'Baptism depends upon an act which all Christians may perform, and not upon any Consecration, which requires a special Commission." (p. 18.)

"Baptism exists only in the act of its administration. "There is no such Consecration as invests the material "employed with any permanent efficacy." (p. 25.)

On the contrary, in the Eucharist, the elements are the vehicle, the fixed medium of the blessing.

"It is otherwise in the Holy Eucharist, where the out"ward part is consecrated to be the instrument, through "which there is a continuous ministration of the inward

blessing. In the last case, therefore, our Lord's words "indicated that This, which He held in His hands, was "the fixed medium of conveying the hidden gift. So that in "the one case the medium is an act, in the other an ele"ment." (p. 25.)

This statement would justify the reserving of the elements. It would also justify private masses, since the "administration" is not necessary to procure the blessing, which resides in the elements, the moment they are consecrated.

The distinction here made between the water in one case, and the bread and wine in the other, is not to be found in our best divines. They frequently reason from the absence of grace in the consecrated water to the like absence in the consecrated bread and wine, in their discussions on the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Archdeacon does

not say, that there is no consecration in Baptism, but he makes it of no use, in order to exalt the consecration in the Eucharist. The latter, let him say what he will, is physical.

§ 29. ZUINGLE and Calvin condemned.

In pursuance of his Historical inquiry, the Archdeacon contrasts his own idea of the leading principle of the Ancient Church, regarding the Eucharist, with that of Zuingle, and that of Calvin. Whilst his principle is, that the efficacy (he avoids the word grace) of the Sacrament, lies in the priestly act of Consecration, Zuingle, he says, held it to lie in the state of the receiver's heart, and Calvin in the intention of the Great Giver, who makes it efficacious only to the elect. The latter, he says, comes nearer to the truth. To be the most remote from it, he strenuously affirms and argues at great length, is to ascribe any virtue, touching the Sacramental blessing, to our own internal acts. Here, according to him, lies the essential difference between Rationalism and the Church View.

Zuingle, then, is at the lowest point of the scale, because he requires worthiness in the Receiver.

Calvin is not so low, because, though he requires worthiness, yet he considers that there is an arbitrary act of the Giver, incidentally concerned in the worthiness.

Hooker is charged with pusillanimity in keeping Calvin company on this occasion. He attaches little or nothing to the act of Consecration.

Waterland is mentioned with much scorn, as descending lower than Hooker, and having gone down entirely to the level of Zuinglian"ism" (p.45). Poor Waterland! once considered a High-church divine, but now degraded by the Archdeacon to the very zero of the Sacramental thermometer.*

Our Church, being, as we have before stated, pronounced "Zuinglo-Calvinistic," must come

66

* Speaking of Hooker and Waterland in a Note (p. 44), he says, that when he mentions them " or other Modern Writers," he must be understood as limiting his agreement with them by their agreement with the Primitive Church." When we had read his "Incarnation," where he treats Hooker in particular with great respect, we expected to hear this from him sooner or later.

He might have applied the same limitation to his agreement with our Church and her Articles. It opens the door to an entire disagreement. The Primitive Church, in other words, the varying conception of that Church formed by the private judgment of individuals, is set above our Church, and affords a convenient mode of escape for those who remain in her but differ from her.

in, by implication, for all the censure showered on each of the preceding culprits. She must drink of a mingled cup.

Perhaps it will be well here to give the passage in which the title, "Zuinglo-Calvinistic" is bestowed on our Church, lest we should be thought to have made too strong a statement. It occurs at an advanced part of his Book.

"By virtue of the more than Papal power which King "Edward assumed, he soon superseded his First Book, "and imposed the Second Book of 1552 upon the nation. By this means, as well as the forty-two Articles which were published the same year, and in like manner without any spiritual sanction, the Zuinglo Calvinistic system took possession of our Churches." (p. 439.)

66

Since the Prayer-book, then put forth, and the Articles, contracted into thirty-nine, still remain in our Church, the system thus designated keeps continued possession. If it be said, that there were one or two alterations since made in the Communion Service-the words used in giving the bread and wine being enlarged, and the phrase "essential" in the rubric being changed into " corporal "-they do not alter the whole tone and character of the Service. In the eyes of the Tractarians, as they themselves have told us, it is still "a judgment on our Church."

§ 30. THE SACRAMENT AS A SEAL.

The Archdeacon objects to the representation "common," he says, "in English di66 vines, "" that the elements are mere seals, or "title-deeds-not the instruments through "which Christ's presence is dispensed." "seal or pledge," he says, "does not in any way partake of the character of that which "it certifies." (p. 36.)

"A

Bishop Cosin is among the divines who incur this reproach. His words are worth quoting, from his "History of Popish Transubstantiation."

66

Suppose a testator puts deeds and titles in the hands "of his heir, with these words: Take the house which I bequeath thee,' there is no man will think that these 66 writings and parchments are that very house, which is "made of wood or stones; and yet no man will say, "that the testator spake falsely or obscurely." (Cosin's Hist. &c.)

This view, indeed, is that of our Church Catechism, composed in part by Bishop Overall, the friend of Bishop Cosin. It states, that the body and blood are "verily received,"but it does not state, that the very body and blood are received. The heir, in Cosin's illus