we tell them that an impanation in the sense of incarnation is an impossibility. If CHRIST assumes bread at all, it can only be as the veil, the form, the sign, under which He is to communicate Himself to Man; and we tell Mr. Shaw further, that he is quite mistaken when he supposes 'this' denotes 'bread.' No doubt it referred to the bread which was thus contained in the proposition, for our LORD held the bread in His hand. But if Mr. Shaw were in the least acquainted with logic, he would know that 'this' beginning a proposition denotes always the unity or synthesis under which the proposition is conceived, and denotes nothing more. So that this' really means this Sacrament.'' -Pp. 7-9.

But after all, do not both these writers only display an ignorance of the original Greek? The words of institution are these: TOUTO ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου and τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου, where τοῦτο cannot mean either pros or olvos, since TouTò is neuter; it can only mean TOUTO μvorýgiov, this Sacrament, of which the Body of CHRIST is as much a part as the bread. Similarly, we may add, in the words "The first man Adam was made a living soul," &c., we see a composite being described by the name of one of its elements.

The most important feature in the "Remarks" is one which we hope our readers will fully appreciate he makes a present of the Fathers and the Primitive Liturgies to the Roman Church. Alluding to the Bishop's quotation of S. Cyril, he says:

"S. Cyril, as we have already seen, states his views in these terms: 'He once turned water into wine in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?' Is there here no change of substance-'Wine into Blood?' Does the Roman Church say more than this?”

He then quotes the Douay Catechism, and significantly adds, "This can require no comment." He commits the incredible blunder of interpreting S. Cyril's words, "In the figure (rún) of bread is given thee His Body," as if the great Catechist meant, the unsubstantial appearance of bread! Is this a sample of the scholarship which is to be set in array against the Bishop of Brechin? It reminds us of Mr. Groves's wonderful display of ritual ignorance as to the corporal, and as to the consumption of the remnants of the Eucharist by children: or rather, it is a worse case, for the writer before us is dealing with a very famous and often quoted passage. Next, he proceeds to assign S. Chrysostom over to the same safe keeping with S. Cyril. Next go the Liturgies: "On the subject of the Liturgies," before quitting them, it is not meant to be disrespectful, "if the propriety is questioned of such expressions, as, 'make this bread the Body of Thy CHRIST.' Such language, it is conceived, is not only objectionable, but unscriptural, both in its letter and in its spirit."-P. 19.

Who is the writer of these "Remarks ?" He says he is a

Presbyter of the Scottish Church, we might be tempted to suspect that he is a Roman Catholic putting on the garb of Protestantism to make Scottish Churchmen disbelieve their own doctrines. He objects to the active verb moinσov, make this bread the Body of CHRIST' of course he must also object to the neuter verb 'become the Body' in the Scotch Liturgy. Let the Six Bishops look after this "Presbyter," he is far below even them.

Now will our readers believe us, after all this said of Fathers and Liturgies, that the following passage actually occurs in this pamphlet ?

"Now it is not going too far to affirm, that there is not one word in Scripture, nor in the ancient Liturgies (!), nor in the Fathers (!!), nor in the Doctors (!!!), nor in the Formularies of the Church of England, nor in the Formularies of the Scottish Episcopal Church (!), which gives the shadow of a countenance to the idea that CHRIST is in the gifts or elements of the Eucharist.”—P. 44.

We question whether the writer has ever looked at the second edition of the Brechin Charge. We are sure that he has never really referred to S. Thomas Aquinas, for had he done so, he could not have imagined Bishop Forbes to go beyond S. Thomas (!) as to the Body of CHRIST being "there," i.e. in the Sacrament. "There," we beg to tell him, does not mean any such "local" presence as S. Thomas denied: and S. Thomas plainly asserts that the Sacrament contains CHRIST (Sum. 3. q. 73. a. 4) “in rei veritate,' not simply "sicut in signo,- quod est tanquam hæreticum objiciendum," but "secundum modum proprium huic sacramento," "spiritualiter, id est, invisibiliter et per virtutem Spiritûs Sancti," &c. (q. 75. a. 1.) Bishop Forbes does not go with Aquinas as to Transubstantiation; but only "crassa ignorantia" could represent him as more localizing than Aquinas in his conceptions of the Presence!

We do not intend to go much further into these "Remarks," as the "Modest Reply" has done it for us; but we cannot conclude without again drawing our readers' attention to the important fact that all these opponents of Bishop_Forbes advocate some one of the ancient heresies concerning our LORD's Person. Let the reader judge. The writer says:

"The Bishop affirms, 'That inasmuch as the humanity of our LORD is hypostatically united to the Divinity, it is itself an object of worship. And if this be so, then the humanity of CHRIST, by reason of such union, must be Divine. How, then, is that to be made, which

is Divine?"-P. 19.

If this be not heresy, we do not know what is: but let us hear one of the Fathers themselves. Theodoret gives a disputation be

tween Eranistes, as a heretic, and Orthodoxos. "Er. As the symbols of the Body and Blood of CHRIST are one thing before consecration, and after that change their name, and become another; so the Body of CHRIST after His Ascension is changed into the Divine substance. Orth. You are taken in your own nets: the bread and wine even after consecration leave not their own nature, but remain in their former substance, shape and form." (And he adds that in thought they are adored, as being those things that are believed.) "The Body of CHRIST hath the same form, figure, and shape, and indeed the same bodily substance." And when the heretic still objects that the bread is called the Body, and not bread, Orthodoxos answers that he is mistaken, "For it is not only called the Body, but also Bread of Life, and the Body Itself we call the Divine Body." From which we see that the TaσTOXelwois of the bread and wine are no more a change of substance, as this writer and the Roman Catholic hold, than is the Body of CHRIST 'transubstantiated' into His Divinity; for Orthodoxos says that as the Body of CHRIST is really Body after His Ascension, so the elements are really bread and wine after consecration. Also, the writer seems to be so incapable of understanding the theological language of the Church (this appears repeatedly in the "Remarks"), as to think that the doctrine of the Hypostatic union involves an essential Divinity and uncreatedness in the assumed Manhood!

The above quotation from Theodoret refutes another heresy of this writer, who holds that our LORD's glorified Body in heaven is not the same Body with that which He had on earth. He says:

"The Bishop of Brechin advances, that it is in His heavenly and glorified Body that CHRIST is present in the Sacrament.' But if it were, according to Bishop Andrewes, in that Flesh which was conceived, and this day born,' it must have been in His natural Body,— 'that Body which was this day fitted for Him." "—P. 25.

Making our LORD to have two Bodies like the heretic Eranistes. The truth of course is, that one and the same Body of GoD Incarnate has two modes of existence, the natural and the supernatural. We will here add, that we deprecate any statement as to our LORD's existence in heaven which would obscure its locality; we hold with Bishop Forbes, that "while the Body of CHRIST is sacramentally on every altar in Christendom, it is locally and naturally in heaven." (Expl. Nic. Cr. p. 237.)

One more quotation, and we have done :

"If we allow, as indeed we must, the 'Res Sacramenti,' or the inward part or thing signified, to be one essential and integral part of the Sacrament, and are told by the Church, that the Sacrament (sic) itself is not by CHRIST's ordinance to be worshipped, it follows, that if the

Sacrament itself is not to be worshipped, neither is a part of it; unless it were lawful to do that to a part which it is not lawful to do to the whole. But a Sacrament is one thing, and not two or three things;" (!!) -"for, as GoD and Man is one CHRIST,' So is the outward visible sign, and the inward part or thing signified one Sacrament."

Is the writer serious? If he means that the relation of the sign and the thing signified in the Eucharist is the same as the relation of Godhead and Manhood in CHRIST, we observe:-1, That he is propounding anew the old heterodoxy of the Abbot Rupertus, (See Bishop W. Forbes's Consid. Mod. ii. 464); 2. That his argument plunges him into the heresy which denied adoration to the whole CHRIST: that is to say, he is a Nestorian. If he does not mean this, what is his argument? But dismissing this unhappy illustration-supposing that it was thrown off inconsiderately-we utterly deny that to adore the inward part of the Eucharist is to adore the outward also. The Sacrament is a compound thing, one part of which may be described as the veil or shrine of the other. We would refer this writer to Bishop Forbes's great namesake, the first occupant of the See of Edinburgh, who adopts the patristic language on Eucharistic Adoration, and the "verissima sententia" of Cassander, which we give below.1

The object we have had all this time in exposing this pamphlet, is to show our readers one great truth, which we wish them again and again, usque ad nauseam, to be reminded of,-it is this: When any one attempts to defend or define a doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, which comes short of the Catholic doctrine, he invariably and inevitably falls into one or two of the great heresies concerning our LORD's Person; either Eutychianism or Nestorianism. This writer clearly does not see his way in questions of dogmatic theology, and we by no means intend to ascribe to him any conscious heresy upon these high matters. We repeat that his pamphlet is so far valuable, in that it wears no mask of Catholicity; it does not pretend to claim the Fathers, or to talk about an objective Presence, meaning all the while an influence or a power; it reduces what the six Bishops still call "the Sacrifice of the Altar," to the mere dedication of our souls and bodies. It is also valuable as showing, by comparison with other productions on the same side, how utterly at sea the adversaries of Bishop Forbes are, as to what is positively to be believed about this Sacrament. We are constrained to adopt the words of the Archdeacon of Taunton about the Pastoral:

"I doubt whether so vague and uncertain a syllabus of teaching ever 1 "Cum in hoc Sacramento CHRISTUS DEUS et Homo, et corpore et sanguine suo præsentem se exhibeat, consequens est, ut in hoc quoque Mysterio adoretur; quæ adoratio non ad ipsum signum quod exteriùs videtur, sed ad ipsam rem et veritatem quæ interiùs creditur referenda sit;" although, he adds, reverence is due even to the sign.

issued from any other synod of any other Church. It wears indeed, to lookers on, who sift such things a little, the unmistakeable aspect of a document so framed and so phrased as to catch the signatures of men who differ very widely indeed upon the doctrine which it professes to enunciate."

As we were going to the press we have received A Pastoral Letter Addressed to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway, by their Bishop. There is nothing in this letter that would cause us to retract one syllable of what we have said in the preceding article: the Bishop most clearly shows that he holds the Calvinistic doctrine of 'power and efficacy' only in other words, that his teaching agrees with the Westminster Confession of Faith' rather than with the Church Catechism. He says, p. 32,

:

"The doctrine which the Church'enunciates' is too plain to be obscured by any subtleties—namely, that the real Body of CHRIST, which alone is life-giving, and of which the Bread and Wine are the communication (or channel and instrument of conveyance) to the faithful, is in heaven, not here: and consequently that its Presence is in no sense corporal, bodily, or such as to be included in the elements; but a Presence by power, virtue, and efficacy, of which the Bread and Wine are effectual signs.'

While we hold most firmly the premisses here laid down, we deny the conclusion; while we hold that the Natural Body of CHRIST is in Heaven, not here, we believe as firmly in what the Catechism teaches, that the "Body and Blood of CHRIST," the Supernatural Presence of His Glorified Humanity, are "taken and received by the faithful," " verily and indeed," not only in power and efficacy. At p. 39 he says,

"The Church of Rome avowedly holds the doctrine of the actual Presence of our Blessed SAVIOUR'S Body and Blood, under the outward forms of Bread and Wine, in the LORD's Supper. Holding this opinion, she is perfectly consistent in claiming Divine honour for the consecrated host from the moment of consecration . . . All this is perfectly consistent; and if, while denying the particular metaphysical notion of a change of substance, our Church yet held the substantial doctrine of a Divine Presence in and under' the Bread and Wine, she would be bound in the sight of GOD and man, to testify her creed by similar outward demonstrations, proportionable to her belief in such a fact."

We thank the Bishop for this admission: it amounts to this, that if any believe in the doctrine of the Church Catechism, that 'the Body and Blood of CHRIST are verily and indeed taken and received,' and therefore, verily and indeed present in the Sacrament, as the inward part of that Sacrament,' then, adoration of CHRIST there Present necessarily follows.