tino. Et sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus."* And we desire to say as much. We can assure those who are more afraid of superstition than of infidelity, that it requires no belief in Transubstantiation to command the lowest posture of adoration, and the utmost intensity of prayer during the whole time of the awful Mysteries in which CHRIST is present in such manner, that every one of the communicants either is "made one with CHRIST and CHRIST with him," or else "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the LORD's Body," Which is there to be discerned, had he the faith to discern It.

We wish we could think Mr. Vogan held the doctrine we have endeavoured briefly to state; but to the best of our recollection he nowhere distinctly states his belief in the Real Presence of CHRIST; and when he quotes the words of the Homily, (p. 9,) "that in the Supper of the LORD there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent, &c.," he italicizes the word untrue, but not the word absent, as if he understood it to mean a true figure of a thing absent, whereas, if it is not to contradict all antiquity, it must mean a true figure of a Thing Present, the Body of CHRIST being present, not in such manner as belongs to Its human Nature, but by virtue of Its inseparable union with His Divine Nature, and by the power of the HOLY GHOST, exerted according to His promise, when and where that act is performed, which He instituted, in order to make present to His Church by the Spirit that purified Human Nature, the bodily presence of which He withdrew by ascending into heaven. (See Wilberforce on the Incarnation, p. 284.)

We have spoken of the faith required of Communicants; there is required also of them "a thankful remembrance of CHRIST'S death," not merely that they call to mind the past fact, that CHRIST has died for them, but that they join in that solemn act, whereby the Church on earth calls on the Almighty FATHER mercifully to remember that full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice made once for all upon the Cross, which her ascended LORD unceasingly presents in heaven-her highest act of public worship—and her Christian Sacrifice. Of this, so far as we can see, Mr. Vogan takes no notice. He believes Holy Communion to be a feast upon a sacrifice; so do we: but then we believe that in the Eucharistic Office the Sacrifice which is feasted on is really made, in a sense which is very real and very important, though needing some explanation, which we shall endeavour to give; but first, we will notice a few minor points in Mr. Vogan's Lectures, which are connected rather with the subject of Communion.

If any one wants a concise and sufficient answer to the strange tenet of the Quakers, who deny that there are any signs under the

* Respons. ad Card. Bellarm. p. 195.

Gospel, he will find it in Mr. Vogan's second lecture. Only there is a note belonging to the end of this lecture which we cannot commend, (p. 128.) We would ask Mr. Vogan where we can find a description of " the opus operatum of the Romanists." We have some acquaintance with the opus operatum of the schoolmen; but that means anything done externally to the party for whose benefit it is done, as contrasted with opus operantis, anything which a party can do for himself. Thus a sacrament is opus operatum something done by GoD through His minister to convey grace, which He does not ordinarily give otherwise. The desire to have a sacrament is opus operantis, that which a person does for himself. It is believed that opus operantis will be accepted, where opus operatum cannot be had; but not that "opus operatum " will take effect on any but one who is " subjectum capax;" not for instance, that a sacrament, however duly administered, can have its due effect on an adult who is deficient in faith or charity; which is what seems to be meant by Mr. Vogan's "opus operatum of the Romanists," a bugbear which we have not come across in any of the Roman Catholic writers we happen to have read.

In page 26, Mr. Vogan argues from the expression "fruit of the vine," that wine only without any water was used by our LORD. In justice to him, we must add, that he gives in a note a fair statement of what has been said on this subject by several learned writers. We cannot agree with his conclusion. It is admitted

that it was an ancient custom to add a little pure water to the wine. The learned non-juror, Brett, maintains that this custom obtained universally up to the time of the Reformation; nor do we know of any instance to the contrary; and if it be mischievous, as Mr. Vogan says, to call things Catholic which are not so, such as the various mystical interpretations which have at various times been affixed to this practice, (we admit it to be so if anything more is meant than the truth, that they are in harmony with the turn of mind which prevails among the great Catholic writers,) is it not quite as mischievous to suppress the fact (if it be a fact) that the practice itself has a fair claim to the name of Catholic in its strict sense? In our opinion it is very nearly certain that our LORD used a mixed cup; for the Jewish Rabbis, according to Lightfoot, (Horæ Hebr. in S. Matt. c. 26,) do not say simply that the cup may be used either with or without water, but that the precept was fulfilled by using wine only, though the usual practice was to mix water with it; which seems to be very similar to the doctrine of the Christian Church, that the consecration is not invalidated by the omission of water. The same writer (ibid.) tells us that according to the tradition of the rabbis, the name "fruit of the vine" was given to the mixture only, and not to pure wine.

We suppose it will not be disputed that when the Greeks spoke of drinking olvov they meant wine and water, unless the epithet

axpaτov was expressly added; and we believe the same to have been the case with the Hebrews.

That water was added, as Brett says, not merely by reason of the usual custom in drinking, but also with express reference to the mystery, is more easily asserted than proved; and we hope no one now doubts that the Church may enjoin the use of wine alone. The question is, Has the Church of England done so ? and in answering this question we must differ from Mr. Vogan. The addition of water was enjoined in the first Book of Edward VI., and is not so now that is to say, it was conceded to those who had scruples about the propriety of adding water to the wine, that this practice, granted not to be absolutely necessary, should no longer be required of every one; but it is very hard, surely, to assume without proof that it was intended to exclude those who had scruples on the opposite side, and were in favour of the immemorial custom and it is still harder to assume that, if any one felt a difficulty in departing from the long established custom of using unleavened bread, the declaration that it shall suffice to use common bread was intended summarily to suspend such an one from the exercise of his office. We believe it is perfectly lawful to us to use a mixed cup and unleavened wafers; and that if our LORD did so, it would, in itself, be more reverent to use as nearly as possible the same elements which He used, even if all the mystical interpretations could be refuted one after the other. Not that we would have any Priest set the wayward among his congregation raving, or disturb the equanimity of Right Reverend Prelates by inconsiderately introducing practices which have gradually fallen into disuse among us, and are confessedly not essential: only we cannot conceive that such things involve a violation of the obligation to use the Book of Common Prayer and no other.

But we have said enough on these points in our number for August, and notice them here chiefly because we think it our duty continually to protest against that narrow-minded method of interpreting our present rubrics, which supposes them to be so complete in themselves that no light can be thrown upon them, nor any omissions in them legitimately supplied by the study of more ancient service books. A Church is in its nature a continuous body; it is therefore a true and necessary principle to assume that its doctrine and usages continue; those points excepted in which definite enactments can be produced which have altered or rescinded them. In the same way we do not suppose Mr. Vogan would agree with the author of "Speculum Episcopi" in commending Bishop Bedel for reading the Psalms straight through like a Lesson, because, forsooth, we have now no rubric which bids us to say them antiphonally.

In his third lecture Mr. Vogan has some very true remarks on the absurd and impious fanaticism of the advocates of temperance societies, which we trust will deter his readers from giving any

countenance to such mistaken attempts to improve the morality of a Christian people by throwing a slight upon the Institutions of CHRIST. We can excuse the digression at p. 34, but we heartily wish it had been spared, or at least that nothing had been said about those who have departed from us without a more deeply penitential acknowledgment of our own grievous short-comings.

The fourth lecture on Communion under one kind is on the whole a successful vindication of the necessity of restoring Communion under both kinds, but here too is a digression which we could have spared. (p. 46.) We too condemn the use of "ornaments and ceremonies neither prescribed by our rules, nor sanctioned by legitimate use;" but we contend that legitimate use may sanction some things which our rules have omitted to prescribe and in our judgment as to what things may be thought to be sanctioned by legitimate use, we fear we are not very near to agreeing with Mr. Vogan. But we must pass on, noticing only that when he quotes Gelasius with a reference to the Decretum, p. 3, de consecr. d. 2, § Comperimus, he ought to have noticed that the title to that seetion is "Corpus Christi sine Ejus Sanguine Sacerdos non debet accipere," which may puzzle some of his young readers. Canon Wordsworth has given the history of that title and its attendant gloss in the sequel of his Letters to M. Gondon, p. 130.

The fifth and two following lectures are employed chiefly in refuting the doctrine of Transubstantiation. On this point we have thought it better to state for ourselves, as distinctly as our limits would allow, what we do believe and what we do not believe, than to comment at length on the statements of Mr. Vogan, but we cannot forbear to notice one or two oversights. In p. 58 we are told that the Roman doctrine is "as much as to say, that wherever the substantive verb or simple logical copula 'is' occurs, it expresses perfect identity of the subject with the predicate . . . SO that there is nothing in the predicate which is not in the subject." Our author continues: "This is untrue both in logic and in grammar. Logicians need not to be reminded that the predicate of an affirmative proposition is not necessarily distributed or used for all that it signifies." Now if Mr. Vogan had kept to the barbarous vocabulary of the schools he would have avoided a very absurd mistake. Logicians need not be reminded that "all that it signifies" may mean something very different from "all its significates." All its significates means all things capable of being called by a given All that it signifies means the whole complex idea expressed by a name, whether predicated of one subject or of many. If language is used with logical precision every name must be taken for all that it signifies, e.g., if I supposed an oyster to be something between animal and vegetable, I should not call it animal at all; but I predicate the term animal in its full meaning of any individual dog, whatever be the number of other individuals and other species

name.

to which this name is equally applicable. The question of distribution has no place at all in a proposition, both the terms of which are individual, such as the proposition "this is my body" must needs be, unless it be supposed that I have more bodies than one. One may say with equal truth, this is my book' and that is my book, though one be a Bible and the other S. Athanasius; because the term." my book " is capable of distribution, i.e., may be applied in exactly the same sense to several different objects; but every schoolboy must see that such consideration can have no place at all in determining the meaning of the proposition "This is My Body," when once it is granted that the speaker has but one body; and Mr. Vogan, in p. 86, rightly excludes as a mere absurdity the notion that CHRIST can have more than one true and proper body. But our readers will not thank us for a lecture on the elements of Logic: we felt obliged to notice the mistake because we cannot help doubting whether a person capable of making such a mistake can be a trustworthy guide to students through the mazes of Scholastic Theology.

This scholastic disquisition reminds us of another remark we might have made on the subject of "opus operatum. We have quoted Bishop Cosin as saying that faith cannot make CHRIST to be sacramentally present, but can only apprehend Him to be so when His sacramental Presence is brought about by the act of consecrating elements according to His ordinance. Now this is tantamount to saying that His Presence results from an opus operatum, not from an opus operantis; and, unless this doctrine be maintained, we had better give up the Sacraments, for ought we can see, and turn Quakers at once. We add that, when we avail ourselves of Bishop Cosin's name for this statement, it is but honest to acknowledge that in the same work he makes other statements, of which we are unable to see how they are consistent with this. At the same time we think he has proved that Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Church for many centuries; and candid writers on both sides allow that it cannot rest upon the words of Scripture alone, since, as Mr. Vogan truly observes, (p. 58,) "In the language which was commonly used by the Jews in our SAVIOUR'S time, it is well known that there is no word for signify, represent, denote, or mean and if it were admitted [as it is not] that He intended to say, This signifies, this represents My Body, He could only have used words strictly corresponding to those which the Evangelists and S. Paul ascribe to Him in the Greek, e.g., 'The ten horns . . are ten kings.' (Dan. vii. 24.) This Agar is Mount Sinai.' (Gal. iv. 25,)" &c. &c.

:

In p. 86 it is said, that the Roman doctrine and the Lutheran "equally overthrow the nature of the Sacrament by confounding the outward and visible sign with the inward and spiritual grace,' which is not correct; for by the hypothesis on which these doc