vol. iii. pp. 130, 1. This is not the language of one who felt Cosin's book to be " an alarming fact."

And thirdly, let me allude to two statements in Mr. Froude's Volumes, on which you dwell, to the effect that our present Communion Service is "a judgment on the Church," and that there would be gain in " replacing it by a good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter." The state of the case is this; the original Eucharistic form is with good reason assigned to the Apostles and Evangelists themselves. It exists to this day under four different rites, which seem to have come from four different Apostles and Evangelists. These rites differ in some points, agree in others; among the points in which they agree, are of course those in which the Essence of the Sacrament consists. At the time of the Reformation we in common with all the West possessed the rite of the Roman Church, or St. Peter's Liturgy. This formulary is also called the Canon of the Mass, and except a very few words, appears, even as now used in the Roman Church, to be free from interpolation, and thus is distinguished from the Ordinary of the Mass, which is the additional and corrupt service prefixed to it, and peculiar to Rome. This sacred and most precious monument, then, of the Apostles, our Reformers received whole and entire from their predecessors; and they mutilated the tradition of 1500 years. was it for us that they did not discard it, that

Well

they did not touch any vital part; for through

God's good providence, though they broke it up and cut away portions, they did not touch life; and thus we have it at this day, a violently treated, but a holy and dear possession, more dear perhaps and precious than if it were in its full vigour and beauty, as sickness or infirmity endears to us our friends and relatives. Now the first feeling which comes upon an ardent mind, on mastering these facts, is one of indignation and impatient sorrow; the second, is the more becoming thought, that as he deserves nothing at all at God's hand, and is blessed with Christian privileges only at His mere bounty, it is nothing strange that he does not enjoy every privilege which was given through the Apostles; and his third, that we are mysteriously bound up with our forefathers and bear their sin, or in other words, that our present condition is a judgment on us for what they did. These, I conceive, to be the feelings which dictated the sentences in question; the earlier is more ardent, the latter is more subdued. The one says, "For a long time he looked on me as a mere sophister, but conciliated his affections with Palmer's chapter on the Primitive Liturgies; and I verily believe he would now gladly consent to see our Communion Service replaced by a good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter, a name which I advise you to substitute in your notes to for the obnoxious phrase Mass Book."" vol. i. p. 287. Lest any misconception of the

Author's meaning should arise from the use of the word "replaced," I would observe, that such "replacing" would not remove one prayer, one portion of our present Service; it would consist but of addition and re-arrangement, of a return to the original Canon. The substance of this explanation is contained in the second volume of the Remains, (Essay on Liturgies ",) a reference to which would supersede it. The other passage runs as follows:

By the bye, the more I think over that view of yours about regarding our present Communion Service, &c. as a judgment on the Church, and taking it as crumbs from the Apostles' table, the more I am struck with its fitness to be dwelt upon as tending to check the intrusion of irreverent thoughts without in any way interfering with one's just indignation. If I were a Roman Catholic Priest, I should look on the administration of the Communion in one kind in the same light." vol. i. p. 410. You see, he thought that nothing would be gained by going to Rome, unsatisfactory as might be our present case. Nay that he was not even in favour of changes in our own Services, to meet the defect, appears from the following passage in his Tract on the Daily Service: "This, it will be said, is an argument, not so much for retaining the present form of the Prayer Book, as for reverting to what is older. In my own mind, it is an argument for something different from either, for

m Vid. also the Introduction of Tracts, No. 81.

diffidence. I very much doubt whether in these days the spirit of true devotion is at all understood, and whether an attempt either to go forward or backward, may not lead our innovations to the same result. 'If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into the ditch?'" vol. ii. p. 382.

And now at length let me proceed to the doctrine itself to which these remarks relate, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Here I could have much wished that you had, at least in your Notes, drawn out that view of it which you consider to be Scriptural and Anglican. It would have been a great satisfaction to know where I am standing, how far I can assent, how far I am obliged to dissent from your opinion. But, excepting from one or two half sentences, I really can gather nothing to the purpose; I only see you do not hold, but rather condemn, a view which Bp. Cosin declares to be that of all "the Protestant" or "Reformed Churches." To this difficulty I must submit as I can; and instead of letting the course of my remarks run along your pages, shall be obliged against my will to take a more prominent part in the discussion.

As regards then this most solemn subject, three questions offer themselves for consideration; first, whether there is a Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Sacrament, next what It is, and thirdly where. On the first of these I shall not use many words, because on the one hand the Real Presence is expressly recognized by the Catechism and Homilies,

D

(not to mention the language of the Service itself,) and on the other because you do not absolutely condemn such language, only you think it "highly objectionable and dangerous" when " systematically and studiously adopted." I shall not therefore debate a point which the formularies of our Church decide, when they declare that "the Body and Blood of Christ" are "verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;" that "the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper;" and that thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent, but, as the Scripture saith, ... the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost, the very bond of our conjunction with Christ, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality"." These passages seem to determine that the Body and Blood of Christ are not absent but present in the Lord's Supper; and if Christ's Body be there, His Soul is there, and His Divine Nature; He is there whole and entire. Nor does any one doubt this of His Presence as God, for He is every where; but the question is, whether His human nature also is present in the Sacrament.

n Sermon of the Sacrament, part I.