according to the Bishop's argument, one of three views must be held (a) that being reserved for the purpose of Communion, "Christ in the consecrated bread ought" to and can "be kept and preserved;" and then this seems to make the Presence depend upon the intended object of the Priest: (b) or that the Presence departs from the Sacramentum when the Ministration is ended, but returns to it when used to communicate the sick person: (c) or that there could be no presence at all with the Elements, though consecrated at a public or private Celebration, if reserved for the use of the Sick, any more than if "preserved to be carried about."

But while, on the one hand, it is due to Bishop Cosin to suppose that he could have reconciled the apparent discrepancy; so, on the other hand, admitting its existence, it does not really militate against the point I am arguing; for, whatever may have been his exact opinion touching the consecrated Elements when reserved, he only denies to them "the nature of Sacraments, when not used according to Divine institution" the question then is-are they used according to Divine institution ("that is," as he says, "given by Christ's ministers, and received by His people") when they are consumed, as expressly directed, by those very COMMUNICANTS Who have just before been partaking of them? There seems to me nothing either in the passage from the History of Transubstantiation or in the Note on "Kneeling," to imply that Cosin would have returned an answer in the negative; and if not, what he says of formal sacramental reception may surely be applied also to the participation in the remains of the Sacrament-" at that time when he receiveth them, rightly doth he adore and reverence his Saviour there together with the Sacramental Bread and Cup, exhibiting His own Body and Blood unto them;" and then it follows that the same "outward gesture of humility and reverence in our bodies" is to be used in both cases alike.

occurred once to the writer in a case where the sick person died just as the act of consecrating the Eucharist was finished; it is morally certain often to present itself again: but how is any one to resort to the obvious remedy-reservationif view (c) suggested by Bishop Cosin's theory, is thought to be the most consistent one? Nay, what is to be thought of the authorized practice of reservation in the Scotch Episcopal Communion?

There is, however, another Note of this 2nd Series which must not be overlooked; it runs thus, p. 356:

"And if any of the bread and wine remain, etc.] which is to be understood of that bread and wine, that the churchwardens provided, and carried into the vestry, not of that which the Priest consecrated for the Sacrament; for of this if he be careful, as he ought to be, to consecrate no more than will suffice to be distributed unto the Communicants, none will remain.

"(Yet if for lack of care they consecrate more than they distribute, why may not the Curates have it to their own use, as well as be given to children, (Concil Mastic. c. 2.) or be burnt in the fire (Isych in Levit.) for though the bread and wine remain, yet the consecration, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ do not remain longer than the holy action itself remains for which the bread and wine were hallowed; and which being ended, return to their former use again ?)"

If indeed this last paragraph is a record of Cosin's opinion, it undoubtedly would destroy the support I have been endeavouring to claim from him; unless (as seems probable from the passage just noticed, see also p. 127) he considered the consumption of the remains of the Sacrament at the Altar as part of "the holy action itself:" but from its bracketed form and the Editor's suggestion, it may be most reasonably supposed that it is nothing more than the real or imaginary language of an objector for whom the Bishop thought an answer should be provided. No such answer, however, seems to be recorded by the Bishop: but, unless we are to resort to the very improbable surmise that he was not a consentient party, it may well be considered that his answer is furnished in the amended Rubric of 1662.

Yet by way of clearing up the difficulty, it will be well to consider what answer Cosin would probably have drawn from his knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity; and perhaps that answer can be given in no more concise and satisfactory way than in the words of Bingham; for, treating of this very question, "How the remains of the Eucharist were disposed of," he says, Bk. xv., c. 7., s. 4

Editor's Note.-"[This part of the note was written after the former, and because that occupied the page, this is carried down the margin; it appears to be a sort of quere or άnopía in the way of discussion.]"

"Sometimes what remained of the Eucharist, was distributed among the innocent children of the Church. For, as I have briefly hinted before, whilst the communion of infants continued in the Church, nothing was more usual in many places than both to given children the communion at the time of consecration, and also to reserve what remained unconsumed, for them to partake of some day in the week following. Thus it was appointed by the second Council of Mascon in France, Anno 588, That if any remains of the Sacrifice, after the, Service was ended, were laid up in the vestry, he who had the care of them should, on Wednesday or Friday, bring the innocents to Church fasting, and then sprinkling the remains with wine, make them all partake of them. And Evagrius (lib. iv. c. 36) says, it was the custom of old at Constantinople to do the same: for when they had much remains of the Body of Christ left, they were used to call in the children that went to School, and distribute among them. And he tells this remarkable story upon it, that the son of a certain Jew happening one day to be among them, and acquainting his father what he had done, his father was so enraged at the thing, that he cast him into his burning furnace, where he was used to make glass. But the boy was preserved untouched for some days, till his mother found him: and the matter being related to Justinian the Emperor, he ordered the mother and the child to be baptized; and the father, because he refused to become a Christian, to be crucified as a murderer of his son. The same thing is related by Gregory of Tours (de. Glor. Martyr. lib. i. c. 10.) and Nicephorus Callistus (lib. xvii. c. 25), who also adds, that the custom continued at Constantinople to his own time, that is, the middle of the fourteenth century; for he says, when he was a child, he was often called to partake of the remains of the Sacrament after this manner among other children."

To what conclusion, then, is it most likely that Bishop Cosin must have been led by a consideration of the practice of the Church and the rule of the Council referred to in his question? Surely this-that the effect of the Consecration was held to "remain longer than the holy action itself remains for which the bread and wine were hallowed," for the children were to consume the remains fasting, this being the rule laid upon Communicants; and therefore that being the Sacrament still, according to Bishop Overall's definition in the Catechism, and not merely the Sacramentum, "the Curates" might not "have it to their own use," but it must be disposed of to the Communicants and with the same reverence as had accompanied the previous Sacramental action.

Again, with regard to the other practice, that of burning the remains, referred to in Bishop Cosin's note, the testimony of Bingham is equally explicit; he says, Ibid s. 5——

"In some places they observed the rule given by God for disposing of the remainders of the sacrifices of peace-offerings and vows under the old law, which was to burn them with fire. Lev. vii. 17. This was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in the fifth century, when Hesychius, a presbyter of that Church, wrote his Cominent upon Leviticus, where he speaks of it (lib. ii.) in these words: 'God commanded the remainder of the flesh to be burned with fire. And we now see with our own eyes the same thing done in the Church whatever happens to remain of the Eucharist unconsumed, we immediately burn with fire, and that not after one, two, or many days.' From hence our learned writers generally observe two things: 1, that it was not the custom of the Church of Jerusalem to reserve the Eucharist so much as from one day to another, though they did it in some other Churches. 2. That they certainly did not believe it to be the natural body and substance of Christ, but only his typical or symbolical body: for what an horrible and sacrilegious thing must the very Jews and Heathens have thought it, for Christians to burn the living and glorified body of their God? And how must it have scandalized simple and plain Christians themselves, to have seen the God they worshipped burnt in fire? And with what face could they have objected this to the Heathen, that they worshipped such things as might be burnt, which is the common argument used by Arnobius, Lactantius, Athanasius, and most others, if they themselves had done the same thing? If there were no other argument against transubstantiation and host-worship, this one thing were enough to persuade any rational man that such doctrines and practices were never countenanced by the ancient Church."

So far, however, from Bishop Cosin thinking this practice of the early Church any warrant for putting the remains of the Sacrament to the common uses permitted to the unconsecrated oblations of Bread and Wine, he must undoubtedly, I think, have regarded it as a most distinct precedent for a very reverent dealing with them; for the object was to prevent any risk of profanation-a precaution wholly needless if the Church had then held any such notion as that propounded in Cosin's supposed objection, viz., that the Eucharistic action being ended "the bread and wine" which "were hallowed

. . return to their former use again." There is no need,

however, it seems to me, to perplex this subject, as some have even lately done, by raising questions of a gross and material character touching the oral manducation of the Sacrament: thus Mr. Goode (on the Eucharist, vol. i. p. 191,) speaking of the doctrine of the Real Presence as held by Dr. Pusey, the late Archdeacon Wilberforce, and Archdeacon Denison, says

"If the Body and Blood of Christ are so joined to the bread and wine that the mouth of every communicant in receiving one necessarily receives the other, then brute animals eating and drinkingth e bread and wine receive the Body and Blood of Christ."

And he complains that Archdeacon Denison, having by anticipation noticed the objection, can only reply—

".... that we are not told what the consecrated Elements may be to the brute creation, and therefore cannot affirm anything on the subject,"

whereas Mr. Goode says (p. 49)—

".... the consistent Romanists maintain, that brute animals eating and drinking consecrated Bread and Wine, eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ."

Yet, while it is no fair argument to assume-that a consequence connected with the doctrine of Transubstantiation by some of its maintainers, is also tied to a doctrine which its advocates assert to be the reverse of Transubstantiation-it may not be improper to consider how the objection can be met. Let it be granted that the Roman doctrine of the change of substance necessarily involves the result named (though Mr. Goode allows, p. 192, that "this is a view from which even many Romanists shrink," professing to hold, as S. Thomas Aquinas says, that """ as soon as the Sacrament is touched of a mouse or a dog, the body of Christ ceases to be there"") why should a like result follow from that Sacramental union which the writers in question hold to be involved by the Real Presence of Christ's "Blessed Body and Blood under the form of Bread and Wine?" I say "from that Sacramental union which the writers in question hold; " for perchance Mr. Goode's expression-"that the mouth of every communicant in receiving one necessarily receives the other" might