rests upon these passages of Holy Writ, witnessed to by the Church Catholic, as declaring the fact of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Consecrated Elements of the Holy Eucharist.

--

It has, however, been attempted, in the face of the testimony of the Church Catholic, to assign a figurative character to the words of Institution,—of the same kind with that truly assigned to other passages of Holy Scripture in which our blessed LORD is spoken of under figures, and by this process to explain away the MYSTERY of the Real Presence. This attempt has been, as it appears to me, so completely set at rest by Dr. Pusey (pp. 25-33 of the same Sermon), that I gladly and thankfully again refer to what is there said. I beg to add that I subscribe fully and unreservedly to that part also of the argument of the Sermon (pp. 33, et seq.) which shows with equal conclusiveness that the same principle of literal interpretation, which is affirmed to be the only true principle of interpretation of the words of Institution, is to be extended to the words employed by the Evangelists and S. Paul to designate the Elements after consecration. We may not interpret "this is MY BODY" literally, and "this fruit of the vine," "this bread," "the bread which we break," figuratively.

II. The second proposition,-" that the Body and Blood of CHRIST are Really Present in the Consecrated Bread and Wine after a manner not material, or, as it is said, "corporal," but im

material and "spiritual "--is proved by the words of our blessed LORD (S. John vi. 61-63); and also by the consideration that S. Paul (1 Cor. x. 3, 4), where he is speaking of types of the Holy Eucharist, the Manna and the Rock, applies to both the word veμatixòv (spiritual).* For, if the types of the Covenant of Works were "spiritual," much more must we believe this of the antitypes of the Covenant of Grace.

III. It remains to offer proof from Holy Scripture of proposition III., with which I am at this time more immediately concerned. Now this may be said by some to be a deduction from the Doctrine of the Real Presence, rather than a part of the Doctrine itself. I am unable so to regard it. It is at least a necessary and inevitable deduction; and, as I have already stated, an unfailing, if it be not indeed the primary, test of a sound belief in the Doctrine itself.†

There are two arguments of S. Paul in his First

* Πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ βρῶμα πνευματικὸν ἔφαγον, καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πόμα πνευματικὸν ἔπιον· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4.

† In the table of Contents prefixed to Wilberforce's "Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist," p. xvii., we find, "all five ancient schools shown to hold Real Presence.

"1st. By their asserting worship to be due to CHRIST's Body as present in the consecrated elements. This a test of belief in Real Presence according to Luther and Calvin. The actual worship paid to CHRIST, present as the Res Sacramenti,' not neutralized by the Rubric in the English ordinal.

"2nd. By their affirming that whosoever receives the SACRAMENTUM, receives also the RES SACRAMENTI, or Body of CHRIST."-See also text, p. 259.

Epistle to the Corinthians which ascertain WHAT THAT IS which is given to and received by those who "eat and drink unworthily." The first is an argument from typical interpretation against presumptuous confidence (ch. x. 1-22); the second is an argument from the words of Institution against carnal abuse (ch. xi. 23–34). I will take these two arguments in their order.

*Now it may, I think, be laid down as a general principle of typical interpretation, that each element of the type has its counterpart in an element of the antitype, and that there is a relation between the elements of the antitype analogous to that which subsisted between the elements of the type: and further, that in all cases in which an argument is based upon the correspondence between the elements of the type and the elements of the antitype, and upon their analogous relation, the correspondence and relation must needs be close and exact, otherwise the argument will be without force.

To apply this principle to the elucidation of the Doctrine of the Sacraments:

In 1 Cor. x. 1-22, S. Paul is arguing against the

*The following exegesis of 1 Cor. x. 1-22, is substantially the same with that lately published by the Rev. Henry Newland, in his "Confirmation and First Communion, p. 197-200." I placed it in Mr. Newland's hands about two years ago, having no intention at the time of publishing anything touching the Scriptural Proof of Proposition III. Mr. Newland had told me that he proposed to insert it in his book, and I was very thankful to find that, after so much time allowed for consideration and consultation, he was able unreservedly to adopt it.

notion of some Corinthian Christians, that because they had been Baptized, and had become Communicants, therefore they might safely join in the idol feasts.

For the purposes of his argument he states,—

1. Two types of Holy Baptism-the Cloud and the Sea.

2. Two types of Holy Communion-the Manna and the Rock.*

Of the types of Holy Baptism he says, "I would not that ye should be ignorant, brethren, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized† unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

Of the types of Holy Communion he says,—

"And did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was CHRIST."

* Τοὺς τῶν μυστηρίων παράγει τύπους. "He alleges types of the mysteries."-'Iwávvov. Catena Patrum. Compare S. John vi. 26-63; iv. 10-14.

† εἰς τὸν Μωσῆν ἐβαπτισαντο—made themselves to be baptized unto Moses. τουτέστι—ὑπέσχοντο τοῖς Μωσαϊκοῖς νόμοις βιοῦν. That is "covenanted to live in obedience to the laws given by Moses.”—Γενναδίου.

† “ ἀκολουθούσης ”—τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν, ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ παρὼν αὐτοῖς, ὁ πανταχοῦ καὶ πάντα θαυματουργῶν· διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν “ ἀκολουθούσης.” -Ιωάννου.

"That followed them :" that is, CHRIST, Who was Present to them in all places and times, working wonders. This is the reason why he has used the expression "that followed them."

He then proceeds,

"But with many* of them GOD was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilder

"Now these things were our examples."-v. 6.

And again,

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come." v. 11.†

Observe how careful S. Paul has been to say "all," and "the same." He repeats "all" five times, in laying down the types, and once again when he is speaking of the antitype, v. 17. "For we are all partakers of that one bread."

In like manner he repeats "the same" twice in speaking of the type, and its counterpart "that one," in speaking of the antitype.

Observe further that the whole point and force of S. Paul's argument turns upon his use of the words "all," and "the same." All our fathers were

* “ τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν”—πλείους δὲ εἶπεν καὶ οὐχὶ πάντας ἀπολομένους, διὰ Χαλέβ καὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ναβή· οὗτοι γὰρ μόνοι ἦσαν οἱ ἐξ αὐτῶν διασωθέντες.—Θεοδωρίτου.

66

'Many of them.” He says that many," and not all, perished, because of Caleb and Joshua the son of Nun; for these, alone, of them all, were saved.

† Ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν. ν. 6.

Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τύποι συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις, ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντησεν. ν. 11. † πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ.