woven, forming one indivisible action without interval.

But the fatal interval, of which we now complain, has arisen from the ever increasing amplifications of the liturgies. It would seem that, as a first step, there came in, after the consecrating benediction, prayers for a right disposition of the heart for reception; then a prayer for the Holy Spirit to come upon the recipients to enable them to receive the Holy Body and Blood; then, in some liturgies, long intercessions were inserted here; and when men had come to speculate upon the nature of the consecrated elements in themselves, as apart from reception, from which the consecration had now been so far separated, there came in views of the outward objective Presence which were unknown to the Early Church; and in much later times there came in the novel practice of making oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, and then at last what our Church terms "the blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit " of offering Christ to His Father.

The remedy for all these errors, the one point to be insisted upon, lies in this, the inseparable unity of consecration and reception. This exactly agrees with the important fact that in Holy Scripture the Eucharist is spoken of exclusively in regard to reception; in every single instance in which it is mentioned-as far as I an aware-the "eating and drinking". that is, the reception, is the only point brought out. Beyond the commemorative remembrance, of which more hereafter, reception is the only aspect of the Holy Communion known to the Apostles and Evangelists. This fulfilled the purpose for which Christ instituted the ordinance, that He might be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament; that we, eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, might have everlasting life. But to what a different purpose have some perverted the Lord's institution They have transmuted it into a device by which they can create to themselves a Presence of Christ, and ensure to themselves an object of worship. To them the Eucharist is a machinery by which they can fix God, compel His Presence, retain Him for perpetual adoration, enclose Him in a tabernacle that He may not escape from them. This is the use of the Eucharist which now is made most prominentan end and object of the institution which I do not hesitate to say is utterly unknown to Holy

Scripture and is wholly of man's invention, being gradually developed by successive additions to the truth, and inserted in that interval between consecration and reception which has no place in Scripture nor in the mind of the ancient Church. And what an unworthy conception is this of the nature and character of God! What a strange mixture of unbelief and superstition! It is unbelief, because Christ has promised His Presence in the Church, where the faithful meet together. There He is in the midst of them, He the Christ, not only as God, for that would have been no promise, no privilege granted to His people, since God is present everywhere; but as God and man, in the inseparable union of His Godhead and Manhood by the power of His Holy Spirit, He is ineffably present, according to His own most true promise among the faithful gathered in His Name. But this Presence is little accounted of or valued by our new school. They think He is not there unless they have fixed Him in the consecrated elements and have created 8 Presence which they can realize with their bodily eyes. In a letter published in the "Church Review," March 3, 1866, Mr. M. W. Blagg, pleading for celebration on Good Friday, says "In every Roman Catholic church the Presence of the Crucified One gives life to the devotions of the people, whereas with us all is cold and dead, and our contemplation of the suffering Saviour seems unable to reach its highest pitch for want of that solemn Presence and that mystic rite wherein Christ our Lord is 'evidently set forth crucified among us."" Which comes to this-" Where the consecrated bread is not, there is not the Presence of Christ," which I say is unbelief. "Where the reserved wafer is, there is the Presence of Christ, giving life to the devotions of the people;" this, I say, is superstition. 1 And

1 Mr. Carter seems to fall into the same error of setting aside the Lord's promise, and attributing the Presence of Christ in His Church to the Sacrament only. For, magnify. ing the Real Presence as the doctrine held by the Church from the beginning, he knows not how to express "the extreme blessedness of what we possess as our spiritual heritage -the Presence of our Lord still in the midst of us to be the centre of our worship, the object of our grateful adoring love brought so close to us, though so secretly veiled from us" ("Doctrine of the Eucharist," 1867, p. 45). According to this view, it is the consecration of the elements that brings Christ into church! Is not the true view rather this, that Christ, according to His most true promise, is present in the congregation of His saints, and that it is the office of the Holy Communion to communicate that Presence to each individual, that Christ may dwell personally in him to the nourishment and saving of his soul?

this strange mixture finds its exercise in all those opinions and practices which come in the interval which man has created between consecration and reception.

All that Christ has said, all that His Apostles have taught and on this foundation alone can our thoughts and statements of this Divine mystery be established--has reference to re. ception and is indissolubly connected with reception, so that no warrant can be obtained for any assertion of His real Presence except after the elements have been given, taken and eaten. Whoever, then, says a word of the nature of the consecrated elements irrespective of reception, says all he says on his own authority, without warrant of Scripture. He who says that on consecration by the priest the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, or that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in, or with, or by the elements, and may so be retained for days or weeks without being received, says that which Scripture has never said, nor given the least warrant for saying. So also, he who says that Christ is "present in the hands" of the receiver, has no warrant of inspiration for his statement: for him the Scripture ought to have been, "This is My Body-take, eat ;" and it is curious to observe that some of the later Liturgies of the East have so transposed the words. 1

The true Ancient Liturgies afford us most important evidence of the primitive view of the Church on the Holy Communion. Dr. Neale calls them "these most pure sources of Eucharistical doctrine." The sources would have been far more pure, had they not been mingled with continual additions and interpolations of human invention. For the liturgies, we must remember, were not regarded as the Scriptures were as sacred deposits admitting of no change; but they were the ever-expanding expression of the ever-advancing speculations of the human mind upon this mysterious subject, the Bishops possessing authority to revise and alter from time to time the liturgy of their churches. Hence we have no primitive liturgy in its pure original form : every one has subsequent insertions and alterations of various periods; and the study of these important documents brings to light the restless activity of human speculation, by which the doctrine of the Eucharist has been drawn gradually, from

Syro-Jacobite Liturgies of James Baradæus and 8. John the Evangelist (heretical).

its original simplicity and mystery, into an elaborate system of carefully defined relations and circumstances. The chief help towards discovering the original form of Eucharistic doctrine, is furnished by the test of universality; and, according to this evidence, the points brought out prominently in all the liturgies are -the oblation of the elements as bread and wine, the recital of the words of institution, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and reception.

It is the prayer of Invocation that throws the most important light upon the question now before us. "Originally, there is no doubt," says Dr. Neale, "that the invocation of the Holy Ghost formed a part of all liturgies." There is only one known liturgy, out of more than sixty extant, in which it cannot be found or traced-that of Rome.1 Its place was uniformly after the commemoration of institution, and before (originally immediately before) reception. The prayer was this,-" We beseech Thee, O God, send down upon us and upon these holy gifts that lie before Thee,-or these loaves and these cups (Lit. S. Mark),— Thy Holy Spirit, that He may sanctify them and may make this bread the Holy Body of Thy Christ, and this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ, that they may become to all of us that partake of them, unto faith, healing, remission of sins," &c. Here we observe that the benediction or sanctification of the bread and wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ is expressly declared to be for the end and purpose of reception-"Make them so, in order that they may become to all of us who partake of them," &c. This is here exclusively the object of consecration, exactly in accordance with the whole tenor of Holy Scripture. There was at that time no idea in the mind of the Church of any special Presence of Christ being thereby brought about; no oblation of Christ to the Father followed on this supposed Presence; no adoration was offered to Christ in the Sacrament, still less-if that may be to the sacramental elements as veiling the Presence of Christ; Christ was not spoken of or spoken to as present in them : a prayer for worthy reception was addressed to God the Father, the Lord's Prayer was said, and reception followed. This was the Primitive Faith. It concerned itself not at all with any Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ for

This is the opinion of Dr. Neale, who says that the Roman rite has entirely lo-t it: but I believe it can be traced there also. See below, p. 61.

any purpose except for reception by the faithful. All the errors which trouble us now about the oblation of Christ's Body and Blood, about adoration, prostration, real objective Presence on the altar or in the hands, were all later imaginations -inventions of the mind of man. And it is to be further much observed, that the Church originally considered that the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood was not so absolutely attached to the reception of the consecrated elements, but that it still depended upon the right disposition of the recipient; for in the very ancient Liturgy of S. Mark-probably the most ancient of all-there is still found a prayer after reception in these words :-"We thank Thee, O Lord God, for the reception of these Thy holy and heavenly mysteries; and we pray Thee grant to us the participation of the Holy Body and Blood of Thy Christ, unto faith, love, holiness," &c.: xáρiσai nμïv TÙY κοινωνίαν τοῦ ἁγίου σώματος-εἰς πίστιν. These important words Dr. Neale translates incorrectly, thus: "Grant that the participation of the Holy Body, &c., may be to faith;" which gives a very different meaning. This would have been a prayer that the participation of Christ's Body which had taken place, might be to faith, love, &c. Whereas the prayer of S. Mark is, that, the reception of the elements having taken place, there may ensue by grace a participation of Christ's Body and Blood to faith, love, &c. This last is exactly the one prayer of our English consecration form-" Grant that we, receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, may be partakers of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood." But it would seem that the doctrine here implied, that reception of the elements might, for lack of grace, be without participation of Christ, was afterwards felt to be at variance with the growing doctrine of absolute indefectible Presence; so, in the later Liturgy of S. Basil we find this same postreception prayer of S. Mark's, but the words χάρισαι ἡμῖν are changed into δὸς γενέσθαι ἡμῖν -words much more capable of that sense which Dr. Neale puts upon the very different words of S. Mark; though even these do not necessarily convey that sense, or exclude the earlier view, but are at least capable of either interpretation, which the former words are not.

It appears then, both from the invocation and from this post-reception prayer, that the Primitive Church limited her thoughts of the Real Presence to the act of Reception; she was

66

content to know, as the Lord had taught her, that that Body was given for the true Bread, that men might eat thereof and not die. But before long, men must needs speculate as to the manner and means of that Divine Presence. Not content with believing the Real Objective Presence presented to the soul on faithful reception, they imagined that the Presence was absolute in the elements. Then they devised the term "changed" as applying to the elements; and so we find in S, Basil's liturgy for the first time these words, "changing them by thy Holy Spirit," interpolated into the middle of the ancient prayer of invocation, and so roughly interpolated that they actually violate the grammatical structure of the sentence. The liturgy of S. Chrysostom, modified from that of S. Basil, retained this interpolation, but reconstructed the prayer and made it grammatical. Then men went on further, to speculate as to the exact moment at which this mighty change was effected ;-and here they providentially fell out and disagreed, and this has always been, as Dr. Neale says, a point of contention between the two Churches." The Eastern Church maintains that the change is effected by the prayer of invocation. The Russian Catechism, as quoted by him (Trans. Lit., p. 23), says, "Why is the invocation so essential? Because, at the moment of this act, the bread and wine are changed." The Roman Church, singly and alone, asserts that the change takes place at the moment of reciting the words of institution, "This is My Body." Either decision excommunicates half the Christian world. But both are human speculations, and happily the Church of England has tied herself to neither, for she has said nothing of any change at all being effected. The Roman principle plainly must be wrong. For if the words, "This is My Body," effect the change, then our Lord "transmuted" the element after He had given it to His disciples,-a view fatal to their theory of an outward objective Presence, -and then their "transmuting" the element before giving it, is not to "do this" as the Lord did it. If these are "the words that make the Sacrament," then our Lord did not give the

1 Carter, "Doctrine of the Eucharist," p. 12-a pamphlet full of rash assertions and unwarranted interpretations. I have marked many such passages, but can only notice a few, To maintain his theory, that the wicked receive the Real Presence, in spite of Ar icle XXIX., Mr. Carter asserts (p. 25) that partaking" means "a beneficial reception"-which is not true; and besides, the Article says expressly, "in no wise

Sacrament to His disciples, but gave them the element, and "made the Sacrament" after they had taken and consumed. Again, the later Eastern Church's attempt to fix the moment of change, is at variance with its own primitive form of invocation; for that prayed that the Holy Ghost might be sent upon the people and the elements (" upon us and upon these gifts") to sanctify them, in order that to the receivers of the gifts they might be made the means of grace, faith, love, salvation-a prayer which recognized the relation between the sanctified receiver and the sanctified elements as requisite to produce the Real Objective Presence. No moment, then, can be fixed, other than that moment fixed by our Lord, the moment of reception and consumption.

And the Bishop of Salisbury is certainly mistaken when he says (p. 73), "these very same words of our Lord, by which you consecrate the elements, have been employed by the Church from the very first as the words of consecration." This is the later Roman dogma, but not the primitive Catholic opinion for no Church at first used the words of institution as exclusively the formula of consecration, nor was consecration held to be effected by the use of those words alone. Every Church consecrated by the invocation-even Rome herself did so at first,2 so that if any words are to be called the words of consecration, they are those of the prayer of invocation or benediction, and these were never fixed, but varied in different Churches, though bearing a close general resemblance.

The conclusion, then, to which we are brought is this, that the objective Presence of the Body

and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament has scriptural authority only when considered in the act of reception in the person of the receiver. If any deny this, let him bring one place of

are they partakers of Christ," and the heading of the Article speaks "of the wicked that eat not the Body of Christ." Again (p. 34), he perverts the words of our Church, "So is the danger great if we receive the same unworthily," by inserting the gloss, "i.e. the same Body and Blood of Christ;" whereas, in our Prayer Book, on the contrary, the words "the same" replace the words "that Holy Sacrament," which makes all the difference in the world to the argument. Again (p. 20), he asserts that "the supernatural Presence is the reason why our Prayer Book teaches us to receive the Blessed Sacrament kneeling," which by her own declaration is not true; and on p. 21, that the remaining elements are to be consumed reverently, "i.e. kneeling," which is a gratuitous and incorrect gloss.

2 See Subsequent Section on Commemorative Sacrifice.

Scripture which speaks of the Presence except in reception only. Further, we have seen that Primitive Antiquity supports the same view, conceiving of the Presence only in reception, and the Church of England holds no other doctrine. The passages quoted from the Homilies by the Bishop of Salisbury to show that our Church maintains the Real Presence, are indeed most explicit in asserting the Real Presence, but equally explicit in attributing that Presence exclusively to reception," the due receiving of Christ's blessed Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine," "receiving our Saviour and Maker in His blessed Sacrament." "Thou hast received His Body," &c.1 We know not by what process the soul draws nourishment from the Sacrament taken by a corporal act and But we hold, on the warrant of Christ's words, that when by reception the soul comes into meet relation with the consecrated elements, there is presented to the soul a real objective Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, which, being assimilated and absorbed by the subjective faith of the receiver, becomes the nourishment and life of his spiritual being.

physically consumed.

This fulfils all the words of Scripture on this great subject. This carries out the whole end and purpose of the institution-thus does Christ "give us his flesh to eat." Here all the words of that great sacramental discourse in the 6th chapter of S. John find their application. No word of Scripture states more than this, and no word of our Church's eucharistic teaching. Here is a true Real Presence, objective, but not that both senses of the word without, which has outward objective Presence "without us," in given rise to all the errors and superstitions which have gathered round this subject-but an objectivity presented to the soul in the act of reception, through the elements received, in exact accordance with the Master's words, "Take, eat, this is My Body." But the Presence is in a mystery-in secret, concealed from sight by the Divine provision of reception, left to faith and the ineffable working of God's Spirit. We may not hold the absolutely subjective view which evacuates the Sacrament of all spiritual grace, nor the absolutely objective view, unauthorized as it is by Scripture and fruitful of such evil consequences; but we should hold the concurrence of the objective and subjective-God's ordinance and our faith-which 1 Charge, App., p. 148.

meet only in reception, and then in a mystery of which the manner is secret and ineffable. And so the ancient Church prayed, and the whole Eastern Church stills prays, "Send upon us and upon these gifts Thy Holy Spirit to sanctify them and to make them the Holy Body and Blood of Thy Christ, in order that to all who partake of them they may be unto remission of sins and everlasting life." Why "on us," except because of this concurrence between the objective and the subjective, between the gifts received and the faithful receiver?

This argument for the Real Presence only within the recipient is greatly strengthened by the consideration that only on reception do the Body and Blood of the Lord concur and meet together. Till then, the elements are divided. If you transfer the Real Presence to them as they are on the altar or in the hands, the question arises, Is that Presence divided, partly on the paten, partly in the chalice? This difficulty, created by the error of human speculation, has been met by human inventions in two different directions. The Eastern Church has devised a strange and most unwarrantable innovation upon the Divine institution. After consecration, the priest dips the bread into the chalice, saying, "The union of the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord," and adds, "It hath been united, and it hath been sanctified, and it hath been perfected" (Lit. St. James), as though the mystery and act of the ordinance were not fully sanctified and accomplished until this union had been effected. And this was undoubtedly the truth; but that union was ordained by Christ to take place only within the recipient. It was a strange and presump

tuous device of man to intrude this outward visible union into the Lord's ordinance; but it was quite consistent; for man's speculations had transferred the Real Presence from the reception to the altar;, it was only logical, therefore, and indeed became necessary, to transfer the union of the elements, which the Lord had appointed within the recipient, to the altar also, and thus one error necessitated another. The speculative error found its natural expression in the presumptuous act; and the very presumption of the act proves the falseness of the speculation which required it.

The Western Church has invented an additional mode of escaping from the difficulty which human error had thus created. Rome conceived the figment that whole Christ is pre

sent from the moment of consecration in each morsel of bread and in each drop of the chalice -a human invention which plainly makes the Lord guilty of the ignorance of calling by different and distinguishing names two things which were in deepest reality one and the same thing-guilty of the "vain repetition" of instituting the same thing twice over with deceptive distinctions-a figment which places two Christs upon the altar, makes the priest receive whole Christ twice, and only finds its logical and consistent result in that miserable and presumptuous mutilation of the Lord's institution, the denial of the cup to the laity. Such results Whereas follow from human imaginations!

our Lord, in His Divine Wisdom, appointed the reception, first of one part, then of the other part of His human life, the severance of which parts is the very type and remembrance of His death, leaving to the hidden unseen intercourse of the soul of the faithful recipient with the ordained means of grace, that unification which, as by a resurrection unto spiritual life, brings about the Real Presence of the whole Nature of Christ, and which, to use aright the wrongly applied words of the Eastern Liturgy, does

sanctify and accomplish" the mystery. So it was by secret unseen union" within the heart of the earth” (S. Matt. xii. 40), which had received the Body of the Lord, that His Body was quickened by the Spirit and He rose to the true spiritual life. For as the cross, so the altar; and as the new tomb, so the bosom of the faithful receiver. On the cross, the Lord's Body and Life were separated by death: so on the altar lie the separated tokens of His death. Within the tomb the union of Body and Life manifested the living Christ" united, sanctified, perfected; so within the faithful it is the union of the Body and Blood of the Lord that presents to the soul the living life-giving Christ, and there the Sacramental mystery is indeed perfected, ἥνωται καὶ ἡγίασται καὶ τετελείωται.—(Lit. St. James, p. 73.)

Further, the Lord Himself seems to suggest this view of the action of the Sacrament by concurrence of the parts in reception. "He that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me and I in Him: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me" (St. John vi. 56, 57). Here only does our Lord use the phrase “eateth Me;” and standing, as it does, as the combination of the other two