I believe them to become, His Body and Blood; and I feared not, that, using their language, I should, when speaking of Divine and 'spiritual' things, be thought to mean otherwise than 'spiritually,' or having disclaimed all thoughts as to the mode of their being, that any should suppose I meant a mode which our Church disallows."

I have then, in my adapted books, retained the words "under the form of Bread and Wine," because they are the words used in the Homilies, "of the due receiving of His blessed Body and Blood under the form of Bread and Wine." I have meant them in the same sense in which the Homilies use them, and have used them because they were there used. I have never taught any thing physical, corporeal, carnal, but spiritual, sacramental, Divine, ineffable. And when I have said, as I could not but acknowledge, that I could not see how the Roman Catholics could mean less by "the accidents of bread and wine" than we by the substance, this was not to draw our doctrine to theirs but theirs to ours. If it be granted, as they must grant, that all the natural properties remain, size, form, solidity, the same distribution of particles, whereof the elements are composed, the same natural powers of nourishment or exhilaration, the same effect upon the nervous system and every other physical property, I do not know what remains, which we mean to affirm and they to deny. But I have said this, not as adopting their mode of explanation; which is not acknowledged by the

Greek Church any more than by our own, but as hoping that our differences were not irreconcilable, and that we are condemning a popular physical interpretation, which they cannot consistently hold. I mention this because I have acknowledged this, when consulted. I have said that it appears from our Article itself that it condemns Transubstantiation, in the sense of implying a physical change. This appears from the words, "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture," i. e. in that it entitles the consecrated element, "bread"; "overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament," in that a Sacrament is "a sign of a sacred thing," and on this view, the sign would be the thing itself. If any imply not a physical change, the Article does not apply to them.

دو

I may give here Archdeacon Wilberforce's recent summary, premising only that, in justice to him, the whole note, which contains the ground of it, ought to be studied'.

"The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.

66

7 Doctrine of the Incarnation, Ed. 3. note on cx. p. 543 sqq. It may here be briefly said, that the groundwork of the passage is the entirely distinct meaning of the words "matter" and 66 material," "substance" and "substantial," as used by those who adopt the Baconian, and those who adopt the Aristotelian habits of thought." "The Baconian" (and such is our popular language)" will speak of that which is material in man as equivalent with that which the senses can discern; or he will define matter to be that of which our senses are fitted to take cogni

"The questions of most real moment upon this subject" ["our Lord's Sacramental Lord's Sacramental Presence"] "would seem to be-first, Whether our Lord is truly present, as is affirmed in this work, or whether the transaction is a mere appeal to our imagination? Secondly, If our Lord be truly present, is it under those conditions in which He is an object to the senses of men, i. e. as above defined, materially, or in some other manner? The Church of England, in denying Transubstantiation, means apparently to deny a material presence, for she explains the subject by saying that there is no Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood:' and she states, as her ground for this assertion, that 'the truth of Christ's natural body' requires it to be in one place; i. e. that it is subject to these conditions, which render it a suitable object for the senses of mortals. She means to deny, therefore, that our Lord's natural body is in such sort present as that we should discern those things of which we partake to be flesh and blood, were not the senses of men supernaturally withholden from discerning a glorified body. How far it is correct to say that this notion is affirmed by others, it forms no part of the present work to inquire."

On the subject of the Adoration of our Lord at

zance." The Aristotelian means by "substance," 99.66 an abstract notion which the intellect obtains by disregarding those accidents, by which one individual of a class is distinguished from others." "The ideas," thus, "have no relation to one another."

66

the Holy Eucharist, I have simply, I believe, on one occasion, retained the words, " Adore Him with profound reverence." I had disclaimed "language" on this great mystery, implying (to speak reverently) a local confinement and humiliation of Him Who vouchsafes to feed us with Himself, which the Fathers would not, certainly do not, use." I fully accept the words of the Rubric at the end of our Communion Service, that "no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal [i. e. Physical, carnal] Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); [this would be acknowledged by Roman Catholics themselves;] 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 to be at one time in more places than one."

I have explained the word "Corporal" by "carnal" or "physical," because the framers of this rubric deliberately rejected the denial of the words "real and essential," which stood in the first articles under Edward VI., and substituted the word "corporal." "For a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist," says Wheatley, "is what our Church

8

Advertisement to Paradise for the Christian Soul, p. vii.

frequently asserts in this very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and her Catechism." But the statement, that "Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven, not on earth," is the received doctrine, not of schoolmen only, but even of the Council of Trent. And so far from the Sacramental Presence of our Lord at all implying any Natural Presence of His Body, Divines even of the Roman Church have ruled that it even excludes it. "From the nature of the thing," says Lugo, "the Sacramental Presence of Christ doth not require any Natural Presence of Christ." And he assigns as a reason the very reason assigned in the Rubric, "any definitive adequate Presence implies, that the subject is in such wise there as not to be elsewhere; therefore the Sacramental Presence of Christ doth not in itself require the Natural Presence; yea, rather it in itself requireth that Christ hath not any other Presence than that."

It is matter of faith that the Natural Body of our Lord is at the Right Hand of God, "circumscribed" in place, "in a certain place of Heaven," says St. Augustine'," on account of the mode of a true Body." "Doubt not," he says, "that the Man Christ Jesus is now there, whence He shall come; and hold in memory and keep faithfully the Christian profession,

2

2

Ib. § 10. Hugo de S. Victore extracts from this Epistle his de Sacr. 1. 2. p. 1. c. 13.