upon the merit of that slain Humanity which He presents before God; and that the same Humanity which is present naturally in Heaven, is the medium of His supernatural Presence in His Church's ordinances; so that there is one sacrifice but many altars. "Neither do we call this sacrifice of the Eucharist an efficient sacrifice, as if that upon the Cross wanted efficacy; but because the force and virtue of that Sacrifice would not be profitable unto us, unless it were applied and brought into effect by this Eucharistical Sacrifice, and other the holy Sacraments and means appointed by God for that end: but we call it propitiatory both this and that, because they have both force and virtue in them to appease God's wrath against this sinful world."'1 -Pp. 360-364.

The testimony of the Church, in all ages, to the_Christian Sacrifice is unanimous. The learned amongst our Reformers did not deny it, but considered that the nature of the Sacrifice had been misunderstood, and were, therefore, afraid to make full mention of it in their formularies, lest it should be abused to purposes of superstition. But that there is a Sacrifice is attested with one voice by all antiquity.

It can hardly be disputed that there is no ancient writer, whose subject leads him to speak of the Holy Eucharist, who does not declare it to be a sacrifice, who does not call the place an altar at which it is offered, and the person by whom it is presented a priest. "The clergy," says S. Cyprian, ought to be employed in nothing else but the service of the Altar and in sacrifices." And "the work of the sacrifice," says S. Hilary, "cannot take place without a Presbyter." But while it is needless to multiply quotations in proof of that which is indisputable, it would be wrong to omit all mention of the ancient Liturgies. For the primitive estimate respecting the Holy Eucharist is witnessed by their existence, as well as by their construction. It has been already stated, that we have demonstrative proof what expressions were used in the Liturgies of the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria, prior to the year 451, while by probable evidence we can show that the general framework of these and other early Liturgies must have come down from the age of the Apostles. Now it is unnecessary to insist on the authenticity of particular phrases, though even these cannot be supposed to have been interpolated, when they are found in the same identical form in the Liturgies of different countries. But there is one thing which characterizes these Liturgies as a whole, and which so completely interpenetrates their whole construction, as to be inseparable from their existence, namely, that they consist of three distinct actionsConsecration, Sacrifice, and Communion. And the second of these is so prominently put forward, as to be a more marked feature in the Liturgies even than Communion: while Consecration is in all cases introduced as conducive to the other two actions.

Now there cannot be a more convincing proof of the opinion of the Ancient Church, than that this should be the character of its common worship. The Christians met for other purposes-for the singing of Psalms, and the receiving instruction-but the Eucharistic Sacrifice, with its attendant Communion, was the thing which was especially dignified by the name of Service [the sacred Liturgy]; this part alone of their worship was thought deserving of being fixed by the composition of a public Ritual; it was the daily worship of the united congregation; the feature which has left its trace in the records of the times. So that even if doubt could be

thrown on individual expressions, we could not doubt that the Holy Eucharist was supposed to be a sacrifice by the early Christians; that they agreed with the sentiment expressed by Bishop Cosin, "we offer and present the death of Christ to God, that for His death's sake we may find mercy, in which respect we deny not this commemorative sacrifice to be propitiatory."-Pp. 371-373.

Amongst those who make any pretence to a catholic standard of belief, it cannot then be disputed that there is a Sacrifice. The question will remain, what is offered? Is it only the material element before consecration, or the consecrated element, carrying with it a virtual oblation of the Res Sacramenti ?' If the general voice of antiquity be consulted, we must say the latter, and the same would follow from the exposition which has been given of Heb. xiii., and is indicated with quite sufficient clearness to guide the feeling of a Catholic mind in our own Post-communion Prayer. We know that we cannot make any difference in the everlasting offering of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,' but we can do this outward act of union and communion with It, and He can apply His own Sacrifice to His People, and, as it were, minister it on earth by the hands of His servants. This is simply and unquestionably implied in the Doctrine of a Real Presence.

It would follow from such views of the Holy Eucharist that it is essential to the completeness of Divine Worship. It is the peculiar act of Christian Worship, and in it, above all other acts, do we draw near to God in Christ. Certainly, then, if this be acknowledged, it ought not to be allowed to be so unfrequent, that in the ordinary service, even of the Sunday, it should be almost forgotten, and regarded as an exception. On this head Archdeacon Wilberforce pleads most earnestly for a reformation of our practice, which, if it could not be as yet generally enforced, would still be an improvement even if partially introduced. He would have the celebration of the Holy Eucharist an ordinary part, at least, of the Sunday service, and permit the attendance of those who did not communicate, if they were disposed to stay and join their devotions with those of the actual partakers. He proves that this is not an abuse in itself, but a primitive practice, although it may have been disused amongst us in consequence of some abuse at the Reformation. The complaints of S. Chrysostom, which are cited against this practice, were directed against the extreme of never communicating, and yet staying during the celebration. The Archdeacon has been already quoted at such length that we must be content with a very brief extract on this head:

:

The last question, however, remains: what is its benefit? Now the first answer to this is, that those who forbid the practice ought to show it to be unlawful. Here is a custom which has existed, as it would seem,

from the very commencement of the Church, and which was for the first time forbidden, through the influence of the Zuinglian party, at the end of fifteen centuries and a half. Surely such a circumstance throws the burthen of proof upon the excluding party. Why should men be debarred that liberty which was allowed them in the primitive Church, unless it can be proved to be unlawful?

But the advantages which individuals might draw from such a custom are obvious. The moral benefits to be derived from the holy associations of such a season are incalculable. If that which is bestowed in holy ordinances is the Presence of Christ, can it be possible to overestimate the blessing of drawing so near to Him? Are men so independent of the influences of place and circumstance, as to render them indifferent to an occasion when heaven and earth are truly brought into relation, and when the sublime realities which are habitual to the one, extend themselves for a passing season to the other?

But the greatest benefit which, according to the ancient writers, is attained by individuals through participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice, is the acceptableness which it confers upon their prayers. Not only are their emotions more intense, but their petitions are more efficacious. And what can be of more import to the supplicant, than that he should attain his request? Therefore does S. Chrysostom represent not men only, but angels and archangels, as feeling an especial interest in the Church's oblation, because "then the occasion aids their petitions, and the offering gives them help." But it is to the saints on earth that this opportunity is so peculiarly precious, because it is the bestowing for a season of that privilege, which is perpetually afforded to the saints in bliss; it is a foretaste of the beatific vision; heaven and earth are for a moment united; inasmuch as the incarnate Lord, whose manifested intercession is the central point of the one, bestows Himself by actual Presence in the other, And is it not a signal blessing to be allowed to co-operate in those prayers, which are rendered acceptable by the immediate presence of the Great Victim; and wherein the petitions of the Church on earth are blended with those of the Church in heaven? "When the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties?"-Pp. 477–479.

On the whole, it may be said that his book of 482 pages is a multum in parvo, and one of the most complete and well-digested theological works we possess. The author has unquestionably improved upon his former works in accuracy of style and condensation of matter, and more especially in distinctness of expression. His analysis of the modes of speaking adopted by different schools, whether modern or Patristic, is masterly, and his research thorough, and almost exhaustive. Disputes, doubtless, will be raised, but the impartial student will come nearly to his view of the doctrine and practice of the early Church, whether he rejects or receives it. And the English reader will have, henceforward, a clearer and better digested summary of the opinions of different schools, so far as they bear upon the investigation of truth, than is probably to be found in any other language. It is due to him to add, that although he has spoken with strong feeling against the existing English practice of the Missa sicca'-so to call it he has throughout

maintained a dutiful tone towards the English Church, and there is nothing to render his book unfit to be placed in the hands of a candidate for Holy Orders, unless he happens to have prejudices and special tendencies, which make strong truth dangerous. It is to be hoped that the example, already set by one or two, will be followed, and that we may, ere long, reap the fruits of the revival of Patristic learning in Oxford, in a series of works of that real and thorough research which has been, hitherto, generally prevented by the idiosyncrasies of our theological writers. Nothing but the honest aim at catholicity of doctrine will ever enable a man to take a fair view of the manifold opinions that surround him.

The challenges and objections of various assailants, have also drawn from Dr. Pusey some fuller and more exact statements of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, than he would, perhaps, have put forth, except under the pressure of censure and prejudice. It had been his aim to keep rather to a devotional view of the subject, and to avoid perplexing his hearers with controversy. In his Preface to his recent Sermon, he mentions that he has been called to account by Romanists for omitting the statements of the Fathers which are supposed by them to favour the Tridentine Doctrine, as well as on the other side, for not quoting such passages as speak of the consecrated elements as figures' of the Thing specified. His original sermon on the subject was not controversial, and even in his defensive writings, he has confined himself to the minimum of controversy. In the statement of the doctrine itself, however, he has been clear and exact in his letter to the Bishop of London, and any one who is desirous of knowing what the Fathers meant by their strong and glowing language, with respect to the Eucharistic Presence, will find in that statement, and in the passages alleged in support of the doctrine in the letter, and in connexion with the two sermons, as full means of satisfying himself as he can desire. The doctrine cannot be explained so as to remove all mystery, nor has he attempted such an explanation, but such as can be expected he has given. A mind that has been perplexed by the difficulty of believing a Real Presence without a physical change, may find rest and satisfaction in his deep and well considered thoughts. Owing to his limits, he takes less range than Archdeacon Wilberforce, in the historical review of different schools, and the consideration of imaginable alternatives. It is more to his purpose to keep near to the central and Catholic truth, and to pass by with slight notice all that is irrelevant to it. But some of the most important parts of the scriptural argument are more fully treated by him, and the testimony of the Fathers is more extensively collected. A passage, which

turns on the word communion,' is an instance of a strong scriptural argument, which has often been too slightly passed

over:

'S. Paul's words are an expansion and application of our Lord's. Our Lord says, "This is My Body;" S. Paul, "Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?" Our Lord says, "This is My Blood;" S. Paul, “Is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? " There is no bond between a communion and a figure. Had the Holy Eucharist been only a figure, there would be nothing whereof It could be a communion. True, what we see, in that it is broken, is an image of His Body which was slain; and in that it is poured out, is an image of His Blood which was shed. That which is seen is an image of the reality which is unseen. Yet God says not by S. Paul it is an image, but it is "the communion of the Body of Christ." But, in order to be a communion of It, there must be That of which it is the communion. "Why," asks S. Chrysostom, "did he not say 'participation?' (μerox.) Because He wished to point out something more, to show how great is the conjunction (ovváþeta). For we communicate, not by sharing only and partaking, but also by being united. For as that Body is united to Christ, so also are we united to Him by this Bread." S. Chrysostom, no more than the Church of England, had any thought of what is physical or carnal. When we too are taught to pray that we "may so eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most Precious Blood," we mean a real, actual, though Sacramental and spiritual drinking; we do not mean a figurative cleansing by a figurative eating and drinking.

But in that we press the literal meaning of these words of our Lord and of S. Paul, we do, in fact, bind ourselves to take with equal strictness those other words of both: "this fruit of the vine," and "this bread." If one might be taken figuratively, so might the other. If, as the Genevan school would have it, the words "this is my Body," were figurative, or if, as the Roman Divines say, S. Paul's words were figurative, "the bread which we break," it would be but consistent to say with some modern sectaries, that the words "so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup," are figurative too.'--Pp. 32-34.

And of the testimony of the Fathers he says:

'I will quote the language not of one, two, or three, not from one age or one school, but the uniform teaching of the Fathers of every Church and of every variety of mind, in every sort of writing, Epistles, Homilies, Treatises, &c., including above seventy writers of those times to which our Church teaches us to look with most reverence, and every individual whose name she has held out for our love.'-P. 47.

This list ends in the middle of the fifth century. The very number of authors precludes a full quotation of each in the sermon, but the passages are to be given at length in an Appendix. It is difficult to imagine what weight of authority, human or divine, would satisfy those who would still maintain that his doctrine is inadmissible in the Church of England. He does not claim to enforce any new formula on those who are unwilling to receive it, but only to protect the truth from the rash condemnatory language of those who really know not of what