,transcribed from the #ahgg ,hatchards edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,lord',s ,,supper4 ,,as ,,taught ,,by ,the ,church of ,england4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,by ,,the ,,rev4 ,e4 ,,hoare1 ,,vicar ,,of ,,trinity1 ,,tunbridge ,,wells1 ,,and ,,honorary ,,canon ,,of ,,canterbury4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,,hatchards1 ,,piccadilly4 #ahgg4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,introduction4 ,,it is a very easy thing to make a confident assertion1 and such assertions produce a greater effect on many minds than the most careful and best-established proof4 ,thus it is not at all an uncommon thing to hear it asserted with the utmost confidence that what is termed #8,the ,doctrine of the ,real ,presence1' is taught by the ,church of ,england2 and the result is that a considerable number of persons believe in the assertion1 and place reliance on those who make it1 as if they1 and they only1 were the true expositors of the ,church's doctrine4 ,in many cases a blind consent is blindly given4 ,the ,scriptures are not investigated because the point is supposed to have been settled by the ,church1 and the documents of the ,church are not studied because the doctrine is regarded as beyond the reach of doubt2 whereas1 if the real groundwork of that opinion were examined1 it would be found to consist in nothing more than confident assertion4 ,but those who are loyal to the ,church of ,england ought not to be satisfied with any such representation of its teaching4 ,the issues at stake are far too serious1 and1 now that after three hundred years of faithful service the ,church of ,england is entering on such a sifting time as she has never yet experienced1 it is only fair to her that her own language should be patiently heard1 and her own teaching honestly examined4 ,this1 then1 is the object of this address4 ,i am not about to discuss the teaching of ,scripture1 but of the ,church of ,england2 and my desire is to ascertain by the careful and candid examination of her own documents whether there is1 or is not1 any authority for the assertion that she teaches what is commonly called #8,the ,doctrine of the ,real ,presence4' ,in doing this1 our first business is to ascertain what is the real point at issue1 and this is not so easy a task as it may appear1 as amongst those who maintain that doctrine there are no authoritative documents on the subject to which we can refer4 ,but1 ,i believe1 ,i am perfectly safe in arranging the three principal points at issue under the three heads of the ,real ,presence1 ,adoration1 and ,sacrifice2 and these three ,i propose to investigate in that order4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,real ,,presence4 ,,this lies at the foundation of the whole controversy1 and to this our first and chief attention must be directed4 ,now1 there can be no doubt on the minds of those who take the ,word of ,god as their true and only guide that it is the sacred privilege of the ,children of ,god to feed by faith on the most precious body and blood of our blessed ,saviour4 ,i am not now discussing in what way we feed on ,him1 or whether ,his words in the #fth chapter of ,st4 ,john refer1 or do not refer1 to the ,sacrament of the ,lord's ,supper4 ,it is my own belief that they do not2 but that is not the present question4 ,my present concern is with the fact that1 however we explain ,his words1 we are taught by our ,lord ,himself that such a feeding is essential to our life3 #8,except ye eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink ,his blood1 ye have no life in you4' ,nor can there be any doubt that in #a ,cor4 x4 #af1 #ag1 the partaking 77 of the body and blood of ,christ is connected with the ,lord's ,supper4 ,i am not now making any assertion as to the way in which it is connected1 for that is the great point to be determined4 ,all that ,i now say is that there clearly is a connexion1 for the words are3 #8,the cup of blessing which we bless1 is it not the communion of the blood of ,christ8 ,the bread which we break1 is it not the communion of the body of ,christ8 ,for we being many1 are one bread and one body2 for we are all partakers of that one bread4' ,two things1 therefore1 seem plain from ,scripture3 that there is a feeding on the body and blood of our most blessed ,saviour1 without which none can live1 and that the ,sacrament of the ,lord's ,supper is in some way or other connected with that sacred privilege4 ,thus far1 ,i presume1 we are all agreed4 ,but as to the nature of the connexion1 there is the widest possible divergence4 ,rome teaches that by the act of consecration the bread and wine become ,christ ,himself2 that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine1 and that both the bread and wine become each of them a whole ,christ1 body1 soul1 and divinity4 ,the advocates for the doctrine of the ,real ,presence in the ,church of ,england differ1 as far as ,i can understand them1 from ,rome in one respect1 and one only2 namely1 that they maintain that the bread and wine do not cease to have the accidents of bread and wine1 so that they may still be spoken of as bread and wine1 although they have become the body and blood of ,christ1 or rather ,christ ,himself4 ,this slight difference is of no practical importance in the discussion1 and appears to have been introduced only to avoid the conclusion drawn from those texts which speak of the bread as bread1 and the wine as wine1 after consecration4 ,the practical conclusion is the same1 viz4 that our ,lord ,jesus ,christ ,himself is in the bread and in the wine4 ,this is what is meant by the expression1 #8,the real objective presence4' ,it means that ,he is present in the elements as a real independent object1 without any reference to the character of the recipient1 as a book is an independent object in the hand of the man who holds it1 without any reference to his state of mind or character4 ,in opposition to this1 it is maintained by us who cling to the great principles of the ,reformation1 that there is no change whatever in the bread and wine1 that they are solemnly set apart for sacramental use by means of consecration1 but that they remain exactly the same as before consecration1 in substance1 and accidents1 and everything else4 ,that the most precious body and blood of ,christ is altogether spiritual food1 and that the soul feeds on it by faith1 and faith alone4 ,that there are two perfectly distinct kinds of food1 the one material1 and the other spiritual2 the one for the body1 the other for the soul2 and two perfectly distinct actions2 the one of the body eating the bread1 the other of the soul feeding on ,christ ,himself by faith4 ,that the material food is an emblem of the spiritual2 and that the act of eating by the body is an emblem of the act of feeding by the soul2 and the manner of the two are so far connected by sacramental appointment1 that when we receive the emblem we are warranted to expect the enjoyment of the reality4 ,when the body feeds materially on the one1 the believer's heart feeds spiritually on the other2 but the two acts are distinct1 and the one must not be confounded with the other4 ,from this statement it will appear that the point at issue is1 whether the precious body and blood of our blessed ,lord and ,saviour are in the bread and in the wine1 so as to be eaten and drunk whenever1 and by whomsoever1 the elements are received1 or whether the spiritual food described in this expression is received by the soul alone without being localised in the consecrated elements4 ,and my object is to endeavour to ascertain which of these two systems is taught by the ,church of ,england4 ,that dear old ,church is at this present time in a position to call forth the deepest anxiety and the most earnest prayers of all those who love the truth4 ,some are endeavouring to destroy it1 some to corrupt it1 and some to uphold it in its integrity4 ,in such a state of things it is not fair that the ,church should be held responsible for the assertions even of its friends4 ,its own voice ought to be heard1 and its own clear statement carefully studied4 ,i have no intention1 therefore1 of endeavouring to confuse the subject by a mass of quotations from collateral writers1 but will turn at once to those authoritative documents for which the ,church has made herself responsible4 ,these are the ,articles1 ,catechism1 ,liturgy1 and ,homilies2 and these1 if it please ,god1 we will examine in order4 99 99 99 99 99 ,the ,articles4--,there are seven ,articles--xxv4 to xxxi4--bearing more or less upon the subject2 and from these we may gather the real teaching of our ,church4 ,the first of them1 the twenty-fifth1 refers to sacraments in general4 #8,sacraments ordained of ,christ be not only badges or tokens of ,christian men's professions1 but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace1 and ,god's good will towards us1 by the which ,he doth work invisibly in us1 and doth not only quicken1 but also strengthen and confirm our faith in ,him4' ,in other words1 before men they are badges of our profession1 and before ,god they are signs or witnesses by which ,god works invisibly in the soul4 ,in this definition there is no idea of any change in the substance of the sign4 ,the sign is not described as being changed into the thing signified1 but as being accompanied by it1 so that when the believer with the hand and lip visibly receives the sign1 it pleases ,god in ,his own great grace invisibly to feed the soul and confirm the faith4 ,the visible sign and the invisible gift are therefore kept quite distinct4 ,the one is mercifully granted in connexion with the other1 but never said to be incorporated with it1 for the sign would cease to be a sign if it were changed into the thing signified4 ,with this definition of a ,sacrament1 the #bgth ,article--which describes that of baptism--exactly agrees4 ,it describes it not merely as a badge of a ,christian man's profession1 but also declares that it is a sign and means of grace4 #8,a sign of regeneration or new birth2' a #8means whereby as by an instrument1 they that receive baptism rightly 7#a7 are grafted into the ,church2 7#b7 the promises of forgiveness of sin1 and of our adoption to be the sons of ,god by the ,holy ,ghost1 are visibly signed and sealed2 7#c7 faith is confirmed1 and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto ,god4' ,but no change is here described as taking place in the water4 ,it is nowhere said to be changed into regeneration4 ,the gifts described are ,god's direct gifts to the soul1 and are never said to be infused into the element of water4 ,the water is sanctified1 or set apart for sacramental use1 but the consecration produces no change in its quality or substance4 ,the new birth is not in the water1 but is the act of the ,holy ,spirit moving in the soul4 ,the minister on earth visibly administers the visible sign to the body1 and we trust that ,god in heaven invisibly bestows the invisible gift on the soul4 ,it is not my business now to discuss the connexion between the visible sign and the invisible gift4 ,it is enough for my present purpose to point out that the one is not changed into the other1 but that the water remains water1 or1 in other words1 that the sign does not cease to be a sign1 as it would do if it were changed into the thing signified4 ,now it would be strange indeed if after having first given so perfectly clear a general definition of the general nature of a sacrament1 and having so clearly defined baptism1 in perfect harmony with that general definition1 our ,church were afterwards to teach a doctrine respecting the ,lord's ,supper1 altogether at variance with the general definition1 and with her own explanation of the other sacrament4 ,the ,church of ,england includes both sacraments in one definition1 and in that definition she never alludes to any change in the sign or elements4 ,in the sacrament of baptism1 no one1 ,i believe1 would for a moment assert the existence of such a change1 even if there were no special ,article on the subject4 ,our conclusion therefore must be1 that1 according to the ,church's teaching1 there is no change in the elements in the ,lord's ,supper4 ,as the water in baptism remains water still1 so the bread and wine of the ,lord's ,supper remain what they were before1 plain1 simple bread and wine2 dedicated1 it is true1 to the ,lord's service1 but altogether unchanged by such dedication4 ,but we are not left to depend altogether on such conclusions1 for there is a special ,article on the subject1 viz41 the twenty-eighth4 ,in the first clause we find the ,lord's ,supper described as both sacraments were described in the twenty-fifth1 and baptism in the twenty-seventh1 as a sign and means of grace4 #8,the ,supper of the ,lord is not only a sign of the love which ,christians ought to have among themselves one to another2 but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by ,christ's death1 inasmuch that to such as rightly1 worthily1 and with faith receive the same1 the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of ,christ2 and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of ,christ4' ,having gone thus far in harmony with their general definition1 and having quoted the words from #a ,cor4 x41 our ,reformers were clearly brought to the consideration of the very point under discussion1 viz41 in what way does the soul of the believer partake in the ,lord's ,supper of the body and blood of his blessed ,lord and ,saviour8 ,this question they boldly and clearly answer1 declaring in the first place1 what is not1 and in the second place1 what is1 the truth respecting it4 ,they first declare that it is not by transubstantiation4 #8,transubstantiation 7or the change of the substance of bread and wine71 in the ,supper of the ,lord cannot be proved by ,holy ,writ2 but is repugnant to the plain words of ,scripture1 overthroweth the nature of a sacrament' 7because if the sign is changed into the thing signified1 it ceases to be a sign71 #8and hath given occasion to many superstitions4' ,it would be fruitless to endeavour to trace the sophistry with which those who desire reconciliation of the ,church of ,england with ,rome1 have endeavoured to avoid the clear statements of this pungent ,article4 ,but their conclusion is one which is such an outrage on common sense that it would be utterly ludicrous if it were not inexpressibly melancholy1 to see men who1 we hope1 are devout men1 embracing it4 ,we are now deliberately told that the ,article was not directed against the doctrine of transubstantiation at all1 but against a change for which the name of #8transaccidentation' has been recently adopted4 ,now ,i know we live in an age of discovery1 but it is difficult for any person of plain common sense1 to believe in such a discovery as this4 ,no one who knows anything of the history of the ,reformation can be ignorant of the intense eagerness with which the doctrine of transubstantiation was discussed4 ,in books1 in sermons1 in public disputations1 it was argued again and again1 by all the most learned theologians of the day4 ,the speculations of the schoolmen as well as the writings of the early fathers were largely quoted4 ,the very distinction now revived between substance and accident was carefully discussed4 ,and men felt so deeply the wide difference between the teaching of ,rome and the teaching of ,scripture that they could not yield even to save their lives4 ,the stake was before them as the certain issue of their confession1 and liberty and honour was the promised reward if only they would yield4 ,but they had that deep conviction of the deadly error of the doctrine of transubstantiation that they counted it a privilege rather to die than to deny the truth of ,god4 ,and ,i put it to any man of common sense and common honesty3 is it possible to believe that1 after all1 there was no real difference between ,rome and the ,reformers8 ,that ,bonner and ,gardiner1 and ,latimer1 ,cranmer1 and ,ridley did1 in fact1 agree2 that there might have been a little confusion in some of their minds as to the difference between substance and accident1 so that they used the word transubstantiation without knowing its real meaning1 but that in all essential points they were agreed1 so that the fires of ,smithfield were lighted all by mistake1 and men who were burned agreed with them that burned them4 ,clever men and learned men may put forth such a theory1 but common sense revolts against it2 and all thinking men must agree that1 if this be the only theory on which it can be maintained1 the doctrine of the ,real ,objective ,presence is not the doctrine of the ,church4 ,plain honest men will be ready to cry #8shame' on those who by theological sophistry are endeavouring to evade the plain and incontestable evidence of the great facts of the ,reformation4 ,the ,reformers knew well enough what ,rome meant by #8transubstantiation1' and the twenty-eighth ,article is decisive on the point that there is no such change in the ,supper of the ,lord4 ,but the error having been denied1 the next clause of the ,article is employed to assert the truth3 #8,the body of ,christ is given1 taken1 and eaten in the ,supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner2 and the means whereby the body of ,christ is received and eaten in the ,supper is ,faith4' ,it is most important to observe that word #8only1' for it is exclusive of all material feeding4 ,if it were not there it might have been possible to have argued that the ,article admits the idea of a material in addition to a spiritual feeding--a feeding with the mouth as well as a feeding with the heart4 ,but the word #8only' renders any such theory impossible4 ,there is #8only' one manner in which ,he is received1 and that one manner is heavenly and spiritual4 ,with equal clearness it is declared that as there is only one mode in which the body of our blessed ,saviour is received1 and that heavenly and spiritual2 so there is only one mean whereby it is received and eaten1 and that one mean is faith4 ,the ,article does not speak of a means1 as if it was one of many but of #8the means' in order to show that it stands quite alone1 that it is only spiritual food1 and received only by faith4 ,the lips receive the bread1 and the believing heart receives the spiritual food of ,christ ,himself4 ,the body feeds on the material food1 the soul on the spiritual4 ,the means whereby the body feeds is the same as in common eating1 and the means on which the soul feeds is faith4 ,this important distinction of the outward and inward action is taught with equal clearness in ,article xxix43--#8,of the wicked which eat not the body of ,christ in the ,lord's ,supper4' ,it may seem strange at first sight that any persons should be eager to maintain that the wicked receive so sacred a gift as the body and blood of our blessed ,saviour2 but a very slight reflection will show the reason1 for on this question hinges the whole controversy4 ,if the bread and wine have become the body and blood of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 or if after consecration ,he is in them1 then it must follow as a matter of certain consequence that whoever eats them eats ,him4 ,but if1 on the other hand1 ,he is not in the bread and wine at all1 but is received by the heart as the bread and wine are by the body1 then it follows that if the heart be not right with ,god1 a person may eat the bread1 but never feed on the body and blood of our most blessed ,lord and ,saviour4 ,the whole question whether there is any independent1 localized presence of our blessed ,redeemer in the elements is involved in the decision whether the wicked in receiving those elements do or do not receive ,him4 ,on this point the language of the twenty-ninth ,article is perfectly clear3--#8,the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith1 although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth 7as ,st4 ,augustine saith7 the sacrament of the body and blood of ,christ1 yet in no wise are they partakers of ,christ2 but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing4' ,in quoting this ,article ,i am not ignorant of the attempt that has been made to represent it as teaching that1 although the wicked do eat the body of ,christ they do not receive ,his life-giving blessings4 ,but the ,article does not say one word of blessings4 ,it is headed with the words1 #8,of the wicked which eat not the body of ,christ4' ,it describes the bread as being a sign of the body1 and it affirms as clearly as language can affirm that a wicked person may press the sign with his teeth1 but still be in no wise either materially1 spiritually1 with the body or with the soul1 a partaker of ,christ4 ,according to this ,article a person may eat the bread without eating the body of ,christ1 and receive the wine1 but never drink the blood of ,christ4 ,if the bread and wine had by consecration become the body and blood1 this clearly would be impossible1 for the one being changed into the other1 the two would be inseparable1 or rather1 they would cease to be two1 they would be one4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that no such change is taught here2 and this conclusion is remarkably confirmed by the ,rubric at the close of the ,service for the ,communion of the ,sick1 for there the same great principle is maintained with equal clearness1 only from a different point of view1 when it says1 #8,if a man 4 4 4 by just impediment do not receive the ,sacrament of ,christ's body and blood1 the curate shall instruct him that if he do truly repent himself of his sins1 and steadfastly believe that ,jesus ,christ hath suffered death upon the ,cross for him1 and shed ,his blood for his redemption1 earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby1 and giving ,him hearty thanks therefore1 he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our ,saviour ,christ1 profitably to his soul's health1 although he doth not receive the ,sacrament with his mouth4' ,i venture to say that nothing can be clearer than the combined testimony of these two most important documents4 ,the ,article says1 #8,that a bad man may receive with his mouth the ,sacrament of the body of ,christ1 but not be partaker of ,christ4' ,the ,rubric says that a believer may under certain circumstances eat and drink the body and blood of our ,saviour ,christ1 although he do not receive the ,sacrament with his mouth4 ,and if this is not a sufficient proof that according to the teaching of the ,church of ,england1 the sign or ,sacrament is not changed into the thing signified1 ,i can imagine no proof that can be given4 ,if they are made one by the act of consecration1 neither one nor the other can be received alone4 ,summing up1 then1 the teaching of the ,articles1 we shall arrive at five important conclusions3 7#a47 ,a ,sacrament is a sign1 and a sign would cease to be a sign if it were changed into the thing signified4 7#b47 ,in the ,sacrament of baptism there is no change in the water4 7#c47 ,the doctrine of transubstantiation is condemned as clearly as words can condemn it4 7#d47 ,the body of ,christ is said to be received only after a heavenly and spiritual manner4 7#e47 ,the wicked are declared to be in no wise partakers of the sacred body and blood of our blessed ,lord1 though with the mouth they eat the sign4 ,and yet1 notwithstanding all this1 there are those who boldly affirm that the doctrine of the real presence of our blessed ,lord and ,saviour in the elements is the undoubted teaching of the ,church of ,england4 99 99 99 99 99 ,catechism4--,but is not the doctrine taught in the ,catechism8 ,and if we look carefully1 shall we not find it there8 ,one writer is so confident that we shall1 that he boldly affirms that the ,catechism is the final and authoritative decision of the ,church on the subject1 and must supersede all previous documents2 as if five short questions and answers1 drawn up for the use of children1 were to override the full1 dogmatic1 and controversial decisions of the ,articles4 ,i am not surprised at his wish to draw attention from the ,articles1 but ,i am persuaded he will gain nothing by directing it to the ,catechism4 ,i have no doubt that the portion of the ,catechism relating to the ,sacraments is simply an abbreviation1 or adaptation1 of the ,articles4 ,the same arrangement is adopted1 and the same definitions occur1 in both documents4 ,the first three questions refer to ,article xxv41 the next to ,article xxvii41 the next to ,article xxviii4 ,the two ,sacraments are first included in one common definition4 ,the ,sacrament of baptism is then discussed separately1 and ,i presume that no one would venture to affirm that either in the general definition of a ,sacrament1 or in the particular definition of baptism1 the outward sign is ever said to be changed into1 or confounded with1 the thing signified4 ,in these two definitions they are kept distinct1 and if the ,catechism teaches any such change in the ,lord's ,supper1 it must make a marked and most important distinction between the two ,sacraments1 and so neutralize its own general definition1 which is carefully drawn to include them both4 ,it would1 indeed1 be strange if there were such an inconsistency in so short a passage4 ,but1 thanks be to ,god1 there is nothing of the kind1 and the whole is in perfect harmony both with itself and with the ,articles4 ,it is difficult to imagine a clearer and more marked distinction than that expressed in the second and third questions1 #8,what is the outward part1 or sign1 of the ,lord's ,supper8' and #8,what is the inward part or thing signified8' ,the distinctness between the two parts is here more clearly marked than even in the ,articles1 for in these two questions there is not merely the distinction which we have in them between the sign and the thing signified1 but the one is described as outward and the other inward4 ,the one is a material thing1 which the recipient may take in his hand1 and which is altogether external to himself2 the other is inward and invisible1 something within the soul1 and only seen by the inner man4 ,it is1 therefore1 utterly contrary to the teaching of these two questions to suppose that both parts of the ,sacrament are outward1 and that the inward and spiritual grace has a localized1 outward presence external to the soul of the recipient4 ,but though the questions are thus distinct1 can we say the same of the answers8 ,the third answer is often boldly appealed to as deciding the question in favour of what is termed the real presence1 and as finally settling the whole controversy4 ,but nothing is easier than to make bold assertions of the kind1 to persuade men to receive them without the trouble of investigation4 ,but such a system will not satisfy those who desire to know the truth4 ,let us then examine the answer carefully4 #8,what is the inward part or thing signified8' #8,the body and blood of ,christ2 which are verily and indeed taken1 and received by the faithful in the ,lord's ,supper4' ,great stress is sometimes laid on the words1 #8,verily and indeed1' as if they meant something more than a spiritual feeding on ,christ4 ,but there is nothing in them to convey any such idea4 ,all they teach is that there is a real1 true gift1 really enjoyed and received by the devout communicant2 and this we all thankfully believe4 ,the question between us is not whether there is such a gift2 but what is its character1 and how is it received4 ,the reality of the gift does not prove that it is material1 external1 or connected in any way with the natural elements4 ,to maintain this would be to deny the reality of anything spiritual and internal4 ,nothing1 therefore1 can be proved either way from the words1 #8,verily and indeed4' ,they cannot be quoted in opposition to the question to which they are intended as an answer1 or in deciding that the inward part is outward4 ,they do assert that the gift of the ,lord is no mere fiction or idea1 but they do not teach in any way whatever that the sacred gift is in the elements1 and external to the soul4 ,but we have not yet done with this important answer1 for there are two more most important points to be noticed in it4 ,in the first place it is clearly stated that it is #8,verily and indeed taken1 and received by the faithful4' ,one ingenious writer endeavours to make out that the word #8faithful' is here intended to include the wicked4 ,i suppose that we are bound to give him credit for believing what he writes2 but it is very difficult for those to do so who read common ,english in the light of common sense4 ,and still more difficult is it when the ,catechism is read in the light of the twenty-eighth ,article1 from which it was in all probability constructed1 and which says1 #8,to such as rightly1 worthily1 and with faith1 receive the same1 the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of ,christ4' ,can any reasonable man compare these passages1 and doubt for a moment that by the words #8the faithful1' are intended those persons who #8approach in faith whereby alone they can feed on ,christ4' ,but there is another point in that same answer which claims our careful consideration4 ,the words are1 #8which are received by the faithful in the ,lord's ,supper4' ,it does not say1 #8in the ,sacrament1' for if it did it might have been misunderstood4 ,in the use of the word #8,sacrament' there is a risk of confusion1 for it is employed in three different senses4 ,it is sometimes employed to denote the whole act1 or sacramental service1 as in ,article xxv41 where ,sacraments are described as badges1 witnesses1 and signs4 ,it is sometimes used to express the outward sign and the inward gift1 regarded as forming together one perfect whole1 as in the third question and answer of the ,catechism1 by which we are taught that there are two parts in a ,sacrament--the outward visible sign1 and the inward spiritual grace4 ,but sometimes it is used for the outward sign alone1 unaccompanied by the spiritual grace1 as in ,article xxix41 where we read that the wicked are in no wise partakers of ,christ1 #8but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign1 or ,sacrament1 of so great a thing4' ,it is my conviction that this looseness in the use of the word #8,sacrament' had led to great confusion2 for when those who hold the great doctrines of the ,reformation have declared their belief in the presence of their blessed ,redeemer in the ,sacrament1 they have used the word in the sense of the sacred feast1 and expressed their assurance that ,he1 a living ,lord1 is present in the midst of ,his waiting people4 ,but others1 taking the word #8,sacrament' to mean simply the consecrated elements1 may quote such words from the staunchest reformers1 as proving that even they taught the presence of the ,lord in the bread and wine4 ,happily1 in the ,catechism this danger is avoided1 for in this important answer the word #8,sacrament' is not used at all4 ,the sacred feast is there called the #8,lord's ,supper1' respecting which there is no confusion1 and the result is that there is not even the misuse of a word to encourage the idea of anything like a presence in the elements4 ,but if there were any room for doubt as to the meaning of the ,church of ,england in this passage1 it would surely be removed by the next question and answer1 #8,what are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby8' #8,the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of ,christ1 as our bodies are by the bread and wine4' ,it is difficult to imagine language which could preserve the distinction of the outward and the inward parts more clearly than this does4 ,the outward is for the body1 and strengthens it2 the inward for the soul1 and does the same for it4 ,the one food is material for a material body2 the other is spiritual1 for the spiritual sustenance of the soul4 ,the one is external1 to be received into the body by bodily organization2 the other is internal and invisible1 received into the soul by faith4 ,to identify the two1 or to shut up the one within the other1 is to violate the whole principle of the passage2 it is to confuse material and spiritual things1 and utterly to depart from the teaching of the ,church of ,england by giving a material character to the most spiritual act of which the soul is capable4 99 99 99 99 99 ,the ,communion ,service4--,but there is yet another most important document1 and one inexpressibly precious to the heart of every devout communicant amongst us3 ,i mean the ,communion ,service1 or #8,order of ,administration of the ,lord's ,supper1 or ,holy ,communion4' ,how often have those sacred prayers expressed the deep feeling of our inmost soul1 as we have knelt in holy faith before the ,table of the ,lord8 ,now there cannot be a moment's doubt that we are taught in that most precious ,service to feed on the body and blood of our most blessed ,saviour1 and to expect that the most sacred food will be given to the soul4 ,if this were not expressed1 the bread which we break would not be presented to us as a partaking of the body of ,christ4 ,but while we are taught in living faith to partake of ,his most precious body and blood1 the whole service has been so carefully worded that the spiritual grace is never identified with the outward sign4 ,as in the ,articles and ,catechism1 the two things are kept perfectly distinct4 ,in simply reading the ,service as we now have it1 this care is not always apparent1 for the language of devotion is never the language of controversial theology1 and the spirit of fervent prayer does not admit of the expression of theological distinctions4 ,full hearts do not stop to define when they are pleading before ,god4 ,but the utmost care was taken1 and we profit from the results4 ,this is easily seen by a comparison of the two ,prayer ,books of ,edward ,,vi4 ,the ,reformation was a gradual process1 so that the ,prayer ,book of #aedi is less distinct than that of #aeeb4 ,in the latter book there were important changes made1 and these changes indicate very plainly the real teaching of our present ,prayer ,book4 ,in the ,prayer ,book of #aedi1 there were some passages which might have been understood as teaching that the most precious body and blood of our ,lord was to be received in the consecrated elements of bread and wine2 but in the book of #aeeb1 these passages were all changed so as to render such a sense impossible4 ,for example3 in the exhortation to communicants1 it was written in the book of #aedi1 #8,he hath left in these holy mysteries1 as a pledge of ,his love1 and a continual remembrance of the same1 his own blessed body and precious blood for us to feed upon spiritually to our endless comfort and consolation4' ,if the word #8mysteries' was understood of the consecrated elements1 this passage might have been understood as teaching that the spiritual food was actually in the consecrated bread and wine4 ,so in #aeeb1 the passage was changed to the well-known words1 #8,he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of ,his love1 and continual remembrance of ,his death1 to our great and endless comfort1' and all possibility of misapprehension was removed4 ,again1 in the prayer of consecration in #aedi we find the words1 #8,hear us1 ,o ,merciful ,father1 we beseech thee2 and with ,thy ,holy ,spirit and ,word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these ,thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine1 that they may be unto us the body and blood of ,thy most dearly beloved ,son ,jesus ,christ4' ,these words might fairly be taken as praying for a change in the elements1 and therefore in the next version the passage was completely changed1 and the unmistakable language of our present ,prayer ,book introduced in its stead3 #8,grant that we receiving these ,thy creatures of bread and wine1 according to ,thy ,son our ,saviour ,jesus ,christ's holy institution1 in remembrance of ,his death and passion1 may be partakers of ,his most blessed body and blood4' ,so in the prayer before consecration4 ,in the first book the words were1 #8,grant us1 therefore1 gracious ,lord1 so to eat the flesh of ,thy dear ,son ,jesus ,christ1 and to drink ,his blood in these ,holy ,mysteries4' ,but this was liable to the same danger as the passage in the exhortation already referred to1 and therefore the words1 #8,in these holy mysteries1' were struck out1 and the prayer left as it now stands in our ,prayer ,book4 ,and so once more1 in the words of administration in the first book there was only the first portion of the present sentences4 ,the words were3 #8,the body of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 which was given for thee1 preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life4' ,but though not necessary1 it was possible to understand this as if the bread presented to the communicants were declared to be the body of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,to prevent this1 the following words1 #8,take and eat this1 and feed on ,him in thy heart by faith1 with thanksgiving1' were substituted in #aeeb1 and combined with the original form in #aeei4 ,nothing can be clearer1 or more important1 than the teaching of this passage4 ,in it the distinction is perfectly clear between the bread which we eat1 and the blessed ,saviour on whom we feed4 ,of the bread it says1 #8,eat this1' this bread which ,i put into your hand4 ,but of the inward and spiritual grace it says1 #8,feed on ,him1' on the ,lord ,jesus ,christ ,himself2 and this feeding is described as the act of the heart through faith1 for the words are1 #8,feed on ,him--in thine heart--through faith--with thanksgiving4' 99 99 99 99 99 ,homilies4--,but there is another rich mine of truth from which those who are anxious to learn the mind of the ,church of ,england may obtain most abundant information4 ,i observe that as a general rule those who teach the doctrine of the real presence in the elements refer very little to the ,homilies4 ,they treat them as if they were not aware of their existence1 and ,i am not surprised at their silence1 for they certainly can find nothing in them to support their system4 ,you may search the ,homilies from one end to the other1 and you will find nothing there to support the doctrine of a real presence of our ,lord and ,saviour in the consecrated elements4 ,they are in perfect harmony with the ,articles4 ,the definition of a ,sacrament is the same1 and preserves with equal clearness the distinction between the outward sign and inward grace--as e4g41 in the ninth ,homily of the second book1 where we read the following reference to the words of ,augustine #8,he calleth ,sacraments holy signs1 and 4 4 4 saith 8if ,sacraments have not a certain similitude of these things whereof they be ,sacraments1 they should be no ,sacraments at all4 ,and of this similitude1 they do for the most part receive the names of the same things they signify40 ,by these words of ,st4 ,augustine1 it appeareth that he allowed the common description of a ,sacrament1 which is that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace1 that is to say1 that setteth out to the eyes1 and other outward senses1 the inward working of ,god's free mercy1 and doth as it were seal in our hearts the promises of ,god4' ,but ,i must be careful with reference to the ,homilies1 for there are two passages which are sometimes quoted in order to show that the doctrine of the real presence in the elements is the doctrine taught in them4 ,one of these passages is quoted by ,dr4 ,pusey in his book on the ,real ,presence1 viz41 the ,advertisement at the end of the ,first ,book of ,homilies3 #8,hereafter shall follow sermons of fasting1 praying1 almsdeeds1 c1 of the nativity1 passion1 resurrection1 and ascension of our ,saviour ,christ2 of the due receiving of ,his blessed body and blood under the form of bread and wine1' c4 ,now ,i am quite prepared to admit that when this ,advertisement was written1 the writer of it did believe that the body and blood of our blessed ,lord was present under the form of bread and wine2 but even the ,advertisement was no part of any ,homily1 and can never be regarded as having been at any time a portion of the authoritative teaching of the ,church of ,england4 ,i am willing1 however1 to admit that1 although not authoritative1 it may be regarded as indicating what was the opinion of the writers at the date of the ,first ,book of ,homilies4 ,all1 therefore1 turns upon the date1 and when ,i remember that the ,first ,book of ,homilies was published in #aedg1 two years before the first revision of the ,communion ,service1 viz41 that in #aedi1 and five years before the second1 viz41 that in #aeeb1 when the alterations to which ,i have referred were made in the ,communion ,service2 when1 moreover1 ,i find that when the promised ,homily was published1 it was headed by a different title1 viz41 #8,the worthy receiving1 and reverend esteeming2 of the ,sacrament of the body and blood of ,christ2' when1 moreover1 ,i find on its first page the passage just quoted respecting the sign and thing signified1 ,i am altogether at a loss to understand how a person of the learning of ,dr4 ,pusey should have quoted the ,advertisement1 as if it were the teaching of the ,church of ,england in her ,homilies4 ,he must have known the date1 and must have been perfectly acquainted with the changes which took place five years after it4 ,but there is another passage sometimes quoted from the ,homily1 and quoted with great assurance by those who desire to represent the ,church of ,england as teaching the doctrine of the real presence4 ,i once heard an advanced ,ritualist preaching on the subject1 and with the utmost boldness he challenged us to listen to the ,homilies1 and then he quoted the words1 #8,thus much we must be sure to hold1 that in the supper of the ,lord there is no vain ceremony1 no bare sign1 no untrue figure of a thing absent1 but1 as the ,scripture saith1 a marvellous incorporation4' ,oh6 how did my heart burn1 as ,i sat in that church1 to cry aloud from my seat #8,read the whole passage1' but ,i was obliged to sit in silence1 and endure4 ,oh6 how ,i pity laymen1 who have no power of contradiction1 when they hear gross error preached to themselves and their families6 ,but ,i may read it now3 #8,the table of the ,lord1 the bread and cup of the ,lord1 the memory of ,christ1 the annunciation of ,his death1 yea1 the communion of the body and blood of the ,lord' 7why was all that left out871 #8,in a marvellous incorporation4' ,now what is the meaning of this marvellous incorporation8 ,does it mean the incorporation of our blessed ,lord and ,saviour in the bread8 ,or does it refer to the work of the ,holy ,ghost in the soul8 ,let the question be decided by the words which conclude the sentence3 #8,in a marvellous incorporation1 which1 by the operation of the ,holy ,ghost--the very bond of our conjunction with ,christ--is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful4' ,but that is not all4 ,the ,homilies were written by men deeply impressed by the truth of ,god3 by men who loved the ,gospel1 and who earnestly desired to see others partakers of their joy4 ,so they did not merely speak in the language of accurate theology1 but they appealed to souls with the fervour of loving hearts4 ,let us listen1 in conclusion1 to the glowing words with which they wind up the first part of their address1 #8,it is well known that the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual food2 the nourishment of our soul2 a heavenly refection and not an earthly2 an invisible meal and not bodily2 a ghostly substance and not carnal2 so that to think that without faith we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof1 or that that is the fruition of it1 is but to dream a gross carnal feeding1 basely objecting and binding ourselves to the elements and creatures4' 4 4 4 #8,that when thou goest up to the reverend ,communion to be satisfied with spiritual meats1 thou look up with faith upon the holy body of thy ,god1 thou marvel with reverence1 thou touch it with the mind1 thou receive it with the hand of thy heart1 and thou take it fully with thy inward man4 ,thus we see1 beloved1 that resorting to this table1 we must pluck up all the roots of infidelity1 all distrust in ,god's promises1 that we make ourselves living members of ,christ's body4 ,for the unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious body4 ,whereas the faithful have their life1 their abiding in ,him1 their union1 and1 as it were1 their incorporation with ,him4 ,wherefore let us prove1 and try ourselves unfeignedly without flattering ourselves1 whether we be plants of that fruitful olive1 living branches of the true vine1 members indeed of ,christ's mystical body1 whether ,god hath purified our hearts by faith1 to the sincere acknowledging of ,his ,gospel1 and embracing of ,his mercies in ,christ ,jesus1 so that at this1 ,his table1 we receive1 not only the outward ,sacrament1 but the spiritual thing also2 not the figure1 but the truth2 not the shadow only1 but the body2 not to death1 but to life2 not to destruction1 but to salvation2 which ,god grant us to do through the merits of our ,lord and ,saviour3 to whom be all honour and glory for ever4 ,amen4' ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,adoration4 ,,thus far ,i have examined into the teaching of the ,church of ,england with reference to nothing but the bare doctrine of transubstantiation1 or1 as it is now more frequently called1 of the real objective presence of the body and blood of our blessed ,saviour in the consecrated elements of bread and wine4 ,i have not discussed the question whether the elements of bread and wine remain either in their substance or their accidents1 for these questions are not discussed by the ,church of ,england4 ,the point maintained by the ,church is that the most precious body and blood of ,christ are not in the bread and wine at all1 but are given by the direct action of the ,holy ,ghost to the soul of the believer1 and received by him through faith4 ,but we cannot leave the subject there1 for1 as we are taught in the twenty-eighth ,article1 that doctrine #8has given occasion to many superstitions1' and to two of these1 adoration and sacrifice1 we must1 if we would gather the real teaching of the ,church of ,england1 direct our careful study4 ,adoration4--,when we speak of adoration1 let it not be for one moment supposed that we refer to the adoration of the ,lord ,jesus1 as now seated at the right hand of ,god1 for with the whole heart1 and the most profound reverence1 we would fall at ,his feet1 and say1 in the language of our ,communion ,service1 #8,thou only art ,holy1 ,thou only art the ,lord2 ,thou only1 ,o ,christ1 art most high in the glory of ,god the ,father4' ,the adoration against which we protest is the adoration of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ as supposed to be localised in the consecrated elements of bread and wine4 ,such adoration must1 of course1 involve the belief that ,he1 as a living ,lord1 is actually present in each piece of consecrated bread1 and also in the consecrated wine1 and for such a belief there is not one word in ,scripture4 ,the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are made to rest on what is called the literal interpretation of the words1 #8,this is ,my body1' #8,this is ,my blood2' but the utter inconsistency of the whole system is shown by the fact that while its advocates maintain that these words must be taken literally1 and that their doctrine of the real presence is the necessary consequence1 they themselves completely depart from their own principle of literal interpretation1 and make a bold assertion which the words1 taken literally1 distinctly contradict4 ,the words taken literally could certainly teach nothing more than that the bread becomes the body1 and the wine the blood of our blessed ,redeemer2 but ,rome teaches1 and as far as ,i can learn the modern ,ritualists teach the same1 that not only do the bread and wine each separately become the body and blood1 but that each of them becomes by the act of consecration a complete living ,saviour1 with ,body1 ,soul1 and ,divinity2 so that there is a living ,saviour in each piece of consecrated bread1 and a living ,saviour in the cup1 and that these living ,saviours are to be adored or worshipped with the same worship as is given to our blessed ,redeemer at the right hand of the throne in ,heaven4 ,i could give scores of passages in proof of my statement2 but the well-known words of ,mr4 ,bennett are sufficient3 #8,i am one of those who have lighted candles at the altar in the day-time1 who use incense at the holy sacrifice--who use the ,eucharistic vestments--who elevate the blessed ,sacrament--who myself adore1 and teach the people to adore1 the consecrated elements1 believing ,christ to be in them--believing that under their veil is the sacred body and blood of my ,lord and ,saviour ,jesus ,christ4' ,such is the fabric raised on what is called the literal interpretation of the words of our blessed ,saviour1 a fabric for which those words taken literally give no foundation of any kind whatever4 ,but how is it with the ,church of ,england8 ,are men true ,churchmen when they elevate the elements for worship8 ,are they teaching the doctrines of the ,church of ,england when they teach that we are to worship the living ,lord in the bread and in the cup which the priest raises above his head for adoration8 ,it certainly does not seem as if they were1 for as far as ,i have been able to discover1 not one word from all our ,church's documents is ever quoted in support of the practice4 ,the only position taken up is that it is not expressly forbidden1 and this position ,i believe to be1 like the rest of the system1 without foundation4 ,it is quite true that comparatively little is said1 for the doctrine of transubstantiation being denied and disproved1 all the rest follows as a matter of course4 ,if there is no real objective presence there can be no adoration4 ,if a living ,saviour be not in the elements ,he cannot therein be adored4 ,the whole controversy turns on the doctrine of the ,real ,presence as the key-stone of the system4 ,but though the subject has not been so fully discussed in our ,church documents1 there is quite enough to show very clearly the mind of the ,church of ,england4 ,the concluding words of ,article xxviii4 are quite enough to settle the question3 #8,the ,sacrament of the ,lord's ,supper was not by ,christ's ordinance reserved1 carried about1 lifted up1 or worshipped4' ,how1 with that ,article before them1 clergymen of the ,church of ,england can presume to elevate the sacramental elements for worship ,i am at a loss to explain4 ,but this is not all that has been said1 for the practice of kneeling at the ,lord's ,supper occasioned at one time a certain amount of anxiety in the minds of some persons1 as they feared that it might be mistaken for adoration of the host4 ,to prevent the possibility of any such mistake a most important note was added in the year #aeeb1 which1 after having been omitted in #aeei1 was restored with a slight alteration in #affb4 ,it is as follows3 #8,it is hereby declared1 that thereby no adoration is intended1 or ought to be done1 either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received1 or unto any corporal presence of ,christ's natural flesh and blood4 ,the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances1 and1 therefore1 may not be adored 7for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful ,christians72 and the natural body and blood of our ,saviour ,christ are in ,heaven1 and not here2 it being against the truth of ,christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one4' ,such words as those need no comment1 and ,i should be only wasting time if ,i were to stop to discuss them4 ,of course people endeavour to evade them2 but the attempts at evasion only tend to show the utter helplessness of the undertaking4 ,the memorialists already referred to1 say1 #8,we repudiate all adoration of a corporal presence of ,christ's natural flesh and blood1 that is to say1 of the presence of ,his body and blood as they are in ,heaven4' ,they admit it1 therefore1 in some other way4 ,but the ,church of ,england denies it altogether4 ,it draws no nice distinction as to the mode1 but simply denies the fact1 and settles the question once and for ever for all honest men whose honest desire it is to teach its doctrines and adopt its worship4 ,but as we really desire to ascertain the truth1 it is well to refer to the statements of those who differ from us4 ,i turn1 therefore1 to those of ,dr4 ,pusey1 as ,i believe he is the person who above all others would be regarded as the best exponent of the theory of the ,real ,presence and its consequences4 ,in his book1 ,the ,real ,presence1 p4 #caa1 he says3 #8,the ,church of ,england has maintained the same reserve as to the practice of adoring our ,lord present in the ,eucharist4' ,and again3 #8,with regard to the adoration we are rather told that the ,sacraments were not ordained of ,christ to be adored1 but to be received4' ,i could not wish for a plainer statement of truth than those last words1 but ,i confess myself at a loss to understand how the writer can teach adoration1 and yet continue in his position as a clergyman of the ,church of ,england4 ,but with the former words ,i cannot agree1 for the ,church of ,england has not exercised reserve4 ,to exercise reserve is to keep in the background a truth which we believe1 but which from motives of expediency we think it better not to make known4 ,but there is no such reserve in the ,church of ,england4 ,she is plain1 honest1 and outspoken for the truth2 and when she struck all trace of adoration from her worship she did so1 not from any crafty policy of reserve1 but because she believed that the whole thing was a gross superstition1 and with a firm1 bold1 and unsparing hand she cut away the whole fabric1 and left no trace of it in the whole system of her worship4 ,there was no reserve in the ,reformers1 whatever there may be in those who are striving to undo the ,reformation4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,sacrifice4 ,,but adoration is not all1 for there is yet a further result of the doctrine of the real objective presence1 if possible1 more dangerous even than adoration2 ,i mean the assertion of a continued sacrifice4 ,it is extremely difficult to ascertain exactly what is held by the ,ritualistic party1 for there is no document to which they all subscribe or for which they can be held responsible2 but there is quite enough to show that a great number amongst them are teaching without reserve that there is in the ,lord's ,supper a continuation1 or repetition1 of the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed ,lord4 ,the extent to which this is carried may be gathered from a book called the ,eucharist ,manual1 to which ,archbishop ,longley drew the attention of the ,church in the year #ahfg1 in which it is said that #8a real1 true1 and substantial sacrifice is offered to ,god the ,father1 and not merely a spiritual or metaphorical sacrifice2' that the ,holy ,eucharist is #8a true1 real1 and substantial sacrifice offered to ,god the ,father1 offered for the quick and the dead2' the meaning of which statement is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt by the following prayers3 #8,eternal ,father1 ,i offer thee the precious blood of ,jesus ,christ1 in expiation of my sins1 and for the wants of the whole ,church2' and #8,i now join ,thy minister in offering ,thee this oblation of the body and blood of ,thy ,son1 in propitiation for my numberless sins1 and for the salvation of all bound to me by kindred or affection4' ,nothing would be easier than to bring together almost any number of similar passages1 and ,i feel persuaded that ,i am not misrepresenting the principles of the writers when ,i say that they teach the continuation or repetition of the sacrifice of our blessed ,lord ,himself as a propitiation for sin4 ,now is this the teaching of the ,church of ,england1 or is it not8 ,dr4 ,pusey's own language may1 ,i think1 decide the question4 ,in his book1 on the ,real ,presence1 p4 #caa1 he says of the ,church's documents3 #8,although the great act of ,eucharistic ,sacrifice remains in the consecration itself1 and it has been all along an object of belief in the ,church of ,england1 it is mentioned only when we pray to ,god to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving4' ,this then is the only passage in all the documents of the ,church of ,england which we may presume can be produced as being in favour of this teaching1 and ,i venture to say that ,dr4 ,pusey is far too good a theologian not to know that the passage is dead against the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice4 ,is it possible to suppose that such a learned man as he is does not know the distinction between a sacrifice of expiation and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving1 between an atonement for sin and the free-will offering of a thankful and loving heart8 ,and is it possible that there should be one moment's doubt as to the teaching of the ,church of ,england1 when the words1 which he himself acknowledges1 are the only words which he can discover in support of the one are words which beyond all controversy refer exclusively to the other8 ,but is the ,church of ,england as silent as he appears to consider it on this important subject8 ,are we left to gather its great principles from that one passage in the ,communion ,service8 ,does it teach nothing on the subject of propitiatory sacrifice but in that one short sentence which has in fact no connexion with it8 ,the whole of the ,church of ,god depends on a completed propitiation1 and we might well tremble for the ,church of ,england if that one great central fact were altogether out of sight in its teaching4 ,but1 thanks be to ,god6 it is not thus ignored1 for this is just one of those points for which our ,reformers were called to suffer1 and respecting which they were most explicit4 ,to begin with the ,articles4 ,the thirty-first consists of three parts4 7#a47 ,the perfect sufficiency of the great propitiation for sin4 #8,the offering of ,christ once made' 7observe the once7 #8is that perfect redemption1 propitiation1 and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world1 both original and actual4' 7#b47 ,the declaration that in consequence of that sufficiency there can be no further propitiation4 #8,there is none other satisfaction for sin1 but that alone4' 7#c47 ,the condemnation of the pretended sacrifice of the mass4 #8,wherefore the sacrifice of masses1 in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer ,christ for the quick and dead1 to have remission of past guilt1 were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits4' ,i am not ignorant that an attempt has been made to represent this ,article as referring to the abuses which had gathered around the sacrifice of the mass1 and not against the principle of sacrifice itself4 ,as ,i should be extremely sorry to misrepresent the opinions of those who differ from me1 ,i quote ,dr4 ,pusey's words as ,i find them in his ,eirenicon1 p4 #be3 #8,the very strength of the expressions used1 of 8the sacrifices of masses10 that they were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits1 the use of the plural1 and the clause 8in which it was commonly said10 show that what the ,article speaks of is not the sacrifice of the mass1 but the habit 7which1 as one hears from time to time1 still remains7 of trusting to the purchase of masses when dying1 to the neglect of a holy life1 or repentance1 and the grace of ,god and ,his mercy in ,christ ,jesus while in health4' ,to what desperate shifts are persons driven who would endeavour to represent the ,church of ,england as teaching the sacrifice of the mass6 ,the ,article declares the sufficiency and finality of the one sacrifice of our blessed ,lord and ,saviour1 and because that one sacrifice is sufficient and final1 it condemns in the strongest possible language the opinion current at the time1 that in some form or other there was a repetition of sacrifice in the mass4 ,but because the language is strong1 because there is an allusion to the current opinion1 and because the plural number is employed so as to comprehend the numberless sacrifices supposed to be offered on the numberless altars of the ,church of ,rome1 therefore it is argued that the ,article does not refer to the doctrine of sacrifice at all1 but simply to the purchase of the mass in the dying hour1 instead of repentance and faith during the life4 ,if the ,article were meant to condemn the purchase of masses1 it is very strange that it makes no allusion to the subject2 and if it aimed at the neglect of repentance and faith1 it is most extraordinary that neither repentance nor faith is once mentioned in its words4 ,our ,reformers were very plain-spoken men1 and it appears from the strength of their language that they meant to be plain-spoken in the ,article4 ,it is very strange if1 after all1 while they appeared to condemn one thing1 they were really condemning another1 and did it in such unintelligible language that their meaning was not discovered till three hundred years after the ,article was written4 ,in the ,catechism there is not much said on the subject1 but that little is decisive4 ,there is only one allusion to sacrifice1 and that is1 to the one sacrifice of our blessed ,saviour1 while the ,lord's ,supper is distinctly declared to be an act of remembrance of that great event4 #8,q4 ,why was the ,sacrament of the ,lord's ,supper ordained8' #8,a4 ,for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of ,christ1 and of the benefits which we receive thereby4' ,it is needless to stop to point out that remembrance cannot mean either continuation1 repetition1 or application2 and with such a distinct passage before us1 it is manifest that no one can claim the ,catechism as teaching the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice in the ,lord's ,supper4 ,there is an opinion in some minds that the language of the ,catechism is less distinctly ,protestant than that of the other documents4 ,that opinion ,i believe to be thoroughly mistaken1 and it certainly is very difficult to understand by what perversion of language the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice can be wrung from such language as #8,the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of ,christ1' and a #8thankful remembrance of ,his death1' as we find in the answer with which the ,catechism concludes4 ,from the ,catechism let us turn to the ,communion ,service4 ,and here we are met at the outset by ,dr4 ,pusey's remarkable admission1 that the only passage teaching the doctrine is the language of thankful dedication in the prayer that follows the reception3 #8,we1 ,thy humble servants1 entirely desire ,thy ,fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving4' ,no person who understands the difference between propitiation and thanksgiving can fail to see at a glance that there is no reference in this passage to propitiatory sacrifice4 ,the next sentence is3 #8,here we offer and present unto ,thee1 ,o ,lord1 ourselves1 our souls and bodies1 to be a reasonable1 holy1 and lively sacrifice unto ,thee4' #8,ourselves1 our souls and bodies1' what are they to make a propitiation for sin8 ,nothing can be plainer than that the prayer is intended to be the language of the thankful heart surrendering itself as a thank-offering to ,god4 ,if the language admitted of the smallest doubt1 that doubt would be removed by the position assigned to it in the ,communion ,service of #aeeb4 ,in that of #aedi it stood with certain additions before the administration of the sacramental elements1 but the human mind is so prone to misunderstand the simplest documents1 that our ,reformers1 to avoid all possibility of mistake1 first removed from the prayer any expressions which they thought could be misunderstood1 and then placed it after1 instead of before1 the reception of the elements4 ,thus they secured that there should be no room for doubt that the sacrifice referred to is the surrender of self1 and the motive for that surrender1 not the desire for forgiveness1 but the deep gratitude of a thankful heart1 when sin has been blotted out through a finished atonement1 and the appropriation of that atonement has been sealed to the soul by the sacred emblems of ,his body and blood4 ,but these were not the only changes made in the ,communion ,service of #aeeb4 ,there was another of a most important character in connexion with the subject of sacrifice4 ,you never hear of sacrifice without an altar4 ,the altar is1 in fact1 an essential adjunct of sacrifice1 and accordingly in former times there was an altar1 generally made of stone1 against the eastern wall of the chancel4 ,accordingly in the ,communion ,service of #aedi1 there is frequent mention of the altar2 but in #aeeb all altars were abolished4 ,there is no allusion to an altar now in any document of the ,church of ,england4 ,when persons speak of leading brides to the altar1 they are not using the language of the ,church1 nor are they presenting the holy rite of marriage in a very happy aspect1 for the expression really implies that the poor bride is led to sacrifice4 ,there is now nothing but a table known in the ,church of ,england4 ,the altar has been removed1 and the table introduced1 in order that all might see even in the ,church's furniture1 that the doctrine of sacrifice has been abandoned1 and that the doctrine of communion is the true creed of the ,church of ,england4 ,it may be sufficient to refer to the fourth rubric as a specimen of the changes made4 ,in #aedi it was1 #8,the priest standing humbly afore the midst of the altar shall say1' c4 ,in #aeeb1 #8,the table having at the ,communion time a fair white linen cloth upon it1 shall stand in the body of the church or in the chancel1 where ,morning ,prayer and ,evening ,prayer be appointed to be said4 ,and the priest standing at the north side of the table shall say1' c4 ,and now for the ,homilies1 the last authority to which we have to refer in this inquiry4 ,i am not surprised that those who maintain the doctrine of a continuation of propitiatory sacrifice preserve a prudent silence with reference to the ,homilies4 ,i do not know of any one passage ever quoted by them in support of their opinions1 while every allusion to the subject in the ,homilies is of a distinctly opposite character4 ,let us turn to one or two passages from the #aeth ,homily of the ,second ,book4 ,in the first page of that ,homily we have a general description of the ,sacred ,feast4 #8,amongst the which means is the public celebration of the memory of ,his precious death at the ,lord's ,table3 which1 although it seems of small virtue to some1 yet being rightly done by the faithful1 it doth not only keep their weakness1 but strengtheneth and comforteth their inward man with peace and gladness1 and maketh them thankful to their ,redeemer with diligent care and godly conversation4' ,here we have the description of the same two purposes as are mentioned in the ,articles and ,catechism1 but not one syllable respecting sacrifice1 for no one who values correctness in language can maintain that memory is continuation1 or that the memory of ,his precious death can be a renewed act of propitiation4 ,but this may be thought to be only an omission4 ,let us pass on then to the following page1 when we read1 #8,for as that worthy man1 ,st4 ,ambrose1 saith3 8,he is unworthy of the ,lord that otherwise doth celebrate that mystery than it was delivered by ,him4 ,neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume that it was otherwise given by the ,author40 ,we must1 therefore1 take heed lest of the memory it be made a sacrifice2 lest of a ,communion it may be made a private eating2 lest of two parts we have but one2 lest in applying it for the dead we lose the fruit that be alive4' ,in the ,homily for ,whit ,sunday1 the self-same truth is taught1 with almost equal clearness4 ,when it is said of the ,church of ,rome that they #8have so intermingled their own traditions and inventions1 by chopping and changing1 by adding and plucking away1 that now they 7the ,sacraments7 may seem to be converted into a new guise4 ,christ commended to ,his ,church a ,sacrament of ,his body and blood2 they have changed it into a sacrifice for the quick and the dead4' ,and yet notwithstanding all these statements and many others1 there are those who hold office as clergymen of the ,church of ,england1 who are not ashamed of circulating such a book as the #8,eucharist ,manual1' in which it is said3 #8,the ,holy ,eucharist is a true and substantial sacrifice offered to ,god the ,father1 offered for the quick and dead4' ,here1 then1 ,i may conclude4 ,my object1 let it be well remembered1 has not been to discuss the subject from the ,scriptures1 but to ascertain the real teaching of the ,church of ,england respecting it4 ,let it not be supposed for one moment that ,i have taken this position from any idea that there is any infallible rule of faith but ,god's own ,word as revealed in ,scripture2 but ,i have done so because the ,church of ,england is at this present time sorely tried by internal difficulties1 and it seems only due to her to ascertain with the utmost care what is the real character of her teaching4 ,while some are loudly claiming her as teaching those very doctrines in opposition to which our ,reformers went to the stake1 and while others of a tender conscience are forsaking her because they partially believe those bold statements to be true1 it is of the utmost possible importance that those who are faithful to the ,church of ,england should take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with her true principles4 ,if it is a fact that she is identical with ,rome1 and that the ,reformers were martyrs for a merely imaginary metaphysical distinction of no importance whatever2 then1 indeed1 we may stand aghast at the ignorance and folly of all the theologians of all schools and all countries who have been weak enough to suppose that in the ,reformation there was a doctrinal separation from the ,apostasy of ,rome4 ,but if1 on the other hand1 the ,reformers knew what they were doing1 and why they did it2 if they drew up these documents with the utmost care1 and these documents so provoked the doctrinal antipathies of ,rome1 that while their authors were sacrificed at the stake their principles were branded by the anathemas of the ,council of ,trent2 if none of our most thoughtful students for the last three centuries ever for one moment doubted that there was direct antagonism between the ,church of ,england and that of ,rome2 then it is too sad to be borne that devout men1 dearly beloved in the ,lord1 staunch to the great principles of the ,gospel of the ,grace of ,god1 should have their consciences wounded1 and their allegiance shaken1 by the unproved assertions of men who1 without any appeal to the ,church's documents1 claim to be the only expositors of its principles4 ,it is moreover most deeply to be deplored that those who have a real1 true1 and faithful love for the ,church of ,england should be led into error by the unproved assertion that the ,church of ,england teaches that which she most emphatically denies4 ,it is for the sake of both classes that ,i have been led to this investigation4 ,if any are unsettled in their mind and disposed to distrust the ,church of ,england1 ,i shall rejoice if they are led to see how sound1 how clear1 and how perfectly ,scriptural she is upon the subject4 ,and if any have been led by mistaken ideas of the ,church's teaching to hold opinions at variance with the great principles of the ,reformation1 ,i shall thank ,god more than ,i can express if they may be led to see what the ,church which they love really teaches1 that so the love of their ,church may confirm them in the love of truth1 and help to establish them as steady and consistent ,churchmen in the faith once delivered to the saints4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,london3 ,printed by ,,john ,,strageways1 ,castle ,st4 ,leicester ,sq4 99 99 99 99 99 ,by the same ,author4 #a4 ,palestine and ,russia4 #dth ,thousand4 #afmo4 cloth1 #as4 #f;d41 sewed1 #as4 #b4 ,rome1 ,turkey1 and ,jerusalem4 ,lectures in connection with the ,second ,advent4 #afth ,thousand4 #afmo4 cloth1 #as4 #f;d42 paper1 #as4 #8,mr4 ,hoare argues on the broad1 simple lines of prophecy in a way which1 to our mind1 must bring irresistible conviction4' ,clergyman's ,magazine4 #c4 ,inspiration3 ,its ,nature and ,extent4 #bnd ,edition1 revised and enlarged4 #afmo4 cloth1 #as4 #f;d41 swd4 #as4 #8,selects several important points of a wide subject1 and treats them soundly4'--,christian ,observer4 #d4 ,conformity to the ,world4 #bnd ,edition1 revised and enlarged4 #afmo4 cloth1 #as4 #f;d41 swd4 #as4 #8,should be a welcome present to the young soldiers of the ,cross desirous to learn how they are to fight manfully under ,christ's banner against the world2 while veteran warriors will be refreshed by its clear statements of the principles which they have endeavoured to illustrate in their lives4'--,record4 #e4 ,sanctification3 being ,expository ,sermons4 #bnd ,edition1 enlarged4 ,sq4 fcap4 #hvo4 cloth1 #bs4 #f;d4 #f4 ,sermons for the ,day4 ,fcap4 #hvo4 sewed1 #f;d4 #g4 ,the ,communion and ,communicant4 #dth ,edition1 revised and enlarged4 ,fcap4 #hvo4 sewed1 #f;d4 #h4 ,baptism4 ,as ,taught in the ,bible and ,prayer-book4 #fth ,edition4 ,fcap4 #hvo4 sewed1 #d;d4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,,hatchards1 ,,piccadilly1 #dd ,,colbran1 ,,calverley ,,road1 ,,tunbridge ,,wells4