The subject of the Holy Eucharist is at all times worthy of the deepest attention. It is especially so now, because the tendency of the day is to a denial of the supernatural, and so to a depreciation of that Sacramental System, which is God's appointed breakwater against the flood of rationalism.

The subject admits of more discussion than many other subjects of similar importance, because it differs from the great doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the like, and even from Holy Baptism, in that upon many points connected with it, the Universal Church has not spoken. When the Universal Church clearly speaks, with the true Catholic, discussion ceases and controversy ends.

The more earnestly, too, where the Universal Church has not spoken, ought one to listen to the voice of that national Church of which one is a member, and, in a less degree, to the utterances even of individual Bishops, whose duty it is to guard "the Faith once delivered to the saints." The more one feels a certain reverence to the voice of even an individual Bishop, the more will one insist, however, that the utterances which ask his attention should be delivered with that deliberation, solemnity, and sense of their importance, which this reverence would seem rightfully to demand. Hasty letters in newspapers, controversial articles in reviews, speeches in meetings, or even hurriedly composed Convention Addresses, would hardly come within the range of such utterances.

We have made these remarks because of the two Prefaces of Canon Trevor's Book on the Eucharist, which we are about to review. As a [625/626] contribution to a most important subject, as an honest presentation of a particular view quite within the range of liberty allowed by the Church of England, there is nothing to be said against the Book. If it claims anything more than this,--if it asserts that what it teaches is, as the title implies, the "Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,"--if it claims a quasi-Episcopal authority,--if there is any attempt to press the acceptance of its views on candidates for Orders or the younger Clergy, as being an authoritative statement of Doctrine, its claims need to be carefully weighed--the more carefully as one desires to be dutiful to authority, and fearful of self-assertion.

The Preface to the first edition informs the reader that the publication of the Essay is due to the encouragement derived from the subscriptions of two Archbishops, one Primus, one Lord Primate, one Presiding Bishop, and "twenty-one other Bishops of the Anglican Communion," to say nothing of "Dignitaries and Professors." The enlarged edition "chiefly owes its existence," the Preface informs us, to the Bishop of Connecticut; while the Bishops of Maryland, Western New York, North Carolina, Pittsburg, and Long Island, "have cheered the writer with their aid and support;" and Dr. Buel, and others, have shown "friendly interest," and given "valuable suggestions." This would seem to be a grave weight of authority, enough, perchance, to make one meekly submit where he could not accept. As the reviewer gazes at the "task proposed, mitres and croziers, from the Ganges to the Pacific, seem

"to put forth a charm
Of woven paces and of waving hands,"

to protect the Book. Yet the readily-given subscription, and the kind word of encouragement, are perhaps quite as much a tribute to the high position, lofty character, and amiable qualities of the distinguished author, as to the merits of his statement of Doctrine, and at the most mean no more than to call the attention of Churchmen to another expression upon a subject of the most profound importance.

We feel, therefore, that we shall act in full accord with that reverence to authority which, in these evil days, one so much desires, if we proceed to consider what claims, literary and theological, Canon Trevor's Treatise has upon the attention of American Churchmen.

I. We are compelled to say that the method of the Book is a bad one. There is no clear statement of the writer's views, but one is left to draw them out from a variety of attacks, now on Roman Catholics, now on Lutherans, now on Dr. Pusey, and Mr. Keble, and the Tractarian School, supplemented by occasional statements somewhat more definite, as in the early part of the VIIth chapter. As the Treatise professes to give a via media on the subject of the Eucharist, there is occasionally, also, a short skirmish with Calvinists and Zuinglians, the necessity for which otherwise one is at a loss to discover. No doubt such a method serves a polemical [626/627] purpose; but if the object of any theological book be to instruct; much more if the book is urged upon the attention of Churchmen as one likely to benefit them, it is, to say the least, undesirable.

II. The literary merits of the book are not great. It is written in tolerable English; it is courteous in its language, even to those whom it opposes; but as compared with Mr. Goode's "Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist," published in 1856, or Canon Vogan's clear Treatise on "The True Doctrine of the Eucharist," the first edition of which appeared in 1849, and the second in 1871, much more with Archdeacon Freeman's "Principles of Divine Service," the Introduction to Part II. of which appeared in 1857, it can have no literary claim upon the attention of American Churchmen.

We compare it with these three Treatises for another reason. The Book of Canon Trevor is almost utterly destitute of originality--is little more than a compilation, and whatever it says has been better said by these three writers. Nor has he added anything to the views enunciated by them, and perhaps better enunciated long before them by Waterland. There is, however, a striking difference between Freeman and the other writers mentioned, which separates his views by a long interval from those of Goode, Vogan, Trevor and Waterland. Dr. Trevor acknowledges in the Preface to his first edition, that "no new and independent exploration of the Fathers is required; on the contrary, the citation is best limited to the beaten path of our own Theology." From this "beaten path" therefore, we will illustrate the point before us, and beg to call the attention of the reader to the VIIth Chapter of the Book (pp. 131-210). This chapter gives a catena from Anglican writers, for the purpose of showing that the views proposed by the author are in accordance with their teaching. Of the numerous quotations made, the greater part are at second hand, and are to be found either in Goode's Treatise, Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of London, or in Waterland. Nay, he is so in love with second hand quotations, that he actually quotes so well known a writer as Thorndike from "the excellent Tract of Dr. Buel," (p. 196), and takes (p. 181) a quotation from Overall from Dr. Buel, who had also borrowed it from "Campbell's Middle State explained," and whether Campbell quoted at first hand does not appear; nor when Dr. Trevor quotes apparently from the author himself, can one always be quite sure that he does so. There is a curious instance of this in the VIIIth Chapter, p. 241.

Bishop Andrewes, as every one knows, is a representative Anglican. One of the translators of the Bible, he added to marvellous learning and unequalled eloquence a devotion which has made his prayers one of the Church's best possessions. Called to defend his Church and king from the attacks of Cardinal Bellarmine, the ablest controversialist of his day on the Roman side in Europe, he put forth a Reply which is a storehouse of argument for the defence of the true Catholicity of the Church of [627/628] England. It is worth while, therefore, for any writer on the subject of the Eucharist, to show that Bishop Andrewes agrees with him. Both Freeman and Vogan are willing to own that Bishop Andrewes goes beyond them in his Eucharistic doctrine. Not so Canon Trevor. He quotes largely from the Sermons of Bishop Andrewes, and in the case before us, from the Reply to Cardinal Bellarmine. The quotation is as follows--we copy verbatim et literatim from Trevor, C. VIII, p. 241:

Truly (he says) Christ Himself the Res Sacramenti, both in and with the Sacrament, out of and without the Sacrament,--ubi, ubi est,--is to be adored. And we also with Ambrose, "adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries" Yet not the thing (id), but Him (emu) who above (not upon) the altar is worshipped.

By referring to Bp. Andrewes' Responsio ad Apol. Card. Bell. (pp. 266, 267 Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol.), a reference which Dr. Trevor does not give, the reader will find that, without making the slightest mark of omission, Dr. Trevor has put together two distinct passages, leaving out an important statement. But this is not all: he has entirely altered the sense of the passage by an amusing blunder. The same blunder is to be found in Goode's Works. Vol. II., p 820. Both Trevor and Goode translate Andrewes' words, qui super altare colitur, "who ABOVE (not upon) the altar is worshipped." The history of the words is as follows: Gregory Nazianzen, in praising the piety of his sister Gorgonia, said that, suffering from a disorder from which she could get no relief, she went to the Church at the dead of night, and,--here we quote,--"she falls in faith before the altar, and calling upon Him who is worshipped upon it," she was healed. The Greek is: "tw qusiasthriw prospiptei meta thV pistewV, kai ton ep autw timwmenon anakaloumenh." k. t. l. Cardinal Bellarmine and Bishop Andrewes both translate Nazianzen's Greek by the Latin, "Eum qui super altare colitur." The English is, of course, "Him who is worshipped or honored upon the altar." Goode and Trevor both translate "above the altar." Now it is quite true that super may mean "above" as well as "upon," and to translate it "above" agreed with the argument of the learned authors, and to translate it "upon" just spoiled it. Of course it was a great temptation, but we think they ought to have been superior to it. We come now to the point We have given above the original Greek. Gregory Nazianzen uses of the altar the words ep autw. Super may indeed mean "above" as well as "upon"; but ep autw can not possibly be translated above it. Therefore to translate super altare "above the altar," when super altare is a Latin translation of epi tw qusiasthriw is to show some knowledge of Latin prepositions, but none of Greek. The Greek is given at the bottom of the page in the Library of Anglo Catholic Theology (Responsio ad Apol. Card. Bell. p. 266).

The correctness, however, of Canon Trevor's translation of the Latin preposition super, will lead the charitable reader to have good hopes as to the author's Latinity, whatever may be said for this exploit in Greek. Alas, there is another blunder still more remarkable, and which, so far as our investigations extend, is purely original with Dr. Trevor. It is not shared by any other author, living or dead, though "a corrupt following" of an innocent note of Dr. Pusey's has shipwrecked the accomplished scholar. The following startling note appears in c. vii. p. 143 of Dr. Trevor's Treatise:

St. Augustine's nemo manducat nisi prius adoraverit illam carnem, has reference to the acknowledgment of our Lord's Divinity, not to any particular act of adoration. The Romish interpolation of id is exposed in Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of London.

[629] What St. Augustine actually said was, "Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit." Canon Trevor declares that the Romanists interpolated "id." Now we know that the Romanists are very wicked; but as one of their sins consists in an inordinate love of the Latin tongue, and carnem is of the feminine gender, whatever they may have interpolated, should it, would it, could it have been "id"? To the numerous slanders which have been uttered about poor Dr. Pusey, Dr. Trevor has added this, the most cruel of all. A more serious criticism in a literary way, to say nothing of its theological bearing, is the fact that the extracts from the Anglican Divines, which Dr. Pusey quotes in his Letter to the Bishop of London, and which Dr. Trevor borrows, are used by Dr. Pusey as in accord with a view which both Canon Trevor and Goode deny. The scoffer might here say rash and irreverent things concerning Anglican Divinity, were it not for the remarkable fact, which we hope to prove, that the quotations which Canon Trevor has borrowed, whether from Pusey or Goode, with one or two exceptions, whatever else they prove, do not affirm Canon Trevor's Eucharistic doctrine.

III. This leads us to the most important fact of this review. What are Canon Trevor's views upon the Holy Eucharist, and how far are they true? The subject of the Holy Eucharist is so vast that, in the brief limits of an article like this, we must pass over very much. There are many points on which Canon Trevor has spoken sensibly and well, and about most of which, in the Anglican Communion, there is little or no controversy, namely:

a. The sin of denying the Cup to the laity.

b. The rationalising character and late acceptance of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

c. That the mingling of the water with the wine, and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, are primitive, and not forbidden by the Church of England.

d. That it is wrong to assert that the consecrated elements "contain" the Body and Blood of Christ.

e. That the Eucharist was not instituted for purposes of worship, and that the practice of the Church of Rome as to Reservation for purposes of worship, is forbidden by the Church of England.

f. That the Anglican Communion holds that, for the true celebration of the Lord's Supper, it is necessary that two or three at least should communicate with the Priest, and that she therefore forbids Solitary Masses.

g. That the word objective, as applied to the Real Presence, is a new one, and is used in a different philosophical sense from what it once was.

We mention these seven points, because, without committing ourselves to all that Dr. Trevor has said upon them, we have no intention of discussing them in the present article.

Canon Trevor makes the following statements in regard to the Holy Eucharist:

1. That the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice; that this sacrifice is a "proper" sacrifice; that it is in a sense "propitiatory;" that the Scriptures and the Catholic Church alike proclaim it to be such.

2. That while the sacrifice is in a sense the whole Ritus, including the participation, yet that the material sacrifice is only of the unconsecrated bread and wine: that the liturgical oblation is therefore made before the consecration of the elements, and, in the Anglican Liturgy, in the Prayer for Christ's Church Militant.

3. That the inward part of the sacrament is the slain Body and Blood of Christ--the Body and Blood sundered in death--the dead Body of the Lord: that the words "Body and Blood," in the Book of Common Prayer, with one exception, never mean anything but the crucified Body and Blood of the Lord.

[630] 4. That the Body and Blood of Christ, thus sundered in death, do not exist now anywhere in Heaven or on Earth; but though non-existent they are full of power and efficacy, which power and efficacy are conjoined with the sacramental signs (p. 151).

5. That this presence is properly called a Real Presence.

6. That by feeding in the Holy Communion on the Body and Blood of Christ, thus really present, we are united to our Lord's glorified Humanity: "He dwells in us and we in Him."

The method of proof adopted by the learned Canon is first, as we have before stated, to attack all opposing views, and second, to show that the Eucharistic doctrine held by him is the doctrine (a) of the great Anglican Doctors; (b) of the Liturgy and Articles; (c) of the Ancient Canons; (d) of the Ancient Liturgies; (e) of the Fathers of the undivided Church.

It would require a Treatise, instead of a Review, to follow his mode of treating the question, step by step. Our endeavour will merely be to show how far the author has failed in his line of proof, and to mention some of the difficulties which are involved in the acceptance of the views he enunciates. In limiting our inquiries to these points, we shall subserve the purpose of this review, which is to show, not that Canon Trevor is either heretical, or an unfaithful member of the Church of England, but that he has no claim upon American Churchmen as a good theological guide on the subject of the Eucharist.

IV. The Eucharistic Sacrifice. No one who has the slightest knowledge of antiquity could deny that the undivided Church regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice. One is compelled to admit, however, that the Church of England, in consequence of the abuses which preceded the Reformation, and in her anxiety to bring back a higher idea of the Communion, places the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the background. Each revision of the Liturgy which has taken place in the Anglican Communion has brought out more clearly the idea of the sacrifice, until it has been reserved for the Scotch and American Offices to speak as clearly on this subject as ever the Primitive Liturgies did.

The writers of the Church of England have all, to a greater or less degree, acknowledged the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Canon Trevor has, with tolerable clearness, brought out the fact that the Eucharist is a "proper" sacrifice. He proves it from Scripture and antiquity. But while he does so--while he uses good orthodox words, he manages at the same time to divest them of all significance. The author, for instance, acknowledges that the whole Sacrament is a Sacrifice, while by his definition he really denies it.

In the Eucharistic Sacrifice there are five things to be considered:

1. The oblation of the unconsecrated bread and wine.

2. The offering of the consecrated elements, and consequently of whatever the elements are sacramentally united to--in other words, of the Res Sacramenti.

3. The offering of that whole Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head, and so of the body, soul, and spirit of each individual member of the same.

4. The Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving to the Lamb as it had been slain, which goes up with the other oblations.

5. The Participation.

It must be noticed that each one of these involves the remainder. The bread and wine are surely offered for purposes of consecration. The offering of the consecrated Bread and Wine involves the offering of what they sacramentally have become, which must necessarily draw along with it,

a. The offering of body, soul, and spirit of each individual Christian, with his tribute of Praise and Thanksgiving.

b. The offering of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, with its unceasing Hymn of Praise to the Lamb as it had been slain;

c. Nor this latter surely apart from Him who is the Head of the Mystical Body, the Incarnate Saviour.

Nor can any of these be considered as complete without the Reception by Priest and people. To say, therefore, that the whole sacrament is a sacrifice, and yet to deny any one of the above five essential particulars as forming a part of it, is to deny the Sacrifice. Canon Trevor utterly repudiates the second of them, namely, the Oblation of the consecrated elements. He says that the material sacrifice and the Liturgical Oblation are both of the unconsecrated elements, the mere bread and wine. So careful is he, moreover, as to the fifth of the points mentioned above, namely, the Participation, that he asserts that no one offers the Sacrifice, or joins in the offering, who does not receive the Sacrament. Hence, to agree with Canon Trevor as to the Eucharistic Sacrifice, is with one breath to assert that there can be no Sacrifice without participation, and at the same time to declare that no one participates in that which is sacrificed! This is evident from the fact that what one receives are not the unconsecrated but the consecrated elements; for while the former, according to Trevor's view, are offered, the latter are not. Then again (p. 39), he asserts that sacrifice "is simply a symbolical act of worship, differing only in form from vocal prayer and praise." With all other Christians Dr. Trevor no doubt believes in and practises intercessory prayer. He grants that in every Liturgy the charity of the Church is shown by abundant intercessions; and yet, whosoever accepts the view of the worthy Canon, will be obliged with one breath to say that sacrifice is only symbolical prayer, and on the other side to declare that it cannot be offered for any one who does not partake of the Sacrament. In other words, symbolical prayer differs from real prayer in having no intercessory power. Canon Trevor also grants that the Sacrifice includes the offering of the body, soul, and spirit of the individual communicant; he could not but grant also, that this individual offering must necessitate the offering of the whole Mystical Body of Christ; yet while he would grant that the individual making the offering may be benefited, he would deny that the whole Mystical Body can thereby receive spiritual increase. American Churchmen will have to accept his views in the face of that solemn pleading which follows the Consecration, "that we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion."

Again: The doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is very closely connected with the doctrine of the Real Presence; the view that is held of the one largely modifies the view that is held of the other; and Dr. Trevor's extraordinary view of the Sacrifice is the logical result of his still more extraordinary view of the Real Presence. He holds that the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, are the slain Body and Blood of the Lord--the dead Body. He also holds a view which entirely contradicts this view. He holds that the dead Body and Blood of Christ do not now exist anywhere in Heaven or on Earth, and so they cannot be present (pp. 148, 159); while at the same time he asserts that this non-existent thing has a power and efficacy which does exist, and is the Res Sacramenti (p. 149).

Without dwelling further on this self-destroying view, it is sufficient to point out how it necessitates his view of the sacrifice, namely, that it is of the unconsecrated elements. If the Res Sacramenti be the slain Body of the Lord, then to offer it to God is to offer Him a dead Body as a Sacrifice, or to crucify afresh the Son of God. If on the other hand the Res [631/632] Sacramenti be the power and efficacy of the slain Body, supposing it possible such power and efficacy could have an actual existence, it would be inconceivable that they should exist apart from that living Christ, whose power and efficacy they are; and thus this view would involve the presence of the glorified Humanity of the Son of God. Hence the gordian knot is cut by denying any Oblation of the consecrated elements.

To be sure the excellent author is met by the startling fact that, in the greater number of the extant Liturgies, the Oblation follows the words of Institution, as it does in our own American Liturgy, and so would seem to be the Oblation of the consecrated elements. But he meets this difficulty by affirming that the words of Institution did not in the Ancient Church effect the Consecration, but that Consecration was effected by the Invocation of the Holy Ghost.

The simple explanation of this order, I. The words of Institution; 2. The Oblation; 3. The Invocation, which is the usual one in the Ancient Liturgies, though it is by no means, as Canon Trevor affirms, the invariable order, is that profound Liturgical idea which Freeman speaks of, namely, that the Benediction by the words of Institution, the Oblation of the consecrated elements and the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, are simultaneous acts, whatever be the order of the words which express them. Nay, more; that the Sacrifice and the present Power of the Holy Ghost are so necessary to the Consecration, that they are understood, even without the verbal Oblation and Invocation; the words "Do this in remembrance of Me" being the sacrificial words, and the Presence of the Holy Ghost being implied in the whole act, since it is His blessed work not to supply Christ's absence, as some, alas! maintain, but to accomplish His Presence. This, too, is the only real defence of the Consecration Prayer of the English Church. The English Office has no verbal Oblation after Consecration and before reception, and no Invocation of the Holy Ghost. If the latter effects the Consecration, then there has been no Consecration of the Holy Communion in the English Church since 1552.

Canon Trevor's attempt to defend the English Office, and at the same time to make it agree with Primitive Antiquity, as it does, and with his own view, which it does not, is so dreary a one that the present writer has given up the effort to follow it. Equally vain is the attempt to reconcile a sort of theory which is implied in the whole Book, and is especially spoken of on pages 420, 421, and 437, that the sacrifice which accompanies the whole Ritus finds its culminating point in the Consecration. If it does, then there must be an Oblation of the consecrated elements; but this is what the Book over and over again denies. However this may be, it is a sufficient answer to Canon Trevor's Liturgical views, that Neale, who is confessedly the greatest authority in the Anglican Communion since the Reformation on the subject of Liturgies, declares that there is in the Primitive Liturgies an Oblation of the consecrated as well as of the unconsecrated gifts. (See Neale Gen. Int. &c., pp. 489, 490, and 501.) It is true that Palmer takes a different view; but Freeman, who is Trevor's master, in this respect agrees with Neale. (Freeman, vol. ii. part ii. p. 197.)

V. The Real Presence. In his Introduction to Part II. of his "Principles of Divine Service." Archdeacon Freeman, in treating of the Eucharist, took the view that by the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Communion, are meant the dead Body and Blood of our Lord--His Body and Blood sundered in death, and so apart from His soul. He held them, however, to be truly in some real though spiritual sense the Body and Blood of Christ; nor could he conceive of the existence of even the slain Body and Blood of the Lord apart from His Divinity. This is quite in accordance [632/633] with what is a commonplace in Theology, that while the vital union of His Body and Soul was temporarily dissolved by death, yet, since the Godhead and Manhood were united in one Divine Person "never to be divided," the Personal union could never be dissolved. Thus the Divinity of Christ was united both with the Body that lay in the tomb, and with the Soul of Christ which was in Paradise; and so too with the slain Body and Blood of Christ present in the Eucharist. (See Freeman, Introduction to Part II. p. 155, et seq.)

Freeman, however, uses very inaccurate language concerning the Person of our blessed Lord, seeming to hold that while the Divinity of Christ was present in the Eucharist because His Body and Blood were, His Person was not, because His Soul was absent; though it has been the unvarying belief of the Church that our Lord's Person was in no sense either human, or a blending of the Divine and human, but simply Divine.

From the natural consequence that would flow from Freeman's view, that Christ thus present ought to be adored, he escaped by a view unheard of before in Christendom, that Christ, even when manifesting Himself to His people, is not to be adored except as in Heaven. He even goes so far as to say that the acts of adoration to the visible Presence of God recorded so frequently in the Old Testament, were not addressed to God as then and there present, but to Him in Heaven. He is, of course, like all advocates of this view, compelled to meet not only these facts narrated in the Old Testament, but the still greater difficulty, that from that day when "the First-begotten was brought into the world," Angels and Wise-men, those whom he delivered and His Apostles, addressed Divine worship to "God manifest in Flesh." Freeman can only say that it was not frequently done, and does not seem to have been commanded, only not refused. One cannot help but draw from his remarks the conclusion, that had the Apostles and the Wise-men, to say nothing of the Angels, understood the Divine Economy as well as Archdeacon Freeman, they had done differently.

To the view of Freeman, that by the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist is meant the dead Body, there is, however, an unanswerable objection. It is an impossibility--the slain Body and Blood of Christ have never existed, save for the brief space of time which intervened between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, and thus are nowhere now either in Heaven or earth. Trevor, who in this respect is Freeman's disciple, states distinctly that by the Body and Blood is meant the dead Body of the Lord. He is compelled to say this, because "the inward part of the Sacrament" is called, in the Anglican Liturgy and Catechism, in the Fathers and Primitive Liturgies, as it is in the Scriptures, "the Body and Blood of the Lord." No sooner, however, is the statement made, than for the very reason above adduced, namely, that the slain Body and Blood do not exist, he really retracts it by declaring that the Body and Blood mean the Efficacy of the slain Body and Blood. To express his view, the answer in the Catechism to the question, "What is the inward part or thing signified?" should read, not, "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed" (or "spiritually," as in the American Catechism,) "taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;" but, "The Efficacy of the slain Body and Blood of the Lord, which is spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Nor does the utter absurdity of the view seem to strike the worthy Canon and his admirers. If the inward part of the Eucharist be the Efficacy of the slain Body and Blood of Christ, how can that which has no existence have any efficacy? It is the error of Transubstantiation that it supposes the accidents to exist independent of the substance; but here is one, who is [633/634] very earnest against Transubstantiation, asserting that the qualities of a thing can exist apart from the thing itself. It is a still more pertinent question to ask, how can the slain Body and Blood of the Lord have any Efficacy? He is our living Lord; from Him flows all our strength; in Him and in Him alone resides the saving power of his atoning death--apart from Him it has no existence. The "Lamb that was slain" of the Apocalyptic vision, is "He that liveth, and was dead, and is alive forever-more." The Presence of the glorified Humanity of the Son of God, and thus of our Lord Himself, is necessary for the pleading of His Sacrifice, and the bestowing upon those who are fed by his Body and Blood of "the remission of their sins, and all other benefits of His Passion." The attempt to prove that the inward part of the Sacrament is the Efficacy of the slain Body and Blood, is really an attempt to banish the Living Christ from His own Sacrament, and to substitute the mechanical theories of Calvinism for Catholic Truth.

It needs only one more statement to bring out the view of Trevor in all the absurdity which it justly possesses. The Presence of a non-existent efficacy of a non-existent thing, is, according to Trevor, a REAL PRESENCE.

The same difficulties arise when we consider what Canon Trevor means by "the benefits" the worthy recipient obtains in the Holy Communion. He is fed, so the Canon believes, with the Efficacy of the Slain Body of Christ, and thus becomes partaker of His glorified Humanity--"Christ dwells in him and he in Christ." Nay, both he and Freeman assert that Christ is not personally present with His Body and Blood, but is personally present in the heart of the worthy receiver.

Now, the Black Rubric is to Canon Trevor very great authority. It is his chief argument against the Presence of the glorified Humanity in the Eucharist, that the Black Rubric declares that "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here." Yet in spite of all this, he accepts the theory that this glorified Humanity, which cannot be "here," is nevertheless in the heart of the faithful receiver (pp. 147 and 148).

All this complicated system of contradictions is due to an effort to avoid what Trevor confesses Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists and Zuinglians alike agree in, that by the Body and Blood are meant that one Body and Blood of the Lord, once born of the Virgin Mary, once crucified on Calvary, and now glorified in Heaven, and mystically present in the Eucharist to the end of time.

It may seem like slaying the slain to go on and prove that Canon Trevor adduces no proof of his Eucharistic views from Anglican writers or the Fathers, worthy of the name. Thus he states that wherever the words "Body and Blood of Christ" occur in the. Prayer Book, they mean the "slain Body and Blood of Christ." (P. 139, n.) Any one who will look at the places where the words occur, will see that this is a mere petitio principii unworthy of the merest tyro in logic. The Canon ingenuously confesses that in the Black Rubric the words mean the glorified Humanity, and this is actually the only place in the English Prayer Book where they are defined. But the most conclusive answer to the statement is given by Dr. Trevor himself, since his own argument requires that the words should mean, not the slain Body and Blood, but the Efficacy of them: and for this there is not an atom of proof in the Prayer Book.

Again, his only mode of proof is based on the assumption that there has been but one view of Eucharistic Doctrine in the Church of England, and that is his own. No one can read English Theology without finding [634/635] at least four well-defined views as to the Real Presence, to say nothing of many subdivisions of these views:

1. That which Andrewes, Laud, Bramhall, Bishop Forbes, Thorndike, and others held, that the inward part of the Sacrament is Christus ipse, Totus Christus, Christ Himself.

2. That there descends upon the consecrated elements all the virtue and power of the glorified Humanity of the Son of God, which cannot be considered apart from Himself, but which are so expressed to avoid the idea that He is present in the Eucharist as He is in Heaven. This seems to be the view of Ridley, Bishop Bull, and others.

3. That the efficacy of Christ's glorified Humanity is conveyed to the soul by means of the consecrated elements, which become channels of grace. There seems to be an ambiguity in this view--some writers making this efficacy to be objectively in the elements, and others more logically confining it to the heart of the faithful receiver. The reader will notice that the difference between this view and that of Canon Trevor consists in this, that the former makes this efficacy flow from the glorified Humanity of the Son of God, and the latter from His slain Body and Blood. The writers who have taken this view are almost too many to enumerate.

4. The view of Waterland, who holds, (I), that the consecrated elements are like the title deeds to an estate, and so by a species of legal fiction are said to be the Body and Blood of Christ, because they are to the faithful receiver all the same as that which they are called. (2.) As the Body and Blood of Christ are not the glorified Humanity of the Son of God. nor even the slain Body and Blood, except by "a just construction," so the feeding on them is simply "a constructional intermingling of his Body and Blood with ours,"--"the same thing in effect with our adhering inseparably to Him as members or parcels of Him." (See Waterland's Works, Vol. IV., pp. 572 and 574 ) (3.) By this feeding we become partakers of the glorified nature of the Son of God; but this merely means that we are to be hereafter sharers of Christ's glory; that we receive the benefits of his atonement; that the grace of God's Holy Spirit is given unto us; and that the Divine nature is present in us. The idea of that vital union with the glorified Humanity, which is the result of a true faith in the Incarnation, does not appear in Waterland.

From this view of Waterland's the descent is easy into mere Zuinglian views. If the whole sacramental action be a kind of legal fiction, the clear-headed reasoner, who believes that the same effects are produced by justifying faith, will naturally regard the Holy Eucharist as an unnecessary addition to that simple Protestantism which makes the whole Gospel consist in "Come to Christ,"--"Believe and be saved."

It will be seen, therefore, that Trevor's view is on the whole the same as that of Waterland, except that Trevor is ambiguous on the subject of our union with the glorified Humanity, either agreeing with Waterland, or else, as seems to be the case, exposing himself to the inconsistency before alluded to on this subject.

When, therefore, Trevor attempts a catena from Anglican writers or the Fathers, he attempts a useless task, if his object be to show that they generally held the views of Waterland or his own. Indeed, the Church of England forbids only two views on the subject of the Eucharist, Transubstantiation and Zuinglianism, and has never decided against any other.

If two things are borne in mind, and then Canon Trevor's quotations from Anglican Divines, the Fathers, and the Liturgies are read, it will be at once evident that he has not proved his Eucharistic views, (I.) Deduct from the passages in the Anglican Divines every one which means [635/636] that what is present and we feed upon in the Holy Eucharist, is either Christ's glorified Humanity, or an Efficacy flowing therefrom. (2.) Deduct from the passages from Anglican Divines, from the Liturgies and Fathers, all those which refer exclusively to the Sacrifice in the Eucharist, and say nothing of the Presence; and what is left in favor of Canon Trevor's view is so little, that the most that can be said is, that some people in the Church of England, since the Reformation, have held Trevor's view, or something like it.

We must enlarge a little upon the second point. There are passages in the Anglican writers, and still more in the Fathers, which, in discussing the sacrifice of the Eucharist, seem to speak as though Christ's slain Body and Blood were present. St. Chrysostom's solemn words are instances from Patristic Theology; and from Anglican writers, Bishop Andrewes' statements in regard to the Sacrifice, found in his sermons, chiefly in the VIIth Sermon on the Resurrection. But in order to make such quotations available for the proof of Trevor's propositions, one must show that by their startling words they meant only the Efficacy of Christ's slain Body and Blood; and in addition, that while they held that Christ's Body was in some sense slain, or present as slain, in the Eucharist, they did not hold that His glorified Humanity was present also after a sacramental law.

It is absolutely funny to see how the worthy Canon struggles under the fact that Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Perron, Thomas Aquinas, and the Council of Trent, alike assert that the slain Body and Blood are only present representatively, while at the same time they undoubtedly held that the Res Sacramenti was Totus Christus, and even accepted Transubstantiation into the bargain. He can only explain the fact of both statements being held by the Council of Trent by supposing that the propositions of the Council, usually regarded as at least logical enough, are a mass of contradictions.

When, then, in Anglican Theology, he finds a Divine like Bishop Andrewes asserting that, so far as the Sacrifice is concerned. Christ is present as in some sense slain, and that we must look in the Sacrament ad cadaver; he is obliged to deny or explain away the fact that, in the Treatise against Bellarmine and in his Sermons, Andrewes over and over again asserts the inward part of the Sacrament to be Christus ipse, Christ Himself, or Totus Christus, that is, Christ with Body, Soul and Divinity. (See p. 266 Ad. Card. Bell Apol. Resp.; XII. Sermon of the Nativity pp. 213 and 214 vol. i. Angl. Cath. Lib.; IX. Sermon, p. 340, vol ii.; also Angl. Cath. Lib. vol. ii., 321, 322.) It never occurs to the excellent Canon that both statements maybe true; nay. that the apparent contradiction is to be found in the Bible itself.

To illustrate: In the first Eucharist, Christ said of the Bread and the Cup which he had blessed, "Take, eat: This is My Body." "Drink ye all of it; for This is My Blood." He was in Person present before them at the Table; yet He calls the consecrated elements "His Body and Blood." He says more than this: He says that the one is "being given," and the other is "being shed;"--the participle in each case is a present participle;--and yet His Bodv and Blood were not then slain, nor did the Apostles then even know that he was to be slain on the morrow. Thus at the first Eucharist, He is evidently present as God and Man; and yet He asserts also the presence of His Body and Blood. He was not to be slain till the morrow; yet He asserts a present Sacrifice. The usual method is to explain away some one of these four statements;--the Catholic method is to accept them all.

Again; The Prayer Book and all Anglican Divinity--and indeed Roman Catholic Divinity as well--asserts that the Sacrifice of the Cross was once [636/637] offered never to be repeated; yet all Theology asserts at the same time the perpetuity of Christ's Priesthood. Of course if He be a Priest, He must have somewhat to offer, else He could not be a Priest; and if He be a Priest forever, His offering must be as perpetual as His Priesthood. The problem is to reconcile the acceptance of the one perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of the Cross, and the perpetual Sacrifice of the Priest forever.

The same problem is presented to our view in the Revelation of St. John, where our Lord appears as a Lamb as it had been slain, and also as "He that is alive, and was dead, and is alive forevermore."

But all these difficulties and apparent contradictions vanish away by the acceptance of that which it is the purpose of Canon Trevor's book to deny. Christ is present in Heaven in His glorified Human Nature. That Human Nature bears still,--so Christians devoutly believe,--the marks of His Passion. By His presence in that Human Nature once slain for man., He pleads what once that Human Nature endured. He pleads by His presence, and His presence makes the unutterable pleading.

The same is true in the Eucharist: after Consecration, His glorified Nature is Sacramentally united to the Elements of Bread and Wine, and by the presence of that Nature He pleads, or represents, or offers in Commemoration, the Sacrifice that once took place on Calvary.

If the hidden meaning of that Sacrifice was the Sacrifice in will, and the mactation only the outward manifestation of it, then the Sacrifice took place in the first Eucharist, and has taken place in every Eucharist since; and thus the language which is often quoted to show that Roman Catholics hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross is repeated in the Eucharist, may have a sufficient explanation. It is to be regretted, however, that on this subject much incautious language has been used both within and without the Church.

In contradistinction to these doctrinal statements of Canon Trevor, it may be well, in conclusion, to present another view, as having a better claim to the title of the "Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist"--as being on the whole more in accord with the teachings of the Fathers; with the teachings of such Divines, say, as Ridley, Andrewes, Laud, Bramhall, Thorndike, and Bull; of such men as the late Bishop of Salisbury, the late Bishop of Brechin; of the representatives of the old Tractarian School, like Pusey and Palmer; of the Eastern Church, of the Old Catholics, and to a great degree even of the Lutherans:--that view, namely, which is to be found in the statements of one whom the Church of England delights to honour.

The Jewish Church is not the only Church which builds the sepulchres of those whom former generations stoned. The only difference is that in our day the stoning and the building of the sepulchres are sometimes done by the same generation. Nay, by a wise economy the same stones often serve for both purposes, and in the interval of building are conveniently hurled at candidates for future mausoleums.

The Anglican Church is at present engaged in building John Keble's sepulchre. The magnificent Chapel of Keble College, on the Feast of St. Mark, 1876, was honoured with the presence and benediction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose views and doctrines have been a perpetual protest against all that Mr. Keble taught. In America, Mr. Keble is receiving the somewhat perilous honour of having Schools named after him; and all are agreed, with an occasional protest, in giving him the honour he justly deserves of being the truest Saint that the Anglican Communion has seen since the Reformation.

[638] In one of the Letters published in the third edition of his "Letters of Spiritual Counsel," (p. 212. See also p. 214), Mr. Keble uses the following language:

"I have long had an opinion that, in respect of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, we are bound to be especially careful how we make doctrinal statements in such sense as to charge dissentients with heresy; for this reason, that while the great Truths of the Creeds have been settled, even as to the wording connected with them, by true Oecumenical Councils (in which statement I include the Doctrine of Baptism, as connected with the Pelagian Controversy), it has so happened, in the Providence of God, that the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has never been subject to similar enactments until the eleventh or twelfth century, after the separation of East and West. Well therefore may each person, or each portion of the Church, for himself or itself, form strong opinions, and express them strongly, as God shall guide them, on the several points involved in the Doctrine; but to impose them as Articles of Faith, making those Heretics who demur to them, they are not, I conceive, competent, except the point be such an one as can be shewn to have been unequivocally received by the whole Church from the Beginning: such (e.g.) as the Inspiration of Holy Scripture." &c.

Mr. Keble, therefore, while he "has no doubt what the Church would determine, if she could hold a true Oecumenical Council," nor what is the true teaching of the Church of England, does not condemn, as the Church of England does not, views that are as opposed to his own as those of the Receptionists, or as those of Canon Trevor. On page 209 of the same invaluable collection of Letters, Mr. Keble makes the following statement of the Doctrine of the Real presence:

"I. I believe that there is One, and only one True Body of the Lord Jesus, in the sense in which any man's natural body is called his own. That Body, namely, which He took of the Blessed Virgin Mary when He came into the world.

"2. That neither this Body, nor the Reasonable Soul which he took to Himself at the same time, nor His Manhood, consisting of both together, have, or ever had, any distinct Personality, but have subsisted, and ever will subsist, as taken into the Person of the Word, the Eternal Son of God.

"3. That as the Divine Word, or Person of Christ, is everywhere and always Present and Adorable; so ever since the Incarnation, the Presence of the Body of Christ, or the Presence of the Soul of Christ, or of both united, whenever and wherever and however He vouchsafes to notify it, is to be taken as a warrant and a call for especial Adoration on the part of all His reasonable creatures, to whom the knowledge of His Two Natures has been vouchsafed,--Adoration to Him as to God Most High, and to His Holy Manhood, not separately, but as subsisting in His Divine Person. I believe, therefore,

"4. That His sacrificed Body, hanging on the Cross and laid in the grave, was adorable.

"5. I understand the words, 'This is my Body, which is {given | broken} for you,' literally taken, as declaring His Eucharistical Body, or That which He gives us as the inward part of the Sacrament, to be the same Body which was sacrificed.

"6. And I believe that those words ought to be literally taken; Therefore,

"7. I believe His Eucharistical Body, or That which He gives us as the inward part of the Sacrament, to be adorable.

"It seems to me that the only questionable link in this chain, for one who believes the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, is the last but one: [638/639] 'Those words should be taken literally.' Granting all the rest, it might still be questioned, may not. the words mean only, 'This is a figure of my Body?' or, 'This is (not My Body, but) something which in energy and effect will be as it were My Body?' The former of these, I suppose, to be the Zuinglian view, the latter the Calvinistic. Besides these two, I see no way of taking the words short of the literal one. But neither of these two will bear the weight of the 6th Chapter of S. John, or of the sayings of the ancient Church, especially in the Liturgies. Therefore I fall back on the literal sense, which makes it necessary for me to allow Adoration, or deny the 'taking of the Manhood into God.'

"The difference between the Eucharistical Presence, and the Presence in holy places and assemblies, I should have thought, was something like this; that in the latter, our Lord's Body (of course I speak not of His Mystical Body) is present only in such manner as Hooker defines, E. P. v. 55, 7; in the former, as St. Ambrose writes, 'Christ is there because the Body of Christ is there.'"

We give this passage in full as a statement of Mr. Keble's views. Whether the reader is prepared to accept them as a whole or not, it must be granted by all that they contain the central truth of the Eucharist, namely a real and true Presence of a real and true Substance, as the Res Sacramenti, whereas Zuinglian and Calvinistic statements, or those of Canon Trevor, simply leave it out.

Mr. Keble prayed as he believed, and we conclude our review with the Prayer he put forth for the comfort and help of those who seek to believe aright as to the Doctrine of the Real Presence.

"Almighty, Everlasting Father, Who hast promised unto Thy faithful people, life by Thine Incarnate Son, even as He liveth by Thee; Grant unto us all, and especially to our Bishops and Pastors, and to all those whom Thy Providence hath in anywise entrusted with the Treasure of Thy Holy Doctrine amongst us, Thy Good Spirit always to believe and understand, to feel and firmly to hold, to speak and to think concerning the mystery of the Communion of Thy Son's Body and Blood, as shall be well pleasing unto Thee; Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the Unity of the same Spirit, One God, world without end. Amen."

Racine College, Feb. 1877.

JAMES DEKOVEN.

Project Canterbury