Christian new birth is received by one baptised in unbelief:' and the doctrine respecting the eating by the wicked, and the ground of it, is substantially that of the Capernaites in John vi. ; the first appearance of which in the Christian Church was, I believe, the recantation forced on Berengarius, and drawn up by Pope Nicholas II. and a Roman Council in 1059, affirming, amongst other things, that in the Communion Christ's body is 'torn by the teeth of the faithful:' a doctrine of which Rome itself was afterwards ashamed; and the authorised gloss upon the canon law says that, 'unless you understand the words of Berengarius soundly (sanè), you will fall into a greater heresy than he held: '1 a gloss more logical than that on Article XXIX. by the Archdeacon, who argues respecting the Church's words- The wicked do carnally and visibly press . with their teeth . . . the Sacrament of the Body'that the word Sacrament must there signify both the bread and wine, and also Christ's body and blood; because 'what is bread and wine only cannot be pressed in any other way than carnally and visibly '-in other words, the word Sacrament cannot signify but one thing, because, if it did, the Church's words would be most manifestly true and also it must signify another thing, because, if it do, the Church's words are manifestly false : for it is false, that a thing neither carnal nor visible by his own admission can be carnally and visibly pressed with the teeth!

6

But further, if the Lord's body and the consecrated elements be really brought together,' and 'identified,' then the same argument, which proves it to be eaten by the wicked, will also prove it to be eaten by a dog or mouse-as Gerson affirms that it is, by accident:' and Aquinas asserts, that the denial of it 'derogates from the

1 Decreti Tert. Pars. de Consecrat. dist. ii. gloss in cap. xlii.

6

truth of the Sacrament -This difficulty is not at all met by the statement of the Archdeacon, that to him it is not any difficulty,' or it appears purely fanciful-a view marvellously strange, and diametrically opposite to that of the whole Roman Church in its Missal-much less is it met by the reason given for his opinion, viz. that we are told what the consecrated elements are to man's nature, but we are not told what they are to the brute creation.' For thus, in one moment, he abandons a position steadily maintained before through 174 pages octavo; by making the real presence in the elements not to be absolute, but only such a presence in the use of the Sacrament as depends upon the nature of the recipient; or such as the Anglican Church asks in the prayer of consecration, that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine . . . may be partakers of His most blessed body and blood.' And that this spiritual partaking by faith only is intended by the Church appears manifest from Article XXIX. saying of the wicked, that in no wise are they partakers of Christ.'

The Protesters in 1856, before alluded to, quote Bishop Ridley in behalf of the doctrine of reception by the wicked as saying, that the unworthy communicant ' receives not the Lord's body with the honour due unto Him' and the citation of Bishop Ridley for this doctrine is, as if one should cite the noble army of martyrs in favour of a denial of our Lord Jesus Christ.-But let us hear Bishop Ridley, who was burnt for denying, amongst other things, the three Sacerdotal doctrines respecting the presence, and the adoration, and the eating by the wicked, explaining himself:-first by quoting from Augustine that ' after a certain manner of speech the Sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body . . . so likewise the Sacrament of Faith (Baptism) is faith ;' and, secondly, by saying in his disputation at Oxford in 1555, just before his

martyrdom, that evil men did eat the body of Christ 'sacramentally, and no further;' but good men eat it 'sacramentally, and spiritually by grace.'

And these two observations of Ridley will explain some hundred quotations from the fathers, by which Sacerdotalists have permitted themselves to be deluded in the doctrine of the Eucharist by Roman Catholic controversialists; and then have themselves, in most cases unconsciously, committed a practical fraud upon the public. There does not seem to be an equal excuse for the frequent citation of Bishop Andrews- whose works are more accessible for the essential presence in the elements, and the other Sacerdotal doctrines dependent thereon: for Andrews takes the view of Wake, Hammond, and Burnet, noticed in Chapter V. Part I. which regards the Lord's Supper as the communion of the body of Christ crucified-in which state Christ's body does not now at all exist-or, as Archbishop Wake says, Christ has now a glorified body, whereas the body we receive is His crucified body-His body given for us, and His blood shed for us which can usnever be verified in His present glorious body.' And the same view is taken by Bishop Andrews: We are in this action not only carried up to Christ (sursum corda) but we are also carried back to Christ; as He was at the very instant and in the very act of His offering. So and no otherwise doth this text teach so and no otherwise do we represent Him.' And again - Not He alone, but He as at the very act of His offering is made present to us:' and again:- If an host could be turned into Him, now glorified as He is, it would Christ offered is it; thither we must look.' 2

not serve.

1

1 Catechism, pp. 349, 350.

2 Andrews' Sermon on 1 Cor. v. 7.

CHAPTER XIV.

CONCLUDING REVIEW.

'Far be it from us, then, to think that the Blessed Humanity of the Son of God should so disparage itself, as, where there is neither necessity nor use of a bodily descent, to steal down; and convey Himself insensibly from heaven to earth daily; and to hide up his whole Sacred Body in a hundred thousand several pixes, at once. It is a wonder, that superstition itself is not ashamed of so absurd and impossible a fancy.'-BISHOP JOSEPH HALL on Christ's Pesence in the Sacrament, p. 2.

THE CHARGE' herein examined is written eloquently, and in a spirit of evident gentleness, kindness, and amiability. I have, therefore, animadverted upon it with pain; and only from a paramount sense of duty, which still compels me to give to it a further general and final review.

We have considered already its four principal Sacerdotal propositions; and a fifth, which is connected necessarily with its fundamental doctrine: we have also considered the proofs which it alleges for its Eucharistic doctrines: such as the testimony of the undivided Church, the teachings of the ancient fathers, the saying of Bishop Jewel, the theology of St. Augustine, the convictions of Bishop Overal, and the Catechism and other Formularies of the Anglican Church.

On looking through it, however, once more, I observe above a dozen passages, which, though some of them may have been partly answered herein, still seem to require a short additional notice. They shall all, therefore, be examined in this chapter exactly in the order of their occurrence, beginning at p. 50 of the Charge;' and with this hasty review, I propose to conclude this volume.

1. P. 50, the Charge' says, The inward part of the Sacrament . . . is Christ's precious Body and Blood.'

Answer. The Sacrament, according to the Charge,' means the consecrated elements: but of these elements Christ's Body and Blood are no part at all; 'it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one:'1 and while the supposed multipresence is thus a heresy, virtually denying the truth of Christ's body; its supposed invisibility is also a virtual denial that Christ is a perfect man: for man, as the 'Charge' truly says, 'is not a phantom: he has a real material body, by which he enters into the world of sense, and becomes visible.'2

2. P. 50, it is said again that the presence is, 'to use the language of one of our Homilies, not of a carnal, but of a ghostly substance.'

6

Answer. The Homily says, that the meat we seek for in this Supper is spiritual food . . . an invisible meat and not bodily; a ghostly substance and not carnal.'

Now substance, as Logic teaches, is of two species, Body and Spirit, i.e. bodily, or, in the case of flesh, carnal substance, and spiritual or ghostly. The Homily, therefore, in denying the presence of any carnal substance, that is, of Christ's substantial flesh, is in direct opposition to the fundamental Sacerdotal doctrine of the 'Charge;' and so to all the other doctrines dependent on it: and in saying again that we seek for a ghostly substance, the Homily agrees with what has been said herein respecting the presence only of Christ's Spirit and His Godhead at the Supper--as they are present also at Morning or Evening Prayer, when two or three are gathered together in His name.

3. P. 51-after stating the imagined effect of the con

1 Rubrick at end of Communion office.

2 P. 31.