tualists," whom we allude to, have too readily been identified in common estimation with the old historic High-Church school of English theology, from the distinctive principles of which they have widely diverged, though still unfairly assuming to represent and be the exponents of that great party, who have so long been the recognized school of Anglo-Catholic teaching in our Church,

It is under the assumed name of the "HighChurch" party that the Romanizing element in the teaching of this modern school, against which we have now to contend, has found a place in our religious literature, and has been enabled to gain an influence over the minds of many of our younger brethren in the Church. The extent to which erroneous doctrines in reference to the Holy Eucharist have been subtly inculcated by means of the numerous manuals of devotion, especially for the young, with which the press has teemed of late years-beguiling unstable souls-is indeed a cause for serious alarm; and has justly called forth words of earnest warning from the wellnigh unanimous voice of the English Episcopate, in their recent pastoral letter to the Clergy and

Laity of the Church.3

Another powerful agency which is being used for the propagation of Romanizing doctrines is the establishment of Guilds or "Confraternities," chiefly composed of young persons, whose members are bound by strict rules of discipline, and in certain cases directed by secret instructions from the "Priests Associate" under whose control they are placed.* And it cannot be denied that the forbearance and toleration which have so long been shown towards this disloyal party by the Spiritual Rulers of our Church, have only resulted in more extravagant pretensions, and in more open defiance of all lawful authority.

This element of danger to the peace and integrity of our Church is ample justification for such a combined effort as is contained in the present volume for the re-assertion and vindication of her principles, and surely constitutes a strong claim upon all her loyal sons who value the inestimable blessing of Scriptural Truth, which we have inherited through her, to rally round her Standard, and take their part in the contest for the Faith against Superstition and Infidelity. 3 See Appendix, Note D.

4 Do. Note E.

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST, ONCE OFFERED ON THE CROSS.A SHORT COMMENTARY ON "THE ONE OFFERING: ". —a treatise by the Rev. M. F. Sadler.

Since the last Part of this serial work, containing a treatise on the Sacrificial nature of the Holy Eucharist, by the Rev. J. Le Mesurier, was completed, our attention has been directed to a work recently published on the same subject, entitled "The One Offering," by the Rev. M. F. Sadler, Rector of Honiton. Mr. Sadler's writings hitherto have so generally contributed to the vindication of Anglo-Catholic principles that anything coming from his pen justly claims our attention, and there is much in this treatise with which we fully concur. We notice, for instance, in the second chapter (page 6), his clear statement that the sacrificial character of the Eucharist extends over the whole Service. He remarks that the feature in our Com

munion office "which especially distinguishes this Service as that which Christ ordained is the setting of the elements on the table with prayer, i.e., the offering of them to God, the Consecration-including the breaking of the bread, and the taking of the cup as Christ took it,-and the consumption by priest and people of that which has been consecrated. Now all these things are done in our service, not as if they are performed for the mere edification of the people, but as if they are parts of the worship of Almighty God." This is the point which is especially urged in Part XII., in answer to the question,-in what sense is the Eucharist a Sacrifice? We cannot but think, however, that Mr. Sadler has, to say the least, used language which requires explanation; that he has not shown himself sufficiently alive to the perversion of the primitive doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice, against which it is the object of the treatise by Mr. Le Mesurier carefully

to guard; and that his book will tend rather to confirm that perversion than to check it. On this account, a few remarks on the language used by the author in reference to the Eucharistic Sacrifice, especially the use made of the term offering," will not, we trust, be deemed uncalled for on our part.

Mr. Sadler himself draws marked attention (pages 10, 162, 168) to the fact that Holy Scripture tells us very little of the nature of Christian worship, and that the view he advocates of the Eucharistic Sacrifice finds little or no support from plain statements of Scripture, but can be perceived only by deep spiritual insight, and elaborated only by pious deductions from indirect Scriptural intimations. On this admission by the author, two observations are very obvious :

I. Such pious deductions need to be continually tested and rectified by whatever Scriptural statements are plain, and by such patristic teaching as comes nearest in time to Scripture. - The importance of this consideration has been strongly urged in the treatise above referred to.2

II. Since the sacramental feeding on Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist-which, be it remembered, is not a whit less mysterious or full of blessing than its sacrificial aspect-is not left in Holy Scripture to pious inferences, but is emphatically stated with all plainness, it seems beyond question that we should never allow the sacrificial aspect to overshadow the sacraruental.

We would point out in the next place, that the greater part of Mr. Sadler's arguments appear to be addressed, not merely to those who disregard the efficacy of consecration, and who "believe that in the sacrament there is no distribution except of mere emblems,-such as the Presbyterians in Scotland, or the Wesleyans in England,"3-but to members of our Church who loyally adhere to her teaching, believing that what we offer in the Eucharist is " our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving;" yet reject the unscriptural tenet of an offering of the Body and Blood of Christ by the priest, in or under the form of the consecrated elements, which disregards the true purpose of consecration, the sacramental reception by the faithful communicants. For we "show forth the Lord's Death "-which is our

2 Part XII. Sect., I.

3 See Treatise, &c., page 141.

memorial thank-offering (or Christian sacrifice) -"as oft as we eat that Bread and drink that Cup."

Mr. Sadler seems to forget that a deep sense of the unspeakable greatness of God's gift promised on reception is one chief reason of the jealousy felt by many of the undue pressing of the sacrificial view, whereby reception itself has been thrust into the shade, and even treated as a matter that may be left entirely to the option of the worshipper who attends the service. For it is but too evident that error has run into opposite extremes in reference to this holy Ordinance. In the one, it has culminated in treating the Lord's Supper as a mere memorial feast; in the other, it has gradually eliminated from the rite more and more of the people's part, until at length the Priest is seen "offering up the Body and Blood of Christ upon the Altar;" in which act of worship the people are supposed to take part, without reception at all! What is this but turning an ordinance of Christ's institution into a new rite of man's devising?

It is

It becomes a duty, therefore, of primary importance for those who inculcate the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice, to see clearly themselves, and show distinctly to others, where this divergence from primitive truth begins. difficult to learn from Mr. Sadler's book whether there is any statement of the sacrificial view at which he would demur, so long as it keeps clear of maintaining (what no right-minded person can possibly hold,) that it is a repetition of Christ's Sacrifice. And yet, after a perusal of the book, we feel the more strongly confirmed in the view taken by Mr. Le Mesurier in his treatise on the subject, that the first departure from scriptural and primitive language-and so the first germ out of which error has developed itself into the present Romish system of false doctrine-is found in the expressions, such as used by Mr. Sadler, that Christ is now continually "OFFERING Himself in heaven," and that "in the Holy Eucharist we offer Christ's Body and Blood to God."

5

We do not of course mean to imply that the many good men in times past who have used these terms have necessarily intended in their use anything not strictly orthodox and primitive. Nevertheless, looking back on the matter his

4 See Part VIII., Sect. 1, page 241. 5 See Appendix, Note A. 1st part.

6 See Appendix, Note A. 2nd part.

and my fatlings are killed." So again we read8 of Joseph's feast to his brethren σφάξον Oúμara, and of the food Nabal had prepared for his sheepshearers, τὰ θύματά μου á réðvкa—“My flesh that I have killed.”

Bearing such passages in mind, is it too much to say that the rendering "being sacrificed," (though we are aware it may claim even Professor Blunt in its support,) is hardly accurate, and that the true meaning of Ovóμeva in this place is rather-"being prepared for food," being, as it were, slain afresh for a feast?" Of the general bearing of the whole passage there can be no doubt whatever, that it speaks not of our making an offering to God, but of His providing a feast for us, and our feeding thereon.

Thus, whether we consider the terms in which Scripture speaks of the present work of Christ in heaven, or the manner in which the earliest Fathers write of the Church's Eucharistic service upon earth, have we warning against speaking of the liturgical pleading and giving thanks for Christ's Death before the Father, as "an offering of His Body and Blood," or "of Himself to the Father." And is such warning, we would ask, without deep significance and weighty reason? Is it not an inaccuracy of language to speak of "offering" that which has already been once for all offered? And like other inaccuracies of language, has it not, when once admitted, led to a train of errors which, if not necessarily, at least not unnaturally flow from it? If Christ's Body and Blood are to be "offered" to God at each celebration, then must they each time be re-produced before they can be offered. Thus the offering becomes bound up with the one act of consecration by the Priest; and the more this offering to God of the consecrated Bread and Wine as "the Body and Blood of Christ" is magnified, the less importance becomes attached to other parts of the service, especially the reception by the people, and those portions in which the people take part.

We are not, of course, admitting the legitimacy of all these deductions, or the propriety of drawing a series of apparently logical deductions in regard to what is confessedly above reason. Rather would we ever warn against the danger of what may seem logical deductions from even revealed premises on such sub

jects. But in enumerating the above stages of thought we are but stating deductions which have been both manifestly made and sadly acted on, and which are again being acted on at this day. And we would earnestly point out that each downward step, as proved by historical evidence, is a wider and wider divergence from the divinely ordered type. It has been shewn in Part XII. that in the early liturgies the oblation was made while the elements were yet mere symbols, being as yet unconsecrated; and that the act of consecration is connected, according to those same liturgies, not with the sacrifice, but with the blessing on reception.1

The Dean of Norwich, in his recent Appendix," to his Commentary on the Holy Communion, (reviewed in the previous part of this Supplement,) has shewn how carefully our Eucharistic office has guarded primitive truth by making mention of "oblation" before consecration, and of "the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" at the end of the whole service, showing that it is the whole service, including of necessity reception by the worshippers, which is the appointed memorial before God.

But Mr. Sadler seems unconscious that there have been such divergences as are here mentioned from primitive Eucharistic doctrine and practice, and regardless of the dangers to which they inevitably lead. He speaks of the act of "Consecration," for instance, as "the sacrifice of praise" (page 109), and even adopts as "Catholic truth" Dr. Neale's statement (page 87), that we offer in the Eucharist Christ's "Immortal Body"!

We must now bring our few remarks on this treatise to a conclusion; but we cannot do so without expressing the regret which we have felt in being obliged to remonstrate so strongly against the views maintained, and the terms employed by Mr. Sadler, as being liable to mislead on the subject of Eucharistic Sacrifice. As we before observed, the language used by the

1 In Parts IX., X. and XI., it is shewn at large that noncommunicating attendance is alien from primitive practice and that we commemorate Christ's sacrifice, when we partake of that bread and that cup which represent Him offered for our sins upon the cross. This is the prescribed mode, the only prescribed mode, of that commemorative action; unless we eat and drink we do not show his death.' In short, by the very nature and appointment of the rite, we cannot ‘join in the Sacrifice without going on to the Sacrament;' for without that which is here termed the Sacrament, there is no proper representation of the Sacrifice of Christ," Page 289,

Author in reference to this doctrine cannot but be regarded as bearing a very striking contrast to the emphatic declarations of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting the oneness and completeness of the Oblation made upon the Cross. "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many:"-" We are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all:"-" For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified :"-" Now . . there is no more offering for sin.2" And other passages to the same effect might be adduced, showing this purpose to be the special aim of the Apostle's argument throughout. Even the title chosen for the book-"The One Offering" -would appear to be a protest against the line of argument contained in it.

In our review of Dr. Trevor's valuable treatise, forming Part IV. of this work, we have borne testimony to the Catholic doctrine, that the Memorial Sacrifice in the Eucharist is inseparable from Participation. This leading doctrine of Holy Scripture-the "shewing forth the Lord's Death," (our thank-offering, or commemorative sacrifice) "as often as we eat of that bread and drink of that cup"-is plainly indicated in our consecration prayer, wherein we pray to our Heavenly Father, that "we may partake of the Body and Blood of Christ" on "receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, .. in remembrance of His Death and Passion." The great principle of Christian worship,-its essentially sacrificial character, in being acceptable at the Throne of Grace, only through the Sacrifice and Intercession of Christ our High Priest-has also been ably maintained by the late Dr. Biber in the second treatise of Part XII. And in regard to these fundamental truths, there is much, we gladly feel, that we hold in common with the Author of the treatise on which we have here briefly commented. But this only tends to increase our regret that we are constrained to differ on an important point of Eucharistic doctrine, from one who has so zealously laboured in the same cause with the eminent authors who have taken part with us in this work, to vindicate our "Church's doctrine," and to prove it to be founded on "Bible Truth." We trust, therefore, that our remarks, offered as they are with the sincere desire of vindicating the Truth, and in the spirit of

2 Hebrews ix. 28; x. 10, 14, 18.

Christian charity, will not be misunderstood by Mr. Sadler.

The distinction between the doctrine of the Sacrifice of Christ 66 once for all offered on the Cross" and "ever pleaded by Him in Heaven for us," and the assumed theory of "a continuous offering" of that Sacrifice,—as by Christ in Heaven "so by the priest on earth,"-however slight may appear the difference in words, is one in which there is a vital principle at stake. Although contrary to the plain meaning of Holy Scripture, this modern theory of "a continuous sacrifice" serves to give a support to the equally unscriptural dogma (in its literal meaning), that in the Eucharist "the Body and Blood of Christ "-as also Christ Himself in His glorified Person, "objectively present "are "offered by the priest," in, or "under the form of" the consecrated bread and wine. And what is such a presumptuous assertion, but the same in principle and purpose as the sacrifice of the Mass, in which "Christ is said to be offered by the priest for the quick and the dead,"- -so emphatically condemned by our Church as "a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit"? This dogma, unknown to the Primitive Church for three centuries, was maintained in the "manifesto" addressed to the late Archbishop of Canterbury by certain clergy, as a statement of their belief. The fallacious propositions of that document (which was SO guardedly worded as "to be susceptible of two meanings ") have been already commented on in the 4th section of Part VI.3 For a full consideration of the new theory of a continuous Sacrifice, and the erroneous doctrines resulting from it, we must refer the reader to the learned and exhaustive treatise by the late Dr. Vogan, on "The true Doctrine of the Eucharist," (Part II., chap. 8,) a short extract from which is given in the Appendix.1

It is with much satisfaction that we acknowledge, before concluding, our obligation to the present Bishop of Winchester for the valuable testimony, contained in his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, to the historical fact asserted by us in Part XII., respecting the divergence from Primitive Eucharistic doctrine apparent in the writings of the Fathers about the 3rd century. This testimony (recently brought to our notice) is contained in the ex

3 Also in Note D. to Part VIII. page 275. 4 Bee Appendix, Note B.