which we shall presently have occasion to consider. He declares that our Prayer Book is to be looked upon as a relic of ancient times, and to be interpreted according to the principles of the Church universal (p. 14), and that the ancient fathers do speak with a common consent of a change, a conversion, a transelementation; and he proceeds to quote such of the writers of the Church of England as seem in any way to support his position. We will not say that his views will necessarily lead him to belief in transubstantiation, for it is plain that he maintains that doctrine already, though he is careful to avoid the use of that word in his essay. Nor do we think we can be charged with unfairness in saying so.

When a man sets out by saying that he thinks the presumption to be drawn from the formularies of the Church is in favour of the view that the Church of England does teach that the sacramental elements are themselves changed into the body and blood of Christ; when he mourns over the unhappy influence of the continental reformers, and laments that they should have prevailed to the signal deterioration of our Church, and takes comfort in the imagined restoration of former doctrines, amongst which that of transubstantiation was the chief; when he refers to the writings of former periods, and from them maintains that it cannot be denied that they speak of a change, a conversion, and a transubstantiation-we cannot be said to be acting unfairly towards him when we identify him with his hypothesis, and declare him to be advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is a doctrine in no wise different from that which he has been illustrating, although it differs in totô from the teaching of the Church; and this, most especially, when we find his doctrine confessed not only not to be developed in the precise structure of our formularies, but not even to appear on their surface, and we remember that the doctrine of the real presence of Christ does appear in our formularies; and the only other doctrine which is short of that of transubstantiation, and at the same time involves the presence of Christ, is that of consubstantiation, which is entirely inconsistent with the hypothesis that "the sacramental elements are themselves changed into the body and blood of Christ," and incompatible with the fond conceit of "conversion and trans-elementation" before maintained.

To this doctrine of transubstantiation we fear no small portion of the junior graduates at Oxford stand committed. To prevent the increase of their numbers, perhaps it would be as well to interpose some observations on the argument pursued by its supporters. To this end we will quote that portion of the argument of Mr. MacMullen which is founded on the language

of the Church, and we do not doubt but that we shall be able to prove that it is altogether untenable.

After stating that, if the Church of England did not imply the doctrine maintained, it did not prohibit the reception of it by its members, the author goes on thus:

"Now, certainly the very order and rite of consecration itself in our Book of Common Prayer is a presumption in favour of the view that the Church of England does teach that the sacramental elements are themselves changed into the body and blood of Christ. It would certainly seem, at least, to lie upon those who deny any change, to explain the meaning and give any adequate account of this rite. That the consecration is appointed to take effect, and that it terminates upon the sacramental elements, and not on the recipients of the saerament, the express directions of the rubric, that the priest, in reciting the words of institution, is to take the paten into his hands, and to break the bread and to lay his hand upon it, and so upon every vessel in which there is wine to be consecrated (directions which were once expunged from our liturgy through the influence of the sacramentarian party, and the restoration of which was vehemently opposed from the same quarter), are a sufficiently plain indication." (pp. 7, 8).

In this passage it is sought to throw upon those who disagree with the author the onus of proof; a difficulty is attempted to be thrown in their way, founded on the practice of the Church at consecration; and they are challenged to explain the meaning, and give an adequate account, of this rite. We allege that the author was bound to have made out his case first, and then to have challenged opposition. But though he has not done so, we shall not take advantage of the omission, but proceed to give the required explanation of that which appears to him to be so anomalous.

The Church of England does NOT command the priest, on reciting the words of institution, to take the paten into his hands, and to break the bread, and to lay his hands upon it, and so upon every vessel in which there is any wine to be consecrated, to show that the consecration is to take effect and to terminate upon the sacramental elements, and not on the recipients of the sacrament; but for the simple reason that OUR LORD COMMANDED THIS TO BE DONE; and any one who reads the prayer of consecration must see this to be the case. For it recounts the history of the institution of the sacrament, and adopts the very words of Christ-DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME; a command which is evidently adduced as an authority for what is done, and to comply with which was plainly the intention of the direction. The writer then proceeds :

"Shall we say, then, that the virtue of the divine benediction of our blessed Lord, who is the primary and true, his ministers only the

secondary and subordinate consecrators, effects nothing? Does not rather the very instinct of piety teach us, in the words of an early father, that whatsoever the Holy Ghost toucheth, that thing is consecrated and changed? And well would it be if they who deny this would consider with themselves whether they are not in fact grounding their opinions, not on the authority of holy Scripture or of the Church, but on the rationalistic principle that the Holy Spirit cannot impart a real sanctity to things inanimate-a principle, let it be observed, inconsistent with a right belief of the mystery of the incarnation. The Church, as the habitation of the quickening Spirit, has no such things as empty and lifeless forms; forms without spirit and life were the worldly elements of the Jewish economy, but no parts are they of the dispensation of grace and truth; and yet, upon the supposition that no change of any kind is wrought upon the clements in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, consecration is little more than an impressive scenical ceremony, calculated at best to give effect and solemnity to the edifying memorial of our Saviour's death. Surely this is a very inadequate and degrading account of this most venerable mystery of the Christian Church." (pp. 8, 9).

Our

The Church of England does NOT perform this rite as a scenical ceremony, to give effect and solemnity to the edifying memorial, but, as we have already said, in obedience to a command of Christ; and the compliance of the Church with this command does not necessarily make the act done, though it be more than such a scenical ceremony, amount to a consecration such as that spoken of by the author; nor is there one word to authorize such a supposition. The supposition. The prayer which accompanies the compliance with the command is not that the elements may become the body and blood of Christ, but that the recipients of the sacrament may partake in that blessed body and blood; and the use of the word consecration in the rubric in no way invalidates this position. For to consecrate a thing does not mean anything else than to set it apart for a holy use. Lord did set apart bread and wine for a particular holy use, and commanded his disciples to do so likewise; and they, in complying with the command, and praying that the act done may be attended by his blessing, set apart the elements to such a use, and no more. But Mr. MacMullen had taken up a dictum of one of the fathers, and therefore invents all the rest to match it, without waiting to see whether the service he is animadverting upon will bear his interpretation; strengthening his position, not by adducing the text of the service of the Church, but by the fulmination of the consequences of infidelity against those who differ with him, as though they could have no right belief of the incarnation of our Lord, which is a doctrine entirely distinct from that under consideration, though it has been confused

with it in a most marvellous manner by his great master and predecessor, Dr. Pusey. Mr. MacMullen then goes on to ob

serve:

"Whatsoever our blessed Lord effected by his blessing the elements at the original institution of this sacrament, that does our Church imply to be effected at each consecration of the elements now; thus she calls the consecration the blessing of the bread and the blessing of the cup. What he made the bread and wine to be was his body and blood; and so each several communicant receives the elements thus consecrated and blessed as the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given, and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for him."" (p. 9).

We will grant that whatsoever our blessed Lord effected by his blessing the elements at the original institution, is, by implication, effected now; but we will not grant that he made those elements his body and blood; neither does the assertion of Mr. MacMullen prove it. It is a mere petitio principii—it is that which he has to prove, and no doubt wishes to prove; but his word is not sufficient for the purpose. Neither is it true that each several communicant receives the elements, thus consecrated and blessed, as the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given, and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed, for him. For, although those words do occur in the presentation of the elements to the communicants, they occur not in the way of DECLARATION, but as a part of a PRAYER, that THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST MAY BE PRODUCTIVE of the blessings alluded to in it, fit enough to be offered by such as have been putting in force their Lord's command, and hope to receive the promise of Christ implied in the institution of the sacrament, but by no means consistent with the idea of a change in the substance of the elements, as we have already proved in the former part of our observations. And not only this: they are told to eat this, namely, the bread-and drink this, namely, the wine-in remembrance of Christ's body being given and his blood shed for them, and to be thankful; and the bread is not given without an express caution that we are to feed upon the body of our Lord by faith, with thanksgiving. The thread of the writer's argument is then pursued in the following fashion :"Now, the history of the successive alterations which have been made in our Book of Common Prayer shows us the importance which was attached to these words. We know that at a time when the unhappy influence of the continental Reformers prevailed, to the signal deterioration of our Church, the words which now only form the conclusion of the address of delivery of the elements to the communicants stood alone. But when God put it into the hearts of our forefathers to seek a return to the old ways they had forsakep, those who were

VOL. XVIII.-E

engaged in the restoration of our liturgical offices recovered, in spite of the most determined opposition, those words which evince the mind of the Church of England to. be, in the words of the Catechism, her instruction for the babes in Christ-that it is in and through the consecrated elements of bread and wine that not any mere gracious influence is poured upon the heart, still less edifying the thoughts suggested to the imagination and memory, and borne in upon the affections, but that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, in the Lord's Supper, which is said to be the inward and spiritual grace of the sacrament itself." (pp. 9, 10).

Mr. MacMullen may mourn over the success of the Reformers, as a true Roman Catholic undoubtedly would; he may rejoice also over the restoration of anything which he may suppose to have been regained by our forefathers, and thank God that he put it into their hearts to attempt the restoration. All this is very well. But he had better be satisfied that they have regained the desired point before he exults, and see what it is he is thanking the Almighty for. The words of the Church No WHERE bear out his assertion that it is "in and through the consecrated elements of bread and wine that not any mere gracious influence is poured upon the heart, still less edifying the thoughts suggested to the imagination and memory, and borne in upon the affections, but the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful, in the Lord's Supper, which is said to be the inward and spiritual grace of the sacrament itself." For although the body and blood of Christ are said to be verily and indeed taken, they are said to be taken by the faithful (to the exclusion, that is, of those who have not faith, as we have before argued) in the Lord's supper-that is, in the process of communicating; but there is not one word about "in and through the consecrated elements" which are necessary to the maintenance of his position; while there is something about what is REQUIRED of those who come to the Lord's Supper, which would be mere surplusage if in and through the elements that body and blood were necessarily given. After this we have the following:

"In accordance with this teaching, the twenty-eighth Article of the Church of England tells us that the body of Christ is not only taken and eaten, but given in the Supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner; and the homily cautions us against holding that, in the Supper of the Lord, there is any vain ceremony, any bare sign, any untrue figure of a thing absent; and, in the advertisement to the second book of homilies, we read of receiving the body and blood of our Saviour Christ under the form of bread and wine. In the consecration prayer the priest prays that, receiving the creatures of bread and wine,