Ir is satisfactory to find that Mr. Keble, at least, is not responsible for this fruit of his own

5

doctrine, of which, however, it was no more than a natural result. In defence of it, Mr. Carter, speaking of the "propitiatory" character of the Sacrament, observes :

"For this end as well as for the life-giving Communion of Himself, our Lord ordained the perpetuation of His sacramental act. We are to show forth our Lord's Death till He come,' and in this Memorial Offering all who are present may unite, even though they communicate not. In the case of the Priest communion is of necessity, or there would not be a true sacrifice. The Priest must eat of the Sacrifice which he offers, for the consumption is the completeness of the surrender of the sacrifice. But this same necessity does not lie in the same way on others who are present. They only need to unite themselves with him, the celebratiug priest, and in joining with him they make his offering their own, sharing with him in its blessedness."-Carter, Spiritual Instruction x. pp. 99, 100.

The coolness with which our Lord's Words, "Drink ye all of this," are superseded by Mr. Carter's ipse dixit, "they may unite, even though they communicate not," is astounding. The abuse of the Sacrament which it is attempted thus to justify, and which, we regret to say, is coming more and more into vogue as a substitute for the Holy Communion, is one of the evil fruits of the materialistic doctrine by which, if there were no other proof, it would stand condemned, on the principle that the "tree is known by its fruit." This new "devotion," as it is called, or, as in truth it is, this new fashion of will-wors ip, aggravates manifest disobedience to Christ's Word by a pretended act of homage. In a matter of this kind, which

See Note N.

touches, so to speak, the Person of Christ Himself, this is truly awful. To do with Christ Himself, according to the daring hypothesis of the materialistic theo y,-as we list;-to take and eat, which He has commanded, or else, leaving His Gift of Himself untasted ;-to gaze and adore, which He has not commanded, and which is plainly contrary to His Holy Word;-to treat Him, in fact, as if He were-the Godman indeed, but the Godman reduced to the condition of a Thing, to be done with as His creatures may think proper, according to the promptings of their own minds, which under the name of "Natural Piety," are made their rule of belief and action-in such a matter as this, we say, deliberately to do under colour of professed homage to Christ an unauthorised act, while leaving His positive command unfulfilled, cannot be other than a grievous, a deadly sin. It is, in fact, the identical sin for which Saul was rejected from being king over Israel; the sin which drew from the inspired lips of the prophet the withering rebuke: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry.”

Are they who deal thus in wilfulness with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself actually Presentthough not in the carnal manner pretended by them in the Holy Eucharist, not afraid of the awful punishment of the sin they are committing and encouraging, yea, urging others to commit ? Have they no misgiving of being visited with that most terrible of God's judgments, spiritual blindness? Is not the state of

6 St. Matt. xii. 33. 71 Sam. xv. 22, 23

M

perplexity, of uncertainty, of wavering in the faith, in which they confessedly are, -some to such an extent as to have led them to open apostasy from the Truth and the Church of Christ, to the embracing of the lie of Rome, while preaching the truth of the Gospel ;is not the obliquity of mind, the transparent sophistry to which they are forced to have recourse in order to defend their position-are not all these fearful symptoms of their spiritual peril, of the "blindness in part "8 which appears to have happened unto them as it did to Israel of old,-of judicial blindness, the judgment of God who "is a Spirit," and who will be "worshipped in Spirit and in Truth "9- if not actually executed upon them, at least hanging over their heads? Is there not a cause for warning them and their benighted followers?

It is surely not a little remarkable that in the mind of Mr. Keble himself there seemed to linger a lurking suspicion that after all Transubstantiation may not be the deadly error which his Church has solemnly pronounced it to be. In speaking of it his trumpet gives a sadly uncertain sound. There is, he says, "nothing in it that seems immediately profane and shocking to a religious mind," but, on the contrary, he thinks it is " 'fully consistent with the very highest contemplations and devoutest breathings of saintly love." When calling it an "error" he apologises for doing so, on the ground of his being "an English Churchman," adding withal the saving clause "if it be an error."2 While confessing that a "kind of idolatry" is "involved in the very notion of Transubstantiation," he again adds the saving clause, 113 Still "supposing that notion to be untrue. more curious is what follows:

"To worship the outward part of the Sacrament must, of course (to use a school distinction), be material idolatry in their eyes who have learned and believe that it is true Bread and Wine; although in those whose faith teaches them that there is really no outward part, that the holy Body and Blood are alone present, such worship can hardly be formal idolatry, nor in any degree (we may hope) incur the guilt thereof. No wonder, however, if the mind, haunted by this idea, shrink more or less from the thought of any worship in the Eucharist. And yet, when we reflect on it in earnest, how can the heart help wor

8 Romans xi. 25.

9 St. John iv. 24.

1 Keble, Euch. Ador, iv. 2 p. 135.

? Keble, Ibid.

Keble, Euch. Ador., iv. 4, p. 139.

The concluding advice is good, no doubt, if the meaning is that the mind should divest itself-supposing that to be possible, when once perverted by speculative error-of all notions as to the manner of His presence; but it is not altogether free from suspicion, when it occurs in the midst of elaborate arguments to show that Christ's incorporation with the material elements is the only conceivable mode. Mr. Carter, also, seems to give similar advice :--

"Although in the Blessed Communion we most closely touch our LORD, and are touched by Him, feel his contact, and taste of His fulness; yet we are but perplexed if we therefore endeavour to trace more clearly His Footsteps, or think to comprehend the manner of His Presence. He is in this wonderful nearness as inscrutable as ever. It is rather as if the

nearer He came, the more He imparted Himself to us in our present state, the more impervious the veil that is drawn between Him and us, as though the very excess of light rendered the vision more impalpable; the more impossible it becomes to penetrate the screen within which He conceals Himself, if we are not content to receive Him in pure unquestioning faith. Therefore it is an axiom of Truth, that while we know as a fact the reality of the Divine Presence, yet the mode in which it is fulfilled we know not. We are at best but as children listening to some strange music, or looking upon mysterious visions, awakening deepest raptures of feeling, while they lisp solemn words, incapable of apprehending the meaning."Carter, Spiritual Instruction xi. 107, 108.

And again, in another place, he says :— "While the Presence of GOD is thus acknowledged and felt, Its hiddenness is preserved with the utmost jealousy, so that to seek to approach too near is to run the risk of losing what we have embraced, if not to suffer from the too daring attempt. Its law is hiddenness and mystery, only making Itself known to the inward senses, not to the outward, revealing Itself only to the souls of those who can "discern " Him. The creature must reverence the concealment of Him Whose Name is secret.' If we attempt to define too accurately, to examine too curiously, the mind becomes confused. The cloud is drawn around the mount. The very vision which faith had apprehended floats before the sight, vanishing from the grasp. It is an equal mystery in either case. God avenges His Secrecy, the sanctity of His veiled abode while He penetrates the inmost sense with an inde

finable awe."-Carter, Spiritual Instruction xv. pp. 162, 163.

Wherefore, then, should we run such tre mendous risks? Wherefore should we insist on scrutinising what is confessedly inscrutable? Why entangle ourselves in vain attempts to dogmatise, and to draw upon our fallible reason for what may seem to it suitable or allowable modes of approaching Christ, when all that is required of us is simple, childlike, unquestioning "obedience of faith" to His appointment and injunction? Why might not Mr. Keble himself have adopted the remedy he recommends, "courageous faith" which asks no idle questions? Had he done so, he would have spared himself and his numerous followers and admirers those hesitating thoughts so well expressed by himself:

"You fear to surrender yourself to this impulse; you fear to adore before you eat,"

→observe how near he comes here to the critical point where lawful adoration turns to idolatry. How different to adore while eating because it is said "This is my Body," and to adore before eating, because of "this," unless it be eaten, seeing it is given to be eaten, it is not so said, nor intended by Christ—

" lest you should be unawares committing yourself to a kind of idolatry in worshipping Bread and Wine, or to a gross material conceit."-Keble, Euch. Ador., iv. 4 p. 139.

More than this, he might have spar d himself, -what certainly does not redound to his credit, and must have been a source of great discomfort to so tender a conscience as his was when not warped by anerroneous theory, that half conscious antagonism to the Church of which he was an ordained minister and a distinguished ornament, the reproach of which he labours in vain to avert from himself by arguments the weakness and fallacy of which could hardly have escaped so acute a mind. Conscious of his inability to adduce any word of Holy Scripture enjoining, or even countenancing or warranting, the Adoration of the sacramental elements, he turns upon those who object to such idolatry with a challenge to produce an express prohibition of the practice, and in the absence of it he asks, in a tone of triumph, "why we should do violence to so many instincts of our nature." He declares it to be→

"imperative upon the prohibitors to produce some irresistible authority from Holy Scripture, or express Church law, if they would bring their prohibition

4 Bee Note O.

Kebla, Euch Ador, îî. 1, p. 12.

"This being the only place in the Articles where Eucharistical Adoration is mentioned, it seems natural to look to it for an explanation of the sentence. Yet many, perhaps, may feel hesitation in doing so; the premiss will appear to them so palpably unable to support the conclusion, that they will cast about in their mind for some other ground on which the judges must have proceeded. For what, after all, does this proposition amount to, "The Sacrament was not by Christ's ordinance worshipped" ? Take it in its logical form; it is not so much as a censure on the practice. It need not mean more than that the outward adoration was no necessary part of our Lord's institution."-Keble, Euch. Ador., iv. 16 p. 164.

According to Mr. Keble, all the Church means -at least we need not understand her to mean any more!-is, that the acts there enumerated, and the "outward Adoration" connected with them, are not necessary to be done!! The logic and the honesty of this argument are pretty much on a par. It is a fine specimen, indeed, of the art of understanding language in a "non-natural " sense that is, in a sense the very reverse of that which it is intended to convey. Lamentable as are such departures from plain truth and common rectitude, they are at the same time most instructive; they may well serve as a warning against the spiritual dangers involved in dealing with so deep and sacred a Mystery of God's own Nature, and of His purpose of love to make man a partaker of that Nature, on a basis of "presumption" under the guise of "piety"-" piety" not inwrought by the Spirit of the Living God, but the spontaneous growth of man's own spirit, termed "natural piety." In Mr. Keble's own mind, as we have seen, the result was not confined to the adoption of a system of dishonest sophistry; there was a painful wavering, an irresistible oscillation of thought towards error, a deplorable unsteadiness of faith. That similar effects should be ex6 Art. xxviii.

7 Witness the well-known and most distressing substitution of "hand" for "heart" in the "Christin Year."

perienced by those who are placed under such pernicious teaching, is no more than might be expected. It is the very nature of a faith and worship thus debased that its fruits should, even when it is carried out to actual reception, too often prove evanescent. Mr. Carter himself confesses as much :

with Heaven, with God;" that "whether we be more ourselves, or more our Lord in us, we cannot tell." 9

In saying this we do not mean to call in question the possibility of happier results, such as, in language exquisitely beautiful, Mr. Carter elsewhere describes :

"If our course be true, our life, ever fed by our Lord within us, will be lost in God. Our whole nature forced from its old instincts, its active zeal raised to a higher level, will reach to a diviner

the sanctuary, the consciousness is gone. So changeable and fickle are our hearts, we forget Him on Whom our souls had just been feeding as our very life. One brief moment, and all has passed from us. So variable is our nature. One thought succeeds another rapidly. A passing impulse is stirred, and the whole soul is changed, and that Communion in which we had been so wrapped, so absorbed, is now afar off, is as though it had never been. Something has intervened between Him and our consciousness of

His Presence. There has come a cloud, though it be of the thinnest film, but it has extinguished the sacred light, and robbed the soul of the unearthly vision."-Carter, Spiritual Instruction iii. p. 26.

Such failures, such experiences of obliviousness, are not, indeed, confined to Eucharistic worship on the "materialistic" theory. The most spiritually-minded Communicant is liable to sad variations of his state. But it is at once

evident that they must be more cominon as well as more distressing, and more hurtful to the soul, in the case of those whose approach to Christ is not an ascent of the soul by faith to Him enthroned in Heaven, but a groping after Him here on earth, whither He is supposed to have re-descended for the worshipper's "accommodation," as God manifest in the Bread, and so subject to all the conditions and limitations of time and space by which the worshipper himself is circumscribed and tied down, and above which to lift him is the very object for which Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood. May not the evanescent character of the effect produced, as described above, be attributable to this very cause, that the Mystery is lowered down to the sphere of outward things, in which the mere emotions of sensitive and excitable natures are mistaken for spiritual impressions? May not such an inference be legitimately drawn, when we are told that "for the moments of reception, at least, we are translated into Paradise, filled

& See Note P.

perfectness of patience, in which converse with the outer world becomes already an anticipation of the communion of the saints above. Even as when the sunshine comes down in full power upon the sea, the line which marks the horizon melts into a yet brighter ray, and heaven and earth as they meet kiss cach other, blending undistinguishably in perfect harmony-so our lives, in which the eternal light is shining, will be suffused with a supernatural glory, and, as we keep our destined course, our earthly state will assume the semblance of the heavenly, Christ transformed in us, and we all but deified in Him; our lives will be midway between heaven and earth, touching earth with our feet, while our spirits are in Heaven."-Carter, Spiritual Instruction iii. p. 28.

That many pious souls, living in the full and constant enjoyment of their Eucharistic privileges, may, theoretical errors notwithstanding, attain such blessed fruits of their devotion, not only we dare not doubt, but we may gladly hope and believe; even as we may cherish the like hope and belief for many devout Romanists, whose sacramental Union with Christ is effected under the cloud of Transubstantiation and imperfect reception, as well as for many members of our Church, and even of separatist communions, whose hearts are longing after Union with Christ, and are seeking it in the way appointed by Himself, while their doctrinal views are exceedingly dim, and possibly defective. Christ, we know, is merciful, willing to accept even an imperfect service; and errors of the head, even while the intellect retains them, may be unconsciously corrected in the heart by the Holy Ghost Who "helpeth our infirmities," and, "whereas we knew not what we should pray for, as we ought," "Himself intercedeth for us with unutterable groanings." But this furnishes no excuse or palliation for unsound teaching, whether in the way of shortcoming or of excess. The most glowing

9 Carter, Spir. Iustr. iv. p. 31. 1 Rom. viii. 26.

description of the fruits expected-and, through the infinitude of the Divine Mercy, not impossibly attained-cannot be admitted as evidence of the soundness of the doctrine under the influence of which-not through which, but, it may be, in spite of which-they have grown to ripeness. The truth or falsehood of any given line of doctrine is not affected thereby; nor is the responsibility of those in any degree lessened, who, not "trusting in the Lord with all their heart,” but "leaning to their own under

"2

standing "" and the promptings of "natural piety," wrest the Word of God from its true sense, and embellish God's Truth with a varnish of human error. Who shall tell while some happily escape the baneful effect of unsound doctrine-how many are misled and corrupted by it? Who shall tell how large a share the spread of these notions has in producing those morbid states of mind which, under the name of religious insanity, are withdrawn from public observation; in fostering, according to the predisposition of the natural temperament, the sickly religious sentimentality, or, more repulsive still, the habit of frivolous trifling with religion and its observances,—and, concurrent with both, the general lowering and enervation of the moral tone by which the healthful religious temper of a more thoughtful and less sensational age has been supplanted-to say nothing of the base superstitions, the fanciful practices, the vile abuses, the fanatical excesses, culminating in profanations too horrible to be named,3 which history records? Last, not least, who shall tell how many are, as is too often the case, by the reaction which religious error and folly is so apt to provoke, turned and driven away from the Truth altogether into the dark and deadly paths of unbelief! Of the souls whose salvation is thus hindered and imperilled-aye, and of the souls finally lost-who shall give account?

But even where the mischief done by the false teaching in question stops short of open and gross manifestations of its pernicious character, it is fraught with a twofold snare of perilous self-deception. On the one hand there is the conceit of spiritual superiority which, Mr. Carter's teaching more especially, is directly calculated to foster. According to him there are two kinds of Christians, both making pro

2 Prov. iii. 5.

3 To those acquainted with the annals of religious crime, the word Pistoja will suffice to justify the strong terms here employed.

fession of the Name of Christ, and both, it would appear, entitled to look for salvation through Christ; the one inferior-the common herd, so to speak, of believers-the other vastly superior, the élite, who enjoy the privilege of such "spiritual instructions" as are contained in his volume. Lest we should be supposed to do him an injustice, we shall give this "remarkable classification " of Christians in his own words :

A

"One main distinction runs throughout the kingdom of grace, separating more or less markedly those who are yet one in the possession of a common faith, the votaries of the natural and the supernatural life. By the natural life is meant that, while believing and resting on the atonement of Jesus Christ as the only hope, practically the life is regulated in moral harmony with the circumstances of the social state in which the lot is cast. The supernatural life is that in which there is an apprehension of the highest truth as a moving principle underlying all outward circumstances, and raising them, the soul itself developing its spiritual capacities through such an apprehension to the highest possible standard. sacramental life is the completest and highest form of this higher life, it is the Divine Presence of our Lord impressing Himself on earthly things, and is carried out by His own working in us, Himself overshadowing, pervading, informing, directing us, and ourselves lovingly accepting, intelligently apprehending, sweetly yielding the will, the affections, to endure and fulfil what is impressed upon the soul by the inner Divine Presence. There may be a like belief in the atonement, in the Presence and operations of our Incarnate Lord through the Spirit, in the grace imparted through sacraments creating and sustaining that life. There may be also more or less of a common belief in the objective Presence of our Lord under the external forms of the Blessed Sacrament. And yet the results of such faith greatly vary in the two cases.

"The difference appears in the practical hold which the mind gains of the reality and personal influence of the Divine Presence. A sacramental life is the proper result of a true belief in the sacramental Presence of God. But there may be a want of apprehending the Divine Presence as a living, life-giving reality; or it may be regarded as a communication of grace without the consciousness of personal union; or as an object of adoration without the approximating and assimilating faculty which connects the Gift with the Giver, or the soul's active life with the Indwelling Presence. There may be the want either of that vivid clearness of faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence (the practical realisation) of things not seen,' or there may lack a true