course of academical study,. the sermon upon which we have to comment which, if not everything we could desire, bears about with it ample evidence of the steady attachment of its writer to the good old ways of the Church--triumphantly shows that, notwithstanding the almost hopeless circumstances of the case, there are, amongst the younger members of the profession bred at Oriel, some bright instances of exception to the almost universal declension of that body from the righteous paths of our Reformers. Alas-must we speak the truth ?— throughout the university instances of this description are too much needed. May they increase, to the restoration of peace to the Church and confidence to the clergy-such as, before the movements of the parties alluded to, they always enjoyed, but which, for some time past, has been denied them. Who have a just abhorrence of Popery, in the exact proportion as they feared that the ministers of the Church were drawing nearer to it, and seceding from the principles which are avowed in the formularies of the Church, but which they could not look upon, in the midst of the turmoil excited, as anything but her ostensible rules! May they increase daily in the particular society of which mention has been made, to the consolation of its pious and amiable provost, to whom, if to any under heaven, must be given praise that there are exceptions such as that we now bring under the notice of our readers.

The text which has been chosen by the author of the sermon before us is taken from 1 Cor. x. 16, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" After some introductory observations upon the argument pursued by the apostle in the chapter from which his text is taken, the author proceeds to ask those whom he was addressing, whether such as were often in vain invited to present themselves at the Lord's table could be sensible of the true nature of the holy Sacrament; whether they could be aware that it was a life-giving ordinance the appointed channel through which the highest spiritual blessings are conveyed to Christ's Church on earth; whether they puld believe that it was the very communion of the body and blood of Christ, which the words of the text implied? (p. 6). Shortly afterwards he proposes to examine more closely into the real nature of the precious ordinance of the supper; and, in the course of this examination, he takes occasion to observe (p. 7) that Christ is, in some manner, peculiarly present to the faithful communicant in the Lord's supper; and goes on to say in what manner we are said to be partakers of his body and blood, with a view, not

only to satisfy the mind upon a matter so important to our. soul's health, but to avoid any false conception of the doctrine, which he looks upon as more to be lamented than complete ignorance of or indifference with regard to it. Alluding briefly to the endeavour upon the part of the Romish Church to regain the ascendancy she once held in this kingdom, the author proceeds to contrast the teaching of the Church of Rome with. that of our own Church upon the subject; and this, with some observations drawn from Hooker's "Ecclesiastical Polity," occupies the remaining portion of the sermon. As in the statement of this contrast the writer's own opinion is conveyed, we shall now beg the attention of our readers to it; and afterwards offer such remarks as seem to grow out of the subject, farther illustrating the value of the statement, by a comparison of it with those of others more advanced in age as well as of higher standing amongst the clergy, which have appeared at no very distant period, and have probably given rise to this publication.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome "that in the sacrament there is really present the actual body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a change of the whole substance of bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood," is declared, in the statement now offered, to be alike contrary to Scripture and common sense to the latter, in that we see and taste that the bread and wine after consecration, and when we actually receive them, still continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration whatever; in that our Lord could not have taken his own body and blood into his own hands, and delivered, them to his apostles; and in the fact that no surprise or reluctance was expressed by them on our Lord's asking them to partake of his blood-if it really were his blood-when they were forbidden to taste of blood by the law of Moses; of which law, up to that moment, they had been strict observers to the former, in that our Lord speaks of his body being broken and his blood shed, though as yet this had not been the case, from which he infers that it was spoken figuratively of that which was to happen; and in that it was inconsistent with those expressions of St. Paul, which, speaking of persons partaking in this sacrament, say that "they are all partakers of that one bread," and that "as often as they eat of that bread they do show the Lord's death till he come, which manifestly exclude the idea that he looked upon the bread as having been changed into flesh previously to its being partaken of by the communicant (pp. 8, 9).

After contrasting with the doctrine thus repudiated the declaration of our Church, that the Romish doctrine of the

change of the substance of the bread and wine is opposed to the plain words of Scripture, and her condemnation of the superstitions that arise out of it, in the adoration of the bread when consecrated, in the same manner as Christ himself should be worshipped together with the doctrine, that in the consecration of the elements by the priest, a sacrifice is offered for sins-the author proceeds, quoting the declaration at the end of the communion service to the effect that the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and that Christ's natural body and blood are in heaven, and not hereto the main point of his sermon, the examination into the manner of the presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. Although we have thought it sufficient to give an analysis of the former part of his sermon, we do not consider that we should be right, in a point of so much importanre, to present our readers with a mere analysis of this: the author, therefore, will here speak for himself:

"So far then, my brethren, we have considered the unscriptural teaching of the Church of Rome; and, at the same time, the declarations of our own Church, in which she condemns this teaching. Let us now briefly gather from our admirable liturgy the true scriptural sense which she attaches to our receiving the holy sacrament. And, first, if we turn to the communion service, we there pray in the consecration prayer that receiving the creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers (it does not say eaters, but partakers) of the blessed body and blood of Christ; and in other parts of the service, when eating is spoken of, it plainly applies to spiritual eating and drinking. Thus, in another prayer, after the sacrament has been administered, we pray, Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the precious body and blood. of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us, thereby, of thy favour and goodness towards us, and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people. Again, in her catechism, she teaches that the inward part of thing signified is the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received (it does not say eaten, but that they are taken and received) by the faithful in the Lord's supper.' "While, in the twenty-eighth Article, to which we have already referred, she maintains that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, after a spiritual and heavenly manner; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten is faith.' So that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the sacrament, 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."

"From these words, and those expressions already mentioned in her communion service and catechism, we cannot but learn, it is the design of our Church to teach us that Christ is, in some especial manner,

VOL. XVIII.-D

present in the holy sacrament, to every sincere partaker of it. In short, that she fully allows the saying of our blessed Lord-Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of this; this is my blood-to have some further meaning than a command merely to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of his death and passion.

"This remembrance is one part of the design of our Lord's institution, but it is not all. She therefore affirms that, in the blessed ordinance, the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received; and our souls thereby, in some mysterious manner, strengthened and refreshed.' She warns us, indeed, against the proud pretensions of the Church of Rome; but does not herself shun to declare unto us all the counsel of God; and calls upon us to believe in those holy mysteries which his written word may contain." (pp. 10-12).

This statement, so far as it goes, will have been seen to be a fair representation of the doctrine of the Church of England with regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and, as in opposition to the doctrines not long since promulgated at Oxford, much to be commended in one, who, as we have already observed, has been beset on all sides by-the peculiar teaching of the parties alluded to. We could, however, have wished that somewhat more of the language of our Church had been quoted, to show how truly she excludes the doctrines that have been brought forward in that University, and that the force with which these doctrines are excluded by the portions quoted had been more fully set forth. To us it appears impossible to quote the consecration prayer of our communion service without, at the same time, perceiving the force of the exclusion of the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whether that presence be accounted for by the doctrine of transubstantiation or consubstantiation; for to pray that they who receive God's creatures of bread and wine may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood, involves the refutation of both these hypotheses. For, if the sacramental elements were changed or transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ-or if the body and blood of Christ were, in some manner, consubstantiated with them-it would be an absurdity to pray that we might be partakers of that body and blood, seeing that, on the hypothesis, that the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of Christ, we should partake thereof, and not of the bread and wine, on the reception of that which would be given us by the priest; and, on the hypothesis that the body and blood of Christ were necessarily joined to the elements, we should necessarily receive that body and blood upon receiving the consecrated elements, and so the prayer would become absurd. For to pray for a thing presupposes that we may not have that which we pray for; and yet these

hypotheses suppose that that which we pray for is already ours, either mediately or immediately, and irrespectively of the prayer put up. Nor can it be alleged, in answer to this, that the language quoted is used by the priest merely in consecration of the elements, and therefore that they must be regarded as bread and wine, inasmuch as at present the consecration is not complete. For it is a prayer, not that the bread and wine may become the body and blood of Christ, or that that body and blood may be joined to them before the elements be offered to the communicants, but a prayer that the communicants may par take in Christ's most blessed body and blood upon receiving the elements, which are not so much as offered them until after consecration: it is a prayer for the recipient and not the priest, but as a recipient together with the rest of the congregation, and bears no reference whatever to any change of the elements in his hands. This we should desire to have seen urged, when the passage we have alluded to was quoted by the author. So also with regard to another passage cited by the author, more we think might have been said with advantage to his argument. If the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten be faith, it being plain that some who communicate may not have faith, and therefore receive not the body of Christ, how shall it be present in or with the bread given? And this might have been more fully urged by a reference to the twenty-ninth Article, which says of the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Austin saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing."

And not only should we have more highly appreciated the production before us, had the force of the passages alluded to been pointed out; but there are others which we think might have been cited with much profit, as being extremely pertinent to the text chosen by the author. St. Paul speaks of the cup of blessing, blessed by the ministers of the Gospel, as the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread broken by them as the communion of his body. In the passage quoted from Hooker, which winds up our author's discourse, the following question occurs-"My body, the communion of my body;' my blood, the communion of my blood.' Is there anything more expedite, clear, and easy, than that, as Christ is termed our life, because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood, because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood en