BUT adoration is not all, for there is yet a further result of the doctrine of the real objective presence, if possible, more dangerous even than adoration; I mean the assertion of a continued sacrifice. It is extremely difficult to ascertain exactly what is held by the Ritualistic party, for there is no document to which they all subscribe or for which they can be held responsible; but there is quite enough to show that a great number amongst them are teaching without reserve that there is in the Lord’s Supper a continuation, or repetition, of the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Lord. The extent to which this is carried may be gathered from a book called the _Eucharist Manual_, to which Archbishop Longley drew the attention of the Church in the year 1867, in which it is said that ‘a real, true, and substantial sacrifice is offered to God the Father, and not merely a spiritual or metaphorical sacrifice;’ that the Holy Eucharist is ‘a true, real, and substantial sacrifice offered to God the Father, offered for the quick and the dead;’ the meaning of which statement is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt by the following prayers: ‘Eternal Father, I offer thee the precious blood of Jesus Christ, in expiation of my sins, and for the wants of the whole Church;’ and ‘I now join Thy minister in offering Thee this oblation of the body and blood of Thy Son, in propitiation for my numberless sins, and for the salvation of all bound to me by kindred or affection.’ Nothing would be easier than to bring together almost any number of similar passages, and I feel persuaded that I am not misrepresenting the principles of the writers when I say that they teach the continuation or repetition of the sacrifice of our blessed Lord Himself as a propitiation for sin. Now is this the teaching of the Church of England, or is it not? Dr. Pusey’s own language may, I think, decide the question. In his book, on the _Real Presence_, p. 311, he says of the Church’s documents: ‘Although the great act of Eucharistic Sacrifice remains in the consecration itself, and it has been all along an object of belief in the Church of England, it is mentioned only when we pray to God to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.’ This then is the only passage in all the documents of the Church of England which we may presume can be produced as being in favour of this teaching, and I venture to say that Dr. Pusey is far too good a theologian not to know that the passage is dead against the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice. Is it possible to suppose that such a learned man as he is does not know the distinction between a sacrifice of expiation and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, between an atonement for sin and the free-will offering of a thankful and loving heart? And is it possible that there should be one moment’s doubt as to the teaching of the Church of England, when the words, which he himself acknowledges, are the only words which