A VIRTUAL PRESENCE.

129

blood: his body broken, and full of the characters of love all over : his blood shed, every drop whereof is a great drop of love.'

"And he then adds remarks clearly showing his view of the character of the Eucharistic rite::

66

66

"To those which were sent, these which were left, love, joy, peace, have a special connatural reference, to breed and to maintain each other. His body the Spirit of strength, his blood the Spirit of comfort; both, the Spirit of love. This Spirit, we said, we are to procure, that it may abide with us and be in us. And what is more intrinsically in us, abideth surer, groweth faster to us, than what we eat and drink? Then, if we could get a spiritual meat," or get to drink of the Spirit,' there were no way [like] to that. And behold here they be. For here is “ spiritual meat," that is breeding the Spirit; and here we are all made "drink of one Spirit," that there may be but one Spirit in us. And we are all made "one bread and one body," kneaded together, and pressed together into oneas the symbols are, the bread and the wine- -so many as are partakers of one bread and one cup, “the bread of life," and "the cup of blessing," the communion of the body and blood of Christ.'

"The following passage also is quite inconsistent with the notion that the real body and blood of Christ are conjoined to the elements, and favours only a virtual presence in them :

"He that breathed, and he that was breathed, both of them vouchsafe to breathe into those holy mysteries a Divine power and virtue, and make them to us the bread of life and the cup of salvation.'

"Again, elsewhere he speaks of the presence of blood' in Baptism as much as in the Eucharist: :

"In baptism we are washed with "water:" that "water" is not without "blood." The "blood" serves instead of "nitre." He hath "washed us from our sins in his blood"-" washed." They made their robes "white in the blood of the Lamb." No washing, no whiting by water," without "blood." And in the Eucharist we are made drink of the blood of the New Testament, but in that blood there is water," for the blood of Christ purifieth us from our sins.'

66

66

'He evidently considers the blood of Christ to be just as much present in the one rite as in the other, and the whole sermon shows in what sense he uses such phrases.

"And, finally, he distinctly limits the eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood in the Eucharist to the worthy recipient; for, speaking of the Eucharist, he says,

66

"There we are made to "drink of the Spirit," there our "hearts are strengthened and established with grace.' There is the blood which shall " purge our consciences from dead works," whereby we may die to sin." There the bread of God, which shall endue our souls with much strength; yea, multiply strength in them, to live unto God; yea, to live to him continually; for he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him ;" not inneth, or sojourneth for a time, but dwelleth continually.'

VOL. XLI.

66

K

"And when he says, that the "bread which we break is the partaking of Christ's true body,'-and not of a sign, figure, or remembrance of it; for the Church hath ever believed a true fruition of the true body of Christ in that sacrament;" he says nothing more than what we should all strenuously contend for; for when we partake of the bread, we partake of that which is not a mere sign, but an effectual and operative sign, instrumental by Divine promise for putting the believer in communion with the true and real body of Christ. There is to the believer a true fruition of the true body of Christ in the Eucharist.

"And hence we may see the real meaning of the passage quoted from Bishop Andrewes, to prove that he advocated the adoration of Christ as contained in the consecrated res sacra on the table. His words are these:

"In "the adoration of the sacrament" Bellarmine sadly stumbles at the very threshhold. He says, "of the sacrament, that is, of Christ the Lord present in a wonderful but true way in the sacrament." But away with this. Who will grant him this? · Of the sacrament, that is, of Christ in the sacrament." Truly Christ himself the res sacramenti, both in and with the sacrament, out of and without the sacrament, wheresoever he is, is to be adored. But the King [James I.] maintained that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and truly to be adored, to wit, the res sacramenti; but not the sacrament, to wit, "the earthly part," as Irenæus calls it, "the visible" as Augustine. But we also adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, with Ambrose; and not that thing, but him who is worshipped above the altar [or, him who is above the altar do we worship]. For the Cardinal incorrectly inquires, "What is there worshipped," when he ought to have inquired" Who." Since Nazianzen says him, not it. And we eat not the flesh without first adoring it," with Augustine. But yet we none of us adore the sacrament.'

"Upon this passage, as quoted for the very purpose for which it is cited in the Catena, Archbishop Wake truly observes,

66 6

How this bishop thought Christ truly present in the sacrament we have seen before; and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there, viz., as in all other holy offices, in which we confess him by his Divine power to be present with us, but especially in this sacred mystery. And thus we all adore him, both in and with and without the sacrament; we confess him to be truly present, and therefore truly to be adored by us. But now for Christ's natural body (of which, and not of Christ himself, our dispute is), if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before showed, let it be remembered, that according to this Bishop it must not be his glorified body, his body as it now is; but his body crucified, his body as offered for us, and in the state of his death; so he expressly affirms; and this I believe our author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible.'

"In fact, it is clear that if the bishop had meant that Christ was to be worshipped as in or under the elements lying on the table,

CONDEMNATORY VERDICT.

131

the only question between him and Bellarmine would have been, whether the substance of the bread remained or only its outward form, for Bellarmine did not advocate worship to the sacramental signs. But the bishop evidently had a further ground of difference with him, namely, as to the worship being addressed to the res sacra on the table as containing the body of Christ. And from his Answer to the XVIII. chapter of Cardinal Perron's Reply' his real doctrine on this point is manifest, for the first section is against the notion of the belief of Christ in the sacrament sub speciebus,' and the second is against "the external adoration of the sacrament," in which he points out that the cardinal's quotations from the Fathers to prove that they considered divine worship due to the sacrament as containing the body of Christ are not in his favour, and that all we admit is, that the sacrament is to be received with due reverence and respect. His statements here, therefore, are directly opposed to Archdeacon Denison's assertion, that worship is due to the real, though invisible and supernatural, presence of of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist under the form of bread and wine.'"-Vol. II. pp. 814-822.

Here, again, it is impossible to exonerate Archdeacon Denison and his associates from dishonest quotations and discreditable purpose. It is lamentable to have to make, no less than to be compelled to maintain, that they must have known better when they adopted such a system, than to suppose they could prove their position by such double dealing; and this being the case, what verdict but that of utter condemnation can be passed upon them?

Throughout the foregoing remarks upon Mr. Goode's book, we have chiefly dealt with the matter of the three delinquents-we hope we may be pardoned for the expression -misquotation. But it is only fair to that gentleman's Replication to say, that he does not dwell exclusively upon that point, or make it the onus of complaint against his opponents. He rather enters into a lucid explanation of the true doctrines of the Church of England, and meets the published sentiments of these writers with fair examination and logical argument. Into these particulars of his treatise it is utterly impossible for us to enter. It must therefore suffice that we merely allude to them in the hope that they will receive the attention they deserve.

We must now take our leave of this book, and satisfy ourselves with having only touched the surface by pointing out a few of the qualities it possesses. Those who have read Mr. Goode's previous treatises, will not omit to give their consideration to the last of his laborious undertakings. That all parties will endorse his sentiments is not to be expected;

but the number of those will be few indeed, who do not give him the credit of being the most learned controversialist of his times, and worthy to take a place amongst those giants of theology, who have made the name of England as celebrated in former days of religious discussion, as her heroes have made it glorious by their military and naval prowess. Did the clergy and laity of our country read more frequently and perseveringly the extant works of our Cranmers, Jewels, Becons, and Taylors, there would have been little need for Mr. Goode to have undertaken the refutation of the writers of the Oxford school: inasmuch, however, as these writers are far too much neglected, a greater service to the cause of Christianity at large, and to the Church of England in particular, could not have been done, than that which Mr. Goode has again rendered with moderation and judgment, with learning and assiduity.

ART. VI-1. The Typology of Scripture, reviewed in connection with the entire Scheme of the Divine Dispensations. By PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, Professor of Divinity, Free Church College, Aberdeen. Two Vols. Second Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1854.

2. Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation. By the Rev. JAMES M'COSH, LL.D., and GEORGE DICKIE, A.M. M.D. Edinburgh: Constables. 1856.

WHILE it follows of necessity, from its divine origin, that every view we take of the Book of God must be more or less interesting, and while every now and then we see its simplest complications unexpectedly developing themselves in such a way as almost to compel assent to that divine origin, we have often thought that a natural way of reading and studying the sacred pages- an avoidance of so much overlaying of man's opinion-might be systematically followed with advantage. With this end in view, we have for many years directed our studies to this object, so as to elucidate, if possible, by its own light, the various parts of the doctrinal and prophetic word; and among the various subjects, we have found none more interesting than the study of the Types. Now we disclaim, at the outset, all idea of dogmatising: upon what is old we have no necessity to do so: for what is new we have no authority to do so. Our only dogmatism will be the insisting upon the "It is written," as the court from whose decision there is no appeal.

Nor do we intend, unnecessarily, to enter upon the deli

THE SINAITICAL LAW.

133

cate ground of unfulfilled prophecy: we may, in the working out of our subject, have to allude to it; but we shall, as much as possible, leave the facts to speak for themselves. And

I. We would observe:-That at least, so far as regards sacrifices and offerings, the Sinaical Ceremonial Law was but a codifying, or reducing to writing, of a law given long be fore. For, from the first, we have the offerings of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. Those of Adam and Eve, inferential, from their coats of skins; Abel's specified as "the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof," a clear anticipation of the Levitical precepts; Cain's rejected, because not in accordance with it. Of the altar we cannot suppose that, at that time, it was more than a simple one of earth; and this inference is abundantly confirmed afterwards: for immediately, upon the going forth of Noah from the ark, he "builded an altar unto the Lord." Wherever Abram, afterwards Abraham, pitched his tent, the first recorded act is, "there he builded an altar unto the Lord," as at Sichem, at Bethel, and at Mamre. These altars evidently could have been nothing more than a mound of earth, or a few rough unhewn stones. When we turn to the Sinaitic commandments, we find God giving this command: "An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings. And if thou wilt build me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it." It seems, therefore, that even upon this point, the patriarchs were not obeying the impulsive feelings of the moment, but acting in accordance with some direct oral or traditionary command which God had given.

The PRIESTHOOD, too, existed before its express appointment at Sinai. It is probable that the eldest son of the family was the priest of the family; and this inference. derives the strongest confirmation from various hints, as it were, contained in the inspired record. Noah would, of course, as the father of the new world, officiate in right of his primacy. Abraham was in the direct line of Shem, Noah's eldest son, and who was most probably Melchisedek, and was himself the eldest son of Terah; and, it is to be observed, that the genealogical list of Shem's posterity gives the names of the eldest sons only. Consequently we find Abraham officiating as priest, but never Lot, who was the son of Haran, Abram's younger brother. But after Abraham's death, Isaac built an altar at Shebah, better known as Beershebah.

In the case of Jacob and Esau we find this remarkably