sacred Presence is to be associated with the consecration, and not merely with the reception.1

The Archbishop of Canterbury emphasizes the condemnation of the theory of Transubstantiation by the Church of England. He expresses strongly also his own rejection of this theory and classes it among human inventions' which 'have been allowed to supersede the teaching of Scripture' (p. 11). In like manner the Archbishop of York, while pointing out that 'no particular belief' on the subject of the 'mode' of the Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament 'can be demanded from the members of the Church of England,' adds

'One, indeed, of the theories (that of Transubstantiation) as to the manner of the union of our Blessed Lord with the material elements which He has appointed for His holy purpose has been explicitly and emphatically condemned by the Church of England and was unknown to the whole Church of Christ through many centuries after the Apostolic times' (p. 24).

It may be contended with some force that the condemnation of Transubstantiation' in the twenty-eighth Article is to be confined to the popular as distinct from the technical form of the doctrine; and in the declarations of high authorities laying down the position of the Church of England we are distinctly of opinion that allowance ought to have been made for this. Yet in so saying we wish to state our own belief that the objections to even the technical form of Transubstantiation are of a very grave character. The assertion of it may perhaps be pardoned to the Schoolmen in their laudable though mistaken desire to state Christian doctrine in such a way that, on account of its harmony with the Aristotelian philosophy, it might wear its strongest aspect against the attacks of unbelief. As affirmed at Trent as part of the faith, it does great injury to religion by associating Christian doctrine with a particular system of philosophy and by unnecessarily narrowing the limits of belief. We understand

1 We regret that elsewhere the Archbishop of York, in condemning the 'ringing of a bell at the moment of the consecration,' should say that this practice is suggestive of teaching which has no sanction from the Church as regards the immediate effect produced by the prayer of consecration' (p. 26). This statement lends itself to the support of a denial of the objectivity of the Presence such as the Archbishop would evidently repudiate, and does not appear consistent with the rubric which directs that, when a second consecration is necessary, simply the part of the prayer of consecration referring to the element which has to be consecrated is to be used. Misuse has already been made of it by Sir William Harcourt in his letter in the Times of December 29.

that even among Roman Catholics there are not a few of the more intelligent who would be rid if they could both of the word Transubstantiation and of the precision of the definition of the doctrine.

The Archbishop of Canterbury describes the doctrine of the Real Presence of our Lord in the consecrated elements, which he states to be allowed, though not expressly taught, by the Church of England, as 'the Lutheran doctrine commonly called Consubstantiation' (pp. 10, 12). It is obvious that the identification of this doctrine with Lutheran teaching may have been intended by the Archbishop to reconcile to the allowance of it some of those who, while strongly opposed to the assertion of the Real Presence in the elements, hold the work of Luther in high regard. Allowing for this intention we think the identification a matter for sincere regret. It is so because of the doubts as to the meaning of Luther's teaching on the subject and the complication introduced by his notion of the ubiquity of the Manhood of our Lord; because of the unfortunate associations of the word 'Consubstantiation' which has commonly, though perhaps wrongly, been taken to mean a material intermingling of the Body and Blood of Christ with the bread and wine parallel to the intermingling of our Lord's Deity and Humanity asserted by some forms of Monophysitism; and also because of the abandonment of any practical holding of the Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the consecrated elements by almost all Lutherans at the present time.

II. The second part of the Charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury is on 'the proper objects of worship and prayers for the dead.' In pointing out the dangerous character of the complex distinctions in degrees of worship which had become common at the time of the Reformation the Archbishop explains the 'true purpose of religious observances as being 'to sanctify the life by bringing it nearer to God' so that if the life be not really holier, religious observances are of little value' (p. 14). He includes 'invocation to any saints,' and 'any other external mark of adoration' to 'Christ present in the Sacrament' 'except that of kneeling to receive the consecrated Elements' among the practices prohibited by the English Church (p. 15). On the subject of prayers for the dead there is much that is of great value in the recognition of the lawfulness and utility of 'prayers for those whom we love and who are gone before us,' in the caution with which the state of the departed is spoken of, and in the statement that the introduction of prayers for the dead

VOL. XLVII.-NO. XCIV.

ΙΙ

into public worship is authorized only 'in the most cautious and guarded manner' (pp. 17-18). On invocation of saints we have written elsewhere in the present number, and we need not say more on this subject here than that in condemning the Romish doctrine concerning' 'invocation of saints' the Church of England has no more condemned the private use of all forms of invocation than by condemning the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory' she has condemned every form of prayers for the dead. To the subject of the methods of adoration we must refer later on in the present article.

On these matters the Archbishop of York, while expressing no opinion as to what is lawful in private prayers, says expressly as to public worship:

'No invocations of the Holy Angels or of the Blessed Virgin or of departed Saints, and no definite prayers for the dead, can be allowed to find a place in any service to be used within the walls of a consecrated church' (p. 30).

We do not know whether the phrase 'no definite prayers for the dead' as describing what cannot be allowed in public worship is intended to be equivalent to the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that public prayers for the dead must be expressed in the most cautious and guarded manner.' If so, the word 'definite' seems to us a little misleading, for surely there is no want of definiteness in the prayer that all,' the 'whole Church' of God-that is, the departed as well as the living-'may obtain remission of' 'sins and all other benefits of' Christ's 'passion.' This prayer of the Church of England is certainly expressed 'in the most cautious and guarded manner'; it can hardly be said to be other than 'definite' in the ordinary sense of the word. Indeed, we wish that some who clamour for services which are not provided by the Book of Common Prayer would themselves remember, and would be careful to teach others, that the Church of England, in the very prayer in which she presents to God the Father the oblation of the 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' of the Body and Blood of Christ, pleads for that part of the Church which has passed through death, as well as for that which is now living upon earth, that it may obtain remission of' 'sins and all other benefits of' the 'passion' of our Lord and Saviour.

III. The third part of the Charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury is on the 'practice of Confession,' and there is a long paragraph on the same subject in the Pastoral Letter of the Archbishop of York. It will be a great comfort to many

to find that such a position as that taken up by the Bishop of Southwell, upon which it was our duty in our last number to comment with some severity, is clearly and entirely re pudiated by both Archbishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury says:

'If anyone wishes to confess, the permission to do so is acknowledged in the Prayer Book; and, if the need of it be strongly felt, not only acknowledged, but encouraged. . . . A man in serious sickness... is to be exhorted, if he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, to make special confession of his sins, and absolution is ordered to be pronounced if he shall heartily and humbly desire it' (p. 22).

According to the Archbishop of York:

'It is impossible for anyone honestly to deny that private confession to an individual minister of Christ is, within certain limits, clearly sanctioned by the Church of England. . . . Nor can it be contended that the confession allowed by the Church, and commended under certain conditions, is of the same kind as that private intercourse between the Pastor and his people which is recognized in every religious community in the world' (pp. 30-1).

To these assertions of the provision made by the Church of England for the practice of Confession both Archbishops add expressions of its value. 'Confession,' 'handled' as directed by the Church of England, has often,' says the Archbishop of Canterbury, 'been of invaluable help to Christians in their spiritual life' (p. 23). The Archbishop of York speaks of the legitimate use of this spiritual help' (p. 31). They give also warnings as to its use. The Archbishop of Canterbury says, 'Under a system of' enforced confession 'the penitent will get forgiveness from the priest on far easier terms than from his own conscience,' and 'few people can altogether avoid confessing other people's sins when confessing their own' (pp. 20-1); under the system of the Church of England 'no compulsion, direct or indirect, is ever allowed' (p. 22). The Archbishop of York lays down that 'the compulsory use of confession' 'is distinctly contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, and cannot be sanctioned' (p. 31); and he adds a caution as to the habitual hearing of confessions by 'young men very recently admitted to the priesthood' (p. 32).

1 See Church Quarterly Review, October 1898, pp. 3-12.

2 It is only fair to point out that the present utter lack of discipline as to what priests hear confessions is largely due to the past action of the bishops in either discouraging or ignoring the use of Confession provided for in the Prayer Book. Much that is unsatisfactory in the atti

112

Amid so much that is helpful it is uncongenial to criticize, yet we must express our regret that the subject of Confession has not been treated from a somewhat less subjective point of view, and that reference has not been made to the solemn words of our Blessed Lord when He gave to the Apostles the powers of remitting and retaining sins, and to the repetition of those words by the ordaining bishop to every priest who is ordained in the Church of England. And even from the subjective point of view we regret the apparent sanction by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the confession of one sin without any mention of others (p. 23). There are of course cases in which the pressure of one sin is felt to be so great a burden, and the one sin itself is recognized as so grievous an offence against Almighty God, that the thought of it for the time being blots out the realization of any other sins. We believe that the judgment of priests who have great experience in hearing confessions and have practically learnt its risks and its benefits, will bear us out in saying that as a rule it is unlikely that penitence is real and a confession subjectively good if the penitent, while confessing some sins, withholds others.

IV. Fourthly, the Archbishop of Canterbury deals with uniformity in ceremonial.' He strongly affirms the need of such uniformity.

'The ceremonial of the Church is prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, and no departure from what is therein prescribed is allowed, except by the intervention of lawful authority in each particular case. . . . No words and no ceremony can be added to or omitted from the words and ceremonies prescribed by and in the book. The book itself leaves a good deal of discretion to the clergyman; but that discretion is confined to that which is expressly given. There are alternative prayers; in some cases there are prayers which may be used or omitted. There are other instances of the same kind; but, except where discretion is mentioned, the book must be followed exactly as it stands, unless superior authority shall intervene, and it is to be remembered that the promise to do this is ordered, not by Act of Parliament, but by Canon-not by the State, but by the Church' (pp. 25-6).

After this clear statement-to which we wish there had been added some reference to the inferences involved in the tude of some clergy towards Confession may be ascribed to the same cause. We may notice here that it is characteristic of Sir William Harcourt's methods of controversy that he has taken a foolish letter in the Church Review of December 29, 1898, as if it were representative of the minds of those clergy who habitually hear confessions; see Times, January 5, 1899, p. 8.