those of later times, the struggles of warfare, or the exchanges of commerce, had been carried on, where not a stone remained to disturb the browsing of a few sheep, whose tinkling bells alone broke the silence of the air. Could the inventions of art, the contrivances of commerce and luxury have clothed the earth with such a carpet as it now wears, or reared anything of such minute and elaborate beauty as the wild berry which surmounts the highest mound, as though nature had woven a crown to commemorate her victory? Why seek to identify here and there particular patches of ground, when we may well believe that there is not an inch of soil on which we tread which might not tell a strange tale, could it but recount what has passed over it? How many are the gallant spirits which sleep beneath this sod? Diverse in nation, in habit, in religionpeasants and peers-warrior and serf-the grass grows not more luxuriant over one than the other; and in earth's silent bosom the achievements of the mightiest are not more mentioned than the suffering and degradation of the most humble. Of the men who first perished here in the battle's rage, there is not one that has left a name behind him. We know, indeed, that here men contended for mastery that here not once nor twice enraged armies dared the battle to the death; but we know no more. And even if the musty lore of those who pass their time among worm-eaten tomes and registers could gather some few names from out the wreck, still what would it profit? The fame on which they who then were mighty perhaps prided themselves; the honours which they thought would endure for ever in the records of past glory; the priests and sages whose labours they deemed would secure them an immortality of renown-all, all are nothing.'

"The knightes are duste,

And theyre goode swordes are ruste

Theyre soules are wyth the saintes wee truste."

In thinking of remote ages, the mind recurs naturally, first of all, to battles and sieges; they were the main events in an age when bravery could atone for every vice, and was acknowledged as almost the only virtue. But it is not of recollections such as these alone that the air of old Sarum seems to breathe. It was here that prelates, and nobles, and earldermen assembled in solemn council to swear allegiance to the first Norman monarch; it was here that the plan of "Domesday-book" was first devised. As the shades of evening drew on, we could almost conjure up the forms of the long line of priests and chieftains who here sealed on the Gospels their promise of feudal support. How quaintly did the mitre and the helmet mingle in these strange gatherings for fealty and homage; and how much closer, in those times of rude magnificence, must have seemed the union of civil and ecclesiastical powers! Oh! could we open the hidden tablets of the hearts of those who once met here in council, and contrast them with our own, what a mortifying spectacle should we encounter! The same vices, the same dark passions, envyings and bickerings, jealousies and contentions; the same mask of hypo

crisy, the same unbridled avarice and ambition, persisting in its vileness, and standing alone, without amelioration; whilst art, and science, and luxury, and civilization all proceed steadily onward; and better feelings too, thank heaven, we have in common. It was here that the fond father, Henry I., received the vows of allegiance to his yet surviving son. What a proud smile may have glistened in his face whilst the mightiest among his barons knelt before that gallant boy, and expressed their country's hopes associated with their own. A few years, and the monarch's face was clouded, and ocean had closed over the generous youth, whose life might have been spared had his heart been less affectionate and kind. A few years more, and the loitering student recalls these things as though they were but a glowing romance, and creates again from nothing the shapes and figures of generations laid to slumber.

The bright moon began to pour its silvery glory over the lofty spire of Salisbury cathedral as we slowly retraced our steps. A few generations hence, and it may be that her streets will be desolate, and her walls forsaken, and her whole fabric "grated to dusty nothing," even as it fared with old Sarum.

DR. PUSEY'S PREFACE TO HIS SERMON.

(Continued from page 625).

BUT, say both the advocates of transubstantiation, and of mysteries, and of modes, these are the words of Christ: "Take, eat; this is my body." These words, if taken in their literal sense, might lead into those erroneous opinions which the Church of England has discarded; but we will endeavour to show that they are used with reference to the paschal lamb, which lamb itself was a substitute, a type of Christ himself when dead: and, therefore, this expression was necessary to connect the chain of types or representations. With regard to the wine and Christ's blood, the attempt is still more absurd and untenable than that of the bread, which endeavours to pervert Christ's words in any way, either really, typically, or spiritually, that the wine is his blood. The stronghold of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, or any mystery or mode, is to be found, not in the words Christ used at the paschal supper, but three years before, after the miracles of the loaves and fishes, when he was at Capernaum. The whole of this transaction will be separately examined in good time. I shall only now say, that the meaning of Christ's words must be sought for in those used at the paschal supper; and that words used elsewhere, and not on the same occasion, have a much less authority, if they have any at all. And in determining the sense of words which relate to the sacramental bread and wine, we should confine ourselves chiefly, if not solely, to those used on that one occasion; because the circumstances of that one occasion are unlike all others.

First, then, as to the words, "Take, eat; this is my body." Jesus spake this of bread which he had blessed and broken (Matt. xxvi. 26,

and Mark xiv. 22). Both say the disciples were eating the passover at the moment the bread was broken. But the word Aptos, which means bread, is a masculine noun; and the demonstrative pronoun, which in English is rendered this, and which, from the defect of our language, seems to agree with bread, in the original cannot agree with it; it is a grammatical impossibility. The pronoun T8TO is neuter, and agrees with Taoxa, the ceremony with which Christ and the apostles were immediately surrounded, and which was included in the sense and scope of the demonstrative pronoun. Thus the bread, as part, was included, but the whole ceremony of eating the paschal lamb was referred to; for the paschal lamb, from the institution of the passover, was His body, and was eaten as the representative of His body; and the bread was to be the substitute or representative of the paschal lamb, and also of his, Christ's body; and on this account this representative mode of speech was used.

Christ's words are TOUTO TOLITE; but these words were used to express the passover. Ποιειν το πασχα is the phrase used in the Septuagint to express taking and performing that ceremony. Christ meant, therefore, this to be the passover for the future; and he alluded to the whole, and not to a part. He meant his body should be the passover, and the bread a substitute for his real body, as the yearly lamb was of the first lamb of the Exodus, and that of himself.

In this our Lord (see Comber, folio, part iii., sec. 17) has been supposed to imitate that phrase which the Jews used at the feast of the passover: "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers did eat," and "This is the body of the lamb which our fathers did eat." And this form of substitution Christ used, when he said, "This is my body:" this-not this bread, but this passover. And it is an equal absurdity to suppose that the Jews, when they said, "This is the bread which our fathers did eat," meant the very same bread eaten at the Exodus, as that the Papists really eat the very identical body of Christ crucified. For as that was not the very bread nor the very lamb, yet they called it so, because it did represent and continue the memorial of that, and was used to the same purpose. So, in like manner, Christ calls this his own body, who was the true Paschal Lamb, because this action doth signify and remember it; and by this bread we are partakers thereof.

St. Paul also says, in the same mode of speaking, "that rock was Christ which they drank of "-not that the rock was transubstantiated into water, but only that it was the figure and symbol of Christ, and therefore might be called by his name. And the very best authorities may be brought in support of this interpretation: "Solet autem res quæ significat ejus rei nomine quam significat noncupari, ut Petra erat Christus (Hæbrais) non signum Christi." (Augin. Lev. Quest. 57). The Hebrews would say the rock was Christ, and not the sign or type of Christ. Nor did the most ancient fathers understand our Saviour's meaning as Dr. Pusey understands it, when they called this the antitype of his body-the

type of a great mystery and the figure of his body-and a symbol called by the name of his body-and expressions of this import.

Τῶν μεγάλων μυςηρίων αητιτυπον; Nazianzen. Ουκ αρτο και οινε κελεύονται γευσασθαν αλλα αντιτυπε το σωματος, και αιματος το χρις. (Cyril. Mist).

"Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei." (Tertull. on Marc.)

Τω μεν σώματι τοτε, συμβόλω τεθεικαν όνομα. Videlicit, Ego sum Panis Vitæ. Tu će ovuẞоXW TO те оwμатos: Hoc est corpus meum, Theod. Dial, cap. 8. (See Comber on "The Prayer of the Consecration").

"It was long before (says Comber) that Rome itself did determine this doctrine of Christ's flesh and blood being in the sacraments;" that is, not much above four hundred years ago. Nor was it only opposed by Berengarius, but the master of the sentences affirmed that it was only a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice. It may be presumed that Christ meant, when he said "Take, eat; this is my body-that as the lamb in the passover represented the body of Christ hereafter to be sacrificed, so, for the future, the bread and wine should represent it. The old and new ceremonies were both representations; therefore the bread is his body, in the same sense that the paschal lamb was his body; and there is no other change in the bread than in the paschal lamb, which is none at all, and the words relating to the blood must follow the same sense.

I shall finish this article with Dean Comber's remarks on it. To this we may finally annex many cogent reasons why this transubstantiation is not to be believed, viz. :-It is needless for us to expect to eat the natural flesh of Christ here, where we come to seek a spiritual union with him by faith, and an interest in his death, to which the eating flesh would nothing conduce. Again, it is contrary to the nature of a sacrament, where the visible part must remain (as the water in baptism doth), to be a foundation for the inward and spiritual grace. And, further, since the heavens must contain Christ's body to the end of the world, it is impossible it should be but one, and yet many in many places at once; always whole, yet often broken-received entire by every person, and then at the right hand of God-existing before, yet created by the priest. We must deny our reason, as well as our senses, if we can believe so great and absurd contradictions. Nor is it imaginable, if this were the intent of our Lord's words, how he, who was then alive and sitting at the table, could break and give himself to be eaten, and yet remain entire; and, finally, since we see, and feel, and taste it to be only bread and wine, as to the substance, still-unless we condemn this great foundation of all our notions and of our faith also, we must not give credit to so strange and monstrous a conceit. Yet still we do believe that every duly disposed communicant doth receive really the body and blood of Christ, in and by these elements; but it is by faith, and not by sense. It was necessary to carry on the chain of types or substitution, which were always known in the Church patriarchal Jewish and Christian, the Lamb slain from the foundation

of the world; and though the sacrifice of the lamb was instituted at the passover to bring to remembrance the salvation of the primogeniture of Israel at the Exodus, yet the sacrifice of the lamb, as a type of the body of our Saviour, had been a patriarchal custom even from the fall. The sacrifice of the real Paschal Lamb may be said to have begun from the time our Saviour took bread, and Judas left him to betray him, until our Saviour's crucifixion. Christ considered himself as entering upon the paschal ceremony from the time he spake the sacramental words: and, therefore, speaking of the passover, the sacrifice of himself, he spake in the present time, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you." Till his crucifixion, it was all one passover, one continued act, in which his body, as the paschal lamb, should absorb and annihilate the ancient modes, and the bread broken was to be the new substitute or representative; and that he meant his dead body, and not his living one, is clear from his breaking the bread, and also saying, "This is my body, which is broken for you," as the paschal lamb has been broken and eaten. When Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me," he meant us to remember his death, not his life; for this the paschal lamb was killed, and this act is the one thing needful for man. Of what use is Christ's life to us? The life is not our ransom. When Christ, therefore, says, "This is my body,' he means his dead body, the body sacrificed: he himself says, "his broken body," the dead lamb of the passover.

But the dead body of Christ is a state that now can nowhere be found. It never did exist but for a few hours, and this is the body and the state the apostles, and we after them, are to call to remembrance; and we are to call them to remembrance by representation, as the Israelites were commanded to anticipate the benefit by representation. And it would not be a less absurdity to teach that the real body of Christ was in the paschal lamb before his incarnation, than after it, or that it is in any way present in the sacramental bread. Miracles are performed for some useful purpose; but in this case a mystery is created that misleads and draws men's attention from the real object, which is the dead body of Christ. A more useless, as well as a more complete absurdity cannot be conceived, than that when you bring to remembrance the dead body

a state that does not exist, and never can again exist—you should believe the living and the real body to be present in the communion, in any mode whatever-that the reason and common sense of men should be shocked, and required to believe that the sacramental bread and wine are at the same time in their natural substances, and yet truly and spiritually, and in an ineffable way, Christ's body and blood-that is, his corpse and his spilt blood. Supposing it possible, for the argument's sake, that Christ's living body and blood should be present in the elements, for what purpose, useful to man, could they be there? It was the dead body that was useful to us and our salvation. It was the lamb slain, and the body broken, that made the passover. It was the dead body of Christ that was to be remembered. Dr. Pusey creates a mystery that must