natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body (and therefore to assert that his body and blood are present in the Sacrament, is to support Eutychianism) to be at one time in more places than one.'

The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive them have they a wholesome effect or operation, but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.'†

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is FAITH.'

'The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth the SACRAMENT of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their own condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.'§

The Catechism says the sacrament was ordained for a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive

* Protestation at the end of the Communion Office.

+ Article XXV.

Ibid. XXVIII.

§ Ibid. XXIX.

thereby.' And also that the inward part or thing

6

signified, is, the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.' 'And the benefits whereof we (of course who worthily receive) are partakers' thereby, are the strengthening of our souls and bodies, by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine.'

'If a man,' (for several reasons there mentioned,) 'do not receive the SACRAMENT of Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.' *

This, my Lord, is I believe the whole of our Church's teaching upon this important subject: this all members of the Church are bound by, and we especially who are admitted to her ministry, and therefore from this we must deduce her teaching, and submit to that, whatever it shall be.

It may perhaps be well to show the differences which have been made in the passages we have quoted, at the reviews of our formularies; as we may

* Third Rubric in the office for the Communion of the Sick.

thence best ascertain the motives which influenced the various convocations, (especially the last, by whose decision we still remain bound,) and learn the doctrines they intended to set forth or to repudiate by their alterations.

First, our twenty-fifth Article. The passage above quoted stands in the Articles of Edward as it does here, except that the following words were added after the word operation,' viz. 'not as some say, ex opere operato, which terms as they are strange and utterly unknown to the Holy Scriptures, so do they yield a sense which savoureth of little piety and much superstition.' Here it will be observed that the doctrine is not altered, for as the sacramental efficacy is put only in the worthy receiving, the doctrine of opus operatum is as really rejected, as if the suppressed paragraph still stood in the Article. When the convocation in the reign of Elizabeth first drew up and subscribed the xxviiith Article, it was somewhat different from its present form. Instead of the words, 'The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith ;' the following, taken from the Articles of Edward were inserted; Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place, therefore the body of Christ

cannot be present at one time in many and divers places and because as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world: a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the real and bodily presence as they term it, of Christ's flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper.' These words were removed as calculated to offend many, and as belonging rather, to the language of philosophy than of theology, and the above, the body of Christ,' &c., substituted for them, as being rather more theological, and in effect the same.

The prayer of consecration formerly stood thus :--'Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech thee, and with thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless, [here a cross was made] and sanctify, [here another these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, who in the same night,' &c.

These words were changed at Bucer's request into those above quoted. p. 5. Wheatly thinks the sense is the same, but with submission to so good an authority, that cannot be: for the expunged passage prays that the bread and wine may be unto us the body and blood of Christ, thereby implying that the bread and wine underwent some sort of change. The present form only prays that we receiving the bread and wine according to Christ's institution, and in remembrance of

his death, may be partakers of his body and blood.' This is surely different from the bread and wine being to us the body and blood of our Lord. And if so, the quotation from Wheatly in the Appendix to Dr. Pusey's sermon, p. 84, where he says, ' Consequently by these words the elements are now consecrated, and so become the body and blood of Christ,' will nothing advantage the Dr.; for the conclusion upon which he relies does not come from the premises. If it did, and the elements became the body and blood of Christ, transubstantiation must be true, as they could only become what before they were not, by ceasing to be what before they were; i. e. by being changed into whatever the prayer of consecration makes them become. At the last review the words corporal presence' in the protestation at the end of the communion-service, were inserted instead of the words 'real and essential presence.' For as the Church holds the perfect sacrament to consist of two parts, and the inward part or thing signified by the outward sign, is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, in a marvellous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful,' (first part of homily on the sacrament,) she could not possibly deny the real presence,' but she does deny the corporal,' affirming that the body of Christ is in heaven and not here, and thus differing entirely with Dr. Pusey who affirms, (p. 20,) that Christ's flesh is re