inquiry discloses the substance of one of the most important controversies which can occupy the mind of man.

"The Reformers at this point became divided into two separate camps; but each of these parties carried along with it a portion of the truth. Luther, with his partizans, resolved to oppose the views of an exaggerated spiritualism; and Carlstadt, with the reformed party, attacked the projects of an odious materialism. Carlstadt saw

nothing better fitted to spiritualize this ceremony anew than to deny altogether the presence of the body of Christ; and he asserted that the holy feast was simply, in the case of the faithful, a pledge of their redemption. With respect to Luther, he adopted a persuasion completely opposite. He rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, but he adopted that of consubstantiation; he denied that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of Christ, but he considered that the body and blood of the Lord are present in the elements of the Holy Supper.

If the two extremes in the matter of the Holy Supper be transubstantiation and pure idealism, and if the human mind be prone to extremes, it is not to be wondered at that there should be, on subjects of religion, even when they are most clearly defined, differences of opinion.

In the Church of England, in whose Articles great care seems to have been taken to express with precision the views they set forth, there are yet different opinions on many points, one of which is that of the Eucharist. The High and Low Church parties understand the subject differently, and among them are several shades of opinion.

But the different views of the Church have of late years been brought out more distinctly and fully by the Oxford movement; and the general difference came into ultimate conflict in the case of Archdeacon Denison. The Archdeacon maintained the real presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the bread and wine of the Holy Communion; and, as a consequence, the actual reception of the Lord's body and blood by every communicant, whether worthy or unworthy. To express his views in his own words: "There is a real presence, not material, or, as it said, 'corporeal,' but immaterial and spiritual, of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. And the body and blood of Christ being really present in the consecrated bread and wine, after an immaterial and spiritual manner—a manner which, as Holy Scripture has not explained, the Church has

not defined, are given therein, and thereby to all, and are received by all who come to the Lord's table."

This has been pronounced directly contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th Articles of religion mentioned in the statutes of the thirteenth of Elizabeth.

It is not our intention to enter further into this controversy than may be necessary to assist us to ascertain the truth upon the subject. There may be truth, but we think there is also error, on both sides. There are certain truths respecting the body and blood of the Lord, and the means and manner of their reception by men, which require to be known and admitted before any just or reasonable view of the Eucharist can be possessed.

It is the doctrine of the Church of England, as expressed in the Communion Service, that "the natural body and blood of our Saviour are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." If this were the case, it would indeed be impossible for the Lord's body and blood to be present in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper. Archdeacon Denison asserted that these elements of the Lord's body are present in those of the Eucharist after a spiritual and immaterial manner, which would imply a merely figurative presence after all, unless the Lord's body be itself immaterial and spiritual, which he does not seem to have held. But even if there were a real presence of the Lord's body and blood in the bread and wine of the Sacrament, we do not see how the consequences, either good or evil, which are ascribed to the reception of the Supper can be supposed to take place. The bread and wine of the Sacrament are only received into the body of communicants; and even although the body and blood of the Saviour could be received together with the bread and wine, their physical reception could do nothing of itself either to nourish or destroy the soul to save or condemn it. Only that which is received by the soul can effect a change in the soul. And it is because the Lord's body and blood are immaterial that they cannot be eaten and drunk by the material body of man, but may be received by his spirit, which is to eat and drink them spiritually. The virtue of the holy Sacrament consists in its presenting nourishment for the soul as truly as for the body. If, as Daubine observes, religion, like man himself, is composed of a spirit and a body, every part of religion must possess this duality. The bread and wine are only the body of the Sacrament; the Lord Himself is its spirit. And as the Sacrament has a

body and a spirit, so is it adapted to the body and spirit of man. It presents that which acts upon the body and that which acts upon the spirit. And it so presents them that, while the worthy communicant eats of the bread and drinks of the wine with his body, he eats also of the flesh and drinks of the blood of the Lord with his spirit.

While, therefore, we believe that the presence of the body and blood of the Lord in a real carnal sense is impossible, and even if possible could only be received after a carnal manner as food into the body, we at the same time believe that the Lord is really present in the holy Sacrament with His body and blood. His body and blood being, however, immaterial and spiritual, nay, Divine, cannot be in the bread and wine, so as to be received in a material manner into the material body, but are so really present that they may be as truly received into the soul as the bread and wine are into the body. But this can only be seen by the true scriptural doctrine of the Sacrament, which will form the subject of another article.

EDITOR.

MINOR MORALS.

THERE are degrees in good, as also in evil. All duties are not alike important, all services to the neighbour not equally great, nor are all defects in character or failures in conduct equally deplorable. Some lie in the very centre of the human heart, others at the circumference, and these can therefore be more easily removed. Some are clearly defined by the Ten Commandments; others are matters of spiritual perception and high feeling. It is upon some trifling and minor failings, arising in some instances more from thoughtlessness than from settled purpose, that these words are addressed. Nor is the writer free from the very tendencies he condemns, and whilst desirous of thoroughly clearing them away from himself, he invites the attention of others also to them. For unless the New Churchman's life be more perfect than others, where is his mission? where the proof of any higher truth?

First, about BARGAIN-HUNTING! Is it consistent with a noble standard of life to glory in bargains? Some men and women delight in getting things at half their value; sales by auction, bankrupts' stocks, and all "tremendous-sacrifice" shops, are favourite resorts with them. So great is the passion, that they become unwilling to buy of a

tradesman who asks a price which will enable him to live by his trade. Everything must be "cheap" for them.

Rather, should not a New Churchman wish to avoid such resorts, and feel sorrow instead of gladness if almost obliged to buy at a "ruinous sacrifice" to any one? For the temporary gain he makes thereby is some one's certain loss. This spirit of self-enrichment upon the ruin of others is destructive to the welfare of society, as well as to the personal spiritual life of him who permits it to reign in his heart. A practical willingness and desire to give full value and a profit to the vendor for all we buy is the spirit of true religion.

Do not quote the maxim, "Buy in the cheapest market," for an unqualified adherence to it is nothing less than infernal, justifying the purchaser of stolen goods. The qualification that a New Churchman should add to it is, "consistently with honesty all round and mutual benefit;" then, if you like, buy in the cheapest market. More is required of us in matters of morality than of others. We have to go beyond the letter of the law, "which killeth," and act on the "spirit which giveth life.”

Another matter for remark is the RUSHING FOR FIRST TURN, BEST SEATS, FIRST CHOICE, in all public things where common rights exist; the best seat in a railway carriage, the first turn at refreshments, etc. etc. An undue anxiety for self unconsciously produces conduct which is not lovely to behold! Would not a high morality always prefer to see the weaker, the poorer, the less favoured, beforehand of one's-self in all matters where our own self-indulgence alone is at stake? No one can reasonably object to a person having first choice and best place if it fall to him by gentle, unselfish means. It is of means that are the opposite of these of which we speak, and of which no angel could possibly avail himself. What a wonderful change in society would be visible if such habits were generally discarded! Would not earth be more like heaven, for who can suppose such conduct there? 'Whatsoever, therefore, ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them." This principle, even with second or third or tenth turn or choice, will bring more peace and true comfort than the most successful triumphs of scheming or of force without it!

DUE CONSIDERATION FOR SERVANTS is another weak point. On this topic many essays have been written, some from the standpoint of masters and mistresses, and some from that of servants. Modern society is so far removed from the old-fashioned domestic habits of the middle classes that we must no longer expect the motherly

interest of the mistress in her servant, and the consequent affection and heart-service of the maid, which then adorned the household. Indeed, even a pleasant "good-morning," or, if ailing, an inquiry after health to a servant in one's own family is by many gentlemen thought unnecessary; and the same with "thank you" for services rendered. But what shall we say of those who neglect such courtesies when visiting in the house of a friend? And how about those who will visit for days, and go away without even thanking servants for the extra trouble thrown upon them, and for little attentions which have been received? And yet such obliviousness to minor morals has been known, and has of course been accompanied by forgetting that a little gratuity is usual in all such visits. But thoughtlessness, rather than deliberate omission, is the fault against which these remarks are principally directed. A right feeling, a proper spirit of consideration for servants, would keep our conduct tolerably right in all such details.

Lastly, SMOKING IN WRONG PLACES AND WRONG TIMES is another matter of minor morals needing reform. Grant that I love "the weed," and cannot do without it,-am I justified in using it at any times and in any places where my neighbour, a non-smoker, is obliged to inhale my smoke second-hand? In the streets of a city, on footpaths, standing at a shop window, or in a crowd, anywhere, I have no right to let my gratification become a nuisance to any individual. On the outside of an omnibus the old-fashioned and obsolete question, “Am I annoying you, sir, by smoking?" ought to be revived; for the neighbour cannot move away, if he would, and my pipe may be objectionable to him. Nor should it be used in a non-smoking compartment of a railway carriage, on account of the sickening odour it leaves for non-smokers to endure through our self-indulgence.

Some people assert that a confirmed habit of smoking makes gentlemen selfishly regardless of others' comfort. Is it so, or not? Appearances nowadays go to the affirmative, for we cannot deny that many smokers are exceedingly thoughtless, and less polite in the matter than they should be. As a principle, a high moral consideration for the neighbour would forbid smoking in any circumstances where it may become an offence, a nuisance, unavoidable for the time to any individual whomsoever. No New Churchman will absolve himself on the plea that "everybody does it," because that is no justification whatever, but rather an urgent reason why somebody and everybody should cease to do it. Such popular pleas are never wanting, but they a e