the Body of Christ comes down into the elements, and to that point, down on the altar, not to heaven above, must all hearts be directed.

The opposite doctrine of "Sursum corda" has been shown to be taught by the Council of Nicæa. by Chrysostom and others of the Fathers. To these quotations I may add a reference to the learned work of the late Dean Goode "on the Eucharist," in which, at pp. 316 to 321, vol. i., he shows that "the Fathers exhort us to raise our thoughts above that which is on the table to that which is in heaven." To the instances there given, I will add a passage from Origen, which exactly harmonizes with the whole line of thought of these sermons. That Father says, "We ought to understand that they who are occupied with feastings and earthly cares do not ascend into that Upper Chamber, nor see its quietness, nor consider how it is furnished and adorned. Wherefore neither do they celebrate the Passover with Jesus, nor receive the bread of benediction from Him, nor the cup of the New Testament."

From "The Eucharist Illustrated, &c.," by the Rev. William Milton.

NOTE C.-PAGE 252.1

"Our Praise and Adoration to Christ, in partaking the Holy Communion."

[We are indebted to an interesting book by Dr. Monsell, named "Our New Vicar," for a carefully worded and valuable statement, in a tone of deep devotional feeling, on Eucharistic doctrine, including the question of Adoration, which we here give at length in support of the position maintained in the foregoing treatise, on the subject of Christ's Presence in His Sacrament, and of our highest act of worship and adoration, in communion and union with Him therein.]

To celebrate the Holy Eucharist is the highest act of spiritual worship and adoration which man can render to God. It is not a sacrifice in itself, but it is the pleading of THE SACRIFICE. It is the Church's utterance in act of that which she had said before in word, "I believe in Jesus Christ our Lord." It is the Church's highest adoration of that Lord, that God-man present in the Sacrament, 2 before whom we bow, as bowed the Jews of old, when the cloud rested on the Ark. He is in a cloud still, we cannot see, or handle, or perceive where. But His Presence is with us in that mystery, and we adore, not the Sacrament, but the Lord of the Sacrament, as, by His own covenant, nearer to us then than on any other occasion. The two or three met together in His Name feel that He is in the midst.

Such is the Holy Eucharist in its God-ward aspect. 9 See Part VI., Sect. 8, of this Series.

See figure 5, col., 1, line 19; not figure 6, as marked in

error.

[2 By the word "Sacrament" is here meant the whole Ordinance, not the outward sign or symbol only, as clearly shown by the context.-ED.]

In its man-ward blessings it is no less awful and mysterious. It offers food-" the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." What the nature of that food is, it is not for us to say. We know no more of it than that it is called in Scripture His flesh and blood-and that it is the means He has ordained, by which to impart to us Himself, and daily renew in us the Life Divine.

This only we know, that without it we cannot live :Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." It is soulfood, and the only soul-food of which we read in Scripture:-"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." And the partaking of it is the mysterious union and communion of us with Christ, and Christ with us:-" He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him.”

This mystic food is there, at that great feast, out where no human eye can see, or thought imagine, or tongue or pen define. It is offered to all, but received

only by the faithful for being not a carnal, but a spiritual food, it can on ly be received by that power which apprehends and receives spiritual things. Faith is our spiritual sense, and it alone perceives and partakes of spiritual things. Thus the soul which can discern the Lord's Body, so discerns by faith. And they, to whom those awful words.-"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you,"-have a meaning, find what they desire, by faith, in the banquet of that most heavenly food.

This we must feel assure d of-that its spirituality does not lessen its reality; that as the soul is as real as the body, so the food of the soul is as real as a real thing requires to sustain it: with this difference, that the bo dy is mortal, and lives by mortal food, and dies; the soul is immortal, is fed with immortal food, and lives for ever.

In fact, all our life below is but the shadow of the life which is above, and the true realities are in the eternal things themselves, and not in the shadows which they cast.

This thought will remind us that reality does not necessarily imply materiality. That very materiality which we deem so essential to everything, and down to the level of which we would reduce some of heaven's highest mysteries, belongs, so far as we know, only to this present imperf ect and limited life. It is the coil which we shall put off when, out of the chrysalis of our mortality, we wing our way into the empyreal air. Our bodies are but shadows of our souls; the bread of which they partake, but a shadow of the Bread Divine; our lips but shadows of the faith which perceives and feeds on heavenly food; and all the outward visible show but a shadow of the processes in our inward spiritual life.

It is all, then, one great act of faith-this feeding upon the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Sacrament; and by faith, remember, I do not mean that cold shadowy thing which some account it; a belief that such and such things will be; as vague and unsatisfying as a dream, and from which oftentimes, as out of a dream, we waken, to find that what we grasped at, as a reality, is no reality at all. But by faith I mean a warm, living, present possession of that which it apprehends. By faith I mean what the Apostle means when he calls it, not a shadow, but a "substance" of the things we hope for ;-not an imagination, or a guess in the dark, but the "evidence" of things not seen. By it we see Him who is invisible. By it we touch Him who is intangible. We eat and drink immortal, and to sense indiscernible food-our material lips pressing the shadow, our immaterial souls feeding on the substance -our mortal eyes seeing only the cloud, our immortal vision discerning the Lord's Body.

Beyond this I cannot, dare not go. Perhaps even thus I have gone too far, prying with too curious eyes into that which is behind the veil.

[We give one further extract from the 8th Chapter (or rather "Letter," the whole work being in reality a succession of Letters), as showing especially the nature of the reverence due to the outward sign, and the danger of attempting to define and localize the mystery of Christ's Sacramental Presence, beyond what He has revealed to us. Speaking of the difference between ourselves and Rome," he continues]:

Our doctrine on the subject of the Holy Sacrament involves more mystery than theirs does. For even to those who accept transubstantiation in its fullest meaning, there is a materiality in that which they call their God, which takes largely from its awfulness and mystery. If seen, and handled, and brought within the reach of sense, and bounds of space, how much the dread and awe of the Great Presence are removed!

Whereas that Presence, as we hold, though real, is invisible-takes no outward form, is bounded by no material substance, comes not within the reach of the senses of man. It is there, but where no one dare say: save that it is within reach of all present, and that the mode in which it becomes the inward life and renewing of our souls-namely, by imparting to them, for their Divine food, the Body and Blood of Christis within the reach of every recipient. Where it is -on the altar, m the bread, in the cup, in the hand, in the lips-I dare not say where it is not, I dare not say either. The attempt to define, draws us into surpassing difficulty.

Take for example all that painful casuistry-which has arisen (reverently no doubt in intention) from the belief that the elements are changed as to the manner in which the least fallen erumb of the consecrated Bread should be treated-lowering, as such discussions

must do, the very thing they seek to exalt. With reverence the elements should be handled; with reverence what remains should be consumed; with reverence, such as we pay to God's House, or Book, or Day, those sacred things which belong to Him, and which He makes use of for His mysteries. But not with such reverence as we pay to God Himself. The crumb that, not withstanding the utmost care, may fall on the floor, or remain on the paten, should be gathered up and reverently eaten, as that which has been dedicated to God's service, and used for a purpose so holy as to be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. But it is not by us adoringly approached, as if it were God; nor should any unintentional failure in thus consuming it, affect or grieve our consciences.

I kneel always, when consuming the elements, at the close of the service; because such attitude seems most respectful to "the sign or sacrament of so great a thing" as that of which we have been partaking, most solemn in the eyes of others, and most monitory to my own heart, as to how reverent it should be. But I do not by such posture desire to express a belief in any material change wrought in the elements at their consecration.

If any such change has taken place, it must be abiding; and the reserving, carrying about, and adoration of that which remains would naturally follow. But believing, as I do, that the Presence has been with us in a mystery, in connexion with those sacred symbols, I treat them from first to last with the utmost reverence, but render not to them at any time that which, if it be not lawful worship, must be superstitious.

The errors of Rome on this subject seem to have arisen from a hopeless effort to define a mystery. Her doctrine, as originally held, was, I have no doubt, the same that we hold, and for centuries the doctrine of transubstantiation was unknown. But schoolmen sought to define, in so doing confused themselves, and, being once bound to dogma, adhered to it. It is this very error which I dread in the Ultra-Ritualists of the present day. Their vestments, their incense, their reverential forms of service and demeanour, I could well bear with; nay more, I could use them, without any feeling of disloyalty to my Church, if they be lawful, and sanctioned by proper authority: for I recognize in these things only a deeper reverence for this most holy Sacrament. But I fear that I can perceive underlying all this a doctrine which, if not transubstantiation, is so like it, that few can understand the difference. And therefore I dread the movement, particularly as those engaged in it seem unwilling to submit to the godly counsel of those set over them in the Lord.

It is a serious thing to change, even in less impor tant things, the accepted usage of the Church, and that, upon what we must feel to be individual autho

rity. But when the whole movement seems to have a tendency so dangerous, and to draw near quicksands upon which the Church of old, with the best intentions, nevertheless struck; men should distrust themselves more than some of these excellent men seem to do, and tremble lest they touch with too presuming and self-confident hand the ark of the Lord.

From "Our New Vicar " By the Revd. J. S. B. Monsell," LL.D., Rector of St. Nicholas, Guildford. Pp. 55-8, 71— 5.

NOTE D.-PAGE 254.

"Under the form of Bread and Wine." [This mode of expression, as a definition-borrowed from the Church of Rome-is now made use of to support the views of those who maintain that there is a real "objective," or Personal Presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, to be there adored, irrespective of the Sacramental reception of His crucified Body and Blood, by faith, whereby His true members have the assurance of His Spiritual Presence, dwelling in their hearts. It admits of two meanings, which renders it of doubtful use as a doctrinal statement. First,-in the sense of a rite, token, sign, or covenant; as, for instance, "the form and manner of ordering Deacons, &c.,"-"the outward visible sign or form in Baptism" (including the sign, water, and the form of words used,)-or, "under the hand and seal," as in the case of conveying a title by deed or covenant;-in which sense it is figurative and Second, more appropriate, though unauthorised. directly meaning "within the shape or compass of each consecrated piece of bread, and of the cup of wine," as when Christ's Presence is said to be " the Altar," or (if such words can be used without irreverence) "in the hand," (the bread or the wine being implied,) which is the plain meaning taught by the Church of Rome in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, whilst also affirming that the material elements then remain such only in appearance, &c. In this latter sense the phrase receives no sanction from our formularies, and is as much opposed to the direct teaching of our Church, as it is at variance with the testimony of Holy Scripture. It expresses rather the Lutheran definition, or existent theory," adding the tenet of "Impanation "4

on

Co

3 As asserted by the lamentable change of the word "as" tor "not" in Keble's verse,-"In the heart, as in the hand, the Eternal Priest, &c." Or, more plainly still, in the quotation from an old inscription, chosen by Dr. Pusey for the motto to his trea ise on the Real Presence, viz," Eat, drink; holding in thy hands Jesus Christ the Son of God the Saviour."

4 By reference to Field on the Church (Book III. Appendix, Ch. xvii.) it will be seen that the term "Impanation" is mentioned by "Waldensis" as one originating in the Serengarian controversy in the 11th Century and approving itself to many at that time as affording a "via lenis" to those who could not receive the newly invented theory of the annihilation of the substance of the Bread and Wine. "By those who rej-cted this last theory, three different explanations," he writes, "were given of the conversion' of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Some supposed the eonversion, that is, in the Sacrament, to be, in that the Bread and Wine are assumpted into the unity of Christ's Person, some thought it to be by way of impanation, and some by way of figurative or tropical appellation, with whom Wicktiffe concurs." This third explanation, from whieh impana tion is distinguished, may be the better understood by refer ence to Wickliffe's views, as given by Archdeacon Freeman (P. D. S., Vol. II. p. 97.) The first of his Propositions,' A.D. 1380, is as follows:-" Hostia conseerata quam videmus iu altari, nec est Christus nec alique Sni pars, sed efficax ejus signum." No mention is made of any use at that time of the correlative term "Invination" whieh has recently been used in the present controversy.

to the truth of the Incarnation, and except for the additional negative dogma of the annihilation of the elements, leaving only the Divine Substance in the visible form, by which the charge of idolatry is evaded, (if such sub le distinctions are possible even to faith) it would be virtually the same as the teaching of the Church of Rome. It is but a new mode of stating a heresy long since renounced by our Church, which yet finds some among her members again to advocate it!

The doctrinal purpose for which this phrase has been employed of late years is well commented on by Canon Trevor in the following passage taken from his treatise on the Holy Eucharist (which has been reviewed at length in Part IV. of this Series,) wherein he refers to a Manifesto or "profession of faith," addressed by 23 clergymen to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, in one part of which the above phrase occurs, as here stated]:

:

"We repudiate the opinion of 'a Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood,' that is to say, of the Presence of his Body and Blood as they are in Heaven' . . . We believe that in the Holy Eucharist, by virtue of the consecration, through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, the inward part or thing signified,' are present, really and truly, but spiritually and ineffably, under the outward visible part or sign' or form of Bread and Wine."

6

This article, it will be observed, evades the point of the controversy, whether the Presence is by material contact or by spiritual power-i.e. whether it is corporal or spiritual.... They say that Christ is present in the matter of the sacrament, i.e. by material contact; and the Church of England says, in the rubric misquoted by the memorialists, that His Body and Blood are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at the same time in more places than one." This is certainly widely different from the repudiation in this manifesto.

46

Now, if the words "Body and Blood of Christ " mean in this paper-as they ought to mean-the crucified Flesh of Christ, and not, as the Romanists and Lutherans teach, His Glorified Person, it must follow that they are" really and truly present" in mystery, not in substance-i.e. in spiritual power, not by material contact. This is truly Catholic and Anglican doctrine. But this interpretation seems to be shut out by the Romish expression, "under the form of bread and wine." It is true that in the Latin fathers species means substance, and not mere accidents, yet the presence of two substances under one form would imply "material contact." imports the Lutheran, if not the Tridentine, conception, and was probably on that account deliberately rejected from the Anglican formularies. Cranmer

The phrase

5 It is hardly ingenuous, after the mistake has been repeatedly exposed, to persist in fathering this expression on the Book of Homilies." In his letter to the Bishop of London (1851) Dr. Pusey justifies his use of the phrase on the ground that "they are the words used in the Homilies, of the due receiving of the Biessed Body and Blood of

accuses Gardiner of "a plain untruth" in imputing the use of this phrase to the Church of England; and it is clear that its removal from the title of the Homily was a designed repudiation of the words, as involving the Corporal Presence, which Cranmer was at first inclined to retain on the Lutheran explanation." Bishop Andrewes censures the Latin equivalent as a novelty unknown in the time of Augustine.?

Neither is it in any way recognized (as the manifesto insinuates) by the use of the word "form' in the Church of England Catechism. For, in the first place, this word is not there applied to the Eucharist, but only to Baptism, of which no one would say that the inward part or thing signified (a death unto sin, &c.) is really and truly present under the form of water. In the next place, the only presence asserted in the Catechism is the Real Presence to the faithful receiver. The words "inward " and " outward" refer not to the Sacrament, but to the receiver. The "outward visible sign or form in baptism is outward (or objective) to the person baptised; the inward and spiritual grace is the gift received by him along with, but not enclosed in, the water. The same construction must of course belong to the "outward and inward parts " of the other sacrament. The Catechism (like the fathers) speaks of these two sacraments in the same language. Each is the sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to the fit receiver. The grace is given and received when the sacrament is given and received, "semel et simul," as Bishop Cosin says; but it is not therefore mechanically enclosed in the sign (like a jewel in a casket) in the one sacrament any more than the other. Bishop Andrewes remarks that in, per, sub, or cum, are matters of opinion, not of faith. What is Catholic is the Real Presence to the devout receiver if the Objective Presence mean the Presence of Christ's Person, either in the material elements or "under their forms," irrespective of communion, it is neither CATHOLIC nor TRUE.

It is singular that a Paper, designed to repel the suspicion of disloyalty to the Church of England should contain no allusion to participation, which is, after all, the main use of the sacrament, and in which alone the Anglican formularies assert the Real Pre

Bence.

The Catechism affirms that " the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re

Christ under the form of Bread and Wine'." He writes, "I have meant them in the same sense in which the Homilies use them, and have used them because they were there use 1." The truth is that these words are not used in any Homily, nor was there ever a Homily bearing the title here alleged. Such a Homily was promised in a notice appended to the First Book of Homilies,-a notice for which no better authority than the King's printer can be cited,-but the Homily itself appeared in the Second Book under the title of "The Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ" and by that title alone it is recognized in the Thirty-fifth Article.

6 The Authorities are given at length in the late Dean of Ripon's industrious compilation, "The Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist" (London, 1856,) pp. 40-47.

7 2 Adv. Bell.

[A striking example of the meaning intended by the use of this phrase, "under the form," &c, and the attempt to make our Homilies responsible for the doctrine thus implied by it, may be met with in a correspondence between the Archdeacons Denison and Freeman, published by the former in 1866. It begins by Archdeacon Denison complaining of the latter having ascribed to him the tenet stated in the passage which he quotes, from a recent work of Archdeacon Freeman's, as follows]:

"There is another form of Eucharistic error which has obtained some footing among us. . . . I speak more especially of the tenet that one purpose, and a very principal one to say the least, of the Holy Eucharist, is to provide the Church with an object of Divine Worship actually enshrined in the elements, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ; and that the Church ought accordingly to pay towards that supposed personal Presence of Christ on the altar, and towards the Elements as containing Him, that worship which, at other times, she directs to Him as seated at the Right Hand of GOD. Such is the position laid down and acted upon. .. It is believed that the first appearance of this doctrine in modern days was in the case of Ditcher v. Denison."

The statement thus made is, as concerning me, so directly contrary to all that I have ever held, maintained, and published, that I am at a loss to understand whence it is that you have derived your grounds for making it.

[To this Archdeacon Freeman replies by "expressing his deep regret at having in any way misrepresented him," although he had regarded it as an axiomatic truth that Archdeacon Denison's answer to the criminal Articles "ultimately contained a distinct claim for Divine Worship as due to the Body and Blood of Christ as present upon the Altar," adding]:

"Or (which is what that must mean, since we do not worship things, and what hundreds have openly proclaimed, and I too hastily assumed that this

8 Eccl. Pol. v. lxvii. 5.

was your explanation too) to the Personal Presence of Christ Himself on the Altar, and as enshrined in the Elements."

[The letter concludes with an expression of thankfulness to find that Archdeacon Denison "does not hold with these dangerous and purely modern views." This the Archdeacon resents in letter on the following day, saying]:

I disown nothing of what I have at any time held and maintained upon this subject. If my statements be errors, they are certainly not "purely modern errors. ... I subjoin my statement touching the Worship due to "The Presence," as extracted from the "Criminal Articles," and required to be revoked in part by the pro-Diocesan Court at Bath in 1856. I. It is not true that the Consecrated Bread and Wine are changed in their natural substances; for they "remain in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored." It is true that Worship is due to the REAL, though invisible and supernatural, Presence of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Holy Eucharist, "under the form of Bread and Wine." Sermon II.1 Criminal Articles, 12, 13, 14.

-

[To which he adds]: I complain (1) of the words italicised by you; (2) of the words "personal Presence of CHRIST ON the altar;" (3) of the words "towards the Elements as containing Him;" (4) of the words "at other times;" as being not justified by any words used by myself.

[And he concludes by quoting two of his published "Propositions" as an explanation of the views he held, viz.]:

Proposition III.-"That The Body and Blood of CHRIST, being present naturally in Heaven, are, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present in the LORD's Supper, through the elements, by virtue of the act of Consecration."

Proposition VIII.-" That worship is due to The Body and Blood of CHRIST, supernaturally and invisibly, but Really, Present in the LORD's Supper, 'under the form of Bread and Wine," by reason of that GODHEAD with which They are Personally united. But that the elements through which 'The Body and Blood of CHRIST' are given and received, may not be worshipped."

[We conclude these extracts with the letter of Archdeacon Freeman in reply to the above (omitting the first paragraph as comparatively unimportant), and a rejoinder of the same date in rather curt terms from Archdeacon Denison]:

By applying the term "modern" to these views, by whomsoever entertained, I mean that they are not primitive, but mediæval.

:

Now, as to the four points of your complaint: 1. As to the words italicised, they describe, as nearly as I was able to do it, what I had seen and heard affirmed by very many. We are constantly told of the altar being Christ's Throne; of His being veiled now under the forms of Bread and Wine, just as the Godhead was veiled under the Manhood by the Incarnation; and the like.

But the present point is, as to your sharing these views. And you refer me to your 8th Proposition in proof that you do not do so. But I cannot perceive how you can explain that proposition in any other way. The reason why worship is due to the Body and Blood of Christ, supernaturally but Really Present, is, you say, "by reason of that GODHEAD with which They are Personally united." The Body and Blood of Christ, then, Personally united to His Divinity, are Present under the form of Bread and Wine. And yet there is no "personal Presence of Christ enshrined in the Elements," or "contained in them!" which is what I represented yourself and others as holding. I hope you see that I had reasonable grounds for supposing that you shared these views which others have more explicitly avowed.

2. "Personal Presence of Christ on the altar." This is answered in the foregoing.

3. As to the words "towards the Elements as containing Him." Is not the worship of those of whom in general I was speaking there, avowedly and openly directed towards the "Elements?" Are not they held to be the seat of that Personal Presence which they worship? Observe, that I was speaking there of the direction given to the act of worship. And I presume that you, too, would direct such worship, as you claim to offer, towards the consecrated EleAnd that is all I have said or meant. In my own view, indeed, such a habit trembles on the verge of worshipping the Elements themselves; but I have not charged them or you with it.

ments.

4. The words "at other times" refer to a peculiarity, as just described, in the direction thus given to Eucharistic as compared with ordinary worship.

I would humbly wish that you would kindly reconsider how far your propositions tend to implicate you in the consequences which I have ventured to charge upon them. But I have no right to urge this upon you. In any case you will, I am sure, believe that I have not willingly misrepresented you: nor am I without hopes that you will, in some degree at least, justify, as not unnatural, my misconception of your opinions. Believe me, Yours very truly,

The Archdeacon of Taunton.

PHILIP FREEMAN.