what had been added already. This is a point which is most important to be insisted upon.

If the cultus and ceremonial which had been established before were right, if they were parts of true Christianity, they must have been so because of the truth of a doctrine concerning the Eucharist; and if only this doctrine were true, nothing could be more fitting and suitable than the solemn, and public, and festive recognition of that doctrine in the annual celebration of the new festival.

If the religion of Rome before this could suitably be compared in any sort to the glory of the moon, then it may be fairly asserted that this addition was really needed to make that glory full.

For let a distinct answer be sought to this question: What could warrant that innovation of ceremonial adoration, connected with that other innovation of elevation following consecration, which had previously been admitted to form a conspicuous part in the celebration of the Mass? The answer, I think, must be that nothing could warrant it short of an Objective Personal Presence of the Incarnate Godhead in some sort in or under the form or materies of the consecrated elements.

Distinctions (if possible) between presence local and supra-local do not really affect the matter. It must be a Presence specially there where the species of bread is However supra-local, it is a Presence there ;

seen.

*See Appendix, Note C.

therefore in some sense certainly a local Presence, however supra-local the manner.

No efforts to draw a distinction between Presence by location and Presence by extension will avail anything at all. It is a Presence in that which is local, even though it be not by location.

Neither is the real point affected by any attempts, possible or impossible, to draw a distinction between "real and essential" Presence and "corporal" Presence. It is the real and essential Presence of the very Body and of the very Person of Christ, however spiritual and incor poreal.

Neither yet is the matter altered by anything which may be said about distinctions between spiritual and material conceptions of the Presence. Let the conception of the Presence of Christ there, under the forms of bread and wine, be as spiritual, as immaterial, as incorporeal, as supralocal, as it is possible to be, the point to be insisted upon is simply this-that the visible species or substance of the consecrated elements must be regarded either as, in some sort, clothing and hiding the present Saviour, or as forming with the very present Body and Person of Christ one* compound, adorable whole; otherwise there would be no warrant for such adoration as

* So Bellarmine, De Euch., lib. iv. cap. xxix.; De Cont., tom. iii. cc. 920, 923; and Suarez, in Th. Quæst. 79 (quoted by Payne as below), and Henriques and Gregory de Valentia. See Dean Aldrich's "Reply to Two Discourses," p. 42; and Prebendary Payne in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 122, London, 1848.

formed a part of the religion of the Mass before the festival of Corpus Christi was ever thought of.

No conception of a Presence-if conceivable—of the Body of Christ as crucified and dead, and of the blood of Christ as poured out and shed, would have availed for the purpose. This has been acknowledged.* No conception of spiritual union of the elements with the glorified Body of Christ in heaven would have availed. It is Christ,

* See Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, vol.. ii. part i. pp. 147, 148. It is however denied by Bellarmine, De Euch., lib. iv. cap. xxix.; De Cont., tom. iii. cap. 921.

It is truly said, that when Christ's Soul was separated from His Body, His Divinity deserted neither soul nor body. But this must by no means be understood as implying that Christ's lifeless Body was necessarily a proper object towards which adoration might be addressed, though this is maintained by Bellarmine.

The Divine Person of the Son, since the Incarnation, is not to be conceived of as apart from the human soul, which may now be said to be a very part of Himself. And when the human soul had left the Body, the Divine Person was not inhabiting that Body, as when the human soul inhabited and animated it.

And whether in this condition it should be adored is, at least, very questionable. We might," says Archbishop Wake, "have some

66

cause to doubt whether, since we have received no command concerning it, it were our Saviour's pleasure that His Body should be adored by us in that state; so that there could be no sin in the not doing it." (See Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 112, London, 1848.)

See Vogan's True Doctrine, pp. 278, 600.

Stillingfleet asks: "Since it doth not follow by virtue of the Hypostatical union, that wherever the Divinity is the human nature of Christ must be there also, how doth it necessarily follow, that wherever the Body of Christ is, the Divinity is so present as to make that Body become an object of Divine adoration? . . . The Scripture is only pretended to speak of the Body of Christ, and not of His Divinity." (Works, vol. vi. p. 76.)

Christ Himself, Christ in His very living Person-body, soul, and divinity-who was adored with adoration addressed to or towards the visible species.

It must be the real Presence of the Divine Person of Christ dwelling in His one human Body-and with that one human Body united-really made to be one with, or to be clothed upon with, the substance or the species of the sacramental elements, which alone can justify that Eucharistic adoration which is the present subject of controversy.

No Presence of virtue or equivalence as distinct from this, and no such notion of Presence as may be reduced to a relation, could possibly meet the requirements of the theory.

Now let us see how this idea of the Presence to be adored in the Eucharist is expressed by a writer who is believed to have influenced largely the novel opinions of a section in our own Church of England:

"The Eucharist is frequently called the Extension of the Incarnation ;' and the expression is significant and appropriate, not simply because the Eucharist is the means of extending the benefits of the Incarnation to all time, but because there is in both cases a real union between the earthly and the heavenly in the Incarnation between the Eternal Word and man's nature, in the Eucharist between the Person of Christ and the elements of bread and wine: so that it may be said without a metaphor, that there is a renewal or continuation of the Incarnation. What was done in the Incarnation is renewed in the Sacrament; not in the same manner, but in a certain resemblance and proportion." . . "In order to this union of the flesh of Christ with ours, He first Incarnates Himself in the hands of the priest; that is, at the moment of Consecration, Christ unites

Himself, Body, Soul, and Divinity, in an ineffable manner, with the elements of bread and wine." "Both in the Incarnation and

in the Eucharist the mystery is formed by the union of two natures, which remain distinct without mixture or confusion: in the Incarnation, the Divine Word united to the Body, which He took of the Virgin Mary, His Mother; in the Eucharist, the glorified Body of the Lord joined to the earthly substance of bread and wine. But in each case both remain in their own nature; the Divine and Human in the Incarnation, and in the Eucharist the Person of our Lord and the nature of bread and wine. And yet, as the Divine and Human Nature in the Incarnate are called, and are, one Christ; so in the Eucharist the heavenly and the earthly substances, remaining each in its own nature, when united by Consecration are called, and are, the Body of Christ."*

The view expressed here is one which would no doubt be regarded by the writer as separate from what he and others would regard as the distinctively Roman doctrine of the Presence.

This may perhaps be fairly spoken of as the minimum,† while the full Romish doctrine of transubstantiation is the maximum. The maximum doctrine, in destroying the very substances of bread and wine, and leaving only species to deceive the sight and exercise faith in rejecting the evidence of the senses, creating the prodigy of accidents without substances, does indeed add to the marvel of the mystery.

But we may be contented to take the minimum-the minimum of that which can warrant the adoration of the

*Tracts for the Day, pp. 232, 233: 1868.

Yet there are some statements in the extract which, in their natural, unmodified sense, would hardly, perhaps, be accepted by some Romish divines.