"The words themselves distinguish between the ends and the means": Jelf's Bampton lectures on 'sign' and 'thing signified' in the Supper

In the sixth of his 1844 Bampton Lectures, An inquiry into the means of grace, their mutual connection, and combined use, with especial reference to the Church of England, Jelf - one of those whom Nockles lists as the 'Zs', the post-1833 continuation of the Old High tradition - addresses Eucharistic doctrine. He points to the Apostle's words in I Corinthians 10:16-17, quoted in Article 28, to expound an Augustinian and high Reformed (cf. Calvin, "the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs") understanding of the relationship between 'sign' and 'thing signified' in the Lord's Supper. Explicitly rooting his argument in the Articles of Religion, Jelf here gives expression to pre-1833 Old High eucharistic teaching.

The words themselves distinguish between the end and the means; the end invisible, the means visible and outward; the end, divine, even the communion of the Body of Him "by whom all things were made"; the means, God's creatures of bread and wine. "The bread" is called "the communion of the Body of Christ"; "the cup of blessing" is called "the communion of the Blood of Christ"; that is, they are the means of communicating His Body and Blood to us. That which by God's appointment imparts the grace, therefore, is the bread and the cup respectively; the bread consecrated, as intimated in the clause, "which we break"; the cup consecrated, because it is "the cup of blessing which we bless". So then the consecrated elements are the means whereby are imparted and received the Body and Blood of Christ; and, consequently, Consecration is, in the view of the Apostle, in order to participation, nor may these two be disjoined. The text cannot mean less than this, neither can it mean more; it cannot mean, that the consecrated bread is the very natural Body, or the consecrated cup the Blood; because, if so, then that meaning might be substituted in the terms of the sentence: but, if we attempt this, the result is the following proposition, which is inconsistent with all sound reasoning; "the Body of Christ is the communion of His Body, the Blood of Christ the communion of His Blood"; in other words, the end would be a means to itself.

... the bread and wine are signs of a hidden mystery; that they remain signs up to the moment of reception; not the grace itself, which she defines to be the Body and Blood truly received, but signs of the grace, symbolical representatives of Christ's crucified Body, and Blood shed: yet not signs only, but means also, "effectual signs of grace and of God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him": "so that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ".