"He only is a faithful receiver who has a thankful remembrance": Jelf's Bampton Lectures on the Holy Eucharist as remembrance

In the sixth of his 1844 Bampton Lectures, An inquiry into the means of grace, their mutual connection, and combined use, with especial reference to the Church of England, Jelf - one of those whom Nockles lists as the 'Zs', the post-1833 continuation of the Old High tradition - addresses Eucharistic doctrine.  In this extract he turns to those "defective" accounts of the Sacrament which "hold less than the scriptural truth". Critiquing a 'memorialist' view of the Sacrament, Jelf reminds us that remembrance is, indeed, a defining aspect of the Eucharist. This, interestingly, challenges what we might term an 'anti-memorialist' view, which dismisses the aspect of remembrance.  As Jelf states, however, remembrance in the Sacrament is a means rather than the end:

that which would limit the benefits of the Lord's Supper to the remembrance of His Death and Passion; or, which is nearly the same thing, which would look upon the outward elements as bare signs and memorials of our redemption, the benefits of the Lord's Supper being supposed to consist in its being a means to remind us of our redemption. And of this, in like manner, it may be said that it is true, but not the whole truth; indeed it is often used as the denial of the truth. One end of the Holy Communion is assuredly to "shew the Lord's death till He come"; we are commanded to "do this in remembrance of" Him; and, doubtless, this remembrance is vividly in our hearts and souls on the occasion of each due celebration. The whole service is a symbolical representation and memorial of our Lord's Passion, a perpetual evidence to the fact itself, and to the faith of the Church; it is a lively act of faith; and faith is grace; and therefore the occasion which awakens and embodies it, is, in some inferior sense, even in respect of this remembrance, a means of grace. And thus our Church is careful to state, that these holy mysteries were instituted "to the end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which, by His precious blood-shedding, He hath obtained to us". She declares that this remembrance is in itself conducive to our "great and endless comfort". And yet she is so far from considering this remembrance as the only or the principal end, that, in defining "the inward and spiritual grace", she does not even name remembrance as a part of it; or, to speak more accurately, she looks upon it rather as an ingredient in the necessary preparation, as a means or a condition, than as the end itself. For she limits the grace to the faithful receiver; and he only is a faithful receiver, who has "a thankful remembrance" of the full import of the Passion, commemorated and represented by the reception of the outward and visible signs.