and drinks Christ's blood has eternal life, and the same is promised to everyone who believes; but no such blessing is promised to everyone who receives the Sacrament. Dr. Waterland says that the Reformers in general" for very weighty reasons have rejected the Sacramental interpretation of John vi.," and that this has been, he thinks, "the prevailing construction of our own divines all along," viz., that it is to be understood, "not of doctrines, nor of Sacramental feeding, but of spiritual feeding at large, feeding upon the death and passion of Christ our Lord." Dr. Waterland quotes a passage from a sermon on this discourse by Archbishop Sharp as "well expressing the sense of our Church in this matter." The Archbishop says:-"So that the body and blood of Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion; that is to say, the pardon of sin, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and a nearer union with Christ; and our eating and drinking of that body and blood is our being partakers of those benefits; and the mouth whereby we thus eat and drink, that is the means whereby we are made partakers of those benefits, is our true and lively faith." But, whilst thinking with our Reformers in general and of our divines all along, that John vi., "though not directly spoken of the Eucharist," yet he considers with them “that it is by no means foreign, but rather looks forward towards it, bears a tacit allusion to it, and serves to reflect light upon it." It has been well said that John vi. and the Lord's Supper are related to each other, because they are both related to the same thing, that is, they both refer to Christ's atoning death, that what the one teaches by words the other teaches by symbols; or, as it is happily expressed by Dean Alford, "to the ordinance itself there is here no reference but the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and, so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance. If the Saviour's discourse teaches that it is only by a true and living faith the soul can feed on Him as the living bread, so we find that the same vital principle pervades those portions of the formularies of our Church. which expound the nature of the Lord's Supper. Whilst she distinctly asserts that this Holy Sacrament is not an empty sign to those who believe, on the other hand she warns the impenitent against supposing that it is an effectual means of grace to those who believe not; whilst she sweetly encourages the former by telling them that "to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ:" she is equally explicit in declaring that the wicked, though they receive the Sacrament, "yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ; " whilst she comforts the devout communicant with the assurance that "the benefit is great if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that Holy Sacrament;" her words to the sick and dying believer are equally comforting and instructive which tell us that if a man from any just cause is unable to receive the Sacrament, that he, nevertheless, if in a fit state of heart and mind to receive it, "doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth." The important principle which is embodied in these passages underlies the whole of our formularies, and constitutes the very soul of all true and spiritual worship.

66

The Communion Service of our Church is characterised by deep spirituality of tone, and is in other respects admirably fitted, if prayerfully studied, to aid us in communicating with devotion and profit. We have not time to draw attention to its various characteristics and excellencies; but there is one important respect in which it stands out in remarkable contrast with the Liturgies in use for some time before the Reformation. Dean Hook writes thus :-" Protestants of all shades of opinion were united on this one point, that the Mass should be turned into a Communion. The Mass," he goes on to say, was regarded as a sacrifice of our Lord for the quick and the dead. This the Reformers one and all denied. They maintained that it was a Communion, through which the faithful were united to God; and that the sacrifice was the offering of themselves, their souls and bodies to God's service, in common with the hosts of heaven." ("Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury." New Series. Vol. II., p. 150.) On this principle it is evident that our Communion Service was constructed. That the Holy Communion may occupy, in the hearts of our people, the important place in Divine worship which is assigned to it in our Liturgy, it is necessary that her ministers should carefully explain to them its true nature, thereby leading them to prize it as one of their highest privileges; and whilst teaching them that at other times and by other means they can feed upon Christ in their hearts by faith, yet that they can do this specially and with more sensible assurance in the Lord's Supper; as strikingly expressed in the homily of our Church on the subject. "At this His Table we receive not only the outward Sacrament, but the spiritual thing also, not the figure but the truth, not the shadow only but the body, not to death, but to life, not to destruction, but to salvation."

The Right Rev. the PRESIDENT.

My Christian friends, I explained at the beginning that this was a meeting of an exceptional kind. It has been my custom at the close of each meeting to endeavour to sum up or to give some emphasis to the discussion. I shall not do so now, I will only say this: let us apply to our gathering this morning the expression of gratitude we often utter for the supply of our daily wants. Let us say, as I think we sincerely may, "For what we have received to-day may God make us truly thankful.” Amen.

CONGRESS HALL,

FRIDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 3RD, 1884.

The Right Rev. the PRESIDENT in the Chair.

THE ADVANTAGES OF AN ESTABLISHED

CHURCH.

PAPERS.

The Right Hon. the EARL OF CARNARVON.

THE late Dean of Westminster once told me that, on one occasion, he was obliged to reduce his sermon to the narrow compass of two and a-half minutes; and he added, that he thought it was one of the best he had ever preached. I feel myself in a somewhat similar positionthough I fear the result may not be so successful-in having to open a discussion on the advantages of an Established Church, in an address or paper, which must be compressed within the space of twenty minutes.

It is one of the gravest and greatest of questions which can be brought before such a meeting, and all that I can do is to note some considerations which appear worthy of attention at the present time. Meanwhile, I recognise the expediency of giving this subject a place in our discussions, because it is well that we should have it in our minds, understand its meaning, weigh its manifold bearings, and, I will add, as a result of that consideration, be convinced how great is the good, how irreparable would be the loss, of an Established Church in England.

I do not pretend that an Establishment is unaccompanied by drawbacks. Civil courts may sometimes seem to involve an interference with spiritualities by the State; and uniformity may sometimes compel us to accept things that seem open to objection. There are, too, some who chafe under restrictions; who think that a "free Church in a free State" might exercise greater powers within herself in enforcing discipline and in defining the Articles of her Faith; who can even look with a certain jealousy upon the supposed liberty of our Colonial Churches. I am willing to concede all that can be reasonably urged under any of these heads, and even to allow that Disestablishment might set some, though by no means all, Christian denominations free to act together on some, though by no means all, subjects. But if the gains and losses are fairly weighed, I do not think there will be a doubt on which side the scale inclines; and to those who seek for models of ecclesiastical polity in our Colonial Churches, I, who have had unusual opportunities of knowing and of admiring the courage and energy which they have shown under great trials, would simply say, "Go and see with your own eyes what difficulties they have to encounter; go and hear with your own ears what their own most earnest and thoughtful churchmen say." Nor is that all. For not only would they deprecate, with their utmost energy, such a disruption of our ecclesiastical polity as regards ourselves and our

domestic interests; they would, I think, tell you that no heavier blow could be dealt to them-that marvellous constellation of Colonial Churches which have come into existence during the last half century ;— they would tell you that the maintenance of the great Mother Church of England, established as a part of the Constitution of this realm, is both a mainstay to them, and indirectly a bond of union to the whole Empire.

And now, in addressing myself for a few minutes to this subject, let me put aside two parts of the question.

1st. The historical arguments, with their appeal to venerable antiquity; and to the regular and national descent of the Church of England.

2nd. The higher and more abstract reasons for the union of Church and State. New ideas and the form of modern government are sometimes said to be inconsistent with such a union; and many religious persons are now firmly convinced that the Church ought to be one thing, and the State another. I must confess that that is not my opinion. I believe, with Hooker, that the Church and State "should dwell lovingly together in one subject." I believe, with Burke, that "religion ought to be the principal care of the Christian magistrate; because it is one of the bonds of human society, and its object the supreme good, the ultimate end and object of man himself." I accept much that Arnold wrote, though I cannot quote the precise words, on the identity of Church and State.

This is not, indeed, the doctrine of our modern politicians; but I hope I may, without offence, say that I entertain a still higher respect for the opinions of Hooker, and Burke, and Arnold; and, though I bow to the compulsion of facts, those facts have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of my belief.

It is, however, impossible, on such an occasion as this, to argue these questions. I pass them by, and confine myself to some of the lower and more distinctly practical considerations involved in this subject.

First, then, the Church of England has one great feature--due, in a large measure, to its connection with the State-its breadth and comprehensive toleration. Our Reformers wisely avoided in the Prayer Book over definition, and the Church of England, in its subsequent practice, has been singularly free from the restrictions and limitations imposed by smaller religious bodies; and this comprehensiveness, which has saved us from great dangers at home, is also enabling our Colonial Churches, in many parts of the world, to travel safely over the difficult ground which they must tread. This comprehensiveness, if it is not due to the Establishment, at least derives much support from it. In the Church of England, as in every Church which is not in a state of stagnation, there are two forces pulling in opposite directions. They have been described in different terms, as writers or speakers looked at them from different points of views. Lord Chatham-if I remember rightly-spoke of them as represented by Calvinistic articles and Arminian theology; but, however they may be described, they exist, and their constitutional conflict will from time to time assert itself.

And a religious system which expelled one of them would either be driven to a perpetually narrowing process, as has been several times witnessed in history; or it would sink into a state of spiritual inanition.

Our connection with the State helps to save us from this danger: and

from this point of view I am not one to object to a strong lay element in our Courts of Appeal. If properly constituted, it can, I believe, be trusted; it is representative of impartial good sense, as well as of the rights of minorities, and it secures a cool and judicious decision in many cases, where men's judgment might be overborne by the passion or feeling of the moment. But I need scarcely say that such a representation of the laity either should not as I incline to think constitute the whole tribunal, or should be so adjusted as to represent the faithful, and preclude the very suspicion of unfairness.

A civil court may be the means of securing toleration; but toleration must be accorded equally to all parties; and the indifference to the maintenance of the Establishment, of which we sometimes hear, is, I believe, due to a sense of supposed injustice in regard to some judicial decisions.

I might go further, and enquire how, in the event of Disestablishment, would fare that wonderful embodiment of comprehensiveness and doctrine, that connecting link with primitive Christianity, that absolutely priceless heirloom of past times, the Book of Common Prayer— of which, I think, Dr. South finely said that the only prayer wanting to it was one for its own perpetual endurance? I should have great fears. The two forces of which I just now spoke dwell peacefully within the pages of that all but inspired volume; but the influence of the State is at least one cause of that peaceful union; and, constituted as men's minds and tempers are, I should apprehend serious danger to the Prayer Book from Disestablishment.

But, further, I doubt if any one sufficiently realises the paralysing effect which would be produced by a large reduction of the material means of the Church. We know what private munificence has done in recent times; and I will not doubt that that munificence would continue to flow; but the religious work of this country is simply immeasurable; no private effort or sacrifice would fill the gulf; neither Rome nor Nonconformity has the means of covering the spaces which we should leave bare; and a large portion of our people must, as far as I can see, be left to themselves, or to the teaching of the Atheist. Whatever was the case in former times, the Church of England now means a Church of the poor; and Disestablishment, if it follows existing analogies, tends directly towards a religious provision for the rich and the educated, rather than the poor.

These are very grave considerations; but descending from them to a possibly somewhat lower level of practical and every-day reasons, I believe it difficult to estimate the loss that would be felt in most parishes from the withdrawal of an educated gentleman, acting under the instructions of a bishop, alive to the influences of an enlightened and exacting public opinion, and deeply interested in the temporal as well as the spiritual concerns of those amongst whom he lives. Is a cottage ill-drained or overcrowded, the rector can speak where others hesitate to do so; is there illness, the clergyman can give sympathy and often material help; does a cow or a pig die prematurely, he draws up the petition to be circulated amongst the neighbours; is advice needed for emigration, for deposits in the savings bank, for correspondence with some relation in a distant colony? In these, and in numberless other homely incidents