l — ^-,0

'1 nnj^j/

SOME

REMARKS

SERMON OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY

LATELY PREACHED AND PUBLISHED

AT OXFORD,

IN A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THAT GENTLEMAN,

BY SAMUEL LEE, D.D.
HEGIUS PROFESSOK OF HEBREW IN THE UNIVEIISITT OF CAMBRIDGE,
CANON OF BRISTOL, RECTOR OF BARLEY, HERTS,
D.D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE,
HONORARY MEMBER OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF RIIOI>E ll^LAMi,
&C'. Lr. 

i F. MAD AN

LONDON:
SEELEY, BURNSIDE, AND SEELEY,

FLEET STHEET.

' ^ MUCCC XLIII,

ADVERTISEMENT.

It may be necessary to inform the Reader here, that the
objects had in view in the following pages, have been two :
One, to examine the positions contained in Dr. Pusey's Ser
mon and Notes ; the other, to place in their true light the
opinions and characters of those Divines, whom he has cited
as his Authorities.
In following the first of these, my endeavour has been, to
add to a careful consideration of the nature of the case, the
obvious and plain declarations of Holy Writ. For, whatever
may be urged in inquiries of this sort, against the exercise
of private judgment, the fact is, all do in one way or other
finally adopt it. The reason is obvious. Innumerable
questions, necessary to a right understanding of our Holy
Religion, have been left untouched in the Scriptures : many
which have been sufficiently determined there, are still liable
to be misunderstood, and daily are misunderstood by num
bers among us. And the consequence is, attention to read
ing, and the exercise of a sound judgment, are as necessary
now, as they ever were in our endeavours to ascertain for
ourselves, and to preserve to posterity inviolate, the faith
which was once delivered to the Saints. Add to this the
consideration, that those who declaim most loudly against
such an application of our reason, never do this without
evincing at the same time a most abundant reliance on
their own. What we have to do in such cases is, to take
care in the first place, that our judgment be well informed ;
in the second, that it be honestly and impartially exercised ;

11 ADVERTISEMENT,
and in the third, that it be willing to submit to correction,
whenever the superior judgment of others shall have shewn
that it has failed: and here, the most powerful and most
matured will be the first, both to feel and confess its own
deficiencies, I will only add, I have to the best of my abi
lity followed these laws.
As to the second of these objects, I must be allowed to
say that it challenges a regard, which cannot be too highly
valued. It is the professed object of Dr. Pusey and his
school, to advance nothing which does not claim the title
and character of Catholic. Hence the Fathers of our Church,
together with those of Catholic antiquity, are quoted in the
richest variety and abundance : and, not only so, but their
very language is adopted, their very terms put in requi
sition, in order, as it should seem, to secure to the Reader
the precise import of their reasoning, and hence the iden
tical sentiments which thev entertained and taught.
If, then, this has really been done ; and if it is true, that,
in the teaching of Dr. Pusey and his school, certain radical
inclinations to Romanism are too palpable to be misunder
stood, — and this no one will deny, — it must follow, that
the whole Body of these Divines has advocated the claims
of the Pontificate to an extent that has not been usually
imagined ; that our Reformers, who so abundantly quoted
them in opposing the claims of that fallen Church, were
wholly mistaken and wrong ; and that we, in following them,
are mistaken and wrong likewise. Let this be allowed,
I say, and half the business towards the restoration of
Romanism has been done : tlie axe has been laid efiectually
to the root of the tree ; which, after a few more years'
scarcely profitable vegetation, shall be hewn down and cast
into the fii-e !
But it is not these Fathers only that are so claimed;
it is also the whole extent and authority of Holy Scripture,

ADVERTISEMENT. "i
as conveyed to us through them ; who, as we are assured,
are its most profound and authoritative Interpreters. These
lively Oracles are thence made to speak, just as this specious
and deceptive school would have them to speak ; and accord
ingly to put forth, under their own undisputed Divine Autho
rity, the dogmas which to this school seem best calculated to
ensure the ends had in view.
I am disposed, therefore, to look upon this endeavour of
Dr. Pusey and his party as one of the most insidious,
sweeping, and ruinous, that could have been devised. Its
manifest tendency is, to unsettle every thing, under a plea
the most authoritative, plausible, and alluring ; a plea ad
mirably calculated to ensnare the Junior branches of the
Clergy, and with them all who have not either leisure or
learning sufiicient to examine this question for themselves.
I have therefore deemed it my duty to follow Dr. Pusey to
most of his Authorities, particularly where the question has
been important ; and, I think I may say, I have shewn that
he has both misunderstood and misrepresented them, and
with them, the Holy Scriptures, and the Formularies of our
Church, wherever these have been concerned. To have
followed him in every case, both in his Sermon and Ap
pendix, would have required a time and extent of space,
which I could neither afford, nor have I thought it necessary
to give. If however this should be deemed necessary, I can
only say, I shall be most ready to make every sacrifice I
can, to do the needful.
I had hoped that Professor Garbett's Review of the Ser
mon, would have made the publication of the following pages
unnecessary : but, when I had perused it, I found that,
although he had arrived at many conclusions identical with
mine, he had not generally pursued the same line of in
quiry, and particularly as it regards the authorities cited
as Vouchers by Dr. Pusey. In a few instances indeed.

expressed a suspicion, that the same is the case in others.
So far then, his work has not, as I have thought, superseded
the necessity of mine. I have accordingly determined to
send it forth, hoping that the desire which I have felt to
defend and promote the cause of real Catholic truth will be
allowed to atone, in some degree, for the imperfect manner
in which the undertaking has been executed.

REMARKS,
&c, &c.

Trinity College, Cambridge,
Nov. 3, 1843,
Rev, and Dear Sir —
1 TRUST you will give me credit when I assure you, that
nothing can be more foreign to my intentions than to stir
up, or to take any part in, a controversy which, to use your
own words, would " pour forth floods of blasphemy against Holy
Truth.'''' Controversy of this sort you very justly deprecate
in the outset of your Sermon ; and I will promise you, that
controversy such as this you shall never experience from
me. But to controversy intended to elicit, or to defend,
" Holy Truth," you can have no good objection ; as, I pre
sume, it was for one or other of these ends that this Sermon,
with its Notes and Extracts, was sent forth to the public.
You will perhaps allow me to add : It is solely for the pur
pose of eliciting and defending " Holy Truth," that I have
taken upon me to offer the few following remarks on this
your Publication. I trust therefore, you will take the whole
in good part : and, as I consider your Sermon, together with
its Preface and Notes, as forming one whole, I shall treat
them as one accordingly.
Section I. — On the doctrines propounded in the Preface.
To begin then with your Preface. You say, " Increase of
scoffers and blasphemers are among the tokens of the last
days " &c. ; intimating, as I suppose, that Scripture itself has
pointed out the very men who should be your opponents.
If this be your meaning, I have no hesitation in saying you
are mistaken ; it being obvious, both from the Scriptures
B

2 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
themselves, and from your ablest expositors of them, the
ancient Fathers of the Church, that those " last days " have
been long past and gone. Another sentiment follows this,
which is perhaps still more questionable : you say, " The
more the truth prevails, the madder must the world be
come." You mean by the term " world," perhaps, those
who are now professed enemies to Revealed Truth : in any
other sense, this sentiment is absurd ; and in this, it is ex
tremely questionable. For surely it n»ust have been one of
the ends, both of your preaching and writing this Sermon,
to convince such as these of their errors, and to put them in
possession of something better ; — to lay before them the
beauty, excellency, and blessings of Holy Truth, and thence
to supply the means, not of becoming more mad, but of ob
taining joy and peace in the Holy Ghost.
You tell us however, in your next paragraph, that this
Sermon with its Preface &c., was published as a primary
duty of the Christian Minister, for the sake of Christ's little-
ones : which seems to me to imply, that your object was to
afford some additional light to a chosen few only ; the
" ignorant, and those out of the way," being put entirely out
of sight. Allow me to ask you. Is this Apostolic ? Was this
the mind of Him, who would have all men to be saved, and
to come to a knowledge of the truth ? Surely this must be
to narrow the duties of the Christian Minister to a most
lamentable extent, and be insufficient to justify either the
writing or the publication of this Sermon,
I must be allowed to remind you, that truth stands on a
basis much more broad and liberal than this : and, that,
while it supplies its invigorating fruits to its votaries, it also
pours forth of the abundance of its wealth, for the instruction
and eternal welfare of all intelligent creation.
Come we now to matter more particularly connected with
your question ; namely, your statements on the doctrine of
the Eucharist. "Conscious," you say (p. iv.), " of my own
entire adherence to the formularies of my Church, and
having already repeatedly expressed myself on this subject
(i.e. the holy Eucharist), and in the very outset of this

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 3
Sermon conveyed at once that I believed the elements to
' remain in their natural substances,' and that I did not
attempt to define the mode * of the Mystery that they were
also the Body and Blood of Christ, I had no fear of being
misunderstood." You add, apparently for the purpose of
making all quite clear, " Once more to repeat my meaning,
in order to relieve any difficulties which might (if so be) be
entertained by pious minds, trained in an opposed and defec
tive system of teaching  My own views were cast (so to
speak) in the mould of the minds of Bishop Andrewes and
Archbishop Bramhall, which I regarded as the type of the
teaching of our Church. From them originally, and with
them, I learnt to receive in their literal sense our Blessed
Lord's solemn words, ' This is my body;' and from them,
while I believe the consecrated Elements to become, by
virtue of His consecrating words, truly and really, yet spiri
tually and in an ineffable way. His Body and Blood, I learnt
also to withhold my thoughts as to the mode of this great
mystery, but 'as a Mystery' to ' adore it.' " "With the
Fathers then," you continue, " and our own great Divines
(explaining, as I believe, the true meaning of our Church),
I could not but speak of the consecrated Elements as being,
what, since He has so called them, I believe them to become,
* Here, as it will presently be seen, the groundless supposition of some
real change in the nature of the Elements is exalted into the whole and
real mysterj' of the Eucharist; whUe this supposed mystery is nothing
more than a metaphor. Bishop Ridley says of tho Romanists of his day :
" WTiat they be that make the chaunge either of the one or the other,
{i.e. Element), vndoubtedlye even they that do write moste finelie in these
oure daies, almoste confesse plainelie, that they can not tell:" Enehiricl.
Theol. vol. I. p, 79. So also Bramhall, quoted below, " Curious wits . . .
cannot content .... to apprehend mysteries of Religion by Faith, without
descanting upon them, and determining them by Reason ; whilst themselves
confess that they are incomprehensible by humane reason, and imperceptible
by man's imagination^ It will hereafter be seen that you have, in like
manner, descanted and determined upon these mysteries. But here,
strange to say, you make that to be the mystery, the existence of which
your own favourite authors positively deny, and hence virtually deprive
the Sacrament of every thing like mystery at all ! This will be discussed
a little farther on.

4 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
His Body and Blood ; and I feared not, that, using their lan
guage, 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. We have in these extracts the real grounds of nearly all
that challenges observation in this Sermon and its Notes.
What we shall have to do therefore will be, to inquire how
far the assertions here made can be sustained. The great
difficulties however, that we shall have to deal with here,
will be, the want of precision and clearness which pervades
this Sermon, The very frequent intermixture also, of figu
rative language, with that which is apparently not so, will
tend greatly to enlarge and to multiply these difficulties.
If, therefore, I should in any way fail to catch your mean
ing, I trust you will ascribe this, not to any willingness on
my part to mistake, and thence to misrepresent you, but
solely to my inability to apprehend, through the medium
of your diction, the opinions which you have intended to
advance. The first point we shall consider then, is contained in these
words ; viz. " Having ... in the very outset of this Sermon , , ,
conveyed at once, that I believed the Elements to ' remain in
their natural substances,' " — I remark. Whether such decla
ration as this is conveyed or not in the very outset of your
Sermon, I must leave it to others to determine. For my
own part, I can find nothing exactly of this sort, either there
or in any other part of the Discourse ; which need not be
made matter of importance : the declaration here made
being, for all purposes with which we are now concerned,
quite sufficient. We \*ill take it for granted therefore, that
this contains your belief on this point.
You next tell us, in repeating your meaning, that you
learnt from Bishop Andrewes and Archbishop Bramhall to
receive in their literal sense Our Lord's solemn words, " This
is my Body" &c.: on which I must be allowed to offer a few
remarks.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 5
I must premise, that, in our endeavours to ascertain the
mind of any author on a subject on which he has not parti
cularly stated his views — which is here the case, — our business
will be, to take the most extensive and strictly accurate views
we can of his writings generally: Ist, As to what he has
positively said or proved ; and then, 2dly, To ascertain, as
far as we can, what he could not have meant or said, con
sistently with these his positively-declared sentiments. If,
for example, we wish to arrive at the opinions of a Romanist,
we must first ascertain of what school he was ; whether Jan
senist, Jesuit, or the like ; then, inquire what his actually-
expressed opinions are. All this will afford us a general
insight into his modes of thinking and of reasoning. We
shall hence arrive at something like his system, if he really
had any, — and every consistent writer necessarily has some
system ; — and from this we shall be enabled to form a
tolerably correct opinion, as to what his notions were not.
So also with any Protestant writer, particularly if he lived
in, or near, the times of the Reformation, and took an active
part in the controversies of those times. If, for example, he
wrote against Transubstantiation, image-worship, the merits of
works, the value of pilgrimages, or of rites and ceremonies
generally, with reference to the justification of man with God ;
and spoke positively of a justifying faith, of the influence of
the Spirit, and all this as given through grace ; — if, I say, such
a writer had never favoured us with any opinions on Consub
stantiation at all, or had never said one word about any abso
lute and positive change, or virtue, in the Elements, as uniting
man, by way of nature, with God ; — we should be bound, I
think, to conclude, that he never could have intended to in
culcate any such doctrine ; because, 1st, this would be utterly
inconsistent in theory ; and 2dly, as to fact, it is what is never
done by good writers. As well might the service of God
and of Mammon be sought in the same sanctified person ;
as well might light and darkness co- exist in the same place,
at one and the same time, as these things be found combined
in any consistent writer. In this way therefore, it shall be
my endeavour to examine your statements on the opinions

6 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
of several of the Fathers cited in your Sermon &c„ and
of those of Bishop Andrewes and Archbishop Bramhall in
particular. You say then, that Bishop Andrewes and Archbishop
Bramhall have taught you to take these terms, " This is my
Body" &c,, in their literal sense. I may perhaps take it for
granted, that there are but two senses (grammatically speak
ing) in which these terms can be taken ; viz. One in their
strictly literal and natural sense, implying that the Elements
(of the Eucharist) are the real and substantial Body and Blood
of Christ : The other in a figurative sense, intimating that,
although these Elements are taken as standing for the real
and substantial Body and Blood of Christ, yet that, in truth
and fact, they are no such things : they are still bread and
wine, and nothing else ; their real natures remaining entirely
as they were before. How they are made efficient as means
of grace in Religion, is a question of Theology, not of
Grammar. As far therefore as the words in question are
concerned, they must be taken in one or other of these
senses : they cannot, at the same time, be taken in both ;
this would be too much even for miracle itself.
You have plainly declared then, that you take, after Bishop
Andrewes and Archbishop Bramhall, the literal sense. By
which I suppose you mean, that the consecrated Elements
become nothing either more or less than the real, true, and sub-
stantial Body and Blood of Our Blessed Lord. I say, I cannot
understand your meaning to be any thing short of this.
I will add, The whole of the reasoning contained in the sub
sequent pages of your Discourse appears to me — as far as
I can conceive of its having any meaning — to be governed by
this consideration. There are, indeed, a few places occurring,
in which something different might have been intended ; but
as these occur rarely, and are never made prominent, and
as their precise meaning has nowhere been stated, or any
thing of a spiritual nature urged, I must consider these as
holding but an inferior place in your estimation, and in your
Sermon. So far I think I understand you : you appear to be con-

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 7
sistent, and scarcely capable of being misunderstood. You
proceed — ''¦ I believe the consecrated Elements to become, by
virtue of His consecrating words, truly and really . . . His
Body and Blood." This is plain, and in true accordance with
your expressed opinion, that the words of Institution are to
be. taken literally. But, when you insert these qualifying
terms, viz. " yet spiritually and in an ineffable way," I begin
to feel at a loss, as to what you could have meant. You had
already said, that you believed the Elements to " remain in
their natural substances ; " but you now tell me, that they
" become truly and really, yet spiritually and in an ineffable
way. His Body and Blood.'''' How any thing can remain in
its natural substance, i.e., as I suppose, entirely unchanged as
to its real nature and essence, and yet become, at the same
time, truly and literally something of an entirely different
nature and character, and this " spiritually,''^ I am quite at a
loss to conceive. The thing utterly baffles every attempt at
apprehension with me ; and as such I leave it.
It should seem from your context here, that this difficulty
has exceeded your own apprehension, quite as much it has
mine. You have accordingly ranked it among the things
which are usually termed Mysteries ; which was indeed, the
shortest and readiest way of dealing with it. But this is not
all: you not only make this difficulty a mystery, but an
adorable mystery ! " I learnt," you say, " to withhold my
thoughts as to the mode of this great Mystery, but," as a
Mystery, to " adore it."
If then, I understand you aright, you make the ineffable
mode, by which the Elements become the true and real Body
and Blood of Christ, to constitute a great and an adorable
Mystery. And here you seem to cite Bishop Andrewes as
thinking with you*." Allow me to suggest to you, that you
* You cite Bishop Andrewes, as quoted in your Appendix (p. 44), for
your authority. But you have, as just now observed, whoUy mistaken
his meaning. He speaks there of the mode of the Presence of Christ in
the Eucharist. So also Bishop Bilson, in your Appendix, p, 36. Ridley,
ib, p, 35, &o. You speak evidently of a mode of change in the Elements ;
a thing which he denies, " We hear," says he — in the words of Durandus —
" the word, feel the effect, know not the manner, believe the Presence, The

8 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
have entirely misunderstood him, and have created a mystery
where none really exists ; and then, as it is not unusual in
such cases, you have fallen down and worshipped the Image
which your ingenuity has thus set up * ! I shall presently
The Presence I say," continues he, " we believe " &c. What he says,
therefore, a little lower down, is to be " adored by faith," is not the
mysterious mode of any change in the constitution of the Elements, but
the spiritual Presence of Christ, which is believed to attend them : and to
the same effect Hooker, in your Appendix, p, 39, " Knowledge curiously
sifting what it should adore " , . . " the manner how Christ performeth His
promise ! "
* Nothing surely can be more in point here, than the remark of
Bishop Andrewes on " The worshipping of Imaginations ;" viz. . " There
hath beene good riddance made of images ; but, for imaginations, they
be daily stamped in great number, and, instead of the old Images, set
up, deiiied, and worshipped, carrying the names and credit of the Apostle's
doctrine, government," &c, (p, 26, ed, 1631,) Ridley says: "If it bee
Christes own naturaU bodie, bome of the virgine, then assuredlie, seynge
that all learned men in Englande . . . graunt there to be but one substance,
then, I say, they must nodes graunt Transubstantiation, that is, a change
ofthe substance of breade into the substance of Christes bodie; then also
they must graunt the carnall and corporal presence of Christes bodie ;
then must the Saa-ament be adored with ihe honour due unto Christ him
self." And this may serve as a key to his meaning in a passage cited in
your Appendix, p. 34. Against Transubstantiation, p. 72. " Enchiridion
Theologicum," Ed. 1812. vol. I, A little lower down (ib.) he explains
his view as to (hange in the use of the Elements, thus : "Nowe on the
other syde, if after the truthe shall be truly tryed owte, it be fo^vnd tliat
the substance of breade is the materiall substance of the sacrament,
(although for the chaunge ofthe use, office, and dignitie of the bread, the
bread in dede sacramentally is chaunged into the bodye of Christ, as the
water in Baptisme is sacramentally chaunged into the fountayyne of rege-
neracion, and yet the materiall substance therof remayneth all one as was
before), yf (I say) tlie trewe solution of that former question be that the
naturall substance of breade is the materiall substance in the holie sacra
ment of Christes blessed bodye ; then must it followe . . that there is
but one materiall substance in the sacramente of the bodie ; and one
onel3'e lykewise in the sacrament of the blood : . . . then also the naturall
substance of Christes humane nature, whicli he tooke of the virgine
Marie, is in heaven, and not here inclosed under the forme of breade, then
that godlie honoure whiche is due unto God the Creator, and maye not be
done to the creature, without idolatric and sacrilege, is not to be done to the
holie Sacrament .... finallie then doth follow that Christes blessed bodie
and bloud which was once onely offered, and shed upon the crosse, being
available

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 9
shew you, that no mystery whatever exists here, and that
you have transformed a mere metaphor into a mystery ! It
will also appear in the sequel, that where the mystery really
exists, and where your Teachers have held their peace on
the subject, you have been particular and full.
But, to quit these mysteries for the present, you go on
(p. V.) : " With the Fathers then, and our own great Divines,
available for the synnes of all the worlde, is offered up no more in the
natural substaunce therof, neither by the prieste nor anie other tliinge." —
Observe again, how Ridley speaks of the mode, of wliich you create a
mystery, and then adore it : " Nowe . . . what kind of presence do they "
(the Protestants) " graunt, and what do tliey denie ? Briefelye tliey
denie the presence of Christes bodye in the naturall substance of liis
humane and assumpte nature, and graunt the presence of the same by grace.
That is, they affiraie and saie, that the substance of the naturall bodie and
bloud of Christ is omJie remainyngein heaven. . . . Even as for example
wee saie, the sunne which in substaunce never removeth his place out of
the heavens, is yet presente here by his beames, light, and natural influ
ence, where it shineth upon the earth. For Gods worde and liis Sacra
ments be as it were the beames of Christ, which is Sol Justitise, the sunne
of righteousness." I may perliaps here ask, How is it that Ridley — one
of the authorities quoted in your Appendix, apparently for the purpose of
claiming his authority in support of your opinions — differs so essentially
from you in this place ? To the same effect Archbishop Bramhall says :
" We deny not a venerable respect unto the consecrated Elements, not
only £is love-tokens sent us by our best friends, but as Instruments ordained
by our Saviour to convey to us tlie merits of his Passion. But for the
Person of Christ, God forbid that we should deny him Divine Worship at
any time, an.l especially in the use of this Holy Sacrament : we believe
with St. Austine, thatiVb man eats of that flesh, but first adores. But that
wliich offends us is this, That you teach and require all men to adore the
very Sacrament with Divine Honour "... "\Ve dare not give Divine Wor
ship unto any Creature, no not to the very humanity of Christ in the
abstract (much less to the Host), but to the whole Person of Christ, God
and Man . . . Shew us such an union betwixt the Deity and the Elements,
or Accidents, and you say something." . . . "Curious wits," adds he, "can
not content themselves to touch hot coals with Tongs, but they must take
them up with their naked Fingers ; nor to apprehend Mysteries of Religion
by Faith, without descanting upon them, and determining them by Reason,
whilst themselves confess that they are incomprehensible ly humane Reason,
and imperceptible by Man's imagination." (Against M. Militiere p. 21.)
I asS, Could Bramhall have more pointedly condemned your notions,
than he has here done ? I think he could not. (Ib. p. 32.)

10 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
(explaining, as I believe, the true meaning of our Church,)
I could not but speak of the consecrated Elements as being,
what, since He has so called them, I believe them to become.
His Body and Blood ; and I feared not, that, using their lan
guage, 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." That you believed the Elements so to become the Body and
Blood of our Blessed Lord need not be disputed : this seems
to be sufficiently settled : and, from your not believing in a
mode which our Church disallows, I am willing to understand
you to mean, that you have not adopted the doctrine of
Transubstant'iation. But, when you take refuge under the
plea, that you had used the language of these Fathers and
Divines, it becomes a duty to inquire, whether you have used
their language in the sense * intended by them ; which I think
you have not done. It may also be doubted, whether the
mode of which you speak, as constituting a mystery, is not
one which our Church has, virtually at least, disallowed : and
this, I will here assert, is the fact. That you have not used
the language of these Fathers and Divines in the sense they
intended, will shortly be proved. Proceed we now to consi
der, whether your mysterious and adorable mode is a thing
at all recognised, either by our Church or by Holy Scripture.
— And, first, as to our Church.
You have not positively said — let it be borne in mind —
that our Church does anywhere recognise the ineffable mode
* Greg. Naz. seems to have met with something of this kind in his
days; for he tells us, Orat. Prim, de Theologia, p. 52i1. edit. 1630. torn. I.
*' EtVi 70(0, el(Ti Tive<i ol ttjv oKorjv Trpotr/ci'aljuevoi, teat rtjv yXcoa-a-av' TjSt] 8e_w?
opS KOi Tt]i> x^^P^t 'ro'i<; ^(jterepoi^ Xoyci^ Kai xciipovTei;, Kai /3e/3^\or; Kevo(f>wvLat<;,
Kai aVTidecretri, rrj^ x^euSaii'U/uou yvcoireco^, Kat Talc; e(V oiidev XPH^^I^^^ tpepov(rat^
\oyopax!ai<;." " Sunt ciiim, sunt quidam, quibus non aures duntaxat, sed
etiam lingua, atque adeo manus quoque ipsse, ut video, ad sermones
nosti-os pruriunt, quique prophanis vocum novitatibus et contentionibus
falso nominatiB scientias, ac disputationum pugnis, quae nullam utiliflltem
afferunt, oblectantur."

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 1 1
which you suppose takes effect in the consecrated Elements.
You have only said, that none should suppose you meant a
mode which our Church disallows. I may perhaps, neverthe
less, affirm, that your intention is, as it certainly seems to
be, to have it believed that such a mode does actually take
place in the consecrated Elements, and that our Church does
not, in any way, disallow this. In your Note here, you say,
"... As shewn by the use of the Ancient words, ' The Body
of Our Lord Jesus Christ,' . . . the Rubric for ' the reverent
eating and drinking' of the consecrated Elements which re
main, and the Article, which, while declaring that ' the Body
of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only
after a spiritual and heavenly manner,' by the use of the
words 'given' and ' taken,' " you continue, " shews that it
calls that ' the Body of Christ' which is ' given by the mini
ster,' ' taken ' by the people . . ." " In like way," you say,
" the Catechism teaches that ' the Body and Blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the
Lord's Supper*.' " " The very strength of the words of the
Rubric," you continue, " denying ' the corporal presence of
Christ's natural Flesh and Blood,' in itself implies (as we
know of those who inserted that Rubric) that they believed
every thing short of this."
Our business is now, to ascertain what you could have in
tended by all this. Your closing assertion is to this effect :
You know that the compilers of the Rubric believed every
thing short of the corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh
and Blood. This surely is a very large assertion. I will
affirm, nevertheless, that it is perfectly groundless. That
* So the Romanists, as shewn in the Notes of my Visitation Sermon,
have affirmed with one voice, that the Syrian Church ever held the
doctrine of Transubstantiation. And all this, because its Liturgies and
Ritualists have called the consecrated Elements " the Body and Blood of
Christ." This was quite enough for them, because here they preferred
a literal iuterpretation, and, apparently, for you, for the same reason.
Unhappily however for them, the Liturgies can bear no such meaning :
and the Ritualists have affirmed directly the contrary, as I have there
shewn ! and, as I shall presently shew, all your authorities in one way or
other also affirm !

12 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
they denied the corporal presence of Our Blessed Lord s na
tural Body and Blood, there needs be no question ; but it may
be made one, whether they believed every thing short of this.
One thing short of this, which they did not believe, is, the
Roman-Catholic figment sometimes put forth, that Our Lord's
glorified Body — such as it was after His resurrection— is
corporally present in the Sacrament: another, that it ^is
corporally present, as in the doctrine of Consubstantiation :
another, that any miraculous change takes place in the natural
substance of the Elements ; and another, that the presence
of the Elements was absolutely necessary, in all possible
cases, to a worthy and effectual receiving of the Sacrament :
they did not, therefore, hold every thing short of the common
notion of Transubstantiation ; and your assertion is both
rash and sroundless. Would it not have been more con-
sistent, to have shewn what particular things short of
Transubstantiation they did hold ? You cite the Catechism,
to shew that " the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's
Supper" : but in What sense do you cite this ? You tell us,
above, that it is in the literal sense : but this must mean, that
Christ is coiporally present in one way or other ; and the
same is, as far as I can discover, the intention of your Ser
mon to teach throughout. Am I then to suppose your mean
ing to be, that Christ is actually present, not in His na
tural Flesh and Blood, but after some ineffable, spiritual, and
corporal mode of existence, from which you deem it right to
withhold both your thoughts and your words ? If this be
your meaning — and I do not see what else can be — then the
doctrine you hold, and are labouring to propagate, is perhaps,
not that of Transubstani'ialion in its vulgar acceptance, but of
Consubstantiation. I shall take this to be the fact. — If, then,
this was one of the things short of Transubstantiation which
the framers of our Rubrics believed. How, let me ask you,
are we to understand the following, given in the Service for
" the Communion of the Sick".^
" If a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or
for want of warning in due time to the Curate ... do not

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 13
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 stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death
upon the Cross for him, and shed His Blood for his redemp
tion, 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 fhe Sacrament with his
mouth." — Here then, the framers of the Rubrics tell us, that
the Body and Blood are actually taken and received by the
faithful, although no Body or Blood be corporally present
in your sense ; the Elements themselves being absent when
such Sacrament is taken ! Surely, Dear Sir, there must be a
large amount of difference between the opinions held by
these great Divines, and those propounded in your Sermon.
But you have another reason for holding that the Elements
become the very Body of Christ : it is, because you believe
them to become, by virtue of His consecrating words, truly and
really His Body and Blood. And again, you say : " You
could not but speak of the consecrated Elements as being,
what, since He has so called them, I believe them to become *,
His Body and Blood." I must here premise, as before, that,
as it is not very certain to me what you may have intended
by this, I must be excused if I consider it under the best
construction I can put upon it. When you say then, that
you believe the Elements "to become His Body'''' &c., and
when you argue, throughout your Sermon, as if these
Elements had become the very real and substantial Body and
Blood of Christ, I suppose I am to understand, that some
mysterious but actual change has taken place, either in their
nature, or their condition ; because you tell me, that the
mode in which they become His Body &c. is ineffable, is after a
spiritual manner, and is a mystery, not to be thought about,
but to be worshipped; — I suppose, I say, I am to conceive of
* And, for the same reason, as Our Lord has said, " / am the way,"
"I am the door," &c. : i.e. because He has so called Himself, you will
consistently argue, that you also believe He has literally and really become
the things so predicated of Himself by Himself !

14 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
all this, as intended to convey to my mind the notion of
something which really and actually takes place — no matter
how mysteriously, — and about which I may reason, as of
something real and positive, without at all touching on any
thing involving mystery.
Avoiding every thing therefore, that can trench upon
miracle or mystery, I will affirm, that the mode — no matter
how ineffable this might be in certain respects — under which
the consecrated Elements can be said to become the real
Body and Blood of Our Lord, must be one of these two ;
viz, I, Either that, by which their condition only is believed
to have undergone a change ; that is to say, whereas they
previously were, and were looked upon as, common bread
and wine, they are now to be considered as of an entirely
new and different character, as set apart and made holy by
means of the sacred rites to which they have been subjected ;
and hence are to be considered as the very Body and Blood
of the Saviour, and are, by faith, to be taken as such * :
Or, 2, That other mode, by whicli their nature and essence
has actually undergone such a change, that they have now
BECOME, have been converted into, the very real, substantial,
and true Flesh and Blood of Christ ; and are really and truly
what the literal acceptation of the terms of Institution,
" This is my Body " &c, necessarily require. You have
chosen the latter of these two modest,
* And in this sense Ridley speaks in the Appendix to j'our Sermon,
p. 34 : " In the Sacrament is a crrtain change . . . that bread, which was
before common bread, is now made a lively representation of Christ's
Body ; and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth His Body . , .
so is the internal soul fed with the heavenly food," &c.
t The very circumstance of leaving " the mode '' undetermined, cannot
but imply that some such mode is to be believed. I can conceive of no
other object for the introduction of this consideration at all. And, if this
is to be believed ; then, I affirm, all tlie consequences so admirably repro
bated by Bramhall, which grew out of the Romish figment of Transub
stantiation, may, with equal propriety, be ascribed to this opinion of
yours. Bramhiill, ib. p.l8 : "No sooner was this bell rung out, no
sooner was this fatal sentence " (i, c. of Transubstantiation, implying a
(hanrip in tho nature of the Elements) " given, but, as if Pandwa's Box
bad been newly set wide open, whole swarms of noysom questions and
debates

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 15
It is true indeed, you have endeavoured to ward off the
consequence of this preference, by cutting the matter short,
and giving us to understand that all is vailed in mystery.
But this will avail you nothing : your reasoning has led the
way to a mysterious, ineffable, adorable, mode of change in the
Elements ; and, say what you will for the purpose of stop
ping further inquiry now — involve the question, so raised, in
any depth of mystery you can devise — and all this will stand
you in no stead : either Transubstantiation or Consubstantia
tion must, and will, follow ; while the mystery, supposed to be
involved in these, may remain untouched. Let it only once
be granted, that a mysterious change in the essence of the
Elements has taken place, and the flood-gates of superstition
are instantly thrown open; the creature of the Eucharist
will of necessity be worshipped : which, as I conceive, can
differ but little from the adoration, which you have already
said you give to the mode. But, let us see what you have
further to say about the literal acceptation of the terms of
Institution.

debates did fill the schools. Then it began to be disputed by what
means this change comes." . . . . " Then it began to be arg-ued, Whether
the Elements were annihilated ? Whether, the matter and form of them
being destroyed, their Essence did yet remain? or, the Essence being
converted, the Existence remained ? . . . . Whether the Body and Blood of
Christ might be present in the Sacrament without Transubstantiation,
with the Bread or without the Bread ? Whether a Body may be Tran
substantiated into a Spirit ? and (which is most strange) Whether a
Creature might be Transubstantiated into the Deity ? " &c. The whole
of which, I say, rests not so much on the question of Transubstantiation,
as upon the notion of a i-eal change taking place in the Elements. But
why all this ? The water of Baptism must be as efficient as a means, as
are the Elements of the Eucharist ; and yet no one has supposed any
change of this. If these Elements are the outward and visible signs of an
inward and spiritual grace ; the waters of Baptism implying the washing
away of sin ; the Bread and Wine, the strengthening and refreshing of
the soul — given also as a means whereby we receive the same, and as a
pledge to assure us thereof; On what grounds are we to suppose that these
undergo an essential change ? and for what end ? On no other, as far as
I can see, except the supposition, that there is no spiritual grace to be
expected."

1(5 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
" From them " (i. e. Andrewes and Bramhall) you say, " 
I learnt to receive in their Uteral .sense Our Lord's solemn
words, ' This is my Body.' " And again, — " I believe the
consecrated Elements to become, by virtue of His consecrating
words, truly and really His Body and Blood ". . . . " what,
since He has so called them . ... to become His Body and
Blood" &c. Your first ground therefore is, the authority
of Bishop Andrewes and Archbishop Bramhall : your second,
the words of Christ himself. That the authority of these
two Prelates can avail you nothing, I have already afiirmed ;
and this I shall presently prove. Let us now see how far
the words of Our Blessed Lord can be made available to
your purpose.
It has been shewn above, that the words of Our Lord can,
as far as their verbal character is concerned, be taken only
in one of two senses; viz. 1. either the literal; or, 2. the figu
rative. You prefer the literal one ; because, you say, you
believe the Elements to become, since He has so called them,
truly and really His Body and Blood. Your reason there
fore for this preference appears to be, your own belief only
that the case is even so. But why? Is it because you
suppose the most literal sense to be always, and necessarily,
the most true one? You can hardly have given so much
time and labour to the study of the Bible, and still continue
to hold this opinion. No ; you have perhaps thought it
would do greater honour to the Sacrament, to take these
words in their strictly literal acceptation ; that this would
tend to create a greater reverence for the rite ; raise the
Church, its rites, observances, and ministry, in the estima
tion of mankind ; and, in this way, produce the good which
Religion ought to produce. Allow me to remark, that, sup
posing your reasons to have been these, and your motives
the best possible; still, if you have no higher authority,
nothing more cogent than human expediency — however good
it may seem, or however supported by highly-sounding titles
and names, ancient or modern — you will have fallen short
of your duty as a Minister of Christ, and as an authorised
Interpreter of His Holy Word. It is too much, Mv dear Sir,

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 1''^
for you and me to determine what is expedient in matters of
this truly awful and lofty character. It is rather our duty
carefully to examine the import of Holy Writ, not indeed
without the best helps we can obtain ; and then modestly and
explicitly to propose our investigations to the consideration
of others; taking especial care that they do not become
cause for schism in the Church. It is more than doubtful
with me however, whether you have concerned yourself at
all about these precautions, and particularly with the first
of them. Your belief, therefore, grounded upon the con
sideration that He said this or that, ought to depend upon
the true interpretation of the words said : and this, we shall
presently see, cannot be the literal one, even according to
your own authorities.
Section II. — On the character of the Means of Grace, and
particularly as put forth in Holy Scripture.
Before we proceed, then, more fully to investigate the
discrepancy discernible between you and your authorities,
we cannot perhaps do better than to institute a short and
comprehensive inquiry into the statements of Holy Scripture
generally, on the questions before us : because this will sup
ply us with a sort of test as to their orthodoxy, and, at the
same time, afford the best light to our path, and lantern to
our feet, that we can take for our guidance. You will,
I trust, grant with me, that all and every of the means of
grace can only be so far available to the salvation of man, as
a blessing shall be grac'iously given from above upon their
use. Means, as such, can create no positive wealth, can
supply no real power, to the human soul. They may do
something towards the improvement of the habits, the regu
lation of the thoughts or of the feelings ; but all this cannot
qualify a man for entering the Kingdom of Heaven. He
must be born of water, indeed ; that is, he must use the
means ; but he must also be born of the Spirit : and this is a
boon which nothing earthly, however good it may be, can
give. It is of a nature altogether at variance with that of
c

ig REMARKS ON THE SERMON
earthly things, as it is directly opposed to earthly feelings
and propensities, and to every disposition of the purely
natural man*. If then, tliis is to be obtained at all, it must
be by the favour or grace of God ; and, if the means prescribed
are to be used at all, it must be in afa'ith holding, that they
sliall be thus blessed t : and this faith must be, not merely
a belief in the goodness of these things, the existence of a
God, and of His goodness and faithfulness ; but also, receiving
and acting upon all the enouncements of His written Word ;
both obeying the Commandments, and waiting patiently and
thankfully for the Promises. How, When, Where, to What
extent, God will vouchsafe to grant such gift ; or How this,
when granted, shall affect our souls ; What the mode, either
of the gift, or of its actual operation on the mind is ; it is
not for us to inquire : not only because inquiry can avail
nothing ; but if it could, still we should be unable to appre
hend the question in any thing like its fulness. It is our
duty here therefore, to walk and to work in faith, nothing
doubting, but labouring in all things to make our calling
and election sure.
How then, in the next place, does the Scripture instruct
us to think of these things ? For, wheresoever Holy Scrip
ture has been given for our guide, it is both lawful and
right for us to follow it |. Holy Scripture then, universally,
I will affirm, and always, represents this as a communication

* Rom. vii. 23. viii. 7.
t lb. iii. 24-27. iv. 5, 16, 2.3, v, 1,, seq,
t Ridley's Breefe Declaration of the Lordes Supper, p, 1 : " Trueth is
there to bee searched with diligence, where it is certaine to be hadde," . . .
" Christe is the truth of God revealed unto man from heaven, by God
him sclfe, and in His worde the truth is to be founde." Ambrose:
" Spiritalis in via testimoniorum coelestiuni delectatur, tanquam onine
possidens patrimonium : in oniiiiliu,s dives." In Ps. cxviii, (cxix,) 14,
And a little lower do^vn (v. 105): " Nunquam ergo ncgligamus verbum
Domini, ex quo nobis omnium origo virtutum est, universorumque ope-
ram (juidam processus." . , , "fiat pedibus nieis luccrna verbum Dei," &c.
And again, ibid. v. 153 : " Considera etiam quia spiritali quodam oleo
co'lestium pra?ceptoruni ungit nos atque exercct quotidie Scriptura
diviiia,"

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 19
made by the Spirit of God to the spirit * of man, St. Paul
speaks (Rom. viii.) thus on this point : " The Spirit itself
heareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.'"
Again, more comprehensively: "As many as are led hy the
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God .-" and again, exclu
sively, " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none
of His." Again, both positively and practically : " They that
are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; but they
that are after the Spirit, the things of ihe Spirit." Again
(in I Cor. xii. 4, seq.), the gifts obtained through grace, are
by the same Apostle ascribed positively and directly to the
same Holy Spirit. " There are," says he, " diversities of gifts,
hut the same Spirit." . . . "And, there are diversities of operations,
but it is the same God ivhich worketh all in all," He adds :
" But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to
profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of
wisdom ; to another, the word of knowledge hy the same Spirit ;
to another, faith hy the same Spirit,"  "But all these worketh
that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally
as He will," And once more, as to our admission to Chris
tianity by Baptism, and our support as believers, and
* Chrysost, torn, xliv. in Joh., speakmg of the instability of temporal
thmgs, says : 'AW' ov ra irvev/jariKU ToiavTa, aX?\.' aprl /jevet Xa/uivovra
Kol av6oi!i>Ta." ' But spiritual things are not such, but they remain fo
ever brilliant and blossoming,' Again, ib, on ver, 27 : " Mi/Seh iiun 'ea-rco
A.070? TavTTji; TTj'; rpocjyn^, aW' eKeivtji; Tr}<; irvevfjLaTtKrjc;." ' Make ye no
account of this food (i. e. earthly), but of that spiritual (food).' So August,
in Joh, vi, 51 : " Spiritus tuus vivit ex corpore tuo, an corpus tuum ex
spiritu tuo? , , , Corpus utique meum vivit de spiritu meo. Vis ergo et
tu vivere de spiritu Christi ? In corpore esto Christi, , , , Non potest
vivere corpus Christi, nisi de spiritu Christi, Inde , , , Unus panis , . .
unum corpus multi sunius," &c. And Ambrose ; " Ubique Pater et
Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, una operatio, una sanctificatio, etsi qusedam
veluti specialia esse videantur," Lib, vi, de Sacr. cap. ii. He goes on to
say : " Quomodo ? Deus qui te unxit, et signavit te Dominus, et posuit
Spiritum Sanctum in corde tuo, Accepisti ergo Spiritum Sanctum in corde
tuo, Accipe aliud, quia quemadmodum Spiritus Sanctus in corde,
ita etiam Christus in corde." So also Ambrose, De Sacr. lib. v. cap. 2 :
"Quse sunt istse adolescentulse (Cant. 1.), ni»i animaj singulorum qua;
deposuerunt istius corporis senectutem, renovatse per Spiritum Sanctum."
C 2

20 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
nourishment therein : "For hy one Spirit we are all baptized
INTO ONE BODY, ivhcther we he Jews or Gentiles, whether we he
bond or free ; and have heen all made to drink into one
Spirit*." And, a little lower down (v, 27): "Now ye are
THE BODY OF Christ, and members in particular :" that is, by
means of a spiritual union, brought about, and conferred,
by the immediate and efficacious operations of the Holy
Ghost. Let us now inquire, how far the teaching of Our Blessed
Lord himself agrees with this. Speaking of his leaving his
Disciples, He says (John xiv. 16, 17) : " I will pray the Father,
and he shall send you another Comforter^, that he may abide with
* So Bishop Andrewes (Lect, in St, Giles's, Nov, 2, 1600) : " We see
there is a necessity of eating, in as much as God appoints that the means
whereby he will communicate his spirit (Acts v,). He gives the spirit to
none but such as obey him : therefore we must obey him when he com
mands us to use this means, especially seeing he commands them with a
nisi (unless). John iii. Except a man be born : and John vi. Unlesse ye
eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, ye have no life in you. AVith
these conditions, and for these uses, we are commanded to drink of the
same spirit. If we drink the blood of Christ, we shall drink the spirit of
life, which it gives ; and so we live by him : John vi, 57, &c, , . . ^Vater
of itself \s not able to purge from original corruption without the Spirit. . .
The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that gives life : John vi. 63, The
word itself preached profiteth not, unlesse God giveth increase : 1 Cor, iii.
&c, Ambrose to the same effect : ' Nunc quoque in Evangelii mysteriis
recognoscis baptizatos licet toto corpore, postea tamen esca spiritali potuque
mundari : ' Ps, cxviii, 123."
t And again : " It was one speciali end, why the sacrament it selfe was
ordained our comfort : the Church su telleth us ; we so heare it read,
every time to us : ' He hath ordained these Mysteries, as pledges of His
love and favour, to our great and endlesse comfort. The Father shall give
you the Comforter. Why He giveth Him, we see : How He giveth Him,
we sec not,' The meanes, for which He giveth Him, is Christ : His in-
treaty by His word in prayer ; by His flesh and bloud in sacrifice: for,
His bloud speakes ; not His voice onely. These, the meanes for which ;
and the very same, the means by which. He giveth the Comforter ....
Andj even that note hath not escaped the Ancient Divines, to shew there
is n<it only comfort by hearing the Word, but we may also taste of His
go(>fhir.^:s,\ how gracious He i.s\ and be made drinke ofthe Spirit. That not
only by the letter we road, and the word wc heare ; but by the flesh we
eat, and the bloud we drinke at His table, we are made partakers of His
Spirit,

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 21
you for ever ; even the Spirit of truth ; whom the world cannot
receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him : hut ye
know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Ib. XV. 26 : " He shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
And again, that it is the Spirit and not the flesh, under any
form, which is profitable to the Believer, it is evident from
this place, viz. John vi. 63 : " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ;
the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit, and they are life"
Now, although no one of sane mind will attempt to de
scribe, or define, the mode, how this one and self-same Spirit
works all in all ; yet every true Christian will not hesitate
either to affirm, or to abide by the affirmation, that it is this
one self-same Spirit and Comforter alone, and nothing else —
however good and valuable it may be in other respects — that
can, or does, regenerate and renew his heart ; sanctify him
in Body, Soul, and Spirit; and enable him to be, and to
become, meet to he partaker of the inheritance of the saints in
light *. This truth he holds in a faith, which — as it is made
Spirit, and of the comfort of it ... . All this, to shew that the same effect
is wrought in the inward man, by the holy Mysteries, that is in the out
ward, by the Elements: that there, the heart is established by grace, and
our soule indued with strength : and our conscience made light and cheere-
full, that it faint not, but evermore rejoice in His holy comfort." (Andrewes,
Serm. 3. Of the Holy Ghost.) Here, although the Sacrament is termed
His flesh and bloud, which must necessarily be figurative, the end had in
view is to become partakers of the Spirit.
* Col. i. 12. To the same effect, Bp. Andrewes : " This power is inherent
in the Spirit, as the proper subject of it : even the eternall Spirit, whereby
Christ offered himselfe first unto God, and after raised himselfe from the
dead. Now, as in the texture of the naturall body, ever there goes the
Spirit with the bloud : ever, with a vein (the vessell of the one) there
runnes along an arterie (the vessell of the other) : so is it in Chkist ; His
bloud and His Spirit alwayes go together. In the Spirit is the power :
in the power, vertually, every good work it produceth, which it was
ordained for. If we get the Spirit, we cannot faile of the power. And,
the Spirit, that ever goes with the bloud, which never is without it," ....
" If this power be in the Spirit, and the bloud be the vehiculum of the
Spirit, how may we partake of this bloud? It sliall be offered you
straight, in the Cup of blessing, which we blesse in His name. For, is not the

22 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
efficient by the same Spirit, and so exceeds a mere historical
belief— nothing can shake or injure: which realizes things
unseen, and even enters into that which is beyond the vail :
a faith, I say, which stands in the power of God*. But, how
all this is effected, or, by what precise mode of operation it
is carried on, concerns not him: all he is anxious about
is, to realize this in effect; in the experience which we
are taught it affords, and in the holy life which it cannot but
produce. The true Disciple can, moreover, proceed a step further.
He can see that there is a necessity for this, and a propriety
and suitableness in it. It is the spirit alone in man, that is
capable of instruction of any sort. The' flesh, indeed, sup
plies the organs of sense : the ear, taking in primarily the
revealed Word, which alone can build up the Believer for
heaven ; the eye, receiving the visible grounds of faith, whe
ther these be the written Word, the works of God in creation,
or the appointed visible mysteries of our holy Religion ; yet,
it is the spirit — not the flesh — which finally receives these
into itself; reflects on them; habituates itself to them; and
eventually becomes attached and devoted to them. And, as
such an one has been taught by Inspiration itself, that the
Sp'irit shall be given if it be duly sought, in order that he
may profit withal ; he cannot but rejoice greatly in the pri
vilege so laid before him : and, if he would lay claim to the
character of rational, he cannot but persevere in season and
out of season, in the application of the means given for the
realization of so great and so glorious an end.
Whatever the means employed therefore, the end had in
view is invariably one and the same ; viz, to be made an
habitation of God through the Spirit; to become a temple ofthe
the Clip of blessing which we blesse, the Communion ofthe bloud o/" Christ
(saith St. Paul) ? Is there any doubt of that ? " He adds : " In which
blond of (iinusT is the Spirit of (hiRisr. In which Spirit is all spirituall
jioii'cr : and, namely, this power, that frameth us fit to the workes ofthe
Spirit, \N'hich Spirit we are all made there to drinke of," (Serm, 18, Of
the Resurrection.)
* ] Cor. ii. 5. t Eph. ii. 22.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 23
Holy Ghost *, through, and by, the favour or grace of Almighty
God, granted to a faithful and constant use of the means pro
vided. Of the efficacy of these means, considered purely in
themselves, we hear nothing ; we know nothing ; and there
fore it is our duty to believe nothing t. All that is of the
earth only, is necessarily earthy ; whether it be the religious
means which we are commanded to use, or, however
these may be graced by titles in the mouths of man ; still
these, considered in themselves alone, must be of the flesh,
and, as such, can profit nothing. It is the Spirit from above
alone, which can quicken : and it is this, which the rightly-
informed Believer ever seeks in the means, which God has so
graciously afforded himt. This is universally taught in
' 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. vi. 19. So also Ambrose : " Divisiones autem gra-
tiarum sunt, idem autem Spiritus. Divisiones mysteriorum sunt, idem
autem Dominus, &c. : 1 Cor. xii. Omnia, inquit, operatur Deus. Sed de
Spiritu Dei lectum est : Unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens suigulis prout
vult. Audi scripturam dicentem quia dividit Spiritus pro voluntate sua,
non pro obsequio. Ergo dividit vobis Spiritus gratiam prout vult, non
prout jubetur," &c. De Sacram. lib. vi. c. 2. So also on Psalm cxviii. 17,
t " Nee oblatio sanctificari Ulic possit, ubi Spiritus Sanctus non sit."
Cyprian. Epist. LXV, Epicteto &c, edit, Oxon, 1682. p,162,
t Bishop Andrewes is most full and clear on this point: e.g. "Moses,
when they faulted by the way, obtained, in their hunger, Manna from
heaven; and, in their thirst, waier out ofthe rocke for them. Christ is
(himselfe) the true Manna ; Christ, the spirituall rocke : whom he leads,
he feeds : carries .BetfifeAem" (House of bread) "about Him, Plaine, by
the ordaining of his last Sacrament, as the meanes to re-establish our
hearts with grace, and to repaire the decaies of our spirituall strength :
even, His owne flesh, ihe bread of life; and His owne blood, the cup of
salvation. Bread, made of Himselfe the true granum frumenti, wheat
corne (Joh, xii. 24), Wine, made of Himselfe the true vine : went under
the Sickle, Flaile, Milstone, and Oven, even to be made this bread : trade
(or was troden) in the wine-presse alone, to prepare this cup for us. And
in this respect, it may well be sayd, Bethlehem was never Bethlehem right;
had never the name truely, till this day, this birth, this bread was borne,
and brought forth there. Before it was the house of bread; but, ofthe
bread that pei-isheth : but then, of the bread that endureth to everlasting
life." (Serm. 10, Ofthe Nativitie,) Nothing surely can be more certain,
than that Bishop Andrewes here speaks of this Sacrament, as a meanes
intended to convey spiritual blessings : and, that he took the term bread,
his own flesh, and the wine, as coming from the true Vine, in a figurative sense.

24 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
Holy Writ, as it also is in the Fathers generally, both of the
primitive and of the Catholic Church of this happy land.
And, for similar reasons, the Ministering Servants of God
can of themselves do nothing. Paul may plant, and Apollos
may water ; but it is God only who can give the increase *.
Hence preaching, the administration of the Sacraments, with
all the other ordinances of the Christian Church, can be per
formed by them only ministerially. They can, as the Apo
stles t did before them, only declare and pronounce the pardon
of those sinners, who have duly accepted and obeyed the
terms of the Gospel : and, in administering the Sacraments,
all they can do, or have been commissioned to do, is, duly to
perform the rites prescribed, in a full faith in Him who has
promised never to be wanting to the faithful prayers and
obedience of his people. When they have done this, they
have done all that they can do ; all that they have been com
missioned to do : and it is God only who can make these
means a blessing to those, who thus have recourse to them.
In the ordained Minister therefore, as well as in the water
mystically appointed to wash away sin, and the Elements
consecrated and thus set apart for the Communion, consi-
sense. Again (Serm. 1 2. Of the Resurrection) : " They " (the holy Myste
ries) " are a meanes for the raising of our soule out ofthe soile of sinne, , , .
so are they no lesse a meanes also, for raising our bodies out ofthe dust of
death. The signe of that Body, which was thus in the heart of the earth,
to bring us from thence, at the last." And again (Lect. in St. Giles's,
Nov, 2, 1600) : " If we demand, Why He makes choice of water, bread
and wine, rather than of any other elements : it is m regard of the , . .
analogic that they have with the things signffied, . , . Water is the seed of
the world (Gen. i.). Therefore is water used in the Sacrament of our
regeneration ; and because it is hunddum (humid), it doth nutrire
(nourish). The juice and nourishment that we suck out of the meat
digested, is that which nourisheth our life ; and therefore the element of
wine is used in the Sacrament of our nutrition," &c,
* 1 Cor, iii, 6.
+ Nor did the binding and loosing of the Apostles go farther than tliis.
It was solely to declare and pronounce this, under the provisions of the
Gospel, And, although thejr possessed miraculous powers, yet did they
never otherwise pronounce ]iardon of sin to any one. August, in Joh. vi. 45 :
"Qui plnntat et qui rigat, extriii&eeus" operatur : hoc facimus nos. Sed
ucrjiw qui plantat est aliquid," &c.

OF THE REV, DR, PUSEY, 25
dered in themselves only, there is nothing to be found which
can reach the wants of the human soul. In the Minister, if
the Spirit of Christ be not resident, he must be a reprobate.
In the mystical waters of Baptism*, if the all- sanctifying
Spirit be wanting — and in these, considered in themselves
only, it is wanting — there can be no baptizing into that one
Spirit spoken of by the Apostle : and, from the Eucharist —
consecrated it may be by man, if the Holy Spirit attend not
its ministration t. and this must be the case where- it is
not sought by faith — no saving grace can be expected. The
Elements alone, notwithstanding all that sinful man can pro
nounce over them, or expect from them, can, in themselves,
afford no saving influence to the soul : they are still of the
earth earthy, and are, of themselves, but weak and beggarly t,
* Chrysost. in Matt, xxvi : " OSra (yap) koI ev tS> ^airricrixaTt, Si aiirBijTov
f^ev Trpdy/jaTo^ yiverai tov vSaro^ to Scopov, votjTov Se to alvoTeXovfjievov. For
SO in Baptism, the gift is through the sensible matter of water ; but the
thing completed is intellectual.' So Greg. Naz. Orat. in Sanct. Bapt. :
" AiTTtj Kat, f] Ka6ap(rt<;, St vSaTo^ re (ptjf^t Kai TrvevfAaTO^, tov fjcev QeunpijTUi^ re
Kai (Tc^idariKU)^ Xafjij3avo^evov, tov Se aa-on/^ara)'; Kai a9eo>pijTCi<; a-vvrpexovToi;' Kai
Toii fi€v TvirtKov, TOV Se aXrjdivov, Kai Ta /BdBij KaOaipovTo^.''^ ' Twofold also
is the cleansujg, by water, I say, and by the Spirit : the one visible and
bodily received ; the other concurring incorporeally and invisibly : the
one typical ; the other real, and cleansing the deep things (of the soul).'
t So Bishop Andrewes : " This Spirit (we said) we are to procure, that
it may abide with us, and be in us ; and What is more intrinsicall in u^,
abideth surer, groweth faster to us, than what we eat and drinke ? Then,
if we could get a spirituall meat, or get to drinke of the Spirit, there were
no way to that. And behold, here they be. For, here is spirituall meat,
that is, breeding the Spirit ; and here we are all made drinke of one
Spirit, that there may be but one spirit in us. And we are all made one
bread, and one body, knead together, and pressed together into one (as the
symboles are, the bread, and the wine) ; so many as are partakers of one
bread, and one cup, the bread of life, and the cup of blessing, the Communion
ofthe Body and Bloud of Christ. And," he adds, " in figure of this, even
King David dealt these two (bread and wine) in a kind of resemblance to
ours, when the Arke was to be brought home, and seated among them,"
&c, (Serm. 7. Of the Sending of the Holy Ghost,) Nothing surely can
be more scriptural or truly orthodox than this. And (Lect, in St, Giles's
Nov, 22, 1600, p, 618,) "So it is with the faithfuU {i,e. they fauit)
unlesse this spirituall life be sustained with these outward helpes,"
t " Albeit these elements of water " (i.e, in baptism), "and bread and
wine "

26 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
just as the spiritless forms of Judaism were. It is when they
are received by faith, according to Christ's Holy Institution, as
the Body and Blood of the Redeemer, offered up once for all,
that the saving and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit
can be expected : it is to this alone that they are promised :
and hence, it must be to this alone that they have ever been
given. To the opus operatum (work done) by the Priest, no
greater merit can be ascribed than to any other work : and
we are plainly taught, that it is not hy works, but hy grace
alone, that any flesh can be saved *. Nor again, can any
thing mors be offered to the mere waters of Baptism, or
to the Elements of the Eucharist, than the reverence due to
means, which God has been pleased to grant as " conduit-
pipes " of His saving grace and mercy to the souls of men.
wine " (in the Eucharist), " be weak and beggarly elements,'' (Gal. iv. 9) ;
yet by His power he exalts them the effectual meaiw, to incoi-porate us into
His body, and to set us in that estate wherein we may be saved," (Lec
ture in St. Giles's Church, Nov. 2, 1600, ed, 1657, p, 617,) Again, (ib,
p, 677. Feb. 4, 1598) : " , , . If the material tree of life in Paradise received
such influence from God (Gen, iii,), that, being dead in itselfe, it had
power to convey the natural hfe of our Parents, while they eat (ate) of
the fruit thereof, then is God able as weU to give such a power to the
Creatures of Bread and ^Vine in the Sacrament, that albeit they are dead
of themselves, to convey into us the life of grace, even as the tree of life
did prolong natural life : for so saith Clirist :" (John vi, 43,) Again,
(ib. p, 673) : " For herein we are partakers of that bread of life whicli our
Saviour speaks of (John vi, 57) : ^ I am the bread of life,' &c. : so that
whether it be the fruit of the tree in Paradise, or the bread of Ufe in the
Sacrament, we see there is a great affinity, as appeareth, if we compare
this bread of life with the hidden Manna (Rev. ii. 17) ; which ... (1 Cor.
X, 3) . . . was the same spiritual meat, whereof we are partakers in this
Sacrament ofChrist's body and blood." (Ib, p, 519) : " . . The Sacrament
is of an Heavenly and Earthly nature. . . . Here we have matter offered us
0^ faith ; that, as He used the touching of a cole, to assure the Prophet that
his sins were taken away ; so, in the Sacrament, He doth so elevate a piece
of bread, and a little wine, and make them of such power, that they are
able to take away our siimes .... He can so elevate the meanest of his
creatures," &e. Again, (ib. p. 619) : " But if we come . . . only with a
forme of Giidlinrsse (2 Tim. iii. 5), we may drink the outward object, but
not ofthe spirit."
* Rom. iii. 20, secj.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 27
To adore, or ivorship, either the one or the other, would be to
rob Him of his due ; to worship the creature rather than the
Creator. And, however pious or holy this may seem, it can
be nothing short of superstition of the most foul and dange
rous sort; of the offspring of ignorance, which cannot but
terminate in confusion and ruin.
If this, then, be the case — and I will affirm, both Holy Scrip
ture, and all the orthodox Fathers of the Church of every age
and nation, may be adduced to prove it — What grounds can
there be for supposing, that any essential change in the Ele
ments of the Holy Eucharist really takes place, in order to
make them effectual ; any more than that a similar change
does in the waters of Baptism, or an Apotheosis in the
person of the ministering Priest, for the same purpose ?
I can discover no grounds whatsoever for any such change ;
nor can I anywhere find, either in Holy Scripture, or in the
earliest and ablest of the Fathers, any such doctrine even
hinted at. The means, as means — whatever the Author of
all good may choose to communicate with them — are still
nothing more than means : they cannot, from the nature of
the case, rise to that for which they are employed : they
cannot, I say, be at once both the means used, and the end
sought ; the instruments had recourse to for the acquisition
of some good thing, and also, that good thing itself. And no
more can the Sacraments be the signs of the thing, and the
thing itself signified : this would be at once incongruous, un
scriptural, and heterodox. And yet, if I understand you at
all, this it is the main end of your Sermon to teach.
Section III. — On the Scriptural doctrine of the Eucharist.
Having, then, considered the requirements of Holy Scrip
ture in this case ; laying aside, for a moment, the authority
of the two Prelates, who, as you say, have led you to the
adoption of a strictly literal Interpretation ; let us now con
sider, whether the words of Institution do really require the
literal interpretation which you speak of; and to be left in the
unintelligible situation, in which you have placed them : for

28 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
I hold, with a Prelate greatly the superior of the two men
tioned by you, and with our own Church, that neither Prelate
nor Doctor is to be regarded, who does not preach in accord
ance with Holy Scripture ; and, that no man should be called
upon to believe any thing whatsoever, not recorded therein,
or which may not be proved therefrom.
The words of Institution, then, are found Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28.
and in the parallel places. Of the bread it is said, " This is
my Body " ; of the cup, " This is my Blood." In Luke xxii.
20. " This cup t is the New Testament in my Blood, which is
shed for you." In Matt. " This is my Blood of the New Tes
tament, which is shed for many," &c. In the place in St. Luke
you will observe, the Cup is said to be, the New Testament in
Chrisfs Blood. How is this to be understood literally P It
is impossible. We are compelled, therefore, to have recourse
to figure. The Cup is here put, apparently, for the Wine
which it contained, by a metonymy. Again, this Wine could
not, in its natural character, possibly constitute, or become,
the New Testament or Covenant. This is, perhaps, indispu
table : this place is therefore, figurative also. What is meant
probably, is, This Wine stands for, or represents, the privileges
* Euseb. contra Marcellum, lib. i. p. 4. edit. 1628 : " M^S' 'ETno-KoVoit,
pLfjSe apKOvtrt, fitjSe StSaaKaXot^ 7rpo(rexcu', ei tov rrj'; Trto-Tsco? StatrrpeipoL Tti;
avTwv \oyov, SiSatrKo/jcvoi;." So also Ambrose, B. cxviii. 105 : " Sit ergo
fides tibi itineris tui prsevia, sit tibi iter scriptura divina."
t Ridley, ib. p. 81. "Here I wold knowe whether that Christes
wordes spoken upon the cuppe were not as niightye in worke, and as
eflfectuaU in signification, to all ententes, constructions, and purposes (as
our parlyament men doo speke), as they were uppon the bread. Yf this
be grawnted, which tliinge I thinke no man wiU denye, then further I
reason thus : But the worde (ys) in the wordes spoken uppon the Lordes
bread, doth mightelye signefye (saye theye) the chaunge of the substance
of that which goeth before yt, into the substance of that which followeth
after; that is, of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes
bodie, when Chryst sayetli, This is my bodye. Nowe, then, if Christes
wordes which be spoken upon the cuppe, whiche Paule here reherseth,
be of the same might and power, both in working and signefyinge, then
must this word (ys), when Christ saith, This cuppe is the Newe Testa
ment, ^c, tume the substance of the cuppe into the substance of the
Newe Testament."

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 29
of the New Covenant, to be ratified by my Blood ; which
Blood shall accordingly be shed for you. The same must be
the meaning in Matthew : the " which is shed " (E/c^wo/xevoi')
cannot there be taken literally : for no blood had then been
shed. No ; the Wine evidently was to be taken, as represent
ing something still to be done ; and that was the shedding of
the precious Blood of Christ. Neither of these passages can
therefore be taken literally.
Let us now consider the commentary of St. Paul on this
subject. In I Cor. x. 16, he reasons thus : " The cup of bless
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of
Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of
the Body of Christ ? He speaks here, therefore, of the Cup
of blessing (containing the Wine) as constituting a com
munion {Koivodvia, ' common participation ') of the blood of
Christ; which is also necessarily figurative for affording
the means of a communion of the blood of Christ. In the
act of Institution however, it was not the natural blood
of Christ, as already shewn : it was wine, taken as a repre
sentation of it only that was blessed : and the same must
have been intended here. The terms Cup of blessing, more
over, are said in allusion to the cup of blessing used at the
Paschal Feast of the Jews ; which never did, and never was
supposed to, contain natural blood : and the Christian's cup
of blessing seems here to have taken its place. Nor again
was it blood, but wine, which was drunk on the occasion of
the Institution. Our Lord does not say (Matt. xxvi. 29)
" / will not drink henceforth " of the blood which is in this
cup, but of " this fruit of the vine " ; * that is, in plain terms,
* Ridley against Transub. p. 78. " Both in Matthewe and in Marke
Christes wordes be thus, after the wordes saide upon the cuppe. I say
vnto you (saieth Christe) I will not drinke henseforth of this fruit of the
vine, untill I shaU drinke that newe in my fathers kingedome. Here
note, how Christ caUeth plainelye his cuppe the fruite of the vine tree,
but the fruite of the vine tree is very natural wine : wherfore the natural
substance of the wine doeth remaine stUl in the sacramente of Christes
blonde." Chrysost. ia Matt. xxvi. 29  " « toC yevijfiaro'; ipijcrl t?5
ajuTreA-ou. a/x'TreAo? Se oivov ovx ^^^P yevva. It is worthy of remark too, that
Cyprian, arguing against those who used water in the Sacrament instead
of wine, declares, that His blood, by which we are redeemed, . . . caimot be

30 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
of this wine. And this was the wine contained in that cup,
and which he had just called the New Testament in His Blood ;
and in the parallel place, His Blood.
The bread is, in like manner, termed, in the words of In
stitution, the Body : literally. This (thing, i. e. bread) is my
Body •• not naturally, for that was impossible. It must, in
such case, strictly speaking, have possessed all the distinct
parts of the body — arteries, nerves, muscles, &c. — which is too
absurd to be supposed for a moment. And the same may
be said of the terms used by the Apostle, " tlie communion of
the Body of Christ." Such being the fact in each case, this
language cannot poss'ibly he taken literally. The terms of In
stitution, as well as the comment of the Apostle, puts it
entirely out of the power of human reason to do this.
There is, nevertheless, a way in which these terms may be
taken, at once easy, natural, and Scriptural. It is that which
I have elsewhere * called, " the principle of substitution " ;
be seen in the cup, when wine is wanting to it. " Nee potest videri
sanguis ejus, quo redemti . . . sumus, quando vinum desit caUci," &c.
" Nam cum dicat Christus : Ego sum vitis vera (John xv. 1) ; sanguis
Christi, non aqua est utique, sed vinum," ' AVhen Christ says, I am the
true vine ; the blood of Christ is not water indeed, but wine,' AVliere it is
evident he must have understood this figuratively, Epist. Csecilio fratri,
Ed, Oxon, 1682, p, 148, It, ib, p,160., after touching upon Prov. ix. 1—5.
Gen. xlix. 11. Is, Ixiii, 2., he tells us, that the mention of wine is indeed
so made, that the Blood of the Lord should be understood (thereby) :
" Vini utique mentio ideo ponitur, ut Domini sanguis intelligatur." (See
also ib, p, 152,) Evidently intending to imply, that this rite is declarative
of the sacrifice of Christ, And so Bramhall, as we shaU presently see,
Ib. p. 152. he tells us, that the Lord's cup will so inebriate, that it wUl
make the drinkers sober, that it will reduce the minds (of these) to spiri
tual wisdom. " Calix Doniinicus sic bibentes inebriet, ut sobrios faciat, ut
mentes ad spiritalem sapientiam redigat," &c.
* My Visitation Sermon, with the Notes. Cambridge, 1839. p. 58,—
One of your own Authorities, however, cited in your Appendix, p. 34,
will probably have more weight with you. Bishop Ridley, then, says on
this subject (against Transubstantiation) : " Here it appeareth plainlye,
that Christ caUeth very bread his bodye. For that which he tooke, after
he had given thankes, he brake ; and that which he tooke and brake, he
gave it to his disciples ; and that which he tooke, brake, and gave to his
disciples, he sayd himself of it, This is my bodye. So it appeareth
plainlye that Christ culled verge bread his bodye. But very bread cannot be

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 31
that is, the putting of one thing in language (figuratively),
when another is meant. Of this description are the follow
ing passages : " I am the true vine *." " / am the good Shep
herd." " / am the way, and the truth, and the Ufe" " I am
be his bodye in verye substance therof, therfore it must nodes have an
other meanyng, whiche meanyng appeareth plainlye what it is, by the
next sentence that followeth immediatlie, both in Luke and Paule, and
that is this, Doo this in remembraunce of me ; whervppon it seemeth to
me to be euident, that Christ dyd take bread, and called yt his bodye, for
that he wold institute tlierby a perpetuall remembrance of his bodye,
speciaUy of that smgular benefyte of our redemptyon, which he wold
then procure and purchase unto us by his bodye, vppon the crosse. But
bread retayning stiU his owne very natural substance, may be thus, by
grace, and in a sacramental signification, his bodye, wheras eUes the verie
bread wliich he tooke, brake, and gave them, could not be in any wise
his naturall bodye, for that were confusyon of substances." Against
Transub. Enchuid. Theol. vol. I. p. 76. And again, ib. pp. 81, 82 : " In
the Lorde's wordes whereby he instituted the Sacramente of his blonde,
he useth a figurative speeche. Howe vaine then," adds he, " is it that some
soe earaestlye do saie, as it were an infaUible rule, that in doctrine, and
in the institution of the sacraments, Christ useth no figures, but all his
wordes are to be strained to their proper significations ? When as here,
what so ever thou saieste was in the cuppe, yet neither that, nor the
cuppe it self, was (taking everie woorde in his proper signification) the
Newe Testament. But in understanding that which was in the cuppe,
by the cup, that is a figurative speech. Y^ea, and also thou canste not
verifie or truely saie of tliat (whether thou saiste it was wine, or Christes
blonde) to be the New Testament, without a figure also  So iintrue
is it that some doe write, that Christ useth no figure in the doctrine of
faith, nor in the institution of the Sacramentes." He here gives Augus
tine's rule for determining when we must have recourse to figure, and
iUustrates it after him by John vi. . . . '¦'¦Except ye eate thefleash ofthe
Sonne of Man and drinke his bloud, ye canne not have life in you." He
adds : " This lesson of St. Austen I have therefore the rather sette forth ;
because as it teacheth us to vnderstande that place in Jhon figuratively,
even soe surelye the same lesson, with the example of St. Austen's expo
sition therof, teacheth vs, not only by the same to vnderstande Christes
wordes in the institution ofthe Sacrament, both of his bodie and of his
bloud figuratively, but also the very true mening and understanding of
the same," &c.
* Which Cyprian takes, as just now noticed, to shew how the wine is
to be considered as the blood of Christ. August, also, in Joh. vi. 61 : " Va
catur caro, quod non capit caro. Et ideo magis non capit caro, quia
vacatur caro."

32 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
the door" " This is the true light." To which innumerable
others might be added ; but none of which can possibly be
taken in a natural or unfigurative sense. This, I believe,
all will allow. Why then, I ask, are we not to take the
words of Institution in the same way, when it is obvious
they can be rationally understood in no other ? But, if we
are here to have recourse to miracle, or mystery, for the
purpose either of justifying a literal sense, or of stopping
inquiry; Must we not do the same in all similar instances, if
we would honestly and impartially follow out our own prin
ciples ? I know of no reason for rejecting the literal sense
in any of these cases, except to avoid a monstrous and incon
gruous sense : and the same is the case in the terms of Insti
tution. Let us now turn again to St. Paul's commentary on the
Institution, and see how he has further dealt with this diffi
culty. "For we," says he, "being many, are one bread,
and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread,"
Observe, he does not say, "fVe are all partakers of" that
one real body, or the like, but of that "one bread,''' " The
communion," therefore, " of the body," of which he had just
spoken, he here terms the partaking " of that one bread": and
then, shewing the true effect of this, he adds, " /f e, being
many, are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers,"
&c. ; all of which must, of necessity, be taken figuratively, and
this in the manner just now pointed out ; and the same must
be true of the rest. The Scripture itself therefore makes it
sufficiently clear, that no one of these terms is to be taken
literally; while reason shews, that they cannot be so taken :
and, we shall presently see, your own authorities determine
that they ought not to be so taken. And hence it is, that
the Elements have been termed sacramental* signs, symbols,
* All our elder Divines are very full on this point ; as it is likely they
would be, when combating Romanists on the doctrine of Transubstantia
tion. Of the many places that may be adduced from Bp. Andrewes, take
the following as specimens : -" The Sacrament we shall have besides, and
of the Sacrament wl' may well say hoc crit signum. For a Signe it is ;
and by it, incenictis piicrum, ye shall find this Child " (aUuding to the sign
given

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 33
representations, memorials, and the like, both in ancient and
modern times.
We may now notice a few passages occurring in the Gospel
of St. John, which, as both you and your Teachers consider as
given to the wise men). " For, finding His flesh and bloud, ye cannot
misse but find Him too. And, a signe, not much from this here. For,
Christ, in the Sacrament, is not altogether unlike Christ in the cratch
(manger). " To the cratch we may well liken the husk or outward
symboles of it. Outwardly, it seemes little worth, but is rich of contents ;
as was the crib, this day, with Christ in it. For what are they, but
infirma et egena elementu, weak and poore elements of themselves ; yet, in
them find we Christ. Even as they did, this day, in prcesepe jumentorum,
panem Angelorum, in the beasts' crib, the food of Angels : which very food
our signes both represent and present to us  This is a sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving." (Serm. 1 2. Of the Nativitie.) And again : " Tell
me, wUl the sacrifice commemorative, or the Sacrament communicative, ever
faU more fit, than when that was offered, which we are to commemorate and
communicate withaU 1 " (Serm. 7. Of the Resurrection.) Again : " Nothing
sorteth better than these two Mysteries one with the other ; the Dispen
sation of a Mysterie, with the Mysterie of Dispensation. It doth mani
festly represent ; it doth mystically impart, what it representeth. There
is in it, even by the very Institution, both a Manifestation, and that
visibly to set before us this flesh ; and a mysticall Communication, to
infeoffe us in it, or make us partakers of it. For the Elements : What
can be more properly fit, to represent unto us the union with our Nature,
than tilings that doe unite themselves to our Nature? " (Serm, 3, Ofthe
Nativitie, See also Note to p, 25, from Serm, 7. Of the Sending of the
Holy Ghost,) Elsewhere he speaks of the Elements as the meanes for
obtaining spiritual strength, &c, (Note to p, 23, from Serm, 10. Of the
Nativitie, See also Note to p. 20, where the same is affirmed of the Holy
Mysteries, the outward Elements.) But, How could he have said these
things of the Elements, if he had supposed they had undergone some
ineffable mode oi becoming the real Body of Christ after the words of
consecration? Or, if he had taken the terms of Institution literally?
In such case, they could have been neither signs, .lymbols, means, memo
rials, manifestations, representations, mysterie.^, nor weak and poore elements.
In any sense ; but must in themselves have risen to the dignity of the
thing represented, signified, symbolized, &c., which are necessarily purely
spiritual, as this Author constantly teaches. Hooker says, in your
Appendix, p. 38, " The Sacrament being of itself but a corruptible and
earthly creature "... " They grant that these holy mysteries received in
due manner do instrumentally . . . make us partakers of the grace of that
Body and Blood" tkc  P. 39, " These mysteries, as nails, fasten us to
His very Cross." D

34 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
applying to the Sacrament, cannot but have great weight
with you. In Chap. vi. 33, then, it is said, " The bread of
God is He which cometh down from heaven." It is evident,
from the sequel, that Our Lord is here meant : and if so, his
terming himself " the Bread of God " must necessarily be
taken figuratively, or spirituaUy ; implying, that what bread
is to the body, such is He to the spirit of man.
Again, ib. v. 35 : " He that cometh to me shall never
hunger," &e., must necessarily have a meaning, different
from that naturally attached to these terms : which is evi
dent enough from the term " believeth," in the following and
parallel clause. This is explained in ver. 40, by such being
said to " have everlasting life." The Jews not understanding
this, murmured (ver. 41); which Our Lord reproves ; and (at
verr. 47, 48) repeats this assertion, " He that believeth on me
hath everlasting life, I am the bread of life," '' Your fa
thers," He adds, " did eat manna in the wilderness, and are
dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
that a man may eat thereof, and not die." * Shewing, as
plainly as words can shew, that His meaning differed essen
tially from theirs. They spoke and reasoned after nature ;
He figuratively, and according to the Spiir'it. The same is
obvious from His declarations respecting the eating of His
flesh, from this place to verse 59. All of which receives the
amplest confirmation from verse 63 ; viz, " It is the Spirit
that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that
I speak unto you, they are .spirit, and they are Ufe," From
all whicli it must be evident that His object was, to convince
the Jews of their error ; and, at once, to point out to them
the true drift of His words, and the real object of His mis
sion. Here, I say, a literal interpretation is obviously out of
place, unless indeed we are disposed to place ourselves — as
Dr. Wiseman has most infelicitously placed himself with the
Romanists— in the situation of the infidel Jews : but this,
* August, in Joh. vi. il). " Nam et nos hodie accepimus visibUem
cibiim : sed aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti." , , , .
" \'idetc cvgo fratres, pnnem coelestem spiritaUter manducate " &c.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 35
I suspect, we shall not be very willing to do. From all which,
I think it must appear, that a strictly literal interpretation
cannot be applied, either to the terms of Institution, or to
any part of the New Testament in which this subject is
touched upon.
Section IV. — On the statements of Bishop Andrewes, tending
to shew what his opinions were on the Eucharist,
As to Bishop Andrewes then, who has already been libe
rally quoted, I do not find that he has anywhere discussed
the question, whether the terms of Institution are to be
taken literally, or not : but 1 do find him speaking of the holy
Eucharist in such a way, as to shew, that he could not have
taken them literally: e.g. " For, requisite it was, that, since
we drew our death from the first Adam, by partaking his
substance; semblably, and in like sort, we should partake
the substance of the second Adam, that so we might draw
our life from Him ; should he ingrafted into Him, as the
branches into the vine, that we might receive His sap (which
is His Similitude) ; should be flesh of His flesh, not He of
ours, as before, but we of Flis now : that we might be vege
tate with His Spirit, even with His Divine Spirit, For now
in Him the spirits are so united, as partake one, and partake
the other withal," ( Sermon 2, Of the Resurrection,)
We have here the partaking of His substance, which might
be supposed to intimate a kind of consuhstantiat'ion, as in some
of the extracts given in your Appendix ; but then it is added.
We " should be ingrafted into Him, as the branches into the
vine, that we might receive His sap .... should be flesh
of His flesh .... that we might be vegetate with His Spirit,
even with His Divine Spirit;" which shews — as I think —
beyond all doubt, that a figurative interpretation of the terms
of Institution must have been taken : and when it is said,
" that we might be vegetate with His Spirit, even with His
Divine Spirit, it is as plain as words can make it, that it was
not from the flesh, nor from any supposed consubstantiation
of it, that any benefit was believed to be derived, but from
the influences of the Divine Spir'it alone. Again, " If we aske,
D 2

3(j REMARKS ON THE SERMON
What shall be our meanes of this consecrating ? the Apostle
telleth us (Heb. x. 10), we are sanctified, by the Oblation of
the hodie of Jesus : that is the best meanes to restore us to
that life. He hath said it, and shewed it Himselfe : Hee that
eateth Me shall live hy Me. The words spoken concerning
that are both Spirit and Life ; whether we seeke for the
Spirit, or seeke for Life- Such was the meanes of our death,
by eating the forbidden fruit, the first-fruits of death : and such
is the meanes of our life, by eating the flesh of Christ, the first-
fruits ofl'tfey And it is said, a little lower down: "become
branches of the Vine, and partakers of His nature, and so
of His life and verdure both." And again (ib.), " By these
meanes obtaining the first-fruits of His Spir'it, oi that quicken
ing Spirit." (lb. Serm. 2. Of the Resurrection.)
Here as before, the becoming branches ofthe Tine is quite
sufficient to shew, that no literal interpretation could have
been urged * by this writer : and, as the Elements are spoken
of as means only, it is obvious that no literal reality of the
flesh and blood of Christ could have been intended. Again :
" There wee tast, and there wee see  There we are made
to drinke of the Spirit. There our hearts are strengthened and
stabl'ished with grace. There is the hloud whicli shall purge
our consciences from dead works, whereby wee may die to sinne.
There, the bread of God, which shall endue our soules with
much strength; yea, multiply strength in- them, to live unto
God." . ..." In Christ, dropping upon us the anointing of
His grace. In Jesus, who will be readie, as our Saviour, to
succour and support us, v,ith His auji ilium speciale. His spe
ciali helpe." cSerni. 1, Of the Resurrection,)
Here, the drinking in of the Sjjirit, and the strengthening and
establishing irith grace, as well as the anointing of the grace
of Christ, must powerfully remind us, that the bread of God,
here spoken of, could have been taken in no literal sense ; and
that the Element, considered in itself alone, contained no
saving power. Again, speaking of Christ as the Vine, he
Si) Hooker, ill your Appendix, p, 37 : "The Broad and Cup are
His Body ami Blood , because they are causes instrumental " &c.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 37
says : " And the gathering or vintage of these two, in the
blessed Eucharist, is (as I may say) a kind of hypostaticall
union of the Signe, and the thing signified, so united together,
as are the two natures of Christ .... That even as, in the
Eucharist, neither part is evacuate or turned into the other,
but abide each still in his former nature and substance ; no
more is either of Christ's natures annulled, or one of them
converted into the other." &c. (Serm. 16. Ofthe Nativitie.)
Whence it appears, that this Divine did not believe the
Elements became, or were turned into, the real Body and
Blood of Christ : and, accordingly, that he did not take the
terms, " This is my body " &c. literally. Again : " And, there
is in it a perfect representation of the substance of this verse
and text, set before our eyes. Wherein, two poore Elements,
of no great value in themselves, but that they might well be
refused, are exalted by God to the estate of a Divine My
sterie, even of the highest Mysterie in the Church of Christ.
.... First uniting us to Christ the Head*, whereby we grow
* Hooker, in your Appendix, p. 38 : " Every such receiver doth thereby
incorporate or unite himself unto Christ, as a mystical member of Him "
..." to whom the Person of Christ is thus communicated, to them He
giveth by the same Sacrament His Holy Spirit," &c. So August, in
Joh. vi. 51 : " Fiant Corpus Christi, si volunt vivere de spiritu Christi."
And Hooker again, in your own Notes, (p. 11. Serm.) : " The mixture of
His bodOy substance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers dis
claim. Yet the mixture of His flesh with ours they speak of, to signify
what our very bodies, through mystical conjunction, receive from that vital
efficacy which we know to be in His." And, to put aU out of doubt, he
adds, — which affords an admirable key to the right understanding of the
Fathers, — " And from bodily mixtures they borrow diverse similitudes
rather to declare the truth, than the manner of coherence between His sacred
and the sanctified bodies of saints." Which is but an echo of BramhaU's
caution presently to be noticed, and may serve to explain all the places
occun'ing in your Notes, in which the mingling, commingling, immingling,
inqualitied, commixture, co-uniting, &c. of Christ's Body with those of
bis Followers, is mentioned. I must notice (p. 8.) a mistake, as I think,
in one of your translations of the Greek of Cyril Alex. : " Is it not," is
your rendering, "that it may make Christ to dweU in us corporally also
(ap' oirxl Kai o-MfioTiKw;)." Which, I think, ought to be bodily, not corpo
rally ; and so you yourself have translated it in the very next page,
("o-uveirAaicjj (TMyuaTiKw?, were bodily entwined"). You cannot but see, that it

38 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
into one frame or building, into one body mysticall, with
Him. And againe, uniting us also, as liv'ing stones, or lively
members, omnes 'in id-ipsum, one to another, and all together
in one, by mutuall love and charitie." ..." And againe :
Unum corpus omnes sumus, qui de uno Pane participamus.
All wee that partake of one Bread, or Cup, grow all into one
Bodie mysticall:" (Serm. 6. Of the Resurrection.) Where
it must be evident, that although the Elements are spoken
of as elevated into the estate of a Divine Mystery, this
mystery is of a spiritual nature, and such as to afford
purely spiritual privileges. The union which it affords
in Christ is also spiritual, as is that of Believers with one
it is a very different thing to say, that Christ dweUs corporally in us, and
that he dwells bodily in us ; i, e. in our bodies. The former, however,
suited your theory better : and it affords a very good Ulustration of your
views on this subject. You teU us moreover (p, 9, Notes), that Greg,
Nyss, has very fully developed this doctrine (Cateeh, Orat, c, 37. ) But,
you have not seized the true sense of your author. Gregory means
nothing more than Andrewes does, when speaking on this subject. He
sets out by telling us, that, as man consists of both soul and body, it is
necessary that those who shall be saved, should follow on towards Him
who is the leader of life. TAe sou^ therefore, being mixed with Him by
faith, hence obtains the opportunity of salvation. And, a Uttle lower
down, after speaking of the natural means of supporting and preserving
the body from death— evidently aUnding to the Eucharist -he says:
Wherefore, it is necessary to receive the life-giving power of the Spirit, after
the maimer possible to nature, ' Ovkovv eTavayKe^ Kara rov Swarow tJ <pijaei
TpoTTov Ttjv l^oioivoiov Svvapiv TOV TTi'eu^aros Se^acrOai. And again, sliewmg
that the bread undergoes no change, beyond that of ' becoming .sanctified by
the word of God and prayer ; not proceeding on to the Body of the AVord,
through the act of eating and drinking; but being forthwith changed
to ' (the condition of being caUod and considered) ' the Body of the Word,
as it was said by the Word, This ;« my Body '; he concludes, that, ' by the
dis/>en.s-(ition of His Grace, He sows Himself (as seed) through the flesh,
in all believers.' As this last place is important, and has been cited by
Romanists to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I wUl give the
Greek of it : " 'EvTavOa te wo-auTcot o apTO'; . . . aytal^eTat Sia A0701' deov Kai
evrev^cctx;, ov Sia /3pwcreco? koi Troo-ems Trpo'tcov eiV to craiiua tov \oyov, aW' ev6v^
l7po<; TO (Tijofja TOV A070U peTairotovfjei'o^, Kadw^ e'ipi]Tat utto tov Xoyov OTt tovto,
K.T.A  TovTov xcipiv iracrt Tots TreTna-revKoa-i r^ oiKovo^ici tt}^ x^P^'ro^ eavTov
evcTiretpet Sm tiJ? crapKos." AVhich is just what Andrewcs and Bramhall
have vivtuullv said.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 39
another. These Elements are made to represent the Body
and Blood, or, the Flesh and Blood, of the Redeemer;
but the union is not fleshly, it is purely spiritual Whenever,
therefore, our Author speaks of the flesh, as the means of
union, he must be understood as intending an union in the
Spirit. He could not here, therefore, have taken the terms
of Institution in their literal sense. Once more : " Christ
Himselfe touched upon this point (John vi. 62), when at
Capernaum they stumbled at the speech of eating his flesh.
What (saith He) finde you this strange, now ? How will you
finde it, then, when you shall see the Sonne of man ascend up
where He was before 9 How, then ? And yet, then you must
ea,t, or else there is no life in you. So, it is a plaine item to
her, that there may be a sensual touching of Him, here; but
that is not it; not the right; it availes little. It was her
errour, this : she was all for the corporall presence ; for the
touch with fingers. So were His Disciples, all of them, too
much addicted to it. From which they were now to be
weaned : that, if they had, before, knovpiie Christ, or touched
Him after the flesh ; yet now, from hence- forth, they were to
doe so no more, but to learne a new touch ; to touch Him,
being now ascended. Such a touching there is; or else his
reason holds not. . . . Christ resolves the point, in that very
place. The flesh, the touching, the eating it, profits nothing.
The words He spake, were spirit ; so, the touching, the eating,
to be spirituall. And Saint Thomas, and Mary Magdalene,
or whosoever touched Him here on earth, nisi foelicius fide
quam manu teiigissent, ii they had not been more happy to
touch Him with their faith, than with their fingers' end, they
had had no part in Him ; no good by it at all. It was found
better with it, to touch the hemme* of His garment ; than,
without it, to touch any part of His body. Now," continues
he, " if faith be to touch, that will touch Him no lesse in
heaven than here : one, that is in heaven, may be touched so.
No ascending can hinder that touch. Faith will elevate itself,
* August, in Joh. vi. 44 : " lUa tangit, turba premit. Quid est tetigit,
nisi credidit ? " i&c.

40 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
that, ascending in spirit, wee shall touch Him, and take hold
of Him, Mitte fidem et tenuisti : It is Saint Augustine. It is
a touch, to which there is never a Noli : feare it not. So doe
we, then, send up our faith, and that shall touch Him, and
there will vertue come from Him : and it shall take hold on
Him, as it shall raise us up, to where He is." (Serm. 15. Of
the Resurrection.)
Nothing surely can be more full, more Scriptural, or more
satisfactory, than this. It represents Faith as the only means
by which the Saviour can be touched by us : the eating even
of Christ's flesh, without this, as profitless and unavailing ; as
it also does every sensual approach to them. And again, this
approach to Christ, this eating of His flesh, must be a spiri
tual act, raising the soul even to heaven by faith; and thence
is derived the virtue, which is to come from Him; and thence
only is it to be expected. Could this have grown out of a
literal interpretation of the terms of Institution ? My own
impression is, that, from a literal interpretation, no such
sense could have been derived, or could under such be tole
rated : and it is the fact, that where the literal interpreta
tion is contended for, no such doctrine is ever found : and of
this, your Sermon affords sufficient proof.
Section V. — On the statements of Archbishop Bramhall on
the Holy Eucharist.
Come we now to Archbishop Bramhall. One of the pas
sages in this writer, upon which your opinion of his senti
ments seems to have been formed, was perhaps this ; viz.
" We find as different expressions among these primitive
Fathers, as among our modern writers at this day; some
calling the Sacrament, the sign of Chrisfs Bodie, the figure of
his Bodie, the symbol of his Bodie, the mysterie qf his Bodie, the
cxemphrr type and representation of his Bodie, saying, that the
Elements do not recede from their A^ature ; others naming it,
the true Bodie and Blood of Christ, changed, not in shape, hut
in nature ; yea, doubting not to say, that in this Sacrament
we see Christ, ice touch Christ, we eat Christ, that we fasten our
leeth ill his very Flesh, and make our tongues red in his Blood.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY, 41
Yet, notwithstanding there were no Questions, no Quarrels,
no Contentions amongst them ; there needed no Councils to
order them, no Conferences to reconcile them, because they
contented themselves to believe what Christ had said, This is
My Bodie, without presuming, on their own heads, to deter
mine the manner how it is his Body * ; neither weighing all
* Not, " how it becomes His Body," i. e. undergoes some ineffable change,
but, in what way the Spiritual Presence of the Saviour accompanies the
Elements ; affirming that the Elements recede not from their nature, and
that they are a sign or representation &c, of His Body, They also style
them the true Body and Blood; say that in these they see Christ, eat Him,
fasten their teeth in Him, &c, ; without intending, by these terms, to
determine any change in the matter of the Elements, or to define any
thing whatever on the mode of the operation of the Pre.wnce. See ahso,
a Uttle lower down, where BramhaU denies that these terms prove
any thing. Notwithstanding this, you seem to have felt no hesitation
in determining, that he meant to affirm that the Elements do so become
the Body of Christ, that we may fasten our teeth in His flesh, make our
tongues red with His blood, &c. ; and hence, that the terms, " This is my
Body" &c, must necessarily be taken Uterally, May I not ask, What
induced you to seize on these particular expressions, rather than on those
which precede them ; viz. " the sign of Christ's Bodie," " the symbol," &c.
which would have proved equally weU, that BramhaU did not understand
these terms literally ? The true cause of aU this, no doubt, was the
superstitious notions about Consubstantiation, in which you have aUowed
3'ourself to be involved. Hence we have, usque ad nauseam, in their most
Uteral acceptation, the expressions, " the tongue reddened with the most
aweful Blood" — " Thou seest all reddened with that precious Blood" — " The
member " (the tongue) " whereby we receive the aweful Sacrifice " — " We are
dyed red within and without," ..." The blood of the true Paschal Lamb
upon your lips," (Serm, p, 23, note). And, indeed, as far as I can under
stand you, aU you say about the Eucharist is to be taken in its strictly
literal sense. Yet, I wiU affirm, that not one of these instances of bad
taste occurs in the Fathers, without some clue given, sufficient to guard us
against this literal and disgusting acceptation of them : e.g, " Cruci lisere-
mus, sanguinem sugimus, et intra ipsa redemtoris nostri vulnera figimus
linguam : quo iuterius exteriusque rubricati," &o. The same writer tells
us nevertheless, that " Non tam corporali, quam spiritali transitione
Christo nos uniri," And again, " Non quod usque ad consubstantialitatem
Christi " . . . " solus quippe Filius Patri consubstantialis est." A little
above, " Usque ad participationem Spiritus," And again : " Spiritali nos
instmens documento," &c, De Coena Domini, A Tract usuaUy ascribed
to Cyprian. Edit. Oxon. 1682, p, 40, seq.

42 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
their own words so exactly before any Controversie was
raised, nor expounding the sayings of other men contrary to
the Analogy of Faith," (Answer to M, de la Militiere, p,16,)
And again (ib. p. 21): " This is the reason why we rest in
the words of Christ, This is My Body, leaving the manner "
(i. e, of the Presence) " to Him that made the Sacrament : we
know it is sacramental, and therefore efficacious ; because God
was never wanting to his own Ordinances, where man did not
set a Bar against himself. But whether it be corporeally or
spiritually ([ mean not only after the manner of a Spirit,
but in a spiritual sense) ; whether it " (the Presence) " be in
the soul onely, or in the Host also ; whether by Consub
stantiation or Transubstantiation ; whether by Production, or
Adduction, or Conservation, or Assumption, or by whatso
ever other way bold and blind men dare conjecture, we deter
mine not. Motum sentimus, modum nescimus, presentiam cre-
dimus. And again (ib. p. 15), in a passage cited in your
Appendix, p. 63: "Christ said. This is my Body; what He
said, we do stedfastly believe. He said not after this or that
manner, neque con., neque suh, neque trans ; and therefore we
place it among the opinions of the Schools, not among the
Articles of our Faith,"
From these and similar passages you probably learnt,
after this Writer, to take the terms, " This is my Body," in a
literal sense. If not, I am at a loss to conceive what could
have led you to this notion ; as I find no place in which he
has particularly considered this text. Let us inquire, whether
it is probable Archbishop Bramhall did understand these
terms literally, as far as his reasoning will assist us.
From the first of these places, in which the Sacrament is
styled by the Fathers, fhe sign of Chrisfs Bodie, and the like,
it seems, I think, that the Archbishop did not intend to insist
upon a strictly literal 'interpretcdion of the terms in question.
If he had, the expressions used could not have been cordially
received by him ; as I presume they cannot by you and
your school : while, from the concluding one, viz. " In this
Sacrament we see Christ, wp touch Christ, we eat Christ, we
fasten our leeth in his vrry flesh, and make our tongues red in

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 43
his blood"— had he taken the terms of Institution literally—
he would have given us reason, somewhere or other, to be
lieve, that he did not in any way dissent. Let us see how
this matter stands.
He tells us then (ib. p. 16), that " Berengarius, if we may
trust his adversaries, knew no mean between a naked figure,
or empty sign of Christ's presence, and a Corporeal or Local
presence, and afterwards fell into another extreme of impa-
ration : on the other side, the Pope and the Council made no
difference between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation :
they understood nothing of the spiritual or indivisible being
of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament," &c 
" What the Faith of Pope Nicholas and this Synod was, fol
lows in the next words : That the Bread and Wine, which
are set upon the Altar after Consecration, are not onely the
Sacrament, hut the very Bodie and Blood of Christ, This
seems " adds he, " to favour Consubstantiation, rather than
Transubstantiation."— Which, one would think, is sufficient
to shew that he did not hold this doctrine ; and consequently,
that he did not understand the terms, " this is my Body," in
a strictly literal sense, as you have done. He adds : '' If the
Bread and Wine be the Body and Blood of Christ, then they
remain Bread and Wine still " : that is, as I understand him,
they have undergone no change in their essence. He adds,
" If the Bread be not onely the Sacrament, but also the thing
of the Sacrament ; if it be both the sign and the thing sig
nified; how is it now to be made nothing? " * " It follows
in the Retractation, That the Bodie and Blood of Christ is
sensibly, not onely in the Sacrament, but in truth handled, and
broken by the hand of the Priest, and bruised by the teeth of
the faithful. If it be even so," continues he, "there needs no
more but feel and be satisfied." — By whicli he seems to say,
that the real and very Body of Christ is not there. " To this,"
continues he, " they made Berengarius swear, &c. . . . yet
these words did so much scandalize and offend the Glosser
* Alluding to the notion, that, upon the Bread and Wine becoming
the Body and Blood of Christ, these Elements, as Bread and Wine, cease
to exist.

44 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
upon Gratian, that he could not forbear to admonish the
Reader, that unless he understood those words in a sound sense,
he would fall into a greater Heresie than that (/Berengarius.
Not without reasons," adds Bramhall ; " for the most favour
able of the School- men do confess, that these words {i.e. of
Institution) are not properly and literally true, hut figura
tively anc? METONYMiCALLY, Understanding the thing containing
by the thing contained ; as to say the Body of Christ is broken or
bruised, because the quantity or species of Bread are broken and
bruised*. They might as well say, that the Bodie and Blood
of Christ becomes fusty and sower, as often as the species of
Bread and Wine before their corruption become fusty and
sower. But," he adds, " the Retractation of Berengarius can
admit no such figurative sense ; that the Bodie and Blood of
Christ in the Sacrament are divided and bruised .sensibly, not
onely in the Sacrament (that is, the .species), but also in truth.
A most ignorant Capernaitical assertion." — That is, as I un
derstand it, the figurative interpretation of the terms of Insti
tution, adverted to above, cannot be applied to the Retracta
tion forced upon Berengarius : and therefore the assertion,
that the Body and Blood of Christ are sensibly divided and
bruised, not only in the species, but in the reality, is a most
ignorant and Judaizing assertion, such as that (John vi. 52,
seq.) at Capernaum. For he goes on to say, " The Body of
Christ being not in the Sacrament modo quantitativo, accord-
to their own tenet ; but indivisibly, after a spiritual manner,
without extrinsical extension of parts, cannot in itself, or in
truth'''' (reality) "be either divided or bruised."
Again, a little lower down (ib. p. 17): "Neither will it
avail them at all, that the Fathers have sometimes used such
expressions of seeing Christ in the Sacrament, oi fastening our
teeth in His flesh, and making our tongues red in His hloodf.
There is a great difference between a Sermon to the People,
and a solemn Retractation before a Judo-e." He adds —
* So Ridley, cited above, p. 8, seq.
t This very important part of BramhaU has, for some reason or other
not difficult to lie imagined, been omitted both in your Notes and Appen
dix. Hooker also to tho same effect, p. 37, note.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY.

45

apparently for the purpose of putting his own opinion be
yond all possible doubt—" The Fathers do not say that such
expressions are true, not only Sacramentally or figuratively (as
they made Berengarius both say and accurse all others that
held otherwise), hut also properly, and in the things them
selves. The Fathers," he continues, " never meant by these
Forms of speech to determine the manner of the Presence . . .
but to raise the Devotion of their Hearers and Beaders ; to ad
vertise fhe People of God, that they should not rest in the exter
nal symbols, or SIGNS, but principally be intent upon the invi
sible GRACE."
From all which, I think, the following propositions, as to
the opinions of Bramhall, are clearly deducible. First : Both
Berengarius, and his accusers the Romanists, with Pope
Nicholas at their head, were ignorant ; he (Berengarius), of
the true spiritual presence of Christ in the Sacrament: they,
of the true distinction between Consubstantiation and Tran
substantiation. Whence it should seem, that Bramhall held
the real spiritual Presence of Christ in this Sacrament.
Secondly, If either of these parties held that " the Bread
and Wine were* the Body and Blood of Christ;" to make
* That is, called, or named, the Body, &c. To the same effect
Ambrose, De Sacram. Ub. v. cap. iv. : " Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi "
(ie. of Institution), "quod oflfertur, panis dicatur : ubi Christi verba
deprompta fuerint, jam non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur," The
place alluded to is, probably, lb, lib, iv, cap, iv, : " Panis iste panis est ante
verba sacramentorum : ubi acoesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi."
, . . "Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum," . . . " Jussit Do
minus et factum est, ccelum " &c. . . "Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone
Domini Jesu, ut inciperent esse quse non erant : quanto magis operatorius
est ut sint quce erant, et in aliud commutentur ? " His illustration makes
all perfectly clear : " Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed
post consecrationem dioo tibi quod jam corpus est Christi  Tu ipse
eras, sed eras vetus creatura : posteaquam consecratus es, nova crcatvra
esse ccepisti." ..." Omnis, , . in Christo nova creatura." ..." Amarus
erat fons, misit lignum sanctus Moyses in fontem, et factus est dulcis fons
qui amarus erat: hoc est, mutavit consuetudincm naturse suse, accepit
dulcedinem gratia." All the change here meant is, therefore, a change in
the manner, or condition, of the nature spoken of, not of the nature itself,
and this by a supervening grace.

46 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
this good, no elemental change could have taken place in the
Bread and Wine : for, these Elements, being now put for the
Body and Blood, could consistently be considered only as
standing for these; and, consequently, they could be sub
jected to no change in their real natures. This, he seems to
say, the terms of such proposition actually require.
Thirdly, If the Bread and Wine constituted, not only the
thing signified by the Sacrament, but also the sign of it ; then,
to suppose these Elements to be annihilated by the words of
consecration, is an absurdity in terms. Whence we may
conclude, that this was not Bramhall's creed ; and further,
that he believed in no mysterious change of the Elements.
Fourthly, As the most favourable of the School-men, accord
ing to Bramhall, held that the terms of Institution were not
to be understood properly and literally, but figuratively only,
and this metonymically ; and, as such figurative interpreta
tion could not be applied to the terms of the Retractation
forced upon Berengarius, which must be taken, as he affirms,
in the literal Jewish sense (urged by the objectors at Ca
pernaum) ; then, I say, it is clear, that Bramhall's opinion
could not have been this latter one, for he condemns it ; but
the former one. And this requires a figurative, not a literal,
interpretation of the terms of Institution.
Fifthly, Bramhall offers no objection — as already noticed —
to the expressions of the Fathers who style the Sacrament,
the sign of Chrisfs Bodie : while he does to the assumption,
that these, viz. fastening our teeth in His flesh, &c,, were
intended by them so to be understood, as determining a
mode of Transubstantiation in the Elements, All that these
Fathers meant was — as he affirms — to raise the devotion of
their Hearers and Readers ... to advertise the People of
God, that they should not rest in the external symbols, or signs,
that is, the Elements, but pr'incipaUy to be intent upon the in
visible grace, to be had from the Spir'ttual Presence of Christ
in the Sacrament.
So far then. Archbishop Bramhall does determine, that the
mode of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is spiritual.
And this must, of necessity, be apprehended by Faith.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 47
Which is, as we have seen, just what Bishop Andrewes taught ;
and is what the nature of the case, and the Scriptures them
selves, require ; while neither of these has attempted to de
termine metaphysically, what a Spiritual Presence is, how it
acts, or to what extent, at each and every receiving of the
Sacrament. It must appear from the following passages also, that
Bramhall could not have taken the terms of Institution in
their strictly literal sense. " I take no notice now," says he,
" of those remote suspicions or suppositions of the possi
bility of want of intention, either in the Priest that con
secrates the Sacrament, or in him that baptized, or in the
Bishop that ordained him, or in any one through the whole
line of succession ; in all which cases (according to your own
principles) you give Divine Worship to corporeal Elements,
which is at least material Idolatry." — If the Elements be
material only, according to Bramhall, after consecration ; then
can they not be, according to him, the very and real Body and
Blood of Christ, even after any spiritual or ineffable manner :
(Ib.p. 31).
Again (ib.) : " But I cannot omit, that the Council of Trent
is not contented to enjoyn the adoration of Christ in the
Sacrament (which we never deny), but of the Sacrament
itself* (that is, according to the common current of your
School-men, the accidents or species of bread and wine,
because it contains Christ). Why do they not add, upon the
same grounds, that the pix is to be adored with Divine Wor
ship, because it contains the Sacrament ? Divine honour is
not due to the very humanity of Christ, as it is abstracted
from the Deity ; but to the whole Person, Deity, and
Humanity, hypostaticall y united. Neither the Grace of
Union, nor the Grace of Unction, can confer more upon the
Humanity than the Humanity is capable of. There is no
such union between the Deity and the Sacrament, neither imme-

* That is, the figment of a real conversion of the Elements, which you
would have us to believe that Andrewes had taught you to adore, as
noticed above.

48 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
diately, nor yet mediately, mediante corpore *." (See also Note
to p. 9 above.) Here as before, the Sacrament is not to be
worshipped ; and the reason given is. Because the Deity is
not united ivith it, either immediately, or even mediately by
means of the Body. According to Bramhall therefore, the
Elements contain in themselves, neither immediately nor
mediately, the Divine nature of Christ. Bramhall could not,
therefore, have taken, as you have done, the terms " This is
my Body"" &c. in their strictly literal sense. Again (ib. p. 39) :
" Surely you cannot think that Christ did actually sacrifice
himself at His last Supper t (for then he had redeemed the
world at His last Supper, then his subsequent sacrifice upon
the Cross had been superfluous), nor that the Priest now doth
more than Christ did then. We do readily acknowledge an
Eucharistical sacrifice of Prayers and Praises ; we profess a
commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and, in lan
guage of Holy Church, things commemorated are related as
if they WERE then acted^ ; as. Almighty God, ivho hast given
us Thy Son [as this day] to he horn of a pure Virgin. And,
' * In direct contradiction to the doctrine which you have endeavoured,
as we shall presently see, to extract from Chrysostom, Ephrem Syrns,
Hilary, and CyrU of Alexandria.
t This we shall have occasion to notice hereafter, when we come to
p, 21 of your Sermon,
1 See my Visitation Sermon, sect, I. '¦'¦ On the principle of verbal substi
tution of one thing for another prevailing in the Holy Scriptures," where
this consideration is prosecuted at some length. Hence it is, that Am
brose terms the Eucharistical Sacrifice, Oblatio asscripta: e.g. (De Sacram.
lib. iv. cap. v.) " Dicit Sacerdos : Fac nobis, inquit, hanc oblationem
«.s.?cr(pta?n, rationabilem , acceptabilem : quod est figura corporis et san
guinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi." . . . And, a little lower down : " Ergo
non ociose tu dicis Amen, jam in spiiitu con_^toi* quod accipias corpus
Christi." I have shewn in mj^ Sermon (Notes, p, 79, seq ) that as,
Gr, ws, will generally supply the ellipsis, in most of the constructions of
this sort ; c. g, " This is," as " my Body," &c. And so Cyril of Jerusalem
has spoken of the Eucharist : " Mera iramiq TrXijpotpoplac:, "OS o-wyuaro? koi
a'lyuaTo? fieTaXafifJavwfiev. And SO Clirysost, in the Notes to your Sermon,
p, IG; "He is found as one substance with Him (I,/ "£22 77,00; avTov)."
And, it is added : " Commingled as it were, and inimingled with Him
{crvi'a!'aKpiyd;.tevoc; wtrTrep, k.t.X-).

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 49
Whose praise the younger Innocents have [this day] set forth.
And between the Ascension and Pentecost, Which hast exalted
thy Son Jesus Christ with great triumph into heaven, we
beseech thee leave us not comfortless, hut send unto us thy Holy
Spirit. We acknowledge," he adds, " a Representation of
that Sacrifice to God the Father, we acknowledge an Impe
tration of the benefit of it, we maintain an Application of its
vertue : So here is a Commemorative, Impetrative, Applica
tive Sacrifice. Speak distinctly," continues he, " and I cannot
understand what you can desire more. To make it a Sup-
pletory Sacrifice, to supply the defects ofthe onely true Sacri
fice of the Cross, I hope both you and I abhor," — Nothing
surely can be more distinct and clear than this. If the
Priest does in the Sacrament, no more sacrifice or offer up
Christ, than Christ (our Priest) offered up Himself at the Last
Supper, then it is certain, that neither can we offer up the
real and natural Body of Christ in the Sacrament* ; and
it must necessarily follow, that Bramhall could not have
taken the terms " This is my Body " &c. in their proper and
strictly literal sense. And this is amply confirmed by what
follows, when he tells us, that the Sacrament is a sacrifice of
Prayers and Praises ; that it is, as such, commemorative of
the Sacrifice of the Cross : the language here implying an
act performed, representing (as it were dramatically) the
one great sacrifice, by which alone salvation is to be had.
Once more, Bramhall thus addresses M. de la Militiere
(ib. p. 42) : " I meddle not with your Treatise : some of your
learned Adversaries' Friends will give you your hands full
enough. But how," adds he, " can his Majesty protect or
patronize a Treatise against his judgement, against his Con
science, contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England,
* To the same effect Cyprian : " Nam si Jesus Christus, Dominus et
Deus noster, ipse est suinmus sacerdos Dei Patris; et sacrfficium Patri se
ipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem prsecepit :
utique Ule sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit,
imitatur." He adds, to shew that this is to be spiritually understood :
" Ceterum omnis religionis et veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi id quod
spiritaUter praecipitur, et fideliter reservetur." Epist, Ixiii, p, 148. edit.
Oxon.

50 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
not only since the Reformation, but before ,? About the
year 700, " The Body * of Christ wherein he suffered, and his
Body consecrated in the Host, differ much. The Body wherein
he suffered was horn ofthe Virgin, consisting of flesh and hones,
and humane members : his Spiritual Body, which we call the
Host, consists of many Grains, without blood, hones, or humane
members: wherefore nothing is to be understood there Corpo
rally, but all Spiritually t-"
You will observe here, that Bramhall quotes this extract
as containing the doctrine of the Church of England; and
hence necessarily, that holden by himself. The distinction too,
and difference, to be observed between the Body consecrated
in the Elements, and that horn of the Virgin, cannot but
strike you as obvious, direct, and positive. I am led to con
clude therefore here, that, as the Body consecrated is said to
be one thing, and the Body horn of the J irgin, and which
suffered, is determined to be another, — the one considered as
corporeal, the other entirely spiritual, — neither the origi
nal author of this Extract, nor Bramhall who quotes it, could
have taken the terms " This is my Body'" &c. in their
strictly literal sense. Nor further, can I find any one passage,
either in Bp. Andrewes or Abp. Bramhall, — including of
course the passages cited in your Appendix, — from which
any such proposition can be fairly deduced.
No, my dear Sir ; the truth evidently is, that, notwithstand
ing Bramhall's caution, viz. that the Fathers did not intend
such expressions as these ; — " the true Body and Blood of
Christ," "we see Christ," "we touch Christ," "we eat Christ," "we
fasten our teeth in his very fesh," and "make our tongues red
with his Blood," — to be understood literally, not only sacra
mentally or figuratively, (in the sense in which they were
forced upon Berengarius), but also properly, and in the things
* "Serm. Saxon infcsta Pascliat."
t So Cyprian: "Quo et ipso sacramente populus noster ostenditur
adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum coUecta, et commolita,
et commixta, panem unum faciunt : sic in Christo qui est panis coelestis,
unum sciainus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numenis et aduna
tus." Epist. bdn. p. 164. And agaui more fully, Epist. box. p.l82.ib.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 51
themselves : — notwithstanding this caution, I say, you have
so taken them*, in direct opposition both to his express
opinions, and to his expressed caution. You have then pro
ceeded to condemn all teaching opposed to your own, as
defective and wrong, and to recommend a system which you
seem to be afraid to explain, but which, you aver, rests parti
cularly on the authority of these two Prelates : which, how
ever, is not the fact; their preaching being in strict accor
dance with that of the best interpretation of Holy Writ, and
with the requirements of the case.
Section VI. — On certain passages occurring in the body of
the Sermon.
You will excuse me if I now notice a few passages oc
curring in your Sermon, in which, as it appears to me, you
have, — in accordance with your literal view of the terms of
Institution, — advanced and recommended a doctrine contrary
to that of the Church of England, of Andrewes, of Bramhall,
and of all the Orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church, It
is not my intention here, — as I wish to be short, — to notice
many questionable places occurring in your Sermon. I shall
confine myself to those solely, which touch on the Eucharist.
In page 7, then, you tell us, that " He answers not the
strivings of the Jews, ' How can this man give us his flesh to
eat ? ' Such an ' How can these things be ? ' He never
answereth : and we, if we are wise, shall never ask how they
can be elements of this world, and yet His very Body and
Blood. But how they give us life," you continue, " He does
answer." Here is brought into practical operation the error
already noticed; viz. the assumption, that the consecrated
Elements become, by virtue of some spiritual, yet ineffable,
mode of process, the very real and natural Body and Blood of
Christ, contrary to the opinions of your teachers Andrewes
and Bramhall ; — and then, for the purpose of giving counte-
* Here again, you make all the mystery of the Eucharist to consist in
the consideration, that the Elements are styled His Body and Blood : and
from this, as before, you deprecate inquiry, as if something aUied to your
consubstantial notions would necessarily follow.
e 2

52 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
nance to this, you misinterpret and misapply the teaching of
Our Blessed Lord on this subject. " He "answers not," you
tell us, " the strivings of the Jews, 'How can 'this man give
us his flesh to eat?' Such an ' How can these things be?' "
you continue, " He never answereth," &c. Let me ask you.
Are you quite sure that He has never answered this
" how " ? * My impression is, that He has answered this
"how:" and for this, I think lean cite the ^authority of one
of your teachers at least ; I mean Bp. 'Andrewes. " Christe
himselfe," says Andrewes, "touched upon this point (John
vi, 62,), when at Capernawm they " (the ^ Jews) "stumbled at
the speech of eating His flesh. What (saith He) finde you
this strange now ? How will you finde it, then, when you
shall see the Sonne of Man ascend up where He was before f
How then?" Andrewes asks, "And yet," continues he,
" then you must eat, or else there is no life in you,"
" Christ," he adds, " resolves the point, in ^that very place,"
(i,e. He answers the " how,") " The flesh, the touching, the
eating it, profits nothing. The words He spake, were SjMrit :
so, the touching, ihe eating to be spiritual," He o-oes on'to
tell us, that the touching of Our Lord in heaven must he by
faith (see p, 39, where the whole passage is given t). According
* For this, I think, you must have been indebted to Dr, Wiseman, who
says much the same thing. See my Visitation Sermon and^Notes, p. 91,
with the references.
t And to the same effect CyrU Alex, on the same place. Com in Joh
lib, iv, c, iii, p, 374, seq. Cyril says on v. 63 : " When they heard him say.
Verily, verily^ &c., they understood Mm as inviting them to some beastlike
repast, as enjoining on them inhumanly the eating of flesh and the drinking
of blood, and forcing them to do things, which to hear only are frightful
They knew not what the excellency ofthe mystery was . . . How (said thev)
shall a human body implant in us eternal life ? . .. Christ therefore knowirig
their counsels . . . lead them (as) by the hand, (and) again ministers to the
apprehending ofthe things unknown {i.e. pomts them out) , , . If ve'^ there
fore, see the Son of Man ascending to heaven, what wUl ye then sav?
For this is equally impossible to the flesh ...But when Be said HesL'.JH
ascend up where He was before. He in a manner gave (His) hearerTt
understand, that He had descended from heaven. And tlius it was likel7tZ
they, understanding the force of the expression, would not attend as foTn
only, but would hence know God the Word in \he flesh, and bluevTtlltZ Body

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 53
to your Teacher Andrewes therefore, Christ himself has so
touched upon this point, as to have answered the "how,
which you, — following this Teacher, as you would have us
believe, — declare he has not answered. You then, consistently
enough with the erroneous views here propounded, tell us,
that " if we are wise, we shall never ask how," &c. ; with
holding by means of a false humility, and a semblance of
wisdom, your Readers and followers fr.om adopting the views
of your own Teacher ! Bramhall too, has, in effect, given a
similar answer to this " most ignorant Capernaitical assertion '
of the Jews. (See p. 44, above.)
You continue : " But how they (the consecrated Elements)
give life to us. He does answer .... and the teaching of the
whole .... is this. That He is the Living Bread, because
He came down from Heaven .... Whoso eateth My Flesh,
and drinketh My Blood" (He Himself says the amazing words)
eateth me, and so receiveth into himself, in an ineffable *
manner, his Lord Himself, " dwelleth (Our Lord says) in me,
and I in Him," &c. You add (p. 1 1), " This is (if we may
reverently so speak) the order of the mystery of the Incarna
tion, that the Eternal Word so took our flesh into Himself, as
to impart to it His own inherent life : so then we, partaking
of It, that life is transmitted on to us also ; and not to our
souls only, but our bodies also, since we become flesh of His
Body also was life-giving," The vivifying power is said, a Uttle lower
down, to be the fulness ofthe Godhead which dwelt bodily in Christ: and
it is added, " God is a Spirit." Whatever therefore Cyril may have said
of the flesh, as a means, it is, according to him, the Spirit that giveth life.
And again, it is to the exertion oi faith through grace that this is given
(pp. 378, 379). Cyril and Andrewes, therefore, agree most cordially.
CyrU's words here are : " That we may receive remission of sins, viz. by the
faith which is in Christ. For we are j-Jtstifie.d, not by the works ofthe Law,
but through the grace that is of Him, and the obliteration of sin, granted
from above." " "iva t^v tUv aixapTiSiv a<pe<riv Kofua-iiifxeBa, Sia iria-Temq Se S^jAo-
voTi Tri-; ev Xpia-T^. AeSiKaiiiifxeda yap ovk e^ epycov voptov, aAAa kutu x^piv Trjv
e^avTov, Kai ttjv Su>pt]Sei<rav f/piv 'civonBev apLvi^triKaKiav." Words, to which no
parallel is to be found in your Sermon ! So also August, in Joh, vi, 62 :
" Hinc solvit quod Ulos moverat 1 Hinc aperuit unde fuerant scandalizati ?
Hin Plane, si uiteUigerent " , , , " Et ait, Spiritus est qui vivificat," &c,
hy " ineffable," if the thing can be so easily described ?

54 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
flesh, and bone of His bone, and He who is wholly life is
imparted to us wholly. The life which He is, spreads around,
first giving' Its own vitality to that sinless Flesh which He
united indissolubly with Himself .... and then, through that
bread which is His Flesh, finding an entrance to us indivi
dually, penetrating us, ... . transforming into His own light
and life*," &c. (pp. 11,12.)
Here then you assume, without further question, — contrary
to the mind of your Teachers, — that the Bread of the Eucha
rist is the true, real, and natural. Flesh of Christ, indissolubly
united to the Word and Deity of God : if this be not
your meaning, your reasoning amounts to nothing. You
therefore define here, what you elsewhere profess to leave
untouched, the ineffable — as you term it — mode of the my
stery of the Eucharist, and its operation. You then, — that
nothing should remain imperfect, — determine the order of
the mystery of the Incarnation, by telling us, that " the
Eternal Word so took our Flesh into Himself, as to impart to
it His own inherent life ; so then we, partaking of it through
the bread, that life is transmitted on to us also, .... since we
become flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone,'' &c. We
have here therefore the whole process of this ineffable mode
and mystery, set forth in the plainest and easiest manner, so
that he who runs may read, and he who reads cannot but
understand ! That all this is to^ be taken in its strictly literal
sense, you have not left the least reason to doubt : and, that
* Cyril Alex, however, plainly teUs us, that the Flesh of Christ
can profit us only through the Spirit, whicli took the Flesh as its Temple.
But '•'¦how" this operates efficiently, he, with Andrewes and BramhaU,
declares his inability to say. See Com, on John vi, 64, seq. He oalj^s the
Spirit His ownflesh &c, p. 377- A.B. All my teaching with you was oithe
Divine Spirit and eternal Ufe : " "OA7 70,0 i^i- xiooj i';uS?, irepl tov ^eiov mev-
fiUToi; I) cfi)7i;(ri?, koI Trepl ri}? aiccviov CmjJs." But how, can neither be con
ceived by the mind, nor expressed by the tongue, but to be honoured in
sUence and by the faith whicli is above mind: "To Se oto)?, ovTe vii
KaToAi/TTTOv, ovTc y'kwTTr) AcKTOv, (Ttonrrj Se koI iricrTei tij virep vovv Tifico/jevov."
It is therefore the operation of the Spirit which constitutes the ineffable
mode and mystery with Cyi-U; and this is, with him, the thing to be
revered ; not any fancied mode of change in the Elements.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 55
none might doubt, you add (p, 13), in the terms of Hilary,
" If the Word was truly made Flesh, and we, in the Supper
of the Lord, truly receive the Word, being Flesh, how must
He not be thought to abide in us, by way of nature. Who,
being born man, took to Himself the nature of our Flesh
which is to be communicated to us, hath mingled the nature
of His own Flesh with His eternal nature. So then, we are
all one, because both the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us.
Whosoever then thall deny that the Father is in Christ by
way of nature, let him first deny that himself is by way of
nature in Christ, or Christ in him ; because the Father in
Christ, and Christ in us, make us to be one in them," &c.
Such is your version of the declaration of Hilary; and you
tell us further (p. 14), " such is undoubted Catholic teaching,
and the most literal import of Holy Scripture, and the
mystery of the Sacrament, that the Eternal Word &c." We
have therefore both the mode and order of the mystery,
as already remarked, formerly said to be ineffahle, now ex
plained, contrary to your own professed intentions ; and also,
of the Presence, contrary to the teaching of Andrewes, Bram
hall*, &c. We have, moreover, the assurance given, that this
is undoubted Catholic f aching, and the most literal import of
Holy Scripture. Let us now examine these positions as
briefly as we can.
In the first place, It has been shewn, both from Holy
Scripture, and from undoubted Catholic Teachers, if we may
believe your own assertions, that the true, real, and natural
* If any doubt should remain on this point, the foUowing extract (p. 16)
would not faU to remove it : " Here aU breathes of holy Ufe, life in God,
the life of God imparted to man, the indwelling of the All Holy and
Incarnate Word, the Presence of God in the soul and body, incorruption
and eternal Ufe, through His Holy Presence and union with Him, who,
being God, is Life." Where, I think, nothing short of an essential and
consubstantial union, both with the Flesh and the Divine Word, or Deity,
of Christ, must have been meant : and, if so, the ineffable mode, manner,
&c. of the being of Christ, first, in the Eucharist, and secondly, in the
Believer, is fully and particularly described and explained ! So far have
you outstripped your Teachers, and indeed all the Authorities to which
you have appealed !

56 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Sacrament of the
Eucharist : that the real Body of Christ in heaven, is one
thing, and the Body of Christ in the consecrated Elements
(pp. 8, 50) is another : and also, that the Deity is not united
with the Sacrament in any way (p. 47). Bramhall teaches us,
moreover, that the Deity (i.e. of the Word) is that which alone
is to be worshipped as such, and not even the humanity of
Christ. Holy Scripture, too, teaches us, — and this in its most
literal import, — not that we are an habitation of God. through
the Flesh, but through the spirit* : and Our Blessed Lord
Himself, that it was the Holy Ghost the Comforter, whom the
Father should send in His name, who should dwell in them, be
with them, and bring all things to their remembrance : and,
once more, that " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the Flesh
profiteth nothing t :" which, your Teacher Andrewes shews
directly and positively, — and Bramhall indirectly, — applies to
the Eucharist. Holy Scripture therefore, in its most literal
import, and even as interpreted by the Authorities which you
cite as your Teachers, is directly and diametrically opposed
to you ! These, with one accord, ascribe all the efficacy to
the power of the Spirit ; while they look upon the Flesh and
Blood, sacramentally taken in the Eucharist, as "means" or
• conduit pipes," appointed for its communication.
Section VII. — On certain passages occurring in Hilary,
Bishop of Poictiers.
Come we now more particularly to St. Hilary, another of
your Authorities and Teachers ; and I think we shall find
chat he also is against you. " St. Hilary," you say (p. 12, seq.),
" adduced the very actualness of this union in proof against
the Arians, that the unity of the Father and the Son was not
of will, but by nature, because our union with the Son is by
unity of nature, not of harmony of will only J." " That you
* Eph. u. 22. John xiv. 16, 2G. See also 1 Cor. ui. 16, 17, vi, 19,
2 Cor, vi, 16.
t John vi, 03.
t But you have failed to catch the sense of Hilary, whose words are :
" Ihec autem idcirco n nobis commemorata sunt, quia voluntatis tantuin inter

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 57
do not here mean any union through the Spirit, is plain from
what follows ; viz. " For if the Word was truly made Flesh,
and we, in the Supper of the Lord, truly receive the Word,
being made Flesh, how must He not be thought to abide in
inter patrem et filium unitatem hseretici mentientes, unitatis nostrse ad
Deum utebantur exemplo, tanquam nobis ad fUium et per fiUum ad pa
trem obsequio tantum ac voluntate reUgionis unitis, nulla per sacramen
tum camis et sanguinis naturalis communionis proprietas indulgeretur :
cum et per honorem nobis datum Dei filii, et per manentem in nobis carna-
liter filium, et in eo nobis corporaliter et inseparabUiter unitis, mysterium
verse ac naturalis unitatis sit prsedicandum." (De Trin. lib. vm.) That
is : ' These things have, however, been mentioned by us on this account,
because the Heretics, belying the union between the Father and the Son,
as being of wUl only, have used the example of our union with God; as
if, we being united to the Son, and by the Son to the Father, by religious
obedience only and wiU, no propriety of natural communion might be
indulged in through the sacrament {i.e. mystery) of the Flesh and Blood :
when the mystery of a true and natural union, both through the honour
given to us of being sons of God, and through the Son's remaining carnally
in us, and we being united in Him bodily and inseparably, is to be
preached.'— He condemns the Heretics, therefore, for their understanding
the unity of Christ with God, as signifying nothing more than that of
the honour given to us, through the Sacrament, of union and communion
of wUl, through faith, with Him : and also, for supposing that no natural
means had been afforded, whereby we could be considered one with each
other, and with Christ. A Uttle above he had said : " Hie in patre per
naturam divinitatis , . . nos contra in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem ;
et ille rnrsum in nobis per sacramentorum inesse mysterium, crederetur."
' He should be beUeved to be in the Father by the nature ofthe Divinity . .
on the contrary, we in Him through His bodily nativity ; and He again in
us, through the mystery of the sacraments.' This union is not therefore a
perfect and natural unity in your sense, but one differing in different cha
racters, as the Persons had in view differ also severally in disposition.
And a Uttle above, this unity, said to be by nature, is determined to be
through faith. His words are : "Si eigo per fidem, ii est ¦per unius fldei
naturam unum omnes erant : quomodo non naturalem in his inteUigis
unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt," &c, ' If therefore
through faith, that is, through the nature of one faith, all are one. How do
you not understand a natural unity in these, who are one through the
nature of one faith ' ? — Whence it is evident, that Hilary's unity by nature
rests upon nothing beyond a peculiar usage of terms, which he has deemed
it right to adopt. See also the Preface to the Benedictine Edit, of
Hilary's works, § ii, " Non adtendens quid Hilarius natura unum defi-
niat," had deceived even Erasmus !

58 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
us, by way of nature," &c. , , - " So, then, we are all one, be
cause both the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us." ..." Of
the truth of the Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for
doubt. For now, according both to the declaration of the
Lord and our faith. It is truly Flesh and truly Blood. And
these, received into us, cause, that we are in Christ, and
Christ in us." ..." He then is in us through the flesh, and
we are in Him, since this, which we are, is with Him in God."
And the conclusion is, " He, by the truth of the Sacrament,
dwelleth in us, in Whom, by Nature, all fulness of the God
head dwelleth ; and lowest is joined on with highest, earth
with heaven, corruption with incorruption, man with God."
That you mean all this to be literally and naturally (" by way
of nature") understood, seems to me evident from this also,
among other things; viz. (p. 12.) "The Flesh . . . then, when
we take It, we have life in ourselves, we too being united
with It, as It to the indwelling Word." By which, I think
you must mean — if indeed you mean any thing — that the
union of the Believer with Christ and God is obtained through
the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist as truly real, positive,
and substantial, as is the Union of the Humanity of Christ
with the Divine Word, and of this with the Father.
Let us first inquire how this matter really stands, and then
endeavour to ascertain the mind of Hilary upon it. In the
first place then, although " the Word is said to have been
made Flesh," the fact is. He only took our flesh upon Him ;
the Word being really never made flesh ; for no confusion of
substance here took place. We cannot therefore truly and
really receive the Word* in the Supper of the Lord, even if we
suppose the Eucharist has actually been changed into the
real flesh of Christ. But there is no good reason for believing
that the Eucharist has ever undergone any such change.
* The remark of Ambrose is valuable here ; viz. " Ne igitur plures
hoc dicerent" (Joh. vi. 52) "veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed
manerct gratia rcdemptionis, ideo in similitiidinem quidem accipis sacra
mentum, sed veraj naturje gratiain virtutemque consequeris. Ego sum,
inquit, panis vivus qui do coelo descendi. Sed caro non descendit p cosh :
hoc est, carneni iu terris assumpsit ex virgine," Lib, vi. de Sacramentis.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 59
Our receiving of the Eucharist, therefore, affords no grounds
for believing that we actually receive, when we receive it,
the natural flesh of Christ into our persons ; much less the
essence of the Divine Word : nor consequently, that Christ
abides in us naturally, or " by way of nature," as the Father
dwells in Christ, and Christ in the Father. The thinff is as
repugnant to the doctrine of the Scriptures, and of the ortho
dox Fathers, as it is to common sense, and to the nature of
things : the reasoning too, on which the whole rests, is a
gross fallacy.
You add, " He by the truth of the Sacrament dwelleth in
us, in Whom, by nature, all fulness of the Godhead dwelleth ;
and lowest is joined on with highest," &c. But here, again,
the reasoning is also fallacious. " He," you say, "dwelleth in
us, in Whom, by nature, all fulness of the Godhead dwelt."
But, strictly speaking, all fulness of the Godhead did not
dwell in the humanity of Christ hy Nature, but by Assum
ption : and this was out of nature. Nor, again, does He by
the truth of the Sacrament dwell in us, by any similar assum
ption, but by the communication oi His Holy Spirit ; which
is also out of nature ; not by nature. In this sense, there
fore, lowest is not joined on with highest, &c. All that can
be said of the Eucharist in such case is, that it is a means
ordained, to which, when applied in faith, the gift of the
Spirit is granted : it is but as a " conduit pipe," as Andrewes
has truly remarked ; and so far is to be considered as an in
strument, by which union and communion with Christ, through
the Spirit, is to be obtained. And this, as we shall presently
see, is the sense, and the only sense, in which Hilary speaks
ofit, In the next place. It is possible that Hilary intended to
attach no such sense, as this of yours, to his reasoning here :
and, from the impossibility of extracting any tolerable sense
from his words under this view, I think it is probable he in
tended a conclusion to be drawn from it, as different from
yours as light is from darkness.
You cannot have forgotten that your Teacher Bramhall
has warned you, that the manner of the Presence in the

fJO REMARKS ON THB SERMON
Sacrament is not intended to be determined by the Fathers, by
expressions such as those here used by Hilary ; nor can you,
your own profession, that it is ineffable, and therefore not to
be determined. But let this pass. — I shall now shew you,
that Hilary really intended no such thing, and that you have
— unwarily no doubt — misrepresented him.
Hilary *, then, tells us, — in the very extract here given by
you, notwithstanding his speaking, as you say, of the ' very
actualness ' of this union, — that " under the Sacrament of the

* To this you prefix an extract from Cj'ril Alex, in Joh. iv, c, 2, &c, ;
which, I wUl affirm, you have also misunderstood, and misrepresented,
Cyril's words, in your version of them, are : " He is life by nature, inas
much as He was begotten of the Living Father ; but no less vivifying
also is His Holy Body, being in a matter" (manner?) brought together
{iTvviiveypevov) and ineffably united with the all- vivifying Word ; where
fore It is accounted His, and is conceived as one with Him," . . . . " we
know that the Word which came from God the Father, and the Temple
from the Virgin, are not indeed the same in nature ; for the Body is not
consubstantial with the Word from God  And since the flesh of the
Saviour became life-giving, as being united to that which is by nature
Life, the Word from God ; then, when we taste It, we have Ufe in our
selves, we too being united with It, as It to the indwelling Word."
Nothmg, I think, can be more obvious than is the meaning of CyrU here,
Fiist, The man Christ is, it is said, life by nature, because begotten of
the Father, and so having received Ufe from Him, Secondly, He is also
Life, because united in a manner with the Divine Word ; aud hence, this
Life is accounted (considered, spoken of, as) His, (i. e. although not His by
nature). Hence, too, it is conceived (considered of, believed of) as being
one with Him {i. e. with his manhood, although not naturally or really so ;
because the Divine Word, and the JNlanhood, are not the same in nature :
the Body not being consubstantial with the Word of God). So, — as the
flesh of Christ became thus life-giving,— when we taste It (sacramentally),
we also obtain, through It, life in ourselves ; for we are now united with
it, just as It is with the indwelling AVord. But, the Divine Word not
being consubstantial with the Flesh, or Manhood, of Christ, much less with
the Bread of the Eucharist, which is only so accounted, or conceived of;
neither can the Eucharist, nor the Receiver of it, become consubstantial
with the Word, or be, by nature, really united with God. But we are in
a manner united to him: we are accounted, and conceived of, in this
maimer— f.c. sacramentally— as made one with Mm ; not by nature, which
is impossible ; for many caimot be thus said to be one. Cyril, therefore, is
as much opposed to you, as HUary, Andrewes, and BramhaU, are.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. GL
Flesh which is to be communicated to us, (He) hath mingled
the Nature of His own Flesh with His eternal Nature." That
is, as I understand it. He hath in the Sacrament, Sacramen
tally mingled the nature of His ovvn Flesh with His eternal
nature : in other words, has thus brought both to bear on
the Believer's. Again, " Because the Father in Christ, and
Christ in us, makes us to he one in them . . ." But it is im
possible for us, strictly speaking, to be one with each other,
naturally, " by way of nature," or " very actualness." This,
therefore, can be understood only sacramentally, or mystically,
and as uniting us through the indwelling of the Spirit.
Hilary goes on, " We truly, under a mystery, receive the
Flesh of His Body (and thereby shall become one) ; " that is,
— as I presume — under a mystery, or mystically, we become one,
as in the last case. For, although " the Father is in Him,
and He in us," yet these tvco propositions cannot be under
stood in the same sense — and never are so understood by the
Fathers, — because " in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily;" which it would be blasphemy to say of
us, notwithstanding your assertion, that "lowest is" (thus)
" joined on with highest, earth with heaven, corruption with
incorruption, man with Godt."
If, then, " we are said truly to receive the flesh of His Body
under a mystery " ; surely it must be mystically that we become
one with God, and that we are spiritually made partakers of
the Divine nature ; not " by way of nature," " very actual
ness," reality, nor in any other way implying identity ; for this
would involve a contradiction in terms. Hilary then asks,
" How is it asserted, that the Unity is of will only, whereas
the natural property (conveyed) through the Sacrament, is
the Sacrament of a perfect unity?" Here, again, Hilary has
given us a sufficient clue to his meaning; asserting, that
Believers have not their wills only conformed to that of their

t Which, taken naturaUy and reaUy, must aU according to CyrU end
in utter confusion. " Kai ti to evrevdev ; " says Cyril, " a-vyKexvrat TO tSv
rifRv. % yap ovxl Ta juev dvio x^PU^ei KaTio, ava^fjceTai Se tTjOO? tov uvea tottov tu
Kara;" &c. Com. in John vi. 27. cap, v. p. 305.

62 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
Redeemer, but are, moreover, admitted to the privilege of
being sacramentally made — i.e. mystically by <Ae Sacrament
— one with Christ : in other words, they are made the mystical
members of His body, His flesh, and His hones. li Hilary
understood this strictly, as he must the union of the God
head with Christ, Why did he introduce the term Sacrament
at all in the latter clause ? If he spoke of the Sacrament, or
mystery, of a perfect unity, surely he could not have intended
to imply a real, positive, and, strictly speaking, natural, unity.
And, you are well aware, this is a distinction made again and
again by the Fathers. Again, (ib.) : " Let him . . . deny that
himself is hy way of nature in Christ, or Christ in him."
That the Believer can he in Christ, really and by way of
nature, strictly speaking, is utterly impossible. Hilary could
not therefore have intended these terms to be taken in your
gross and consubstantial sense.
If then Hilary had not said one word more on this subject,
it would have been obvious that you have very erroneously
stated his views respecting it. But, happily, Hilary has
afforded us means most positive and certain, for the discovery
of his intentions. " We are all," says he, " spiritual, if the
Spirit of God be in us. . . . our mortal bodies also will He
revive, because of His Spirit dwelling within us." " Spiri
tuals omnes sumus si in nobis, est spiritus Dei." . . . . " cor
pora quoque nostra mortalia vivificabit propter habitantem
spiritum ejus in nobis." And again : " Tenuit Paulus in hoc
difficillimo ad humanam intelligentiam ccelestium sacramen
torum mysterio, et absolutam demonstrationem, et solicitam
cautelam, ut per Spiritum in Spiritu dari hrec divisionum
dona monstraret, ne forte non per Christum et in Christo om
nia crederentur." ' Paul maintained a solicitous care, and
absolute shewing forth, in this mystery of the heavenly
sacraments most difficult to human understanding, that he
might evince that it was by the Spirit, and in the Spirit, these
gifts of divisions (various) were given, lest all things should
not be believed to be through Christ and in Christ.'' It is
therefore by the Spirit, and in the Spirit, that the life-giving
effects are obtained ; and, as before, you have misunderstood
and misrepresented Hilary.

OF THE REV, DR. PUSEY, G3
Upon the whole, then, the intention of Hilary is, as far as
I can ascertain it, this ; viz. There is given in the Sacrament
of the Eucharist the means of a sacramental union with
Christ. And, as the Divine and Human Natures are posi
tively and really united in Him, so is there sacramentally
presented to us in the Eucharist the privilege of a true
and sacramental union with Christ, both in the flesh and in
the spirit. We are hence considered as partakers of His
Body, and as Members of His flesh and bones ; as we also are
of the Divine nature, through the indwelling of His Holy
Spirit. It is not therefore that our wills only are thus
conformed to His will ; but we are also naturally, as it were,
admitted to a Fellowship with Him, and made children of
God, and joint heirs with Him, by adoption and grace ; and,
as it were, by way of nature : that is, these natural Elements
have been, in this way, sacramentally made the "conduit
pipes " of this inestimable privilege* of union and communion
with Him: which is iu perfect harmony with the sentiments
of Andrewes and Bramhall.
Section VIII. — On certain passages found in Clirysostom,
Ephrem Syrus, Augustine, ^c.
After this (p. 15, et seq.) you favour us with a num
ber of expressions taken from St. Chrysostom t, Ephrem
* So our own Communion Service : " We spirituaUy eat the flesh of
Christ, a drink his blood : then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us ;
we are one with Christ, and Christ with us," Comp, 1 Cor. xi. 17. and
the Homily for Easter-day. See this subject more fully discussed in the
Preface to the Benedictine Edition of the Works of Hilary, § u, seq.
t Chiysost. Hom. in 1 Cor. x. 17 : " Why do I say Communion, says
he {i.e. Paul) 1 We are that same body ; for, What is the Bread? The
Body of Christ. But, What do the partakers become ? The Body of
Christ ; not many Bodies, but one Body. For, as the Bread consisting of
many grains is united, so that the grains no where appear, but remain the
same, their difference not appearing in their conjunction; so are we con
joined with one another, and with Christ." Which is too plain to need
any comment. Again, as to the ends of the Sacrament, in Joh. vi. 31 ;
" ev riv T() a-TTovSal^o/xevov. eTrl Triv TvevfAaTiKtjv avTovi aydyeiv Tpo(l)t]v. * The
thing studied was one, (viz.) to lead them on to the spiritual food.'
Ib. v. 35 : " o dproi; Sia to eTricpoircov aurto irvevf.ict, a.pT0<; ovpavio^ yivcTat, ' The

G4 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
Syrus*, Augustine t, and others, all tending to confirm— as you
would have us believe — your notion of a natural and consub-
' The Bread, through the coming of the Spirit upon it, becomes heavenly
bread.' Speaking then of the divine gift of faith, he passes on to the doc
trine of the Resurrection, and with this the HomUy ends. In the next
HomUy on v. 61 : " apTov Se ^toi to Soy/jara Keyei evravBa to o-wnjpia koi
Ttjv ivio-Tiv Tiji' eiV avTov.'rj TO a-oi^a to eavTov, H e here calls eitiier tne
saving doctrines and the faith which is in him, or, His own Body, bread ;
for both nerve the soul.' " i/jcpoTepa yap vevpol t^v ¦\j/vx'iv." Again on
V, 60 : " pepvi)Tai Tpoipm TTi/ei/juaTiKivt." ' He commemorates spiritual food.'
A Uttle lower down, after comparing the carnal views of the Jews with
those of Nicodemus, he says, " , , , avayKa'i:ov itaOeiv to 6aC/ua twv fivcrTijptcov,
TI irore ea-ri, Kai SiaTi eSdOi], Kai rtq ^ ihipe'Keia tov irpaypaTo^. ev crcofxa yivo-
HeOa' fieKri <pt]a-lv ck tt}<; crapKO^ avTov Kai tmv ocrTeajv avrov. It IS necessary
to learn the wonder of the mysteries, what it is, and for what given, and
what the advantage of the matter.' ' We become one Body, the members,
says He, of His flesh and of His bones.' AU of which must necessarily be
understood spiritually. After this we are told of touching, tasting, and
fixing the teeth in. His flesh : which, one would think, is also to be spiri
tually {figuratively) understood. A Uttle lower dovm : ' With this (blood)
the soul is washed, with this adorned, with this inflamed ; this makes the
mind brighter than fire, more splendid than gold,' &c, (Serm, p, 16, Note.)
' From this Table arises a fountain,' &c. Which must all necessarUy be
figuratively understood. Again, on v. 63 : " It is the Spirit " &c. i. e. ' It is
becoming to hear the tliuigs respecting me spiritually.' ' He who hears
carnally profits nothing,' Ib. " They are Spirit : " i.e. ' Divine and sphi-
tual, having no carnal or natural consequence,' Which however, he
proceeds to say, does not apply to the Flesh of Christ;— this being taken
sacramentally and mystically, according to him. The same is true of his
Homily in Matt. xxvi. ; where he terms the mysteries, symbols ofthe sacri
fice of Christ, and teUs us, that hence they are continued in memory of this.
Again, ' Christ delivered to us nothing that was sensible, but all things
intellectual, through sensible ones ; ' just, as he goes on to say, The gift in
Baptism, which is intellectual, is obtained tlirough water which is sensible :
where, as before, Christ is spoken of as being touched &c., i.e. necessarily,
in the symbols of His person : so also BeUevers are said to be made one
with Him, and his mysteries to present a fountain, as above. Which can
be understood only figuratively. And I wiU maintain, that the same is
ever the mind of Chrysostom.
* The place cited here from Ephrem Syrus (tom. in. Syr. p. 23) con
tains not so much as one word bearing upon your favourite impanation of
the flesh of Christ. Ephrem speaks here solely of the Spirit ; e.g. " In
pane tuo Spiritus, ignis in mero tuo," &c. Nor can you find any where,
either in Ephrem, or m Jacob of Edessa, whom you have cited a Uttle
farther

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 65
stantial union of Christ with the Elements, and also by their
means with the Believer. But here as before, you have failed
to seize the true sense of your authorities ; and this is appa
rent, in some instances, even from your own version of them.
"They speak," you say, 'of those' "clothed in flesh and
blood, drawing nigh to the blessed and immortal nature " ;
of " spiritual fire " ; " grace exceeding human thought and a
gift unutterable"; "spiritual food, surpassing all creation
visible and invisible," " kindling the souls of all, and making
them brighter than silver purified by the fire,' " removing
us from earth, transferring us to heaven,'' " making angels
for men, so that it were a wonder that man should think he
were yet on earth," " yea, more than angels," " becoming
that which we receive, the Body of Christ." "For so," you
add, " we are members of Him, not by love only, but in very
deed, mingled with that Flesh, mingled with Him, that we
might become ' in a manner ' (an important addition !) ' one
substance with Him,' " " the one Body and one Flesh of Christ :"
'and He the Eternal Son and God the Word in us,' "com
mingled t and co-united with us," ' with our bodies as with
farther on (p. 22), nor in any other Syrian Father of antiquity, so much as
one passage maintaining this your doctrine.
t As to Augustine, it has been sufficiently shewn by Ridley, BramhaU,
Mr. Aubertin (Albertinus), and others, that he entertained no such gross
or earthly notions. And the same is true of Ambrose, as shewn in many
places already cited from him. See also on Ps. cxviU. 141.
X As you have favoured us with the entire passage, alluded to here, in
CjtU, let us inquire how it stands. " We are united [not only with each
other] but with God also," says CyrU. Here, I think, it must be obvious,
that this uniting of ourselves with each other, cannot be taken literally ;
i.e. so as to imply any real and consubstantial union in person. We can
be united here, only in mind, spirit, or will. The same surely must be
understood also of the union here spoken of with God. This, one would
think — unless something particular powerfuUy suggested the contrary —
must be the intention of this Father. He proceeds, " And how the Lord
Himself hath explained, ' I in them, and them in Me, that they may be
perfected in one (eis ei/).' " (John xvii. 23)  The question now is : How
did Cyril understand this Scripture ? He adds, " For the Son is in us
corporeally as Man, commingled and co-united with us ... by the Holy
Eucharist, And again spiritually as God, by the power and grace of His
own Spirit, re-creating the spirit in us to newness of life, and making us
K partakers

66 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
our souls, preserving both for incorruption'; "recreating
the spirit in us to newness of life, and making us ' partakers
of His Divine Nature ' ; " " the bond of our unity with the
Father, binding us to Himself as Man," Who is " by nature,
as God, in God His own Father ;" " descending to our nature,
subject to corruption and to change, and raising it to Its own
excellencies," and " by commingling it with Itself ; all but
removing it from the conditions of created nature," and
" reforming it according to Itself."
Now let me ask. Who of sane mind, habituated to the
turgid and highly-figurative style of many of the Fathers.
would ever have thought of taking all this in the strictly
literal and consubstantial acceptation, which it appears to be
partakers ofthe Divine Nature." He goes on : " Christ then appeareth to
be the bond of our unity " (union ?) " with God the Father, binding us to
Himself, as Man, but being, as God, in God His own Father." Here,
then, Cyril describes all the efficacy of the Eucharist to the agency of the
Spirit. " It is," says he, " by the power and grace of His own Spirit, re
creating the Spirit in us, to newness of life, and making us partakers of the
Divine Nature." It is the Spirit therefore, according to Cyril — not the
Flesh in the Eucharist— that makes us partakers oi the Divine Nature ;
but, it is by means ofthe Holy Eucharist, that we become sacramentally
united to the INIanhood ; for by this we take sacramentaUy the Body and
Blood of Christ ; and thus we unite Him with ourselves, and make Him
our bond of union with the Father. The Eucharist here, therefore, is
only the means of union, which Andrewes terms the '" conduit pipes," or
means, of spiritual gTace. His binding us therefore to himself as Man,
but being, as God, in God His own Father, is a very different thing from
saying, that He is in us as God, making our Flesh one with His, and with
the Father's Divine Nature, (and therefore Homoousian with the Deity '.)
It is, I repeat it, one thing to say that we become, through the influence
of His blessed Spirit, renewed, and hence partakers of the Divine Nature,
and this by means (principally) of the Holy Eucharist, whicli sacramen
tally unites us both in body and soul to Him ; and another to affirm, that
it is by a commingling of His Body through the Eucharist with ours, we
become united body and soul, in a real and true consubstantial unity with
the Godhead. The latter is what Dr. Pusey seems, at least, erroneously
and heretically to affirm : the former, is what CjtU does affirm, to
gether with all the orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church. CyrU's
'¦'oneness," into whicli we are received with the Father, is therefore a
thing differing altogether from the consubstantial oneness, whicli seems to
be recommended by you.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 67
your object to recommend ? Is it possible, I ask, that such
writers, speaking of persons " clothed in flesh and hlood^''
(scripturally " putting on Christ ") ; of " spiritual fire " ; " grace
exceeding human thought " ; " spiritual food .... kindling the
souls of all," &c. " removing us from earth, transferring us to
heaven," " making angels for men, so that it were a wonder that
man should think he were yet on earth," &c. could have in
tended to be literally understood ? Must not the fact — how
muchsoever to be wondered at, — that such actually are in
reality, " very actualness," in good truth and verity, still on
earth and not in heaven, tend powerfully to convince them,
that all this is not to be interpreted to the very letter? Must
it not have suggested to such, as Readers of sane and healthy
mind, that, when it is said Believers become in a manner one
with Him, it could not have been intended that this should
be understood in the sense of Homoousian with Him ? which
would be nothing short of blasphemy ? And, you cannot but
be aware, that, between a figurative, and this sort of absolutely
literal, sense, no medium can possibly be interposed. You
may indeed divert and amuse your Readers by telling them
that the mode, and the manner, is quite ineffahle, constituting
a mystery and the like, and that you have therefore with-
holden your thoughts from it, excepting only to " adore it."
You should bear in mind, that it is not about the manner of
stating a question (which really constitutes your ineffable
mode), but about things, that we are now speaking ; and that
things are, as such, incapable of existence and non-existence
at the same time. If, for example, the Eternal Word literally
and truly became Flesh ; and, if the consecrated Elements do
also truly, in "very actualness" &c., become the true and iden
tical Flesh of Christ ; and, again. If our uniting these Ele
ments, so converted, with ourselves, make us one with the
Eternal Word, in the sense in which the Eternal Word is one
with the Father ; then it must follow, that these Elements,
and the Receivers of them, do also become, in truth and in
fact, Homoousian, i.e. of the same Essence, — in your own
words, " one .substance," with Him ; — and, that He, the Eternal
Son, and God the Word, will be, in the same sense, in us,
F 2

68 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
commingled, and co-united with us," &c. ; which, as I have
already shewn, is fully to explain the mode, mystery, &c.,
which you have affirmed is ineffahle: and, I must say, the
explanation itself is, as far as it goes, and as I understand it,
pure Blasphemy !
"We are," 'adds Cyril,' you go on, "perfected into unity
with God the Father, through Christ the Mediator. For,
having received into ourselves, bodily and spiritually. Him
Who is by Nature and truly the Son, Who hath an essential
Oneness with Him, we, becoming partakers of the Nature
Which is above all, are glorified."' On this it may be said
once for all : If by this is meant, that We are brought to a
state of absolute perfection by being admitted to the unity *
* There are, I think, some reasons for objecting to your adoption of
this term ("unity") in context such as this. Unity with the Deity can
perhaps be understood here in no sense, but that which implies a consub
stantial union. I say this too, because your literal acceptation of the
terms. This is my Body &c., and apparently of aU the places hitherto
brought under review from the Fathers, tends directly to this conclusion.
Union with God, in a, figurative or spiritual acceptation, you seem every
where carefully and studiously to avoid : and hence, it probably is, that
you have adopted this .term. You will feel surprised perhaps, when I teU
you, that, — if I rightly understand you, — it is your wish to propagate — for
the first time in the Christian Church — the Unify of the Deify, as taught
by the Soofcos of the East. The term, in use among the Christians of
the East, corresponding to our Theological term " Union," as given above,
is Itfihiid f jlsTi} •¦ the one proposed by you {"unity," iu the sense men
tioned) is Tuwhid (iij->-J); by which they mean — as you apparently do —
an essential onniess ; in other words, that unity, and sameness of Essence,
with the Deity, which is implied by the Nicene term Homoousian. The
only difference between your view and that ofthe Mohammedans is,— and
to this, that ofthe Hindoos may be added,— that you hold BeUevers alone to
be thus united with Deity ; they, that every person and thing is, but espe
cially the initiated: which is Pantheism. But neither Cyril, nor any
other orthodox Father, has taught any thing like this. For, although he
has spoken highly, and deservedly highly, of the efficacy of tlie means, yet
it is to the influence of the Sjiirif alone that he ascribes the saving grace.
So in the Note to p. 17 of your own Sermon : also in John vi. 1 7. p. 327. D.
ib. p. ,124. D. E. it. p. .123. B. it. pp. 346-7, and particularly, on v, 64,
ib. p. 376 seq. According to Greg. Nyss. there is no means of unituig
things different from each other, and not originating in a oneness of Spirit, but

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 69
of the Father ; then Cyril is chargeable with Blasphemy :
which however, I will venture to affirm, cannot be proved
against him. And, if this may be relied on, all Cyril could
have intended was, that, being made one with Christ sacra
mentally by receiving His Body and Blood in the Eucharist,
and thence His blessed Spirit to renew us after His Image,
we are brought into a spiritual union (not unity) with the
Father : and thus does our otherwise fallen nature become
glorified, being made sacramentally part of His glorious
Body. Cyril does not say — nor does any Father of the
Church say, — that the " essential oneness " which Christ has
with the Father, is, or can be, communicated to any created
Being. If any one has guarded himself more than another
against such an assumption as this, it is Cyril of Alexandria.
You have here therefore made Cyril to say, what he never
intended to say, nor could, consistently with his principles
and professions, ever have said. The same may be said of
your other citation (ib. pp. 17, 18), in which we are said
" to have Christ in us," and hence to " become partakers of
the Divine Nature " : this being ascribed specifically by the
same Cyril *, as we have just seen, to the influence ofthe Holy
Spirit, It must therefore be, as before, spiritually, not car
nally and consubstantially — as your system seems to require —
that all this is to be understood.
but by the gift of the Spirit ; which is here the Holy Ghost. For he goes
on to say, If any one have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.
On 1 Cor. XV. 28. ed. 1616. Tom. I, p. 849.
* And on John vi. 64. p. 378. B. after citing Rom. viii. 10 "... The
Spirit is life because of righteousness," Cyril adds, ' See again indeed, in
these (words), shewing that the Spirit of God dwells in us, he affirmed that
Christ HimseU' is in us. For the Spirit of the Son is inseparable from
Him (God), as the consideration ofthe identity of (His) nature requires ;
although He is known to exist in His proper hypostasis (person.) On
this account he frequently makes it indifferent, naming this sometimes the
Spirit, sometimes Himself " 'ISoii yap Srj irdXiv ev to-utok to tov &eov
TTvevf^a KaTOLKciv ev fifuv a-Kocpfjvdfievo^, aiiTOv elpijKcv ev ^p.?v elfat tov XpcaTov.
dStatperov yap Tov viov to iri/euyua avrov, Kara ye tov hv TavroTtjri <pvcreu><;
A070V, ei Kai vooiro virdpxetv IStocrviTTaTw;. Ata tovto TroAAa/ci? aStacpopei,
Tore piev to Trvevpa, totc iavTOv oi/o/uaf^BV." It is, therefore, to the Spirit
that the influence is ascribed by CyrU, and not to the flesh.

70 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
You proceed (p. 18) : " Were it only a thankful commemo
ration of His redeeming love, or only a shewing forth of His
Death, or a strengthening only and refreshing of the soul, it
were indeed a reasonable service, but it would have no direct
healing for the sinner*. To him," you add, "its special joy
is, that it is His Redeemer's very t broken Body, It is His
Blood, which was shed for the remission of his sins," &c.
You say, or seem to say here, that, because the sinner eats
the very broken Body of Christ, and drinks the very Blood
shed for the remission of his sins, the Eucharist has a direct
healing for him: in other words, that It is not the Spirit, but
the real flesh and blood, which are directly profitable here.
But this is diametrically opposed to the teaching of our
Blessed Lord ! — That it is the very broken Body, &c., is also
^ " What are the benefits," says our Church Catechism, " whereof we
are partakers thereby ? " Ans. " The strengthening and refreshing of
our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the
Bread and Wine." Again, The " thing signified, or inward part," is, " The
Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received
by the Faithful," Which must of necessity be believed by the faithful,
and be the means of conferring an inward and spiritual grace. AU wliich
benefit, strengthening and refreshing the soul, conveys however, accord
ing to you, no direct healing, unless the very broken {consubstantial) Body
of Christ be also there ! So far our formularies are defective, for none
of them teach this, and particularly our Church Catechism !
t Chrysostom on Joh. Hom. 46. § 3. is cited by you here apparently
to shew, that the " same " (very) Flesh and Blood, whereby Christ became
akin to us, was also given forth for us. But it is obvious, both from the
preceding and following context, that Chrysoston did not intend to be
understood literally. He names this an aircful my.itery of the Church;
and further tells us, that, from this Table arises a fountain, which diffuses
spiritual rivers, &c. His words are : " ippiKTa oi'tw? to piva-T^pta tjjs ckkAi;-
(ri'as ... ' OTTO TiJ? TpaTTel^t]!; Tavrij'; dvetcxi 7r»;77, TTora/ioi;? d(pie?<ra irvevf.iaTt-
KoCi;." Which, considered in connection with other places of Chrysostom,
must put it out of aU doubt, that he did not intend to be literally under
stood in such places as this. To this you add an extract, not fi'om the
genuine, but stipjwsitioii.^, Epistles of Ignatius, teUing us that the Docetse
abstain from the Eucharist . . . because they confess not that the Eucha
rist is that Flesh of our Saviour . . . which suffered &c. And what of
this? Evi'n Andrewes, Bramhall, Ridley, JeweU, &c,, held the very
same thing !

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 7 1
directly opposed to the teaching of your great exemplars,
Andrewes and Bramhall. (See pp. 35 seq. 40 seq.) And again,
"Were it only" &c. ; and I suppose I may add. Were it only
all these taken together, it would be still unprofitable : which
is directly at war with the doctrines of our Book of Common
Prayer. And, as you add something here to the inward and
spiritual grace, there said to be conferred, you also add to its
doctrines something, which it has not put forth, and, as I
conceive, something to which its Compilers were opposed.
Allow me however one word more on the doctrine con
tained in your assertion, viz. " Were it " (the Eucharist)
" a strengthening only and refreshing of the soul, ... it would
have no direct healing for the sinner." Am I to understand
by this, that there can be no direct healing of the soul, except
by something which is visible and tangible, and this the
very Broken Body &c. of Christ. The formularies of our
own Church seem to teach the contrary. In the Rubric
appended to " the Communion of the Sick," it is said, " . . . .
If a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness" &c. "do
not receive the Sacrament " &c. " 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 *."
Whether this is to be understood directly or indirectly, need
not perhaps be discussed : all I think it necessary to insist
upon is, that the Person here duly repenting him of his sins,
trusting in the meritorious sacrifice of the Redeemer, and
giving him hearty thanks for this, is said to eat and drink
* The whole of this Rubric has been given at p. 12, which see. August.
on Joh. vi. 28 : "Hoc est ergo manducare cibum non qui peril, sed qui
permanet in vifam ceternam." Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem ? Cbede,
ET MANDUCASTI," He adds : " Discemitur quidem ab operibus fides : sicut
Apostolus dioit, justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis." And, on
V, 38 : " Qui ad me venit, incorporatur mihi," And a little lower down :
" Veniamus ad eum, intremus ad eum, incorporemur ei . . . . quia membra
ejus sumus, qui caput nostrum esse voluit," &c. Which sufficiently
explains itself. So, on v, 47 : " Qui . . . credit in me . . . it in me : et qui
it in me, habet me." Again, ib, v, 50 : " Qui manducat corde, non qui
premit dente,"

72 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
(respectively) the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ,
PROFITABLY TO HIS soul's HEALTH, although he do not receive
" (the visible and tangible) Sacrament with his mouth." If, I
say, the Body and Blood of Christ thus received by faith, is
profitable to the souls health, and, according to your Teachers,
the very Broken Body &c, of Christ is not given in the Sacra
ment at all, — to which you have given, and still do give your
consent and assent ; — then the sentiment quoted above from
your Sermon is one, to which your consent and assent cannot
be consistently given ; because it is opposed both to the doc
trine of your Teachers, and to the formularies of our Church !
Similar to this are the declarations of Our Lord, " Thy
faith hath saved thee*; Thy faith hath made thee whole i :"
to which many others might be added. Do not imagine
nevertheless, that I mean to assert that the Sacrament might
therefore be dispensed with : all I mean to insist upon is,
that it is neither the opus operatum here, nor yet the " weak
and beggarly Elements," (to use the terms of Bp. Andrewes)
that constitute the special source of joy to the enlightened
Believer: it is neither the sign nor the means simply, but
the thing signified, and the end sought, which is the one thing
needful to the repentant sinner.
Ought not this to have suggested to you, — for I cannot
suppose this Rubric to have been unknown to you, — that the
Theology of the Compilers of the Liturgy must have been
slightly opposed to yours, on this important and interesting
question ? No one, I think, can read this Rubric in connec
tion with certain passages of your Sermon, without coming
to this conclusion. And if so, it must be obvious that you
are labouring to have something believed, whicli cannot be
made to quadrate with their Theological tenets.
Section IX. — On certain views of the Eucharist, as given in the
body of the Sermon, and in one of the Tracts.
We may now pass on to page 21 of your Sermon, where
you lay down certain criticisms on the terms of Institution.
* Luke vii. 66. &c. t Matt. ix. 22. &c.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 73
" They still," you tell us, " wherever recorded, speak of the
act as a present act. This is My Body, whicli is given for
you ; This is My Blood of the New Testament, which iv shed
for many for the remission of sins." " This Cup is the New
Testament in my Blood, which is shed for you." " He saith
not," you add, " which shall be given," shall be broken, shall
be shed, but 'is being given,' 'being broken,' ' being shed,'
(SiSoixevov, KXco/jievov, EK'xyvoiJ.evov) ; and this in remarkable
contrast with His own words, when speaking of that same
Gift, as yet future, " The Bread which I will give is My
Flesh, which I will give (01/ e-y*^ Swo-co) for the life of the
world." This, it should be borne in mind, you say for the purpose
of giving authority to the notion, expressed in the same con
text, that the sacrifice and sufferings of the Redeemer com
menced with the act of Institution, and are still continued in
every subsequent communion of the Holy Eucharist. Let us
inquire how far all this is grounded.
" They still," you say, " wherever recorded (uttered ?) speak
of the act as a present act, ' This is my Body ' &c." I answer :
Of this surely there need be no question, because they always
recite the words said at that particular time, and to which
their Author was then present. The same may be said of
any enouncement made in the present tense : but Will it
follow from this, that such enouncements are always to be
considered as making any act or event so enounced, present
to all future time ? If so, then must all events thus enounced
in the Old Testament &c. be, by this canon of yours, simi
larly looked upon as ever present ! which is absurdity itself !
Once more : It surely cannot be necessary to inform you,
that the " is " (Gr. iffri) used here, is nothing more than the
logical copula, given for the purpose of uniting the subject
and predicate in the several propositions advanced : and, that
its being printed in Italics, either in the Authorised Version
or your Sermon, does not alter its character in this respect :
it is still the logical copula, and nothing more. Your re
mark, therefore, viz. " He saith not, ' shall be given,' ' shall be
broken,' ' shall be shed,' but, ' is being given,' ' being broken,'

74 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
' being shed ' ; as well as that on the remarkable contrast,
viz. " The bread which I will give {ov iyu> Jwo-w)" &c. ; must
all stand for nothing ! It is indeed marvellous that you
should have created so much confusion here, out of things so
essentially difi'erent ; first, supposing that terms, understood
as present to the time of their enouncement, must necessarily
be also understood as present to every future time, in whicli
they may ever after be repeated ; and all this, because the
copula " is " {iuTt) seems to intimate a present tense 1 and then
again, to attempt to ground a doctrine on this, which in
deed your Teacher, Abp, Bramhall, has positively contra
dicted! (p, 48, above,)
This is followed up by a citation from Chrysostom in
these words : " For ' a bone of Him,' it saith, ' shall not be
broken,' But," it is added, " that whicli He suffered not on
the Cross, this He suffers in the oblation for thy sake, and
submits to be broken that He may fill all men," &c. A sort
of distinction seems here to be taken, between the breaking
of the Body of the Saviour on the Cross, and the not breaking
a bone of Him there. And it is concluded, that what was not
broken on the Cross (i.e. His bone) is now broken in the
oblation of the Eucharist. According to this therefore, the
Eucharist is not to be considered as the Body, but as the
Bone, of the Saviour ! Is it possible, I would ask, that the
great John Chrysostom could have been guilty of trifling so
palpable, and of theological reasoning so miserably bad, as
this ? and — what is more strange — that Dr. Pusey should have
adopted it ? The truth however is, John Chrysostom never
intended his words to be pressed into any such service. All
he meant was, to speak popularly of the broken Body of the
Saviour, as visibly set forth in the Eucharist ; which, by a
rhetorical flourish, — not at all uncommon with him, — he goes
on to say, is even more than took place on the Cross * !

* Hom, xxiv, on 1 Cor. x. edit. Montf. Tom. X. p. 213. The words
arc : Aia ti Se TvpocreOr^Kev, 'ov KXUpiev ; tovto yap exi juev Trj^ evxapia-Tia^
ca-Tiv iSeiv yivd/xevov' eirl Se tov irTavpov ovkcti, aAAa Kai TovvavTiov TovTca'
ocTTovv yap aiiTov, ijyijcrlv, ov a-vvrpij3ij<yeTai." ' Cur autem addidit, quem
frangimus ?

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 75
Should not the caution of Bramhall have guarded you against
this mistake ?
You continue, " Hereby He seems as well to teach us that
the great Act of His Passion then began ; then, as a Priest,
did He through the Eternal Spirit offer Himself without spot
to God ; then did He ' consecrate ' Himself, before he was by
wicked hands crucified and slain; and all which followed,
until He committed His blessed Spirit to the Hands of His
Heavenly Father, was one protracted, willing suffering" ....
"and therefore," you continue, "does the Blood bedew us
too ; it cleanses us, because it is the blood shed for the remis
sion of sins. And this may have been another truth, which
Our Lord intended to convey to us, when He pronounced the
words " (in the present tense) " as the form which consecrates
the Sacramental Elements into His Body and Blood, that
that precious blood is still in continuance and application of
His One* Oblation once upon the Cross," &c.
frangimus ? hoc enim in eucharistia fieri videre est ; in cruce vero non
item imo contrarium : ait enim, Os ' (ejus) ' non comminuetur,' It is
added, ' Sed quod non passus est in cruce, hoc propter te patitur in ob-
latione, et frangi patitur ut omnes impleat,' Which, from the highly
figurative character of the language both preceding and following it never
could have been intended by this Father, to be taken as the ground of a
new doctrine,
* Here, if I understand you, you speak of the Oblation once made;
that is, completed and past ; and also, of the one Oblation still making,
and to be made daily, by the officiating Priest ; whicli is manifest con
fusion ! In confirmation of your opinion, you cite several Fathere, Greg,
Nyss,, Cypr,, Theodoret, Aug,, &c,, ending with Chrysostom, But, as
before, you have failed to catch their meaning : they speakmg either of
the Institution of the Eucharistical and mystical sacrifice, or, of this as a
commemorative rite : and not of- the one Oblation made once for all on the
Cross, Take, e.g. the place you cite in Greg, Nyss, immediately after
your words : " iroVe tovto ; ore ^putTov eavTov to trMpia eh jSpcairtv, o-ai^cof
evSeiKvvrai tco rjStj yeyevrjcrBat evreA^ tov apivov t^v ^vaiav. ov yap dv tJv to
(rcafia tov lepeiov irpo^ eSaStjv eTrtrijSeiov, e'cTfep 'e/Wij/vxov tjv. ovkovv ore ivdpecrxe
Toi? t^aOtjrai'; efjupayeiv tov o-c^i/jiaTO^, Kai tov ai^iaToq efx'kie7v' tjSij KaTa to
^eXtjTOv T5 e^oviria tov to fjvcrTtjptov otKovopovvTO^ dppijTtiii Te Kai ctopaTWi; to
o-M/ja eTe6vTo," ' When (was) this ? When He (exhibited) His own
Body for food to be eaten, He cleurlj^ shewed by this, that the sacrifice of
the Lamb had aheady been completed. For, had the Body of the victim been

76 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
What you may have intended by all this, it is quite impos
sible for me, — or perhaps for any other man, — to say. I will
only say, that, as far as I can apprehend your meaning, it is
this ; viz. that the Sacrificial Act and sufferings, by which
Christ offered Himself up for us to the Father, commenced
with the Act of Institution, and continued until He yielded
up the ghost upon the Cross ; and further, that the same
Sacrificial Act and sufferings, in which His very Body {Bone,
according to Chrysostom) is still broken, and His very Blood
is st'ill shed in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, are continued
whensoever and wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated.
If then this is your meaning, I have no hesitation in affirming
that the whole is a tissue of error. For, first : The sacra
ment ofthe Eucharist, instituted by Our Lord, was intended,
among other things, to be commemorative of something done
and past. " This do," says Our Lord, " in remembrance of
me * ,•" and the Apostle, " As oft as ye eat this bread, and
drink this cup, you do shew forth the Lords death until He
come t." If therefore this was intended to be continued as
an Act commemorative of some event, then every one of
such subsequent commemorative Acts must be Acts distinct
and different from that, of which they thus preserve aud
exhibit the memorial. They cannot therefore constitute a
mere continuation of that one primary act or event.
Again: To affirm that the sufferings of Christ commenced
when He Himself broke the Bread &c. in instituting the
Sacrament, is the same thing as to affirm that He was here,
been alive, it would not have been proper for eating. Wherefore when
He offered to the Disciples to eat of the Body, and to drink of the Blood,
He had already, according to the thing intended {lit. wUled), ineffiibly
and mvisibly sacrificed the Body, through the power of Him who
dispensed the mystery,'— This was, therefore, nothing more, according to
Gregory of Nyssa, than an exhibitory mystical act, shewing forth some-
tliing as if ah-eady done and finished. In other words, the commemo
rative act of the Sacrament, It was, consequently, no part of Our Lord's
sufferings, auy more than the Paschal feast had formerly been,— Your own
version of Chrysostom here is sufficient to shew, that aU he means is the
( 'onimemorative sacrifice of the Eucharist.
* Luke xxii. 19. + I Cor. xi. 56.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. ^^
at once, both the Agent and Patient, the Being who inflicted
the sufferings, and who bore them ! Which is as absurd, as it
is repugnant to the teaching of Holy Writ, and of all the
Orthodox Fathers of the Church. And again : To argue, that
the breaking of the Bread &c. constituted a part of that
meritorious and spotless Sacrifice, offered once in the suf
ferings of the Redeemer, is much the same as to argue, that
the Bread partook of His spotless character and nature, and,
as such, was accepted in part, at least, of the Sacrifice : when
it is certain from the terms of Institution, that neither of
these was either then offered, or commanded to he offered, at
all. All that can be said of the Eucharistical Sacrifice, as
such, and as then instituted, is, that it is commemorative of
the Sacrifice once made on the Cross : and this, just as the
Paschal Lamb, and other sacrifices offered under the Law, and
prior to the Law, were typical or indicative of the same one
Sacrifice to be made. As well, therefore, might the real
sufferings of the Redeemer be said to have commenced, and
to have continued in these, as they can in His breaking of the
Bread &c. of the Eucharist. And, once more : To argue that
these sufferings are still continued, in the breaking of the
Bread, i. e. the Body (al. Bone) of the Redeemer, is virtually
to argue, that this One Sacrifice has not yet been, and never
can be, completed, so long as any Sacramental Bread remains
to be broken. Which is at once absurd, and contrary to the
express teaching of Holy Scriptures, and of your Teacher
Abp. Bramhall *-
And upon the whole, I think it scarcely possible to con
ceive of a more wholesale disregard to every thing deserving
the name of discrimination, than you have managed to throw
together in this not very long article. In the first place, you
introduce the consideration of the present tense as used in the
terms of Institution ; then, because the thing instituted was
intended to be carried on and continued, you argue, that this
present time, so introduced, makes the very thing then insti-
* Heb. x. 10— 15, See Bramhall's mind on this matter, as will be
presently referred to.

78 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
tuted ever present, ever going on in sacrifice and in sufferings,
and never completed. And to confirm this, you institute a
comparison between the present time, apparent in the copula
is (Gr. eari), and the future, implied in the verb, / will give
(Gr. Storro)), which was used, not in speaking of an act then
present, but of one future ! And, as a consequence upon this
cogent piece of reasoning, you further tell us, that given
(Stdoixevov), broken {Khtofxevov), shed (iK-xyvofXEvov), are to be
rendered, " is being given," " being broken," " being shed " ; in
order, I suppose, to make them quadrate with your notion of
a real and perpetual sacrifice of Christ ! I ask, and What else
may they not mean, under such a process of reasoning as
this ?
You then virtually tell us upon all this, confirmed as it
seems to be by a trifling mistake of a passage in Chrysostom,
not only that the sufferings of the Redeemer commenced
with this is {icm), and continued through the period of Our
Lord's betrayal, trial, and crucifixion ; but, that they still
continue really and truly, whenever the Eucharistical Sacri
fice is offered, whenever " This is my Body " &c. is uttered
by the officiating Priest! You are anxious, as it should
seem, to deal in substantial realities, when speaking of " Holy
truth ; " and so — unwarily of course — to determine, that the
Sacrifice perfected once for all on the Cross, will not, in truth,
ever be perfected, so long as an officiating Priest remains to
offer it up in Bread {i. e. Body or Bone) still to be broken,
and in Wine still to be poured out ! I may add. If we are to
adopt reasoning such as this — latitudinarian as it is in the
extreme — what may we not recommend as the doctrine of
Holy Writ, and as the teaching of the Orthodox Fathers ?
What fancy — however absurd — provided it can be imagined
to contain a visible, tangible, and hence carnal, exhibition of
" Holy truth," may not be obtruded upon " the little ones," as
" the most literal import of Holy Writ," and as " undoubted
catholic teaching," to the ultimate injury of true religion,
and to the great scandal and offence of the Church of Christ ?
Allow me now to present you with a few extracts taken
from the English Fathers, claimed by yourself as your Exem-

OF THE REV, DR. PUSEY. 79
plars and Authorities, and, in one or two instances, from
works published by the Body, of which you are supposed to
be the Head.
If you will turn back to page 48, above, you will find
Bramhall's mind on this subject given in the style and
manner of a man whom you may, much to your credit, call
Master. " Surely you cannot think that Christ did actually
sacrifice Himself at His Last Supper " &c. Now take the fol
lowing from Bp. Ridley, given in Vol. IV. of your Tracts,
p. 50. No. 81 : " The falseness of the Propositions" (i.e. that
" in the Mass is the lively sacrifice of the Church " &c.) " after
the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romish Church, and
impiety in that sense, which the words seem to import, is
this ; that they, leaning to the foundation of their fond Tran
substantiation " (here, Consubstantiation), " would make the
quick and lively body of Christ's flesh (united and knit to
the Divinity) to lie hid under the accidents and outward
show of Bread and Wine, — which is very false, as I have
said before; and they" (here, you,) "building upon this
foundation " (i. e. Consubstantiation) — " do hold that the same
body is offered unto God, hy the priest in his daily mass'mgs,
to put away the sins of the quick and the dead ; whereas, by
the Apostle to the Hebrews, it is evident that there is but
one Oblation, and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church,
offered upon the Altar of the Cross, which was, is, and shall
be for ever, the propitiation for the sins of the whole world ;
and where there is remission of the same, there is, saith the
Apostle, no more offering for sin. — In the Mass, the Passion of
Christ is not in verity, hut in a mystery representing the same ;
yea, even there, when the Lord's Supper is duly ministered.
But where Christ suffereth not, there is He not offered in
verity ; for the Apostle saith, Not that He might offer up Him
self oftentimes {for then must Fie have suffered oftentimes since
the beginning of the world). Now, when Christ is not offered,
there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice "...." I know," continues
Ridley, " that all these places of the Scripture are avoided by
two manner of subtile shifts : the one is, by the distinction
of the bloody and unbloody Sacrifice ; as though our unbloody

80 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
Sacrifice of the Church were any other than the Sacrifice of
Praise and Thanksgiving, than a commemoration, a showing
forth, and a Sacramental Representation of that one only bloody
Sacrifice, offered up once for all. The other is, hy depraving
and wresting the sayings of the ancient Fathers unto such a
strange kind of sense, as the Fathers themselves indeed never
meant *- For what the meaning of the Fathers was, is evident
by that which St. Augustine writeth . , , likewise by Eusebius
Emissenus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Fulgentius, Bertram, and
others, who do wholly concord and agree together in this
unity in the Lord, that the Redemption once made in verity
for the Salvation of Man, continueth in full force for ever,
and worketh without ceasing unto the end of the world ;
that the Sacrifice once offered cannot be consumed ; that the
Lord's Death and Passion is as effectual, the virtue of that
Blood once shed, as fresh at this day, for the washing away
of sins, as it was, even the same day that it flowed out of the
blessed side of our Saviour : and finally, that the whole sub
stance of our Sacrifice, which is frequented ofthe Church in the
Lord's Supper, consisteth in Prayers, Praise, and giving of
Thanks, and in remembering and in shewing forth of that Sa
crifice once offered upon the Altar of the Cross ; that the same
might continually be had in reverence by Mystery, whicli once
only,sini no more, was offered for the Price of our Redempt'ion."
Again (ib, p, 43, from the Homily concerning the Sa
crament), we must take heed lest of the memory it be made
a sacrifice ; lest of a communion it be made a private eating ;
lest of two parts we have but one," &c. And (ib. p. 44)
again, the same French writer [Courayer, Depense, &c.]
observes, that Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury, is, of the first
writers of the Reformation, one of the most opposed to the
[Roman] Catholics, and who has spoken as much and as
loudly as any one, both against the Mass, and the Sacrifice
* It is interesting to observe the identity of the fact, that the Ro
manists, in the days of Ridley, misinterpreted and misapplied the Fathers,
not only in the same way, but in the very same places ; and this for the
purpose of bolstering up notions, quite of a piece with many contained in
your Sermon.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY, 81
.... He throughout holds a mystical offering and sacrifice of
Jesus Christ." "As Christ was slain at » the Table, so was
He sacrificed at the Table. But He was not slain at the Table
verily and indeed, but only in a mystery : therefore He was
not sacrificed at ihe Table really and indeed, but only in a
mystery. ' The sacrifice [after the order of Melchisedek]
which is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, is
only Jesus Christ the Son of God upon the Cross, And the
ministration of the holy Mysteries, in a phrase or manner of
speech, is also the same sacrifice, because it layeth forth the
death and blood of Christ so plainly and so evidently before
our eyes,' 'We offer up Christ, i.e. an example, a commemo
ration, a remembrance of the Death of Christ. This kind of
sacrifice was never denied.'' ' What then does he (i e. Bp.
Jewell) deny ? That Jesus Christ was really sacrificed, that
He offers anew His own life, and again sheds His own blood,'
.... that ' Christ sacrificed Himself at two sundry times, and
that He twice really shed His blood, first at the Table, and
afterwards upon the Cross.' ' Tliis it was,' adds he, ' which
Jewell combated, ... In truth, all his answers . . . come to
this ; viz. that they do not prove that Jesus Christ was really
sacrificed, and that consequently there is no sacrifice ' (doubt
less in the sense in which he supposed the ' [Roman] ' Catho
lics hold it)." " It is thus that he answers the passage of St.
Cyprian, that of the supposed Areopagite, that of Irenaeus,
and St. Ambrose and others, which Harding paraded in his
work. ' The place,' he goes on, "of St. Cyprian, . . . not once
toucheth the real sacrificing of Christ unto His Father,' &c.
' Here Dionysius calleth not the ministration of the holy
Mysteries the sacrificing of Christ unto His Father [as M.
Harding would force us to believe, but a figurative sacrifice,
that is, a figure or a sign of that great sacrifice] ' — ' That Ire
naeus meant not any such real sacrifice of the Son of God,
nor may not in any wise so be taken, it is evident by the
plain words that follow, touching the same.' — ' Even so, St.
Ambrose saith Christ is offered here in the earth (not really
and indeed), as M. Harding (, here Dr. Pusey) saith but in like
sort and sense as St. John saith, ' The Lamb was slain from

82 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
the beginning of the world, that is, not substantially or in
real manner, hut in siynification in mystery and in a figured
" Read," continues M. Courayer, " through all that this author
(Bp. Jewell) says, on the subject, and you will find that it
comes back to these two points ; 1st, That Jesus Christ does
not really offer Himself in the Eucharist. 2dly, That there is
no proper sacrifice where there is no real immolation." — This
writer adds though a Romanist, in the true spirit of our
Reformers, and of the ancient Fathers, " Therefore this new
article of faith, of a real sacrificing and shedding Christ's
Blood at the Table, neither being true in itself, nor hitherto
. . . any way proved — to say, that any mortal man hath
power and authority, really and indeed to sacrifice the Son
of God, it is a, manifest and wicked blasphemy."
From page 61 to 64, of this same Tract, are given extracts,
in Bp. Jewell's own words, sufficiently lengthy to shew us,
that Courayer has neither mistaken nor misrepresented the
opinions of his Author ; and to these I now refer you ; deem
ing it sufficient for my purpose, to add a few words from the
Writer of this Tract to shew, that these sentiments of Bp.
Jewell, — and the same may be said of those of Ridley &c., —
were not wholly opposed to those of Dr. Pusey's school in
1838, however the case may be now. " This long extract,"
says this Writer, " may be of much use in setting vividly be
fore the mind, not merely the opinions of Bp. Jewell, but
whereon the controversy really turned, viz. on the doctrine
of Transubstantiation " .... By " true and proper sacrifice,"
' the Tridential decree means ' " an actual immolation of the
real substantial Body and Blood of Christ," ' an Anglican
must reject it : if, on the other hand, it could have meant
only ' " a real oblation, commemorative of the one Sacrifice
of Our Lord, and pleading and applying its merits," the
phrase in itself would have nothing objectionable : in a
word, if " true and proper " means, " physical, corporeal,
substantial," ie. implies " Transubstantiation, we reject it."
&c. — I would only remark, that whatever may here be said
of Transubstant'iation, implying a reality &c. of the Body
and Bkiod of Christ, the same may also be said of Consub-

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 83
stantiation, which, as it appears to me, is a main object of
your Sermon to inculcate. The same will hold good with
reference to the opinions of the ancient Fathers of the
Church, particularly as understood by Ridley, Jewell, and
others. Their figurative, representative, symbolical, shewing
forth of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament,— not without
an especial spiritual grace attending this, — is moreover just
as much opposed to your Consubstantial notions about the
Eucharist, as it was in the mouth of Jewell and of others, to
those of Transubstantiation held by Romanists. So far,
therefore, Ridley, Jewell, and a host of others both ancient
and modern, not excepting moreover some writers of your
own school, combat the doctrine, which it appears to be
your great object now to have believed and established.
Section X. — On the Eucharist as spoken of in the ancient
Liturgies of the Church.
Let us now proceed to your appeals to the ancient Litur
gies ; for these also you claim as witnesses wholly and entirely
in your favour. But here, as you are any thing but explicit,
all I can do will be, to examine that, which, — after the ma-
turest consideration I can give to your statements, — it appears
to be your intention to inculcate. I must also premise, that
I shall take it for granted, that, when you speak of the Body
and Blood of Our blessed Lord, you mean, consistently with
your notions of Consubstantiation, the very, identical, and real,
Body and Blood, which the Elements have accordingly be
come, under an ineffable but spiritual mode of process.
You tell us then (p. 24), that " There is ... an entire agree
ment in the Eucharistic Liturgies of the Universal Church,
in prayer, in benediction, in declaration, confessing that in
the Holy Eucharist there is forgiveness of sins also." I re
mark: If you mean that an absolute remission of sins is,
according to these Liturgies, granted in the Eucharist, merely
because they exhibit the consecrated Elements as the very,
real, and true Body and Blood of Christ, I affirm unhesi
tatingly, that they inculcate no such thing ; and, that in this
case, as before, you have misunderstood and misrepresented
G 2

84 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
them. But if you mean, that there is afforded in the Holy
Eucharist a means for obtaining the remission of sins,
through faith * in the great Sacrifice made once for all of
the Body of the Lord Jesus ; then I as readily affirm, that
you are right ; and, that these Liturgies are entirely and
wholly with you. My belief is however, that the former of
these propositions is that to which you give your assent, and
which it is your object to recommend and to establish ; be
cause your notions about Consubstantiation evidently require
this; and because a direct and positive inculcation of faith
in the Saviour, and of belief in the sanctifying influences of
the Holy Spirit, must otherwise have been brought forward
much more frequently and prominently than they have been
throughout your Sermon.
That the Authors of these several Liturgies believed not
in Transubstantiation, I have shewn sufficiently at length in
my Visitation Sermon and Notest ; and to that I must
refer you, I will now affirm, that the arguments proving
that they believed not in Transubstantiation, will apply with
equal force against your notions about Con.substantintion.
If for example, these Liturgies pray that the Holy Ghost
would descend, and make the Elements the means of salva
tion, of putting away sins, of renewing to holiness, to the
faithful Recipients, — and this they do even after the terms of
Institution have been pronounced over them, " This is my
Body " &c., — it must follow, either, that they did not consider
the Elements capable of these effects before such prayer was
offered up, or else, that the prayer itself was unnecessary and
superfluous t. If they believed that the Elements had already
become the very Body and Blood, accompanied by the Divine
Word or Spirit, by virtue of the words of Institution ; then,
* HomUy for Easter-day : " For with Christ by true faith art thou
quickened again, saith St. Paul, from death of sm to life of grace, and in
hope translated from corporal and everlasting death, to the everlastino-
life of glory in heaven, where now thy conversation should be, and^tliy
heart and desire set,"
t Preached at Bp, Stortford in 1838, Cambridge, 1839, p, 68, seq.
t lb. p, 117, seq, it. 121, seq., and here, below.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 85
I ask. What could possibly have induced them to offer up
a prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit ; and this, for the
express, and expressed, purpose of making the Elements
effectual to the salvation of the Recipient ? Surely, if the
authors of these Liturgies do insist upon the Priest and
Congregation's praying for the thing already vested in the
Elements, their authority can never be worth citing in such
a question as this. But there is not the least reason for
supposing, that they held any such thing : nor is there con
sequently, that they entertained any belief in Consubstan
tiation; or, which is the same thing, that the Elements
become, by virtue of the terms of consecration, the very,
real, and substantial. Body and Blood of Christ.
Once more : It is not for any efficacy to be imparted to
the Flesh, or through the Flesh, as existing in the Eucharist,
that they pray in these cases. It is for the descent of the
Holy Spirit, and that He would, by His creative and renewing
energies, supply to the fa'ithful Recipient of the mystical
Body and Blood, that saving Grace which should re-create
and renew his soul. And the same is the doctrine of all the
ancient and orthodox Latin, Greek, Syriac, and English Fa
thers, many of whom you have so unhappily misunderstood
and misrepresented. All these ascribe with one voice, every
effect wrought, and to be wrought, on the souls of the
faithful, to the influence of the Holy Spirit ; and this they
evidently learned from the true Exemplars of all Ecclesi
astical and Theological teaching, viz. Our blessed Lord Him
self, His Holy Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists. The Flesh,
as these Teachers have taught us, can profit nothing : it is
the Spirit alone that can give life : and this, with all the other
blessings presented to us in the divine teaching, is to be had
only by a constant, scriptural, and faithful, application of the
means of grace granted ; of which the Holy Communion of
the Body and Blood of Christ is the most efficacious and the
most important.
My intention here is, to give a few extracts from one
of these Liturgies, but these sufficiently numerous, as I hope,
to shew how their authors must have thought on the subject

86 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
of the Eucharist. For, if they held the doctrine either of
Transubstantiation or oi Consubstantiation, it is but reasonable
to expect, that they would have expressed themselves accord
ingly: in the first case, just as Roman Catholics do, and
which I have elsewhere* shewn is never done by them: in
the second, as you have done in your Sermon ; which I now
proceed to shew has never been their practice. I shall take
only the Liturgy usually ascribed to St. James, which is
justly supposed to contain one of the most ancient and un
adulterated forms of the Liturgy : and I shall follow the Edi
tion of Renaudotius f.
After the prayer preceding the kiss of peace, the Deacon is
made to say, ' Let t us stand as is becoming, and let us jiray :
let us give thanks, and adore, and praise, the Living Lamb
of God, who is offered upon the altar ;' — which, you would
have no doubt, means that the Eucharist is here intended to
be worshipped. And, at first sight, this would seem to be
the intention of the Liturgy : but, it would only seem to be
so. From a careful examination of this Liturgy, and of
others descended from it, it will appear as certain as words
can make it, that the ' Living Lamb ' represented, commemo
rated, shewn forth S^c, by this mystical offering, is the Being,
and the only Being, here intended to be worshipped.
This Bidding prayer then goes on to say, ' 'The Divinity
caused itself to descend to Sinners, the sons of Adam,' &c. . .
' By the Holy Ghost were the Prophets inflamed, and spoke
of the First Born.' . . . ' Moses openly wrote, that He Himself
made the Creatures ; and He Himself constituted for His
ministry the Orders of Fire and of Spirit.' . . . ' Blessed art
* lb. passim. t Par. 1716. in two Vols. 4to.
\ Tom. II. p. 29, seq. : " Stemus deccnter, oremus, ct gratias agamus,
adoremus et laudenius agnum vivum Dei qui off'ertur super altare. Divi-
nitas sese demisit ad pcccatores filios Adam " . . . " Spiritu sancto succensi
sunt Prophetie, et de Primogenito locuti sunt "... " Aperte scripsit Moses
quod ipse crcaturas condidit, et ipse statuit ad ministerium suum ordines
ignis et spiritus". . " Beata cs Ecclesia fidelis, donis quaj dedit tibi
Dominus tuus, corpore et sanguine suo sancto, et cruce ejus qua; te
ciistodit."

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 87
thou, faithful Church, in the gifts which thy Lord has given
thee, by His Holy Body and Blood, and by His Cross which
preserves thee ' &c. Here then, the 'Body and Blood," in the
Eucharist, are spoken of merely as means* whereby these
gifts are to be obtained, just as the Cross was. Neither of
these, therefore, could have been meant, by the ' Living
Lamb,' who is here said to be the Creator of all things, as well
as the Ordaiuer of the services which are rendered to Him
by the ministration of Spirits and of Fire. This distinction
is, I say, both obvious and necessary.
Proceed we now to other passages of this Liturgy. ' Turn t
not thy face from us while we celebrate this spiritual and
unbloody sacrifice ; for we trust not in our own righteousness,
but in thy mercy," (Ib. p. 30). Here then, the sacrifice offered
is affirmed to be ' spiritual and unbloody." It cannot there
fore be the real Body and real Blood of Christ, unless it can
be shewn, that Bodily and Spiritual, bloody and unbloody, mean
respectively the same things. It also appears, that no merit
is assumed by the worshippers, but that all is ascribed to the
mercy and grace of God. It is next requested in prayer, that
this ' Mystery, instituted for us unto salvation, may not be
for the judgment (condemnation) of Thy (God's) people ;
but, for pardon of sinners, &c., through the grace, mercy, and
love of thy only-begotten Son." Whence it is evident, that for
giveness of sins is not here said — as you would have it— to

¦* And the same is the case in all the instances cited by you from other
Liturgies (as in p. 24 of your Sermon and Note) : " Think ... ye receive
the Divine Body . . . from the Seraphim themselves with the tongs of
fire" ..." The spu-itual 'fire,' frec|uent in the Greek hymns on the . .
Eucharist, refers to this type " {i.e. the vessel called dyia Aa/3(s) ... "to
take with pure ' tongs ' . . . the fiery coal " (ib. p. 25 j " for the communica
tion of the Holy Spirit " . . (ib.) " Thy living Body " . . . " This mystery
instituted for our salvation " &c, " That I may , , , be filled with thy
Holy Spirit " &c. All of which, even in your own context, must neces
sarUy be understood as speaking of the gifts of the Spirit, as obtained
through the instrumentality of the Eucharist.
t "Ne avertas faciem tuam a nobis, dum sacrificium hoc spirituale
et inoruentam celebramus : non enim justitiae nostra; confidimus, sed
misericordise tuse."

88 . REMARKS ON THE SERMON
be in the Eucharist, but through the grace, mercy, and love of
the Redeemer, and through the Eucharist as a means only *,
Again, the Deacon is made to say (ib,), ' The t doors of
heaven are opened, and the Holy Ghost descends upon these
Holy Mysteries'; and 'Brethren!, we are made Fellows of
the Watchers and Angels, and with them we perform the
ministry of Fire and of Spirit.' The efficacy of the Holy
Spirit is, therefore, now supposed to attend on these myste
ries ; and, those concerned therein are said to partake with
them in a purely spiritual service. So far then, the Efficacy
is spiritual, as is also the service. Neither, therefore, can be
fleshly ; unless, as before, spiritual and fleshly are convertible
terms. The next petition is, that ' The § love cf the Father,
the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, he
in us all." We then have, as in our own Communion Ser
vice, 'Lift II up your hearts' &c. And it is added, among
other things, 'It is truly worthy and just, becoming and due,
that we praise Thee, bless Thee, worship Thee, adore Thee,
give thanks unto Thee, to Thee the Maker of every'creature,
^'isible or invisible ; whom the heaven, and the heaven of
heavens, do praise, &c, . , . cry and say . . . Holy, holy, holy
art Thou, Lord God of Hosts,' &c. Whence it must appear
* "Ne in judicium sit populo tuo Mysterium hoc, quod' institu turn
nobis est ad salutem . sed ad veniam peccatorum . . . per gratiam, mise-
ricordiam, et aniorem ergo homines unigeniti tui," Y'ou cite the Breviary
(p, 26, Notes), to shew that the Receivers of the Eucharist are thereby
expiated, cleansed from guilt, Y'ou need not have told us that Romanists
ti-ust m the opus operatum : and less need was tliere, that you so far
should have recommended this,"
t " Jaiiuffi coeli aperiuntur, et Spiritus sanctus descendit super hajc
mysteria sancta " &c,
t " Fratres et Socn A'igUum et Angelonim facti sumus, et ministerium
ignis et spiritus cum illis operamur,"
§ " Caritas Patris, gratia FiUi, et communicatio Spiritus sancti, sint
cum omnibus nobis."
II lb. p. 31. "Sursum corda," &c, . . "Vere dignum ct justum est
decens et debituni, ut tc landemus, te bencdicamus, te celebremus tl
adoremus, tibi gratias agamus, tibi opifici omnis creature, visibilis'aut
iiivisibihs' .... "Quem laudant ccelum ct coeli coelorum .... clamant
. ct dicunt : Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus es Dominus Deus Sabaoth."

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 89
I think, that it is not to any creature whatsoever, that this
Liturgy ascribes the praise of the Church and of the hea
venly hosts, nor to any means of grace, however good ; but,
to the Author and giver of grace, and of salvation, alone.
Again (ib. p. 32.), we have, immediately after the words
of Institution : ' Do * this in remembrance of me ; for, as
often as ye shall eat this Bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall
announce my death, and shall confess my resurrection, until
I shall come.' The People t say : ' The memory of Thy
death, O Lord, we do commemorate. Thy Resurrection we
do confess, and Thy second coming we do expect. Mercy
and grace we ask of Thee ; for the remission of our sins we
pray : let Thy mercies be upon us all.' — Which is repeated
for the most part by the Priest, who adds, ' We X offer unto
Thee this fearful and unbloody sacrifice,' &c. The Bread
and the Cup are here, therefore, taken in their simplest desig
nations ; and the act is commemorative of the great Sacrifice
made once for all ; and is made equivalent to the announcing
of this, and to the confessing of Christ's Resurrection. .Justi
fication from all things by grace, is then asked for in prayer.
This is re-echoed by the Priest, who then offers the unbloody
sacrifice, representative, and commemorative of that, through
which alone pardon of sin can be expected or obtained.
We have nothing here, therefore, in the least savouring of
your union and communion of the Flesh ; all this is merged
in considerations of a much higher, more scriptural, and
more efficient, nature.
After this, the Deacon is made to say (ib.p. 33), 'How§
* " Hoc facite in memoriam mei : quotiescumque enim manducabitis
panem hunc et calicem istum bibetis, mortem meam annuntiabitis, et re-
surrectionem meam confitebuiiini, donee veniam,"
t " Populus. Mortis tuee, Domine, memoriam agimus, resurrectionem
tuam confitemur, et adventum tuum secundum expectaraus ; miseri-
cordiam et gratiam a te postulamus : remissionem peccatorum precamur :
misericordise tuse sint super nos omnes,"
t " Offerimus tibi hoc sacrificium tenlbile et incruentum,"
§ "Quam terribilis est hsec hora: quam timendum tempus istud,
dilecti mei, quo Spiritus vivus et sanctus ex excelsis subUmibus coeli
advenit, descendit et illabitur super Eucharistiam hanc in sanctuario
positam, eamque sanctificat."

90.

REMARKS ON THE SERMON

terrible is this hour ; How fearful is that time, my Beloved,
in which the Living Holy Spirit comes from the lofty (and)
sublime places of heaven, descends and falls upon this Eucha
rist placed in the Sanctuary, and sanctifies it,' &c. The
Priest then makes the Invocation in tliese words : 'Have*
mercy upon us, (O) God the Father Almighty, and send Thy
Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who is equal to Thee
in the throne, and equal to Thy Son in rule, consubstantial
and co-eternal,' &c  'That coming, he may make (con
stitute) that Bread, the Life-giving Body, the saving Body,
the heavenly Body, the Body affording salvation to souls
and bodies, the Body of the Lord God and Our Saviour Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins, and life eternal, to them
who receive it,' The same is said of the Wine and Water
mixed in the Cup, as to the Blood ; and the People add,
' Amen.' — Here as before, the Spirit alone is that which
supplies all the efficacy, first to the Bread and Wine, by sanc
tifying these, and, secondly, through these, as means, — ' con
duit pipes,' in the terms of Bp. Andrewes, — to those who
duly communicate : and this efficacy the Priest asks in the
next prayer, as supplying the most-i rich gifts of the Holy
Ghost : which he prays may be granted to all the faithful, &c.
The Priest (ib. p. 38.) proceeds to the breaking of the
Eucharist with these words : ' We t believe, we draw near,
we sign, and we break this Eucharist, the heavenly bread, the
Body ofthe Word ofthe Living God, in the cup of salvation
and of thanksgivings ; in the manner of the Cross we sign
&c. — Now, whatever may be supposed to be contained in the
* " Miserere nobis, Deus Pater oninipotens, et mitte Spiritum tuum
sanctum, Dommuni et vivificantem, qui tibi tlirono aequalis est, et filio
sequalis regno, consubstantialis et c6-seternus" , , . " Ut adveniens efficiat
panem istum, corpus vivifieum, corpus salutare, corpus coeleste, corpus
animabus et corporibus salutem prsestans, coi-pus Domini Dei et Salvatoris
nostri Jesu Christi, in remissionem peccatorum, et vitam seternam accipi-
entibus iUud."
t ( Ib. p. 34) : " Dona ditissima Spiritus tui sancti concede ipsis."
I (Ib. p. 38) : " Credimus, accedinius, obsignamus, et frangimus Eucha
ristiam banc : panem coelestem, corpus Verbi Dei vivi, in calice salutis et
gi-atiarum actionis, in crucis modum signamus."

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 91
terms " heavenly bread," " the Body of the Word," &c., it is
perfectly certain, that the whole of this rite is representative,
commemorative, or symbolical*; and consequently, that the
Elements themselves, so applied here, can be considered
only as representatives, memorials, or symbols : through which,
indeed, divine grace is to be conferred, just as it is the case
with water in Baptism, No real, very, and substantial. Body
and Blood of Christ can, therefore, be supposed to be con
tained, in any sense, in these Elements.
Again (ib. p. 39), we have the end for which the Holy
Ghost is sent down, after the prayer of Invocation, stated in
these words : ' Ye t Deacons, be ye in tremor at this holy
season in which the Holy Ghost descends to sanctify the Bo
dies of those who receive it {i.e. the lively fire so administered).

*, On the particulars of this rite, as in use among the Syrians, see my
Visitation Sermon and Notes (p. 132, seq.) Renaudotius teUs us, (Lit.
Orient, tom. II. p. 108, seq.) that this rite is much the same in all the
Oriental Churches. He then gives us an extract from a Greek Liturgy
of St, James, describing the manner in which the several signs are made.
Upon signing the Bread, is said, ' Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the
Father, who taketh away the sin ofthe world, slain for the life and salvation
ofthe world.' The Greek is this: 'Kai orav a-ippayi'Q'j tov apTov XeyeV "13e o
apLvb^ TOV Qeov, 6 vio<; tov Trarpo?, 6 a'tpmv Tijv aptapTiav tov Koa-fxov, a-ipayiatrOeU
virep T^9 TOV Koa-fxov t^iarj';, Kai (TKiTrjpia^' Let it be borne in mind, this is
said after the words of Institution, and also after the Invocation of the
Holy Ghost ; and yet the Bread is said to be broken, and united with the
wine, in a rite purely representative, or symbolical : implying evidently
that the Elements are still in their nature Bread and Wine, and nothing
else ; and yet these very Elements, unchanged in their nature, are here
styled ' the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father,' &c. But, if these Ele
ments had become, by some ineffable mode, the very Body and Blood of
Christ, What must the impiety have been which could here divide,
puncture, unite them, and in other respects treat them as the creatures
only of Bread and Wine? The terms '¦'Lamb of God, Son of the
Father,' must therefore be understood here in a mystical or sacramental
sense, implying that in these Elements Believers viewed, contemplated
by faith, the very Lamb of God, Son of the Father, &c., and nothing more :
and the same must be true as to all simUar expressions : and this, a little
careful honest inquiry wiU shew to be the fact,
t " Diaconi, estote cum tremore, hoc tempore sancto, quo descendit
Spiritus sanctus, ad sanotificanda corpora eorum, qui Ulud suscipiunt,"

92 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
So far then, we have no ineffable mode of change in the
Elements : and the descent of the Holy Spirit is for the
srmctificalion of ihe BeUevers. It is therefore to the Holy
Spirit, in every case, that the efficacy of the Eucharist, as a
means of grace, is ascribed,
A little farther on (ib. p,42), the thanksgivings of the con
gregation are offered up in these words : ' We * thank Thee,
O God, and we praise Thee especially, for Thy great and
unspeakable love towards men. Condemn not those, O Lord,
whom thou hast vouchsafed to admit to partake of Thy hea
venly Table, on account of the taking of Thy holy and unde
filed Mysteries, But keep us, O good (Lord), in righteousness
and holiness, that, having been made worthy of the commu
nication of Thy Holy Spirit, we may obtain part, lot, and
inheritance, with all those Saints, who, of this world, have
pleased Thee ; through grace ' &c. Where, it should be ob
served, what is elsewhere occasionally styled the Altar, is here
named ' the heavenly Table," The thanksgivings are, for God's
great and unspeakable love to men : and the benefit received
through the Eucharist, is the Communication of God"s Holy
Spirit, Of the very and substantial flesh of Our Lord, and of
the sacrificial altar, not so much as a word is here said, or a
notion intimated.
I will now affirm, that all the Ancient Liturgies of the
Church, East and West, abound in expressions and usages of
this sort; and that it is impossible fairly to extract from
them either declarations, or observances, amounting to any
thing like the Consubstantial earthly views, whicli it appears
to be the object of your Sermon to teach. That there are
evidences of modern interpolation, and of modern super
stition and ignorance, to be found in these, I most readily
* " Gratias agimus tibi Deus, et praecipue laudamus te ob immensum
ct incffabilem crga homines amoreni tuum, O Domine, quos admittere
dignatus es ad participationem mciisa> tuas coelestis, ne damnes ob suscep-
tioneni mysteriorum tuorum sanctorum et immaculatorum, Verum 6
bone, custodi nos in justitia et sanctitate, ut digni effecti communicatione
Spiritus tui sancti, partem, sorteni et ha^reditatem consequamur cum
Sanctis illis omnibus, qui ex hoc mundo tibi placuerunt; per gratiam " ike.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 93
admit : but I deny, that either TransiibstantiaUon, or Consub
stantiation, of the Eucharist is, or indeed any thing approach
ing to either of these. Of this, a few hours' perusal of these
Liturgies will convince every one, who is willing to submit
to such inquiry. And I will venture to affirm, that he will
return from the perusal with much information and, not
improbably, with some additions to his piety, as well as of
thankfulness to Almighty God for his having preserved these
documents, such as they are, to our times. These Liturgies
do in the main, therefore, agree most cordially with the
requirements of Holy Scripture, with the teaching of An
drewes and Bramhall, and with the Orthodox Fathers of the
Catholic Church generally ; while they present nothing what
soever accordant with the peculiar doctrines of your Sermon.
Section XI. — On the true state ofthe case, with concluding
Remarks.
Having then so far touched on your Sermon, its Preface,
and Notes, allow me now to say on the Extracts given in
your Appendix, that Every one of these, with their Authors, is
also opposed to your notion of a fleshly and consubslanticd
union, and communion, with Christ ; as they also are, to any
ineffable change, either Consubstantial or Transubstantial,
taking place in the consecrated Elements of the Eucharist.
It V70uld far exceed the limits, which I have thought it right
to prescribe to myself here, to enter into a particular exami
nation of each and every of these : nor can it be necessary.
After what has been shewn in the preceding pages, any one
may without difficulty do this for himself. And I cannot but
express my surprise, that Extracts such as these should have
been brought forward, for the purpose so generally of giving
currency to sentiments, to which every one knows their
Authors were opposed; and, that this should so far have
escaped exposure. It seems to be a feature peculiar to
your new Theological school to undertake, on the amplest
scale, labour of this sort. The late attempt made in Tract 90,
by one of your school, — not to mention those of many others
occurring in that series of publications, — to make our Articles

94 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
harmonize with the decrees of the Council of Trent, was a
remarkable instance of this sort. Your own, in this Sermon
and its Notes, — in which you have attempted to enlist An
drewes, Bramhall, and many of the worthies of the Syrian,
Greek, Latin, and Anglican Churches, into your service,
is no less entitled to our special wonder. It exhibits a phse-
nomenon, I think I may say, unequalled in the annals of
Theological literature. The success too, which has attended
this most strange and chivalrous undertaking, is certainly
what could hardly have been expected in a day so enlightened
as this is supposed to be. I will affirm nevertheless, that it
is as short-sighted as it is chivalrous, and evinces a want of
judgment quite as great, as either its ingenuity or perse
verance can be supposed to be.
If, then, I have at all seized the intention of your Publica
tion, I have perhaps succeeded in shewing, that it is consis
tent, neither with the express declarations of Holy Writ, nor
with those of the Orthodox Fathers of our own Church
claimed as your Teachers, nor yet with those of the Syrian,
Greek, and Latin Churches, quoted as your supporters. The
fact appears to be, that you have advanced a number of
notions peculiar to your school ; and then, fancying that all
these Authorities were with you, because they haVe occasio
nally used language, in some degree, similar to yours, — you
have without farther inquiry, cited them as fully supporting
and establishing your opinions ! And, — what is still more
strange, — a very large proportion of your Readers have had
no doubt, that this was really the case !
I am well aware indeed, that the more than ordinary, and
apparently studied, obscurity of your language, the manifestly
vague and indefinite character of your statements — which I
have already more than once adverted to, — is such, as to
leave it a matter of great uncertainty, what your meaning
really is.- This, I think, every one who has read your Ser
mon must allo\v. What you really have meant, I will con
fess at once, I do not know. All I can say is, I have honestly
and sedulously endeavoured to seize the sense, which your
statements seemed, after the maturest consideration I could

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 9,5
give them, to warrant, and which any unprejudiced person
would, from the perusal of your work, believe,- as I think, —
to be its intentions. If I have erred, I will say.; This has not
been intentional, nor has it resulted from a careless perusal
of your publication. Inability on my part might indeed have
contributed to it; and for this I must crave your indulgence.
There is a consideration which I must mention here, and
which I think has administered, in some degree at least, to
the obscurity so visible in your Sermon. It is this, — and it
is a feature found to run through all the publications of your
school : — There are to be found occasionally, never promi
nently I think, intimations of those true doctrines which are
common to the whole Church of Christ, but which are by no
means consistent with those, which it appears to be your
principal aim to recommend and to enforce. Now, as I have
already allowed, that I am by no means certain what your
exact intentions may have been, and, as I have taken upon
me to examine those parts only, which have appeared to be
the most prominent, and to have been urged by you with the
greatest earnestness, and indeed to the greatest extent; it is
perfectly competent to you to fall back upon these few ortho
dox places, as upon an army of reserve ; and to contend, — as
it has sometimes been done by your school, — that it could
never have been your intention to asperse, or in any way
to oppose, these Catholic truths ; but, on the contrary, to up
hold and urge them.
Allow me to say in answer to this : I do not intend to
impugn your honesty here. I can suppose it perfectly easy
and natural for one, — who has habituated himself to the fabri
cation of mysteries, and to the consigning of every thing not
very consistent or easy to be understood to their guardian
ship, — both to hold, and occasionally to propound, opinions
neither consistent with each other, nor, in many cases, true
in themselves ; and yet to believe, that he is not sinning
against Holy Scripture, common sense, or indeed any uni
versally received truths. And, as in all such cases, the most
favoured of these not very consistent notions, will be urged
with the greatest zeal, I have deemed it my duty to offer a

96 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
refutation of those only, contained in your Sermon, which
I have believed to be heterodox, and to have been so fa
voured by you ; without at all intending to imply, that you
are either dishonest or wholly heterodox; but to shew that
to be untrue, which you have here seemed most anxious to
propagate, and for which no good authority can be advanced.
I may then perhaps affirm, — under these limitations, —
that I have shewn in the preceding pages, that your ineffable
mode of change in the essence of the Eucharist is a ground
less fiction; that Holy Scripture, Bp. Andrewes, Abp. Bram
hall, and the Authorities generally cited in your Notes and
Appendix, together with the ancient Liturgies, never enter
tained any notion of this ineffable mode of yours, nor yet
of a Consubstantiation of the Eucharist ; of the absolute fleshly
and consubstantial unity (union) of Believers with the Eucha
rist, with Christ, and with the Deity himself ! Of the suf
ferings and real sacrifice of Christ, commencing with the
enouncement of the terms of Institution, and continuinff till
He gave up the Ghost ; — and of this very Sacrifice being still
continued; the Body of the Saviour being still actually
broken, actually suffering, and the real blood still shed,
whenever the Eucharist is consecrated; — of such things I
say, these Authorities afford you no ground of support what
soever. No, Dear Sir, it has only been your fondness for
these things, the false creation of the theory-oppressed brain,
which has induced you to believe, that — like Macbeth's air-
drawn dagger — you sav^^ them everywhere.
The mistake again, of supposing, that the strictly literal
interpretation of any Document must necessarily be the true
one, seems to have suggested itself to you as a most trust
worthy and powerful ally': and, under this both Scripture
and the Fathers have been made to contribute to your aid,
in a way the most abundant, flattering, and confirmatory.
And yet you are well aware, that the veriest Tyro in Theo
logy knows this Canon of yours to be futile !
You were probably offended, that a few are to be found
among us, who think and speak too lowly of the means of
grace adopted in our Church. I can feel the force of this.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 97
and can lament it with you. But. let me ask you. Can you
recognise no mean between the sin of making these nothing,
and of making them every thing ?— between considering the
Eucharist a mere sign or symbol on the one hand, and as
consubstantial with the Deity, and with man, on the other ?
Can you believe the absolute deification ofthe Elements to be
less sinful in the one case, than a defective view of their
value and efficacy is in the other ? For my own part, I be
heve the former to be the greater sin ; tending, as it does,
to rob God of His honour, and contributing, as it must,
to disseminate ignorance and superstition of the very worst
sort throughout the Church of Christ. If, indeed, you had
adhered closely to the guidance of Andrewes and Bramhall,
you would have done well. If, together with them, you had
vigorously enforced the best sentiments of the ancient Or
thodox Fathers, you would indeed have done a good and a
great work. You would have given to Holy Scripture its
due authority and pre-eminence, as they have done : to our
Catholic, Apostolic, and Protestant Church, the place and
preference whicli are so justly its due : and you would have
shewn, as your Teachers have done before you, that both
Romanists, and Dissenters, are living in open and unwar
rantable schism. This could not, under God, but have
tended to enlighten and to benefit both of these ; to give
a true and salutary bias to our young men in the Ministry,
and preparing for it, which must have been felt as a blessing
for ages to come. Unhappily however, you have mistaken
the way : equally so has your misguided zeal found its
admirers and flatterers; and you seem to be gliding on
smoothly under this, at once unmindful, unconscious of, and
even glorying in, the manifestly ruinous tendency of your
course ! " The Holy truth " which it seems to be your
object to propagate, is, as you must see, daily creating
and increasing an unholy division among us. Dissent is,
on the one hand, rejoicing in your progress, and gathering
strength under it. Romanism is still more anxious for
your success, daily congratulates your heroism and your
blindness, receives now and then one of your deluded

98 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
followers into its bosom; and anxiously looks forward for the
period, when your leaven shall have so leavened the whole
lump, that darkness, superstition, and cruelty, shall [again
extend their ample ravages over this so long and so richly-
favoured land 1 Infidelity, too, hails with no less enthusiasm
the mystified reserve, the priest-ennobling projects, the
superstitious, blind, and irrational Theology of the Tracta
rian School, as something well adapted to its extension.
These, — wiser in their generation than the children of light, —
know full well how to appreciate efforts of this sort ; efforts,
from which the well-informed and well-intentioned cannot
but turn with sorrow, and over which the true Disciple
cannot but lament and mourn.
Allow me to suggest to you, that there are but two ways in
which Religion can be, or ever has been, taught : one, through
" The Commandments of God ; " the other, by "The Traditions
of men," Under the first of these, as already shewn, an active
Faith is, as it necessarily must be, the only means whereby
we can so apply these, as to make them available to our sal
vation, and ourselves acceptable to God. And, as this takes
it for granted that we willingly receive all that He has pre
sented to us, both in His Word, and in His dealings with His
Church; so it also does, that we thankfully and sedulously
apply all the means of grace thus afforded to us. And of
these the Sacraments of His Church necessarily claim the
highest place. But it is the Spirit of man only, as already
shewn, that can enter into, appreciate, duly apply, or profit
by these, both for its instruction and final salvation : and to
this, it is the Spirit of God alone that can supply, and make
effectual to salvation, the means so granted. The means
themselves must be earthy, and, so long as they are earthy,
they can lay claim to no divine energy ; but the End
sought must be spiritual: nothing short of this can possibly
reach the wants of the human soul, and make it at once
holy and happy : and this must, as necessarily, consist in the
demonstration of a power, exceeding every thing that is
earthy, in order to make believers meet to be partakers
of the inheritance of the Saints in light, to grow up to the

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 99
measure of the stature of Christ, and to be filled with the
fulness of God. To the Traditions of men, so far as they
shall instruct and encourage us in the use of these means, we
can say, they are good and worthy of all acceptation ; and, as
such, they are to be duly esteemed and applied. But when
they go beyond this ; — when they advance the means to a
prominency which tends to lose sight of, or, in any degree, to
obscure our view of, the End ; — then it is our duty boldly and
manfully to affirm, that this is not " Holy truth" : that he, —
whosoever he be, — who propounds it, is to the same extent a
Teacher of error and of heterodoxy, an impugner of the truth
of God, an Enemy to the souls of men, and a corrupter of
the Church of Christ. It can avail nothing here, to say what
our provocations may have been, or what our intentions
are. Expediency will stand us in no stead : the hay, straw,
and stubble, which we may, for certain wise reasons, have
been endeavouring to lay upon the one foundation, — the
Gospel of Christ, — must eventually meet their fate by fire ;
when he, or they, who may have administered towards the
erection of so vain a superstructure, shall also escape only as
by fire !
On the other hand, he who shall imagine that the truth of
God is to be extracted at first sight, with certainty, from
His written Word, and that no guidance or aid from pre
vious Christian Inquirers and Teachers is either to be sought
or obtained, merely because these were uninspired men, will
labour under a similar delusion, which may terminate in
ends equally ruinous. The deceived and deceiving heart
will here also be vain enough to suppose, that it has, for the
first time, singly and alone, done that which the piety, learn
ing, and industry of ages could not effect. The mere dreams
of fancy may, in such cases, as it has often happened, be
propounded as the undoubted precepts of Omnipotence ; and
then, every one who shall refuse to accede to claims so com
manding and authorative, be branded as labouring under
ignorance the most pitiable, darkness the most dense and
palpable, and slavery the most grievous possible. I am not
disposed to argue, that the Bible is a Book difiicult to be
h 2

100 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
understood, so far as the essential truths of salvation are
concerned : my principal object here is, to urge the con
sideration, that, not only is the human mind liable to error,
but also, that it has an inherent predilection for that which
is opposed to Scriptural truth ; and that hence appears the
paramount necessity of its looking out to others for aid.
Besides, easy as the Scriptures may be, they are not very
likely to be well understood by him, who entertains a high
notion of his own intellectual powers.
In all such cases I think you will agree with me, that
whatever the professions or intentions of men may be, how
ever they may persevere in affirming, that they follow the
Commandments of God alone, the fact will be, that they are
following, to a very large extent, nothing beyond the Tradi
tions of men. This inconsistency, — this but too abundant
evidence of human fallibility, — may possibly have called forth
your zeal, and that of your school. But the question is,
Have you, and they, rightly met this? Have you laid
open the wider and more Catholic path, which will secure to
the Commandments of God the pre-eminence which is their
due ; and will, at the same time, point out and recommend
the necessary helps and aids to the true understanding of
these, to be found among His most talented and faithful
Ministers? and this for the purpose of throwing a clear
and steady light over those parts of His Word, which, while
they appear to stand in need of explanation, are of infinite
importance to the souls of men? Have you not rather
assigned to the Commandments of God an inferior station ?
have searched among the Traditions of men for those truths
which you have previously determined shall be called
" Holy," and then ranked these exclusively among what you
deem to be Catholic teaching, and the most literal import
of Holy Scripture ? And here again, Have you been careful
to ascertain that the dogmas you have propounded, are
nothing either more or less than the most Catholic doc
trines [oi the most Catholic men ? — doctrines bearing on
their face the impress of genuine Ecclesiastical antiquity,
and the most literal and true import, both of these your

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. iOl
Authorities, and of the Divine Word ?— Certainly not. The
truth is, an overweening attachment to the Letter only, both
of certain portions of the Scriptures, and of these Fathers.
has succeeded in abstracting you from every consideration
as to their spirit * : and hence you have, in urging the means,
lost sight of the End 1 You have, at once, misunderstood
and misrepresented your authorities, both Scriptural and
Patristical : and hence, for the walk which is hy faith, you pro
pose that which is hy sight ; that, which had been well begun in
the Spirit, you now urge is to be completed in the flesh : and
you then affirm, that by these weak and beggarly means
only, lowest is efficiently to be joined on with highest, cor
ruption with incorruption, and man with God !
Nothing surely can be more instructive than the fact, that
in proportion as you have lost sight of Scriptural truth, and
of the truest laws of Scriptural interpretation ; in the same
have you lost sight of that which alone can reach and
benefit the soul of man, and make it meet to be a partaker
with the Saints in light ; namely, an active and lively Faith,
which is the gift of the Spirit of God alone, and a Hope full
of immortality, which the renewal of the soul by divine
Grace alone can realize. Instead of that spirit-stirring in
fluence which comes fresh from above, which wrought effec
tually in our Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, and which is
the End had in view in all the means of grace and ordi
nances of the Church, you seem to have fixed your attention
entirely and solely on some imagined virtue inherent in the
means to be employed. Hence you contemplate in the con
secrated Elements with the Romanist, a change of constitu
tion at once unutterable, and adorable ! In these again, you
find a material bond, and the only one, both of union and
communion with the very Essence of the Father and of the
Son ! Under the same unscriptural and earthborn jviews,
* So Ambrose, speaking of the Jews, " Quod legunt, nesciunt, acci-
pientes secundum literam, quod praecipitur secundum spiritum" Ps. cxviii.
105. And Greg, Naz, " ov t3 Kpeirovi to xeipov inrol^evyvv^ev, tov xovv \ey(o
Tu> TTvevpaTi," ' Non deteriorem partem prsestantiori, hoc est pulverem
spiritui, subjicimus,' Orat, prim, de Theolog, p, 533, Tom, I, edit, 1630.

102 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
you conceive of the Eucharistical Sacrifice, as of a rite of con
tinued immolation, and of sufferings hitherto borne by the
Saviour, and still to be borne, so long as an officiating
Priest shall be found to offer, or a repentant sinner to par
take of, the real and true Body and Blood thus to be broken
and poured out ! And here you think you see lowest abso
lutely joined on with highest, corruption with incorruption,
and man with God ! Where it was once said, " The Flesh
profiteth nothing," you have discovered the direct contrary,
and that it, and it alone, profiteth every thing ; that the con
sideration of the Spirit may, for the most part, be disre
garded ; and the doctrine which teaches that the sinner is
to be justified by Faith, should be merged in the more pal
pable one, that pardon of sin is to be obtained through the
consecrated Elements alone !
It is no less instructive to observe, that, just in proportion
as you have lost sight of the Scripture, and of its simple but
efficient modes of teaching, and of the genuine results of
these, the renewal of the soul through grace ; in the same
have you also lost sight of the true intentions of the Or
thodox Fathers of the Church, and of the doctrines of the
Apostolic and Protestant Church of England, of which you
are a Minister. In the same, too, have you approached to
the formal, spiritless, earthly, and superstitious, notions of
the Church of Rome. Instead of that Faith which once
animated our Reformers and Martyrs; — of that Light, which
poured in upon them from the simple spiritual apprehension
of Holy Writ ; — of that Love to God and to man, which was
shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost; and of that
lively Hope and Faith, which enabled them to glorify God in
the very fires, and which has so abundantly, since their days,
not only emancipated the human mind, especially in this
happy land, from the darkness and folly which ages of igno
rance had laid upon it ; but has enlightened, inflamed, and
led it onAvard, even to these our times, to results the most
excellent, whether as it regards the things of this world, or
of that which is to come ; and which still seems to hold out
further pros])ects of wealth both temporal and spiritual, to

OP THE REV, DR. PUSEY. 103
be realized here and elsewhere, which it hath not yet entered
into the heart of man fully to conceive,— Instead of this,
I say, and of those still higher stages of spiritual and intel
lectual illumination and prosperity, which it is but rea
sonable to expect the unfettered energies of man will
arrive at ; you and your School are proposing and urging,
with all the earnestness of a zeal the most blind and per
verse, that we should again return to the mummeries
which had so long chained down to earth our best and
noblest endowments; and, that our Church should again
become the willing slave of ignorance the most palpable,
and of superstition the most degrading; — again succumb to
the rule of an hierarchy, at once the most usurping, tyran
nical, oppressive, and cruel ; — again to incrust itself, as it
were, in the unintelligible and useless jargon of the schools,
the traditionary trash of useless religious fraternities ; — the
dust and darkness of the Monastery, the Nunnery, the Cell,
or the Hermitage ! — again to endeavour to set the troubled
conscience at rest by money-bought pardons, indulgences
granted for value received, pilgrimages undertaken, works of
supererogation to be engaged and persevered in ; the flesh
mortified under the vain hope of thereby purifying the
spirit ; the rotten and rotting bones of Saints, Pictures, and
Images of the Virgin, and the like, honoured and almost
adored, as presenting the surest means of securing their
intercessions with the Most High for their deluded votaries,
and thence of admission to the glories of heaven !— Are we, I
say, again to return to all this senseless mummery, supersti
tion, and vanity ; and thus,— having begun in the Spirit, —
now labour to become perfect through the flesh ? Let us, then,
throw away the principles which have so far, and so happily,
led us ; and then, to these vanities we shall certainly come !
If we serve Baal at all, we shall serve him much. To this
the Traditions of men have ever led : to this the prostration
of the human intellect, and with it ignorance, folly, and vice,
of every description, must necessarily succeed. It was by this,
that men once professing themselves to be wise, became fools :
by this, that they changed the glory of God to the image of a

104 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
calf that eateth hay ! by this, that both Gentile and Jew
became earthly, sensual, devilish : by this, that the infatuated
Church of Rome became the cage of every unclean bird ;
enslaved and impoverished the nations of Europe; imbrued
its hands in the blood of the Saints ! and, by this, it is now
endeavouring again to reinstate itself in that dominion of
ignorance and of tyranny, which it so long and so mercilessly
exercised !
The great difference between this system, and that of the
Catholic Church of Christ, against which you are now —
unwittingly I trust — arraying yourself, is one of principle.
It is that of an unflinching, well-grounded, adherence to the
Commandments of God ; of taking these, and these only, as
the grounds of Faith ; and by these exclusively to abide. On
this foundation now stands our Apostolic, Reformed, and
Protestant Church : and, so long as it stands on this rock,
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It shall carry
with it, and within it, the elements of its strength, and these
are nothing short of almighty. They are the doctrines of
the Scriptures of truth, of the Word of His grace ; and the
power of His Spirit attending its due administration, shall
be able to build up its members, and to give them an inhe
ritance among all them that are sanctified.
But, let its Priesthood withhold these ; let them instead of
these, and with you, hold forth the less peremptory, and appa
rently more convenient, Traditions of men : and What must
be the consequence ? We may, and we shall, have deified
and deifical Priests in abundance ; self-constituted Saints, and
Sainted Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods, innumerable ; Masses,
Pardons, Indulgences, Charms, Reliques, Beads, and Images, in
endless variety : but the Ark of the Covenant will have
been taken by aliens ; the glory will have departed ! The
fragments of the Monastery may, indeed, be again doled out
to a starving poor; but a spiritual dearth, infinitely more
ruinous, shall everywhere prevail : the famine will now be,
as it was on a similar occasion, " not a famine of bread, nor
a thirst for water, hut of hearing the Word of the Lord *."
* Amos viii. 11. seq.

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 105
Yes, " they shall wander, in that day,"-as it was formerly the
case here,— "from sea to sea, and from the north even to the
east; they sliall nm to and fro to seek the word of the Lord,
and shall not find it ./" They may now swear, as they then
did, by the sin of a spiritual Samaria ; and say, (as) Thy God,
O idolatrous Dan, liveth ; and (as) the manner of an image-
worshipping Beersheba liveth ; still shall they fall: and they
may rise up no more !
It will not in such a case be very flattering. Dear Sir,
to look back, and to reflect on the aid one may have given to
a system of desolation so sad as this : to have borne a part,
and that a principal one, in a work of spiritual devastation
and ruin to which one can see no end, and from which be
able to contemplate no deliverance ! If one sin can be
greater than another, one work of ruin more desolating,
surely it must be that which deprives a nation of the light
of life granted to it in the Scriptures, and of the simple and
efficient means of grace afforded to it in the Catholic Church
of the Redeemer.
Of your intentions. Dear Sir, I cannot but think well : — of
the work in which you are engaged, on every view of it, ill.
Ill, because I see in it a palpable departure from the recogni
sed grounds and models of all Catholic and true teaching,
the Scriptures of truth; from the Apostolic doctrines and
examples ; from those of the talented and tried servants of
the Church in every age ; and last, though not least, from
those of our own spiritual Zion. That you should, in carrying
this on, have made approaches so great and so visible to
the fallen and persecuting system of the Pontificate, is a
thing not at all to be wondered at : nor is it, that you should
have remained insensible of this, if indeed that be the case.
There always has been something of so blinding a nature in
the systems of religion fabricated by men, and in conformity
with their wise and holy-seeming Traditions, that reflecting
persons of all times have wondered how it was that the brute,
the stock, and the stone, became objects of worship among
the most enlightened of the nations ; how the fruit of a
man's body could be made to expiate the sin of his soul;

106 REMARKS ON THE SERMON
how cruelty, mortification, self-immolation, and the like,
could be supposed acceptable to an all-wise and all-beneficent
Deity. It is the Scripture of truth only, that effectually
lays open this mystery: It is, Because " he feedeth on ashes ;
a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver
his soul, nor say. Is there not a lie in my right hand?" Dis
cernment such as this, the Traditions of men have not to
give*: and such as this is, their followers have ever been
found unwilling to receive. They can, generally, perceive
neither its value nor its use. The natural blindness in
which they were born, makes it at once congenial to them
and acceptable. The same is true of every shade of it;
every portion, however small, carrying with it the same self-
deluding property, and always tending, as it necessarily
must, in a similar downward direction.
I will only say of myself, in conclusion, I have been
induced to enter into this discussion, not because I would
injure your reputation, hurt your feelings, or, in the least
degree, asperse the unblemished character which you have
so fully sustained. My sole desire has been, not to " blas
pheme Holy truth," but, on the contrary, to ascertain, and
to enforce it. I have no party views to support : I admire
the good which I see in all ; while I lament the evil, which is
often but too palpable to be dissembled. For the Fathers
of the Church [ entertain the highest respect ; from them
I have received considerable benefit: but to them, as in
terpreters of Holy Writ, I must say, I cannot always sub
scribe. Their trifling is, on many occasions, puerile and
absurd in the extreme ; while, on others, they speak out in
a manner worthy of the name they bear, and of followers of
the Apostles of Our Lord. The same I hold of many emi
nent Writers of our ovvn Church and times. And, What is
the consequence ? If all these do not agree, as Authorities, —
* Ambrose in Ps. cxviii. 125 : " InteUectus spiritale munus est : et ideo
fjuod Dei est, a Domino postulatur". . , , "Jure ergo gratiam Domini
sui quserit, alitor enim scire secrcta Domini, nisi intellectus spiritalis
munus accepcrit,"

OF THE REV. DR. PUSEY. 107
and certainly they do not,— which of them am I to follow ? It
is impossible I can follow them all, while they so disagree :
How, then, am I to make my choice ? I must I suppose,
after due consideration had, adhere to those who appear to
have the Scriptures on their side : for the Scriptures are the
authority to which they direct us ; and to which we must
ultimately appeal, unless we imagine that there is a Pope
sondewhere to be found, who can supply the needful. But
you and I, Dear Sir, know of no such Pope. We must then, —
mystify the matter as we may, — exercise our private judgment.
This I have here done to the best of my power ; and this
you have done in your Sermon, without, as I think, one
respectable authority to support you : and this your School
has done in their Tracts, and this they still do daily in their
various publications : and, in many cases, as in your Sermon,
without either Holy Scripture, or one respectable Author, to
back them. You cannot find fault, therefore, here with the
exercise of a liberty, of which you have so largely availed
yourself ; nor can you with the desire of furthering the cause
of Holy Truth, which I declare, — as you also have done, — has
been the sole cause of my entering on this inquiry. If I have
shewn that you have failed, you cannot but thank me ; be
cause I trust Truth has been your sole object. If I have mis
understood you, and have in reality been advocating your
own opinions, you will have the greater reason to rejoice.
as I shall have rescued your Sermon and opinions, as well
as the opinions of some of the best Writers of the Christian
Church, from the obloquy and disrespect, in which the ac
knowledged obscurity of your Sermon and Notes must have
placed them. — And now. Rev. and Dear Sir, wishing you all
spiritual and temporal health and happiness,
I remain yours very faithfully,
SAMUEL LEE.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Price lis.
EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF C^SAREA, ON THE THEOPHANIA,
OR niVINE MANIFESTATION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST :
i.e. A most able Exposition and Defence of Christianity, written against the Phi
losophers of his day. A work long supposed to be lost, but lately discovered in
a Syriac Translation in a Monastery in Egypt. Translated into English, with
Notes Critical and Explanatory.

-'"^- Also,
A SERMON
PREACHED AT THE VISITATION OF THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,
AT bishop's STORTFORD, OCT. 1838 :
In which some notice is taken of the Oxford Tracts ; but more particularly of the
Seventh Lecture of Dr. Wiseman, assuming that the Fathers of the Syrian
Church held the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Also,
A SERMON ON THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH ;
Sliewing that it falls on the very day of the Primitive Patriarchal Sabbath Day.
Preached at the Cambridge Commencement of 1832.

Also,
A LETTER TO MR. GOULBURN ON THE RATING OF TITHES
TO THE RELIEF OF THE POOR.
Also,
A TRANSLATION OF THE BOOK OP THE PATRIARCH JOB,
WITH A COMMENTARY.
To which is prefixed a Dissertation proving the Canonical Authority of that
Book, against Bishop Warburfon &c. ; and shewing the Times, Place,' and actual
Genealogy of the Patriarch, and of his Friends.
Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, Fleet Street.

LONDON ;
PRINTED BY RICHARD WATTS, CROWN COURT, TEMPF.E BAR.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08561 9998

' ^' e ''km
«'''!' ,11*'

J

if*