be rejected by those writers as implying a sensible oral contact opposed to the nature of the res sacramenti as by them understood. Passing over this, however, let me suggest, by way of answer, an analogical argument which I trust is not irreverent. The union, then, of the sacramentum and the res sacramenti is often explained as being in kind like that of man's soul and body; and, again, this latter is frequently used to illustrate the hypostatical union of the Word made flesh, as being also like it in kind.

Now, if a man is bitten maliciously by another human being or accidentally by an animal, we do not speak of it as though only a corpse had been so treated; yet, though we say "he was bitten," we do not mean that the man's soul was subjected to that same physical action which inflicted a visible injury upon his body: indeed, this is but an application of that truth conveyed by our Lord's words (S. Matt. x. 28.) "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul."

But we estimate very differently the act of the human being and the act of the animal: the former we regard as a crime and a dishonour, because unnatural, and done by a being who is conscious that it is so; the latter we treat as neither an offence nor a degradation, because natural (in its present state) and done by a creature lacking that reasonable soul which is the source of moral responsibility.

Applying this to the Holy Eucharist, we may, perhaps, the better understand how, as St. Paul says, (1 Cor. xi. 27 and 29), "whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord;" for such an one, though like the worthy receiver he cannot "carnally and visibly press with" his "teeth" more than "the Sacrament [Sacramentum] of the Body and Blood of Christ," (Art. XXIX) yet, “not discerning the Lord's Body" does dishonour to that Res Sacramenti by the very act of partaking with an evil mind, and therefore to "condemnation," the sign, or Sacrament [Sacramentum seu Symbolum] of so great a thing [tantæ rei.]" Yet though no such dishonour as this can be done to the

U

Sacrament (i. e., Sacramentum and Res Sacramenti) save where this faculty of discrimination exists, but is neglected; it is not the less a duty to guard it carefully from risks of seeming irreverence and, much more, of profanation. If, as is the case, we take precautions to preserve ourselves from harm, though from no feeling that our spiritual part can suffer physical injury; it would seem only the legitimate development of a natural instinct so to treat "the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper" that "the inward part or thing signified" should not be subjected to apparent indignity even under circumstances where no design of disrespect could possibly exist. Hence, therefore, the precautions taken in the old English Canons against the Reserved Sacrament being kept so long as to become corrupt: thus Elfric's Canons, A.D. 957, prescribe that "The holy housel ought to be kept with great diligence, and not be permitted to be stale, but another be always hallowed anew for sick men, in about a seven-night or fortnight, so as that it may not be musty at least;" and the Legatine Canons at Westminster, A.D. 1138, Hubert Walter's Legatine Canons at York, A.D. 1195, and at Westminster, A.D. 1200, Archbishop Peckham's Constitutions at Reading, A.D. 1279, Archbishop Reynold's Latin Constitutions, A.D. 1322, alike forbid it to "be reserved above seven days after consecration:" hence, too, that reverent "custom of the Church of Jerusalem " to "burn with fire" such remains "of the Eucharist' 66 as were uncon

sumed," which, as furnishing the ground for Bishop Cosin's enquiry-"Why may not the curates have it to their own. use?"-has led to these observations. I proceed now to notice another comment of his upon the same Rubric; it occurs in his 3rd Series of Notes, p. 481, and is as follows:

"And if any of the bread and wine remain, the curate, etc.] which needeth not to be understood of that bread and wine which was blessed and consecrated, but of that which was brought to the Church, and not used for the Sacrament. And yet we read of some such things in the Constitutions of the Apostles, lib. viii. cap. 31, TÀÇ TEPIσσEVOUÇAS iv rois μvorindis, etc. Let the deacons distribute the remains of the blessings at the mysteries to the clergy, according to the mind of the

bishop or presbyters. To the bishop, four parts; to a presbyter, three; to a deacon, two; to the rest, subdeacons, readers, singers, or deaconesses, one part.''

399

Upon this Note it may be remarked-that, if it was written (as there seems reason for thinking) subsequently to the one last considered, it may fairly be regarded as indicating the Bishop's later judgment, even though it were clear that the bracketed part of that Note conveyed his opinion at that time. It must be admitted that the passage presents a difficulty at first sight, and appears to imply some uncertainty in the Bishop's mind if, when he says, "And yet we read of some such things in the Constitutions of the Apostles," we understand the "such things" to refer to "that bread and wine which was blessed and consecrated: " but if we read "yet" in the not improbable sense of "beside" or "indeed," the passage is quite plain and entirely consistent with what I have supposed to have been Cosin's real view. Unless, however, there is any evidence to show that the Bishop believed the Constitution to refer to the Consecrated Elements, I see no reason for supposing that he took what, if Bingham be (as would seem) correct, is an entirely wrong view of the authority he quoted. Bingham's statement (Book XV., cap. vii., s. 3,) is as follows::

"Some learned persons confound this division or consumption of the consecrated Elements with that other division of the oblations among the clergy, and allege the Author of the Constitutions for it, as if he intended this when he says, 'Let the deacons divide what remains of the mystical Eulogia, by the orders of the bishop or presbyters, among the clergy; to the bishops four parts; to the presbyter three parts; to the deacon two parts; to the rest of the clergy, subdeacons, readers, singers, deaconesses, one part. For this is acceptable to God, that every one should be honoured according to his dignity.' It is plain he speaks not here of the Consecrated Elements, but of the division of the people's oblations among the clergy, as Cotelerius rightly expounds it. For this was one way of maintaining the clergy in those days, as has been more fully shown in another place (Book V., chap. iv., s. 1.) And though he calls these by the name of the mystical Eulogia, yet that does not determine it to the Consecrated Elements: for, as has been noted before, eulogia is a common name that signifies both. And Socrates takes it for the oblations in this very case, when, speaking

of Chrysanthus, the Novatian bishop, he says, he never received anything of the Church save two loaves of the Eulogia on the Lord's day. Where he certainly means, not two loaves of the Eucharist, but of the other oblations of the people, which it was customary for the clergy to have their proportional shares in."

There remains to be considered one other statement of Bishop Cosin on this subject: it occurs in these words, in his Suggestions for alterations in the Prayer Book, p. 519—

"65, It is likewise here ordered, 'That if any of the bread and wine remain, the curate shall have it to his own use.' Which words some curates have abused and extended so far, that they suppose they may take all that remains of the consecrated bread and wine itself, home to their houses, and then eat and drink the same with their other common meats; at least the Roman Catholics take occasion hereby to lay this negligence and calumny upon the Church of England; whereas the Rubric only intends it of such bread and wine as remains unconsecrate of that which was provided for the parish, (as appeareth by the articles of enquiry hereabouts in the visitations of divers bishops.) And therefore, for the better clearing of this particular, some words are needful here to be added, whereby the priest may be enjoined to consider the number of them which are to receive the Sacrament, and to consecrate the bread and wine in such a near proportion as shall be sufficient for them; but if any of the Consecrated Elements be left, that he and some others with him shall decently eat and drink them in the Church before all the people depart from it."

How this Suggestion was carried out at the Revision of 1662 we know from that very Rubric which I am now discussing: Nichol's note upon Cosin's proposal is "The word unconsecrated' is now put in; not of course that he means this only was added: perhaps Cosin had in mind the Rubric of the Scotch Office of 1638, which is in these words:

"And if any of the Bread and Wine remain, which is consecrated, it shall be reverently eaten and drunk by such of the Communicants only as the Presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, but it shall not be carried out of the Church. And to the end there may be little left, he that officiates is required to consecrate with the least, and then if there be want, the words of consecration may be repeated again, over more, either bread or wine: the Presbyter beginning at these words in the prayer of consecration (our Saviour in the night that he was betrayed, took, etc.)

The form, however, which the Rubric ultimately took in the hands of the Reviewers is more explicit than this or even than Cosin's suggestion; for, whatever it was meant to imply, the Scotch Rubric certainly did not expressly order the consumption to take place before the rest of the people; and Cosin only suggested that it should be made "before all the people depart," which word "all" may mean that only SOME need remain, though I think we can quite fairly regard it as not emphatic and only intending that the Congregation in general should stay until the consumption was ended: but the Rubric, as settled by Cosin and his co-revisers, directs the consumption to be "immediately after the Blessing," and therefore gives no opportunity for the people to leave the Church, not to say that all are clearly supposed to be waiting to see which of them the Priest "shall then call unto him." Taking, however, either view of Cosin's language it conveys the same idea as the Rubric-viz: that the consumption of the remains of the Sacrament is a public religious act and a part of the Service; such it clearly was under the old English Uses (as was remarked, p. 123); such we find it to have been in the early Church; recollecting, therefore, the terms of their Commission (see p. 130) it is most unlikely that the Reviewers of 1662 should have intended to suggest a different practice of the rule of the Early Church Bingham thus speaks, (Book XV., cap. vii., s. 2):

"If anything remained over and above what was necessary for these uses [i. e., to communicate the sick, and to testify the communion of distant Churches one with another], then by other rules it was to be divided among the Communicants. As appears from the canons of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, one of which is to this purpose: 'Let the clergy and the faithful, (that is, the communicants) divide among themselves the oblations of the Eucharist, after all have participated, and let not a catechumen eat or drink of them."

Yet it may be objected-that, as the Benediction is given before the consumption of the remains of the Sacrament, so, the Service must from its structure be considered to be over, and therefore that the argument maintained here and at p. 125 fails, inasmuch as the Ministration must be looked upon as