soul becoming, by the inward virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance. This real presence of Christ in the sacrament, his Church hath always believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started 700 years after his death, and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them and went beyond them; till both it and they had their meaning mistaken most astonishingly.'*

Bishop Beveridge says, Which (i. e. the body and blood of Christ) therefore, are not, in show and appearance, but verily and indeed (according to the sense wherein the Lord, instituting the sacrament, spoke those words) taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper: by the faithful, even by all such, and only such as believe the Gospel and what our Lord saith, and accordingly receive what he now gives them with a true faith, which being the substance of things hoped for, as well as the evidence of things not seen, it causeth that what our Lord said, and what they therefore hope for and receive upon his words, to subsist really and effectually in them, to all intents and purposes, to which the body and blood of Christ can possibly be communicated and received; according to that remarkable saying of the Apostle to the same purpose, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the * Archbishop Secker's Lectures, p. 412-414. Oxon. 1804.

C

blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?'*

I have selected these quotations as expressing well the sense of our formularies upon this point, and not for any authority of the writers: because the present question is one entirely independent of authority, and one which must be decided by the meaning of Scripture, and the declarations of the Church. It is, sometimes, however, more advantageous to express anything in the well-known words of a writer of reputation, where such may be found; as the mind, already familiar with the truth enunciated in those words, admits it more readily than if expressed anew by another. Farther than this, I claim nothing for any author quoted in these letters, and rely solely the only legitimate grounds of trust, the Bible and the Church.

upon

I would here, my Lord, beg to be allowed the liberty of explaining one or two words in our services, which are generally misunderstood, and the very ambiguity of which, arising from the various senses in which the words have been employed, is used by those who have not clear ideas upon this subject, to foist their own crudities upon the Church, instead of catholic and scriptural truth.

The first is the word ' mystery,' the fruitful parent of an immensity of error. We all know that μυστηριον

* Bishop Beveridge on the Church Catechism, p. 126.

was a word employed to denote the secret religious rites of the heathen. That the word in Scripture generally means either something not discoverable by man's unaided faculties, but which is made known to us by revelation, or something which is above our reason, and is, therefore, an object of pure faith. See 1 Tim. iii. 16. It is never applied to the Lord's-supper, nor does it ever mean a sacrament, though the Romanists, to support their so-called sacrament of marriage, render Eph. v. 32, το μυστήριον τούτο μέγα εστιν. Sacramentum hoc magnum est; while Beza has kept close to the original, and renders properly mysterium hoc magnum est.

In the Fathers, vorpio is generally equivalent to sacramentum, and the two words 'mystery and 'sacrament,' are now used convertibly in our church services. In the notice for the Communion, the Lord's Supper is called-first, 'The most comfortable sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.' Secondly, 'That holy sacrament.' Thirdly, 'That holy mystery.' Fourthly, a heavenly feast.' Fifthly, 'The holy communion,' all of which expressions are clearly synonymous.

In the Exhortation at the time of celebration, it is called-1. The holy communion;' 2. That holy sacrament; 3. Those holy mysteries;' 4. Holy mysteries; 5. Pledges of his love.'

'

In the third prayer, after communicating, it is called 'these holy mysteries;' while, in the prayer

C 2

before, it is called this holy communion,' in every one of which places it is clear, that the sense of the two terms is the same.

The word mystery, therefore, as used by our Church denotes that which has some secret meaning, and is not merely what it outwardly appears.' Thus, the Eucharist is externally merely some bread and wine: but this sets forth the broken body and outpoured blood of our Lord, and, if received by faith, is the means of communicating the same to the soul of the believer in some spiritual way unknown to, and undiscoverable by us, but still verily and indeed, and, therefore, it is very properly called a mystery.

The phrase sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,' is taken sometimes, and indeed often by Dr. Pusey, (e. g. pretii nostri sacramentum, from Augustine is rendered, Sermon, p. 18, ' drinks his ransom,' which I submit is not what St. Augustine intended to convey by those words) in the same sense as "the body and blood of Christ," which is obviously to confuse ideas. By the first is meant (when the words are used in their proper sense) the bread and wine, or the outward and visible sign; by the latter, the inward and spiritual grace given to the faithful. In the homily on the common prayer and sacraments, St. Augustine is quoted as calling sacraments holy signs.' And he saith, if sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they be sacraments, they would be no sacraments at

6

all. And of this similitude they do for the most part receive the names of the self-same things which they signify.''By these words of St. Augustine it appeareth that he alloweth the common description of a sacrament, which is that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace.' 'And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely for the visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto are annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two; namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.'

Bishop Beveridge's Catechism, p. 127, says, For though the thing signified in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper be the body and blood of Christ, yet it is not received as the sign is unto our bodies only, but unto our souls. It is the inward and spiritual part in the sacrament, and therefore hath respect only unto the inward and spiritual part of him who receives it.'

The words real presence' too convey very different ideas to different minds. The only sense we think in which they can be used by one who holds the doctrine of the Church of England, is, to denote amystical participation in all the saving grace which Christ's death and passion can yield, and our souls do need.' (Vide Hooker, book v. ch. lxvii. 12.) To believe that with the bread and wine are really