Thus far I have examined into the teaching of the Church of England with reference to nothing but the bare doctrine of transubstantiation, or, as it is now more frequently called, of the real objective presence of the body and blood of our blessed Saviour in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. I have not discussed the question whether the elements of bread and wine remain either in their substance or their accidents, for these questions are not discussed by the Church of England. The point maintained by the Church is that the most precious body and blood of Christ are not in the bread and wine at all, but are given by the direct action of the Holy Ghost to the soul of the believer, and received by him through faith. But we cannot leave the subject there, for, as we are taught in the twenty-eighth Article, that doctrine ‘has given occasion to many superstitions,’ and to two of these, adoration and sacrifice, we must, if we would gather the real teaching of the Church of England, direct our careful study.

Adoration.—When we speak of adoration, let it not be for one moment supposed that we refer to the adoration of the Lord Jesus, as now seated at the right hand of God, for with the whole heart, and the most profound reverence, we would fall at His feet, and say, in the language of our Communion Service, ‘Thou only art Holy, Thou only art the Lord; Thou only, O Christ, art most high in the glory of God the Father.’ The adoration against which we protest is the adoration of the Lord Jesus Christ as supposed to be localised in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. Such adoration must, of course, involve the belief that He, as a living Lord, is actually present in each piece of consecrated bread, and also in the consecrated wine, and for such a belief there is not one word in Scripture. The doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are made to rest on what is called the literal interpretation of the words, ‘This is My body,’ ‘This is My blood;’ but the utter inconsistency of the whole system is shown by the fact that while its advocates maintain that these words must be taken literally, and that their doctrine of the real presence is the necessary consequence, they themselves completely depart from their own principle of literal interpretation, and make a bold assertion which the words, taken literally, distinctly contradict. The words taken literally could certainly teach nothing more than that the bread becomes the body, and the wine the blood of our blessed Redeemer; but Rome teaches, and as far as I can learn the modern Ritualists teach the same, that not only do the bread and wine each separately become the body and blood, but that each of them becomes by the act of consecration a complete living Saviour, with Body, Soul, and Divinity; so that there is a living Saviour in each piece of consecrated bread, and a living Saviour in the cup, and that these living Saviours are to be adored or worshipped with the same worship as is given to our blessed Redeemer at the right hand of the throne in Heaven. I could give scores of passages in proof of my statement; but the well-known words of Mr. Bennett are sufficient: ‘I am one of those who have lighted candles at the altar in the day-time, who use incense at the holy sacrifice—who use the Eucharistic vestments—who elevate the blessed Sacrament—who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them—believing that under their veil is the sacred body and blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Such is the fabric raised on what is called the literal interpretation of the words of our blessed Saviour, a fabric for which those words taken literally give no foundation of any kind whatever. But how is it with the Church of England? Are men true Churchmen when they elevate the elements for worship? Are they teaching the doctrines of the Church of England when they teach that we are to worship the living Lord in the bread and in the cup which the priest raises above his head for adoration? It certainly does not seem as if they were, for as far as I have been able to discover, not one word from all our Church’s documents is ever quoted in support of the practice. The only position taken up is that it is not expressly forbidden, and this position I believe to be, like the rest of the system, without foundation. It is quite true that comparatively little is said, for the doctrine of transubstantiation being denied and disproved, all the rest follows as a matter of course. If there is no real objective presence there can be no adoration. If a living Saviour be not in the elements He cannot therein be adored. The whole controversy turns on the doctrine of the Real Presence as the key-stone of the system. But though the subject has not been so fully discussed in our Church documents, there is quite enough to show very clearly the mind of the Church of England. The concluding words of Article xxviii. are quite enough to settle the question: ‘The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.’ How, with that Article before them, clergymen of the Church of England can presume to elevate the sacramental elements for worship I am at a loss to explain. But this is not all that has been said, for the practice of kneeling at the Lord’s Supper occasioned at one time a certain amount of anxiety in the minds of some persons, as they feared that it might be mistaken for adoration of the host. To prevent the possibility of any such mistake a most important note was added in the year 1552, which, after having been omitted in 1559, was restored with a slight alteration in 1662. It is as follows: ‘It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and, therefore, may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one.’ Such words as those need no comment, and I should be only wasting time if I were to stop to discuss them. Of course people endeavour to evade them; but the attempts at evasion only tend to show the utter helplessness of the undertaking. The memorialists already referred to, say, ‘We repudiate all adoration of a corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood, that is to say, of the presence of His body and blood as they are in Heaven.’ They admit it, therefore, in some other way. But the Church of England denies it altogether. It draws no nice distinction as to the mode, but simply denies the fact, and settles the question once and for ever for all honest men whose honest desire it is to teach its doctrines and adopt its worship.

But as we really desire to ascertain the truth, it is well to refer to the statements of those who differ from us. I turn, therefore, to those of Dr. Pusey, as I believe he is the person who above all others would be regarded as the best exponent of the theory of the Real Presence and its consequences. In his book, The Real Presence, p. 311, he says: ‘The Church of England has maintained the same reserve as to the practice of adoring our Lord present in the Eucharist.’ And again: ‘With regard to the adoration we are rather told that the Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be adored, but to be received.’ I could not wish for a plainer statement of truth than those last words, but I confess myself at a loss to understand how the writer can teach adoration, and yet continue in his position as a clergyman of the Church of England. But with the former words I cannot agree, for the Church of England has not exercised reserve. To exercise reserve is to keep in the background a truth which we believe, but which from motives of expediency we think it better not to make known. But there is no such reserve in the Church of England. She is plain, honest, and outspoken for the truth; and when she struck all trace of adoration from her worship she did so, not from any crafty policy of reserve, but because she believed that the whole thing was a gross superstition, and with a firm, bold, and unsparing hand she cut away the whole fabric, and left no trace of it in the whole system of her worship. There was no reserve in the Reformers, whatever there may be in those who are striving to undo the Reformation.