but when interrogated whether it is a corporal or spiritual eality, their language is found ambiguous and inconclusive. "The term itself is a metaphysical one, imported into English theology within our own recollection. It was coined by the German philosophers to indicate an object existing independently of the observer, in opposition to an idea within his own mind, which they call a subjective impression. The metaphysicians, however, are themselves divided on the truth of this distribution." 1 "However this may be, it is certainly a very novel and unskilful attempt, to subject the Divine Presence to this metaphysical distribution. God is present with all His works, and all things live and move in Him; yet He is neither contained in matter, nor subject to mind. When the soul seeks communion with its Maker, His Presence is not the offspring of imagination, but the Real Presence of a different and higher Personality. And when we contemplate Him in His own perfections, He is still none the less in ourselves. Hence, the metaphysical ideas of objectivity and subjectivity are radically inapplicable to the sacramental Presence; the introduction of the words can only tend to substitute some vague indeterminate conception, in place of the recognised ideas connected with the old theological terms 'spiritual' and 'corporal.' Such conceptions are always fluctuating; an inaccurate terminology is necessarily ambiguous, and ambiguous words easily exceed the arbitrary limits originally assigned to them." "One of the first to write of the Objective Presence was Archdeacon Wilberforce, in his 'Doctrine of the Incarnation.' (1848.)" "When spiritual presence is spoken of, there are two notions which may suggest themselves. Such presence may either be supposed to result from the action of the mind, which receives an impression, or from the action of the being who produces it. The first would be a subjective and metaphorical, the second is an objective and real presence. . . . . A real presence is when there is some object external to ourselves which produces upon us those effects which result from its propinquity. And such presence may be said to be spiritual, as well as real, when the medium of communication by which this external object affects or is present with us, is not material contact but spiritual power.'3" "Hore the words 'objective' and 'subjective' are plainly superfluous. The doctrine maintained is simply the old Real and Spiritual Presence ;-real because the effect of an object external to ourselves; and spiritual, because the medium of communication is not material contact, but spiritual power.' Such a Presence the archdeacon ascribes to the sacrament of Baptism, no less than to the Eucharist, and he follows Hooker in deriving it from our Lord's Human Nature in heaven, as the channel of mediation between God and man. This is 1"The unhappy disjunction of submissive from objective, of idea from appearance, of history from speculation, has brought our national mind into great confusion.'-Baron Bunsen Letter, June, 1865. Memoirs, vol. i. p. 412.” 2"It is to be regretted, therefore, that an Oxford Divinity Professor should permit himself to defend a subjective presence against the objective. The novelty ought to be firmly resisted." 3" Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 433. the doctrine of all our old divines, and of the fathers before them; and there was no occasion for new metsphysical terms to express it. 1 "Since then, however, the word 'spiritual' has been dropped, and objective' is joined with Real, as if denoting some additional conception. Moreover, the Real Objective Presence' is not now predicated of both sacraments alike, but of the Eucharist only. And in fine we are told that Hooker was not a believer in the Real Presence, (meaning the Objective,) although the same writer, in the preface to his greatest work, some twenty years earlier, after doing justice to the 'limitations under which the doctrine of the Real Presence is to be received,' writes that whatever notion of the Real Presence does not in effect interfere with this foundation of the faith, that, the genuine philosophy of Hooker, no less than his sound theology, taught him to embrace with all his heart.' 2 "It is clear, then, that the meaning of the new term has undergone some considerable development within our own time: nor is this surprising, seeing it never had any scientific footing to stand upon. Such fluctuations may occur wishout the observation of the mind that submits to them; it was doubtless such an unconscious process that induced the mutilation of the really Catholic lines, "O come to our Communion feast! There present in the heart, The posthumous substitution of 'as' for 'not,' in the third line, not only spoils the poetry and vigour of the whole stanza, but makes an expression which few intelligent Romanists would like to endorse. After this, it is no wonder that a later disciple should avow that 'Objective not only means what used to be called 'corporal,' but includes the tenet of transubstantiation itself; it being quite a mistake to suppose there is any difference between the Anglican and Roman Churches on the Doctrine of the Real Presence!'" 3 The author then proceeds to consider at length the manifesto addressed to the late Archbishop of Canterbury by twenty-three clergymen as a "profession of faith;" but for this we must refer the reader to the book itself, premising that the argument against some of its assertions will be found well worthy of a careful study. The strong manner in which he deprecates all innovation on the terminology of the Church in these high mysteries, will no doubt be distasteful to those who adopt this new theory. Indeed the fact of our author holding steadily to the "via media" of the old High-Church English theology, as against both extremes, -that of the Zuinglian view, regarding the 1 "Keble's Euch. Adoration." 2 Eccl. Pol. Pref lxxxi. Mr. Keble selects the reality and exclusiveness of sacramental grace as a point of superiority in Hooker over Jewel, yet Bishop Cosin considers Jewel to hold the Real Presence." 3" Kiss of Peace." sacred elements as "6 bare signs," on the one side, and the gross materialism of the Tridentine definition on the other,-has, as might have been expected, brought upon him the unmerited censures of the party organs on both sides, his views being deemed "Popish" by the one, when they are accused of being Calvinistic by the other. But this is only the melancholy result of the strong party spirit and selfwilled defiance of Church authority, now so prevalent; which is already dividing the English Church into two opposite camps, and threatens ere long to rend her asunder! After thus elaborately defining and vindicating his position, Mr. Trevor, in the four following Sections, proceeds to produce his testimony from Scripture and Antiquity. The 6th Section is devoted to "the teaching of Holy Scripture," and it is a part of the work which we especially commend to our readers. A question of primary interest is here suggested, and the incidents of the Last Supper are dwelt upon in a tone of deep reverent feeling : "It has often been wished that we knew the words in which the Lord blessed or consecrated the elements. . . . Many have lamented the want of these benedictory words; but perhaps it has not been sufficiently observed that St. John does, in fact, supply a solemn prayer of thanksgiving and blessing, uttered at the very time of the Eucharistic institution. What if in this prayer the Evangelist, who contributes nothing else to the Eucharistic narrative, should have supplied a portion of the consecratory Benediction? A consecration it undoubtedly is; one link of connection with the Eucharist is supplied in the words, 'lifted up His eyes to heaven;' for this sentence, though not occurring in either of the narratives of the Supper, was always religiously preserved in the ancient Liturgies. In this prayer, which throughout is eminently priestly, our Lord consecrates Himself to His Heavenly Father, on behalf of His Church, speaking of the work which was given Him to do as already 'finished;' and challenging the glory due to Him in return. He prays for those whom He had kept in the Father's name, that God would keep them through the same when He Himself should have returned to Him. They are to be kept in communion with Himself, and through Him with the Father, that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one.' Such were certainly some of the utterances of our Great High Priest, just before, or after, the delivery of the bread and wine as His body and Blood; and they speak of that communion with Him which the Sacrament was designed to impart. He has closed the Old Testament with the last Passover, and now stands before God to initiate the New Testament with the Blood of the great Sacrifice, regarded as already finished.' He is going out to the Agony, and the Betrayal, and the Passion. It is a night to be much remembered unto the Lord of all the children of the spiritual Israel. Christ our Passover is sacrificed; for, although a few hours must intervene before the consummation, it is now that He lays down His life of Himself. It is in the chamber of the Passover that He spontaneously devotes Himself to do the will of God.' .. The hour is come; the Mediator of the New Covenant is passing from the paschal sacrifice to its fulfilment in the Kingdom of God. And first He initiates a sacrificial Memorial of the impending Sacrifice of Himself." On the subject of the ancient liturgies, Mr. Trevor is very full and careful. The 7th, 8th, and 9th sections are devoted to the consideration of the Eastern and Western liturgies and the Fathers. This part of the work will appear valuable to many from the copious citations it contains. He points out a distinction between the Eastern and Western forms of consecration, which those would do well to consider who insist upon the oblation of the consecrated elements as "essential to a true sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ." The oriental liturgies (followed on this point by the modern Scottish and American) recognize three elementary parts in the consecration:-1. The recital of the words of Institution: 2. The Oblation: 3. The Invocation of the Holy Spirit, to make the elements to the faithful partaker the Body and Blood of Christ : "Consequently the oblation is always of the unconsecrated elements, designated by the words of Institution to be the memoriais of the Passion, but not yet invested with the character of His Body and Blood. They are offered as the bread and the cup (so named in the oblation) to commemorate this Sacrifice, and to be sanctified as the means of communicating it to the receivers. Then the Holy Ghost is invoked to descend upon these symbols, and make them the true Body and Blood for the purpose of communion.”—p. 155. Mr. Trevor does not mean that the words of Institution were not a necessary part of the Consecration, for he elsewhere shows "that the Greek Fathers attribute the sacramental virtue at one time to the words of Institution, and at another to the Invocation;" proving that both were included in the full idea of consecration. The Roman liturgy alone (as he shows) placed the sacramental change wholly in the words of Institution; and further, now makes a double oblation,-first, of the unconsecrated elements, and secondly, of the consecrated host, regarding the latter as a true sacrifice of Christ Himself. This is both a liturgical error and doctrinal corruption, peculiar to the Romish Mass. In regard to our Reformed Liturgy, Mr. Trovor contends that : "The real essentials to the Eucharistic Sacrifice are consecration and communion, and there was no call to desert the Western form for the Eastern, even if the more ancient. The consecration of the bread and wine into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ was still, therefore, held to be complete on the recital of the words of Institution, though the effect was now ascribed to the prayer, and whole action, rather than, as in the Roman Canon, to the utterance of the five words by the priest."-p. 233. "It is certain that the action of the Holy Ghost is implied in all consecration, and if the omission of an express petition for this blessing be a liturgical loss, it is one which all the churches of the Roman obedience suffer with us."-p. 238. In the 9th Section, "the testimony of the Catholic Liturgies is to be corroborated from the remains of the contemporaneous Fathers, and the author at the commencement very justly indicates the precautions to be observed in appealing to this source of testimony:— "The Fathers are sometimes referred to as infallible oracles, whose lightest wood is to silence all dispute. Others discard them as private individuals, of no greater weight than modern theologians. Controversialists have recourse to them, as children rush to a heap of stones in quest of a missile to throw at an opponent, but they never dream of accepting their authority against themselves. The Romanist overrules all by the authority of the Papal See, the ultra-Protestant by his own interpretation of Holy Scripture; each finds enough to sustain his own pre-determined view, but neither can deprive his adversary of the same advantage. It is evident then, that no great question can, or ought to be decided by a mere catena of the Fathers. They expressed their conscientious convictions of the truth as revealed in Holy Scripture, and taught by the Catholic Church; but not being inspired, they are no infallible guides on either point. One reason which makes the testimony of the Fathers less conclusive than might be supposed, is that they wrote before much controversy had arisen on the Eucharistic doctrine. This is doubtless the condition most favourable to piety and devotion; but it fails to produce exactness of thought or language. Their testimony is sufficient, if we do not press them beyond their knowledge: it fails only when we try to wrest it to support conclusions which they never thought of. The decay of letters, after the triumph of the barbarians in the west, favoured the growth of superstition. Practices, at first innocent, or even laudable, became abused in course of time: and figurative and mystical language was confounded with literal. . . Their great value is as witnesses to the interpretation and teaching of the Church in their own day. This is a matter of fact on which they could not be mistaken; and to know how the Scriptures were understood in the earliest ages, is our surest guide to the original and genuine interpretation. This evidence, however, manifestly depends on the consent and antiquity of the witnesses adduced. "When the Church of England appeals 'to the old godly doctors of the most uncorrupt ages,' she waives neither the supremacy of Scripture, nor her own authority as witness and keeper of Holy Writ. She does not propound the Fathers as an authority to her children, much less erect them into a court of appeal from her own sentence. She cites them to prove that in ta primitive churches Holy Scripture was the supreme rule of faith, that the several churches interpreted it with equal, independent authority, that each decreed its own ites and ceremonies, and that the Catholic agreement subsisting between all is retained, in all things necessary or important, in our own doctrine and discipline. This is all that is requisite to establish her claim as a living branch of the Holy Catholic Church and that claim once established, her voice, and hers only, is the voice of the Church to her loyal children."-p. 182 to 184. The work concludes with a careful review of the Anglican Liturgy from the Reformation downwards; and there is a genuine heartiness in the tore in which our author vindicates the Catholicity and beauty of our present order of administration : "The moral and spiritual unfitness of the multitude for the most perfect form of adoration to the Almighty' has been the common difficulty from the third century downwards. How Chrysostom dealt with it has been already seen (p. 139.) The Tridentine Churches cut the knot by directing the priest to offer it by himself in the presence of a prostrate, but non-participating audience. The Calvinist fell back upon prayer and sermon, in which the officiating minister is still the sole performer, the people joining only in the hymn. Standing between these vicious extremes, the Anglican Liturgy refuses either to desecrate or to withdraw the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It not only maintains the Holy Eucharist in its character of the chief means of grace; but it persistently presents it as the supreme act of worship in the Christian congregation. It does not harden and debase the non-communicant, by a fictitious participation in the sacrifice of another, but after preparing the altar and the sacrifice in the presence of all, and exhorting all to their duty, it proceeds to the complete act with as many as are ready, in the exercise of their Christian priesthood, to eat of the holy things in the holy place."-p. 222-223. "Twice purified in the scorching fires of the Reformation and the Rebellion, it is now stamped by a national acceptance of two centuries as the great religious settlement of the English people-the deed of union between Church and State at home-the heart's bond of countless wanderers in foreign lands, and the daily manual of our mission churches throughout the world. The old Romish taunt of isolation has passed away; the Liturgy, once stigmatized as the peculiarity of a little island, now reverberates in many languages, and gathers at this day around the throne of grace more Christian souls than any other in the most perfect form of adoration to the Almighty.' To disturb this settlement would be to shake English Christianity to the foundation: hence all parties in Church or State deprecate above all things any alteration in the Liturgy. Yet what is it but alteration which is aimed at, when repeated formularies are commended in preference to existing ones? or when it is attempted to over ride the present ritual with the provisions of pre-Reformation canons? The Liturgy does not merely consist of the words prescribed to be uttered, but of the whole action of the sacramental service. The Church's doctrine and the national settlement arrived at in the Book of Common Prayer, may be even more vitally affected by variations in the received method of celebration, than by an alteration of the prayers themselves."-p. 256-257. We trust that the lengthened review we have now taken of this valuable treatise will enable our readers to appreciate its design and scope, and induce them to obtain the work for themselves. They will not repent of the stores of religious thought and Eucharistic learning whicl will thus be placed, in a very moderate compass, within their reach. We conclude with the following devout and eloquent peroration. in which Canon Trevor gives indeed the best possible summary of the object and character of his book: "The solemn remembrance before God of the One Eternal Sacrifice; the Real Spiritual Presence of the great Bishop of Souls, feeding His Church with the Bread of Life which cometh down from heaven; the Blessed Communion, lifting these soiled and yearning hearts to the glorified humanity on high; and the dedication of body, soul, and spirit, as a living sacrifice, incorporate in His, and by Him presented in Himself to His Father and our Father; these are the truths of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. They find their best expression in full and frequent celebrations, in the united voice of prayer and song, in the priestly blessing, and the Eucharistic eating and drinking of all present. These have a fragrance and majesty far above perfumes and vestments. They constitute a ceremonial which is at once national, Scriptural, and impressive. Instead of lingering in the Levitical court of the sacrifices, vainly grasping at shadows that have passed away, they lead the Christian forward, clergy and people together, to the very Presence above the Cherubim. They enable us all, as priests and kings unto God, to eat of the most holy in the holy place; for the memorial, which we there eat and drink for the remembrance of Christ, is to us the very sacrifice-HIS BODY broken and HIS BLOOD shed, unto forgiveness, remission of sins and immortal life." (p. 264.) We subjoin, by way of an appendix to this part, a document which cannot but be regarded as of permanent importance in our Sister Church of Scotland, although it is some years since it was issued; viz., the Pastoral Letter of the Scottish Bishops, assembled in Provincial Synod, in condemnation of the teaching of one of their Brethren, on the doctrine of the Holy Communion. Though too easily forgotten by some, and probably unknown to many of the members of our Church, such a judicial treatment of these vital questions by the Spiritual Rulers of the Scotch Church, and the unanimous decision pronounced by them against the Sacramental views maintained by the Bishop of Brechin in his Charge to his Diocese, are of value to us at this time in reference to the same Sacramental teaching finding countenance in our own Church, and causing so much anxiety and strife. We are the more glad to give our readers an opportunity of again perusing this Pastoral Letter, as the Sacramental principles vindicated therein are so fully in accordance with those maintained in the treatise which we have here reviewed. THE PASTORAL LETTER OF THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. "To all faithful members of the Church in Scotland, the Bishops, in Synod assembled, send greeting: "Brethren beloved in the Lord,-It must be only too well known to you all that a charge delivered to his clergy in the month of August last year, by our Right Rev. Brother the Bishop of Brechin, and afterwards published by him, has called forth much opposition, and given rise in an unusual degree to anxiety and alarm. Our notice was drawn to the publication by two of our body at our ordinary Synod in September last; and again when we met for special purposes in December the same subject was brought before us more formally. Unfortunately we were not all then present; and such being the case, and there being a difference of opinion amongst us as to the course which it would be most expedient to pursue in so grave a matter, it was ultimately resolved to postpone the determination of it till our next ordinary Synod. At the same time it is right you should be informed that there was but one feeling and one opinion expressed by those who were pre sent, as there is now but one opinion expressed by us all (except the Bishop of Brechin), in regard to the publication itself. We unanimously regret that such a charge should have been delivered and put forth by one of our body. We regret it on other accounts, and because it forces upon us the painful duty of making known that we do not concur with our right. rev. brother in the views he has expressed on so material a point as the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. We think those views, in the extent in which he has defined and urged them, unsound, erroneous, and calculated to lead, if not resolutely opposed, to still graver error. The case may not amount to a direct call for a formal presentment of the Bishop, as liable to judicial penalties; and no such formal presentment has been lodged before us. But the publication of such views in a document for the guidance of clergy, and still more, the republication of the Charge in its integrity,' notwithstanding the grave remonstrances with which it had been met, and the scandal which it had raised-this, attended by the avowed confidence of the author in the eventual 'triumph of his teaching,' (Preface, p. 6,) leaves us, we feel, no alternative but to declare our own dissent, and to caution you against being led astray either by the teaching itself, or by the undue confidence with which it is maintained. "At the same time, however, let it be clearly understood that we cordially concur with our brother in his desire to protect the most holy ordinance of our religion from all irreverence, and to impress upon the hearts of all men a deep, faithful, thankful conviction of its unspeakable blessedness. It is not on account of any variance between us as to the importance of these duties, but for the attempt which he has made to rest them upon a false foundation, that we feel we have cause to differ from him. We cannot forget that the aversion to the doctrine of sacramental grace, and even its entire rejection, unhappily prevalent in many quarters since the time of the Reformation, is to be regarded as the natural reaction from excesses with which the primitive teaching had overlaid; and we have learnt abundantly, both from history and experience, that the violence of such reaction, instead of gradually diminishing, is liable to be renewed and aggravated, whenever it is attempted to restore those This, we believe, is the fundamental excesses. been error into which our brother has fallen. Anxious to assert and uphold the grace, the dignity, and efficacy of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he has adopted a line of argument which, as it exceeds the truth of God's Holy Word, so it is calculated, we are sure, by no slow or uncertain process, to defeat that very end. He has pleaded for what has recently been called the Real Objective Presence,' in such a manner that the inferences he draws from it, however doctrinally unsound, become, as he represents, logically inevitable; that is supreme adoration becomes due to Christ as mysteriously present in the gifts (p. 27), or, as it is expressed elsewhere, 'to Christ in the gifts' (pp. 28, 33); and the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar become substantially one,' and in some transcendental sense identical' (p. 42). "Convinced, as we are, that neither of these conclusions is to be found in Holy Scripture, or has been deduced therefrom by the Church; and persuaded that the teaching of them has given rise to corruptions and superstitions, from which we have been set free through the blessing of God vouchsafed to the wisdom and courage of our forefathers; we feel it our duty to resist the attempt which has been made to press these conclusions upon your acceptance, and we earnestly entreat you not to suffer yourselves to be disturbed and misguided by it. After due consideration we do not hesitate to say that the reasoning by which they are maintained is, in our opinion, fallacious; and that the testimony of authorities produced in their support, when fully and carefully examined, will generally be found not to justify the use to which it has been applied. "More particularly we feel called on, at this season of trial, to exhort you our dear brethren of the clergy, that you be not moved under the excitement that prevails around us, so as either to exceed or fall short in your teaching of the truth with respect to the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament which has thus unhappily been brought into controversy. "1. Instructed by Scripture and the formularies of the Church, you will continue to teach that the consecrated elements of bread and wine become, in a mystery, the Body and Blood of Christ; for purposes of grace to all who receive them worthily, and for condemnation to those the same unworthily. But you will not, we trust, attempt to define more nearly |