sacrament: but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament." "I see not which it should be gaway thered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is his body, or the cup his blood; but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves, that grace which with them, or by them, it pleaseth God to bestow."*

And so Archbishop Usher, who says, that the sacramental elements

66

are not changed in nature, but in use. For the words " eating and drinking" do properly belong to the outward elements of bread and wine." "And we say that these elements are changed in use; because being separated from a common use, they are consecrate to sign and seal to us our spiritual nourishment and growth by the body and blood of Christ Jesus. For as the sacrament of baptism doth seal to us a spiritual regeneration; so the Lord's supper, a spiritual feeding; and even as well the body and blood of Christ is in baptism given us for clothing, as they are given in the Lord's supper for nourishment. Therefore the bread and wine are not the true body and blood of Christ, but the signs and tokens of them."+

But Dr. Pusey has a plea ready for the evasion of all these arguments. It is not, he tells us, a gross or carnal notion of the presence of the natural body of Christ, that he advocates; but " a spiritual unseen presence; "there is a true, real, actual, though spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ: 66 an immediate, unseen presence of the body of Christ," and that "independently of our faith." And while he firmly maintains this notion, he readily

* Eccles. Polity, book v. ch. 67. + Usher's Body of Divinity, p. 400.

gives up to condemnation "the carnal conceptions" of the Romanists; as if transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of the bread, were the chief or the only error of the Romish theory.

Now this way of stating the question, whether so intended or not, offers a direct delusion to the half-informed readers. It leaves him to suppose, that Transubstantiation is the one, sole, Romish error in the present question, and that the Real Presence is the doctrine of our Reformers and our church. Whereas these two dogmas, taken together, constituted the theme of contention between the Reformers and their Romish antagonists. If the champions of the truth who suffered in the Marian persecution would only have conceded the first,-the real presence, they might frequently have escaped any very severe censure on the score of transubstantiation.

The articles exhibited against bishops Ridley and Latimer, and the questions on which they were examined, always begin with "the Real Presence." On the Real Presence" the greater part of the disputation turned. To Bradford his examiners urged, Nay, but you must believe a real presence in the sacrament."* And when we turn to bishop Jewell's controversy with Harding, we find whole sections occupied solely with discussions on the Real Presence."

66

In one place the Romish advocate exclaims, "But amidst all these fair words concerning the sacraments, we hear never a whit said of the real presence of Christ's body." Again, "Among all these gay words, we hear not so much as one syllable whereby we may understand, that ye believe the very body of Christ to be indeed present in the blessed sacrament of the altar." "When we speak of the blessed sacraments, we

* Foxe, vol. ii. p. 172. † Harding, in Jewell's Defence, p. 207.

mean, specially, the thing received to be the very real body of Christ, not only a sign or token of his body."

Nor may Dr. Pusey say, that Harding is speaking of a carnal presence," he (Dr. P.) of a spiritual one. Only concede to the Romanists a real presence, (rather than which, five of our prelates, twenty-one of our clergy, and nearly three hundred other persons were burned to death between 1554 and 1559,) and they will not be litigious about the mode or terms of description. Harding and Dr. Pusey will very readily coalesce in this matter. The Romanist says, that Christ's body is present, "not after a corporal, carnal, or natural wise; but invisibly, unspeakably, miraculously, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by way to Him only known." And in another place, "A spiritual and deified body is given to us in the blessed sacrament."

With the greatest possible desire not to misunderstand or misrepresent Dr. Pusey, we feel that we run no risk of either, when we assert, that he and the Romish champion are at unity in this matter, so far as the Real Presence is concerned,-and that both are alike opposed to bishop Jewell, the authorized expounder and defender of the doctrines of the Reformation. Both contend for an indwelling of Christ in the elements, -not to the believer merely ;-if that were all, we would not stay to contend the point,-but "independently of our faith." The blessing of a priest,-himself, perhaps, as Harding admits, “ a sin

ful man and displeasing to God,”brings Christ down from above, and places him upon the altar;" and this, although there may be no one sincere believer present. His body is "mysteriously given" in the

*Harding, in Jewell's Def. p. 219. Harding in Jewell's Reply, pp. 325, 329.

bread, and this without reference to the faith of the receiver. The body is "given," says Dr. Pusey, even to the wicked. Yet" the wicked," says the xxixth Article,

eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper." How shall these contrary statements be reconciled? Or how can Dr. P. protest his obedience to the church, and yet thus openly impugn her authoritative standards?

Dr. Pusey, having thus adopted the Romish view, naturally proceeds to deprecate and contemn the Protestant one. This he takes care always to describe as "the Zuinglian doctrine," and "the ZuingliCalvinist theory," well knowing that such phrases are well calculated to prejudice the principle to which he is opposed, in the minds of the young and inexperienced. Such readers, therefore, should be reminded, that at the time of the Reformation, the period when our church-system was fixed, and our standards settled, there were but three modes of belief, as to the Eucharist, open to the choice of our Reformers. These were, 1. The Romish theory of the Real Presence, involving some kind of transubstantiation; 2. The Lutheran, of consubstantiation; 3. The Zuinglian,-that the bread and wine are a sign or sacrament given here on earth, of Christ's body, which is in heaven. Now the first of these with one voice they rejected, and laid down their lives with alacrity, rather than admit it: The second they utterly refused, though with less indignation: The third they adopted; and upon this principle all our standards and formularies were settled.

If any corroboration of this were needed, we should have no occasion to go beyond the present statement of Dr. Pusey. He sketches what he calls "the Zuingli-Calvinist theory." We shall print side by side with it, archbishop Cranmer's dying testimony, given

in to his judges at Oxford, in the examinations which ended in his martyrdom.

"The Zuingli-Calvinist Theory."*

"That the outward elements were not channels or instruments of grace, but that their only office was to kindle the faith of the individual, to set Christ before his eyes, that so he might in mind ascend into heaven, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, feed on Him there by faith, appropriate His merits, and thereby become united with Him."

Archbishop Cranmer's
Explication.t

"Lifting up our minds, we should look up to the blood of Christ with our faith; should touch him with our mind, and receive him with our inward man; and that being like eagles in this life, we should fly up into heaven in our hearts, where that Lamb is resident at the right hand of the Father, which taketh away the sins of the world; by whose stripes we are made whole; by whose passion we are filled at his table, and whose blood we, receiving out of his holy side, do live for ever; being made the guests of Christ; having him dwelling in us through the grace of his true nature; and through the virtue and efficacy of his whole passion, being no less assured and certified, that we are fed spiritually unto eternal life by Christ's flesh crucified, and by his blood shed, the true food of our minds, than that our bodies are fed with meat and drink."

Perfectly true, then, is it, as the archbishop's biographer informs us, that" Cranmer, as well as Ridley, had espoused the doctrine of Zuinglius, in rejecting all corporal and local presence in the Eucharist." And equally certain is it, not only that the whole array of those who accompanied Cranmer to the stake, accorded with him in this belief; but that their survivors also, the Parkers, and Grindals, and Whitgifts, and Jewells, who re-established the Protestant church in England, built it up in this faith. In other words, they abhorred the Romish dogma of the Real Presence; they could not understand the midway theory of the Lutherans; and no other view remained

to them but that which is now attempted to sneer down, as "the Zuingli-Calvinistic doctrine," but which it would be more ingenuous to call, the Scriptural doctrine of this Sacrament.

But again we have to object to Dr. Pusey, that while he professes to inculcate higher views of the Sacraments," he does, in fact, most seriously lower and impair them.

The scriptural, the Protestant, the Church of England view of the Lord's Supper, is,-that it is a real, beneficial, but wholly spiritual transaction;—a communion between Christ and the soul of the believer; in which visible signs or emblems are used, as in Baptism, mainly out of compassion to the weakness of our faith, and the infirmities of our nature, which often flags in the attempt to reach things

unseen.

In Christian worship the essence, the value, the vitality, is faith, or, as it is sometimes called, spirituality. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John iv. 24.) 66 Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. xi. 6.) According to your faith be it unto you." (Matt. ix. 29.) If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (be baptized.) (Acts viii. 37.)

66

66

"We have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of Him." "Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by

Jesus Christ."

line of teaching, the church of England has faithfully followed. Rome, however, and those among us who think Rome nearer the truth than Luther or Zuinglius, take the opposite course, and unreservedly declare, that both in baptism and in the Lord's Supper spiritual benefits may be conveyed, and "a great miracle" wrought, "independent ly of faith; or, in other words, without the existence of a spark of faith in the hearts of any of the parties concerned in the service!

This is what Dr. Pusey calls inculcating" higher views," and a "higher doctrine," as to the sacraments. But this higher doctrine consists in turning the sacrament into a charm; an external application; something which, if duly performed, has a certain supernatural effect. This is exactly what the worldly man would wish the sacraments to be. It was this superstitious feeling, that led Constantine to defer his baptism until near his death, in the vain hope that the rite, and not his faith in the blood of Christ, would wash away his sins. It is precisely the same delusion, that makes many a poor dying creature at the present day rely upon some supernatural virtue in the sacramental bread and wine, and wish to die almost with the elements upon his lips; resting on the emblems, and not even endeavouring to ascend in faith to him whose death he has professed to commemorate. And this is the superstition which Dr. Pusey lends his aid to perpetuate; for, contrary to all the standards of the church, he avers, that there is a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements, and that "it is there independently of our faith."

As opposed as possible to this view is the language of the church. According to Dr. Pusey and Mr. Froude, the performance of the rite involves 66 a great miracle,"

:

even though there should not be a single believing communicant. This theory obviously magnifies the mere rite, and him who performs it, and makes the faith of the communicant a secondary circumstance. The church, however, entirely reverses this view. She makes faith everything and the performance of the rite not even indispensable. In her Order for the Communion of the Sick, she directs, that “if a man, by reason of any just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood : the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption; earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.”

Dr. Pusey quotes a view of what he calls the Zuingli-Calvinist theory, from one who says, that the faith of the believer is not only the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, but is also the true consecrating principle,-that which brings Christ down to the heart of each individual." And while so quoting from this writer, he describes him as "one of a very different school" from his own. This is doubtless true, for it will be seen that the description so quoted exactly agrees with the words just cited from the Prayer Book. Our church's Order for the Communion of the Sick clearly describes "the faith of the believer as the true consecrating principle,"--as, in fact, the essence of the whole celebration, But the church's view, and that of Dr. Pusey, are indeed, to use his own words," very different."

ex

NATHANIEL Ripley Cobb, Esq. displayed the character of a CHRISTIAN MERCHANT in all its varieties of excellence. He was born Nov. 3, 1798; in May, 1818, he joined Dr. Sharpe's church in Boston, Massachusets; commenced business in 1819; married Sarah, the daughter of T. Kendall, Esq. in 1820; and after several weeks of decline, pired May 22, 1834, in the 36th year of his age. He was one of the few noble-hearted men of wealth, whose affluence is constantly proved by their munificence. Yet it was not always from what is strictly denominated affluence that he was so benevolent, inasmuch as the vows of God were upon him that he would never become rich; and he redeemed the holy pledge which he had given by consecrating his gains to the Lord. He drew up the following remarkable document :

By the grace of God I will never be worth more than 50,000 dollars. (£10,000.)

By the grace of God, I will give one-fourth of the net profits of my business to charitable and religious uses.

If I am ever worth 20,000 dollars, (£4000) I will give onehalf of my net profits; and if I am ever worth 30,000 dollars, I will give three-fourths; and the whole after 50,000 dollars. So help me God; or give to a more faithful steward and set me aside.

'Nov. 1821. N. R. COBB.' He adhered to this covenant with conscientious fidelity. At one time, finding his property had increased beyond 50,000 dollars, he at once devoted the surplus, 7500 dollars, as a foundation for a professorship in the Newton Institution, to which on various oc

casions during his short life, he gave at least twice that amount. Though a baptist, and ever ready to perform any service for the church and the denomination to which he belonged, yet he was prompt in affording aid to all wise designs which appeared to have a claim upon him as a christian, a philanthropist, and a patriot. He was a generous friend to many young men, whom he assisted in establishing themselves in business, and to many who were unfortunate.

Seldom was this excellent man absent from any meetings of the church, even amidst the greatest pressure of business. He rejoiced in the conversion of sinners, and constantly aided his pastor in the inquiry meeting. His temper was placid, his manners affable, his integrity entire. He was, besides, distinguished by great business talents, and by an acute penetration into the characters of men. Energy and activity were his element. We could willingly transcribe his diary before us; but a very few short sentences, uttered in his last sickness, must suffice: "Within the last few days I have had some glorious views of hea

ven.

It is indeed a glorious thing to die. I have been active and busy in the world. I have enjoyed it as much as any one. God has prospered me. I have every thing to tie me here. I am happy in my family; I have property enough; but how small and mean does this world appear when we are on a sick-bed! Nothing can equal my enjoyment in the near prospect of heaven. My hope in Christ is worth infinitely more than all other things. The blood of Christ, the blood of Christ! none but Christ!"