Eucharistic Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, and Eucharistic Adoration: being an Examination of "a Theological Defence for the Rev. James DeKoven, D.D., Warden of Racine College, Feb. 12th, 1874," By the Rev. Samuel Buel, D.D., Professor of Systematic Divinity and Dogmatic Theology in the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

The Eucharistic Controversy and the Episcopate of Wisconsin. By the Rev. John H. Egar, D.D.

Three Letters upon the Confessional, to James DeKoven D.D., with the Resolutions of the Faculty of Nashotah, and a Speech upon Eucharistic Adoration, read before the Special Council, held in February, 1874. By William Adams, D.D.

The object of this Article is, to consider the present phase of the Eucharistic controversy, and to state as clearly as may be what the actual question at issue is, about which there is much misconception.

Very much that has been written has been personal to the writer of the present article. It is his purpose to pass over all in the pamphlets under review that relates to himself, except where the necessities of the case demand the opposite course; and, with the words of the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom in his heart, "again and again in peace" praying to the Almighty Father: "Turn not Thy face away from me, nor reject me from the number of Thy sons, but condescend that these gifts may be offered to Thee by me, a sinner and Thine unworthy servant. Thou art He that offerest and art offered, and receivest and art distributed, Christ, our God";--The duty God's Providence has laid upon him is begun.

I.

The pamphlet of Dr. Buel demands careful attention because of the writer's position. He is a professed Theologian. He is appointed in the oldest and greatest of our Theological Seminaries,--the only one that bears the name of General,--to prepare, in Dogmatic Theology, the chosen young men of the Church for the Priesthood. For him to be ignorant, or careless, or hasty, or imperfectly trained in Theology, [1/2] or intolerant, or uncharitable, is a loss most grievous to the Church of God.

Whatever may be said of these things, no one can read his pamphlet without feeling that its author is eminently sincere. There is a sort of childlike eagerness against the person whom he especially attacks, which, were it not so unamiable, would for its heartiness be quite loveable. It puts one in mind of some worthy female, about to administer castigation to a youthful offender, who, as she bears him away in triumph to the scene of torment, administers by the way a prevenient slap, and cries with a profound sense of vindicated justice, and some personal satisfaction: "There, take that!"

The reader of the pamphlet, especially one like the writer, who has had to read it three times to get at its meaning, may possibly regret that the teacher who in bygone days trained the Reverend Professor in writing the English tongue, should have so sadly neglected his duty. For clumsiness of diction, for obscurity of expression, and above all for the marvellous use of parentheses, the pamphlet stands alone. No other document, ancient or modern, ever equalled it. We cannot forbear quoting a single sentence, which deserves preservation for future grammarians, as a warning to school-boys of how not to write the English language.

There is one passage of his Responsio ad Bellarminum on which their attempts to garble and misinterpret have been most largely expended; they have quoted the smallest morceau, which suited their purpose; they have deprived it of its opening sentence, which is the bugle-note of the charge that Andrewes makes upon the precise doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration, maintained alike by Dr. DeKoven and by the Cardinal (as witness Mr. Keble in his book on Eucharistic Adoration, a book which, in the strange manner of quotation, in the confusion between reverence and divine adoration, in the unconscious infusion of his own sense into the fathers whom he adduces, in the seemingly unconscious arrangement of passages from them, to bring out this preconceived sense, in the thorough mist in which all his discourse proceeds, and in the saintly character, too, of the man who wrote the book (we reverence, in our heart of hearts, that saintly man, and his poetry awakens the deepest heaven-seeking and CHRIST-seeking aspirations in our souls, awakens all thoughts of beauty combined with holiness most seraphic; he was a saintly but a deluded man), a book with all these characteristics most dangerous to our candidates for the ministry, filling their minds with deep prepossessions, which, to human appearance, renders them well-nigh impregnable to right Christian teaching on the Eucharist); but, to continue, our so-called Catholics have suggested by turns of the expression, an acceptance, by Andrewes, of Bellarmine's distinction between "the Sacrament, and Christ in the Sacrament," which takes from the passage all point and meaning, in the controversy with the wily Cardinal; in short, they have done, virtually, what Bellarmine and Baronius and Suarez have done with that noted passage of Gelasius (who endeavored to show that it was not the production of Gelasius the Pontiff, till Labboeus spoiled that line of attack), our new Catholics have striven hard to turn Andrewes [2/3] into one of their own company, that is, to show that Andrewes was not himself, since they could not venture to say that the words were not the veritable words of "the greatest divine of the Church of England." [pp. 161, 2.]

We give the passage--which is only one sentence--with italics and parentheses as the worthy Professor published it. So long as it pleases; a kind Providence that our opponents shall write in this wondrous style, we need not greatly fear the influence which they may gain upon the popular mind.

Again, we must notice the very improper way in which the Professor has made his quotations. So profoundly is he in love with his own parentheses, that he scarcely ever cites a passage without inserting some of his own words in the midst of what he quotes.

A person accustomed to read Theology, or, indeed, any careful reader, can easily distinguish between what is S. Ambrose's, S. Augustine's, Hooker's, or Bishop Forbes's, and what is Dr. Buel's; but the careless reader would be sure to derive very wrong impressions from so loose a method of quotation.

Let us pass, however, to a much more serious matter. What are Dr. Buel's views upon the subject of the Lord's Supper. After carefully analyzing his statements, and seeking to get a clear idea from much confusion, his doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist seems to be as follows:

1. The Inward Part, or "Thing," as he calls it, of the Sacrament, is the Sacrificed Body and Blood of Christ.

But as this Sacrificed Body and Blood exists nowhere now, on earth or in heaven, he means by this,--

2. That the efficacy of Christ's Sacrificed Body and Blood is, as it were, stored in His glorified Body in Heaven; and,--

3. This efficacy and virtue are conveyed, by the Holy Spirit of Christ, directly to the spirits of those who worthily receive the consecrated Elements.

4. These consecrated Elements are called Christ's Body and Blood, because they symbolize the life and grace of the Sacrificed Body of the Son of God, and convey them to the soul, as a watch conveys a knowledge of what time it is, or the words of the Bible convey spiritual influence and grace. [See pp. 139, 140.]

5. He seems to hold, that, by receiving the Holy Communion worthily, we become partakers of Christ in the "fulness of His Divine Humanity," whatever this extraordinary phrase, often used by him, may mean.

We give these as the Eucharistic views of Dr. Buel. We are aware [3/4] that there is one dreadful passage in his pamphlet, which, if it means anything, means a heresy unheard of before in the manifold varieties of heresy. It is as follows: [See pp. 46, 47.]

That transubstantiation was most deep and real. It was an utter and entire banishing even of the substance of the human flesh of the Divine Son of God, for reception and appropriation in holy sacrament, or otherwise; for it was a change of this substance into the substance of the Divine Spirit, whom Christ should send in His name, who should "take," when Christ Himself should be absent from earth in His bodily substance, when in His bodily substance He should be, and only be, in the heaven of heavens, who should then "take" of that substance, of that sacrificed body of the Divine Son of God in its life and grace, and "show it unto" all His faithful ones in holy sacrament, and in all the ways in which they are made partakers of Him and of the fulness of life which flows from, and which is treasured up as a perpetual exhaustless treasure of divine grace in His humanity before the throne, and there pleaded in His all-prevalent intercession, and thence dispensed, by His Spirit uniting Himself to the spirits of men, in all the ways of His appointment in His Church upon earth.

This is the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive as the inward thing of the holy sacrament; not the flesh and blood in their bodily substance, in any sense of man's devising, to fathom the unfathomable mystery, however subtle and puzzling such human explanation may be to human thought, but that flesh and blood in their divine and heavenly life, ever, ever proceeding from the cross, which no longer exists as a material, bodily, substantial reality; for all that there took place, even the sacrificed body of the Divine Son of God has been transmuted, having lost, so far as faithful men receive it, its fleshly substance, and been transubstantiated into the substance which is spirit and which is life.

From these confused utterances one might infer that Dr. Buel held the unheard of heresy, that the flesh of our Lord was transubstantiated into the substance of God the Holy Ghost.

We are tossed on the horns of a dilemma. We must choose between regarding our Author as one who does not understand the meaning of words as well as the arrangement of sentences: or else we must believe him to be the parent of another misbelief in this age of heresies. From the dreadful alternative we turn away; and, simply expressing our inability to comprehend the extraordinary passage we have quoted, we submit the five heads given above, as a charitable and probable interpretation of the clearer parts of the pamphlet.

Dr. Buel therefore, it would seem, denies any Presence of Christ our Lord whatever, in the Holy Communion other than His omnipresence as God; and substitutes for it a Presence of God the Holy Ghost, Who conveys to our spirits the grace and efficacy of the sacrifice of the Son of God.

No one can read Hooker without seeing that Dr. Buel's view does not attain to the fulness and power of the view which that great [4/5] Divine has enunciated. Of Hooker, however, it must be remembered, that Bishop Moberly, in his Bampton Lectures, says:

I will therefore only say, that the ancient doctrine of the Church, and, as I read it, the unquestionable doctrine of the Church of England, is, that the Spiritual Presence of our Lord in the Holy Communion is objective ["true" in the Second Edition] and real. I do not see how we can consent, as with Hooker and Waterland, to limit authoritatively that Presence to the heart of the receiver; for the words of the Institution (and these are cases in which we are rigidly bound to the exact words of the Revelation) the words, I say, of the Lord in the Institution, seem to forbid such a gloss. [Bampton Lectures, pp. 178, 174.]

The italics are our own. A similar view was expressed by the Rev. Wm. Goode: [See his "Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist," Vol. I., p. 30.]

Though the act of Consecration makes the bread and wine sacred symbols, or sacraments, of the Body and Blood of Christ, in the participation of which by the faithful there is vouchsafed a real spiritual Presence to the soul of the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed received and spiritually eaten and drunk to the soul's health, yet the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is not communicated to, (though in the case of the faithful connected with the participation of,) the bread and wine, and His Body and Blood are not given to, nor partaken of by, the faithless. In short, it is a real presence to the receiver and not to the elements.

The reader will readily see, that, if anything, Mr. Goode--who until his death was the most learned and able representative of the Low Church party in England--goes beyond the doctrinal statements of Dr. Buel.

Mr. Goode gives the following quotations from Calvin's Institutes: [Ibid. Vol. II., p. 744.]

I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the signs of bread and wine, Christ is truly delivered to us, yea, and His Body and Blood, in which He hath fulfilled all obedience for purchasing of righteousness to us: namely, that first we should grow together into one Body with Him; and then, being made partakers of His substance, we may also feel His power in the Communicating of all His good things.

Because it (the sign) doth not only figure the thing which it is holily appointed to represent, as a naked and empty token, but doth also truly deliver it indeed; why may not the name of the thing rightly accord with it?

On this Mr. Goode comments as follows:

But this true delivery of the Body of Christ he (Calvin) considers to be made to the soul, not to the body, through the operation of the Spirit, by which he says that Christ "descendeth to us that He may truly quicken our souls with the substance of His Flesh and of His Blood;" and by this he maintains that our spiritual conjunction with Christ is effected, and our souls "receive food of the Flesh of Christ."

[6] Dr. Buel's view is therefore only another dilution of the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper.

This will serve to account for some of the extraordinary language used by the Reverend Professor with regard to the views which he opposes. He calls them "the product of earth or of a place darker and more dismal than the earth can be." He says they turn "a divine sacrament into the trick of a wretched juggler of this earth," and open wide "upon the truth of God the floodgates of infidel scorn and unbelief." He calls their supporters "bastard Catholics," "fearfully deluded"; "deluding in their teachings and ministrations"; "virtually setting aside the office of the Holy Spirit"; "teaching a system which substitutes a magical Christianity for the divinely spiritual religion that has come from heaven "; giving "the people the husks of a base superstition, for the bread that cometh down from heaven." He accuses the person whom he chiefly attacks, of "garbling the words of Christ"; "of artfully, or, rather, artistically defending"; "of speaking ignorantly and with owl-like blandness"; and, finally, after calling poor Mr. R. J. Wilberforce, who died long ago, an "apostate Archdeacon," he says in language which God's Holy Word only applied to one, that is Judas, "that he had gone to his own place," meaning thereby the Church of Rome.

We give all these dreary quotations, simply as a warning against Calvinism. The spirit that burned Servetus still lingers wherever the unhappy system prevails. Most happily did the late Bishop Wilberforce express the effects of Calvinistic teaching. [Essays, vol. 1, p. 368.]

In many a man the effect of this teaching is to fix him for life in a hard, narrow, and exclusive school of religious thought and feeling, in which he lives and dies profoundly satisfied with himself and his co-religionists, and quite hopeless of salvation for any beyond the immediate pale in which his own Shibboleth is pronounced with the exactest nicety of articulation.

Four lines of argument are adduced by Dr. Buel in order to defend his views:

1. That the ancient Liturgies teach this view; and for this he adduces only his own assertion.

2. He gives a few fragmentary quotations from the Fathers in support of it.

3. He quotes from some English Divines in proof that they held it.

4. He endeavors to show that Thorndike, Bishop William Forbes (who, he informs his readers, is not "the man of Brechin"), and Bishop Andrewes, did not hold the views it is claimed they held.

To each one of these lines of argument we propose to give a reply; [6/7] but, before doing so, must for a few moments consider the two other pamphlets which are also under review.

II.

A few words will suffice for Dr. Adams. His pamphlet is a republication of two speeches which he made to the Council held in Milwaukee in February last.

The first, in regard to Confession, is passed over. The subject of this Article is the Eucharistic Controversy, and not that concerning Confession. And in so far as Dr. Adams touches upon the Holy Eucharist, the argument is better stated by Dr. Egar, and will be considered in the review of his pamphlet.

III.

Dr. Egar's treatise is a pleasing contrast to Dr. Buel's in style and manner. It is clear, and to the point, and quite free from any personalities. It may be considered under three aspects.

I. As a Defence of the Pamphlet, "Principles, not Men."

II. As a History of the rise of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

III. As containing a statement of Eucharistic Doctrine.

I. As to the first--and it is in this respect that its arguments are similar to those of Dr. Adams--I shall say nothing. The Pamphlet, "Principles, not Men," is now so universally condemned, that it is ample to say that the Defence of it is characterized by the same defects which belonged to the original document.

II. As a History of the rise of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Pamphlet shows considerable historical research, which, if original with the author, deserves commendation.

III. It is only with it as a statement of Eucharistic Doctrine that I have to deal.

Dr. Egar's Eucharistic theory is as follows:

1st. That Christ is present in the Eucharist by His Omnipresence "virtually uniting Himself to the bread and wine."

2d. That the bread and wine after consecration in their "own proper substance are figuratively, symbolically, representatively, significantly, and as a synonym of these words sacramentally, the Body and Blood of Christ." [Page 18.]

3d. That the inward part, or thing, of the Sacrament is two-fold.

a. The crucified Body and Blood of Christ, present symbolically, representatively, &c.

b. The glorified Humanity of the Lord Jesus, present in Heaven, but in such sacramental union with the consecrated bread and wine [7/8] that whosoever worthily receives them receives all the blessings that flow from that glorified Humanity.

4th. The outward part, the broad and wine, and the Inward part with its two-fold character, form one "composite whole," one Sacrament complete.

The difference between Dr. Egar and the Catholic School in the Church, therefore, is as follows:--He asserts that one part of this "composite whole," this one Sacrament,--namely, the glorified Humanity of the Son of God is in Heaven, and only there. The Catholic School, on the other hand, while accepting the revealed Doctrine that Christ has ascended into Heaven and is set down on the right hand of God, also acknowledges the literal truth of those other words of our Lord: "This is My Body," "This is My Blood," and believes that same glorified Humanity is in Sacramental union with the consecrated elements on the Altar "under the species of bread and wine." It accepts and believes both revelations of God, explaining away neither:

"In the Heavens;"
"On the Altar;"
"At the right hand of God,"
"Under the form of bread and wine."

It does not attempt to explain the apparent contradiction. It acknowledges both sides of the wondrous truth, and believes, and adores.

It seems but just to say that there is one way in which Dr. Egar's views can be reconciled to those of the Catholic School.

He believes that Christ is present as God in the Eucharist. By virtue of the Hypostatic Union he therefore holds, that Christ's Human Nature is present with His Divine Person by way of conjunction, and by way of co-operation. He holds, also, that the consecrated Bread and Wine are, in the words of Bishop Bull, virtually united to the Divinity of the Son of God.

Dr. Egar is no doubt aware of the ambiguity of the word "virtually." It may be opposed to actually, and thus "virtually united" may mean figuratively united: or, it may mean united by its own virtue. If the latter, it must mean that in the Bread and Wine, after consecration, there is present, by reason of the sacramental union, everything which belongs to our Lord's glorified Humanity, save only that which gives it locality. Locally it is in Heaven. In its virtue It is in sacramental union with the Holy Elements. If, therefore, CHRIST be there in His Divinity, if all that appertains to His glorified Humanity be there except the predicate of extension,--that is, as subject to the laws of time and place,--the difference between Dr. Egar or Bishop Bull (whom he quotes) and the Catholic school vanishes away.

A note on page 61 of Dr. Egar's pamphlet would seem to warrant [8/9] this charitable hypothesis. In commenting upon the distinction between the Sacramentum, Res Sacramenti, and Virtus Sacramenti, he says: "If, however, the Res Sacramenti is not in the Sacramentum, but by a virtual presence communicates its virtue to the Sacramentum, then the expression Virtus Sacramenti is correct. Of course the word Sacramentum is here used for the outward and visible sign only."

If this explanation be correct, one cannot understand, of course, why "Principles, not Men," should have been written, or the pamphlet under review: but we reach it forth as an olive-branch, and whenever it is accepted, will review our conclusions, as herein further stated.

Dr. Egar defends his theory of a Real Absence, by four lines of argument, which we here give in a different order from his own:--

1. An Historical argument.

2. A Liturgical argument.

3. A statement that the view he opposes is contrary to the Articles

4. A similar denial to that of Dr. Buel's, as to the teaching of Bishop Forbes, Thorndike, and Andrewes.

The first we will consider now; and the other three, so far as may be necessary, when we enter into the arguments of Dr. Buel.

1. The Historical Argument.

The pamphlet states that the view of Dr. Egar is the doctrine of the Primitive Liturgies, and of the Fathers, and of the whole Church until the 9th century. The Liturgical argument will be considered hereafter. The quotations from the Fathers are few, and mostly prove the very opposite of the purpose for which they are quoted. Of this the quotation from the Decretum of Gratian is a marvelous example. Dr. Egar refers to Dr. Pusey's learned work, The Doctrine of the Real Presence from the Fathers, for proof of his assertion. To the same storehouse of Patristic Divinity we gladly refer our readers, assured that they will not rise from its perusal convinced of the proposition which Dr. Egar seeks to defend.

In the year 831 Paschasius Radbertus, according to Dr. Egar, brought forward the theory of identity, which, he says, is the same doctrine as that taught by Archdeacon Freeman. The origin of the idea held by Dr. Pusey and the Catholic School, he traces to Lanfranc, about the middle of the eleventh century. He further declares that between the time of Lanfranc and Innocent the Third, the theory of co-existence, which he affirms is that of Dr. Pusey, made its appearance; and Transubstantiation and Trent were the final result.

That the theory called co-existence was maintained in the Middle [9/10] Ages there can be no question; that even Innocent the Third mentions it without condemning it is true: but that it then first appeared--that it was a corruption of the primitive doctrine,--is an assumption of Dr. Egar's, and turns entirely upon the question of what was the doctrine of the first eight centuries.

Before proceeding to this question, in which we hope to answer both of the Reverend Professors, it may be interesting to notice some singular differences between Dr. Buel and Dr. Egar.

1. Dr. Egar states that the Inward Thing of the Sacrament, in one of its relations, is the glorified Humanity. He quotes Bishop Bull in proof of it.

Dr. Buel devotes some ten or more pages of his pamphlet to prove that this is not true. He declares that all the accredited Divines of the Church of England deny it. He quotes Bishop Andrewes and Thorndike as especially against it. He says: "The proof is now complete, that the ancient Catholic Church did not believe and teach that the glorified Humanity is the thing signified of the holy Sacrament or Sign." He has even discovered that "Anselm is the first writer in whose pages it is found; and Pope Eugenius the Fourth, in his decree concerning the Armenians in the Council of Florence first formulated it, and presented the bastard production to the Church." He finally concludes the matter by saying that "it was an invention which grew up simultaneously with those of Transubstantiation and concomitance and the denial of the cup," and prepared the way for the Doctrine of the Sacrifice as formulated by the Council of Trent. [See pages 66-76.]

Dr. Egar is placed, indeed, in a melancholy situation, if, as Dr. Buel declares, after asserting that this is "a sacrament not of the glorified Humanity, but of our redemption by Christ's death:"--"Nothing is true in Christianity, if this be not true; if this be not true, the Scriptures of God, and His Catholic Church, and all its Liturgies, and all its Articles and Catechisms, till a very late period, have deceived us, and we have received confidingly the deception." [Page 64.] We leave the two learned Professors to settle this tremendous contradiction between them as they may.

2. The Doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus, says Dr. Egar, "allows the same substance to be at once the substance of the bread and wine, and the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is, in fact, so far as I can see, the doctrine put forth anew by Archdeacon Freeman in his "Principles of Divine Service," a view which is the cause of the confusion that every one feels in reading that otherwise able book, and which lays its author open to the charge of Nestorianism in denying Eucharistic Adoration." [Ibid p. 44.]

[11] Dr. Buel, on the other hand, declares [See his pamphlet, p. 37.] that to charge "Nestorianism upon men like Freeman and Trevor" is simply ridiculous. On page 68, he declares still further, that their Doctrine is that of the whole Catholic Church; and concludes with the statement:--"This whole piece of criticism imputing Nestorianism to the Catholic Doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, irresistibly recalls the words of Bishop William Forbes of Edinburgh (not the man of Brechin): 'But owls now see what, before, eagles have never seen.'" Charmed with this allusion to the bird of wisdom, the amiable Professor breaks forth, on page 74, into a eulogy upon Mr. Freeman and Canon Trevor, with whom he associates poor Bishop Andrewes, and declares that they are not "Nestorians as Dr. DeKoven with ignorant and owl-like blindness, doth say." Dr. Egar, we take for granted, will bear these compliments as quietly as ourselves.

But, guided by the historical spirit manifested by Dr. Egar, and the interesting comments of Dr. Buel, we too desire to propose an historical theory, and ours will be with regard to the English Church. Our "theory" is, that--

"The views of Dr. Egar were held by all the Divines of note in the Church of England, until recent times. Cranmer and Ridley, Jewel and Andrewes, Bancroft and Laud, Ken and Tillotson, Cosin and Burnet, Pearson and Waterland, Law and Hoadly, with one voice affirmed them, until the theory of 'Identity,' the invention of Paschasius Radbertus, was renewed by Freeman, Trevor and Buel; while Dr. Pusey and his followers, starting anew the Doctrines of the Monks and Schoolmen, prepared the way for Trent and Transubstantiation, which already threaten us."

But a truce to irony!

For a moment we have paused to consider the contradictory "variations" of the two Professors, that we might the better discuss the arguments by which they support the proposition in which, however else they differ, they too sadly agree:--That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in the Lord's Supper, save only in virtue and efficacy.

IV.

The arguments by which the two Professors support this negation and which have not already been considered, are--

1. That no such view is taught by the Fathers of the Church.

2. That it is not found in the Primitive Liturgies.

3. That certain English Divines held Calvinistic Doctrines with regard to the Eucharist.

[12] 4. That Thorndike, Bishop Forbes, and Bishop Andrewes did not hold the views it is claimed they held.

We propose, in the present article, only to treat of the argument from the Primitive Liturgies, and to consider the teaching of Thorndike, Forbes and Andrewes. The teaching of the Fathers may well be reserved for future consideration.

That Dr. Buel should be able quote English Divines in support of his theory, is no wonder; for in the Church of England Calvinism has always been allowed a tolerated foothold, and several times in its history that tolerated Calvinism has threatened to destroy the Catholic faith. The only wonder is that he should have quoted so few. The question between him and the Catholic school is not whether views like his own have been held, and largely held, in the Church of England; but whether they are the teaching of the Primitive Church, or the true meaning of the formularies of the Church of England; and whether deeper, fuller and more earnest doctrine has not been the teaching of her most devout and learned Doctors. To discuss this question we will consider first--

The Teaching of the Primitive Liturgies.

The value of the testimony of the Primitive Liturgies cannot be overrated. Comparatively little understood at the time of the Reformation, the study of them since that period has thrown a flood of light upon the Doctrine of the Early Church as to the Holy Communion.

The English Church has had in our own time, at least three great writers upon this important study: Palmer, in his Origines Liturgicae; Neale, in his General Introduction to the History of the Holy Eastern Church, his Tetralogia Liturgica, and his Liturgies of S. Mark, S. James, S. Clement, S. Chrysostom and S. Basil; and to these may be added, though at a long interval, Archdeacon Freeman's Principles of Divine Service.

The Editors of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, published by P. & T. Clark, of Edinburgh, have devoted a volume to the Ante-Nicene Liturgies, and have printed as such the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, and the Holy Apostles. .

Though a Presbyterian publication, the Preface concludes with the following tribute to Dr. Neale:--

The whole subject is discussed by Mr. Neale with extraordinary minuteness, fulness of detail, and perfect mastery of his subject; and to his work we refer those who wish to prosecute the study of the subject.

Dr. Neale belonged to the Catholic school of the Church of England; was the great reviver of Sisterhoods, as opposed to orders of Deaconesses; and was the firm maintainer of the Eucharistic Doctrine which Dr. Buel and Dr. Egar oppose. It is a striking comment upon the [12/13] tendency of the times, that, though a man not merely of irreproachable life, but of the deepest devotion, of unequalled learning, and the most varied accomplishments, of zeal and attainments unsurpassed in the history of the Church of England; the only preferment that he held was what would be known in this country as the Headship of a Home for Aged and Indigent Females; his Doctorate of Divinity was given by a College in America; and for many years he was most unjustly suspended by the late Bishop of Chicester. His motto was: "Through thorns, to crowns." "May he rest in peace, and may eternal light lighten upon him!"

As to the ancient Liturgies, Dr. Neale sums up the results of his study in the following words, which are quoted by the Editors of the volume of Ante-Nicene Liturgies:--

I shall content myself with assuming, (1) That these Liturgies, though not composed by the Apostles whose names they bear, were the legitimate development of their unwritten tradition respecting the Christian Sacrifice; the words, probably, in the most important parts, the general tenor in all portions, descending unchanged from the Apostolic authors. (2) That the Liturgy of S. James is of earlier date, as to its main fabric, than A.D. 200; that the Clementine office is at least not later than 260; that the Liturgy of S. Mark is nearly coeval with that of S. James; while those of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom are to be referred, respectively, to the Saints by whom they purport to be composed. In all these cases, several manifest insertions and additions do not alter the truth of the general statement.

The whole subject of the testimony of the Ancient Liturgies was ably treated in the April number of THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. We must confine ourselves here to the argument of Dr. Egar.

Dr. Egar states that three consequences of the Doctrine of the Real Presence, as held by the Catholic school in the Church of England, are not only not recognized in the least by the ancient Liturgies; but that the whole structure of the Liturgies is entirely inconsistent with them. These three consequences are:--

1. That the wicked receive the Body and Blood of Christ, to their condemnation.

2. That the real Body and Blood of Christ, present in the Elements, are offered by the Priest to God the Father, as the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

3. That Christ, present in the Elements, is therein to be adored.

We have so far altered Dr. Egar's order as, for convenience sake, to place (1) before (2).

The passage from which Dr. Egar extracts these propositions is found in the third letter of a correspondence between Dr. Craik and Dr. DeKoven.

[14] The statement which more fully and guardedly expresses these propositions, is as follows:--

To state briefly the view I myself have been taught.

I believe that in the Eucharist after the consecration of the elements, by the power of the Holy Ghost, the very Body and Blood of Christ, not by transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or any other device of human reason, but super-naturally, spiritually and ineffably, are present in the elements. I believe them to be present by the wonderful sacramental union which unites the outward sign to the thing signified.

I believe that because Christ's Body and Blood are there, Christ Himself is there; yet, because His Person is Divine, not so as to be confined to the elements.

I believe that, as the Patriarchs worshipped the Son of God, appearing unto them under the form of an Angel; as the Jews worshipped that Presence of God which dwelt between the Cherubim; as our Lord's Humanity as subsisting in His Divine Person when here on earth, was adorable; as His sacrificed Body hanging on the Cross, and laid in the grave, because not separate from His Divine Person was adorable: so Christ, the res Sacramenti, present in the elements, is also to be worshipped.

I believe that the Body and Blood of Christ, really and truly, but supernaturally and spiritually, present, are offered and pleaded before God by the Priest, for "a continual remembrance of Christ's death and passion, until His coming again."

I believe that Christ's Body and Blood, present in the elements, are offered to all who come to the Holy Altar. I believe that they are either mystically withdrawn from the unfaithful recipient, or that they are received by him to his condemnation. I believe that the faithful recipient does indeed become a partaker of Christ. He is made one with Christ, and Christ one with him. He dwells in Christ, and Christ in him.

We propose to meet Dr. Egar's argument, and to show that he is utterly mistaken.

We have placed the "reception of the wicked" first, because the present writer does not regard it as an absolutely necessary deduction from the doctrine of the Real objective Presence, and has never so expressed it; and because Dr. Egar himself makes the following admission, as to the teaching of the Liturgies:--

"The nature of this consequence excludes any very direct evidence from the Liturgies, as the spirit of the petitions is always that those who receive may receive worthily, for blessing and salvation, and not to judgment or condemnation." [Dr. Egar's Pamphlet, pp. 29, 30.]

He is moreover constrained to give direct proof to the contrary from the Liturgy of S. Basil, which he vainly attempts to explain away. The Liturgy of S. Basil prays, after the Invocation:--"That we all, who have partaken of the one Bread and of the one Cup, may be made one with each other in the Communion of the one Holy [14/15] Ghost; and that none of us may receive the holy Body and Blood of Thy Christ to judgment nor to condemnation." [Ibid. p. 30.] The Italics are our own.

Dr. Egar ventures to state that the Liturgy of S. Basil is the only one that uses the words "Body and Blood in connection with the reception to condemnation." [Ibid.]

He forgets the "make me worthy by thy grace to communicate without condemnation in the holy Body and precious Blood for the remission of my sins and eternal life," of the Liturgy of S. James. [Dr. Neale, Liturgy of S. James, p. 60.]

He forgets the "Having received the precious Body and precious Blood of Christ, let us give thanks to Him who hath vouchsafed that we should receive His holy Mysteries,--and let us beseech Him that they may not be to us to judgment but to salvation," of the Liturgy of S. Clement. [Ibid. Liturgy of S. Clement, p. 89.]

He forgets the words which follow the Invocation in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, when the Priest has just prayed that the bread and "that which is in the cup "may be made the "precious Body "and "precious Blood of Christ," "changing them by Thy Holy Ghost;" "bo that they may be to those that participate for purification of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of the Holy Ghost, fulfilment of the Kingdom of Heaven, boldness toward Thee, and not to judgment nor condemnation." [Neale's Primitive Liturgies, p. 115.] And this passage Dr. Egar himself quotes. [Page 27.]

"We forbear to quote somewhat similar expressions from the Liturgy of S. Mark and that of Malabar, merely because the words "Body and Blood" are not used in them in this connection; but the real meaning is the same.

He forgets the Armenian Liturgy, which prays: "I give thanks unto Thee, O Christ my King, who dost vouchsafe unto me, unworthy as I am, to partake of Thy Holy Body and Blood. Now, O Lord, I beseech Thee that this may not be unto me for condemnation." [Neale's General Introduction, p. 658.]

He forgets the Mozarabic Liturgy, which says: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which we have eaten, and His Holy Blood which we, have received, remain in us, Almighty and Everlasting God, that it may not turn to our judgment and condemnation." [Ibid, p. 689.]

When, therefore, Dr. Egar says [Egar, p. 30.] "But of the eight Liturgies given by Dr. Neale, there is only one, which in any of these petitions, various as they are, uses the words Body and Blood in connection with the reception to condemnation": he should have said: "But of the eleven Liturgies given by Dr. Neale in his General Introduction to the History [15/16] of the Holy Eastern Church and The Translations of the Primitive Liturgies, no less than six, to wit, the Liturgies of S. Basil, S. Clement, S. James, S. Chrysostom, the Armenian and the Mozarabic, use the language in question; two others use equivalent language; and only three,--the Coptic S. Basil, that of Theodore the Interpreter, and the Syro-Jacobite Liturgy of St. James,--do not have it."

Great as the blunder is, Dr. Egar is guilty, as we shall see, of still greater ones.

Dr. Egar's second Liturgical statement is, that the Doctrine of the Sacrifice, as held by the Catholic school, is contrary to the Primitive Liturgies. As this Doctrine is often misstated and-misrepresented, it may be well to state what the Catholic School actually maintains.

First of all, it denies, as strongly as can be denied, any view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice which asserts a reiteration or repetition of the Sacrifice on the Cross, either in Heaven or on Earth.

It simply holds, that Christ, our great High Priest in Heaven, God and Man, present in that very Nature which was once offered on Calvary, pleads the Sacrifice of the Cross for the "remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion," to our Father in Heaven.

This sacrifice is pleaded here on earth, in word, each time we close a prayer with the words: "Through Jesus Christ our Lord."

This sacrifice is pleaded, in act, each time the Holy Communion is offered. Then, by the ministrations of His Priests, Christ does, under a veil, and in the Sacrament, the same act which He is ever doing in Heaven.

There is one sacrifice of the Cross, and one pleading of it in Heaven.

Christ Himself, by the ministrations of His Priests, offers that same pleading in the Eucharist, which He offers in Heaven: because He is present in both; in Heaven in one manner, in the Eucharist in another; in Heaven according to the laws of time and space, in the Eucharist according to the sacramental law which he has established.

The same Human Nature is present in both, and by Its Presence what that Humanity once suffered is pleaded. As the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom expresses it, "Thou art He that offerest, and art offered; and receivest, and art distributed."

It does not seem as if any loving Christian heart could possibly deny so simple and evangelical a view:--that Christ in Heaven vouchsafes to come to us on earth continually in the Holy Communion, and pleads for our poor dying souls the eternal love which once, upon the Cross, was offered for the sins of the world.

Christ Himself, the great High Priest, offers Himself, the hidden joy of the Sacrament, to His Eternal Father.

In Heaven He alone does it.

[17] On Earth, for our frailty, He does it by the ministrations of His Priests.

In Heaven it is done by "the Lamb as it had been slain," in His own glorified Humanity. On earth, for our frailty, He does it under the simple elements of bread and wine.

But it is forevermore, in both, His own pleading of His own Sacrifice, by the Presence of His once slain Humanity, "for us men and for oar salvation."

Dr. Egar prints the following extracts from the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, "omitting the responses of the People." He indeed omits some other things besides the responses; but as the omissions are not material to the point before us, we copy from his pamphlet. He quotes from Dr. Neale's General Introduction: [Page 542, et seq.]

The Consecration.

"Holy art Thou and All-Holy, and great is the Majesty of Thy Glory Who didst so love Thy world, as to give Thine Only begotten Bon, that whoso believeth in Him might not perish, but might have everlasting life: Who having come, and having fulfilled for us all the dispensation, in the night wherein He was betrayed, or rather surrendered Himself for the life of the world, took bread in His holy and pure and spotless hands, and gave thanks, and blessed, and hallowed, and brake, and gave to His holy Disciples and Apostles, saying, (aloud) Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you, for the remission of sins. Likewise after supper, He took the cup, saying, (aloud) Drink ye all of this: this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins."

The Oblation (or Offering to God of the Memorial Sacrifice.)

"We therefore remembering this salutary precept, and all that happened on our behalf, the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into Heaven, the Session on the Right Hand, the second and glorious coming again, (aloud,) in behalf of all, and for all we offer Thee, Thine own of Thine own."

The Invocation of the Holy Spirit.

"Moreover we offer unto Thee, this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice, and beseech Thee and pray and supplicate: Send down Thy Holy Ghost upon us and on these proposed gifts. And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost. So that they may be to those that participate for purification of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of the Holy Ghost, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, boldness towards Thee, and not to judgment nor to condemnation." [Dr. Egar, p. 24.]

We can now state Dr. Egar's liturgical argument. Copying Peter Lombard, he first declares, that there are in the Sacrament two "Res Sacramenti," two "Realities," two "Inward Parts." The first is the [17/18] Real Body and the Real Blood of our Lord once sacrificed on the Cross. To this the bread and wine bear a symbolical, representative relation. The second is, the "glorified Humanity," to which they bear a sacramental relation. To support this view, which is not Peter Lombard's (for the latter, though he holds to two "Res" in the Sacrament, makes them something very different from Dr. Egar), the Professor also, following Dr. Brett, proposes a liturgical theory. It is this:--

In all the Eastern Liturgies, there is found, besides the words of Institution, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost.

Dr. Egar declares, that the first or "sacrificial relation" is produced by the use of the formula of Institution; the second, or sacramental relation, is produced by the invocation of the Holy Ghost.

In this statement he is met at the outset by the fact that the Western Liturgies, none of them (if we except the traces of it to be found in the Mozarabic and Gallican Liturgies), have any Invocation of the Holy Ghost whatsoever. Of course, he was well aware of this, and indeed states that this difference had been a matter of dispute for centuries between the Eastern and Western Churches.

Dr. Egar, however, would have us believe that there is really no such difference, and that the Prayer which comes in the Roman Liturgy just after the Oblation, corresponds to the Invocation. We give the prayer as he prints it:--

"We humbly entreat Thee, Almighty God, command these things to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thy altar on high before the sight of Thy divine Majesty, that as many of us as shall by partaking at this altar receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be fulfilled with all grace and heavenly benediction, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

The Liturgical scholar will recall Luther's indignant rejection of the interpretation of the words, "these things," as meaning the Body and Blood of Christ; and will remember, that the more usual interpretation, even among Roman Catholics, is that it refers to the prayers of the faithful. [See Daniel's Codex Liturgicus, vol. I., p. 87.]

But whether this be so or not, Dr. Egar has omitted to state one thing, which makes his supposed discovery of no use whatsoever in support of his theory: namely, that ever since 1552, the English Church has had in its Communion Office neither the Invocation of the Holy Ghost nor the supposed equivalent for it.

If therefore Dr. Egar's theory of Consecration be correct, there never has been a valid consecration of the Holy Communion in the English Church since the year 1552! The First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth had, indeed, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost; but it shows [18/19] how far the Reformers, even in their best state, of mind, were from understanding the theory in question, that they placed the Invocation before the words of Institution. The Scotch and the American Offices both have the Invocation, in the latter case with a striking alteration; but this in no sense interferes with the bearing of the omission both of it and of the supposed corresponding form from the English Communion Office.

This curious theory is merely introductory to another, by which the doctrine of the Catholic School as to the Sacrifice is supposed to be overthrown.

It is as follows:--Since the Sacramental relation between the consecrated elements and our Lord's glorified Humanity is brought about by the Invocation of the Holy Ghost; and since, as Dr. Egar argues, the Oblation in all Liturgies comes between the words of Institution and the Invocation: the Oblation or Sacrifice cannot be the pleading of the Passion of Christ by means of the Body and Blood of the Son of God Sacramentally present; but must be the offering of something else,--according to this writer the "bread and wine as the representative and memorial of the Sacrifice upon the Cross." [Pamphlet, page 23.]

In this matter, Dr. Egar's liturgical "facts" are as incorrect as his theories. He states:--"Now this order, the Consecration, the Oblation, the Invocation, is the invariable order of all the Orthodox Liturgies which contain the Invocation, of all the Oriental Liturgies, and of the Liturgies of the ancient Gallican family in the West." [Page 26.]

We are compelled to quote Dr. Neale in opposition to this statement. He says:--

It is remarkable that most of the Syro-Jacobite Liturgies have no formal Oblation in this place [just after the words of Institution]. Most of them have it in the second Prayer after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost. [General Introduction, Vol. I., page 490.]

Dr. Neale gives the explanation of this fact:--

It has always been the use of the Church that the second Oblation should not be delayed after the Consecration is complete. Now, then, we have had occasion to observe that the belief of the Syriac Church seems to have attributed more to the Invocation and less to the words of Institution than the Greek Church, properly speaking; the former therefore, believing the Eucharist to be in no sense valid till the prayer of Invocation was pronounced, postponed the oblation till after that had been said: the latter judging the Consecration to be in a certain sense complete before, prefixed it to the same Prayer. [Ibid, page 501.]

Mr. Freeman, while he does not agree with Dr. Neale, also states: The fact that two of the most ancient Offices in the world, the Greek and the [19/20] Syriac Liturgy of S. James, have the Oblation in a different order, is most instructive. [Principles of Divine Service, Vol. II., Part II., p. 197.]

Indeed, in another place, Freeman asserts that the "evidence is irresistible, that in the earliest Liturgies the Invocation was placed before the words of Institution." [Ibid, p. 394.]

"We can now state what the Liturgies actually teach as to the Oblation, in opposition to this complicated view adopted by Dr. Egar.

1. There is but one Res Sacramenti, Christ Himself, once Sacrificed, now Glorified in Heaven; and in the Eucharist pleading His Death and Passion.

2. There is but one Consecration: made by the words of Institution alone, as in the Roman and in the English Church; made by the words of Institution and the Invocation of the Holy Ghost co-ordinately, as in the Eastern, the Scotch, and the American Churches.

3. There is but one Oblation of the consecrated Elements: begun, indeed, after the words of Institution and before the Invocation, in many Liturgies; but always continued afterwards. In short, one Consecration, one Offering one Res Sacramenti, Christ, the Priest, Christ the Sacrifice, Christ the Food of the faithful.

Upon the form of the Oblation in the ancient Liturgies, we must add a few words. There is always, first, as in our own Church, the offering of the unconsecrated elements. There is, secondly, the offering, after the words of Institution, of the consecrated elements, as in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom quoted above,--"In behalf of all, and for all, we offer Thee Thine own, of Thine own;" or, in our own Communion Office,--"we, Thy humble servants, do celebrate and make, here, before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto Thee." There is, thirdly, after the Invocation, a resumption of the Oblation, interceding for those blessings for which the offering is made, as in the words of the Liturgy of S. James: "We offer: them also to Thee, O Lord, for Thy Holy places," * * * "for Thy Holy Catholic Church," * * * etc.; or, as in the words of the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom: "And, further, we offer to Thee this reasonable service in behalf of those who have departed in the faith," etc., or there is a long prayer of intercession, as in the Liturgy of S. James; or as it is, again, in the Syriac Liturgy of S. James: "We offer unto Thee this unbloody Sacrifice for the Holy Sion, the Mother of all Churches," etc.; or as it is in our own Communion Office: "And we earnestly desire Thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching Thee to grant, that by the merits and death of Thy Son [20/21] Jesus Christ and through faith in His Blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His passion."

Our own Liturgy goes on to join with the pleading of Christ's Passion the offering of ourselves, body, soul and spirit; and the Sacrifice is only complete when Priest and people reverently receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

We think that every candid reader will agree with us, that we have demonstrated the incorrectness of the pamphlet under review when it states that the Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice "is disproved by the structure of the whole consensus of Liturgies of the Church Universal, as they were framed in ancient times, and as they have existed continuously to the present day." [Pamphlet, p. 29.]

We come now to the last point, and the one upon which not only the writers under review, but a host of others (including, alas! many Bishops) make the most confident assertions. It is said, over and over again, that no such Doctrine as the Adoration of Christ then and there present in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements was ever heard of in the Primitive Church.

It may be well first of all to state just what the Catholic School teaches on this subject.

1. It denies utterly any adoration (other than seemly honour and reverence) to the consecrated Bread and Wine. It rejects any worship, save only the worship of Christ our Lord, the Inward Part of the Sacrament. It worships Him, as in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements, being at one and the same time, by a mystery which may not be explained, at the right Hand of God; and on the Altar, under the species of Bread and Wine.

The question immediately before us is, What is the teaching of the Primitive Liturgies upon this subject? The pamphlet now especially under review declares that "all the Liturgies ignore, and that of S. Chrysostom disavows, a worship of flesh and blood, whether of Christ or of any other; and all of them address the Prayer of Intense Adoration either to the Blessed Trinity or to the Son on the throne of His Glory, where He sitteth above with the Father, or to the Holy Spirit: but never to the presence "in the Elements on the Altar." [Page 34]

It is obvious to state, that this passage mistakes the teaching of the Catholic School. We do not worship "the flesh and blood of the Son of God." We only worship Christ Himself, God and Man, united in one Person, and consequently not as though He were or could be locally in the Holy Elements.

[22] Correcting this misstatement, the present writer can only express his wonder that any one can read the ancient Liturgies, and dare to deny that they teach that Christ is to be adored as then and there supernaturally present in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements, after Consecration, and before and in reception. Let us examine the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, to which the pamphlet under review especially calls our attention.

1. Immediately before the Creed is said, which in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom precedes the Sursum Corda, the Priest says:

"Christ is among us.
He is, and will be."
[Neale's Primitive Liturgies, p. 112.]

As soon as the words of Institution are said and the Oblation begun a prayer is made to Christ to send down the Holy Ghost upon the Elements, and an ascription of praise is offered unto Him, as follows:

Blessed art Thou, Christ our God, who didst fill the fishermen with all manner of wisdom, sending down upon them the Holy Ghost: and by them hast brought the whole world into Thy net, O Lover of men: glory be to Thee.

The Invocation follows, and the great Intercession. The Consecration being now complete, and the Consecrated Elements having become the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Deacon says:--"Let us bow our Heads to the Lord." Then follows what is called the Prayer of Intense Adoration. In the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom it is in two sections. The first part is addressed to God the Father; the second section is as follows:--

Hear us, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, out of Thy Holy dwelling place, and from the throne of the glory of Thy Kingdom, and come and sanctify us, Thou that sittest above with the Father, and art here invisibly present with us: and by Thy mighty Hand make us worthy to partake of Thy spotless Body and precious Blood, and by us all Thy people." [Ibid., p. 120.]

When we consider the position of this Prayer, before any one, even the Priests, have received, yet after the Consecration, with its twofold assertion of Christ's Presence in Heaven, and His invisible Presence in the Eucharist, it is the more striking.

Then follows the Elevating the Holy Bread with the Exclamation: "Holy Things for Holy Persons," and when these words are uttered the Choir burst forth:

One Holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father.

What can this be but the adoration of a present Saviour!

The Priest then proceeds to break the Holy Bread, and as he does so utters the solemn words:

[23] "The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; He that is broken and not divided asunder; ever eaten and never consumed, but sanctifying the communicants." [Ibid., p. 121.]

Shortly afterwards follows the Communion of Priests and People.

We ask the question and wait for a reply: If this were so in the Communion Office of the Protestant Episcopal Church could people for a moment question that it taught that Christ our Lord was to be adored, as then and there present, in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements?

Very clear also is the teaching of the Liturgy of S. Mark, which is ascribed, be it remembered, by Dr. Neale to about A. D. 200. In this Liturgy when the words of Institution, the Invocation, and the Prayer that follows, are over, and the Consecration is complete: the Deacon, in the very presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord says:--

Bow the knee to Jesus

and the People answer:--

To Thee, O Lord. [Ibid., p. 26.]

Then follow two Prayers of Adoration, the first addressed to the "Master, Lord, and God Almighty who sittest upon the Cherubim and art glorified by the Seraphim;" and the other is as follows:--

Priest. Holy, most High, tremendous Lord, who restest in the holies: sanctify us, Lord, by the word of Thy grace and the visitation of Thy most Holy Spirit. For Thou, Lord, hast said, Be ye holy, for I am holy. O Lord our God, incomprehensible Word of God, consubstantial and co-eternal, and ruling with the Father and the Holy Ghost, receive the pure hymn, with Cherubim and Seraphim, and from me a sinner and Thine unworthy servant, crying and saying from my unworthy lips,

People. Lord, have mercy. [Neale, p. 27.]

Then follows the "Sancta Sanctis," followed in this Liturgy by an ascription of praise to the Holy Trinity.

In a note to the first of these prayers, Dr. Neale says:--

This is the Prayer of Intense Adoration, which has its place in all Oriental Liturgies, and answers to the worship paid by the Western Church to our Lord's Sacramental Body and Blood at the Elevation of the Host. An attempt has been made to prove that the East does not agree with the West in paying the worship of Latria to that Body and that Blood, from the long interval which separates the Prayer of Intense Adoration (in all Liturgies except the present one) [S. Mark's] from the Invocation of the Holy Ghost. Nothing can be more futile: the obvious tangible reason being, that, during the Consecration, the holy doors were closed, or, in the Armenian Church, the veil was drawn; so that the people could hardly be called on to worship that which was not presented to their eyes, as they can be and [23/24] are in the Western Church, where it is so presented. But now the holy doors are opened; hence the reason of the position of this Prayer. [Ibid., p. 26.]

We add the second Prayer of Intense Adoration which follows the Consecration in the Liturgy of S. Basil, as being still more striking than those given from the Liturgies of S. Mark and S. Chrysostom:--

Advance, O Lord Jesus Christ our God from Thy holy dwelling place, and from the Throne of the glory of Thy Kingdom, and come to hallow us, who sittest on high with the Father, and art here invisibly present with us, and deign with Thy mighty Hand to give us a share in Thy spotless Body and precious Blood, and by us to all the people. [Neale's Primitive Liturgies translated, p. 148.]

We will conclude with the Liturgy of S. Clement, of which Canon Trevor says:--

It differs from that of S. James chiefly in greater simplicity both of language and ritual,--another presumption in favor of its retaining the earlier type. The learned Dr. Grabe conceived it to be the most authentic monument of the Ante-Nicene worship; and Dr. Brett believes, with Johnson, that if we had the very form in which the Apostles ministered the Holy Communion, it would be found in all essential points the same. [See his Sacrifice and Participation of the Holy Eucharist, p. 144.]

The Liturgy of S. Clement, when, after the Consecration is over and the Bishop is about to receive, he proclaims "Holy things for Holy persons," requires the people to answer:--

There is one Holy, one Lord, one Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father, blessed forevermore. Amen. Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men. Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord: God is the Lord, and He hath appeared unto us. Hosanna in the Highest. [Neale, p. 89.]

We ask once more, what can this be, at such a time and such a place, but the adoration of a present Saviour in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements?

When to this testimony of the Primitive Liturgies we add the fact that (leaving out our own branch of the Church, in regard to whose teaching we are contending,) there is no branch of the Church of God that does not adore Christ present in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements upon the Altar, the weight of the evidence becomes the greater.

As some persons have ventured to say, that the Eastern Church does not believe in Eucharistic Adoration, we give, in addition to the testimony of Dr. Neale, whose knowledge of the Eastern Church no one can question, the following extract from the decrees of the Synod of Bethlehem, as given by Dr. Neale in his General Introduction. [Vol. II, pp: 1173-1175.]

[25] He says that the eighteen articles of this Council, held in 1672, "are the next exposition which has authority." And that exposition, after stating the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that "the Lord Jesus is there present in His Substance, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect Man," declares:

We further believe that the Body and Blood of the Lord ought to be especially honoured and worshipped with Divine worship. For the worship which we are bound to pay to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself we are bound also to pay to the Body and Blood of our Lord."

We come now to the question, whether certain great Divines of the Church of England have or have not maintained the doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration. Three quotations have been made to prove that they did: one from Bishop William Forbes, another from Thorndike, and a third from the great. Bishop Andrewes. Dr. Buel devotes a portion of his book to an endeavor to show that the attempt to prove it is a misrepresentation of these great writers. Dr. Egar refers to the matter, but passes it over with no attempt to show the incorrectness of the assertion.

Several editorials in the Hartford Churchman were devoted to the same subject, so far as Bishop Andrewes was concerned.

We give the quotations from Thorndike and Bishop William Forbes, and leave them to speak for themselves, without entering into any argument upon the subject; but will take up the case of Bishop Andrewes more fully, because around him the controversy has chiefly gathered.

The quotations from Thorndike and Bishop Forbes are as follows:

1. Thorndike.

Our quotations are made from the Anglo-Catholic Library:--[Vol. IV., pp. 745-7.]

But I suppose, further, that the Body and Blood of Christ is not adored, nor to be adored by Christians, neither for Itself, nor for any endowment residing in It, which It may have received by being personally united with the Godhead of Christ; but only in consideration of the said Godhead, to which It remains inseparably united, wheresoever It becomes. For by that means, whosoever proposeth not to himself the consideration of the Body and Blood of Christ, as It is of Itself and in Itself a mere creature (which he, that doth not on purpose, cannot do) cannot but consider It, as he believes It to be, being a Christian; and considering It as It is, honour It as It is inseparably united to the Godhead, in which and by which It subsisteth; in which, therefore, that honour resteth, and to which it tendeth. So the Godhead of Christ is a thing that is honoured, and the reason why it is honoured, both: the Body and Blood of Christ, though It be necessarily honoured, because necessarily united to that which is honoured; yet [25/26] is It only the thing that is honoured and not the reason why It is honoured, speaking of the honour proper to God alone......

And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion, presently to express by the bodily act of adoration that inward honour which we always carry towards our Lord Christ as God?

Grant that there may be question, whether it be a just occasion or not; certainly supposing it came to a custom in the Church presently to do that which is always due to be done, you suppose the question determined. This is that which I stand upon; the matter being such as it is, supposing the custom of the Church to have determined it, it shall be so far from an act of idolatry, that it shall be: the duty of a good Christian. Therefore, not supposing the Church to have determined it, though for some occasions, (whereof more are possible than it is possible for one to imagine) it may become offensive and not presently due, yet can it never become an act of idolatry; so long as Christianity is that which it is, and he that does it professes himself a Christian.....

Here then you see I am utterly disobliged to dispute, whether or no in the ancient Church Christians were exhorted and encouraged to, and really did, worship our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For having concluded my intent, that it had not been idolatry had it been done, I might leave the consequence of it to debate. But not to balk the freedom which hath carried me to publish all this, I do believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient Church, which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ, obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it. I know the consequence to be this, that there is no good cause why it should not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole; which, if it were taken away, that it might be done again, and ought not to be of itself alone any cause of distance.

For I do acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of S. Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, iii. 12; S. Augustine, in Psalm xcviii., and Epist. cxx. cap. xxvii.; S. Chrysostom, Homil. xxiv. in 1 ad Corinth.; Theodoret, Dial. ii.; S. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. in S. Gorgoniam; S. Jerome, Epist. ad Theophilum Episc. Alexandriae; Origen, In diversa loca Evang. Hom., v., where he teacheth to say at the receiving the Sacrament, "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof," which to say is to do that which I conclude. Nor do I need more to conclude it.

And what reason can I have not to conclude it? Have I supposed the elements, which are God's creatures, in which the sacrament is celebrated, to be abolished; or anything else, concerning the Flesh and Blood of Christ, or the presence thereof in the Eucharist, in giving a reason why the Church may do it, which the Church did not believe? If I have, I disclaim it as soon as it may appear to me for such. Nay, I do expressly warn all opinions, that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so mere and simple a sign of the thing signified, that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship, which is always due to our Lord Christ incarnate.

I confess it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist, yet in that sense which reason of itself justifieth, it is. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by reason of the nature thereof, is neither the visible kind; nor the invisible grace, of Christ's Body and Blood, but the union of both by virtue of the premises; in regard whereof the one going along with the other, whatsoever be the distance [26/27] of their nature, both concur to that, which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by the work of God, to which He is morally engaged by the promise which the institution thereof containeth. If this be rightly understood, to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

2. Bishop Forbes.

These quotations are also made from the Anglo-Catholic Library:--[Vol. II., p. 545. Considerationes Modestae.]

As regards the adoration of this Sacrament, since "he who worthily receives the sacred symbols, truly and really receives into himself the Body and Blood of Christ, corporeally, yet in a certain spiritual, miraculous, and imperceptible manner, everyone who worthily communicates can and ought to adore the Body of Christ which he receives; not because it is hid corporeally in the bread, or under the bread, or under the species and accidents of bread; but because, when the sacramental bread is worthily received, then along with the bread, the real Body of Christ, which is really present in that communion, is also received," as the Archbishop of Spalatro says: "We adore the Flesh of Christ in the mysteries," says S. Ambrose; S. Gregory Nazianzen, "Calling upon Him who is worshipped upon the altar;" S. Augustine, "No one eateth that Flesh (viz. that of Christ,) till he have first adored." See S. Chrysostom in several parts of his writings. The rest of the ancients agree.

Enormous is the error of the more rigid Protestants who deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist, save with an internal and mental adoration, but not with any outward rite of worship, as by kneeling, or some other similar position of the body. They with few exceptions hold wrong views concerning the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament, Who is present in a wonderful but true manner.....

As regards the first assertion of Bellarmine about venerating the symbols with a kind of lesser reverence, we admit it: but what he says of the adoration of latria, that though per se and properly it be due and exhibited to Christ, yet it belongs also to the symbols, in so far as they are apprehended as one, in a certain respect, with Christ Himself Whom they contain, and to Whom they are a covering and concealment, like garments; is false and repugnant to the opinion of very many others. For these species do not belong to the person of Christ nor do they make one with It. Whence he himself a little while after doubtingly says: "Whatever there may be said of the expressions used, the state of the question simply is, whether Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored with the worship of the latria." But this the more sound Protestants do not doubt; "for in the reception of the Eucharist," to use the words of the Archbishop of Spalatro, "CHRIST is to be adored with true latria, since His living and glorious Body is present to the worthy receiver by a certain inexplicable miracle; and this adoration is due and is paid, not to the bread, not to the wine, not to the participation, not to the eating, not to the sign, but immediately to Christ's Body Itself, exhibited through the partaking of the Eucharist." [Ibid., p. 551.]

3. Bishop Andrewes.

We come now to the passage from Bishop Andrewes. It is taken from his reply to Cardinal Bellarmine. Bishop Andrewes stood forth [27/28] in the presence of all Europe in defence of his King and Church against the ablest controversialist of the time on the Roman side. His words, therefore, are carefully guarded; and are, on the subject in question, of greater weight than any he uttered at any other time. As they were never repudiated, they became, from his position, in some sort the utterance of the Church itself. Hence their great importance. Dr. Buel has endeavored to show, that in one or two places the extracts, written originally in Latin, have been mis-translated. Without for a moment granting that his criticisms in this respect are correct, we give the translation in all material points as he thinks it ought to be, merely because the alterations make no difference whatsoever as to the teaching of Bishop Andrewes. Our readers, however, will excuse us if we cannot translate impingit, "impinges" or make some other similar translations; and if we prefer, as more Anglican in its tone, the words "Inward part of the Sacrament" to "Reality of the Sacrament" as a translation of Res Sacramenti. We give the italics and parentheses as Bishop Andrewes gave them, and insert none of our own except to give the Latin word occasionally.

We also accept Dr. Buel's statement, that in the most important passage by Sacramentum Bishop Andrewes meant the outward part of the sacrament, the elements of bread and wine. It ought to be added, that the portions in parentheses marked 1, 2, and 3, are the statements of Cardinal Bellarmine which Bishop Andrewes desired to refute.

1.

["I will also adduce one writer, who bears the name of S. Cyprian, but who, though not the very celebrated martyr Cyprian, is yet of very ancient and weighty authority . . . 'The bread being changed, not inform, but in nature, by the omnipotence of the word, became flesh' . . . He says, that the nature, that is, the substance, is changed; and that the form, that is, the accidents, is not changed."] [Bell. Apol. pro Resp. p. 107. Op. tom. vii. col. 764, C. D.]

"Now that weighty author (who bears the name of Cyprian and yet is not Cyprian) says that the bread is changed in nature, not in form; and this is not denied by us either. But we nevertheless deprecate the interpretation of the Cardinal, 'nature, that is, substance; and form, that is, accidents.' For what that author says is, that by the addition of the omnipotence of the word, the nature is changed, so that what was before a mere element, becomes now a Divine Sacrament, while nevertheless the previously existing substance still remains. This is shown by the words which immediately follow; they being both part of the same passage, and always by you fraudulently left out, namely, 'And just as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity was hidden; so a Divine essence infused itself into the visible Sacrament;' meaning doubtless that the union between the visible Sacrament, and the invisible inward part of the Sacrament is the same as that which exists between the humanity and the Divinity of Christ; where, unless you mean to be a Eutychian, the humanity is not transubstantiated into the divinity. But, that you may know that the word 'nature' is not to be understood [28/29] as meaning 'substance' in that passage where Peter says, 'that we are made partakers of the divine nature' that same author (and in the same passage too) denies that this kind of unity is equivalent to a consubstantiality with Christ. Substance, therefore the Cardinal finds nowhere asserted, while we find it denied. Theodoret says, 'For the symbols remain in their former substance.' Moreover Gelasius, Pontifex and Chief Pastor, to whose words all Papists must listen, says that the symbols 'by the operation of the Holy Spirit pass over into a divine substance (wherefore I marvel that this writer is omitted by the Cardinal), and yet that the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.' Moreover, in order more clearly to indicate to us his meaning, he adds these words 'Just as Christ (says he), being One, consists of natures separately remaining.' Both, Gelasius as well as Theodoret, contradict Eutyches. Hence it is clearly manifest that the transmutation which takes place in the Sacrament, is not one of substance. I quote also the following words of Augustine: 'This is what we assert, and what we claim in every manner to prove, namely that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist consists of two things, the visible species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of Christ (the Sacrament and the inward part of the Sacrament); just as the person of Christ consists and is composed of God and Man, since Christ Himself is very God and very Man. Because everything contains in itself the nature and verity of those things of which it is composed. Moreover the Sacrament of the Church is composed of two things, the Sacrament and the inward part of the Sacrament, that is, the Body of Christ.'"

2.

[He classes as a novel and recent dogma the Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, the Adoration of the Lord Christ, wonderfully but truly present in the Sacrament.'] [Bell. Apol. pro Resp. p. 107. Op. tom. vii. col. 764 D.]

In the phrase "Adoration of the Sacrament" he disgracefully stumbles upon the very threshold. "Of the Sacrament, he says, that is, of the Lord Christ wonderfully but truly present in the Sacrament." But away with it! Who would grant him this? "Of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ in the Sacrament?" "Nay, rather, Christ Himself, the inward part of the Sacrament (res Sacramenti,) in and with the Sacrament, (Sacramentum) apart from and without the Sacrament, wherever He is, is to be adored. Now the King maintained that Christ truly present in the Eucharist, was also truly to be adored; that is to say, the inward part of the Sacrament; but not the Sacrament, that is to say, the earthly part, according to Irenaeus; the visible part, according to Augustine."

3.

[S. Ambrose says . . . "We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries" . . . S. Gregory, Nazian. . . . commending the piety of Gorgonia, thus writes . . . "Beseeching Him who is worshipped upon the altar" . . . Now what that is which is worshipped upon the altar, S. Optatus of Mileum shews, who in his third book against Parmenianus calls the altar the resting place of the Body and Blood of Christ. Augustine says . . . "No one eats unless he has first adored."] [Bell. Apol. pro Resp. pp. 107 and 108, Op. tom. vii. col. 765 A. B.

But we indeed also, with Ambrose adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, and not, "that" but "Him" who is worshipped upon the altar. For the Cardinal improperly asks, "What is worshipped there" when he should have asked "Who," since he of Nazianzum says "Him" not "that." And neither do we, with [29/30] Augustine, eat the flesh without first adoring. And yet we do by no means adore the Sacrament. (Sacramentum.) [Bishop Andrewes' Responsio ad Bellarminum, pp. 365, 266, 267.]

It would seem as if no one could carefully read this passage and deny that Bishop Andrewes teaches therein the adoration of Christ the Inward part of the Sacrament. He compares the union between the outward and inward part of the Sacrament to the union of the Human and Divine Natures in the Divine Person of the Son of God. It is impossible to conceive that he could have made such a comparison had he thought that the Inward part of the Sacrament was only present in "power and efficacy." Indeed the whole argument of the Bishop is utterly destroyed by such a theory. Eutyches held to a fusion of the two Natures of the Son of God in one Nature. The separation of the two parts of the Sacrament was an argument against him, but only an argument on the theory that there was also a Presence, and a Sacramental union of the two parts which were not confused. Otherwise, to compare the Sacramental union of the outward and inward parts in the Blessed Eucharist to the Hypostatic Union, would have been a fraudulent argument.

Dr. Buel passes over all this, and turns his whole attention to the passage of Bishop Andrewes which begins as follows. We give it exactly as Dr. Buel translates it:--

In the adoration of the Sacrament, he basely impinges on the very threshold. Of the Sacrament he says, that is, of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament, in a wonderful but true way present. Away with this indeed. Who will grant him this f of the sacrament, that is, of Christ in the sacrament. But rather Christ Himself, the reality of the sacrament, in, and with the sacrament; out of, and without the sacrament, wheresoever He is, is to be adored. But the king determines that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, truly also to be adored, the reality, that is, of the sacrament: but not the sacrament, the earthly part, that is, as Irenaeus; the visible, as Augustine. [Dr. Buel, p. 168.]

Dr. Buel's argument is, that Bishop Andrewes intended to condemn both the "adoration of the Sacrament" and the "adoration of Christ in the Sacrament." The theory that we maintain, is, that Bishop Andrewes intended to condemn the phrase "Adoration of the Sacrament," but not the phrase "Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament."

Dr. Buel gives no proof of his interpretation of the passage, from the context. He uses strong language, and trusts to the prejudices of his readers.

In reply to his interpretation, and in support of our own, we adduce:--

[31] 1. The fact that all through the passage quoted, Bishop Andrewes accepts one part of the Cardinal's statement, and rejects another. Thus, the Cardinal, in his comment on the quotations from the "author that bears the name of Cyprian," had said "that the nature, that is the substance, is changed; and that the form, that is the accidents, is not changed."

On this Bishop Andrewes comments: "That weighty author (who bears the name of Cyprian and yet is not Cyprian) says that the bread is changed in nature, not in form, and this is not denied by us either. But nevertheless, we deprecate the interpretation of the Cardinal, 'Nature, that is, substance; and form, that is, accidents.''" Bishop Andrewes goes on to show, that he accepts just what the "author who bears the name of Cyprian" had said: a change of nature, but rejects the idea that "nature" is identical with substance, and "form" with accidents. He accepts one part of the Cardinal's statement and rejects another. He acknowledges what is Catholic and Patristic in it, and casts away what is Roman.

2. The same thing is true in the disputed passage. The Cardinal had said: "He (King James) classes as a novel and recent dogma the adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, that is the adoration of the Lord Christ wonderfully but truly present in the Sacrament.

Bishop Andrewes denies the "adoration of the Sacrament;" he grants the "adoration of Christ in the Sacrament." He refuses to acknowledge the cunning proposition of the Cardinal, that the two things are identical. It is of this that he says: "Away with it!--who would grant him this?" He denies the adoration of the Sacramentum. He asserts the adoration of the Res Sacramenti. In the former neither he nor King James have any portion; in the latter he asserts his belief.

Bearing in mind Dr. Buel's acknowledgment that in this passage Bishop Andrewes meant by Sacramentum the outward part of the Sacrament merely, if Dr. Buel's interpretation were correct that Bishop Andrewes intended to deny not only the adoration of the Sacrament, but of Christ in the Sacrament, what could Bishop Andrewes have meant by the admission (we give Dr. Buel's translation again),--

But rather Christ Himself, the reality of the Sacrament (Res Sacramenti), in and with the Sacrament (Sacramentum); out of, and without the Sacrament, wheresoever, wheresoever He is, is to be adored.

3. No one can read the passage as it is printed in the original Latin, without at once seeing what Bishop Andrewes' intention was. It is as follows, with italics as Bishop Andrewes gave them:

In adoratione Sacramenti, ad limen ipsum turpiter impingit. Sacramenti ait, id est Christi Domini in Sacramento, miro sed vero modo praesentis.

[32] It is the custom of Bishop Andrewes to print in italic the words quoted. Here he departs from that custom, and prints two words of the quotation, id est, in Roman letters, his object being, of course, to show that his argument turned on these two words.

4. If Dr. Buel's interpretation were correct, it would have been impossible for Bishop Andrewes in the next clause to have accepted the phrase which Cardinal Bellarmine quoted from Gregory Nazianzen:--

"Eum qui super altare colitur."

"Him who is worshipped upon the altar."

There has been an attempt made to weaken the force of this argument by translating the words: "Eum qui super altare colitur:" "Him who is worshipped above the altar." This translation appears first in Dean Goode's Book on the Eucharist. [Vol. II., p. 820.] It is also found in Canon Trevor's Book. It is found again in the columns of The Churchman in one of its articles on the teaching of Bishop Andrewes.

Super may indeed be translated above as well as upon; but "Eum qui super altare colitur" is only a translation of the Greek (for S. Gregory Nazianzen happened to write in Greek), kai ton ep autw (qusiasthriw) timwmenon, and epi with the dative cannot by any twisting be made to mean "above." Super must therefore be translated upon. The blunder is the more inexcusable, as the original Greek is given at the bottom of the page in Bishop Andrewes' Reply in the Anglo-Catholic Library.

There is however another argument urged by Dean Goode, Canon Trevor, The Churchman, and Dr. Buel alike, which deserves more serious consideration.

It is said, that Bishop Andrewes could not have meant, though he says so, that "Christ Himself," "Christus Ipse," is the Res Sacramenti, because, in other passages of his works, he affirms that Christ was present in the Eucharist as sacrificed and slain. The chief passage brought forward in proof of this is the following, found in the Seventh Sermon on the Resurrection:--

Will you mark one thing more, that epulemur doth here refer to immolatus? To Christ not every way considered, but as when He was offered. Christ's Body that now is, true; but not Christ's Body as now it is, but as then it was, when it was offered, rent and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not as now He is glorified, for so He is not, so He cannot be, immolatus. For He is immortal and impassible. But as then He was when He suffered death, that is, passible and mortal. Then, in His passible state, did He institute this of ours, to be a memorial of His Passibile and Passio both. And we are in this action not only carried up to Christ [32/33] (sursum corda), but we are also carried back to Christ as He was at the very instant and in the very act of His offering. So, and no otherwise, doth this text teach. So and no otherwise, do we represent Him. By the incomprehensible power of His Eternal Spirit, not He alone, but He as at the very act of His offering, is made present to us, and we incorporate into His death, and invested in the benefits of it. If an Host could be turned into Him now glorified as He is, it would not serve; Christ offered is it--thither we must look. To the serpent lift up, thither we must repair, even ad cadaver; we must hoc facere, do that is then done. So, and no otherwise, is this epulare to be conceived. And so, I think, none will say they do or can turn Him.

From this passage Dr. Buel would make Bishop Andrewes hold that Christ's Body and Blood as slain are the Res Sacramenti, and inasmuch as Christ's Body and Blood as slain do not now exist in Heaven or on earth, he would draw the further inference, that Bishop Andrewes taught that Christ was present only by the power and efficacy of His Sacrifice on the Cross, and that through this we communicate with His glorified Body. To this we reply:

1. There are other passages in Bishop Andrewes' sermons which affirm the opposite of this interpretation of Dr. Buel's, besides that from the reply to Bellarmine which is the one in dispute.

There is a remarkable passage in the sermon on the Nativity. [Vol. I, pp. 282-3.] It begins:--

For there (in the Mysteries) we do not gather to Christ, or of Christ, but we gather Christ Himself; and gathering Him, we shall gather the tree and fruit and all upon it. For as there is a recapitulation of all in Heaven and earth in Christ, so there is a recapitulation of all in Christ in the holy Sacrament. You may see it clearly: There is in Christ the Word eternal for things in Heaven; there is also flesh for things on earth. Semblably, the Sacrament consisteth of a Heavenly and of a terrene part (it is Irenaeus' own words); the Heavenly--there the word too, the abstract of the other; the Earthly--the Element.

He finally concludes the passage by comparing the union of the outward and inward parts of the Blessed Eucharist to the Hypostatic Union, and his argument requires that one should accept the Presence of both the outward and the inward parts. To deny the one is Transubstantiation, to deny the other is to surrender the Catholic faith.

So too in the Twelfth Sermon of the Nativity:--

The Sacrament we shall have besides, and if the Sacrament we may well say, Hoc erit signum. For a sign it is, and by it, invenietis Puerum, 'ye shall find this child.' For finding His flesh and blood ye Cannot miss but find Him too. And a sign not much from this here. For Christ in the Sacrament is not altogether unlike Christ in the cratch. To the cratch we may well liken the husk or outward symbols of it. Outwardly it seems of little worth, but it is rich of contents, as was the crib this day with Christ in it. For what are they but infirma et egena elementa 'weak and poor elements of themselves?' Yet in THEM FIND WE [33/34] CHRIST. Even as they did this day in præsepi jumentorum panem angelorum, 'in the beasts' crib the food of angels,' which very food our signs both represent and present. [Vol.1., pp. 213, 214.]

And lastly and conclusively in the Ninth Sermon of the Resurrection:--

Not to do it (bow) at His name? Not at the Holy Mysteries themselves, not to do it. Where His name is, I am sure and more than His name, even the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and these NOT WITHOUT HIS SOUL; NOR THAT WITHOUT HIS DEITY; nor all these without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them. [Vol. II., p. 840.]

The italics and small capitals are our own.

2. A view of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist was held by the Schoolmen and by Roman Catholic writers of about the time of Bishop Andrewes, which was not dissimilar to that expressed by the Bishop, but it was not, in their case, inconsistent with the further view that Christ Himself was the inward part of the Sacrament.

Thus Thomas Aquinas says (we quote from Humphrey's Digest of S. Thomas on the Sacraments, Sec. CXXII):--

The Eucharist is at once a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. As a Sacrament it is received, as a Sacrifice it is offered. As a Sacrifice it represents the passion of Christ, whereby He offered Himself a Sacrifice to God: as a Sacrament it conveys invisible grace under a visible species.

So again (Sec. CLIV):

For two reasons is the celebration of the Eucharist said to be an immolation of Christ. 1. As S. Augustine says, images are wont to be called by the names of those things of which they are the images, as when one sees a picture on the wall one says, that is Cicero, or that is Sallust. Now the celebration of the Eucharist is a representative image of the Passion of Christ, which is His true immolation. And so the celebration of this Sacrament is said to be an immolation of Christ. 2. As regards the effect of the Passion of Christ, seeing we are by the Eucharist made partakers of the fruits of the Lord's Passion.

Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Perron, as quoted by Canon Trevor, [Page 15, note.] say the same thing:--

The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ constituted in the actual state of one slain, dead and inanimate; neither in that respect does it contain it, but so far represents it only. [Card. Perron de loc. Aug. iii. (Patrick's Full View, 213.)]

Cardinal Cajetan speaks in similar language. In the same way our own Archbishop Bramhall [Works, Vol. v., Angl. Cath. Lib., p. 217.] says:--

For all the essentials of their Sacrifice [the Roman Catholic] are contained in our celebration of the Holy Eucharist, that is according to their Schools, the [34/35] consecration and consumption, of the whole or part. Both these we have as well as they: the former more purely than they, the latter more eminently than they; inasmuch as with us both Priest and people do receive, with them the Priest only. It was therefore truly said by the learned Bishop of Ely (Bishop Andrewes), "Take away your Transubstantiation and we shall have no difference about the Sacrifice."

The italics are our own.

In his reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, Bramhall says of the Sacrifice:--

We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a commemorative Sacrifice, or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eyes of His Heavenly Father; an impetrative Sacrifice of the fruit and benefit of His Passion, by way of real prayer; and lastly, an applicative Sacrifice, or an application of His merits unto our souls. Let him that dare, go one step further than we do; and say that it is a suppletory Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace, and speak no more against us in the point of Sacrifice forever. [Bramhall's Works, Anglo-Catholic Library, Vol. II., p. 276.]

We give two references to Bishop Andrewes' reply to Cardinal Perron, to show that he agreed with the Cardinal on the subject of the Sacrifice:

"V. The Eucharist a Sacrifice. 6.

"1. The Eucharist ever was and by us is considered both as a Sacrament, and as a Sacrifice.

"2. A Sacrifice is proper and appliable only to divine worship.

"3. The Sacrifice of Christ's death did succeed to the Sacrifices of the Old Testament.

"4. The Sacrifice of Christ's death is available for present, absent, living, dead, (yea, for them that are yet unborn.)

"5. When we say the dead, we mean it is available for the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors, and all (because we are all members of one Body;) THESE NO MAN WILL DENY.

"6. In a word we hold with S. Augustine in the same chapter which the Cardinal citeth, 'quod hujus sacrificii Caro et Sanguis, ante Adventum Christi, per victimas similitudinem promittebatur; in passione Christi, per ipsam veritatem reddebatur; post adventum (leg. ascensum,) Christi, per Sacramentum memoria celebratur. [pp. 19 and 20 of Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works, Anglo Cath. Lib.]

The small capitals are our own, the italics are Bishop Andrewes', and are intended to show, we suppose, the points of agreement between himself and the Cardinal.

In the summary at the end of the answer to the 18th chapter of Cardinal Perron's reply in summing up the points of agreement and difference between himself and the Church of England on the one hand, and Cardinal Perron on the other, he mentions the Eucharistic sacrifice as a point on which they agree. [See p. 35 of the same.]

[36] To this must be added the passage in the Responsio ad Bellarminum quoted above by Archbishop Bramhall. [p. 251]

It therefore cannot be just to argue from Bishop Andrewes' expressions about the Sacrifice, against his holding that "Christ Himself is the inward part of the Sacrament;" especially with his own distinct assertion, uttered on a most important occasion, that he did so believe.

3. The doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as held by the Catholic School entirely reconciles the two sets of expressions in Bishop Andrewes' writings.

If by consecration the outward part is joined in sacramental union with Christ's glorified Humanity, and so with Christ Himself, the oblation in the Holy Communion consists of this, that Christ Himself, in that very human nature which once was slain, pointing as it were to the scars of His Passion, pleads for us the Sacrifice on the Cross of' that very Body which now is present. The Sacrifice is the pleading before God, by our Saviour, in His glorified Humanity, of what that glorified Humanity once suffered. Hence the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is only a Commemorative Sacrifice; and, so far as it is a Sacrifice, points only to Christ as slain upon the Cross. But the Presence is necessary for the pleading. Thus Bishop Andrewes may hold at one and the same time, "That Christ Himself is the Inward part of the Sacrament, and that which is offered is indeed Christ, but not "Christ as now He is;" and so the consecrated Elements though sacramentally united to Christ's glorified Humanity, and though the presence of that Humanity is necessary for" the pleading of what It suffered: yet, so far as they are sacrificed or immolated, they only involve the commemoration of what It once endured.

The full teaching of Bishop Andrewes then includes,--

1. A belief in the Presence of Christ Himself in His glorified Humanity, still bearing the marks of His Passion.

2. The pleading, by the fact of that Presence, of what that Humanity once suffered.

3. The feeding us with that Body and Blood in its glorified state, for so only does it exist, yet representatively sacrificed because Its Presence pleads the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the feeding upon it worthily, is the applying to our souls all that that Blessed Sacrifice purchased for us.

It is therefore, we repeat, impossible to argue from what Bishop Andrewes has said on the Sacrifice, that he necessarily therefore disbelieved in our Lord's Personal Presence in Sacramental union with [36/37] the Holy Elements, especially when we have his own words to the contrary.

We will conclude this part of our subject, by a quotation concerning the Eucharist from one whom the American Church has ever held in honour. For patient learning, for unrequited labour, for an example of suffering bravely borne, for an impulse which those who felt it look back upon as one of the best gifts God gave to them, who can fail to honour the Rev. Dr. Samuel F. Jarvis, now at rest with God? In the year 1836 he was called upon to preach before the Bishops, Clergy and Laity composing the Board of Missions, in S. Thomas' Church, New York. The Board of Missions requested Dr. Jarvis to publish the sermon, with notes, which accordingly he did in the following year.

One of the notes is as follows:

As on the one hand we have no right to banish from our Communion those whose notions of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament rise to a mysterious change, by which the very elements themselves though they retain their original properties are corporally united with, TRANSFORMED INTO CHRIST: so, on the other, they are Hot to be excluded, who consider that Real Presence as altogether spiritual, but productive of the same blessed results; namely the privileges of the Gospel resulting from" the death of Christ. [Sermon on Christian Unity, preached before the Board of Missions, June 26, 1836. Note, p. 27.]

The italics and small capitals are our own.

It is thirty-seven years since this note, which contains these striking words, was published at the request of the Bishops, Clergy and Laity composing the Board of Missions--and they have never repudiated them. They are stronger words than any one has uttered in our own day.

V.

At the risk of repetition we will sum up the teaching of the Catholic School as drawn out in this Article; and, in conclusion, state the real character of the objections to it.

This teaching affirms:

I. For the validity of the Sacrament, of the Altar, there are necessary,

1. The elements of Bread and Wine.

2. A true Priest to consecrate.

3. A valid form of consecration, either by the words of Institution, or the words of Institution and the Invocation of the Holy Ghost.

4. The due reception of the consecrated Elements.

II.

1. After consecration the Elements of bread and wine remain in their proper substances.

[38] 2. The Inward part of the Blessed Sacrament, the Body and Blood of Christ are also present in Sacramental union with the bread and wine.

3. By Sacramental union is meant a union neither by Transubstantiation, Impanation, identity of Substance, or any other device of human reason; but a true real and actual union of the bread with the Body of Christ, and of the wine with the Blood of Christ, after a manner known only to God, and believed by man because God has revealed it.

This Presence is sometimes called Real, sometimes Spiritual. By the former is meant, that it is not merely figurative or symbolical, or representative; but is a true Presence of the very Body and Blood of the Lord: by Spiritual, is meant, that it is not a presence which can be expressed by the words physical, or natural, or local. That It is not there according to any known laws which govern bodies, but in a way God has been pleased to grant to us, and bids us accept in faith. The Catholic teaching accepts both sides of the Mystery of the Presence of Christ's Humanity.

a. It is at the right Hand of God.

b. It is also in Sacramental union with the bread and wine, and thus present in every Eucharist.

How both can be true, human reason cannot explain; but the truth of the former is not made any the clearer by the rejection of the latter. The full rounded proposition of faith requires the acceptance of both.

Nor does this view do away, in any sense, with the full realization of the work and Presence of the Holy Ghost. The question is:--Has the Holy Ghost come "to supply Christ's absence, or to accomplish His Presence? Surely to make Him present. Let us not suppose for a moment that God the Holy Ghost comes in such sense that God the Son remains away. No; He has not so come that Christ does not come: but rather He comes, that Christ may come in His coming."

5. Since Christ's Body and Blood are present, His Human Nature must also be, because His Soul was only separated from His Body by death and "He liveth for evermore." And wheresoever Christ's Body and Blood are, there must Christ be, because we believe, in the words of one of the ancient Liturgies, "that His Divinity was never separated from His Humanity not even for one hour, or for the twinkling of an eye." [Neale's General Introduction, p. 521.]

6. Wheresoever Christ manifests Himself, as he does in the Holy Eucharist by the Presence and Communication of His Body and Blood, there He is to be worshipped.

[39] 7. The oblation in the Holy Communion is of the glorified Humanity of the Son of God, the Presence of which is the pleading of the awful Sacrifice once offered on the Cross for the sins of the whole world.

We come now to the question of the adoration of Christ present in Sacramental union with the consecrated Elements.

First, a distinction must be made between the adoration itself, and the way in which that adoration is expressed. Much of the indignation which is lavished upon the former, is meant for the latter. To adore Christ present in the Eucharist is a precious privilege, to deny which is to forsake true Catholic doctrine; but the manner in which that adoration is to be expressed, whether by standing or kneeling or genuflections or in any other way, is a matter of propriety and reverence, which may be safely left to the law of the various Churches. One must adore, but how one must adore, is a different question.

Let it be understood that the Catholic School denies--

1. Any adoration of the consecrated bread and wine.

2. Any adoration of the Body and Blood of Christ, and so of Christ's Humanity as subsisting (were that possible) apart from His Divine Person.

3. Any adoration of Christ's Divine Person as though He were locally included within the bread and wine.

But the presence of His Humanity wheresoever It is manifested,--on Earth in the days of His Flesh, or at the right Hand of the Majesty on High, or Sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist,--is a call and a demand for the worship of the Son of God to Whom that Humanity is inseparably united.

We are now prepared to meet the popular charge of idolatry, which is commonly and ignorantly made against this doctrine.

Idolatry is,

1. The worship of some other than God, or

2. The worship of Almighty God under some visible form as though He were or could be included in that form.

This last clause is added or else it were idolatry under any circumstances, in earth or in Heaven, to worship the Incarnate Son of God. It is seen at once therefore that the charge of idolatry is a mere hue and cry, under which in some cases there lurks, it is to be feared, an unconscious Socinianism.

The question of Eucharistic Adoration, when divested of all the extraneous matter which blinds people in the consideration of it, is simply reduced to two points:--

1. Can Christ's glorified Humanity have any presence other than that which It has at the right Hand of God, and that presence by way [39/40] of conjunction and co-operation which It must have everywhere by virtue of the Hypostatic Union?

2. Is Christ to be adored wheresoever He manifests Himself, or is He only to be adored as at the right Hand of God?

A settlement of the question of Eucharistic adoration will involve the settlement of one or both of these questions; and, so far as the real issue is concerned, of nothing more.

We take them in their order.

Be it remembered, that three great Christian Bodies, the greatest the world knows, have decided that Christ's glorified Humanity can have another Presence than that which It has at the right Hand of God.

The Doctrine of the Roman Church upon the subject is too well known to need to be re-stated. The Eastern Church expressly declares the same truth'as follows:

Wherefore, though many Liturgies be made throughout the world, at one and the same time, there are not many Bodies of Christ, but one and the same Christ is verily and indeed present, and one Body and one Blood of Christ in all the separate Churches of the faithful. And this not as though that Body of the Lord which is in Heaven were to descend upon the altars: but because the bread of propitiation, prepared in all the separate Churches, being converted and transubstantiated, after the consecration becomes one and the same thing with the Body which is in Heaven. For there is one Body of the Lord, and not many Bodies in many places.

[The following note from Dr. Neale, will explain the use of the word Transubstantiation in the Eastern Church. Here therefore I may observe, that when the Eastern Church adopts the term metousiwsiV, it is with this explanation; I quote from the Larger Russian Catechism, of which more presently: 'In the Exposition of the Faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word Transubstantiation is not taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord; for this none can understand but God: but only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of our Lord.' See Blackmore's Doctrine, etc., p. 92. (Dr. Neale's General Introduction, pp. 1178, 1174, Note.)

* * * * We further believe that the Body and Blood of the Lord ought to be especially honoured and worshipped with Divine worship; for the worship we are bound to pay to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself we are bound also to pay to the Body and Blood of the LORD. [Neale's Gen. Introd., p. 1175: Decrees of the Synod of Bethlehem.]

The Lutheran body holds, that

Christ's visible Presence has indeed been withdrawn by His Ascension; but He not only ascended into Heaven, but is exalted far above all Heavens to the right Hand of the Majesty and Power of God; therefore the whole Christ, God [40/41] and Man, has the power and will to be invisibly present according to both natures, to every creature, but especially to His Church, and is thus present. . . And this Presence is vouchsafed in Sacramental Union with the consecrated Elements. [Small Catechism Explained, etc., p. 200. Ibid., p. 195.]

On the other hand Calvin and the Calvinists have affirmed the contrary.

The English Church, while in her formularies she expressly teaches the Doctrine of the Real Presence, does not seem on this point, which is inseparably connected with it, to have expressed her mind formally. The Black Rubric of the English Prayer Book, which is not however in our own Prayer Book, is commonly quoted as though it settled this question in a Calvinistic direction. But let it be noted:

1. That it was adopted at a revision of the Prayer Book (that of 1662) when the tone of the Revisers was eminently anti-Calvinistic.

2. That there had been a previous declaration, in form like the Black Rubric, but containing a vital difference, which without the consent of the Church, and apparently without any authority but that of the Privy Council, had been appended to Edward the Sixth's Second Book. It had disappeared, however, from the Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth, and was not taken in by King James. The Courtiers of King Edward had denied that there was "any real or essential Presence there being [in the Eucharist] of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." The Divines of King Charles altered it to read, that by kneeling in the Eucharist "no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood." The Declaration was intended to defend the Church from a charge of adoring the Elements, or Transubstantiation; and in the clause "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, are in Heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one," the Declaration is pointed against the Ubiquitism of the Lutherans. [See the Defence of the Bishop of Brechin, pp. 203, 204.]

3. The fact remains, that in spite of the efforts of one of the most able Ecclesiastical lawyers in the Church of England, and the known bias of the Privy Council, both the Court of Arches and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in an undefended suit, declared that to assert, "Who myself adore and teach my people to adore, Christ present in the Eucharist under the form of bread and wine," did not contravene the formularies of the Church of England.

It is quite true, that the great authority of Hooker can be quoted [41/42] on the Calvinistic side in this question; but this is only to assert, what cannot be denied, that Calvinistic views on this and many other subjects have been widely held in the Church of England, and have at various times almost gained the mastery.

The present attempt to declare Eucharistic Adoration to be disloyalty to the Church of England, is only another endeavour to be added to the many that have preceded it, to gain a Calvinistic victory, and to graft on our American Church one feature of a narrow system which it has steadily resisted.

To deny any other Presence of Christ's glorified Humanity than that which It has at God's right Hand, is to deny at least one fact set forth in the Holy Scriptures. We mean the true appearance of our Lord at the conversion of S. Paul. The Lord Jesus was plainly seen and heard by him, as close at hand.

He fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And he said, who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. On this one has said: How was this? We do not know. Can a body be in two places at once? I do not say so; I only say, Here is a mystery. By way of contrast with this real sight of the Lord, we are presently told that, to Ananias, the Lord appeared 'in a vision.' And hence, moreover, when Ananias came to Saul, he said that God had chosen him, that' he should see that Just One and hear the voice of His mouth.' And hence, too, S. Paul says himself, in his Epistle to the Corinthians: Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Would he have said this, had he had but a vision of him? Had he not many more visions of Him, not one only? And again, after mentioning our Lord's appearance to S. Peter, the Twelve, and Five hundred brethren at once, and S. James, he adds: Last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. That is, he speaks of having been favored with a sight of Christ in as real, true and literal a sense as that in which the other Apostles had seen Him. S. Paul, then, saw Him, and heard Him speak, Who was on the right Hand of God. And this literal sight seems to have been necessary, for some unknown reason, for the office of an Apostle; for in accordance with S. Paul's words just now cited, S. Peter says, when an Apostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas: of these men who have companied with us ... from the baptism of John unto that same day when He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness, with us, of His resurrection. And again, to Cornelius: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us. If S. Paul only saw a vision of Christ, and not Christ "verily and indeed," in that case he was not a witness of His Resurrection. But if he did see Him, it is possible for Christ to be present with us also, as with him.

Thus wrote John Henry Newman in one of those marvelous Parochial Sermons, which have moved so many hearts.

The second question is, whether Christ is to be adored wheresoever He manifests Himself, or is He only to be adored as at the right Hand of God?

[43] To deny the former, and to affirm the latter, seems to the writer to strike a fatal blow at the Christian consciousness.

If, under the old dispensation, whensoever God manifested Himself, under human or angelic form; if in the burning bush; or on Mount Sinai; or as "Captain of the Lord's host;" if in the Pillar of Cloud coming down to the door of the Tabernacle and talking with Moses, which when the people saw, "they worshipped, every man in the door of his tent;" or in the Cloud that filled the Lord's House at the dedication of the first Temple; or above all in the Shechinah which--either always manifest, or at times revealing its glory--dwelt between the Cherubim; if, in the fullness of times when God sent forth His Son, "Who for us men and for our salvation" was incarnate, whensoever His glory blazed forth, by word or miracle, or in the majesty of His Resurrection, now one and now another worshipped God in Christ under the form of a servant: is it for a moment to be doubted that Christ, today and forever, is to be worshipped wheresoever he manifests Himself?

How could any loving Christian man do anything else? Not fall down and worship the Saviour whenever we believe that He is present by an especial manifestation of His mercy, or the Presence of His own Humanity! It cannot be!

This will serve to answer what one sometimes hears, that Eucharistic Adoration is a "logical" inference from the doctrine of the Real Presence. It is, indeed, a logical inference; and, as such, convinces the reason: but it is far more than this;--it is a devotional inference, and the throbbing heart acknowledges while the reason tarries, and the knee is bent while the intellect considers.

There are three objections to Eucharistic Adoration, of no great force, but which nevertheless are much in the mouths of men, and which in conclusion we may do well to notice.

1. A fear that the acknowledgment of Eucharistic Adoration must lead to such practices as the Reservation of the Eucharist for purposes of worship, the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, the Office of Benediction, and, to use the theological phrase, the Circumgestation, or carrying about of the Host, etc.

To this it is replied (and it is a sufficient answer to all that is said about this Doctrine being contrary to the Articles): that the Eucharist was not instituted primarily for the purpose of worshipping Christ therein. It was instituted to be a Sacrifice and a Sacrament: only, since Christ is there, worship follows as a matter of course. Thus the Eastern Church, while it reserves the Eucharist for purposes of use, and indeed keeps a light burning before it, knows no one of these modern inventions of the Latin Church.

[44] 2. It is said, that if it be right to worship Christ in Sacramental union with the holy Elements, it is also right to worship Christ in the worthy recipient who has received the Body and Blood of Christ.

But in this objection, there is a want of theological accuracy. Christ's Humanity is in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements, and so Christ is personally present in such Sacramental union. The worthy receiver is fed with this Humanity, but what remains with the worthy recipient is neither the Presence of Christ's Humanity, nor His Personal Presence (save that He, as God, is in all things): but simple union with Christ. That incorporation into Christ, which began in Holy Baptism, is strengthened and refreshed in the Eucharist, so that Christ dwells in us and we in Him by the continued impartation of His life.

Just as we are in Adam, neither by his personal presence, nor by the presence of his personal humanity in us, but because we have a common nature with him: so are we in Christ, by being united to Him as the Head of regenerated Humanity. The Eucharist is the Christian Theophany to continue to us this wonderful blessing first imparted in Baptism. When this result is attained, the Presence vanishes. It is as it was at the first Easter, to those disciples who went to Emmaus, when Christ is known of us in the breaking of the bread, He vanishes out of our sight.

3. It is said that the view of the Eucharist which involves Eucharistic Adoration, makes the Eucharist something different from the first Eucharist. It seems to us that this is just what it does not do. Christ said at the Last Supper, of the bread and cup, "This is my Body, which is given for you;" and "This is my Blood, which is shed for you." They were that very Body and Blood in their then condition, offered to God in the Eucharist; to be offered on the Cross on the morrow; to be glorified after the Ascension. The Body and Blood of Christ in every Eucharist now, is the same Body and Blood that was present in the first Eucharist; once slain upon the Cross; now glorified in Heaven; and pleading by Its Presence what once It endured.

Always the one Body and Blood of the Lord, in the first Eucharist present as it then could be; in every Eucharist since present as God has appointed it.

There are rumours afloat that an effort will be made in the coming General Convention in some way to condemn the Doctrine of the Eucharist as the present writer has stated it.

We implore of Almighty God, of His Incarnate Son and of the Eternal Spirit, that this may not be!

[45] Is this the time to legislate against reverence, and faith, and what the Catholic Church has in all ages received! Sin was never so rampant. Lust and dishonour, covetousness and unbelief, are on all sides. The world is not disputing as to whether it is right to worship Christ in Sacramental union with the Holy Elements, but as to whether there is any Christ at all. To be in a panic about Eucharistic Adoration;--to call this a "crisis," when the very faith of God is in question: is to be like that Roman Emperor, who fed his horses with gilded oats, when the Goths were thundering at the gates of the Empire.

No action is needed. The Church will not suffer from over-reverence. Let the answer of the General Convention to all cries of fear and the eager talk of the newspapers be, not ambiguous definitions, or restrictive Canons: but renewed methods of work; a quickened life in the Church of God; the better ordering of her system and organization; more elastic services; a better adaptation to the wants of the day; and toleration to all who, in loyal submission to the Church, will work for Christ: in short, as the sound of discord rises louder and louder, let the calm voice of the Bride of Christ be heard above it all, calling her children to labour, toil and prayer, for the souls for which the Master died!

JAMES DEKOVEN.

Racine College, August, 1874.

Project Canterbury