship to corporeal elements, which is at least material idolatry.' If the elements be material only, according to Bramhall, after consecration; then can they not be, according to him, the very and real body and blood of Christ, even after any spiritual or ineffable manner. (Ib. p. 31.)

66

· Again (ib.): But I cannot omit, that the Council of Trent is not contented to enjoyn the adoration of Christ in the sacrament (which we never deny), but of the sacrament itself (that is, according to the common current of your school-men, the accidents or species of bread and wine, because it contains Christ). Why do they not add, upon the same grounds, that the pix is to be adored with Divine worship, because it contains the sacrament? Divine honour is not due to the very humanity of Christ, as it is abstracted from the Deity; but to the whole Person, Deity, and Humanity, hypostatically united. Neither the Grace of Union, nor the Grace of

Unction, can confer more upon the Humanity than the Humanity is capable of. There is no such union between the Deity and the sacrament, neither immediately nor yet mediately, mediante corpore." Here, as before, the sacrament is not to be worshipped; and the reason given is, because the Deity is not united with it, either immediately or even mediately by means of the body. According to Bramhall, therefore, the elements contain in themselves, neither immediately nor mediately, the Divine nature of Christ. Bramhall could not, therefore, have taken, as you have done, the terms, This is My body,' &c., in their strictly literal sense. Again (ib. p. 39): Surely, you cannot think that Christ did actually sacrifice Himself at His last Supper, (for then Ile had redeemed the world at His last Supper, then His subsequent sacrifice upon the Cross had been superfluous,) nor that the priest now doth more than Christ did then. We do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical sacrifice of prayers and praises; we profess a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; and, in language of Holy Church, things commemorated are related as if THEY WERE THEN ACTED; as Almighty God, who hast given us Thy Son [as this day] to be born of a pure Virgin. And, Whose praise the younger Innocents have [this day] set forth. And between the Ascension and Pentecost, Which hast exalted Thy Son Jesus Christ with great triumph into heaven, we beseech Thee leave us not comfortless, but send unto us Thy Holy Spirit. We acknowledge,' he adds, a representation of that sacrifice to God the Father, we acknowledge an Impetration of the benefit of it, we maintain an application of its vertue.

So here is a Commemorative, Impetrative, Applicative Sacrifice. Speak distinctly,' continues he, and I cannot understand what you desire more. To make it a suppletory Sacrifice to supply the defects of the onely true sacrifice of the cross, I hope both you and I abhor.' Nothing, surely, can be more distinct and clear than this. If the priest does in the sacrament no more sacrifice or offer up Christ, than Christ (our Priest) offered up Himself at the last Supper, then it is certain, that neither can we offer up the real and natural body of Christ in the sacrament; and it must necessarily follow, that Bramhall could not have taken the terms, This is My body,' &c., in their proper and strictly literal sense. And this is amply confirmed by what follows, when he tells us, that the sacrament is a sacrifice of prayers and praises; that it is, as such, commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross: the language here implying an act performed, representing (as it were dramatically) the one great sacrifice by which alone salvation is to be had.

"Once more, Bramhall thus addresses M. de la Militière (ib. p. 42): 'I meddle not with your treatise: some of your learned adversaries' friends will give you your hands full enough. But how,' adds he, can his majesty protect or patronise a treatise against his judgement, against his conscience, contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, not only since the Reformation, but before? About the year 700. The body of Christ wherein He suffered, and His body consecrated in the Host, differ much. The body wherein He suffered was born of the Virgin, consisting of flesh and bones, and humane members: His spiritual body, which we call the Host, consists of many grains, without blood, bones, or humane members: wherefore nothing is to be understood there corporally, but all spiritually.'

"You will observe here, that Bramhall quotes this extract as containing the doctrine of the Church of England; and hence, necessarily, that holden by himself. The distinction too, and difference, to be observed between the body consecrated in the elements, and that born of the Virgin, cannot but strike you as obvious, direct, and positive. I am led to conclude, therefore, here, that, as the body consecrated is said to be one thing, and the body born of the Virgin, and which suffered, is determined to be another-the one considered as corporeal, the other entirely spiritual-neither the original author of this Extract, nor Bramhall who quotes it, could have taken the terms, This is My body,' &c., in their strictly literal sense. Nor further, can I find any one passage, either in Bishop Andrewes or Archbishop Bramhall-including of course the passages cited in your appendix-from which any such proposition can be fairly deduced.

"No, my dear sir; the truth evidently is, that, notwithstanding Bramhall's cautionviz., that the Fathers did not intend such expressions as these, the true body and

6

blood of Christ,'' we see Christ,' we touch Christ,' we eat Christ,' we fasten our teeth in His very flesh,' and make our tongues red with His blood,' to be understood literally, not only sacramentally or figuratively, (in the sense in which they were forced upon Berengarius,) but also properly, and in the things themselves: notwithstanding this caution, I say, you have so taken them, in direct opposition both to his express opinions, and to his expressed caution. You have then proceeded to condemn all teaching opposed to your own, as defective and wrong, and to recommend a system which you seem to be afraid to explain, but which, you aver, rests particularly on the authority of these two prelates: which, however, is not the fact; their preaching being in strict accordance with that of the best interpretation of Holy Writ, and with the requirements of the case."

The passages quoted from Hilary, Cyril, Chrysostom, Ephrem Syrus, Augustine, &c., are then passed in review by Dr. Lee, and satisfactorily dismissed. The professor likewise, in the most able manner, brings Dr. Pusey's eucharistic doctrine to the test of Scripture, and shows him to be inconsistent both with its letter and spirit, and equally so with the language of the ancient liturgies. On the whole, Dr. Lee's pamphlet is a triumphant exposure of Dr. Pusey's uniform misunderstanding and misrepresenting all the authorities quoted in his catena. "There are but two ways," says Dr. Lee, "in which religion can be or ever has been taught; one, through the Commandments of God; the other, by the Traditions of Men." Of these two, Dr. Pusey has evidently chosen the latter; on this point, he is thus finely apostrophised by Dr. Lee:

Nothing, surely, can be more instructive than the fact, that, in proportion as you have lost sight of scriptural truth, and of the truest laws of scriptural interpretation, in the same have you lost sight of that which alone can reach and benefit the soul of man, and make it meet to be a partaker with the saints in light; namely, an active and lively faith, which is the gift of the Spirit of God alone, and a hope full of immortality, which the renewal of the soul by Divine Grace alone can realise. Instead of that spirit-stirring influence which comes fresh from above, which wrought effectually in our prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and which is the end had in view in all the means of grace and ordinances of the Church, you seem to have fixed your attention entirely and solely on some imagined virtue inherent in the means to be employed. Hence you contemplate in the consecrated elements with the Romanist, a change of constitution at once unutterable and adorable! In these, again, you find a material bond, and the only one, both of union and communion with the very essence of the Father and of the Son! Under the same unscriptural and earthborn views, you conceive of the eucharistical sacrifice, as of a rite of continual immolation, and of sufferings hitherto borne by the Saviour, and still to be borne, so long as an officiating priest shall be found to offer, or a repentant sinner to partake of, the real and true body and blood thus to be broken and poured out! And here you think you see lowest absolutely joined on with highest, corruption with incorruption, and man with God! Where it was once said, 'the flesh profiteth nothing,' you have discovered the direct contrary, and that it, and it alone, profiteth everything; that the consideration of the Spirit may, for the most part, be disregarded; and the doctrine which teaches that the sinner is to be justified by faith, should be merged in the more palpable one, that pardon of sin is to be obtained through the consecrated Elements alone!"

In a similar spirit, Mr. Bosanquet dwells at great length on Dr. Pusey's preference for the mere letter of Scripture, "without any authority from the Church of England so to do," and in contradiction to the analogy of our Lord's teaching; and in reference to the Eucharist, Mr. Bosanquet enters his caveat against spiritual life being considered "as the result of a corporeal communication to our bodies and souls, instead of spiritual life by the communicated virtue of Christ's atonement, of which last kind of communication the consecrated elements are, according to the doctrine of our Church, first the signs, then the means, and lastly the pledges to assure us." Mr. Bosanquet demonstrates that literal interpretations of the words of the Saviour, when He is speaking of high and holy matters, are not so generally safe as spiritual interpretations of His words, whenever the latter readily present themselves. To the danger of such literal interpretations our Lord Himself repeatedly points, and rebukes the Jews and His disciples for their inclination thereto. In

fact, it is always the sign of a carnal and unspiritual mind; yet, says Dr. Pusey, “I and other learned men receive the Saviour's words according to their plain, literal meaning the Saviour has used these amazing words,' and I do not try to abate anything of their wonder by spiritualising their meaning, but I bow myself under them, and, without pretending or wishing to understand them, I adore them, and in so doing, I am evidently safe, and hold holy truth more closely than you do." No such unpretending, unintelligent reception of the Saviour's words, is required; but that faith is most approved which has the best reason to give for its cultivation. Mr. Bosanquet illustrates this view by the most numerous instances. Nor is there anything, either in the Articles of the Church, in her Catechism, or in her "Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion," which sanctions the literal view. "And here," says Mr. Bosanquet, "one must say, it excites wonder that the simple expression of the Lord's Supper,' which is so distinctly chosen and made use of in all the three formularies just mentioned, as a just description of our united feast upon the consecrated emblems of the Lord's body and blood (which simple expression was no doubt adopted from the 11th chapter and 20th verse of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians), should have been so wholly repudiated by Dr. Pusey, as not to be once mentioned (excepting in quotations from our formularies themselves) in the whole course of his Sermon. Whether this departure from the established phraseology of the Church of England be more or less designed and pointed, it can hardly be entirely accidental--it is not calculated to inspire us with any lively hope of finding the views developed in the Sermon in strict agreement with those of our Church upon this solemn subject. But this only by the way. The question at present in hand is this: Whether our Church affords her sanction and authority to any one in holding and teaching the literal sense of our Lord's words in the delivery of the elements to the Apostles?" The 28th and 29th Articles evidently view "our redemption by Christ's death" as the inward and spiritual part of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and recognise the bread only as "the sign of so great a thing." "When," adds Mr. Bosanquet, "we consider the many and fearful superstitions which arose in the Church in the course of the Middle Ages, from the supposition that the priest had in his keeping, and ready for delivery to whom he would, the natural property of Christ's body, this variation from the doctrine of the Church of England cannot be deemed unimportant." The testimony of Hooker to the same doctrine is so well known, that we need not quote it. Dr. Pusey, in the 8th and 9th pages of his Sermon, speaks of our "receiving Him into this very body”—a phrase which our Church never uses, because it would confound the two parts of the sacrament, and render it impossible to say, as she does in the 29th Article, that some communicants receive only the sign, whilst others receive the body and blood of their Lord. She is careful to use everywhere the word "sacrament" as synonymous with the word "sign," and leaves it to be made more than a sign by the faith of the recipient, which is given by the Spirit of God. The Second Prayer in the Post Communion is decisive on this point; and Mr. Bosanquet has made some excellent remarks on it. As a minister of the Church of England, he solemnly protests against Dr. Pusey's doctrine, and positively declares that "the transmission of life,' by the simple introduction of the consecrated elements into our bodies, and the transformation into Christ's light and life,' without mention of faith in the atonement, or thankful remembrance of Christ's sacrifice for sins, is a doctrine not anywhere taught, either by Holy Scripture or by our Church, and seems not by any means to come up to the terms of the 11th Article, which says, that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith.' This," he adds, "is evidently a different kind of justification from any that our Church contemplates. It is true that the consecrated elements truly represent Christ's merit in the atonement; but where is the other condition, the apprehension of our Lord and Saviour by faith? It is quite evident that this, which, though it does not assert, yet leaves an opening for, the old Romish error of Transubstantiation, is calculated prodigiously and unreasonably to elevate the authority and power of the priest, by placing in his hands the power of communicating to the people, or of withholding

from them, at his will, their eternal salvation, contained in the sacred elements, without reference to the state of their minds before God, or to their capability or incapability, at the time of communicating, of receiving their Saviour by faith. It is not impossible that by some this effect may be thought a desirable one, and one adapted to the wants of the present times; but, however that may be, the doctrine, as delivered by a clergyman of the Church of England, is condemnatory of him in this respect, that it is one which the Church has given him no commission to teach ; and there is no difficulty in farther asserting, that the reason she has not given a commission to teach it is, that it is not to be found in Holy Scripture. It is not anywhere said, in the sense in which the words are here intended, that 'that life is transmitted on to us also, and not to our souls only, but to our bodies, since we become flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone.' The passage which appears to be alluded to is in the 5th chapter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones,' and is the carrying out into detail of the metaphor, Christ's body the Church;' and is so clearly metaphorical, that there can, I apprehend, be no second opinion upon the subject. He that loveth his wife loveth himself: for no man ever yet hated his flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.' A man's wife is, in one sense, himself; for they two,' saith God, 'shall be one flesh;' and in one sense, too, our bodies are all Christ's body; for 'ye are all the body of Christ,' saith St. Paul, and members in particular:' hence, in carrying out the metaphor yet farther, it may reasonably be said, 'we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.' But these expressions cannot bear the weight of the doctrine attempted to be placed upon them-viz., that 'that life' (the life of Christ's Godhead) is transmitted on to us also, and not to our souls only, but to our bodies, since we become flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone.' We become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, according to St. Paul's meaning, metaphorically, as being members of His spiritual body, the Church; but this cannot afford any argument in favour of the actual transmission to us, in the Lord's Supper, of the natural property of Christ's body. It is very true that our Lord has said, 'He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me;' but then there is nothing in that which can attach us to the literal sense, because He himself set out, at the beginning of the discourse in which those words occur, by saying, 'I am the Bread of Life; he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst.' So that, however far the metaphor may be carried, we have always these guiding words to turn back to for the solution of it. The bread of life,' the living bread,' the life-giving food, must surely be a spiritual food: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.' Spiritual food must be spiritually eaten then again, 'The bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the sins of the world.' The spiritual food to be spiritually received, is the atonement made by Christ by giving His body to be sacrificed upon the cross for us, and to be fed upon by faith; and to this agree the words of the 47th verse of the same 6th chapter of John, which are prefatory to all this part of the discourse- Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.'"

:

In dismissing Mr. Bosanquet's very excellent pamphlet, we must record our agreement with him in regard to Dr. Pusey's style-that if there be any one thing which can be said to be characteristic of it, it is the wonderful interweaving of piety and superstition, truth and error, which prevails throughout his celebrated sermon; and parallel with that peculiarity, is the mystifying qualification of plain propositions, by the insertion of terms which are at variance with the primary propositions themselves.

The Statutes of the Fourth General Council of Lateran, recognised and established by subsequent Councils and Synods, drawn by the Council of Trent. By the Rev. JOHN EVANS, M.A. London: Seeley. 1843.

This is an exceedingly valuable and important document. The reverend editor proves that the Council did pass acts; and that the disputed third Canon is genuine.