ΙΝ 
 ΝΡ 
 
 ΤΥ ΠΝ 
 
THE LORD’S SUPPER: 
 
 UNINSPIRED TEACHING. 
 
Nihil est quod cogit in hoe corrigere sensum. 
 Duns Scotus vy. u. § 4, p. 589. 
 
 Si, ante tempora restitutionis omnium, Christi carnem non dicam oculis cor- 
 poris videri, sed in terris alicubi esse constituis, contra prophetiam David, contra 
 apostolum Petrum, contra co-apostolum ejus Paulum, contra Scripturas authen- 
 ticas omnes facis. 
 
 BrErRenGarivs, de Sacré Cena, Lib. Posterior, p. 157. 
 
 Neither can we corporally receive what is bodily absent. 
 Bisoorp Hauw’s Olive Tree, p. 289. 
 
 Christ would that we; touching the signs, should draw virtue from Him. 
 Rev. H. Suir, vy. 1. p. 43. 
 
 Corpus reductum ad indivisibilia non manet organicum, 
 Tosratus, v. x. Pt. m. p. 421. 
 
THE LORD’S SUPPER: 
 
 UNINSPIRED TEACHING. 
 
 THE SECOND VOLUME, 
 FROM 
 ALFRIC TO CANON LIDDON OF ST PAUL'S, LONDON. 
 
 (πον A.D. 969 τὸ A.D. 1875.) 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES HEBERT, D:D. 
 
 OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, LATE VICAR OF AMBLESIDE, 
 
 SEELEY, JACKSON AND HALLIDAY, 
 FLEET STREET, LONDON. 
 
 1879 
 
Cambridge : 
 PRINTED BY C, J. CLAY, M.A. 
 Al THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
THE TENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. ALFRIC. PAGE 
 
 His suffering is daily renewed at this supper through the mystery of the 
 holy housel. Therefore we ought to consider diligently how that this holy 
 housel is both Christ’s meee and the bees of all faithful men after a phos 
 sort : . 1 
 If we τ ite ΤΣ eee after the hedily wile siandine ‘fen we see 
 that it is a creature corruptible and mutable. If we knowledge therein 
 ghostly might, then understand we that life is therein, and that it ae 
 
 immortality to them that eat with belief . : 4 
 There is one thing in it seen and another under ὙΠ τὶ : : : 4 
 Truly it is Christ’s body and blood, not bodily but ghostly . 5 : 4} 
 
 ΒΒ. ΟἜΒΒΕΒΊ, Sytvester II. Porr. 
 
 Lo! the flesh from the virgin under the sacrament for communicating 
 
 flesh . 3 ὖ ¢ 9 
 _ That He might unite us pithy His own ee .the dachariat: liter is 
 * . received from the altar being the medium, mediante, and confirming it F 9 
 
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. Psrtrr Damiant, BrsHop oF Ostia. 
 
 The priest in offering acts for the people, so that they all offer g : 12 
 One body of Christ in all ae like the one sets of the Word, as His 
 
 people are one body . 12 
 A man is called a microcosm; so éach sain is a chatehs in fumself Le 
 A bad man can receive Christ’s body Ξ Ξ A : ᾿ Ξ Sle 
 Opinions of Simonians pean a little exaggerated, since one part is 
 Protestantism é : : : : : : : - : . ‘214 
 B. Lanrranc, Heap or THE Bec ScHoou AND PRIMATE oF ENGLAND. Ps 
 
 We believe it in the highest degree expedient for all of all ages, as well 
 the dead as the living, to fortify themselves with, sese munire, the re- 
 ception of the body and blood of the Lord. (Letter to Bishop Domnald, of 
 Treland.) And yet we do not believe in any degree, ullatenus, that if they 
 happen to go from the chapel immediately after their baptism (and die) 
 before they receive Christ’s body and blood, that they on this account perish 
 for ever. Otherwise the Truth would not be true. He that believeth and 
 is baptized, ὅθ. So Except ye eat, &c. As far as relates to eee with 
 the mouth cannot be said generally regarding all. : : . ola 
 
vi CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The sacrament of the body of Christ, as far as it refers to that which | 
 was sacrificed on the cross, the Lord Christ Himself, is His flesh which we 
 receive in the sacrament hidden, opertam, by the form of bread, and His 
 blood which we drink under the appearance and taste of wine, &c. . “18 
 
 Though his flesh, carnes, be truly eaten on earth and His blood truly 
 drunken, yet in the time of restitution He continues to be entire and living ~ 
 
 at the Father’s right hand . - : 3 3 : é .{ 18 
 On Ephes. v. 20, Because we are es of His het haying the 
 same flesh and the same bones (i.e. of the same kind) as He Himself had . 20 
 
 C. Brrencarius, HEAD oF THE Tours ScHoon AND ARCHDEACON oF ANGERS. 
 
 And that there is but one way out from all that figurative kind of 
 speaking and no more, unum patere, non amplius, exitum . c 26 
 
 Addressing Lanfranc, That Humbert of yours, saying, The bread pnced 
 on the altar is, after consecration, Christ’s body, to be considered bread in 
 the phrase that belongs to Christ’s own, propria locutione, and is to be con- 
 sidered (or received) as Christ’s body in a figurative phrase. That Humbert 
 in this is contrary to himself I have affirmed and affirm still : Ξ Ἐ Be 
 
 It was a most mad saying and the greatest reproach to the Christian 
 religion, that Christ’s body is (now) made of bread or of any thing whatever 27 
 
 They that affirm that Christ’s flesh is made afresh (now) either in part 
 or as a whole by generation of the subject matter, and that He is present to 
 the senses on the altar (the bread having been taken away by the corrup- 
 tion of the subject matter) are speaking against the authority of the eternal 
 and unchangeable truth. This was maintained by the Franciscans. The 
 Dominicans held ubiquitarianism : and this was the accepted opinion . δ 428 
 
 D. FuLsert, tHE TEACHER OF BERENGAR IN THE ScHooL ΑἹ CHARTRES, OF 
 WHICH PLACE HE BECAME BisHop. τε 1029. 
 
 That body of the Lord raised out of the dead and placed in Heaven dies 
 
 now no more. That sacrament dies for us oy and ay rises again for 
 
 us, appears and is eaten : : oS 
 Christ bears the true Parnas brent hers (as oaths warns His body τοῦδε 
 If He could create creatures out of nothing, much more may He be able 
 
 to convert these very things into the dignity of a more excellent nature and 
 
 transfuse, transfundere, into the substance of His own body « : 5 95 
 Not curiously insist on finding out distinctions by man’s disputations . 34 
 Therefore faith is before all things the summum bonum : : ΕΠ} 
 
 E. Humbert, ΟΑΒΡΙΝΑΙ,, ARCHBISHOP OF RHETMs. 
 
 Cast away the unleayened bread in Lent and the keeping of Saturdays 
 (Sabbatorum) to the wretched Jews. All things are made new to us, i.e. 
 temples and altars, priests and sacrifices, candelabra, censers, food and 
 drink, &c., so that all are old and not old...we duly venerating and retaining 
 the veritable body, corpus veritatis, made out of unleavened bread and 
 (sanctified) in it. For if you receive wine why reject unleavened bread? . | 36 
 
 F. Joun, BisHor oF AVRANCHES, AND THEN ARCHBISHOP OF ROUEN. 
 
 Sacerdos corpus Domini tripliciter dividat...populo...quem intincto pane 
 permittitur communicare summa necessitate timoris sanguinis Christi effu- 
 sionis. Calicem ad mundandum et sumendum quod remansit, Vita 
 eucharistiam non yerba faciunt. Jerome . < : : ὲ i dpe 0) 
 
 G. ANSELM, SUCCESSOR OF LANFRANC AT BEC AND IN THE PRimAcY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 I adore and yenerate this Thy holy body and this Thy holy blood,..By 
 the virtue of these make me one of those ‘many’ (for whom the blood was 
 shed) . : : : Pa ac : - : - : : : εὖ (43 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Absolve and free thy servants and ἘΣῪ μὲ me, and all that have con- 
 fessed to me their sins, ‘&e. 
 
 \ Hail Christ’s οι born of the holy virgin, living fleahs entire Deity, true 
 man A 
 
 ce since Christ's ‘(tna ὙΠῸ ΠῚ be a eeeniad by Sotiething, 
 nothing was found in all bodily things to be a nearer ee of it 
 than blood, the seat of the soul 
 
 According to the determinations of the farhions we must auideratand that 
 the bread laid on the altar is by those solemn words changed into Christ’s 
 body, and that the substance of bread and wine does not remain, yet we 
 must understand that there remain Ee coe του i.e, form, 
 colour and taste, &e. 
 
 According to the species, appearance, any ee. it can Ba receiv: ved τ 
 by the faithful and by the unfaithful : Ὁ : : 
 
 H. WaALrERAN oF NUREMBURG WRITING TO ANSELM AGAINST ALL VEILS IN 
 THE RITE. 
 
 The Paschal victim, Christ, was sacrificed with His body naked on the 
 altar of the cross. He who made known to His own all things that He 
 heard from the Father willed that he should be offered with His body bare... 
 We with Moses, as if we were Jews, put a veil upon Him : 
 
 I. Ivo, BisHop ΟΕ ΟἬΔΕΤΕΕΒ. 
 
 A letter of Pope Soter, That incense be placed on the oblation of the 
 Lord’s body and blood . : : : ς 3 : β : 
 
 J. Duranp, ΒΙΞΗῸΡ or Laopicea. 
 
 Calling up the King of France against Bruno and Berenger 
 
 K. Gurirmunp, Bisnor or AVERSA. 
 Ut una queque separata particula sit totum Christi corpus, et tamen omnes 
 separate non plura corpora sed unum corpus 
 Christ’s body present in a latent way 
 All portions, both joined together and ei arated 
 
 L. ALGERUS OF LIEGE. 
 
 Si impanatur Christus vel in panem convertitur, vel fit panis . 
 
 If it appeared flesh we should not be favourably disposed to partake of it 
 For it is not flesh of a mere man that is being eaten, but of God, and 
 able to make us Divine, as it has been mingled with Deity’ Ξ 
 
 For there takes place a mingling, strange and aoe account, that God 
 should be in us and we in Himself : 
 
 In the case of the old (covenant) Christ does Aa δέοθαυ that the pate τ is 
 greater than the altar; but in our case the altar is rather sanctified by the 
 gifts : for the loaves are changed by a Divine grace into that very penne of 
 the Master: wherefore also the altar is sanctified by these . 
 
 On 1 Cor. x. 16, St Paul did not say partaking, μετοχὴ, but communion, 
 that he might shew it to be something more, that is to say the high union. 
 } In partaking of it, the cup, we communicate, i.e. we are united with God 
 
 M. TuHropHynact, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA, 
 | 
 \ 
 
 N. Rupert, ΑΒΒΟΤ or Deutz, Conoane. 
 
 All clouds of figures and similitudes being removed, &c. 
 
 Let none think he has recovered life of body and soul by "Ὁ ‘th only τ 
 out the visible food and drink of His body and blood 
 
 PAGE 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 
 53 
 
 58 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 62 
 
 64 
 
 - 
 bo 
 
Vill CONTENTS. 
 PAGE 
 
 The bread once consecrated never afterward loses the virtue of sanctifi- 
 cation, or ceases to be Christ’s body. But it does not profit an unworthy 
 person at all, whose faith without works is dead, and therefore has not the 
 Spirit who makes alive : - 7 . 74 
 
 Bread brought near to and ἘΠΕ in ihe ferrite mystery of ΓΕ 
 
 passion still seems to be the bread it was, and yet is in truth Christ, which 
 it was not . : ; : : : : - : : : . 46 
 O. Sr SrerHen, THIRD CisTERCIAN ABBOT. 
 
 Let the deacons put the corporal on the altar....But let the Abbot carrying 
 down the Lord’s body with the vessel in which it is to the altar, place it 
 next the corporal, &e. Let the abbot, after incense has been first used, 
 then wash his fingers in an open vessel, and take out from the vessel the 
 holy communion and place it on the corporal : : ἢ : . 5 ae) 
 
 P. Bruno, Bishop oF SEGNI. 
 Quod qualiter fiat, Ipse solus novit qui omnia novit et potest Σ 5. ell 
 
 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. Prvrer or Buors, ARCHDEACON OF BATH, AND AFTERWARDS OF Lonpon. 
 The bread and wine offered by Melchizedek were as it were sacraments 
 
 of this sacrament . 84 
 B. Gurpert, Assor or St Mary or NocEnt ΙΝ Covct. 
 But if this our Host, though the Lord has once suffered, be only a figure 
 of Him that suffered, I "do not know whether it can be any true good. ‘But 
 if it only exhibits a memorial to the e a of the uneducated, or prea 
 little or no aid to the wise, &e. . - . 87 
 Τὸ is asked whether that body which is Rakes fron ihe lia has the 
 character (speciem) of the Lord as living or as dead? .« ; 89 
 
 There is then nothing to be found in Christ mortal or ἘΦ of wattedt 
 ing, nothing but what is incorruptible and immortal, unless he willed to die 90 
 
 C. Hervé, Monx or Bourc. Ὅποιβ, 8. EH. FRANce. 
 
 He eateth and drinketh unworthily, that celebrates the mystery or that 
 receives it otherwise than has been handed down by Christ . : 91 
 
 D. Hueues ΡῈ Sr VIcTOR. 
 
 Reasons why Christ gives Himself in an unseen manner 4 : = 125 
 A new difficulty δ : ὃ : : : : : : δ . 94 
 K. Gnratian’s DECREE. : : : ; : ; : : : Ξ 94 
 
 F, ἨΠΡΕΒΕΒΥ, ΑΒΒΟῚ oF Ciuny. 
 
 Bread to be dipped in wine afresh for each communicant : ¢ 5 90 
 The mouth of the communicant to be first washed . : a 5 ale 
 Christ’s body exists imperceptible on the altar - : : ᾿ Oy 
 
 G. Honorius, Monr or Avutun IN BurGUNDY. 
 Christ the Pontiff of pontiffs puts incense of the cross ee the agi 
 because He intercedes with the Father for us ὃ 97 
 
 Within the limits of the Catholic Church it is ean to ome serie, 
 and outside it God accepts no sacrifice : : ᾿ ᾿ A 98 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 )ῶ ὅ 
 H. ΑΒΕΙΆΒΡ, or Breraane. 
 
 The cause of this sacrament (being instituted) is the remembering of the 
 death and passion of Christ . : é : : : 3 ὃ ς : 
 He appointed this sacrifice to take place in memory of Himself that we 
 might through it have our love of Him increased . ὁ 
 This mutual love unites both Him to us and us to Him . 
 
 This body is the sacrament of that body of Christ, which is the church. 
 But the sacrament of the blood is the Spirit of the church, which makes 
 alive by sevenfold grace ; C 
 
 We do not read of ‘the water, that Christ had added it to this sacrament 
 By the receiving of this eucharist the devil is bound and tied back . 
 
 I. Sr Brernarp, Aspor or Cuarrvaux. 
 
 Such is the force of the sacraments held on those days that they can 
 themselves cut strong hearts and suffice to soften every breast though 
 like iron : : 0 : : ὃ 4 : : : : - 
 
 A Lismore clergyman held that it gives ‘only sanctification, not the true 
 body of Christ, non corporis veritatem.” Life of St Malachi ὃ ἃ 
 From the time he had not offered the living bread from Heaven for her 
 
 J. Gerrocn, ΑΒΒΟΤ oF REICHENSPURG, IN HIGHER AUSTRIA. 
 
 Christ Jesus, though in the body He remains in Heaven, is none the 
 less in the body in His temple which is the church, which He feeds with 
 His own body and blood, &e. C : : Ξ ν᾿ - : : 5 
 
 The true body taken from the virgin is on the altar made present, sacri- 
 ficed and eaten, &e. , : : ς j 5 ; : ‘ 5 ὸ 
 
 Folmar affirming that the Lord’s body never since He ascended has 
 come down under the heaven : ¢ : ὃ 5 5 : : : 
 
 What holy church sees on the altar is not to be named the body of a 
 man, as the heretic Nestorius, &c., but (only) the body of the Lord : 
 
 Anathema is he who thinks the Lord’s living and life-giving body is cir- 
 cumscribed to a particular spot in Heaven, &e., so that it cannot at once 
 and the same moment be in its totality in many places, &c. 5 Ξ : 
 
 Κ, Prrer rue Sincer, or Panis. 
 Augustine scarcely allowed a single mass every day . 
 
 We never read 1 Cor. xi. of a ‘““mass” of two or three faces; but now it 
 1s tripled or made seven times; and the mysteries and order of the mass are 
 thrown into confusion . 
 
 ᾿ If as the Manichean says it is a representation of the body and nothing 
 6 56 . . . . . . . . . e . . . 
 
 L. ῬΕΤΕΗ Lompanp, ΒΙΒΗΟΡ or Paris. 
 
 By baptism we are made clean...By the eucharist we are consummated 
 in good. Baptism extinguished the heats of vices, the eucharist refreshes 
 us with spirituality : 
 
 These two sacraments were shewed when blood and water flowed from 
 Cirist’s side. ς : : 5 : Ξ . : : 6 : 
 It is to be undoubtingly held that the sacraments are received by the 
 good, not sacramentally only, but also spiritually - Ξ - 2 : 
 M. Awan or tae Isanps (Liuxe), rum universat Doctor. 
 
 Nothing of the bread remains, as relates to matter or substance, but only 
 as to accidentals . : ς ς : 
 
 Some say that the accidents are not there...but appear to be. 
 
 Sema 11 b 
 
 104 
 
 106 
 108 
 
 109 
 
 109 
 
 110 
 
 110 
 
 110 
 
Χ CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Heretics ask if it be an article of the Christian faith that the bread is 
 transubstantiated into Christ’s body, since there is no mention of it in any 
 creed. N.B. Above a century before the Fourth Lateran Council . = δ] 
 
 N. Innocent II. 
 
 Order of the Mass Prayer in a reverence to the middle of the altar. Re- 
 ceive, O holy Trinity, the offering of bread which we offer to thee on account 
 of the memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, and to the honour of Mary ever virgin and blessed John Baptist 
 and the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and of those saints and of all saints, 
 that it may profit them to their honour but to us for salvation, &., &e. . 126 
 
 It is unfit, indignum, that hands that have handled the incorruptible 
 body should touch a corruptible body till they be carefully washed, studiose 128 
 
 The priest breaks the host that in breaking of bread we may know the 
 
 Lord . : 5 : : 3 Ξ : : : 8 ὃ : 128 
 Three crosses are made on the cup’s mouth because three women were 
 
 seeking Him, when crucified, at the gate of the tomb . : 3 128 
 The deacon removes the corporal, marking that the Lord’s angel τ: 
 
 down the stone from the gateway of the monument . - : . 128 
 
 On corporals, why one part is extended and the other kept folded up. 
 The part extended signifies faith; the part folded marks understanding . 130 
 
 So many and so great mysteries are involved that none untaught ny 
 unction is sufficient to unfold them . : : : Ἴ : ὁ 131 
 
 O. Tue TREATISE DE Cana Domini. 
 
 The bread carnal food, the body and blood spiritual ὃ : : . 133 
 What the Capernaites understood . : > : . : : . 134 
 The logically necessary consequences. : : : : : . 134 
 Transubstantiation : : . : : : : : . 184 
 Drinking blood an entirely new anne. . : : : : . 135 
 
 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. THE DECREE OF THE FOURTH CoUNCIL oF THE Larrran, 1215. 
 
 The universal church of the faithful is one, outside which there is no 
 salvation, and in it Jesus Christ Himself is the same Priest and Sacrifice to 
 all; Whose body and blood, ἄρ. Same words repeatedly used before . . 136 
 
 B. Francis or Assist. Hits NAME WAS JOHN, BUT HIS FATHER’S FRENCH 
 CUSTOMERS CHANGED IT. 
 
 From Rule I. Confess your faults one to another. Yet let them not on 
 this account give up having recourse to priests, because the power of bind- 
 ing and loosing is conceded to them only. And thus contrite and (having) 
 confessed let them take our Lord Jesus Christ’s hg and blood, with great 
 humility and veneration, &e. 5 & 5 140 
 
 We know that the body cannot be, unless it be first scan ἣν τὸ 
 word. For we neither have nor see anything of a bodily nature relating to 
 the Highest One Himself, except body and blood. : : Ξ . .141-. ὃ 
 
 They that...do not believe, &c., &c. are condemned : : : . 141 
 
 His will says, I wish to honour priests as my lords, and I am loth to 
 dwell upon, considerare, sin in them, because I see in them the Son of God 
 and they are my lords, &e. “ : . 142 
 
CONTENTS. x1 
 
 C. BENrEDICTION oF THE MoST Horny SACRAMENT OF THE TERTIARIES. PAGE 
 Rule from Ara Ceeli for the sisters at Westminster . r ; 6 melas 
 
 D. Roacer Bacon. 
 
 Of the church among the Tartars. In the mass they consecrate one 
 broad loaf, of the breadth of the palm of the hand, and divide it into 
 twelve parts, according to the number of the apostles, and the priest gives 
 to each one the body of Christ into his hand, &c. : : : : ae ales 
 
 EK. ALEXANDER oF Hates, A FRANCISCAN AND OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 
 
 He quotes Damianus’ opinion that the bread is not still present, but 
 that it passes in a way beyond nature into Christ’s body and blood. . 148 
 
 Then in behalf of consubstantiation, it would be a truer sign. It would 
 be more consistent for the bread in its own substance to be asign than that 
 ouly the sensible species of it should [Durand, of St Porcian, Sree with 
 this difficulty] . ο - 5 : : c 5 . 148 
 
 But his solution is, Bread (itself) in no way remains...such would be 
 in opposition to the authority of the holy writers...one reason is that thus 
 idolatry is avoided ἃ Ρ 3 ὃ . : ὃ : 5 - . 148 
 
 The conversion of it into Christ is not an augmentation of any thing, 
 since the whole is changed into the whole . : - : - : . 149 
 
 F. Bonaventure (Joun Finanza), Carpinan, Brocrapoer or Κ΄. Francis. 
 
 The letter (of the text in the Gospels) is in the wrong order, prepostera 
 est, and ought to be thus put together, construi. He received bread and 
 gave thanks, saying, This is My body, and He brake and gave. 5 . 161 
 
 Note that there are four opinions, i.e. about the form of Christ’s own 
 consecration of the bread and wine: (1) That He made it, confecit, by the 
 virtue of the Divinity without words ; (2) that He first said the words to 
 Himself, and afterwards openly, &c., ἜΡΟΝ 9 151 
 
 But the taking of the flesh by the bread, assumptio, i is understood to 
 take place during the reception . Ξ ; 151 
 
 The chureh preserves the form (of eee in the Rena handed down 
 by apostles in making (the body and blood) which also they received from 
 Christ . - - 5 - . - . - . : : 5 . 152 
 
 G. Nicrtas or Conossm, i.e. CHONIATES. 
 
 That the bread and wine mystically ministered in sacred service in the 
 Divine ceremonies is in truth the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 being changed by His Divine power conceivably and invisibly, in a we 
 above natural thought, as He alone knows . 3 é . 5 5 155 
 
 H. ALBERT THE GREAT, SON OF A GERMAN PRINCE. 
 
 7 a aka 5 
 A sacrament is a grace upon grace, containing a heap as it were of 
 graces, &., ὅθ. . : ; : 5 . ὦ . : 4 : 2 P56 
 
 Matt. xxvi. As if He says, The fulness of grace that is in the sacra- 
 mental vessel of My body . 5 : ο : : Ὁ : : . 156 
 
 How this sacrament belongs in genus to sacrifices...It abundantly causes 
 all that it is the sign of, and contains it in itself, ΕΣ the grace of the Be 
 
 and the blood Ξ Ξ : 6 Ξ : 158 
 Four reasons are given by doctors Pees Christ gave His own ta after 
 
 other food . : 6 3 - : 5 : ᾿ - : . 158 
 Reasons for the churches ordaining the contrary, reverenter et salu- 
 
 briter . ‘ - Ε - . Ε = 5 : ᾿ - 158 
 
 b 2 
 
ΧΙ CONTENTS. 
 
 I. Tuomas or Rocca Srcca ΙΝ AQuino, cALLED 5. THomas AQuINnas. PAGE 
 
 This sacrament a threefold meaning, (1) in respect of the past, com- 
 memorative of the Lord’s passion which was a true sacrifice; and with 
 reference to this it is named a sacrifice [improperly]. (2) present church 
 unity. (3)...future prefiguration of the fruition of God which we shall have 
 in our patria, and with reference to this it is called viaticum...and eucharist. 
 
 It is called a sacrament in so far as it represents Christ’s passion . a ΟῚ 
 
 Citation from John Damascene includes this, But they are called repre- 
 sentations of the things to come, not as not being truly Christ’s body and 
 blood, but because now by them we partake of Christ’s Godhead, but then 
 perceptibly by sight only, νοερῶς [Improperly put] . 5 - 102 
 
 Whether there is any causative power in the sacraments ithemeciveslaee 
 certain instrumental virtue [only] to bring grace to us or into us, ad in- 
 ducendam,...as an instrument moved by the principal agent...by a kind of 
 concomitance, &c. To them it is difficult to say how they understand them 
 to work, ex operato, &., ἄορ [The point of points. See the entire ex- 
 tracts] . Ο : 9 : : ὃ A : . ὃ ὃ ᾿ . 1068 
 
 J. Witu1Am Durand, or MENDE; HE STUDIED AND WROTE AT Bouoana, &c. 
 
 After the loud utterance of the declaration there is secret silence, in 
 which the canon of the mass is devoutly said, &c., ie ed according to 
 
 S. Matthew xxvi., Christ was praying alone . 5 Ε : : . 166 
 The priest of the law had His face to the propitiatery : - ° - 00 
 The priest in the mass kisses the altar three times ὃ - 5 ese 
 
 When the priest then pronounces those words of Christ, and the bread 
 and the wine are turned into the body and blood, by that virtue of the Word 
 by which the Word was made flesh, &c., &c. : ς ; : 169 
 
 What he says on sprinkling I cannot set down in English here c Lael crf 
 
 Κι Duys Scorus. Joun or Dunstan, ΙΝ NorTHUMBERLAND. 
 
 Whether the sacraments of the new law have causative action in respect 
 of grace.. .Sacraments do not contain mr: ΤῊΝ contain, virtualiter, in 
 their vir tue [special pleading | A : : 178 
 
 For if the sacraments of the new law do not give grace, > eiebant that foe 
 because, quia] God gives grace to the recipients of them, then a sacrament 
 does not by (its own) force justify... Therefore it seems that they make that 
 grace which they confer [Monstrous] . A . - . 5 . ἘΠ 
 If the body of Christ ean be in another place fan where it is, in a mode 
 not natural to itself, then it can be under a mode natural to itself. [Nego 
 utrumque] . : : : 5 : - : Ξ > : . 119 
 
 L, NicrpHorus ΒΙΕΜΜΙΡΑΒ. 
 To utter the words of the very sacred sacrifice, sacrosancto, which are 
 splendid and beautiful as pearls . A 4 ὃ : 5 - : 5 lle 
 M. Jon ΟΕ Paris, TERMED BY HIS FOLLOWERS, FOR HIS ACUTENESS, PIQUE-ANE. 
 
 That the bread’s substance remains under its own accidents, not in its 
 own subject-matter, but drawn to the being and eu Dbee han ateee of Christ, so 
 
 that there is one subject-matter to the two natures. : 181 
 Body is not corporeitas, but that which has comporeitas, becanes fiers 
 
 is only one subject-matter there . 3 181 
 There is no communication of peoneEnce Bekpean Christ end the ΠΕ Ἢ 
 
 which He took , 5 : 5 - : Ε : 5 : . 182 
 
 N. Mansinius oF Papua. 
 
 Christ gave to the apostles power to transubstantiate . - : . 185 
 
 Christ gave to them the power ofthe keys . ὃ - : 5 . 185 
 
 And power to transmit both these powers to others ὃ 185 
 
 But only general councils to decide interdicts of the agen of pried 187 
 
CONTENTS. ΧΙ 
 
 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. Niconas ΡῈ Lyra, CoMMENTATOR, BORN NEAR VERNEUIL. PAGE 
 John xviii. Passover is not put for the paschal lamb, but for the un- 
 
 leavened bread, used for the seven days, &c. ; : - 189 
 He brake (the bread) to shew that the eee of His body would not be 
 
 without His own will, sponte : ᾿ ; 5 1) 
 
 He did not break His own aes for it is not in the sacrament in a 
 frangible mode, but he brake the species of the bread which were re- 
 
 maining Ξ 5 : τ ‘ ; 5 ἃ ὁ : ὃ ὃ 5 lien 
 He accomplishes this sacred rite in the consecration of the material, 
 
 but other sacraments are perfected during the use of the material , 5 Ul 
 
 B, Wixxram oF Ockuam, or Merton Cott. 
 
 In qua Ipse Idem est Sacerdos et Sacrificium Ὁ : : : 1095 
 Transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem : : , jee 
 Ita quod substantia panis non maneat . ὃ : ὃ . ᾿ . 193 
 Accidentia tantum : : : ; ὃ : : : ὃ 1995 
 
 C. Joun TAvLer, 
 
 ΤΟΙ Celui qui nourrit et la nourriture qu’Il donne est tout un 5 . 197 
 En recevant le vrai Fils de Dieu Son vrai corps vivant et Divin, &c. ὅθ. 198 
 
 D. NicrrpHorus XANTHOPULUS, 
 
 ᾿Απόβρεξαι καὶ τῷ πρεσβύτῃ κατὰ τοῦ στόματος ἐπιστάξαι. : é . 200 
 
 HK, Jonn pe Wycuirr, or LurrerwortH AND OxFoRD, 
 OER Ue Ὁ 
 
 It is not naturally the body of Christ . Γ 201 
 
 Can any thing be more contrary to another ian the ἜΣ ich 
 affirms this sacrament to be sacramentally the body of Christ, and the.. 
 doctrine...that this sacrament cannot be in any sense the body of Christ?. 201 
 
 It is merely a double meaning...in those who affirm that the sacrament 
 is not naturally the body of Christ, but that this same sacrament is Christ’s 
 body figuratively . 5 5 5 ° : δ : . 202 
 Hardness and softness ἀξε δὲν exist per se, nor can they be the subjects 
 of other accidents. It remains therefore that there must be some sub- 
 
 θοῦ - ὃ 202 
 The body of Christ, 1. €. ‘sagrimentally α τῆς sign apa face of tke ποῦν 
 itself . 5 Σ 202 
 
 The most heresy fiat God τ Το δή: to come τὰ His ἘΠΕ ΝῚ 15 τὸ trowe tha i 
 this sacrament is accident without subject, and may in no wise be God’s 
 body . « - : - . : : 5 ; Ἶ ᾿ . . 202 
 
 F, Joun Huss, Joun or Hustnec 1n Bowemis, Recror oF PRAGUE UNIVERSITY. 
 picture 5: 
 
 He that devoutly recollects the passion of Christ, spiritually eats His 
 body, although he does not receive the venerated sacrament : 207 
 
 As minister of Christ, he ministerially does...what Christ does with His 
 own power and His own words, transubstantiating the bread into His body 
 and the wine into His blood - . : . ᾿ : ὃ : . 208 
 
 G. JEROME oF PRAGUE, 
 Maintains a change of substances . : Ε é : 5 PAIS 
 Laud gives an exhortation at the Council of Gonstanes : ν ; τ 18 
 
X1V CONTENTS. 
 
 H. Jon CHaruieR GERSON, oF CHAMPAGNE, CHANCELLOR OF Paris, PAGE 
 He is now in His own species in Heaven, but under the species of the 
 
 sacrament on the altar, &c. - : - : - . : ς . 910 
 The substance of the bread which by virtue of the word (This is ae 
 
 body) passes into the body of Christ instantaneously . C 5 : 216 
 
 It is suitable to God’s nature to be everywhere simply and in His own 
 way. It is suitable to a creature to be only in one place, The body of 
 Christ is in a middle mode, &. . : 5 4 5 : ; ᾿ Ὁ ONT 
 
 On account of the peril of spilling the blood, effusionis, it is ministered 
 to the laity under one species (form, kind, ὧδ.) . 3 - : Β τ ali 
 
 It is asked whether the bread pass into flesh, soul, blood and Godhead. 
 
 It is the whole Christ under each kind, &c., &. . : . 218 
 In what way would the good be made better, as to the soul, by corporeal 
 
 food, which does not enter that soul? . : : . : . 220 
 Reason ought to correct the judgment of the boar senses, yore J 
 
 dicium , : . δ : : ὅ : : : 221 
 
 I. ΤΉΟΜΑΒ ἃ Kempis, From ΚΕΜΡῈΝ IN COLOGNE DIOCESE. 
 
 “How shall I prepare in one hour to receive with reverence the world’s 
 Maker? ὃ ὃ : : : : : c : . : : . 224 
 
 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. Tostatus, Bishop or Avita IN SPAIN. 
 
 The object in appointing that bitter herbs (lettuce, endive, &c.) should 
 be eaten with the passover, viz. as a pleasant vegetable ᾿ i ὃ . 230 
 
 Β. Gennapius, ΠΟΒΙΤΉΗΒΙ͂Β, ΟὝΒΙΙ, Lucar, &c. or THE Hastern CHuRcH. 
 
 Not typically, nor in a likeness, &c., nor in impanation, so that the 
 Godhead of the word is made one hypostatically with the bread, &c., as 
 Luther, &c., but truly and in fact, so that after the consecration, &e. the 
 bread is changed, transubstantiated, made different (transmade), changed 
 in its course into the true body, &c. Yet Cyril Lucar says, not the newly- 
 invented transubstantiation as vainly taught, &e. ὃ ᾽ : 235 
 
 C. Prorressor ULLMANN ON THE STATE OF BELIEF AND PRACTICE BEFORE THE 
 SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION APPEARED. , ὦ c 5 ¢ 5 9.90 
 
 D, AineAs Syuvius,-Popr. 
 
 John vi. The sacramental eating is not prescribed, but a spiritual is 
 suggested . : ο : c anes 3 : : é 6 . 245 
 
 E> Witi1smM TYNDALL, THE GREAT TRANSLATOR OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 
 
 e sacrament doth much more vehemently print lively the faith, &e. 
 than bare words only, &c. . ‘ ὦ F : 5 ᾿ : : . 248 
 
 If they be absent the sacrament profiteth them as much as a sermon 
 made in a church profiteth them that be in the fields. And how it profiteth 
 the souls of the dead tell me, to whom itisnosign . - : : . 2500 
 
 We eat His body, i.e. we surely believe that His body was crucified, &e. 251 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 I, Jonn ΕΒΙΤΗ͂. PAGE 
 
 The manna was to them as the sacrament is to us, &., yet were they 
 never so mad as to believe that the manna was changed into Christ’s own 
 natural body 5 : Ξ - 5 ὃ : : ᾿ 5 ἃ . 2564 
 
 We do eat Christ in faith both before we come to the sacrament and 
 more expressly through the sacrament 5 : : . 9 3 . 254 
 
 α. Sir Tuomas More. 
 
 They that believe that it is the very body and His very blood indeed, 
 have the plain words of our Saviour Himself on their side for the ground 
 and foundation of their faith Ἶ A 4 : : : 6 . 255 
 
 If (the holy fathers) had thought either that it could not be there, or 
 that it was not there indeed, they would not for all the good in the world 
 have written as they have done, &., &c. . Ξ : Ξ : . 255 
 
 Frith’s reply ends, We mean that it (the body that was broken for us) is 
 eaten with faith, &c., and therefore hath it the name of His body, because 
 the name itself should put us in remembrance of His body, and that His 
 body is there chiefly eaten, even more through faith than the meat with the 
 mouth . : : : : ὃ : . 256 
 
 ῳ Bisuor Mynrs CovERDALE, WHO SUPPLEMENTED TYNDALL’S WORK. 
 TET OE 
 
 Why do they then call it a sacrifice, seeing it is but the remembrance of 
 
 a sacrifice . 3 : : 5 Ὁ : ὃ ο - ὃ δ . 208 
 The bread thereof (not unworthily called His body), forasmuch as it doth 
 not only represent it unto us, but also being unto us the same thing . . 258 
 
 No remedy—therefore we must unfeignedly receive the body and blood of 
 Christ in the supper, forasmuch as the Lord offereth to us therein the com- 
 munion of them both . : 5 lt ee 5 δ Ξ 5 Ξ . 258 
 
 We understand that in the supper Christ giveth unto us the very sub- 
 stance of the body and blood : 5 : ὃ : ᾿ ὸ : . 259 
 
 I. Grroztamo Savonarona, Prior oF St Marx’s, FLORENCE. 
 
 If the exterior (of Christian worship, 7. 6. particularly of the sacraments) 
 did not contain Divine virtue and truth necessary to form a first instru- 
 mental cause, it could never produce, maintain, and consummate that 
 excellent effect, Christian holiness...of what avail were...bread and wine...if 
 they were not the instruments of a superior cause? . 2 δ . 263 
 
 It is fitting that these sacraments, as instrumental causes, should confer 
 grace. The sacraments do not attain to the essence of grace, but only to a 
 disposition thereto 5 : 2 . ὃ ὃ : : 
 
 : 263 
 A whole chapter from The Golden Book . : : ‘ : : . 264 
 
 J. Joun Cornet, Dean or St ΡΑσΙ 8, THE FRIEND OF Erasmus. 
 
 By gracious eucharist, wherein is the very presence of the person of 
 Christ, under form of bread, we be nourished spiritually in God . ς . 272 
 
 In the blessed cup and the broken bread there is a saving communica- 
 tion of the very body and blood of Jesus Christ itself . : 5 Ξ . 272 
 
 They are nourished, not themselves assimilating the nourishment, but 
 being transformed by it, as by the stronger into itself. : 5 ; 5 Νὰ 
 
 This He does not only in regard of our souls by the communication of 
 His Divinity, but also in regard of our bodies by the communication of His 
 body . : : : : ᾿ : : : : : : ; . 273 
 
Xvi CONTENTS. 
 
 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. Duranp or St Porcain. PAGE 
 
 It is enquired whether water is to be mixed with this sacrament, and it 
 is agreed that it is not. Many arguments and conclusion, Therefore it 
 seems rash, that beyond His (Chuist s) institution and ordinance, water 
 should be added to the wine : : : : : ὃ . - ΠΝ 
 
 © Holy fathers do not always observe propriety of speech, therefore some 
 of the aforesaid sayings are found to have been said by some saints, and 
 chiefly by Ambrose - ᾿ : - : : : ° - 3 : 278 
 
 Although that be the common saying of many, yet since it has not been 
 confirmed by the church, it is lawful to think the opposite . 4 : 5 PS) 
 
 If you lay down that (the substances of bread and wine) do not remain, 
 many difficulties follow, 1.6. how such accidents can nourish, can be cor- 
 rupted, and how anything can be generated oui of them , a ace) 
 
 Corporeal food it is not possible to eat in any way than by the ne . 280 
 
 Besides the spiritual eating, which is within the power of the spirit 
 according to its own nature, it is within its power to eat it sacramentally 
 under such a veil [i.e. of br ead and wine] 5 : : Ε ὃ 5 280 
 
 B. Gurearp or RorrerDAM, COMMONLY CALLED _Erasmus AND DESIDERIUS. 
 
 To represent among them by mystic signs that which on the day follow- 
 ing He was about to go through on the cross : : ὃ - - . 284 
 
 Another passover of a perfect kind according to the Spirit will be accom- 
 plished in the kingdom of God. : : . . . Ὁ : . 284 
 
 That which of all rites is most mystical, res omnium maxime mystica, 
 ought to be handled in a pure and reverent manner . ὃ ὃ 5 . 288 
 
 It is not immediately to be accepted, as often as mention is made in the 
 sacred books of bread being broken, that the Lord’s body, and blood were 
 consecrated in the midst of disciples a Ξ - 288 
 
 By this mystery is figured and confirmed the most intimate union, con- 
 junctio, of the body with the Head, and such a mystical association of all 
 that truly profess Christ’s name as is natural between the members of the 
 body of the same living being j : : é ‘ : δ : . 289 
 
 C, ΜΆΑΒΤΙΝ ΤΌΤΗΒΕ. 
 
 ‘The w way ‘in which Christ puts His body and blood, immittat, into the 
 bread and wine is not by reason to be comprehended . : = 0 
 
 As He is wont to come into the heart without making any pects for 
 passage, nullo facto foramine,...so also He passes, migrat, into the bread, &c. 292 
 
 There is not a creature of Christ’s where He is not present, in flint, in 
 fire, in the waters, &¢., nusquam non in omnibus creaturis presens 
 Christus est. - 5 : 3 ᾿ a 2 ᾿ ς 5 : . 293 
 
 (The Bohemians) certainly have Christ’s word and deed on their side. 
 But we have neither, but only that empty fiction of men—the church 
 so ordered it—when it was not the church but the kings of the church’s 
 tyranny, that ordained those things without the conscience of the church 
 and of God’s people Ἔ : : : ὃ a 3 : : A my eR 
 
 The Cardinal Camera’s book. It were much more probable and much 
 less would there be of superfluous miracle if true bread and true wine were 
 on the altar, &e. - ὃ A 5 : : : . ‘ : : 204 
 
CONTENTS. XVil 
 
 PAGE 
 If then transubstantiation is to be determined, ponenda, &c. why not 
 transaccidentation also ? : 5 : Ξ 5 : : : . 294 
 Ceremonies of a different kind would have to be introduced, or rather 
 brought back, induci seu potius reduci, through Christendom ‘ - 295 
 The whole value of the mass consists in Christ’s words that fea that 
 remission of sins is given to all that believe . : 5 : : . 295 
 It is a safer course to deny everything than to allow that the mass is a 
 work, opus, or a sacrifice . é ᾿ : 5 ὃ Σ ἥ 5 . PASS 
 D. Henry VIII. or Encuanp. e 
 
 The mass-ceremonies are to affect the simple minds of low people, ple- 
 becula, to turn them to commemorate the invisible maa pice means of the 
 honour of a visible majesty of worship. : 300 
 
 Luther may attain to this that the mass shall be vid not δεῖς of its 
 apparatus of ceremonies, but also of the hope and veneration of the people 
 that in crowds now come toit . δ 5 . : 5 a Ξ . 900 
 
 ἘΠ, ΒΙΞΗΟΡ FisHer’s DEFENCE OF THE Κινα᾽5 TREATISE. 
 
 It is not to be doubted that many customs (of worship) were introduced 
 into the churches by the direction of the Holy Spirit . 9 5 : . 301 
 
 Whatever was holyand healthful and approved gener bee by all Christians, 
 this I doubt not was inspired of the Spirit . 801 
 
 Cited from the King against consubstantiation. Nor can any substance 
 be worthy to be mixed with that Substance which made all substances. 302 
 
 Nor does the King mean Christ’s flesh to be understood by creatrix sub- 
 stantia, creative substance . : ο 3 : ς 5 Ὁ : . 302 
 
 F, Parnie ‘Meuancu THON, 
 
 When Take and Paul ἊΣ This is the ee of the New Testament, it is a 
 metonymy . 5 5 : ᾿ . 304 
 
 They (people of his ἘΠ ἘΠΕ πὶ a sacrifice as that which, ee for 
 others, deserves for them the remission of fault and the penalties, and that, 
 from the mere work done, without any good motion of the (heart of the) 
 receiver, Thus do they interpret the offering being performed in the mass for 
 the living and the dead ὃ 0 ὃ 3 : A 9 δ Ξ . 800 
 
 It is not possible to obtain remission of sins on account of another 
 man’s work, and without a good motion, i.e. faith of one’s own. This aa 
 
 refutes their opinion on the merits and application of the mass . : 306 
 The Lord wished the Lord’s Balas to be the eee nervum, of the 
 public congregation —. . 5 : 308 
 
 It is a manifest profanation to ae about a portion of the Lord’s supper 
 and to adore it, circumgestare .. 5 : : : Σ 5 . 3809 
 
 The greatness of the sins that tite profanation of the Lord’s supper is 
 now in so many ages producing, it is keyond the eloquence of all men and 
 of angels to utter . Ε : 5 - 3 . 5 Ξ Ο : . 909 
 
 G. Huupreric ZwINncrEL. 
 ee ae . . . . 
 Sacraments are given to bear public testimony to that grace which is 
 
 previously present in private with every one : : Ἢ . . . 812 
 That the whole transaction (of the redemption) becomes as it were 
 present to faithful contemplation through Christ ; ; ; : . 3812 
 
 I believe that in the sacred supper of the eucharist (i.c. of thanksgiving) 
 Christ’s true body is present to faithful contemplation (1. 6. that they recog- 
 nize, &c. the truth of His incarnation and suffering) . : : 3 . 812 
 
XVill CONTENTS. 
 
 But that Christ’s body in its essence or really (1.6. the natural body it- 
 self) is either present in the supper, or by our mouth and teeth is eaten, 
 we not only deny, but ey affirm it to be an error opposed to the 
 word of God. 5 - ὃ 3 5 5 : Θ - 6 5 
 
 We have never aoe that Christ’s body is sacramentally and in a 
 mystery present in the supper, both on account of the Os ae of 
 faith, and on account of the whole action of the sign . = - Ε 
 
 Τῇ the body of Christ be limited, yet if it be clarified as ours also will be, 
 it is corporally (present) now, and truly is, after that mode in which clari- 
 fied bodies are. [This concedes everything hypothetically] . : - 
 
 It is not possible that anything corporeal or carnal be eaten here, since 
 the soul cannot be filled or fed with any bodily food . : c : 
 
 If His body cannot at all profit by being eaten, doubtless Christ did not 
 determine to exhibit or give it to us to eat 
 
 Τί His own body be in the Heaven above, it cannot be on this earth in a 
 bodily form, even after the resurrection 3 : . Ὁ . : . 
 
 In no mode ean it, like the Divinity, be in all places 5 : ; : 
 
 “Ή.) Huon LATIMER. _ 
 ν᾿: savas 
 ‘Christ spake. never a word of seuaens therefore sacrificing parte 
 
 should now cease for ever . 5 ὃ - . : 
 The supper of the Lord was meteated to provoke us to Hianeegivaay &e. 
 
 To the faithful believer there is the real pac presence of the body of 
 Christ . ὃ : : ᾿ - 5 : 0 ¢ ᾿ : 
 
 There is none other presence ᾿ Christ ities than a spiritual, &e. 
 This same, &c. may be called a real presence, &c. See Remarks . 5 
 
 I. THomas Brecon, CuHaruain to CrANMER. 
 
 If the substance of bread and wine be turned, &c. &e., the sacrament is 
 the real, natural, corporeal, and substantial body ‘of Christ . - 
 
 As Christ’s body still abideth a creature and is not swallowed up (if I 
 may so speak) of the Divine nature, &c., Christ’s body, taken up into Heaven, 
 neither is nor can be in Heaven and earth at once 
 
 . . 
 
 Christ’s body is not then in every pix and in every altar, &c. . 2 
 
 He that goeth about to pluck from the sacrament, &c. the bread and 
 wine, destroyeth utterly the aforesaid sacrament and maketh it no sacrament 
 
 G) CRANMER. 
 ~ That flesh is received spiritually 
 
 The very body of the tree, or rather the ὩΣ of the ae is, es ne 
 real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar 
 they call.it), &e. &. . ὃ ° 
 
 As at the Lord’s table the mabe distributeth wine ἘΠ pasa to feed the 
 body, so we must think that inwardly by faith we see Christ ene both 
 body and soul unto eternal life . - 5 . 
 
 In which supper as in body we receive the true faa oi wine, so in 
 spirit are we nourished by the true heey and blood of our Saviour and 
 Redeemer, Jesus Christ : 
 
 What benefit is it to a wicked man Ἢ Ἐ- Christ a to receive apatite 
 
 K, ) Jouy Joun Kyox. Prormssor Lortuer’s Booxs. Joun Knox anp THE CuurcH 
 oF ENGLAND. 
 
 The controversy about ‘‘sitting” concluded by Cranmer after producing 
 and passing the rubric on kneeling, Oct. 7, 1552 . : 
 
 PAGE 
 
 313 
 
 313 
 
 315 
 
 315 
 
 316 
 316 
 
 319 
 319 
 
 319 
 
 327 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 i. ) Nicxozas RIviey. 
 
 If He be now really present in the body of His flesh, the euepes must 
 cease, for a remembrance is not of a thing present, &c. 
 
 The natural substance of bread and wine is the true natural substance 
 of the holy sacrament, &e. . 5 : 
 
 Not only a signification, but also, given to the faithful, the grace of 
 Christ’s body, i.e. the food of life and immortality ‘ : . 
 
 He gave Himself in a real communication, i.e. He gave His flesh after a 
 communication of His flesh . : : : : ; 
 
 Not after the manner of bodily substance 
 
 The sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of Christ, 
 even that which was born of the virgin Mary . : Ὁ 
 
 We (i.e. Ridley and his examiners) only differ in modo . 5 Ξ : 
 
 I confess Christ’s natural body to be in the sacrament indeed, by spirit 
 and grace; because that whosoever receiveth worthily that bread and wine 
 receiveth effectuously Christ’s body and blood, &c. : : : 
 
 The natural substance of Christ’s human nature, &c. is in Heaven, &e. 
 and not here enclosed in the form of bread . 5 ‘ Ἁ ὃ 
 
 The same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ, &e. 
 hath not only life in itself, but is also to give and doth ὑὸν life, ἄο., though 
 the self-same substance abide still in Heaven 
 
 M. Joun Catnvin. 
 
 An inyisible aliment, which we receive from Christ’s flesh and blood 
 That He is truly exhibited to us no otherwise than as if He were Econ 
 
 and set before our sight and handled by our hands. 3 : 
 That Christ’s body is the ee food, unicum cibum, to make the soul 
 
 flourish, and to make alive . 5 . . . 
 That His own body would be for ( 6, instead of) bread for the 
 
 spiritual food of the soul 5 : . δ > Ξ 
 
 He seals that exhibition by the sacred et a of His supper 
 
 Though a sign of the body has been received, let us not any the less 
 believe that the body itself also is certainly given 5 Ξ : : : 
 
 That sophistical fiction that the sacraments of the new law confer grace 
 on all who do not put in the way the obstacle of mortal sin. Helvetic 
 conferences . : é ; : ὃ ὃ Ξ : Ξ 5 - 
 
 Grace was never tied to them, i.e. to sacraments. Ibid. : 
 
 We must take away every fancy of a local presence (of Christ’s body). 
 Christ, as far as He is man, is nowhere else than in Heaven. Ibid. . Ό 
 
 We do not judge it to be less absurd to place Christ under bread, 
 or to couple Him with bread, than to transubstantiate bread into His 
 body. Ibid. 5 : é ς : 
 
 Ν, RoGER AscuaM, Tutor to Epwarp VI. anp THE Lapy E1izaseru, 
 
 Appeal to a fair judge on comparing Christ and His disciples at the 
 institution, with a modern priest performing mass alone. ; : δ 
 
 As adoration of the eucharist is nowhere commanded, it is wor SIPEG 
 God in a way that may displease Him Ε Ξ : x : 5 
 
 What has keeping the Sabbath holy come to? Only the mass 
 All men’s religion is the mass : : 
 
 xix 
 PAGE 
 330 
 330 
 
 331 
 
 331 
 
 334 
 
 337 
 338 
 338 
 
 338 
 338 
 
 340 
 341 
 341 
 
 341 
 
 342 
 
 344 
 
 345 
 345 
 346 
 
ΧΧ CONTENTS. 
 
 Great men think they have done all, if they have set up in their houses 
 & Massing priest . 3 5 - . - . : = ° 
 Were the mass removed, most een could find nothing to do : A 
 
 The mass has driven good teachers of the word into other callings . Ε 
 
 O. JEWEL. 
 
 Being spiritually understood it will give you life 
 
 By them Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so econ το 
 given to us, that by faith we verily receive His body and blood : σ . 
 
 That was ποὺ Christ’s meaning that the wheaten bread should ac a 
 its own nature and receive a certain Divinity . . δ 5 
 
 And we do expressly pronounce that in the Lord’s supper there is Hee 
 given unto the believing the gael and blood of our Lord, the flesh of the 
 Son of God . : - δ Ξ δ 
 
 P. Cornexivs JANSEN, BisHor oF GHENT, A PARTLY ENLIGHTENED RoMANIST. 
 
 That under the sacrament of bread and wine are truly continued to us 
 (as in unbroken succession) Christ’s flesh and blood . 
 
 Q. Woureana MuscuLvs, NATIVE oF LorRAINE, PROFESSOR AT BERNE. 
 Not the signs of Christ’s death, but His death itself justifies . ς A 
 Therefore sacraments do not justify 
 
 ΓΒ: JouN Hooper. 
 
 I Τὴν any ΣΕ at all to be in the sacrament, but everything wrought 
 by God accustomedly—by faith, remission of sins, &c., and the signs to 
 remain in their proper nature. - . : 
 
 It is a visible word, which preacheth peace . : : : ° 
 
 5. PARKER. 
 As to using wafer-bread and the superstition therein ᾿ 
 
 ΤΠ, Peter Martyr, NATIVE oF FLORENCE, PROFESSOR AT OXFORD. 
 
 It is not even said of angels, &c. that they can be present in divers 
 places at once ᾿ 5 ὃ 5 - - : - - : 
 
 Let them strive as far as they will, as far as they know how, and as far 
 as they can, they will never escape the charge that the potion they drink is 
 of blood 6 ‘ 4 5 - 5 - 5 : ᾿ A 
 
 As if their boasted and fought for presence, &c. can be of better, ane 
 or any other use than we get from a spiritual perception, &c. 
 
 . 
 
 That the body is spiritually present to communicants does not mean 
 invisibly only, but further, is present, as the Papists say, in its own self, 
 propria . : . 5 : 5 : . . : : : - : 
 
 As the number three cannot be six, &¢. so it is not possible that what is 
 
 the human body can cease to be, non sit, a human body, the definition of 
 which necessarily comprehends magnitude, distinct parts and limbs . . 
 
 As concerns the faithful they are efficacious instruments - ς 4 
 
 _ Neither in the signs nor in the communicants themselves do I admit a 
 real and substantial presence of Christ, nor can I acknowledge it A ᾿ 
 
 Yet I should not doubt but should affirm that a communion and par- 
 taking of His body and blood, of a spiritual kind, spiritualem, is given to 
 communicants, which also may be had, before the eating in the sacrament 
 
 PAGE 
 
 346 
 947 
 347 
 
 349 
 
 350 
 
 350 
 
 351 
 
 354 
 
 356 
 
 366 
 
 366 
 
CONTENTS. XX1 
 
 U. Joun Braprorp. PAGE 
 
 Not that I mean any other presence of Christ’s body than a presence by 
 grace, a presence by faith, a presence pean and not Sieg ae 
 
 naturally and carnally : ξ 809 
 Till He come. Whereby He man us to wit that corporeal He is 
 not there in the form of bread. - - ὃ 368 
 
 VY. Rocrer Hurcurinson, oF CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 The Council of Rouen did first forbid men to take it in their hands. 
 Regard more Christ’s example . 5 . - . 810 
 
 W. JouN HausscHein, Minister or Baste, CALLED CAcOLAMPADIUS. 
 
 “But they are nothing else than the bom itself, penne corpus, and 
 the blood itself. : : : : : 5 : : . 812 
 
 If we truly and with the whole heart believed that in this manner Christ 
 was at hand, it would be wonderful if we could be torn away from adoring 
 Him, &e. . ¢ 5 ὃ δ - δ : : ὃ : : 5 Bye 
 
 It is manifest that there is no miracle in the mystic bread, beyond 
 human apprehension . : : : 5 δ ὃ : Σ . 375, 376 
 
 X. Martin Bucer, MInistER oF STRASBURG, BURIED AT St Mary’s, CAMBRIDGE. 
 eens 
 
 Those His words, by which to sanctify the sacrament (the Lord’s ἘΠΡΕΡῚ) 
 to us, quibus sanctificaret : : : 
 
 In all this life’s graver actions we add signs to words. He therefore 
 gave (such) here . : 5 ὃ ὃ 5 ὃ . : 5 381 
 
 He gave to the saints separately His own body by the sign (symbols) of 
 bread, His own blood (by the sign) of wine; not that these were then 
 separated or are now: but He wished by it to express that He is the sacred 
 victim of our salvation, and that He restores us by His own death (by the 
 offering of His own flesh and blood) . δ : : : ὃ 5 . 381 
 
 As the Sun...so God the Lord, even though He is cireumseribed to one 
 spot of Heaven, &c., yet by His own word and sacred signs is exhibited, 
 Himself, God and man, truly and wholly present in the sacred supper, and 
 therefore substantially . 3 : Ξ ‘ - ἕ : : . . 382 
 
 Y. Henry BULLINGER, successor To ZwINcEL AT ZURICH. 
 SURES PRES DS NEO 
 
 } The sacraments give not that which they have not within themselves ; 
 but they have not grace and righteousness and Heavenly gifts . ὃ . 388 
 
 Whereas it is objected that by a certain Heavenly covenant it is ap- 
 pointed by God that sacraments should have grace in themselves; and 
 should from themselves, as by pipes, convey abroad the water of grace 
 unto them that are thirsty—that is alleged without warrant of Seripiure, 
 and is repugnant unto true religion, : - : 5 δ 5 . 388 
 
 Ζ. ERASTUS; TO WHOM VERY DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE GENERALLY ASSIGNED, 
 
 His argument—a curious one—that unspirituality and even known crime 
 do not exclude from the Lord’s supper, as they did not from the Passover. 
 On this ground he reasons against church power to excommunicate . . 999 
 
 AA, Epmunp (5ΤῈ, BisHop or SALISBURY: REVISED THE PRAyYER-Book FoR 
 
 PaRkKER. 
 How can they be rightly named bread and wine, without their own 
 proper matter and substance? ; : 3 3 : 9 : 5 GE 
 
 Aaron’s rod, being altered into an adder, had not only the substance 
 thereof, but also the outward fashion of the same, and no similitude of a 
 rod at all, &. &c. : ὃ : : 3 : : ὲ 2 ξ a ey 
 
XXil CONTENTS. 
 
 Worms cannot be engendered or fed of an accident, but of a substance 
 alone . : 5 : ve ashe : - : : 3 5 : Ε 
 
 Questionless their meaning is that the said sacrifice appeaseth God’s ire 
 and indignation and cleanseth sin : ‘ : Ξ 8 Ξ 5 : 
 
 BB. Epmunp GrinpAu, PRIMATE. 
 I do conclude that the sacrament is not the body of Christ, first, because 
 it, the sacrament, is not in Heaven neither at the Father’s right hand, &c. 
 CC. Epwin Sanpys, ArcupisHor or York. 
 
 They are God’s seals added unto His most certain promises . . : 
 
 We must lift ourselves from these external and earthly signs, and like 
 eagles fly up and soar aloft, there to feed on Christ, &e. 5 Ὁ - 
 
 DD. Joun Wuireirt, Primate. 
 
 That the outward signs, &c. do not contain in them grace, neither yet 
 that the grace of God is of necessity tied to them, but only that they be 
 seals of God’s promise, notes of Christianity, &c. 5 - 5 3 - 
 
 HE. James Pinxineron, ΒΙΒΗΟΡ or ΠΌΒΗΛΜ, 
 With what face can they say we have no consecration? If consecration 
 stand on words, we have all the words, &. . 5 Ξ 
 ΤῈ, Wit11am Fouuxe, Masrer or Sr Jonn’s. ANSWERED RHEMISH VERSION 
 AND NOTES. 
 
 Presbyter should signify nothing but an elder: but, by usurpation, priest 
 is commonly taken to signify asacrificer . = 4 . . - - 
 
 Because the Scripture calleth the ministers of the New Testament by 
 divers other names, and never by the name of ἱερεῖς, we thought it neces- 
 sary to observe the distinction (in translating the New Testament), which 
 we see the Holy Ghost hath so precisely observed 3 : : - : 
 
 GG. ΤΉΒΟΡΟΒΕ BrzA. THE FRIEND AND SUCCESSOR OF CALVIN AT GENEVA. 
 
 If what I have now said concerning the eating of My flesh offend 
 you, &c. how much more will it appear incredible, when it will be absent 
 from you, received into the Heavens . - 5 Β . . . : 
 
 From whom (i.e. from the Capernaites) neither transubstantialists nor 
 consubstantialists differ ever so little, with whatever paint of the real 
 essence of Christ’s flesh itself they hide up the dogma, &e. . - Ξ 
 
 HH, Martin ΟΉΕΜΝΙΤΖ. THE SUPERINTENDENT IN ΞΆΧΟΝΥ. Its MELANCHTHON. 
 
 Since He has explicitly promised in the very words of the New Testament 
 the presence of His own body and blood in the supper, we believe it simply 
 and without any gainsaying, although such a presence seems to be incon- 
 sistent, pugnare, with the natural properties of a natural body . Ξ 5 
 
 1, Tuomas DE Vio, CARDINAL; CALLED CAJETAN FRoM GAIETA, 
 Luke xxii. He gave thanks for the termination of the old sacrifices 
 He does not say, shall be given, but is given; because it had begun to 
 be given. Already He had been sold . : - 3 : 5 5 5 
 JJ. Joun Maxuponatus, LecrurER ΙΝ SALAMANCA AND Paris. 
 
 Our opinion is that a sacrament’s nature does not require the thing 
 (signified) to be either present or absent, but only that something unseen 
 be indicated to the mind, &c....The Holy Ghost was truly in the dove ; yet 
 the dove truly is a sign of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was present in 
 the tongues on fire, &c. : ‘ ‘ : ᾿ Ξ a : Γ : 
 
 PAGE 
 398 
 
 399 
 
 401 
 
 402 
 
 403 
 
 404 
 
 405 
 
 409 
 
 409 
 
 411 
 
 412 
 
 420 
 
 427 
 
CONTENTS. Xxlll 
 
 PAGE 
 
 When we compare the eucharist of the sacrifice, &e. on the cross, we deny 
 that it degenerates in some way from that most true sacrifice, if all things 
 be considered that customarily are in a sacrifice . : . ὃ : . 428 
 
 KK. Roxsert ΒΕΙΤΙΑΉΜΙΝΕ,. 
 
 John vi. If the Lord had only promised that His body should be re- 
 ceived by faith, it would not have been harder but easier to receive it in this 
 way, for those who had seen Christ’s ascension. [Clever perversion !] . 431 
 Whether the subject itself of the chapter is spiritual eating . 5 . 431 
 
 If bread in that place signifies Christ as thus received by faith, without 
 any reference to sacramental species, He would not say it in the future (I 
 will give). [Ans. It refers to His dying on the cross] : : : . 432 
 
 The ancients always call (this sacrament) the Lord’s body and blood, 
 which they do not when they speak of other signs, &, &e., about what the 
 fathers held and did in relation toit . 2 9 Ge} 
 
 In no way can athing not be changed and yet be a different thing. 
 
 [N.B. We say it is not a different thing] 435 
 The word of God nowhere makes it an exception to God’s omnipotence 
 
 that one body can be in two places ὃ : c 0 5 : : . 456 
 Those only things is God unable to do, to do which is not doing but 
 
 failing (as lying is failing to be true): but for one body to be in two places 
 
 clearly cannot be reduced to that class. [Ans. Yesit can. It is failing to 
 
 maintain the first physical principles], &c. : 5 ΣΙΝ τὸ : . 436 
 The whole Christ exists in the eucharist with magnitude and all accidents, 
 
 the relation to its place.in Heaven excepted, &c., and those which follow 
 
 with reference to its existence there . δ 5 ὃ 5 ὃ : - 437 
 On the other hand the whole Christ exists in Heaven with magnitude 
 
 and all accidents, its relation to the species of bread excepted, &c. 4 . 437 
 
 LL. Hospryrian, CHANCELLOR OF ZURICH, WHO DEFENDS BUT MISTAKES 
 ZWINGEL. 
 
 Z. Non, non hane significationem inanem vacuam nudam sine certis- 
 sima rei significatw presentid. What is a real presence of the body, then?. 440 
 
 He (Z.) is not in every place clear and safe , 5 - ς . 440 
 Z. Docuit Domini veram presentiam, corpus, &c., the true body . . 440 
 False to say, My body is drawn away from this sacrament, and shut up 
 in Heayen . : 2 Ξ : : : Σ : : : : . 440 
 Z. defended from H. : Ὁ ᾿ : ; : : : : . 440 
 Ζ. says, it is all done, not bodily, but spiritually, by faith . : . 441 
 Z. Liturgy for the Lord’s Supper in Zurich. Praised by one of our 
 great bishops. The name has escaped me . ὃ 4 ὃ ; . 441 
 MM. για Wuiraxer, Professor at CAMBRIDGE. 
 Christ instituted such sacraments to instruct us through the sense. . 444 
 
 NN. Parevs, PRoFESsOR AND Councrutor oF STATE AT HEIDELBERG. 
 The idolatry of a theatrical mass. : : : : é ᾿ . 445 
 Christians were said...to be the only men that had no βδουϊῆοοθ. . 445 
 The mass-making priest, murmuring lowly in five words, a consecration 
 
 over the host, For this is My body, so that at the last instant of the syllable 
 
 ‘‘um” the bread is changed into the substantial body of Christ, &e. 
 
 This is daily offered to God the Father for an expiation of all sins and 
 for the redemption of the living and the dead in Heaven and in purgatory 446 
 
 446 
 
XXIV CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Lutherans think there are two substances under the same accidents 
 in one place really present . : Β 5 : Ξ é : . 447 
 
 The ubiquity of Christ’s body does not follow from its union with the 
 Godhead. For there was this union but no nbiqnity in all His lowly 
 condition (on earth). The union was unbroken, but there was no ubiquity. 447 
 
 OO. Rozsrert ΑΒΒΟΊ, BisHor oF SALISBURY. 
 
 To a true and real sacrifice there is necessary a true and real death or 
 destroying of the thing sacrificed, &e. With such argument the great Jesuit 
 is so troubled that he staggereth like a drunken man, and indeed knoweth 
 not what tosay . : Ξ - : . : : . . . . 461 
 
 PP. Ricwarp Hooxer. 
 
 Till Christ be formed in you; Did the blessed apostle mean materially 
 and really to create Christ in them, flesh and blood, soul and body? No, 
 but according to that intellectual comprehension that the mind is capable of 453 
 
 Coupled and joined to Christ, as flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, 
 by the mutual bond of His unspeakable love towards them, and through 
 unfeigned faith in Him, thus linked and fastened together by a spiritual, 
 sincere, and hearty affection and love. On Hooker, See Partum. . . 453 
 
 Nor do they, the sacraments, really contain in them that grace which 
 with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow . ; ᾿ ᾿ : . 453 
 
 Our conjunction with Christ...a mutual participation whereby each is 
 blended with the other, His flesh and blood with ours, &c. which gross con- 
 ceit doth fight openly against reason, For are not we and Christ personally 
 distinguished? &e. - 5 : : - : - - - 3 . 453 
 
 QQ. Apnrian SARAVIA, A VERY CLOSE FRIEND OF HooKER AT THE FIRST. 
 
 There are three things in any sacrament: (1) the sign, &., (2) the 
 thing, &e., (3) the fruit ὗ Ξ ἐ - - . 457 
 
 We must at length return to this, that Christ the Lord in reality de- 
 livered His own body and blood to His own disciples in His own supper ; but 
 
 the mode of doing it surpasses human understanding . : 458 
 But not absolutely and simply, as they are now locally by dimension in 
 
 one spot of Heaven, but in type, by a certain necessary relation to body and 
 
 blood, and by a sacramental union. [Bellarmine can be understood. This 
 
 τ aes ὁ : 3 : - 3 - ὃ . - . 459 
 There is one mode of Christ’s presence in Heaven; another in the 
 
 sacrament . : - Ξ Ξ 5 ὃ ὃ ὃ . 459 
 
 A bodily and a spiritual eating are not things contrary to one another . 460 
 
 Let it no longer be said to Christian ears that it is impossible for the 
 bodily mouth to eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood spiritually . 460, 461 
 
 Present in His own body in many places by a supernatural mode where- 
 
 ever God will 460 
 
 Divine mysteries are not to be examined by physical reasonings . . 462 
 
 RR. Joun Rarnoupus, or Ratnoups, Presipent C.C.C., Oxrorp. 
 
 As for your Rhemists (translators, Ν. 1.) who still translate sacerdos 
 (Vulgate) a priest...and yet translate presbyter by the same word, they do 
 join together that which God hath severed, &e. . . - . : . 464 
 
 The Jewish fathers affirming that God gave on Mount Sinai the Scrip 
 tures and the Talmud, &ec. Papists say that the apostles received from 
 Christ, &c. They divide the word of God with Scripture and tradition, 
 partiuntur . A - : - . : Ξ ξ é : : - 
 
CONTENTS. XxXV 
 
 PAGE 
 Searcely any vestige of its institution can be discerned in the Lord’s 
 supper . 5 : 5 > : 5 : Α F 5 . 466 
 Propitiatory, not as eaionste Christ to us, tai truly and in its own 
 nature propitiatory, vere proprieque . δ : 407 
 They do salute in a like way the nse oil snd Mary say τς Hail λῤεδὰ 
 chrism . . 5 5 5 5 : 468 
 
 SS. Lancetor ANDREWES, Bispop oF WINCHESTER. 
 
 If such power be in the Spirit, and the blood be the vehiculum of the 
 Spirit, how may we partake of His blood? It shall be offered you straight 
 in the cup of blessing....In which blood is the ety of Christ. In which 
 Spirit is all spiritual power, &c. . : 4 ὃ Se EL 
 These three to offer to God: our soul — prayer, our aes by abstinence, 
 and our goods by alms-deeds—the threefold Christian holocaust or whole 
 burnt offering 5 Ξ > ᾿ : : 5 - : A : Seer 
 
 TT. Tse Rey. Henry SMITH, SILVER-TONGUED, PREFERRED BY LorD BURLEIGH. 
 Christ would that we, touching the signs, should draw virtue from 
 
 Himself : : Ξ Ξ 473 
 Here is the fruit of His ΕΞ before He ee that the bread and 
 wine might be blessed, and they were blessed 5 : 3 . 418 
 
 His blessing has infused that virtue into it that it doth not ae repre- 
 sent His Let but ee His ΠΡΟΣ and Himself into us. See extracts 
 
 in full . ὃ : : - Ξ : . 473 
 If Christ’s very ἘΠ was offered in the sacrament, then it were not a 
 sacrament, but a sacrifice . 4 . δ : - . 5 . 414 
 
 Now mark the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. Lest we should take this for 
 a sacrifice, He never names altar when He speaks of it, but the table of the 
 
 Lord . - : : : - : : 474 
 If it were the flesh of Christ iney (ie eked should receive salvation 
 rather than ‘“‘judgmment” . . . . . = ATA 
 
 UU. Joxnwn Fox. 
 
 Five students. Neither the sacraments of the old law nor of the new 
 law do give grace, but shew Him unto us Which giveth grace indeed . - 476 
 
 John Rogers. I cannot understand really and substantially to aigny 
 
 other than corporeally ὃ Ξ : 5 5 : 5 0 478 
 Thomas Causton. This holy supper is sore abused...in that it is wor- 
 shipped contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt worship pare made 
 with hands . 3 c 5 Ξ 5 478 
 Oh ye will have ἘΝ more ΕΣ the Serpe teacheth ; pe even as 
 Christ left it bare . Ἀ = : : - - 3 . 478 
 From Cranmer’s recantations. I ΤΈΡΕΝ and suche in the sacrament 
 of the altar, the very body and blood of Christ poner contained most ἜΠΗ 
 under the forms of bread and wine . . 479 
 VY. BuisHorp Morton, or DurHam. 
 The meaning of the word missa, “" dismissing.”” An argument against 
 Rome who wishes to behold it as a spectacle Ξ - . - Ε . 481 
 WW. Arminius oF LrypEn, 
 Neque secundum locum corpori aut sanguini copulantur, ita ut corpus 
 sit, vel in vel sub vel cum pane . Ξ Ε Ξ 5 : : . . 484 
 Sacrificium falso cone Dominice institutioni tribui; non instituit 
 Christus sacrificium sed sacramentum : ΕΞ ἶ : Ἶ ; w 484 
 
 ἮΙ Τ-ς Ο 
 
XXvVl1 CONTENTS. 
 
 XX. Coryeuius A Laripe, Proressor at Louvain anp Rome. 
 
 John vi. The flesh profiteth not at all. You will say, Then Christ’s 
 flesh is not present nor eaten in the eucharist. I answer, That cannot be 
 said. Christ’s flesh (crucified) did and doth much profit the world, Ὁ 
 
 YY. Francis or Sates, ῬΌΡΙΙ, or ΜΑΤΌΟΝΑΤ, Prince ΒΙΒΗῸΡ or GENEVA. 
 
 After the general confession she made an entire resolution by a full pro- 
 testation, followed by the Holy Communion, in which giving herself to the 
 Saviour and wel Hark le recevant, she entered eta into His 
 holy love . . 
 
 That when Christ says, This is : My hae He heen «ον that the bread 
 is changed. (See extract in full). 8 : 
 
 Really and spiritually. The third of bas modes of Aer : : 
 
 ZZ. ΑΝΡΒΕΥ͂ ὙΥΠΠΠΒΕΤ, Synopsis ΡΑΡΙΒΜΙ, A VAST COLLECTION OF TREATISES. 
 
 We do not hold that it is an essential part of a sacrament always to 
 have a sermon before it, &c., which, notwithstanding, were most convenient 
 and always to be wished : : : : , 
 
 AAA. Caprera, Prerer, or SPAIN. 
 
 The sacraments of the new law signify that Christ is to be conferred by 
 the sacraments themselves as by instruments of the passion of Christ. One 
 of the chief benefits is that grace is conferred on us by the sacrament, ex 
 opere operato, i.e. do the work and it gives the benefit 5 C : - 
 
 The sacrament of the eucharist contains Christ substantially, but the 
 rest (of the sacraments) contain (only) a certain institutional virtue [virtue 
 in them according to their institution], partaken of from Christ . : 
 
 BBB. Ricuarp CRAKANTHORP, 
 Is the adoration of the eucharist under the suspicion of idolatry? . 
 
 The uncertainty of the admitted prerequisites to the fulfilment of tran- 
 substantiation (on Romish principles) . : . : : 
 
 As to Christ’s body lying hid (latens) in the pea 
 
 Is the bread given at the institution other than spiritual food ? 
 In the mass there is no true and proper sacrifice 
 
 The eucharist is not to be adored 
 
 The pontificals are truly idolaters 
 
 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. THORNDIEE. 
 
 Cassander complains of the Church of England abolishing the form of 
 consecration which is general in the fathers 
 
 How shall any common sense be satisfied whether the minister hath 
 
 consecrated the same or not? : C . : - ξ 
 The adoration of the eucharist, which as Church of τοῦς presenteth is 
 not necessarily idolatry : - - . 
 
 I suppose them to believe that the elements are not Meco having ceased 
 to be, that they might make room for the body and blood of Christ ee ats 
 
 Natural body and corporeal presence of Christ are equivalent terms “ 
 Church authorities not the authoritative expounders of the word of God 
 
 PAGE 
 
 487 
 
 495 
 
 497 
 
 497 
 
 499 
 
 500 
 501 
 501 
 502 
 502 
 502 
 
 503 
 503 
 503 
 
 503 
 504 
 505 
 
CONTENTS. XXV1l 
 
 c2 
 
 B. Dauvaurer or ΠΑΝΊΕΙ, CrarKson. PAGE 
 Sights of glory...never wished to go to the world again . ; δ . 506 
 Ο. ΑΒΟΗΒΙΒΗΟΡ UsueEr. 
 The Dublin Articles of 1615 on this sacrament 508 
 The dates of his writings on this subject 5 : Σ - 510 
 How far is the Body of Divinity compiled or written by τ ῦ aes . 510 
 The advance of Usher’s opinions—not altered in substance, butonlyinuse 510 
 His uses of the word “‘real” . : : Ε 3 6 ὅθ9., 15, δ16 
 The bread and wine are not changed in rates but in use 4 : Σ 511 
 If the bread were turned into Christ, then would there be two Christs— 
 one that giveth and another that is given : : δ12 
 What does that signify? our uniting with Christ and enjoying of Him; 
 that we must with delight apply Christ and His merits to all the necessities 
 of our souls, &c. . Ε . Ἔ : 5 : : 5 : ς 512 
 But some say, Nothing is impossible with God. The question is here 
 not of the power but of the will of God ‘ ὃ : : : : 512 
 In the inward (action of the communicant) we do by faith really receive 
 the body and blood of our Lord . 4 : : : 9 9 . 5 ope} 
 The thing which is delivered in the external part of the sacrament cannot 
 be conceived to be really...the flesh and blood of Christ 515 
 It being proved that the word ‘ this” doth demonstrate the bread, it 
 must of necessity follow that Christ affirming this to be His body cannot 
 be conceived to have meant it to be so properly, but relatively and sacra- 
 mentally 6 5 Ε : ξ : ᾿ : ‘ : SMO LOs ΟἿ 
 The real order of Christ’s separate acts in the institution : 4 517 
 D. JoszrH Hau, BrsHor or Norwicu. 
 Transubstantiation and the multipresence of Christ’s body. Iknow not 
 which I should prefer for madness and sophistical cozenage 5 C - 519 
 That it should be pomoraly: peat Sr present, it hath ever seemed 
 impious to us ὃ . 5 . δ . ὃ 5 . 520 
 How mad is this that they will overturn the principles of nature, &c. &c., 
 rather than they will, where oe pees it, admit but of a Lone 
 kind of speech 5 : 4 520 
 That the body of Christ is saat offered and ily received which of us 
 hath not constantly taught and defended? . 5 520 
 For any propitiating sacrifice, unless ob ταν at I find none, gee 
 neither can there be. 3 ὃ 5 ὃ 5 : 9 5 : 520 
 Away then with those nice scruplers who...have endeavoured to keep us 
 in suspense with a ‘‘non licet inquirere de modo” (saying, we must 
 not ask questions about the mode) . : : : : : . 522 
 EH. Cornewius JANSEN, oF YPRES, FOLLOWER OF AUGUSTINE, FRIEND OF 
 DU VERGIER DE HAURANNE, AND FOUNDER OF JANSENISM, 
 Most suitably to signify the separation of the body and the blood in the 
 passion, and that both are made truly our food and drink, &. . - 524 
 Christ signifies that His blood was even then being poured au 1.6. 
 offered to God, which is properly called, libari, and libation : . 526 
 For the remission of sins, properly its effect, as of a sacrifice not of a 
 sacrament . : 5 . 526 
 
XXVIll CONTENTS. 
 
 The flesh of Christ, indeed in reality, re ipsa quidem, but yet in a sacra- 
 ment ; not by faith only, but not without faith and love is to be eaten . 527 
 
 Not as if He were speaking of a figurative, eet horiaal canis of the 
 flesh, or through faith alone, as heretics dream . : = foam 
 
 ἘΦ, George Canixtvus. 
 
 Reasons which may have led the ancients to call it a sacrifice : . 529 
 Very pronounced Lutheran views on this sacrament Ζ : : . 530 
 Historical reference, beginning from Charles the Bald’s reign : . 530 
 Discussion with Bellarmine. What is a true sacrifice? . ᾿ =. Gail 
 Our mingling water with the wine. Assumption of De Lyra . - : 591 
 
 G. ΦΌΒΕΡΗ ΜΈΡΕ, or ΟἨΒΙΒΤ᾽ 5, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 As God confers no manner of blessing on us, but through Christ, so the 
 manner and metre of a sacrament is to confirm unto us whatever it assures, 
 only through Him . : ἢ ἢ : , ἢ . - : . ὅ94 
 
 That which is the communion of Christ is bread still. 1 Cor. x. . 5 594 
 St Paul himself calls them as they are, &c. The bread which we break, &c. 534 
 
 He that receiveth the bread as pesuedly receiveth Christ’s Node as if 
 the bread were Christ’s body ς ᾿ Ξ : 534 
 
 Receiving it unto the substance of our oie and into our blood way 
 of nourishment, the τοῦ of Ee becomes our hoa, and His blood is 
 made our blood . ‘ 535 
 
 That lurching sacrifice of the mass, where the bread and wine are often 
 as a sacrifice for the people, but they receive no one jot thereof . : . 535 
 
 They think it enough that the priest eats all himself . : - . 535 
 
 H. Joun Bramwary, Primate or IRELAND, ‘‘ ARDMAGH. 
 
 That which weighs most with us is this, that we dare not give Divine 
 worship to any creature. No, not to the very une ee of Christ in the 
 abstract (much less to the host), Gre Se 537 
 
 Shew us such an union (hypostatical) betwixt the Deity and the elements 
 (or accidents). But you pretend to no such things, &e. . : 2 . 537 
 
 If you understand another propitiatory sacrifice, distinct from that (of 
 the cross), for pen oe the Price is not the same, the ὩΒΕΙΝΙ is not the 
 same, &. ὅθ... : : . O37 
 
 Surely you cannot think that Christ dia lene Himself at His last 
 supper. Then His subsequent sacrifice on the cross had been superfluous 538 
 
 Here is a commemorative, impetrative and applicative sacrifice, &e. I 
 cannot understand what you desire more. To make it a suppletory sacri- 
 fice. To supply the defects of the only true sacrifice, &c. N.B. The com- 
 memoration of a sacrifice . : 3 : 3 . 538 
 
 The fathers did not teach αὐλοῦ eae ities name or ee 
 Mark it well—for the first four centuries [a rare asseveration] . 5 . 538 
 
 I. Joun Costy, ΒΙΒΗΟΡ or ΠΌΒΗΛΜ. 
 
 A true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, toties quoties, i.e. as 
 often as this sacrament is celebrated, which is the popish doctrine, and 
 which cannot be done without killing Christ so often again . ‘. Β . 540 
 
 I cannot see where any difference is between us (i.e. us and learned 
 Papists) about the real presence . j é : : : : : . 539 
 
CONTENTS. ΧΧΙΧ 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Before consecration we called them God’s creatures of bread and wine ; 
 we do so no more after consecration . A A 6 = . . 541 
 
 Formally and truly it may be called a sacrifice, also in the very natural 
 signification of a sacrifice, for aught I know any harm should come of it . 6541 
 
 The eucharist...and to appease His wrath toward us  . : - . δ40 
 
 J. ἘΡΜΟΝΡΕ ALBERTIN, PasTHUR AT CHARENTON. 
 
 The bread not changed substantially but accidentally only, by addition 
 of meaning and grace, and does not become properly the Lord’s body and 
 blood, but a likeness, a figure symbolical &., used much in Part III. . . 544 
 
 Κ. Epwarp Reynoups, Bishop or NorwicuH. 
 
 Things begun by devout men piously, and continued with zeal, after- 
 wards degenerate into superstition - : Ξ : 5 : : . 546 
 
 Whose sacred body...in regard of its cooperation, force, efficacy, un- 
 limited by any place or subject . : A 5 δ : : Ἶ . 546 
 
 Presence, real being, a metaphysical term is not opposed to a mere local 
 absence or distance . . ἔ Ξ ᾿ - : : - 5 . 547 
 
 L. Wiuiu1amM CHILLINGWORTH, STUDIED AT DovUAI AFTER OXFORD. 
 
 To say they (things) are severed but not according to place...is to say 
 they are severed and not severed 5 : - - ὃ A . - 550 
 
 I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are popes against 
 popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same 
 fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a con- 
 sent of fathers of another age, &c, &e, . 5 Ξ : : ; - . 549 
 
 M. Joun Licutroot, Master oF ΟΑΤΉΛΒΙΝΕ Haun, Canon oF E ty. 
 
 The lamb in the passover was evidently of Divine institution, and so 
 indeed was the bread: but what the authority for the wine? But yet Christ 
 rejected the lamb and instituted the sacrament in bread and wine : . 551 
 
 The wine is now a representation of Christ’s blood, because the shedding 
 of blood...was now about to cease A 6 : 1 3 c Ἢ . 552 
 
 This cup is not only a sign, &., but also the very sanction itself of the 
 New Covenant, of the whole System of the Gospel : 4 : - . 552 
 
 N. ΒΑΙΡΗ Cupwortu, Proresson or ΗΈΒΕΒΕΥ, ΟΑΜΒΒΕΙΡΟΕ. Master oF 
 CHRIST’S COLLEGE. 
 
 It is a great mistake in most of our learned writers to think that the 
 killing of every sacrifice was proper to the priest - - = 5 . 555 
 
 The Lord’s supper is not a sacrifice, but epulum ἐκ τῆς θυσίας [a feast on 
 what is taken out of a sacrifice]...not the offering up of something to 
 God, but the eating of something which comes from God’s altar and is set 
 upon our tables. : . . 5 ς- - A < : - . 555 
 
 Neither was it ever known among the Jews or heathens that the tables, 
 upon which they did eat their sacrifices, should be called by the name of 
 altars . C ᾿ - ᾿ : ὃ - - : : - ϊ . 505 
 
 O. Henry Hammonp, ARCHDEACON OF CHICHESTER. 
 
 A commemoration of the death of Christ ; a representing the passion to 
 God: (1) to offer our sacrifices of praises and supplications; (2) to com- 
 memorate that His daily continual sacrifice or intercession for us, at the 
 right hand of His Father, now in Heayen ., 2 = : > ; . 559 
 
XXX CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The lamb was wont to be called The body of the Passover, answerable to, 
 This is the bread of affliction which, &c. ς : 2 : : ξ 5,559 
 
 Do this, Do all that I have done in your presence . ; : : . 559 
 
 P. SvupERINTENDENT ECKHART, OF SCHWARTZBURG. 
 
 Panis John vi. est panis metaphorice dictus . : : : : . 560 
 
 Q. Αντοιῖνπ ARNAULD, LEADER OF THE SORBONNE, DRIVEN OUT BY THE JESUITS. 
 
 Under the pretext of representing the usefulness of frequent communion 
 (the Jesuit) was ruining all the dispositions necessary for it, without 
 which this holy food is turned to poison : : Ὁ ¢ A . 564 
 
 R. Tue Arnavunps or Port Royat. 
 
 Such strong opinions, that the Abbess had administration, once even to 
 17 times in a day c ; : - : : ‘ 5 : : . 573 
 
 Duvergier de Hauranne of St Cyran, the bosom friend of Dongen of 
 pres) = 3 : : : : ὃ : ; : 2 : : . d74 
 
 5. Jeremy Taytor, BrsHop ΟΕ Down AnD Connor. 
 
 In Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread as it is called Christ’s 
 body. It cannot be both in the true natural sense...one must be figurative. 
 We ought to give etn ou that side to which we are ἘΞΘΒΈΝΒΙ by 
 
 common sense . : δ ὲ . 576 
 If Christ had only said, This is My a and no ee had told also 
 that it is bread, ἄο. &c. One must be expounded tropically ἃ ὃ 576 
 
 We may not render Divine worship to Him, as present in the ἰδέα 
 sacrament or host according to His human nature without danger of 
 idolatry, because He is not there according to His human nature, and 
 therefore you give ae worship to a non ens, which must needs be 
 
 idolatry . : : . 3 - ᾿ : : : - ἃ «DUT 
 Hardest is the word ‘‘corporally.” It may mean really and without 
 
 fiction, and substantially too [Strange tampering with terms] . : Oo 
 Heber, in Life of Taylor, on the word ‘‘real,” &e. . : : . 578, 579 
 Spiritual experience essentially necessary to intelligence - 5 = iy, 
 
 T. Henry More, Curist’s CoLLeGE, A NOTED PULATONIST. (GIBSoN’s 
 PRESERV. ) 
 The primitive fathers had (would have) warranted them that there was 
 (is) a twofold presence, body and blood of Christ, the one natural, the other 
 spiritual and Divine, which we do really receive in the holy communion . 580 
 
 U. Joun Owen, Dean or Curist CHurcH AND CHANCELLOR OF OXFORD. 
 
 This is one of the great mysteries of the Roman magic and juggling, 
 that corporal elements should have power to forgive sins and convey 
 spiritual grace. ὃ é 5 - : : - Ὁ : . . d84 
 Spiritual and mystical, not carnal or fleshly. To imagine any other 
 participation of Christ in this life by faith is to overthrow the Gospel . . 584 
 
 The body and blood of Christ are really exhibited and communicated to 
 the souls of believers as the outward signs unto their bodily senses. . 585 
 
 How the errors arose 3 ξ : ‘ é : . 585 
 
 If in the course of their ἜΣ you give ἯΚΕ pledges of their salva- 
 tion by Him, they will not much regard your other exhortations. The 
 church is damaged by the want of a careful inspection, &e. : Ξ . 586 
 
 A great sin in a church to neglect this overseeing . : : : . 586 
 
CONTENTS. χχχὶ 
 
 V. Francts Turretin, PRoressor at GENEVA. PAGE 
 
 The words, This is My body, have not the form of a prayer, and they 
 ask nothing, and they are addressed to the apostles and not to God, &e. . 
 
 None can doubt that Christ wished by His own prayer to seek for God’s 
 blessing on the signs which were as necessary as they were suitable to the 
 sacred use to which they were being appointed . ᾿ : 3 : 3 
 
 When the proper sense of the letter involves anything absurd or con- 
 tradictory, we must of necessity fly to the figurative sense . : 5 
 
 When the speaker’s scope is the cause and the occasion of the saying and 
 the disposition of the audience, the place and time of their own accord lead 
 us toa figure andatrope . . 5 Ξ 
 
 Though the doors had been shut, thoy aera yield to the Creator and 
 open at Hisnod . A 
 
 W. Wituiam Ovrram, ARCHDEACON oF LEICESTER. 
 
 Melchizedek is not called a ee because he pee forth bread and 
 Wine, &c. . : . . . ‘ 
 
 Eucharistic Eee (of OL eee under the law. . E ‘ 
 
 To appear in the presence and to offer Himself to God seem to me one 
 and the same thing 3 . . 
 
 X. James ΒΕΝΙΟΝΕ Bossvet, 
 
 Argument from the Jews actually eating the flesh of the sacrifices . : 
 
 Argument from the Calvinists, assertion that ag hold a true and real 
 participation of Christ’s body : 2 
 
 Argument from Jesus not saying that He means his wats Ys be ἽΕΙ 
 
 tively understood . ‘ Σ 5 : 5 ‘ : ὃ : : C 
 Explanation of the general laws of language . 
 Illustration from children approaching a father’s tomb 
 Jesus present on the table intercedes in Heaven . ; ; 3 - 
 The object ought to be adored : ‘ : : : : A q 
 
 The eucharist a remedy against sinning . 
 
 Christ’s body, soul, and Divinity all there : : 
 Argument from ‘ being guilty of the Lord’s body Be blood” 
 Faults of some confessors 
 
 (MapamE στον.) 
 
 Argument from ‘‘ being guilty, &c.” : : Ξ : : : ᾿ 
 Appeal to wicked priests . ᾿ 3 : - : C 
 Appeal to priests to urge penitent sinners ie an table . - . 600, 
 
 Reference to Professor Upham’s Life of Madame Guion 
 
 Y. JrEan CLAvpE. 
 The many terms of the Greek church that savour of transubstantiation . 
 M. Claude’s useless denial in opposition to M. Antoine Arnauld. : 
 
 Z. Epwarp StiLLIncrLEEt, ΒΙΒΗΟΡ or WORCESTER. 
 On the necessity of the priest’s intention to consecrate . : : . 
 Adoration so becoming idolatry . . : é 
 
 Cyprian’s principle in favour of making no alteration of Christ’s rule 
 at all. Therefore against denying the cup to the laity ; : 
 
 587 
 
 587 
 
 587 
 
XXX CONTENTS. 
 PAGE 
 Excuses against the charge of idolatry examined. : ὃ ᾿ . 609 
 Parallel of Eutychius against the Trinity and Transubstantiation . . 609 
 The Word was made flesh, treated by them as by Papists, This is My body 609 
 
 That a body cannot be anywhere without dimensions . Ξ : a GLO 
 The true mode of interpreting Hilary . 4 ; : : F 2 ὍΠ] 
 Auricular confession - . - : : Ε - 5 - τ ὦ} 
 
 AA. Isaac Barrow, Master or Trinity CoLtEGE, ΟΑΜΒΕΙΡΘΕ. 
 When signs belong to Divine things they are called sacraments . . 612 
 
 A solemn and sensible representation, wherein we behold Him crucified, 
 as it were, in effigie . ἔ 6 ; : : : : : Ξ . 613 
 
 Our Lord being absent from us sitting in Heaven at God’s right hand . 613 
 
 We in the spiritual intention communicate of His very person, being, 
 according to the manner insinuated, intimately united to Him . ᾿ . 6138 
 
 Tasting it by hearty faith, digesting it by careful attention and me- 
 ditation, converting it into our substance by devout, grateful and holy 
 affections, &e. He that doeth this eats our Saviour’s flesh and drinks 
 His blood, &. . 5 c : Ε : ? ς : - - oils 
 
 BB. Joun Tritnorson, Primate. 
 
 The Second Council of Nice, 787....The sacrament after consecration is 
 not the image and ἀρ δ Ὁ of Christ's a and blood, but is, eae the 
 body and blood . . 5 ὁ . 614 
 
 (Transubstantiation) i is like a millstone about the neck of f Popany, which 
 will sink it at the last . : : 3 - 5 ς - : . 615 
 
 Our objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to reason 
 and sense are so many demonstrations of the falsehood of it : - 615 
 
 They have nothing to put in the opposite scale but the infallibility οἱ of 
 their church, for which there is eyen less colour of proof from Scripture . 615 
 
 CC. Gzrorcr Buin, BrsHop or Sr Davip’s. 
 
 Nothing doth more alienate the hearts of the Jews and Mahometans too 
 from Christianity than the image worship and bread worship...which they 
 see with their eyes practised by them that call themselves the ΠΟ true 
 
 Christians . - ὃ : Ξ δ ς : Ξ : c - 618 
 Offered not hypostatically, but commemoratively only, not a bare re_ 
 
 membering or putting ourselves in mind of Him 0 : : - 617 
 The worst ceremony of all is the elevation of the host to be adored by 
 
 the people as very Christ himself under the appearance of bread . . 616 
 These words (those of instituting) could not be true in a proper sense . 617 
 
 The ancient fathers generally teach that the bread and wine in the 
 eucharist, &c. do become and are made the body and blood of Christ.... Yet 
 they all declare their sense to be very dissonant from the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation - : : A 5 : é - - A 5 (Oy 
 
 They do not all explain ὙΠ ΤΠ the same way . - Ξ - Sol 
 
 DD, Isaac AmBrosE, THE DuKE or BEeprorp’s PuRITAN CHAPLAIN. 
 
 Union is the ground of communion _, c : : : : . 621 
 
 His body and blood are not substantially in us. Christ corporally is 
 only in Heaven. But He is really and spiritually in the spiritual part of us 620 
 
CONTENTS. XXX 
 
 PAGE 
 The inward nature is upholden in the children of God by things answer- 
 able to its nature; and to this indeed...the Lord offers in his sacrament 
 Christ’s body and blood as its proper food. zs A 619 
 
 The flesh of Christ is the conduit that conveys the graces of the God- 
 head and the graces of the Spirit of Christ into our souls. 5 4 se OLd 
 
 KE. Pasquier QUESNEL. 
 
 In this last assembly, an abridgement of the entire church, the Son of 
 God has shewn to us mingled in one, the good the feeble and the wicked, 
 all united under an external profession of the same faith and participating 
 in the same sacraments ὃ ὃ : Ξ . - : 5 . 622 
 If these words, This is My body, had wanted explanation and could only 
 be understood by a figure, how did Jesus Christ, Himself teaching the 
 apostle this great mystery, and the apostle announcing it to the faithful, 
 leave these words in their obscurity and double meaning? Would not this 
 have been to lead the faithful of all ages into error? . 5 Ξ Ε . 624 
 
 ἘΠῚ ῬΗΙΠΠΙΡ Lrvsorca, 
 
 Best of the Remonstrant circle of divines ; says Luther held, in eum vel 
 sub pane vere et realiter preesens esse et communicantibus tradi et ab ipsis 
 ore vere manducari, i.e. Real presence of the body in the mouths of com- 
 municants , ὃ : : - 3 : ὃ : 5 . 625 
 
 But the way, quo modo, is to us imperscrutabile  . : 625 
 
 This is contrary to the truth of Christ’s body, which must be in one 
 certain place 5 δ 
 
 Luther said, The right hand of God (where His body is) is everywhere . 626 
 
 He took ubiquitarianism from George Calixtus : 5 : : . 626 
 If properties of human nature are destroyed it is not a human nature 
 any longer . ; : - : : : : 5 : ; . 627 
 
 GG. Witu1sm Beveripce, Bisnor or Sr ΑΒΑΡΗ. 
 
 Wherein every circumstance represents something of Christ . 5 . 629 
 Ignorant—such as know not (1) fundamental truths, &c., (2) the state of 
 their own souls, (3) the nature of the sacraments . ‘ 629 
 
 The devil took occasion to draw men into an opinion that the bread 
 which is used in that sacrament is the very body that was crucified, &e. . 629 
 John vi. 63, As though He would have said, Though I do speak of eating 
 My flesh, I would not have you think that My very flesh profiteth anything, 
 or quickeneth A : : 5 5 : ‘ : . : : . 630 
 
 HH. Tuomas Ken, Bisoop or Barn anp WELLS, AND ONE OF THE SEVEN. 
 
 First Ed. : How Thou Who art in Heaven art present on the altar, I can 
 by no means explain . 5 : 3 Ξ : : 5 : : . 633 
 Second : After what extraordinary manner Thou Who art in Heaven art 
 present throughout the whole sacramental action to every devout receiver, ὅσο. 
 I can by no means comprehend, &. . é . - ; “ : . 633 
 
 Il. ΘΆΑΝΤΕΙ, Wurrsy, Recror or Sr Epuunp, Savispury. 
 
 John vi. 52. No one who maintaineth the corporal eating of Christ’s 
 
 flesh to be intended here can, veritably to his own opinion say, that they 
 
 (the Jews) imposed a false sense on our Saviour’s words - A : . 634 
 νυ. 53. Except ye eat, &c. It follows plainly (on this hypothesis) that 
 
 all the pious and believing Jews who heard these words and died before 
 
 our Saviour’s passion (above a year) must of necessity be (lost). : . 634 
 Of sacramental eating of Christ’s flesh...it was eaten by Judas E . 634 
 
 Christ thought His ascension into Heaven sufficient demonstration to 
 the Jews that His flesh could not be eaten upon earth . : : : . 684 
 
XXX1V CONTENTS. 
 
 This phansy (of Christ’s body going through closed doors) destroys not 
 only the end of Christ’s then coming to them, but of all that He had said 
 and done to convince them that it was the same body that was crucified that 
 now appeared to them . - ὃ δ j ᾿ : : 2 : : 
 
 JJ. Ὑπαπαμ Craccrrr, Recror or Farnnam, (1x ΒΙΒΞΉΟΡ Gipson.) 
 
 John vi. You may be sure I do not mean that gross feeding upon My 
 flesh and drinking My blood...for My body will soon be too far removed 
 
 from the conversation of mortal men to be capable of being so used. : 
 The flesh profiteth nothing...no not My own flesh. Even this would be 
 but bodily nourishment, but would have no influence on the mind c 
 
 KK. Tsomas Comper, Dean or ΠΌΒΗΑΛΜ. 
 
 Let none therefore...imagine we are about to sacrifice Christ again, for 
 this is not only needless but impossible, and in plain contradiction to St 
 Paul, ἄς. &e. It is only a memorial which the Lord hath delivered unto 
 us instead of a sacrifice. Eusebius . ὃ “ 
 
 Let us not startle at the difficulty of this sacramental change 5 : 
 
 LL. Goprrey ΔΥΠΙΙΑΜ Lerenirz, ΡΒΕΒΙΡΕΝΤ ΒΕΒΙΙ͂Ν ACADEMY oF SCIENCES 
 AND AuLic CouUNCILLOR. 
 
 Sacraments, as it were, a peculiar kind of worship and sacred rites insti- 
 
 tuted by Christ, with the addition of a promise of grace : : . . 
 The grace is the nourishing of the soul, or the increase of love - : 
 It is necessary that the receiving mind be well constituted, lest an ob- 
 stacle be set in the way (of the benefit) 4 2 5 : - : 
 
 It must be confessed that one body cannot be in many places, even by 
 Divine power, any more than a square’s diagonal can be of the same length 
 as its side, and that being laid down, we must have recourse to the alle- 
 gorical mode of interpreting God’s word—written or traditive 
 
 Christ is now also offering Himself to God the Father for us, through the 
 ministry of the priest . 5 : . 3 5 3 2 3 5 
 
 The sacrifice of the mass the church has always taught to be contained 
 in the sacrament of the eucharist . - : ὃ é : : - - 
 
 MM. Feneton, Francis ΡῈ ΒΑΙΙΟΝΑΟ ΡῈ Τὰ Morne, ΛΔΕΟΘΗΒΙΒΗῸΡ or Cam- 
 BRAY. 
 
 It is there (the true body which was on the cross) with His blood shed for 
 our salvation, with His soul, with His Divinity. It is there living immortal, 
 glorious, &c. : : Ἶ 2 
 
 It would be useless to abstain from the communion for fear of commu- 
 nicating unworthily ;...in not communicating one deprives one’s self of the 
 nourishment and leaves one’s self to die of fainting under this privation 
 
 On the education of girls. Represent to them the happiness of haying 
 been incorporated with Jesus Christ by the eucharist . : : ς ο 
 
 Jesus Christ gives His flesh as really as He took it 
 
 NN. RicHarp Baxver, Pasror or KippDERMINSTER. 
 
 In the consecration we present to our Creator the creatures of bread and 
 wine as we desire, that by His acceptance they may be made, sacramentally 
 and representatively, the body and blood of Christ : Ξ A : 
 
 As Christ is now in Heaven representing His sacrifice to the Father, so 
 must the minister of Christ be present, and plead the same sacrifice by way 
 of commemoration and such intercession as belongeth to his office . 
 
 The minister representing Christ doth by commission deliver His body 
 and blood to the penitent, hungry, believing soul, and with Christ is de- 
 livered a sealed pardon of all sin and a sealed gift of life eternal . 5 
 
 The naming of the table an altar is no more improper than that other, 
 Heb. xiii. 10, a passage which seems plainly to mean the sacramental com- 
 munion. [See a correspondence which is to be printed at end of Part I.] 
 
 PAGE 
 
 635 
 
 636 
 
 636 
 
 637 
 637 
 
 638 
 639 
 
 640 
 
 641 
 648 
 
 648 
 
 649 
 
 650 
 
 650 
 651 
 
 652 
 
 653 
 
 653 
 
 654 
 
CONTENTS. XXXV 
 
 PAGE 
 The word priest being used of all Christians that offer praise to God, it 
 may sure be as well used of those whose office it is to be subintercessors 
 between the people and God...In subordination to Christ’s priesthood . . 654 
 
 OO. Witu1AmM Wake, PRIMATE, 
 Our church utterly denies our Saviour’s body to be so really present, &e. 
 as either to leave Heaven or to exist in two several places at the same time 656 
 We deny, ὧδ. any other substance than that of bread and wine. . 656 
 Only a real presence of Christ’s invisible power and grace. 656 
 
 A real sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood in the holy: signs, 
 and a real spiritual presence in the inward communion of them to the soul 
 of every worthy receiver. [N.B. Read all this, omitting “real.” Is the 
 sense at all changed? Then ‘‘real” is better away. | : : Ξ . 656 
 
 PP. THomas Witson, BisHop or tur [518 or Man. 
 
 Who hast ealled us to this ministry to make us worthy to offer to Thee 
 this sacrifice for our own sins and the sins of Thy people, &e. . : 000 
 
 May I atone unto Thee, O God, by offering unto Thee the pure Ἐπ 
 unbloody sacrifice which Thou hast ordained by . Jesus Christ, ἄο. : . 661 
 
 The Lord’s supper, by which upon your sincere eee vee may 
 obtain the pardon of all your past sins, &. . 2 Ξ Ξ - 661 
 QQ. Joun JoHnson, Vicar or CRANBROOK. 
 They (the priests) believed that they were filled with all that Divine gene 
 
 and efficacy that the body was’. : 662 
 The natural body of Christ...can only be present in ie jtrripteations of 
 men, and consequently their eating of it must be only imaginary : . 663 
 
 RR. Frarres Pouont. 
 Remarks on Socinian teaching ‘ : : : ‘ : ὃ . 663 
 
 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A, Puaron, Metropourran or Moscow. 
 
 The laity seldom partake of the Lord’s supper more than once a ain 
 
 which is always in the great feast before Master . . . 665 
 As soon as an infant is baptized it is admitted to the Tod's supper . 665 
 The communicants receive standing, the bread being sopped in the cup, 
 
 a little warm water used : 5 5 ᾿ : 3 5 : 5 . 665 
 
 B. Tue Roman PontiricaTe, oR Pontirr’s Book or Crement VIII. anp 
 Urnzan VIII. 
 Consecration of an altar. We beseech that our Lord may bless this 
 stone, on which the oil of sacred unction is poured out, to receive the vows 
 of His own people and the sacrifices, that &c. while we put on it the pro- 
 pitiation cf-the sacred things, we ourselves may deserve or earn, merea- 
 mur, to be the propitiators of God, ἄς. or God’s propitiators, &e. : . 667 
 
 C. Pauu Ricaur, Consun at SMYRNA. 
 The grand deceiver who would render that salutiferous food unwhole- 
 
 some and make this principal instrument of grace and salvation to become 
 the most dangerous snare and ruin of human souls. : Ε 6 . 668 
 
 D. Jean Bapriste Turers, Curt or VIB. 
 
 As the church is conducted by God’s Spirit, and is, &c. the pillar and 
 ground of the truth, the ceremonies of the mass which she approves and 
 authorises by use, are in no respect superstitious, because she has received 
 power from Jesus Christ, her Divine Spouse, to establish them . : . 669 
 
ΧΧΧΥῚ CONTENTS. 
 
 E. Dante WatEerLAND, ARCHDEACON oF MIDDLESEX. PAGE 
 
 Not that I consider that there is any absurdity in supposing a peculiar 
 presence of the Holy Ghost to inanimate things, any more than God’s 
 appearing in a burning bush. But there is no proof of the fact, either 
 from direct Scripture or from that in conjunction with the reason of things 670 
 
 Some, receding from the latter, have supposed the words, This is My 
 body, to mean, This bread and wine are My body and blood in power and 
 effect, or in virtue and energy; which is not amiss, except that it seems to 
 carry ‘in it some obscure conception of either an inherent or infused virtue, 
 which is not the truth of the case c : A 5 Ἔ ὃ : - (fl 
 
 Constructional intermingling . Ξ - : ἃ, (7Al 
 
 Under the type of bread you have His node given you, τὸ : 5 . 672 
 
 By this means we carry Christ about with us, inasmuch as His body and 
 
 blood is distributed to our members . 3 - 672 
 A sacrifice is properly apy μας for God's due and dole honour 
 
 in order to appease Him 7 ξ : = (ore! 
 Neither was it a rule that aati nae was ΘΑ ΘΕ ΣΙ to the aatare: 
 
 notion or definition of a sacrifice ᾿ Ξ 5 δ ~ (976 
 While we make a sacrifice of our bodies ‘and of our praises to God...the 
 
 scheme of sacrifice stands, though it be spiritual 5 : - . 674 
 
 It is pretended that our Lord offered up His sacramental ἘΠῚ i.e. the 
 consecrated elements, as a material sacrifice....I find no Berane ies of 
 this position : - ὃ : : - Ξ . 674 
 
 Christ might yea and did offer the laments for ἘΜΈ ΤΎΠΟΣ (which is 
 very different from sacrificing), or He might present them as signs and 
 figures of a real sacrifice, &c.; but as they were not the real body and blood 
 which they represented, so neither were they the real sacrifice ; neither can 
 it be made to appear that they were any sacrifice at all . 5 - LGTe 
 
 F. Bernsgamin Hoapuety, Bishop oF WINCHESTER. 
 
 To teach that Christians eat His real and natural body in remembrance 
 of His real material body, &c. is to teach that they are to do something in 
 order to remember Him, which supposes Him corporally present, and 
 destroys the very notion of that remembrance, and so ae contradicts 
 the most important words of the institution ς 676 
 The doctrine of a real sacrifice of Christ’s body opened by ne priest, ie. 
 contradicts the very words of the institution, in which the remembrance of 
 an absent body broken, not the offering of a pee Po is declared to be 
 
 the end of this religious action . ὃ - Ξ 
 The only person who answers to a ποτα τὐῆοοί; φοϊϊεἰ δον as ἃ 58011- 
 ficer, is Jesus Christ, who offered Himself up 5 : 5 O76 
 Catechism, ‘‘Which are verily and indeed, &.” Very fedmatve. ΕΝ 
 figure ought not to have been made use of . 5 ; : - : . 678 
 
 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 A. Tuomas Turton, BisHorp of Ey, wHO ANSWERED LorpD BrovuGHAM AND 
 Dr WISEMAN. 
 
 Tittmann says, Profane writers use ‘to eat” and ‘to drink” of being 
 imbued with the doctrine of any one: but that they so used, to eat the 
 flesh of any one, and to drink the blood of πὶ one, cannot be proved by 
 a single example, ἄρ. . ‘ . 5 (arty) 
 
 There seems not any fartier ππρς es that ihe fora in “his place 
 (John vi.) by no means...spake concerning sacramental ee, &e., but rather 
 concerning spiritual eating . é - 680 
 
 Behold an Israelite indeed, mie be, The w words is sienilarly employed 
 John viii. 31. : : : : : : ; . 680 
 
CONTENTS. XXXVil 
 
 B. WititamM PauMer. PAGH 
 No trace of prayer for the Holy Ghost [i.e. to come down on the bread] 
 in any liturgies of Milan, Italy and Rome . : 081 
 
 This prayer (called the prayer of consecration in she Guach of ienelanid 
 Prayer Book) does not expressly mention the consecration of the elements . 682 
 
 C. Jonn Apam Morntrr, Proressor ar Municu. THE BEST TEACHER OF 
 MoprErn Popery. 
 
 A sacrament...(1) a sensual part in cee (2) pledges or sureties of 
 
 the Divine will, (3) channels, alvei, &c. : ; : - : . 682 
 Its Divine matter impregnates the soul, Se ; : 0 . 683 
 The church is the living figure of Christ... Whose ἀπ δὲ ἘΠῚ redeeming 
 
 acts it in consequence eternally repeats and uninterruptedly continues - 683 
 
 D. Evuarnt Haac, Proressor at Panis. 
 
 They attributed (in early ages) magical effects to the bread and wine, 
 because they were convinced that the Logos was united to it : Ὁ . 685 
 
 The doctrine of an expiatory sacrifice offered by the priests, after the 
 example of the priests of the Jews, spread more and more, and with it ideas 
 more and more favourable to transubstantiation, so that in the seventh 
 Council general, held at Nica in 787, it met with an almost unanimous 
 approval . : ὑ : 5 ὃ 5 5 . 686 
 
 Haag’s survey of the success of Dr Base - : . - 690—1 
 
 EK. Dr Lusxe, Proressor or Ant History ΙΝ STUTTGARDT, 
 A table in the Church of the Lateran at Rome. Norelicsinit . . 692 
 
 F, Encycnoprpic Dictionary oF WETZER AND WELTE. FRENCH BY GOSCHLER. 
 The eating of the eucharist gives to those that eat it eternal life . . 692 
 
 G. DEAN GoopE AND THE TWO ARCHDEACONS WILBERFORCE AND DENISON. 
 
 Archdeacon Wilberforce. The eucharist suggests the order in which 
 
 spiritual blessings are given out of that sacrament - : : ; . 696 
 Wholly contrary to the fathers. Reference to Waterland : : . 696 
 Archdeacon Wilberforce on John vi. in reply . : Ξ 5 : 696 
 
 Archdeacon Denison’s doctrine of the real presence affirmed to be ἘΠΕῚ 
 by the Church of England in a manner not defined, but that the ΠΩ and 
 blood are received by all, whether to death or to life. : 697 
 
 i.e. To all objectively, to the faithful alone subjectiv ie ; : 4 OSM 
 
 Dean Goode affirms that we cannot receive the virtus sacramenti except 
 by the soul . : : 5 Ξ - 5 : - 5 = = ~ 698 
 
 Archdeacon Wilberforce’s three parts in a sacrament: (1) Sinan 
 (2) res sacramenti, (3) virtus sacramenti 3 ΐ ; : . 698 
 
 Archdeacon Denison also calling (3) virtus or ease sacr mien : 7 098 
 Dean Goode. Are the body and blood of Christ received by the soul? . 698 
 Ditto. Can ‘real and spiritual presence” be said to belong to “the 
 
 presence of a body after the manner of a spirit”? 5 : : > Wey) 
 Ditto. How can Christ’s (organical) body be eaten by faith? oe , - 700 
 Ditto. The misuse of passages from our great divines . : : . 101 
 
 H. Tue Rev. Jonn Harrison, D.D. 
 
 Interesting controversy with Dr Jacob. ὲ : ᾿ ΤΩ 
 Rules for interpreting the fathers from his latest Totter ; F : . 702 
 Great service rendered . : 4 ‘ : : ΠΩΣ 
 
 Consideration οἱ Dr Pusey πε ἐσ σα to Part il. : : : : . 703 
 
XXXV1l1 CONTENTS. 
 
 I, 
 
 Tuer Ricut Rev. Connor Turruwaty, D.D., tatELY BisHop or Sr Davin’s. 
 
 But we are thus led to ask whether these terms themselves [really and 
 truly] add anything to that. which is signified by the word present [i. ec. in 
 relation to a body or any being capable of localization]. For whatever is 
 present anywhere at all must be really and truly present . : 
 
 There are two senses in which we may speak of the presence of a phate 
 object—the one literal; the other figurative, &c. : 
 
 Hooker’s conclusion objected to 
 Sense of Greek word for “do” 
 
 The Council (Trent) does not deny the ΡΗΣ ΝΣ of fines ‘etn boty in 
 the sacrament, but cael that it is there according to its nature and mode of 
 existence Ε . 6 . 
 
 The dispute poten the manera and ΠΝ one (D) con- 
 tending that the body of Christ was translated from Heaven into the sacra- 
 
 PAGE 
 
 703 
 
 704 
 704 
 704 
 
 704 
 
 ment; the other (I) that it was created by each consecration . 9 . 705—6 
 
 Mr C.’s confusion between a presence and the mode of a presence . 
 
 Bellarmine says, We shall not say that the body of Christ in the eucha- 
 rist is sensible, visible, tangible, extended, though in Heaven it is such. 
 Also, We shall say that Christ is in the eucharist truly, really, substantially, 
 as the Council rightly says; but we shall not say corporeally ; i.e. in that 
 manner in which bodies exist of their own nature, sensibly, movably, &e. . 
 
 K. Tue Rey. Epwarp Meyrick Gounsurn, D.D., DEAN oF Norwicu. 
 
 A sad tendency in the human mind to localize and materialize the 
 blessings of this ordinance...placing the blessing entirely in the outward 
 and visible sign—the imagining some mysterious charm, a virtue half 
 physical, half spiritual, to reside in the...bread and the wine. ans 
 Neander on Century IY. - : 5 
 
 The Laudian doctrine of cuneee none: is Hare as canal open to ie 
 charge as the bolder and more unreasonable error of the church of Rome 
 
 The sacred loaf which represents and conveys the body of Christ is one; 
 
 706 
 
 707 
 
 and a portion of it, after it has been broken, passes into each communicant, — 
 
 who hereupon is made one with the body of Christ or Christian society 
 The distinctively Christian ordinance b 
 Communicating to the soul after an Heavenly ind spiritual tianmbe=the 
 very body and blood of our crucified Redeemer * . 
 
 L, Lanen’s Commentary (BrsELWERE). 
 
 Romanist Lutherans teach...that unbelievers sacramentally eat, &c. The 
 orthodox Lutherans for this reason repudiated the sacramental interpreta- 
 tion of John vi., not (Tholuck) from fear of transubstantiation . 5 : 
 
 M. Txomas Vocan, Rector oF WALBERTON. 
 
 The letter and the interpretation of that letter is that the bread— 
 is—the body, and that the wine—is—the blood of Christ...of that body He 
 said, It was being broken for ee and of that blood He said, it was being 
 shed for you. δ 
 
 The bread and thes wine are the body and load of Ghent as ex as one 
 thing can be another 
 
 The bread is His body as a ββοι τ δ, His ΓΈΝΗ ΤῊΣ 
 This demand of a literal construction is just 
 He speaks of His dead body . 3 ς 
 
 Undoubtedly and most fully a real and obieetive presence in a certain 
 sense of the Lord’s body and blood, i.e. of the things which He called, and 
 ordained to be, sacramentally His body and blood 
 
 N. Tse wate Rev. Hopart Srymour, oF Batu. 
 
 In the 40 days, Acts i. 3, no allusion to the Lord’s supper, &e. 
 
 716 
 
 716 
 718 
 716 
 715 
 
 715 
 
 719 
 
CONTENTS. XXX1X 
 
 PAGE 
 A revolution is advancing with great rapidity, that the frequency of 
 attendance at the Lord’s supper is a precious and weighty engine of grace 
 for converting the communicant and advancing the growth of reiigious life 718 
 The moment we leave the Holy Scriptures, &c. there is no limit to the 
 information, &c. of the frequency of communion . ; 719 
 
 The church of Rome has no desire for frequent communions, holding 
 that the members of each ΟΕ ΒΕΒΠΟΒ do ae communicate.. in the 
 priest that celebrates . 0 ὁ . 719—20 
 
 The number of celebrations at be πα ββοίδηϊ for the convenience and 
 exigencies of the parishioners, as their special necessities require in the 
 morning, in the afternoon, or in the evening 5 . 720 
 
 With these frequent celebrations the preaching of thes gos ῥεῖ must be 
 sadly curtailed...already too many not preaching on the days of cele- 
 bration > ° ᾿ . 0 : 5 - . 3 5 5 - 720 
 
 O. THe Rev. Grorczk AnpREw JAcozs, D.D., tate Master or Curtst’s 
 Hospitau. 
 
 Τὸ needs only...to remove whatever encourages the thought that a Christian 
 presbyter is a priest, and as such possesses that power of granting priestly 
 absolution, offering sacrifices, or of Bas any other mediatorial work 
 for Christian men : 5 5 . (Pal 
 
 There has been at all ane a ae connexion bee een eine estimation 
 
 and use of the Christian sacraments and the views entertained of the 
 
 Christian ministry : : : otal 
 The sacrament of the Orda. supper was ie most simple of all ordi- 
 
 nances in the apostolic church. No idea of a sacrifice was attached to its 
 
 celebration; no change was supposed to take place in the sacred elements ; 
 
 no virtue to be imparted to them through the administrator ; no presence of 
 
 Christ in them or with them in any especial manner . 3 : 5 πο (pil 
 In the post-apostolic church all this was gradually changed . : . 122 
 The doctrine of the earlier period differed from medieval Romanism on 
 
 this point (superstitions in this sacred rite) in scar ae oe cee the 
 
 use of another and synonymous word . ὃ . . . 722 
 
 P. THe tate Rev. R. W. Marriort, or Eron ScHoor. 
 In the Christian memorial of the sacrifice on the cross the passover is 
 
 not destroyed but fulfilled . 5 : : Ξ : . . 723 
 Rule as to the use of ποιέω generally : : ; : : . 7234 
 Rule as to the meaning of ‘is’ : : : x at : . 724 
 The bread is (virtute et affectu) My heady : : : : : . 124 
 Q. Tse Rev. ιαταν Εἰ. Scupamors. 
 The Fan . : c 725—6 
 Real and eeeontial presence was, in tiie settolantia, ἜΣ of ite Re- 
 formers, equivalent to the corporal presence 5 727 
 
 Our Lord’s own words are not by themselves ἀξ: This Ἢ My joa: 
 might, without any violation of Boren al analogy, mean no more than, This 
 
 is a figure of My body . : 728 
 Guilty of the body and blood, &e. The plain tiféronee’ is Ae ihe doy 
 
 and blood of Christ are present, &e. . 728 
 His sacred body : but there it is, ΠΝ τς yates us . 728 
 That body therefore is most a Ἢ esent, offering itself to the spi ἘΠῚ 
 
 perception, &c. . : 728 
 We may be disposed to ne fiat the use at a prayer expressly asin 
 
 for the action of the Holy Ghost on the elements was not universal. . 28 
 
 R. Tar Rey. Canon Rytz, ComMentTARY ΟΝ Sr Joun’s GOSPEL. 
 
 St John vi. 31. Possible senses and a judgment as a key to the whole 
 chapter : : Ξ ‘ : : ; ; : : . 1720. 890 
 
xl CONTENTS, 
 
 5, A Nonwien Tracr, Broanarnian, PAGE 
 
 Ho had, of course, his altar and his sacrifice of the body and blood which 
 he offered to God, considering that this was an extension or continuation of 
 the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, that he as priest on earth was doing 
 what Christ is [by such persons| supposed to be doing in Heaven, offering 
 saorifies. This was the central doctrine or point of his system . , , 730 
 
 Ty, Ton Trunony oy Consuonation, py WH, HW. Womponons. 
 , 
 
 Dr Neale wishes the invocation put after the oblation —. ; : , 701 
 The oblation implies that the sacrifice of the New Testament is now 
 pleaded for us before the throne and altar on high , ° . , - Ti 
 
 The invocation, &, follows, because the next step [in the Mogaic ritual] 
 was to place the victim on the altar and burn it. his is the type of that 
 conyersion whereby the fire of the Holy Ghost does not consume but trans- 
 cloment earthly things into Heavenly. ‘Vo alter the order is to spoil it -, 182 
 
 Hoe est corpus Meum, What is the hoe? Is it bread or not? No Roman 
 theologian can determine, though many have tried. Doymatically it is not. 
 In the order of time it is, ἅτ, F ° - ; ; , . ; , tbe 
 This insurmountable difficulty it is which caused the rubrical order that 
 the colebrant should say all the words of consecration in one breath—as 
 though that tied subject and predicate together, without intermission of 
 time , ’ , ; ; ὃ ; ; ’ ? : : . 782 
 
 U, Tun Carne Linpon Conrnovensy in van ‘ Timns,” 1870, 
 
 Canon Liddon, Believing,,.that the body and blood of Christ are verily 
 and indeed, &e,, we necessarily believe in the Real Presence of Christ in that 
 fioramont, we, &e, But we reject the Roman explanation of His presence— 
 transubstantintion, &. ’ ; ’ : ; , . . . . 
 
 Monsignor Oapel. The catechetical notes of Dr Neale, All matter is 
 divided into the necidents and substance, &e. &e. “ Bread into His flesh is 
 “turned” is the usual way (with Ritualists) to express transubstantiation, 
 In the ‘Night Hours,’ &e. Bread and wine are substantially changed into 
 the body and blood of Christ. In 1865 “The Priest to the Altar’ published, 
 Before the usual (Church of Mngland) words of consecration is inserted, 
 “Bond down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice that He may make this bread 
 “the body of Thy Christ.” Much about the Virgin Mary a little after . 784 
 
 Canon Liddon, The work an honest Church of Mngland work, &e, . 780 
 
 That phrase in patristic and therefore Anglican . . : ἢ . 78 
 
 Tho broad han coased to be bread. Christ's body only is really here , 780 
 
 Tho sonses which tell me that what I see touch and taste is still sub- 
 Hhantial cannot be trusted — . ; ; : ‘ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ; 786 
 
 733 
 
 V. SUMMARY OsHVATIONS . : ὶ ᾿ ; i 3 ᾿ 5 7360—7 
 
 TWO APPENDICES, 
 I, Του} av Nonwien: “Ta wimg nora cavsn?” Wire somn ΤΡ ΝΒ. 
 
 1, A Parnn tap av A DAG Onda, ΜΊΝΩ i 1876, wren A rain 
 ΑΙ ΒΗ. VO Ni CUAMMAN, 
 
 FOUR ALPHABETICAL INDICES 
 VO PACILIDATH THN Ν ΟἿΣ 
 I, ‘To every Mathor or Author from whom Citations are made, 
 I, ‘To yvory many of the Doetrinal Statomonts and of the Tormes used, 
 ΠῚ, To Mvonta or other Pacts mentioned, 
 
 TV, ‘To Pasiages of Moly Seripture that aro commented on by the various writers, 
 
THE TENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) ELFRIC OR ELFRIC OR ALFRIC. Ὁ. 1006. 
 
 Tie lights of early English church history shine very brightly in 
 the intervals between the fierce raids of the robber bands from the 
 North-West of Europe. First we can well believe that Bede and 
 his followers spread a kind of day around them in the seventh and 
 eighth centuries. Then what wonders were wrought by that 
 bright star of God, King Alfred, who went to battle with the book 
 of Psalms in his bosom, and whose aim was set at no lower point 
 than to provide books in his people’s own tongue, by which they 
 might become intelligent Christians, His reign closed just after 
 the end of the ninth century (901). Then in the tenth century 
 the eye rests on a Dunstan and an Ethelwold, who worked for 
 clerical reform in particular, but included seculars with monks in 
 their schools. This brings us to the Allfrie, who was a disciple of 
 the latter. He certainly shines out as one of the lights of the age. 
 I have set down no designation of title or of position. In fact it 
 is from the very advanced character of his testimony that a 
 dispute has arisen, which, in the opinion of the late Chancellor of 
 St Paul's, Henry Soames, makes his having risen to the position 
 of primate or even of bishop extremely uncertain. And yet one 
 of the passages that will be cited gives internal evidence of a rule 
 over a more numerous body of clergy and of a different kind from 
 what a mere abbot would have had. He began by being abbot of 
 Cerne, Dorset; and some think he became abbot of Peterborough, 
 because he is said to have been buried there. But this I leave. 
 His fame stands on the higher foundation of having widely pro- 
 moted the preaching of sermons, by having translated ancient 
 homilies of the chief fathers into Anglo-Saxon, sufficient for the 
 
 ἘΠ II, 1 
 
2 THE TENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 circle of a year. He then added a second set; and in all this he 
 had the warm approval of Sigeric the primate. It is perhaps 
 well to state that upon this fact and a concurrence of others 
 looking in the same direction Henry Soames maintains, that the 
 British church for a considerable period maintained doctrine on 
 the Lord’s supper much more in harmony with our own than was 
 then held in the Continental churches in general—an argument, 
 which makes for the justice of the financial rearrangements of the 
 English Reformation, and stamps modern Romanizers as so far 
 declining from the doctrine of their Anglo-Saxon forefathers. 
 But I return to the translated homilies of A#lfric : and I cannot 
 but remark that he inherited the spirit of the great Alfred, who 
 also employed Asser and others to give to his subjects some of the 
 chief ancient treatises in their own tongue if he did not translate 
 some himself. And as the hot controversy about Atlfric’s church 
 position has been mentioned, another equally vehement dispute 
 may be alluded to, viz. whether the John mentioned in Asser, as 
 brought into England from France to help Alfred in elevating the 
 religious condition of his people, was or was not John Scotus 
 Erigena; and on this point the arguments on the affirmative side 
 seem to have the balance of evidence in their favour. All this 
 certainly adds much to the interest that attaches to the citations 
 from Ailfric on the Lord’s supper. 
 
 The account of Elfric that is given in the Dictionnaire Univer- 
 sel is that he was archbishop of Canterbury, and that he acquired 
 a great reputation in the tenth century among the Saxons: that 
 he translated into their language the first books of the Holy 
 Scripture, a church history, and 180 sermons; and that we have 
 from him, yet surviving, a grammar and a dictionary (of that 
 tongue). The time and place of his birth are alike unknown, 
 
 The readers of my late friend Dean Goode’s book on the 
 Eucharist, cannot fail to have noticed that he hardly knows what 
 estimate to form of the utterances of the early fathers in general— 
 whether to declare their strong expressions on the Lord’s supper 
 to be affirmative of the real presence of the body and blood of 
 Christ in this sacrament or no. The early English Reformers, 
 whose own ideas were not all clear, felt the same doubt. Fox, 
 who must be numbered amongst them, and who received assist- 
 ance towards his great work from bishops and men of high 
 note, felt the same perplexity: and in Vol. Π. p. 371, ed. Lond. 
 
—1006] ELFRIC OR ELFRIC. 3 
 
 1684, he brings in the Saxon Elfric in the midst of a cloud of 
 witnesses, whom he labours to prove clear of the essentials of 
 corrupt belief on this subject. With what imperfect success he 
 pleads can be indeed discerned from his own citations alone: but 
 the point cannot I think be really settled with a less abundance 
 of quotation than I have brought forward in these volumes. As to 
 Fox’s citations, take the first from St Ambrose, “ Ut sint quae erant 
 “et in aliud convertantur,” ἕο. His list of authors includes that 
 eclipsed luminary, Johannes Scotus, whose book on this subject, as 
 has been stated, perished after being condemned in the eleventh 
 century at Vercelli, After Osberne and Odo, Fox comes to 
 Elfric. Migne makes Alfric Primate A.D, 996, and for ten years. 
 
 The Letter to Wulfrine, Bishop of Sherborne. 
 
 “Men shall reserve more carefully that holy housel, and not 
 reserve it too long; but hallow other of new for sick men, always, 
 within a week or a fortnight, so that it be not so much as hoary ” 
 (white with mildew). “For so holy is the housel, which to-day is 
 hallowed as that which on Easter-day was hallowed.” (All this 
 overthrew the general custom of keeping the consecrated bread of 
 Kaster-day to be ministered to the sick, instead of newly-conse- 
 crated bread and wine.) “That housel is Christ’s body not 
 bodily, but ghostly: not the body which He suffered in; but the 
 body of which He spake when He blessed bread and wine to 
 housel the night before His suffering, and said by the blessed 
 bread, ‘This is My body,’ and again by the holy wine, ‘ This is My 
 ‘blood which is shed for many in the forgiveness of sins’” (he puts 
 “in” for εἰς, “unto”). “ Understand now the Lord who could turn 
 that bread before His suffering to His body and that wine to His 
 blood, ghostly ; that the same Lord blesseth daily, through the 
 priest’s hands, bread and wine to His ghostly body and to His 
 ghostly blood.” (We see here the dawning of Protestant truth, 
 but it does not seem to me clear of all darkness. From another 
 letter to the same). “I beseech you to keep the holy body of 
 Christ with more advisement, for sick men, from Sunday to 
 Sunday in a very clean box, or at the most not to keep it above a 
 fortnight and then eat it, laying other in the place, &. Some 
 priests will not eat the housel which they hallow. But we will 
 now declare unto you how the holy book speaketh by them. A 
 presbyter celebrating mass and not daring to take the sacrifice 
 (sacrificium) through his conscience accusing him, is anathema. 
 It is less danger to receive the housel than to hallow it. He 
 that doth twice hallow one Host to housel is like unto those 
 heretics who do christen twice one child... That lively bread is 
 
 1: 
 
4 THE TENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 not bodily so—not the self-same body that Christ suffered in; nor 
 that holy wine is the Saviour’s blood (which was shed for us) ; not 
 in bodily thing but in ghostly understanding” (before said to be) 
 “in ghostly mystery. Both be truly. That bread is His body 
 and that wine also is His blood—as was the heavenly bread which 
 we call manna, that fed 40 years God’s people. And the clear 
 water which did then run from the stone in the wilderness was 
 truly His blood, 1 Cor. x. ἄς. The apostle saith all our fathers 
 did eat in the wilderness the same ghostly meat, &c. And he 
 saith not bodily but ghostly. And Christ was not yet born nor 
 His blood shed when that the people of Israel did eat that meat 
 and drank of that stone: and the stone was not bodily Christ, 
 though he so said. It was the same mystery in the old law, and 
 they did ghostly signify that ghostly housel which we consecrate 
 now.” 
 
 A Fragment in the Worcester Library. 
 
 “ Notwithstanding, the sacrifice is not His body in which He 
 suffered for us, nor His blood which He shed for us, but it is made 
 (efficitur—equivalent to Jerome’s conficitur) His body and blood 
 spiritually, as the manna which rained down from heaven, and the 
 water which flowed down from the rock. As Paul, &e.” 
 
 From a Serinon translated by Elfric from Latin to Saxon. 
 
 “Why is then the housel called Christ’s body, or His blood, if 
 it be not truly what it is ealled?... Without they be seen bread 
 and, wine both in figure and taste and they be truly, after their 
 hallowing, Christ’s body and blood, through ghostly mystery.” 
 And much more. “Much is betwixt the invisible might of the 
 holy housel and the visible shape of proper nature... If we 
 behold the holy housel after bodily understanding, then we see 
 that it is a creature corruptible and mutable. If we knowledge 
 therein ghostly might, then understand we that life is therein, and 
 that it giveth immortality to them that-eat with belief.” [A sen- 
 tence which Cyril of Alexandria himself might have written.] 
 ‘Therefore is that holy housel called a mystery, because there is 
 one thing in it seen and another understood. That which is there 
 seen hath bodily shape; and that we do there understand hath 
 ghostly might... That housel is temporal not eternal—corruptible, 
 ἄς. Howbeit nevertheless after ghostly might it is in every part... 
 This mystery is a pledge and a figure. Christ’s body is truth 
 itself... Truly it is, so as we before have said, Christ’s body and 
 blood: not bodily but ghostly.” {1 .confess I should like a clearer 
 guide to conduct me home through a dark night.] “Once suffered 
 Christ Himself, but yet nevertheless His suffering is daily renewed 
 
~ 
 
 —1006] ZLFRIC OR ELFRIC. 5 
 
 at His supper through mystery of the holy housel. Therefore we 
 ought to consider diligently how that this holy housel is both 
 Christ’s body, and the body of all faithful men after a ghostly 
 sort.” 
 
 With that, as with a somewhat favourable ending, our extracts 
 may close without further comment upon this excellent man, who 
 certainly rises above his own time in this respect—living a good 
 part of a century before the great controversy of the church with 
 Berengar, and probably not having seen the writings of John 
 Scotus on this subject, and perhaps not even that of Ratram, but 
 being a partaker of the light that was then shooting forth out of 
 the cloudy firmament of general opinion. 
 
 (B.) GERBERT, POPE SYLVESTER II. Ὁ. 1003. 
 
 This prelate was the first Frenchman who was made Pope: he 
 rose to the highest from the lowest. The data of his birth are not 
 known ; but he wittily condensed his own history into one line, 
 
 Scandit ab R Gerbertus in R; post, Papa vigens R. 
 
 The first R is Rheims. The decree for his election to it by 
 the bishops of the province says, that they have known him from 
 a boy, and praises him highly. (The line cannot embrace another 
 R, viz. that his patron was his king Robert, to whom he had been 
 tutor.) Rheims cathedral is said to owe much to his liberality. 
 The second R in the verse is Ravenna, and to this he was raised 
 by Pope Gregory V. The third R is Rome, to which he was 
 elevated by the influence of his other Royal pupil, Otho III. 
 Fulbert, and Richer, who wrote a history of France in four volumes, 
 were trained by his hand. He was skilled in practical mathe- 
 matics, and was great at clock-making, regulating their time by 
 the motion of the stars, as observed through a tube. No wonder 
 he was credited with skill in magic arts and with having a demon 
 to attend upon him. There was peril then in being a material 
 philosopher. No doubt like Michael Scott he suffered from like 
 secretly whispered accusations : and it is likely that men said, that 
 
 When in studious mood he paced 
 Saint Remo’s cloistered hall, 
 
 His form no darkening shadow traced 
 Upon the sunny wall. 
 
0 THE TENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 But, in fact, he wrote on numbers, geometry, and the celestial 
 sphere, and on the dictates and use of reason. Letters also before 
 and after his elevation to the popedom survive. 
 
 There was a party in favour of Arnulf who had been deposed 
 from the bishopric of Rheims: and Gerbert was for a time de- 
 posed that Arnulf might be restored. This was done at the 
 second council at Rheims in 996. It seems that in order to be 
 restored Gerbert gave in to Papal Supremacy, and acknowledged 
 the forged decrees audaciously palmed on Isidore. But there still 
 remains the question how he steered his course, so as to please 
 both the Pope in order to get Ravenna, and the Emperor so as to 
 obtain the Popedom afterwards. His writings shew a man of 
 great self-confidence and rather hasty judgment, But it is hard 
 to say to what extent he compromised himself. 
 
 The high walks of the world are slippery places to an ambitious 
 mind. His letter in reappointing Arnulf to Rheims either shews 
 an easiness of belief in the Pope’s assumptions of some of the 
 Divine attributes, or it betrays something worse than credulity. 
 Milman writes with witty sarcasm concerning the terror felt by 
 many strong Papalists, not lest this Pope was mendacious, but 
 lest—horror beyond all horrors—the throne of St Peter was in 
 his case occupied by a necromancer. However, if he did invent 
 “an organ that acted by steam,” he gave full sanction to the 
 second missionary to the Prussian barbarians, 1.6. Bruno, the 
 second Boniface, who went with a chosen band thither, and all 
 perished. ‘That he struck the first signal for the rescue of the 
 holy land from the infidel the xxviith of the letters that survive 
 him plainly declares. The title of the letter is “ From the person 
 ‘‘of devastated Jerusalem to the universal church,” and it begins, 
 “The church which is at Jerusalem to the universal church that 
 “commands the sceptres of the kingdoms.” After shewing forth the 
 claims of the holy territory to general regard, he quotes Isaiah xi. 
 10, “ His sepulchre shall be glorious,” and adds, “The devil tries to 
 “render it inglorious, while the pagans subvert the holy places.” 
 Then the pope blows the trumpet call, “Strive forth, therefore, 
 “Ὁ soldier of Christ, be standard-bearer and companion to me 
 (Jerusalem) in war, &c., &c.” 
 
 Gerbert, however, died too early to realize his scheme of a 
 universal league of Christendom for this end. When the monu- 
 mental tomb of this pope in St John Lateran was opened in 1648, 
 
-1009] GERBERT, POPE SYLVESTER II. 7 
 
 his body was seen in a coffin of marble, clothed in the papal robes 
 and with his arms crossed: but the air immediately acted on 
 them, they fell to dust; and nothing remained but a silver cross 
 and the Pope’s episcopal ring. 
 
 Auvergne was the region of his birth, the convent of Aurillac 
 the place of his education, and Raymond, who afterwards became 
 abbot, was his teacher. Claudius (Claude) bishop of Turin was 
 his enlightened contemporary. 
 
 P.1. “On the body and blood of Christ. As a certain wise man 
 said before our time, Because the animal man perceives not the 
 things that are of the Spirit of God, we vehemently hesitate 
 lest, living with too little spirituality, when we are preparing 
 answers on spiritual subjects, such as perhaps we. do not yet 
 apprehend, we fall on some stone of stumbling and rock of 
 offence. But again, when we direct our inner look to Him 
 Who said, ‘Open thy mouth, and I will fill it, Ps. Ixxx., our 
 integrity of faith remaining in us, we are stimulated to respond 
 upon these points, on which we ought not to be silent, that is to 
 say concerning the Lord’s body and blood; as some persons say 
 tbat that which is received from the altar is the same as that 
 (body) which was born of the virgin; but others deny and say 
 that it is different ; but some with an inspiration from the devil, 
 blasphemously saying that it goes through the same changes as 
 other food.... Against those who dogmatize on the subject, 
 whatever shall be said concerning the Lord’s body—either that is 
 said in truth or in a figure, and so in a shadow, &c., το." 
 
 The material philosopher advocates indifference in opposition 
 to the strife between Radbert and Ratram and Raban, and he 
 quotes the fathers: but he rather favours Radbert, 2.e. Paschasius. 
 
 De corpore et sanguine Christi. Migne, p. 1. 
 
 Sicut ante nos dixit quidam sapiens,...“‘ Quia animalis homo non 
 ““percipit ea que sunt Spiritus Dei,’ hesitamus vehementer ne, 
 minus spiritualiter viventes, cum de spiritualibus responsa paramus 
 qualia forte nec dum percipimus, in lapidem offensionis et petram scan- 
 dali incidamus. Sed iterum cum internum aspectum ad Eum dirigimus, 
 Qui dixit “ Aperi os tuum, et Ego adimplebo illud” (Ps. Ixxx. 11), fidei 
 integritate manente, provocamur respondere de quo dignum est non 
 tacere, de mysterio videlicet corporis et sanguinis Domini: dicentibus 
 quibusdam idem esse, quod sumitur de altari quod et illud, quod 
 est ex virgine natum ; aliis autem negantibus et dicentibus aliud esse ; 
 quibusdam autem diabolica inspiratione blasphemantibus secessui ob- 
 noxium fore...Contra eos qui dogmatisant, quicquid de corpore Domini 
 dicitur, vel in veritate, vel in figurd [ac per hoc in umbra] dici, ke. 
 
8 THE TENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 We have noted Hilary as the first specific asserter of the real 
 natural presence of Christ's body in the Lord’s supper. The fol- 
 lowing is from Hilary. 
 
 P. 184. “No place is left for doubting about the truth of 
 (Christ’s) flesh and blood, John vi. For now by the confession of our 
 Lord Himself and by our faith it is truly flesh and truly blood : 
 and these two received and drunk make us to be in Christ and 
 Christ in us. Is not this the truth? It may certainly happen to be 
 not true in the opinion of those who stoutly deny the Godhead of 
 Jesus. He therefore Himself is in us by His flesh and we are in 
 Him, while this, which we are, is with Himself in God, ὅς. It was 
 therefore past doubt... that the Word was truly made flesh. And 
 none the less, since God (Christ) by being born a man has taken 
 to Himself the nature of our flesh inseparable from Him. He has 
 also mingled the flesh of His own nature with His eternal nature 
 under this sacrament for communicating His flesh to us, and by 
 this we are being made one body in Christ ; and therefore through 
 this we are all one (body) in God the Father and in the Son, since 
 the Father is in Christ and Christ is proved to be in us. Let us 
 see the (exact) distinction. Christ took the nature of our flesh 
 when He was born of the Virgin and came forth a man.” [This 
 “came forth” is equal to proceeded, z.e. came from God into the 
 world. This is the way in which the term ἐκπορεύεσθαι παρὰ 
 is used regarding the Son.] “Behold! the flesh from the virgin 
 given us) under the sacrament for communicating (His) flesh! 
 
 P. 184, John VI. 
 
 He quotes Hilary for one in his own treatise “De corpore et 
 “sanguine Domini.” ‘ De veritate carnis et sanguinis non est relictus 
 “ ambigendi locus (i.e. after John vi.). Nune enim et professione Ipsius 
 “ Domini et fide nostra vere caro est et vere sanguis est: atque hee 
 “ὁ accepta atque hausta id efficiunt ut nos in Christo et Christus in nobis 
 “sit. Anne hoe veritas non est ? Contingat plane his verum non esse, 
 “πὶ Christum Jesum verum esse Deum denegant (i.e. to Socinians, &c.). 
 “ Est ergo in nobis Ipse per carnem et sumus in Eo, dum Secum hoe, 
 ‘* quod nos sumus, in Deo est,” &c.,and Gerbert says... Indubitatum erat... 
 quod vere Verbum caro factum fuerat. Nihilominus, quia Deus naturam 
 carnis nostre inseparabilem Sibi, homo natus, assumpsit, et naturam carnis 
 Suz ad naturam externitatis sub sacramento hoc nobis communicande car- 
 nis admiscuit, ac per hoc nos in Christo unum corpus eflicimur ; et ideo 
 per hoc omnes in Deo Patre et Filio unum sumus ; quia Pater in Christo, 
 et Christus in nobis esse probatur. Videamus distinctionem. Christus 
 naturam nostre carnis assumpsit, cum de virgine natus homo processit. 
 Kece caro de virgine sub sacramento communicande carnis. Ecce 
 quod sumitur de altari ad naturam eternitatis nos univit. Ecce 
 
—1003] GERBERT, POPE SYLVESTER IL 9 
 
 Behold! that which is received from the altar united us to His 
 eternal nature. Behold our body, which is the church! Now 
 I believe that the truth is open, as the blessed Ambrose had said 
 that it at length is, that this should be understood in its natural 
 sense ; and Augustine, Jerome, and Fulgentius (think that it is 
 open), to be understood in a special (spiritual) sense also... 
 
 P. 186. “None has ascended into Heaven with His flesh 
 except He that came down with His Godhead. For for this end 
 He was made partaker of our manhood by assuming our flesh from 
 the virgin; that we, 1.6. His church, made partakers of His 
 Divinity, might be united by Him with His body that was taken 
 from the virgin, the eucharist, which is received from the altar, 
 acting as the medium and confirming the union. [Note. I have 
 changed the voice of the verb in order to preserve the order of the 
 words]... He has mingled the nature of His own flesh with 
 His eternal nature under the sacrament for communicating His 
 
 flesh ... 
 
 P.187. “There are not on this account many productions of 
 flesh, or many bodies, as neither are there many sacrifices, but one 
 (only), although it be offered by many (priests) through a variety 
 of places and times. Since the Divinity of the Word of God, which 
 is one, both fills all places, and is all-present in every place, that 
 Divinity itself causes that there should not be many sacrifices but 
 only one... and that the body of Christ (in the supper) should be 
 one with that which He took from the virgin’s womb.” 
 
 corpus nostrum, quod est ecclesia! Jam credo patere, quod beatus 
 Ambrosius dixerat tandem esse, ut subaudiatur naturaliter: et Augus- 
 tinus Hieronymus et Fulgentius, ut subaudiatur specialiter. 
 
 P86: 
 
 Nemo ascendit in ceelum cum carne nisi qui descendit cum Deitate. 
 Ad hoc enim particeps factus est humanitatis nostra assumendo carnem 
 nostram de virgine ; ut nos, id est ecclesiam, participes factos Divinitatis 
 Suze wniret corport Suo, sumpto de virgine, eucharistid, que sumitur 
 de altari, mediante et confirmante...naturam carnis Sue ad naturam 
 wternitatis sub sacramento communicande carnis admiscuit. — [Note 
 this includes all the visible church bad and good, This is what the 
 great philosopher has made of it. | 
 
 EAST. 
 
 Non ob hoe plures carnes vel corpora, sicut nec multa sacrificia sed 
 unum, licet a multis offeratur per loca diversa et tempora. Quia 
 Divinitas Verbi Dei, que una est et omnia replet et tota ubique est 
 Ipsa facit ut non plura sint sacrificia sed unum...et sit unum corpus 
 Christi cum illo quod suscepit de utero virginali. [Thus Gerbert 
 gives in to the fallacy that Christ’s body is everywhere, because His 
 Godhead is everywhere. } 
 
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) CARDINAL PETER DAMIANI, BISHOP OF OSTIA. 
 τι, LOOvs pe hO ii 
 
 I FEAR that we must, according to the judgment of the greatest 
 modern ecclesiastical historian, brand this man as “a zealot.” 
 But he was a sincere enemy of vice. The two vices against which 
 he directed his whole strength were (1) sins against the seventh 
 commandment in nearly the entire body of the clergy, and (2) the 
 simoniacal sale and purchase of clerical preferments. So far he 
 was on the side of right: but his way of remedying the latter 
 seems to have been to exalt papal and clerical, and to distrust lay 
 power ; and as for his remedy for the former, it was in direct oppo- 
 sition to St Paul’s significant precept, that the bishop (including 
 the presbyter) be husband of one wife. And what has ever been 
 the result of forbidding the clergy to marry? One cannot par- 
 ticularize their secret, and in point of open general understanding 
 of the truth, their public entanglements. Suffice it to say that 
 they are affirmed to have been stained even to the blackness of 
 the Turk. Is it wonderful that Damiani and Hildebrand and 
 his predecessor, Gregory VI., and at a much earlier date Leo, were 
 ready to introduce desperate remedies, and to think that the only 
 hope of society lay in pushing these remedies to the utmost 
 extremity possible? One hot-headed zealot, like Damiani, might 
 carry all before him. The two floods of corruption were unde- 
 niably all but universal. Against the one, universal clerical 
 celibacy was to present a high example to the laity: and against 
 the other universal clerical influence was to form the basis of a 
 grand universal clerical struggle, (1) against all lay control, and 
 (2) in the pursuit of hierarchal supremacy in everything. A pure 
 self-denying clergy, raised to the highest pitch of power, might, it 
 was thought, restore even lay morality and change the face of all 
 
A.D. 1007] CARDINAL PETER DAMIANI. 11 
 
 Christendom. Such was the original aim of Damiani and Hilde- 
 brand. It is very easy after the event to say in full wisdom, that 
 they erred, “ not knowing” either the Scriptures or the nature of 
 man. But their errors were hoary with age, having arisen at 
 early dates. There was abundance of high sanction for them. It 
 might seem that all that was needed was their universal and 
 thorough application. At least those great men would say “There 
 “is nothing else to be tried.” So the steam was raised to its 
 highest power, and the merciless car set in full motion, and the 
 result has left the name of Gregory the Seventh as the 
 enemy of the human race in reference to those things; a de- 
 liverance from which in the Reformation period did give to 
 Christendom those true principles of amendment, that are the 
 very opposite of what these leaders tried in their despair. It is 
 some consolation—though it utters a warning voice also—that 
 these men began with “a zeal for God,’ but not according to 
 revealed truth. And the warning voice to us is, that we must 
 not go back to their fully exploded errors. 
 
 Damian claims to have been born of parents that were respect- 
 able (honestis) at Ravenna, though poor. But the marvels of his 
 infancy when cast off by his mother, and the multitude of marvel- 
 lous things that were done for him and those that were afterwards 
 done by him we may pass over. There are several lives of him 
 and many notices respecting him: but Petrarch, who sent to the 
 retirement in Umbria, at which Damian had lived, gained little 
 certain knowledge but this, that Damian became a monk before 
 he was made Cardinal and Bishop; and that before the close of 
 his life, he returned to the monastic life. Thus it seems to have 
 been with him as with one of our own true poets, that in all the 
 grandeur of success in public life, his eye was set on returning to 
 the point from which he started, and that he came to it a sadder 
 and a wiser man, having learned much regarding his own mistakes 
 and done much that caused him sorrow, to lie down in his original 
 place of rest, “and die at home at last.” There is something 
 in this that speaks to our hearts in these brighter days of ours. 
 
 He wrote the lives of several noted monks, to present in them 
 models of solitary living, which he loved: but his strength was 
 put forth in his letters, and in the two books of Gratissimus, 
 regarding the simonizing clergy; and in Gomorrhianus against 
 the other class of sins. But his glory lies in his having person- 
 
12 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ally studied all Scripture, as is shewn in the Index of Passages 
 commented on: and it is not a little remarkable that his com- 
 ment, Vol. 1. p. 93, upon St John xx. 23, on remitting and 
 retaining sins, is so far from ignoring the fact that other than the 
 apostles were present with them when those words were uttered 
 and when Christ breathed on them, that he inclines to the same 
 mode of interpreting them, and that he so takes the first coming 
 extract regarding the consecration of the bread and wine in the 
 supper, that it is to be regarded as an utterance belonging to the 
 whole church. Such a man in other days might have borne a 
 Protestant character. The place of his retirement was by the 
 Fons Avellana; that cf his death was Forenza. But one of the ᾿ 
 lives places this Avella in the Catrian mount in Umbria: while 
 the common Avella (Abella) is in Campania near Sorrento, on the 
 dulcissima Campanie ora. 
 
 P. 99. “For this is the reason why, in the actual celebration 
 of the masses, when it is said, ‘Remember, Lord, Thy servants and 
 ‘Thy handmaidens,’ it is soon after subjoined, ‘for whom we offer 
 ‘to Thee,’ or, ‘who offer to Thee this sacrifice of praise. For in 
 these words it is openly shewn that the sacrifice of praise is 
 offered by all the faithful, not men only but women also, although 
 it seems to be offered by one priest specially : because what he 
 handles in offering it to God, this the multitude of the faithful 
 with their minds in intent devotion commend to God. And this 
 is there declared when it is said, ‘This oblation then of our 
 ‘service (we offer), but also all Thine household, which we are, 
 “Ὁ Lord, that thou mayest be propitiated and receive it.’ And by 
 this it is proved as clear as light, that what is put on the sacred 
 altar, by the priests, is really offered by the whole household of 
 
 Dominus Vobisewm, Vol. III. c. VIII. p. 99. Paris, 1642. 
 
 Hine est enim, quod in ipsa celebratione missarum, cum dicitur, 
 “Memento, Domine, famulorum Tuorum famularumque Tuarum,” 
 paulo post subditur, “pro quibus Tibi offerimus,” vel, “qui Tibi 
 ‘‘offerunt hoe sacrificium laudis.” In quibus verbis patenter ostenditur, 
 guod a cunctis fidelibus non solum viris, sed etiam mulieribus sacri- 
 ficium laudis illud offertur, licet ab uno specialiter offerri sacerdote 
 videatur: quia, quod ille Deo offerendo manibus tractat, hoe multitudo 
 fidelium intenta mentium devotione commendat. Quod illic quoque 
 declaratur ubi dicitur, ‘‘Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostra, 
 ‘sed et cuncta familia Tua, que sumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias.” 
 Quibus verbis luce clarius constat, quod a sacerdote sacris altaribus 
 superponitur, a cuncta Dei familia generaliter offératur. Hance autem 
 
1007] CARDINAL PETER DAMIANI. 13 
 
 God generally. But the Apostle 1 Cor. x. manifestly declares this 
 unity, We being many are one body, one bread. For so great is 
 the church’s unity in Christ, that there is but one bread of the 
 body of Christ in the whole circle of the world and but one cup of 
 His blood. Since as the Deity of the Word of God is one, and 
 yet it fills the whole world, so although that body be consecrated 
 in many places and on many days, yet there are not many bodies 
 of Christ but one body. And as that bread and blood have truly 
 passed into Christ’s body, so all that worthily receive it in church 
 become without doubt one body of Christ, as Christ Himself 
 testifies, when He says, John vi, He that eateth my flesh, ὅσο. 
 If therefore we all are one body, even though in bodily appearance 
 we seem to be disjoined, yet we who remain in Him cannot be 
 separated from one another. I do not see what can hurt us, if we 
 do but individually hold to the general church’s custom, since we 
 have never withdrawn from the sacrament of individual oneness in 
 the use of it. For when I alone put forth the church’s words, 
 I am shewing that I am one with her, and that I by the Spirit’s 
 presence truly abide in her, and if I am truly a member of her, 
 I do not inconsistently with this idea fill up the function of my 
 universality. For as a man is in Greek speech called a microcosm, 
 because in material essence man is made of the same four elements, 
 of which this universal world is made, so each one of the faithful 
 seems to be as it were a lesser church, &. Why should one be 
 prohibited from, as one alone putting forth the church’s words, &e.” 
 
 ecclesiz unitatem apostolus manifeste declarat, 1 Cor. x., “ Unum corpus 
 “unus panis multi sumus.” Tanta enim est ecclesize unitas in Christo, 
 ut unus ubique in toto orbe terrarum sit panis corporis Christi, et 
 unus calix sanguinis Ejus. Quoniam siceut Divinitas Verbi Dei una 
 est, que totum implet mundum, ita licet multis locis multisque diebus 
 illud corpus consecretur, non sunt tamen multa corpora sed unum 
 corpus Christi. Et sicut ille panis et sanguis in corpus Christi veraciter 
 transierunt, ita omnes, qui illud in ecclesia digne accipiunt, unum 
 absque dubio Christi corpus fiunt, Ipso testante, cum ait (John vi), 
 “He that eateth My flesh,” ὅθ Si ergo omnes unum Christi corpus 
 sumus, et licet per corporalem speciem videamur abjungi, spiritu tamen 
 ab invicem separari non possumus, qui in Eo manemus. Quid noceat, 
 ego non video, si communem ecclesiz consuetudinem et singuli tenea- 
 mus, qui per unitatis individu sacramentum ab ea nunquam recepi- 
 mus. Cum enim ecclesiz verba solus profero, cum θῶ me esse unum 
 ac per presentiam Spiritus in e& me veraciter manere demonstro; et 
 si Ejus sum veraciter membrum, non ineonvenienter adimpleo mez 
 universitatis officium., Οὐ. x1. p. 100... Sicut enim homo Greco eloquio 
 dicitur microcosmus, hoc est, minor mundus, quoniam per materialem 
 essentiam eisdem quatuor elementis homo constat, quibus universalis 
 hic mundus; ita etiam unusquisque fidelium quasi quedam videtur 
 minor esse ecclesia, ἄρ. ἄορ. Cur prohibeatur communia ecclesiz solus 
 verba proferre, We. 
 
14 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 41. “Even a bad man can receive the sacrament of the 
 body and blood of the Lord, 1 Cor. xi.: for it is of such that it is 
 said, &. Even a bad man can bear Christ’s name; 1.6. even a bad 
 man can be called a Christian. They polluted the name of their 
 own God. Therefore even a bad man can have all the sacraments 
 (administered to him). 
 
 P. 55. “For it is said by them that what till their time 
 seemed to be a church was only a house: what was believed to be 
 an altar was mere stone; that priests and men distinguished 
 with other orders were wholly laymen, having nothing in them of 
 all the powers of a spiritual sacrament: that what was believed to 
 be Christ’s body and blood was simply bread and wine, a mere 
 earthly substance with no virtue of the Holy Spirit secretly shed 
 on it.” [This leads us to wonder whether some were unjustly 
 called Simonites]. 
 
 _ ©. Xxxv. is “Concerning those who have been promoted by 
 Simonizers without paying them any money for it,” &e. 
 
 Vol. 111. p. 41. Gratissimus, c. IX. 
 
 Accipere sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini etiam malus 
 potest (1 Cor. xi.) nam de talibus dictum est, &ec. Habere nomen 
 Christi et malus potest: i.e. Christianus vocari et malus potest. 
 Polluebant nomen Dei sui. Ergo habere sacramenta omnia et malus 
 potest. 
 
 Vol. LID. 9. Do ὁ. XX IX 
 
 Dicunt enim quod que tune videbatur ecclesia, domus erat simplex ; 
 quod credebatur altare, purus lapis erat; sacerdotes et qui reliquis 
 cernebantur ordinibus constituti prorsus laici erant, cunctisque spiritualis 
 sacramenti viribus alieni: quod corpus et sanguis Domini credebatur 
 simpliciter panis erat et vinum, terrena substantia nulla sancti Spiritus 
 virtute suffusa. 
 
 ce. AXXYV, 
 
 De his qui gratis a Simoniario sunt promoti, &e, 
 
 (B.) LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
 B; 1005: Ὁ: 1089; 
 
 He was the son of a councillor of state of Pavia. He settled 
 αὖ Avranches and taught there. Travelling towards Rouen to 
 establish himself there, he was seized by robbers who stripped 
 him and tied him to a tree and left him. In the morning he was 
 
1005] LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 15 
 
 found in this depiorable condition by travellers, who set him free. 
 He did not fulfil his first intention, but retired to the convent of 
 Bec, probably because it was near to flee unto. He was received, 
 and in due time rose to be its abbot. His great excellence was a 
 vivid persuasion that the exceeding need of the time was a higher 
 education of the whole body of the clergy. So as soon as he had 
 the control of the abbey of Bec he led the way to this most 
 desirable object, by converting that abbey into the most renowned 
 theological school in France. And we may imagine that it was 
 from a distinct perception of his success there that about seven 
 years later the wise conqueror of England, the irresistible King 
 William, drew him over the narrow channel to become the first 
 Roman primate of the church of England in 1070. 
 
 The passages here cited indicate that he had studied the 
 Scriptures for himself. He had lectured at Bec on the Psalms and 
 the Hpistles of St Paul to a delighted assemblage from many 
 countries; and though his mind had not those mighty perceptions 
 which force a man to break through the traditions of ages in his 
 way to truth, we can well believe his appointment to the primal 
 see a great blessing to England. We judge of him rather by his 
 Pauline commentaries than by his contention with Berengarius. 
 He prized Cassian’s Collations and wrote notes upon them, and he 
 compiled a body of rules to be observed by monks of the Bene- 
 dictine order. It is high honour to have moderated the Conqueror 
 and to have been the teacher of Anselm. 
 
 Among his pupils Pope Alexander II. also is to be numbered. 
 Viewing Lanfranc as the antagonist of Berengar, or Berenger 
 which is his name in French, it is with wonder that we read an 
 early story. The latter sent a letter to Lanfranc to ask him to 
 cooperate with him to promote the views of John Scotus against 
 his contemporary Paschasius Radbert of Corbey. Unhappily 
 Lanfranc was out of the house, and the letter fell into the hands 
 of some of the monks, who were perhaps jealous, and certainly 
 suspicious of Lanfranc’s orthodoxy. They reported that Lanfranc 
 had intimate relations with Berengar. So with Berengar he was 
 summoned to Rome to answer for himself. Lanfranc was acquitted 
 in the councils both of Rome and of Vercelli. But perhaps this 
 incident had some effect in placing him in the position of antago- 
 nist towards that nascent reformer. In 1068 he was made abbot of . 
 anew convent at Caen. During the seven years of his residing there 
 
10 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 he wrote his treatise against Berengar: who had indeed recanted 
 at Rome to escape death in 1059, but never ceased, after being 
 restored to France, to propagate his real views. Happily for 
 readers in this century, Berengar’s long nearly lost reply has been 
 republished. In 1066 Lanfranc was called to England. His 
 letters that survive are invaluable to his biographers and to 
 historians. 
 
 Letter 33. “ We believe that it is expedient for all at all ages — 
 
 (as well the living as the dead) to fortify themselves by receiving 
 the Lord’s body and blood. Nor yet, if it happens that, directly any 
 have been baptized, they go from the chapel before they have 
 received Christ’s body and blood, do we in any degree believe that 
 for that they perish... Otherwise the Truth would not be true 
 Who says, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ 
 For that sentence which the Lord says in the Gospel, John vi. 
 ‘Except ye eat the flesh, &c., as far as mere eating with the mouth 
 is concerned, cannot be said generally respecting all. [Note how 
 very far the doctrine received at the school of Bec was now in 
 advance towards the Protestant interpretation of this misinter- 
 preted chapter!] For the majority of the holy martyrs migrated 
 from the body even before baptism under the pains of various 
 tortures. Yet the church reckons them in the number of the 
 martyrs, and believes them to be saved on account of that testi- 
 mony of the Lord which is said, ‘Whoever shall confess Me,’ &e. 
 It is necessary therefore that the aforesaid sentence of the Lord be 
 so understood ; inasmuch as every believer of capable intelligence 
 
 P. 316, Letéier XXXITI. 
 To Domnald, Bishop of Ireland. Works, Paris, 1648. 
 
 Credimus omnes omnibus eetatibus plurimum expedire (tum viventes 
 quam mortuos) Dominici corporis et sanguinis perceptione sese munire. 
 Nec tamen si, priusquam corpus Christi et sanguinem sumant, contingit 
 baptizatos statim de sacello ire, ullatenus credimus eos propter hoc in 
 eeternum perire. (He contends against the prevalent belief that 
 partaking of the Lord’s supper is in every case indispensable for 
 salvation, as many interpreted much of John vi.) Alioquin Veritas 
 non esset verax qui dicit, He that believeth and is baptized, &e.... 
 Nam sententia 1118, quam Dominus in evangelio dicit, 1. 6. John vi. 
 Except ye eat, &e. quantum ad comestionem oris non potest generaliter 
 dicta esse de omnibus. Plerique enim sanctorum martyrum ante 
 baptismum quoque diversis excruciati penis de corpore migraverunt. 
 Kos tamen in numero martyrum computat, et salvos credit ecclesia 
 per illud testimonium Domini, quod dicitur, Whoever shall confess 
 Me, &e.... Necesse est ergo preedictam Domini sententiam sic intelligi 
 quatenus fidelis quisque, Divini mysterii per intelligentiam capax, 
 
 a ae hee 
 
1005] LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. Ἰ ἢ 
 
 eats and drinks Christ’s flesh and blood, not only with his body's 
 mouth but also with the love and sweetness of his heart, that 15 to 
 say, by loving Him, and in a pure conscience counting it sweet, 
 that Christ for our salvation took (assumpsit) flesh, hung on the 
 cross, rose, ascended, and also by imitating (following) His foot- 
 steps and communicating with the sufferings of Christ Himself, as 
 far as human infirmity allowsand Divine grace thinks fit to bestow 
 onus. [Clearly Bec was a fountain of spiritual piety as well as of 
 mere learning.| For this is truly and healthfully to eat Christ’s 
 flesh and drink His blood, &e., ὅθ. [How was it that Lanfrane and 
 Berengarius did not coalesce, as they so far held the same new 
 truths? We have now to read the recantation by which the latter 
 saved his life at Rome.] 
 
 P. 233. “I, Berengarius, believe with the heart and confess 
 with the mouth, that the bread and wine which are placed on the 
 altar are converted by the mystery of sacred prayer and the words 
 of our Redeemer into the true and own vivitying flesh and blood 
 of Jesus Christ our Lord, which was shed from His side, not how- 
 ever through the sign and virtue of the sacrament, but in His 
 proper nature and in the truth of His substance, as is contained 
 in this brief; and as I have read it and you have understood it. 
 Thus do I believe, nor will I teach against this faith any further. 
 So may God assist me and His holy Gospels. Signed, Berengar.” 
 
 carnem Christi et sanguinem non solum ore corporis sed etiam amore 
 et suavitate cordis comedat et bibat, videlicet amando et in conscientia 
 pura dulce habendo, quod pro salute nostra Christus carnem assumit 
 pependit resurrexit ascendit, et imitando vestigia EKjus et communicando 
 passionibus Ipsius, in quantum humana infirmitas patitur et Divina 
 ei gratia largiri dignatur. Hoc est enim vere et salubriter carnem 
 Christi comedere et sanguinem Ejus bibere. Quotes Aug. on John ii. 
 10, et in Evang. Johan. Tract. XXVI. [A most true explanation 
 according to the Reformation as fur as it goes. | 
 
 The Confession of Berengarius, quoted by Lanfranc in his answer to 
 Berengarius de Corp. et Sang. Christi. 
 
 Be 9999: 
 
 “Ego, Berengarius, corde credo et ore confiteor, panem et vinum 
 “que ponuntur in altari per mysterium sacre orationis et verba nostri 
 “Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram et propriam vivitica- 
 “tricem carnem et sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri, qui de 
 “latere Ejus effusus est, non tamen per signum et virtutem sacrament, 
 ‘‘sed in proprietate nature et veritate substantie sicut in hoc brevi 
 “ continetur et ego legi et vos intellexistis. Sic credo, nec contra hane 
 “fidem ulterius docebo. Sic me Deus adjuvet et sacra Hjus evan- 
 “gelia.” Lanfranc adds manu propria subscripsisti...Gregorii septini 
 tempore. 
 
 H. II. 2 
 
18 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 His recantation before the council at Rome denied “that the 
 bread and wine after consecration are only a sacrament and not 
 true (body), and that (Christ’s body) cannot sensibly in an (out- 
 ward) sacrament only be handled or broken by the priest’s hands ; 
 or ground by the teeth of the faithful, ὅσο. But I pronounce that 
 those who come (teaching) against this faith are with their doc- 
 trines and their followers worthy of an eternal anathema, &c....” 
 
 P, 240. Lanfranc: “The sacrament of Christ’s body (as far as it 
 refers to Christ Himself having been sacrificed on the cross) 
 is His flesh, which, covered under the form of bread, we in the 
 sacrament receive, and His blood, which under the form and 
 taste of wine we drink. By the flesh and the blood, both of them 
 invisible but intelligible and spiritual, 7s signified the Redeemer’s 
 body visible, palpable, manifestly full of all virtues, and in Divine 
 majesty. The one of these is indeed broken and divided for the 
 salvation of the people; but the other that was shed from His side 
 is received by the mouths of the faithful. His death on the cross 
 and His blood that trickled from His side are figured (in this 
 sacrament). Although His flesh is truly eaten in the earth and 
 His blood truly drunk, yet He Himself in the time of the restitu- 
 tion [qy. now] continues undiminished and alive at God’s right 
 hand... If you ask about the mode in which this can take place, 
 I for the present answer briefly, that the mystery of the faith 
 can be believed to the soul’s health. It cannot be usefully investi- 
 
 The recantation previously signed before the Roman Council denied 
 “‘panem et vinum post consecrationem esse solummodo sacramentum 
 “οὗ non verum, nec posse sensualiter in solo sacramento manibus sacer- 
 “dotum tractari vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri, ἄρ, Eos 
 “vero, qui contra hance fidem venerint cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus 
 ““seterno anathemate dignos esse pronuntio,” &e. ke. 
 
 P, 240, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. ο. XTV. 
 
 Sacramentum corporis Christi (quantum ad id spectat quod in 
 eruce immolatus est Ipse Dominus Christus) caro Hjus est, quam 
 forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus, et sanguis Ejus, quem 
 sub vini specie et sapore potamus... Carne et sanguine, utroque invi- 
 sibili, intelligibili, spirituali significatur Redemptoris corpus visibile, 
 palpabile, manifeste plenum omnium virtutum et Divina majestate. 
 Quorum alterum quidem frangitur et in populi salutem dividitur ; 
 alterum vero etfusum de calice ab ore fidelium sumitur. Mors Hjus 
 in cruce, et sanguis Ejus de latere emanatus figuratur. [He does not 
 seem to mean are “signified” being absent, but are signified present 
 but unseen. | Chap. X. Cum vere in terris carnes jus. sint comestze, 
 et vere sanguis Hjus sit bibitus, Ipse tamen in tempore restitutionis 
 ad dexteram Patris integer perseverat et vivus... Si queris modum 
 quo id fieri potest, breviter ad presens respondeo, mysterium fidei 
 eredi salubriter potest, vestigari utiliter non potest. C. XVII. Ineptus 
 
1005] LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 19 
 
 gated... You are foolish if you say that the widow of Sarepta 
 could not eat the oil, with which her jar was filled, on the ground 
 that her jar of oil was not diminished... That is to say, an our 
 Lord Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood are eaten and drunk both with 
 the body’s mouth and with the mouth of the heart, 2.e. corporally 
 and spiritually ; since we eat and drink with the bodily mouth as 
 often as we receive the Lord’s body from the Lord’s altar by the 
 priest’s hand: but with the mouth of the heart it is spiritually 
 eaten and drunk, when secretly and usefully, as saith the blessed 
 Augustine, it is laid up in the memory that the only-begotten Son 
 of God took for the world’s salvation, ὅθ. And this eating is then 
 useful to Christ’s poor, if, sitting at so great a table of so great and 
 rich (a lord) they so eat as to be filled and so remember as to 
 imitate, ready always to die for Christ, continually mortifying 
 their members which are on the earth and erucifying their own 
 flesh with its vices and evil desires.” 
 
 The tenor is still a spiritual participation not instead of, but in 
 conjunction with, a most bona fide reception of Christ’s natural 
 body and blood. Such is Lanfranc—midway towards the Reforma- 
 tion, but a staunch maintainer of the old doctrine of a real 
 material change. So that on the one hand he held with Beren- 
 garius, and on the other would daily persecute him to death. 
 
 P. 65. “‘Wherefore, dearly beloved, &c., 1.6. because the 
 sacraments alone could not save them. ‘One bread.’ He is ex- 
 plaining the mode and the cause in which and by which the cup of 
 
 sis, 51 propterea dicas Sareptanam viduam non posse comedere oleum, 
 quo plenus erat lechitus suus; quia lechitus olei non est imminutus... 
 Carnem scilicet et sanguinem Divi nostri Jesu Christi et ore corporis 
 et ore cordis, hoc est corporaliter et spiritualiter, manducari et bibi: 
 
 corporali siquidem ore corporaliter manducamus et bibimus, quotiens 
 de altari Dominico Dominicum corpus per manum sacerdotis accipimus : 
 
 spirituali vero ore cordis spiritualiter comeditur et hauritur, quando 
 suaviter et utiliter, ut dicit beatus Augustinus, in memoria reconditur 
 quod unigenitus Dei Filius pro salute mundi carnem accepit, ὅθ. Qua 
 comestio tunc est utilis pauperibus Christi, si ad tanti divitis tam 
 magnam mensam sedentes sic edunt ut saturentur, sic recolunt ut 
 imitentur, parati semper mori pro Christo, mortificantes jugiter membra 
 sua que sunt super terra, et crucifigentes carnem suam cum vitils 
 et concupiscentiis, 
 
 P. 65. _Comm. to 1 Cor. X. 14. 
 
 “ Propter quod, carissimi,” i.e. quia sola sacramenta illos salvare 
 non poterant, ‘ Unus panis.” Exponit modum et causam, quo et qua 
 2—2 
 
 ~ 
 
20 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 blessing and the bread that is broken become to the recipient 
 Christ’s flesh and blood. For by unity in bread and unity in body 
 love must be understood; but if it is wanting they who receive 
 receive judgment to themselves. ‘Until He come, come to judg- 
 ment. He therefore says this because there will be no change in 
 
 the sacrifice up to the end of the age, as the Jews’ sacraments 
 were changed.” 
 
 P. 214. “Heb. v. 6, ‘After the order of Melchizedek.’ After 
 the rite of offering bread and wine, which we read that Mel- 
 chizedek was the first to do: which however are changed into 
 the flesh and blood of Christ. Heb. xiii. 10,‘ We have an altar’ 
 A reason why we should not indulge in an immoderate affluence 
 of food. For in sobriety must we eat the body of Christ, which 
 in other places of Scripture too is called an altar, viz. for the 
 reason that in Christ Himself, 1.6. in faith in Christ Himself, as 
 on a kind of altar, our prayers and works are offered and become 
 acceptable to God. Eph. v. 20, ‘Because we are members of 
 
 His body,’ &c., &e., having the same flesh and bones which Christ 
 Himself had.” 
 
 ealix benedictionis et panis qui frangitur fiunt accipienti caro et sanguis 
 Christi. Per unitatem enim panis et unitatem corporis charitatem 
 oportet intelligi : que si desit judicium sibi sumunt qui sumunt, &e. 
 * Donec veniat,” ad judicium veniat. Ideo dicit quia hoe sacrificium 
 
 non mutabitur usque in finem seculi sicut sacramenta Judeorum 
 mutata sunt, 
 
 12, Dinh jen, Jean, (AAG. 
 “ Juxta ordinem Melchizedech.” 
 
 Juxta ritum offerendi panem et vinum, quod Melchizedech primus 
 fecisse legitur; qua tamen in Christi carnem et sanguinem conver- 
 tuntur, xui. 10, ‘ Habemus altare.” Causa cur escis non sit im- 
 moderate affluendum. Cum sobrietate enim edendum est corpus Christi, 
 quod et in aliis Scripturarum locis altare vocatur [Never. See Part I.], 
 pro eo videlicet quod in Ipso, i.e. in fide Ipsius, quasi in quodam 
 altari oblatz preces et operationes nostra acceptabiles fiunt Deo. [Jt 
 is to be observed that Lanfrane writes ‘‘quod,” which body of Christ, 
 not “ qui,” Who, 1. 6. Christ, but when we come to “ipso,” and “ ipsius,” 
 He seems to mean Christ, but even He is never called in the Bible 
 ‘‘an altar,” if not here, and that it is not here see argument, Part I. | 
 
 In Ephes. v. 20, “Quia membra corporis Ejus”...eandem carnem et 
 eadem ossa habentia que Ipse habuit. 
 
998] BERENGARIUS OF TOURS. 21 
 
 (Ὁ) BERENGARIUS OF TOURS, ARCHDEACON OF ANGERS. 
 B. 998. D. 1088. 
 Teacher and Treasurer of the Abbey of St Martin at Tours. 
 
 The first and last extracts are concerning the lost treatise of 
 John Scotus Erigena on the Lord’s supper. I insert them as a 
 kind of cenotaphic inscription regarding that much to be regretted 
 work. Had it survived, it would have taught us the current 
 opinions of the anti-idolatrous party in the church in relation to 
 this sacrament in the time of Charlemagne and Charles the Bald. 
 We can only judge this now from the remains of Berengar, who 
 implies that he did not hear the treatise of John Scotus read in 
 the council of Vercelli, though he in one letter says that he had 
 seen part of his writings. This statement adds something to the 
 value of what is left of Berengarius. John Scotus died A.D, 875. 
 Berengar was a disciple of Fulbert. He and Lanfranc were 
 friendly rivals in stirring up the love of truth in the young men of 
 France. Berengar held school at ‘Tours, and Lanfranc at Bec. 
 Of the superiority of the former both in mental power and in the 
 attainment of truth there can be little doubt. In fact the former 
 was so much before his age as first to be admired and befriended 
 by many, and then persecuted by almost all, including King 
 Henry I. of France, who was also abbot of St Martin’s convent. That 
 Berengar like our own Cranmer consented to recant in order to 
 save life ought to humble us as well as him; for it shews human 
 nature’s weakness, and indicates the perplexing nature of the 
 casuistry, which for a time entangled not them only but our own 
 very eminent Bilney and our yet more eminent Hugh Latimer. 
 The issues in each of these four cases were different. Bilney, 
 having twice recanted, found no peace, and set out of his own 
 accord to meet persecution, -wishing his friends in Cambridge 
 farewell in the touching words that he was going “up to Jeru- 
 “salem.” Latimer refused at last to attend to the hint given that 
 escape was open to him. He said, like Frith a little earlier, that 
 the times required an unflinching self-sacrifice. Cranmer endured 
 the mortification of finding that even the humiliation of his recan- 
 tation would not save his life: but Berengar was suffered to 
 escape to his own country, and there in freedom openly to confess 
 his unfaithfulness, and again to dare the utmost risk of professing 
 
22 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 his real convictions. Why he was suffered to do this is a mystery. 
 In this day of increased liberty it is easy work to blame or praise 
 the various courses adopted and the steps taken by one and 
 another of these tried and tempted men, who at times would be 
 wrought upon by fear, at times bewildered into utter confusion 
 and doubts of all kinds, and at other times would be endowed with 
 a special amount of grace to stand forth unflinching martyrs and 
 confessors for what they then saw clearly. The difference of posi- 
 tion between those who, like Teucer from under the shield of 
 Ajax, sent forth the treatises from under the broad gis of mighty 
 kings, such as Alcuin the favoured of Charlemagne, and John 
 Scotus and Ratram, specially called by Charles the Bald to investi- 
 gate and test the audacities of Paschasius; the difference I say 
 between the position of such fortunate divines and Berengarius— 
 writing with almost no one to support, encourage, or guide him, 
 and with the age all against him and urged on to persecute and 
 bring him down by the almost unvarying tradition of above 600 
 years—cannot fail to be noticed. To me Berengar appears a much 
 better and more consistent reasoner than Ratram. Possibly the 
 testimony of John Scotus might have rivalled or surpassed him. 
 We know but little on this. Hincmar declares in his work on 
 Predestination, ο. 31, Vol. 1. p. 296, that Scotus held that the 
 Lord’s supper was “only a memorial of the true body and blood.” 
 Perhaps then he was one of those who maintain that it is both a 
 type of feeding on Christ, and also a rite in which we may 
 eminently do so. Perhaps he stoutly denied that the sacrament is 
 a means in the sense that it conveys Christ's real body to the 
 receiver, either corporally to the body of man, or mentally to his soul. 
 For this very many have been said to make the supper “a mere 
 “or bare memorial,” ψιλόν τι. It is not unlikely that Hincmar 
 meant to charge Scotus with something like this. But let me give 
 a citation from Berengar, shewing how he as well as Scotus loved 
 to refer all to the scriptures as the ultimate and only infallible 
 rule. It is from p. 157; he gives it as what he thinks to be the 
 meaning of St Ambrose as well as his own, “si pugnacitas aufer- 
 “atur,” ae. if controversial fierceness is to be forbidden to blind 
 our eyes against truth. These are his words: “There are seen on 
 “the altar by the bodily eye after consecration the sensible 
 “substances of bread and wine, but there are not seen Christ’s 
 “body and blood, which are laid up in heaven, because, if you lay 
 
998] BERENGARIUS OF TOURS. 23 
 
 “down that, before the restitution of all things, I say not merely 
 “that the flesh of Christ is seen by the bodily eye, but even that 
 “at is ὧν the world at all (in terris alicubi), you do this in the 
 “teeth of David’s prophecy, Peter the Apostle, his fellow-apostle 
 “Paul and all authentic scriptures.” See also p. 198, a very 
 powerful and fuller statement of the same argument. I now need 
 only add that this treatise was not reprinted till 1834, and I am 
 told in a very limited number. But one must refer to Coleridge’s 
 inspired burst concerning this Berengarius. 
 
 “One seeing eye, lynx amid moles,” is Coleridge’s bold esti- 
 mate of this grand wrestler against error. But near the close 
 Coleridge’s conceptions find fuller utterance, 
 
 “Ye who, secure mid trophies not your own, 
 “Judge him, who won them when he stood alone, 
 “And proudly talk of recreant Berengar ; 
 
 “O first the age, and then the man compare! 
 “The age how dark! Congenial minds how rare! 
 “No host of friends with kindred zeal did burn ; 
 “No throbbing hearts awaited his return. 
 “Prostrate alike when prince and peasant fell, 
 “He only, disenchanted from the spell, 
 
 “Like the weak worm that gems the starless night, 
 “Moved in the scanty circlet of his light. 
 
 “And was it strange if he withdrew the ray 
 “That did but guide the night-birds to their prey?” 
 
 Note. Respecting the loss of the Treatise of John Scotus, 
 Dr Floss, the editor of the Migne edition, p. x., says that from 
 the different coloured inks and manners of writing, he thinks that 
 the copier stopped in the midst of the Commentary on the sixth of 
 John, lest he should be suspected of holding Scot’s opinions, and 
 eut away whole parchments elsewhere that seemed to him to 
 contain similar heterodox matter. 
 
 Lanfranc has quoted some portion of his first re-utterance of 
 his opinions: but his reply to Lanfranc was lost till it was disco- 
 vered by Lessing at Wolffenbiittel and printed in 1777. What I 
 have is the small reprint, Berlin 1834, by A. F. and F. Vischer. 
 
 Others besides Lanfrane wrote long treatises against Berengar. 
 Rohrbacher, Vil. 459, instances Durand of Troarn as well as Guit- 
 mund, one of Lanfranc’s disciples, whom I only quote because in 
 the citations he seems to anticipate John of Paris. The Dict. 
 Universel quotes from Guitmund’s treatise on the body and blood 
 
94 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of Christ at the beginning, “ All the disciples of Berengar indeed 
 “agree in this, that the bread and wine are not essentially 
 “changed... They differ much that some say that nothing at all 
 “of Christ’s body and blood is in those sacraments, but that these 
 “ (sacraments) are only shadows and figures. But others say that 
 “the Lord’s body and blood are truly but in a latent manner 
 “contained (in them) and in a certain way (quodammodo) 7n- 
 “panated, so that they can be received.” 
 
 John of Paris is very likely to have read this and made his 
 own system out of it. Baronius says that Berengarius revived 
 the opinions of Leuthericus, archbishop of Sens. Mosheim almost 
 alone notices him, saying in two sentences that he believed that 
 only real believers received Christ’s body, and that he was 
 repressed by the king. The other Berengarius was a Frenchman, 
 but he was of Poictiers, and of a later date, for he was a follower 
 of the acute Abailard, whose name has been reduced to Abelard. 
 
 On the Lord’s supper. Reply to Lanfranc. 
 
 P.43. “ You write that the book of John Scotus Erigena (on the 
 Lord’s supper) was read in the hearing of all, who had assembled 
 from various parts of the world, and that it was condemned [?.e. in 
 the synod at Vercelli]. To this I have already sufficiently replied 
 that you have yourself related to some ‘that that book was con- 
 demned for saying that the sacraments of the altar are a similitude, 
 ‘a figure, and a pledge of the Lord’s body and blood;’ a saying 
 for which according to the scriptures it ought to have been most 
 largely approved. I had heard from those who were present at 
 that council of vanity, that no more diligence was used in that 
 book’s condemnation than just to hear a certain passage of it once, 
 and that it was in this way condemned when the Lord says, Try 
 the writings, &c.; Peter, a deacon of the Roman church bearing 
 
 De Sacra Cond adv. Lanfrancum, Lib. post. Berlin, 1834. 
 
 P. 43, 
 
 Johannis Scoti librum lectum scribis in audientid omnium, qui 
 de te diversis mundi partibus convenerant atque damnatum. Ad hoc 
 satis Jam rescripsi, te ipsum narrasse quibusdam “librum illum pro 
 eo damnatum, quod diceret, Sacramenta altaris similitudinem, figuram, 
 pignusque esse corporis et sanguinis Domini ;” in quo maxime secundum 
 Scripturas debuit approbari, Audieram etiam ab illis qui interfuerunt 
 concilio vanitatis nulla librum illum alia diligentid damnatum quam 
 ut semel locus quidam illius audiretur, et ita damnaretur, cum dicat 
 Dominus “Scrutamini Scripturas,” &e. ; attestante ineptize ὑπὸ Petro 
 
998] BERENGARIUS OF TOURS. : 
 
 bo 
 
 5 
 
 witness to thy folly, and hastily throwing down his opinion saying, 
 ‘If we are still in a figure, when shall we get a hold of the 
 ‘reality?’ [Augustine’s sayings on the other side adduced.] 
 
 P. 28. “ You say ‘ You would be constructing a proof of your 
 own ‘perjury. I only say this. To swear things that should not 
 have been sworn is to go back from God: to desist (to cease to 
 hold) from things sworn contrary to right is to return to God. Nor 
 would Peter have remained an apostle of Christ, after swearing 
 that he did not know Christ, if he had chosen to persevere in the 
 things that he had sworn against the right. 
 
 P. 45. “You yourself assert ina later part of the same treatise, 
 that a sacrament is not the colour or form of any little ‘portion of 
 ‘the flesh, which after consecration is on the altar, but that the 
 ‘portion itself is a sacrament of Christ’s whole body which is in 
 
 ‘ Heaven, and that the portion itself is broken by men’s hands and 
 ground by their teeth... 
 
 P.76. “Further the comparison, which you have used concern- 
 ing our Lord Jesus Christ and the stone of the corner, entangles 
 or impedes you and sets us free. For as he that says Christ is a 
 stone of the corner does not in truth make Christ a stone, but sets 
 such a name upon Him on account of some likeness they mu- 
 
 Romane ecclesiz diacono, et preecipitante sententiam, ut diceret, “Si 
 
 ‘‘adhue in figura sumus, quando rem tenebimus?” [contrary to many 
 sayings of Augustine. | 
 
 P, 28. 
 
 ‘* Perjurum te,” inquis, “astrueres.” Hoc tantum dico...Jurare... 
 non juranda, a Deo recedere est: desistere a juratis contra jus, ad 
 Deum redire. Nec Petrus, postquam juravit se non novisse Christum, 
 Christi apostolus permansisset, si in juratis contra 118 persistere 
 voluisset. See also pp. 61, 62. 
 
 PAD. 
 
 Ipse in posterioribus ejusdem tractatis asseris “non esse sacra- 
 “mentum colorem vel speciem portiuncule carnis, que sit post 
 * consecrationem in altari, sed ipsam portiunculam...esse sacramentum 
 ** totius corporis quod in czlo est Christi,” eamque ipsam manibus frangi, 
 dentibus atteri. [N.B. I have omitted before the latter “esse” the 
 words “ non quod in ea subjecta sit, sed eam que subjectum sit,” not 
 deeming it all necessary, as far as I guess its meaning, see also 
 
 p. 127.] 
 Ὁ 10: 
 
 Porro similitudo, quam de Domino Jesu Christo et lapide angulari 
 posuisti, te impedit nos expedit. Sicut enim qui dicit, Christus est 
 lapis angularis, non revera Christum lapidem esse constituit; sed 
 propter aliquam similitudinem, quam ad se invicem gerunt, tale nomen 
 
20 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 tually bear to one another, (so) when the page of the Divine word 
 calls Christ’s body bread, it does it in a sacred and mystic mode of 
 speaking ; either because He is made of bread, and retains some of 
 its qualities; or because He satiates the soul by an incomprehen- 
 sible feeding, and ministers to it the substance of eternal life ; or 
 that it is the body of the Son of God, Who is the bread of angels, 
 and that into Him, as the prince of the apostles says, the angels 
 desire to look; or in some other way which may be comprehended 
 by beings more learned than we are, but not by us...” 
 
 P.83. “Further, it appears that you have been indiscreet in 
 asserting that what I have said—viz. that Christ is the highest 
 corner-stone makes against you, because it is said by the way 
 of similitude—really strengthens your side. For it must be plain 
 to your erudition that it 15 not any less a use of a metaphorical 
 mode of speech to say, ‘The bread which is placed on the altar is 
 ‘after consecration the body of Christ and the wine is His blood,’ 
 than when it is said Christ is a lion, Christ is a lamb, Christ is a 
 chief corner-stone; and that there is but one way out, and no 
 more, from that tropical kind of speaking ; viz. that when anything 
 is predicated (of a subject) that is not (truly) predicable (of it), 
 since (in that case) the tropical mode of speech has been used 
 concerning that of which it is not susceptible, one term of the 
 proposition be taken tropically, and the other in its own (natural 
 and true) sense.” 
 
 N.B. It seems to be a pretty good proof of considerable free- 
 dom of thought being maintained at that day in France, that the 
 writer of this extract was allowed to live there, after having by 
 
 Hi imponit; cum Divina pagina corpus Domini panem vocat, sacrata 
 ac mystica locutione id agit: seu quoniam ex pane conficitur, ejusque 
 nonnullas retinet qualitates; seu quia animam incomprehensibiliter 
 pascendo satiat, eique stern vite substantiam subministrat; vel 
 quod corpus sit Filii Dei, Qui est panis angelorum et in Quem, sicut 
 ait princeps apostolorum, desiderant angeli prospicere; seu aliquo 
 alio modo, qui a doctioribus potest, a nobis comprehendi non potest. 
 
 ., 88. 
 
 Porro quod scribis, “illud, quod dixi Christus est summus angularis 
 “lapis contra me (Qy. te) facere, quia per similitudinem dicitur, partes 
 “tuas munire” indiligenter apparet te posuisse. Constat enim apud 
 eruditionem tuam, non minus tropicd locutione dici, panis qui ponitur 
 in altari post consecrationem est corpus Christi et vinum sanguis 
 quam dicitur Christus est leo, Christus est agnus, Christus est summus 
 angularis lapis; totique illi tropice locutionis generi unum -patere, 
 non amplius, exitum ; ut ubicunque predicatur non predicabile, quia 
 tropica locutio est de non susceptibili, alter propositionis terminus tropice, 
 alter proprie accipiatur. 
 
998] BERENGARIUS OF TOURS. 27 
 
 perjuring himself escaped murder in the den of the Roman 
 “leopard.” 
 
 P.86. “Therefore that Humbert of thine in saying ‘that the 
 ‘bread which is placed on the altar is after consecration Christ's 
 ‘body—but that what is bread in the proper mode of speaking 
 ‘is to be taken in a tropical sense for Christ’s body,’ laid it down 
 and rightly indeed, because it is according to the authority of the 
 scriptures ... 
 
 P. 107. “I have affirmed that in this Humbert is contrary to 
 himself, and I do affirm it... 
 
 P. 91. “Therefore it was a most mad thing to be said, and 
 a perfect contumely against the Christian religion that Christ's 
 body is made of bread or of any other thing, &c. 
 
 P. 113. “Both you without these names (belonging to dialectics) 
 cannot well assert what you attempt without inconsistency; and we 
 could abolish what you would say by the sacred testimonies alone... 
 
 P. 120. “That Christ’s flesh is called ‘our daily bread ’—[ht. 
 bread for the coming day], z.e. supersubstantial, [misinterpretation, 
 see Prof. Lightfoot’s note], man consists of two (substances), soul 
 and body, higher and lower. The higher is refreshed by Christ's 
 body unto eternal life with inner bread, with spiritual bread ; the 
 lower is refreshed to temporal life by sensible bread; which how- 
 ever is after consecration the body of Christ, and in Him has 
 
 FP; 86. 
 
 Dicens ergo Humbertus ille tuas “panem qui ponitur in altari 
 “post consecrationem esse corpus Christi—panem propria locutione 
 “corpus Christi tropice accipiendum esse” constituit, et illud quidem 
 recte, quia ex auctoritate Scripturarum. 
 
 P. 107: 
 Contrarium 5101 ipsi affirmavi et aflirmo Humbertum. 
 
 Fx Qi: 
 
 Unde insanissimum dictu erat et Christiane religioni contumelio- 
 sissimum “corpus Christi de pane vel de quocunque confici,” &e. &e. 
 
 118. 
 
 Et tu sine his nominibus (dialectic artis, &c.) quod moliris non 
 impariter posses asserere ; et nos, que a te dicerentur, sacris solummodo 
 possemus testimoniis abolere. 
 
 P. 120. 
 
 Quod caro Christi panis epiusion dicitur, i.e. supersubstantialis, homo 
 de duabus constat (substantiis), anim4 et corpore, superiori et inferiori. 
 Superior reficitur Christi corpore ad animam eternam, pane interiore, pane 
 spirituali ; inferior, ad temporalem p:ne sensuali; qui tamen post consecra- 
 tionem et corpus Christi, et in Eo valet etiam in vitam zternam fidell, Ita 
 
 o 
 
28 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 power for eternal life to the faithful. Thus since man consists of 
 two substances, soul and body, he that likes may call the body a 
 substance and the soul supersubstantial; and the bread, with which 
 the body is refreshed, substantial; and the spiritual bread, 1.6. 
 Christ’s body, with which the soul is refreshed, supersubstantial ... 
 
 P.131. “If therefore you make such an assertion regarding 
 Christ’s flesh, not the truth itself alone casts you down, because 
 also Christ’s body cannot admit of desecration, &c., but also the 
 authority of St Ambrose, where he says in the epistle to the 
 Hebrews, ‘ The sacrifice (host) of the church is one and not many.’ 
 How one and not many? Because Christ was once offered; but 
 the church’s sacrifice is a pattern of the sacrifice of Christ. There- 
 fore this sacrifice of the church is the very same, always the very 
 same. Otherwise in as many places as the sacrifice of the church 
 is offered, there are so many Christs. By no means. But it is one 
 Christ everywhere, both here fully existing and there fully. There 
 is not another sacrifice, but we are always offering Himself. Yea 
 rather, we are working out a remembrance of the sacrifice. 
 
 P. 289. “They that affirm that Christ’s flesh either in part or 
 in whole new made, by generation of the subject, is sensibly 
 present on the altar (the bread being taken away by corruption of 
 the subjectum) speak against the authority of eternal and incom- 
 mutable truth... 
 
 cum constet homo duabus substantiis, anima et corpore, potest, qui velit, 
 appellare corpus substantiam, animam super substantiam ; panem quo 
 reficitur corpus substantialem, panem spiritualem (i.e. Christi corpus) 
 quo reficitur anima, supersubstantialem. [Prof. Lightfoot has blown 
 away this interpretation of ἐπιούσιον in the Lord’s Prayer: but it 
 shews how easy it is to slip into saying that Christ’s body gets into 
 our souls. See H. Smith. ] 
 PAS 1s 
 
 Si ergo de portiuncula carnis Christi ita asseris, non solum te ipsa 
 veritas dejicit, qua et indesecrabile est Christi corpus, ὅθ. sed et sancti 
 Ambrosii auctoritas ubi ait in epistola ad Hebraos “Una est ecclesize 
 “hostia, non multe. — Quomodo una et non multe? Quia semel 
 oblatus est Christus, sacrificium vero ecclesize exemplum est sacrificii 
 Christi. Proinde hoe sacrificium ecclesia id ipsum semper id ipsum 
 est. Alioquin quum in multis locis offertur sacrificium ecclesiz, 
 multi Christi sunt. Nequaquam. Sed unus ubique est Christus, 
 et hic plenus existens et illic plenus... Non aliud sacrificium sed Ipsum 
 semper offerimus. Immo magis sacrificii recordationem operamur.” 
 
 PA289. 
 
 Qui affrmant Christi carnem vel pro parte vel pro toto recens 
 factum per generationem subjecti, adesse sensualiter in altari (ablato 
 pane per corruptionem subjecti) contra auctoritatem loquuntur eterne 
 et incommutabilis veritatis, [Yet this view of Lanfranc became the 
 adopted tenet of the Franciscans. | 
 
998] BERENGARIUS OF TOURS. 29 
 
 Letter ἡ. “I sought for myself the gospel of St John, and re- 
 volving the things in it which belonged to the opinion, ... I saw 
 that the thing appears thus, that I thought then it surpassed all 
 astonishment that men should be able to dissemble their seeing so 
 great light, or that eyes of reason of any sort could be dark in the 
 presence of so great alight. To speak plainly, I could not pre- 
 tend not to see such great things; but doubtless I ought not... 
 
 Letter to Richard. “John Scotus wrote, he wrote at the ad- 
 monition and entreaties of Charles (and) his great predecessor. 
 And he, as devoted to the interests of religion as he was very 
 active in doing public business, that the folly of the uninstructed 
 and carnal men of that time might not prevail over so learned 
 a man, imposed on that John the task of collecting from the 
 scriptures the things which would overturn that folly. 
 
 P. 373. Letter to Ascelin. “It thus came to pass that I was 
 silent at hearing that damnable and _ sacrilegious opinion of 
 Wilhelm which he pronounced, that at Easter every man ought 
 to come to the Lord’s table. To come to the point, I have now 
 heard Wilhelm boast that I could not deny that John the Scot is 
 a heretic ; but you-are my witness that it is not true, if you well 
 remember my words, even though you also hold John the Scot a 
 
 Collection of Letters of Berengar. 
 Dr Sudendorf. Letter V. Hamburg, 1850. 
 Petivi mihi evangelium 8. Johannis, in quo revolvens que ad 
 sententiam pertinebant...ita rem apparere pervidi, ut putarem omnem 
 stuporem transcendere quod poterant a luce tanta dissimulare, vel 
 
 in luce tanta caligare qualescunque oculi rationis. Unde non potui 
 tanta dissimulare ; nimirum autem non debui. 
 
 No. VII. Berengar to Richard. 
 
 Noviter quam scripsit Johannes Scotus, monitu illum  scripsisse 
 precarioque Caroli magni antecessoris sui, Qui, quantum circa res 
 gerendas perstrenuus, tantum circa religionem devotus, ne inerudi- 
 torum carnaliumque illius temporis prevaleret ineptia erudito viro, 
 Johanni illi imposuit colligere de Scripturis, quee ineptiam illam everte- 
 rent. 
 
 Note. “Caroli magni” must be an error. A word or two wanting, 
 “et” would clear it or at least make it barely imaginable, 
 
 Epistola ad Ascelinum, Lanfranc Vol. I. p. 373, Giles, Oxon. 1844. 
 
 Inde factum est ut etiam tacuerim ad damnabilem et sacrilegam 
 illam Willelmi sententiam, quam pronunciavit, omnem hominem ad 
 mensam Dominicam debere in Pascha accedere. Ut ergo ad rem 
 veniam audivi nune jactitare Willelmum, quod negare nequiverim 
 hereticum esse Joannem Scotum: quod falsum esse testis mihi es, 
 
90 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 heretic, but how inconsiderately, in how impious a way, and in a way 
 how unworthy of vour priestly dignity, may God prevent your any 
 longer doubting, He concerning whom an apostle promises to the 
 faithful, But if in anything ye have a different opinion, this also God 
 ‘will reveal to you. For your opinion is contrary to the reasons 
 from all nature, contrary to the opinion of Gospels; and of the 
 Apostles, if you hold with Paschasius, in that which he alone invents 
 for himself, that the substance of the bread entirely departs from 
 the sacrament of the Lord’s body. But my words about Jonn were 
 these, that I had not looked quite through all this matter, as 
 now also is true. But as to what I had seen in relation to that 
 matter, that I could recite from the writings of those whom I 
 previously mentioned proofs in the letter to Lanfranc that they 
 must be counted heretics if that John were to be counted one. 
 But that if I should see anything in him not filed into shape suffi- 
 ciently, I would readily blame him. He only brought forward 
 two passages,...for that the words themselves instituted for the 
 consecration of the bread convince you that the matter of the 
 bread does not depart from the sacrament, and that the cure of 
 
 souls is not the bishop’s rod.” 
 
 P. 374. <Ascelin to my master Berengar. “There are wit- 
 nesses that that opinion of Wilhelm was put forth in another way 
 ... It was said...unless for some crime done by him he were 
 separated from that very healthful feast; but this should only be 
 done by his confessor’s order. Otherwise the church’s keys are 
 
 si satis meministi verborum meorum, quamvis hereticum habeas tu quo- 
 que Joannem Scotum, quam inconsiderate, quam impie, quam indigne 
 sacerdotio tuo, non diutius te nescire permittat Ile, de Quo apostolus 
 fidelibus promittit, “Sed et siquid aliter sapitis et hoc vobis Deus 
 “revelabit.” Sapis enim contra omnis nature rationes contra evangelicam 
 et apostolicam sententiam, si cum Paschasio sapis in eo quod solus 
 sibi confingit, sacramento Dominici corporis decedere panis omnino 
 substantiam. Verba autem mea de Joanne hee fuerunt, non pervidisse 
 omnia illius, sicut etiam nune verum est. Quz autem vidissem ad eam 
 rem pertinentia recitare me posse ex scriptis illorum, quos preefixeram 
 habendos hereticos in epistolé ad Lanfrancum si Joannes ille hereticus 
 haberetur [1. e. several of the fathers in respect of some of their sayings]. 
 Ceeterum si quid in illo viderem non satis delimatum, facile me impro- 
 baturum esse... Duo tantum protulit, &e. Convincere ipsa verba in 
 consecrationem panis instituta, non decedere sacramento panis materiam 
 et non esse virgam episcopalem animarum curam, το. 
 
 Answer of Ascelinus, Lanfranc, I. p. 374, Giles, Oxon. 1844. 
 Domino Berengario Ascelinus...Ilam sententiam Willelmi...aliter 
 fuisse prolatam testes sunt...dictum fuit...nisi pro aliquo crimine a se 
 perpetrato a tam salubri sequestretur convivio: hoc autem nallo modo 
 fiat, nisi solo preecepto confessoris sui. Alioquin claves ecclesiz annul- 
 
998] BERENGARIUS OF TOURS. 3 
 
 brought to nothing. But to return to myself, having considered 
 all the affair, I believe that I did not assemble at that congress 
 unworthily. For I brought with me that which I shall retain in 
 my heart’s sanctuary as long as I shall live, fixed and undoubted 
 and not to be violently removed by whatever may happen, if only 
 virtue from God assist me—viz. that the bread and wine on the 
 altar, by the Holy Spirit’s virtue through the priest’s ministration, 
 are made Christ’s true body and true blood. But that John the 
 Scot, &e., and I see that he with all efforts and all determination 
 tends only to this one point, to persuade me, that what is con- 
 secrated on the altar is neither truly Christ’s body nor truly 
 Christ’s blood. But he strives to establish this out of the works 
 of the holy fathers which he perverts. And of these it may suffice 
 that the prayer of St Gregory be noted here, ‘May Thy sacra- 
 ‘ments, O Lord, complete in us what they contain, that what 
 ‘now we bear in appearance we may in the truth of things re- 
 ceive. The aforesaid John, in expressing the meaning of this 
 prayer, says among other things contrary to our faith, ‘They are 
 ‘borne in appearance not in truth.’ But that this is not catholic... 
 you know well.” 
 
 lantur. Set ut ad me redeam, omni re considerata non indigne me 
 ad preedictum colloquium convenisse credo. Attuli enim mecum quod 
 quamdiu vixero, adjuvante Divina virtute, certum indubitabile nullisque 
 eventibus violabile in sacrario cordis retinebo, panem scilicet et vinum 
 in altari, Spiritus sancti virtute per sacerdotis ministerium, verum 
 corpus verumque sanguinem Christi effici...Joannem vero Scotum... 
 quem totum nisu totaque intentione ad hoc solum tendere video, ut mihi 
 persuadeat, hoc videlicet, quod altari consecratur, neque vere corpus, neque 
 vere Christi sanguinem esse ; hoc autem astruere nititur ex sanctorum 
 patrum opusculis, que prave exponit. Quorum illam sancti Gregorii 
 orationem hic annotari sufficiat ‘“ Perficlant in nobis tua Domine 
 “‘sacramenta in nobis quod continent, ut que nune specie gerimus 
 “rerum veritate capiamus.” Quam exprimendo predictus Joannes, 
 inter cetera nostre fidei contraria, “Specie” inquit “ geruntur ista 
 “non veritate.” Quod non catholice dictum...non ignoras, &c. [15 
 not Ascelinus evidently right in his interpretation of Gregory the Great ? 
 No one would now make St Gregory hold Protestant doctrine. But 
 we do not need to strain any man’s words. If any men have said 
 wrong they must “abye it” and we can stand to the Bible sense 
 without their aid. This testimony of the real views of Scotus is most 
 important. | 
 
 (D.) FULBERT, BISHOP OF CHARTRES. D. 1092. 
 
 He founded a school of high repute at Chartres before he 
 became bishop. William of Malmesbury speaks of him in very 
 high terms for holiness and learning. This praise came from him 
 
 o 
 
32 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 on occasion of some money being sent from England to some 
 foreign churches. Fulbert had been prominent in rebuilding his 
 church of St Mary after its destruction by a fire. Fulbert lived 
 224 years in his episcopal charge, and is reckoned one of the most 
 eminent of his time. He was a pupil of the learned Gerbert, who 
 became Pope under the name of Sylvester II. A short poem of 
 his in praise of a monastic life survives, which he says is alike free 
 from want and from superfluities—Nil superest vel abest: and he 
 compares monks to ants, bees, and stars; and says that they below 
 render service to God like the Cherubim in Heaven. Thus were 
 men sung and won into monkery. A secure sufficiency of food and 
 clothing: no light thing as the world then was ; and upon this all 
 imaginary air castles might be built up with a fair hope of fulfil- 
 ment in earth or in Heaven. One only sacrifice had to be made: 
 the strong instinct in favour of a home with wedded love to 
 lighten it. The decision often went hard: but monachism once 
 adopted was even more unchangeable than marriage itself. An 
 Erasmus once hooked could never go free. Let a near relative of 
 an emperor, such as Ignatius in the ninth century at Con- 
 stantinople, only shave his crown, and his sovereign is for ever 
 secure from his aspiring or even succeeding to his throne. “Su- 
 perior, Abbot, General of an order, or Pope, he might become: 
 but the removal of holy orders was one of the few things beyond 
 all dispensing powers. On the whole monachism was as a cancer 
 that ate away the vital strength of a kingdom, and the compen- 
 sating benefits were I think few when all were told. But the 
 personal attractions of it at the time of admission into it were 
 great : and the praises of it by such men as Fulbert told powerfully 
 in its favour: and so it was riveted fast on Christendom till the 
 Reformer of Deventer, sharply resenting its injuries, held up its 
 then overgrown evils to the open gaze and deep reprehension of 
 mankind. Then Erasmus broke up the work of many Fulberts, 
 and methinks our gratitude is largely due to him. Such pioneering 
 work was essential to truth’s triumphs in other hands and from 
 other pens and voices. 
 
 When Fulbert’s master became Sylvester II. and had Fulbert 
 to visit him at Rome, he profited afresh by the Pope’s learning, 
 and on his return to France presided with much credit over a 
 convent and school at Ferrieres; and it was in consequence of the 
 spread of his intelligent disciples in many countries that the 
 
—1029] FULBERT, BISHOP OF CHARTRES. 99 
 
 French king raised him to the bishopric in 1007: and it fell to 
 him to rebuild that cathedral; when a few years after his rise it 
 was destroyed by fire. But this brings him before us as a devoted 
 advocate of the Virgin Mary, to whom it was dedicated. He 
 assigned to her nativity a day in the calendar throughout his 
 diocese, and wrote a panegyric of her. He wrote also against 
 the Jews, but he pronounced strong condemnations of militant 
 bishops, and taught that the only way in which they were allowed 
 to overcome enemies was by meekness and gentleness, as Christ 
 had done: and he refused to give them the names of bishops till 
 they renounced the leading of armies. 
 
 P. 94, “For the bishop, who takes the functions (or the part) 
 of Christ, when he is about to send his priests to the people under 
 them, distributes among them the eucharist of the sacred body to 
 be taken forty continuous days, that while by the grace of the 
 Word they are daily refreshed by the Heavenly bread, they may 
 keep in mind that time in which for forty days the Lord appearing 
 to His disciples and eating with them refreshed them unto fulness 
 with the desired sight of Himself. The bishop’s reply to this was 
 ... He says, Consider my son that as there are many churches 
 through the whole circle of the earth, and yet there is one 
 universal holy church on account of there being one faith, so 
 also is there one bread on account of the oneness of the body of 
 Christ. For the bread consecrated by a bishop and bread sanc- 
 tified by a presbyter are transfused into one and the same body of 
 Christ on account of the secret virtue of the one operating power. 
 ... For that body of the Lord raised out of the dead and placed in 
 Heaven does not now die. That sacrament daily dies to (or for) 
 
 Letter III. To Einard. Opera, Migne, p. 94. 
 
 Nam et episcopus, qui Christi vices gerit, sacerdotales viros in 
 plebem subjectam missurus, sacri corporis eucharistiam per quadraginta 
 dies sumendam distribuit, ut, dum Verbi gratia quotidie celestis panis 
 alimonia reficiuntur, tempus illud in mentem habeant, quo per quadra- 
 ginta dies Dominus discipulis apparens et convescens desideratee visionis 
 satietate refecit. Ad hoc episcopi responsum...Perpende, ait, sicut, 
 fili mi, multe ecclesia sunt per universum orbem terrarum, et tamen 
 una est sancta catholica ecclesia propter unam fidem, sic et unus 
 panis propter unitatem corporis Christi. Nam panis ab episcopo con- 
 secratus et panis a presbytero sanctificatus in unum et idem Christi 
 corpus transfunditur propter secretam unius operantis potenti virtu- 
 tem... Nam illud Dominicum corpus ex mortuis suscitatum et in ceelis 
 locatum jam non moritur. Istud sacramentum quotidie nobis moritur, 
 
 He. re 3 
 
94 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 us, and daily rises again, appears, and is eaten. But neither in 
 this ought the mind of the faithful to fall against the stumbling- 
 stone of doubt, because the man hears that Christ, having once 
 tasted death, will no more die, when he hears that both the flesh 
 of the man who was taken to Heaven, sitting in the glory of the 
 Father, and the bread that has been sanctified here, are named 
 Christ’s true body, while one and the same working Spirit trans- 
 fuses both that body taken from the virgin, and that other conse- 
 crated out of a material and virginal creation by an invisible 
 operation into the substance of true flesh, ¢.¢. not of any common 
 flesh, but one truly Christ’s, of which He Himself says, John vi. 
 54.” {Here is a new point of belief, that there are two bodies, 
 though Damascen says there are not, and that they are transfused, 
 poured together by the Spirit Himself into one.] 
 
 P. 203. “So that being made not only heir but also Christ’s 
 body, you carry God in your body. [If not true, shocking.] See in 
 all things the workmanship of Heavenly mercy. See the marvellous 
 sacrament of regenerating grace, and attend in these things to the 
 overpowering working of the operating Word, at whose nod the 
 elements of things put together into a structure in this world’s 
 form out of nothing with a varying order, (testify) His inexplicable 
 power, and themselves rejoice with the appearance of their own 
 beauty. If therefore you believe that God can do all things, it 
 follows that you believe this also, and do not curiously insist with 
 -human disputings on discerning it. If He could create creatures 
 from nothing, much more may He be able to convert these 
 creatures into the dignity of a more excellent nature, aud trans- 
 
 quotidie nobis resurgit, apparet et comeditur. Sed nec in hoc mens 
 fidelium scandalum dubietatis debet incurrere, quod Christum, semel 
 gustat&é morte, jam non ultra moriturum audit, cum carnem assumpti 
 hominis in Paterné gloria sedentem et hic sanctificatum panem verum 
 Christi corpus audit nominari, dum et illud de virgine assumptum, 
 et istud de materiali et virginali creatura consecratum unus idemque 
 Artifex Spiritus invisibili operatione in substantiam vere carnis trans- 
 fundit, carnis videlicet non cujuslibet sed vere Christi de qua Ipse ait 
 
 John vi, 54. 
 
 7.0): 
 
 Ut non solum heres sed corpus Christi factus Deum in corpore 
 tuo portares... Vide in omnibus misericordiz celestis opificium. Vide 
 regenerantis gratiz mirabile sacramentum; et adverte in istis impe- 
 riosum Verbi operantis opificium, Cujus nutu rerum elementa de 
 nihilo in hane mundi formam mutabili ordine compaginata, inexplica- 
 bilem Kjus potentiam ipsa sue pulchritudinis specie letantur. Si ergo 
 Deum omnia posse credas, et hoc consequitur ut credas ; nec humanis 
 disputationibus discernere curiosus insistes. Si creaturas de nihilo potuit 
 creare, has ipsas multo magis valeat in excellentioris nature dignitatem 
 
—1029] FULBERT, BISHOP OF CHARTRES. 35 
 
 fuse them into the substance of His own body... Therefore faith 
 is the greatest good before all things.” 
 
 The essence of evangelic faith includes this, that its object is 
 the truth which God has declared. To the assumption that the 
 literal sense must be the object of faith we reply that in every 
 case of dispute as to the sense of language mere assertion goes for 
 nothing. The point must be argued out according to the received 
 laws of human language: a chief one of which laws of interpreta- 
 tion is that of analogy between the case in point and similar cases 
 in the same or like writers. This is our way to the truth of God 
 which is the right object of our faith. 
 
 The Franciscan doctrine, that in every place where the conse- 
 cration of the elements is performed a new body of Christ is 
 created, requires some miraculous conjunction of the several bodies 
 so created and the one body of Christ in Heaven, else there 
 would be several bodies. O what a tangled web we weave when, 
 just to avoid a figurative interpretation in this particular case, we 
 insist arbitrarily on the necessity of a literal interpretation of the 
 words “This is My body.” Miracle after miracle is required to 
 clear the arbitrary assumption from becoming intolerable. 
 
 convertere et in Sui corporis substantiam transfundere... Ideo fides pra 
 omnibus summum bonum est. 
 
 (ΒΕ) CARDINAL HUMBERT, ARCHBISHOP OF RHEIMS. D. 1062. 
 
 Returning from the council at Rheims, Pope Leo IX. took 
 Humbert with him to Rome 1049, and made him archbishop and 
 cardinal, after sending him on a mission to Sicily. In the time of 
 the Lateran council Pope Nicolas assigned to him to write the 
 formula of recantation for Berengarius to sign. In 1062 he came 
 to England to compose the contention between the rival provinces 
 of Canterbury and York. At his urging, the archbishop of York 
 consented to yield obedience to all the just and canonical com- 
 mands of the primate. He returned to Rome and died there. 
 
 Lanfranc, in his letter against Berengarius, asserts that Hum- 
 bert was not a native of Burgundy, but of the more polished 
 kingdom of Lorraine (Lotharingia). Lanfranc gives to Humbert 
 
 3—2 
 
90 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 no scant measure of praise. Besides the works here cited, Humbert 
 wrote a treatise against some one whom he likens to Jovinian on 
 account of his maintaining that sacraments can have a blessing 
 with those that are not in the unity of the church ; and Humbert 
 brands his followers as Simoniaci, followers of Simon Magus: and 
 charges the rebel with being led to it by the love of money, which 
 is the point of similarity between him and Simon Magus ; whereas 
 he the cardinal is a follower of Simon Peter. These rebels are 
 also compared by him to Judas, the betrayer of our Lord. If 
 the cardinal loved to reason and write in this strain, it is not 
 surprising that Berengarius was not particularly fond of him, nor 
 he of Berengar. Nevertheless he uses Scripture fairly im rea- 
 soning against the ritual of the Greek Church: but he ingeniously 
 justifies the imitation of Jewish customs in the Roman com- 
 munion. He was made by Pope Victor IJ. chancellor and librarian 
 of the Roman church. He has been called the eyes of that Pope. 
 In 1058 he was sent with others to Constantinople to promote the 
 union of the eastern and western churches, and when the patriarch 
 Michael refused audience to them, as the French say, il jouait 
 le grand réle, for he laid an act of excommunication against the 
 patriarch before all the people, shook the dust from his feet, and 
 no doubt in the fullest sincerity of conviction, called on God to 
 see and judge between them. 
 
 Against the calumnies of the Greeks. 
 
 P. 932. “Eastern speaker: Throw away the days of unleaven and 
 the observings of the seventh days to the wretched Jews. Roman: 
 To us and to all’who think it enough to walk in the newness of the 
 Spirit, all things have been made new, temples, that is to say, and 
 altars, priests and sacrifices, candles, censers, food and drink, and 
 whatever Israel after the flesh used to retain as well in furniture 
 
 Adversus Calumnias Grecorum. Opera, Migne, p. 932. 
 
 On not being deterred by the charge of Judaism from using unleavened 
 bread in the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 The Eastern says: Azymas et custodias Sabbatorum (i.e. keeping 
 the Saturday before Easter as a fast) projicite miseris Judeis; and 
 the Roman replies, p. 961, Nobis et omnibus in novitate Spiritts 
 ambulare satagentibus nova facta sunt omnia, templa scilicet, et 
 altaria, sacerdotes, et sacrificia, candelabra, thuribola, cibus et potus, 
 et queeque carnalis Israel tam in supellectili quam in mandatis retinebat ; 
 
—1062] CARDINAL HUMBERT, ARCHBISHOP OF RHEIMS. 91 
 
 as in commandments ; so that the same things are old and not old, 
 after the example also of an eagle to which, while it is naturally 
 renewed, youth comes and old age in one, and its substance does 
 not depart from it. In a like strain we declare that the unlea- 
 vened bread of Christians widely differs from the unleavened 
 bread of the carnal Jews... We indeed duly venerating the 
 body of the truth out of unleavened bread and in unleavened 
 bread and retaining, ὅθ, Forif you receive wine, why do you cast 
 away unleavened bread ?... 
 
 P.949. “If you shall examine all the Scriptures thoroughly you 
 will never and in no place find that leaven is put in a good sense, 
 except in one place in the gospel where the Lord says that the 
 kingdom of Heaven is like to leaven, that is to say, signifying 
 apostolic doctrine ... lest ... your cleverness contented with its own 
 leavened bread ... should listen to Amos iv. 5. See also p. 1214. 
 “Before ye offer, it is transpierced with a lance. The portion 
 from the whole of His own (body) which ought to be consecrated 
 is cut off, &e. We blame you that Christ’s body is struck through 
 with a lance by you. Christ did not this (at the institution). He 
 by no means appointed that the disciples should do this in His 
 own commemoration. Receive, said He, and eat; not ‘ Kill’ or 
 ‘Strike through with a lance.’... It was the soldiers, not the 
 Lord’s apostles that killed him. Soldiers not the Lord’s apostles 
 pierced His side with a lance. We blame you that ye bury the 
 Lord’s body (i.e. what remains) in the ground... For the Lord 
 
 vetera ut eadem et non vetera sint omnia, instar utique aquile, que 
 dum naturaliter renovatur, juventus eidem accedit, et senectus, non 
 substantia ab ea recedit. Pari tenore predicamus azymum Christia- 
 norum longe distare ab azymo carnalium Judzorum... Nos vero corpus 
 veritatis ex azymo et in azymo rite venerantes atque retinentes, Wc. 
 Si enim recipitis vinum, cur azymum abjicitis? 
 
 PB, 949. 
 
 Si omnes Scripturas perscrutati fueritis nunquam et nusquam 
 fermentum in bonam significationem poni nisi in uno loco evangelii, 
 ubi regnum celorum fermento simile Dominus dicit, doctrinam vide- 
 licet apostolicam significans...ne...vestra duplicitas suo fermentato 
 contenta...audiat, Amos iv. 5. See also fragment, p. 1214, Antequam 
 offeratis (panem), lanced perforatur. A toto Suo (corpore) particula 
 que consecrari debet abscinditur, &e., 1217. Arguimus quod lancea cor- 
 pus Christi percutitur. Hoe autem Christus non fecit. Hoc in com- 
 memorationem Suam discipulos facere nequaquam instituit. “ Accipite ” 
 dixit “‘et comedite,” non “ occidite” vel “anced percutite”... Milites, 
 non apostoli Domini occiderunt. Milites, non apostoli Domini lanceola 
 latus Ejus perforaverunt. Arguimus quod in terra corpus Domini 
 (i.e. quod remanet) sepelitis... Dominus enim corpus Suum comedere 
 
98 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY, [A.D. 
 
 commanded to eat His own body, not to bury it; and the disciples 
 ate it and did not buryit. We blame you that ye take the Lord’s 
 body with warm water.” 
 
 jussit, non sepelire ; et discipuli comederunt, non sepelierunt... Arguimus 
 quod corpus Domini cum aqua calida sumitis, de. (Ωγ. perfoderunt.) 
 
 (F.) JOHN OF AVRANCHES (ABRINC#), FL. 1070, 
 AND AFTERWARDS ARCHBISHOP OF ROUEN [ROTOMAGUS]. 
 
 This prelate, own nephew to Richard, Duke of Normandy, 
 furnishes a good specimen of the ruling and ritual that were in 
 use in those provinces, which were not so happy as to be under 
 the sway of the leaders of public thought, such as Anselm and 
 Berengarius. When however Mauritius the Archbishop of Rouen 
 died, the desire of the clergy was to have Lanfranc himself, then 
 Abbot of Caen (Cadomina), accept the vacant office; but he 
 refused it, and laboured with all his might to thrust this relative 
 of the Duke into the vacant seat, and he succeeded. Had the 
 monks of St Andrews (Souen) known with how imperious a 
 spirit they would have to deal, they would probably have been 
 able to move the town of Rouen against his appointment. They 
 certainly shewed great power over the town in the extraordinary 
 struggle that arose from his arriving Jate to perform their own 
 favourite martyr’s mass. Their opposition only ceased with his 
 death; and even now it disgraces the historic page with its 
 venomous and disgusting and profane reprisals; and inclines one’s 
 judgment rather im the prelate’s favour. But our concern is with 
 the Archbishop’s book on the church offices, as indicating the 
 ritual of the time for the Lord’s supper in the N.W. of France. 
 
 Book on Church Offices. 
 
 P. 36. “Thus let the subdeacons leave that spot, and occupy 
 themselves about ministering to the body and blood of Christ, bear- 
 ing out the paten by the deacon’s hand to the priest, that he may 
 break the body of the Lord in it. When this has been done let the 
 
 Lnber de Offictis Eeclesiasticis. Opera, Migne, CCXLVIT. p. 36. 
 
 Ita subdiaconi ab eo loco discedant, et corpori ac sanguini Christi 
 ministrare satagant, efferentes patenam per manum diaconi sacerdoti, 
 ad frangendum in ea corpus Domini. Hoc expleto sacerdos Dominici 
 
1070] JOHN, BISHOP OF AVRANCHES. 39 
 
 priest with pure and lowly heart complete the consecration of the 
 Lord’s body and blood according to the institution of the holy 
 fathers. When then he has come to sing ‘ Also to us sinners,’ let 
 him hardly put forth his voice and smite his breast. For by the 
 raising of his voice he is to express the profession of the Gentiles 
 in the person of the centurion, by the beating of his breast the 
 lamentation of the Jews who smote their breasts. When then he has 
 come to these words 1.6. ‘By whom all these good things alway,’ let 
 the deacon then approach, and with his right hand take the right 
 hand end of the corporal, and with the priest uncover it. Let the 
 priest saying, ‘By Himself, touch the cup’s four sides with the 
 offered (host). For by the immolation of the body of Christ have 
 the four divisions of the world been redeemed. Also at the end 
 ef the prayer let them both raise the cup, and together set it down 
 and cover it. Then let the deacon kiss the altar, and then the 
 priest’s right shoulder. The deacon represents Joseph, the priest 
 Nicodemus, the elevation of the host from the altar the taking 
 down of Christ from the cross, the setting down of the host on the 
 altar again the burial of Christ. After this let the priest utter 
 the Lord’s prayer with a loud voice. By the loud uttering of the 
 Lord’s prayer is shewn forth the unity of our brotherhood according 
 to Cyprian’s words... When the clergy makes answer ‘But de- 
 ‘liver us from evil, let him finish the consecration office. But 
 when he has said ‘ Deliver, let the deacon and subdeacon rise 
 upright and direct their eyes attentively to the consecration of the 
 Lord’s body, Luke xxiii. When then he has come to the place, 
 
 corporis et sanguinis consecrationem juxta sanctorum patrum institu- 
 tionem puro et humili corde compleat. Dum ergo ad ‘‘ Nobis quoque 
 “ peccatoribus” venerit, altius vocem suam proferat et pectus suum 
 percutiat. Vocis enim exaltatione per centurionem Gentilium expri- 
 mitur professio; per pectoris tunsionem, Judzorum pectora sua percu- 
 tientium lamentatio. Ubi ergo ad hee verba venerit, scilicet, “ Per 
 “quem hee omnia semper bona,” tunc diaconus accedat et dextera 
 manu dexterum cornu corporalis accipiat cum sacerdote disco operiat. 
 Sacerdos “ Per Ipsum” dicendo, oblaté quatuor partes calicis tangat. 
 Immolatione enim corporis Christi redempta sunt quatuor climata 
 mundi, Item oratione finita uterque calicem levent et simul ponant 
 et cooperiant. Inde altare diaconus osculetur, deinde dexteram sacerdotis 
 scapulam. Per diaconum Joseph exprimitur, per sacerdotem Nicodemus, 
 per elevationem de altari hostiz depositio Christi de cruce, per deposi- 
 tionem iterum in altari sepultura Christi. Post que sacerdos orationem 
 Dominicam alta voce proferat. Per exaltationem Dominice orationis 
 demonstratur nostre unitas fraternitatis (S. Cyp. de orat. Dom.)... 
 Clero “Sed libera nos a malo” respondente, officium consecrationis 
 perficiat. Sed ‘‘libera” dicto, diaconus et subdiaconus se erigant et 
 oculos in Dominici corporis consecrationem intentos intendant, &e. 
 Luke xxiii. 49. Ubi ergoad locum, “ Da propitius pacem,” venerit, qui 
 
40 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. ee) ( 
 
 ‘Favourably grant peace,’ let the official girt with the cloth, who 
 had held (the paten), offer it to the subdeacon, the subdeacon to the 
 deacon, the deacon to the priest, that in it the priest may divide 
 the Lord’s body into three parts; one part the priest is to dip into 
 the cup, with a loud voice saying, ‘May the Lord’s peace, and 
 immediately add in a low voice, ‘ May there be a mingling together 
 ‘of Christ’s body and blood for us who receive them unto eternal 
 ‘lite’ Let a second part be taken in communion by the deacon 
 and subleacon, Let him reserve the third part, if it be required, in. 
 the paten to the end of the mass. By the part of the offered host 
 dipped into the cup is shewn forth Christ’s body, which rose from 
 the dead; by that which is eaten by the priest or the people and 
 makes them alive in God, (is represented) Christ’s intercourse with 
 His own disciples after He rose from the dead. The holy church 
 calls the third portion that remains on the altar the viaticum (food 
 for the way) of the dying: that she may shew that we ought not 
 to deem them that die in Christ dying but sleeping, inasmuch as 
 they are carried on to eternal life by such and so great a guide. 
 But let not the priest communicate by the dipped bread, but (after 
 the Council of Toledo’s decree) with the body apart and the blood 
 apart: the people being made an exception to this, as they are 
 permitted to communicate by the dipped bread, not as enjoined 
 by (the fathers’) authority, but from extreme necessity, through 
 fear of any spilling of the blood of Christ. While then the priest 
 is handing the communion to the officials, let him in the primitive 
 way kiss each one; and afterwards anyone that is going to com- 
 municate, kiss the priest’s hand and receive the communion from 
 
 mantili indutus tenuerat subdiacono subdiaconus diacono diaconus 
 sacerdoti offerat, in qua sacerdos corpus Domini tripliciter dividat ; 
 quarum partium unam sacerdos calici immittens, “ Pax Domini,” alta 
 voce dicendo, protinus subdat secrete, “Fiat commistio corporis et 
 “sanguinis Domini nobis accipientibus in vitam eternam.” Alia se 
 diaconum et subdiaconum communicet. Tertiam viaticum, si opus 
 fuerit, in patina usque ad finem misse reservet. Per particulam 
 oblate, immisse in calicem, ostenditur corpus Christi, quod resurrexit 
 e mortuis: per comestam a sacerdote vel populo, vivificantem eos in 
 Deo, Christi cum discipulis Suis post resurrectionem conversatio. Ter- 
 tiam, quee remanet in altari vocat sancta ecclesia viaticum morientis ; 
 ut ostendatur non eos debere deputari morientes, sed dormientes, qui in 
 Christo moriuntur, dum tali tantoque ductore ad sternam vitam per- 
 ducuntur, Non autem intincto pane, sed, juxta definitionem Toletani 
 concilil, seorsum corpore seorsum sanguine sacerdos communicet... 
 excepto populo, quem intincto pane, non auctoritate, sed summa ne- 
 cessitate timoris sanguinis Christi effusionis, permittitur communicare. 
 Dum ergo sacerdos ministris communionem porrigit, unumquemque 
 primitus osculetur, et post, qui communicandus est, manu sacerdotis 
 osculata, communionem ab eo accipiat. Postremo vero particulam, 
 
1070] JOHN, BISHOP OF AVRANCHES. 41 
 
 him. But let the priest at last receive the part which has remained 
 in the cup: and afterwards hand to the deacon, to cleanse and to 
 drink what is then in it; and let him put down cup and paten on 
 the altar’s left hand, and at this spot let him receive a part for 
 himself and give a part to the subdeacon. Afterwards when both 
 (cup and paten) have been cleansed, let them partake (of the 
 bread). But let an attendant bring down another cup to the 
 priest to cleanse his hands, &c., ἄς But the mass, as aforesaid, is 
 to be celebrated according to the institutes of the holy fathers at 
 the third hour (9 A.M.): for on that very hour Christ was crucified 
 by the tongues of the Jews: and according to common custom at 
 the sixth hour (noon) because in it He suffered by the hands of his 
 persecutors ; and at the time of fasting at the ninth hour (3 P.M.) 
 because in it He sent forth His spirit. But any who in case of 
 need, not regularly, but through desiring (an additional) sacrificing, 
 celebrates mass before the third or after the ninth hour, are not to 
 be blamed, since we read that St Leo celebrated mass at dawn. 
 
 P. 233. In explanation of Baptism and the Eucharist. 
 
 “Finally, men must know that Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory, 
 Isidore, Hilary, Maximian, Innocent, and Gelasius firmly believe 
 and define that baptism and the eucharist, and anointing (confir- 
 mation) are neither made more nor less effective by the ministra- 
 tion of good or bad priests. But the blessed Jerome, in stirring 
 up (priests) to a holy and pure life, with the same faith though in 
 other words, as some think, in his exposition of the twelve (minor) 
 
 eee 
 
 que in calice remansit, sacerdos sumat; et post diacono calicem, ad 
 mundandum et sumendum quod remansit, porrigat ; qui in sinistrum 
 cornu altaris calicem cum patend deferat, ubi partem sibi accipiat et 
 partem subdiacono tribuat. Post, mundato utroque participent. Acoly- 
 thus vero alterum calicem sacerdoti ad mundandos digitos deferat, 
 we. &e. Missa vero, ut predictum est, juxta sanctorum instituta 
 patrum hora tertia celebranda est: ips enim hora erucifixus Christus 
 linguis Judeorum: secundum communem consuetudinem hordA sexta, 
 quia in ea passus est manibus persecutorum : tempore jejunii hora 
 nona, quia in ed emisit spiritum. Qui autem necessitate ante tertiam 
 vel post nonam non perpetuo sed desiderio sacrificandi missam celebrant 
 non sunt reprehendendi (for St Leo celebrated at dawn). 
 
 ἢ. 233. De expositione Baptismatis et Eucharistie. 
 
 Sciendum est denique quod Augustinus, Ambrosius, Gregorius, 
 Isidorus, Hilarius, Maximianus, Innocentius, Gelasius, firmiter credunt 
 et diffiniunt quod baptisma et eucharistia et chrisma nec per bonos 
 sacerdotes augentur nec per malos minuuntur. Beatus vero Hieronymus, 
 ad sanctam et mundam vitam provocans, eddem fide, licet aliis verbis, 
 ut quibusdam videtur, in expositione duodecim prophetarum dicit 
 
42 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 prophets, says that it is their life and not their words that make 
 the eucharist: and this is to be accepted with the largest accord 
 of all the fathers, and to be piously explained. For the Almighty 
 God turns the substance of bread and wine into the true substance 
 of the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, through the faith 
 and the solemn words of the priest, though he be a sinner: but if 
 the priest be chaste and pure and pious, he thus far makes eucharist 
 by this, that by his good life and his prayers he is profitable for 
 salvation both to himself who makes, and to him that receives the 
 eucharist, full though it 15 of itself without this, &.” 
 
 quod vita eucharistiam non verba faciunt, quod cum maxima concordia 
 ceterorum sanctorum patrum accipiendum et pie resolvendum est. 
 Deus enim omnipotens per fidem et solennia verba sacerdotis, licet 
 peccator sit, substantiam panis et vini vertit in veram substantiam 
 carnis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Sed si sacerdos 
 castus et mundus et pius est, in hoc facit eucharistiam, ut per vitam 
 bonam et orationes suas prosit in salutem ipsam eucharistiam confi- 
 cienti et accipienti, que per se aliena, dc. &e. 
 
 (G.) ANSELM, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND. 8. 1034. Ὁ. 1109. 
 
 He succeeded Lanfranc in the headship of what we may term 
 the theological college at Bec in 1078, and Lanfranc in the see of 
 ‘Canterbury in 1093. He resisted King Henry in the question of 
 investitures, as he had William Rufus as to the rightful Pope. He 
 was a native of Aosta, and while he followed Lanfranc in both his im- 
 portant positions, he surpassed him in philosophical learning, taking 
 rank among the great men of the age as the antagonist of Roscelin 
 the Nominalist, when many were following the lead of the long de- 
 ceased John Scotus, and on one side or other were bringing their 
 whole intellectual powers to bear on the great questions of reli- 
 gion and the Scriptures. It were easy—nothing in this practical 
 age 1s easier—than to coin witticisms against the wide and wild 
 spirit of dissension that marked the scholastic age, and to select for 
 popular ridicule an extreme instance or two of the utterly absurd 
 extension of their inquiries : but it would be well to regard such as 
 mere sport in the wantonness of power. For we might deem it 
 worth while to consider whether that system was not a rebellion 
 against the long-standing custom of settling everything by some 
 dictum from the great fathers of Christianity, so as to put further 
 progress out of the question, and shut in all inquiry with a brazen 
 
1034] ANSELM, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND. 43 
 
 wall, It was no child’s work to rear a fortress of independent 
 thought, and to set the mind of man free from the fetters and yoke 
 of Christian antiquity. And if this was what the schoolmen both 
 attempted and in a great degree attained, no small degree of 
 veneration and gratitude is due to those who like Anselm led the 
 way towards freedom in discussion. It is no small part of the 
 praise due to Anselm, gentle as he was and devout, that he took 
 part as one of the earliest pioneers in this work of emancipating 
 theology without destroying either its humility or its devotion. 
 Possibly Christ’s church at the present time requires the same 
 kind of regenerative touch. Even now it may again touch the 
 ground afresh and rise with new force. Something more may be 
 required for the present state of mankind than the double mission 
 work of converting and purifying. The walls of Zion have to be 
 defended against sceptics of every kind, and the latent fitnesses of 
 the Gospel to satisfy all the cravings of the human soul may need 
 to be exhibited. The entire ground of truth is worth occupying. 
 It is all fertile, and man may need all its various produce. Anselm 
 may be honoured for being the true Christian philosopher, as well 
 as loved for being the prayerful wrestler at the throne of grace. 
 Let us not be afaid of saying, Credo et oro ut intelligam. 
 
 P. 1035. A prayer to be used before receiving Christ's body and blood. 
 
 “Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God, Who according 
 to the Father’s will, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, hast 
 by Thy death given life to the world, I adore and venerate this 
 Thy sacred body and this Thy sacred blood, which has been given, 
 and which has been poured out for many for the remission of sins, 
 I pray for Thy mercy, O compassionate God. By the virtue that 
 is in these things (lit. of these things) make me one of those 
 many, and make me so to feel them through faith and affec- 
 tion, that I may feel them through their effect unto salvation. 
 
 Oratio ante perceptionem corp. et sang. Dom. Opera, Migne, I. 1035. 
 
 Domine Jesu Christe, fili Dei vivi, Qui ex voluntate Patris, 
 cooperante Spiritu sancto, per mortem Tuam mundum_ vivificasti, 
 adoro et veneror hoc sanctum corpus Tuum et hune sanctum sanguinem 
 Tuum, quod traditum est et qui effusus est pro multis in remissionem 
 peccatorum, deprecor clementiam, misericors Domine. Per horum vir- 
 iutem fac me unum de illis multis, et fac me sic sentire per fidem et 
 affectum ut sentiam ea per salutis effectum, Et absolve et libera 
 
44. THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 And absolve and set free Thy servants and Thy handmaidens, me 
 and all who have confessed their sins unto me, ὅσα. ... 
 
 P. 1055. A salutation to the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 “ Body of Christ hail! born of the (or a) holy virgin, 
 Living flesh, Godhead entire and true man! 
 Hail true salvation, the way, the life, the world’s re- 
 demption, 
 That thy right hand may set us at liberty in all evils. 
 Blood of Christ hail, most holy drink of Heaven, 
 Wave of safety, washing away our crimes! 
 Hail blood from the wound in the side of Christ, &e. 
 Hanging on the cross, το, 
 
 P. 626. Homily, Luke 11. 22. “ But that boy, who is now led 
 into the temple, can indicate those who coming to receive faith are 
 introduced into the church. For the holy fathers also so conduct 
 this introduction, that we are observing the customs of the law: 
 because having fulfilled the cleansing in baptism, they introduce 
 them to the sacred altar, to be consecrated with the victim of the 
 Divine eucharist. 
 
 P. 372. “Why did God become man? If anyone is putting 
 off the taking of food, because he has not (yet) on that day 
 been present at the celebrating of mass, when that which he 
 
 servos et ancillas Tuas, me et omnes qui mihi confessi sunt sua 
 peccata, &e. 
 P. 1055. Salutatio ad Dominum Jesum Christum. 
 
 Christi corpus, ave, sancta de virgine natum, 
 Viva caro, Deitas integra, verus homo ! 
 Salve, vera salus, via, vita, redemptio mundi, 
 Liberet in cunctis nos Tua dextra malis. 
 
 Christi sanguis, ave, cceli sanctissime potus, 
 Unda salutaris, crimina nostra lavans. 
 
 Sanguis, ave, lateris Christi de vulnere sparsi 
 In cruce penden (text corrupt). 
 
 Four hymns to the Virgin, and salutation. Very strong Mariolatry. 
 Prayer 34 ante perceptionem corp. et sang. Christi, great beauty— 
 little error, 
 
 Hom. Luke If, 22, Vol. I. ». 626. 
 
 Potest autem Puer iste, qui in templum inducitur, illos nune 
 significare, qui ad fidem venientes in ecclesiam inducuntur, Nam 
 et hanc inductionem sic agunt sancti patres, ut consuetudinem legis 
 observemus: quia, explet&é in baptismo purgatione, introducunt eos 
 ad sanctum altare, consecrandos victima Divine eucharistiz. 
 
 P. 372. Cur Deus Homo. 
 
 Si quis enim differt cibum sumere, propterea quia nondum ea die 
 misse celebrationi adfuit, peracto qued facere volebat, non incongrue 
 
1034] ANSELM, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND. 45 
 
 wished to do has been performed, it will be fitting to say to him, 
 Now take food because thou hast now done that on account of 
 which thou wast putting off the taking of it. 
 
 On the unleavened and the leavened bread. 
 
 Anselm, a servant of the church of Canterbury, to Waleran, 
 : Bishop of Newenburg. 
 
 P. 542. “It appears by many catholic reasons that what the 
 Greeks [the Eastern church] do regarding the true sacrifice, a 
 matter in which their opinions are in (the chief matters) the same 
 as ours, do not contrary to the faith (in that in which they differ 
 from us). For they that sacrifice unleavened and leavened both 
 make the bread a sacrifice : and when we read of the Lord that 
 when He made the bread His own body, He took the bread and 
 blessed it, it is not added that it was unfermented or that it was 
 fermented. It is however certain that 1t was unfermented bread 
 that He blessed: not, it may be, that what was being done 
 required it, but that ‘the supper at the time of which “it was 
 done required ite For there is no difference in substance 
 between unfermented and fermented bread, though some think 
 there is, just as there is no difference whatever in the substance 
 of a newly-formed man (like Adam) before he has sinned, and a 
 man in whom the leaven of sin has grown old. Christ therefore 
 seems to have called Himself and His flesh bread, and to have 
 made His own body out of the bread only for the reason that as 
 that bread, be it unleavened or leavened, gives transient life, so 
 His body gives eternal; and not because of its being leavened or 
 unleavened. And yet. in the law, where almost all things were 
 
 dicitur illi, Jam sume cibum, propterea quia jam fecisti propter quod 
 sumere differebas. 
 
 I. p. 542. De Azymo et Fermenitato (Waleranni questionibus). 
 
 Anselmus, servus eccl. Cant., Waleranno Newenburgensi episcopo. 
 (1) De sacrificio vero, in quo idem Greeci nobiscum non sentiunt, multis 
 rationibus catholicis videtur quia quod agunt non est contra fidem 
 Christianam. Nam et azymum et fermentatum sacrificans panem 
 sacrificat. Et cum legitur de Domino, quando corpus Suum de pane 
 fecit, quia accepit panem et benedixit, non additur azymum vel fer- 
 mentatum. Certum tamen est quia azymum benedixit : forsitan non 
 quia res, que fiebat, hoc exigebat, sed quoniam cena, in qua hoc factum, 
 hoc exigebat.. Non enim “differunt azymus et fermentatus substan- 
 tialiter, ‘ut quidam putant, sicut homo novus ante peccatum et invete- 
 ratus fermento peceati nequaquam substantialiter differunt. Propter 
 hoc ergo solum videtur Se et carnem Suam panem vocasse, et de 
 pane corpus Suum fecisse, quia sicut iste panis azymus sive fermentatus 
 dat vitam transitoriam, ita corpus Ejus eternam: non quia fermentatus 
 est aut azymus. Quamvis in lege, ubi fere omnia in figura fiebant, 
 
46 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 done in figure, it is commanded to eat unleavened bread in the 
 passover, to shew that Christ, for Whom they were looking, was 
 about to be without stain and clean; and that we in like manner 
 who were about to eat His body should be clean from all leaven of 
 worthlessness and wickedness. But now after we have come from 
 the old figure to the new truth, and have eaten the unleavened 
 flesh of Christ, that figure of the old time is not necessary for 
 us in the bread, out of which we make the flesh itself. It is 
 however most fit to use the unleavened, because it makes a better 
 sacrifice than the leavened, both because it is more handy, and is 
 the first form of bread, and is made expressly, and also because 
 the Lord did so. And for this reason I must not omit to say that 
 when the Greeks anathematize the users of unleavened bread, they 
 anathematize Christ. For if they say (that we use the unleavened 
 bread and) because we are Judaizing, let them in the same way 
 say that Christ Judaized, &e. 
 
 Waleran to Anselm. 
 On the bad effects of differences in the sacraments. 
 
 P. 549. “The friend and spouse and dove of Christ is one: 
 and it is a great obstacle to the unity of the church to have 
 different practices in the sacraments, and that one church should 
 make that lawful which is but its own pleasure in the matter... 
 Why the cup is covered from the beginning with a pall or veil... 
 But we to whom God has revealed it by His Spirit ought not to 
 make the mysteries of sacrificing complicated (entangled) but 
 rather by the example of Jesus to make them clear. Let us not 
 
 preceptum sit azymum in pascha panem manducare, ut ostenderetur 
 quod Christus, Quem expectabant, sincerus et mundus futurus esset, 
 nos qui manducaturi eramus corpus Kjus similiter mundi esse mone- 
 remur ab omni fermento nequitie et malitie. Jam vero postquam 
 de veteri figura ad novam veritatem venimus, et azymam Christi 
 carnem comedimus, non est nobis necessaria vetus illa figura in pane, 
 de quo carnem ipsam conficimus (Jerome’s word). Aptissimum tamen 
 est, quia melius sacrificatur de azymo quam de fermentato, tum quia 
 valde aptius, et prius, et diligentius fit, tum quia Dominus hoc fecit. 
 Unde illud non est tacendum quia, cum Greci anathematizant azymitas, 
 anathematizant Christum. Si enim dicunt quia Judaizamus, dicant 
 similiter Christum Judaizasse, de. το. 
 
 P. 549. Walerannus ad Anselmum. 
 
 De sacramentorum diversitate (III). Una Christi amica sponsa et 
 columba, LEcclesiz unitati valde obest in sacramentis discrepare, et 
 quicquid libitum est licitum facere. (IV) Cur calix velo seu pall 
 operiatur a principio... Nobis vero quibus Deus revelavit per Spiritum 
 Suum non oportet sacrificandi mysteria implicare sed exemplo Domini 
 
1034] ANSELM, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND. 47 
 
 with Moses, as the Jews, put a veil upon them, but with the Lord 
 Jesus strive, in offering, to pass from one degree of clearness to 
 another ...“ The body of Christ, which was exposed naked on the 
 altar of the cross, was enveloped with clothes in the tomb.... 
 Yet we envelope it... as Joseph and Nicodemus did. 
 
 From Anseli’s answer to Waleran. 
 
 P. 553. “Some in sacrificing the Lord’s body and blood make 
 the sign of the cross over each from the beginning in the canon; 
 others only one over each, where the bread or the body, as 
 by itself named, and the cup or the blood is named singly; but 
 where the one oblation or host is named, they make one cross for 
 both, since as there is one Christ Who offered Himself for us, so 
 there is one oblation and one victim which we offer in the bread 
 and wine. I do not see that those persons differ more from Christ 
 in this, Who once blessed both, than all those differ, who do not 
 sacrifice the cup after supper, as Christ did, and do not sacrifice 
 it always at even as Christ did; and who call both together by 
 one name, the oblation or the victim, as Christ did not do. From 
 this we may collect that we can differ from each other without 
 blame in a practice of this kind, if the truth of the thing itself be 
 preserved, when we can without offence be different from the 
 very Author of the sacrifice itself, ch. m1. That some veil the 
 cup from the beginning, some with a corporal, others with a 
 
 Jesu clarificare. Non cum Mose, ut Judei, velamen superimponamus, 
 sed cum Domino Jesu offerentes de claritate in claritatem transferri 
 studeamus. Then he comes round by arguing Christi corpus in ara 
 crucis nudatum, in sepulcro linteis est involutum... Involvimus tamen... 
 cum Joseph et Nicodemo. 
 
 P. 553. Hu Responsione Anselmi ad Walerannum. 
 
 Alii in sacrificando corpore et sanguine Domini singulas cruces 
 singulis ab initio in canone; alii solummodo singulas singulis, ubi 
 singulatim nominatur panis vel corpus et singulatim calix vel sanguis ; 
 ubi vero oblatio vel hostia nominatur, unam crucem ambobus faciunt: 
 quoniam sicut unus est Christus Qui Seipsum obtulit pro nobis, ita 
 una est oblatio, et una hostia in pane et vino, quam offerimus. Non 
 video istos magis in hoe discordare a Christo, Qui singulatim utraque 
 benedixit, quam omnes illi distordant, qui calicem post cenam non 
 sacrificant sicut Christus fecit, velque semper ad vesperam sicut Christus 
 fecit; et qui utrumque simul uno nomine vocant oblationem vel 
 hostiam sicut Christus non fecit. Unde possumus colligere quia a nobis 
 invicem in hujusmodi actiones servata rei veritate possumus esse 
 dissimiles sine reprehensione, cum ab Ipso Auctore ipsius sacrificii 
 sumus diversi sine offensione, &e. ὅθ. III. Quod vero nonnulli ab 
 initio calicem operiunt, quidam corporali, alii panno complicato, propter 
 
48 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 folded cloth, to keep it from uncleanness, and do not let the cup 
 be uncovered, as Christ was crucified without covering, in order 
 that, according to your meaning, He might shew Himself revealed 
 to the world, one will not any more understand that they ought 
 to be blamed on account of Christ’s having been bare, and its not 
 being signified by them in sacrificing Him, than because they do 
 not shew Him in the same sacrifice crucified outside the city ; 
 not inside a house, and under the open sky. 
 
 P. 627. “‘I am, &c. From this text the church’s beautiful 
 custom has grown into use, that the faithful in this celebration 
 should bring out with them waxen candles... For a wax candle 
 (lit. a waxen [light]) or candle signifies Christ. For three things 
 are offered in a waxen light; wax, and light, and flame; wax, that 
 the virgin bees made, signifies Christ’s flesh, which the virgin 
 Mary bare: but the light in it signifies the soul: but the flame 
 above, the Godhead. Nor can anything be found in the creation 
 more fitly representing Christ. But this practice also increases 
 the grace of the festive occasions, ὅθ. (The 7th Homily.) 
 
 The eleventh meditation—on the redemption. 
 
 P. 767. “Thou wast a bondmaid, and thus wast freed: thou 
 wast thus an exile, and wast brought back ; lost, and wast restored ; 
 and thou wast dead and wast made alive again. Let thy heart eat 
 this, O! let man ruminate on this, suck (its sweetness) and swallow 
 it, when thy mouth receives the flesh and blood of the same thy 
 Redeemer. In this life make this thy daily bread and food and 
 
 custodiam immunditize, nec nudum dimittunt calicem, sicut Christus 
 nudus crucifixus est, ut sicut significatio, ostenderet Se mundo reve- 
 latum, non magis intelliget eos debere reprehendi propter nuditatem 
 Christi, que non significatur ab illis in sacrificando, quam quia non 
 demonstrant in eodem sacrificio Eum esse crucifixum extra civitatem, 
 extra domum et sub nudo celo, &e. 
 
 P.627. John XII. 46. “Tam come alight,” ke. 
 
 Unde pulcher ecclesize mos inolevit, ut fideles in hac celebritate 
 cereos, sive candelas, efferant... Cereus enim vel candela Christum 
 significat...In cereo quippe tria offeruntur, cera, lychnus, et flamma: 
 cera, quam apis virgo confecit, significat Christi carnem, quam virgo 
 Maria genuit [N.B. Virgil was mistaken]; interior autem lychnus 
 animam:; flamma vero superior Divinitatem. Nec inveniri aliquid 
 in creatura potest quo congruentius significaretur Christus (!) Sed et 
 hoc auget festivitatis decus, ἀξ. (Hom, VII.). 
 
 P. 767, Meditatio XI. De redemptione. 
 
 Ancilla eras et sic liberata. Sic es exul, reducta ; perdita, restituta ; 
 et mortua, resuscitata. Hoc mandat, Ὁ homo hoc ruminet, hoc sugat, 
 hoe glutiat cor tuum, cum ejusdem Redemptoris tui carnem ac san- 
 guinem accipit os tuum. Hoe fac in hac vita quotidianum panem et 
 
—1034] ANSELM, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND. 49 
 
 provision for the way, since by this and in no other way but by 
 this both thou wilt remain in Christ and Christ in thee: and in 
 the life to come thy joy will be full. 
 
 Meditation 25. 
 (The priest) takes up this so terrific mystery to handle. 
 
 Letter 107. On the Lord's body and blood. 
 
 P. 255. “Mark that the whole of the human nature in soul and 
 in body was corrupt: so it was right that God, Who was coming 
 to liberate both, should be united to both : that man’s soul should 
 be redeemed by Christ’s soul and his body by Christ’s body, in a 
 manner suitable to each. Therefore also we set bread and wine on 
 the altar to represent both, that by bread made body and worthily 
 received by us we may believe that our body will in due time bo 
 conformed to Christ’s body in immortality and incapacity of suf- 
 fering, and in like manner may believe that by wine turned into 
 blood and received by us, our souls are becoming conformed to 
 Christ’s soul, and in some way at present, while we are, as far as 
 we can, abstaining from sin; and chiefly after the dissolution of 
 the tie between soul and body, when our souls shall be established 
 in the beatitude where Christ’s soul now is. And since the soul 
 of Christ had to be represented by some bodily thing, nothing was 
 found in the whole corporeal world, by which the soul could be 
 more approximately represented than the blood, which is the seat 
 
 4 . 
 
 victum et viaticum tuum, quia per hoc, et nonnisi per hoe et tu manebis 
 in Christo et Christus in te; et in futurd vita erit plenum gaudium 
 tuum. [Most other matter very excellent. | 
 
 But Med. 25, Tam terrificum ministerium suscipit tractandum. 
 
 IT, p. 255, Epistola ΟΥ̓]. De Corpore et Sanguine Domint. 
 
 Nota quod tota humana natura in anima et corpore esset corrupta ; 
 oportuit ut Deus Qui veniebat utrumque liberare, utrique uniretur ; 
 ut anima hominis per animam Christi et corpus per corpus Christi 
 competenter redimeretur. [This division is without Scriptural founda- 
 tion, and it will presently break down.] Ideo etiam in altari ad 
 utrumque representandum panem et vinum apponimus, ut per panem 
 corpus factum et digne a nobis acceptum nostrum corpus corpori Christi 
 in immortalitate et impassibilitate conformandum credamus quandoque ; 
 et similiter vinum in sanguinem conversum et a nobis acceptum animas 
 nostras anime Christi credamus conformes fieri, et presenti quodam 
 modo, dum a peccatis, prout possumus, abstinemus, et maxime in 
 dissolutione anime et corporis, cum in beatitudine, in qua ipsa Christi 
 anima est, anime nostre constituentur. [What warrant is there for say- 
 ing that it is given to the blood of Christ specially to cleanse the soul 1] 
 
 Et cum anima Christi per aliquid corporeum reprzsentanda esset 
 (Why ?) nihil inventum est in omnibus corporalibus rebus, per quod 
 Vicinius representaretur quam per sanguinem qui sedes est anime. 
 
 He I: 4 
 
δ0 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of the soul. [When the Old Testament says the blood is the life 
 it does not affirm that the life resides in the blood; but simply 
 I suppose that blood-shedding takes the life from the body.] For 
 we must not understand that in the receiving of the blood that we 
 support the soul only and not the body also; or in the receiving of 
 the body the body only and not the soul also; but that in the 
 receiving of the blood we receive the whole Christ God and man, 
 and in the receiving of the body in like manner the whole. And 
 although we receive the body separately and the blood separately, 
 yet we do not receive Christ twice, but once only immortal and 
 impassible. But that custom of receiving separately has grown up 
 in the church, because Christ in the supper with His disciples gave 
 it separately in order that men might understand by this that 
 they ought to be conformed to Christ’s soul and body. [The 
 question is, (1) does the bread the sign of Christ’s body mean that 
 our bodies in particular are specially purged by His body, and if 
 it were so, does it (2) follow that our souls are specially and in 
 particular purged and vivified by His blood? Is it a figure or a 
 doctrine ?] But wherefore is Christ’s body...broken to pieces by 
 the teeth? According to the fathers’ defining we must under- 
 stand that the bread placed on the altar is changed by those 
 solemn words into Christ’s body, and that the substance of bread 
 and wine does not remain, yet we must understand that appear- 
 ance (species, &c.) remains, that is to say, form, colour, and taste, 
 According to the species remaining some things take place there, 
 which are impossible in relation to essence; that is, breaking to 
 pieces, &c. But therefore that which no longer exists in it appears 
 
 [Here we see to what marshy ground we pass when we add to the 
 imagery of Scripture. Anselm sees it and feels it.] Non enim intelli- 
 gendum est quod in sanguinis acceptione solam animam non etiam 
 corpus, vel in acceptione corporis solum corpus non etiam animam 
 suscipiamus ; sed in acceptione sanguinis totum Christum Deum et 
 hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter totum accipiamus [i. 6. 
 the distinction had better not have been made; and holy Scripture 
 does not direct or lead us to draw 10.}] Et quamvis separatim corpus 
 separatim sanguinem, non tamen bis sed semel Christum accipimus 
 immortalem et impassibilem. Sed iste mos separatim accipiendi in 
 ecclesia inolevit, quod Christus in ccené cum discipulis separatim 
 dedit [so far it is Scriptural, but he adds] ut per hoe intelligerent se 
 anime et corpori Christi debere conformari. Quare autem corpus 
 Christi...dentibus atteratur, ἄορ. Secundum diffinitiones patrum est 
 intelligendum panem, super altare positum, per illa solennia verba in 
 corpus Christi mutari, nec remanere substantiam panis et vini, speciem 
 tamen intelligendum est remanere, formam scilicet colorem et saporem. 
 Secundum speciem remanentem quedam ibi fiunt, que nullo modo 
 secundum hoe quod est possunt fieri--scilicet quod atteritur, &e. 
 [But he adds quod uno loco concluditur, as if Christ’s body had not 
 
—1034] ANSELM, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND. 51 
 
 there; and that which does exist is concealed; because, if that 
 which is there appeared, the mind of man would revolt from it. 
 
 But according to the appearance it can be received equally by the 
 faithful and by the unbeliever.” 
 
 To this inference later divines of the Roman communion object, 
 and they deny it. Clauses and words are omitted which both 
 seem irreverent and are not essential to the argument. 
 
 secundum id quod est, limited locality 1] Ideo autem quod non est 
 apparet, 1. 6. the bread and wine, et quod est celatur, i.e. Christ’s body 
 and blood; quia, si quod est videretur, animus humanus abhorreret. 
 Secundum vero speciem, potest accipi equaliter a fideli et ab infideli, 
 
 (H.) WALERAN OF NEWENBURG. FL. 1109. 
 
 P. 550. “Jesus was naked on the altar of the cross: let him 
 appear bare on the altar of our immolation... That bread is 
 truly the body of Christ, and as the immolation of Christ’s body 
 was made on the cross, it must be immolated on the altar... The 
 glorified Jesus leaves behind Him the garments of corruption, 
 which He had in the tomb. He removed corruptible things from 
 Him. Clothed in incorruption He leaves the sepulchre. He 
 manifested His glory to those that love Him. Why, therefore, 
 do we openly declare the infirmity in Christ incorruptible, when 
 He has come out of this covering of Him as it were with a napkin, 
 and the involving of Him in darknesses of this kind, when we 
 publicly declare Him to be most truly the excellency (or power) 
 of God and the light of the world?... As He being Himself 
 priest and victim offered Himself, so let also our sacrifice be 
 offered to Him, placed in the clear light, that it may shine unto 
 life to all that are in the house. Our victim is then in the highest 
 
 Walerannus. Migne’s Anselm, Vol. 7. p. 550. 
 
 He writes to Anselm to ask why there are different rituals, why 
 fermented bread is used, and why the elements are covered with a veil. 
 Nudus Jesus in ara crucis: nudus appareat in ar nostre immolationis. 
 ...Panis ille vere Christi corpus est, et ut Christi corporis [in cruce] 
 immolationem immolari [super altare] oportet... Glorificatus Jesus cor- 
 ruptionis vestimenta [que in sepulchro habuit] deserit : corruptibilia a Se 
 removit. Incorruptionem vestitus sepulchrum deserit...Gloriam Suam 
 (omit Se) amantibus patefecit. Cur ergo incorruptibilis ex sudarii invo- 
 lutione quasi Christi protestamur infirmitatem, et in hujusmodi tenebris 
 involutionem, cum Eum verissime protestamur Dei virtutem et mundi 
 lucem ?.,. Sicut Ipsemet sacerdos et hostia, obtulit Semet ipsum, ita et 
 nostrum Ei offeratur sacrificium, positum sub divo, ut omnibus ad 
 yitam in Christi luceat domo. Tune maxime acceptabilis victima 
 
 4. 5 
 
52 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 degree acceptable, if it shall be like the sacrifice of Christ, yet we 
 also cover up our life-giving sacrifice... That which is offered 
 not in appearance alone but in the truth of reality, ought not to 
 differ in its own immolation, &c. Our paschal Victim was immo- 
 lated on the altar of the cross with a naked body: He wished to 
 be offered with a naked body, Who made known to His own 
 disciples all that He heard from His Father. He manifested Him- 
 self in His own immolation, as He is, and we shall contemplate 
 His glory with unveiled face, so that we may be conformed to 
 Him in all things, being of the same form with the body of His 
 own brightness, that He Himself may be all things to us in eternal 
 blessedness. And, to use His own words, He said, ‘It has been 
 ‘finished, that we may not doubt that old things have passed 
 away, and that all things are new. The temple’s veil has been 
 rent from the top downwards; and it has been to our own day 
 placed on the hearts of the Jews, that having eyes they may not 
 see, and having hearts they may not understand. But it is not 
 right for us, to whom God has given revelation by the Holy Spirit, 
 to complicate mysteries, but by the example of the Lord Jesus to 
 clear them. We with Moses, like the Jews, are putting a veil on 
 them; but offering with our Lord Jesus let us study to transfer 
 ourselves from one degree of brightness (clearness) to another.” 
 
 nostra est, si Christi hostiz fuerit consimilis. Involvimus tamen et nos 
 vitalem hostiam...Quod non solum offertur in specie, sed in rei veritate 
 discrepare non oportet in su immolatione, ὅθ. (Part II.) Paschalis Hostia 
 nudato corpore in ara crucis immolata est ; nudato corpore offerri voluit, 
 Qui omnia que audivit a Patre Suis nota fecit. In Sua immolatione 
 Semet ipsum, sicuti est, manifestavit, Cujus gloriam revelata facie con- 
 templabimur, ut Ei per omnia conformemur, configurati corpori claritatis 
 Sue, ut Ipse sit nobis omnia in eterna beatitudine. Et, ut Ipsius 
 verbis utar, ““ Consummatum est” inquit, ut vetera non ambigamus 
 translisse et omnia nova esse. Velum templi scissum est a summa 
 usque deorsum; quod usque in hodiernum diem positum est super 
 corda Judzorum, ut oculos habentes non videant, et, aures, non intelli- 
 gant. Nobis vero, quibus Deus revelavit per Spiritum sanctum, non 
 oportet sacrificandi mysteria implicare, sed exemplo Domini Jesu 
 clarificare. Nos cum Moyse, ut Judi, velum superimponimus, sed 
 cum Domino Jesu offerentes de claritate in claritatem  transferri 
 studeamus. [In the letter Part IT. stands before the rest that is cited. | 
 
 (1) IVO (YVES) CARNOTENSIS (1.6. of Chartres). 
 B, 1040, vD. 1115. 
 
 It is pleasant to set down the name of this most conscientious 
 bishop, who not only, like our seven bishops in James IL.’s reign, 
 
1040] IVO CARNOTENSIS. 53 
 
 went cheerfully to prison rather than allow evil, but even influ- 
 enced Pope Urban II. by his unyielding resistance to the criminal 
 passion of his own king. He seems to have had in other respects 
 the high character of Bishop Ken, as well as to have been like 
 him in holding superstitious views of this most touching and most 
 spiritual of all rites that were ever enjoined by God or by Christ. 
 One would suppose that his queen Bertha must have regarded 
 Ivo’s very name with affection and reverence, and that even 
 King Philip and Berthalda, or Bertrade, of Montfort, Countess of 
 Anjou, must have respected his consistent fidelity. Besides the 
 rules of his Decretum, he wrote eight books which he termed 
 Panormia, being his judgments on a great variety of religious 
 and ecclesiastical questions. He is spoken of as learned in the 
 Scripture, and as one of the eloquent preachers of France, by 
 Nicolas de Clemangis in relation to Petrarch’s saying that France 
 had produced few eminent speakers. He was of a noble family of 
 Beauvais, and became, first, Prior, and then Abbot of Bec. From 
 this post he was raised to the bishopric of Chartres in 1092. 
 Fulbert had died in 1029. The Romans complain that he was 
 an inconsistent churchman, because he sometimes favoured the 
 Gallican liberties above what were termed the supreme rights of 
 Rome and the Pope over all lands. Yet he was made a saint in 
 the Roman calendar, although Fulbert had been passed over. 
 There is a curious letter from the King of France asking him to 
 send him some ermine furs, and a still more curious refusal from 
 Ivo, on the ground that it neither became a king to ask such 
 vanities at a bishop’s hands, nor a bishop to send such presents 
 to a king. He seems worthy of having been placed by Mr Carlyle 
 in his list of heroes. 
 
 P.259. Decrees. “ That sacred vessels be not handled by others 
 than by sacred men. Decrees of Pope Sextus VI. Of sacred women 
 who may have presumed to handle sacred vessels and altar-palls. 
 Letter of Pope Soter, chap. 267. We have decreed that incense 
 be placed on the oblation of the body and blood of the Lord. 
 
 Decreta, Pars IIT. Cap. CCLXIV. Vol. I. p. 259. 
 
 Ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacris viris tractentur. Wa 
 decretis Siati Pape, Cap. cctxv. De sacris foeminis, qui sacra vasa 
 et pallas altaris tractare presumpserint. Ha epistold Soteris Pape, 
 Cap.ccLxvil. Ut...super oblatione corporis et sanguinis Domini incensum 
 
δ4 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Chap. 268. That as often as the presence of a new [congrega- 
 tion of] people shall have filled one church, so often the sacrifice 
 be offered again. 
 
 P. 274, “That the presbyters announce to the people that 
 in Lent and in the fast of the four seasons (¢.e. the first week in 
 March, the second in June, the third in September, the fourth in 
 December), 1.6. the fourth and sixth Sunday and Saturday only, 
 they ought to kneel at the solemn rites of the mass. On the other 
 hand, on Lord’s days or other feasts they kneel not from evening 
 until evening, but bend themselves standing and pray, nor let any 
 one presume to only pray with one knee impressed on the ground 
 τ (as the Jews are said to have done in the passion in mockery of 
 the Lord) [probably when compelled to take part in Christian 
 worship], but place both knees on the ground.” Ephesians iii. 
 
 ponatur decrevimus. Cap. ccixvin. Ut quoties basilicam aliquam 
 iterum presentia nove plebis impleverit toties sacrificium subsequens 
 offeratur. 
 
 Pars IV. Cap. XXXVI. p. 274. 
 
 Ut presbyteri plebibus annuncient quod in Quadragesimaé et in 
 jejunio quatuor temporum (in Martio heb. prima, in Junio secunda, 
 in Septembri tertia, in Decembri quarta, &c., see 35, 1, 6. quarta et 
 sexta feria et Sabbato) tantummodo ad missarum solennia genua 
 flectere debeant. In Dominicis contra diebus vel ceteris festis a 
 vespera usque ad vesperam non flectant genua, sed stantes incurvati 
 orent, nec quisquam uno genu solo tenus impresso orare presumat 
 (sicut Judei irridentes Dominum in passione Ejus fecisse leguntur) 
 sed utraque genua in terram ponat. Ephes, iii, ““I bow my knees,” 
 ie, 
 
 (J.) DURAND, BISHOP OF LAODICEA. FL. 1070. 
 
 A letter of Durand of Laodicea concerning the flesh and blood 
 of the Lord, against Bruno of Angers and Berengar of 
 Tours. 
 
 P. 319. “To Henry, the most glorious king of the Franks. 
 
 There is a report, &c., in what way Br. Bishop of A., and also 
 
 B., introduce ancient heresies to modern times, and build up (the 
 
 Durandi Laodicensis Episcopi Abbatis Troarnensis Epistolu de C. et 8. 
 D. Contra Brunonem Andegavensem et Berengar. Turon. 
 M.B.V.P. 1646. Vol. LV. p. 319. 
 
 Gloriosissimo, &e. Regi Francorum Henrico. Fama, &c., qualiter 
 B., A. E., item B., antiquas hereses modernis temporibus introdu- 
 
1070] DURAND, BISHOP OF LAODICEA, 55 
 
 belief) that the Lord’s body is not so much a body as a shadow 
 and figure of the Lord’s body, &c., &c, And they say that you 
 with that zeal and that fervour, with which you are always 
 burning towards holy church, by Divine inspiration have sum- 
 moned a council to conquer them again and to confute them, 
 &e., ἄς. But we, pressed by the brevity of a letter, will set forth 
 a few things out of many, and first will place before you examples 
 (authorities) with reference to the Lord’s body and blood, &c., &e. 
 For this reason we think that Bruno and Berengar were already 
 anathematized. But if it be so, truly the being heard in a council 
 ought to be utterly denied to them; and with your bishops and 
 ours (if it so seems fit to you), with your emperor who is favourable, 
 and with the Pope himself, deliberation must be had what ven- 
 geance should be (Lat. and Greek ‘may be’) determined against 
 them. For it is just that they whose hands are against all men 
 should have the hands of all excited against themselves.” 
 
 cendo astruant, corpus Domini non tam corpus esse quam umbram 
 et figuram corporis Domini, &e. &e. Quos ad redomandum et publice 
 confutandum, eo zelo eoque fervore quo erga sanctam ecclesiam Divina in- 
 spiratione plurimum semper ardetis, aiunt vos concilium advocasse, ὥσ. 
 &c....Sed nos ex multis, epistolari brevitate cogente, pauca exponemus 
 et primo ponemus exempla pertinentia ad corpus et sanguinem Domini. 
 Then Leo, Cyril, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Hilary. Quamobrem 
 Brunonem et Berengarium jam anathematizatos arbitramur. Quod si 
 ita sit, vere illis audientia concilii deneganda est, et cum vestris 
 cumque nostris episcopis (si vobis ita videtur) cum amico vestro impe- 
 ratore, cum ipso Papa, que vindicta in illos statuatur deliberandum. 
 Est enim justum ut, quorum manus sint contra omnes, omnium manus 
 etiam contra ipsos excitentur. 
 
 (K.) GUITMUND OR GUIMOND, ARCHBISHOP OF AVENA. Ὁ. 1105. 
 
 Born in Normandy he joined the Benedictine Monastery of St 
 Leufrid of the Cross. When his own excellence had made him 
 many enemies there, he judged it best to retire from the country 
 for the sake of peace, and obtained his abbot’s permission to with- 
 draw to Italy. His merit there attracted the attention of Gregory 
 VIL, and he was made cardinal, but he received his archbishopric 
 afterwards from Urban II. He is chiefly signalized by having 
 published against Berengar the work from which our extracts are 
 taken about the year 1070, which is written in the form of a 
 debate between himself and another monk. It has been printed 
 
56 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 at Louvain with other works against Berengarius and Peter Bruis 
 by Lanfranc, Alger, Peter of Cluny, Adelman and Ivo, in 1561. 
 he preface gives to Lanfranc the praise of superior gravity 
 and acumen, to Guitmund of being most vivid and ardent, to 
 Alger of eloquence and abundance, and to Peter of erudition and 
 fluency: but the last two it does not characterize. Its malison 
 against all who do not hold the actual and real natural presence of 
 the Lord’s body in the Lord’s supper is very express and copious. 
 
 P. 32. “Berengar and his followers maintain that the eu- 
 charist of the Lord is not truly and substantially the Lord’s body 
 and blood: but is so called in word only because it is significant 
 of the Lord’s body and blood as a shadow and figure. Nor should 
 I be so moved concerning this thing, if persons carnally wise in 
 matters of the senses were deceived, except that they seem to put 
 forth some little reasons as you have mentioned above, and to 
 fortify their positions by some of Augustine’s opinions. They also 
 boast some words of the Lord the Saviour, at which weak persons 
 may possibly stumble. And first I will set down their small 
 reasons themselves, and next their authorities. Nature, they say, 
 does not endure to be changed ; and when a scripture is adduced 
 that the Lord has done all things whatsoever He would, ‘ But this 
 ‘change, they say, ‘He did not will. For far be it that it be 
 ‘deemed proper for Christ to be ground by the teeth, or dissipated 
 
 ‘in parts, as those (signs) are ground by the teeth and dissipated 
 ‘into parts.... Guitmund... But others that do yield to the 
 church’s right reasonings (in other things) and yet do not come 
 back from their folly (in this), say that the Lord’s body and blood 
 
 ἘΣ 92; 
 
 Rogerius says, Berengarius et qui eum sequuntur asseverant 
 eucharistiam Domini non esse vere substantialiterque corpus et san- 
 guinem Domini: sed sola voce sic appellari pro eo quod tanquam 
 umbra et figura significativa sit corporis et sanguinis Domini. Nec de 
 hoc moverer adeo, si carnaliter sapientes secundum sensus fallerentur, 
 ni-i quod nonnullas, ut supra memorasti, ratiunculas obtendere, et eas 
 ex quibusdam Augustini sententiis munire videntur. Aliqua etiam 
 verba Domini Salvatoris jactitant, ex quibus infirmi  scandalizari 
 forsitan possint. Ac primum ipsas ratiunculas, deinde auctoritates 
 ponam. Natura, inquiunt, hane mutationem non patitur: cumque eis 
 affertur Scriptura, quia omnia, quecungue voluit, Dominus fecit, sed 
 hane, inquiunt, mutationem noluit, Absit enim ut fas sit Christum 
 dentibus atteri, aut partibus dissipari, sicut ista dentibus atteruntur 
 et in partes dissipantur...Guitmund...Alii vero rectis ecclesiz rationibus 
 cedentes nec tamen a stultitia recedentes, ut quasi aliquo modo nobiscum 
 esse videantur, dicunt ibi corpus et sanguinem Domini revera sed - 
 
—1105] GUITMUND, ARCHBISHOP OF AVENA. 57 
 
 may be in reality, but in a latent way contained there, as if (we 
 said) that they in some way appear to be with us, and that they 
 may be in a certain way, if [ may say so, impanated [received into 
 the bread], that they may be received (by us). 
 
 P. 36. “The benediction of this sacrament is capable of distri- 
 bution, but not of being expended by being distributed.... For so 
 in individual masses we believe that the whole Christ is (present), 
 so that there are never made more Christs than one, or a divided 
 Christ by there being different priests or different places. And in 
 this those cannot be against us, who believe Christ’s body to be 
 invisibly present in every mass. For when a thousand masses are 
 celebrated at once, and, as they themselves agree, the body of 
 Christ 1s in every mass (for they themselves also deny that the 
 Lord’s body can be divided), either there will then be a thousand 
 Christ’s bodies, or they will confess with us that at one and the 
 same time one and the same Christ’s body can be held to be 
 (present) whole and undivided in a thousand places... In like 
 manner therefore also in (each) one host, although He seem to be 
 as it were divided into many pieces. For we expect no division in 
 them, because all the pieces joined together are each separated, 
 and make that same whole Christ’s body [1.6. they are at the same 
 time both joined together and separated !]. Nor ought that to 
 seem incredible to anyone. 
 
 P. 37. “As our soul is the life of the body, so let the flesh of 
 Christ be (yea and the better by the grace of God) the life of the 
 church. If therefore Christ can cause (as we said) each separate 
 
 latenter contineri, et, ut sumi possint, quodam modo (ut ita dixerim), 
 impanari, &e. &e.. [Thus John of Paris was but a borrower. | 
 
 Pied, 
 
 Benedictio hujus sacramenti scit distribui, nescit distributione con- 
 sumi... Nam ita in singulis (missis) totum credimus esse Christum, 
 ut nec plures Christos nec divisum Christum faciat aut sacerdotum 
 diversitas aut locorum. In quo quidem illi contra nos esse non 
 possunt qui corpus Domini in omni missa adesse invisibiliter credunt. 
 Nam cum simul mille celebrantur Misse, et, sic ipsi consentiunt, in 
 omni miss& est totum corpus Christi [dividi enim posse corpus Domini 
 et ipsi negant), aut mille tune erunt Christi corpora, aut fatebuntur 
 nobiscum uno eodemque tempore mille in locis uwum idemque Christi 
 corpus totum et indivisum posse haberi... Similiter igitur et In una 
 hostid, etsi videatur quasi in plures partes dividi. Nullam enim 
 in eis divisionem attendimus, quia quod omnes, simul junctz, id ipsum 
 singul separates sunt totum Christi corpus. Nec cuiquam incredibile 
 id debet videri, &e. 
 
 PST: 
 
 Sicut anima nostra vita est corporis, ita sit ecclesiz (immo multo 
 melius per Dei gratiam) vita caro Salvatoris...Si igitur potest Chris- 
 tus efficere (sicut diximus) ut unaqueque separata particula sit totum 
 
58 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 particle to be Christ’s whole body, and yet all separate particles 
 are not more bodies but one body, just as a voice strikes the ears of 
 a thousand men and is whole with each one, and yet there are not 
 said to be many voices but only one; and as the whole soul fills a 
 thousand particles of the body of man, and though it gives itself 
 whole to each, the soul is not many but one, so now there seems 
 to be no reason because of their breaking into pieces, in the way of 
 the possibility of Christ’s willing or of its being right for Him to 
 will the transference of bread and wine, as He has taught and as 
 the church has believed, into His own body and blood.” 
 
 It is so wonderful that philosophical men like Guitmund failed 
 to discern the unlikeness of air and soul to Christ’s body, for they 
 held firmly enough as a principle of logical science, that inter 
 dissimilia non constat ratio, or, in English, comparison holds not 
 between things of different kinds—in the things in which their 
 natures are different. 
 
 Christi corpus, et tamen omnes separate non plura sint corpora sed 
 unum corpus, quemadmodum vox mille hominum percutit aures, et 
 apud unumquemque tota est, nec tamen plures dicuntur sed una sola; 
 et quemadmodum tota anima mille corporis humani replet particulas, 
 et cum se totam preebeat singulis, non plures tamen sed una est anima, 
 ita jam nulla ratio propter hujusmodi quasi partitiones obstare videtur, 
 ut non possit aut velle non debeat Christus, panem et vinum, sicut 
 Ipse docuit et ecclesia credidit, transferre in corpus et sanguinem 
 Suum. 
 
 (L.) ALGERUS OF LIEGE. Ὁ. 1181. 
 
 P. 129. “Although the substance itself of the bread be by a 
 miracle converted into Christ’s body, yet let the form of bread that 
 remains not be thought of as to remain for ever in Christ’s body. 
 ...For if Christ is impanated, or converted into bread [two dif- 
 ferent theories] (which [last] it is unlawful to suppose since it is 
 unchangeable) or (if it) becomes bread, as the Word was made 
 flesh (which 1s trifling, since the authority of evangelic prophecy 
 builds up no such idea, when on the contrary also it is bread that 
 becomes Christ’s flesh ; so that bread does not remain), &c.” 
 
 P; 129. 
 
 Quamvis ipsa panis substantia mirifice in corpus Christi conversa 
 sit, panis tamen forma, in sacramento remanens, mansura perpetualiter 
 in Christi corpore non putetur... Nam si impanatur Christus vel in 
 panem convertitur (quod est nefarium cum sit immutabilis), vel fit 
 panis, sicut Verbum caro factum est (quod frivolum est cum non astruat 
 auctoritas evangelica prophetalis, cum e contrario etiam panis fiat caro 
 Christi: ita ut non remaneat panis), &e. 
 
————— CC CCC 
 
 1078] THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA, 59 
 
 (M.) THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA, BISHOP 1078. 
 Tutor to Constantine, Son of the Emperor Michael. 
 
 This writer, looked upon as the last of the Greek fathers, had 
 been long misplaced in the scandalous period of Michael and 
 Theodora and Cesar Barda, who substituted Photius for Ignatius, 
 because he could not bear the rebuke of the John the Baptist of 
 those days for a crime blacker, if possible, than that of Herod 
 Antipas. But the extant letters of Theophylact assign him to the 
 brighter days of Alexius Comnenus and his literary daughter 
 Anna Comnena, whose historical vanity lives under the magic 
 pen of Scott. A Greek prefatory stanza informs us that his com- 
 mentaries on the Gospels were written by command of the Virgin 
 Mary: but John Hausschein (Gicolampadius) thought them worthy 
 of his hand, as translator. But the commentaries, on fully two- 
 thirds of the New Testament, have attracted the attention of 
 many. The letters which fixed the authentic date of the labours 
 ot Theophylact were a reward of the researches of the famous 
 Jesuit Sirmond, shewing that so great a man as Clement VIITI.’s 
 librarian of the Vatican, Baronius, could err by 200 years. 
 
 Humbert’s attack on the Greek Church made two parties in it, 
 one of which was for the use of leavened, the other of unleavened 
 bread in the Lord’s supper. Peter of Antioch of the former party 
 maintained that our Lord’s observance of the passover took place 
 a day earlier than the fourteenth Nisan, and therefore that He 
 did not use unleavened but leavened bread; and therefore that all 
 Christians ought to use leavened bread as He did, and that Theo- 
 phylact wrote to overthrow this. For Theophylact denies the 
 anticipation of the time by our Lord in keeping the feast, and 
 therefore asserts that Christ used leavened bread. How then can 
 Peter of Antioch side with his own Eastern church, which used 
 leavened bread in the Lord’s supper, and blamed the Western 
 Church for using unleavened? His defence, as ours, is that in 
 such a point we are not bound to follow our Lord’s precedent. 
 The point is not one of sufficient importance. And yet it must 
 be allowed that the Greek church made much of it in its long and 
 frequently renewed contention with the West, and in the reverse 
 the Western church with them. The truth seems to be that both 
 
00 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 churches rather stood upon their own superior claims; and that 
 concession for unity and love was not acceptable to either. Theo- 
 phylact wrote on parts of the Old Testament and on other sub- 
 jects also. 
 
 P. 1308. “But observe that the bread eaten by us in the 
 mysteries is not figurative of the Lord’s flesh, but on the contrary 
 itis My flesh. For the bread is changed (lit. transmade) by the 
 words of ineffable majesty (lit. ineffable words) ; bread through the 
 mystic blessing and coming of the Holy Spirit to it (being 
 changed) into the Lord’s flesh. And let not the bread being 
 believed to be flesh disturb any: for also when the Lord was 
 walking about in the flesh and desiring the food of bread, that 
 bread that was being eaten by Him was being changed (lit. trans- 
 ferred) and was being assimilated with His holy flesh, and was 
 being changed unto His increment and composition according to 
 the nature of man. Therefore now also the bread is being changed 
 into the Lord’s flesh. But how, says one, does it not appear to us 
 flesh but bread? That we might not be indisposed to the food. 
 For if it appeared to be flesh, we should be in an unpleasant state 
 of feeling as to partaking of it. But now, as the Lord condescends 
 to our infirmity, the mystic food appears such to us as is conform- 
 able to our habits... For (the flesh) that is being eaten by us is 
 not flesh of a mere man, but of God, and able to make us God as 
 having been mingled with Deity... ‘He that eateth this bread,’ 
 ἄς. There we learn the mystery of the participation, for there 
 takes place a mingling together strange and beyond reason, that 
 
 Comm. John VI. 48—52. Works, Migne. 
 Vol. I. p. 1308. 
 
 ’, ε , A ᾽ ε A ’ > 
 IIpcoxes δὲ ὅτι 6 ἄρτος ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐσθιόμενος οὐκ 
 > , / ΕἸ A A ’ ΄, 3 > ε Ψ' 4, 3 
 αντίτυπὸν ἐστι τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου σαρκός, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ σάρξ Mov ἐστι. Mera- 
 + a an , Ν 
 ποιεῖται γὰρ ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις ὁ ἄρτος διὰ τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας καὶ 
 a a , 
 ἐπιφοιτήσεως τοῦ “Ayiov Ivevpatos εἰς σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου. Καὶ μή twa 
 θροείτω τὸ τὸν ἄρτον σάρκα πιστεύεσθαι: καὶ γὰρ τοὶ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ περι- 
 A a ε ” 
 πατοῦντος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἄρτου τροφὴν προσιεμένου, ὁ ἄρτος 
 ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἐσθιόμενος εἰς σῶμα Αὐτοῦ μετεβάλλετο καὶ συνεξωμοιοῦτο τῇ 
 a Ν 
 ayia Αὐτοῦ σαρκί, καὶ εἰς αὔξησιν καὶ σύστασιν μετεβάλλετο κατὰ τὸ 
 3 ΄ Ν A > ε ΕΣ / > , cal , 
 ἀνθρωπινόν. Καὶ viv οὖν ὁ ἄρτος μεταβάλλεται εἰς σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου. 
 K Ν nan 9 A ΠῚ Ψ. ε lal ἀλλ᾽ 3, ᾿ A \ Ἁ οὗ ε lol 
 al πῶς, φησιν, εἰ σὰρξ οὐ φαίνεται ἡμῖν a ἄρτος; Διὰ τὸ μὴ ἡμᾶς 
 3 δί 0 ‘ A an > ἣν ‘ ‘ ΕῚ ’ 5 δώ xv ὃ ’ὔ 6 
 αηδίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν βρῶσιν. Ei μὲν yap σὰρξ ἐφαίνετο, ἀηδῶς ἂν διακείμεθα 
 πρὸς τὴν μετάληψιν. Νῦν δὲ, τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἀσθενείᾳ συγκαταβαίνοντος τοῦ 
 lal a ¢ la ca 
 Κυρίου, τοιαύτη φαίνεται ἡμῖν ἡ μυστικὴ βρῶσις, οἵα ἐστιν ἡ συνήθης ἡμῖν. 
 A 3 Ν 
 [P. 1309.] Οὐ γὰρ ψιλοῦ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου σὰρξ ἡ ἐσθιομένη, ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ 
 καὶ Θεοποιεῖν δυναμένη; ὡς ἀνακραθεῖσα Θεότητι. [P. 1312, vv. 57—59, 
 . A Ν / 
 “He that eateth this bread,” &c.] Ἐνταῦθα μανθάνομεν τὸ μυστήριον 
 ral « , , 
 τῆς μεταλήψεως. Συνανάκρασις yap ἕενὴ καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον γίνεται, 
 
1078] THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA. 61 
 
 God should be in us and we in Himself! Dost thou not hear the 
 terrific tidings? We do not eat bare God; for He is intangible 
 and without a body and cannot be perceived by the eye or by the 
 teeth: nor again do we eat bare human flesh ; for it cannot profit 
 at all; but since God united the flesh with Himself according to 
 the ineffable mingling, His flesh also is of a life-giving nature; not 
 that it has been translated (lit. gone over) into God’s nature. 
 Away with the thought! but it is after the similitude of iron that 
 has been made red-hot, which both remaineth iron, and exhibits 
 the energy of the fire too. So then the Lord’s flesh also is life- 
 giving, though it remaineth flesh, as the flesh of God the Word. 
 As then, He says, I live by the Father (on account of the Father’s 
 ordering it) ὦ. 6. as begotten by the Father, Who is life, so He that 
 eateth Me shall live by Me (on account of My ordering it), mingled 
 in one as also transelemented into Me, Who have power to generate 
 living beings. [This will be remembered in the Alexandrine Cyril, 
 and in the ‘Nyssene Gregory.|... They were being offended [John] 
 says. But the flesh, 1.96. the carnal reception of these words, 
 profiteth nothing... Thus indeed those that carnally hear the 
 words being spoken by Christ were being offended ... 
 
 P. 794. On 1 Cor. xi. “Despise ye.” “Thou doest an insult to 
 the church and the place. By the cup, he says, thou fulfillest a re- 
 membrance of the Master’s death... But there are two charges, both 
 that the poor are being overlooked, and that ye drink to excess, by 
 yourselves feeding on the things which ought to have been fur- 
 nished for the poor also. But he said the word ‘drunken’ with 
 
 ὥστε εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν ἱΒαυτῷ. Οὐκ ἀκούεις φρικτὸν 
 ἄκουσμα; οὐ Θεὸν ψιλὸν τρώγομεν ἀνάφης γάρ ἐστι καὶ ἀσώματος, καὶ οὔτε 
 ὀφθαλμοῖς οὔτε ὄδουσιν ἁλώσιμος" ovde πάλιν ψιλοῦ ἀνθρώπου σάρκα (οὐδὲν γὰρ 
 ὠφελῆσαι δύναται)" ἀλλ᾽, ἐπειδὴ ὁ Θεὸς vere ‘Eavto τὴν σάρκα κατὰ τὴν 
 ἀποῤῥητὸν ἀνακρᾶσιν, ξωοποιὸς ὑπάρχει καὶ ἡ σὰρξ, οὐχ ὅτι εἰς τὴν Θεοῦ 
 φύσιν μετακεχώρηκεν" ἄπαγε: ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ πεπυρωμένου 
 σιδήρου, ὃς καὶ σίδηρος μένει, καὶ τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς δείκνυσι τὴν ἐνέργειαν. 
 Οὕτως οὖν καὶ a σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ζωοποιός ἐστι, μένουσα σὰρξ, ὡς τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ Λόγου σάρξ. Ὥσπερ οὖν, φησιν, Ἐγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν Πατέρα, τούτεστιν 
 ὡς γεννηθεὶς διὰ τοῦ Πατρός, ὅς ἐστιν ζωή, οὕτω καὶ ὁ τρώγων “Eye ζήσεται 
 be "Epe, ἀνακιρνάμενος, ὥστε καὶ μεταστοιχειούμενος εἰς “Epe, τὸν convey 
 ἰσχύοντα. {Ρ. 1316, vv. 64, 65.] ᾿Εσκανδαλίζοντό, φησιν... Ἢ δὲ σαρξ, 
 τούτεστι τὸ σαρκικῶς αὐτὰ τὰ ῥήματα ἐκδέχεσθαι, οὐδὲν ἘΆΝ Οὕτω 
 δὴ) οἱ σαρκικῶς ἀκούοντες τῶν παρὰ Χριστοῦ λεγομένων ἐσκανδαλίζοντο. 
 
 Tol. IT. p. 794. On 1 Cor. XI. 22 
 “ Despise ye the church of God,” ce. 
 
 Eis τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ tov τόπον ὑβρίζεις. Διὰ τοῦ ποτηρίου, φησιν, 
 ἀνάμνησιν τελεῖς τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ θανάτου. Ὑ 2]. Δύο δὲ ἐγκλήματα, 
 ὅτι τε παρορῶνται οἱ πένητες καὶ ὅτι ὑμεῖς μεθύετε, μόνοι σιτούμενοι ἃ 
 ἔδει καὶ τοῖς πένησι παρεσκεύασθαι. ᾿Εμφατικῶς δὲ τὸ μεθύει εἶπε. 
 
63 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 an emphasis... ‘Partakers of the altar’ For also that which 
 was being separated to God was being laid on the altar and burned 
 up. But in the case of the body of Christ it is not so, but there 
 is a sharing (communion) of Christ’s body. For we do not become 
 
 partakers (sharers) of the altar but on the contrary of Christ 
 Himself, 
 
 P.-401. “In the case then of the old covenant Christ does not 
 concede that the gift is greater than the altar; but in our case the 
 altar is rather sanctified by the gifts ; for the ‘loaves are by Divine 
 grace changed into that body of the Lord itself, wherefore also the 
 altar | 15 sanctified by them. 
 
 P. 436. “Though the law was commanding that one should 
 be high-priest during life, they used to do many things in violation 
 of the law, changing them annually ...and the Gospel calls those 
 high-priests that have already fulfilled the service for a year. 
 Those that did not wish to kill Him in the feast, when they saw 
 the betrayer, then they kill Him, having despised the multitude, 
 only that His will may come to pass. 
 
 P, 645. “But it is Christ’s body properly, that which is in the 
 golden dish, and His blood that which is in the cup. Let him 
 assuredly, who takes away the precious dish and compels Christ’s 
 body to be put in a cheaper dish, though he makes the poor his 
 
 [P. 685, ch. x. 18, “Partakers of the altar,” &c.] Καὶ yap τὸ Θεῷ 
 ἀφοριζόμενον, τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ ἐπιτιθέμενον, κατεκαίετο. "Eat δὲ τοῦ 
 σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 ἐστιν. Οὐ γὰρ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἀλλ᾽ Αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κοινωνοὶ γινό- 
 μεθα. : 
 Vol. I. p. 401, En. in Matth. XXIII, 22. 
 
 On the HEE and the altar, 
 
 "Emi μὲν οὖν τῆς παλαιᾶς οὐ συγχωρεῖ ὁ Χριστὸς, μεῖζον εἶναι τὸ δῶρον 
 τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου" ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν δὲ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ὑπὸ τῶν δώρων ἁγιάζεται 
 μᾶλλον" εἰς γὰρ τὸ Δεσποτικὸν σῶμα αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο μεταβάλλονται θείᾳ χάριτι 
 
 my 
 οἱ ἄρτοι" διὸ καὶ ἁγιάζεται ὑπὸ τούτων τὸ θυσιαστήριον. 
 PAG, 6A ΟΡ ὦ 
 A ’ . 
 
 Τοῦ νόμου κελεύοντος ἕνα εἶναι ἀρχιερέα διὰ βίον, πόλλους ἐποίουν 
 αὐτοὶ παρανόμως, ἀμείβοντες κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν... ἀρχιερεῖς δὲ λέγει τοὺς ᾿πεπλη- 
 
 ’ 
 ρηκότας ἤδη τὴν ἐνιαύσιον 'λειτουρ γίαν... Οἱ μὴ βουλόμενοι ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ 
 φονεῦσαι Αὐτὸν, ὅτε εὗρον τὸν προδίδοντα τότε φονεύουσι, καταφρονήσαντες 
 
 τοῦ ὄχλου, μόνον ἵνα τὸ θέλημα Αὐτοῦ συμβαίη. 
 P, 645, in Mare. XIV. 6. On selling a golden paten for the poor. 
 
 A Ν A , a a 1 
 Χριστοῦ δὲ σῶμα κυρίως, τὸ ἐν τῷ δίσκῳ τῷ χρυσῷ καὶ αἷμα τὸ ἐν τῷ 
 ͵ὔ ε na ° \ 3; / 
 ποτηρίῳ. Ὃ γοῦν ἀφαιρούμενος τὸν δίσκον τὸν πολύτιμον καὶ ἀναγκάζων 
 ‘ a“ fal aA fg 
 τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν εὐτελεστέρῳ τίθεσθαι, προφασιζόμενος δὲ τοὺς 
 
1078] THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA. 63 
 
 pretext, know to what lot he belongs. [V. 16, ‘This is My body.’] 
 And it is this which ye now receive. For the bread is not a (mere) 
 figure of the Lord’s body but is changed into that body of Christ 
 itself. Hor also the Lord saith, ‘The bread which I will give is 
 ‘My flesh’ He did not say, It is a figure of My flesh, but it ‘is My 
 ‘flesh’: and again, ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man.’ 
 But how does He say it? for flesh is not seen. On account, 
 O man, of our weakness. For since the bread indeed and the 
 wine are customary things with us, but we could not have endured 
 to see blood and flesh, but should have been paralysed (torpified) 
 at it—on this account the kind Saviour who condescends to us, 
 preserves indeed the appearance of bread and wine, but transele- 
 ments it into the power of flesh and blood. ‘Hat in My kingdom,’ 
 For He names the resurrection a kingdom, as He will then have 
 reigned over death also... But He drinks it new, 1.6. ἴῃ a new 
 and strange way, for (then) He no longer had a body capable of 
 suffering and wanting food, but on the contrary incorruptible and 
 immortal. 
 
 P. 1110. “But when He concedes it, then their eyes are 
 pened and they knew Him. But a different thing also is hinted’, 
 that the eyes of those who partake of the blessed bread are opened 
 so as to know Him. For the Lord’s flesh has a great and unspeak- 
 
 able power. 
 
 1 Alvirrerat, “15 taught in a riddle.”’ 
 
 πτωχοὺς, γινωσκέτω ποίας μερίδος ἐστιν. [V. 16—21, This i is My body. | 
 Καὶ τοῦτο ὃ viv λαμβάνετε. Οὐ yap ἀντίτυπος τοῦ Κυρίου σώματός ἐστιν 
 0 ἄρτος, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο μεταβάλλεται τὸ «σώμα. τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Καὶ 
 ὁ Κύριος γὰρ λέγει, oO ἄρτος ὃν ᾿Εγὼ δώσω ἡ σορ Μού ἐστιν. Οὐκ 
 εἶπεν, “" ᾿Αντίτυπός ἐστι τῆς “σαρκός Mov, ἀλλ᾽, Ἡ σάρξ Mov ἐστι Kat 
 πάλιν, “ ᾿Εὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου." Καὶ πώς 
 φησιν; οὐ γὰρ σὰρξ καθορᾶται. Διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, ἀσθένειαν. 
 ᾿Βπειδιὴ μὲν γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος συνήθη ἡμῖν, αἷμα δὲ καὶ σάρκα ὁ- 
 ρῶντες οὐκ ἂν ἠνέγκαμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπεναρκήσαμεν.---διὰ τοῦτο ὁ συγκαταβαίνων 
 ἡμῖν ὁ φιλάνθρωπος τὸ μὲν εἶδος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου φυλάττει, εἰς δύναμιν δὲ 
 σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος μεταστοιχειοῖ. As to eating, &e., In His kingdom. 
 Βασιλείαν yap τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὀνομάζει, ὡς βασιλεύσας τοτε καὶ τοῦ 
 θανάτου... Kawov δὲ πίνει αὐτὸ, τούτεστιν καινόν τινα τρόπον. καὶ E€vov, 
 οὔκετι γὰρ σῶμα παθητὸν εἶχε, δεόμενον τροφῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀθάνατον. 
 
 P. 1110, Hn. in Luc.c. XXIV. The two at Emmaus. 
 
 Ὅτε δὲ συγχωρεῖ τότε διανοίγονται οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν 
 Αὐτόν. Αἰνίττεται δέ τι καὶ ἕτερον, ὅτι τοῖς μεταλαμβάνουσι τοῦ εὐλογη- 
 μένου ἄρτου διανοίγονται οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ εἰς τὸ τὐτνοναι Αὐτόν. Μεγάλην 
 γὰρ καὶ ἄφατον δύναμιν ἔχει ἡ τοῦ Kupiov σάρξ. 
 
64 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. ~ 1:}0. 
 
 P. 256. “But when the night was spent (completed) in these 
 things, in the morning He is led to Pilate. [V.28.] O for their folly! 
 When they were indeed unjustly thirsting for his blood, they did 
 not think they were being polluted by it, but by going to the judg- 
 ment-hall they were thinking they should pollute themselves. 
 But what is ‘That they may eat the passover’? And yet the 
 Lord celebrated that on the first day of unleavened bread. Either 
 then we shall consider all the feast passover, the seven days, or 
 they indeed were then about to eat it on the preparation day in 
 the evening (after), [which, as it was not eaten till 9 P.M. would be 
 part of the Sabbath-day]. But He delivered it one day before 
 (1.6. on the evening of Thursday), reserving His own slaughter for 
 the preparation- -day at even [impossible, as he died at 3 ΡΜ], 
 when also the old passover used to take place. [See the ‘Mhasis 
 that opens Part I.] 
 
 ‘Taking 1 Cor. xi. here we throw the four accounts together. 
 
 P. 441. “We say then that He first ate the passover standing ; 
 then that He reclined (with them) and delivered His own mystery. 
 For having first fulfilled the typical passover, He thus fulfilled 
 the true. e 
 
 P. 684. “That is (the cup) of the eucharist. For holding it 
 in our hands we bless and thank Him Who shed His blood for us, 
 and thought us worthy of unspeakable good things. But (Paul) 
 did not say participation but communion, that He might manifest 
 something more, manifestly the height of union. But what he says 
 is of such purport, that this that is in the cup is that which flowed 
 
 ΤΣ 256. En. in Joh. XVIII. 
 
 Τῆς δὲ νικτὸς ἐν τούτοις ἀνυσθείσης, πρωΐας πρὸς Πίλατον ἐπάγεται. 
 V. 28, Ὦ τῆς ἀνοίας! Φονώντες μὲν ἀδίκως οὐκ ἐνόμιζον μιαίνεσθαι 
 δικαστηρίων δὲ ἐπιβαίνοντες μιαίνειν αὐτοὺς ἡγοῦντο. Τί δέ ἐστιν “iva 
 “φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα" ; Kai μὴν αὐτὸ ὁ Κύριος πεποίηκε τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν 
 ἀζύμων. Ἢ οὖν πάσχα τὴν ἑορτὴν πᾶσαν νοήσομεν τὰς ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας, ἤτοι 
 αὐτοὶ μὲν τότε ἔμελλον αὐτὸ ᾿Φαγεῖν τῇ παρασκευῇ τῆς ἑσπέρας Αὐτὸς δὲ 
 πρὸ μίας. αὐτὸ παρέδωκε, τηρῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σφαγὴν τῇ παρασκευῇ, ἑσπέρας, 
 ὅτε καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐγίνετο τὸ πάσχα. 
 
 I, ».. 441, Matth. XXVI. 26. 
 
 Φάμεν οὖν ὅτε ἔφαγε πρῶτον τὸ πάσχα ἱστάμενος" εἶτα ἀναπεσὼν παρέ- 
 δωκεν τὸ οἰκεῖον μυστήριον. Πρῶτον γὰρ τὸ τυπικὸν τελέσας, οὕτω τὸ 
 ἀληθινὸν ἐπετέλεσε. 
 
 IT. p. 684, 1 Cor. X. 16...“ Lhe cup a “7. de. 
 
 Πούτεστι τῆς εὐχαριστίας. Ἐπὶ χεῖρας γὰρ αὐτὸ ἔχοντες εὐλογοῦμεν 
 καὶ εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ τὸ αἷμα Αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐκχέαντι καὶ ἀῤῥήτων 
 ἀγαθῶν ἀξιώσαντι. Ὅλες εἶπε δὲ μετοχὴ, ἀλλὰ κοινωνία, ἵνα πλέον τι 
 δηλώσῃ; τὴν ἄκραν ἕνωσιν δηλαδή. “O δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὅτι τοῦτο 
 
1078] THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA. 65 
 
 from His side; and when we partake of it we also communicate, 
 2.6. are made one with Christ... ‘The bread which,’ ἄς, That 
 which Christ has (not) suffered on the cross (for a bone of Him 
 was not broken) this He now endures, being broken into pieces by 
 us. ‘The bread which we break,’ instead of ‘As that body has 
 ‘been made one with Christ, so we also are made one with Him 
 ‘through that bread.’ ‘We being many, &c. Since Paul said, 
 It is the communion of the body, but to communicate is different 
 from that which one communicates, he now shews the greater 
 thing and says that we are that body itself. (Does he not say this 7) 
 For what is the bread? Christ’s body. But what do the parti- 
 cipants become? Christ’s body, not many bodies but one body. 
 For as the bread becomes one out of many seeds, ‘so, we, being 
 ‘many, are one body.’ [St Paul means and says union in Christ 
 with one another, which Theophylact ‘adds to.’] ‘We all partake,’ 
 ἄς. As we also are one body. How then is it we do not guard 
 love and become one in this also? And yet God at least, he says, 
 gives us one body for this, that He may make us one, both with 
 Himself and with one another. For since the former nature of 
 the flesh was destroyed by sin and became destitute of life, He 
 gave to us the sinless and living flesh, but like to us, flesh, that 
 partaking of it we may be mingled up with it and live without 
 sinning, as can be. 
 
 P. 699. “As they that at the beginning believed used to be 
 
 Ni 09 a ΄, Ἃ CS le) Nig: EN A , EIEN τ NS ’, 
 τὸ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ ὃν ἐκεῖνό ἐστι τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς πλεύρας ῥεῦσαν᾽ καὶ ἐκείνου 
 μεταλαμβάνοντες καὶ κοινωνοῦμεν, τούτεστιν ἑνούμεθα τῷ Χριστῷ. [It is 
 generally now admitted that this is not the true sense of this verb. 
 It is “sharing in Christ,” and so being sharers with each other.]} On 
 
 . an an Ν 
 
 “The bread which,” &e. Ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ πέπονθεν ὁ Χριστὸς 
 a cal a A “- ΄ 
 
 (ὀστοῦν γὰρ Αὐτοῦ οὐ συνετρίβη), τοῦτο νῦν ὑπομένει, Sv ἡμᾶς κατακλώμενος. 
 
 The bread which, &c., ἀντὶ τοῦ, Ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα ἥνωται τῷ Χριστῷ, 
 
 ᾿ Nae ν) ’ ai ρ 5 iG Ὁ 
 
 “ a 2 A \ a , ε 7 
 οὕτω Kal ἡμεῖς Αὐτῷ dia τοῦ ἄρτου τούτου ἑνούμεθα. V. 19, “We being 
 [74 ” 3 5 \ Φ , a ΄ , 3 Ν δὲ “ 
 
 many,” ἄς. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ εἶπε, Κοινωνία τοῦ σώματός ἐστι, τὸ O€ κοινωνεῖν 
 
 e a a a o Ook 
 ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἐκείνου οὗ κοινωνεῖ, νῦν δείκνυσι TO μεῖζον, καί φησιν ὅτι αὐτὸ 
 ἐσμεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα. Τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος; Σῶμα Χριστοῦ. Τί de 
 ,’ ε / lal a SEN ΄ Xr Ἂν ΟΝ Ν 
 γίνονται οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες; Σῶμα Χριστοῦ, οὐχὶ σώματα πολλα, adda 
 a Ψ ’, Ν ε ΝΥ 3 A , = , 6S 
 σῶμα ἕν. Κάθαπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος ἐκ πολλῶν κόκκων εἷς γίνεται, ο we 
 : aa 
 
 “being many,” ἄς. “For we all partake of,’ ke. Ὥστε καὶ σῶμα 
 a > \ a 
 
 ἕν ἐσμεν. Πῶς οὖν οὐ φυλάττομεν τὴν ἀγαπὴν καὶ γινόμεθα Kal κατὰ τοῦτο 
 a -“ “ ¢ , ε A 
 
 ἕν ; καίτοι γε ὁ Θεός, φησι, τὸ σῶμα διὰ τοῦτο δίδωσιν ἡμῖν, ἵνα ἑνώσῃ ἡμᾶς, 
 
 Ν Ν ε Ἀ Ν Ν 3 , > \ ‘ ε / tal \ 
 καὶ πρὸς Ἕ αυτὸν καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους. Ἐπειδὴ yap 7 πρότερα τῆς σαρκος 
 
 Lal Lal ε lal 
 φύσις ἐφθάρη ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ ζωῆς ἐγένετο ἔρημος, ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν 
 τὴν ἀναμάρτον καὶ ζωερὰν, ὁμοίαν δὲ ἡμῖν, σάρκα, ὡς ἂν αὐτῆς μεταλαμ- 
 
 ΄ ‘ 3 Ν > a“ x , > , G = 4 f 
 Bavovres, πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀνακραθῶμεν καὶ ζήσωμεν ἀναμαρτήτως [Gregory ὁ 
 Nyssa, ὅσ. ὡς ἔνεστι. 
 
 P. 699. ‘Shall I praise you,” d&c., υ. 17. 
 
 σ a \ , aA Ἐ a 5 
 Ὥσπερ οἱ ἐν ἀρχῇ πιστεύσαντες KOLVQ πάντα ἔχοντες ΚΟΙΨΊ) εστιωντο 
 
 ἘΠ ΤΙ 5 
 
00 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 entertained in common, having all things common, so after a 
 certain imitation of them, though not exact, in Corinth during 
 some specified days, perhaps days of festival, they were having a 
 banquet after having partaken of the mysteries, the rich indeed 
 bringing in their provisions, and the poor being invited by them 
 and being entertained. V. 22. Paul says, You do not care so 
 much about the poor as not to nourish yourselves; so far that they 
 are rebuked and put to shame, at not themselves having wealth, 
 while you honourably recline opposite them and become drunken. 
 
 P. 283. “Surely on account of His manhood Paul said the 
 word ‘intercede.’ For Paul condescending to the hearers says, 
 Fear not. He both loves us and He has confidence towards the 
 Father. But He cannot always stand by us. Say not this, for He 
 liveth and always can do His priestly work for us. But when 
 I say (His) manhood I do not divide it from the Godhead (for 
 there is one person of both), but I give to the hearers fit thoughts 
 to entertain regarding both natures. But this very thing, that the 
 Son is sitting together with the Father wearing flesh (still), 3 is an 
 intercession for us, as if the flesh were sad with the Father on our 
 behalf, as for this very purpose taken (to the Father or to Heaven) 
 on account of our salvation. 
 
 P. 317. “It is manifest that they were too weak to accomplish 
 it. And on this account they used to offer after the first a second 
 
 οὕτω κατά τινα μίμησιν τούτων, εἰ Kal μὴ ἀκριβῆ, ἐν KopivOw κατά twas 
 ῥητὰς ἡμέρας, ἑορτίους ἴσως, κοινῇ εὐωχοῦντο μετὰ τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῶν 
 μυστηρίων [a curious difference of opinion but worth considering as 
 probable at times] τῶν μὲν πλουτώντων εἰσφερόντων τὸ ἐδέσματα, τῶν 
 δὲ πενήτων ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν καλουμένων καὶ ἑστιωμένων. V. 3 22, Shame them 
 that have not. Ov τοσοῦτόν, φησι, μέλει τοῖς πένησιν ὅτι οὐ τρέφετε 
 αὐτοὺς, ὅσον ὅτι καταισχύνονται, ἐλεγχόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ αὐτοὶ ἔχειν, ὑμῶν 
 φιλοτίμως ἀνακειμένων καὶ μεθυόντων. 
 
 111. P. 283, Heb. VIIT, 25, “ Seeing He ever liveth,” ce. 
 
 Διὰ γοῦν τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα τὸ, “" ᾿ ἐντυγχάνειν, ” εἶπε. Συγκαταβαίνων γὰρ 
 τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ὁ Παῦλος, Μὴ δείσητέ, φησι καὶ φιλεῖ μὲν ἡμᾶς καὶ παῤῥη- 
 σίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα. ᾿Αλλ' οὐκ ἀεὶ δύναται παρίστασθαι ἡμῶν. 
 My τοῦτο εἴπητε: ζῆ γὰρ καὶ ἀεὶ δύναται τὸ ἱερατικὸν ἔργον ποιεῖν ὑπὲρ 
 ἡμῶν. Ὅταν δὲ ἀνθρωπότητα εἴπω, οὐ διαιρῶ αὐτὴν τῆς Θεότητος (μία 
 γὰρ ὑπόστασις ἀμφοῖν) ἀλλὰ δίδωμι τοῖς ἀκούουσι τὰ πρέποντα τὰ περὶ 
 ἑκατέρας φύσεως ἐννοεῖν. Καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, τὸ σάρκα φοροῦντα Yiov 
 συγκαθῆσθαι τῷ ἸΠατρὶ, ἔντευξίς ἐστιν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ὡσανεὶ τῆς σαρκὸς 
 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δυσωπούσης τῷ Πατρὶ, ὡς Ov αὐτὸ τοῦτο προσληφθείσης πάντως, 
 διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν. 
 
 P, 317 νυν, Heb. X. 1, “Can never with those,” de. 
 
 by a cal Ν Ἂς ’ 
 ἸΠρόδηλον ὅτι ἠσθένουν τελειῶσαι. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μετὰ τὴν πρώτην 
 , ‘ /, Nes > > Ν “ 7 Ν tal id 
 θυσίαν δευτέραν καὶ ἄλλην μετ᾽ αὐτὴν προσέφερον. “Ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν φαρμά- 
 
1078] THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA. 67 
 
 and another after it. For it is as of medicines, those indeed are 
 strong which once applied cure, but those that are often applied 
 there, are shewn to be not strong. But the question is asked, 
 What then? Are not we also always bringing bloodless sacrifices ? 
 Yes; but we are making a remembrance of His death. And it is 
 one, not many, since it was offered once for all. For we are 
 always offering the same, but rather we are making a remem- 
 brance of that offering, ‘as if it were now taking place. So that 
 the sacrifice is one.” 
 
 3 Ν Ν “ Ψ € 2 , ΄ Ν Ν ΄ 3 ΄ 
 κων ἰσχυρὰ μὲν ὅσα ἅπαξ ἐπιτιθέντα θεραπεύει, τὰ δὲ πολλάκις ἐπιτιθέμενα 
 95%, A ? , a ων ΄,΄ > 3. EN Ἂν ε Lo SN: 
 αὐτόθι, δηλοῦνται ἀνισχυρά. Ζητεῖται dé, Τί οὖν; Οὐχὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς aet 
 4 3 ΄ ΄ ,ὔ 3 \ > / , “A 
 θυσίας ἀναιμάκτους προσφέρομεν : Ναί. ᾿Αλλὰ ἀνάμνησιν ποιούμεθα τοῦ 
 θανάτου. Καὶ μία ἐστιν αὐτὴ οὐ πολλαὶ, ἐπειδὴ ἅπαξ προσηνέχθη. Τὸν 
 γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀεὶ προσφέρομεν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνάμνησιν τῆς προσφορᾶς ἐκείνης 
 ποιοῦμεν, ὡς νῦν γινομένης. Ὥστε μία ἐστιν ἡ θυσία. 
 
 (N.) ABBOT RUPERT OF DUYTZ (TUY). Ὁ. 1135 
 
 When a traveller approaches Cologne, his mind is divided 
 between two opposing attractions. He may and probably in most 
 cases will plant himself as near as possible to the great cathedral 
 growing now rapidly up to a perfection, which surpasses every 
 building of pure Gothic, or, as Dr Whewell proposed to call it, 
 Christian architecture. But exactly in front of Cologne on the 
 eastern side of the Rhine there rises on the high bank of the river 
 Rupert’s little town, from whose elevation are seen the whole of 
 the great Cologne and the southern expanse of the rapid river. 
 This Rupert’s life is to us almost entirely in his works. We first 
 hear of him in the Benedictine Abbey near Liege in 1108 studying 
 under the great Wazo, Bishop of Liege. The Scriptures seem from 
 the first to have been the centre of all his researches and acqui- 
 sitions. His first exploit was against propagators of a wicked folly 
 which attributed the origin of evil to God, making God will the 
 fall of Adam. The darkest pit is said to have some stray light in 
 it, and so it were not difficult to define the one ray of truth that 
 is to be discerned in the midnight of this heresy. Rupert’s attack 
 on this erring philosophy seems to have not only drawn a nest of 
 hornets upon him, but also to have secured him some noble and 
 precious friends. His abbot in dying recommended Rupert to 
 Cuno, Abbot of Sigberg ; and he passed him on with high approval 
 
 5—2 
 
68 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 to a much greater prelate, Frederic the prince Archbishop of 
 Cologne itself: and he at once set him up on the dignified 
 eminence of the abbot of the convent of Deutz. There he lived — 
 and laboured fifteen years and he died there. His age at his 
 death is not known: but it was in A.D. 1101 that he entered the 
 order of priests. He was born in the territory belonging to Ypres. 
 
 He wrote commentaries of power on nearly all the Bible: but, 
 as our extracts will abundantly shew, he had not outgrown the 
 childish mythicism, which almost brings the charge of antiquated 
 folly on the books of God: nor does our special subject escape 
 at his hands without a full share of these fanciful dreamings of 
 secret senses. He published some valuable histories, including an 
 account of a great fire at Deutz in 1128, also some works of an 
 ascetical and mystic cast: but his two great works are a Glorifica- 
 ‘ tion of the Trine Godhead, and a dialogue between a Jew and a 
 Christian. Great divines differ about his opinions on the Lord’s 
 supper. Bellarmine asserts that he held that only persons of true 
 heart-belief received the true and real body of Christ in this 
 sacrament; but Neander decides that Rupert rejected the dogma 
 of Transubstantiation, and held little more than Luther: and 
 others of considerable name on both sides have come to the same 
 opinion. Sufficient citations are given to put it in the power of 
 every reader to see for himself how far Rupert advanced towards 
 Reformation-truth, and how far he still clung to the generally 
 received antichristian errors. Scharpff’s principal grounds for the 
 latter are given in seven passages in the Dictionnaire Encyclo- 
 pédique. I insert them after my own selections. 
 
 It is thought that his works slept unregarded and unknown for 
 40 years. Their standing editions are that of Venice 1751 in four 
 folios, and that of the all-embracing Migne, in the same number of 
 his super-royal octavos. 
 
 P. 329. “On the Trinity. Abel offered of his flock the first- 
 lings and fatlings, because the true sacrifice which our High Priest 
 Jesus Christ instituted on that night, although in external appear- 
 ance it be bread and wine, is in truth the Lamb of God, first- 
 
 Opera, Migne, Vol. I., p. 329, De Trinitate, &e., Gen. IV. v. 4. 
 
 Abel obtulit de primitiis gregis sui et adipibus eorum, quia vere 
 sacrificium quod illé nocte Pontifex noster Jesus Christus instituit, 
 quamvis exteriori specie panis et vinum sit; in veritate Agnus Dei 
 
-1155] ABBOT RUPERT OF DUYTZ. 69 
 
 begotten of all the lambs or sheep which pertain to the folds of 
 Heaven, to the passover of paradise. And this is to be noted, &c., 
 for this true sacrifice of bread and wine is not only flesh and blood 
 and spirit and life, because it is the true Word Which is incarnate 
 and is true Godhead in bread and wine, &c. [The sentences are 
 too affluent for me to give them entire. | 
 
 On Exod. ui. and 1 Tim. 11. “I indeed read in the former, 
 bread of Heaven, bread of angels, in the singular, but in the 
 latter, ‘I will rain on you bread (loaves) ;’ it is said in the plural... 
 Therefore in relation to Himself Christ is one bread, or one body 
 of Christ, but in relation to the churches of particular places and 
 in relation to the persons of the offerers or the innumerable 
 peoples of recipients you would rightly call Him a magazine of 
 food or bread in the plural. [C. x1] Besides, if we would eat 
 worthily, let us come out from all curious enquiry about bodily 
 sense, so as not to think we have to come to decisions, that is to 
 say by sight, taste, smell and touch, whether it be Christ’s true 
 body, and whether that which we are receiving be true flesh. For 
 though those things remain—the colour, scent and taste (of bread), 
 there is still enough for faith and enough for catholic piety. For 
 that the two things should be visibly changed to a new kind, the 
 latter into the flesh of a sheep, the other into horrid blood, ‘does 
 ‘not profit at all,’ yea and it is unbelieving to think it. 
 
 P. 907. “Some one says, How then will the holy fathers (1.6. 
 
 est, primogenitus omnium agnorum vel ovium que pertinent ad caulas 
 cceli ad pascha paradisi. [C, V.] Et notandum, &c. Htenim hoc verum 
 panis et vini sacrifictum non modo caro et sanguis sed spiritus et vita 
 est, quia Verbum verum, Quod incarnatum est, et vera Divinitas in pane 
 et vino est, &e. 
 
 On Exod. ITI, 10, and “ Great is the mystery,” d&e., 1 Tim. IIT. 
 
 Equidem illic panem celi, panem angelorum, singulariter; hic 
 autem ‘ Ego pluam vobis panes.” Pluraliter dictum est... Ergo se- 
 cundum Se panis unus Christus, vel unum corpus Christi, veruntamen 
 secundum locales ecclesias et secundum offerentium personas sive 
 accipientium innumerabiles populos cibaria, sive panes, recte dicas 
 pluraliter. [C. XI.] Preterea si digne manducare cupimus, ab omni 
 curiositate corporei sensus egrediamur, ut videlicet visu gustu odoratu 
 et tactu dijudicandum non esse arbitremur an verum sit corpus Christi, 
 an vera sit caro id quod sumimus. Nam istis permanentibus, colore 
 odore atque sapore, est quod sufliciat fidei, quod satis est catholicz 
 pietati... Nam mutari visibiliter in speciem novam, hoc in ovinam 
 carnem, illud in sanguinis horrorem, “non prodest quidquam,” imo et 
 infidum est. 
 
 Vol. 11. Comm. on Sol. Song. p. 907, 
 On John VI., “I will raise him up,” Ce. 
 
 Dicit aliquis, Sancti itaque patres quomodo vivent qui non come- 
 
70 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of the Old Testament) live, who did not eat nor drink this sacra- 
 ment of life, except only in a figure, and in one generation, when 
 they ate manna in the desert and drank water from the rock fol- 
 lowing them? To this I say, The wisdom of God provides for you 
 while you live as He provided for them, now dead, after their own 
 manner, and prepared the same table for them. Since they have 
 been dissipated, whose spirits are indeed in the lower regions in 
 the hope of rest, but their bodies rest in the tombs, and I, ‘the 
 ‘living Bread, Who came down from Heaven,’ shall be dissipated 
 too, John vi., and My soul indeed will go down to their souls, but 
 My body to their own bodies, that is to say into the womb of that 
 earth, by which their bodies have been received. 
 
 P. 1547. “ But some one says, That blood had not been shed 
 yet, but it was shed on the following day, in which the apostles 
 themselves also must be cleansed, though He gave to them on 
 that first night this food and this drink. For this I say, that 
 Lamb of God had already been sold, that calf of a true sacrifice was 
 now being betrayed, and on his account they were being held 
 rightly clean... ‘And the bread,’ ἄορ. Yet you would reasonably 
 say this, that even that term bread is rightly said for Him, and is 
 truly Christ’s flesh, because (as the bread remains) for us who had 
 not yet been born, for us who are alive and who succeed from the 
 apostles themselves, the same bread itself eaten by us does the 
 same for us as the flesh of Christ crucified in its own appearance 
 
 derunt neque biberunt hoc vite sacramentum nisi tantum in figura 
 et in generatione una, quando ‘‘manna in deserto comederunt,” et aquam 
 de consequente eos petra biberunt? Ad hee inquam sicut viventibus 
 vobis pro modo vestro, ita defunctis illis pro modo ipsorum Sapientia 
 Dei providit, eandemque mensam paravit. Siquidem dissipati sunt 
 1111, quoniam animze quidem apud inferos sunt in requiel spe, corpora 
 vero requiescunt in sepulchris, dissipabor et Ego, “ panis vivus Qui 
 “de colo descendi,” John vi, et anima quidem ad animas illorum, 
 corpus vero descendet ad corpora ipsorum, scilicet in ejus terre ventrem 
 quo illa recepta sunt. 
 
 P. 1547. 
 
 Matth. Sed dicit aliquis, Nondum erat fusus ille sanguis, sed 
 fusus est die sequenti, quo et ipsos apostolos oportebat emundari, 
 quibus primis illa nocte hanc escam et hune potum dedit. Ad hee 
 inquam, jam venditus erat iste Agnus Dei, jam tradebatur iste vitulus 
 sacrificli veri, et idcireco recte mundi habebantur... “ And the bread 
 ‘‘which I will give,” &c. John vii Hoc tamen rationabiliter dixeris, 
 quod vel pro Eo panis iste recte dicatur et vere sit caro Christi, quia 
 nobis residuis qui nondum eramus nati, nobis viventibus sive venientibus 
 ab ipsis apostolis, idem facit ipse comesus panis quod illis prioribus 
 
—1135] ABBOT RUPERT OF DUYTZ. rel 
 
 and dying and buried did for those former saints. It conferred 
 remission of sins, &c., &e. 
 
 P. 488. Commentary on St John. “But if any one ask from 
 us how bread created this year from the earth is the body of 
 Christ that hung upon the cross, and wine expressed from grapes 
 of the present time is His blood which He shed from His own side, 
 let us ask him how the Son of man, also conceived of a woman 
 and born of earth, descended from Heaven, or how before He 
 ascended into Heaven He could have been already in Heaven ? 
 [To think of this great abbot seeing no distinction between the 
 Divine and the human natures !] 
 
 P. 469. “For the unity of the Word makes Christ’s body one, 
 so that that (body) which then hung upon the cross and that 
 (body) which now the church’s faith makes by sacred words, is 
 
 one body, is I say one flesh and one blood. [Dexterous, if only it 
 be body. ] 
 
 P. 480. “Since My Father's guests have been dissipated by 
 death and I shall be dissipated too Who am angels’ bread, and 
 according to that substance on which angels feed, shall go to the 
 lower realm, where their souls are hungering; and laid up as 
 regards the body in the same womb of the earth, in which their 
 
 bodies have been laid up, &c. 
 
 sanctis fecit in sua specie crucifixa, moriens et sepulta caro Christi. 
 Remissionem peccatorum contulit, &e. 
 
 Vol. 111. p. 488, Comm. in Johan. 
 
 Quod si quis a nobis querat, Quomodo panis, qui hoe anno de 
 terra creatur, corpus Christi sit quod in cruce pependit, et vinum quod 
 preesentibus expressum est acinis ille sanguis Hjus est, quem de latere 
 Suo fudit ? Interrogemus eum quomodo Filius hominis, qui utique de 
 femina conceptus et de terra natus est, de ccelo descenderit; vel quo- 
 modo antequam in ccelum ascenderet jam in ceelo esse potuerit ? 
 
 P. 469. 
 
 Unitas enim Verbi unum efficit corpus Christi, ut ilud, quod 
 tune in cruce pependit et istud quod nunc ecclesiz fides ore sacro 
 conficit, unum corpus sit, una inquam caro et unus sanguis sit. 
 
 P. 480. 
 
 Quoniam convive Patris Mei per mortem dissipati sunt, &c., 
 dissipabor et Ego panis angelorum et secundum illam substantiam qua 
 pascuntur angeli, pergam ad inferos, ubi eorum anime esuriunt, et 
 secundum corpus eodem terre ventre reconditus quo recondita sunt 
 corpora illorum, &c. 
 
72 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 483. “But what is a sacrament, or whence is it so called 
 except from consecrating, in that it consecrates the body of Christ, 
 2.6. the church mixed with it, and, by consecrating, effects its 
 unity? ‘Do this, &. Further, we undoubtingly believe that all 
 the clouds of figures or similitudes being removed, we eat not any 
 kind of body that comes, nor that body of Christ which the 
 church is, but that body of the Lord which was betrayed for us 
 and drink that blood which was shed for us, &. [P. 484.] For 
 neither is there any difference between the fault of not believing 
 that those that ate of the forbidden tree died and that of not 
 believing that those that eat My flesh and drink My blood in the 
 prescribed rule are delivered from the same death...lest any one 
 should think that without the visible food and drink of His body 
 and blood he has recovered the life both of His body and soul by 
 faith alone, &. [P. 485. ‘Ye shall be, &c. ‘He that eateth,’ 
 &e.] Here He plainly makes a promise of His Godhead to them 
 that eat His own flesh and drink His own blood, &. He has not 
 used the words of the same deceiver, ‘Ye shall be as gods.’... 
 For who is or can be as God also is? Thus an angel wished to be 
 God and he became the devil. 
 
 P. 490. “Christ daily suffers and dies as often as that bread 
 is broken in commemoration of Him; and here they say, The 
 word is a hard one, &e. 
 
 P. 489. 
 
 Quid autem est vel unde dicitur sacramentum nisi a sacrando, eo 
 quod remistum, i.e. corpus Christi quod est ecclesia consecret et conse- 
 crando efficiat unitatem... ‘ Do this,” ὅσο. Luke xxii. Proinde cunctis 
 figurarum vel similitudinum nebulis remotis non corpus quodlibet, 
 non corpus Christi quod est ecclesia, sed illud corpus Domini, quod 
 pro nobis traditum est, nos manducare et illum sanguinem, qui pro 
 nobis fusus est in remissionem peccatorum, nos bibere indubitanter 
 credimus : [and p. 484] Nec enim differt in culpa non credidisse quod 
 manducantes de ligno vetito morerentur, et non credere quod mandu- 
 cantes carnem Meam et bibentes sanguinem Meum, ordine preescripto, 
 ab eddem morte liberentur... Ne quis existimet se absque corporis 
 et sanguinis Hjus cibo potuque visibili vitam utramque corporis: et 
 anime sold fide recuperasse, &c. [The Trentines probably knew this 
 passage.] P. 485, On Gen, 11]. “ Ye shall be as gods,” &c., Rupert 
 quotes, “He that eateth my flesh,” ἄρ. Hic perspicue Divinitatem 
 pollicetur carnem Suam manducantibus et sanguinem Suum bibentibus, 
 ἄς. Non ejusdem deceptoris verbis usus est dicentis, Eritis sicut 
 Di... Quis enim est vel esse potest sicut et Deus ?...Sic angelus voluit 
 esse Deus et factus est diabolus. 
 
 P, 490. 
 
 Quotidie Christus patitur et toties moritur quoties panis iste in 
 commemorationem Ejus frangitur. Et hic, inquiunt, “sermo durus est ;” 
 and p. 491 a. 
 
_ -- 185] ABBOT RUPERT OF DUYTZ. 73 
 
 P. 493. “Nestorius being ignorant of this forbad that the 
 blessed Mary should be called mother of God, and said that 
 Christ’s nature was not from Divine but only of human flesh. 
 Thus he wickedly divided one Christ into two Christs, the one 
 God and the other man; when the same Son of Man was in 
 Heaven before, whither He afterwards ascended, &c. [Is this 
 pure Cyrilism? The latter part of the sentence returns to good 
 sense. Why should not John i. 13, The Son of Man which is 
 in Heaven mean, ‘ Who as to His Godhead is in Heaven’? All 
 great Protestant divines say His manhood was not then in 
 Heaven: for it could not in itself be in two places at once. Our 
 church openly subscribes to this judgment. ] 
 
 Ῥ 333. The fire in the town of Deutz. “‘All things,’ &c. 
 So now too it happened. I wish to tell the whole as it happened, 
 intending posterity to know, and that no antiquity may be able to 
 abolish from our hearts the memory of the way in which the 
 sacrament of the Lord’s body was glorified in so great a conflagra- 
 tion, as our eyes beheld, and of the way in which this temple 
 in which we invoke the name of the Lord was freed from the 
 pressing flame, so that the presence of the Divine protection was 
 seen by many, that is to say, the appearance of a most fair man 
 leaning down from above and putting forth his hand and repelling 
 the impetus of the circumtluent sea of flame. [P. 335.] One of 
 the brethren bearing a corporal of the Lord’s table caught out of 
 
 P. 493. On “The Son of Man which is in Heaven.” 
 
 Quod ignorans Nestorius... beatam Mariam vetuit vocari Dei geni- 
 tricem, et quod Christi non Divina sed humana tantum de carne ejus 
 sumpta sit natura. Ita Christum unum in duos Christos, alterum 
 Deum alterumque hominem male divisit; cum idem Filius hominis 
 et prius fuerit in ceelo, quo post modum ascendit, &e. 
 
 Vol. tv. p. 111, long citation from libellus Romani ordinis de 
 consecratione chrismatis, with ampull, jars, half uncovered, and their 
 meaning. 
 
 Vol. IV., p. 333. De incendio oppidi Tuitir. 
 On Rom. VIII, ‘All things work together,” de. 
 
 Ita accidit et nunc. Rem ipsam ut gesta est enarrare libet, hac 
 intentione ut sciant nostri quoque posteri, et nulla temporum vetustas 
 abolere possit de cordibus nostris memoriam glorificationis, qua glori- 
 ficatum est in tanto incendio sacramentum corporis Dominici, sicut 
 viderunt oculi nostri, et liberationis qua liberatum est a pressura 
 flammze templum hoe in quo invocamus nomen Domini, taliter ut 
 a multis visa sit presentia Divine protectionis, videlicet quasi species 
 hominis pulcherrimi desuper incumbentis et circumfluentium flam- 
 marum impetum manu objecta repellentis. |P. 335.] Quidam e fra- 
 tribus raptum e sacrario ferens corporale Dominicum longo hastili 
 
74 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the chancel fastened in the upper part to a long spear, threw it as 
 if he would pierce the raging fire, until the flame rebelling broke 
 forth against him and nearly caught him in its blast. Then at 
 length withdrawing and drawing back the spear which he held 
 partly consumed, but the corporal, wonderful to tell! uninjured, 
 and unstained by the flames, he quickly let go, and cast it enve- 
 loped in flames as high as he could, desiring and hoping that by its 
 being thrown with the will of God the fire might be overcome and 
 give in as if it were strangled. But that great fire permitted too 
 by God in*a marvellous manner with secret unaccountable force, 
 threw back the corporal whole and thrust it back further off into 
 that part of the town, which had not been conceded to it, and 
 where as became manifest it was to injure nothing. Finally the 
 corporal just spoken of was brought back to such a degree entire 
 and uninjured that it had yet a not unbecoming mark on it, 1.6. 
 a line of a slightly reddish hue, being itself, as it was before, 
 all white. Another pyx with unconsecrated hosts in it, a jar for 
 wine also and the pewter vessels or cases of tin themselves, and a 
 little vase of incense and candles, and some flax-wicks (perished), 
 but that pyx alone with the body of the Lord in it remained safe 
 and untouched. [There is more; but enough has been given to 
 lead to the conclusion that if such a man as Rupert saw all this, it 
 is hard to guess what the common people did not see.] 
 
 John v. (1), “Some one might eat it unworthily : but no one 
 ought. For bread, once for all consecrated, never afterwards loses 
 
 superne illigatum... threw the spear with it into the fire, quasi 
 seevientem confoderet ignem donec usque ad ipsum prorupit flamma 
 rebellis eumque pzne afilavit. Tunc demum absistens et hastile quod 
 tenebat partim ambustum, corporale autem illesum mirum dictu! 
 et incontaminatum ignibus abstrahens quantocius absolvit et convolutum 
 flammis, quo potuit altius injecit, optans et sperans quod ex immissione 
 Hjus volente Domino opprimeretur et deficeret quasi strangulatus ignis, 
 At ille videlicet magnus et a Deo permissus ignis miro modo corporale 
 integrum occulta et incognita vi rejecit et longius repulit in eam ville 
 partem que 5101 concessa non fuerat et ubi sicut manifestum est, nihil 
 nociturus erat... Denique corporale jam dictum sic integrum et illesum 
 relatum est, ut tamen signum habeat non indecorum videlicet lineam 
 subrufam, cum sit ipsum, ut prius erat, totum candidum. [C. V.] 
 Alia pyxis hostias continens non consecratas, ampulla quoque vinaria 
 et ipsa stagnea et vasculum thuris et candelz et aliquod lini. The 
 flame seized on everything else as it were the fire of Babylon. Sola 
 autem pyxis illa cum corpore Dominico incolumis et intacta per- 
 mansit. 
 
 Scharpff in the Dict. Encycl. cites seven passages. (1) Non nemo 
 indigne manducare potest, sed nemo indigne manducare debet. Panis 
 namque semel consecratus, nunquam postea virtutem sanctificationis 
 
—1135] ABBOT RUPERT OF DUYTZ. 75 
 
 the consecration’s virtue, or ceases to be Christ’s flesh: but it does 
 not at all benefit an unworthy man, whose faith without works is 
 dead: and therefore has not the Spirit that gives life to receive it 
 with his mouth. But a worthy communicant has this advantage 
 over an unworthy, that it benefits the former to salvation, and on 
 the latter it brings judgment. (2) And when the priest distributes 
 it in the mouth of the faithful, the bread and wine is consumed 
 and passes away. For the offspring of the virgin together with 
 the Word of the Father united to it remains (at once) ἢ in Heaven 
 and among men entire and unconsumed. (3) But nothing out 
 of the sacrifice, except the visible appearances of bread and wine, 
 reaches him in whom there is no faith. (4) Because the virgin 
 conceived Him of the Holy Spirit Who is the eternal fire, and He 
 Himself by the same Spirit offered Himself a live victim to the 
 living God, He is roasted in the same fire on the altar. For by 
 the operation of the Holy Spirit the bread becomes the body, the 
 wine the blood of Christ. You will therefore eat it only roast 
 with fire, 1.6. you will attribute it entirely to the operation of the 
 Holy Spirit, Whose action is not to destroy or corrupt whatever 
 substance He takes for His own uses, but to add to the good in 
 the substance, which good remains as it was indivisibly, that 
 which before was not (or which it was not—Dominican). As the 
 Spirit did not destroy the human nature when it joined it by an 
 operation of His own from the virgin’s womb to God the Word 
 into a oneness of person, so He does not change or destroy the 
 substance of bread and wine as to outward appearance and subject 
 to our five senses, when He joins them to the same Word into a 
 
 amittit, aut Christi caro esse desinit; sed non prodest quidquam indigno, 
 cujus fides sine operibus mortua est; et idcirco Spiritum Qui vivificat 
 non habet, quo ore percipiat... Sed hoc plus habet dignus ab indigno, 
 quod huic ad salutem, illi profecit ad judicium. (2) Quod (sacrificium) 
 cum in ore fidelium sacerdos distribuit, panis et vinum absumitur 
 et transit. Partus enim virginis cum unito sibi Verbo Patris in ccelo 
 et in hominibus integer manet et inconsumptus. (3) Sed in illum, in 
 quo fides non est, preter visibiles species panis et vini nihil de sacrificio 
 pervenit. (4) In Exod. 1. 1. ¢.10, Quia de Spiritu sancto, Qui «eternus 
 est ignis, virgo Hlum concepit, et Ipse per eundem Spiritum sanctum 
 obtulit Semet hostiam vivam Deo viventi, eodem igni assatur in altari. 
 Operatione namque Spiritus sancti panis corpus, Vinum fit sanguis 
 Christi... Itaque comedetis assum tantum igni, i.e. totum attribuetis 
 operationi Spiritus sancti, Cujus effectus non est destruere vel corrumpere 
 substantiam, quamcunque Suos in usus assumit, sed substantive bono 
 permanenti quod erat indivisibiliter adjicere quod non erat. Sicut 
 naturam hominum non destruit (destruxit), cum illam operatione Sua 
 ex utero virginis Deus Verbo in unitatem persone conjunxit, sic 
 substantiam panis et vini secundum exteriorem speciem quinque sen- 
 sibus subactam, non mutat aut destruit, cum eidem Verbo in unitatem 
 
70 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 oneness of the same body that hung on the cross and of the same 
 blood that He shed from His own side. Also as the Word let 
 down from on high was made flesh and not changed into flesh but 
 by taking flesh to it, so both bread and wine raised from the 
 lowest become Christ’s body and blood, not changed into the taste 
 of flesh nor into horrid blood, but by invisibly assuming the truth 
 of both substances which are in Christ, 7.e. His Divine and human. 
 Further, as we daily and in catholic form shall confess the man 
 Who was received in the virgin and hung upon the cross, so we 
 truly call this which we take from the sacred altar, Christ, and 
 proclaim Him the Lamb of God. (5) The bread brought into and 
 immersed in the terrible mystery of Christ’s passion, seems still to 
 be that which was bread, and yet in truth is Christ Which was not 
 (bread). (6) Both species (kinds) of the bread and of the wine are 
 taken from the earth: but God the Creator of substances and 
 appearances and the Former of the Holy Spirit [unscriptural lan- 
 guage] is added to it, and superinduces the gold of the incarnate 
 Word (the gold of Christ crucified dead and buried, and after His 
 glorious resurrection taken up into Heaven to God’s right hand,) 
 not on the surface only, but efficaciously turns them into His flesh 
 and blood, although with the outer appearance remaining. (7) Let 
 us believe in the faithful Saviour God, where we do not see Him, 
 i.e. that the bread and wine have passed over into the true 
 substance of body and blood, and eating and drinking let us live 
 for ever.” 
 
 corporis ejusdem quod in cruce pependit et sanguinis ejusdem quod 
 de latere Suo fudit, ista conjungit. Item quomodo Verbum a summo 
 demissum caro factum est non mutatum in carnem sed assumendo 
 carnem, sic panis et vinum utrumque ab imo sublevatum fit corpus 
 Christi et sanguis, non mutatum in carnis saporem nec in sanguinis 
 horrorem, sed assumendo invisibiliter utriusque (Divine sc. et humane) 
 que in Christo est substantiz veritatem. Proinde, sicut hominem, 
 Qui in virgine sumptus in cruce pependit, recte et catholice confitemur, 
 sic veraciter hoc, quod sumimus de sancto altari, Christum dicimus 
 agnum Dei predicamus. (5) Gen. vii. 32. Panis admotus et immersus 
 terribili mysterio passionis Christi adhuc videtur esse panis quod erat, 
 et tamen in veritate Christus est quod non erat. (6) Exod, 1. Iv. ο. 7. 
 Species utreque, panis et vini, de terra sumuntur...sed accedit sub- 
 stantiarum atque specierum Creator Deus atque Formator Spiritus 
 Sancti, aurumque Verbi incarnati, aurum Christi crucifixi mortui ac 
 sepulti atque post gloriosam resurrectionem assumpti in coelum ad dex- 
 teram Patris, non superficie tenus inducit, sed efficaciter hee in carnem 
 et sanguinem Ejus convertit, permanente licet specie exteriori. (7) 
 Scharptf also quotes a letter to Cuno printed in the Cologne and Nurem- 
 berg edition. Credamus fideli Salvatori Deo in eo quod non videmus, 
 sc. panem et vinum in veram corporis et sanguinis transisse substan- 
 tiam, et comedentes atque bibentes vivamus in eternum. 
 
—1135] ABBOT RUPERT OF DUYTZ. 77, 
 
 I have in one case previously ventured to translate “transire” 
 in a different way from that in which I suppose it must be trans- 
 lated in these passages from Rupert. Sometimes, but very 
 seldom, the real meaning of a word seems uncertain. 
 
 (O.) ST STEPHEN, THIRD CISTERCIAN ABBOT. ABB. 1109. 
 
 This powerful branch of the Benedictine order was indeed first 
 founded by Robert, of noble family in Champagne, but he left its 
 head-quarters, Citeaux, and returned to his earlier abbey of 
 Molesme and died there. But it was Stephen, the successor of his 
 successor Alberic, to whom its after-greatness is to be ascribed. 
 Citeaux is a wasted district, but it had an attractive force in its 
 numerous cisterns, for which it is adapted, and from which it is 
 named. The French name is Ordre des Citeaux; see Dict. En- 
 cyclopéd. on the word. In rivalry of the brown tunic of the 
 Cluniac order, founded by Peter of Cluny, the Cistercians wore a 
 white tunic, but retained the brown scapulary with its hood or 
 head-covering. When it is added that Stephen’s name was 
 Harding, it is unnecessary to add that he was of English race. He 
 began his course as a monk at Molesme; but Citeaux monastery 
 being in a wilder district had more powerful attraction for him ; 
 and when he had become abbot, the superabundance of monks 
 hived off (1) to La Ferti in the diocese of Chalons, (2) to Pon- 
 tigny in that of Auxerre, (3) to Clairvaux, which lives in 
 immortal remembrance from having had the greatest of all St 
 Bernards as its president, and (4) to Morimond in the diocese of 
 Langres. These, as it is well said, were the eldest daughters of 
 the house of Citeaux. The younger establishments and their 
 affiliated institutions are past reckoning here. The popularity of 
 the Cistercian order arose from the greater severity of the life 
 enjoined upon the monks, such as abstinence even from eggs and 
 fish as well as flesh, except during sickness. But the practical 
 diligence of the Benedictine body from its first formation made 
 it more endurable. Of course with increased wealth indulgence 
 found its way into these brotherhoods as into all others. 
 
 Simon Stock, the founder of the order of the Carmelites, was 
 also an Englishman. Not to lay any stress on the vision in which 
 he received a scapulary from the Virgin Mary, we may rest on the 
 
78 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 fact that the Benedictine rule ec. 55 recognises this article of dress, 
 which was convenient for the defence of the upper part of the 
 body from rain, heat, or cold. The Ene. Dic. describes it as one 
 piece of cloth, of which one angle fell in front and the other 
 behind. Many popes thought it so far worthy of notice, that they 
 assigned special indulgences to those that wore it, so that at last 
 there was an order of the scapulary or scapulars; and at last it 
 merged into a little square of stuff with certain mystic marks - 
 worn on the shoulder. This is a reason for conjecturing that the 
 original scapular of St Benedict may have been square with a 
 hole for the head, like the Spanish poncho and some of our 
 University robes. Nevertheless there are dissenters from this line 
 of thought who maintain that the proper thing was two squares of 
 cloth tied to each other. There was, it seems—or shall we say it 
 seems to be said that there was ?—a new vision on the subject as 
 late as 1846: which also enjoys Papal sanction. Our subject leads 
 us to shew something of the views of some of these innumerable 
 and widely-spread fraternities upon the Lord’s supper. Anchorites 
 could seldom partake of it; but in brotherhoods containing many 
 ordained persons there was no limit to the facility of its repetition. 
 
 P. 1399. “Let mass be celebrated on the fifth Sunday before 
 the passover after prime with solemnity as on the birthday of one 
 apostle, and without kneeling: and let all, as well the converted as 
 the rest, communicate at the great altar, unless their great number 
 shall make another arrangement necessary: but let the deacon 
 put so many hosts to be consecrated, that the communion itself 
 may be enough for all the brethren on that very day also, and that 
 a part of the sacred communion may be able to be reserved as well 
 for the office of the day following as for the sick. But after the 
 utterance of ‘peace be to you,’ let the Lord’s body be taken from 
 the vessel on the altar, and be placed on the paten to be taken 
 
 Usus Ordinis Cistert., Pars I. de Cena Domini, 
 Migne; C. XXL, p. 1399. 
 
 Feria quinta ante pascha missa celebretur post primam solemniter ut 
 in natali unius apostoli, et sine flexione genuum, omnesque, tam conversi 
 quam ceteri, ad magnum altare communicent, nisi aliter multitudo 
 exegerit. Diaconus autem tot hostias consecrandas opponat, ut et ipsa 
 die fratribus omnibus ipsa communio sufficiat, et tam pro officio se- 
 quentis diei quam pro infirmis pars sacree communionis reservari possit. 
 Post pacem vero corpus Domini de vasculo super altare sumatur ; et 
 
11097 - ST STEPHEN, THIRD CISTERCIAN ABBOT. 79 
 
 at that hour. But let the linen cloth be presently taken from 
 the same vessel and another, presented by the sacristan, be put 
 in its place (lit.im the same place) at that hour: and when that 
 has been changed by the same sacristan, let the abbot or him that 
 sings the mass with honour put away the part of the sacred 
 communion that is to be kept till to-morrow, in a vessel previously 
 marked. And then let the old cloth, carefully shaken out in a 
 paten, be burnt over the piscina, and its ashes thrown into it. 
 ...On the preparation. Let them restore the cross to its own 
 place on the altar. Then let the abbot and the deacon approach 
 with bare feet... And when this has been done let the deacon 
 put the corporal on the altar... But let the abbot, carrying down 
 to the altar the Lord’s body and the vessel in which it is, place it 
 near the corporal, and when the deacon has made ready the cup 
 with the wine mixed with water, let the abbot, after incense has 
 been previously used, then wash his fingers in the open vessel and 
 take the holy communion out of the vessel and put it on the 
 corporal... Let him divide the Lord’s body into three parts. 
 Afterwards let the deacon, having made an incensing, wash his 
 hands and stand with the subdeacon until he ought to approach to 
 the altar to communicate.” [Compare with Christ’s simple ordi- 
 nance Matt. xxvi.| 
 
 super patenam illa hora sumendum ponatur. Linteum autem mox de 
 eodem vasculo auferatur, aliudque a sacrista illa hora praesentatum in 
 eodem ponatur; illoque mutato ab eodem secretario, mox abbas vel 
 qui cantat missam partem sacree communionis, in crastinum servandam 
 in vasculo ante notato honorifice recondat. Et tune linteum vetus, 
 in patena diligenter excussum, super piscinam comburatur, cineresque 
 ejus in eam projiciantur. Ὁ, XXII. De Parasceve. Crucem in suum 
 super altare locum reponant. ‘'Tunc abbas et diaconus...nudis pedibus 
 accedant... Quo facto diaconus corporale super altare ponat...abbas 
 vero, corpus Dominicum cum vasculo in quo est ad altare deferens, 
 juxta corporale ponat, et cum diaconus calicem cum vino aqua misto... 
 ordinaverit, abbas incenso prius adhibito, deinde aperto vasculo digitos 
 lavet et extractam de vasculo sanctam communionem super corporale 
 ponat....Corpus Domini in tres partes dividat. Porro diaconus, facta 
 thurificatione, ablutis manibus cum subdiacono stet donee communica- 
 turus accedere debeat ad altare. 
 
 (P.) BRUNO, BISHOP OF SIGNIA (SEGNI.) D. 1125. 
 
 His agnomen is Astensis, from Asti (perhaps ἄστυ) in Italy, 
 where he was born, 24 miles east of Turin, then of old as now the 
 capital of a district. There are too many other Brunos to recite 
 here. One of the same century as this Bruno is in high repute in 
 
80 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the Roman communion for having founded the order of Carthusian 
 monks in the district of Chartreux near Grenoble. It is now 
 disputed whether Bruno of Angers was on Berengar’s side, but it 
 is clear that he gave the highest preferment to Berengar. 
 
 Our Italian Bruno received his see from the hands of Gregory 
 VIL, but he retired after a while to Monte Cassino, and was drawn 
 forth thence by the urgency of his fellow-prelates, who constrained 
 him to reoccupy his chair with all its responsibilities. He is after- 
 wards chiefly signalized by his strong opposition to the teaching 
 of Berengar on the Lord’s supper. (See a letter assigned to the 
 second Bruno, Migne, Vol. 147.) Many of his works have been 
 mingled also with those of the first Bruno mentioned above. The 
 prolegomena to them in Migne’s edition ascribes to our Bruno of 
 Segni the overthrow of Berengar and his consequent temporary 
 recantation when judged before the Roman council. It credits 
 him also with having been sent in Divine Providence against the 
 schism of Guibert of Ravenna, as well as against simony and the 
 corruption of the clergy, and in favour of clerical and papal au- 
 thority. 
 
 Vol. 1. p. 1262, Cant. v. “I have drunk, &c.” “Ye, apostles, 
 are indeed the wine that being fully filled with the Divine cup, 
 are possessed of all skill. But the milk stands for those that are 
 furnished with moderate and imperfect knowledge. Christ there- 
 fore has come into His garden and carried home to Him with 
 excessive love, the myrrh which the wind had blown around, that 
 is to say the saints, whom the tyrant had made sad. Christ says 
 to the apostles, ‘Eat and drink ye, My friends.” The address 
 is to the apostles, ‘Ye are My friends, eat ye the doctrine of 
 ‘faith and My flesh; drink ye My blood (John vi. For ex- 
 cept, &c.), Eat therefore the living bread, drink the cup of the 
 
 Opera, Migne, c. LXIV. and c. LXV., p. 1262, Comm. in Cant. 6. V., 
 “T have drunk my wine with my milk.” 
 
 Vinum quidem vos estis, apostoli, qui Divino calice inebriati omnem 
 peritiam habetis, Lac vero illi sunt qui mediocri et imperfecta scieutia 
 ornantur. Venit igitur Christus in hortum Suum, et myrrham, quam 
 ventus perflaverat (sanctos scilicet quos tyrannus contristaverat) nimio 
 Secum amore devexit. Christus ad apostolos dicit, “ Comedite amici 
 “ Mei et bibite.” Apostropha ad apostolos, “ Vos amici Mei estis, vos 
 “doctrinam fidei et carnem Meam comedite, vos sanguinem Meum 
 “ibite (John vi. 54, For except ye eat My flesh, &c.). Comedite 
 
—1125] BRUNO, BISHOP OF SIGNIA, 81 
 
 ‘New Testament, and be filled to the full, my dearest friends.’ 
 For he that is inebriated with this cup is inebriated with true 
 knowledge. For he that despises riches, desires death, forgets 
 himself, cares not for things seen, and believes in things not seen, 
 does not he seem to be inebriate? [Perhaps the best exposition 
 of this singular language. | 
 
 P. 299, Matt. xxvi. 26. “The Lord is explaining in this place 
 what He meant when He said elsewhere, ‘Except ye eat, ὅσ. 
 Lo! the Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec converts 
 bread and wine by His ineffable power into the substance of His 
 own body and blood. For as He was then both living and speaking, 
 and yet was being eaten and drunk by the disciples, so now also He 
 remains entire and incorruptible, and is eaten and drunk by His 
 own believing disciples in the sacrament of bread and wine. For 
 except the bread and wine were converted into His body and blood, 
 He would never be corporeally eaten and drunken. For those things 
 are changed into these; these are eaten and drunken in those; 
 but in what mode this takes place, He Himself only knows, Who 
 can do all things and knows all things. [Exactly the doctrine 
 maintained by many in the English church since the Reformation. | 
 For He said then by His own mouth; He says now too by His own 
 ministers, ‘This is My body.” And so great is the power and 
 efficacy of His word, that what is said takes place immediately. 
 But in like manner while He says ‘This is my blood, the wine is 
 presently converted into His blood. ‘And He took, &c. This, 
 
 “igitur panem vivum, bibite calicem novi testamenti et inebriamini, 
 charissimi.” Qui enim hoc calice inebriatur vera scientia inebriatur. 
 Qui enim divitias spernit, mortem desiderat, sui obliviscitur, negligit 
 απ videt, credit quae non videt, nonne is ebrius esse videtur ? 
 
 Matt. XXVI. 26, p. 299. 
 
 Exposuit Dominus hoc in loco quod significaret quum alibi diceret 
 John vi. 54, “ Except ye eat,” ὅς. Ecce sacerdos in eternum secundum 
 ordinem Melchizedech panem et vinum virtute ineffabili in Sui corporis 
 et sanguinis substantiam convertit. Sicut enim tune et vivebat et 
 loquebatur et tamen a discipulis comedebatur et bibebatur, ita et 
 modo integer et incorruptibilis manet, et a fidelibus Suis in panis et 
 vini sacramento quotidie bibitur et manducatur. Nisi enim panis et 
 vinum in Hjus carnem et sanguinem verterentur, nunquam Ipse corpo- 
 raliter manducaretur vel biberetur. Mutantur enim ista in illa: come- 
 duntur et bibuntur illa in istis: quod qualiter fiat Ipse solus novit 
 Qui omnia potest et omnia novit. Dixit enim tune per Se: dicit et 
 modo per ministros Suos, “This is My body.” Et tanta est Ejus verbi 
 virtus et efficacia, ut statim fit quod dicatur. Similiter autem dum dicit, 
 “This is My blood,” mox in Ejus sanguinem vinum convertitur “ And 
 “He took the cup and said,” ἄς. ὥς. Hic, inquit, sanguis Meus est, 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΠΝ G 
 
82 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. 
 
 He says, is My blood, which is to be shed, not this one, and that 
 another, but that and this, one and the same. To-morrow there- 
 fore it shall be shed from My side, which ye are now drinking and 
 seeing in the cup. 
 
 P.291. “1 will drink, &.” “The kingdom of God is the 
 church, in which the old wine is not drunk, nor is the old doctrine 
 taken up, because the Scripture is not understood to the letter but 
 spiritually. In this (church) Christ drinks the new wine with us, 
 since remaining with us He hungers and thirsts with us and is 
 refreshed in our persons with food and drink. Matt. xxv. 35, &e. 
 
 P. 444, Luke xxiv. “He says, Much have I desired to eat 
 this passover with you, that I might fulfil the old things and pass 
 over to the new. ‘Till it be fulfilled, &.’, ἡ. 6. till it be spiritually 
 understood and done. ‘At My table, &c.’ But this can also be 
 understood of that Heavenly table, at which the saints are re- 
 freshed solely with the contemplation of the greatest good.” [Bruno 
 appears to have caught something from Berengar’s beautiful utter- 
 ances. One would almost wish to think he had written “Summi 
 “ Boni,” the supreme and most good God. | 
 
 qui fundendus est, non alius iste et alius ille: sed unus idemque et -iste 
 et 1116. Cras igitur fundetur ex hoc Meo latere, quem vos modo bibitis 
 et videtis in calice. 
 
 P.291. “I will drink no more,” &e. 
 
 Regnum Dei ecclesia est, in qué vetus vinum non bibitur nec vetus 
 doctrina suscipitur: quia non ad literam sed spiritualiter Scriptura 
 intelligitur. In hac Christus vinum novum bibit nobiscum, quoniam 
 
 nobiscum manens in nobis esurit et sitit, in nobis cibatur atque potatur. 
 Matt. xxv. 35, &e. &e. 
 
 P, 444, Luke XXIV. 
 
 Multum, inquit, hoc pascha vobiscum manducare desideravi, ut 
 vetera complerem et ad nova transirem. “Till it be fulfilled in God’s 
 “kingdom,” 1. 6. donee in regno Dei spiritualiter intelligatur et agatur... 
 “* At My table in My kingdom.”... Hoc autem et de illa celesti mensa 
 
 intelligi potest, in qué sancti sol4 summi boni contemplatione refici- 
 untur, 
 
THE TWELFTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) PETER OF BLOIS, ARCHDEACON OF BATH AND OF LONDON. 
 B. 1130. ». 1200. 
 
 His training is due to Bologna as well as Paris. It embraced 
 many branches of human learning: but all gave way before theo- 
 logy when John of Salisbury became his instructor. At 36 he went 
 to Sicily as tutor to a relative of the king; but the hatred felt 
 there towards the French drove him out; and coming to England 
 he was made Archdeacon of Bath at the request of Henry IL. 
 and Chancellor of Canterbury under Richard, being thus the suc- 
 cessor of Thomas ἃ Becket. After 26 years he visited France, but 
 never struck root there; so that he returned to England and died 
 on English ground. He was at one time in possession of the 
 Archdeaconry of London: which they say was poorer though a 
 far heavier office than that of Bath. He is praised for high inte- 
 grity, as well as for practical talents. But his writings give us 
 the man. 
 
 Of his verses 1 take but six, on the water and wine. There 
 are in these no false quantities and but one anti-Priscian liberty. 
 I will not versify, but give literal prose. 
 
 “Three mystic gifts are set on the Lord’s table 
 But after consecration only two are found. 
 There is water mixed with the wine before, but afterward 
 There is only blood, to feed our inward spirit. 
 The water is for a mystic meaning, but Christ’s blood 
 absorbs it, 
 For God translates the earth of our body into His own.” 
 
 Sed licet in mens& Domini tria constituantur 
 Munera, sunt tantum duo postquam sanctificantur. 
 Est aqua mista prius vino; sed quando sacratur 
 Nonnisi sanguis erit, quo spiritus intus alatur. 
 Mystica res dat aquam. Christi cruor ebibit Ulam ; 
 Nam transfert nostram Deus in Sua membra favillam. 
 
 6—2 
 
84 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 P. 613. “At the Lord’s supper they make void Christ’s 
 passion and deride all the matter of our redemption who do not 
 with the utmost humility and diligence consider with how great 
 reverence Christ’s flesh and blood ought to be made, and how 
 devoutly handled, how holily received, and how carefully dis- 
 pensed: Heb. ix. ‘If the blood of bullocks, &c., &c’ But I have 
 set this before you regarding the sacrament of the altar and the 
 mass, because the institution of this sacrament was ministered 
 to-day ; to-day if I may so speak the mass was born. For this 
 reason and as it were in the day of its birth, the mass is 
 celebrated with more elegant worship and with a multitude and 
 divers kinds of priests standing around, as it is written, Ps. cxvii. 
 Make a solemn day with persons close together even to the horn of 
 the altar, 7.e. in the multitude of priests even to the virtue and 
 efficacy of the sacrament ... that He may receive at His table and 
 communicate Himself to us in His own table, a viaticum (7.e. 
 provision for the way) in this life, and in that which is to come 
 the fulness of our desires, Christ Jesus, to Whom is honour and 
 glory to ages of ages. Amen. 
 
 P. 859. “Against the Jews’ perfidiousness, c. 27, on the 
 sacrament of the altar. But life eternal is in the sacrament of 
 the altar, so that it is impossible that those that worthily partake 
 of it can die eternally. The bread and wine offered by Mel- 
 chizedek, king and priest, were as it were sacraments (sacred 
 signs) of this sacrament: and the sacrifice is celebrated in bread 
 
 Opera, Migne, Vol. CCVII. p. 613, Sermo XIX. 
 In Cena Domini. 
 
 Passionem Christi evacuant, totumque negotium nostre redemptionis 
 irrident, qui cum summa humilitate et diligentia non attendunt, cum 
 quanta reverentid caro et sanguis Christi debeat confici, quam devote 
 tractari, quam sancte suscipi, quam industrie dispensari. Heb. ix. 
 “Tf the blood,” &c. Heec vero de sacramento altaris et de miss4 proposui 
 quia hodie hujus sacramenti institutio facta est; hodie ut ita dicam 
 missa nata est. Unde et quasi in die sui natalis missa elegantiore cultu 
 et cum multitudine et diversitate sacerdotum circumstantium cele- 
 bratur, sicut scriptum est, Constituite diem solennem in condensis usque 
 ad cornu altaris, Ps. exvil. id est in multitudine sacerdotum usque 
 ad virtutem et efficaciam sacramenti...Qui nos ad mensam Suam recipiat 
 et Seipsum nobis in mensa Sua communicet in hac vité viaticum, et 
 in futuro plenitudinem desideriorum, Christus Jesus, Cui est honor 
 et gloria in seecula seeculorum. Amen. 
 
 Contra perfidiam Judeorum. C. XXVITI. De Sac. Altaris, p. 859. 
 
 In sacramento autem altaris est vita sterna, ut impossibile sit 
 digne participantes sternaliter mori. Hujus sacramenti quasi sacramenta 
 fuerunt panis et vinum a Melchisedech rege et sacerdote oblata; atque 
 in pane et vino hoc sacrificium celebratur, Christo instituente, &e. 
 
1150] PETER OF BLOIS. 85 
 
 and wine, Christ Himself instituting it thus, ἄς. But also this 
 sacrament was figured in the sacrifice of Isaac and in the sacrifices 
 of other just men; yet Melchizedek’s oblation figured it more 
 expressly. But if the Jew grunt in dissatisfaction at this, saying 
 that Melchizedek offered the bread and wine to Abraham for his 
 refreshment and not as a sacrifice to God, let him listen to the 
 reading of Genesis, where after the oblation of the bread was 
 made by Melchizedek, it is immediately subjoined, For he was the 
 priest of the most high God. For he could have brought these 
 things for refreshment, if he had not been a priest. But the 
 priest’s office is made plain in this, as it is a priest’s office to 
 sacrifice to bless and to receive tithes. The law figured the 
 sacrament in bread and in the lamb and in the manna. But 
 bread springs from the earth according to that saying, Ps. ciii., 
 ‘That thou mayest bring bread out of the earth:’ and Ps, Ixxxiv., 
 ‘The Truth, Christ, sprang from the earth.’ Christ as the Lamb 
 was sacrificed, Isaiah liii., ‘He was led as a lamb to the slaughter.’ 
 The manna came down from the heaven. And Christ says, John 
 xvi., ‘I came down from the Father and have come into the world.’” 
 
 Licet hoc autem sacramentum fuerit in sacrificio Isaac figuratum, 
 aliorumque justorum sacrificiis, oblatio tamen Melchizedech expressius 
 figuravit. Quod si Judeeus obgrunniat dicens Melchizedech dedisse 
 panem et vinum Abrahe in refectionem illius, non ut Deo sacrificium 
 offerret, audiat Genesis lectionem, ubi post oblationem panis a Melchisedech 
 factam, statim subjungitur, Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. Hee 
 enim in refectionem ferre potuisset, si sacerdos non esset, Sed in eo 
 sacerdotis officium declaratur, cujus est sacriticare, benedicere, decimas 
 accipere.. Figuravit lex sacramentum in pane et agno et manna. 
 Panis autem de terra nascitur juxta illud Ps. ciii., Ut educas panem 
 de terra: et Ps. lxxxiv., Veritas, Christus, de terra orta est. Agnus 
 immolatus est Christus, Is. lii., Sicut agnus ad occisionem ductus est. 
 Manna de celo descendit. Et Christus dicit, Joh. xvi. Descendi a 
 Patre et veni in mundum. 
 
 (B.) GUIBERT, ABBOT OF ST MARY OF NOGENT EN COUCI. 
 ABBOT 1104. bv. 1124. 
 
 Besides the treatise on the sop given to Judas and on the truth 
 of the Lord’s body, Guibert wrote other treatises and commentaries. 
 He is also notable for eight books on the Divine exploits by means 
 of the French, to which we owe a description of the person of Peter 
 the Hermit. He also gives us an autobiography in three books. 
 He was brought up under our own Anselm, when he was Abbot of 
 
80 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Bec in Normandy, and dedicates his history of the Crusade to the 
 Bishop of Soissons. The subjects of three other of his treatises are 
 (1) The praise of the Virgin, who he says is the door of the 
 temple in Ezekiel that opened toward the east, (2) Virginity, and 
 (3) Relics, pignora sanctorum, which was written to bring to 
 reason his neighbours the monks of the convent of St Medard, 
 who annoyed him by continually magnifying a very precious 
 relic, which they said they possessed, a real tooth of Jesus our 
 Saviour: which we shall see leads him to a there also of the 
 Lord’s supper. 
 
 These extracts are preceded by a notice that they are against 
 Berengar. Certainly Anselm had no reason to be ashamed of his 
 pupil: nor was Guibert a feeble coverer of Anselm’s side in the 
 contest. His Latin too is better than most. True, many of hig 
 arguments, founded oa the Communion Service in use at that day, 
 require no answer from members of the Church of England, whose 
 form of service has no similar expressions: and the inference 
 a fortiort from the effect of Baptism in giving forgiveness of sins, 
 falls equally harmless on those churches which do not even hold 
 that original sin is removed by baptism. And moreover the 
 answer to the question why we make more of this than of other 
 types and shadows of Christ, is that Christ gave to this a signal 
 and eminent honour and glory. But all this it may have without 
 our believing that “the something special in it” amounts to the 
 bread and the wine being Christ’s true natural body. This our 
 church denies, 
 
 In all these extracts from the treatise on relics Guibert seems 
 to me to be throughout at the very boundary of reason on 
 this side or the other. And the reply is that as we believe the 
 humanity of Christ to be true and real, so we conclude that this 
 body of flesh and blood was as much like ours, as ours is like 
 Adam’s when he was created. To say then that it was not in 
 itself mortal or capable of suffering, and to attribute Christ’s 
 capability of suffermg and dying simply to His will, is to be far 
 wiser than Holy Writ, and is to be in danger of falling unawares 
 into folly and heresy at once. Yet the Scriptures involve such 
 strong reasons for Christ’s body not being present in the Lord’s 
 supper, that the only chance for a combatant on the opposite side 
 is to practise the feint of Guibert in this treatise, “caput inter 
 “nubila condere.” 
 
—1124] ABBOT GUIBERT. 87 
 
 P. 528. “On the sop given to Judas and on the truth of the 
 Lord’s body. First it is even a matter of horror, if I may say 
 anything on which I may seem to be contradicting the opinion of 
 the fathers. [As if all the fathers had on every point one 
 opinion, and as if it were a horrible sin to hold a different 
 opinion.] I ask therefore that if I should yet have said anything 
 
 eyond the rule [of faith], thou wouldst hear them as in the 
 intention with which I shall speak them... But Luke gives 
 the weight of his name to the delivery of our Lord’s body (7.e, into 
 the hands of Judas), The author of the letter says that it stands 
 forth as a sign and not as the truth [of Christ’s body]... If itis 
 a shadow of it and not the body we are falling down first to one 
 shadow and then to another... If that is true, which is delivered 
 by the old authors—than which nothing is more true—original 
 sin was forgiven before circumcision through sacrifices. But as to 
 this victim (host) of ours, the Lord having suffered once for all, 
 if it (this sacrament) be a figure only of Him Who suffered, 
 I know not whether it has any true efficiency. But if it be only a 
 commemoration of His death, like some representation of God or of 
 some saint or other such as is wont to be painted in the churches, 
 it is but perfunctory, [1.6. going through a rite without any special 
 inherent power in 10]. That therefore which it shews is a memorial 
 to the common people’s eyes, and supplies little or no assistance to 
 the wise. But I would wish to know why the cup of blood is 
 called that of the new and eternal testament. Where any inno- 
 vation is made antiquity is abrogated. If antiquity is in fault and 
 novelty is in favour, grace itself is none at all unless its influence 
 extends to eternity. But it gives a kind of witness and promise of 
 
 Migne, p. 528. 
 
 De bucella Jude data, et de veritate Dominici corporis. Primo etiam 
 horrori mihi est, si aliqua dicam in quibus videar Patrum sententiz 
 refragari. Unde peto, ut si que tamen preter regulam dixero, ea 
 audias intentione qua dicam. [P. 530.] Lucas vero corporis Dominici 
 traditioni (sc. in Jude manus) subscribit... Epistole auctor dicit quod 
 signum et non veritas extet...Si umbra est et non corpus, in umbram 
 de umbra decidimus... Si verum est quod ab auctoribus traditur—quo 
 nihil verius—ante circumcisionem originale peccatum sacrificiis solve- 
 batur. Heec autem hostia nostra, passo semel Domino, si sola Passi 
 figura (ut dicitur) sit, si quid veri efficiat nescio. Quod si sola mortis 
 Illius memoria est, quasi aliqua aut Dei aut sancti cujuspiam, que in 
 ecclesiis pingi solet, imago, perfunctoria est. Quod ergo solum prefert, 
 rudium oculis monimentum parvum aut nullum prestat sapientibus 
 adjumentum. Sed scire velim quare calix sanguinis novi et eterni testa- 
 menti dicitur (Matt. xxvi. 28, Mk. xiv. 24, Lu. xxii. 20). Ubi quid 
 innovatur, vetustas abrogatur (Heb. viii. 13). Vetustas in peccato si 
 est, et novitas in gratia, gratia ipsa nulla est nisi ad eternitatem possit. 
 
88 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 eternity. It is therefore the efficient cause of certain good, and 
 not empty or merely shadowy [1.6. figurative]. For which reason 
 also in the rule of consecrating, the same cup is called a mystery 
 of faith... Hach therefore [the bread and the wine] 15 a mystery 
 ... What then does the additional idea ‘of faith’ mean? It 
 plainly is as if one were to say, The secret essence of the whole of 
 the faith, in which that is to say the greatness of all our believing 
 is hid. For which reason also they say what follows, ‘The cup of 
 ‘blood itself conveys in itself a fruit nothing less than Divine; that 
 is to say, remission of sins. Let (the others) then say what shadow 
 (figure) there is which brings forth so great truth. I wonder also 
 with what ears they hear the words of the Truth Himself, John vi. 
 56, where there truly is something, ‘He that eateth My flesh and 
 ‘drinketh, ὅθ. How is it only an appearance or only a shadow ? 
 And certainly if after the priest’s prayer the appearance of bread 
 were quite changed into flesh, contention would be laid to rest... 
 But if it is an appearance, and has nothing more (real) than the 
 rock, which according to the apostle is Christ, I wonder why we 
 do not pay (lit. follow with) to rocks, trees, and other things, which 
 in the Scriptures are said to signify Christ, the same tribute of 
 attention and praise that we pay to the small portion of bread 
 and wine which is made on the altar. Why not call them 
 ‘blessed, &e.’ and again ‘pure, holy and immaculate, also founts 
 of ‘eternal life,’ or ‘of everlasting salvation’? [All this is but an 
 appeal to the church’s received opinions and not to truth itself, or 
 to the Bible.] And lastly, after ‘they will be borne home to the 
 ‘lofty altar of God by angel’s hands at the priest’s prayer, which 
 refers to nothing else than Christ’s body, ἄορ ἡ Why call we not 
 
 Aiternum autem quiddam testatur et spondet. Magni igitur cujusdam 
 boni effectiva, et non inanis aut umbratica est... Unde et in consecrativo 
 canone calix isdem mysterium fidei appellatur... Est ergo utrumque 
 mysterium... Quid itaque sibi vult adjectivum jidei ? Est plane ac si 
 diceret, Arcanum totius fidei, in quo scilicet universe nostre credulitatis 
 majestas latet. Unde et sequentia dicunt, Ipse calix sanguinis fructum 
 in se portat nonnisi Divinum—remissionis videlicet peccatorum. Dicant 
 ergo quenam umbra est, quee tantam parturit veritatem. Muiror quoque 
 quibus auribus audiant Ipsius Veritatis verba, John vi. 56, ubi vere 
 quidpiam est. Sola species aut sola umbra quomodo est? Et certe 
 si post orationem sacerdotis species panis demutaretur in carnem, con- 
 tentio sopiretur... Quod si species est, et nihil habet amplius quam 
 petra, que secundum apostolum Christus est, miror quare petras ligna 
 et cetera, que Christum in Scripturis significare dicuntur, non ea 
 aspectione e& laude prosequimur qua illam hostiolam panis ac vini, 
 que in altare conficitur! Quare non ea ‘ benedicta,” &e.; et rursum 
 “pura sancta immaculata :” ‘vite quoque eterne,” aut “salutis per- 
 ‘““petue.” Et ultimum, postquam ‘in sublime Dei altare per manus 
 “angeli sacerdotis precatione deferentur,” quod non est aliud quam 
 
—112+4] ABBOT GUIBERT. &9 
 
 them again the sanctified, vivified and blessed (elements of the 
 living Lord) ἢ 
 
 P. 532. “And alas for the sluggishness of our minds ! so much 
 force is allowed to the element of baptism by the invocation of the 
 blessed Trinity, that simple water is made fruitful and quickened 
 to wash our sins, and to this sacrament, which is made by God’s 
 own word, only a stupid figurative meaning is assigned. 
 
 P. 609. Of the saints’ pledges. “ Where the speaking concern- 
 ing the Lord’s body has come on, then all that we had begun to 
 say regarding the Giver has fallen through. 
 
 P. 631. “Will there then be two bodies set forth to inculcate 
 this remembrance ? John xii. 8,‘ Me ye will not always have’ ; 
 Matt. xxvii. 20, ‘But I am with you always, ὅθ. We must 
 without doubt know that the latter is to be understood of defending 
 us in spiritual things, since He is God: but the former of His 
 bodily presence ... For His saying ‘ Me’ embraces whatever His 
 manhood ever was. 
 
 P. 634. “It is asked whether that body which is received 
 from the altar wears the appearance of a living or of a dead Lord. 
 [See the Rev. Canon Vogan]... But in person He is God and 
 man. What reasoning will allow God and man to be capable of 
 being eaten? For it is (assumed) in that word ‘ He that eateth 
 
 Christi corpus, &e.? Quare non iterum “sanctificata vivificata ac 
 “ benedicta ” vocamus ? 
 ἢ. 532. 
 
 Et, Ὁ vecordia! elemento haptismatis per Trinitatis invocationem 
 tantum defertur ut simplices aque ad peccata eluenda feecundentur 
 et vivificentur, et huic sacramento, quod Dei proprio verbo counficitur, 
 sola stolida figura tribuitur. 
 
 De pignoribus sanctorum, p. 609. 
 
 Ubi de Domini corpore sermo incidit, totum etiam tune, quod loqui 
 super Dante cceperamus, excidit. 
 
 Tel ΘΝ: 
 
 Duo ergo erunt corpora nobis ad hane memoriam inculcandam pre- 
 stituta ? ii ohn xii. 8, Me non semper habebitis; Matt. xxviii. 20, 
 Ego autem vobiscum semper, &c. Sciendum procul dubio quia hoc 
 intelligendum est de tutela, in quantum Deus est, spirituali: illud de 
 presentid corporali... Quod enim. dicit, “Me,” quidquid humanitas 
 unquam fuit, complectitur. 
 
 P, 634. 
 
 Queeritur utrum corpus illud, quod ab altari sumitur, speciem viventis 
 Domini vel mortui gerat ... Personaliter autem Deus ac homo est. 
 Deum ergo et hominem mandibilem fieri quie permittet ratio? In 
 
90 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘Me’ John vi. 58. It seems that it must be so understood. 
 [Rather a ground for not so believing it.] 
 
 P. 640. “Shall we then say that the teeth of worthless little 
 creatures happen to eat that which Christian leaders, with such ᾿ 
 feeling and so many tears in the midst of their pious flocks, sacri- 
 fice, though indeed it is Christ that is High-priest in it ?... 
 
 P. 646. “There is therefore nothing whatever mortal or 
 passible in Christ: nothing at all would you find in Him but the 
 incorruptible and immortal, except that He wished to die. [The 
 last few words overthrow all his argument, for if His body could 
 die it was not immortal. | 
 
 P. 648. “But they resolve that it ought in no other way to 
 be understood than that it ought to be received in that property of 
 it in which it was when He was setting forth the same body to 
 the disciples to be eaten. Answer. No difference can be made 
 between a living and a dead body... His power makes Him 
 omnipotent for either... Our Lord wished to lead us from His 
 principal body to His mystical [which Guibert held to be a real 
 material body also], and starting thence to educate us as it were 
 by certain steps to an understanding of the subtle nature of the 
 Divine.” 
 
 eo enim verbo que dicitur, “Qui manducat Me” John vi. 50, sic neces- 
 sario intelligi debere videtur. 
 
 P. 640. 
 
 Dicemus ergo quod vilium bestiolarum dentes fortuitu molant, quod 
 tantis affectibus totque cum lacrimis Christiani presules, cum piis gre- 
 gibus, Christo tamen preepontificante, immolant ? 
 
 ἽΡ. 0: 
 
 Non est igitur mortale aut passibile in Christo quidpiam...nihil 
 omnino nisi incorruptibile et immortale, nisi quod mori voluit, im Ipso 
 reperias. 
 
 P. 648. 
 
 Aliter autem neutiquam intelligi debere perpendunt, nisi ut in ea 
 qualitate accipi debeat in qua, cum corpus idem manducandum discipulis 
 proponerat, erat, ὅθ. (Answer) Nil inter viventem et mortuum discerni 
 potest...Omnipotentem efficacia reddit...A principali corpore ad mysti- 
 cum Dominus noster nos voluit traducere, et exinde quasi quibusdam 
 gradibus ad Divine subtilitatis intelligentiam erudire. 
 
c. 1100] HERVE, THE MONK OF BOURG DIEU. oT 
 
 (C.) HERVE, THE MONK OF BOURG DIEU. MONK ABOUT 1100. 
 
 He was a native of Mans, and must not be confounded with 
 the Dominican Hervé of Brittany, of the 14th century, who wrote 
 on the book of Peter Lombard. The monk of Bourg Dieu in Berri 
 was a great student of the Bible and of the fathers of the early 
 centuries, particularly of Augustine, whose writings he uses, like 
 many more, as if they were his own. The commentary which he 
 wrote on Isaiah in eight books is followed by a similar handling of 
 all St Paul’s Epistles, except the brief letter to Philemon. These 
 survive, and long had the honour of being printed with the works 
 of Anselm. But he wrote on many other parts of the sacred 
 volume. The fast before Easter had something to do with his 
 death. It is said that he compiled an account of the miracles that 
 were wrought in his town by the influence of the Virgin, and that 
 he would have written on a work then attributed to Cyprian on 
 the Lord’s supper had he lived longer. His town has the name of 
 Bourg Deols (qy. Dole), so that he acquires the title Burgidolensis. 
 
 P. 935. Commentary on 1 Corinthians xi. “ Eating unworthily.” 
 “Since we have proved by the authority of the Lord Jesus that 
 that bread is His body and the wine His blood, and that that 
 mystery is to be celebrated or to be received in commemoration of 
 the death of (Christ) Himself, therefore whatever man, be he rich or 
 in middle life or poor, be he clerical or lay, shall have eaten this 
 bread of the Lord and have drunk the cup of the Lord unworthily, 
 shall be guilty, &c. He eats and drinks unworthily who celebrates 
 or who receives this mystery otherwise than it was handed down 
 by Christ. Therefore he becomes guilty, &c. He will suffer the 
 penalties (appertaining to) the Lord’s death, &c. 
 
 Com. in 1 Cor. XI. P. 935. On eating unworthily, ke. 
 
 Quandoquidem auctoritate Domini Jesu probavimus panem illum 
 esse corpus Hjus et vinum sanguinem Hjus, atque celebrandum vel 
 accipiendum esse mysterium illud in commemorationem mortis Ipsius, 
 itaque quicunque homo, sive dives sive mediocris sive pauper, sive 
 clericus sive laicus, manducaverit panem Domini hune et biberit calicem 
 Domini indigne reus, &e. Indigne manducat et bibit, qui mysterium 
 hoe aliter celebrat vel accipit quam a Christo traditum, [See Cyprian, 
 Ep. LXIII.] Ideo fit reus, &e., ie. dabit peenas mortis Domini, 
 ἄς, &e. 
 
92 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 938. 1 Cor. xi,last v. ‘He first shewed how a man and 
 how a woman ought to manage regarding the head; next in what 
 way each sex must meet in church, &. But the other things 
 [Gk. τὰ λοιπὰ], that pertain to the church’s edification, he pro- 
 mised that he would set in order when he was present, because 
 it would be a long matter to direct them in the whole order of 
 action, which the whole church through the world observes, in his 
 letter.”. 
 
 P. 938. 1 Cor. XI. “The rest will I set in order when I come.” 
 
 Prius ostendit quomodo vir et quomodo foxmina caput agere debeat ; 
 deinde qualiter ab utroque sexu in ecclesiam convenire oporteat, &c. 
 Cxetera vero, que ad edificationem ecclesiz pertinent, preesentia sud 
 ordinaturum se promisit, quia multum erat ut in epistola sua totum 
 illis agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem universa per orbem servat 
 ecclesia. 
 
 (D.) HUGUES DE 5. VICTOR, OR DE PARIS. B. 1048. D. 1141. 
 Canon of the St Augustine Convent, so-called. 
 
 If Anselm had not won the position of a second St Augustine 
 we might more patiently listen to the reason for honouring this 
 Hugo with that title. But he seems to have less of the dialectic 
 element than Anselm or than Abailard, with whose opinions he 
 contends. He was a native of Ypres in Holland, and in 1118 
 was admitted on the foundation of the Parisian School of St 
 Victor, founded by the Realist William of Champeaux after his 
 defeat by Abailard. 
 
 One may protest against inward and personal religion being 
 nicknamed “mysticism ”; but if all its professors had been as sober 
 and sound as Hugo de St Victor in the cultivation of subjective 
 religious experience, it would have little merited that opprobrious 
 brand. One of his chief works is on the sacraments. Gieseler 
 judges that in this school scholasticism and mysticism were united; 
 the former to contribute light, the latter warmth and practicality. 
 Richard and Walter both also bear the title de St Victor: the 
 former was a true follower, the latter an extravagant assailant, of 
 the schoolmen. 
 
 He was a close friend of St Bernard, and had much correspond- 
 ence with that notable man, who dedicates to Hugo his treatise on 
 
1048] HUGUES DE 5. VICTOR. 93 
 
 Baptism. He is reckoned superior in knowledge to all scholastic 
 writers before him, and to all of his own time. In his views were 
 united reason and revelation, faith and science, speculation and 
 practice, intelligence and the heart, nature and grace. Thus the 
 panegyric runs; and his treatise on the sacraments is said to com- 
 prise the whole of theology. Cramer (Leipsic, A.D. 1785), cited in 
 the book referred to, says, “If ever a work merited the name of a 
 “system it is that,’ &c., &c., concluding thus: “In following Hugo 
 “we do not find ourselves in regions whose splendour and magni- 
 “ficence blind and lead astray, nor in an arid desert that fatigues 
 “and kills, but in an agreeable and fertile open country, that 
 “Yefreshes and reanimates (récrée et ranime).” 
 
 P. 824. “Of the many ways of receiving the eucharist. Let 
 Him who has once been given to the world in the form of flesh, be 
 given at all days and at all hours to the faithful in the form of 
 bread, ὁ.6. in that real thing in His own sacrament; but He is 
 given more frequently and at all hours to the faithful in tasting 
 His Spirit: first unto redemption—secondly unto sanctification— 
 thirdly unto consolation. The first requires that there be right 
 faith ; the second that the conscience be pure; the third that there 
 be devoutness pure and ready. This raises the mind up to meet 
 grace: opens the heart to receive it: expands the affection, that 
 from this he may receive more. 
 
 P. 580. “Questions on the epistles of Paul. 1 Corinthians. 
 Why has He given this sacrament under another appearance and 
 not under its own? Solution. That that which concerns unseen 
 things may have its merit [in seeing it]... and that the eye may 
 
 De multiplict acceptione Eucharistic. Opera, Migne, Vol. 117. p. 824. 
 Qui semel datus est mundo in forma carnis Is cunctis diebus aut 
 horis detur fidelibus in specie panis, scilicet in e& re sacramenti Sui ; 
 sed sepius et in cunctis horis devotis datur in gustu Spiritus Sui: 
 primum ad redemptionem—secundum ad sanctificationem—tertium ad 
 consolationem. Primum exigit ut fides sit recta: secundum ut con- 
 Scientia sit pura; tertium ut devotio sit pura et (in) promptu. Hoc 
 -mentem elevat ut gratiz occurrat; cor aperit ut recipiat; affectum 
  dilatat ut plurimum inde plus capiat. 
 
 1 Cor. XT. Vol. I. p. 530. 
 Queestiones in epistolas Pauli. 
 
 Cur sub aliaé specie et non sub propria hoe sacramentum dederit ? 
 Solutio. Ut fides haberet meritum, que est de invisibilibus...et ne 
 
94 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 not be revolted by that which the hand holds, and that it may not 
 receive insult from those of us that do not believe. For He 
 assumed body on account of the body, soul on account of the soul ; 
 and the bread is changed into flesh and the wine into blood. 
 Whether the sacrament be made void, if water be omitted ? 
 It will not seem so to be, unless [the officiant] intentionally 
 omitted it. The wicked truly receive both. 
 
 P. 139. “Concerning the sacred thing of the altar. Let it 
 par excellence be called the eucharist, 7.e. good grace. Not only is 
 grace required, but He from Whom is all grace... When there- 
 fore we confess that the same body which hung on the cross and 
 lay in the tomb is without doubt on the altar: and is as much 
 here as it also was there, and now is at the right hand of the 
 Father, it is not a matter of doubt that the same body of Christ on 
 His own altar is not without a form, but is there invisibly, hid 
 invisibly on the altar under another form. 
 
 P. 144. “For we cannot say that they (that appearance and 
 taste) are in the substance of bread and wine, since there is 
 not there the substance of bread and wine, but Christ’s true body, 
 nor dare we say they are in the body of Christ.” [A new 
 difficulty. | 
 
 abhorreret oculus quod tenet manus, et ne ab incredulis nobis insultaretur. 
 Corpus enim propter corpus, animam propter animam assumpsit, et 
 panis in carnem, vinum in sanguinem mutatur.., An irritum fiat sacri- 
 ficium si aqua pretermittatur ? non videbitur, sinon intendens preeterivit 
 ... Malus utrumque vere sumit. 
 
 Sum. Tract. c. II. De sancto altaris, Vol. IT. p. 139. 
 Per excellentiam dicatur eucharistia ; i.e. bona gratia. Non solum 
 
 gratia, sed Ille, a Quo est omnis gratia, sumitur... Cum enimidem corpus 
 
 quod i im cruce pependit, et in sepulchro jacuit, indubitanter fateamur esse 
 in altari ; et tantum hic quantum et ibi fuit, et modo est ad dexteram 
 Patris, non est dubium ipsum Corpus Christi in altare Suo non carere 
 forma, sed ibi invisibiliter, in altari invisibiliter latens sub forma 
 aliena, 
 P. 144. 
 
 Non enim possumus dicere quod sint (species et sapor ille) in 
 substantia panis et vini, cum non sit ibi substantia panis et vini, sed 
 verum corpus Christi, nec audemus dicere quod insint corpori Christi. 
 
 (E.) GRATIAN’S DECREE. A.D. 1143. 
 
 The practice of the Western church in relation to the Lord’s 
 supper, as in relation to everything else, was greatly influenced by 
 the putting forth of that compilation of acts of councils and docu- 
 
1145] GRATIAN’S DECREE. 95 
 
 ments of all kinds, old and new, false and true, which appeared 
 under the title, Decretum Gratiani, in the pontificate of Alex- 
 ander III. That pope’s authority I suppose gave it the name of a 
 decree. Gratian was a monk of the convent of St Felix at 
 Bologna, and in ecclesiastical law was without a rival. His emi- 
 nence may be inferred from his having been sent by the Pope to 
 England, as the chief of two nuncios, to compose the violent strife 
 between our Henry II. and the pertinacious and powerful primate 
 Thomas ἃ Becket. Gratian’s own title to his work is a Textbook 
 and Manual, Concordia Discordantium Canonum. MHase in his 
 History of the Christian Church says, p. 212 (London, 1855), that 
 Gratian incorporated all laws then in force, extracting others from 
 all sources. Gieseler, V. HI. p.156 (Hdinb. 1853), refers to the way 
 in which bodies of church law had been from time to time 
 compiled; viz. by adding canons from past ages selected at 
 pleasure to the decretals already existing: so Gratian merely took 
 a wider sweep, and endeavoured to establish church jurisprudence 
 on a broader basis in conformity with the wishes and judgments 
 of the papal court. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals had been 
 constructed with this view and in this way: and the process had 
 been continued by various leaders in different lands, and thus 
 from time to time some additional revision and incorporation had 
 become necessary ; and in proportion to the skill with which it 
 was done the compilation grew into general adoption, and the 
 interval before another revision was longer. Gratian’s work itself 
 was supplemented in 1234, after a period of more than a century, 
 by the five books of Pope Gregory IX.: and to them was added a 
 sixth book in 1298 by Pope Boniface VIII. Then came the new 
 Clementines (also five books) by Pope Clement V. in 1305, and 
 the Extravagantes, additions of Pope John XXII. Others followed; 
 and the series was brought to comparative completion in 1591 by 
 Pope Paul IV.’s Institutiones Juris Canonici. In 1580 the whole 
 mass is dedicated to Pope Gregory XIII. under the title of Corpus 
 Juris Canonici by Paul Lancelot of Perugia. Such is the structure of 
 Roman canon law, which may be compared to a mountain of con- 
 glomerate, with pebbles of every age and land. If not a few are 
 found in this mass that are of pseudomorphous structure we must 
 remember that the temptation to falsify was great, and the morals 
 of many ages were low. What wonder if the Chancery of Chris- 
 tendom held out large rewards to those who could arrange and 
 
96 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 digest ancient documents to the bent of the ecclesiastical rulers, 
 and could supply any inconvenient chasms by new material that 
 would work in well with the old? It may be that such ecclesi- 
 astical legislation was only one among many wicked practices 
 prevalent from age to age; and if, as history and revelation seem 
 to shew, this system of church management bore the bell among 
 all wickednesses of those times by the superior heinousness of its 
 craft and by the irresistibility of its oppression and corruption, 
 this was nothing more than a noteworthy fulfilment of the accepted 
 law of moral history, “ corruptio optimi est pessima.” 
 
 The English nation in its form of a Christian church may well 
 thank God that she is delivered, by the statutes on which the 
 English Reformation rests, from the whole body of the canon law 
 of the Roman communion. If it be true that scarce any history 
 is more painful to peruse than that on which Dean Milman has 
 stamped the title of Latin Christianity, it may also be affirmed 
 that no other history approaches to it in real utility to the 
 English layman and the English clergyman of the present time. 
 
 (F.) HILDEBERT OF VENDOME, ABBOT OF CLUNY. 8. 1158. 
 
 He was first taught by Berengar and then by the great Hugo 
 or Hugh of Paris. He was made Bishop of Mans at 40 years of age, 
 and then Archbishop of Tours in 1125. He wrote sermons and 
 poetry, and his lives of Rhadegund and of St Hugh, Abbot of 
 Cluny, and many of his letters remain. His works were published 
 in 1708. Like Anselm he supported the Pope on investitures. 
 
 _ P. 223, n. “As often as (the priest) shall give the sacred body 
 itself to each person, he first dips it in the wine. 
 
 1Π. 28. “In the meantime care is taken that the mouth [lit. 
 cheek] of the sick man who is to receive the Lord’s body be 
 washed, and he receives it dipped in wine. 
 
 Hildebert, 223 n. Udalric, IT. 30. 
 ᾿ς Quotquot ipsum sacrum corpus (sacerdos) dederit (in miss4) singulis, 
 Im sanguine prius intingit. 
 Hf, 28. 
 
 Interea curatur ut infirmi bucca lavetur, receptivi corpus Domini, - 
 quod recipit vino intinctum. 
 
1158] HILDEBERT OF VENDOME. o7 
 
 P. 1154. “Christ’s body... for although it is everywhere 
 perceptible in itself, yet on the altar it exists in its own appearance 
 [kind] not to be perceived ... perceivable on account of the form of 
 the sacrament that is subjected to the senses, imperceptible as far 
 as it relates to its appearance [kind] and the perception of our 
 sense.” 
 
 P. 1154. 
 
 Corpus Christi...quamvis enim ubique in seipso sit sensibile, tamen 
 in altari juxta speciem suam existit, insensibile...sensibiliter propter 
 sacramenti formam sensibus subjectam, insensibiliter quantum ad 
 speciem et sensus nostri perceptionem. 
 
 (G.) HONORIUS. WROTE BETWEEN 1112 AnD 1137. 
 
 He wrote on philosophy and ritual as well as on Scripture and 
 theology. 
 
 The Gem of the Soul. P.593. “On the water and the wine. 
 Also by the wine the Deity is understood, by the water the man- 
 hood. These two are mingled together, while our manhood is by 
 the blood of Christ joined to the Divinity. A cross is thrice made 
 with salt and ashes over the water, because by the cross Christ 
 impressed on men belief in the Trinity. Farther, the church's 
 sacrifice is expressed by each of these three, which sacrifice is 
 offered in this dedicated house. By salt and ashes the body of 
 Christ is prefigured in His Divinity; by wine and water Christ's 
 blood is marked beforehand, which is made (of wine) with water. 
 
 P. 595. “Onincense. Then the pontiff [bishop] makes (the 
 sign of) the cross with incense upon the altar, and bows himself to 
 prayer. Christ also the Pontiff of pontiffs puts incense on the 
 
 Gemma Anime, nb. I. p. 150, De vino et aqua, p. 593. 
 Opera, Migne. 
 
 Item per vinum Divinitas, per aquam intelligitur humanitas, Hee 
 duo commiscentur dum nostra humanitas per sanguinem Christi Divini- 
 tati adjungitur. Ter crux cum sale et cinere super aquam fit, quia 
 per crucem Christus hominibus fidem Trinitatis impressit. Porro per 
 hee singula sacrificium ecclesize exprimitur quod in hac domo dedicata 
 offertur : per salem et cinerem Christi corpus in Divinitate preefiguratur ; 
 per vinum et aquam Christi sanguis, quod cum aqua conficitur, preno- 
 tatur. 
 
 Ῥ, 595. -C. CLXIV, De ancenso. 
 
 Tune pontifex crucem incensi super altare facit, et se ad orationem 
 submittit. Christus quoque Pontifex pontificum incensum crucis super 
 lad 
 { 
 
 ἘΞ ΤΙ 
 
98 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 altar of the cross [or the incense of the cross upon the altar] 
 because He intercedes with the Father for us. For to make a 
 cross of incense is to shew to the Father His own passion on the 
 church’s behalf, and to intercede on our behalf, &c. 
 
 C. 166. “On relics of the saints. Their relics are sealed in 
 the altar, because their souls are set in heavenly places. 
 
 C. 167. “Afterwards the altar is draped, because the souls in 
 the resurrection are clothed with bodies, &c. 
 
 C.165. “The pontiff coming before the altar, where the relics 
 are hidden, extends a veil between himself and the people, because 
 the places where the souls are, are secret from mortal vision. 
 
 C.169. “Ona set place and the sacrifice. Therefore as the 
 mass is duly celebrated in a dedicated church, so in the catholic 
 church is sacrifice legitimately offered, and outside it no sacrifice is 
 
 accepted by God. 
 
 C. 160. ‘On the altar and cross. Afterwards the priest dips 
 his finger and makes the cross on the four horns of the altar. The 
 altar here expresses the primitive church (temple) in Jerusalem, 
 as if Christ the Pontiff made the cross upon the altar, while He 
 endured the cross in Jerusalem for the church. He marked the 
 altar’s four horns, while He saved by the cross the world’s four 
 
 altare ponit, quia apud Patrem pro nobis intervenit. Crucem namque 
 incensi facere est passionem Suam pro ecclesié Patri ostendere et pro 
 nobis interpellare, &c. 
 
 C. CLXVI, De reliquis sanctorum. 
 Reliquiz in altari sigillantur, quia anime in celestibus collocantur. 
 
 C. CLXVITI, 
 Post hee altare vestitur, quia anime in resurrectione corporibus 
 vestiuntur, το, 
 C. CLXY. 
 
 Veniens pontifex ante altare ubi reliquize sunt recondite, extendit 
 velum inter se et populum, quia loca animarum secreta sunt a visione 
 mortalium. 
 
 C. CLXIX. De certo loco et sacrijicio. 
 
 Igitur sicut in ecclesia dedicaté rite missa celebratur, sic in ecclesia 
 catholica legitime sacrificatur et extra hanc nullum sacrificium a Deo 
 acceptatur. 
 
 C. CLX. De altari et cruce, 
 
 Post hee sacerdos digitum tingit et crucem per quatuor altaris 
 cornua facit. Altare hic primitivam ecclesiam in Hierusalem exprimit, 
 quasi Christus crucem Pontifex super altare fecit, dum crucem in 
 Hierusalem pro ecclesia subiit. Quatuor cornua altaris signavit, dum 
 quatuor partes mundi cruce salvavit. Deinde septies contra altare 
 
—1137] HONORIUS, 99 
 
 parts. Next he sprinkles opposite the altar seven times, because 
 Christ after the resurrection ordered that the church should be 
 baptized in the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Next he goes 
 round the altar in the sprinkling, &c. The altar is thrice sprinkled, 
 
 SD) 
 
 &e. Then he goes through the whole church, &c.” 
 
 spargit, quia Christus post resurrectionem in septem donis Spiritus 
 Sancti ecclesiam baptizari jussit...Deinde altare spargendo circuit, &c. 
 Altare ter aspergitur, &c. Deinde per totam ecclesiam vadit, &e. 
 
 (H.) PIERRE ABAILARD (ABELARD) OF BRETAGNE. Died at 
 Chalons-sur-Saone. 8. 1079. Ὁ. 1142. 
 
 The first success of Abailard in the lectures he delivered at 
 his Paraclete school near Troyes, was the making an indelible 
 impression on the mind of one young man in the crowd. So 
 unknown and unnoticed was Arnold of Brescia, that the fact of 
 his having been there has been denied. But Rome long felt 
 Arnold’s influence, who committed himself with most serious 
 earnestness to proclaiming the absolute necessity of a thorough 
 reform of the church system and a re-arrangement of its relations 
 to the secular power throughout Christendom. He came to Rome 
 in the time of Celestin II. and waked a spirit which gave many of 
 the succeeding popes no small trouble to keep it down. Based on 
 deep religious convictions, his movement lived long after he was 
 removed from the turbulent and corrupt city. There was, as may 
 be imagined, a vein of desire for church reform in Abelard’s 
 teaching also, which made for him many enemies. Of his long 
 and at last unsuccessful struggle it is perhaps enough to say that 
 the moral and high-minded Bernard loses somewhat of his dignity 
 and character m it. He triumphed by an appeal to church pre- 
 judices, so that a considerable part of our sympathy in the conflict 
 rests with the independent and undefended and almost unaided 
 Abailard. We try to forget the stains of his early life and his 
 merited punishment, and to receive him as a new and separate 
 being in his contention for truth and freedom. And yet he never 
 seems to have been comparable to Bernard as to the attainment of 
 personal religion, But he grappled so boldly with many depart- 
 ments of error—with materialist infidelity, as well as with some of 
 the prevailing superstitions in the church—that one may fancy that 
 
 ἱσά ς 
 7—2 
 
100 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D, 
 
 his name will one day fly from mouth to mouth again in the 
 battles that are yet to be fought between faith and unbelief. But 
 Bernard and he moved on different lines: the former was an 
 apostle of religious feeling, both as the superstitious crusader and 
 as the rapt advocate of the kingdom of grace; the latter pushed 
 onward the growing successes of young dialecticism. “Sic et non” 
 is one of his most famous works. The Lord’s supper he seems to 
 have shrunk from debating at any length, as feeling it too sacred 
 a subject for him. : 
 
 He was born in 1079 at Palais near Nantes, of a noble family. 
 He thought little of his rights, as eldest son, in his eagerness to 
 pursue philosophical enquiry. His first exploit was to disenthrone 
 William of Champeaux, the archdeacon of Notre Dame, in the 
 new schools at Paris; where he was reigning supreme in the 
 dialectic art. In the significant language of a writer upon the 
 subject, the other masters found themselves without scholars. 
 Abelard was also the idol of society. He fell fearfully, and was 
 glad to hide his disgrace as a monk in the abbey of St Denys. In 
 time he gave way to earnest solicitations and re-opened a school 
 which was, as before, over-crowded. But it drew on him a flood of 
 jealousy, and the attack began with a movement against his 
 treatise on the Trinity, and it was condemned in the council of 
 Soissons. Then Bernard wrote to the Pope against Abelard and 
 Arnold of Brescia, as conspirators against Jesus Christ; and thus 
 the struggle grew, and the schism widened, and by skilful tactics 
 Abelard sank at last oppressed and denounced, so that only »pos- 
 terity could restore his fame. He died at Chalons-sur-Saone, 
 and Heloise obtained leave to mter him where he gave his first 
 lectures, 
 
 P. 1740. “On the sacrament of the altar. The cause of this 
 sacrament is the remembrance of Christ's death and passion. 
 For from the remembrance of our friends a love of them is wont 
 to arise in a great degree. He therefore instituted this sacrament 
 
 Epitome Theologie Christiane. 
 ITT, 29. P. 1740. De Sacramento altaris. Op. Migne. 
 Hujus sacramenti causa est memoria mortis et passionis Christi... Luc. 
 xxii. 19, Ex memoria enim amicorum nostrorum multum solet in nobis 
 dilectio eorum, Admajorem igiturSui dilectionem habendam hocsacrificium 
 
1079] PIERRE ABAILARD OF BRETAGNE. 101 
 
 in memory of Himself to produce greater love of Himself. For in 
 the sacrament we ought to have Christ thus before our eyes, as it 
 were led to His passion, suffering and crucified for us; and this 
 representation of that love makes us mindful of Him, Whom He 
 Himself thus exhibited to us. Whence also it is that we are 
 enkindled both with greater love and to suffer for His sake ; which 
 mutual love joins both Him to us and us to Him... It is to be 
 noted that that bread before consecration is bread, and the wine 
 in a similar way is wine. But after consecration both the bread is 
 Christ’s body, and the wine His blood. It is therefore the true 
 body of Christ, yea Christ Himself: This body is the sacrament of 
 that body of Christ which is the church. But the sacrament of 
 His blood is the Spirit of the church [the Holy Spirit], Who by 
 His seven-formed grace vivifies [the church] and works in it... 
 Concerning the water we do not read that Christ had added it to 
 this sacrament. Concerning that breaking of Him which there 
 appears to take place, it 1s usually matter of doubt whether 
 Christ’s body, as it truly is there, be in truth broken. But we 
 say that as it appears to be bread and is not... so it appears to be 
 broken, when it suffers no breaking, &c. Now let us see regarding 
 the efficacy of this sacrament. For its efficacy is oreater and 
 stronger than that of any other thing whatever ; because it so 
 much confirms him that devoutly receives it (as long as he does 
 not through His own weakness cast it away from him) that he 
 suffers no temptation of the devil, since the devil is overcome and 
 bound back by the communicant’s receiving this eucharist : and 
 although the man that is in such a state always has (the devil) in 
 
 in memoriam Sui fieri instituit. Sic enim in sacramento Christum 
 pre oculis habere debemus tanquam ad passionem ductum, passum 
 et crucifixum pro nobis, que representatio dilectionis illius nos memores 
 facit, quem Ipse nobis exhibuit. Unde et majori dilectione et pro Se 
 patiendum accendimur: que vicaria dilectio et [lum nobis et nos 
 Illi conjungit... Notandum quod panis ille ante consecrationem panis 
 est, et vinum similiter vinum est. Post consecrationem vero et panis 
 corpus Christi et vinum sanguis. Sic igitur verum corpus Christi est, 
 imo Ipse Christus. Hoc corpus sacramentum est illius corporis Christi, 
 quod est ecclesia... Sanguinis autem sacramentum Spiritus ecclesie, 
 quod per septiformem gratiam vivificat et in e& operatur. De aqua 
 non legimus quod Christus huic sacramento addiderat... De fractione 
 ila, que ibi apparet, ambigi solet an ipsum corpus Christi, sicut vere 
 est ibi, ita in veritate frangatur. Sed dicimus quod sicut esse videtur 
 panis, et non est... sic videtur frangi, cum fractionem nullam recipiat, 
 ἄς. Nune de efficacia hujus sacramenti videamus. Efficacia enim hujus 
 major et fortior est quam alicujus alterius, quia in tantum confirmat 
 quod qui devote accipit (quamdiu per infirmitatem suam ipsum non 
 a se rejicit) nullam diaboli tentationem patitur, quia per hujus eucha- 
 ristiz acceptionem diabolus vincitur et religatur ; et licet in se, qui talis 
 
102 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 him, yet the (sacrament) itself always receives him [.6. his as- 
 saults} and makes its dwelling-place in him.” [Nore. It might 
 be rendered “yet he always lies in wait to meet the devil’s 
 “attacks,” but the latter clause will not run with this.] 
 
 est, semper habeat (diabolum), tamen ipsum (sacramentum) semper 
 excipit, et in eo habitaculum facit. 
 
 (1) ST BERNARD, OF LES CLAIRS VAUX. 8. 1091. Ὁ. 1153. 
 
 There is no question more delicate and hardly any more 
 important in its consequences than the settlement of the rival 
 claims of truth and customary belief. This question is commonly 
 described as the battle between authority and truth. But we can 
 imagine cases when authority is on the side of truth and error has 
 possession of the subject multitudes. The question in a partial 
 form is tradition v. Scripture ; but then there is great need to 
 watch that mere received senses of Scripture be not adroitly or 
 obstinately set down as Scripture. In short the other question, 
 What are the true principles of interpreting Scripture? underlies 
 this, and must be settled first. Therefore to return to the right 
 general statement—the rival claims of customary belief and truth 
 —we should say that it furnishes the severest test of a great 
 man’s character. For instance if St Bernard, born of a high 
 French family and walking among the greatest ones of the earth, 
 whenever it pleased him (deos propius contingens), is found to 
 set the average current of their opinions above his own honest 
 convictions of truth, or to be overbiassed by that current of 
 opinion in forming his own convictions, the moral estimate of his 
 character must proportionably fall. 
 
 That he used the favour of the great in trampling cown 
 Abailard can hardly be disputed. But he was on his own account 
 a man of great vehemence of character. One would give much 
 for his photograph or for such a picture of him as we get of Chan- 
 cellor Gerson. Bernard could stand up for France’s church-liberties 
 against the Pope. He could shew the indispensable necessity of 
 maintaining freedom of the human will in order to establish 
 human responsibility. See Tractatus de Gratia, Vol. 1.; and these 
 things and the like are in his favour. But it is far easier to coin 
 the titles of “the mellifluous doctor,” and “the eminent doctor” 
 
1091] ST BERNARD, OF LES CLAIRS VAUX, 103 
 
 (Innocent III. called him “egregius”) and “last of fathers but not 
 “least,” than to prove that he merited the loftier name of a 
 faithful receiver and champion of truth wherever and in whatever 
 company it appeared. I doubt his having deserved that greatest 
 of titles. The pure love of truth in absolute perfection is one of 
 the lofty points of the Divine nature; and all lower beings 
 become elevated in the proportion in which they approach to this 
 great excellence. He was however essentially a man of action: 
 and contemplation, instead of changing him, made him yet more 
 such. It is not to his glory that he was the greatest crusader 
 after the renowned Peter: for the Crusades were a very bad way 
 of doing a very good thing. To check the Turkish torrent was 
 essential: but to lead away the flower of the population and to 
 pour the nations’ wealth into the ever-open hands of the church, in 
 order to erect a Christian kingdom before its time in Palestine 
 that palmers might swarm thither and back in safety, seems alike 
 bad patriotism and corrupt religion. One marvels not that a 
 king of the low intellectual calibre of St Louis should have 
 given himself to it again and again: but the higher claims of St 
 Bernard to mental power make us ashamed to see him foremost in 
 that most mad adventure, which poured Europe upon Asia in 
 successive ages in vain. Yet St Bernard must ever be regarded 
 with veneration, and studied with gratitude. His volumes of 
 letters, treatises, meditations and sermons are a valuable contribu- 
 tion to church literature ; but the extracts made on the question 
 of the supper of the Lord will go far to explain, if not to justify, 
 the foregoing estimate of the man. His life and exploits of St 
 Malachy, Bishop in Ireland, will take rank with the larger narra- 
 tive of wonders compiled by Gregory the Great with the same 
 object. These strings of imaginary stories were once thought an 
 important branch of Christian evidence. It would be beside our 
 subject to give chap. 24, a woman dead without the sacrament of 
 extreme unction brought to life; but a full extract from his 
 address upon three sacraments of our Lord, will furnish a specimen 
 of that oratorical power that won the hearts of all that heard him; 
 and then a letter, c. v., about his bringing his dead sister’s soul into 
 heaven by private masses, shall follow a story from his life of 
 St Malachi. 
 
 St Bernard was one of seven children—to all of whom the 
 praise of piety is assigned—in a village of Burgundy named 
 
104 : THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Fontaine. At 22 we find him one of thirty monks at Citeaux, all 
 drawn together out of the world by his young eloquence, He did 
 not however found Clairvaux and become its abbot till he was 24 
 (i.e. 1115). It was in a wild bare region marked with the reproach 
 of bearing wormwood, absinthe, which had not then been raised— 
 or shall we not say degraded—into furnishing the most deleterious 
 of French intoxicating drinks. It was in the diocese of Langres, 
 of which William Champeaux had become bishop. Bernard had 
 half killed himself by his austerities and had to be restrained. In 
 1128 he is busy at Troyes at a council arranging rules for a new 
 order of knights for the recovery of the holy sepulchre, to be 
 called Templars. After that he takes a great part in many affairs 
 of Pope Innocent II. against the antipope Anacletus, who died in 
 1138. After this he was not long in committing himself to the 
 almost internecine strife with Abailard and Arnold of Brescia. 
 Next we see Bernard preaching up the new Crusade for Pope 
 Eugene at Vezelai to an enormous crowd, who rent the air with 
 shouts, “It is the will of God.” After all due allowances for the 
 men and the age I look on it as a sickening spectacle ; and Bernard 
 has a soul worthy of so much better things. His last work was 
 on self-examination, and his last act was to stop a bloody strife at 
 Metz. He then réturned to Clairvaux and died aged 63. Eugene 
 had preceded him to the tomb. 
 
 P. 147. “On the Lord’s supper, For Baptism (qy.) the other 
 sacrament, washing of feet. ‘These are the days which we ought 
 to observe; days full of piety and grace, by which also the minds 
 of wicked men are stirred up to penitence. Since such is the force 
 of those sacraments which are kept on those days, that they can 
 themselves also cleave stony hearts and suffice to soften every 
 breast though it be made of iron. Finally, we see even to this day 
 at the passion of Christ not only heavenly things sympathize but 
 the earth too moves, and rocks are cleft, and in the confession of 
 sins (hidden) memorials are laid open, &c.; for neither does a 
 
 a de 
 
 In Cana Domini. De Baptismo, Sacrum. alt. Ablutio pedum. 
 
 Hi sunt dies quos observare debemus: dies pleni pietate et gratia, 
 -quibus etiam sceleratorum hominum mentes ad peenitentiam provo- 
 cantur. Tanta siquidem est vis sacramentorum eorum que diebus 
 istis recoluntur, ut possint ipsa quoque lapidea scindere corda, et 
 pectus omne, licet ferreum, emollire sufficiant. Denique videmus usque 
 hodie ad passionem Christi non modo ceelestia compati sed terram moveri 
 et petras scindi, et in confessione peccatorum aperiri monumenta, &e, 
 
1091] ST BERNARD, OF LES CLAIRS VAUX. 105 
 
 _ mother give a nut to her little one whole but breaks it and offers 
 
 it the kernel. So I also, dearest brethren, owed it to you to 
 open, if I could, to you the sacraments which were shut up in 
 mystery ; but because I am imperfectly able, let us ask that for 
 you and for me alike the mother of wisdom may break those nuts; 
 nuts I say which the priest’s rod has brought forth, the rod of 
 virtue, which the Lord has sent forth out of Sion. There are 
 indeed many sacraments, and an hour is not sufficient for enquiring 
 into all. Perhaps also some of you are weak to take in so τὸν 
 things at once, &e. A sacred thing or a sacred secret is called < 
 
 sacrament... <A ring is of no value at all in comparison, but it 
 was the inheritance which I was seeking. Approaching therefore 
 
 in this manner to His passion, the Lord has taken care to invest 
 His own with His own grace, that it might be shewn by some 
 visible sign of invisible grace. Jor this were all sacraments insti- 
 tuted ; for this the partaking of the eucharist ; for this the washing 
 of feet ; for this finally baptism itself, the beginning of all the 
 sacraments, &c. For as the signs are diverse in externals, &c., 50 
 the investitures are different according to the things concerning 
 which they are invested [t.e. properly and at first with the robes 
 of the estate]. To explain in a word, a canon is invested with a 
 book, an abbot with a staff, a bishop with a staff and a ring; thus 
 also there are divisions of grace in different sacraments, &e., &e. 
 Of Baptism. That you may be secure, you have as an investiture 
 the sacrament of the Lord’s body and precious blood. For that 
 sacrament works two ends in us; that is to say, the diminution of 
 
 [a specimen of his stirring commonplace eloquence]; neque enim tradit 
 mater parvulo nucem integram sed frangit eam, et nucleum porrigit. 
 Sic et ego vobis, fratres charissimi, Si possem, sacramenta que clausa 
 sunt aperire debuer ram; sed quia minus possim, rogemus ut vobis 
 pariter et mihi mater sapientix frangat nuces istas ; nuces inquam 
 quas protulit sacerdotalis virga, virga virtutis, quam emisit Dominus 
 ex Sion. Multa quidem sunt sacramenta, et scrutandis omnibus hora 
 non sufficit, Fortassis etiam aliqui vestrum imbecilles sunt ad tanta 
 simul capienda, ὅθ. Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum sive sacrum 
 secretum...Annulus non valet quicquam, sed hereditas est quam que- 
 rebam. In hune itaque modum appropinquans passioni Dominus de 
 gratia sud investire curavit suos, ut invisibilis gratiz signo aliquo visibili 
 prestaretur. Ad hoe instituta sunt omnia sacramenta: ad hoe eucha- 
 ristiz participatio ; ad hoe pedum ablutio; ad hoe denique ipse baptis- 
 mus initium sacramentorum omnium, ὅσο, Sicut enim in exterioribus 
 diversa sunt signa, &e., varie sunt investiture secundum ea de quibus 
 investimur, Verbi gratia, investitur Canonicus per librum, Abbas per 
 baculum, Episcopus per baculum et annulum simul, ἄορ, Sie et divi- 
 Siones gratiarum diversis sunt traditw sacramentis: &e., &e. De bap- 
 tismo, Ut securi sitis, sacramentum Dominici corporis et sanguinis 
 pretiosi investituram habetis. Muo enim illud sacramentum operatur 
 
100 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the power of sense in small effences, and the taking away all con- 
 sent in the matter of the greater. If any one of you does not now 
 so often, or does not feel such bitter emotions of anger, envy, luxury 
 and other sins of this kind, let him give thanks to the body and 
 blood of Christ, since the virtue of the sacrament is working in 
 him, and let him rejoice because that very bad ulcer is approach- 
 ing to a healthy condition. 
 
 P. 585. “In his life of St Malachi, Bishop of Munster, St 
 Bernard contends for the truth of the bodily presence in the 
 eucharist. There was a clergyman in Lismore (in Munster). That 
 smatterer of knowledge in his own eyes presumed to say that in 
 the eucharist there are only the sacrament (sacred sign) and not 
 the reality of the sacrament, 7.e. only sanctification and not the 
 truth of the sacrament. Over him Malachi often spoke secretly 
 and in assemblies but in vain. He was called to the midst, and 
 yet apart from the laymen, that if it were possible he might be 
 healed and not put to confusion. Therefore in the assembly of 
 clergymen an opportunity of answering for his own opinion was 
 given to the man. And when with all the powers of his mind, in 
 which he was skilful above the average, he endeavoured to assert 
 and to defend his error, Malachi disputing on the other side and 
 convicting him, overcome by the judgment of all, he went out of 
 the assembly confounded indeed but not put straight. For he 
 said that he was not overcome by reason, but pressed down by the 
 bishop’s authority. ‘And thou, O Malachi,’ said he, ‘hast without 
 
 in nobis; ut videlicet sensum minuat in minimis, et in gravioribus 
 peccatis tollat omnino consensum. Si quis vestrum non tam sepe modo 
 non tam acerbos sentiat iracundiz motus, invidie, luxuris et ceterorum 
 hujusmodi, gratias agat corpori et sanguini Domini quoniam virtus 
 sacramenti operatur in eo, et gaudeat quod pessimum ulcus accedat ad 
 sanitatem. 
 
 Life of St Malachi, Bishop in Ireland. Vol. 1. P. 585. 
 Venice, 1781. 
 
 Veritatem corp. Chr. in euch. propugnat. Fuit quidam clericus in 
 Lesmor (in Mumonia, Cap. 4)... Is sciolus in oculis suis presumpsit 
 dicere in eucharistia esse tantummodo sacramentum et non rem sacra- 
 menti, i.e. solam sanctificationem et non corporis veritatem. Super 
 quo a Malachia secreto et sepe conventu sed incassum. Vocatus ad 
 medium est, seorsum tamen ὦ laicis, ut si fieri posset sanaretur et non 
 confunderetur. Itaque in conventu clericorum data facultas homini 
 est pro sua sententia respondendi. Cumque totis ingenii viribus, quo 
 non mediocriter callebat, asserere et defendere conaretur errorem, 
 Malachia contra disputante et convincente, judicio omnium superatus 
 de conventu confusus quidem exiit sed non correctus. Dicebat enim 
 se non ratione victum sed episcopi pressum auctoritate. ‘Et tu,” 
 inquit, “Ὁ Malachia, sine causa me hodie confudisti, adversus profecto 
 
1091] ST BERNARD, OF LES CLAIRS VAUX. > 107 
 
 ‘cause confounded me to-day and hast spoken against truth and 
 ‘against thy own conscience.’ Malachi, mournful for the man’s 
 being in so hardened a state; but grieving more for the injury 
 done to the faith, in fear of danger calls the church together: 
 he publicly rebukes the wanderer, and warns him publicly to 
 return to good sense. When the bishops and all the clergy urged 
 this course, on his not acceding, they pronounce anathema pub- 
 licly proclaiming him a heretic. The man not even thus coming 
 out of his dream said, ‘Ye are all favouring man rather than 
 ‘truth. 1 accept not any person, to leave the truth.” At this word 
 the holy (bishop) was secretly angry and said, ‘ May the Lord make 
 thee confess the truth, even against thy will.” And when he said, 
 ‘Amen, the assembly is dismissed. He with such a brand burnt 
 into him was meditating flight, not enduring to be infamous and 
 dishonoured. And straightway taking up his own things he was 
 going out, when lo! seized with sudden weakness he stops, and 
 with failing strength on the same spot casts himself on the ground 
 panting and tired. By chance some insane vagabond happening to 
 come to that very spot stumbles over him and asks what he does 
 there. He answers, that he is held fast by a heavy infirmity, and 
 has not strength either to go on or to return, And the other says 
 ‘That infirmity is no other than death’ But he did not say this 
 of himself, but the Lord admirably by the insane person seized the 
 man who when he was in health would not agree to the councils 
 of those that had sense. And he adds ‘Return home: I will help 
 ‘thee.” At last with this fool for guide he returns to the city, and 
 comes back to the heart and to the pity of the Lord. In the same 
 
 “veritatem locutus et contra tuam ipsius conscientiam.” Mestus 
 Malachias pro homine sic indurato, sed magis fidei dolens injuriam, 
 timens periculum, ecclesiam convocat ; errantem publice arguit, publice 
 monet ut resipiscat. Suadentibus hoc ipsum episcopis et universo clero, 
 cum non acquiesceret, contumaci anathema dicunt hereticum protestantes. 
 Nec sic evigilans, “ Omnes,” inquit, “ favetis homini potius quam 
 “veritati; ego personam non accipio, ut deseram veritatem.” Ad hoc 
 verbum substomachans sanctus (5. Malachias) ‘“ Dominus,” inquit 
 ‘“‘fateri te veritatem faciat vel ex necessitate.” Quo respondente, “ Amen,” 
 solvitur conventus. ‘Tali 1116 inustus cauterio fugam meditatur infamis 
 atque inhonorus fore non sustinens. Et continuo sua tollens exibat, 
 cum ecce subita correptus infirmitate sistit gradum, viribusque deficiens 
 eodem loco jactat se super solum anhelus et fessus. Forte incidens 
 in id loci vagabundus insanus quidam offendit hominem, “ quidnam 
 “101 agat” percontatur. Respondet, “gravi se infirmitate teneri 
 “et neque procedere neque redire valentem.” Et ille ‘“‘infirmitas ista 
 “haud alia” inquit “ quam ipsa mors est.” Hoe autem non dixit 
 a semet ipso, sed pulchre Dominus per insanum corripuit eum, qui 
 sanus acquiescere noluit consiliis sensatorum. Et addit “ Revertere 
 
 “‘domum : ego te juvabo,” Denique ipso duce revertitur in civitatem, 
 
108 ᾿ς ΗΕ TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 hour the bishop is sent for, the truth is acknowledged, the error is 
 cast away. He confesses his guilt and is absolved, he seeks parting 
 communion, and reconciliation is granted. Almost in one and the 
 same moment his perfidy is cast away by the mouth, and he is 
 destroyed by death. Thus to the admiration of all the word of 
 Malachi was completed with all rapidity, and also of the Scripture 
 that says, ‘that trouble giveth understanding to the hearing,’ 
 Is, xxviii. 19. 
 
 Cap. V. “He succowrs his dead sister with the offering of the 
 sacrifice. Having diligently settled the number of days that he 
 had heard, he finds that it is the same during which he had not 
 offered the bread for her. Then he goes to work again; she 
 appears in a dark vest... then in one half white... then in a white. 
 Plainly this sacrament can absorb her sins, and bring into Heaven 
 those that return from earth.” 
 
 redit ad cor et ad misericordiam Domini. Hadem hora accitur epis- 
 copus, agnoscitur veritas, abjicitur error. Confessus reatum absolvitur, 
 petit viaticum, datur reconciliatio: uno pene momento perfidia ore 
 abjicitur et morte diluitur. Ita, mirantibus cunctis sub omni celeritate 
 completus est sermo Malachiz et scripture pariter dicentis, quod vexatio 
 dat intellectum auditui, Is. xxviii. 19. 
 Cap. V. Sorort defuncte sacrificit oblatione succurrit. 
 
 Diligenter discusso numero dierum quem audierat, ipsum esse 
 reperit ex quo pro ea panem de celo vivum non obtulisset. Tum... 
 rursum adoritur...apparere in veste pulla...in veste subcandida...in veste 
 candida, &c... Hoc plane sacramentum potens peccata consumere...inferre 
 celis revertentes de terra. 
 
 (J.) GEROCH (GERHOHUS), ABBOT OF REICHENSPERG. B. 1093. 
 p. 1169. 
 
 Chunrad, Bishop of Salzburg, the successor of Goteschatk, — 
 known from taking the high side in the election controversy, was 
 patron of this divine. He raised him from the diaconate and sent 
 him about to preach: which led to his elevation at about thirty- 
 six to his final preferment, in which he spent above forty years. 
 It was in Higher Austria. He always took the side of the popes 
 in their struggle with the emperors. This was the cause of his 
 leaving Augsburg and its bishop Herman in an earlier part of his 
 life, when he became a monk in the Augustine convent of Rotten- 
 brick in Higher Bavaria. He was one of the great men of his 
 
1095] GEROCH, ABBOT OF REICHENSPERG. 109 
 
 time. His book on the Psalms used to fill eight volumes: but 
 his pen was always ready: and that he feared no one is shewn by 
 his writing even against Abailard. His writings have recently 
 come into note: but he is appreciated in Germany. Our extracts 
 will shew that he held strong views on the bodily presence. In 
 fact he stood in high repute at the Roman court from the time 
 that Chunrad brought him forward. Only be it remembered that 
 we are on delicate subjects, for Mary, as Nestorius said, was the 
 mother of Him Who was God, but she was not the mother of God, 
 Θεοτόκος, Θεομήτωρ, &c., and the infelicitous assertion of that 
 council led to a plentiful growth of Mary-worship; and we of the 
 church of England are no more bound to that saying of the third 
 council or to the Mary-worship that followed than any other 
 Protestants are. “Councils have erred” saves us from all such 
 charges. 
 
 P.1117. “On the Sen of Man’s Glory and Honour. But to 
 return to the leprous man mentioned above, who adored Christ 
 and confessed His omnipotence ; such an example of a worshipper 
 is worthy here to be set before the faithful who believe, that 
 as He was then being adored in His own body, so also now He 
 should be adored as present in the same body, mighty to cleanse 
 him that adoreth and eateth Him. Therefore let the world, 
 stained with sin’s leprosy, believe that Christ Jesus remaining in 
 the body in Heaven is none the less corporally in His own temple, 
 which is the church, which He feeds with His own body and 
 blood, not only as far as the sacred sign, as one Berengarius 
 determined, and as a blaspheming follower of the same Berenga- 
 rius, whom I have before mentioned, still determines, but in the 
 truth of the thing (itself), so that the true body of the same 
 Christ, received from the virgin, is made present on the altar, 
 
 Opera, Migne, Vol. If. p. 1117. De Gloria et Honore Pilii Hominis. 
 
 Ut autem redeamus ad supra memoratum leprosum, Christi adora- 
 torem et omnipotentiz Ejus confessorem, digne hic talis adorator est 
 proponendus in exemplum fidelibus id credentibus, quod sicut tunc 
 adorabatur in corpore Suo, sic etiam nune adoretur presens in eodem 
 corpore Suo, potens mundare adorantem et manducantem Se. Credat 
 igitur mundus peccati lepra inquinatus quod Christus Jesus, corporaliter 
 manens in clo, nihilominus corporaliter sit in templo Suo, quod est 
 ecclesia, quam pascit corpore et sanguine Suo, non solum sacramento 
 tenus, ut voluit quidam Berengarius, et adhuc vult prenotatus blas- 
 phemus ejusdem Berengarii pedissequus, sed im rei veritate ita ut 
 ipsius Christi verum corpus, de virgine sumptum, in altari presentetur 
 
110 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 sacrificed and eaten, and further is adored unto salvation. [Then 
 Augustine.] And as Berengarius himself whom I just now spoke 
 of denied this, he was compelled to deny this his own pestiferous 
 doctrine and to abjure it in a public council, and silence was 
 imposed on him. But now there has risen up in his place that blas- 
 phemer rightly named Folmar, as blowing a bitter bellows, who 
 affirms in his sayings and in his writings that the Lord’s body has 
 never been under the sky from the time He ascended: and when 
 we were saying among other objections that many of the saints 
 have seen Him in the body after He ascended into Heaven, as He 
 was seen in the body by Peter, when He said to him, ‘I am com- 
 ‘ing to Rome to be crucified again, he (Folmar) said that all this 
 was fabulous and did not rest on the sacred Scriptures, ὅθ. [Ap- 
 pearances to Saul in N. T., &., &e.] IV. From this it appears 
 that what the holy church perceives on the altar is not to be 
 named the body of a man, as the heretic Nestorius determined, 
 but the body of the Lord. And because Nestorius, just now 
 mentioned, denied this, he was condemned with this doctrine of 
 his own in the synod at Ephesus; and as a confutation of the 
 same plague-bearing doctrine the orthodox fathers said and left in 
 writing, &, &c. Therefore they are anathema and alien from 
 holy church who think that the living and life-giving body of the 
 Lord is in such a manner circumscribed in some spot of Heaven, 
 and after a certain mode, a thing impious to utter, imprisoned 
 [in that spot] so that it cannot in one and the same moment be 
 with its whole substance in many places, just as He will, and just 
 
 immoletur manducetur, ac proinde salubriter adoretur. Augustine 
 quoted. Quod quia negavit jam dictus Berengarius ipse, doctrinam 
 suam hance pestiferam damnare atque abjurare coactus est in concilio 
 publico, imposito sibi silentio, Sed nune in ejus locum surrexit ille 
 blasphemus recte nominatus Folmarus quasi follis amarus, dictis 
 et scriptis affirmans corpus Domini, ex quo ascendit, nunquam fuisse 
 sub celo. Cui cum nos inter cetera objiceremus, quod multi sanctorum 
 Eum viderint corporaliter postquam ascendit in cceelum, sicut corporaliter 
 visus est Petro, quando Ei dixit, Venio Romam iterum crucifigi 
 (Acts xxviii. 14)! dixit hoc totum esse fabulosum neque canonicis 
 fultum Scripturis, &c. &e. IV. Unde id quod in altari sancta percipit 
 ecclesia, non corpus hominis, ut Nestorius hereticus voluit, sed 
 corpus Domini est nominandum. Quod quia negavit jam dictus Nes- 
 torius, in Synodo Ephesinaé cum sua doctrina damnatus est: atque ad 
 ejusdem pestifersee doctrine’ confutationem patres orthodoxi dixerunt 
 et scriptum reliquerunt, &e. &c. [See Marius Mercator, extracts. | 
 Anathema igitur et alieni sunt a sancta ecclesid qui corpus Domini 
 vivum et vivificum putant in aliquo loco ceeli taliter circumscriptum 
 et quodammodo, quod dictu nefas est, incarceratum, ut non possit 
 uno eodemque momento multis in locis totaliter esse, prout vult, et 
 
1093] GEROCH, ABBOT OF REICHENSPERG, ΤῊ 
 
 as the salvation of man requires, because [as we urge] the same 
 body has been assumed into the Godhead. 
 
 P. 1180. “There is indeed even to sinners and those that 
 unworthily receive within the church, a true flesh of Christ and a 
 true blood, but it is in a sacramental species and true fleshly 
 essence (which profiteth not at all) not in the thing itself nor in 
 its efficacy.” 
 
 This shews that sacramental participation does not always 
 in the fathers mean eating the bread, but (at least sometimes) 
 eating Christ’s true natural body, including its essence or substance. 
 At least this is how this generally clear writer uses the words. Of 
 course this differs from the opinion of Augustine quoted by the 
 Church of England in her Articles. But the first longer extract is 
 invaluable not only because it is so plainly expressed in direct 
 opposition to the Reformed divines who write upon Christ’s body 
 being very humanity circumscribed or limited, just as ours, only 
 without sin, as His unquestionably was when He rose and appeared 
 to the disciples: but also because this long extract, being more 
 clearly expressed than ordinary, enables persons to see whether 
 they agree on the point of the natural limitation of Christ’s 
 humanity with the Church of England, or with the Cyrils and the 
 Council of Ephesus. Christ’s body is most truly the body of His 
 manhood though there is no objection to calling it the body of the 
 Lord, 7.e. the body of Him Who was also the Lord. 
 
 rout exigit salus hominum, propter quod idem corpus assumptum est in 
 = ξ » prop { 
 eum. 
 
 PASO, ze: 
 
 Est quidem etiam peccatoribus et indigne sumentibus intra ecclesiam 
 vera Christi caro verusque sanguis, sed specie sacramentali, et carnis 
 (que non prodest quidquam) vera essentid non re aut rei efficientia, 
 
 (K.) PETER THE SINGER (PETRUS CANTOR). D. 1198. 
 
 He spent his life in Paris as reader of lectures in the Univer- 
 sity and precentor in its cathedral. He was born most probably 
 in that city, though the honour is otherwise assigned to Rheims. 
 From his position as Rector of the theological school he refused to 
 
112 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 remove, though the bishopric of Tournay was pressed upon him by 
 the united voices of the people, the clergy and the king. As the 
 saying is, he preferred generare patres: nor can any limit be set 
 to the usefulness of a man endowed with fine powers and excellent 
 graces in such a position. His great work, a Summa on moral 
 science, bears its opening words as its title, Verbum abbreviatum. 
 He also wrote a Grammar of Theologians, reputed to be of great 
 value for students of the holy Scriptures. He wrote also a kind of 
 Bible Dictionary called his Abel from its first article, a Great 
 Summa: on the sacraments, a book on the apparent contrarieties 
 in the Bible, another on Scripture allegories, and commentaries 
 on many books of the Bible. He died about five years before 
 the universal doctor of Lille. 
 
 P. 102. “Against the venality and multiplication of masses. 
 Augustine scarcely allows a single reception in (each) day. Would 
 he then at all, had he been asked, have allowed anyone to cele- 
 brate it twice in a day? Away with the idea! But he would 
 have repelled such a man with all his might, and perhaps would 
 have struck him with an anathema. 
 
 P. 104. “Against masses of many faces (i.e. for the benefit of 
 more than one person). We nowhere read of a mass of two or 
 three faces. 1 Cor. xi. But now there is a sevenfold or a greater 
 multiplication in a mass, and the mystery and service of the mass 
 are both confused. 
 
 P.111. “When the Lord forbad a stranger, a traveller or an 
 unclean person eating of the passover lamb, how much more would 
 He forbid a sinner, not yet made a citizen and of the household of © 
 God, eating of the true Lamb, a stained person of the Unstained. | 
 
 Opera, Migne, Vol. CCV. Verbum Abbreviatum, p. 102. 
 
 Contra venalitatem et pluralitatem missarum...Augustinus unicam 
 sumptionem in die vix concedit...numquid interrogatus concessisset 
 alicui bis in die conficere? Absit! Sed totis viribus talem repulisset 
 et forte anathemate percussisset. 
 
 P. 104. 
 Contra missas multarum facierum nusquam legitur missa duarum 
 vel trium facierum 1 Cor. xi. Sed nune in missd septies vel pluries 
 triplicatur, mysteriumque et ordo miss confunditur. 
 
 dee 1 1: 
 
 Cum Dominus prohibuerit ne advena peregrinus vel immundus 
 comederet de agno paschali, quanto magis ne peccator, nondum civis 
 et domesticus Dei factus, de vero Agno, maculatus de Immaculato? 
 From Hildebertus Cenomannis; and there is much more like it. 
 
—1198] PETER THE SINGER, 113 
 
 P. 243. “From this little cell of words, ‘This is My body,’ we 
 draw out the faith that is held regarding the body of Christ. If 
 this, as a Manichean makes it by his exposition, ze. if ‘this is My 
 ‘body,’ z.e. a certain representing of My body and no more, or to 
 this effect, you would at once diverge by explaining it otherwise 
 than the catholic faith holds it. It seems to be thus in the com- 
 mandments of moral things, which indeed are easy and want no 
 exposition, if only they were completed in act, as they ought to be 
 completed, as it is among the articles of faith. 
 
 P. 310. “But there are two sides of truth, ὦ. 6. the side of the 
 word itself, and this is the philosopher's side.. And there is the 
 truth of the utterer which hes in the object the speaker has, 
 whether what he say be false or true. A priest's words are either 
 true or they are sacrilegious; they are true by the disposition to 
 speak true, more than by mere truth.” [How much superior to 
 Joleridge in “The Friends.” | 
 
 P, 243 8. 
 
 Ex hac cellula verborum, Hoe est corpus Meum (Matt. xxvi.), 
 elicitur fides de corpore Christi habita. Si hoc, ut Manicheeus exponens, 
 scilicet hoc est corpus Meum, id est quedam repreesentatio corporis 
 Mei et non aliud, vel in hune modum, aliter exponendo quam tcneat 
 fides catholica, statim deviares. Ita videtur esse in mandatis morum, 
 qu quidem facilia sunt et nulla expositione indigent, si implerentur 
 in opere, que etiam impleri debent, quasi de articulis fidei est. . 
 Augustinus, Tract. vi. in Johan, 
 
 PB. 310; 
 
 Est autem duplex veritas; dicti scilicet...et heec est philosophi. 
 Kt est veritas dicentis, quae est in proposito dicentis, sive falsum dixerit 
 sive verum.,., Verba sacerdotis aut vera sunt aut sacrilega: vera veraci- 
 tate potius quam veritate, 
 
 (L.) PETER THE LOMBARD, BISHOP OF PARIS. B, 1139. 
 ῃ. 1164, 
 
 As Professor of Theology there, he endeavoured to put a bridle 
 on the scholastic method of treating theological subjects and to 
 arrest the unbelief, to which it had already given birth. His mode 
 of aggression was to supply a comparatively small commonplace- 
 book of the leading Christian fathers, to which he gave the name, 
 “The book of the Sentences:” hoping by adducing these as au- 
 thorities to dam up the running stream of free enquiry. His book 
 was so well done that it was a great help to every one, and every- 
 body got it transcribed. When Huss went to prison in Constance 
 
 Ei. ΠῚ 8 
 
114 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 he had but two books with him—this work of Peter Lombard and 
 the Bible. But one purpose of the Lombard was singularly 
 defeated. The liberals of the day adopted his convenient work as 
 the text-book of their discussions, and crowned him with the title 
 of ‘Master of the Sentences,” and thenceforward he was crowned 
 as the king of the scholastic divines. It was the very different 
 book of John Scotus, on the Eucharist, that, if it had survived and 
 been closely studied, might have curbed the mania: but no 
 attempt in that direction was made for centuries. Lombard 
 prolonged the reign of the fathers. The Lombard was a native of 
 Novara and became a pupil at Bologna and went to Paris to learn 
 theology, where he became supreme. Bernard is the first cause 
 of all his triumph, since it was he that sent him to school at 
 Rheims. 
 
 Perhaps after the apostle and the royal founder of the power 
 of Russia, this Bishop of Paris is the most prominent of all the 
 Peters whom the world has known. His exploit has been at- 
 tempted by others. It was just to make an every-man’s edition 
 of the opinions of the fathers. Among these must be reckoned 
 William of Champeaux, Hugh of St Victor and Pulleyn in 
 England. Jansen made the attempt with Augustine alone. But 
 there is but one Peter Lombard. He exposes occasionally the 
 errors and contradictions to be found in particular cases; and he 
 may well not fear to do this, seeing their excellent sayings pass all 
 reckoning. It is likely that he was moved by the effects that 
 Abailard’s bold career of thought had produced. Lombard’s work 
 has been the subject of many commentators. It is hardly wonder- 
 ful that in one sentence the Master of the Sentences has made 
 a palpable shp, which has met with due condemnation at the 
 Pope’s hands. But it is singular that he penned such a sentence 
 as that Jesus Christ considered as a man is nothing at all. One 
 would feel inclined to give it a reasonable interpretation, to which 
 it would be easy enough to change a saying so monstrously ex- 
 pressed. 
 
 L.1v. D. vu. “By baptism we are cleansed. By the eucharist 
 we are thoroughly furnished in that which is good. Baptism ex- 
 
 EL LV. DY VAT. Louvain, “Tot 
 
 Per baptismum mundamur. Per eucharistiam in bono consumma- 
 mur. Baptismus estus vitiorum extinguit, Eucharistia spiritualitate 
 
 ~~) es 
 
1139] PETER THE LOMBARD. 115 
 
 tinguishes the heats (or tides) of vices. The eucharist refreshes in 
 spirituality. Whence it is exceedingly well called the eucharist, good 
 grace; because there is in this sacrament not only an argument 
 for virtue and grace, but the whole Christ is received, Who is the 
 fount and origin of the whole supply of grace... This heavenly 
 manna ought not to be furnished to any but those that are born 
 again... These two sacraments were shewn, when water and 
 blood flowed down from Christ’s side; Who came to redeem us 
 from the devil and sin by blood and the water of ablution; as He 
 by the blood of the paschal lamb delivered the Israelites from 
 extermination, and by the water of the Red Sea from the 
 Egyptians. Whence, as Ambrose says, ‘it is given us to under- 
 ‘stand that the holy things of Christians were earlier than those of 
 ‘the Jews. Eusebius of Emesa (says), Because He was about to 
 take away from our eyes the body that He had assumed and 
 to carry it into Heaven among the stars, it was necessary that on 
 the day of the (Paschal) supper He should consecrate a sacrament 
 for us, that that (body) might be continually worshipped in a 
 mystery, which was once for all offered as the price (of our re- 
 demption). A consecration, and in what words? ‘Take ye, eat ye, 
 ‘all, of it. This is My body τ᾿ and Augustine, We must believe that 
 the sacraments [1.6. the repeated observances of this sacrament] 
 are established by those words of Christ. All that remains 15 
 nothing else than praises and entreaties of the faithful and their 
 requests... Therefore the Lord Jesus...under the form of bread and 
 wine so delivered to them His own body and blood, that He might 
 shew that the old sacraments of the law were ended by His own 
 death and that the sacraments of the new law were substituted for 
 
 reficit. Unde excellenter eucharistia dicitur, bona gratia ; quia in hoc 
 sacramento non modo est argumentum virtutis et gratis, sed ///e totus 
 sumitur qui est fons et origo totius gratize...Hoc celeste manna non 
 nisi renatis prestare debet...Hzec duo sacramenta demonstrata sunt, 
 ubi de latere Christi sanguis et aqua profluxerunt: qui (Christus) per 
 sanguinem redempturus et aquam ablutionis nos redimere venit a 
 diabolo et peccato; sicut Israelitas per sanguinem agni paschalis ab 
 exterminatore, et per aquam maris rubri ab A‘gyptiis liberavit. Unde, 
 ut ait Ambrosius, “ intelligi datur, anteriora esse sancta Christianorum 
 “quam Judeorum.” Eusebius Emissenus (ait), Quia corpus assumptum 
 ablaturus erat ab oculis et illaturus sideribus, necesse erat ut die ccenz 
 sacramentum nobis consecraret, ut coleretur jugiter per mysterium, 
 quod semel offerebatur pretium. Consecratio, quibus et verbis? Take, 
 eat, all, of it. This is My body, ἄς. Augustinus. Credendum est 
 quod in illis verbis Christi sacramenta confirmantur. Reliqua omnia 
 nihil aliud sunt quam laudes vel obsecrationes fidelium et petitiones. 
 Kp. tix. Dominus igitur Jesus...sub specie panis et vini corpus et 
 Sanguinem Suum ita eis tradidit, ut ostenderet legis vetera sacramenta 
 in morte Sua terminari ac legis nove sacramenta substitui...Sed non 
 
 8—2 
 
116 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 them... But he did not afterwards sanction the church custom 
 for the future, that (the sacrament) should be taken after other 
 food: but it ought rather to be taken by persons fasting, as the 
 apostle says, that by peculiar reverence it may be differently 
 judged, 1.6. distinguished, from other things—a thing which the 
 Lord left to be arranged by the apostles, ‘Whence Augustine, &e. 
 Three things are to “be distinguished... The visible form (ap- 
 pearance) of bread and wine is the sacred sign (sacrament) and 
 not the thing (itself). Christ’s own flesh and blood is a sacred 
 sign and the thing. His mystic flesh [.6. the feeding grace re- 
 ceived, which is the thing mystically signified by Christ’s flesh and 
 blood which are themselves only figurative terms. The Latin 
 words contain all this. How seldom is this true explanation 
 given, viz. that the bread and wine are figures of Christ’s body 
 and blood, and that Christ’s body and blood are figures of the 
 grace which He gives to feed the soul: that is to say, holy 
 thoughts, feelings, inclinations, and, following from these, holy 
 resolves] is the thing itself and not a sacred sign... And of this 
 Christ's own proper body taken from the virgin is a sacred sign, 
 because as Christ’s body consists of many most pure and immacu- 
 late members, so the church’s fellowship (society) consists of many 
 persons free from criminal taint. As a type of which the ark of 
 the Lord was made of many pieces of satin wood, which are incor- 
 ruptible and like white thorn... ‘There are two modes of com- 
 municating ; one sacramental [7.e. a partaking of the sacred sign], 
 that is to say in which good and bad eat: the other spiritual, by 
 which the good alone eat. Whence Augustine, &. No one can 
 doubt that any one is at that time made a partaker of Christ’s 
 body when he is made a member of Christ even if he depart from 
 this world before he eats that bread and drinks that cup... It 
 
 exinde disciplinam sanxit in posterum, ut post alios cibos sumatur: sed 
 potius ajejunis sumi oportet, sicut apostolus dicit, ut singulari reverentia 
 dijudicetur, ie. discernatur ab aliis rebus, quod Dominus apostolis 
 disponendum reliquit. Unde Augustinus, &c. Sunt tria distinguenda 
 
 ..Sacramentum, et non res, est species visibilis panis et vini. "Sacra- 
 mentum et res caro Christi propria et sanguis, Res et non sacramentum 
 mystica Hjus caro...Cujus etiam sacramentum est corpus Christi pro- 
 prium de virgine sumptum, quia ut corpus Christi ex multis membris 
 purissimis et immaculatis constat, ita societas ecclesiastica ex multis 
 personis, a criminali macula liberis, consistit. In cujus rei typo facta 
 est arca Domini de lignis setini, que sunt imputribilia et albze spinze 
 similia. Duo modi communicandi; unicus sacramentalis: scilicet quo 
 boni et mali edunt; alter spiritualis, quo soli boni manducant. Unde 
 Augustinus, ὅθ. Nulli ambigendum est tum quemquam corporis 
 et sanguinis Christi participem fieri, quando Christi membrum efficitur, 
 &c., etiam si antequam illum panem edat et sanguinem bibat de hoc 
 
1139] PETER THE LOMBARD. 117 
 
 must be held without doubt that it is taken by the good, not only 
 as a sacred sign but also spiritually; but that Christ’s flesh taken 
 from the virgin and His own blood shed for us (is received) by 
 the wicked only as a sacred sign, 1.6. under (the form of) a sacra- 
 ment, that is to say under the visible appearance. Gregory and 
 Augustine. 
 
 P. 399. “But like as others, transcending the madness of 
 preceding (teachers), who, measuring God’s power after the measure 
 of natural things, very boldly and perilously contradict the truth— 
 asserting that there is no body or blood on the altar, and that the 
 substance of bread and wine is not converted into the substance of 
 flesh and blood—but that Christ said, ‘This is My body,’ in the 
 same way that the apostle said, ‘but the rock was Christ.’ For 
 they say that the body of Christ is there only in a sacrament, 1.6. 
 in a sign, to be eaten by us. [This seems the place to notice that 
 in the three ‘Truths so well uttered before, there was just this one 
 error, viz. to say that the body and blood of Christ in this sacra- 
 ment are a sacred sign and a reality, sacramentum et res: for the 
 body and blood are not really there, nor are they really received 
 but only mystically, ze. in a figure. Still Peter Lombard stands 
 very high among such divines as Macarius, Origen, Theodore, 
 Athanasius, Usher, Barrow, Tyndall, Sandys and Bullinger.] 
 Augustine on the words, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, &c., We 
 are not going to eat this body and to drink this blood, ἄορ. [As 
 said below, authorities to prove that Christ’s body zs on the altar. 
 Then] On the mode of the conversion, whether it is in form or in 
 substance or of both kinds, 1 am not competent to determine. 
 
 seculo...abscedat... Indubitanter tenendum est a bonis sumi non modo 
 sacramentaliter sed etiam spiritualiter: a malis vero tantum sacra- 
 mentaliter, i.e. sub sacramento, scilicet sub specie visibili, carnem 
 Christi de virgine sumptum et sanguinem pro nobis fusum Suum. 
 Greg. et Aug. 
 
 ΠΣ »Ὡ Pp. 399. 
 
 Sicut autem alii, preecedentium insaniam transcendentes, qui, Dei 
 virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes, audacius et peri- 
 culosius veritati contradicunt, asserentes in altari non esse Christi 
 corpus vel sanguinem, nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam 
 carnis et sanguinis conyerti; sed ita dixisse Christum, Hoe est corpus 
 Meum, sicut apostolus dixit, Petra autem erat Christus. Dicunt 
 enim ibi esse corpus Christi tantum in sacramento, i.e. In signo, man- 
 ducari a nobis. Aug. on the words, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, &e. 
 Non corpus hoc mandueaturi et bibituri illum sanguinem. After this 
 come authorities to prove that the true body of Christ zs on the altar, 
 e.g. Ambrose and Augustine, ὅθ. Then, De modo conversionis an 
 formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis, definire non sufiicio. 
 Formalem tamen non esse cognosco, quia species rerum que ante fuerunt 
 
118 THE TWELFTH CENTURY, [A.D. 
 
 Yet that there is any conversion of the form I do not know, 
 because the appearances of the things (i.e. of the bread and wine), 
 which were before, continue, and the taste and the weight. The 
 priests are said to make the body and blood of Christ. The bread 
 becomes flesh and the wine’s substance becomes blood; and yet 
 nothing is added to the body and blood, nor is Christ’s body and 
 blood augmented.” [I notice once again how sadly an error once 
 decidedly affirmed by a great man holds its ground and perverts 
 the church for ages. Jerome at the end of the fourth century 
 several times uses the words “conficere corpus Christi,” or equiva- 
 lent terms; and here in the twelfth century Peter Lombard, who 
 was to be for centuries the favourite author, comes astonishingly 
 near to the simple truth of Scripture; but this one rock on the 
 path, this one word “conficere,” seems above all other terms used 
 by others to stand in his way, and shut him out from ascending to 
 the higher level; so the Reformation was delayed still longer.] 
 
 remanent et sapor et pondus. Sacerdotes dicuntur conficere torpus 
 Christi et sanguinem. Panis fit caro, et substantia vini fit sanguis: 
 nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini; nec augetur corpus 
 Christi vel sanguis. 
 
 (M.) ALANUS OF THE ISLANDS, DOCTOR UNIVERSALIS. 
 B. 1114. vb, 1203. 
 
 A long and difficult dispute—first, whether there were two 
 equally eminent Cistercians of this name, and secondly where each 
 of them lived—has subsided into the conclusion that there was but 
 one, and that his life just ran out of the 12th into the 13th 
 century, though it nearly coincided with the whole twelfth cen- 
 tury. His birth is set at 1114, and his death was three years 
 after the end of the century. His marble monument yet presents 
 a legible inscription in the cloister on the left after you have 
 entered the church. The lax versification of the inscription 
 describes him as “qui totum scibile scivit.” Another epitaph 
 represents him as “worthy of the whole world’s admiration,” and 
 in one condensed portion says of him “reseravit naturam, mores, 
 “mystica verba Dei,” 
 
 Lille (Insulz) was the capital of French Flanders. While Alanus 
 was young, Theodoric of Alsatia was called to be Count of Flanders. 
 He went thence to St Bernard of Clairvaux, In 1139 he became 
 first abbot of Riparium on the appointment of Bishop Hatto; and 
 he rose to be Rector of the University of Paris and Bishop of 
 Auxerre (Antissiodorum) in 1151. After the Lateran council he 
 
1114] ALANUS OF THE ISLANDS. 119 
 
 wrote against the Waldenses and Albigenses. His works are too 
 numerous to recite here. But his first attempt related to the 
 prophecies of Merlin in England. The strange thing is that all 
 the events of his life bring him into the 12th century, but his first 
 epitaph mentioned above makes it the thirteenth. 
 
 “Mille ducenteno nonageno quoque quarto, 
 Christo devotus mortales exuit artus.” 
 
 P. 202. “She (the Virgin Mary) is that famous Jerusalem, in 
 which the true Solomon built up a solemn temple. And it can 
 with yet more reason be reckoned Jerusalem, 7.e. the vision of 
 peace, than that in which the peace of eternity rested, in which 
 the true Solomon, 1.6. Christ was formed, the temple of His own 
 body, of which it is said, ‘ Destroy this temple, &c.’ But in the 
 forming of this temple neither hammer nor axe was heard... But 
 because three altars belonged to the temple of Solomon, the first of 
 whole burnt-offerings on which animals were slain, the second of 
 incense on which they offered aromatics, the third propitiatory on 
 which the glory of God appeared; so in the temple of Christ, 1.9. 
 in His human nature, three altars come out; first there is the 
 altar of burnt-offerings, 1. 6. His glorious flesh, on which ours have 
 been consumed ; ; secondly, that of His soul, because as on the altar of 
 incense (differ ent) kinds of incense were offered, so the soul of Christ 
 is filled with various excellences; thirdly, that of His Divinity, in 
 which there shines forth the majesty of Divine authority. [Not 
 offered, but present and propitiated, the blood being brought in as a 
 memorial of the sacrifice at the door of the sanctuary, and sprinkled 
 to cleanse that holy of holies. Then follows that a triple purging 
 
 Sermo II. Opera, Migne, Vol. CCX. p. 202. 
 
 Hee (ie. V.M.) est famosa illa Jerusalem, in qua verus Ille 
 Salomon templum solenne exstruxit. Que enim consequentius censeri 
 posset Jerusalem, i. e. visio pacis, quam illa in qua quievit pax eterni- 
 tatis, in qua verus Salomon, 1. 6. Christus, fabricatus est, templum 
 Sui corporis, de quo dictum est, Solvite templum hoc, ἄς, (Joh. ii.). 
 Sed in fabricatione hujus templi neque malleus neque securis est 
 audita :... Quia autem ad templum Salomonis tria pertinebaut altaria, 
 primum holocaustorum, in quo mactabantur animalia, secundum 
 thumiamatis; in quo offerebant aromatica, tertium propitiatorium in 
 quo apparebat gloria Divina ; ita in templo Christi, 1. 6. in Ejus humana 
 natura, tria resultant altaria: primum altare est holocaustorum, scilicet 
 
 caro ΕἾ ijus gloriosa [he does not mean this word in the same sense as 
 in 1 Cor. xv.] in qua nostra sunt consumpta [then this first is pro- 
 pitiatory |, secundum anime, quia sicut in altari thymiamatis offerebantur 
 aromaticee species, sic anima Christi varus virtutibus referta est ; tertiuin 
 Divinitatis in qua elucescit Divine auctoritatis majestas, 
 
120 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of our hearts is required from luxury, dust and mud, the three 
 polluters of the house into which God is to be received. That 
 which such a man thought worth writing we may well deem worthy 
 of self-application. | 
 
 P. 204. Ps. lx. “In sacraments He gave a banner, signifying 
 because a sacrament is no other thing than a sign of invisible grace, 
 as baptism and confirmation. But the form of visible bread on the 
 altar designates the Lord’s invisible flesh. Those signs are ‘dark- 
 ‘nesses, of which Ps. xviii. speaks: for Divine grace lies hid or is 
 contained under the sacraments, whence also they themselves are 
 called vessels, as Matt. xxv., where it is said, ‘Hide oil in your 
 ‘vessels,’ and Isaiah li., ‘Be ye clean that bear the Lord’s vessels.’ 
 These vessels with some are empty, with some are half full; but 
 in some they are full, with apostates they are empty. 
 
 P. 359. “Against heretics, 7.e. Waldenses, Jews, Pagans, ὅσ. 
 The opinion of the heretics who deny that the bread is transub- 
 stantiated into Christ’s body by the sacred words said by the 
 priest in the mass. Answers, (1) One change is the being turned 
 into another thing; (2) Another being in it; (3) Transubstan- 
 tiation an interchange of substances only. 
 
 P. 360. “None of the bread’s substance remains either as refers 
 to matter or to substance, but some of the accidental properties. 
 [Must we not say then that in respect of these “ accidents,” what- 
 
 P, 204, Ps. LIX. (£X.), “ Thou hast given a banner” 
 (Lat. significationem). 
 
 In sacramentis dedit significationem, quia nil aliud sacramentum 
 quam invisibilis gratie signum...So baptism and confirmation. Forma 
 autem panis visibilis in altari invisibilem Domini carnem designat. 
 Istz sunt tenebrz, de quibus in Psalmis dicitur Ps. xvii. (xviii). Latet 
 enim sive continetur sub sacramentis Divina gratia, unde et ipsa vasa 
 dicuntur in Evangelio, Matth. xxv., ubi dicitur, Oleum recondite in 
 vasis vestris, et Is. 11, Mundamini qui fertis vasa Domini. [Singular 
 both instances.] Hee vasa in quibusdam sunt vacua, in quibusdam 
 semiplena, in quibusdam vero plena, in apostatis vacua sunt, &c, 
 
 PB. 959. 
 
 Contra hereticos, .e. Waldenses, Judeos, Paganos, &c., Lib. [., 6. 57. 
 
 Opinio hereticorum qui negant panem transubstantiari in corpus 
 Christi...per sancta’ verba que a sacerdote dicuntur in missa. [C. 58.] 
 Answers, mutationum alia est alteratio, alia alteritas, alia transubstantia- 
 tio. [In (1) change in accidents, in (2) in substantials though the 
 subject-matter remains, in (3) when both the last are changed. ] 
 
 P. 360. 
 
 Nihil de substantia (panis) remanet vel quantum ad materiam vel 
 quantum ad substantiam, sed quedam accidentalia. 
 
1114] ALANUS OF THE ISLANDS. 121 
 
 ever is their physical explanation the bread is not so far changed 
 into Christ’s body? and we have no idea of imperceptible acci- 
 dents, so we might argue that the change is only in the substances. 
 Therefore after all only the substance and not the accidents of 
 Christ’s body would be there, 1.6. Christ’s whole body is not there, 
 but only its substance. So “This is my body” is not verified (in 
 the Roman literal way) ]. 
 
 P. 362. ‘They say indeed that none of the accidents of bread 
 are there—but that they seem to be there. [This does not help 
 at all.] For there are many kinds of deceived vision. But it is 
 not for jugglery, v.e. to cheat, because this is not done to deceive 
 but to instruct and for a sacrament. 
 
 P. 363. “Heretics also ask whether it be an article of the 
 Christian faith that bread is transubstantiated into the body of 
 Christ, since no mention is made of this in any creed... With 
 reference to this some say that in the primitive church it was so 
 patent to all that it was doubted by none, since Christ testified to 
 it in the Gospel. Nor did any heresy break forth in the primitive 
 church on this point, for the repression of which any change had 
 to be recorded. But it may be said that mention is made of the 
 eucharist in the Apostles’ Creed, in the term ‘The communion of 
 ‘saints.’ For in this do holy persons spiritually communicate, when 
 they receive Christ’s body not only sacramentally but also spiritually. 
 [This very nearly amounts to Pearson’s spiritual interpretation of 
 the clause.]_ The heretics’ opinion is that He shewed Himself and 
 not His body lying hid under the form (of bread and wine). As to 
 the body the passage simply affirms the contrary. Also what will 
 they say of the blood? Here the heretics cannot say that He 
 
 P. 362. 
 
 As to the accidents of bread remaining, Dicunt quidam nulla acci- 
 dentia ibi esse...sed videri esse... Sunt enim multe species fallacize 
 visus... Non tamen est ad prestigium, quia hoc non fit ad decipiendum 
 sed ad instruendum et ad sacramentum. 
 
 P. 363. 
 
 Querunt etiam heretici utrum sit articulus fidei Christiane panem 
 transubstantiari in corpus Christi cum de hoc non fiat mentio in aliquo 
 symbolo...ad hoe dicunt quidam quod in primitiva ecclesia ita omnibus 
 patebat, ὅσο. quod nulli dubium erat, cum Christus hoc esset in evangelio 
 testatus. Nec super hoc in primitiva ecclesia ulla heresis pullulavit, 
 ad quam reprimendam opus esset mentionem fieri, ἄς. Dici autem 
 potest quod in apostolico symbolo fiat mentio de eucharistia, cum dicitur, 
 Sanctorum communionem. In hoc enim spiritualiter communicant 
 sancti, dum recipiunt corpus Christi non solum sacramentaliter sed 
 etiam spiritualiter. [C. 61.] Opinio heereticorum quod...demonstraverit 
 Seipsum et non corpus quod sub forma latebat. As to the body simple 
 counter statement. Then, Item quid de sanguine dicent? Hic non 
 
122 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 shewed any other blood than that which He was handing in the 
 cup, &c. [Just as if the Waldenses meant by Himself, His body 
 and blood, when they meant His grace actually given and repre- 
 sented by all the figures of form and speech.] Why did He exhibit 
 (or give) His body under a form not its own? It was becoming 
 that He Who had retired from men as to the presence of the flesh, 
 sitting on the Father's right hand, should sometimes visit us. [As 
 to His human body this is not conceded but denied in Scripture. | 
 Although He might be hidden under a form not His own, &. ‘To 
 confound these heretics, there is celebrated a miracle in many 
 churches, by which a kind of flesh has been seen in the host 
 (sacrifice). [Who would take all this for the reasoning of the 
 Doctor universus of Paris? He ends by begging the question of 
 the authority of the literal sense.] It is most stupid to refuse to 
 confess what Christ has confessed, what apostles testify, what all 
 saints attest, (according to the faith) in which we see so many 
 devout men end their lives, 
 
 P. 390. “It is evident the power of baptism or the eucharist 
 or of another sacrament is not increased or diminished by whom- 
 soever they are given... Besides, if the merits of the ministers 
 increased or diminished the power of prayers, the unity of the 
 church would not stand: yea, a schism would take place: because 
 some would follow a priest whom they might believe better, and 
 they would fly from another whom they might think worse. [How 
 well the Church of England takes the middle line !] 
 
 P. 678. “Theological rules. R. 107, Some say that Christ’s 
 body though broken yet remains entire, that it is divided and yet 
 remains undivided. Others say that the breaking is in the form 
 
 possunt dicere quod ostenderet sanguinem Suum, nisi quem in calice 
 porrigebat, &e. [C. 62.] Quare sub aliend forma dederit corpus Suum 
 ... Decens fuit ut Qui ab hominibus recesserat per presentiam carnis 
 sedens ad dexteram Patris, nos aliquando visitaret, quamvis sub aliena 
 forma lateret, &e. In horum hereticorum confusionem in _ pluribus 
 ecclesiis celebratur miraculum, quo in hostid species carnis visa est... 
 stultissimum est diffiteri quod Christus confessus est, quod apostoli 
 testantur, quod omnes sancti attestantur, in qua fide videmus tot viros 
 religiosos vitam finire. 
 Ῥ 390, 0b: TT. Se 
 
 Patet quod vis baptismi vel eucharistiz vel alterius sacramenti non 
 augetur vel minuitur, a quocunque detur...Preeterea si merita minis- 
 trorum augerent vel minuerent vim orationum, unitas ecclesiz non staret : 
 imo schisma fieret: quia quidam sequerentur sacerdotem quem crederent 
 meliorem et fugerent alium quem putarent deteriorem, &c. 
 
 P. 678. Theologice regule. 
 
 Rule 107 as hefore, only shorter argument on the change of bread and 
 wine, ending, Sunt qui dicunt corpus Christi frangi et tamen manere in- 
 tegrum, dividi et manere indivisum. Alii fractionem esse in ipsa forma, 
 
1114] ALANUS OF THE ISLANDS. 123 
 
 itself (only). Others that nothing in it is broken, but that it only 
 appears to be broken, as was said before. R. 108, The body of 
 Christ is there in one species or kind (subordinate kind) and is 
 (not) under another kind [1.6. the accidents both of the bread and 
 wine and of the body and blood are there], For in that form 
 which He took of the virgin He is on the altar, but not in that 
 indeed under the form of bread and wine.” [One does not see why 
 Alan might not as well affirm both substances to be there too. ] 
 
 Alii nihil ibi frangi sed videri frangi, ut predictum est. Rule 108, In 
 alia specie est corpus Christi, et sub alia specie est. In illa enim forma, 
 quam assumpsit de virgine, est in altari, sed non sub illa imo sub forma 
 panis et vini. 
 
 (N.) INNOCENT III. (LOTHARIO CONTI). B. 1161. Ὁ. 1216. 
 
 Gregory VII. and Innocent III. seem to me to stand apart 
 from the rest of the popes, as, if I may say it, the great twin 
 brethren, the Castor and Pollux of the Papal power. But it is 
 difficult adequately to pourtray or even to sketch their characters. 
 To rant against them, even to reason against them, were very 
 easy ; their ambition, their severity, and at times their unscrupu- 
 lous pursuit of their chosen aims, have left ample room and verge 
 enough for both rant and reason to display themselves. But 
 a misgiving arises whether this is all—whetber their characters 
 were not chequered with noble professional desires. I do not say 
 this out of blind charity, though “hoping all things” is given us 
 as one good mark of Christian love. Nor do I put it simply asa 
 spiritual fact which may be contended for—that bad men even in 
 the highest places are not so wholly surrendered to evil, as not to 
 have some love of good, and some wishes to promote its pre- 
 valence. Such men have worked at intervals with that object, 
 and have had better feelings for the time strangely mingled with 
 their ruling passions of pride and hatred and the rest. Then why 
 should not this and more be true of both these remarkable men? 
 And should not Gregory’s own assertion in his well-known letter 
 to Hugo of Cluny—that his leading object was to reform the 
 clergy according to his own ideas—receive some credit? Every 
 writer concurs jn describing the corruption of the entire system 
 of clerical preferment as having vitiated the great mass of the 
 clerical body. Must not Gregory have felt this? and then who 
 can reject Gregory’s own private saying in starting on his work, 
 
124 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that he “felt himself such a sinner, that he cast himself for salva- 
 “tion on the merits of Christ alone”? See e.g. Neander, vol. vu. 
 And may we not believe that he long worked with a desire to 
 obtain a pure clergy, when he mistakenly made their celibacy his 
 cardinal aim respecting them? He seems to have despaired of 
 amending the worldly and self-seeking laity till he should have 
 reformed the clergy. And to Innocent also may we not assign 
 a similar mistaken belief, that could he get the change of the 
 sacramental elements more systematically laid down by a more 
 philosophical enunciation of the mystery, he should have done 
 much toward augmenting the reforming power of sacramental 
 doctrine on the lives first of the clergy and then of the people ? 
 If any who read this prefer to turn their faces away frorn these 
 suggestions, and to paint these two popes as all black—black as 
 the blackest night—no doubt they may get many to follow them 
 in these views. But I very much fear it is true that the partial 
 mixture of a desire for good with the ruling practice of evil in very 
 corrupt minds is no apology at all for their general criminality, 
 but rather the contrary. I look on the power to say “video 
 “meliora proboque,” as but a testimony that the moral sense is 
 not extinguished, and I believe that this remaznder of its presence 
 is an inward protest for God against evil conduct, the resisting of 
 which renders evil conduct yet more truly guilty. The unques- 
 tionably carnal and at times unscrupulous passions, which had full 
 dominion over all other motives in the lives of these and many 
 other popes, seem to me to have blasted whatever of good inten- 
 tions they possessed, and made their successful careers a curse of 
 no common malignancy. Clerical supremacy seems to me a more 
 abundantly fruitful source of evil than anything that can be 
 named beside. I think that these two prelates were the chief 
 demiurges of the evil creation that ensued. It took Christendom 
 ages of suffering to break the degrading and depressing chains 
 that they laid on it, and to emerge into that balanced liberty held 
 in common by clerical and lay persons, which proves to be the 
 only source of real reform. Itself the child of light, it protects 
 and spreads light; and we now live by that light which with the 
 greatest difficulty at length shot through the accumulated dark- 
 ness. Innocent’s six books in 120 of Migne’s long columns will, 
 I should think, sicken any one of carrying sacramental symbolism 
 beyond the limits prescribed by Christ and Paul. I might give a 
 
1101] INNOCENT III. 125 
 
 few specimens. Yet from the adjoining and equally corrupt 
 Canon of the Mass how much of the beautiful and pure eloquence 
 of our Communion-service is taken! There is more than I have 
 space to transcribe. Our Reformers’ eyes darted upon the true 
 gold amidst the tinsel of corruption, and wisely have they rescued 
 it for our use. 
 
 Of the three first Innocents the first in 402 saw Rome the 
 prey of the barbarians, and its heathen temples reopening; and he 
 died in fifteen years. The second, as we have seen, had Anacletus 
 for a rival in the twelfth century; but lived to see his power 
 paramount—1000 bishops gathered at Rome, and Lothaire suing 
 to be crowned there by his hand: so that he was able to assert 
 that all church-preferments were held in fee from him: and he 
 found great support in Bernard of Clairvaux. And now of this 
 Tnnocent—the third. He was son of Count Trasimund of Anagni, 
 from which town the second Benedict also sprang. He was 
 appointed fifty-five years after the death of the second Innocent, 
 z.e. in 1198, just on the border of the thirteenth century, and he 
 succeeded Celestine II. His struggle with Philip Augustus and 
 his excommunication of John of England (and we have never had 
 a second king of that name) seem doubtful matters and pale 
 cruelties compared with the way in which for years he relentlessly 
 harried Raymond of Toulouse. Yet he became lord of all kings: 
 Italy saw him spread his rule from her western to her eastern sea : 
 and with secular and clerical powers at his feet he held the fourth 
 council at his Lateran palace in 1215, and put the stamp of 
 Roman authority on the wildest of religious dreams, and called it 
 Transubstantiation—the hardest of all corrupt dogmas to be philo- 
 sophically stated and defended: a work in which the Council of 
 Trent too was philosophically to fail. He also gave their carte 
 blanche to both the Franciscan and Dominican orders. He died at 
 Perouse one year after the Lateran council. 
 
 From the Order of the Mass. 
 
 P. 763. “‘The Lord be with you” ‘And with thy spirit.’ 
 John vi. ‘Glory be to Thee, O Lord’ ‘The priest kisses the 
 
 Ordo Missee, Opera, Migne, Vol. IV. p, 763. 
 Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Seq. 8. Evang. secundum 
 Johannem yi. Gloria tibi, Domine... Sacerdos osculatur evangelium. 
 
120 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Gospel. ‘May our faults be blotted out by the evangelic sayings.’ 
 Then, at the middle of the altar, the Nicene Creed... Offering 
 the host upon a paten, ‘Receive, holy Father, this immaculate 
 ‘host, which I Thine unworthy servant offer to Thee my living 
 ‘and true God for my innumerable sins and offences and my 
 ‘neglects and for all that are standing around and for all faithful 
 ‘Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them to 
 ‘salvation unto eternal life, Amen.’ Bending to the midst of the 
 altar, ‘Receive, O holy Trinity, the oblation of bread, which we 
 ‘offer to Thee for the memory of the passion, rising again, and 
 ‘ascension of Jesus Christ our Lord... and in honour of Mary 
 ‘ever-virgin and blessed John the Baptist the holy apostles Peter 
 ‘and Paul and those and all saints, that it may be profitable to 
 ‘them for their honour, but to us for our salvation, that they may 
 ‘deign to intercede for us in Heaven, whose memory we promote 
 ‘on earth, through the same Christ our Lord.’ Turning towards 
 the people, ‘Pray, brethren, that this sacrifice from me ‘and you 
 ‘may become acceptable to God the almighty Father,’ 
 
 Ministrants. ‘May God receive this sacrifice, &c.’ 
 
 Priest. ‘The Lord be with you.’ 
 
 Ministrants. ‘And with thy spirit.’ 
 
 Priest. ‘ (Lift) upwards (your) hearts.’ 
 
 Ministrants. ‘We have them (lifted up) to the Lord’ 
 
 Priest. ‘Let us give thanks to our Lord.’ 
 
 Ministrants. ‘It is worthy and right. 
 
 Per evangelica dicta deleantur nostra delicta. Deinde, ad medium 
 altaris, Niceen. symbol... Offerens hostiam super patenam, Suscipe, sancte 
 Pater, hanc immaculatam hostiam quam ego indignus famulus tuus 
 offero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero pro innumerabilibus peccatis meis et 
 offensionibus et negligentiis meis et pro omnibus circumstantibus et 
 pro omnibus fidelibus Christianis vivis atque defunctis, ut mihi et illis 
 proficiat ad salutem in vitam eternam. Amen... Inclinatus ad medium 
 altaris, Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, panis oblationem, quam Tibi offerimus 
 ob memoriam passionis resurrectionis et ascensionis Jesu Christi Domini 
 nostri—et in honore Mariz semper virginis et beati Johannis Baptiste 
 et sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli et istorum et omnium sanctorum, 
 ut illis proficiat ad honorem, nobis autem ad salutem, ut illi pro nobis 
 intercedere dignentur in celis, quorum memoriam agimus in terris. 
 Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum... Versus ad populum, Orate, 
 fratres, ut meum et vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum 
 Patrem omnipotentem. 
 
 Ministri. Suscipiat Deus hoc sacrificium, &c. 
 
 Sacerdos. Dominus vobiscum. 
 
 Ministri. Et cum spiritu tuo. 
 
 Sacerdos, Sursum corda. 
 
 Ministri. Habemus ad Dominum. 
 
 Sacerdos, Gratias agamus Domino nostro. 
 
 Ministri. Dignum et justum est. 
 
1161] INNOCENT III. 127 
 
 ‘Priest. ‘It is truly worthy and just and right and healthful 
 ‘that we should always and everywhere give thanks, &c., and 
 ‘therefore with angels and archangels, &c., saying Holy, Holy, 
 ‘Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth. The heavens and earth are filled 
 ‘with Thy glory. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the 
 ‘Lord. Hosanna in the highest.’ 
 
 Then the Canon of the Mass. The following are taken from 
 it. 
 
 ‘Which oblation do Thou, O God, deign, we beseech Thee, to 
 ‘make in all things blessed, dedicated, fixed, reasonable, and 
 ‘acceptable, that it may be made to us the body and blood of Thy 
 ‘most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ... We offer to Thy 
 ‘Renowned Majesty of Thy gifts given (to us, qy. by the people) 
 ‘a pure host, a holy host, an immaculate host, holy bread of 
 ‘eternal life and cup of perpetual salvation.’ Striking his breast 
 three times, ‘Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come 
 ‘under my roof, &.’ He reverently takes the host, ‘May the 
 ‘body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep my soul unto eternal life. 
 ‘Amen,’ &e., &e. 
 
 Taking ablutions (water for washing), ‘What we may take with 
 ‘the mouth, το. 
 
 From the six books on the sacred mystery of the altar. 
 
 P. 910. “Of the washing of the hands after the taking of the 
 eucharist. After the sacrifice of the eucharist has been taken, the 
 priest washes and pours water over his hands, that nothing may 
 remain from having touched the most Divine sacrament, not that 
 
 Sacerdos. Vere dignum et justum est equum et salutare nos tibi 
 semper et ubique gratias agere, &c. ὅθ. Et ideo cum angelis et arch- 
 angelis, &c. dicentes Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. 
 Pleni sunt cceli et terra gloria tua, Benedictus qui venit in nomen 
 Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. 
 
 Then the Canon of the Mass, p. 769. Some sentences are, Quam 
 oblationem Tu, Deus, in omnibus, queesumus, benedictam ascriptam 
 ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis corpus et 
 sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii Tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi, &e. . 
 offerimus preclare Majestati Tue de Tuis donis datis hostiam 
 puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vite 
 zeternz et calicem salutis perpetuze... Percutiens pectus dicit ter, Domine 
 non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, &c. Sumit reverenter 
 hostiam, Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam meam in 
 vitam eternam. Amen, &c. 
 
 Sumens ablutiones, Quod ore sumamus, &e. 
 
 De sacro altaris mysterio, libri sex. Lib. VI. c. VIII. p. 910. 
 
 De ablutione manuum post eucharistiz sumptionem. Post sumptum 
 eucharisti sacrificium sacerdos abluit et perfundit manus, ne quid 
 incaute remaneat ex contactu Divinissimi sacramenti, non quod quid 
 
128 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 he has contracted any uncleanness from touching it, but rather to 
 commemorate its dignity, ἕο. Luke xvii. It is indeed unworthy 
 that the hands which have handled the incorruptible body should 
 touch corruptible body until they be carefully washed, &c. ... 
 But the ablution of the priest is done thrice: the ablution which 
 takes place at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, marks 
 the cleansing of the thought, speech and action, or the purging 
 (away) of original sin, criminal sin and venial sin: or that which is 
 done of ignorance or of negligence or of purpose, unto the cleansing 
 
 5 . . 
 away of which the salutary [or saving] sacrifice is offered. 
 
 P. 907. “Then the priest breaks the host into three parts, and 
 two being reserved away from the cup, with the other he thrice 
 makes the sign of the cross upon the cup, from whose mouth the 
 deacon removes the corporal, and speaking with a loud voice, ‘The 
 ‘peace of the Lord be with you always,’ he puts down the portion 
 of the host into the cup. The priest therefore breaks the host, 
 that in the breaking of the bread we may know the Lord, Luke 
 xxiv. The sign of the cross is thrice made with the host over the 
 cup, because the virtue of the Trinity brings back the soul of the 
 Crucified to (His) flesh that... He may not give His flesh to see 
 corruption, Ps. xv. (xvi.). Three crosses are therefore made with 
 the host over the mouth of the cup, because three women were 
 seeking the Crucified at the gate of the tomb, Luke xxiv. There- 
 fore the cup’s mouth here signifies the tomb’s gate, and from the 
 cup the deacon removes the corporal, designating that the angel of 
 the Lord rolled back the stone from the gate of the tomb, &e, 
 
 immundum ex contactu sacramenti contraxerit, sed ut suam potius 
 indignitatem commemoret, &c. Luc. xvii. Indignum quidem ... ut 
 manus, que corpus wincorruptibile tractaverunt, corpus corruptibile 
 contingant, donec studiose laventur, &c. Trina vero sacerdotis ablutio, 
 que fit in principio, in medio, in fine, designat mundationem cogi- 
 tationis, locutionis, et actionis; vel purgationem originalis peccati, 
 criminalis et venialis. Sive quod igitur per ignorantiam, negligentiam 
 et industriam, ad quorum emundationem offertur sacrificium salutare. 
 be Vii αἰ ΤΠ 3. SO 
 
 Tune sacerdos frangit hostiam in tres partes; et, duabus extra 
 calicem reservatis, cum alia signum crucis ter efficit supra calicem, de 
 cujns ore diaconus removet corporale, et alta voce dicendo, ‘“ Pax 
 “ Domini sit semper vobiscum,” particulam hostiz dimittit in calicem. 
 Frangit igitur sacerdos hostiam ut in fractione panis Dominum cog- 
 noscamus, &e., Luc, xxiv.... Ter signum crucis producitur cum hostia 
 super calicem, quia virtus Trinitatis animam crucifixi (Christi) reducit ad 
 carnem, ne...daret carnem Hjus videre corruptionem, Ps, xv. (xvi.). Ideo 
 tres cruces fiunt cum hostia super os calicis quia tres mulieres quzere- 
 bant crucifixum ad ostium monumenti, Luc. xxiv. Os ergo calicis in 
 hoc loco significat ostium monumenti, de quo diaconus removet corporale, 
 designans quod angelus Domini revolvit lapidem ab ostio monument, &e. 
 
1101] INNOCENT III. 129 
 
 “Of the rending of the veil. The corporal is removed from 
 above the cup because the veil of the temple was rent. 
 
 “On the burial of Christ and the lifting up of the sacrifice. 
 Then the deacon approaches and lifts up the sacrifice a little 
 from the altar, and both he and the priest let it down, because 
 Joseph of Arimathza came and buried Him; and because he 
 rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre the deacon re- 
 places the corporal on the cup’s mouth. 
 
 “Whether Christ at rising again received back the blood 
 which He shed on the cross?... If... a hair does not perish from 
 your head, how much more does not that blood perish, which was 
 of the truth of His nature, &e. 
 
 “ Whether wine without water is turned into blood. 
 
 “Of the mode of transubstantiation. Augustine hands down 
 that before consecration it is bread and wine which nature formed, 
 but after consecration (it is) flesh and blood, because benediction 
 has consecrated it: and Ambrose, &c., Thus the bread is annthi- 
 lated, therefore it neither becomes the body of Christ nor any- 
 thing. Thus the bread is not to be said to be incarnate, because 
 the bread is made flesh, &c. 
 
 Le Vie: SL De scissione velt. 
 
 Corporale desuper calicem removetur quia velum templi scissum 
 est, Matt. xxvi. 
 
 C. XIT. De sepuliuraé Christi et sacrificii exaliatione. 
 
 Tune accedit diaconus et exaltat aliquantulum sacrificium de altari, 
 quod tam ipse quam sacerdos deponit, quia venit Joseph de Arimathea 
 venit et Nicodemus et...sepelierunt. Et quia ille advolvit saxum 
 magnum ad ostium monumenti diaconus super os calicis corporale 
 reponit, 
 
 Tee DV. οἱ XOX, 
 
 Utrum Christus resurgens sanguinem resumpsit, quem effudit im 
 cruce...Si...capillus de capite vestro non perit, quanto magis sanguis 
 ille non perit qui fuit de veritate nature, de. 
 
 C. XX XIX. 
 Utrum vinum sine aqua convertitur in sanguimem. 
 ΔΕ 
 De modo transubstantiationis. Tradit...Augustinus ante consecra- 
 tionem panem esse et vinum quod natura formavit, post consecrationem 
 vero carnem et sanguinem quod benedictio consecravit. Et Ambrosius, 
 
 &e....ita panis annihilatur, ergo nec fit corpus Christi nec aliud, ke. 
 non...ita panis dicendus est incarnari, quia panis fit caro, &e. 
 
 ἘΠ ὙΠ. 9 
 
130 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “Of corporals, and why one part ts extended and the other is 
 folded up... The part extended signifies faith; the folded part 
 signifies the understanding. 
 
 “ Why the gospel ἐδ read towards the north. 
 
 “ Why the deacon who is to read the gospel kisses the bishop's 
 [lit. pontiff’s] right hand... ‘His right hand shall embrace me,’ 
 Canticles viii. 
 
 “Of the two deacons who lead the bishop. -They designate 
 Abraham and David. 
 
 “Of the four principal colours, with which according to the 
 properties of the days the robes are to be distinguished. 
 
 “Of the robes legal in tropology. Of the coverings for the 
 loins... His hands and feet first washed (the priest of Israel) 
 used to put on the coverings for the loins... figuring that he ought 
 to take to himself continence. But our bishop, because he ought 
 continually to have continence, does not put on vests for the loins 
 in the sacrifice, but sandals, John xxi.... Of the robes of the 
 priest of the gospel... Of the alb. A linen vestment (most 
 widely different from coats of skins with the wool on... by which 
 Adam, &c.) signifies newness of life... Of the stole. It falls above 
 
 el eV Te 
 De corporalibus et quare una pars extenditur, altera complicatur 
 ...Pars extensa signat fidem ; pars plicata signat intellectum, de. 
 COLT: 
 Quare versus aquilonem legitur evangelium. 
 C. AX VA 
 Quare diaconus, qui lecturus est evangelium, dextram pontificis 
 osculatur... “ Dextra illius amplexabitur me,” Cant. viii. 
 
 CVA, 
 De duobus diaconis qui ducunt pontificem. Designant Abraham 
 et David, &e. 
 gel Ὁ) NY 
 
 De quatuor coloribus principalibus, quibus secundum propriectates 
 dierum vestes sunt distinguende. 
 
 VTi Reine 9 OO 
 
 De vestibus legalibus secundum tropologiam. De femoralibus... 
 Lotis prius manibus et pedibus (sacerdos Israeliticus) induebat... 
 femoralia...figurans quod debet assumere continentiam. Noster au- 
 tem pontifex quia jugem habere debet continentiam non induit in 
 sacrificio femoralia sed sandalia, John xxi. [C. 33.] De vestibus 
 evangelici sacerdotis. [C. 36.] De alba. Lineum vestimentum longissime 
 distans a tunicis pelliceis...quibus Adam, &c. novitatem vite significat, 
 
1101] τ INNOCENT ‘III. 131 
 
 the clothing on the neck of the priest, and signifies obedience and 
 servitude... Of the Dalmatica. In form it signifies Christ’s wide 
 and large compassion. 
 
 P. 914. “Conclusion. Let none when he shall have heard 
 this exposition consider that this sacrifice has been sufficiently 
 expounded. So many and great mysteries have been involved in 
 it that no-one, unless fully taught by (Divine) unction, can suffice 
 to unfold them... ‘The close investigator into greatness will be 
 ‘oppressed by the glory,’ Prov. xxv.” 
 
 &e. [Ὁ 38.] De Stolé. Super amictum collo sacerdotis incumbit... 
 obedientiam et servitutem significat, de. [C. 40.] De Dalmatica. 
 Forma latam et largam misericordiam Christi significat, &e. &e. 
 
 Po OA 
 
 Conclusio. Nemo, cum expositionem istam audierit, hoe sacrificium 
 sufficienter estimet expositum... Tot et tanta sunt involuta mysteria, 
 ut nemo, nisi per unctionem edoctus, ea sufficiat explicare... Perscrutator 
 majestatis opprimetur a gloria, Prov. xxv. 
 
 (O.) THE SERMO DE CNA DOMINI. A.D. 1154. 
 
 This is one of twelve treatises or papers, which in a Leyden 
 edition of Cyprian of 1555, as well as doubtless in many other 
 editions, are printed as Cyprian’s writing; and indeed Pope 
 Cornelius and Novatus are both mentioned in. the treatises as 
 contemporaries. Nevertheless the internal evidence against this 
 supposition is so strong, that in modern editions of Cyprian they 
 have ceased to be mentioned at all. In the book of Dr James the 
 first keeper of the Bodleian Library at Oxford, very early in the 
 seventeenth century, “On the corruption of the fathers,” passages 
 are cited, in which Bellarmine and Baronius do indeed renounce 
 Cyprian’s authorship for these treatises, but cling to the idea that 
 they were written at a very ancient date. I have verified the 
 former, and there is but one slight error. My Baronius does not 
 answer to the references: but Dr James, supported by Stillingfleet, 
 Iv. 545, inclines to place these treatises in the twelfth century, #.e. 
 nine hundred years later than Cyprian. Jt is well to notice that 
 “sermo” in Horace is used for a treatise at least once, if not 
 twice. 
 
 This treatise on the Lord’s supper has received particular notice 
 in various publications since the Reformation—much more, as it 
 
 9—2 
 
192 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 would seem, than the real date of its production at all justifies. 
 Nevertheless the chief passage here cited is interesting, at what- 
 ever date it was written. But if it be allowed that the style is 
 unquestionably exceedingly unlike Cyprian, and that it teems 
 with indications of a much later age, we are constrained to assign 
 it to the list of those fraudulent productions, by which certain 
 writers of later ages strove to invest their own favourite doctrines 
 with whatever of reverence and authority was in their time 
 conceded to the fathers of the early ages. Thus even the bright 
 and learned spirit of this production tells against its authenticity, 
 and helps to consign it to that division of Dr James’ book which 
 he broadly entitles, “ Bastardy of the False Fathers.” The title of 
 the twelve treatises is, “De cardinalibus operibus Christi usque 
 “ad Hjus ascensionem ad Patrem ; ad divum Cornelium papam.” 
 
 P. 314. “Jesus therefore, when He was to put an end to the 
 ceremonies of the law, willed that the passover should be pre- 
 pared, and that those things, which according to the legal custom 
 the solemnity required, should be sought and provided, viz. a lamb 
 roasted, unleavened bread and wild endive. Therefore when the 
 supper was laid out, the old and the new institutions met in this 
 sacramental feast,.and when the lamb had been eaten as required 
 by ancient tradition, the Master sets before His disciples incor- 
 ruptible food, nor are the nations now invited to feasts prepared 
 with great expense and skill; but immortal nourishment differing 
 from common food is given—retaining indeed the appearance of 
 bodily substance, but proving by the invisible efficiency of a Divine 
 virtue that His presence is there. Sacraments signified of old from 
 the time of Melchizedek are now brought forward; and the High 
 Priest brings forth to the sons of Abraham that do His works 
 bread and wine. ‘This, saith He, ‘is My body. They had eaten 
 
 Sermo de Cena Domini. Cypriani Op. Lugdunt, 1558, p. 314. 
 
 Finem igitur legalibus ceeremoniis impositurus, parari voluit pascha, 
 et ex consuetudine legis ea queri, que solennitas exigebat; agnum 
 assum, panes azymos, lactucas agrestes...Ccend itaque dispositaé, inter 
 sacramentales epulas obviarunt sibi instituta antiqua et nova; et con- 
 sumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio proponebat, inconsumptibilem cibum 
 Magister apponit discipulis; nec jam ad elaborata impensis et arte 
 convivia populi invitantur, sed immortalitatis alimonia datur, a com- 
 munibus cibis differens—corporalis substantize retinens speciem sed 
 virtutis Divine invisibili efficientia probans adesse presentiam. Signi- 
 ficata) olim a tempore Melchizedech prodeunt sacramenta, et filiis 
 Abrahee facientibus opera ejus Summus Sacerdos profert panem et vinum. 
 “Hoe est,” inquit, “corpus Meum.” Manducaverant et biberant de 
 
1154] THE SERMO DE CNA DOMINI. 133 
 
 and drunk of the same bread according to the visible form; but 
 before those words that food was only common food, fit to nourish 
 the body, and it did minister the support of bodily life. But from 
 the time that it was said by the Lord, ‘Do this in remembrance of 
 ‘Me ; this is My flesh, and this is My blood, (as often as it was done 
 with these words and this faith,) this substantial bread and the cup 
 consecrated by solemn benediction, are profitable to the life and 
 salvation of the whole man, being at the same time a medicine 
 and a whole burnt-offering, for the curing of infirmities and for 
 the purging away of iniquities. Moreover the difference between 
 spiritual and bodily food has been made manifest: that what was 
 first set before them and consumed was one thing, that what was 
 given and distributed by the Master was another. As long as that 
 food (plural), which had been made ready for that day, was being 
 consumed by the apostles according to the custom, a memory of 
 the old passover was being celebrated ; nor was Judas yet, though 
 belonging to the old (Jewish) life, compelled to go out, though the 
 devil was going into and taking possession of his mind: but when 
 his traitorous mind received the touch of the sacred food, and the 
 consecrated bread entered his wicked mouth, his parricidal mind 
 was unable to bear the force of so great a sacrament, and he was 
 blown out like chaff from the threshing floor, and ran headlong 
 to perdition and the price (of blood), to despair and the cord. 
 There had arisen at a certain time, as we read in St John’s Gospel, 
 a questioning concerning the following new saying, and the 
 hearers had been amazed at the mystery of this doctrine, ‘ Unless 
 ‘ye shall have eaten the Son of Man’s flesh and drunk His blood, 
 
 eodem pane secundum formam visibilem; sed ante verba illa ci- 
 bus ille communis tantum nutriendo corpori commodus erat, et vite 
 corporalis subsidium ministrabat. Sed ex quo a Domino dictum est, 
 “ Hoc facite in Meam commemorationem ; hec est caro Mea, et hic 
 “est sanguis Meus” — quotiescunque his verbis et hac fide actum 
 est—panis iste substantialis, et calix benedictione solemni sacratus, ad 
 totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit, simul medicamentum: et 
 holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates et purgandas iniquitatés existens. 
 Manifestata est etiam spiritualis et corporalis cibi distantia ; aliud fuisse 
 quod prius est appositum et consumptum, aliud quod a Magistro 
 datum est et distributum. Quamdiu cibi illi, qui ad diem festum 
 erant parati a consuescentibus apostolis sumebantur, veteris paschz 
 agebatur memoria: necdum Judas, ad veterem vitam pertinens, 
 diabolo invadente et occupante mentem ejus, egredi cogebatur; sed 
 ubi sacrum cibum mens perfida tetigit, et sceleratum os pamnis sanc- 
 tificatus intravit, parricidalis animus vim tanti sacramenti non sus- 
 tinens, quasi palea de area exsufflatus est, et praeceps cucurrit ad 
 proditionem et pretium, ad desperationem et laqueum. Orta fuerat 
 aliquando, sicut in Evangelio Johannis legitur, de novitate hujus 
 verbi quaestio, et ad doctrine hujus mysterium obstupuerant audi- 
 tores, ‘‘ Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii Hominis et biberitis Ejus 
 
134 THE TWELFTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘ye will not have life in you.’ And some, because they did not 
 believe or understand this, went away back, because it seemed to 
 them horrible and wicked to feed on human flesh—thinking this 
 to be said in such a way that they were taught to eat His flesh, 
 either boiled or roast, and cut to pieces limb by limb, when this 
 personal flesh, were it portioned out into fragments, could not be 
 enough for the whole human race, and if it had once been con- 
 sumed, that religion would seem to have perished ; since in no way 
 could there be a victim any more. But in thoughts of the fol- 
 lowing kind, ‘ Flesh and blood profit not at all,’ since as the Master 
 Himself explained, ‘These words are spirit and life,’ nor can carnal 
 sense penetrate to the understanding of so profound a meaning, 
 unless faith be added—the bread is food, the blood is life, the flesh 
 is substance, the body is the church... He at one time calls (this) 
 sacrament His own body, at another flesh and blood, at another 
 bread, a portion of eternal life, of which according to these visible 
 signs He gave to our bodily nature to partake. That common 
 bread, changed into flesh and blood, procures for our bodies life 
 and increment; and therefore, according to the customary effect of 
 things, the infirmity of our faith, assisted by a sensible proof, has 
 been brought to the opinion that the effect of eternal life is in the 
 visible sacraments (signs), and that we are united to Christ not so 
 much by a bodily as by a spiritual transition. For He Himself, 
 both bread and flesh and blood, has Himself been made the meat 
 and substance and life of His own church, which He calls His own 
 body, giving to it to partake (of Him). And we indeed, since we 
 
 “sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis.” Quod quidam, quia non 
 credebant nec poterant intelligere, abierunt retro, quia horrendum eis 
 et nefarium videbatur vesci carne humand—existimantes hoc eo modo 
 dici, ut carnem Ejus, vel elixam vel assam, sectamque membratim 
 edere docerentur, cum Illius Persone caro, si in frusta partiretur, non 
 omni humano generi posset sutlicere; qua semel consumpta, videretur 
 interis:se religio, cui nequaéquam ulterius victima superesset. Sed in 
 cogitationibus hujusmodi “Caro et sanguis non prodest quicquam,” 
 quia, sicut Ipse Magister exposuit, ‘‘verba heec spiritus et vita sunt,” 
 nec carnalis sensus ad intellectum tante profunditatis penetrat, nisi fides 
 accedat—panis est esca, sanguis vita, caro substantia, corpus ecclesia... 
 Hoe sacramentum aliquando corpus Suum, aliquando carnem et san- 
 guinem, aliquando panem Christus appellat portionem vite seterne, 
 cujus secundum hee visibilia corporali communicavit nature. Panis 
 iste communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam et 
 incrementum corporibus; ideoque, ex consueto rerum effectu, fidei 
 nostre adjuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus 
 sacramentis inesse vite eterne effectum, et non tam corporali quam 
 spirituali transitione Christo nos uniri. Ipse enim, et panis et caro et 
 sanguis, Idem cibus et substantia et vita factus est ecclesie Suz, quam 
 corpus Suum appellat, dans ei participationem. Ht nos quidem, cum 
 
1154] THE SERMO DE CNA DOMINI. 135 
 
 were flesh and blood, a corrupt and weak nature of body and soul, 
 could not be formed again or return to God’s likeness, unless there 
 were put on our inveterate disease a suitable sedative (lit. a 
 poultice) ; and in the curing of our desperate infirmity, contraries 
 were removed by contraries, and like were associated with like. 
 That bread, which our Lord was handing to His disciples, changed 
 not in resemblance but in nature, was by the almighty power of 
 the Word made flesh, &e., &e. 
 
 P. 318. “The doctrine of this sacrament is new; and the 
 authorities of the Gospel-school first put this forth, and out of 
 Christ’s teaching this doctrine first became well known, that 
 Christians were to drink blood, the eating of which the authority 
 of the old law most straitly forbids.” [The consummate art of this 
 writer’s exposition of transubstantiation may well attract attention. 
 
 It seems clever enough for Gerson and for Gerson’s age. | 
 
 caro essemus et sanguis, corrupta et infirma corporis animeeque natura, 
 reformari non poteramus neque ad similitudinem Dei reverti, nisi 
 morbo inveterato imponeretur malagma conveniens, et in curatione 
 desperate: infirmitatis contraria removerentur contrariis et similia 
 similibus convenirent. Panis iste, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, 
 non efligie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentid Verbi factus est caro, 
 ἄς. ἄορ. [This passage is labelled at the side “ Transubstantiatio,” and 
 surely truly so. | 
 Bole. 
 
 Nova est hujus sacramenti doctrina; et schole Evangelice hoc 
 primum magisterium protulerunt; et doctore Christo primum hee 
 innotuit disciplina ut biberent sanguinem Christiani, cujus esum legis 
 antique auctoritas distinctissime interdicit. [See also a remarkable 
 passage, p. 322.] 
 
THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) THE NOTED DECREE OF THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF THE 
 LATERAN, in which “the name and thing” of transubstan- 
 tiation were expressly adopted by the general Western church, 
 
 AD. 12.119: 
 
 P. 1295. “But the universal church of the faithful [7.e. the 
 external church in catholic union] is one, outside which there is 
 no salvation. And in this Jesus Christ is the same Himself priest 
 and sacrifice : and His body and blood are truly contained under 
 the appearance of bread and wine in the sacrament of the altar, 
 [the bread and wine] being transubstantiated, the bread into body, 
 the wine into blood, by the Divine power, in order that to complete 
 the mystery of unity we may ourselves receive from what is His 
 own that which He received from what is ours, [1.6. body and 
 blood]. And also no one can fulfil or ‘make’ this sacrament but a 
 priest, who shall have been rightly ordained according to the keys 
 of the church which Jesus Christ Himself gave up to the apostles 
 and their successors,” 
 
 This short decree stereotyped what had so long been floating 
 in the Western churches, and made a formal rupture of the church 
 indispensable, unless by a general council these unscriptural posi- 
 tions were as formally renounced : a thing which has not yet been 
 
 The fourth Council of the Lateran, A.D. 1215, from the Delectus Actorum 
 Eccl. Univ. seu Nova summa. Leyden, 1706. Capitulum L., 
 ear. ΤΠ... ap, 120. 
 
 Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus 
 omnino salvatur. In quad idem Ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus 
 Christus: cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus 
 panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus 
 et vino in sanguinem, potestate Divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium 
 unitatis accipiamus ipsi de Suo quod accepit Ipse de nostro. Et hoc 
 utique sacramentum nemo potest conficere nisi sacerdos, qui fuerit rite 
 ordinatus secundum claves ecclesix, quas Ipse concessit apostolis et 
 eorum successoribus Jesus Christus. 
 
A.D. 1215] DECREE OF THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF THE LATERAN. 137 
 
 even proposed. On the contrary the only effort has been (1) to 
 perfect the theory adopted in the Trent council, and (2) to make 
 it reasonable and self-consistent by individual expositions, first 
 authoritatively by Pope Pius IV. in his Catechism, and afterward 
 by unauthorized divines, among whom the palm has ever been 
 assigned to Bellarmine. And if he has not succeeded, who cer- 
 tainly has not scrupled to avail himself of any possible cover and 
 plea, we may pretty safely assume that the corrupt doctrine of the 
 Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament never 
 can be made to appear consistent at all points with itself, not to 
 speak of its discordance with all the spirit of the Scriptures and of 
 religion. 
 
 (B.) ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI. B. 1182. Ὁ, 1226. 
 
 This very remarkable man both ushered in and was contempo- 
 raneous with the great movement of Innocent IIL, which took 
 shape in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1213. If that pope stands 
 in a bad light as the authorizer of the thing and name tran- 
 substantiation: in this point St Francis went entirely with him. 
 And if that pope has to be recognized as intending at first to be 
 a reformer of morals, but that living in a superstitious age he took 
 the road of superstition to reach that end, then in the matter of 
 moral reform the clothier’s son of Assisi was a grand fellow-worker 
 with him, But in one point Francis was before the age, for he 
 promoted no worship to any saint except the Virgin Mary. He 
 held his first chapter of Friars (brethren) three years before the 
 Lateran Council: but his great council of the straw-huts (Store- 
 arum), near the Portiuncula, his own church, where 5,000 were 
 present, none of whom, not one, had “a purse or a penny,” was 
 held six years after the council. St Dominic attended from Spain, 
 to get ideas for his projected order. The historic evidence that 
 goes to clear St Francis at the close of his life from all participation 
 in the reported miraculous stigmata in his hands and feet and in 
 the wound in his side is I think very strong: and the evidence 
 points to his more worldly successor Elias as the propagator of a 
 pure fiction. The saint himself shewed in all things such an 
 amount of forecast in everything he said and did, that it redeems 
 him from bearing the character of a blind enthusiast, but it casts 
 upon him a very strong suspicion of design, almost deserving the 
 
138 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 term of cunning, or to say the least, if I may coin a word, almost 
 preternatural “kenning.” He had a kind of instinct of what would 
 turn out for the glory and stability of his order. But of this last 
 crowning device he may be entirely guiltless. There is not space 
 here for so long an argument. It is nearer to our purpose to 
 intimate that in all his three Rules, (1) for Friars, (2) for sister 
 Clares, (3) for members still living in the world, the Lord’s supper, 
 according to the Western mode of celebration, took a very con- 
 spicuous part. The three vows, poverty, celibacy, and perfect 
 obedience to human authority, were to be supported by the usual 
 daily communicating as far as possible. It is notable that he was 
 also the morning star of poetry in the previously despised Floren- 
 tine Italian, or Tuscan tongue. 
 
 St Francis was contemporary not with Innocent III. only, but 
 with Philip Augustus of France, the grandfather of Louis IX. the 
 one pious French king, rightly called St Louis, though weakened 
 by superstitious excitement, and also with John of England. The 
 Third Crusade was in his time. He took no part in it further 
 than by making a most courageous attempt to attain its end by 
 converting the Sultan Mahmoud himself in earnest personal inter- 
 views. He made no common impression upon the Sultan both by 
 offering to peril his own life in fire, and by refusing his lavish 
 offers of money, which was the Sultan’s mode of expressing high 
 -admiration. The saint’s faith doubtless embraced much that was 
 wood, hay, stubble; but that there was something living and real 
 1 do not see how it is possible to doubt. Still it would be irra- 
 tional not to deplore the bad and lasting consequences of the errors 
 that were blended in abundance with his good in the “miry clay” 
 so freely mingled with the certain amount of iron, in this idol of 
 his own and many succeeding ages. 
 
 One thing is very worthy of attention in this extraordinary 
 man, viz. the exactness with which he received and followed 
 certain isolated scriptural sayings—not those of Jesus only. He 
 must have been a close and patient meditater upon Scripture, and 
 in some particulars was very obedient to it. What he suffered by 
 the want of, was a comprehensive view of the whole New Testament 
 system: for he built his entire edifice on a few individual sayings, 
 e.g. he heard it read that Jesus said, “When I sent you forth 
 “ without scrip or shoes, were ye in want of anything?” And they 
 said “Of nothing.” The picture of Franciscans with two articles 
 
1182] ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI. 139 
 
 of clothing and a rope for a girdle is a curious literalization of this 
 passage. But who dare to say that his movement was of no 
 service to check transgression till the Reformation came? He 
 is evidently in many points the model that was looked to by the 
 other two St Francis’s, ¢.e., Francis Xavier and Francois de Sales, 
 to say nothing of the Francesco de Pauli, who created the order of 
 Minims to live on the least possible variety of food, denying them 
 not meat only, but even fish. 
 
 His name, originally John, was changed to Francis on his 
 learning French fluently, to speak to those whom trade brought to 
 his father from that country. In a local struggle between his 
 native town and Perouse he was taken captive and not released for 
 a year. Some date his devotion to religious ideas to that calamity. 
 There is a fable recorded by Baillet that he was born with the 
 mark of a cross on his shoulder and in a stable: a tradition which 
 seems worthy to take rank with the later account of his stigmata, 
 inflicted as Bonaventure says, by a crucified seraph, whom he saw 
 in his vision in Mount Apennine. He won such respect that the 
 people of the towns rang the bells when he approached. His 
 injunctions to his followers were to win the rich by humility and 
 respect, and the poor by kind conversation and a spotless life. 
 Hurter, who writes both of him and of Dominic in the German 
 Dict. Encyel., reckons the influence of Francis on posterity more 
 considerable than that of Dominic. The former is eminent for 
 love, the latter left the character of severity to his followers. The 
 world will not forget that in Toulouse and in Spain, the horrors of 
 the Inquisition were transacted by Dominicans. Though Dominic 
 was born in 1170, 12 years earlier, it was not till 1217 that he 
 inaugurated his society of 16 members, but Francis inaugurated 
 his corps of 11 members in 1211, and held his great council of 
 5,000 members, and had 500 postulants two years after Dominic’s 
 beginning. Dominic’s followers maintained the Virgin’s conception 
 to be immaculate. Franciscans supplied a far larger number of 
 leaders of thought in the scholastic period; but yet they main- 
 tained that the presence of Christ’s body in the second sacrament 
 was by continual fresh acts of creation, which their rivals denied, 
 and triumphed over them on this question. Dominic had no love 
 of poetry to make him tender. Nearly contemporary was St Eliza- 
 beth of Hungary. See besides other books, Pulszky’s Traditions 
 of Hungary. 
 
10 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 His three bodies of Rules for the three different associations 
 contain each many short chapters. 
 
 P, 27. 1. 1.c. 22. “Of the confession of brethren and their 
 receiving the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let the 
 blessed brethren, as well clergymen as laymen, confess their sins 
 to the priests of our religion: and if they cannot (confess to them), 
 let them do it to other discreet and catholic priests—knowing 
 firmly and giving the mind to it that, from whatever priests they 
 may have received penitence and absolution, they will without 
 doubt be absolved from those sins, if they shall have carefully 
 attended to the observing of the penitence (or penance) enjoined 
 upon them with humility and fidelity. But if they then have been 
 unable to have a priest let them confess to a brother of their own, 
 as the apostle James says, ‘Confess your sins to one another.’ 
 Yet let them not give up returning to the priests, because to the 
 priests alone has been given the power of binding and loosing. 
 And thus in contrition and having confessed let them receive the 
 body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with great humility and 
 veneration, attending to what the Lord Himself says, John vi. 56, 
 ‘He that eateth My flesh and drinketh my blood, &c.’; Luke xxu. 
 19, ‘Do this in remembrance, &c.’ 
 
 P. 7. “By the virtue of Christ’s words the sacrament is 
 accomplished [‘ made,’ Jerome’s word]. 
 
 P.10. “Let all clerical persons among us give attention to 
 
 Works of St Francis. Auguste, 1739, p. 27. Rule 71. I. XXII. De 
 confessione Fratrum et perceptione Corporis et Sanguinis Domini 
 nostri Jesu Christi. 
 
 Fratres benedicti, tam clerici quam laici, confiteantur peccata sua 
 sacerdotibus nostre religionis. Et si non possunt, confiteantur aliis 
 discretis et catholicis sacerdotibus—scientes firmiter et attendentes 
 quod a quibuscunque sacerdotibus acceperint pcenitentiam et absolu- 
 tionem, absoluti erunt proculdubio ab illis peccatis, si pcenitentiam 
 sibi injunctam procuraverint humiliter et fideliter observare. Si vero 
 tunc sacerdotem habere non potuerunt, confiteantur fratri suo, sicut 
 dicit Apostolus Jacobus, Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra, Non 
 tamen ab hoc dimittant recurrere ad sacerdotes, quia potestas ligandi 
 atque solvendi solis sacerdotibus est concessa. Et sic contriti atque 
 confessi sumant corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi cum 
 magna humilitate et veneratione, attendentes quod Ipse Dominus 
 dicit, John vi. 56, Qui manducat, &e., et Luc. xxii. 19, Hoc facite, &e. 
 
 Ps 75. ee ALT. 
 Virtute verborum Christi altaris conficitur sacramentum, 
 
 PW: 
 Attendamus omnes clerici magnum peccatum et ignorantiam, quam 
 
1182] ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI. 141 
 
 the great sin and ignorance in many persons regarding the most 
 holy body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and its most sacred 
 names, and the words written, the utterance of which [by the 
 priests] consecrates the body. We know that it cannot be the body 
 unless it be first consecrated by the word. For we have and see 
 nothing concerning the Highest One Himself in this age except 
 the body and blood, and really the names and words by which we 
 have been made and redeemed from death to life. For let all 
 those, that administer such most holy mysteries, consider within 
 themselves (chiefly those who administer indiscreetly) with what 
 common cups, corporals, cloths, the body and blood of our 
 Lord are sacrificed, and they are left in many common places, 
 &c. Men ought to put them together in places of honour. 
 
 P.12. “Words of sacred admonition to all His own brethren... 
 All who saw the Lord Jesus according to the flesh and did not see 
 nor believe that according to the Spirit and the Deity He is 
 Himself the Son of God were condemned. So now also all who 
 see the sacrament that is consecrated by the words of the Lord 
 upon the altar by the hands of the priest in the form of bread and 
 wine, and do not see and do not believe according to the Spirit 
 and Divinity that it is truly the most holy body and blood of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, have been condemned, the Highest One Him- 
 self bearing witness, Luke xxii. 15, John vi. 54... Behold He 
 daily humbles Himself, as when He came from His royal seats 
 into the virgin’s womb, Himself daily comes to us appearing in a 
 
 quidam habent super sanctissimum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri 
 Jesu Christi, et sacratissima nomina, et verba Ejus scripta, que sancti- 
 ficant corpus. Scimus quia non potest esse corpus nisi prius sanctificetur 
 averbo. Nihil habemus enim vel videmus corporaliter in hoc seculo 
 de Ipso Altissimo nisi corpus et sanguinem, et realiter nomina et verba 
 per que facti sumus et redempti sumus de morte ad vitam. Omnes 
 enim illi, qui ministrant tam sanctissima mysteria, considerent intra 
 se (maxime hi qui indiscreté ministrant) quam viles sint calices corporalia 
 linteamina ubi sacrificatur corpus et sanguis Domini nostri; et multis 
 in locis vilibus velinquitur, &c. In loco honesto debent collocare. 
 
 7. 112. 
 
 Verba sacre admonitionis ad omnes fratres suos ... Omnes qui 
 viderunt Dominum Jesum secundum humanitatem et non viderunt 
 neque crediderunt secundum Spiritum et Deitatem Ipsum esse verum 
 Filium Dei damnati sunt. Ita et modo (quia) omnes qui vident sacra- 
 mentum quod sanctificatur per verba Domini super altare per manus 
 sacerdotis in forma panis et vini et non vident et non credunt, secundum 
 Spiritum et Divinitatem, quod sit veraciter sanctissimum corpus et 
 sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, damnati sunt, Ipso Altissimo attes- 
 tante, Luc. xxii. v. 15, Joan. vi. 54.... Ecce quotidie humiliat Se, sicut 
 quando a regalibus sedibus venit in uterum Virginis: quotidie venit 
 
142 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 humble guise; He daily comes down from the bosom of the 
 Supreme Father upon the altar in the hands of the priest. And 
 as he appeared to the holy apostles in true flesh, so now also He 
 shews Himself to us in the sacred bread. And as the apostles 
 themselves by looking at His flesh saw His flesh only, but believed 
 Him to be the Lord God Himself, contemplating Him with their 
 spiritual eyes, so let us also see the bread and wine with the eyes 
 of the body and firmly believe it to be His most holy body and 
 His living and true blood, Matt. xxvi. 
 
 P.17. “Exposition on the Lord’s Prayer. ‘Our daily bread,’ 
 that is to say, Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘Give to us 
 ‘to-day,’ for the remembrance and understanding and reverence of 
 the love which He had towards us and of those things which for 
 
 us He said and did and endured ... 
 
 P. 20. “Testament... I wish to fear love and honour the 
 priests themselves and all others as my lords: and I am unwilling 
 to think of sin in them, because I see the Son of God in them and 
 they are my lords. I do this for the reason that in this world I see 
 nothing of a bodily nature of the Highest One Himself the Son of 
 God but His most holy body and His own blood, which they them- 
 selves receive and themselves alone administer to others, &e.” 
 
 As St Francis is no divine, but only a rapt and devotional 
 meditater on the, Scripture, it is not to be wondered that he 
 implicitly received the teaching of the church in his day on the 
 
 ad nos Ipse humilis apparens: quotidie descendit de sinu Summi Patris 
 super altare in manibus sacerdotis. Et sicut sanctis apostolis apparuit 
 in vera carne, ita et modo Se nobis ostendit in sacro pane. Et sicut 
 ipsi intuitu carnis Sue tantum Hjus carnem videbant sed Ipsum 
 Dominum Deum esse credebant, oculis spiritualibus contemplantes, sic 
 et nos panem et vinum oculis corporeis videamus et credamus firmiter 
 sanctissimum Hjus corpus esse et sanguinem vivum esse et verum, 
 Matt. xxvi. 
 P.17. Lzpositio super Orat. Dom. 
 
 “Panem nostrum quotidianum,” scilicet dilectum Filum Tuum 
 Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. ‘ Da nobis hodie,” in memoriam 
 et intelligentiam et reverentiam amoris, quem ad nos habuit, et eorum 
 quee pro nobis dixit et fecit et sustulit. 
 
 Be 20: 
 
 Testamentum...Sacerdotes ipsos et omnes alios volo timere amare 
 et honorare sicut meos dominos. Et nolo in ipsis considerare pecca- 
 tum, quia Filium Dei cerno in ipsis et domini mei sunt. Hee 
 propter hoe facio quia nihil video corporaliter in hoc seculo de Ipso 
 Altissimo Filio Dei nisi sanctissimum corpus et sanguinem Suum, quod 
 ipsi recipiunt et ipsi soli aliis administrant, &e. 
 
1182] ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI. 143 
 
 Lord’s supper. There is also an instinctive prudence in him, 
 which kept him from carrying his bold thoughts and resolves into 
 things that popes and priests could not pardon. This Francis had 
 three biographies, written by Thomas Colanus, Rufinus and two 
 others, and St Buonaventura, 3, 20 and 37 years after his death 
 respectively. Legends on legends have been since added. A tract 
 is in circulation, “ Fioretti di San Francisco,” attributed to a date 
 about 100 years after his death. 
 
 (C.) BENEDICTION OF THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT FOR THE 
 TERTIARIES or Third Order of the Franciscans or Third Order 
 of Penance. London, 1869. 
 
 From (1) the manual by Father Salvator d’ Ozieri, Capuchin 
 Father-General, (2) the congregation of Calais, (3) the (English) 
 manual, (4) the secret constitutions, a single copy of which remains 
 in the convent of the Ara Ceeli at Rome. 
 
 “Ὁ salutary Host, which openest the gate of the sky, ἕο. 
 Thou hast marked, O Lord, Thy servant Francis with the signs 
 (the stigmata) of Thy redemption, &c, ἄς, ‘Pange, lingua.’ 
 [Fourth and fifth verses.] The Word flesh by His word makes 
 true bread flesh: and wine becomes the blood of Christ, but if our 
 perception fails (to discern it) faith alone suffices to confirm the 
 sincere heart. Let us then humbly (cernui) venerate so great 
 a sacrament, and the ancient rule (documentum) give way to the 
 new rite; let faith provide a supplement to the defect of the 
 senses, &c.” After Lord’s Prayer, Ave, and Apostles’ Creed, the 
 form “1 confess to God omnipotent, to blessed Mary ever virgin, 
 to blessed Michael archangel, to blessed John Baptist, to the holy 
 apostles Peter and Paul, to our blessed father Francis and to all 
 saints and to thee, father, because I have sinned too much in 
 thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, 
 through my very great fault. Therefore I pray blessed Mary ever 
 virgin, blessed Michael archangel, blessed John Baptist, the blessed 
 apostles Peter and Paul, our blessed father Francis, all saints, and 
 thee, father, to pray for me to our Lord God. 
 
 “N.B. Pope Leo X. has granted to all persons, who are bound 
 to say the Divine office, or that of the blessed virgin, the remission 
 of all faults and frailties in the recitation of the said offices, pro- 
 vided they shall say these two prayers, devoutly kneeling, which 
 were composed by St Buonaventura. 
 
 “Appendix. A rule has been drawn up at Ara Cceli for the 
 use of the Tertiary Sisters in the Diocese of Westminster slightly 
 
144 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 different from the one in this Manual. [It contains, vol. 11. 39] 
 The blessing of St Francis. ‘May the Lord bless thee and guard 
 thee. May He shew His own face to thee and pity thee: may He 
 turn His own countenance to thee, and may He give peace to 
 thee. May the Lord bless thee.’ This blessing was given to 
 Moses by Almighty God and by Christ Himself to our seraphical 
 father St Francis. Those who carry it about with them with 
 lively faith and devotion will receive many graces spiritual and 
 temporal. It is a preservation in childbearing, thunder and light- 
 ning, sickness, sudden death, dangers at sea and in stratagems and 
 temptations of the devil and many other dangers... At the Ara 
 Coeli the scapulars given are three or four inches wide, with the 
 arms of St Francis tacked on to the serge. To gain the indulgence 
 for what are called the ‘cross’ prayers, ¢.e. those said with the 
 arms extended in the shape of a cross, six paters and aves are now 
 required instead of five. 
 
 Vol. 1. p. 54. “Rule of the order. [Chap. 6.] All the bro- 
 thers and sisters (of the order) must confess their sins and devoutly 
 receive the holy eucharist at least three times a year, &c. 
 
 Vol. τι. p. 363. “Form of absolution with plenary indulgence 
 for the brothers and sisters of the cord (of St Francis) in the 
 article of death.” 
 
 All from Manual of the Third Order, 2 vols., Burns. publisher. 
 The parts in Latin are translated. 
 
 (D.) ROGER BACON, MONK OF ST. FRANCIS AT OXFORD. 
 B 1214+ “p. 1294. 
 
 He was a pupil of Bishop Grosshead, “Robert of Lincoln.” 
 He studied at Oxford and Paris, and deserved and won the title of 
 Doctor mirabilis. He afterwards lectured in Oxford and resided 
 there. But he writes like a man with a sword hanging over his 
 head, or rather, like a man executing a graceful dance in the midst 
 of swords pointed upwards. He knows wells his danger, and in 
 spite of all his cautions and courtesy towards the pope he fell into 
 what was formerly the usual receptacle of those who ventured to 
 think in advance of their age—a prison. The Franciscan order is 
 indebted to Britain both for him, and for Duns Scotus, and for 
 Alexander Hales, and for William Occam. The only leading Fran- 
 ciscan philosopher not a Briton was John Buonaventura. Roger 
 Bacon prepared the way for optical discoveries and advanced 
 chemistry in his pursuit of the philosopher’s stone. But the in- 
 
1214] ROGER BACON, MONK OF ST FRANCIS AT OXFORD. 145 
 
 vention of gunpowder is assigned to a Greek (see Dict. Universel). 
 He followed Gerbert, Pope Sylvester, in the correction of the 
 calendar. He is said to have spent above £2000—an enormous 
 sum in those days—in experiments for the promotion of philo- 
 sophy. The present age will revere him for having urged the 
 study of the Scriptures in their original tongues and for having 
 maintained that though faith precedes reason, yet reason performs 
 essential service to faith, and that the one asks and receives aid 
 from the other continually. He had the honour of being a mate- 
 rial but not a materialist philosopher. He knew Greek and read 
 Aristotle. What we long for is his last Compendium Theologie : 
 and we wonder whose fault it is that it does not survive. I could 
 not omit the curious only passage that I find in him on the Lord's 
 supper in far Cathay. 
 
 P. 234. “On the countries of the world. But it is known 
 that from the beginning of dark-skinned Cathaia to the termina- 
 tion of the East there are chiefly idolaters, but mingled among 
 them Saracens and Tartars and Nestorians; which (last) are im- 
 perfect Christians, having a patriarch of their own in the Kast, 
 that visits their regions, and ordains infants in their cradles to the 
 sacred orders, because he is the only one to ordain; and he cannot 
 come round to any one place again, say under fifty years: and he 
 says that he has authority from the Roman church of old, and is 
 ready to obey it, if there were a way of communication. And 
 those priests teach the sons of the well-born Tartars the Gospel 
 and the faith, and the rest as they are able. But the Tartars look 
 down upon them, because they know little and are a people of bad 
 morals. And the priests consecrate in the mass one broad loaf of 
 the measure of one’s hand; and they divide it first into twelve 
 parts according to the number of the apostles, and afterwards they 
 
 Opus Majus, p. 234, De regionibus mundi. London, 1733. 
 
 Sciendum vero est quod a principio Cathaize nigra usque in finem 
 Orientis sunt principaliter idololatrae, sed mixti sunt inter eos Saraceni 
 et Tartari et Nestoriani, qui sunt Christiani imperfecti, habentes patri- 
 archam suum in Oriente, qui visitat regiones, et ordinat infantes in 
 cunabulis ad sacros ordines, quia ipse solus ordinat; et non potest 
 venire ad unum locum nisi quasi in L. annis: et ille dicit se habere 
 auctoritatem a Romana ecclesid ab antiquo, et paratus est obedire, si 
 via esset aperta. Et isti docent filios nobilium Tartarorum evangelium 
 et fidem, et alios quando possunt. Sed quia parum sciunt et sunt malorum 
 morum, ideo Tartari despiciunt eos. Ht consecrant in miss& una panem 
 latum ad modum palme, et dividunt primo in xu. partes secundum 
 numerum apostolorum, et postea illas partes dividunt secundum nume- 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΠ 10 
 
140 THE THIRTEENTH. CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 divide those parts according to the number of the people, and the 
 priest gives the body of Christ to each in his hand; and then 
 each one takes it from the palm of his own hand, doing reverence, 
 
 (ΟΣ &e.” 
 
 rum populi, et sacerdos dat unicuique corpus Christi in manu sua et 
 tune quilibet assumit de palma sua cum reverentia, &c. ἄς, 
 
 (E.) ALEXANDER OF HALES, FL, 1222. pb. 1245. 
 
 This, the irrefragable doctor, stood between the two periods of 
 scholasticism : uniting, as it were, Abailard and the St Victor 
 school of the 12th century with Albertus and Aquinas and Duns 
 Scotus of the 13th. His name shews him to be altogether an 
 Englishman. Hales or Ales was born in Gloucestershire. He too 
 was a Franciscan as well as his pupil Bonaventure, the Italian 
 biographer of St Francis. Alexander Hales adopted the opinion of 
 Concomitance, brought in by Robert Pulleyn, wiz. that in whichever 
 element the communion is received, the other element is spon- 
 taneously a concomitant, so that both are really received: and that 
 in fact it is impossible to separate them in their reception by the 
 communicant. This term would better have suited the particular 
 interpretation of Melanchthon and his companions than Consub- 
 stantiation; because he wished to say that the believer received 
 the real body of Christ, though it had not entered into the bread 
 and wine on the table. Luther sometimes seemed to assert that 
 Christ’s body was in the elements on the table; for instance at 
 Marburg. But concomitance, if it had been adopted by the 
 Lutheran body, would have meant the receiving the natural body 
 and blood as a concomitant to the bread and wine. Pulleyn, Hales, 
 and others meant that one element became spontaneously concomi- 
 tant on the reception of the other, The Melanchthonian term is 
 particularly infelicitous because it implies that only the substance 
 of Christ’s body, detached from its sensible properties, is added to 
 the bread and wine in or after the act of reception. But the 
 general German belief was that the body and blood were received 
 entire with the entire bread and wine: 1.6. both substance and 
 accidents in both cases, which it was most unfit to call consub- 
 stantiation. 
 
 Hales joined the new Franciscan company at the earnest solici- 
 
1223] ALEXANDER OF HALES. 147 
 
 tation of a Franciscan member, who wanted his name and fame to 
 give weight to the order: and Hales was already Doctor in Theo- 
 logy, and up to this time the universities would not grant degrees to 
 these orders ; and they were forbidden by their own authorities to 
 receive them. This was all changed by the authority of Innocent 
 IV. in 1244, Hales was the first to use Aristotle and the Arabian 
 commentator in theological encounters: but the philosopher of 
 Stagira had found defenders in the council at Paris in 1210. 
 Hales recognized and followed Anselm. But the great work of 
 Hales is his commentary or Qustiones on the four books of Peter 
 Lombard. His disciples completed and published them in 1252, 
 seven years after his death. Two German writers have given ex- 
 tracts from an earlier work upon Peter Lombard by Peter of 
 Poitiers, which has never been printed: so that Hales is not the 
 first in this line. He is deemed however to be utterly surpassed in 
 it both by Aquinas and Bonaventure, as well as by Duns Scotus. 
 Hales published other works: but it is difficult to settle which are 
 his and which belong to others. Some that he wrote are lost, and 
 others are supposed to be still in the recesses of libraries at Milan 
 and Oxford. When we claim Hales as an Englishman, we ought 
 to remember that his name and his birth are altogether such. He 
 was an éléve of the University of Paris, which then approached at 
 last to an ecumenical character. Not Englishmen only, but Scots- 
 men weut thither in abundance, and were as well received as if 
 they had been Frenchmen, 
 
 P. 275. “Of the office of the mass. But it is called ‘the 
 ‘office’ as if it were the office from effecting (all this), one letter 
 being changed to improve the beauty of the term. Or (if not this,) 
 certainly that each priest may do those things, which may hurt 
 none but profit all [singular word-play: but English has no 
 word for an ‘officiant’s’ hurt nearer than ‘ officious’], as Raban 
 says. And as he also says, Office in kind, @.e. singular, though 
 there be very many. The whole is called Missa (mass). And it is 
 so called from the beginning unto the words, ‘Go, it has been sent 
 (missa)’... since an angel is sent to the offermg up...and it is 
 
 P.275. Part IV. Q. X. De officio Misse. Op. Colon. 1622. 
 
 Officium autem dicitur quasi efficium ab efficiendo dictum propter 
 decorem sermonis und mutata litera. Vel certe ut quisque illa agat 
 que nulli officiant sed prosint omnibus, sicut dicit Rabanus. Et ut 
 idem dicit, officium genere, licet sunt plurima... Dicitur missa totum, 
 quod dicitur ab introitu usque “Ite missa est”... quoniam angelus 
 
 10-—2 
 
148 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 called missa because they were then sent out from the church ... 
 And this [the consecration, in its place in the mass] is said in 
 
 great silence ... only those words by which the Lord’s body is sade 
 [Jerome]... 
 
 Art. m1. “Whether there be truly in the sacrament a transmu- 
 tation or conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, or the 
 bread remain together with the body. Enquiry is thus made, and 
 it is shewn that there is a conversion of the bread into the body of 
 Christ, and that it does not remain together with that body ... 
 Others, Damian in particular, say... (that the bread) passes by a 
 power beyond nature into Christ’s body and blood. This is evident 
 from the very form of the words... Also if the substance of bread 
 were in it together with the body, then as it is said by the (priest’s) 
 voice, ‘This is My body, and a consecration has been so made, it 
 would also be true to say, This is material bread, which is false 
 and heretical. If the substance of bread remained, then you would 
 take Christ’s body in the way of a sacred sign [lit. sacramentally] 
 ... He had broken fast by taking it. On the contrary it would be 
 a truer sign... It would be more accordant that bread in its own 
 substance should be a sign than that only the appearance of bread 
 (without its substance should be)... If there were only the 
 appearance the senses would be erring and deceived. Touch and 
 taste indicate that it is bread and not the appearance of it only, το. 
 Resolution of the difficulties. Bread in no wise remains, &c. It 
 is contrary to the authority of the holy (fathers) that there is not 
 some conversion. One reason is that idolatry is avoided [some 
 words of the text may be wrong]. If bread remained perhaps it 
 
 mittitur... ad offertorium... et dicitur missa quia tune emittebantur 
 
 foris... Quod sub silentio dicitur... solum illa verba quibus Dominicum 
 corpus conficitur. 
 
 Pars 111]. De officio Misse, Art. 11]. § 1. 
 
 An sacramento sit vero transmutatio sive conversio panis in corpus 
 Christi, vel panis maneat simul cum corpore. Queritur sic et ostenditur 
 quod est conversio panis in Christi corpus et non simul manet cum 
 corpore. Alii... maxime Damianus ... supernaturaliter transit in cor- 
 pus et sanguinem Christi... Hoc patet ex ipsa forma verborum, &c. 
 Item si simul cum corpore esset substantia panis, sicut voce dicitur, 
 Hoe est corpus Meum, facta consecratione, et vere dicitur, Hic est 
 panis materialis, guod est falsum et hereticum. Si substantia panis 
 maneret, tune sumes corpus Christi sacramentaliter... Solverat jejunium 
 sumendo. Contra verius esset signum... magis competeret quod panis 
 in sud substantia esset signum, quam quod sola species panis... Si 
 esset sola spezies sensus errarent et deciperentur. Tactus et gustus 
 indicant panem esse non solam speciem, ἄορ Resolutio, Panis nequa- 
 quam manet, ὅθ. Contraria sanctorum auctoritati quod non est aliqua 
 conversio. Una ratio est idololatria evitata. Si maneret panis, for- 
 
1222] ALEXANDER OF HALES. 149 
 
 would be adored with the Lord without distinction. It would first 
 bring us to the understanding of the bread and afterwards to that 
 of the Lord, in a direct way. A spiritual refreshment, spiritual 
 altogether. Then the food would be carnal and not spiritual only. 
 [This implies that the body and blood of the Lord in this sacrament 
 are not carnal, z.e. not a real natural body and blood.] The truth 
 insinuated is that we should believe that there is only food for the 
 soul, a spiritual not a bodily communion. [Then Rome is wrong; 
 but see Thirlwall.] It diminishes the usefulness of merit, because 
 by laying down that accidents cannot exist without a subject, by 
 leaning on human reasonings the merit of faith is diminished. 
 Although then there would be a more determinate representation, 
 there would not be so direct an inference [viz. as to our receiving 
 Christ into us.] The inference is more necessary to us than the 
 representation of Him. The judgment of the senses is not to be 
 looked to in this sacrament, but rather the merit of faith... But 
 man by faith in this sacrament deserves (earns) more than if the 
 accidents of bread had the subject (bread, in it too)... The con- 
 version into Christ which there is, yet is not an increasing of any- 
 thing, because the whole is by miracle converted into the whole. 
 [What reasoning!] (The portion) is not converted into the whole, 
 like meat into a thing fit to become food, nor is it united to it, but 
 the whole is by Divine virtue converted into the whole. 
 
 P. 358. ‘Whether Christ, as far as He is contained in this 
 sacrament, sits or stands or lies down. It seems necessarily to 
 follow that He sits, as He does in Heaven.” [I make no comment. 
 The presumption is too great to speak about. | 
 
 tasse adoraretur indistincte cum Domino. Primo deduceret ad com- 
 prehensionem panis et post ad Domini, modo immediato. Spiritualis 
 refectio spiritualis omnino. Tune cibus carnalis et non solum spiritualis. 
 Veritatis insinuatio ut credatur quod sit tantum cibus animee—com- 
 munio spiritualis non corporalis. Minuit utilitatem meriti, quia ponendo 
 quod accidentia non possunt esse sine subjecto, innitendo rationibus 
 humanis, meritum fidei imminuitur. Etsi expressior esset tunc repre- 
 sentatio, non ita immediata esset deductio... deductio est magis neces- 
 saria quam representatio .. In hoc sacramento non est attendendum 
 judicium sensuum sed potius fidei meritum... Plus autem meretur 
 homo fide hujus sacramenti, quam si essent (accidentia) in subjecto... 
 Conversio in Christum quod est, nec est augmentum alicujus, quia totum 
 mirabiliter convertitur in totum... Non convertitur in totum sicut 
 cibus in cibabile, nec ei unitur...sed virtute Divina totum convertitur 
 in totum. 
 
 Part IV. Q. X. Memb. VII. Art.. 11 § 7, p. 358. 
 Utrum Christus secundum quod continetur in hoc sacramento 
 
 sedeat vel stet vel jaceat. Videtur quod oportet e necessitate...sedere 
 sicut est in ceelo. 
 
150 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (F.) CARDINAL JOHN FIDANZA, NAMED BUONAVENTURA. 
 Β. 1221. pv. 1274 
 
 Of Tuscan origin, and reported to have had his life as a child 
 given to him with his name at the prayer of Francis (of Assisi). 
 We cannot wonder to find him in the Franciscan order. But at 
 Paris at 22 he was under the tuition of the irrefragable doctor 
 Alexander Hales (of England). At 34 he received the cap of a 
 doctor at the same time as Thomas Aquinas. He had great influ- 
 ence in the family of the renowned French king St Louis; and 
 drew up for him an Office of the Passover at his desire, also a body 
 of rules for his sister Isabella to use in the nunnery at Longchamps. 
 At the age of 35 he was chosen general of the order of the Fran- 
 ciscans. At 44 Pope Gregory X. made him cardinal and bishop of 
 Albano. He attended at one of the general councils held at Lyons 
 (Thomas Aquinas having been taken away by death), when there 
 was a hope of drawing over the Greek church. He died as he had 
 lived, noted for his peculiar turn of mental devotion, gazing on a 
 crucifix. Nine years earlier he refused the archbishopric of York. 
 In Lyons and in all Burgundy he was long remembered. 
 
 It is singular that Bonaventure sat in the seat of La Rochelle, 
 his tutor in Paris, on the part of the Franciscans, on the same day 
 that the Dominican Thomas Aquinas delivered his first lecture in 
 the same city: but perhaps when the one order brought forth its 
 man of promise the other was stimulated to do the same. Bona- 
 venture in a perilous sickness at four years of age, in 1225, was 
 specially commended by his mother to the tutelage of St Francis 
 of Assisi. He recovered, and the maternal vow was kept by her 
 zealous son, though he did not enter the order till he was 22 
 years of age, seventeen years after St Francis’ death. 
 
 It has been remarked that hardly had the two rival orders 
 fairly established themselves, when scholasticism seemed to come 
 forth afresh, armed with new weapons of power. Perhaps we may 
 give the two orders the credit of giving a new impulse to the 
 discussions of the Sorbonne doctors. Henceforth they could not 
 sleep in their chairs. William of Saint Amour of the Sorbonne 
 opposed both orders: but the pope had his books burned. And 
 the gentle and learned Bonaventure was made general of his order 
 at 34, on the resignation of the severe John of Parma. 
 
1221] CARDINAL JOHN FIDANZA. 151 
 
 Luke xxi. “ He afterwards treated of the eating of the pass- 
 over. Here he secondly treats of the institution of the eucharist, 
 about which three things are grouped; that is the consecration of 
 the Lord’s body, the conferring of the power, and the consecration 
 of Christ’s blood... He instituted the form of consecration (to be) 
 in these words, ‘This is My body.’ But note that there are four 
 opinions; (1) that He accomplished it by the power of the God- 
 head without words, and after the words He spake and gave 
 virtue to the words, (2) that He first said the words in secret, 
 and afterwards openly, (3) that He said the words only once, but 
 first brake the bread and afterwards accomplished the change, 
 (4) that He spoke the words once, and by speaking accomplished 
 it, and by accomplishing it instituted (the four) and spake it before 
 He brake it. Therefore the letter puts the last first and ought to 
 be arranged together thus: ‘He took bread and gave thanks, 
 ‘saying, This is My body, and brake and gave it.’... For thus 
 Melchizedek blessed, as Christ also did, and much more copiously, 
 because He is an eternal priest, Ps. cix. (cx.). Thus came the gloss, 
 ‘By His word alone He converted bread into His own body.’ There- 
 fore this is the sense of the word ‘This is My body,’ 7.e. marked by 
 this to be converted into My body: is My body. [Qy. The 
 word He uttered signifies that this is to come to pass. If so, what is 
 gained by this longa ambages, which adds no fresh idea?] Or this 
 is passing into My body which is whole and perfect. But there is 
 efficacy in the word that this should be done by its being said... 
 But in the receiving of the bread is understood the taking of flesh 
 (by Him), because it is said, ‘ My flesh is truly food.’ He received 
 bread to mark that word, ‘The Word was made flesh.” In the | 
 
 IT. Luce XXII. Moguntie, 1609. 
 
 Postquam egit de manducatione phase; hic secundo agit de institu- 
 tione eucharistix, circa quam inducuntur tria, scilicet consecratio 
 Dominici corporis, collatio potestatis, et consecratio Christi sanguinis... 
 (1) Formam consecrandi instituit in his verbis, Hoc est corpus Meum. 
 Sed nota quod quatuor sunt opiniones: (1) Quod confecit virtute 
 Divinitatis sine verbis: et post verba dixit et virtutem dedit verbis, 
 (2) Quod prius verba dixit in occulto et post in manifesto, (3) Quod 
 semel tantum verba dixit, sed prius fregit et post confecit, (4) Quod 
 semel verba dixit et dicendo confecit, et conficiendo instituit et prius 
 dixit quam fregit. Unde litera prepostera est, et debet construi sic ; 
 accepit panem et gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est corpus Meum, et fregit 
 et dedit... Sicut enim Melchisedec benedixit, ita et Iste, et multo 
 amplius quia Hic est sacerdos sternus, Ps. cix. Unde glossa, verbo 
 soli convertit panem in corpus Suum. Est ergo sententia verbi ista, 
 Hoe est corpus Meum, i.e. signatum per hoc convertendum in corpus 
 Meum. Est corpus Meum, Vel hoc transit in corpus Meum quod est 
 integrum et perfectum.  Efficacia autem verbi est, ut hoc dicto fiat... 
 In acceptione autem panis intelligitur assumptio carnis, quia dicitur, 
 Caro Mea vere est cibus. Accepit panem ad designandum illud, Verbum 
 
152 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A D. 
 
 giving of thanks is understood the flowing down of graces from the 
 Head into the church’s whole body. ‘Of His fulness we all have 
 ‘received, grace for grace, John i, ἄς. This sacrament is in the 
 highest degree a free gift, according to that saying, ‘ Freely ye have 
 ‘received, freely give.’ (2) ‘Do this,’ &c. In which He gives 
 power to them to do that which He did: and by this also delivered 
 to them the priestly order... But the sacrifice itself was accepted 
 and was placatory according to that word, ‘ A spiritual priesthood 
 ‘offering spiritual sacrifices, &¢c, 1 Pet. ii. [addressed to all the 
 Christians to whom he sent the epistle not to the priests alone or 
 separately]. And hence it necessarily follows from this, that the 
 most true body of Christ is contained (in the rite). (8) The evan- 
 gelists do not express this in the same way. ‘ Likewise also, &c. 
 But the church uses none of those forms, for she says, This is the 
 cup of My blood, of a new and eternal covenant, a mystery of the 
 faith, which (blood) will be shed for you and for many unto the 
 remission of sins. Nor is there any contrariety, because they do 
 not intend to precisely write down the form of words, but to weave 
 together the history. But the church preserves the form delivered 
 
 by the apostles in accomplishing (the change), which they also 
 received from Christ. 
 
 Ρ 437. John vi. “In these words is figured the life-giving food, 
 which is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and the bread of life 
 according to His human nature. And accordingly three things are 
 figured in words.’ (1) The pre-eminent dignity of the saving food : 
 there ‘flesh and blood,’ z.e. Himself; (2) The perfection of the 
 
 caro factum est. In gratiarum actione intelligitur defluxus gratiarum 
 a Capite in totum corpus ecclesie. De plenitudine Kjus omnes accepi- 
 mus gratiam pro gratia (John i.), &. Sacramentum hoc est summe 
 gratuitum, secundum illud, gratis accepistis, gratis date. (2) Hoc 
 facite, &c. In quo dat eis potestatem, ut faciant quod Ipse fecit. 
 Ac per hoc etiam sacerdotalem ordinem eis tradidit... Ipsum est sacri- 
 ficilum acceptum et placativum secundum illud, Sacerdotium sanctum 
 offerentes spirituales hostias, dc. 1 Pet. ii. Et hine quidem necesse 
 est hinc, contineri verissimum corpus Christi, (3) Euangelistee non 
 eodem modo formam hance exprimunt. Likewise also the cup, dc. 
 Keclesia autem nulla istarum formarum utitur, nam dicit Hie est calix 
 sanguinis Mei, novi et zterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro 
 vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Nec est 
 contrarietas quia non intendunt formam verborum precisa describere, 
 sed historiam texere. Sed ecclesia servat formam ab apostolis traditam 
 in conficiendo, quam et a Christo acceperunt. 
 
 P. 437, John VI. “He that eateth my flesh,” de. 
 
 In his verbis figuratur cibus vivificus, qui est caro et sanguis Jesu 
 Christi et pauis vite secundum naturam humanam. Et secundum hoe 
 tria in verbis figurantur (1) cibi salvifici preeminens dignitas, ibi 
 “carnem et sanguinem” (i.e. Seipsum), (2) Modi sumendi perfectibilitas, 
 
 rr 
 
1991} CARDINAL JOHN FIDANZA. 155 
 
 mode of taking, ‘He eats;’ (3) The efficacious virtue of that food 
 in him that takes it in the due ‘manner, ‘ He has life’... On the 
 contrary, by a deficiency in that eating the life fails. In Ps. ci. (cii.) 
 ‘I am stricken (with the sun) as hay, and my heart has become 
 ‘parched, and elsewhere, Ps. evi. (evil.) ‘Their soul hated all food’ 
 
 (1.6. the perfect) which is in the body and blood of Christ. [Is 
 not this an arbitrary interpretation 1] 
 
 P. 397. “Wisdom. The reality of grace came down with Him 
 and is given (to us), as the day when the manna was coming down. 
 And therefore the bread is called the eucharist. Eucharist is inter- 
 preted good grace. [How strange the nescience of Greek !] 
 
 P. 76. “ Although the Son of God had given a great token of 
 love and benevolence in the incarnation, by giving Himself to be 
 a brother to the human race, by taking our nature, by giving 
 Himself in His passion for the price of our.redemption, by bearing 
 the penalty, yet it was a greater token of His affection when He 
 gave up His own body to man for food to refresh him. For in two 
 other ways is there a certain separation and division between the 
 Giver and the thing given: but in that way there is a marvellous 
 and endless union between the fed and the food, and there is a 
 conversion of the one and of the other. And by reason of that 
 union Christ says to the soul that tastes the sweetness of the 
 sacrament of the eucharist and of His love, Canticles viil., ‘Set me 
 
 ‘as a seal of love and benevolence (goodwill) on thy heart,’ which 
 is in the middle of a man, &e. 
 
 ““Manducat” (3) Ejus cibi efficax virtuositas in sumente debito modo, 
 “Habet vitam”... E contrario, defectu istius manducationis deficit 
 vita. In Ps. ci., Percussus sum ut foenum, et aruit cor meum, et alibi 
 Ps. cvi., Omnem escam, i.e. perfectam (que est in corpore et sanguine 
 Domini), abominata est anima eorum, Wc. 
 
 I. p. 397. On the book Wisdom. 
 
 Cum ipso res gratiz descendit et datur, sicut ut ad nos cum manna 
 descendebat. Et ideo panis iste Eucharistia dicitur, Eucharistia boua 
 gratia interpretatur. 
 
 111. p. 16. Sermo 1. 
 
 Licet magnum signum charitatis et benevolentie fecerit Filius 
 Dei in incarnatione, dando Se in fratrem humani generis, naturam 
 assumendo, in passione dando Se in premium nostre redemptionis, 
 peenam sustinendo, majus tamen signum dilectionis fuit, cum proprium 
 corpus tradidit homini in cibum refectionis. Nam in aliis duobus 
 modis est quedam separatio et divisio inter dantem et datum; sed 
 isto modo est mirabilis et interminabilis unio inter cibatum et cibum, 
 et conversio unlus et alterius. Et ratione istius unionis dicit Christus 
 anime gustanti dulcedinem sacramenti eucharistie et amoris, Song of 
 Sol. viii, Pone me, ut signaculum charitatis et benevolentie, super 
 cor tuum (quod est in medio homine, &c.). 
 
154 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 86. Psalm cx. (cxi.) “‘He made a memorial’ [Eng. He 
 hath made His wonderful works to be remembered, &c.]... ‘He 
 ‘cave meat to them that fear Him. For as the uniting of food to 
 them that receive it is great, because it is united with their body 
 and blood, so are we marvellously united to the flesh of Christ’s 
 
 body.” 
 
 P. 86, Sermo IV., Psalm CX. (ΟΧ 7. 
 Memoriam fecit, &c., usque, Escam dedit timentibus Se. Sicut 
 enim magna est unio escarum ad sumentem quia carni et sanguini 
 sumentis unitur, sic nos mirabiliter unimur esca corporis Christi. 
 
 (G.) NICETAS CHONIATES ACOMINATUS. 1205—70. 
 
 Who would suppose that this is only another name for a 
 Colossian ? but so runs the history, be it fabulous or true, tbat 
 Chonz was given as a name to the city Colosse when a large 
 flood by which the heathen had hoped to destroy the church was 
 received by a vast chasm made by the archangel Michael striking 
 the rock after the manner of Moses. The church had been dedi- 
 cated to the archangel. Hence it was called Chon from the 
 gaping chasm. Nicetas had an elder brother called Michael ; and 
 he went to Byzantium to see him, and became so learned that 
 Manuel Comnenus raised him to be one of his own scribes or 
 secretaries. He received many honours under successive emperors, 
 and married into the Belissariot family. But he suffered when 
 the Venetians captured the city. His greatest work is the Trea- 
 sury of the Orthodox Faith, of which an appropriate specimen is 
 given. He also wrote a history embracing the time of his patron 
 and of Andronicus Comnenus and Isaac Angelus down to the taking 
 of the city. 
 
 His brother Michael is the source of our knowledge of many 
 of the details of his life. The works were discovered and edited 
 by Angelo Mai. His elder brother Michael seems to have been 
 at the head of the church in Athens. 
 
 P. 133. “And I believe and say that the virgin that bare Him 
 after the flesh, the holy virgin Mary, and that remained after his 
 
 Opera, Migne, Vols. CXXXIX., CXL. Thesaurus, Inb. XX., 
 p. 133 B. 
 Kat τὴν κατὰ σάρκα Τοῦτον τεκοῦσαν παρθένον, ἄγιαν Μαρίαν παρθένον, 
 καὶ μείνασαν μετὰ τόκον παρθένον, κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς Θεοτόκον, καὶ πιστεύω 
 
1205] NICETAS CHONIATES ACOMINATUS. 155 
 
 birth a virgin, is properly and truly mother of God, when He put 
 Himself in man; and on this account I worship and honour her as 
 having become by grace lady and mistress of all the creation. 
 And I am persuaded and confess and believe that the bread 
 mystically used in sacred service with the Christians and the wine 
 too, of which they partake in the Divine rites, are the body and 
 blood in truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, changed by His Divine 
 power intelligently and in an unseen way above all physical con- 
 ception, in a way that He alone knows. And thus I also covenant 
 that I will partake of them as being in truth His flesh and blood, 
 and being partaken of by those who share them in perfect faith, 
 unto sanctification both of soul and of body and unto eternal life 
 and an inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven [and of baptism as a 
 regeneration of the soul and the body, and then of the cross as an 
 instrument of freedom and life eternal, and then of images of the 
 Word and the boly virgin mother of God and the Divine angels, 
 like God in form θεοειίδεων, and of all the saints to be received 
 honoured and saluted]. I receive and honour and salute... But 
 if I say these things with hypocrisy and deceit and not of the faith 
 of my whole soul and a heart that loves Christ, may I have 
 anathema and catathema, and may my soul be ranged with Satan 
 and the demons.” 
 
 καὶ λέγω, καὶ ws κατ᾽ ἀληθείαν μητέρα Θεοῦ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος" Kat διὰ τοῦτο 
 κυρίαν καὶ δέσποιναν ἐν χάριτι γεγενημένην πάσης τῆς κτίσεως προσκυνῶ 
 καὶ τιμῶ. Καὶ τὸν παρὰ τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς μυστικῶς ἱερουργούμενον ἄρτον 
 καὶ τὸν οἶνον, ὧν ἐν ταῖς Θείαις τελεταῖς μεταλαμβάνουσι, πείθομαι καὶ 
 ὁμολογῶ καὶ πιστεύω σῶμα καὶ αἷμα κατ᾽ ἀληθείαν εἶναι τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ 
 Ξ , is ; Ee A A , 
 Χριστοῦ, μεταβαλλόμενα τῇ Ἐκείνου Θεικῇ δυνάμει γοερῶς τε καὶ ἀοράτως 
 ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν φυσικὴν ἔννοιαν, ὡς οἷδε μόνος Αὐτός. Καὶ οὕτω Kayo 
 μεταλήψεσθαι τούτων συντίθεμαι ὡς κατὰ ἀληθείαν ὄντων σαρκός τε καὶ 
 αἵματος Αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰς ἁγιασμὸν ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον 
 καὶ βασιλείας οὐρανῶν κληρονομίαν μεταλαμβανομένων, τοῖς αὐτῶν ἐν 
 πίστει τελείᾳ μετέχουσι. δέχομαι καὶ τιμῶ καὶ ἀσπάζομαι... Ei δὲ μεθ᾽ 
 ὑποκρίσεως καὶ δόλου ταῦτά φημι καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ὁλοψύχου καὶ καρδίας 
 τὸν Χριστὸν ἀγαπώσης εἴη μοὶ ἀνάθεμα καὶ κατάθεμα, καὶ ἡ ψυχή μου ταχ- 
 θείη μετὰ τοῦ Σατανᾶ καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων. Thus ends Book 20 of the 
 Thesaurus, 
 
 (H.) ALBERTUS MAGNUS, SON OF A GERMAN PRINCE. 
 ΒΓ 1193. ἢ 1288. 
 
 It would seem to be the fashion in Germany now not only to 
 make Albert the Great the fountain at which the great St Thomas 
 drank, but to represent the latter as nothing more than a retailer 
 at second-hand of Albert’s ideas. This differs very widely from 
 
150 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Albert’s own estimate of his disciple Aquinas. The well-known 
 story should not be forgotten, how some coeval scholars thought 
 Aquinas a very inferior and heavy mind, as he went everywhere 
 listening in silence and pondering with that great attribute of true 
 genius, unlimited patience. And they said he is but a dumb ox. 
 But Albertus Magnus had formed quite another estimate of the 
 man, and answered that this dumb ox would one day open his 
 mouth, and the sound of his lowing would fill the world. 
 
 Albert was successively Vicar-General of his order, master of 
 the Pope’s palace, and Bishop of Ratisbon in 1260. He resigned 
 it to spend his last years in the chief place of his teaching, 
 Cologne. 
 
 In comparing Albert with his disciple and successor we can 
 hardly wonder at finding great diversity of opinion; when we 
 bear in mind that Albert left 21 folio volumes behind him. How 
 few in the present age would dream of making more than a salient 
 acquaintance with them! But Hefele, who praises Albert for the 
 vast extent of his knowledge, places him not only below Aquinas 
 but also below Anselm and Erigena in acuteness and power and 
 fertility of spirit. While of those that depreciate him mere witti- 
 cisms are recorded. He had a hollow head of brass, which would 
 give you a sound in reply to any question whatever. Then as to 
 the voluminous character of his works, the jest of Cicero is made 
 to serve; that the cremation of his body could be done by one 
 copy of each of his own writings. He not only revived the study 
 of Aristotle and bis Moorish commentators, such as Avicenna in 
 particular, but he was so little of a scrutinizer of the ideas that he 
 adopted as to give four general qualities to the four elements, the 
 hot and the cold, the moist and the dry. That he held judicial 
 astrology to be a science is less strange. One might adduce more; 
 but Bacon believed in exact cubes of septarian clay as a cure for 
 the stone. Men may be great who have their weak points, and 
 are not to be charged with the guilt of all current errors, 
 
 P. 92. “(1) Of the sacrifice of the mass, (2) of the eucharist. 
 A sacrament is grace upon grace, as it were containing (in it) a 
 
 lol. KAL. Dist, As Le Vi ποῖ, AT, seceded, 
 In quibusdam missis, p. 92. Lugduni, 1602. 
 (1) De saerificio misse. (2) De eucharistié. Sacramentum est 
 gratia super gratiam quasi cumulum continens gratiarum. Confert 
 
1109] ALBERTUS MAGNUS. 157 
 
 heap of graces. For it confers the grace of communication, and 
 upon this the grace of expiation, and upon these two the grace of 
 redemption, and upon these three the grace of quickening, and 
 upon these four the grace of spiritual refreshment, and upon these 
 five it signifies to us the glory of eternal blessedness ... and from 
 the body indeed it confers the grace of the communion with all 
 Christ’s members: but from the blood it gives the grace of expia- 
 tion; but from the soul the grace of redemption: and from the 
 Spirit of Christ it gives the grace of quickening and of virtue : but 
 from His Godhead it brings the grace of refection; and from the 
 whole sign it gives the sacrament of eternal blessedness... [The 
 mind fails to discern any foundation in fact for ascribing these 
 details of ‘the benefits which we receive’ to these particular 
 sources: and Albert gives no reasons. Nor indeed does he stoop 
 to any proof that this sacrament does ‘confer’ all this. It must be 
 ranged under the general head of arbitrary assertions in theology. | 
 ..- Matt. xii, ‘The meaning is this which we put forth in relation 
 to the case of the eucharist, on account of which it is called the 
 eucharist. All this of its having to do with our salvation pro- 
 ceeded from Christ Himself, John i. Nor could we in any way 
 accept even concerning this that it depends on Him unless we 
 were 1n communion with Him. But we are not truly in com- 
 munion with Him, except it be in the sacrament of communion, 
 Matt. xxvi. As if he said, The fulness of grace which is in Me, in 
 the sacramental vessel of My body, and out of that grace ye will 
 receive the reconciled and forgiven. [Is not this a purely arbitrary 
 interpretation and not a likely one 7]... And here He is all fully 
 contained in the whole band of graces, proving that everywhere, 
 since ‘ grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ,’ as this is 
 
 enim gratiam communicationis, et super hance gratiam expiationis, 
 et super has duas gratiam redemptionis, et super has tres gra- 
 tiam vivificationis, et super has quatuor gratiam refectionis  spiri- 
 tualis, et super has quinque significat nobis gloriam eterne beati- 
 tudinis...et ex corpore quidem confert gratiam communionis omnium 
 Christi membrorum; ex sanguine autem dat gratiam expiationis ; 
 ex anima vero gratiam redemptionis; et ex Spiritu Christi dat gra- 
 tiam vivificationis et virtutis; ex Deitate autem affert gratiam 
 refectionis ; et ex toto signo sacramentum dat eterne beatitudinis... 
 Matt. xiii., They shall shine as the sun, &c. Hee est significatio 
 quam modo in eucharistid presentamus, propter quod eucharistia vocatur. 
 Totum etiam hoe quod nostre salutis est in Ipso processit. John 1., 
 And of His fulness, &e. Nee aliquo modo etiam de hoc quod in Ipso 
 est, accipere possemus, nisi sibi communicaremus. Non autem vere 
 communicamus nisi in communicationis sacramento, Matt. xxvi. Ac 
 si dicat gratie plenitudinem que in Me est, in vase sacramentali 
 corporis mei, et ex illa recipietis reconciliatum et remissum... Et hic 
 totus in omni gratiz choro plenus continetur, ubique probans, quoniam 
 “oratia et veritas est per Jesum Christum facta,’ ut dicitur hoc 
 
158 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 called a sacred sign, therefore to all that receive this sacrament of 
 the eucharist the fulness of grace and the whole gospel of grace is 
 communicated... In what way is this sacrament under the class 
 of sacrifices? Let us at last see concerning the truth of the 
 sacrifice. But that alone is the truth of the sacrifice (¢.e. shews it) 
 that all that which it marks, it abundantly causes, and contains 
 in itself by the grace of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ... Whether (it should be) with unleavened or with leavened 
 bread. 
 
 P. 134. “But as to Christ’s giving His own body after other 
 food, four reasons are assigned by doctors. The first is because 
 He gave it as a memorial that it might be more intimately 
 entrusted to the memory. The second, because the new might be 
 brought forth out of the old, which would not come to pass unless 
 the typical lamb had first been received. The third reason is, 
 because, as His disciples were already quaking like little birds 
 clucking, this sacrament is given last of all to produce firmness of 
 heart. The fourth reason was that it might be signified that that 
 food is not of the body, but of the soul, and therefore it was re- 
 ceived; as all things pertaining to the (bodily) necessity had been 
 already taken... Although Christ gave His own body to them 
 when they had now supped, yet it was reverently and salutarily 
 provided by the church afterwards, that excepting the cases (lit. 
 the article) of necessity and infirmity (sickness) the body of the 
 Lord be not received except by fasting persons.” 
 
 The second seems to me the leading reason. But the real 
 ground of the church’s command seems to be the belief that 
 
 sacramentum. Omnibus igitur hoc sacramentum eucharistie percipi- 
 entibus gratiz plenitudo et vas omnis gratize communicatur... [Dist. V. 
 δ 4.] Quomodo hoe sacramentum sit in genere sacrificii? Begins, 
 Tandem videndum est de hujus sacrificii veritate. Istud autem solum 
 est sacrificii veritas, quia omne id, quod signat, abundanter causat, et 
 continet in seipso per gratiam corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri 
 Jesu Christi... | Dist. VI. ο. 1.7] Utrum in azymo an in fermentato. 
 
 P. 134. 
 
 Quod autem Christus post alios cibos corpus Suum dedit, quatuor a 
 doctoribus assignantur rationes. Prima est quia in memoriale dedit ut 
 arctius memoriz commendaretur. Secunda ut novum ex veteri... 
 produceretur, quod non fieret nisi prius agnus typicus sumptus fuisset. 
 Tertia ratio est quia jam crepitantibus discipulis istud post omnia datur 
 in firmitatem cordis. Quarta ratio fuit ut significaretur quod iste cibus 
 non est corporis sed anim, et ideo sumptus est, omnibus aliis ad 
 necessitatem pertinentibus jam ante sumptis... Quamvis Christus cxe- 
 natis jam eis dederit corpus Suum, tamen reverenter et salubriter ab 
 ecclesia postea provisum est, ut excepto necessitatis et infirmitatis arti- 
 culo, non uisi a jejunis corpus Domini accipiatur. 
 
1193] ALBERTUS MAGNUS. 159 
 
 the bread and wine ought to be treated with the reverence of 
 fasting, because the church held that the bread and wine were 
 after some mode or other changed into Christ’s real natural body 
 and blood. Albert puts the reasons with great adroitness: but 
 adroitness cannot make an unwarranted law authoritative. 
 
 (1) THOMAS AQUINAS. B. 1224. D. 1274. 
 
 The scholastic divines were greatly aided by the half-eastern 
 character of the court of Frederic II. in his beloved Sicily. He 
 strengthened the hold of Aristotle upon them by causing trans- 
 lations of some of his works, probably the Ethics, Logic, and 
 Metaphysics, to be made and circulated. His Politics probably 
 got less attention. Received at first through Arabian sages in 
 Spain, they were now naturalized in the Western Church. Thus 
 the greatest works of Aquinas are, first of all, his Summa Artis 
 Theologice, and then his commentaries on Aristotle. He also 
 wrote commentaries on Scripture, and numerous treatises. It isa 
 matter of the greatest wonder that these, which were for many 
 centuries the training-books of theo-scholastic giants, should be 
 now almost entirely cast aside. Is it in part that the works of each 
 of them are a continent of tens of-folios ? 
 
 It is an interesting enquiry. The scholastic extracts on this sub- 
 ject of the Lord’s supper are almost enough to shew that the 
 boundless distributiveness of the method taxes the mind too 
 severely, and wastes its energies upon too large a surface; and 
 that the heaping up of good and bad reasons on each detail of the 
 distribution wears out and annoys enquirers. Perhaps no system 
 ever ministered so much of false pride to its professors and to their 
 thick and thin admirers. All this is now repaid, principal and 
 interest together, by so general a neglect, that even the research 
 of Dean Milman is baffled and overtasked, and he retires upon the 
 superficial banter, with which from Gibbon’s time the very mention 
 of them has been received. Nevertheless one may venture, as 
 intimated in the remarks on Anselm, to believe that the scholastics 
 did important service. For in spite of papal exhortations, piled 
 up to restrict men to the choice sentences of the Fathers in their 
 received senses, it was impossible that Franciscan and Dominican 
 teachers should contend in their several schools with the regular 
 
100 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 University professors, and struggle hard with them for victory, 
 without getting some new victories, without emanations of unau- 
 thorized light, without some glimpses of hidden and forbidden 
 truths. All such discoveries would be eagerly caught and promul- 
 gated. Such was the real work then going forward: and perad- 
 venture even in this day our opinions might be sometimes at least 
 cleared and confirmed, if not enlightened and promoted, by the 
 endless tilting of these medizval champions. It may be well to 
 know something of what they thought and said. 
 
 Mattés in treating on Aquinas defines the scholastic method 
 as “theology considered as an universal science.” If this were 
 a complete definition we should become scholastics now : but it is 
 evidently the extent of its alms; whereas the method itself is that 
 general subdivision into elemental particles which has been termed 
 its wearying universal distributiveness, and baffles human reten- 
 tion. As to Aquinas something of De Thou’s eulogium may with 
 pleasure be remembered. He claims for him great humility, 
 purity, fervency in prayer, prudence, abounding charity, luminous 
 intelligence, and a spirit altogether above the world. He was tall 
 and manly and “of high birth.” His Summa Theologiz is by 
 Mattés considered a complete and faithful reflection of the scholas- 
 tic system. Mohler describes the system as a continuous effort to 
 shew “that what is Christian is reasonable and that what is 
 “yeasonable is Christian.” Bergen in his theologic dictionary is 
 more explicit. He says its object was (1) to reduce all theology 
 into one body and to distribute the questions in order, so that one 
 may shed light on another and the whole make a system which 
 should be mutually connected, in regular sequence and complete, 
 and to regulate all this by logic and metaphysic so as to reconcile 
 and unite reason and Christianity. This luminous definition 
 leaves nothing to be desired except its accomplishment, if it be 
 possible within the range and reach of human power, so as to be 
 safe in the arguing out of every portion. This however does not 
 seem possible, a shorter method being more correspondent to the 
 extent of man’s comprehensiveness. The conclusion then seems to 
 be that their works may be useful in parts but that they are not 
 adapted as a system of training. Another definition is “the 
 “scientific history of the church’s faith.” 
 
 Thomas was born at Rocca Secca or Aquino in the kingdom of 
 Naples. His father was a count. His grandfather married a 
 
1224] THOMAS AQUINAS. ‘161 
 
 sister of Frederic Barbarossa. His own mother Theodora was of a 
 princely Norman family. The three books to which he devoted 
 himself when he persisted against all his mother’s efforts in retir- 
 ing from high life were the Bible, Peter Lombard, and Aristotle. 
 In 1245 a chapter-general at Rome decided that he should put 
 himself under the greatest of all the instructors of the age, Albert, 
 at Cologne. In 1245 he was chosen as a Dominican champion 
 before Alexander IV., when the Sorbonne doctors pleaded not 
 only against the teaching but against the continued existence of 
 the two orders: and the struggle was renewed before Clement IV. 
 In 1261 he was summoned to Rome by Urban IV., where he is 
 said to have refused the “red hat” and scarlet robes of a cardinal. 
 He often preached in the churches of Italy. His Catena, which 
 received the title “golden,” was a continuous exposition of the 
 four Gospels with the aid of the fathers and all valuable writers. 
 He wrote an Office of the very holy sacrament. He died journey- 
 ing at Lyons. He received the communion before he died, and 
 his exclamation of thanks is said to have begun with these words, 
 “T have received Thee, O God.” And Albert is reported to have 
 had his death revealed to him. 
 
 Q. Lxxm. “This sacrament has a threefold meaning, (1) in 
 respect of the past, inasmuch, that is to say, as it is commemora- 
 tive of the Lord’s passion, which was a true sacrifice, and in ac- 
 cordance with it this sacrament is named a sacrifice; (2) in respect 
 of a thing present, 7.e. the church unity, in which men constituted 
 a body by this sacrament and in accordance with this are called a 
 communion or σύναξις. For Damascene says that it is called a 
 communion because we communicate by the sacrament itself with 
 Christ, and because we share His flesh and Divinity, and we who 
 communicate are also mutually united together by the communion 
 itself; (3) with respect to the future in so far, that is, as this 
 
 Summa Theolog. Questio LXXIIT. Art. IV. Bas-le-duc, 1870. 
 
 Hoe sacramentum habet triplicem significationem, (1) respectu 
 preteriti in quantum scilicet est commemorativum Dominice passionis, 
 que fuit verum sacrificium et secundum hoe nominatur sacrificium ; 
 (2) respectu rei preesentis, i.e. ecclesiasticee unitatis in qua homines aggre- 
 gantur per hoc sacramentum, et secundum hoc nominatur communio 
 vel σύναξις. Dicit enim Damascenus, quod dicitur communio quia 
 communicamus per ipsum cum Christo (Orth. fid. rx. 14, ad fin.), et 
 quia participamus Hjus carne et Divinitate, et qui communicamus 
 et unimur ad invicem per ipsam; (3) respectu futuri in quantum scilicet 
 
 ΗΣ 10h ie 
 
102 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 sacrament is a prefiguration of the fruition of God, which will be 
 when we are in our own fatherland: and in accordance with this 
 it is called the viaticum, because this sacrament holds out to us 
 the way of arriving thither: and according to this it is called 
 eucharist, because the grace of God is life eternal, as it is said, 
 Rom. vi. 23: or because it really contains Christ Who is full of 
 grace. For it is called in Greek μετάληψις, 1.6. taking to us, 
 because, as Damascene says, by this we take to us the Deity of the 
 Son [imperfect idea of Greek still]... This sacrament is called a 
 sacrifice inasmuch as it represents Christ’s passion. But it is 
 called host (victim) ipasmuch as it contains Christ Himself, Who 
 is the saving victim as He is called, Eph. v 
 
 P. 1153. “The passage of Damascene to which he alludes. 
 But it is called μετάληψις: for by it we partake of the Deity of 
 Jesus [not we take to us]. But it is both called and truly is com- 
 munion on account of our having fellowship with Christ by it and 
 partaking both of His flesh and Godhead and having fellowship 
 and being made one with each other by it. For since we partake 
 from one bread, we all are one body of Christ and one blood and 
 become members of one another, being called of God, of the same 
 body with Him (or partners in one body) .... But they are called 
 figures of the things to come, not as not being truly the body and 
 blood of Christ, but on the contrary that we are now indeed par- 
 taking of the Godhead οἵ. Christ, but then we shall do it per- 
 ceptibly by the sight of Him alone. [I should have liked every- 
 where to translate the word for “ partakers”’ by the word “ sharers,” 
 only it would be or seem less reverent. | 
 
 hoc sacramentum est prefiguratio fruitionis Dei, que erit in Patria, 
 et secundum hoe dicitur viaticum, quia hoc prebet nobis viam illic 
 perveniendi: et secundum hoe dicitur eucharistia, quia gratia Dei vita 
 zeterna, ut dicitur, Rom. vi. 23; vel quia realiter continet Christum, 
 Qui est “plenus gratiz.”  Dicitur enim in Greco μετάληψις, 1. 6. 
 assumptio, quia, ut Damascenus dicit, per hoc Filii Deitatem assumi- 
 mus... Hoc sacramentum dicitur sacrificium in quantum representat 
 passionem Christi. Dicitur autem hostia in quantum continet Ipsum 
 Christum, qui est hostia salutaris ut dicitur (Eph. v.). 
 
 TVS 13,594. 5 Vol ts pel 85. 
 
 Damasceni locus. Μετάληψις δὲ λέγεται. Δι αὐτῆς γὰρ τῆς Ἰησοῦ 
 Θεότητος μεταλαμβάνομεν. Kowwvia δὲ λέγεταί τε καί ἐστιν ἀληθῶς, διὰ 
 τὸ κοινωνεῖν ἡμᾶς δι’ αὐτῆς τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ μετέχειν Αὐτοῦ τῆς σαρκός τε καὶ 
 Θεότητος, κοινωνεῖν δὲ καὶ ἑνοῦσθαι ἀλλήλοις δ αὐτῆς. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐξ ἑνὸς 
 ἄρτου μεταλαμβάνομεν, οἱ πάντες ἐν σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ ἕν αἷμα, καὶ ἀλλήλων 
 μέλη γινόμεθα, σύσσωμοι Χριστοῦ χρηματίζοντες.... ᾿Αντίτυπα δὲ τῶν μελ- 
 λόντων λέγεται, οὐκ ὡς μὴ ὄντα ἀληθῶς σῶμα καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὅτι νῦν μὲν Ov αὐτῶν μετέχομεν τῆς Χριστοῦ Θεότητος, τότε δὲ νοητῶς διὰ 
 μόνης τῆς θέας. 
 
1224] THOMAS AQUINAS. 163 
 
 Q. Lx. “Whether there is in sacraments any causative 
 virtue? There is in sacraments a certain instrumental virtue— 
 a virtue to bring on grace, το. as an instrument set in motion by 
 the principal acting power. Those who lay down that the sacra- 
 ments do not cause grace, except by a certain concomitance (they 
 think this, who teach that sacraments cause grace not physically, 
 1.6. by natural means, but by moral action, 1.6. by holy thoughts, 
 &e. It is difficult to say in what sense they can understand those 
 words of Aineas Sylvius and others, operar? ex operato, working by 
 the mere fact of the rite being observed), they lay down that there 
 is not in the sacrament any virtue to work (of itself) for the sacra- 
 ment’s effect. Yet there is such virtue, &c, &e. For which 
 reason it is compared to the absolute and perfected virtue of any- 
 thing... the virtue of a principal (or initiant) acting power has 
 a permanent and complete “being” in nature; but an instru- 
 mental virtue has “a being” passing from one to another and not 
 completed. (1) Nothing prevents a spiritual virtue from existing 
 mn a body after the manner of an instrument, as there is in a 
 perceptible voice a certain spiritual force to excite a man’s under- 
 standing. [We should say that this is one of the sentences that 
 would be made true by inserting the word “not.” There is not 
 in the voice itself, &c., &c.] And in this manner there is [not] 
 a spiritual force in the sacraments. (2) As motion is not properly 
 [to be classified] in any genus...so an instrumental virtue is not 
 in any genus, &c., ἄς. (3) As an instrumental virtue is acquired 
 by an instrument from its merely being moved by a principal 
 acting force, so a sacrament also acquires a spiritual virtue from 
 
 Questio LXITI. Art. IV. 
 
 Utrum in sacramentis sit aliqua virtus causativa? Est in sacra- 
 mentis quedam instrumentalis virtus ad inducendam gratiam, ὅσο. 
 sicut instrumentum a principali agente motum. Ih qui ponunt quod 
 Sacramenta non causant gratiam nisi per quandam concomitantiam 
 (ita sentiunt qui docent sacramenta causare ‘gratiam non physice sed 
 moraliter. Illis difficile est dicere, quomodo ea intelligant ea operari 
 ex operato. Sylvius and others), ponunt quod in sacramento non 
 sit aliqua virtus, que operetur ad sacramenti effectum. Est tamen 
 virtus &c.; unde comparatur ad virtutem absolutam et perfectam 
 alicujus rei... Virtus principalis agentis habet permanens et completum 
 “esse” in natura: virtus autem instrumentalis habet “esse” transiens 
 ex uno ad alind et incompletum. (1) Nihil prohibet in corpore esse 
 virtutem spiritualem instrumentaliter, sicut in voce ipsd sensibili est 
 quedam vis spiritualis ad excitandum intellectum hominis... Et hoc 
 modo vis spiritualis est in sacramentis. (2) Sicut motus...non proprie, 
 est-in aliquo genere...ita virtus instrumentalis non est in aliquo genere, 
 &e. (3) Sicut virtus instrumentalis acquiritur instrumento ex hoc 
 1pso quod movetur ab agente principali, ita et sacramentum consequitur 
 
 11—2 
 
104 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 the benediction of Christ and its application by the minister to 
 the use of the sacrament. Hence Augustine says in some sermon 
 on the Epiphany, ‘Nor is it wonderful that we say that water 
 ‘(that of baptism)—+.e. a corporeal substance—finds its way in to 
 ‘purify the soul. It does find its way indeed and penetrates all 
 ‘the hidingplaces of the conscience. For though it be itself 
 ‘subtile and thin, it is made more subtile by the benediction of 
 ‘Christ, and goes through the hidden causes of life and mental 
 ‘secrets with its subtile dew.’ (4) As the same instrumental force 
 of a principal agent is found in all instruments ordained to an 
 effect (as they are in a certain order one), so also the same sacra- 
 mental force is found in words and things, as by words and things 
 the cne sacrament is accomplished. Note. <A virtue consists in 
 material and form together.” [Can any think that all this, acute 
 as it is in comparison of his predecessor, proves anything, as to 
 this sacrament having any inherent power of itself 7] 
 
 spiritualem virtutem ex benedictione Christi et applicatione ministri 
 ad usum sacramenti. Unde Augustinus dicit in quodam sermone 
 de Epiphania “ Nec mirum quod aquam (baptismi)—hoce est substantiam 
 “ corporalem —ad purificandam animam dicimus pervenire, Pervenit 
 “ plane et penetrat conscientie universa latibula. Quamyvis enim sit 
 “ipsa subtilis et tenuis, benedictione tamen Christi facta subtilior, 
 “occultas vite causas ac secreta mentis subtili rore pertransit.” 
 (4) Sicut eadem vis principalis agentis instrumentalis invenitur in 
 omnibus instrumentis ordinatis ad effectum (prout sunt quodam ordine 
 unum) ita etiam eadem vis sacramentalis invenitur in verbis et rebus 
 prout ex verbis et rebus perficitur unum sacramentum. Note. Virtus 
 constat in materia et forma simul. De veritate 27. 
 
 (J.) WILLIAM DURANDUS OR DURANTIS, BISHOP OF MENDE IN 
 FRANCE. B. 1230. vb. 1296. 
 
 The editor of his Rationale appositely quotes the saying of 
 Cato, that a man should be able to give a good account of the way 
 in which he spent his holiday-times as well as his busy periods, 
 since the work of Durandus on the Divine Offices was the offspring 
 of his leisure, while the setting forth of the civil law was the work 
 of his more regular toil in Bologna and Modena, And the interval 
 of leisure which he so employed was due to a change in his for- 
 tunes. The archbishopric of Ravenna he refused. John Aloisius 
 of the Apostolic Chamber, addressing the Cardinal of Terason, 
 states that Durandi has gathered into this book a statement of the 
 figures, types and reasons of things in the whole of this most 
 
1230] WILLIAM DURANDUS. - 16S 
 
 sacred mystery, and done it with the greatest accuracy: and that 
 he has gathered ideas that were scattered, and brought to light 
 things that had lain hidden. His book of civil law was called 
 “Mirror of the law,” Speculum Juris. He was French by birth, 
 but his traming was under Henry of Susa at Bologna; he died in 
 Italy, and at his death expressed a desire to be buried in Rome: 
 but it does not appear that his wishes were fulfilled. A Reperto- 
 rium Juris Canonici was compiled by him. He was a remarkable 
 man for his age. Durandus or Durand de St Porcain was his 
 nephew. ‘The surprising thing in these extracts is the number of 
 fallacies which they contain. To go through the task of exposing 
 them all would be a waste of argument almost equal to shooting 
 at a swarm of flies. And the marvel of our having such ideas pre- 
 sented to us for truth by a very accomplished bishop is to be 
 explained only by the fact that he began to think soon after the 
 council of the Lateran in which the full doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation was received as catholic truth, notwithstanding all that 
 John Scotus, Ratram, Berengarius and others had put forth 
 against it. A general corruption of reasoning is apt to follow any 
 bold outrage upon a great sacred truth. Men cannot play false 
 with conscience and understanding and then recover their moral 
 sense and clear intelligence at will. Not only qui vult decipi 
 decipiatur: but qui in uno errare mavult, in ceteris periclitatur. 
 Darkness and misinterpretations propagate themselves at certain 
 times very rapidly. To cast aside the pure love of truth at all is 
 a most perilous experiment in an individual, a nation, a church, or 
 a general council. 
 
 P. 149. “Explanation of the Divine Offices. Of the Canon 
 (Rule) of the Mass, Sanctus, &e. The church hoping to be united 
 with angels and archangels, of whom mention has been made in 
 the preface, immediately after it puts itself into conformity with 
 the angelic song, singing that hymn, ‘Holy, holy, holy, which 
 Pope Sixtus first ordained to be sung continually. For this is the 
 
 Rationale Divinorum Oficiorum, IV. c. XXXV. p. 149. Lugduni, 
 1560. De Canone Misse. Sanctus, ke. 
 
 Ecclesia sperans sociari angelis et archangelis, de quibus in pre- 
 fatione mentio facta est, statim post illam conformat se angelico cantui, 
 canens hymnum illum “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,’ quem Sixtus Papa 
 primus instituit decantari. Hic est enim cantus puerorum, quem 
 
100 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 song of the boys which they sang to the Lord when He presented 
 Himself to them in the tenth moon (who was as it were reserved 
 until the fourteenth moon) in Bethany... Of the secret mass, &c. 
 After the crying out of the notice there isa secret silence, in 
 which both the canon of the mass is said devoutly and the sacred 
 mystery is performed: which is done by the priest alone, since 
 according to Matt. xxvi. Christ prayed alone... But the rule of the 
 mass is called both the offering ... and the action, and the rule, and 
 the sacrifice, and the secret things. It is called the action on 
 account of the sacred mysteries which are done in it, and because 
 our cause is (then) pleaded with God... It is also called the secret 
 things, because it is done secretly and in silence. For Christ was 
 praying secretly and alone when He was about to come to the 
 consecration (sacrificing) of His body from the hour of supper 
 until He was hanged on the cross, which prayers of His the 
 expression ‘the secret things’ signify. [How well is it commanded 
 not to add to the Scriptures! What a revulsion one feels at this 
 intruding of the writer into the secrets of Christ’s mental history 
 at this time!] Also in ancient times the old fathers used to sacri- 
 fice in silence and partake (of the peace-offering) in silence, which 
 we also observe on (their) holy sabbath... The priest in the law 
 had his face looking towards the mercy-seat ... so our priest also 
 ought to have his heart set towards the mercy of God: and as the 
 high-priest used to enter once a year into the holy of holies 
 bearing the blood of the goat and the calf, so Christ also by His 
 own blood entered in once into the holiest, having discovered (for 
 us) eternal redemption: so also the minister of the church enters 
 with blood into the holy of holes, as often as bearing the remem- 
 
 cantaverunt Domino offerenti Se illis in decimé luna (qui quasi 
 reservatus fuit usque ad quartam decimam lunam) in Bethania...[C. 35. ] 
 De secreta, ἄρ. Post acclamatum preconium secretum  silentium, 
 quo et miss canon devoté dicitur et sacrum mysterium peragitur : quod 
 fit per solum sacerdotem ; quoniam secundum Matheum xxvi. Christus 
 solus orabat.... Canon autem miss et oblatio...et actio et canon et 
 sacrificium et secreta vocatur. Actio dicitur propter sacra mysteria 
 que in eo aguntur, et quia tune cum Deo agitur causa nostra... Dicitur 
 etiam secreta, quia secrete et sub silentio dicitur. Christus enim ad 
 consecrationem corporis Sui venturus secrete et solus orabat ab hora 
 cen usque dum suspensus est in cruce, quas orationes secreta signifi- 
 cant. Priscis quoque temporibus antiqui patres sub silentio sacrifi- 
 cabant et communicabant, quod etiam in sabbato sancto observamus. 
 [Ὁ 36.] Legalis sacerdos vultum versus propitiatorium habebat... ; 
 sic et noster ad Dei clementiam cor debet habere: et sicut pontifex 
 intrabat in sancta sanctorum semel in anno ferens sanguinem hirci 
 aut vituli, sic et Christus per proprium sanguinem introivit semel 
 in sancta, eterna redemptione inventd; sic et minister ecclesiz intrat 
 cum sanguine in sancta sanctorum, quoties in mente memoriam sanguinis 
 
1290] WILLIAM DURANDUS. 167 
 
 brance of the blood of Christ, He in secret begins the mystery ; 
 who not with his mind alone but also with the sign of the cross... 
 recites Christ’s passion. 
 
 P. 154. “Or unstained, ὦ. 6. uncorrupt; not because the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine cannot be corrupted; but because the 
 body and blood of the Son of God, in the power of the words 
 pertaining to which the (two) kinds (appearances) have been 
 transubstantiated, cannot be corrupted. Ps. οχ.... ‘Communi- 
 ‘eating. The high-priest indeed, as the law ordered, used to bear 
 a censer full of live coals with him into the holy of holies ...; and 
 Christ bare with Him to the stars the censer of His own flesh full 
 of every power (virtue). [Note. Not a word about a celestial 
 parallel to the high-priest’s carrying the blood within the veil. 
 He says Christ entered by His own blood, but not, took His own 
 blood into Heaven as if propitiation were to be wrought in Heaven, 
 which was ‘finished’ on the cross]. So our holy priest, being in the 
 place of Christ, oyght to approach to the sacrifice of the altar, 
 empty of sins and full of the odours of virtues... The priest in 
 the mass thrice kisses the altar... To mark the amount of the price 
 at which Christ was sold, the priest here generally makes three 
 crosses over the offering and the cup when he says ‘blessed, 
 ‘dedicated’ and ‘ratified, for three hundred and thirty are from 
 the number three: but afterwards to mark the selling and buying 
 (he makes) two crosses, &e. 
 
 P. 160. “Secondly, three crosses are made because Christ 
 received [1.6. the loaf from one of the disciples] and blessed and 
 
 Christi gerens secreté inchoat mysterium ; qui non solum mente sed etiam 
 crucis signaculo... Christi recitat passionem. 
 
 P, 154. 
 
 Vel illibata, i.e. incorrupta; non quia substantia panis et vini 
 corrumpi non possit; sed quia corpus et sanguis Filii Dei, in qua 
 virtute verborum species transubstantiate sunt, corrumpi non possunt. 
 Ps. ex. [C. 38.] Communicantes. Sane pontifex, ut lex jubebat, turi- 
 bulum vivis carbonibus plenum intra sancta sanctorum secum portabat 
 ...; et Christus carnis Sue turibulum omni virtute plenum tulit ad 
 astra; sic et sacer sacerdos noster, Christi vicem tenens, vacuus peccatis 
 et plenus virtatum odoribus ad sacrificium altaris accedere debet. 
 [C. 39.] Sacerdos in missa ter osculatur altare. [C. 40.] Ad designandum 
 pretii quantitatem, quo Christus venditus est, sacerdos hic facit tres 
 cruces communiter super oblatam et calicem cum dicit, ‘ benedictam,” 
 ‘‘ascriptam” et ‘“‘ratam,” nam trecenta et triginta...a numero ternario : 
 postmodum autem ad designandam venditionem et emptionem duas 
 cruces, dc. 
 
 ΡΣ ΤΟΙ 
 
 Secundo fiunt tres cruces...quia Christus accepit, benedixit et dedit. 
 
108 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 gave (to them). Afterwards he makes one cross specially on the 
 oblation because (Christ said) ‘Hat ye, &c.’ and another over the 
 cup because He said, ‘Drink ye, &c. ‘Thirdly three crosses are 
 made because Judas sold Christ to be crucified by three, z.e. the 
 priests, the scribes, and the Pharisees, ὅθ. Evyapioria, which is 
 explained in Latin by Isidore as good grace: or according to others 
 the giver of grace [astonishing ἢ, But-it is called ‘ Host,’ victim, 
 according to the Jews, from ‘ostium, the gate, since it was 
 offered at the gate of the tabernacle ; but according to the Gentiles 
 [1.6., e.g. Ovid] from ‘hostis,’ an enemy, &c. 
 
 P. 163. “The Greeks however persisting in their error, make 
 it of leavened bread, calling the Latins Azymites [users of unlea- 
 vened bread]. 
 
 P. 164. “Since the Lord first brake before He consecrated, it 
 seems that the church which consecrates before it breaks, acts in 
 the contrary way to what Christ did, and so sins, since His action 
 ought to be our teaching, &c., ἕο, [the excuses to be made for the 
 church in so ruling in this matter]. It can indeed be said that 
 Christ with Divine virtue first accomplished hidden things for us, 
 and afterwards uttered the form under which men commg after 
 Him should bless. For He Himself blessed with His own virtue; 
 but we out of that virtue, which He put into the words. When 
 therefore the priest pronounces those words of Christ, ‘This is My 
 ‘body, the bread and wine are converted into body and blood, by 
 that force of the word by which the Word was made flesh and 
 
 Postmodum specialiter facit unam crucem super oblatam quia dixit, 
 Comedite, &c. et alteram super calicem quia dixit, Bibite, ἄς. Tertio 
 fiunt tres cruces quia Judas vendidit Christum ad crucifigendum tribus, 
 scilicet sacerdotibus, scribis et Pharisxis, &e. ἄς, [C. 41.] εὐχαριστία 
 quod Latine exponitur per Isidorum bona gratia: vel secundum alios 
 dator gratiz... Hostia vero secundum Hebrzos dicitur ab ostio quoniam 
 ad ostium tabernaculi offerebatur: sed secundum Gentiles.ab hoste. 
 
 P. 163; 
 
 Greci tamen, in suo persistentes errore, de fermentato eonficiunt, 
 Latinos azymitas vocantes. 
 
 P. 164. 
 
 Cum Dominus prius fregerit quam consecraverit, videtur quod 
 ecclesia, que prius consecrat quam frangat, aliter agat quam Christus 
 egerit, et sic peccat, quoniam Ejus actio nostra debet esse instructio... 
 Long and insufiicient explanation, ending Sane dici potest quod Christus 
 virtute Divina nobis occulta primo confecit et postea formam expressit 
 sub qua posteri benedicant. Ipse namque virtute propria benedixit ; 
 nos vero ex illa virtute quam indidit verbis. Cum ergo sacerdos illa 
 Christi verba pronunciat, Hoc est, &c., panis et vinum in carnem 
 et sanguinem convertuntur illa verbi virtute, qua Verbum caro factum 
 
. 
 
 1290] WILLIAM DURANDUS. 169 
 
 dwelt among us, because He said and they were made, He com- 
 manded and they were created, by which He changed a woman 
 (Lot’s wife) into a statue and converted a rod into a serpent, and 
 fountains into blood and water into wine. For if the word of 
 Elyah could bring down fire from Heaven, could not Christ’s word 
 change bread into flesh? Certainly it is greater to create that 
 which is not out of nothing than it is to transmute it into another 
 thing... and incomparably greater is it that God was made man, 
 that He ceased not to be God, than that bread so becomes flesh, 
 and that it ceases to be bread. That former thing was once done 
 by the incarnation, the latter is done continually by the conse- 
 cration. Therefore at the putting forth then of the words the 
 bread is transubstantiated by Divine power into flesh. For the 
 Word is the Divine and material substance of this sacrifice ; which 
 coming to the element accomplishes a sacrament, as the Word 
 united to the flesh made the man Christ. But it must be observed 
 that in the body of Christ eleven miracles are being considered, of 
 which an express account cannot be given. ‘The first is that the 
 bread and wine are transubstantiated, ἕο, The second that there 
 is no augmenting of God by it, &. The third, that it is daily 
 received and eaten, nor is there any diminution of it. ‘The fourth 
 is that an indivisible thing is divided and remains whole and entire 
 in any part of the eucharist whatever. The reason is, as in a glass 
 in which anything is represented, and if it be divided into parts, 
 the same whole is represented in any part whatever.  ['This illus- 
 tration can hardly be termed fallacious argument.| The sixth, 
 that Christ’s body which is the food of life becomes deadly in the 
 
 est et habitavit in nobis; quia, Dixit et facta sunt, mandavit et creata 
 sunt, qua foeminam mutavit in statuam, et virgam convertit in colu- 
 brem, qua fontes mutavit in sanguinem, et aqguam in vinum. Nam si 
 verbum Heliz potuit ignem de celo deponere, nonne verbum Christi 
 potuit panem in carnem mutare? Certe majus est de nihilo creare 
 quod non est, quam quod est in aliud transmutare...et incomparabiliter 
 majus est quam [leye quod] Deus ita factus est homo, quod non desiit 
 esse Deus, quam quod panis ita fit caro, quod desinit esse panis, Ilud 
 per incarnationem semel factum est, istud per consecrationem jugiter 
 fit. Ad prolationem igitur verborum panis Divinitus transubstantiatur 
 in carnem, Divina enim et materialis hujus sacrificii substantia est 
 Verbum: quod accedens ad elementum perficit sacramentum sicut 
 Verbum carni unitum effecit hominem Christum. Notandum est 
 autem quod in corpore Christi undecim miracula considerantur, de 
 quibus expressa ratio reddi non potest... Primum est quod panis et 
 vinum transubstantiantur, &e, Secundum...quod...nullum augmentum 
 fitin Deo, &c, Tertium quia quotidie sumitur et comeditur nec aliqua 
 fit ejus diminutio. Quartum est quia indivisibile dividitur et in qualibet 
 parte eucharistiz totus et integer remanet. Ratio, in speculo in quo 
 aliquid representatur: et, si dividatur in partes, in qualibet parte 
 idem representatur.. Sextum, quia corpus Christi quod est cibus vite 
 
170 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 case of sinners. The seventh, that when it is taken and the 
 mouth shut, it is carried off to heaven [to join the rest of Christ’s 
 body]. The eighth, Though it is a body of unlimited magnitude 
 it stands in so small a (thing as the) host. The ninth, that the 
 same body has been made to be in such divers places at the same 
 time, and is received (in each) by different persons. And the 
 reason seems to be because both a word of men once put forth, 
 is, according to the nature of the voice, all at the same time ἴῃ 
 the ears of divers persons. [Another illustration ex diverso in 
 genere.|_ Besides, He Who made body and place, made both to 
 be in either as He will. Again the sun and the moon and light 
 are seen by different persons in divers places. The tenth, that the 
 accidents of bread remain, &c. The eleventh, that under the appear- 
 ance of bread are and are received the body and the blood, yea the 
 whole Christ. In like manner under the appearance of wine, &c. 
 And yet there is not a double receiving twice. 
 
 P. 165. After five reasons why Christ’s body and blood have 
 the appearance of bread and wine. “‘ He brake.’ People usually 
 ask what it was that Christ brake at the table and what it is that 
 the priest breaks on the altar. And some were found to say that 
 as the true accidents of bread remain after consecration, so also 
 does the true substance of the bread: because a subject cannot 
 subsist without its accidents, and so accidents cannot subsist 
 without their subject; since the being (or nature) of an accident is 
 nothing else than to be in (some subject). But that while the 
 substances of bread and wine continue up to the putting forth of 
 those words, the body and blood of Christ begin to be truly under 
 
 peccatoribus est mortale, &e. Septimum, quia sumptum... ore clauso, 
 in celum rapitur. Octavum, cum sit corpus immensum quod in tam 
 parva hostid stat. Nonum, quod idem corpus totum simul in diversis 
 locis constitit et a diversis percipitur, et videtur ratio quia et verbum 
 hominum, semel prolatum, juxta vocis naturam, totum simul est in 
 auribus diversorum. Preeterea Qui fecit corpus et locum, utrumque 
 fecit in altero esse ut vult. Rursus luna et sol et lumen in diversis 
 locis a diversis videntur. Decimum, quia...remanent accidentia panis, 
 &e. Undecimum, quia sub specie panis est et sumitur corpus et sanguis 
 imo totus Christus. Similiter sub specie vini, &c. Et tamen non est 
 bis duplex sumptio, το. 
 aD: 
 
 After five reasons why Christ’s body is given to us under another 
 form. On the word “Fregit,” Queri solet quid Christus in mensa 
 fregit et quid sacerdos in altari frangit. Et fuerunt qui dixerunt quod 
 sicut post consecrationem vera panis remanent accidentia, sic et vera 
 panis substantia : quia subjectum non potest subsistere sine accidentibus, 
 sic accidentia non possunt subsistere sine subjecto : quoniam accidentis 
 esse non est aliud quam inesse. Sed panis et vini substantiis perma- 
 nentibus ad prolationem ilorum verborum, corpus et sanguis Christi 
 
1230] WILLIAM DURANDUS. 171 
 
 them, so that both substances are truly included under the same 
 accidents; that is, (both) bread and flesh (both) wine and blood ; 
 one of each of which pair the sense allows; the remaining one 
 faith believes (to be there)... From the recantation of Beren- 
 garius... But if it be asked, What does a mouse eat, when the 
 sacrament is eaten by it (corroditur would be gnawed), or what is 
 burned when the sacrament is burned? Innocent himself answers 
 that the substance as of bread is miraculously turned into the 
 Lord’s body when it begins to exist under the sacrament, so in 
 some miraculous way it returns when it ceases to be there itself 
 (any more); not that that substance of bread, which passed into 
 flesh, returns; but that something is by a miracle created in its 
 place. [To what strange hypotheses believers in the actual change 
 are driven! We should be too, were it true. | 
 
 P. 179. “The high-priest, as the law ordered.. used to sprinkle 
 the table and the altar and the holy place without with the 
 peace-making blood. And Christ so often sprinkles the Father 
 with blood [How dares any man add such a detail to God’s book 1] 
 as often as He appeases (propitiates) Him by the presence of the 
 flesh which He took unto Him. He sprinkles the altar as long as 
 He renews the diminished number of the angels. He sprinkles the 
 outer sanctuary, while He sanctifies [1.6. justifies] men [properly 
 makes them holy, 1.6. accepted as such] and reconciles them while 
 they are on earth to the Father. The priest sprinkles them because 
 this sacrifice propitiates God and obtains for them pardon, (for) in 
 this (latter) way also He sprinkles it over such. But He sprinkles 
 the inner tabernacle as has been said in the preceding clause (or 
 
 veraciter incipiunt esse sub illis, ita quod sub eisdem accidentibus 
 utrumque vere suscipitur: scilicet panis et caro vinum et sanguis 
 quorum alterum probat sensus: reliquum credit fides... Berengarius’ 
 confession to Pope Nicholas.. Si vero queeratur quid a mure comeditur 
 dum sacramentum comeditur, vel quid incineratur dum sacramentum 
 crematur, respondet ipse Tnnocentius, quod sicut miraculose substantia 
 panis convertitur in corpus Domini cum incipit esse sib sacramento, 
 sic quodammodo miraculose revertitur, cum ipsum ibi desinit esse, 
 non quod illa panis substantia revertatur que transivit in carnem sed 
 ejus loco aliquid miraculose creatur, ὅθ. [How much of this does 
 Durandus accept for true 1] 
 
 Cael ly pe C19: 
 
 Pontifex, ut lex jubebat...aspergebat tabulam et aram et exterius 
 sacrum sanguine pacifico. Ht Christus toties aspergit Patrem sanguine, 
 quoties Hum placat per carnem assumptam. Aram aspergit quamdiu 
 numerum restaurat angelorum, Exterius sacrum aspergit dum homines 
 sanctificat, et Patri, qui in terris sunt, reconciliat. Sacerdos eosdem 
 aspergit quia hoe sacrificium placat Deum et veniam impetrat et sic 
 etiam super hos aspergit. Aspergit autem intus tabernaculum, prout 
 
172 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 portion). But whilst the writer (Moses) names the high altar he 
 commemorates by it the (heavenly) holy of holies.” [The brazen 
 altar in the court of the congregation was sprinkled in the day of 
 atonement with blood from the slain goat and bullock. The ark 
 was not an altar, nor does Moses call it sublime altar, or altar at 
 
 all.] 
 
 in precedente particula dictum est. Dum autem hic nominat sublime 
 altare, commemorat sancta sanctorum. 
 
 (K.) DUNS SCOTUS (PROPERLY JOHN OF DUNSTAN, IN 
 NORTHUMBERLAND). B. 1265. D. 1308. 
 
 He is the great antagonist of Thomas Aquinas, both as taking 
 the Nominalist side of the question of universals, or as we say of 
 general ideas, and as being a Franciscan ; whereas Aquinas was a 
 Realist and a Dominican. He was followed by a very stiff rea- 
 soner, also from Great Britian, William Occam, who attacked the 
 political side of Papal Supremacy. The name of Duns is an 
 abbreviation for Dunstane, his birthplace in Northumberland. It 
 is so recorded in the Merton College Library manuscript of his 
 works. Scotus was sent to Oxford by a college of Minim monks 
 at Newcastle. He passed through as full a training as Merton 
 College in Oxford could supply, and then proceeded to lecture 
 at Paris; and borne up by his powerful order and his own “most 
 “subtil” intellect, he surpassed the best of the existing Dominicans 
 and reigned supreme at the Sorbonne as Professor and Regent of 
 the theological school. He, like Albertus Magnus, died at Cologne. 
 He was the last of the giants in scholasticism with their gigantic 
 arrays of many folio volumes. But his are but 12 folios. Perhaps 
 this is a good place to insert a translation of Lord Bacon’s judg- 
 ment upon them in his preface to his Novum Organon. “The 
 “dialectic art coming to man’s aid too late and not able to rally 
 “our broken forces, speut its strength rather im making mistaken 
 “discoveries, than in opening truth to mankind.” Possibly Bacon 
 might find “doctrine inquinate” and “vanissima idola” in our 
 doctrinal horizon. Duns wrote his Commentary on Lombard while 
 he was at Oxford. 
 
 It is related by William Vorill that he witnessed the following 
 encounter of wits between Duns and a Scotsman in England, to 
 
1265] DUNS SCOTUS. 173 
 
 which Duns was paying a visit. The North country peasant, with 
 that excess of predestinarian proclivities which is perhaps now at 
 length dying out in the country, remonstrated against some reli- 
 gious appeal that Duns made to him. “Why,” said he, “talk so 
 “to me? If God has foreseen that I shall be saved, I shall 
 “infallibly be saved, let me do well or ill; but if He has foreseen 
 “my damnation, nothing can preserve me from it.” The answer 
 of Duns was, “If God does all that you think in the way of irre- 
 “vocable necessity, why do you sow the ground? If God has 
 “foreseen that corn will grow here, it will push forth, whether you 
 “sow or not. If He has foreseen that it will not, your labour is 
 “useless.” Duns is credited with having given a general check to 
 the system of Aquinas, which had by this time become almost 
 universal. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is attri- 
 buted to him; but it is traceable in one of Bernard’s letters. 
 The almost frozen coolness of his mind comes out in a little word 
 of his. He was with a party of pleasure-takers when the general’s 
 order to go to Cologne to dispute with the Beghards was delivered 
 to him. He turned to set out immediately. “ Will you not go to 
 “the house,” said one, “and say farewell?” His reply was, “The 
 “general orders me to go to Cologne, but there is no word about 
 “going to my house first.” He used Aristotle less than his 
 precursors. 
 
 P. 566. “Whether the sacraments of the new law have an 
 active causality in relation to grace. In one of the collects, it is 
 said, ‘May the sacraments accomplish in us, O Lord, what they 
 ‘contain.’ But sacraments do not contain (grace) really; they 
 contain it virtually [1.6. by having a virtue, to give it] as a cause 
 contains the end, by having a virtue to accomplish it. Also, if the 
 sacraments of the new law do not give grace, unless because God 
 gives grace to those that use them, then a sacrament does not of 
 its own strength justify ...and then they are not different from the 
 
 Vol. XI, Part ΤΠ Qu. TIT. p. 566. Lugduni, 1689. 
 
 Utrum sacramenta nove legis habeant causalitatem activam respectu 
 gratie ? In quadam collecta dicitur ‘ Perficiant in nobis, Domine, 
 “sacramenta quod continent.” Sed sacramenta non continent realiter ; 
 
 . continent eam virtualiter, sicut causa continet effectum in sud 
 virtute... Item si sacramenta nove legis non dent gratiam, nisi quia ea 
 suscipientibus Deus det gratiam ; tune ex vi sacramentum non justificat 
 ...et tune non differre a sacramentis veteris legis. Zrgo videtur quod 
 
174 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 _ sacraments of the old law. Therefore it seems that they produce 
 that grace which they confer... From Augustine. So great is 
 the virtue of the water that it touches the body and washes the 
 heart clean, &c. ... but this is only by conferring grace, ὅσο... Ts 
 is competent to God alone to illuminate souls ; but souls are illumi- 
 nated by grace ; therefore He Himself alone causes it in the soul... 
 Whether there is any supernatural force (in sacraments) which is 
 _in any way a cause of grace in the soul. It is argued that there 
 is not. Against it. It does not wash the soul clean except by 
 bringing in grace. Further, The medicine of the soul itself 1s 
 spiritual. But medicine has some virtue for healing. Otherwise 
 “10 were not medicine. Further, &c. [It is notable how near this 
 scholastic philosopher comes to the pure Bible truth that sacra- 
 ments do not carry, convey or confer grace, but solely lead and 
 help us to seek and obtain it from God Himself. Scholastic phi- 
 losophers are not to be cast away.] The water and the word as 
 they have regard to the rightness of the sacrament have in respect 
 of unseen and imperceptible grace the relation of a perceptible 
 sign. Therefore some absolute virtue is required in them in 
 respect of creating new grace. Opinions of the Divine Thomas. 
 Scholium 1. That they (the sacraments) are causes of grace 
 because they instrumentally and physically cause not grace itself 
 but the disposition preparatory to it. [Just the truth as sit appears 
 to me.| It is said, They have some efficacy of themselves in fe: 
 of grace, because there would not otherwise have been (any) 
 causes of grace, except subordinate causes, without which the thing 
 could not be. This is inconsistent. For the definition of a sacra- 
 ment is a visible form of an invisible grace, to generate a likeness 
 (of mind) to the grace and to exist as a cause. This suggests that 
 
 gratiam illam quam conferunt efficiant. [A curious inference.] Item 
 Aug.... Tanta est virtus aque ut corpus tangat et cor abluat, We. ... 
 sed hoc non est nisi conferendo gratiam, &.... Item Aug. Soli Deo con- 
 venit illuminare animas; sed anime illuminantur per gratiam, ergo Ipse 
 solus causat in anima... Qn. 4. Utrum insit aliqua virtus super- 
 naturalis que sit aliquo modo causa gratie in anima, Arguitur quod 
 non. Contra, non abluit animam (Aug.) nisi inducendo gratiam. Item, 
 Est medicina spiritualis ipsius anime. Sed medicina habet aliquam 
 virtutem ad sanandum. Aliter non esset medicina. Item... Aqua et verbum 
 ut concernunt rectitudinem sacramenti habent relationem signi sensibilis 
 respectu gratiz invisibilis et insensibilis. Ergo requiritur im eis aliqua 
 virtus absoluta nove respectu gratize creande. Adducit sententias 
 Τὴ. Thom ... Scholium τ. Esse causas gratie, quia instrumentaliter 
 et physice causant non ipsam gratiam sed dispositionem ejus previam. 
 1. Dicitur, Aliquam per se efficaciam habent respectu gratiz, quia 
 aliter non essent cause gratiz nisi cause sine quibus non. Hoe est 
 inconveniens. Definitio enim sacramenti...est invisibilis gratiz visibilis 
 forma, ut gratie similitudinem generet et causa existat. Hoc innuit, aliter 
 
᾿ 
 
 1265] | DUNS SCOTUS. 175 
 
 otherwise all is false. But they distinguish an efficient cause. 
 There is an efficient disposing, an efiic sient accomplishing cause. 
 Nor does it attain grace of its own action as a principal, or instru- 
 mentally: but it is an acting cause disposing to grace, and this 
 not by a virtue belonging to it, but in virtue of a principal acting 
 cause, (itself) attaining and inducing a certain disposition in the 
 soul towards the laying hold of grace...in a certain way compelling 
 of necessity the laying hold of grace and its infusion into the mind. 
 [This makes the sacrament efficient in all cases. We see daily 
 abundant crowds of cases that disprove such an assertion.]... 
 There is some virtue inhering in it in respect of the creating of 
 grace (in the soul), and that virtue is a thing of an absolute character 
 not simply in respect (of the action of others)... This virtue cannot 
 be relative, because it is neither the beginning nor the end of an 
 action. Therefore it is an absolute cause. But if you ask of what 
 kind that cause is, not fixed and quiet as of a principal acting 
 cause, but after the manner of an instrumental agent in continual 
 flow: and that so itis. Scholium 1. It impugns the meaning of 
 Divine Thomas that a disposition towards grace is as much an end 
 
 of the creating as the grace itself: but a creature cannot create. 
 
 _ The effect is caused when the sacrament itself is ended; therefore 
 
 the grace is not caused by it as by a physical action... Schol. m1. 
 He refutes another of the scholia of Aquinas, as far as he places a 
 supernatural virtue in the sacrament. Iv. It causes grace in 
 part—in those that put no obstacle Gnfants chiefly). v. The 
 ultimate virtue of the power of a practical sign, ze. to signify, is 
 effected, 1.6. that it always and certainly has the effect which it 
 
 esse falsa. Sed distinguunt causam efficientem...efliciens disponens...efti- 
 ciens perficiens; nec principaliter nec instrumentaliter attingit gratiam 
 actione sud: sed est agens disponens ad gratiam et hoc non virtute propria, 
 sed in virtute principalis agentis attingens et inducens quamdam dis- 
 positionem in anima ad gratiz susceptionem...quodammodo necessitans 
 ad gratiz susceptionem et infusionem. [This word necessitans is dis- 
 cordant.| Qn. 1. Est aliqua virtus inherens respectu gratis creande, 
 et ista virtus est aliquid absolutum non respectu... Hee virtus non 
 potest esse relatio, quia nec est principium actionis nec terminus. 
 Ergo est aliquid absolutum ... Sed si queris qualis sit ista virtus, non 
 fixa et quieta sicut principalis agentis, sed per modum instrumentalis 
 agentis in continuo fluxu: et “fieri.” [So the proposition is denied. | 
 Scholium It. Impugnat sensum D. Thome quia dispositio ad gratiam 
 est terminus creationis sicut ipsa gratia; sed...creatura creare non 
 potest. Effectus causatur quando ipsum desinit ; ergo non physice ab 
 ipso causatur, &e. Schol. mi. rv. and v. follow τ᾿. Schol. Refutat 
 D. Thom. quatenus virtutem ponit supernaturalem in sacramento. 
 Iv. Ex parte causare gratiam in non ponente obicem. vy. Virtus ultima 
 potentiz signi practici, i.e. significare eflicitur, i.e. semper et certo 
 habere effectum quem significat, quantum est ex se. [These two last 
 
1760 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [4.Ὁ 
 
 signifies, as far as it comes from itself. Not any absolute virtue, 
 but only a sign effectually representing the principal form and 
 its own signified sacrament; and whoever receives it unfeignedly 
 becomes a friend of God and is accepted by God through grace, 
 and God assists those, that that, which it marks, may be in it. 
 [Does not this deserve something better than Lord Bacon’s 
 sweeping rebuke? Is there no glimpse of truth beyond what 
 shone out before 7] 
 
 P. 589. “Of the substance of the soul. Without a bodily 
 form the truth of the eucharist is not secured. Without a form it 
 cannot truly be said, ‘This is My body.’ When it is said, This is 
 My blood, it cannot be pretended that only the material of blood 
 is there, or material in a quantitative mode, therefore the same is 
 to be said in this case. ‘This is My body’ is not laid down as 
 detracting from the truth of flesh, bones, &. Against. It is 
 impossible that an unextended form should give a ‘being’ ex- 
 tended in a formal manner. ‘The presence of Christ’s soul is not 
 laid down under the appearance of bread or wine, by the force of 
 the words, but only by the force of the natural connexion with 
 body and blood... Therefore by the force of (those) words now as 
 then a true body is declared (laid down) under the forms of bread 
 (and wine) and by consequence a most true body distinct from the 
 soul... That the body of Christ was not the same body alive and 
 dead. It would have another form different in appearance or 
 (even) kind after death. A falsity. Ambrose and Leo. A caution. 
 That the body of Christ is to be eaten alive or dead, but not in 
 the way of form. Against. It is not the same if it is in substance 
 
 words are what Bucer so well denies.] Non aliqua virtus absoluta, sed 
 solum signum, efficaciter repreesentans formam principalem et suum 
 signatum; et quicunque id recipiat sine fictione fit amicus Dei et 
 accipitur a Deo per gratiam, et illos assistit Deus, ut insit quod designat. 
 
 Vol. IT. p. 589. De anime subs. disp. ὃ 4. 
 
 Sine forma corporeitatis non salvatur veritas eucharistiz. Sine 
 forma non vere dicitur, Hoc est corpus Meum. Quando dicitur, Hic 
 est sanguis Meus, non potest fingi ibi tantum esse materiam solam 
 sanguinis vel materiam eam modo quantitativo, ergo idem hie dicendum. 
 “Hoc est,” &c., non ponitur distrahens a veritate carnis ossis, de. 
 Contra. Impossibile quod forma inextensa det esse extensum for- 
 maliter. Non ponitur anima sub specie panis vel vini ex vi verborum, 
 sed tantum ex vi naturalis connexionis cum corpore et sanguine... 
 Ergo ex vi verborum nunc sicut et tune ponitur verum corpus sub 
 speciebus panis et per consequens verissimum corpus ab anima 
 distinctum. [The premiss draws all after it.].... Corpus Christi non 
 esset idem vivum et mortuum. MHaberet aliam formam specie vel 
 genere distinctam post mortem. Jalsitas. Amb. Leo. Cavet. Corpus 
 Christi vivum et mortuum esse edendum, non autem formaliter. Contra. 
 
1265] DUNS SCOTUS. 177 
 
 changed into another form. Conclusion. That no substance is 
 produced de novo in an animal’s death. That the same form re- 
 mains... the same accidents; it must be held that the same spirit 
 remains, because there is nothing in this case which compels us to 
 correct the evidence of the senses... Suarez. The generation of 
 one thing is the corruption of another. He himself pretends that 
 (John) Scotus pretends there are new forms, when Scotus denies 
 that bread is flesh. 
 
 P. 498. “If you ask, Why the apostles themselves did not 
 place the mystery of the eucharist in their creed, since, as I said 
 before, it is more necessary and useful to salvation than other 
 mysteries that they placed in that creed? I answer, In my judg- 
 ment the reason is, since they daily attain to Him [unless you 
 read ‘id, 7t] and it was commemorated by the faithful (thus) 
 [I should like to read ‘erat quotidie consequutum’]: there was no 
 danger that it should be forgotten: and thus there was no neces- 
 sity to entrust it to the memory in a creed: as neither were other 
 things a sacrament, baptisms, confession, orders, &c. (The church) 
 willed to place in the creed the mysteries removed from the senses, 
 which men could easily forget, if they were not put forward to be 
 committed to memory by men themselves. 
 
 P. 523. “It does not seem more impossible that Christ’s body 
 should be with the one than with the other. Therefore it is not 
 more repugnant that it should be with the substance of bread than 
 
 Non est idem si mutatum in aliam formam substantialiter. Conclusio. 
 Nullam substantiam de novo in interitu animalis produci, Manere 
 eandem formam...eadem accidentia. Tenendum est manere eundem 
 spiritum, quia nihil est quod cogit in hoc corrigere sensum. Suarez. 
 Generatio unius est corruptio alterius. Ipse fingit Scotum fingere 
 novas formas, cum panem carnem neget Scotus. [More worthy of 
 rebuke. | 
 
 VII. p. 498, Part 1. Lib. 111. Sententiarum Disp. XXV. XXVI. 
 
 Si quzeras, cur ipsi apostoli non posuerunt in symbolo suo mysterium 
 eucharistiz, quod, ut jam dixi, magis necessarium et‘utile est ad salutem 
 quam alia mysteria in symbolo posita? Respondeo meo judicio rationem 
 esse, quando quidem eum quotidie consequuntur et commemoratum 
 fidelibus, non erat periculum ut ejus oblivisceretur; et sic non erat 
 necesse ut in symbolo memorize commendaretur; sicut nec alia sacra- 
 mentum, baptismi, confessio, ordines, &c. Solo in symbolo ponere 
 volebat mysteria remota a sensibus quorum facile oblivisci potuerunt 
 homines si non proponerentur ipsis memorize commendanda, 
 
 Vol. V. p. 523. 
 Non magis impossibile videtur corpus Christi esse cum illo quam 
 cum isto. Ergo non magis repugnat esse cum substantia panis quam 
 
 ἘΠ Ἢ: 12 
 
178 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 with mere quantity, &c. and thus of everything (accident) besides... 
 and then further. But if it can be otherwise than where it is 
 under the mode not natural to itself, surely then also under the 
 natural.” [It is singular that a scholastic philosopher who was 
 almost the last of their company had not suspected or discovered 
 that there is no ground for believing that the Apostles’ Creed was 
 composed anywhere near the apostles’ time, or that daily commu- 
 nion was practised anything like as early as the first century. | 
 
 cum quantitate, &c., et sic de quocunque alio... et tune ultra. Si potest 
 autem esse aliter quam ubi est sub modo non naturali sibi, ergo et sub 
 naturali. [But we deny both in this world now. ote. It is curious 
 how many of the Latin phrases and words in these extracts have with 
 slight or no modification of their senses come into vernacular English, 
 e.g. “concernere” to look to, gives us the word “what concerns us ;” and 
 then the substantive “ our concerns.” 
 
 (L.) NICEPHORUS BLEMMIDAS. FL. 1250. 
 
 He is one of those in whom the essential spirit of the received 
 formula, “ Nolo episcopari,” was exhibited. In 1255, forty years 
 after Innocent IIL.’s great transubstantiation council, he a simple 
 presbyter and monk received from John Theodore Ducas Lascaris 
 the emperor an offer of the metropolitan patriarchate, and he 
 thought it his duty to decline it. He stands out in no doubtful 
 colours in another remarkable way, which the world can ill afford 
 to forget. The charms of a woman who had abandoned virtue 
 had so fascinated and shall we say “had so besotted” the emperor, 
 that as in other instances of similar royal moral infatuation she 
 ruled at court over everybody. Her name was Marchesina. In 
 the fulness of her confidence she presented herself to receive the 
 sacred bread and wine at the chapel of the convent, of which 
 Blemmidas was abbot. We keep his first name Nicephorus for 
 another man. He without real hesitation, through a deep sense 
 of what was involved in such a step, refused her, and constrained 
 her to withdraw. Some of the expressions he uses in his self- 
 justificatory letter are extracted to carry on the representation of 
 the views prevalent in the East at this critical time. He wrote on 
 the Procession of the Spirit, but in behalf of the Western view, as 
 also did Veccus, another Eastern star. He also wrote epitomes of 
 logic, physics, and against Plotinus, the Neo-Platonist, on the soul. 
 He wrote also on the Psalms and John, and on geography, medi- 
 cine, &c. 
 
1250] NICEPHORUS BLEMMIDAS. 179 
 
 P. 1101. “The princess (7.e. of the court) Marchesina tyranni- 
 cally stole into the venerable monastery of St Gregory Thauma- 
 turge, where we were living, and also entered into God’s temple, 
 while the sacrifice of the mass was proceeding, and she was 
 put out by us from the sacred assembly and with disgrace driven 
 away... That execrable woman streamed in with all her train 
 and into the very temple while the Divine and mystic sacrifice 
 was being fulfilled... We put out our whole force and cast out 
 the profane woman from the sacred places. For he that studies 
 to please man is not Christ’s servant, and unto them, regarding 
 whom all men speak right things, the true word ‘ Woe’ is assigned. 
 And although the opinion of many is not the same as ours, never- 
 theless we are taught neither to envy them that do wickedly nor 
 to imitate them that work iniquity. And if those who do so are 
 (our) fathers (yet) they must be neglected and Christ must be 
 followed. We must adhere to His footsteps and depend on His 
 justifying (sufferings). For he who does not work in this way is 
 not worthy of Christ. Relying on thoughts like these we straight- 
 way thrust out the impious woman from the sacred temple and 
 did not dare to exhibit the holy bread to an immodest and unclean 
 person nor to utter the words of the sacred sacrifice, splendid as 
 they are and spotless as pearls, in the presence of one that con- 
 tinually wallows in the mud and filth of adultery. Wherefore we 
 (will) endure what attacks are made upon us in consequence and 
 what punishments we have to suffer.” 
 
 Epistola de Marchesina. Opera, Migne, Vol. LXXTI. p. 1101. 
 
 Principem Marchesinam ... tyrannice in venerandum Sancti Gregorii 
 Thaumaturgi monasterium ubi nos degebamus irrepsisse, Introisse etiam 
 in Dei templum, cum sacrificium missee fieret, et exclusam fuisse per nos 
 a sacra auditione atque cum dedecore fugatam... Cum omni apparatu 
 et in ipsum templum, dum Divinum ac mysticum sacrificium confi- 
 ciebatur [Jerome’s word, eight centuries earlier] execrabilis illa influxit 
 ... Nos... totis conatibus e sacris locis profanam ejicimus... Qui enim 
 studet ut hominibus placeat servus Christi non est: et.de quibus omnes 
 homines recta enuntiant ; illis verus sermo ‘“‘ Vee” impertitus. Et licet 
 multorum non eadem est ac nostri sententia, veruntamen neque malitiose 
 facientes emulari docemur, neque imitari operantes iniquitatem. Et, si 
 hi patres sunt, negligendi sunt, sectandusque est Christus. Ilius vestigiis 
 inherendum est ; ex Illius justificationibus dependendum. [An Eastern 
 Luther 1 | Namque qui non operatur hoc modo, dignus Christo non est. 
 His freti cogitationibus statim e sacris edibus impiam pellimus, neque 
 sanctum panem inverecunde atque immunde exhibere ausi sumus, neque 
 ante volutantem sese continuo in ceno ac adulterii sordibus splendida et 
 instar margaritarum candida sacrosancti sacrificii verba mittere. Quare 
 in Domino que nobis inferuntur danturque sustinemus. 
 
 12—2 
 
180 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (M.) JOHANNES DE PARISIIS. Ὁ. 1306. 
 
 He is the originator of the theory called the impanation of 
 Christ. Objecting to the belief of the change of the subject or 
 substance of the bread while its sensible qualities remained, he 
 took the theory of what might be termed bi-substantiation, viz. 
 that both substances or, as he expresses it, both the corporeities, 
 are there: or, to express it otherwise, the paneity of the bread is 
 mutually united with the corporeity of Christ’s body. But what 
 does he gain by this? He has still the substance or corporeity of 
 Christ’s body there without any of its own sensible properties: so 
 that his invention reminds one of Burke’s saying of Godwin’s 
 Political Philosophy, What is true in his theory is old, and what is 
 new is wrong. But this may be said of transubstantiation also 
 and of all the varieties of human invention. The Master’s sayings 
 are the old and the true. Yet his followers were so proud of his 
 intelligence as to give him a nickname not complimentary to his 
 opponents, viz. Johannes pungens asinum. It sounds worse in 
 French. However, it must be allowed that his opinions did in 
 some points lean over to what were called in the German Refor- 
 mation Sacramentarian opinions, ὦ.6. laying more stress on the 
 sacrament being a fruitful sigN of spiritual feeding upon Christ 
 than was palatable at Rome. But just as might have been ex- 
 pected from Paris being the centre of discussion, Gieseler in a note 
 about this author says from Bulzus that the court of Rome sus- 
 pected many of the Parisian professors of heretical leanings on the 
 Lord’s supper, and John’s licence to preach and teach was taken 
 away. He appealed to Rome against the sentence and went 
 thither and died there not long after his arrival. 
 
 On Christ's body's mode of existence in the sacrament of the altar 
 being different from that which the church holds—now first 
 published from the parchment MS of the school of S. Victor in 
 Paris, to which is prefixed a historical preface on the dogma of 
 Transubstantiation by P. Allix. London, 1686. 
 
 De modo existendi corporis Christi in sacramento altaris alio quam 
 sit ule quem tenet ecclesia, nune primum edita ew MS. codice δ. 
 Victoris, Paris, cui prefixa est prefatio historica de dogmate 
 Transubstantiationis scripta per P. Allix. London, 1686. Camb. 
 Univ. Inb. Bo, 12. 1. 
 
—1306] JOHANNES DE PARISIIS. AST 
 
 P. 86. “First, that there are two ways of understanding that 
 the substance of the bread remains under its own accidents in the 
 sacrament of the altar. In one mode thus—that the substance of 
 the bread in the sacrament of the altar remains under its own 
 accidents in its own subject-matter: but that would be false, 
 because there would not be any communication of particular pro- 
 perties between the bread and Christ’s body, nor would it be true 
 to say ‘Bread is Christ’s body,’ nor ‘ My flesh is truly meat’ [This 
 was probably the belief of not a few before a bona fide change of 
 the substance of the bread, &c. into Christ’s body, ὅσ. came to be 
 the generally received idea ages and ages before 1215.].... In 
 another way—that the substance of bread remains under its own 
 accidents not in its own subject-matter, but drawn to the ‘being’ 
 (essence) and subject-matter of Christ’s (body), so that there is one 
 subject-matter to the two natures [This is John of Paris’ doctrine of 
 Impanation, treated of in the third creed as a confusion of sub- 
 stances]; that is to say, two corporal natures of bread and (Christ’s) 
 humanity: but it makes there only one body—because a body 
 and a bodily nature are not the same, but a body is that which 
 has a bodily nature (corporeity)—because there is (in this case 
 only) one subject-matter. Secondly. One thing can be under- 
 stood to be drawn to the ‘essence’ of another mediately (¢.e. in- 
 directly) or immediately ({. 6. directly). I say that bread in the 
 sacrament of the altar is drawn to the ‘essence’ or subject-matter 
 of the Word not directly but through the medium of the bodily 
 nature... If the nature of bread (paneity) is taken to itself by 
 the subject-matter of the Word, the peculiar properties (accidents) 
 of both communicate with one another and will be predicated of 
 both in turn (flesh and bread), so that bread is Christ’s body and 
 
 Ῥ: δῦ. 
 
 Primo, quod substantiam panis manere sub suis accidentibus in 
 sacramento altaris dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo sic quod 
 substantia panis in sacramento altaris sub suis accidentibus maneat in 
 proprio supposito: sed istud esset falsum, quia non esset communicatio 
 idiomatum inter panem et corpus Christi, nec esset verum dicere, 
 ‘Panis est corpus Christi,” nec ‘‘Caro mea vere est cibus”... Alio 
 modo ut substantia panis maneat sub accidentibus suis non in proprio 
 supposito, sed tracta ad esse et suppositum Christi, ut sic sit unum 
 suppositum in duabus naturis... duas corporeitates scilicet panis et 
 humanitatis : sed tantum ponit ibi unum corpus, quia corpus non est 
 corporeitas, sed habens corporeitatem, quia ibi est unum suppositum 
 tantum. Secundo, Aliud trahi ad esse alterius potest intelligi mediate 
 vel immediate. Dico quod panis in sacramento altaris trahitur ad esse 
 vel suppositum Verbi non immediate ; sed mediante corporeitate... Si 
 paneitas assumatur a supposito Verbi, communicant sibi sua idiomata et 
 preedicabuntur de se’ invicem (caro et panis) ut panis est corpus Christi 
 
182 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 conversely. Thirdly. The body is spoken of in one way, as being 
 an individual, in another as being a genus... Christ said that He 
 is bread metaphorically, as before also, John iv., Christ said that 
 he was water metaphorically: and therefore there was no com- 
 munication of properties between the bread taken to Him and 
 Christ, 1.9. the man. [This phrase—communication of properties 
 or having accidents in common—is an usual name for these 
 views of John of Paris. The discussion is not made clearer 
 by introducing ‘the Word’ into it, where previously he had put 
 the body, z.e. the human body of Christ.] He received flesh as 
 part, because His flesh was truly a part of bread, and conversely, 
 by communication of properties ...so that the bread was flesh, 1.6. 
 Christ’s body, and conversely, and the double substance communi- 
 cates to itself its own properties... Fourthly. The ancient holy 
 fathers and modern doctors all still bear witness to this opinion. 
 [This John is not a fair or true reasoner. Many fathers wrote in 
 express denial of it. Those that said that the substance of bread 
 remained may be assumed to be on his 5148.] In presence of ὅσ, 
 &c. it was said [the council] holds both methods of laying down 
 that the body of Christ is on the altar. It holds for probable and 
 approves both... Yet it says that no mode has been determined 
 by the church and therefore none falls under the (category of) 
 faith ; and if it had spoken otherwise it would have spoken less 
 well, and they who speak otherwise speak less well; and the man 
 who should assert that one of the two falls precisely under the 
 (definition of) faith would incur condemnation by the canon at 
 least if not by anathema.” [These views are marked by an au- 
 thoritative imprimatur on their being printed, as stated above. ] 
 
 [On the whole this writer is against the adoption of transub- 
 stantiation as the faith. He thinks impanation equally orthodox. 
 
 et e contrario. Tertio. Uno modo dicitur corpus quod est pars, alio 
 modo corpus quod est genus... Dixit Se Christus panem metaphorice, 
 sicut et prius, Johan. iv. dixit Se aquam metaphorice ; et idcirco non est 
 communicatio idiomatum inter panem assumptum et Christum sive 
 hominem... Accepit carnem pro parte, quia caro sua pars vere est 
 panis, et e contrario, per communicationem idiomatum ... ut panis esset 
 caro aut corpus Christi et e contrario et communicat sibi sua idiomata... 
 Quarto. Antiqui sancti et doctores moderni adhuc omnes huic opinioni 
 
 attestantur... In presentia coll. m™, in T. dictum est utrumque 
 modum ponendi corpus Christi esse in altari, tenet pro opinione pro- 
 babili, et approbat utrumque... Dicit tamen quod nullus est determi- 
 
 natus per ecclesiam, et idcirco nullus cadit sub fide, et si aliter dixisset 
 minus bene dixisset, et qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt, et qui 
 determinate asserat, alterum precise eadem sub fide, incurreret sen- 
 tentiam canonis vel anathematis. 
 
 Imprimatur Maii 12, 1686. H. Maurice P. P. et D. Wmu. Arch. 
 Cant. a sacris. 3 
 
 a 
 
—1306] JOHANNES DE PARISIIS. 183 
 
 The former is perhaps the preferable in appearance at least, and 
 it is less opposed certainly to the received laws of natural phi- 
 losophy, and so the Western churches have decided the matter, 
 Both alternatives however oppose all received laws, as the 
 Reformers have abundantly urged against the successful theory, 
 ὦ. ὁ. transubstantiation. The more proper title for John of Paris 
 to have adopted is consubstantiation—though not in the sense 
 in which the German Reformers badly used it. Concomitance 
 seems to be the word for them: butit had been taken to represent 
 another doctrine, viz. that he that eats the bread has the blood of 
 Christ as well as the body, and conversely.] 
 
 (N.) MARSILIUS OF PADUA. ἢ. 1328. 
 
 The great work of this physician-in-ordinary to the emperor, 
 Louis of Bavaria, is no longer unknown. Gieseler, Neander and 
 Milman have made its name and its principles familiar to every- 
 one. It has certainly a singular name, The defender of peace 
 (Defensor Pacis). For when he went down with his master’s 
 Ghibelline forces to Rome this book was by no means the least 
 powerful of the engines of war that were taken down into Italy. 
 The dogmas involve the most momentous issues ever raised be- 
 tween the Pope and earthly sovereigns, regarding which innu- 
 merable wars have arisen, and from which, if we read aright the 
 signs of the times, more general struggles will yet spring. If so, 
 it might be said that never was a book written to which might 
 more justly be applied the Divine form of words, It came not to 
 send peace but a sword. It were a needless consumption of space 
 to give here one more synopsis of its teaching. Fritz in the 
 Dictionnaire Encyclopédique, and Milman, in his Latin Chris- 
 tianity, give popular summaries, and Gieseler renders a more 
 exact account. He had for colleague in the maintenance of his 
 views John of Janduno, Professor of Theology and Philosophy in 
 the University of Paris. The French Dictionnaire Universel 
 makes Marsilius Rector of that University: which would account 
 for Janduno’s support of his views. Fritz also denies that he 
 was Rector of the Vienna University. It is somewhat singular 
 that he and his colleague united very high doctrinal views on 
 the Lord’s supper and the clerical power of changing its elements 
 
184 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 with such staunch denials of all supremacy in the person of the 
 pope. In fact this work of his deserves close comparison with the 
 treatise of Erastus: for Marsilius has much more of what people 
 in this day mistakenly mean by Erastianism. One would suppose 
 Erastus to have taken this work as a starting-point, and from it to 
 have run into his own denial of any excommunicating power except 
 towards those who did not hold the great doctrines. Marsilius, on 
 the other hand, lodges the power in the people or church, not in the 
 clergy, and devolves on the civil ruler an amount of supremacy 
 which nothing can explain, as a product of the 13th and 14th 
 centuries, except his position at the court of this Louis during the 
 peculiarly inveterate struggle between him and Pope John XXII, 
 of Avignon, the millionaire and opponent of Franciscan poverty. 
 
 The title-page of the Defensor Pacis has no date, no name 
 of publisher, nor place of publication. But underneath a kind of 
 explanation given instead of the usual title* is a picture occupying 
 two-thirds of the page, representing a city with the name ROMA 
 above it, and a monarch, with his men of war, sitting outside, with a 
 scroll, under a two-headed eagle, inscribed in Latin, Imp. Czes.— 
 Ludovicus Quartus. A preface follows in which the book is 
 termed, An apology (defence) for the Bavarian Louis emperor 
 of the Romans by the priest Licentius Evangelus. And the 
 preface is dated, A.D. 1522. 10 fills 10 folio pages. 
 
 * Opus insigne, cui titulum fecit autor, “ Defensorem Pacis,” quia 
 queestionem illam, jam olim controversam, de potestate pape et impera- 
 toris excussissime tractet, &c., scriptum quidem ante annos ducentos, 
 &e., at nunc in lucem primum editum, We. 
 
 P. 74. “On the causes that produce tranquillity, &c. Christ 
 determined I say that a gospel law should be put together in 
 writing by these apostles, whose names are well known among 
 Christ's faithful, and by certain others: and by their own dictating 
 as by certain instruments, moved to this end, under the direct 
 influence of Divine power, have these things been written, if so 
 be that by this law we might be able, in the absence of Christ 
 
 Prima dictio seu pars. Cap. XIX. p. 14, leaf ἢ. De causis 
 Jactivis tranquillitatis, ke. 
 
 Per hos inquam apostolos, quorum nomina satis nota sunt inter 
 Christi fideles, et alios quosdam, Christus legem evangelicam conscribi 
 voluit ; et per ipsorum dictamina conscripta sunt, velut per organa 
 queedam, ad hoc mota et directa immediate Divina virtute, per quam 
 siquidem legem precepta et consilia salutis eterne in Ipsius Christi 
 
—1328] MARSILIUS OF PADUA. 185 
 
 and His apostles and evangelists, to comprehend the precepts and 
 counsels of eternal salvation. And in this law and according to 
 it he marked with signs and established sacraments, for the 
 cleansing away of original and actual sin, for the production and 
 preservation of Divine grace, and for the reproduction of it when lost, 
 and for the institution of this law’s ministers. He also instituted 
 the forenamed apostles first as teachers of this law and of the 
 sacraments according thereto, conferring on them through the 
 Holy Spirit that authority over this mystery, which is called 
 sacerdotal by the faithful people of Christ. And by this indeed 
 he conferred on themselves or their successors in this office, and 
 on no other, the power of transubstantiating bread and wine into 
 His own true body and blood in the use of a set form of words 
 spoken by themselves and by each one of them. With this He 
 also conceded to themselves the power of releasing and binding 
 men as to their sins, which men are wont to call the power of the 
 keys, and of substituting others into their own place with the 
 same authority. And this authority also the apostles did confer 
 on some, or God did this through them, when they prayed and 
 put their hands upon others. In this way also the rest took 
 up the power of doing the same, and in sequence did so, do so, and 
 will doso, till the consummation of the age...And this is the autho- 
 rity of priests and of the keys, be it one or more, a certain mark 
 or form, left on the soul by the immediate action of God. 
 
 [The next paragraph concerns the authority of one chief among 
 the priests constituted by man’s will to direct the multitude of 
 priests in Divine worship. | 
 
 atque apostolorum et evangelistarum absentia comprehendere valeremus. 
 In qua etiam et secundum quam sacramenta, culpz originalis et actualis 
 mundativa, Divine gratis factiva et conservativa, illiusque amisse 
 reformativa, hujusque legis ministrorum institutiva signavit et statuit. 
 Hujus quoque legis doctores et sacramentorum secundum ipsam minis- 
 tros primum instituit jam dictos apostolos, ipsis per Spiritum sanctum 
 autoritatem hujus mysterii conferens, quam sacerdotalem appellant 
 Christi fideles. Per quam siquidem iisdem aut ipsorum successoribus in 
 hoe officio, non aliis, potestatem contulit sub certéa forma verborum ab 
 ipsis eb eorum singulis dicta transubstantiandi panem et vinum in verum 
 corpus et sanguinem Ejus. Cum hoc etiam ipsis autoritatem solvendi 
 atque ligandi homines a peccatis, quam dicere solent clavium potestatem, 
 sibique alios substituendi cum eidem autoritate, concessit. Quam etiam 
 autoritatem apostoli quibusdam contulerunt, aut Deus per ipsos orantes 
 et manus aliis imponentes. Sic quoque ‘reliqui potestatem faciendi 
 susceperunt et consequenter fecerunt, faciunt, et facient, usque ad seeculi 
 consummationem 1 Tim. iv., Titus 1... Et est hee autoritas sacer- 
 dotalis et clavium, sive tres sive plures, character seu forma quedam, 
 anime per immediatam Dei actionem impressa. 
 
\ 
 
 186 THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P.122. “ What kind of power a priest or a bishop has in ex- 
 communicating... It is to be said that, though to promulgate such 
 judgment the word and acting of a priest be (alone) required, 
 yet it does not pertain to one alone or only to the priestly college 
 to put compulsory judgment in force, and to utter a precept 
 regarding those that are to be excommunicated or absolved; but 
 to rule such a judgment, in pursuance of which the accused may 
 be cited, examined, judged, absolved or condemned (that thus he 
 may be publicly made known or cut off from the company of the 
 faithful), that this belongs to the entire community of the faithful 
 in that society, in which a man ought to be judged with such 
 judgment, either (to lead) to his own superior or to general exile. 
 [What does this mean ?] 
 
 P. 125. “But priests have a certain committed authority of 
 such a nature that bread and wine are transubstantiated into 
 Christ’s blessed body at a priest’s prayer after he has uttered 
 certain words. But this authority is a mark set upon the soul, 
 as is that of the keys: and it is called the power of making the 
 sacrament of the eucharist. Some sins forgiven by God without 
 the priest's agency and some not without τί. 
 
 P. 242. “ And from this follows a desirable deduction, that to 
 excommunicate or interdict from the use of religious offices a 
 prince, a province, or any other civil community belongs only to 
 
 Pars FI. Cap. Vi. p. 122. 
 
 Qualem in excommunicando sacerdos aut episcopus habeat partem ... 
 Dicendum quod, licet ad tale judicium promulgandum requirantur vox 
 et actio sacerdotis, non tamen ad aliquem solum aut tantummodo ad 
 ipsorum collegium pertinet judicium coactivum, et preceptum dare de 
 excommunicandis aut absolvendis: sed talem statuere judicem, cujus 
 videlicet sit reum vocare ac examinare, judicare, absolvere aut con- 
 demnare, sic publice diffamandum aut a fidelium consortio preecidendum, 
 pertinet ad fidelium universitatem in communitate illa, in qua debet 
 aliquis tali judicio judicari vel ad superiorem ipsius vel ad exilium 
 generale. See also p. 124. 
 
 BP. 125. 
 
 Est autem autoritas queedam sacerdotum, ea qua panis et vinum in 
 corpus Christi benedictum transubstantiatur ad sacerdotis orationem 
 post certorum verborum ab ipso prolationem. Hee autem autoritas 
 character est anime, sicut ea que clavium : et dicitur potestas conficiendi 
 eucharistiz sacramentum. 
 
 Pars IT, C. XXII, p. 242. 
 
 Ex quibus etiam deduci potest et convenit, ad solius jam dicti 
 concilii non autem ad solius episcopi aut presbyteri vel alicujus ipsorum 
 particularis collegii autoritatem pertinere, principem, provinciam aut 
 
Ξ-1599] MARSILIUS OF PADUA. 187 
 
 the authority of such a council as was now spoken of, but not to 
 the authority of any one bishop or presbyter, or to any one par- 
 ticular college of the clergy. [Then Boniface’s bull, Unam sanctam, 
 &c., is condemned.] The form of interdicts and excommunications 
 of this kind ought to be left only toa general council of Christians, 
 whose judgment, being under the direction of the Holy Spirit, 
 cannot be perverted by ignorance or any malignity. 
 
 P. 120. “ Priests also bind when they impose satisfying penance 
 on the confessing sinners. They loose when they relax any part 
 of it, or admit to participation in the sacraments those whom 
 penance has purged. According to this mode, priests are said to 
 remit or retain sins.” 
 
 communitatem aliam civilem excommunicare vel Divinorum officiorum 
 usum interdicere... Interdictorum et excommunicationum hujusmodi 
 forma soli Christianorum generali concilio relinqui debet, cujus judicium, 
 dirigente sancto Spiritu, ignorantiad vel malignitate aliqué perverti non 
 potest, 
 
 Porshe Cou tap, V0: 
 
 Ligant quoque sacerdotes dum satisfactionem peenitentiz confitentibus 
 imponunt. Solvunt cum de ea aliquid dimittunt, vel per eam purgatos 
 ad communionem sacramentorum admittunt... Secundum hune modum 
 dicuntur sacerdotes peccata dimittere vel retinere. 
 
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) NICOLAS DE LYRA. D. 1340. 
 
 It is supposed that he was of Jewish descent; but his tomb 
 gives no such intimation. He entered the order of St Francis in 
 1291; and as he is said to have been then very young, we can 
 form a conjecture as to the time of his birth at Lyra, a village 
 near Verneuil in the bishopric of Evreux. There is a tradition 
 that his pious mother dedicated him to the service of God from 
 his infancy. He studied at the convent of Verneuil with such 
 success that the higher degree in theology was awarded, and he 
 became a public teacher of it there. His virtues and his learning 
 not only gained for him the dignity of provincial director of 
 Burgundy, but this honour led to his being appointed an executor 
 of the will of Jane, queen of Philip V. of France: but his great 
 eminence consists in having been author of his famous commentary 
 on the Scripture, which exceeds in piety, though it does not equal 
 in learning or in fulness of discussion, that of Cornelius ἃ Lapide. 
 His commentary indeed is commonly stated to have been of the 
 greatest service to Luther, and, together with the works of Wessel 
 in the 15th century, to have been in a great degree the helpers, 
 by whose aid that great German saw his way to the erection 
 of an entire system of reformed doctrine. Everyone knows the 
 couplet, 
 Si Lyra non lyrasset, 
 Lutherus non saltasset ; 
 
 1.6. Luther danced to Lyra’s music. 
 
 As Lyra died at Paris in 1340, he was 49 years in the. Fran- 
 ciscan Order. His epitaph declares that his renown had spread to 
 all countries of the world (climata mundi). He is said to have 
 begun his commentary upon Isaiah two years after his entry into 
 
—1340] NICOLAS DE LYRA. 189 
 
 that order; and in 37 years, ¢.e. in 1330, the entire commentary 
 was finished under the title of Postilla (Wycliffe used the same 
 name, “ postills,” post illa) in universa Biblia. About a century 
 later it was revised by Paul of Burgos, who was originally a Jew 
 with the very Jewish name, Solomon Levi; who died in the seat 
 of Patriarch of Aquileia in 1435. He added valuable notes to his 
 copy of Lyra’s commentary: but some have treated of his addi- 
 tions as depraving the doctrine of Lyra. Their names are Doring 
 and Wadding. Lyra’s work is by them set above that of a Lapide 
 and all others. Calmet recites seven editions of it put forth in 
 the 15th century alone. It has been translated into French and 
 published at Paris, 1511. The edition of 1498 includes the addi- 
 tions of Paul and of Doring also. Lyra wrote among other works 
 one on the body of Christ, one on the vision of God, and one on 
 the Vulgate and its departures from the Hebrew text. 
 
 P.79. “They received in the law that they should eat the 
 flesh of the paschal lamb with unleavened loaves. Therefore in 
 that last supper, in which He made His own body, there were 
 unleavened loaves: and for this reason Matthew well writes what 
 he writes, ‘It was the first day of unleavened bread.’ There is a 
 discussion concerning John, who says that the Jews had not 
 entered into the pretorium that they might not be prevented from 
 eating the passover. It must be said that they mean by the 
 passover not the paschal lamb which would have been slain the 
 night before, but the unleavened loaves, which they used in seven 
 days, to eat which a man was required to be clean [as much as to 
 eat the lamb on the first evening]... The festivity began at the 
 evening of the preceding day. For this reason they began on that 
 very same day to eat unleavened loaves at even... John is not 
 
 Comment. Vol. V. black letter, p. 79. C. Univ. nb. Matt. XXVTI. 
 
 In lege percipiebant quod carnes agni paschalis comederent cum 
 panibus azymis, Ergoin illé cena ultima, in qua confecit corpus Suum, 
 erant panes azymi; et propter hoc bene scribit Mattheus quod scribit, 
 “ Prima dies azymorum.” Arguunt de Johanne (xvili.) qui dicit quod 
 Judi non introierant pretorium, ne impedirentur a manducatione 
 pasche. Dicendum quod pascha accipiunt non pro agno paschali, qui 
 fuerit immolatus nocte precedenti, sed pro azymis panibus, quod ute- 
 bantur septem diebus, ad quorum comestionem requirebant quod homo 
 esset mundus. [Τὺ is curious how, without Lightfoot’s knowledge of the 
 Talmud and of the Chagiga, Lyra anticipated the substance of his dis- 
 coveries !|..._ Festivitas incipiebat a vespere diel precedentis. Propter 
 hoe ill4 eAdem die incipiebant comedere azymos paues in vespere... 
 
190 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 speaking contrary to the other (evangelists) but rather is agreeing 
 with them... The typical passover had been fulfilled, and He 
 had eaten the lamb’s flesh with His disciples. He takes bread... 
 He brake it, to shew that the breaking of His own body would not 
 be without His own voluntary will. He blessed the loaves because 
 He filled the (human) nature that He took to Him with the con- 
 currence of the Father and the Holy Ghost, with the grace of 
 Divine virtue. He gave His body in the supper because it was 
 needful that a typical passover should be consummated with bread, 
 and thus sacraments of the true passover should afterward be 
 substituted for it. But we in reverence of so great a sacrament 
 refresh ourselves with the sacred rites of the Lord’s passion before 
 we take bodily food... But when evening was come, because 
 that was the hour of eating the paschal lamb: and yet He did uot 
 repel Judas from the banquet of the paschal lamb, although his 
 treason did not escape His notice. 
 
 P. 50. 1 Cor. xi. “After the old passover was celebrated, 
 the Lord gave His own flesh and blood to His disciples, to shew 
 that the old sacred testaments were about to cease... He handed 
 it down under another form, and instituted it to be received 
 henceforward by the faithful, because faith has no merit, if human 
 reason approves of that which tries it... The bread has reference 
 ‘to the body, wine to the soul, because wine makes blood (in the 
 body) and blood is the seat of the life... ‘He brake, not before 
 he uttered the words of consecration, but afterwards. Therefore 
 
 ‘ Johannes non contradicit aliis, sed magis convenit cum eis... Typicum 
 pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum apostolis comederat. Assumit 
 panem... Fregit, ut ostendat corporis Sui fractionem non sine Sua 
 sponte fore. Benedixit panibus, quod naturam, quam assumpsit cum 
 Patre et Spiritu Sancto, gratia Divine virtutis implevit. Ideo per 
 conam corpus Suum dedit, quia necesse erat pascha typicum panibus 
 consummari, et sic veri paschee sacramenta post substitui. Nos vero pro 
 reverentid tanti sacramenti prius reficimur Dominice passionis sacris 
 quam corporalibus escis... Vespere autem facto, quod illa erat hora 
 comedendi agnum paschalem. Et tamen illum (Judam) non repulit a 
 convivio agni paschalis, licet ejus perditio non lateret Kum. 
 
 Vol. VI. p. 50, 1 Cor. XI. 
 
 Post celebratum vetus pascha Dominus carnem et sanguinem Suum 
 discipulis dedit, ut ostenderet vetera testamenta sacra cessatura... Sub 
 alia specie tradidit et deinceps a fidelibus sumendum instituit, quia fides 
 non habet meritum, cui humana ratio probet experimentum... Panis 
 ad corpus refert, vinum ad animam, quia vinum sanguinem operatur, in 
 quo sedes anime... “ Fregit,” non antequam verba consecrationis 
 perferret sed post. [Singular this charge of anachronism against the 
 Evangelist as in Cajetan and other good Romish writers.] Unde cum 
 
—1340] NICOLAS DE LYRA. ἜΘΗ 
 
 when the evangelist said ‘He brake, He says it by anticipation, 
 
 because Christ consecrated it, as we do. For the priest does not 
 
 put forth the words of consecration in His own person, but in the 
 
 person of Christ... ‘He took bread and blessed it’ But of this 
 
 blessing He did not make mention to the apostles (!) because 
 
 Matthew understood by it nothing more than an explanation of 
 those words, 1.6. ‘This is My body.’ We must not understand 
 
 that He brake His own body, for it is not in the sacrament in a} 
 frangible mode: but He brake the forms of the bread that were 
 
 still remaining... ‘This is My body,’ ae. contained under these 
 
 forms (species). The bread is the true body which came from 
 
 Mary, which is made to be by Divine virtue through the conversion © 
 of the bread’s substance into Christ’s true body... We must con- 
 sider that he accomplishes this sacred (mystery) in the consecrating 
 of the material, and not in the use merely of the material itself. 
 But the other sacraments are made not in the consecrating of the 
 material but in the use of it: as baptism and confirmation are not 
 accomplished in the blessing of the water and of the chrism (oil) 
 (before it is used) but in the act of washing and anointing, together 
 with set forms of words. ‘In like manner also the cup,’ &c. 
 Because this cup is My blood, in the shedding of which He confirms 
 the new testament, because a testament (will) is confirmed when 
 men are dead ; or it is the new promise, not of a typical but of an 
 eternal benefit.” 
 
 dixit “ Fregit,” anticipando dicit, quia consecravit ut nos: nam sacerdos 
 non profert verba consecrationis in personé propria, sed in persona 
 Christi... ‘ Accepit panem et benedixit.” De qua benedictione apo- 
 stolis mentionem non fecit [This is a mistake. See Matt. and Mk.], 
 quia Mattheus per illam nihil aliud intellexit quam explicationem 
 verborum, se. “ Hoe est corpus Meum”... Non est intelligendum 
 quod corpus Suum fregit, quod non est in sacramento fragibili modo, sed 
 fregit species panis remanentes... ‘‘ Hoc est corpus Meum,” 1. 6. con- 
 tentum sub his speciebus. Panis est verum corpus Marie, quod fit 
 virtute Divina per conversionem substantiz panis in verum corpus 
 Christi. Considerandum est quod hoe sacrum perficit in consecratione 
 materiz non in usu ipsius. Alia vero sacramenta non proficiunt in 
 consecratione materiz sed in usu; sicut baptismus et confirmatio non 
 proficiunt in benedictione aque et chrismatis, sed in ablutione et 
 unctione cum determinatis verborum formis “Similiter et calicem, &ec.” 
 Quia hic calix est Meus sanguis, in quo effuso confirmat novum testa- 
 mentum: quod testamentum in mortuis confirmatur; vel est nova 
 promissio, non typalis sed eterni beni, 
 
192 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (B.) WILLIAM OF OCKHAM, FELLOW OF MERTON IN OXFORD. 
 EARLY IN CENT. XIV. 
 
 He was the restorer of Nominalism in the fourteenth century : 
 who earned the title of Doctor singularis. He was born at the 
 village of that name in Surrey, the patronage of whose church 
 vests now in the Earl of Lovelace. He was a follower of Duns 
 Scotus, and joined the Dominicans, but he is called a cordelier of 
 St Francis, and the book quoted says he was a Minorite; ordinis 
 fratrum minorum. His great work is reckoned to be his Dialogus, 
 in which, like Marsilius of Padua and some others, he just then 
 raises the question that sovereigns are not subordinate to the pope. 
 But his name is deeply involved in a ridiculous discussion, in the 
 course of which he was imprisoned, “ whether either Christ or his 
 “little society of apostles held any kind of worldly properties ;” a 
 discussion only notable for its producing Ockham’s speech to Louis 
 of Bavaria in favour of Nicolas and in opposition to Pope John 
 XXIL., “Sire, defend us from the Antipope James of Cahors with 
 “your sword, and we shall well know how to defend you against 
 “him with our pen.” (Montigny, cited Dict. Historique, article 
 Occam). Ockham received also the title of Venerabilis inceptor 
 from having founded a new school of Nominalism, which Durandus 
 (de St Porcien) had failed to do. He is therefore the object of 
 unmeasured contempt in the Dictionary just quoted, because the 
 realistic view of universals suited better with Roman views on this 
 subject of the Lord’s supper. They tried to prove him unsound 
 upon it, though he laboured to be orthodox: and perhaps he might 
 have been thought so, but what part could Romanists hold with a 
 man who said that the general idea “the church” had nothing 
 more than a Nominalist existence? He was however quite 
 candid ; for he very naturally made the same affirmation regarding 
 his favourite rival power “the state.” Yet he seems explicit 
 enough in his high notions on the Lord’s supper to satisfy even 
 Rome. His treatise on Logic was published at Oxford, 1675. 
 
 A Treatise of the venerable inceptor William Ockham on the 
 sacrament of the altar. Sold in the Rue Royal at St Jacques, 
 
 Tractatus venerabilis inceptoris Gulielmi Ockam, de sacramento altaris. 
 Venumdant in wid regid ad divum St Jacobum: sub coronato lilio. 
 
cir. 1300] WILLIAM OF OCKHAM. 193 
 
 under the lily and crown in the shop of Mr N. de Barre... 
 Praise to God and to His mother Mary. 
 
 C.1. “About the conversion of the bread into Christ’s body, 
 as a certain gloss, &c. It. In the matter of the sacraments there 
 are different opinions on the Divine Consecration. One asserts 
 that that substance, which at first was the substance of bread, 
 is afterwards the flesh and blood of Christ in the breaking of 
 the bread, is...the body on the altar. A second opinion holds 
 that the substance of bread and wine ceases to be there, and 
 that the accidents alone remain, that 1s to say taste, colour and 
 the like: and that under those accidents it begins to be the 
 body... A third holds that the substance of bread and wine 
 remains there (also), and that in the same spot and under the 
 same (outward) appearance is Christ’s body (too)... Any of these 
 opinions however confesses that Christ’s body is there. The 
 second opinion is the more true. en the treatise (tract) on 
 the Supreme Trinity, chap. ‘firmly, p.1. These are the words 
 of the gloss. And from this it appears that the substance of 
 the bread is converted into Christ's body; so that the substance 
 of the bread remains not. And for that truth this is said, from 
 the treatise, &c. &e. There is one universal church of the faithful, 
 outside whom (which) none at all is saved; and in this He is 
 Himself Priest and Sacrifice in one: Jesus... Whose body and 
 blood is truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the 
 species [kinds, forms, appearances] of bread and wine, the bread 
 being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the 
 blood by the power of God. To declare that truth some things 
 
 In edibus M. Δ. de Barra. (On final page a picture of Saint 
 
 Roch). Paris, 1563. Laus Deo et genetrici Ejus Marie. 
 
 C. τ. Circa conversionem panis in corpus Christi, sicut dicit glossa 
 queedam 11. de conse. Div. In sacramentorum (re) vari sunt opiniones. 
 Una asserit quod illa substantia que fuit panis primo, postea est caro et 
 sanguis Christi in fractione panis, est in altari, ὅσο. qr. corpus. Secunda 
 Opinio tenet quod substantia panis et vini ibi desinit esse, et maneat 
 (maneant) accidentia tantum, scilicet sapor color et similia: et sub illis 
 accidentibus incipit esse corpus Christi. Tertia tenet quod remanet ibi 
 substantia panis et vini, et in eodem loco et sub eadem specie est corpus 
 Christi ar. infr. 6. ego, Quelibet tamen opinio fatetur ibi esse corpus 
 Christi. Secunda opinio. verior est. Ex tractatu de summa Trinitate 
 ca. firmiter, pa. una. Hee sunt verba glosse. Ex qua apparet quod 
 substantia panis convertitur in corpus Christi ; ita quod substantia panis 
 non manet. Et pro isté veritate dicitur ex tract., το. ὅθ. Una est 
 enim fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quos nullus omnino salvatur. 
 In qua Ipse idem Sacerdos est et Sacrificium, Jesus Christus, Cujus 
 corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub  speciebus panis et vinl 
 veraciter continetur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in san- 
 guinem potestate Diving: Ad istius veritatis declarationem, cirea . 
 
 H. It, 19 
 
194 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D 
 
 are to be enquired into; in the first place principally about two 
 things, as it is plain, about the entity and calling of the accidents 
 of them. Secondly about the severances of them from their 
 subject (not subjectio). But because it is commonly conceded by 
 all, that colour, taste, and sensible qualities of this kind are really 
 distinguished among themselves (¢.¢. have a really distinct exist- 
 ence) and also from (their) substance, therefore on this hypothesis 
 some things are to be enquired into regarding the distinction of 
 those qualities from quantity, figure, straightness and things of 
 this kind: and concerning these there is great doubt how they 
 are to be distinguished: and that that enquiry does not so much 
 belong to theology, but to philosophy also, since it is the work of 
 philosophy to know the natures and distinctions of those things. 
 Therefore we must investigate what was thought by philosophers 
 and chiefly Aristotle the chief of philosophers on that matter, and 
 also what is said by theologians. But that I may proceed the more 
 in order, I will first enquire of the distinction of a point, a line, a 
 surface and a body, and afterwards of the other things. First 
 then I enquire, whether a point is an absolute thing, really dis- 
 tinguished from quantity, &c. &c. It is not a thing positive, and 
 absolute, and really distinguished from a quantity, and especially 
 from a line, &.” Secondly, he gives authorities for believing it 
 res alia another thing: and then he answers them, ὅσ. &c.; 
 and to the end of the treatise on the aforesaid points; the last 
 chapter being on the solution of some arguments against the 
 notion that different quantities can subjectively be in a substance, 
 though two bodies cannot by nature be together (7. 6. in the same 
 spot or locality). [This is given as a specimen of the enquiry. ] 
 
 duo principaliter, aliqua sunt querenda, ut patet, circa illorum acci- 
 dentium entitatem et dictionem. Secundo circa ipsorum a subjecto 
 separationes. Quia autem communiter conceditur ab omnibus, quod 
 color sapor et hujusmodi qualitates sensibiles inter se realiter distingu- 
 untur, et etiam a substantia, ideo hoc supposito querenda aliqua circa 
 distinctionem istarum qualitatum, a quantitate figura rectitudine et 
 hujusmodi; de quibus est magnus dubius quomodo distinguantur: et 
 quod non tam ad theologiam sed etiam ad philosophiam pertinet ista 
 consideratio, cum philosophia sit rerum naturas et distinctiones earum 
 cognoscere. Ideo investigandum quid senserunt philosophi et preecipue 
 princeps philosophorum Aristoteles de ista materia et etiam quid dicant 
 theologi. Ut autem ordinatius procedam, queram primo de distinctione 
 puncti linez superficiei et corporis et postea (de) aluis. Primo igitur 
 quero, Utrum punctus sit res absoluta, distincta realiter a quantitate, de. 
 This he decides in the negative, ¢.e. that it is not aliqua res positiva et 
 absoluta, distincta realiter a qualibet quantitate et maxime a linea. 
 
1290] JOHN TAULER. 195 
 
 (C.) JOHN TAULER, PREACHER AND MYSTIC. B. 1290. 
 
 Born of a wealthy family in Strasburg he by choice entered 
 the Dominican order at about 18 years of age. It is interesting 
 to us that one of the first emergent traits of his character was to 
 ery out boldly against those that turned over multitudes of bulky 
 volumes, and left the singularly instructive life of our Lord 
 unregarded. Such was his feeling regarding what he saw at Paris, 
 the centre for many ages of theological and philosophical lore. 
 At 32 he is found the chief follower of Eckhard, and a great 
 preacher of the genuine religious experience of that school. In 
 fact he so surpassed his master and escaped his outrageous pan- 
 theism, that he deserves to be ranked equal with Fenelon and 
 Bossuet ; and there is no dispute that in the simple genuineness 
 of unworldly piety he far surpasses one of them. ‘The history of 
 his praying for eight years for some one to be sent to teaeh him 
 pure and full truth, and of his seeming to hear a voice which 
 bade him go to the cathedral gate, and which said that he would 
 there find the man that he sought; and his finding a ragged beggar 
 who taught him the striking doctrines of the Quietists ; then 
 another person thrice dreaming that he ought to go to Tauler 
 to learn how to become perfeet in piety; but his becoming the 
 teacher of Tauler and remaining with him a long while and at 
 last being martyred at Vienna for holding that Christ was in 
 him and that he was in Christ, “Ye in Me and 1 in you!” and 
 his name is Nicolas of Basle. These stories I say have few things 
 to surpass them in the pages of holy fiction; and yet we suppose 
 them true. Susanna Winkworth has put the second story 
 within the reach of English readers: but as the sermons which 
 she selects for translation in the same volume are only such as 
 are said to be “of a practical order,’ she deprives her readers 
 of all knowledge of such “speculative” subjects as Tauler’s 
 opinions on the Lord’s supper. Not daring to attempt to trans- 
 late German I use the French rendering of “the sermons for the 
 “vear” by M. Charles Sainte-Foi, which claims to be a better 
 translation than the old Latin of Surius from which the first story 
 comes. Tauler witnessed in Strasburg the miseries of the inter- 
 dict laid on by John XXII. Delirant reges plectuntur Achivi. 
 For 14 years were men deprived of the Lord’s supper. Henry 
 
 13—2 
 
190 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of Nordlingen, an object of special persecution, was one of Tauler’s 
 peculiar friends. At Basle Tauler most gladly associated with 
 Henry Suso, and with many others, who merit the noble title of 
 Reformers of the 14th century. It is not wonderful that some 
 have attributed “ The Imitation of Christ” to Tauler: but see the 
 sketch of Thomas ἃ Kempis. Tauler like him obtains the praise 
 of the Churches of all lands in which he is dispersed and studied. 
 He was not a Protestant: but he was a sincere Christian. 
 
 Sermons of John Tauler, the enlightened doctor, translated from 
 the German, by M.Charles Sainte-Foi for Sundays and Festivals 
 of the year. Serm. I. for the feast of the body of Christ. 
 
 P. 96. “He whose heart is empty, vain and negligent, who 
 continues to lead a light life, surrendering himself to the uttering 
 of indiscreet words, to the cultivation of exquisitism in his habits 
 of life, to amusements and to idleness, who neglects the care of 
 his soul and who in this state perseveringly, knowingly and of 
 his own will approaches in spite of all this to the sacrament of 
 the altar, does a very dangerous thing. It were a hundred thou- 
 sand times better for him to keep himself far away. You will 
 have confessed in vain if you do not choose to leave behind you 
 the opportunities for sinning. The pope himself would not know 
 how to absolve you without your repenting. 
 
 P.111. “For the first two degrees of perfection there 15 
 nothing more advantageous in order to make true progress 
 and carry on a Divine life than these two things (the communion 
 and the word of God), for these are far above all other. But 
 
 Sermons de Jean Tauler le docteur illuminé, traduits de 0? Allemand 
 en deux tomes par M. C. Sainte-Foi pour les Dimanches et Fétes 
 de Vannée, Tom. IT. Paris, 1855. P. 96. Sermon 7. 
 
 Celui dont le cur est vide vain et négligent, qui continue d’étre 
 léger dans sa vie, adonné a l’indiscrétion dans les paroles, ἃ la recherche 
 dans les habits, aux amusements, 4 Voisiveté, qui néglige le soin de son 
 Ame et qui persévérant sciemment et volontairement dans cet état, 
 approche, malgré cela, du sacrement de Jautel, fait une chose bien 
 dangereuse. I] faudrait cent mille fois mieux pour lui qu’il s’éloignat. 
 Vous aurez beau vous confesser si vous ne voulez pas laisser la les 
 occasions du péché, le pape lui-méme ne saurait vous absoudre sans 
 repentir. [Compare Antoine Arnauld against the book of the Jesuit 
 “La fréquente communion.” | 
 
 P. 111. Sermon LI. 
 
 Aux deux premiers degrés de la perfection il n’est rien de plus 
 avantageux pour faire de vrai progrés dans le bien et pour mener une 
 vie divine, que ces deux choses (la communion et la parole de Dieu), qui 
 
1290] JOHN TAULER. 197 
 
 for him that has arrived at the third degree all help and all conso- © 
 lation is sometimes an obstacle. 
 
 P.113. “The grace that we receive in the eucharist is the 
 end and the reward of all the rest, since we there receive God | 
 Himself with nothing to intervene, in reality and simply. Also 
 the eucharist is a grace by itself and super-essential, and it sur- 
 passes all the rest. 
 
 Ρ 114. John vi., “My flesh,” &c. “Those that see in the 
 sacrament of the altar only a beverage and a food, ὁ. 6. of bread 
 and wine, cannot know or taste the precious fruits and the in- 
 effable sweetness which it contains. The nourishment for our 
 bodies is in itself a thing so vile and dead that man in assimilating 
 it ennobles and vivifies it; but this Divine nourishment is full 
 of life, or rather it is the very essence of life; and those that 
 eat it live eternally. ‘He that eateth, &c. These words were 
 not understood by many of His friends, who, after having heard 
 them, left Him, saying ‘Who can hear it? They had taken only 
 the carnal sense; and it was for this that they quitted our Lord; 
 for this food is much above all the senses. Here the thing that 
 nourishes us, and the nourishment that He gives, 15 all one. 
 
 P.117. “ Also the eucharist’s food causes our souls to pass 
 
 sont bien au-dessus de toutes les autres. Mais pour celui qui est arrivé 
 au troisiéme degré tout secours et toute consolation est quelquefois un 
 
 obstacle. [See also his De Vita et Passione 8. N. J.C. Cologne. | 
 P.113. Sermon 117’ 
 
 La graéce que nous recevons dans l’eucharistie est le terme et la 
 récompense de toutes les autres, puisque nous y recevons Dieu lui-méme 
 immédiatement réellement et simplement: aussi l’eucharistie est-elle 
 une grace singuliére et suressentielle (wrong rendering of ἐπιούσιον in the 
 ‘Lord’s prayer), qui surpasse toutes les autres. 
 
 P.114. On John VI. “ My flesh is truly meat,” ke. 
 
 Ceux qui ne voient dans le sacrement de l’autel qu’un breuvage et 
 un aliment du pain et du vin, ne peuvent ni connaitre ni gotiter les 
 fruits précieux et Vineffable suavité qu’il renferme. La nourriture cor- 
 porelle est en soi-méme quelque chose de vil et de mort, que ’homme 
 ennoblit et vivifie en se l’assimilant ; mais cette nourriture divine est 
 pleine de vie, ou plutdt elle est essence méme de la vie ; et ceux qui la 
 mangent vivent éternellement. ‘ He that eateth my flesh, &c.” Ces pa- 
 roles ne furent pas comprises de plusieurs de Ses amis, qui, aprés les avoir 
 entendues, le quittérent en disant, ‘Who can hear it ?” Ils n’avaient 
 pris que le sens charnel; et c’est pour cela quwils quittérent notre 
 Seigneur : car cet aliment est bien au-dessus de tous les sens. Ici Celui 
 qui nourrit, et la nourriture qu’Il donne, est tout un. 
 
 ἐἸ ΜΠ; 
 _ After the common comparison of the mingling of fire with wood, 
 Ainsi laliment eucharistique fait passer notre 4me “de la différence ἃ la 
 
198 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 from differing from Christ to resembling Him, and from resem- 
 blance to a Divine unity with Him. See what happens to the 
 glorified spirit that in this mysterious union is neither like nor 
 unlike to God. For in this ardent furnace of love Divine, it loses 
 all that it has in itself of humidity, of inequality and grossness, 
 and with this sacred food casts itself into the abyss of Divine 
 love. : 
 
 P.121. “All that sincerely desire to reach perfection ought 
 so to live that they may be able often to receive this living nourish- 
 ment. They that find themselves established in love, &c. do well 
 to approach as often as they can to the holy table. 
 
 P. 122. “What more sure way of correcting the imperfections 
 of my grossness, of renewing, regenerating and rebaptizing in 
 me the old man with its nature, its manners and its customs, 
 than the reception of the true Son of God; His true living and 
 Divine body: His adorable blood, that washes and purifies all 
 stains, His holy soul, His holy spirit, His tender heart, His eternal 
 Deity, His dear humanity, the holy Trinity all entire, in one 
 word all that He is, all that He has, and all that He can do 
 (for us)... I have said all these things to you with the aid of God’s 
 grace; but what remains to be said to you is what I have 
 taken from the best of the holy doctors, &c. 
 
 ressemblance avec Lui, et de la ressemblance ἃ PUnité Divine. Voila 
 ce qui arrive ἃ Jesprit glorifié, qui dans cette union mystérieuse 
 nest ni semblable ni dissemblable ἃ Dieu: car dans cette fournaise 
 ardente de l'amour Divin, il perd tout ce quvil a en lui @humide d’inégal 
 et de grossier, et s'abime avec cet aliment sacré dans la Divinité méme. 
 
 ΝΟ 91: 
 
 Tous ceux qui désirent sincérement arriver 4 la perfection devraient 
 se conduire de telle sorte qu ils puissent recevoir souvent cette nourriture 
 vivante. Ceux qui se trouvent affermis dans la charité, &e., &e., font 
 bien d’approcher le plus souvent qwils peuvent de la table Sainte. 
 
 P, AD2: 
 
 Quel moyen plus sir pour moi de corriger mes imperfections gros- 
 siéres, de renouveler régénérer et rebaptiser en moi le vieil homme avec 
 sa nature ses meeurs et ses habitudes qu’en recevant le vrai Fils de Dieu, 
 Son vrai corps vivant et Divin, Son sang adorable qui lave et purifie 
 toutes les souillures, Sa sainte dme, Son saint Esprit, Son tendre cceur, 
 Son éternelle Divinité, Sa chére humanité, la sainte Trinité toute entiére, 
 en un mot tout ce qu’Il est, tout ce qu’Il a et tout ce απ] peut... Je 
 vous ai dit toutes ces choses avec la grace de Dieu: mais ce qui me 
 reste ἃ vous dire est ce que j’ai appris de meilleur des saints docteurs, 
 &c., de, 
 
1290] ᾿ΠΠὍΟΘΗΝ TAULER. .199 
 
 P. 137. “I have read somewhere of the soul of a dead man 
 appearing to a friend of God, in a flame whose ardent heat was 
 intolerable. It said to him that the cause of its punishments was 
 having been negligent in receiving the holy eucharist, and that 
 for this reason it suffered tortures that none could believe or 
 explain. It afterwards said to him, If you would receive the 
 communion with fervour for me once you would greatly comfort 
 me. This friend of God did so and the spirit appeared to him 
 afresh on the morrow, in a state of greater brilliance than the 
 sun. A single communion had been sufficient to deliver it from 
 all its sufferings and to open to it the gates of eternal life.” 
 
 157: 
 
 J’ai lu quelque part que l’'dme d'un défunt apparut un jour ἃ un ami 
 de Dieu, dans une flamme dont les ardeurs paraissent intolérables. Elle 
 lui dit que la cause de ses supplices, c’était davoir été négligente dans la 
 réception de la sainte eucharistie ; et quelle souffrait ἃ cause de cela des 
 tourments que personne ne pourrait croire ni expliquer. Elle lui dit 
 ensuite, Si tu voulais communier une seule fois pour moi avec ferveur, tu 
 me soulagerais grandement. Cet ami de Dieu l’ayant fait, Vesprit lui 
 apparut de nouveau le lendemain dans un état plus brillant que celui 
 du soleil. Une seule communion avait suffit pour le délivrer de toutes 
 ses souffrances et pour lui ouvrir les portes de la vie éternelle, A devout 
 wish closes this sermon on the Festival Corpus Christi, 
 
 (D.) NICEPHORUS XANTHOPULUS. THE CHURCH’S THUCYDIDES, 
 1386. 
 
 P. 1136. “ Novatus, in making the offerings, as is the custom 
 for priests to make them, then when he turned to the distribution 
 of the bread, imparting to each his portion, used to compel the 
 wretched men to take an oath (first) instead of (at once) receiving 
 the eucharist. For holding both the hands of the recipient he 
 did not (Gk. does not) let them go until they had sworn to these 
 things: for I will use his own words: Swear to me by the blood 
 and the body of our Lord Jesus Christ never to desert me and to 
 return to Cornelius. 
 
 Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, Hist. Eccles. 1, VI., p. 1136, 
 Migne, 145—147, 
 
 Ποιῶν yap προσφορὰς, ὡς ἔθος ἱερεῦσι ποιεῖν, εἶτα πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἄρτου 
 μετάδοσιν τρεπόμενος, ἐπιδίδους ἑκάστῳ τὸ μέρος, ὀμνύειν τοὺς ταλαιπώρους 
 (Navaros) ἠνάγκαζεν ἀντὶ τοῦ μετ᾽ εὐχαριστίας λαμβάνειν. Κατέχων γὰρ 
 ἄμφω τὰς χεῖρας. τοῦ λαβόντος οὐ πρότερον ἀνίει ἕως ταῦτα ᾿ὁμόσαιεν. 
 χρήσομαι γὰρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς ῥήμασιν, μοσόν μοι κατὰ τοῦ αἵματος καὶ 
 τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μηδέποτέ με καταλιπεῖν καὶ 
 ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς Κορνήλιον. 
 
200 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 A relation by Dionysius of an old man Serapion lying at the 
 borders of death and recewing the communion from a litle 
 boy, when the presbyter could not come. 
 
 C. vi. “But the injunction being by me laid down, that those 
 who weie leaving this life, if they should request it, and especially 
 if they happened to have received it before also, on their own 
 entreaty, should receive remission, that they may leave this life in 
 good hope. (The presbyter) gave a little piece of the eucharist to 
 the boy, and ordered him to wet it well and to make a drop fall 
 and go down in the old man’s mouth. The boy came up with it; 
 and being near, Serapion again called to him before he entered and 
 said, ‘Art thou come, my son? and so the presbyter could not 
 ‘come. Well: do you do quickly as you were ordered and 
 ‘release me. The boy wetted it well and at the same time poured 
 it into his mouth, and the man swallowed a little and immediately 
 gave up the ghost. Surely was he not evidently preserved to the 
 end, and abode with us till he was released, and his sin (sins) were 
 blotted out, and he was able to be acknowledged for the many 
 good things he had done ? [Sad doctrine !] 
 
 Ο γι. “EvtoAjs ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ διδομένης τοὺς ἀπαλλαττομένους τοῦ βίου, εἰ 
 δέοιντο καὶ μάλιστα εἰ καὶ πρότερον ἱκετεύσαντες τύχοιεν, ἀφίεσθαι, ἵνα εὐέλ- 
 TLOES ἀπαλλάττωνται. Βραχὺ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἔδωκε τῷ παιδαρίῳ, ἀποβρέξαι 
 κελεύσας καὶ τῷ πρεσβύτῃ κατὰ τοῦ στόματος ἐπιστάξαι. ᾿Ἔπανῆκεν ὁ παῖς 
 Peper" ἐγγὺς δὲ γενομένου, πρὶν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀνανέγκας πάλιν ὁ Σεραπίων, 
 Ἤκες, ἔφη, τέκνον 3 καὶ ὁ μὲν πρεσβύτερος ἐχῆετ; οὐκ ἠδυνήθη. Σὺ δὲ ποίησον 
 ταχέως τὸ προσταχθὲν καὶ ἀπάλλαττέ με. ᾿Απέβρεξεν ὁ παῖς, καὶ ἅμα τε 
 ἐνέχεε τῷ στόματι, καὶ μικρὸν ἐκεῖνος καταβρογθίσας, εὐθέως τητος πνεῦμα. 
 ἾΑρ᾽ -οὐκ ἐναργῶς διετηρήθη καὶ παρέμεινεν ἕως λυθῇ, καὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας 
 ἐξαλειφθείσης ἐπὶ πολλοῖς οἷς ἔπραξε καλοῖς ὁμολογηθῆναι ἠδυνήθη ; 
 
 Lab. XT, ΤΣ 
 
 A touching account of Chrysostom’s expulsion from Constantinople, 
 with ἀμύητος (used for a non-communicant). 
 
 (E.) JOHN DE WYCLIFF, D.D., R. OF LUTTERWORTH, and of Queen’s 
 and Merton, Oxford. 8. 1324. D. 1387. 
 
 This well-known life is one of the glories of England—one 
 of many instances of firm and quiet persistence in a conscientious 
 course: nor is it a slight encouragement to those who follow in 
 his steps that his writings issued from his island home to become 
 the text-book of the twin champions of truth at Constance. Who 
 then can tell us where heavenly light, once enkindled afresh, will 
 stop? Tor if the two murders at the Council of Constance 
 
1924] . . JOHN DE WYCLIFF. 201 
 
 destroyed the only chance of the recovery of universal papal 
 power after its humiliations at Avignon, the great Lutterworth 
 teacher of those martyrs may be credited with much of the 
 results of their firm faith. The Trialogus is given from Dr 
 R. Vaughan’s English, as he has not printed the Latin. It is a 
 conversation between Phronesis (judgment), Aletheia (truth), and 
 Pseudos (falsehood). Wycliff’s confession in London and all that 
 follows it are extracted from three volumes recently published. 
 Much exaggeration seems to have attended his incautious opinions 
 on the right of dominion being dependent on grace. The charge 
 lay heavy on the accused at Constance. Half truths are half 
 errors. 
 
 Wyclif’s confession at the Court of London. “Remains” pub- 
 lished at Oxford, 1869, Vol. 111. p. 502. 
 
 “Johannes Wycliff—I believe, as Christ and His Apostles 
 have taught us, that the sacrament of the altar—whole bread— 
 and like to other bread—or host sacred—is very God’s body in 
 form of bread. And though it be broken in three parts (as the 
 Kirk uses), or else in a thousand, every ilk one of these parts 
 is the same God’s body. And right as the person of Christ is very 
 God and man—very Godhead and very manhood, right so holy 
 Kirk many hundred winters has trowed the same sacrament: is 
 very God's body and very bread, as it is form of God’s body and 
 form of bread, as teach Christ and His apostles. And therefore 
 St Paul names it never but when he calls it bread; and he by 
 our belief took in this his wit (knowledge) of God. And the 
 arguments of heretics against this sentence are light for to assoyle 
 to a Christian man. And right as it is heresy to trowe that 
 Christ is a spirit and no body, so it is heresy to trowe that/ 
 this sacrament is God’s body and no bread: for it is both together. 
 
 Tracts and Treatises of Wycliff by the Wycliff Soc. London, 
 1845. Trialogus, Book IV. p. 152. 
 
 “This sensible thing (called the consecrated bread) is called 
 a sacrament and not a thing (not in the sense of its not being 
 anything, since as we see it is obvious enough to the senses) but 
 in the sense of its notbemg<that holy thing, primarity~stenified 
 by the sensible sign which we see, because it is not, naturally, 
 the body of Christ. [P. 133.] This sacrament is the body of 
 Christ in the form of bread... Can any one thing I ask be more 
 contrary to another than the doctrine which affirms this sacrament 
 to be sacramentally the body of Christ, and the self-contradictory 
 doctrine maintaining that this sacrament cannot be, in any sense, 
 the body of Christ? [P.138.] Inasmuch as this bread is the 
 
202 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 body of Christ, 10. 15. therefore bread and remains bread, and is 
 at once bread and the body of Christ... [P. 139.] Do we believe 
 \ that John the Baptist who was made Elias (figuratively) by the 
 word of Christ ceased to be John (Matt. xi.)?... And in the same 
 manner it is merely a double meaning not a contradiction, in 
 those who admit that this sacrament is not naturally the body of 
 Christ, but that this same sacrament is_Christ’s body figuratively. 
 [P. 140.] Oh if believers in the Lord will look on and see Anti- 
 christ and his accomplices so strong as to have power to condemn 
 and persecute unto death those sons of the church who thus yield 
 their belief unto the gospel, yet certain I am that though the 
 truth of the gospel may for a time be cast down into the 
 streets and be kept under in a measure by the threats of 
 Antichrist, yet extinguished it cannot be, since He, Who is the 
 Truth, hath said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His 
 words shall not pass away. Let the believer then rouse himself 
 and demand strictly from our heretics what the nature of this 
 venerable sacrament is, if it be not bread, since the language of 
 the gospel, the evidence of our senses, and arguments that have 
 in their favour every probability say that so it is... Our fore- 
 mentioned conclusion that this venerable sacrament is, in its 
 own nature, veritable bread and sacramentally Christ’s..body, is 
 shewn to be the true one. [P. 142.] Hardness, softness, &c. cannot 
 exist per se; nor can they be the subjects of other—aceidents.: it 
 remains therefore that there must be some subject as bread... 
 [P. 148.] The body of Christ, ὁ. 6. sacramentally the sign and 
 figure of the body itself. But the most heresy that God suffered to 
 come to His church is to trowe that this sacrament ἐδ accident 
 without subject, and may no wise be God’s body. And if thou 
 say (it), by (with) her skill holy Kirk has been in error many 
 hundred winters; for Christ says, by witness of Jerome (in the 
 Vulgate Latin), that this bread is His body. Sooth it is specially 
 since the fiend was loosed, that was (7. 6. to be), by witness of the 
 angel to St John the Evangelist, after a thousand winters (since) 
 that Christ was styed (ascended [sty is a ladder]) to Heaven. But 
 it is to suppose that many saints that died in the meantime 
 before their death were purged of this error. O how great diversity 
 is between us that trow that this sacrament is very bread in its 
 kind and between heretics that tell that it is an accident without 
 subject. Jor before that the fiend, father of lies, was loosed, was 
 never this gabbing contrived. And how great diversities between 
 us that trow that this sacrament, in its kind, is very bread and, 
 sacramentally, God’s body, and between hereticks that trow and 
 tell that this sacrament may in no wise be God’s body. For I 
 dare surely say that if this were sooth, Christ and His saints died 
 hereticks and the more part of holy Kirk believe now heresy; 
 and therefore devout men suppose that this council of heresy at 
 
1324] JOHN DE WYCLIEFF. 203 
 
 London was with earthdin (earthquake) for (because) they put 
 a heresy on Christ and saints in Heaven; wherefore the earth 
 trembled, failing man’s answering for God. So it did in the 
 time of His passion when He was damned to bodily death. 
 Christ and his mother, that inground have destroyed all heresies, 
 keep His Kirk in the right belief of this sacrament: and move 
 we the king and his realm to ask’ sharply of clerks this office, 
 that all pensioners on pain of loosing all their temporalities tell 
 the king and His realm with sufficient grounds what is the sacra- 
 ment: and all the orders of friars on pain of losing all their alle- 
 giance tell the king and his realm with sufficient grounds what is 
 this sacrament. For I am certain if the third part of the clergy, 
 that defends this sentence that is here said, that they will defend 
 it on pain of losing of their life. Amen.” 
 
 It is perhaps hardly fair of Wycliff, living in the heyday 
 of transubstantiation and all its consequent evils, to charge these 
 successors of Innocent III. and his council with holding the 
 existence of accidents only in the bread and wine without a 
 subject: since they stoutly maintained that the subject or sub- 
 stance of Christ’s natural body was by the Spirit substituted for 
 the substance or subject of bread. In one place indeed Wycliff 
 asserts according to true philosophy that no change of subject 
 ever takes place between any two created things: and so he 
 “hits the Papists of that day midway after the accidents of the 
 bread have lost its subject and before they obtained the substance 
 of the Lord’s body. This is sharp _practice. But again, he blames 
 them for denying that the | bread is our Lord’s body, because they 
 will not allow that the bread is Christ’s body in the only way in 
 which he (Wycliff) will admit that it can be, 7.e. sacramentally 
 or figuratively. Candour is not more common in this controversy 
 than in controversies in general. 
 
 (F.) JOHN HUSS (JANOS Hus). B. 1873. D. 1415. 
 (G.) JEROME OF PRAGUE. B. 1378. D. 1416. 
 
 Whenever a leading man appears in a great movement it is 
 almost always safe to assume that he had his pioneers whose 
 names have not reached the general ear. It was eminently so 
 with Luther. It was also with John Huss. Three of his pre- 
 cursors are Militz, an archdeacon, Conrad, an Austrian, and 
 Janow, properly called Matthias; and it is curious that the 
 point then insisted upon by the reformers was the restoration 
 
204 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of daily communion. The last in particular wished thus to 
 reinstate the laity in full equality of reception of the supper 
 with the clergy. But the treatise on the right of the laity to 
 the cup is by Huss, and was written at ‘ohineiiriees before he was 
 committed to prison. Its title is characteristic of the wnadvanced 
 state of his own opinions. It would run thus in English :—* On 
 “the right of the laity to receive the blood of Christ under the 
 “species (Eng. form) of wine.” It is singular that the great 
 Gerson and D’Ailly both joined Huss’s enemies, But so it 
 often is in a perilous revolution. Each man is apt to isolate 
 himself and to believe and fight for his own favoured point, 
 and to think that the objects of others ought to be waived in 
 order to carry that one which he pushes on. Their chief idea 
 was to subject the Pope and Christendom to a supremacy lodged 
 in general councils; and the movement survived the mistakes 
 of their policy: but they spared very little attention for Huss’s 
 rights and struggles, and so actually suffered themselves to be 
 enrolled against him. But though Huss’s name is in all churches, 
 perhaps few persons know that he lived and died a thorough 
 believer in transubstantiation, just as did Savonarola; and just 
 like Savonarola he had his heart full of all spiritual feeling 
 towards Christ in person, while he fully believed that he was 
 eating and drinking Christ’s very body and blood. Why then 
 did the Roman rulers burn him? First, he had attacked clerical 
 corruption, and the Pope’s rule. But so had many in every 
 country. Secondly, he had received to the full the doctrine 
 Wycliff so much favoured, that dominion is of grace; and in 
 this he had defied both the pope and his own archbishop Zbynek. 
 There was error in this undoubtedly. Thirdly, he had demanded 
 the restoration of the cup to the laity. And fourthly, he had 
 come out as a righteous Abel and a truth-preaching Noah, and 
 a heavenly-minded Enoch, to those sons of Cain. But Milman 
 makes an acute remark that Pope John XXIII, who most 
 unwillingly conceded and attended this council, felt himself 
 caught in a trap when he entered the city: and that, when the 
 safe-conduct of John Huss was violated, the Pope felt his own 
 security gone: and therefore took the earliest opportunity of 
 escaping from the city. Perhaps the most fit remark, to close, 
 is that our gallant countryman John Wycliff little thought 
 that his witness would work to regenerate a German kingdom : 
 
1278] JEROME OF PRAGUE. 205 
 
 but Huss really was, above all other things, a foreign follower 
 of the great Rector of Lutterworth. And this is all owing 
 reasonably to the marriage of our Richard II. to Ann, daugitter 
 of the Bohemian king Wenceslaus. 
 
 Jerome, a knight of Bohemia, was not the only chevalier 
 of that land who aspired after literary and scientific as well as 
 religious truth, and he was a considerable traveller. He had 
 visited Oxford, probably on Wycliff’s account. His youth, his 
 eloquence, his simple piety availed nothing. He was entrapped 
 and recanted, recanted his recantation, and was mercilessly slain. 
 Huss before he died dreamed that Jerome was taken to prison. 
 
 As to the position of Huss, properly pronounced Husch, he 
 was a native of Husinec, an obscure town in the circle of Prachin 
 in Bohemia: but his talents raised him to be Rector of the 
 University of Prague, and confessor of the Queen of Bohemia, 
 the second wife of King Wenceslaus. He was also preacher in 
 the chapel of Bethlehem, founded at Prague for preaching in 
 the Bohemian tongue. Some Vaudois had prepared the way in 
 Prague when works of Wycliff arrived there in 1385. In 1453, 
 forty-five Wycliffite propositions were discussed and condemned 
 by the University. Yet at the council of Pisa, Zbynek, the 
 archbishop of Bohemia, reported that he had not one heretic in 
 his province. Wycliff's Trialogus was widely dispersed by Huss 
 among the principal Bohemian laymen, and he ventured to 
 praise Wycliffin his sermons. In 1410, five hundred suspected 
 volumes were publicly burned, and Huss was known to be in 
 danger. Thus things went. Zbynek died, and the pope delayed 
 sending the pall to his successor: but sent a bull commanding a 
 crusade against Ladislas, king of Naples: and this bull was 
 preached against by Huss, and contumeliously treated and pub- 
 licly burned by a Hussite knight. In 1412, Huss was put under 
 the greater excommunication, and Prague under an interdict, 
 excepting only the palace of the king. The rest of the story is 
 well known. The Emperor Sigismund’s safe-conduct was broken, 
 the reformer was imprisoned, and things worked on to the bitter 
 end, as by his foes was intended from the beginning. 
 
 Τὸ is handed down that this Jerome at his burning summoned 
 his persecutors to appear a hundred years from that day at the 
 bar of God, and to give an account of his innocent blood. We 
 need only remark that he gave them a longer period than the 
 
206 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. ; [A.D. 
 
 common laws of life would allow. We see in his words no pro- 
 phecy of the rise of Luther. Jerome makes the third with 
 Berengar and Cranmer who first earned an unhappy notoriety in 
 God’s Church by recanting, and then obtained the lessened glory 
 of recanting their own recantation. But the first of the true 
 teachers at Cambridge and others of less conspicuous lustre paled 
 their brightness thus, and then shone out again in like manner. 
 Stars in the heavens which undergo combustion reappear, but 
 are of lesser magnitude. Martyrs that have shrunk from death 
 may suffer in their glory. 
 
 P. 47. “Treatise on the sacrament of Christ’s body and 
 blood published from the prison at Constance. I have subordi- 
 nated my mind to Holy Writ, entirely desiring neither to think 
 or assert anything contrary thereto, but in harmony with the 
 blessed Augustine’s rule, ‘most firmly believing whatever Christ 
 ‘wills to be believed respecting Himself, and believing nothing 
 ‘which He does not will to be believed respecting Himself,’ 
 Believing also with holy mother the church every credible truth 
 just as the blessed Trinity wills that it should be granted. 
 Holding also the opinion (or sentence) of general councils and 
 holy doctors of the church whether explicitly or implicitly de- 
 clared. Holding fast this too with all my heart, that I should 
 desire, by the hope and aid of the Lord now Christ (in Heaven), 
 to suffer the penalty of a terrible death, before I would choose to 
 assert anything contrary to the holy faith. For which reason 
 under the same protestation I have taught, read and answered 
 in certain books in the University of Prague and have preached 
 to the people through the realm of Bohemia, and especially of 
 Prague, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Under the same believing 
 
 J, Hussii Historia et Monumenta, p. 47. Nuremb. 1715. 
 
 Tractatus de Sacramento Corp. et Sang. Christi e carcere Constantize 
 editus. Ego mentem meam Scripture sacre subjeci, nihil volens penitus 
 vel sentire vel asserere illi contrarium, sed secundum regulam beati 
 Augustini “ Credens firmissime quicquid vult Christus de Se credi, et 
 “nihil credens quod vult de Se non credi.” Credens etiam cum sancta 
 matre ecclesia omnem veritatem credibilem prout vult benedicta Trinitas 
 ipsam concedi. Tenens etiam generalium conciliorum et sanctorum 
 doctorum ecclesiz sententiam explicite vel implicite. Retinens hoc etiam 
 cordialiter, quod, antequam vellem aliquid sancte fidei contrarium 
 asserere, quod vellem in spe et auxilio Domini jam Christi, pati sup- 
 plicium dire mortis. Unde sub ipsd protestatione quosdam semper 
 libellos docui legi respondi in Univ. Pragensi et preedicavi populo per 
 regnum Bohemie et specialiter Pragee evangelium Jesu Christi, Sub 
 
1373] JOHN HUSS. 207 
 
 and humble protest, reserving the possibility of a better judgment, 
 I will for thy sake touch these points, (1) Wherefore it was estab- 
 lished, (2) What is to be believed, (3) What is to be received, 
 and (4) In what kind it is to be received by Christ’s faithful. 
 (1) It is suggested that a faithful man ought to recal to memory, 
 as far as he can, the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, especially His 
 passion, His works and benefits... On which account the pres- 
 byters say in the office of the mass, ‘ We offer to thee this cup in) 
 ‘remembrance of the saving passion, resurrection and ascension of} 
 ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ Three things are named there, which are 
 
 principally signified by the oblation of the sacrament that is to δ 
 venerated... and (the priest) ought to have these elevations present 
 in his memory while he raises and offers to God the Father in the 
 sacrament the (ever) to be venerated body of Christ which He 
 God Himself offered on the altar of the cross. Hence the blessed 
 Augustine says thatthe offering of this sacrament is Christ’s 
 ‘passion in the mystery which has been signified,’ 2. e. represents 
 the mystery of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. And for 
 a sign of this the priest that desires to perform mass puts on 
 himself many vestments which mark the robes in which Jesus 
 Himself in His own passion was mocked both by the Gentiles 
 and by the Jews. Whence it is that he who devoutly calls to 
 mind the passion of Christ itself, he spiritually eats His flesh 
 and drinks His blood, even though he should not. (have opportu- 
 nity to) receive the venerated sacrament, &c. (2) When simple 
 persons believe that there is in the venerated sacrament, from 
 the power and institution of Christ, true God and true man, 
 
 eadem protestatione fideli et humili salvo meliore judicio tanquam pro 
 tui gratia ista puncta, (1) Quare institutum, (2) Quid credendum, (3) 
 Quod est sumendum, (4) Qualiter a Christi fidelibus sumendum. (1) 
 Innuitur quod fidelis debet in memoriam recolligere, quantum potest, 
 vitam Domini Jesu Christi, specialiter passionem Hjus...opera et bene- 
 ficia... Unde in Miss officio dicunt presbyteri, “‘ Offerimus Tibi hune 
 “ calicem salutaris in memoriam Passionis Resurrectionis et Ascensionis 
 “Domini Jesu Christi.” Tria ibi nominantur que principaliter per 
 oblationem sacramenti venerabilis significantur, Et istas devotiones 
 debet habere in memoria presentes dum elevat et offert in sacramento 
 venerandum Deo Patri corpus Christi, quod Ipse Deus obtulit in ara 
 crucis... Hine dicit beatus Aug. de Con. Dist. 2 quod ‘ oblatio hujus 
 “‘sacramenti est passio Christi in significato mysterio,” 1. 6. representat 
 mysterium passionis Domini Jesu Christi. Et in signum hujus sacerdos 
 volens missare, multa vestimenta induit que signant vestimenta in 
 quibus in passione Sua et gentibus et a Judeeis Ipse Jesus est illusus... 
 Unde qui devote ipsam Christi passionem recolit, ille spiritualiter corpus 
 Kjus manducat et sanguinem bibit, et si sacramentum venerabile non 
 sumit, &. (2) Cum credunt simplices quod ex potestate et institutione 
 Christi, veri Dei et veri hominis, per ministerium sacerdotum est in sacra- 
 
208 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 by the ministry of the priests, His own true body, which was con- 
 ceived and born of Mary the virgin by the Holy Spirit’s most 
 pure power, which suffered on the cross, which layin the 
 sepulchre for three days, which ascended into Heaven and sits 
 at the right hand of God, that and not another, without any new 
 substantial inception of Himself is in this venerated sacrament 
 itself. In a similar way the blood, &c. Also we must believe 
 that as well a good as a bad priest having a right faith concern- 
 ing the venerated sacrament, and having an intention to do it 
 in such a manner as Christ enjoined, and accomplishes (makes) 
 it saying the words in the mass according to the church’s institu- 
 tion (7. 6. by the virtue of the words he sacramentally, ministerially 
 causes it to be under the appearance of bread the true body of 
 Christ). In like manner under the appearance of wine, ὅσ. 
 And I say he does it ministerially, because he does it as a minister 
 of Christ, who does it by the power and words of Christ, which 
 Christ does by His own power, and by His own words, transub- 
 stantiating the bread into His own body, and the wine into His own 
 blood. From which the church sings, ‘Let the dogma be given 
 ‘to the Christians That bread passes into flesh and wine into 
 ‘blood,’ and again, ‘The Word flesh makes true bread flesh by 
 ‘the word [This is My body], And wine becomes the blood of 
 ‘Christ, And if sense fails (to grasp it) Then to confirm the sin- 
 ‘cere heart, Faith alone suffices. And Augustine says, ‘The 
 ‘sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord is neither more 
 ‘accomplished (made) by a good priest nor less by a bad.’ I 
 held the opinion of such before I became a priest, and from 
 
 mento venerabili, verwm corpus Suum, quod conceptum est et natum ex 
 Maria virgine castissim4 potestate sancti Spiritis, quod passum est in 
 eruce, quod jacuit in sepulchro pro triduo, quod ascendit in coelum, et 
 sedet ad dextram Dei Patris—zllud et non aliud sine nova Sui substan- 
 tiali inceptione est in ipso sacramento venerabili. Similiter sanguis, ὅσο, 
 Item credendum est quod tam bonus quam malus sacerdos habens fidem 
 rectam circa sacramentum venerabile, et habens intentionem sic facere 
 ut precepit Christus, et dicens verba in missa secundum institutum 
 ecclesie conjicit (1. 6. virtute verborum sacramentaliter facit ministeri- 
 aliter esse sub specie panis verum corpus Christi). Similiter sub specie | 
 vini, &c. Et dico facit ministerialiter quia tanquam minister Christi, 
 qui potestate et verbis Christi facit, quod facit Christus potestate pro- 
 pria et verbis propriis, transubstantians panem in corpus Suum, et vinum 
 in sanguinem Suum. Unde canit ecclesia, “ Dogma detur Christianis 
 “Quod in carnem transit panis, Et vinum in sanguinem”: et iterum, 
 “Verbum caro panem verum Verbo carnem efficit, Fitque sanguis 
 “Christi merum. Εὖ si sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum, Sola 
 “fides sufficit.” Dicente Aug., “Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis 
 «Domini nec a bono magis nec a malo minus perficitur.” Istorum 
 sententiam ante sacerdotium meum tenui et a principio sacerdotii mei 
 
1373] JOHN HUSS. 209 
 
 the beginning of my priesthood I have preached and written 
 thus, as appears from my little book with my sermon on the 
 body of Christ, which I wrote in the first year of my preaching, 
 which was, as I reckon, the year of the Lord 1401. And _after- 
 wards I taught them in the University of Prague, reading 
 (lecturing on) the book of the Master of the Sentences, I reckon 
 A.D. 1409 [Jerome’s authority led Peter Lombard to use the 
 words conficiunt corpus Christi. Lombard’s doing this causes 
 Huss to use them. So error is handed down], in which year 
 our lord Alexander was chosen in the council of Pisa to be 
 pope. May God therefore spare all my enemies who have said 
 and brought accusation against me before the Roman Curia, 
 that I have ever preached that a priest living in mortal sin 
 does not make (Christ’s body), and cannot consecrate, ὅθ. ‘We 
 ‘must note, as says St Bernard, ‘there are three things: the 
 ‘truth of the flesh (of Christ); the unity of love; and the ap- 
 ‘pearance of bread.’ A bad man attains to (Christ’s) true flesh : 
 a righteous man to the union of love; a little mouse to the 
 appearance (kind or form) of bread. (2) The Word flesh (the 
 Son existing as man) causes by His word (by transubstantiation) 
 true bread flesh, and wine becomes (by transubstantiation) blood. 
 The matter of this is evident from Augustine’s Con. Dist. 2, 
 and through Ambrose, Eusebius and others; thence the canticle 
 above mentioned, approved by Eusebius, was sung by me from 
 the year when I began to learn to sing, and I sang it in the 
 schools and in the church. I afterwards read both in my office 
 and in the masses, and I preached in sermons and never preached 
 that in the sacrament of either (bread or wine) there remains the 
 natural bread of the sacrament, concerning which the enemies 
 
 predicavi et scripsi prout patet ex libello in sermone de corpore Christi 
 quem scripsi primo anno mee predicationis, qui fuit ut estimo annus 
 Domini 1401. [See Tractatus, p. 202.] Et post docui in Univ. Pragensi 
 legendo librum Magistri Sententiarum, estimo a.p. 1409, quo dominus 
 Alexander in concilio Pisano electus fuit in Papatum. Parcat ergo 
 Deus omnibus inimicis meis, qui dixerunt et ad Romanam Curiam 
 accusationem detulerunt, me unquam preedicasse quod sacerdos existens 
 in peccato mortali non conficit et non consecrat, &c....  “ Notandum,” 
 ut ait Bernardus, ‘Sunt tria: veritas carnis, unio charitatis, et species 
 “panis.” Ad veritatem carnis pertingit homo malus: ad unionem 
 charitatis homo justus, ad speciem panis sorex parvus. (47) Verbum caro 
 (i.e. Filius existens homo) efficit verbo per transubstantiationem verum 
 panem carnem, et merum (i.e. vinum) fit (scilicet per transubs.) sanguis. 
 Patet iste materia de Con, Dist. 2(Aug.), per sanctos Amb. Euseb. et 
 per alios ; unde canticum supradictum approbatum ab Eusebio, ab anno 
 quo ccepi cantare discere cantavique in scholis et in ecclesia. Post legi 
 et in officio et in Missis et predicavi in sermonibus et nunquam pre- 
 dicavi quod in sacramento alterius manet sacramenti panis naturalis, de 
 
 He 71. 14 
 
210 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of the truth lyingly have accused me. There is further the point 
 that in this venerated sacrament one thing is perceived by the 
 senses and another thing is believed to be there. That is the 
 blessed Augustine’s idea. ‘For the appearance (form) of the 
 ‘sacred sign is perceived, and the body and blood are believed 
 ‘to be in it. Hence the form is seen, broken, tasted, smelt, 
 received. Christ’s body and blood there (present) do not 
 undergo these things... Or-Christ’s body is believed to be there 
 hidden under the appearance of another thmg. Whence the 
 church sings, ‘What you take not, what you see not, Let vigorous 
 ‘faith hold firmly.’ Also‘ When at last the sacramental bread 
 ‘has been broken, Waver not but remember, That as much is 
 ‘comprehended in a little piece, As is covered by the whole, 
 (3) John vi. (a), ‘He remains in Me and I in him,’ (0) ‘ He shall 
 ‘not die for ever,’ (c) ‘He shall have eternal life.’ There are other 
 causes for communicating, that 116 midway before these come to 
 pass: as to be purged from sins, to advance in virtues, to be 
 freed from punishment in purgatory (lit. purgatorial penalty), a 
 debt of suffering which man owes, to be strengthened against 
 enemies (1. 6. the world, the flesh and the devil), to weaken the 
 power of temptations in themselves, to advantage the living and 
 the dead, to gladden angels and saints in Heaven, to get nearer 
 to the Kingdom of Heaven [above], to be ready to die for Christ, 
 to rejoice spiritually in Christ Himself, to be illuminated in 
 the Spirit, and cheerfully to wait for (one’s call to) theKingdom 
 of God. Behold, dearest friend, thou wilt (thus) prepare thyself 
 to eat the Lord’s body. [A passage of sublime piety. His doc- 
 trinal clouds shut not out, they scarcely seem to dim the light 
 shining on him from the country to which he feels that he will 
 soon be summoned. How different from the fears of the poor 
 
 quo me veritatis inimici mendaciter accusarunt. Ulterius est secundum 
 quod in sacramento venerabili aliud sentitur et aliud creditur. Istud 
 per beatum Aug. de Con. Dist. 2, ‘‘Nam sentitur species sacramentalis 
 “et creditur in ipsa corpus et sanguis Christi.” Unde species videtur 
 frangitur gustatur odoratur percipitur. Non hee ibi corpus Christi vel 
 . sanguis patitur... Vel corpus Christi creditur sub aliena specie occul- 
 tatum. Unde canit ecclesia, “ Quod non capis quod non vides, Animosa 
 firmet fides,’ &c. Item “" Fracto demum sacramento Non vacilles sed 
 “memento Tantum esse sub fragmento Quantum toto tegitur.” (50) 
 John vi. (a) “ In Me manet et Ego i in eo,” (6) “ non morietur in eternum,” 
 
 (c) “habebit vitam eeternam.” Sunt alice cause (communicationis) ad istas 
 mediz ; ut purgari a peccatis, proficere in virtutibus, liberari a peena pur- 
 gatoria, quam deberet homo pati, fortificari contra “hostes (scilicet mun- 
 dum carnem et diabolum), debilitare in se tentationes ; prodesse vivis et 
 mortuis, leetificare angelos et sanctos in clo, propinquari celorum 
 regno, paratum esse mori pro Christo, gaudere spiritualiter in Ipso, 
 illuminari in Spiritu, et expectare hilariter regnum Dei, Ecce cha- 
 
1373] JOHN HUSS. 211 
 
 pope who fled from the city!] (4) He ought to prove himself in 
 faith, in hope, in love, also in the moral virtues... It must also 
 be known that the eating of Christ’s body, and in like manner 
 the drinking (ofHis_blood), is a kind of spiritual (eating and. 
 drinking) ONLY, and it is to abide in Christ and to have Christ 
 abiding in him, and men are bound to (obtain) that spiritual 
 eating and drinking under the penalty of being deprived of 
 eternal life, John vi. (Note. This delightful truth may be held 
 with transubstantiation, It is not necessarily incompatible. It 
 is something over and above, which Christ gave even in that 
 darkness to His own. See also Savonarola and we hope such 
 as Dr Pusey.] The second eating of the body and drinking, &c. 
 is only sacramental (v.e. of the sign only)... as did Judas Iscariot 
 ... Such an one remains not in Christ by grace. Augustine hints 
 this, ‘He that eateth not (outwardly) eateth (inwardly): and he 
 that eateth eateth not’ The third is eating and drinking in a 
 sacramental and spiritual way too... He eats worthily... he then 
 receives the sacrament and the real object of the sacrament, 
 which is grace, by which he is united to Christ. [Remember the 
 good in P. Lombard.] The first eating will be perpetual, because 
 the saints will perpetually abide in Christ and will have Him 
 abiding in them. The second will not be perpetual, but will 
 run on, as I reckon, unto the very day of judgment, as also 
 will the bad Christians unworthily eating the body of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. The third ought to last among Christians until 
 the very day of the coming of the judgment (1 Cor. xi., As often as, 
 &e.). The first eating all men ought to have. As to the second 
 they ought to use great caution; and devoutly and humbly to 
 
 rissime te ad manducationem corpus Domini preparabis. (4) Probare se 
 debet in fide in spe in charitate etiam in virtutibus moralibus... Est 
 etiam sciendum quod manducatio corporis Christi, similiter et bibitio, 
 queedam est spiritualis tantum, que est in Christo manere et Christum 
 manentem in se habere... et ad istam spiritualem manducationem et 
 bibitionem obligantur sub privatione vite eterne homines. John vi. 
 Unless ye eat, &c. Secunda manducatio corporis et bibitio, &c., est 
 tantum sacramentalis...ut fecit Judas Iscarioth... Non manet in 
 Christo per gratiam... Innuit...Aug. “ Non manducans manducat 
 “et manducans non manducat.” Tertia manducatio et bibitio est sa- 
 cramentalis et spiritualis... Digne manducat... tune recipit sacra- 
 mentum ... et rem sacramenti que est gratia, quad unitur Domino Jesu 
 Christo. Prima manducatio erit perpetua, quia perpetue sancti mane- 
 bunt in Christo et Ipsum manentem in se habebunt. Secunda non erit 
 perpetua, sed curret ut xstimo usque ad diem judicii, sicut et mali 
 christiani indigne* manducantes corpus Domini Jesu Christi. Tertia 
 debet durare in Christianis usque ad diem adventus judicii (1 Cor. xi, 
 As often as, &.). Primam manducationem deberent omnes homines 
 habere. Secundam deberent valde cavere. Et tertiam devote et hu- 
 
 14—2 
 
212 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY, [A.D. 
 
 frequent the third. But alas! that third, I say, lost its frequency 
 with many, from the time in which the first either totally vanished 
 or was very much chilled in (Christians) themselves, Matt. xxiv. 
 Because iniquity shall abound, &c. [Ending of the peroration.] 
 Alas to those who are sick of the saving (healthful) and most sweet 
 food. And the days which by the propitious grace of God in 
 Christ, dearest brother, are now days of salvation and penitence. 
 Let us therefore, putting off the old man, labour with the whole 
 desire of our hearts, that at the approaching Easter-day, we may 
 with chaste body, clean heart and pure conscience be able to 
 eat the eternal supper of the Lord not unto judgment to us but 
 
 unto eternal life. Which may Jesus Christ the true God, Son 
 of God and of the Virgin Mary, grant to us, Who to the ages of 
 ages is blessed, Amen. 
 
 From the second life of Jerome of Prague at the end of the 
 Works of Huss. 
 
 P. 530. “ When he was asked by some one, what were his 
 opinions on the sacrament of the altar, he said, Before it is conse- 
 crated itis bread and wine, but after it is consecrated it is Christ’s 
 body and blood, after the utterance of those words on it, which the 
 true faith counts essentially necessary. But lo! another rises 
 and says, It is indeed most extensively reported about you, that 
 you hold the opinion that it is bread upon the altar. He playfully 
 replied, I for my part believe that bread is to be found in the 
 baker’s shops, not in the sacrament of the altar. 
 
 militer frequentare. Sed heu! ista scilicet tertia in multis frequenta- 
 tionem non habuit, ex eo quia prima in ipsis evanuit totaliter vel 
 multum refriguit.... Matt. xxiv., Because iniquity, &c., &e. The perora- 
 tion ends thus, Ve illis qui nauseant super cibo salutifero et dulcissimo, 
 ... Et qui propitia Divinitatis gratia in Christo, frater charissime, jam 
 sunt dies salutis et penitentie; igitur exuentes veterem hominem 
 laboremus toto cordis desiderio, ut ad diem Pasche (quod propinquat) 
 cum casto corpore, mundo corde, et pura conscientia possimus non nobis 
 in judicium sed in vitam eternam cenam Dominicam manducare. Quod 
 nobis prestare dignetur Jesus Christus verus Deus, Dei et Mariz virginis 
 Filius, in seeculorum seecula benedictus. Amen. 
 
 P. 530. 
 
 Rogatus a quopiam, ecquid de sacramento altaris sentiret? “ Ante 
 “consecrationem,” inquit, “est panis et vinum, post consecrationem 
 “verum corpus et sanguis Christi, adjectis insuper verbis que sincera 
 “fides exigit.” Ecce autem alius surgens ait, “ Maximus sane rumor 
 “est de te, quod in ea sis opinione ut credas panem esse in altari.” 
 Mle festive respondit, “ Credo equidem panem apud pistorem esse, non 
 ‘(in sacramento altaris.” 
 
1378] JEROME OF PRAGUE. 213 
 
 From his Abjuration in the first life. 
 
 P. 524. “But I assent to the decisions of the holy Roman 
 church and apostolic seat, and of this sacred council, and with 
 my mouth and heart I profess this in all points and through 
 all matters, and especially concerning the power of the keys 
 and the doctrine of the sacraments, &c., as the church of Rome 
 and apostolic seat, and this sacred council profess, &c. 
 
 P. 526. “1 call God to witness and protest to you that I 
 believe and hold all the articles of faith as the holy catholic 
 church believes and holds them, &c. But after the said sermon 
 had been finished by the said bishop Laud, then Mr Jerome 
 among other things again said to them, Ye decide to condemn 
 me without right or justice; and I shall after my death leave 
 remorse in your consciences, and a nail fastened in your hearts, 
 and I summon you all to answer me before the Most High and 
 most Just Judge within a hundred years from this time.” 
 
 From his first Protest. 
 
 P. 522. “If after I have come to you thus, and surrendered 
 myself to your justice, any arrest of my person or making me 
 prisoner, or violence be used to me without proof of any fault 
 of mine, it would thenceforward be plain to the world that 
 this general council is not proceeding by the rules of justice and 
 fairness; if, that is, it should in any manner deny to me the 
 highest and most rigid justice, coming as I did of my own accord 
 
 He O24, Ὁ LLL. 
 
 Consentio autem sanctze Romanee ecclesize et apostolice sedi et huic 
 sacro concilio, et ore ac corde profiteor in omnibus et per omnia et pre- 
 sertim de clavibus sacramentis, &c., prout ipsa Romana ecclesia et 
 apostolica sedes et hoc sacrum concilium profitentur, ὅσο, 
 
 Ee O20; Ὁ 
 
 Testor Deum et protestor vobiscum quod omnes articulos fidei credo 
 et teneo sicut sancta catholica credit et tenet ecclesia, &e. C. vr. Post- 
 quam vero dictum sermonem episcopus Laudensis jam dictus finivisset, 
 extunc M. Hieronymus iterum inter cetera dixit ad eos, “ Vos vultis 
 “me condemnare inique et injuste : et ego post mortem meam relinquam 
 in conscientia vestra remorsum et clavum in cordibus vestris, et cito vos 
 omnes ut respondeatis mihi coram Altissimo et Justissimo Judice infra 
 centum annos.” 
 
 Pe OD) Cal. 
 
 Si mihi venienti et me tantze equitati offerenti, ante probationem 
 cujusquam culpz arestatio vel captivatio vel violentia fieret, extunc toti 
 mundo patesceret, quod hoc generale concilium non secundum justitiam 
 atque eequitatem procederet : si me sponte et libere venientem a tam alta 
 
214 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and at full liberty : and this I think will be far from what this 
 very sacred council of wise men will do.” 
 
 By this evidence Jerome as well as Huss claimed to be justi- 
 fied as holders of all received doctrines of the Roman church 
 and of transubstantiation—z.e. the change of the substance of 
 the bread and wine—in particular. Their condemnation and 
 punishment were therefore most unjustifiable. 
 
 et rigida equitate quovis modo repelleret: quod utique longe a tam 
 sacro sapientum concilio puto relegatum. 
 
 (H.) JOHN CHARLIER DE GERSON, born in Champagne. 
 Β, 1509. ». 1429. - 
 
 One of the leading minds of the age; one who had reached 
 true spiritual personal piety; and one who was capable to a 
 great extent of dealing with and truly healing the diseased state 
 of Christendom. If Cranmer was eminent for worldly wisdom 
 when he referred to the universities Henry’s dispute with the 
 pope on the legitimacy of his marriage with his brother’s widow, 
 Gerson was not a whit less worldly-wise. when, in conjunction 
 with Peter dAilly who had been his teacher, and Nicolas 
 Clemangis his friend and co-student, he broke the theory of 
 Papal Supremacy by raising the counter idea of the supremacy 
 of Councils, France raised civil lawyers to controvert the Roman 
 Curia in the time of Philip Augustus; and now France originated 
 this new invasion of the hitherto paramount lordship of the pope 
 over Christendom. The fact seems to have been that the divers 
 and unending varieties of utter corruption exhibited by the 
 successive tenants of the papal chair, and the system of extortion 
 and oppression over all the subject nations, which these popes 
 had built up around themselves, had well-nigh worn out the 
 forbearance of Christendom. The Reformation was nearly come. 
 It only needed to be put on a right basis as to doctrine. This 
 was the destined work of men in the 14th and 15th centuries ; 
 and then it was brought into full popular view by men equal 
 to the task in the 16th century. But Gerson and some others 
 had to perform their preliminary work in the two prior cen- 
 turies. His Summa is excellent, and all his publications are 
 
1363] JOHN CHARLIER DE GERSON. 215 
 
 stamped with those superior qualities which won him the high 
 title Doctor Christianissimus. He is the leading figure of the 
 age, and he is Chancellor of Paris and leader of the Sorbonne. 
 But after fatal Constance, he spent the remainder of his days in 
 religious retirement, doubtless with the fate of Huss and Jerome 
 weighing heavily on his mind. Commentaries on the Psalms, 
 and other remaining devotional works, are the fit fruits of that 
 period; and a great effort has been made to detach the ‘ Imita- 
 tion of Christ’ from its received author, and to attach the honour of 
 that popular work to Gerson’s crown of pious glory. One would 
 at once have pronounced it of far too superstitious a character, 
 and too faintly exhibitive of the Atonement to be Gerson’s. 
 It seems much more the production of a solitary. If we may 
 venture to analyse Gerson’s feelings, we might say that his whole 
 heart was filled with a yearning desire for the much-needed 
 reform of Christendom; and thus the maintenance of the claims 
 of sacred liberty assailed in the person of Huss seemed to him 
 an interference with his great object: so he thrust them aside; 
 and though the spirit of reform gained by the movement, it 
 closed with an almost ridiculous failure when after cashiering the 
 two anti-popes Benedict and Gregory, it put itself under the 
 feet of Martin V. and was ignominiously suspended. 
 
 P. 227. “Christ holds Himself in His hands (Augustine). 
 He feeds Himself, being Himself the food... We must say that 
 in His own proper appearance He in a certain way stands apart 
 from Himself under the appearance of the sacrament; since in 
 His own proper appearance He is in Heaven, but under the 
 appearance of the sacrament He is on the altar; and according 
 to this mode it is not inconsistent that He takes (up) Himself... 
 Conclusion, Christ ate Himself in the supper on Holy Thursday... 
 Bread and wine are the material of this sacrament. The cause 
 of its institution may be manifold, One, that those two things 
 
 Summa Theologie, p. 227. Venice, 1587. 
 
 Setenetinmanibus. SecibatIpse cibus... Dicendum est quod sub 
 specie propria quodammodo distat a Seipso sub specie sacramenti: quoniam 
 nune in specie propria est in ccelo, sed sub specie sacramenti est In altari; 
 et secundum hune modum non est inconveniens quod Seipsum assumat. 
 [P. 228.] Conclusio. Christus manducavit Seipsum in coena in die Jovis 
 sancta...Panis et vinum sunt materia hujus sacramenti. Causa institu- 
 tionis potest esse multiplex. Una quia ista duo convenientius in cibo et 
 
216 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 come very conveniently as food. Another cause, Bread sustains 
 the body and wine makes the heart glad. ‘Third, They are 
 clean things to handle, and fourth, It is a matter with two sides ; 
 that is, There is a true body of Christ, and there is a mystical... 
 from many collected into one—bread from many grains—wine 
 from many grapes or bunches. A fifth, The grains (are prepared) 
 in the corn-floor, the bread in the furnace, the wine in the press; 
 which all concur to represent Christ’s passion... The body put 
 in the pyx on the day of the supper dies the next day on the 
 cross. All sufferings are possible inwardly in the sacrament 
 of Christ’s body, which are possible to it under His own proper 
 appearance, as to die, to suffer pain, and the like, not the 
 external sufferings by beating, by hanging. 
 
 P. 254. “‘This’ (My body) proves or shews the substance 
 of the bread, which by virtue of the word instantaneously passes 
 into Christ’s body. ‘Therefore that prayer of (consecration) is 
 not only indicative but operative too, because it is in truth 
 shewn to be bread, but under accidents perceptible by the senses, 
 and the bread indeed truly passes into Christ’s body by virtue 
 of the operative word. That word ‘is’ is placed there (This 1s, 
 «&c.) because that form is operative, not an operation afterwards 
 but instantaneous [see last extracts]... For this reason it is ‘is,’ 
 not ‘will be’... That word ‘is’ does not set forth to us there a 
 pretence (i.e. a figure) but the truth of the conversion of the 
 bread into Christ’s body... That conversion takes place suddenly 
 
 potu veniunt, Alia causa, Panis sustentat corpus, et vinum cor letificat. 
 Tertia, Mundius tractantur, Quarta, Duplex est res; scilicet corpus 
 Christi verum et corpus Christi mysticum ...ex multis aggregatis in 
 unum—panis ex multis granis—vinum ex multis uvis seu racemis, 
 Quinta, Grana in area, panis in fornace, vinum in torculari—que omnia 
 competunt ad representandam passionem Christi. [P. 229.] Corpus 
 in pyxide positum in die ccenz in crastino moritur in cruce. Omnes 
 passiones intrinsece competunt corporis Christi sub sacramento, que Ki 
 competunt sub specie propria, sicut mori, dolorem pati, et similia, non 
 passiones extrinsecee verberatu laqueatu. 
 
 P, 254. 
 
 “Hoc” (corpus Meum) demonstrat substantiam panis qui virtute 
 verbi transit in corpus Christi instantanee. Ideo ea oratio non solum 
 est indicativa sed etiam operativa, propter quod vere demonstratur panis, 
 sed sub accidentibus sensualibus, qui quidem panis vere transit in corpus 
 Christi virtute verbi operativi [I have written verbi, not Verbi] ... 
 Ponitur ibi istud verbum “est” quod ista forma est operativa non 
 operatione successiva sed instantanea. Propter hoc “ est” non “erit”... 
 Tlud verbum “est” non notat ibi simulationem sed veritatem conver- 
 sionis panis in corpus Christi... C. Conversio illa fit subito...  Licet 
 
1363] JOHN CHARLIER DE GERSON. O07 
 
 ... Although the utterance of the word (This is my body) is 
 accomplished by successive acts of pronunciation, yet that con- 
 version takes place by the uncreated Word Who works in an 
 instant: whence it is certain that when the whole has been 
 said the whole has been done... But when the Lord has (actually) 
 done it He only knows... He spake the words but once, but 
 gave them virtue (for ever). 
 
 P. 259. It is according to God to be in every place simply 
 and in His own proper nature. It is according to a creature 
 to be in one place only. But the body of Christ has a mode of 
 existence between the two. For as it is a creature it cannot 
 be made equal to God in that it is in every place; but as it has 
 been made one with the Godhead, it ought to excel all other 
 bodies in this that it can under the sacrament of the altar be in 
 very many places at once [. 6. an assumption is to be made in 
 opposition to all @ priori or inductive conclusions regarding the 
 laws of matter, because it is to be stoutly denied (without any 
 ground for such denial) that Christ could have meant This is 
 My body, &c. in a figurative sense]. 
 
 P. 226. “The mode of using this sacrament is to eat it: 
 which requires for completeness both eating and drinking... Yet 
 on account of the risk which attends the pouring out of blood 
 (wine) [{. 6. the risk of spilling some part] it is ministered to the 
 people under the form (appearance) of bread; and under this 
 form there is the whole Christ. There is also another cause; 
 because if it were ministered to the people under both forms 
 
 prolatio verbi fit successiva, tamen illa conversio fit per Verbum in- 
 creatum, quod operatur in instanti, unde certum est quod quando totum 
 
 dictum est totum factum est... Sed quando Dominus faciat, Ipse solus 
 novit. Semel verba dixit, eis dando virtutem, p. 255, 
 Papo. 
 
 Deo convenit esse ubique simpliciter et proprie. Creaturz convenit 
 esse in uno loco tantum, Corpus Christi autem medio modo se habet. 
 Cum enim sit creatura, non debet equari Creatori in hoc quod ubique ; 
 cum vero unitatum est Divinitate, debet in hoc excellere alia corpora ut 
 simul in locis plurimis possit esse sub sacramento altaris [and this 
 utterly unphilosophical assertion rests upon nothiig but a determination 
 of brass that they will not allow that Christ can have spoken “in a 
 “fioure” in this instance, though He did confessedly in a thousand 
 others]. 
 
 P, 226. 
 Usus hujus sacramenti est manducatio que ad sui integritatem et 
 cibum et potum exigit.... Tamen propter periculum effusionis sanguinis 
 
 populo ministratur sub specie panis ; sub qua specie est totus Christus. 
 Item est alia causa—quia si ministraretur populo sub utraque specie 
 a 
 
218 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 common people would not believe that there is the whole Christ, 
 (or a whole Christ) under each kind [appearance, species, or form] 
 [What reasons in excuse for not conforming to Christ’s command ! 
 but Gerson adds] according to Bonaventure. [Why did not our 
 Lord foresee these risks, and institute it differently, or at least 
 explain by St Paul that communion for the simple was to be in 
 one kind 7] 
 Compendium of Theology. Tract III., on the seven sacraments 
 of the Church. 
 
 P. 270. (1) “On the time of instituting the Lord’s supper. It 
 was fully instituted on the day of the supper, and the words 
 of consecration have had full efficacy as they now have, from 
 that time until now. (2) What is the benefit? As man lost 
 life by using the forbidden tree, so he recovers (it) by eating of 
 the tree of life... That this may be a kind of spiritual nutriment 
 to man. Ps, Ixxvii. (Ixxvii.) 25. Man did eat angels’ food... 
 That the members of the body of Christ may be united to 
 their own head. Augustine. That the merit of faith may be 
 increased since it is most chiefly earned in this sacrament. 
 Pet. Lombard. The raising up of a hope that in heaven we 
 may receive the gifts of Christ, since here we are receiving 
 His own self. Chrysostom. ‘The expansion of love, which is in- 
 creased by receiving this sacrament. Hilary. A diminution 
 of venial sins. (38) On the material of the sacrament ‘ Wine 
 ‘mixed with water.’ Pope Alexander. On this authority, water 
 is reckoned (to have been) with the wine in the cup although it 
 is not (so) read in the Gospel. Not without great sin is [the 
 Lord’s body] made from leavened bread. ‘The question is asked 
 whether the bread passes [is changed] into flesh, soul, blood and 
 
 simplices non crederent totum esse Christum in altera specie secundum 
 Bonaventuram. 
 
 In Gerson’s Compendium Theologie, Opera, Paris, 1706, Tract. 711., de 
 VII. sacramentis Ecclesiw, Vol. I., p. 270—4, de sac. Kuch. 
 
 (1) De tempore institutionis. In die cceene plene institutum fuit et 
 habuerunt verba consecrationis plenam efficaciam a tempore illo usque 
 nunc, quantam modo habent. (2) Que sit utilitas? Sicut homo per 
 usum ligni vetiti perdidit vitam, ita recuperet per esum ligni vite ... 
 Ut hic sit aliquod nutrimentum hominis spirituale, Ps. xxvii. 25. Ut 
 uniantur membra corporis Christi suo Capiti.... Aug. Confess.... Ut 
 augeatur meritum fidei, que in hoc sacramento maxime meretur, Pet. 
 Lomb.... Sublevatio spei ut recipiamus in ccelo Sua, quo hic recipimus 
 Semetipsum. Chrysost....Dilatatio charitatis, que hujus sacramenti 
 sumptione augetur...Hilar...Diminutio venialium. (3) De materia sacra- 
 menti...Alex. Papa...“‘vinum aqua permistum...” Unde quamvis non 
 legatur in evangelio, estimatur tamen aqua simul cum vino in calice 
 Domini fuisse... Non sine gravi peccato conficitur de fermentato ... 
 Queeritur an panis transeat in carnem, animam, sanguinem et Deitatem ; 
 
1505] JOHN CHARLIER DE GERSON. 219 
 
 Godhead: and similarly of the wine. There is a whole Christ 
 under each kind: but nevertheless the bread passes into flesh, 
 the wine into blood. But because the whole Christ is inseparable 
 (from Himself), therefore under the ‘kind’ [appearance, form, 
 &c.] of bread it is by conversion and transubstantiation flesh and 
 blood, and soul and Godhead by concomitance, so that His flesh is 
 never without blood, soul and Deity. [Removing the charm of the 
 word concomitancy this reasoning is simple assertion: it 1s an 
 identical proposition. There is soul, blood, &c., because these 
 are with it.] For by the ‘virtue’ of the words [This is My body] 
 it is the flesh of Christ, principally and by consequence all 
 Christ’s other (parts). Whence the whole Christ is there by the 
 virtue of the words; but yet the flesh principally and the rest 
 by consequence (z.e. by logical following): so also of the wine. 
 (4) The precise form of ‘the words.’ It is ‘This is My body’ and 
 no more, as is the opinion of nearly all (divines). ‘Take, eat,’ 
 belongs to the use and does not affect the completion. The form 
 in the consecration of the blood. ‘This is the cup of My new 
 ‘and eternal testament (covenant), the mystery of faith, which 
 ‘will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.’ 
 Where, although all these words in this order are not read in 
 the Gospel, yet it must be believed that the church has these 
 words by special tradition of the Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 23. And because 
 the form of those words was vehemently impressed on the hearts 
 of the disciples and was in daily use, therefore it has not been 
 so diligently written (down) by the apostles, as it was done and 
 said by Christ, and Damascenus seems to mean this. (5) What 
 is the effect? Double according to Peter Lomb.: the augmenta- 
 
 et similiter vinum... Totus Christus est sub utraque specie: sed 
 tamen panis transit in carnem, vinum in sanguinem. Sed quia totus 
 Christus inseparabilis est, ideo sub specie panis est caro per conversionem 
 et transubstantiationem, et sanguis et anima et Deitas per concomitan- 
 tiam, eo quod caro Kjus sine sanguine anima et Deitate nunquam sit. Vir- 
 tute enim verborum est principaliter ibi caro et consequenter ceetera omnia 
 Christi. Unde Christus totus est ibi verborum virtute, sed tamen caro 
 principaliter, et czetera consequenter: so also of the wine, (4)...forma 
 verborum precisa... He est, “Hoc est corpus Meum,” et nihil 
 amplius, ut volunt fere omnes... “accipite et comedite” ad usum pertinet 
 ... Non ad confectionem.. Forma in consecratione sanguinis “ Hic est 
 “calix sanguinis Mei novi et eterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, quod 
 “pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” Ubi 
 quamvis non legantur omnia verba hee seriatim in evangelio, credendum 
 tamen est quod illa habeat ecclesia ex speciali traditione Domini, 1 Cor. 
 xi. 23. Et quia forma verborum illorum vehementer impressa fuit 
 cordibus discipulorum, et in quotidiano usu, ideo non est adeo diligenter 
 ab apostolis scriptum, sicut fuit a Christo factum et dictum, ut videtur 
 velle Damascenus. (5) Quis sit effectus... Duplex secundum Pet, 
 
9220 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 tion of love, and the diminution of infirmity, ὦ. 6. of venial sin. 
 (6) Concerning the truth of the body of Christ. In what way after 
 the breaking of the bread has been done, is the whole Christ 
 under every particle, Who was before whole under the unbroken 
 host (victim). Also if the body of Christ enters into the stomach, 
 and if it is itself as long as it is there. (7) On the quality or 
 condition of the recipients. (8) On the same regarding the 
 minister: He must not ‘celebrate’ after drinking water, because 
 all food, as we customarily use the term ‘food,’ goes into the 
 stomach, though it be not- converted into body, and (so) breaks 
 the fast and hinders the celebration. 
 
 P. 475. “Whether angels, the blessed virgin and all male 
 and female saints are associated with (accompany, attend upon) 
 the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar ? 
 
 P. 1285. “Sermon on the eucharist on Corpus Christi day. 
 And infidelity (¢. 6. such as do not hold Roman doctrine) adduced 
 many frivolous reasons, saying, that God cannot do so, 2.@ (as 
 doubting) as to His power, wisdom and benevolence that bread 
 should be changed into flesh—that a thing so great could be con- 
 tained under so small a thing—and that one and the same body 
 could be in so many places. Besides, that consecrated bread is 
 not different from bread not consecrated—to prevent its becoming 
 corrupt; and yet it is the immortal God. Lastly, they do not 
 see God’s benevolence, since it is said that bad recipients of it 
 
 Lomb. ... charitatis augmentum, et infirmitatis, hoc est, venialis peccati 
 diminutionem. (6) De vero corpore Christi. Qualiter... post fractionem 
 factam ... totus Christus sit sub qualibet particuld, Qui prius totus fuit 
 sub tota hostia. Item si corpus Christi in ventrem intret, et si sic 
 quamdiu ibi existat. (7) De qualitate seu conditione recipientium. 
 (8) De iisdem ministri... Post potum aque non est celebrandum, eo 
 quod omnis cibus, quem usualiter cibum vocamus, transit in ventrem 
 etsi non convertatur in corpus, frangit jejunium, et impedit cele- 
 brationem. 
 P, 475. 
 
 An angeli, beata virgo et omnes sancti et sancte associent corpus 
 
 Christi in sacramento altaris ? 
 
 Voli, P1285, 
 
 Sermo in die corporis Christi de Euch. Et adducebat infidelitas (i.e. 
 qui non ecclesiz Rom. credunt) multas rationes frivolas, dicens, Deum 
 sic facere non posse, secundum potentiam Suam sapientiam et benevo- 
 lentiam quod panis mutaretur in carnem quod res tam magna sub tam 
 parva re coutineretur et quod unum idemque corpus in tot esset locis. 
 Insuper quod panis consecratus nullam a non consecrato habet differ- 
 entiam quin corruptioni subjectus sit: et tamen Deus immortalis est. 
 Demum non videre benevolentiam cum, ut dicitur, mali efficiantur 
 
1363] JOHN CHARLIER DE GERSON. 921 
 
 only become worse. And in what way could good recipients 
 be made better, as to the soul, by a bodily food, which does not 
 enter into that soul? For this reason, say the unbelievers, it is 
 not wonderful if we ask, How this happens? But yet to all 
 these arguments and the like, theology has not deigned to give 
 an answer. Yea she has said that these unbelievers are not 
 worthy of such mysteries being cleared up in their presence, &c. 
 This would be putting ‘pearls before swine, and giving that 
 ‘which is holy to dogs.’ Theology has said moreover that this 
 mystery can never be fully understood without the light of faith. 
 ‘If ye will not believe, ye shall not understand, &c. Lastly, 
 theology has sent unbelievers to the schools, &. &. The house- 
 hold of St Louis (the king) told him to go and see a miracle 
 performed in proof of the holy sacrament. ‘Why should I go? 
 he answered, ‘I well believe in the sacrament without the miracle.’ 
 The answer in truth of a good and firm Christian. 
 
 P. 1289. “Reason ought to correct the judgment of the 
 bodily senses. You see that the sun would by the eye be judged 
 just two feet in diameter. A stick part in the water and part 
 out appears to be broken. A single bean felt by the fingers 
 crossing each other appears to be two; and so in a thousand 
 illusions of the senses reason is the corrector. [What reason 
 according to modern science can be given for some accidents 
 of bread remaining when the substance is said to be changed ? 
 So he says.]| But reason itself wants to be directed by the 
 light of the highest truth. I say that it is just in the same 
 way regarding this holy sacrament. But these unbelievers are 
 
 pejores. Et boni quo pacto meliores efficerentur, quoad animam, per 
 corporalem escam, que animam illam non intrat? Quapropter non 
 mirandum est, ait infidelitas, si queeram ‘‘Quomodo,” &e. Sed ad omnia 
 hee argumenta et similia non fuit dignata respondere theologia. Immo 
 dixit obstinatam infidelitatem dignam non esse quod talia coram ea 
 declararentur mysteria, ὅθ, Hoc est “ponere margaritas ad porcorum 
 “‘pedes et sanctum dare canibus.” Dixit insuper nunquam mysterium 
 hoe intelligi posse plene sine fidei lumine. Nisi credideritis non intelli- 
 getis, &c. Postremo theologia misit infidelitatem ad scholas, c&e., &e. 
 Dixerunt familiares Sancto Ludovico, ut iret visum miraculum (in sancti 
 sacramenti approbationem). ‘Quare irem?” respondit, &e. “ Bene 
 “credo sacramentum absque hoc, &e.” Revera responsio boni et firmi 
 Christiavi. 
 
 ἜΣ 2991 
 
 Ratio corrigere debet corporis judicium. Videtis solem ab oculo 
 duorum pedum duntaxat judicari. Baculus partim in aqua et partim in 
 aere fractus apparet. Unica faba sub digitis supra se Invicem positis 
 apparet dus; et sic de mille illusionibus corrigit ratio. Aatio autem 
 dirigi debet per summe veritatis lumen, Puriformiter dico in hoc 
 
222 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 but beasts with shoes on, who won’t believe any thing but what 
 they can measure by the body and its senses. [Then why send 
 us to reason by the senses if we are to be blamed for reasoning 
 upon the basis of their evidence? I cannot escape the conviction 
 that the greatest doctor of the Sorbonne is playing off his irony 
 against the absurdities of the belief he was obliged to profess, 
 in the former of the last two extracts, and it is not quite easy 
 to conceive that he felt sure of the truth of the last.] 
 
 sacramento sancto. [Then he adds] Hi bestiz sunt calciate, qui nihil 
 volunt credere nisi quod corpore sentiunt. 
 
 (I.) THOMAS A KEMPIS. B. 1379. Ὁ. 1471. 
 
 He was sub-prior of a convent of St Agnes, of which his 
 brother John was prior. Hagenbach says that Silbert of Vienna, 
 after discussing the evidence as to the authorship of the treatise 
 De Imitatione Christi, gives verdict in favour of the received 
 author, and not of Chancellor Gerson or Abbot Gersen. He takes 
 his name from Kempen (Campo), his birthplace in the diocese of 
 Cologne; but his true name is Thomas Hamermerk. His Latin 
 works include several other treatises. The one feature about 
 him is that he endeavoured to draw religion off from a trust in 
 mere mechanical church ordinances, which were so multiplied as 
 to bring the people’s consciences, or at least their account of 
 them, under the hands of the clergy in all the details of life, 
 and that he tried to place men on the much higher level of 
 personal affection to Christ Himself. They were to be won 
 by contemplating Christ’s perfect pattern of human life, and 
 drawn to pray for grace to tread in His steps. A high elevation 
 indeed in comparison of the former. But it was still salvation by 
 works. Faith in the Atonement of Christ for our sins is to 
 become the next picture on the Reformation canvas: but it 
 appears in the works of Thomas Hamermerk, as far as I have 
 gone, very dimly indeed. Gieseler says there have been 2000 
 editions of the original, and that it has been translated into very 
 many languages, and that there have been above 1000 editions 
 of the French translation alone. Bacon doubts a wide circu- 
 lation being a proof of truth, saying that alloy debases gold 
 
1379] THOMAS ἃ KEMPIS. 223 
 
 indeed, but makes it work the better. But the spread of 
 John Bunyan’s one great work makes one deem Bacon’s say- 
 ing after, all a baseless reproach against man and his con- 
 science of truth. I do not think I see as much deep devotion 
 in the building up of expressions of benefit derived to the 
 glory of this sacrament in this writer, as in the few ardent 
 words in which Jerome Savonarola speaks in its praise. In 
 one of the following extracts where ἃ Kempis says, “I offer all 
 “the pious desires of devoted saints, &. &c., dead and living,” 
 I shrink and almost shiver at the wicked trenching on our 
 Saviour’s heavenly work—which the assumption of a priestly 
 office under Christianity involves—and at the way in which it 
 here comes out to view. The large extract from his 32nd 
 Sermon, saving just the least touch of solitarism, is worthy of 
 any age of the church: and it was a bright forerunner of much 
 good spiritual theology to come. His other treatises are nume- 
 rous and my Latin edition closes with several lives, I suppose 
 of his followers. 
 
 He went in 1395 to the school of Deventer, Erasmus’ birth- 
 place; and in 1400 he was made canon of an Augustinian con- 
 vent, where his brother was prior, in the diocese of Utrecht. 
 A papal interdict on the diocese drove him to Arnheim where 
 he lost his brother, but he was restored to his post of sub-prior in 
 1448, in his 69th year, and death did not carry him off for 
 23 years. One of his eulogists, Bishop Malou of Bruges, once 
 professor of Louvain, marks among his characteristics that he 
 loved to enkindle the affections of men rather than to sharpen 
 their understandings. But he busily worked at making copies of 
 good books. In 1417 he transcribed both the Bible and the Missal, 
 and he often made copies of his own books to give to his brother 
 monks. It may be noticed that the title to his great work pro- 
 perly belongs to the first chapter, and each chapter has a title of 
 its own. The work has been often sold as four separate treatises ; 
 and when bound together as such, they stood in a different order 
 from that which they now hold. The entire work has been 
 printed not only as the composition of Gerson, but as St Bonaven- 
 ture’s, and even as St Bernard’s. The names of both Bellarmine 
 and Cajetan appear in the controversy. But internal evidence 
 also confirms it to Thomas, and the balance of external evidence 
 is far from making a case against him. 
 
224 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 3. “Lo! Noah, a just man, laboured in the building of 
 the ark a hundred years, that he might with a few be saved ; 
 and I, how shall I be able in one hour to prepare to take with 
 reverence the Fabricator of the world 7... Many run to divers places 
 to visit the relics of the saints, and wonder when they hear of 
 their exploits. They look at the ample buildings of their temples 
 and kiss their sacred bones wrapped in silks and gold. And lo! 
 Thou art present here in my dwelling on the altar, my God, 
 Holy of holy ones, Creator of all things, and Lord of the angels, 
 &e. But here in the sacrament of the altar Thou art the wholly - 
 se eal man Christ Jesus, where even more abundantly 
 the fruit of eternal salvation is received as often as Thou shalt 
 have been devoutly and worthily taken. O admirable and hidden 
 grace of the sacrament, &c.! In this_sacrament spiritual grace. is 
 conferred, lost excellence is repaired in the mind, and beauty de- 
 formed by~sin returns. ‘This grace is sometimes so great, that 
 from the fulness of the devotion conferred, not the mind only 
 but the weak body also feels larger strength supplied to itself. 
 
 § 6. “As often as thou again honourest this mystery and 
 receivest Christ’s body, so often thou accomplishest the work 
 of thy redemption, and art made partaker of all the merits of 
 Christ. 
 
 2. “For this is the highest and most worthy sacrament, 
 the health of the mind and the body, the medicine for every 
 
 De imitatione Christi. Liber IV. Opera. Colonie, 1680. 
 Ov Ts 883: 
 
 Ecce Noe vir justus in arce fabrica centum annis laboravit, ut cum 
 paucis salvaretur: et ego quomodo me potero una hora preparare ut 
 mundi Fabricatorem cum reverentid sumam?... ὃ ὃ. Currunt multi 
 ad diversa loca pro visitandis reliquiis sanctorum et mirantur auditis 
 gestis eorum. Ampla edificia templorum inspiciunt et osculantur 
 sericis et auro involuta sacra ossa ipsorum. Et ecce Tu presens es, 
 hic apud me in altari, Deus meus, sanctus sanctorum, Creator omnium 
 et Dominus angelorum, &c. Hic autem in sacramento altaris totus 
 preesens es Deus, meus homo Christus Jesus, ubi et copiosius percipitur 
 eeternz salutis fructus, quotiescumque frueris [lege fueris] devote et digne 
 susceptus. ὃ 10. O admirabilis et abscondita gratia sacramenti, dec. ! ° 
 In hoe sacramento confertur spiritualis gratia, reparatur in animo virtus 
 amissa, et per peccatum deformata redit pulchritudo. Tanta est ali- 
 quando hee gratia, ut ex plenitudine collate devotionis non tantum 
 mens sed et debile corpus vires sibi preestitas sentit ampliores. 
 
 Cx τς S26; 
 
 Quoties hoe mysterium recolis et Christi corpus accipis, toties tue 
 
 redemptionis opus agis et particeps omnium meritorum Christi efficeris. 
 ὉΠ 9: 
 
 Est enim hoc altissimum et dignissimum sacramentum, salus anime 
 
 et corporis, medicina omnis spiritualis languoris ; in quo vitia mea 
 
1519] THOMAS ἃ KEMPIS. 225 
 
 spiritual languor; in which my vices are cured, my passions are 
 bridled, temptations are overcome or diminished, greater grace 
 is poured in, virtue begun is increased, faith is confirmed, hope is 
 strengthened, and love isinflamed-and-expanded. For Thou hast 
 bestowed many good gifts, and still oftener bestowest them in 
 the sacrament on Thy beloved ones devoutly communicating, my 
 God, the taker up of my soul, the repairer of human infirmity, 
 and the giver of all inward consolation, For Thou pourest into 
 them much consolation against varied trouble, and raisest from 
 the lowest deep of dejection to the hope of Thy protection, and 
 inwardly refreshest and enlightenest them with a kind of new 
 grace, that those who felt themselves at first in anxiety and 
 destitute of affection before communicating, afterward, having 
 been refreshed with heavenly food and drink, find themselves 
 changed to a better condition. 
 
 § 3. “When the priest celebrates he honours God, gladdens 
 angels, edifies the church, assists the living, furnishes rest to 
 the dead, and makes himself partaker of all good things. 
 
 § 11. “That we ought to offer to God ourselves and all 
 (that we have and to pray for all. 
 
 § 1. “Lord, all things are Thine, &. Lord, in the sim- 
 plicity of my heart I offer myself, &c. Take me with this 
 holy oblation of Thy precious body: which to-day in the presence 
 of angels (see Chrysostom), invisibly standing by, I offer to Thee, 
 
 curantur, passiones frenantur, tentationes vincuntur aut minuuntur, 
 gratia major infunditur, virtus incepta augetur, firmatur fides, spes 
 roboratur, et charitas ignescit, et dilatatur... ὃ 3. Multa namque 
 bona largitus es, et adhuc sepius largiris in sacramento dilectis Tuis 
 devote communicantibus, Deus meus, susceptor anime mez, reparator 
 infirmitatis humane et totius dator consolationis interne. Nam multam 
 ipsis consolationem adversus variam tribulationem infundis et de imo 
 dejectionis ad spem Tu protectionis erigis, atque nova quadam gratia 
 eos intus recreas et illustras, ut, qui anxie primum et sine affectione se 
 ante communionem senserant, postea refecti cibo potuque celesti in 
 melius se mutatos inveniant. 
 
 Ce 3.9: 
 Quando sacerdos celebrat, Deum honorat, angelos letificat, ecclesiam 
 
 eedificat, vivos adjuvat, defunctis requiem prestat et sese omnium 
 bonorum participem efficit. 
 
 OTR. S11; 
 
 Quod nos et omnia nostra Deo debemus offerre, et pro omnibus 
 orare. 
 
 CHa Salk 
 
 Domine, omnia Tua sunt, &c. Domine, in simplicitate cordis mei 
 offero meipsum, &c. Suscipe me cum hac sancta oblatione Tut pretiost 
 corporis quam Tibi hodie in presentia angelorum invisibiliter assisten- 
 
 Hee ut, 15 
 
220 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that it may be unto salvation for me and all Thy people... I offer 
 to Thee also all the pious desires of those devoted persons, &c. 
 of others, &c., each of whom have desired and requested prayers 
 and masses to be said for themselves and all their own, whether 
 they yet live in the flesh, or now are dead as to this world, 
 
 that they all may feel the help of Thy grace the aid of Thy 
 
 consolation come to them, and that, drawn out from the net of 
 all evils, they may joyfully magnify Thee and pay Thee thanks... 
 I offer to Thee also prayers and propitiatory sacrifices [victims of 
 appeasing] for them who have injured me, &c. 
 
 is perfect shall have come, the use of the sacrament shall cease, 
 because the blessed in heavenly glory do not want sacramental 
 medicine, for they rejoice without end in the presence of God, 
 they taste the Word of God made flesh, as it was from the begin- 
 ning and remains for ever... [These last expressions seem to come 
 from the misunderstood expression in the Psalms ‘angels’ food.’ 
 To think of representing Christ’s body as fed upon by angels 
 in all ages past and future! Yet,this is, less explicitly, asserted 
 by several other divines.] Thou therefore gavest to me that am 
 weak Thy sacred body for a refreshment of mind and body, and 
 didst place Thy word as a lantern to my feet. Without these 
 two I could not live. [Keble’s Evening Hymn. He also may 
 seem to translate ‘ccelestis potus, above, ‘drink of heaven,’ 
 ‘With angels’ food their brethren greet And pour the drink 
 “of heaven.’] These may be called the two tables placed on 
 this side and on that side in the treasury of the holy church. 
 
 tium offero, ut sit pro me et pro cuncto populo Tuo in salutem. § 3. Offero 
 quoque Tibi omnia pia desideria devotorum, &c., aliorum, &c., qui 
 orationes et missas pro se suisque omnibus dici a me desideraverunt et 
 petierunt, sive in carne adhuc vivant, sive jam in seculo defuncti sunt, 
 ut omnes sibi auxilium gratiz Tu, opem consolationis, ὅθ. advenire 
 sentiant, et ut ab omnibus malis eretiti gratias Tibi magnificas leti 
 persolvant. § 6. Offero etiam Tibi preces et hostias placationis pro 
 illis specialiter qui me leserunt, ce. 
 
 CIT OG: 
 
 Habeo Te in sacramento vere presentem, quamvis aliend specie 
 occultum. § 2. Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, cessabit usus 
 sacramenti, quia beati in gloria celesti non egent medicamine sacra- 
 mentali, gaudent enim sine fine in presentid Dei, gustant Verbum Det 
 carnem factum, sicut fuit ab initio et manet in wternum. § 4. Dedisti 
 itaque mihi infirmo sacrum corpus Tuum ad refectionem mentis et 
 corporis, et posuisti lucernam pedibus meis verbum Tuum. Sine his 
 duobus vivere non possem... Hee possunt dici mens due, hine et 
 inde in gazophylacio sancte ecclesie posite. Una mensa est sacri 
 
1379] THOMAS A KEMPIS. 227 
 
 One table is that of the sacred altar, having holy bread, 7.e, 
 the precious body of Christ. The other is that of the Divine 
 law, &c. Thanks to Thee, Creator, Redeemer of men, Who to 
 declare to the whole world Thy love [see Tyndall’s magnificent 
 image of a monument on a high hill] hast prepared a great 
 
 supper, in which Thou hast set before them to be eaten not ἃ. 
 
 typical Iamb, but Thy most holy body and blood, gladdening 
 a ary faithful with” a sacred feast and inebriating them 
 (Ps. xxiii.) with the cup of salvation, in which are all the delights 
 of paradise, and the holy angels feast with us [this is beyond 
 what Chrysostom asserts] but with a happier sweetness of joy, 
 ἄορ. O how great and honourable is the office of priests, to 
 whom it has been given [Keble again] to-consecrate_the Lord 
 with the sacred words of majesty, with their lipsto_bless, with 
 their hands to hold, with their own mouth to receive, and_to 
 minister to others, &c. Those eyes should be simple and modest 
 [Jerome] that are wont to look on the body of Christ, those 
 hands should be pure and raised to heaven which are accus- 
 tomed to handle the Creator of heaven and earth, 
 
 § 4. “Go on then with simple and undoubting faith, &c., 
 approach to the sacraments. All reason and enquiry into nature 
 ought to follow faith not go before it, nor to break away aught 
 from it, for faith and love, &. &c. God eternal and boundless 
 and of infinite power does great and inscrutable things in 
 heaven and earth, nor is there any investigation of His mar- 
 vellous works, 
 
 P. 253. “On the Passover. Who is it then who celebrates 
 
 altaris, habens panem sanctum, i.e. corpus Christi pretiosum. Altera est 
 Divine legis, &c.... Gratias Tibi, Creator ac Redemptor hominum, qui 
 ad declarandam toti mundo charitatem Tuam ccenam pardsti magnam 
 in qué non agnum typicum sed Tuum sanctissimum corpus et sanguinem 
 preeposuisti manducandum, leetificans omnes fideles convivio sacro, et 
 calice inebrians salutari, in qua sunt omnes delitize paradisi, et epulantur 
 nobiscum angeli sancti sed suavitate feliciori. ὃ 6. O quam magnum et 
 honorabile est officium sacerdotum, quibus datum est Dominum majes- 
 tatis verbis sacris consecrare, labris benedicere, manibus tenere, ore 
 proprio sumere, et ceteris ministrare, &c., We. ὃ 7. Oculi ejus sim- 
 plices et pudici, gui Christi corpus solent intueri, manus pure et in 
 celum elevate qui Creatorem czli et terre solent contrectare ! 
 CL XLT 8:4. 
 
 Perge ergo cum simplici et indubitata fide, &c., ad sacramenta accede. 
 Omnis ratio et naturalis investigatio sequi fidem debet, non precedere 
 nec infringere, nam fides et amor, &c. ὃ 5. Deus eternus et immensus 
 infiniteeque potentiz facit magna et inscrutabilia in celo et in terra, nec 
 est investigatio mirabilium operum ejus. 
 
 Concio XXXII, p. 253, de Paschale. 
 Quis est ergo qui pascha in spiritu celebrat? Qui de vitiis in 
 15—2 
 
 Sail 
 ΡΣ 
 
228 THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 the passover in spirit? He who passes over from vices to virtues, 
 who rises from his old life and bad customs through a state of 
 devotion new to him. Who is he who worthily honours the 
 passover ? He who despises the honours of the world and in 
 all his own good acts seeks the glory of Christ. Who is 
 he that sacrifices a kid for the evening of the passover? He 
 that repents of his own sins, and ceases to sin afterwards. 
 Who is he that eats a roast lamb with lettuces? He that 
 thinks with pain of Christ suffering on the cross and chastens 
 himself by living innocently. Who is the true Hebrew that 
 passes the Red Sea? He that goes from fleshly sense to sweetness 
 of spirit, and forgetting those things that are behind stretches 
 after the things that are before. Who is a true son of Abraham ? 
 He that makes himself advance from slavish fear into the liberty 
 of the sons of God. Who is a true disciple of Jesus? He that 
 perfectly renounces all earthly things and relinquishes his own 
 will. Who is worthy to sit at Christ’s table? He that willingly 
 (of his own accord) humbles himself for the love of Christ. Who 
 is fit to enter the kingdom of heaven? He that despises the 
 kingdom of the world and all the ornament of the age—this is 
 a friend of God, a citizen of heaven and a lord of the world. 
 Who is qualified to contemplate Christ’s face and the innermost 
 secret place of heaven? He that is clean in heart, fervid in 
 prayer, and wholly given to things within. Who is beloved and 
 accepted by God? He that is lowly in his own eyes, and sets 
 little value on everything that is passing away.” 
 
 virtutes transmigrat, qui de veteri vita et malé consuetudine per nove 
 devotionis statum surgit. Quis est qui pascha digne honorat? Qui 
 seeculares honores spernit, et gloriam Christi in cunctis bonis actibus 
 suis queerit. Quis es qui heedum in vesperam pasche immolat? Qui de 
 peccatis suis peenitet et de czetero peccare desistit. Quis est qui agnum 
 assum cum lactucis manducat? Qui Christum in cruce passum dolenter 
 cogitat, et innocenter vivendo se castigat. Quis est verus Hebreus qui 
 Mare Rubrum transit? Qui de sensu carnis ad suavitatem spiritus 
 pergit, et ea que retro sunt obliviscens ad anteriora se extendit. Quis 
 est verus Abrahe filius? Qui se timore servili in libertatem filiorum 
 Dei proficit. Quis est verus Jesu discipulus? Qui omnibus terrenis 
 perfecte renunciat et propriam voluntatem suam relinquit. Qui est 
 cdignus sedere ad mensam Christi? Qui sponte se humiliat pro amore 
 Christi. Quis est aptus intrare regnum celorum? Qui regnum mundi 
 et omnem ornatum seculi contemnit. Hic est amicus Dei, civis cceli, et 
 dominus mundi. Quis est idoneus contemplari faciem Christi et pene- 
 trale secretum celi? Qui mundus est corde, fervidus in oratione, 
 ac totus internis deditus. Quis Deo dilectus et acceptus? Qui abjectus 
 est in oculis suis et vilipendit omne quod transit. [Compare this with 
 the yet more splendid passage in Origen, p. 86 of the First Volume. ] 
 
THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) ALPHONSUS TOSTATUS, BISHOP OF AVILA IN SPAIN. 
 B. 1414, D. 1454. 
 
 THE remains of this author are equal in bulk to the whole of 
 Chrysostom, the most voluminous of the fathers: but only seven 
 parts of his Commentary on Matthew remain in about 34 volumes 
 folio, stopping in the midst of the Lord’s supper and making 
 us earnestly wish that half a volume more had survived to carry 
 us with him through the very solemn remainder of our Lord’s 
 history at least in that one gospel. The editor closes his work 
 at that juncture in the middle of the twelfth closely-printed folio 
 volume, saying, “The rest on Matthew, owing to the calamity of 
 “the times and the carelessness of men, are lost and regretted, 
 “(perdita desiderantur).” He flourished in the time of Eugenius 
 IV. Cardinal Ximenes is said to have borne the expense of 
 printing his works; but no particular details are given. He is 
 placed in a laudatory notice next after Augustine, Jerome, 
 Isidore and Thomas Aquinas. Salamanca has the glory of his 
 erudition; and he became bishop at 22 years of age. He 
 filled civil offices as well; and both the number and the variety 
 of his lost treatises are astonishing. Time changes terms, and 
 we talk of an cron digestion: they say he had intestines of brass. 
 He was never married except to his books and his work. I will 
 add some of the names of his publications that seem for ever 
 to have perished. On the five laws; 1. 6. those of Nature, Moses, 
 the Gentiles, Mahomet and Christ ; and on the truth that is in 
 each. On Jurisdictions. On Prescription, On the Pope’s power. 
 On Reformation. On Indulgences. Ona Saracen woman con- 
 verted to the Jewish faith. On the Holy Land. On General 
 Councils. On the error of the Calendar, Against the errors 
 
290 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of the Koran, and on Chronology. In his nineteenth volume 
 are seven remaining treatises; one of which is on the State of 
 the Soul after death. Vol. I. begins with a Commentary on 
 Jerome’s letter to Paulinus of Nola. 
 
 P. 499. “Why was the lamb eaten with wild lettuces, and 
 why was this same ceremony preserved after the going out from 
 Egypt? It was observed in the first celebration in Egypt because 
 God so ordered it, and all things which were there commanded, 
 were on that first occasion completed, although some of them 
 have not been observed afterwards. Of the celebrations after- 
 wards maintained it is clear that these points were there 
 observed, Num. ix., for there (the book) treats of the celebra- 
 tion of the passover made in Mount Sinai in the second year 
 after the departure from Egypt; and it is said ‘with unleavened 
 ‘bread and wild lettuces shall (Israel) eat it. Yet the cause of 
 it seems to be this, that God gave them some vegetable food 
 [lit. seasoning] to that food [the lamb] because we put seasoning 
 to our food, and those herbs which we call lettuces were a 
 seasoning for this flesh. Thirdly, to shew the bitterness and 
 mental straits to which the Israelites were reduced in the going 
 out, for the Egyptians would urge them, and they themselves 
 would fear that death would be inflicted on them to revenge 
 the slaying of the firstborn, and therefore great fear was seizing 
 them in the going out, and held them after the going out when 
 the Egyptians followed them as far as to the Red Sea, and thus, 
 as if to mark that fear, God commanded that the lamb should 
 
 Commentarium ad Matt. Cologne, 1613. Pars VII. . Tom. XII. 
 pars I., ». 499. Ὁ. 38. 
 
 Quare agnus cum lactucis agrestibus comedebatur et quare post 
 exitum de <A‘gypto fuit servata hac eadem ceremonia? Exod. xii. et 
 Num. ix.? Servata fuit in prima celebratione in Aigypto quia ita illud 
 jussit Deus, Ex. xii., et omnia que ibi mandata sunt completa fuerunt 
 illa prima vice, licet queedam illorum non fuerint postea observata. De 
 celebrationibus postea factis quod (postea) fuerint 101 servata patet, 
 Num. ix.; nam ibi agitur de celebratione Phase in Monte Sinai facta 
 anno secundo in exitu de Aigypto; et dicitur cum azymis et lactucis 
 agrestibus comedet illud. Causa tamen hujus videtur esse, ut aliquod 
 condimentum Deus daret illi cibo, quia cibis apponimus condimenta, et 
 herb iste quas lactucas dicimus erant condimentum pro carnibus his... 
 Tertio ad ostendendum amaritudinem et angustiam animi quam haberent 
 Israelite in exitu, nam Agyptii urgerent eos, et ipsi timerent sibi mortem 
 inferri in vindictam primogenitorum occisorum, et ideo pavor magnus 
 tenebat eos in exitu et tenuit eos post exitum, quando Aigyptii insecuti 
 sunt eos usque ad Mare Rubrum (Ex. xii. et xiv.): et ideo, sicut ad 
 signandum pavorem illum, jussit Deus quod comederetur agnus cum 
 
1414] ALPHONSUS TOSTATUS. 231 
 
 be eaten with unleavened bread; that is to say ‘in seven days 
 ‘shalt thou eat the bread of affliction without leaven, since thou 
 ‘camest out from Egypt in fear, &c. But after the going out 
 from Egypt wild lettuces used to be eaten with the lamb gene- 
 rally to mark what had been done in Egypt; ὁ. 6. because they 
 were eaten there they should be eaten afterwards too. But some 
 one will say, Were all the lettuces eaten as also all the lamb that 
 none of it might remain, and if any remained it should be burned 
 (Ex. xii.) ? It must be said two things were ceremonially used 
 in eating the lamb; that is, wild lettuces and unleavened bread : 
 and yet that custom was not observed with them, that was in 
 use regarding the lamb, ὁ. 6. that the whole lamb should be 
 burned. First, that concerning ceremonies the Jews were not 
 allowed to add what had not been laid down (Deut. xi1.); and 
 yet God had not laid down that they should eat all the unlea- 
 vened (loaves) or all the lettuces. Therefore they could not impose 
 this on themselves as necessary. Secondly, and chiefly, because 
 there was nothing alike in the lamb and the unleavened bread 
 and lettuces; for the lamb was a thing of a certain determinate 
 size. Therefore it could be said of it that it should all be eaten. 
 —But lettuces and unleavened bread were not brought to a 
 certain size; because no command had been imposed how much 
 of unleavened bread or of lettuces they should take. So a rule 
 could not be observed that they should eat all the unleavened 
 bread or all the lettuces. Thirdly, the lamb belonged by itself 
 to this ceremony; for blood was taken from the paschal lamb 
 to sprinkle the doors of the houses... but nothing was taken 
 
 azymis (Deut. xvi.) : scilicet “ septem diebus comedes absque fermento 
 “afflictionis panem, quemadmodum in pavore egressus es de Adgypto, 
 “ke.” Post exitum vero de Algypto comedebantur agrestes lactuce cum 
 agno generaliter ad signandum quod factum fuerat in Aigypto, 1. 6. quia 
 101 comeste sunt, postea quoque comederentur, &e. Sed dicet aliquis, 
 An tot lactuce comedebantur sicut et totus agnus ut nihil de eo 
 maneret, et si maneret cremaretur (Hx. xii)? Dicendum quod duo 
 adhibebantur ceremonialiter in esu agni; scilicet lactuce agrestes et 
 azyma, et tamen in his non observabatur quod in agno, scilicet quod 
 totus agnus cremaretur. Primo quod circa cxeremonialia non licebat 
 Judzis aliquid adjungere quod positum non esset, et tamen Deus non 
 imposuerat quod tota azyma aut totas lactucas comederent. Ergo non 
 poterant ipsi sibi, velut necessarium, hoc imponere, Deut. xii. Secundo 
 et preecipue quia non erat simile de agno et de azymis et lactucis ; nam 
 agnus erat res aliqua una determinate magnitudinis. Ideo poterat de 
 illo dici quod totus comederetur. Lactuce vero et azyma non fuerunt 
 reducta ad certam magnitudinem, quia non impositum est quantum de 
 azymis aut de lactucis sumerent. Ita non poterat ibi teneri regula quod 
 tota azyma aut totas lactucas comederent. Tertio... Agnus pertinebat 
 per se ad hane ceremoniam ... nam de agno paschali sumebatur sanguis 
 ad aspergendum portas domorum ... de lactucis vero et azymis nihil 
 
232 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 from the lettuces and unleavened bread (for this purpose) but 
 they were a kind of seasoning and adjunct, &c. Fourthly, because 
 the lamb directly signified that Christ was to suffer: and that it 
 was to be received by us in the way of a sacrament, &c. The 
 whole lamb used to be made a sacred thing... lettuces and un- 
 leavened bread were not... We ought to be clean when we receive 
 the eucharist and the unleavened bread of sincerity, &c. shews this.” 
 
 I have given this concrete instance to shew what weight many 
 of his arguments have; and to leave it to be imagined to what 
 length his subdivisions will run when he is dealing with a more 
 abstract subject in debate with Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, 
 over both of whom he shews a certain superiority where I have 
 traced him. But I must not venture on more than to give the 
 title of Q. 119, Matt. xvii. Part IV. Vol. x. pt. 2, p. 421. 
 
 P. 421. “Whether two bodies can by miracle be in the same 
 place together? That a body reduced to invisible atoms does not 
 continue to be an organic body. How Christ is said to be in the 
 “host”? What is the way in which the gift of subtleness (infinite 
 fineness) operates? and what the bestowal of this subtle fineness 
 is? And what it is that makes two bodies really distinct each 
 from the other ?...In what the miracle of two bodies being really 
 in the same place consists? And what ‘place’ is? so that also 
 one body cannot be in two places.” 
 
 It is evident that these are very searching questions, which 
 aman need be in the fifteenth century to dare to ask; and perhaps 
 he almost needed to be as far away from the central authority of 
 the West of Spain to dare to set down in writing intended for 
 the public eye of scholars ; for of course the founts of type and 
 the printing-press were not yet. 
 
 sumebatur, sed erant quedam conditio et adjunctum, ἅς. Quarto quia 
 agnus directe signabat. Christum passurum et a nobis sumendum sacra- 
 mentaliter, &c. Totus agnus efficiebatur res sacra ... lactucee autem et 
 azyma non erant... Sumentes eucharistiam mundi esse debemus, quod 
 signant azyma sinceritatis, &e. 
 
 Port ΣΤ ἈΠ Pi, FIs Ὁ: 4220. 
 
 An duo corpora per miraculum possunt esse simul in eodem loco? 
 Et quod corpus reductum ad indivisibilia non manet organicum [an 
 answer to Leibnitz]. Et quomodo Christus dicatur esse in hostia, Et 
 que sit operatio dotis subtilitatis : et que sit dos subtilitatis. Et quid 
 faciat duo corpora esse realiter distincta. In quo consistat miraculum 
 quod duo corpora sint in eodem loco. Et quid sit locus ; quare item 
 unum corpus non possit esse in duobus locis. 
 
—1460] GENNADIUS. 233 
 
 (B.) GENNADIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. Ὁ. 1460. 
 
 He seems to have borne the name of George Scholarius at the 
 —ill-omened council which met at Ferrara and adjourned to 
 Florence to bring about a re-union of the Eastern and Western 
 Churches. He was not, like Bessarion, allured to desert the 
 Eastern by brighter hopes in the Western: but he is thought 
 to have held his Eastern views with great moderation in the 
 Council of Florence, 1439. The one remarkable relic of his 
 pen is a friendly debate on doctrine with Mahomet II. after he 
 had taken the Eastern metropolis. It is interesting to extract 
 a portion on the Lord’s supper, and to follow it by an extract 
 from the Confession of Faith by the Cyril Lucar favoured by 
 our first Charles, and by other Eastern assemblies in council. 
 All are printed together at Jena, by Ernest Julius Kimmel, 
 under the title Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiz Orientalis. These 
 extracts supply a few ideas regarding the belief of the later 
 English church. 
 
 Gennadius dwells very much on the illustrative character 
 of the Word, as a title of the Son: but the only part which 
 bears on our discussion is found in his first edition which exists 
 in Latin; and it is to be observed that he does not hold to it 
 in his second, which is a more careful edition of it, prepared 
 for the Emperor Paleeologus. The other great lights at Florence 
 on the Greek side were Mark of Ephesus, and Dionysius of 
 Sardis, besides Bessarion of Nicewea. Gennadius is said to have 
 written an account of that council, which has perished. He 
 was said to be first of all the patriarchs; and the title of 
 σοφώτατος was assigned to him. 
 
 Cyril Lucar was Patriarch of Constantinople in 1621, and 
 found great favour with our king Charles I. to whom he sent 
 the famous MS. of the New Testament in the British Museum. 
 He was deposed but restored ; died 1638. 
 
 Dositheus is a name that we wonder to find given in the 
 15th century: but probably the parents did not know that it 
 belonged in early times to the champion of Gnostic doctrine. 
 
294 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 7. “The Word of God was born of the Virgin Mary, as 
 had been predicted by the mouths of the prophets. But yet 
 He was then neither absent from the Father, nor from His own 
 flesh, nor from all men, nor from the whole globe of earth; but 
 He was everywhere and was diminished, but was filling all.” 
 
 This is from Gennadius’ Confession. The next is from Cyril 
 Lucar’s, who was patriarch of Constantinople in the 17th cent. 
 
 P. 36. “This is the simply true and genuine tradition of 
 the wonderful mystery, in the taking which and serving of which 
 we confess and believe the true and secure presence of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ; but I mean that which our faith presents and 
 introduces, not that which the vainly-invented transubstantiation 
 teaches. Whence it is true that we eat and partake of and 
 communicate in it if we believe: (but that) if we believe not 
 we miss all the gain of the mystery, &c.... For the Lawgiver gave 
 injunctions concerning His own body as well as concerning His 
 own blood: a commandment which must not be curtailed accord- 
 ing to every man’s good pleasure: but the law handed down 
 
 must be preserved in safety. 
 P. 103. “The fruits of this mystery are these. First, the 
 
 remembrance of the sinless passion and death of Christ, 1 Cor. x1. 
 The second gain, wherever 1t may happen to be: on account of 
 
 Gennadii Confess. I. p. 7. 
 
 Verbum Dei natum est ex Virgine Maria, ut ex prophetarum labiis 
 fuerat predictum. Attamen nec a Patre defuit, nec a carne, nec ab 
 omnibus hominibus nec ab universo orbe:-sed ubique erat, et non 
 deminutum est, verum amplissimum erat. 
 
 Cyrilli Lue. Conf. p. 36. 
 
 Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἁπλῶς ἀληθὴς καὶ γνησία τοῦ θαυμαστοῦ μυστηρίου 
 παράδοσις, οὕτινος ἐν τῇ ἐγχειρίσει καὶ διακονίᾳ τὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ βεβαίαν 
 παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογοῦμεν. καὶ πιστεύομεν" 
 πλὴν ἣν ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν παρίστησι καὶ προσφέρει, οὐκ ἣν ἡ ἐφευρεθεῖσα 
 εἰκῇ διδάσκει μετουσίωσις, κιτιλ. Ὅθεν ἀληθές ἐστιν ἐσθίειν ἡμᾶς καὶ 
 μετέχειν καὶ κοινωνοὺς εἶναι, ἐὰν πιστεύοιμεν᾽ ἐὰν οὐ πιστεύοιμεν, παντὸς ἡμᾶς 
 τοῦ μυστηρίου κέρδους ἀφίστασθαι, κ.τ.λ.... Ὃ γὰρ νομοθέτης, ὡς περὶ 
 τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ἰδίου, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος ἐνετείλατο: ἣν 
 ἐντολὴν οὐ δεῖ κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν ἑκάστῳ κολοβοῦσθαι ἀλλὰ σώαν τηρεῖσθαι 
 τὴν νομοθετηθεῖσαν παράδοσιν. 
 
 From Cyril Lucar’s long Confession of the Eastern Church, in more 
 modern Greek, p. 103. 
 
 Οἱ καρποὶ τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου εἶναι τοῦτοι᾽ πρῶτον ἡ ἀνάμνησις τοῦ 
 ἀναμαρτήτου πάθους καὶ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 1 Cor. xi. 25. To δεύτερον 
 κέρδος, ὅπου μὲν δίδη εἶναι, διατὶ τὸ μυστήριον γίνεται ἱλασμὸς καὶ καλον 
 
—1460] GENNADIUS. 235 
 
 the mystery there is propitiation and a good understanding 
 towards God with respect to our sins, whether we live or are dead, 
 wherever there should be in it supplications and prayers to God 
 on behalf of our sins. The third is an excellent (gain), wherever 
 any kind of Christian is found coming frequently to this sacrifice 
 and partaking of this mystery, he is liberated by it from every 
 temptation and danger from the devil; because the enemy of 
 the soul does not dare to hurt him at all, &c. Readiness for 
 participating in the terrific mysteries, &c.” 
 
 From the Decrees of the Syn. Const. 1672. 
 
 P. 217. “The holy participation, in which being spiritually 
 nourished, we both are together kept and grow, in the holy life 
 according to the Spirit.” 
 
 From Jer. Syn. agst. Calv. 
 
 P. 388. “To those that hear indeed the Saviour say con- 
 cerning the sacred working of the Divine mysteries handed down 
 from Him, ‘Do this,’ &c., but do not rightly take up the remem- 
 brance... and make offering as a fancy and as a likeness in 
 regard to it, making void the mystery of the terrific and Divine 
 sacred working, through which we are receiving the pledge of 
 the life to come. And this too when our divine father. the 
 golden speaker so clearly lays down the unchangeableness of the 
 sacrifice, and repeats in many of the uttered “teachings of the 
 
 great Paul that it is one and the same. Thrice Aine (onanne 
 
 σύνημα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, εἴτε ζώντων εἴτε καὶ ἀποφθα- 
 μένων, ὅπου νὰ μὴν γένοιεν εἰς αὐτὴν ἱκεσίαι καὶ δεήσεις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὑπὲρ 
 τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων' τὸ τρίτον διάφορον εἶναι, ὅπου ὁποῖος Χρι- 
 στιανὸς εὑρίσκεται παρὼν συχνᾷ εἰς τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην, καὶ νὰ κοινωνᾷ τοῦ 
 μυστηρίου τούτου, ἐλευθερώνεται dC αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κάθα πειρασμὸν καὶ κίνδυνον 
 τοῦ διαβόλου: διατὶ δὲν ἀποτολμᾷ ὁ ἐχθρὸς τῆς ψυχῆς νὰ βλάψῃ ἐκεῖνον, 
 κιτιλ, Ἢ ἑτοιμασία πρὸς τὴν μετάληψιν τῶν φρικτῶν μυστηρίων, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 Synod. Const. A.D. 1672, p. 217. 
 To τῆς ἁγίας μεταλήψεως, ἐν ᾧ πνευματικῶς τρεφόμενοι συντηρούμεθά τε 
 καὶ αὐξομεν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Πνεῦμα ζωῃ. 
 
 Syn. Hierosol. adv. Calvinistas, pees p. 388, 
 
 Tots ἀκούουσι μὲν τοῦ Σωτῆρος περὶ τῆς παρ᾽ Αὐτοῦ παραδοθείσης τῶν 
 θείων μυστηρίων ἱερουργίας λέγοντος Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, κ-τ.λ." μὴ ἐκλαβομένοις 
 δὲ ὀρθῶς τὴν ἀνάμνησιν.. «καὶ πρὸς ἐκείνην φανταστικῶς καὶ εἰκονικῶς ἀναφερ- 
 ομένοις, ὡς κενοῦσι τὸ τῆς φρικτῆς καὶ θείας t ἱερουργίας μυστήριον, dv οὗ τὸν 
 τῆς μελλούσης ζωῆς ἀρραβῶνα λαμβάνομεν" καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ θείου πατρὸς 
 ἡμῶν τοῦ Χρυσοῤῥήμονος διατρανοῦντος τῆς θυσίας τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον, καὶ 
 μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι φάσκοντος ἐν πολλαῖς τοῦ μεγάλου Παύλου ῥητῶν 
 ἐξηγήσεων. ᾿Ανάθεμα τρίς. 
 
236 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 From Dositheus’ Confession. 
 
 P. 457. “We believe that the Lord Christ is present in the 
 sacred working of this (sacrament) not in a typical way, nor after 
 the manner of a likeness, nor (simply) with a grace transcending 
 that in the other mysteries, nor by merely being present, as some 
 of the fathers have said concerning baptism, nor by impanation, 
 so that the Deity of the Word is made one hypostatically with 
 bread set forth in the eucharist, as those on Luther’s side very 
 ignorantly and wretchedly conjecture, but truly and in fact, 
 so that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the bread 
 is changed, is transubstantiated, is made anew, is changed in 
 the flow of its nature, into the very true body of our Lord, which 
 was born of the ever-virgin in Bethlehem, &c. 
 
 Dosithei Conf. p. 457. 
 
 Τούτου ἐν τῇ tepovpyia πιστεύομεν παρεῖναι tov Κύριον X ὃν οὐ 
 οἷν 359 > Hl] ΞΡ Rie , ε "5 le , ε 3 uP piel 4 oy 
 τυπικῶς OVO εἰκονικῶς οὐδὲ χάριτι ὑπερβαλλούσῃ ws ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς μυστη- 
 , “ 
 ρίοις οὐδὲ κατὰ μόνην παρουσίαν, καθώς τινες τῶν πατέρων εἰρήκασι περὶ τοῦ 
 > Ν -“ A Ν ca 
 βαπτίσματος, οὐδὲ Kat ἀναρτισμὸν ὥστε ἑνοῦσθαι τὴν Θεότητα τοῦ Λόγου 
 = aA 4 ε Ξ \ 3 
 τῷ προκειμένῳ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἄρτῳ ὑποστατικῶς καθὼς οἱ ἀπὸ Λουθήρου 
 4 > θῶ © ἧς 3 ΄ ὃ ’ SING 3 θῶ Ν a 7 
 λίαν ἀμαθῶς καὶ ἀθλίως δοξάζουσιν, a ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς, ὥστε 
 Ν “ ” 7 A 
 μετὰ TOV ἁγιασμὸν τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ οἴνου μεταβάλλεσθαι, μετουσιοῦσθαι, 
 lal Ν m” aN Ν aA 
 μεταποιεῖσθαι, μεταῤῥυθμίζεσθαι τὸν μὲν ἄρτον εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ἀληθὲς τοῦ Κυρίου 
 n 4, nw 3 , 
 σῶμα ὅπερ ἐγεννήθη ἐν Βηθλεὲμ. ἐκ τῆς ἀειπαρθένου, k.7.A. 
 
 (C.) PROF, ULLMANN’S “REFORMERS BEFORE THE REFORMATION.” 
 1400. 
 
 I insert my extracts from this writer in this place, as he is to 
 my mind the best interpreter of the German Reformation move- | 
 ment, viewed philosophically, which is the real central path of | 
 that part of history, shewing not so much the actual form of 
 events that happened, from which we have to infer the general 
 principles of the movement, but rather the changed general — 
 principles themselves embodied in that great movement: but I | 
 should be guilty of utter surplusage if I took upon me further 
 to explain Professor Ullmann’s explanation. | 
 
 P.1. “In undertaking to give an account of several remark- | 
 able persons, who in the 15th century paved the way for the 
 Reformation, we have first of all to explain what the Reformation 
 really was....Nothing is more common—and the remark applies | 
 to the friends no less than to the enemies of the Reformation— 
 
1400] ULLMANN’S “REFORMERS.” 237 
 
 than to conceive of that event as something essentially negative, 
 a mere setting aside of errors and abuses, &e. A Reformation in 
 the higher sense of the word is always a great historical result, the 
 issue of a spiritual process extending through centuries. It is 
 a widely felt and overpowering necessity...essentially based on 
 a large and comprehensive public spirit such as...forms itself 
 slowly and gradually by an inward and irresistible agency...no 
 mere negative hostility to existing things is powerful enough to 
 unite the minds of men on a large scale, and to keep them for 
 centuries in a state of tension and movement....Such a seed too is 
 always positive. It first secures a position for itself, and then, in 
 order to make room for its free development, it opposes what is 
 foreign and repels what is obstructive...Reformation means for- 
 mation again, restoration of life....[P.5.] There are three things 
 indispensably necessary. Corruption must really exist in the 
 domain where it is to take place: the necessity of abolishing that 
 corruption must be felt and recognized; and the rudiments must 
 be prepared of a new and better system to be substituted for the 
 old...only at such a time and not at any optional point of history 
 can true reformers make their appearance: because under no 
 other circumstances can they be thoroughly successful. [P. 5.] 
 With respect to the government, by confounding Old and New Tes- 
 tament principles, the primitive idea of the universal spiritual 
 priesthood of Christians was [had been] supplanted by the notion 
 of a special order of priests.... The simple heart-affecting rites ... of 
 the early Christians had given way to that form of the Lord’s sup- 
 per which treats it as a constantly renewed sacrifice of the God- 
 man, present alike in spirit and in body. [P.6.] ‘The conversion 
 of the Gospel of grace into a doctrine of salvation by outward 
 acts....It [had] engendered a multitude of evils: such as the notion 
 of the desert of good works, the doctrine of a treasure of merits, 
 the whole system of indulgences, the various corruptions of Mona- 
 chism, and in general the mistaken conception of Christianity as a 
 mere preceptive institute, &c. The rise in the Church of a sepa- 
 rate priestly order, reckoned of itself holy and divine, (had) pro- 
 duced inwardly a total change in the spiritual relation of Christians 
 towards God and the Saviour, &c. In fine the idea of a sacrifice 
 in the holy supper became the central point of that mysterious and 
 splendid ritual, &c., which soon degenerated into an empty form, 
 extruding the worship of the spirit and the heart, and completely 
 forcing into the shade the doctrine of salvation so essential to 
 Christianity. [P.10.] The principle that salvation flows not 
 from man but from God may be considered as the ultimate and 
 comprehensive basis of the Reformation, and the main tendency 
 in which all the reformers are comprised concentrates itself in the 
 endeavour to prostrate human things (however venerable by tra- 
 dition or high in the estimation of the Church) before God and 
 Christ—to give the glory to Them alone—to separate from Chris- 
 
298 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 tian faith and practice whatever seems derogatory to the Divine 
 honour and word, and to restore the proper relationship of man 
 and the church towards God—a relationship either immediate, or 
 formed by [through] Christ the sole and everlasting priest... First 
 the necessity of appealing to Scripture as the pure word of God in 
 opposition to all human doctrine and tradition, &., and secondly 
 the conviction...that perfect peace and full salvation do not spring 
 from human actions or ecclesiastical works at all, but solely from 
 the grace of God revealed by Jesus Christ and embraced by living 
 and true faith—and that the shortest and only safe way to God is 
 not the church and the church’s ordinances....but Christ the 
 Saviour and Redeemer, and His Spirit, Who alone can make men 
 free and guide them to all truth and holiness, Such were the 
 radical truths. 
 
 Preface, p. xiv. “The Reformation viewed in its most general 
 character is the reaction of Christianity, as gospel, against Chris- 
 tianity as law. During the medieval ages the essential nature of 
 the Christian faith became gradually and progressively misunder- 
 stood, until at last it was reduced almost wholly to an objective 
 law [v.e. regarding merely resulting acts], an external ordinance 
 strict and unbending, &c. Evolving the vital spirit from the word 
 of Scripture, more purely and strictly interpreted, it taught men 
 once more to recognize in Christianity a creative power of God, 
 diffusing fresh life into the roots of our spiritual being, and 
 guiding us from the atonement to sanctification—a free doctrine 
 of grace and faith, of love and spirit, prompting us from the heart 
 to the fulfilment of the law, while at the same time it restored 
 the doctrine which is the kernel of St Paul’s creed, but which 
 in the course of time had been wholly overgrown by the legalism 
 which had crept in. The extent to which this constitutes 
 the germ of the Reformation can scarcely be conceived 
 by any other means than an acquaintance with the spiritual 
 manifestations which preceded it. Its forerunners were almost 
 more than its agents under the dominion of a Christianity 
 petrified into law—a sort of legal ecclesiasticism....With this 
 fundamental antagonism between law and gospel...there is that 
 [wide difference] between the externalism and the internalism 
 of the religious and moral life. On the legal standpoint religious 
 and moral things are predominantly conceived and rated, as quan- 
 tities—upon the evangelical as qualities. In the one case stress 
 is laid on the visible act—upon the character, number and extent 
 of the works performed—in short upon what may be weighed 
 and measured in the spiritual life. In the other it is laid upon 
 what is inmost in the general bias of the mind—upon such im- 
 ponderable things as faith and sentiment. In the one case the 
 language is, ‘ Be right and fulfil all the commandments.’ In the 
 other, ‘Believe and love out of a pure heart and then do what 
 
1400] ULLMANN’S “ REFORMERS.” 259 
 
 ‘you will and must, for all that comes from unfeigned faith and 
 ‘love is good. ‘This antithesis—which is also one of the radical 
 differences between the old and new covenant—runs, no less than 
 ‘that between law and gospel, through the whole of church history. 
 Besides being legalized, the medizval church had more or less 
 fallen a prey to the principle of externalism. In opposition to this, 
 however, mysticism—thus also becoming an important prepara- 
 tory element of the Reformation—asserted the principle of inter- 
 nalism. This it not unfrequently did in a sound and vigorous 
 way and with great success, but sometimes also with a partial and 
 morbid spiritualism, which by falsely severing the outward from 
 the inward, laid the whole strain upon the latter, and by this 
 means sank into pure indifference regarding moral actions, and 
 wholly lost sight of the necessity of imbuing with Christian 
 principle everything that belongs to life. The true pioneers of 
 the Reformation occupy the sounder standing, &., & They 
 require no self-sequestration inwards or monkish retreat from the 
 world, but a vigorous infusion of the Christian spirit into all the 
 relations of life. How far it belonged to the essence is most 
 evident from the recognition of its importance in all the pre- 
 paratory rudiments. It is the centre of the controversy waged by 
 its precursors against works of righteousness, merit and superero- 
 gation, against indulgence—the opus operatum—monachism-vows, 
 and everything of the sort. [P. xvi.] Next in importance is the 
 principle of Christian liberty...The soil in which their notion of 
 liberty was rooted is the Christian doctrine of grace and faith. 
 True liberty flows from fellowship with God, ἄς. The complete 
 exemption from all outward restraint and arbitrary factitious 
 ordinances and authority, &c., perfectly consistent with inward 
 subjection to the Divine ordinances, and to the laws of Divine 
 truth and charity. As they knew of no Christianity but that 
 which is itself free, so do they also know no other liberty than 
 that which is christian and evangelical, and the offspring of vital 
 faith and love. 
 
 P.12. General introduction. “The Reformers unite the 
 thetical with the antithetical. This feature is likewise conspi- 
 cuous in their true precursors. Some labour more to establish 
 positive truth [John of Goch]; some rather to refute error [John 
 of Wesel]. In John Wessel we behold a portrait of the accom- 
 plished theologian of the age prior to the Reformation. Τῇ to 
 these we add the brethren of the common lot we shall likewise 
 have the share contributed by the people on the one hand and by 
 the practical mystics on the other, in paving the way for the im- 
 provement of the church.” 
 
 These long extracts seem to be of the utmost value as ac- 
 counting for and elucidating the great change that exhibits itself 
 
240 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 in the gradual clearing that had place in the predominant views 
 on the Lord’s supper when once the Reformation had fairly laid 
 hold of considerable portions of Christendom. Perhaps it would 
 be ungrateful in me to complain of the length of the statement 
 of the Professor's views, when the testimony of the sense of their 
 value is marked by the assignment of so much space. Our 
 extracts now again become the utterances of individual divines 
 of the period itself. 
 
 P. 135. “John of Goch, priest at Mechlin, asserted Ecclesiam 
 posse errare: and from that [point] contested many doctrines 
 and articles—ecclesiastical vows and obligations—belief in the 
 efficacy of the sacraments ex opere operato, distinction of priests 
 and bishops as of Divine appointment, and the prevailing opinion 
 on evangelical poverty. [P.138.] C. Grapheus (Schreiber). We 
 have declined from Christ to Moses and have backslidden from 
 Moses to Pharaoh—the flesh-pots of Egypt and the bondage of 
 the brickkilns—from Christ to Moses, from the gospel to the 
 Jewish law. [P. 203.] Gregory of Heimburg, counsellor of the 
 princes convoked at Mantua by Pius 11. The apostles are sup- 
 posed to have acknowledged Peter for their chief, and to have 
 raised him to the chair at Antioch...The place of the apostles is 
 now taken by general councils. [P. 204. When his opponents 
 urged against him Peter Lombard’s definition that a sacrament is 
 the visible form of invisible grace, and yet, as involving its cause, 
 is more than an image of it, J. Wesel on the contrary took his 
 stand on the simple definition of Augustine, that it 1s just the 
 visible form of invisible grace. The truth seemed to him, that 
 when the priest with right intention and suitable words dispenses 
 the sacrament of penitence to a person in a penitent state of mind, 
 God Himself works, produces, carries into effect the pardon of sin. 
 [P. 270.] Wesel considers the relation of the sinner to God as in 
 its inmost core direct. The church to mediate, but can give 
 nothing to the sinner, which has not already and directly been 
 given. Their function not to judge and decide, but to preach and 
 serve. The gifts of His mercy always proceed in a sovereign way 
 from God Himself. [Pp. 296 and 350.] The body of Christ 
 might exist under the form of bread though the substance of the 
 bread remained. 
 
 Vol. II. p. 258. ‘The theology of the Reformers was not 
 mysticism. The theology of the Reformers, especially Luther and 
 Zwingel, possessed an element of science and erudition, of which 
 that of the mystics was wholly destitute. We have to contem- 
 plate [among the Reformers before the Reformation] a man who, 
 reared in a mystical school, grew up with afreedom and solidity of 
 
1400] ULLMANN’S “REFORMERS,” 241 
 
 scientific spirit, which well entitles him to be called the theo- 
 logical forerunner of the Reformation. We speak of John Wessel. 
 [P. 382.] At the death of Gerson, Wessel was in the tenth year 
 of his age. When Wessel died, Luther was a boy of six, Zwingel 
 of five, and Melanchthon unborn; Erasmus twenty-two and Reuch- 
 lin thirty-four. [P. 390.] During the whole of the middle ages 
 the practical, sentimental, poetical and intuitive theology of the 
 mystics arose as a necessary antithesis to the narrow theoretic 
 leading of the schoolmen. [P. 393.] In the 15th century we 
 find its greatest theologian pointing to...a vital Scriptural theo- 
 logy. Almost all the theologians of the period are penetrated 
 more or less with a consciousness of it. In contradistinction to 
 scholastics and strict dogmatists Bible-theologians are reared in 
 greater numbers. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries 
 only the former were held in high estimation and exercised great 
 public influence. An expositor of Scripture was a very sub- 
 ordinate person, and it behoved him to retire before a senten- 
 tiary and a summist. Now the opinion changed. [P.501.] The 
 efficiency and fruit of the sacraments depend not merely on the 
 intention of the party who administers them, but upon the par- 
 ticipant’s frame of mind....He who believes feeds on the body 
 of Christ, even though it be nowhere externally offered to him. 
 Of this Paul the hermit was a proof, who lived for so many years 
 in the desert, and who, unless he had eaten the flesh of the Son 
 of Man and drunk His blood, would have had no life in him. 
 When it is said that a mass celebrated for many is less efficacious 
 for any one of the number than it would be if celebrated for 
 that one (only), I reckon this to be false. It is efficacious for every 
 one as far as he is spiritually changed and amended by it, not as 
 far as the celebrant desires....The merit of him who celebrates a 
 mass or offers a prayer does not always operate, as we clearly see 
 in the prayers that are [have been] offered that the popes may 
 lead an exemplary life; for here the intercession of the most 
 pious men avails nothing, because the repugnant inclinations of 
 popes themselves prevent [have prevented]. [P. 521.] [From 
 the treatise of Honius.] Even granting that Christ in institu- 
 ting the Lord’s supper really had transmuted the bread or com- 
 bined it with His body...it does not follow that every priest can 
 do the same. The words ‘Do this in remembrance of Me, invest 
 priests with no such power. The doctrine of transubstantiation 
 would be a very important article; but not a word of it is said in 
 what we call the Apostles’ Creed. It is to be found only in the 
 decretals. And this very circumstance strengthens the suspicion 
 that it is a papal invention, and all the more when we reflect that 
 it serves as a basement to the whole of the papal religion....Satan, 
 to turn all things upside down, has persuaded men of a bodily 
 presence, not in the human form, yet in the form of bread. Take 
 
 ἘΠ lie 16 
 
242 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 transubstantiation away, and the whole religion of the pope falls 
 to pieces. And that it will one day fall who can doubt, seeing 
 that so considerable a part of it is already overthrown? [P. 531.] 
 The body and blood of the Lord, however sacred, are still corporeal 
 substances and not spirit. Hence, if they are taken only in a 
 corporeal manner, they not merely do not spiritually invigorate 
 the eater, but they cause his death, 1 Cor, xi. and John vi. It is 
 the Spirit that quickeneth, and this means that however sacred 
 the flesh may be it has little to do in the case....It is not as if the 
 flesh and blood did not contribute to the justification of the com- 
 municant, for whosoever with faith unfeigned and in reliance on 
 the Divine omnipotence believes that under the species of Jesus 
 (and as the consequence of God’s high esteem, condescending 
 beneficence and salutary operation) the holy flesh and holy blood 
 are really present and contained [this is just palpable and peculiar 
 Lutheranism] will doubtless experience in himself some stirrings 
 of spiritual life, unless he believes and eats with a cold heart— 
 eats, if it may be so called, with no consideration or discernment 
 or inward digestion and taste—eats but only in a corporally carnal 
 and not in a spiritual manner. Hence neither is he spiritually 
 quickened ; for such a faith as this can enliven no one in holiness 
 and righteousness. Whosoever then eats and drinks the spiritual 
 sacrament only with his teeth and mouth does not eat at all, 
 unless the inner man live to God; John vi. ‘If any man eat this 
 ‘bread he shall live for ever, &c., ἄρ. Whosoever therefore visibly 
 eats, unless he eats spiritually, properly does not eat at all. Ac- 
 cordingly the flesh, if consumed in a mere fleshly way, brings no 
 salvation: but if understood spiritually, and in the spirit of love, 
 offered, accepted, contemplated and enjoyed, 2 is life-giving, and 
 a fountain of salvation. [Thus do the opinions of the fourth 
 century come up again in the nineteenth. Christ did not say, 
 The flesh profiteth the unbeliever nothing: but absolutely, The 
 flesh (i.e. itself) profiteth nothing (to any one).] It can be so how- 
 ever only for him, who already lives, and longs for the nourish- 
 ment; and consequently the essential function of the body and 
 blood of Christ in-the supper belongs only to him who feels the 
 inward want, and has the proper susceptibility for it. [P.529.] It 
 is not the flesh of Christ that justifies—not the blood; but the 
 work, that 7s conveyed to us by the flesh and blood. If all arts, all 
 works of science, of counsel, of courage, of wisdom, of faithfulness, 
 and benevolence, have their root and seminary in meditation and 
 remembrance, and if they are perfected and cherished by medita- 
 tion, and grow and advance by τέ to their perfection, who will 
 deny that this holy and blessed memorial, instituted for all who 
 fear the Lord, to keep in remembrance His wonderful works, is 
 efficacious for every end for which God has sent His Word ? 
 
 [P. 528.] “Christ is Himself truly present, not merely by 
 
1400] ULLMANN’S “REFORMERS.” 243 
 
 His Divinity and goodness but even bodily [That we do not 
 admit|—by the whole beneficial efficacy of the power, skill and 
 fulness which are given to His flesh and blood...He is Himself 
 bodily present in the celebrant, as the celebrant in Him.” [The 
 collection of opinions would have been incomplete without a half- 
 modern German doctor of what is now the Lutheran persuasion, 
 To all such we humbly address the entire work in its three 
 parts. | 
 
 (D.) NEAS SYLVIUS, PIUS 11. 8, 1405. Ὁ. 1464. 
 
 Itis a great saying of Milton “that the mind of one that is to 
 “become a great poet must itself be a good poem, it must be 
 “filled with all noble sentiments.” Akin to this would be the 
 assertion that for a work of imagination to reach the highest 
 moral excellence, its subject should be a man of very noble mind. 
 But for this I can hardly conceive of a richer subject for a work 
 of fiction than the life of Aidneas Sylvius. There is first his 
 visit in early life to this island, the northern part in particular, 
 then scarce further advanced from mere barbarism than England 
 in the days of Alfred; then the appearance of Sylvius at the 
 critical manoeuvres of the reforming party at the Council of 
 Constance; then his turning and rising to be the Pope’s Secre- 
 tary with almost the “Ego et rex meus” of Wolsey; and lastly, 
 the various scenes that in succession crowd the canvas when 
 he becomes Pius IL. in that eventful age. He moves between 
 Naples and Germany, Bessarion and Callistus, the Pope and the 
 Emperor, the one indispensable man to all, till all agree to have 
 him, first, Cardinal, then universal father of Western Christendom. 
 Henceforward he drops everything but the church’s interests, 
 as then understood; he honourably frees himself from his duty 
 to the Emperor of Germany, stands up against France and her 
 liberties involved in the Pragmatic Sanction, thinks nothing 
 of placing himself at the antipodes of the opinions which he 
 advocated at Constance; subordinates everything to the rousing 
 of Christendom against the Turks, and exceeding all others in 
 zeal and courage expires in the glory of a certain kind of mar- 
 tyrdom for that sacred cause off the town of Ragusa. What a 
 theme for the pencil of a real poet, the one counter-consideration 
 first hinted being excepted. A good deal of audacious and adroit 
 
 16—2 
 
244 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, [A.D. 
 
 versatility may be traced in his four reasons for withholding the 
 cup from the laity. Well may it be said, that few of more 
 consummate ability ever sat in the so-called chair of St Peter. 
 
 C. 35. “Peter of Diessen in Bavaria...that you should look 
 to this Jacobel of St Michael’s with wonder as a learned and holy 
 man, &c., that you have not observed that error of his in the 
 mode of communion in the eucharist, which long ago had injured 
 the church. For he ministers the Lord’s body to the people 
 under one kind, when in St John it is ordered to be received in 
 the two kinds of bread and wine, John vi. ‘Unless ye eat, &c., 
 ‘and drink, ὅσ. Jacobel stirred up by these words, having 
 scrutinized the ancient MSS. of the holy doctors, particularly 
 those of Dionysius and Cyprian, after he had found the com- 
 munion commended (or quoted) in them, began publicly to 
 admonish the people, never afterwards to neglect the communion 
 of the cup. To him all the heretics agreed in no moderate 
 degree, making joyful demonstrations, &c. (2) Sigismund (the 
 emperor) held a council at Iglau and approved it, with this 
 additional condition that they should publicly instruct the people 
 between the times of communion that Christ is not contained under 
 the form of bread nor under the form of wine alone, but that the 
 whole and entire Christ is contained under quality and form. 
 
 P. 671. Letter. “I am going to answer to you nothing of 
 my own but (only) what the holy doctors under the Divine 
 breath of the Spirit deliver to us [nothing like a man who has 
 
 Historia Bohemie, Pars IT. c«. XXXV. Basilee. 
 
 Petrus (Diesensis) hune Jacobelum apud eccl. de 8. Michaelis, 
 mirari te, ut doctum et sanctum virum, &c., errorem istum non ad- 
 vertisse communionis eucharistiz, qui jampridem ecclesiam pessundasset, 
 in qua sub una specie Dominicum corpus populo ministrat, cum 
 apud Johannem... sub duplici specie panis vinique sumi jubeatur, 
 John vi. ‘Nisi, &e.” Commotus his Jacobelus verbis, perquisitis 
 vetustis sanctorum doctorum codicibus, Dionysii presertim et Cypriani, 
 (postquam) communionem in illos laudatam invenisset, publice com- 
 monere populum ceepit, ne deinceps communionem calicis negligerent. 
 Huic omnes heretici consentierunt haud modice gestientes letitia, ce. 
 (2) Sigismundus, concilio Iglaiz habito, comprobavit, &c. e& conditione 
 adjecta, ut inter communicandum plebem publice instruant non sub 
 specie panis Christum nec sub specie vini solum sanguinem sed sub 
 qualitate et specie totum et integrum contineri Christum. 
 
 Pontif. Epist. Inb. I. p. 671. 25. 
 
 Responsurus tibi nil de meo sed quod sancti doctores Divino afilatu 
 Spiritts tradunt et quod docet ecclesia tradam. Nam Sibi assistit 
 Christus et suggerit omnia Spiritus sanctus, Cujus maxima dignitas 
 
1405] '  HNEAS SYLVIUS, PIUS II. 245 
 
 changed sides for a strong statement !], and I will deliver what 
 the church teaches. For Christ stands by Himself (¢.e. the church 
 and the Holy Spirit suggests all things; to whom belong the 
 highest dignity, the summit of power and immeasurable authority, 
 which neither deceives nor is deceived. And if any one should 
 despise His teaching let him be reckoned as a heathen and a 
 publican. A man cannot now have God as a father who has 
 not the church as a mother. The sense of truth is to be received 
 from the Scripture itself, which the church alone knows and 
 expounds to her own sons... You have accused the Roman church 
 that in denying the cup of communion to the people she shuts 
 the gate against the Gospel (and) denies Christ. There are then 
 four things that (ought to) move not thee only but all whom 
 the opinion, not to say the madness of the Hussites has separated 
 from the Roman church. (1) In the first place, in St John’s 
 Gospel it is not a drinking in the form of the sacred sign that 
 is there enjoined but a spiritual one that is insinuated. [Very 
 adroit, because true just so far as he goes.] (2) If anyone 
 follow Wycliff and Rochezan he sets darkness before light, 
 a lie before the truth. Let us pass to the other evangelists... The 
 words which you have quoted were not spoken to all the faithful, 
 but to the apostles alone, who... were either already priests or 
 then received the priesthood. The words ‘as often as ye shall 
 ‘drink,’ is ‘when ye shall make’ (Christ’s body) [Jerome’s term 
 again] when ye offer sacrifices, (terms) which are only suitable 
 to use about priests. ‘Do this’ is ‘make this sacrifice.’ Had 
 Christ in these words enjoined the communion of the cup on 
 laymen also, it would have been revealed not to the Bohemians 
 
 est, summa potentia, immensurabilis auctoritas, quae neque fallit 
 neque fallitur. Quam si quis docentem contempserit, ut ethnicus 
 et publicanus habendus sit... Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem 
 qui non habeat ecclesiam matrem... Ab ipsi Scriptura recipiendus 
 est sensus veritatis, quam sola novit et suis filiis exponit ecclesia... 
 Accusasti Romanam ecelesiam que cum communionis calicem plebi 
 denegat, evangelium ostiat, Christum negat. Quatuor sunt ideo que 
 non te solum sed omnes movent, quos Hussitarum opinio, ne dicam 
 . rabies, ab ecclesia Romana sejunxit. (1) Imprimis in evangelio Jo- 
 hannis non bibitio sacramentalis illic preecipitur sed spiritualis insi- 
 nuatur, (2)... Siquis Viucleff Rochezanumque sequitur, luci tenebras, 
 veritati mendacium, prefert... Ad reliquos eyangelistas transeamus... 
 Verba que retulisti non omnibus fidelibus sed apostolis solum dicta 
 fuerunt, qui... aut jam sacerdotes, aut tunc sacerdotium acceperint. 
 “ Quotiescunque biberitis,” est ‘quando conficietis,” quando sacrificium 
 offertis, quod solis sacerdotibus convenit. ‘Hoc facite” est “ hoc 
 ‘“‘sacrificilum conficite.” Si Christus his verbis communionem calicis 
 etiam laicis imperasset, non solum Bohemis, sed aliis gentibus revelatum 
 esset; sed nulla schola hoc sentit, nulla civitas probat, nulla extra 
 
246 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. ὁ [A.D. 
 
 alone, but to all nations [a most unsound argument unless to 
 those that believe that the whole church can err in nothing]: 
 but no school perceives, no city (state) approves it, no church 
 outside Bohemia holds out. [In all this pleading one is reminded 
 of Southey’s saying in the legend of St James of Compostella... 
 ‘Thou shouldest have been a lawyer. At common pleas it 
 would be excellent. He takes each plea just so far as it goes 
 with him, and then seems not to have eyes for further inferences. | 
 (3) That the figure of the old law might be fully accomplished, 
 He reserves the wine for libations for the priests alone. (4) It 
 is the custom of the Roman church. Greece (once at the head) 
 has grown old, and grown cold. She has been put under tribute, 
 that was the mistress of foreign peoples. She is now a disciple 
 of the Latins.” 
 
 Bohemiam ecclesia tenet. (3) Ut impleretur figura veteris legis, 
 libamina solis sacerdotibus reservat ; and (4) It is the custom of the 
 Roman church, Grecia consenuit, frigida est. Facta est sub tributo 
 que fuit alienorum magistra, nune est discipula Latinorum. 
 
 (E.) WILLIAM TYNDALL, 3B. 1477. Ὁ. 1535, 
 
 Some actions are immortal, and so are some words. The 
 world as long as it may last will never cease to be quickened at 
 their utterance. The man, from whose lips they came, may 
 have proved partly or entirely unfaithful to them, but for all 
 that the pulse of the hearers’ blood cannot but move faster when 
 they are read or spoken. Such an one is the saying of Tyndall, 
 which has been preserved to us by Fox. <A learned divine once 
 said to Tyndall, “We were better without God’s laws than 
 “without the pope’s.” Tyndall fired at the saying. He replied: 
 “JT defy the pope and all his laws. If God spare my life, ere 
 “many years I will cause that a boy that driveth the plough 
 “shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.” This 
 saying was Tyndall’s life in microcosm, He was then in the 
 most dependent of positions, a chaplain in a baronet’s house, 
 hable to be dismissed at any time, if he did not please him and 
 yet more his lady. But he passed from that house of Little 
 Sodbury to Bishop Tunstal, in London, with a translation of an 
 oration of Isocrates in hand, done to prove that he could 
 translate the Greek Testament. Rejected by the well-born 
 prelate he flies to Germany, and nothing stops him but a prison 
 
1477] WILLIAM TYNDALL. 247 
 
 and death; and that does not come until he has found for all 
 the New Testament and a great part of the Old the words of 
 simple power, nine-tenths of which are still on the lips of the 
 powerful English-speaking nations and tribes that are doing 
 the greater part of the missionary work that is done in the 
 world. The one key to which all the heroic musie of his life 
 was set, was this fixed purpose, framed at Sodbury in defiance 
 of Dr Parker and his fellow-combatants against the truth, viz. 
 that the lowest classes in England should have God’s scripture. 
 It was from the anvil of Erasmus that this spark originally came, 
 Erasmus could not resolve on leaving the Romish communion 
 himself. He died in it: but the following words of that eminent 
 Reformer sound like a lovely variation of Tyndall’s simpler air. 
 “The mysteries of kings it were better perhaps to conceal; but 
 “Christ wishes His mysteries to be published as widely as pos- 
 “sible. I would wish even all women to read the Gospel (i.e. 
 “the four Gospels) and the Epistles of St Paul. And I wish 
 “they were translated into all languages of the people that 
 “they might be read and known not merely by the Scotch and 
 “Trish, but even by the Turks and the Heathens.” Then the 
 music begins; “I wish that the husbandman may sing parts 
 “of them at his plough, that the weaver may warble them at 
 “his shuttle, that the traveller may with their narratives beguile 
 “the weariness of the way.” No Greek chorus, no lyric of 
 Pindar, or Milton or Dryden, or Pope or Collins or Wordsworth, 
 is superior to this. Its topic is so lofty, and its words are 
 essentially musical, the music of a northern free language learned 
 amidst brooks and willows. It is impossible not to admire the 
 perseverance of Warren Hastings, who formed as a boy at the 
 village school of Daylesford the to him gigantic project of 
 purchasing the Manor, and who lived to settle there and at 
 death to leave his devoted and heroic widow, whom I knew, in 
 possession of it. But that was earthly though fair ambition, 
 The purpose and the perseverance of William Tyndall are akin to 
 the imagined hymns and harmonies of heaven. These hopes ever 
 cast Divine light on his o’erlaboured eyes, even when under the 
 cruel dominion of the emperor Charles amid the burning flame in 
 the castle of Vilvorde they looked their last on a sin-stricken 
 struggling world and their first on the high and happy rest 
 that remains for the people of God. 
 
248 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. (AD. 
 
 It is perhaps natural rather than singular that Tyndall stands 
 out, as one of the few whose language on the Lord’s supper seems 
 to be in complete accord with the Scriptures. The marvel perhaps 
 is that any are co-equals with him. If Tyndall’s monument 
 on the Coteswold Hills, near Nibley, wanted a Latin motto, he 
 well merited, not by the end of his career only, but ever on 
 from its very beginning to its close, the three grand words in the 
 fourth Satire of Juvenal, 
 
 “vitam impendere vero.” 
 Yes: 
 ut libera posset 
 verba Dei proferre et vitam impendere vero. 
 
 Tyndall as much gives you the impression of a man sent 
 of God expressly to do a particular work of inexpressible value, 
 as Moses or Paul. 
 
 Doctrinal Discourses. Parker Society. 
 
 P. 426. “If aman say of the sacrament of Christ’s body 
 and blood, that it is a sacrifice as well for the quick as the 
 dead... then is Christ’s body there slain, and His blood there 
 shed: but that isnot so. And therefore it is properly no sacrifice, 
 but a sacrament and a memorial of that everlasting sacrifice 
 _once—for-all,&e. [Ὁ preacheth unto them that are alive only... 
 But under the pretence of soul health it is a servant unto our 
 spiritualty’s holy covetousness, and an extortioner, and a builder 
 of abbeys, colleges, chauntries and cathedral churches. 
 
 P. 300. The sacraments. “Seeing then that man is so sick, 
 so prone and ready to fall, and so cruelly invaded (when he 
 hath sinned) of the fiend the flesh and the law, that he is oft 
 put to flight and feared and made to run away from his Father, 
 therefore hath the God of all mercy and affectionate pity and 
 boundless compassion set up this sacrament as a sign on a high 
 hill, whence it may be seen on every side, far or near [Who 
 can fail to think with pleasure of Tyndale’s own monument 7], 
 to call again them that be fled and run away...to gather them 
 under the wings of His mercy: and hath commanded His sacra- 
 ment to be had in continual use to put them in mind of mercy 
 laid up for them in Christ’s blood, and to witness and to testify 
 to them and to be the seal thereof. For the sacrament doth 
 much more vehemently print lively the faith and make it sink 
 down into the heart than bare words only, &e. 
 
1477] WILLIAM TYNDALL. 249 
 
 P. 362. “Natural reason ought to teach us that the outward 
 corporeal and bodily thing cannot help the spiritual soul. 
 
 P. 366. “The unquiet scrupulous superstitious nature of man, 
 wholly given to idolatry, hath stirred up such traditions, about 
 
 into the very body and blood of Cine really, as the water in 
 Galilee was turned into very wine. The second part (the Lu- 
 therans) say, We are not bound to believe that bread and wine 
 are changed ; but only that His body and blood are there presently. 
 The third sort say that the words, ‘This is My body,-&c., were 
 true as Christ meant them, and as the people of that country to 
 whom Christ spake were accustomed to understand such words,.| 
 and that the Scripture, &c....as Jacob called the place Peniel 
 (Gen. xxxi.) 1.6. God’s face ... It is true to say of the field that 
 it was God’s face though it be not His very face (many other 
 instances pp. 376—8). [P. 369.] When Christ said ‘ Except 
 ‘ye eat the flesh, &c. ye have no life in you,’ this cannot be under- 
 stood of the sacrament, for Abraham had life and all the holy 
 fathers. Christ’s mother, Elizabeth, Zacharias, John the Baptist, 
 Simeon, Anna, and all the holy fathers had life already by ith) 
 in Christ; of which not one had eaten His flesh and drunk 
 His blood with their bodily mouths« Ergo, to believe and trust 
 in Christ’s blood was the eating there ‘meant... The two first 
 parties taking the old doctors to be on their side, I answer, 
 many of the old doctors spoke so mystically that they seem some- 
 times to affirm plainly that it is but bread and wine only con- 
 cerning the substance ; and sometimes that τέ is very body and 
 blood... And unto them of the second opinion that the bread 
 is His very body I answer, Ye must remember that the old 
 doctors as earnestly call it @ sacrifice as Christ’s body. But that 
 ye deny... Christ dieth no more, and therefore is no-more sacrificed, 
 .. The priests in God’s stead proffér~Him and give Him unto 
 the people for a remission and absolution of their sins daily, 
 if they by the moving and stirring of the sacrament believe in 
 the body and blood of Christ. Wherefore ye ought of no right 
 to be angry with those of the third opinion, though they deny 
 the doctors, where they seem to say that the sacrament is the 
 very body of Christ; nevertheless they answer that the doctors 
 call it a sacrifice only because it is the memorial, &c.... Neither 
 the sacrifices of the old law, which prophesied the sacrificing 
 of Christ, neither yet our redemption was fulfilled that night. 
 For if the scriptures and the prophecies were then fulfilled [ἡ e. 
 at the institution of the supper] and we then redeemed, Christ 
 died on the morrow in vain... The sacrament was no doubt but 
 a description of His passion to come, as_it-is-new.a memorial 
 
280 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 οἵ His passion past... Neither can it be proved less repugnant 
 that a creature should be everywhere than that he should be 
 God. 
 
 1Π. p. 171. Answer to Sir Thos. More’s dialogue. “41 look 
 not on bread and wine, but on the body of Christ broken and His 
 blood spilled for our sins. 
 
 I. 872. “As when a man seeketh for a text sometime in 
 the Bible, he seeth paper and ink and the figures of letters, yet 
 his heart not once thinketh of any other thing than the words 
 and sense of the text. The part after these words once spoken, 
 (he) thinketh only of the covenant made in the body and blood 
 of Christ, and through faith eateth His body and drinketh His 
 blood, though his eyes and other senses perceive nothing but 
 bread and wine. 
 
 mt. 179. “If they [other persons] be absent, the sacrament 
 profiteth them as much as a sermon made in a church profiteth 
 them that be in the fields. And how it profiteth the souls of the 
 dead—tell me—to whom it is no sign.” 
 
 Works of Tyndale, Barnes and Frith. 8 Vols. London, 1891. 
 
 Vol. mr. 24. [This should be connected with the extracts 
 from Frith, as it is a defence of Frith, called as by More, “ this 
 “young man,” being then reckoned 24, but by his parents 30 
 years of age. Tyndall’s writing will be found quite free from 
 those imperfections into which Frith fell. This is noteworthy. ] 
 “Tt is I that am this lively bread, which am come from Heaven, 
 of Whom whoso eat by faith shall never die. Here therefore 
 it is to be noted diligently, that Christ meaneth, as every man 
 may see, by the eating of this bread none other thing than the 
 belief of Himself: offered up for our sins, ὅθ. &e. [not one 
 word about eating ‘His true body indeed in the soul,’ as Frith, 
 good as he is, says]. Thus now may ye see how Christ’s flesh, 
 which He called bread, is the spiritual food and meat of our 
 souls, when our souls by faith see, &c. &e., then have we eaten 
 His flesh and drunk His blood, assured firmly of the favour of 
 God. [P. 25.] Yet were the carnal Jews never the wiser: for 
 their belief and sturdy hatred would not suffer the very spiritual 
 sense and mind of Christ’s words to enter into their hearts... They 
 stuck fast in His flesh before their eyes, those fleshy Jews. 
 | P. 26.] -We eat and drink it indeed, when we believe stedfastly 
 that He died for the remission of our sins—Austin and Tertullian 
 to witness. [P. 28.] After this text thus proved to be understood 
 [by More] in the literal sense with carnal Jews and not in the 
 allegorical or spiritual sense with Christ and His apostles, the 
 whole sum of More’s confutation of ‘the young man’ standeth 
 upon this argument. A posse ad esse. That is to wit, God 
 
1477] WILLIAM TYNDALL. 251 
 
 may do it; ergo itis done. Christ may make His body in many 
 or in all places at once, ergo it is in many or in all places at 
 once, &c. &c. M. More must first prove it by express words of 
 Holy Scripture and not by his own unwritten dreams, &c. 
 Wherefore More would so fain make thee believe that the 
 apostles left out certain things unwritten, of necessity to be 
 believed, even to establish the pope’s kingdom, which standeth 
 of More’s unwritten vanities, ὅθ. If ye will believe whatever 
 More can feign without the Scripture, then can this poet feign 
 you another church than Christ’s, and that ye must believe it 
 whatever it teacheth you, for he hath feigned to that it cannot 
 err, though ye see it err and fight against itself a thousand times. 
 Yea if it tell you black is white, good is bad, &e., ye must 
 believe it, or else be burned as heretics. [P. 32.] Word hath 
 he none for him in all Scripture. [P. 33.] I know the voice 
 of my Herdsman: Which, if He said in any place of Scripture 
 that His body should have been contained under the form of 
 bread and [in] so many places at once here in earth and also 
 abiding yet still in Heaven too, verily I should have believed 
 Him as soon and as firmly as M. More. And therefore even yet, 
 if he can shew us but one sentence truly taken for his part, 
 as we can do many for the contrary, we must give place.” 
 
 It is worthy of note that Tyndall is willing to hang all on 
 but one single passage of God’s word “truly taken:” but his 
 noble young disciple Frith is rash enough to stake all on More’s 
 finding one single passage of some six or seven chief fathers, 
 some of them containing eleven and thirteen volumes in relation 
 to two main points of his true challenge. 
 
 There is a passage of More in which to facilitate faith in the 
 multiplications of Christ’s body now on earth he refers to the 
 innumerable images in two mirrors set opposite and the like, 
 Tyndall answers, 
 
 P. 83. “Task More, when he seeth his own face in so many 
 glasses, whether all those faces that appear in the glasses, be his 
 own very faces, having bodily substance, skin, flesh and bone, as 
 hath that face which has very mouth, nose, eyes, &. If they 
 be all his very faces, then in very deed there is one body in 
 many places, and he himself beareth as many faces in one body... 
 The bread broken and eaten in the supper nourisheth and putteth 
 us in remembrance, &c. We eat His body, &c. i.e, we surely 
 Delieve that His body was crucified for our sins and His blood shed 
 for our salvation.” 
 
252 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 If any one shrink from summing up the whole personal 
 fruits of the Lord’s supper as “belief” or “ faith,’ I would pray 
 him to enlarge his idea of faith. For saving faith is so far from 
 being mere acceptance of a doctrine by the understanding, that 
 it implies the affections being moved by it and the whole prin- 
 ciples of action being set in motion; in a word, as faith includes 
 all religion, so if the Lord’s supper increase faith and its activity 
 in all good things, there is no personal spiritual benefit that 
 is not comprehended in this term “belief” in that death of 
 Christ and in all its consequences which the receiving of this 
 sacrament signifies and sets forth. Tyndall and many other 
 eminent writers have therefore resolved all difficulties into this 
 axiom, To eat is to believe, Edere est credere. 
 
 P. 47. “Neither let it offend thee... that ‘est’ is taken for 
 ‘significat’... For this is a common manner of speech in many 
 "places of Scripture — and. also in our mother tongue, as when 
 we see many pictures or images, which we know ‘well are but 
 signs to represent the bodies whom they be made like; yet we 
 say of the image of our Lady, This is our Lady; and—of—St 
 | Katherine, This is-St- Katherine ; and yet do they but represent 
 ᾿ and sionify our Lady or St Katherine, &c.--&e. The three 
 ‘baskets are three days, &c. &e. Marvel not therefore though 
 ‘est’ likewise in this sentence, Hoc est corpus Meum, be taken 
 for ‘significat,’ as much as to say, This signifieth. body. See 
 Ezekiel V5 a third part of the hairs, ‘This is Jerusalem.’ [P. 49.] 
 In the old passover the lamb or feast is called the Lord’s passover ; 
 and yet was neither the lamb nor the feast, His passing over: but 
 the sign and. commemoration of His passing by.... This is no 
 small sacrament, nor yet irreverently to be entreated; but it is 
 the most glorious and highest sacrament, with all reverence and 
 thanksgiving to be ministered, used, received, preached, and 
 solemnly i in the face of the congregation to be celebrated... J esus 
 ..Shall so come again even as ye have seen Him go hence” [not 
 
 in another manner or other body except that it will be glorified]. 
 
 (F.) JOHN FRITH. B, 1500. Ὁ. 1533. 
 (G.) SIR THOMAS MORE. B. 1480. Ὁ. 1535. 
 Christ’s faithful martyr is set first. The persecuting Chan- 
 
 cellor is introduced in connexion with Frith, because his lan- 
 guage against Frith is much less violent than that which he 
 
1500] JOHN FRITH AND SIR THOMAS MORE. 253 
 
 “breathed out” against Tyndall. For we love not violent words, 
 and their smoke hindereth a distinct view of men’s opinions. 
 John Frith was a native of Westerham in Kent, and for his 
 love of learning was sent to Cambridge where his spirit caught 
 life from Tyndall, to whom he became a trusted and loving friend. 
 But when the great English Cardinal, Wolsey (whose great faults 
 should not blind us to the nobleness that struggled for the 
 mastery within him, which originated and partly carried out 
 several most noble designs), heard of John Frith’s attainments, 
 he appointed him to be received on the highest of all Oxford’s 
 high foundations, Christ Church. Bernard Gilpim was another 
 whom Wolsey chose. But it was not long before Frith’s activity 
 for truth among his fellows caused him to be transferred to a 
 prison, and to fly to the continent of Europe, where Tyndall 
 was hiding and working at his immortal English version of the 
 Bible. At Sir Thomas More’s removal from the Chancellorship, 
 from whatever reason, we find Frith in two years at Reading: and 
 there followed him one of Tyndall’s noble letters combining 
 warning and confirmation. But it was too late; the young 
 logician was already a confessor to the Scriptural teaching on 
 this sacrament in direct antagonism with Sir Thomas More, so 
 that we have a preface and letter of Frith’s and then a following 
 of Sir Thomas More’s reply sentence by sentence after the manner 
 in which Bp Jewel followed Mr Harding. This ensured Frith’s 
 being pursued and seized. Through Cranmer’s desire to save him, 
 his conductors suggested his escaping, as afterward did Latimer’s 
 captors. But both refused to fly, deeming that the faith needed 
 exhibitions of true courage to die for Christ. 
 
 Sir Thomas More, a native of London, was at Christ Church, 
 Oxford, while it bore the name of Canterbury College. His close 
 friendship with Erasmus, and his conscientious resistance to 
 Henry’s divorce from Catherine, which cost him his head, cannot 
 blind us to the fact that he was a hard pleader against the 
 simplicity of this sacrament, and a bitter persecutor. He that 
 made good men martyrs in Christ’s cause ended with the glory 
 of a kind of martyrdom to commend his memory to posterity. 
 Perhaps however his Utopia is the brightest spot in his renown. 
 Many Continental church summaries and histories notice neither 
 him nor Frith. But neither ought to be ignored, at least by an 
 English compiler. 
 
254 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Works of Tyndall, Frith and Barnes. 3 Vols. Palmer & Co. 
 London, 1831. 
 
 Frith’s Preface, Vol. m1. 321. “I chanced...to be in company 
 with a Christian brother... This brother... desired to know my 
 mind as touching the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ 
 ... He desired me to...write... I took on me to touch this 
 terrible tragedy, which, beside my painful imprisonment, is like 
 to purchase me most cruel death... Mr More...hath sore laboured 
 to confute it... I cannot well judge what the cause should be 
 that his book is kept so secret...he never touched the foundation 
 that my treatise is builded upon... I will thereupon build a little 
 more. [P. 324. Frith’s ‘little treatise that’ he ‘wrote unto his 
 ‘friend.”] It is.not (Christ’s) presence in the bread that can save 
 me, but His presence in my heart through faith in His blood, 
 which hath washed out my sins and pacified the Father’s wrath 
 toward me. [P. 325.] We say again that though ye have (as it 
 appeareth unto you) the evident words of Christ, and therefore 
 consist [stand] in the bark of the letter, yet are we compelled, 
 by conferring [comparing] of the Scripture within the letter, 
 to search out the mind of our Saviour which spake the words... 
 We do it to satisfy our consciences which are compelled by other 
 places of Scripture reasons and doctors so to judge of it. [First 
 Frith quotes 8. Aug. ad Dardanum. ‘The same faith saved us 
 ‘which saved our fathers’ (¢.e. under the law before it)]... They_ 
 all did eat Christ's body and drink His blood spiritually, and 
 by the spiritual eating were saved_as well as-we are. [Ρ. 327.] 
 ‘And by that faith was (Abraham) saved, and yet never did eat 
 His flesh with his teeth, nor never believed that bread should 
 
 be His body and wine His blood. [P.329.] Bede added fide 
 
 manente signa variata. [The signs are changed but not the 
 
 faith.| The manna was to them as the sacrament is to us, and ; 
 they ate even the same spiritual meat that we do: yet were | 
 they never so mad as to believe that the manna was changed ἡ 
 into Christ’s own natural body; but understood it spiritually, 
 that as the outward man did eat the material manna, which 
 comforted the body, so did the inward man through faith eat the 
 body of Christ... And likewise do we eat Christ in faith both 
 before we come to the sacrament and more expressly through 
 the sacrament and...after we have received the sacrament, and 
 need no more (to) make it His natural body than the manna 
 was...so doth the inward man through faith eat the body of 
 Christ. 
 
 P. 331. “ And so both they and we do eat one spiritual meat. 
 That is to say, We both eat the thing, which signifieth and repre- 
 senteth unto us the very one. spiritual meat -of-our souls, which. 
 is Christ. [P. 332.] The second_cause of their institution is 
 
1500} JOHN FRITH AND SIR THOMAS MORE. 255 
 
 to be a means to bring us unto faith-and-to imprint it deeper 
 in us. [P. 333.] Even as that bread doth nourish the body, 
 so doth faith in His body-breaking nourish the soul unto ever- 
 lasting life. Thus did our merciful Saviour...to establish and 
 
 strengthen their faith in His body-breaking and_blood-shedding, | 
 
 which is our shot-anchor and last refuge, without. which we-should 
 all_perish. The third cause. They that have received these 
 blessed tidings and word of health do love to publish this felicity 
 “unto-other “men and to give.thanks before the face of the con- 
 gregation unto their bounteous Benefactor. [Then follows a 
 notably good but unrefined illustration of a man going to ‘an 
 ‘ale-pole’ and not entering the house itself where the refreshment 
 is to be had.] For if we think to have our sins forgiven for 
 eating of the sacrament, or for seeing the sacrament ence a day, 
 or for praying unto it, then surely we (go to) the ale-pole. [P. 335.] 
 Let us therefore...go to the very thing which the sacrament is, 
 and there shall we find such fruitful food as will never fail us, but 
 comfort our souls unto life everlasting, &c, &e. Thus endeth my 
 little treatise.” 
 
 Sir T. More's answer, as quoted in the further treatise. P. 342. 
 
 “(Frith) toucheth in a few leaves shortly all the poison 
 ει that Waickliff, Gicolampadius (Huskyn), Tyndall and_Zuinglius 
 have taught in all their books before concerning the blessed 
 sacrament of the altar: not only affirming it to be very bread 
 | still, as Luther doth, but also, as these other beasts do, saying 
 
 «---. 
 
 - \itis nothing else. [P. 349.} He must needs confess that they. : 
 
 ‘that believe that it is the very body and His very blood indeed, 
 have the plain words of our Saviour Himself on their side for the 
 ground and foundation of their faith. [P. 352.] If every man 
 that can find out a new-found phantasy upon a text of Holy 
 Scripture may have his own mind taken and his own exposition 
 believed against the expositions of the old cunning doctors and 
 saints, then may you surely see that no article of the Christian 
 faith can stand and endure long. {Huskyn is Hauschein.] 
 
 : P. 410. “TI am very sure that the old holy doctors, which 
 believed Christ’s body and blood to be there, and so taught others 
 to believe, as by their books plainly doth appear—if they had 
 thought either that it [Christ's body] could not be there [upon 
 the table] or that it was not there indeed, they would net for all 
 the good in this world have written as they have done. For 
 would those holy men (ween you) have taught that men be bound 
 to believe that the very body and blood of Christ are there, if 
 themselves thought they were not bound thereto? Would they 
 make men honour and worship that thing as the very body and 
 blood of Christ which themselves thought were not it? This gear 
 is too childish to speak.” 
 
eet 
 
 256 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Frith in reply. P. 412. “T will not deny but that these holy doc- 
 ‘tors in diverse places do call it His body, as Christ and Paul do, 
 
 ‘and so do we likewise, and say also that His very body is there 
 
 eaten. But yet we mean that it is eaten with faith (that is to 
 say by believing that His body was broken for us) and have His 
 body more in_memory at this maundy than the meat (food) that 
 we there eat. And therefore hath it the name of His body, 
 because the name itself should put us in remembrance_of His 
 body, and that His body is there chiefly eaten, and even more, 
 through faith, than the meat with the mouth. 
 
 P. 44. “That the holy doctors and faithful fathers so taught 
 (as More affirms) or thought as ye feign of them, is very false. 
 For St Austin, as I have shewed, maketh wholly for us, &. And 
 touching the honour and worship done unto it, I say it is plain 
 idolatry. And I say that he falsely reporteth on our old holy 
 doctors, for they never taught men to worship the sacrament, 
 neither can he allege one place in any of them all which would 
 have men to worship the sacrament...Such as St Austin, Ambrose, 
 Jerome, Cyprian, Cyril, Chrysostom, Fulgentius and such other. 
 These I say do not teach men to worship it; and by that I dare 
 abide. Of this point I am so sure that I will use it for a contrary 
 argument, that His natural body is not there present. 
 
 Note. These extracts may suffice for Frith and More. I 
 wonder at More’s fallacy, a petitio principii, in saying that the 
 very words of Christ are for the theory of the presence of Christ’s 
 natural body, when the very question under argument is whether 
 they ought to be interpreted in their literal or in their figurative 
 sense. An English scholar, gentleman and judge, like More, to 
 make such a logical mistake! But to be candid, the latter ex- 
 tracts lead us further. Two educated Englishmen both of un- 
 doubted intellectual power and of considerable learning, in the 
 midst of their discussion and in a part of it where it seems to me 
 that they both deemed themselves to be speaking with more 
 clearness than usual, make exactly opposite assertions about the 
 true and sincere meaning of the greater fathers. More and Frith 
 evidently entirely believe the reverse of each other’s honest 
 conviction. Surely this is a question that ought to be decided. 
 More says those fathers did believe the real natural body of 
 Christ to be in the place of the bread and wine: and says he 
 is sure they believed it, because they so expressly taught it. And 
 he adds that if they had not believed it, all the good on earth 
 would not have tempted them to teach it as they did. Frith 
 
1500] JOHN FRITH AND SIR THOMAS MORE. 257 
 
 denies all this and stakes his whole argument upon the fullest 
 and most express and particular denial that he can set down 
 in writing. It is time surely that this question were adjudged. 
 
 If it be generally accepted, as Tyndall and Chillingworth 
 hesitate not to admit, that (1) armies of quotations from ac- 
 credited fathers, particularly in and after the fourth century, may 
 be found favouring the presence of Christ’s natural body after 
 consecration in this sacrament, and (2) not a small number of 
 passages distinctly against it, and (3) hosts upon hosts of pas- 
 sages in which confusion of the two contrary ideas more or less 
 reigns, to what issue are we of necessity driven? Surely to this 
 we must come, that so heterogeneous a compound as the patristic 
 and catholic church-lterature of eighteen centuries must be void 
 of ruling authority in whole and in part, and that the real use of 
 the extant documents of any and every age, since the closing of 
 the Scripture canon, is to assist us in forming our own judgments, 
 first, of the words in Holy Writ that bear in any way upon this 
 sacrament, and secondly, what dogmas and what practices in the 
 administration of it are in harmony with the fair interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture and what contrary to it, or at least not in 
 harmony with it.- 
 
 As far as unity can be attained on the first point there is hope 
 of accordance in the second. To minister to the attainment of 
 unity in the first point and accordance in the second is one of the 
 most ardent wishes in the heart of the compiler of these volumes. 
 What More and Frith did in their day as to discussion and in- 
 vestigation must now be done again, and perhaps it may be done 
 finally. Upon us the ends of the periods seem to be meeting: 
 and it is delightful to think that in the shaking to pieces of false 
 pre-judgments the supreme glory of God’s word may again as at 
 first stand up without a rival. 
 
 (H.) BISHOP MYLES COVERDALE. B. 1488. pb. 1569. 
 
 We read of him at Cambridge in connexion with Dr Robert 
 Barnes, the hasty but unstable Reformer, and the real first of the 
 Reformers there, Bilney, who twice recanted in those ambiguous 
 days, and then weeping left Cambridge spontaneously “to go” as 
 he said “to Jerusalem.” The glory of Coverdale was to carry on 
 
 Hy, 1, 17 
 
μος 
 
 258 _ ° THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and complete Tyndall’s unfinished English Bible. In 1563 he not 
 only took an English degree of D.D. at Cambridge, but was em- 
 powered by the Vice-Chancellor to admit Grindal to the same. 
 
 Exhortation to the carrying of Christ's cross. ‘“ Remains.” 
 Parker Soe. 
 
 P. 262. “ Whereas they require the intent of the priest, to 
 consecrate Christ’s body, forasmuch as we know not any man’s 
 intent (God only knoweth the heart)—yea the words we know 
 not—they are spoke in hurker mucher, 1 pray you in what a 
 doubtfulness are we brought whether there be a sacrament or not. 
 Judge whether Christ hath more bodies than one, when perchance 
 the priest hath 20 or a 100 before him. [P. 266—9. A sharp 
 but fair attack.] 
 
 P. 471. The defence of a certain private man. “But they 
 will say, Christ is not so sacrificed in the mass that He dieth 
 
 again upon the cross; but_it_is for the remembrance of the same. 
 
 sacrifice that once was made. Why do they then call it a sacri- 
 fice, seeing it is but a remembrance of a sacrifice? And why 
 say they that it may be done for other, seeing that of itself it 1s no 
 such work, but only a remembrance? &c. He (Christ)—saith not, 
 Offer My body and My blood. Wherefore let the right and true 
 remembrance of the Lord’s supper remain in the congregations, 
 and let us shew the Lord’s death till He come. 
 
 P. 268. “Last of all where they make a similitude, that as by 
 baptism the minister applieth to the child regeneration, so here, &c. 
 (7.e. in the mass). O that the similitude were well looked to! in 
 baptism the child is alive, but here the man is dead. In baptism 
 the child is present, but here (if alive) the man is perchance 40 
 miles off: yea 100 miles. 
 
 Vol. I]. Fruitful lessons. Treatise on the sacrament. P. 440. 
 
 /«They be called body and blood, because they be, as it were, 
 
 instruments whereby Christ distributeth them (1.6. the body and 
 blood) unto us (!) It is a spiritual mystery which can neither be 
 seen with the eyes, nor comprehended with the wit: therefore (as 
 the weakness of our nature requireth) it is set forth to us with 
 visible figures and signs, but yet under such a sort that τέ is not a 
 bare and simple figure, but joined unto His verity and substance. 
 The bread thereof (not unworthily called His body) forasmuch as 
 it doth not only represent it unto us, but also bring into us the 
 same thing. [P. 441.] It is given I say of God, the certain and 
 unchangeable verity. If so be, that God can neither deceive nor 
 lie, it followeth that He doth in very deed perform and fulfil all 
 that He doth here signify (i.e. represent by signs). No remedy 
 therefore—we must unfeignedly receive the body and blood of 
 
1488] BISHOP MYLES COVERDALE. 259 
 
 Christ in the supper, forasmuch as the Lord offereth to us therein 
 the communion of them both...In like manner as the bread is 
 distributed in the hand, so is the body of Christ communicated to 
 us that we should be partakers thereof. We-understand that in 
 the supper Christ giveth unto us the very substance of the body 
 and blood, &e.” [How opposite to Tyndall’s teaching ἢ 
 
 (1) JEROME [GIROLAMO] SAVONAROLA. Β, 1462. D. 1498. 
 
 Yet another Jerome added to the list! But Dr Milman has 
 given a picture of him. Yet Walter Barham’s little book may 
 be thought to shew a livelier impression of his distinguishing 
 marks. His piety is transcendental but wonderfully real. He 
 lives on the verge of the supernatural. His prophecies indicate 
 a strange combination of shrewd foresight with the most fantastic 
 guesses at the meaning of passages in the Revelation. There are 
 those indeed who would fain similarly designate all historic 
 preterite interpretations of that book. But they should know 
 that the late Sir James Stephen, certainly not unversed in history, 
 wrote to a modern expounder of the Revelation, the Rev. E. B. 
 Elliott, that if any reliance is to be placed on any amount of 
 historic evidence, the general course of his interpretation of 
 the Apocalypse might be deemed to be fully established. But 
 Savonarola’s interpretations are as wild and random guesses 
 as Augustine’s, though he had inherited nearly a thousand years 
 more of the world’s accumulated experience and knowledge. But 
 his temperament was electric. It is the love of God and the charm 
 of moral goodness that glorifies Savonarola. Huss wrote that his 
 Christians were ready to die for the truth. So was Savonarola. 
 Witness his famous reply to the proposal to stifle his opposition 
 by putting a cardinal’s dignity upon him. “No red hat will 
 “T have but that which is tinged with my own blood.” He must 
 have foreseen that he should follow Huss. But he could not 
 foresee that their united deaths would save Luther by putting the 
 German princes and noblemen on their guard. Charles V. is said 
 to have regretted in his monastery that he let Luther escape 
 alive. But the escape of Henry of Hesse of Marburg probably 
 saved many of the first “Protestants” from a prison if not a 
 bloody death. But hardly a hand was lifted up to save the great 
 Augustine prior. It always reads to me as if his game had been 
 
 17—2 
 
200 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 played out. He had had his day, and carried out his own favour- 
 ite ideas, as afterwards did Zwingel in Zurich and Calvin in 
 Geneva. Nothing remained. His schemes could not last for 
 ever. They were impracticable. They were the reform bill of 
 a monk, and differed materially from the true freedom which 
 belongs to Christians. Still this very age cries out for men with 
 the heroism of Savonarola. There are many bonfires required 
 to purge Christian cities: and much moral reformation is needed 
 even within the bounds of churches that hold spiritual truth and 
 profess Protestantism. Still the reform will hardly be tried again 
 in Savonarola’s way, not even in America. 
 
 But of Savonarola and the Lord’s supper. I happened to 
 extract from him and Isaac Ambrose consecutively. One has 
 only to compare the spiritual character of their personal piety 
 to see how distant sometimes is the world of the heart from the 
 world of the intellect. Not that Isaac is a clear Protestant or 
 Bible Christian on this point: but this Jerome is even a still 
 more thorough Transubstantialist than Huss. Ἢ 
 
 Fourfold exposition of the Lord’s prayer, published in a vol.’be- 
 ginning with A Treatise on the Simplicity of the Christian 
 Life. (Black letter.) Venice, 1504, by Lazarus Soard. 
 
 1. P. 66. On “Give us this day, &.” “That man is com- 
 pounded of two substances, 7.e. (those) of soul and body. Since he 
 is fragile and weak in both natures, he requires food for the 
 spirit and for the body. ‘Therefore (first) the bread for the soul is 
 asked for, spiritual food, which is the word of God, according to 
 that (saying), ‘Man liveth not in bread alone, but in every word 
 ‘that goes forth from God’s mouth ’—and the sacrament of the 
 eucharist, according to that saying, ‘My flesh is truly meat and 
 
 Expositio quadruplex super orationem Dominicam, cum  libello 
 de simplicitate vite Christiane. Venetiis, 1504, per Lazarum 
 Soardum. (Aureus Liber.) 
 
 I. P. 66. ‘“ Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.” Quod 
 homo componitur ex duplici substantia, sc. anima et corpore. Cum 
 sit fragilis seu debilis in utraque natura, indiget cibo spirituali et 
 corporali, Petitur ergo hic panis anime, cibus spiritualis, quod 
 est verbum Dei, juxta illud, “ Non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in 
 ‘omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei:” et sacramentum eucharistia, 
 juxta illud, ‘“‘Caro Mea vere est cibus, et sanguis Meus vere est potus.” 
 
1452] JEROME SAVONAROLA. 261 
 
 ‘My blood is truly drink.’ Therefore another evangelist says, 
 ‘Give to us our supersubstantial bread’ [wrong translation] ; cor- 
 poreal bread for the body is also asked, &c. 
 
 P. 70. “ Meditation...O my soul, since thou art more precious 
 than the body, we ought first to seek thy food, which is the word 
 of God and the body of Christ, Who is the food of thy body [1 
 
 should rather think that the author wrote ‘ quod’ ‘which ;’ still it 
 may be a case of attraction, and mean the same]. But not all who 
 read or hear God’s word, and take Christ’s body, take it from 
 God’s hands. For they that learn continually afresh the Scrip- 
 tures or hear them read, simply to know them, or to be known, 
 but not that they may be made holy and may work (thereby), 
 do not receive the bread of God’s word from God’s hand but from 
 their own hands; and they that in sin approach to the sacred 
 rite of the eucharist do not take the bread of Heaven from the 
 hands of God. Let us therefore say to the Heavenly Father, 
 ‘Give to us to-day our daily bre ad for Thy word that I may not 
 ‘fail (as a Christian) in the way’...May our Father daily feed us 
 and-inwardly nourish us by enlightening our hearts with Divine 
 charity, that we may taste and see how sweet the Lord is. For 
 unless He Himself shall have inwardly enlightened us and set our 
 hearts on fire, in vain do we take our bread, 1.6. God’s word and 
 Christ’s body. On any day and at each hour, if it can be done, we 
 ought to eat God's word by reading, praying, meditating and con- 
 templating, singing and making melody in our hearts, returning 
 thanks to God spiritually by Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, 
 
 Ideo alius evangelista dicit, “‘Panem nostrum supersubstantialem,” &c. 
 Petitur et pro corpore corporalis panis, &c. &e. 
 
 Ps. 70: 
 
 De meditatione... O anima mea, cum sis pretiosior corpore, prius 
 debemus querere cibum tuum, quod est verbum Dei, et corpus Christi, 
 Qui cibus corporis tui. Non autem omnes, qui legunt vel audiunt 
 verbum Dei et sumunt corpus Christi, snmunt illud de manibus Dei. 
 Qui enim Scripturas addiscunt vel audiunt, ut sciant duntaxat aut 
 ut sclantur, non autem ut sanctificentur et operentur, de manu Dei 
 panem verbi Dei non accipiunt sed de manibus suis; et qui cum 
 peccato accedunt ad sacrum eucharistiz, panem celi de manibus Dei 
 non sumunt. Nos ergo Patri celesti dicamus, “ Panem nostrum 
 “ quotidianum in verbum Tuum da nobis hodie ; ne deficiam in via” 
 Quotidie nos Pater noster pascat et nutriat intus, illuminando corda 
 nostra charitate Divina, ut gustemus et videamus quam dulcis est 
 Dominus. Nisi enim Ipse intus illuminaverit et accenderit corda 
 nostra, in vanum sumimus panem nostrum, i.e. verbum Dei et corpus 
 Christi... Qualibet die et singulis horis, si fieri potest, verbum Dei 
 comedere debemus, legendo meditando orando et contemplando, can- 
 tantes et psallentes in cordibus nostris, Domino gratias agentes 
 spiritualiter per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum et Salvatorem. 
 
202 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 So we ought also to take the most sacred bread of Christ’s body 
 spiritually at least daily,in a devout manner, that is to say by 
 hearing the mass and joining alike in its celebration with the 
 priest. Often also let us take that mystic bread sacramentally 
 aocoreng to our heart’s devotion and our spiritual father’s ad- 
 vice, &c. 
 
 mn. P. 78 Prayer. “Excite our devotion that we may 
 humbly and devoutly approach to the marvellous sacrament of 
 the precious body and the blood of ‘Thine only-begotten Son our. 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that we may grow into health in Him, that 
 walking in the strength of that food from virtue to virtue we 
 may reach the heavenly kingdoms. 
 
 Iv. P. 80. “For the righteous, by contemplation elevated to 
 so lofty things, set no value on all these earthly things...nor can 
 they take delight in other than heavenly food, 7.e. in the Scrip- 
 tures of God and in Divine offices, and in sacraments, in which 
 they are daily engaged, and yet are never satisfied. They flee 
 from men, they despise the multitudinous gatherings of the city. 
 [Florence is specially alluded to—a republic of a certain kind with 
 the Medici at its head—or after the expulsion of Piero when it 
 became more republican.] They constantly seek out the flourishing 
 pastures of eternal life, crying out after their own Lord and saying, 
 ‘Give us our bread, ὅσο. 
 
 The short preface of this work to Philip Valorius who had 
 earnestly solicited its publication is both graceful and valuable. 
 
 Sic et panem sacratissimum corporis Christi quotidie saltem spiritualiter 
 sumere debemus devote, sc. audiendo missam et cum sacerdote pariter 
 concelebrando. Spe etiam sacramentaliter illum mysticum panem 
 sumamus juxta devotionem cordis nostri consiliumque patris spiritualis, 
 &e. 
 
 111. Que dicitur oratio, p. 78. 
 
 Excita devotionem nostram, ut humiliter et devote accedamus 
 ad mirabile sacramentum corporis pretiosi et sanguinis unigeniti Filii 
 Tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ut in Eo crescamus in salutem, et 
 in fortitudine cibi illius de virtute in virtutem ambulantes perveniamus 
 in regna celorum, &e, 
 
 IV. p. 80. 
 
 Justi enim contemplatione ad tam excelsa elevati, nihili faciunt 
 hee omnia terrena...nec possunt in aliis delectari quam in cibis 
 celestibus, hoc est in Divinis Scripturis et in officiis Divinis et in 
 sacramentis, in quibus quotidie versantur nec tamen satiantur. Fugiunt 
 homines ; contemnunt multitudinem civitatis. Virentia pascua vitee 
 zeterne perquirunt, ad Dominum suum clamantes atque dicentes, Panem 
 nostrum, &e. &e. 
 
1452] JEROME SAVONAROLA. 263 
 
 I would fain transcribe it. He was the lay head of the party of 
 Savonarola. 
 
 The Triumph of the Cross, trans. by Odell T. Hill. London, 
 1868. 
 
 P. 84. “How is it that two contrary effects should result from 
 the same sacraments? The heat of the sun hardens the earth and 
 melts ice. A tree planted in the earth produces, under the 
 influence of the sky, flowers and fruit: and if it be torn up, then 
 under the same influence it dies. Consequently the two opposite 
 effects of the sacraments do not result from a chimerical or vain 
 cause; but they issue necessarily from the different even opposite 
 manner with which men use holy things in the worship they 
 render to God.... If the exterior worship of the Christian religion 
 did not depend upon—if it did not contain Divine virtue and truth, 
 necessary to form a first instrumental cause, it could never produce, 
 maintain and consummate that excellent effect, Christian holi- 
 ness: for it is by itself that it acts in this way, since the Christian 
 life, which is wholly spiritual and partly intellectual, could never 
 be produced by material causes. Of what avail in fact for the soul 
 are water, oil, balm, incense, bread, wine, altars and other things 
 of that kind, if they were not instruments of a superior cause ? 
 [Note. This we deny that they are, as possessing any power in 
 themselves or of themselves], or rather if these sacred rites were 
 merely a falsehood of man or dzemon—a superstitious rite—how 
 could they be the source of such a holy life? Some one may per- 
 haps object that this worship is not the cause of the perfection— 
 that it merely exercises the virtues and faith, &c., &c. But, &c., 
 &c. And besides as God is the sovereign truth, the more we 
 approach Him, the more we are inundated with His light, and the 
 more we depart from Him we are enveloped in a greater darkness 
 and error. But do we not know that pious Christians, who de- 
 votedly frequent the holy mysteries, receive from that Divine 
 worship such an abundance of joy that they are ravished beyond 
 themselves? We see their faces, resplendent with the rays of 
 holiness, acquire traits the most amiable and worthy of veneration. 
 Formerly doubtless these marvellous effects were more frequent 
 than to day. Still in our time we know of men who experience 
 them—men not only amongst the simple but among the wise and 
 learned, &c., &c. 
 
 P. 183. “It is fitting that these sacraments, as the instru- 
 mental cause, should confer grace, although the virtue does not 
 extend to the ultimate effect of grace. We say that grace, being 
 a supernatural gift, cannot come from the creature, nor the virtue 
 of the sensible element. These sacraments do not attain to the 
 essence of grace; but only to a disposition thereto, 
 
204 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P.185. “Under the appearance of bread, however small it 
 may be the body of Christ is contained wholly and entire, 
 &e., ἄς. At the same time Christ is in Heaven wholly and 
 entire.” 
 
 The Golden Book. On the simplicity of the Christian life. 
 Venice (black letter), at Lazarus Soard’s. 1504. 
 
 Book 1. Eleventh conclusion, leaf 22, page 2. “ Of all cere- 
 monial acts a devout and frequent use of the sacrament of pen- 
 ance and communion is better than the use of other ceremonies 
 for augmenting and keeping grace. For church-ceremonies divide 
 themselves into two classes, so that some confer grace as instru- 
 ments out of the mere performing of the act: but that some do 
 not confer grace except by the effort of the person that performs 
 them, 7.e. by the devotion of him that does them. The sacraments 
 indeed of the new law stand first, which are the principal among 
 ceremonials, because the rest are ordained for their sake. But that 
 you may understand that these sacraments confer or cause grace, 
 you must know that an instrumental cause is that which has 
 a double virtue: one indeed out of its own form, but another by 
 the motion of the principal agent. For a saw has power to cut, 
 from its own form, which is of the material of iron: but it has not 
 that which brings about the forms of actual cutting, except by the 
 motion of its principal agent. We must therefore know that one 
 kind of instrument does reach its ultimate form....Another kind 
 does not attain to its ultimate form. We say then that the sacra- 
 ments of the new law are instruments of grace: not that they 
 
 Aureus Liber. De simplicitate vite Christiane. Venetiis, apud 
 Lazarum Soardum. 1504. Lib. 7. Conclusio XT. p. 22, 2. 
 
 [N.B. I write ὦ, for which e was then put.] 
 
 Inter opera ceremonialia devotus et frequens usus sacramenti 
 penitentie et eucharistiz est potior ad augendam et conservandam 
 gratiam quam usus aliarum ceremoniarum. Cexremonialia namque 
 ecclesiz sunt in duplici differentia: quod quedam conferunt gratiam 
 instrumentaliter ex opere operato ; queedam vero non conferunt gratiai 
 
 nisi ex opere operantis, i. e. ex devotione facientis ila. Prima quidem. 
 
 sunt sacramenta nove legis, que sunt principalia in ceremonialibus, 
 quia ad ista cetera ordinantur. Ut autem intelligatis quod hee 
 sacramenta conferunt vel causant gratiam, sclendum est quod causa 
 
 instrumentalis duplicem habet virtutem. Unam quidem ex propria 
 
 forma: alteram vero ex motione principalis agentis. Serra enim 
 
 ex propria forma, que est in materia ferri, habet quod secet. Sed, 
 
 quod formas secandi inducat non habet, nisi ex motione principalis 
 
 agentis. Est ergo sciendum quod aliqua instrumenti virtus attingit 
 
 ultimam formam... Aliqua autem non attingit usque ad ultimam 
 
 formam...sacramenta igitur nove legis dicimus esse instrumenta gratie : 
 δ 
 
 --͵ 
 
"» 
 
 1452] JEROME SAVONAROLA, 265 
 
 extend to the producing of grace itself; for this comes from God 
 only by creation: but they go as far as to produce a state of mind, 
 and this state of mind is the disposition nearest to the reception ot 
 grace, unless indeed the recipient pla e an obstacle in the way. 
 But that the sacraments in this way do confer grace as instru- 
 ments, is not only clear by the authorities of the holy fathers, but 
 ‘also there are reasons to persuade us that it is so.... We know by 
 daily experience...that all who submit their hearts to the sacra- 
 ments of the church, and chiefly those that frequently use with 
 devotion the sacrament of penance and communion, grow in that 
 Christian life by the spirit, than which no better mode of life, as it 
 is said, can be found. So that, the better and holier they grow 
 day by day, the more devoutly and fervently they receive these 
 sacraments. And the more devoutly they receive these sacra- 
 ments, the better do they daily become. But on the other hand, 
 they that irreverently frequent these sacraments, and chiefly the 
 sacrament of thanksgiving, are made by it the worst of all men, as 
 is plain in the cases of clerks and religious persons that are 
 wicked. But this certainly could not be, unless somewhat of 
 Divine virtue were in the sacraments, as must be on those that are 
 instruments of God, ordained specially to effect grace in those that 
 are disposed to good. [He then proceeds to prove these two, 
 eucharist and penance, more useful than all the other sacraments. ] 
 We must therefore know that some sacraments can be repeated 
 and some not. For those that leave an indelible mark cannot be 
 repeated, as baptism, confirmation and orders; but some can be 
 
 non quod pertingant usque ad gratiam que est a Deo solum per 
 creationem. Sed pertingunt usque ad characterem, qui quidem 
 character est dispositio ultima ad susceptionem gratiz, nisi suscipiens 
 prestet impedimentum. Quod autem hoe modo hec_ sacramenta 
 instrumentaliter conferant gratiam [confero is an illogical statement ; 
 to prepare to receive is the utmost fact] non solum sanctorum auctori- 
 tatibus clarum est; sed et aliqua ratione potest persuaderi. . Experi- 
 mento quotidiano cognoscimus. .. omnes qui sacramentis ecclesie se 
 subjiciunt, et maxime qui devote frequentant sacramentum pcenitentiz 
 et communionis, in vita Christiana sp (spiritu) erexere, qua nulla 
 melior, ut dictum est, inveniri potest. Ita quod quanto quotidie meliores 
 et sanctiores fiunt, tanto et devotius et cum majori fervore hee sacra- 
 Menta suscipiunt. Et quanto devotius hee sacramenta  suscipiunt 
 tanto quotidie meliores fiunt. At contra qui irreverenter hee sacra- 
 menta frequentant, maxime sacramentum eucharistie, efficiuntur pe- 
 jores omnibus hominibus, ut patet in clericis malis et religiosis. Quod 
 certe esse non posset, nisi in his sacramentis aliquid Divine virtutis 
 inesset, tanquam in his que sunt instrumenta Divina ad effectum 
 gratiz in bonum dispositis specialiter ordinata. Est ergo sciendum 
 quod (horum) sacramentorum queedam possunt iterari et quedam non. 
 Nam ea que imprimunt characterem, qui indelebilis est, iterari non pos- 
 sunt, ut baptisma et confirmatio et ordo: quedam autem iterari possunt, 
 
206 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 repeated but not frequently, as marriage and extreme unction: 
 but some can be both repeated and frequently used, as penance 
 and the eucharist....But the sacrament of penance makes man 
 turn aside from evil: that of communion turns the soul to good. 
 For by the first sins are blotted out; by the second we are con- 
 formed to Christ. Therefore the frequent use of them makes us 
 perfect in justice. Besides,the-sacrament of communion really 
 contains Christ, Who is the Fountain of the whole of grace, which 
 other sacraments have not. Since therefore all ceremonial church- 
 rites are ordained with reference to the sacraments, and all other 
 sacraments with reference to that of the eucharist, as to the most 
 noble amongst them and the most perfect, and all are yet ordained 
 to cause augment and preserve grace, it is evident that the 
 sacrament of communion is in a nearer relation to the causing 
 augmenting and preserving of grace than any other sacrament 
 whatever. And since none can approach to this sacrament that is 
 not purified, the sacrament of penance is an accompaniment to it, 
 and therefore the frequent use of this mystery brings on the devo- 
 tion of Christians, and the gifts of grace accrue more abundantly 
 than by other ceremonials. Besides, since all other ceremonies are 
 ordained with reference to the sacrament of communion, as we 
 have said, therefore a Christian man, coming to it devoutly, first 
 disposes himself and prepares his soul, by first purifying it with 
 penance and confession of sin and then by adorning it with good 
 works. He also raises his mind to God by holy readings and 
 
 sed non frequentari, ut matrimonium et extrema unctio. Quzdam vero 
 et iterari et frequentari possunt, ut pcenitentia et eucharistia... Sacra- 
 mentum autem poenitentiz facit declinare a malo: sacramentum com- 
 munionis convertit animam ad bonum, nam per primum delentur pec- 
 cata; per secundum conformamur Christo. Ergo frequens usus istorum 
 nos in justitia perfectos reddit. Propterea sacramentum communionis 
 continet realiter Christum qui est fons totius gratiz ; quod non habent 
 alia sacramenta, Cum ergo omnia ceremonialia ecclesiz ad sacramenta 
 ordinentur, et omnia alia sacramenta ad sacramentum eucharistize, tan- 
 quam ad nobilissimum inter ea et perfectissimum, et omnia tamen 
 ordinentur ad gratiam causandam augendam et conservandam, patet 
 quod sacramentum communionis propinquius se habet ad gratiam 
 causandam et augendam et conservandam quam quodlibet aliud sacra- 
 mentum. Etenim ad hoc sacramentum nullus accedere debeat nisi 
 purgatus, sacramentum pecenitentiz concomitat ipsum, et ideo per 
 frequentationem hujus mysterii accedit devotio Christianorum, et gratiz 
 dona accrescunt magis quam per alia ceremonialia, Preterea cum 
 omnia ceremonialia ad sacramentum communionis ordinentur, ut dictum 
 est, Christianus, devote accedens ad ipsum, prius disponit se et 
 animam preparat, purgando eam primo per peenitentiam et confessionem 
 peccatorum, deinde bonis operibus ornando. Mentem quoque per 
 lectiones sacras et meditationes sanctas et orationes devotas contem- 
 
1452] JEROME SAVONAROLA. 267 
 
 saintly meditations and devout prayers and Divine contempla- 
 tions, and enkindles himself to Divine love and to the contemning 
 of earthly things. By this it comes to pass that, by the foregoing 
 dispositions and by the efficacy of the sacrament and by the ren- 
 derings of thanks which follow its reception, grace is marvellously 
 increased in him and a Divine fervour and readiness of will and 
 all good actions. And thus by frequenting these rites the Chris- 
 tian grows by little and little and is changed to other ways of living, 
 and is made more than good, as is plain in the primitive church, 
 when Christians used to communicate daily. For so fervent were 
 they, that they reckoned martyrdoms and death as nothing. Yea 
 with alacrity of countenance and great desire they used to long for 
 them. But in our times, after almost all Christians have dropped to 
 the reception of the communion only once in the year, and with a 
 moderate degree of preparation, they are become the worst of men 
 and worse than heathens, and are daily made worse. For they con- 
 fess once a year and yet return to the practice of the same sins, always 
 making promise to God that they will lead good lives, and never 
 keeping their promises. There are priests without number who 
 without devotion or reverence frequent the holy communion, and 
 they become worse than laymen; and there can be nothing worse 
 than this in the church. Since then Christians have forsaken the 
 true worship of God, they have by this time come down to so blind 
 ‘a state, as not to know even what their own name means. For 
 they know not what it is to be a Christian, and in what true 
 worship of God consists. or their attention is given to external 
 
 plationesque Divinas ad Deum elevat Seipsum in amorem Divinam 
 et in contemptum terrenorum accendit. Unde fit per dispositionem 
 precedentem et per efficaciam sacramenti et per gratiarum actiones 
 sequentes post assumptionem ejus, ut in eo mirabiliter augeatur gratia 
 et fervor Divinus et promptitudo voluntatis ad omnia opera bona. Et 
 ita hee frequentando Christianus paulatim crescit et in alteras vias 
 mutatur, et efficitur plusquam bonus, sicut patet in primitiva ecclesia, 
 quum quotidie Christiani communicabant. Adeo enim ferventes erant 
 ut martyria et mortem pro nihilo reputarent. Immo alacri vultu 
 et magno desiderio ipsa desiderabant. At cum nostris temporibus, 
 postquam fere omnes Christiani ad hoc redacti sunt ut tamen semel in anno 
 communicent et cum modica preeparatione, facti sunt pessimi et pejores 
 etiam paganis, et quotidie pejores efficiuntur. Singulis enim annis confiten- 
 tur, et tamen ad eadem peccata revertuntur, semper Deo promittentes boni 
 Vivere, nunquam promissionem servantes. Innumeri quoque sacerdotes qui 
 sine devotione et reverentiad sacrum communionis frequentant : facti 
 sunt pejores laicis; quo nihil posset esse deterius in ecclesia. Quia 
 ergo Christiani verum cultum Dei reliquerunt, ad tantam hodie ci- 
 citatem devenerunt, ut ignorent et nomen suum quod significet. Nes- 
 ciunt enim quid sit esse Christianus, nec in quo consistat verus cultus 
 Dei. Exterioribus enim ceremoniis occupati interiorem cultum igno- 
 
268 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ceremonies and they are ignorant of inner worship. For they 
 never or seldom read the Scriptures, and when they read they do 
 not understand, and when they understand they have no inward 
 relish of it. Yea they say, ‘Our soul loatheth this light bread. 
 ‘Who will give us Cicero’s eloquence, the poets’ sounding words, 
 ‘and the sweet fluency of Plato and the subtle divisions of Aris- 
 ‘totle 5 For this Scripture is simple and fit to be the food of silly 
 ‘women. Preach subtleties to us. And so preachers follow the 
 people, and not maintaining sound doctrine they are turned to 
 vain talking, heaping to themselves teachers after their own de- 
 sires with itching ears, and turning themselves away from the truth, 
 they turn the tongue to fables. The princes also, and the nobles 
 and the heads of the people refuse to hear the truth, but say, 
 ‘Preach to us pleasant things. Deceive us with various flatteries. 
 ‘Say lies to us. Report to us good things.’ And on this account 
 the body of Christian people has to day fallen into a state of the 
 greatest spiritual darkness. For if we were to live well and to 
 read and preach the Scriptures and the holy doctors, there would 
 be no occasion for me to write thus. For the Scriptures and the 
 saintly writers, if they be searched with a pure mind, say all this. 
 As therefore I have treated upon what the Christian life essen- 
 tially consists in, and by what instruments it is principally pre- 
 served and augmented, whereas, as I have said, the next topic 
 should be simplicity of heart, it follows that we treat upon that 
 subject now.” 
 
 This extract from the Golden Book, which is almost one 
 entire chapter, gives us a specimen of the writer’s intelligible 
 
 rant. Nunquam enim vel raro Scripturas legunt, et legentes non 
 intelligunt, vel intelligentes non gustant. Immo dicunt, Anima nostra 
 nauseat super cibo isto levissimo. Quis nobis det ut audiamus elo- 
 quentiam Ciceronis et verba poetarum resonantia et Platonis dulce 
 eloquium et subtilitates Aristotelis? Hzee enim Scriptura simplex est 
 et mulierculorum cibus. Preedicate nobis subtilia, Et ita preedicatores 
 sequuntur populum, et sanam doctrinam non sustinentes conversi sunt 
 in vaniloquium, ad sua desideria coacervantes sibi magistros prurientibus 
 auribus, et a veritate se avertentes ad fabulas linguam convertunt, 
 Principes quoque et optimates et capita populorum nolunt veritatem 
 audire, sed dicunt, ‘ Predicate nobis placentia. Decipite nos adula- 
 ‘tionibus variis. Dicite nobis mendacia. Annunciate nobis bona.’ Et 
 propter hoc populus Christianus in maximis tenebris hodie obscuratus 
 est. Si enim bene viveremus et scripturas sanctosque doctores lege- 
 remus et predicaremus, non opus esset mihi hec scribere. Nam 
 Scripture et sancti, si purd mente investigentur, hee omnia dicunt. 
 Quum ergo de vita Christiana, in quo essentialiter consistat, et quibus 
 instrumentis principaliter conservetur et augeatur tractavimus—cum, 
 ut diximus, ad eam sequatur simplicitas cordis, comsequens est ut de 
 hac simplicitate tractemus, 
 
1452] JEROME SAVONAROLA. 269 
 
 eloquence, and a photograph of the manners of his time. It 
 also contains some leading Reformation truths, while side by side 
 with them stand some of the current errors, which he had not 
 been able to discover and discard. 
 
 (J.) JOHN COLET, DEAN OF ST PAUL'S. B. 1466. D. 1519. 
 
 This friend and patron of Erasmus must stand for ever in 
 a lofty niche in the temple of Christian worthies, were his 
 founding of St Paul's School in his native London alone con- 
 sidered. But his bold part in the educational struggle, that 
 displaced Duns Scotus and Aristotle from being the standing 
 instructors of Christendom, gives him a second title to a very 
 high place in Christian history. That the friend of Erasmus did 
 not take up Luther's mode of producing reformation of the cor- 
 rupt Christianity of the times, but rather sought a reform by 
 re-introducing order and morality instead of boldly rehandling 
 the elementary ideas of a man’s personal salvation according to 
 the Scriptures, is no matter of wonder. Colet entered Oxford the 
 year after Luther was born; and Colet also died when the day of 
 Luther and Zwingel was only dawning, and we cannot tell what 
 line Colet would have taken had his appearance in the world 
 been later, or had his life lasted much longer. Fuller’s account 
 of him in Abel Redivivus has several of that author’s diamond- 
 pointed sayings. The small portrait of Colet in that work bears 
 a singular similarity to that of Erasmus. There is in Colet the 
 same pointed earnestness of feature, with a greater amount of 
 heroic sturdiness. This may be partly owing to the full develop- 
 ment of physique which Colet enjoyed from his birth, and which 
 the early position of Erasmus utterly denied. The portrait of 
 Erasmus is mind over-informing its bodily tenement; but Colet’s 
 person is that of an athlete and a very determined one. It was 
 his work, in beating our Aristotle, to reintroduce not only Scrip- 
 ture but also Plato and Plotinus. Mr Lupton of St Paul’s School 
 in editing some of Colet’s treatises gives us from the British 
 Museum’s Catalogue a surprising account of the proportion be- 
 tween Platonizing and Aristotelizing works: but then the reign 
 of the latter was more recent. Mr Lupton’s introductory essay 
 
270 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 gives us the account of Colet in his public exercises breaking 
 through the custom of basing his addresses on some subdivision 
 of the scholastic works, by reading and expounding the epistles of. 
 St Paul. Colet has the glory of being the first to do what the 
 great German and Swiss Reformers followed him in doing; viz. 
 planting their feet in their public teaching on the iexpugnable 
 fortress and rock of God’s word in the New Testament. Zwingel 
 took Matthew, and Luther the Galatians. Colet, says Fuller, was 
 not then full 30 years of age. Fuller says the deanery of St 
 Paul’s, though “ highest in rank was not deepest in the manger,” 
 but its wealth seems amply to have sufficed for a dean of Colet’s 
 temperate habits; and, surviving alone out of eleven brothers and 
 as many sisters, he inherited a large estate. Huis father had been 
 twice Lord Mayor of London, and Colet now was popular, and 
 preached and lectured continually in London. Over the master’s 
 head in St Paul’s School he set up a statuette of “the child 
 “Jesus,” with a legend below it “Ipsum audite,” Hear him. 
 Erasmus wrote for the school a grammar, and the dean “A Prac- 
 tical Treatise on Religion.” Colet like Erasmus honoured and 
 digested several of the fathers. But in giving the lst unhappily 
 Erasmus uses the doubtful term “iniquior erat Augustino,” and 
 Fuller says, “He was disguised with Augustine,’ obscurum per 
 obscurius. 
 
 If Colet was averse to Duns Scotus and to the Scottistry of 
 Fitz-James, Bishop of London, he appears to have had a still 
 more fervent opposition to Thomas Aquinas. But all this, though 
 needful to one whose mission was to work in removing their 
 Egyptian bondage, and introducing the true liberty of God’s word, 
 is hardly a fruitful state of mind. It is far easier to refuse to 
 press on so far into those disparaged oceans of theology as to 
 form a fair notion of the truth contained in their endless mincings 
 and distributings, than to see the real services that they ren- 
 dered to buried truth. Dean Milman says he only knew four 
 living persons who had read parts of Thos. Aquinas, and he 
 cannot bring himself to believe there are four more! This senti- 
 ment is not I think deserving of being quoted with honour: but 
 then neither do I think that Sir Thomas More can be upheld 
 by the Dean against Froude’s facts. Demaus on Tyndall 
 writes differently, and in his line holds with Froude concerning 
 
 More. 
 
1400] JOHN COLET, DEAN OF ST PAUL'S. 271 
 
 P. 89. “Although however he desires to be free in God’s 
 sight, yet the thing is not accomplished till the sacrament is in 
 the midst of being ministered by the ministers of God, which is 
 the efficacious test at once of the Divine and human will to re- 
 mit (offences). Hence springs the plan itself of the sacrament’s 
 making sacraments into sacraments. Our God-man Himself 
 Jesus Christ, Who laid down sacraments between God and men as 
 witnesses_and treaties of their accordant wills, who Himself re- 
 mitted and relaxed the bonds of sins, also instituted a sacrament 
 of the remission of sins and of the reconciliation to Himself of 
 
 = 
 
 Ameer -..«-- 
 
 those men whom God wills to be reconciled to Him: and He wills | 
 
 to mark at once by an opportune method the Divine will in man/ 
 
 and the human will in God. 
 
 P. 93. <A sacrament of communion in the common provision \ 
 of flesh and blood, which sacrament, of that which is conjoined | 
 
 and of the unity of those that are strengthened and made spiritual, 
 is a feeding and nourishing together in Christ in the highest unity. 
 For we are called that we may be cleansed illuminated and per- 
 fected by the Spirit, nourished together, live together, fight and 
 conquer together and be glorified together. This is the power of 
 the affection of spiritual men. 
 
 Ρ 84. “When any one is in the hands of ministers to be 
 cleansed and to wash with tears and wipe away the filth of sins, 
 
 On the sacraments of the Church, p. 89, London, 1867. 
 
 Veruntamen quamquam in Deo vult esse liber, tamen res non 
 conficitur, nisi medio sacramento ministrato a ministris Dei, quod 
 testis eflicax simul et Divine et humane voluntatis remittendi. Hine 
 sacramentorum sacramenta ratio ipsa sacramentificans. Deus homo 
 Ille noster Jesus Christus qui jacuit (jecit) sacramenta inter Deum 
 et homines, testes et foedera coeuntium voluntatum, qui remisit Ipse 
 et relaxavit peccatorum vincula, etiam remissionis peccatorum et 
 reconciliationis hominum Sibi quos vult Deus reconciliari, instituit 
 sacramentum ; voluitque Divinam voluntatem in homine et humanam 
 voluntatem in Deo opportuna ratione consiguari. 
 
 Pee 09: 
 
 Sacramentum communionis in communi pabulo carnis et sanguinis, 
 quod sacramentum, conjuncti et unitatis est confirmatorum et spiritifi- 
 catorum, est in Christo in summa unitate coaltio et connutritio. Voca- 
 mur enim ut purgemur illuminemur et perficiamur Spiritu, connutri- 
 amur, convivamus, compugnemus, convincamus, conglorificemur. Hee 
 vis charitatis spiritualium hominum. 
 
 P. 84. 
 
 Quum in manibus ministrorum est aliquis ut purgetur, utque 
 colluviem peccatorum lacrymis lavet et abstergat, vel catechumenus 
 
272 THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 either a catechumen or a penitent or a possessed person or an 
 apostate, although he be in the church again, he is not counted, 
 nor is he of the hierarchy and body of Christ, in which no one 
 can be unless he is cleansed and perfected. From this it appears 
 
 that all bad persons are not in the church but outside that they . 
 
 may be cleansed, &c. 
 
 vel poenitens vel energumenus vel apostata, tametsi is rursus sit in 
 ecclesia, non numeratur, nec est ex hierarchia et corpore Christi, in quo 
 hemo esse potest nisi purgatus et perfectus. Unde constat omnes malos 
 non esse in ecclesia sed extra, ut purgentur, ce. 
 
 Seven Sacraments-for Colet’s School of St Paul. “ By gra- 
 cious euchariste, where is the very presence of the person of 
 Christ, under form of bread, we be nourished spiritually in God. 
 
 Exposition of St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. London, 
 1874. 
 
 Chap. x. p. 106. “St Paul by way of protest leaves them with 
 this maxim which he would have them thoroughly believe, that 
 
 with whomsoever a man voluntarily partakes, with the same is he” 
 
 a companion and fellow-worshipper; and that if the Corinthians 
 voluntarily mingled with idolaters and took part in their feasts, 
 they could not be worshippers of God in Christ. For whoever is 
 in Him must be wholly in Him—must savour wholly of Christ— 
 must neither know nor do anything but what befits the simplicity 
 and purity of Christ’s Spirit within Him. ‘Ye cannot,’ says St 
 Paul, ‘drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils, &c., ὅσο. 
 We ought to emulate and copy the example of Christ, for we are 
 not stronger than He; nay in Whom alone we are strong. And 
 therefore we ought not to attempt anything without Him, without 
 Whom we are weak, ἄς., ἕο. [Then, p. 107, How does ‘He sum 
 up?] In the blessed cups, the broken bread there is a saving 
 communication of the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. ztself | 
 [What really can a modern Roman say more ¢]: which is received ἡ 
 in common by many, that they may be one in it. [P. 108.] That 
 is the one nourishment, on which we are fed, distributed to the 
 
 | 
 
 whole society as to one body: that all men being nourished by | 
 
 the one, may be one in that by which they are nourished—not 
 themselves assimilating the nourishment, but being transformed 
 by it, as by the stronger into itself. [Who that has read Gregory ‘ 
 of } Nyssa can fail to recognize his manner of reasoning in this ?]— 
 [P. 110.] Those books only ought to be read in which there is a 
 salutary flavour of Christ. . Those books in which Christ. is not 
 found, are but a table of devils. Do not become readers of philo- 
 sophers, companions of devils. [I have added this not because 
 I think it generally true: but to give full occasion to those who 
 
1400] JOHN COLET, DEAN OF ST PAUL'S. 273 
 
 would argue that the former passages, to which I have objected, 
 are only figurative just as this is. I do not see it so. What terms 
 are to be said to involve the assertion of Christ’s real bodily pre- 
 sence if these are not? And if they do, where is the limit to the 
 harmfulness of using language, which certainly implies the real 
 natural presence of Christ's body, if language has a definite 
 meaning ?| 
 
 Chap. x1. p. 116. “In His own supper our Lord imparts | 
 
 Himself wholly to us, that He may transform us wholly unto 
 
 Himself and make us members together with Him: that so there | 
 
 may be one body, so to speak; consisting of Himself as the Head, | 
 and its proper members, wholly possessing and possessed by God., 
 
 our souls, by the communication of His Divinity ; but also in 
 regard of our bodies, by the communication of His body, that we 
 may grow altogether into one body in Him. 
 
 The question is, Do these corporeal expressions imperil those 
 that admire the rest of what he says? And do they not strengthen 
 those who believe in the real natural presence of the body of 
 Christ in this sacrament? The cue was given chiefly in the Fourth 
 Century, and very few have stood clear from following it. Are 
 we to go on doing the same, mingling the sweet words of spiritual 
 truth with the bitter waters of the doctrine of real true cor- 
 poreity; or are we at length to draw a line and distinguish 
 between antagonistic terms, and to settle what they are? The 
 usage_of figurative expressions is plainly according to Scripture : 
 but express assertions of rejected error must not be confounded 
 with figures rhetorically employed. I give another instance. 
 
 P.116. “We are now in the temple, that we may all feed on 
 the sacred Victim, and all be partakers of the altar of God, yea of 
 God Himself offered upon the altar of the cross, that we may be 
 erucified together with Him, and be offered as sacrifices well- 
 pleasing to God.” [Who could object to this 7] 
 
 _—< 
 
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) DURAND DE ST POURCAIN IN CLERMONT, A DOMINICAN. 
 BACHELOR AT PARIS 1513. D. 1583. 
 
 THIS town in which he was born is in the diocese of Clermont. 
 Though he earned the name of Doctor Resolutissimus, it did not 
 prevent his advancement first to the post of master of the palace 
 and then in succession to the bishoprics of Puy and Meaux. He 
 deemed himself free to profit by all the great men of the past 
 without being sworn adherent to any. But then he, most hap- 
 pily for his own peace and prosperity in Christendom, as it then 
 was, arrived at the conclusions that were then deemed orthodox. 
 He wrote a treatise on the origin of jurisdiction, which Rohr- 
 bacher, vol. x. 554, triumphs in citing in connexion with the 
 opinions of Ivo of Chartres in the eleventh century, Hugh of St 
 Victor in the twelfth, Alexander Hales and Thomas Aquinas in 
 the fourteenth on the same subject, as holding, together with 
 them, the supremacy of the spiritual over the secular power. 
 He took the degree of bachelor at Paris in 1513: and joined 
 the order of Preaching Brethren. His views on theology in 
 general and on the Lord’s supper in particular display an amount 
 of hardy courage, which was nevertheless compensated by his 
 profession of perfect submission to the church. But to use his 
 own favourite phrase he rather regarded church authority as a 
 res sine qua non, than as the real fountain of opinion. Think- 
 ing minds must have long worn the harness of subjection to 
 church authority in a very loose way in their private researches, 
 and must have champed the bit in secret for generations before 
 any dared to throw it all aside, and rejudge the church judgments 
 in their public writings or speeches. This is seen even after the 
 Reformation. Even such minds as Leibnitz and Descartes stooped 
 
1513] DURAND DE ST POURCAIN IN CLERMONT. 275 
 
 to bear the bit and bridle. How little then is it to be wondered 
 at that such bright intelligences as Gerson and Durand wore the 
 chains of subjection, though they shook them at times, as if they 
 wished to be free ! 
 
 Acuteness and neatness are said to be this writer’s charac- 
 teristic marks. Thomas Aquinas, under whose standard he at 
 first led, he afterwards opposed. His great work is his commen- 
 taries on Peter Lombard in four books; and he opposed Pope 
 John XXII. on the vision of God by the pious dead before the 
 resurrection. He exercised his own judgment without stint 
 upon Aristotelian dogmas; but he extended the idea of receiving 
 many Christian dogmas by faith rather than looking for their full 
 apprehension by the understanding. Perhaps on some other 
 points he changed from the cwrent views to his own damage. 
 But certainly his views on the Lord’s supper merit attention. 
 One almost wonders he dared to speak so boldly. Perhaps the 
 
 most useful course is to transcribe the heads of his Questions on 
 this subject. 
 
 P. 267. “(1) Whether the eucharist is a sacrament. (2) 
 Whether the forms of consecration of bread and wine are con- 
 venient. (3) Whether they are connected. (4) Whether the 
 body of Christ can lawfully be taken after medicine, or after food 
 taken after the manner of medicine. (5) Whether there are two 
 modes of eating this sacrament. (6) Whether the eating of the 
 sacrament is of necessity unto salvation. (7) Whether it is for 
 man only to receive the sacrament of the eucharist. (8) Whether 
 a sinner sins mortally if he take the sacrament of the eucharist. 
 (9) Whether a person sins mortally if he partake of the sacra- 
 
 Commentaria in Petrum Lombardum, p. 267. Paris, 1550. 
 
 Utrum eucharistia sit sacramentum. 
 
 Utrum forme consecrationis panis et vini sint convenientes. Utrum 
 ...connexa. 
 
 Utrum corpus Christi possit licite sumi post medicinam vel post 
 cibum sumptum per modum medicine. 
 
 Utrum sint duo modi manducandi hoe sacramentum. 
 
 Utrum manducatio eucharistiz sit de necessitate salutis. 
 
 Utrum solius hominis sit sumere sacramentum encharistix. 
 
 Utrum peccator sumens hoc sacramentum eucharistiz peccet mor- 
 taliter. (P. 301. Utrum scienter particilpans cum excommunicato 
 peccet mortaliter. ) 
 
 18—2 
 
270 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ment with an excommunicate perscn. (10) Whether a priest be 
 allowed to give the eucharist to a man whom he knows to be in 
 mortal sin. (11) Whether the body of Christ that was born of the 
 virgin be really in the sacrament of the eucharist. (12) Whether 
 the whole Christ be in the eucharist. (13) Whether the body 
 of Christ be moved when the host is moved. (14) Whether the 
 body of Christ can be seen in the eucharist by a glorified eye. 
 (15) Whether the body of Christ is in the eucharist by conversion 
 of the bread into itself. or whether the substance of bread remain 
 with the body of Christ. (16) Whether God can convert any- 
 thing whatever into anything whatever. (17) What kind of 
 change there is of bread and wine into the body and _ blood of 
 Christ. (18) Whether bread from corn and wine of the vine are 
 a convenient material of the eucharist. (19) Whether water 
 ought to be mixed with wine in the sacrament of the eucharist. 
 (20) Whether a priest can consecrate bread and wine in any 
 quantity whatever. (21) Whether if a priest intend to consecrate 
 only ten hosts, and he find eleven, has the eleventh been con- 
 secrated. (22) Whether God can make any accident whatever 
 without a subject. (23) Whether the species in a sacrament 
 can sacramentally change anything in it. (24) Whether (con- 
 secrated wine) ceases to be the blood of Christ by the ad- 
 mixture of new wine to the species of it. (25) Whether 
 the effect of the eucharist is an augmentation of grace or love. 
 
 Utrum liceat sacerdoti dare eucharistiam illi quem scit esse in 
 peccato mortali. 
 
 Utrum corpus Christi natum de virgine sit realiter in sacramento 
 eucharistie. 
 
 Utrum totus Christus sit in eucharistia. 
 
 Utrum corpus Christi moveatur ad motum hostie. 
 
 Utrum corpus Christi in eucharistia possit videri ab oculo glorioso. 
 
 Utrum corpus Christi sit in eucharistia per conversionem panis in 
 ipsum, vel utrum cum corpore Christi remaneat substantia panis. 
 
 Utrum Deus possit convertere quodlibet in quodlibet. 
 
 Qualis sit conversio panis et vini in corpus Christi et sanguinem. 
 
 Utrum panis de framento et vinum vitis sint conveniens materia 
 eucharistic. 
 
 Utrum aqua miscenda sit vino in sacramento eucharistiz. 
 
 Utrum sacerdos possit consecrare panem et vinum in quantacunque 
 _ quantitate. ᾿ 
 
 Utrum sacerdos intendens consecrare tantum decem hostias, si 
 inveniat undecim, an undecima sit consecrata. 
 
 Utrum Deus possit facere quodlibet accidens sine subjecto. 
 
 Utrum species sacramentalis possit aliquid sacramentaliter immu- 
 tare. 
 
 Utrum desinat esse sanguis Christi per admixtionem novi vini 
 speciebus vini consecrati. 
 
 Utrum effectus eucharistiz sit augmentum gratiz seu charitatis. 
 
1513] DURAND DE ST POURCAIN IN CLERMONT. 207 
 
 (26) Whether it is praiseworthy to take the eucharist every day. 
 (27) Whether the consecrating of this sacrament is properly suitable 
 for priests (only). (28) Whether it is lawful for priests to give up 
 celebrating the mass. (29) Whether many priests can consecrate 
 the same mass. (30) Whether priests only are allowed to minister 
 the sacrament of the eucharist to the people. (31) Whether here- 
 tics are to be tolerated. [To the last question it is answered on 
 one side ‘Yes, because Jews and infidels are, and they believe 
 less.’] 
 
 P. 277. “It is asked whether water ought to be mingled with 
 Wine in this sacrament. And it is argued that it ought not, 
 because the mingling of it is either required of necessity to the 
 sacrament, or ‘of congruity’ to it. It is not required of necessity, 
 since bread and wine only are said to be the material of this 
 sacrament. Nor is it required of congruity in order to the union 
 of Christ with His people, being signified by receiving His blood 
 under the species of wine, just as we are united with Him by 
 receiving His body under the form of bread. But water is not set 
 by the bread to signify the aforesaid union: therefore it is not to 
 be set by the wine, as it appears. Also it is not read [in the New 
 Testament] that Christ set water by [16. added it to] the wine, 
 nor ordained that it should be added. It seems rash therefore 
 that, beyond His instituting and ordaining, water should be added 
 to the wine. 
 
 Utrum sit laudabile sumere sacramentum eucharistiz omni die. 
 
 Utrum consecratio hujus sacramenti proprie conveniat  sacer- 
 dotibus. 
 
 Utrum liceat sacerdotibus cessare a celebratione misse. 
 
 Utrum plures sacerdotes possint eandem missam consecrare. 
 
 Utrum solis sacerdotibus liceat sacramentum eucharistie populo 
 ministrare. 
 
 Utrum heretici sint tolerandi. 
 
 gee Ὡς 
 
 Queeritur utrum vino sit admiscenda aqua in hoc sacramento. Et 
 arguitur quod non; quia aut admixtus esset de necessitate sacramenti 
 vel de congruitate. Non de necessitate quia solum panis et vinum 
 dicuntur esse materia hujus sacramenti. Nec de congruitate, ut per 
 hoe significetur unio populi cum Christo per sumptionem sanguinis 
 sub specie vini, ita ut unimur Ei per sumptionem corporis sub specie 
 panis. Sed pani non apponitur aqua ad significandum predictam 
 unionem: ergo non vino est apponenda, ut videtur. Item Christus 
 instituens hoc sacramentum non legitur apposuisse aquam vino, nec 
 ordinasse quod apponeretur. Ergo temerarium videtur quod, preter 
 Ejus institutionem et ordinationem, apponatur aqua vino. 
 
278 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 275. “To the first it must be said on the other side, that 
 in these things regarding faith we must not always choose what is 
 followed by the fewest difficulties, &e. But we must lay down 
 what is most in harmony with the sayings of holy men and with 
 church tradition, though more difficulties may come in our way. 
 ‘For we must bring our intellect into captivity to the obedience 
 of the faith. To the second proposition we must say that that only 
 is done in this sacrament which is meant by the form of the 
 words: but secondarily there is done whatever is antecedent to it 
 or concomitant to it for the existing of Christ’s body. In this 
 sacrament there is antecedent the transubstantiation of the bread 
 into Christ Himself. But there are concomitant the Godhead 
 united to the body...and quantity and the rest of the accidents, 
 as they say, holding that mode. And therefore both these are 
 effected in this sacrament, that is, the existence of the body of 
 Christ and the conversion of the bread. 
 
 P. 276. “Because in permanent things, whatever takes place 
 exists when it is done; but when bread has been changed into 
 Christ’s body, it is not true to say that the bread is the body of 
 Christ, as has been said, therefore in the conversion it is not true 
 to say that the bread becomes Christ’s body. However because 
 the holy writers do not always observe propriety of speech, there- 
 fore some of the aforesaid sayings are found to be said by some 
 saints and chiefly by Ambrose, as said above.... To the first argu- 
 
 Τ᾿ 215. 
 
 Ad primum in oppositum dicendum est quod in his que sunt 
 fidei non est semper eligendum illud ad quod sequuntur pauciores 
 difficultates, ὥς. Sed est ponendum illud quod magis est consonum 
 dictis sanctorum et traditioni ecclesiastics, licet plures difficultates 
 occurrant. Oportet enim intellectum nostrum captivare in obsequium 
 fidei. Ad secundum dicendum est quod illud solum efficitur in 
 hoe sacramento quod significatur per formam verborum; sed secun- - 
 dario efticitur quicquid ad illud antecedit vel illud concomitatur ad 
 existentiam corporis Christi. In hoc sacramento antecedit transub- 
 stantiatio panis in Ipsum. Concomitantur autem Divinitas unita 
 corpori, et quantitas cum ceteris accidentibus, ut dicunt, tenentes istum 
 modum. Et ideo utrumque efficitur in hoc sacramento, scilicet exis- 
 tentia corporis Christi et conversio panis, 
 
 ΤΡ 70. 
 
 Quia in permanentibus, quod fit quando factum est, est, sed, quando 
 panis est conversus in corpus Christi, non est verum dicere quod panis 
 sit corpus Christi, ut dictum est, ergo in conversione non est verum 
 dicere quod panis fiat corpus Christi. Veruntamen quia sancti non 
 semper observant proprietatem locutionis, ideo alique de predictis 
 locutionibus inveniuntur dicte a quibusdam sanctis, et maxime ab 
 Ambrosio, ut dictum supra, [Another excuse for liberty of thought 
 
1513] DURAND DE ST POURCAIN IN CLERMONT. 279 
 
 ment there is a plain answer, that, although that be the common 
 saying of many, yet since it has not been confirmed by the church 
 we are allowed to think the opposite. It is to be said on the 
 contrary that Pope Alexander said it was to be done, and we stand 
 in the same distinction by the sayings of Cyprian. The Lord’s cup 
 cannot be water only nor wine only, but that both be mingled 
 together, &c, 
 
 P. 274. “It is asked whether Christ’s body is in this sacra- 
 ment by the conversion of the bread into itself, or whether the 
 substance of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. 
 And it is argued that the substances of the bread and the wine 
 remain; because that supposition should be chosen, which entails 
 the fewest difficulties. But by supposing that the bread and the 
 Wine remain, only one difficulty follows, which is not a very great 
 nor insoluble one, 7 6. that there are two bodies together. ['This is 
 consubstantiation in its most natural form.] But by supposing 
 that the bread and wine do not remain, many difficulties follow— 
 1.6. How can such accidents, (i.e. without their substances,) nourish 
 (man’s body), become corrupted, and how out of them alone can 
 anything (of a bodily nature) be generated [Qy. in their corrup- 
 tion]. And since all these things come to pass out of the previous 
 material (of bread), therefore as it appears the first supposition is to 
 be adopted. Also that alone is accomplished (made) in this sacra- 
 ment which is expressed by the force of the words. But by these 
 words [This is My body] is alone expressed the existence or the 
 presence of Christ in this sacrament. And in no word is mention 
 
 is given before.} Ad primum argumentum patet responsio, quia 
 quamvis illud sit commune dictum multorum, tamen ex quo non est 
 per ecclesiam confirmatum licitum est opinari oppositum. In contrarium 
 est quod dixit Alexander Papa, &c. Et in eadem distinctione ex 
 dictis Cypriani, &c. Calix Domini non potest esse aqua sola nec vinum 
 solum nisi misceatur utrumque, &c. ὅσο. 
 
 P. 214, 
 
 Queritur utrum corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento per conver- 
 sionem substantie panis in Ipsum; vel utrum post consecrationem 
 remaneat substantia panis et vini. Et arguitur quod substantize panis 
 et vini remaneant ; quia illud, ad quod sequuntur pauciores difficultates, 
 est magis eligendum. Sed ponendo quod substantia panis et vini 
 remaneat, sequitur una sola difficultas, que non est multum magna 
 nec insolubilis—scilicet quod duo corpora sunt simul. Ponendo autem 
 quod non remaneant, sequuntur multe difiicultates—scilicet quomodo 
 talia accidentia possiut nutrire, corrumpi, et quomodo ex eis possit aliquid 
 generari. Cum hec omnia fiant ex presupposita materia, ergo ut 
 videtur primum est magis eligendum. Item illud solum efficitur in hoe 
 sacramento, quod exprimitur per formam verborum. Sed per hee 
 verba [Hoc est corpus Meum] solum exprimitur existentia vel preesentia 
 corporis Christi in hoc sacramento; et in nullo penitus sit mentio de 
 
280 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [4.Ὁ. 
 
 made of a defining of the substance of bread, or of its being con- 
 verted into Christ’s body. That therefore is not to be supposed 
 or laid down. 
 
 P. 269. ‘“ Whether there are two modes, &. To the first 
 (point) it must be said, Some are spiritually washed from (their 
 sins in baptism), and some sacramentally (only); whether these 
 modes (of defining it) be taken as on the part of the suscipients 
 of baptism or these modes be to be taken, as was said before. 
 To the second point it must be said, that it is not similar to 
 the eating of bodily food, because the benefit of the body can- 
 not be obtained with only a wish or a desire, as it is in the 
 case of spiritual food. And again no precedent disposition is 
 required in the taker of corporal food, in order to receive its 
 benefit, except natural power; as is required in the receiver of 
 spiritual food [Thus did the scholastics at times, taught of God, 
 put forth their venturous barks into the sea of Protestant Bible 
 truth]: and thus it is not possible to eat bodily food in any other 
 way than bodily. But food is set before us spiritually in the 
 sacrament under the veil of corporal things; by reason of which, 
 beyond that kind of spiritual eating which it is competent to any 
 recipient (to receive) of himself [secundum se], it is possible to him 
 (lit. it happens to him) to eat in a further way, sacramentally, 
 under such a veil.” [But as we wonder at the great boldness both 
 of this Durand’s enquiries and of his decisions we have to remem- 
 ber that, as in the case of Erasmus, his life occupied the later part 
 of the fifteenth and the former part of the sixteenth centuries. 
 Many morning stars had preceded him and the day was at hand. 
 Thus scholasticism was brighter. ] 
 
 definitione substantie panis, vel de conversione ejus in corpus Christi. 
 Ergo istud non est ponendum. [Durand saves his orthodoxy thus. | 
 
 P. 269. 
 
 ‘Utrum sint duo modi, &.’ Ad primum dicendum...Quidam... 
 abluuntur spiritualiter (in baptismo), quidam sacramentaliter; sive hi 
 modi sumantur ex parte suscipientium baptismum, sive ex parte 
 modi (de eucharistia) suscipiendi, ut dictum est. Ad secundum dicendum 
 quod non est simile de manducatione corporalis cibi, quia fructus ejus 
 non potest percipi ex solo voto vel desiderio sicut est in (spirituali) cibo. 
 Et iterum nulla dispositio precedens requiritur in suscipiente corporalem 
 cibum ad suscipiendum fructum ejus nisi naturalis virtus; sicut requi- 
 ritur in tecipiente cibum spiritualem: et ideo cibum corporalem non 
 contingit manducare nisi corporaliter. Spiritualiter autem cibus pro- 
 ponitur in sacramento sub velamine rerum corporalium; ratione cujus, 
 preter manducationem spiritualem que competit ei secundum se, con- 
 tingit ei ulterius manducare sacramentaliter sub tali velamine. [To 
 explain the force ‘“ contingit” we have but to see the pertinence of 
 the old classical saying, ‘‘non cuivis homini contingit, &c.” So here; 
 everyone receives not spiritual food. | 
 
1467] 7 ERASMUS. 281 
 
 (B.) ERASMUS, DESIDERIUS, ORIGINALLY GERHARD. 
 B. 1467. Ὁ. 1536. 
 
 It may suffice to mark some of his clustering honours. His 
 great work was The Paraphrases, which perhaps put the Reforma- 
 tion in England under greater obligations to him than it came under 
 to any of the singularly valuable band of foreign helpers, whom 
 she allured within her sea-beaten shores. But his many minor 
 exploits surpass our space. The Greek Testament printed. A 
 dozen of the chief fathers edited in whole or in part. The scho- 
 lastic system checked. The monks visited with deserved repro- 
 bation. His own Adagia compiled. Luther’s weak point of the 
 slavery of the will detected and assailed. Origen commended, 
 and the publication of his works far advanced when Erasmus died. 
 The power of elegant satire re-established in this country—a 
 power, without which it seems the course of things in this world 
 can never long go on well. On the whole the religious lberty of 
 the human race advanced in various ways: in a word, the shadow 
 on the dial of human progress moved several degrees onward. 
 As to the other side of his character, in which he fronts Luther 
 and the German Reformation, is it not enough to say that few 
 great men are able, like John the Baptist, to regard with perfect 
 content the superior progress of a rival for public power, and 
 to say calmly “He must increase, I must decrease”? In the Swiss 
 Reformation, at the very beginning of its great Reformer’s course, 
 we trace the hand of Erasmus. Zwingel himself relates how some 
 of the sonnets of Erasmus were among the first things that 
 awakened in him the spirit of enquiry. The story will appear 
 in the latter part of this work, and it is notable that there never 
 was any strife or even a misunderstanding between Erasmus and 
 Zwingel. Erasmus and Luther are twin champions in the eman- 
 cipation of Christendom: but their antagonisms of mind and 
 heart were great. Methinks they are best judged a little apart: 
 for each by contrast brings out the deficiencies of the other. 
 I suppose that beyond question we owe far more to the Saxon 
 miners son. He, under God’s direction, set a large part of 
 Christendom free. But though the Dutch scholar had not the 
 
282 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 heroic boldness nor the sweet heavenly-mindedness—the child 
 and the giant in one—that so charmed and shook Christendom, 
 it is not easy to compute how much we all, and Luther too, owe 
 to Erasmus. He was fitted for his work by strong antipathy to 
 the monks—the “fréres ignorantins” of his day, and for this 
 antipathy he had stronger reasons both personal and paternal 
 than we like to drag to the light of day. 
 
 Two extracts about Erasmus I wish to append from quaint 
 old Fuller’s Abel Redivivus; one regarding Erasmus αὖ his 
 death—the other Erasmus in his life. At his death he be- 
 queathed the residue of his property—including the proceeds of 
 his library sold on his deathbed—to John a Lasco, under the 
 direction of the overseers of his will “to be distributed first to 
 “poor infirm persons whether through age or sickness: secondly 
 “to portionless virgins, to procure them husbands; and thirdly to 
 “poor but hopeful young scholars for the advancement of their 
 “studies.” Every line of this reflects both Erasmus’ personal 
 history and the natural kindness of his heart, ripened by the 
 study of Christ’s life and by communion with Him, to Whom he 
 cried as his end approached, “ Mercy, sweet Jesus! Lord, loose 
 “these bonds! How long, Lord Jesus, how long! Jesus, foun- 
 “tain of mercy, have mercy on me.” No wonder such an end 
 followed what Fuller declares of Erasmus’ life. After reciting 
 “ὃ select list of the benefactions of this unparalleled labourer in 
 the best literature, he sums it up thus, “What a tot quot of 
 “archbishoprics, bishoprics and prebends and fat parsonages might 
 “not this so patroned a clerk (had he had but the conscience to 
 “digest it) have accumulated under one red hat! But he declined 
 “civil preferments as not so suitable to his priesthood, and had 
 “he accepted ecclesiastical, he foresaw...that he should either 
 “ruin his body by discharging, or his more precious soul by neg- 
 “lecting, them.” 
 
 It is with pain I notice, that he finished two treatises on the 
 Lord’s supper; but suppressed them. 
 
 His mother’s name was Margaret. She died from the cruelty 
 of the times, when he was thirteen; and his father Gerhard did 
 not long survive. To complete his woe his guardians entrapped 
 him as a monastic, that they might divide his patrimony. 
 
1407] ERASMUS. 283 
 
 P. 229. “He instituted that sacred sign of His own death, 
 that henceforth there might be renewed amongst them a perfect 
 memorial of His own unmeasureable love, in which He hesitated 
 not to expend His own life on redeeming our mortal race, lest at 
 any time the memory of that Divine sacrifice might escape from 
 our minds, by which, (His life), He the most pure Lamb offered 
 Himself _a new and true_passover on the altar to-God_the Father 
 for us, and by His own blood rendered Him propitious towards us 
 instead of angry, paying down, for our commissions of sin, the 
 penalties that were due for our wickednesses. But He conse- 
 crated this ceremonial sign in two things, by which among men of 
 old time friendship is wont to be conciliated, that that love, with 
 which He expended Himself on His own (followers), might unite 
 us together too, who frequently ourselves also eat of the same 
 bread_and drink from the same cup.... In like manner recalling 
 with a spiritual kind of initiation the rites of the law of Moses, 
 according to which no expiation from sins used to take place 
 except by the blood of a victim ; besides that, signifying in truth 
 that he was consecrating, by a mystery of this kind the new cove- 
 nant of the gospel profession, &c. And all these things indeed 
 had marked out by certain figures and shadows this sacred Victim, 
 by Which the Lord Jesus, of His own accord delivering His own 
 body to death and pouring out His own blood, was about to 
 expiate the sins of the whole world, reconciling all men freely to 
 
 5 
 God, whoever profess our covenant the New Testament. [A little 
 
 Vol. I. p. 229, 
 Paraph. Matt. XX VI, 26. Beschmann, Hanover. 
 
 Instituit sacrosanctum illud symbolum mortis Suz, ut subinde 
 renovatum esset inter eos perfectum monumentum immense charitatis 
 Ipsius, qua non dubitavit vitam Suam impendere redimendo mortalium 
 generi, nequando posset elabi ex animis nostris Divini illius sacrificii 
 memoria, qua purissimus Agnus novum et verum pascha Semetipsum 
 immolavit in ara pro nobis “Deo Patri, Quem Suo sanguine nobis ex 
 irato propitium reddidit, pro nostris commissis dependens peenas, que 
 nostris sceleribus debebantur, Hoc autem symbolum czremoniale 
 duabus rebus consecravit, quibus inter homines olim solet amicitia 
 conciliari, ut ea caritas, quad Christus Seipsum impendit Suis, nos 
 quoque copularet, qui frequenter et ipsi ex eodem pane comedimus 
 et de eodem poculo bibimus... Similiter, spirituali quodam imagine 
 referens ritus Mosaic legis, juxta quam nulla fiebat expiatio a peccatis 
 nisi per sanguinem hostize, preeterea significans vere novum fcedus 
 evangelicze professionis hujusmodi mysterio consecrare, ἄς, Atque 
 heec quidem omnia figuris quibusdam et umbris designar. ant hance sacro- 
 sanctam hostiam, qua Dominus Jesus, corpus Suum sponte tradens in 
 mortem, et sanguinem Suum effundens, expiaturus erat totius mundi 
 peccata, cunctos homines gratuito reconcilians Deo, quicunque feedus 
 nostrum Novum Testamentum profitentur. Eam victimam, hoe fedus 
 
284. THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of Luther on the Galatians is wanted here.] He wished this 
 Victim and this treaty to be entrusted to the minds of His own 
 disciples by certain mystic signs before He was sacrificed, that 
 they might understand that His own death was not a common 
 event nor unnecessary, but_an efficacious Victim for expiating the 
 sins not of the Jews alone but of all nations and all ages. But 
 since Christ’s death was not to be repeated, that it might not slip 
 away from the world out of the minds of men, and that they 
 might not forget the sacred covenant once entered into with the 
 Author of their own salvation, He appointed that by frequent 
 ‘sharing of the sacred bread and cup the memory [of the covenant] 
 pmight be renewed among those that professed the gospel until 
 ‘He should come not_as_ Saviour but as Judge. In the mean time 
 no other victim-for sins was to be looked for, since this one suffices 
 for doing away the sins of the whole world. 
 
 P.280. Luke xxii. 7. “But now that day of the unleavened 
 bread, most sacred to the Jews, will be present, on which ac- 
 cording to the requirements of the law the lamb must be killed, 
 which the Jews, as I said, call phase from passing over. But the 
 true phase was the Lord, He was the most pure Lamb to be sacri- 
 ‘ficed according to the Father’s eternal counsel for the salvation of 
 the world. By mystic signs to represent with them, what He was 
 about on the morrow to go through on the cross, not unaware how 
 
 they would be troubled by His own death. 
 P. 282. “A different perfect passover shall be fulfilled accord- 
 
 quibusdam signis mysticis commendari voluit animis Suorum disci- 
 pulorum antequam immolaretur, ut intelligerent Suam mortem non 
 esse vulgarem neque otiosam, sed efficacem victimam, ad expianda 
 peccata non solum Judzorum sed omnium gentium et seculorum. 
 Ceterum, quoniam mors Christi non erat iteranda, ne tamen mundo 
 elabi posset ex animis hominum, neve sacrosancti foederis semel initi 
 cum salutis suze auctore possent oblivisci, instituit ut crebré commu- 
 nione sacri panis et calicis memoria renovaretur inter evangelize pro- 
 fessores donec adveniat non Servator sed Judex. Interim non erat 
 expectanda alia hostia pro peccatis, quoniam hee una sufficit pro 
 abolendis peccatis totius mundi. 
 
 2. 280, hue ea. ἢ 
 
 Jam vero aderit dies ille azymorum, Judeis sacerrimus, quo juxta 
 legis przescriptiones oportebat occidi agnum, quem Judei a transitu, 
 ut dixi, vocant phase. Verum autem phase erat Dominus. Agnus 
 Ile purissimus, juxta Patris sternum consilium, immolandus pro 
 salute mundi. Mysticis signis hoc apud eos representare, quod postridie 
 peracturus esset in cruce, non ignarus quam Sua morte essent turba- 
 bundi. 
 
 P. 282. 
 
 Aliud perfectum pascha juxta Spiritum perficietur in regno Dei. 
 
1467] ERASMUS. 285 
 
 ing to the Spirit in the kingdom of God. The truth is present 
 and the shadow will cease. After that, ye will celebrate a spiri- 
 tual and efficacious passover to Me, the eating of which will render 
 you immortal. But when each one had tasted of the flesh of the 
 lamb Jesus took a cup and gave thanks to the Father, and having 
 tasted and held out the cup, said to His disciples, ‘Receive ye and 
 ‘divide ye this among yourselves, &c.’ Thus far is the end of the 
 legal figures. [Then bread and wine, &c.] This.is the new cove- 
 nant not of a calf or a goat, but consecrated in My blood which is 
 shed to save you. 
 
 P. 170. 1 Corinthians xi. 20. “ But now a custom, indecorous 
 beyond measure, has crept in amongst you, that as often as ye 
 meet together, it does not appear to be the Lord’s supper that is 
 being conducted, such as He held with His own disciples, but 
 a tumultuous and unbecoming kind of feast, in luxury and excess 
 of eating: without waiting for the rest, each one takes possession 
 of bis own supper. Therefore it comes to pass, &c, and that 
 feast of mystic meaning receives the dishonour of a double charge ; 
 both that by the haughtiness of the rich the poor are despised, 
 whom Christ despised not, and that the Lord’s supper is polluted 
 with excess and luxury. Here is the mystery of Christian one- 
 ness of mind, not a matter of the stomach or greediness, which 
 ought to have been provided for not in the public [sacred] assem- 
 bly but privately im your houses. If you desired to fill yourselves, 
 there is no want to you of houses, where you may do this in 
 separate circles. Despise ye the public assembly of Christians, 
 
 Adest veritas et cessabit umbra. Posthe spirituale et efficax phase 
 Mihi celebrabitis, cujus esus vos reddet immortales. Ubi vero singuli 
 gustassent de carnibus agni, Jesus accepto poculo gratias egit Patri et 
 libato porrectoque calice dixit discipulis Suis, Capite et dividite hoe 
 inter vos, &c. Hactenus legis figurarum est finis. Then bread and 
 wine for the Lord’s supper. Hoe est novum testamentum non vituli 
 aut hirci sed sanguine Meo consecratum qui pro vobis servandis effun- 
 detur. 
 TTS ps VOL A. Cor. 7. 20. 
 
 At nunc irrepsit apud vos mos supra modum indecorus, ut quoties 
 convenitis, non videatur agi coena Dominica, qualem Ile cum Suis 
 egit, sed tumultuosum aliquid et indecorum convivium, quod per 
 luxum et gule intemperantiam, non expectatis ceteris, suam quisque 
 coenam occupat. Itaque fit ut, &e., ac mysticum illud convivium duplici 
 nomine dehonestetur ; et quod per fastum divitum pauperes fastidiuntur, 
 quos non fastidiit Christus, et quod cena Dominica crapula luxuque 
 polluitur. Hoc unanimitatis Christiane mysterium, non ventris aut 
 gule negotium, quod non in publico ccetu sed privatim in edibus 
 curatum oportuit. Si libebat explere alvum, non desunt domus, in 
 quibus seorsim hoc agatis. An publicam Christianorum congregationem 
 
280 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [a.D. 
 
 that ye indulge your appetites with the assembly for a witness 
 of it, &c., that those are put to shame, who have nothing to 
 contribute? V.23. Having given thanks to God, He orders the 
 bread and said, ‘Take ye, eat ye, this is My body, which is broken 
 ‘for you,’ to be shared among you all. Do ye also afterwards do 
 for a remembrance of Me that which ye see Me do. Ye see here 
 all together with their Teacher, reclining together. The table and 
 the food He Himself made common to all, and not even Judas the 
 traitor removed from sharing at the table. In the same manner 
 after the distribution of the bread He took the cup also into His 
 hands, after the supper was done, saying, ἕο. <Christ willed-this 
 »}, feast to be a commemoration of His own death and a sign of the 
 ᾿ eternal covenant, &c. The bread is mystical, of which all ought 
 ' to be equally partakers. The cup is sacred, equally belonging to 
 all,; by no means prepared to appease bodily thirst, but to repre- 
 sent a secret thing, that it may not come to be forgotten at what 
 a price ye have been redeemed from the vices of your former life. 
 Wherefore as often as ye meet to eat this bread and drink of this 
 cup ye are not engaged in a matter of the appetite but are repre- 
 senting the death of the Lord Jesus by a mystic rite. And let the 
 perpetual memory of it hold you fast in your duty, until He 
 Himself come again to judge the world. Therefore whoever shall 
 eat this bread or drink this cup of the Lord otherwise than is 
 worthy of Him, renders himself also chargeable with a great crime 
 who has handled the body and blood of the Lord otherwise than 
 He Himself had ordered it to be treated. _ Since a thing above all 
 
 contemmnitis, ut, hac teste, gule serviatis, &c. ut pudefiant tenues, qui 
 que offerant non habent? V. 23. Gratiis actis Deo jubet panem, 
 ac dixit, Sumite, edite. Hoc est Meum corpus, quod pro vobis frangitur, 
 omnibus impartiendum. Hoe qued Me facere videtis posthac et vos 
 faciatis in memoriam Mei, Videtis hic cum Preceptore suo simul omnes 
 accumbentes. Mensam ac cibum Ipse communem omnibus, ne Judam 
 quidem proditorem a consortio mensze semotum, &c. Ad eundem modum 
 post distributionem panis et poculum sumpsit in manus, cond jam 
 peracta, dicens, ὅθ. Christus hoe convivium mortis Suze commemora- 
 tionem, et «terni foederis symbolum esse voluit, &¢. Mysticus est panis 
 cujus ex «quo participes esse debent omnes. Sacrosanctum est poculum, 
 ad omnes seque pertinens, haudquaquam paratum ad placandam corporis 
 sitim, sed ad arcane rei representationem, ne vobis veniat in oblivio- 
 nem, quo pretio sitis a pristine vite vitiis redempti. Proinde quoties 
 ad edendum hune panem aut bibendum ex hoc poculo convenitis, non 
 ventris negotium agitis, sed mortem Domini Jesu mystico ritu repre- 
 sentatis. Cujus jugis memoria vos in officio contineat, donec Ipse 
 rursus adveniat judicaturus orbem. Itaque quisquis ederit panem hune 
 vel biberit de poculo Domini secus quam Illo dignum est, et gravi 
 crimini se reddit obnoxium qui corpus et sanguinem Domini secus 
 tractavit quam Ipse tractari jusserat. Siquidem res, omnium maxime 
 
1407] ERASMUS. 287 
 
 most mystical ought to be treated purely and reverently ; but lest 
 that should happen, let everyone first examine and search himself. 
 So may a man well eat of that bread and drink of the cup. But 
 if he be partly conscious with himself of evil let him rather abstain 
 and sacrifice to his appetite at home. For although it be a 
 healthful thing, yet whoever eats and drinks the body and blood 
 of the Lord unworthily, it is turned in his case to a plague and 
 destruction, because he approached so great a mystery irreverently 
 and with an uncleansed mind, not sufficiently considering with 
 how great a trembling the body of the Lord is to be received. 
 They will pay the penalty of having profaned the mystery as soon 
 as the King shall have come. Nevertheless in the mean time also 
 a punishment for the committal of the offence presses upon some, 
 &e. But if we ourselves would judge ourselves before receiving it, 
 we should not in any wise be thus judged by the Lord. Where- 
 fore, my brethren, when ye assemble to these feasts He has com- 
 manded you mutually to wait for each other in a feast without 
 distinction of ranks after Christ’s example. But if any one be so 
 greedy of food as not to bear delay, let him eat at home, not in 
 the mystical and public feast ; lest what was instituted for your 
 salvation be turned into an occasion of condemnation. And I 
 think that enough has been said on this thing. On the rest of the 
 things pertaining to this subject, I myself will prescribe, When 
 I shall have come to you. 
 
 1 Cor, xi. 28. “If any priest do not acquiesce in the church’s 
 
 decrees, it will be exceedingly hard to prove to the sense of men 
 in what form of words he should consecrate (in the supper). For 
 
 mystica, pure ac reverenter erat tractanda ; verum ne id accidat, se quis- 
 que prius examinet atque exploret. Ita sibi bene edat de pane illo 
 et de poculo bibat. Parum vero sibi conscius abstineat potius, et 
 domi gulz suz sacrificet. Licet enim res sit salutifera corpus et sanguis 
 Domini, tamen quisquis edit aut bibit indigne, huic vertitur in pestem 
 atque exitium, propterea quod irreverenter et illoto animo tantum 
 adierit mysterium, non satis perpendens quanto cum tremore sumendum 
 sit corpus Domini. Dabunt hi penas prophanati mysterii simul atque 
 Rex advenerit. Quamquam et interea urget quosdam pcena commissi, 
 ἄς. &e. Quodsi nos ipsi judicaremus ante sumendum haudqudquam 
 sic judicaremur a Domino, ἄς. Proinde, fratres mei, cum ad has 
 epulas convenitis, jussit, ad exemplum Christi convivium exquabile, 
 vos invicem expectare. Quod si quis tam avidus est cibi, ut dilationem 
 non ferat, domi comedat, non in mystico publicoque convivio, ne quod ad 
 vestram salutem est institutum vertatur in occasionem damnationis, 
 Atque hac de re jam satis dictum est. De ceteris, que ad hane rem 
 pertineat, ipse preescribam ubi venero, 
 
 Test. Nov. cum notis. Vol. VI. 1 Cor. XI. 28. 
 
 Nisi quis acquiescat in ecclesie decretis difficillimum fuerit probare 
 sensui humano quibus verbis consecret sacerdos. Nam ut donemus 
 
288 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 though we grant that Christ consecrated in words of this kind, 
 how does it appear that an agreement has been entered into with 
 us that, if we repeat the words of another, we also ourselves conse- 
 erate it (effectually)? But here in St Paul’s words the intellect of 
 man must be led captive to obedience to the faith, that the merit 
 of faith may be the more [Think of Erasmus writing thus!] in 
 proportion as the reason of man is the less able to grasp it. 
 V. 29. For neither did our Lord always consecrate His body as 
 often as we read that He gave thanks and brake bread, since He 
 blessed and brake supplying a feast to many thousands, and in 
 Emmaus He blesses and breaks and hands the bread to them. 
 Again, as often as mention is made in the books of bread being 
 broken it is not straightway to be received that the body and 
 blood of the Lord was consecrated among the disciples; as for 
 instance, in Acts ii., mention is twice made of the breaking of 
 bread which took place daily from house to house individually. 
 Also Paul, Acts xxvii., in his voyage blesses and breaks bread, 
 inviting the others to take food, and as is very likely handing to 
 them bread broken [for them]. 
 
 P. 1175. Catechism v. On signs. “Those that have spoken 
 with greater exactness call a sacrament an oath or an obligation, 
 consecrated by the intervention of a deity and of religion. But 
 our ancestors have accommodated that word to signify what the 
 Greeks call mystery, which you interpret a religious secret. Why 
 is it called a secret? Because the multitude was shut out from 
 
 Christum ejusmodi verbis consecrasse, qui constat hoe factum, nobiscum 
 initum, ut referentes aliena verba consecremus et ipsi? WVerum hic 
 captivandus est, ut inquit Paulus, intellectus humanus in obsequium 
 fidei, ut hoc majus sit fidel meritum, quo minus assequitur humana 
 ratio. [This last is one of many sentences that seem strange to come 
 from the pen of Erasmus.] V. 29. Neque enim semper Dominus 
 consecravit corpus Suum, quoties legitur gratiis actis fregisse panem, 
 siquidem benedixit et fregit, convivium exhibens multis hominum 
 millibus. Et in Emaunte benedicit frangit et porrigit panem. Rursum 
 quoties in libris fit mentio fracti panis, non statim accipiendum est, inter 
 discipulos fuisse consecratum corpus et sanguinem Domini, quemad- 
 modum in Actis cap. ii. bis fit mentio fractionis panis, que peragebatur 
 quotidie per singulas domos. Item Paulus Actorum 6. xxvii. in navi- 
 gatione benedicit et frangit panem, invitans alios ad sumendum cibum, 
 et, ut est verisimile, panem fractum porrigens. 
 
 Vol. V. p. 1175, Cat. V. de Symbolo. 
 
 Qui exactius locuti sunt sacramentum appellant jusjurandum, aut 
 obligationem, numinis et religionis interventu consecratum. At majores 
 nostri vocem eam accommodarunt ad significandum id quod Greci 
 dicunt mysteriwm quod religiosum arcanum possis dicere. Quare dicitur 
 arcanum? Quia ab his tractandis secludebatur vulgus. Quamquam 
 
1407] ERASMUS. 289 
 
 having to do with them. Although at this day many things in 
 them are done openly (as when the water of baptism is conse- 
 crated), but these and also the words by which the thing is done 
 were concealed from the people and were delivered among the 
 bishops from hand to hand, that the veneration of the sacraments 
 might be more. As soon as the bishop was preparing to conse- 
 crate the bread and the cup, no layman was allowed to remain 
 within the rails. And indeed a Roman pontiff, having given some 
 replies to a certain English bishop who made some enquiries of the 
 rites of the [Christian] mysteries, about the words with which 
 chrism-oil was consecrated, dared not commit it to writing, lest 
 perchance by the interception of his letters (a thing of common 
 occurrence) the secret might be generally divulged. 
 
 P.1174. “Others think that the eucharist, which is sometimes 
 called σύναξις, t.e. reconciliation, is marked by the name ‘com- 
 munion, because by this mystery is marked and confirmed the most 
 intimate uniting of the mystical body with the Head, and such a 
 mystical fellowship of all that truly profess Christ’s name, as the 
 natural (union) of all the members in the body of the same animal 
 with one another. Those I say who have written such comments 
 say indeed the truth, but in my own opinion do not express what 
 these words declare....” 
 
 hodie multa fiunt palam (veluti quum consecratur aqua baptismi), sed 
 hi ritus atque etiam verba quibus id peragitur, celabantur populo, et 
 inter episcopos per manus tradebantur, quo major esset sacramentorum 
 veneratio. Simul ut episcopus apparabat consecrare panem et calicem, 
 nulli laico fas erat intra cancellos remanere. Et quidam Romanus 
 poutifex episcopo cuidam Anglo, ni fallor, scitanti quiddam de ritibus 
 mysteriorum, quum nonnulla respondisset, verba, quibus oleum conse- 
 crabatur non ausus est literis committere, ne forte, quod szpe fit, literis 
 interceptis arcanum evulgaretur. 
 
 1171. 
 
 Alii communionis nomine [ἡ. 6. in the Apostles’ Creed] putant 
 _designatam eucharistiam, que Greecis interdum dicitur σύναξις, id est 
 conciliatio, quod hoc mysterio figuratur et confirmatur arctissima con- 
 junctio mystici corporis cum Capite, et omnium Christi nomen vere 
 profitentium talem societatem mysticam,’ qualis est naturalis omnium 
 inter se membrorum in corpore ejusdem animantis. |How could 
 Erasmus reconcile himself to writing good Latin in the usual un-Latin 
 order of the words!]. Hee inquam qui commenti sunt vera quidem 
 preedicant, sed quod his verbis proprie declaratur meo quidem animo 
 non exprimunt. [I wonder such a scholar as Erasmus ventured on 
 giving this meaning to σύναξις.] 
 
 Isle JU 19 
 
290 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (C.) DR MARTIN LUTHER. B. 1483. pb, 1546. 
 
 How diverse the faculties which God deals out among great 
 men! Few indeed of the greatest have reached the high moral 
 eminence of Luther: and yet can any one whose mind moves 
 under the dominion of strict logie venture to call the notable 
 sermon of Luther’s on the Lord’s supper a right use of man’s noble 
 faculty of reasoning? Is it too much to say_that a man who could 
 write this was not able to reason where his affections were en- 
 listed? He substitutes for argument assertion and reassertion in 
 various forms. But the struggle between Luther and Zwingel on 
 this subject, which reached its climax at Marburg, must be de- 
 ferred to the latest Part. It can then be taken up and treated 
 of in company with a few other chief writers who must be dealt 
 with otherwise than by bare citations, and with a short remark or 
 two, set in the interstices, or following at the close of extracted 
 passages. Such are Hooker, Dean Goode and the present Bishop 
 of Winchester, Dr Pusey and Dr Wiseman. Meantime in these 
 volumes some things are cited from some of them, to avoid leaving 
 an undesirable historical chasm: but they will obtain more 
 adequate notice, where room will be more abundant and a just 
 judgment more possible. But his De Babyl. Cap. Eccles. is a 
 different matter, no quotations can represent its excellence. Much 
 of it is like liquid gold. It enriches us as we read; and we say, 
 What an extraordinary man! It was this that brought over 
 Bugenhagen, who loaded it with praise. But much in his four 
 volumes is excellent. 
 
 1 have just come from another of Luther’s works and from the 
 latest and most telling controversy (Hare’s) respecting his merits, 
 and it is hard to do him equal justice both ways. If one speaks of 
 the largeness of his noble heart, and of his eagle glance in de- 
 tecting great truths almost hopelessly involved in the confusion 
 of thought of untold ages, one seems to be implying that on any 
 subject he may be taken for a sure and safe guide. If, on the 
 other hand, one charges his mind with defectiveness of logical 
 perception, it seems as if we cannot be making true charges. 
 against the man who brought to the front such invaluable truths. 
 Perhaps the solution of the seeming incongruity may be, that he 
 saw many things clearly through the unusual fervour of his feel- 
 
1483} MARTIN LUTHER. 291 
 
 ings, when they happened to take the right direction; but when 
 they happened to take the wrong it was all over with him. 
 Logic had no sufficient power to make him hesitate and recon- 
 sider. He seems to have generally seen and reasoned with the 
 heart only. Fuller touchingly relates how Luther’s widow, Cathe- 
 rine de Bora, was neglected by Luther’s friends, and how sad the 
 way in which she came by her death, 
 
 Sermon on the Eucharist, vu. 835. <4 We believe that Christ’s 
 body and blood truly are in the bread and wine. We use the plain 
 and open words of the Scriptures and_of Christ.—Werds-so_open 
 and so simple...that if twisted down to another meaning they are | 
 drawn from their natural signification.... Now it is beyond mea- 
 sure pleasing to God to do those things which to the world’s 
 judgment are most stupid and absurd, as Paul testifies in the first 
 of Corinthians... [Very rashly put, as if God delighted in it for 
 pure opposition, instead of saying when truth requires it.] He 
 who has erred from this faith may afterwards both believe and 
 commemorate whatever he will by the sacrament. It is not of 
 much consequence... We already see that six or seven sects have 
 emerged within two years, thinking differently about the sacra- 
 ment, and they all had brought themselves to this persuasion, 
 that Christ’s body and blood are not in the sacrament.... [Strange 
 ground for rejecting the one point in which there is such singular 
 concord!] My course is to believe those things: further, what He 
 said, Who knows not how to lie, this will I believe and maintain 
 without a doubt. He thus fortifies Himself by the word and 
 involves Himself in it; and from it He does not suffer Himself 
 to be torn away: and by this also he is saved.... For nothing 
 of an ambiguous or obscure nature can be in words that are 
 
 Sermo de Eucharistia, Vol. VII. p. 335, 2 parts. Wittenberg, 1558. 
 
 Nos credimus in pane et vino veraciter esse Christi corpus et 
 sanguinem. Nos planis et apertis Scripture et Christi verbis utimur. 
 Verba tam aperta et simplicia... ut, alio detorta, trahantur a naturali 
 significatione... Jam Deo supra modum volupe est ea facere, que 
 mundi judicio stultissima et absurdissima, teste Paulo prima ad Cor. 1. 
 ..-Qui ab hac fide aberravit, ille postea quidvis et credat et comminis- 
 eatur ex sacramento. Haud magni refert... Jam videmus sex aut 
 septem sectas intra biennium emersisse, super sacramento dissentientes, 
 que tamen omnes eam sibi persuasionem persuaserant Christi corpus 
 et sanguinem non in sacramento esse... Meum est ista credere ; proinde 
 quicquid Ile dixerit, Qui mentiri nescit, hoc indubitate credam et 
 servabo. Ita verbo Se munit et implicat, aquo avelli Se non sinit ; 
 per quod etiam conservatur ille... Nihil enim ambiguitatis aut obscuri- 
 
 19—2 
 
nee 
 
 292 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 so open and so simple. To receive bread, to give thanks, to give, 
 to command, to eat and to drink. |This is My body. This is the 
 cup of My blood. For we know that Christ’s body exists, doubt- 
 less that it was born of the virgin Mary, that it suffered, and that 
 it_died, and that it rose again..... If the voice can do so much as 
 
 ‘to fill all ears...why cannot Christ do this much more efficaciously 
 
 and powerfully by His own body? How much better and more 
 enlightened a thing is a glorified body than a bodily voice ?... 
 Besides I preach the gospel concerning Christ, and by bodily voice 
 indeed bring Christ into your heart.... [Does Christ’s body get 
 into our heart by preaching? if not, inter non similia non con- 
 stat ratio. It is not to the poimt in hand—the presence of Christ’s 
 body.] Wherefore he that can attain to this by faith...to him nei- 
 ther is that other hard to be believed, that Christ’s body and blood 
 are in the sacrament.... It is not to be comprehended by reason in 
 
 ‘what way Christ puts His body and His own blood into bread and 
 
 }wine.... Consecrating the bread with these words we do not at all 
 doubt that Christ is certainly present.... As He is wont to come 
 
 into the heart without making any hole [in it or in our body], but 
 is comprehended by the mind, when we have but heard the word, 
 so also He migrates into the bread, so that there is no need of 
 a hole being cut in it for Him to enter by.... [The same analogia 
 falsa inter non similia.} But what is the meaning of Christ going 
 up to heaven? We must catch from it the persuasion that He is 
 above all creatures and in all things [Is His body in all?] and 
 outside_all...for—there_is_no need that by spoken words He be 
 drawn down from heaven into the bread... for Christ 1s every- 
 
 tatis inesse potest verbis tam apertis et simplicibus, Panem accipere, gra- 
 tias agere, dare, jubere, edere et bibere. Hoc est corpus Meum. Hic est 
 calix sanguinis Mei. Scimus enim quod Christi corpus sit, nimirum quod 6 
 Maria virgine natum est, quod passum est et quod mortuum est et quod 
 resurrexit...Si tantum potest vox consequi ut omnes aures impleat... 
 cur hoc non possit multo efficacius et potentius Christus efficere Suo 
 corpore? Quanto preestantior et Uluminatior res est corpus glorificatum 
 voce corporea ?... Preterea ego evangelium de Christo predico, et voce 
 quidem corporead Christum in cor tibi adduco.... Quare qui hoc fide 
 potest assequi... neque illud grave et arduum est creditu, corpus et 
 sanguinem Christi esse in sacramento... Ratione incomprehensibile est, 
 quo pacto Christus corpus et sanguinem Suum pani et vino immittat... 
 His dictis panem consecrantes nihil addubitamus Illum certe adesse... 
 Quemadmodum in cor pervenire solet nullo facto foramine, verum, 
 tantum audito verbo, animo comprehenditur, ita quoque in panem 
 immigrat ut non opus sit Ilum facto foramine perfodiri...Quid autem 
 sit Christum ad ccelos ascendere? Persuasio arripienda Illum esse 
 super omnes creaturas et in omnibus et extra omnes...neque enim 
 opus est ut verbis, que dicuntur, ccelitus detrahatur in panem ..nam 
 
1483] MARTIN LUTHER. 293 
 
 \ where in all creatures, in flint, in fire, in waters, ὥς. [Luther seems — 
 to forget that the question at issue 1s not whether Christ's Divinity 
 is everywhere, but whether His humanity, and therefore His body, 
 is here and in heaven at once.] He is indeed everywhere in all 
 things. But He is most of all present by His own word; although) ; 
 even in this mode He is not so near at hand as here in the’ | 
 sacrament, by which He exhibits His own flesh and blood, tied fasts | 
 in the bread and wine, to be eaten by them that believe. Be this 
 my wall of brass, that Christ both can do and does all these things 
 by His word. You have here the sum of Christian doctrine put 
 forth, p. 362. 
 
 Vol. 11. 261. “Drink ye all of 10. “I too might here like to 
 trifle easily and to mock with my words the [sacred] words of 
 Christ, as my opponent trifles with them. But by the Scriptures 
 must they be refuted when they lean on the Scriptures against us. 
 It is these very words that have prevented my condemning the 
 Bohemians, who, be they bad or be they good, certainly have 
 Christ’s word and deed on their side. But we have neither, but 
 only that empty fiction, ‘The church has ordained it so, when it is 
 not the church that has ordained them, but the tyrants over 
 churches, while the church’s 7.e. the people of God’s consent is on 
 the other side. But I beseech you what necessity was there for it? 
 What scruple had arisen? What benefit could spring from it? 
 
 To deny to laymen both kinds, 7. e. to deny them the—visible-sten——/ 
 (a bothy when all allow that they have the reality of the sacra- 
 
 ment without the sign. If they allow that laymen have the, 
 reality, which is the greater of the two, why concede they not the 
 
 nusquam non Christus in omnibus creaturis, in silice in igne in aquis, 
 &e, ... Est quidem passim in omnibus rebus. Et vero verbo Suo 
 preesentissimus: etsi per hune modum ita non sit presto ut hic in 
 sacramento, per quod carnem et sanguinem Suum, in pane et vino 
 wlligatum, credentibus manducandum exhibet. Hic murus aheneus 
 esto, Christum he omnia per verbum et posse et facere. Hic Christians 
 doctrine summam habes propositam, p. 362. 
 
 Opera, Jena, 1581, Vol. 1]. p. 261. De Cap. Bab. Ecce. anno XX. 
 Bibite ex eo omnes. 
 
 Vellem et hic nugari facile et verbis meis illudere verba Christi, 
 ut meus nugator facit. Sed Scripturis redarguendi sunt, qui Scripturis 
 nituntur contra nos. Hee sunt que me prohibuerunt Bohemos damnare, 
 qui sive sint mali sive boni, certe verbum et factum Christi habent pro se. 
 Nos autem neutrum, sed tantum inane illud hominum commentum, Eccle- 
 sla sic ordinavit ; cum non ecclesia, sed tyranni ecclesiarum, citra consen- 
 sum ecclesiz, i.e. populi Dei, ista ordinarint. Obsecro autem que sit 
 necessitas ? que religio? que utilitas ? laicis negare utramque speciem, 
 i.e. signum visibile, quando omnes concedunt eis rem sacramenti sine 
 signo? Si rem concedunt, que major est, cur signum quod minus est 
 
᾿ 
 
 2901 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 sign, which is the less thing of the two? [P. 263.] The holy 
 Cardinal Camera formerly gave me cause for reflexion, when I was 
 drinking: in scholastic philosophy, disputing most acutely on the 
 fourth book of the Sentences: saying that it is much more proba- 
 ble, and that less superfluous miracle would require to be assumed, 
 if there were on the altar true bread and true wine, and if no theory 
 of accidents only had to be raised, but then the church had deter- 
 mined the contrary. [Was not this Camera’s veiled irony, like 
 Gerson’s?] Afterwards when I saw what church it was, vz. that 
 which was guided by Thomas Aquinas, ze. by Aristotle, which 
 had determined this, I became bolder.... That there is (that is to 
 say) true bread and true wine, and that in it Christ’s true flesh 
 ἐπα true blood are (present), no otherwise and no less than they 
 ‘are declared to be under their own assumed accidents. [His con- 
 ‘substantiation is the presence both of the flesh and blood entire 
 and of the bread and wine entire.] [P. 264] If therefore tran- 
 substantiation is to be laid down, to prevent the body of Christ 
 being truly said of bread, why is not transaccidentation laid down 
 to prevent Christ’s body being truly predicated of one of its acci- 
 dents? Does not Christ seem admirably to have met this disposi- 
 tion to enquire when He said not concerning the wine, ‘ This thing 
 
 ἐμ (neuter) is My blood, but This (masc.) is my blood.’ [The Greek 
 _ word is neuter: and so is the Greek word for blood.] The third 
 ‘captivity of the same sacrament is that which is that most 
 
 impious abuse of all, by which it has come to pass that there is 
 hardly anything that is at this day more generally received in the 
 
 * church or of which men are more persuaded than that the Mass is 
 
 a meritorious (good) work and a sacrifice. And this abuse has let 
 
 non concedunt? P. 263. Dedit mihi quondam, cum theologiam 
 scholasticam haurirem, occasionem cogitandi D. Cardinalis Camera, 
 libro sententiarum quarto acutissime disputans: multo probabilius 
 esse et minus superfluorum miraculorum, si in altari verus panis 
 verumque vinum, non autem sola accidentia astruerentur, nisi ecclesia 
 determinasset contrarium. Postea videns que sit ecclesia que hoc 
 determinasset, nempe Thomistica, hoc est, Aristotelica, audacior factus 
 sum... Esse videlicet verum panem verumque vinum, in quibus Christi 
 vera caro verusque sanguis non aliter nec minus sit quam illi sub 
 accidentibus suis ponunt. P. 264, Si ideo est transubstantiatio po- 
 nenda ne corpus Christi de pane verificetur, cur non etiam ponitur 
 transaccidentatio ne corpus Christi de accidente verificetur. [See 
 passage in Hen. VIII.] Nonne Christus videtur huic curiositati pulchre 
 occurrisse cum non de vino dixerit, Hoc est sanguis meus, sed Hic 
 est sanguis meus [where the Greek is Τοῦτο]. Tertia captivitas ejus- Ὁ 
 dem sacramenti est longe impiissimus ille abusus, quo factum est ut 
 fere nihil sit hodie in ecclesia receptius ac magis persuasum, quam 
 missam esse opus bonum et sacrificium, Qui abusus deinde inundayit 
 
1489] MARTIN LUTHER. 295 
 
 in an infinite flood of other abuses, until faith has wholly died out 
 of the sacrament, and men have made out of the sacrament of God 
 mere fairs, and entertainments and a kind of agreements for making , 
 money. This is how associations, brotherhoods, suffrages, merits, 
 anniversaries, commemorations and that kind of matters are sold 
 in church, bought, bargained for, and got up, and the whole living 
 of the priests and of the monks is brought to depend on such trans- 
 actions. I attempt a business that is difficult and that perhaps 
 may prove impossible to be torn up by the roots, since it is one 
 that has been confirmed by the custom of so many ages and a 
 general consent, and thus has so settled down that the greater part 
 of the books that at this day are supreme and almost the entire 
 face of the churches must be taken away and changed, and an 
 entirely different kind of ceremonies must be brought in or rather 
 brought back. But my Christ is living, and we are to treat the 
 word of God with more respect than the understandings of all men 
 or even angels. Therefore I will do my part, &., &e. 
 
 P. 263. “And when you shall frequent the supper be mindful 
 of Me. Preach of this My great love and bounty towards thee 
 and praise Me and give thanks.... But at this time how small 
 a part of men knows that the Mass is Christ’s promise—not to 
 speak of those impious reciters of fables, that teach men’s tradi- 
 tions instead of Christ’s great promise.... We are not to do many 
 works and to bring them to God, but to believe all and to receive 
 all that are there promised to us.... It is therefore right to say 
 that the whole virtue of the mass consists in the words in 
 
 infinitos alios abusus, donec fide sacramenti penitus. extincta, meras 
 nundinas cauponationes et queestuarios quosdam contractus e Divino 
 sacramento fecerint. Hine participationes fraternitates suffragia merita 
 anniversaria memorize et id genus negotiorum in ecclesia venduntur 
 emuntur paciscuntur componuntur, pendetque in his universa alimonia 
 sacerdotum et monachorum. Rem arduam et quam [que] forte sit 
 impossibile convelli aggredior [Luther had read Tacitus], ut que, tanto 
 seculorum usu firmata omniumque consensu probata, sic insederit 
 ut necesse sit majorem partem librorum qui hodie regnant, et pene 
 universarum ecclesiarum faciem tolli et mutari, penitusque aliud genus 
 ceremoniarum induci seu potius reduci. Sed Christus meus vivit, 
 et majori cura verbum Dei oportet observare quam omnium hominum 
 et angelorum intellegentias. Ergo mea vice fungar. 
 
 P. 263. 
 
 Quod cum frequentaveris Mei memor sis. Hance meam in te 
 charitatem et largitatem predices et laudes et gratias agas... At nunc 
 quota pars novit missam esse promissionem Christi? ut taceam impios 
 fabulatores qui humanas traditiones vice tant promissionis docent... 
 Non multa operari et afferre sed omnia credere et accipere que tibi 
 illic promittuntur... Recte itaque dicis totam virtutem misse consistere 
 
296 THE.SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 which Christ testifies that forgiveness of sins is given to all them 
 that believe. 
 
 P. 268. “Now another stumblingblock too must be removed 
 which is both much greater and most specious. It is that the 
 mass 15 everywhere believed to be a sacrifice that is offered to 
 Godx And to this opinion the words of the Rule of the mass are 
 ~~consonant, when it is said ‘these gifts, these contributions, these 
 
 ‘holy_sacrifices.’ And further on, ‘This offering’ It is also most 
 clearly entreated that the sacrifice may be accepted, like as Abel’s 
 sacrifice, &e. Thence too Christ is called ‘the host (victim) of the 
 ‘altar.’ Added to this there are the sayings of the holy fathers, 
 such a band of examples of it, and a church custom of constant 
 observance through the world. We ought most constantly to set 
 ‘in opposition to these things, which have most perseveringly 
 settled down, Christ’s example and Christ’s words. For till we 
 shall have won an acknowledgment that the mass is Christ’s promise 
 and testament (will), as is the plain meaning of the words, we 
 have lost our whole gospel and all our comfort. Let us not 
 permit anything to become prevalent that is contrary to these 
 words, were an angel from heaven to teach differently. For those 
 «words contain nothing abeut-a—meritorious work or about a sacri- 
 fice, Thus Christ’s example is on our side. For Christ in His 
 last supper, when He was instituting this sacrament and arranging 
 this His will, did not offer Himself to God the Father, nor did He 
 perform it as a good work for others, but sitting at the table He 
 propounded the same testament for each one and exhibited the 
 
 in verbis Christi quibus testatur remissionem peccatorum donari omnibus 
 qui credunt, Ke, 
 ἊΣ 268. 
 
 Jam et alterum scandalum amovendum est, quod multo grandius 
 est et speciosissimum. -Id est quod missa creditur passim esse sacrificium 
 quod offertur Deo ; in quam opinionem et verba Canonis sonare videntur, 
 ubi dicitur, Hee dona, hee munera, hee sancta sacrificia, Et infra, 
 Hane oblationem. Item clarissime postulatur, ut acceptum sit sacri- 
 ficium sicut sacrificium Habel, &c. Inde Christus hostia altaris dicitur. 
 Accedunt his dicta 8. patrum, tot exempla tantusque usus per orbem 
 constanter observatus. His omnibus, que pertinacissime insederunt, 
 oportet constantissime opponere verba et exemplum Christi. Nisi enim 
 missam obtinuerimus esse promissionem Christi seu testamentum, ut 
 verba clare sonant, totum evangelium et universum solatium amittimus. 
 Nihil contra hee verba permittamus preevalere, etiamsi angelus de 
 ccelo aliud docuerit. Nihil enim de opere vel sacrificio in illis continetur. 
 Deinde exemplum Christi pro nobis stat. Non enim Christus in cena 
 novissima, cum institueret hoe sacramentum et conderet testamentum, 
 Tpsum obtulit Deo Patri, aut ut opus bonum pro aliis perfecit ; sed in 
 mensa sedens singulis idem testamentum proposuit et signum exhibuit. 
 
1489] MARTIN LUTHER. 297 
 
 sign of it. Now the nearer and the more like a modern mass is to 
 the first mass of all, which Christ performed at the supper, so 
 much the more Christian is it. But Christ’s mass was most 
 simple, without any point of vestments and singing and other 
 ceremonies ; but if it had been necessary that it should be offered 
 as a sacrifice, would He not then have completely instituted it as 
 such? [P. 269.] It is a safer course to deny everything about 
 the mass than to concede that it is a (meritorious) work [in 
 itself] or a sacrifice, for fear we should deny Christ’s word and 
 corrupt faith and the mass too. Faith alone is peace for the 
 = 72 
 conscience. 
 
 Jam missa quanto vicinior et similior prime omnium misse quam 
 Christus in cena fecit, tanto Christianior, At missa Christi fuit 
 simplicissima, sine ulla vestium cantuum aliarumque ceremoniarum 
 pompa ; ubi, si necesse fuisset eam offerri ut sacrificium, non plene 
 eam instituisset? P. 269. Tutius est omnia negare quam missam 
 concedere opus aut sacrificilum esse, ne verbum Christi negemus, fidem 
 simul cum missa pessundantes... Fides sola est pax conscientiz, 
 
 (D.) KING HENRY VIII. OF ENGLAND. B. 1491. Ὁ. 1546. 
 (E.) AND BISHOP JOHN FISHER OF ROCHESTER. B. 1459. Ὁ. 1535. 
 
 Bishop Fisher was both born and educated at Beverley, the 
 lighter architecture of whose Minster rivals the more masculine 
 strength of York Cathedral, which divides with Durham the glory 
 of being the noblest of English houses of prayer. Attached to the 
 suite of Lady Margaret, Countess of Richmond and mother of 
 Henry VIL, he became the first professor on her foundation at 
 Cambridge and President of Queens’ College. He rose to his 
 bishopric in 1504 and had the high moral honour of subsequently 
 refusing richer bishoprics. It is not unlikely that Henry VIII. in 
 writing his book in defence of the Seven Sacraments against 
 Luther supplied any weak points in his own learning from the 
 bishop’s wider reading; but that the book is Henry’s own rests on 
 internal evidence contained in Fisher’s own acknowledged defence 
 of the king in Fisher's treatise against Luther's noble “ Babylonic 
 Captivity.” Ulrich Valene then raised the point that St Peter was 
 never at Rome. Fisher had already shewn himself above the temp- 
 tations of money; he alas! soon felt himself obliged not only to 
 protest against the divorce of Catherine by the king and against 
 
298 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the Act that confirmed the succession in Queen Anne, but also to — 
 oppose the king’s supremacy. He came also under suspicion of 
 treason in the matter of the Nun of Kent and was imprisoned 
 in the Tower; and it is recorded that when the pope in reward of 
 his fidelity offered him a cardinal’s hat, the king exclaimed with 
 one of the profane oaths of the time, “He shall wear it on his 
 “shoulders then, for I will leave him never a head to set it on.” 
 Accordingly he was visited in London’s fortress and entrapped 
 into an express denial of the Royal Supremacy, and then con- 
 demned and executed like Sir Thomas More for the same crime on 
 Tower Hill: and his sacred person was subjected to gross indigni- 
 ties, that marked what barbarism was yet lingering in England. 
 His papers too were seized and burned; but enough remained to 
 fill one folio volume, which appeared sixty years later, not in 
 England but on the Continent. But a member of St John’s, 
 Cambridge, has commemorated the benefactions of Lady Mar- 
 garet, by putting forth Bishop Fisher’s funeral sermon preached 
 at her decease, and annexing lists of the professors and preachers 
 on her foundations at Oxford as well as at Cambridge. But his 
 biographer is John Lewis, in two vols. London, 1855; who calls 
 Baily’s life of him, published two hundred years earlier, “a short 
 “and partial memoir.’ Let Fisher have his place among those 
 worthies of England in past ages, who did not attain to Reforma- 
 tion light. 
 
 Assertion of the Seven Sacraments against M. Luther. 
 
 [Luther says in his reply, “I have heard through witnesses 
 “worthy of credit that the book published with Thy Majesty’s 
 “name is not the king’s.”] P.12. “When Ambrose says that 
 there is nothing else but flesh and blood, he openly contradicts 
 Iuther, who says that there is bread together with flesh and wine 
 together with blood. [P.14.] If he brings back that thing to the 
 
 Henry VIII. of England’s Assertio Septem Sacramentorum adversus 
 Mart. Lutherum, Paris, 1562; of which Luther says in his reply to 
 the King, “ Fide dignis testibus didici libellum sub Majestatis Tue 
 nomine editum non esse Regis Anglie,” d&c.; attributed by some 
 to Fisher, Bp. of Rochester. 
 
 Pr ane. 
 Quum Ambrosius dicat nihil esse aliud quam carnem et sanguinem, 
 aperte contradicit Luthero, qui simul cum carne dicit esse panem, et 
 simul cum sanguine vinum, P. 146, Si eam rem ad exactam evan- 
 
1491] KING HENRY VIII. AND BISHOP FISHER. 299 
 
 exact form approved by evangelic reason and does not allow any 
 authority to the church, why does he not command the eucharist 
 to be always received during supper, yea even after supper ? 
 [P. 15.] If the entire church’s custom does not make a thing 
 right, so that the form (species) of wine may be omitted in the 
 case of laity, by what authority does Luther dare to put water. 
 into the wine? [See Durand de St Porcian for arguments against 
 it.]... On this point Luther makes some prating against us. I 
 certainly think it safer to believe that the laity are rightly com- 
 municated in either kind alone, than that the whole clergy, as he 
 disputes, through all ages have been for this one cause in damna- 
 tion, [P.19.] A thing which Luther sharply argues, yea trifles 
 in...when Christ says regarding the wine, not ‘This thing is My 
 ‘blood,’ but ‘This is My blood’ [as in the Vulgate.]... Christ would 
 appear to have been more on their side, if He had said, ‘This 
 
 thing is My blood.” [This slip shews how unsafe it is not to 
 know Greek. | 
 
 P. 40. “Next Luther teaches that the bread and the wine, 
 which the ancients confess to be converted into the Lord’s body 
 and blood, still remain unchanged, so that in order he by degrees 
 passes over the honour from Christ into the bread. Then though 
 he does not condemn the church for having adorned and amplified 
 the mass with rites and ceremonies, yet he thinks that the mass 
 would be much more Christian if the pomp of all the vestments, 
 singings, gestures and other ceremonies should be taken away, so 
 
 gelice rationis formam revocat neque quicquam prorsus permittit 
 ecclesiz, cur eucharistiam non jubet semper in ccena recipi, imo vero 
 post cenam? P. 15. Si totius ecclesize consuetudo rectum non facit, 
 ut in laicis omittatur species vini, qua ratione aquam in vinum audet 
 Lutherus infundere? [See Buxtorf, deS. J. From his account it is 
 doubtful whether the Jews put water into the wine at the passover. | 
 Qua de re Lutherus aliquid obgannit. Ego certe tutius opinor credere 
 laicos recte sub altera tantum specie communicatos quam per tota 
 secula totum clerum, quod iste disputat, hac und de causa fuisse 
 damnatum. P. 196. Quod argutatur, imo nugatur Lutherus...quum 
 de vino dicit Christus non, Hoc est sanguis Meus, sed, Hic est sanguis 
 Meus... Videretur magis pro eo fecisse si dixisset Christus, Hoc est 
 sanguis Meus. [The king quotes the Vulgate rightly, Mark xiv. 22, 
 but the Greek has τοῦτο. | 
 
 P. 40 6. 
 
 Deinde panem et vinum, que veteres conversa fatentur in corpus 
 et sanguinem Domini, Lutherus adhue manere docet integra, ut ordine 
 paulatim honorem a Christo traducat in panem. Tum, licet non 
 damnat ecclesiam, que ritibus et ceremoniis ornavit et ampliavit 
 missam, tamen censet quod foret missa multo Christianior, si vestium 
 cantnum gestuum et ceterarum ceremoniarum omnium pompa tolle- 
 
800 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that it might be nearer and more like the first mass of all which 
 Christ celebrated in the supper with the apostles: yea even so 
 that very little indeed may remain to stir the simple minds of the 
 low people and by honouring with visible majesty turn them to 
 commemorate the invisible Deity. On these points he teaches 
 and by all means inculcates, that the mass is not a good work, 
 that it is not a sacrifice, that it is not an oblation, ὅθ. [P. 41.] 
 Luther therefore, after he had taught a brief and compendium- 
 like preparation for receiving the Lord’s supper, vz. of faith only 
 in the promise, with no good works, with the lightest searching of 
 the conscience—lastly that there may be nothing lacking to abso- 
 lute holiness in order to receive the eucharist, opens his own 
 heart’s wish, how often, and in what part of the year he for the 
 ‘most part wishes the people to be obliged to receive the com- 
 munion, namely at no time at all. What then? What? Is any 
 one so blind as not to see to what point these very vile things 
 tend? Surely to nothing short of the people gradually revolting 
 from the communion of the sacrament altogether, as they first 
 took the downward path from daily communion to every seventh 
 day, afterwards put it off longer, and at length seem about to come 
 to an end altogether, &c., unless the fathers in fear of that: very 
 thing had sanctioned the law that every one should communicate 
 thrice a year. [P. 42.] Luther may be able to gain his point that 
 the mass shall be spoiled not only of its apparatus and cere- 
 monies but also of the full attendance hope and veneration of the 
 people. These then are those redoubtable promises of Luther. 
 
 retur, ut esset vicinior et similior prime omnium misse quam Christus 
 in cena celebravit cum apostolis: immo vero ut quam minimum su- 
 persit eorum qu simplices animos plebecule commoveat et in com- 
 memorationem numinis invisibilis visibilis honore majestatis convertat. 
 Ad hee docet et omnibus modis inculeat, missam bonum opus non 
 esse, sacrificium non esse, oblationem non esse, ὅθ, P. 41 a. Lutherus 
 ergo, posteaquam preparationem istam docuit brevem et compendiariam 
 ad suscipiendam eucharistiam nempe in sola fide promissionis, nullis 
 operibus bonis levissima disquisitione conscientix, postremo nequidquam 
 desit absolute sanctimoniz ad suscipiendam eucharistiam, suum votum 
 aperit, quoties et quibus anni partibus potissimum velit cogi populum 
 communionem sumere, nempe prorsus nullo. Quid ita? Quid? 
 An quisquam tam cecus est ut non videat quorsum hee tam putida 
 tendant? Certe non aliorsum quam ut populus sensim a communione 
 sacramenti ‘desciscat in totum, qui primum a quotidiana communione 
 deflexit in septimum quemque diem, post in longius distulit, tandem 
 destiturus videbitur omnino, nisi patres, illud veriti, sanxissent ut 
 ter in anno quisque communicaret, ὅθ. P. 42. Lutherus obtinere 
 possit ut missa non apparatu tantum et cerimoniis sed populi quoque 
 frequentid spe ac veneratione spolietur. Hc sunt ergo preclara illa 
 promissa Lutheri. 
 
1459] KING HENRY VIII. AND BISHOP FISHER. 301 
 
 Bishop Fisher’s Defence of the Assertions of the King of England 
 regarding the Catholic Church against Luther's ‘Captivity in 
 Babylon.’ 
 
 P. 39. “There is no doubt that many customs have been 
 introduced by the Holy Spirit into the church, beyond what have 
 been delivered to the Scripture to record and of which there is no 
 mention in Scripture. Where the Scriptures are awanting, it will 
 be sufficient that the practice was brought in by reason or cus- 
 tom. Among customs there is very great difference. If it be 
 a bad one, it is now credible that it was introduced by a malig- 
 nant spirit. But if on the other hand it should be holy and 
 healthful, and from age to age approved by Christians, I in no 
 respect doubt but that this was inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 P. 68. “In this matter the most holy and most learned martyr 
 Cyprian affirms that it had been enjoined by God’s inspiration and 
 commandment, that we should not offer the cup with water only, 
 or with wine only, but mingled with wine. Next he asserts that 
 Christ did that very thing in the supper, which he confirms out of 
 Scripture and chietly from Solomon’s Proverbs, ix. ‘ Wisdom hath 
 ‘builded a house for herself, and mingled her wine in the cup,’ 
 [See Henry VIII’s writing on this and the reference there. This, 
 excusable in Cyprian at the third century, should hardly have 
 satisfied an English bishop even in the first half of the sixteenth 
 century. | 
 
 Bp. Fisher's Assertionum Regis Anglic de fide Catholica, adversus Lutheri 
 Babylon. Capt., defensio. Paris, 1562, 
 
 99: δὲ 
 
 Multas non est dubium a Spiritu Sancto consuetudines introductas 
 in ecclesiam fuisse; citra quam Scripture nobis tradite fuerunt, de 
 quibus in scripturis nulla fit mentio...ubi Seripture desunt, illic aut 
 rationem aut consuetudinem attulisse sufficiet... Inter consuetudines 
 plurimum interest... Si prava sit, jam credibile est eam a maligno 
 spiritu fuisse introductam. Sin contra sancta salutarisque fuerit et 
 generatim ab omnibus approbata Christianis, hane ego nihil ambigo 
 quin a Spiritu sancto fuisset inspirata. 
 
 EGS: 
 
 Hic sanctissimus et doctissimus martyr (Cyprianus) a Deo sibi 
 inspirante et mandante fuisse preceptum aflirmat, ut calicem non aqua 
 sola nec vino solo sed vino mixtum offeramus. Deinde Christum id 
 ipsum asserit in cceni fecisse; quod et postea ex scripturis confirmat 
 et potissimum ex Salomone, Proy. viii., Sapientia sedificavit 5101 domum 
 ...miscuit in eratere vinum swum. 
 
902 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 75. “He said, ‘This is My body’: not ‘ This is bread,’ as 
 Luther interprets it. For in the mean time, after He had re- 
 ceived the bread and before He had handed it to His apostles to 
 eat, He converted it into His own body: so that the apostles did 
 not now receive bread but the body of Christ, into which the 
 bread had been previously converted. If that bread had remained 
 bread and had not been changed into Christ’s body, Christ would 
 have said, ‘This (masc.) is My body,’ that the pronoun might be of 
 the same gender as bread, &c. 
 
 [King Henry had used a wrong term “Creative substance,” or 
 it might be rendered “Creator substance ;” Fisher advances to 
 defend him, p. 100.] “But because Luther by the example of 
 ignited iron contended that the substance of bread can remain 
 with Christ’s body, the king with that fervour of faith which he 
 has towards the most sacred body of Christ added somewhat. He 
 said, ‘Whoever thinks of the most blessed body of Christ as he 
 ought, will more easily assent that any two bodies can remain 
 joined together, than that another body should remain with the 
 venerated body of Christ.’ For neither is any substance worthy to 
 be mingled with that substance, which has founded (created) all 
 substances. Nor does the king here mean by creative substance 
 the flesh of Christ to be understood, as Luther in many words 
 afterwards nonsensically talks; but the king means (by this) 
 Christ Himself who created all things.” 
 
 ant: 
 
 Dixit, Hoc est corpus Meum: non hic panis, ut Lutherus inter- 
 pretatur. Nam interea postquam acceperat panem et antequam apos- 
 tolis ad edendum porrexerat, convertit ipsum in Suum corpus: ut jam 
 non panem acceperint apostoli, sed Christi corpus, in quod fuerit panis 
 ante conversus. Si panis iste mansisset panis, nec mutatus fuisset in 
 Christi corpus, dixisset Christus, Hic est corpus Meum, ut esset 
 pronomen ejusdem generis, cujus erat et panis, &c. [The answer is 
 the old usage in Greek of writing under pictures not Τοῦτο δένδρον 
 only under a tree, but under a horse Τοῦτο ἵππος, Xe. | 
 
 The King seems to have used the words “ creatrix substantia : so 
 Fisher writes, p. 100 a. Czterum quia Lutherus contendit hoc ex- 
 emplo (igniti ferri) manere posse substantiam panis una cum corpore 
 Christi, rex, ex fervore fidei quam habet erga sacratissimum Christi 
 corpus, nonnihil adjecit. Quisquis [inquit] beatissimum Christi corpus 
 sic ut debet existimat, facilius assentietur quascunque duas substantias 
 simul manere conjunctas, quam ullum corpus aliud manere cum 
 venerando corpore Christi. Neque enim ulla substantia digna est, que 
 cum ea misceatur substantia, gue substantias omnes condidit. Neque 
 hic per “creatricem substantiam ” rex carnem Christi vult intelligi, 
 quemadmodum Lutherus multis verbis postea blaterat, sed ipsum 
 Christum qui cuncta creavit. 
 
1459] KING HENRY VIII. AND BISHOP FISHER. 393 
 
 It is plain that the king had slipped in using the word caro 
 with creatrix: and if the bishop wished to maintain that a king 
 cannot argue wrong, he should have looked more closely after the 
 king’s original treatise. But it is of use, for if Fisher was inca- 
 pable of such a slip, the king himself and not Bishop John Fisher 
 wrote the first treatise. 
 
 (F.) PHILIP MELANCHTHON (SCHWARTZERDT). B. 1497. 
 D. 1560. 
 
 There were deficiencies in the character of his mind: but no 
 one can read such modern volumes as those of Archdeacon Hare 
 and D’Aubigné without seeing that in the German Reformation 
 this doctor, born at little Bretten in the Palatinate, held the rudder 
 that directed its course. Witness the keeping of Luther at 
 a distance, praying in his solitude four hours each day, while | 
 Melanchthon and others fought hand to hand at Augsburg with 
 the great powers and men of learning on the Roman side. But, 
 if Melanchthon “helmed the business,” Luther was the mighty 
 steam-power, which, under God, forced the noble vessel on. And 
 most pleasant it is to see how Luther from first to last loved and 
 appreciated this wonderful man, calling him “his dear Philip.” 
 That he did not diverge and that the great movement itself did not 
 diverge from straight-forward Bible truth in successively adopting 
 the various forms in which the doctrine of the Lord’s supper was 
 presented by Melanchthon’s ready pen, in the heart of the con- 
 flict, who shall venture to affirm? The marvel is that the wrong 
 words that crept in were so few. 
 
 His name was probably given him after a German prince, to 
 whom his father was chief gentleman-at-arms. When he was 
 paying a visit to his mother in his 32nd year she in the simplicity 
 of her piety asked him what to believe out of the various dis- 
 cussions that seemed to her so new and strange, and his reply was 
 that, with simple belief and fervent prayer like hers, she would 
 beyond all question be saved. He learned Latin from a John of 
 Hungary and Greek from George Semler. He left the University 
 of Heidelberg at fifteen for Tiitbingen, to be near to Reuchlin at 
 Stuttgard. He had published several classical works and had 
 refused many attractive posts, when he became professor of lan- 
 
304 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. _ [A.D. 
 
 guages at Wittenberg at twenty-one years of age. In a year 
 he was engaged on Luther’s side in a struggle with Eck and 
 became professor of theology. In three years his Loci Communes . 
 appeared. At twenty-seven he vainly endeavoured to conciliate 
 Erasmus and Luther. The opinions of the unlucky Carlstadt 
 on this sacrament and the horrible war of the peasants vexed 
 his quiet spirit. But the latter he thought arose from too much 
 liberty. From his appearance at Spires in 1529 his movements 
 and almost his words are German church history, and many of 
 them form part of the history of the universal church, till he was 
 laid at the side of Luther in the churchyard at Wittenberg. 
 
 P. 257. “But when Luke and Paul say, ‘This is the cup of 
 ‘the New Testament,’ it is, so to speak, the figure metonymy : 
 as if I were to say, the fasces of the Roman empire. Afterward 
 consideration is very necessary to see why express mention is here 
 made of the New Testament, and particularly in that part of the ᾿ 
 narration where the blood is mentioned. A testament is a promise 
 of one that is about to die. Therefore this word has been used 
 concerning the promise of the Son of God giving His benefits, 
 that His coming death might be signified, as it has been written 
 '(by Paul) to the Hebrews. The New Testament is a promise 
 of eternal good things—of remission of sins, of the Holy Spirit, 
 - οὗ righteousness~and of life eternal, which are freely supplied 
 ' through the Messiah; not through the law.... Know certainly 
 that eternal good things are supplied on account of the blood 
 
 "bof the Son of God shed in His own death. No man’s work earns 
 
 “those eternal good things left to us for the Son’s death. This 
 rite [of the supper] is not then a sacrifice to earn these good 
 
 On 1 Corinthians XI. Vol. IV. p. 257. Wittenberg, 1601. 
 
 Cum autem Lucas et Paulus dicunt, Hoc est calix novi Testamenti, 
 μετωνυμία est, ut ita dicam ; ut si dicam, Fasces sunt imperium Romanum. 
 Deinde valde necessaria est consideratio cur hic expresse facta sit 
 mentio Novi Testamenti, et quidem in e4 narratione ubi fit mentio 
 sanguinis. Testamentum est promissio morituri. Ideo usurpata est 
 hee vox de promissione Filii Dei donantis Sua beneficia, ut signifi- 
 caretur ventura mors, sicut ad Hebreos scriptum est. Novum Testa- 
 mentum est promissio bonorum eternorum—remissionis peccatorum, 
 Spiritus sancti, justitie et vite eterne, que propter Messiam gratis 
 exhibentur, non propter legem...Scias certo exhiberi bona eeterna propter _ 
 sanguinem Filii Dei effusam in Ipsius morte. Non opus ullius hominis 
 meretur illa eterna bona legata propter Filii mortem. Non igitur 
 hic ritus sacrificium est quod mereatur facienti et aliis hee bona, 
 
1497] MELANCHTHON. 305 
 
 things for him that offereth it and for others [for whom he offers 
 it], but it testifies that they are furnished to us, and they must be 
 received by faith, that leans on the sacrifice of the Son of God 
 Himself, not on any merits of ours. This most expansive doctrine 
 has been comprehended in this appellation of the New Testament, 
 which here we cannot embrace entire. I only briefly admonish you 
 that the fountain-head of this doctrine must be searched out as 
 often as we think on the supper of the Lord and as often as 
 we approach to it. This is a manifest refutation of sacrificers and 
 of Anabaptism, since it is the rite of a new promise, which is free; 
 it is not a sacrifice to earn this for others. Also since it is a rite 
 of the New Testament that the things left to us by the Son may 
 be supplied to us, it testifies and is a pledge of God’s will towards 
 us; not only a ceremony signifying love to one another as the 
 Anabaptists say. It is also a notable detail that Christ orders 
 that this rite be observed until He come.... That God will ever 
 preserve the church in this life until the resurrection of the dead, 
 even a public ministration of the sacraments, public assemblies, 
 and some hospitalities of churches. These sweet consolations are 
 contained in this brief detail. ... 
 
 Augsburg Confession, 1530. P. 48. “ Perhaps the mutilation , 
 of the ceremony [by giving the bread only to the laity] was a sign ἢ 
 that the gospel had become obscured in relation to the blood of ἣ 
 Christ: ὦ 6. concerning the benefits of His death. 
 
 P. 46. “Nor does anything from the beginning of the world 
 
 sed testatur ea exhiberi et fide ea accipi oportet, que nititur Ipsius 
 Filii Dei sacrificio non ullis nostris meritis. Heec amplissima doctrina 
 comprehensa est in hac appellatione Novi Testamenti, quam hic in- 
 tegram complecti non possumus. Tantum breviter admoneo hujus 
 doctrine fontes requirendos esse, quoties de ceend4 Domini cogitamus 
 et quoties ad eam accidimus. Manifesta refutatio est sacrificorum et 
 Anabaptismi: cum sit ritus nove promissionis que est gratuita, non 
 est sacrificium quod aliis mereatur. Item, cum est ritus Novi Testa- 
 menti nobis exhiberi legata a Filio, testatur et pignus est voluntatis 
 Dei erga nos; non tantum est ceremonia mutuz dilectionis ut Ana- 
 baptist dicunt. Est et hee particula insignis quod hune ritum servari 
 Jubet Christus “ donec venerit”... Deum semper in hac vitd usque ad 
 resuscitationem mortuorum servaturum esse ecclesiam, publicum minis- 
 terium sacramentorum publicos congressus et aliqua ecclesiarum hos- 
 pitia. He dulces consolationes in hac brevi particula continentur. 
 
 Augsburg Confession, 1530, p. 48. On denying the cup to the Laity. 
 | Fortassis ceremonie mutilatio significavit obscuratum esse evange- 
 lium de sanguine Christi, ἢ. 6. de beneficiis mortis Christi. 
 P. 46. 
 
 Nec videtur ulla res ab initio mundi adeo vulgo ad questum 
 ἘΠῚ TT, 20 
 
306 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 appear to have been so commonly made to bring in money, as the 
 mass. And perhaps it is for this reason that the church is specially 
 punished in these last days by blindness, by discords, by wars and 
 by many other plagues.... The opinion of their abuse is dispersed 
 in the church. Men interpret it as a sacrifice, that is, a work, 
 which, used for others, merits for them the remission of their 
 fault and punishments, and that simply by the work being done 
 without any good emotion on the part of him that usesit. They 
 so interpret it that an oblation is made by the priest in the mass 
 for the living and the dead. Then it was enquired whether one 
 mass said for several does them as much good as one for each. 
 This disputation augmented to an infinite amount both the num- 
 ber and the gain from the masses. It is not possible to obtain 
 ‘remission of sins on account of another man’s work, and indeed 
 without a good movement of the heart, 7. 6. without faith of one’s 
 own. This reason clearly enough refutes that monstrous and 
 impious opinion of the merit and application of the mass. [P. 47.] 
 A satisfaction was made once for all for the sins of all by the 
 sacrifice of Christ. [This honour of Christ’s sacrifice ought not to 
 
 » be transferred-to a priest's work. For (Paul) says eloquently 
 
 “that by one oblation the saints have been perfected.’ In these 
 things it is impious to transfer to a priest’s work what ought 
 to rest on the oblation itself and on the intercession of Christ 
 the High-Priest. Much more absurd is it that the mass is given 
 to free the souls of the dead. For the mass was instituted for 
 
 “remembrance, &c., &c. Nor is the mass a satisfaction for punish- 
 
 ment, but it was instituted for the remission of faults, 2.e. uot to 
 
 collata esse ac missa. Et fortassis propter eam causam precipue plec- 
 titur ecclesia his postremis temporibus, cecitate, discordiis, bellis et 
 aliis multis pestibus... Abusus opinio est sparsa in ecclesia. Inter- 
 pretantur sacrificium, opus videlicet quod, applicatum pro aliis, meretur 
 eis remissionem culpze et pcenarum, idque ex opere operato sine bono 
 motu utentis. Sic interpretantur oblationem a sacerdote in missa fieri 
 pro vivis et mortuis. Deinde querebatur utrum una missa dicta pro 
 pluribus tantum prosit quantum singule pro singulis. Hee dispn- 
 tatio et numerum missarum et questum in infinitum auxit. Impossibile 
 est conseq'ti remissionem peccatorum propter alienum opus et quidem 
 sine bono motu, i.e. sine fide propria. Hec ratio satis clare refutat 
 illam prodigiosam et impiam opinionem de merito et applicatione 
 misse. P. 47. Christi sacrificio semel satisfactum esse pro omnium 
 peccatis. Hic honos sacrificii Christi non debet transferri in opus sacer- 
 dotis. Diserte enim dicit (Paulus), Una oblatione sanctos consuminatos 
 esse. Ad hee impium est, que niti debent ipsd Pontificis Christi obla- 
 tione et intercessione, transferre in opus sacerdotis. Multo absurdius 
 est quod missa confertur ad liberandas animas mortuorum. Nam missa 
 instituta est ad recordationem, &c. ὅθ. Nec missa est satisfactio pro 
 pend sed instituta est propter remissionem culpe, videlicet non ut 
 
1497] MELANCHTHON. 307 
 
 be a satisfaction for a fault, but to be a sacrament, by the use of 
 which we may be admonished of Christ’s benefit and the remission 
 of our faults. A ceremony without faith in the New Testament 
 earns nothing for him that performs it, nor for others. By one’s own 
 faith the application of the benefit of Christ takes place.... And 
 this application of it is made freely. Therefore the application is 
 not made by another man’s work, nor on account of another man’s 
 work.... The institution of the sacrament is at war with that 
 abuse; for no injunction is given about an oblation for sins of ther 
 living and the dead: but it is enjoined that the body and blood 
 of the Lord should be received: and that that should be done for 
 the remembrance—of the benefit by Christ.. For a remembrance 
 signifies not only some representation of an historical fact, as if it 
 were seen in a spectacle, as they dream who defend merit from 
 the mere doing of the thing, but it signifies by faith to remember 
 the promise and the benefit, to comfort the conscience and to give 
 thanks for so great a benefit. For the principal cause of institu- 
 ting it is that faith may there be stimulated and exercised when 
 we receive this pledge of grace.... These arguments and many 
 other testify, &c. Never, most excellent emperor, did a greater 
 cause come up in the church, nor more worthy of the diligent 
 deliberations of honest and good men. All pious men ought to 
 beg of God that the church may be delivered from these sins. 
 All kings and bishops ought to strive with all their power, that by 
 a true explanation of this whole matter the church may be made 
 clean again... Pious assemblings are added, Men are diligently 
 taught...for what use the sacrament is used. 
 
 5 
 
 sit satisfactio pro culpa, sed ut sit sacramentum, quo utentes admo- 
 neamur beneficii Christi et remissionis culpze. Ceeremonia sine fide in Novo 
 Testamento nihil meretur facienti nec aliis. Fide propria fit applicatio bene- 
 ficii Christi... Et heec applicatio fit gratis, Ergo non fit applicatio alieno 
 opere nec propter alienum opus... Institutio sacramenti pugnat cum illo 
 abusu ; nihil enim de oblatione pro peccatis vivorum et mortuorum 
 precipitur: sed precipitur ut sumantur corpus et sanguis Domini: 
 et ut id fiat ad recordationem beneficii Christi, Recordatio enim 
 significat non aliquam tantum in historia representationem, velut in 
 spectaculo, sicut somniant illi qui defendunt meritum ex opere operato, 
 sed significat fide recordari promissionem et beneficium, consolari con- 
 scientiam, et gratias agere pro tanto beneficio. Principalis enim causa 
 institutionis est ut fides ibi excitetur et exerceatur, cum hoe pignus 
 gratiz accipimus... Hc argumenta et pleraque alia testantur, &e. &e. 
 ... Nunquam gravior causa, optime imperator, in ecclesia incidit, aut 
 dignior de qua docti et boni viri diligenter deliberent. Omnes hi 
 a Deo petere debent ut his peccatis ecclesia liberetur. Reges omnes 
 et episcopi omni studio annitidebent, ut hac tota causa explicata repur- 
 getur ecclesia... Adduntur conciones pie. Diligenter docentur homines 
 ... Ad quem usum fit sacramentum. 
 
 20—2 
 
| 
 
 308 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D 
 
 P. 46. “When such worship is offered in the use of cere- 
 monies the using of the sacrament is pleasing to God, the mass 
 fully and piously used among us, and all things are being 
 carried on in the church with greater gravity and reverence than 
 formerly. Hitherto the bishops have not only tolerated manifest 
 abuses, when they could not be ignorant of them, but have even 
 sweetly smiled at them. 
 
 P. 108. “St Francis determined aright, when he appointed 
 that every college should be content with a single mass daily. 
 This was afterwards changed (in the Franciscan body) either 
 from superstition or for the sake of gain. [From the Apology 
 at Worms. ] 
 
 Saxon Confession, (1551), Vol. 1. 134. “ All are ingrafted in 
 the church by baptism, but the Lord wished the Lord’s supper 
 to be the strength—of—the—public_congregation....... Men are 
 taught that sacraments are actions Divinely instituted and that 
 beyond the instituted use the things themselves have not the 
 reason for the sacrament; but that in the instituted use Christ is 
 -truly present in His substance and that Christ’s body and blood 
 are truly supplied in this communion (given) to the receivers. 
 [If so, why all the vast fracas of the Reformation 2]... The Son 
 of God wishes this public receiving to be a confession to shew 
 what kind of doctrine you embrace and to what assembly you 
 unite. yourself.... We openly condemn the portentous error of the 
 
 P, 46. 
 
 Cum hi cultus exercentur in usu ceremoniarum, placet Deo sacra- 
 menti usus, missa apud nos rite et pie, et geruntur omnia in ecclesia 
 majore cum gravitate et reverentia quam olim... Manifestos abusus 
 episcopi hactenus, cum quidem non ignorarent eos, non solum tolerave- 
 runt, sed suaviter etiam riserunt. 
 
 Vol. I. p. 108. 
 
 S. Franciscus recte voluit... qui constituit ut singula collegia 
 quotidie unica communi missa contenta essent. Hoc postea mutatum 
 est, sive per superstitionem, sive questus causa. [Apology at Worms, 
 1538. ] 
 
 Confession of the Saxon Churches, 1551, for Council of Trent. 
 Vol. I, p. 134. 
 
 Per baptismum singuli inseruntur ecclesia; sed coenam Domini 
 voluit Dominus esse nervum public congregationis... Docentur homines 
 sacramenta esse actiones Divinitus institutas, et extra usum institutum 
 res ipsas non habere rationem sacramenti: sed in usu instituto in 
 hac communione vere substantialiter adesse Christum et vere exhiberi 
 sumentibus corpus et sanguinem Christi, &c. &e. Vult (Filius Dei) 
 hane publicam sumptionem confessionem esse qua ostendas quod 
 doctrine genus amplectaris et cui cetui te adjungas... Aperte dam- 
 namus portentosum errorem monachorum, qui scripserunt sumptionem 
 
1497] MELANCHTHON. 309 
 
 monks, who wrote that the reception earns the remission of sins,. 
 and indeed from the mere doing of the work without any good 
 movement in the heart of the user of it. This imagination of 
 the Pharisees is at war with Habakkuk’s saying (e. ii.) ‘the just 
 ‘shall live by his own faith’ We therefore thus instruct the 
 church, that those who will approach to the supper of the Lord 
 must bring with them penitence or conversion, and when faith has 
 now been enkindled in thought upon the death and resurrection” 
 and benefits of the Son of God, they should piously seek (in this rite) 
 a confirmation of this faith, &e. [P. 135.] With the whole heart 
 we affirm before God and all the church that in heaven and earth 
 there is one only propitiatory_sacrifice, Heb. x....And this sacrifice is 
 applied to men, one by one, by their own faith, when they hear 
 the gospel and use sacred rites.... Communion service set forth. 
 That this rite...very much agrees with the apostles’ writings and 
 with the ancient church’s custom nearly up to the time of Gre- 
 gory [See the so-called Divine Liturgies! Then judge.] is known 
 by all who are not wholly ignorant of antiquity. And since this is 
 so, our churches’ custom should be approved not blamed. It is a 
 manifest profanation to carry about and adore a part of the Lord’s 
 supper (ὦ. 6. the bread). But we pray with real groanings, Ὁ High- 
 priest of Thy church, to Thee, Son of God, Lord Jesus Christ, 
 crucified for us and raised again, that for the sake of the glory of 
 Thyself and the eternal Father Thou wouldest abolish (these) idols 
 and errors and abominations, and, as Thou-hast-Thyself prayed, 
 wouldest sanctify us in Thy truth, ἕο. The greatness of our sins 
 surpasses the utterance of men and angels, which sins the profana- 
 tion of the supper has in so many ages been producing.... They 
 
 mereri remissionem peccatorum, et quidem ex opere operato sine bono 
 motu utentis. Hzeec Pharisaica imaginatio pugnat cum dicto Habacuc 
 i., Justus fide sua vivet. Sic igitur erudimus ecclesiam accessuros 
 ad ccenam Domini oportere penitentiam seu conversionem afferre, et 
 accensa jam fide in cogitatione de morte et resurrectione et beneficiis 
 Filii Dei, querere pie confirmationem hujus fidei, &e. P. 135. Toto 
 pectore affirmamus coram Deo et totad ecclesid in celo et in terra tantum 
 fuisse unicum sacrificium propitiatorium, Heb. x.... Et hoe sacrificium 
 singulis sud fide applicatur cum audiunt evangelium et sacris utuntur. 
 After description of Communion service, Hune ritum... plurimum 
 congruere cum scriptis apostolorum et cum consuetudine veteris ecclesiz 
 fere usque ad Gregorii etatem, norunt omnes non prorsus ignari anti- 
 quitatis. Quod cum ita sit, probanda non improbanda nostrarum eccle- 
 siarum consuetudo. Manifesta prophanatio est partem coene Domini 
 circumgestare et adorare... Te autem, Fili Dei Domine Jesu Christe, 
 crucifixe pro nobis et resuscitate, Summe Sacerdos ecclesiz Tue, veris 
 gemitibus oramus ut propter Tuam et eterni Patris gloriam deleas 
 idola et errores et abominationes, et sic ut Ipse precatus es, sanctifices 
 nos in veritate Tua, &c. Omnium hominum et angelorum eloquentiam 
 Superat magnitudo peccatorum, que prophanatio coenz Domini tot jam 
 
910 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 know that [for the people] to be persuaded that it is a sacrifice is 
 the very muscle of their power and wealth. This is why they 
 refuse to hear a contrary opinion. The Son of God Himself 
 offered Himself, entering into the holy of holies, 7.e. into the 
 secret council-chamber of the Divinity.... The custom of the 
 ancient Greek and Latin church is well known. It must there- 
 - fore be confessed that the forbidding of one part (of this sacra- 
 ment) is unjust. To violate the legal testimonies of men is 
 unjust. Why do the bishops violate the testament (will) of the 
 Son of God sealed on its face with His own blood?... We com- 
 mend the church itself and ourselves to the Son of God, &c., and 
 we pray Him to direct us, and not to suffer the light of God’s 
 gospel to be extinguished, nor to suffer the assemblies of churches 
 that truly call upon Him to be destroyed.” 
 
 seeculis parit...Has de sacrificio persuasiones sciunt nervos esse sue 
 potentiz et opum. Ideo contrariam orationem audire nolunt. Filius 
 Dei Ipse Se obtulit, ingrediens in sanctum sanctorum, i.e. in arcanum 
 concilium Divinitatis, Nota est consuetudo veteris ecclesie Latin et 
 Greece. Ideo fatendum est unius partis prohibitionem injustam esse. 
 Legitima hominum testamenta violare injustum est. Cur Filii Dei 
 testamentum sanguine ejus obsignatum episcopi violant? The treatise 
 ends, Commendamus ecclesiam ipsam et nos ipsos Filio Dei, &e. et 
 Eum oramus ut nos regat, et non sinat extingui lucem evangelii Dei, nec 
 deleri sinat ccetus Ipsum vere invocantes. 
 
 (G.) HULDERIC ZWINGEL. B. JANUARY, 1484. Ὁ. 1531. 
 
 This is the way in which he writes his own name. In a col- 
 lection of old Latin lives of six leading German and Swiss Re- 
 formers, published by Neander with etched portraits, Berlin, 1841, 
 the autographs are set under the portraits. And under Zwingel’s 
 is written in very clear but rather separated letters Hulderic 
 Zwingel von Kinsidel, 7.e. before he settled at Zurich. The por- 
 traits of Camerarius who wrote the Latin life of Melanchthon, and 
 of Theodore Beza who wrote that of Calvin, are added but not 
 their signatures, The Latin life of Luther which stands first is 
 by Melanchthon. Zwingel’s life is by Myconius. Luther’s face is 
 wearied but interesting: and Calvin’s, which stands last, is more 
 pleasant than usual; but Zwingel’s is the common painful picture 
 with a most deforming cap and an expression of severity and 
 sadness like enough to his painful end, but very uncharacteristic 
 of the geniality of his life till the last cloud fell on him. 
 
- 
 
 1484] HULDERIC ZWINGEL. 311 
 
 So much will be said of him in Part III. that a few features of 
 his life may suffice just now. His father was Landamman of the 
 lofty agricultural region of Toggenburg. One of his earliest 
 teachers was Lupulus (Wolflein) at Berne: but he returned to 
 Basle to be under Wyttenbach: where and at other seats of 
 learning he gained that high character as a classical scholar, which 
 caused Erasmus to call him the first Latin orator of the day. In 
 his early life he displayed great musical ability. Fuller says this. 
 He spent some time at Einsiedlin, whose beautiful church well 
 repays the traveller between Lucerne and Meyringen for diverging 
 from his track to ascend that valley. But Zurich is Zwingel’s seat, 
 in which his power grew great: and till the fatal entanglement of 
 Swiss policy, to which he fell a sacrifice, it seemed as if there were 
 no prospective limits to the continually extending influence of the 
 church of Zurich under his wise direction. The north of Italy was 
 being added to the chief cantons of Switzerland in a noble league 
 of pure and living democratic Protestantism, irrespective of the 
 triumphs of monarchical Germany; and in somé points the Swiss 
 doctrine was of a superior cast: so that true freedom and pure 
 religion never retreated from so sad a field as that Cappel, in the 
 very neighbourhood of the city, where Zwingel fell, glad to die, a 
 disappointed man. 
 
 P.10. “If the presence and efficacy of grace have been tied to 
 the sacraments, now where they are applied they work, and where 
 they are not brought all things fade away. Nor is there any 
 occasion for theologians to reason about material or subject-matter, 
 because a disposition is required first, &c. For he that according 
 to them receives that grace through the sacraments either pre- 
 pares himself for this or is prepared by the Spirit. If he prepares 
 himself, then we can do something of ourselves and prevenient 
 grace is nothing. If he is prepared by the Spirit to receive grace, 
 I ask whether this take place under the guidance of the sacra- 
 
 Ad Carolum Imperatorem. a.p. 1530. Vol. IV. p. 10. Zurich, 1836. 
 
 Si sacramentis alligata est gratiz presentia et efficacia, jam quo adfe- 
 runtur operantur, quo non adferuntur flaccescunt omnia. Nec est ut 
 causentur materiam sive subjectum theologici (nostri), quod dispositio 
 ante requiratur, &c. &e. Nam is qui istam per sacramenta gratiam 
 recipit secundum ipsos, aut ipse seipsum ad hoe preparat aut a Spiritu 
 preparatur. Si seipsum preparat, ergo et ex nobis aliquid possumus, 
 et gratia preveniens nihil est. Si a Spiritu preparatur ad gratiz 
 acceptionem quero an hoc etiam fit sacramento duce an extra sacramen- 
 
912 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. _ [A.D. 
 
 ment or externally to the sacrament. If by the sacrament being 
 the medium, then man is prepared for the sacrament by the sacra- 
 ment, and thus there will be a series without limit, for always 
 the sacrament will be-required -as_a_preparation for the sacrament. 
 But if we are prepared before the sacrament for the receiving of 
 | sacramental grace, then the Spirit is present in his own benignity 
 before the sacrament, and grace has equally been both produced 
 and present before the sacrament is applied. From this it is clear 
 (as in the sacramental matter I most willingly allow) that sacra- 
 «ments are given as a public pledge of His grace, which is present 
 with each person by himself before. [This is amply sufficient 
 to shew that Zwingel did not hold this sacrament to be a mere 
 commemorative rite, but a way in which to obtain grace from God. 
 But this shines in him everywhere. | 
 
 P. 11. “ Believe therefore Ὁ Ceesar [Emperor Charles V.], that a 
 “+ sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing, 1.6. of grace produced. I myself 
 believe it the visible figure or “form of invisible grace produced and 
 given by the gift οἵ. God. I believe that in the sacred supper 
 of the eucharist (ἰ, 6. of thanksgiving) the true body of Christ is 
 present to a contemplating faith; ἡ. 6. that those who give thanks 
 to God for so great_a—benefit conferred on_us_of His kindness in 
 His own Son, recognize that He took to Him true flesh, suffered 
 ‘truly in it in that | passion and truly washed away our sins with 
 His own blood, and therefore that all that matter done by Christ 
 is as it were present to them by a contemplating faith. But that 
 Christ’s body in its essence and reality (1.6. His natural body 
 itself) is either present in the supper or is eaten by our mouth 
 
 f 
 4 
 
 tum. Si sacramento mediante, ergo sacramento paratur homo ad sacra- 
 mentum et sic usque ad finem processus erit, nam semper ad sacramenti 
 preparationem requiretur sacramentum. Si vero citra sacramentum 
 preparamur ad sacramentalis gratie acceptionem, ergo Spiritus sua 
 benignitate adest ante sacramentum, et perinde gratia et facta et 
 preesens est, antequam adferatur sacramentum. Ex quibus hoc colligi- 
 tur (quod in re sacramentaria volens ac libens admitto) sacramenta dari 
 in testimonium publicum Ejus gratie, que cuique privato prius adest. 
 
 ΣΤ: 
 
 Crede igitur, O Cesar, sacramentum esse, rei sacra, hoe est factz 
 gratiz, signum. Credo ipse invisibilis gratiz, que scilicet Dei munere 
 facta et data est, visibilem figuram sive formam. Credo in sacra eucha- 
 ristize (hoc est gratiarum actionis) cena verum Christi corpus adesse fidei 
 contemplationi; hoc est, eos, qui gratias agunt Domino pre beneficio 
 nobis in Filio Suo collato, agnoscere Illum veram carnem admisisse, 
 vere in illa passum esse, vere nostra peccata sanguine Suo abluisse, et sic 
 omnem rem per Christum istam illis, fidei contemplatione, velut presen- 
 tem fieri. Sed quod Christi corpus per essentiam et realiter (hoc est 
 corpus ipsum naturale) in coena aut adsit, aut ore dentibusque nostris 
 
.1484] HULDERIC ZWINGEL. 313 
 
 and teeth (as the Papists, and those that look back to the flesh- 
 pots of Egypt maintain), we truly not only deny that, but con- 
 
 stantly insist that it is an error adverse to God’s word. — 
 
 P. 13. “On the reproaches of Eckius. To which error (6. 
 that of Marcion who denies the truth of Christ’s body in life on 
 earth) the fathers, that they might more easily meet it, used to bring 
 against it the supper in which Christ had instituted the sacrament 
 of His own body, certainly a true and natural one; and that this 
 (body in the supper) represented not a spiritual and fantasmal but 
 a true body. Therefore on this account they said that the body of 
 Christ was truly present in the supper but not sacramentally only : 
 and we have never denied that the body of Christ is sacramentally* . 
 and in mystery (present) in the supper, both by contemplation of 
 faith, and by the whole operation of the sign, as aforesaid. Since 
 therefore the whole of that presence also is nothing without the 
 contemplation of faith, now that presence, to be or to become, of_ 
 the body and blood is a matter depending on faith not on sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 P. 37. “If Christ’s body is a limited body, yea if it truly be 
 made bright as ours also will be, yet it is such, corporally and 
 truly after that mode, in which bright (glorified) bodies are. 
 After the mode then in which it exists, in that mode it is eaten 
 and naturally eaten (!) Augustine places Christ’s body in a place 
 in the Heaven, on account of its existing in a true mode of body. 
 We then shall compel those who wish to eat Christ’s natural substan- 
 
 mandueatur (quemadmodum Papistie et, qui ad ollas Aflgyptiacas respec- 
 tant, perhibent), id vero non tantum negamus, sed errorem esse, qui 
 Dei verbo adversetur, constanter adseveramus. 
 
 P, 13, De convitiis Eect. 
 
 Cui errori (i.e. Marcionis veritatem corporis Christi in vita in terris 
 negantis) ut feliciter occurrerent patres, coenam opponebant, in qua 
 Christus corporis Sui, nimirum veri et naturalis, sacramentum institu- 
 isset: quod corpus non spirituale aut phantasticum sed verum repre- 
 sentaret. Hane ergo ob causam vere adesse Christi corpus dixerunt in 
 cena sed non solum sacramentaliter: et nos numquam negavimus 
 corpus Christi sacramentaliter ac in mysterio esse in ccenda, quum propter 
 fidei contemplationem tum propter symboli, ut diximus, totam actionem. 
 Cum igitur et omnis ista presentia nihil sit sane sine fidei contempla- 
 tione, jam fidei est ista (corporis et sanguinis), esse aut fieri, preesentia, 
 non sacramentorum, 
 
 Ee ot, 
 
 Si corpus Christi finitum est, si vero clarificatum corpus est, quo- 
 modo et nostra erunt, jam corporaliter est, et vere est, 60 modo, quo 
 clurificata corpora sunt. Quomodo igitur est, eo modo editur et natura- 
 liter editur. Augustinus Christi corpus in aliquo loco ceeli ponit propter 
 veri corporis modum. Cogemus igitur, qui naturale substantiale aut 
 
914 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ae 
 
 tial real body ina natural real substantial way, &c. We have lately 
 said that Christ’s body is in the supper by the contemplation of 
 faith. Now, turn they themselves whither they will, all our adver- 
 “saries will find no aid to draw men to that supper in any other 
 way. [Then follows a parable. Its seed is in Jerome, When the 
 father of a family, &c., ὅθ. See Part III. where it is in its 
 fullest form, and developed into wondrous beauty. ] 
 
 P. 54. “When thou consolest thyself with Christ, thou now 
 spiritually dost eat His body, &c., but when thou comest to the 
 Lord’s supper with this spiritual eating, and givest thanks in it 
 ‘to the Lord, &., and at the same time with thy brethren par- 
 takest of the bread and wine (which sacramentally are now His 
 body) thou now properly sacramentally eatest : when, that is, thou 
 doest within the house of God, what thou fulfillest outside His 
 house when the mind is refreshed by this faith, which by symbols 
 thou testifiest. But they are said sacramentally and improperly 
 to eat, who do indeed publicly eat the visible sacrament or sign, 
 -———but_at_home have not faith. ‘Guilty of the body and blood of the 
 ‘Lord’ is not as to those things which a man naturally eats or may 
 eat in a symbolical way, but as to those things which he has 
 falsely testified to the church that he spiritually eats, &. They 
 therefore are said to eat only sacramentally. 
 
 vu. Letter 37 to T. Wyttenbach. “As to what you ask about 
 
 the sacrament I will most willingly speak my opinion, not that 
 you have need of it, but that, if I anywhere err, you may ad- 
 
 reale corpus Christi naturaliter substantialiter ac realiter edere volunt, 
 ἄς. &c. Dudum diximus corpus Christi esse in ccena fidei contempla- 
 tione. Nunc, quocumque se vertant, omnes adversarii nihil opis 
 invenient quo aliter in cenam trahant. Cum paterfamilias, &e. (See 
 figure drawn out in his exposition to Francis I. quoted at full in 
 Part IIT.) 
 
 P. 54, 
 
 Quum Christo te solaris, jam spiritualiter corpus Hjus edis, &e., 
 verum quum ad cenam Domini cum hac spirituali manducatione venis 
 et Domino gratias agis, ὅθ. &e., simul cum fratribus panem et vinum 
 (que jam symbolicum corpus sunt) participas, jam proprie sacramentali- 
 ter edis, cum scilicet intus edem agis, quod foris operaris quum mens 
 reficitur hac fide, quam symbolis testaris. At sacramentaliter improprie 
 dicuntur edere qui visibile sacramentum sive symbolum publice quidem 
 comedunt sed domi fidem non habent. Reus corporis et sanguinis 
 Domini non que naturaliter aut corporaliter ederit sed que spiritualiter 
 se edere falso testatus sit ecclesie, &c. Isti ergo sacramentaliter tantum 
 edere dicuntur. 
 
 Vol. VIL. Lit. 37, ad Thomam Wyttenbachium. 
 
 Quod de eucharistid percontaris libens ac volens sententiam meam 
 dicam, non quod ist& opus habeas, sed ut, sicubi errem admoneas et 
 
1484] HULDERIC ZWINGEL. 315 
 
 monish me, and in turn bring back to right what I say. Deem 
 that the eucharist is thereeaten where faith 156. For it was) 
 | given for the purpose that we may sing the fruit of the Lord’s death | 
 the grace and the gift until the Lord come. But who shall an- 
 nounce His dead Lord but he that knows that this food was given 
 only for the purpose of comforting [strengthening] on one side the 
 weakness of faith, &c., for bread confirms man’s bodily strength ; 
 (and that) the other part may stimulate the dejected and despair- 
 ing mind to cheerfulness, for wine makes glad the heart of man. 
 Wherever faith is not, there no strength is produced nor joy, but 
 evil and disease is brought to the soul; which, if it approach with- 
 out faith, is either perfidious or desperate, and most deserving of 
 condemnation....Paul teaches that judgment is eaten (by such 
 persons).... The body of the Lord is not discerned, ὁ. 6. it is not 
 believed to be of such a kind as it is: for it is our redemption 
 von the ransom-price of His blood (or the bath) and they were 
 een to be firmly believed, for food, by which the mind within 
 | taught by God’s Spirit, yet always in the clouds that hang about 
 .\ this body (which weighs down the soul) groping blindly, is by a 
 |) visible sign rendered more certain and more joyful, &e., &c. 
 
 vi. P.657. “It is impossible that any thing corporeal or 
 fleshly should be eaten here, since the mind cannot be satiated or 
 fed_ with any corporeal food. [P.658.] If His flesh when eaten 
 cannot-profit-at all, without doubt neither did He wish to supply 
 it or give it to us to eat. 
 
 i 
 
 invicem quod dicitur (a me) reducas. Eucharistiam illic edi puta, ubi 
 fides est. In eum enim usum data est, ut mortis Domini fructum 
 gratiam et donum cantemus usque dum Dominus veniat. Quis autem 
 Dominum mortuum annunciabit, nisi is qui novit hune cibum in hune 
 tantum usum esse datum, ut altera parte confortet fidei imbecilitatem, 
 &c.; panis enim corpus hominis confirmat; altera (pars) dejectam de- 
 speratamque mentem ad hilaritatem exstimulet; nam vinum letificat cor 
 hominis. Sicubi fides non est illic robur non editur neque letitia, sed 
 malum ac morbus advehitur anime, que, si absque fide accedit, aut 
 perfida est aut desperata damnationisque dignissima... Paulus judicium 
 manducari docet...non dijudicatur corpus Domini, i.e. non tale esse 
 creditur quale est; nempe redemptio nostra et sanguinis Hjus luéron, 
 sive balneum; ac ut firmiter credatur, data sunt in cibum quo animus 
 intus, Spiritu Dei edoctus, intra tamen corporis hujus (quod aggravat 
 animam) nebulas perpetuo ceecutiens, visibili signo certior reddatur et 
 letior, &e. ke. 
 Vol. VIII. p. 657. 
 
 Impossibile est ut hic quicquam corporeum vel carneum comedatur, 
 cum anima non ullo cibo corporeo saturari vel pasci queat. P. 658. Si 
 caro Kjus manducata non prodest quidquam, haud dubie nec ad mandu- 
 candam illam nobis exhibere aut dare voluit. 
 
910 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 _ P. 660. “If it is up in Heaven, His own body cannot be 
 corporally in this earth also since His resurrection. 
 
 vir. P. 390. “Τὸ C&colampadius, at Basle. By no means can 
 it like the Godhead be in all places. The Truth says that His 
 flesh is not eaten... nor is carnal flesh the understanding. Christ 
 answers the Jews contending concerning His corporeal flesh.... 
 It is clear that He is speaking of His corporeal flesh. For they 
 thought that this was proposed to them.... I beseech you there- 
 fore, most candid brethren, not to dissent one from another on so . 
 open a matter.... Be loth to be united to swear to the words of 
 some masters of theology, &c., &. The truth will overcome, 
 whether they who strive against it will or no. Would that it may 
 be a happy overcoming! But be God’s will done. Mutually let 
 us pray for each other. Farewell.” 
 
 77660: 
 Si in celis est sursum, in terris hisce corporaliter esse non potest 
 corpus Ipsius etiam post resurrectionem. 
 Vol. VII. p. 390, Beolampadio, ad Basileam. 
 
 Nullo modo instar Divinitatis omnibus in locis esse potest. Veritas 
 dicit carnem non edi...nec caro est carnalis intellectus...Christus respon- 
 det Judzis de corporea Ejus carne contendentibus... Clarum est Ipsum 
 de corporea carne loqui. Isti enim putabant hanc eis proponi...Obsecro 
 igitur candidissimi fratres ut in re tam aperta inter vos non dissideatis... 
 nolite juncti esse in quorundam magistrorum verba, &c. &c.... Vincet 
 veritas, velint nolint qui contra nituntur. Utinam feliciter vincat. Sed 
 Domini voluntas fiat. Oremus pro nobis mutuo. Valete. 
 
 (H.) HUGH LATIMER. B. 1485. Ὁ, 1555. 
 
 Of all the Reformers of. England there is none so thoroughly 
 - English as Hugh Latimer. It was seen from the first. When he 
 was brought for admonition and animadversion, after the manner 
 of the day, before Wolsey himself, the attack recoiled from the 
 solid learning and steady self-possession of Latimer upon his less 
 learned assailants. But before that time, when West, Bishop of 
 Ely, put him to the test, by bidding him preach one sermon 
 against Martin Luther, he was checkmated by the reply, “I do 
 _, “not know the doctrine of Luther, neither are we here permitted 
 “to-read his works.” And so all through his life he was more 
 than a match for his enemies, till at last they sent to fetch him 
 
1485] HUGH LATIMER. 317 
 
 for his last imprisonment. He at once intimated that he was 
 quite ready. He had expected them some little time. They 
 more than intimated that he might attempt to escape; but his 
 mind was clear, like Frith’s at his own seizure, that Christ’s 
 faith then demanded boldness even unto death: and so all 
 through his imprisonment he speaks from the high ground of 
 one who had forecast the issue and was a willing sacrifice, like 
 his great Master. He stands to my eye like a forest oak, of the 
 growth of ages, battling with the rough winds. They may rend 
 off a few boughs, but they cannot shake his roots, for they are, 
 firmly coiled around and embrace the living rock. Whether he 
 can be justified for resigning his bishopric and leaving the 
 Primate alone, to meet the fierce and crafty assaults, the great 
 perils and trials of consistency, and last, the evil tongues that have 
 not yet ceased, is a difficult question. External personal sacrifices 
 are not always the highest self-denial. But besides this, it is 
 curious that to Latimer’s final examination and to the line he took 
 we have to go for the first most distinct utterance of Archbishop 
 Wake’s wavering policy—the maintenance not of the real presence 
 of Christ’s body and blood, but of the shortened term “The Real 
 Presence:” omitting the words “of Christ’s body and blood :” 
 whereas the word “real” belongs to the res ipsa in the conten- 
 tion, viz. the natural body, and was previously almost always used 
 in that sense. 
 
 As we so truly admire and love Bishop Latimer, perhaps it is 
 most advisable and most honest to make this the place to state 
 at full the objections to his phrase “a_real spiritual presence” of | 
 Christ in the Lord’s supper: which as will be seen Tillotson 
 extended into “a real presence of Christ’s body and blood” and “ 
 Wake diminished into “a real presence of Christ” in the Eucha- 
 rist. But first may we not say that Hugh Latimer seems to use 
 the term “a real spiritual presence” rather rhetorically than logi- 
 cally? Did it not come from his bow as a sort of Parthian 
 back-shot? He had fired his real arrow, viz. that the spiritual 
 (or Divine) presence of Christ is everything to the believer, and 
 is the only presence meant: and he could not resist the temptation: 
 to an orator of saying, “Talk of the reality of your presence of 
 “the body, our spiritual presence of our Lord is just as real as 
 “yours.” But the church of Christ in England has since paid 
 dear for this rhetorical shot. 
 
318 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (1) The bread is termed “true” body &c. by Hilary and 
 Ambrose, but the term “real” body, 16. of Christ in the supper, is 
 much later, being probably due to the schoolmen. Tyndall used it 
 just as we do. It has made confusion worse confounded to use real 
 spiritual for the genuine and no feigned presence of Christ’s Divine 
 
 “ Spirit, for who ever doubted His Spiritual, z.e. His Divine presence 
 in this ordinance? Then why turn language from a sense in 
 which it means something, to a sense in which it means only what 
 nobody denies? If the Eastern and Western churches had agreed 
 to adopt this sense which Jewel so flings out at them it had been 
 a different thing: but what but additional haziness could arise 
 from our adopting a new and utterly different sense of this word 
 to theirs the received sense ? 
 
 (2) Another reason: that “spiritual” as used regarding 
 Christ’s presence in the supper is unfortunately a word with two 
 senses, since it may mean Christ’s spiritual body, ὁ. 6. His glorious 
 body like the future body of His people, 1 Cor. xv.; so some are 
 sure to take the term “real spiritual presence” as of Christ’s body 
 
 “already glorified, as if that were present, whereas Latimer plainly 
 
 /means not a bodily presence of any kind, but a true and genuine 
 
 / «presence of Christ as a spirit, ὁ. 6. 5. God. To have two ambiguous 
 
 - ‘words joined together in a-phrase of three words and in an article 
 
 of faith was surely in a high degree unadvisable. 
 
 (3) The admission of this word by Latimer and other Re- 
 formers in this new sense, followed by Dean Overall in that 
 ill-starred answer in the Catechism containing the words “ verily 
 “and indeed ” “ vere et realiter,” (A) has done much to make our 
 Romish adversaries believe that after all we do hold a presence of 
 Christ’s body in the supper in some way, (B) it gives them to this 
 day a standing-ground for the ever-repeated assertion that the 
 Church of England does hold a bodily presence in spite of all she 
 has said to the contrary, and (C) it has made whole flocks of our 
 divines as well as Tillotson affirm that we hold a bodily presence, 
 only we do not affirm the manner of it; and it has made and still 
 makes many more, like Wake, seem to the public not to have 
 thoroughly cleared their views: for “See,” say friends and foes, 
 “they hold a Real Presence after all.’ All these mischiefs are 
 escaped when any church or any person uses “real” in its pre- 
 viously received sense of “true, natural,” Christ's real body and 
 the real presence of His body. Only they must use that sense 
 
a 4 
 
 1485] HUGH LATIMER. 319 
 
 only. If the Church of England must perish on the rock of this 
 controversy we obey the Divine will; but let her perish in the 
 midst of clearly-defined and unambiguous terms—“in the face 
 
 of day.” 
 
 This discussion may be deemed to be so much subtracted 
 from the Third Part. Perhaps it is. But one likes not to leave 
 Hugh Latimer undefended where we are able to speak for him, 
 nor to let a slip of his go on working evil, without trying to pre- 
 vent it from going further. 
 
 » 
 
 Disputation between Latimer and Smith, Vol. τι. p. 255, 
 Parker Soc. 
 
 “Tam sure if God would have had a new kind of sacrificing 
 priest at_mass, then some of His apostles would have made some 
 mention thereof in their Master Christ’s will [testament] .-- for 
 Christ spake never a word of sacrificing..... Therefore sacrificing 
 priests should now cease for ever.... The supper of the Lord was 
 instituted to provoke us to thanksgiving and to stir us up by 
 preaching of the gospel to remember His death till He cometh 
 again. [P. 256.] I can never wonder enough that Peter and all 
 the apostles would forget thus negligently this office of sacrificing, 
 if they had thought it necessary.... Thus lo! I have written an 
 answer to your conclusions, even as I will answer before the 
 majesty of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by whose only 
 sacrifice I hope to possess heaven. [P. 257.] A spiritual presence 
 may be called a real presence because to the faithful believer 
 there is the real spiritual presence of the body of Christ. 
 
 Life of Hugh Latimer, by Rev. R. Demaus, Ὁ. 485. 
 Religious Tract Society, London. 
 
 “The articles of Gardiner (1)...There—is.ceally present the 
 natural body of Christ, &., &. Latimer: There is none other) 
 presence of Christ required than a sparitualpresence; and this + 
 presence is sufficient for a Christian man, as the presence by 
 which we abide in Christ and Christ abideth in us. [Thus im- 
 plying that a presence of Christ’s body is not required or meant. 
 But then he goes off, saying] And this same presence may most 
 suitably be called a real presence, for it is a presence not feignea 
 but true_and. faithful [This is playing fast and loose with words! 
 for who ever doubted Christ’s Godhead being really present? Then 
 
 _why take express terms used otherwise to assert this?]: and this 
 
 I here rehearse lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me 
 with the Anabaptists to make nothing else of the sacrament than , 
 a bare or naked sign. [Had it not been better to have told the 
 scorner to his face that this sacrament 7s bare or empty of Christ’s 
 
920 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 body, but not empty, bare or naked of blessing, but on the con- 
 trary as full of Christ’s grace as we are able to receive, and more ; 
 for we never empty His treasuries ?] But as for that which ἐς 
 feigned of many concerning the corporal presence, I for my part 
 _ take it for a papistical invention; and therefore T think it is utterly 
 ~ to be rejected. (2) Transubstantiation, Latimer: I had almost 
 said the nurse and mother of all other errors.... (3) ...The lively 
 \ sacrifice of the mass...for the sins of the quick as of the dead. 
 Latimer: Seemeth subtilly to sow sedition against the offering 
 cae Christ Himself offered, το. 
 
 Vol. I. p. 459. Parker Society. 
 
 “The cause which letteth us from celebrating of the Lord’s 
 supper is this—We have no mind or purpose to leave sin and 
 wickedness.... Leave your wickedness that ye may partake of it 
 
 y worthily.... But ye will not come. ‘There come no more at once 
 but those that give the holy loaves.... He that cometh to that 
 marriage—to that banquet—death shall be unto him but an en- 
 trance or a door to everlasting life. 
 
 Sermon of the Plough, Vol. 1. p. 72. 
 
 “When the devil. had once brought Christ to the cross he 
 thought himself sure. But there lost he all reigning. Christ said 
 I will draw all things to Myself...per Semet ipsum—by His own 
 self, not by any other body’s sacrifice... For who can offer but 
 Himself? He was both the offerer and the offering. And this is 
 the mark at which the devil shooteth—to evacuate the cross of 
 Christ and to mingle the institution of the Lord’s~supper;- the 
 which although he cannot bring to pass, yet goeth he about by his 
 sleights and subtil means to frustrate the same; and these 1500 
 years he hath been a doer, only purposing to evacuate Christ’s 
 death, and to make it of small efficacy and virtue. For whereas 
 Christ, according as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, 
 would have Himself exalted, that thereby as many as trusted in 
 Him should have salvation; but the devil would none of that; 
 they would have us saved by a daily oblation propitiatory—by a 
 sacrifice expiratory, or remissory...a thing whereby to obtain remis- 
 
 “sion of sins and to have salvation. \And this way the devil used 
 _to have to evacuate the death of Christ, that we might have 
 affiance in other things, as in the sacrifice of the priest, whereas 
 ‘Christ would have us trust in His only sacrifice. Therefore He is 
 called juge sacrificium (Dan. vii. 11, 12), a eontinual sacrifice...in 
 * effect, fruit, operation, virtue—as though He had from the begin- 
 ning of the world and should continually to the world’s end hang 
 still on the cross: and He is as fresh hanging on the cross now to 
 them that believe and trust in Him as He was 1500 years ago 
 _when He was crucified. 'Then let us trust upon His only death 
 ᾿ and look for none other sacrifice propitiatory than the same bloody 
 
1485] HUGH LATIMER. 321 
 
 _sacrifice, the lively sacrifice, and not the dry sacrifice but a bloody 
 ᾿ sacrifice. For Christ hath said, Consummatum est, “It is (per- 
 | “fectly) finished. I have taken at My Father's hand the work of 
 “redeeming mankind. I have wrought man’s redemption and 
 “have despatched the matter.” Why then mingle ye Him? 
 Why do ye divide Him? Why make you of Him more sacrifices 
 than one?... He hath done it semel once for all... .If Christ by 
 His death draweth all things, ὅσο. then the priest ‘at the mass. 
 what can they draw, when Christ draws all, but lands and goods, 
 from their right heirs ?... What have we to do then but epulari im 
 Domino, to eat in the Lord at His supper ?.... What other sacrifice 
 have we to offer but the mortification of our flesh? What other 
 oblation have we to make but of obedience, of good living, &c.? 
 But as for our redemption it is done already. It cannot be better. 
 Christ hath done that thing so well that it cannot be amended. 
 It cannot be devised how to make that any better than He hath 
 done it. But the devil by the help of that Italian bishop yonder, 
 his chaplain, hath laboured by all means that he might to frus- 
 trate the death of Christ and the merits of His passion. And they 
 have devised for that purpose to make us believe in other vain 
 things by his pardons, ὅθ. &e. And of these things every one 
 hath taken away some part of Christ’s sanctification, every one 
 hath robbed some part of Christ’s passion and cross, and hath 
 mingled Christ’s death ; and it hath been made to be propitiatory 
 and satisfactory and to put away sin, &c. ὅς. But wo worth thee, 
 O devil, thou hast prevailed to evacuate Christ’s cross and to 
 mingle the Lord’s supper. These be the Italian bishop’s devices, | 
 and the devil hath pricked at this mark—to evacuate the cross / 
 of Christ. He shot at this mark long before Christ came. He 
 shot at it 1000 years before Christ hanged on the cross or suffered 
 His passion.” 
 
 (I.) DR THOMAS BECON, Prebendary of Canterbury, Chaplain to 
 Cranmer, Rector of St Stephen’s, Walbrook, London, 
 Bo 19 }1 Dt L567; 
 
 He was a native of Norfolk, and went to St John’s, Cambridge; 
 and both frequently heard Latimer, and ascribes all his knowledge 
 of Reformation truth to him and to Stafford of Pembroke. His 
 first preferment was Brensett in Kent, near Romney. Having 
 published certain works under the name of Theodore Basil he 
 was detected, and compelled to recant at St Paul’s Cross in 1542. 
 He then retired to Derbyshire, to live by tuition. When the sun 
 shone on Protestants under Edward VI. he reappeared and became 
 
 H. ΤΠ 21 
 
922 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 one of the six preachers at Canterbury. Lord Somerset and 
 Cranmer made him their chaplain, and he took the Walbrook 
 living. Under Mary he was ejected and imprisoned in the 
 Tower; but he was after some time released, and fled to Stras- 
 burg. At her death he was restored and received other pre- 
 ferments and the prebend. His name is also written Beacon. 
 He is certainly reported to have been, as Fuller would have 
 said, a burning and a shining light in the pulpits of London. 
 His writing speaks for itself in two large volumes and a volume 
 of prayers. But he was an unwearied writer. 
 
 On the Sacraments. Parker Society. P. 270. 
 
 “He that goeth about to pluck from the sacrament of the 
 body and blood of Christ the bread and wine, destroyeth utterly 
 the aforesaid sacrament and maketh it no sacrament....If the 
 substance of bread and wine be turned into the substance of the 
 natural body and blood of Christ, then Christ is in the sacrament, 
 really, naturally, substantially, corporeally, ἕο. Yea the ‘sacra- 
 ment is the real, natural, corporeal and substantial body of Christ. 
 [P. 271.] Forasmuch as the body of Christ (though immaterial 
 and glorified) is, remaineth, and still abideth a creature, and is not 
 swallowed up (if I may so speak) of the Divine nature; but being 
 joined to the Divine nature abideth still a creature and very man, 
 it therefore followeth most certainly that Christ’s body taken 
 up into heaven neither is, nor can be, in heaven and earth at 
 once.... Christ’s body is not then in every pix and in every altar 
 and in every massmonger’s hands, as the Papists hold..... Heaven 
 is His resting-place concerning His body, and shall be till He 
 come to judgment, Matt. xxvi., John xiv. 16, Mark xvi, Luke xxiv., 
 Rom. viil., Eph. i. 4, Col. π|., Heb. x., 1 Pet.-111.” 
 
 (J.) ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. B. 1489, D. 1556. 
 
 The late Professor Le Bas, who with Dr Hugh James Rose 
 -once bare the palm of theological orators at Cambridge, says 
 forcibly respecting the way in which Englishmen seem resolved to 
 regard this remarkable prelate, that they record his apostasy in 
 marble, and write in the sand his inestimable service, as the 
 master-builder of England’s reformed church. Le Bas deems the 
 primate’s leading qualities to have been solidity of judgment and 
 a determination to be fully informed ; and if there be truth in the 
 current saying, that one of the highest tests of genius is patience 
 
1489] ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 323 
 
 in enquiry and judgment, the archbishop seems to claim very high 
 honours indeed : for this habit of accumulating precedents on any 
 difficult question was so unusual, that the king himself once said 
 to Gardiner “ My Lord of Canterbury is too old a truant for us 
 “both.” He was in early life public examiner at Oxford. Refer- 
 ence has been already made to the “Collections” of opinions, that 
 Cranmer had made with his own hand from the leading fathers 
 and divines. It was the habit of the time for each divine thus to 
 make a kind of hortus siccus for himself, and to these the reform- 
 ing leaders continually turned. They were perhaps too much on 
 the principle of a book of dried specimens, and were often referred 
 to and produced without fresh reference to their context, This 
 takes from the value of many of the English controversial writings 
 of that time. But every age has its failings as well as every man: 
 and the more one enquires into the labour of Cranmer it is found 
 to have been intense, and his acquisitions to have been almost 
 unlimited: but most eminent of all his qualities was the coolness 
 of his judgment in the midst of a constant war that was utterly 
 alien to his predilections. Research and peace and forgiving kind- 
 ness were his natural inclinations. He was of a Norman family 
 long settled in Lincolnshire, though born in Nottinghamshire. 
 
 Of all the portraits of him which I have seen, the only one 
 that seems to me to give a true and full representation of this 
 great founder of the English church is in the third volume of 
 Wordsworth’s Ecclesiastical Biography. You could easily believe all 
 Professor Le Bas’ estimate of his peculiar powers, as you look at 
 that small engraving. The acute steadfast look of the eye and 
 the immoveable firm resolution of the rest of the features seem to 
 note a mind equal to any balancings of arguments and still on the 
 look-out for new points of view. The upper lip, though good as it 
 is in all masterly men, is less indicative perhaps of resolution than 
 the rest of the face. The great picture at Lambeth only seems to 
 differ from all that has been said of the other picture in that his 
 mind in it is at the moment less vigorously at work, but the 
 characteristics of the features are the same. ‘The forehead is 
 also in both large enough for his work, but too little for a Lord 
 Bacon. 
 
 The papal examiners of the three chief English prelates are 
 said to have set them down thus: Cranmer as learned and 
 grave—Ridley as ready and acute—and Latimer as mirthful and * 
 
 21—2 
 
924 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 yet solid. Yet there was another current saying, that Latimer 
 leaned on Cranmer, and Cranmer on Ridley. Professor Blunt 
 finishes his estimate of Cranmer’s learning with this testimony, — 
 that the archbishop had not only read but annotated at the side 
 the principal fathers and other books in his own hand. Fuller 
 says his only fault was being what he calls too good, that 15, 
 too easy and flexible: and Macaulay I should almost say blas- 
 phemes his eminent Christian forgiveness by calling him “an 
 “easy foe”: but all this seems to miss his true character. His 
 old Norman blood has been lost sight of, and no such malleable 
 spirit as they describe could have wrought out the mingling 
 of extreme firmness with partial allowance, which characterized 
 the Church of England, as it came from his hands, even better in 
 some respects than it is now. All Parker’s changes were not for 
 the better, notwithstanding the stoutness of Bishop Geste. Also 
 he refused all consent to the revolutionary transfer of the crown 
 from Queen Mary to Lady Jane Grey. 
 
 The Volume on the Lords Supper. Disputations at Oxford. 
 Parker Society. 
 
 P. 403. “Weston quotes Chrysostom ending ‘I am become 
 ‘your brother. I took flesh and blood for you. Again, My flesh 
 ‘and blood by which I am your kinsman I deliver to you.’ Syllo- 
 gism proving Christ’s true natural and organical flesh is given us 
 to be eaten. Cranmer. I grant it. Weston. Therefore we eat it 
 with the mouth. Cranmer. I deny it. We eat it through faith. 
 Weston repeats syllogism. Cranmer. I grant He took and gave 
 (ὦ 6. in that sacrament) the same true natural and organical flesh 
 wherein He suffered: and yet He feedeth (us) spiritually; and 
 that flesh is received spiritually, 
 
 Book 1. Of the Sacrament. 
 
 P. 14. “Berengarius himself had a godly judgment in the 
 matter; but by the tyranny of Nicolas II. he was constrained to 
 make a devilish recantation, as I shewed in my third book (17 ¢, 
 p. 24). 
 
 Defensio, same vol. Cranmer’s preface, quoted by Waterland, 
 p. 252. 
 
 “Moreover when 1 say and repeat many times in my book 
 that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily receive 
 the sacrament, lest any man should mistake my words and think 
 that I mean that though Christ be not present corporally in the 
 visible signs, yet He is corporally present in the persons that 
 duly receive Him, this is to advertise the reader that J mean no 
 
1489] ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 325 
 
 such thing. [Note. He said that the body of Christ is present in 
 them: and now he says that He is not corporally present.] My, 
 meaning is in force, grace, virtue, benefit, &c. really and effectually 
 present. [Then this cannot relate to body, which is not a fount of 
 grace, &c., &c.] 
 
 P. 413. “Chedsey. Here you have falsified Hilary: for you 
 have set vero sub mysterio for vere sub mysterio, ἕο. Cranmer. 
 Assuredly I am not guilty of any deceit herein. It may be that 
 the copy which I followed had sub vero mysterio, ἕο. God I call 
 to witness, I have always hated falsifying; and if you had 
 leisure and lust to hear false citations, 1 could recite unto you 
 six hundred. 
 
 From the Preface to the original edition of the Defence of the True 
 and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament. 1550. 
 
 P. 6. “What availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pil- 
 grimages and such other like popery, so long as two chief roots 
 remain unpulled up?... The rest is but branches and leaves...or 
 the cutting down of weeds...but the very body of the tree or 
 rather the roots of the weeds is the popish doctrine of transub- 
 stanteation, of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the 
 sacrament of the altar (as they call it) and of the sacrifice and 
 ablation of Christ made by the priest for the salvation of the quick 
 and the dead; which roots, if they be suffered to grow in the 
 Lord’s vineyard, they will overspread all the ground again with the 
 old errors and superstitions. 
 
 P. 366, end of the Fifth Book. “As at the Lord’s table the 
 priest distributeth wine and bread to feed the body, so we must . 
 think that inwardly. by-faith we see Christ feeding both body and * 
 soul to eternal life. What comfort can be devised any more in 
 this world for a Christian man? And on the other side what 
 discomfort is in your papistical doctrine, what doubts, what 
 -perplexities, what absurdities, what iniquities! What availeth 
 it us that there is no bread and wine, or that Christ 7s really 
 under the forms of bread and wine and not in us?... What benefit 
 is it to a wicked man to eat Christ and to receive death by Him 
 that is life ? 
 
 P. 98, same vol. De oblatione et sacrificio Christi. Operis 
 conclusio to Book V. Qua in ccenda, quemadmodum corpore 
 verum panem et vinum percipimus, ita spiritu vero corpore et 
 sanguine Servatoris et Redemptoris nostri Jesu Christi alimur. ἃ 
 
 » In English. “And in that supper as we in our body receive true 
 bread and wine, 80 in our spirit we are nourished with the tr ne || 
 
 body and blood of our Saviour ‘and Redeemer Jesus Christ.’ 
 [WVote. Can any one wonder that Hallam charges our Reformers 
 with Bucerism? For what can true body mean here but Christ's 
 
890 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 natural body, as true bread and wine mean natural bread and 
 wine? whereas in John vi.: “My flesh is truly food and My 
 “blood is truly drink,” “ truly,” ἀληθῶς, means antitypically: see 
 Dr Turton as quoted in his place in the nineteenth century. | 
 
 Answer to Gardiner, I. On the Presence of Christ. 
 
 P. 52. “Although we do affirm according to God’s word, that 
 Christ is in all persons that truly believe in Him, in such sort 
 that with His flesh and blood He doth spiritually nourish and 
 feed them and giveth them everlasting life, and doth asswre them 
 thereof, as well by the promise of His word as by the sacramental 
 
 read and wine in His holy supper, which He did institute for the 
 same purposes, yet we do not a little vary from the heinous 
 errors of the papists. [How far is it right to say that Christ feeds 
 us with His flesh and blood without explaining that the language 
 is figurative, is a serious question: but I suppose Cranmer would 
 say that by spiritually he meant that Christ’s words in John vi. 
 are figurative of Christ’s feeding the soul by grace and not upon 
 His flesh and blood. In the rest of this passage the sacrament is 
 only spoken of as joint teacher with the word.] [P. 53.] The 
 papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signs...the truth is, He 
 is corporally neither in the bread nor wine ..but is corporally in 
 Heaven, and spiritually in His lively members, which be His 
 temples, where He inhabiteth. [P. 54] They say that Christ is 
 ‘corporally under or in the forms of bread and wine; we say that 
 Christ ὁ vs not there neither corporally nor spiritually ; ; but in them 
 “that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. He is spiritually 
 and corporally in the Heavens. They say that when any man 
 eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his 
 mouth or stomach with the bread and wine, &c. But we say 
 that Christ is in the whole man both in body and soul of him 
 gthat worthily eateth the bread and drinketh the cup and not in 
 ‘his mouth or stomach only. [A most unfortunate and misleading 
 antithesis ; for not only is not the word “figuratively” inserted ; 
 which is the only way in which Christ (God and man) is in our 
 bodies; but the word “ spiritually” [equivalent to “with a spiritual 
 “meaning,” 1 Cor. x.] 15 left out; so Gardiner is led to believe and 
 assert that Cranmer believes that Christ's manhood as well as His 
 Godhead is in the body of a believing communicant: whereas 
 _, Cranmer’s real meaning is that Christ is always spiritually, 7. 6. ἴῃ - 
 | | a spiritual or figurative sense, present; and that His Godhead is 
 | literally always present in believers, and specially or with an 
 emphasis in the Lord’s supper. | 
 P. 57. “We say that no earthly creature can eat the body 
 »of Christ, nor drink His blood, but only man.  [P. 68.] They say 
 that every man good and evil eateth the body of Christ. We say. 
 that both do ent the sacramental bread and drink the wine ; but 
 
1489] ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 327 
 
 none do eat the very body of Christ and drink His blood but only 
 they that be lively members of His body.” And so on: the same 
 remarks holding. 
 
 Τ cannot leave Cranmer without saying that Le Bas’ estimate 
 of him seems to me more and more true as I think upon it year 
 after year. I seem to myself to appreciate the quiet, strong and 
 finished energy of the language of our Prayer-book, as I identify 
 it in many parts with Cranmer’s spirit. Our debt to him is 
 only less than our debt to Tyndall for so large a part of our 
 English Bible. O that he had been clear and consistent on this 
 sacrament ! 
 
 (K.) CRANMER AND KNOX. 
 
 Dr Lorimer has published a book entitled “John Knox and 
 the Church of England,” London, 1875. Chapter 11. relates 
 how John Knox was called to King Edward’s Court at London, 
 as one of the Royal Chaplains, in 1533, while the Second Prayer- 
 Book of Edward VI. was being discussed in privately printed 
 copies previously to its being published ; and how Knox used his 
 opportunity both in preaching before the king, and afterward, to 
 get the notice about kneeling at the communion struck out, and at \ 
 first with some hopes of success, since he seems to have per- 
 suaded the king and several bishops. It bad been previously 
 left open; and Knox as a licensed preacher, sent by the primate, 
 first to Berwick, and afterwards to Newcastle, had given the 
 bread and wine to seated communicants, calling that posture 
 “the table gesture,” and arguing that it better corresponded 
 to the method of reclining on couches as used by the Jews at the 
 Passover. Essay on the Lord’s Supper and the Passover, Part I. 
 But Cranmer overcame Knox’s opposition by a letter addressed 
 to the king’s council (Lorimer, p. 103), October 7, 1552. The 
 primate’s chief argument is the very sound one that we are not 
 absolutely bound in religious services to adhere to the exact words 
 of the original institution, nor to the exact original form of service. 
 And he argues that as the communicants are kneeling in prayer, 
 before and after, it is more convenient to let them kneel on 
 through the reception. ae, 
 
 At p. 110, is given from the Privy Council entries, the record 
 of the acceptance of “a letter to the Lord Chancellor to cause to 
 
328 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “be joined to the Book of Common Prayer a certain declaration... | 
 
 “touching the kneeling at the Holy Communion.” It will be 
 seen that Cranmer seems to have produced this rubric to put 
 an end to the persevering efforts of John Knox to get the sitting 
 posture introduced ; to which Edward VI. himself and many at 
 court had been won over. The addition of this rubric was only 
 just in time to enable it to go out with the first edition of the 
 ᾿ king’s Second Prayer-Book. In fact some copies went out without 
 it, and its insertion in the others breaks the numbers of the 
 pages! 
 
 It appears therefore that it is to Cranmer’s decision of cha- 
 Γ racter that we owe the continuance of the practice of kneeling at 
 the reception of the Lord’s supper; and moreover that this much- 
 abused and blackened rubric was the instrument of the victory: 
 and yet for a long time it has been thought that John Knox 
 supplied this rubric at Cranmer’s desire. Surely we are much 
 indebted to Dr Lorimer for briaging the truth to light. 
 
 (L.) NICHOLAS RIDLEY, PUBLIC ORATOR AND BISHOP OF 
 LONDON. 8. 1500) Di haba" 
 
 He was born in Northumberland, and one may well recognize 
 in him some of the inherited border-firmness nursed in his an- 
 cestry in many a border-foray. The great poet of the North cites 
 the old ballad “How the fierce Thirlwalls and Ridleys and all,” 
 &e., and it is curious in the historical notice of this divine to read 
 of Richard Ridley of Aardriding; as it seems to give a local inter- 
 pretation to the Hardriding in the next line of the ballad. I push 
 the matter no further; but remark that the learning that it is 
 the fashion to deny to Cranmer is freely assigned to Ridley. Still 
 none of them were sufficiently free from the practical English 
 business of life to escape Dr Déllinger’s sweeping censure of 
 . English Protestant divines of that day, as being of an inferior 
 order in point of learning to the chief of their brethren on the 
 continent. However this be, God is served by men of various 
 powers in different lands and under different circumstances: and 
 England has had a sufficient proportion of men of the very first 
 rank in some or other lines of thought and discovery, not to press 
 for more than her just due in theology. 
 
1500] NICHOLAS RIDLEY. 329 
 
 * Brief Declaration against Transubstantiation, written in prison, 
 μεν 5.4.7... 
 
 A.D. 1555. Parker Society. 
 
 P. 5. “Thou knowest O Heavenly Father that the contro- 
 versy about the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Thy 
 dear Son our Saviour Jesus Christ hath troubled not of late only 
 thy church of England, France, Germany and Italy, but also many 
 years ago.. Thou knowest O Lord how this wretched world rolleth 
 up and down and reeleth to and fro, and careth not what Thy will 
 is, So 1t may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth, then who are 
 so stout to defend the truth as they? But if Christ’s cross be laid 
 on truth’s back, then they vanish away straight as wax before the 
 fire... That which was said, that with the receipt of the holy sacra- 
 ment of the blessed body and blood of Christ is received of every- 
 one, good or bad, either life or death—it is not meant that they 
 which are dead before God may hereby receive life, or the living 
 before God can hereby receive death. For as none is meet to 
 receive natural food, whereby the natural life is nourished, except 
 he be born and in life before: so no man can feed, by receipt of αὶ 
 the holy sacrament of the food of eternal life, except he ke regene- ἢ 
 rate and born of God before; and on the other side, none receiveth? 
 
 “damnation, which is not acu before, 
 
 P.8. “This remembrance ...as the author thereof is Christ 
 (both God and ὙΠ 8) 50 by the almighty power of God it far 
 passeth all kinds of remembrance that any other man is able- 
 to make... for whosoever receiveth this holy sacrament thus 
 ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith ezther 
 
 death or life... 
 
 P.9. “Now the partaking of Christ’s body and of His blood \ 
 to the faithful and godly is the partaking or fellowship of life and | 
 immortality.... With the receipt of the holy-sacrament of the 
 body and blood of Christ is received of every one, good or bad, 
 either life or death, (the one) born of God before, (the other) dead 
 before. [Also p. 8, ‘This remembrance,’ &c., &c.] 
 
 P.10. “The controversy is not whether...it is but a bare sign 
 and figure of Christ (and nothing else) or no: for all do grant 
 that St Paul’s words do require that ‘the bread which we break is 
 ‘a partaking of the body of Christ’... I do plainly affirm that the 
 second answer (made unto the chief question and principal point) 
 Tam persuaded to be the very true meaning and sense of God’s 
 holy word, ¢.e. that the natural substance of bread and wine is the ἡ 
 true natural substance of the holy sacrament of the blessed body 
 and blood of our Saviour Christ. 
 
990 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 10. “And again this is true that the truth neither needeth 
 
 - neither is maintained with lies... [P. 11.] There be divers points, 
 ἄς. ἄς. Yet nevertheless, as in a man diseased in divers parts 
 commonly the original cause of such divers diseases, which is 
 spread abroad in the body, doth come from one chief member, as 
 from the stomach or from the head: even so all five aforesaid 
 points do chiefly hang upon this one question, which is, What is 
 the matter of the sacrament, whether it is the natural substance of 
 bread, or the natural substance of Christ’s own body? The truth 
 f this question truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt will 
 cease [make to cease, καταπαύω] the controversy in all the rest. 
 or if it be Christ’s own natural body, born of the virgim; then 
 assuredly (seeing that all the learned men in England, so far as I 
 
 / know, both new and old, grant there to be but one substance) 
 
 natures in one person ; then (4) if the priest do offer the sacra- 
 “ment, he doth offer indeed Christ Himself; and finally (5) the 
 murderer, the adulterer or wickéd man receiving the sacrament 
 must neéds receive also the natural substance of Christ’s own 
 blessed body, both flesh and blood.{yNow on the other side if after. 
 the truth shall be truly tried out, it be found that the substance of 
 bread is the material substance of the sacrament, although as for 
 the change of the use, office and dignity of the bread, the bread 
 indéed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ [Does not 
 even this need consideration? the bread is changed in use, office 
 and dignity, which means that its use, office and dignity are 
 changed; but is it correct to say it is changed ito Christ’s body 
 sacramentally; whereas all that is done is, that it is changed into 
 a sacramental figure of Christ’s body?]...If I say the true solution 
 of that former question, whereupon all these controversies do hang, 
 be, that the natural substance of bread is the material substance 
 in thé-Sacrament of Christ’s blessed body, then must it follow... 
 that there is no such thing in deed and in truth as they call tran- 
 | substantiation, for the substance of bread remaineth still in the 
 ‘sacrament of the body. Then also the natural yy ane of 
 ~ Christ’s human nature, which he took of the Virgim/Mary, is in 
 Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed in” 
 the form of bread. Then that Godly2. honour which is only due 
 unto God the Creator [and] may not be done unto the creature 
 \ without idolatry, 7s not to be done unto the holy sacrament. Then 
 also thet wicked... mean the impenitent murderer, adulterer and 
 such κοι Ὁ ποῦ receive the natural substance of the blessed 
 body and blood of Christ. Finally then doth it follow that 
 
1500] NICHOLAS RIDLEY. 991 
 
 Christ’s blessed body and blood, which was once only offered and 
 shed upon the cross, being available for the sins of all the whole 
 world, is offered ‘up no more in the natural substance thereof... 
 
 P12. “For the change of the use,office and dignity of the 
 bread, the bread indeed sacramentally 1s changed into the body 
 of Christ, as the water at baptism is sacramentally changed into 
 
 the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material_substance_te- , 
 
 maineth all one as was before.... The wicked... do not receive 
 
 the natural substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ... 
 (for) the natural substance of Christ’s human nature...ts in 
 Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here, enclosed 
 under the form of bread. 
 
 P.13. “Now then you will say, What kind of presence do 
 they [the Protestant books] grant, and what do they deny? Briefly 
 they deny the presence of Christ’s body in the natural substance 
 of His human and assumed nature, and grant the presence of the 
 same by grace ; 1.6. they affirm and say that. the substance of the 
 natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in Heayen, and 
 
 so shall be unto the latter day when He shall come again in glory. 
 
 accompanied with the angels of Heaven to judge both the quick 
 and the dead. And the same natural substance of the very body 
 and blood of Christ, because it is united in the Divine nature to 
 Christ the second Person of the Trinity, therefore it hath not only 
 life in itself, but is also able to give life unto so many as be or 
 shall be partakers thereof; 1.6. to all that do believe on His name, 
 which are not born of blood, as St John saith, or of the will of the 
 
 flesh, or of the will of man, but are born of God [this is Cyril οὗ; 
 
 nn. 
 
 Alexandria in a receptionist dress]; though the self-same substance 
 abide still in Heaven, and they, for the time of their pilgrimage, 
 dwell here upon earth. By grace I say, 2e..by the gift of this life 
 (mentioned in John) and the properties of the same, meet for our 
 
 pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ1s—here- | 
 
 present with us...Even as, for example, we say the same sun, 
 which, in substance, never remoyveth his place out of the heavens, 
 is yet present here by his beams, light and natural influence where 
 it shineth upon earth [Ridley involves the clearest implication 
 that the substance of the body of Christ “is not here.” Also fur- 
 ther, the strongest words in John vi, “My flesh which I will give 
 “for the life of the world,” v. 51, do not mean that life comes to 
 us out of the flesh, from the abundance of life with which it over- 
 flowed to all that touched it, as Cyril of Alexandria argued. Cyril’s 
 argument is this, If the touching of the dead girl by Christ’s flesh 
 caused the life that was in His mere body to overflow into her, how 
 much more shall we, if we receive that life-giving, lit. life-making 
 body, ζωοποιὸν σῶμα, into our mouths, be partakers of everlasting 
 life in the body also! But this I reserve for Part III. It seems 
 
992 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 to me a most sad thing that such a noble propugnator as Ridley 
 should have slid into this pit, and added that the same body— 
 which he had said was in heaven—is here present with us. Does 
 it not compel us to rejudge even Ridley’s judgments 7] 
 
 P.16. “The very words of Christ...enforce us to confess that 
 very bread remaineth still and also open to us how that bread 
 may be and is thus, by His Divine power, His body; which 
 is given to us. 
 
 P.18. “(Gardiner and others) grant to certain of the old 
 doctors as Chrysostom and Ambrose, &c, that the words ‘This 
 ‘is My body, are the words of consecration of the sacrament of 
 His body; ‘yet, say they, ‘these words may at least be so called, 
 ‘because they do assure us of the consecration thereof, whether it 
 ‘be done before these words be spoken or no.’ 
 
 P. 20. “Note two things. First that the word ‘is’ hath no 
 Auch strength and signification in the Lord’s words to make or to 
 / signify any transubstantiation : secondly, that in the Lord’s words, 
 ' whereby He. instituted the sacrament of His blood, He used a 
 | figtirative-speech. How vain then is it, that some so earnestly do 
 \ sxy,as if it were an infallible rule, that in doctrine and in the 
 institution of the sacraments Christ used no figures... when as 
 here, whatever thou sayest was in the cup, neither that nor the 
 cup itself... was the New Testament. Thus in one sentence 
 spoken of Christ in the institution of the sacrament of His blood, 
 the figure must help us twice. 
 
 P.21. “Understanding that which is in the cup by ‘the 
 ‘cup’ is figurative speech.... Thou canst not truly say that 
 (whether it was truly wine or Christ’s blood) to be the New 
 Testament is without figure also. Thus in one sentence the figure 
 must help us twice.- So untrue is it... that Christ useth no 
 figure in the doctrine of faith nor in the institution of the sa- 
 crament. 
 
 P. 26. “Innocentius...and Duns do attribute the word (tran- 
 substantiation) unto the word ‘ He blessed:’ but the rest for the 
 most part to ‘This is My body.’ 
 
 Conference with Mr Secretary Bourne, Fecknam, &c. 
 
 P. 161. “Sir, quoth I, methinks it is not charitably done to 
 bear the people in hand that any man doth so lightly esteem the 
 sacrament, as to make it but a figure... As for me, I assure you, I 
 make no less of the sacrament than this. I say whosoever re- 
 * ceiveth the sacrament, he receiveth therewith life or death. No, 
 
1500] NICHOLAS RIDLEY. oe 
 
 quoth the Secretary, Scripture saith not so. Sir, quoth I, though 
 not in the same sound of words yet it doth in the same sense ; 
 and St Augustine saith it in the sound of words also; for Paul 
 saith, ‘The bread which we break is it not the communion of the 
 ‘body of Christ?’ [N.B.a different thing], and St Aug. Manduca 
 vitam, bibe vitam [Kat life, drink life]. Pope. What can ye 
 make of it when ye say there is not the real body of Christ? Sir, 
 quoth I, when ye hear God’s word truly preached, if ye do believe 
 and abide, ye shall and do receive life withal, &e., &c. 
 
 P.199. Discussions at Oxford. ‘It (a carnal presence) de- 
 stroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord’s supper.. 
 which was commanded only to be used and continued till Christ 
 Himself should come. If therefore He be now really present, | 
 in ae body of His flesh, the supper must cease; for a Te 
 me is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and 
 absent. 
 
 P.61. “1 will...declare what true presence of Christ’s body in the 
 sacrament of the Lord’s supper I hold and affirm with the words of 
 God and the ancient fathers...The bread is the body...in the remem- 
 brance of Him and His death...I say and confess the bread which 
 we break to be the communion and partaking of Christ’s body, 
 with the ancient and the faithful fathers...not only a signification, 
 but also, given to the faithful, the grace of Christ’s body, τ. 6. the 
 food of life and immortality. Also with Aug., We eat life and 
 drink life, &c.; we receive the nature of flesh and benediction 
 which giveth life (in bread and wine) with Cyril; and with the 
 same Cyril, the virtue of the very flesh of Christ, life and grace of 
 His body, the property of the only-begotten: that is to say hfe, 
 as he in plain words expoundeth it, &c.; spiritual flesh, but not 
 that which was crucified. With Jerome I suppose it may appear 
 how far we are from saying that the faithful receive nothing else 
 at the Lord’s table but a figure of the body of Christ. 
 
 Ρ 205. “The words of the Lord’s supper, the circumstances 
 
 of the Scripture, the analogy of the sacraments and the sayings of , 
 
 the fathers do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech ~ 
 
 in the words of the Lord’s supper. This is the minor of the sixth 
 
 argument...The fathers do quite overthrow transubstantiation; but 
 
 of all other most evidently and plainly Irenzeus, Origen, Cyprian, 
 
 - Chrysostom (to Ceesarius), Augustine against Adimantus, Gelasius, 
 
 Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom on Matt. xx., Rabanus, Damascene 
 and Bertram. 
 
 P. 234. “1 never said that Christ gave only a figure of His 
 body; for indeed He gave Himself in a real communication, 1.6. 
 He gave His flesh after a communication of His flesh. Weston. 
 Ye say Christ gave not His body but a figure of His body. Ridley. 
 
954. THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 _I say not so. I say He gave His own body verily, but He gave it 
 by a real effectual and spiritual communication. 
 
 P. 218. “The verity of the body of Christ is the true faith of 
 the body of Christ. [Ridley says this as one very hard pressed 
 indeed. | 
 
 P. 216. “Weston. One body, saith Chrysostom. Ridley. 
 But not after the manner of bodily substance. Christ in all 
 places, perfect here and perfect there, one only body. ‘ Here and 
 ‘there’ in Chrysostom do assign no places. 
 
 P. 238. “The sacrament of the blood is the blood. 
 
 P. 274. Last examination before the Commissioners. “Both 
 you and I agree herein that in the sacrament is the very true and 
 natural body and blood of Christ, even that which was born of the 
 Virgin Mary, which ascended into Heaven, which sitteth on the 
 
 sright hand of the Father, which shall come from thence to judge 
 the quick and the dead. We only differ in modo: in the way and 
 manner of being. We confess all, one thing to be in the sacra- 
 ment, and dissent in the manner of being there. [N.B. If any- 
 thing were wanted to prove this excellent martyr to be far from 
 holding pure clear Protestant doctrine on this subject, I think the 
 foregoing must convince anyone and everyone.] I being fully by 
 God’s word thereunto persuaded, confess Christ's natural body 15 
 to be in the sacrament tudeed, by spirit-and-graee, because that 
 whosoever receiveth worthily that bread and wine receiveth effect- 
 uously Christ’s body and drinketh His blood, ¢@e. he is made 
 effectually partaker of His passion; and you make a grosser kind 
 of being, enclosing a natural a lively and a moving body under the 
 shape or form of bread and wine. Now, this difference considered, 
 to the question I thus answer: that in the sacrament of the altar 
 is the natural body and blood of Christ, vere et realiter [N.B. How 
 can any of us blame Dean Overall for setting in the Catechism the 
 answer “The body and blood of Christ, which are ver ily and in- 
 deed taken and received, &c.,” when here the martyr Ridley says 
 the very same thing ?], indeed and really z.e. by grace and efficacy : 
 for so every worthy receiver receiveth the very true body of Christ. 
 [Surely a most unhappy binding together of exactly opposite 
 terms in one amphibious formula.| But if you mean ‘really and 
 indeed,’ so that you would include a lively and moveable body 
 
 “under the forms of bread and wine [which is just what these 
 forms of speech did and do mean]. then in that sense is not Christ’s 
 body in the sacrament really and indeed. [A most important con- 
 clusion, and Overall should have known and attended to this last 
 part and not to the first. But what a pity he had his excuse in 
 the first part !] 
 
 The following answer taken and penned by the notaries. 
 
1500] NICHOLAS RIDLEY. 35 
 
 oo 
 
 “Ridley. Always, my protestation reserved, I answer thus; that 
 in the sacrament there is a certain change, in that that bread which , 
 was before common bread is now made a lively presentation of 
 Christ's body and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth 
 His body, that even so as the mortal body was nourished by that 
 visible bread, so is the internal soul fed with the heavenly food of 
 Christ's body, which the eyes of faith see, as the bodily eyes see 
 only bread....Such a sacramental mutation I grant to be in the 
 bread and wine, which truly is no small change, but such a change 
 as no mortal man can make but only that omnipotency of Christ’s 
 word...Ridley in answer to the Bishop of Lincoln. All the doctors 
 confessed that the true nature of bread and wine remaineth. 
 
 P. 236. “1 acknowledge gladly the true body of Christ to be | } 
 in the Lord’s supper in such sort as the church of Christ (which is4} | 
 the spouse of Christ and is taught of the Holy Ghost and guided || 
 by God’s word) doth acknowledge the same...not the corporal | 
 presence of the body of Mis flesh. [N.B. Thus at last our goodeo ™ 
 Reformer comes out under a clear expression not to be mistaken, 
 and there we heartily rejoice in him. ] 
 
 P. 323. “Fourth reason. The form of an altar was ordained καὶ 
 for the sacrifices of the law, and therefore the altar in Greek is ,- 4 
 called θυσιαστήριον, quasi sacrificii locus. But now both the law. _ 
 and the sacrifices thereof do cease: wherefore the form of the altar 
 -used in the law ought to cease withal.” 
 
 (M:) JOHN CALVIN. B. 1509. Ὁ. 1564. 
 
 There is a division among the readers of Calvin, whether his 
 Institutes or his Commentaries have put the church under greater 
 obligation. The latter indeed are by many deemed without a 
 parallel. But the citations here are from the former, and from 
 his specific treatise on this subject. In the Helvetic Confession - 
 he has changed or conceded much of his earlier opinions. His 
 dedication of his Institutes to Francis I. is an affecting instance of 
 the pouring out of Heavenly truth with no more effect than the 
 fallmg of rain on a rock. Alas how long from that date had 
 - France a continued succession of immoral sovereigns and corrupt 
 courts! The dark series lasted to the feeble Louis XVI. What ἃ 
 gigantic miseries might the country have escaped had Calvin’s 
 
 preface told’ upon Francis! .But as to Calvin’s opinions on the 
 _ holy supper it is difficult to see how they benefited the church.y 
 The mutual inconsistency of his statements repeated again and | 
 
990 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 again in the Institutes, has made the selecting of extracts unsatis- 
 factory, and even painful. Then his starting with the assumption 
 that the language of Christ must imply that we receive the body 
 of Christ in a substantial mode, and that we derive benefit in the 
 supper from the very body of Christ itself, though it is in Heaven, 
 is a kind of denial of an understanding to those that wholly reject 
 such premisses. It is difficult to shake off the opinion that he felt 
 that he must strike out some new line—a via media between the 
 German and Swiss churches. Whether he thought that his hope 
 of doing extensive good to the church depended on his exhibiting 
 a different platform from either, or whether personal rivalry or the 
 influence of current opinions biassed him, I should not venture to 
 express an opinion. But I am free to confess that I cannot see 
 any clear basis of difference between his views and those that had 
 prevailed at Zurich and in Protestant Switzerland, except the 
 assumed substantiality of a bodily presence of Christ in this sacra- 
 ment, which he alternately affirms and denies. Yet the Institutes 
 seem to have been written while he was under the protection of 
 Margaret of Valois, and before he came to Geneva. I must confess 
 that my own singularly high admiration of Calvin’s powers and 
 reasonirgs in general, with all allowance for certain unpleasing 
 peculiarities of opinion, is more abated by his conduct on the Lord’s 
 supper than by all other objectionable points of his system taken 
 together. Had he held from the first what he united with the 
 “ pastors of Zurich in putting forth at the last, there had been much 
 more unity in the Protestant Communion, and we might now be 
 much further on our way to the simplicity of the Bible’s words on 
 this simple and expressive rite of Christ. 
 
 Of the three great teachers at Geneva, before their banishment, 
 Fuller ascribes boldness to Farel, eloquence to Viret, and solid 
 substance to Calvin. Calvin on his return had everything in his 
 own hands. He was king and priest. 
 
 If a word may be added as to Calvin’s extraordinary powers, ἢ 
 
 compare him with the greatest of those who like him have stood 
 in the position of being not only theological masters, but almost 
 civil rulers of a city or a state. Put him by the side of Chrysostom 
 
 at Antioch or of Ambrose at Milan! Augustine at Hippo stood ~ 
 
 at the pastor’s zenith, but he aimed at nothing more. Compare 
 ‘then Calvin with the great Cyril, or even with Athanasius, or with 
 Bernard of Clairvaux: or take the two yet more parallel cases, 
 
β 
 
 | 
 
 1509] JOHN CALVIN. 337 
 
 Savonarola, the prophet and dictator of Florence, or Zwingel, 
 almost the priest-king of Zurich itself, with Berne and Glarus, and 
 Basle, and Strasburg, also much disposed to follow the lead. It 
 may be doubted if any of these did as much as Calvin to work out 
 the hard problem of a church and state acting combinedly on the 
 principles of the Bible in all things; and which of them if any 
 made so few important mistakes as Calvin? One only blot is 
 charged on him, the execution of Servetus ; and historical docu- 
 ments have been adduced to clear him of that charge. Yet Geneva 
 has given its public honours to Rousseau! Perhaps this is partly to 
 be accounted for by Calvin’s want of that winning sweetness which 
 the Genevese so appreciated in Beza: but the greatness of Calvin’s 
 character firmly retained his intimate friends, and won for him 
 general respect if not love. He left behind him only 120 crowns 
 of gold. The sick, whom he loved to visit, the weak and uncertain, 
 to whom he supplied firmness of mind, and the assemblies and con- 
 gregations that heard him lecture and preach many times a week, 
 must in all have constituted a large company to mourn for his 
 departure. He is counted by Papal writers the second chief of the, 
 Reformation. They ascribe to him an amount of art that gave 
 him almost as much mastery over men’s minds as Luther obtained 
 by his genius and impetuosity. They assign to Calvin more of the 
 power of logic in writing. Luther, they say, complained that he 
 was always labouring to control his temper, and seldom succeeded ; 
 but Calvin was able half to conceal his own defects. Calvin valued 
 himself for persuasive powers and precision of style. 
 
 It was Farel who prevailed on Calvin to settle with him in 
 Geneva. 
 
 P. 364. “First the signs are bread and wine, which represent 
 to us an invisible aliment, which we receive from Christ’s flesh and 
 blood. [The first sentence assumes a spiritual benefit from Christ’s 
 actual flesh, when the real question between Rome and England 
 is, Are all the terms of that sort in Scripture intended literally or 
 figuratively? If the latter, does any benefit come to us from Christ’s 
 body now?] Already, therefore, we see the end to which this 
 
 Institut. a.p. 1535. TV. C.17. § 1. Vol. VIII. p. 364 of his works. 
 Amsterdam, 1667. 
 Primo, signa sunt panis et vinum, que invisibile alimentum, quod 
 percipimus ex carne et sanguine Christi, nobis representant. Jam ergo 
 habemus in quem finem spectat mystica heec benedictio—nempe quo nobis 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΙ. 22 
 
998 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 mystic benediction (of Christ) is looking—viz. to confirm to us 
 that Christ’s body was so sacrificed for us, that we now feed upon 
 it, &c. We are commanded therefore to receive and to eat for 
 our salvation that body which was once for all offered up, that 
 while we see ourselves become partakers of this, we may certainly 
 determine in ourselves that the virtue of that life-giving death 
 would be efficacious, as often as He holds out to us that sacred 
 blood to be drunk, &c....We have so solid a witness of all these 
 things in this sacrament, that we must certainly determine that 
 they [the body and blood] are truly supplied [exhibited, Latin], 
 no otherwise than if He Himself was set before our sight, and 
 was handled by our hands. I have now distributed the body and 
 ‘blood, ἄς. That the body of Christ.isthe only food for the soul 
 that is to grow and be quickened... By which He not doubt- 
 fully suggests that His own body will be to us life instead of 
 bread for the spiritual food of the mind, because it was to be set 
 forth to die for our salvation, but to be held forth to us to eat, 
 when He makes us partakers of it by faith. [To say His body 
 is eaten only by believing persons does not aid much. Is His 
 natural body given to anyone to eat except “in a figure” ?]... 
 Once therefore He gave Himself, &. He daily gives it to be 
 partaken of, inasmuch as [lit. as far as] it was crucified where 
 He offers it to us by the word of the Gospel, where He signs 
 that furnishing [or giving of Himself] with the sacred mystery 
 of His supper, where He completes that very thing (inwardly) 
 which He externally signs. For there are some who define 
 that to eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood is in one word 
 “nothing else than to believe in Christ Himself... But there is this 
 
 confirmet corpus Domini sic pro nobis immolatum esse, ut nunc eo vesca- 
 mur, ἄς. Corpus ergo quod semel oblatum est in salutem nostram 
 jubemur accipere et comedere, ut, dum hujus fierl nos videmus participes 
 vivifice illius mortis virtutem certo statuamus in nobis efficacem fore, 
 &c., quoties sacrum illum sanguinem libandum nobis porrigit, de. ὃ 3. 
 Horum omnium adeo solidam habemus testificationem in hoc sacramento, 
 ut certo statuendum sit vere nobis ewhiberi, non secus ac si Ipse pre- 
 sens aspectui nostro objiceretur ac manibus attractaretur [Calvin’s system 
 turns on the meaning of the two words vere and exhiberi]. Corpus et 
 sanguinem nunc distribui, ὅθ. Corpus Christi vegetande et vivificandze 
 anime unicum esse cibum....§ 5. Quibus haud dubie innuit Suum nobis 
 corpus pro pane futurum ad spiritualem animi cibum vitam, quia in 
 mortem pro salute nostra exponendum erat. Nobis autem porrigi, ut 
 vescamur, quando fide nos facit ejus participes. Semel itaque Ipsum 
 dedit, &c. Quotidie dat ubi participandum, quatenus crucifixum est, 
 evangelii verbo nobis offert, ubi eam exhibitionem sacro coenze mysterio 
 obsignat, ubi id ipsum complet quod exterius designat...[The explanation 
 follows after three more sentences]. Sunt enim qui manducare Christi 
 carnem et sanguinem Ejus bibere uno verbo definiunt nihil esse aliud 
 quam in Christum Ipsum credere. After three more sentences, Verum 
 
 a 
 
 “προ νὼ κέ: 
 
aces 
 
 1509] JOHN CALVIN. 339 
 
 difference between my words and the words of those persons, that 
 to them to eat is only to believe ; I, by believing that the flesh of 
 Christ is eaten (since He is made ours by faith) and that that 
 eating is the fruit and effect of faith [N.B. This sentence has 
 verged from its proper construction], it seems to me to follow 
 better from faith. [In the expression of Calvin, ‘The words of 
 ‘those persons that to them to eat is only to believe, is a manifest 
 allusion to the divines of Zurich and to Zwingel’s own words, Edere 
 est credere, in which he varied Augustine’s expression, Quid 
 dentes paras? Crede et manducasti. But Calvin seems subtilly to 
 suggest a different interpretation.].... Moreover He makes the 
 flesh itself, in which He dwells, life-giving to us, so that we 
 are fed by partaking of it to immortality, John vi. 48, &. And 
 by these words He teaches not only that He Himself is life, but 
 that by coming down [from Heaven] He shed abroad that power 
 into the flesh which He put on... They now find life in Mis 
 own proper flesh... But although the flesh of Christ has not 
 from itself so great virtue as to quicken us, &c., it has been 
 
 | perfused with a fulness of life, to transmit to us, &.... For 
 
 although it seem incredible that Christ’s flesh should penetrate to 
 us in places of so great distance, so that it may be for food to us, 
 let us remember how far the virtue of the Holy Spirit stands high 
 above all our perceptions, [Does God change the elementary nature 
 of body ?] and how foolish it is to wish to measure immensity by 
 our footrule. What therefore our mind comprehends not let faith 
 conceive... He now testifies of the sacred communion of His own 
 flesh and blood (because Christ pours out His life into us no less 
 
 hoc inter mea et istorum verba interest quod illis manducare est dun- 
 taxat credere, ego, credendo manducari Christi carnem (quia fide noster 
 efficitur) eamque manducationem fructum effectumque esse fidei, mihi 
 ex fide potius consequi videtur [unless C. believes some eating of Christ’s 
 real natural flesh, what is the difference? I would have agreed that 
 manducatio ex fide consequitur]. ὃ 8. Quin et ipsam, in qua residet, 
 carnem Vivificam nobis reddit ut ejus participatione ad immortalitatem 
 pascamur, John vi. 48, 51,58. Quibus verbis docet non modo Se vitam 
 esse...sed descendendo vim istam i carnem, quam induit, diffudisse [see 
 Cyril Alex.]...Vitam in proprid carne nunc reperiunt...§ 9. Etsi autem 
 tantam a seipsa virtutem non habeat Christi caro, ut nos vivificet, ὅσ. 
 vitze plenitudine perfusa est quam ad nos transmitteret, &c. [contrast 
 Bucer]. § 10. Etsi enim incredibile videtur in tanta locorum distantia 
 penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit in cibum, meminerimus 
 quantum supra sensus omnes emineat Spiritus Sancti virtus, et quam sit 
 stultum immensitatem modo nostro velle metiri. [Christ’s body is not 
 immensus: and that is the subject at issue.] Quod ergo mens nostra 
 non comprehendit, concipiat fides [begging the question that the sense is 
 not figurative. Hoc Ithacus velit, &.], &c. Jam sacram illam carnis 
 et sanguinis Sui communicationem (qua vitam Suam in nos transfundit 
 
 22—2 
 
940 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 than if it penetrated into our bones and marrows) in the supper, 
 and not indeed in a void or empty sign... Nor is there ground 
 for the objection which a man may make, that this is figurative 
 speaking, by which the name of a thing signified may be given 
 over to the sign... We yet rightly gather from the exposi- 
 tion of the symbol that the thing itself [Christ’s body] is truly 
 furnished to us. When we have received the token of His body, 
 let us surely trust that the body itself is no less given to us... 
 Elsewhere I confess that the breaking of the bread is a symbol 
 and not the thing itself. 
 
 P. 370. ‘Let nothing be feignedly given to His body which 
 is not accordant to a human nature; and this is done when it is 
 either said to be infinite or when it is [said to be] put in very 
 many places. But taking away these absurdities, whatever is 
 (needed) to express a true and substantial communication of the 
 Lord’s body and blood I willingly receive... [P. 371.] This is 
 the whole question, whether it be unlawful for it to be called 
 up to shew its genuine sense. 
 
 yr P.9. “With one voice, then, we all confess that a partaking 
 of the substance of the body and blood of Christ truly takes place. 
 How that takes place some can define better than others, and some 
 more clearly explain. I wish to say this, since no formula has 
 been published ... but that will happen when God may will that all 
 
 Christus non secus ac si in ossa et medullas penetraret) in ccend etiam 
 testatur, et quidem non objecto inani aut vacuo signo...nec est, guod 
 objiciat quisquam, figuratam esse locutionem qua signate rei nomen 
 signo deferatur [which Augustine taught]...a symboli tamen expositione 
 rem ipsam exhiberi rite colligimus...accepto corporis symbolo non minus 
 corpus etiam ipsum dari certo confidamus. [And yet he put in at the 
 last break Fateor fractionem panis symbolum esse non rem ipsam. | 
 
 P. 370. § 19. 
 
 Nequid ejus corpori affingatur humane nature minus consentaneum, 
 quod fit dum vel infinitum esse dicitur vel in pluribus simul locis poni- 
 tur. Ceterum his absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam 
 veram substantialemque corporis et sanguinis Domini communicationem, 
 dc. libenter recipio. P. 371, ὃ 22. Totum hoc agitur, an nefas sit de 
 genuino sensu suscitarl, 
 
 De Cana Domini, Vol. TX., P. 9, translated into Latin, 1545, 
 at first in French. 
 
 Uno igitur ore fatemur omnes...substantie corporis et sanguinis 
 Christi vere fieri participationem. Quomodo id fiat alii aliis melius 
 definire et clarius explicare possunt. Hoe dictum volui, quoniam nulla 
 publicata est formula...verum hoc fiet quum Deus volet in unum eos 
 
 a 
 
1500] JOHN CALVIN. 341 
 
 those should meet together by whom these are to be put together. 
 ..T'o this unhappy disputation I wish to put an end, or at least 
 in the meantime to prepare for its being altogether finished. 
 
 P. 248. “For a true consensus, regarding the Lord’s supper, | 
 by a mutual consent of the ministers of the Zurich Church and of | | 
 Ds John Calvin minister of the church of Geneva, in the matter of | 
 the sacrament, now put forth by their own authorities, 1554. 
 
 xvi. “By this doctrine is overthrown that sophists’ com- 
 ment which says that the sacraments of the new law confer [1.6. 
 give or bestow] grace on all who do not put the obstacle of mortal σ 
 sin in the way. ”For besides that nothing is received in the sacra- 
 ments but by faith, it must also be held “that God's grace 1s never 
 tied to [the sacraments] themselves, &e. 
 
 “Christ communicates to us in the supper, who had yet 
 de ΕΠ shared Himsclf among us and perpetually remains in 
 [xx.] But especially must. “be-taken away.ally-imagination. 
 dr wvhatever of .atlocal—presence..[of Christ's body]. Christ as far as ~ 
 K bese is a man is nowhere else than in-heaven,-nor. is to be looked 
 \) )\ for. otherwise than by the mind and by a a believing understanding... 
 
 xx. ‘Further we repudiate as “preposterous interpreters 
 those who urge the precisely literal sense of the solemn words in 
 
 convenire omnes a quibus hee sunt componenda...Huic infelici dis- 
 putationi finem imponere aut saltem eam parare interim, dum omnino 
 finiatur. 
 
 P, 248. 
 
 Pro vero consensu de ccenda Domini, consensu mutuo in re sacra- 
 mentaria ministrorum Tigurine Eccles. et Di. J. Calvini ministri Gen. 
 Eccles. jam nune ab ipsis auctoribus edita, 1554, 
 
 Latin. Conf. Helvet. XVIT. 
 
 Hac doctrina evertitur illud sophistarum commentum quod dicit 
 sacramenta nove legis conferre gratiam omnibus non ponentibus obicem 
 peccati mortalis. Preeter quam enim quod in sacramentis nihil nisi fide 
 pereipitur, tenendum quoque est nunquam alligatam ipsis esse Dei 
 gratiam, Xe. 
 
 ALX. 
 
 In ceena &e. nobis communicat Christus, Qui tamen Se nobis prius 
 impertierat et perpetuo manet in nobis. xx. Praesertim vero tollenda est 
 queelibet localis presenti (corporis Christi) imaginatio, Christus, qua- 
 tenus homo est, non alibi quam in ceelo, nec aliter quam mente et fidei 
 intelligentid queerendus est. 
 
 AAT. 
 
 Porro qui in solennibus ccenze verbis, Hoc est corpus Meum, precise 
 liberalem sensum urgent, eos tanquam preposteros interpretes repudia- 
 
Ay” 
 
 342 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ᾿ [A.D. 
 
 the supper ‘This is My Body.’ For we lay down as beyond con- 
 troversy that_they are_to be figuratively received, so that loaves 
 and wine are called (by Christ) that which they signify, by the 
 
 figure Metonymy. [xxu1.] But that Christ feeds us by our eating 
 ‘His flesh, that is not as if any [bodily] substance were made by 
 
 | commixture, &e. [XxXIv.]...For neither do we judge it less absurd 
 
 ai 
 
 gS 
 
 put Christ under bread, or to couple Him with bread, than to 
 ransubstantiate bread into His body. [xxv.] Christ’s body, 
 according to the nature and measure of a human body, is_finite, 
 and is contained in the Heayen as its [present] place. [XXVI.j 
 
 Much less is it allowed to pe pay adoration towards this (flesh). 
 They make an idol of it. 
 
 vi. 291. Matt. xxvi. “At its highest point consecration is 
 nothing else than a sacred_testimony, by which God fixes an 
 earthly and corruptible sign for a spiritual use. 
 
 vir. 184. 1 Cor. xi. “I do not admit that they who bring to 
 the table only an historic faith without a living sense of penitence 
 and faith, receive anything else than a sign. 
 
 P. 173. 1 Cor. x. 16. “For neither do I assent to those that 
 here understand benediction as giving of thanks, and who explain 
 to bless as to give thanks. I confess indeed that it is sometimes 
 put in the sense; but never in that construction which Paul has 
 used here. To bless...to consecrate for this use, that it may be a 
 sign to us of the blood of the Lord.” 
 
 mus. Nam extra controversiam ponimus jigurate recipienda esse, ut esse 
 panes et vinum dicantur id quod significant, per metonymiam, XXIII. 
 Quod autem carnis Sue esu, &c. Christus animas nostras, ὅσο. pascit, id 
 non quasi aliqua fiat substantia commixtu, ὅθ. XXIV....neque enim minus 
 absurdum judicamus Christum sub pane locare, vel cwm pane copulare, 
 quam panem transubstantiare in corpus Ejus. xxv. Corpus Christi, ut 
 fert humani corporis natura et modus, finitum est, et ccelo, ut loco 
 continetur. xxvi. Multo minus Eum licet in pane adorare. Idolum ex 
 eo faciunt. 
 Harmon. VI. p. 291. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 26, ὅσο. &c. In summa nihil aliud est consecratio quam 
 solenne testimonium, quo nobis terrestre et corruptibile signum Dominus 
 in spiritualem usum destinat. 
 
 ΠῚ: 184. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 23, &e, Non admitto, eos qui fidem historicam tantum sine 
 
 vivo peeniteutiz et fidei sensu afferunt aliud quam signum accipere. 
 
 ΤΣ 173. 
 
 1 Cor. x. 16, Neque enim iis assentior qui hic benedictionem gratia- 
 rum actionem intelligunt, et benedicere exponunt gratias agere. Fateor 
 quidem interdum hoc sensu poni: sed nunquam in ea constructione qua 
 hic usus est Paulus. Benedicere...in hunc usum consecrare, ut nobis sit 
 symbolum sanguinis Domini. 
 
1515] ROGER ASCHAM. 343 
 
 (N.) ROGER ASCHAM. B, 1515. Ῥ. 1568. 
 
 Everyone recalls the story of his going to see Lady Jane Grey 
 and finding her engaged with Plato in the original Greek, and her 
 telling him that she far preferred that employment to the pleasure 
 of hunting in the park. Hume refers to Ascham’s works as his 
 authority for that story. But all histories tell of Ascham being 
 the appointed preceptor of Greek to Queen Elizabeth. Cambridge 
 has the honour of having led him into the Greek language. He 
 was of St John’s: but it was the refugees from captured Constan- 
 tinople that were his teachers. He took his degree of B.A. at 16, 
 and that of M.A. at 22, and at 31 he was made Public Orator, 
 having in the meanwhile cultivated the musical art to a great 
 extent as well as mathematical science. The English use of the 
 bow was urged in a treatise which brought him a pension of ten 
 pounds a year from King Edward. In 1548, when he was 33, the 
 early Protestant bias of his mind, which had brought some trouble 
 on him in the first part of his career at the University, drew him 
 into a disputation against the mass. Possibly this recommended 
 him at Court. At any rate before two years, he became tutor to 
 the young king and to the lady Elizabeth, and her Latin secretary 
 in 1558, when she ascended the throne. His death ten years after, 
 at the early age of 53, arose from overtaxing his strength in the 
 production of a poem for presentation to her. His Latin style 
 speaks for itself in these extracts: and his translations of Greek 
 authors were of great service to England: but his reputation as a 
 promoter of the study of that language in this country is hardly 
 surpassed by his accurate judgment and his powerful appeals in 
 behalf of Reformed doctrine. Were it not for some few and small 
 weak parts in this treatise, its republication at the present day 
 might be thought extremely desirable. It might stand well by 
 the side of the Oxford Theses of Thomas Rainolds, Savonarola’s 
 Golden Book, Berengarius’ Answer to Lanfranc, and some portion 
 at least of Antoine Arnauld’s Answers to the Jesuit Nouet on 
 Frequent Communion. These five might constitute a precious 
 string of remedies against one of the prevalent doctrinal disorders 
 of our time. 
 
944 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 The apology of Roger Ascham, &c. &c. 
 
 P. 27. “Ifa fair judge were to read the Gospel and to read 
 the Missal and to discern how much they differ the one from the 
 other, he might also give a decision on this our controversy. If 
 he were to observe Christ sitting with His disciples, with so much 
 humility, with so much simplicity, in altogether open conversation, 
 and breaking bread to each one and handing the cup to each one, 
 and giving order that they should also do so and keep this His last 
 will, and not like will-makers change it by adding or subtracting: 
 if, I say, such a judge were to consider with his own mind seriously 
 Christ doing these things seriously, and then see opposite [to 
 Him] a priest of our time creeping forth alone out of the sacristy 
 to the altar, and standing there alone with his back to the people, 
 with vestments like a player, with mimic gesticulations, in emula- 
 tion of apes, and whispering I know not what to himself with 
 impious profanations, giving [the elements] to himself, distributing 
 [them] to himself, doing all to himself in the most private in the 
 most secret way and alone eating all by himself; come thou, any- 
 one who seest a priest of our time and hast ever contemplated 
 Christ in the Gospel, answer in good faith, whether thou canst 
 recognize Christ in our mass. I know of a surety such a fair 
 person would answer ‘Lo all has been made anew: certainly these 
 massers are will-makers; they make additions, they diminish, 
 ‘they change the will of the Lord, to bring in their own.’ If it is 
 the will of the Lord, why change ye it? &c. 
 
 Apologia Rogert Aschami pro cand Dominicd contra missam et ejus 
 
 prestigias in Academia olim Cantabriyiense exercitutionis gratid in- 
 choata, p. 27. London, 1578. 
 
 Si equus judex legeret evangelium, legeret missale, et quantum inter 
 se discrepent, perspiceret, de hac nostra controversia facile statueret. Si 
 inspectaret Christum sedentem cum discipulis, cum tanta humilitate, cum 
 tanta simplicitate apertum plane sermonem habentem, frangentem panem 
 inter singulos, et poculum porrigentem singulis, preecipientem ut illi 
 etiam sic facerent, et hoc testamentum Hjus ultimum servarent, et non, 
 tanquam testamentari, diminuendo et addendo mutarent: si Christum, 
 inquam, hoc serio agentem serio animo suo versaret, et 6 regione cerneret 
 
 sacerdotem nostratem solum proreptantem ex sacrario ad altare et illic 
 
 stantem solum, aversum a populo, cum vestibus histrionicis, gesticulatio- 
 nibus mimicis, zemulationibus simiacis, et prophanationibus impuis, 
 murmurantem nescio quid sibi, dantem sibi, distribuentem sibi, priva- 
 tissime secretissime omnia agentem sibi, et solum omnia devorantem 
 sibi; age tu, quisquis es, qui nostr atem sacerdotem cernis, et Christum in 
 evangelio unquam contemplatus es, responde bona fide, si in nostra miss 
 Christum agnoscere potes. Responderet talis squus vir, certo scio, 
 “Eece omnia facta sunt nova: profecto hi missatores testamentarii sunt ; 
 “superaddunt, diminuunt, mutant testamentum Domini, ut suum indu- 
 cerent.” Si testamentum Domini est, quare mutatis? &e. 
 
1515] ROGER ASCHAM. 345 
 
 Ῥ 46. “You use the Lord’s supper after your own manner. 
 You add also adoration of the sacrament, perhaps with no ill 
 intent, but whether God wills this, you do not know; and you 
 know certainly that God has not commanded it. But he that 
 does what God does not command, especially in the invention of 
 a new worship...let him beware lest those punishments be hanging 
 over him, that God always prepares for the inventors of new 
 modes of adoration. But if you will take my advice, omit such 
 praying as unskilful piety has taught you to use, and begin only 
 to embrace that which most certain truth has instituted. Omit 
 your excess of worship, which has very often been displeasing [to 
 God], and follow Christ’s perfect institution, which gives us posi- 
 tive security; for he that holds what Christ ordered, he that 
 observes what He taught, he that does what He did, although he 
 adds nothing of his own, may yet understand that he is pleasing 
 Christ. The priest lifts it up: the people adore it, &c. &e. 
 
 P. 60. “How is the sabbath kept holy in England, at least 
 in the greatest part of England? What is the only religion that 
 is reigning? What religion commands the times, the days, the 
 men? To what do men run together in crowds? To hear God’s 
 word? Many seldom hear it. Still more do not desire to hear it. 
 Most despise it. All certainly hear in a state of sloth and languor. 
 But what is that in which alone we spend day by day without 
 being satisfied and long ages without dislike, and set the citadel 
 
 P, 46. 
 
 Tu uteris coné Dominica more tuo. Addis etiam adorationem 
 sacramenti, non malo fortasse proposito; sed an Deus hoc vult nescis: 
 et quod Deus hoc non jussit certo scis. At qui facit quod Deus 
 non jubet, potissimum in novo cultu excogitando,...caveat ne illa sup- 
 plicia ei immineant, que Deus nove adorationis inventoribus semper 
 preparat. At si meum consilium sequeris, omitte orare quod imperita 
 pietas docuit, et incipe solum amplexari quod certissima veritas instituit. 
 Omitte nimiam tuam pietatem, que szpissime displicuit, et sequere 
 perfectam Christi institutionem, que certam securitatem habet: nam qui 
 tenet quod Christus monuit, qui observat quod docuit, qui facit quod 
 Ille facit, etiamsi de suo nihil addat, se tamen Christo placere intelligat. 
 Sacerdos elevat, populus adorat, ἄς. ἅς. P. 57, on using an unknown 
 tongue. 
 
 Py 60; 
 
 Quomodo sanctificatur Sabbatum in Anglia, vel saltem in maxima 
 parte Anglize? Que sola religio regnat? Cui re'igioni serviunt tempora 
 dies homines? Ad quid concursus hominum fit! Ad audiendum ver- 
 bum Dei? Multi raro audiunt. Plures non desiderant. Plurimi con- 
 temnunt. Universi cum socordia certe et languore audiunt, At in qua 
 una re singulos dies sine satietate, longissima seecula sine fastidio, con- 
 
940 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of our religion in it? Is it not in hearing mass? [5 it not in see- 
 ing mass? Does not the mass alone cause other things to be all set 
 aside? &c. ἄορ. If the mass, if the mass alone be not that religion 
 which alone Englishmen long for, why are men endured as priests, 
 who cannot profess to perform any other religion than the mass ? 
 The priests alone present religion to the people; but they are 
 conversant with no part of religion but the mass. Therefore it 
 is clear that hardly any religion is left in England except the 
 mass. And I say not this to set forth the fact, for it is most mani- 
 festly seen; but for the purpose of uttering my complaint about 
 the calamity which is most deplorable; and in this thing my words 
 are shorter and more languid than the exceeding greatness of the 
 wickedness demands: for let us go through all the parishes of 
 England, let us enter the houses of the great, of lawyers and even 
 of bishops, and do not all reckon that Christ’s religion has been 
 honourably established in their homes, if they provided for them 
 some masser however unlearned? Do they care to have any other 
 trace of Christian doctrine taught? And while the people is lying 
 down in such deep sleep, while the priests have so complete an 
 ignorance around them, while the bishops see this, while the high- 
 est magistrates suffer this, surely either there is no God at all in 
 the heaven, or so intolerable a state of things will be punished on 
 earth. And what is it which now and formerly brought in and so 
 long kept this ignorance in concealment ? Only the mass. For while 
 the mass alone satisfies everyone, all have cast off the care of true 
 religion. The sabbath of the Lord was not kept holy. Nearly all 
 
 sumimus, et arcem religionis nostre collocamus? Annon in missa 
 audienda? Annon in missa videnda? Annon sola missa facit ut cetera 
 omnia missa fiant? &c., &c. Si missa, si sola missa non sit ea religio, 
 quam Angli solam expetunt, quare sacerdotes tolerantur, qui nullam 
 aliam religionem quam missam profiteri possunt? Soli sacerdotes 
 religionem populo afferunt ; sed in nulla parte religionis versantur quam 
 in missa. Ergo nulla alia fere religio quam missa reliqua est in Anglia. 
 Et hoc non dico ad explicationem rei que manifestissima est, sed ad 
 conquestionem calamitatis, que deploratissima est ; in qua re et brevior 
 et languidior sum quam tanti sceleris magnitudo postulat: nam pera- ἢ 
 gremus omnes parochias Angliz, intremus edes magnatum leguleiorum 
 et etiam episcoporum, annon omnes pulchre 5101 constitutam esse religi- — 
 onem Christi autumant, si indoctum missatorem 5101 comparaverint ? 
 An ullum aliud vestigium Christiane doctrine docendum curant? Et 
 cum in tanto somno jacet populus, cum tanta ignorantia circumfusi sunt ~ 
 sacerdotes, cum hoc vident episcopi, cum hoc patiuntur magistratus 
 summi, profecto aut nullus Deus est in ccelo, aut tanta intolerantia 
 vindicabitur in terra. Et quid est quod tantam ignorantiam jam et 
 olim invexit et tamdiu texit in Anglia? Sola missa. Nam dum sola ~ 
 missa satisfacit omnibus, omnes abjecerunt curam vere religionis. Sab-_ 
 batum Domini non sanctificabatur. Vias suas non voluntatem Domini — 
 
 , 
 
1515] ROGER ASCHAM. 347 
 
 have followed their own ways and not the Lord’s will. The word and 
 God’s very holy mysteries [in it] have been neglected. The offices 
 of mutual charity have become unknown...Thus everywhere the 
 mass alone was in dominancy in the place of true religion... But 
 he has called up in these times men of God to purge away these 
 foulnesses of the mass, and to restore Christ’s religion to its old 
 splendour. To this our Josiah directs his way, to this the noble 
 Somerset...to this our most noble princess Katherine, and Eliza- 
 
 beth too, ἕο. &e. 
 
 P. 63. “Hand over to me a crowd of priests, and just for a 
 time take away the mass. What would they do? Would they 
 teach? They have learned nothing. Shall they preach? Why 
 they can scarce read straight on. What then can they do? Only 
 perform mass. For the mass alone is their common inn, for it 
 receives and feeds many useless priests; and it has also rejected 
 and shut out from the church of God many fit ministers of the 
 word and the mysteries, for they being unable to endure the 
 abominations of the mass, betook themselves to another kind of 
 life as to another home. And thus these blind guides have led 
 the people along into this present darkness and night, in which 
 they sleep sound and feel nothing except that they have an empty 
 delight in their dream of the mass.” 
 
 [If the above be a true historical picture, it proclaims a loud 
 warning to the men of the present age. | 
 
 omnes fere sequuti sunt... Verbum et sacrosancta mysteria Dei neglecta 
 sunt. Officia mutuz charitatis incognita sunt...Sic ubique loco vere 
 religionis sola missa dominabatur...Excitavit autem his temporibus 
 homines Dei qui has fceditates miss repurgarent et religionem Christi 
 in veterem splendorem restituerent. Huc Josias noster intendit, huc 
 nobilis Somersetensis...huc nobilissima princeps Caterina, et Elizabetha, 
 ἄς. &e. 
 
 P. 63. 
 
 Da mihi turbam sacerdotum et summove missam ad tempus. Quid 
 facerent? Docerent? Nihil didicerunt. Concionabuntur? Imo vix 
 legere explorate possunt. Quid possunt igitur? Solum missare. Sola 
 enim missa diversorium commune est, quod recipit et alit multos inutiles 
 sacerdotes que sola etiam rejecit et exclusit ab ecclesia Dei multos aptos 
 ministros verbi et mysteriorum, qui abominationes mnisse non ferentes, 
 in aliud vite genus, tanquam in aliud domicilium, concesserunt. Et sic 
 hi duces cxci perduxerunt populum Dei in has tenebras et noctem, ubi 
 alte dormiunt et nihil sentiunt, nisi quod somnio miss inaniter oblec- 
 tantur, 
 
948 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (O.) BISHOP JOHN JEWEL, first of Merton, then of C.C.C. 
 Oxford. 8. 1522. Ὁ. 1571. 
 
 Who does not think of “the trusty staff that Jewel gave To 
 “youthful Hooker in familiar style, The gift exalting and with 
 “playful smile”? Then comes the saying of Dean Moren of Merton, 
 “T should love thee if thou wert not a Zuinglian... Surely in thy 
 “life thou art an angel... but a Lutheran.” ‘Then we have scenes, 
 in which Peter Martyr is as father and Jewel-a son, when Martyr 
 disputed against Chedsey and others before King Edward’s Com- 
 missioners. Then his affecting farewell to his college when he 
 “went for his life” with the rest. Then on his return his figure 
 stands up before Harding in an immortal struggle, or our eye rests 
 on him constantly preaching, and ruling his diocese, and justifying 
 his too great toil to his friends because preachers existed not in 
 sufficient number, and the sheep must be fed. The honour of his 
 birth is with Devonshire. His Apology and his Defence will for 
 ever keep alive the memory of the doctrinal position taken by the 
 ‘Reformed Church of England. What can surpass his last address, 
 surpassing as it does his early address to his college? This is a 
 part of it: “I see I am now to go the way of all flesh; and I feel 
 “the arrows of death already fastened in my body... It was my 
 “prayer always unto Almighty God, since I had any understanding, 
 “that I might honour His name with the sacrifice of my flesh, and 
 “confirm His truth with the oblation of this my body unto death 
 “in the defence thereof; which seeing He hath not granted me, 
 “yet I somewhat rejoice, and solace myself that it is worn out and 
 “exhausted in the labours of my calling.” The whole account of 
 
 the death-bed scene is most touching and edifying. 
 
 On the Sacraments. Parker Society. 
 
 P. 1109. “1 will shew the use and order and faith of the 
 primitive church which was in the times of the apostles and 
 of Tertullian, Cyprian, Basil, Nazianzene, Hierome, Augustine, 
 Chrysostom, and other catholic and godly learned fathers. Let no 
 man regard me or my speech. I am only a finger. These are 
 clear bright stars. Ido but shew them unto you and point them 
 that you may behold them. God give us grace that we may see 
 them truly, and by them be able to guide and to direct our way. 
 
 P.111. “Christ says ye shall not eat this body that ye see, 
 neither shall ye drink that blood that they shall shed that shall 
 
1522] BISHOP JOHN JEWEL. 349 
 
 crucify Me. I have recommended unto you a certain sacrament. 
 Being spiritually understood it will give you life. Even so Chry- 
 sostom, What is it that He saith? The flesh profiteth nothing. 
 He speaketh it not of flesh indeed. God forbid, &., ὥς. Cyril, 
 He gave fragments of bread to His disciples. John, Bk. Iv. c. 14 
 and c. 10. See ad object. Theod. Anath. 1. Chrysostom, That 
 nature of bread remains in the sacrament. Ambrose, That those 
 things which were may (still) be; and may be changed into another 
 thing. How much more operative is the word of God, Sermo Dei! 
 Jerome, That cup which is a creature (7.e. the wine). Justin, 
 They distribute of the bread in which thanks were given. Ber- 
 tram, According to the substance of creatures, what they were 
 before consecration, that they afterwards continue. Clement, He 
 shews that was wine which He blessed. [Wote. I have given 
 these in English, not thinking much can be proved by short 
 sayings picked out like individual stones from the walls of the 
 fathers’ building. ] 
 
 P. 1116. “The bread and the wine remain in their proper 
 nature. So is it avouched by our Saviour. [A long list of short 
 extracts from St Paul down to Rabanus: and with the exception 
 of the first opposite extracts can be taken from the quotations of 
 almost all in this volume. ] 
 
 P. 1118. “Vigilius of Tapsus. When (the flesh of Christ) 
 was on earth, it was not in heaven, and now because it is in 
 heaven it is not also on earth, non est utique in terra. Cont. 
 Eutych. τι. [P. 1119.] Jerome. When we hear the Lord’s 
 speech, the flesh of Christ and His blood is being poured (infun- 
 ditur) into our ears. Jn. vi., Ps. exlvii. 
 
 P. 1122. “Round figures and a thing imperceptible as to 
 power (quantum ad potentiam). Epiph. in Ancor. Aug. de Trin. 
 ut. 10. To have honour for them not stupefaction (stuporem), 
 tanquam mira non possunt. [P.1123.] Controversy with Harding. 
 Scotus and Innocent III. and certain others say that this word 
 ‘benedixit’ worketh consecration. The common opinion is that 
 it is wrought by the words ‘This is My body.” Some think that 
 Christ spake these words twice: first seéretly, to Himself, and 
 afterward openly, that the apostles might understand Him, Bes- 
 sarion. But the Greek church thinketh the consecration is not 
 wrought by these words, but by the prayer of the priest which 
 followeth afterwards. Christ said not, ‘Say ye this,’ or ‘ By these 
 ‘words go and transubstantiate or change natures,’ St Paul, 1 Cor. 
 xi. This is well noted and opened by St Augustine. Put the 
 words of God to the elements, and it is made a sacrament. Not 
 because it is spoken, but because it is believed. The word of faith 
 which we preach (saith St A.), not the word which we whisper in 
 secret, is the word of consecration. 
 
350 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Defence of the Apology. Vol. mt. Ch. xt. § 7. 
 
 “We affirm that the bread and wine are the holy and heavenly 
 mysteries [7.e. signs or sacraments] of the body and blood of Christ, 
 and that by them Christ Himself, being the true [1.6. antitypical] 
 bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us that by faith we 
 verily receive His body and blood.” 
 
 If the reader will refer to the extracts from Hugh Latimer’s 
 last public appearing at Oxford before his death, he will there see 
 the danger of using this ambiguous word “verily” in relation to 
 Christ’s body and blood, except in the usual almost universal 
 sense in which it is used in this controversy, vz. not the sense 
 
 _ of antitypical or spiritual, but in the sense in which our Church 
 
 @ 
 
 says, “the true natural body of Christ is in heaven and not 
 here.” It will have been found by the reader of the extracts 
 in this book that the sense of “a body according to nature” 
 is used many dozen times for one use of it in Jewel’s sense 
 in this passage; and if clearness is the sine qud non in a com- 
 plicated controversy like this of the Lord’s supper, is it not to be 
 lamented that Jewel used the cognate words “really present” 
 respecting Christ’s spiritual and heavenly present aid? Yea, that 
 our renowned champion Jewel uses “verily receive Christ’s body 
 “and blood” in the same manner? The ill consequences are to be 
 traced down to the Archbishops Tillotson and Wake, and also 
 since. If two hostile armies persist in using different flags for the 
 same signal, must it not create confusion to both sides, and hinder 
 the fair conclusion of the campaign ? 
 
 “That was not Christ’s meaning that the wheaten bread should 
 lay apart his (¢e. its) own nature and receive a certain new 
 Divinity; but that He might rather change us, and, to use Theo- 
 phylact’s words, transform us into His body [see p. 491]. For as 
 he saith, We are transelemented or transnatured and changed into 
 Christ : even so and none otherwise we say, The bread is transele- 
 mented or changed into Christ’s body.” 
 
 This may be termed seizing the weapons of corrupt doctrine to 
 beat it down; which is always a dangerous and often a very 
 hurtful trick: and so here. For if a Theophylactine disciple turns 
 round and says “ You confess that your body’s very elements are 
 “changed into the elements of Christ’s body; and that is just 
 “what the eating of Christ’s very body does for us, and nothing 
 “but His body can change our bodily elements; therefore you 
 
1522] BISHOP JOHN JEWEL. 351 
 
 “admit that it is His true natural body that we all receive,” then 
 I say we begin to wish we had never set foot in that. path at 
 all. But is it true in fact that Christ does in any sense trans- 
 element our bodies by the Lord’s supper? Is there a hint of 
 any bodily change whatever in us through this sacrament? If 
 not, surely it is better to cast out the word “transelemented ” 
 altogether. 
 
 “For what can be said more plainly than that which St 
 Ambrose saith, ‘Bread and wine remain still the same as they 
 ‘were before; and yet are changed into another thing’? or 
 that which Gelasius saith, ‘The substance of the bread or the 
 ‘nature of the wine ceaseth not to be’ ?” 
 
 It will be seen by reference to Ambrose that the quotation is 
 not exact, but is a sentence made up from different parts of the 
 chapter. But perhaps one ought to notice the plan too common 
 in the English Reformers of quoting only a very small fragment 
 from a father, just as if it were transferred from a commonplace 
 book of scraps, without referring to the original, and thus omitting 
 to notice, as occurs in this case of Ambrose, that the general drift, 
 and in fact nearly all the rest of the chapter, goes strongly the 
 other way. Then to the next quotation, that from Gelasius, nearly 
 the same remark applies: and thus it is that our Reformers’ 
 writings are now held in very low estimation by such Germans as 
 Dr Dollinger. In fact the only course to be followed regarding 
 the fathers is to give up using them as partisans, and to be careful 
 to produce them fairly and to reason from them justly. The other 
 three quotations from Augustine, Theodoret and Origen are fairly 
 taken and justly reasoned from: for they are among almost the 
 most Protestant of the fathers. The results of my own researches 
 place indeed Theodore and Athanasius before them, and Clement 
 of Alexandria and Tertullian in their company. If this be true 
 their favourable sayings have few counter-sayings that need to be 
 alluded to: though this can hardly be said of Augustine. 
 
 I cite but one more passage of Jewel to shew yet more plainly 
 his line of argument regarding this sacrament. It is to Jewel’s 
 credit now as always that his words distinctly express his meaning, 
 nor is there any sleight-of-hand in his reasoning. 
 
 P. 449, c. x1.§ 1. “And we do expressly pronounce that in 
 
 the Lord’s supper there is truly given into the believing the body, 
 and blood of our Lord, the flesh of the Son of God (which must 
 
 ν 
 
352, THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 needs be the flesh of His humanity, since to talk of the flesh of 
 His Godhead either in reality or in a figure were intolerable), 
 which quickeneth our souls, the meat that cometh from above, the 
 food of immortality, of grace, truth and life: and that the same 
 supper is the communion of the body and blood of Christ by the 
 partaking whereof, κοινωνία, we be revived, ζωοποιούμεθα strength- 
 ened and fed unto immortality, and whereby we are formed, united, 
 and incorporate into Christ, that we may abide in Him and He 
 in us. 
 
 I give this passage entire, because this and the previous extract, 
 of which I have treated, constitute the keystone of the Apology in 
 relation to this subject. The Greek is inserted by me as being 
 the corresponding patristic terms. The whole is put with consum- 
 mate skill, as is all the Apology; the only question being how far 
 it is right to set down all this epexegesis of the idea without one 
 yhint that it is only in a figurative, tropical, or metaphorical sense 
 that “the bread” is called “the Lord’s body.” Yet this and 
 nothing less is the real point at issue between us and the corrupt 
 churches who hold that it is changed into Christ’s true natural 
 body. Besides this the only charge against Jewel is that he very 
 strongly inclines to making out that almost all the strong expres- 
 sions in the fathers on this subject bear simply a spiritual meaning. 
 And all that I desire in this book is to put either all that every 
 leading author says on this subject, or, if his writings be too 
 copious to allow of this, an amply sufficient quantity of large 
 extracts to enable every reader to judge for himself regarding 
 every leading writer, whether each one, on the whole, or entirely 
 gives his vote and influence in favour of the one side, which the 
 Church of England has on the whole very decidedly adopted, or on 
 the other, against which she protests as a protesting or Protestant 
 church. 
 
 (P.) CORNELIUS JANSEN, BISHOP OF GHENT AND PROFESSOR OF 
 LOUVAIN. B. 1510. pb. 1576. 
 
 See life of the later Jansenius, his nephew. 
 
 P. 458. “But that both this passage, John vi, ‘Unless ye ὁ 
 eat, &c. and that on the last supper must not be understood of 
 
 P. 458. Leyden, 1580. 
 Verum de hujusmodi carne, aut corpore mystico (i.e. the church) et 
 hune locum (John vi. Unless, &c.) et illum in ultima ccend non esse 
 
1510] CORNELIUS JANSEN, 353 
 
 flesh of this kind or the mystic body, but (that they were spoken) of 
 the true and properly so called flesh of the Lord, is manifest from 
 its being here said, “The bread which I will give is my flesh, ἡ. 6. my 
 body; but it is added, ‘which will be given for you:’ and by these 
 additions it is manifest that He spake concerning that flesh and that 
 body, which was hanged for us on the cross. Nor did Augustine 
 doubt but that Christ’s true body was really contained under the 
 sacrament and the appearance of bread, as appears plainly from 
 various passages of his writings [but more in him teaches the 
 opposite]; and to bring forward one out of many, it plainly ap- 
 pears from what he writes on the title of Ps. xxxii., address L., 
 ‘Christ was being borne in His own hands, when commending to 
 ‘them His own very body He says, This is My body, &. For He 
 ‘was bearing that body in His own hands.’ Thus Augustine; and 
 he also says in the same place that (Christ) spoke of the same 
 body here in John vi. ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
 man, ἄρ. But the reason, why Augustine at some time inter- 
 preted this passage of St J ohn, of Christ’s mystical body, appears 
 to be this, that he might shew that these sentences of the Saviour 
 belonged to all that are alive, and again that he might shew that 
 they are absolutely true, and that he might exhort the faithful by 
 them unto unity and call them away from schism and heresy. 
 For he was in the habit of seeing many obtain the life of the 
 Spirit, as he was seeing again many infants sacramentally eat the 
 flesh of Christ, but they did not attain to life (by it) as they 
 unworthily received it. He was seeing heretics too and schismatics 
 come in crowds to the sacraments of the Lord’s body. Observe 
 
 intelligendum, sed de verd et proprie dicta carne Domini manifestum 
 est ex eo quod hic dicitur, “The bread which I will give, &c.” hoc est 
 corpus Meum; sed additur “quod pro vobis tradetur.” Quibus additi- 
 onibus manifestum fit Eum de ea carne et eo corpore locutum, quod pro 
 nobis in cruce est suspensum. Nec dubitavit Aug. quin reverd Christi 
 corpus verwm contineretur sub sacramento et specie panis, quemadmo- 
 dum ex variis locis scripturarum ejus patet: et ut ex multis unum 
 proferamus, patet ex illo quod scribit super titulo Ps. xxxiii., concione 1.» 
 “Ferebatur Christus in manibus Suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus 
 “Suum ait, Hoc est. Ferebat enim corpus illud in manibus Suis.” Heee 
 1116, qui et eodem loco dicit, de eodem corpore locutum esse hic apud 
 Johannem vi. .» Wnless ye, de, Quod autem quandoque hunc locum’ 
 Johannis Aug. interpretatus est de corpore Christi mystico, ratio vide-- 
 tur fuisse ista, ut sententias has Salvatoris ostenderet ad omnes pertinere- 
 qui vivunt, et rursum eas ostenderet absolute veras esse, ac per eas ad: 
 unitatem fideles hortaretur, atque a schismate et heresi avocaret. Vide- 
 bat enim multos habere vitam Spiritus (by baptism), ut infantes videbat 
 rursum multos sacramentaliter carnem Domini, manducare; qui vitam 
 non assequerentur, wt indigne sumentes. Videbat et heereticos et schis- 
 maticos sacramenta corporis Domini frequentare. Proinde attendens 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΠ: 23 
 
354 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 further that the body of Christ is twofold; of which each is the 
 thing in the sacrament of the eucharist, but the one is a thing 
 signified and truly contained in it, the other is a thing signified 
 indeed, but not contained in it...It seemed fit to him to explain 
 opinions of this kind regarding Christ’s mystic body, that he who 
 had been in any way incorporated into it, had obtained the fruit 
 of it, but that he who had not been incorporated, neither had he 
 obtained the fruit though he had received the sacrament itself. 
 [It is only fair to Jerome to trace the frequent occurrence of this 
 very important distinction of his in doctors no more enlightened 
 than this Jansen of Ghent. The one notable passage in Jerome 
 must be fresh in everyone’s remembrance.| But to our subject... 
 It remains that all this passage be most consistently understood 
 concerning spiritual eating (which is through faith) of the flesh 
 which was delivered up for us on the cross and the blood shed for 
 us (and this is the fourth mode of eating the Lord’s flesh), and 
 that it be understood of this is fully required by the preceding 
 and succeeding context: and if it also be understood of this, all the 
 difficulties cease, which arise if it be understood of sacramental 
 eating. Certaimly Augustine on Christian Doctrine, II. 16, teaches 
 that we must understand of spiritual eating ‘He that cometh to me 
 shall never hunger, &c., where beyond doubt he is not speaking of 
 receiving the sacrament of the eucharist; but he is saying that 
 hunger and thirst are taken away by the alone act of faith; and 
 further we are said by the alone act of faith both to eat and to 
 drink...[P. 459.] Under the sacrament of bread and wine are 
 truly continued to us [in unbroken order] the flesh and blood of 
 Christ.” 
 
 It is worthy of notice how much more light shines in this 
 divine’s writing, after the notable distinction by Jerome has 
 
 duplex esse corpus Christi; quorum utrumque est res sacramenti eucha- 
 ristie; sed alterum res significata et vere contenta, alterum res significata 
 quidem, sed non contenta...visum est ei hujusmodi sententias explicare 
 de corpore Christi mystico, quod, qui illi quovis modo incorporatus esset 
 fructum sit assecutus; qui vero non [i.e. incorporatus], nec fructum est 
 assecutus, etiamsi sacramentum ipsum percepisset. Sed ad rem... Restat 
 totum hunc locum convenientissime intelligi de manducatione spiritual 
 (que est per fidem) in carnem traditam in cruce et sanguinem effusum 
 pro nobis (qui est quartus modus manducandi carnem Domini) de quo ut 
 intelligatur et precedentia et sequentia satis exigunt, et de quo si in- 
 telligatur, cessant omnes difficultates, que oriuntur, si de sacramentali 
 manducatione accipiatur. Certe de spirituali manducatione esse intelli- 
 gendum docet Aug., m1. 6. 16, de doct. Christ., “He that cometh to Me 
 shall never hunger, &c.,” ubi procul dubio non loquitur de perceptione 
 sacramenti eucharistiz, sed unico actu fidei dicit et famem tolli et sitim, 
 ac proinde unico actu fidei dicimur et manducare et bibere. P. 459. Sub | 
 sacrainento panis et vini vere continwatur caro Christi et sanguis. 
 
1510] CORNELIUS JANSEN. 355 
 
 flashed across his mind afresh. I wonder how many such disciples 
 of Augustine the Council of Trent comprised—possessors of the 
 bifarian speech of that great but not clear divine. 
 
 (Q.) WOLFGANG MUSCULUS. B. 1497. D. 1563. 
 
 Andrew Musculus was born 17 years later. Wolfgang was a 
 native of Lorraine. His father was a cooper. His skill in com- 
 menting on the Scriptures, chiefly on the New Testament, is so 
 great, that a modern writer on St John says that it is hardly 
 possible to say anything good on St John which is not to be found 
 in this author. He was sent out like Luther to sing in the streets 
 and beg for his sustenance from door to door. This is said to have 
 been appointed by parents in order to teach their sons self-denial 
 and activity. His history was that of many. He found favour 
 with a prior, and he read some of Luther’s books. His heart was 
 touched by God’s Spirit and he gave himself to the preaching of 
 Christ's truth both among the poor and the rich. He was threat- 
 ened by the governor of a castle in the Palatine: who, when he 
 found Musculus beyond fear, gave him his friendship and protec- 
 tion. Mentz, Strasburg, and Augsburg were the chief scenes of 
 his honest and affectionate preaching. In the last of the three 
 he laboured 18 years. He preached boldly, against much opposi- 
 tion, during the critical council held by Charles V. at Augsburg. 
 And when the Emperors “Interim,” a book of church rules 
 adverse to Protestantism, was accepted by the senate, he left the 
 city and, after some wandering and an invitation to England, 
 settled at Berne and gave to it his last 14 years. John Haller was 
 his friend and guide during a large part of his life. He wrote 
 against Cochleus who wrote against everybody. 
 
 Andrew Musculus was a Lutheran minister and Professor at 
 Frankfort-on-the-Oder. He wrote against Osiander who made 
 justification inherent. This Musculus went to the full extent of 
 Lutheranism regarding the Real Presence, fully believing in the 
 ubiquity of Christ’s natural and glorified human body. He helped 
 in framing the formula of concord. But one of his books is in 
 refutation of any physical localization of Christ’s glorified body. 
 In a word this short notice is enough without any extracts from 
 his writings. He wrote also on free-will. He was a hot polemic, 
 
 23—2 
 
356 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and was hotly answered by his antagonists. He was born at 
 Schneeburg in Meissen and studied at Leipsic and Wittenberg: 
 see Ddllinger, La Réforme, a valuable repertory of fresh matter 
 regarding the German Reformers. Andrew Musculus is much less 
 celebrated than lis namesake Wolfgang; whose very countenance 
 seems to breathe peace and to express integrity and quiet courage. 
 Andrew died 1581. Many of his controversial works survive. 
 
 P.84. Gal. “Yet one will say, Can (righteousness) be said to be 
 from the sacraments equally as from the law? If righteousness 
 is from the sacraments, baptism and the supper of the Lord, has 
 Christ died in vain? I briefly answer, It is not the signs of Christ’s 
 death, but the death itself, by which our sins have been blotted 
 out, that justifies. But sacraments are not the death of Christ, 
 but signs of the death of Christ added to the word [or preaching] 
 of the cross. Therefore sacraments do not justify. We are bap- 
 tized into the death of Christ, and in the supper of the Lord we 
 celebrate Christ’s death; but the virtue of the death of Christ, by 
 which we are justified, is not apprehended by the outward use of 
 the sacraments but by faith alone. Wherefore some have rightly 
 written that not the sacraments but the faith of the sacraments 
 justifies. 
 
 P. 243. 1 Thess. “It is of much consequence how we receive 
 the word of God. For though the Gospel is in itself not the word 
 of men but of God, yet it 15 not the word of God to them who 
 receive it not as the word of God but as the word of men, In 
 like manner it is not enough to receive God’s sacraments, unless 
 you receive them as God’s sacraments—that is to say with that 
 
 Ep. ad Galatas, p. 84. Basil, 1561. 
 
 Adhue dicet quisquam, Possitne de sacramentis perinde atque de 
 lege dici (justitia)? Si per sacramenta, baptismum et cenam Domini est 
 justitia, ergo Christus frustra est mortuus? Breviter respondeo, Non 
 symbola mortis Christi, sed mors ipsa, qua peccata nostra deleta sunt, 
 justificat. Sacramenta vero non sunt mors Christi sed mortis Christi 
 symbola, sermoni crucis adjecta. Ergo sacramenta non justificant. 
 Baptizamur quidem in mortem Christi eb in cena Domini mortem 
 Christi celebramus, verum virtus mortis Christi, qua justificamur, non 
 externo sacramentorum usu, sed sola fide apprehenditur. Quare recte 
 scripserunt nonnulli, non sacramenta, sed sacramentorum fidem justi- 
 ficare. ° 
 
 1 ad Thess., p. 243. 
 
 Multum refert quo modo sermonem Dei accipiamus. Licet enim 
 evangelium in se sit sermo non hominum sed Dei illis tamen non est 
 sermo Dei, qui illud non ut Dei sed ut hominum sermonem accipi- 
 unt. Consimili modo non est satis accipere sacramenta Dei, nisi ea 
 accipias ut sacramenta Dei—ed videlicet fide ac religione qua sacra- 
 
1497] WOLFGANG MUSCULUS. 357. 
 
 faith and religion with which God’s sacraments ought to be 
 received. For though they are in themselves God’s sacraments, 
 yet they are uselessly received, yea even to judgment if they are 
 not received in a manner worthy of them as God’s sacraments. 
 1 Tim. The Papists accuse us of rejecting the unity of the 
 church, fasting, good works, ἕο. We answer them, we know that 
 the unity of the church is good if it be legitimate. ‘We know that 
 fasting is good if it be used without superstition rightly and legiti- 
 mately. We know that good works please God, if they be done 
 legitimately, not in a feioned faith but ina good conscience, So 
 say we to our brothers also. We know that the bread and cup 
 of the Lord’s supper is Christ's body and blood, Christ is every- 
 where present to us and fills all things; provided these things be 
 received in their sound and legitimate sense. For if they are 
 otherwise understood they are not true but erroneous. Whence 
 also in this age of yours a strife in councils has arisen as, alas! 
 appears....All laws are void without being used, as also doctrine 
 and sacraments. There is a most bitter discussion on the sacra- 
 ments: in the mean time we see little care regarding their prac- 
 tice. We know that the sacraments instituted by Christ are good, 
 but on this point there is no need for any discussion: but we 
 add—if any one use them sacramentally, 1.6. as a sacred sign. 
 Otherwise it were better that we were altogether separated from 
 all sacraments. For an abuse of them is not only empty, but also 
 damnable and destructive, even though we contend to the world’s 
 end that sacraments are good.” 
 
 menta Dei accipi debent. Etenim licet in se sint sacramenta Det, 
 inutiliter tamen, immo ad judicium accipiuntur, si non ut sacramenta 
 Dei condigne accipiantur...1 Timothy. Accusant nos Papiste quod rejici- 
 amus unitatem ecclesiz, jejunium, bona opera, ke. &e. Respondemus 
 illis, Scimus quod bona sit unitas ecclesiz, si sit legitima. Scimus quod 
 bonum sit jejunium, si absque superstitione recte ac legitime usurpetur. 
 Scimus quod Deo placeant bona opera, si ex fide non simulata et consci- 
 entia bona legitime fiat. Sic et fratribus nostris dicimus. Scimus 
 panem ac poculum ccenze Dominicz esse corpus et sanguinem Christi, 
 Christum esse nobis ubique praesentem, et adimplere omnia: modo heec 
 sano ac legitimo sensu accipiantur, Etenim si secus intelligantur, non 
 vera sunt sed erronea. Unde et nostro hoe seculo concertatio est in 
 conciliabulis, ut proh dolor! apparet, exorta...Sine usu Inanes sunt 
 omnes leges, quemadmodum et doctrina et sacramenta. De sacramentis 
 acerbissime disceptatur: de usu illorum modicam interim videmus esse 
 curam. Scimus sacramenta a Christo instituta bona esse, qua de re non 
 est opus ulla disceptatione : verum adjicimus—si quis illa sacramenta- 
 liter utatur. Alioqui satius esset alienos prorsus esse nos a sacra- 
 mentis, Est enim abusus illorum non modo inanis, sed et damnabilis 
 
 et exitiosus, etiam si ad finem mundi usque bona esse sacramenta con- 
 tendamus, 
 
358 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 In Extract I. it might be said Musculus teaches that the Lord’s 
 supper is a bare commemoration. Surely no spiritually-minded 
 and orthodox believer in the Gospel ever regarded this sacrament as 
 merely to commemorate Christ’s death without the communicant’s 
 obtaining grace in the use of it. Certainly no one will affirm that 
 “bona esse sacramenta” in the last extract does not refer to grace 
 personally received. In fact the only writers I have found that 
 disjoin the grace signified are Pelagius and Bishop Hoadley, and 
 neither of them denies it. I fancy they believed them useful for 
 obtaining grace. This writer did not take a position as a preacher 
 till 1547, at 50 years of age. It is said that he then began Greek. 
 He was secretary at Ratisbon to the conference between Eck and 
 Melanchthon. Cranmer invited him to England. He became 
 Professor at Berne. His Loci Communes occupied him 14 years: 
 and he wrote Commentaries on many of St Paul’s epistles. 
 
 (R.) BISHOP JOHN HOOPER, BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND 
 WORCESTER. 8. 1495. Ὁ. 1555. 
 
 His name adorns the rolls of Merton College. He is dis- 
 tinguishable for pointed preaching, strong quiet patience, and 
 tenderness of conscience. He gave way about “the habits” after 
 going to prison for them, and he served laboriously and happily 
 as bishop, from the time of the accession of Edward till Gardiner 
 crowned his harsh treatment of Hooper by committing him to the 
 flames. The butt end of the stake near the outside of a church- 
 yard in Gloucester is now replaced by a monument. His last 
 written thoughts are eminent for a sense of unworthiness com- 
 bined with perfect peace in the prospect of his cruel end. He 
 wrote as well as preached much. The Parker Society (second 
 volume) gives 20 lines that he scratched with a coal on the wall of 
 the New Inn at Gloucester the night before he suffered. His last 
 prayer preserved in the Bodleian Library is most characteristic. I 
 extract the words. “I have counted all things but dung and dross 
 “that I might win Thee (Christ); which death is more dear to me 
 “than thousands of gold and silver. Such love hast Thou laid 
 “up in my breast that I hunger for Thee.” 
 
1495] BISHOP JOHN HOOPER. 359 
 
 P. 44. “As far as relates to the element’s substance, it is | 
 bread; as far as relates to the sacrament and the memory of | 
 Christ’s death, the body of Christ was a mystery (allegory). In | 
 substance truly it is bread, but in the mind and in a mystery it is © 
 Christ. 
 
 P. 152. Articles of William Phelps, pastor and magistrate of 
 Cirencester, 1551, sixth King Edward. “As for the eating of His 
 flesh and drinking of His blood really and corporeally and materi- 
 ally or substantially it is but a carnal and gross opinion of men, | 
 besides and contrary to the word of God, that affirmeth His | 
 corporeal departure from earth and placeth it in Heaven alone at | 
 the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and keepeth and | 
 retaineth, holdeth and preserveth the same corporeal body of | 
 Christ there until the general day of judgment, and the word 
 declareth from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the 
 dead. 
 
 Answer to the Bishop of Winchester’s book, p. 127. “In case 
 the sacraments could give us very Christ, the promise of God were. 
 in vain ; the which always appertain to the people of God before 
 they receive any sacrament. He that supposeth to make Christ 
 his and all Christ’s merits by the receiving of the outward sign 
 and sacrament, and, bringeth not Christ in his heart to the sacra- 
 ment, he may make himself assured rather of the devil and eter- 
 nal death. For the sacrament maketh not the union and peace 
 and concord between God and us; but it ratifieth establisheth and 
 confirmeth the love and peacethat_is between God and us before 
 
 for His promise sake. 
 
 } 
 
 P. 225. “I deny any miracle at all to be in the sacrament, 
 but every thing, wrought by God accustomedly by faith, remission 
 of sins and augmentation of God’s righteousness and the signs, to ὦ 
 remain in their proper nature, 
 
 P, 90. “It is a visible word which preacheth peace.” 
 
 Vol. 11. 44. De vera doctrina et usw cence Domini. 
 
 Quantum ad substantiam elementi, panis est ; quantum ad sacra- 
 mentum et memoriam mortis Christi mysterium corpus Christi erat, 
 In substantia vero panis est, in mente autem et mysterio Christus est, 
 
 (S.) ARCHBISHOP MATTHEW PARKER. B. 1504, D, 1575, 
 
 Born at Norwich. Master of Benet, Cambridge, and Dean of 
 Lincoln, The English Bible was revised under his direction. 
 Because he was a great collector of ecclesiastical records, his name 
 
360 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 stamps the Parker Society, which also published his correspond- 
 ence. It was in 1562 that among other changes the article “on 
 Grace” was dropped; which has diminished the practical bearing 
 of the Articles; for this article contains terms that are a good 
 counterpoise to the other truth in Art. xvi. His favourite motto | 
 was, “The world passeth away and the desire thereof.” His 
 countenance indicates quiet stability and resolution of purpose. 
 Lambeth Palace was sought by a nobleman. Parker obtained a 
 promise that it should not be alienated while he abode in it. So 
 to secure it to the see for ever he made a vault in the palace to 
 receive his own remains, and to retain the palace for ever. 
 
 P. 378, Archbishop Parker to Sir A. Edcar. “Sir, as you 
 desired, I send you the form of bread used; and which was so 
 appointed by my late Lord of London (Grindal) and myself. 
 
 P. 460. Do. to Parkhurst. “As for their contention for 
 water-bread and loaf-bread, &c. I trust that you mean not uni- 
 yersally in your diocese to command or wink at the loaf-bread but 
 for peace and quietness to be here and there contented therewith. 
 
 P. 576. “I expound (the rubric ‘To take away the super- 
 stition,’ &c.). Where either there wanteth such fine ‘usual bread;’ 
 or (if) superstition be feared in the wafer-bread, they may have a 
 communion in the fine usual bread.” 
 
 (T.) PETER MARTYR, OF THE VERMIGLI FAMILY. 
 Ba Τοῦ. Ὁ. ipo? 
 
 Born at Florence. Like Luther, he was an Augustinian monk. 
 He was prior at Lucca. Great success had attended the efforts of 
 Zwingel and the churches of Switzerland to spread the Gospel in 
 the north of Italy before the deadly civil war, which terminated 
 Zwingel’s life. The Swiss and German light is said thus to have 
 reached Peter Martyr and many others. Meeting in Strasburg 
 with Ochino, who was flying from Charles V. and the Inquisition, 
 Peter brought him with him to England. He had come on the 
 invitation of Cranmer, who in 1540 obtained for him the Professor- 
 ship of Hebrew at Oxford, and a Christchurch canonry: but 
 Ochino was established in London. When Edward VI. died, they 
 met again at Zurich, where Martyr became Professor of Hebrew 
 and Theology, and frequently preached to Ochino’s Italian congre- 
 
1500] PETER MARTYR. 361 
 
 gation ; who had lost his wife in Oxford. She like Luther’s wife 
 had been a nun: but Zurich was the place of his own death. 
 In erudition he is the accepted rival of Calvin. He took part in 
 the conference at Poissy. He seems to have combined singular 
 sweetness with clear and unflinching fidelity. Bullinger loved 
 him as a brother, and closed his dying eyes at Zurich, to which 
 place, in our English Mary’s reign, he retired. His wife died 
 soon after him; but as she left an inheritance of poverty to her 
 posthumous daughter, the grateful Senate of Zurich interfered 
 and provided for her. He left to the world his Loci Communes, 
 a work on the Lord’s Supper, and a collection of letters. The papal 
 writers reckon him a better Latin scholar even than Calvin. Dupin 
 regrets his loss, and says that if he had not left the Roman com- 
 munion he might have rendered great services to religion and to 
 the state. We may be excused for replying that his secession to 
 the Protestant side enabled him to render great services to the 
 University of Oxford and to the realm of England. His countenance 
 is remarkable for the union of pleasantness and power. The latter 
 is OWing in part to a remarkable expansion, not of the forehead 
 alone; for the entire head is unusually massive. Charles V. saw 
 the light in the same year. Peter and his family were named 
 Martyr after a martyr slain at Florence in the Arian troubles. 
 He studied first at Fiesole, then at Padua, the Cambridge of Italy, 
 if Bologna stands for Oxford. He ministered for five years at 
 Strasburg with Bucer, and returned thither when he escaped from 
 England. He died sitting in his chair on the seventh day after 
 the sickness began. 
 
 Common-place Short Epitome. A.D. 1561. 
 
 P. 879. Disputation at Oxford against Gardiner. “ The words 
 in the supper to be tropically received. Further, the definition of 
 a sacrament, that it is a sign of a sacred thing and the visible form 
 of grace that is not seen, is very greatly on the side of our opinion. 
 For by that publicly received opinion it follows that those things, 
 
 Loct Communes. From Class IV., p. 879, § 9. Disputation at Oaford, 
 A.D. 1561. London, 1583. 
 
 (A.) Verba cene accipienda tropice. Ipsa porro sacramenti defi- 
 nitio, quod sacre rei sit signum et gratis, que non videtur, visibilis 
 forma nostram sententiam maxime propugnat. LEfficitur enim ex ea 
 
362 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. aD 
 
 which are seen in the eucharist, are the signs of the Lord’s body 
 and blood. 
 
 P. 878. ‘First indeed we affirm that in the sacrament of the 
 eucharist the bread and wine (the things which are testified of by 
 the letter of the Divine word, the fathers and the sense itself to be 
 truly present there) are signs of the Lord’s body and blood. Our 
 adversaries on the other hand declare that they are properly and 
 truly Christ’s body and blood. 
 
 P. 879. “The trope in Christ’s word makes no real and sub- 
 stantial presence of His body and blood necessary. The Divine 
 Scriptures hand down that Christ as far as concerns His human 
 nature has gone away hence, &c. They assert that Christ said 
 that we should not have Him always with us; but that the Heaven 
 must contain Him up to the last day, that He may then at length 
 come to judgment. It suits not a human body to be at the same 
 time in many places... unless we wish to take away Christ’s true 
 body. We must take care not to affirm that it is either diffused 
 in many places, or present in them at the same time... Not even 
 the ‘being’ (essence) of angels, if I may so say, has this power, and 
 theirs is rid of the mass of such a body as ours, to be able to be at 
 the same time together in divers places. 
 
 P. 880. “But who of sound mind could say that Christ’s flesh 
 and blood was shut up either in the water in the desert, or in the 
 
 publice recepta definitione, ea, que in eucharistid videntur, corporis et 
 sanguinis Domini signa esse. 
 
 P. 878. 
 
 Primum quidem in sacramento eucharistie panem et vinum (que 
 Divine litera, patres, et sensus ipse ibi vere adesse testantur) corporis et 
 sanguinis Domini signa esse aflirmamus, &c. Adversaril nostri ex, 
 adverso corpus et sanguinem Christi proprie ac vere illa esse preedicant, 
 Ke. 
 
 ἘΣ δ Sal. 
 
 (B.) Verborum Chiisti tropus non exigit corporis et sanguinis Ejus 
 realem substantialemgue presentiam. Scripture Divine tradunt Chris- 
 tum, quoad humanam naturam, hine abiisse, ὅθ. Asserunt Christum 
 dixisse, nos Eum non semper nobiscum habituros; verum oportere usque 
 ad extremum diem Illum continere celum, ut inde tandem ad judican- 
 dum veniat. § 2. Non convenit humano corpori, ut sit eodem tempore in 
 multis locis...nisi velimus verum Christi adimere corpus. Cavendum ne 
 illud in multis locis vel diffusum vel przsens simul esse affirmemus. 
 § 3. Ne id quidem angelorum (ut ita dicam) essentia habet, que mole 
 corporis privatur, ut eodem tempore simul et diversis in locis esse 
 possit. 
 
 P8805 8. Ὁ: 
 
 Quis autem sanz mentis diceret carnem et sanguinem Domini vel in 
 
 aqua deserto vel in mannd clausum fuisse? § 6. Manna enim illi et 
 
| 
 | 
 | 
 
 1500] PETER MARTYR. 363 
 
 manna? For they had the manna and the water, but we have 
 the bread and the wine.... But those that determine that the 
 blood of the Lord is present in this sacrament must be asked, for 
 what reason and on what colourable pretext they dare, as they do, 
 to call their own sacrifice an unbloody sacrifice. Surely, if they 
 will have the Lord’s blood that flows from the Lord’s side, as 
 Chrysostom hyperbolically wrote, caught in His own cup, let them 
 struggle as far as they will and know how, and can do it, they will 
 never effect their escape from the charge that they drink a bloody 
 cup.... As if truly this presence of the Lord’s body in the 
 eucharist which they boast of and fight stoutly for,... can effect a 
 greater or a better, or any other useful benefit than we have by 
 our spiritual perception, which is accomplished by faith in the 
 mind. 
 
 Words or opinions from which the whole of this discussion will 
 easily slip out. “To eat the flesh or body of the Lord and to 
 drink His blood is to believe that these were given for us as the 
 price of our redemption, and also are conjoined with those things 
 [sins] which for us were taken away on the cross... In the 
 faithful receiving of the eucharist we are not only united through 
 
 | faith to Christ’s body and blood in the will or mind, but we come 
 
 _ out partakers of the grace of the Spirit and of the virtue (excel- 
 
 lence, power) of our Lord, not indeed, by any force in the work 
 itself, but by His own goodness and faithful promise... Bread 
 and wine, which (in some way of their own) both are and are 
 ealled Christ’s body and blood... We are not less joined to Christ 
 
 aquam, nos vero panem et vinum habemus. § 8. Rogandi autem sunt 
 isti, qui statuunt in hoc sacramento Domini sanguinem presentem 
 adesse, qua ratione quo colore sacrificium, ut vocant, Suum ausint 
 incruentum appellare. Profecto si Domini sanguinem, ut Chrysostomus 
 hyperbolice scripsit, latere Domini fluentem in Suo calice volunt excipi, 
 enitantur quantum volunt sciunt et possunt, quin cruentum potum 
 hauriant numquam efficient...§ 10. Quasi vero hee ab istis jactata et 
 propugnata preesentia corporis et sanguinis Domini in eucharistia...vel 
 majorem, vel prestantiorem, vel wlam aliam potest efficere utilitatem, 
 quam nos ex perceptione spirituali, quee fide ac mente...peragitur, habea- 
 mus, 
 
 (C.) Dicta seu sententice ex quibus tota hee disceptatio facilis evadet. 
 § 3. Hdere carnem seu corpus Domini et bibere sanguinem est credere 
 hee pro nobis in pretium redemptionis fuisse data, et istis, que 
 pro nobis, in cruce sublata fuerunt, conjungi...§ 5. In eucharistiz 
 fideli sumptione corpori et sanguini Christi non tantum animo seu 
 mente per fidem copulamur, sed Spiritus gratite ac virtutis Domini 
 nostri participes evadimus, non sane ex vi operis sed ex Ipsius bonitate 
 et fideli promissione. ὃ 6...panem et vinum, que (suo quodam modo) et 
 sunt et dicuntur corpus et sanguis Christi... 7, Non minus Christo in 
 
364 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ΕἾΝ 
 
 in baptism than in the eucharist: wherefore the presence and 
 perception of Him (.6. in the spirit) is to be set at an equal 
 amount in both... Faithful persons only truly and spiritually 
 receive the Lord’s body and blood, 7.e. by faith. [Another sense of 
 the word ‘truly, which when it stands alone as here, admits of 
 the meaning genuine, higher, antitypical, &c., but not when coupled — 
 in Latin with such a word as substantial]... Our bodies are in a 
 certain peculiar way nourished by Christ's body and-blood... We 
 ourselves by participating in faith, &c., &c., are nourished and are 
 nearly transelemented. [Is not this driving too near to Roman 
 teaching to be safe or sound ? See Gregory of Nyssa.] The word of 
 Divine learning [the Bible] in so far as it 1s received by us by faith 
 is the body of Christ and the bread with which our souls are being 
 nourished. That His body is spiritually present to communicants 
 does not indeed mean that it is present invisibly, but yet (ze. 
 further) properly (lit. in its own characteristics) as the Papists say. 
 [Upon this see the note at the end of the extracts from Peter 
 Martyr.]... We admit in the eucharist no other sacrifice than 
 those of giving thanks, of prayers, and our own offerings (alms, 
 ἄς.) These truly ought not to be offered by the minister only, 
 but also by the people communicating... We also offer a sacrifice 
 there in so far as a commemoration of the true Sacrifice is there 
 made... 
 
 P.1068. Zo the Senate of Strasburg, 1556. “Our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ consists of two natures conjoined in one and the same 
 person, or hypostasis, and in these indeed not confused or tho- 
 
 baptismo jungimur quam in eucharistid; quare par utrobique Illius 
 presentia et perceptio (videlicet spiritualis) ponenda est. ὃ 9. Soli 
 fideles corpus et sanguinem Domini vee sumunt et spiritualiter—hoc est 
 fide. § 10. Corpora nostra corpore et sanguine Christi suo quodam 
 modo aluntur. §11. Nos ipsi fideli participatione, &e. &., alimur et 
 propemodum transelementamur. § 13, Sermo Divinarum literarum... 
 quatenus a nobis fide recipitur, corpus Christi est et panis quo animi 
 nostri nutriuntur. ὃ 17. Corpus spiritualiter adesse communicantibus 
 non significat invisibiliter quidem sed tamen proprie adesse, wt Papiste 
 dicunt. §19. Ineucharistia nullum aliud sacrificium admittimus quam 
 gratiarum actiones, precum et nostras ipsorum oblationes. Hee vero non 
 tantum a ministro sed etiam a plebe communicante debent offerri. ὃ 20. 
 Sacrificium etiam ibi esse damus, qudtenus veri sacrificii commemoratio 
 101 fit, &c. ἄς. [Of these some are undesirable assertions as 6 and 10. 
 This epitome, dated 1561, first printed 1568. ] 
 
 P. 1068. Confessio de Cend Domini Senatui Argentinenst 1556, in an 
 addition to his Loci Communes from the editions of Basle and Zurich. 
 
 Servator noster Jesus Christus duabus naturis constat in una eadem- 
 que persona seu hypostasi conjunctis; nec his quidem confusis vel per- 
 
1500] PETER MARTYR. 865 
 
 roughly mingled, but with the properties and conditions of each 
 safe and entire. And therefore it is conceded short of all contro- 
 versy to Christ’s Divinity, which is infinite, {. 6. unbounded, and is 
 circumscribed by no measures or termini, that it is everywhere. 
 But such circumscribed bounds and limits are due to His man- 
 hood from His own nature and its truth, that it can neither 
 be everywhere nor without some fixed location, not through any 
 weakness of Divine power, but by the perpetual and unchangeable 
 conditions of human nature. For as it cannot come to pass that 
 the number three should be the number six, or that a thing that 
 came to pass yesterday should [to-day] be undone, so it is not 
 possible that what is a human body should not be a human body, 
 the definition of which necessarily embraces distinct parts and 
 members. Wherefore whoever confuse those points, and wish them 
 to stand open as wide as the Divine Word; and that on that 
 account that thing which is a human body is either everywhere or 
 in many places, they (really) affirm that it is not a human body, 
 and they say that that which has been created is not a creature. 
 Since it is consistent with no creature, since it is a limited thing, 
 to be at the same time in many places: but the church has never 
 doubted that Christ, as to His human nature, is by the word of 
 God [made] a creature [of God’s hand] ; Christ therefore, because 
 He is a man, left the world [when He went to Heaven, and] is 
 not held by us to be present in the body. For with Him ascended 
 into Heaven that which it (the Heaven) must contain (or hold) or 
 receive until the times of the restoring of all things, as Peter 
 taught: Acts of the Apostles, chap. 11... The signs of bread 
 
 mistis, sed proprietatibus et conditionibus utriusque salvis et integris. 
 Ideoque Christi Divinitati, que infinita est et nullis mensuris aut 
 terminis circumscribitur, wt sié wbique, citra controversiam conceditur. 
 Humanitati vero, ex Ipsius natura et veritate ita cireumscriptio termini 
 et fines debentur, ut nec ubique neque absque certo aliquo loco esse 
 possit, non sane imbecillitate Divinze potentiz, sed nature humans 
 perpetua immutabilique conditione. Sicut enim fieri non potest ut vel 
 numerus ternarius fit senarius, vel ut res, heri gesta, sit infecta, sic 
 non est possibile ut quod est humanum corpus non sit humanum corpus, 
 cujus definitio necessario magnitudinem partes distinctas, et membra 
 comprehendit. Quamobrem quicunque illud fundunt, et tam late 
 patere volunt quam Divinum Verbum, et ob id vel ubique vel in multis 
 locis esse id, quod humanum corpus est, non esse humanum corpus 
 affrmant, et quod est creatum id dicunt non esse creaturam. Quid 
 nulli creature convenit, cum sit finita eodem tempore in multis locis 
 esse; Christum vero, qued ad naturam humanam, ecclesia creaturam 
 esse verbo Dei nunquam dubitavit: Christus igitur, quia homo est, 
 mundum reliquit, a nobis corpore presens non habetur. Cum Ko enim 
 ascendit in celum, quod eum continere seu accipere oportet usque ad 
 tempora restitutionis omnium, ut Petrus in Actis Apostolicis cap. 11]. 
 
900 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and wine having been interposed, which as far as the faithful are 
 concerned, are efficacious instruments of the Holy Spirit while 
 Christ’s sacrament is being performed [this whole idea of the 
 signs themselves being efficacious, will be treated of in the Third 
 Part under the head Dean Goode], faith is excited in us, by which 
 we unfeignedly apprehend with the mind both His body and 
 blood, as they were delivered unto death and the cross for us unto 
 the remission of sins. And this perception indeed, although it be 
 of absent things, and takes place by the mind, does not so much 
 yield profit to the mind alone, but overflows to the body also of 
 them that receive it, so as by.a certain sanctifying force and spiritual 
 commerce it becomes able to receive a blessed resurrection unto 
 eternal life... [Bold presumptions surely, and unwarranted—at 
 best mere possibilities. | 
 
 P. 1069. “Nor do I admit, nor can I acknowledge a real or 
 substantial and corporal presence of Christ in the symbols or an 
 the communicants themselves: though nevertheless I doubt not but 
 affirm that yet a spiritual communion and participation of His body 
 and blood is being given to communicants, [If only a spiritual one 
 who would doubt it? What end do these ambiguities serve ?], 
 which may also be none the less had before the eating of the 
 sacrament, &c. &c. Those words, ‘This is my body,’ were said 
 by the Lord altogether tropically...By many it is not considered 
 that the body of Christ can be truly communicated unless it shall 
 be really and corporally present. [But what did he himself just 
 now say?]...They in my judgment have not perceived the force of 
 faith. For they do not observe that by it things that are present 
 somewhere at a very great distance become by it (faith) present to 
 
 docuit....Symbolis interpositis panis et vini, que Spiritis sancti (dum 
 sacramentum Christi peragitur) quoad fideles, eficacia instrumenta sunt 
 fides in nobis excitatur; qua non ficte animo apprehendimus et corpus 
 et sanguinem Hjus, ut pro nobis in mortem et crucem tradita sunt 
 in remissionem peccatorum. Quz sane perceptio, licet rerum absen- 
 tium sit, et animo fiat, non tamen ipsi animo tantum prodest, verum 
 ad corpus sumentium redundat, ita ut vi guadam sanctificationis, con- 
 junctionisque spiritualis capa fit beate resurrectionis et eterne vite. 
 
 PA MOOD. 
 
 Neque in symbolis, neque in ipsis communicantibus realem aut sub- 
 stantialem corporalemque Christi presentiam admitto, neque possum 
 agnoscere; cum tamen communionem et participationem corporis et 
 sanguinis Ejus communicantibus dari, spiritualem, non dubitem sed 
 affrmem, que nihilominus et ante sacramenti manducationem habea- 
 tur, &e. &e. Verba illa, Hoc est corpus Meum, a Domino omnino 
 tropice dicta sunt...A. multis non existimatur corpus Christi vere posse 
 communicari, nisi realiter et corporaliter...praesens fuerit...Ii meo judi- 
 cio vim fidei non satis perceptam habent. Non animadvertunt per 
 eam presentia nobis fieri que alioqui longissime distant. 
 
1500] : PETER MARTYR. 367 
 
 ? 
 
 us.” [Present in what sense? It must be compatible with physi- 
 eal absence. The church of England says boldly, ‘In Heaven and 
 not here.’] 
 
 Note as to Extracts § 19 and from Ὁ. 1069. Peter Martyr 
 speaks (1) of the body of Christ being present invisibly indeed 
 but still with its own necessary properties (proprie), as the Papists 
 say, and (2) that “many” do not appear to have thought (non 
 existimfrunt) that Christ’s body can be truly communicated ex- 
 cept it be in reality (realiter) and corporally present (corporaliter 
 preesens). This plainly anticipates the line of argument in Bellar- 
 mine, viz. that a human body can be severed from perceptibility 
 through the organs of sight, touch, taste, &., and yet remain a 
 body: so that a body thus perceptible would be distinguished as 
 of a grosser kind, but that a body of a finer kind destitute of 
 such qualities would still be a human body and could be said 
 to be present, as truly as a body in a real and corporeal con- 
 dition. The thing that surprises me is not that certain Roman 
 writers, after the light caught from the collision of the Council 
 of Trent and the Reformations in England and Germany, should 
 have recourse to this distinction as their last plank in their doctri- 
 nal shipwreck, but that such a man as Peter Martyr, lecturing at 
 Oxford, should for a moment even seem to admit it. And this for 
 two reasons: (1) A body so changed would no longer be a human 
 body, perhaps not a body at all. In the most absolute and uni- 
 versal sense, a body that is incapable of being touched is not a 
 body: angels are called wind, wind is air moving, and we touch 
 air and we feel it too especially when in rapid motion, &c. &e.; 
 but (2) There is no evidence within our experience in harmony 
 with this Roman supposition. All miracles, that look at all like 
 this, cannot be shewn to be of this order. A Lecture is printed 
 at the end of this Part which touches on the notable Rome-main- 
 tained assertion that Christ’s body “came through closéd doors” 
 on the evening after His resurrection, It might be generally 
 asserted with more plausibility that many miracles are wrought 
 on the human eye for the time, “Their eyes were holden, &c.” 
 “They smote the men with blindness that they wearied them- 
 selves to find the door.” I mention this here at once, because 
 Beza, who came a little later than Peter Martyr, deals both sum- 
 marily and briefly with these last shifts of Rome. But see the ex- 
 tracts from Bishop Thirlwall, in the authors of the 19th century. 
 
908 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (U.) JOHN BRADFORD, FELLOW OF PEMBROKE HALL AND 
 PREBENDARY OF ST PAUL'S. 8. 1510. Ῥ. 1555. 
 
 He cannot be called a native of Manchester, as he was born 
 at more than three miles distance, at Blackley. Like the late 
 Mr Dallas, his preparation for Holy Orders was serving as bursar 
 and victualling-officer in the British army. It was at the age of 
 37 that he entered himself for the study of law, but his biographer 
 in the Parker Society has pointed out that it was a sermon of 
 Latimer’s, on restitution, that first brought him to himself and 
 made him enter upon the service of Christ; and Mr Demaus 
 has searched out the entries of the very sums that he restored 
 to the Crown, as arrears in conscience due to it, amounting in all 
 to above £300. And the interest of the story is increased by 
 the fact, that Latimer after preaching wide and far his sermons 
 on the plough—of which but one survives, and which were ad- 
 dressed to the English people generally—was invited to preach 
 before the Court, and took this practical subject of restitution, and 
 among those who were moved by it to saving repentance and faith 
 was our own John Bradford. This story is akin to what Archdea- 
 con Hare produces regarding Luther, that no one has so richly or 
 so much dwelt upon and developed spiritual obedience to the ten 
 commandments as the great German champion, in his treatise on 
 the Galatians, of justification being by faith only. For Latimer 
 in his sermon on the plough had been rooting up all rival atone- 
 ments, propitiations and justifyings of worship: and who but he 
 stands up before the court, and enforces obedience to the claims 
 of common justice! and Bradford’s soul is the reward. Methinks 
 if the Law were now more particularly urged in its details it 
 might make men more generally feel that they need the Gospel. 
 
 On the Mass in Sermons, &c. Parker Society. 
 
 P. 394. “He biddeth us use this supper in the remembrance 
 of His death and passion, preaching it out till He come. Whereby 
 He doeth us to wit that corporally He is not there in the form 
 of bread. Therefore saith St Paul, ‘Till He come’ 
 
 P. 390. “The word of God knoweth no more oblations and 
 sacrifices for sin, but one only; which Christ Himself offered, ἡ 
 
1510] JOHN BRADFORD. 369 
 
 never more to be offered ; but in remembrance thereof, His supper 
 to be eaten sacramentally and spiritually, according to Christ’s 
 institution, which is so perverted now, that there is nothing in 
 it simply according to the judge ; 7.e. the word of God. 
 
 P. 392. “His human nature and body (which was made of 
 the substance of the Virgin’s body and not of bread) in this body 
 I say He is and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father 
 Almighty in heaven; from whence (and not from the pyx) will 
 He come to judge both quick and dead. In the mean season 
 ‘Heaven,’ saith St Peter, ‘must receive Him:’ and, as St Paul 
 saith, He prayeth for us and now is not seen elsewhere or other- 
 wise seen than by faith. 
 
 P. 394. “Company not with them, but especially in their 
 church service, but flee from them. For in what thing consent 
 they to Christ’s doctrine? He biddeth us pray in a tongue to 
 edify. They command the contrary. 
 
 P. 395. “They take away all the sacrament by transubstan- 
 tiation: for they take away the element, and so the sacrament.. 
 
 P. 95. On the Lord's Supper. “Not that I mean any other 
 presence of Christ’s body than a presence by grace, a presence by 
 iaith, a presence spiritually, and not corporally really naturally 
 and carnally, as the papists do mean; for in such sort Christ’s 
 body is only in Heaven on the right hand of the Father Almighty. 
 Whither our faith in the use of the sacrament ascendeth, and 
 receiveth the whole body accordingly...But one will say that to 
 call the sacrament on this sort is to give an occasion of idolatry 
 to the people, which will take the sacrament they see simply for 
 Christ’s body, as by experience we are too well taught, &c. &c. 
 [He then argues that we must call it Christ’s body, because it 
 is so called in the Bible, adding] If the ministers did their 
 duty in catechising and preaching, then doubtless to call it Christ’s 
 body and to esteem it accordingly could not give occasion to 
 idolatry and confirm it. Therefore woe be to them that preach 
 not. 
 
 P. 96. “Lest we should make too light of it, making tt a 
 bare sign and no better than common bread, the Holy Ghost 
 calleth it Christ’s body...Objection. Why, saith one, to call the 
 sacrament Christ's body, and to make none other presence of 
 Christ’s body than by grace spiritually and to faith, is to make no 
 presence at all, or to make Him no otherwise present than He is in 
 fis word, where it is preached, and then what need to receive the 
 sacrament? &c. (From) Answer. The presence which we be- 
 lieve and confess is such a presence as the world knoweth not and 
 the world cannot learn, &c. Therefore to grant a presence to faith 
 is not to make no presence at all, but to such as know not faith. 
 
 H. It, 24 
 
370 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 [Among many authorities] Cyril saith, We eat the virtue of 
 ' Christ’s proper flesh. Epiph., The body or grace. Jerome, spirit- 
 ual flesh. All which sayings do confirm this our faith.” 
 
 (V.) ROGER HUTCHINSON. D. 1555. 
 
 There are three very interesting things in his history. One 
 that he and Thomas Lever were associated in a discussion in 
 St John’s at Cambridge, “ Whether the mass is the same thing as 
 “the Lord’s supper or not.” A second is that he and Lever with 
 two others were united with our three great Reformers in visiting 
 and trying to save poor Joan Bocher, the Maid of Kent. A third 
 is, that Hutchinson lying ill and near to death in 1555, sent a 
 consoling message by the hands of Day to Rogers the first martyr 
 in Mary’s reign, Hutchinson had risen to be a senior fellow in 
 his college. 
 
 The Image of God. Parker Society. 
 
 P. 37. “All the fathers before Gregory confess, and the Scrip- 
 tures do witness, that there must be three similitudes in the 
 sacrament; a similitude of nourishing, a similitude of unity, and a 
 similitude of conversion...The similitude of conversion is this, that 
 as the bread and wine are turned into the nature of our bodies, 
 so, by the receiving of Christ’s body and blood, we are turned into 
 the nature of them &c. John vi., We be made one flesh and one 
 blood; and Christ saith, The same nature that My flesh and blood 
 hath, the same getteth he that eateth Me. 
 
 P. 230. Sermon on the Lord’s Supper. “He gave it them into 
 their hands to eat, and not to honour it; to receive it and not to 
 worship it with lifting up of their hands and knocks upon their 
 breasts. Only God is to be honoured with this kind of reverence, 
 and no sacrament; for God is not a sacrament, neither is the 
 sacrament God...Christ gave it them into their hands, not into 
 their mouths. Neither be thou afraid to take it and handle it 
 with thy hands as they did. The council holden at Rotomage 
 (Rouen) did first forbid them to take it into their hands. Regard 
 more Christ’s example and the example of His disciples and of the 
 primitive church, which always did take it into their hands.” 
 
 Note. See on this subject the detailed injunctions as to the 
 mode of receiving the bread and the wine in the extracts from 
 Cyril of Jerusalem. If the mind and heart are nght, it will 
 produce a recoil. 
 
1482] JOHN HAUSSCHEIN, 371 
 
 (W.) JOHN HAUSSCHEIN (CECOLAMPADIUS). B. 1482, Ὁ. 1531. 
 
 If Melanchthon was a true second self to Luther, dealing with 
 those aspects of affairs with which he was unfit to grapple, this 
 divine was the nearest friend and helper to Zwingel. In the inter- 
 national law, of which alone the Swiss Reformer was ignorant, 
 there was none to anticipate the science of future ages, and act for 
 him, as Melanchthon acted for Luther at Augsburg, and often after- 
 wards : but Hausschein followed the lead of Zwingel with singular 
 accord, and only survived him a few weeks. He was born in 
 Franconia; and becoming an early student he retired to monkish 
 life near Augsburg; but it was to Basle that he was drawn when 
 he entered upon the active ministry. There another point was 
 soon fixed, viz. his preference for Zwingel’s views on the Lord’s 
 supper. His bias, however, was towards the mystic theology from 
 the first. Scholasticism was not his choice, Capito, the com- 
 panion of his studies at Heidelberg, induced the bishop to allure 
 him from Augsburg. Erasmus is as usual very witty on Haus- 
 schein’s marrying a very beautiful young woman: but his own 
 painful history in that Yespect made him also a strong satirist of 
 priestly celibacy. Hausschein worked his way onward and upward 
 to the principles of the Reformation with sagacity and steadiness. 
 He like Zwingel was well acquainted with the three chief theo- 
 logical languages. He was useful to Zwingel as a controversialist, 
 and received a rebuff from Luther at Marburg. Unfit for a 
 leader he was an admirable seconder, and an invaluable minister. 
 He will never be forgotten in his chosen city. 
 
 P. 183. “Receive what I without reserve believe. ‘The bread 
 and wine are not to me the only things to confirm the sacramental 
 promise by which my sins are remitted, that it may be the more 
 believed by my weak conscience. For while I am looking for | 
 ereater things it matters not to me what sort of bread and wine 185, 
 
 \ From the Letter of John Hausschein, printed in Bucer, p. 183. 
 Aperte quid credam habe. Sacramentalia signa, quibus sacramen- 
 talis promissio confirmatur, qua remittuntur peccata mea, ut credibi- 
 lior sit infirmee conscientiz mez, non mibi sunt panis et vinum, Nihil 
 enim ad me qui majora quero qualis panis vel vinum adhibeatur, sed 
 
 24—2 
 
372 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 used, but I require certain things of a more wonderful kind, which 
 have an efficacy in adding stability to my weak mind. But these 
 _ are nothing less than His body itself, and the blood (not Spiritus) 
 ἡ itself; not a figure either of body or blood, but the body which was 
 delivered up and suffered for my sin. And that which angels deli- 
 cately enjoy in heaven, and which Christ promised that He would 
 give ; and gave not for carnal but for spiritual food. So also of the 
 blood which flowed forth from His side for my sins. For that 
 efficaciously signs the promise of my deliverance from the faults of 
 (all) my sins... Wherefore doubtless this testifies that this is 
 Christ’s seal that. to me, eating and drinking after a spiritual 
 manner, all n my sins have ‘been forgiven: since with this object He 
 suffered for me. Christ’s word went before, and the result has 
 sealed it with His mgst.sacred seal. I hunger and thirst after this 
 bread and drink, not that it may undergo_assimilation into me 
 . like bodily food, but that I may be ὑπ στ ania Ea, and by 
 spiritual food may. become spiritual, so that when I shall 5: 
 ‘\been in Christ, He also. abiding in me, as having been received in 
 the sacrament, may work of Himself by His own grace; by which 
 I was thus pr epared to attend to the wants of all the members of 
 Christ, even if I had to die for them, as He Himself died for me, 
 and that I may thus become a true member in His own mystical 
 body, not in the body of Antichrist, because I refuse to have a 
 portion with him, but I desire to be a member—of Christ, even 
 the lowest. I cannot now open my mind more. Take this in 
 good part. Bea man, and hope in the Lord. Basle, April 19. 
 
 requiro mirabiliora quedam, ad imbecillam mentem meam solidandam 
 efficacia. Illa autem non sunt nisi ipsummet corpus et ille ipse sanguis, 
 non figura vel corporis vel sanguinis, sed corpus quod traditum est et 
 passum pro peccato meo. Atque id, quo angeli in ceelo delicate fruun- 
 tur, quod Christus promisit Se daturum, et dedit in cibum non carnalem 
 sed spiritualem. Similiter et sanguis qui e latere profluxit pro peccatis 
 meis. Is enim eflicaciter obsignat promissionem emendationis mez ab 
 omni iniquitate mea.,.Quo nimirum hoc testatur hoc Christi sigillum 
 esse, quod credenti et spiritualiter manducanti condonata sunt peccata 
 mea, quandoquidem hac de causa pro me passus est. Verbum Christi 
 precessit, quod obsignavit effectus sacrosancto signaculo, Hunec panem 
 et potum esurio et sitio, non ut in me convertatur sicut corporalis cibus, 
 sed ego in [lum vertar et spirituali cibo spiritualis fiam, ut quam fuero 
 ego in Christo, Christus quoque in me manens, utpote in sacramento 
 sumptus, per gratiam Suam operetur sud opera; qua ita paratus sum ad 
 obsequendum omnibus membris Christi, etiam si pro illis moriendum, 
 sicut Ipse pro me mortuus est, et ita fiam verum membrum in Suo illo 
 mystico. corpore, non in corpore anti-Christi, quia portionem cum illo 
 habere nolo, sed membrum cupio esse Christi vel infimum. Non possum 
 nune apertius. Tu hee boni consulito. Viriliter age, et spera in 
 Domino. Basilea, 19 Aprilis. 
 
1482] JOHN HAUSSCHEIN. 373 
 
 [A manifest difference between him and Bucer! The page is 
 not loaded with assertions of the real presence, and then lightened 
 again by assertions of spiritual benefit to be derived from it. And 
 yet the terms ipsummet corpus et ille ipse sanguis, used in such 
 distinct connexion with the supper, indicate a seasoning of the 
 mind with the same doctrine from which none so near to Germany 
 could wholly escape, and to which Calvin in his way gave a partial 
 sanction. It is a very rich specimen of spiritual emotion and joy ; 
 but clearness fades before feeling. ] 
 
 De Verbis Cene Domini Liber. 
 
 This copy bears the honoured name Christopher Benson, and 
 the following note in his handwriting. “ Erasmus seems to have 
 “regarded this work of Gicolampadius—on the natural exposition 
 “of our Lord’s words ‘This is My body, &c.’ as the most formidable 
 “attack on Transubstantiation and most able defence of sacra- 
 “mentarian views which had been published by any of the 
 “Reformers. Fleury, Eccl. 129—3. It was published 1524.” 
 
 Note. Sacramentarian is here used in its historical Reforma- / 
 tion sense derived from “a sign or sacrament.” 
 
 P.11. “To the common ‘ Master’ of errors our attention shall 
 be turned [2.e. to Peter Lombard, called ‘The Master of the Sen- 
 ‘tences.| For it is he, who has thrown us headlong together into 
 a whirlpool of error. We are drinking from his fountains not living 
 water, but, to say nothing sharper, turbid water. But I have no 
 mind to disparage Thomas Aquinas, nor Duns Scotus, nor any of 
 the later writers; but I blame that Peter, patcher together of 
 sentences, whom they call Master; who himself also might rub his 
 own error against that of another rhapsodist, as for instance John 
 
 The whole title is De Genwina verborum Domini Hoc est corpus Meum &c., 
 jucta vetustissimos auctores, expositione liber. 
 
 P. A. π. Ad errorum communem Magistrum [i.e. Magistrum Sen- 
 tentiarum] me convertam. [How can his book, which is the essence of 
 the fathers, cause him rightly to be thus described if the true sense of 
 Christ’s words can be shewn to have been accepted and taught by the 
 ‘vetustissimi auctores’ of the full title? But this inconsistency still 
 lives.] Is enim est qui nos simul in barathrum erroris precipitavit. 
 Bibimus ex ejus fontibus non aquam vivam, sed, ne quid dicam asperius, 
 turbulentam. Non autem Thomam Aquinatem, neque Scotum [Duns 
 Scotum], neque ex recentioribus quenpiam traducere est animus, sed 
 Petrum illum sententiarum consarcinatorem, quem magistrum appellant, 
 incuso; qui et ipse errorem suum rhapsodo alii, uti Damasceno vel 
 
974 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ΒΓ 
 
 Damascenus or Gratian. [How far is it just to treat Peter Lom- 
 bard as the offender, as a mere misrepresenter of the fathers, and 
 to couple John of Damascus and Gratian? I must again say that 
 this book, with genuine extracts from the various authorities, 
 enables every one to judge; and perhaps it may cause many 
 learned readers to re-weigh the full utterances of the fathers, and 
 see whether Lombard is here righteously made a scapegoat for 
 all]. Nor do I this, assailing him as if I were ungrateful for other 
 benefits. But I ought not to dissemble my having been seduced 
 as well as others, to save from hatred a man that by God’s judg- 
 ment must be left to stand or fall. But I wish to have that error 
 dispersed, even such as either he augmented, or others not much 
 varying from him, did not altogether cleanse after it had been in 
 part augmented. [This is much lower ground to take, as if 
 Lombard had but augmented error that he found in the fathers: 
 This might be.] Wherefore I do not enter a combat of shadows, 
 though he has now departed from the living some years ago. For 
 his book still lives, thickly surrounded with some myriads of 
 satellites, 
 
 P.v. “Doubtless the townsmen of Capernaum may be com- 
 pared to Achis, king of Gath. Achis pronounces David mad, while 
 he is cunningly humbling himself and changing his countenance, 
 and letting the froth of his saliva run down his beard. The men 
 of Capernaum reckon Christ possessed and silly, when He promises 
 them His own flesh to eat. Achis not knowing David’s cleverness 
 lets him go. The Capernaites not understanding the celestial 
 Wisdom withdraw from Him. David being dismissed is recognized 
 by his brethren and all his father’s house. When the people of 
 Capernaum retire, the apostles make an honest confession by the 
 
 Gratiano, affricare posset. Neque hoc ago, de aliis beneficlis velut 
 ingratus, eum arguens; sed meam aliorumque seductionem dissimulare 
 non debeo, quin nec hominem qui in judicio Dei aut stetit aut cecidit, 
 exosum [a verb wanted]. Sed errorem profligatam velim, qualem aut 
 1116 auxit, aut alii, non multum ab eo variantes auctum aliqua ex parte 
 sed non in integrum. purgarunt. Quapropter non cum larvis pugnam 
 ineo, quamvis ante aliquot-annos e vivis ille excesserit. Vivit enim 
 liber ejus adhuc, myriadibus aliquot satellitum stipatus. 
 
 P. A. v. Conferendi nimirum sunt Capernaum municipes Achi 
 Getheorum regi, 1 Kings xxi. Achis furibundum pronunciat Davidem 
 vafre se humiliantem et mutantem os ac salivam in barbam despuman- 
 tem. Capernaitee arrepticium ac desipientem censent Christum promit- 
 tentem carnem Suam ad manducandum. Achis non cognoscens pruden- 
 tiam Davidis illum dimittit. Capernaite non intellegentes ccelestem 
 sapientiam ab Illo retrocedunt. David dismissus a fratribus et omni 
 domo patris agnoscitur, Retrocedentibus Capernaitis, honeste confiten- 
 
1489] JOHN HAUSSCHEIN, 875 
 
 mouth of Peter... not only those do not attain to perfect know- 
 ledge who hate Christ’s word, but also those who promise them- 
 selves a carnal repast, as if Christ’s flesh was contained in the 
 bread. But it is those that dwell with Peter and Christ who more 
 clearly know the sacraments that were secret and hidden from the 
 [past] ages, and these are very far from meriting the reproach of 
 madness. 
 
 B. “It is certain that the church in the apostles’ time paid no 
 admiration to this.miracle, if the church held it to be such, Before 
 other miracles of much less pretension the apostles were stupefied 
 with astonishment. Towards this the apostles were no more. held 
 fast by wonder than at eating the passover lamb just before. 
 Further, they did not put a single word of questioning, who at 
 other times asked questions to the point of weariness and impor- 
 tunity, even in many cases unseasonably; and now they ask about 
 the Father, now about the traitor, and now about the way, and the 
 little while in which He is to be seen, of the primacy, and of His 
 not being about to manifest Himself to the world. But how comes 
 it to pass that the new wonder of the resurrection He marks by so 
 many evident signs during forty days, and this [new wonder of the 
 change of the bread and wine] not by even one sign through all 
 Scripture, when indeed to establish such a thing many signs and 
 prodigies were needed ? 
 
 P. B. τη. “From this we also shall rightly say that the apostles 
 gave no wonder to that thing which, in your explanation, was the 
 greatest of all, and the miracle of miracles: for also they are 
 
 tur apostoli per Petrum...ad perfectam Christi notitiam non perveniunt, 
 non solum qui a sermone Christi abhorrent, sed etiam qui carnalem sibi 
 mensam pollicentur, quasi in pane contenta sit caro Christi. Petri 
 autem et domestici Christi sunt qui arcana sacramenta et a seculis ab- 
 scondita clarius cognoscunt procul ab insaniz probro alieni. 
 
 B. Certum est ecclesiam tempore apostolorum...miraculum hoe, si 
 pro miraculo habuit non admiratam fuisse. Ad miracula alia multo 
 minora obstupescebant apostoli. Supra hoc autem non plus admira- 
 tionis tenuit Apostolos quam, supra, agni paschalis esu; proinde et ne 
 verbum quidem interrogabant, alio qui ad fastidium et importunitatem 
 usque, etiam pleraque intempestive sciscitantes, nunc de Patre, nunc de 
 proditore, nune de vid, et pusillo temporis quo nunc videndus, de prima- 
 tu, deque eo quod non esset mundo Se manifestaturus. Qui fit autem 
 quod resurrectio tot signis evidentibus per dies quadraginta innovat, 
 hoc ne uno quidem per omnem scripturam, quum sane ad ipsum statuen- 
 dum multis erat opus signis et prodigiis? 
 
 P. B. ut. Unde et nos recte dicemus, rem illam omnium maximam 
 et miraculum miraculorum, secundum vos, apostolos non fuisse admira- 
 
376 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 not recorded as having stood up during the supper when it took 
 place, ὅθ. As we read that they remained simply as they were in 
 (hearing) the word of God and prayer, so was it in this rite of 
 breaking bread. I would fain be taught in what part of the rite 
 there was introduced your immoderate apparatus of ceremonies: 
 where the adoration was: where the admiration. In every part 
 are the indications of a pure and simple religion; and affection is 
 commended by their piety. 
 
 B. 11. “ Moreover, if also we truly and with the whole heart 
 readily believed Christ in this manner, it were strange if we can 
 be torn away from expressing our admiration, and if we are not 
 for days and nights prostrate before that bread, and, instead of at 
 matins and vespers only, do nothing else but this. 
 
 B. vu. “Detested be the love of contention in things of so 
 great import. They do even wholly withdraw from church custom, 
 who reject figures where they are most necessary, or instead of 
 figures unseasonably insist upon exact expressions. What is there 
 in a man’s calling out 600 times ‘A trope, a trope, a trope, and 
 another cries out again ‘Take care, take care of the trope,’ and 
 their ears are by turns stopped, that the meaning of scripture in 
 its own sense may not be heard, and in what way that which is 
 said is said. Because doubtless by fair reason all the greatest ab- 
 surdities may be overcome. But we here affectionately kiss the 
 words of God; but we will strive, if God allow, certainly to shew 
 that a trope of expression les under them, since by bread and a 
 
 tos, Recumbebant enim et nec exsurrexisse in ceena perhibentur...Sicut 
 in verbo Dei ac precibus simpliciter permansisse leguntur, ita et in hoc 
 frangendi panem ritu. Doceri velim ubiceremoniarum ille immodicus 
 apparatus? ubi adoratio? ubi admiratio? Ubique indicatur pura sim- 
 plexque religio et commendatur cum pietate charitas. 
 
 B. τι. Porro et nos si vere et toto corde crederemus hoc modo 
 Christum presto, mirum si ab adoratione avelli possumus, et non dies ac 
 noctes ante panem illum prosternimur et pro matutinis et vespertinis 
 horis hoc solum agamus. 
 
 P. B. viz. Detestanda profecto rixandi libido in tantis rebus. Pror- 
 sus etiam a consuetudine ecclesiastica recedunt qui tropos, quo loco 
 maxime oportebat, rejiciunt, vel pro tropis intempestive rigida verba 
 exposcunt. Quid est si sexcenties clamemus, “Tropus, tropus, tropus” ; 
 alius autem reclamet “‘ Cave, cave tropum;” et vicissim obturentur aures, 
 ne audiatur quid sibi velit scriptura et quomodo dicatur quod dicitur. 
 Quia nimirum et ratione absurdissima queeque evinci possent. Czeterum 
 nos hic verba Domini exosculamur; sed subesse tropum idiomatis certe 
 commonstrare, concedente Domino, nitemur, quandoquidem per panem 
 
-" 
 
 1482] JOHN HAUSSCHEIN. ἡ 377 
 sacred symbol he commended the figure of His body, and by the 
 breaking of it and its delivery to death we may be nourished and 
 quickened. 
 
 P. B. vir “ We are said to be buried together with Christ by 
 baptism. He does not say by baptism we are signified to have 
 been buried together with Him. But He says outright, We 
 have been buried with Him. It has been shewn that there 
 is no miracle in the mystic bread above man’s conception : and 
 since that word, ‘This is My body, cannot stand without a figure, 
 that we may escape many obstacles: namely, not preserving the 
 genuine sense of Scripture, and contending against the essential 
 spinit and glory of God, we assert.that the name sacrament..was. 
 rightly given, as the name of the thing which it signifies. [I should 
 urge that a sacrament is the signum ipsum, not the res sacra- 
 menti.] Therefore not moved by light causes, and not destitute of 
 sayings of the fathers, we depart from the opinion of the multi- 
 tude, but we profess and embrace what we ought and what are 
 just, (as) the Writing of the holy Spirit teaches, and what are 
 healthful to our souls and belong to our Christ’s glory, the true 
 bread of men and angels, who will feed us ever, now with His own 
 faith, and hereafter with glory. Amen. 
 
 P.E. vi. “It is besides puerile and foolish to think that flesh 
 enters our soul. For how is a soul able to receive flesh, since 1€7 
 ~S : : 
 not corporeal, nor supplies room for body 7... Hear Augustine o 
 Genesis... Besides, if all that is of flesh is flesh, if the flesh of/ 
 Christ after the manner of carnal eating feed the soul, it then 
 makes the soul carnal ; and does not now perfect it but makes it 
 
 et sacrosanctum symbolum figuram corporis commendavit; cujus fracti- 
 one et in mortem traditione alamur et vivificemur. 
 
 P. B. viz. Dicimur consepulti Christo per baptismum. Non dicit 
 per baptismum significamur consepulti. Sed prorsus ait, consepulti 
 sumus. Demonstratum est nullum miraculum in pane mystico esse, supra 
 hominis captum; et quum sermo 1116, “Hoc est corpus,” absque tropo 
 constare non possit, ut multa effugiamus que obstant, nempe ne germa- 
 num scripture sensum minus servemus et ne contra ipsissimum spiritum 
 ac gloriam Dei pugnemus, recte et sacramentum nomine rei, quam signi- 
 ficat, traditum asserimus. Unde non tenuibus moti causis, nec patrum 
 destituti sententiis, a vulgi sententia discedimus; sed ea profitemur ac 
 amplexamur, que debemus ac justa sunt, scriptura Spiritus sancti docet, 
 quzeque animabus salutaria et ad gloriam pertinent Christi nostri veri 
 animorum angelorumque panis, Qui nos sua nunc fide et olim gloria 
 pascet semper. Amen. 
 
 P. E. vi. Puerile alioquin et ineptum est opinari quod animam nos- 
 tram ingrediatur caro. Quomodo enim anima capax est carnis que non 
 est corporea nec lequm prebet corpori?...Augustinus super Genesim, 
 hib. 7, ο. 12. Preeterea si omne quod ex carne caro est, si caro Christi 
 manducationis carnalis modo animam pascit, animam ergo carneam facit, 
 
378 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. fap: 
 
 weaker. But it is expedient for the soul to come out spiritual and 
 Divine; and this it attains to for the most part by its union with 
 the grace of the word. For Christ’s words are life-giving, and 
 make us spiritual, if indeed they have fallen into good ground.” 
 
 et jam non perficit sed infirmiorem reddit. Anime autem expedit ut 
 spiritualis evadat et Divina; quod assequitur unione gratiz verbi potis- 
 simum., Verba enim Christi vivifica sunt, spiritualesque reddentia, 
 siquidem in bonam terram ceciderint. 
 
 (X.) MARTIN BUCER. B. 1491. Ὁ. 1551. 
 
 He and John Hausschein (by a fashion which now appears 
 childish changed into CGicolampadius, the most outrageous, because 
 the longest of the Grecised names), once taught at Strasburg: 
 but Hausschein moved down to Basle. Hallam’s account of Bucer 
 who was originally a Dominican is imperfect, as he has not allowed 
 in his estimate of Bucer for his retractation in Luther’s favour ; 
 which is printed in his Commentary on Matthew xxv1., nor for a letter 
 from John Hausschein, which Bucer there inserts. Any one may 
 indeed reply that in his kindness of heart and love of unity Bucer 
 seems in it to overshoot the truth on the other side. But there 
 was abundant room for variations in Germany in this changing 
 controversy : and yet who can refuse to agree with Hallam when 
 he says in his Constitutional History, 1. 91, note, “The truth is 
 “there were but two opinions at bottom on this main point of the 
 “controversy: nor in the nature of things was it possible there 
 “should be more. For what can be predicated concerning a body 
 “in its relation to a given space—but presence and absence” ? 
 Yet we must add that John of Paris’ impanation—which appears 
 in Hallam’s own extract from Luther in the words “in pane esse” 
 —is not the same as the Transubstantiation of the 13th and 16th 
 centuries : Bucer’s view too, and John Calvin’s—to allude to no more 
 now—are both different from these and from each other. So hard 
 is it, when party or blind patriotism or (must it be said?) when in 
 part self-love and self-seeking make men desire to differ, not to find 
 a defensible way. And sometimes in the very weariness of contro- 
 versy and in a longing for unity, something of truth is surrendered. 
 This seems to me to have taken place in the agreements entered 
 
1491] MARTIN BUCER. 379 
 
 into between Calvin and the Swiss churches after the untimely 
 and lamentable death of Zwingel; and also in several cases in 
 which Melanchthon afterwards took the lead. But truth will in 
 the end float to the top even in this controversy: and the greatest 
 honour a true mind can aspire to is to help truth to its nghtful 
 sovranty. 
 
 Hallam rightly, as it seems to me puts “real” and “ corporal” 
 as equivalents. 
 
 Martin Bucer, born at Schelestadt in Alsace, as well as Peter 
 Martyr born in Italy, became half Englishmen by coming over 
 and accepting Professorships, the latter at Oxford the former at 
 Cambridge, where Bucer also died: But Strasburg (Argentoratum) 
 must be reckoned Bucer’s seat, and Basle that of Hausschein, 
 though the latter was first a preacher at Strasburg cathedral. It 
 is Bucer of Strasburg and Cicolampadius of Basle, with whom 
 history is most concerned. 
 
 After leaving the study of law Hausschein, unsatisfied with his 
 equipment for the ministry, went to Stuttgard to profit by the 
 teaching of the famous Reuchlin, and on his return to Heidelberg 
 added Hebrew to the two classical tongues, in which theology is so 
 deeply involved; and it was Wolfgang Capito that procured him 
 his invitation to Basle, the city of his principal labours. As the 
 dates shew, he died early, viz. in his 49th year. His struggle with 
 John Cochleus at Basle in 1524 and his publication of Anti- 
 Cochleeus seem to be his most noted labours. His efforts at recon- 
 ciling the German with the Helvetic divines partook too much of 
 the nature of a compromise to be successful then, or to attract 
 admiration since. We can give him little more than the colour- 
 less credit of good intentions. He was born at Weinsburg in the 
 same year as George Spalatin. 
 
 Bucer went from Schelestadt to Heidelberg to study, and there 
 received his first gospel light from a work of Erasmus, and after- 
 wards a fuller understanding from one of Luther’s; whom he 
 afterwards joined at Worms, and had free conference with him 
 there. Going with the elector-palatine to Belgium, he boldly 
 rebuked the superstitions there prevalent, so that he was in peril of 
 his life, like Paul at Jerusalem: but his friend and patron Francis. 
 Sickenger protected him. In 1513 he came to join Caspar Hedeo 
 at Strasburg and they, together with Lilling, reformed the reli- 
 
 > 
 gious customs of the city. In 1541 he took part in the Emperor's 
 
980 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 council of divines at Ratisbon, joining Melanchthon and others 
 against Eck and his Papal supporters. Herman, Archbishop of 
 Cologne, so favoured Bueer’s side, that the Pope displaced him ; 
 so that little good arose from that council, and Bucer saw his way 
 clear at Edward VI.’s desire to cume to the professorship at 
 Cambridge, where Paulus and Fagius both died, as men unused to 
 that climate. When at length he followed them, he was buried in 
 Great St Mary’s, honoured by a throng of mourning students, to 
 whom he was yet speaking. In Mary’s reign his bones and his 
 books were both condemned to be burned. 
 
 Letter to Lathomus. 
 
 P. 39. “Since it is clearer than the light of noon, what 
 the Lord instituted in the sacred supper and commanded to 
 be done by us, and since it is not lawful to any fathers or 
 councils at all, for any cause to establish aught concerning 
 sacraments or any other things contrary to what the Lord. Him- 
 self and the apostles have openly determined—a thing which both 
 councils and pontiffs (a word sometimes used for the pope, some- 
 times for a bishop) themselves confess, it follows, &c. 
 
 P. 305. The antithesis between the Lord’s Supper and the 
 Mass. “Christ the Lord, to excite in His disciples true penitence ᾿ 
 for sins and just hunger. and thirst for the eucharist, before He 
 supplied them with His own flesh and blood to eat and drink, 
 taught them in a most weighty and clear address concerning true 
 righteousness and:solid faith in the Scriptures. Therefore also 
 He wishes the guests for His table to be sanctified by His 
 ministers to receive His supper for their health by the preaching 
 both of the law and of His own gospel, all human comments having 
 
 P. 39. LEpistola ad Lathomum. Strasburg, 1544. 
 
 Cum luce meridiand clarius patet quid in sacra cena Dominus 
 instituerit et nobis faciendum preceperit ; et cum nullis omnino vel 
 patribus vel conciliis ulla de causa liceat circa sacramenta aut ullas 
 alias res quicquam statuere contra id quod Dominus Ipse et apostoli 
 aperte definierunt, quod et concilia et pontifices ipsi fatentur sequitur ὅσο. 
 
 P, 305. 
 
 Antithesis cone Domini et Misse. Christus Dominus ut veram 
 peccatorum peenitentiam atque justam esuriem et sitim eucharistiz in 
 discipulis excitaret, priusquam eis Suum carnem et sanguinem preeberet 
 edendum et bibendum, gravissima et clarissima concione eos de vera 
 justitia et solida fide in Scripturis docuit. Ideo et per ministros Suos 
 vult convivas mensze Suz preedicatione et legis et evangelii Sui, omnibus 
 humanis commentis rejectis, ad coenam Suam salutariter sumendam 
 
1401] MARTIN BUCER. 381 
 
 been cast aside... Our Priest and Saviour Jesus Christ gave 
 thanks at the ministration of bread and wine in sincere religion, 
 and unquestionably concerning all the benefits of God the Father, 
 conferred upon or promised to the human race. And to Him to 
 whom (He uttered) thanks and blessing without doubt the most 
 religious prayers were not omitted... that He might vehemently 
 excite His disciples to give thanks with Him and pray... The 
 Lord Jesus our High Priest pronounced in a clear and intelligible 
 voice those words of His own to sanctify His own sacraments to 
 us—a custom which the ancient church always observed and the 
 Greek church observes at this day.. 
 
 Commentaries on the four Gospels, revised the second and last 
 time. Robert Stephens, 1553. Matthew xxvi. p. 184. 
 
 “ God so formed us by nature that in all our graver actions we 
 add signs to words...and therefore He gave these here. Now there 
 was not bread only but also the cup of the Lord. This therefore 
 was the gift itself. Bread was but a sign by which the Lord was} 
 delivering this invisible and imperceptible gift in a visible and _ 
 perceptible way .... He said not, ‘ Receive and eat: I am this, the, 
 ‘bread of life, Who came down from Heaven,’ but He delivered 
 to them separately His own body by the sign of holy bread, | 
 His own blood by the sign of wine: not that these (two)s 
 were either then separated or are now: but He wished by it 
 to express that He is the sacred victim of our salvation, and 
 that by His own death (by the oblation of His own body and 
 
 ante magno studio sanctificari...Sacerdos noster et Servator Jesus 
 Christus ad panem et calicem grates egit religione sincera et indubie 
 de omnibus beneficiis Dei Patris humano generi collatis et promissis : 
 Cui gratiarum actionem et benedictionem ; item preces indubie religio- 
 sissime haud defuerunt...ut discipulos ad una agendum gratias et pre- 
 candum vehementer excitaret... Dominus Jesus, summus Sacerdos noster 
 verba illa Sua, quibus sacramenta Sua nobis sanctificaret...clara et in- 
 telligibili voce praedicavit, quem morem ecclesia vetus semper observavit 
 et observat hodie ecclesia Greea. 
 
 In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia Enarrationes...secundum et postremum 
 recognite, ὧς. &e. KR. Stephanus, 1553. Matt. xxvi. p. 184. 
 
 Natura nos sic finxit Deus, ut in omnibus gravioribus actionibus 
 symbola verbis adjiciamus...quod itaque hic dedit. Jam non tantum 
 panis erat sed etiam calix Domini. Hoc ergo donum ipsum erat. Panis 
 symbolum modo erat, quo Dominus donum hoc invisibile et insensibile 
 visibiliter atque sensibiliter tradebat.. Non dixit ‘ Accipite manducate. 
 “Hoc sum Ego, panis vite Qui de celo descendi,” sed seorsim tribuit 
 sancti corpus Suum symbolo panis, sanguinem Suum vini: non quod 
 hee sejuncta vel tum essent vel nunc sunt; sed voluit eo exprimere 
 sacram hostiam esse salutis nostra, et morte Sua nos (oblatione corporis 
 
=_ 
 
 382 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 blood) He restores us. He willed that solemn mention be made 
 in this sacrifice not of this only, that He is truly our Hea- 
 venly bread, ζ.6. our only sustenance to eternal life, but, &c.... 
 In this... new way, the bread and cup, but together; and He 
 eminently shews and exhibits the flesh and blood of the Lord and 
 the new covenant. [P.185.] Nothing can of certainty be affirmed 
 concerning Him, whether the Lord Christ is circumscribed to His 
 own place in Heaven. However,as-the sun, truly visible in one 
 place in the sky, is yet by its presence in its rays put forth in 
 true substantiality in any part of the world, so the Lord, although 
 He be circumscribed in one place of the secret Heaven of God, 1.9. 
 of the glory of the Father, yet by His own word and sacred signs 
 
 He is Himself exhibited in the holy supper, truly and entire, God 
 
 and man, present _in the sacred supper, and that substantially. ... 
 hat is a secret and a thing of new testament faith. We must 
 simply cling to the word of the Lord, and faith ought to supply a 
 
 - supplement to the deficiency of the senses. They who give their 
 
 hearts to this will easily come to agreement on this sacred thing. 
 The abominable doctrine, by which this sacrament has been all 
 but put down by untrue bishops and false teachers, is contained in 
 this one point, that they have tied all the wonder of the populace 
 and all their confidence in this sacrament to the sacramental 
 presence, almost without making any mention of its true use. 
 For that reason he is now busy in seeing nothing but symbols, in 
 adding outward ornamentation, in setting them together in a way to 
 pay honour to them, in putting them forth as a spectacle, and in 
 carrying them about in magnificent pomp, for the keeping off of 
 
 et sanguinis Sui) restituere. Voluit solennem haberi in hoc sacrificio 
 mentionem non hujus tantum quod Ipse vere panis ccelestis noster, hoc 
 est una sustentatio nostra in vitam eternam sed &e....Hoc...novo modo 
 panem et poculum, sed simul, et praecipue demonstrat, et exhibet carnem 
 et sanguinem Domini et testamentum novum. P. 185, Nihil de Ko 
 firmum affirmari potest, an Dominus Christus Suo circumscriptus est 
 loco aliquo ceeli, Attamen ut sol, vere in uno loco ceeli visibilis...radiis 
 tamen suis presens vere substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis; ita 
 Dominus, etiamsi circumscribitur uno loco cceli arcani et Divini, 2z.e. 
 glorie Patris, verbo tamen Suo et sacris symbolis vere et totus Ipse, 
 Deus et homo, preesens exhibetur in sacra ccend eoque substantialiter... 
 Res ista arcana est et novi testamenti res fidei... Verbo Domini simplici- 
 ter inheerendum est, et debet fides sensuwum defectui praebere supplemen- 
 tum. Hoe qui student, iis facile de hoc sacro conveniet. Abominatio, 
 qua hoc sacramentum a pseudepiscopis et falsis doctoribus tantum non 
 oppressum est, in ea totd continetur quod cunctam vulgi admirationem 
 et fiduciam erga hoc sacramentum in presentid fixerunt sacramentali, 
 nulla prope veri usus ejus facté mentione. Inde videre modo symbola 
 studet, externe ornare, honorifice collocare, spectaculo proponere, atque 
 magnifica pompa circumferre, ad quevis mala arcenda et bona concili- 
 
1491] MARTIN BUCER. 383 
 
 any calamities whatever for winning any kind of good, without 
 any thought either of penitence or holy communion by which the 
 Lord offers and exhibits Himself to us in that sacrament. Let us 
 with united earnestness drive away that abomination by the word 
 of God, and none the less diligently commend to all the true 
 presence and exhibition of our Lord in this rite, to be embraced by 
 them with lively faith. 
 
 P. 260. “ With vain fear I should yet shrink from certain 
 forms of expression, and some by which I should dread lest a more 
 gross presence of the Lord in the supper than 1s fitting should be 
 instilled, and more should be assigned to the minister than would 
 be proper. Now I have fully recognized the true presence and 
 exhibition of the flesh and blood of the Lord. I have been anxious 
 to do both in my retractation inserted under Matt. xxvi. Let him 
 read that retractation who may desire anything further from me, 
 
 P. 182. Retractation on the Supper of the Lord. “TI have 
 been constrained... to guard myself, lest either His impanation, or 
 His being locally included in the bread or some preposterous 
 trust in the mere external act of the sacrament should be brought 
 against me... that from that Luther and others might judge 
 that I acknowledge nothing beyond bread and wine in the sacred 
 supper, and attribute no more to sacraments than to be the tokens 
 of the Christian society. But I affirm this before the Lord of His 
 church, referring to the testimony of the books published by me, 
 
 anda, sine omni cogitatione vel poenitentiz vel sacree communionis, qua 
 Se Dominus isto sacramento offert nobis et exhibet. Istam abominatio- 
 nem communi studio per verbum Dei profligemus, et. veram nihilominus 
 presentiam et exhibitionem hic Domini nostri omnibus diligenter com- 
 mendemus, viva fide amplectendas. [Some points in this are very 
 Lutheran. | 
 
 P. 260, on John_¥. 
 LONE 
 
 Frustraneo metu adhuc horrerem quasdam loquendi formas, et qui- 
 bus vererer statui equo crassiorem Domini in ccena presentiam et 
 ministro tribui plus quam par esset...Jam ego presentiam veram et 
 exhibitionem carnis et sanguinis Domini diserte agnovi. Utrumque 
 facere studui in Retractatione 26 cap. Mat. inserta. Kam legat qui 
 amplius aliquid desiderarit. 
 
 P. 182. Retractatio de Cena Domini. 
 
 Pertractus sum...cavere ne vulgo impanatio Christi, vel localis Ejus 
 in pane inclusio, aut preepostera aliqua externa in sacramenti actiones 
 fiducia ingereretur...ut inde Lutherus et alii judicarent me nihil quam 
 panem et vinum in sacra coena agnoscere, et sacramentis nihil amplius 
 tribuere quam esse tesseras societatis Christiane. Ego autem hoc coram 
 Domino ecclesiz Hjus affirmo, testibus libris a me editis, me nunquam 
 
984 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that I never was of the opinion that nothing is exhibited and 
 distributed in the sacred supper but bread and wine, empty signs 
 of the body and blood of the Lord... and not also the body itself 
 and blood of the Lord... Yet I have never denied that they are 
 at the same time used by the Lord to commend to us His own 
 mercy and to exhibit the giftsoftfe. Yea this is the gift itself, 
 and that_ not in.one-place-[but-in_all].| That one dogma have I 
 assailed, that sacraments of themselves [lit. out of themselves, ὦ. 6. 
 by inherent power] confirm faith, for this doubtless is the .work..of 
 the-Holy.Spirit. But in the progress of this dispute, when_Luther 
 was setting forth the whole matter of the sacraments more ex- 
 plicitly, I saw that he neither united the body and blood of the 
 Lord with the bread and wine by any link of connexion, nor 
 included it locally in the bread and wine ; nor attributed a virtue 
 of their own to sacraments, for they be of themselves to bring 
 salvation to them that receive them: but only laid down that 
 there is a sacramental union between the body of the Lord and 
 the bread [what union is this beyond the one representing the 
 other ?] and between the wine and His blood, and that he teaches 
 that the confirming of faith which sacraments bring, rests upon a 
 virtue [explained more by and by] not such as inheres to the 
 external ordinances themselves, through themselves; but which is 
 Christ’s.and.is dispensed by..His Spirit through the word and the 
 sacred.signs.. I wish therefore in this place to testify to all that 
 
 ‘read this, that Martin Luther and they who are on his side and follow 
 
 his doctrine affirm no impanation in the sacred supper, and no 
 local inclusion of the body of Christ in the bread and of-His blood 
 
 in δὰ sententia fuisse, ut in sacra coend nihil exhiberi distribuique sen- 
 tirem quam panem et vinum, corporis et sanguinis Domini inania symbola 
 et non ipsum etiam corpus et sanguinem Domini...nunquam tamen 
 negavi ea simul a Domino adhiberi ad commendandam nobis Suam 
 misericordiam et exhibendum dona vite. mo hoc ipsum donum, neque 
 id uno in loco. Id unum impugnavi, sacramenta ex se fidem confirmare 
 [z.e. have any inherent virtue] quod nimirum est opus Spiritus sancti. 
 At, progressu hujus disputationis, quum Lutherus rem omnem sacramen- 
 tariam fusius exponeret, vidi illum nec corpus et sanguinem Domini 
 ulld nature copulaé cum pane et vino unire, nec in pane et vino localiter 
 includere; neque sacramentis propriam tribuere virtutem, qua salutem 
 ex se afferant sumentibus ea: verum sacramentalem modo unionem inter 
 corpus Domini et panem, inter sanguinem Kjus et vinum statuere, tum 
 docere confirmationem fidei, quam sacramentis tribuunt, niti virtute; 
 non qu ipsis inhereat externis rebus per se; sed que sit Christi, et 
 dispensetur Ejus Spiritu per verbum et sacra symbola... Volo itaque et 
 hoe loco testatum omnibus, qui heec legunt, facere, M. Lutherum et qui 
 vere ab eo stant ejusque doctrinam sequuntur, in sacra cena nullam 
 impanationem, nullam quoque corporis Christi in pane, sanguinis in vino 
 
1491] MARTIN BUCER. 385 
 
 in the wine, nor attribute any saving virtue to the outward acts of 
 the sacraments of themselves, but they lay down a true substantial 
 presence and exhibition of the body and blood of the Lord with 
 the bread and wine in the sacred supper; which doubtless both the 
 very words of the Lord and the testimony of the apostle openly 
 express. [This assumes that the words cannot have a figurative 
 or representative sense only.|.... For the Lord does not in this 
 return from the heavenly glory and lower Himself into the con- 
 
 dition of this life of corruption. They also acknowledge and 
 
 preach that this is the presence and exhibition of Christ which 
 
 saves. But that it is by the virtue (going out) from the Lord, not 
 from the outward action, and that it is then received by the 
 
 receivers, when they by sacraments communicate (with Him) 
 
 with true faith. Hulderic Zwingel (known by all who know him 
 
 for most burning earnestness and admirable felicity in rescuing} 
 churches from the tyranny and superstition of the pope), when M. 
 Luther and others were contending that the bread is the body of 
 the Lord, had persuaded himself that they were laying down 
 either that the Lord’s body is in the bread, or that it is brought to/ 
 be the same substance with the bread, or that it 15 locally included 
 in the bread ; and therefore was the first to make objection... He 
 (Zwingel) taught, that the Lord (1.6. His body) is rather absent 
 from than present in the supper, and that it is more true that the 
 signs are given in it than the body and blood of the Lord. And 
 yet (Zwingel) himself afterwards confessed in my presence, when 
 I was dealing with him concerning an agreement of the churches 
 in this dogma, that the Lord is not simply_absent from the supper, 
 or that mere empty signs of the Lord’s body and blood are dis- 
 
 x1 4 
 --...-.-  . 
 
 lucalem inclusionem affirmare, nec ullam externis actionibus sacramento- 
 rum ex se virtutem salvificam tribuere, veram autem substantialem 
 ponunt corporis et sanguinis Domini cum pane et vino in sacra cena 
 presentiam et exhibitionem, quam nimirum et ipsa verba Domini et 
 testimonium apostoli aperte exprimunt...Nec enim hic Dominus se 
 reversus e ccelesti gloria, in conditionem hujus corruptibilis vite demittit. 
 Kam presentiam et exhibitionem esse salvificam quoque agnoscunt et 
 predicant, sed id virtute Domini, non externi operis, quodque tum a 
 sumentibus percipitur quum illi vera fide sacramentis communicant.... 
 Huldrycus Zuinglius (quem vindicandis Christi ecclesiis a tyrannide et 
 superstitione Pape fuisse studio flagrantissimo et admiranda etiam 
 felicitate, norunt quicunqne illum norunt) quam M, Lutherus et alii 
 contenderent panem esse corpus Domini, aut in pane esse, persuaserat sibi 
 illos statuere corpus Domini aut cum pane redigi in eandem substantiam, 
 aut in pane localiter includi; eoque contra prius semper objecit...And 
 he blames Zwingel for teaching magis abesse in sacra ccna Dominum 
 quam adesse, et dari potius symbola hic quam corpus et sanguinem 
 Domiui—quum tamen non simpliciter abesse a cena Dominum, aut 
 inania corporis et sanguinis Domini omnino hic symbola dispensari, ut 
 
 Η. 11. 25 
 
980 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ΤΟ pensed in it, and in his defence to the princes of Germany he so 
 _ wrote.” [As if, to recur to Hallam’s note, a body can be anything 
 but simply present or absent ; and the sacraments anything but 
 having His body in them or not.] 
 
 This is a most interesting passage, and some of Zwingel’s 
 letters bear it out. Yet not as Hospinian misrepresents Zwingel. 
 The Lutheran peculiarities are very prominent in this treatise. 
 
 ipse postea apud me agentem cum eo de concordia ecclesiarum in hoc 
 dogmate confessus est, et in apologia ad principes Germaniz scripsit. 
 
 (Y.) HENRY BULLINGER. B. 1504. D. 1574. 
 
 He is one whose providential escapes from death drew much 
 attention. Among others was his escape from being buried on the 
 supposition of his being dead in the plague. His father was dean 
 and parish priest of Bremgarten. During his schooling at Em- 
 merich, he was kept so short of money that, like Luther, he had 
 to sing and beg from door to door. At the university of Cologne 
 Lombard and Gratian were put before him, and he found in the 
 cathedral library the chief of the fathers, and also some of Luther’s 
 awakening writings. The year 1522 saw him a Master of Arts: 
 and when he returned to his father’s he gave himself to the 
 study of the Holy Scriptures, till Wolfgang, abbot of Cappel, near 
 Zurich, heard of his powers, and appointed him lecturer there. 
 He left Cappel in 1527 to live at Zurich, rejoicing in the friend- 
 ship of Zwingel and Leo Juda, and to work on in Greek and 
 Hebrew. It was at Cappel that Zwingel was slain; and Bullinger 
 was chosen to succeed that great minister of Christ. That post he 
 held till his death: and not being forgetful to entertain strangers 
 during the reactionist reign of Mary in England, he thereby was © 
 the honoured receiver in succession of nearly all the angels of the 
 English church that were in exile in Switzerland. The plague, 
 which had nearly extinguished his young life, returned upon his 
 house again and again, till his mother, one of his sons, his wife, and 
 three daughters, had fallen victims. These three were thé wives 
 severally of Lavater, of Zwingel’s son and of Josiah Simler. In 
 1549 Calvin and Farel met at his house to settle with him a 
 common profession regarding the Lord’s supper for the churches of 
 
1504] HENRY BULLINGER. 387 
 
 Zurich and Geneva. The year 1571 brought a severe famine on 
 Zurich and other places; but he outlived his exertions in the 
 mitigation of that calamity for three years. His five decades of 
 sermons were thought worthy of the highest commendation by the 
 heads of the English Church. Every clergyman was required to 
 possess them, in English or in Latin. His influence on the Re- 
 formed theology must have been considerable. His appearance 
 was most like that of a refined foreign nobleman: and his conduct 
 was corresponding. He came of a good family in Bremgarten. 
 
 Sermons on the Sacraments. Cambridge, 1840, and in fifth 
 Decade, Parker Soe. 
 
 P. 37. “We_read in no place that the Lord said, As often as 
 ye speak, or pronounce, these my words, that the substance of the 
 sign shall be made void, and that in the same point of time 
 wherein the words are spoken it shall begin to be the true body 
 and true blood of the Lord under the forms or likenesses of bread 
 and wine: or that, the forms or likenesses and the truth of the 
 
 signs remaining [Luther], it shall begin at once with the bread and ' 
 wine to be the very body and blood of Christ. Wherefore in the: 
 
 pronouncing or speaking of the words of the Lord in the supper 
 there is no power or virtue to call down the things signified or to 
 change the things present. These imaginations do rather seem 
 more to maintain superstition than religion. [A passage cited 
 from Chrysostom about a superstition of another kind in this day 
 includes the words.] As the figure of the letters is of power to do 
 nothing, even so is there no power or virtue either in the pronun- 
 ciation or sound of words..... I know what the adversaries will 
 object... The river Nilus was turned into blood: therefore the 
 bread is turned into flesh, &.... Whilst Christ our High Bishop 
 did institute His supper in the Gospel, He commanded nothing to 
 be spoken or pronounced, by the virtue of which... the elements 
 might either be changed or the things signified being drawn down 
 from heaven should be present with or joined to the signs, ὅσ. 
 
 P. 11. “Celius supposeth that they are called mysteries, ὅτε 
 δεῖ μύσαντας τηρεῖν ἔνδον... Muartnpioy is derived of...uvo as 
 ἀποδυτήριον... of ἀπὸ and δύω. [P. 12.] Furthermore, many of 
 the Greek doctors of the church have called our sacraments ovp- 
 Bora, Symbola, which word is also received and very often used of 
 the Latins. It is derived of συμβάλλω, that is to say confero, to 
 confer, or compare together. [P. 13.] So mystical divinity begins 
 to be called symbolical, because it was enwrapped in more hid and 
 secret mysteries. So that is mystical which is darkly uttered, and 
 in the manner of a riddle, having in it a far more contrary meaning 
 
 25—2 
 
 δ 4 
 
888 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 than by words it seemeth to offer... The ancient writers have 
 therefore hereupon applied this word symbol to our sacraments, 
 
 / because they represent and shew to us the exceeding great and. 
 
 ' deep mysteriesof.God, &c. [I do not see in this writer the 
 
 _remark that neither of the Christian sacraments is ever called 
 by this word mystery in the New Testament ; and that the word 
 is frequently used for a thing once secret and reserved, or partly 
 so, but now made manifest. There is therefore no Scriptural 
 authority for calling the celebrations of this sacrament, or the bread 
 and the wine, holy mysteries]..... An odd man there is among the 
 schoolmen, which teacheth the church this lesson—to wit, that she 
 should remember that she is no lady or mistress over the sacra- 
 ment, but a servant or minister; and that she hath no more power 
 or authority to institute any form [meaning any new form] of a 
 sacrament than she hath to abrogate any law of God. Aquinas to 
 the same effect. (P. III. Sum. Q. 64, A. 2)... Who knoweth not 
 that the sons of Aaron for offering strange fire were horribly burnt 
 and scorched up with fire that fell down from heaven ? 
 
 P. 15. “The sign ought to have its proceeding from God 
 Himself and not from any manner of men, be they never so many, 
 be they never so clerk-like or learned; be they never so harmless 
 and holy of life. As we do receive the word of salvation and 
 grace, itis needful also that we receive the signs of grace. 
 
 P. 41. “A man shall nowhere read that ‘to bless’ is as much 
 as to turn the nature of things by the words of God, or otherwise 
 by good words and prayers after a set manner pronounced... To 
 bless (in the Gospels and 1 Cor. x.) is not with the gesture of the 
 hand to make the sign of the cross, or to lay one’s mouth to the 
 bread and cup and in a low voice to whisper out the set syllables 
 of the words of consecration, but to sing praises to God or to give 
 thanks for benefits bestowed upon us. 
 
 P. 88. “The sacraments give not that which they have not 
 themselves: but they have not grace and righteousness and 
 heavenly gifts. Therefore they do not give them...and if so be we 
 proceed to include the grace of God within the elements, and the 
 
 { things themselves in the signs by which they are represented, who 
 seeth not with how great danger we shall do the same, especially 
 among the simple sort? For unto them we shall give occasion of 
 tdolatry-and to cleave to the visible sign: of whom also they will 
 require (and ask) that which ought to be asked of God, the 
 Author of all goodness, with minds lifted up to heaven. For 
 
 [ whereas it is objected, that by a certain heavenly covenant it is 
 
 | appointed by God, that-sacraments should, have grace in themselves; 
 
 » and should from themselves, as-by_pipes;convey abroad the water 
 of grace unto them that are thirsty—that_is alleged without. 
 warrant of the Scriptures and-is repugnant unto true religion... If 
 
1504] HENRY BULLINGER. 389 
 
 by ‘bare’ they understand things of no force, we openly profess 
 that we have sacraments...full, not void or empty... They are 
 effectual and not without force for...with the godly they work the 
 same effect and end whereunto they were ordained of God.” 
 
 (Z.) ERASTUS (LIEBLER HIS TRUE NAME), A PHYSICIAN. 
 D. 1583. 
 
 The treatise of the German Erastus is so rare, that in these 
 days when the theory of church and state is mooted afresh for 
 discussion a word or two upon it may be both acceptable and 
 useful. Possibly very few precisely know the ground the treatise 
 covers, though almost every one, when he supposes himself to be 
 passing near to it in argument, consults his own reputation by 
 flinging out heartily against both him and his creed. It is almost 
 as much as one’s reputation is worth regarding this very import- 
 ant subject, to seem to have a word to say in his favour: but 
 happily for myself I venture to think the line of his argument 
 superficial, 1.6. hasty and untenable: and yet a theory that was 
 regarded with favour by the judicious Bullinger,—as the appen- 
 ‘dix to his treatise shews—which is said to have been actually 
 approved and adopted by such noble minds as Dr Lightfoot and 
 Selden, must have some truth in it, which ought to be carefully 
 eliminated and acknowledged. It is said to have been overthrown 
 by Beza in the interest of Swiss Presbyterism, and by Ursinus the 
 friend of Melanchthon on the part of the German Protestant 
 Churches, and on behalf of the English Church by Dr Hammond, 
 when he treated on the power of the keys. The last I have con- 
 sulted with little success. My copy of Erastus has a pencil note, 
 “Compare Thorndike, vol. 1. p. 741. These references may be of 
 use to some. I will confine my remarks to the limits of the 
 treatise itself. We are concerned rather with the theory itself 
 than with its more or less successful refutations. Its publication 
 offended his friends almost as much as it has irritated the ecclesi- 
 astical world; and it piqued him very much that his personal 
 friends would not descend to answer his book, but only avoided 
 him very considerably and his book still more. It is now exceed- 
 ingly scarce. Bauer says “liber perrarus,” and Vogt “opus valde 
 rarum et in manibus paucissimorum.” Another book of his exists 
 against “Superstitious remedies and cures by magic.” 
 
390 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 The full title page of the treatise is, 
 
 Explicatio gravissime questionis, utrum excommunicatio (qua- 
 tenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes a sacramentorum 
 usu propter admissum facinus arcet) mandato nitatur Divino an 
 excogitata sit ab hominibus. 
 
 Auctore Clariss. viro Thoma Erasto 1). medico. 
 
 Opus nunc recens ex ipsius autoris autographo erutum, et in 
 lucem (prout moriens jusserat) editum. 
 
 Ad operis calcem adjectz sunt clarissimorum aliquot theologo- 
 rum epistole, partim ad ipsum autorem scripte, partim ad alios, 
 quibus suum rogati de hac re judicium et seutentiam proferunt. 
 
 Cum indice copiosissimo. 
 
 Pesclavil 
 Apud Baocium Sultacetetum. Anno Salutis 
 
 CIO. 10. LXXXIX. 
 
 Some say it was put forth by Castelvetro who married his 
 widow and that this is his edition printed, 1589 Puschlaw, the 
 Grisons, <A French translation appeared at Amsterdam, 1649. 
 
 P. 1. “The body of the faithful is of two kinds; internal and 
 spiritual, and external, ze. a visible polity. The difference be- 
 tween the two is so great that a man contained in one is not 
 necessarily comprehended in the other. For as a man, who has 
 been unjustly ejected from any church, may yet be a member of 
 Christ, so they that be numbered in a visible assembly, are not all 
 also living members of Christ... And indeed we are made mem- 
 bers of Christ, 7.e. are conjoined to the inner and spiritual society 
 of Christ and the faithful, by faith alone, which worketh effectually 
 by love: and we fall out of this same by losing faith. Further 
 none is able to graft us into this society, or exclude us from it, but 
 He who can bestow on us living faith. But we are made partners 
 
 Poll: 
 
 Duplex fidelium societas; interna scilicet ac spiritualis, et externa seu 
 visibilis et politica...Tantum...inter utramque discrimen est, ut qui in 
 alterutra continetur, non etiam comprehendatur in altera. Nam ut 
 membrum Christi esse potest, qui injuste ex visibili aliqua ecclesia ejec- 
 tus est,...ita qui in visibili ccoetu numerantur non omnes etiam membra 
 viva sunt Christi...Ac membra quidem Christi efficerunt, ¢.e. interne 
 spiritualique Christi et fidelium societati conjungimur, per solam fidem, 
 que per charitatem est efficax: et ex eAdem hac per infidelitatem excidi- 
 mus. Proinde non potest nos huic inserere aut ex eddem excludere nisi 
 Qui fidem vivain nobis donare...potest. Externe vero visibilisque 
 
—1583] ERASTUS. 391 
 
 in the outward and visible church by professing a common faith, 
 and by professing a common doctrine and finally by the use of the 
 common sacraments... He therefore who is cast out from the com- 
 munion of a church (7.e. who is excommunicated) is removed either 
 from all these three things, or from two of them, or at least from 
 one of them. But from the two first none ought to be repelled; 
 nay rather all are to be invited to them, and by all [proper] 
 means to be brought to them. Wherefore all that remains is that 
 an excommunicated person is prevented from partaking of the 
 sacraments. It is indisputable that other penalties do not belong 
 to the substance of this kind of excommunication. For such 
 penalties may be laid on persons that are not excommunicate, and 
 may happen not to be inflicted on the excommunicated. There- 
 fore the Pope’s supporters have beyond this wrongly added on 
 another excommunication, which they have named the greater, 
 and anathema, to this which they entitle ‘the less.’ And in oppo- 
 sition to open Scripture they have given us its limits as consisting 
 in interdicting the use of churches, of private dealings, and of any 
 (otherwise) lawful act whatever. Whereas the apostle 1 Cor. xiv. 
 openly shews that neither heathen nor any other men are for- 
 bidden to hear God’s word, or to read it, or to give thanks and 
 pray with Christian people. 
 
 Erastus then raises the question, To whom ought the Lord’s 
 supper to be refused ? 
 
 P.4. “Wherefore God willed every circumcised man (of Israel) 
 to appear three times every year before God, and commanded that 
 all the circumcised should celebrate the passover: nor did He 
 
 ecclesize consortes reddimur ejusdem fidei professione, ejusdemque doctri- 
 nx professione, denique eorundem sacramentorum usurpatione...Ergo 
 qui ex ecclesia communione ejicitur (i.e. qui excommunicatur) vel ab 
 omnibus hisce tribus, vel a duobus, vel ab uno saltem removetur. Sed 
 a duobus primis...repelli nullus debet; quin potius huc invitandi et 
 quavis ratione adducendi sunt omnes. Quocirea relinquitur ut, qui 
 excommunicatur, a sola...sacramentorum participatione prohibeatur... 
 Alias peenas non pertinere ad substantiam excommunicationis hujus 
 certum est. Etenim possunt eadem non excommunicatis intligi, et ex- 
 communicatis non infligi. Itaque male Pontificii preeter hanc excommuni- 
 cationem (quam ipsi minorem appellant)...aliam insuper addiderunt, 
 quam majorem, etanathema, vocarunt: atque contra apertam scripturam 
 interdictione templorum, privati commercti, et actus cujusvis liciti, defi- 
 nierunt. Quoniam apostolus 1 Cor. xiv. palam ostendit neque ethnicos 
 neque alios quoslibet a Divini verbi auditione, lectione, gratiarum acti- 
 onibus ac precibus Christianorum prohibitos fuisse. 
 P. 4. 
 
 Ter coram Deo singulis annis comparere omnem masculum circum- 
 
 éisum quocirea voluit, ac jussit Deus omnes circumeisos celebrare pascha : 
 
392 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 shut out anyone from this sacrament or from the other rites, &c. 
 with the exception of those that were unclean. Sacraments were 
 therefore incitements to piety, and further no-one was repelled 
 from them, but rather all were invited to them. [P. 5.] At that 
 time all Israelites used in a certain way to discharge a priestly 
 office, as we find it said in Philo. [P. 6.] Certainly Mosaic un- 
 cleanness was not so far a figure of our iniquities, that it signified 
 that we should be coerced and punished by the denial of the 
 sacraments as the polluted in Israel used to be repelled from the 
 temple and from daily intercourse with the rest...For it is not to 
 be disputed that no-one was expelled from the tabernacle and the 
 general assembly on account of immorality. In fact, legal un- 
 cleanness was a figure of our distorted and corrupt nature, which 
 could not have been admitted into heaven but for the most pure 
 blood of Christ having taken it away and purified it. 
 
 P. 17. “This therefore remains a firm unmoveable and un- 
 shaken conclusion that none was removed from the use of the 
 ancient sacraments for moral delinquencies: but the sacraments of 
 the ancients and our own, as far as concerns the things signified, 
 are the same, 1 Cor. x. Wherefore unless it be plain that Moses’ 
 law has in this part been abolished or changed, no man is allowed 
 to bring in a contrary custom. We use one of the surest argu- 
 ments against the Anabaptists when we say that baptism has 
 taken the place of circumcision: so the Lord’s supper has taken 
 the place of the eating of the passover. But vices were not 
 punished by denying the passover to offenders, &c. But since it 
 
 nec vel ab hoc sacramento vel ab aliis ritibus &c. quenquam exclusit 
 immundis exceptis...Hrant ergo sacramenta incitamenta ad pietatem: 
 et proinde ab iis nemo arcebatur; sed ad ea magis invitabantur omnes. 
 P. 5. Fungebantur tunc omnes quodam modo sacerdotis munere, ut 
 de paschate loquens Philo Judzeus. P. 6. Certe non sic figuravit 
 Mosaica immunditia nostra flagitia, ut quemadmodum illi inquinati 
 arcebantur a tabernaculo et consuetudine aliorum, ita hac significarit 
 sacramentorum negatione &c. coercenda puniendaque esse...18 reasons 
 specified. Certum namque est a tabernaculo et ccetu aliorum nullum 
 propter vitiositatem morum depulsum, Demum fuit immunditia legis 
 figura distorte corrupteque nostre nature, que nisi sanguine Christi 
 purissimo ablata purificataque fuerit, in celum non intromittetur, ὅσο. 
 
 Ἐν lire 
 
 Manet igitur hoc firmum immobile et imconcussum nullum fuisse 
 propter delicta morum a sacramentis (V. T.) remotum...ceeterum sacra- 
 menta veterum et nostra, quod ad res significatas attinet, eadem sunt. 
 1 Cor. x. Quare nisi legem Mosis hac in parte vel abolitum vel muta- 
 tam constet, contrarium inducere nulli homini licebit...Adversus ana- 
 baptistas firmissimo hoc recte utimur argumento, quia circumcisioni 
 baptismus successerit...ita...Paschatis esui successit coena Dominica. At 
 paschatis negatione vitia non puniebantur, ἅς, Que cum nullibi legatur 
 
- 1588] , ERASTUS. 3938 
 
 is nowhere read that these rules are annulled or abolished neither 
 are men to be punished by the denial of the Lord’s supper, &c. 
 [P. 18.] We do not read anywhere of Christ our Saviour and 
 Lord having in the same way interdicted the use of the sacraments 
 to anyone. Further since the law (of Moses) commanded all 
 except the unclean to celebrate the passover, Christ Himself willed 
 not to forbid it to anyone. But it is plain that He never blamed 
 any because they were using the sacraments (of the old law) and 
 were frequently (or in crowds) present at the temple and the sacri- 
 fices, &c. He always went into the same temple with the Pharisees 
 and scribes, &c., &c., with the bad as well as with the good, when 
 He stood at (assisted at) the same sacrifices with them. He used 
 the same sacraments as all the people used. For the same reason 
 He did not repel Judas also His own betrayer, from eating with 
 Him at His last feast of the lamb of the passover. 
 
 P. 20. “Christ wills not that His kingdom in these lands 
 among Christians should be circumscribed within narrower boun- 
 daries (I am speaking of His external kingdom) than He formerly 
 wished it to be shut in and defined among the Jews. Further as 
 God commanded that all the circumcised should have the external 
 participation of the same sacraments and ceremonies, but com- 
 manded that the wicked be controlled and punished by the 
 sword and by other penalties, so also Christ wills that all the 
 baptized or Christians, who have right and pure opinions on 
 religion, should use the same outward ceremonies and sacraments: 
 but that wicked men be punished by the magistrate with death, 
 banishment, imprisonment and other such penalties. As to the 
 
 antiquata aut abolita, ne ccene quidem Dominic negatione puniendi 
 sunt, &. P. 18. Christus Servator ac Dominus noster eodem modo 
 nulli usum [not usu] sacramentorum interdixisse legitur...Proinde cum 
 juberet lex omnes pascha celebrare preeter immundos, prohibere Ipse 
 nulli noluit. Constat autem nullos unquam reprehendisse quod sacra- 
 mentis (V. T.) uterentur et frequenter adessent templo et sacrificiis, &e. 
 In idem semper templum ingressus est cum Scribis et Phariseis...malis 
 pariter et bonis...iisdem cum his sacrificiis astitit: eadem cum universo 
 populo sacramenta usurpavit, &e. Hac eddem de causa Judam quoque 
 proditorem Suum a postremo agni esu non arcuit, &e, 
 
 Py 20; 
 
 Non vult angustioribus in his terris finibus regnum circumscribi 
 Christus (de externo loquor) inter Christianos, quam voluerit olim con- 
 eludi et definiri inter Judeos. Proinde sicut jussit Deus omnes cireum- 
 cisos externe participare eisdem sacramentis ac czeremoniis, sceleratos 
 autem gladio aliisque peenis coerceri plectique mandavit, ita vult etiam 
 Christus omnes baptizatos seu Christianos, recte pureque de religione 
 sentientes, lisdem externis ceremoniis et sacramentis uti; flagitiosos 
 autem a magistratu morte exilio carcere aliisque penis talibus puniri. 
 
994 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 apostles... They are not found in any passage to have either taught 
 or practised this (lesser) excommunication. [P. 21.] No argu- 
 ments are found in Paul that lead to the opposite opinion.. 
 
 1 Cor. viii, the apostle neither excluded those who thought that 
 an idol is something nor, Xe. 
 
 PP 25. 4 Ehie eas of eaters [of the supper] by opposite differ-. 
 ences divides itself into two species, to those namely that eat wor- 
 thily and those that eat unworthily. Paul does not order either 
 not to eat, but he desires all to eat worthily... If he had wished 
 in this manner to repel the criminal, 2 Ep. Xi, xu, he would 
 have ordered that they should be removed from the sacraments, 
 till they were amended. 
 
 P. 25. Why then should we not desire to keep back anyone 
 from hearing the word, [and yet labour to repel them] from the 
 sacraments, especially from the Lord’s supper? I am speaking 
 neither about Turks nor about unconverted persons, but about 
 those that have been called by God into His church and grafted 
 into it, approving its doctrine, and at least outwardly desiring to 
 use its sacraments aright. Mats. xviii, Christ is giving order 
 that, if any chance to be obliged to carry their cause to a magis- 
 trate, they should not go to accuse their Jewish brethren before 
 the Romans, till they sought the help of their own magistrate in 
 vain, &c., see too 1 Cor. vi. 
 
 P. 40. ‘Tell it to the church’ has no other meaning than 
 ‘Tell it to the magistrate of thy own people.’ 
 
 Apud apostolos...nullo in loco reperiuntur excommunicationem hance vel 
 docuisse vel exercuisse apostoli...P. 21. Pro diversé opinione nulla 
 apud Paulum inveniri argumenta...1 Cor. viil., neque illos exclusit 
 apostolus qui aliquid putabant esse idola, neque, dc. ὅσο. 
 
 7. 29. 
 
 Edentium genus dividit per oppositas differentias in duas species, in 
 eos scilicet qui digne edunt, et eos qui indigne edunt: neutros jubet non 
 edere, sed omnes cupit digne edere...Si hoc modo...coercere facinorosos, 
 2 Ep. xii, xiil., voluisset, jussisset eos a sacramentis usque ad emenda- 
 tionem amoveri. 
 
 ἘΠ ΟΣ 
 
 Cur ergo a verbo neminem, a sacramentis preesertim a cena Domini 
 aliquos arcere studemus?...nec ego de Turcis, aut non conversis loquor, 
 sed de vocatis a Deo in ecclesiam Suam et huic insertis, doctrinam 
 probantibus, et sacramentis rite uti, externe saltem, cupientibus... Matt. 
 xvii. Preecipit (Christus), Si forte ad magistratum deferre causam 
 cogantur ne fratres suos Judzeos apud Romanos accusent, priusquam 
 proprii magistratus auxilium frustra imploraverunt, ὅθ. See 1 Cor, vi, 
 
 P. 40. 
 
 “Dic ecclesiz,” non aliud significare, quam, “ Dic populi tui magis- 
 
 * tratul.” 
 
—1583] ERASTUS. 395 
 
 P. 43. “Thus then it has been firmly and truly proved that 
 Christ was not discoursing on excluding persons from sacraments. 
 
 P. 45. Regarding 1 Cor. v. Erastus is forced to confess, 
 “ Further Paul wills not their exclusion from the supper but from 
 the whole of the Christian life.’ [What is this but the greater 
 and lesser excommunications to which Erastus objected, p. 3? and 
 does not this include the sacrament? Majus continet minus. 
 Yet in conclusion, p. 62, he denies this, saying a jury might be 
 formed in a church in a heathen land, to punish with secular 
 separations; but “from sacraments enjoined of God,” he says, 
 “none who desire to approach may lawfully be repelled.” Surely 
 Christian sacraments are a part of “vita Christiana:” absolute 
 freedom of access to the second sacrament cannot be maintained.— 
 This is just at the end of his six Theses: a commentary and 
 defence follow.] 
 
 Does it not seem very apparent that the term “Erastianism” is 
 not quite what the English public takes it to be, viz. the negation 
 of all clerical authority? For the precedent preferred in the 
 treatise of Erastus is the law of Moses; and did that economy 
 establish anything like the state of lay supremacy that men now 
 denounce as Erastianism? Had the Mosaic priesthood no au- 
 thority? It may be true that in Israel there was a royal 
 supremacy: but Erastus did not contend for it in this treatise. 
 He did not assail clericalism at any point except this. Was not 
 his one serious error his own particular crotchet of free and unre- 
 strained liberty of communion, assuming that, because there was no 
 moral winnowing of the chaff from the wheat in respect of partici- 
 pation in the sacraments under the old law, therefore we are to 
 have none under the Christian? an assumption not easily to be 
 granted, If this assumption then is refused, the whole question of 
 
 P, 43, 
 Sic ergo firme et’ vere probatum est Christum (Matt. xviii.) non de 
 exclusione a sacramentis...disserere. 
 P, 45, on 1 Cor. υ. 
 
 Erastus fails entirely: for he is obliged to say, Proinde non e cena 
 excludi sed e medio (sanctus Paulus) eum vult tolli: non loquitur ibi 
 Paulus de ccena, sed de tota Christiana vita. 
 
 B62: 
 
 A sacramentis, a Deo institutis, accedere cupientes arcere non 
 poterunt. 
 
990 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the power of excommunication lies open to be settled by the 
 analogy of the faith. At any rate it is curious that we in our full- 
 grown communities find it very hard not to practise that very 
 absence of excommunicating at which Erastus aimed. The only 
 modern trial at law has failed. I have lived 70 years and not 
 seen in England a case of excommunication in that national Chris- 
 tian society in which I live. 
 
 (AA.) BISHOP EDMUND GESTE OF SALISBURY. 
 Β. 1514. Ὁ. 1578. 
 
 Henry Geast Dugdale, Barrister, of the Middle Temple, has 
 put forth a book containing a short life of the said bishop and 
 eight important documents in support of Strype’s assertion, that 
 this bishop was appointed by Cecil during the Primate Parker’s 
 illness to compare the Communion Services in King Edward’s two 
 Prayer-books with the ancient Liturgies, and to produce “a new 
 “Service-book.” Three of the eight documents are the bishop’s 
 letters to the Primate and Cecil, and a letter from Cecil when the 
 bishop’s work was done. The letter to Cecil contains his reasons 
 for the changes. The first document is the bishop’s entire “ trea- 
 “ tise against the prevee Masse, in behalfe and furtheraunce of the 
 “mooste holye Communyon. 1548.” Mr Dugdale thinks that 
 his good ancestor has lost the grateful remembrance which he 
 merits from Englishmen, and the motto of the book is, Palmam 
 qui meruit ferat. Since this is in no wise a work on philology, 
 1 have not thought it worth while to trouble the reader with the 
 ancient spelling, deeming the sample given in the title will be 
 sufficient for most readers; and in parts it would need a transla- 
 tion almost as much as Latin or Greek. 
 
 He was born at Northallerton and educated at York, Eton and 
 Cambridge. He became Vice-Provost of King’s in 1544. Bale 
 mentions other works by him. He left his library to his ca- 
 thedral. 
 
 London, 1840. 
 
 “Our private massing is a sacrilege most unsuiting heinous 
 and detestable: forasmuch as it is a stealth (stealing) of holy 
 things, not of the basest suit, as candlesticks censers crosses and 
 chalices be, but of the holiest and chiefest kind, viz. of Christ, 
 
1514] BISHOP EDMUND GESTE. 397 
 
 of the Holy Ghost, of true religion, of faith, of godliness, reposed 
 and placed not in a stony temple or altar but in a Christian and 
 faithful heart, which is justly esteemed more precious and holy 
 than a thousand stone temples or altars, which after the report 
 of Paul is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and the mansion 
 place of the blessed Trinity, as Christ Himself witnesseth in St 
 John. 
 
 P. 78. “These words ‘Take, eat, &.’ be no words of making 
 the Lord’s body, but of presenting and exhibiting the same to the 
 receivers of the right supper of the Lord... Now after the due 
 report and utterance of the said words by the minister upon the 
 aforenamed bread and wine, they be consecrate and made, of 
 profane, the holy sacraments, exhibitives of Christ’s body and 
 blood. Thus also meaned the fathers by these words consecration 
 and making in the sacrament. [This is the assertion mostly main- 
 tained by our Reformers as well as by Geste; with what accuracy 
 the reader of this volume can judge.| Now to transubstantiation 
 or turn kind [written tourne kynde].... How can this stand with ~ 
 our faith that Christ... should be again made of the bread, (a vile 
 creature), through the exchange of the nature thereof into His ? 
 How were it true that the blessed wine and broken bread were 
 bread and wine, as Paul termeth them, if their nature were tho- 
 roughly altered into Christ’s body and blood? Can they be bread 
 and wine still, without they retain their natures still? Can they 
 be rightly named bread and wine without their own proper mater 
 (or matter) and substance, in respect whereof they are so named ? 
 Do they not still appear to our senses bread and wine, notwith- 
 standing they are become the sacraments, exhibitives of Christ’s 
 body and blood ὁ Who ever saw the exchange of any substance 
 without the alteration of his (its) accidents and outward shape ? 
 When Christ turned marvellously water into wine, it had not only 
 the nature of wine, but the external form also taste colour and 
 fashion of wine, and no semblance of water at all. Aaron’s rod, 
 being altered into an adder, had not only the substance thereof, 
 ‘but also the outward fashion of the same, and no similitude of a 
 rod at all. The water, which Moses changed into blood, as it was 
 in nature blood, so outwardly it seemed blood. Even so, ques- 
 tionless, should your bread and wine leave their outward shape 
 with their inward substance, if they were altered into Christ’s 
 body and blood. By reason whereof, sith they retaim their acci- 
 dents, needs must they also retain wonted substance. Can there 
 be any sacrament, as St Augustine saith, without therein the due 
 element and fit word of God belonging thereunto be jointly coupled 
 together? No verily. How then can the outward appearance of 
 bread and wine without their inward substance be the sacraments 
 of Christ’s body and blood? For the outward appearance of bread 
 and wine be none (no) elements, but only the external shews of 
 
998 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the same... In the consecrated bread are worms engendered, το. 
 Each worm is a substance and none accident. Therefore (they) 
 cannot be engendered or fed of an accident, but of a substance 
 alone. In respect whereof, sith the worms breed and feed, not in 
 Christ’s body, but in the consecrate bread, we must remediless 
 acknowledge in the same bread to continue the very proper 
 substance thereof. [Then follows close pleading with the Ro- 
 manist, in which occur expressions hardly capable of a spiritual, 
 2.6. a mental or subjective, construction. They seem to me to 
 involve a belief in our receiving into us “the natural body of 
 Christ.”] The bread and wine be sacraments of Christ’s body and 
 blood, ordained of Him purposely to instruct our senses outwardly, 
 what is wrought inwardly by the said body and blood in the soul. 
 For their use is to declare to our outward senses assuredly, that as 
 the received bread and wine nourish strengthen and glad our 
 bodies, so Christ’s body eaten and His blood drunken accordingly 
 do our souls. [Had our Reformers been so bold as to put in one 
 word Christ’s body spiritually eaten, &c. or Christ’s body eaten 
 and His blood drunken in a figure, gainsayers to Protestant truth 
 must have hidden their diminished heads and stilled their reluc- 
 tant tongues. How much harder it is to insert similar words 
 everywhere now! But is there not a cause? But again hear 
 
 Geste. | 
 
 P. 81. “The broken bread and blessed wine be institute pur- 
 posely to resolve and ascertain our senses, that we as materially 
 and truly, though not grosslier sensibly, but ghostly receive and 
 eat Christ’s body and drink His blood.” 
 
 Here is confusion worse confounded, so that even the insertion 
 of the word ghostly, which is a synonym for spiritually, does not 
 avail to clear the sentence to a Protestant sense. For Geste 
 actually says, We ghostly receive Christ’s body as materially and 
 truly as we do the bread and wine. 
 
 Of what use is it to add “not grosslier sensibly” ? For in saying 
 “materially and truly” he might as well add every possible adverb. 
 I found a great divine take the stand on believing the natural 
 presence of Christ’s body, but denying the material sense. But 
 Bishop Geste here says, as materially and truly as the bread and 
 wine. Is it not time for the defenders to quit this amphibious 
 mode of life, and to use, in explaining the language of Jesus and 
 Paul, expressions easy to be understood instead of expressions that 
 ‘provoke and almost necessitate misunderstanding? Either the 
 body and blood of Christ are present on earth now, or they are in 
 Heaven only till He return a second time, ἐκ δευτέρου. If the 
 
1514] BISHOP EDMUND GESTE. 399 
 
 latter alternative be true, then only the Godhead of Christ is pre- 
 sent in the Lord’s supper or in our souls after receiving. And if 
 we hold this to be the truth is it not time to renounce all equivo- 
 cative terms: in short to erase them from our teaching and make 
 our churches appear what all our Reformers really though with 
 imperfect vision yearned to make them, 7.e. decisively and unmis- 
 
 takably opposed to the corrupt traditions that had found place in 
 the church’s writings ? 
 
 P. 91. “There is another (prayer in the Canon of the Mass) 
 that questionless argueth the same... “Ὁ holy Trinity, perform 
 ‘that this sacrifice which I unworthy have offered to the eyes of 
 ‘Thy Divine majesty may be acceptable to Thee and also through 
 ‘Thy mercy propitiatory, that is to say mercy-working to me and 
 ‘all them for whom 1 have sacrificed it’... If we heartily thought 
 with God the mass sacrificing were not propitiatory we would not 
 thoroughly maintain the said mass-canon; we would not say, We 
 offer therewith Christ’s body to our redemption: we would not 
 instant (urge) God as we do to enforce our sacrificing of Christ (to 
 make it real) to purchase His mercy. 
 
 P. 94. “Questionless their meaning is that the said sacrifice 
 appeaseth God’s ire and indignation and cleanseth sin. 
 
 P. 97. “But what need I argue the said sacrifice to be 
 unfruitful? The catholics themselves in conclusion grant the same 
 while they avouch the entire fruit and virtue of the present mass 
 to consist in the applial of Christ’s merits unto us, otherwise 
 utterly divoided of the same, once merited upon the cross in 
 general for all men. Which is the sacrament and not the sacrifice. 
 For in the sacrifice there is nothing applied and rendered unto us, 
 but to God alone. Otherwise it is no sacrifice at all. 
 
 P. 99. “It is plain the mass-sacrifice is not grounded upon 
 God’s written word, and so never acceptable nor serviceable to 
 God nor fruitful to man. For why? Whoso worshippeth God 
 without His special word for the same, worshippeth Him without 
 faith, by reason true faith issueth only from God’s written word, 
 Rom. x., Faith cometh by hearing and the hearing by God’s word: 
 and whoso worshippeth without faith sinneth. 
 
 P. 123. “ Where is there any commandment yea or sufferance 
 to take the Lord’s supper alone? Certes not in the holy scripture 
 ...let the masser report them (the words of the institution) in his 
 private mass as often as him list, they be not the Lord’s words. For 
 that“Take ye” “Eat ye” “Drink ye” imply both a commandment and 
 a second person to the receipt of the Lord’s body and blood and to 
 the consecration of the sacrament of the same. Which both want 
 
400 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 [7.e. are wanting] in the priest’s supper and so it is not the Lord’s. 
 ... He had (bade) us sever the consecrated bread charitably among 
 us, and not each of us (priests) to reserve it to himself and to eat 
 uncharitably all alone... He had us take and eat His body and 
 not to worship it and uplift it... But the priest doth not only 
 eat it for himself but for others also, both quick and dead... Can 
 another man’s eating relieve my hunger? Can another man’s 
 drinking relieve my thirst ?” 
 
 (BB.) ARCHBISHOP EDMUND GRINDAL. Β. 1529. Ὁ. 1583. 
 
 His case is an encouragement to all who take books a-walking : 
 for an arrow would have cut short his career in his boyhood, had it 
 not been intercepted according to Divine Providence by a book in 
 his breast-pocket, Acts xxvii. The next most interesting point is 
 his being engaged in 1549 in two discussions on the radical Pro- 
 testant question, Is the clause, “This is My body,” to be taken 
 literally or figuratively ? In his exile in Mary’s reign he applied 
 himself to collect authentic historic materials of the two last reigns 
 which he supplied to Fox. On his return Elizabeth set him on 
 the Prayer-book Committee. At Sir T. Smith’s was his friend 
 Sandys, with Pilkington, Cox, and Whitehead. Everyone knows his 
 rise through London and York to Canterbury, and his contention 
 with the Queen about the public prophesyings and his glory of 
 dying poor. To praise him were impertinence. 
 
 He was a native of Cumberland, and a graduate of Magdalene 
 College, Christ’s and Pembroke. Of the last society he rose to be 
 Master. The account of him in my late friend Mr Marsden’s 
 Early Puritans is very interesting. No wonder Queen Elizabeth 
 loved and promoted him. 
 
 P. 47. Parker Society. “When the sacrament was dealt (by 
 Christ) none of them all crouched down and took it for His God... 
 but took it and ate it, knowing that it was a sacrament and a 
 remembrance of Christ’s body. Yea the old councils forbad that 
 no man should kneel down at the time of the communion, fearing 
 that it should be an occasion of idolatry. 
 
 P. 57. “Christ took bread and left it bread ; the priest taketh 
 bread and conjureth it away. Christ gave a sacrament to strengthen 
 faith; the priest giveth a sacrifice to redeem men’s souls. Christ 
 gave it to be eaten; the priest giveth it to be worshipped. And 
 
1529] ARCHBISHOP GRINDAL. 401 
 
 to conclude, Christ gave bread; the priest saith he giveth a god. 
 Herein is difference enough between Christ and the priests. 
 
 Discussion, 1549. 
 
 P.198. “If to eat the body of Christ: is a figurative speech ... 
 then the words, This is My body, are a figurative speech also. 
 
 P.196. “Glin says, The nature of it is changed, and that 
 miraculously. Grindal. [Yes], If it be the natural and substantial 
 body of Christ. 
 
 P. 49. “In the Acts of the Apostles St Peter saith that Christ 
 must needs keep the heaven till all be ended... and no promise 
 have we that He will come down at every priest’s calling. 
 
 P. 54. “(Bede) speaketh in Christ’s person, ‘Therefore shall 
 ‘you see Me but a little while after My resurrection, because I 
 ‘will not still abide in the earth bodily, but in the manhood ... 
 ‘ascend up to heaven. What needeth more words? &c.... The 
 body of Christ is ascended into heaven, and there remaineth at the 
 right hand of the Father, and cannot be in more than one place. 
 I do conclude that the sacrament is not the body of Christ: First, 
 because the sacrament is not in heaven, neither sitteth at the 
 Father’s right hand. Moreover because it is in a hundred boxes, 
 whereas Christ’s body filleth but one place. Furthermore if the 
 bread were turned into the body of Christ, then it would neces- 
 sarily follow, that impenitent persons receive the body of Christ... 
 [The Popish replicant who is called “Custom” says], Marry and 
 so they do, for St Paul saith plainly, they receive the body of 
 Christ to their own confusion. [“ Verity” answers], No: not so. 
 They are not St Paul’s words; but he saith, ‘Whoso eateth this 
 ‘bread and drinketh this cup unworthily, he is guilty of the body 
 ‘and blood of the Lord,’ 1.6. of the death of Christ. Pcenas dabit 
 mortis Christi, Ambrose.” 
 
 It is to be regretted that Grindal did not give us an elaborate 
 treatise on the Lord’s supper. It might have stood by the side of 
 the pure Scriptural teaching of parts of Usher and Barrow and 
 Sandys. 
 
 (CC.) ARCHBISHOP EDWIN SANDYS OF YORK. B. 1519. D. 1588. 
 
 Educated at St John’s, he became Master of Catharine. His 
 name is otherwise spelt Sandes. His native place is Furness Fells 
 in Laneashire; for the house of his birth was probably Eastthwaite 
 Hall, which gives a likelihood that he was instructed at Furness 
 Abbey School. He was buried in Southwell church, Notts. At 
 
 ἘΠ ἼΓ 20 
 
402 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the accession of Queen Elizabeth he was made Bishop of Worcester, 
 and then translated after Grindal to London, and again as his 
 successor at York. He must have been a prelate of sterner stuff 
 than common, for when he was Vice-Chancellor at Cambridge at 
 the death of Edward VI., he even refused to proclaim Mary queen. 
 He was three quarters of a year in prison and fled to Germany. 
 He aided in preparing what is called the Bishops’ Bible after 
 Tyndale’s death and his own return in Elizabeth’s reign. Fox’s 
 account of his sermon at Mary’s accession is touching. Abel 
 Redivivus has some other characteristic narrations. 
 
 P. 302. Parker Society. “The graces of God, purchased for 
 us by Christ, are offered unto us by the word; so are they also 
 most lively and effectually by the sacraments....In the eucharist 
 or supper of the Lord our corporeal tasting of the visible elements 
 bread and wine sheweth the heavenly nourishing of our souls unto 
 life by the mystical participation of the glorious body and blood of 
 Christ... All the graces which may flow from the body and blood of 
 Christ are here in a mystery not represented only but presented 
 to us...giving to the signs bread and wine the names which are 
 proper to the things signified. 
 
 Sermon Iv. p. 87. “The worthy receiving of His sacraments is 
 not only a sealing of His grace unto us, but also a testifying of 
 our godliness unto Him...These are pledges and assurances of 
 remission of sins and salvation, purchased by the death of Christ. 
 These are God’s seals, added unto His most certain promises for 
 the confirmation of our weak faith, weak by reason of the infirmity 
 of the flesh ; for if we were spiritual, saith Chrysostom (Hom. 82, 
 vil. 787, Paris, 1727), we should not need these corporeal signs... 
 [P. 88.] In this sacrament there are two things, a visible sign 
 and an invisible grace; there is a visible sacramental sign of bread 
 and wine, and there is the thing and matter signified, viz. the 
 body and blood of Christ: there is an earthly matter, and a 
 heavenly matter. The outward sign is common to us all, as well 
 the bad as the good. Judas received the Lord’s bread, but not 
 that bread, which the Lord is to the faithful receiver. The 
 spiritual part, that which feedeth the soul, only the faithful do 
 receive. For he cannot be partaker of the body of Christ, which 
 is no member of Christ’s body. This food, offered to us at the 
 Lord’s table, is to feed our souls withal: it is meat for the mind 
 and not for the belly. Our souls, being spiritual, can neither 
 receive nor digest that which ts corporal: they feed only upon 
 spiritual food. [What a pity Sandys did not add here, And so 
 the natural body of Christ is not eaten by the believer except as 
 in a figure!] It is the spiritual eating that giveth life. ‘The 
 
1519] ARCHBISHOP SANDYS. 403 
 
 ‘flesh,’ saith Christ, ‘doth nothing profit.’ [With this text under 
 hand, why did he not speak plainly what we may all fancy that he 
 meant?] We must lift up ourselves from these external and 
 earthly signs [7.e. the bread and wine] and like eagles fly up and 
 soar aloft, there to feed on Christ, which sitteth on the right hand 
 of His Father, whom the heavens shall keep unto the latter day. 
 From thence and from no other altar shall He come [compare 
 Fulke] in His natural body to judge both quick and dead. His 
 natural body is local, for else it were not a natural body: His body 
 is therefore not here, for a natural body doth not occupy sundry 
 places at once. Here we have a sacrament, a sign, a memorial, a 
 commemoration, a representation, a figure effectual, of the body 
 and blood of Christ. [Then he quotes Augustine. | 
 
 P. 89. “Thy teeth shall not do Him violence, nor thy stomach 
 contain His glorious body [He before called it a natural body even 
 at judgment]. Thy faith must reach up into heaven. By faith 
 He is seen: by faith He is touched: by faith He is digested. 
 Spiritually by faith we feed upon Christ, when we steadfastly 
 believe that His body was broken and His blood shed for us upon 
 the cross: by which sacrifice offered once for all, as sufficient for 
 all, our sins were freely remitted, &c. &c. Time will not suffer me 
 to let you see the absurdities of the popish unsavoury opinions on 
 this matter, dreaming evermore with the gross Capernaites, of a 
 carnal and a fleshly eating. [This confirms my belief that the 
 archbishop did not think that Christ’s body in any form whatever, 
 natural or glorious, becomes food to the soul: and yet he knew 
 that many of the fathers who believe that it does are yet most 
 forcible in objecting to the gross Capernaite eating]. Behold the 
 one part of this sacrament is called bread, the othera cup.” [That 
 does not convince those fathers at all, nor those who now follow 
 them. ] 
 
 Bertram and Theodoret are then cited, saying that bread and 
 wine remain. Luther believed that, and Chemnitz: and yet held 
 that Christ’s words, This is My body, are to be taken in their 
 most literal and natural sense and not in a figurative sense only. 
 See the long citation from the latter. We can but say in conclu- 
 sion, Would that such a man as Sandys had gone straight to the 
 matter, and denied that the body of Christ is in any form given 
 even to the believer: and that all expressions seeming to imply 
 something of this kind are simply figurative of the receiving of all 
 spiritual blessings. 7 
 
 τς 
 
 (DD.) JOHN WHITGIFT, PRIMATE. B. 1530. D. 1604. 
 
 Of all our eminent primates he is one of the most eminent. 
 His mark seems to have been sobriety of judgment both in tempo- 
 
 26—2 
 
404 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ral matters and in doctrine. It is a singular circumstance that he 
 had an uncle in the position of Abbot of Wellows, whom he seems 
 to have watched till he received a bias from him favourable to 
 the changes that were evidently coming on the country, for the 
 uncle is said to have been struck by not finding the accustomed | 
 Romish religion in the Bible. Perhaps he learned from that 
 relative the inclination to caution, by which under the advice of 
 Dr Pearne, Master of Peterhouse, he avoided the necessity of 
 repairing to the Continent in the perilous time of Mary’s reign, 
 and “at the rising of our occidental star” came forth uncom- 
 promised. It is worthy of notice that when he was living in the 
 house of a Popish relative, in his youth, while Henry VIII. was 
 still alive, he dared to offend her by refusing to go with her to the 
 morning mass though his refusal caused him to be expelled from 
 her house. His countenance is one that you look at with increas- 
 ing satisfaction. Calm and sincere and determined, with no mark 
 of that excessive power which subjects the entire expression to 
 itself and sins against harmony. We do not wonder that the 
 Queen gave him the name of her black husband, but the royal 
 wit might have restrained itself from calling him “a white gift.” 
 
 The three volumes of his works furnish little aid in our enquiry: 
 but his freedom from prejudice in relation to Zwingel will appear 
 in the Third Part of this book. He became Master of Trinity and 
 Dean of Lincoln, and then Bishop of Worcester, and was then 
 raised to the primacy. He had been appointed in succession to two 
 of the four Divinity Professorships at Cambridge and to the Master- 
 ship of Pembroke, before he became Master of Trinity. He was a 
 native of Great Grimsby. Masters does well to mention that he 
 promoted the triumph of Hooker's great work, though it super- 
 seded his own treatise on the same subject—shewing humility like 
 John the Baptist :—nor can we forget his dying words, Pro ecclesia 
 Dei, twice repeated, a faultless exclamation of the very highest 
 strain. As an undergraduate he had Ridley for the Master of his 
 College, and John Bradford for his Tutor. He died of a cold 
 caught in an official journey in a barge on the Thames, 
 
 Defence of Ans. to Admonition, U. T. C, Parker Society. 
 
 P. 382. “Tt is a certain and true doctrine of all such as 
 profess the gospel that the outward signs of the sacrament do not 
 contain im them grace neither yet that the grace of God is of 
 
1530] JOHN WHITGIFT. 405 
 
 necessity tied to them, but only that they be seals of God’s 
 promises, notes of Christianity, testimonials and effectual signs of 
 the grace of God and of our redemption in Christ Jesus, by the 
 which the Spirit of God doth invisibly work in us not only the 
 increase of faith but confirmation also. 
 
 P. 383. “It is certainly true that the mystical washing away 
 of sin is proper to the work of God in the blood of Christ. 
 
 P. 382. “Bread and wine in the eucharist be sacraments 
 (sanetified to another use than usual bread and wine) by the 
 which as by instruments we be fed to eternal life—in Scripture 
 usually called by the names of those things of which they be 
 signs.” 
 
 The propriety of calling the signs effectual or efficacious must 
 depend on the amount of meaning attached to the word. If it 
 only means useful, beneficial, in a word helpful because they are 
 significant or suggestive of Christ’s grace and benefit, everyone 
 would delight in the expression; but if it means having effective 
 power in themselves to do us good or to convey the benefit to 
 us, the Archbishop, by what he said in extract (1), would reject 
 the term. It would mvolve the opus operatum doctrine, since 
 if the signs themselves convey the grace, it cannot depend upon 
 faith in us. 
 
 (EE.) JAMES PILKINGTON, B.D., BISHOP OF DURHAM. 
 Β. 1520. Ὁ. 1575. 
 
 Master of St John’s, Cambridge: read lectures in the schools : 
 also at Basle during Mary’s reign. On returning to England was 
 on the Commission for revising the Prayer-Book. His father had 
 a landed estate at Rivington in Lancashire where he was born. 
 
 Questions and answers in his works. Parker Society. 
 
 Q. x. “He denies that the Catholic church teaches to receive 
 Christ’s body consecrated at mass with the sign of the holy cross, 
 or that we give nothing but bare bread and wine...With what 
 grace can they say we have no consecration ?...If they have any in 
 their mass, we have it also. For if consecration stand in words, 
 we have all the words that their mass, the Gospel, St Paul, or the 
 Apostles had. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and the xith to the 
 Corinthians, what is written of the Lord’s supper, and see whether 
 
406 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 our consecration want any one word that is in either of them. Then 
 ...why is there no consecration with us? Gregory says the apostles 
 consecrated only with the Lord’s Prayer, 11 p. 960, Basle 1564: 
 and that (1.6. the Lord’s prayer) we use as well as they. Jan Duns 
 [Scotus] says the words of consecrating the bread be these, This is 
 My body, and those words we have too... Further he says, Neither 
 Christ nor the Church has defined which be the words of conse- 
 crating the cwp: therefore he will not determine them. What are 
 we now the worse than their own doctors, and why.. say...the 
 church has defined it? Duns knew it not in his time nor the 
 church. Where is one so mad, except priests, to say that a conse- 
 cration stands in crossing ? or that ‘benedicite’ is to make a cross? 
 Prove it if ye can...Deceive not the people.” 
 
 (FF.) DR WILLIAM FULKE, 11 years Master of St John’s, 
 Cambridge. Ὁ. 1589. 
 
 Thirty-two years after his death Francis Wright, his successor 
 in the living of*Dennington, Sac. Theol. Prof. (7.e. D.D.), erected a 
 monument to him in his church, which only commemorates him as 
 doctor. We may therefore infer that the report of Fulke’s holding 
 one of the Cambridge Professorships of Divinity is untrue. His 
 learning and his work need no false laurels. His great work, The 
 Rhemish New Testament and Notes, confuted by his comments, 
 will ever stand without a parallel. 
 
 New Test. (Dr F.’s version) and Rhem. Test. and its Notes confuted. 
 London, 1633. 
 
 Rhem. 11, John vi. 58. He that eateth this bread, &. “ By 
 this place the holy council proveth that for the grace and effect of 
 the sacrament, which is the life of the soul, there is no difference 
 whether a man receive both kinds or one (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXII. 
 1), because our Saviour, Who before attributed life to the eating 
 and drinking of the body and blood, doth here also affirm the same 
 effect, ὁ. 6. life everlasting, to come of eating only under one form. 
 Therefore the. heretics be seditious calumniators, that would 
 make the people believe the catholic church and priests to 
 have defrauded them of the grace and benefit of one of the kinds 
 in the sacrament. Nay: it is they that have defrauded the world 
 by taking away the real substance of Christ, and the grace from 
 one kind, and both kinds and from all other sacraments. The 
 church doth only, by the wisdom of God’s Spirit and by the 
 instruction of Christ and His apostles according to time and place, 
 for God’s most honour, the reverence of the sacrament and the 
 
+1589] DR FULKE. ; 407 
 
 people’s profit, thereby dispose of the manner and order how the 
 priest, how the people shall receive, and all other particular points, 
 which ‘ Himself (saith S. Aug. Ep. 118: 6 ad Jan.) did not take 
 ‘order for, that He might commit that to the apostles, by whom 
 ‘He was to dispose His church’s affairs.” Though both He and 
 the apostles and fathers of the primitive church set us an example 
 of receiving under one kind. Christ at Emmaus, the apostles Acts 
 ii. 46, the primitive church in giving the blood only to children, 
 &e., &e. Whereby the church being warranted, and in the rule of 
 such things fully taught by God’s Spirit as well as for the reproving 
 of certain heresies, that Christ, God and man, was not whole, and 
 all, in every part of the sacrament, as specially for that the Chris- 
 tian people being now enlarged, and the communicants often so 
 many at once, that neither so much wine could be conveniently 
 consecrated nor without manifold accidents of shedding or abusing 
 be received (whereof the protestants have no regard because it is 
 but common wine which they occupy). But the church, knowing 
 it to be Christ’s own blood must have all dreadful regard. There- 
 fore I say she hath decreed, and for some hundred of years put 
 in use that the priest saying mass should always both consecrate 
 and also receive both kinds, &c., &c.: but the laymen and the 
 clergy also when they do not execute or say mass themselves 
 should receive in one kind, being thereby no less partakers of 
 Christ’s whole person and grace than if they received both, as St 
 Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 18. “He that eateth the hostes is partaker 
 of the altar” (Rhem. version). 
 
 Fulke’s Refutation. “Drinking is here (v. 58) to be understood, 
 though it be not expressed. You may as well conclude that the 
 priest need not consecrate but in one kind. Neither doth Aug. 
 say that the church hath power to alter Christ’s institution but to 
 dispose of things that are accidental... which pertain not to the 
 substance of Christ’s institution, &c., &c. Luke xxiv. 30. In 
 expounding the same text, you dare not affirm it to be the sacra- 
 ment: and if it were, you might thereby prove that Christ did 
 consecrate in one kind also, &c., &..... That the sick person was 
 houselled in one kind, it is contrary to what Eusebius saith (case 
 Serapion), &c., &e. The causes of your practice proceed of anti- 
 christian pride, in that you will seem wiser than Christ, Who 
 instituted the sacrament in both kinds. Then on 1 Cor. x. 18, 
 Who will grant it was lawful to abstain from the drink-offerings ? 
 
 Rhem. 12, 1 Cor. xi. “ When the words of consecration be by 
 the said impiety of the protestants thus removed from the ele- 
 ments, no marvel if Christ’s holy body and blood be not there, or 
 ‘that it is now no more a sacrament, but common bread and wine. 
 So that they unjustly charge the catholic church with defrauding 
 the people of one piece of the sacrament, neither following Christ 
 
408 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 as they pretend nor St Paul nor any evangelist, but their own, 
 detestable sect; having boldly defaced the whole institution not 
 in any accidental blessing or consecration but in the very substance 
 and all. The right name is gone. The due elements both gone. 
 No blessing or consecration or other action over them. The forms 
 be gone, and consequently the body and blood, the sacrament and 
 the sacrifice. Fhem. 13. By these words (This do in rememb. 
 &e.) authority and power is given unto the apostles, and by the 
 like in the sacrament of orders to all lawful priests only. No 
 marvel then that the new heretical ministers, being laymen, give 
 the people nothing but bread and wine, profane naked and natural 
 elements, void of sacrament and all grace. Rhem. 14. The adver- 
 saries... improperly name the whole sacrament and ministration 
 thereof, calling it the communion; which name they rather than 
 any other give to make the ignorant believe that many must 
 communicate together, as though it were so called because it is 
 common to many, by which conclusion they take away the 
 receiving of the sacrament alone, of the sick alone, of reserving the 
 consecrated host and the whole sacrament. Against which deceit 
 know that this part of the mass is not called communion for that 
 many should concur together always m the external sacrament, 
 but that we do communicate or join together in unity and perfect 
 fellowship of one body with all Christian men in the world—with 
 all we say that eat it through the whole church and not with them 
 only that eat with us at one time. 
 
 Fulke. “ How are they partakers among you, who do not eat 
 it? the priest only; Rhem. 18, ‘not discerning the body, ον 
 Because he putteth no difference or distinction between Christ His 
 high meal and others ; and therefore S. Aug. saith, Ep. 118, c. 3, 
 that is he that the apostle saith shall be damned that doth not by 
 singular veneration make a difference between this meat and all 
 others. And again on Ps. xcviii., No man eateth it before he adore 
 it: and §. Ambrose, 1. 3, c. 12, de Sp. San., We adore the flesh 
 of Christ in the mysteries. ὃ. Chrysostom, Hom. 24, on 1 Cor., 
 We adore Him on the altar as the sages did in the manger. δ. 
 Nazianzen in Epitaph. Gorgoniz, My sister called on Him which is 
 worshipped on the altar. Theodoret, Dialog. 2 in Conf. The 
 mystical tokens be adored. Denis. Zhis apostles scholar made 
 solemn invocation of the sacrament after consecration, &c., &c., 
 including Cyril Jerus. Mystagog. 5 in fine and Orig. Hom. XIE. on 
 Exod. xxv, For this sacred provision is made that if any hosts or 
 parts of the sacrament do remain unreceived they be most reli- 
 giously reserved with all honour and diligence possible, and for 
 this example of consciences confess a continence; and as 5. Aug. 
 saith, receiving it fasting. Thus do we catholics and the holy 
 church of God discern the holy body and blood of God by St Paul’s 
 rule, &e. [We give Fulke’s reasonings, but do not always concur. ] 
 
—1589] DR FULKE. 409 
 
 Fulke, five pages folio of small print—including, This Evagrius 
 testifieth by an old custom of the church of Constantinople, that 
 what remained after the communion was given to young children 
 that went to school. 
 
 Note. The arguments of the Rhemish divines I have not 
 scrupled to exhibit comparatively at full—believing it of the first 
 consequence to exhibit them; and not fearing to do so even with 
 only a hint of their opponents’ utterances here and there. 
 
 Fulke. Parker Society, p. 241. Reasons for not translating 
 πρεσβύτερος priest. “In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the 
 Popish mass with the altar and priesthood that thereto belongeth 
 we use no wily policy, but with open mouth at all times and 
 places we cry out upon it... Therefore did not Christ at His last 
 supper institute any external propitiatory sacrifice of His body and 
 blood, but a sacrament joined with the spiritual sacrifice of praise . 
 and thanksgiving. 
 
 P. 242. “Presbyter should signify nothing but an elder, &c. 
 But by usurpation (priest) is commonly taken to signify a sacri- 
 ficer, as ἱερεὺς in Greek and sacerdos in Latin; by which names 
 (ὦ. ὁ. the former name) the ministers of the gospel are never called 
 by the Holy Ghost... We call the sacrificers of the Old Testa- 
 ment and of the Gentiles also (because the Scripture calleth them 
 by one name) cohanim, ἱερεῖς, but because the Scripture calleth 
 the ministers of the New Testament by divers other names and 
 never by the name of ἱερεῖς, we thought it necessary to observe 
 the distinction, which we see the Holy Ghost hath so precisely 
 observed. 
 
 P. 505. “Theophylact saith the same that Beza said out of 
 Chrysostom and Cicumenius. The Greek liturgies, falsely in- 
 tituled to St James Basil and Chrysostom, have no other thing, 
 nor any author that you name. But your Popish church does not 
 as either of the Greek liturgies, or as the churches in Ambrose’s or 
 Augustine’s time. For they hold that the elements are conse- 
 erated by prayer and thanksgiving; whereof, although you use 
 some terms in your mass, yet you hold that the consecration con- 
 sisteth in a magical murmuration of the words Hoc est corpus 
 Meum over the bread by a priest with intent of consecration. 
 Wherefore you are far from the judgment that the ancient fathers 
 had, and we have, of the consecration of the bread and wine, &e. 
 
 On John xx. “Itcan never be proved that Christ’s body came 
 either through the wood of the doors or through the stone of the 
 sepulchre, &c. Neither is it said Christ came through the doors 
 being shut, but after the doors were shut ; which yet at His entry 
 were opened miraculously as to the apostles the prison doors, Acts 
 v. 19 and xii. 10, You say that some say He came in at the 
 
410 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 window, yet are you able to name none of us that so saith or 
 thinketh.... Where have you any express Scripture that He 
 came through the wood of the doors being shut? The express 
 words of St John are “after the doors had been shut.”... Admit- 
 ting that He came in miraculously, your gross imagination is 
 contrary to the doctrine and argument of Christ Himself, when, to 
 remove that false suspicion out of their minds He saith, Handle 
 and see Me, for a spirit, &., το. 
 
 (GG.) THEODORE BEZA. B. 1519. Ὁ. 1605. 
 
 We get the best idea of Beza’s position by drawing it out 
 parallel with Calvin’s. His birth was ten years after Calvin’s: but 
 * he lived forty-one after Calvin’s death in 1564, Calvin became 
 Professor of Theology in Geneva in 1586 : but Beza succeeded him 
 five years before he died, ὁ.6. in 1559. Thus he returned to France 
 in two years, and led the Protestants in the conference at Poissy, 
 and remained a year, and was in the battle at Dreux with the 
 Prince of Condé: but in the next year 1563 he returned to Geneva 
 and took Calvin’s place as the head of the Calvinists on Calvin’s 
 death in the year after. This function he discharged for the long 
 period of 41 years. When we take into consideration that he was 
 of a noble family and had been reckoned an excellent poet, and 
 like Clement Marot, the French hymn-writer, had in the early 
 part of his life struck his lyre to unhallowed as well as courtly . 
 themes, and been Prior of Langameaux, one can imagine how 
 his long continuance at the helm of the vessel of Gospel truth 
 “among the speakers of the French language wore out the patience 
 of the Jesuits. They indeed made him out to be dead six years 
 before the time; to which he pleasantly replied in a tract, Beza 
 Redivivus or come to life again. In 1571 he presided at a synod 
 held at Rochelle. He finished Marot’s half-achieved translation of 
 the Psalms, and he translated the Song of Solomon. Stephens 
 published Beza’s Poemata varia; many of which had twice been 
 put forth as Juvenilia Bez. In a word, if in tone of doctrine and 
 ripeness of judgment he followed Calvin, he adorned it with some- 
 thing of the elegant scholarship of Erasmus. His edition of the 
 Greek Testament is perhaps his greatest literary work. Our ex- 
 tracts reveal its character, and as he wrote much beside, it is no 
 wonder that his numerous followers in Switzerland and France as 
 
1519] THEODORE BEZA. 411 
 
 well as his admirers in other lands styled him the Phoenix of his 
 age. His frequent prominence in colloquies, his capacity of sus- 
 taining Protestant interests with the great, and the utility of his 
 scholarship in laying the foundations for a received text of the 
 New Testament, go far to justify the above title. He has never- 
 theless, but with less fitness, been termed the Melanchthon of 
 Calvin. 
 
 He was born at Vezelay from a noble stock on both sides, and 
 in the midst of the richest preferments he decided after a severe 
 conflict to give up all for Christ and godliness: and never had he 
 cause to doubt God’s overruling care and love. He honoured God 
 and God honoured him. He went on bearing more fruit as years 
 increased, until his life’s sun set in hope and glory. 
 
 John vi. 62. “If that now offend you which I have now said 
 concerning the eating of My flesh, which ye have present in the 
 earth, how much more will it seem to you incredible when it shall 
 be absent from you, having been received into the heavens? And 
 yet without the receiving of this flesh eternal life cannot be the 
 lot of anyone. And from this it follows that we must not establish 
 either such a presence or such an eating as is repugnant to th 
 truth of the body itself.... By His own ascension predicting the 
 truth of the taking away of His own humanity from the earth to 
 the heavens. V. 63, Know ye therefore that I have spoken not 
 of the bodily mode of eating and drinking... but by transference 
 (of ideas) of the spiritual perception (reception or discernment) of 
 Myself, which is not performed by the teeth but by the mind, ‘and 
 which looks to that life which is spiritual and eternal ... (which is 
 used) generally of any natural use of food... not even excepting 
 (from the use of the term) even His own flesh, eaten in such a 
 way as the people [in the synagogue] at Capernaum dreamed : 
 
 Theodorus Beza, Nov. Test. John VI. 62. 
 
 Si nunc vos offendit quod dixi de carnis Mex, quam in terris pre- 
 sentem habetis, esu, quanto magis id videbitur vobis incredibile, cum a 
 vobis aberit, in ccelum recepta? Et tamen extra hujus carnis percep- 
 tionem vita eterna non potest cuique contingere. Unde consequitur 
 talem neque preesentiam neque manducationem carnis statuendam, que 
 ipsius corporis...veritati repugnet...Suee humanitatis e terris in ccelos 
 ablationem veram ascensu Suo predicens. V. 63, Scitote igitur me non 
 de corporali edendi vel bibendi modo...sed de Mei spirituali perceptione, 
 que non dente sed mente peragitur, et ad vitam ilam spiritualem et 
 zeternam spectat, translatitie esse locutum...generaliter de omni naturali 
 cibi usu,..ne carnem quidem Suam excipiens, sic comesam ut Capernaite 
 
412 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 between whom certainly, and our transubstantiators or consub- 
 stantiators, there is not even ever so little difference, with what- 
 évéer paint they hide the dogma concerning the real essence of 
 Christ’s flesh, (taken on their theory) in common by the worthy 
 and unworthy. It is not therefore contrary to this that ‘the flesh 
 ‘profiteth nothing, namely unto eternal life, and to what Christ 
 had before said of His own flesh, ‘that the eating of His flesh was 
 ‘life giving and the drinking of His blood, since Christ teaches 
 that in the former sentence ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ are spoken 
 in their proper (own) sense indeed, but in the latter by transfer- 
 ence (of ideas), and that they are in this place by transference 
 applied to the action of the mind and of faith: and in this latter 
 sense He had called Himself ‘living bread’ in opposition to the 
 manna... Finally they seem to me to be in a kind of hallucina- 
 tion who think that Christ here spoke properly and specifically 
 -concerning the sacramental eating of His own flesh and the drink- 
 ing of His own blood—as well as those who so pertinaciously 
 contend that those things do not at all belong to the Lord’s 
 supper... But those (other) admit three very shameful errors: 
 one, that they substitute with the Capernaites a bodily eating for a 
 ‘mental and spiritual one to be performed by faith: another, that 
 hey prostitute Christ’s flesh in making it to be eaten by any 
 ersons whatever, ever so unworthily receiving it: thirdly, that in 
 he “case~of unworthy receivers they not only draw a distinction 
 between Christ’s benefits and His own flesh, and between His 
 ‘own flesh and His benefits, but they even in actual fact disjoin 
 them... Luke xxii. 20. ‘This cup, which is in process of being 
 
 somniabant: a quibus certe ne tantillum quidem distant neque μετουσι- 
 ασταὶ neque συνουσιασταὶ, quocunque tandem fuco de Ipsius Christi 
 carnis essentia reali, ὅσο, tum dignis tum indignis communi, dogma 
 operiant. Non pugnat igitur “Carnem nihil prodesse,” nempe ad vitam 
 eternam tribuendam, et, quod antea de Sua carne Christus dixerat, 
 ‘“‘vivificum esse Sue carnis esum et Sui sanguinis potum,” cum “esum” 
 et “potum” in ill4 quidem sententid proprie, in ista vero translatitie 
 dici, et ad mentis fideique actionem translatitie applicari doceat hoc loco 
 Christus: quo etiam sensu Sese “panem vivum” vocdrat manhe opposi- 
 tum...Denique hallucinari quoque mihi videntur qui Christum proprie 
 et specialiter hic esse de sacramentali Sue carnis esu et Sui sanguinis 
 potu locutum sentiunt, tum qui nihil ista ad coonam Domini pertinere 
 tam pertinaciter contendunt. Isti vero...tres maxime pudendos errores 
 admittunt...unum, quod cum Capernaitis corporeum esum pro mentali 
 sive spirituali per fidem peragendo substituunt: alterum quod quibusvis 
 quantumlibet indigne accipientibus Christi carnem prostituunt: tertium, 
 quod in indigne accedentibus tum Christi beneficia ab Ipsius carne, tum 
 Ipsius carnem ab Ejus beneficiis, non tantum distinguunt sed etiam re 
 ipsa disjungunt...Luke xxii. 20, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνό- 
 
1519] THEODORE BEZA. 413 
 
 poured out for you..... The apparent solecism is plain, since 
 grammatically it would be said with the participle in the dative to 
 agree with the words ‘ My blood, as Basil reads the passage in his 
 Ethics, Determination 21: or rather, as this had been noted in the 
 margin from Matthew and Mark, it afterwards crept into the text: 
 which is the more easy to admit because, since in the verse before, 
 had been written ‘My body which is given for you’ (in the nomi- 
 native), it seemed that something similar was to be added here 
 where He treats of the blood. But no such addition is made 
 1 Cor. xi.... It has by no means escaped me that it is yet so read 
 in the Syrian translation and in all the Greek manuscripts that I 
 have looked into. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 26. “Therefore δεῖπνον in this history is the 
 (Paschal) supper according to the law, to abrogate which the Lord 
 afterwards substituted for it till the end of time His own, ‘the 
 ‘Lord’s supper.’.... This however is certain, that the ceremony,| 
 which is by God’s precept performed in the use of the sacraments, | 
 was ratified in heayen : and that thenceforward bread and wine in 
 that sacred action are in quality changed [This is a step beyond | 
 not Calvin only, but even Luther], since they are made true 
 symbols of the Lord’s body and blood—a thing which they obtain} 
 not either of their own naturé or by the virtue of certain set* 
 pronounced words but by the appointment of the Son_of God... 
 ‘Is, by metonymy; yet in such a way that we know that besides 
 the sign that thing is truly received by them that believe (by faith 
 [and] in a spiritual manner) which is represented by the outward 
 sign, (though it is) to be held forth to faith and taken (by faith) :¥ 
 
 pevov...Manifestum est soloecophanes, cum dicendum fuerit (grammatice) 
 τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ ut legit Basilius in Ethicis ὅρῳ xa’: aut potius, 
 cum hee essent ad marginem annotata ex Matthzo et Marco, postea in 
 contextum irrepserunt. Quod eo quidem facilius est admissum, quod cum 
 in superiore versiculo adscriptum esset τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον (σῶμα)... 
 simile quippiam visum fuit adjiciendum ubi agitur de sanguine. Sed 
 hoe non additur 1 Cor. xi....Quia tamen hoc etiam legitur apud Syrum 
 interpretem et in omnibus quos inspeximus Grecis codicibus minime 
 preetermisi. 
 
 Matt. XX VI. 26. 
 
 Ttaque δεῖπνον in hac historia ccena legalis; quam abrogans postea 
 Dominus suum, τὸ Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, ei ad fines usque seeculorum substi- 
 tuit...Hoe tamen certum est ratam esse in ccelo ceremoniam, que ex 
 Dei precepto in sacramentorum usu peragitur, ac proinde panem et 
 vinum in sacra illa actione qualitate mutari, cum fiant corporis et 
 sanguinis Domini vera symbola, quod neque ex sui naturd neque ex 
 virtute certarum yocum pronunciatarum habent, sed ex Filii Dei insti- 
 tutione...“‘ Est,” metonymice; ita tamen ut sciamus, preter signum, a 
 eredentibus vere percipi (per fidem spirituali modo) id, quod externo 
 symbolo, fidei preebendum et sumendum, representatur, totwm videlicet 
 
τ 
 
 414 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that is to say a whole Christ with His own gifts for salvation, 
 [How inconsistent with the first extract from Beza! It seems not 
 like the same man. He-must have been different at different 
 times.| Yet neither transubstantiation nor what they call real 
 conjunction or transfusion or commixture are to be thought of, 
 but the relative or sacramental conjunction of the sign and the 
 thing. For neither can they be consistent with the truth of 
 Christ’s humanity, nor are they necessary to salvation. [One can 
 only compare Beza’s explanation to a piece of patchwork made 
 
 ~ with opposite colours.] For neither must Christ’s body be really 
 
 \ 
 
 | but rather by the virtue of the Holy Spirit and by faith we must | 
 
 present upon-earth, in order that we may be partakers of Christ ; 
 
 ἢ ascend-(to Him) to Heayen, [Then it must be all metaphorical ; and 
 “no change of the body of Christ in quality is at all required, in 
 
 order that we may by faith be united to it], and there embrace 
 Him that we may_sit with Him in Heavenly places [and this not 
 with our bodies nor by changing the locality of our souls, but 
 simply in thought and faith that sees the unseen]. The sum of all is, 
 it is necessary to salvation that we be truly conjoined and become 
 one (body) with the whole Christ, God and man; and this does 
 
 not take place in any but a spiritual mode, by faith. But this 
 
 , faith is created and confirmed in us by the Holy Spirit ; and that, 
 
 by the preaching of the word of God, by signs joined to preaching, 
 by which all our senses are excited and driven on that we may 
 truly strive forth after the possession of Christ Himself.” 
 
 Besides this strange medley—strange to come from Beza— 
 I am obliged to stop short in a previous quotation by the stranger 
 slip, that Christ’s body was “then” (at that time), when Christ 
 spoke in Capernaum, “in the heavens.” I can only suppose 
 that this singular saying was put out to explain a phrase only 
 difficult in appearance, “the Son of man Who is in heaven.” 
 
 Christum, cum Suis ad salutem donis. Neque tamen vel transubstantia- 
 tio, vel realis (quam vocant) conjunctio, vel transfusio aut commistio, 
 cogitand ; sed signi et rei conjunctio σχετικηὴ aut sacramentalis. Nam 
 illa neque consistere possunt cum veritate humanitatis Christi, neque ad 
 salutem sunt necessaria, neque enim, ut Christi participessfiamus, Ejus 
 corpus oportet realiter in terris adesse, sed nos potius Spiritus sancti 
 virtute et fide in ccelum ascendere et illic Eum amplecti, ut cum Eo 
 consideamus in ceelestibus. In summé, vere nos conjungi et unum fieri 
 cum toto Christo, Deo et homine, necesse est, ut salvi fiamus; quod non 
 alio quam spirituali modo fit per fidem. Hee autem fides in nobis 
 creatur et confirmatur per Spiritum sanctum; idque predicatione verbi 
 Dei, et adjunctis predicationi symbolis; quibus omnes nostri sensus 
 excitantur et percelluntur, ut vere nitamur in Christi Ipsius posses- 
 sionem. 
 
1522] MARTIN CHEMNITZ. 415 
 
 (HH.) MARTIN CHEMNITZ. B. 1522. Ὁ. 1577. 
 
 He fully merits the title of the Melanchthon of Saxony. His 
 Loci Theologici answer to those of Melanchthon and to the Loci 
 Communes of Peter Martyr. The title-page of my edition says 
 that they correspond, and comments upon the Loci Communes of 
 Melanchthon. It also contains a treatise regarding the Presence 
 of Christ in the Lord’s supper, and another on the two natures. 
 His great work is said to be his Examen Concilii Tridentini, and 
 he published a work confuting the doctrines of the Jesuits. He 
 comes to notice as the leader of the Saxon divines in making a 
 supplementary confession to those of Melanchthon and Luther. 
 The Confession of Augsburg was the great German Charter of 
 Protestant nobles of Germany; who then, 1530, took that title 
 and adopted that Confession at Melanchthon’s hand, Luther co- 
 operating by letter from his quiet retreat. When Rome put forth 
 her Confutatio, Melanchthon put forth his “Apology,” and in 1536 
 Luther added the Articles of Schmalkald. These together with 
 Luther’s two catechisms were the received formularies of the 
 German Protestant faith. But in 1577 Andrew Jacob, Chancellor 
 of Wirtemberg, in conjunction with Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus, 
 and other Saxon divines, added the Formula Concordize based upon 
 the Articles (96 n.) agreed on at Torgau the year before. All the 
 four before-mentioned formularies were collected into the Liber 
 Concordiz in 1580, which was subscribed by the clergy “as 
 “solemnly as Scripture itself.” See Hagenbach’s History of Doc- 
 trines. He was born at Britzen in Magdeburg. He was made 
 Superintendent of the Church of Brunswick, and Mosheim praises 
 his work on the Council of Trent, next after and in like language 
 with that of the Centuriators of Magdeburg, a great work now 
 somewhat superseded by the greater facility of collecting a com- 
 plete series of the fathers as far at least as Migne goes, and with 
 the exception of some very important writers whom the Roman 
 church excludes as unorthodox. Chemnitz also commenced a 
 harmony of the Gospels, which was completed by John Gerhard. 
 The first passage cited from him seems to me to have no small 
 weight in the six parts of the seven that are against our adver- 
 saries : as to the one part in seven that is directed against us we 
 
416 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ‘[AD. 
 
 can only say, and quite willingly, we wish it to be fairly con- 
 sidered. 
 
 P.185, On the two natures in Christ. “But He has removed 
 into heaven from us who are on earth that mode of visible conver- 
 sation and that circumscribed and local form of the presence of 
 His own body according to the conditions and manner of living 
 in this age according to the flesh; and this is what He said, 
 ‘Again I leave the world.’ 
 
 P. 188. “Christ (although He has ordinarily taken away from 
 the earth the natural mode of the presence of His own body, and 
 is about to appear in the judgment in glory can yet be present 
 on the earth in His own body (even after His ascension and before 
 the judgment) or can exhibit a presence of His own body on the 
 earth whenever however and wherever He will, even in a visible 
 form... But Christ mentions His own body and blood; not that 
 He would have it understood that His own body is present in the 
 supper, either torn away from His blood or both of them separated 
 from the soul and outside the hypostatic union with the Godhead 
 apart and separated as it were ‘in the abstract.’... Those who 
 were acknowledging Him to be true God Himself could not doubt 
 upon the presence of His Godhead in the church, since that 
 (Divine) essence of His, as being in the propriety of its nature 
 infinite and immense, fills heaven and earth... But they could 
 doubt regarding the presence of His own humanity after His own 
 departure out of this world because they knew that by the pro- 
 
 > 
 
 De duabus naturis in Christo, c. XXX., p. 185. Wittenberg, 1615. 
 
 Illum vero modum visibilis conversationis ac illam cirewmscriptam 
 ac localem formam presentie Sui corporis, juxta conditiones et rationem 
 vivendi hujus seculi secundum carnem, a nobis qui in terris sumus in 
 celum subduxit; et hoc est quod dixit “Iterum relinquo mundum,” 
 
 ἘΣ 188: 
 
 Christum (licet naturalem modum presentie corporis Sui ordinarie 
 terris abstulerit, ac in gloria in judicio demum appariturus sit) tamen 
 Suo corpore (etiam post ascensionem et ante judicium) presentem adesse 
 aut preesentiam corporis Sui exhibere posse in terris quandocumque ubi- 
 cumque et quomodocumque vult, etiam in visibili forma (as to Paul 
 more than once)...Nominat autem Christus corpus Suum et sanguinem 
 non quod corpus Suum vel a sanguine avulsum vel utrumque ab anima 
 separatum et extra hypostaticam cum Divinitate unionem seorsim et 
 separatim quasi in abstracto, in cend adesse intelligi voluit...De Divini- 
 tatis Sue presentid in ecclesiaé (quoniam illa essentia Sua ut proprietate 
 nature infinitaé et immensd cceelum et terram implet) dubitaré*non pote- 
 rant illi qui verum Deum Ipsum esse agnoscebant....De humanitatis vere 
 Suz presentia post abitum Suum ex hoc mundo, quia illam proprietate 
 
1522] MARTIN CHEMNITZ. 417 
 
 priety of its nature it is finite, and they had hitherto seen Him 
 present by a local and visible circumscription, ὅθ. Therefore He 
 expressly names His own body and blood, in order to shew that by 
 this naming of those things in which His human nature consists, 
 He describes indicates promises sanctions and confirms fully ex- 
 pressly clearly and manifestly against all sophistical deceits the 
 presence of His whole person in the church on earth not according 
 to His Godhead only but also according to His own assumed 
 human nature. For He wished the action of the supper to be a 
 pledge seal and signing of His presence as with a seal [on the face 
 of ἃ 4664]. But because there is a great sharp and vehement con- 
 troversy on this question, that the explanation may thereby be 
 rendered plainer and more ready, we will first remove those things 
 which on both sides are rejected [he means among reasonable 
 persons—only that would be too sharp aud sweeping for him to 
 say] and which cannot hold together [or consistently exist] that 
 the controversy may be so brought down to its true state. 
 
 “(1) Because the supper of the Lord is not celebrated in a 
 church among the stars nor in the sky but in this earth in various 
 and many different and innumerable places, we say that there is 
 not any physical property or essential peculiarity m the body of 
 Christ, so that it can be by itself or of itself at the same place and 
 at one time by its own substance in divers places. Yea we add 
 that this is contrary to the reason of common form, or contrary to 
 physical reason, yea contrary to the nature of bodies, which have 
 been constituted of a certain finite and circumscribed dimension of 
 their members. For nature extends not itself to those things which 
 
 nature finitam esse sciebant, ac circumscriptione locali et visibili hacte- 
 nus Illum presentem viderant, dubitare poterant, ὅθ. Ideo expresse 
 corpus Suum et sanguinem nominat, ut hac nominatione eorum, quibus 
 humana natura constat, totius Persons Sue, non secundum Divinitatem 
 tantum, verum etiam secundum assumptam humanam Suam naturam, 
 presentiam in ecclesia in terris diserte expresse clare ac manifeste contra 
 omnes sophisticas elusiones Se describere indicare promittere sancire et 
 confirmare ostenderet. Ejus enim preesentie pignus sigillum et obsigna- 
 tionem actionem cene esse voluit...Quia vero magna acris et vehemens 
 est de hac questione controversia, ut explicatio eo reddatur planior ex- 
 peditior, removebimus primum ea, quee utrinque rejiciuntur et gue con- 
 sistere non possunt, ut ita ad verum statum controversia deducatur. 
 
 (1) Quia ccena Dominica non inter sidera aut in cclo sed in his 
 terris in variis diversis multis et innumerabilibus locis in ecclesia cele- 
 bratur, dicimus non esse physicam proprietatem aut essentiale idioma 
 corporis Christi, ut per se aut ex se simul ac semel substantia sua sit in 
 pluribus diversis locis. Imo addimus hoc esse contra rationem forme 
 communis, vel contra rationem physicam, imo contra naturam corporum, 
 que certa finité et circumscript’é d mensione membrorum constant. 
 Natura enim non se extendit ad ea que transcendunt ordinem natura- 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΙ. 27 
 
418 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 go beyond natural order, as the scholastic writers say. We grant 
 therefore that according to the natural properties of a true body 
 and by any essential peculiarity of Christ's body (which by a pro- 
 perty of its nature is limited) that it is not present in the supper 
 in all places. (2) And we say that neither by any remarkable 
 putting forth of it, nor by any such presence as is according to the 
 plan and condition of glorified bodies, is this presence of Christ’s 
 body established in the supper, &c. For it is in this way that 
 Christ appears in His own body to the blessed in heaven. And 
 He will not before the last judgment appear on earth, ac- 
 cording to the ordinary dispensation of things, in that form (7. 
 the glorified form) or in anything near that form. (3) We in no 
 wise teach that Christ’s body is like an immense mass. expanded 
 distributed diffused drawn asunder or extended through all places ; 
 or as Damascene says that the flesh of Christ is ‘ together extended 
 ‘by the side of all things,’ bodily coextended with the Deity which 
 takes it to Him, so that it is in this way present (already) in all 
 places where the Lord’s supper is (celebrated). (4) Nor do we 
 say that Christ’s body is present in the supper by any multiplying 
 or repeating, as the image of one body appears in many divers 
 pieces of a broken looking-glass. Christ is speaking in the words 
 of institution of His own body and blood themselves not of a 
 reflexion or an image. And Christ’s body is one not many, &c. 
 (5) By no means do we think that Christ’s body (either in union 
 or in glory) has lost its own substance and had its own essential 
 properties abolished and been turned or transmuted into a sub- 
 stance which is spiritual measureless infinite, &c. (6) Nor can it 
 
 lem, ut scholastici dicunt. Concedimus igitur non juxta naturales pro- 
 prietates veri corporis nec per essentiale aliquod idioma corpus Christi, 
 (quod nature sue proprietate finitur) in omnibus locis in ccend adesse, &e., 
 (2) nec conspicua aliqua exhibitione aut tali prasentia, qualis est ratio 
 et conditio corporum glorificatorum, presentiam hane corporis Christi in 
 ceend constare dicimus, &c. Hoc enim modo beatis in ccelo Christus 
 corpore Suo jam apparet: de ordinarid dispensatione in illa forma et 
 juxta illam formam ante extremum judicium in terra non apparebit. 
 (3) Nequaquam docemus corpus Christi tanquam immensam molem 
 per omnia loca expansam [which Leibnitz in his day contended for] 
 diductam diffusam distractam vel extensam; vel, sicut Damascenus 
 loquitur, carnem Christi συμπαρεκτεινομένη corporaliter coextensam cum 
 Deitate assumente, ut hoc modo in omnibus locis, ubi coena Domini 
 celebratur, adsit. (4) Nee dicimus corpus Christi per multiplicationem 
 aut replicationem, sicut unius corporis imago in pluribus diversis fracti 
 speculi partibus apparet, in ccend adesse. De ipso corpore et sanguine 
 Suo Christus in verbis institutionis non de idolo aut imagine Ejus loqui- 
 tur. Et unum est corpus Christi, non multa, &e. (5) Nullo etiam 
 modo sentimus corpus Christi (vel in unione vel in gloria) amiss Sua 
 substantia et abolitis essentialibus suis proprietatibus converswm aut 
 transmutatum esse in substantiam spiritualem infinitam immensam, 
 
1522] MARTIN CHEMNITZ. 419 
 
 be established [or exist] that the Divine nature alone is to be 
 understood to be present and not the human also, when Christ 
 names His own body [This is just Luther’s argument at Marburg, 
 Part III. of this book. Christ sazd, This is My body. That is 
 enough] and blood. [Thus the Lutherans take the very respon- 
 sible task of closing as far as in them les the only road of escape 
 from the assumed literal sense of Christ’s words, which stands on 
 nothing beyond an arbitrary interpretation; in fact the point 15 as 
 to mere rendering an open question, to be settled by considerations 
 of custom in writing and consequences in actual history and in 
 philosophy.].... For God is a Spirit Who has not flesh and bones, 
 which belong to the substance of human nature. (7) Nor does 
 it agree to the words of the institution if we wish to under- 
 stand a presence of Christ’s body in the supper to be of merit only 
 or virtue or efficacy (His substance being excluded or separated) : 
 for He says, This is My body, &c., ἄς. These (seven) things having 
 been cast away,...[Chemnitz as a follower of Luther says that] 
 Christ that is to say with His own body and blood ... determines 
 to be there present, and by His own humanity which He assumed, 
 as by an instrument akin to us, as the ancients say, determines to 
 apply His own benefit to us [for this natural presence is required], 
 to confirm, to seal, and so to effect in the church the office of vivi- 
 fying according to both our natures [1.6. in our bodies and souls] by 
 His own vivifying flesh. [Cyril of Alexandria dwelt on this 
 doctrine of Christ’s flesh teeming with life for our bodies and our 
 souls.]... We may desire to remove this salutary presence of 
 Christ. The reasons (for this) out of the word of God must 
 certainly be the clearest the most firm the most certain and the 
 most urgent, &c., ὅθ. [Is it not enough if we destroy his applica- 
 tion of Ephes. ν. just cited as nihil ad rem and so of his other 
 passages to be cited? and then, as Chemnitz has no clarissime 
 firmissime rationes ex verbo Dei, our arguments from Scripture, 
 science and history may be considered as in Part III. of this work.] 
 
 &e. &e. (6) Nec etiam constare potest Divinam naturam solam presen- 
 tem et non etiam humanam intelligendam quando Christus nominat 
 corpus Suum et sanguinem. Deus enim est spiritus, qui carnem et ossa 
 non habet, que ad humane nature substantiam pertinent. (7) Nec 
 verbis institutionis convenit, si presentiam solius meriti, virtutis seu 
 efficacie corporis Christi (exclusd seu separata ejus substantia) in ceend 
 intelligere volumus. Dicit enim, &e. ἄρ. Hisce...abjectis...Christum 
 scilicet corpore et sanguine Suo...velle praesentem adesse, ac per assump- 
 tam Suam humanitatem, tanguam per organon nobis cognatum, sicut 
 veteres loquuntur, velle nobis beneficia Sua applicare confirmare obsig- 
 nare, atque zéa officium vivificationis secundum utramque naturam per 
 carnem Suam vivificantem in ecclesia efficere...Hanc salutarem presen- 
 _ tiam Christi...removere velimus; oportet sane rationes ex verbo Dei 
 _ clarissimas firmissimas certissimas et urgentissimas esse, &e. &e..... Jam 
 
 | 97. 9 
 
420 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ... Now therefore this is the point that is being debated in this 
 controversy, whether we are to embrace that simple proper and 
 natural sentence of the words of the Son of God, or whether we 
 must truly depart from the simplicity and propriety of the words, 
 &c., the native sentence must be rejected and another interpre- 
 tation thought out for ourselves, from the workshop of metaphors. 
 
 P. 103. “There is no end of the Divine power. Beyond 
 peculiar properties (of His body) that it is present simply by 
 Divine power in many places (at once). We trust Divine matters 
 to God (alone). 
 
 P. 167. On the Lord’s Supper. “Since He in flowing words 
 has promised the presence of His body and blood in the supper in 
 the very words of His own testament, therefore let us believe 
 simply and without any speaking against them, even if such a 
 presence seem to be at war with the natural properties of our phy- 
 sical bodies.” [This at least is speaking outright: but all because 
 Chemnitz and so many divines have resolved within themselves 
 that the words will not, shall not, and did not bear a figurative 
 sense. | 
 
 in tota hac controversia illud igitur, an simplex propria et natura illa 
 verborum Filii Dei sententia amplectenda, &c., an vero a simplicitate et 
 proprietate verborum, d&ec., discedendum, nativa ejus sententia rejici- 
 enda et ex troporum officina alia interpretatio excogitanda 510]. 
 
 P. 109. 
 Potentiz Divine non est finis. Supra idiomata per voluntatem Dei 
 in pluribus locis adesse. Credimus Deo Divina, 
 De cena Domini, p. 167. 
 
 Cum presentiam corporis et sanguinis sui in ccend ipsis verbis Testa- 
 menti Sui diserte pollicitus est, ideo nos eam simpliciter et absque omni 
 contradictione credamus, etiamsi cum naturalibus proprietatibus physici 
 corporis talis preesentia pugnare videatur. 
 
 (11) CARDINAL THOMAS DE VIO. 
 CAIETANUS (Cajetan or Gaetan). D. 1534. 
 
 “Tu quoque littoribus- nostris Aineia nutrix 
 /Eternam moriens famam, Caieta, dedisti.” 
 
 This distich has a particular charm to anyone who coming 
 from Florence has stood on high ground and overlooked the bay 
 and mole of Gaieta in a landscape of a different kind but scarcely 
 less beautiful than the Bay of Naples from the height to the north 
 that bears the name of Virgil’s tomb. We have here a new link of 
 
—1534] CARDINAL THOMAS DE VIO. 421 
 
 connexion with that place. In the prefatory letter addressed to 
 Clement VII. the cardinal says that after his work on the Psalms 
 he complied with the requests of many in taking the New Testa- 
 ment in hand. He says he led a retired life at Gaieta for 27 
 months for that purpose. In this time he finished his comments 
 on the historical part of the New Testament: but he originally 
 intended only to expound the literal sense: he says nothing can 
 be of use that does not square with the doctrine of the apostolic 
 seat ; he submits all to the judgment of His Apostleship : and he 
 only hopes that the work will compensate for his own prolonged 
 absence at Gaieta. It is subscribed at the close, At Gaieta on the 
 sacred day of St Peter and St Paul, 1529. It was inspected and 
 recognized by John Daniel, 8.D.N., and passed the press May, 1536. 
 There are other Cajetans, notably two ; James, also a cardinal, and 
 Benedict, Pope Benedict VIII. Thomas of Gaieta also wrote a 
 comment on Aquinas, unless this be his “Summa.” But he is 
 chiefly notable for his connexion with Luther, according to the 
 letter of Pope Leo X., which commanded him to use “the arm of 
 “our son the well-beloved in Christ Maximilian Emperor of the 
 “Romans to make Luther appear before him,” to get him into his 
 power and then await further orders from Rome. But he is 
 allowed, if Luther shall of his own accord come and ask pardon for 
 his temerity and return to himself and shew signs of penitence, 
 in that case to receive Luther handsomely (benigne), Gieseler, v. 
 237. This was in 1518. The issue is history: but this Cajetan 
 is our commentator on the Gospels and the Acts. He also wrote 
 on the pope’s side against the Council of Pisa and against the 
 doctrine of the supremacy of General Councils maintained by 
 Dalmaine, D’Ailly, Gerson and the Sorbonne in general at that 
 time. His name by baptism was James. He took the name 
 Thomas on entering a Dominican convent. The Duke of Milan 
 when he met him expressed his astonishment at seeing a man so 
 little of stature and of so dark a complexion; but Cajetan replied, 
 God Himself made us and not we ourselves, “ Ipse fecit nos, non nos 
 “psi.” In 1527 when Constable Bourbon attacked Rome, Cajetan 
 was taken and ransomed himself by paying 5000 pieces of gold. 
 As he was escorted by a brutal crowd of soldiers to the castle of 
 St Angelo, the pope looked out on the peril of the aged cardinal 
 and cried out, Have a care how you put out the church’s light. 
 An Italian calls him “ the second Thomas,” after Aquinas. 
 
422 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Commentary, John vi. 23. “ Unless ye eat the flesh, &c., ὅσο. 
 “This text is similar to the command of baptism, ‘ Unless a man 
 ‘be born again, ὅς. (chap. iil.) since it is said of a thing of equal 
 necessity and like manner. It has been and is an occasion of 
 divers factions or sects. It must then be the more discerningly 
 discussed... The sense then is threefold. The first concerning 
 faith in Christ’s death, &c. The second, concerning faith in the 
 sacrament of the eucharist, which is a memorial of Christ’s death. 
 For the cup and the host separately signify the reality of the flesh 
 and blood, which was on the cross. And this is the sense, Unless 
 ye shall spiritually have eaten and drunken the sacrament of the 
 eucharist ye have not life in you. And this sense is the true, 
 since spiritually to eat and drink the sacrament of the eucharist, 
 as relating to the (inward) thing in the eucharist, is no other than 
 to abide in Christ and Christ to abide in him (the spiritual 
 receiver), And it is plain that without such abiding there is no 
 life of the Spirit, ἄς. It is not formal teaching regarding the 
 (external) sacrament, but regarding the thing (itself) of the sacra- 
 ment—but regarding the fount of the sacrament... The command 
 of the sacrament drives (us) to the spiritual receiving, which stands 
 in the (heart’s) wish, as to the (very) beginning of the sacra- 
 ment. The third sense therefore is concerning sacramental eating : 
 yet (I mean) worthily. And the sense is, Unless ye shall really 
 have eaten the flesh of the Son of man in the sacrament of the 
 host, and shall have drunk His blood in the sacrament of the cup, 
 ye have not the Spirit’s life in you. [The first and second are 
 Protestant and Scriptural senses: the third fully maintains the 
 
 Commentary on the Gospels and the Acts, p. 205. John VI. 23, ‘Unless 
 ye eat, dc.” Paris, 1536. 
 
 Textus iste similis precepto baptismi, Unless a man be born, &e. 
 c. 11, Pari siquidem necessitate et modo dicitur. Occasio diversum 
 factionum seu sectarum fuit, et est. Idev perspicacius discutiendus est... 
 Triplex igitur sensus. Primus de fide mortis Christi, &e. Secundus de 
 fide sacramenti eucharistiz, quod est memoriale mortis Christi. Calix 
 enim et hostia separatim realitatem carnis et sanguinis quee fuit in cruce 
 significat. Et est sensus, Nisi spiritualiter manducaveritis et biberitis 
 sacramentum eucharistiz non habetis vitam in vobis. Et hic sensus est 
 verus, quoniam spiritualiter manducare et bibere sacramentum eucha- 
 visti, quoad rem sacrament, nihil aliud est quam manere in Christo et 
 Christum manere in eo. Sine qué mansione constat non esse vitam 
 Spiritds...Sermo formalis non est de sacramento sed de re sacramenti, 
 sed de fonte sacramenti...ad spiritualem perceptionem, qu consistit in 
 voto, cogit (preeceptum sacramenti) tanquam ad initium sacramenti. 
 Tertius itaque sensus est de manducatione sacramentali, digne tamen. 
 Et est sensus, nisi realiter manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis in 
 sucramento hostize et biberitis in sacramento calicis FKjus sanguinem, 
 non habetis vitam Spiritus in vobis. Ita quod, juxta hune sensum, 
 
 EAT ALA Ae aes aaa Sy SS i 
 
—1534] CARDINAL THOMAS DE VIO. 423 
 
 old and corrupt literal view.] So that according to this sense not 
 only is the sacrament of baptism necessary unto salvation, but also 
 the sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds. From this sense 
 there rose up a little while ago the sect of the Bohemians giving 
 the communion even to infants in both kinds. The custom of the 
 church is adverse to this sense; for it is that infants are not to 
 have the communion in both kinds nor the (adult) people. Nor is 
 it a custom only, but a doctrine (too) :-since she teaches that it is 
 sufficient for salvation to communicate in the kind of bread (only). 
 And although this authority (of the church) suffices to manifest 
 that the text itself does not entail the precept concerning the 
 receiving of the sacrament under both kinds, and consequently 
 does not deliver the precept concerning eating and drinking the 
 sacrament of the eucharist, yet it is not enough to satisfy the 
 followers of those doctrines; but they hold this text before them 
 against our custom and doctrine, saying that unless the Lord was 
 treating, in these words, of the receiving of the sacrament, He is 
 making no distinction between eating and drinking ; but that from 
 His so “accurately distinguishing between them, He suggests to us 
 that He is treating of the reception of the sacrament of the eu- 
 charist... But these arguments are easily thrown aside by 
 observing that a little above in this chapter Jesus said, ‘He that 
 ‘cometh to Me shall never hunger.’ For the Lord clearly distin- 
 guished in these words, which plainly have no reference to the 
 sacrament of the eucharist, between hungering and thirsting, which 
 is equivalent to distinguishing between eating and drinking. 
 [A singular assumption “of perfect exactitude throughout in the 
 use of ” figurative language.|.... But it is plain that the real 
 
 necessarium est ad salutem non solum sacramentum baptismi sed etiam 
 sacramentum eucharistiz sub utraque specie. Hoe sensu orta paulo ante 
 est secta Bohemorum communicantium etiam infantes sub utraque specie. 
 Huie sensui contrariatur ecclesiz conswetudo non communicandos infan- 
 tes nec populum sub utraque specie. Nec sola consuetudo sed doctrina ; 
 quoniam docet sufficere ad salutem communicare sub specie panis. Et 
 quamvis hee authoritas sufficit ad manifestandum quod textus iste non 
 trahit preceptum de perceptione sacramenti sub utraque specie, et con- 
 sequenter quod non -tradit preeceptum de manducando et bibendo sacra- 
 mentum eucharistiz, sectatoribus tamen ilorum dogmatum non satis est, 
 sed textum hunc pro se afferunt contra nostram consuetudinem et 
 doctrinam, dicendo quod nisi de perceptione sacramenti tractaret Domi- 
 nus in his verbis, non distinguit inter manducari et bibere; sed ex hoe 
 quod tam accurate distinguit inter heec, insinuat quod de perceptione 
 sacramenti eucharistize tractat... sed heee facile rejiciuntur perspiciendo 
 quod in hoe capitulo paulo superius Jesus dixit, He that cometh to Me 
 shall never, ἄρ, Clare enim in his verbis, que constat non spectare ad 
 sacramentum eucharistie, Dominus distinguit esurire et sitire: quod 
 zeque valet ac distinguere inter manducare et bibere...constat autem 
 
434 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 separation of flesh and blood is in the sacrament only (said) 
 representatively. [No reason given. A mere assertion.] But in 
 Christ’s death it was real... Infants, that as yet can only suck 
 not eat, would be most unaptly included under this command (if it 
 be eranted for argument’s sake and not conceded that Christ is 
 speaking about the eating of the sacrament). His own death is 
 the perfect aliment of the soul: for perfect aliment consists of food 
 and drink... Matt. xxvi. ‘Jesus took bread and blessed (it).’ 
 
 With a benediction of praise not a benediction of consecration. 
 And this appears from not Luke only but Paul, 1 Cor. xi. having 
 put instead of (the word) blessing (the word) giving thanks, which 
 is a benediction of praise, before breaking it. ‘Receive ye, ὅσ. 
 not to infants... The church with a laudable aim for the sake of 
 reverence, ordered not... unless fasting—that the eucharist may 
 not be touched except by holy hands. [Then eating is unholy. ] 
 The disciples ... received from Jesus not by the hand but towards 
 the hand— but from the table, since many sat at so great a distance 
 that there their hands could not be united to (could not touch) 
 Christ’s hands. ‘ For remission of sins:’ for all sins, so that there 
 was a sufficiency. But ‘for many, so far that the remission of sins 
 was effected... Mark xiv. ‘Unleavened.’ It is of the plural 
 number: for the unleavened loaves are meant, on which alone it 
 was allowed to feed on the seven days of the passover. [Unhappily 
 the loaves are masculine in Greek and Latin.] Luke xxii. ‘Gave 
 ‘thanks.’ What words He may have said we know not. He gave 
 thanks for the ending of the old sacrifices. ‘I say unto you I will 
 ‘not drink of this, &e. He speaks correctly to the letter: that 
 
 quod realis separatio carnis et sanguinis in sacramento est representative 
 tantum. In morte autem Christi fuit secundum rem... Infantes, qui ad- 
 hue manducare non possunt sed sugere, inepte concluduntur sub hoe 
 preecepto (dato sed non concesso quod de sacramenti manducatione 
 textus loquitur). Mors Sua est alimentum perfectum anime: constat 
 enim alimentum perfectum ex cibo et potu... Matt. xxvi. “Accepit 
 “Jesus panem et benedixit.” Benedictione laudis, non benedictione 
 consecrationis ; et patet ergo eo quod tam Lucas quam Paulus 1 Cor. xi. 
 loco benedictionis posuit gratiarum actionem (quie est benedictio laudis) 
 ante fractionem. “ Accipite, &e.” non infantibus... Ecclesia laudabiliter 
 pro reverentid non...nisi jejuna ..ut non nisi sacris manibus tangatur 
 eucharistia. Discipuli...acceperunt a Jesu non manu sed ad manum, 
 sed ex mensa& quum sederunt multi in tanta distantia, ut manus Jesu 
 manibus eorum non possent jungi. ‘In remissionem peccatorum,” pro 
 omnibus quantum ad sufficientiam. Sed “pro multis,” tantum quan- 
 tum ad effectam remissionem peccatorum...Mark xiv. “Azyma” pluralis 
 est numeri. Significantur enim panes azymi, quibus tantum vesci 
 licebat septem diebus Pasche. Luke xxii. “Gratias egit.” Que verba 
 dixerit nescimus. Pro terminatione veterum sacrificiorum gratias egit. 
 “ Dico vobis non bibam, ἄς. Ad literam dicit Se posthac non bibitu- 
 
—1534] CARDINAL THOMAS DE VIO. 425 
 
 He Himself will not drink wine until the kingdom come in His 
 resurrection. For after His resurrection He ate and drank with 
 the apostles, as Peter says, Acts x. 41,‘ Who ate with and drank 
 ‘with Him after He rose from the dead;’ where mark that He does 
 not say, as He had said concerning the passover, ‘until it be 
 i fulfilled 1 in the kingdom of God, but ‘until the kingdom of God 
 ‘come.’ [Fulfilment was a proper term to be used regarding the 
 transitory passover. The Lord’s supper is an integral part of 
 the service of the kingdom.].... ‘And having taken the bread’ 
 The sacrifices of the old law being ended, He instituted the sacri- 
 fice of the new law, not taking to Him a lamb, or any flesh what- 
 ever, but bread for the peculiar material of the eucharist. ‘He 
 ‘oave thanks’ for the beginning of the sacrifice of the new testa- 
 ment. And He says not ‘will be given, but ‘is given;’ which 
 had begun to be given. Already He was sold. ‘For you,’ not for 
 guilt of Mine but for your redemption. ‘Do this. He says not 
 
 say this’ but ‘do, because He commands that the things be 
 done which He Himself did, that is, to take bread, to give thanks, 
 to break, to consecrate, to take and give. ‘For My remembrance.’ 
 For My passion, by which My body is given for you, will go to be 
 a thing of the past: and on that account for a commemoration of 
 Me to be in memory of so great a benefit which I confer on you, 
 perform (do) this sacrifice. ‘In like manner the cup also after He 
 ‘(had) supped.’ If this cup were not a different one from that which 
 had been partaken of before (in the passover) Luke would not 
 have said ‘in like manner, ‘after:’ as if it had openly said, He 
 took the former cup in the supper; but He took this after He 
 (had) supped. The other evangelists do not put ‘the cup’ among 
 
 rum vinum donec veniat regnum in Sua resurrectione. Post resurrectio- 
 nem enim manducavit et bibit cum apostolis, dicente Petro, “Qui man- 
 “ducavimus et bibimus cum Illo postquam resurrexit de mortuis,” ubi 
 nota quod non dicit (sicut dixerat de paschate) donec impleatur in regno 
 Dei, sed donee veniat regnum Dei. ‘Et accepto pane.” TF initis veteris 
 legis sacrificiis, instituit sacrificilum nove legis, non assumens agnum aut 
 carhes quascumque, sed panem pro propria eucharistiz materia. “Gratias 
 egit.” Pro initio sacrificii novi testamenti. Et non dicit ‘ Dabitur” 
 sed “datur,” quod inceptum erat dari. Jam venditus erat. ‘Pro vobis.” 
 Non pro Mea culpa, sed pro vestré redemptione. ‘Hoe facite,” non 
 dicit ‘‘ Hoe dicite,” sed “facite,” quia mandat fieri que Ipse fecit, scilicet 
 accipere panem, gratias agere, frangere, consecrare, sumere ac dare, “In 
 Mei commemorationem.” Passio enim Mea, qua pro vobis corpus Meum 
 datur, transibit in preteritum; et propterea in Mei commemorationem, 
 in memoriam tanti beneficii quod vobis confero, facite hoc sacrificium. 
 “Similiter et calicem postquam ccenavit.” Si non alter esset calix iste a 
 prius communicato, non dixisset Lucas ‘‘Similiter,” “Postquam.” Ac 
 Si aperte dixisset, Priorem calicem accepit canando, hune autem accepit 
 postquam ceenavit. Alii evangelistee inter verba Christi non ponunt 
 
420 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Christ’s words because they were intending to signify the virtue of 
 Christ’s blood shed on the cross in regard to the new covenant, 
 ‘The cup of the new covenant. Since the cup of the eucharist 
 comes from the new (covenant) and from the dispensation (arrange- 
 ment) of the eternal inheritance confirmed by Christ’s blood on 
 the cross. The blood had begun to be shed, since the selling (of 
 Him) had begun His own death which was to follow by the 
 shedding of His blood. ‘There was a strife among them. They 
 contend after the death of Jesus for the primacy. ‘That ye 
 ‘may eat. He means understanding by eating, and taking 
 delight in Him by drinking. Spiritual things because He is of the 
 heavenly country, as the multitude of sensible writers explain it, 
 by ‘table’ He means the feast of eternal bliss. ‘Going up where 
 “He was before. Ye shall see the truth, that I came down from 
 heaven, and to shew the truth of both His natures. For He was 
 before according to His Divine nature in heaven, and He was 
 going up according to His human nature. One and the same 
 person with both natures.” 
 
 calicem, quia intendebant significare virtutem sanguinis Christi effusi in 
 cruce respectu N. T. “Calix N. T.” Ex novo siquidem et eterne heredi- 
 tatis dispositione Christi sanguine in cruce firmata poculum eucharistiz 
 provenit. Inceperat fundi sanguis, venditio siquidem inchoaverat 
 Ipsius mortem, sanguinis effusione sequuturam. ‘‘Contentio erat.” 
 Contendunt de primatu post mortem Jesu. ‘Ut edatis, &e.” Intellec- 
 tum significans per “edere”, et deliciatum per “bibere.” Spiritualia 
 quia ccelestis patriz, sensibilium multitudine explicantium per “men- 
 sam” geterne beatitudinis significat convivium, John vi. ‘ Ascenden- 
 tem ubi erat prius.” Videbitis veritatem...quod descendi de ceelo...et 
 propter veritatem utriusque nature. Hrat enim prius secundum naturam 
 Divinam in celo: et ascendebat secundum naturam humanam. Una et 
 eadem hypostasis utriusque nature. 
 
 (JJ.) JOHN MALDONATUS. B. 1534. Ὁ. 1583. 
 
 He taught philosophy first in the University of Salamanca and 
 afterwards was a very popular lecturer at Paris. He is notable chiefly 
 for his commentary on the four Gospels, though he wrote also on 
 the latter half of the Old Testament. He is reckoned after Eras- 
 
 mus and Cajetan among the commentators who gave the sense of | 
 
 Scripture in a less formal manner, and rescued readers from the 
 fourfold treatment of every text, z.e. literally, allegorically, tropo- 
 logically, and anagogically; the last word meaning the way of 
 rising from the lower to the loftier senses of the passage: @.e. 
 
1534] JOHN MALDONATUS. 427 
 
 sometimes to mysticism in its good sense of subjective religion, 
 and sometimes in its bad sense of a dreaming religious fancy. 
 Maldonat was promoted to Poictiers, and ended his days at Rome, 
 whither he came on the pope’s invitation respecting the intended 
 new edition of the Greek Lxx. His birthplace was Casas de la 
 Reina in Estremadura in Spain. He studied at Salamanca and 
 took up the pursuit of theology at Rome in his 28th year, and 
 entered the order of the Jesuits, who sent him to teach at Paris, 
 where they had only just obtained leave to appoint professors to 
 represent them. His zeal and vivacity in polemics gained him the 
 punning sobriquet of Maledicentissimus. He had to defend 
 himself from the charge of heresy for maintaining that the 
 immaculate conception was only a pious opinion and not a certain 
 and unassailable doctrine, though it had been accepted by the 
 Sorbonne. He had to retire to Bourges; where he worked at his 
 edition of the Septuagint. 
 
 He left a large body of works, besides scholia and com- 
 mentaries on several parts of Scripture, treatises on original sin, 
 on grace, on the sacraments, and on angels and demons, also 
 another on ceremonies; and it is supposed that more works he 
 hidden in the recesses of the Ambrosian library at Milan. 
 
 P. 124. “Of the eucharist. Question 4. On the absence or 
 presence of the (inward) thing. Our opinion is that a sacrament’s 
 nature does not require the (inward) thing to be absent nor to be 
 present, but only that the thing, which is not seen nor perceived 
 by any other sense, be shewn to the mind. But we say, Christ’s 
 body is so present that it is not perceived by sense. Therefore it 
 can be as properly and truly signified by an outward sign as if 
 it were not there. The Holy Spirit was truly in the dove (and) 
 yet the dove truly signifies the Holy Spirit [1.6.ὄ is a sign of 
 Him—a neat reply to one kind of argument often adduced]. 
 The Holy Spirit was truly present in the fiery tongues, το. 
 
 De Eucharistid. 4th Qn. de absentia aut presentiad ret. Lugduni, 1614. 
 P. 124. 
 
 Nostra sententia est naturam sacramenti non postulare ut res sit 
 absens neque ut sit presens, sed tantum ut res, que non videtur, neque 
 alio sensu percipiatur, menti indicetur. Nos autem dicimus corpus 
 Christi est presens ita, ut non sensu percipiatur. Ergo tam proprie et 
 vere per sacramentum externum significari potest quam si esset absens. 
 Spiritus sanctus erat vere in columba, tamen columba vere significat 
 Spiritum sanctum. Spiritus sanctus erat presens in linguis ignitis, Wc. 
 
428 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Therefore it is of no matter whether the thing in a sacrament be 
 present or absent, so that itself though seen in signs is not per- 
 ceived by the senses, &c. We then never say that there is a 
 sacrament and a thing signified, ὅσο. [as Bp. Cosin]. 
 
 P. 128. “That there may be an analogy between Him and 
 our nature which by Him (or by it) is nourished, &c., we say that 
 our flesh is truly nourished by Christ’s flesh but our soul by 
 Christ’s blood. 
 
 P. 322. “Beside these seven kinds of sacrifices our adver- 
 saries require that an eighth mode of sacrifices be allowed them, 
 1.6. figuratively and by similitude... We make no difficulty 
 of granting this. We ask them to grant another kind of sacri- 
 fice too, which has a little of commemoration in it, and partly 
 true and real... For neither do we deny that there is a spiritual 
 sacrifice in the first mode, nor that there is a sacrifice of praise in 
 the second mode. But the state of the question is whetber an 
 improper sacrifice be in those eight modes only or no, but also 
 whether there be not some other mode in which it is more pro- 
 perly and truly a sacrifice,—the thing which we affirm and they 
 deny. [This is just the Romish last effort, a presence after a new 
 and unexampled mode which is not the object of the senses. ] 
 When therefore we compare the eucharist with the sacrifice of 
 Christ’s body which was offered on the cross, we do not deny that 
 this mode is of a lower kind than that most true sacrifice ; if you 
 look at all the points that usually are in a sacrifice. First the 
 sacrifice and killing which was actually done on the cross, and in 
 
 Ergo nihil refert res sit preesens vel absens ut significata modo non sensi- 
 bus percipiatur, ὅθ. Nos nunquam dicere esse sacramentum et rem 
 significatam, 
 
 2, 2128; 
 
 Ut haberet analogiam cum natura nostra que Ilo nutritur, &ce., 
 carnem nostram vere nutriri carne Christi; animam autem sanguine 
 Christi... 
 
 P. 322. 
 
 Preeter hee (septem genera sacrificiorum) adversarii postulant sibi 
 concedi octavum modum sacrificiorum figurate et per similitudinem... 
 Hoc illis non gravate concedimus. Nos petimus ut etiam concedant 
 aliud genus sacrificii, quod parum est commemorativum, partim verum 
 et reale...neque enim negamus esse sacrificium spirituale primo modo, 
 neque esse sacrificium laudis secundo modo, &e. ὅθ. Sed status queesti- 
 onis est an non tantum octo illis modis improprium sacrificium sit, sed 
 etiam aliquo alio modo magis proprie et vere id quod nos affirmamus: illi 
 negant. Nos igitur cum comparamus eucharistiam cum sacrificio corpo- 
 ris Christi, quod in Cruce oblatum est, non negamus degenerare aliquo 
 modo ab illo verissimo sacrificio, si spectentur omnia qui in sacrificio 
 esse solent...Primum mactatio et occisio, que in cruce reipsa facta est, 
 
1534] JOHN MALDONATUS. 429 
 
 the eucharist 15 only done by sharing and a sacred sign. (2) On 
 the cross the form of Christ’s body a visible sacrifice was offered 
 up, in the eucharist an invisible. (3) On the cross a sacrifice was 
 offered, which had in itself unto a sufficiency force to abolish the 
 sins of all men, which could not...unless it were applied, which takes 
 place in various modes—by faith, by love, by good works, and by 
 an unbloody offering of the same body, also by receiving of it. 
 We call that receiving a communicative sacrifice. Chrysostom, &c. 
 [We demur to this.] But when they say this, they do not deny its 
 being a true sacrifice. But when we shall compare... we say that 
 the former was a sufficient sacrifice—the latter efficient and appli- 
 catory,—yet both propitiatory, not that that (unbloody oblation) is 
 not a sacrifice. It is called sufficient and more than sufficient to 
 apply to every man for whom the merit of that unbloody sacrifice is 
 offered, ἕο. But we call both propitiatory because a proper sacrifice 
 is no other thing than what has the power of appeasing God. But 
 this power is in every victim, that by its own nature is pleasing to 
 God, as is the body of Jesus Christ.” [Admit then the real natural 
 presence of Christ’s body and you must concede all these points. ] 
 
 in eucharistia non fit nisi communicatione et sacramento. (2) In cruce 
 corporis Christi forma visibile oblatum est, in eucharistia invisibile. 
 (3) In cruce oblatum est ad sufficientiam habens in seipso vim abolendi 
 peccata omnium hominum, quod non...nisi applicaretur quod variis fit 
 modis—per fidem,—per charitatem, per bona opera, et per oblationem 
 incruentam Ejusdem corporis, item per sumptionem illius. Vocamus 
 illam  sacrificium communicativum, Chrysostom &c Sed cum hoc 
 dicunt, non negant esse verum sacrificium. Cum autem conferemus... 
 dicimus illud fuisse sacrificium sufficiens—hoc efficiens et applicatorium 
 —utrumque tamen propitiatorium non quod sacrificium ea non sit. 
 Dicitur sufficiens et preter quam sufficiens applicet singulis hominibus 
 pro quibus offertur meritum illius incruenti sacrificii, &e. Propitiatori- 
 um autem ideo dicimus utrumque, quia proprium sacrificium non est 
 aliud quam habere vim placandi Deum, Hane autem vim habet omnis 
 Victima que natura sua grata est Deo, quale est corpus Christi. 
 
 (KK.) ROBERT BELLARMINE. B. 1542. Ὁ. 1621. 
 
 After the contemporary settlement of the doctrines of the 
 Reformed Church of England and resettlement of those of the 
 Roman communion in the Council of Trent’s protracted sittings, 
 the pope Pius IV. was authorized or some say was requested to 
 provide a new redaction of the faith, called a catechism, for the 
 parochial clergy. But the Jesuits, though not requested or autho- 
 rized, took upon them-the defence of the faith. Foremost of these 
 beyond question stands Bellarmine, cardinal and archbishop. His 
 
450 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 clear style, relieved by a bright imagination, must ever keep him 
 popular. But besides this, he has the credit of being too fair to 
 satisfy the violent on his own side. He did not deem heretics dogs 
 not worthy of justice in argument and candour in statement. 
 Nevertheless those who blamed him for toleration were weak in 
 their intolerance. Bayle declared him the best controversialist of 
 his age. His Ingolstadt three folios, De Controversiis, cast a 
 shade over his commentaries on the Psalms, his sermons and his 
 many treatises on many subjects which make up two more, five in 
 all. But the Cologne Edition has the same in seven volumes. His 
 birthplace, Monte Pulciano in Tuscany, is also famous for a wine 
 of price. He became a Jesuit at 18 years of age, and was Cardinal 
 and Archbishop of Capua, not far from the resting-place and study 
 of Cajetan, in 1602. 
 
 In his 22nd year he taught rhetoric at Mondovi in a Jesuit 
 college. In three years he went to Padua and Louvain, devoting 
 his studies to theology. In his 28th year he was raised to a pro- 
 fessorship, to do his utmost to stem the tide of the Reformation in 
 the Low Countries. He stayed at Louvain seven years, and then 
 was recalled to Rome. Sixtus V. employed him in revising the 
 Vulgate. He went to help Cajetan in France in the conferences 
 with the Huguenots in 1590. Henry III. had perished by the 
 hand of Jacques Clement a year before ; and efforts were being 
 made to shut out Henry IV. from the throne. In 1592 Bellarmine 
 became president of the Jesuits’ College at Rome, and new honours 
 distinguished him, up to the time of his crowning dignity at 
 Capua, which however separated him from Rome. But under 
 Paul V. he returned: and it is to his honour that when he left 
 Capua he refused to be compensated by an annual pension laid on 
 the revenues of the see. His last 15 years were devoted to his 
 various works. He took part in vain resistance to the city of 
 Venice under Father Paul, by which that city for ever broke the 
 force of papal interdicts ; which a Roman calls oddly “anéantir les 
 libertés de I’église.” 
 
 John vi. 62. “On the truth of Christ’s body. ‘Doth this offend 
 ‘you?’ One exposition, that the Lord wished to confirm the one 
 
 De veritate Corp. Christi. 4to. John VI. 62, “Hoe vos scandalizat, de.” 
 Una Expositio, quod voluerit Dominus rem unam mirabilem alia 
 
1542] ROBERT BELLARMINE. 431 
 
 wonderful thing by another thing more or equally wonderful. ... 
 Another that blames the incredulity of the disciples and teaches 
 that they would have more occasion to doubt in the absence of 
 Christ, if they doubt in His presence. How then will ye be able 
 to believe the same thing, that Christ is exhibited (or supplied) to 
 you present in the Lord’s supper? But this exposition marvel- 
 lously confirms the catholic truth. For if the Lord had only 
 promised that they should receive His own body by faith, it would 
 not have been more difficult to take it thus, but easier to those 
 who had seen His resurrection. For the sight of the ascension 
 strengthened the apostles in faith. [Granted ; but what interpre- 
 tation of this kind is to be compared with understanding Christ to 
 ask the question, ‘ Will ye think of eating My natural body and 
 ‘drinking My natural blood when both have, by ascension to the 
 ‘Heaven from which I came, been very far removed from your 
 ‘touch or sight 7 Therefore Christ would not have said, ‘ What 
 ‘and if ye shall see? ὅδ In that kind of thing, covenants or 
 treaties, which are explained by the most exquisite words of their 
 own, that no room may be left for cavils. An agreement (pact), 
 Exod. xxiv. A covenant (testament), Heb. ix. 
 
 P. 478. “John vi. (1) Whether the Lord is speaking of 
 the eucharist, (2) an argument drawn from it for the truth of the 
 Lord, (3) the arguments of opponents to be answered, who think 
 that the eucharist is not treated of in John vi. There is no con- 
 troversy about the whole chapter being concerning the eucharist. 
 There is only a question about those words ‘The bread which 
 “Ἱ will give, &c.,” and nearly to the end of the chapter. Luther, On 
 
 mirabiliore vel seque mirabili confirmare...Altera quod reprehendat 
 incredulitatem discipulorum ac doceat majorem occasionem eos habituros 
 dubitandi in Christi absentia, si in Ejus presentid dubitant...Quomodo 
 tunc poteritis credere idem, Christum vobis in eucharistia preesentem 
 exhiberi? Hzec autem expositio mirifice confirmat catholicam verita- 
 tem. Nam si Dominus solum promisisset corpus Suum fide percipien- 
 dum, non fuisset difficilius sed facilius ita ilud sumere, lis qui vidissent 
 ascensionem Christi. Ascensio enim conspecta roboravit apostolos in 
 fide. Non ergo Dominus diceret “Quid ergo si videritis, &c.”...Pacta 
 seu foedera genere rerum, qu exquisitissimis et propriis verbis explican- 
 tur, ne ullus locus relinquatur cavillis...Pactum, Exod. xxiv. Testam. 
 Heb. ix. 
 
 De Sac. Euch. Lib. 1. 5, Vol. IT. 478, De Joan. Ev. C. VI. 
 Op. Ingolstadt, 1691. 
 
 1, An loquatur Dominus de Euch. 2. Argumentum inde pro 
 veritate Domini. 3. Solvenda argumenta adversariorum qui putant 
 Joan. vi. non agi de euch. Non est controversia an in toto capite 
 agatur de euch....solum quzstio est de illis verbis “ Panis, quem Ego 
 dabo, caro Mea est, &e.” fere ad finem capitis... Lutherus De Capt. Bab. 
 
452 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the Captivity in Babylon, says that the whole chapter is to be set 
 aside, as not at all belonging to this matter. Zwingel also, On 
 False and True Religion, says the same, chap. on the eucharist [See 
 extracts],and other divines. Peter Martyr most clearly expounded 
 it against Gardiner, leaf 32, Objection. Spiritual eating the (inward) 
 thing itself in the sacrament... that Christ has annexed outward 
 signs; therefore we do not think that chapter foreign to the sacra- 
 ment. (1) But if bread in that place signifies Christ, as He is 
 received by faith without any reference to the appearances (kinds) 
 of the sacrament, he would not say it in the future tense. Eating 
 by faith is a thing of all times. And it is confirmed by the Greek 
 text [being in the future] which heretics are wont to prefer to the 
 Latin... The Lord therefore promised His flesh not absolutely, 
 but to be received in the sacrament, and this promise He fulfilled 
 in the last supper... This is confirmed, for He says concerning 
 the Father, ‘My Father gives.’ The gift of His Son, 7.e. His flesh 
 was to be in the sacrament. (2) Comparison with the words of 
 the supper. (3) ‘How can this man, ἄρ. The Lord did not 
 correct their meaning but inculcated it again, ‘Except ye shall 
 ‘eat, &c. Who would believe that the Lord wished to involve a 
 most easy thing, such as it is to believe in Christ, in so many 
 obscure metaphors with so much offence caused to the disciples, 
 when He could with one word make the whole matter clear, &c.? 
 [Christ had deeper aims which would not have been answered.] 
 (4) The frequent distinction of flesh and blood and food and drink. 
 (5) Comparison with the manna, &c. (6) The miracles of the 
 loaves. (7) Amen. Amen. (8) Comparison with chap. iii. 
 From the testimony of the church. From the fathers. 
 
 1. 6, dicit caput totum seponendum esse, ut quod nihil ad hane rem 
 pertineat. Idem Zuinglius De fals& et vera religione, cap. de Euch., et 
 alii, Clarissime exposuit Peter Martyr con. Gard. ad fol. 32, Object. 
 Res ipsa spiritualis mandueatio...Christum adjunxisse symbola externa ; 
 idcireco nos caput illud a sacramento eucharistize non putamus esse 
 alienum. 1. At si panis eo loco significat Christum ut fide percipitur 
 sine ullaé relatione ad species sacramentales, non diceret in futuro. 
 Manducatio per fidem res est omnium temporum. Et confirmatur ex 
 textu Greco, quod heeretici Latino anteponere solent...Promisit ergo 
 Dominus carnem Suam non absolute, sed in sacramento sumendam, 
 quod promissum implevit in ultima coona...Confirmatur nam de Patre 
 dicit, ‘‘ Pater Meus dat.” Donum Filii, i.e. caro, in sacramento futurum 
 erat. 2. Collatio cum verbis ceene. 3. “ Quomodo potest, &e.” Domi- 
 nus non correxit eorum sententiam, sed iterum inculcavit, “Nisi, &. ὅσο, 
 Quis credat rem facillimam, qualis est credere in Christum, voluisse 
 Dominum cum tanto offendiculo discipulorum involvere tot obscuris 
 metaphoris, cum potuisset uno verbo rem totam declarare, &.? 4. Dis- 
 tinctio frequens carnis et sanguinis, et cibi et potus. 5. Comparatio 
 inter manna, &c. 6. Miraculapanum. 7. Amen Amen. 8. Collatio 
 cum cap. 111... x testimonio ecclesia. Ex patribus. 
 
1542] ROBERT BELLARMINE. 433 
 
 Not any other scripture is quoted in this chapter. The next is 
 
 Transubstantiation proved by testimonies of the fathers. 
 
 P. 669. “A compendium of arguments taken from the fathers, 
 Six classes (of arguments). The first will be from the mode in which 
 the fathers speak. The ancients everywhere call it the Lord’s body 
 and blood; and they do not this when they speak of other signs. 
 Besides they call it the precious body, tremendous mysteries, pledge 
 of salvation, the price for us. Secondly. From the comparison of 
 this sacrament with other things; (1) With the sacraments of the 
 Hebrews...as truth is expressed by figures, (2) With the mystery of 
 the incarnation, (3) Christ as He is on the altar with the same 
 Christ in the manger and with Christ in heaven, (4) Christ in the 
 eucharist with angels that appear in a bodily form, (5) Those that 
 handle the eucharist unworthily with those that slew Christ. 
 Thirdly. The fathers shew that a real change takes place in many 
 ways. (1) They say that the bread does not remain, (2) That the 
 senses are deceived in this thing, (3) That the bread is changed 
 into flesh as in the process of nutrition, when Christ ate. (4) They 
 compare it to the real changes of water into wine, of the rods into 
 serpents and the like. (5) They say that the omnipotence of God 
 is needed for that change. [?.e. The fathers believed it.] Fourthly. 
 From the loftiest mystery which they acknowledged it to be, 
 (1) That it cannot be understood without faith, (2) They used to 
 exhort persons to a sure faith without doubting, (3) That it is a 
 miracle surpassing human understanding, (4) They did not speak 
 of it before the heathen. (5) They remitted the question to 
 simple omnipotence. Fifthly. From their veneration. (1) They 
 
 P. 669. Transubstantiatio probatur testimoniis patrum. 
 
 Compendium argumentorum que sumuntur ex patribus. Sex classes. 
 Prima (classis) erit ex modo loquendi patrum...Veteres passim appel- 
 lant corpus et sanguinem Domini, quod non faciunt cum de aliis signis 
 loquuntur. Preterea vocant pretiosum corpus, tremenda mysteria, 
 pignus salutis, pretium nostrum...Secunda erit ex comparatione hujus 
 sacramenti cum aliis rebus ; (1) cum sacramentis Hebreeorum...ut veri- 
 tatem a figuris, &c., (2) cum mysterio incarnationis, (3) Christum ut est 
 in altari cum eodem Christo in presepi et cum Christo in ceelo, (4) Chris- 
 tum in eucharistia cum angelis apparentibus in forma corporali, (5) in- 
 digne tractantes eucharistiam cum illis qui Christum occiderunt. Tertia, 
 Indicant patres realem mutationem fieri multis modis, (1) dicunt non 
 remanere panem, (2) sensus falli in hac re, (3) sic mutari panem in 
 carnem ut mutabatur per nutritionem Christo comedente, (4) comparant 
 cum realibus mutationibus aque in vinum, virgarum in serpentes et 
 similibus, (5) dicunt ad istam mutationem requiri omnipotentiam Dei. 
 Quarta. Ex mysterio altissimo quod...agnoscebant, (1) non posse intel- 
 ligi sine fide, (2) hortabantur ad fidem certam et ad non dubitandum 
 &e., (3) miraculum esse superans humanum captum, (4) non loquebantur 
 de eo coram ethnicis, &c., (5) remittebant ad omnipotentiam. Quinta. 
 
 isk ΤΙ, 28 
 
434 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 adored, (2) They invoked the Spirit, &, (3) They took most 
 diligent heed lest it should fall on the ground, (4) They did not 
 permit it even to be seen by unbelievers, (5) They asserted that — 
 angels were standing by. Sixthly. From the effect attributed to 
 it. (1) That Christ is by it united to us bodily, (2) That our 
 bodies will rise, (3) That Christ gives Himself so that we truly 
 have Him within us, (4) That Christ is in reality joined to us, 
 (5) That we are made sharers of the Divine nature. [All this 
 proves I admit that such fathers thought so; but it proves not a 
 bodily presence. ] 
 
 P. 746. “Transubstantiation from God’s Word. Now at 
 length the judgment of the catholic church is to be confirmed, 
 that teaches that the bread is converted into the Lord’s body, and 
 that that conversion is the peculiar method of the presence of the 
 Lord’s body in the eucharist, from which at the same time will 
 first be confuted the judgment of the Berengarians, which the 
 Lutherans also follow, concerning the simple conjoining of the 
 bread with Christ’s body in this sacrament. But the first argu- 
 ment is drawn from those words of the Lord, Receive and eat, i.e. 
 My body, Matt. xxvi. For these words of necessity infer either a 
 true change of the bread, as Catholics decide, or a metaphorical 
 change, as Calvinists decide [meaning Swiss and other Protestants 
 who by this time had united on equal terms with Calvin]; but in 
 no way admit the judgment of Lutherans [the pure Lutherans]: 
 for the Lord received bread into His hands and blessed it and 
 gave it to His disciples, and said of it, This is My body. Either 
 
 Ex veneratione, (1) Adorabant, (2) invocabant, &e., (3) Diligentissime 
 cavebant ne caderet in terram, (4) non permittebant etiam videri ab 
 infidelibus. (5) Asserebant angelos astare, &c. Sexta, Ex effectu quem 
 tribuebant. (1) Nobis uniri per eam Christum corporaliter, (2) nostra 
 corpora resurrectura, (3) Donare Se Christum ut Eum vere habeamus 
 intra nos, (4) conjungi Christum nobis reipsa, (5) nos fieri Divinee con- 
 sortes nature, 
 
 ITI, 1. 3, 6. 19, ». 746. 
 
 Probatur ex verbo Dei transubstantiatio. Nunc tandem confirman- 
 da est sententia catholicz ecclesize que docet panem converti in corpus 
 Domini et eam conversionem esse propriam rationem presentiz corporis 
 Domini in eucharistia, ex quo simul confutabitur prima sententia Beren- 
 gariorum, quam etiam Lutherani sequuntur, de simplici conjwnctione 
 panis cum corpore Domini in hoc sacramento, Primum autem argu- 
 mentum ducitur ex illis Domini verbis, Accipite et manducate; hoe 
 est corpus Meum, Matt. xxvi. Hzec enim verba necessario inferunt aut 
 veram mutationem panis, ut volunt catholici, aut mutationem metaphori- 
 cam, ut volunt Calvinist, nullo autem modo sententiam Lutheranorum 
 admittunt, nam Dominus accepit in manibus panem, eumque benedixit 
 et dedit discipulis et de eo ait, Hoe est corpus Meum, Vel igitur 
 
1542] ROBERT BELLARMINE. 435 
 
 therefore by blessing it He changed it into (His) body in reality 
 truly and in the proper sense; or He changed it in a sense not its 
 own and figuratively by adding a meaning which it had not 
 (before), or He did not change it in any way. If He changed it in 
 reality truly and in the proper sense, then He gave them bread 
 which had been changed, and concerning bread which had under- 
 gone a change He said with perfect truth, This is My body; ὁ. 
 which is contained under the species of bread; but is no longer 
 bread but body: and this is what Catholics say. But if anyone 
 say that the bread had been changed figuratively, nevertheless it 
 will be bread that was given to the apostles, which will figuratively 
 be the Lord’s body, and those words will have this sense: ‘This 
 ‘is My body’ [will be] ‘This bread is the figure of My body.’ 
 But this is the judgment of the sacramentaries whom both we 
 and Lutherans with common consent reject. If anyone finally say 
 that there is no change, he will be compelled to say that bread 
 that had undergone no change was given to the apostles, and that 
 it was said regarding it, This is My body, 1.6. This which is true 
 and wheaten bread is truly and in the proper sense My body. 
 But I do not admit that this can in any way be, whether we treat 
 of the thing itself or of a mere proposition; for neither is it in 
 any way possible for any one thing not to be changed and yet to 
 be another thing [1.6. that the bread is not changed and yet 
 becomes truly and properly the Lord’s body: but the first answer 
 seems to be that we know of no body or individual who ever 
 maintained these two inconsistent opinions. But besides can it 
 pass as correct, to say that his second class, the sacramentarians, 
 believe in a change of the bread? Does the addition of a figura- 
 tive meaning change the bread? Does its being made holy, ve. 
 set apart for sacred uses, change it? Then is not all this reasoning 
 founded on errors? But I give the rest, and all the more because 
 of Luther’s unfortunate admission that he did not know how to over- 
 
 benedicendo mutavit in corpus, reipsa, vere, et proprie; vel mutavit 
 improprie et figurate addendo significationem quam non habebat; vel 
 nullo modo mutavit. Si mutavit reipsi vere et proprie, ergo panem 
 mutatum dedit, et de pane mutato verissime dixit, Hoc est corpus Meum 
 i.e. quod sub specie panis continetur ; non est amplius panis sed corpus: 
 et hoc est quod dicunt catholici. Si vero quis dicat panem mutatum 
 esse figurate, tamen datus erit apostolis panis, qui figurate erit corpus 
 Domini, et illa verba, Hoc est corpus Meum, hune sensum habebunt, 
 Hic panis est figura corporis Mei. Heec autem est sententia sacramen- 
 tariorum, quam et nos et Lutherani communi consensu rejicimus. Si 
 quis denique dicat nullam fieri mutationem, is cogetur dicere, panem 
 non mutatum datum esse apostolis et de illo esse dictum, Hoc est corpus 
 Meum: i.e. Hic panis verus et triticeus vere et proprie est corpus Meum. 
 Atqui hoe nullo modo admitti potest, sive agamus de re ipsa, sive de pro- 
 positione, nec enim ullo modo fieri potest ut una res non mutetur et 
 
 28—2 
 
480 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 throw it.] Yet it would be itself and not itself. But im an 
 affirmative proposition it is necessary that subject and predicate 
 can be put in each other’s place [that both concern the same 
 thing]: otherwise the thing predicated would be false. Therefore 
 it is not possible that a proposition is true in which the man puts 
 bread in the place of subject and the body of Christ as the pre- 
 dicate [i.e. in what is attributed to the third class]: for bread and 
 Christ’s body are most different things. Luther answered to this 
 argument in his Captivity of Babylon, chap. on the eucharist, that 
 we must not make Aristotle judge in so sublime affairs... If we 
 were to call Aristotle on a question of dialectic or philosophy, 
 such as this on the nature of an affirmative assertion, Luther 
 ought not to take it ill, But we have no need in this of Aristotle, 
 since common sense suffices. For if it is allowed to make affirma- 
 tions regarding things of different [7.e. not of like kinds] you will 
 be able with equal justice to affirm something regarding nothing, 
 
 &e., &e., &e. 
 
 P. 676. “That one body can be in many places at the same 
 time. First. Matt. xix., With God all things are possible (save 
 such as imply a contradiction). Reasons why not a contradiction. 
 (1) Nothing is to be believed without the word of God. But the 
 word of God no where states as an exception to God’s omnipotence 
 one body being able to be in two places... Only those things is 
 God unable to do, to do which would be not to do but to cease to 
 do. But for one body to be in two places cannot be clearly reduced 
 to that form; therefore it ought not to be made an exception. 
 
 tamen fit alia. Esset tamen ipsa et non ipsa. In propositione autem 
 affirmativa necesse ut pro eodem supponant subjectum et preedicatum ; 
 alioqui esset falsa preedicatio. Non igitur fieri potest ut vera sit propo- 
 sitio, in quo subjectum supponit pro pane, preedicatum autem pro 
 corpore Christi ; panis enim et corpus Christi res diversissime sunt. Ad 
 hoc argumentum respondit Lutherus in Cap. Bab. c. de eucharistia non 
 oportere Aristotelem judicem facere rerum tam sublimium...Si Aristote- 
 lem judicem vocaremus in queestione dialectica seu philosophica, qualis 
 est hee de natura enunciationis affirmative, non deberet id Lutherus 
 eegre ferre. Sed non hic opus habemus Aristotele, cum sensus commu- 
 nis sufficiat. Nam si liceat affirmare disparata de disparatis, licebit 
 affirmare eodem jure de nihilo aliquid, &e. &e. 
 1, TLE 6.55. δὲ OFS. 
 
 Posse unum corpus simul esse in pluribus locis. Primum, Matt. xix., 
 Apud Deum omnia possibilia (preter ea que implicant contradictionem),. 
 Reasons why this is not such. (1) Nihil esse credendum sine verbo Dei. 
 At verbum Dei nusquam excipit a Dei omnipotentia unum corpus posse 
 esse in duobus locis...Deum illa tantum non posse que facere non est 
 facere sed deficere. Sed unum corpus in duobus locis esse non potest 
 clare ad ista reduci: proinde excipi non debuit. (2) Ham esse veram 
 doctrinam que Deum exaltat et hominem deprimit, ὅθ. &e, (3) Ila 
 
1542] ROBERT BELLARMINE. 437 
 
 (2) That is the true doctrine which exalts God and lowers man, 
 &e. (3) Those things imply a contradiction, which are at variance 
 with a thing’s essence. But to be in a place is not of the essence 
 of a body... Second argument, &c., ὅσο. 
 
 P. 690. “It is the united judgment of the schools and of the 
 church that the entire Christ is in the eucharist with magnitude 
 and all the accidents, except the relation to a place in Heaven 
 which it has as far as it is in Heaven and to those accidents which 
 ensue upon its existence in that place; and on the other hand 
 that the entire Christ exists in Heaven with magnitude and all the 
 accidents except the relation to the species of bread, which it has 
 as it is in the eucharist, &c., &c., as before. [There is no marvel 
 that arbitrary logic of this kind can fill three folio volumes. Has 
 any single point been proved in these specimens? I think not.] 
 
 The passage that Bellarmine refers to is in Vol. IL. p. 263, 
 “But they will perhaps say that we are taught out of Aristotle, 
 “that you ought to be able to put the subject and predicate of an 
 “affirmative proposition in each other’s place (pro eodem sup- 
 “ponere) or, to use the very words from his Metaphysica 6, ‘ For 
 “‘an affirmative (proposition) the agreement of the extremes is 
 ““yequired, which they explain by the words putting one in 
 “the other’s place (pro eodem suppositionem).” And Luther 
 adds, “ Wherefore I say that you cannot put ‘ bread’.in the place 
 “ of the subject but you can Christ’s body.” ... See Whately, p. 62, 
 (or any writer on logic), the subject of an affirmative proposi- 
 tion must agree with the predicate. Luther says, This is not the 
 case if you put bread for “This” in “This is My body,” but that if 
 you understand “This My body is My body,” the two agree. 
 
 Bellarmine alludes also to the following sentence: ‘ What 
 “shall we say here? when we make Aristotle and human doc- 
 “trines judges of such sublime and Divine things? Why should 
 “we uot get rid of that curious enquiry, and simply stick fast to 
 “Christ’s words, prepared not to know what takes place there, 
 
 implicant contradictionem, que pugnant cum essentia rei... At esse in 
 loco non est de essentia corporis...Secundum argumentum, &e. &e. 
 
 TV. Ὁ, Ὁ 690. 
 
 Sententia communis scholarum et ecclesiz est, in eucharistiaé totum 
 Christum existere cum magnitudine et omnibus accidentibus, excepta 
 relatione ad locum ceelestem quam habet wt est in celo, et iis que ad 
 existentiam in eo loco consequuntur; et contra in ceelo totum Christum 
 existere cum magnitudine et omnibus accidentibus, excepta relatione ad 
 speciem panis, quam habet wt est in eucharistid, de. de. 
 
498 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “&c.?” B. makes it as if Luther renounced Aristotle’s tests in 
 this case. But does he not argue that they are in his own favour ; 
 and then rhetorically add, “but we ought to have our faith in a 
 “simpler form”? If this be so B. has very much misrepre- 
 sented L. 
 
 But to look a little closer into this matter. B. has asserted 
 that the Lutheran sense will not stand in logic, though the Cal- 
 vinist might; but that those that deny all change cannot in logic 
 stand at all: but he has not given the syllogisms for each. Let 
 us attempt it. 
 
 First the Catholic. 
 
 (Real) bread is not (real) flesh : 
 “This” bread is (real) flesh : 
 So “this” is not (real) bread. 
 
 The objection to this is that the middle proposition is faulty. 
 It assumes the question. For it takes Christ’s rhetorical words 
 for logical. It ought to run thus, What Christ said was, This 
 (bread) was flesh. So this proposition does not agree with the first 
 which is composed of logical terms, and it will run thus : 
 
 Real bread is not real flesh : 
 This real bread is rhetorical flesh 
 So rhetorical flesh is not real flesh. 
 
 Second the Calvinist. 
 Real bread is not real flesh: 
 This bread is figuratively flesh: 
 So this bread is not real flesh, 
 
 But this assumes the question the other way. 
 
 The third would run thus : 
 Real bread is not real flesh without a change: 
 This bread is not changed : 
 So this bread is not real flesh. 
 
 But how is it that logic is in this case so useless? May I 
 venture to say that “This is My body” is not a logical proposition 
 at all; but a rhetorical ? To take it therefore in the Roman sense 
 brings us into inexplicable difficulties. “This thing (bread) will 
 “become My body” is logical and as they say “catholic:” but to 
 say “This bread is My body” is logically untrue, for in their view 
 it is not, directly the sentence is done. (See remarks by H. H. 
 
1542] ROBERT BELLARMINE. 439 
 
 Cent.19.) At the beginning of the sentence it is bread; and when 
 it is ended, it is body or flesh. Nor is this simply an artificial 
 difficulty but inherent in the nature of things. Now take the 
 Calvinist, as he is called, “This is a figure of My body.” A figure 
 is not real flesh. So this is not real flesh. It is all strict logic. 
 “Ts” in those words of Christ can only be made logical by some 
 explanatory addition to one or other of the three terms (This) (is) 
 or (My body). I rather suppose Luther meant this when he said you 
 cannot put bread as the subject: if you put Christ’s body for the 
 predicate the two do not agree, if the term “is” connects them. 
 
 The two arguments of Bellarmine might with even greater 
 ease be shewn to be unsound. Consult his Third Book (Vol. 1) 
 “On the Truth of Christ’s body in the Eucharist,” and its third 
 chapter, “That one body can at the same time be in more places” 
 (than one). It is sufficient to reply that the word of God never 
 makes it an exception to God’s omnipotence that He cannot do 
 such a thing as to make two and two five, and that it is a con- 
 tradiction to say that a limited organised body can be everywhere. 
 And we confidently assert that if you take away a portion of the 
 properties of manhood, you have not real manhood remaining, 
 but another thing. 
 
 Bellarmine and Hooker’s friend Saravia seem to think that 
 these statements are not regarding “res disparate”; but there is 
 a great difference between many Roman writers and Bellarmine. 
 
 (LL.) RODOLPH HOSPINIAN, THE GREAT CHANCELLOR OF 
 ZURICH. B. 1547, Ὁ. 1626. 
 
 Born at Altorf, and eminent in the Church of Zwingel. 
 
 He published several works besides that to which we have to 
 refer, viz. his treatise De Historia sacramentaria. Unnoticed by 
 many writers on the church he has at length floated to the 
 surface ; and I place him here before his time, because it seems 
 desirable to shew that he misinterpreted Zwingel, because his own 
 views differed from Zwingel’s. His other works are “ On Monks,” 
 “The Christian festivals,” and “A history of the Jesuits.” The 
 obligations of the clergy to such laymen are great; but we cannot 
 for that reason pass over any mistakes into which we judge that 
 they have fallen, Truth is our aim, 
 
440 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 The Roman writers confess his style to be pure and clear, and 
 allow that he has overthrown Bellarmine in points of historical 
 fact, and say that no one has so well distinguished the character- 
 istic marks of the various religious bodies and sects that have 
 separated from Rome. But small credit is given to his interpreta- 
 tions of the passages he cites from the fathers. In 1681 his works, 
 issued from Geneva, reached the length of seven folio volumes. 
 He is strong against Lutheran peculiarities. 
 
 1. 27. “Zwingel’s doctrine and opinion regarding the Lord’s 
 supper. If he taught that bread signifies Christ’s body and wine 
 His blood, in a way of signifying proper and peculiar to the sacra- 
 ments, he certainly did not understand this signification to be 
 empty, void or bare without a most fixed idea of the presence of 
 the thing signified, &. For taking a part for the whole—he did 
 not so interpret the calling bread and wine by the name of Christ’s 
 body and blood as to take away the substance of bread and wine ; 
 and now to have nothing left but Christ’s body and blood; but he 
 says that both are so in the appearances under the name of the 
 thing signified, that the sign also is comprehended and brought to 
 us.... For he taught that the true body of the Lord itself, which 
 was delivered up for us and His true blood which was shed for us on 
 the cross, are truly eaten and drunk (by us) unto eternal life.... He 
 taught also that we must believe God’s words and not too curiously 
 enquire into them, [That Zwingel has sometimes, I believe from 
 pure desire of unity, let fall expressions approaching to this 
 picture of his doctrine I admit: but take most of his writings— 
 I may say almost all—take his testimony at Marburg—and no one 
 could then accept this picture as here drawn by this Chancellor of 
 Zurich, writing in a later age. May I be defended from my friend’s 
 
 Vol. JI. p. 27. 
 
 Zuinglii doctrina et sententia de cond Domini...Si panem corpus 
 Christi et vinum sanguinem significare (Zuinglius) docuit, modo signifi- 
 candi sacramentis proprio et peculiari, non intellexit profecto hane 
 significationem inanem vacuam aut nudam sine certissima re? significate 
 presentia, &e....Namque, partem pro toto accipio, panemque et vinum 
 corporis et sanguinis Christi nomine appellari non ita interpretatus est, 
 ut sublata panis et vini substantia nihil jam fiat preeter corpus et sangui- 
 nem Christi reliquum; sed utrumque ait simul ita inesse sub nomine rei 
 significate ut signum quoque comprehendatur et afferatur... Docult eniin 
 ipsum Domini verwm corpus, quod traditum est pro nobis, et verum 
 Hjus sunguinem qui in eruce pro nobis effusus est, vere manducari et 
 bide ad vitam eternam...Docuit quoque eredendum esse verbis Dei et 
 non curiosius in illa inquirendum...Falsissimum igitur est quod...item a 
 pane et vino corpus et sanguinem Christi abstrahat, caloque concludat, 
 
1547] RODOLPH HOSPINIAN. 441 
 
 defences.] It is therefore most false that he takes away Christ’s 
 body and blood from the (visible) bread and wine, and shuts up (the 
 body and blood) in Heaven. [Is not this asserting that Z. would 
 not have subscribed to the words, The natural body is in heaven 
 and not here? ὁ.6. that Zwingel was less clear on this point than 
 the Church of England. See Part III. of this book.}] He inter- 
 preted Christ’s words in the same way in which the fathers did in 
 the primitive church. Again however, to explain and render all 
 perspicuous, he added that this is not done corporeally, but spirit- 
 ually by faith... [Zwingel did use two kinds of speaking that are 
 incompatible, and it is singular that in one of the few slips of this 
 kind that Zwingel made, he writes in his letter to the Emperor] 
 That the Lord’s body is present substantially and corporally, but 
 not in material quantity or in location in one place; [which seems 
 as if Zwingel was at that time inclined to admit the possibility of a 
 peculiar mode of presence, such as Bellarmine and Maldonat after- 
 wards asserted. These are the spots on the Zurich planet. Let 
 any one read his last letter to Bucer, Vol. vin. Zurich edition.] 
 
 To do honour to Hospinian’s book as an historical and anti- 
 quarian work, I extract “The Liturgy instituted by Zwingel in 
 the church of Zurich in the celebration of the Lord’s supper.” 
 
 “When the sermon is done, the table in the church (temple) is 
 strewed (laid) with a clean cloth. On this is set a basket full of 
 unfermented bread, plates and cups of wood, which are filled with 
 wine. The pastor of the church approaches to the table with the 
 deacons, and directs the whole assembly to give attention. After- 
 wards another of the deacons lays before them the account of the 
 institution of the Lord’s supper from the [first] epistle to the 
 Corinthians. But another recites a part of the sixth of John that 
 all may learn from the Lord’s words how we may truly eat Christ’s 
 flesh and drink His blood. [I believe “truly” here means “in the 
 
 ἄς. &e. Verba Christi eodem modo, quo patres in primitiva ecclesia, 
 interpretatus est. After passages like these Hospinian goes on, Rursus 
 tamen explicandi et perspicuitatis gratia, addidit fieri hac non corpora- 
 liter sed spiritualiter per fidem.... Corpus Domini adesse substantialiter 
 et corporaliter, sed non quantitative aut in loco. 
 
 Liturgia a Zuinglio in ecclesia Tigurina in cence Dominicee 
 celebratione instituta. 
 
 Finita concione, mensa in templo mundé mappa insternitur. Huic 
 imponitur canistrum pane infermentato plenum, catini et pocula lignea, 
 qu vino implentur. Accedit ad mensam pastor ecclesize cum diaconis 
 et totum cotum ad attentionem excitat. Mox alter ex diaconis subjicit 
 institutionem coenze Domini ex epistolé ad Corinthios. Alter vero 
 recitat partem capitis vi. Johannis, ut ex verbis Domini omnes discant 
 quomodo Christi carnem edamus vere, et sanguinem Ejus bibamus. 
 
442 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “antitypes” as the word is used by our Lord—not “in true natural 
 “body.”| Presently after reciting the creed the pastor admonishes 
 each to examine and search himself that he may not by ap- 
 proaching unworthily become chargeable with the body and blood — 
 of the Lord. Afterwards all fall on their knees and after the 
 pastor say the Lord’s prayer. When this is finished the pastor 
 receives (takes) unfermented bread into his hands, and, while the 
 assembly of the faithful is looking on, with a loud voice and with 
 great reverence recites from the gospels the institution of the Lord’s 
 supper, then he distributes the bread to the ministers and hands 
 the cup: and they carry round the bread in plates and the wine 
 in cups and supply it to the church. ach one takes in his hands 
 what is handed by the ministers; eats and offers to the one sitting 
 next to him a part of that which he has received: in hke manner 
 also he hands the cup. But in the meantime, while they are eating 
 of the Lord’s bread and drinking of His cup, one of the church’s 
 ministers reads from St John’s Gospel those most sweet conversa- 
 tions of our Lord which He had with His disciples when He was 
 about to go away, from the feet-washing making a beginning. If 
 the plates and cups return to the table (empty), the church again 
 falls down on its knees and gives thanks to God for the benefit of 
 Christ’s redemption, But in the churches of the territory of 
 Zurich the minister recites all alone and the people come singly to 
 the table. Many churches in Switzerland and elsewhere after- 
 wards copied this rite.” [The same is printed in the works of 
 Zwingel, I suppose “if” means “when.” Does “singly” mean 
 that as one goes away another takes his place at the table 2] 
 
 This book of Hospinian forms a thick folio of 1600 pages. It 
 
 Mox, recitato symbolo fidei, pastor admonet ut quisque seipsum exami- 
 net et exploret, ne indigne accedendo corporis et sanguinis Domini reus 
 fiat. Postea omnes se in genua demittunt, et pastore praeeunte orationem 
 Dominicam dicunt. Qua absoluta, pastor panem infermentatum in 
 manus accipit, et, spectante fidelium ccetu, alté voce magnaque religione 
 institutionem coenze Dominice ex evangeliis recitat, deinde panem minis- 
 tris distribuit et poculum porrigit: qui panem in catinis et vinum in 
 cyathis circumferunt et ecclesie exhibent. Quisque in manus sumit 
 quod traditur a ministris, edit, et proxime assidenti offert partem ejus 
 quod accipit; similiter etiam poculum porrigit. Interim vero, dum de 
 pane Domini edunt et de poculo Ejus bibunt, unus ex ecclesiz ministris 
 prelegit ex evangelio Johannis dulcissima illa Domini colloquia, que 
 abiturus cum discipulis habuit a pedum ablutione initium faciens, ὅσ, 
 Si catini et pocula ad mensam redeunt, ecclesia iterum in genua procum- 
 bit et Deo pro beneficio redemptionis Christi gratias agit. In ecclesiis 
 autem agri Tigurini minister omnia solus recitat, et ad mensam singuli 
 accedunt. Hune ritum multe ecclesie in Helvetia et Rebetia postea 
 imitatee sunt, 
 
1547] RODOLPH HOSPINIAN, 443 
 
 contains much that is exceedingly valuable ; but it is written to 
 prove what never can be proved, that the fathers in general were 
 very little removed from being Zwinglians. I have read much of 
 his writing, but it is always the same story. For this purpose the 
 fathers are tamed down from their high transcendental flights; 
 and he vainly endeavours to tune up Zwingel to their pitch. But 
 it is the Aischylean simile of oil and water. They will not mingle. 
 Zwingel does not sing to the fathers’ tunes, and the fathers cannot 
 be brought down to walk quietly with Zwingel on his New Testa- 
 ment level. Hospinian has taken the method of laying down all 
 the propositions in succession which make up eucharistic doctrine, 
 and under each head he gives quotations from certain fathers. 
 I hope to stand excused for taking another plan, viz. putting into 
 view all the fathers and great doctors one by one, The plan gives 
 a fairer trial to each—as sufficient extracts are brought into view 
 at once from that one man’s writing to enable the reader to pass 
 an enlightened verdict upon him. And I think the conclusion is 
 fatal to Hospinian’s decision that Zwingel virtually agreed with 
 the fathers. 
 
 (MM.) DR WILLIAM WHITAKER. B. 1547, D. 1595. 
 Born at Holme in Burnley, Lancashire, 
 
 By his uncle Alexander Nowell’s influence he went to Dr Colet’s 
 new foundation of St Paul’s School: and to Trinity, Cambridge, 
 and was made successively Regius Professor of Divinity, and 
 Chancellor of St Paul’s, and Master of St John’s. He translated 
 Jewel against Harding into Latin. His Disputation on Scripture, 
 or six questions on the First Controversy, is dedicated to the great 
 Lord Burleigh. Bellarmine had his portrait in his study. He 
 fully answered the Jesuit Campian. 
 
 P. 252. Parker Society. ‘Against making secret the sacra- 
 ments. What advantage would a Gentile or anyone unacquainted 
 with the sacrament suppose to accrue to an infant by merely seeing 
 it baptized? What advantage in his opinion would a Christian 
 receive by taking a morsel of bread and a few drops of wine? 
 Surely nothing could be conceived more foolish to one who was not 
 acquainted with the reason and object of the ceremonies? These 
 therefore should not be concealed but explained to the people: 
 
41. THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and the hiding of them is an antichristian device to fill the people 
 with a stupid admiration of they know not what.... Christ in- 
 stituted such sacraments to instruct us through our very senses. 
 That was the end of the institution thereof.” 
 
 He died through travelling from London to Cambridge, “ it 
 “being weil midwinter and sharp weather.” 
 
 (NN.) DAVID PAREUS, PROFESSOR AT HEIDELBERG. 
 Β, 1548. Ῥ. 1022, 
 
 A proof of the uncertainty of fame upon this earth. One 
 could write a considerable list of leading ecclesiastical works in 
 which he is ignored by German as well as by English writers: and 
 yet he was once so noted even in England that Milton quoted his 
 explanation of the Revelation with great praise, and our James 
 I. did him the singular honour of burning his treatise on Paul’s 
 epistle to the Romans, saying that it contained doctrines adverse 
 to his own royal ideas upon monarchy. He was also one of the 
 few Germans who in the time of Luther ventured to sigh for lost 
 unity: and yet one of the cited passages is amply sufficient to 
 shew that he was neither willing to sacrifice Bible truth to attain 
 it, nor slow to give to dangerous errors their true names. He ap- 
 pears to me to take high rank among the Protestant writers of the 
 sixteenth century. He was born at Frankenstein in Silesia. His 
 proper name was Wangler, which he dropped as was the fashion 
 for a Latinized Greek name Pareus: that and Wangler both 
 signifying an unusual development of the cheekbone (apela)! He 
 attained the high rank at Heidelberg of Professor and State 
 Councillor. He has left a Commentary on all the New Testa- 
 ment. It fills a very large folio. There is also a work on celibacy 
 and an Irenicum, a plea for union by a conciliatory Synod in 1614. 
 
 Possibly his not holding consubstantial opinions may have 
 caused him to be less thought of in Germany. His commentary 
 on the Corinthians is in the scholastic manner. The specimen 
 given will shew its acuteness. 
 
 The Parisian Dictionnaire Universel gives a small portrait 
 of him, of a stately air and without any unusual prominence of 
 cheekbone. Although King James I. delivered his exposition 
 of the Romans to the flames, it is mainly against the Pope’s 
 
1548] DAVID PAREUS. 445 
 
 authority ; and only opposes civil tyranny in its way towards the 
 papal or ecclesiastical. See p. 262 of that Treatise on Epistle to 
 the Romans (Χ111.), Frankfurt, 1647. The “sacred right of insurrec- 
 tion” is very cautiously stated; and the doctrine is drawn out in 
 seven propositions by Pareus, and they are elaborately defended 
 by his son Philip (a lover of Plautus) in the columns following. 
 The disputed Prop. Iv. may be thus rendered: “It is lawful for 
 ‘private persons in present peril to defend themselves against a 
 “ tyrant, who robs or assaults or is an adulterer or makes an attack 
 “on them, if they cannot defend themselves by ordinary means nor 
 “escape the peril in any other way. They may then deal with him 
 “as they would with a private ruffian.” 
 
 Commentaries. P. 211. “The mystery of His own body and 
 blood, which He entrusted to us, to be celebrated in the church 
 henceforth with giving of thanks, with breaking and eating of the 
 sacred bread and drinking of the sacred wine for a perpetual 
 memory of His own death for us, as a bond of fraternal love until 
 He come. This most holy institute of the Saviour the devil early 
 began to deprave by various superstitions and corruptions, until at 
 length he transformed it with a horrible contempt of the Lord’s 
 death into the abominable idol of a theatrical mass. It would take 
 long to set forth the origin of so great an evil. I will repeat it 
 briefly, &c., &e. At those ancient times the name of a sacrifice 
 was so sacred among Gentiles and among Jews, that it was con- 
 sidered that there could be no religion without a sacrifice. [As 
 Waterland shews, Papists are obliged to allow that the death of 
 Christ is in every point of the definition a sacrifice.] But the 
 Christians were specially hated with reference to this name, be- 
 cause they were said to have taken away all the sacrifices of the 
 Jews and the Gentiles, and to be alone without a sacrifice and to 
 
 Opera Theol. Exegetica, p. 211. Frankfurt, 1647. 
 
 Mysterium corporis et sanguinis Sui, quod cum gratiarum actione, 
 fractione, et manducatione sacri panis, et bibitione sacri poculi in mortis 
 Suze pro nobis gratam memoriam, et fraterne dilectionis perpetuum 
 vinculum deinceps in ecclesiw celebrari mandavit donee veniat. Hoc 
 sanctissimum Servatoris institutum Satan variis superstitionibus et cor- 
 ruptelis depravare mature ceepit, donee tandem, cum horribili mortis 
 Domini contumelia in abominandum theatricee missee idolum transforma- 
 vit. Originem tanti mali explicare longum esset. Repetam paucis, ὅσ, 
 ἄς. Priscis illis temporibus apud gentes et apud Judzos nomen sacri- 
 ΠΟ adeo sanctum erat, ut absque sacrificio nulla haberetur religio. 
 Christiani vero hoc nomine precipue invisi erant, quod omnia gentilium 
 et Judzorum sacrificia sustulisse, solique sacrificio carere, et hostes 
 
440 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ΠΕΣ 
 
 be hostile to sacrifices. The bishops of the Christians, thinking 
 that so great an odium had to be escaped, began to give the name 
 of sacrifice to the mystery of Christ’s body and blood both in 
 addresses and in treatises. 
 
 Ρ 212. “The eucharistic sacrifice was changed under the 
 name of the mass into a propitiatory sacrifice, in which it is 
 pretended by the priest, who performs mass and who murmurs in 
 a low voice a consecration of five words over the host, 1.6. ‘ For this 
 
 ‘is My body,’ that in the last instant of pronouncing the syllable 
 ‘um, the bread is transmuted into the substance of Christ’s body, 
 and this is daily offered to God the Father, for the expiation of all 
 sins and for the redemption of the living upon earth and of the 
 dead both in heaven and in purgatory: which is the veriest abne- 
 gation of Christ’s true sacrifice once fulfilled on the cross, and 
 repugnant to sacred Scripture by which Christ is taught to have 
 consecrated and perfected by His one oblation all that ever approach 
 to God!... The chief sources of strength (to this corruption) lie 
 on the one hand in certain external rites, as vestments, and hymns 
 expressive of the mass, altars, round hosts, &c., and on the other 
 hand in doctrine, as the opinion of Christ’s bodily presence under 
 the host of bread is fought for by not a few even to the teeth. And 
 since the Reformed churches wholly cut these sources of strength, 
 therefore Satan has now for 90 years stirred a schism on chief 
 points between our churches and theirs, and has turned this most 
 healthful feast, which the Lord appointed to be to Christians the 
 
 sacrificiorum esse dicerentur, Episcopi Christianorum, tantam invidiam 
 declinandam esse existimantes, nomen sacrificli mysterio corporis et 
 sanguinis Christi concionibus et scriptis indere cceperunt. [Justin M. 
 first uses the word θυσίας first doubtfully and then beyond all question 
 regarding the Lord’s supper. See extracts, or Table of Contents. | 
 Vara 
 
 Sacrificium eucharisticum sub nomine Misse in sacrificium, ἵλαστι- 
 κὸν, propitiatorium conversum fuit, in quo fingitur a ἘΠΕ Εἶτ, missifi- 
 cante, demurmurante consecrationem quinque ‘verborum super hostiam, 
 Hoe enim est corpus Meum, in extremo instanti syllabze “um,” panem 
 transmutari in substantiale corpus Christi; hocque Deo Patri quotidie 
 offerri pro expiatione omnium peccatorum, et redemptione viventium in 
 terra et mortuorum existentium in celo et purgatorio: que est ipsissima 
 veri sacrificii Christi, in cruce semel peracti, abnegatio, repugnans Serip- 
 ture sacree, qua Christus unica oblatione consecrasse et perfecisse docetur 
 omnes quicumque ad Deum accedunt...Preecipui quidem nervi tum in 
 ritibus quibusdam externis, ut sunt vestes et hymni missales altaria 
 rotunde hostie, &e., tum in doctrina ut opinio corporalis presentiz 
 Christi sub hosti& panis a non paucis mordicus adhuc defendatur, 
 Quos nervos quia ecclesix reformate penitus inciderent, hince inter 
 nostras et illorum ecclesias capitale schisma ab annis jam 90 Satan con- 
 citavit, sanumque hoc epulum, quod Dominus dulcissimum concordie et 
 
1548] DAVID PAREUS. 447 
 
 most sweet bond of concord and unity, into an apple of the saddest 
 strife, matter of schism and contention. But it only remains that 
 all we lovers of concord call on God with ardour, that He Himself 
 from His concealment behind the scenes may deign to shew and 
 open to us the way of peace. 
 
 P. 139. “Some of the sounder Lutherans despise the word 
 consubstantiation, but all hold the thing: that with the substance 
 of the bread there is really in the same place the substance of 
 (Christ's) body. ‘Therefore they think that two substances are 
 really under the same accidents in one place. [So put, it does not 
 make Christ present, but only His substance.] This truly is con- 
 substantiation. But our enquiry is not about the word, but about 
 the thing; what kind of existence [of Christ’s body] we say is 
 adverse to the word of God and to the Christian faith; and we 
 refute it from the words of the Lord. Bread is Christ’s body. So 
 Christ’s body does not exist nor is latent with bread, really, in the 
 bread ; as the seven cows were seven years. So there were not 
 nor were latent really in the seven cows seven years. 
 
 “On the causes of the real presence... They pretend causes 
 which do not exist. The third is the ubiquity of Christ’s body. 
 This assumption we deny: for neither is it true that Christ’s body 
 is everywhere. The proof from its union [?.e. with God] is nothing, 
 For there was union when there was no ubiquity: 1.6. in the 
 whole state of Christ’s humiliation the union was unbroken, with 
 no ubiquity. The causes assigned are the words Christ used, and 
 the power of God. 
 
 unitatis vinculum Christianis esse voluit, in μῆλον ἔριδος tristissime, 
 dissidii et contentionis materiam, convertit, &c. Non superest vero nisi 
 ut omnes concordiz amantes ardenter Deum invocemus, ut Ipse ἀπὸ 
 μηχανῆς Viam pacis nobis monstrare et aperire dignetur. 
 
 Part IV. P. 199. 1 Corinthians, written before Com, on Matt. 
 
 Fastidiunt quidam Lutherani saniores consubstantiationis vocabu- 
 lum; sed rem omnes tenent: quod cum panis substantia realiter eodem 
 loco adsit substantia corporis. Ergo duas substantias uno loco sub 
 lisdem accidentibus realiter adesse sentiunt. Hoc vero est consub- 
 stantiatio. Verum non queritur de voce sed de re, &c., qualem existen- 
 tiam verbo Dei et fidei Christianee adversam esse dicimus et ex verbis 
 Domini refellimus. Panis est corpus Christi. Ergo non cum pane in 
 pane realiter est vel latet corpus Christi: sicut septem vaccxe erant 
 septem anni; ergo non in septem vaccis realiter erant vel latebant 
 septem annl, 
 
 De causis realis presentie...Fingunt causas que non sunt, mt. Ab 
 ubiquitate. Et hac assumptio negatur. Neque enim verum est corpus 
 Christi esse ubique. Ex unione non probatur. Fuit enim unio quando 
 non fuit ubiquitas; in toto statu humilitatis salva fuit unio absque 
 ubiquitate. 1. Is a verbis, 11. a potentid Dei, 
 
448 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 136. “ Papists and Lutherans agree in this, that the body 
 is therefore really present in the signs, that it may be eaten with 
 the mouth of the body by all that communicate. But they differ 
 in that Papists affirm and Lutherans deny that it is therefore really 
 present, that it may be adored by the people and may be offered by 
 the priests for a sacrifice to God for the sins of the living and the 
 dead. 
 
 Pareus next shews that in his time men generally believed in 
 a real and invisible presence of Christ in the bread and wine in 
 the place and at the place of bread and wine in the eucharist. 
 He only does not say on the altar, and we may infer from what he 
 has just said that he denies this last point on behalf of the Luther- 
 ans. And against this real invisible presence of Christ’s body he 
 ranges his objections under as many as 20 heads, Then he treats 
 on the mode. 
 
 P. 140. “The orthodox opinion, &. Whether any and what 
 kind of presence of Christ’s body ought to be established as in the 
 Lord’s supper? It appears that none ought to be established, 
 because Christ did not say ‘Here is My body.’ Nor is the body’s 
 presence in the supper obtained from any other part of God’s word, 
 &e. And the phrase ‘concerning the presence’ seems to foster a 
 carnal opinion about the existence of the body under the bread: it 
 also seems to be repugnant to the end of the eucharist, which is 
 the commemoration or memory of the Lord’s death. But a memory 
 is not of things present but of things absent, ἕο. On the other 
 hand, that the bread is [called] ‘Christ’s body delivered for us.’ 
 Bread truly cannot be said not to be present in the eucharist. 
 
 PP. 150. 
 
 Papiste et Lutherani conveniunt in eo quod corpus ideo realiter sit 
 preesens in symbolis ut ore corporeo manducetur omnibus communicanti- 
 bus. Dissident vero in eo quod Papiste affirmant Lutherani negant, 
 ideo adesse ut adoretur a populo et offeratur a sacerdotibus in sacrifi- 
 cium Deo pro peccatis viventium et mortuorum. 
 
 P, 140. 
 
 Sententia orthodoxa, &e. An aliqua et qualis presentia corporis 
 Christi statuenda sit in cond Domini? Videtur autem quod nulla sit 
 statuenda, quia Christus non dixit Hic est corpus Meum. Nee presen- 
 tia corporis in coena aliunde habetur ex verbo Dei, &c. Et phrasis de 
 preesentia videtur fovere carnalem opinionem de existentia corporis sub 
 pane: pugnare etiam cum fine eucharistize qui est commemoratio seu 
 memoria mortis Domini. Memoria autem non est presentium sed 
 absentium, ὅθ. Sed contra est—quod panis est corpus Christi pro nobis 
 “traditum:” panis vero preesentia in eucharistiad negari non potest. 
 
1548] DAVID PAREUS. 449 
 
 Besides, we are ordered to eat the bread as Christ’s body delivered 
 for us. But, what is in no way present in the eucharist can in no 
 way be eaten. Sesides, bread is said to be a communion of 
 Christ’s body. But there is no communion bestowed of that which 
 is simply absent. It will appear then that Christ [6. His entire 
 humanity] is simply absent from His supper, and nothing but bare 
 signs of His body are left for us. Both of these propositions have 
 been objected to and are customarily objected to as against our 
 churches by our opponents.” [The expression “bare signs” has 
 from a very early age been a very invidious phrase. And it 
 has been misinterpreted as if it denied all gifts of grace in the 
 supper. It means the bread and the wine without the body and 
 the blood.] 
 
 This writer surely merited the attention of Gieseler, Hagenbach, 
 Neander, Mosheim, and other great writers. Luther is (in part) 
 inimitable in his own line; but in the close anatomy of assertions 
 and in the discrimination of ideas this writer seems to be more ex- 
 cellent than it was possible for the public combatants to become. 
 
 The statement of Pareus that as to Christ’s body and bread 
 consubstantiation means two kinds of substances under one set of 
 accidents (those of bread), does not seem to be borne out by 
 Luther’s language in many if not in most cases. Take his Baby- 
 lonish Captivity de Coené Domini, near the part to which Bellar- 
 mine refers as to Luther’s treatment of Aristotle. Luther writes, 
 “But why could not Christ make His own body to be contained 
 “(cur non posset corpus Suum contineri) within the substance of 
 “bread as well as in the accidents (of bread)?” Does anyone affirm 
 that when Luther said “ His own body,” Luther did not mean its 
 accidents as well as its substance? His illustration wants the word 
 “heat” instead of “fire,” but 1t not the less illustrates this point. 
 “ Behold fire and iron are two substances but they are mingled in 
 “Genited iron: so that any part of it is iron and fire. Why is not 
 “ Christ’s glorious body much more able to be thus present in any 
 “part of the substance of the bread?” He does not say “the 
 
 Preterea. Jubemur panem, ut corpus Christi pro nobis traditum, man- 
 ducare. At. Quod nullo modo presens est in eucharistia nullo modo 
 potest manducari. Preterea. Panis dicitur κοινωνία corporis Christi. 
 At. Simpliciter absentis nulla datur κοινωνία. Denique. Videbitur 
 Christus ex coena Sua simpliciter excludi [i.e. Christi humanitas tota] et 
 nuda symbola [humanitatis Ejus] relinqui: quod utrumque objectum 
 fuit et objici solet nostris ecclesiis ab adversariis. 
 
 ἘΠ ΤΠ. 29 
 
450 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “substance of Christ’s body” but “Christ’s body,” i.e. substance 
 and accidents in one. Therefore in the remarks at the end of the 
 extracts from the Capel-Liddon controversy, as well as in earlier 
 remarks, we are free not to adopt Pareus’ definition of consubstan- 
 tiation, and to identify it with Luther’s idea of it. I know not 
 how Pareus came to write so. Had the current definition of 
 consubstantiation changed? Pareus might have made an assertion 
 of transubstantiation, viz. that there is but one set of accidents. 
 The contrary assertion is the current one. 
 
 (OO.) DR ROBERT ABBOT, BISHOP OF SALISBURY. B. 1560. 
 D. 1617. 
 Master of Balliol, Professor of Divinity, brother of the Primate. 
 
 Although manliness and keenness of intellect and largeness of 
 learning distinguished him exceedingly, yet he seems to have been 
 equally distinguished by humility. The attainment of high posi- 
 tions made no difference in him. It is said that he was just the 
 same man, when he had fallen in with the commonest work of 
 life’s duty, as when he moved in the highest walks, the observed 
 of all observers. His biographer sweetly says of him, that he was 
 like a violet, which, if made to grow in the midst of a bank or at 
 the lowest level or at the very highest station, has everywhere its own 
 simple lovely shape and colour and its own fragrant scent. His over- 
 throw of William Bishop, Titular of Chalcedon, who had attempted to 
 disprove a part of John Perkins’ Reformed Catholic, was so complete 
 that it caused him to be classed with Jewel for overthrowing Hard- 
 ing, and with Bishop Bilson for answering Allen: and it made men 
 wish that William Bishop had attacked the whole of Perkins’ work, 
 that we might have obtained from this Abbot’s pen a confutation 
 coextensive with the whole. But his Antichristi Demonstratio is 
 judged complete and powerful; and King James paid him the 
 highest honour in his power for it. As Master of Balliol he 
 wrought a great moral reform. Finding the five o’clock chapels 
 were escaped by many, he postponed the service three hours and 
 closed the college gates, in order to diminish and discover noctiva- 
 gators. He also succeeded in appeasing strife in the college, and 
 it is said that he drew more fish by casting his line in a still 
 
1500] DR ROBERT ABBOT. 451 
 
 stream than his predecessors had done in the long-troubled waters. 
 His native place was Guildford in Surrey. He wrote against Bel- 
 larmine and Suares on the Royal Supremacy; and against Garnet. 
 It was through Bancroft’s influence that he was set over Balliol. 
 William Bishop in vain tempted him to reproaches and calumnious 
 language. He probably knew Quintilian’s condemnation of some 
 unprincipled advocates who were wont “cause vitia convitiis ex- 
 “»ylere,” of which the English is, “When there is no case, abuse 
 “the opposite side.” Humility set him out of the reach of this 
 temptation. 
 
 The Reformed Catholic, Answer to Dr. Bishop’s letter to King. 
 London, 1611. 
 
 P. 179. “ Because Eusebius mentions ‘ unbloody sacrifice, must 
 we hereby conceive to be meant the sacrament of the mass, a true 
 and real sacrifice, wherein the very body and blood of Christ, 
 really and substantially present, is offered to God for propitiation 
 of sins both of quick and dead? Euseb. Demonstrat. Evang. 
 Christ, having offered a marvellous sacrifice and most excellent 
 oblation for our salvation, did deliver unto us to offer unto God a 
 memorial or remembrance thereof instead of a sacrifice. The 
 remembrance of which sacrifice we have learned to perform at His 
 table by the signs of His body and blood. The manner of the 
 other (1.6. of unreformed catholics) is indeed to call the celebra- 
 tion of the sacrament by the name of a sacrifice. Aug. Epist. 23, ὥς, 
 
 P.181. “Toa true and real sacrifice there is necessary a true 
 and real death or destroying of the thing sacrificed. Bellarm, de 
 Missa, I. 2 and 29. But there is now no true and real death or 
 destroying of the body of Christ, and therefore now there can be 
 no true and real sacrifice thereof. With such argument the great 
 Jesuit is so troubled that he staggereth like a drunken man, and 
 indeed knoweth not what to say; neither can Mr Bishop with all 
 his fellows devise a salve to help that sore. The Jesuit telleth us 
 for answer to the matter that by consecration the body of Christ 15 
 ordained to a true, real and external alteration and destruction. 
 He telleth us that by consecration the body of Christ receiveth the 
 form of food ; and food is ordained for eating, and consequently for 
 alteration and destruction. Let Justin Martyr teach us, Dial. cum 
 Tryphone; who saith that prayers and thanksgivings are the only 
 sacrifices that Christians have received to offer, that by their dry 
 and moist nourishment (1.6. the outward elements of bread and 
 wine) they may be admonished of those things which God, the 
 Son of God, hath suffered for them, plainly instructing us, &c. 
 
 29—2 
 
452 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (PP.) DR RICHARD HOOKER. B. 1553. D. 1600. 
 
 Who can praise him, that even a Pope praised, a man whose 
 mind was almost a complete microcosm, having intelligent percep- 
 tion of almost everything then known in the world, and who 
 perhaps wanted only a little less of the concentrativeness or of the 
 limitation often adhering to concentrativeness, to deserve the 
 praise of Bacon’s idea, “ turning on the poles of truth”? As it is, 
 if you want a description of church privileges, Hooker will give 
 them lofty stature, and if you desire their due limitation by royal 
 supremacy, Hooker will mark that out too. Justification is his 
 accredited subject: and on the Lord’s supper he runs with so fine 
 
 ‘an edge on his thoughts, that he has to be reserved, mainly at 
 least, for the closer scrutiny of our Third Portion. He was born 
 at Heavitree near Exeter. Corpus Christi, Oxford, claims his train- 
 ing. He was placed there by Jewel. Several places own his 
 residence for a time; but little Bishop’s bourne and Salisbury 
 Cathedral are the places to which we resort as pilgrims with sweet 
 remembrances of his beautiful writings. Yet the mastership of 
 
 , the Temple is the seat of his dignity. There has never been and 
 perhaps never will be a second Hooker. It takes great presump- 
 tion to claim to be his successor, the Hooker of modern times. 
 
 The two most notable admirers of his Ecclesiastical Polity 
 were Pope Clement VIII. and Charles I. The former seems to 
 have been unable to express the admiration that he felt for it 
 without a very singular hyperbole, saying that it would last when 
 fire had devoured all other products of knowledge or science in 
 the world. The English monarch recommended it to his children 
 and perused it himself from the beginning to the end. It is no 
 marvel that the authenticity of the last three books is disputed. 
 They speak too plainly on the royal supremacy to be easily 
 acknowledged by its opponents. 
 
 His uncle John Hooker was a learned antiquary, born at 
 Exeter in 1524, and of the University of Oxford, and was a deputy 
 in Parliament for his native city in 1571, and he was one of those 
 who assisted Hollingshed in compiling his Chronicles. 
 
 Eccl. Polity, Bk. V. p. 807, 8. Keble’s Edition. Oxford. 
 
 “As for the sacraments, they really exhibit—What? But for 
 aught we can gather out of that which is written of them [.6. Im 
 
1553] DR RICHARD HOOKER. 453 
 
 the Scriptures] they are not really—What? Nor do they really 
 contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it t 
 pleaseth God to bestow. 
 
 Vol. m1. Pt. τι. p. 762. On having Christ in us. “How to con- 
 strue this we are to seek. Some think it to be a point inexpli- 
 cable. Others, (considering that, forasmuch as the end of all speech 
 is to impart to others the mind of him that speaketh, the words 
 which God so often uttereth on this point must needs be frivolous 
 and vain, if to conceive the meaning of them were a thing impos- 
 sible,) have therefore expounded our conjunction ‘with Christ’ to 
 be a mutual participation, whereby each is blended with the other, 
 His flesh and blood with ours and ours in like sort with His, even 
 as really, materially and naturally, as wax melted and blended 
 with wax in one lump; no other difference but that this mixture 
 may be sensibly perceived, that not. Which gross conceit doth 
 fight openly against reason. For are not we and Christ personally 
 distinguished [7.e. distinct]? Are we not locally divided and 
 severed from each other ? 
 
 Gal. iv. 19. “Till Christ be formed in you.” “Did the 
 blessed apostle mean materially and really to create Christ in 
 them, flesh and blood, soul and body? No. Christ in us, saith * 
 Gregory Naz. not κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον, but κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον, not 
 according to that natural substance which visibly was seen on 
 earth, but according to that intellectual comprehension that the 
 mind iscapable of. So that the difference between Christ on earth 
 and Christ in us is no less than between a ship on the sea, and in the 
 mind of him that buildeth it [it is Christ’s Godhead that is now in 
 us. His manhood was with His Godhead in the world], the one a 
 sensible thing [1.6. His manhood once in the world] the other the 
 shape of a thing sensible [we mistake if we have the idea of His 
 manhood with us now]. That whereby the apostle did form Christ 
 was the Gospel: so that Christ was formed when Christianity was 
 comprehended [1.6. embraced, possessed, and Mr Keble’s heading 
 is “Our union with Christ in no sense corporal.”’]. 
 
 P. 833. “One body, whereof the Head is Christ... That 
 which linketh Christ to us is His mere mercy and love towards us, 
 . who be inwardly in heart the lively members of His body ; and 
 the polished stones of this building coupled and joined to Christ, 
 as flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, by the mutual bond of 
 His unspeakable love toward them, and through unfeigned faith 
 in Him thus linked and fastened each to other by a spiritual, 
 sincere, and hearty affection and love.... . Threefold separation 
 by heresy, schism, or apostasy. [N.B. A chapter is to be given 
 to Hooker in Part {Π|.] 
 
454 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (QQ.) DR ADRIAN SARAVIA. 8, 1530. D. 1611. 
 
 Archdeacon Denison has printed and translated his treatise on 
 the holy eucharist from a MS. in the British Museum. Foreigners 
 have known Saravia as the publisher of various treatises in one vol. 
 quarto, and of a treatise on the degrees of holy orders. Pierre 
 Burmanns gives a bad opinion of him. Against this we have to 
 set off what Joseph Walton says of him in the life of Hooker, that 
 he was very intimate with that very excellent Christian, and that 
 on the day before Hooker’s death he had a conversation with him 
 “On the benefit, the necessity and the safety of the church’s 
 “absolution ;” also that “it was resolved that the Doctor (Saravia) 
 “should give him both that and the sacrament the day following, 
 “&e.” It is right to add that these two, Hooker and Saravia, were 
 well acquainted with the secrets of each other’s souls, for “they 
 “were supposed” to confess their faults to one another, and no 
 doubt to pray for one another that they might be healed. I have 
 put this matter in the most winning terms—those of the Bible. 
 But these terms of St James say nothing about mutual or minis- 
 terial absolution ; and I will not here raise the controversy regard- 
 ing the true interpretation of those words of our Lord, which have 
 been taken as the foundation of this ecclesiastical practice. But 
 Τ cannot but stop a while at these singular last-recorded events of 
 Hooker's life; and while I think of the views of this his chosen 
 friend, which Archdeacon Denison has given to the world, I am con- 
 strained by my surprise as it were to stand and wonder! Hooker's 
 own teaching on the Lord’s supper is with a few other reserved for 
 the “ampler ether” which the Third Part will afford. But giving 
 every possible degree of favourable interpretation to Dr Saravia’s 
 character, at least in the later part of his life, one is yet driven to 
 say that this treatise is not what one would have expected from 
 the intimate associate and bosom friend of such an one as we 
 Englishmen love to see in Hooker. If Saravia put forward views 
 like these—and one would not suspect him of hiding them—one 
 would have supposed that they would cast a cloud upon the inter- 
 course, and put an end to the fraternal feeling which requires that 
 hearts should be “ of each other sure.” The life of Saravia is soon 
 narrated. He was born in Artois, and was a minister and professor 
 at Leyden, where he was educated. He left it for England under 
 
1580] DR ADRIAN SARAVIA. 455 
 
 suspicion of being involved in a plot for surrendering it to Robert 
 of Leicester; and it is certain that he was made Prebendary of 
 Canterbury; and it seems that he retained it till he died. He 
 was one of the board appointed in 1607 to translate the Bible. 
 His name stands third after Andrewes and Overall in one of the 
 committees. A change of opinion upon the orders of ministers 
 seems to have occasioned unpleasantness between him and some 
 early friends; but it is a matter of far less weight than what we 
 are bound to put into the scale—his published opinions in this 
 volume on the Lord’s supper. 
 
 _ P. 108. “In the sacrament of the eucharist it is not the 
 signification of the body and blood that alone sanctifies the sacra- 
 ment, but the presence of (Christ) Himself. 
 
 P. 106. “They are not to be heard who in their disputation 
 assert that Christ’s body and blood are in the sacrament of the 
 eucharist only ina sign. Sanctity is not brought to pass by signi- 
 fication only; for the sacred sign testifies the presence of the 
 things signified. [Mere assertion with not ever so thin a stratum 
 of argument under it.] He that takes it away takes away also the 
 sanctity of the sacrament. 
 
 P. 94. “And I think it a consequence from this, that Christ’s 
 true body and blood are sacramentally given and received by 
 hypocrites. [A direct denial of the article which says “in no wise 
 are they (the wicked) partakers of Christ. Substitute for “ sacra- 
 mentally” its true meaning “‘in or as by a sacred sign,” and this 
 part of his assertion is in antagonism with the word “true” as he 
 means to use that word.] I am not a whit moved by the alter- 
 cations of the theologians that cry out that our Saviour’s words 
 
 On the Holy Eucharist, p. 108. London, 1855. 
 
 In sacramento eucharistiz significatio sola corporis et sanguinis 
 Salvatoris nostri non sanctificat sacramentum sed Ipsius preesentia. 
 
 Jena Ἰ0Ό: 
 
 Non sunt audiendi qui in eucharistiz sacramento Christi carnem et 
 sanguinem tantum esse in signo disputant. Significatione sola non 
 perticitur sanctitas: testatur enim rei significate sanctum preesentiam 
 signum, Qui eam toliit simul etiam sacramenti sanctitatem tollit. 
 
 Be ΟΕ. 
 
 Unde ego consequens arbitror tradi et percipi ab hypocritis sacra- 
 mentaliter verum corpus et verum sanguinem Christi. Nihil me movent 
 altercationes theologorum clamantium verba Servatoris nostri docere 
 
456 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 teach the contrary when He says, ‘He that eats My flesh, &c., has 
 eternal life.’ 
 
 P. 100. “Τὸ me indeed it does not appear more absurd that 
 Christ’s flesh is truly eaten in the sacrament by a person who is 
 not pious, than that the ark of God could be handled and carried 
 by the impious sons of Eli. [The parallel would be with bad 
 officiating ministers, but he means that the body of Christ is eaten 
 by bad and good bodily. ] 
 
 P.116. “1 shall not allow that by the Lord’s bread Augustine 
 understood that Judas received only sacramental bread without 
 the Lord’s body, since he in many places fully affirms that he 
 (Judas) ate the Lord’s body and drank His blood with the rest of 
 the apostles. [Judas eating it destroys many theories. | 
 
 P. 120. “It is false in my judgment absolutely to deny that 
 the wicked and hypocrites eat the Lord’s flesh or drink His blood, 
 because [confessedly] they do it not in a spiritual way or with 
 sincere faith. [Dr Saravia is a singular professor of adherence to 
 the Articles of the Church of England: see Art. Xxrx. on this 
 point. It will be perceived that he as some others is shut up to 
 hold three eatings: (1) one of the bread and wine, (2) another 
 feeding spiritually and by faith on Divine grace signified, (3) and 
 a third, the real eating of Christ’s natural body. And he affirms 
 that the wicked eat in senses (1) and (3), and the believing in 
 senses (1) (2) and (3); so that Christ’s real natural body is eaten 
 both by the bad and by the good.} 
 
 P. 22. “The sacrament of the eucharist may be defined as 
 follows, that it is a communication of the body of our Lord Jesus 
 
 contrarium, quando ait, ‘Qui edit carnem Meam, &c., παροὺ vitam 
 zeternam.” 
 ὍΣ LOO! 
 Mihi vero non magis absurdum videtur, carnem Christi ab impio 
 vere in sacramento manducari, quam ab impiis Eli filiis Dei arcam 
 attractari et bajulari potuisse, &c. 
 
 LG: 
 
 Non concedam per “panem Domini” Augustinum intellexisse tan- 
 tum panem sacramentalem sine corpore Domini Judam accepisse, quum 
 pluribus in locis (Augustinus) diserte affirmet illum cum ceteris apostolis 
 edisse corpus et bibisse sanguinem Domini. 
 
 P9120. 
 Male, meo judicio, absolute negatur impios et hypocritas manducare 
 carnem vel bibere sanguinem Domini, quia spiritualiter et sincera fide 
 id non faciunt. 
 
 P28; 
 Potest eucharistiz sacramentum hoe modo definiri, quod sit, sub 
 specie panis et vini, corporis Domini nostri Jesu Christi pro nobis in ara 
 
1590] DR ADRIAN SARAVIA. 457 
 
 Christ once offered for us on the altar of the cross, and of the blood 
 of the new testament shed for the remission of sins, under the 
 form of bread and wine, and a commemoration of His death...The 
 third thing that I would have marked is the remission of sins and 
 eternal life, which is the virtue of the sacrament distinct from 
 those two parts of the sacrament [?.e. first the elements and then 
 second Christ’s body and blood]. For those three things are to be 
 considered distinct from one another in any sacrament: the out- 
 ward visible sign and the thing unseen and Heavenly, sacramentally 
 united to the sign; and the third, that which emanates from them 
 the fruit of the sacrament. [The Church of England says there 
 are but two. His middle part is the sacramental eating of Christ’s 
 real natural body. | 
 
 P. 24. “The Romanists in this sacrament subtract the bread 
 and wine, and leave us empty appearances of bread and wine 
 without the substance of them...Since therefore these parts of the 
 sacrament of the Lord’s supper are essential, the bread and the 
 body of Christ, the wine and the blood of Christ cannot be sepa- 
 rated from one another, nor be understood in a separated state. 
 [Whether Saravia is an ally preparing the way for Papal doctrine 
 has to be considered, but that he is cutting and slashing in the 
 Church of England garden is most evident. He seems now drop- 
 ping into consubstantiation in the sense of our receiving both 
 substances and the accidents of both together, 7.e. complete double 
 signs and the complete res ipsx, Christ’s body and blood. ] 
 
 P.16. “1 could wish that as many as shall handle this argu- 
 ment henceforth, should make no proposal in opposition to the 
 pacification arrived at in Wittenberg in the year 1536, or to the 
 confession of the princes of Germany at Strasbourg. For I trust 
 
 crucis semel oblati et sanguinis novi Testamenti in remissionem pecca- 
 torum fusi communicatio, mortisque Ipsius commemoratio...Tertium 
 quod notare cupio est peccatorum remissio et vita eterna, que virtus 
 est sacramenti, distincta ab illis duabus sacramenti partibus. Tria 
 enim in quovis sacramento ab invicem distincta sunt consideranda ; 
 externum visibile signum; et res invisibilis ccelestisque signo sacramen- 
 taliter unita; et tertium, quod ab eis manat, sacramenti fructus. 
 .Ρ, 24, 
 
 Romanistz in hoc sacramento panem et vinum subtrahunt, et inania 
 simulacra panis et vini absque sua substantia nobis relinquunt, &e.... 
 Quum igitur iste partes sacramenti ccenzee Domini sint essentiales, panis 
 et corpus Christi, vinum et Ipsius sanguis, ab invicem non possunt sepa- 
 rari nec separate intelligi. 
 
 PY V6; 
 
 Optarem quotquot posthac hoc argumentum tractabunt nihil movere 
 quod adversetur pacificationi facte, anno 1536, Wittenburgee, aut princi- 
 pum Germaniz confessioni Augustane, Hoc enim pacto dissidium de 
 
458 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that difference upon the matter of the sacrament can by this 
 agreement be abolished, and Christ’s churches which in Europe 
 are dispersed, as sheep among wolves, can be united and allied. 
 
 P. 120. “The pious consent in this matter of those servants of 
 God, whom God has in these last times stirred up to restore the 
 purity of Christian doctrine with the ancient fathers, makes me 
 dwell longer on this argument. [He quotes Bucer and Luther, and 
 then the Wittenberg agreement. See Seckendorff, Hist. Luth. 
 1. 122.] We have heard them make these declarations. They 
 confess that there are two things...Therefore they think and teach 
 that Christ’s body and blood are truly and essentially present 
 with the bread and wine, and are received (with them)...They 
 confess and think that by the sacramental union the bread is 
 Christ’s body; 1.6. they think and believe that when the bread is 
 delivered, Christ’s body is at the same time present and is truly 
 delivered [The word is ‘ reached forth.’] and received... Wherefore 
 as Paul says that even the unworthy eat the sacrament, so they 
 think that Christ's body and blood are truly supplied to the 
 unworthy also, and that the unworthy truly receive them, when 
 the institution and the command are kept. [This is curious 
 teaching for Hooker’s bosom friend. It is not that which the 
 Church of England adopted.] 
 
 P. 18. “We must at length come back to this, that Christ 
 the Lord in true reality delivered His own body and blood to His 
 own disciples in the supper. But the mode in which that was 
 done surpasses human apprehension. [So says Bellarmine. ] 
 
 re sacramentaria aboleri, et uniri ac consociari Christi ecclesias, que 
 per Europam tamquam oves sunt inter lupos disperse, posse confido, &e. 
 
 P. 120. 
 
 Pius consensus in hac re servorum Dei, quos Deus postremis his 
 temporibus excitavit ad restituendam puritatem Christians doctrine 
 cum priscis patribus, facit ut diutius huic immorer argumento. Audivi- 
 mus, &c., hoc modo declarare. Fatentur...duas esse res...Sentiunt igitur 
 et docent cum pane et vino vere et essentialiter preesens adesse exhiberi 
 et sumi corpus et sanguinem Christi...fatentur et sentiunt sacramentali 
 unione panem esse corpus Christi: hoc est sentiunt et credunt, porrecto 
 pane, simul prasens esse et vere porrigi corpus Christi...Quare, sicut 
 Paulus dicit etiam indignos sacramentum manducare, té@ sentiunt etiam 
 indignis vere exhiberi corpus et sanguinem Christi et indignos vere 
 accipere, cum institutio et mandatum servantur, de. 
 
 Peis: 
 
 Hue tandem redeundum est, Christum Dominum tradidisse revera 
 in ceend Sua corpus et sanguinem Suum discipulis Suis. Modus autem, 
 quo id factum est, superat humanum captum. 
 
1530] DR ADRIAN SARAVIA. 459 
 
 P. 26. “For the bread, made the sacrament [sacred sign] of 
 Christ’s body, has relation to the body and the wine to the blood 
 by Divine institution, so that he, that has the bread, certainly and 
 truly has the body, and he that has the wine has the blood; but 
 not absolutely and simply, as they [the body and blood] are now 
 in dimension locally in one spot in Heaven, but in a resemblance, 
 by a certain necessary relation to body and blood, and by a sacra- 
 mental union. [This Dr Saravia is a juggler with words. What 
 body at Leyden educated him? Louvain or Douai would have 
 seemed natural.| The mode of the presence of Christ’s body in 
 Heaven is different from the mode of His presence in the sacrament. 
 
 P. 32. “The only controversy seems to be that which relates 
 to the mode of the presence. 
 
 P. 126 begins a whole sermon, by Edward Fox, Bishop of 
 Hereford. 
 
 Ρ 142. “Dr E. Fox. There is, says he, a dissension rather 
 in relation to the mode of the presence or absence, than in relation 
 to the presence or absence itself. For no one is so obtuse as to 
 assert that Christ’s body is present or absent in all modes. [Very 
 adroit indeed. | 
 
 P.158. After quoting Gregory, “Therefore in my judgment 
 it is wrong in some to deny that Christ’s body and blood can be 
 eaten and drunken by the bodily mouth. 
 
 P. 168. “The following argument would not avail with Paul. 
 
 This food and drink is spiritual : therefore it cannot be eaten and 
 
 520: 
 
 Nam panis, factus corporis Christi sacramentum, relationem habet 
 ad corpus, et vinum ad sanguinem ex institutione Divina, ita ut, qui 
 panem habet, habeat certo et vere corpus et, qui vinum, sanguinem : non 
 autem absolute et simpliciter, δέου ala localiter nune in uno celi loco 
 sunt dimensa, sed in typo, quidam ad corpus et sanguinem necessaria 
 relatione et sacramentali unione. Alius presentize corporis Christi 
 modus in ceelo ; alius in sacramento. 
 
 Peon 
 De presentize modo solo videtur esse controversia. 
 
 ΠῚ 112. 
 
 Dissidium (inquit) magis est de modo prasentiz vel absentiz, quam 
 de ipsa presenti vel absentia. Nemo enim tam obtusus est qui asserat 
 omnibus modis adesse vel abesse Christi corpus. 
 
 P. 158: 
 
 Non recte igitur meo judicio a nonnullis negatur ore corporis corpus 
 
 et sanguinem Christi manducari et bibi. 
 PLS: 
 
 Apud Paulum hee argumentatio non valeret. Hic cibus et potus 
 
 est spiritualis ; ergo non potest ore corporeo edi et bibi, Omnia sacra- 
 
400 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 drunk with the bodily mouth. All sacraments as well of the old 
 as of the new covenant are spiritual things, of which the pious 
 have with faith made good use, and the wicked bad use without 
 faith. [This shews that spiritually often does not mean with faith 
 in a spirit of life, but things with a spiritual meaning, 7.e. for the 
 soul not for the body only. In this sense Christ’s body eaten by 
 a wicked man would be a spiritual eating. | 
 
 P. 172. “A bodily and a spiritual eating are not contrary 
 things. 
 
 P. 174. “A memory is celebrated, but not of an absent 
 Christ, who (on the contrary) is with us until the world’s consum- 
 mation. How, you will say, is that done ?...I can make no answer 
 but that which has been made before this by other pious and 
 learned men; viz. by a Heavenly, a supernatural, a spiritual, and 
 I say it, by that Divine mode, by which the Lord fits us into Him- 
 self as His own members. [This is less straightforward than 
 what he said before, viz. that it is by a bodily though not a natural 
 bodily mode of presence ; see extracts from Bp. Thirlwall. No one 
 with greater boldness than Saravia asserts that our bodies are 
 united and made one with Christ’s body by some bodily mode.] 
 
 P. 168. ‘This difference exists between the good and the 
 bad—the believing and the unbelieving, that the former ate and 
 drank with the bodily mouth and spiritually by faith ; but the 
 latter only with the bodily mouth and without faith. 
 
 P. 166. “Let Christian ears have done with hearing that 
 assertion, ‘A Christian cannot with the bodily mouth spiritually 
 ‘eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood.’ [Not consistent with the 
 triple distinction made before, nor with itself.] 
 
 menta tam veteris quam novi testamenti sunt res spirituales, quibus pil 
 fide bene usi sunt, et impii male sine fide. 
 ΤΣ πῶ, 
 Corporea et spiritualis manducatio non sunt res contrarie. 
 
 Bld 
 
 Celebratur memoria, sed non absentis Christi, Qui nobiscum est 
 usque ad consummationem szculi. Quomodo (inquies) id fit... Nihil 
 habeo quod respondeam quam quod ab aliis piis et doctis viris responsum 
 est prius ; nempe celesti, supernaturali, spirituali, et Divino illo (inquam) 
 modo, quo nos in membra Sua Dominus Sibi coaptat, &e. 
 
 #168; 
 
 Discrimen hoe intercessit inter bonos et malos, fideles et incredulos, 
 quod illi ore corporeo et spiritualiter per fidem ederunt et biberunt, hi 
 vero tantum ore corporeo, et sine fide. 
 
 PNG. 
 
 Facessat igitur a Christianis auribus ‘‘ Ore corporeo carnem Christi 
 
 “edere et sanguinem Hjus bibere spiritualiter Christianus nequit,” 
 
1530] DR ADRIAN SARAVIA. 461 
 
 P. 164. “This is a new theology, that sacraments cannot be 
 received spiritually with the body or with the bodily mouth. [It 
 is as if the writer were designing to produce confusion. | 
 
 P. 46. “The outward signs of Christ [point] to crucified flesh 
 and to blood shed and dropping from Christ’s wounds, &e. The 
 sacrament of the eucharist has neither likeness nor signification, 
 nor any shewing forth of Christ’s glorious body...That happy state 
 [of Christ’s body in Heaven] has nothing in common with the 
 symbols of Christ’s crucified body. [This verges upon Dr Vogan’s 
 ideas. | 
 
 P. 40. “It refers not to flesh simply, such as it is in glory, 
 but such as it was on the altar of the cross; in like manner the 
 wine also refers to blood, not that which now is in the Lord’s 
 glorified body, but that which was flowing from the wounds of the 
 Lord’s body. Otherwise how would that be true, ‘As often as we 
 ‘eat this bread and drink this cup we declare the Lord’s death till 
 ‘He come’? 
 
 P. 26. “There is a disputation regarding the true and real 
 presence of the Lord’s body and blood in this sacrament, viz. that 
 it cannot be supplied in many places at the same time, because 
 this is contrary to the mode and nature of a true body, which is 
 locally circumscribed in its own dimensions, and that if you take 
 them away from it, you at the same time take away the bodily 
 
 P, 164. 
 
 Nova theologia hee est, sacramenta non posse spiritualiter recipi 
 corpore vel corporeo ore. 
 
 P. 46. 
 
 Externa Christi symbola ad carnem crucifixam et ad sanguinem 
 fusum et manantem e Christi vulneribus, &c. Sacramentum eucharistiz 
 nec imaginem nec significationem nec ullam exhibitionem habet corporis 
 Christi gloriosi... Conditio illa beata nihil habet commune cum symbolis 
 crucifixi corporis Christi, We. 
 
 P. 40. 
 
 Non referri ad carnem simpliciter qualis est in gloria sed qualis fuit 
 in ara crucis, similiter et vinum referri ad sanguinem, non eum qui nune 
 est in glorificato Domini corpore sed fluentem e vulneribus corporis 
 Domini. Alias, quomodo verum esset, ‘ Quoties manducamus hune 
 “panem et poculum bibimus nos annunciare mortem Domini donee 
 “ veniat ” ? 
 
 ἘΠ 20. 
 
 Disputatur de vera et reali corporis et sanguinis Domini in hoe 
 sacramento preesentia—illam pluribus in locis simul non posse exhiberi, 
 quia hoe sit contra veri corporis modum et naturam, quod localiter suis 
 dimensionibus est circumscriptum, cui si ilas adimis, naturam corporis 
 
402 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 nature, But this answer is made...That He, Who is God and 
 created all things out of nothing, can place Himself in presence in 
 His own body in many places, wherever He will, by a supernatural 
 and Divine mode. It is indeed determined that by the order of 
 nature that cannot be, but by Divine power that overcomes all the 
 order of nature. Divine mysteries are not to be examined by 
 natural reasonings, &c. (Christ appeared after His ascension to 
 Paul, and God appeared of old, &c. &c.). In these thoughts about 
 Christ’s presence in many places I see nothing impious.” [What 
 did Saravia in the Church of England 17] 
 
 simul adimis. Sed respondetur... Illum, Qui Deus est et omnia creavit 
 ex nihilo, presentem Suo corpore pluribus in locis—ubicunque volet 
 modo supernaturali ac Divino Se sistere posse. [The word “non” in the 
 text is an error.] Ordine quidem nature id non fieri certum est, sed 
 potentia Divina, que superat omnem nature ordinem. Mysteria Divina 
 non sunt physicis rationibus examinanda, &c. Then the appearance of 
 Christ on earth to Paul and those of God in the Old Testament are 
 reasoned from, and it is concluded: In his cogitationibus de prasentid 
 corporis Christi in pluribus locis ... nullam impietatem video, το. 
 
 (RR.) DR JOHN RAINOLDS, PRESIDENT OF C.C.C., OXFORD. 
 One of the translators of the Bible. B. 1549. Ὁ. 1607. 
 
 He like Bishop Jewel and Richard Hooker was a native of 
 the fair county of Devon, and went to Corpus Christi at Oxford, 
 of which he became the twin light with William Whitaker, of 
 Cambridge. At C. C. C., where Jewel drew honour from lecturing 
 in Rhetoric, and Hooker from lecturing in Logic, Rainolds com- 
 pleted the triad by lecturing in Greek on the Rhetoric of Aristotle. 
 But a more singular occurrence awaited him, which Fuller com- 
 pares to the mutual slaughter of Eteocles and Polynices in the 
 play of Auschylus. Rainolds was himself by conviction a Roman- 
 ist, but he had a brother William, who was equally convinced 
 upon the great Protestant truths. So, as Fuller says, the two 
 brothers contended in argument, each to overpower the other, 
 and strangely both succeeded; as William the Protestant came 
 out of the struggle a thorough adherent of Popery, and John 
 shewed by all his subsequent life that no more thorough or 
 intelligent believer in the truths of genuine Protestantism apart 
 from mere partizanship is to be found. Fuller is somewhat prodigal 
 
1549] DR JOHN RAINOLDS. 463 
 
 of his wit on the singular circumstance, but for once produced 12 
 lines of good verse in Latin by W. A., ending thus: 
 
 victus gaudet uterque 
 Et simul alteruter se superasse dolet. 
 
 Chosen to be respondent to the doctors in July and November of 
 1589, he chose the subjects of the two triplet theses; for the 1st, 
 The authority of Scripture is above that of the church; for the 
 second, Separation from Rome is lawful in the cases of the 
 Reformed churches. Soon came on his conference with the Jesuit 
 Hart, who challenged the university respecting Holy Scripture 
 and faith; and to fulfil Horace’s “nunc in reluctantes dracones ” 
 he next assailed Bellarmine’s lectures at Rome, answering them 
 point by point as they reached him in packets sent to the English 
 court, 1.6. as soon as was possible after the delivery of each. 
 Queen Elizabeth, who made the Cambridge luminary, Whitaker, 
 Master of St John’s, promoted Rainolds to be Dean of Lincoln. 
 But he returned to Oxford to be near Robinson, the Bishop of 
 Carlisle. He resided at Queen’s, where the current belief was, that 
 on whatever subject you wanted special information you might 
 draw it out of John Rainolds as from an ever-flowing well. He 
 was made one of the board appointed by James I. at the instance 
 of the leading Puritans, as it was called to translate, but in reality 
 to revise, the Bible; and as Rainolds’ strength decayed, they met 
 at his lodgings; so that he may be said to have died with his 
 hand on the plough at this holy work, as Bede did in his measure 
 and in his day. Isaac Wake, the public orator, pronounced the 
 eulogy over him in a great public funeral. 
 
 Summe of the Conference between John Rainolds and John Hart. 
 London, 1609, 
 
 P. 417. “He (St Dionysius) hath more things than either the 
 church of the apostles had, or ours doth allow; yet neither all 
 that ye have, and many that ye have not, and some clean contrary 
 to yours: as viz. in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, wherein 
 you vary from us most, he neither hath your stage-like gestures 
 and toys, nor invocations of saints, nor adoration of creatures, nor 
 sacrificing of Christ to God, nor praying for the souls in purgatory, 
 nor sole receiving of the priests, nor ministering under one kind to 
 them that receive, nor exhortations, lessons, prayers in a tongue 
 that the people doth not understand. So that in things of sub- 
 stance and not of ceremony he differeth as far from your blas- 
 
464 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 phemous mass, as he is near our communion. But the things 
 which he saith, you say that he affirmeth that he learned them 
 of the apostles. He doth so, I grant: as it was fit for him to 
 do, who would be counted the Denys that was converted by > 
 St Paul, &c. 
 
 P. 467. “The name of ‘priest’ as it hath relation to sacrifice 
 is ‘sacerdos,’ which word your Trent fathers do use in handling the 
 sacrifice of the mass. Now because the name of ‘sacerdos’ is not 
 given to the ministers of the Gospel in the New Testament, your 
 Rhemists make the name that is given them the same with ‘sacer- 
 ‘dos,’ to the intent that the simple, not seeing the slight (the 
 device), may conceive thereby that the ministers of the gospel are 
 priests ordained to sacrifice, and so may loath (loathe) our minis- 
 ters, which neither do sacrifice nor list to be called priests, and 
 may embrace your priests, who profess themselves to be priests, 
 yea mass-priests, and are sent to sacrifice. 
 
 P. 466. “As for your Rhemists, who still translate ‘sacerdos’ 
 a priest, as granting that we have no other English word for it, 
 -and yet translate presbyter by the same word too, they do join 
 together that which God hath severed; and the words which the 
 Holy Ghost doth distinguish they willingly confound. 
 
 P. 493. After a long parallel between Popish ceremonies and 
 Jewish rites, 
 
 “1 doubt not, Mr Hart, that you are persuaded that this kind 
 of service in your church is Christian...But in very truth it is 
 more than Jewish...For although it might be delightful to the 
 flesh—the eyes with galant sights—the ears with pleasant 
 sounds—the nose with fragrant savours—the mind with show 
 of Godliness to him that doth not understand—yet a spiritual 
 man would be grieved at it, as Paul was at Athens, and lament 
 that the people should doat upon that by which they are not 
 edified, and weep over them, as Christ.over Jerusalem. ‘O if 
 thou hadst known, ὅθ. hidden from thine eyes” The Lord take 
 away this vaile from your heart, if it be His good pleasure, that 
 you may see at length what it is to worship Him in spirit and 
 truth ; and may you see it and do it. [Galant is from “ gala.”] 
 
 [The following is needed in this question because the church 
 is by many pleaded as a sufficient authority, apart from the N. 1] 
 The Sia Theses. 
 
 P.17. “For when, stirred up by the desire of purging the 
 Protestant church from errors and superstitions, they asked from 
 
 Sex Theses de sacra Sc. et Hecl. London, 1602. P.17,§ 8. 
 
 Nam quum Protestantes ecclesie ab erroribus et superstitionibus 
 purgandi studio percite a Tridentinad synodo peterent ut ex sacre 
 
1549] DR JOHN RAINOLDS. 465 
 
 the Tridentine Synod that controversies should be decided by 
 
 the judgment of holy Scripture, which the synod of Basle τι] 
 granted to the Bohemians and the catholic doctors had recognized 
 as necessary to be granted before the synod of Basle was held— 
 the fathers of Trent, having become more sagacious, were unwilling 
 to give so great deference to Scripture alone, but coupled the 
 traditions and decrees of man with the word of God, in the same 
 way altogether as the fathers of the Jews used to urge ‘the tra- 
 ‘ditions of the elders’ and ‘that it was said by them of old time’ 
 on behalf of their own superstitions and errors, affirming also at 
 least that God gave to Moses in the mount Sinai, the Scriptures 
 and the Talmud, or a double law, one written and one not written ; 
 as Papists say the apostles received from Christ not only what has 
 been consigned to sacred books, but also the rest of the dogmas, 
 mysteries and sacraments of the Roman church, and as they divide 
 the word of God into Scripture and traditions, or make the one 
 God’s word not written and the other His word written. And in 
 this thing, although all Christian authors have not well observed the 
 fraud of Satan, they have yet exploded the affirmations of the old 
 heretics, who used to pretend that Christ had revealed some 
 things to His apostles in secret to be communicated to the worthy 
 and perfect, and zealously laboured to defend their own comments 
 that were very little supported by Scripture, by such, as it were, 
 apostolic tradition. But who knows whether the Trent Synod 
 would so have expressed her decree regarding the Scriptures and 
 traditions, unless Andradius had made the meaning of the Synod 
 
 Scripturee judicio deciderentur controversize, quod Bohemis annuerat 
 Basileensis synodus (see note, Sess. 4) et ante synodum Basileensem ca- 
 tholici doctores annuendum agnoverant—prudentiores facti patres Tri- 
 dentini Scripture soli tantum deferre noluerunt; sed cum verbo Dei 
 traditiones et decreta humana copularunt eodem prorsus modo quo 
 patres Judaici “ traditiones seniorum” et ‘dictum esse antiquis” pro 
 superstitionibus erroribusque suis urgebant: etiam Deum tandem affir- 
 mantes Mosi dedisse in monte Sinai Scripturas atque Talmud, sive 
 geminam legem alteram scriptam alteram non Scriptam: ut Papiste 
 apéstolos a Christo aiunt accepisse non svlum que sacris literis con- 
 signata sunt, sed etiam reliqua dogmata, mysteria, sacramenta, Romanee 
 ecclesiz 3 ac verbum Dei in Seripturam traditionesque partiuntur, seu 
 aliud Dei verbum non scriptum, aliud scriptum faciunt. Qua in re 
 tametsi autores Christiani non ita fraudem Satana observarunt cuncti : 
 exploserunt tamen veteres hereticos, qui fingebant Christum apostolis 
 secreto quedam revelisse communicanda dignis perfectisque, et com- 
 menta sua Scripturis minime nixa tueri, quasi traditione apostolica, 
 studebant. Quis autem scit an ideo Tridentina synodus decretum de 
 Scripturis et traditionibus sic expresserit, ut videri possit, sicuti Kem- 
 nicius notavit (Exam. Concil. Trid.) hoc solum velle, unam et eandem 
 esse doctrinam evangelii, quam apostolica primum voce tradiderunt, et 
 
 ἘΠ ΠῚ 90 
 
400 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 clear, so that it may seem as is noted by Kemnitius, that the 
 Synod’s only wish was, that the doctrine of the Gospel was one and 
 the same, as delivered at first by their mouth and as afterwards 
 embraced in the books of the N. T. and that the meaning of the 
 Synod was that not all things that are to be wrought into life and 
 manners, 7.e. that are required for our souls’ salvation, are contained 
 in the Scriptures? [The Synod of Basle has these words,] ‘The 
 law of God, the apostolic practice of Christ and of the primitive 
 church, together with the councils and doctors truly founding 
 themselves on the same.’ [See Rainolds himself on this.] 
 
 P. 155. “Now—a point of which my speech may very heavily 
 complain—the way in which they have violated our mystic rites of 
 life the sacraments, which were instituted by Christ to be seals of 
 erace, and (as was acutely said by Pius V. from the fathers) 
 trickled down from Christ’s side, most few in number, most easy 
 to perform, most august to the understanding, most holy to ob- 
 serve, most excellent in meaning, by adding to them several more, 
 and how they have polluted them with a torrent of ceremonies, 
 and in appearance augmented them in efficacy, but in reality 
 diminished them in real power, depraved them by men’s fictions 
 and robbed them of their fruit, while they celebrate them in a 
 barbarous speech often not understood even by their own priests. 
 And to pass over how greatly they have dashed baptism to the 
 ground by these defects and inconveniences, though yet the pity 
 of God has preserved its vital force and as it were its soul entire ; 
 they have polluted the Lord’s holy supper with so many and so 
 profane filthinesses of errors and abuses, that hardly any vestige 
 
 postea libris complexi sunt, nisi patefecisset Andradius (Orth. Explic. 
 lib. 2) Synodi sensum, non omnia informanda fidei et moribus, i.e. 
 animorum saluti necessaria, Scripturis contineri, [I cite this part of the 
 synod of Basle, because its meaning does not seem beyond dispute] ‘ Lex 
 Divina, praxis Christi apostolica, et ecclesiz primitive, una cum con- 
 ciliis doctoribusque fundantibus se veraciter in eadem.” 
 
 P. 155, § 35. 
 
 Jam, que satis graviter conqueratur oratio, quo pacto mysticos vite 
 ritus sacramenta, ad obsignandam gratiam a Christo instituta, et (ut 
 Pius V. argute post patres dicit) ex latere Christi manantia, numero 
 paucissima, factu facillima, intellectu augustissima, observatione castis- 
 sima, significatione prastantissima, violarint adjectione plurium, pollue- 
 rint ceremoniarum profluvio, efficacitate auxerint in speciem, re ipsa 
 minuerint, commentis hominum depravarint et spoliarint fructu, dum 
 sermone barbaro nec sacerdotibus suis nonnunquam intellecto celebrant. 
 Quibus noxis incommodisque (ut omittam quantopere afilixerint bap- 
 tismum, cujus tamen vitalem vim et velut animam Divina misericordia 
 integram conservant) sanctam cenam Domini tot ac tam profanis 
 errorum abusuumque spurcitiis inquinarunt, ut nullum propemodum 
 
1549] DR JOHN RAINOLDS. 4.67 
 
 of Christ’s institution can be seen init. For out of a sacrament 
 they have made a sacrifice, not for giving thanks (and of eucharist 
 as they name it) but to work propitiation, and not this as shadow- 
 ing Christ, but truly propitiatory in its own right, a sacrifice 
 which that little priest may offer, as a new kind of priest after the 
 order of Melchizedek, for the punishments, sins and satisfactions 
 of the dead also and not of the living only; yea and for a man’s pig, 
 
 for his cock, or for anything, which | they may commend to God in 
 prayers. That one only sacrifice, by the immolation of which once 
 for all we were redeemed and sanctified for ever, they immolate a 
 thousand times and make Christ’s death utterly void. They take 
 away by their real presence the human truth of Christ’s nature. 
 They take away by transubstantiation the substance of the sacra- 
 ment as the sign of a sacred thing. They take away by private 
 masses the use of participation among the pious, excellent as it is 
 and sanctioned by express precept. They take away our Saviour’s 
 institute, the singular consolation of the elect, the most sweet 
 testimony of salvation, by the communion under one kind, They 
 take away in a great degree the honour of the Son sitting at the 
 right hand of the Father to intercede for us, as it is in remem- 
 brance of Him that this mystery has been ordered to be celebrated, 
 while they celebrate the same on account of the memory and 
 honour of the saints, that they may enjoy the patronage and 
 intercession of these saints themselves in Heaven. Finally they 
 take away I had almost said all religion. Certainly they pollute 
 it by a very profane and sacrilegious pomp, while in processions 
 
 institutionis Christi vestigium in ea cerni queat. Nam ex sacramento 
 fecerunt sacrificium, non gratiarum actionis (et eucharistiz, uti nomi- 
 nant), sed propitiatorium, nee propitiatorium quasi Christum adumbrans, 
 sed vere proprieque propitiatorium, quod offerat sacrificulus, tanquam 
 novus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedec, pro mortuorum etiam 
 non solum pro vivorum penis peccatis satisfactionibus, immo et pro 
 hominis porco, pro gallina, pro qualibet re, quam precibus commendare 
 liceat. Unicam illam Hostiam, qua semel immolata redempti et sanc- 
 tificati sumus in perpetuum immolant rursum millies et exinaniunt 
 mortem Christi. Tollunt humanam nature Christi veritatem reali 
 presentid. Tollunt sacramenti utpote “signi rei sacre” substantiam 
 transubstantiatione. Tollunt excellentem et preecepto sancitum parti- 
 cipationis usum inter pios missis privatis. Tollunt institutum Serva- 
 toris nostri, tollunt electorum solatium singulare, tollunt dulcissimum 
 salutis testimonium communione sub una specie. Tollunt magné ex 
 parte honorem Filii sedentis ad dextram Patris, ut interpellet pro nobis, 
 in cujus memoriam celebrari jussum est hoc mysterium, dum in sanc- 
 torum quoque memoriam et honorem propterea idem celebrant, ut ip- 
 sorum patrocinio et intercessione in ccelis potiantur. Denique religio- 
 nem omnem prope dixerim tollunt. Certe mquinant admodum profané 
 et sacrilegé pompa, dum in processionibus panem Domini bajulant, ut 
 209 
 
 OU—a4 
 
408 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 they carry the bread with their shoulders, to be adored as if it 
 were God; even before the Roman Pontiff on horseback with 
 lanterns (whether or no this be to give occasion for thinking that 
 Judas Iscariot is in the train behind) in just the way in which in 
 Persia they are wont to carry about the sacred fire before their 
 new king. Nor indeed shall we discover in this a lighter amount 
 of impiety towards God or of iniquity towards men, if we observe 
 what gods and goddesses and what things and for what objects 
 they customarily invoke them. For in the place of God, to Whom 
 alone the sacrifice of invocation and of giving thanks and of praise 
 is due, they implore sainted men and sainted women for the 
 obtaining of grace or glory; for instance, what we are Divinely 
 taught to seek from the Father of lights and compassions, they ask 
 to be given them by the virgin, whom they have also decorated 
 with Divine titles ; 
 
 Mary, mother of grace, 
 
 Mother of compassion, 
 
 Protect us from the enemy, 
 
 And take us up at the hour of death. 
 
 From that most modest virgin, who, were she present and heard 
 that such honour was paid to her, would doubtless be greatly 
 pained as Paul and Barnabas. grieved, &c. Saluting in the same 
 way the ointment and Mary, ‘Hail holy ointment;’ that is, as 
 their own explanation is, entreating joy and peace from it: ask- 
 ing in fine from the wooden image of the cross as from their 
 
 adoretur tanquam Deus: etiam ante Romanum pontificem in equo cum 
 laternis (an ut Judam Iscariotem subsequi occasio detur cogitandi 1) 
 similiter ac in Perside pagani sacrum ignem ante regem suum circum- 
 gestare solebant. Neque vero in precibus leviorem eorum aut impieta- 
 tem erga Deum aut iniquitatem erga homines deprehendemus si observa- 
 verimus quos et quas et que et pro quibus quemadmodum invocare soleant. 
 Etenim loco Dei, Cui soli sacrificium invocationis et gratiarum actionis 
 sive laudis debetur, sanctos et sanctas pro gratid gloriéve obtinenda 
 implorant ; ut exempli causa, quod a Patre luminum et miserationum 
 Divinitus petere docemur, a virgine, Dei quoque titulis decorata, con- 
 cedi sibi postulant ; 
 
 Maria, mater gratiz, 
 
 Mater misericordiz, 
 
 Tu nos ab hoste protege, 
 
 Et hora mortis suscipe. 
 
 A modestissima virgine, qui, si adesset audiretque honorem sibi talem 
 haberi, sine dubio permoleste ferret, haud secus Paulus et Barnabas do- 
 luerunt, &c. ἄρ. Salutantes similiter unguentum et Mariam “Ave 
 sanctum chrisma:” hoc est ut ipsorum explicatio infert, gaudium ac 
 pacem ab eo exposcentes: rogantes demum a ligned crucis imagine, 
 
1549] DR JOHN RAINOLDS. 469 
 
 own only hope not only grace but an augmentation of it. ‘Aug- 
 ment grace to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty. [Then 
 follows much more on forgiveness of sins, prayers for the dead, 
 vain repetitions. One would almost think that the ghost of 
 John Rainolds, uttering this one passage, might scare away 
 Roman ritualism from his own Oxford and then go on to Cam- 
 bridge and in the same way effect the same services. | 
 
 P. 349. “Augustin is wickedly brought in by Bellarmine 
 as saying or hinting that the impious are of the flesh of Christ, of 
 His body, of the church, which he openly denies. 
 
 P. 258. “And Augustin does not say that all the baptized 
 are made members of Christ’s body in any other case than if they 
 are holy and have received the remission of sins. Besides he 
 affirms that wicked men, although they have obtained both sacra- 
 ments, as well baptism as the Lord’s supper, I speak of the sacra- 
 ment and not the thing in the sacrament, are like bad humours in 
 the body, and not as members of it: so that he eloquently denies 
 that those are to be counted in the body of Christ, who are con- 
 trary either to Christ or to a member of Christ, or are without 
 charity. And that again in 1 Cor. xii. 26. Wherefore Stapleton 
 is condemned by his own authors themselves. 
 
 P. 361. “Papists, who by the dogma of transubstantiation 
 make Christ bodily present with every one little priest, layman 
 and laywoman, affirm ‘that as a man He has ascended into 
 ‘Heaven with His body and soul. And surely, if he were conver- 
 
 tanquam unica sua spe, non modo gratiam, sed gratiz incrementum, 
 “ Auge pis justitiam, Reisque dona veniam,” 
 ΤῸ 349. 
 
 Augustinus a Bellarmino nequiter introducitur aiens innuensve 
 impios de carne Christi, de corpore, de ecclesia esse ; quod aperte negat. 
 P, 258. 
 
 Neque aliter membra factos esse corporis Christi cunctos baptizatos 
 ait Augustinus, quam si sancti sint et gratiam remissionis peccatorum 
 acceperint. Preterea homines improbos, quamvis sacramentum utrum- 
 que cum baptismi tum eucharistiz adeptos, sacramentum dico non rem 
 sacramenti, affirmat esse “‘tanquam humores malos in corpore” (1 Ep. 
 Johan. tract. 3) ac non tanquam membra: usque adeo ut diserte neget 
 “in membra Christi computandos, qui vel Christo vel Christi membro 
 “‘sint contrarii, aut caritate vacent.” Idque rursum ex Paulo, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 26. Quamobrem a suis ipsis autoribus damnatur Stapletonus. 
 [Further passages from Augustin. | 
 
 Braet 
 
 Papiste, qui per dogma transubstantiationis Christum unicuique sacri- 
 ficulo, laico, laicse, preesentem corporaliter faciunt, affirmant “ Kum” (Cat. 
 Trid. in expos. Symb. Apost.) “ut homo est, in ceelum corpore et 
 
470 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘sant with us on earth, all our thought would be fixed in His 
 ‘human aspect and manner of life; and we should be looking at 
 ‘Him, namely as man, for bestowing on us so great benefits, and 
 ‘we should be going after Him with a kind of earthly benevolence : 
 ‘but ascending up to Heaven He has rendered our love spiritual, 
 ‘and has made us venerate and love as God Him whom we now 
 ‘think of as absent.’ This confession is catholic [It is from the 
 Trent Catechism on the Apostles Creed] and it wholly destroys the 
 heresy of the Metusiasts (Lat. transubstantiationists). But in the 
 meantime by the judgment of Papists ‘Christ’s true body, that 
 ‘same which was born of the virgin Mary, sits in Heaven at God’s 
 ‘right hand, [1.6. Christ the man,] is contained on earth in the 
 ‘sacrament of the eucharist. So mad and manly is the thrust of 
 the most catholic dart, by which Bellarmine establishes that Hon- 
 orius’ letters [as placed] wholly destroy the monothelite heresy.” 
 
 ‘“‘anima ascendisse. De profecto, si versaretur in terris, omnis nostra 
 “cogitatio in ipso Hominis aspectu et consuetudine defixa esset, et 
 ‘illum, duntaxat Hominem, spectaremus, qui nos tantis beneficiis afii- 
 “‘ceret Eumque terrend quidam benevolentid prosequeremur: verum in 
 *cecelum ascendens amorem nostrum spiritualem reddidit, effecitque, 
 “ut, quem nunc absentem cogitamus, Eum veneremur et diligamus ut 
 ** Deum.” Hee confessio catholica est, et penitus destruit Metusiastarum 
 heresim: At Papistarum interim judicio “verum Christi corpus, illud 
 “idem, quod natum ex Maria virgine, in celis ad dexteram Patris 
 “sedet,” hoc est Christus homo “sacramento eucharistiz in terris conti- 
 ““netur.” Adeo amentato et mascule contorto catholicissimo telo con- 
 firmat Bellarminus, monotheletarum heresin epistolis Honorii prorsus 
 destrui. [Is not Rainolds great throughout, but here conclusive 1] 
 
 (SS.) BISHOP LANCELOT ANDREWES OF WINCHESTER. 
 B. 1555. D. 1626. 
 
 Of his many works a large portion appears in the Library of 
 Anglo-Catholic theology. His learning is indisputable. He was of 
 London, and of Pembroke, Cambridge. He passed through various 
 preferments, Cripplegate, Westminster, and Chichester, to his 
 highest place, which he held with the Chapel Royal till his death. 
 The amount of extract here made is a tribute to his high attain- 
 ments: but does the Book of Common Prayer include his very 
 pronounced doctrine? He was born in the year which saw Ridley 
 and Latimer “ suffer.” 
 
 Ninety-six sermons. Sn. v1. Of the Holy Ghost. 
 London, 1641. 
 P. 660. “This then is the seal. I add further that it may 
 be rightly called, The seal of our redemption, as [that] whereby the 
 
1555] BISHOP LANCELOT ANDREWES. 471 
 
 means of our redemption is applied to us. The body and blood ; 
 the one broken, the other shed of Him Whom God sealed to that 
 end, even to redeem us. 
 
 Sn. Xu. p. 738—9. “On blood and wine both. 
 
 Resn. Sn. ΧΥ͂ΠΙ. p. 589. “His blood, &c., &c., ran not waste: but 
 divided into two streams, I. into the laver of the new birth (our 
 baptism), applied to us outwardly to take away the spots of our 
 sin. I. The other into the cup of the New Testament in His 
 blood, which (inwardly administered) serveth us to purge and 
 cleanse the conscience from dead works, that so live works may 
 grow up in their place, so to endue us with the Spirit that shall 
 enable us with power to bring them forth. ‘These are the twin 
 ‘(gemina) sacraments’ of the church. These are (not two of the 
 sacraments, but) the two twin sacraments of the church, saith St 
 Augustin, ‘and with us there are two rules (1) ‘Quicquid sacrificio 
 ‘offertur sacramento confertur, What the sacrifice offereth, that 
 the sacrament obtaineth. (2) The other, ‘Quicquid testamento 
 ‘legatur sacramento dispensatur.’ What the testament bequeatheth, 
 that is dispensed in the holy mysteries. To draw to an end—if 
 such power be in the Spirit, and the blood be the vehiculum of the 
 Spirit, how may we partake of this blood? It shall be offered you 
 straight in ‘the cup of blessing, which we bless’ in His name: for 
 ‘Is not the cup of blessing which we bless the communion of the 
 ‘blood of Christ?’ (saith St Paul). Is there any doubt of that ? 
 In which blood of Christ is the Spirit of Christ. In which Spirit 
 is all spiritual power, that frameth us fit to the works of the Spirit, 
 which Spirit we are all made to drink of. 
 
 Ash-Wednesday. Sermon v. p. 218. “We are to offer our 
 bodies as well as our souls, both a sacrifice to God. As our soul 
 by devotion, so our body by mortification. And these three to offer 
 to God; our soul by prayer, our body by abstinence, our goods by 
 almsdeeds, have ever been counted tergemina hostia, the triple or 
 threefold Christian holocaust or whole burnt-offering. 
 
 Resn. Sn. vir. =p. 451. On Peace offerings. “ Part God had, 
 and part the offerer ate in token of perfect reconciliation between 
 them. Christ’s blood, not only in the bason for baptism, but in 
 the cup for the other sacrament. A sacrifice; so to be slain: and 
 propitiatory sacrifice ; so to be eaten. 
 
 P. 452. “The flesh, our peace-offering, must be eaten in this 
 feast by us: else we evacuate the offering entirely and lose the 
 fruit of it. Was there ever a passover heard of and the lamb not 
 eaten ? 
 
 P. 454. “By the incomprehensible act of His eternal Spirit 
 
 not He alone, but He at the very act of His offering is made 
 present to us, and we incorporate into His death and invested into 
 
472. THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the benefits of it. If an host could be turned into Him, more 
 glorified as He is, it would not serve. Christ offered is it. Thither 
 we must look. To the Spirit lift up. Thither we must repair, 
 even ad cadaver [1.6. to the corpse.| We must hoc facere. Do it. 
 It is then done. So and no otherwise is this epulari [to keep the 
 feast] to be conceived. [On leaven see p. 455, 6.] 
 
 Sn. vi. Nativity, p. 52. On the word and “sacrament.” 
 “He that eats My flesh abides in Me and I in him. If it be 
 grace and truth we respect, how may we both establish our hearts 
 with grace, or settle our minds in the truth of His promise than 
 by partaking these, the condwit-pipes of His grace, and seals of His 
 truth unto us. Grace and truth now proceeding not from the 
 word alone but even from the flesh thereto united, the fountain of the 
 Word flowing into the cistern of His flesh, and from thence deriving 
 down to us this grace and truth to them that partake Him aright 
 ... for judge with yourselves how inconvenient it is to keep a feast 
 in honour of His taking flesh and even that day abandon His 
 flesh and never once take it... Accordingly then as well by the 
 act to testify and represent the Word’s taking flesh as to procure - 
 He may dwell in us, and, dwelling, replenish us with His grace 
 and blood.... A table of the principal contents, The eucharist 
 the conduit-pipe of grace and seal of truth. 
 
 P. 42. “God hath offered Him to us this day that He was 
 born for us. So we reciprocally this day that He is born offer 
 Him again to God... And when the time cometh of His death, 
 offer Him as on the cross slain for our evening sacrifice. 
 
 P. 128. “That the great mystery of godliness, which is God 
 manifested in the flesh, might not be celebrated without the 
 mystery of His flesh: that the day He came among us to be 
 partaker of flesh and blood we also might be partakers of the flesh 
 and blood which He took from us to give them to us again. 
 
 P. 572. “Out ran blood and water both, ἄς. Out of these 
 pressures ran the blood of the grapes of the true vine; the fruit 
 whereof (Judges ix.) cheereth God and man: God, as a libamen or 
 drink-offering to Him. Man, as the cup of salvation to them.” 
 
 Andrewes stands almost alone. Perhaps Mede and he come 
 nearest. Without exhibiting any tenderness toward the Church 
 of Rome he magnifies the sacrament of the Lord’s supper as the 
 means of grace, the pipe and conduit through which grace flows. 
 It seems to us astonishing that one of so thoughtful a mind did 
 not ask the simple question, Why is it so passed over in the 
 epistles—there being no indubitable and I believe not one real 
 reference to it outside the first Epistle to the Corinthians ? I think 
 
1555] BISHOP LANCELOT ANDREWES. 473 
 
 the same may be argued out regarding the Acts, as I think the 
 arguments against our interpreting “breaking bread” of the Lord’s 
 supper unanswerable. How is it that this history and these 
 letters and the Apocalypse were so written, if any approximating 
 to Andrewes’ view of the Lord’s supper as the conduit of grace is 
 true? This argument is strengthened by a review of the first 
 three centuries. How gradual the rising of man’s superstitious 
 Judaizing tendency! Compare the growth attained in the first 
 three centuries with the gourd-like development in the great fourth 
 century. Cyprian is the only one of the first three centuries, 
 whose sacramental doctrines are at all on a level with those of the 
 fourth. But if Andrewes be right it ought to appear and shine 
 
 out in them all, and most in those that are nearest to the 
 
 i "Ὁ 
 
 apostles. What a contrast between this author and the preceding! 
 
 (11) THE REV. HENRY SMITH, READER OF ST CLEMENT DANES. 
 Β: L560), Ὁ. 1591. 
 
 “Silver-tongued Smith,” of Lincoln College, Oxford: admired 
 and promoted by the great Lord Burleigh. 
 
 Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Vol. I. Edinburgh, 1866. 
 
 P. 43. “Christ hath not instituted this sacrament for a fashion 
 in His church ; to touch and feel and see, as we gaze on pictures in 
 the windows; but, as the woman, which had the bloody issue, 
 touching the hem of Christ’s garment, drew virtue from Christ 
 Himself, because she believed, Matt. ix. 22, so Christ would that 
 we, touching these signs, should draw virtue from Himself: 1.6. all 
 the graces which these signs represent. 
 
 P. 46. “Here is the fruit of His thanks before. He prayed 
 that the bread and wine might be blessed, and they were blessed. 
 As Isaac’s blessing shewed itself upon Jacob whom he blessed, 
 Gen. xXxvli., so Christ’s blessing appeared straight upon these 
 mysteries: for it could not be said before ‘This is My body,’ 
 because it was mere bread; but now it may be called His body 
 
 _ because His blessing hath infused that virtue into it that it doth 
 
 not only represent His bedy, but convey His body and Himself into 
 us. [N.B. This is a notable instance of the danger of going one 
 step beyond the two metaphorical meanings, which Holy Writ 
 teaches, viz. (1) the slaying of Christ for us and (2) our feeding on 
 Christ in the way of grace from Him. For could a Papist op- 
 ponent desire much beyond the admission that the bread and 
 
474. THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. AD 
 
 wine, because they are blessed, convey Christ’s body unto us? 
 But now see p. 49.] If Christ’s very body were offered in the 
 sacrament, then it were not a sacrament but a sacrifice ; which two 
 differ as much as giving and taking: for in a sacrifice we give and 
 in a sacrament we receive. [N.B. Thus the peace-offerings were 
 (1) sacrifices in being slain as given to God, and afterwards sacra- 
 ments, as received and fed upon by the people. An important 
 distinction, I think.] 
 
 “Every sacrifice was offered upon the altar. Now mark the 
 wisdom of the Holy Ghost. Lest we should take this for a sacri- 
 fice, He never names altar when He speaks of it, but ‘the table of 
 ‘the Lord,’ 
 
 “If the bread were Christ’s flesh and the wine His blood... 
 Christ’s flesh should be separate from His blood. But His body 
 is not divided; for then it were a dead body. 
 
 Paul saith ‘They which receive unworthily receive to their 
 ‘own damnation’ [judgment, κρίμα]. But, if it were the flesh of 
 Christ, they should rather receive salvation than damnation [judg- 
 ment] because Christ saith ‘He that eateth My flesh and drinketh 
 ‘My blood hath life everlasting’ John vi. 54. [N.B. A most 
 cogent argument against the presence of Christ’s body “in with or 
 “under the form, &c.”] [One instance in Sophocles is κρῖμα.] 
 
 “The Scripture on the one side and the fathers on the other 
 side did so trouble three arch-papists, Biel, Tonstall and Fisher, 
 that Gabriel Biel saith, How the body of Christ is in the sacrament 
 is not found in the canon of the Bible (Lect. x1.). Tonstall saith, 
 It had been better to leave every man to his own conjecture as 
 they were before the council of the Lateran. [P. 46.] Fisher saith, 
 No man can prove by the words of the Gospel that any priest in 
 these days doth consecrate the very body and blood of Christ. 
 [Against Cap. in Bab. of Luther. 
 
 “The Jews said ‘Shew us a miracle.’... A miracle may be 
 seen: but here no miracle is seen. 
 
 . P.55. “A body cannot eat spiritually. No more than the 
 soul can eat corporally.” 
 
 (UU.) JOHN FOX, PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY. Maged. Coll., Oxon. 
 Bo Li D1 5810. 
 
 He is the glory of Boston with its tall straight tower : and his 
 work has been as noted and as high a seamark to succeeding 
 generations. From Brazenose he passed to a fellowship at the 
 towered Magdalene, which so well announces to the visitant from 
 
1517] JOHN FOX, AT5 
 
 the metropolis that he is entering no mean city. It is interesting 
 to hear that he was tutor to the children of the liberal Karl of 
 Surrey, to whom Scott has raised so affecting a memorial in Fitz- 
 raver’s song in his first great poem. He too suffered for his opinions 
 and in exile corrected the press in Basle. He returned with the 
 new dawn of Elizabeth’s reign and became Prebendary of Salis- 
 bury: nor was it through neglect of his friends that he was not 
 raised to the episcopate. However his work remains. [5 first 
 sketch was in Latin, a single 8vo. volume, which saw the light 
 at Strasburg, then as now a German city. It began with the 
 days of Wycliff and was completed in a brief manner to his own 
 time. No one can have at all extensively consulted it without 
 coming upon its historical defects: but it was a work compiled 
 with great care and by the aid of others, so that possibly a better 
 could not at that time have been made, and Bishop Grindal 
 compiled materials for part of it. His fidelity is undoubted ; for 
 none eyer charged him with fiction or willing exaggeration. His 
 work is after all invaluable: and without a rival it has remained 
 to this day. My edition is in 3 vols., roman type, London, 1684. 
 I have selected a little from it to give some specimens of the 
 language of his contemporary martyrs on the Lord’s supper. 
 
 Vol. 1. p. 587. Reign Henry IV. Str William Chatris or 
 Sautre, P. P. of St Scythe the Virgin, London, 1400, Saturday, 
 Feb. 12, brought before the Provincial Council under Archbishop 
 Arundel; charged by Chancellor. 8th, That after the pronouncing 
 of the sacramental words of the body of Christ the bread remaineth 
 of the same nature that it was before, neither doth it cease to be 
 bread. Friday, 18th. 1, William Sautre, &, &c., touching the 
 interrogation of the sacrament of the altar, I say that after the 
 pronouncing of the sacramental words of the body of Christ there 
 ceaseth not to be very bread simply ; but remains bread holy and 
 true, the very bread of life: and I believe the said sacrament to 
 be the very body of Christ after the pronouncing of the sacramental 
 words. [Then they might have acquitted as they might have 
 acquitted John Huss.] Degraded step by step to a “secular 
 “layman.” Was delivered to the secular prison and burned by 
 decree of the King “ the first burned of all them of Wycliff’s time.” 
 He took the title “Sir” as a preacher. It was equal to the 
 French “Sire,” father. John Badby (Taylor), March, 1409, said of 
 the institution, It could not sink into his mind that the words are 
 to be taken as they literally lie... that if every host consecrated 
 in England were the Lord’s body, then there would be 20,000 gods 
 
476 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 in England. March 14. The Prior of St Bartholomew in Smith- 
 field brought with all solemnity the sacrament of God’s body with 
 12 torches borne before and shewed, &c., demanded, &c. He 
 answered, He knew well it was hallowed bread and not the Lord’s 
 body. Then was the tun put over him, and fire put into him, 
 &e., &e. 
 
 P. 609. Thomas Thorpe. “The fiend was loosed by Friar 
 Thomas again, especially calling the most worshipful sacrament of 
 Christ’s own body an accident without a subject; but I utterly 
 deny to make this friar’s sentence my belief. The Archbishop. 
 Well. Thou shalt say otherwise ere that I leave thee. After the 
 consecration abideth there bread or not ? 
 
 Vol. 11. p. 8, 1518, Henry VIII. Thomas Man (1) That he had 
 spoken against auricular confession and denied the corporal pre- 
 sence of Christ’s body in the sacrament of the altar. 
 
 P. 110. Five students at Lyons from Lausanne University, 
 going home of school, martyred. “The verb ‘est’ in Hoc est 
 corpus Meum is not to be taken here substantively in its own 
 proper signification, &c., but as noting the property of a thing, 
 signifying, &c. Zhe Black Friar. The sacraments of the old law 
 and of the new differ greatly ; for these give grace, but not the 
 other. Ans. ‘Neither the sacraments of the old law nor of the 
 ‘new law do give grace, but shew Him unto us, which giveth grace 
 ‘indeed. ‘The minister giveth the sacraments; but Jesus giveth 
 ‘grace by the Holy Ghost, of Whom it is said, This is He that 
 ‘baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.” . 
 
 P.117. 1554. Richard Feurus, a goldsmith at Lyons, martyr. 
 “The sacrament of the supper I believe to be ordained of the Lord 
 for a memorial of His death and for a stirring up of our thanks- 
 giving to Him. In which sacrament we have nothing to offer up to 
 fim, but do receive with all thanksgiving the benefits offered of 
 God to us most abundantly in Christ Jesus His Son.... John 
 Lambert's address to Henry VIII. Christ’s holy and natural body 
 is so assumpt into Heaven, that there it must remain all whole, 
 without returning, unto the day of general doom. 
 
 Vol. m1. p. 26. Leckenham (Howman) and Lady Jane Grey. 
 Lady. “I think that I neither receive flesh nor blood, but bread 
 and wine; which bread when it is broken, and wine when it is 
 drunken, putteth me in remembrance how that for my sins the 
 body of Christ was broken and the blood shed on the cross, and with 
 that bread and wine I receive the benefits that came by breaking 
 His body and shedding His blood. God forbid that I should say 
 that I eat the very natural body and blood of Christ... else there 
 were two bodies, two Christs.. One body was tormented on the 
 cross; and if they did eat another body, then had He two bodies. 
 
1517] JOHN FOX. 477 
 
 If God would have done any miracle at His supper, He might 
 have done so. But I say He minded no work or miracle, but only 
 to break His body and shed His blood on the cross for our sins. 
 But I pray you to answer me this one question, Where was Christ 
 when He said, This is My body? and what took He but bread ? 
 What brake He but bread? and look what He brake He gave: 
 and look what He gave they did eat: and yet all this while He 
 Himself was alive and at supper before His disciples or else they 
 were deceived. Ifthe church be a good church, then the faith of 
 the church must be tried by God’s word, and not God’s word by the 
 church : either yet (is) my faith: Shall I believe the church because 
 of antiquity ?... I pray God to send you His holy Spirit. To her 
 father. Tome there is nothing that can be more welcome than 
 from this vale of misery to aspire to that heavenly throne of all 
 joy and pleasure, which is with Jesus Christ our Saviour. Yo Mr 
 Harding, late Chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, fallen from the 
 faith. Wilt thou take upon thee to offer any sacrifice to God for 
 our sins, seeing that Christ offered up Himself, as St Paul saith, 
 upon the cross, a lively sacrifice, once for all? Can neither the 
 punishment of the Israelites (which for their idolatry they suffered), 
 nor the terrible threatenings of the prophets, nor the curses of 
 God’s own mouth fear thee [make thee afraid] to honour any other 
 God but Him? Dost thou so regard Him that spared not His 
 own Son for thee, so diminishing, yea utterly extinguishing His 
 glory, that thou wilt attribute the praise and honour due unto 
 Him to the idols, which have mouths and speak not, eyes and see 
 not, ears and hear not—which shall perish with them that made 
 them [the figure, Christ on the cross, stamped on the wafer]? Christ 
 offered Himself up once for all; and wilt thou offer Him daily at 
 thy pleasure? But thou wilt say thou doest it for a good intent, 
 &e. Wilt thou for a good intent pluck Christ out of heaven, and: 
 make His death void, and deface the triumph of His cross, by 
 offering Him up daily? Wilt thou either for fear of death, &c., 
 hope of life, deny and refuse thy God, who enriched thy poverty, 
 healed thy infirmity, and yielded to thee His victory, if thou 
 wouldest have kept it? And yet let the two-edged sword of God’s 
 holy word shear asunder the sinews of worldly respects. Fight 
 manfully, come life, come death. The quarrel is God’s, and un- 
 doubtedly the victory is ours... 
 
 Vol. 111. p. 69. Weston. “I am a priest, and my vocation is to offer. 
 Latimer. Where have you that authority given you to offer? W. 
 Hoe facite. JL. Is facere then nothing but sacrifacere to sacrifice 2 
 Why then—no man must receive the sacrament but priests only. 
 For there may none offer but priests. Ergo, there may none 
 receive but priests... W. Forty year agone where could you have 
 gone to have found your doctrine? LZ. The more cause have we to 
 thank God that hath now sent that into the world. 
 
478 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 101. John Rogers. “1 answered... I cannot understand 
 really and substantially to signify otherwise than corporally. 
 But corporally Christ is only in heaven; and so cannot Christ be, 
 corporally, also in your sacraments. 
 
 P. 123. “Then asked Winchester of M. Hooper, what au- 
 thority moved him not to receive the corporal presence. He said, 
 the authority of God’s word: and he alleged the text ‘Whom the 
 ‘heaven must receive until, &c. Then the Bishop of W. would 
 have made that that text served nothing for his purpose, and he 
 said that He might be in heaven and in the sacrament also. 
 
 P. 139. “Thou [Dr Taylor] sayest well, quoth the Bishop 
 (Gardiner of Winchester) ; it (the sacrament) is all this and more 
 too, for it is a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead. 
 Then answered Dr T., This sacrifice did Christ offer once for all : 
 neither can any priest any more offer Him, nor need we any more 
 propitiatory sacrifice: and therefore I say with Chrysostom and all 
 the doctors, Our sacrifice is only memorative, &c.; and other sacri- 
 fice hath the church of God none. ; 
 
 P. 102, Thomas Causton. “This holy supper is sore abused.... 
 4thly, In that it is worshipped contrary to the commandment 
 ‘Thou shalt worship nothing that is made with hands’... And 
 St Paul, ‘ As often as, &., till He come.’ Here is no change but 
 bread still. 
 
 P. 207. John Warne. “And I believe that God hath ap- 
 pointed the eating and drinking of the creatures of bread and wine 
 in His holy supper according to His word, to move and stur up my 
 mind to believe in the articles above written. 
 
 P. 214. “No more bread but the very body and blood... Did 
 not Christ say, ‘T'ake eat, this is My body? Haukes. It followeth 
 not that the sacrament of the altar is so as you teach. 8. Wh 
 the catholic church taught so; and they were of Christ’s church. 
 HT. How prove you it? The apostles taught not so. Read the 
 Acts, the lind and the xxth. Neither Peter nor Paul ever taught 
 it nor instituted it. 6B. Ah Sir. Ye will have nothing more 
 than the Scripture teacheth ; but even as Christ hath left it bare. 
 
 P. 308. Miller, P. P. of Canterbury, brought against Parson 
 Bland of Attesham, says, “ We eat Christ’s flesh and blood spirit- 
 ually, when we receive it with faith and charity ; and we also do 
 eat it corporally in the sacrament ; and the body that we so receive 
 hath life: for the Godhead is annexed thereto: which although τ 
 be received with the body of Christ, yet it is not visible after a 
 gross sort. And the flesh of Christ that we receive is lively, for it 
 hath the Spirit of God joined to it. [This parish priest has been 
 reading and receiving Cyril, on St John.] And if a man be 
 drunken, it is not by receiving the blood of Christ, for it is con- 
 
1517] JOHN FOX. 479 
 
 trary to the nature of Christ’s blood. If he be drunken, it is by 
 the qualities and quantities without the substance of blood. 
 
 P. 311. Nicholas Sheterden. “‘By Himself purged our sins.’ 
 This word ‘by Himself’ hath a vehemency and pith, that driveth 
 all priests from authority to enterprise such oblation; whereas 
 what He Himself doth by Himself He leaveth not for others to do. 
 So seemeth our purgatory already past and done—not to come and 
 remaining to be done. [See all N. §.’s discussions. | 
 
 P. 322. Sir John Denby, Gentleman. “The difference is... 
 Papists say that Christ is corporally, or in the forms of bread and 
 wine. But the faithful say that Christ is not there—neither 
 corporally nor spiritually, but in them that worthily eat and 
 drink the bread and wine, &c. For figuratively He is in the 
 bread and wine, and spiritually He is in them that worthily eat, 
 &e.: but really carnally and corporally He is only in heaven, from 
 whence He shall come, &. Not that bread is the body or the 
 wine the blood, but that in faith we do see the blessed body of our 
 Saviour broken, &c., &e. Also in faith I hear Him call, ‘Come 
 ‘unto Me, οὐ In faith I come unto Him and am refreshed, &c., 
 do receive the fruit of the death of Christ, which fruit is our 
 salvation. His body cannot be in more places than one. [Yet he 
 says] so doth the inward man through faith eat the body of Christ. 
 Even as that bread was divided so should His body and fruit of 
 His passion be distributed unto as many as believed His words. 
 And thus we there have Christ present. In the inward eye and 
 sight of our faith we eat His body and drink His blood, 1.6. we 
 believe surely that His body was crucified for our sins and His 
 blood shed for our salvation. [What confusion of ideas has 
 reigned !] 
 
 P. 352. Glover to Mary his wife. ‘And because nothing 
 displeaseth God so much as idololatry, ὁ. 6. false worshipping of God 
 otherwise than God’s word commandeth, look not back I say, nor 
 turn your face to their idolatrous and blasphemous massing, mani- 
 festly against the word, practice and example of Christ; as it is 
 most manifest to all that have any taste and true understanding 
 of God’s word that there remaineth nothing in the church of Eng- 
 land at this present profitable or edifying, &c., all things being 
 done in an unknown tongue contrary to the express commandment 
 of the Holy Ghost. Christ’s church heareth, teacheth, and is 
 ruled by His words. [See Roger Ascham.] 
 
 P.559. From the primate’s recantations under terror—from the 
 fifth. “As concerning the sacraments I believe and worship in the 
 sacrament of the altar the very body and blood of Christ, being 
 contained most truly under the forms of bread and wine ; the bread 
 through the mighty power of God being turned into the body of 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the wine into His blood. 
 
480 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 568. Agnes Potton and Jane Trunchon, burnt at Ipswich 
 at same time. “ ‘Their opinion or persuasion was this—that in the 
 sacrament was the memorial only of Christ’s death and passion ; 
 for, said they, Jesus Christ is ascended up into heaven and is on the 
 right hand of the Father according to the Scriptures, and not in 
 the sacrament as He was born of the virgin Mary. For this they 
 were burned. 
 
 P. 588. Sta at Colchester. “To the seventh article Simon 
 Joyne declared, ἄορ. Moreover Christopher Lyster affirmed that in 
 the said sacrament there is the substance of bread and wine, as 
 well after the word of consecration as before, and that there is not 
 in the same the very body and blood of Christ, really, substantially 
 and truly, but only sacramentally and spiritually by faith in the 
 faithful receivers, and that the mass is not propitiatory for the 
 quick and the dead, &c. [See case of a blind boy, p. 589.] If the 
 body of Christ were really and bodily in the sacrament, then who- 
 soever received the sacrament received also the body. But the 
 wicked receiving the sacrament receive not the body of Christ. 
 Ergo, The body of Christ is not really in the sacrament. Rev. 
 Crashfield. I believe that Christ’s body was broken for me on the 
 eross, and His blood shed for my redemption, whereof the bread 
 and wine is a perpetual memory, the pledge of His mercy, the ring 
 and seal of His promise, and a perpetual memory for the faithful 
 unto the end of the world.” 
 
 (VV.) BISHOP THOMAS MORTON OF DURHAM. 8. 1564. Ὁ 1659. 
 
 Born in the city of York. Fellow of St John’s Cambridge, 
 and Lecturer on Logic in the University. His preferments were 
 Long Marston and Aylesford. He was Dean of Gloucester, Dean of 
 Winchester, Prebendary of York and Bishop successively of 
 Chester, Lichfield and Durham. He wrote several works full of 
 earnestness and power; on LEpiscopacy, Popery, Church Cere- 
 monies: but his chief work is that from which our quotations 
 come. Perhaps one ought not to conceal that at the desire of 
 King James I. he wrote the pernicious Book of Sports, which 
 was burnt at last in London by the common hangman. No 
 excuse can be alleged for a divine, who teaches men to secularize 
 God’s day of sacred rest. This movement of James I. hangs 
 like a mill-stone on the reputation of that pedantic monarch, 
 in whose favour otherwise little can be found. The Latin Letter 
 of Dedication to the work on the Lord’s supper by Bishop Morton 
 
1504] BISHOP THOMAS MORTON. 481 
 
 I have quoted in English. It may however be preferred to the 
 book itself; as the latter is marked by a violence approaching 
 very near to ranting against Popery, and therefore is very far 
 from possessing what it is desired to make the characteristic 
 mark of Protestantism. But the first extract alone may well 
 bias the reader in favour of the letter dedicatory. 
 
 The entire title-page, omitting only the author’s name, is 
 printed as follows: “The institution of the sacrament of the blessed 
 “body and blood of Christ, by some called the Mass of Christ, 
 “eight books, discovering the superstitious sacrilegious and idola- 
 “trous abominations of the Roman Mass, together with the con- 
 “sequent obstinacies overtures of perjuries and the heresies dis- 
 “cernible in the defenders thereof, much enlarged for corrobora- 
 “tion of certain points throughout the whole, together with par- 
 “ticular answers to such objections and cavils as have been 
 “hitherto made and raised by the adversarie against this work. 
 “Printed for Robert Melbourne. London, 1635.” 
 
 Ep. Dedic. p.1. “Christendom never possessed anything more 
 sublime, nothing more holy and august than the sacrament of the 
 eucharist, since by it we are in a certain way transformed into 
 Christ Himself. To this institution I add in my book’s frontis- 
 piece, by the determining of others, the additional name of The 
 Mass. But some one perhaps wishes I had omitted this. Yet be 
 of good courage whoever thou be, pious zealot and vehement hater 
 of the popish mass. For the name missa, mass, carries its own 
 omen with it, since it arose from dismissing those that did not 
 desire to partake of the eucharist; for it plainly is fatal to the 
 Roman mass, which allures and invites to it by all pandouring 
 arts the mere spectators, as its lovers, as if nearly the whole of 
 the religion of Christ consisted in that one theatric spectacle, and 
 these (now judged fit to receive the eucharist) catholic antiquity 
 commanded to depart, and heavily and bitterly visited those who 
 stayed as shameless persons. I have chosen to make this prefa- 
 tory observation, that I may not seem to stumble on the very 
 threshold by that very word, the mass. [I fancy the bishop is 
 right in the etymology of the word missa: but that the words 
 Ite, missa est communio, were said when the communicants them- 
 selves were dismissed, and some add when the reserved com- 
 munion was sent to some of the absent and in particular to the 
 sick.]...Part I. That the ten rules of Christ are almost perpetually 
 broken and violated, by the Trent-canons in the Roman mass, 
 whether in greater shamelessness or impiety it is difficult to say. 
 [These ten rules are the parts of the words of the institution—such 
 
 ἯΣ Tk 31 
 
482 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 as ‘Take ye,’ broken by not receiving with their hands, and ‘ Drink 
 ye, by the denial of the cup to the lay-receiver.] For by blowing up 
 these depravations they prefer to the universal customs the con- 
 trary use of a worse age 1.6. that of the wiser modern Roman 
 Church of the last 300 years, and call it retained so very long a 
 time; then they prate that apostolic pretext and practice can be 
 abrogated by the Pontiff of Rome; and moreover they put forth 
 that, against Christ’s example, holily and religiously observed 
 through many ages backward by pontiffs themselves, the (modern) 
 contrary custom is to be held for a law: yea further this also is 
 little, since the Jesuit with mouth of blasphemy pronounces that 
 though the command of Christ be plainly contrary, the pontiff can 
 relax the Divine law itself. [It is plain that this great dignitary 
 had full right to live in the half-castellan and half ecclesiastical 
 edifice of his own glorious cathedral of Durham.] 
 
 Part II. The words, This is my body. “ Its literal exposition 
 being weakened and destroyed by the very contradictions of men 
 on the Pontiff’s side, other (points) concerning transubstantiation, 
 concerning the corporal presence of Christ and its being united 
 with the bodies of the communicants, concerning sacrifice properly 
 so called, and finally concerning Divine adoration, all (these) por- 
 tentous dogmas built on the literal interpretation must be 
 weakened and fall with it. 
 
 P. 8. “We readily allow to Bellarmine, Alan, Maldonat and 
 other asserters of the Roman mass, as is likely, their own acute- 
 ness of mind, their own exactness and perspicuity of judgment, and 
 in fine an accurate knowledge of all things both in human and 
 Divine learning; and yet not in such a way as to prevent our not 
 finding in them truth in the charges they bring against our theo- 
 logians—consistency in the defence of their own opinions—good 
 faith and moderation in their continual cries, appeals and urgings 
 of ‘the Fathers,” ‘the Fathers’.” [I cannot but add that this 
 bishop appears so skilfully to wield his controversial weapons, that 
 as to mere truth, his hardest blows seem to be cautiously de- 
 livered; but yet it is war ὦ [outrance, to be followed by as severe 
 reprisals as possible. It is controversy eminently against the 
 chosen method of the present day: erring perhaps as much in 
 defect of Christian love, as we are tempted to err in defect of 
 outspoken fidelity. ] 
 
1500] JAMES ARMINIUS. 483 
 
 (WW.) JACOBUS ARMINIUS (properly James Harmensen or Her- 
 mann), PROFESSOR AT LEYDEN. 8. 1560. pb. 1609. 
 
 A native of Oudwater on the Yssel in South Holland, and a 
 student at Marburg and Leyden, he finished his training under 
 Beza at Geneva. But his first public lectures were delivered at 
 Basle. He soon after drew down upon him the furious opposition 
 of a leading professor at Leyden, Gomar, by putting forth ideas 
 of a more moderate character than the Dutch Calvinists main- 
 tained regarding grace and predestination. His leading ideas were 
 that a sufficiency of grace is provided, but that it is not in its 
 nature irresistible. Gomar was not able to prevent his being 
 made professor, which shews that Arminius had powerful sup- 
 porters. But after his death his party, to which the good Barne- 
 veldt belonged, was annihilated in a political persecution. Arminius 
 and his friends were called Remonstrants, which seems to indicate 
 that they never really had the upper hand. Another name of 
 them is Sublapsarians, from weakly deeming it easier to believe in 
 the justice of the Divine decrees if they were not made till after 
 the Fall: whereas the remedy against the suspicion of supporting 
 fatalism seems rather to be found in a distinct acknowledgment of 
 God’s eternal foresight, and in a clear belief that His perfect fore- 
 sight of the ever-growing issues of things ever accompanies, and 
 we may almost say regulates, His distribution of favours and His 
 determination of events both all along and in the end. But we 
 have now to discern and estimate his teaching on the Lord’s 
 supper. A candid student will acknowledge a similar arbitrariness 
 -of assertion on this great subject of thought. I give one specimen to 
 exhibit this: but it is on a point not of sufficient importance to insert 
 both im the Latin original and in English. It is in the 60th Thesis, 
 on sacraments as to their kind, 1.6. generally [8 Iv. p. 420]. “The 
 “sions are not of a natural kind (naturalia), so that they shew by 
 “their own nature the whole of that which they signify: but they 
 “depend on the will (of the Giver), voluntaria, and their meaning 
 “depends entirely on the will of the Instituter,’ This kind of 
 overstatement breeds and almost necessitates endless controversy, 
 making it (as some one has wittily said) not so much luminous as 
 voluminous ; but the worst thing is, that it furnishes precedents 
 for similar inaccuracies on the opposite side, until the truth itself 
 is lost in mist. 
 
 31—2 
 
484 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Works. Leyden. Thesis 62. On Sacraments generally. 
 
 “The sacraments of the New Testament differ not from those 
 that were in use in the Old, because the former exhibit [Calvin’s 
 word] grace, but the latter signify or prefigure it. 
 
 Th. 64. On the Lord’s supper. “Let us treat of the supper, 
 which is the confirming [strengthening] sacrament... Its material 
 is bread and wine, which are unchanged in essence, but remain 
 what they were before, and are not as to place coupled [united] 
 with Christ’s body or blood, in such a way that His body is in or 
 under or [is received] with the bread... The object is twofold: 
 that our faith that the promise of grace which God has made and 
 which has been confirmed by Christ’s death and resurrection, and 
 concerning the truth and certainty of our being grafted into Christ, 
 may be more and more strengthened; the other object is (1) that 
 the faithful may by the remembrance of Christ’s death testify their 
 own gratitude and obligation towards God; (2) that they may 
 cherish charity among themselves; (3) that by this mark they 
 may be distinguished from unbelievers. 
 
 Th. 65. On the Papal mass. “This kind of sacrifice is falsely 
 assigned to the institution of the Lord’s supper: for Christ did 
 not institute a sacrifice, but a sacrament... It follows that it is 
 unlawful to think that Christ can or ought to be offered by men, 
 or by anyone else than Himself. For He is the alone victim and 
 priest.” 
 
 Opera Theologica. Lugduni Batavorum, 1729, Thesis 62, De Sac. 
 NV. T. wm genere. 
 §vu. Sacramenta N. T. a sacramentis in V. T. usurpatis non 
 differnnt quod illa gratiam exhibeant, ista vero significent vel pre- 
 figurent. 
 
 Thesis 64. De cond Domini. 
 
 §1. De confirmationis sacramento, coendé, agamus. S§1v. Materia 
 est panis et vinum, que secundum essentiam non mutantur, sed manent 
 quod ante fuerunt, neque secundum locum corpori aut sanguini copu- - 
 lantur, ita ut corpus sit vel in vel sub vel cum pane ... ὃ vi. Finis est 
 duplex ; ut fides nostra erga promissionem gratiz a Deo factam et 
 Christi morte et resurrectione confirmatam, ac de nostre in Christum 
 insitionis veritate et certitudine magis magisyue corroboretur: alter 
 ut (1) fideles gratitudinem et obligationem suam erga Deum testentur 
 mortis Christi recordatione, (2) ut charitatem inter se foveant, (3) ut 
 hac nota ab infidelibus secernantur. 
 
 Thesis 65. De Missa Papali. 
 
 § 11....sacrificium falso ceenze Dominic institutioni tribui: non enim 
 instituit Christus sacrificium sed sacramentum...§1v. Accedit quod 
 nefas sit existimare Christum offerri posse aut debere ab hominibus, 
 aut ab ullo alio quam a Seipso. Ille enim solus est et Victima et 
 Sacerdos... 
 
1566] CORNELIUS A LAPIDE. 485 
 
 (XX.) CORNELIUS A LAPIDE, PROFESSOR OF LOUVAIN AND ROME. 
 ΒΤ. D:1G37. 
 
 He particularly addressed himself to the task of interpreting 
 St Paul’s Epistles, and his commentary upon them is considered 
 less rambling than what he has written on the other Scriptures. 
 His aim he says in his dedication of the former work to the Arch- 
 bishop of Malins is to give the most genuine and literal sense in a 
 solid manner briefly, methodically, and clearly ; and he adds that 
 he takes from the Greek, Hebrew and Syriac texts “and from the 
 “fathers and doctors those things which prove or illustrate this 
 “genuine sense.” Notwithstanding the faults charged upon the 
 manner of his work, it is held to be a greater favourite than the 
 more methodical commentaries of Maldonat on the four gospels 
 and Estius on the epistles. Its abundant quotations from the 
 fathers are one great source of its popularity. It usually extends 
 to 10 or 11 volumes quarto or folio. His commentary on the 
 Pentateuch is as much praised by some as that on St Paul’s 
 epistles. Possibly the stories and legends that his work contains 
 have aided in no slight degree in making it popular. I have often 
 thought that an edition of the Bible with bon4-fide historical facts, 
 and known events of common life and religious experience, ranged 
 under the verse which each best illustrates, would be most inter- 
 esting and most profitable. Everyone knows some incidents that 
 would throw a flood of real light on particular Scriptures. Take 
 Adam Clarke’s story on David’s being forbidden to build the 
 temple because he had been a man of blood. But in fact those 
 who believe that God’s hand is at work in regulating every event 
 in every man’s life must needs acknowledge that a world of events, 
 national, domestic and individual, have transpired, between which 
 and God’s word a real analogy is to be traced out, as between the 
 physical and the moral worlds and God’s actions in both. I have 
 sometimes thought that a committee would do it best under the 
 advice and influence of our cleverest and largest book publishers. 
 
 This Cornelius, whose discursive commentary has given the 
 occasion of my casting these words on the waters, was originally 
 named Van den Steen, and was a native of Bocholt near Liege. 
 He became a Jesuit. The authority for the statements here made 
 respecting him is said to be Richard Simon in his Critical History 
 of the Principal Commentaries, &c. 
 
480 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 24. “Christ arose while the sepulchre was shut, 
 [Then comes the frequent mistaken assertion of those who forget 
 that the angel had rolled away the stone] and He entered in to the 
 disciples while the doors were shut. [But why is this assumed ? 
 For Christ may have opened them by His own power unseen: the 
 Greek is ‘the doors having been shut.’] Therefore at that time 
 He was in the same place as the sepulchral stone and as the doors. 
 Now I thus reason. If two whole bodies can be in the same 
 place, e.g. Christ and the stone, then two parts also of the same 
 body, e.g. the head and the feet of Christ, can be in the same place, 
 that is in the same host. If two parts can be together then three 
 also and four and five and as many as God shall choose to put in 
 the same place. Christ teaches the same Matt. xix. 24. And God 
 can bring a rich man to heaven, therefore a camel also through a 
 needle’s eye, therefore Christ’s body also through a small ‘host.’ 
 Now if two bodies can be in the same place, therefore by parity of 
 reasoning the same body, that is Christ’s, can be in divers places 
 and ‘hosts. For both things are of like difficulty and like power 
 and virtue... God can expand an angel existing in a point... so 
 that he may locally occupy a whole sleeping-place; on the con- 
 trary He can contract him into a point... God does the very 
 same in bodies naturally, take the case of rarefaction and warming. 
 
 P. 305. “This is clear from the words about the cup. For if 
 these words were the first to signify transubstantiation, it ought to 
 be said, This, that is, wine is My blood, or the cup of My blood: ze. 
 it is turned into it, &e, 
 
 Tugduni, 1864. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 24. Christus resurrexit clauso sepulchro, et ingressus 
 est ad discipulos januis clausis. Ergo tum eodem loco fuit cum lapide 
 sepulchrali et cum januis. Nune sic argumentor, Si duo corpora tota 
 possunt esse in eodem loco, e.g. Christus et lapis, ergo et due partes 
 ejusdem corporis, v.g. caput et pedes Christi, possunt esse in eodem loco, 
 in eddem videlicet hostia. §i duze possunt esse simul ergo et tres et 
 quatuor et quinque et quotquot Deus in eodem loco ponere volet. Idem 
 docet Christus Matt. xix. 24. Atque Deus potest divitem ducere ad 
 celum ergo et camelum per foramen acis ergo et corpus Christi per 
 parvam hostiam. Jam si duo corpora possunt esse in eodem loco, 
 ergo a pari idem corpus, scilicet Christi, potest esse in diversis locis et 
 hostiis. Utrumque enim paris est difficultatis et paris potenti et 
 virtutis...Potest deus angelum in puncto existentem...dilatare...ut 
 totum cubiculum occupet localiter: e contrario...contrahere in punctum... 
 In corporibus naturaliter idipsum facit Deus, puta in rarefactione et 
 calefactione, 
 
 P. 305. 
 Patet hoc ex verbis calicis, Si enim hee primo significarent tran- 
 substantiationem, deberet dici “hoc” scilicet ‘‘ vinum” est sanguis Meus 
 vel est calix sanguinis Mei: id est convertitur, &e. 
 
1500] CORNELIUS A LAPIDE. 487 
 
 P. 804. “You will quote John vi, ‘The Spirit is He Who 
 ‘quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Therefore Christ’s 
 flesh is not present and is not eaten in the eucharist. I answer 
 that that cannot be said, because in this sense it would be impious 
 to say, that Christ’s flesh that suffered and was crucified for us 
 does not profit at all: and Christ most fully teaches and inculcates 
 the contrary to this in all that chapter, that is, that He will Him- 
 self give His own flesh for the life and redemption of the world: 
 therefore Christ’s flesh profited and profits the world much. [The 
 question is, Is Christ using the same terms, His flesh, 7.e. giving 
 His flesh, in different senses in the two parts of this chapter? the 
 one giving His flesh on the cross, the other spiritual eating, and 
 another the Jews’ misunderstanding, the literal eating of His 
 flesh.] The sense therefore is, as Cyril rightly says, First the 
 virtue of life-giving which Christ’s flesh in the eucharist has, it 
 has not of itself, but of the Spirit, ¢.e. the Divinity of the Word, to 
 which the flesh is hypostatically conjoined. Secondly, as Chrysostom 
 says, this eating does not take place in a carnal way, by tearing it 
 with the teeth, like beef, but in a way that is spiritual and fit for 
 the spirit of man, ¢.e. secretly, sacramentally, invisibly. For thou 
 
 dost equally eat Christ here, as if thou shouldst eat and swallow 
 an angel hidden [in the elements]. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 28. “This was the effect of the eucharist. For 
 this (eucharist) supplied to the disciples themselves strength and 
 joy in all trials and punishments. Wherefore formerly in the time 
 of the persecutions all the Christians used to communicate daily, 
 that they might thus be strong to endure martyrdom; yea they 
 
 P. 304. 
 
 Dices Joann. vi. “Spiritus est qui vivificat ; caro non prodest quic- 
 “quam.” Ergo caro Christi non est praesens nec comeditur in eucha- 
 ristid. Respondeo id non posse dici, quia hoc sensu impium esset dicere, 
 quod caro Christi pro nobis passa et crucifixa non prodest quidquam : 
 cujus contrariam toto illo capite disertissime docet et inculcat Christus, 
 scilicet se carnem Suam daturum pro mundi vita et redemptione: ergo 
 multum mundo profuit et prodest caro Christi. Sensus itaque est, ut 
 recte Cyrillus, Primo virtutem vivificandi, quam habet caro Christi in 
 eucharistia, non a se habere, sed a Spiritu, i.e. Divinitate Verbi, cui 
 hypostaticé conjungitur. Secundo ut Chrysost. hance manducationem 
 non fieri modo carnali, eam laniando dentibus, instar carnis bubulee, sed 
 modo spirituali et spiritui accommodato, i.e. occulte, sacramentaliter, in- 
 visibiliter. Perinde enim hic carnem Christi comedis ac si latentem 
 angelum comederes et transglutires. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 28. Hic fuit effectus eucharistiz. Hzec enim ipsis 
 robur et gaudium suggerebat in omnibus tentationibus et suppliciis. 
 Quocirea olim tempore persecutionum Christiani omnes quotidie com- 
 municabant, ut sic roborarent ad martyrium, imo eucharistiam domum 
 
488 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 used to carry the eucharist home and used to take it early in the 
 morning with their own hands, as Mary Stuart, queen of the Scots 
 lately did, while she was detained captive in England and could 
 not have a priest with her. Further Chrysostom, Homily 36 on 
 1 Cor. says, ‘Where Christ in the eucharist is, there also is not 
 ‘lacking a crowd of angels; but where such a king and such a 
 ‘ chief is, there is a Celestial palace, yea Heaven itself.’ Wherefore 
 we read in the lives of the fathers from St Ammon, that, while he 
 was celebrating (the eucharist), an angel was seen by him to stand 
 by the altar and to mark the communicants (with the sign) and to 
 write down their names in a book. But 5. Chrysostom, in books 
 I. and vi. on the priesthood, relates that bands of angels were 
 seen around the altar, who with bent head did reverence to Christ, 
 and uttered dreadful noises... When therefore we communicate 
 or celebrate or hear the mass, let us think that we are sitting by 
 Christ in the last supper and supping with Him. Yea let us 
 think that Christ is speaking by the priest’s mouth, is celebrating, 
 is transubstantiating- the bread and wine into His own body and 
 blood, and with that [His body] is feeding us and making us fat. 
 For Christ is here the principal agent and wonder-worker, as the 
 Council of Trent teaches, Session x11. Whence §. Ambrose in his 
 eighth book on Luke says, ‘There is a body of which it is said, My 
 ‘flesh is truly food. Around this body are true eagles, that fly 
 ‘around with spiritual wings.’ And book 4 on the sacrament, 
 c. 2, ‘(It is) well (said), Eagles are round the altar, where the 
 
 ‘body is.’ 
 
 deferebant, illamque mane suis manibus sumebant (uti fecit nuper Maria 
 Stuarta Scotiz regina dum in Anglid captiva detineretur nec sacerdotem 
 secum habere posset)....(5) Perre Chrysost. Hom. 36 in 1 Cor. PO bi 
 ait, “est Christus in eucharistia, ibi etiam non deest angelorum fre- 
 “quentia; ubi autem est talis rex et talis princeps, ibi est celeste 
 “palatium, imo ipsum ceelum.” Quocirea in vitis patrum legimus de 
 S. Ammon. quod, eo celebrante, angelus visus sit astare altari, et com- 
 municantes signare, eorumque nomina in libro describere. 8. Chrysost. 
 vero, lib. 3 et 6, de sacerdotio, narrat angelorum choros circa altare 
 visos, qui inclinato capite suo Christo exhiberent reverentiam, ac 
 horrendos ederent clamores...(6) Cum ergo communicamus aut missam 
 celebramus vel audimus, cogitemus nos Christo in ultima ecnd4 assidere, 
 cum Eoque cenare. Imo cogitemus Christum per os sacerdotis loqui, 
 celebrare, transubstantiare panem et vinum in corpus Suum et sangui- 
 nem, illoque nos pascere et saginare. Christus enim hic est principalis 
 agens et thaumaturgus, uti docet Concilium Tridentinum, Sess. 12. 
 Unde 8. Ambrosius, lib. 8 in Lucam, “ Est corpus,” ait, ‘de quo dictum 
 “est, Caro Mea vere est cibus. Circa hoc corpus sunt vere aquile, 
 ‘que alis circumvolant spiritualibus.” Et lib. 4, de Sacram., Ὁ. 2, 
 “‘ Bene aquilz sunt circa altare ubi corpus est.” 
 
1500] CORNELIUS ἃ LAPIDE. 489 
 
 P. 484. “Luke freely has it, ‘This cup is my blood, &c.’ The cup 
 of blood is shed in the eucharist not on the cross (for there was no 
 cup there). [But Cornelius & Lapide forgets to remark that Christ’s 
 blood was ‘poured out’ on the cross: but in the Lord’s supper it is 
 not poured out but drunk ; therefore though St Luke’s words are 
 that the cup was poured out for the remission of sins, we argue 
 that the meaning must be, My blood (represented by the wine and 
 the cup), which is in process of being shed for the forgiveness of 
 sins]... Hence it is plain that these things more properly look to 
 the eucharistic sacrifice than [to the sacrifice] of the cross.” 
 
 P. 484. 
 
 Lucas diserte habet τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, «.7.X....calix sanguinis effusus 
 est in eucharistia non in cruce (ibi enim nullus fuit calix)...Hine liquet 
 hee magis proprie spectare ad sacrificlum eucharisticum quam crucis. 
 
 (YY.) 5. FRANCOIS DE SALES. A PUPIL OF MALDONAT AT 
 PARIS. Β. 1567. D. 1622. 
 
 The life of this eminent opponent of the Reformation in 
 Switzerland leaves you with a strong inclination towards believing 
 that sometimes the same soul appears a second time in the world. 
 Mutatis mutandis he is Francis of Assisi over again. We have 
 to make certain allowances for differences arising from the former 
 being a clothier’s son and the latter of a noble family: also for the 
 first living three centuries before the general Reformation, and the 
 second being in the generation next after it; but the likeness is 
 marvellous. Perhaps if we knew more about his mother’s mental 
 history, we might know that the first St Francis was her ideal 
 all along, and that she in no small degree prayed, and trained 
 her own son into what he became. The great advantage of this 
 St Francis was that Scripture light was more common, and he 
 had a richer acquaintance with it. As to foundations, there was 
 no room for establishing a new male order; but tender and im- 
 pulsive woman is always ready. So Madame de Chantal became 
 his sister Clare: and in all that he did, his leading characteristic 
 was identical with that of his great predecessor, to overcome 
 sinners and sin by loving-kindness and forgiveness. Entire self- 
 surrender, so that he did not breathe out of his work, was common 
 to both. In both there was as little of acidity as was compatible 
 with celibate asceticism. Both were in the world at times but 
 
490 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 never of it: and as to any difference in the holding of the whole 
 compass of Roman Catholic doctrine there was almost none. The 
 Reformation had produced less effect on the mind of the latter 
 than we should have thought possible. Calvin was to him simply 
 a heretic. And most particularly both the Francises held fast 
 to what may be termed the great triple priestly chain, confession, 
 absolution and the giving of an entire Christ in the Lord’s supper. 
 
 It is curious that in some modern histories or biographies it is 
 all confessing and receiving the holy sacrifice, absolution being 
 kept out of sight as much as possible. But it was never in fact 
 omitted. It is an essential part of the chain by which the priest- 
 hood held the people fast bound. And in this day, when no 
 stone is left unturned to rebuild the practice of confession, and 
 to restore belief in the actual gift of Christ’s body to communi- 
 cants of the second, sacrament, we may be quite sure that so 
 comforting a practice as priestly absolution is very seldom if ever 
 omitted. Confession, absolution and the bodily presence are 
 the three feet of the priestly throne, the three pillars of the 
 Roman tabernacle. (But in a book that I have been reading, 
 the practice of confession is exhibited only as a kind of help- 
 ful means for attaiming a higher life.) St Francois de Sales 
 preaches, and confession is affectionately and not in vain urged 
 upon his hearers. It is in fact his “after meeting.” Revivalists 
 and Missionists have need to beware, for it is impossible not to 
 see that Popery and Revivals and Special Missions come very 
 near to each other here, that is to say, so long as men as good 
 as the two Francises are the confessors—men who shrink from 
 the base and debasing turpitude under which the confessional 
 can fall, although from such vileness it was ever by them ap- 
 parently kept free. It is true that confessionalism stands ever 
 on a steep descent, and has a strong natural inclination to go 
 downwards: but this may in certain cases be wholly escaped. 
 In fact to see this devout minister of the Roman church practising 
 confession, his father and his mother travelling over to him, thus 
 to put themselves under his spiritual direction before coming to 
 the sacrament, makes us enquire whether no other kind of evil 
 attached itself to this practice: and it is impossible not to observe 
 in both the Francises, how full was the belief in the power of 
 confession followed by absolution. They both take it for granted 
 that the sinner has at one stroke become a saint, that it is im- 
 
1567] S. FRANCOIS DE SALES. 491 
 
 possible that the process can have failed: and sometimes the 
 very tenderness of their love and confidence does seem to have 
 been used of God to promote so great a change. But suddenly 
 to assume that it was of necessity always so, and for the officiating 
 Francis to change seats with a criminal that has confessed and 
 been absolved, and to confess to him, seems like a parody and 
 a travesty of the words “Confess your faults one to another, and 
 “pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” In a word may 
 we not say that confessing faults to a minister is so inextricably 
 connected with asking spiritual advice from him, and that such 
 advice is necessarily in so great a degree confidential and private, 
 that it must ever lie open to abuse by bad ministers or by those 
 that have unscriptural ideas of the proper extent of priestly power : 
 and that the chief thing for a church to do, besides putting 
 forth such cautions as our Prayer-book contains, is to disallow 
 personal absolutions by ministers, on the ground that it is, to 
 say the least, to be much doubted whether any passage of the 
 New Testament gives any such power, and for every church of 
 a Protestant order to deny throughout its formularies any bodily 
 presence of Christ in the sacrament. Without the other two 
 links confession alone will be but little adopted: but if the 
 minister is allowed to follow the receiving of confessions by 
 granting personal absolution, and by teaching that then he gives 
 the very body and blood of Christ in the second sacrament, not 
 in any metaphorical and spiritual, but in a true, real and natural 
 manner, thousands and tens of thousands of half-instructed souls 
 will grasp the offered salvation according to what we cannot 
 but call antichrist’s gospel for the remission of sins. Bishops 
 can but occasionally detect and visit such practices. 
 
 I.p. 310. “ The spirit of S. Francis of Sales, by the Bishop of 
 Belley. They had observed that I was a very long time in pre- 
 paring before the holy mass, &c. He wished to correct me in this 
 [from this]. He came to see me at Belley, according to the custom 
 of our mutual annual visits. It happened during the time of his 
 
 Paris, 1850; Vol: I. p. 310, .Pé I. c: 17: 
 
 Esprit de S. Francois de Sales par 1 Eveque M. de Belley. On Vavoit 
 averti que j’etois extremement long a me preparer avant la sainte messe, 
 &e. 1] voulut me corriger de cela. 1] m’etoit venu voir a Belley, 
 selon la coutume de nos visites annuelles reciproques. Il arriva que, 
 
492 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 staying at my house, that he had one morning a quantity of 
 despatches to make that detained him very late in his room. 
 Eleven o'clock approached and he had not yet said the mass, which 
 he never on any day omitted ; if he were not ill or very much put 
 out of his way. He came then to the chapel robed in his rochet 
 and humeral, and after having saluted those who were there, he 
 made a rather short prayer at the foot of the altar, robed himself 
 and said the mass. Having completed it he fell on his knees 
 again and after a rather short prayer he came to find us with so 
 serene a face that he appeared to me like an angel, until they 
 called us to the repast, which was soon after.... Is it not a fine 
 thing to see the Bishop of Belley taking to task the Bishop of 
 Geneva for going too fast, and him of Geneva taking to task him 
 of Belley for going too slowly? Is not the world turned upside 
 down ? 
 
 I. p.529. “Introduction to a life of devotion. Preface. I try by 
 some remonstrances and exercises to turn Philothea’s simple desire 
 into an entire resolve, which she at last makes after her general 
 confession by a fixed protestation followed by the holy communion, 
 in which, as she gave herself to her Saviour and recewed Him, she 
 enters happily into His holy love. When that was done, to 
 conduct her to a more advanced stage, I shewed her two great 
 means of uniting herself more and more to the Divine majesty ; 
 the use of the sacraments, by which our good God comes to us; 
 and holy prayer, by which He draws us to Himself... 
 
 durant le temps de son séjour en notre maison, il eut un matin quantité 
 de depeches ἃ faire qui l’arrétérent fort tard dans la chambre. Onze 
 heures approchoient, et il n’avoit encore point dit la messe, ce quwil 
 n’omettoit aucun jour, sil n’étoit malade, ou fort incommodé. 17] vient 
 done a la chapelle, revétu de son rochet et carmail, et apres avoir salué 
 ceux qui étoient 1a, il fit une assez courte priere au pied de l’autel, s’habille 
 et dit la messe. L’ayant achevée il se remit aux genoux ; et apres une 
 priere assez courte, il-nous vint trouver avec un visage si serein, qu'il 
 me paraissoit comme un ange, jusqu’a ce quw’on nous appellét pour la 
 table, qui fut peu apres...N’est ce pas une belle chose que l’evéque de 
 Belley reprenne celui de Geneve d’aller trop vite? et celui de Geneve 
 celui de Belley d’aller trop lentement? n’est pas le monde renversé ἢ 
 
 Preface a (Introduction ἃ la vie devote, I. p. 529. 
 
 Je m’essaye par quelques remonstrances et exercices de convertir le 
 simple desir de Philotée en une entiere resolution, qu’elle faict a la 
 parfin, apres sa confession generale par une solide protestation, suivie 
 de la saincte communion, en laquelle se donnant a son Sauveur, et 
 le recevant, elle entre heureusement en Son sainct amour. Cela faict, 
 pour la conduire plus avant, je lui monstre deux grands moyens de 
 s'unir de plus en plus a Sa divine Majesté ; l’usage des sacremens, par 
 lesquels ce bon Diew vient ἃ nous, et la saincte oraison, par laquelle 1] 
 nous tire ἃ Soi. 
 
1567] 5. FRANCOIS DE SALES. ~ 493 
 
 I. 243--352. ‘Three sermons to shew the truth of the holy 
 sacrament of the altar. My flesh is truly food, John vi. 
 
 P. 244. “1 find that speaking generally a body cannot be pre- 
 sent, nor be applied and joined to another, nor consequently be 
 eaten, except in three ways; really and not spiritually; spiritually 
 and not really ; really and spiritually both together. The first way 
 is real but unrefined, according to nature, and loaded. The second 
 is spiritual, metaphorical, and with little of truth init. The third 
 is as much real as the first, as much spiritual as the second: it 
 is more admirable than the first and the second. Let us consider 
 this more particularly and see which of the three forms is the more 
 suitable to the presence and eating of the body of our Lord at the 
 very holy sacrament... [P. 247.) I began to shew that the form 
 in which our Lord was in this sacrament was not anything harsh 
 or horrible, but very sweet and gracious. Now... I will shew 
 that there is no impossibility in this holy sacrament that a body 
 should be in a spot without occupying room, and keeping this 
 outward extension which we see naturally in other bodies. [The 
 Roman mode of presence, neither perceptible nor material, and 
 yet having some of the usual attributes of matter still.] (2) That 
 transubstantiation is in no way impossible but also very true in 
 this sacrament. (3) I should draw from all that I have said the 
 adoration of this holy sacrament. O Lord, I will praise Thy 
 almighty power with all my heart, if only Thou openest my lips to 
 
 Vol. 111. 243—352. 
 
 Trois sermons pour la verité du sainct sacrement de l’autel. Caro 
 Mea vere est cibus, John vi. 
 
 P. 244. Je trouve que parlant generalement un corps ne peut estre 
 present, n’y estre appliqué au conjoint d’un autre, ni par consequent estre 
 mangé, qu’en trois sortes: reellement etnon spirituellement; spirituellement 
 et non reellement: reellement et spirituellement tout ensemble. La pre- 
 miere sorte est reelle, mais grossiere naturelle et chargée. [ὦ seconde est 
 spirituelle metaphorique et peu veritable. La troisieme est autant reelle 
 que la premiere, autant spirituelle que la seconde; elle est plus admira- 
 ble que la premiere et la seconde, Considerons ceci plus particulierement, 
 et voyons quelle des trois fagons est plus convenable a la presence et 
 manducation du corps de nostre Seigneur au tres sainct sacrement. 
 P. 247. Je commengai a monstrer que la fagon en laquelle nostre Sei- 
 gneur estoit en ce sacrement n’estoit aucunement dure ni horrible, mais 
 tres suave et gracieuse, Maintenant...je monstrerai qu'il n’y a nulle im- 
 possibilité en ce sainct sacrement qu’un corps soit en un lieu sans y 
 vecuper place et garder cette extension exterieure que nous voyons estre 
 naturellement aux autres corps. 2. Que la transubstantiation n’est au- 
 cunement impossible, ains tres veritable en ce sacrement. 3. Je de- 
 duirai de tout ce que j’ai dit l’adoration de ce saint sacrement. Ὁ 
 Seigneur, je louerai de tout mon cceur vostre toute-puissance, pourvue 
 
494 * THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 speak thy praises ; I will adore Thy majesty in the holy sacrament ; 
 if thou only holdest Thy words in my heart: for Thy words will 
 instruct me that Thou art there really and truly man of God ; and 
 that Thy presence is not more impossible to Thy will, though it be 
 incomprehensible by our weak understandings, than the rest of 
 Thy admirable works. That this prayer may be received of His 
 Divine goodness let us join to it the intercession of our lady. 
 Ave, Mary... [P. 251.] Let us conclude then that after the 
 consecration the true body of our Lord is there and that there is 
 not any other substance there whatever. It is there, I say, really 
 and very truly. 
 
 P. 250. “We must not say that His body is there and the 
 bread too: for if any one should sell a sack with half corn and 
 half oats, and should say, ‘ Buy this, for it is corn,’ he would with- 
 out doubt be deceiving the world, and would be deemed to have 
 told a lie... When then Jesus says, This is My body, He shews 
 clearly that the bread is changed, [P. 254.] Seven reasons why 
 the literal meaning must be adopted. 
 
 x 
 
 que vous ouvriez mes levres ἃ vos louanges ; j’adorerai vostre Majesté 
 au sainct sacrement ; pourvue que vous teniez tousjours vos parolles 
 en mon cceur, car vos parolles m/’instruiront que vous y estes homme de 
 Dieu reellement et veritablement, et que cette vostre presence n’est non 
 plus impossible a vostre volonte, quoi qu’incomprehensible a nos foibles 
 entendemens, que le reste de vos ceuvres admirables. Afin que cette 
 priere soit receue de Sa divine bonté joignons y l’intercession de nostre 
 dame. Ave Maria... P. 251. Concluons donc qu’apres la consecration 
 le vrai corps de nostre Seigneur y est, et n’y a point d’autre substance 
 quelle quelle soit. 1] y est dis-je reellement et tres veritablement. 
 Ῥ 250. 
 
 Il ne faut pas dire que Son corps y soit, et le pain aussi: car qui 
 vendroit un sac, moitié froment et moitie avoine, et diroit, Achetez 
 cecy, car est froment: sans doute qu'il tromperoit le monde, et seroit 
 reputé pour avoir dit un mensonge...Quand done 1] dit Hoc est corpus 
 Meum, I] monstre clairement que le pain est changé. P, 254, Seven 
 reasons for the literal sense. 
 
 (ZZ.) DOCTOR ANDREW WILLET. B. 1562. Ὁ. 1621. 
 
 The laborious and keen-sighted author of the Synopsis Papismi 
 cannot be ignored here, though his argumentation is too minutely 
 developed to allow of being adequately quoted. In his descrip- 
 tions of Popish doctrine on the Lord’s supper he chiefly draws from 
 three sources, (1) The Rhemish commentators, as reprinted at full 
 
1502] DOCTOR ANDREW WILLET. 405 
 
 and replied to by Dr Fulke; (2) Bellarmine’s one great work, 
 Concerning Controversies, in its three folios, and (3) The De- 
 erees and Canons of the Council of Trent; but other authorities 
 are cited when requisite. He reasons with the utmost calmness, 
 like a man who felt that the setting forth of the simple truth was 
 his mission. He was born in Ely, and went to its grammar 
 school, and thence to Peterhouse, till a fellowship at Christ’s was 
 given to him. His mind came very early to maturity. Though 
 he preached at court as chaplain to the King, his public teaching 
 seems to have been of a plain clear and simple style, but cheerful 
 as well as grave. He was a good pattern of a Christian. His 
 blameless life corresponded with his love of truth in study. The 
 last thing he did, as he was near to dying, was to hear and com- 
 ment on the 146th Psalm. He had been busily engaged in eluci- 
 dating the Old Testament. The Synopsis, though his largest work, 
 is but the first among many; for he was a very fruitful father of 
 books, as well as of children. He had fourteen of the latter. His 
 father was Rector of Barley in Hertfordshire, and his son suc- 
 ceeded him there. But his father had been a Prebendary of Ely 
 by the appointment of Bishop Cox in Queen Elizabeth’s reign. 
 
 Synopsis Papismi. Reformation Soc.’s Edition, London, 1852. 
 
 Vol. v. p. 17. “Bellarmine chargeth us with three great 
 untruths: first that we hold that the words of institution are not 
 necessary in every sacrament, but in Baptism only. Secondly, 
 that we say a sermon is of the essence of the sacrament. Thirdly, 
 that the words of institution do not serve at all towards consecra- 
 tion or benediction of the elements. But our opinion is this, 
 We do not hold that it is an essential part of a sacrament, always 
 to have a sermon before it, as they understand a sermon: which 
 notwithstanding were most convenient, and always to be wished : 
 but this we affirm that a sacrament cannot be rightly ministered 
 unless there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lord’s 
 death, not only in the visible action of breaking and distributing 
 the elements, but also in setting forth the end of the Lord’s death 
 out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulness ; which 
 is always observed amongst us in the daily celebration and re- 
 ceiving of the sacrament. [I presume he means in the service of 
 the national Church of England: but he may mean with all 
 orthodox Protestants.] Concerning the words of the institution 
 we also grant that they are necessarily to be used in the celebra- 
 tion of the sacrament ; but not as the Papists use them. For first 
 they make them not all of one value, but out of the whole institu- 
 
400 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 tion pick out certain consecratory words, as they call them, as, 
 This is My body, This is the cup: whereas the other words, Take 
 ye, Eat ye, Drink ye, Do this in remembrance, do as well belong 
 to the consecration as any other. Secondly, they say, that the 
 words of institution do not serve anything at all for the instruction 
 of the people to shew them the right use of the sacrament, but 
 only for benediction and consecration of the elements. Bellarm. 
 tom. 3, ὁ. 19, p. 71, &. Ingolstadt, 1601. Thirdly, they do 
 hold that only by the pronouncing of those words the elements are 
 consecrated ; whereas by the whole action and celebration of the 
 sacrament, the giving, receiving, invocation, thanksgiving according 
 to Christ’s institution, the consecration is performed upon the 
 elements. Fulke, 1 Corinthians x. § 4, p. 510, London, 1633. 
 [Then follow two pages of argumentation. | 
 
 P. 36. “ Ninety-ninth error. The first part. Whether sacra- 
 ments of themselves do give or confer grace. The Papists [say], 
 The sacraments give grace ‘ex opere operato’—by the work 
 wrought—+z.e. by force and virtue of the work and word done and 
 said in the sacrament. Rhemist. Act. 22.§ 1. Fulke, London, 
 1633. So that not only faith justifieth but the sacraments also 
 and other works of religion. The sacraments then are [in the 
 view of Papists] immediate instruments and efficient causes of our 
 justification : not mediately, as they nourish and increase our faith, 
 but properly and in themselves, [This is explained in several parts 
 of these volumes by an inherent virtue resident in, and going out 
 of the sacraments themselves, God having willed that they should 
 have this power lodged in them, so that the mere act of the 
 minister in ministration is sufficient to call it forth, and does so 
 cause it to go forth.] Faith in the receiver gives no efficiency to 
 the sacrament, but only taketh away the lets and hindrances 
 which might hinder the efficacy of the sacrament, &c., &e. Bell. lib. 
 2, de Sac. cap. 1.” [I must not cite more; but as the proverb is, 
 Kx ungue leonem. This shews what Willet is.] 
 
 The last scene of his life is so sweet, as given in Abel Redivivus, 
 that I append it almost entire. 
 
 “Upon the tenth day after his hurt [by a fall in riding] he 
 reposed himself to rest. Early in the morning, upon occasion of 
 the tolling of the bell for one then at the point of death, he sud- 
 denly awoke... He then took occasion to discourse with her 
 [his wife] touching the joys of Heaven and the saints’ mutual 
 acknowledgment of one another in that blessed estate ; which dis- 
 course ended, he with his wife sang a hymn, composed by himself, 
 wherewith they usually every morning praised God for their rest 
 the night past and prayed His blessing for the day succeeding. 
 Their spirits being thus raised, they continued their melody and 
 
1502] DOCTOR ANDREW WILLET. 497 
 
 sang the 146th Psalm. He sometime stopped a little, and glossing 
 upon the words applied divers things therein unto himself and to 
 his present condition. And on the sudden his hour being now 
 come [Gennadius concio de morte] fetching a deep sigh or groan, 
 he sank down in his bed. But help coming in, upon means used 
 he seemed to raise up himself a little, and then said ‘Let me 
 ‘alone, I shall do well, Lord Jesus.’ And with that word he gave 
 up the ghost. His body was carried... to his town of Barley and 
 was in his chancel solemnly interred... with many tears. And 
 there lieth, covered with a fair graven stone of marble. In the 
 lines that follow are these two, 
 
 ‘Whose lamp was ever shining, never hid, 
 ‘And when his tongue preached not his actions did.” 
 
 Such a man is a pattern to those that have to write con- 
 troversy. 
 
 (AAA.) BROTHER PETER CAPRERA. 
 
 P. 46. “The sacraments of the new law signify that grace 
 is to be conferred by the sacraments themselves, as by instru- 
 ments of Christ’s passion. One of the chief benefits is that grace 
 will be conferred on us by the sacraments, as from the work done. 
 
 P. 959. “Not all sacraments are equal and like, which indeed, 
 against the heretics of the present time...who deny that the Lord 
 is really in the sacrament of the eucharist especially above all 
 other...And first because the sacrament of the eucharist substan- 
 tially contains Christ: but the rest contain some virtue from their 
 institution communicated to us from Christ...All others are or- 
 dained with reference to the eucharist as to their end [completion, 
 τέλος], all are consummated in the eucharist.” 
 
 Caprera Frati Petri. Madrid, 1611, P. 46. 
 
 Sacramenta legis nove significant gratiam conferendam per ipsamet 
 sacramenta, ¢anqguam per instrumenta passionis Christi. Unum ex 
 preecipuis beneficiis est, ut nobis gratia per sacramenta ex opere operato 
 conferetur. 
 
 Jee SSS 
 
 Non omnia sacramenta esse equalia et paria, quod quidem contra 
 heereticos hujus temporis, preesertim sacramentarios, negantes Christum 
 esse realiter in eucharistiz sacramento potissimum omnium aliorum.. 
 Tum primo quia sacramentum eucharistie continet substantialiter Chris- 
 tum; reliqua vero continent quandam virtutem institutionalem par- 
 ticipatam a Christo.. Omnia alia ordinantur ad eucharistiam sicut finem. 
 Omnia in eucharistié consummantur. 
 
 He. oh: 32 
 
498 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 This Spanish divine is valuable as giving to us the essence 
 of Roman sacramental doctrine. His saying, that the sacraments 
 are in direct and almost organic connexion with the cross, for 
 that they are its instruments by which it acts upon us, is bold, 
 for forgiveness of sins by sacraments follows from this assertion 
 as a matter in due course: and no wonder he adds ew operato. 
 In this system the sacrament, of itself, independent of the faith 
 of the recipient, saves. This receptionism without faith is the 
 modern prevalent belief of an increasing number. Then he uses 
 the Latin word realiter of the res ipsa, the body of Christ itself: 
 which also many mean by the term the res sacramenti. And 
 lastly, the making the Lord’s supper the centre and queen, the 
 end and perfection, the finis of all other ordinances (had he 
 quoted Greek, he would have said the τέλος of them all), is the 
 view that crowns the whole. The counter-doctrine is that all 
 sacraments minister to the implanting and cherishing of faith 
 in the soul, and perhaps none are quite like the Lord’s supper, 
 but that without living faith it and all sacraments and means 
 are nothing but signs without life, channels without living water. 
 
 (BBB.) RICHARD CRAKANTHORP, D.D. B. 1567. Ὁ. 1624. 
 
 This remarkable divine was a native of Westmorland. He 
 was born at a village near Penrith, named Strickland. He went 
 to Oxford, to Queen’s College, and was elected fellow at twenty- 
 two. He became Rector of Black Nobley, a village in Essex, and 
 combined a reputation for wide doctrinal and canonical knowledge 
 with considerable power as a preacher, so that he held the office 
 of a preacher before James I. in the Royal Chapel. His great 
 work has been reprinted in the Library of Anglo-Catholic The- 
 ology. It is entitled in my edition of 1625, A Defence of the 
 English Church against the injurious statements (injuries) of 
 Mark Antony de Dominis Lord Archbishop of Spalatro (in Dal- 
 matia). The editor of it speaks of Crakanthorp as omni virtute 
 doctrindque spectatissimi. The Archbishop of Spalatro had τος 
 tired to England wearied with his own doubts respecting Roman 
 doctrines, and having received much public notice actually went 
 so far as to publish a book against them: but pressed with 
 entreaties to return to the Roman communion he fell under 
 
1507] . RICHARD CRAKANTHORP. 499 
 
 suspicion at the English court and received orders to quit this 
 country. It was in reply to what he afterwards published on 
 the state of religion in England that Crakanthorp published his 
 Defence, from which our extracts are taken. He wrote two other 
 works. One is against Baronius, entitled, Rome’s Seer Overseen, 
 a treatise on the fifth General Council, held at Constantinople 
 A.D. 533: and the other is entitled, A Defence of Constantine, 
 with a treatise on the Pope’s temporal monarchy. The editor 
 of the Defence, Dr John Barkham, since it was what is called 
 a posthumous publication, inscribes for its motto Rev. xiv. 19, 
 but he changes the verb into a future tense making it “opera 
 “eorum sequentur eos;” “Their works shall follow them.” In 
 his prefatory letter addressed to King James, after no little 
 amount of adulation to the reigning monarch, it does not much 
 surprise to find the strongest words given in the Holy Scripture 
 to Judas applied without hesitation to the recreant archbishop. 
 Τὴ fact he calls him by the traitor’s own name, “Quid aliud isti 
 “quam Juda, qui...abiit ad Jocum suum.” More follows, but how 
 could he surpass this ? 
 
 P. 506. “Of the service of eucharist—in which the weakness 
 of the Archbishop of Spalatro is proved in his saying, ‘that there is 
 ‘not even a suspicion ot idolatry in the service, which their eucharists 
 ‘exhibit.’ You say ‘they object against us that there is the most 
 ‘open idolatry in our adoring the holy eucharist—that is to say 
 ‘our adoring the bread. We do object and deservedly. What 
 have you to set against our objection? You say, ‘Our adversaries 
 ‘cannot even suspect that we in this adoration of the eucharist 
 ‘are chargeable with the error of idolatry. What say you? They 
 can’t even suspect you of it? ΤῸ what purpose then are there so 
 many and great volumes written by those of your side to clear 
 you of this charge of idolatry, since there is not indeed, nor can 
 
 Defensio ecclesie Anglicane, dc. London, 1625, ¢« 71, P. 506. 
 
 De cultu eucharistiz, ubi vanitas Arch. Spalat. demonstratur, cum 
 dicat, “in cultu, quem eucharistie exhibent, ne suspicionem quidem 
 “esse idololatrie.”...‘‘Objiciunt,” inquis, ‘ nobis apertissimam in sancta 
 “ eucharistia adoranda idololatriam—panis videlicet adorationem.” Ob- 
 jicimus quidem, et merito. Quid tu habes quod opponas? “ Ne sus- 
 “picari quidem,” inquis, “ possunt adversarii, nos in hac eucharistic 
 “ adoratione idololatriz errori esse obnoxios.” Quid ais? ne suspicari 
 quidem possunt. Quorsum igitur tot tamque grandia volumina a vestris 
 seripta, ut crimen hoc idololatrie eluatis, cujus ne suspicio quidem ulla 
 
 32—2 
 
500 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 be even a suspicion of it? Do you know at all the Archbishop of 
 Spalatro? See whether he would not teach you that there is 
 some suspicion [of this fault] lying here underneath. The fol- 
 lowing, as you know, are his words (Scopus I.) ‘Alas! to this 
 ‘bread are prayers poured forth, and adoration is rendered as to 
 ‘the only true God, and this is idolatry of the lowest kind real and 
 ‘formal. Is this then clearly enough said? But hear him also 
 again. ‘From this great error of an impossible and incomprehen- 
 ‘sible transubstantiation, by which they determine that bread is 
 ‘truly and really transmuted into the true and entire body of Christ, 
 ‘a true and real idolatry arises in the mass, in which the host is 
 ‘lifted up so that it is adored for the true God, and yet really and 
 ‘truly is true and real bread. (2) But let us see how beautifully 
 you prove that in this you are not idolaters. ‘The real and cor- 
 ‘poral presence of the Lord’s body and blood in the very sacred 
 ‘mysteries of the eucharist is to us most certain’...There is to 
 you no certainty at all, either that he that consecrates is a priest, 
 or even a baptized man: or that he intends to do what the church 
 does; or that bread has ever been transubstantiated into Christ’s 
 body; or that transubstantiation can be effected in that way... 
 Ye neither know any of these things certainly and infallibly nor 
 can ye know without special revelation...(3) But by what method 
 do you here excuse yourselves from idolatry? ‘ We adore Christ’s 
 ‘body itself lying hid under the species (appearances, properties or 
 ‘qualities) of itself with the true latria (higher worship) on ac- 
 ‘count of the hypostatic (personal) union.’ You have well and 
 
 est, imo, nec esse potest? Nostin’ Dominum Archiepiscopum Spala- 
 tensem? Vide annon te ille doceat suspicionem aliquam hic subesse, 
 aut subesse posse, Heec, ut scis, illius verba sunt (Spalat. Scop. 1.) 
 ‘““Heu! pani huic preces funduntur, et adoratio quasi unico et vero 
 “ Deo prestatur, que est maxime oppressa propria et formalis idololatria.” 
 Satin’ hoe clare? Sed et iterum audi. “ Ab hee grandi impossibilis et 
 “‘incomprehensibilis transubstantiationis errore, per quem panem vo- 
 “Junt vere et realiter in verum (omit vinum) et integrum Christi 
 “corpus transmutari, oritur vera et realis idololatria in missa, In qua 
 *elevatur hostia, ut pro vero Deo adoretur, et tamen vere ac realiter 
 “‘verus est ac realis panis.” [Such had been the Archbishop’s painting of 
 Popery when in England.| (2) Sed videamus quain belle vos idololatras 
 in hoe non esse probas. (Cons. red. p. 47, ὁ. 6. after his return to the 
 continent.) ‘‘ Nobis preesentia realis ac corporalis corporis et sanguinis 
 ‘Domini in eucharistiz sacrosanctis mysteriis est certissima.”...Certi- 
 tudo vobis nulla neque quod is qui consecrat sacerdos sit, aut vel bap- 
 tizatus : neque quod intendit facere quod facit ecclesia; neque panem 
 unquam transubstantiatum esse in Christi corpus ; neque quod possi- 
 bilis sit ita transubstantiatio...Nihil horum certo et infallibiliter vel 
 scitis, vel sine speciali revelatione scire potestis...(3) Quomodo vero 
 vos ab idololatria tu hic excusas? [Cons. red. p. 47.] ‘Nos ipsum 
 “corpus Christi de se ob unionem hypostaticam adcrabile, verd latria 
 
1567] ‘RICHARD CRAKANTHORP. 501 
 
 significantly used the word ‘lying hid” For certainly it lies hid 
 from bodily eyes, from the eyes of reason, from the eyes of men, 
 from the eyes of angels, from the eyes of the glorified, from the 
 eyes of others, from the eyes of Christ Himself....(4) But tell me 
 seriously. Do ye adore that hidden body of Christ of itself? 15 
 it of itself to be adored with the higher worship? Beware lest 
 ye be worshippers of men, and fall under that anathema of the 
 council of Ephesus (as quoted). 
 
 P. 510, c. 72. “Transubstantiation is not proved either out 
 of St John’s ch. vi. or out of Christ’s words, Matt. xxvi. (2) You 
 say, ‘Christ promised that He would give His own flesh. Joh. vi. 
 “51, The bread which I will give is My flesh. But He did not 
 say, he bread which I will give to be eaten by your teeth in the 
 eucharist, that bread is My flesh. He said, The bread which I 
 will give, I will give, namely, to be sacrificed on the cross, I will 
 give to be eaten by the hearts of all the faithful by faith. That 
 bread is truly My flesh. Christ Himself shews that He is not 
 speaking of sacramental, but of spiritual eating, when he says 
 vv. 35, 40. And in v. 35, what is to come to Christ but to believe 
 in Christ ? The body of Christ is eaten by faith. By faith His 
 blood is drunk...See Augustine. [And so on through 35 more 
 paragraphs. OC. 73, of 60 paragraphs, is a catena of patristic pas- 
 sages on his side. | 
 
 P. 574. “From what has been said about transubstantiation it 
 
 ““sub speciebus latens, adoramus.” Bene dixisti et signanter “latens.” 
 Certe enim Jatet oculos corporis, oculos rationis, oculos hominum, oculos 
 angelorum ; oculos glorificatorum, oculos aliorum, oculos ipsius Christi. 
 [He then quotes Durandus, Arch. 8. and Thomas Aquinas.] (4) Verum 
 dic serio, An latens illud corpus Christi de se adoratis? An de se 
 adorabile est latrid? Cave ne anthropolatre sitis, et in illud anathema 
 sancti Ephesini concilii incidatis [Anath. vim. C. E.]. 
 
 Ὅς ΤᾺ 4 ΤΡ ὍΝ (νὰ 
 Transubstantiatio non probatur vel ex cap. 6 Johannis vel ex 
 verbis Christi Matt. 26, &e. (2) ‘ Promisit,” inquis, “Christus Joh. 
 “vi. 51 Se daturum carnem Suam. Panis quem Ego dabo, caro Mea 
 “est.” Sed non dixit, Panis, quem Ego dabo, in eucharistia dentibus 
 comedendum, panis ille est caro Mea. Dixit panis quem dabo—dabo 
 nempe in cruce immolandum, dabo fidelium omnium cordibus fide come- 
 dendum. Panis est vero ille caro Mea. Christus Ipse non de sacra- 
 mentali, sed spirituali esu loqui demonstrat, cum ait v. 35 et v. 40. 
 Et v. 35, Quid est venire in Christum nisi credere in Christum? [Aug. 
 Tract. 26 in Joh.] Fide editur Christi corpus: fide sanguis Hjus 
 bibitur. 
 C. 74, p. 574. 
 
 Ex iis que de transubstantiatione dicta sunt, duo consequi decla- 
 
502 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 is declared that two things follow: (1) that there is not in the mass 
 a true and proper sacrifice: (2) that the eucharist is not to be 
 adored, and that the party of the pope, which adores it, are idola- 
 ters...(4) [P. 577.] You see now what great rough places there 
 are here, how all things with you toss like waves and vacillate. 
 You do not know that he that celebrates the mass has been 
 baptized ; you do not know that he is a priest; you do not know 
 that the intention required is present in him then. Because you 
 do not know these things, you are sure that you do not know 
 whether the bread has now been transubstantiated : you are cer- 
 tain that you are worshipping and giving higher worship to that 
 which you do not know to be God. But God is not to be wor- 
 shipped from opinion but from faith. And if in other things most 
 of all is the Apostle’s rule, Rom. xiv. 13, to be held in giving the 
 worship of the higher service. 
 
 P. 574. “A proper propitiatory sacrifice is, That which by a 
 force of its own, without relation to any other thing, propitiates 
 God to sinners, and by its real merit, value, price, and by the 
 dignity of the sacrifice obtains remission of sins and God’s grace. 
 Such a sacrifice there never either was or will be except the 
 only one of Christ, offering to God His own body and blood on the 
 cross, 
 
 ratur: prius non esse in miss& verum et proprium sacrificium : secun- 
 dum, eucharistiam adorandam non esse, et pontificios, qui eam adorant, 
 idololatras esse...(4) P. 577. Vides nune quantz hic salebre, quam 
 apud vos fluctuent et vacillent omnia. Nescis eum, qui missam celebrat, 
 baptizatum esse, nescis sacerdotem esse: nescis intentionem debitam ei 
 tum adesse. Quia ista nescis, certus es te nescire, an panis transub- 
 stantiatus jam sit : certus es te quod nescis colere et latriam ei exhibere, 
 quod Deum esse non scis. [Gerson. Comp. Theol. de trib. virt. p. 11. ] 
 Deus vero ex opinione colendus non est, sed ex fide. ἘΠ si in aliis, 
 maxime omnium in cultu latriz exhibendo tenenda est apostoli regula, 
 Rom. xiv. 13... 
 
 In (1) p. 574, the definition of a true propitiatory sacrifice is, Sua 
 vi non relatione ad aliud habité, propitium Deum peccatoribus facit, 
 exque ipso merito, valore, pretio, ac dignitate sacrificil peccatorum 
 remissionem et Dei gratiam obtinet [Bellarm. de Missa, L. 2, ὁ. 3; 
 Cone. Trident. ὃ 22, ο. 2, ο. 3.] Sacrificium tale nullum vel unquam fuit 
 vel erit, preter unum Christum, corpus Suum et sanguinem in cruce 
 Deo offerentem. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) HERBERT THORNDIKE, PREBENDARY OF WESTMINSTER. Ὁ. 1672. 
 
 Master of Sidney, associated with Walton, Took part with 
 Walton in his wonderful Polyglott Bible. He was Master of 
 Sidney before the Restoration. He was Fellow of Trinity, Cam- 
 bridge. He was chairman of the Savoy Conference. 
 
 On nice disputes in Christendom. Anglo-Cath. Lib. Vol. 1. 
 737. “The consecration of the eucharist. Cassander, in his con- 
 sultation, complains of those of the Reformation for abolishing 
 that form, the substance of which all churches since the apostles 
 have always used in consecrating the eucharist, being that which 
 the Scriptures dignify by the title of blessing and thanksgiving, 
 from whence the sacrament itself is called the sacrament of the 
 eucharist or thanksgiving, and sometimes absolutely without any 
 addition the eucharist.....This reproof seconded by Grotius, 
 ul. 625, De Miss’. Dr Revet rejoins that the Church of England 
 hath ever preserved the same entire...How shall any common 
 sense be satisfied,...whether he—the minister—hath consecrated 
 the same or not ? 
 
 Of the laws of the Church, Vol. Iv. p. 753. “The adoration 
 of the eucharist, which the church of Rome presenteth, is not 
 necessarily idolatry. I say not what it may be accidentally by 
 that intention which some may conceal, and may make it idolatry, 
 as to God...I speak upon a supposition of that intention which 
 the church, &c. I suppose them to believe that those creatures 
 of God which are the elements of that sacrament are not there 
 more after the consecration; having ceased to be, that they might 
 make room for the body and blood of the Lord to come into their 
 stead. I suppose that the body and blood of Christ may be adored 
 by a good Christian when the custom of the church requires tt. 
 
 P. 754. “I suppose further that the body and blood of Christ 
 is not adored nor to be adored by Christians neither for itself, nor 
 for any endowment residing in it, which it may have received 
 
504 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, [A.D. 
 
 from being personally united with the Godhead of Christ, but 
 only in consideration of the Godhead to which it remains in- 
 separably united. [The Church of England of which Thorndike 
 was a member, said then, as it does now, that adoration is not 
 to be paid to any corporal presence, ὦ. 6. to any (supposed) corporal 
 presence of Christ’s flesh and blood; and that such adoration is 
 idolatry. Thorndike teaches that it is right to pay adoration to 
 the (assumed) presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in considera- 
 tion of its inseparable union with the Godhead. 1. How the 
 teaching of Thorndike and the Church’s declaration can agree, 
 I do not see. wu. The inseparable union of Christ’s Deity with 
 His manhood does not make the human body present everywhere, 
 as the Deity of Christ is, and m1. The Church expressly says that 
 there is no presence of Christ’s natural body on earth at all, but that 
 it is only in Heaven; and these words either imply that Christ’s 
 body is now in its natural state, ψυχικὸν σῶμα, and not yet in its 
 spiritual and glorious state, or else they include the glorified body 
 under the term “natural body”—in which ease the Church of 
 England affirms that Christ’s glorified body is in Heaven only, 
 and not on earth either in the sacrament or (ordinarily) on any 
 other occasion. Iv. As the Church says both that adoration may 
 not be paid to any corporal presence, and that Christ’s natural 
 body is in Heaven and not here, it may I think be concluded 
 that “natural body” and “corporeal presence of Christ’s body” 
 are equivalent terms.] The Godhead of Christ is the thing that 
 is honoured, and the reason why τύ is honoured. The body 
 and blood of Christ, though it be necessarily honoured because 
 necessarily united to that which is honoured, yet is zt not the 
 only thing that is honoured, and the reason why it is honoured, 
 speaking of the honour proper to God alone...Is not the presence 
 in the sacrament of the eucharist a just occasion to express by 
 the bodily act of adoration that inward honour which we always 
 feel to our Lord Jesus Christ, as God? [The one conclusive 
 answer to all this is that if the bread and wine are figures or 
 signs of Christ’s death, Christ is not in them, and theretore they 
 may not be adored, as it would be idolatry to be abhorred of all 
 faithful Christians: and further that the body and blood of Christ 
 are not there, but in Heaven only, and they cannot be adored 
 in their absence as far off as Heaven is from earth. Adoration 
 | implies the presence of its object. God can anywhere be adored, 
 as everywhere present. | 
 
 An Epilogue, ἕο. 1. The principles of Christian truth. 
 P. 35, c vi. “The authority of the church as the reason of 
 believing taken away [because its recital of the miracles is rather 
 the occasion of our believing than the reason, 7.e. the church's 
 witness furnishes the opportunity to believe which might have 
 been otherwise supplied]—it remains that we affirm, whatsoever 
 
--1072] _ HERBERT THORNDIKE. 505 
 
 the whole church from the beginning hath received and practised 
 for the rule of faith and manners, all that to be evidently true by 
 the same reason for which we believe the Scriptures. [Surely we 
 must say distinguo. If this refer to a period including the time 
 of the presence of Christ or of His inspired apostles 1015 true: but 
 if the period begin after the inspired direction had ceased, then 
 there might be catholic uniformity in support of an error of 
 doctrine or of practice. A better instance than this of the Lord’s 
 supper can hardly be desired; for from uninspired Clement of 
 Rome downwards for many ages it was the received doctrine that 
 the Lord’s supper is “an offering.” That is an error in doctrine, 
 viz. that we offer the bread and wine to God: at least it is not in 
 holy Writ: and the regulation of the public service upon this 
 doctrine is an error in practice which would seem to be from the 
 same early origin. This alien germ has swelled and expanded and 
 grown up exceedingly from age to age; Ignatius added the word 
 altar and Justin the word sacrifice; but the living principle is one 
 and the same; viz. that the Lord’s supper is something more than 
 a feast, upon a sacrifice that has been previously and independently 
 offered: now no consent of the uninspired church from Clement 
 onwards makes this evidently true for us to hold. Also the import- 
 ance of disproving this is of vital consequence. For see what follows 
 from it in Mr Thorndike’s hands.] And therefore, that the 
 meaning of them (the Scriptures) is necessarily to be confined 
 within those bounds; so that nothing must be admitted for the 
 truth of them (the Seriptures) which contradicteth the same. [If 
 this hold true private judgment must cease. Protestantism loses 
 its basis. Chillingworth must be reputed a misleader: and among 
 other works that deserve to be borne away by some justifying 
 hurricane into the paradise of fools must be this present attempt 
 to bring back general opinion upon this sacrament to the dicta in 
 the holy Scriptures after considering all that other authorities 
 have said and independently of all ‘that they can say. Church 
 authorities in successive ages may aid us in escaping from the 
 weakness of ignorance but they are not the authoritative ex- 
 pounders of the words of holy Scripture. The principle of Thorn- 
 dike’s great work is that they are, It was necessary to draw 
 attention to this, since also a leading dignitary has lately brought 
 forward this principle in the words “Such and such a doctrine is 
 “natristic and therefore Anglican,” ὦ 6. universally binding on 
 churchmen in England. Has this school rightful standing ground 
 in any reformed church 7] 
 
 Vol. v. 181. “That which goes before the offertory belongs not 
 properly to the second service according to a primitive form ; for 
 the presenting of the elements was always the beginning of it. It 
 is called a preface in a very ancient African Canon, to wit to the 
 consecration of the elements that follows, which, as I said before, 
 
506 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. aD 
 
 is nothing else but a prayer that God would send the Holy Ghost 
 upon the present elements and make them the body and blood of 
 Christ, that they who should reverence them worthily might be 
 filled with His grace. The common prayers of the church were 
 always made at the altar or communion table in the act of the 
 sacrament. Reason good. How can Christians think their prayers 
 so effectual with God, as when they are presented at the com- 
 memoration of the sacrifice of Christ crucified 2?” 
 
 His great work is published London, 1619, as “ An Epilogue to 
 “the tragedy of the Church of England, being a consideration and 
 “brief resolution of the chief controversies in religion that divide 
 “the Western Church: occasioned by the present calamity of the 
 “Church of England, in three books, (1) The principles of Chris- 
 “tian truth, (2) The covenant of grace, (3) The laws of the Church, 
 “&c., and are to be sold at the sign of the Bell in St Paul's 
 “ Church-yard.” 
 
 (B.) DAUGHTER OF DAVID CLARKSON. 
 
 In addition to the case of good old Philip Henry I ask what is 
 the conclusion to be drawn from the following case—that of the 
 married daughter of David Clarkson, Fellow and Tutor of Clare 
 Hall in the seventeenth century? The lady was evidently en- 
 dowed with a mind of no common order, and enriched with deep 
 religious emotions. In the preface to Clarkson’s works (Nicol’s 
 Edition, Edinburgh) she appears writing thus, 
 
 “Thus after many conflicts comforts and supports I deter- 
 mined to give myself up to some church, that I might partake of 
 the Lord’s supper and have my faith confirmed in the blood of 
 that everlasting covenant, which I hoped the Lord had made with 
 me, since He had given me His Spirit as the earnest thereof. 
 I accordingly was joined to a church, and, in coming to this ordi- 
 nance found great delight: my faith was strengthened and my love 
 increased from that sweet communion which I then enjoyed with 
 my Lord by His blessed Spirit: who often filled me with joy 
 unspeakable and full of glory. Then I walked under the sweet 
 and comfortable sense of His love; and, whilst in the way of duty, 
 I was thus indulged with such sights of the Redeemer’s glory and 
 such a taste of His grace, I frequently wished that I might never 
 go back to the world again.” : 
 
1700] DAUGHTER OF DAVID CLARKSON, 507 
 
 On this extract I add two remarks: the first, that Canon 
 Liddon will perceive the highest affection to the Lord’s supper 
 and its benefits, without a shadow of superstition as to the Bodily 
 Presence: the second, that, as in the coming extracts from 
 Zwingel in the Third Part, the benefits spring from increase in 
 faith, love and a sense of duty. 
 
 (C.) ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER. B. 1580. pb. 1655. 
 
 A man to wonder at—not only for his precocious and well-used 
 enormous talents, but also on account of the singular Providential 
 incidents that went before and followed upon their appearance, 
 and that worked to develope them to the full. Indeed if belief in 
 a Divine superintending care were not indisputably taught by 
 implication throughout God’s Scriptures, it might be established 
 by generalizing from such instances as stand out in Usher’s life by 
 his chaplain, Dr Richard Parr. I must pass many points and note 
 but a few. Such are his having a Romanist uncle by his mother’s 
 side, who was a noted historian; his having female relatives of 
 noted piety, who were endowed with very remarkable memories, 
 and who, though blind, taught him English; and his having a 
 brother Ambrose who was really great in Hebrew and other 
 Oriental literature. Let us pass to two more singular things. 
 James Hamilton, a much more eminent scholar than any in 
 Dublin at that time, was sent to that city from Scotland in the 
 interest of King James, to prepare the Irish for his inheritance of 
 the British crown. He was required to conceal his mission: so 
 with his colleague James Fullarton he took the profession of a 
 
 * preceptor of young men; and thus he came to teach Usher. Then 
 when Usher was approaching a riper age, in the year 1593, Trinity 
 College, Dublin, is opened just in time for Usher to enter, and 
 James Hamilton is made Senior Fellow. Then what fruit springs 
 from these felicitous conjunctures! Usher's course is first marked 
 by a striking instance of self-denial. In 1598 he inherited his 
 deceased father’s considerable estate : and he was proof against the 
 temptation to relinquish his laborious studies: and he gave the 
 bulk of the property to the rest of the family, reserving only so 
 much as would be needed for his maintenance and to supply him 
 with books, Then at 21 he became famous by triumphing in an 
 
508 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D.. 
 
 open contest with a Jesuit on behalf of the Protestant religion, and 
 he did this with such grace and candour as to win the affection of 
 his adversary. It was not long before he was forced prematurely to 
 take holy orders on account of his acknowledged fitness at that age 
 to preach both to the Court and to the University. ΑἸ] his career 
 is a succession of triumphs: and we may add to this that he won 
 an equal triumph over pride. But I pause from praising him— 
 I am no Irishman nor in any degree of Irish blood. But it seems 
 to me that one might almost say of him, What theological subject 
 did he not touch, and what that he touched did he not illumine ? 
 But our point is that he stands among the first for reasoning 
 closely and elaborately about the circumstantial details and words 
 of Scripture in relation to the Lord’s supper: and for a long time 
 one may search without finding anything in him which the closest 
 Protestant investigator would not subscribe to and adopt. Indeed 
 were it not for a little writing like that in his very early contro- 
 versy with the Jesuit, which may easily be condoned, he stands 
 almost the first among the few who on this delicate subject have 
 been best and simplest and most Scriptural. The true name of 
 Usher was Neville, but an ancestor who became usher to King 
 John, according to the frequent custom of the time adopted the 
 title of his office as his own name. It is plain that there has 
 never been another Usher. Will so many singular felicities again 
 concur to a man of so remarkable mental power? Belonging to 
 no country he is of the heritage of the world. 
 
 Usher's Works. Dublin, 1847. 
 
 Part of the evidence that can be brought in relation to Usher’s 
 opinion on this sacrament is from “The Articles of religion agreed | 
 “upon... in the Convocation Dublin 1615,” Vol. 1. Appendix, Art. 
 92. 100, p. xlix. It is reasonably assumed that Usher, present as 
 Bishop of Meath, had much to do with their construction. The 
 English articles are their basis: but much is added, sometimes 
 with all the freedom of a running commentary. Either they give 
 tone to much that he afterwards wrote on this subject, or else he 
 gave them much of his own particular thoughts on this sacrament. 
 
 92. “The Lord’s supper is not only a sign of the mutual love, 
 \which Christians ought to bear towards one another, but much 
 more a sacrament of our preservation in the church, sealing unto 
 
1580] ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER. 509 
 
 us our spiritual nourishment and continual growth in Christ. 93. 
 The change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance 
 of the body and blood of Christ, commonly called transubstantia- 
 tion, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to plain 
 testimonies of the Scripture, ζο., ἕο, 94. In the outward part, 
 the body and blood of Christ is in a most lively manner repre- 
 ᾿ sented, being no otherwise present with the visible elements, than 
 ᾿ things signified and sealed are present with the signs and seals, 
 _ that is to say symbolically and relatively. But in the inward 
 and spiritual part the same body is really and substantially pre- 
 sented unto all those who have grace to receive the Son of God, 
 \ even to all that believe His name. [This is not distinguishable 
 from the most ancient and reasonable sense of consubstantiation, 
 that which enters not into the question whether Christ’s real and sub- 
 stantial body is received by the mouth or by the heart. It involves 
 the ubiquity of Christ’s body, in so far as it must be present 
 /wherever faithful communicants are receiving it.] And unto such 
 /as in this manner do worthily and with faith repair unto the 
 | Lord’s table the body and blood of Christ is not only signified and 
 offered, but also truly exhibited and communicated. [95, 96, and 
 98. Three of our Articles. 97 is against communion in one kind. 
 99 is against offering the mass for the remission of pain or guilt.] 
 100. Private masses, 7.e. the receiving of the eucharist by the 
 priest alone, without a competent number of communicants, is 
 contrary to the institution of Christ. Decree. If any... teach... 
 contrary, &c., let him be silenced and deprived of all spiritual pro- 
 motions he doth enjoy. 
 
 Sermon before the House of Commons, 1620. Vol. 11. p. 427. 
 
 “A sacrament taken in its full extent comprehendeth two 
 things in it; that which is outward and visible, which the schools 
 call properly sacramentum in a more strict acceptation of the word ; 
 and that which is inward and invisible, which they term rem 
 sacramenti, the principal thing exhibited in the sacrament. [This 
 word “exhibited” is Calvin’s favourite word, not meaning displayed 
 
 and made visible, but furnished and supplied.] Thus in the 
 
 _ Lord’s supper the outward thing, which we see with our eyes, is 
 
 _ bread and wine; the inward thing, which we apprehend by faith, 
 
 is the body and blood of Christ. In the outward part of this 
 mystical action, which reacheth to that which is sacramentum only 
 [7.e. the sacred sign], we receive this body and blood but sacra- 
 mentally [1.6. only in the sign or figure]: in the inward, that 
 containeth rem, the thing itself in it, we receive them [?.e. the 
 body and blood] really, and consequently the presence of these 
 in the one [1.6. in the outward part] is relative and symbolical ; 
 in the other [in the inward part] really substantial. 
 
510 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 This then is Usher’s first utterance that the body of Christ 
 is present in a substantial manner, 7.¢. as a substance, in a real 
 manner, as well as figuratively, in (or with) the bread and wine. 
 See also pp. 429 and 431.—The preface to the Answer to a Jesuit, 
 London, 1686. The Fourth Edition refers to p. 17, where Usher 
 gives its date as 54 years later than Pope Pius IV.’s Bull, 1564, 
 1.6. 1618. The Body of Divinity was published six years later, in 
 1624. <A letter from Usher to Mr Downham, its editor, Vol. 1. 
 p. 249, renounces “The Catechism” that he writes of “as not his, 
 “but transcribed from Mr Cartwright’s Catechism and Mr Crook’s 
 “and some other English divines, but drawn together in one 
 “method as a kind of common place book, where other men’s 
 “judgments and reasons are strongly laid down, though not ap- 
 “proved in all places by the collector, &c., &c.” And yet many 
 editions were published with the primate’s name: and to this 
 day it is marked in catalogues, as in Darling’s, as “ Usher’s Body 
 “of Divinity.” In Usher’s “ Principles of the Christian Religion,” 
 Vol. x1. 194, dated 1564, the Lord’s supper is called, “The sacra- 
 “ment of our preservation in the church, sealing unto us our 
 “spiritual nourishment and continual increase in Christ, &c.” 
 But nothing is said of receiving His body “substantially” or 
 “really.” In the sermons, which are not entirely Usher’s own, 
 is one on 1 Cor. xi, 29, Vol. x11. Perhaps Usher is more nearly 
 responsible for these than for the Body of Divinity. So in fairness 
 I cite a little. 
 
 “Christ hath been crucified, not by hear-say only, but in 
 the blessed sacrament, wherein He is represented as if His soul 
 were before our eyes poured out unto death, so that by these 
 sacraments Heavenly things are as it were clothed in earthly 
 garments...Christ doth thus by His sacrament [as Absalom by 
 erecting a pillar], and erects it as a monument for the remem- 
 brance of His death [see extracts from Tyndal], and as it were 
 calls it by His own name, saying, This is My body and This is 
 My blood, that whenever we see them we may call to mind Christ 
 offered for us and to us...It helps our understanding by being 
 a sign, and is a confirmation, a seal, by virtue of which Christ 
 is passed and made over to us, so that we have as true an interest 
 and right to Him as to our meat and drink: yea He becomes 
 as effectually ours, for every purpose in our spiritual life, as our 
 meat and drink doth for our corporal. ΤῸ which end these ele- 
 ments are changed spiritually in their natures: not in substance 
 [Thus Usher seems here to deny that Christ’s body is “ substantially 
 
1580] ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER, 511 
 
 present”], but in use; so that which was but now a common bread, 
 becomes as far different as Heaven from earth, being altered in its 
 use [and more to the same purport]. It is an instrument whereby 
 Christ instates me into Himself and whereby I have fellowship 
 and communion with Him...If any man...eat.. unworthily,...what 
 was ordained to life and appointed to be a seal and confirmation 
 of God’s love and favour, is now changed and become a seal and 
 confirmation of God’s anger and indignation...he discerns not 
 the Lord’s body and blood, but takes them as ordinary things, 
 deeming the elements not different from the bread and wine which 
 we have at our tables, not knowing that they are the dishes, 
 wherein Christ is served in to us; that by these the greatest 
 gift is given to us and nourishment conveyed for the maintenance 
 of our spiritual life.” [No date is set to this sermon ; but the tone 
 of it is very manifestly different from his earlier assertion, that 
 Christ’s body is present in a real and substantial manner. When he 
 meant to say that, Usher added the word “substantial” to “real.” 
 When our church wished to speak of it in order to deny it she 
 said, 1.6. Cranmer said, ‘The real natural body of Christ.” Is it 
 not a matter of regret that she, 1.6. Dean Overall, has written 
 “The body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed” (the 
 English words for vere et realiter) “received by the faithful in 
 “the Lord’s supper”? For if they be not really and substantially 
 there, neither faithful nor unfaithful do receive them in that 
 
 supper. | 
 Body of Divinity. London, 1677. 
 
 P. 399. “He was to administer it after supper—because it 
 was to come in leu and stead of the passover—and that it might 
 go immediately before His passion, those outward elements of 
 bread and wine, signifying Christ and Him crucified, with all the 
 benefits of His death and passion—even whole Christ with all the 
 fruits of His mediation...He took both bread and wine that He 
 might shew how plentiful and assured redemption we have in 
 Christ, Whom these represent...It was indeed unleavened bread 
 because no other was then lawful...They (the bread and wine) 
 are not changed in nature, but in use: for the words of eating and 
 drinking properly belong to the outward elements, and by a bor- 
 ‘rowed speech do improperly belong to the body and blood of 
 'Christ—to note unto us the communion we have with our 
 Saviour Christ of Whom we are verily partakers by a lively faith, 
 _as of the bread and wine by eating and drinking them. And thus 
 we say that these elements are changed because, being separate 
 from a common use, they are consecrate to sign and seal to us 
 our spiritual nourishment and growth, by the body and blood of 
 Christ Jesus. For as the sacrament of baptism doth seal to us 
 spiritual regeneration, so the Lord’s supper a spiritual feeding... 
 
512 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Therefore the bread and wine are not the true body and blood 
 of Christ, but the signs and tokens of them: as in baptism the 
 water was only a sign of Christ’s blood and not the blood...(1) 
 If the bread were turned into Christ, there would be two Christs. 
 One that giveth, another that is given; for one Saviour Christ 
 gave the bread. (2) If the bread be the very body of Christ there 
 should then be no sign of the thing signified, and so no sacra- 
 ment. (3) The wicked receiver might then eat and drink Christ’s 
 body and blood as well as any true believer. (4) The minister 
 cannot give the inward grace, but the outward element... What 
 reason was there to move our Saviour Christ to such a borrowed 
 speech? Because it is...usual in the Scripture to give the name 
 of the thing signed and signified to the sign; as the tree of life 
 which was only the sign of life, circumcision the covenant, which 
 was only the token of the covenant; the lamb or kid the passover, 
 whereof it was a sign only...baptism is called the new birth or 
 washing away of sins whereof it ts only a seal. But some say 
 [Luther and others] but nothing is impossible with God. The 
 question is here not of the power, but of the will of God...How are 
 the bread and wine consecrated? By doing that, which at the 
 first consecration Christ did. What does that signify? That God 
 in His due time sent Christ into the world and sanctified Him... 
 that those outward signs of bread and wine might through the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit be effectual for the purposes they 
 were ordained unto...There is no mention of these things in the 
 evangelists; but it must needs be. granted that He, on other 
 occasions as well as on this, gave thanks and prayed, in words 
 proportionable to the prayers and thanks here used (1.6. the bless- 
 ing and thanksgiving). For, taking the barley loaves and fishes 
 and giving thanks (and blessing), what can be understood but 
 that He, giving thanks to God, that had given these creatures 
 for the bodily nourishment, prayed that He would bless them 
 and make them effectual to that purpose and end? And as it is 
 not lawful to eat the common meat and drink without such prayer 
 and thanksgiving, so is it not lawful to communicate these ele- 
 * ments without thanksgiving and prayer...To eat the bread and 
 drink the wine...What does that signify? Our uniting unto 
 Christ and enjoying of Him. That we must with delight apply 
 Christ and His merits to all the necessities of our soul, spiritually 
 feeding upon Him and growing by Him...And as God doth bless 
 these outward elements to preserve and strengthen the body of the 
 receiver, so Christ, apprehended and received by faith, doth nourish 
 him and preserve both body and soul unto eternal life...Christ’s 
 body and blood be offered by God to all, yet are they received by 
 such only as have the hand of faith to lay hold on Christ; and 
 these with the bread and wine spiritually receive Christ with all 
 His saving graces. The wicked receive only the outward elements. 
 
 - 
 
1580] ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER. . 515 
 
 ..The special end and uses, for which the Lord’s supper was or- 
 dained...To call to mind and renew the virtue of Christ’s death. 
 
 I might with reason omit the following extracts from Usher, 
 as the work was written before he was of age. I might do this 
 on the plea that it contains not his matured opinions on the 
 Lord’s supper, but rather those which he at first took partly at 
 secondhand before he was old enough to arrive at well-considered 
 conclusions, which are given in the extracts already made. But 
 I much prefer that the earlier utterance should be fully reported 
 lest the evidence should seem to be imperfect and biassed, so as 
 not to run straightforward. My object is to promote not evan- 
 gelical traditions so much as evangelical truth: or rather, to speak 
 more accurately still, I wish to indicate what is the truth of the 
 Gospel in reference to this great subject of the holy supper of the 
 Lord. I am sensible that I may err through human imperfections, 
 but I would fain keep my aim true. 
 
 Answer to the Challenge made by a Jeswit in Ireland. 
 London, 1686. 
 
 P. 30. “Of the real presence. In the receiving of the blessed 
 sacrament we are to distinguish between the outward and the 
 inward action of the communicant. In the outward with our 
 bodily mouth we receive really the visible elements of bread and 
 wine; in the inward we do by faith really receive the body and 
 blood of our Lord. [How Usher can even thus adopt this con- 
 fusing form of words astonishes me! The 6th of John it is true 
 gives us Christ’s words, My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly 
 drink : but Jesus clearly meant that it was such not in the real 
 natural form but typically in a wholly different way from the bread 
 or manna. He says the flesh profiteth not at all, meaning in the 
 real natural form. When then Usher has just said, We receive 
 really the bread and wine, how can he in the same breath say we 
 do, by faith, really receive the body and blood? It seems less ex- 
 cusable (1) because real body is constantly used in the controversy 
 in the sense of natural body, and (2) the Church of England and 
 Ireland used “real natural” in that sense and (3) what means the 
 discussion of this chapter “on the real presence” if the term real is 
 to be used by us regarding Christ’s presence not in the real 
 natural form, just as it is used by the Roman communion to 
 express that bodily presence which we above all things deny ? 
 How common is it to this day to hear it said by some, Both 
 England and Rome hold the real presence. What can be more 
 inexact and inexpedient and “@angerous ? The very thing we left 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΠ: 99 
 
ὅ14 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Rome for is this real natural presence.] That is to say (We) are 
 truly and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spiritual 
 strengthening of our inward man. They of the adverse part have ~ 
 made such a confusion of these things that for the first they utterly 
 deny that after the words of consecration there remaineth any 
 bread or wine at all to be received. [But if any man believes 
 Christ’s body present in its true natural form as well as in the 
 bread in a figure he is so far a consubstantialist.] And for the 
 second do affirm that the body and blood of Christ is in sucha 
 manner present under the outward shows of bread and wine that 
 whosoever receiveth the one (be he good or bad, believer or un- 
 believer) doth therewith really receive the other. [Here Usher 
 useth really in the sense of in the “real natural” form. Why not 
 keep to this sense for clearness’ sake, as well because “really” best 
 stands for “in re ips’;” and what is the res ipsa of all the discus- 
 sion between Rome and England, but the body and its real natural 
 presence? No one discusses or doubts the presence of Christ’s 
 Divinity. It is superfluous to call that a real presence. No one 
 thinks that metaphorical. And again as to Rome’s explanation 
 that Christ’s body is there shorn of its perceptible qualities, that is 
 not a real natural presence, but a very unnatural and unreal 
 presence indeed. | 
 
 P.31. “That this sermon [in John vi.] was uttered by our 
 Saviour above a year before the celebration of His last supper, 
 wherein the sacrament of His body and blood was instituted, at 
 which time none of His hearers could possibly have understood 
 Him to have spoken of the external eating of Him in the sacra- 
 ment. Thirdly that by the eating of the flesh of Christ and the 
 drinking of His blood is not here meant an external eating or 
 drinking with the mouth and throat of the body (as the Jews then 
 and the Romanists, far more grossly than they, have since 
 imagined) but an internal and a spiritual, effected by a lively 
 faith and the quickening Spirit of Christ in the soul of the 
 believer, for ‘there is a spiritual mouth of the inner man, &c., ἕο. 
 as St Basil saith. [There is such a mouth in a figure but no real 
 mouth, and so Christ’s flesh or body is eaten, 1.6. it is eaten in a 
 figure only.] Fourthly, That this spiritual feeding upon the body 
 aud blood of Christ is not to be found in the sacrament only, but 
 also out of the sacrament. Fifthly, That the eating of the flesh 
 and the drinking of the blood here mentioned is of such excellent 
 virtue, that the receiver is thereby made to remain in Christ and 
 Christ in him, and by that means certainly freed from death and 
 assured of everlasting life. Which, seeing it cannot be verified of 
 the eating of the sacrament (whereof both the godly and the 
 wicked are partakers) it proveth not only that our Saviour did not 
 here speak of the sacramental eating: but further also that the 
 thing which is delivered in the external part of the sacrament 
 
1580} ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER. Bits 
 
 cannot be conceived to be really, but sacramentally only, the flesh 
 and blood of Christ. [Then why did Usher say before, p. 30, 
 we really receive the body and blood of Christ? He was young 
 when he held this controversy. That which is delivered in the 
 external part of it must needs mean that which is handed to the 
 recipient by the minister, 7.e. that which is partaken of visibly and 
 externally and in which the external participation of the feast 
 consists. If anything were added afterwards (v7z. Christ’s real 
 body) that would be no part of the visible ordinance appointed, 
 and would not help in getting out the force of This is My body. 
 But as sacramental means in a sign, 1.6. in a figure, it is directly 
 opposed to really. Sacramental eating as opposed to real eating 
 can only bear this sense. It is in fact only a church term for 
 eating “in a figure”: as Abraham’s son Isaac was said to be 
 offered up or slain in sacrifice. | 
 
 P. 82. John vi. 55, “ My flesh is meat indeed (Gk. true meat) 
 &e.” “We willingly indeed acknowledge that that which is 
 inwardly presented in the Lord’s supper and spiritually received 
 by the soul of the faithful, is that very thing which is treated of 
 in John vi., but we deny that it was our Saviour’s intention in this 
 place to speak of that which is eternally delivered in the sacra- 
 ment and orally received by the communicant. 
 
 V. 53. “Except ye eat, &c.” “An obligation laid upon them 
 for doing this [which in no likelihood could be intended of the 
 external eating, &c.] but also an absolute necessity imposed ‘ non 
 ‘ preecepti solum ratione sed etiam medii.’ Now to hold that all they 
 are excluded from life which have not had the means to receive the 
 sacrament of the Lord’s supper is as untrue as it is uncharitable. 
 And therefore many of the Papists themselves, Biel, Cusanus, 
 Cajetan, Tapper, Hessels, Jansenius [which ? or both ?] and others 
 confess that our Saviour, John vi., did not properly treat of the 
 sacrament. [But this text is frequently urged as requiring infant 
 communion. | 
 
 On vv. 51, 54, 56, 58. “ Whereon Origen on Matt. xv. rightly 
 observeth that the difference is between the eating of the typical 
 and symbolical [for so he calleth the sacrament] and the true 
 body of Christ. 
 
 P. 37. “The like difference doth 8. Aug. shew between the 
 eating of Christ’s body sacramentally and really, Civ. Dei, 21, 25, 
 and John T. 26. Which distinction between the sacrament and the 
 thing whereof it is a sacrament (and consequently between the 
 sacramental and the real eating of the body of Christ) is expressed 
 } in John T. 26... Our conclusion therefore is this. The body and 
 
 blood of Christ is received by all unto life and by none unto con- 
 'demnation. But that substance which is outwardly delivered in 
 _ the sacrament is not received by all unto life, but by many unto 
 
 67 6.) 
 sos 
 
516 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 condemnation. Therefore that substance which is outwardly de- 
 livered in the sacrament is not really the body and blood of Christ. 
 [ Note. This degree of accuracy of language answers well against 
 all who believe in a change of the bread and wine on the table, 1.6. 
 before the elements are given and received : but greater accuracy 
 is indispensable when you have to deal with those who hold that 
 Christ’s “real natural” body and blood find entrance into our 
 bodies and cause great bodily benefit, or with those who hold that 
 His real natural body and blood are given to our souls and cause 
 great spiritual benefit. ‘To both these errors the language of 
 Usher, Hooker, &c., often lies open. | 
 
 P. 38. “The reader may be pleased to consider (1) that the 
 words are not ‘ This shall be My body’ nor ‘This is made or shall 
 ‘be changed into My body,’ but ‘This is My body.’ (2) That the 
 word ‘This’ can have relation to no other substance but that 
 which was then present when our Saviour spake the word, which 
 (as we shall make it plainly appear) was bread. (3) That, it being 
 proved that the word ‘ This’ doth demonstrate the bread, it must 
 of necessity follow that Christ affirming that to be His ‘body’ 
 cannot be conceived to have meant it to be so properly, but rela- 
 tively and sacramentally. [Ὁ si sic omnia dixisset! “Sacra- 
 “mentally” is “in a sign.” But as the figurative language used 
 by our Lord and Paul, is used by so many ad libitum without a 
 turn of language to shew that they mean only the sacramental or 
 sign-sense, their language has ever helped those who take the 
 language in its literal or ‘“‘real natural” sense, and is constantly 
 appealed to by them accordingly. It must not be forgotten that, 
 as the thing has been and is and ever will be so much disputed, it 
 becomes necessary not only (1) on the one hand to explain Christ’s 
 language as Usher does here, but (2) on the other hand to beware 
 of using language, in explaining the words of Christ and Paul, 
 which will throw men back into the great and vital misinterpreta- 
 tion, against which Jesus has especially warned us in John vi.; and 
 (3) it is to be remembered the word “real” is never used in the 
 New Testament in the figurative expressions of eating Christ’s 
 body and drinking His blood. So at least we ought to avoid using 
 that word ambiguously, and thus giving occasion for such self-con- 
 tradictions of speech as “ real spiritual,” &c. ] 
 
 P. 39. “The whole matter of difference resteth now upon the 
 second point, Whether our Saviour when He said ‘This is My 
 ‘body’ meant anything to be His body but that bread which was 
 before Him... For what did He demonstrate [shew] here and 
 said was His body but that which He ‘ gave unto’ His disciples ? 
 What did He give unto them but what He ‘brake’? what brake 
 He but what He ‘took’? and doth not the text expressly say that 
 He ‘took bread’? Was it not therefore of the bread that He said 
 
1580] ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER. 517 
 
 ‘This is My body’? And could bread have been otherwise possibly 
 understood to have been His ‘body’ but as a sacrament [or sacred 
 sign] and as He Himself with His own breath declared His own 
 meaning to be, a memorial of Himself? [In this Greek-loving age 
 it is generally denied that ἀνάμνησις here means “a memorial” 
 and it is asserted that εἰς τὴν ᾿Εμὴν ἀνάμνησιν means “for M 
 “remembrance,” 7.e. to promote the remembering of Me.] If it be 
 said that S. Paul by bread doth not here understand that which is 
 properly bread, but that which lately was bread but now is 
 become the body of Christ, we must remember that S. Paul doth 
 not only say ‘The bread’ but ‘The bread which we break,’ which 
 ‘breaking,’ being an accident properly belonging to ‘the bread’ 
 itself and not to the ‘body’ of Christ, which being in glory cannot 
 be subject to any more ‘breaking, doth evidently shew that the 
 apostle by ‘bread’ meant bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists 
 well deny this, while they have imagined, that the change of the 
 bread into the body of Christ is made by virtue of the sacramental 
 words alone, which have not their effect until they have all been 
 fully uttered,” 
 
 _ As is shewn in many extracts the great difficulty of the advo- 
 cates of a real natural bodily presence is the chronology of the 
 separate acts which the words record. After taking bread our Lord 
 (1) blessed, (2) brake, (3) gave and (4) said “This is My body,” 
 So that it was bread and bread only when He began to give it, 
 and by analogy it is bread and bread only, when the priest begins 
 to give it, if he were to follow our Lord exactly: for if saying 
 “This is My body,” and no more, caused the wonderful change, 
 this change did not take place until after it had begun to be given 
 by our Lord and received by the disciples; and the same would 
 hold with real-presence-priests if they followed our Lord’s example 
 in these minutiz, which of course they ought to do. But as seen 
 by means of our extracts they not only change the order of these 
 acts but try to make out that the Evangelists have stated the matter 
 wrongly, ὁ. 6. that the Evangelists have not given the details in the 
 true order—because (they say) our Saviour could not have done these 
 several acts in the order in which the Evangelists represent Him 
 to have done them. See Bellarmine, Durand de Poreain, Cajetan, &c. 
 
 It will not avail for any advocate of the priests of the real 
 presence to turn round upon us and say, You also do wrong, for 
 you too pronounce the words “'This is My body ” before the bread 
 is begun to be given by you to the recipient, for in our case who 
 attach no such power to the utterance of those words, and do not 
 
518 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 believe in any “real” change, the order of the several acts of Christ 
 does not seem to be of any consequence: but with real-presence- 
 priests the order is of the highest significance, as their most acute 
 advocates acknowledge and maintain, and even accuse the evan- 
 gelists of inaccuracy in their narratives on account of it. For, to 
 recapitulate, if we have a correct account through St Matthew in 
 the words, xxvi. 26, Λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας 
 ἔκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς, and through St Mark’s λαβὼν 
 ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἔδωκεν and in St Luke’s λαβὼν ἄρτον 
 εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, and in St Paul’s ἔλαβεν 
 ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν, and if in all these four accounts καὶ 
 εἶπε, Λάβετε, φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά Mov of St Matth.; and 
 καὶ εἶπεν, Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά Mov of St Mark; and λέγων, 
 οῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά Mov τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον of St Luke; and 
 καὶ εἶπεν, Τοῦτό Mov ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν of St Paul; if I 
 say all these four several accounts of the saying of the words 
 “This is My body” come after the four several accounts of the 
 taking the blessing and giving thanks and of the breaking and 
 the beginning of the giving, then it follows (1) that Christ had 
 nothing, when He began to give it, beyond bread, and that even a 
 real-presence-priest, if he follows Christ, has nothing beyond bread 
 in his hand when he begins &c. whether any change takes place 
 afterwards or not. 
 
 One thing more should be said. I have written as if St Luke’s 
 expression, ἔδωκε λέγων, and He gave, saying, “This is My body,” 
 and St Matthew’s expression ἐδίδου καὶ εἶπε, He proceeded to 
 give and said, may be taken to mean that Christ said the words 
 “This is My body” while He was giving the bread individually 
 to each. But in all the four narratives Christ took, and blessed 
 or gave thanks, and brake, before He gave the bread to the dis- 
 ciples; and therefore there was nothing but bread in His hands 
 when He began to give it, and so by analogy ought it to be 
 with every real-presence-priest. Therefore the breaking is break- 
 ing bread only, and the change if any change would take place 
 after the breaking, and either at the close of the words “ This is 
 My body,” or at the very earliest during their utterance, and not 
 while the bread was on the table; and therefore the table could 
 not be rightly called an altar, because it would not have Christ’s 
 body and blood upon it, except indeed what was reserved, if any. 
 
 I-do not know that such so-called priests would deem it 
 
1580] ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER. 519 
 
 objectionable to suppose the change to take place in the act of 
 giving the bread to the people: but at any rate, all real-presence 
 services must be reformed to agree with the order of our Saviour’s 
 acts by all who believe the inspired narratives correct in these 
 particulars. 
 
 (D.) BISHOP JOSEPH HALL, OF NORWICH. B. 1574. Ὁ. 1656. 
 
 He succeeded the sixteenth-century divines. His lot was 
 to be contemporary and fellow-worker with the primate Laud. 
 So his cathedral was sacked in the rebellion, as he pathetically 
 and humorously recites in his Hard Measure. But Sic vos non 
 vobis might have been its motto if addressed to the fallen arch- 
 bishop. But there is another saying more appropriate to the 
 case, Sxpe Diespiter neglectus incesto addidit integrum, The 
 punishment for neglect often falls on the wrong back. However, 
 the love of subsequent generations follows the memory of Joseph 
 Hall. He is not the Christian Seneca, both because his character 
 is unstained by wicked subservience to the great; and yet more, 
 because Christianity gave him what heathenism could not supply 
 to any Seneca—a large warm heart. Had Bishop Hall’s prose 
 been twice as much, it would all have been read and prized for 
 its racy peculiarity and evangelical wisdom. Besides his Contem- 
 plations and his other works in a similar spirit, who contends better 
 for the faith than the writer of “ No Peace with Rome,” and “The 
 Honour of the Married Clergy”? neither of which comes within 
 the compass of our subject. It is something that Laud let him 
 so speak out: but Laud was in many points Protestant, though 
 it is the fashion to forget this. 
 
 No Peace with Rome. London, 1628. 
 
 P. 377. “Transubstantiation and the multipresence of Christ’s 
 body, neither know I which of the two I should prefer, for mad- 
 ness and sophistical cozenage. That the same body of Christ 
 should be in 1000 places at once of this sublunary world, while yet 
 it is in the meantime entire in Heaven—that the whole body of 
 Christ should lie hid in a little thin wafer, yet so that the parts and 
 members thereof should not one run into another, but continue 
 distinct and severally disposed among themselves, and have a 
 shape and order agreeable to man’s body! It doth not only exceed 
 reason, but faith... 
 
520 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 676. ‘That any reasonable man should believe that Christ 
 carried His own body in one of His hands, that He brought it forth 
 to be eaten by those holy guests of His which saw Him present 
 with them and heard Him speaking to them, both whiles they 
 were eating Him and when they had eaten...How mad, yea how 
 impious is this! that they will overturn the very principles of 
 nature, the order of things, the humanity of the Saviour, the 
 truth of the sacrament, the constant judgment of Scripture, and 
 lastly the very foundations of the Divinity, and confusedly jumble 
 Heaven and earth together, rather than they will, where necessity 
 \ requires it, admit but of a tropical kind of speech...That the true 
 body of Christ is truly offered and truly received in the sacrament 
 which of us hath not constantly taught and defended? [This 
 is that frequent harking back on their own footsteps until, as far 
 as the proper sense of words goes, the Reforming defenders stand 
 again on the very Popish ground they had left. I fail to see the 
 rightfulness of so dissensing received controversial expressions. 
 Tractarians have been blamed for duplicity, when they have done 
 10.1 But how is this? Not by any bodily touch: as Cyril and 
 Ambrose say well!! [Only read what both the Cyrils most com- 
 monly say, and Ambrose though he is far less “ prononcé”], but by 
 our faith. That it should be corporally, carnally, orally present 
 it hath ever seemed impious to us...We like well the ingenuity 
 of Arius Montanus. He saith, That is My body, 1.6. sacramentally 
 contained in the sacrament; and straight he adds like another 
 Nicodemus, The secret and most mystical manner whereof God 
 will once [t.e. one day] vouchsafe more clearly to unfold to His 
 Christian church [a very ambiguous saying]. As Chrysostom 
 speaks, a remembrance of a sacrifice; 1.6. as Augustine interprets 
 it, a memorial of Christ’s passion celebrated in the church; and 
 from the sweet communication of our redemption there arises 
 another sacrifice, the sacrifice of praise, and from thence a true 
 peace-offering of the Christian soul. These sacrifices offer them- 
 selves to us here; but for any propitiating sacrifice unless represen- 
 tative, I find none...neither indeed can there be, &. We well 
 remember this holy sacrifice of Christ, and celebrate it with a 
 thankful heart. We will not repeat it. We will gladly receive 
 our Saviour offered by Himself to His Father and offered to us 
 by -His Father. We will not offer Him to His Father. Which 
 one point whilst we stick at (as we needs must) we are straight 
 stricken with the thunderbolt of the anathema of Trent. Here 
 can be therefore no possibility of peace. 
 
 Olive Tree. Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, &c. London, 1660. 
 
 P. 288. “Certainly there can be but two ways in which He 
 can be imagined to be present and received, either corporally or 
 spiritually. ‘That He should be corporally present at once in every 
 
"as 
 
 1574] BISHOP JOSEPH HALL. 591) 
 
 part of every eucharistical element throughout the world, is such 
 a monster of opinion, as utterly overthrows the truth of His human 
 body, destroys the nature of a sacrament, implies a world of con- 
 tradictions, baffles right reason, transcends all faith, and in short 
 confounds Heaven and earth: as we might easily shew in all par- 
 ticulars if 1t were the drift of my discourse to meddle with those 
 which profess themselves not ours; who yet do, no less than we, 
 cry down the gross and Capernaitical expression which their Pope 
 Nicholas prescribed to Berengarius, and cannot but confess that 
 their own Cardinal Bellarmine advises, this phrase of Christ’s 
 corporal presence should be very sparingly and warily taken 
 up in the hearing of their people. But my intention only is to 
 satisfy those sons of the church who, disclaiming from all opinion 
 of transubstantiation, do yet willingly embrace a kind of wrreso- 
 lution in this point as holding it safest not to enquire into the 
 
 “manner of Christ’s presence...When all is said, nothing can be 
 ? 5 
 
 more clear than that in respect of bodily presence the Heavens 
 must contain the glorified humanity of Christ till His return to 
 
 judgment. As therefore the angel could say to the devout Maries 
 after His resurrection seeking for Him in His grave, ‘ He is risen, 
 ‘He is not here,’ so they still say to us seeking His glorious body 
 here below, ‘He is ascended, He is not here. It should abso- 
 
 ‘lutely lose the nature of a buman body if it were not circum- 
 
 scriptible. Glorification [if it be glorified] doth not bereave of 
 the truth of being what it is. It is a true human body, and 
 therefore can no more (according to the natural being of a body 
 glorified) be many wheres at once, than according to His personal 
 being it can be separated from that Godhead which is at once 
 everywhere. Let it therefore be firmly settled in our souls as 
 an undoubted truth, that the human body of Christ in respect 
 of corporal presence is in Heaven; whither He visibly ascended, 
 and where He sits on the right hand of the Father, and whence 
 He shall come again with glory—a parcel of our creed which 
 the church learned of the angels in Mount Olivet, who taught 
 the gazing disciples that this same Jesus, which was taken up from 
 them into Heaven, shall so come in lke manner as they saw Him 
 go into Heaven, which was with wonderful glory and magnificence. 
 Far be it from us then to think that the blessed humanity of 
 the Son of God should so disparage itself as, where there is nezther 
 necessity nor use of a bodily descent, to steal down and convey 
 Himself insensibly from Heaven to earth daily, and to hide up 
 His whole sacred body in an hundred thousand several pixes 
 at once. It is wonder that superstition itself is not ashamed 
 of so absurd and impossible a fancy; which it is vain for men 
 to think they can solve up with a pretence of omnipotence. We 
 question not the power of God, but His will; and do well know 
 He cannot will absolute contradictions—Deus hoe potenter non 
 
522 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 potest, as one said truly. That, which we say of Christ’s presence, 
 holds no less of His reception ; for so do we receive Him unto us, 
 as He ws present with us: neither can we corporally receive that 
 which is bodily absent: although besides the common incongruity 
 of opinion, the corporal receiving of Christ hath in it a further 
 prodigiousness and horror. All the novices of the Roman schools 
 are now ashamed of their pope’s ‘ Dentibus teritur ;’ but when 
 their doctors have made the best of their own tenet, they cannot 
 avoid St Augustin’s ‘Flagitium videtur precipere. By how much 
 the human flesh is and ought to be more dear, by so much the 
 more odious is the thought of eating it. Neither let them imagine 
 they can escape the imputation of an hateful savageness in this 
 act, for that it is not presented to them in the form of flesh; 
 whiles they profess to know it is so, howsoever it appeareth... 
 ‘Corporally then to eat (if it were possible) the flesh of Christ, 
 as it could, in our Saviour’s own word, ‘profit nothing, so it could 
 be no other than a kind of religious cannibalism, which both 
 nature and grace cannot but justly rise against. Since therefore 
 the body of Christ cannot be said to be corporally present, it 
 must needs follow that there is no way of His presence or receipt 
 in the sacrament but spiritual, which the church hath laboured 
 so fully to express...There is no one point of Divine truth which 
 she hath more punctually and plainly laid down before us, ὅσο. &e. 
 
 P. 294. “But to put all scruples out of the mind of any reader 
 concerning this point—let that serve for the upshot of all which 
 is expressly set down in the 5th rubric in the end of the com- 
 munion set forth as the judgment of the Church of England both 
 in King Edward’s time, and in Queen Elizabeth’s time, though 
 lately upon negligence omitted in the impression [t.e. the rubric 
 on kneeling]. 
 
 P. 295. “Thus the Church of England, having plainly ex- 
 plicated herself, hath left no place for any doubt concerning this 
 truth. Neither is she any changeling in her judgment, however 
 some unsteady minds may vary in their concerts. Away then with 
 those nice scruples, who with some further ends have endeavoured 
 to keep us in suspense, with a ‘non licet inquirere de modo’ 
 [it is not a lawful thing to make search concerning the manner 
 in which Christ’s body is present], and conclude we resolutely, 
 that there is no truth in divinity more clear than this of Christ’s 
 gracious exhibition [Calvin’s favourite word] and our faithful [7.e. 
 believing] reception of Him in this blessed sacrament. Babes, 
 keep yourselves from idols.” 
 
1585] CORNELIUS JANSEN. 523 
 
 (E.) CORNELIUS JANSEN, BISHOP OF YPRES. B. 1585. Ὁ, 1638. 
 
 He conceived the idea of checking the Jesuits in their dominion 
 over ’'rench minds by reproducing Augustine, or rather the essence 
 of that father’s views. He lived to finish his volume, but left it 
 as his legacy to his friend, Du Vergier, Abbot of St Cyran, with 
 whom through life he had taken sweet counsel as a brother, 
 though he was of plebeian stock and his friend a decided French 
 patrician, as his name Du Vergier de Hauranne sufficiently indi- 
 eates. But the works of both the friends, of their greater follower 
 Antoine Arnauld, have almost been trodden out of notice under 
 the iron heel of that unscrupulous order. Nevertheless for a time 
 Jansenius had open representatives in the Church of France; and 
 real Augustinian piety does not even now lose sight of his works, 
 or fail to get ight and warmth from their holy pages: but hardly 
 has Spain itself seemed to have greater difficulty in escaping from 
 Jesuit rule than France : and perhaps the great struggle is not yet 
 come. 
 
 There is another Cornelius Jansenius nearly 100 years earlier, 
 who attended the Trent Council as Bishop of Ghent: but our 
 Jansenius has overshadowed him. Singularly enough the earlier 
 was Professor at Louvain, and the latter Principal of the College of 
 Pulcheria in the same city. But the connexion with Augustine’s 
 opinions distinguishes our writer, who was twice visited with the 
 Papal condemnation: the last time specifically when the Jesuits 
 with great effort succeeded in procuring the condemnation of 15 
 selected propositions, in 1653. After that, all was over, as they 
 constituted a test which no Jansenist could refuse. More is said 
 about Jesuit persecution in the short sketch preceding our very 
 important extracts from two of the works of the great Sorbonne 
 doctor Antoine Arnauld, whose entire works fill about 50 quarto 
 volumes. But to return to our Cornelius Jansenius; those who 
 try to believe that nothing heretical could come from Augustine’s 
 pen have to explain how this our divine the most Augustinian of 
 Augustinians, with so acute an understanding in many respects, 
 entertained and defended such strongly anti-Scriptural views on 
 the main questions regarding the supper of the Lord. 
 
524 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. “‘Jesus took bread.’ Because He wished to 
 leave to us not only a memorial but also a participation of His 
 passion, and so of our redemption by His passion; for this ‘He 
 ‘took’ it, &c.; doubtless that both might take place under the 
 appearances of bread and wine, as things which both might most 
 aptly signify His body and blood, severed in His passion; and 
 that the two were made truly food and drink ; and that by it we 
 might also be signified to be most closely joined to Christ and to 
 be nourished to eternal life—-to be welded among one another 
 into one by the mutual bond of love, as one bread is made, and 
 one wine, from many grains of wheat as well as of grapes flowing 
 into one; as Paul shewed on this subject, &c.... But He took 
 unleavened bread, as well because leavened could not be present 
 in that supper, as because unleavened most agrees with the 
 meaning of sincerity and truth, which ought to be present in those 
 that partake of these mysteries. ‘And He blessed.’ Heretics are 
 wont to expound it, ‘He gave praise, ‘He gave thanks, namely 
 to God: but it is certain that it refers to the bread ; for the order 
 of the words requires this and it is more open in the Greek, where 
 it is said, ‘He took the bread and having blessed He brake.’ 
 [The Greek hardly helps him, though he may be right in his 
 assertion.] Therefore as to Luke and Paul saying ‘having given 
 ‘ thanks,’ 1.6. ‘when He had given thanks,’ they are not explaining 
 the word ‘He blessed ;’ for He also gave thanks to God for His 
 benefits... Mark viii. 6 simply says ‘ giving thanks He brake; but 
 Luke ix. 16 ‘He looked to heaven,’ which is the custom of one 
 
 Tetrateuchus seu Comm. in Evangelia. Brussels, 1669. 
 
 Matt. xxvi., “ Accepit Jesus panem.” Quia passionis Sus, adeoque 
 per passionem redemptionis nostra, nobis non solum memoriale sed et 
 participationem volebat relinquere, hine “accepit,’ &e., nimirum ut 
 sub speciebus panis et vini utrumque fieret, utpote que et aptissime 
 significarent corpus et sanguinem in passione separatum, et utrumque 
 esse factum vere cibum et potum; quo et Christo significaremur arctis- 
 sime conjungi et ali in vitam eternam, inter nos charitatis mutuz 
 vinculo in unum conflari, quaemadmodum ex pluribus granis tum tritici 
 tum uvarum in unum contluentibus, fit unus panis et unum vinum, 
 prout hic indicavit Paulus, &c... Panem autem accepit azymum, tum 
 quia fermentatus in ill4 coena adesse non poterat, tum quia azymus 
 significande sinceritati et veritati, que participantibus de his mysteriis 
 adesse debent, maxime congruat, &e. “ Et benedixit.” Heretici ex- 
 ponere solent “laudes dixit” “‘gratias egit,” nempe Deo ; sed certum est 
 referri ad panem ; hoc enim verborum series postulat, et Greece apertius 
 est ubi legitur λαβὼν tov ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε... Quod ergo Lucas 
 et Paulus dicunt, εὐχαριστήσας, i. e. “ cum gratias egisset,’ non explicant 
 verbum εὐλογήσας, &e., nam et gratias egit Deo pro beneficiis... Marci 
 vill. 6, simpliciter dicit ‘“gratias agens, fregit.” Luce vero ix. 16, 
 “respexit ad cceelum,” qui est habitus gratias agentis, “et benedixit 
 
1585] CORNELIUS JANSEN. 52 
 
 giving thanks, ‘and He blessed them, 1.6. the bread and the 
 fishes... He therefore blessed the bread here, 7.e. He consecrated 
 it or raised it to that point of dignity that He changed it into His 
 body... [ix. 16 has the accusative, αὐτοὺς, whereas in the account 
 of the eucharist there is none. Still I believe it to be implied.] 
 This same blessing, as has appeared from Paul, He in like manner 
 gave to the cup, when if it had been a common (benediction) the 
 first would have been able to suffice, which would have been 
 either given to the bread or to the whole supper at the beginning 
 [a sound plea]. ‘And He brake’ the bread, now blessed and 
 changed, into as many pieces as there were guests, and that after 
 the manner of fathers of families... But that He gave it into the 
 hands, not into the mouth, is not a conjecture of little weight ; both 
 because He said ‘ Receive ye, (aterm) which is more customarily 
 referred to the hands, and because that was the custom in the 
 ancient church, that it should be delivered into the hands of the 
 faithful, &e. V. 28, ‘This is My blood. For it is not meant either 
 that the cup or that the wine is blood, as neither that the bread 
 is body, but that His own blood was He, Whom it supplied, and to 
 Whom His aim was directed. ‘Of the new testament.’ He alludes 
 to Moses’ words Exod. xxiv., where sanctioning the old testament 
 by the sprinkling of the victim’s blood, he says plainly in the same 
 manner ‘This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath 
 ‘made with you.” Thus therefore Christ opposes His own blood to 
 the blood of calves, the apostles to the people of the Jews, 
 sprinkling to sprinkling, a testament to a testament.... And 
 these things rather looked to the fact that by the carnal observance 
 of the law and the carnal good things laid up for its reward, the 
 
 “jllis,” scilicet panibus et piscibus... Benedixit ergo pani (hic) i.e. 
 consecravit eum, seu eo dignitatis evexit ut in corpus Seam mutaverit.. 
 
 Hane eandem ‘penedictionem, ut ex Paulo patuit, similiter calici 
 adhibuit, cum, si vulgaris fuisset, sufficere potuisset prima, que vel 
 pani vel initio ὑοῦ! coense adhibita fuerat. ‘“ Ac fregit.” Panem, jam 
 hbenedictum atque mutatum, in tot videlicet partes quot erant convivee, 
 idque more patrum familias... Dedisse autem in manus, non in os, 
 conjectura non levis est, tum quia dicit “accipite” quod ad manus 
 usitatius referri solet, tum quia ista in veteri ecclesia consuetudo fuit, 
 ut in manus fidelibus traderetur, ὅθ. V. 28, ‘ Hic est sanguis Meus.” 
 Non enim significatur vel calicem illum vel vinum esse sanguinem, 
 sicut nec panem esse corpus, sed Illum, Quem preebebat, et in Quem 
 intentio Ejus ferebat, esse sanguinem Suum [My edition has a note in 
 ink at the side ‘Caute legendum”]...“ Novi testamenti.” Alludit ad 
 verba Moysis Exod. xxiv. ubi, sanciens vetus testamentum aspersione 
 Sanguinis victim, eodem plane modo ait, “ Hic est sanguis feederis, 
 “quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum.” Opponit igitur sic Christus [Moysil, 
 sanguinem Suum sanguini vitulorum, apostolos populo Judzorum, 
 aspersionem aspersioni, testamentum testamento ... Que tamen eo 
 maxime spectabant ut per carnalem legis observationem bonaque carnalia 
 
ὅ20 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 observance of the spiritual law and spiritual good things might be 
 signified. ‘Which is being shed.’ And this although it can be 
 understood also of the cross, because soon His blood was to be shed 
 upon it; yet Luke and Paul clearly join it with the cup, as an 
 adjective (in concord) with its substantive [Not in Paul. He says 
 “This cup is the new covenant in My blood,” and “blood” there 
 at least may be taken to hang on the word covenant. Certainly 
 there are not in Paul substantive and adjective: on Luke’s case see 
 Part I. of this work], ‘which cup is being poured out’ or made a 
 libation [or tasted]. Whence Christ means that that blood was _ 
 even then being poured out, ¢.e. offered to God, which is properly 
 called to be a libation like the blood of a sacrifice. In this same 
 sense Luke says of the body, ‘which is being given for you, and 
 Paul, ‘which is being broken for you, 7.e. is being offered and 
 immolated. For bread is properly said to be broken: body is 
 not. ‘For the remission of sins. Which is properly the effect of 
 Christ as a sacrifice, not as a sacrament... But He joined remis- 
 sion more to the blood than to the body as well because in blood 
 the method of the sacrifice is most clearly seen, as because blood is 
 a more express figure of death ... And from these arguments it is 
 plain that the eucharist is not only a sacrament, but a propitiatory 
 sacrifice (also)....[It is as well to refer also to the extracts from 
 Beza, The chief argument however regarding Luke’s expression is 
 that “This cup which is being (7.e. in process of being) poured 
 “out,” cannot be taken otherwise than as a figurative speech: cup 
 put for Christ’s blood, because the liquid in the cup in Christ’s 
 hand was not going to be poured out, but drunk. Christ’s blood 
 alone was going to be poured out.| V.29. He passes elegantly 
 from the proper meaning of wine to the metaphorical : as is done 
 also vill. 22 and John iv. 13, 14, to signify that He will be with 
 them in the kingdom of the Heavens, &c., &c. 
 
 in premium reposita significarentur observatio legis spiritualis et bona 
 spiritualia... “Qui effunditur.” Quod quanquam intelligi etiam posset 
 de cruce, quia mox in ea sanguis Ejus effundendus erat, Lucas tamen 
 et Paulus clare conjungunt cum calice tanquam adjectivum cum suo 
 substantivo, “ qui calix effunditur,” sew libatur. Unde significat Christus 
 sanguinem illum jam tum effundi, i.e. offerri Deo, quod proprie libari 
 dicitur tanquam sanguinem sacrificii. Hoc eodem sensu Lucas de cor- 
 pore dicit “ quod pro vobis datur,” et Paulus ‘quod pro vobis frangitur,” 
 i.e. offertur et immolatur. Proprie enim panis est frangi, non corporis... 
 ‘In remissionem peccatorum.” Qui proprie est effectus Ejus ut sacrificwi 
 non ut sacrament... Adjunxit autem eam sanguini magis quam corpori, 
 tum quia in sanguine ratio sacrificili maxime cernitur, tum quia sanguis 
 expressior est ficura mortis.... Hae quibus patet eucharistiam non tantum 
 esse sacramentum sed sacrificium propitiatorium. Μὲ hoc ex his verbis 
 convinct. V. 29. Venuste iransip a significatione vini propria ad meta- 
 phoricam; sicut fit etiam viii. 22, et Joan. iv. 13 et 14, ut significet Se 
 in regno ceelorum cum illis, &e. de. 
 
1585] CORNELIUS JANSEN. 527 
 
 P. 333. “‘They went out to the mount of Olives.’ For it 
 became Him to be taken not in the place of feasting but of prayer, 
 as Origen says, John vi. 63, ‘If then ye shall see the Son of man 
 ‘going up. But there is an aposiopesis or reticence. ‘What will 
 ‘you then say? will you be any longer scandalized with My words 
 ‘in which I said that I have come down from Heaven? &c.’ V. 64. 
 ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, ἄρ. That their carnal intelli- 
 gence as to the mode of eating is of no profit for life, but a 
 spiritual: by which the flesh of Christ is to be eaten in very deed 
 (but yet in a sacrament) not by faith alone, but not without faith 
 and love... not as if He were speaking concerning a figurative 
 metaphorical eating of (Christ’s) flesh, or through faith alone as 
 the heretics dream, but because He was speaking of an eating of 
 true flesh, &c., &c.” Augustine, Chrysostom and Cyril are claimed 
 or supported. 
 
 P. 333. 
 
 Exierunt in montem Oliveti. Decebat enim non in loco convivii 
 sed orationis Kum capi, ut Origenes... Joan. vi. 63, ‘‘Si ergo videritis 
 “ Filium hominis ascendentem.” Est autem aposiopesis seu reticentia. 
 “Quid tune dicetis? An adhue scandalizabimini verbis Meis quibus 
 “dixi Me ceelo descendisse? ec.” V. 64, ‘Spiritus est, &c., caro non,” 
 ἄορ. Carnalem intelligentiam eorum, de modo manducandi, nihil ad 
 vitam prodesse, sed spiritalem; qua caro Christi reips@ quidem (sed 
 tamen in sacramento) non sola fide sed non sine fide atque dilectione 
 manducanda est... Von quasi de manducatione carnis figurata metapho- 
 rica vel per solam fidem loqueretur, ut heretici somniant, sed quia de 
 manducatione vere carnis, &c. &e. He attributes this interpretation of 
 his to Aug, and Chrysos. and Cyril. 
 
 (F.) GEORGE CALIXTUS (KALLISON). B. 1586. Ὁ. 1656. 
 
 He was the only child by the second wife of the pastor of 
 Medelbye near Flensburg in Denmark, who born of a tradesman 
 in Apenrade, in Schleswig on the Baltic, had been sent to Me- 
 lanchthon to study for holy orders. This Calixtus was therefore by 
 birth a Dane. Flacius the chief editor of the Magdeburg Centuries, 
 which is a hortus siccus of short extracts from the fathers, in three 
 great volumes, was constantly held up as an object of execration 
 by the father to the son, as Melanchthon, and all he did and said, 
 were presented to him to be admired and loved. The son had the 
 great advantage of the thorough teaching of Latomus, who two 
 
 years after the entrance of George took charge of the school at 
 
528 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A:D. 
 
 Flensburg; and to him is the church of Christ chiefly indebted for 
 whatever benefit she derived from the sound scholarship and free 
 judgment of this great Lutheran divine. He therefore very 
 naturally at the University of Helmstadt in Brunswick followed 
 Melanchthon’s writings in opposition to the very strict and 
 stringent lines of the Formula Concordiz, which the Prince Julius 
 II. had imposed on the Lutherans of Brunswick. Melanchthon’s 
 party went by the name of Philippists, and into their disparaged 
 company young Calixtus threw himself, and thus stood committed 
 as the broad churchman of the national theology. Dowding 
 reminds us that the Prince Henri Julius was brother-in-law to Anna, 
 our James I.’s wife: he also quotes from Calixtus himself how the 
 King of Denmark, when he received the Formula Concordiz, at once 
 threw it into the fire that was burning in his room. This act of 
 uncompromising love of free thought was we may well suppose 
 not lost on his subjects in general, nor on George Calixtus who 
 recites it. He strove to widen his views by visits to the divines of 
 other universities, including Jesuits; but such men as Pareus at 
 Heidelberg and Casaubon whom he met in England were most 
 valued and loved by him. To Paris he bore with him Casaubon’s 
 introduction to De Thou. From Italy he returned home to be 
 made Professor at Helmstadt, where he married and settled him- 
 self; where also he buried his precocious prodigy of a son, who in 
 less than seven years had so wound himself round his father’s 
 heart, that his future life was shadowed by his loss. In all his 
 controversies and hard usage on all sides, the general lot of 
 pacificators, he was solaced by his wife’s sympathy, whom he 
 survived but a short time, dying in 1656, little more than two 
 years after her. In his closing illness, which began with fever, 
 Cellarius attended upon him, and almost his last words in 
 speaking of Christ were, “ I know no other merit; Christ’s death 
 “and merit is all my merit. I have forgiven all my enemies from 
 “my heart, and I pray God that He likewise may forgive them.” 
 Such was the greatest of Lutheran learned divines of that day, 
 who yet received from his enemies the brand of “Theologus latro 
 “et latro theologus; The divine that was a robber, and though a 
 “robber was a divine.” See the Life and Correspondence of 
 George Calixtus by W. C. Dowding, Rector of Lytham, who 
 rejoices in correcting his work by the aid of Professor Henke’s 
 newly published volume on “ Calixtus and his Spirit.” 
 
1586] GEORGE CALIXTUS. 529 
 
 The Epitome of Theology. On the holy eucharist. 
 
 P. 205. “Certainly among the Jews to break bread is the 
 same as to take food. [P. 206.] Most of the ancients truly called 
 it a sacrifice, partly in imitation of the Old Testament, because 
 it may have seemed convenient to adapt its words and phrases 
 to the rites of the New; partly that there is there present that 
 which formerly has been the material of sacrifice, or the body and 
 blood of Christ, which He offered to God the Father on the altar 
 of the cross as a sacrifice for us; and partly because the eucharist, 
 as a sacrament and act instituted by Christ, is a true worship 
 of God, pleasant to God Himself and accepted by Him, and on 
 that account is referred to the class of sacrifices that either are 
 spiritual or are figuratively so termed; such as the mysteries of 
 the New Testament are neither seldom nor ignobly named... 
 [P. 207] from which arises the use of the other words host, victim, 
 immolating, offering...[P. 208] For it cannot but be that faith 
 is as it were nourished, augmented, and strengthened by fre- 
 quently and seriously commemorating the Lord’s death, on which 
 it rests; first of all truly since such a commemoration of His 
 death in this case takes place, that the very body itself is present, 
 which was delivered unto death for us, and that blood itself, which 
 was shed for us on the altar of the cross. But moreover both 
 this body and that blood are not only present, but without any 
 space intervening are inwardly and most closely joined to our 
 bodies by eating and drinking. For the act of the holy supper 
 is fulfilled when the true substantial body of Christ is received 
 
 Lipitome Theologie, p. 205. Brunsvige, 1603. 
 
 Hebreis certe frangere panem idem est quod cibum sumere. P. 206. 
 Sacrificium vero appellarunt e veteribus plerique, partim imitatione Vet. 
 Testamenti, quod ejus vocabula et phrases Novi ritibus accommodare 
 conveniens visum fuerit: partim quod ibi presens sit id, quod olim 
 materia fuerit sacrificii, sive corpus et sanguis Christi, que pro nobis 
 sacrificium Deo Patri ara crucis obtulit: partim quod eucharistia, 
 utpote sacramentum et actio a Christo instituta, sit Dei cultus Ipsi 
 gratus et acceptus; et propterea referatur inter sacrificia spiritualia sive 
 figurate ita dicta; qualis mysteriorum Novi Testamenti appellatio nec 
 infrequens sit nec ignobilis... P. 207. Et hine reliqua vocabula 
 hostiz, victime, immolandi, offerendi... P. 208, Fieri enim non potest, 
 quin fides crebra et seria mortis Domini, qu4 ipsa nititur, commemora- 
 tione quasi nutriatur augeatur et roboretur: imprimis vero, quum talis 
 hic Ejus mortis fiat commemoratio, in qua presens sit ipsum illud 
 corpus, quod pro nobis in mortem traditum, ipseque ille sanguis qui pro 
 nobis in ara crucis effusus. Quin imo non tantum presentia sunt et illud 
 et iste, sed nobiscum indistanter intime atque arctissime esu potuque 
 conjunguntur, Est enim sancta ccene actio, in qué quando benedictus 
 panis accipitur et comeditur, simul accipitur et comeditur verum sub- 
 
 He 11. 94 
 
530 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and eaten, at the same time that the blessed bread is taken and 
 eaten ; and when the true substantial blood of Christ is received 
 and drunk at the same time as the blessed cup is received and 
 drunk, [more pronounced Lutheranism cannot be written nor 
 can it be more adroitly stated,] that by the commemoration of 
 His death there may be a contirming and sealing of His testa- 
 mentary promise and of the faith which has embraced it. We say, 
 in opposition to heresies both old and new, that im the holy supper 
 together with the bread and wine are present and are taken the 
 true body and blood of Christ, &e. 
 
 P. 210. “After the times of Charlemagne, when Lothair and 
 Lewis the second were reigning, there lived one John Scotus, 
 who is said to have denied the true presence of the body and 
 blood of Christ in the eucharist, having put forth a book, which 
 Lanfranc writes was condemned in the synod of Vercelli, held 
 under Leo the ninth, about 170 years after the death of Scotus. 
 [The history is briefly recited from Paschasius of the same age 
 down to Guitmund, and Peter de Bruis, and Peter his opponent, 
 of Cluniacum (near Macon).| 
 
 P. 211. “From that time this mode of looking at this sacra- 
 ment seems to have been put to rest: for neither can you easily 
 find further patrons of it till you come indeed to the times of 
 Wycliff, &e. At last when the darkness of the age of the Roman 
 pontiffs was becoming lighter, and when the light of the Gospel 
 at length arose, this error was called back from hell by Andrew 
 Carlstadt, Hulderic Zwingel, Calvin and their disciples. 
 
 stantiale corpus Christi. Et quando benedictus calix accipitur et 
 bibitur, simul accipitur et bibitur verus substantialis sanguis Christi ; 
 ut commemoratione mortis Ejus promissio testamentaria et fides, eam 
 amplexa, confirmetur et obsignetur. Dicimus in 5. cena una cum pane 
 et vino adesse et sumi verum corpus et sanguinem Christi, contra 
 hereses cum antiquas tum novas, &e. 
 
 P5210: 
 
 Post tempore Caroli Magni, quum imperarent Lotharius et Ludovicus 
 secundus, vixit quidam Johannes Scotus, qui veram corporis sanguinisque 
 Christi in eucharistid preesentiam negasse dicitur, edito libello, quem in 
 synodo Vercellensi, habité sub Leone IX., annis post obitum Scoti 
 circiter 170, damnatum esse scribit Lanfrancus, ὅσο. &e., regarding’ Ber- 
 tram, Paschasius, Berengar, Adelman, Guitmund, Alger. 
 
 ἜΘ ΤῚς 
 
 Ab eo tempore [.6. of Peter de Bruis and his respondent the 
 Cluniae Peter] videtur hee opinio sopita fuisse: neque enim ejus 
 patronos facile invenias usque quidem ad tempora Wiclefi, &e. Denique 
 rarescentibus seculi pontificii tenebris, et exorta denuo evangelii luce, 
 errorem Berengarii ab inferis revocarunt Andreas Carlostadius, Hulde- 
 ricus Zuinglius, Calvinus et horum discipuli. 
 
 t 
 
1586} GEORGE CALIXTUS. 531 
 
 P. 218. “1 define a sacrifice in its proper sense to be an act 
 by which a living being is, according to God’s command, deprived 
 of life in honour of God. Bellarmine in his book On the Mass 
 defines it in the following manner: A sacrifice is an outward 
 oblation made to God only, by which some being, endowed with 
 senses and continued life, is, for the acknowledgment of man’s 
 infirmity, and for the confession of God’s superior greatness, con- 
 secrated with a mystic rite by a lawful minister, and undergoes 
 a change. It is requisite for a true sacrifice that that which is 
 offered to God for a sacrifice clearly undergo destruction; 1.6. 
 be so changed as to cease to be what it previously was. 
 
 P. 221. Calixtus answers, “ Whatever living being is sacri- 
 ficed is destroyed by being slain. But the body of Christ, a living 
 thing, is not in the eucharist destroyed by being slain. Therefore 
 the body of Christ is not sacrificed in the eucharist, &e. [Carry 
 this reasoning out and the peculiarities of Lutheranism perish 
 as well as “ pontifical” reasonings. | 
 
 P. 223. “We finally call your attention to the sending of the 
 cup mentioned by Justin in his Apology, and by Irenzus, that 
 water was freely used to lower the strength of the wine: but 
 that it is a delusive inference of the pontitf’s community that we 
 are necessarily obliged to conform to this, De Lyra, on 1 Co- 
 rinthians, ¢. ii., speaks on that subject thus, ‘Water ought to be 
 ‘added, because it is probable that it was added by our Lord. For 
 
 P, 218. 
 
 Sacrificium proprie acceptum definio actionem qua ex mandato Dei 
 res animata in honorem Divinum vita privatur. Bellarminus, [10. 1. 
 de Missa c. 2, in hunc modum definit, Sacrificium est oblatio externa 
 facta soli Deo, qua ad agnitionem humane infirmitatis et professionem 
 Divine majestatis a legitimo ministro res aliqua sensibilis et permanens 
 ritu mystico consecratur et transmutatur. Ad verum sacrificium requiritur 
 
 ut id, quod offertur Deo in sacrificium, plane destruatur, 1.6. ita mutatur 
 ut desinat esse id quod antea erat, dec. 
 
 29 ὴς 
 His syllogism in reply. Queecunque res animata sacrificatur occisione 
 
 destruitur, at Christi corpus, utique animatum, non destruitur occisione 
 in eucharistid, ergo Christi corpus non sacrificatur in eucharistia, ὅσο. 
 Pi 225: 
 Postremo monemus de missione calicis cujus meminere antiqui, 
 Justinus Apolog. 2, et Irenzeus lib. 5, eam [aquam] ad temperandum 
 vinum libere adhibitam fuisse. Sed pontificios ei necessitatum male 
 
 affinxisse Lyranus in | Cor. ¢. i., ita de hace re loquitur, Debet apponi 
 aqua, quia probabile est quod Dominus apposuit. In terra enim illa 
 
 34—2 
 
532 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘it is the custom in the Holy Land on account of the strength 
 ‘of the wine to drink it always mingled with water”” [The 
 doubtful word is semper, t.e. whether it was the custom at the 
 passover. Buxtorf says nothing about it. The spirit of his very 
 particular account leads you to think that the Jews did not dilute 
 the wine at the passover. Some fathers expressly say it was 
 pure wine that Christ gave.] 
 
 propter vini fortitudinem consuetum est semper bibere vinum cum 
 aqua. 
 
 (G.) JOSEPH MEDE, B.D., CHRIST'S COLLEGE. 8. 1586. Ὁ. 1671. 
 
 The title-page of his works styles him “the pious and pro- 
 “foundly learned;” which no reader of his works will doubt. 
 Yet it may appear to close students of all which the Scriptures 
 assert on the Lord’s supper that on this subject he was profoundly 
 in error. And yet his judgment in general was singularly sober 
 and sound. It may be taken as a proof of this that the Rev. 
 Edward Elliott in his original and laborious work on the historical 
 view of the Apocalypse, after having in several editions main- 
 tained that all Christ’s true followers will partake of the first 
 resurrection and of the millennial state, says expressly in a later 
 edition that perhaps it is better after all to fall back on Mede’s 
 more limited view of a reign of martyrs (i.e. of selected persons 
 of whom the apostles and perhaps David himself may be chief). 
 This, whether it be the right view or no, on which it seems to be 
 very hard to draw the balance, is at least a high tribute to the 
 judgment of Mede. Those who have read Mr Elliott’s work, 
 instead of denouncing it without reading it, will be ready to think 
 Mede would hardly have desired a higher honour. The wonder 
 is that a portion of Mede’s views on this sacrament remained what 
 they were. He was reader of Greek in the university and tutor of 
 his college till he died at 85. 
 
 The passages and extracts from Mede are a rich addition, con- 
 taining many interesting ideas; but the idea rises up in the 
 mind, Is not all this ingenious system very different from the 
 idea of the sacrament which our Saviour left behind Him as one 
 of His church’s best treasures? Would St Paul, if raised to life 
 and full of all good human feelings, recognise in this the system 
 
1580] JOSEPH MEDE. 533 
 
 that he received of the Lord? I fear me much he would dash 
 forth at once into indignation and call it another gospel and an 
 entirely new mode of forgiveness of sin, from that which the gospel 
 presents. Mede must surely have departed from the gospel lines 
 when he asserts that our blessed Lord at the institution did offer 
 the elements as a sacrifice to the Father. It is said Ex uno 
 disce omnes. If the prize were due to him who on ambiguous 
 assumed hints from Scripture and repeated distinct assertions 
 from the fathers, constitutes the richest and most imaginative 
 sacramental system, it would I think be laid at Mede’s feet, but 
 if the crown is to be his who most nearly follows out the inti- 
 mations in Scripture only, it will be far from being on the head 
 of this very learned divine. 
 
 Discourse 44, 1 Cor. x. 8. Fourth edition. London, 1677. 
 
 “ All ate the same spiritual meat, &c. The apostle affirms (the 
 spiritual meat and drink) of the old fathers to have been the same 
 as ours. The manna and the rock were spiritual, 1.6. sacramental, 
 and thus in this regard, they were signs signifying Christ, and pledges 
 assuring the faithful receivers of them, enjoying Him with all His 
 benefits : for a sacrament is not a naked or a single sign, but a 
 sign assuring : t.e. a seal or pledge of the thing signified—a signi- 
 fying pledge or an assuring sign... Plato in Cratylus says that 
 the wisdom of the first imposers and inventers of the names of 
 things was such in their choice that they made the letters and 
 syllables to agree with and express the qualities of the things 
 called by them, expressing soft things with soft sounds, harsh with 
 harsh and so forth. So God in the sacraments, which are as 
 visible words, has chosen such things as carry in them the cha- 
 racter and very image of the things they are pledges οἵ... Manna 
 was given only in the wilderness: so is Christ our spiritual food in 
 the eucharist so long as we travel in the wilderness of this world. 
 But when we shall arrive in the holy Canaan we shall have no 
 more need of sacraments; for then we shall have Christ present 
 with us, &c..... As a rock is the surest foundation, so is Christ. 
 W hatsoever is built upon Him, no storms, no floods, no winds can 
 shake or move... As the rock is said to have yielded water, but 
 only to those who were there present ... but followed them in all 
 their stations in the wilderness unto the utmost ends thereof, so 
 that water which gushed out from our smitten Saviour neither 
 served nor stayed with those alone who were present at the time 
 and place of His suffering, but ran and spread unto all places of 
 the world where the sons of men had any abiding, and followeth 
 them all the days of their pilgrimage in this wilderness even from 
 
534 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the day of His passion unto the present hour..... In what part of 
 the earth soever thou art, in what time of the world soever thou 
 livest, Christ our rock is ever with thee, and His water streameth 
 after thee, which whosoever drinketh it shall be in him a well of 
 water springing up unto everlasting life... Add. Who knoweth 
 whether the cleaving of the rocks when He yielded up the ghost 
 were not a sign of the accomplishment of the mystery? The 
 invisible thing... double. First the root or fountain. Secondly 
 the gracious blessings, &c. As God confers no manner of blessing 
 upon us but through Christ, so the manner and metre of a sacra- 
 ment is to confirm unto us whatever it assures only through Him. 
 For all sacraments, both old and new, carry in them the marks of 
 Christ .... In the passover the favour and benefit that God would 
 therein seal was, that He would spare and pass by the Israelites 
 when He smote the Egyptians. And yet the sign ordained ex- 
 pressed nothing of passing by or sparing, but of Him only, in 
 Whom and through Whom God passed by and spared them, viz. 
 that immaculate Lamb, Whose blood where God beholds (in a 
 figure) on the posts of their houses He will spare and not destroy 
 them. 
 
 P. 253. “Ifthe fathers ate the same spiritual meat, &., which 
 we do, then we eat not the real body nor drink the real blood of 
 Christ. For the manna they ate was the same manna still, though 
 a sacrament of Christ. The water of the rock was verily water 
 still, though a sacrament of His blood. If then we eat the same 
 spiritual bread, we eat bread still, though spiritual bread. If we 
 drink the same spiritual drink our drink is wine still, though it is 
 a spiritual wine. Yea St Paul himself calls them as they are, 
 1 Cor. x. 16 The bread which we break, &. Ergo, That which is 
 the communion of the body of Christ is bread still, And unless it 
 should be so, how could there be a sacrament, which must consist 
 of a sign and a thing signified [see how Maldonat takes off this 
 common argument], of an earthly thing and of a heavenly thing. 
 For if the sign once becomes the thing signified, it is no more a 
 sign, and a sacrament is no more a sacrament... If it be urged 
 that Christ says plainly of the bread, This is My body, &c. ... in 
 my text 7 ts expressly said, That rock was Christ... The manner 
 of these speeches is nothing but a figure of certainty or assurance. 
 He that receiveth the bread as assuredly receiveth Christ's body, as 
 if the bread were His body, το. 
 
 P. 254. “In that Christ became man yet He took not on Him 
 the nature of every several man. Hence no man from His incar- 
 nation can apply these benefits to himself in special... There- 
 fore the all-wise God Who knew our weakness hath so ordained in 
 the mystery of this holy sacrament that it is a mystical incarnation 
 of Christ to everyone who receives it. Hence Gregory Nazianzeu , 
 
1586] JOSEPH MEDE. 535 
 
 defines the eucharist κοινωνία ἐνσαρκ σεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, a communion 
 of the incarnation of God. He affirms the bread to be His body 
 and the wine to be His blood. By receiving this body and blood 
 of Christ and so receiving i into the substance of our body and 
 into our blood by way of nourishment, the body of Christ becomes 
 our body and His blood is made our blood, and we become in a 
 mystical manner flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. And as 
 in the conception of the holy virgin He took upon Him the nature 
 of man that He might save man, so in His holy sacrament He 
 takes upon Him the nature of every man in singular, that He 
 might save every man who becomes Him in the Divine sacrament 
 of His body and blood. His real incarnation was only in one; but 
 His mystical incarnation is in many: and hence comes the sacra- 
 ment to be an institution whereby Christ 7s conveyed to us: His 
 benefits applied and so our faith confirmed. 
 
 P. 283. “This condemns that lurching sacrifice of the mass, 
 where the bread and wine are offered as a sacrifice for the people, 
 but they receive no one jot thereof, 2 Kings vi. 19... They think 
 it is enough that the priest eats all himself, though he gives nobody 
 else any with him. But it is no Jess absurd to affirm that another 
 should receive good by the priest’s receiving, than to hold one may 
 be fed by the meat another man eats, or be saved by another man’s 
 faith. For a man is nourished by his own meat, and the just shall 
 live by his own faith. 
 
 P. 255. “An eucharistical sacrifice or peace-offering was a 
 sacrifice of fire, or expiatory, a part whereof was burnt upon the 
 altar as in other sacrifices, but the remaining and greater part was 
 eaten by the faithful people who brought it, that so their sacrifice, 
 being turned into their body’s nourishment, might be a sign of 
 their incorporation into Christ to come, Who was the true sacrifice 
 for sin. So whereas other sacrifices were only sacrifices, this was 
 also a sacrament. The rest were only for expiation, but this also 
 for application, being a communion of that sacrifice which was 
 offered. Rightly was it therefore added to all other sacrifices ; 
 for what profit was there of expiation of sin, wnless τέ were applied ? 
 Well might it then be called a sacrifice of peace. The Greeks call 
 it sometimes σωτήριον, but commonly evyaptatixov...with thanks- 
 giving... 
 
 The Christian sacrifice, p. 373. Mal. 1. 11, “In every place 
 “incense shall be offered unto My name and a pure offering.” 
 Chap. 1. The text a prophecy of the Christian sacrifice according to 
 the judgment of the ancient fathers in the second, third and fourth 
 centuries. He quotes a rev. and learned prelate, “In the writings 
 “of the ancient fathers there is frequent mention of the unbloody 
 “sacrifice of the body of Christ in the eucharist.” Chap. τι. “ The 
 
536 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Christian sacrifice meant the whole sacred action and solemn 
 sacrifice of the church assembled... The body and blood of Christ 
 were not made of common bread and wine, but of bread and wine 
 first sanctified... by invocation of the Holy Ghost made the symbols, 
 &c. Chap. 1m. The Christian mincha. Is it not so called (a pure 
 offering) in respect of that most perfect unblemished and invalu- 
 able sacrifice it represents? Chaps. Iv. v. and vi. This Christian 
 service is an oblation. Proved out of antiquity, properly προσφορὰ, 
 but improperly θυσία. Ignatius to Sm. has both. If θυσία be 
 synecdochically taken for an offering in general, as it is in the 
 N.T., then the Christian sacrifice is θυσία... The altar or holy 
 table, the place of the public prayers of the church. [God in 
 context—Christ.] Chaps. vil. and vit. Sacrifices as federal 
 feasts in which God and man feast together. So that in those 
 (Jewish) sacrificial feasts as well as in the eucharist God is to be 
 considered as the convivator and then as the conviva. 1st, Every 
 sacrifice salted with salt. The salt of the covenant of God. What 
 but the feast of the covenant? 2dly, The blood of the sacrifices 
 the blood of the covenant. 38dly, Ps. 1. Gather My saints unto Me, 
 those that bave made a covenant with Me by sacrifice. 4thly, 
 Gen. xv. 9. Abrakam’s appointed sacrifices. God in the likeness, 
 &c., made a covenant with Abraham. In which rite of passing 
 between the parts God condescended to the manner of men... The 
 Lord’s supper a federal feast, the new covenant, 7.e. the rite of the 
 new covenant, &c.... There is nothing that remains to make this 
 feast a full sacrifice, but that the viands therefore should be first 
 offered to God, that He may be the convivator—we the convive, 
 or guests. ‘This proved from the testimonies of antiquity next to. 
 the apostles’ times and from the ancient liturgies, also from the 
 fathers, arguing on this oblation of the eucharist to God that the 
 Father is the creator; and lastly from St Paul’s parallel of the 
 Lord’s supper and the sacrifices of the Gentiles. (1) Our Saviour 
 at the institution did first offer the bread and wine to God to 
 agnize him the Lord of the creature. (2) Is not the celebration of 
 the eucharist in the Western churches, whether the Reformed or 
 the Roman, therefore defective because there is no oblation there 
 in use? Christ is offered in the eucharist commemoratively only 
 and not otherwise. The commemorative sacrifice or comme- 
 inoration of the eucharistic words of S. Andrew, written by the 
 presbyters of Achaia, Deo omni die sacrificio... immaculatum 
 agnum quotidie in altari crucis sacrificlo—cujus carnes, postquam 
 omnis populus manducaverit, ὅσ, agnus, qui sacrificatus est, 
 integer perseverat et vivit.” 
 
1593] ARCHBISHOP JOHN BRAMHALL. 537 
 
 (H.) ARCHBISHOP JOHN BRAMHALL. B. 1593. Ὁ. 1663. 
 
 An Englishman born at Pontefract. His life included an 
 absence from England during the period of the Commonwealth. 
 He was of Sidney College. In 1633 he went to Ireland, and it was 
 at the Restoration that he became Primate of all Ireland. His 
 diocese was then called Ardmagh. He is now adopted as an 
 Anglo-Catholic, as it is called: but his opinions on the Lord’s 
 supper connect him not with any party, being so very nearly 
 identical with the teaching of the Scriptures on that subject. 
 Indeed though this archbishop did not, like Usher, finally attain to 
 entire harmony with the simplicity of Scripture language in this 
 most instructive and blessed of all the sacraments which God has 
 ordained, Archbishop Bramhall is one of those few of whom it 
 may be said that their teaching differs but little from Usher’s and 
 Barrow’s and Tyndall’s and Bullinger’s and some fathers’ such as 
 Theodore and Macarius. If these stand decidedly at the head, it 
 may be said of Bramhall and some five others, Proxime acces- 
 serunt. It will be observed that the writer of this book draws 
 conclusions only from what he has read in the writings of the 
 several authors. And it will he trusts not be forgotten that he is 
 obliged to pass over many more favourable but less decisive pas- 
 sages, in the same authors. 
 
 Answer to Miletiere (then Bishop of Derry). Dublin, 1677. 
 
 P.21. “That which weighs most with us is this that we dare 
 not give Divine worship unto any creature, no: not to the very 
 humanity of Christ in the abstract (much less to the host), but to 
 the whole person of Christ, God and man by reason of the hy- 
 postatical union... Shew us such a union betwixt the Deity and 
 the elements (or accidents). But you pretend to no such things. 
 The highest that you dare go is this ‘As they that adored 
 ‘Christ when He was upon earth did (after a certain kind of 
 ‘manner) adore His garments’ (Bellarmin de Euch. ο. 29, quodam 
 modo), &e. 
 
 P. 35. “First you say we have renounced your sacrifice of the 
 mass. If the sacrifice of the mass be the same with the sacrifice 
 of the cross, we attribute more to it than yourselves. We place 
 our whole hope of salvation in it. If you understand another pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice, distinct from that, as this of the mass seems to 
 be; for confessedly the priest 1s not the same, the altar is not the 
 
- 
 
 538 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 same, the temple is not the same; if you think of any new meri- 
 torious satisfaction to God for the sins of the world, or of any 
 supplement to the merits of Christ’s passion, you must give me 
 leave to renounce your sacrifice indeed, and to adhere to the words 
 of the apostle ‘ By one offering He hath perfected for ever, &c.’ 
 Surely you cannot think that Christ did sacrifice Himself at His 
 last supper. Then this subsequent sacrifice upon the cross had 
 been superfluous—nor that the priest now doth more than Christ 
 did then. We do readily acknowledge an eucharistical sacrifice of 
 prayers and praises. We profess a commemoration of the sacrifice 
 of the cross; and in the language of the holy church things commu- 
 nicated are represented as if they were acted, ἕο. We acknowledge a 
 representation of the benefit of it. We maintain an application of 
 its virtue. So here is a commemorative, impetrative and applica- 
 tive sacrifice. [Bramhall up to this point so good and so acute 
 fails, after Augustine’s example, to see the great radical difference 
 between a commemoration of a sacrifice and a commemorative 
 sacrifice.} Speak distinctly, I cannot understand what you desire 
 more. To make it a suppletory sacrifice—to supply the defects of 
 the only true sacrifice of the cross, I hope both you and I abhor. 
 
 P. 21. “We rest in the words of Christ, This is My body... 
 But whether it be corporally or spiritually (in a spiritual sense)— 
 whether it be in the soul only or in the host also—whether 
 by consubstantiation or transubstantiation—we determine not. 
 [Methinks it was time he did.} Modum nescimus, Presentiam 
 eredimus. [The kind of presence is the question. The Pro- 
 testant faith is not simply negative but eminently positive. ] 
 
 P.16. “We find no debates or disputes concerning the pre- 
 sence of Christ’s body in the sacrament for the first 400 years. 
 [No? The fourth century saw more and more preposterous asser- 
 tions made. Hardly one resisted. ] 
 
 P. 22. “The fathers did not touch either the word or the 
 matter of transubstantiation. Mark it well. EKither name or 
 thing.” 
 
 [ Vote. It is well to try to settle the amount of force in this 
 remark. In passages without number in the fourth century it 
 is asserted that the elements are changed and become the body of 
 Christ. Yet to all the senses they evidence themselves to be 
 what they were before. Then what did men then believe? By 
 degrees they advanced to the notion that the entire Lord Jesus 
 was in the elements and on the table after consecration, and was 
 received by themselves in receiving the elements. Some indeed - 
 
1593] ARCHBISHOP JOHN BRAMHALL, 539 
 
 believed the Logos only came and dwelt in the elements; but for 
 all the rest, they gravitated to the notion that the bread was still 
 bread, &e., and yet that an entire Christ was in it or with it. In 
 details they wavered, but this double belief prevailed. After a 
 time men refined upon this idea, saying, Why need we believe 
 that the essence or substance of bread is there? We do not see 
 it. Very probably the only corporal essence that is there is the 
 essence of Christ’s body. Thus they held to a belief in the sensible 
 properties (or appearances, δόξας) of the elements and an entire 
 Christ too. In what did this differ from Transubstantiation ? 
 Only in the latter being more scientifically enunciated. I have 
 not here quoted the fathers afresh. Their words are given in 
 my extracts from them.] 
 
 (1) BISHOP JOHN COSIN, OF DURHAM. B. 1594. vp. 1672. 
 
 Born at Norwich, trained at Caius, Master of Peterhouse, and 
 Dean of Peterborough, he was raised at the Restoration to pre- 
 side in that northern diocese with its most splendid cathedral, 
 half castle and half house of God. The idea is from Sir Walter. 
 Certainly the reign of Puritanism produced or was followed by a 
 strong reaction in many great divines of the seventeenth century, 
 who may well be credited with having brought forward nearly 
 all the arguments to be adduced on their side of the sacramental 
 question; and all that they can adduce should receive full con- 
 sideration. he Anglo-Catholic Library is said to exhibit the first 
 collected edition of his works; but additions have been made. 
 
 Notes on the Church Prayer. On the Catechism. 
 Ang-Cath. Lib. 
 
 P. 154. “Bread and wine. If any other thing is brought for 
 ofterings by the people, it should not be consecrated for the sacra- 
 ment, but blessed only, and given to the people to carry away. 
 [P. 155.] Maldonatus says [translated], ‘We call a sacrament, a 
 ‘sion which appears, but a thing signified, the body of Christ, 
 ‘which does not appear? which approves of our doctrine and con- 
 demns that gross conceit of the ignorant Papists, that think they 
 see and taste, &c. the very body of Christ corporeally, which every 
 man abhors to conceive, even the best learned among the Papists 
 as well as we. I cannot see where any real difference is betwixt 
 us about the real presence. Maldonat, after a long examination 
 
540 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of the matter, concludes thus at last with us all....The body of 
 Christ is taken by us sacramentally, spiritually and really, but not 
 corporally; and so I have heard my Lord Overall preach it a 
 hundred times [1.6. I suppose formerly Dean Overall, the writer 
 of the part of the catechism that concerns the sacraments. In 
 the first two, intelligent Papists and intelligent Church of England 
 writers agree perfectly, because the term “sacramentally” means 
 as a figure or sign; in the second the spiritually minded in all 
 communions agree, such as Quesnel, Savonarola, Ken, Jeremy 
 Taylor, Barrow, Isaac Ambrose, Owen, &c., &c. But in the third 
 the Church of England is directly in antagonism to the Church of 
 Rome, since she declares Christ’s real natural body to be in Heaven, 
 and not here, but the Church of Rome and several other Churches, 
 and some that have not gone over to any of them, affirm that 
 Christ’s real natural body is received by the communicant when 
 this sacrament is rightly performed. ] 
 
 P. 336. “A true, real, proper and propitiatory sacrifice of 
 Christ toties quoties, (as often as) this sacrament is celebrated, 
 which is the Popish doctrine, and which cannot be done, without 
 killing Christ so often again, and which we hold not, believing it 
 to be a false and blasphemous doctrine, founding ourselves upon 
 the apostle’s doctrine that Christ was sacrificed but once, and that 
 He dieth no more....The body and blood of Christ, which are truly 
 exhibited in this sacrament, the one as well as the other. 
 
 P.118. “Now the eucharist, though by way of eulogy it may 
 be called a sacrifice in many of these ways, yet the real and true 
 nature of it in the offertory is to acknowledge God’s majesty and 
 our misery, and to appease His wrath towards us, to get blessings 
 from Him, and to make Christ's bloody sacrifice effectual to us. 
 [There is no word of the Church of England, of which Cosin was a 
 bishop, that teaches that God’s wrath is appeased by the Lord’s 
 supper. I need hardly add there is no such word in the Bible ; 
 and this is one of the great dangers of calling it a sacrifice at all, 
 because sacrifices were appeasing or propitiatory as regarding 
 ceremonial offences. But further one may well object to saying 
 that this sacrament “makes Christ’s sacrifice effectual ;” for even if 
 anyone were to say that prayer and all means of grace do this, and 
 that this sacrament only ditters from them in that it does it ina 
 Ingher manner peculiarly its own, objection may be taken to the 
 phrase “altogether,” because it ¢mplies that Christ’s death cannot 
 be effectual without the means; but it is in many cases without 
 any means of grace, as to the thief on the cross and to multitudes 
 since. The grace of God coming through Christ’s death is effectual, 
 independently of the means of grace. Their business is to bring 
 men under the action of that grace: and this 15 the real ground of 
 the danger that arises from calling sacraments effectual signs. 
 
1594] BISHOP JOHN COSIN. 541 
 
 They are helpful, beneficial, subordinate workers, but it is God 
 and God’s grace that are effectual, for they, and not the means, 
 produce the effect.] Formally and truly it may be called ἃ sacri- 
 fice also in the very natural signification of a sacrifice for aught I 
 know any harm should come of it. [The following words are added 
 in brackets in a note in the margin], Not in strictness and rigour 
 of speech; for so was there never any sacrifice, nor ever shall be 
 any but Christ’s alone. 
 
 P. 121. ‘Spiritual food of the most precious body and blood.’ 
 Before consecration we called them God’s ‘creatures of bread and 
 wine. Now we do so no more after consecration; wherein we have 
 the advantage of the Church of Rome, who call them still creatures 
 in their very mass after consecration; and yet they will be up- 
 braiding us for denying the real presence, whereas we believe 
 better than they ; for after consecration we think no more of the 
 bread and wine, but have our thoughts taken up wholly with the 
 body of Christ...And herein we follow the fathers, who after con- 
 secration would not suffer it to be called bread and wine any 
 longer, but the body and blood of Christ. Iren. Aug. Ambrose, 
 Justin, Prosper. [Answer (1) They are only called “these holy 
 mysteries,” which means these holy signs, and it has never been 
 the custom to call Christ's body and blood signs. (2) I do not 
 find a single instance in which the bread and wine are called 
 Christ’s body and blood, or any one in which we are said to receive 
 Christ’s body and blood. “Who have duly received these holy 
 mysteries” is all that is said in the service after consecration. 
 But (3) what could Bishop Cosin say to the following rubric? 
 “Tf any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, &c., &e.: but 
 “if any remain of that which was consecrated it shall not, &e. but 
 “the Priest, &c. shall reverently eat and drink the same.” Let us 
 turn this about. We see what the Reformers uttered, who put 
 the substance of the rubric upon kneeling into an article, and 
 therefore did not believe in the presence of Christ’s natural body. 
 Now what kind of a rubric about the disposal of the surplus bread 
 and wine would they have written, had they believed in the 
 natural presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with, or under the 
 forms of bread and wine? Could they then have put their hands 
 to such a rubric as this: “If any bread and wine remain uncon- 
 “secrated, &c., &c., but if any remain of that which was conse- 
 “erated”? For nothing would remain of that which was consecrated, 
 but at the most the accidents of it; 1.6. if the bread and wine 
 had been changed into Christ’s body and blood, which most of the 
 fathers, especially after Hilary, believed. Transubstantiation was 
 intended as a kind of reform—a bringing of the general belief into 
 a more apparent harmony with common sense; and in point of 
 fact it had been long in a great degree anticipated. The qualities 
 or properties of bread and wine were still there; yet men had to 
 
542 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 believe that the body and blood of Christ were there too. So some 
 believed in the presence of both entire. Some tried to drop one part 
 of this double presence, some another, till a bolder mind said, Let 
 us believe only the accidents or the properties of bread and wine, 
 but we must hold the presence of Christ’s Deity as well as the 
 substance of the body and blood of the Lord ; and in the course of 
 ages the presence of Christ’s soul was added, and the church adopted 
 this belief, and thus escaped for ever from the idea of a complete 
 double presence; 7.e. of the elements and. of Christ, both entire, 
 which was the grosser and earlier form of belief.] ‘ Very members.’ 
 So Cyril [translated], ‘We have taken the body of Christ to be- 
 ‘come of the same body with Christ, συσσώμους, and of the same 
 ‘blood among ourselves, cvvaipous.’ C. Jerus. c. 22, Mystagog. Iv. 
 c. 3, p. 320.” [N.B. The Bishop has altered this passage. It is 
 “of the same blood with Christ.”] 
 
 (J.) EDMONDE ALBERTIN. B. 1599. D. 1652. 
 
 Pastor of the French church of the Parisians who met at the 
 suburb of Charenton. His treatise on the eucharist in three 
 books is replete both with historical facts and doctrinal truths. It 
 is evident that Waterland greatly admired it, and it seems that, it 
 had great influence upon him, when he was preparing his own 
 treatise. Nevertheless Albertin, as the extracts shew, had not 
 wholly escaped from the general current. There are several points 
 in which he diverges from the simple teaching of our Lord and 
 St Paul. It is a parallel work to that of Hospinian of Zurich, 
 equally rich in history, and equally painstaking in the discussion 
 of doctrine. It is in three books. First, respecting the Scriptures 
 relating to this sacrament. Secondly, on the successive opinions 
 of the chief fathers to Isidore of Seville. And thirdly, a history 
 of the steps by which the changes of practice and doctrine have 
 been made to the time of Cyril Lucar. 
 
 P. 3. Preface. “But other writers I read accordingly as 
 they may excel in any holiness whatever or doctrine; not that 
 ! thik a thing true because they themselves felt it so, but be- 
 
 Pref. p. ὃ, Daventrie, 1654. 
 Alios autem (except the Canonical Scripture) ita lego ut quantalibet 
 sanctitate doctrinaque prepolleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi 
 
1599] EDMONDE ALBERTIN. 543 
 
 cause they have been able to persuade me either through those 
 catholic authors or by proof through reason, of that which is not 
 abhorrent to the truth. 
 
 P. 5. “The emperor Constantine in the very council at 
 Niczea had said, ‘The books of the Gospels and of the apostles 
 ‘and the oracles (Divinely inspired sayings) of the ancient pro- 
 ‘phets instruct us what we must think on Divine subjects. After- 
 ‘ward we must lay aside hostile discord and take from their 
 ‘Divinely inspired words the solutions of questions.’ ‘I answer,’ 
 says Bellarmine, ‘that this testimony is not to be made so much 
 ‘of, for Constantine was a great Emperor (general) not a great 
 ‘church-doctor, And yet the Niczan fathers assented to this, 
 and as Athenagoras says, stoned heresy to death with the holy 
 scriptures, 
 
 P. 2. Maldonat on Matt. xxvi. “That the ignorance of 
 Calvinists and Lutherans is to be laughed at, since they, as if it 
 were not enough for them, unless they were heretics in words, 
 have refused to call Christ’s body and blood the holy eucharist, 
 as we do, but (must needs term it) the supper. [Did not Maldonat 
 know that eucharist is not used in Holy Scripture for the supper 7) 
 
 P. 903. Hebrews ui. “ We shew as well from the Scriptures 
 
 and right reason, as well from the Scriptures as from the fathers 
 
 of the six first ages of the Christian era, that the bread and wine 
 
 ita senserunt, sed quia mihi, vel per auctores illos catholicos vel pro- 
 babili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. Kp. 
 ΧΙΧ, to Jerome, and c. Faust. 11, ¢. 5. 
 
 Pd: 
 
 Constantinus imperator in ipso concilio Niczeno dixerat “ Evangelici 
 “et apostolici libri et antiquorum prophetarum oracula plane instruunt 
 “nos quid de rebus Divinis sentiendum est. Proinde hostili posita 
 “ἐ discordiaé ex verbis Divinitus inspiratis sumamus queestionum explica- 
 ‘“‘tiones.” ‘‘ Respondeo,” ait Bellarminus, “non esse hoc testimonium 
 “tanti faciendum. rat enim Constantius magnus Imperator, sed 
 “non magnus ecclesie doctor.” Et tamen Niceeni patres hui¢e assensi 
 sunt, et Scripturis sanctis heresim lapidaverunt, ut loquitur Athena- 
 goras. 
 
 PP 2: 
 
 Quotes Maldonatus on Matt. xxvi. Ridiculam esse Calvinistorum 
 et Lutheranorum iscitiam, qui, si satis non haberent si rebus nisi 
 etiam verbis heretici essent, noluerunt corpus et sanguinem Christi 
 sanctam eucharistiam ut nos, sed ccenam appellare. 
 
 P. 903, Heb. ITI. 
 
 Ostendimus tum ex Scripturis et recta ratione tum ex Scripturis 
 tum ex patribus sex priorum ere Christian seculorum panem et vinun 
 
544 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 in the eucharist are not substantially changed through conse- 
 cration, but only in their accidents by the addition of meaning 
 and grace, nor are made the body and blood of the Lord in the 
 proper (own) sense, but an image, a symbolical figure, a com- 
 memorative figure, a type, antitype [resemblance as in Gk. Test.], 
 finally a sacrament and a sacred sign of the Lord’s body and 
 blood, or also of the absent Christ. 
 
 P. 989. “Jeremy Constantine, the patriarch, has no more 
 than the same opinion, as Damascene also whose opinion he 
 quotes...that everyone says he (Damascene) differs toto celo from 
 transubstantiation and the real presence...But that may again 
 be collected equally from the very clear testimony of the more 
 modern Greeks. For when Claud the Guisian cardinal had 
 enquired from the Greeks at Venice among other things, what 
 they thought on the eucharist, they answered, ‘We believe and 
 ‘confess that bread is so changed into Christ’s body, and wine 
 ‘in like manner into His blood, that neither the bread nor the 
 ‘accidents of the substance itself remain, but are changed into 
 ‘the Divine substance, ὅσο. &c.;’ but Cyril (qy. Lucar), the most 
 recent of the fathers (said), ‘We confess a true and sure presence 
 ‘of the Lord...that indeed which faith furnishes (or shews), not 
 ‘that which a fictitious transubstantiation rashly teaches.” 
 
 How far the extract from p. 903 is borne out by the facts 
 (which also was the basis of Jewel’s challenge), perhaps the ex- 
 tracts I have printed from the first six centuries are sufficient 
 
 in eucharistia per consecrationem non mutari substantialiter sed acci- 
 dentaliter, tantum per additionem significationis et gratie, nec fieri 
 proprie Domini corpus et sanguinem, sed i imaginem, figuram symbolicam, 
 figuram commemorativam, typum, antitypum, ac denique sacramentum 
 et sacrum signum dominici corporis et sanguinis sive etiam Christi 
 absentis. 
 
 Ey D8. 
 
 Hieremias Constantinus patriarcha... Illud tantummodo vult quem- 
 admodum et Damascenus, cujus sententiam laudat...quod et a transub- 
 stantiatione et a reali prasentia toto ccelo differre nemo est qui non 
 videat. Sed id rursum colligere est ex aliorum pariter recentiorum 
 Grecorum satis claro testimonio. Cum enim Claudius Card. Guisianus 
 a Greecis apud Venetias inter alia queesivisset, quid de eucharistia sen- 
 tirent, responderunt illi, “ Credimus ac confitemur panem in corpus 
 “Christi et vinum simili ratione in sanguinem ita mutari, ut nec panis 
 “neque ipsius substantie accidentize maneant, sed in Divinam sub- 
 “stantiam commutentur, ὅσο. &e. ;’ verum novissimus patrum Cyrillus 
 “ Veram et certam preesentiam Domini confitemur...eam quidem quam 
 ‘* fides exhibet et preestat, non illam quam fictitia temere edocet transub- 
 ‘stantiatio.” 
 
1599] EDMONDE ALBERTIN. 545 
 
 to put it into the power of everyone to judge for himself, so that 
 I need not say anything. I have given sufficient to indicate 
 something regarding the folio of Albertin. I have drawn from 
 him more liberally in the Third Part. 
 
 (K.) “BISHOP EDWARD REYNOLDS. B. 1599. Ὁ. 1676. 
 
 As after rising to deserved eminence in the Church of England 
 at Oxford, and becoming preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, he joined the 
 Presbyterian party during the struggles preceding the execution 
 of Charles, it is not likely that his fame as a divine should not 
 be greatly disparaged by many. Nor was being Bishop of Norwich 
 at last likely to soften such feelings. The question is whether 
 as a theologian he had not more of heaven in him than of earth. 
 But in a more peaceful time there would have been a general 
 reception of him as one of the Church of England’s true saints 
 and great teachers. He was born at Southampton, and went 
 to Merton, of which college he was fellow. 
 
 Meditations on the Lord’s Supper. Works. London, 1677. 
 
 P. 436. “These are all the holy actions that we find to have 
 been by Christ and His apostles celebrated in the great mystery of 
 that supper. All other human accessions and superstitions that 
 are by the policy of Satan and that carnal affection which ever 
 laboureth to reduce God’s service to an outward and pompous 
 gaudiness, foisted into the substance of so Divine a work, are all 
 of them that straw and stubble which He, Who is a consuming 
 fire, will at last utterly purge away. Impotent Christ was not, 
 that He could not, nor malignant that He would not, appoint, nor 
 improvident, that He could not foresee the needfulness of such 
 actions which are...obtruded...for matters substantial and ne- 
 cessary to be observed. As if God Who in the first Creation 
 did cease from all His work, and in the second Creation of the 
 world not finish the work Himself, but leave it imperfect, to be 
 by another consummated and finished, ἄς. Away then with those 
 actions of elevation, adoration, oblation, circumgestation, mimical 
 gesture, silent whisperings, &c. in which things as in sundry 
 others they do nothing else but imitate the carnal ordinances 
 of the Jews, the Ethnics, ἕο. &e. Certainly affectation of pomp, 
 ceremony, &c. &c. unto the substance of Christ’s sacraments are 
 by Tertullian made the characteristics and presumptions of an 
 idolatrous service. True indeed it is that the ancients make 
 
 He ΤῈ 30 
 
546 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 mention, out of that fervour of love and piety towards those 
 sacred mysteries, of adoration at them, and of carrying the re- 
 mainders of them unto the absent Christians. But as in other 
 things, so here. Things begun by devout men piously and con- 
 tinued with zeal, afterward degenerate into superstition—the 
 form, purpose, end and reason of them being utterly neglected. 
 It being the contrivance of Satan to raise his temple after the 
 same form and of the same material whereof God’s consisteth, &c. 
 that he may the easier mislead unstable and wandering souls, 
 and to retain at least a form of godliness that he may with less 
 clamour and reluctancy withdraw the substance. That adoration 
 which this did exhibit unto Christ Himself he impiously de- 
 rives upon the creature, and makes it to be done unto the 
 elements; ὅθ. That carrying about and reserving of the eu- 
 charist, which the primitive Christians used for the benefit of 
 those who either by sickness or by persecution were withheld from 
 the meetings of the Christians, is by him now turned into an 
 idolatrous circumgestation, that at the sight of the bread the 
 people might direct unto it that worship which is due only to 
 the Person whose passion it representeth ;...for howsoever his power 
 and tyranny may have done mischief to God’s church, yet his 
 masterpiece is the cunning and deceit which the Scripture so often 
 taketh notice of. 
 
 P. 447. “But it is a spiritual presence of energy and power, 
 and concomitancy with the element by which Christ doth ap- 
 point, that by and with these mysteries though not in and from 
 them, His sacred body should be conveyed to the faithful soul. 
 [Very unadvisable words to be put before what follows.) And 
 such a presence of Christ, in power though absent in flesh, &e. 
 Who can, without any necessity of a fleshly presence, send as great 
 influence from His sacred body on the church as if He should 
 descend visibly among us. [One marvels to see how the teaching 
 of Cyril has penetrated. Christ and not Christ’s flesh was the 
 source of all His miraculous powers, and now forsooth we are 
 to look for grace from His body, and divines like Reynolds are 
 to teach this.| Whose sacred body (however it be not sub- 
 stantially coextended, in regard of ubiquity, with the Godhead), 
 yet in regard of its cooperation, force, efficacy, unlimited by any 
 place or subject—it having neither sphere of activity, nor stint of 
 merit, nor bounds of efficacy, nor necessary subject of application, 
 beyond which the virtue of it grows faint and ineffective, ὅσ. 
 [All this about the power of Christ’s body to ὙΠ ps by a 
 
 virtue inherent in it!] /de fate eb 4 3. Fons 
 RT 
 
 P. 446. “Just so Christ is locally in ἘΠ tans which must 
 
 contain Him till the restitution of all things; yet having in- 
 stituted these elements for the supply as it were of His absence, 
 
1599] BISHOP EDWARD REYNOLDS. 547 
 
 He is counted present with them: inasmuch as they that receive 
 them with that reverent and faithful affection as they would 
 Christ Himself, do together with them receive Him too, really 
 and truly, though not carnally and physically, but after a 
 mystical and supernatural manner, &c. Presence, real being, a 
 metaphysical term is not opposed to a mere local absence or 
 distance [Thus is reproach brought on metaphysics], but is 
 opposed to a false imaginary fantastic presence. [This is a change 
 of the usual sense of the term real, that is all] For if real 
 presence may be understood of nothing but a carnal and local 
 presence then that speech of Christ, Where two or three are met, 
 &e. cannot have any real truth in it, because Christ is not locally 
 in the midst of them. [The question is the meaning of the word 
 “real” in reference not to the Divine presence of Christ, but to 
 a presence of His body.] The presence then of Christ, which 
 in the sacrament we acknowledge, is not any gross presence of 
 circumscription, as if Christ Jesus in body lay hid under the 
 accidents of bread and wine, as if He, Who was wont to use 
 the senses for a witness and proof of His presence, did now hide 
 from them, yea deceive them under the appearances of that which 
 He is not. 
 
 P. 462. “Shall not any other of thy sins be put out by that 
 blood which thy sins caused to run out of His sacred body? 3. 
 It is a glorified body, and will not enter into an earthy and 
 unclean soul. 
 
 P. 469. “As it is corporally in Heaven, so it will be spiritually 
 and sacramentally in no place but a heavenly soul. Think not 
 that thou hast received Christ, till thou hast effectually remem- 
 bered, seriously meditated and been religiously affected and in- 
 fluenced with the love of His death. Without this thou mayest be 
 euilty of His body: thou canst not be a partaker of it. Guilty 
 thou art because thou didst reach out thy hand with a purpose 
 to receive Christ into a polluted soul though He withdraw Him- 
 self from thee...As no man can see the sun except by the benefit 
 of that light which the sun shineth on them, so no man can know 
 Christ but those on whom Christ first shineth, and whom He 
 vouchsafeth to know. Mary Magdalene could not say Rabboni 
 to Christ, till Christ first had said Mary unto her. 
 
 P. 472. “In the building of Solomon’s temple the stones 
 were perfected, and hewed before they were brought. There 
 was no axe nor hammer nor any tool of iron heard in the house 
 while it was in building. And so should it be in the temple 
 of which that was a type, even in the mystical body of Christ. 
 Every man should be first hewed and fitted by repentance and 
 other preparatory works before he should approach to incorporate 
 himself into that spiritual and eternal building. 
 
 ?) 
 
 4) "»΄ . 
 eos 
 
548 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 472. “If the rain that falleth on the ground returns 
 not empty, but according to the quality of the ground on which 
 it falls makes it fruitful, either in herbs meet for them by whom 
 it is dressed, or in thorns and briars that are near unto cursing, 
 impossible it is that the blood of Christ in this sacrament should 
 be ineffectual, whether for a blessing unto the faithful, or for a curse 
 to those that unworthily receive it, &c. For this cause we find 
 our Saviour Christ washing His disciples’ feet, ἡ. 6. cleansing their 
 earthly and human affections, before the institution of this sacra- 
 ment. And we find Joseph of Arimathea wrapping His dead 
 body in a clean linen garment and putting it into a new tomb 
 never yet defiled with rottenness and corruption. And can we 
 imagine that He, that endured not an unclean grave or shroud, 
 will enter into a sinful and unprepared soul? The everlasting 
 doors must be lifted up before the king of glory will enter in. 
 
 P. 482. “Doth the sweetness of those promises, like the fruit 
 brought by the spies from Canaan, so affect me, that I am ata 
 point, ready to encounter any Canaanite or sinful lust that shall 
 oppose ?” 
 
 There is a spiritual raciness about many of this excellent man’s 
 thoughts, which will ever keep them from dying out. It is not 
 common. Would that in the terms he has used in discussion 
 he had been more precise, and also in the ideas that he received 
 on the supper of the Lord. 
 
 (L.) THE REV. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH, M.A. B. 1602. D. 1644. 
 
 When one has written the words, the author of “The religion 
 “of Protestants a safe way to salvation,’ one has said enough to 
 place him on a level with Hooker; not so universal in the rhetori- 
 cal riches and graces of style, but even superior to him in grasp of 
 compact and invincible accuracy of thinking. The English language 
 is honoured by being the vehicle of the thoughts that are com- 
 pressed and elaborated in some of his paragraphs. Reading them 
 is like Plato’s vision, in the Pheedo, of whirling on in the clear, pure 
 air of truth: or if Plato’s horses must come in, they are changed, 
 and the whole reminds us more of Aischylus’ picture of Amphiaraus, 
 Ὥς σώφρονα πώλοις μεταφέρων ἰθύνει'! We Cambridge men 
 may almost envy Oxford its possession of him; or rather we may 
 rejoice that she has such a name in her honoured rolls. His 
 
1602} THE REV. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH, M.A. 549 
 
 course was singular. Born at Oxford, and scholar and fellow of 
 Trinity, he joined the Roman Communion and studied at Douai 
 among the Jesuits. But 1631 saw him home in England and a 
 Protestant. He rose only to be Prebendary and Chancellor of 
 Salisbury, which may be attributed to the terminating of his life 
 within thirteen years of his return. It is something to have 
 merited the title of “the best reasoner and most acute logician of 
 “his age;” for if the seventeenth century lost the simplicity of 
 Bible doctrine, it was certainly illuminated by men of no common 
 mental power. A sort of fluctuation seems to hold a kind of com- 
 pensating vibration in the successions of religious thought. 
 
 The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation. 
 London, 1710. 
 
 “ Know then, Sir, when I say, the religion of Protestants is in 
 prudence to be preferred before yours, as on the one side I do not 
 understand by your religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, 
 or any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the 
 Sorbon, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any particular 
 company among you, but that wherein you all agree or profess to 
 agree—the doctrine of the Council of Trent—so accordingly on 
 the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand 
 the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melanchthon, or the confession 
 of Augusta or Geneva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg, nor the 
 articles of the Church of England; no, nor the harmony of Pro- 
 testant confessions, but that wherein they all agree, and which 
 they all subscribe with greater harmony as a perfect rule of their 
 faith and actions, that is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible 
 only, is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they believe 
 beside it and the plain irrefragable and indisputable consequences 
 of it, well may they hold as a matter of opinion. But as mat- 
 ter of faith and religion neither can they in coherence to their 
 own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of 
 others without most high and most schismatical presumption. If 
 for my part, after a long, and as I verily believe and hope im- 
 partial, search of the true way to eternal happiness, I do profess 
 plainly that I do not find any rest for the sole of my foot but 
 upon this rock only. I see plainly and with mine own eyes that 
 there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some 
 fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a con- 
 sent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another 
 age, the church of one age against the church of another age. . 
 Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but there are 
 few or none to be found. No tradition, but only of Scripture, can 
 derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved either 
 
550 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 to have been brought in in such an age after Christ, or that in 
 such an age it was not brought in. In a word there is no sufficient 
 certainty but that of Scripture only for any considering man to — 
 build upon....Propose me anything out of this book...I will sub- 
 scribe it...as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this: 
 God hath said so: therefore it is true.” 
 
 Appendix, vil. p. 357. Argument against conclusions of the 
 Church of Rome taken from the contradiction in doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation. Close. Chillingworth replied that to say the extreme 
 parts of a body are severed by the middle parts according to their 
 entity, but not according to place, is ridiculous. His reasons are, 
 First, because severing of things is nothing else but putting or 
 keeping them in several places; and therefore to say they are 
 severed but not according to place is as if you should say they are 
 heated but not according to heat: they are cold but not according 
 to cold. Indeed it is to say, They are severed but not severed. 
 
 (M.) DR JOHN LIGHTFOOT, MASTER OF CATHARINE HALL, CANON 
 OF ELY. B. 1602. D. 1665. 
 
 By his high attainments in Talmudic theology he stands un- 
 rivalled. He is an instance of what a man can do by wholly 
 giving himself to one line of things for many years. It is amusing 
 to find that he was so devoted to this part of the literature of the 
 Greek Testament that, though he was made a member of the 
 Savoy Conference, he never found time to attend. His reputation 
 casts a light on the Staffordshire Potteries, in the chief town of 
 which (Stoke-upon-Trent) he was born, and near which he held a 
 living. He became Master of Catharine Hall. He promoted the 
 publication of the Polyglott Bible. 
 
 On Baptism. P. 266. “You see baptism inseparably connected, 
 as an appendix, with circumcision. Certainly we acknowledge 
 circumcision to be an ordinance of evidently Divine institution. 
 And yet, which is worth noting, the Saviour rejected circumcision 
 
 Hore Hebraice. De Baptismo. 
 Vol. 77. p. 266. Rotterdam, 1686. 
 Appendicem vides baptismum circumcisione proselytarum insepara- 
 biliter affixam. Circumcisionem certe institutionis plane Divine ag- 
 noscimus... Et tamen (quod notare dignum) Servator, rejecta circum- 
 
1602] DR JOHN LIGHTFOOT. 551 
 
 and retained its appendix, baptism. We may observe nearly the 
 same thing concerning the eucharist. The lamb in the passover 
 was of evidently Divine institution, and so indeed was the bread. 
 But what was the authority for the wine? But yet Christ re- 
 jected the lamb and instituted the sacrament in bread and wine. 
 
 P. 912. On 1 Cor. xi. “I am far from denying that certain love- 
 feasts were in use as appendices in the early ages to the supper of 
 the Lord....But unless I am mistaken these banquetings of the 
 Corinthians before the eucharist had a far different origin....As far 
 as I know, there is none (of that age) that applies ‘one is hungry’ 
 to the poor, and ‘another is drunken’ to the rich....But the Greek 
 word for ‘is drunken’ applies well to the Jews in their previous 
 feastings in keeping the passover before the Lord’s supper; and 
 ‘is hungry’ to the Gentile converts, enduring that waiting without 
 eating, not so much from poverty or any necessity as because they 
 would not recognize such a preparatory supper....[f you choose to 
 give the ignominious sense to the Greek word for ‘is drunken,’ it 
 does not differ widely from that large drinking down of wine 
 which they used to allow. The Jewish part of the church would 
 by no means come to the eucharist without the preceding and 
 
 paschal supper and banqueting, where elegantly and richly they 
 were entertained and ate and...éwé@vov, and carried it on to fulness 
 and hilarity ; when the Gentile part on the contrary, horrified at 
 that Judaizing, and shrinking from such previous feasting, come 
 yet hungering and fasting to the sacrament, ¢.e. not having supped. 
 
 We believe that the Jewish part of this church, though converted 
 
 cisione, appendicem retinuit. Idem fere observare licet de eucharistia. 
 Agnus in paschate Divine erat institutionis, et sic quidem  panis. 
 Ast unde vinum? At rejecto tamen agno, in pane et vino instituit 
 Christus sacramentum. 
 
 P.912. Del Cor. XZ. (A curious exposition: !) 
 
 Procul a nobis est negare usitatas fuisse Agapas quasdam, ut 
 appendices ccenze Domini seculis ecclesiz vetustioribus... Longe aliud 
 respexerunt, ni fallor, convivationes iste Corinthiorum ante eu- 
 charistiam... Non est, quod novimus, qui ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ ad pauperes 
 applicet, et ὃς δὲ μεθύει ad divites... At μεθύει ad Judeos in pro- 
 centis suis paschatizantes ante eucharistiam: et πεινᾷ ad Gentiles 
 non ex paupertate aut necessitate mediam istam patientes tam 
 quod ccenam talém precedaneam nollent amplecti... Si sensum vocis 
 μεθύει ignominiosum ei tribuere velis, non multum dissonat a larga 
 ist ingurgitatione vini que tolerabatur... Judaica pars ecclesiz 
 nullo modo voluit ad eucharistiam accedere absque ccena et con- 
 vivatione precedanea ac paschativa, ubi laute et affluenter excipie- 
 bantur et ederunt δῦ... ἐμέθυον, atque ad saturitatem et hilaritatem sunt 
 provecti; cum Gentilitia pars e contra illam Judaizationem horrens, 
 οὐ procenia talia refugiens, πεινᾷ adhue et jejuna ad sacramentum 
 accedit ; hoc est, non ccnata. Credimus Judaicam partem hujus 
 
ΘΝ THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 to the Gospel, yet retained somewhat of the old leaven; and as’ 
 in other things so also in this, Judaized or followed Jewish custom 
 concerning the eucharist, gravely wandering from its proper aim 
 and end, in thinking it merely an appendix to the passover. 
 From their very cradles they had drunk in this instruction, that 
 the Messiah when He shall come will not remove or change any- 
 thing in the Mosaic ritual, but will move forward and earry up all 
 to a more splendid form and pomp. V. 23. Why does the apostle 
 need to recur to this? That they might observe that Christ had 
 said, This is My body, &c., in order that He might teach them 
 that the bread referred to some other thing than what was in the 
 passover... That the scope and end of the communion of the death 
 of Christ was not any paschal communion. For He had said of 
 the wine ‘which is the new testament in His own blood; and what 
 then had it (or He) to do with the passover? But now the wine 
 is a representation of the blood of Christ, because the shedding of 
 blood (i.e. under the law) was thenceforth about to cease; for the 
 old covenant had been established in the blood of the paschal 
 lamb in Egypt, &c. When the passover was being instituted the 
 laws had not been promulgated. In like manner in the institution 
 of baptism Christ establishes a new covenant. But when He had 
 delivered the doctrine of the Gospel then He establishes the New 
 Testament. 
 
 P. 914. “The new covenant (testament)...(1) This cup is not 
 only a sign of the blood of Christ, nor only a seal, as a sacrament, 
 but also the very sanction itself of the New Covenant, v.e. of the 
 
 ecclesie, quamvis ad evangelium conversam, aliquid tamen veteris 
 fermenti sui retinuisse et, ut in aliis rebus, ita etiam in hac de 
 eucharistia Judaizasse, de proprio ejus fine adeo graviter errantes ut 
 eam appendicem tantum paschatis fuisse putarent, &e. Ab _ ipsis 
 incunabulis hoe biberant, Messiam cum advenerit, nihil rituum 
 Mosaicorum vel exterminaturum ve! immutaturum, ast omnes in splen- 
 didiorem formam et pompam promoturum et evecturum...V. 23. Unde 
 opus habet apostolus ut hice recurrat, &c.? Ut observarent dixisse 
 Christum ‘“ Hoe est,” &e¢., ut doceret panem alio respicere...quam in 
 paschate... Scopum et finem communionem mortis Christi non aliquam 
 Paschalem. Dixisse enim de vino “Quod est novum testamentum 
 ‘‘in sanguine Suo ;” et quid ei ergo cum paschate? At jam vinum 
 est repreesentatio sanguinis Christi, quia exinde cessatura erat effusio 
 sanguinis (i.e. sub lege); nam sancitum erat vetus foedus in sanguine 
 agni paschalis in Aigypto, &e. Cum institueretur pascha, non promul- 
 gatee fuerant leges. Pari modo in institutione baptismi novum sancit 
 feedus. At cum tradidisset doctrinam evangelii tum sancit N.T. &e. 
 
 vere Le 
 
 Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη... (1) Hoc poculum non solum est signum sanguinis 
 Christi, nec solum sigillum ut sacramentum, sed et ipsissima sanctio 
 N. T. i.e. totius evangelice administrationis,,. Ex inde cessatio 
 
1602] DR JOHN LIGHTFOOT. 553 
 
 whole gospel administration. From that time the Jewish law 
 ceased. (2) While therefore we receive this sacrament we pro- 
 fess and protest against all other dispensations and religions. (9) 
 Therefore our communion in this sacrament is not so much spiritual 
 as external and declarative of our common and joint holding of the 
 Christian faith. Far be it from us to deny that it is a spiritual 
 communion for the holy with God, and (mutually) among them- 
 selves in the use of the eucharist. Yea, rather we assert it to be 
 of the most intimate kind between the true believers and God. 
 And what, I ask, is that spiritual communion for the holy among 
 themselves? It is mutual love, one heart, prayers for each other, &c. 
 But they both can realize the same communion, and do realize it, 
 when they meet for any other part whatever of Divine worship. 
 Therefore their communion in this sacrament, which is distinc- 
 tively named eucharistic [1.6. of thanksgiving], is that they assemble 
 and by this outward sign openly and with united minds profess 
 that they are united in one sacred tie, &c. (4) When therefore in 
 any church we approach to the eucharist, we not only commu- 
 nicate with that assembly, with which we are at the time asso- 
 ciated, but with the whole catholic church in the profession of the 
 true Christian religion. V.29. ‘He that eateth, &c. unworthily 
 ‘shall be guilty, &c.’ Of whom is he speaking? Of those that 
 were relapsing and apostatizing from the gospel to Judaism, to- 
 wards which these Corinthians were too much biassed. Guilty, &c. 
 He who agrees that that blood was shed, and supports the opinion 
 that His death was inflicted purely as a representation (like the 
 old sacrifices) as these Corinthians did.” 
 
 Judaismi. (2) Dum ergo sacramentum hoc recipimus, profitemur et 
 protestamur contra ceconomias et religiones omnes alias. (3) Communio 
 itaque nostra in hoe sacramento non tam est spiritualis quam externa 
 et declarativa communis et conjunct nostre professionis fidei Christiane. 
 Procul a nobis abest negare esse spiritualem communionem sanctis 
 cum Deo atque inter se in usu eucharistiz ; imo asserimus esse pro- 
 pinquissimam inter vere credentes et Deum. At quenam esi ista 
 spiritualis communio sanctorum inter se? Mutuus amor, cor unum, 
 mutuz preces, &c. At et eandem communionem exercere possunt, 
 exercentque, cum conveniunt ad quamlibet aliam partem  Divini 
 cultus... Communio ergo eorum in hoc sacramento, que distincte 
 communio eucharistica denominatur, est quod conveniunt atque ex- 
 terno hoe signo palam et junctis animis profitentur se uniri in sacro 
 uno nodo, &c. (4) Cum igitur in aliqua ecclesia accedimus ad eucha- 
 ristiam, non solum cum isto ceetu communicamus, quocum tune temporis 
 consociamur, sed cum totd ecclesia catholica in professione verze 
 religionis Christiane. V. 29. ἀναξίως...ἔνοχοι τοῦ σώματος, κιτιλ. De 
 quibusnam est sermo?... De relabentibus atque apostatizantibus ab 
 evangelio ad Judaismum, quo inclinarunt nimis hi Corinthii..."Evoyos, 
 κιτιλ., qui sanguinis istius effusioni assentit et morti Ejus suffragatur, 
 ut in meram umbram inflictee, quod fecerunt isti. 
 
554 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (N.) DR RALPH CUDWORTH. B. 1617. D. 1688. 
 
 First Master of Clare and then of Christ’s, and Prebendary of 
 Gloucester. He was also Professor of Hebrew. He was a native 
 of Somersetshire, and went to Emmanuel, which gave him his 
 first honourable position as one of its fellows. Though the Intel- 
 lectual System of the Universe is the work which will hand his 
 name down to the latest ages, his sermon on the Lord’s supper 
 alone gives him the position of a fellow-labourer and rival to 
 Lightfoot and follower of Buxtorf. 
 
 Sermon concerning the true notion of the Lord’s Supper. 
 Volume II. London, 1743. 
 
 P. 8. “Having thus shewn that both amongst the Jews under 
 the law, and the Gentiles in their Pagan worship (for Paganism 
 is nothing but Judaism degenerated), it was ever a solemn rite to 
 join feasting with sacrifice, and to eat of those things which had 
 been offered up, the very concinnity and harmony of the thing 
 itself leads me to conceive that that Christian feast under the 
 Gospel, called the Lord’s supper, is the very same thing and 
 bears the same notion, in respect of the true Christian sacrifice of 
 Christ upon the cross, that those did to the Jewish and Heathenish 
 sacrifices ; and so, is epulum sacrifictale, a sacrificial feast, | mean 
 a feast upon a sacrifice, or epulum ex oblatis, a feast upon things 
 offered up to God. Only this difference arising in the parallel, 
 that because those legal sacrifices were but types and shadows of 
 the true Christian sacrifice, they were often repeated and renewed, 
 as well as the feasts which were made upon them; but now the 
 true Christian sacrifice, being come and offered up once for all, 
 never to be repeated, we have therefore no more typical sacrifices 
 left among us, but only the feasts upon the true sacrifice, still 
 symbolically continued and often repeated, in reference to the one 
 great Sacrifice, which is always as present in God’s sight, and 
 efficacious as if it were but now offered up for us. [P.9.] Besides 
 those four general kinds of sacrifices...there were...these three: 
 the firstlings of cattle, the tenth, and the passover. [P. 10.] 
 There were three precise differences between the passover and the 
 ordinary peace-offerings: (1) no laying on of hands upon the pass- 
 over in the killing of it...as in all the peace-offerings; (2) no 
 Mincah or meat-offering, and no libamen or drink-oftering ; (3) 
 no waving of the breast and shoulder for the priest’s portion...be- 
 cause the priests were bound always to have passover-offerings of 
 their own. When I say the passover was brought to the taber- 
 
1617] DR RALPH CUDWORTH. Sow 
 
 nacle and offered by the priests, I do not mean that the priests 
 were always bound to kill the passover; for I grant that the 
 people were wont to kill their own passovers; and so I find it 
 expressly in the Mishna of the Talmud. Massech Zebach ec. v. 5, 2. 
 All Israel killed the passover and the priests received the blood, 
 Exod. xii. 6, &. [P.11.] It is a great mistake in most of our 
 learned writers to think that the killing of every sacrifice was 
 proper to the priest. Lev.i.4,5; 111.2. Maimonides. But Deut.xvi.15 
 is I think wrongly explained of the temple, since it is Jerusalem : 
 but he well adduces Numb. ix. 7 to prove that the passover was 
 korban, an offering, and Exod. xxiii. 18, &c. &. [P.12.] The 
 people of Israel might all kill the passover themselves if they 
 pleased, because the killing of any sacrifice might be done lawfully 
 by ‘strangers.’ [By this is meant other than the priest. He quotes 
 Ben Maimon (Maimonides) on the Halachah Pesach of the Talmud, 
 ‘They kill, not the priest, but in the court. ΝΒ, From the 
 Pentateuch it does not appear that the priest’s killing a sacrifice 
 instead of the offerer was legal. Cudworth speaks of the Tal- 
 mudic order, which was nearer the old law than the practice in 
 2 Chronicles.] [P.21.] Or I might take up the opinion of the 
 Greeks, that Christ did not keep a true legal passover, but a 
 feast of unleavened bread in imitation of it; or as the learned 
 Hugh Grotius...expresseth it, not πάσχα θύσιμον, but μνημο- 
 νευτικὸν, such as the Jews at this day keep...but this opinion hath 
 been exploded by most of our late authors. [P. 24.] Account of 
 watching and proclaiming the new moon, and he thus explains 
 the appearance of two passover-feasts in the Gospels at the time of 
 Christ’s arrest and death. 
 
 P. 27. “It is not a sacrifictum but an epulum (a feast) ἐκ 
 τῆς θυσίας (from the sacrifice): not a sacrifice but a feast upon a 
 sacrifice ; or else in other words not oblatio sacrificu, but as Ter- 
 tullian excellently speaks, ‘ participatio saerificii ;’ not the offering 
 up of something to God upon an altar, but the eating of something 
 which comes from God’s altar, and is set upon our tables. Neither 
 was it ever known among the Jews or heathens that the tables 
 upon which they did eat their sacrifices should be called by the 
 name of altars (1 Cor. x1.). 
 
 P, 26. “The eating and drinking of the body and blood of 
 Christ in the Lord’s supper is, to be made partaker of His sacrifice 
 offered up to God for us. Wherefore I conclude that the Lord’s 
 supper is the same among Christians in respect of the Christian 
 sacrifice, that among the Jews the feasts upon the legal sacrifices 
 were, and among the Gentiles the feasts upon the idol sacrifices ; 
 and therefore epulum sacrificiale is epulum ex oblatis: ὅπερ δεῖ 
 δεῖξαι. [There follows a shewing that eating together followed 
 bargains, 1.6. covenants of purchase and sale. I do not think 
 
556 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Dr Cudworth means that there is any true and real presence of 
 Christ’s flesh and blood, but only that it is a feast after and 
 arising from the one sacrifice on the cross. My readers will judge. ] 
 
 P. 34. “As the legal sacrifices with the feasts upon these 
 sacrifices were federal rites between God and men, in like manner I 
 say the Lord’s supper under the Gospel ..must needs be epulum 
 Jederale, a feast of amity and friendship between God and men; 
 where by eating and drinking at God’s table and of His meat we 
 are taken into a sacred covenant and inviolable league of friend- 
 
 ship with Him. 
 
 Ρ. 14. The Jewish custom as it prevailed in the opinions of 
 the writers of the Mishna near the end of the second century is 
 thus given. “Nothing was killed before the morning sacrifice; and 
 after the evening sacrifice nothing but the passover. The evening 
 sacrifice was usually killed between the eighth and ninth hour, 
 z.e. half after two in the afternoon, and offered between the ninth 
 and tenth, 1.6. half after three. But in the evening of the pass- 
 over the daily sacrifice was killed an hour sooner ; after that began 
 the kiling of the passover [refer to the Latin Thesis in the Ap- 
 pendix], which was to be done between the two evenings; whereof 
 the first began at noon from the sun’s declination toward the 
 west: the second at sunset. [Surely they did not mean to say the 
 text in Exodus meant this.] Yet the pascha might be killed be- 
 fore the daily sacrifice if there were any to stir the blood...till the 
 blood of the daily sacrifice was sprinkled, for that always was 
 sprinkled first. The passovers were always killed by three several 
 companies. When the court was once full they shut the doors, 
 and the priests stood still in their ranks with round vessels in 
 their hands to receive the blood ; those that were of gold in a rank 
 by themselves, and those that were of silver; all without bottoms, 
 lest they should be set somewhere on the ground and the blood 
 congeal in them. And they killed the passovers, as the peace- 
 offerings, in any part of the court, because they were the less holy 
 things, as the holy of holes were always to be killed on the north 
 side of the altar. The priests then took the blood and gave it 
 from one to another till it came to him that stood next the altar, 
 and he sprinkled it all at once to the bottom of the altar, &e. 
 After the blood was sprinkled the lamb was flayed and cut up, the 
 Tmurim or inwards taken out and laid upon the altar. Then the 
 owner took up the lamb with the skin off and carried it to his 
 own home. The first company having ended, the second came in, 
 and afterwards the third; and for every company they began anew 
 the Hallet and sang all the while the passovers were killing: and 
 when they had finished the Hallel they sung it over the second 
 time ; and when they had gone over it a second time they began 
 
1617] DR RALPH CUDWORTH. 557 
 
 it a third time, although it was never known that the third time 
 they sang out the Hallel quite, or came any further than the ‘T 
 ‘love the Lord,’ Ps. exvi., before the priests had done. 
 
 P. 11. “Isaac Abrabanel will teach us more particularly in his 
 comment on Leviticus that there were five things to be done by 
 the owners of the sacrifice that brought it, and five things by the 
 priest that offered it. The first five were laying on of hands, 
 killing, flaying, cutting up and washing of the inwards; the other 
 five were the receiving of the blood in a vessel, the sprinkling of it 
 upon the altar, the putting of fire upon the altar, the ordering 
 of the wood upon the fire, and the ordering of the pieces on the 
 wood. 
 
 P.18. “The Latin church ever maintained the contrary opinion 
 against the Greeks, viz. that the Jews kept the Passover on the 
 same night that our Saviour did...Paulus Burgensis, Scaliger, 
 Casaubon [held with the Greeks]. Mr Broughton and Johannes 
 Cloppenberg [with the Romans]. J. C. says the paschal lamb 
 could not be killed outside the temple of Jerusalem. In the 
 temple it could not be killed against the general consent of the 
 people. Wherefore neither could the day of killing it be antici- 
 pated....It must therefore either be said that Christ ate a lamb 
 which had not been slain in the temple and so violated the law 
 (God forbid), or that the Jews celebrated the Passover at the same 
 time as Christ.” 
 
 The last sentence of J. C. includes a parenthesis as follows: 
 “For according to the law the lamb was to be carried down out of 
 “the temple into their private houses, to be eaten at home, after 
 “the fat had been consumed by fire in the temple, and the blood 
 “taken down (delatum) to the altar.” I notice this the more, 
 because Dr Cudworth appears to me to have erred in interpreting 
 Deut. xii. 4, “the place which the Lord shall choose out of all the 
 “tribes of Israel to place His name there, &c.” of the temple of 
 Jerusalem: for since it is added “there shall ye eat before the 
 “Lord,” and as this word of J. C. reminds us, they did not eat i 
 the temple courts, “the place chosen” for them to bring their 
 sacrifices and eat must be not the holy temple but the holy city 
 Jerusalem. See v. 18, xiv. 23, 26, and others, particularly xvi. 5, 
 Thou shalt not be able to sacrifice the passover in any of thy 
 gates [except Jerusalem], lit. in one of thy gates. But at the 
 place which the Lord thy God shall choose, &c. thou shalt sacrifice 
 the passover at evening, about the entering of the sun (into the 
 sea or horizon, Montanus), (Exodus, between the two evenings, 7.9. 
 
558 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 at twilight,) and at the time appointed for thy going out of Egypt ; 
 and thou shalt cook and eat it in the place which the Lord thy 
 God shall have chosen, &c. ὦ.6. in the houses or lodgings in the 
 holy city, certainly not in the sacred bounds of the temple. I 
 marvel that this escaped such an eve as Dr Cudworth’s. 
 
 (O.) DR HENRY HAMMOND. B. 1605. D. 1660. 
 
 Born at Chertsey. Went from Eton to Magdalen, Oxford: 
 became Fellow, and afterwards Canon of Christchurch, and Sub- 
 dean, and Public Orator. Previously Rector of Penshurst, and 
 Archdeacon of Chichester. By his mother’s side he was descended 
 from the author of Nowell’s Catechism ; and his father was phy- 
 sician to Prince Henry. Hammond assisted Sir H. Saville in 
 editing Chrysostom. The living of Penshurst was given him by 
 the Earl of Leicester in gratitude for a single sermon. It is re- 
 lated of him that he brought the use of the Lord’s supper to 
 “an imitation of primitive frequency,” having it regularly once 
 a month. The midnight oil which he burned, after a time pro- 
 duced close acquaintance with medical doctors; and he pa- 
 thetically but simply regrets that their injunctions deprived him 
 of his choicest hours. He grappled with the whole compass of 
 theological learning as then understood, but scantily, as was the 
 custom, pressing the full sense out of the Greek Testament, and 
 giving great comparative weight to the fathers, under the idea 
 still prevailing with many that the received fathers agreed more 
 than they do, and that when they agreed they constituted a 
 sufficient standard of right and truth. He had a notable dream 
 well related by his biographer, Bishop Fell. 
 
 His mind appears to have been elegant and well-furnished 
 rather than of a powerful grasp, as he had some Hebrew and 
 Oriental learning, but not on the broad scale of Lightfoot and 
 Cudworth, and some others whose names occur to everyone, 
 We can hardly be wrong in reckoning him as a person of singular 
 amiability, which probably increased people’s willingness to con- 
 cede to him the palm of unusual learning. His last words were 
 “Lord make haste,” which he repeated three or four times, his 
 internal complaint causing him great pain. His contribution to 
 
1605] DR HENRY HAMMOND. ἡ Dag 
 
 the literature of the Lord’s supper is interesting. His career was 
 peaceful in a time of trouble, though a price of £100 was once 
 set on his head, as a devoted servant of King Charles. 
 
 Practical Catechism. Lib. vi. Sec. 4. Vol. 1. London, 1684. 
 
 P. 123. “C. If you will take my judgment, this must be 
 the method, which will cost you some attendance ; First, to survey 
 
 the story of Christ’s institution of this sacrament in the Gospel, 
 &e. &e. 
 
 P. 125. “A commemoration of the death of Christ, a repre- 
 senting the passion to God (?) and a coming before Him in His 
 name, (1) to offer our sacrifices of praises and supplications, &c., 
 and secondly to commemorate that His daily continual sacrifice 
 in intercession for us, at the right hand of His Father, now in 
 Heaven. [Note. I find in Holy Scripture no warrant for this 
 and one former idea of Dr Hammond regarding the sacrament. ] 
 
 P. 126. “The Jewish phrases, customs...The lamb....was 
 wont to be called The body of the passover or the body of the 
 paschallamb. Christ seems to allude to this phrase when He says, 
 This is My body. Talmud de Pasch. and Maimonides... It seems 
 to be answerable to and substituted for This is the bread of 
 affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt or, This is the un- 
 leavened bread, &c. &e. This is the passover. [And he quotes 
 the famous passage of Theodoret, Dial. 2, with μεταβάλλεται καὶ 
 ἕτερα γίνεται, and he alludes to the many compounds with μετὰ 
 in the Bishop of Norwich’s Θεάνθρωπος. He well translates κατ᾽ 
 οἶκον in some house or room: but he applies, like many other, 
 “breaking bread” to the Lord’s supper. [Note the use the Rhe- 
 mish commentators make of this in the argument on this erroneous 
 notion in the extracts under Fulke.} 
 
 P. 127. “Do this, do all that I have done in your presence, 
 &e. 
 
 P. 129. “The cup of blessing, Syriac, The cup of praise... 
 the benefits purchased by zt, viz. The washing away of sins (?). 
 
 P. 130. “God's free pardon and remission, His speaking 
 peace to the unquiet, His saying, Thy sins are forgiven to the 
 burdened and sin-sick soul is the greatest only refreshment to 
 that soul. Let God say the word only and Thy servant shall be 
 healed. And this pardon was wrought by the blood, ¢.e. again 
 by the death of Christ, by the sacrifice and satisfaction of that 
 innocent Saviour, by which suffering we are released, by Whose 
 stripes we are healed.” [Everyone must recognize Dr Hammond’s 
 true piety. The italics whether of doubt or approval are mine. | 
 
560 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (P.) SUPERINTENDENT ECKHART. 1621. 
 
 The date will prevent his being for a moment confounded 
 with the grand and yet freethinking and pantheistic teacher of 
 Tauler. 
 
 Bundle of Religious Controversies. 
 
 P. 491. “That John vi. does not treat of the sacramental 
 eating... I. It was always profitable to produce salvation, v. 51: 
 the eating of the eucharist with many does not profit to salvation, 
 as Paul testifies. Therefore the eucharistic eating is not (the 
 blessing) described in John vi. Ππ. The eating in J. vi. is 
 necessary always and absolutely for all, v.53. (Mere) sacramental 
 eating is not thus absolutely necessary for all. Therefore the 
 eating, J. vi. is not the sacramental. ul. The eating in J. vi. 
 belongs to all times. The sacramental eating does not belong 
 to all times. Therefore the eating in J. vi. is not the sacramental. 
 Also the eating, J. vi. ought to be continual. The sacramental 
 eating is not continual, but has its own intervals. Therefore the 
 eating, J. vi., is not the sacramental. Iv. The eating in J. vi. is 
 the eating by faith. The sacramental is not, as far as it is merely 
 such, an eating by faith. Therefore the eating in J. vi. is not 
 sacramental. Assumption: That the eating by faith is spiritual, 
 perpetual, and having place even externally to the sacrament, 
 when even some Calvinists distinguish it from the sacramental 
 eating. v. The bread which is matter of the eating described, 
 J. vi., is bread spoken of metaphorically. The bread which is the 
 
 Eckharti Fasciculus. Schwartzburgensis. Leipsic, 1621, 2, 3, p. 491. 
 
 Quod Johannes vi. non agat de manducatione sacramentali. 
 (I.) Manducatio corporis Christi semper profuit ad salutem, v. 51 ; 
 manducatio eucharistie multis non proficit ad salutem teste Paulo. 
 Ergo manducatio eucharistica non est descripta, Joh. vi. (II.) Man- 
 ducatio, J. vi., semper et omnibus absolute necessaria, v. 53. Man- 
 ducatio sacramentalis non ita omnibus est absolute necessaria. Ergo 
 mand. J. vi, non est sacramentalis...(III.) Mand. J. vi. est omnium 
 temporum. Mand. sac. non est omnium temporum. Ergo Mand. J. vi., 
 non est sacramentalis. Item Mand. J. vi., debet esse continua. Mand. 
 sac. non est continua sed sua habet intervalla. Ergo mand. J. vi., non 
 est sacramentalis. (IV.) Mand. J. vi, est mand. fidei. Sac. mand. 
 (quid talis) non est mand. fidei. Ergo mand. J. vi., non est sacra- 
 mentalis. Assumptio. Quia manducatio fidei est spiritualis, semper 
 et extra sacramentum etiam locum habens, quum Calviniani etiam 
 nonnulli a sacramentali distinguunt. (V.) Panis, qui est materia 
 mand. J. vi. descripte, est panis metaphorice dictus. Panis qui est 
 
1021] SUPERINTENDENT ECKHART. 561 
 
 matter of the eating in the sacrament is not bread metaphorically, 
 but properly (so) called. Therefore the eating is not the same 
 in the latter as in the former. 
 
 Q. v. “Whether the word ‘eat’ in the words of the in- 
 stitution can be taken figuratively of the eating which takes place 
 by faith... Argument 1. To eat by faith alone is the act of 
 believers. To eat of the eucharist is the act of them that do not 
 believe too. Therefore to eat by (or of) faith is not the same as 
 the eucharistic or sacramental eating. [He then raises] Q. VI. 
 Whether the instrument by which Christ’s body and blood are 
 received in the supper be faith or the bodily mouth, [And he 
 concludes consistently with his line of reasoning that it is the 
 latter. He thus in his mode of arguing separates himself from 
 the chief Reformers.] Q. vit. Whether this be the true sacra- 
 mental eating which has only to do with external symbols. His 
 conclusion consistently is that it 15 not. But Q. xu. 15, Whether 
 the word ‘is’ in the words of the institution can support the 
 assertion of a trope, and can be metaphorically taken for ‘ signifies,’ 
 and . x1v.is, Whether in the proposition which Christ utters ‘This 
 ‘is My body,’ ‘the body’ be by metonymy the same as ‘the sign 
 ‘of the body.’ Both he pronounces impossible, and Q. XVI. 15, 
 Whether a trope can be understood to run through the whole 
 proposition regarding the sacrament.” This also he denies, and 
 in Q. XVII. says that “the bread is Christ’s body” is not metaphorical, 
 Christ’s words are treated throughout as logical, and not as 
 popular language. 
 
 materia mand. in sac. non est panis metaphorice sed proprie dictus. 
 Ergo non est eadem hic que illic mandueatio. This discussion is pre- 
 ceded by extracts from Zwingel, Beza, P. Martyr, Walter and 
 Trelcat. 
 
 Q. V. An vocabulum “edite” (ὦ. 6. Λάβετε φάγετε) in verbis 
 institutionis metaphorice possit accipi, de comestione que fit per fidem. 
 Zwingel’s “edere est credere,” ‘to eat is to believe,” is quoted, and 
 Musculus, and Beza, and Westphal, and P. Martyr, and then Eckhart 
 writes Refutantur, and gives arguments that edere refers to the bread : 
 e.g. A. ut. Edere fidei tantum fit a credentibus. Edere eucharistiz 
 [should be acc. with per. So “fidei”] etiam e non credentibus. Ergo 
 edere fidei non est edere eucharisticum seu sacramentale. Q. VI. An 
 instrumentum, quo corpus et sanguis Christi in ccena percipiuntur sit 
 fides an os corporis: His Q. VIL. is an hee sit “vera” manducatio 
 sacramentalis quae tantum in externis symbolis occupatur. Q. XIII. An 
 copula “est” in verbis institutionis possit sustinere tropum et meta- 
 phorice accipi pro “significat”? Q. XIV. <An in propositione illa 
 Christi ‘Hoc est corpus Meum” corpus per metonymiam idem sit 
 quod signum corporis. Q. XVI. An tropus esse possit in tota pro- 
 positione sacramentali, 
 
 ἘΠῚ CEE, 36 
 
562 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 - So in Ὁ. xxut. he is obliged to affirm that the “true” body 
 and blood of Christ are not made void, non evacuantur, by the 
 unworthiness and want of faith of the receivers, a conclusion 
 which revolts many of the superior Roman reasoners as well 
 as Protestants. For to believe that the very natural body and 
 blood of Christ can be in an unbeliever’s body, and that with 
 these in him he can perish, does seem most strange ; and fourth- 
 century views and reasonings greatly increase its incredibility. 
 
 And yet to admit the only alternative, viz. that in a row of 
 communicants the bread is Christ’s very natural body to some, 
 say to numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, and is changed back into mere bread 
 while it is being given to 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, is equally strange and 
 incredible. 
 
 Therefore the only supposition at all credible is that the words 
 of institution involve in themselves a metaphor, and (1) that the 
 bread and wine remained both in their sensible properties and 
 in their substance, and (2) that the very natural body of Christ 
 with all that pertains to it is in Heaven and not here. 
 
 His Q. xxtv. is An corpus et sanguis Christi “substantia- 
 “liter” in sacrosanct coenz usu manducantibus atque bibentibus 
 exhibeantur, Whether Christ’s body and blood be substantially 
 supplied in the use of the sacred supper to them that eat and 
 drink. The marks “” are mine, to shew that he uses “ vere” truly, 
 and “substantialiter” substantially, as equivalent terms. He has 
 three more questions, about “water” for “wine,” about infants, 
 and about the sick. 
 
 (Q.) ANTOINE ARNAULD, DOCTEUR DE LA MAISON ET SOCIETE 
 DE SORBONNE. B. 1612. D. 1694. 
 
 In the absence of any works of M. de St Cyran, the last and 
 best director of Port Royal, it may suffice to call up in addition 
 to M. Jansenius (his fellow-student) “the great Arnauld” who 
 like the rest of the Arnauld family had sought direction at M. de 
 St Cyran’s hands. This fact is shewn by about three letters on both 
 sides which are to be found almost at the beginning of the 1108 
 letters of this youngest son of that wonderful family, which are 
 preserved to us in the first three of his 42 quarto volumes. Five © 
 more quartos constitute a separate work “On the perpetuity of 
 
1012] ANTOINE ARNAULD. 563 
 
 “the faith according to the fathers regarding the Lord’s supper.” 
 In this extremely valuable mass of writing—containing a very 
 continent of theological discussion—the first treatise most to our 
 purpose is the reply to a treatise by M. La Noue a Jesuit who 
 wrote to make communicating in that rite very easy, even to 
 those that were living in habitual sin, on the ground that they 
 will get benefit from observing the rite; and M. Armauld urges 
 the duty of delaying absolution in all doubtful and bad cases 
 till the truth of the professed repentance of the sinners has been 
 proved by at least a few days’ experience: and letter 741, to 
 M. Du Vauceel, contains a declaration on this subject, that 1s not 
 without interest even to English Protestants of the present day. 
 
 Noy. 11, 1689. “1 have not pretended that the great men 
 of whom I spoke to you have never made use of delay before 
 granting absolution (7.e. in order to admit the persons in question 
 to the Communion) ; but it is certain that they very seldom made 
 use of it, and, that they ordinarily were contented themselves 
 with the promises that such persons made to them, after frequent 
 relapses into sin, without requiring them to give proofs of their 
 sincerity by a real change of life. Emeric de Bonis, an ancient 
 Jesuit, has well proved the excellent effects of such delay. 8, 
 Charles [of Borromeo] also has laid down very excellent rules for 
 it. But he might easily take care that those who worked under 
 him should not press the matter too hard. But now we ought 
 to give God thanks that this salutary practice has been more 
 commonly adopted since the publication of that book on Fre- 
 quent Communion.” 
 
 Then follow details respecting India, and the life of St Ber- 
 trand, on the same subject. The other treatise specially belonging 
 to our subject occupies five volumes. It is a reply to the Cal- 
 vinist pastor of Charenton, M. Claude. Both these treatises are 
 written after the manner of our Bishop Jewel's reply to Mr 
 Harding, citing successive passages from the works of the opponents 
 and replying to them. The ground occupied by M. Claude is 
 enlarged in Vol. 11 by introducing the views of other Protestants 
 in a somewhat irregular manner. An instance of this I beg to 
 adduce from Vol. 1. Book I. ¢. 7. 
 
 “The Calvinists have afterwards been heard advancing many 
 other astonishing wonders concerning this ceremony and the bread, 
 that it is a sacrament and a seal of the promises; an efficacious 
 figure ; that men receive in it supernatural and miraculous results ; 
 that the Holy Spirit acts powerfully in it for the soul; that the 
 
 36—2 
 
564 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, [A.D. 
 
 flesh of Jesus Christ in it communicates its life; that He truly 
 nourishes us in it by the substance of His flesh ; that it is truly 
 and substantially present, though only by faith; that He gives us 
 His flesh to eat in an incomprehensible and ineffable manner ; 
 real and spiritual together.” : 
 
 Now M. Arnauld might well apply to this a word he uses in 
 the title of the former chapter, viz. un mélange, for he gives no 
 references to any one author; and to make a party responsible at 
 once for all the mutually inconsistent things that separate members 
 of that party hold or say, may do to raise a prejudice or a laugh ; 
 but it holds not at all as argument. For instance, can a man pro- 
 test against anything more strongly than I have done in this book 
 against most of these propositions ? and yet, as I am not a Lutheran 
 nor a Remonstrant nor a Socinian, he would class me, though in- 
 correctly enough, under his general term for the rest, 7.e. Calvinists. 
 But I hold Calvin’s opinion on the Lord’s supper to be only less 
 inconsistent with our Lord’s and Paul’s revelations than those of 
 Luther or M. Arnauld. 
 
 P. 74. On frequent Communion. “On frequency of commu- 
 nicating, to serve as a reply to a paper entitled, The question 
 whether it is better to communicate frequently or seldom (Preface, 
 Vol. xxvit.). As she, a person of high condition, was persuaded 
 that there is no true way to go to Heaven than that which Jesus 
 Christ has traced out for us by His words and by His example, she 
 was touched to see that the drift of the author of this paper was 
 no other than to turn men’s souls from the narrow way of the 
 gospel, that under the pretext of representing to them the use- 
 fulness of frequent communion he was ruining all the dispositions 
 of the mind that were needful for it, without which that holy food 
 is turned to poison, according to the saying of the fathers that, 
 not satisfied with the indiscretion of bringing all sorts of persons 
 
 De la frequente Communion, pour servir de reponse & un ecrit intitulé 
 “Question s'il est meilleur de communier souvent, que rarement.” 
 
 Vol. XXVII. Preface, p. 74. 
 
 Comme elle estoit trés persuadée (ὦ. 6. une personne de grande 
 condition) quwil n’y a point de chemin plus veritable pour aller au 
 ciel, que celui que Jesus Christ nous a tracé par Ses paroles et par 
 Son exemple, elle fut touchée de vuir que l’auteur de cet ecrit ne tendoit 
 qu’a détourner les ames de la voie étroite de l’evangile, que sous pretexte 
 de représenter l’utilité de la frequente communion, il en ruinoit toutes 
 les dispositions necessaires, sans lesquelles cette viande sainte se tourne 
 er poison, selon les peres; que non content de porter indiscretement 
 
1012] ANTOINE ARNAULD. 565 
 
 to partake very frequently of these terrible mysteries, he judged 
 to be even well disposed for intimate communication with the Son 
 of God in the eucharist, those that are filled with self-love, and so 
 attached to the world that it is marvellous; and at last that it 
 visibly appeared that he had taken upon him to check the spirit 
 of penitence, to abolish the most holy exercises for that end as 
 contrary to church-usage, to decry the practice of it as rash and 
 proceeding from the spirit of error; to cause the direction, that 
 brings sinners to it, to pass for pernicious direction and a stratagem 
 
 of the devil. 
 
 P.181. ‘First part: which treats of the true understanding 
 of the passages of the Scripture and the fathers which this author 
 alleges on behalf of frequency of communicating: of the conditions 
 of a good director for regulating communions: if one ought to 
 bring indifferently all sorts of persons to communicate during all 
 the eight days; and of the unfitness which venial sins may put 
 into the way of frequently communicating. Chap. 1. The rale 
 one ought to follow in all things, the sentiments of antiquity, the 
 traditions of holy men and the old customs of the church. 
 
 P. 303. “Second part: which treats of this question whether 
 it is better and more useful to the souls that feel themselves guilty 
 of mortal sins to communicate as soon as they have confessed, or 
 
 toutes sortes de personnes ἃ participer trés souvent ἃ ces mysteres 
 terribles, il jugeoit méme bien disposes a une communication trés 
 particuliere avec le Fils de Dieu dans leucharistie “ceux qui sont 
 “yemplis de amour d’eux-mémes et si attachés au monde que de mer- 
 “veilles ;’ et enfin qu'il paroissoit visiblement, qu’il avoit entrepris de 
 s’opposer ἃ esprit de penitence ; d’en abolir les plus saints exercices 
 comme contraire a usage de leglise ; d’en decrier la pratique comme 
 temeraire et procedante de Pesprit erreur ; de faire passer la conduite 
 qui y porte les pecheurs pour une conduite pernicieuse et un stratagéme 
 du diable. 
 ΠΥ ho 
 
 Premiere partie: Ou il est traité de la veritable intelligence des 
 passages de |’Ecriture et des peres que cet auteur allegue pour la 
 frequente communion: des conditions d’un bon directeur pour regler 
 les communions: si lon doit porter indifféremment toutes sortes de 
 personnes ἃ communier tous les huit jours; et de Vindisposition que 
 les péchés véniels peuvent apporter a la frequente communion. 
 Chap. I. La regle, qu’on doit suivre en toutes choses, les sentiments 
 dantiquité, les traditions des saints, et les vieilles coutumes de l’eglise. 
 
 P. 303, 
 
 Seconde partie: ou est traite cette question, s'il est meilleur et plus 
 utile aux ames qui se sentent coupables des péchés mortels, de communier 
 aussitot qu’elles se sont confessées ; ou de prendre quelque tems pour se 
 
566 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 to take some time to purify themselves by exercises of penitence 
 before they present themselves at the holy altar. [We should 
 push the requirement further, whether they have come to hate sin 
 by love to Christ and their own renewal unto life.] 
 
 Ῥ. 492. “5. Charles (Borromeo). How criminal before God is 
 the neglect of those confessors that persuade themselves that the 
 only thing they have to do at the seat of the confessor is to hear 
 the sins of all that present themselves, and to give them with all 
 speed a precipitate absolution; although this divine man [S. Charles] 
 assures us that it is from thence that there has proceeded so much 
 abuse of church privileges and so many sins, the infection of which 
 is so spread in all the arts and in all professions that it seems no 
 longer possible for the greater part of men to practise them with- 
 out losing their souls. I say no more on this point by way of 
 lamenting so great evils. Groans are more proper than words. 
 
 P. 549. “Third part: of some more particular dispositions for 
 communicating with profit. Whether one ought to approach the 
 eucharist without any fear, in any cold state of mind, undevout- 
 ness, unfitness for the things of God, deprived of grace, fulness of 
 self-love, the prodigious attachment to the world which is now 
 seen, as this author teaches; and if delay might not serve to 
 produce communicating with more reverence and better dis- 
 positions. 
 
 purifier par les exercices de la pénitence avant que se présenter au saint 
 autel, 
 
 P. 492, Livre II. ¢. 37. 
 
 After a long extract from 8. Charles: Combien il est criminelle 
 devant Dieu la negligence de ces confesseurs qui se persuadent n’avoir 
 autre chose a faire dans le tribunal de penitence qu’a écouter les péchés 
 de tous ceux qui se présentent et ἃ leur donner aussitét une absolution 
 precipitée ; puisque cet homme divin nous assure que c’est dela que 
 sont procédé tant d’abus et tant de pechés, dont Vinfection s’est telle- 
 ment répandue dans tous les arts et dans toutes les professions, qu il 
 ne semble quasi plus possible ἃ une grande partie des hommes de les 
 exercer sans sy perdre... Je n’en dis pas davantage pour deplorer de si 
 grands maux. Les gemissemens sont plus propres que les paroles. 
 
 P. 549. 
 
 Troisieme partie: de quelques dispositions plus particulieres pour 
 communier avec fruit: si lon doit approcher l’eucharistie sans aucune 
 crainte, dans quelque froideur, indevotion, inapplication aux choses 
 de Dieu, privation de grace, plenitude de l'amour de soi-meme, et 
 prodigieux attachement au monde que l’on se trouve, comme cet auteur 
 enseigne : et si le delai ne peut point servir ἃ communier avec plus de 
 reverence et meilleure disposition. 
 
1612] ANTOINE ARNAULD. 567 
 
 P. 570. “Words of the author. The disposition necessary to 
 communicate usefully is first grace acquired by contrition, if per- 
 chance one had lost it, or by the sacrament of penitence. Many 
 hold that it is absolutely necessary, so that, if one is not in a state 
 of grace, the sacrament has no effect in such a receiver. Some 
 others more probably believe that it is enough not to know one’s 
 self to be in mortal sin. However it be, one does not sin in 
 receiving the holy sacrament when conscience does not wound us, 
 and when one does not think that one is in mortal sin. Secondly, 
 one ought to do all one can to be in a devout state; and although 
 one does not feel all that one desires, one ought to humble one’s 
 self and so to communicate without fear. M. Arnauld. All re- 
 duces itself to this grace acquired by the sacrament of penitence, 
 and this sacrament of penitence has a simple [unfeigned] con- 
 fession (according to your preceding articles), and that is not abso- 
 lutely necessary, according to the most probable opinion, but it is 
 enough not to know that one is in mortal sin. [This casuistry has 
 the great fault of being dry and stiff and too much on the lines of 
 church system: in a word, unreformed. See Prof. Ullmann in 
 this Part.] 
 
 The perpetuity of the faith. Vol. τ. 60. “It would be easy to 
 shew, according to the principles of the faith recognized by the 
 holy fathers, that it is not allowed for the sake of any subject to 
 separate one’s self from that original mother society with its suc- 
 cession and catholicity; and that instead of concluding that one 
 
 ὙΡΣ OUO! 
 
 Paroles de Vauteur. La disposition necessaire a communier utilement 
 est premierement la grace acquise par la contrition, si d’aventure on 
 Vavoit perdue, ou par le sacrement de pénitence. Plusieurs tieunent 
 qwil est absolument nécessaire, en sorte que, si on n’est point en grace, 
 le sacrement n’ait aucun effét en celui qui le recoit. Quelques autres, 
 plus probablement, croient que c’est assez de ne se reconnoitre pas en 
 péché mortel. Quoiqu’il en soit, on ne peche point en recevant le saint 
 sacrement, lorsque la conscience ne remord point, et qu’on ne pense 
 pas étre en péché mortel. Secondement on doit faire ce que l’on peut 
 pour avoir de la devotion; et encore que l’on ne la resente pas telle 
 que l’on desireroit, on se doit humilier et ainsi communier sans crainte. 
 M. Arnauld. Tout se reduit a cette grace acquise par le sacrement de 
 penitence, et ce sacrement de penitence ἃ une simple confession selon 
 vos articles précédents ; et cela méme n’est pas absolument necessaire, 
 selon Vopinion le plus probable ; mais cest assez de ne se connaitre pas 
 en péché mortel. 
 
 La Perpetuité de la Foy de Antoine Arnauld, 1. 60, Paris, 1670. 
 
 Il seroit aisé de leur montrer, selon les principes de la foy reconnus 
 par les SS. péres qu'il mest permis pour aucun sujet de se separer de 
 cette societe matrice originale, successive et Catholique; et quau 
 
568 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 must become a schismatic from that society, because it teaches 
 such and such errors, one must on the contrary conclude that it 
 does not teach errors; because it is certain that one must not 
 become a schismatic from the church, as the criminality of schism 
 is always more evident than are the pretended errors of which 
 men accuse the church. For there are two equally certain maxims 
 in the faith, that one must separate from a church that holds a 
 corrupt faith, and that one must never separate from the catholic 
 church. But the application of these maxims is not equally sure 
 and certain; and this is why all heretics, through a bad appli- 
 cation of the first (maxim) and on a false supposition of the errors 
 attributed by them to the church, have thus concluded that they 
 ought to separate from her ; instead of it being clear that they ought 
 never to separate from her, they ought to conclude that what they 
 took for error was not such. [All this writing up of the infalli- 
 bility of the Roman church or communion did not save M. Arnauld 
 from being persecuted and obliged to retire from the Sorbonne 
 and from Paris, which to him was a synonym for France. |] 
 
 P. 10. “If one wished to go through some general thinking as 
 to the best methods of overthrowing the foundation of the opinions 
 of the sacramentarians [all who hold that the Lord’s supper is a 
 sign and aid, in obtaining grace from God, but do not believe in 
 grace merely, ex opere operato, and consequently not in a real 
 presence of the Lord’s body in every receiver], one must prove the 
 following points: (1) that the words in which our Lord has insti- 
 tuted the holy sacraments cannot be understood in any but the 
 catholic sense. 
 
 lieu de conclure qu il faut faire schisme avec cette eglise, parce qu'elle 
 enseigne telles ou telles erreurs, il faut conclure au contraire quelle 
 n’enseigne point derreurs ; parce qu il est certain qu'il ne faut jamais 
 faire schisme avec leglise...le crime de schisme estant toujours plus 
 evident que les pretendues erreurs dont on accuse l’eglise. Car ce sont 
 deux maximes egalement certaines en foi, quil faut se separer d’une 
 eglise corrumpue dans la foy, et quil ne faut jamais se separer de 
 Veglise catholique. Mais lapplication de ces maximes n’est pas ega- 
 lement sire et certaine. Et c’est pourquoi tous les heretiques par une 
 mauvaise application de la premiere, et sur une fausse supposition 
 des erreurs quwils attribuoient a leglise, en ont conclu qwils s’en devoient 
 separer ; au lieu questant clair au contraire qwil ne s’en faut jamais 
 séparer, ils doivent conclure que ce quils prenoient pour erreur ne 
 Pestoit pas. 
 I. p.10. Preface. 
 
 Si l'on vouloit penser en general au moyens de ruiner les fondemens 
 de lopinion des Sacramentaires... il faudra prouver les points suivans, 
 (1) Que les paroles par lesquelles J. C. a institué le saint sacrement ne 
 se peuvent entendre que dans le sens des Catholiques. 
 
1612] ANTOINE ARNAULD. 569 
 
 | fel “They may see in |. x. 6. 1 and others, &c....of the 
 true sense of ‘This is My body, [This chapter is on the belief 
 of the real presence in the Greek and other churches.] (2) 
 That the words of the fathers in which they say that the 
 eucharist 1s the body of Jesus Christ cannot be understood 
 and have not been understood by them, except concerning the 
 true body of Christ, and not of a typical and symbolical body, &e. 
 (3) ‘The extreme difference between the expressions either of the 
 Scripture or of the fathers...which the catholics use and those 
 which Albertin compares with them, &. (4) That these solutions 
 of ‘a virtue’ and ‘a figure’ are vain, frivolous, and unknown by 
 all Christians in the world. (5) That the fathers’ expressions...shew 
 that they were persuaded of this doctrine. (6) The difference of the 
 customs that prevailed...the silence of the fathers on certain points 
 ...do not prove them to have been of any other belief than ours. 
 
 1,730. “That they suffer the decision of this dispute to be 
 left to experience itself. I consult then not my own impressions, 
 nor theirs, but those of such as have not taken part in our 
 disputes, and I find that this figurative sense which they call 
 natural and easy, never rose up in the judgment of any of those 
 that have sought for the sense of these words for the first 1000 
 years. [Extraordinary assertion, when a large part of the writings 
 of Augustine on this subject is fairly and fully considered ; to say 
 nothing of Athanasius, Theodore and others with less unity of view. | 
 
 Ρ 729. “It is certain that Jesus Christ has not spoken to be 
 
 ela. 
 
 On fait voir dans le premier chapitre du dixieme livre et des autres, 
 &c...du vrai sens de “Ceci est mon corps,” ὅθ. (2) Que les paroles ae 
 peres dans lesquelles ils disent que ‘“‘Eucharistie est le corps de J, C.” 
 &c., ne se peuvent entendre et n’ont esté entendues par eux que du vrai 
 corps de J. C. et non dun corps typique et symbolique, ὥς, (3) Extreme 
 difference entre les expressions ou de I’ Heriture ou des péres ... dont les 
 catholiques se servent, et celles qu Aubertin compare, ὅθ. (4) Que ces... 
 solutions de vertu et de figure...sont vaines frivoles et inconnues a tous les 
 Chretiens du monde. (5) Que les expressions des Peres...qu’ils ont esté 
 persuadez de cette doctrine. (6) Difference des pratiques...silence des 
 peres sur certains points...ne preuvent qwils ayent esté dans une autre 
 creance que nous. 
 
 Vol. I. p. 730. 
 
 Quwiils souffrent qu’on remette la decision de cette dispute a l’expe- 
 rience mesme. Je consulte donc, non mon impression, ny la leur, 
 mais celle de ceux qui non point de part a nos disputes ; et je trouve 
 que ce sens de figure qwils appellent naturel et facile, x’est jamais 
 venu dans Vesprit, mille ans durant, aucun de cewx, qui ont suivi le sens 
 de ces paroles, 
 
 JE {ΩΣ 
 1] est certain que J. C. n’a point parlé pour n’estre entendu que par 
 
570 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 understood only by philosophers and metaphysicians. Such are 
 on the contrary the last whom He desired to make understand 
 these Divine truths ; for they are the men whose ways are most 
 opposed to the ways of the faith. He has set forth that His 
 religion would be followed by an infinite number of simple folk— 
 of women and children—of persons that reason but little and who 
 do not get into the depths of things... and this is what one sees in 
 the consensus of all Christian societies in the faith of the real 
 presence, which we have proved so much at large in this volume.” 
 [Sacramentarians claim that this argument now tells very much 
 on their side. ] 
 
 The sentences of this learned man are so long, that I could not 
 find room for any of his citations from the Remonstrant party, nor 
 even for quotations from Socinians, which shew that some of them 
 hold that this sacrament sets forth to us, and is, a special mode of 
 obtaining from God, grace that refreshes and strengthens the soul, 
 as bread and wine do to our bodies. Others no doubt fall short of 
 this view, as did Bishop Hoadley and Pelagius. 
 
 But both these treatises cast a strong ight on the moral corrup- 
 tion and doctrinal perversion of the times. I read in Miss Martin’s 
 nice volume, that at Port Royal they had received the communion 
 in one day as often as seventeen times; but the monstrous abuse 
 contended for by Ptre Noué is a warning to our times; and the 
 entire treatise, in spite of the pervading mechanical character of 
 its preparations for the supper, has many a word of wisdom against 
 unfit communicating. The second and longer treatise is perhaps less 
 serviceable, not only because it takes the church from age to age 
 for the mistress of our faith, which must be built on our intelligent 
 and prayerful convictions of the true sense of Scripture, but also 
 because it assumes that the fathers give us a sufficient reflexion of 
 the opinions of the mass of believers in every age, which is an 
 utterly unwarrantable assumption. Who could take the eccentric 
 but noble Origen, and the staunch high-churchman Cyprian, as 
 being a sufficient representation of all the various churches of 
 
 des philosophes et des metaphysiciens ; ce sont au contraire les derniers 
 de ceux a qui I] a voulu faire entendre ces divines veritez; parce que ce 
 sont ceux dont les voyes sont plus opposées aux voyes de la foy. 1] a pre- 
 tendu que Sa religion seroit suivie par une infinite de gens simples, de 
 femmes, d’enfans,de personnes qui raisonnent peu et qui n’approfondissent 
 pas les choses...et c'est ce que l’on voit par le consentement de toutes les 
 societes Chretiennes dans la foy de la presence reelle que nous avons 
 prouvée avec tant d’étendue dans ce volume. 
 
1019] ANTOINE ARNAULD. 571 
 
 believers in Asia and Africa in the third century? The idea is 
 wholly inadmissible: and so of the ages before and after. A few 
 leaves survive, in a kind of hortus siccus, but the mass of the 
 foliage of trees of all sorts, in successive ages, is a matter of pure 
 imagination in these modern times. On every ground patristic 
 literature is not a sufficient guide, but the Bible is; for we can 
 implicitly trust it, as it is of God. 
 
 Of the two treatises the larger, 1.9. the one on the perpetuity 
 of the patristic belief on the Lord’s supper, is erected upon a foun- 
 dation of sand; as in this volume it has been my task to shew ; 
 and therefore it carries less weight, though its display of patristic 
 learning may be both interesting and serviceable: but the shorter 
 treatise in answer to Pére Noué has an historic place, and is on a 
 point of the greatest interest still. Its historical interest is that it 
 is a very important part of the series of attacks, under which at 
 last the Jesuits fell even in France, the chief kingdom of the 
 Papacy, in less than 100 years (in 1764). But it has a never-dying 
 interest, in that it deals with a question which is now rising up 
 before the English public: viz. Who ought to communicate? and 
 Is there any principle on which to regulate the frequency of com- 
 munions in each several church? For what is this but the ques- 
 tion agitated between Noué and Arnauld with rejoinders on both 
 sides, “Ought Communions to be frequent or seldom, and under 
 “what rules, direction or advice ?” 
 
 (R.) THE ARNAULDS OF PORT ROYAL. 
 
 ~ The united labour of this family for the reform of convents, or 
 as they were then called, monasteries, is I believe without a 
 parallel. It reminds one of Ovid’s line about the Fabu, Una 
 domus vires et onus susceperat urbis. From Angelique the eldest 
 daughter made coadjutrix in 1599 to Agnes, who died last of all 
 the six sisters in 167], 1.9. for a period of 72 years, the whole of 
 the Arnauld influence was concentrated in this undertaking, until 
 father, mother, and almost all of the four sons were incorporated 
 in it. And at times it was doubtful whether large success would 
 not be attained in spite of the full tide of circumfluent wickedness 
 in high places. And yet you may read books in the interest of 
 the Roman Communion regarding this period, and the names of 
 this family and of Port Royal do not appear. Rome has abol- 
 
572 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 ished them out of her history as she destroyed the very foundations 
 of their Abbey. I read a modern life of Francis of Sales. His 
 visits to Angelique Arnauld and her family are not mentioned. 
 I search the life prefixed to the French edition of his works in 
 five vols.: there is no mention of her or of Port Royal. Why is 
 this? After the death of that second St Francis, Angelique found 
 a congenial spiritual director in Jean Du Vergier, Monk of St 
 Cyran, and he was the fellow-student of Jansenius. After re- 
 peated failures the Jesuits succeeded in wringing from the Roman 
 church a condemnation of five propositions on Grace, selected from 
 his work, Augustinus; by which he hoped to amend the time 
 after the teaching of that eminent father. The propositions them- 
 selves are about as far from being lucid and true as from being 
 hurtful above the common run of propositions on that subject. 
 But the monk St Cyran had exhibited symptoms of a desire for 
 the improvement of current errors. That was enough ; and all 
 Christendom must denounce Jansenius; and all who would not 
 sign the condemnation of these propositions must perish, The 
 staunch Port Royalists could not consent to condemn St Cyran on 
 topics quite beyond their knowledge: and delenda erat Carthago. 
 They and their two Port Royal Abbeys must perish ; their sur- 
 viving members must be dispersed, one by one, and made to sign 
 the anathema with their dying hands, it is said “with their dead 
 “fingers ;” and their very memory, if Jesuit power can accomplish 
 it, must perish. A more heartless cruelty it is not easy to discover. 
 For the extracts from their history in relation to the Lord’s supper 
 shew to how unusual an extent in the direction of Roman doctrine 
 they had carried their opinions on that crucial question. In fact 
 the first thing that raised a question about the full claims of the 
 Roman Communion, was the imprisonment and death in prison, 
 after five years’ incarceration, of their beloved and venerated 
 spiritual teacher St Cyran. Could a church, at whose bidding 
 Richelieu destroyed so good and so wise an adviser, be in all things 
 infallibly right? This doubt was almost the whole of Angelique’s 
 Protestantism, and none of her sisters went so far. However the 
 opposition drew down upon the heads of the Jesuit body the 
 immortal Provincial Letters of Pascal and the 48 or 50 volumes of 
 Angelique’s youngest brother, who has acquired the name of the 
 great Arnauld. The one error of Jansenius is that very excusable 
 one of endeavouring simply to Augustinize the age. But the 
 
THE ARNAULDS OF PORT ROYAL. 573 
 
 Bible itself is the only unalloyed and sufficient antidote for a 
 corrupted time. 
 
 Yet the names of the sisters are a sacred heritage. Catherine, 
 who married M. le Maitre d’Andilly, and who, after the establish- 
 ment of her children, jomed with her husband in all possible co- 
 operation : Angelique and Agnes, made abbesses in one day: Anne, 
 and Marie, Clair, and last Madeleine. All but the last endowed 
 with a love of work and a staunch firmness of principle of no 
 common order, and supplying to them no common power. Doc- 
 trinal points were assumed by them: but in moral and devotional 
 fidelity they stooped to no compromises. It was only in the pur- 
 suing these excellencies that they ran into methods that we can 
 see to be alike against the Bible and the interests of society. 
 
 F. Martin’s Life of Angelique Arnauld. 
 
 C. xtv. Institution of an order of the holy eucharist. Nuns’ 
 house opened near the Louvre in Paris, 1633, by A. A., with three 
 nuns and four postulants. Pope Urban VIII. sanctioned the 
 order six years before, and the French king Louis XIV. consented 
 in 1630, through the urgency of Mme Longueville on being raised 
 from a serious illness. P. 199,“ As many as seventeen or eighteen 
 “masses were sometimes said in a day.” All“ were present at 
 “every service if possible.” P. 220, the Bishop of Langres com- 
 plained of M. de 8. Cyran “that he had hindered the sisters from 
 “partaking of the holy communion.” I do not find anything in 
 Jansen’s Augustinus on the Lord’s supper; which is very singular, 
 It was published 1640. The paper on “frequent communion ” was 
 put forth three years after. P. 258. A. A’s life. “A Jesuit 
 “priest saw some of the instructions written by St Cyran for the 
 “Princess de Guemené, and said they were much too strict. Ina 
 “letter which the Jesuit wrote to prove his assertions he stated 
 “among other things that the less we have of grace the more 
 “boldly we ought to approach the table of the Lord, and that those 
 “who are entirely engrossed by the love of the world and self 
 “ought to communicate very frequently. Now in the Romish 
 “church communion must be preceded by confession and absolu- 
 “tion; and, if this doctrine be accepted, pardoned and impenitent 
 “sinners may be absolved and receive the holy eucharist without 
 “repentance, ὅθ. Arnauld... wrote an answer to the Jesuit’s 
 “work on ‘frequent communion.... A Jesuit attacked the book 
 “(of M. Arnauld) in a course of sermons, and forbade any of his 
 “hearers to look at it... The first edition was sold in a fortnight 
 νον and a second was announced in an advertisement affixed to 
 “the doors of the Jesuit college before the reverend father had 
 
574 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 “finished his course of sermons.” The book is in five thick quarto 
 volumes. “Marshal de Vitri was present at one of the sermons, 
 “and said afterwards he was quite sure there was more than 
 “appeared on the surface in this matter, for the reverend fathers 
 “never shewed such extraordinary zeal when there was nothing at 
 “stake but the glory of God.” A hard saying, but the truth is 
 worse ; vz. that in the history of these times the Jesuits shew that 
 they really seem to have deserved this sharp reproach. Chap. 
 XXI. Ὁ. 262, on Mme A. retiring to Port Royal, the funds of 
 the Holy Eucharist convent were transferred to it with the Pope’s 
 sanction, 1645, and instead of the black robe a white one was 
 required with a scarlet cross, pendant. P. 263, “The design ... 
 “ perpetual adoration of the mystery of the holy eucharist was not 
 “abandoned.” 
 
 One grieves over the tearing up of Port Royal: but perhaps 
 the effort of that marvellous family the Arnaulds was so much 
 adulterated by the gross superstition which then prevailed and 
 divided the empire over the nation with the grossest licentiousness 
 —that it could not be preserved. It had the good and the bad 
 against it at once. 
 
 If anyone, charmed with the many superior excellences that 
 arose in the calm retirement of Port Royal, should feel as the 
 writer did, that he longs beyond all things that some representa- 
 tion of the persons of this remarkable Angelique and her sisters 
 survived to assist in forming and realizing a conception of the way 
 in which they went about their daily ministrations in the Abbey, 
 such idealists may be gratified to know that, at the heading of the 
 text in many of the volumes of the edition cited, are family groups, 
 apparently of the sisters themselves and of their mother : nor will 
 such earnest idealizers of the past find it difficult to determine by 
 the positions or by: some other indicative mark, which is An- 
 gelique, and which Agnes, and which the sister who, being intel- 
 lectually inferior, became mistress of the culinary department, for 
 she bears a pair of scales, and which is the sister, who was warned 
 by Francois de Sales not to think much of her beauty, for she 
 carries a looking-glass; so that among those that remain it is not 
 difficult to identify with all probability both the mother and 
 Madame d’Andilly the married sister, for the endowment of 
 whom Angelique and Agnes were disposed of by obtaining abbacies 
 for them at a very early age. This was done for them as the 
 only possible course: since the family property was deemed inade- 
 
THE ARNAULDS OF PORT ROYAL. δι ὃ 
 
 quate to the maintenance of more than one of the sisters in the 
 position proper for the Arnaulds. But one cannot fail to observe 
 how this custom of making a sacrifice of the sweet capabilities of 
 family affections in the junior daughters upon the altar of family 
 greatness was in this case overruled for the reform of this seat of 
 religious retirement, till it became a green oasis of real godliness 
 for Parisian ladies to flee to and find God and Christ and the Holy 
 Spirit and a living church, during the wicked dissoluteness of a 
 French reign, in which Jesuitism was dominant in the capital. 
 It was a crowning mercy at last to get such a religious contessor 
 as M. Duvergier d’Hauranne, a gentleman of high family and 
 Jansenius’ bosom friend. Then we have to trace the signal mercy 
 in the kindling of the same light in several of the gentlemen of the 
 Arnauld family, who, as they could not enter, lived outside the 
 abbey, and last and greatest comes the youngest brother Antoine. 
 
 (S.) BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR. B. 1613. D. 1667. 
 
 I am fain to characterize him by citing Bishop Heber’s esti- 
 mate of him, which must needs carry the weight of laus a laudato 
 viro. Hooker claims the foremost rank in sustained and classic 
 dignity of style, in political and pragmatical wisdom: to Barrow 
 the praise must be assigned of the clearest views, and of a taste 
 the most controlled and chastened: but in imagination, in interest, 
 in that which more properly and exclusively deserves the name 
 of genius, Taylor is to be placed before either. The first awes 
 most, the second convinces most ; the third persuades and delights 
 most; and according to the decision of one whose own rank 
 among the ornaments of English literature yet remains to be 
 determined by posterity (Dr Parr in his Spital sermon) Hooker 
 is the object of our reverence, Barrow of our admiration, and 
 Jeremy Taylor of our love. ‘Oxnpcv μὲν σέβω, θαυμάζω δὲ Bap- 
 povor, Kal φιλῶ Taikwpov. Life by Heber, Vol. τι. p. 183. 
 
 If Alexander envied Achilles the immortal record of his emi- 
 nence by Homer, even Jeremy Taylor's memory may be thought 
 fortunate in having for his biographer that Indian prelate, whom 
 the late Archdeacon Robinson so lovingly photographed in his 
 short memorial volume. But Dr Samuel Parr’s famous saying 
 may outlive his own Spital Sermon. I fancy I like it better in 
 
576 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Heber’s paraphrase which was just now cited than in Parr’s stiff 
 Greek. I fancy Browning’s testimony is touched with the truth, 
 
 “Where bee-like in the flowers I may bury me, 
 Like Taylor’s, the immortal Jeremy.” 
 
 I will add nothing to these testimonies except that Miss 
 Manning has with a lady’s touch more skilfully set him by 
 Milton’s side in beautiful contrast in her Maiden and Married 
 Life of Mary Powell. One would like to spend days in dreaming 
 by the Irish Lake, and at the Golden Grove, and at other spots 
 immortalised by this singularly rich but somewhat lavish and 
 unkempt genius: and methinks all good feelings would grow 
 warmer and all noble convictions stronger and higher. It has 
 been said by Coleridge of St Paul, and perhaps no one besides 
 Jeremy deserves to have it said of him, that in them the tender 
 grace and intuition of one sex is found in union with the strength 
 and reasoning power of the other. But neither Taylor nor 
 Hooker gives us the pure sense of Scripture upon the Lord’s 
 supper, like the second of Dr Parr’s triad, Dr Barrow. Taylor 
 was a sizar of Caius, and became chaplain to Laud: and was 
 sent from London to be Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore. 
 
 Polemical Discourses, On the Real Presence. London, 1674. 
 
 P. 226. “Let this be added that in Scripture it is as plainly 
 affirmed to be bread, as it is called Christ's body ; now then be- 
 cause it cannot be both in the proper and natural sense, but one 
 of them must be figurative and tropical; since both of the ap- 
 pellatives are equally affirmed, it is notorious that in this case we 
 ought to give judgment on that side to which we are prompted 
 by common sense. If Christ had said only ‘This is My body,’ 
 and no apostle had told also that it is bread, we had reason to 
 suspect our senses to be deceived, if it were possible they should 
 be. But when it is equally affirmed to be bread, as to be our 
 Lord’s body, and but one of them can be naturally true and in 
 the letter, then shall the testimony of our senses be of no use 
 in casting the balance? The two affirmatives are equal. One 
 must be expounded tropically. Which will you choose? [5 there 
 anything in the world more certain and expedite than that what 
 you see, and feel, and taste natural and proper, should be judged 
 to be that you feel and taste naturally and properly, and that 
 therefore the other should be expounded tropically ?...The man 
 that must answer all, I mean Bellarmine, ventures something, 
 
1613] BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR. 577 
 
 saying, It was good argument of our blessed Saviour, ‘Handle Me, 
 ‘and see that I am no spirit.’ That which is seen and handled, 
 is no spirit. But it is no good argument to say, ‘This is not seen, 
 ‘not handled; therefore it is no body; and therefore the body 
 ‘of Christ may be sacrament, though it is not seen nor handled.’ 
 To this I reply, this is the affirmative consequent of our blessed 
 Lord... It is I, for by the feeling and seeing you shall believe 
 it to be so; and it is bread, for by feeling and seeing and tasting 
 and smelling it, you shall perceive it to be so. It is remarkable 
 that our blessed Lord did not only by feeling and seeing, prove 
 it to be a body; but by proving it was His body He proved it 
 was Himself, ὁ.6., by these accidents representing My person, and 
 so the accidents of bread declare a latent body, meaning the body 
 of Christ...How had He proved that He was no spirit by shew- 
 ing a body which might be the case of a spirit, but that it ws not 
 consistent with the wisdom and goodness of God to suffer any 
 illusion in any matter of sense relating to an article of faith... 
 Letter at end.of these discourses. We may not render Divine 
 worship to Him as present in the blessed sacrament or host, 
 according to His human nature, without danger of idolatry, be- 
 cause He is not there according to His human nature, and there- 
 fore you give Divine worship to a non-ens, which must needs be 
 idolatry. [Cited by Wake, p. 89...] 
 
 P. 184, “By presenting spiritually we mean, to our spirits 
 only. 
 
 P. 183. “A spirit is also a real presence. 
 
 P. 185. “Hardest...is corporaliter; but the expression may 
 become warrantable, and mean no more than really and without 
 fiction. 
 
 P. 184, “The word substantialiter may be a substance, but 
 after a sacramental manner, 1.6. really, truly, without fiction, 
 or the help of fancy. [What playing with words this is 1] 
 
 P. 183. “If by virtue of these words really, substantially, 
 corporeally, verily and indeed, and Christ’s body and blood, the 
 fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantiation they may 
 as well suppose it to be our doctrine too, for we speak the same 
 words |More is the pity, e.g. to say Christ is corporeally present 
 in the Lord’s supper, and to say that you only mean that it is 
 not fiction], and therefore these authorities [v.e. the fathers] 
 would signify nothing against us, unless these words can be proved 
 in them to signify more than our sense of them does import.” 
 
 We are suffering through the improper adoption of terms 
 by which many fathers plainly meant a change of the bread into 
 Christ’s body, and not after a merely typical, figurative, or sa- 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΠ 37 
 
578 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 cramental manner, 7.e. after the manner of a sign; and now this 
 noble but rather imaginative divine says, (1) we use the same 
 terms as the fathers; therefore we may assume that they meant 
 no more than we. Ans. You ought not to adopt their terms— 
 for (2) if Jeremy Taylor says we must prove that the fathers 
 used those terms with a different meaning from ours, our answer 
 is—We accept the saying in reference not to our opinion, but to 
 the language of Scripture by Jesus and Paul: and page by page 
 we shew in the fathers point after point exceeding and sub- 
 verting the simple views of our Master on this subject: in a word 
 that the fathers Judaised the simple typical and commemorative 
 feast into a sacrifice ministered by a priest upon an altar in a 
 temple, and supplying forgiveness of sins to the communicant ; 
 and subsequent practice added solitary masses celebrated for the 
 absent, dead or living, by the unit, the decad, the hundred, the 
 thousand, and then came up purgatory and indulgences from the 
 common stock of superfluous merit accumulated by special Saints 
 beyond what God required of them. Once grant the mass a 
 sacrifice and all the rest follows in regular sequence. We must 
 therefore go to the pure fountain and start afresh there. 
 
 In the same Vol. II. of the Life by Bishop Heber, begins at 
 p. 69, an argument by him against some points in Jeremy Taylor, 
 which with great facility anticipates what has been laboriously 
 contended for in these two volumes upon those points. Heber quotes 
 from Taylor’s Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Blessed 
 Sacrament proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as 
 follows, “The symbols become changed into the body and blood 
 “of Christ after a sacramental, 1. 6. a spiritual real manner, so that 
 “all that worthily communicate do by faith receive Christ really, 
 “ effectually, and to all the purposes of His passion.” The terms 
 of Taylor here expressly advocate what several other writers affirm 
 to be the doctrine of the Church of England, and which was a 
 few years since generally receiving the name of Receptionism, 
 though it really is one mode of Receptionism. I can give only 
 portions of Bishop Heber’s clear and full reply. “ With sacra- 
 “mental in this sense [1.6. as a sign] the term real is utterly incon- 
 “sistent.” This he elucidates, and adds, “It is not correct to say 
 “that any change has taken place in their nature, though they 
 “have undoubtedly become the means of our obtaining a spiritual 
 “blessing.” Then in p. 71, “The word real, as Taylor has intro- 
 
1015] BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR. 579 
 
 “duced it, is unmeaning or worse; inasmuch as for the elements 
 “to be really changed into the body and blood of Christ is the 
 “very thing for which the Romanists plead, and which is at 
 “complete variance with Taylor’s previous statement as well as 
 “with all his subsequent arguments:” and in p. 73 he concludes, 
 “Tt is plain then that our Reformers, in denying the bodily change 
 “of the elements, admitted no real change in them at all &c.” 
 It is much to be regretted that the great author of Dissuasives 
 from Popery did not, like Heber, discriminate thus. But non 
 omnia possumus. There are spots in our brightest suns. 
 
 Another short passage I add from Bishop Heber, p. 72. “ What 
 “indeed is the meaning of anything being present under its sym- 
 “pols and representations, unless it be that the thing itself is not 
 “there, but that there is something else which supplies its place ? 
 “Or what but this can be the meaning of the spiritual presence 
 ‘of a substance?” And p. 75, he writes, “If the eating were 
 “bodily, and the elements, as the Romanists pretend, were changed 
 “in substance, the wicked might eat Christ as well as the worthy 
 “communicant.” In pp. 70, 71, is an analysis of the term “ spiri- 
 “tual.” In fact there is very much in this testimony of Bishop 
 Heber in which he quite ran beyond both his own age and 
 ours in specific Biblical accuracy. 
 
 Sermon before the University of Dublin. Heber’s Life. Vol. τ. 184, 
 Vol. vi. 878, Heber’s Edition of Taylor's works. 
 
 “What learning is it to discourse on the philosophy of the 
 sacrament if you do not feel the virtues of it: and the man that 
 can with eloquence and subtilty discourse of the instrumental 
 efficacy of baptismal waters, talks ignorantly, in respect of him 
 who hath ‘the answer of a good conscience within, and is 
 cleansed by the purification of the Spirit, &. &. How can a 
 wicked man understand the purities of the heart? And how can 
 an evil and unworthy communicant tell what it is to have received 
 Christ by faith, to dwell with Him, to be united to Him, to re- 
 ceive Him in his heart? The good man alone understands that. 
 The one sees the colour, the other feels the substance. The one 
 discourses of the sacrament, the other receives Christ. The one 
 discourses for or against transubstantiation; but the good man 
 feels himself to be changed, and so joined to Christ that he alone 
 understands the true sense of transubstantiation while he becomes 
 to Christ bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh, and of the same 
 spirit with his Lord, To you fathers, and brethren, who are or 
 intend to be cf the clergy, you see here the best compendium of 
 
 37—2 
 
580 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 your studies, the best abbreviature of your labours, the truest 
 method of wisdom, and the infallible, the only way of judging 
 the disputes and questions in Christendom. It is not by reading 
 multitudes of books, but by studying the truth of God. It is not 
 by laborious commentaries of the doctors that you can finish your 
 work; but by the expositions of the Spirit of God. It is not 
 by the rules of metaphysic, but by the proportions of holiness : 
 and when all books are read, and all arguments examined, 
 and all authorities alleged, nothing can be found to be true that 
 is unholy. [All this is pure gold, fit to be set in the Irish Church’s 
 council chamber. ] 
 
 P. 187. “The great learning of the fathers was more owing 
 to their piety than to their skill, ὥς. ἄς, Where is the blessed 
 choir of bishops and doctors, who shined like lights in the world, 
 and contained the word of life? Dulce est meminisse, their very 
 memory is pleasant. Where is that Evodias the sweet savour of 
 the church and the successor and imitator of the holy apostles ? 
 Where is Ignatius, in whom God dwelt? Where is St Dionysius 
 the Areopagite, that bird of Paradise, that celestial eagle? Where 
 is Hippolytus, that good man, ἄνηρ χρηστός, that gentle sweet 
 person? Where is great St Basil, a man almost equal to the 
 apostles? Where is Athanasius, rich in virtue? Where is 
 Gregory Nyssen, that great divine? And Ephrem, the great 
 Syrian, that stirred up the sluggish and awakened the sleepers, 
 and comforted the afflicted, and brought the young men to dis- 
 cipline, the looking-glass of the religious, the captam of the 
 penitents, the destruction of heresies, the receptacle of graces, 
 the habitation of the Holy Ghost. These were the men that 
 prevailed against error, because they lived according to truth: 
 and whosoever shall oppose you and the truth you walk by, may 
 better be confuted by your lives than by your disputations, &c. &e. 
 But if ye live wickedly and scandalously, every little schismatic 
 shall put you to shame, and draw disciples after him, and abuse 
 your flocks, and feed them with colocynth and hemlock, and place 
 heresy in the chairs appointed for your religion.” [A piece of 
 Christian eloquence as essentially true and nearly the same as to 
 facts in detail as the equally splendid pieces of the fathers. ] 
 
 (T.) DR HENRY MORE. B. 1614, D. 1687. 
 
 He was a native of Grantham and was educated at Eton, and 
 went to Christ’s, Cambridge, where he devoted himself to general 
 research, which ended in his coming forth a Platonist of the first 
 water. The form for refusing the episcopal office was used in his 
 
1614] DR HENRY MORE. 581 
 
 instance regarding several of the highest pieces of preferment 
 which the English Church could offer. He preferred private study 
 to any public official life whatever. He was rated nevertheless at 
 his true value, being also generally loved, and his works were 
 greatly admired. He is generally named as the author of the 
 Divine Dialogues: but his poem, The Life of the Soul, is also a 
 favourite work. In a book of Tracts on the Lord’s Supper, from 
 the library of the late Duke of Sussex, in the midst of treatises by 
 Payne, Claggett, Wake (which are also found in Bishop Gibson’s 
 work), I find the treatise of Dr More, from which the following 
 extracts are taken, 
 
 “But Dr More adds, It does not at all follow...that we must 
 hold that that very body of Christ that hung upon the cross...is 
 really present in the sacrament, ἅς, P.7, John vi. v. 61—63, Does 
 this offend you? &c. Then My particular natural body will be far 
 enough removed from you, and yourselves then from so gross a con- 
 ceit as to think I understand this of My natural particular body 
 or flesh. No, says He. The flesh profiteth nothing. It is the 
 Spirit that quickens, ὅσο, &e. [To my mind nothing can be more 
 satisfactory than these sentences by which the Doctor teaches 
 that the real natural body of Christ—the res ipsa—the verum 
 corpus, &c., “are in heaven and not here.” But how then can the 
 Doctor maintain as before stated the real presence (not of Christ 
 which might be misunderstood but) of His body and blood in 
 the supper? See p. 33.] If they had kept to the profession of 
 it in general and had defined no further than the plain Scriptural 
 text, John vi., and the primitive fathers had warranted them, viz. 
 that there was a twofold body and blood of Christ; the one natural, 
 the other spiritual and Divine, which we do really receive in the 
 holy communion, &c., &c. [see next p. 37], such a Divine body and 
 blood of Christ as is universal, not restrained to His particular 
 human nature, but belonging to Him as He is the eternal Logos, 
 in Whom is the fn, life or spirit, which goeth along with the 
 Divine body of this life or spirit of Christ, and consequently is 
 rightly called His body. 
 
 So at last Dr More has brought us to this, that the Son of God 
 is from all eternity clothed with a body, and that this is the body 
 given to believers in the supper. I will only say (1) that I am 
 glad he just here leaves out the words “and His blood,” though 
 logic requires their insertion, and (2) I think in asserting that the 
 Eternal Son has a body, he, to say the least, is “intruding into 
 “things that he hath not seen ;” and yet this is his only escape from 
 
582 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the assertion, and the only escape for many of the primitive fathers 
 from the charge of holding that Christ’s very natural body is given 
 to be eaten in the supper of the Lord, though the bread appears | 
 only bread, &e. I do not mean that most of the fathers plead 
 Tillotson’s view, though some stand on the border of it, when and 
 in whatever mode they assert that we receive the Logos. I think 
 the real presence of Christ’s body had better be renounced. 
 
 Perhaps it is hardly right to let these extracts pass without a 
 few words more—not upon his unjustifiable assertions (1) that the 
 Eternal Son had from eternity a body, so far like ours that it is 
 continually restored from waste by that wonderful fluid blood, and 
 (2) that that body is given to us to eat, and that blood to drink in the 
 supper of the Lord; since our article describes God without body, 
 parts or passions, and the Bible says that even in our case flesh 
 and blood cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. But I would 
 rather direct attention to the extraordinary difficulty to which 
 divines are put who must needs affirm something more than the 
 figurative sense of Christ’s words, This is My body, &c., and “the 
 “ spiritual refreshing of the soul” of which it is a figure, and yet 
 would fain hold something less than Popery of the 13th and 16th 
 centuries. Itseems to me that there is no standing-ground, no level 
 spot between the one and the other on which belief can build. All 
 that is erected in the mid-space slides or falls over gradually into 
 the latter. 
 
 A brief discourse of the Real Presence, ὥς. London, 1686. 
 
 P.2. “Transubstantiation, into which they would bring back 
 the Reformed Church by taking hold of some...professions of theirs 
 of a real presence (though they absolutely deny the Roman doctrine 
 of transubstantiation), and thus entangling and insnaring them... 
 would by hard pulling hale them into that...error, for which and 
 several others they rightly left the communion of the church of 
 Rome, &e. I thought it my duty so far as my age and infirmness 
 of my body will permit...to shew there is no clashing betwixt de- 
 claring against transubstantiation and those passages which seem to 
 imply a real presence. [I have in several places, as here, shortened 
 sentences that run to an exorbitant length. This fills 29 lines,] 
 
 P. 3. “ Now those passages which seem to imply a real presence 
 in the eucharist [p. 2, a real presence of the body and blood of 
 Christ at the celebration of the holy eucharist]. (1) Article 28, 
 The body of Christ, saith our church, is given, taken and eaten in 
 the supper only after an Heavenly and spiritual manner. [[ 
 
1014] DR HENRY MORE. 583 
 
 venture to say this needs not discussion. It is and was intended 
 for a direct denial of any presence of Christ’s real natural body 
 and blood in the Lord’s supper.] (2) In our catechism, The body 
 and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received 
 by the faithful in the Lord’s supper. Where verily and indeed 
 seems to imply a real presence and participation of the body and 
 blood of Christ. (3) The Homily on worthily receiving, ὅσο. 
 Thus much we must be sure to hold that in the supper of the 
 Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of 
 a thing absent, &c. [In this (3), the thing absent is, by the whole 
 context, the real natural body and blood of Jesus.] Our adver- 
 saries who would by this hook pluck us back again into the error 
 of transubstantiation, will unavoidably imagine and allege from 
 hence that, if we will stand to the assertions of our own church, 
 we must acknowledge the real presence of the body and blood of 
 our Saviour in the sacrament.” [I certainly must affirm that the 
 adversaries rightly lay this latter to their charge. A person may 
 indeed object to the word transubstantiation invented in a com- 
 paratively late age; but if he very expressly asserts, as Hilary first 
 and many fathers following did, that the bread is the very body of 
 Christ, &c., he does not fall short of maintaining that the bread is 
 removed, except in appearance, and the body of Christ put in its 
 stead. | 
 
 (U.) DR JOHN OWEN. B. 1616. D. 1683. 
 
 That he was a magnificent man to represent the Independent 
 body in the time of their ascendancy at Oxford University must, I 
 think, be admitted by friends and foes. Possibly had he never 
 filled the posts of Chancellor of Oxford University and Dean of 
 Christchurch he would have been a profounder and more accurate 
 divine. Robert Hall, who was too great to be meanly jealous, 
 severely depreciated his writings. Certainly two truly Christian 
 men of genius could hardly differ more in expressing views essen- 
 tially identical, the sectarian points of opposition notwithstanding, 
 I suppose no one ever went to the Commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, or to any of Owen’s great treatises, without being 
 enriched, But often one has come away with Hall’s regret that 
 such a writer should so often dream away into a sleepy diffusive- 
 ness. Dr Chalmers’ favourable estimate of Owen is seen in his 
 preface to Owen’s treatise on Indwelling Sin ; and if anyone, after 
 dwelling for a time in the clouds of philosophical mist, wherewith 
 it is now the fashion to cover and extinguish the doctrine of the 
 
584 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Bible on the Atonement, will honestly give himself to the teachings 
 of Owen upon it, he will soon find the atmosphere clearing, and 
 himself standing on a peak of high thought, and all the rest of the 
 glories of revealed truth shining around him in full view, and each 
 in its place. 
 
 The marvel is that Owen, and his rivals and followers in what 
 is worthy to be called Puritan theology, did not trouble themselves 
 closely to analyse Scripture on the Lord’s supper. We as well as 
 they are great losers by their not having done so. Owen’s modern 
 successors are happily not generally imitating him in this omission. 
 On the contrary, when the struggle comes, we hope to see nearly 
 all of them on the side of the Scripture and of simplicity in ritual 
 and doctrine. Owen had much of the freedom of a son of York- 
 shire. Queen’s at Oxford was his college. He held successively 
 the livings of Fordham and Coggeshall. Unable to give the 
 unhappy king credit for the prime Christian virtue of veracity, we 
 are yet free to wish that Owen had not been the man to preach 
 the sermon before the dominant House of Commons after the 
 king’s execution. But many believe that Cromwell was not the 
 man who least regretted that the parliamentary army would be 
 satisfied with nothing less than the royal blood. The restored 
 monarch was certainly in every way ruined by being brought up 
 abroad, Continental depravity and unbelief, not concerned enough 
 about religion to take the form of infidelity, made the third Stuart 
 king the worst and the most dangerous of the four. If it be true 
 that Puritans were driven to an extreme of unworldliness in some 
 respects, a counterpoise to the tendency of the times was certainly 
 wanted to keep society from falling over into utter irreligion and 
 immoral living. 
 
 Principles of the Doctrine of Christ. Works, Vol. V. London, 1823. 
 
 P. 33. “What are the seals of the New Testament? Sacra- 
 ments instituted of Christ to be visible seals and pledges, whereby 
 God in Him confirmeth the promise of the covenant to all be- 
 lievers, restipulating them in growth in faith and obedience, ὅσ, 
 How doth God by these sacraments bestow grace upon us? Not 
 by any real essential conveying of spiritual grace by corporal means, 
 but by the way of promise, obsignation and confirming the grace 
 wrought in us by the word and Spirit, ἄρ. This is one of the 
 great mysteries of the Roman magic and juggling: that corporal 
 elements should have power to forgive sins and convey spiritual 
 
1010] DR JOHN OWEN. 585 
 
 grace. How do our sacraments differ from the sacraments of the 
 Jews? Accidentally only, &c. 
 
 P. 35. “What is the Lord’s supper? A holy action instituted | 
 
 and appointed by Christ to set forth His death and communicate 
 unto His people spiritually His body and blood by faith, being 
 represented by bread and wine blessed by His word and prayer, 
 broken, poured out, and received of believers... Whence is the right 
 use of it to be learned? From the word, practice and actions 
 of our Saviour as to its institution. Whatever is more than 
 these is of our own. No part of Christ’s religion was ever so 
 vilely contaminated and abused as this pure, holy and plain in- 
 stitution of our Saviour...There is not any one action pertaining 
 to the spiritual nature of His sacrament, not any end put upon it 
 by Christ...but requireth faith, grace and holiness in the receiver. 
 
 XVI. 63. “It is a universal unimpeachable persuasion among 
 all Christians, that there is a near intimate communion with 
 
 _ Christ and participation of Him in the supper of the Lord... 
 | Hence from the beginning this was always esteemed the prin- 
 cipal mystery in the agenda of the church, and that deser- 
 ' vedly, as the communication of Christ herein and our partici- 
 _ pation of Him are expressed in such a manner as to demon- 
 
 strate them to be peculiar; such as are not to be obtained in any 
 other way of Divine ordinance whatever. There is in it an eating 
 and drinking of the body and blood of Christ with a 51 iritual 
 
 ᾿ incorporation thence ensuing, which are peculiar to this ordinance. 
 
 But this especial and peculiar communion with Christ and par- 
 ticipation of Him is spiritual and mystical, by faith, not carnal or 
 fleshly. ΤῸ imagine any other participation of Christ in this life 
 by faith is to overthrow the Gospel. To look for any other com- 
 munication of Christ’s body and His blood, but what is spiritual, 
 is to contradict Him in the interpretation which He gives of His 
 own word...I¢ doth not only act, itself, by a subjection of the soul 
 and contradicts the authority of Christ in the inspiration, but 
 respects also the exertion of His authority in the close of His 
 prophetical and entrance on the exercise of His sacerdotal office... 
 This is peculiar unto the ordinance...and faith gives an intimate 
 communion with Christ. [Owen is one of those writers who when 
 the subject is delicate and difficult often have resort to luxuriant 
 verbiage, and consequently he seems to mingle pointed truths with 
 ambiguous and nebulous assertions.]...Truths concerning Christ 
 contracted into this ordinance...Their taste and efficacy is more 
 eminent and communicative...than as merely proposed by parts 
 and parcels in the word...It is faith alone that apprehends the 
 sacramental union that is between the outward signs and the 
 things signified...the body and blood of Christ are really exhibited 
 and communicated to the souls of believers, as the outward signs 
 
586 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 unto the bodily senses—the signs becoming thereby, sacramentally, 
 to us, what the things signified are in themselves; and are there- 
 fore called by their names. Herein is a peculiar exercise of faith 
 and a peculiar participation of Christ, such as are in no other 
 ordinance whatever. [N.B. Any peculiarity in the kind of grace 
 in. the Lord’s supper from grace received in other ways I have 
 found much doubted by many and denied by not a few. At any 
 rate it is an arbitrary assertion. All the peculiarity may be in 
 the manner of its preparing the heart to receive.} Though they 
 [the outward signs] do not contain carnally the flesh and blood 
 of Christ, yet they really exhibit Christ unto them that believe, 
 in the participation of Him...Faith is the grace that makes the 
 soul to receive Christ...and it receives Him according as He is 
 proposed and exhibited in the declaration and promise of the 
 gospel. It receives Him by the gracious assent of the mind unto 
 the truth; the choice of Him, cleaving and trusting unto Him, 
 with the will, heart and affection for all the ends of His passion 
 and offices as the Mediator between God and man and in the 
 sacramental mysterious proposal of Him...7.e. in the efficacy of 
 His death and sacrifice...This is peculiar unto this ordinance. 
 
 P. 66. “Of this blessed and intimate communion with Christ 
 believers are partakers to their ineffable joy...They discern the 
 truth of this mystery [spiritual incorporation with Christ] and 
 have experience of its power...Indeed there is nothing in it but 
 unto faith: as the limit of the earth is nothing unto them that 
 have no eyes. A dog and a staff are of more use to a blind man 
 than the Sun...The wits of men were hard put to it to find out 
 this spiritual communion, whereof in their minds they could have 
 no experience. Yet they fashioned one by degrees: and after 
 they had greatened the mystery in words and expressions, to 
 answer unto what was to be set up in the room of it...they brought 
 forth transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass. Thereby 
 they provided that all...should be turned into things carnal. 
 Bread shall be the body of Christ carnally. The mouth shall be 
 faith...and the priest shall offer Christ unto God...Because there 
 is a singular mystery...they have invented for the representation 
 thereof such a prodigious imagination of the real conversion or 
 transubstantiation of the substance of that bread and wine into 
 the substance of the body and blood of Christ as overthrows. all 
 faith, reason and sense also...an idolatrous worship and adoration 
 of the host, as they call it, to the ruin of the souls of men. This 
 image, like that of Nebuchadnezzar, was once set up in this nation, 
 with a law that whosoever would not bow down to it and worship 
 it shall be cast into the fiery furnace. God grant it to be so no more. 
 
 Vol. xxx p. 388. “To neglect an enquiring after these things, 
 t.e. on the part of ministers, respecting the people’s having re- 
 
1616] DR JOHN OWEN. SGT 
 
 pentance, faith, and obedience in those that are to be admitted 
 unto the table of the Lord is to prostitute the holy ordinance of 
 the gospel unto contempt and abuse...Jf in the course of their 
 unholiness...you give them pledges of their salvation by Him, they 
 will not much regard your other exhortations. The church is 
 damaged by the neglect of a careful inspection into their duty. 
 It cannot be but that ignorance, worldliness and profaneness will 
 spread themselves as a leprosy over such a church...Hereby do 
 churches, which should be the glory of Christ...become the prin- 
 cipal means and occasions of His dishonour in the world...and it 
 is a matter of no small amazement that any churches dare approve 
 and applaud themselves in such a state of impurity and defection. 
 Do men think He is changed ?...or do they suppose He minds 
 these things no more? and, because He is unseen, that He seeth 
 not?” [A most pertinent and weighty though difficult question. 
 Good old Mr Simeon used to think the matter settled by the 
 word of Paul ‘Let a man examine himself and so let him come.” 
 But can so great a transgression and disorder be let pass without 
 the Master’s censure? Ought not ministers and the “inspection,” 
 ἡ ἐπισκοπία, to apply to this case the monition uttered in an- 
 other connexion, “neither be partaker of other mens’ sins. Keep 
 thyself pure” 2] 
 
 (V.) FRANCIS TURRETIN, OF GENEVA. 8, 1623. D. 1687. 
 
 Pastor, Doctor, and Professor. Was at Leyden three years. He 
 also published several disputations on various theological subjects. 
 
 P. 488. “Of consecration. But we deny that consecration is 
 to be assigned to one utterance making the true body in the sacra- 
 ment, but we say that it is to be set in Christ’s whole action on 
 that occasion, and chiefly in the blessing, by which the elements 
 are transferred from a common and natural use and are raised to a 
 sacred and mystical use. 
 
 P. 499. “Those words ‘This is My body’ have no form of 
 prayer, and ask for nothing, and are directed to the apostles and 
 
 Vol. 111. 488. 
 
 De consecratione. Nos vero negamus consecrationem affiigendam 
 esse pronuntiationi veriticee sacramentali, sed constituendam esse in tota 
 actione Christi, et preecipue in benedictione, qua elementa ab usu com- 
 muni et naturali transvehuntur et evehuntur ad usum sacrum et 
 mysticum. 
 
 FD AID. 
 
 Verba ista, Hoe est corpus Meum, nullam habent precationis formam, 
 et nihil postulant, et ad apostolos non ad Deum diriguntur, Nec sunt 
 
588 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 not to God. Nor are they the words of one asking and desiring or 
 commanding that anything be done, which as yet is not, nor of 
 one promising, but of one indicating and narrating the very thing 
 referred to. Nor ought there to be a consecration of signs for a 
 separate use otherwise than there is a consecration of food daily 
 for common use, since on every side a consecration is given of 
 things destined for man’s uses, though it be in different degrees. 
 No one can doubt that Christ wished by His prayers to seek for 
 God’s blessing on the signs, which it was necessary should be fit for 
 the sacred use for which they were devoted. ‘The particle ‘for’ is 
 inserted in the canon of the mass, why the bread is to be received. 
 The words are not enunciated in the imperative, as ‘let there be 
 ‘light ; but it is indicative as ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ 
 
 P. 491. “Durandus in his fourth Book laid down that a priest 
 has made Christ [in consecration] when his own life has been 
 good. So others also say. 
 
 P. 532. “When the proper literal sense involves anything 
 absurd and contradictory, we must of necessity fly to a figurative 
 sense. 
 
 P. 533. “When the speaker’s scope, the cause and occasion of 
 the speech, the state and disposition of the audience, the place and 
 time lead us of their own accord to a figure and to a trope. 
 
 poscentis et optantis, nec imperantis ut fiat aliquid quod nondum sit, 
 nec promittentis, sed id ipsum de quo agitur indicantis et narrantis. ... 
 Non aliter fieri debet consecratio symbolorum ad usum secretum, quam 
 sit consecratio ciborum quotidie ad usum communem, siquidem utrobique 
 datur consecratio rerum, que usibus humanis destinate sunt, licet in 
 dispari gradu. Nemo dubitare potest quin precibus Suis (Christus) 
 voluerit benedictionem Dei accersere in symbola, que necessaria erat ut 
 essent apta ad sacrum usum, cui destinabantur. Particula “enim” 
 inseritur in canone miss, cw panis ille sumendus, ὅθ, Non enunciantur 
 verba in imperativo ut “ Fiat lux,” sed indicativo, ut “in principio erat 
 “ Verbum.” 
 
 P, 491. 
 
 Durandus Ration. Lib. Iv. ὁ. 41 statuit Christum tune confecisse, 
 
 cum bene vixit. Ita Cajetanus, Cassander et alii. 
 
 PD oe. 
 
 Quando proprietas literee involvit aliquid absurdi et contradictorii, 
 confugiendum est necessario ad sensum figurativum (a Regulis Ser- 
 monis). 
 
 P. 533. 
 
 Quando scopus loquentis, causa et occasio sermonis, status ac dis- 
 positio auditorum, locus et tempus, ad figuram et tropum sponte nos 
 ducunt. 
 
1025] FRANCIS TURRETIN. 589 
 
 P. 553. “It is not the question what God can do, but what 
 
 He wills to do. ‘he power of God is not the rule of our faith, but 
 His will, &e. 
 
 Iv. 778. “Merit of congruity is a work done, that is morally 
 good, out of free will, without any grace assisting. Merit of dig- 
 nity (worthiness)...1s a thing deemed worthy to earn eternal life. 
 Merit of condignity is a good work done out of free will assisted 
 by grace. 
 
 P. 570. “Although Christ (after His resurrection) was stripped 
 of the infirmities of animal life and the conditions of the state of a 
 bond-servant, He may have retained nevertheless both the nature 
 of a true body and all its true properties. Christ could enter, 
 when the doors had been shut...for although the doors had been 
 shut, they could yield to the Creator, and be opened at His nod. 
 He was made non-apparent, Luke xxiv., by withholding the dis- 
 ciples’ eyes, that they should not see Him departing, that is to 
 the disciples at Emmaus.” 
 
 P. 553. 
 
 Non agitur de eo quod Deus potest, sed de eo quod vult. Potentia 
 
 Dei non est regula fidei nostra, sed Ejus voluntas, de. 
 Tol. LV. Ὁ. 178, 
 
 Meritum congrui, opus moraliter bonum, factum ex libero arbitrio, 
 nulla adjuvante gratia. Meritum digni... digna censetur ut mereatur 
 vitam ternam. Meritum condigni, bonum opus factum ex libero 
 arbitrio adjuto a gratia. 
 
 Fe Os 
 
 Licet Christus (post resurrectionem) exutus sit infirmitatibus vite 
 animalis et servilis status conditionibus, retinuerit tamen et veri cor- 
 poris naturam et omnes ejus proprietates. Christus potuit ingredi januis 
 clausis ... licet enim januz erant clausee, potuerunt cedere Creatori, et 
 aperiri ad Kjus nutum. Factus ἄφαντος, Luke xxiv., oculos aposto- 
 lorum cohibendo, ne Se abeuntem videant, scilicet discipulis Emaunticis, 
 
 (W.) WILLIAM OUTRAM, D.D., ARCHDEACON OF LEICESTER. 
 By 1025, Ὁ. 1679. 
 
 Studied at Trinity, Cambridge. He resigned his London living, 
 St Mary Woolnoth, three years before he was appointed Archdeacon, 
 A Prebend in Westminster Abbey was added to his honours, and 
 he became Rector of St Margaret’s. He is supposed to have written 
 in Latin, because Socinus was better answered in the language 
 
590 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that he had used. Besides his greater work, whose translation by 
 Allen is accepted, twenty of his sermons were published three 
 years after his death. 
 
 Two Dissertations on Sacrifices. Latin, 1677. Allen, 1817. 
 
 P. 294. “The opinion entertained by some—that the sacrifices 
 offered by Aaron were of a different kind from those offered by 
 Melchizedek, &e., and that Melchizedek offered nothing but bread 
 and wine, appears to me to have no foundation. Melchizedek 
 gave bread and wine to Abraham and his servants on their return 
 from a battle, in order to recruit their exhausted strength....Nor is 
 Melchizedek called a priest because he brought forth bread and 
 wine; but to account for his solemn benediction of Abraham, which 
 was part of his priestly office, and also for Abraham’s giving him 
 a tenth of the spoils....There is no ground, therefore, for the sup- 
 position that Melchizedek sacrificed nothing but bread and wine, 
 or none but inanimate things; but sufficient reason for a contrary 
 opinion. For if his priesthood had nothing to do with a bloody 
 sacrifice, how came it to pass that Christ Himself, whose priesthood 
 is declared to be of the same kind as Melchizedek’s, offered His 
 sacrifice by shedding His own blood? Nor should we pay any 
 attention to those who attribute to Christ a priesthood of the order 
 of Aaron as well as that of Melchizedek, and suppose that He 
 offered a sacrifice by blood in the character of an Aaronic priest : 
 Heb. vii. 11, ‘not after the order of Aaron.’ 
 
 P. 296. “Τὸ constitute a priest absolutely perfect, &c. First 
 he must have sufficient authority and favour with God to be able 
 effectually to commend his people to Him and to render Him pro- 
 pitious to them. (2) Kindness and mercy towards men, &c., and 
 (3) he must possess an immortal life to be capable of the perpetual 
 performance, 
 
 P. 328. “To say that Christ bare away the sin of many unless 
 He bare it away by sustaining the punishment of it conveys no 
 idea of His sufferings. Is. lin. 4, 1 Pet. 11. 24. 
 
 P. 338, “He clearly suffered a vicarious punishment. 
 
 P. 134. “ Eucharistic sacrifices [7.e. of thanksgiving] under the 
 law ; [p. 214] always with bread, Lev. vii. 12, 13. 
 
 P. 365. “ As our High-priest now executes this office [Mediator] 
 so He began to execute it when He first appeared in His presence 
 
 in the Heavenly sanctuary, 1. 6. at the moment when He offered 
 Himself to God. 
 
 P. 364, “These two phrases, to appear in the presence of God, 
 and to offer Himself (to God), signifyimg one and the same thing. 
 [To this a demurrer may be entered, viz., that He never offered 
 
1625] ARCHDEACON OUTRAM, 591 
 
 Himself to God in Heaven, but only on earth on the cross; and 
 therefore the two expressions are of separate and different senses. | 
 
 P. 375. “Seeing then that Christ in interceding with God for 
 us performs the office of our Patron and Advocate, &c. that He 
 offered Himself as a piacular victim previously slain for our 
 sins; and that this oblation differs not in fact from that inter- 
 cession, &e., &e. 
 
 [Though Dr Outram or Owtram does not deal directly with 
 our subject, his remarks on Melchizedek seem to be of the greatest 
 service; but not his assumption that Jesus after His ascension has 
 to offer Himself to the Father in Heaven before His one offering 
 of Himself is truly and fully accepted. . In fact Outram seems to 
 me half inclined to surrender that idea, and rightly to merge all 
 Christ’s work in Heaven in His interceding and reigning. See 
 
 Heb. x. 12.] 
 
 Treatise of the Holy Communion under both heads. 
 London, 1687. 
 
 Chap. I. p. 2. “Tt was never so much as dreamt of, that the 
 grace annexed to the sacred body of the Lord was any way distinct 
 from that which belonged to the blood. He gave His body before 
 He gave His blood; and we may conclude from the words of 
 S. Luke and S. Paul that He gave His body when at supper, and 
 His blood after: so that there was a considerable interval between 
 the two actions. Did He suspend the grace or spiritual effects of 
 His body? or, when they received His body, did they receive the 
 grace which is annexed to it, viz. that of being incorporated into 
 Jesus Christ and nourished with His substance? Without doubt 
 they did....The substance is entirely contained under one kind ; 
 and each kind by itself, and both together contain the same source 
 or fountain of grace and sanctification. 
 
 [This reasoning seems quite unanswerable by any one who 
 believes in the actual natural body of Christ being given to the 
 communicant. But such as hold that both are suggestive symbols, 
 and that there is no receiving of anything beyond spiritual grace 
 as coming direct from God, are in no difficulty. Bossuet puts 
 “body and blood,” where we in such an instance put “bread and 
 “wine.” | 
 
 P.9. “’Tis not so in the language of the church, that the 
 mentioning of the body only, includes the body and blood; on the 
 contrary you will find among the fathers that in all passages that 
 mention the distribution of His body and blood they are both 
 clearly expressed, ὧς, 
 
 P. 8. “The famous George Calixtus, the most considerable of 
 our Lutherans, and the learnedst adversary we have, &c, 
 
592 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. | [A.D. 
 
 P.9. “I never met with any place that mentions the distri- 
 bution of the body and blood without naming both....’Twas as easy 
 for Calixtus to find an instance as myself; and that there is no 
 such instance to be found is evident in that it hath escaped the 
 eye of so subtil and so industrious an adversary. 
 
 [I wholly receive this; but what becomes of the assertion of 
 those Romanist writers and some Protestants also who maintain 
 that our Lord celebrated the Lord’s supper at Emmaus and St 
 Paul on shipboard, and in other cases where it is only said that 
 they broke bread, and not that they broke bread and drank wine ?] 
 
 P.77. “Jesus Christ instituted this blessed sacrament in the 
 evening, in the beginning of the night in which He was to be 
 betrayed... The consecrating it at that very hour might raise a 
 more lively image of His passion, and altogether might repre- 
 sent that Jesus Christ was to die [at] the last hour, that is in the 
 last period of times. Yet none believes these words oblige us to 
 an hour so full of mysteries. 
 
 “ By the law of the holy church we are to take that, fasting, 
 which Jesus Christ gave after supper.” 
 
 (X.) JAMES BENIGNE BOSSUET, BISHOP OF MEAUX. 
 B. 1637. D. 1704. 
 
 No one that is even sparingly acquainted with the life of this 
 extraordinary man can hesitate to deem him worthy of considerable 
 admiration, until the time came when he fell into the damaging 
 conflict with Fenelon. It would seem that something in that 
 struggle made the worst part of his character come uppermost, and 
 almost turned the eagle of Meaux into a vulture. For not only 
 does he without sparing do his utmost to rend and devour, which 
 we might say is after the nature of an eagle, but he gives himself 
 without reserve to sanction and carry out all the dirty back-stairs 
 work, whereby his nephew, the Abbé, who was certainly vulture 
 and not eagle, succeeded at last in wringing a condemnation of the 
 good Archbishop of Cambray from the reluctant Head of the 
 Roman communion. Whether there was in Bossuet some latent 
 jealousy of the Archbishop’s higher title, combined with some 
 personal envy of his superior address and unbroken sweetness of 
 demeanour, and some internal conviction of the inferiority of 
 Fenelon’s intellectual powers to his own, must be left to con- 
 jecture ; but surely no lover of clerical or Christian excellence can 
 
1637] BISHOP BOSSUET. 593 
 
 fail to feel something like a personal humiliation in the moral 
 overthrow of the victor in this long contest. It is true that the 
 extraordinary Christian meekness and self-sacrifice which were 
 displayed by Fenelon in his reception of his defeat will ever stand 
 as an example of the meaning of that true Christian ἐπιεικεία, 
 which everyone accounts as much above “moderation.” We may 
 indeed hardly be able to go quite as far as Fenelon in the surrender 
 of private judgment to church authority; but to suffer all that 
 Fenelon suffered without any appearance of anger or of desire for 
 revenge, has left the Archbishop of Cambray encircled with a glory 
 which Protestants will be the better for admiring. But to turn 
 to all the earlier part of Bossuet’s history, whether we look to 
 his unremitting and indeed excessive labour, defrauding body 
 and mind of appointed nightly repose, or to his faithful remon- 
 strances up to a certain point with his licentious king, or to 
 his fearless and successful defence of the Gallican liberties, in 
 which he trampled on the power of the Roman curia, or to his 
 affability towards any and every applicant for episcopal counsel, 
 we may well think that he merits his high reputation. I confess 
 that I should not say the same of his reasoning powers. His 
 judgments seem to me struck off at too high a temperature, and 
 evolved with too great facility. His eleven large volumes, in 
 Migne’s double-columned edition, testify to the quantity of his 
 remains. Had he written less and given more thought to the 
 possibility of there being arguments on the other side of the great 
 questions that he has handled, he would have left less room for 
 such powerful replies as those of Archdeacon Hare in his earnest 
 defence of Luther. His readiness to enter into open controversial 
 debate with M. Claude and with M. Paul Ferry, is also greatly to 
 his honour; but the main subject in both of those discussions is 
 not the subject of this present work but only bears on it: for it is 
 the authority of the Roman Catholic ministry and the consequent 
 greater possibility of salvation in that communion, But besides 
 these merits, his earnest desire to amend the morals, and to give a 
 sound education to the French clergy deserves all praise; and all 
 the more, because he was himself a pattern for Christian morality 
 as well as for theological learning. The chief utterance of his 
 opinion on the Lord’s supper is given as much at full as our limits 
 allow: but there is not room for extracts from his Variations of 
 Protestantism, which are in everyone’s hands in an English trans- 
 
 ἮΤΕ 98 
 
594 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 lation. And yet I must not omit to say that this English does 
 not embrace much more than half of what Bossuet has written on 
 this subject. So unsafe is it ever to rest in anything short of the 
 full origmal writings. One marvels at the arguments which 
 satisfy him about communion in one kind, when one considers the 
 late date at which he wrote: but his efforts to bring about a union 
 with German Protestants, even if they be regarded as the work 
 of a visionary, may be adduced as triumphantly rescuing him 
 from another charge, that would be as much to his disparagement, 
 viz. that blind devotion to party, which stands condemned under 
 the branding name of bigotry. 
 
 P. 1149. “Dogmatic Theology. Exposition of the Doctrine of 
 the Catholic church. The Doctrine of the church concerning the 
 Real Presence of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ im 
 the Eucharist. The real presence of our Lord’s body and blood in 
 this sacrament is established on a solid foundation by the words of 
 the institution, which we understand to the very letter: and we 
 must not any more ask why we attach ourselves to the proper 
 literal sense, than we ask a traveller why he follows the high road. 
 [Surely this is particularly unfair, as being pure assumption of 
 the literal sense im this case.] This question may be put to those 
 that have recourse to figurative senses, and who take devious bye- 
 paths to give a reason for what they do. On our part as we find 
 nothing in the words that Jesus Christ uses to institute this 
 mystery [never so called in the New Testament], which obliges us 
 to take them in a figurative sense, we deem this reason sufficient 
 to make us settle their interpretation in the natural sense [1.6. 
 the whole force of analogy, which is induction from the numerous 
 instances of figurative language used by Jesus and by others in 
 the Scripture, particularly in what we call the East, goes for 
 
 Cuvres de Bossuet. 11 tom. Migne Paris, 1866. 7. 7. P. 1149, 
 
 Théologie Dogmatique. Exposition de la Doctrine de Tl Eglise Catholi- 
 que. Doctrine de VEglise touchant la Présence [éelle dw corps et du 
 Sang de Jésus Christ dans 0 Eucharistie. La présence réelle du corps et 
 du sang de notre Seigneur dans ce sacrement est solidement établie par 
 les paroles de Vinstitution, lesquelles nous entendons ἃ la lettre: et il 
 ne nous faut non plus demander pourquoi nous nous attachons au sens 
 propre et littéral, qu’é un voyageur pourquoi il suit le grand chemin. 
 Cest ἃ eux qui ont recours aux sens figurés et qui prennent des 
 sentiers détournés ἃ rendre raison de ce qwils font. Pour nous, qui ne 
 trouvons rien dans les paroles dont Jésus Christ se sert pour l’institution 
 de ce mystére qui nous oblige ἃ les prendre en un sens figuré, nous 
 estimons que cette raison suffit pour nous déterminer en sens propre. 
 
1637] BISHOP BOSSUET. - 595 
 
 nothing with M. Bossuet. This cannot impress any with favour 
 towards him as a candid man or a trustworthy reasoner.] But we 
 are the more strongly bound to it when we come to consider in 
 this mystery the intention of the Son of God, which I will explain 
 as simply as I can, and on the principles which I think our adver- 
 saries will not refuse to accept. [This is followed by another pure 
 assumption.] I read then that the words of our Lord (Matt. xxvi. 
 and Luke xxii.) ‘ Take, eat, this is My body given for you, put 
 plainly before our eyes that, as the ancient Jews did not unite 
 themselves only in spirit to the sacrificing of the victims that were 
 offered for them, but that in effect they ate the sacrificed flesh, 
 which thing was to them a mark of the part which they had in 
 the offering ; so Jesus Christ, being Himself our victim, has willed 
 that we should effectively eat the flesh of this Sacrifice, in order 
 that the actual communication of this adorable flesh may be a 
 perpetual testimony to each of us in particular, that it is for us 
 that He has taken it, and that it is for us that He was slain. 
 [Had Bossuet asserted that there is some a priori probability in 
 favour of this argument, he would have, I think, put upon it the 
 very utmost strain that logic can allow. In two paragraphs more 
 about the Jews not eating sin offering, and not drinking the blood, 
 
 S 
 he more fully draws the inference.] 
 
 P. 1150. “Thus the eating of the flesh and blood is as real at 
 the holy table as the grace of the expiation of sins and the par- 
 ticipation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is actual and effective in 
 the new covenant. [He then accounts for the remaining of acci- 
 dents of the bread and wine as many have done, and then he 
 
 Mais nous sommes y encore plus fortement engagés, quand nous venons 
 a considérer dans ce mystére lVintention du Fils de Dieu, que j’expli- 
 querai le plus simplement qwil me sera possible, et par des principes 
 dont je crois que nos adversaires ne pourront disconvenir. Je lis done 
 que les paroles du Sauveur (Matt. xxvi. et Luc xxii.) “ Prenez, mangez, 
 “ceci est Mon corps donné pour vous,” nous font voir que comme les 
 anciens Juifs ne s’unissaient pas seulement en esprit ἃ limmolation 
 des victimes qui étaient offertes pour eux; mais qu’en effet ils man- 
 geaient la chair sacrifiée, ce qui leur était une marque de la part qu’ils 
 avaient de cette oblation ; ainsi Jésus Christ S’étant fait Lui-méme notre 
 Victime, a voulu que nous mangeassions effectivement la chair de cette 
 Sacrifice, afin que la communication actuelle de cette chair adorable fit 
 un témoignage perpétuel 4 chacun de nous en particulier, que c'est pour 
 nous qu Il l’a prise et que c’est pour nous qu’ll l’a immolée. 
 
 Ee 150 
 
 Ainsi la manducation de la chair et du sang du Fils de Dieu est 
 aussi réelle ἃ la sainte table que la grace de lexpiation des péchés et la 
 participation au sacrifice de Jésus Christ est actuelle et effective dans 
 
 38—2 
 
596 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 sums up.] It appears then that to accomplish these ancient 
 figures, and to put us in actual possession of the Victim offered for 
 our sin, Jesus Christ designed to give us His body and His blood 
 in truth ; which is so evident that our adversaries themselves wish 
 us to believe that they are of the same opinion as we, since they 
 cease not to repeat to us that they deny neither the truth nor the 
 real participation of the body and the blood in the eucharist. [It 
 is then surely high time that all that call themselves Protestants 
 should deny that there is any real presence of Christ’s flesh and 
 blood on earth now, so that they may not be said to hold the same 
 opinion as M. Bossuet.]...In effect, if the Son of God, [ordinarily] 
 so Studious to explain to His Apostles what He teaches under 
 parables and figures, not having said aught here to explain Himself 
 [this must be taken as a pendent nominative, if the sentence be 
 not incomplete], it follows that He leaves His words in their 
 natural sense. 
 
 P.1151. “These laws of language teach us that the sign, 
 which is the actual representation to us, often receives the name of 
 the thing (represented), since it is natural to it to bring its idea to 
 the mind. The same also takes place, though within certain limits, 
 respecting the signs of institutions when they are received [but in 
 his view the signs are not in substance received, but only their 
 accidents: for in his view it is the real things signified that in sub- 
 stance are received], and when one is accustomed to them there. 
 But in establishing a sign, which of itself has no (near) relation to 
 the thing (signified)—-for instance a piece of bread to signify a 
 man’s body—one gives it the name of the other without explain- 
 ing, and before any agreement on the subject, as Jesus Christ has 
 
 la nouvelle alliance. 1] parait donc que pour accomplir les figures 
 anciennes et nous mettre en possession actuelle de la Victime offerte 
 pour notre péché Jésus Christ a eu dessein de nous donner en verité Son 
 corps et Son sang: ce qui est si évident, que nos adversaires mémes 
 veulent que nous croyons quwils ont en cela le méme sentiment que nous, 
 puisqwils ne cessent de nous répéter qwils nient ni la vérité ni la parti- 
 cipation réelle du corps et du sang dans l’eucharistie.... En effet si le Fils 
 de Dieu, si soigneux d’exposer ἃ Ses apdtres ce qu’I] enseigne sous des 
 paraboles et sous des figures, n’ayant rien dit ici pour S’expliquer, il 
 parait qu’I] laisse Ses paroles dans leur signification naturelle. 
 
 eto, 
 
 Ces lois de discours nous apprennent que le signe, qui nous represente 
 actuellement, recoit souvent le nom de la chose, parce qwil lui est 
 comme naturel d’en ramener lidée ἃ l’esprit. Le méme arrive aussi, 
 quoique avec certaines limites, aux signes d’institutions, quand ils sont 
 recus et quand on y est accoutumé. Muis qu’en établissant un signe, qui 
 de soi n’a aucun rapport ἃ la chose—par exemple un morceau de pain 
 pour signifier le corps dun homme—on lui en donne le nom sans rien 
 
1637] BISHOP BOSSUET. 597 
 
 done in the supper; it is a thing unheard of, and of which we see 
 not a single example in all Holy Scripture, not to say in all the 
 utterances of mankind. [In the first place M. Bossuet here stoops 
 to argue why the literal sense of language of Christ ought to be 
 admitted, and thus opens the door to free discussion. Secondly 
 he lays down a canon which every man’s everyday experience 
 contradicts in most of the cases when he uses figures. As has 
 been urged a hundred times, A lamb is not a passing over, A cup 
 is not the New Testament, That rock was not Christ. But in 
 such plain cases it is not usual to stop to explain.] 
 
 P.1151. “Explanation of the words ‘Do this in remembrance 
 ‘of Me.” Must Christians on the pretext of celebrating in the 
 supper the remembrance of the passion of our Lord take away 
 from this pious commemoration whatever it has that is most effica- 
 cious and most tender? Ought they not to consider that Jesus 
 Christ does not simply command them to remember Him, but to 
 remember Him in eating His flesh and drinking His blood? What 
 in effect is there with more power in it for us to do in remembering 
 Him? And if children so tenderly remember their father and 
 his excellencies when they draw near to the tomb where his body 
 is shut up, how much ought our remembrance and our love to be 
 excited when we hold under the consecrated coverings, under this 
 mystic tomb, the proper flesh of our Saviour sacrificed for us, this 
 living and vivifying flesh and this blood yet all warm by His love 
 and all full of spirit and grace? [It must at least be said that 
 Bishop Bossuet writes his own remarkable tongue with singular 
 simplicity and beauty and very adroitly urges his pleas.] 
 
 expliquer, et avant que personne en soit convenu, comme a fait Jésus 
 Christ dans la céne: c’est une chose inouie et dont nous ne voyons aucun 
 exemple dans toute )Ecriture Sainte, pour ne pas dire, dans tout le 
 langage humain. 
 
 Zoe eset 
 
 Explication des paroles, “ Faites ceci en mémoire de Moi.” Faut-il 
 que les Chretiens, sous prétexte de célébrer dans la cene la mémoire de 
 la passion de notre Seigneur, dtent ἃ cette pieuse commemoration ce 
 quelle a de plus efficace et de plus tendre? Ne doivent ils pas const- 
 dérer que Jésus Christ ne commande pas simplement qu’on se sou- 
 vieune de Lui, mais qu’on souvienne en mangeant Sa chair et Son 
 sang?... Qu’y a-t-il en effet de plus puissant pour nous faire en sou- 
 venir? Et si les enfants se souviennent si tendrement de leur pére et 
 de ses bontés lorsqwils approchent du tombeau ot son corps est enfermé, 
 combien notre souvenir et notre amour doivent-ils étre excités, lorsque 
 nous tenons sous ces enveloppes sacrées, sous ce tombeau mystique, la 
 propre chair de notre Sauveur immolé pour nous, cette chair vivante et 
 vivifiante, et ce sang encore tout chaud par Son amour et tout plein 
 desprit et de grace ? 
 
598 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 1159. The Sacrifice of the Mass. “The Son of God 15. 
 put on the holy table, in virtue of (the utterance of) these words, 
 clothed with the signs that represent His death. We believe that 
 Jesus Christ, present on the holy table in this figure of His death, 
 intercedes for us and continually represents before His Father the 
 death which He has suffered for His church. It is in this sense 
 that we say that Jesus Christ offers Himself to God for us in the 
 eucharist ; it is in this manner that we think that this oblation 
 causes God to become more propitious, and this is why we call (this 
 sacrament) propitiatory. Such is the sacrifice of Christians, in- 
 finitely different from what was practised under the law—a sacrifice 
 spiritual and worthy of the new covenant, in which the Victim 
 presented is not perceived but by faith, in which the sword is the 
 word that mystically separates the body and the blood [a turn of 
 speech more rhetorical than logical]...a sacrifice nevertheless very 
 true, in that Jesus Christ is truly contained and presented to God 
 under the figure of His death; but a sacrifice of commemoration, 
 as it, very far from disconnecting us from the Sacrifice of the 
 cross, according to the objection which some make to it, connects 
 us to it by all its details. 
 
 P. 1160. “Catholics pretend not to make a new propitiation 
 to appease God afresh, as if He were not sufficiently appeased by 
 the sacrifice of the cross, or to add any supplement to the price of 
 our salvation, as if it were imperfect. [It is evident that M. Bossuet 
 
 ATV. Le Sacrifice de la Messe. P. 1159. 
 
 Le Fils de Dieu est mis sur la sainte table, en vertu de ces paroles, 
 revétu des signes qui représentent Sa mort. Nous croyons que Jésus 
 Christ, présent sur la sainte table en cette figure de mort, intercéde pour 
 nous et représente continuellement ἃ Son Pere la mort qu’Il a soufferte 
 pour Son église. C'est en ce sens que nous disons que Jésus Christ 
 Soffre ἃ Dieu pour nous dans V’eucharistie ; cest en cette maniére que 
 nous pensons que cette eblation fait que nous Dieu devient plus propice, 
 et c'est pourquoi nous l’appelons propitiatoire ... Tel est le sacrifice des ὦ 
 Chretiens, infiniment différent de celui qui se pratiquait dans la loi— 
 sacrifice spirituel et digne de la nouvelle alliance, oi la Victime pré- 
 senté n’est pas apercue que par la foi, ot le glaive est la parole qui 
 sépare mystiquement le corps et le sang... sacrifice néanmoins tres 
 véritable en ce que Jésus Christ est véritablement contenu et présenté ἃ 
 Dieu sous cette figure de mort: mais sacrifice de commemoration, qui 
 bien loin de nous “détacher, comme on nous l’objecte, du sacrifice de la 
 croix, nous y attache par toutes ses circonstances. 
 
 P. 1160. 
 
 Les catholiques ne prétendent pas de faire une nouvelle propitiation 
 pour appaiser Dieu de nouveau, comme 5᾽1] ne était pas suffisamment 
 par le sacrifice de la croix, ou pour ajouter quelque supplément au prix 
 de notre salut, comme s’il était Imparfait. 
 
1637] BISHOP BOSSUET. 599 
 
 comes down considerably in this part from the general representation 
 of the priest actually offering up Christ to God as a sacrifice, or as 
 is often said exhibiting a bona fide θυσία or slain sacrifice on the 
 altar, and thus repeating the sacrifice once made on the cross. 
 But the one standing difference between the Reformed faith and 
 his own should ever be the denial of the bodily presence of Christ 
 in the Lord’s supper. The Lutheran, as Bossuet boasts, granted 
 that, and so opened to Bossuet the path to victory. To deny that, 
 which is but an arbitrary assumption, and to make a strong case 
 against it, is the very stronghold of Protestantism. It is open to 
 questioning, and may fairly be discussed in an open arena. It has 
 been again and again thus contended for, and we really think that, 
 when fairly stated, it has always been shewn to have a large balance 
 of probability on its side.] 
 
 P. 1158. “Such is this word’s force, that it prevents our 
 ascribing these external appearances to the substance of bread, 
 and makes us ascribe them to the present body of Jesus Christ ; so 
 that as the presence of so adorable an object is certified to us by 
 this sign, we hesitate not to bring to it our adoration. [Yet the 
 body of Jesus in itself, apart from the Godhead, is not a proper 
 object of worship. | 
 
 P. 273. Ascetic Theology.. Meditation on the Gospel. Jan. 25. 
 “Tet us learn that the eucharist is a remedy from sin. If we 
 purge ourselves from the great it will efface the small, and give us 
 force to escape both small and great sins. 
 
 P.192. Instruction for the Dauphin for his First Communion. . 
 “With the body one receives the blood, and with the blood one 
 receives the body; and one receives with one and the other the 
 
 PB. 1188. 
 
 Telle est la force de cette parole, quelle empéche que nous ne rap- 
 portions ἃ la substance du pain ces apparences extérieures, et nous les fait 
 rapporter au corps de Jésus Christ présent; de sorte que, la présence 
 dun objet si adorable nous étant certifi¢e par ce signe, nous mhésitons 
 pas ἃ y porter nos adorations. 
 
 Tom. III. Théol. ascetique, 11]. Méditat. sur VEvangile. Jan, 25. 
 P. 273. 
 
 Apprenons que l’eucharistie est un reméde des péchés. Si nous nous 
 purgeons des grands, elle effacera les petits, et nous donnera de la force 
 a éviter et les petits et les grands. 
 
 Tom. VIII. Jnstruction ἃ M. le Dauphin pour sa Premiere 
 Communion. P. 192. 
 
 Avec le corps on regoit le sang: et avec le sang on regoit le corps: 
 
600 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. {A.D. 
 
 soul and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which cannot be separated: 
 that is to say, one receives Jesus Christ entire, both God and man, 
 all together. He that Himself gives Himself cannot any more 
 refuse us anything.” 
 
 P. 219. A Treatise on the Communion in the two kinds. P. 321. 
 Under one kind. 
 
 It may be interesting to add two short extracts from the Com- 
 mentary of Madame Guion. “1 Cor. xi. 24, Take, eat, &c. 
 This passage of St Paul, after having related the words of the 
 supper, is yet further a proof of the reality of the body and of the 
 blood of Christ in the eucharist ; for if it be nothing but bread, 
 how is it possible to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ? 
 One is only guilty of that which is there [a false premiss]. If I 
 eat bread unworthily, I am only guilty of having profaned a figu- 
 rative mystery [that is something]. But if I eat the body of Jesus 
 Christ unworthily, I am guilty of an impious action against this 
 body. [Undoubtedly.: This pious court-lady may be only guilty 
 of only seeing the subject from her own point of view, but at least 
 writing like this could not displease her assailants. In fact she 
 writes much like a disciple of Bossuet, adopting his very phrases. ] 
 
 “1 Cor. x. 21, ‘He that eats and drinks unworthily, &c.’ These 
 words ought to cause to tremble not only bad [lay] Christians, but 
 all the priests of criminal life that celebrate it in a sinful con- 
 dition.... They will have to give account of their people whom they 
 have made sin, either through their bad example or through easy 
 
 et on regoit avec l’un et l'autre l’dme et la Divinité de Jésus Christ, qui 
 ne peuvent en étre séparés ; cest a dire qu’on regoit Jésus Christ entier, 
 Dieu et homme tout ensemble.... Qui Se donne Soi-méme ne peut plus 
 rien refuser. See Tom. IX. p. 219. Traité de la Communion sous les 
 deux espéces. P. 321, sous une espece. 
 
 Tom. V. Commentaire de Jeanne Marie Bouvier dela Mothe, Mme Guion. 
 20 tomes. Cologne, 1713. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 24, “ Prenez, mangez, &c.” Ce passage de S. Paul, aprés 
 avoir rapporté les paroles de la céne, est encore une preuve de la realité 
 du corps et dusang de Jésus Christ dans l’eucharistie ; car, si ce n’est que 
 du pain, comment étre “coupable du corps et du sang du Seigneur”? 
 On est coupable de ce qui y est : si je mange du pain indignement, je ne 
 suis pas coupable que d’avoir profané une figure mysterieuse: mais si je 
 mange le corps de Jésus Christ indignement, je suis coupable d’impieté 
 contre ce méme corps. 
 
 1 Cor. x. 21... “Celui qui boit et mange indignement, &c.” Ces 
 paroles les devraient faire trembler non seulement les mauvais Chre- 
 tiens ; mais tant de prétres criminels qui celebrent en mechant état ... 
 ils rendront compte des peuples quils ont fait pécher, ou par le mauvais 
 
1637] BISHOP BOSSUET. 601 
 
 courtesy....There are some confessors that are so far from de- 
 stroying sin, that they promote the very sins in the process of 
 confessions. 
 
 “ Ps, xxiii. 5, ‘Thou preparest a table, &c.’ The festival that God 
 has prepared for us is no other than the very holy eucharist, which 
 is the true support under all afflictions, miseries and temptations ; 
 and those that have experienced these trials ought as often as they 
 can to approach this Divine table. The devil’s most dangerous 
 temptation is to draw Christians into withdrawing from the com- 
 munion during these temptations under the pretext of being un- 
 worthy of it, because he sees that this is the way to ruin them; 
 and that, if they be nourished by this very substantial food, they 
 could not fail nor be weakened, [A strong assertion.] Should 
 this be a reason for depriving a person of nourishment because 
 he is weak, and for saying that he must wait till he is become 
 strong before he is nourished? He will never make himself 
 strong: on the contrary, he will get weaker till he dies. O God, 
 Thy table is prepared for all mankind, but especially for those that 
 are tried and afflicted. I conjure directors not to keep them back 
 from the communion when they are in this state, and not to listen 
 to their scrupulous fears and doubts: for if they had sinned [so 
 greatly] they would not have so much dread of evil, so much fear 
 of displeasing God, or so much sorrow ; and even when the excess 
 of the temptation may have made them fall into some sin of in- 
 firmity, contrary to their desire, it 15 then that they have most 
 
 exemple ou par une liche complaisance..... Il y a des confesseurs qui 
 tolerent et fomentent méme le péché dans les confessionaux, loin de le 
 détruire. 
 
 Ps. xxiii. 5. Le festin que Dieu nous a preparé, &c. n’est autre que 
 la trés sainte eucharistie, qui est le veritable soutien dans toutes les 
 afflictions, dans les miseres, et dans les tentations ; et ceux qui en sont 
 éprouvés doivent s’approcher le plus qwils pourront de cette Divine 
 table. La plus dangereuse tentation du demon est de porter les 
 Chretiens ἃ se retirer de Ja communion dans les tentations, sous pre- 
 texte qu’ils en sont indignes, parceqwil voit bien que c’est le moyen de 
 les perdre ; et que 5115 sont nourris de cette viande si substantielle, ils 
 ne pourront tomber ni étre affoiblis. Serait ce une raison de retrancher 
 la nourriture ἃ une personne parce qu'elle est foible, et de dire qwil faut 
 attendre ἃ la nourrir quelle soit devenue forte? lle ne se fortifiera 
 jamais. Au contraire elle s’affoiblera, jusqu’a ce qu’elle meure. O Dieu 
 votre table est preparée pour tous les hommes, mais singulierement pour 
 ceux qui sont tentés et affligés. Les directeurs sont conjurés de ne 
 les point retirer de la communion, lorsqwils sont dans cet état, et de 
 ne point écouter leurs craintes, leurs scrupules et leurs doutes, car s’ils 
 avoient peché, ils n’auroient tant @horreur du mal, tant de crainte de 
 deplaire ἃ Dieu, ni de si grands douleurs ; et quand méme l’excés de 
 la tentation les auroit fait tomber en quelque foiblesse, n’étant pas 
 
002 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 need of being nourished, and the pain that they suffer is a great 
 remedy to their evils. In God’s name let them force these sick 
 ones, these blind, these lame, to enter into the feast, for such is 
 the purpose of the Father of the family.” 
 
 This passage is a kindred supplement to a choice address of 
 Theodoret, which was cited in its place and was referred to as 
 singularly congruous with the spirit of the appeals of the Church 
 of England addresses‘*on this subject. Madame Guion’s commen- 
 tary on Proverbs ix. brings out some of the peculiar wording 
 which grew around her system, whose aim certainly was to explain 
 and promote entire devotion of heart to God through Christ. 
 
 Some allusion ought perhaps to be made to Professor Upham’s 
 Life of Madame Guion, a work, which no one can read without 
 being struck and attracted by the pictures of exquisite and 
 almost perfect faith and piety which it presents in the persons of 
 Archbishop Fenelon and Madame Guion. To see what the latter 
 had to sufier for simply promoting religion of the heart by faith, 
 which is what she means by the term, Sanctification by Faith, 
 seems to make us ashamed that we have so little opposition and 
 evil-speaking to bear for Christ’s sake. 
 
 volontaire, cest alors quwils ont plus de besoin d’étre nourris; et la 
 douleur qwils en souffrent est un grand remede a leurs maux. Au nom 
 de Dieu que Von force ces malades, ces aveugles ces boiteux d’entrer 
 dans le festin ; car c’est intention du Pere de la famille. 
 
 (Y.) JOHN CLAUDE, MINISTER AND MEMBER OF THE CONSISTORY 
 OF CHARENTON. B. 1619. D. 1687. 
 
 One would almost believe that this learned and unbending 
 controversialist is a lineal descendant of Claudius (Claude) who 
 was first made Bishop of Avranches, and afterwards planted by 
 Louis le Debonair, son of Charlemagne, at Turin, to check the 
 worship of images and of the cross and of relics of saints on the 
 French side of Italy. This work of Bishop Claude of Turin, we 
 have seen carried on at Lyons with somewhat less of determi- 
 nation by Agobard, the man of science, who was so far in advance 
 of his age. The same staunch immobility and utter fearlessness 
 
1019] JOHN CLAUDE. 603 
 
 which were displayed by Claude of Turin, who died in 839, stand 
 forth in this noted Huguenot Pastor who defended Albertinus 
 (Aubertin) from the powerful assault of the great Antoine Ar- 
 nauld in his Perpétuité de la Foi, and had to contend with Bossuet 
 himself. It was one of the features of the revocation of the Edict 
 of Nantes by which Louis XIV. inflicted exile on all Protestants, 
 that this minister of Charenton received orders to quit Paris in 
 24 hours. Such was the pitch of Jesuit hatred and perhaps of 
 fear towards the man who could enter the lists with Bossuet, and 
 be deemed by his own side the victor in the great struggle. None 
 can doubt his learning, or dispute the conciseness and directness 
 of his reasoning. It is therefore little to the credit of the Jesuits 
 of that age that they exiled Antoine Arnauld as well as M. Claude. 
 The former, as we have seen, retired to Belgium, and this sufferer 
 went to Holland. It is no wonder that M. Claude in his two 
 years’ exile published “The lamentations (plaintes) of the cruelly 
 -“oppressed Protestants of France.” He, as well as M. Arnauld, 
 had been a leading spirit of the Sorbonne, which may well be 
 proud of such children. But M. Claude’s work on the eucharist 
 is of the personal character that defies abridgement. It is only 
 possible to insert a few samples of his doctrine and reasoning. 
 He laboured as a Christian minister at Montauban and Nismes 
 before he was called to take the place of M. Aubertin at Cha- 
 renton in the suburbs of the capital; a position, which installed 
 him in the dignity of president of the reformed religion in France. 
 There are not two opinions about his having been the head of 
 what was then (somewhat unhappily for our subject) entitled the 
 Calvinist party in France. 
 
 The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages. Ἐ. Ul. ο. 2. 
 London, 1686. 
 
 P. 114. On “the Greeks refusing to use the term transub- 
 “stantiation.” “This Arcudius himself is forced to confess in the 
 same place, where he would persuade us that the Greeks believe 
 in the conversion of substances; “In the sacrament of the eu- 
 ‘charist; says he, ‘the Greeks acknowledge, embrace and believe 
 ‘with a firm faith, veram μετουσίωσιν, a real transubstantiation, 
 ‘as it appears by the testimony of the Greek fathers of all ages, ° 
 ‘and lately by that of Jeremias the patriarch of Constantinople 
 ‘in the tenth chapter of his censure on the Lutherans...and al- 
 ‘though they use not this term, yet have they invented others 
 
004 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘by which they explain themselves as fully as can be desired. 
 ‘Dicunt enim μεταβάλλεσθαι καὶ μεταβολὴν, μεταποιεῖσθαι καὶ 
 “μεταποίησιν, καὶ μετάβασιν, μεταρρυθμίζειν, μετασκευάζειν, μετα- 
 “στοιχειοῦν, τελείωσιν et τελειοῦν, μετέναξιν, aliaque, id genus.’ 
 
 P. 11ὅ. “M. Arnaud, who has made an exact search by him- 
 self and his friends, cannot produce one passage that bears this 
 expression; which in my judgment is an evident token that it 
 is not in them. We may see likewise the books of the most ap- 
 proved authors, as of John Damascene, Nicephorus, the patriarch 
 of Constantinople, Photius, Theophylact, Gicumenius, Zonaras, 
 Germain, Balsamon, Nicetas Choniates, Cabirilas, Mark of Ephesus, 
 Jeremias the Patriarch, Metrophanus, and as many others whose 
 works are extant, in which we find no such expression as answers 
 that of transubstantiation....And Μ. Arnaud himself has been 
 forced to acknowledge that this word μετουσίωσις is not that 
 which the Greeks ordinarily use, whereby to explain transubstan- 
 tiation. 
 
 “The Latins, who have not in common use either the term 
 substantiatio or substantiare, have invented or admitted of that 
 of transubstantiatio and transubstantiare as most proper to ex- 
 press their conception on that subject; so that this considera- 
 tion, that we find not this kind of expressions in the writings 
 of the Greeks, is a kind of proof that they believe not the thing 
 signified by them, &e. &e. 
 
 P. 117. After quoting the Lateran decree, which defined the 
 doctrine and gave the name in 1215, M. Claude proceeds, “ But 
 it is otherwise with the Greeks: for besides what I said, that they 
 use not the term μετουσίωσις but reject it, it will not be found 
 that they use any expressions which come near them of the church 
 of Rome, or mention anything relating to a substantial conversion, 
 or presence of substance under the accidents of bread and wine, 
 or change of one substance into another, which is what ought to 
 be said to shew that they believed in transubstantiation...We see 
 not anything of this kind appear in the canons of their councils, 
 confessions of faith or liturgies, books of devotions or any of their 
 writings, whether published by their modern or ancient divines: 
 and certainly it is very strange these people should believe in 
 transubstantiation, and yet at the same time not so much as de- 
 clare in express terms this their belief.” [Cyril Lucar and others 
 use it.] 
 
 I have let M. Claude enjoy sufficient space; but it may well 
 be suggested that all this adroit and fine argumentation really 
 turns on the absence of this one term among the Greeks; who 
 nevertheless hold I think every other but this one, which in 
 
1019] JOHN CLAUDE. 605 
 
 Cent. XIII. was invented to express the real presence of Christ’s 
 body in or under the visible symbols. 
 
 It would I confess be more pleasant to me as a controversialist, 
 who loves unity and peace whenever they can be had without a 
 sacrifice of truth, to have seen M. Claude and M. Arnauld united 
 in the effort to discover how far they were really in accord, instead 
 of this toilsome struggle on the part of M. Claude to make the 
 ditference between them appear as great as possible. Time taught 
 them that they had common enemies, who reckoned little of their 
 differences of opinion, and who saw in both of them advocates of 
 that spiritual and Augustinian truth to which the Jesuits were 
 irreconcilably opposed, and which they had already trampled down 
 in the cases of Jansenius, and Duvergier d’Hauranne, and all 
 other devout and enlightened Port Royalists. The acumen and the 
 immeasurable mastery small of facts possessed by M. Claude are 
 precious aids towards reaching sound conclusions; but necessary 
 in quite an equal degree are a yearning desire of agreement, and 
 a loving wish to make the most of what is true or near to truth 
 in another. 
 
 (Z.) EDWARD STILLINGFLEET, BISHOP OF WORCESTER. 
 B. 1635. vb. 1689. 
 
 It is common to hear persons say “I prefer South to Stilling- 
 “fleet by far:” which seems to be just a particular instance of the 
 general saying, “I like the dashing dicta of a powerful orator above 
 “all the irresistible proofs by which a clear reasoner quietly builds 
 “up the high fabric of truth.” It must be allowed that this author 
 does not always cling to the calm path of clear reasoning, but not 
 unfrequently lets his energy find vent in strong language of a 
 lower type. But otherwise, to adopt his own expression, he is 
 eminently “a man that understands himself,” one that unseru- 
 pulous defendants of a false cause may well fear. His portrait 
 confirms this idea. His face seems to give the idea of considerable 
 power and complete self-possession. His great point, vz. that 
 Christ’s body is not present in the Lord’s supper after the manner 
 of spirit, is wisely taken up by Dean Goode as an irresistible nega- 
 tive conclusion, to the confusion of Bellarmine’s arguments to the 
 contrary. Would that none of such reasoners as Stillingfleet had 
 
~ 
 
 606 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ever held the affirmative that there is some kind of bodily presence 
 of Christ in the Lord’s supper. If there is any bodily presence 
 of Christ in that sacrament, that body is in mnumerable places on 
 earth at once as well as in Heaven at God’s right hand: and all 
 the strange conclusions that follow upon ubiquity, follow equally 
 upon its multipresence. And yet often this author shews that 
 he believes that Christ’s body is in Heaven and not on earth. 
 See the remarks on Dean Goode’s book against the Archdeacons 
 Denison and Wilberforce in the nineteenth century. © for the 
 day when what such lay minds as Hallam and Coleridge saw to be 
 the only alternative, might generally approve itself to the great 
 band of thinking clergy, viz. either the approval of the bona-fide - 
 presence of the body in the supper as a body, or the denial of any 
 bodily presence of Christ in it at all. On the latter side of the 
 alternative there are only present the grace of Christ, the reception 
 which the term “eating His body” figuratively describes, and the 
 presence of the Godhead of Christ, which, if we may so speak, touches 
 and is united with His body and human mind in Heaven, and also 
 touches our souls and bodies on earth. But it seems as unreason- 
 able to argue from this quasi-contact of Christ's Deity with His 
 body in Heaven and our bodies on earth, that His body and 
 ours touch one another on earth, as it would be to affirm that 
 because a man touches the earth in England and another touches 
 it in New Zealand, the two men touch one another and are in the 
 same place. One might then also affirm that the north and south 
 poles touch one another, and that the north pole is present with 
 the south pole at the south, and that the south pole is present 
 with the north pole at the north. Those that wish to dispute this 
 reasoning can only do it by making Christ’s limited human body 
 coextensive, wherever the Lord’s supper is rightly celebrated, with 
 His Godhead, Which is in every such place because It is every- 
 where. ΤῸ assert a presence of power and efficacy only is to deny 
 a bodily presence. 
 
 This bishop sprang from the Stillingfleets of Stillingfleet, 
 which is five miles from York. His grandfather’s brother was 
 Abbot of York. But the bishop was born at Cranborne in Dor- 
 setshire. He went to St John’s, Cambridge, in 1648. ΑἹ] his 
 preferments were in London except his first, Sutton Vicarage in 
 Bedfordshire, and his last, his bishopric. His lite is part of the 
 history of the Church of England. 
 
1635] BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. 607 
 
 Note. It is incumbent on me to assert that the reasonings, in 
 this life, respecting the impossibility of a small limited substance 
 such as a human body becoming so extended as to be present in a 
 multitude of places at once all over Christendom, are not, as 
 Leibnitz put it, simply a question of the extensibility of matter in 
 the abstract without limit ; which I suppose no one would venture 
 to deny. For it is about matter in the form of a living human 
 body, whose enormous asserted multipresence we are bold to deny. 
 For the miracle is not that an infinitesimally small portion is 
 present in such, but that in each place is a whole and entire body, 
 totus integerque Christus ; and that not, as the Franciscan said, by 
 the evocation of so many entire bodies, but as the Dominicans 
 maintained, by miraculously making one and tbe same entire 
 body present everywhere, in which supposition it ceases to be a 
 human body. That is to say, a human body in Heaven may be 
 united to the Deity there, but it cannot be united to the Deity 
 anywhere else too without ceasing to be a true-living human body. 
 Some have vainly tried to escape the difficulty by asserting that 
 it is Christ’s dead body that is given; but His body is alive 
 for ever. 
 
 Grounds of Protestant Religion against T. C. Vol. tv. Pt. τη. ο. 3. 
 London, 1709. 
 
 P. 531. “<The first in the indictment, as you say, “15 that of 
 ‘the priest’s intention defined by the councils of Florence and Trent 
 ‘(both of them confirmed by the pope), to be essentially necessary to 
 ‘a sacrament. Concerning this there are two things to be enquired 
 into, (1) Whether this doth not render all pretence of infallibility 
 with you a vain and useless thing : (2) Whether it be not in itself an 
 error. He [the primate] was shewing that your claim of infalli- 
 bility is of no use at all for the settling of truth and peace in the 
 church, because no man can either know or believe this infalli- 
 bility. It cannot be believed with Divine faith, having no foun- 
 dation in the written word of God or tradition of the catholic 
 church : and no human faith can be sufficient in order to it. But 
 neither can it be believed or known upon that decree of the 
 councils of Florence and Trent, that the intention of the priest is 
 necessary to the validity of a sacrament. 
 
 P. 539. “We make no more necessary to the essence of a 
 sacrament than all men are judges of... you have no positive 
 assurance of the priest’s intention. The utmost you can pretend 
 to is your having no ground to suspect it; which in many cases 
 there may be. 
 
008 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 540. ‘In case the priest’s intention be wanting, you must 
 by your own confession be guilty of gross idolatry: and yet you 
 cannot certainly know what the priest’s intention was. This is 
 plain in the case of the eucharist, whose adoration you profess to 
 be lawful, because you suppose Christ to be present there [1.6. in 
 His body]. Now this depends upon a thing impossible for you 
 certainly to know; and that is the priest’s intention in the conse- 
 cration. For if the priest wanted that inward intention which 
 you make necessary to the essence of a sacrament, then for all 
 his pronouncing the words of consecration, Hoc est corpus Meum, 
 Christ’s body may not be there: and in case it be not there, you 
 are by your own confession guilty of idolatry, for you do not 
 then worship Christ, but merely the bread. Therefore supposing 
 adoration of the eucharist upon your principle of transubstan- 
 tiation were not idolatry, yet, since that depends on a thing 
 impossible to be known, who can with a good conscience do that, 
 in which he cannot be certain that, in the doing it, he may not 
 commit the greatest idolatry ? Wherefore, all the ill consequences 
 of this doctrine of the intention of the priest considered, besides 
 the palpable errors of it, never was any doctrine more imprudently 
 contrived or more weakly managed than when this was decreed at 
 the councils of Florence and Trent, &c., &e. 
 
 P. 560. Against denying the cup to laymen: and see VI. 564. 
 After quoting Cyprian’s letter 63, Stillmgfleet says, “I insist on 
 this testimony, not only for the clearness of it as to the custom of 
 giving the cup to the people, but especially for the evidence con- 
 tained in it of the unalterable nature of the institution of Christ. 
 For that he looks on the great fault of them who ministered 
 water instead of wine, that they therein departed from the example 
 and precept of Christ. Now there cannot be produced any greater 
 evidence of my obligation as to this than there is as to the giving 
 of the cup itself. For here is Christ’s example and institution 
 equally as to both of them, and that in the same words, ‘ Drink ye 
 ‘all of it. If that were such a departing from the institution to 
 alter the liquor, would it not have been accounted as great to take 
 away the cup wholly ?... Upon the same reason doth pope Julius 
 afterwards condemn the using milk instead of wine because con- 
 trary to Christ’s institution: and so he doth the dipping the 
 bread in the chalice: from whence we infer that they looked on 
 Christ’s example in the institution and administration to be unal- 
 terable. But most express is the testimony of pope Gelasius, who 
 finding, some, from the remainders of Manicheism, did abstain from 
 the cup, gives express order that they, who were infected with 
 this odd superstition, either should receive the whole sacrament or 
 abstain wholly from it: because the dividing one and the same 
 mystery cannot be done without great sacrilege. To this Bellar- 
 mine says that two answers are commonly given: one that those 
 
1635] BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. 609 
 
 words are meant of priests; another that they relate only to those 
 superstitious persons. But both of them are taken off sufficiently 
 by the reason assigned, which is not fetched either from their 
 priesthood or superstition, but only from the institution of Christ, 
 that it would be sacrilege to part those things, which Christ by 
 His institution had joined together. Thus we see the sense of the 
 church is clear, not only for the practice but for the command too, 
 and the sinfulness of the violation of it. 
 
 Vol. V. Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome. C. I. 
 “Tn adoration of the host and invocation of saints. To take off 
 the common answer, that this could not be idolatry because they 
 believed the bread to be God; upon the same ground, I said, they 
 who believe the sun to be God and worship him on that account 
 would be excused from idolatry too...(1) supposing there were the 
 same revelation of Christ’s Divinity and of His presence in the 
 eucharist by transubstantiation, yet there could not be the same 
 reason for the adoration of the host as for worshipping Christ 
 Himself. (2) That there are not the same motives and grounds 
 to believe that doctrine of transubstantiation that there are to 
 believe that Christ is God. (3) That supposing they are mis- 
 taken in their doctrine of transubstantiation, that doth not excuse 
 them from idolatry. (4) That the same reason which would excuse 
 them would excuse the most gross idolaters in the world. 
 
 Vol. VI. The doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation 
 compared. “S. Augustine saith, he [Eutychius] held but one 
 substance after the union [of God and man in Christ]; so that he 
 must deny any substance of a (human) body to remain after the 
 union, which he averred to be wholly swallowed up, and the pro- 
 perties (only) to continue. Which was another kind of transub- 
 stantiation: for no more of the substance of Christ’s body was 
 supposed to remain after the union than there is supposed to be in 
 the elements after consecration. But in both cases the properties 
 and qualities were the same still. And it is observable that in the 
 acts of the council of Chalcedon, Eutyches rejected it as a calumny 
 cast upon him, that he should hold that Christ brought a body 
 from Heaven. But the Eutychian doctrine lay in taking away 
 the substance of the body and making the Divinity the sole sub- 
 stance, but with the accidents and properties of the body. And for 
 this they produced the words of St John, ‘The Word was made 
 ‘flesh, which they urged with the same confidency that you now 
 do, ‘This is My body.’ And when they were urged with difficul- 
 ties, they made the same recourse to God’s omnipotency, and the 
 letter of Scripture, and made the same declamations against the 
 use of reason that you now do: and withal they would not have | 
 the human nature to be annihilated, but to be changed into the | 
 Divine, just as your authors do about the substance of the bread. | 
 
 Hak 39 
 
610 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 So that it is hard to imagine a more exact parallel to transubstan- 
 ' tiation than there is in this doctrine; and consequently there can 
 ' be no more evident proof of it, than the fathers making use of the 
 - eucharist to shew, that as the substance of bread doth remain after 
 ᾿ consecration, so the substance of Christ’s body doth continue after 
 _ the union [1.6. of the Divine and human natures in Christ]. And 
 ' when the fathers from the remaining properties do prove the sub- 
 _ stance to remain, they overthrow the possibility of transubstan- 
 tiation. For, if they might be without the substance, their whole 
 argument loses its force and proves just nothing. 
 
 P. 599. “1 proceed to a second argument...and that is. from 
 the natural and inseparable qualities of Christ’s body, which are 
 utterly inconsistent with the belief in transubstantiation ; and the 
 force of this argument lies in this, that the fathers did attribute 
 such things to the body of Christ, which render it incapable of 
 being present in such a manner in the sacrament as transubstan- 
 tiation supposes. And no men who understand themselves will 
 assert that at one time, which they must be bound to deny at 
 another; but they will be sure to make an exception or limitation 
 which may reconcile both together. As if you should say, That 
 the body of Christ cannot be in more places than one, upon the 
 doctrine of Thomas, ye (yet) should presently add ‘with regard to 
 ‘the sacrament, 1.6. not in regard of its natural presence, but in a 
 
 ‘sacramental it may.’ So, if ‘the fathers find an opinion like yours 
 as to the body of Christ, ‘they would have a reserve or exception 
 as to the sacrament. But it appears by their writings that they 
 attribute such properties in general to the body of Christ as over- 
 throw any such presence (being) without exceptions or limitations. 
 But this is not all, for I shal! now prove (1) that they attribute 
 circumscription to Christ’s body in Heaven, so as to exclude the 
 possibility of its being on earth; (2) that they deny any such 
 thing as the supernatural existence of a body after the manner of 
 a spirit, 
 
 P.612. That a body cannot be anywhere without dimensions. 
 P. (z.e. the Papist). ‘“ Hold a little: a body must have dimensions 
 belonging to it: but it is not necessary it should have those di- 
 mensions wherever it 15 present; for it may be present in one 
 place as a body, and in another after the manner of a spirit. 
 
 “Pr. (ὦ 6. the Protestant). You -might as well have said, a 
 body may be considered two ways: as it is a body, and as it is not 
 a body; for there can be no body where there are not dimensions 
 proper to it. 
 
 “P. See how you are mistaken ; for it is not the dimensions, 
 which seem to hinder a body from being in two places at once, but 
 its unity, as Bellarmine well observes. 
 
 “Pr, Isay that both of them hinder, &c., ὅσ. 
 
1035] BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. 611 
 
 P. 614. The true interpretation of Hilary. “P. But Hilary’s 
 testimony cannot be so avoided; who saith that we as truly eat 
 Christ’s flesh mm the sacrament, as He was truly incarnate, &c. 
 
 “Pr. Ido not deny this to be Hilary’s sense [and then Stilling- 
 fleet makes the Protestant add], but yet this proves nothing like 
 to transubstantiation. For it amounts to no more than a real 
 presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament. 
 
 Then §. defines a real presence of Christ’s body to mean that 
 the faithful at least as truly eat Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, 
 as He was truly incarnate. This is precisely what has been 
 throughout maintained as the only proper sense of the words 
 “a real presence” in this controversy; for who ever disputed the 
 real presence of Christ’s Godhead in the place of this sacrament 
 and everywhere ? and yet he makes the Protestant add, “ All that 
 “he (Hilary) aimed at was to prove a real union between Christ 
 “and His people.” Is it fair thus to slip off to the spiritual sub- 
 jective sense of a “real union”? Let everyone examine for him- 
 self the extracts taken from Hilary. It is surely to be lamented 
 that great divines should plead as partisans, and quit the higher 
 ground of candid acknowledgment and unfearing adhesion to the 
 simple truth.” If fathers have erred, let it be confessed, and then 
 they will retain all the honour that is legitimately theirs. The 
 Bible must test both them and us; and what they added which 
 is incoherent must fall away. 
 
 P. 713. “A vindication of The Answer to some papers lately 
 printed on the Authority of the Catholic Church. 4. Auricular con- 
 fession. The council of Trent declares secret confession of all sins 
 to be necessary in order to remission and absolution by the priest 
 [chiefly with a view to partaking of the Lord’s supper]. Gregory 
 the Great speaks of no other confession than what was required in 
 order to the conciliation of those who had undergone public pe- 
 nance; the custom whereof at Rome is set down in Gelasius his 
 sacramentary. 
 
 P. 63. “And Gregory refers to the custom then used, in his 
 sacramentary. 
 
 P. 225. “And there is no form of absolution in either of them, 
 but by way of prayer to God, which is different from a sacra- 
 mental, judicial absolution, required by the council of Trent. He 
 makes no absolution true but that which follows the judgment of 
 God, which he parallels with the loosing of Lazarus after Christ 
 had raised him from the grave. Hom, 26 in Evangel.” 
 
 90---9 
 
612 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (AA.) DR ISAAC BARROW. B. 1630. D. 1677. 
 
 Charterhouse has the honour of his education. He lived but 
 47 years. Deduct from this the years spent in immaturity of 
 body and in the training and filling of his mind, and we have only 
 some ten or, at the most, seventeen years for the production of his 
 marvellously clear and complete theological works. For also, much 
 of his mind, after being elected fellow, must have been devoted to 
 mathematics, as he stands out as the first Lucasian Professor in 
 1663. Sir Isaac Newton, his pupil, succeeded him in 1669. After 
 this Dr Barrow survived but eight years. Making, then, all allow- 
 ance for the growing up of systematic theology in such a mind as 
 Dr Barrow’s, and for some theological writing being done in the 
 period before this, one may yet express surprise at the three folio 
 volumes, and a smaller one entitled Opuscula, filled with such 
 complete treatises as Barrow has left to the world. To particu- 
 larize them is unnecessary. It is sufficient that not Usher himself, 
 nor William Tyndale, nor that gem of the fathers on the subject 
 of this work, Theodore, has more clearly expressed scriptural 
 opinions on the Lord’s supper. Dr Barrow’s desire seems to have 
 been to follow the words of Him Who brought truth as well as 
 grace to His church in the fulness of time, and those other words 
 in which His servant Paul first declares what the Lord had com- 
 mitted to him, and then comments upon it, and alone of all the 
 apostles directs the church of Christ what she is to believe re- 
 garding the Lord’s supper to the end of time, 7.e. until Christ 
 come again. 
 
 The doctrine of the Sacraments. Vol. I. London, 1687. 
 
 P. 542. Barrow says that when signs belong to Divine things 
 they are called sacraments. 
 
 P. 549. “That these symbolical things and actions did repre- 
 sent our Saviour’s body given and broken [and] our Saviour’s 
 blood shed and poured out for us in sanction of the new covenant. 
 ‘Do this, saith our Lord, ‘for My remembrance,’ or in commemo- 
 ration of Me, 1.6. so as thereby to have raised in you a reflexion 
 of mind and heart upon those grievous pains which I shall have 
 endured for your sake, to procure for you a remission of sins and 
 
1630] BARROW. 613 
 
 reconciliation to God...1 Cor. xi. 26, ‘ Ye tell forth,’ or significantly 
 express the death of our Lord, till He come, 7.6. during His absence 
 from us....A solemn and sensible representation, wherein we be- 
 hold Him crucified as it were in effigie...1t being, in a sort, a 
 putting us into the circumstances of those who did behold our 
 Saviour for us hanging on the cross...our Lord being absent from 
 us, sitting in Heaven at God’s right hand. 
 
 P. 532. “St Paul, 1 Cor. xi. To ‘discern’ or distinguish our 
 Lord’s body, 1.6. yielding a peculiar reverence of mind and be- 
 haviour in regard thereto—a devotion of heart consisting of hearty 
 contrition for our sins, which did expose our Saviour to the enduring 
 of such pains. 
 
 P. 559. “We in the outward action partake of the symbols 
 representing our Saviour. We in the spiritual intention commu- 
 nicate of His very person, being (according to the manner in-/ 
 sinuated) intimately united to Him. Bread is the staff of life, the 
 most common, most necessary, the most wholesome and at the 
 same time the most savoury meat. Wine is the most pleasant and 
 wholesome, also the most sprightly and cordial drink. By them, 
 therefore, our Lord chose to represent that body and blood, by the 
 oblation of which a capacity of life and health was procured to 
 mankind ; the taking in which by right apprehension, tasting it 
 by hearty faith, digesting it by careful attention and meditation, 
 converting it into our substance by devout, grateful and holy 
 affections, joined with steady resolutions of living answerable 
 thereto, will certainly support and maintain our spiritual life in 
 a vigorous health and happy growth in grace, refreshing our hearts 
 with comfort and satisfaction unspeakable. He that doeth this eats 
 our Saviour’s flesh and drinks His blood; ὦ. 6. who, as our Saviour 
 interpreteth it, doth believe in Him; that belief importing all 
 other acts of mind and will connected with right persuasion con- 
 cerning Him, hath eternal life and shall live for ever, as Himself 
 declares and promises ; which benefits, therefore, in the due per- 
 formance of this holy duty y are conveyed to us.’ 
 
 (BB.) JOHN TILLOTSON. B. 1630. D. 1694. 
 
 He was born at Sowerby near Halifax. His father was a 
 elothier and a strict Calvinist, and sent him to Clare Hall. 
 But when Charles II. was restored to the throne, Tillotson felt 
 able to conform, and was made a Prebendary of Canterbury and 
 chaplain to the King. He was afterwards made dean of St Paul’s. 
 He stood stedfast against all the plausible attempts of general 
 comprehension, discerning the animus of the court. He attended 
 
614 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 on Lord William Russell at his execution, and when Sancroft 
 became a nonjuror at the elevation of William III. to the vacant 
 throne, Tillotson was made primate. His three volumes of sermons 
 are diversely estimated; but upon them his reputation as a 
 preacher must stand. I suppose the treatise, from which I have 
 quoted, to be his. It is a little too broad in its style to make 
 large citations useful. I would not pass over so great and popular 
 and enlightened a primate. 
 
 A discourse against Transubstuntiation. London, 1864. Ascribed 
 to Archbishop Tillotson in a book from the library of the 
 late Duke of Sussex. 
 
 Pp. 21. “1 shall now in the second place speak of the particular 
 time and occasion of the coming in of this doctrine [Transubstan- 
 tiation] and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was 
 advanced into an article of faith in the Romish Church, The 
 doctrine of the corporal presence of Christ was first started upon 
 occasion of the dispute about the worship of images, in opposition 
 whereto the synod of Constantinople about the year 750 did argue 
 thus, That our Lord having left us no other image of Himself but 
 the sacrament, in which the substance of bread is the image of 
 His body, we ought to make no other image of our Lord. [As to 
 the inaccuracy of the assertion that the corporal presence of Christ 
 in this sacrament was not affirmed till the dispute about the 
 worship of images, it is sufficient to refer to the teaching of Cyril 
 of Jerusalem and most of the writers in the fourth century. 
 Image-worship is supposed to have become rife in the fifth century, 
 and the dispute about it in the Eastern church was later, say in 
 the time of Copronymus.] In answer to this argument the second 
 council of Nice in the year 787 did declare that the sacrament 
 after consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ’s body 
 and blood, but is properly His body and blood. So that the 
 corporal presence of Christ was first brought in to support the 
 stupid worship of images... And as this was the first occasion of 
 introducing this doctrine among the Greeks, so in the Latin or 
 Roman church Paschasius Radbertus, first a monk and afterwards 
 Abbot of Corbey, was the first broacher of it in the year 818. 
 [Assertions like this. are so common that appello Cesarem. I 
 ask every man to judge for himself: and the aim of these volumes 
 is simply to facilitate the appeal by setting together a large 
 number of the principal passages from the first century downwards 
 in their original languages and with a translation. ] 
 
 P. 41. “Upon the whole matter I shall only say this, that 
 some other points between us and the Church of Rome are 
 
1630} TILLOTSON, 615 
 
 managed with some kind of wit and subtilty, but this of transub- 
 stantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing 
 down of mankind. And of this the discerning persons of that 
 church are of late grown so sensible that they would now be glad 
 to be rid of that odious doctrine. But the council of Trent hath 
 fastened it to their religion and made it a necessary and essential 
 point of their belief, and they cannot now part with it if they 
 would. Itis likea millstone hung about the neck of Popery, which 
 will sink it at the last; and though some of their greatest wits, 
 as Cardinal Perron and of late M. Arnauld, have undertaken the 
 defence of it in great volumes, yet it is an absurdity of that 
 monstrous and massy weight that no human authority or wit are 
 able to support it. It will make the very pillars of 5. Peter's 
 crack, and requires more volumes to make it good than would fill 
 the Vatican... Credulity is certainly a fault as well as infidelity ; 
 and He Who said ‘ Blessed are they that have not seen and yet 
 ‘have believed,’ hath nowhere said, ‘ Blessed are they that have 
 ‘seen and yet have not believed,’ much less ‘Blessed are they that 
 ‘believe directly contrary to what they see,’ 
 
 P. 43. “This doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us 
 to be destitute of all Divine warrant and authority, our objections 
 against it from the manifold contradictions of it to reason and 
 sense are so many demonstrations of the falsehood of it. Against 
 all which they have nothing to put in the opposite scale but the 
 infallibility of their church, for which there is even less colour of 
 proof from Scripture.” 
 
 (CC.) _ BISHOP BULL. B. 1634. D. 1710. 
 
 A native of Wells. Entered at Exeter College. No one can 
 dispute his right to be ranked among the great men of the Church 
 of England. His Harmonia Apostolica was however, propheti- 
 cally at least, an infelicitous title; for it brought anything rather 
 than unity and peace to the subject of man’s justification. And 
 in all candour it must be allowed that the extract from it, 
 given as his true confession of faith, in his life by the notable 
 Robert Nelson, p. 395, is set to a different keynote from the 
 teachings of St Paul and St James. No wonder then that his 
 treatise called up much and long controversy. Perhaps this is the 
 chief reason why he was not made bishop till he was 71. 
 
 His other great subject, those revealed characteristics of God’s 
 nature, which form the ground of the Athanasian Creed, was 
 
616 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 handled with greater prudence, and has left the church under 
 larger obligation. His views on the compatibility of subordina- 
 tion with equality of nature and power seem to be just. He is 
 safer than Dr Clarke. Nevertheless the mind rejects his principle, 
 p. 366, of “submitting our judgment to that of the catholic 
 “doctors, where they are found generally to concur in the inter- 
 “ pretation of a text of Scripture, how absurd soever that imterpre- 
 “tation may at first seem to be.” This is an amount of submission 
 which we can only render to God’s word. The extracts in this 
 very volume seem to prove a direct negative to this rule: for the 
 general interpretation of the text “This is My body,” to say no 
 more, verges on the absurd, and it does not seem right to submit 
 to it. In fact Bull’s rule breaks in upon and supersedes the duty 
 of private judgment ; and is directly contrary to the immortal 
 teaching of Bull’s great contemporary, Chillingworth. But no 
 student of the fathers would like to lose Bull’s aid, especially in 
 judging of the writers of the first three centuries. 
 
 If such be at all a right measure of this author, there is little 
 room to wonder that his views on the Lord’s supper somewhat 
 departed from the simplicity that was in Paul and in our Lord. 
 
 Corruptions of the Church of Rome, in answer to Bossuet. 
 Oxford. 
 
 11. 308. “Come we now to the principal part of the Christian 
 worship, the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. [On taking the 
 cup from the laity he refers to Bishop Davenant.].... But the 
 worst ceremony of all is the elevation of the host, to be adored by 
 the people, as very Christ Himself under the appearance of bread, 
 whole Christ, Θεάνθρωπος, God and man, while they neglect the 
 old sursum corda, the lifting up of their hearts to Heaven where 
 whole Christ indeed is... thinking that a piece of bread can by 
 any means whatsoever or howsoever consecrated and_ blessed, 
 become their very God and Saviour. [A part of this is only 
 rhetorical censure—we do not call it logical: so also a part of 
 what follows.| Moreover by what reason, by what Scripture, by 
 what example or practice of the primitive churches, can the 
 Romanists defend their carrying about of the blessed Sacrament in 
 procession ? &. [A Papist would plead in behalf of processions 
 that they make people believe and adore Christ’s bodily presence. 
 Had the bishop omitted “ by what reason” his appeal would have 
 been logical and stronger, ad homines. But now we come to the 
 bishop’s own views. | 
 
1634] BISHOP BULL. 617 
 
 P. 252. “They (the primitive fathers) held the eucharist to 
 be a commemorative sacrifice; and so do we. This is the constant 
 language of the ancient liturgies, Meurnpévor προσφέρομεν, ‘ We 
 ‘offer by way of commemoration.’... In the eucharist then Christ 
 is offered .... Every sacrifice is directed to God and the oblation 
 therein made, whatsoever it be, hath God for its object. In the 
 holy eucharist therefore we set before God the bread and wine. 
 [Mingled with this in his sentences are views of another tone and 
 a different nature and tendency.] ‘As figures or images, το. 
 the very words of the Clementine Liturgy, τὰ avtituma... and 
 [we] plead to God the merits of His Son’s sacrifice once offered on 
 the cross for us sinners and in this sacrament represented ... offered 
 not hypostatically, as the Trent fathers determined (for so was He 
 but once offered) but commemoratively only, not a bare remem- 
 bering or putting ourselves in mind of Him. 
 
 “To conclude this matter. The ancients held the oblation of 
 the eucharist to be answerable in some respect to the legal sacri- 
 fices, 1.6. they believed that our blessed Saviour ordained the 
 sacrifice of the eucharist as a rite of prayer and praise to God 
 instead of the manifold and bloody sacrifices of the law... Instead 
 therefore of slaying of beasts and burning of incense, &e., the 
 fathers 1 say believed God appointed this sacrifice of bread and 
 wine [&c. as before ; see Mede’s Christian sacrifice]. The eucharis- 
 tical sacrifice, thus explained, is indeed λογικὴ θυσία, a reasonable 
 sacrifice, &c. The other branch of the article is concerning transub- 
 stantiation [he quotes the words of institution]. But these words 
 could not be true in a proper sense, &c., &c. These words must 
 necessarily be understood in a figurative sense... a representation 
 of My death and passion near approaching, &c. Little foundation 
 hath this doctrine of transubstantiation in the primitive church, 
 as appears sufficiently from what has been said concerning the 
 notion then universally received of the eucharistical sacrifice [the 
 reference to the Clementine Liturgy, &c., previously quoted]... 
 The ancient doctors, yea the liturgies of the church affirm the 
 eucharist to be incruentum sacrificium, ‘a sacrifice without blood.’ 
 ... [Greg. Naz., Cyril, Jerome and Ambrose.] We are not ignorant 
 that the ancient fathers generally teach that the bread and wine 
 in the eucharist, by or upon the consecration of them, do become 
 and are made the body and blood of Christ. But we know also 
 that though they do not all explain themselves the same way, yet 
 they do all declare their sense to be very dissonant from the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation. Some of the most ancient fathers, 
 as Justin Martyr and Irenzeus, seem to have had this notion that 
 by or upon the sacerdotal benediction the Spirit of Christ or 
 a Divine virtue from Christ descends upon the elements and 
 accompanies them to all worthy communicants, and that therefore 
 they are said to be, and are, the body and blood of Christ—the 
 
618 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 same Divinity which is hypostatically united to the body of 
 Christ in Heaven being virtually united to the elements of bread 
 and wine on earth, &¢., &e. 
 
 All this is what became preeminently the theology of the 
 seventeenth century on this subject—a kind of swaying to and fro 
 between Roman doctrine and the Bible. Few ages have stood 
 clear of it, nor did Calvin. In fact part of this is purely his 
 doctrine. This kind of teaching is (1) The Lord’s supper is a 
 sacrifice, yet not in the Romish way. But the answer is, Where 
 did our Lord or St Paul call it a sacrifice? “Christ our Passover” 
 refers not to the Lord’s supper but to Christ’s death. And in spite 
 of the great Bishop of Hippo, “the commemoration of a sacrifice” is 
 a radically distinct idea from “a commemorative sacrifice.” (2) It is 
 teaching that the bread and wine “ become and are” by consecra- 
 tion (by utterance of words or by the descent of the Spirit) 
 Christ's body and blood, only not according to the full interpreta- 
 tion of Rome; and (3) It is declaring that “virtually” Christ’s 
 Godhead in Heaven is united to the bread and wine on the altar 
 (z.e. the table). What is this but a presence on the holy table 
 of Christ’s human body and soul and Divinity too ? 
 
 Vindication of the Church of England, Vol. ut. 
 Works, Oxford, 1827. 
 
 P. 208. “Let indifferent persons that have travelled abroad 
 in the world judge here; and they will tell us that nothing doth 
 more alienate the hearts of the Jews and Mahometans too from 
 Christianity, than the image worship and bread worship (so 
 directly contrary to both their laws) which they see with 
 their eyes practised by them that call themselves the only true 
 Christians... What a mountain in their way is the article of 
 transubstantiation, which a man cannot receive without re- 
 nouncing his reason and all his senses too! Every man hath 
 heard of one great person (Averroés, and we have reason to believe 
 there have been many more of this mind) that was turned off 
 from Christianity by this just prejudice, ‘If the Christians worship 
 the God which they eat, my soul be with the philosopher.’ ” 
 
 (DD.) ISAAC AMBROSE, 8. 1604. Ὁ. 1674. 
 
 His book is entitled “Looking unto Jesus: a view of the 
 “everlasting gospel, &c.” It tells nothing about the author's birth- 
 
1004] ISAAC AMBROSE. 619 
 
 place, domicile, or parentage. Only it is dedicated to the Right 
 Honourable William, Earl of Bedford, Lord Russell, Baron of 
 Thornehaugh. But his portrait makes you wish to know more of 
 him. A heavenly-minded bishop or an ancient saint might have 
 sat for the portrait: and at its foot is inscribed, “The effigies of 
 “Tsaac Ambrose, Aitatis sue, 59, 1663.” The treatise itself which 
 gives the volume its name contains passages seldom equalled in 
 any writer, and perhaps hardly ever surpassed. The portrait and 
 the book are like two pieces of music in the same strain: I hardly 
 like to say variations of the same heavenly air: they seem so alike. 
 He was born in Lancashire and went to Brazenose and took 
 orders: but at the rebellion took the covenant: and as a presby- 
 terian minister fed the flock, first at Garstang and then at Preston. 
 His first volume ends with Herbert’s poem on the word Jesu. 
 The second contains War with Devils, Communion, and Ministra- 
 tion of Angels; also, First, Middle and Last Things: and a single 
 sermon, on redeeming the time, at the funeral of the Lady Margaret 
 Houghton, preached at Preston. 
 
 On the Lord’s Supper. Looking to Jesus, dc. London, 1674, 
 
 Sn. 15, p. 278. “ΒΥ body and blood of Christ we mean whole 
 Christ. (1) His person, God and man, (2) His merit, (3) His } 
 virtue, which is the power and efficacy ‘of His Godhead, (4) His i 
 benefits both of grace and glory. All these are enclosed in the | 
 body of Christ and the blood of Christ [Why not “included” in 
 the representative terms ?] (1) Because we could not be partakers 
 of the Divine nature but by means of the manhood. For the flesh | 
 of Christ is the conduit that conveys the graces of the Godhead | 
 and the graces of the Spirit of Christ into our souls... which | 
 otherwise than by His body we could not receive. (Ambiguous. 
 Is the reference to His body slain on Calvary? Let us receive it 
 so. For if we were to take it of His natural body supposed present 
 in the Lord’s supper, we should have just Dr Andrewes over again 
 in this eminent Puritan writer.] (2) Because Christ perfected 
 ‘redemption in His body. [This must refer to the sacrifice on 
 Calvary.]| How should the body and blood of Christ—thus under- 
 stood—be in the soul of a man? (1) There is a human nature 
 defiled. (2) A Christian inward nature animated by the Spirit of 
 Christ. [I think he means Christ's own Divine Spirit.] If [the 
 inward nature] is upholden in the children of God by things 
 answerable to its nature; and to this indeed ... the Lord offers in 
 His sacrament Christ’s proper. body and blood, as its own proper 
 
620 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 food. [Andrewes’ manner of speech.] Christ therefore, as in the 
 soul spiritually, in the spiritual part of us. It is the inner man, 
 the spiritual nature, that receives Christ’s body and blood. Mar- 
 ginal note. His body and blood are not substantially in us. Christ 
 corporally is only in Heaven. But He is really and spiritually in 
 the spiritual part of us. [This note will make some justify all the 
 prior expressions. But why write in so inconsistent phrases 1] 
 
 Sn. 12. “Examination of our desires after this ordinance. 
 (1) If they carry the soul after Christ—fellowship—communion, 
 fruition, ὅθ. (2) If a sense of the want of Christ, or sense of 
 former goodness or sweetness in Christ, found in the use of ordi- 
 nances. (3) If an holy kind of impatience in the want of the 
 ordinance, ‘When shall I come? &e.’ (4) If nothing but Christ 
 will content the soul—desired for Himself. Ifthe soul be content 
 with Christ. (5) If a great and sweet contentment in the use of 
 the ordinances; if (as 1t was with Sampson drinking of the water 
 which God sent him out of the hollow of the jaw) our spirits come 
 again and revive upon it, so that sometimes the heart is filled with 
 strange ecstasy—with excess of spiritual pleasures—with an holy 
 kind of satisfaction, contentation and delight. (6) If there follow 
 after the ordinance holy vows and wishes of infinite and eternal 
 thankfulness—as also a growing and springing up as among the 
 grass, as willows by the watercourses. [A man must go to the 
 widely misrepresented and unread Zwingel to find so much 
 Scriptural rapture and practical piety in connexion with this sacra- 
 ment. It is impossible not to discern and admire it. But if any- 
 one is half inclined to infer that if a man’s experience is so rich 
 and Heavenly, his doctrine and the phrases he adopts to express it 
 must be correct, only let him read the spiritual aspirations, I say 
 not of Thomas ἃ Kempis, but of Savonarola, and what will he say 
 to this genuine devotion ascending from a mind wholly given to 
 the holding and defence of transubstantiation in all its fulness ? 
 What can we say but that head and heart often stand wide apart ? 
 God is graciously pleased to spiritualize the soul even when 
 customs and the prevalence of error are allowed to shut up the 
 understanding against sound doctrine. The Scripture and the 
 Spirit sometimes feed the heart only. So taught also Taylor and 
 
 Heber. ] 
 
 P. 277. “Look upon the wounds of Christ as healing wounds, 
 whither thy soul pursued by the avenger of blood may fly for 
 safety and sanctuary... The nails, the spear, the wounds all 
 preach unto faith a reconciled God. Dwell in the rock and be like 
 the dove, that makes her nest in the side of the hole’s mouth. 
 Cant. 1. 14, and Jerem. xlviii. 28..... And so the saints commu- 
 nicate to God, in the same way that God communicates to them. 
 
1604] ISAAC AMBROSE. 621 
 
 They are always worshipping God immediately, not through ordi- 
 nances. They are always communicating themselves, and all that 
 they are or have to God, fully, and freely. 
 
 P. 470. (4) “In communion with God there is ὦ familiar 
 converse between God and the saints; (a) God manifests Himself 
 in a suitable way to the conditions of His people—so conde- 
 scending to their condition, that, though His majesty be infinite, 
 it shall in no way be a terror unto them. The Scripture speaks 
 of the familiar intercourse that God hath with His people here, 
 that they are called friends. Abraham was called the friend of 
 God, and the disciples were called friends. But hereafter the 
 friendship shall be more full and sweet. (Ὁ) God opens Himself to 
 His saints. Much is said of God’s opening Himself to His people 
 here: Ps. xxv. 14, Prov. iii. 32, 1 Cor. 11. 16, Cant. 1. 4, ‘They are 
 ‘brought into His chamber.’ ... The mysteries of the kingdom 
 are revealed to the saints here: (but) much more in Heaven. 
 God will there reveal all His secrets. They shall not only see His 
 face; but they shall see God’s heart. 
 
 P. 469. “To see God in ourselves. It is an happiness to see 
 God in the creature [the creation], but much more in ourselves 
 [in all the redeemed]. The chiefest of the glory of God (next to 
 that which appears in Christ as God-man) shall appear in the 
 saints. The chief excellency of God that the saints see except 
 Himself shall be within themselves. They shall see more of the 
 glory of God within themselves than in all the Heavens besides. 
 [How Lady Houghton and all the faithful in the Earl of Bedford’s 
 household must have rejoiced in such preaching !] 
 
 Τ am fain to draw upon Ambrose for a representation of that 
 communion with God in Heaven, which is the Lord’s supper’s 
 highest antitype and consummation. It is given in details, 
 division and subdivision, “cycle on epicycle, orb on orb,” after the 
 manner which was then in use in preaching. 
 
 P. 469. Heaven's happiness. “Το be with God implies the glori- 
 ous communion with God. Union is the ground of Communion. In 
 this life there is a communion that the Scripture speaks of, ‘Our 
 ‘fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ ;’ and 
 ‘The communion of the Holy Ghost be with you, saith the 
 apostle. But certainly it shall be another manner of communion 
 that the saints shall have with God in the world to come. Now 
 this communion—it stands either in regard of the work of God 
 upon and towards His saints, or the work of the saints upon and 
 towards God. For communion ts on both sides... (1) Communion 
 consists in the delight they have in one another. There is full, 
 
022 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 actual, mutual, everlasting delight between God and the saints in 
 Heaven. (2) In communion there is a mutual wishing and willing 
 of good to one another. Now God shall wish all good to the saints 
 and they [shall] wish all good to God. -But what good can they 
 wish or will to God? It is true there can be no addition to His 
 essential goodness, but they can will that this His goodness be 
 honoured and praised. (3) In communion there is the communion 
 of what one hath unto another. And thus God communicates 
 Himself to His saints immediately, fully, freely, everlastingly !” 
 
 (EE.) PASQUIER QUESNEL. B. 1634. Ὁ. 1719. 
 
 He rose to high eminence as a student of patristic theology 
 and Pastor of L’Oratoire in Paris: but, venturing in his edition of 
 Leo the Great to defend the Gallican liberties, he was exiled from 
 his native country, and had nothing left for him but to join 
 Antoine Arnauld, who had been driven from Paris by the Jesuits 
 after a long and able struggle, and had established himself at 
 Brussels. The Jesuits who had trodden the lovers of Jansenius 
 under foot by condemning 15 of the propositions of Duvergier, 
 selected 101 from the Moral Reflexions of Jansenius on the N. T., 
 verse by verse; and by these texts dealt in hke manner with 
 Quesnel’s followers. Daniel Wilson the Bishop of Calcutta caused 
 the comment on the Four Gospels to be translated and printed in 
 English, Our extracts exhibit Quesnel’s excellencies. Bossuet 
 appears among those whose high commendations had sanctioned 
 Quesnel’s last and great work, on the New Testament. 
 
 Quesnel, Matt. xxvi. 20. “The Son of God, in this last 
 assembly which comprehends in brief all the church, makes us 
 see the church in which the good are mingled with the weak and 
 the wicked, who are all united in an external profession of the 
 same faith and in a partaking of the same sacraments. V. 26. 
 The end of the same figures. Not to look for anything there but 
 
 On Matt. xxv. 20. Amsterdam, 1727. 
 
 Le fils de Dieu dans cette derniere assemblée, qui comprend en abrégé 
 toute leglise, nous l’a fait voir melée de bons de foibles et des mechans, 
 qui sont tous unis dans la profession exterieure d’une méme foi et dans 
 la participation des. mémes sacremens... V. 26. ... la fin des figures 
 mémes. N’y chercher done encore que des figures c’est pretendre que 
 
1094] PASQUIER QUESNEL. 623 
 
 figures is to pretend that Jesus Christ was not able to explain 
 Himself clearly in His last determinations and in the most holy 
 and most important testamentary disposition that ever was 
 made. If it is not His own body veritably and really, it must by 
 a horrible blasphemy be the case, that He did not wish men to 
 understand Him on an occasion when right and reason demand 
 that there should not be the least word obscure and doubtful. 
 V. 27. Sacrifice is an admirable invention of God’s wisdom, in 
 which all is rendered to God by His creature, and where all is 
 given to the creature by its God afresh in the communion. V. 
 28. Religion and aftiance in God confirmed by the blood of the 
 true victim. As long as religion shall be on the earth, and this 
 alliance which is but begun shall be accomplished in the course of 
 ages, this blood also must be on the earth, really present to those 
 that contract the alliance; it must be there offered to God; and 
 the sprinkling of 1t must take place by the communion in those 
 Christian hearts in which the alliance is made. And what is that 
 if it be not a sacrifice 7... Mark xiv. 22. Jesus, Who as God has 
 created bread to nourish our bodies, having Himself taken a body 
 like to ours, changes the bread into His own body to nourish our 
 souls, and to change us into Himself... V. 24. It is the last for 
 Judas, and often for many other. Luke xxu. 18. Jesus Christ 
 talks here of two passovers, one legal, the other Heavenly, before 
 He speaks of the Christian passover whith is between the two. 
 This last is the truth of the figurative passover, and the pledge of 
 
 J.C. n’a pu sexpliquer clairement de ses dernieres volontés et de la 
 disposition testamentaire la plus sainte et la plus importante qui fat 
 jamais. Sil n’est pas son corps veritablement et réellement |‘ verily and 
 indeed ”] il faudroit, par une blaspheme horrible, qu’Il n’a pas voulu que 
 Von entendit dans une occasion ou le droit et la raison demandent qwil 
 n’y ait pas la moindre parole obscure ni equivoque. V. 27. Le sacrifice 
 est une invention admirable de la sagesse de Dieu ou tout estrendu a 
 Dieu par sa creature, et ou tout est donné de nouveau a la creature par 
 son Dieu dans la communion. V. 28. La religion et l’alliance avec 
 Dieu, confirmée par le sang de la vraie victime. Tant que la religion sera 
 sur la terre, et que cette alliance, qui n’est que commencée, s'y achevera 
 dans le cours des siécles, il faut que ce sang soit aussi sur la terre, réelle- 
 ment present ἃ ceux qui contractent Valliance ; qu'il y soit offert ἃ Dieu ; 
 et que l’aspersion s’en fasse par la communion dans le coeur des Chrétiens 
 ou se fait Valliance. Et quest ce que tout cela sinon un sacrifice? On 
 Mark xiv. 22, Jesus qui comme Dieu a ecréé le pain pour nourrir nos 
 corps, alant pris Lui méme un corps semblable au notre, change le pain 
 en son corps pour nourrir nos ames, et pour nous changer en Lui méme. 
 V. 24. C'est le dernier pour Judas, et souvent pour beaucoup d’autres. 
 On Luke xxii. 18, J. C. parle ici des deux paques ; l’une legale et l’autre 
 céleste, avant que de parler de la paque chrétienne qui est entre les deux 
 et qui tient les deux. Cette derniere est la verité de la pa&que figura- 
 
024 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the Heavenly passover. V.19. The institution of the sacrifice of 
 the priest and of the sacrament of the altar of the new law 
 are three different benefits, of which each one merits a par- 
 ticular consideration and review... What is it to celebrate the 
 holy sacrifice and to communicate in memory of Jesus Christ ? 
 It is to make His death present by faith in giving up one’s- 
 self. V. 20. The adorable institution of sacrifice teaches 
 three effusions of Christ’s blood. The first on the altar: the 
 second on the cross: the third in our heart... 1 Cor. xi. 24. if 
 these words ‘This is My body’ had any need of explanation, and 
 ought only to be understood of a figure, how could Jesus Christ, 
 Himself teaching this great mystery to the apostle and the apostle 
 announcing it to the faithful, have left these words in their 
 obscurity and equivocal character? Would not this be to lead the 
 faithful of all ages into error?” [Note. We totally object to deny 
 to Christ the use of allegory. The higher the topic the more He 
 often seems to deem it fit to use it.] 
 
 tive ; et le gauge de la paque céleste. V. 19. L’institution du sacrifice du 
 sacerdoce et du sacrement de |’autel de la nouvelle loi sont trois bien- 
 faits differens qui meritent chacun une consideration et une reconnais- 
 sance particuliere.... Qu’est ce que celebrer le saint sacrifice et com- 
 munier en memoire de Jesus Christ? C’est le faire, en se rendant, Sa 
 mort presente par la foi. V. 20. Lrinstitution du sacrifice adorable 
 renseigne trois effusions du sang de Jesus Christ. Lat. sur l’autel: la 
 1. sur la croix ; la 11. dans notre coeur. On 1 Cor, xi. 24. Si ces paroles, 
 Ceci est Mon corps, avoient eu besoin d’explication, et ne devaient étre 
 entendus que d’une figure, comment Jesus Christ, apprenant Lui méme a 
 Vapotre ce grand mystere, et l’apdtre l’annongant aux fideles auroient ils 
 laissé ces paroles dans leur obscurité et leur equivoque? N’auroit ce 
 pas été induire en erreur les fideles de tous les siécles ἢ 
 
 (FF.) PHILIP VAN LIMBORCH. B. 1633. D. 1712. 
 
 The extracts taken from this writer, who is the best delineator 
 of Remonstrant doctrine, and who with Arminius, Grotius, and 
 Episcopius, makes up the chief men of that school, are strikingly in 
 harmony with many of the doctrinal utterances in our Book of 
 Common Prayer. He was pastor of his native city Amsterdam ; 
 and also professor in the Gymnasium of that city. One of his 
 books contains biographies of Arminius, Vossius, and Grotius. 
 Another is a Commentary on the Acts, Romans, and Hebrews. 
 A third is an account of the inquisition: and he edited the 
 writings of his grand-uncle, Episcopius and other Arminian divines. 
 He held a controversy, which is still in print, with Isaac Orobio of 
 
1633] PHILIP VAN LIMBORCH. 625 
 
 Seville, a learned and half infidel Jew, and another with a Portu- 
 guese Deist, who only held the God of nature. His works shew 
 that he had a lively mind and a kind disposition. He was devoted 
 also to history, and published letters of illustrious men, that throw 
 light on the settlement of a colony of Remonstrants in the duchy 
 of Schleswig, and on the building of Frederickstadt by their hands. 
 His first ministry began at Goude in 1657. He moved to the 
 capital in 1667, and was made professor in the same year. 
 
 Christian Theology. 
 
 P. 612. “This rite consists in the eating of bread publicly 
 broken by the minister before the whole assembly and in the 
 drinking of wine publicly poured out with faith prayers and giving 
 of thanks. Whether that bread be unleavened or fermented is a 
 thing indifferent. It is certain that our Lord Jesus, according to 
 the prescription of the Mosaic law, that to eat the passover with 
 fermented bread was unlawful, used unleavened bread. He did 
 not however will that we should be superstitiously tied to that 
 custom. It suffices that bread be broken, of whatever kind it be, 
 i.e. whatever be fit for being broken and for nourishment of the 
 
 body. 
 
 P. 617. 1. “ The opinion of Luther and Lutherans is different. 
 That the substance doubtless of bread and wine remains indeed in 
 the supper; but, since the Lord said, This is My body, they lay 
 down that the body also of Christ is truly and really present in 
 with or under (the sign) bread, and is delivered to the communicants, 
 and is truly eaten by them with the mouth. But in what mode the 
 body of Christ is truly present there, they say is inscrutable to our 
 reason and belongs to the secret treasured things of God’s wisdom and 
 
 Theologia Christiana. Amsterdam, 1695. P. 612. C. 70, 4. 
 
 Consistat hic ritus in esu panis a ministro publice coram toto ccetu 
 fracti et potu vini publice effusi cum fide precibus et gratiarum actione. 
 Utrum panis ille sit azymus an fermentatus indifferens est. Certum est 
 Dominum Jesum, juxta legis Mosaicee preescriptum, quod pascha pane 
 fermentato edere nefas, pane azymo usum. Nos tamen illi superstitiose 
 alligatos noluit. Sufficit panem frangi, qualiscumque sit, hoc est, quid- 
 quid ad frangendum et corpus alendum aptum sit. 
 
 PRON Gakke - 
 
 Altera est Lutheri et Lutheranorum sententia. Panis nimirum et 
 vini substantiam in coena quidem remanere : sed quoniam Dominus dixit, 
 Hoc est corpus Meum, statuunt et corpus Christi in cum vel sub pane 
 vere ac realiter presens esse, et communicantibus tradi et ab ipsis ore 
 vere manducari. Quomodo autem corpus Christi illic vere adsit, dicunt 
 esse rationi nostre imperscrutabile, et pertinere ad arcanos sapientiz et 
 
 πἰ- 1 40 
 
020 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 omnipotence. For it is irreconcilable with the truth of Christ’s body, 
 which is circumscribed and bounded in some certain place. But 
 that place isin Heaven. Therefore it cannot be really present in the 
 supper. I. To this argument two solutions are usually attempted. 
 Luther indeed, to escape the force of this argument, carried away 
 by the heat of disputation, contended that Christ’s body is by His 
 sitting at God’s right hand present everywhere, because God’s 
 right hand.is everywhere. But he seems to have borrowed the 
 doctrine of ubiquity from Jacob Faber of Suabia, who, at the 
 teaching of the most learned George Calixtus, was the first to 
 propose that dogma to the Christian world, as before his time it had 
 never even been heard of in Christ’s church. Afterwards however 
 Luther seems to have let go the dogma of ubiquity and to have 
 founded the presence of Christ’s body in the supper on the words 
 of the institution of it, as most Lutherans have done since ; except 
 that since then by the efforts of some, especially John Brentius 
 and James Andrew, they have called it back into various Lutheran 
 churches, not without great commotion and tumult, and yet it was 
 always contradicted by many. But the ubiquity of Christ’s body 
 is subject to great difficulties. For besides that it is repugnant to 
 the nature of a body to be everywhere, a body that is every- 
 where cannot be moved from one place to another. Further— 
 a thing yet more opposed to reason, it will demand the power 
 to penetrate within dimensions. For our bodies, which are in 
 some one place, must be penetrated by that body which is every- 
 where. 
 
 omnipotentie Divine thesauros. Pugnat enim cum veritate corporis 
 Christi, quod certo aliquo in loco circumseriptum et definitum est. 
 Illud autem est in cello. Ergo realiter in ccena adesse nequit. 1. Huic 
 argumento duplex solutio queri solet. Lutherus quidem, ut argumenti 
 hujus vim elideret, zestu disputationis abreptus, contendit corpus Christi 
 per sessionem ad dexteram Dei ubique adesse, quia dextera Dei ubique 
 est. Videtur autem ubiquitatis dogma mutuatus a Jacobo Fabro Stapu- 
 lensi, qui, docente doctissimo Georgio Calixto, primus illud orbi Chris- 
 tiano propinavit, cum ante eum ne auditum quidem fuisset in ecclesia 
 Christi. Postea tamen Lutherus dogma ubiquitatis missum fecisse 
 videtur, et preesentiam corporis Domini in cena fundasse super verbis 
 institutionis, uti plerique postea Lutherani ; nisi quod postea, annitentibus 
 presertim Joanne Brentio et Jacobo Andrea, id in varias Lutheranorum 
 ecclesias revocdsse, non sine gravi motu et tumultu, cui tamen a multis 
 semper contradictum fuit. Atqui ubiquitas corporis Christi magnis 
 laborat difficultatibus. Preeterquam enim quod nature corporis repugnet 
 ubique esse, corpus, quod ubique est, moveri non poterit de loco in 
 locum. Imo, quod rationi magis adversatur, dabitur penetratio dimen- 
 sionum. Corpora enim nostra, que alicubi sunt, necesse ut penetret 
 corpus illud quod ubique est, &e., é&e. 
 
1633} PHILIP VAN LIMBORCH. 627 
 
 P.617. “111. (2) We reply, Although many things are granted 
 to Christ’s human nature through its being exalted to God’s right 
 hand, yet the nature of the body itself has not been destroyed. 
 Doubtless there are some essential properties of human nature, 
 the destruction of which would make its human nature cease to 
 be human nature. Of this kind, with reference to body, is the 
 being bounded and circumscribed to a certain spot of the same 
 measure with itself. Other properties are accidental, such as neither 
 constitute its nature, nor of necessity follow from its constitution, 
 but can be absent without destroying its nature. Of this kind 
 some are infirmities, as to hunger, to thirst, to be affected with 
 sorrow, &c.; others are perfections, as strength, agility, wisdom, &c. 
 The essential properties Christ retains even in His own exalted 
 state. 
 
 P. 618. “v. But others of those that are disposed to follow 
 Luther hold that through Divine power the body can _ be 
 present in such a way, however, as not to fill up (its) space. But 
 truly, who, that is free from prejudice, does not detect in this a 
 manifest contradiction, that body, which is no other than sub- 
 stance extended and impenetrable, can exist in such a way as not 
 to fill the place commensurable to its extension?” [Leibnitz or less 
 than Leibnitz would easily elude this mode of putting the argu- 
 ment. Ether penetrates luminous bodies. ] 
 
 It is an error to suppose that the dogma of Christ’s body being 
 everywhere had not even been heard of in Christ’s church till the 
 
 76: Oi fs 
 
 11. (2) Respondemus, Licet per exaltationem ad dexteram Dei 
 humane Jesu Christi nature multa concessa sunt dona, non tamen natura. 
 corporis ipsius destructa est. Alize nimirum sunt proprietates nature 
 essentiales, quibus destructis natura humana desinit esse humana, Hu- 
 jusmodi, respectu corporis, sunt, finitum et certo sibi commensurato 
 loco circumscriptum esse. Alia sunt accidentariz, que naturam non 
 constituunt nec ejus constitutionem necessario sequuntur, sed absque 
 nature destructione abesse possunt. Harum aliz sunt infirmitatis, 
 ut esurire sitire tristari, &c., aliz perfectionis ut robur agilitas sapientia, 
 ἄς. Hssentiales Christus etiam in exaltatione Sua retinet. 
 
 POs, 
 vy. Alii vero 6 Lutheri sequacibus... posse corpus per omnipoten- 
 tiam Divinam esse preesens, ut tamen nullum repleat locum... Sed 
 
 vero quis, prejudicii expers, hic non manifestam deprehendit contradic- 
 tionem, corpus, quod est substantia extensa et impenetrabilis, posse 
 existere ita tamen, ut non repleat locum extensioni sue commensuratum. 
 [As Limborch Lxvit. 22 makes εὐλογεῖν mean give thanks, we may 
 perhaps say that his logic and his Latin are stronger than his Greek, 
 thongh his logic be not always perfect and “impenetrable.” | 
 
 40---2 
 
028 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 time of John Faber, author of the Malleus Hereticorum, and joint 
 author with Eck and Cochleus. The contrary is very clearly shewn 
 in Haag’s Conciles Premiers; and in fact with rather undefined 
 ideas on the nature of Christ’s body a person would easily slip into 
 Pantachianism. The one decisive Scripture notion of the body of 
 Christ is that it cannot be in two or more places at once; and that 
 to suppose this destroys the nature of Christ’s human body, as it 
 was on earth, and as it rose from the grave, and as we are, by all 
 that there is in Scripture, led to believe that it still is and will be 
 till “the second man is the Lord from Heaven.” If this notion is 
 lost, nothing preserves us from falling into ubiquitarianism except 
 its general unpopularity. 
 
 (GG.) BISHOP WILLIAM BEVERIDGE, OF ST ASAPH. 
 B. 1636. D. 1708. 
 
 Born at Barrow in Leicestershire. A voluminous writer, with 
 a spirit much akin to that of Ken, but with less of poetical bright- 
 ness; a writer of a very grave order, and in very wide repute 
 among English Christians for the practical utility of his works. 
 He’ refused to sanction the Commonwealth or the Protectorate. 
 He was made bishop in 1704, so that he held that office but four 
 years. His first preferment was Ealing. His second took him to 
 London. It was St Peter’s, Cornhill. He was of St John’s, Cam- 
 bridge. ' 
 
 Thesaurus, Vol. IX. Ang.-Cath. Library. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. “And He said, Take, eat, Λάβετε, φάγετε. (1) 
 Take, not with mouth but with hand. So Cyprian saith, ‘That 
 ‘the people have received the sacred mysteries from the deacons 
 ‘with their own hands.’ Ep. 56 and Theb. p. 93. The right hand 
 which received the body of Christ. How ? Knowingly. (1) What 
 it is in itself? Bread. (2) What it represents to us? The body 
 of Christ. (3) Eat, not take, lay up; not take and carry about; 
 break ; not take and worship, but take and eat. Take and eat 
 bread, not yet My body. V. 24. Not that really the body of 
 Christ, or transubstantiated. This error broached by Damascenus 
 and Amalarius. Opposed, Synod Constantinople, 338 bishops, 
 Paschasius R., Bertram, J. Scotus, and Berengarius. In the West 
 Transubstantiation coined Lateran Council, 1215 (Harduin vit. 
 18). The sign and sacrament of My body. V. 26. It is bread 
 we eat and wine we drink in the eucharist, not the real body of 
 
1030] BISHOP WILLIAM BEVERIDGE, 629 
 
 Christ....That we might often call Him to mind the sacrament of 
 the Lord’s supper was ordained, wherein every circumstance repre- 
 sents something of Christ....The right eating and drinking consists 
 in three things: (1) In remembering Christ, (2) In assenting to 
 these things, (3) In applying the benefits of them to ourselves. 
 
 P.90. “The end (1) to remember Christ’s death, (2) To represent 
 it, (3) To offer it, (4) To convey it too, (5) To seal not signum only, 
 but sigillum, Rom. iv. 2. [Ifa seal of the doctrine, it is equivalent 
 to a powerful and lively signum.] V. 29. What eating and drink- 
 ing? Not the body and blood of Christ, but sacramental bread 
 and wine. The ignorant receives. (1) Such as know not the funda- 
 mentals of religion, (2) Such as know not the state of their own 
 souls, (3) Such as know not the nature of the sacrament, ὅσο. as 
 before. How appears it that the impenitent are unworthy? (1) 
 cannot discern the Lord’s body, (2) mock the ordinance by acting 
 and living contrary to it, and so provoke God. 
 
 On the Thirty-nine Articles. Article 28. Oxford, 1847. 
 
 P. 471. “Scripture and fathers holding forth so clearly that 
 whosoever worthily receiveth the sacrament of the Lord’s supper 
 doth certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ, the devil 
 thence took occasion to draw men into an opinion that the bread 
 which is used in that sacrament is the very body that was crucified 
 on the cross, and the wine, after consecration, the very blood that 
 gushed out of His pierced side. [In the century that had passed 
 since the examination of Ridley and Latimer at Oxford progress 
 in clearness has been made. Then the Reformers, virtually pressed 
 by Jerome’s words, admitted that there was in the cup the very 
 blood that came from Christ’s side, only in a sacrament; here 
 Beveridge (at the present day printed as an Anglo-Catholic divine) 
 simply and without qualification denies that it is the very blood, 
 and represents the devil as the author of that opinion among 
 men. Still Beveridge affirms that the worthy communicant doth 
 certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ, and he says this 
 here without adding a word in explanation regarding those terms 
 of St Paul. Yet he gives explanation later.]| The time when this 
 opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory III. [in the 
 eighth century], pope of Rome. The persons that were the prin- 
 cipal abettors of 1t were Damascene in the Eastern [in the eighth 
 century], and afterwards Amalarius in the Western churches. It 
 was no sooner started in the Hast, but it was opposed by a famous 
 council at Constantinople [the third, under C. Copronymus, the op- 
 ponent of images, A.D. 754], consisting of 338 bishops, the opposers 
 of idol-worship. But afterwards, in the second council of Nice 
 [787], it was again defended ; and in particular by Epiphanius the 
 deacon, who confidently affirmed that ‘after the consecration the 
 ‘bread and wine are called, are, and are believed to be, properly, 
 
080 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘the body and blood of Christ.’ In the western also, &c. Paschasius... 
 Rabanus...Erigena not only stuck at it, but refused it and wrote 
 against it as a poisonous error....Berengarius too...condemned for 
 it in a council at Vercel [A.D. 1050] (where the book of Johannes 
 Scotus on the eucharist was also condemned), and at another 
 council held at Rome about the same time....But in the Lateran 
 council...1215, &c., &c., council of Trent....So that according to 
 this opinion the bread and wine (which before are properly bread 
 and wine only, and not the body and blood of Christ, are, after 
 consecration, as properly the body and blood of Christ only, and 
 not bread and wine, &c., &e....(1) It cannot be proved by the 
 Scriptures, (2) It is repugnant to them, (3) It overthroweth the 
 nature of a sacrament, (4) It hath given occasion to many super- 
 stitions. 
 
 P. 477. “As Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth this propo- 
 sition, This is My body, cannot possibly be taken otherwise than 
 significativel y, so as that the sense should be, This bread signifies 
 My body; is a sign or sacrament of it, &c. 
 
 P. 479. “This fond opinion possessing their brains that the 
 bread is the real body of Christ hung upon the cross and pierced 
 for their sins, lo how zealous are they in wrapping it up neatly in 
 their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasuries, carrying it 
 about in their processions, yea at length worshipping and adoring 
 ut too. 
 
 P. 483. John vi. 63. “ As if he should have said, Though I 
 do speak of eating My flesh, I would not have you think that MM y 
 very flesh profiteth anything, or quickeneth. [This is in direct 
 antagonism to Cyril of Alexandria, and may be taken in expla- 
 nation of the words first quoted from this treatise.] ‘No it is the 
 
 ‘spinit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing’; and the 
 words that I speak unto you are not to be understood in a carnal 
 but in a spiritual sense, for they are spirit and life, plainly shewing 
 that the corporal eating of this body is unprofitable, and that 
 whatsoever He said concerning eating of His flesh and drinking of 
 His blood was still to be understood in a Heavenly and spiritual 
 sense, &c., &e. 
 
 P. 487. “...1t was presently conceived that something more 
 than ordinary honour should be conferred upon it; yea that it was 
 not only to be eaten, but laid up privately, yea carried about 
 publicly, lifted up, and worshipped too, and that with the same 
 worship that is due to the true and living God; and therefore 
 have they appointed a certain holiday too, which they call Corpus 
 Christi day, wherein the sacramental bread might be annually 
 carried about and religiously worshipped. 
 
 P. 490. Art. 29. “It being not after a carnal but spiritual 
 manner only...that the body and blood of Christ are eaten and 
 
1030] BISHOP WILLIAM BEVERIDGE. 091 
 
 drunken...it must needs be a spiritual person, not a carnal, that 
 can eat and drink it. Though godly and spiritual men can feed 
 on the body and blood of Christ out of the sacrament as well as in 
 it, yet wicked and carnal men miss of the body and blood of Christ 
 in the sacrament as well as out of it. They may indeed eat the 
 bread which signifies the Lord, but they cannot feed upon the 
 Lord which is signified by the bread....Wicked men do not eat the 
 body and blood of Christ ; for if they eat the body and blood of 
 Christ, they are not wicked men, but such as dwell in Christ and 
 have Christ dwelling in them....The grace signified by the bread 
 and wine, &¢.” [See Savonarola.] 
 
 The value of the last remarks of Beveridge is very great. I 
 have just read a very excellent modern sermon on the Lord’s 
 supper, which is clear as a bell on every other point than this one, 
 which the bishop has here so forcibly put. A man must be godly 
 and spiritual or he cannot receive the Lord’s body and blood in a 
 spiritual way. If then he is not godly and spiritual it is not his 
 duty to come till he is. But this sermon blames persons for being 
 for a long time or all their lives worshippers and not communi- 
 cating. Now according to this good bishop there is a difference. 
 All men ought to be baptized and to join in public worship that 
 they may be moved to become godly and spiritual. But they may 
 not come to the Lord’s supper in order that they may become 
 such; they must be godly and spiritual or they are not entitled to 
 eat and drink at this table. Faith and repentance are required 
 alike before adult baptism and before the Lord’s supper. 
 
 (HH.) BISHOP KEN, OF WINCHESTER SCHOOL AND NEW 
 COLLEGE. B. 1637. D. 1710, 
 
 The Rev. J. T. Round, B.D., of Balliol, editor of my edition, 
 says regarding Ken’s Exposition of the Church Catechism, “ there 
 “being an expression in the first edition, by Beveridge, which the 
 “papists at that time laid hold of, as if it favoured their doctrine 
 “of transubstantiation, he took particular care in the next edition, 
 “even in that reign” (Charles II.) “by altering the exposition to 
 “ascertain” (make certain) “the sense.” This eftort is in keeping 
 with the uprightness of a prelate, who refused to admit the Duchess 
 of Portsmouth into his house, and brought about her dismissal 
 from the king’s dying bed, and the queen’s being summoned to 
 
032 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [ A.D. 
 
 attend the king instead. Ken’s conscientiousness seems like that 
 of St Paul. Instead of more eulogy I am fain to quote from his 
 sermon on Passion Sunday a short passage singularly like the 
 verse in his Morning Hymn, beginning “Heaven is, dear Lord, 
 “where’er Thou art.” The text is Micah vi. 8,9: and speaking 
 on v. 8, “When I sit in darkness the Lord shall be a light unto 
 “me,’’ he says in the person of Judah, 
 
 “My insulting enemies hinder my other friends, but cannot 
 
 hinder God who is my best friend from visiting me....My chains 
 will then be more eligible than liberty; Babylon will make me 
 forget Sion. My very dungeon will be Heaven upon earth, when 
 I enjoy God there....If this be captivity—by becoming a Baby- 
 lonish slave to become the Lord’s freeman—O may my captivity 
 last not seventy, but seventy times seven years. No time, O Lord, 
 is long; eternity itself is not tedious that is spent in Thy fruition. 
 O Almighty Goodness, Thou only canst make captivity desirable. 
 Welcome then darkness! There will I sit, desiring to see no light, 
 but what comes from Thy countenance, for Thou art light and 
 liberty and joy and all in all to those who for Thy sake are content 
 for a while to sit in darkness,” 
 
 The force of this passage is great, as it calls to mind the day 
 when Ken with the primate and five other bishops went to the 
 Tower in defence of English liberty and truth, “infinite crowds on 
 “their knees begging their blessing and praying for them as they 
 “passed out of the barge along the Tower wharf.” Evelyn, Vol. 1. 
 648, quoted by the Editor. 
 
 Prose Works of Bishop Ken. London, 1838. Sermon on Lady 
 Mainard. 
 
 P. 129. “1 cannot but think, upon the utmost of my observa- 
 tion, that she always preserved her baptismal imnocence—that she 
 never committed any one mortal sin, which put her out of the 
 state of grace, &c. if it may be affirmed of any...by the peculiar 
 favour of Heaven she passed from the font unsullied to her grave. 
 
 P.131. “She never failed, on all opportunities, to approach 
 the holy altar, &e. 
 
 P, 142. “On Whitsunday she received her viaticum, the most 
 holy body and blood of her Saviour, and had received it again, had 
 not her death surprised us; yet in the strength of that immortal 
 food she was enabled to go out her journey and seemed to have 
 a new transfusion of grace from it, &e, 
 
1637] BISHOP KEN. 635 
 
 This excellent bishop uttered these rhetorical representations 
 of the blessings of the two sacraments. I do not know that his 
 exposition of the Church Catechism ought to be deemed logically 
 dogmatic. But on “The Supper of the Lord” he says extremely 
 well, 
 
 “O Jesu let the propitiatory sacrifice of Thy death, which Thou 
 didst offer on the cross for the sins of the whole world, and particu- 
 larly for my sins, be ever fresh in my remembrance. 
 
 But he adds, p. 325, 
 
 “Ὁ God incarnate, how the bread and wine unchanged in their 
 substance become Thy body and blood: after what extraordinary 
 manner Thou who art in Heaven art present throughout the whole 
 sacramental action to every devout receiver, &c., &c., I can by no 
 means comprehend, &c. 
 
 There is much more, evidently most cautiously put together, as 
 p. 327, 
 
 “Let that immortal food which in the holy eucharist Thou 
 vouchsafest me instil into my weak and languishing soul, &c., [and] 
 O amiable Jesu, when I devoutly receive the outward elements, as 
 sure as I receive them, I receive Thee, I receive the pledges of Thy 
 love to quicken mine, &c.” 
 
 One seems to be perusing a new Thomas ἃ Kempis, very much 
 enlightened by later discoveries of the meaning of the words of our 
 Lord and His apostle Paul. This is the part of the bishop’s exposition 
 that appears to have been carefully revised by Bishop Ken himself. 
 Perhaps it is sufficient to say that a revising of the sermon on 
 Lady Mainard might have brought the tone of its terms into much 
 closer harmony with the almost universal character of the utter- 
 ances of the Church of England. It is perhaps almost needless to 
 add that the extracts from his Exposition on the Catechism all 
 belong to his comments on the answer, “The body and blood of 
 “Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the 
 “faithful, &c.” The passage in the first edition was “how Thou 
 “who art in Heaven art present on the altar I can by no means 
 - “explain, &e.” This good bishop is one of the many instances 
 which shew that as high a devotion as that of any Puritan may 
 coexist with terms and ideas in rhetoric that have small savour 
 of the Reformation. 
 
634 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (11) DANIEL WHITBY, D.D. B. 1638. Ὁ. 1726. 
 
 . Born at Rushden, Northamptonshire, and sent to Trinity, 
 Oxford, of which College he became a Fellow. He found prefer- 
 ment near Salisbury, the Rectory of St Edmund in that city, and 
 acanonry. He was a very voluminous writer. “ The five points” 
 were then earnestly contested : but his great work is on the New 
 Testament. He thought for himself: and therefore his knowledge 
 of the fathers was of great service to him. As he reached the 
 great age of eighty-eight, one wonders why his reputation for 
 theological learning did not float him to a higher level of church 
 preferment. 
 
 On the New Testament. London, 1727. 
 
 John vi. 52. “No man who maintaineth the corporal eating 
 of Christ’s flesh to be intended here, can veritably to his opinion 
 say that they, the Jews, imposed a false sense on our Saviour’s 
 words...their words signify no more. V. 53, ‘Except ye eat, &e.’ 
 It follows plainly [on the patristic interpretations of this] that all 
 the pious and believing Jews who heard these words and died 
 before our Saviour’s passion must of necessity be (lost)...This was 
 said at least above a year before our Lord’s passion and before 
 the institution of that sacrament, in which alone [on these views] 
 our Saviour’s flesh could be corporeally eaten, ὅθ. V. 54—6. 
 The argument runs thus, Whosoever eateth, &c. is a true and living 
 member of Christ’s body, ἕο And so no person can be wicked 
 here or deprived of everlasting life hereafter, who in this sense 
 ...eats of the flesh and drinketh of the blood of Christ. This 
 is very true of eating spiritually and by faith; as it imports be- 
 lieving on Christ. But then of [mere] sacramental eating of 
 Christ’s flesh it is as false. For this was eaten by Judas. V. 53. 
 The eating mentioned here can never be performed unprofitably. 
 
 P. 530, vv. 61, 62. “‘What and if, &.’ Are you offended 
 that I speak of thus giving you My flesh to eat ?... What then will 
 you think of it when this body shall be removed hence to heaven ? 
 1.6. How will you then be scandalised and think it still more 
 difficult and more impossible to apprehend? For Athanasius 
 saith well, that Christ here mentioneth His ascent into Heaven 
 that He might divert them (ἀφελκύσῃ) from the carnal sense, τῆς 
 σωματικῆς ἐννοίας. Whence...we learn that Christ thought His 
 ascension into Heaven sufficient demonstration to the Jews that 
 His flesh could not be eaten upon earth, and why it should not be so 
 to the Christian I am yet to learn...They (the Papists) give reasons 
 
1638] DANIEL WHITBY. 635 
 
 why, though they substantially eat the flesh, &c. they do this 
 under covert of the accidents of bread and wine. 
 
 P. 181. “Jews thought themselves obliged to drink plenti- 
 fully at their festivals four large cups of wine at their supper— 
 to be quite drunk at the feast of Purim, Buxtorf. [See Lightfoot 
 extracts.| On John xx. ‘The doors being shut, came Jesus, ὅσο. 
 Though it be an ancient opinion [See Lange’s Bibelwerk] that 
 Christ made His body penetrate through the doors, yet it is both 
 groundless, and absurd, and contrary to the very design of Christ 
 in coming to them. “Tis groundless, for why might not He by 
 His power secretly open the doors, His disciples not perceiving it, 
 as the angel opened the prison-door and gates to let out Peter, 
 Acts xi. 10? It is absurd: for since Christ rose in the natural 
 body which was crucified and lay in the grave, philosophy intorms 
 us that such a body could not penetrate through a more solid body. 
 And to this agree those words of Cyril of Alexandria. It is im- 
 possible that one body should go through another body without 
 cutting it or being cut [all this is on the supposition that the ordi- 
 nary laws of nature would not be needlessly suspended, as there is 
 apparently an economy in God’s miracles] and thirdly, This phansy 
 destroys not only the end of Christ’s then coming to them, but 
 of all that He had said and done to convince them that τὖ was the 
 same body that was crucified that now appeared to them. [The _ 
 Greek is “the doors having been shut,” not “being shut:” and this 
 is a good instance to shew that “being” does not express the sense 
 of the pass._perf. participle.] V. 17, ‘Touch me not.’ Thou 
 needest not be solicitous to touch or hold Me now. Thou wilt 
 have time sufficient to converse with Me and to experiment the 
 truth of My resurrection; for I shall not immediately ascend, 
 &e.” [but go now at once and tell My disciples]. 
 
 (JJ.) WILLIAM CLAGGETT.. B. 1646. Ὁ. 1688. 
 
 He was born at the old town of Bury St Edmund’s, Emmanuel 
 was his college. He was at first lecturer in his native town: but 
 rose to be preacher at Gray’s Inn, and Chaplain in ordinary to the 
 King. He also held the Rectory of Farnham Royal, in Bucking- 
 hamshire. Many of his treatises were thought worthy by Bishop 
 Edmund Gibson of being enrolled in his copious Preservative from 
 Popery. Besides his acceptability before a congregation of benchers 
 learned in law, he may have possessed that singularly useful gift 
 general popularity, for he was chosen to an ordinary London 
 lectureship. He died of small-pox. One is startled to find in the 
 seventeenth century a writer pouring down upon the sixth of 
 
630 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 John all the light that had been shed upon that difficult chapter, 
 in other countries, and against which prejudice ran high in 
 England, 
 
 Bp. Gibson’s Preservative. 
 
 A Paraphrase with notes and preface on John vi. 
 Robinson, London, 1686. 
 
 P. 28, v.52. “‘ How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?’ 
 The Jews disputed against Him afresh—the greater part of them 
 taking His last words in a gross sense, as if He had promised 
 to give them His flesh to eat with their teeth, &e. And upon this 
 advantage, which they thought they had against Him, they ex- 
 claimed as if He had spoken absurdly, and taught His disciples 
 to devour man’s flesh. 
 
 P. 36, v.60. “‘This is an hard saying, &.’ But because He 
 expressed Himself in this figurative, and was by many understood 
 as if He had commended to them the eating of His flesh and 
 drinking His blood in the literal, sense; therefore many, even 
 of those who had sometime followed Him, talked amongst them- 
 selves as if these sayings of their Master must needs be offensive 
 to the ears of all, &. &. V. 62, ‘What and if ye shall see, 
 &e. οὐ When you shall see Me ascend up to Heaven, it will not 
 seem strange that I came down from thence ; and because even 
 then it will remain necessary that you should eat My flesh and 
 drink My blood, you may be sure I do not mean that gross (sense 
 of) feeding upon My flesh and drinking My blood, in which you 
 understand what I have said, for My body will then be too far 
 removed from the conversation of mortal men to be capable of 
 being so used. V. 63, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, &c.’ 
 Now when I speak to you of the conditions of obtaining ever- 
 lasting life, though I have now expressed them by eating My 
 flesh and drinking My blood, yet you had reason to understand 
 Me of spiritual actions...For they are such things only as feed 
 the soul, ἕο. But to this purpose the flesh profiteth nothing. 
 No: not My own flesh, if you could eat it as grossly as you 
 understand My sayings. For even this would be but bodily 
 nourishment, but would have no influence on the mind...The 
 words that I speak unto you—they are those precepts of a 
 Heavenly life and those promises of eternal life which I have 
 laid before you.” 
 
 (KK.) DR THOMAS COMBER, DEAN OF DURHAM. B. 1044, Ὁ. 1699. 
 
 A member of Sidney; born at Westerham. Wrote various 
 works besides the unrivalled Companion to the Temple. His 
 
1044] DR THOMAS COMBER. 637 
 
 character appears in the extracts from it. His works includé a 
 History of Liturgies, a Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, and 
 a Dialogue on the right of Tythes. It is not likely that so copious 
 a Treatise on the services in our Book of Common Prayer will 
 ever be again attempted. It occupies very nearly seven out of 
 eight volumes in the octavo edition of his works, 
 
 Companion to the Temple. The Communion Service. Works. 
 Vol. LIT. Oxford, 1841. 
 
 P. 255. On the “ Prayer of Consecration.” “Let none there- 
 fore mistake, or imagine we are about to sacrifice Christ again (as 
 the Roman Church falsely teacheth) ; for this is not only needless 
 but impossible, but a plain contradiction to St Paul, who affirms 
 that Jesus was to be offered only once, Heb. ix. 26, &. And 
 besides, if we think that in this sacrament Christ is daily offered 
 up it seems we do not believe that which He did on the cross 
 to have been sufficient, and so we should exceedingly derogate 
 from that meritorious sacrifice, ὅσοι; nor shall we make any dif- 
 ference [in this respect] between the all saving death of our 
 Saviour and the daily offerings of Mosaic institution. Wherefore 
 do we deny this communion to be any new sacrifice of Christ, &e. 
 ‘This is only a memorial which the Lord hath delivered unto us 
 ‘instead of a sacrifice.’ Eusebius. 
 
 P. 257. “Surely He will make these symbols His body and 
 blood to us. We are desirous, as much as lieth in us, to be par- 
 takers of His body and blood, and according to His command we 
 come thus far: but we can only strike the rock; it is He must 
 bring forth the water. We must now stand still and see the 
 salvation of the Lord; for till He have blessed the bread and 
 wine, we can go no further. Now if this holy rite were a mere 
 human device, we could hardly expect so great grace and power 
 shewed for its ratification, &c. Let us not startle at the difficulty 
 of this sacramental change, but rest satisfied in the power of the 
 Author and Enjoiner, &c. &e. 
 
 P. 259. “What were the words with which our Saviour 
 blessed God, is not recorded : so that all churches have used their 
 liberty in the manner of expressing this, &c. The Latin church, 
 ‘That thou wouldest accept and bless these gifts.” St Ambrose, 
 ‘Make this our oblation valid, reasonable and acceptable, which 
 ‘is made for a figure of the body and blood of Christ. In the 
 liturgy of St Basil, ‘Let Thy holy Spirit come upon us, and on 
 ‘these gifts here set forth to bless and sanctify them, &c.’ And, 
 to name no more, in that called St Clement’s, ‘We offer to Thee, 
 ‘O Lord our King, according to His institution, this bread and 
 ‘this cup, and we beseech Thee to look graciously on these gifts 
 ‘set forth in Thy sight.’ 
 
638 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P.260. “ Although they remain in substance what they were, ὅσ. 
 
 P. 261. “If it may please God to make us partakers of the 
 benefits of Christ’s passion, we will not enquire into the manner, 
 &e.” 
 
 (LL.) BARON GODFREY WILLIAM LEIBNITZ. B. 1646. Ὁ. 1716. 
 President of the Berlin Academy of Sciences and Aulic 
 Counsellor. 
 
 One of the greatest minds that God ever sent into this world. 
 He was a Platonizer, as truly as Locke was an Aristotelian. His 
 father was a professor of law and morals in Leipsic. Jena and 
 Nuremberg have the honour of his education. But after a high 
 appoimtment at court in the noble city of Mayence, he went to 
 Paris and mastered mathematics; so that he disputed with 
 Newton the claim to the invention of differences or fluxions, now 
 the mighty engine of pure mathematics, and surpassed him in 
 applying it to astronomy: but perhaps his glory rests more on 
 metaphysics, in which he dealt with the ideas of Descartes and 
 Locke on equal terms. But it is greatly to our advantage that he 
 gave himself at the same time to theology. Some of his state- 
 ments in it may be unsound, and many of his arguments may be 
 plainly insufficient, and some may seem quite wrong: yet the same 
 may be said of almost all who have dealt with these complex and 
 delicate questions. But his “System of Theology” alone is a 
 precious contribution to our subject, and the difficulty has been to 
 stop quoting from it. His Theodiczea occupies other ground than 
 ours. The great man who in his latter writings was delighted to 
 honour the noble work of Locke, which in earlier days he had 
 disparaged, deserves that we should respect him when we differ 
 from him. And on points such as the amount of value to be 
 assigned to “the fathers” we should hear his judgment with 
 attention and reverence. Seldom has such a man spoken. 
 
 Systematic Theology. 
 P. 113. “Sacraments, as a special kind of worship and sacred 
 rites instituted by Christ, with the addition of a promise of grace. 
 
 Theolog. System. German and Latin. The Latin from Hanover 
 State Library. Tiibingen, 1860. /P. 113. 
 Sacramenta, tanquam peculiare genus cultus, ritusque sacros a 
 Christo, addité gratie promissione, institutos. Quo tamen non pertinet 
 
1040] BARON LEIBNITZ. 639 
 
 Yet the promise made to those that assemble themselves in the 
 Lord’s name does not belong to this: for this latter promise would 
 be understood of itself even if it had not been made, for every 
 religion demands the worship of God by men in assemblies [1.6. 
 there is an instinct for assembling, and God would give a corres- 
 ponding blessing even had He not promised it]. But the names 
 of sacraments come to us as certain special institutions ... Further, 
 there is no occasion to have a great litigation about their names : 
 yet after the appellation of a sacrament has been received in the 
 church, it ought to be estimated not by private liking but public 
 use. Therefore by the name of a sacrament is at this day under- 
 stood in the church, a rite to which a peculiar promise of grace 
 has been annexed by God... Moreover of sacred rites, such as I 
 have described, there are numbered seven... The rite in the 
 eucharist is the prescribed use of certain signs, the grace is the 
 nourishing of the soul or the increase of love. 
 
 P.121. “It remains to explain our thoughts about the efficacy 
 of sacraments ‘ex opere operato.’ It is an unusual expression 
 introduced by the scholastic writers, and it has rendered [I have 
 changed the mode of the verb for brevity] a thing that in itself 
 was plain and manifest to the thinker, lable to cavils and suspected 
 of novelty. Doubtless if sacraments were so beneficial ex opere 
 operantis in connexion with the work of the worker, not ex opere 
 operato from the mere work done, no grace in reality would have 
 been in any special manner added to these rites, but they would 
 be ceremonies commanded perhaps and not to be omitted without 
 fault, but yet not of themselves efficacious; because whatever of 
 
 promissio facta his, qui in nomine Domini congregantur : nec enim, et si 
 facta non esset, per se non intelligeretur ; omnis enim religio postulat ut 
 Deus in hominum ceetu colatur. Nobis autem sacramentorum nomine ve- 
 niunt singularia quedam instituta... Porro de nominibus non magnopere 
 litigandum sit, tamen postquam sacramenti appellatio in ecclesia recepta 
 est, non debet a privata libidine sed usu publico zstimari. Sacramenti 
 igitur nomine hodie in ecclesia intelligitur ritus, cui a Deo peculiaris 
 promissio gratiz adjecta est... Porro ritus sacri, quales definivimus, 
 numerantur septem... In eucharistia ritus, symbolorum prescripta 
 tractatio: gratia est nutritio anime sive augmentum caritatis. 
 
 Pe 121: 
 
 Superest ut explicemus quid de efficacia sacramenti ex opere operato 
 sit sentiendum... Insolita appellatio, a scholasticis introducta, rem 
 ipsam, consideranti manifestam et per se planam, cavillationibus ob- 
 noxiam et novitatis suspectam reddiderit. Nimirum, si sacramenta 
 tantum prodessent ex opere operantis non ex opere operato, revera nulla 
 specialiter his ritibus addita esset gratia, sed essent ce#eremonize juss 
 fortasse et sine crimine non omittendze, non tamen per se efficaces ; quia 
 
640 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 good might be in them, would equally come without them (unless 
 prevented by being forbidden) by the mere general force of the 
 promises, towards such as have faith and love. As therefore in the 
 Roman civil law no obligation or pleading of agreement arose from 
 words except after a certain form of asking and answering (that 
 it might so be said that the efficacy of the rite consisted in the 
 mere work being done, not in the working of the worker) so the 
 same also could be said of baptism, as its effect is not impressed 
 unless the essential points of the rite are observed. In the mean 
 time that the grace of the sacrament may be received [taken up] 
 it is necessary that the receiver's mind be in a good condition, 
 lest an obstacle be put in the way, and so something of the 
 work’s worker (i.e. the state of the receiver) is a requisite to the 
 work done. 
 
 P. 125. “1 come in particular to the sacrament of the eu- 
 charist, on which the greater mass of the clouds of controversy has 
 fallen. For some contend [defend the statement] that Christ’s 
 body and blood are not really present in the Lord’s supper, but 
 are only represented or signified in it: for that they are as far away 
 from us as Heaven is from earth, and that whatever has the true 
 nature of a body cannot be in more places than one. Some with 
 greater liberty in thinking, though not in a way clear of ambiguity, 
 seem to concede [1.6. Calvin, &c.] that Christ’s body is really 
 received by us, but that it is through the mind rising by faith to 
 Heaven: and therefore since faith only is the instrument of 
 receiving it, that the unworthy do not receive it, which seems 
 
 quicquid inesset boni, eque eveniret sine ipsis, (nisi obstaret prohi- 
 bitio) vi generalium promissionum erga eos qui fidem et caritatem 
 habent. Quemadmodum igitur in jure civili Romano nulla nascebatur 
 verborum obligatio neque actio ex stipulato nist certd interrogandi et 
 respondendi formd (ut adeo dici posset ritis efficaciam consistere in 
 opere operato, non in opere operantis) ; ita de baptismo quoque idem dici 
 potest, cujus effectus non imprimitur nisi essentialia ritus observentur. 
 Interim, ut gratia sacramenti suscipiatur, animum suscipientis bene con- 
 stitutum necesse est, ne obex ponatur ; et ita aliquod opus operantis (hoc 
 est, status suscipientis) est requisitum operis operati. 
 
 12. 
 
 Venio ad eucharistiz sacramentum, in quod major certaminum moles 
 incubuit. Quidam enim... defendunt in coen4 Domini corpus et san- 
 guinem Christi non adesse realiter sed tantum representari seu signifi- 
 cari; tantum enim distare a nobis quantum celum a terra, nec in 
 pluribus locis esse posse quicquid veram corporis naturam habet. Quidam 
 liberalius (quanquam non sine ambiguitate) concedere videntur [i.e. 
 Calvin, &c.] realiter a nobis percipi corpus Christi, sed mente in cceelum 
 per fidem evecta: atque ideo, cum sola fides percipiendi instruamentum 
 sit, non percipi sacramentum ab indignis ; quod satis contrarium videtur 
 
1040] BARON LEIBNITZ. 641 
 
 quite contrary to the apostle’s words. But they also, when they 
 are forced to explain their meaning, seem at length to come to 
 this, that the mind only flows to Heaven to receive Christ's body 
 in the way in which we are said in thought to be at Rome or 
 Constantinople : for otherwise they will be constrained to attribute 
 to our minds, what they deny to Christ’s body ; I mean the being 
 at the same time in earth and Heaven... The pious ancients 
 have already acknowledged a great mystery, above the reach of 
 the mind of man, in this sacrament: and this goes to nothing if it 
 is a sign that is given instead of the thing. 
 
 P. 127. “As for me, if it could be shewn by indisputable 
 arguments of necessary metaphysical force that the essence of all 
 body consists in extension through a determinate space only, which 
 it fills up, (since truth cannot be repugnant to truth) I must 
 confess that one body cannot be in several places, not even by 
 Divine power, any more than a diagonal of a square can be of the 
 same size as one of its sides. And if that is laid down as true, we 
 must also recur to the allegorical interpretation of the Divine 
 word, be it written or of tradition. [If therefore the mathematical 
 argument which follows fails, Leibnitz wholly denies that it 1s 
 possible for the Lord’s human body to be in two places at once.| 
 But we are so far from any philosopher completing such a proof, of 
 this boasted assertion, that on the contrary it seems possible to 
 shew satisfactorily, that the nature of body requires extension, 
 except where God sets an obstacle: and that the essence of body 
 consists in matter and substantial form, 1.6. in the first principle of 
 
 apostoli verbis. Verum ii quoque, cum explicare sententiam coguntur, 
 eo tandem venire videntur ut mens nun aliter in celum evolet ad corpus 
 Christi percipiendum, quam quomodo nos cogitatione Rome vel Constan- 
 tinopoli esse dicimur : alioqui enim menti nostre tribuere cogentur, quod 
 corpori Christi negant, ut simul in ccelo terraque sit... Pia antiquitas 
 in hoc sacramento semper magnum mysterium agnovit super humane 
 mentis captum ; quod sane nullum est si pro re signum datur. 
 
 Pt 
 
 Equidem si demonstrari posset invictis argumentis metaphysice 
 necessitatis, omnem corporis essentiam in extensione sive spatii determi 
 nati implemento consistere, utique cum verum vero pugnare non possit, 
 fatendum esset unum corpus non posse esse in pluribus locis, ne per 
 Divinam quidem potentiam, non magis quam fieri potest ut diagonalis sit 
 lateri quadrati commensurabilis. Eoque posito, utique recurrendum est 
 ad allegoricum Divini verbi, sive scripti sive traditi[!] interpretationem. 
 Sed tantum abest ut quisquam philosophorum jactatam illam demonstra- 
 tionem absolverit ut contra potius solide ostendi posse videatur, exigere 
 quidem naturam corporis ut extensum sit, nisi a Deo obex ponatur : 
 essentiam tamen corporis consistere in materia et forma substantiali ; hoe 
 
 6. Ale 41 
 
042 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 suffering and action: but the characteristic of substance is to be 
 able to act and suffer. Therefore material is the prime passive 
 power: but substantial form is the first act or the first active 
 power; but that these should be limited by a place of a certain 
 [determinate] size, is indeed required by the natural order of 
 things [in this world] but is not compelled by absolute necessity 
 [everywhere in all possible worlds]. 
 
 If one may demur, and ought to set down one’s thoughts—(1) 
 Is there not in body something more than passio et actio, “pati et 
 “‘agere”? Isit not more true that materia, ὕλη, has these powers 
 than that it 7s these powers? (2) Extension might naturally be 
 unlimited in free and open space; but not where other bodies 
 mutually press, 1.6. the case of a true natural human body is in 
 the ordo rerum naturalis, if it be talked of as in this world. 
 Besides it is spoken of by almost all as a living Christ, whose body 
 is to be in many places at once, a living organized genuine human 
 body—and limited in extent even when glorified, which makes the © 
 supposition of unlimited extension utterly inadmissible. Notice 
 this last the more because Bp. Thirlwall in his charge, 1866, cast 
 blame upon the church for entering on this mathematical branch 
 of metaphysical ground, and not only did his reasonings fail to 
 satisfy: but the very contrary, 1.6. the church’s exact line of argu- 
 ment seems to me to be exactly the line of argument of our Lord 
 in John vi. 62, “Doth this cause you to stumble,” that I say ye 
 must “eat My flesh, &c.?” Do ye think I mean it literally 1 What 
 and if, ᾿Εὰν οὖν, ye should behold (θεωρῆτε) the Son of man going 
 up (to Heaven) where He was before, ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον ; will 
 ye then think that real natural body can be here too, to be literally 
 eaten by you? The lines of reasoning of our church and of Christ 
 seem to me identical, Nor do I see that Leibnitz’ views on the 
 extensibility of matter in absolute space have shaken them at all, 
 but in respect to the bishop I annex a part of his remarks. P. 132. 
 “Tt must be admitted that in the declaration or protestation at 
 “the end of her communion service the Church of England has 
 “deviated from her principles, has come down from her own 
 
 est in principio passionis et actionis : substantia autem est agere et pati 
 posse. Itaque materia est prima potentia passiva; forma autem sub- 
 stantialis est actus primus sive prima potentia activa ; que ut loco certe 
 magnitudinis definiantur, ordo quidem rerum naturalis postulat, non 
 vero necessitas absoluta cogit. 
 
1040] BARON LEIBNITZ. 049 
 
 “vantage-ground to that of her adversary, and has stated the 
 “question in the way most favourable to the Church of Rome; 
 “for it is made to turn on a purely metaphysical proposition as 
 “to the nature of body, ‘it being against the truth of Christ’s 
 ““natural body to be at one time in more places than one, &c. 
 “This is virtually to fall into the Romish error and to stake the 
 “truth of her doctrine on the soundness of a scholastic specu- 
 “lation, which, as a church, she has no more right to deny than 
 “the Church of Rome to affirm. The real objection to transub- 
 “stantiation is not that it is bad philosophy, but that it is philo- 
 “sophy; not that it is impossible, but that it is destitute and 
 “incapable of proof. [May I suggest that good can hardly spring 
 from drawing so “hard and fast” and wide a line of separation 
 between science and religion ἢ It must indispose scientific persons 
 to give religion respect. I feel that either enlightens the other, 
 “alterius altera poscit opem et conjurat amice.” Do people think 
 apart on science and religion? Are faculties separable into the 
 religious branch and the scientific 7 Is it possible to do this? The 
 bishop continues] “How dangerous it would be to rely on the 
 “ propositions assumed [υἦφ. that a natural body cannot be in many 
 spots, loci, say one in Heaven and many on earth at the same 
 moment], asa ground for rejecting the dogma of transubstantiation, 
 “may appear from the defence of it which Leibnitz sets up on the 
 “basis of his own metaphysical system,” &c., &c. as quoted above. 
 The bishop afterwards quotes a later sentence from Leibnitz, but 
 we read in p. 137 molem seu potentiam resistendi—the mass of 
 matter and the power of resistance. He puts these as synonyms. 
 Are they ? Again essentia singularis consistit in quadam potentia, 
 The peculiar essence of anything consists in a certain power. 
 Surely a power and the thing in which the power lies are not the 
 same. We must be realists in this sense; we may refuse to speak 
 of or to look at the something in which powers inhere, but this 
 will not make it not be. This is the ostrich covering its eyes with 
 its wing; but what it won’t see is there still. Again the essence 
 of a thing consists ὧν its producing the same phenomena. But 
 enough on the modern love of mere sequences of events and their 
 general laws. May one be excused for demurring? ‘he other cita- 
 tion is from p. 139, existentia pariter atque unio substantia atque 
 accidentium realium in Dei arbitrio est, “The only foundation 
 “alike of the nature of existence and of the union of a substance 
 41—2 
 
044 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “and its real accidents is in the will of God.” Are we not then to 
 assume a constancy in the laws of being? Ina word I am unable 
 to see how the Church of England loses by assuming that body is 
 limited as to its power of presence, always according to the 
 circumstances or circumsistent conditions in the midst of which it 
 subsists. So when we say the natural body of Christ is gone away 
 to Heaven where He was before, may we not say that it is not so 
 extended in real organization, (whether living or not) as to be 
 here also, and not simply here but here in tens of thousands of 
 places at the same moment—and moreover not as the Franciscans 
 wished by indefinite new creation of the body, but by the same 
 body that was born, died, and was buried, and ascended, being 
 here still? If the Church of England has done wrong in reasoning 
 against this in words suitable to almost any philosophical system, 
 she may defend herself by saying erro cum Platone, for that almost 
 all great writers on this subject have done the same, even the 
 testimonies cited in this volume may seem to be sufficient to shew. 
 I wish I might give yet more space to citations from this great 
 author in elucidation of the sacred supper. For even in laying down 
 what we firmly believe to be erroneous foundations of a corrupt 
 Christianity there shoot out continually sparks which illuminate 
 and delight. I have read nothing which comes so near to another 
 very common figure, an ocean shore, from which I have but picked 
 up a few of its shells. I therefore add a few more passages of 
 Leibnitz, without the Latin, to save space, and yet to present a 
 more adequate representation of this philosophical writer and his 
 comments on all the past history of this subject. 
 
 P. 129. “Some, admitting the real presence, defend a kind 
 of what they call impanation [¢e. John of Paris]. For they say 
 that Christ’s body is given [furnished] to us in, with, and under 
 the bread. Therefore when Christ said, This is My body, they 
 understand it as if any, having a sack, were to say, This is money. 
 But the pious ancients very openly declared, that the bread 15 
 changed into Christ’s body, the wine into blood, and in this every- 
 where the ancients acknowledge ‘ metaschematism or metousiasm’ 
 which the Latins rightly translated transubstantiation, and it 
 has been defined that the whole substance of the bread and wine 
 passes into the whole substance of Christ’s body and blood. And 
 therefore, as in other cases so in this also, Scripture is to be ex- 
 plained from the tradition which the church, the keeper, has trans- 
 mitted down to our time. [This first principle that the clergy or 
 
1040] BARON LEIBNITZ. 645 
 
 the chief clergy are the keepers and transmitters of truth to the 
 laity is carried further, p. 145.] But whether it would be better 
 to restore the cup to the people—vz.e. whether the reasons do not 
 preponderate, which so many leaders and nations have declared— 
 that indeed it does not belong to private men to define, but to 
 the rulers of the church, but most of all to the supreme Pontiff, 
 to whom also the council of Trent left this whole business. [An 
 exaggeration; for it left it to him to compile the catechism to 
 parochial clergy, having itself fixed the lines of doctrine in decrees 
 and canons. How singular that such a man should so mistake 1]... 
 In the meantime if perchance the rulers of the church should err 
 in excess of strictness, the danger would be theirs, nor would the 
 crime reach the subject body (subditos), for whom τέ is fit to obey 
 in those things about which the power of appointing has been given to 
 the rulers... The church’s power indeed of defining extends wide, even 
 to those things of a positive kind which are laid down by Divine 
 law ; as appears from the change of the Sabbath to the Lord’s 
 day [Why does Leibnitz assume that this was not done by the 
 inspired apostles ?], the permission of blood and things strangled 
 [surely that disappeared as part of the law of Israel], the canon 
 of the sacred books [settled by discerners of spirits and the apostles 
 otherwise not of infallible authority, but in which churches are to 
 be heard], the abrogation of immersion in baptism [which was only 
 a custom and never enjoined by God; see Lightfoot], and the 
 forbidden degrees in marriage [churches are heard, and states 
 decide as to right]. 
 
 P. 129. “In the meantime the name of bread and wine has 
 been often assigned to the body and blood (speciebus) that remain 
 [z.e. after the change], since they are not discerned by sense [how 
 strange to call the body and blood species, 1.6. kinds: see Dr Pusey’s 
 Doctrine of the Real Presence] as 8. Ambrose said that the Lord’s 
 word was so efficacious that the things that were still are, and are 
 converted into another thing: ¢e. the accidents are the things which 
 were, the substance has been changed; for he also says that after the 
 consecration nothing else is to be believed to be there but Christ’s 
 flesh and blood. And Gelasius the Roman Pontiff suggests that 
 bread passes into Christ’s body, the nature of bread remaining, 
 z.e. its qualities or accidents, for forms of speech in harmony with 
 metaphysical notions were not then in request. And in this sense 
 Theodoret also said that in this conversion, which he himself calls 
 change, μεταβολὴ, the mystic symbols are not stripped of their 
 proper nature. 
 
 P. 131. “Moreover it is certain that the ancients have handed 
 down that a conversion is made by a consecration, as appears from 
 the words of Ambrose just now quoted, &c. And indeed either the 
 words of institution pronounced by the priest are false, far be it 
 
646 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 to say so! or it is necessary that this which has been blessed is 
 the body of Christ, before also its being eaten, ἄρ. [In all this 
 writing Leibnitz deems it a point beyond question that the fathers 
 believed in a real change. I beg to commend this fact to those 
 who spiritualise all these expressions. I have shewn that I do 
 not think we are bound, addictos jurare, to all he said: but this 
 strong conviction which possessed him of there being incontro- 
 vertubly much of the literal in such patristic sayings may surely 
 have some weight. The whole truth, whatever it be, is surely 
 the only safe line for Protestants, even if they have to give back 
 many a captive father, or at least much of what he said, to its own 
 side. Now just a little more about Leibnitz’ philosophy in this 
 matter]...But the accidents of the signs are not in Christ’s body 
 as in a substance (in subjecto) but they are sustained in no sub- 
 ject, and the mass itself, moles, which certainly is something 
 ditterent from matter [I do not see why], seems, by the Divine 
 power, to discharge the office of a subjectum in regard to the other 
 accidents [making the mass one accident of matter, which is 
 I think arbitrary, confusing and groundless]. For theologians 
 teach thus with skill (sapienter), that in worship nothing may 
 sound amiss. For if the accidents which were those of bread 
 could be preached to belong to Christ’s body, it would follow 
 that Christ’s body is a thing easily broken, round, thin [the wafer], 
 and whitish: it would follow also that something small, white, 
 round, in one word, which has the properties (affectiones !), is being 
 adored: and that things that ought not to be done or to happen 
 to the species (elements or appearances) can happen to Christ’s 
 body itself. [Do not these words cast valuable sparks of light ?] 
 ...But since some eminent and acute spirits chiefly among the 
 reformed, imbued with the principles of a certain new and flattering 
 philosophy, seem, themselves, to understand clearly and distinctly, 
 to use their own style, that a body’s essence consists in extension 
 [incorrect language], but that accidents are only modes of substance, 
 and so that they cannot subsist without a subjectum, and are not 
 able to be separated from their substance, any more than the 
 uniformity of the circumference can be separated from a circle : 
 from which conclusions arises their deplorable and all but in- 
 superable aversion to the dogmas of the catholic church; I think 
 I must also come to help their disease, and elaborate catholic 
 principles, as the Lateran council ordered to be done against those 
 who were teaching doctrines about the soul’s nature that are 
 opposed to the faith, that their objections may clearly and lucidly 
 be satisfied and that the contrary may be accurately taught. 
 For they cry aloud that no church’s decree, no law, finally no force, 
 can cause anything that is impossible, and implies a contradic- 
 tion, or that manifestly appears to be certainly such, to be believed 
 truly and ex animo, even if a man wishes to obey it. They 
 
1040] BARON LEIBNITZ. 647 
 
 therefore ‘protest’ that schism is not to be imputed to them, 
 but to those who would have them torn away and made to receive 
 doctrines only on conditions that are impossible. [Leibnitz then 
 speaks as if they thought Plato, Aristotle and “the Divine 
 Thomas,” nothing better than boys: but says he is afraid of 
 being too long. Then] 
 
 P. 133. “ Certainly as a place is different from a thing placed 
 in it, or space from body, so matter is different from extension. 
 [Granted.] But nature brings us all to this distinction that we 
 understand something besides dimensions, which the ancients 
 called ἀντυτυπία, that which strikes back a blow; we can call it 
 the mass, moles, which is the cause of bodies not mutually pene- 
 trating into one another as if they were empty, and of their beg 
 capable of collision and mutually suffering from it, &e. [But in 
 the next paragraph he makes this mass a power, “ potentia prima 
 patiendi et resistendi,’ and surely it is odd to confuse that in 
 which properties qualities or ascidents inhere with a power. Our 
 ideas of mass are very different: and the whole seems to approach 
 very near to confusion. In p. 137, moles is equivalent to conatus, 
 an effort (!), but he rightly says that efforts of resistance are not 
 “modes” of a body. The object is to shew that substance may 
 be changed and accidents remain the same. But may we not ask 
 if he is not explaining the essential properties of matter, and that 
 though different from matter they are never severed from it, such 
 as extension, power of resistance, power of motion, &e.? but this 
 does not bring us on the way towards the possibility of so sepa- 
 rating accidental qualities from the matter to which they belong, 
 that for instance there may be all the sensible qualities of bread 
 with the substance of Christ’s body underneath them. I must not 
 thus piecemeal any more, but refer to the treatise.] 
 
 P. 139. Having explained the mystery of the eucharist as 
 far as our apprehension allows, ὅσ. he goes on to the question of 
 Communion under both kinds ; which he says arose “ because it was 
 “more easy to lose some part of what was liquid ;” so in the West 
 the cup was withheld. 
 
 P. 143. “It cannot be deemed that the whole Christ can be 
 taken under either kind, by the force, concomitance, to use the 
 theologians’ term...The church’s rulers have done what they have 
 done with good intention and weighty reason. 
 
 P. 147. “The adoring of the most sacred sacrament of the 
 eucharist, though it was not always equally practised, has yet with 
 praiseworthy piety been received. For the first Christians in all 
 things belonging to the external demonstration of worship were 
 simplicity itself, and this we cannot blame, since their minds were 
 inwardly burning with true piety. But when by degrees zeal was 
 growing cold, it was necessary to bring outward signs into use, 
 
048 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and to establish solemn rites, to admonish of duty and reawaken 
 the ardour of devotion, especially where great reason or occasion 
 for it existed. But no greater occasion can be given to Christians 
 than that which offers itself in this Divine sacrament when God 
 Himself shews to: us the presence of the body that He assumed 
 (for us)...Therefore the church has always used the eucharist as 
 the token of unity, and none but the approved and cleansed were 
 admitted to its mysteries, as to the inmost recesses of Christianity. 
 It was not lawful for others: even to be present...Hence not only 
 was it decreed to fall down, when it was lifted up after consecra- 
 tion ; but it. was also established that it should be borne with the 
 greatest honour even to the sick, or carried about, &c. that in a 
 feast of its own once a year it should be worshipped as a Divine 
 pledge on earth with the greatest church, as in a church-triumph. 
 [Leibnitz sees nothing objectionable in all this honouring of the 
 host. He says the elements are not adored, for their substance 
 is changed into Christ, and Him they adore. The question is, 
 Is it so changed 7] 
 
 P. 151. “It remains to explain the sacrifice of the mass, 
 which the church has always taught to be contained in the sacra- 
 ment of the eucharist. But there is in every sacrifice both the 
 offerer and the offering and the cause of it. But the offerer in the 
 sacrament of the altar is the priest. And indeed Christ Himself 
 is the high-priest Who not only once offered Himself on the cross, 
 but also perpetually even to the consummation of the age is ex- 
 ercising His own sacerdotal office, and now also is offering Him- 
 self to God the Father for us, through the ministry of the priest 
 (sacerdotis) or presbyter. Melchizedec a type, &c....But the thing 
 offered, either [called] victim or host, is Christ Himself, Whose flesh 
 and blood under the species of the signs goes through the office 
 also of being sacrificed and poured forth: nor do I see what is 
 wanting here to a true sacrifice. [Ans. There is no death, so 
 there is no victim or host, no dying offering, Christ does not there 
 die. | 
 
 P. 157. “Moreover, ‘since the honour and usefulness of a 
 perpetual or continual. sacrifice is so great, it was at last received, 
 that it should be offered to God as often as possible (creberrime) 
 for the necessities of the faithful, even without a dispensation 
 [for thus breaking rule]. In old time indeed all that were present 
 at a sacrifice, were also partakers of the communion of it; but 
 by degrees the coramunion was reduced to but few, from the time 
 when, the fervour of the first piety beg diminished, there began 
 to be a proper fear lest a more frequent receiving and a promis- 
 cuous distribution should diminish the reverence and make it an 
 occasion of sin to many...A space for preparation is given...Mixing 
 of water, sort of bread, &c. it is for the church to order.. She has 
 power over these things.” 
 
~ 
 
 1651] ARCHBISHOP’ FENELON. 649 
 
 (MM.) ARCHBISHOP FENELON, OF CAMBRAY. B. 1651. D.1715. 
 Frangois de Salignac de la Mothe Fenelon. 
 
 P. 484. “Advice for a person in cure of souls to give to his 
 parishioners, to incline them to the holy communion. I rejoice, 
 my very dear brethren, in the happiness, that you will this day be 
 able to receive the greatest gift that men can receive here below. 
 I. Although your eyes only perceive in the eucharist an appear- 
 ance of bread, faith nevertheless discovers there under this ap- 
 pearance the true body of Jesus Christ, that has been fastened on 
 the cross for us. He is there with His blood shed for our salva- 
 tion, with His soul, with His Divinity. He is there living, immortal, 
 glorious, such as He is at the right hand of His Father. As Moses 
 in Egypt changed the water into blood, and a rod into a serpent ; 
 as Jesus Christ at the marriage of Cana changed the water ito 
 wine, in the same way He changes the bread and the wine into 
 His own body and into His own blood, immediately as the priest 
 pronounces in His name the sacramental words. It is His Almighty 
 Power that works this miracle, as He does all others, and they cost 
 Him no exertion. The words of men that are sincere say that 
 which is, but the all-powerful words of the Son of God do that which 
 they say....Hach one of the other sacraments gives us the particular 
 grace that is peculiar to its institution: but this gives us Jesus 
 
 Jhrist Himself, the source of all the graces, the Author and 
 Finisher of our faith.... Whoever should receive it with an impure 
 conscience, in any mortal sin, instead of plunging himself in the 
 
 Vol. I. 484. Paris, 1858. 
 
 Avis @un curé (pour un curé) a ses paroissiens pour les disposer ἃ la 
 sainte communion. Je me réjouis, mes tres chers freres, du bonheur, que 
 vous aurez de recevoir aujourd’hui le plus grand don que les hommes 
 puissent recevoir ici-bas. 1. Quoique vos yeux n’apercoivent dans l’eu- 
 charistie qu'une apparence de pain, la foi néanmoins y découvre sous cette 
 apparence le vrai corps de Jésus-Christ, quia été attaché sur la croix pour 
 nous. Il y est, avec Son sang répandu. pour notre salut, avec Son Ame, avec 
 Sa Divinité. Il] y est vivant immortel, glorieux, tel qu’Il est ἃ la droite 
 de Son Pére. Comme Moise changea en Egypte l’eau en sang, et une 
 baguette en serpent—comme Jésus-Christ changea aux noces de Cana 
 Peau en vin—de méme I} change le pain et le vin en Son corps et en Son 
 sang, dés que le prétre prononce en Son nom les paroles sacramentelles, 
 Cest Sa toute-puissance qui fait ce miraele, comme tant d’autres qui ne 
 Lui coutent rien. Les paroles des hommes sincéres disent ce qui est : 
 mais les paroles toute-puissantes du Fils de Dieu font ce qwils disent . 
 Chacun des autres sacremens nous donne la grace particuli¢re qui est 
 propre ἃ son institution: mais celui-ci nous donne Jésus-Christ méme, 
 source de toutes les graces, Auteur et Consommateur de notre foi... Qui- 
 conque la recevroit dans une conscience impure, avec quelque péché 
 
650 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 fountain of the water of life, he would eat and drink his own 
 judgment to his eternal perdition. He would give to Jesus Christ 
 the traitorous kiss of Judas, &c....It would be useless to abstain 
 from the communion from fear of partaking of it unworthily. In 
 communicating unworthily one changes the bread of life into 
 poison and one poisons one’s-self; but in not communicating one 
 deprives one’s-self of the nourishment, and one leaves one’s-self to 
 die of fainting through this deprival. We must then communicate 
 and communicate worthily, &., &c. When you shall have made 
 this sacrifice [of yourself], &c. you will as an angel eat the bread 
 of angels. 
 
 1. 435. John vi. 55,56. “It is the flesh of Jesus Christ that 
 we eat, but it is the spirit that quickens us. The flesh alone 
 (v.e. Christ’s real flesh, received) profiteth nothing, as He said of 
 Himself. Yes: the flesh, although it be united to the Word, as 
 S. John fears not to say, that the Word was made flesh. He has 
 only united it [to us], to communicate to us His Spirit in a more 
 sensible manner through this fellowship of the flesh, which He 
 makes with us. 
 
 11. “Of the education of daughters....Strongly represent 
 the happiness which we have of being incorporated with Christ by 
 the eucharist. In baptism He makes us His brethren. In the 
 eucharist He makes us His members. As He gave Himself by 
 the incarnation to the human nature in general, He gives Himself 
 
 mortel, au lieu de se plonger dans la fontaine d’eau de vie, boiroit et 
 mangerott son jugement pour sa perte éternelle. 1] donneroit ἃ Jésus- 
 Christ le baiser traitre de Judas, &c..... Il seroit inutile de s’abstenir 
 de la communion de peur de communier indignement. En communiant 
 indignement on change le pain de vie en poison et on s’empoisonne soi- 
 méme ; mais en ne communiant pas, on se prive de la nourriture et on se 
 laisse mourir de défaillance dans cette privation. I] faut donc communier 
 et communier dignement, &c., &c. Quand vous aurez fait ce sacrifice 
 (de vous-méme) dc, vous mangerez en ange le pain des anges. 
 
 I. p. 435. John vi. 55, 56. 
 
 C’est la chair de Jésus-Christ que nous mangeons, mais c’est Son Esprit 
 qui nous vivifie. La chair seule ne profite de rien, comme 1] dit de Lui- 
 méme. Oui: la chair, quoiqu’unie au Verbe, en sorte que 8. Jean ne 
 craint pas de dire que Le Verbe est fait chair. 1] ne la unie que pour 
 nous communiquer Son Esprit plus sensiblement par cette société char- 
 nelle qu’ Il a faite avec nous. 
 
 7 71: 
 
 De Véducation des filles... Représentez fortement le bonheur que 
 nous avons d’étre incorporés ἃ Jésus-Christ par leucharistie. Dans le 
 baptéme 1] nous fait Ses fréres. Dans leucharistie I] nous fait Ses 
 membres. Comme I] s’étoit donné par Vincarnation ἃ la nature humaine 
 
1651] ARCHBISHOP FENELON. 651 
 
 by the eucharist (which is sequence so natural to the incarnation) 
 to each faithful person in particular. Everything is real in the 
 order of these mysteries. Jesus Christ gives His flesh as really as 
 He has taken it...the quickening (lite- giving) flesh of Jesus Christ. 
 What a calamity, you will say again, to be in want of the sacra- 
 ment of penitence, which supposes one has sinned since one was 
 made a child of God. Although this altogether Heavenly power, 
 which works on the earth and which God has put in the hands of 
 the priests, to bind and to loose sinners according to their needs, 
 be so great a source of pity, one must tremble for fear of abusing 
 the gifts of God and His patience. For the body of Jesus Christ, 
 which is the life, &e. 
 
 P. 522. “ Praise the infinite wisdom of the Son of God, which 
 has established pastors to represent Him among us, to instruct us 
 in the knowledge of His name, to give us His body. Shew that 
 you must rejoice that God has given such power unto men....We 
 must then lower the eyes and groan, as soon as one sees in them 
 the least spot which tarnishes the brightness of their ministerings.... 
 Their doctrine is not theirs. He that hears them hears the Lord 
 Jesus Christ Himself. When they are assembled in the name of 
 
 Jesus Christ to explain the Scriptures the Spirit speaks by them.” 
 
 en général, I] se donne par l’eucharistie (qui est une suite si naturelle ἃ 
 Vinearnation) a chaque fidéle en particulier. Tout est réel dans la suite 
 de ces mysteres. Jésus-Christ donne Sa chair aussi réellement qu’ll l’a 
 prise ... la chair vivifiante de Jésus-Christ, &c. Quel malheur, direz- 
 vous encore, d’avoir besoin du sacrement de la pénitence, qui suppose 
 qu’on a péché depuis qu’on a été fait enfant de Dieu. Quoique cette puis- 
 sance toute céleste, qui s’exerce sur la terre et que Dieu a mise dans les 
 mains des prétres pour lier et pour délier les pécheurs selon leurs 
 besoins, soit une si grande source de miséricorde, il faut trembler dans la 
 crainte d’abuser des dons de Dieu et de Sa patience. Pour le corps de 
 Jésus-Christ, qui est la vie, &c., &e. 
 
 P, 522, 
 
 Louez la sagesse infinie du Fils de Dieu qui a établi des pasteurs pour 
 Le représenter parmi nous, pour nous instruire ἃ Son nom, pour nous 
 donner Son corps... Montrez quwil faut se réjouir que Dieu a donné 
 une telle puissance aux hommes.... Il faut done baiser les yeux et 
 gémir dés qu’on apergoit en eux la moindre tache qui ternit léclat de 
 leurs ministéres.... Leur doctrine n’est pas la leur. Qui les écoute 
 écoute Jésus-Christ méme. Quand ils sont assemblés au nom de Jésus- 
 Christ pour expliquer les Ecritures, le Saint Esprit parle par eux. 
 
652 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (NN.) RICHARD BAXTER. B. 1615. D. 1691. 
 
 A man, who should in such a notice as this set himself to praise 
 the writings of this divine, might next be found proving that roses 
 are sweet and lilies beautiful. The very mention of the Saints’ 
 Everlasting Rest, the Call to the Unconverted, and the Reformed . 
 Pastor, marks one of the greatest benefactors to the human race, 
 if it only be granted that pure and true Christianity is the greatest 
 blessing man can enjoy. If like Owen his genius delighted too 
 much in hammering out its produce, till it was too thin to produce 
 the best effect, yet who would be willing by curbing either of 
 them to run the risk of losing any portion of their best utterances ? 
 If Dr Barrow could say of the practical writings of Baxter that 
 they could not be mended, and of his controversial writings that 
 they were seldom able to be confuted, who would try to add to 
 such a dictum? He was honoured in the vain attempts to settle 
 a general unity and conformity. He became a royal chaplain, but 
 did not see his way to accept the offered bishopric of Hereford. 
 But in Kidderminster he was more than bishop, and he found that 
 God had much people there, ready to become both his reward and 
 crown, and living examples of the healthiness of his theology. 
 Yet it is very curious to read his views on the Lord’s supper. 
 
 Practical Works. 4 Vols. folio. London, 1707. 
 
 P. 712. “Another pleasant holy duty is our communion with 
 Christ and His church in the Lord’s supper. This is a holy feast 
 that is purposely provided by the King of kings for the entertain- 
 ment of His family, for the refreshing of the weary and the making 
 glad of the mournful soul. I know that to an unbelieving carnal 
 wretch the sacrament is but a common thing, for Christ Himself 
 and His Gospel are no better in his eyes....We have here the com- 
 munion with the blessed Trinity in the three parts of this eucha- 
 ristic sacrament....In the first part, which is the consecration, we 
 present to owr Creator the creatures of bread and wine, and we 
 desire that upon our dedication, by His acceptance they may be 
 made sacramentally and representatively the body and blood of 
 Christ. In the second part of the eucharist, which is the com- 
 memoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, we break the 
 bread and pour forth the wine to represent the breaking of His 
 body and the shedding of His blood for the sin of man; and we 
 beseech the Father to be reconciled to us on His Son’s account, 
 and to accept us in His beloved and to accept all our sacrifices 
 
1015] RICHARD BAXTER. 653 
 
 through Him; so that as Christ is now in Heaven, representing 
 His sacrifice to the Father, which He once offered on the cross for 
 sin, so must the minister of Christ represent and plead to the Father 
 the same sacrifice by way of commemoration, and such inter- 
 cession as belongeth to his office. The third part of the eucharist 
 is the offer and participation, in which the minister representing 
 Christ doth by commission deliver His body and blood to the 
 penitent hungry believing soul, and with Christ is delivered a 
 sealed pardon of all sin and a sealed gift of life eternal; all which 
 are received by the believer. An unbeliever knoweth not what 
 transactions there are between the Lord and a believing soul in 
 this ordinance, where the appearances are so small. A bit of bread 
 and a sup of wine are indeed small matters; but so is not the 
 communion with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. What a 
 comfort is it that the offended Majesty will provide the sacrifice 
 and that the preciousest in the whole world; that He will signify 
 His acceptance and how He is pleased in His well-beloved Son, 
 and that He accepteth His Son’s intercession in the Heavens, and 
 His ministers’ intercessions and His church’s prayers on earth, 
 through Christ. Since Christ must be glorified with the Father 
 and not continue visible among us, what could we desire more 
 from Him than the threefold representation which He has left 
 behind to supply the room of His bodily presence? even the 
 representation of Himself by the sacrament, by His ministers, and 
 by the Holy Ghost, which is His substitute within for the efticiency 
 of all. [I cannot help interposing that Baxter puts the ministers 
 forward to the view in a way not agreeable to the details of the 
 original institution, and includes as part of the sacrament functions 
 which do not seem to be intended to be assigned to them in any 
 special way in this ordinance.] O what unspeakable mysteries 
 and treasures of mercy are here presented to us in a sacrament. 
 When you must all appear before the bar of God what would you 
 not give for a sealed pardon, which in a sacrament 15 given freely 
 now to the believing soul? [I am constrained to object that 
 Baxter here seems to fall into what seems a common error of sup- 
 posing the sacraments seals to the person of his salvation ; whereas 
 they are simply rich significant seals of the general doctrine of salva- 
 tion.]... Have you the true understanding of the use of sacraments ? 
 [τν. 214.] (1) It is the very Christ Himself, and not only His signs, 
 that is given to the believer by means of the signs, z.e. He is given, 
 not to contact, but in right and relation, as a Head and Saviour, 
 by contract. (2) But the signs are physically but signs still, 
 though representatively they are the body and blood of Christ: 
 a.e. It is the very body and blood which is represented and given 
 by Him. (3) And the gospel covenant on God’s part is the chief 
 instrument of this right and relation as conveyed. (4) And the 
 minister and the sacraments are the two subsequent instruments, 
 
654 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P. 139. “Consecration is the separating and sanctifying the 
 bread and wine to this holy use, by which it ceaseth to be mere 
 common bread, and is made sacramentally, 7.e. by signification and 
 by representation, the sacrificed body and blood of Christ....Some 
 say it is done only by saying those words, ‘This is My body’ or 
 (by) blessing it. It is done by all that giveth to it a separation or 
 dedication to a holy use; and that is (1) by declaring that God 
 commandeth and accepteth it, &c., and that we then accordingly 
 devote it, (2) by prayer for His acceptance and blessing, (3) by 
 pronouncing ministerially that it is now sacramentally Christ’s 
 body and blood, relatively significantly, relatively sacramentally, 1.6. 
 it is on those accounts so called. [P. 140.] What think you of the 
 name sacrifice, altar and priest? It is no more improper than call- 
 ing our bodies and our alms and our prayers sacrifices. [There is 
 scriptural warrant for calling those by that name and none for so 
 calling the sacrament. ] [P. 141.] And the naming of the table an altar 
 as related to representative sacrifice is no more improper than that 
 other, Heb. xii. 10, [a passage which] seems plainly to mean the 
 sacramental communion. And the word ‘priest’ bemg used of all 
 Christians that offer praise to God; it may sure as well be used of 
 those whose office is to be sub-intercessors between the people and 
 God... subordination to Christ’s priesthood.” [This last phrase 
 seems to remove all question as to this godly man not being right 
 in his view of this sacrament. Also he loses sight of the fact that 
 the New Testament never once applies ἱερεὺς, priest, sacrificing 
 priest, to any Christian minister, but only to Christ. ] 
 
 (OO.) ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM WAKE. B. 1657, Ὁ. 1787. 
 
 He has been spoken of as the next primate but one after 
 Tillotson, Tenison coming between. He was of a masculine 
 character, but of uncertain views in relation to the reaction that 
 had been for some time setting in towards Popery. His way of 
 meeting it was, to say the best of it, of very doubtful excellence. 
 His numerous writings were very acceptable in their day. There 
 have been many editions of his little book on the fathers of the 
 first century. But larger works also issued from his pen. He 
 feared not to combat with Bossuet. His “State of the Church” 
 teems with valuable historical matter regarding the English con- 
 vocation, He was born at Blandford, and from Christchurch, 
 Oxford, became preacher at Gray’s Inn, and was thence advanced 
 to St James’, Westminster. The Deanery of Exeter and the 
 
1067] ARCHBISHOP WAKE. 655 
 
 Bishopric of Lincoln were his steps to Canterbury, where he pre- 
 sided for twenty-one years. 
 
 This prelate’s portrait would lead us to expect a decided policy. 
 His endeavour to unite the Churches of France and England is 
 enough to redeem the pledge; but he is also notable for the line 
 he took on the Lord’s supper. Tenison seems to have let the 
 matter rest ; but some of Wake’s expressions on the subject seem 
 to shew that he thought Dr More and others had gone too far. 
 For (p. 46) in the Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, London, 1687, 
 he says, “I will not deny that some men may possibly have ad- 
 “vanced their private notions beyond what is here said.” I take 
 this to refer (among others) to Tillotson ; for he defends his own 
 position by citations from some of our highest divines, and even 
 introduces Thorndike, and refers to Hall and Laud; but he says 
 not a word regarding Archbishop Tillotson or of Dr More’s treatise, 
 which we have just considered. I gather from this that he thought 
 it high time to surrender the current dogma of “a real presence of 
 “Christ’s body and blood”; and with acute generalship at least to 
 please his party and keep up their views to the utmost possible 
 degree, he adopted the “real presence of Christ,” but not the 
 real presence of His body and blood. With this begins a new era. 
 Here commences the Archbishop Wake period of the controversy. 
 This view is not yet renounced, On the contrary it still retains a 
 large body of most creditable supporters. It is therefore perhaps 
 desirable to deal openly with it at once, even before some of this 
 primate’s actual statements are brought forward. What is then 
 the meaning of the popular phrases of the real presence of Christ 
 in this sacrament? It either asserts that He is present in His 
 Godhead only, which fills all space, but that His humanity, though 
 united to His Deity, still is m Heaven only, so that His Godhead 
 only is in the supper with us; or else it signifies that His Godhead 
 and His Manhood are both present on earth in this sacrament. 
 Now, if the latter be the meaning, the purport is not at all different 
 from the earlier assertion of the real presence of Christ’s body and 
 blood, in defining which the church fell into so sad and intolerable 
 an error: so that in that case nothing is gained by having shortened 
 the phrase. But if Wake meant to adopt the first alternative, that 
 Christ’s Divine presence alone is meant, and not the presence of 
 His body and blood, where is the use now of the word “real” ? 
 Does any one doubt, did any ever doubt the reality of Christ’s Divine 
 
656 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 presence as God and as the Son of God in this sacrament? Then in 
 this case we have a form of words that seems to say that there 
 is something more than Christ’s spiritual Divine presence, 2.¢. - 
 something more than the presence of Christ's Divine Spirit, and 
 yet it does not mean any more. It is as if the term “real” 
 (though then utterly needless) is retained just to comfort those that 
 still hold the real presence of the body and blood, while at the 
 same.time their particular and favourite doctrine is really wholly 
 thrown aside. There is, however, in this ambiguous wording a 
 considerable danger of persons in general thinking that we hold a 
 certain kind of bodily presence, or presence of the body and blood 
 after all; and I am not without fear, nor indeed is there any room 
 for doubt, that this is the true description of the opinions of very 
 many in this present day. So let us weigh the Archbishop’s 
 terms. 
 
 Discourse on the Eucharist as to Real Presence and adoration 
 of the host. London, 1687. 
 
 P. 43. “1. To state the notion of the real presence as held by 
 the church of England I must observe first that our church utterly 
 denies our Saviour’s body to be so really present in the blessed 
 sacrament as either to leave Heaven or to exist in two several places 
 at the same time. ['The certain inference is that the manhood of 
 Christ is in Heaven only and is not present in this sacrament.] 
 Again, secondly, We deny that in the sacred elements which we 
 receive there is any other substance than that of bread and wine 
 distributed to the communicants; which alone they take into 
 their mouths and press with their teeth. In short all which the 
 doctrine of our church implies by this phrase is only a real 
 presence of Christ’s invisible power and grace, so in and with 
 the elements, as by the faithful receiving of them to convey 
 spiritual and real effects to the souls of men. [The last of these 
 sentences suits Luther’s view as well as ours; but the second is in 
 direct opposition to any and every idea of Christ’s manhood being 
 present at all on-earth in this rite, on the contrary it is only His 
 power and rin with blessed effects that are present. But come to] 
 
 P. 82, 88. “And now but one objection more... If this be 
 all that the Church of England understands, when it speaks of a 
 real presence, viz. a real sacramental presence of Christ’s body and 
 blood in the holy signs and a real spiritual presence in the inward 
 communion of them to the soul of every worthy receiver—will not 
 this precipitate us into downright Zuinglianism and render us, 
 after all our pretences, as very sacramentaries as they? [Mark the 
 Archbishop’s reply.] Indeed I am not able directly to say whether 
 
1657] ARCHBISHOP WAKE. 657 
 
 it will or no, because I find the opinion of Zuinglius very variously 
 represented in this matter. [The first is a misapprehension of 
 Zwingel and I omit it. What Zwingel did hold is seen in this 
 Part, but will be more abundantly seen in the Third Part when it 
 is published.] But now secondly if he [the objector] understands 
 by ZGwinglianism such a real presence, as denies only the co-ex- 
 istence of Christ’s natural body now in Heaven at the same time 
 in this holy sacrament, but denies nothing of that real and 
 spiritual communion of it which we have before mentioned ; this 
 is indeed our doctrine, nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any 
 ill names he [?.e. the objector] may put upon it [1.6. if he call it 
 Zwinglian]. But yet I wonder that he [the objector] should call 
 his Zwinglianism since, if the common name of catholic or Christian 
 doctrine be not sufficient, he might have found out a more ancient 
 abettor of this real presence than Zuinglius, and the truth is, one of 
 the most dangerous opposers of their head and their faith that ever 
 was, | mean St Paul, has not clearly expressed himself against 
 them on this point of the eucharist, 1 Cor. x. 16—but in most of 
 their other errors left such pernicious sayings to the world as all 
 their authority and infallibility—let me add nor all their anathemas 
 neither—shall be able to overcome. 
 
 In this most notable passage I plainly understand this godly 
 and enlightened primate to say that Zwingel holds the Lord’s 
 supper not only to be a sign but also a chosen way in the use of 
 which believers may obtain much real grace from Christ’s power, 
 which is really with them in eating the bread and drinking the 
 wine. He (the primate) does not mind if he is called a Zwinglian, 
 for it is the true belief of the Church of England, and 15 real catholic 
 truth, and was the teaching of St Paul in the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. Now that there are some cloudy expressions here 
 and there, both in the primate’s writing and in his citations from 
 his several authorities, 1 admit; but if the case stands on what 
 the primate says and on what he cites, it is I think clear that 
 Archbishop Wake, under the words “a real presence,” only means 
 the presence of Christ’s Divine Spirit as Son of God, seeing that 
 His manhood is in Heaven only. 
 
 The question arises, Why need the presence of Christ’s Divine 
 Spirit and power and grace be called a real presence? Did not 
 the word “rea]” throughout this discussion down to the Reforma- 
 tion generally and almost universally mean the res ipsa under 
 discussion, viz. the body and the blood? And did not true or verum 
 mean verum corpus, the true body? And did not Dean, afterwards 
 
 ἘΠῚ ΤΠ. 432 
 
658 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Bishop Overall, mean the res ipsa, the verum corpus, when he 
 wrote the words “The body and blood of Christ which are verily 
 “ and indeed [as it were vere et realiter] taken and received by the 
 “faithful in the Lord’s supper” ? 
 
 Therefore I ask when Wake resolved to cast overboard the real 
 presence of the body and blood of Christ, why did he retain the 
 ambiguous terms real presence at all? For all that he meant 
 was the real presence of Christ’s Godhead; and why use “real 
 “presence” for that? It is true that Latimer in his last examina- 
 tion resorted to the same “ trick of fence,” and thought no harm of 
 it. But experience might by this time suffice to shew us that the 
 use of it makes many believe there is a kind of bodily presence of 
 Christ after all. It is astonishing how men cling to old ideas. 
 I was once gravely told that there is a difference between a bodily 
 presence and the presence of a body. 
 
 With so express utterances by the Archbishop that he means 
 by “the real presence” nothing but Christ’s Divine power present 
 to heal and bless and feed the faithful with grace in the Lord’s 
 supper, one might think the phrase of the Real Presence a harmless 
 one in his hands, and one might entertain the hope that his 
 accepting and sanctioning the mere phrase would not hurt either 
 himself or others. But what is the fact in his case? In this very 
 treatise pays he no penalty for retaining old received expressions 
 in a new sense? Does not the rust of the old idea of “a real 
 “bodily presence”’ cling to his newly-polished periods? Is there 
 not some of it in the very passage I quoted last ? and much more 
 can be found in the treatise. With all respect therefore I beg to 
 suggest to such as are inclined to this phrase—this term—that 
 ees is a danger about it. I would apologize for pressing the 
 argument. Does it not give an advantage to the maintainers of 
 the real bodily presence, and incline those who do not examine 
 deeply, to think the difference between Wake’s view and Popery 
 very small, seeing the wording is so nearly identical? And do 
 not many come to say, Well, after all there is a kind of Real 
 Presence in the Lord’s supper? I cite an eminent man from the 
 authorities adduced in this treatise. 
 
 P. 69. “‘We may not render worship to Him as present in 
 ‘the blessed sacrament in His human nature, without danger of 
 ‘idolatry, because He is not there according to His human nature, 
 
1057] ARCHBISHOP WAKE. 659 
 
 ‘and therefore you give Divine worship to a non-ens, which must 
 ‘needs be idolatry.’ [Wake adds jestingly] But still it may be he 
 does not intend to exclude the corpus Domini, but only the 
 corporal or natural manner of that body. Let us therefore hear how 
 he goes on, ‘For an idol is nothing in the world, saith St Paul; 
 ‘and Christ, as present by His human nature in the sacrament, is 
 ‘a non-ens. For it is not true. There is no such thing.” [Then 
 Wake adds again,] What not as Christ there, no way, as to His 
 human nature? No. ‘He is (saith he) present there by His 
 ‘Divine power and His Divine blessing and the fruits of His body, 
 ‘the real effective consequents of His passion. But for any other 
 ‘presence, it is an idol—it is nothing in the world. We adore 
 ‘Christ in Heaven, for the Heaven must contain Him till the time 
 ‘of the restitution of all things. [This citation is all from Jeremy 
 Taylor, and Zwingel could have written or subscribed to every 
 word. | 
 
 T cannot withhold one more citation. The Archbishop intro- 
 duces it with a flourish as from one whom Wake’s adversaries 
 would not expect to see against them. 
 
 P. 69. “If it can any way be shewed that the church did ever 
 pray that the flesh and blood might be substituted instead of the 
 elements under the accidents of them, then I am content that this 
 be accounted henceforth the sacramental presence in the eucharist: 
 But if the church only prays that the Spirit of God coming down 
 on the elements may make them the body and blood of Christ, so 
 that they which receive them may be filled with the grace of His 
 Spirit” [&e., &., to a great length]. 
 
 Thus it seems Thorndike does not believe in the presence of 
 Christ’s humanity in the supper because he thinks the church did 
 not. We have seen that the church did believe a change of the 
 elements, and chiefly many leading fathers, such as particularly 
 Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and John 
 Damascene. But Wake clearly denies the presence of the man- 
 hood of Christ in the supper. 
 
 One word seems indispensable. If it be urged that though 
 Christ’s body is not itself present, yet is present by its union with 
 the omnipresent Divinity of the Son of God, is not this idea at 
 once removable by imagining a small body no larger than say half 
 an inch in diameter inserted into a sphere as large as the sun, will 
 that infinitely small thing be present in every part of the sun or 
 only in the little spot where it is inserted? Just so though 
 Christ’s Divine Spirit embraces and is present in all the universe 
 
 42—2 
 
600 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and in Heaven at once and always; yet the little substance, His 
 humanity, is only in one small spot in Heaven. ‘There is no 
 presence of it anywhere else. So likewise regarding the human 
 spirit of Christ. A limited spirit is limited to one spot. God only 
 is present in many or all places at once. And moreover Christ’s 
 human spirit must be in His human body, and therefore Christ’s 
 human spirit also “is in Heaven and not here ;” and this holds, 
 whether it be, as some think, already “ glorified,” or not, seeing 
 that glorified humanity will still be limited or finite. 
 
 (PP.) BISHOP THOMAS WILSON OF THE ISLE OF MAN. 
 B. 1663. vb. 1755 
 
 This prelate, whose memory yet liveth among Manxmen, 
 Governor, Deemsters, Keys, and fishermen and people in general, 
 is a singular instance on the one hand of strength of assertion 
 quite beyond Scripture, and therefore unwarranted; and on the 
 other hand of. excellent and moderated utterances thoroughly 
 accordant both with the letter and spirit of the New Testament. 
 This assertion would be strengthened could space be given to the 
 system of Christian instruction, vol. 10., which he drew up for 
 the Indians in Georgia in consequence of what he calls “a short 
 “but very entertaining conversation with the Hon. General Ogle- 
 “thorpe and others, &c.” His forms of prayer for the fishermen 
 both in church and on board the boats will interest every one. 
 Some forty years since residing in the island I heard from the two 
 Deemsters that the fishermen would still fall on their knees on the 
 deck of their boats as they went out of Douglas Harbour. The 
 bishop had also strong ideas on absolution. A sad strife about 
 clerical power with the attorney-general of the island caused the 
 bishop to be imprisoned many months: but by royal writ his fines, 
 &e. were remitted. In the chief disputed case most men would 
 think the parties guilty, and the bishop wrong. He was born at 
 Barton in Cheshire, and was of Trinity, Dublin. 
 
 Sacra Privata, Bp. 1. Wilson’s works. Bath, 1796. 
 
 Vol. 11. p. 214. Lord’s Supper. “May it please Thee O God 
 Who hast called us to this ministry, to make us worthy to offer to 
 Thee this sacrifice for our own sins and for the sins of Thy people, 
 &e., &e. [Upon placing the elements upon the altar], Vouchsafe 
 
1009] BISHOP THOMAS WILSON. 661 
 
 to receive these Thy creatures from the hands of us sinners, O 
 Thou self-sufficient God. [Immediately after the consecration], 
 We offer unto Thee our King and our God this bread and this cup. 
 We give Thee thanks for these and for all Thy mercies, beseeching 
 Thee to send down Thy Holy Spirit, that He may make this bread 
 the body of Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of Thy Christ ; and 
 that all we who are partakers thereof may thereby obtain remission 
 of our sins and all other benefits of His passion. May J atone 
 unto Thee O God by offering unto Thee the pure and unbloody 
 sacrifice, which Thou hast ordained by Jesus Christ, &c., &c. 
 
 A short introduction, &. 1. 7 “Two holy ordinances.... 
 Baptism by which you were admitted into the congregation of 
 Christ’s flock, were restored to the favour of God, and had the 
 Holy Spirit communicated to you for a principle of new and 
 spiritual life, in order to awaken you and direct that natural reason 
 with which God has endowed all mankind... [P. 8] the other 
 sacrament that of the Lord’s supper; by which, upon your sincere 
 repentance, you may obtain the pardon of all your past sins, and 
 such other graces as you stand in need of, to bring you to eternal 
 hfe and happiness, &c. [How much more is made of this sacra- 
 ment than the Bible teaches 1] 
 
 P.18. “He did ordain this sacrament as a memorial of our 
 redemption and of His love for us, as a pledge to assure us of it, 
 and as an outward means and sign of testifying as well as in- 
 creasing our love to Him. [What can be better than this 7] 
 
 P.19. “They crucitied Jesus Christ, the true paschal Lamb, 
 the very same month, the very same day of the month, and the 
 very same hour of the day that the paschal lamb was first ordained 
 to be sacrificed. [This surprises us. Yet it is a not uncommon 
 error; for Jesus was crucified at the third hour (nine in the 
 morning): and the ordinance of God for slaying the lamb was 
 between the two evenings, 1. 6. at sunset, the beginning of the 14th 
 day. See Thesis at the beginning of Part T.] 
 
 P. 22. “The oftener we remember it in the manner He 
 ordained, the more graces we shall receive, &c., &e. 
 
 P. 46. “ After all, this is not to encourage any person to go to 
 the Lord’s supper without a wedding ¢ garment, without a due 
 regard to the duty. For a man may go so unworthily as to 
 receive judgment instead of a blessing, ζα, &e. On the other 
 hand let not any well-meaning Christians be discouraged, &c., &e. 
 A state of holiness and perfection is not to be expected at once, 
 but by degrees, and as we make good use of the graces which the 
 Holy Spirit from time to time vouchsafes to us—a good Christian 
 not being one who has no inclination to sin; but one who through 
 the grace of God immediately checks, and suffers not such incli- 
 
 nation to grow into evil habits. 
 
002 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 P.119. “Three times a year!—God forbid that any good 
 Christian should make this an excuse for receiving no oftener, if 
 he has an opportunity! And woe to that pastor, who will not give 
 the well-disposed part of his flock more frequent opportunities of 
 testifying their love to Jesus Christ ; of increasing their graces and 
 securing their pardon and salvation. 
 
 P. 20. “Then the minister of God, as the steward of Christ’s 
 household, applies these blessings to every person who receives 
 this sacrament in this devout prayer, ‘The body and blood of 
 ‘Christ which were given and shed for thee preserve thy body and 
 ‘soul unto everlasting life.’” 
 
 (QQ.) JOHN JOHNSON, M.A., VICAR OF CRANBROOK. 
 EB. e662. τ 1720. 
 
 He was a learned non-juror, and employed his powers to the 
 full in writing on the Lord’s supper 885: ἃ sacrifice. He also pub- 
 lished a compilation of church laws and other works with frequent 
 references to the fathers. His most favourite expression for the 
 Lord’s supper is “the unbloody sacrifice”; but his declarations are 
 very antagonistic to each other, owing to the degree in which he 
 follows up Cyril of Alexandria’s views about Christ’s body. 
 
 Vol. 1. p. 341, A. C. Lib. “How the sacrament was consecrated 
 of old. (1) The sacrament was by the ancients believed to be the 
 body and blood of Christ, not by the faith of the receiver or 
 communicant, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, or Divine 
 benediction imparted to it by the means of the invocation. (2) The 
 primitive Christians expected to receive no other body and blood 
 than the bread and wine thus consecrated. [P. 342.] They 
 thought the words of the institution oblation and invocation to 
 be effectual for rendering the elements the spiritual mysterious 
 body and blood...And indeed, if the eucharist were not the body 
 and blood before distribution, it could not be made so by any 
 post-fact of the communicants. 
 
 P. 344. “Though they believed it to be bread and wine, yet 
 they were at the same time of opinion that they were filled with 
 all that. Divine grace and efficacy that His natural body was, and 
 that if they had had His natural body and had had stomachs and 
 consciences to have eaten, it could not have conveyed to them any 
 benefit which was not as effectually conveyed to them by the 
 eucharistical body and blood. Was His natural body anointed 
 with the Spirit? So was His sacramental. Was His natural 
 body a spiritual life-giving body? So was His sacramental. Was 
 
1662] JOHN JOHNSON. 663 
 
 His natural body a sacrifice for the life of man? So was His 
 sacramental, &e....Nay they could not but know that if they had 
 the very natural body, it would have been impossible to receive tt: 
 for neither their teeth nor their appetites would have served them. 
 
 P. 345. “If Christ be present it is so in an invisible manner; 
 and for the natural body of Christ to be present in 10,000 places 
 at once is impossible in the nature of things. It can therefore 
 only be present in the imagination of men; and consequently 
 their eating of it must be only imaginary...This is not that eating 
 of the flesh or body that we are now speaking of. 
 
 P. 510. “Dr Claget and Dr Whitby by flesh and blood here 
 understand doctrine, the Calvinists the natural flesh and blood of 
 Christ. 
 
 P. 511. “If we believe our Saviour to speak of this eucha- 
 ristical flesh and blood in John vi., we shall avoid all those diffi- 
 culties and objections, with which the hypothesis of Dr C. and 
 Dr W. and that of the Calvinists are pressed...John vi. The meat 
 is the sacrament of Christ. The labour is faith. It is the wages 
 paid us in hand: our present refreshment. It is to be given only 
 to believers... The Jews never supposed that flesh and blood in 
 John vi. meant one body, and the body and blood in the institu- 
 tion meant another. When flesh and blood are spoken of, flesh 
 can import no more than body. I may safely challenge the greatest 
 critic to shew any difference between them.” 
 
 (RR.) FRATRES POLONI, POLISH BROTHERS. 
 
 Under this title are published in eight volumes, folio, the 
 works of Faustus Socinus, John Crallius, John Louis Wolzogenius 
 and Jonas Slichtingius, at Irenopolis, A.D. 1656. To these may 
 be added the works of Samuel Przipcovius in one vol., published 
 at Eleutheropolis, 1692. Several of them in their commentaries 
 on the New Testament write upon the Lord’s supper: nor does it 
 seem that their statements and reasonings may not be consulted 
 with profit, if due regard be had to the bearings of their doctrinal 
 position in relation to the one main distinctive doctrine of Christi- 
 anity. But they do not appear to be entitled to a place among 
 the Christ-worshipping fathers and divines, whose teaching on the 
 Lord’s supper is here put together. 
 
 Faustus Socinus, born 1539, author of the Racovian Catechism, 
 was the nephew and heir of Lelius Socinus who at their birth- 
 
664 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 place Siena laid the foundations of their common creed. Crellius, 
 born 1591, taught at Cracow. Wolzogen, born 1632, of Austrian 
 parents, ministered in several places in Holland. The works of 
 Schlichting, who was born 1596, were burnt at Warsaw, and he 
 withdrew to Holland. Przipcov, born 1610, was driven from 
 Poland and retired to Prussia, where he died at eighty years of 
 age. 
 
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) FROM A SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE BY PLATON METROPOLITAN 
 OF Moscow, translated by R. Pinkerton, about 1700. Edin- 
 burgh, 1814. 
 
 “The Government of the church. P. 168. The duties of 
 pastors and teachers...(2) To dispense the mysteries, &c. There 
 is also given by our Saviour to the pastors of the Church, power 
 to bind and to loose, or the power of the keys; which consists 
 in this, that they can and ought, after many admonitions have 
 failed; in the name of Christ to cut off from the communion of 
 the church the unruly Christian or the evidently hardened sinner; 
 and to make it known that this is to bind. But if such an one 
 shall afterwards be softened by the grace of God, &c., he shall 
 be received again into the church of Christ, and this is to loose. 
 
 P. 183. Note by Editor. “The word Liturgy in the Greek 
 church (now) always signifies the communion service. The liturgy 
 of 5. Chrysostom is in daily use in the Russian church...the 
 priests communicate every day. The laity seldom partake of the 
 communion more than once a year; which is always in the great 
 fast before Easter: but there are many of the more serious who 
 partake oftener. The eucharist is also administered to infants, for 
 as soon as anyone is baptized, of whatever age, he is admitted to 
 this ordinance. The bread which is used is leavened; and it is 
 broken or divided into small portions with great ceremony...The 
 communicants receive the elements of both kinds standing—the 
 bread being sopped in the cup. A little warm water is mixed 
 with the wine, &c.” P. 185. On excommunicating unfit persons, 
 Platon quotes, like John of Jerusalem, Matt. vii. 6 “Give not, &c.” 
 P. 230, shews who err in reverencing pictures. P. 273. The 
 Slavonian translation of the Lord’s prayer has “Deliver us from 
 “the wicked one.” P. 279. An appendix by the Editor is as 
 follows. “The national church in Russia gives the general name 
 of Raspolniks (schismatics) to all the sects which have at different 
 times renounced her communion; but these separatists uniformly 
 
666 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 style themselves Starovertsi (Believers of the old faith). Their 
 origin...alterations made in the Church Service, about the middle 
 of the 17th century in the time of the patriarch Nikon. Annals 
 (say) schismatics 200 years before.” This appendix is nevertheless 
 very interesting, specially concerning the Duhobortsi (wrestlers 
 with the spirit) opposed to picture-worship, whom on that account 
 the laws call Ikonobortsi, A Russian nobleman rendered help in 
 preparing this sketch. ; 
 
 (B.) PONTIFICALE ROMANUM CLEMENTIS VIII, AC URBANI VIIL, 
 AUCTORITATE RECOGNITUM. VENETIIS, 1729. 
 
 This is a book of all the occasional services which a pope or 
 bishop has to perform in the Roman Communion, such as Confir- 
 mation, conferring of Holy Orders, Ordination of Gate-keepers, 
 Readers, Exorcists, Blessing Abbots, Abbesses, Virgins, coronations 
 of Kings and Queens, laying first stone or consecration of churches, 
 altars, moveable altars and all kinds of ecclesiastical furniture and 
 personal clothing, the blessing of arms, services for Synods, excom- 
 munications, and additions to masses for the dead but not of church- 
 
 bells. 
 
 Of the ordaining of a presbyter (priest). P. 49. “The bless- 
 ing of the Almighty God and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
 come down on you, that ye may be blessed in the sacerdotal order, 
 and may offer appeasing ‘hosts’ for the sins and offences of the 
 people to the Almighty God, to Whom is the honour and glory 
 through all ages of ages. Amen. 
 
 Of the blessing of corporals. P. 286. “Let us pray. Most 
 merciful Lord, Whose virtue (power) is not to be told (ἀνεκλά- 
 λητος), Whose mysteries are celebrated with wonderful. secrets, 
 grant, we beseech Thee, that this cloth may be made holy with the 
 blessing of Thy propitiation, to be consecrated over that body and 
 
 De ordinatione Presbytert. P. 49. 
 
 Benedictio Dei omnipotentis Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti de- 
 scendat super vos, ut sitis benedicti in ordine sacerdotali, et offeratis 
 placabiles hostias pro peccatis atque offensionibus populi omnipotenti - 
 Deo, Cui est honor et gloria per omnia seecula seeculorum. Amen. 
 
 De benedictione corporalium. _P. 286. 
 
 Oremus. Clementissime Domine, Cujus inenarrabilis est virtus, 
 Cujus mysteria arcanis mirabilibus celebrantur, tribue quesumus, ut 
 hoe linteamen Tuze propitiationis benedictione sanctificetur, ad conse- 
 
1729] PONTIFICALE ROMANUM. 667 
 
 blood of our God Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth 
 with Thee, &c., &c.... Let us pray. Almighty everlasting God, 
 deign to bless make holy and consecrate that cloth to cover and 
 enrol the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, ἄορ, Let us 
 pray. Almighty God, pour the aid of Thy blessing on our hands 
 that by our good direction this cloth may be made holy and be 
 made by the Spirit’s grace a new napkin both of the body and 
 blood of our Redeemer, &e. &e. 
 
 Of the consecration of an altar. P. 242. “Let us pray that 
 our God may bless this stone...on which the unguent of sacred 
 anointing is poured out, to receive the vows and sacrifices of His 
 own people, &c., that it may receive the vows of the multitude 
 [common people] and that while we put on it the propitiation of 
 sacred things, we may by itself have the merit of being propitia- 
 tors of God, ἄς. &e.” 
 
 erandum super illud corpus et sanguinem Dei nostri Jesu Christi Filii 
 Tui, Qui Tecum vivit et regnat, &e., &c.... Oremus. Omnipotens sem- 
 piterne Deus, benedicere sanctificare et consecrare digneris linteamen 
 istud ad tegendum involvendumque corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri 
 Jesu Christi, ὅθ. Oremus. Omnipotens Deus, manibus nostris opem 
 Tuze benedictionis infunde, ut per nostram bene directionem hoc lintea- 
 men sanctificetur et corporis et sanguinis Redemptoris nostri novum 
 sudarium Spiritus sancti gratia efficiatur, &e., &e. 
 De altaris consecratione. P. 242. 
 
 Lapidem hunc ... in quo unguentum sacre unctionis effunditur ad 
 
 suscipiendum Sui populi vota et sacrificia oremus ut Dominus noster 
 
 benedicat, &c., ut plebis vota suscipiat, et dum propitiationem sacrorum 
 imponimus, 1051 propitiatores Dei esse mereamur, &c., &e. 
 
 (C.) PAUL RICAUT, CONSUL AT SMYRNA, F.R.S. Ὁ. 1700. 
 
 Of the Greek and Armenian churches. London, 1679. 
 
 P. 436. “So that when I consider and observe in what a 
 plain manner our Saviour instituted this sacrament—how easily 
 understood, and how facile to be followed and brought into imita- 
 tion—for it is said, ‘He took bread and blessed it and brake it and 
 ‘gave it to His disciples, ὅσο.’ im like manner He took the cup and 
 gave thanks and gave it to them saying, ‘Drink you all of this,’ 
 Notwithstanding which we may see how far the churches have 
 deviated from this easy and plain rule. The Latines administer it 
 with a wafer and deny the cup to the laity; the Greeks give both 
 species in a spoon together; the Armenians soak the bread in the 
 wine. Only God has illuminated the Reformed Churches and 
 
668 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 taught them how to follow the examples of the first institution; 
 and yet amongst them likewise there is some difference...whereby 
 we may judge of the malice and subtilty of the grand deceiver, 
 who would render that salutiferous food unwholesome, and make 
 this principal instrument of grace and salvation to become the most 
 dangerous snare and ruin of human souls. [See on “Goulburn On 
 Personal Religion.”] The Armenians put no water into the wine 
 nor leaven into the bread. Surp Usiun is the name of the Lord’s - 
 supper. After baptism (with chrism) they administer unto the 
 child the holy eucharist, which they do only by rubbing the lips 
 with it [1.6. with the bread sopped in the wine].” 
 
 _ (D.) | JEAN BAPTISTE THIERS, curé of Vib. D. 1703. 
 
 He has written several works. 
 
 Treatise on the superstitions regarding the sacraments, accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures, the decrees of the councils, and the sentiments 
 of the holy fathers and of the theologians. Vol. 11. p. 25. “ Pro- 
 testants treat as ridiculous and superstitious all the ceremonies 
 which the church observes in the celebration of the holy mass: 
 but the council of Trent expresses it admirably, Canon 76, on the 
 mass. ‘Since the nature of man is such that it cannot easily 
 without external supports be raised to meditation on Divine 
 things, on this account our pious mother the church has established 
 certain rites. It has-also added to them ceremonies or blessings, 
 lights, incense, robes, and many other things of that kind from 
 apostolic discipline and tradition, by which both the majesty of so 
 great a sacrifice is recommended, and the minds of the faithful 
 may be excited to the contemplation of the loftiest subjects of 
 thought by these visible signs of religion and piety.’ ‘If any one 
 
 Traité des superstitions qui regardent les sacremens, selon ? Ecriture Sainte, 
 les decrets des Conciles et les sentimens des saints peres et des 
 theologues, 4 vols. 12mo. Paris, 1740. Vol. 111. ¢. τι. p..25. 
 
 Les Protestants traitent de ridicules et de superstitieuses toutes les 
 ceremonies que l’eglise observe dans la celebration de la sainte messe ; 
 mais le concile de Trente exprime admirablement, &e. Can. 76, De 
 Missa, 13, &c., Cum natura hominum ea sit ut non facile queat 
 _ sine adminiculis exterioribus ad rerum Divinarum meditationem sus- 
 tolli, propterea pia mater ecclesia ritus quosdam instituit. Ceeremonias 
 item adhibuit aut benedictiones, lumina, thumiamata, vestes, aliaque 
 id genus multa, ex apostolica disciplina et traditione, quo et majestas 
 tanti sacrificii commendetur, et mentes fidelium per heec visibilia reli- 
 gionis et pietatis signa ad rerum altissimarum, que in hoc sacrificio 
 latent, contemplationem excitarentur. Si quis dixerit czremonias, 
 
—1703] JEAN BAPTISTE THIERS. 669 
 
 shall say that the ceremonies, robes and external signs, which the 
 catholic church uses in the celebration of masses, are provocatives 
 of impiety rather than pious offices let him be anathema’...As the 
 church is conducted by the Spirit of God, and according to the 
 holy apostle’s expression is the pillar and ground of the truth, the 
 ceremonies of the mass, which it approves of and authorizes by 
 its usages, are in no way superstitious, because she has received 
 power from Jesus Christ her Divine Spouse to establish them. 
 But with regard to those which she has not established and which 
 are not in conformity with her practice it is beyond doubt that 
 they savour of superfluous worship and vain obedience. [Chap. 
 VIII.] The masses that are said for the dead, 1.6. on the third, 
 seventh, thirtieth, fortieth, sixtieth, hundredth days after their 
 death and on the day of their anniversary, have nothing of 
 a superstitious nature in themselves, &c. The thirty masses of 
 St Gregory for the dead are approved of the church and are 
 justified by divers examples. The seven masses which it is pre-. 
 tended were revealed to the same (saint) appear to be supersti- 
 tious. The nine days of masses for the dead are condemned 
 as a relic of paganism, not the masses said for the dead on the 
 ninth day.” 
 
 This book is designed against superstitions, &e., “avec appro- 
 bation et privilege du Roi,” as usual then. Registered May 14, 
 ia 
 
 vestes, et externa signa, quibus in Missarum celebratione ecclesia 
 catholica utitur, irritamenta impietatis magis quam pietatis officia, 
 anathema esto... Comme leglise est conduite par Esprit de Dieu et 
 selon l’expression du saint apdtre elle “est la colonne et la base de la 
 “‘ verité,” les ceremonies de la messe, qu'elle approuve et quelle autorise 
 par ses usages, ne sont nullement superstitieuses, parce qu'elle a regu de 
 Jesus Christ son Divin Epoux la puissance de les établir, Mais a legard 
 de celles qu'elle n’a pas établies et qui ne sont pas conformées a la 
 pratique, il est hors de doute qu’elles sentent le culte superflu et de la 
 yaine obéissance. Chap. vin. Les messes que l’on dit pour les defuncts : 
 le 3, le 7, le 30, le 40, le 60, le 100 jour apres leur mort, et le jour de 
 leur anniversaire, &c., n’ont rien de superstition en elles-mémes, ἄς. 
 Les 30 messes de St Gregoire pour les morts sont approuvées de l’eglise et 
 justifiées par divers exemples. Les 7 messes pretendues revelées au méme 
 paroissent superstitieuses. Les neuvaines des messes pour les morts sont 
 condamnés, comme un reste de Paganisme, non les messes qui se disent 
 pour eux le neuvieme jour. [Not Canon 76, but Cap. v. and Can. vii. 
 De Sacriticio Missa. | 
 
070 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (.) DR DANIEL WATERLAND. B. 1683, Ὁ. 1740. 
 
 He never rose to higher preferment than Archdeacon of Mid- 
 dlesex and Canon of Windsor. He was previously Chancellor of 
 York. He ranks as the orthodox defender of the faith in the 
 Holy Trinity, when Clark and Hoadley had in different degrees. 
 impaired its completeness. It is true that no poit is more 
 subtle or requires greater care and prayer than a statement of 
 the subordination of the eternal Son in position and function, ᾿ 
 but not in nature, to the eternal Father (irrespective of Christ’s 
 being inferior to the Father as touching his manhood, about 
 which there is no doubt); and the most tolerant will, generally 
 at least, allow or affirm that even Clark and yet more Hoadley 
 had passed the line between orthodoxy and error. But it was 
 not only in this that Waterland did good service. His book on 
 the Lord’s supper is considerably in advance of most of his 
 predecessors. If one may conjecture, I fancy Albertinus was 
 a favourite author and often in his hands. Waterland was a 
 Lincolnshire man, born at Wasely, and went to Magdalen, 
 Cambridge, where he became fellow and Master. He first held 
 London preferment, St Austin and St Faith, as we strangely 
 pervert “the holy faith”; but Twickenham is his received place 
 of residence. His book on the Athanasian Creed is deemed good 
 and useful, but as in many cases, the author would modify many 
 of his statements were he living now. 
 
 ΄ 
 
 On the Hucharist. 
 
 P. 127. “Not that I consider there is any absurdity in sup- 
 posing a peculiar presence of the Holy Ghost to inanimate things 
 any more than God’s appearing in a burning bush. But there is 
 no proof of the fact [of the asserted coming down of the Spirit 
 to the bread and wine that Christ may be in it] either from 
 direct Scripture or from that in conjunction with the reason of 
 things. The relative holiness of the elements [as explained 
 above, ὁ. 6. as in the case of the holy things under the law] is very 
 intelligible; and as to the rest (1.6. the actual presence of the 
 Spirit,) it is all more reasonably accounted for by the presence of 
 the Holy Spirit with worthy recewers in the use of the symbols 
 than by-I know not what presence or union with the symbols 
 themselves... [P.129.] Irenzeus speaks of the bread as receiving 
 the invocation of God and thereby becoming more than common 
 bread. Some would interpret it of prayer for the descent of the 
 
1683] ARCHDEACON WATERLAND. 671 
 
 Holy Ghost, but as I apprehend without sufficient authority. 
 [What other sense can be given to the words, though of course 
 a father’s saying it does not bring the thing to pass or to be 
 true 7] 
 
 P. 147. “The foundation of all our privileges is our having 
 a part in the reconcilement [by His death] which in strictness is 
 eating and drinking His flesh and blood, 8. John vi....On this is 
 founded our mystical union with Christ’s glorified body; which 
 neither supposes nor infers any local presence... Upon the same 
 follows the like gracious vital presence and indwelling of the other 
 two Divine Persons, &c. [P. 148.] This orderly ranging of ideas 
 ...may serve to shew us where the ancients or moderns have hap- 
 pened to exceed either in sentiment or expression, and how far 
 they have done so, and how they were led into it... [P. 149.] It 
 was right to apply the general doctrine of John vi. to the case of 
 the eucharist considered as worthily received, because the spiritual 
 feeding, there mentioned, is the thing signified in the eucharist, yea 
 and performed likewise [ze in those that worthily received]. 
 Such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of 
 the eucharist. For example the words ‘ Except ye eat, &c. &e. do 
 not mean, directly, that you have no hfe in you without the 
 eucharist, [and yet for ages it was so interpreted, and even caused 
 the giving the communion to such infants as could only suck 
 the wine and not eat the bread], but that you have no life in you 
 without partaking of owr Lord’s passion. 
 
 P. 202. “Some, receding from the letter, have supposed the 
 words [This is My body, &c.] to mean This bread and wine are 
 My body and blood in power and effect, or in virtue and energy ; 
 which is not much amiss, except that it seems to carry in it some 
 obscure conception ether of an inherent or infused virtue resting 
 upon the bare elements and operating as means; which is not the 
 truth of the case, &c. [This is the seventh sense in Chemnitz; 
 and to my mind does not at all relieve us from saying the sense of 
 Christ’s words is figurative, for the bread and wine are not the 
 power and effect any more than they are Christ’s body.] It is 
 more reasonable and more proper to say...the delivery of these 
 symbols is...a delivery of the things signified—these outward 
 elements imputed to us (and accepted by Him) as pledges of the 
 natural body of our Lord, and that this constructional intermin- 
 glang—His body and blood with ours [all this from coming out of 
 the simple and natural use of a figure by our Lord instead of un- 
 figurative terms addressed to the understanding only] shall 
 be the same in effect with our adhering inseparably to Him, &c. 
 
 P. 212. “There is communication from God and participation 
 by us of Christ's crucified body directly and of the glorified body 
 consequently. {if this means that the natural body of Christ 
 
. 
 
 672 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 is given to us to receive and take, where is Waterland as a divine 
 to be placed 1] 
 
 P. 213. “The unworthy receiver disqualifies himself...from 
 partaking of the thing signified...being our Lord’s own body and 
 blood. [The catechism requires guarding on this point. ] 
 
 P, 238. “Cyrill (Jerus.). Receive we with all fulness of faith 
 as the body and blood of Christ. For under the type of bread 
 you have His body given you and under the type of wine you 
 receive His blood, that so, partaking of the body and blood of 
 Christ, you may become flesh of His flesh and blood of His blood ; 
 for by this means we carry Christ about with us, inasmuch as His 
 body and blood are distributed to our members. The doctrine here 
 taught is that we receive not literally but symbolically [let any- 
 one read the directions from Cyril as to the manner in which 
 to receive the bread and the wine and let him say if that too 
 is to be taken not literally but symbolically] the natural body and 
 blood of Christ; just as the priests of old in eating the sacrifices 
 symbolically but effectually ate up the sins of the people. [How 
 exceedingly strange !] 
 
 P, 248. “ (Luther) threw off transubstantiation very justly, but 
 yet retained I know not what corporal local presence, and there- 
 fore did not retrench enough, Zwingle threw off withal (or too 
 much neglected) the spiritual presence and spiritual graces [on 
 this point readers of Part ITI. will be able to judge. Then follow 
 apologies made for Zwingel that he corrected his errors on second 
 thoughts and left the low notion of naked signs and figures to 
 the anabaptists of those times. Had Waterland read the great 
 Swiss Reformer well, he would not have given this account of the 
 matter], where they rested, until again revived by the Soci- 
 nians who handed them down to the Remonstrants. [I have 
 omitted the Socinian authors, thinking Waterland’s citations from 
 them sufficient. The Remonstrant church of the Dutch is more 
 deserving of notice, but I thought my work sufficiently complete 
 without either. Every plan has its limits. I append a few of 
 Waterland’s extracts which I translate.| Socmus. That those 
 have grievously erred who have thought that the word comme- 
 moration or remembrance which in Greek is ἀνάμνησις ought to 
 be changed into recordatio. It signifies altogether not recordatio 
 remembrance, but communion and preaching. None would col- 
 lect from that word that Christ instituted the Lord’s supper for 
 the end that it should suggest and recal to memory the death 
 of the Lord Himself....But that communicating and preaching 
 of the death of Christ has necessarily united to it our giving 
 thanks to Christ. Cracovian Cat. vi. 4. 229. He that wishes to 
 undergo this sacred rite properly, and in this way to declare 
 the death of the Lord, must honestly and ever be mindful of 
 
1683] ARCHDEACON WATERLAND. 673 
 
 Christ’s death. [P. 259. Waterland quotes with much approval 
 Mr Bradford.]| ΤῈ is evident that neither the body broken nor 
 the blood shed neither do nor can really exist [true of the latter 
 I suppose]: they neither can be really present nor literally eaten 
 or drank: nor can we really receive them, but only the benefits 
 purchased by them. But the body which now exists, whereof 
 we partake, and to which we are united, is the glorified body, 
 which is therefore verily and indeed received [how can that be 
 in the sense here meant, if it be in heaven and not here, ὧς. ἢ], 
 and consequently said to be really present, notwithstanding its 
 local absence. [Will not plain laymen say that we are mad 7] 
 
 P. 261. ‘In the holy eucharist the sacrament 15 physically 
 present, the res sacramenti morally so, the elements antecedently 
 and locally. The very body consequently and virtually: but 
 both really present. [I can compare this to nothing but the 
 buzzing of an infatuated moth round the flame of a candle till 
 at last it flies right in and burns its wings. See Wake, after 
 seeing Tillotson.| We do not hold that we barely receive the 
 effects and benefits of Christ’s body; but we hold ‘it’ really 
 present inasmuch as it is really received. [Waterland says “The 
 account 15 just.” Compare the extracts from John Bradford.] 
 
 The Christian sacrifice explained. A Charge. 1738. Works, ὙΠ. 
 Oxford, 1823. 
 
 P. 147. “A question was...raised among us about an hun- 
 dred years ago, whether the material elements of the eucharist, 
 were properly the Christian sacrifice. At the beginning of this 
 present century the same question was again brought up, and it is 
 not altogether extinct even at this day,..owing to some con- 
 fusion of ideas or ambiguity of terms, ἕο. How that confusion 
 arose may perhaps be learned by looking back as far as to 
 Bellarmine about 1590, or...as far as the Council of Trent about 
 30 years earlier. Before that time things were much clearer 
 so far as concerned this article. Nobody almost doubted that... 
 spiritual sacrifice was true and proper sacrifice, yea the most proper 
 of any. 
 
 P. 149. “The custom of Christian language not only in the 
 New Testament but also in the church-writers has run on the 
 side of spiritual sacrifice, ὅθ, A sacrifice is properly anything 
 performed for God’s due and sole honour in order to appease 
 Him...This notion of sacrifice prevailed in that century, the 
 fourth, in the time of Aquinas, and in the centuries following, and 
 was admitted by the early reformers and even by Romanists also 
 as low as the year 1556, or yet lower. [P.150.] So that spiritual 
 sacrifice was not yet entirely excluded as emproper, metaphorical, 
 and nominal among the Romanists themselves: neither was it 
 a rule that a material thing was essential to the nature, notion, 
 
 H. Il. 43 
 
674 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 or definition of true and proper sacrifice... The Romanists... 
 thought of this pretence...that either their mass must be the 
 sacrifice or the church really had none, &c.; the Protestants... 
 would be left without a sacrifice, ὅσο. and be no longer a church... 
 The Protestants had two very just answers...First, Christ Himself 
 was the church’s sacrifice, &c. The second, they had...sacrifices of 
 their own to offer...prayers, praises, &c. The Council of Trent 
 endeavoured to obviate both these answers, and Bellarmine under- 
 took formally to confute them... 
 
 P.174. “Luther first took notice of the self-contradiction 
 contained in making the elements a proper sacrifice to God in 
 the eucharist. On abrogating the Mass, 11. Pt. ii. 255. While we 
 make a sacrifice of our bodies and our praises to God, we give all 
 to God alone, so that the scheme of sacrifice, stands though it be 
 spiritual...(But) neither do we offer (the elements) if we eat them; 
 nor do we eat if we offer...Let Louvain and Paris solve this dif- 
 ficulty if they can. [Wateriand says several schemes have been 
 thought on, to elude this argument, by Romanists and others: but 
 it is impossible to invent any that will bear. See also Bishop 
 Van Mildert’s life of him, p. 215, &c. and p. 264, &e.] 
 
 Appendix, c. 11. p. 194. “It is pretended that our blessed 
 Lord offered up His sacramental body, 1.6. the consecrated ele- 
 ments, as ὦ material sacrifice in the eucharist. Johnson, Pt. 1. 
 Now in the first place I find no Scripture proof of this position. 
 The Romanists in support of the general point of a material and 
 sensible sacrifice have often taken their tour from Melchizedek in 
 Genesis down to Hebrews xii. 10. And they have as often been 
 pursued by the best learned Protestants, and forced out of all 
 their entrenchments. The note gives a list of sixteen beginning 
 with Chemnitius. The plea from ‘Do this’ when first set up 
 was abundantly answered by a very learned Romanist: I mean 
 the excellent Pickerell, who wrote about 1562 and died in 1590. 
 Protestants also have often confuted it...The other boasted plea, 
 drawn from the use of the present tense [which is given, ἕο, which 
 is shed] has been...often refuted and exposed, &c. 
 
 P.196. “It is certainly of some moment that so learned and 
 judicious a man as Pickerellus, &e. should so expressly and freely 
 declare against our Lord’s offering any expiatory ‘sacrifice in the 
 eucharist. It is also of some moment that the current opinion 
 before the council of Trent was against the first eucharist’s [the 
 institution’s] being an expiatory sacrifice, and that the divines of 
 Trent were almost equally divided upon that question, ἄς. Jan- 
 senius, Bishop of Ghent...was content to take in spiritual sacri- 
 fice...to make out some sacrifice in the first eucharist. 
 
 P.197. ‘No prceof has been given nor ever can be given 
 of our Lord sacrificing the elements. He might, yea and did 
 
1089] ARCHDEACON WATERLAND. 675 
 
 offer the elements for consecration (which is very different from 
 sacrificing, &c.), or He might present them as signs and figures 
 of a real sacrifice, being also signs and figures of real body and 
 blood: but as they were not the real body and blood which they 
 represented, so neither were they the real sacrifice, neither can 
 it be made appear that they were any sacrifice at all...Want οὗ 
 proof is sufficient reason for rejecting a position, according to the 
 old rule that the proof lies upon him who affirms. However, 
 I may, ex abundante, throw in one reason against it which may 
 be as good as a thousand, because it is decisive, If the elements 
 were a sacrifice in the first eucharist...then they were given 
 for remission of sins, consequently were a sin-offering and an 
 expiatory sacrifice, which is directly repugnant to the whole tenor 
 
 of the New Testament, every where ascribing true expiation solely 
 to the death of Christ.” 
 
 (F.) BISHOP BENJAMIN HOADLEY OF WINCHESTER. 
 ΒΡ ΠΟ Del Zor. 
 
 A native of Kent. From Catherine Hall, of which he had 
 become fellow and tutor, he passed through some London ap- 
 pointments to the vicarage of Streatham. From that he passed 
 through three bishoprics, Bangor, Hereford, and Salisbury, to his 
 final position, in which he lived for 26 years. He probably owed 
 his preferments to the extreme freedom of his opinions, on account 
 of which he was repeatedly challenged. But the one point that 
 is pertinent to this subject is, that to him belongs the unenviable 
 singularity among moderns, of we will not say denying, but of 
 ignoring the spiritual and personal benefit of the Lord’s supper. 
 Of all the writers whom I have included, he alone of the later 
 centuries, as Pelagius alone in the earlier, made the Lord’s supper 
 a mere commemoration, and did not, as far as I see, hold it out 
 as an eminent way of obtaining spiritual blessing. Perhaps no 
 writer lays more stress upon and more develops the idea of com- 
 memoration than old Dr Lightfoot: but then see what strong 
 and large utterance he also gives to his persuasion of the spiritual 
 benefit to be found in the use of it both in communion with God 
 by Christ, and with one another in Christ. Modern orthodox 
 nonconformists appear to me decidedly clear on this poimt ; and 
 not a few of the Arian and Socinian writers accord in a greater 
 degree with the general church on this important subject: 22. 
 that we ought to find great spiritual aid and joy in the use of 
 
 43—2 
 
676 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 the supper. It would please me much could Hoadley be shewn 
 to be partially clear of this charge. Had we all the writings of 
 Pelagius perhaps he might come off better than he now appears. 
 
 Plain account of the nature and end of the sacrament of the 
 Lord’s Supper. London, 1735. 
 
 P. 25. “The end of this institution was the remembrance 
 of Christ. It must follow from hence that to eat and drink in 
 the Lord’s supper must be to eat and drink in a sense consistent 
 with the notion of this remembrance; and therefore that to sub- 
 stitute or teach that Christians eat His real and natural body in 
 remembrance of His real material body, and drink His real blood 
 in remembrance of His real natural blood, is to teach that they 
 are to do something in order to remember Him, which supposes 
 Him corporally present; and destroys the very notion of that 
 remembrance, and so directly contradicts the most important 
 words of the institution...Add to this that St Paul...concludes 
 that as often as Christians eat this bread and drink this cup, 
 they—he does not say feed upon Him corporally present, but the 
 contrary—shew or tell forth His death, till He come, 1.6. until the 
 time that He shall be corporally present with them. This strongly 
 implies the belief of His bodily absence to be even necessary to 
 that duty, and that His bodily presence is utterly inconsistent with 
 at, and, whenever it shall be, will put an end to a rite instituted 
 only for the remembrance of Him in His absence. They there- 
 fore who require Christians to believe that they feed in the Lord’s 
 supper on Christ’s natural body present, do in effect forbid them 
 to eat this bread in remembrance of His body. The same may 
 be said of the doctrine...of a real sacrifice of Christ’s body offered 
 by the priest...viz. that it contradicts the very words of the im- 
 stitution, in which the remembrance of an absent body broken, 
 not the offering of a present body, is declared to be the end of 
 this religious action. 
 
 P. 27. “Nothing can be eaten or drunken in remembrance 
 of itself...Body and Blood of Christ. Misstaters of Bp. Hoadley. 
 P. 44. It was not the apostle’s design to speak of the benefits 
 accruing to communicants...but only of the significancy of this 
 rite, as an act of religious honour paid by Christians to their 
 Master...(2) P. 40. In honour to Him as the Head of that body, 
 of which we are all members, the only sense in which the com- 
 munion and Jesus partaking can be understood. (8) P. 104. 
 Copious summary with nothing about feeding on Christ: decla- 
 ration of His death, and p. 111. Ῥ. 153, a less defective one. 
 P. 34. ‘The bread which we break, &c. Though St Paul goes 
 on to prove Christians to be one body from the social partaking 
 
1070] BISHOP HOADLEY. 677 
 
 of one and the same bread, yet in this particulur verse the body 
 of Christ no more signifies that society than the blood of Christ 
 does...P. 45. We see the word κοινωνοὶ used with regard to idols, 
 where no spiritual part (eating) could be thought of...and yet 
 he forbids them to communicate with the worshippers of them. 
 P. 47, St Paul found occasion to speak...of sacrifices made to 
 idols, and of the altar in the Jewish temple, yet when he comes 
 to speak of the Lord’s supper, he does not represent the bread and 
 wine as things offered in sacrifice to God upon an altar, nor of any 
 altar, nor of any offering of bread and wine nor of any sacrifice 
 made to God as upon an altar, but in the plainest words the cup 
 of the Lord and the table of the Lord...P. 54, The only person 
 who answers to a Jewish priest, considered as a sacrificer, is Jesus 
 Christ Himself Who offered Himself up. The only thing that 
 answers to the altar, upon which the sacrifices were’ offered, is 
 that very cross upon which Christ died...P. ὅδ, Many of the 
 fathers and commentators who lived some huncreds of years after 
 the institution of the Lord’s supper, when by degrees the language 
 had been altered, though themselves, among other high words, 
 often called the rite a sacrifice, yet would they not forbear some- 
 times to correct the expression and declare they did not mean 
 a sacrifice properly speaking, but only the remembrance of a sacri- 
 fice, particularly Chrysostom, Hom. xvul. Ep. to Heb. He had 
 said θυσίαν ποιοῦμεν (we perform a sacrifice). He adds μᾶλλον 
 δὲ ἀνάμνησιν ἐργαζέμεθα θυσίας (but rather we are working to 
 effect a remembrance ef a sacrifice). [What a grievous injury 
 it has proved to subsequent ages that they did not recast the 
 whole of their perilous expressions !] 
 
 P. 60. 1 Cor. xi, 22. “Have ye not houses, of your own, for 
 your ordinary eating and drinking? Or have ye no sense that 
 these assemblies of Christians come together for the religious 
 purpose of eating and drinking in remembrance of their Master, 
 and that the place where they meet for this good end, is not the 
 proper place for your ordinary meals, much less for your excesses 
 in eating and drinking? Do ye thus despise the Church of God, 
 the assemblies of Christians and the place you at this time profess 
 to meet in for religious and not for common purposes ?...This 
 passage argues that whatever place they agreed to meet in (though 
 often changed) that this place I say at the time of the assembling 
 mm it for an act of religion was not a proper place for the ordinary 
 meal, 
 
 P. 67. “‘Not discerning &c.,’ not making a sufficient diffe- 
 rence between the bread eaten at the Lord’s supper in memory 
 of Him, and a common meal even intemperately taken, 
 
 P. 66. “The word rendered ‘examine himself’ signifies the 
 approving after trial and examination regarding the institution 
 
678 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 and design of the Lord’s supper, and let him eat and drink ‘ 
 ἡ. 6. in such a manner as becomes that design. 
 
 P. 75. “Nor does it in the least imply that Christians may 
 not wisely choose to spend a longer time in religious considera- 
 tion and prayer...but we are not to confound duties and make 
 that peculiar to the holy communion which was never made pe- 
 culiar by Christ or His apostles, which is proper to every season 
 and would have been equally a duty whether it had pleased the 
 Lord to institute the communion or not. 
 
 P. 96. “Heb. xiii. 10. ‘We have an altar, &.’ As not one 
 commentator ancient or modern of great note interprets this ob- 
 scure passage of the Lord’s table, so there is not one good reason 
 for such an interpretation. 
 
 P.99. “‘Partaking of the benefits of Christ’s death,’ 
 
 P. 148. Catechism. “‘Verily and indeed taken and received, 
 very figurative, where a figure ought not to have been made use of.” 
 
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 (A.) BISHOP THOMAS TURTON, OF ELY. B. 1780. D. 1864. 
 
 Many think him to have been an equally successful champion 
 when he took lance against Lord Brougham respecting the English 
 universities, and when his opponent was that extremely sagacious 
 cardinal and man of the world (if such a term may be excused, 
 since Bp. Hall says, we ought not only to be viri Dei, but also 
 viri seculi), I mean that acute Papal controversialist, whom with 
 Dr Pusey I reserve for the Third Part of this work, Cardinal 
 Wiseman. In the main line of his argument and in many of his 
 details Dr Turton would be conceived by us to be entirely suc- 
 cessful. But perhaps one of his most valuable details is his 
 maintaining that, in John vi., ἀληθὴς, as well as ἀληθινὸς, signifies 
 antitypical, the ideal of the typical forms. “My flesh is true 
 “food (βρῶσις) and My blood is true drink, πόσις. Had this 
 text to be given up to those who hold the presence of Christ’s 
 natural body in the Lord’s supper, our argumentation would be un- 
 dermined to a serious extent ; for God’s word would not be entirely 
 on our side. But one of the instances of Dr Turton is thoroughly 
 convincing, “ Behold an Israelite indeed, ἀληθῶς, in whom is no 
 “guile.” There can be no doubt as to the meaning of ἀληθῶς in 
 the passage in question. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, in reply to 
 Dr Wiseman. Cambridge, 1837. 
 
 P. 19. Tittmann says, “ Profane writers...use ‘to eat and to 
 ‘drink’ of being imbued with the doctrine of any one, ἕο. But 
 that they so used the phrases ‘to eat the flesh of any one and 
 ‘to drink the blood of any one’ cannot be proved by a single 
 example. ‘These forms of expression were clearly unheard of by 
 
δ * THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 any author, and are peculiar to our Lord alone. Therefore can 
 we no wise appeal to their custom of speech. (P. 273, Comm. 
 
 St John.) 
 
 P. 193. [We now have here a notable mode of speaking.] 
 “To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, which is beyond 
 question equivalent to that in v. 5, ‘to eat bread, or ‘to eat Jesus’ 
 as ‘the bread of life.’ For the same power is ascribed to each, 
 that is to say ‘he shall not die,’ ‘he shall live for ever,’ and 
 
 ‘he hath eternal life.’ 
 
 In p. 276. “But there seems not any further doubt with our 
 (divines), nor can there be with any learned man, that the Lord 
 in this place by no means looked back to the rite of the sacred 
 supper [the Passover] nor so spake concerning sacramental eating 
 (to use the terms of dogmatic discussions) but rather concerning 
 spiritual eating. For the whole passage is allegorical and for 
 this reason it cannot be received in any other manner in this 
 part of it (hic). [Tittmann, translated for this book.] 
 
 P. 198 (Turton). In John i. 47. ‘When Jesus saw Nathaniel 
 approaching, He said ‘Behold an Israelite indeed, ‘ ἀληθῶς 
 “᾿Ισραηλίτης, in whom is no guile.” Can anyone imagine that our 
 Lord then adverted to the unblemished descent of Nathaniel from 
 the ancient patriarch? Alas! ‘they are not all Israel’ (truly) 
 ‘that are of Israel.’ He undoubtedly spoke of his possessing 
 qualities (implied in the term ἀληθῶς) which rendered him worthy 
 of his lineage. The word ἀληθῶς is similarly employed John 
 vill. 31. Then said Jesus to the Jews that believed on Him, ‘If 
 ‘you continue in My word then are ye my disciples indeed,’ adn@as. 
 [There seems to me a great difference between these two cases. 
 The latter ἀληθῶς is opposed to “in pretence,” and means ye will 
 have good claim to be called disciples. The former instance is an 
 Israelite not in descent after the flesh, but in that antitypical 
 excellence, of which Israelites are a type, ¢.e. God’s spiritual chil- 
 dren, just as Christ says, John vi., “ My flesh is true meat, ἀληθὴς 
 “βρώσις, and My blocd is true drink, ἀληθὴς πόσις," that spiritual 
 refreshment of which “food” and “drink” are types.] 
 
 P. 199. “Any person bearing in mind our Lord’s method of 
 addressing His hearers would at once infer that some figurative 
 meaning was intended. It 1s spiritual food to be spiritually re- 
 ceived. It is Christ Himself Who is thus intended. No wonder 
 that He should be called the true bread, ὁ ἀληθινός. [It will be 
 perceived that Dr Turton thinks ἀληθῶς used in Nathanael’s case 
 at least as equivalent in sense to ἀληθινός, He does not restrict 
 the higher sense to the latter form. ] 
 
 P. 201. “We now pass to the last portion of our Lord’s reply, 
 v. 58. After having mentioned first His flesh and blood, and then 
 
1780] BISHOP TURTON. 681 
 
 Himself as the food, ὧς. He connected the subject with all that 
 He had before declared concerning ‘the bread from Heaven.’ 
 ‘This is the bread which cometh down from Heaven, ἄς, 
 
 P. 203. “If there be a person who, after weighing all this, 
 can for a moment hesitate to admit that the eating and drinking 
 spoken of throughout this discourse is entirely spiritual, such a 
 person is in my opinion not to be convinced that any part of Scrip- 
 ture is to be spiritually understood. 
 
 P. 235. “My object has been to shew that the debateable 
 part of the chapter is to be understood spiritually as well as the 
 remainder. That part (the debateable) may be understood sacra- 
 mentally likewise, without any supposed transfer of natural pro- 
 perties (bread into flesh),” 
 
 (B.) THE REV. W. PALMER OF WORCESTER, OXFORD. 
 
 Antiquities of English Ritual. Vol. τι. Oxford, 1836. 
 
 On the Holy Communion, p. 134. “The immediate or proper 
 form of consecration [in the Church of England] follows the pre- 
 face and begins, ‘Hear us, O merciful Father.” First the ἐπέ 
 κλησις [invocation of the Spirit] itself. (2) The commemoration 
 of our Lord’s deeds and words...In all the ancient liturgies and 
 in all the writings of the fathers we find memorials and traces 
 of some prayer in which...God was requested to confer...the 
 benefits that the faithful might be partakers of the body and 
 blood of Christ...In the East and much in the West the Church 
 supplicated God to send down the Holy Spirit, ἹΚατάπεμψον τὸ 
 Πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἅγιον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα. ἸΠοίη- 
 σον τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου, μεταβαλὼν 
 τῷ {Π]νεύματί cov τῷ ἁγίῳ. [Eng. Send down thy Holy Spirit 
 on us and on the gifts lying before Thee. Make this bread the 
 precious body of Thy Christ, having effected the exchange by 'Thy 
 Holy Spirit.]| Roman, Hane igitur oblationem servitutis nostra 
 &e. ut placatus accipias, &c. quam oblationem, &c. benedictam, 
 acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat, το. 
 [That Thou wouldst be appeased and receive this oblation of our 
 submission—which oblation mayest Thou deign to make blessed 
 and acceptable that it may become to us the body and blood, ἄς] 
 ...[In Caesarea, Antioch, Alexandria a direct invocation as in 
 Constantinople. The African used invocation of the Holy Ghost 
 as Spain...No doubt as to Gallican...But not essential, (1) never 
 used in Italy and the apostolic church of Rome, (2) not necessary 
 to mention the means, &c. to accomplish the end prayed for. No 
 trace of prayer for the Holy Ghost in any liturgies of Milan, Italy 
 
082 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and Rome. The petition in the Church of England ‘that we may 
 ‘be partakers of His most blessed body and blood in receiving 
 ‘these Thy creatures of bread and wine’ not necessarily referred 
 to the sacramental participation...yet made to refer directly to 
 it by the words of limitation. 
 
 P. 140. “This prayer does not expressly mention the conse- 
 cration of the elements—nevertheless in effect a prayer for their 
 consecration—/or τέ is necessary that consecration should take 
 place before...In fact the omission is analogous to the omission 
 of a direct prayer for the Holy Ghost in the ancient Roman and 
 Italian liturgies. If it be granted that the Roman form is a valid 
 prayer for consecration though it does not speak of the means 
 (1.6. the Holy Ghost) it must be granted that the English is a 
 valid form for partaking of Christ’s body and blood in a sacra- 
 mental manner, and therefore for the consecration [which alone 
 renders this possible] though the consecration itself 1s not spoken of.” 
 [Much ingenuity requisite here. Is the pot that is aimed at 
 proved? Is it not in one part surrendered and in the other part 
 not established? If so is it correct to entitle this prayer “a prayer 
 “of consecration”? Ought it not to have been termed “a prayer 
 at the consecrating, which takes place by the act of the laying on 
 of hands ” ?] 
 
 (C.) JOHN ADAM MOEHLER, PROFESSOR AT MUNICH, DEAN OF 
 WURTZBURG. D. 1838. 
 
 Symbolism. The differences betwn. Cath. and Prot. Trans. 
 London, 1843. First Edition, Tiibingen, 1832. Fifth Edition, 
 Munich, 1838. R 
 
 Vol. 1. p. 286. ‘A sacrament is defined by the Cat. ad Paro- 
 chos to be an outward sign which in virtue of the Divine ordinance 
 not only typifies but works the supersensual, to wit, holiness and 
 justice. (1) A sensual part (in religion), (2) pledges or sureties of 
 the Divine will, (3) channels (quasi alve1) whereby the power that 
 flows from the sufferings of Christ... is applied to each one... that 
 the soul may be reestablished or confirmed, (4) outward marks of 
 confession, (5) as man had ignominiously delivered himself over to 
 the dominion of this lower world he needs zts mediation to enable 
 him to rise above it. 
 
 P. 388. “As regards the mode in which the sacraments 
 confer on us sanctifying grace, they work ex opere operato, @.e. 
 convey a Divine power merited for us by Christ ... conferred - by 
 God through their means. Man must receive—be susceptible of it 
 [ Note, these are very different. ‘Must receive” is what is in 
 analogy with the Bodily Presence Scheme; and most divines who 
 
—1838] PROFESSOR MOEHLER. 683 
 
 teach that insist on this]—evinced in repentance and sorrow for 
 sin, desire of a Divine aid and in a confiding faith. [Note. But 
 what if the communicant do not evince all this ? he must still have 
 the blessing since the sacrament is performed, opus operatum est. ] 
 By this doctrine the objectivity of Divine grace is upheld [ Note. 
 16. it is as it were tangible, not secret, unseen and subjective], 
 and we are prevented from drawing down the effects of the sacra- 
 ment into the region of subjectivity, and from entertaining the 
 opinion that these (the benefits of the sacraments) consist in mere 
 moral ... feelings, considerations and resolves—as at the view of a 
 picture—at the moment of receiving or (before). This except in 
 the case of infants is necessary; but ἐξ 7s not the Divine grace 
 promised, nor doth it even merit it. Now the religious energies of 
 the soul are set in new motion by the sacrament, since its Divine 
 matter impregnates the soul—vivifies it anew—establishes it in 
 the most intimate communion with God... within all who do not 
 shew themselves incapable of its graces, or do not place an obstacle 
 in its way. (From Council of Trent Catechism, Hugh 8. Victor, 
 Hales, Buonaventura and Thomas Aquinas.) [Note. But how is it 
 as Latimer says concerning treating the supper as a sacrifice, that 
 none of the apostles has told us one word about all this 1] 
 
 P. 334. “Almighty God is pleased to change the inward sub- 
 stance of the consecrated bread into the body and blood of Christ. 
 We therefore adore the Saviour mysteriously present ... The mass 
 proved to be in experience in the second and third centuries ... 
 The church is the living figure of Christ manifesting Himself and 
 working through all ages, whose atoning and redeeming acts it, in 
 consequence, eternally repeats and uninterruptedly continues. He 
 is eternally living in the church. In baptism He perpetually 
 receives... in penance He pardons; He strengthens in confir- 
 mation ; breathes into the bridegroom and the bride higher concep- 
 tions, &e.; unites Himself most intimately with all who sigh 
 for eternal life under the forms of bread and wine; consoles the 
 dying in extreme unction; and in holy orders institutes the 
 organs whereby He worketh all this. 
 
 P. 337. “We here [in this sacrament] find the whole scheme 
 of redemption reflected. Without it [the sacrament] the other 
 parts (of His great work) could not have sufficed for our complete 
 atonement. Hence the sacramental sacrifice is the true sacrifice... 
 [ἡ.6. as well as the sacrifice on the cross]. In the Christian worship 
 He is the wniversal victim. Here is the victim for us, in par- 
 ticular: for each individual among us. The belief in the real 
 presence forms the basis. Without that the solemnity is a mere 
 reminiscence. The sacrifice presented merits internal grace. The 
 mass is a living representation of infinite love. [Note. Thus in 
 this most philosophical of all modern papal writers the presence of 
 
684 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Christ’s body is essential to all blessings: and be it noted that he 
 uses the words “The real presence” as quite sufficient to de- 
 scribe it.| 
 
 P. 347. “If such great and living manifestations, &., be 
 unable thoroughly to purify the heart, we may reasonably despair 
 and abandon ourselves to a mere theory of imputation.  [ Note. 
 What is this but a theory ? Also observe how he said before that 
 all blessings are wrought by this real presence unless... a man 
 puts an obstacle in its way. Who does not put many? But 
 Christ’s doctrine is, Though your sins be as scarlet, &., ἕο, Come 
 unto Me, &c.] 
 
 P. 351. “In the doctrine of transubstantiation Christianity 
 with its entire essence exhibits itself as an external immediate 
 Divine revelation. At the period of the Reformation therefore it 
 was the more necessary to bring out this doctrine and the ecclesi- 
 astical rites connected with it in the most prominent form, as an 
 empty erroneous spirituality was everywhere manifesting itself. 
 
 P. 353. “Luther taught a real and substantial presence [1.6. 
 of the body] without transubstantiation. Zwingle that ‘is’ means 
 ‘signifies.’ Qicolampadius that ‘My body’ signifies ‘ the sign of 
 ‘ My body.’ 
 
 P. 356. “Calvin that the material elements merely signified 
 the body and blood of Christ—a power emanating from the body 
 of Christ, which is now in Heaven only, is committed to the 
 Spirit. 
 
 P. 358. “Melanchthon after the Augsburg Confession changed 
 it thus: It was ‘ De coené Domini docent quod corpus et sanguis 
 ‘ Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur vescentibus in ccoena Domini, 
 ‘et improbant secus docentes.’ [In English, The Protestants teach 
 concerning the Lord’s supper that the body and blood of Christ 
 are truly present, and are distributed to those who feed in (7.e, eat) 
 the supper of the Lord, and they disallow those that teach other- 
 wise.] He made it ‘De ccené Domini docent quod cum pane et 
 ‘vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Domini vescentibus in 
 ‘cond Domini.’ [In English, They teach concerning the supper of 
 the Lord that together with the bread and wine are truly fur- 
 nished or exhibited the body and blood of the Lord to them that 
 eat in the Lord’s supper] 
 
 P. 360. “Beza at the religious colloquy at Poissy declared 
 that Christ [Christ’s body] was as far removed from the eucharist 
 as Heaven is from earth... The orthodox Luther decreed in the 
 Formulary of Concord that the body of Christ is administered in 
 with or under the bread.” [As to the authorship of the Formulary 
 of Concord see the details under the name of Martin Chemnitz in 
 this volume. Hagenbach says that Mohler took light from the 
 
---1838] PROFESSOR MOEHLER. 685 
 
 freethinkers of Germany, and “strove to amend or idealize 
 “ Roman Catholic doctrine’? So in citing Mohler we produce its 
 most favourable witness. | 
 
 (D.) EUGENE HAAG. FL. 1862. 
 
 Auteur de La France Protestante, 2 tomes 1860, also of Les 
 Conciles Premiers, 
 
 Christian dogmas. τ. 223. “From a very early age the bread 
 and the wine, signs of Christ’s body and blood, were the objects 
 with them of a profound veneration. They generally believed 
 that Christ’s body and blood were given and received in the sup- 
 per. They used to attribute magical effects (see Neander, Cent. Iv.) 
 to the bread and wine, because they were convinced that the Logos 
 was united to it. But they were by no means agreed on the 
 manner in which this union came to pass. With reference to this 
 their ideas long remained obscure and confused, as we shall shew by 
 numbers of citations from the fathers...If one had asked the most 
 ancient fathers of the church “Is the bread in the eucharist 
 “ Christ’s body?” they would have certainly answered in the affirma- 
 tive. But if one had put the question in these terms, “Is the 
 “bread transubstantiated? Is its substance changed into the sub- 
 “stance of Christ’s body?” they would have assuredly denied it. [I 
 think this chain of ideas might have had another link or two— 
 thus, had they then been put to the question “What is there of 
 
 Histoire des dogmes Chretiens. 2 tomes. 2me Editn. Paris, 1862, 
 I. 223. 
 
 De tres bonne heure le pain et le vin, symboles du corps et du sang 
 de Christ, furent pour eux Vobjet d’une profonde vénération. On 
 croyait généralement que le corps et le sang de Christ sont donnés et 
 recus dans la Céne. On attribuait des effets magiques au pain et au 
 vin, parece qu’on était convaincu que le Logos y était uni; mais on 
 n’était nullement d’accord sur la maniére dont cette union s’opérait. 
 A cet égard les idées restérent longtemps obscures et confuses, comme 
 nous le montrerons par des nombreuses citations des péres... Si ’on 
 avait demandé aux plus anciens docteurs de l’église, “ Le pain eucharis- 
 “tique est-il le corps du Christ?” ils auraient certainement répondu 
 “‘@une maniere affirmative. Mais si l’on avait posé la question en ces 
 termes, “ Le pain est-il transubstantié? Sa substance s’est-elle changée 
 “en la substance du corps du Christ?” ils auraient assurement nié ... 
 
 1 Hist. Doct. 1. In Hist. Christian Ch. Vol. 1. he says, ‘‘ Who became to the 
 **(R.) Cath. Ch. what Schleiermacher was to the Protestant and appropriated much 
 ‘‘from him. (He studied under him), Schelling and Hegel and applied it to 
 “*(R.) Catholic purposes.” See Symbolism: and Lives of Athanasius and Anselm. 
 
080 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “Christ's body there, seeing that the only appearances are made of 
 “bread and wine?” some would have said “I believe that both the 
 “substances are there,” others, anticipating the fourth Lateran, 
 would have said “No, only one; and that is the substance of | 
 “Christ’s body.” Hardly any would have said that the substance 
 and the qualities of both were there, only that the qualities or 
 properties of Christ’s body were concealed.]... Meanwhile with 
 time and above all the series of controversies on the person of 
 Jesus Christ, ideas became cleared and precise; the doctrine of an 
 expiatory sacrifice offered by the priest, after the pattern of the 
 Jewish priests, spread more and more and with it ideas more and 
 more favourable to transubstantiation ; so that the seventh ecu- 
 menical [general] council held at Nicea in 787, met with an 
 almost unanimous approbation, when it proclaimed that, after the 
 consecrations, the bread and the wine are no longer figures, but 
 truly the body and blood of Christ, as Mansi (recites) in his history 
 of the Councils, x11, 266. ‘Neither our Lord nor the apostles or 
 ‘fathers called the unbloody sacrifice which is offered by the priest 
 ‘a similitude (figure) but very flesh and very blood (flesh itself 
 ‘and blood itself). For before the consecration some of the 
 ‘fathers piously judged that they should be named figures of the 
 ‘things to be accomplished (lit. of the accomplishment) ; but after 
 ‘the consecration they are said to be and are properly Christ’s 
 
 ‘body and blood? 
 
 P. 227. “Rabanus Maurus [century Ix.] seems to admit that 
 the body of Christ—not the earthly body of Jesus, but a heavenly 
 body in which the Word clothes itself—is united with the signs 
 [see extracts from that eminent man shewing how confused were the 
 ideas of many, and how they caught at the term the Logos to help 
 them, as if it meant something besides the Divine Son of God]. 
 
 Cependant avee le temps et la suite surtout des controverses sur la 
 personne de Jésus-Christ les idées s’éclaircirent et se précistrent: la 
 doctrine d’un sacrifice d’expiation offert par le prétre, ἃ Vinstar des 
 prétres Juifs, se répandit de plus en plus, et, avec elle, des idées de plus 
 en plus favorables ἃ la transubstantiation, en sorte que le septiéme 
 concile écuménique, tenu en Nicee en 787, rencontra une approbation 
 presque unanime lorsqu’il proclama qu’aprés la consecration le pain et le 
 vin ne sont plus des figures, mais véritablement le corps et sang dn 
 Christ. Mansi, Concil. x11. 266. Οὔτε ὁ Κύριος οὔτε οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἢ 
 πατέρες εἴκονα εἶπον τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἱερέως προσφερομένην ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, 
 ἀλλὰ αὐτὸ σῶμα καὶ αὐτὸ αἷμα. po μὲν τῆς τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ τελειώσεως 
 ἀντίτυπά τισι τῶν πατέρων εὐσεβῶς ἔδοξεν ὀνομάζεσθαι: μετὰ δὲ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν 
 σῶμα κυρίως καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ καὶ λέγονται καὶ εἰσίν. 
 
 ΡΣ eal fp 
 
 Raban semble d’admettre que le corps du Christ, non pas le corps 
 terrestre de Jésus, mais un corps céleste, que le Logos revét, s’wnit aux 
 
1862] EUGENE HAAG. 687 
 
 This controversy terminated not at this period. The forces of the 
 two parties were yet in an equilibrium. Meanwhile the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation...more fit to seduce the people’s imagination, 
 because it offers the marvellous to them, spread more and more... 
 especially by the influence of pretended miracles which its parti- 
 zans called to their aid. [The egg of transubstantiation was it 
 seems to me laid very early: and all its marvels were in it from 
 the first. In fact Cent. xii. defined it, and in so doing reduced 
 to order and cut off some excrescences. It is in truth the nearest to 
 being tenable of all theories except the simple truth of the figura- 
 tive or metaphorical or symbolical meaning of Christ’s words. ] 
 
 P. 309. “Berengar of Tours. In fine the sacrifice of the mass 
 is only an act commemorative of the Saviour’s sacrifice. [Surely it 
 is a way of obtaining grace. Berengar believed this, and M. Haag. 
 The words above should never once be said.| A sacrifice which has 
 been accomplished once for all men, and cannot be renewed. Jesus 
 in instituting the supper has employed the words, ‘the body and 
 the blood’ in a tropical or figurative sense, and the words ‘bread 
 and wine’ in their natural sense. The priestly blessing produces 
 no change in the substance of the elements... The mouth receives 
 the bread and wine, but the man within eats and drinks, spiritually 
 by faith, Jesus Christ’s body and blood, provided he communicate 
 worthily. 
 
 P. 338. ‘Luther in his theses [nailed on Wittenberg church- 
 door] shews himself the humble and submissive son of the Roman 
 
 church, from which he did not openly separate, as we know, till 
 
 symboles. Cette controverse ne se termina pas dans cette période. 
 Les forces des deux parties se fuisaient encore équilibre. Cependant la 
 doctrine de transubstantiation ... plus propre ἃ séduire imagination du 
 peuple, parce quelle offre de merveilleux, se répandit de plus en plus... 
 surtout par les prétendus miracles, que ses partisans appelérent a leur 
 secours. 
 
 Be309) 
 
 ‘Berengar de Tours. Enfin le sacrifice de la messe n’est qu’un acte 
 commémoratif du sacrifice du Sauveur ; sacrifice qui a été accompli une 
 fois pour toutes et ne peut se renouveler. Jésus en instituant la céne a 
 employé les mots, “le corps et le sang,” dans un sens tropique ou figuré, 
 ceux de pain et de vin dans leur sens naturel. La bénédiction sacerdotale 
 ne produit aucun changement dans la substance des éléments... La bouche 
 recoit ce pain et vin, mais homme intérieur mange et boit, spirituelle- 
 ment par Ja foi, le corps et le sang de Jésus- Christ, pourvu qu il com- 
 munie dig nement. 
 
 P. 338. 
 
 Luther dans ses théses se montre encore le fils humble et soumis de 
 Véglise Romaine, dont il ne se sépara ouvertement, on le sait, que trois 
 
088 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 three years later, Dec. 10, 1520, by an act of grand audacity. 
 With the exception of the indulgences he condemns nothing, abso- 
 lutely nothing, either in the doctrines or in the institutions of 
 catholicism. Zwingel on the contrary in his works passes in review 
 all that men had to reproach the dominant church, and loftily 
 demands a reform after the model of the apostolic church. 
 
 1. Ὁ. 248. Note, Luther on the Babylonish captivity, p. 278. 
 “Nor can it be true that there is in the sacraments an efficacious 
 force of justifying, or that they are efficacious signs of grace. [In 
 this Luther is quite in the van.] 
 
 P. 306. “Luther after many hesitations and numerous com- 
 bats with himself stopped at the doctrine of consubstantiation, 
 hoping thus to combine the exigencies of his own reason with the 
 Bible’s words, which seemed to him imperative [for the literal 
 sense]. His subtle theory [Does it deserve this title? Its chief 
 point is a disarrangement of the order of things in the miraculous 
 gift: it does escape changing the bread, &c. into Christ’s body], 
 which admits no change of substance in the elements of the supper, 
 but an internal necessary presence in substance of the body and 
 blood of Jesus Christ, under, with, and in the bread of the eucha- 
 rist, does not seem, whatever its partisans say for it, to be widely 
 separated from transubstantiation, which the first Lutheran creeds 
 (formule) teach even in a very clear way. It provoked a violent 
 dispute between him and Carlstadt, 1545 (see Gobel), who rejected 
 
 ans plus tard le 10 Décembre 1520, par un acte d’une grande audace. 
 A Vexception des indulgences il ne condamne rien, absolument rien, ni 
 dans les doctrines ni dans les institutions du catholicisme. Zwingle au 
 contraire passe en revue dans les siennes tout ce que lon avait a 
 reprocher a léglise dominante, et demande hautement une réforme 
 d’aprés le modéle de l’église apostolique. 
 
 Vol. 7. P. 248. Note quoting Luther De capt. Bab. Vol. τι. 
 p. 273. 
 
 Nec verum esse potest sacramentis inesse vim efficacem justifica- 
 tionis, seu esse signa efficacia gratie. 
 
 P. 306. 
 
 Luther ... apres beaucoup d’hésitations et de nombreux combats avec 
 lui-méme s’arréta ἃ la doctrine de consubstantiation, espérant concilier 
 ainsi les exigences de sa propre raison avec un texte Biblique qui lni 
 semblait trés impératif. Sa subtile théorie, qui admet, non pas un 
 changement de substance dans les élémens de la Céne, mais la présence 
 substantielle interne et nécessaire du corps et du sang de Jésus-Christ, 
 sous avec et dans le pain eucharistique, ne semble pas, quoiqu’en disent 
 ses partisans, s’éloigner beaucoup de la transubstantiation, que les 
 premieres symboles Luthériens enseignent, méme d’une maniére assez 
 claire. Elle provoqua une dispute violente entre lui et Carlstadt, 1545 
 
1802] EUGENE HAAG. 689 
 
 the bodily presence as useless, seeing it could not procure any 
 grace for man, of which Christ’s death on the cross had not already 
 put him in possession. Carlstadt foolishly maintains that the 
 word ‘This’ applies to the body of Jesus [as if Christ had said 
 ‘This My body is My body’]. This explanation is a little forced. 
 That of Zwingel, who as Capito, Bucer, and almost all the re- 
 formers of the school of Erasmus, also rejected the real presence, 
 was more simple and natural. With him the sacrament is only a 
 sign, the pledge of a grace bestowed. [Also a help to obtain it. 
 See Zwingel’ 5. own volumes.] This opinion of a purely symbolical 
 presence [a presence by the sacred signs, 1.6. not a real natural 
 presence at all] was defended in 1525 and by Hausschein in 1531, 
 with so much logic and erudition, that Erasmus avowed that the 
 elect themselves might allow themselves to be taken by it...He 
 leaves to the word ‘is’ its proper meaning, and...thinks he finds a 
 figure or trope in the words ‘My body’... Calvin, taking a kind of 
 middle term between the theories of Luther and Zwingel, taught 
 that Christ is not present only in figure in the supper; that He is 
 there really and substantially for the believer, who thus by 
 spiritual communication becomes partaker in the true body and 
 true blood of Jesus Christ. Calvin’s theory was admitted by the 
 sacramentaries of Switzerland without much resistance, for Zwingel, 
 perhaps through a spirit of conciliation, had already recognized as 
 did the ancient fathers of the church [as Justin], that the bread of 
 the supper is not ordinary bread but sacramental bread sanctified 
 by the spiritual presence of Christ [see extracts under the head 
 
 (Gobel, 1843), qui rejetait la présence corporelle comme inutile, vu 
 qwelle ne pouvait procurer ἃ homme aucune grace, que la mort de 
 Jésus-Christ sur la croix ne |’etit déja mis en possession, Carlstadt pré- 
 tendant que le mot “Ceci” s’applique au corps de Jésus... Cette 
 explication était un peu forcée. Celle de Zwingle, qui comme Capito, 
 Bucer, et en général tous les réformateurs de lécole d’Krasme, rejetait 
 aussi la présence réelle, était plus simple et plus naturelle... Pour lui 
 le sacrement n’est qu’un signe, le gage d’une grace accordée. Cette 
 opinion d’une présence purement symbolique fut défendue en 1525 (par 
 Cicolampade, 1531) avec tant de logique et d’érudition, qu’ Krasme 
 avouait que les élus eux-mémes pourraient s’y laisser prendre... I] laisse 
 au verbe “ est” sa signification propre, et ... croit trouver un trope dans 
 les mots “ Mon corps”... Calvin, prenant une espece de moyen terme entre 
 la théorie de Luther et celle de Zwingle, enseigna que le Christ n’est pas 
 présent seulement en figure dans la Céne; qu’'Il y est réellement et 
 substantiellement pour le croyant, qui devient ainsi par une communi- 
 cation spirituelle participant au vrai corps et au vrai sang de Jésus- 
 Christ... La théorie de Calvin fut admise sans trop de resistances, 
 par les sacrementaires [7.e. believers in the sign] de la Suisse ; car 
 Zwingle, par esprit de conciliation peut-étre, avait déja reconnu, comme 
 les anciens péres de l’église, que le pain de la céne n’est pas du pain 
 ordinaire mais du pain sacramentel, sanctifié par la présence spirituelle 
 
 ἘΠ. {Ὁ 44, 
 
690 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Hospinian] and the confession of the four cities [after Zwingel’s 
 death] had already [before Calvin] proclaimed that the Saviour of 
 the world offers His true body to the faithful to eat for the 
 nourishing of their souls.... But it in no way satisfied the Luthe- 
 rans... The attempt at conciliation by Melanchthon failed. The 
 theory of Calvin, adopted as it was by the reformed in France and 
 in England, in Scotland and in Holland as by those in Switzerland, 
 and by a part of Germany, had to defend itself...against the 
 attacks of the catholic theologians, to whom Plessis Mornay, 
 Albertin, Blondel, and others answered with much erudition and 
 skill, but without attaining to the removal of the contradiction 
 presented by the Calvinist dogma, when he speaks of a body being 
 spiritually eaten. [And there is another, wz. that he affirms 
 Christ’s body to be in Heaven and yet so united with believers on 
 earth that it is with them too.] Also this theory has been gene- 
 rally abandoned and almost all the reformed are returned to that 
 of Zwingel. [Lutherans and numbers of English churchmen 
 excepted.] At this day, as I have just said, the Zwinglian or 
 mnemonic theory reigns almost universally in the protestant 
 church...The supernaturalists, who still speak in Luther’s sense 
 of a substantial presence, understand no more than a presence of 
 operation, &c. [.6. operating power, not a presence]. As to the 
 rationalists the greater part without hesitation rejected the church 
 dogma to adopt the theory of Zwingel. 
 
 I. 426. “Puseyism. Its avowed aim was to reestablish the 
 church on the foundation of apostolic tradition; but the public was 
 
 du Christ [see ad Carolum Imp. ττ. 541]; et la confession tetra- 
 politaine [Zur. Ber. Bas, Stras.] avait déja proclamé que le Sauveur offre 
 aux fideles son vrai corps ἃ manger pour nourriture de leurs 4mes...Mais 
 il ne satisfit nullement les Luthériens... La tentative de conciliation 
 faite par Melancthon échoua. Adoptée par les réformés de France et 
 d’ Angleterre d’Kcosse et de Hollande comme par ceux de Suisse, et par 
 une partie d’Allemagne, la théorie de Calvin eut ἃ se défendre ... contre 
 les attaques des théologiens catholiques, auxquels Du Plessis Mornay, 
 Aubertin, Blondel, et d’autres répondirent avec beaucoup d’érudition et 
 @habileté, mais sans parvenir ἃ détruire la contradiction que le dogme 
 Calviniste presente, lorsqu’il parle d@’un corps qui se mange spirituelle- 
 ment. Ainsi cette théorie a-t-elle été généralement abandonnée, et presque 
 tous les réformés sont revenus ἃ celle de Zwingle, ἄς. Aujourd’hui, 
 comme nous venons de le dire, la théorie Zwinglienne, ou mnemonique, 
 domine ἃ peu prés généralement dans l’église Protestante. Les super- 
 naturalistes, qui parlent encore dans le sens de Luther d’une présence 
 substantielle, n’entendent pas par la quune présence operative, ke. 
 Quant aux Rationalistes la plupart rejettrent sans hésiter le dogme 
 ecclésiastique pour adopter la théorie de Zwingle. 
 
 Vol. I. p. 426. Le Puseyisme. 
 Son but avoué était de rétablir l’église sur le fondement de la tradi- 
 
1802] EUGENE HAAG. 691 
 
 not slow to perceive that it led them direct to catholicism by its 
 exaggerated regard for apostolic succession and for the tradition of 
 the six first ages [as said by Knox, and Jebb], a source of faith as 
 pure as the gospel in the opinion of its followers. For some years 
 Puseyism confined itself within certain bounds...rejecting the 
 transubstantiation of the sacramental appearances [or kinds] with- 
 out ever denying that the true body and the true blood of Jesus 
 Christ are in the sacrament, and that they are offered as a sacrifice 
 of reconciliation. But the tendency...became soon more and more 
 manifest. ‘The numerous conversions to catholicism, which have 
 taken place in this sect till 1843, have justified, up to a certain 
 point, the suspicion that its chiefs were, for the most part, onlv 
 Roman catholics, who disguised their true sentiments in the sense- 
 less hope of bringing back England to the Pope’s feet.” [This is 
 the judgment of a foreigner. Perhaps we shall some day find out 
 whether his judgment is true or in error. | 
 
 tion apostolique ; mais on ne tarda pas ἃ apercevoir 6411] conduisait 
 directement au catholicisme par son respect exagéré pour la succession 
 apostolique et pour la tradition des six premiers siecles—source de la 
 foi aussi pure que ’évangile dans l’opinion des sectateurs. Dans quel- 
 ques années pourtant il se renferma dans certaines bornes ... rejetant la 
 transubstantiation des especes sacramentelles sans nier toutefois que de 
 vrai corps et le vrai sang de Jésus-Christ sont dans le sacrement, et 
 qwils sont offerts en sacrifice de reconciliation; mais la tendance ... 
 devint bientdt de plus en plus manifeste. Les nombreuses conversions 
 au catholicisme qui ont eu leu dans cette secte depuis 1843 ont justifié, 
 jusqu’& un certain point, le soupgon que ses chefs n’étaient, par la plu- 
 part, que des catholiques Romains, qui déguisaient leurs veritables 
 sentiments, dans lespoir insensé de ramener l Angleterre aux pieds 
 du Pape. [The leaven still works in the same way, Nov. 1878.] 
 
 (E.) WILHELM LUBKE, PROFESSOR OF ART-HISTORY IN STUTTGARDT. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Art in Germany. Trans. Wheatley, Ed. -v. 
 London, 1871. 
 
 The Gothic Style. The Altar. P. 115. “When a sacrifice 
 is to be offered up, the first necessity of worship is the altar. The 
 bloodless sacrifice of the mass in Christianity, even in the earliest 
 times, called forth the new doctrine of the altar. At first it was, 
 as it appears, of wood, and had its name, mensa Domini, the Lord’s 
 table, in remembrance of the supper table on which Christ had 
 placed the sacrifice of the eucharist. In the chief altar of the 
 Lateran church at Rome such an altar (table) is still shewn en- 
 closed; on which 8. Peter is said to have offered the sacrifice 
 of the mass. It is distinguished from all the other altars of 
 catholic Christianity by the peculiarity, that it alone contains no 
 
 44. 9 
 
692 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 relics. The altars were generally placed over the graves of the 
 martyrs; and thence originated the law that no altar was to be 
 erected without being consecrated by those holy relics. Where no 
 grave of a saint was to be had, relics were enclosed in the altar, 
 ἄς. ἄς. [P. 116.] The oldest form of the Christian altar is that 
 of a rectangular sarcophagus, ὅθ. [P. 124.] There soon arose 
 for its protection a baldacchin resting on four columns, the so- 
 called ‘ciborium, from the centre of which hung the vessel with 
 the consecrated bread, often in the form of a dove. On the sides 
 were introduced moveable curtains on poles which were used by 
 the celebrant in the chief moments of the offering of the mass 
 to preserve from profane gaze the treatment of the sacred ele- 
 ments. [P. 125.] Another form—the wall altar, ἄορ. [P. 126.] 
 This back wall of the altar—superfrontale. [P. 144.] To preserve 
 the consecrated bread round boxes of ivory, also of wood or pre- 
 cious metals, were used in the early Christian times [see Andreas], 
 &c, a favourite form...a dove, peristerium, as an emblem of the 
 Holy Ghost. These doves of gold or silver and sometimes of 
 enamelled copper stood on a dish which hung down on cords 
 from the top of the ciborium. In Germany three....Salzburg, 
 Erfurt, and monastery of Géttweih. [P. 147.] Monstrances... 
 arose from the festival of Corpus Christi (13th century and 14th 
 and 15th). [P. 151.] Censers and incense cups. [P. 154.] 
 Pouring vessels, manilia, for washing of hands...Mass bells, with 
 which were given the signs of the principal moments in the sacred 
 service. [P. 155.] A vessel in Miinster, supposed to be for use 
 in washing the chalice between one high mass and another.” 
 
 We have thus the testimony of architecture to the opinions 
 that prevailed. In Martigny’s Dict. Ch. Antiq. quoted with one 
 of the extracts from Jerome is a picture from the walls of the 
 same cemetery of a feast with fish, ὑχθὺς, on the table and baskets 
 of bread ranged on the ground, See p. 246. The fish meaning 
 Christ. 
 
 (F.) ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, 
 Third Edition, 1869. The word Lucharvst. 
 
 P. 118. “The eating of the eucharist gives to those that eat 
 it eternal life. [P. 119.] The literal interpretation is recognized 
 
 Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Religion Catholique. Paris, 1869. 
 Publié par les soins du Dr Wetzer et du Dr Welte en allemand et 
 traduit par le chanoine J. Goschler. Troisiéme Edition, 26 tom. 
 Mot Eucharistie. P. 118. 
 
 La manducation de leucharistie donne ἃ ceux qui la mangent la vie 
 éternelle... P. 119. Linterprétation littérale est reconnue par le 
 
1809] DICTIONARY OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. 693 | 
 
 by the Lord Himself, John vi., as the just and true interpretation : 
 if it were not, He ought to have contradicted the false interpre- 
 tation of His disciples...Holy Scripture also proves from the 
 highest antiquity the doctrine of the primitive church to have been 
 that in the eucharist the faithful eats the body and drinks the 
 blood of Christ, and that he has nothing to do with a spiritual 
 and figurative eating. [Wiseman’s lectures quoted against inter- 
 preting “is” as “signifies”, and Justin Martyr’s Ist apology.] 
 This passage of Justin takes us straight to the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation. After this change the visible appearances of the 
 bread and the wine (still) subsist, but the bread is no longer the 
 bread; it is the body of Jesus Christ, &e. [Cyril of Jerusalem.] 
 All the fathers speak to the same purport. S. Gregory of Nyssa, 
 S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, finally all the liturgies of the 
 churches of the most ancient date are unanimous—the Churches, 
 Eastern, Greek, Latin, all speak of the real and substantial body 
 and blood of Jesus Christ. 
 
 P. 121. “The eucharist then is the great sacrament of union, by 
 which is realized the prayer of Christ the Supreme Pontiff ‘Thou 
 ‘in Me and I in them, &ec. &. The eucharist is as much a sacri- 
 fice as a sacrament. [After quoting Hebrews respecting the 
 sacrifice of Christ’s death being once for all, it continues] but 
 nothing in all that is contrary to the catholic doctrine regarding 
 the perpetual renewal of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass...That 
 which Christ has done for the human race He continues to do 
 
 Seigneur lui-méme comme l’interprétation juste et vraie [John vi.] : sans 
 cela il aurait di contredire la fausse interprétation de ses disciples ... 
 Lécriture sainte prouve aussi, que dés la plus haute antiquité la doctrine 
 de léglise primitive a été que dans l’eucharistie le fidele mange le corps 
 et boit le sang du Christ, et qwil ne s’agit en aucune fagon d'une 
 manducation spirituelle et figurative. Wiseman quoted as to “signifies ” 
 not being the meaning of “is:” and Justin Apol. 1. Ce passage de 8. 
 Justin nous méne directement au dogme de la transubstantiation ... 
 Aprés ce changement les espéces visibles du pain et du vin subsistent : 
 mais le pain n’est plus le pain: il est le corps de Jésus-Christ, &e. Cyril 
 of Jerusalem quoted, Cat. Myst.... Tous les péres parlent de méme. 
 S. Gregoire de Nysse; 5. Chrysostome, 8. Augustin, enfin toutes les 
 liturgies des églises les plus anciennes sont unanimes: les églises, 
 orientale, Grecque, et Latine, parlent toutes du corps et du sang réels 
 et substantiels de Jésus-Christ. 
 
 Pt 151: 
 
 Leucharistie est done le grand sacrement de l’union, par lequel se 
 réalise la pritre du Christ, Pontife supréme, “ Vous en moi et moi en 
 “eux, de.” ... L’eucharistie de méme qu’elle est un sacrement, esé wn 
 sacrifice. ... Mais rien de tout cela n’est contraire & la doctrine catho- 
 lique concernant le perpetuel renouvellement du sacrifice de Jésus-Christ 
 dans la messe... Ce que le Christ a fait pour le genre humain, 7 
 
094 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 without pause for the individuals of the race living under different 
 times and in divers places. It is always the same with it, especi- 
 ally in His expiatory sacrifice. [The Council of Trent quoted.]... 
 He alone can approach to the holy sacrament who is worthy 
 of it. Infants of tender age are excluded; as also infidels and 
 heretics. In the ancient church penitents also were deprived 
 of it. According to the laws of the church every Christian ought, 
 after being well prepared, to draw near, at least once in a year, 
 to the Lord’s table [.6. every baptized person not separated from 
 the church ἐδ supposed fit, or able to be made fit by the drilling 
 of his priest]. As regards the substance of the dogma [of the real 
 presence] it was attacked in the middle of the eleventh century in 
 the Latin church by Berengar of Tours. Already in the ninth age 
 Erigena had pronounced in favour of a symbolical and figurative 
 interpretation. His opinions were censured, as they deserved. The 
 fourth council of the Lateran, 1215, &e. τα. 
 
 P. 123. “Although the Swiss reformers had admitted Calvin’s 
 opinion in the convention of Zurich, and later synods of the 
 reformed attached themselves to it, (yet) in the course of time 
 the opinion of Zwingel obtained the preeminence [See M. Haag’s 
 judgment to the same effect]: and this clearly establishes the 
 religious state of Switzerland and Germany [He ignores the 
 old Lutherans who are unchanged], which believe the one as little 
 as the other in the reality and truth of the Christian system” 
 [.6. the authors of this German work translated into French count 
 the Tridentine doctrines on the Lord’s supper “Christianism,’ 
 z.e. the Christian system, and reject Germans as well as French]. 
 
 continue ἃ, le faire, sans relache, pour les individus du genre vivants 
 dans différents temps et en divers lieux. 1] en est de méme surtout de 
 son sacrifice expiatoire. Council of Trent quoted... Celui-la seul peut 
 s'approcher de ce sacrement qui en est digne. Les enfans en bas age en 
 sont exclus: de méme les infidéles les hérétiques ; dans l’ancienne église 
 les pénitents en étaient aussi privés. D’aprés les lois de Véglise tout 
 Chrétien doit, aprés s’étre bien preparé, approcher (au moins une fois dans 
 l'année) de la table du Seigneur. Quant ἃ la substance méme du dogme elle 
 fut attaquée au milieu du onzieme siécle dans l’église Latine par Berenger 
 de Tours. Déd au neuvieme siecle Erigéne s’était prononcé pour Vinter- 
 prétation symbolique et figurée. Ses opinions furent, comme elles 
 devaient létre, censwrées... Le quatriéme concile de Lateran de 1215, 
 &e, ὅσο, 
 BAN, 
 
 Quoique les réformateurs Helvétiques eussent admis dans la con- 
 vention de Zurich l’opinion de Calvin, et que les synodes postérieurs des 
 réformés s’y rattachassent, avec le cours du temps Uopinion de Zwingle 
 obtint la prééminence, et cest ce que constate clairement |’état religieux 
 de Ja Suisse et de ? Allemagne, qui croient aussi peu l'une que lautre en 
 la réalité et la vérité du Christianisme. 
 
1850] GOODE, WILBERFORCE, AND DENISON. 695 
 
 (G.) DEAN GOODE AND ARCHDEACONS WILBERFORCE AND 
 DENISON, A.D. 1856. 
 
 The exact line of argument, adopted by Dean William Goode 
 in his work “On the Eucharist,” seems to demand a fuller ex- 
 amination than could be given to it in this Part. It is therefore 
 reserved for the proposed Third and concluding portion, in com- 
 pany with a few other select witnesses on both sides of the 
 question. The writer of this work may be excused for stating 
 that his personal esteem and affection for Dean Goode were 
 founded on intimate acquaintance, as he had the honour of act- 
 ing in close conjunction with him in some matters, particularly 
 on the delicate and still unsolved question, how a sufficient supply 
 of clergymen is to be created; and it may be useful to state that 
 in that part of one public memorial, that came from the Dean’s 
 pen, he boldly put forth the idea that the bishops might some day 
 be forced to take up the position of not so much asking from what 
 places of instruction candidates came, as of requiring that they 
 should be in all respects duly qualified. The late Bishop of 
 Lichfield in his Theological College adopted this principle, and 
 in his last examination of the candidates for the order of priests 
 a non-university man stood very decidedly at the head of the 
 list which consisted of twelve, seven of whom were university men. 
 But to return from this little digression, the object of which is 
 to make the wise lips of the departed still speak to us—I have 
 selected salient passages from those writings of the two arch- 
 deacons which the Dean cites, deeming that these, together with 
 part of the Dean’s replies, may suffice in relation to them; as 
 I believe it to be generally held that the Dean’s refutation of 
 their writings on this subject may be regarded as an accomplished 
 fact. 
 
 The nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist. 
 
 P. 104. On John vi. “The question is, whether the words 
 were spoken formally and directly of eating and drinking the 
 bread and wine in the eucharist...1 would at once reply to the 
 remarks by which Archdeacon Wilberforce tries to neutralize 
 the force of them [v.e. of the passages Dean Goode is about to 
 adduce from the fathers]. He would fain persuade us that when 
 the ancient writers speak of the body and blood of Christ in 
 
696 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 connexion with any spiritual communion with Him apart from 
 the reception of the eucharist, they are speaking of a benefit 
 bestowed through extraordinary channels; and to meet such 
 expressions it 1s admitted, as of course it could not be denied, | 
 that ‘virtue issues from our Lord as the fountain of grace in 
 ‘any manner which pleases Him’; and the astounding hypo- 
 thesis is put forward, that when the body and blood of Christ 
 are spoken of as imparted to those who in this extraordinary 
 manner are brought into relation to Christ, it is not because 
 flesh and blood are employed as metaphorical terms for express- 
 ing grace or doctrines—in which I agree with him—but because 
 the holy eucharist, being the sacrament of Christ’s flesh and blood, 
 suggests the order in which the gifts are communicated [pp. 200, 
 201 of Archdeacon Wilberforce’s book]. It would be useless to 
 comment on such a hypothesis, and there needs no other reply 
 than that the supposition that these writers [the fathers] are 
 speaking of anything out of the ordinary course of things is entirely 
 groundless, and contrary to the language they use. When they in- 
 terpret these words as referring to a spiritual act of the mind, they 
 give that interpretation as the proper interpretation of the words ; 
 and in so doing, even though they may elsewhere apply the 
 words to the eucharistic rite, they negative the Archdeacon’s 
 interpretation of them. The distinction between interpreting 
 the words as spoken expressly of the eucharist, and using them 
 as applicable to what takes place in the eucharist, is...well put 
 by Waterland (Rev. of Doct. of Eucharist, Ch. 6, Vol. Iv. p. 543. 
 Oxford, 1843). 
 
 To these remarks Archdeacon Wilberforce thinks himself 
 justified in giving the following answer, ‘It has been shewn that 
 ‘the sixth chapter of St John consists of two parts: first, we have 
 ‘a general statement of our Lord’s mediation, v. 30—50, and then 
 ‘a declaration that the holy eucharist is the medium through 
 ‘which its benefits are communicated, v. 51—58. But Water- 
 ‘land’s makes no account of the latter set of expressions... Water- 
 ‘land gives no reason why the ancient writers should have con- 
 ‘sidered these words to be so plainly relevant to the holy eucharist, 
 ‘that they almost invariably quote them in this relation. How 
 ‘came they thus to employ them unless they supposed that this 
 ‘was the natural force of the words: or how could they venture 
 ‘to give this meaning to our Lord’s words unless such had been 
 ‘their received interpretation ?’ 
 
 P. 204. The Dean answers. “Now to what cause«we are to 
 attribute such a mode of arguing on the subject I will not pretend 
 to say. Whether it be from confusion of mind, or some other 
 cause, I leave the reader to determine. But certainly such argu- 
 mentation can do no harm but to its author. 
 
1850] GOODE, WILBERFORCE, AND DENISON. 697 
 
 As to Archdeacon Denison, Dean Goode, ch. 11. p. 11, quotes 
 from the Archdeacon’s correspondence with Bishop Spencer. “‘I 
 hold the doctrine of the real presence as declared and taught by 
 the Church of England to be this: Ist, negatively, that there is not 
 a corporal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread 
 and wine... 2dly, affirmatively, that there is a real presence of 
 the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine in 
 a manner, which, as the holy Scripture has not explained, the 
 church has not defined. That the body and blood of Christ, being 
 really present in the sacramental bread and wine, are given in and 
 by the outward sign to all, and are received by all. That whether 
 the body and blood of Christ be given and received unto life or 
 unto death, this depends upon the state of the heart and mind of 
 the receiver :—in other words that the body and blood of Christ 
 are present to all objectively,—subjectively that they are present 
 to the faithful only. My language in my letter of April 25 does 
 mean what is, always has been, and always will be my meaning, 
 and what you understand it to mean, wz. that in holy communion 
 the body and blood of Christ are received by all. I had hoped 
 that 1 had made it so clear that I hold the real presence of the 
 body and blood of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine to be 
 purely and absolutely a spiritual presence, as to have guarded 
 myself definitely and effectually against being supposed to ap- 
 proach, however remotely, the confines of the doctrine of consub- 
 stantiation... That there is a real presence, not material, or as 
 it is said, not corporal, but immaterial and spiritual of the body 
 and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. And that 
 the body and blood of Christ, being really present in the conse- 
 erated bread and wine after an immaterial and spiritual manner— 
 a manner, which as holy Scripture has not explained the church 
 has not defined—are given therein and thereby to all, and are 
 received by all who come to the Lord’s table... If we know, as 
 we certainly do know, that the bread and wine retaining their very 
 natural substances, become in some ineffable way the body and 
 blood of Christ through the consecrating power of the priest— 
 which is the plain teaching of holy Scripture, and witnessed to as 
 such by the undoubting testimony of the church catholic—it 
 follows from holy Scripture, and ex necessitate rei—seeing that 
 we do not know, as we certainly do not, that the presence thus 
 vouchsafed is under any circumstances withdrawn, so that the 
 bread and wine cease to be that which by consecration they have 
 become—it follows I say from holy Scripture and ex necessitate 
 rei, that the body and blood of Christ are given in and by the 
 consecrated bread and wine to all and are received by all who 
 come to the Lord’s table.” (Serm. 1. pp. 19, 20.) 
 
 I have reluctantly inserted this: and I only say, as it concerns 
 others too, that my mind refuses to admit the terms “an imma- 
 
098 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 “terial body” or “a purely spiritual presence of body and blood.” 
 Also the body and blood of Christ are now in Heaven and not 
 here, except in thought. I can grasp no more than that the 
 thought of the body and blood of Christ given and shed is in my — 
 mind, and moves my heart to gratitude and love, and in calling 
 upon God in such deeply-affecting meditations, I receive all bless- 
 ing and grace to enable me to feel my union with Him and with ~ 
 all His people in every age, and to supply me with power to over- 
 come sin and to act after His pattern till He comes to earth again 
 or I goto Him. The more I read and the more I meditate on the 
 subject, and the longer my experience of this present earthly 
 conflict continues, the more do I find this view fill the whole 
 horizon. Bear Saravia in mind in reading what now follows. 
 
 P. 186. “It will hardly be denied that the doctrine of the 
 ancient church according to Augustine and certainly of our own 
 catechism is, that there are two parts in a sacrament, and that 
 these two parts are the outward and visible sign and the inward 
 ‘and spiritual grace. But, according to the doctrine of our 
 authors, in one of the two sacraments there are three: viz. the 
 outward and visible sign, the thing which the outward and visible 
 sign represents, and the inward and spiritual grace: and it is 
 maintained that the two former are received by all communicants, 
 and the third only by faithful communicants. Thus Archdeacon 
 Wilberforce expressly speaks of the eucharist as consisting of the 
 sacramentum, the res sacramenti, and the virtus sacramenti; of 
 which he maintains that the two former are received by all com- 
 municants, and the third by the faithful only. The same thing is 
 done by Archdeacon Denison. He also distinguishes between the 
 sacramentum, the res sacramenti, and the virtus or gratia sacra- 
 menti. I grant that both these authors in order to save them- 
 selves from a palpable contrariety to the doctrine both of the 
 ancient church and our own, maintain that the sacrament consists 
 of two parts: and in the eucharist they make these two parts to 
 be the sacramentum and the res sacramenti; making the virtus or 
 gratia to be an effect which may or may not follow from the recep- 
 tion of the res... The second part of the sacrament is, according 
 to the definition of Augustine and our church, the inward and 
 spiritual grace, the virtus or gratia sacramenti, and not the res 
 sacramenti, or body and blood of Christ. And it is admitted that 
 this is received, and can only be received, by the soul. 
 
 In page 185 Dean Goode quotes Bishop Taylor’s denial that 
 Christ's body is present after the manner of a spirit. The words 
 
1850] GOODE, WILBERFORCE, AND DENISON. 699 
 
 merit to be well remembered. ‘“This‘is not merely a thing 
 “beyond our comprehension but it involves nonsense.” 
 
 P. 210. “The third sophism I would point out is the applica- 
 tion of the phrase ‘real and spiritual presence’ to mean the real 
 presence of a body after the manner of existence of a spirit... Our 
 old divines have frequently insisted... none more for instance 
 than Bishop Jeremy Taylor... on the necessity of holding a real 
 spiritual presence of Christ in the eucharist... But the phrase 
 standing alone has been a mine of wealth to the -authors under 
 review. They seem to have thought it all they wanted... [P.211.] 
 that a body remaining a body should nevertheless be in the form 
 of a spirit is, they will admit, rather mysterious, like black in the 
 form of white, &c.” 
 
 So the Dean denounces this expression P. 212 “as an inge- 
 ‘“‘nious device to rob the present generation in our church of its 
 “dearest birthright in the blood-bought Protestant orthodoxy of 
 “its faith, ὅσο." and he quotes Bishop J. Taylor’s Tract on the 
 real presence and spiritual of Christ in the blessed sacrament, p. 13, 
 Ed. 14. “By spiritually they [Bellarmine, &c.] mean, after the 
 “manner of a spirit: we mean present to our spirits only, 1.6. 
 “Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or 
 “spiritual susception; but their way makes His body to be present 
 “in no way but that which is impossible and implies a contradic- 
 “tion; a body not after the manner of a body; a body like a 
 “spirit: a body without a body: and a sacrifice of body and blood 
 “without body and blood; corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus... 
 “Not after the manner of all bodies nor any body, but after that 
 “manner of being in which an angel is ina place. That is their 
 “spiritually.” ” Is it sense to say that Christ is present with the 
 soul or to be eaten by it, unless in the most purely figurative and 
 metaphorical use of these terms? ὁ.6. The true natural body of 
 Christ is present with and is eaten by the soul only after a figura- 
 tive manner, 7.é. it is not present to the soul as a true natural body 
 because it is in Heaven and not here, and the soul as well as the 
 body is here and not in Heaven. See “Extracts” from Lorimer’s 
 Knox and the Church of England in relation to the rubric on 
 kneeling and its true history. 
 
 It is with regret that I am once more obliged openly to confess 
 that I cannot reconcile one answer in our Catechism with the 
 rubric on kneeling and the rest of our church’s utterance both in 
 her services and her articles: and it is owing in my judgment to 
 
700 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 that one unhappy utterance that the Dean has left some “ miry 
 “places” in his excellent line of defence, weak points which not 
 even his skill can fortify, and at which such an opponent as Mag. 
 Capel could easily enter and overthrow not the truth but the 
 Dean’s reputation for logical accuracy. It is to be observed, Ὁ. 111. 
 p. 56, that the Dean’s book is explicitly a defence of the Church 
 of England, which he assumes to be at all points “ scriptural.” 
 
 The unavoidable entanglement of the utterances of the various 
 authors seems to make a condensed synopsis desirable. The Arch- 
 deacons hold (1) a sacramentum or sign, the bread and wine, 
 (2) the res sacramenti, Christ’s body and blood present in an 
 immaterial and spiritual mode, and (3) or as an annex to (2), the 
 virtus or gratia sacramenti. Dean Goode and with him Jeremy 
 Taylor say that their own and our church’s doctrine is, (1) that 
 the Church of Rome and these Archdeacons err in explaining the 
 term “the spiritual presence of Christ’s body,” a presence after 
 the manner of a spirit, which they think a confusion of ideas: and 
 (2) the Dean and the Bishop affirm for themselves and as the 
 church’s doctrine, that the spiritual presence of Christ’s body 
 means its being present with our souls and being eaten by them. 
 The compiler of this work pleads that in the rubric on kneeling 
 the body of Christ is said not to be on earth but in Heaven, and 
 therefore that it is not present in our souls which are not in 
 Heaven but here; and he begs to express regret that the Dean’s 
 work, in dwelling chiefly on the proof of the church’s doctrine, 
 seems to ignore the possibility that it can fail to agree at all points 
 with the explicit and implicit teaching of the Scriptures of God 
 on this ever-agitated subject. 
 
 I would fain cite no more from Dean Goode’s work now 
 in this Part, but perhaps I ought to bring to the front two other 
 points on which he writes with great care in relation to Objec- 
 tions (5) and (8), near the close of his fourth chapter. 
 
 P. 217. Objection (5). How can Christ’s body be eaten by 
 faith? He defends even the expression of Cranmer that it is 
 Christ’s true organical body that is eaten, and he justifies the 
 saying so common, as we have seen in the fathers, that the body 
 that is present is the same body that was crucified on the cross, 
 &c., &e., which made Ridley declare that the wine in the cup is the 
 same blood that flowed from Christ’s side, and then he added, but 
 in a figure. But we answer that its being such only in a figure 
 
1850] GOODE, WILBERFORCE, AND DENISON. 701 
 
 makes it not the same. And in fact are we not suffering the 
 penalties of nearly eighteen centuries’ abuse of terms? Do not 
 those who maintain the very error of errors, to oppose which our 
 martyrs died, nestle and burrow in the rash and unreasonable use 
 of terms like these? Is not this one great reason why the cancer 
 of sacramental error is even now swelling and breaking forth 
 anew, convulsing the church and confounding its rulers ecclesi- 
 astical and civil? 
 
 Again, p. 221. Objection (8). The frequent use of phrases that 
 bear two senses, and the misapplication of passages from our great 
 divines for the purpose of proving doctrines opposed to the mani- 
 fost views of their authors. Has not the like ambiguity lurked in 
 the pages of the ancient fathers, and has it not appeared that they 
 suffered from the moral disease of being of two minds? This 
 charge is made also against many of the English fathers too. My 
 readers have made up their own minds how far the charge is true. 
 If it is, then the onus rests on them, not on those who mourn for 
 ἃ misuse of terms, which goes far to create a hatred and contempt 
 for theology. An ardent follower of this system might almost 
 maintain that Zwingel and Calvin speak almost to the same real 
 purpose as Ambrose and Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of J erusalem, 
 It is but going a little further in the bringing down of hills and 
 levelling up of valleys. 
 
 (H.) THE REV. JOHN HARRISON, D.D., VICAR OF FENWICK, NEAR 
 DONCASTER. 
 
 He is the author of two elaborate works, entitled “Whose are 
 “the Fathers?” and “An answer to the Challenge of Dr Pusey.” 
 The line which he has taken in the latter work in the interpreting 
 of the language of the early fathers in relation to the Lord’s 
 supper has brought on some strong though friendly discussion 
 between him and Dr Jacob the author of “The ecclesiastical polity 
 “of the New Testament,” also of a letter in the Record of Jan. 28, 
 1877. Itis perhaps sufficient for me to state that the frequent 
 argumentative and often verbal coincidences between this work of 
 mine and Dr Jacob’s were perfectly independent on my part, since 
 that portion of my work was written before I had seen Dr Jacobs. 
 The identity of language is so close that I could not but be con- 
 soled by the exact concurrence of my conclusions with those of one 
 
702 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 of these two champions, where I had the misfortune of differing 
 from the other. Ties however of common work had given to the 
 latter a warm personal interest which caused me greatly to rejoice 
 in all the service that he has rendered to Bible truth and to the 
 Church of England. Dr Harrison’s line of argument is summarized 
 by himself in a series of “Rules for interpreting the fathers” at 
 p. 15 of his latest pamphlet, his letter to Dr Pusey. These rules 
 will perhaps sufficiently exhibit the line of his arguments on this 
 momentous question. 
 
 “In endeavouring to come to a right understanding of the 
 teaching of the fathers in relation to the Lord’s supper, I have 
 observed some such rules as the following:—(1) There must be 
 some fixed principles of quotation from the voluminous writings of 
 the fathers of what relates to the doctrine of the Lord’s supper. 
 Their real opinions must be obtained, not from half-a-dozen sen- 
 tences, not easily explained from as many folio volumes, but from 
 their plainer and more numerous statements; and the latter and 
 not the former must be understood to express their real opinions. 
 (2) The question is, whether the early fathers did teach the doc- 
 trine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the conse- 
 crated elements, not whether they were right or wrong in their 
 interpretation and use of Holy Scripture. (3) As it is universally 
 admitted that during the first eight centuries there was no contro- 
 versy concerning the Real Presence, as now maintained by some, 
 it is not to be expected that there could be any formal or direct 
 denial of it, and the evidence against it could not be otherwise - 
 than indirect. (4) As the doctrine in question is of so simple and 
 solemn a nature, and of such fundamental importance, words, 
 phrases, illustrations, and arguments used in relation to the conse- 
 crated elements which appear to derogate from their supposed 
 exalted sanctity as contaiming the body, soul, and divinity of 
 Christ, are proofs against the doctrine. (5) It is not to be as- 
 sumed without proof, especially in relation to tlie doctrine of the 
 Lord’s supper, that fathers contradict fathers, and that every father 
 contradicts himself. (6) The real sentiments of the fathers are to 
 be obtained, not from their highly rhetorical and figurative lan- 
 guage, interpreted literally as plain statements, but from their 
 plain, sober, and unadorned language. (7) There were many 
 reasons why some of the fathers, when commending the observance 
 of the Lord’s supper to the faithful, should speak of it in an 
 inflated style and exaggerate its ceremonial, but there could be 
 no reasons why they should apparently disparage that holy ordi- 
 nance by laying aside their figures of speech and speaking of it in 
 plain and sober language; therefore their sober and more mode- 
 rate statements are to be taken as expressing their real opinions, 
 
1877] REV. JOHN HARRISON. 703 
 
 rather than their adorned and rhetorical ones, so that their true 
 sentiments respecting the nature of the Lord’s supper are rather 
 to be obtained from their weakest than from their strongest state- 
 ments respecting it. (8) The words and phrases used by any 
 father in relation to the Lord’s supper, must, if possible, be inter- 
 preted from his own writings or the writings of contemporary 
 fathers, before any other source of interpretation be resorted to.” 
 
 As so much of Dr Harrison’s writing relates to Professor Pusey, 
 - it seems fitting to restate here that the Professor’s course of argu- 
 mentation on this subject occupies so much space in Part III. of 
 this work, that I avoid introducing it in this Second Part as far 
 as it is possible. I have to acknowledge a very courteous letter 
 from Dr Pusey in 1871: which is the more pleasant, as I so widely 
 differ from him as to the nature of this sacrament. 
 
 (1) BISHOP CONNOP THIRLWALL OF S. DAVID’S. 
 BP 1840. ν. 1875. 
 
 Charge, 1869, P. 241. London, 1877. Upon The Memorial on 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 “Clearly to be considered as the manifesto of a great party. It 
 divides itself into these heads. The doctrine of the real objective 
 presence of the eucharistic sacrifice, and the adoration of Christ 
 in the blessed sacrifice. They repudiate the opinion of a corporal 
 presence of Christ’s natural body and blood: that is to say, as they 
 are in Heaven, &c. and transubstantiation. They believe that in 
 the holy eucharist, by virtue of the consecration, through the 
 power of the Holy Ghost, the body and blood of our Saviour 
 Christ—‘the inward part or thing signified, are present really 
 and truly, but spiritually and inetfably, under the outward and 
 visible part or sign or form of bread and wine...As the real objec- 
 tive presence does not appear in any of the subsequent statements 
 it would seem as if in the opinion of those who framed the docu- 
 ment it would have added nothing to that which is signified by 
 the adverbs ‘really and truly.’ But we are thus led to ask whether 
 these terms themselves add anything to that which is signified by 
 the word ‘present.’ For whatever is present anywhere at all must 
 be really and truly present. But the sense which would most 
 naturally suggest itself, when these words are used with reference 
 to the body and blood of Christ, is that they are present, as they 
 really and truly are, 1.6. as real flesh and blood. But this sense is 
 expressly repudiated. Unless they are merely superfluous adjuncts 
 they must have some other meaning, which is not explained in 
 the context, and is not very easy to find...There are two senses in 
 
704 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 which we may speak intelligibly of the presence of a natural 
 object: the one literal, the other figurative. Literally a body is 
 present in the space which it fills; figuratively, it may be present, 
 as a thought to the mind, and in this last sense it might be said 
 to be spiritually present to the thinking subject. But that could 
 not be the meaning of those who describe that which they speak 
 of as an objective presence. They seem to have used the word 
 spiritually as opposed to corporally or physically. We are there- 
 fore left to search for some kind of presence which is neither literal 
 nor figurative. But in what region of nature can such a presence 
 be found? If our absolute incapacity to conceive it is not a proof 
 that it has no existence, at least it makes it impossible to frame 
 any proposition concerning it, of which we. could say that it is 
 either true or false. The only term really appropriate, ὥς. is in- 
 effable. And thus it turns out that the statement which appears 
 to be positive is in fact merely negative. The addition of the 
 words ‘under the outward and visible part or sign or form of bread 
 ‘and wine, as it only expresses what is really present, can throw no 
 light on a presence of a totally different kind...If we hold with 
 Hooker that ‘the real presence of Christ’s body and blood is not 
 ‘to be sought from the sacrament but from the worthy receiver of 
 ‘the sacrament,’ still the presence would not be the less objective... 
 The next thing repudiated [in this Memorial] is the notion of any 
 fresh sacrifice, &c. as apart from the one all-sufficient, &c. which 
 alone is ‘meritorious. To this is opposed the belief that as in 
 Heaven Christ, &c., ever offers Himself before the Eternal Father, 
 &¢c., so on earth in the holy eucharist that same body, once for all 
 sacrificed for us, and that same blood, once for all shed for us 
 (sacramentally present) are offered and pleaded before the Father 
 by the priest, as our Lord ordained to be done in remembrance of 
 Himself when He instituted the blessed sacrament of His body 
 and blood...The nature of the Heavenly intercession is a mystery. 
 And if it was intended as an argument to the effect that, because 
 Christ offers Himself in Heaven, therefore it is the object of the 
 eucharist to make the same offering on earth, the argument would 
 be as illogical as the comparison is misapplied. But, &c. im our 
 own Church-Service we find not a word to suggest it to any mind... 
 15 then this statement true or false ?... The expression ‘sacrament- 
 ‘ally present’ appears to be most happily adapted to comprehend 
 every possible shade of opinion, as some kind of presence is admitted 
 by all...The Greek verb [for “do”] often has the sense of ‘sacrifice’ 
 or ‘offer’; but only when the noun which it governs signifies that 
 which is ὦ victim or offering, and thus determines the sense of the 
 verb...Under the Third head the signers say, We repudiate all 
 adoration of the sacramental bread and wine, ὅσο. also all adoration 
 of a corporal presence, ἕο. &. We believe that Christ Himself, 
 really and truly but spiritually and ineffably present in the sacra- 
 ment, is therein to be adored, not the less local because (as some 
 
—1874] BISHOP THIRLWALL. 705 
 
 argue) divested of the grossness of a material presence. In the 
 Rubric on kneeling the use of the plural, ‘benefits,’ precludes the 
 construction that not they, but Christ is said to be given (Keble)... 
 P. 65. If anyone...finds comfort and edification in the thought 
 that, along with the sacramental bread and wine, he in a certain 
 sense receives the whole person of Christ, God and man, I think 
 he has a full right to such edification and comfort...If he should 
 argue that, as the natural body and blood are inseparable from the 
 whole Divine person of Christ, so that wherever they are, that is— 
 therefore the same holds with regard to the sacramental body and 
 blood—so that it also, by virtue of the hypostatical union, is Christ 
 Himself—this to me appears a sad abuse of words...Nor to my view 
 does this doctrine in the least exalt the dignity or enhance the 
 value of the sacrament as a means of grace; but on the contrary, 
 tends to degrade it into the semblance of a magical rite, &c.... 
 P. 67. The objection to the alleged mystery is not that it is in- 
 scrutable, but that it is factitious, a creature of human speculation, 
 the product of an arbitrary and fanciful exegesis...To accept such a 
 doctrine is not humility, but self-will. 
 
 On the Council of Trent, 1869.. Charge. Appendix B. 
 
 “Mr Cobb thinks that transubstantiation has been confused 
 with transaccidentation—a change in the sensible properties 
 (accidents) &c., while transubstantiation, &c., really taught by the 
 Church of Rome is... virtually held by the Church of England ... 
 Council of Trent, Sess. xiv. ec. iv. [The Latin citations are given 
 in English.] ‘This holy Synod declares that by consecration of 
 ‘the bread and wine a conversion is made of the whole sub- 
 ‘stance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ 
 ‘our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the 
 ‘substance of His blood: which conversion is conveniently and 
 ‘properly, called transubstantiation by the holy catholic church.’ 
 Chap. 1. ‘For neither is there any inconsistency in our Saviour 
 ‘Himself sitting alway at the right hand of God in Heaven 
 ‘according to the natural mode of existing, and His being never- 
 ‘theless sacramentally present with us in many other places in His 
 ‘own substance, after that manner of existing, which although 
 ‘with words we can hardly express it, is yet possible to God, ὅσο» 
 The council does not deny the presence of the natural body in the 
 sacrament, but only that it is there according to its nature and 
 mode of existence (chap. 1.)....“After the blessing of bread and wine, 
 (Christ) ‘has testified in full and perspicuous words (7. 6. This is 
 body, &c.) ‘that He Himself gives (preebere) His own body (Suum 
 ‘Tpsius) and His own blood’: and it inveighs against those who 
 distort them ‘to fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the 
 ‘truth’ (it does not say the substance) ‘of the flesh and blood of 
 ‘Christ is denied...’ The dispute between the Franciscans and the 
 
 ἘΠ 14 45 
 
706 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Dominicans at the Council of Trent proceeded on this assumption 
 —one party contending that the body of Christ was translated 
 from Heaven into the sacraments, the other that it was created 
 by each consecration. In Chap. tr. the council teaches as ‘the ~ 
 ‘faith ever held by the church of God that instantly after 
 ‘consecration, the true body of our Lord and His true blood are 
 ‘there (existere) together with His soul and Godhead wnder the 
 ‘form of bread and wine; but with the distinction that the 
 “presence of the body under the form of bread, &c. is due to the 
 ‘words of consecration (ex vi verborum) while by virtue of the 
 ‘natural connexion and concomitance, whereby the parts of the 
 ‘risen Lord are knit together, the body is there under the form of 
 ‘wine and the blood under the form of bread and the soul under 
 ‘both. Moreover the Godhead is there in consequence of the 
 ‘admirable hypostatic union between IT and the body and soul. 
 ‘Wherefore it is most true that as much (tantumdem) is contained 
 ‘under either form as under both. For the whole and entire 
 ‘Christ exists under the species (kind) of bread and every part 
 ‘of that species, and whole also under the species of wine and 
 ‘under the parts of 10.᾽... Mr Cobb explains, &c., &c., emphatic 
 disclaimer of a natural sensible corporeal presence—declaration 
 of a wholly supernatural transcendental celestial presence! Mr 
 Cobb’s ... confusion between a presence and the mode of a 
 presence .... Cat, ads Parochos, Pt. 11, ὁ ΤΥ (Qn. 72) Sime 
 ‘we observe that bread and wine are every day changed by the 
 ‘force of nature into human flesh and blood we may the more 
 ‘easily be led to believe that the substances of bread and wine 
 ‘are converted into the true flesh of Christ and His true blood by 
 ‘Heavenly benediction” Portion xxi. ‘Three most admirable 
 ‘effects wrought by consecration in this holy sacrament. 1. That 
 ‘the true body of the Lord Christ—that same, which born of the 
 ‘virgin is seated at the right hand of God, is contained in this 
 ‘sacrament; not that the very body is taken, and comes down, 
 ‘from Heaven’ (the opinion of the Franciscans) ‘but that the 
 ‘bread itself and the wine are transmuted into the body and blood 
 ‘of Christ’... 227. ‘Are bones nerves and whatsoever things 
 ‘pertain to the perfection of man really present here together with 
 ‘the Godhead?” The answer is meant to shew not only that it is, 
 but that it must be so. ‘The pastor must teach that Christ is the 
 ‘name of God and man: 2.e. of One Person, in Whom the Divine 
 ‘and human natures are united together: wherefore it includes 
 ‘each substance, the Godhead and the whole human nature, which 
 ‘consists of the soul and of all parts of the body and also the 
 ‘blood—all which must be believed to be in the sacrament. For 
 ‘since in Heaven the whole manhood is united to the Godhead in 
 ‘one person and hypostasis, it may not be suspected that the body 
 ‘which is in the sacrament is separated from the same Godhead.’ 
 
—1874] BISHOP THIRLWALL. 707 
 
 It seems impossible to state more clearly that the substance which 
 after consecration takes the place of the substances of bread and 
 wine does not and cannot exist apart from its consequentia, which 
 include all things pertaining to the completeness of human nature, 
 as bones and nerves: in other words, the body in its full integrity 
 ...Fuller explanation of the mode of the presence. Bellarmine, 
 2nd Rule de Sac. Euch. ‘We say indeed that the body of Christ, 
 ‘as it is in the Eucharist, is true real natural animate quantitative 
 ‘coloured, ὅσ. ; and we shall call that flesh corporeal not spiritual 
 ‘(unless the word spiritual be taken as 1 Cor. xxi.). But we shall 
 ‘not say that the body of Christ in the eucharist is sensible visible 
 ‘tangible extended, although in Heaven it is such. In his third 
 rule about adverbs he observes, ‘ We shall say that Christ is in the 
 ‘eucharist truly really substantially, as the council rightly says, 
 ‘but we shall not say corporeally, 7.e, in that manner in which 
 ‘bodies exist of their own nature sensibly movably, &c.’... The 
 doctrine of transubstantiation is clearly not that which excites Mr 
 Cobb’s enthusiastic admiration, Nothing short of this would 
 satisfy a devout catholic. 
 
 P. 226. ‘The faithful can never sufficiently admire the per- 
 ‘fection of holy church and her height of glory, &c. This we have 
 ‘in common with the dwellers in Heaven—that both have Christ, 
 ‘God and man, present... The only difference... we adore Him,... 
 ‘withdrawn from the sense of the eyes, concealing Himself under 
 ‘the admirable covering of the sacred mysteries. Qn. 28. It 
 would have been shocking to eat human flesh and to drink human 
 
 blood.” 
 Bp Thirlwall adds, “ All is clear and consistent.” 
 
 Jote. It seems to me that a question here arises respecting 
 these two modes of the existence of one body. Is it philosophi- 
 cally tenable or acceptable ἢ We have no single fact in the whole 
 -range of philosophy in its broadest acceptation to favour it. Nor 
 is there any other asserted in Holy Writ. If then it be directly 
 contrary to our ideas of a body, why is it allowable to put a strain 
 upon physical science by accepting this sole instance? For all 
 this—be it remembered—is required of us simply to escape giving 
 a tropical interpretation to “This is My body,” &c.,—clauses which 
 in their position may be taken tropically. The Bishop interprets 
 the papal documents unexceptionally. But the Roman scheme of 
 interpretation may not the less be arbitrary and erroneous. 
 
708 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (K.) DEAN GOULBURN. 
 
 On Personal Religion. London, 18638. 
 
 P. 18. “If the eucharist were merely...a commemorative rite 
 
 / —if the whole design of the ordinance was to affect us with a 
 
 picture of our Lord’s passion, &c.: but the Lord’s supper is... 
 
 | an actual channel or vehicle of grace to the soul. It stands on the 
 
 | same footing in this respect with prayer, reading of Scripture, 
 
 | public worship and sermons. Only we believe that it takes pre- 
 cedence of them all, as the instrument of a higher grace and a 
 means of a closer communion with God...Fellowship and ‘break- 
 ‘ing of bread’ put as the Lord’s supper. If the breaking of bread 
 be the distinctively Christian ordinance—yea as communicating 
 to the soul not indeed by a carnal transubstantiation but ‘after an 
 ‘Heavenly and spiritual manner’...the very body and blood of our 
 crucified Redeemer, &e. ὅσο. 
 
 P. 120. “If all we sought in the eucharist were a certain 
 natural sensibility to the death of Christ, which death the ordi- 
 / hance is appointed to shew forth...But I seek much more in the 
 eucharist than to look at a picture and be touched. I seek to be 
 fed in that holy ordinance through the elements of bread and wine 
 with that flesh which is meat indeed, το. 
 
 P. 121. “Τὴ devout minds which have been reared under the 
 old system of things there is an instinct adverse to very frequent 
 communion, ὅθ, There is something dreadful in the thought 
 of so high an ordinance degenerating into formality; and de- 
 generate into formality 7¢ certainly must, unless contemporaneously 
 ...there should be a general raising of the tone of the recipients’ 
 character and conduct. 
 
 P. 123. “What are the materials out of which Christ framed 
 the highest rite of His holy religion? Did He prescribe a costly 
 sacrifice? He blessed a common meal and consecrated it into a 
 sacrament, and made it the means (by a marvellous mystery of 
 Divine grace) of communicating Himself to man’s soul. 
 
 P. 126. Romanists—Their unscriptural tenet of transub- 
 stantiation, giving as it does a false awfulness and a superstitious 
 mysteriousness to the ordinance, frightens them away and holds 
 them back from frequent communion. Quotes Monod, but objects 
 to his recommendation of daily communion, “If it should be every 
 Sunday at least, what should it be at most? At most must be 
 to take it, as the ancients did, &c. every day from house to house 
 [v.e. first in one house, then another time in another; or “in a 
 house,” κατ᾽ οἶκον] at the close of the family repast” [after the 
 agape or love feast, the free common meal]. M. quotes Calvin and 
 the Acts, and adds, “Frequent communions make us understand 
 
1863] DEAN GOULBURN. 709 
 
 much better the true character of this sacrament: and it is im- 
 possible that daily communion should fail to put us in perfect pos- 
 session of that true character. For it teaches us to connect the 
 munion with all that there is most simple in Christian life, just 
 as a repast is one of the simplest things in ordinary life.” 
 
 On the Communion Office. London, 1863. 
 
 “The whole history of the Lord’s supper, culminating as it 
 does in the heresy of transubstantiation, shews a sad tendency 
 in the human mind to localize and materialize the blessings of 
 this ordinance. I mean by localizing and materializing the bless- 
 ing the placing of it entirely in the outward and visible sign— 
 the imagining some mysterious charm—a virtue half physical, half 
 spiritual, to reside in the crumbs of bread and in the drops of 
 wine. The Laudian doctrine of consecration is quite as much 
 open to the charge as the bolder and more unreasonable error 
 of the Church of Rome. And there can be no doubt that many 
 members of our own communion, in the views they take of the 
 subject, attach the blessing far too little to the ordinance itself, and 
 far too exclusively to the sensible magic vehicle of the ordinance, 
 [See on this pot Neander regarding the doctrine prevalent in 
 the fourth century on the sacraments.]| The mysterious operation 
 upon the bread and wine, by which they are sanctified for their 
 high significance and office, engrosses in their minds the whole 
 field of view; and the operations of it upon the human spirit, which 
 the ordinance is designed to call forth and develope, go for nothing 
 in their estimate. The natural superstitiousness of the human 
 heart (for it is most superstitious) gathers round the material and 
 local, and the mental and the moral are thrown quite into the 
 background...His sacred body was the source of natural health 
 to thousands of poor patients who touched it [Here is the fa- 
 vourite doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria again. Had he said the 
 body was an instrument or even a channel in which the blessing 
 came from the Son of God’s Divine nature or from the Father— 
 but to make the body the source, is, I think, groundless and 
 dangerous] and His teaching was the sanctifying Spirit to those 
 who listened to it; but supposing that in those days some of the 
 disciples had attached to the mere body of our Lord, indepen- 
 dently of any action of mind on the part of those who heard Him 
 and applied to Him, the blessing of His presence in the world— 
 supposing they had heeded scarcely at all the gracious words 
 which fell from His lips, and had imagined that the mere fact of 
 His neighbourhood in the body would prove a sort of talisman 
 of health to the whole district in which He sojourned, would He 
 not most seriously have reproved such notions ? 
 
 P. 133. “We need not deny, rather we would clearly and 
 strongly affirm, that they are not mere symbols, but stand in some 
 
710 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 real though mysterious relation to the blessing of the ordinance. 
 Yet we say that the blessing is not to be materialized, or supposed 
 to reside in the elements after the manner of a charm. 
 
 P. 135. “It was necessary to disabuse men’s minds utterly 
 of the figment, that the bread and wine become in a gross and 
 carnal sense the body and blood of Christ, and also of the kindred 
 notion that they were talismans that would exercise a spiritual 
 virtue, independent of the faith of the recipient. Any allusion 
 therefore to the action of the Spirit and word upon the elements, 
 or to their becoming the body and blood of Christ (however 
 capable of justification by Scripture (?) and primitive usage) it 
 was thought safe to expunge, and simply to ask God for His bless- 
 ing on the ordinance—without prescribing to Him the manner 
 in which that blessing is to be realized to us, how the blessing 
 is a real and true participation of the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 P. 187. “Who shall say how Christ communicates Himself 
 in the supper to the faithful soul? We are totally in the dark 
 as to these spiritual operations. [What if there be not one ray of 
 scriptural authority for the coming of the Spirit upon the ele- 
 ments, to make any real and true presence of Christ’s body and 
 blood? We must not then any more link this unreal carnal 
 miracle with spiritual things, and make the unseen action of God’s 
 Deity on the soul a sort of plea or half plea for believing in a 
 carnal reception at all.]| The precise nature of the spiritual opera- 
 tion is clothed in mystery. 
 
 P. 141. “‘ One bread,’ one cake or loaf—The sacred loaf, which 
 represents and conveys the body of Christ, is one; and a portion 
 of it after it has been broken, passes into each communicant, who 
 hereupon is made one with the body of Christ or Christian society. 
 
 P. 150. “The rationalizing view of the Lord’s supper ac- 
 knowledges no mystery in the transmission. No one denies that 
 a communication [of bread aud wine] is the great object of the 
 holy communion. But the divines whose views we have been 
 considering maintain this to have been its exclusive object : 
 and that this account of the ordinance exhausts the subject, ὅσο. 
 [Incorrect inasmuch as they do fully believe in the seeking and 
 obtaining of grace from God direct in the use of the ordinance. | 
 
 P. 102. ‘Now had it been other than a Paul, we might think 
 their view capable of a tolerable reconciliation with holy Scrip- 
 ture. He however was appointed of God to bring out more 
 clearly and define more exactly the word of institution which 
 His Divine Master employed, &c. The cup of blessing, &. He 
 does not say, Is it not a figure or representation of the body and 
 blood of Christ? Is it not a communication of a sign of partici- 
 pating in the body and blood of Christ ? 
 
i 
 
 1863] DEAN GOULBURN. 711 
 
 P. 153. “Thus the view that the eucharistic rite is simply 
 communicative is excluded at once and for ever by the plain 
 language of the apostle Paul [{.6. Just because St Paul does not 
 say “Don’t you see it is a figure?” therefore we are for ever 
 precluded from arguing that it has a figurative sense and that no 
 real and true presence of Christ’s body is signified. Would any one 
 then have doubted that it was figurative? “ What and if ye shall 
 “see, &c.” was now changed into “ Ye have seen My body going up 
 “to Heaven not to return till the restitution of all things.” How 
 then could they think the bread was His body and the wine His 
 blood in any but a figurative meaning? If so, why should he 
 explain this to them?|] And owr church m the catechism ‘ Body 
 “and blood of Christ is verily and indeed taken and received’ not 
 an empty figure and vain ceremony [a pregnant figure certainly 
 but so far empty that Christ’s natural body is not in it]. And 
 Art. The bread is a partaking of the body of Christ, &c. [as figu- 
 rative as the original words of Paul]. 
 
 P. 159. “The elements are the memorial of our consecration 
 with the in some way altogether mysterious supersensual Heavenly 
 and Divine—not to be comprehended by human reason and therefore 
 not to be explained by human definitions [as much of this as you 
 will in relation to the soul and what it receives of a spiritual 
 nature, but why bring in the reception of Christ’s natural body ?]. 
 If we are to be asked what it is that gives the elements this 
 character, the answer is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the 
 consecration. Why should we be afraid of the precise and 
 admirable language of our own 28th Article, ‘The body of 
 Christ is given in the supper, &c.’? [Ans. Only because the 
 Dean adds] The giving must be by consecration. [The Dean 
 takes the words as concerning Christ’s natural body which our 
 Church denies and even adds to this clause in this article] only 
 after an Heavenly and spiritual manner [?.e. not natural flesh 
 and blood—such as is said to be produced by consecration. For 
 if it is figurative of spiritual blessings to be received by them, the 
 elements want no consecrating to make them figurative. They 
 are so]. The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and 
 eaten (not given only but received and eaten) in the supper is 
 faith. [The Dean’s parenthesis shews that he believes Christ’s 
 body to be naturally taken and eaten because otherwise there is 
 no difference in force between its being given and its being taken 
 and eaten. | 
 
 P. 231. Appendix. “TIfthere is in the human mind a tendency 
 which has made itself only too manifest in the history of the 
 church to crave after the bodily visible presence of our Lord, who 
 can doubt that this tendency is at the bottom of the Roman 
 doctrine of T'ransubstantiation? It is very easy to rail at Tran- 
 substantiation in the ordinary coarse way, &e. But surely it may 
 
712 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 be better far to consider whether there is some instinct in the 
 fallen mind, which may have prompted their fatal errors, and 
 whether we ourselves are not apt to be misled by the same instinct 
 in another form. Transubstantiation is that, on the utterance 
 by the priest of the words of consecration, He is drawn down into 
 the church, and lies concealed under the consecrated elements, 
 
 &e. 
 
 P. 240. “The Lord is supposed to be among His people 
 as heretofore—as heretofore to occupy a certain space upon earth 
 to the exclusion of all other parts of space—as heretofore (although 
 in a great mystery) to be the subject of sight and touch. 
 
 P. 244. “What could the bodily presence of Christ under 
 our roofs in our churches do for us which He is at present unable 
 to do? 
 
 P. 246. “We must dismiss all notions of Him which would 
 reduce Him again under limited conditions—which it pleased Him 
 once to assume—of an earthly body and a natural relationship... 
 Let us find Him in our hearts by the motions and instigations of 
 His Spirit. There let us hold communion with Him. He is not 
 far from every one of us, He is a God nigh at hand, and the way 
 to Him is easy.” [This last part, which is written on John iv. and 
 Matt. viii, it is delightful to transcribe.] 
 
 (L.) DR J. P. LANGE, 
 
 Com. edited by Dr P. Schaff. Edinburgh, 1872. 
 
 John vi. 62, 63. “Three views (have been held). 1. No bearing 
 direct or indirect on the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. τι. It 
 refers, by prophetic anticipation, directly and exclusively to the 
 Lord’s supper. This interpretation has consistently led to the 
 introduction of infant communion, &c. 1. It refers to the spiritual 
 life-union of the soul with the Saviour by faith; and indirectly or 
 inferentially to the sacramental celebration of this union in the 
 holy supper. Bengel. Jesus purposely framed His words so 
 skilfully ... that they would apply in their strict literal sense to 
 the spiritual enjoyment of Himself: and yet that afterwards the 
 same words should (by consequence) be appropriate to express the 
 most august mystery of the holy supper when that should be 
 instituted... The whole of these words concerning His flesh and 
 blood have in view the passion of Jesus Christ, and along with it 
 the Lord’s supper. Olshausen. The Saviour could not indeed with 
 propriety speak of a rite before it was instituted—so that nobody 
 could understand Him—but He might touch the idea out of which 
 the rite subsequently grew. Alford. Is the subject, here dwelt upon, the 
 
1872] DR LANGE. 713 
 
 same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord’s supper ? 
 And of this there can surely be no doubt. Webster and Wilkinson. 
 What our Lord said at this time He afterwards expressed in a 
 permanent form by the sacrament of His body and blood, He is 
 not here alluding to that sacrament; but what He here teaches 
 and what He afterwards taught by it are the same. Kahnis. The 
 discourse of Christ does not treat directly of the Lord’s supper, 
 but of the faith which unites us in living union with Christ. 
 Godet. This mystery of our perfect union with the person of 
 Christ (Eph. v. 30—32), which in this discourse is expressed in 
 words [en paroles], is precisely the same which Jesus desired to 
 express by an act [par un acte] in the rite of the holy supper. 
 [Dr Schaff quotes more: but this may suffice on this one pownt.] 
 
 I do not concur with Dr Schaff’s doctrine, the mystery of a 
 spiritual real presence, and a communication of the vital power of 
 Christ’s humanity (σάρξ) to the believer by the Holy Spirit. On 
 the contrary I believe that no vital power ever proceeded from 
 Christ’s flesh itself as the starting-point of vital power, but from 
 the Godhead dwelling in that flesh in connexion with the human 
 spirit. “The flesh (alone) profiteth not at all.” 
 
 P. 225. “ Romanist and (symbolical) Lutherans agree in teach- 
 ing that unbelievers as well as believers may sacramentally eat 
 the very body and drink the very blood of Christ—the one unto 
 judgment the others unto life. Note. Luther, Melanchthon and 
 the orthodox Lutherans of the 17th century felt this; and for 
 this reason they repudiated the sacramental interpretation [of 
 this chapter] altogether; not as Tholuck says from fear of tran- 
 substantiation.” 
 
 It seems to me that both transubstantiation and consubstan- 
 tiation are clearly excluded (1) by the canon of interpretation laid 
 down in v. 63; (2) by the declaration of our Lord concerning the 
 effect of the fruition of His body and blood ; which is in all cases 
 eternal life, vw. 54—58. Dr Schaff means that if the elements are 
 transubstantiated, good and bad receive them so transubstantiated, 
 and if the effect of the real body and blood is eternal life, then 
 both righteous and wicked recipients have life eternal, and there- 
 fore the very body and blood are not given and are not there to 
 be given. Q. E. Ὁ. : 
 
71: THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 (M.) CANON THOMAS S. L. VOGAN, D.D. 
 
 This gentleman was a Rector in the diocese of Chichester, R. D. 
 and a proctor in convocation. His style commends itself. It is of 
 that kind that almost persuades you that he must be nearly right, 
 when you are most firmly persuaded of the incorrectness of his 
 premisses or of his inferences or both. However, whoever has 
 waded through Dr Pusey’s thickest book and emerged with his 
 understanding unclouded, need not despair of knowing what his 
 own views are, even after having submitted himself to the gentle 
 witchery of Dr Vogan’s artillery of short antithetic clauses. I 
 must beg all to excuse any strength of utterance into which the 
 vast importance of the subject may have driven me. I seem 
 to myself to see as little of his views in the authoritative formu- 
 laries of the Church of England, as of those of the Ritualist, or 
 Tractarians. After pondering with full leisure a much larger 
 portion of all that has been written on this subject than I ever 
 hoped to run over and weigh, I am landed I think for ever in the 
 conclusion, that the Church of England Articles as a dogmatic 
 statement, and her communion service as a statement of a 
 rhetorical nature, come perhaps as near to the teaching of Christ 
 and Paul on this subject as a body of Christians can ever be hoped 
 to do: and I for one assign it in chief under God to Cranmer’s 
 unusual powers and extraordinary patience. 
 
 The question now arises, Does Dr Vogan hold the altar priest 
 and sacrifice theory of the Lord’s supper? And there is no logical 
 answer to it but that he does. For altar priest and sacrifice, as 
 he exceedingly well reasons, are correlatives ; if there is one there 
 is all the rest. If then we take the words, “This is My body 
 “which is given for you” in the only logical sense, and make the 
 latter part of it mean, “which is being given,” 1.6. is in process 
 of being given to die on the cross, since the preliminary steps are 
 taken, then the first two (Greek) words, “This thing” (bread) “is” 
 rust logically mean one of two things; either, This is a sacred 
 sign or sacrament of My body, or This bread is My true natural 
 body. All varieties of explanations merge in these two, and 
 Dr Vogan, as he rejects the first, must needs drop into the latter. 
 All senses of the sort, that this bread puts you in possession of 
 all the spiritual blessings that follow, range themselves under the 
 first sense, The bread is the index or sign of your possessing all 
 
—1874] CANON VOGAN. 715 
 
 these things. It is the pledge, the earnest that you, if you believe, 
 have them. But once hold fast to the literal sense of the word 
 “js,” and the bodily presence of Christ in the bread is logically 
 asserted, and the inflowing difficulties must be met as they can. 
 Better take Protestant arms against such a sea of confusions, and 
 by opposing end them. 
 
 He takes the Protestant side again, p. xi. “His dead body is 
 nowhere to be found; His poured-out blood is nowhere to be 
 found. In most certain and absolute fact and reality they are not. 
 And that which is not, cannot be present anywhere. The dead 
 body of the Lord and His blood shed cannot be, and therefore are 
 not, present either in the eucharist or in its elements. [Then how 
 are they there except in a figure? Then what becomes of the 
 literal sense for which Dr Vogan just now contended? But hear 
 him again. | 
 
 Chapter x. 102. “The literal interpretation vindicated, p. 103. 
 In the words ‘which is given for you,’ ‘given’ means of necessity 
 ‘given to God,’ ‘offered’ in sacrifice to Him for ‘the sins of men.’ 
 
 ...His body is sacrificed, His body dead. 
 
 P.104. “In His risen and glorified state it is impossible for 
 the body and blood to be separated. [This implies that Christ’s 
 body and blood were really separated when He died, which cannot 
 be conceded. Ina word they were given separately only in a figure, 
 in a figurative way. Then he says most truly,] All the subtle meta- 
 physics (Bellarmine, Newman and Archdeacon Wilbertorce) which 
 have been employed to prove that it (Christ’s body) can be in 
 Heaven unmoved at the right hand of God, and yet can also be in 
 thousands of places upon the earth, &e. ὅθ. All is to no purpose. 
 If these things were proved, it would be labour in vain, since our 
 Lord speaks not of His glorified body, &e. He speaks of His 
 dead body... This it is which His words declare, which He gave 
 to the disciples, which He told them to take and eat... Dr Pusey 
 has recited authorities on the real objective presence in the 
 eucharist .... These authorities prove undoubtedly and most fully 
 a real objective presence, in a certain sense, of our Lord’s body and 
 blood, 7.e. of the things which He called and ordained to be sacra- 
 mentally His body and blood, &c. [Is it not an illogical use of 
 terms to say a real objective presence, &c., if he does not mean 
 that in some way, to the mouth of the recipient or to his soul, the 
 real objective body and blood of Christ are given in his literal 
 sense? But he adds,] The true nature and effect of these au- 
 thorities will be considered in another place. [But again Dr 
 Vogan states his aim,] ‘The liéeral interpretation of our Lord’s 
 ‘words in the institution is of the given body of the crucified slain 
 
716 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘dead body. [So p. 92.] The Church of Rome declares this 
 doctrine of the Real Presence in the bread and wine is set forth in 
 the words of our Lord ‘in their proper and most real signification.’ 
 Luther said that, ‘as far as can be done,’ &c. ἕο. Dr Pusey says, 
 ‘ All things combine to make us take our Lord’s words... literally.’ 
 Archdeacon Wilberforce, ‘to be taken in their simple and natural 
 ‘sense—the belief of all ancient writers.’ Bishop Moberley says, 
 ‘real and exact sense.’ [Dr Vogan says] This demand of a literal 
 construction is just. I join in it and accept the reasons on which 
 it is founded. [Does not this agree with p. ix. of the Preface, 
 “ Nor is the literal interpretation, This represents or is a figure of 
 “My body, My blood”? And how is all this anything but 
 opposite to the Protestant sense ? 
 
 The true doctrine of the holy Eucharist. London, 1871. 
 
 Preface, p. viii. “ The whole of the record [1.6. the narration of 
 the Lord’s supper in the New Testament] must be taken for the 
 subject of the literal interpretation, which is demanded [by Dr 
 Vogan, or by the truth in Dr Vogan’s view] ... and there can be 
 as little doubt that the literal interpretation of the record must be 
 under these rules: first that it shall not exclude any part of the 
 letter [Granted], nor include anything beyond it or that is not 
 necessarily in strict construction deduced from it. [Do the words 
 strict construction exclude a metaphoric sense?] Secondly and 
 thirdly, ὅθ. ἕο. [P.ix.] The records say that when He gave the 
 bread He said, Take, eat; This is My body: and that when He 
 gave the cup He said, This is My blood. And the literal interpre- 
 tation of this is not ‘This contains, &c., &c.: but ‘ This—is—My 
 ‘body, This—is—My blood.’ Nor is the literal interpretation 
 [the following] ‘This represents or is a figure of My body, My 
 ‘blood’ [ἡ.6. Dr Vogan expressly denies the figurative sense and 
 affirms the literal, for he next concludes the paragraph saying] 
 The letter, and the interpretation of that letter is (are) that the 
 bread—is—the body: and that the wine—is—the blood of Christ. 
 And He said not these words only; but of that body He said, It 
 was ‘being given or broken for you’ and of that blood He said, It 
 was ‘being shed for you.’ ‘This is My body which is being given 
 ‘for you.’ ‘This is My blood which is being shed for you for the 
 ‘remission of sins’... As the bread and the wine were distinct 
 things and were given separately from each other, so He gave His 
 body and blood separately from each other. [Thirteen lines higher 
 he explains “given” as “given to God”: now he says that body 
 and blood were “given” separately. This fails in sense unless it 
 means that both are literally given to us, or else that they were 
 “given” separately to God—which is not true.] And it was His 
 dead body which He gave. [Then p.x.] The bread and the wine 
 are the body and blood of Christ, so far as one thing can be another. 
 
—1874] CANON VOGAN. 717 
 
 [If this has any logical meaning it is not true that one thing 
 can be another except by representation or in a figure, 1.6. the 
 bread is not the body of Christ in any but a representative or 
 figurative way, or the wine His blood; 1.6. the literal interpretation 
 does not hold: but Dr Vogan said, “The literal interpretation 1s 
 “demanded.” These things are contrary the one to the other, and 
 Euclid used to say this in a shorter form of words. He then goes 
 with his latter utterance which is in effect the Protestant imterpre- 
 tation, adding, “The wine is His blood poured out ; the bread is 
 “His body given... but both in spiritual effect, not m positive and 
 “ absolute reality.” | 
 
 Chapter 14. The ancient fathers. Ῥ. 147. “ This part of Dr 
 Pusey’s work is largely made of passages (as) little pertinent to the 
 purpose. In fact I find that fully one-half in number and much more 
 in bulk of the passages he has cited, &. &c. are quite inapplicable. 
 [This I am constrained to reiterate. It seems to me one of the 
 very bewildering features of the book. It makes you require to be 
 armed with a judge’s patience to be sure that you do not let slip 
 some remark which is to the purpose, while you let the current of 
 irrelevant matter run by.] 
 
 P.150. “It is a negation of His (Christ’s) glorified body to 
 speak of its blood being shed [2.e. now]. When they (the fathers) 
 talk of the real presence they must mean the real presence of our 
 Lord’s glorified body not only under the bread (as its form) but 
 also under the wine (as its form): because the blood of the glorified 
 body is not, nor can be, nor can be conceived to be shed or 
 separated from it. [This is an indisputable argument against the 
 presence of Christ’s living body, either natural or glorified. 
 Granted. But what then? Our inference is against any real 
 presence of Christ’s body at all, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν. Whereas 
 Dr Vogan draws from it a literal presence, and will not allow that 
 the body and blood are present only in a figure. And so he says, 
 This is My body, &c., This is My blood, &c., by a literal mterpre- 
 tation, And he does not appear to see that in his interpretation 
 of its being a dead body, &c. &e. (for I do not like talking of these 
 details) which is given, ἄς. ὅσο, it is Just as difficult to have the 
 blood distinct and separate from the body. But with any literal 
 sense it must be: and therefore we feel very content with our 
 taking the blood and the body as two figures of spiritual food. 
 Figures may be divided. The body in one figure may be severed 
 from the blood in another figure : but in the literal sense, whether 
 with a living or a dead body, it is simply inconceivable. And why, 
 once more, should a figurative meaning be so resolutely denied to 
 these words? Thousands of clauses in Scripture are admitted to 
 be figurative. Why not these 7] 
 
 Once more, p. 151. “They (the ancient fathers) understood 
 
718 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 our Lord’s words in the sense which He intended, and which only, 
 faith can accept. Since He said of the bread, This is My body, 
 they believed that the bread is His body, but with His own expla- 
 nation, which is given for you; and therefore that the bread is His 
 body as a sacrifice, His dead body.” [Logie says His body was a 
 sacrifice, and the bread was not His body living or dead. And that 
 not the bread but the body was given on the cross, and, to vary 
 Dr Vogan’s expression in the preface, one thing cannot be or be 
 conceived another thing. The body and the bread are not the very 
 same and cannot bear identical relations, but can be related by 
 the one being a figure of the other. It is against this impossibility 
 of identification that all advocates of any real bodily presence have 
 been struggling in vain for near 1800 years, and all the forces of 
 supernatural miracle have not achieved it, neither can Dr Vogan’s 
 idea of a dead body and the blood of a dead body departed from 
 each other attain even to verisimilitude. The only reasonable or 
 tenable or probable or endurable theory is that He gave His body 
 and shed His blood on the cross, and that He gave the bread and 
 the wine anticipatively in the upper room, and ordered these signs 
 to be used for ever in remembrance of the gift of His body and 
 blood on the cross. Dr Vogan’s idea of a dead Christ literally 
 given, and that the bread and wine really are Christ’s dead body 
 and blood, as far as one thing can be another, is no new theory as 
 in one point he seems to believe. The theory has come out in 
 these extracts, and this had not escaped the late Dean of Ripon, 
 Dr William Goode. The sentence above cited ends thus] “ And 
 “since He said of the wine, This is My blood, they believed that the 
 “wine is His blood: but again with His own explanation ‘which is 
 ““shed for you, and therefore that the wine is His blood, separated 
 “from His body” [which never took place but very partially, and 
 that part was spilt on the ground]. 
 
 (N.) THE REV. HOBART SEYMOUR, BATH. D. 1874. 
 Author of “ Mornings with the Jesuits.” 
 
 Frequent Celebrations and frequent Communions. London, 1870. 
 
 P.1. “A revolution is advancing with great rapidity among 
 us, &c.; the idea that the frequency of attendance at the Lord’s 
 supper is a precious and weighty engine of grace, for converting 
 the communicant and advancing the growth of religious life in the 
 soul, ἄς. The subject needs to be handled in a becoming spirit, 
 gently and lovingly and tenderly, but still faithfully, &e. 
 
 P.7. “The argument stands out in strong relief, that, as the 
 Lord’s supper is a sacrament and a means of grace, it cannot be 
 sought too often, &¢. This argument seems wholly unanswerable, 
 
—1874] HOBART SEYMOUR. 719 
 
 unless indeed by bearing in mind, that the argument which proves 
 too much may be regarded as an argument that proves nothing, 
 &e.: the argument, if it proves anything at all, proves that the 
 yearly communion should be a monthly one; that the monthly 
 communion should be a weekly one; that the weekly communion 
 should become a daily one; that the daily communion should like 
 our morning and evening prayer become a morning and evening 
 one; and this too on the part of every Christian man. 
 
 P.12. “In the 40 days, Acts i. 3... there must have been no 
 less than 6 sabbath days, &c.: and although it is evident that the 
 disciples and especially the apostles were often assembled together 
 there is no allusion to the communion of the Lord’s supper. There 
 is no more said of it than if it had never been celebrated through 
 all these six weeks, &c. The silence is absolute evidence that the 
 Holy Ghost, Who inspired the history, did not deem the celebration 
 of the communion of so much importance as to require narration, 
 &e. This omission, &c., forms a striking contrast with the writings 
 of some of our modern divines, το. 
 
 P.13. “In the interval between the ascension of our Lord 
 and the descent of the Holy Ghost, &c. there is no mention of 
 the communion, Acts i. 14,15, &c. On one of those hallowed 
 meetings, &e., they did elect Matthias into the apostleship, &c., 
 they are described as doing all this with prayer. There is no 
 mention of the communion. And when again, &c. they are 
 described as having all assembled together on the day of Pente- 
 cost, &c., there is no mention of the communion. 
 
 P. 14. “The Holy Ghost did not regard the frequent celebration 
 of the Lord’s supper as so much in the essence of Christianity as 
 it is deemed by many... The great period of the church’s history 
 from the day of Pentecost to St Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, &c.; 
 in no instance whatever is there any clear mention or certain 
 allusion to the celebration of the Lord’s supper. When they were 
 assembled to elect the seven deacons there is no mention of a 
 communion. When the whole church assembled at Jerusalem, 
 Acts xv., at the first council there is no mention of a communion. 
 [Question of “breaking bread” discussed (see Part I.).] 
 
 P. 22. “There is only one epistle (of 22) in which there is 
 reference to this subject. 
 
 P. 23. “The moment we leave the Holy Scriptures and open 
 the writings of the second, third, and fourth centuries we pass 
 from a reign of silence to one in which there is no limit to the 
 information, &c., on the frequency of communion, &c. &e. Pliny, 
 Justin M., Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, &c. το. 
 
 P. 25. “The Church of Rome has no desire for frequent com- 
 munions. Her desire is for frequent celebrations. She is satisfied 
 with one personal communion in the year, holding that the 
 
720 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 members of each congregation do virtually communicate by a sort 
 of proxy im the priest that celebrates the mass. 
 
 P. 28. “There is another evil connected with these frequent 
 celebrations, ὅθ. It is clear that the preaching of the Gospel 
 must be sadly curtailed, &. ἄορ. There is not time for both: and 
 already too many of the clergy make the communion an excuse 
 for not preaching on the days of celebration. 
 
 P. 29. “In the Holy Scriptures inspired by the Holy Ghost 
 the work of the ministry, as exhibited in the life of Christ Himself 
 and in the Acts of the Apostles, was the blessed work of preaching 
 the Gospel. In the minds of some men in these days it is the 
 celebration of the communion, 
 
 P. 5. “In all this diversity of principles and practice one 
 thing stands out clearly, viz. that the number of celebrations (we 
 do not like the word, but it serves our present purpose) must be 
 sufficient for the convenience and exigencies of the parishioners, 
 and should be arranged at such times as their special necessities 
 require, 7.6. in the morning, the afternoon or the evening.” 
 
 I have not liked to interrupt this venerable writer, as it did 
 not seem necessary ; but now that his testimony has been given, 
 I may add that his argument from p. 7 stops short by one stage 
 at least of the point to which it might be carried. He argues that 
 if the observance of this rite cannot be too frequent for our benefit 
 it may be brought up to being administered twice every Sunday 
 as at morning and evening prayer: but the argument if allowed 
 its own course would come in town churches to three times on 
 every Sunday, z.e. morning, afternoon and evening; and to this 
 would be added early morning, which is very convenient for some: 
 which makes up four times every Sunday, and for every Christian 
 to attend as often as he can. Nor if this principle be allowed full 
 play, would this frequency stop with Sunday. No reason on this 
 principle can be assigned why it should not be administered two 
 or three times, if not four, every day. So that it becomes a question 
 whether its high solemnity and blessedness may not suffer from 
 too great frequency : and whether there is not some middle course 
 which will produce the maximum of impression on the mind and 
 heart. 
 
 I have omitted Mr Seymour’s remarks on St Paul because he 
 does not quote “As often as ye eat, &.” ὁσάκις av ἐσθίητε, K.7.X., 
 which seems to imply a wish for a much more frequent use than 
 “once a year.” “As often soever as ye may eat this flesh and 
 “drink this cup.” 
 
.Π 
 bo 
 pl 
 
 1871] DR JACOB. 
 
 (O.) DR G. A. JACOB, LATE HEAD MASTER OF CHRIST'S 
 HOSPITAL. 
 
 The ecclesiastical polity of the New Testament. London, 1871. 
 
 P. 340. “On looking then to the Apostolic church of the 
 New Testament ... two great primary lessons are at once presented 
 to us by the ecclesiastical polity of the apostles... These ... relate 
 to the ministry and the sacraments of the church: and they teach 
 us that sacerdotalism and sacramentalism had no place in the 
 apostles’ practice or encouragement from their authority: and 
 consequently a return to the purity of the primitive church will 
 lead to the exclusion of these post-apostolic errors. 
 
 P. 342. “Altars having even in the reign of Edward VI. given 
 way to ‘honest tables’ in our churches, while the word ‘altar’ 
 itself has been carefully expunged from our prayer-book—and the 
 idea of a material sacrifice having been removed from all pre- 
 scribed acts of our officiating ministers, it needs only a completion 
 of this good work to remove also whatever encourages the thought 
 that a Christian presbyter is a priest [see on this an. extract from 
 Fulke] and as such possesses the power of granting priestly abso- 
 lution, of offering sacrifices, or of performing any other mediatorial 
 work for Christian men. 
 
 P. 346. “He who is directed to forgive sins or to withhold 
 forgiveness may reasonably urge the consequent necessity of indi- 
 vidual confession to himself, or as it is commonly called ‘ auricular 
 ‘confession’: and he who is expressly declared to be a priest 
 cannot by any explanations be prevented from making for himself 
 an altar and a sacrifice, though none be provided for him in the 
 church. 
 
 P. 347. Sacramentalism. “There has been at all times a 
 close connexion between the estimation and use of the Christian 
 sacraments and the views entertained of the Christian ministry... 
 Sacramentalism—or an excessive unscriptura] and therefore super- 
 stitious exaltation of the sacraments... From and after the 
 beginning of the third century the sacrament [of Baptism] was 
 overloaded with a burden of ceremonies before unknown, all 
 tending but too surely to produce the belief that a special virtue 
 was conveyed into the water, and that it washed away sin by 
 a supernatural efficacy of its own. ‘The consecrated ointment, 
 &e. d&c. 
 
 P. 348. “In like manner the sacrament of the Lord’s supper 
 was the most simple of all ordinances in the apostolic church. No 
 
 Jie. Ele 4G 
 
722 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 idea of a sacrifice was attached to its celebration: no change was 
 supposed to take place in the sacred elements: no virtue to be 
 imparted to them through the administrator: no presence of Christ 
 in them or with them in any especial or peculiar manner. [Christ’s 
 Godhead peculiarly there but not His body naturally.] But in the 
 post-apostolic church all this was gradually changed, until at last 
 the service was represented as a sacrifice offered upon an altar by 
 a priest: the elements were spoken of and worshipped as if they 
 were Christ Himself. And other gross superstitions naturally 
 ensued. 
 
 P. 314. “It is in vain that Protestant advocates have endea- 
 voured to rescue the Nicene church [the church of the Fourth 
 Century] from the charge of gross superstition in their dealings 
 with this sacred rite [see too the oriental liturgies] and to fasten 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation upon the later Church of Rome 
 alone. The doctrine of the earlier period differed from medieval 
 Romanism on this point in scarcely anything beyond the use of 
 another and synonymous word. In the fourth century the change 
 in the eucharistic bread and wine was called (as in the case of 
 the baptismal water) ‘transelementation.’ And is it possible to 
 say what real or important distinction there is between the earlier 
 and the later word? &. ἄς. [N.B. Dr Jacob does not affirm 
 that there are not many virtual synonymous or equivalent expres- 
 sions as well as this one.] 
 
 P. 364. “The use of zsthetic stimulants to devotion appealing 
 to the senses and imagination by means of architectural orna- 
 mentation pictures images processions crosses and other symbolical 
 objects, or of histrionic displays of ministerial acts with vestments 
 incense artificial lights prostrations and fantastic gestures and 
 with the whole array of priestcraft—which now as in ancient times 
 beguile the ignorant and unwary—will be seen to be not only no 
 aids to Christian doctrine and devotion, but positive hindrances to ᾿ 
 them. Since in proportion as such things answer the purpose for 
 which they are intended, and engage the attention and affect the 
 feelings, to the same extent do they shut out gospel truth and hide 
 Christ from the spirit of the worshipper. 
 
 P. 365. “There will be less danger of our trusting to sacra- 
 ments instead of to Christ—of our putting baptism with water for 
 regeneration by the Holy Spirit—and the eucharistic elements 
 received into our hands or our mouths for the Saviour received 
 into our hearts—less danger of our shrinking from the Lord’s table 
 with superstitious dread, or with equally superstitious confidence 
 trusting to (a) coming to it in vain.” 
 
1871] WHARTON MARRIOTT. 723 
 
 (P.) THE REV. WHARTON MARRIOTT, OF ETON SCHOOL. 
 
 Life and Letters. 
 
 A Letter, January 1, 1859. “The Passover again, regarded as 
 a piacular sacrifice, such as was the first passover in Egypt, was 
 fulfilled once for all in the death upon the cross of the Lamb of 
 God that taketh away the sin of the world. But considered as a 
 memorial sacrifice such as were all the passovers but the first, it 
 has its ‘fulfilment, as our Lord Himself intimates, Luke xx. 16, 
 in the Christian memorial of Christ’s death and passion, in accord- 
 ance with those emphatic words, twice repeated, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, 
 ‘This do in remembrance of Me. And thus, partly in the one 
 sacrifice of the cross, partly also in the Christian memorial of that 
 sacrifice, the passover is not destroyed but fulfilled.” 
 
 The care with which this author avoids calling the Lord’s 
 supper a sacrifice is the more notable for two reasons; (1) that he 
 must have been well acquainted with St Augustine’s hasty utter- 
 ance which asserts that ‘(a commemoration of a sacrifice” and 
 “a commemorative sacrifice” are identical expressions, and (2) 
 that to have agreed with this unhappy utterance of Augustine 
 would have added a seeming additional force to Mr Wharton’s 
 argumentation against Professor Powell. Almost the whole of 
 Mr Marriott’s book is in complete harmony with this letter. It is 
 only in his rough sketch of his contemplated future lectures that 
 any divergence is traceable. 
 
 On the words ποιεῖτε τοῦτο, Matt. xxvi. &e. “ Do this,” &e. 
 
 P.196. “And thus we are brought to the following canon of 
 interpretation applicable to all language as such, whether inspired 
 or uninspired ; that an ordinary word of well-known meaning is to 
 be understood in that its ordinary meaning, unless there be some- 
 thing in the context or in the circumstances of the case, by which 
 that ordinary sense is excluded... Precisely the same principle of 
 criticism applies to the attempt which has been often made to give 
 to ἀνάμνησις, [remembering], the meaning which is proper to 
 μνημόσυνον [memorial], &e. 
 
 P. 207. “λίαν we not in this see a special fitness in the word 
 καταγγέλλετε [ye declare] ‘as often as ye eat this bread or drink 
 ‘this cup, ye hand down from one to another the announcement of 
 ‘the Lord’s death till He come’?... That xatayyéAX\o means 
 of itself to ‘shew forth in the way of sacrifice to God, or that there 
 is anything in the context of this passage which proves that the 
 way of ‘announcement’ there spoken of by the apostle was a true 
 
 46—2 
 
724 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 and proper sacrifice ‘on behalf of quick and dead’ and for the 
 children yet unborn I think I may most unhesitatingly most con- 
 fidentially deny. Nor can I check one word of earnest entreaty 
 to those among ourselves, who... have suffered themselves to build 
 up and to commend to the acceptance of the church a system of 
 doctrines on this subject (based upon supposed premises of Holy 
 Scripture) which are no sooner examined than they crumble away 
 beneath the hand. 
 
 P. 216. “The word ‘is’ simply serves to join the two parts of 
 the sentence together, whether there be a figure or no. It simply 
 expresses that the two ideas thus compared bear a certain relation 
 to one another... this certain relation...is infinitely varied in 
 kind and can in no case be determined without reference to the 
 nature of the proposition in which it occurs, in some cases only by 
 taking into consideration both the entire context of the passage 
 and a great variety of other circumstances.” 
 
 P.194. After a long list of instances of ποιέω meaning “do 
 “sacrifice” from the Greek LXX. translation of the Old Test. and 
 from the New Testament—* Now as I have already intimated the 
 result of a close examination of the above will be considerably to 
 diminish their number. But granting the assertion, for argu- 
 ment’s sake as broadly as it is stated, I will ask, How do we know 
 in any one of these cases that the meaning of ποιέω is what is as- 
 serted? Simply because the context is such as absolutely to exclude 
 the ordinary well-known meaning of the word, and as absolutely 
 to require some such meaning as to offer or to sacrifice. And the 
 fallacy of the argument we are now considering lies in this, that 
 the interpretation of a word in an ‘improper’ sense, which is 
 allowable, when the context is such as absolutely to require it, is 
 represented as equally allowable when there is nothing in the 
 context or in the circumstances of the case to exclude the ordinary 
 meaning of the word. [This is then illustrated by reference to 
 Exod. x. 25.] 
 
 P. 256. “The bread is (virtute et effectu) My body, &e. ὥς, 
 [Does not Jesus say that His flesh has no virtus aut effectus in 
 itself, when He says οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν : “it does not profit at all” ?} 
 
 (Q.) THE REV. W. E. SCUDAMORE. WNotitia Hucharistica. 
 London, 1872. 
 
 (This was written before the Lecture in the Appendix.) 
 
 P. 303. “The earliest ordo Romanus represents the clergy 
 vesting before the service begins. According to the same order, 
 and to Amalarius, who comments upon it in 827, the corporal was 
 now (¢.e. after the Gospel) put on the altar. The custom was to 
 
1872] SCUDAMORE. (25 
 
 spread it, after the offertory anthem had been sung. Thus Rabanus 
 Maurus at Mayence, ‘ Oblations are offered by” the people, and 
 ‘the offertory is sung by the clergy, and the pall of the corporal 15 
 
 ‘put on the altar.’ ‘We trace the custom through Hildebert of Le 
 Mans, 1097, down to Durandus, Bishop of Mende in 1286. The 
 latter says, ‘In the meantime, while the priest 1s washing his 
 ‘hands (after the offertory has been sung but before he makes the 
 ‘oblation) the deacon arranges the corporal pall on the altar’ 
 Sicardus, Bishop of Cremona 1185, is a witness for the continuance 
 of the custom in Italy during the twelfth century. At Milan it 
 still survives, the s¢ndon being put on between the gospel and the 
 oblation. The rite has clearly been preserved by the circumstance 
 that in the Ambrosian missal there is a variable collect said super 
 sindonem, when it was spread. In the Greek church the eileton 
 is spread while the catechumens are leaving, and immediately 
 before the first prayers of the faithful. It appears to me that there 
 would be a great advantage in the rule, if it could be introduced 
 among ourselves, that the priest should put on the eucharistic 
 vestments (7.e. after preaching the sermon in a surplice), and that 
 the altar should be covered between the Nicene Creed or the 
 sermon and the offertory. It would not only meet some existing 
 inconveniences, but would mark in a very striking manner the 
 beginning of the more sacred part of the holy office. 
 
 P. 354, As to mixing water with wine—“‘One drop is as 
 ‘significant as a thousand. Care was taken that the quantity of 
 water infused did not sensibly affect the taste or diminish the - 
 strength of the wine. Hence a small spoon has been used for the 
 mixture in many churches. Note. Merati says that ‘the Car- 
 ‘thusian monks and nearly all the churches in Germany make 
 use of a small spoon.’ 
 
 P. 359, sn. 15. The eucharistic fan. “The custom is very 
 ancient, for we find it in the Apostolical Constitutions, ‘ Let two 
 ‘deacons on each side of the altar hold a fan, made of thin mem- 
 ‘branes or of peacock’s feathers or of fine linen, and gently drive 
 ‘away the winged insects, that they fall not into the cups. Note. 
 The asterisk or star is an Instrument formed of thin bars of silver 
 crossing each other at right angles in the middle, with the ends 
 all bent in the same direction. This forms a kind of cradle, which 
 is placed, inverted, over the holy bread, to prevent the particles 
 being disordered by the veil. [P. 358. The Greeks use three 
 cloths to cover the sacred elements.| When it is first put over the 
 disk (plate, dish) in the office of the prothesis (side table) the 
 priest says ‘And the star came and stood over where ‘ the young 
 
 ‘child was laid.’ Goar, p. 62. 
 
 P. 360. “The will of Count Everard made in the year 937 
 mentions as part of the furniture of his chapel ‘one silver fan,’ &c. 
 
120 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 &c. In the customs of Clugny the Fan is a necessary part of the 
 furniture of the altar,... to drive them away (flies) from the 
 sacrifice and altar and from the priest himself, &c. 
 
 P. 505, § 5. Of the means whereby the consecration is effected. 
 “1. The Church of Rome ascribes the consecration of the elements 
 solely to the recital by the priest of the words of our Lord ‘ This is 
 ‘My body, and ‘This is the cup of My blood of the new and 
 ‘eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for 
 ‘you and for many for the remission of sins’ (from the Canon of 
 the Mass). Note. Schoolmen generally, ‘This is the cup of My 
 ‘blood, or ‘ This is My blood,’ are of the essence of the consecra- 
 tion of the cup:... the rest of its integrity. 11. Thanksgiving 
 (eucharist) as prominent as prayer... ‘His body and _ blood 
 ‘through the thanksgiving uttered over them,’ Victor of Antioch. 
 1. ‘lhese thanksgivings so characteristic, that the sacrament 
 itself... derived ... its most common name from them. Iv. Early 
 writers ascribe the consecration to The Word of God and prayers 
 or to the Word alone. ‘ Receiving The Word of God they become 
 ‘eucharist, 1.6. the body and blood of Christ.’ Irenzeus; [and 
 p- 512, calling on the Holy Ghost to come and touch the gifts] 
 Chrysostom. v. The remarkable statement of Gregory ... the 
 custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of the oblation to 
 that very prayer only. vi. No patristic authority for the medieval 
 and modern doctrine that ... effected by the sole repetition of our 
 Lord’s words. vit. The Council of Florence, nothing inserted in 
 the joint definition.” 
 
 Τ have felt it right to curtail to a minimum my notice of Mr 
 Scudamore’s seven heads, on what he calls the consecration of the 
 elements—which in his argument includes much more than their 
 being simply set apart for this holy use. It will perhaps be urged 
 by some that Mr Scudamore means no more than the fathers 
 whom he cites; and that they, notwithstanding strong rhetorical 
 expressions, only meant to express just what is the general doc- 
 trine of the formularies of the Church of England. But this seems 
 to shew the paramount necessity of coming to a clear and settled 
 decision as to what each father did hold and teach. And the 
 very object of this work is by giving sufficient extracts from 
 each in the original language and in translation, to enable every 
 thoughtful English Christian to judge for himself what each father 
 and great doctor held and taught. Itis hard, as it seems to me, to 
 find more than one sentence on this subject in the Common Prayer- 
 Book of the Church of England that cannot be defended as genu- 
 inely Protestant. If so Dr Pusey’s interpretations of them must 
 
1872] SCUDAMORE. Fer | 
 be perversions. Yet the Reverend Doctor expressly said in a 
 letter to the Church Union that was published in several news- 
 papers, that henceforth he should never use a single word to 
 promote his own views on the Lord’s supper beyond the words of 
 the Prayer-book, since they contained all that he wished to express 
 and teach. My object on the other hand is chiefly to enable all 
 thoughtful Christians, who can read English or the original lan- 
 guages, to see for themselves whether the language of almost all 
 the fathers is not in a very dangerous deeree different from and 
 opposite to the general teaching of the Church of England on 
 many points in relation to the Lord’s supper; and in particular 
 on the head and chief point of all, the real presence of Christ’s 
 natural body and blood in the supper of the Lord. In so far as this 
 is so, Mr Scudamore by citing any fathers who hold this, means 
 much more by the word consecration than the Church of England. 
 I would beg the reader to turn to the remarks at the head of the 
 extracts from Mr Roundell Palmer, to save my being required to 
 repeat them here. 
 
 Mr Scudamore’s volume seems to me to be the making up for 
 us a creed on the Lord’s supper, in mosaic, by pieces extracted 
 from the accepted fathers, and from canonists accepted only in the 
 communion of the Roman Church, and in this point of view it is a 
 cabinet of ecclesiastical curiosities : and of these I have given two 
 or three specimens. I am released from examining his seven 
 heads of doctrine on consecration, as there is hardly a point that 
 has not come out in this book in the extracts from one or more of 
 its chief promoters. For instance a protest has already been made 
 against making “the word of God” in 1 Timothy iv. 5 apply to 
 Christ The Word, and against applying to the Lord’s supper what 
 was apparently written only regarding food in general—“ Every 
 “created thing of God’s is good, and nothing to be cast away, 
 “being partaken of with thanksgiving: for it is consecrated (to 
 “our use) by the word of God and prayer.” Its meaning is deter- 
 mined by the preceding clause. “Commanding to abstain from 
 “meats” does not mean abstaining from the Lord’s supper. All 
 the terms, used in certain places of the Lord’s supper, how can any 
 one interpret of it here ? 
 
 On the Rubric upon Kneeling, p. 829. “‘Or unto any corporal 
 
 ‘presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood.’ In the original of 
 1552 we find ‘or unto any real or essential presence there being 
 
728 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 ‘of Christ’s natural flesh and blood.’ There is no difference of 
 meaning; for the ‘real and essential presence’ was in the scholastic 
 language of the Reformers equivalent to the ‘corporal presence’ 
 [various proofs.] Richard Smythe, Assertion of the Sacrament. 
 If Frith do take, that Christ, speaking the said words, did mean 
 that Christ’s natural and very body was not there really and 
 indeed to be eaten in the sacrament, &c. 
 
 P. 831. “The Real Presence had indeed long been used by 
 our divines to denote the presence of our Lord in the eucharist 
 which our church recognises throughout the Liturgy. 
 
 P. 857. _ “ Our Lord’s own words are not by themselves decisive. 
 ‘This is My body’ might, without any violation of Scriptural 
 analogy, be held to mean no more than ‘This isa figure of My 
 ‘body. The true meaning of the declaration is however suffi- 
 ciently apparent from the teaching of St Paul. We read (1 Cor.) 
 Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord 
 unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The 
 plain inference is that the body and blood of Christ are present 
 even to those who eat and drink in unbelief and sin. [Answer. 
 The true English is, “chargeable with the body and blood.” Why 
 not fill up the ellipse: shall be chargeable with doing despite to 
 Christ’s body and blood represented in its absence by the bread 
 and wine 1] 
 
 P. 858. “We may not be able to apprehend or to appropriate 
 His sacred body : but there it is, nevertheless before us, &c. [after 
 v. 29] That body therefore is most truly present, offering itself to 
 the spiritual perception of all those who have eyes to see and a 
 heart to understand. [Ans. Is not this inconsistent ? What have 
 “eyes to see” to do with “a spiritual apprehension”? But in fact 
 real spiritual (body) are also inconsistent terms, unless by “spi- 
 “ritual” is meant as in 1 Cor. xv. the resurrection body; 1.6. “ fit 
 “for a redeemed spirit in Heaven,” but human still, and therefore 
 not omnipresent or multipresent. | 
 
 Ῥ. 522. After quoting Liturgies in most of which the change 
 of the elements is spoken of as the result of the descent of the 
 Spirit on them, Mr Scudamore writes, “It will not therefore be 
 supposed that the work of the Holy Ghost in the sanctification of 
 the elements was denied or doubted in those churches that did 
 not in direct terms pray for His coming... We may be disposed 
 to regret that the use of a prayer expressly asking for the action of 
 the Holy Ghost on the elements was not universal. 
 
 P, 523. “The invocation of our own Liturgy is not an explicit 
 prayer for the sanctification of the elements; but is rather (like 
 the Roman) a prayer that they may become to us what they can 
 become only through such sanctification. 
 
1872] SCUDAMORE. 729 
 
 P. 520. “The American resembles the Scotch, but omits the 
 
 words ‘that they may be to us the body and blood of Thy most 
 ‘dearly beloved Son.’ 
 
 P. 525. “The sign of the cross in the prayer of consecration... 
 The cross (at ‘bless’ and ‘ sanctify’) was omitted in 1552... and it 
 has not been restored. 
 
 P. 526. “ We may regret that a rite so solemn and so signi- 
 ficant has no longer a place in our Canon... Before the conse- 
 cration there is an adequate reason for the use of the sign. It is 
 a very suitable mode of marking and as it were identifying the 
 gifts offered for the especial service of the altar: and a similar 
 reason may be assigned for its use when a blessing is invoked on 
 them, or when they are declared to be the body and blood.” 
 
 P. 546, ἕο. The full particulars of the Roman elevation of the 
 host, and of the bell to tell the people of it: but Mr S. does not 
 commit himself to a recommendation of these practices. 
 
 P. 558, 9. Fairly criticises 8. Luke’s This cup, &c., which is 
 shed, &e. 
 
 P. 574. “The fraction (breaking) for distribution. In our 
 liturgy the fraction for distribution takes place at the Communion; 
 that is to say, a piece is broken off for each communicant as itt is 
 required... In England... the ancient custom was in a manner 
 retained till the Reformation. ‘Of the three portions,’ observes 
 Mr Maskell, ‘into which the English church used to direct that 
 ‘the bread should be broken, one was to be dropped into the 
 ‘chalice, the other taken, and the third and largest either taken 
 ‘by the priest also or distributed to the communicants and 
 ‘reserved for the sick.’ . 
 
 P. 578. The Sarum Manual of 1554. “‘If a Bishop shall 
 ‘celebrate, let the Deacon facing the people with the Bishop’s 
 ‘staff in his right hand, the curvature of the staff being toward 
 ‘himself, say, “ Bow yourselves for the benediction.” Let the 
 ‘Choir respond, ‘Thanks be to God.” After that, the eucharist 
 ‘being replaced on the paten, let the Bishop give (faciat) the 
 ‘benediction over the people, &e.’ 
 
 P. 581. “The reader will see at once that the object and 
 spirit of these benedictions are identical with our prayer of humble 
 access (We do not presume, &c.) while the attitude of the worship- 
 pers reminds us of the name we love to give it.” 
 
 (R.) THE REY. CANON RYLE on St John (the latest Com.) 
 London, 
 
 vi. v. 63. “It ws the Spirit that quickeneth, ἄς. (1) The 
 Divine nature of Christ in contradistinction to His human nature 
 
730 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 called His ‘flesh” (2) The Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit 
 Who alone can convey spiritual life to the soul of man. When 
 therefore I spoke of ‘eating My flesh’ I did not mean the bodily 
 act of eating any literal flesh, &c. (3) The spiritual doctrine as 
 opposed to the letter or literal sense of Scriptural language... 
 I think the (2) and (3) more satisfactory than (1), and I incline 
 to prefer (2) to (3). Rollock holds that to eat the human nature 
 of Christ alone, t.e. His flesh, could do us no good... the spiritual 
 eating of faith and not any carnal eating of the Lord’s supper. 
 Hutcheson agrees with this view*.” 
 
 (S.) A NORWICH TRACT. Jarrold, Norwich, 1873. 
 
 P. 3. “—— was he really believed, nor was he ashamed to 
 acknowledge it, a priest of the church ; and, as such, he thought’ 
 he had been taken from men and ordained for men in things 
 pertaining to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He there- 
 fore considered himself the representative of his people before 
 God to make daily prayer for them, and the representative of God 
 to the people to dispense God’s absolutions and blessings to them, 
 as the regular if not the sole channel of communication. He had 
 of course his altar and his sacrifice of the body and the blood, 
 which he offered to God, considering that this was an extension or 
 continuation of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross—that he, as a 
 priest on earth, was doing what Christ is supposed [by such 
 persons] to be doing in Heaven—offering sacrifice. This was the 
 central doctrine or point of his system. Only assume this, and 
 you must grant all the rest... It is a great mistake to suppose 
 our Great High-Priest is offering the atoning sacrifice for sin now 
 in Heaven. The Jewish high-priest, who was a prophetic type of 
 Christ, offered the atonement at the door and at the brazen altar 
 which were outside the [second] veil. He entered within the 
 veil with the blood, which had atoned [for the sins of the people] 
 to sprinkle the mercy seat, &c., &c. Again the idea of ‘ continuing 
 ‘the sacrifice’ is a mistake and even more, for practically it denies 
 the words of Jesus on the cross, where He made a full perfect 
 atonement oblation and satisfaction for sins for ever and cried It 
 is finished. What was finished, if every possible thing relating 
 to the propitiation of a holy God, and the atonement of most 
 guilty man, was not finished and thoroughly completed once for 
 all 1... He did not know the difference between natural conscience, 
 though under the influence of sacramental teaching and the Holy 
 
 * Note. I can conceive a person preferring (1), on the ground that it gives 
 more of correspondence in the opposite terms, Christ’s Divine Spirit on the one 
 hand, which can and does give life—ro Πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ζωοποιοῦν---ἀ«τὖ Christ’s flesh 
 or body on the other, which cannot do it, though Cyril of Alexandria said it could. 
 
1879] A NORWICH TRACT. 731 
 
 Spirit, and therefore went on contending that he had peace very 
 often in the means of grace and especially at the holy communion. 
 [But said his brother minister to him, Does your peace last ? 
 Yes, said he, for a time, but it is gone before the next communion 
 comes.]| His experienced brother then turned him to the fourth 
 of St John’s Gospel and shewed him ‘If you drink of this water 
 ‘which you draw for yourself you will thirst again... But if you 
 ‘knew the gift of God, and Who it is that is speaking to you, you 
 ‘would ask Him and He would give you living water, which would 
 ‘be in you a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.’ 
 ‘Have you got that religion?’ ‘Yes, was the reply. ‘How did 
 ‘you obtain it?’ ‘By simply doing as the word directs. The 
 ‘Woman asked immediately, Sir, give me this water... And she 
 ‘left her water-pot and went into the city and said, Is not this 
 ‘the Christ ?’” 
 
 The clergyman whose experience is given in the tract followed 
 the advice, and found it true—as the tract was I believe written 
 to shew—in order that others inwardly pained with a similar 
 want, may follow the advice, and, like him, find true and lasting 
 pardon and habitual assurance of true and everlasting peace by 
 going straight to Christ for it. 
 
 (1) The theory of Consecration of the most holy Eucharist, 
 by H. H. Edin. 1878. 
 
 P.15. “There must be a reason for what we would affirm, viz. 
 the uniform succession [of parts in a communion service]. If we 
 will not try to get the meaning out of them as they stand, there is 
 a nemesis—we shall never get to understand them at ally. Dr 
 Neale wishes the invocation put after the oblation. And why ἢ 
 And Mr Freeman hastily concludes from the supposed difference 
 of arrangement in the Syriac Liturgy that ‘the order and existence 
 ‘of such prayers is a matter of indifference, having no effect on the 
 ‘validity of consecration. Perhaps not, if the structure of the 
 office did not demand them. Bud it does: and to leave them out or 
 alter their arrangement would be fatal to the integrity and 
 meaning of the Liturgy, as a vehicle for human devotion, and so 
 would be displeasing to God. For what is the idea on which they 
 are constructed? Plainly upon what the Jewish Christians saw 
 before them in the temple. All the parts of the temple service ... 
 are here drawn out in words, First There is the mactation of the 
 victim, and second, after the offerer had slain the victim the priest 
 took the blood and made the oblation. The oblation implies this, 
 
 that the sacrifice of the New Testament 1s now pleaded for us 
 
732 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 before the throne and altar on high. Third The invocation of 
 the Holy Ghost follows because the next step was to place the 
 victim on the altar and burn it. This is the type of that con- 
 version, whereby the fire of the Holy Ghost does not consume but 
 transelement earthly things into Heavenly... To alter the order 
 or to omit any portion of a liturgy so constructed is to spoil it. 
 
 P. 18. “Hoe est corpus Meum. What is the hoc? Is it 
 bread or not? No Roman theologian can determine, though many 
 have tried. Dogmatically i is not. In the order of time τὲ 18. 
 As the subject of the sentence, it is something distinct from the 
 predicate. According to the Roman belief the consecration does 
 not take place till the last word [Meum] is uttered. The subject 
 and predicate then coalesce and form one new substance. Thus 
 when you point out ‘This, as being something, you are saying 
 what is untrue : because it is not that something at the time you 
 say so. There is no getting over this difficulty ; and it becomes 
 all the more apparent in the consecration of the chalice, because so 
 many words are interposed between the subject and the end of 
 the sentence... No reason why you should not admit a dozen 
 prayers as well as a dozen words... This insurmountable diffi- 
 culty it is which caused the rubrical order that the celebrant 
 should say all the words of consecration in one breath, as though 
 that tied subject and predicate together without the intermission 
 of time.” 
 
 (U.) THE CAPEL-LIDDON CONTROVERSY IN THE “TIMES,” 1874. 
 
 The substance of this controversy, after clearig away all 
 mists, is (1) the question whether the doctrine of the real presence 
 of Christ’s body in the Lord’s supper is definitely distinguishable 
 from transubstantiation ; and (2) whether the Church of England 
 is bound to the former and not to the latter. But both questions 
 were discussed upon this occasion on the insufficient ground of the 
 opinions that have been held by individual members of the English 
 church: and this mode of settling the question has only to be 
 applied to the general interpretation of the Bible, and every 
 Protestant will allow its insufficiency. The principle of Pro- 
 testantism is that the consciences of men in any age are not bound 
 by the general scope of the opinions held by those that were 
 reputedly orthodox in any age or in any number of ages, since 
 Divine inspiration ceased. Then by exactly similar reasoning 
 Christian men may belong to the Church of England if they do 
 not hold the general scope of the reputedly orthodox fathers of 
 
1874] THE CAPEL-LIDDON CONTROVERSY. 733 
 
 the Church of England during any one age or any number of ages. 
 In relation to Christianity the New Testament words are the only 
 standard, and they lie open to all possible argument ab infra and 
 ab extra as to their interpretation, but not to any summary irre- 
 versible decisions of subsequent authorities. And so in relation to 
 the Church of England the appeal in law as to her doctrines, and 
 to her own sacraments only, and the interpretation of her words, 
 lies open to every argument from grammar, logic, rhetoric and 
 history: but no chosen body of divines are to be received as 
 dictating the interpretation of the words of that church, either to - 
 her courts of law or to individuals. The question then whether 
 the Church of England holds the real presence cannot be decided 
 in the way here attempted. As to the bearings of consubstan- 
 tiation, transubstantiation and the more general doctrine of a 
 real presence, something will be found at the close of the extracts 
 from this latest controversy: but it is intended to say somewhat 
 more in a Third Part of this work: the Patristic authorities 
 constituting the Second Part: and the promised volume on the 
 teaching of the Scripture on this subject being the First Portion. 
 
 The Hour. London Newspaper, No. t. February 4, 1875. 
 “The collected letters of M. Capel and Canon Liddon. 
 
 Canon Liddon. “ Believing as we do that ‘the body and blood | 
 ‘of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful 
 ‘in the Lord’s supper,’ we necessarily believe in the real presence 
 of Christ in that sacrament, since unless He is really present He 
 cannot be taken and received at all. [I collected some years ago 
 some of the same high Ritualist, or as they were once called 
 Tractarian productions, and I found that they started precisely as 
 Canon Liddon does from this one answer in the Catechism, and 
 inferred the real presence of Christ’s body from it in just the 
 same way.| But we reject the Roman explanation of His pre- 
 sence. ‘Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ; and, 
 as annihilating the outward part, ‘it overthroweth the nature of a 
 ‘sacrament.’ [On this point Maldonat should be consulted. It is 
 also perhaps almost equally difficult not to overthrow the nature 
 of a sacrament on any theory of the Real Presence of Christ’s 
 body: for as many reasonably urge, a sacrament is a sign of a 
 sacred thing which is absent. And if it be argued, as Maldonat 
 does, that a sign is useful because Christ’s body in its earthly 
 mode is invisible, he lies open to another question, Is a body 
 existent in so strange a mode that it is not visible, tangible, 
 divisible, &c.? Is it a human body? But Christ is never said in 
 
134 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 Scripture to have had His body changed since He arose. This is 
 argued in a lecture at Norwich printed at the end of this volume. ] 
 
 Monsignor Capel. “‘The catechetical notes’ of the late 
 revered Dr Neale of St Margaret’s, East Grinstead, contain the 
 following declarations concerning the real presence ... ‘ All matter 
 ‘is divided into the accidents and the substance. Accidents of 
 ‘matter are those things which make a thing appear what it 15. 
 ‘Substance is that which makes a thing to be what it is. The 
 ‘accidents remain; the substance is changed.’ Canon Liddon 
 cannot but admit this is a clear exposition of transubstantiation 
 taught by an eminent high-church divine. 
 
 Canon Liddon. “It may be that the direction of Dr Neale’s 
 studies would have made him less alive than some of us to the 
 enormous difficulties of the philosophical theory which is assumed 
 to be true—by the distinction which he makes between substance 
 and accidents. Anyhow I cannot in this matter defend him, το. 
 [Some remarks on the reasonableness of using these terms inde- 
 pendently of all theories about matter and phenomena are added 
 at the close of these extracts. | 
 
 M. Capel. “It is still more unsatisfactory to find Canon 
 Liddon excusing the line, ‘ Bread into His flesh is turned,’ on the 
 plea that it is in all probability due to inadvertence... Had the 
 Canon examined a few of the advanced books of devotion, he 
 would have found that it is the usual way to express, as in Mr 
 Carter’s book, the doctrine of transubstantiation. [Three in- 
 stances.|... In ‘the Night-hours of the church’ the doctrine is 
 stated in the plainest way, p. 173... Bread and wine are substan- 
 tially changed into the body and blood of Christ... The accident 
 subsists without a subject, that faith may have her place, while a 
 visible thing is invisibly received hidden under an alien form; 
 and the senses are set free from deception, in that they decide on 
 accidents that are familiar to them. Indeed these are the very 
 words of St Thomas Aquinas. When I see our prayers transferred 
 wholesale to Ritualist books of devotion—when others like Mr 
 Orby Shipley publish, ‘The Ritual of the Altar, according to the 
 ‘use of the Church of England,’ and I find therein the whole of 
 our mass, ὅσ. &c. [See Lecture at Norwich at the end of this 
 volume. | 
 
 Canon Liddon. “He may depend upon it that I will do my 
 best to promote the excision of the fungi to which he has called 
 attention, το. 
 
 M. Capel. “In 1865 a book was published under the title of 
 ‘The Priest to the Altar.” I am informed by a brother of the 
 brotherhood of the Holy Trinity, to which the Canon is said to 
 have belonged, &c., that the book was edited by Dr Liddon and 
 
1874] THE CAPEL-LIDDON CONTROVERSY. 735 
 
 another high-church clergyman. Therein just before the usual 
 words of consecration is inserted the prayer, ‘Send down Thy 
 ‘ Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, that He may make this bread the 
 ‘body of Thy Christ,’ &c., &c., respecting the worship of the Virgin 
 Mary. 
 
 Dr Liddon. “‘The Priest to the Altar’ was compiled by 
 a clergyman of somewhat vehement anti-Roman tendencies, in 
 whose learning and critical judgment I have entire confidence ; 
 and my own relation to it is limited to this—I revised some of the 
 proof-sheets before publication, and I defrayed a part of the 
 expenses, &c. But I must maintain that the book is an honest 
 Church of England work, and that it does not teach transubstan- 
 tiation, &c., &e. 
 
 [The real question of course is, are we or are we not in all 
 such enterprises keeping fairly within the limits marked out by 
 our doctrinal standards ? &c. |} 
 
 “When I wrote to you the other day I had no recollection 
 whatever of the line which M. Capel quotes from this book, 
 ‘Bread into His flesh is turned.’... I entirely admit that the 
 phrase is patristic, and therefore Anglican. [Then Anglican does 
 not mean belonging to the Church of England: for certainly the 
 Church of England does not adopt all that the fathers said, though 
 Jewel rashly committed himself to the fathers of the first six 
 centuries.].... But M. Capel always quotes the prayer ‘Send 
 ‘down, &c., as above, as if it implied transubstantiation—as if the 
 verb ‘to make’ could mean nothing else or less than to change 
 the metaphysical substance of one thing into the metaphysical 
 substance of another thing; whereas the prayer might even be 
 used in a subjective sense altogether (Bishop Wilson quoted). 
 [This may be very stoutly disputed both in the Canon and the 
 Bishop: but the extracts given from Bp. W. give small ground 
 for believing that he used this kind of petition in a subjective 
 sense], (and Canon Liddon gives the following as a fair utterance 
 of Church of England piety). The bread has ceased to be bread. 
 Christ’s body only is really here. The senses which tell me that 
 what I see, touch, taste is still substantial bread cannot be trusted. 
 [Two remarks are required. (1) This is not a subjective but an 
 objective meditation: and (2) Canon Liddon uses the term of an 
 exploded philosophy “substance” to the use of which he but now 
 demurred]. [Then follow citations from Bishop Thirlwall, from 
 whom I have already made long extracts. So I only cite a part 
 of the citation in a note.] The development, which has been 
 proceeding before our eyes during the last ten years has culmi- 
 nated in an approximation to Romish doctrine and ritual so close 
 as to render the remaining interval hardly perceptible to common 
 observers... They make no secret of their desire and intention, 
 so far as lies in their power to bring about a complete transforma- 
 
736 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. [A.D. 
 
 tion of the Church of England into the likeness of the Church 
 of Rome in every particular short of immediate submission to 
 
 the Pope.” 
 
 (V.) SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The writings of the Christian fathers and of other leading 
 followers in subsequent ages to the apostolical, and even the ex- 
 tracts here made from them, will fully establish these three things; 
 (1) That consubstantiation was held, virtually, by those who 
 asserted that the substance of the bread remained after consecra- 
 tion, and (2) That transubstantiation was held, virtually, by those 
 that affirmed that only the body of the Lord was there, under the 
 sensible qualities of bread, and (3) that very slowly indeed was 
 there any approximation to the third alternative ; viz. that our 
 Lord’s real natural body might be believed to be there in some 
 other than either of the two ways above mentioned ; or that we 
 may content ourselves with believing that His real natural body 
 is present without enquiring in what way the presence exists; 
 and in utter disregard of all philosophic and other arguments that 
 seem to deny the possibility, without such an utter overthrow of 
 some of the first natural laws as we may think we are not justified 
 in attributing to God, in the absence of any express and indis- 
 putable declaration from Him to that effect. This last definition 
 may be termed the doctrine of the real presence, regarded as 
 independent of the doctrines (1) and (2). 
 
 Our chief business then in obtaining clear ideas of writings 
 on this subject for many centuries is to compare the lines of 
 thought (1) and (2). _The vague word ‘ virtually,’ which has been 
 used for the sake of brevity, has now to be explained. In (1) it 
 means that those who affirmed that the substance of the bread 
 remains after consecration agreed with what Luther in one part 
 of his life held, vz. that an entire Christ is there and the entire 
 bread also: for all persons believed both that the sensible qualities 
 of bread were there and that the entire body of the Lord was 
 there; and all held that the Divinity and the human soul were 
 present with the body of Christ ; and in (2) it is meant that those 
 who denied that the substance of the bread remained believed all 
 the rest that was held by the persons in (1). So that in fact there 
 was but one difference in what they held and that difference was 
 
1874] THE CAPEL-LIDDON CONTROVERSY. 737 
 
 concerning the substance, the (1) holding it to be there, the (2) 
 denying that it was there. 
 
 Minor points of difference, such as whether it was the Person 
 of the Son, or the Logos, that was united with the sensible 
 qualities and substances or substance, we need not mention. It 
 is enough to say that by class (1) it was held that the entire 
 Christ was present with the entire bread; while class (2) held 
 that the entire Christ was there, but that the substance of the 
 bread was removed, or, as they would say exchanged, for the 
 substance of Christ’s body. 
 
 Canon Liddon and many others object to Mr Mason Neale’s 
 use of the word ‘substance, as not being in accordance with 
 modern physical theories regarding objects of the perceptive 
 faculties. But if the meaning assigned to the word ‘substance’ 
 be clearly understood, and the idea corresponding be a definite 
 one, it is sufficient for the purposes of discussion. Every one will 
 concede the use of the term ‘sensible qualities’ to signify whatever 
 it be in any object that affects our perceptive faculties. Then by 
 ‘substance’ is merely meant whatever may be supposed to be left 
 in any object, if the sensible qualities are supposed to have been 
 taken away. Any person is quite at liberty to hold that we 
 cannot believe in anything beyond the sequences of phenomena 
 and their classification : but the terms ‘sensible qualities’ and ‘sub- 
 ‘stances, as defined above, are definite, and will serve as counters 
 in Mr Mason Neale’s reasoning or in ours. 
 
 It is therefore only needful to repeat that the Tridentine doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation was virtually held by those that denied 
 that the substance of the bread remains after consecration; and that 
 the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation was virtually held by 
 those that affirmed that after the consecration the bread remained. 
 The refinements referred to in the extracts from Bellarmine and 
 Thirlwall, as to the different modes in which the body of Christ 
 may be or is present, in Heaven and in the Lord’s supper on 
 earth, were certainly not anticipated when the name of transub- 
 stantiation was adopted, even in 1215, z.e. when the council of 
 Innocent IIL. put forth its short decree regarding the opinions 
 marked (2) in this note, 
 
ΠΈΝΝΟΙ. 
 
 I cannot let this work close without rendering thanks to 
 Him, whose feeble instruments we are. The work has been in 
 all its parts most delightful, for I have found, what I hope may 
 in -various degrees be realized by my readers, that to ponder the 
 careful expressions of so many of the greatest of our Christian 
 Divines, works strongly to augment our general knowledge, to 
 enlarge the grasp of our affections, to refine and ripen the judg- 
 ment, and what is most of all precious, to do all this regarding 
 the word of God, on which all these men more or less laboured to 
 build. Their errors are warning beacons, their truths enlighten 
 our course and shew us the harbour. May Gop speed our way! 
 
 In the wide compass of history and doctrine, which it has 
 been needful to traverse, the author could not but become fre- 
 quently conscious of the limitations of our powers and knowledge. 
 But the feeling is the same in all the efforts of man under any 
 emotion, from the plaint of Virgil’s rustic singer, 
 
 Quod potui, sylvestri ex arbore lecta 
 Aurea mala decem misi, 
 
 to the lavish gift of the grateful anointress of our Saviour’s feet 
 whom He honoured with His measured approval, “She hath done 
 “what she could.” It is all that we can hope to attain to here. 
 
 When half the second volume was already printed, the . 
 continuance of the anxiety, that arose from not being able to 
 find a true yoke-fellow, made it necessary for the writer to 
 resign his parochial charge. His consolation is to serve God in 
 any ways that remain, and to dwell still among his late loving 
 and beloved people. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN 
 ΤΗΙΒ ΟἸΤῪ OF NORWICH, IN. THE YEAR 1874: 
 
 TITLE : 
 
 “Ts there not a cause ?” 
 
 (WITH LETTERS.) 
 
 APPENDIX ΤΙ. 
 
 AN ADDRESS READ AT A LARGE CLERICAL MEETING 
 AT FURNESS ABBEY, IN THE YEAR 1876, 
 
 SUBJECT : 
 
 What notices of Evening Communion are to be found in the 
 Fathers of the third and fourth centuries ? 
 
 (WITH A LETTER.) 
 
AP Eh NDpirxse T. 
 “IS THERE NOT A CAUSE?” 
 
 A Lecture delivered at Norwich on February 23, 1874, and reported 
 entire in the County Paper with letters that followed. 
 
 By THE Rey. CHARLES HEBERT, D.D., 
 
 RECTOR OF LOWESTOFT, SUFFOLK. 
 
 Every Christian heart hates war with perfect hatred for its various 
 miseries, its immoralities, and its huge waste of taxation: but it will 
 be within the memory of the readers of Tennyson that in his maddest 
 and most imaginative poem, “ Maud,” he gives himself to a panegyric 
 upon war, as the awakener of stagnant nations, lost, in the mere pursuit 
 of wealth, to moral grandeur and virtue. However much may be said 
 on either side of that question, there can hardly be a doubt as to the 
 usefulness of a good hearty struggle on some great question of religious 
 controversy in the universal visible church, if it be conducted in a fair 
 and equitable spirit. That such a struggle will ere long arise among us, 
 on the dogma of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper appears, I 
 suppose, quite certain to every forelooking Christian. We may not be 
 ripe for it just yet. I do not think we are. But the general com- 
 promise, in which the question is now slumbering, is not a natural 
 state of things, and cannot last. It reminds me of Pascal’s wit on la 
 grace suffisante qui ne suffit pas; and instead of looking for continued 
 peace, and silence about differences, I think we should do well to be like 
 the Prussians before their last great campaign, viz.—providing our- 
 selves before all things with good maps of the territory where the 
 struggle is to be carried on, if, peradventure, we may be instrumental 
 in our measure in promoting the victory of Bible truth in Christendom 
 on this matter. 
 
 Can there be a more important topic than the supper, which our 
 blessed Lord left us, as almost His last gift to the Church, when He 
 
 N.B. A few sentences of mere local interest are omitted, and an ex- 
 planation of ὁ ἀὴρ added. 
 
742 APPENDIX I, 
 
 was about to leave it for nearly two thousand years, weak and greatly 
 in need of His Heavenly care, among the children of the world and the 
 kings of the earth, to contend with thousands of foes,—foes without and 
 false brethren within? It is not my purpose to call your attention 
 to-night to the enemies without. That saying of St Paul is most 
 germane to my subject—a saying full of the deepest pathos—“ Also of 
 “your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw 
 ‘away disciples after them.” 
 
 We love to deal with plain and patent facts. We blame no one 
 for his zeal. Perhaps the greatest offenders of all are the crowds of 
 Gallios who have no zeal, who care for none of these things. <A Saul, 
 even while he is persecuting the Church, is a more hopeful character, if 
 (like him) he is doing it of conscience, than these comfortable and easy 
 worldlings, who think us mere disturbers, because we stand up to defend 
 that purity of doctrine which God Himself teaches us in the Bible. 
 We do not at all forget that there may be some of a different class, wilful 
 deceivers. I for one sometimes think there are sworn Jesuits, and not 
 a few, in our own camp, as there were in Elizabeth’s reign: but, till I 
 car actually discover such, I would reason with every opponent, with all 
 courtesy, and endeavour to give a fair and unbiassed interpretation, both 
 to the speeches which I hear, and to the printed words which I read. 
 I shall not encumber you with many books. We shall go little beyond 
 two. The Rev. W. E. Scudamore’s “ Notitia Eucharistica,” and the 
 “ Ritual of the Altar,” by the Rey. Orby Shipley. 
 
 Mr Scudamore is of this diocese. I adduce nothing of his but this 
 book, which is an 8vo. of about 900 pages: but I am informed that it 
 obtains a considerable sale in America as well as in England. He took 
 high mathematical honours in the University of Cambridge, in 1835. 
 He was 9th Wrangler, and he resigned a Fellowship in his College 
 (St John’s) to take the Rectory of Ditchingham, near Beccles, in 1839, 
 which he still holds. He describes this book in its title page as a 
 Commentary, Explanatory, Doctrinal, and Historical, on the Order of 
 administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion. It was 
 published in 1871. I see that he has published a little work that has 
 reached its 42nd Edition, and is now stereotyped. The title is “‘ Steps 
 “to the Altar: Devotions for the Blessed Eucharist.” Another book 
 of his is called “* England and Rome,” the purport of which I assume to 
 be to urge us to remain in England. And there are several others, 
 some of them less marked than these, but all of the same family and 
 character. I think then we may imagine Mr Scudamore to bea substantial 
 and eminent representative man of his own class, and to be every way 
 fit and worthy to be brought before you to-night. 
 
LECTURE, 743 
 
 But we must first mark out and fortify some part of our position, 
 that we may know what we believe. The thing I try to find out first 
 in a hook on this subject is, what it teaches on the one most important 
 point of all, the “Real Presence ;”—but it is safer to give it at full: 
 the “ Real Presence of Christ’s Body.” If you wish to know a person’s 
 real opinion on the point, and he says “I hold the Real Presence,” it is 
 well to ask, “ Do you mean the Real Presence of Christ’s Body?” Why 
 is this so important ? For the following reasons. Our blessed Lord is 
 of two natures united. It was so decided at the Fourth Council, held 
 in 451, at Chalcedon, viz. That the Son of God retained His Divine 
 Nature perfect, and took to it—took into union with it a perfect man’s 
 nature, like that of Adam as created at first. And so also when our 
 blessed Master, Christ, rose from the tomb of Joseph, He took to Him 
 again the same body, and was again perfect man, (body and soul) united 
 to His perfect Godhead. What proof is there that it was the same 
 body? It is well said that “'Thomas’s doubts are our certainties :” for 
 his Lord, Who had first shewed to all the Apostles present His hands 
 and His side, did, on the second Sabbath-eve, offer to let Thomas put 
 his finger into the prints of the nails in His hands, and thrust his hand 
 into the wound of the spear in His side. This was to shew that it was 
 a true human body, because it was the same. As it was a true human 
 body before, so it was a true human body after. He also gave other 
 signs on the First Evening. ‘While they yet believed not for joy, He 
 “said, ‘Children, have ye any meat?’” meaning by this that His body 
 wanted food, as it did before ; and they gave Him meat, as He asked it; 
 and He took it and did eat before them, viz.—of a piece of broiled fish 
 and an honey-comb. We know not at all how that body was supplied 
 with food afterwards for the forty days; and there we leave it. But 
 there is not a word said in the Scripture of any change in Christ’s body 
 after He rose from the dead ; indeed I know nothing that bears on the 
 subject at all, except the symbolic figure in the Revelation. “TI looked,” 
 says St John, “and lo! a lamb, as it had been slain,” ὦ.6. with the 
 wounds of its death still on it, though alive; and you will observe the 
 exact correspondence between that symbolic figure of Jesus seen by 
 John in the sky, and Jesus Himself as He appeared to the disciples on 
 the evening of the resurrection, and again when Thomas was with them. 
 Certain papal divines, I know, and some others, say, “ O but it could not 
 “have been a real body, because He went through the closed doors.” 
 But who is the authority for that? Who tells us He went through 
 closed doors? It does not say that they were not opened to Him, 
 His mere word or will could have opened and closed them. Leave that 
 matter. He could choose His own way. It seems, however, that 
 
TAA APPENDIX I. 
 
 some kind of miracle was wrought by Him. At any rate, Why should 
 we surrender belief in His body being a real one, and the same as it was 
 before, giving up all that we learned from His shewing the holes in His 
 hands and feet and side, and from His eating food before the disciples? _ 
 De Wiseman, however, for one, denies that it was a real body ; but then 
 he maintains that it was shewn to be a spiritual body and not a real 
 one; (1) Because it went through these closed doors ; and (2) Because it 
 went through the stone at the sepulchre also, Any Protestant child 
 would tell him that the Gospel says that “an angel” was sent to roll 
 away the stone for Him. But it is more strange that Dr Pusey follows 
 Dr Wiseman in the same slip. I have read both in the works of the 
 two learned Doctors. 
 
 We do well, then, to hold fast the evidence which Scripture gives 
 us, that our Lord’s body rose from the dead in very manhood un- 
 changed: the first token I find of a time at which He is to appear with 
 a changed body, is at the Judgment Day, 1 Corinthians, xv., “ The 
 “second man is the Lord from Heaven.” He will then appear, as I 
 read it, in His glorified form—with a glorified body—to judge the world. 
 Then, if we follow Scripture in its silence as well as when it speaks, 
 we have no authority for asserting that our Lord’s body has yet been 
 changed at all. 
 
 1 will continue, then, on this hypothesis. We can take up the 
 other view presently. If, then (as the silence of Scripture as to any 
 change seems to imply), the body of Jesus in Heaven is still the same 
 hnman body, as when He walked on earth, and was crucified on the 
 cross (assertions which, by the way, are in constant use with almost all 
 the Fathers), I come to this conclusion, that His present body, in 
 which He ascended to Heaven, is a body exactly after the pattern of 
 our bodies—no more and no less, except in this, that (like Adam’s body 
 when it first came from God’s hands) Christ’s body was untainted and 
 undamaged, by never having known a single sin. He rose as He came, 
 as a lamb without blemish, holy, harmless, separate from sinners ; yet, 
 in other respects, His body was like our bodies, for He was made 
 in all things like unto His brethren. This body, therefore, of our 
 Lord Jesus, on this hypothesis, is, at the present time, still a finite or 
 limited body, just like ours. It has not the faculty of omnipresence, 
 but can only be in one place at a time, just as our bodies ; so that if it 
 is here, it is not in Heaven too; and, reversely, if it is in Heaven it 
 cannot be here also. That it went to Heaven at His ascension we 
 know, for He prophesied of this in John vi., “What and if ye shall see 
 “the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?” And there He 
 sits or remains, as it is said in the 2nd Psalm, “Sit Thou at My right 
 
LECTURE. 745 
 
 “hand, till I have made Thine enemies Thy footstool.” And He 
 remains there till He returns to regenerate, ἡ. 6. to restore this fallen 
 world, as St Peter says, “Whom the Heaven must receive until the 
 “time of the restitution of all things.” I have dwelt on this thus 
 particularly, step by step, because I wish you to be able to call to mind 
 on what solid grounds our Church stands in making the assertion that 
 Christ (ὦ. 6. Christ’s manhood) is not on earth now, “The natural body 
 “of Christ is in Heaven and not here; it being contrary to the truth 
 ‘‘ of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one.” 
 You know this part of the Rubric at the end of the Communion 
 Service. Some have named this the black Rubric. But nearly the 
 same words were in one of our Articles till they were moved to this 
 very conspicuous place. And now you see the reason why I ventured 
 to suggest that, if any one says to you, “TI believe in the real presence 
 ‘“‘of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper,” you should ask 
 again, “Do you mean that you believe in the presence of Christ’s body 
 ‘‘in that holy supper?” If he replies, “ Yes I do,” you have only to 
 answer, “Then I am sorry to say that you believe exactly opposite to 
 “the Church of England; for you say, ‘Christ’s natural body is on 
 “ ‘earth, and the Church of England says, ‘It is in Heaven, not here.’” 
 Two things cannot “be more opposite.” We have thus settled the 
 question that (on the first hypothesis, of Christ’s body being now what 
 it was when it was crucified and afterwards raised from the dead) it 
 cannot be on earth; because the Bible tells us that it is in Heaven, and 
 will remain there till He come again. 
 
 Let us now take up the second hypothesis, for some will perhaps 
 say—* Your argument is good, if Christ’s body is still exactly the 
 “same as when He was crucified and raised ; but what becomes of your 
 “conclusions if He is already glorified,—if He has already put on the 
 “glorified body, described in chapter xv. of the Ist of Corinthians ?” 
 My answer is plain: it turns on this, that a glorified human body is not 
 God; it is not Divine. A man has in no case any of the special 
 attributes of the Godhead. But omnipresence is one special attri- 
 bute of God. “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.” 
 This then belongs to God only. Neither angels nor men have the 
 faculty of omnipresence, or even of multipresence, 7.e. none but God is 
 present in more places than one at one time; no one puts this better 
 than Peter Martyr. But to go on :—To assert the contrary, would be 
 to say that an angel or a glorified man is not a limited creature—not a 
 finite being—which is not true ; for God only is infinite. It follows then 
 that even if Christ’s body 6e already glorified, it makes no difference at 
 all to all my conclusions about His body, in this one point that it 
 
740 APPENDIX I. 
 
 cannot be in two places at once: that, as it is said to be in Heaven at 
 God’s right hand, it cannot at the same time be here at the Lord’s 
 supper ; therefore we may conclude that on either hypothesis, Christ’s 
 body is not on earth. 
 
 If any of the ancient fathers or ancient churches, or if any of the 
 ancient or modern divines say, that Christ’s natural body, or (to speak 
 fully) Christ’s natural body and blood are present in the Lord’s supper, 
 they are in error—they are wrong on this most important point. 
 I believe it to be one of the very most important points of all our belief ; 
 and it is a point on which (with the exception, at most, of one short 
 answer in the catechism) our church is perfectly clear. Can anything 
 for instance be clearer than the whole latter part of the Rubric which 
 1 have quoted? ‘It is here declared,” so runs the Rubric, “that 
 “thereby” (1.6. by our kneeling down at the rails,) “no adoration 
 “ig intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental 
 “bread or wine there bodily received” (. 6. through our mouths into 
 our bodies) “or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh 
 “and blood: for the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their 
 “very” (. 6. true) “natural substances,” (ὦ. 6. there is no érans-substan- 
 ‘‘tiation) and therefore may not be adored; for that were idolatry, 
 “to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; and the natural body and 
 “blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and NoT HERE; it being 
 “against the truth of Christ’s natural body, to be at one time in more 
 “places than one.” 
 
 I hope I do not appear to have been needlessly precise, or to have 
 spent too long a time on this point, for I have had two reasons for 
 doing this part of my work with such accuracy. First, that the point 
 is of such great importance; and second, because it is so good a test. 
 I like a good test. A good test is one that is very simple in its 
 nature, and that comes out very clear in its application, and that never 
 fails. And I think you fully see that this test never can fail. 
 
 I wish as far as we can do it, to put an end to the vague and 
 misty mode of discussing the presence of Christ in this Sacred Rite. 
 I have known so much of fencing, and, what one may even term, 
 dodging, and logical hair splitting, and declarations that we cannot 
 expect to understand every thing in these mysteries, and that it is a 
 kind of rationalism to ask a man what he really does mean, and that 
 ignorance is the mother of devotion (which I do not admit), and a 
 thousand other reasons of the same class, all which, I confess, do not, 
 in my judgment, together amount to half a scruple. But this help 
 have we, that a human body is an intelligible thing, at least in this 
 one respect (whether as at present or glorified), that ἐξ does not possess 
 
LECTURE. 747 
 
 omnipresence or multipresence. If, therefore, I ask a man, “Is Christ’s 
 “‘body—are Christ’s natural body and blood present in the Lord’s 
 “supper ?” I think I can require and insist on a plain and definite 
 answer, Yes or No. There is a note in Hallam’s Constitutional 
 History of England, which affirms that it is a question of yes or no; 
 ‘therefore, under that high lay authority I shelter myself, like Teucer 
 behind the great shield of Ajax: for I quite concur with Mr Hallam 
 that it is a question of ‘yes or no.” 
 
 Either then the natural body of my Lord Jesus is present in that 
 Sacrament, or it is not present there. It must be one or other. And 
 I am now a great way on with any one, when I have brought him 
 to tell me just this: Which of the two he believes and holds. For 
 if Christ’s natural body is there, the Church of England is wrong. 
 But if he says, “the natural body is not there,” this is what the Church 
 of England “ declares,” saying, “It is declared.” And—Never omit, 
 I say, that one word of our Church’s explanation—‘“ natural,” ‘ the 
 “real presence of Christ’s natural body.” 
 
 Τ am not unaware, that I may for the last quarter of an hour 
 have taxed your kind attention: but we shall come to lighter work 
 presently. I have but endeavoured to shew by a decisive test, how 
 you may discern the true holders of Church of England-and-Bible- 
 doctrines on this subject. What if I turn for a moment and say, that, 
 though it be right aud necessary in these dangerous days to apply 
 this searching test to others, to be assured of their orthodoxy,—lIs it 
 not well also that everyone should apply it to themselves, to be sure 
 of their own? Ought we not each one to discern whether we are 
 ourselves well established in the cardinal truth, that there is no presence 
 "οὗ Christ’s body now on earth at all; either at the Lord’s table, or 
 even in the heart of a living believer. For both ideas are excluded if 
 Christ's body is human,—Christ’s body “is in Heaven, and not 
 here.” 
 
 And may we not now pass from living men, to those precious and 
 dear companions—books ? friends that need never deceive us, for they 
 never change their wording while we carry on our enquiry. Litera 
 scripta manet. And it pleases me that in part, Mr Scudamore’s book 
 is quite consistent in this, that it draws no coufusing distinction 
 between “Christ’s real presence,” and “the real presence of Christ’s 
 “body and blood;” and I so far honour both him, and every one who 
 holds these terms to be convertible and equivalent to each other. In 
 pages 852 to 860, he dwells on this subject; for those pages contain 
 this comment on the very rubric which we have thought so decisive. 
 I am sorry to say that my praise of him for consistency must soon 
 
748 APPENDIX I. 
 
 cease; but you shall judge then. In sections from 852—856, he begins 
 well by adducing a catena of passages to shew that “Christ’s true 
 “body cannot be in Heaven and earth at the same time,” and he ends 
 by saying, ‘Can it be doubted that these writers would have accused 
 “the Church of Rome of confounding the properties of Christs Divine 
 “and human nature, when she teaches and affirms that in His human 
 “nature, in the true substance of His soul and body,” (he means 
 Christ’s Auman soul and body), “He can be and is present at many 
 ‘altars at the same instant of time;” te. Mr Scudamore utterly 
 denies this, and adduces these writers as denying it too. Nothing, 
 I say, in our view can be more orthodox and more scriptural than 
 Mr Scudamore in this. But does Mr Scudamore continue in this true 
 Protestant strain regarding the holy supper in the following chapters ? 
 Alas! how soon the glory of man declines. Would you expect the 
 title of the next to be, “The real and spiritual presence of Christ’s 
 “body?” And he then proceeds to undo all that he had so plainly 
 said. He now refines logic; he turns upon terms; shall I say, he 
 splits hairs? he just now denied the presence of Christ’s “true body” 
 in the sacrament, and now, he writes from p. 857 to p. 858 to prove 
 the presence of Christ’s “real and spiritual body.” 
 
 I stop, then, to ask,—Have I been at all too cautious, too punc- 
 tilious, in what has gone before? Is there not a cause? O, what a 
 blessed thing it is that we may reason closely on the Bible! O, what 
 a protection to the faith is, what some one calls “inexorable logic !” 
 What? Has Christ two bodies? One, His true body: another, His 
 real and spiritual body? If they mean Christ’s glorified body—as- 
 suming that it is already glorified, though Seripture does not tell us so 
 —TI answer: If it is now changed into a glorious body, the old body 
 that was born and crucified and raised, does not exist too. It is 
 changed into the other. So there are not two Christs: not two bodies: 
 (1) His true body, (2) His real and spiritual body. Yet Mr Sceu- 
 damore asserts that there ave two: for he speaks very confidently 
 of one—His true body (which is certainly in Heaven, and not here); 
 and the other—His real and spiritual, which is here present in the holy 
 supper. But has the Bible given any hint of Jesus having two bodies? 
 O, the strange ways of escape to which persons have recourse! But 
 this is but one of the many equally unjustifiable confusions of ideas that 
 are to be read in the hundreds of books and treatises on the Lord’s 
 supper. But be assured that most of the Fathers—-for instance, the 
 most Aristotelian of all, John Damascenus—deny with emphasis there 
 being two bodies. He declares it to be a most unchristian heresy. But 
 you may yourselves judge of it. What does that uncommon thing, 
 
LECTURE. 749 
 
 common sense, decide? You are acquainted with the Holy Scriptures ἢ 
 Say they that Jesus has two bodies at the same time? John of Damascus, 
 in his letter to Zacharias Bishop of the Doari, says, Avo σώματα Χριστοῦ 
 λέγειν οὐ δυνάμεθα: GAN ἕν ἐστι τὸ σῶμα Αὐτοῦ... Μεχρὶ τοῦ βρωθῆναι ὑφ᾽ 
 ἡμῶν φθαρτὸν αὐτὸ λέγομεν. Vol. τ|., Migne’s Edition. In English, 
 ‘We cannot say two bodies of Christ, but on the contrary, His body is 
 ‘one. Wecall it a mortal body until it has been eaten.” I can answer 
 for the meanings of the context: for I don’t like taking bits at second 
 hand. We have to go to the authors-themselves. 
 
 I will now take you to some lighter work from Mr Scudamore’s 
 large and laborious volume. But let me first ask: Are you Ritualist? 
 But why are you not Ritualists? What do you take to be the best 
 of all the reasons you can assign for not being Ritualists? I believe 
 the best of all reasons is—that Roman Ritualism covers Roman 
 doctrine. Do you care so much about bowings and turnings, and 
 colours and lights, and crosses and surplices, and copes, in themselves ? 
 You could give some liberty in all externals, were it not that under 
 the guise of Roman ceremonies, Roman revolutionists are introducing, 
 and making familiar to the eye, and suggesting to the mind of the people, 
 those very Roman doctrines which honest, glorious Hugh Latimer, 
 and the learned Ridley, and the reviled, but most meritorious and 
 hard-working Archbishop Cranmer, died to deliver us from. This is 
 my point—that Roman Ritualism covertly introduces Roman doctrine. 
 You shall settle this regarding three instances that I will bring from 
 Mr Scudamore. (1) The Eucharistic Pall, or Corporal: (2) The 
 Eucharistic Fan: and (3) The Asterisk, or the Eucharistic Cradle. 
 
 Chap. x1. is concerning the point in the service in which, after 
 the sermon, the minister returns to the Lord’s table to begin reading 
 the sentences of the Offertory. Page 303, “according to the earliest 
 “Ordo Romanus. Amalarius, who commented on it A.D. 827, says 
 “The corporal was now put upon the Altar (page 304): the custom 
 “was to spread it, after the Offertory Anthem had been sung.” Thus 
 Rabanus Maurus at Mayence, a.p. 819, ‘‘Oblations are now offered 
 “by the people, and the offertory is sung by the Clergy, and the 
 “ Pall of the Corporal is put on the Altar.” 
 
 But you will stop me one moment. What are these terms ? 
 «©A Pall” is properly a cloak. The old Latins used to have a proverb 
 —‘‘a man’s tunic is closer to him than his pall.” We should say 
 — a, man’s shirt is nearer his skin than his coat.” We now generally 
 use pall for a cloak of state, like the palls that Archbishops used to 
 have to get from Rome from the Pope—and to pay for them too, 
 But here it is @ covering of state for the communion table, which was 
 
750 APPENDIX I. 
 
 to be cast over it, just after the offertory. But why is it called the 
 “corporal,” or “the pall of the corporal”? A corporal means a covering 
 for the body. Do you think there may be some particular meaning 
 in this? It sounds very like a covering for the Saviour’s body. Then, 
 I say, this Roman ritualism sounds like the Roman teaching, that the 
 body of Christ is there on the table. 
 
 Letus goon. “ We trace the custom in France, through “ Hildebert 
 “of Le Mans, 1097, down to Durandus, Bishop of Mende, m 1286. In 
 “the meantime” (saith the latter) “while the priest is washing his 
 “hands (after the offertory has been sung, but before making the obla- 
 “tion)” (i.e. before he puts the alms on the holy table) ‘‘the Deacon 
 “arranges the corporal pall upon the altar, ete.” But is this merely 
 antiquarianism? Or is it brought forward by Mr Scudamore for us 
 to admire and adopt? In this particular case, we are not left to 
 conjectures, which some might think fair, and others hesitate to 
 receive; for in the same page Mr Scudamore says, “It appears to me 
 “that there would be a great advantage in this rule, if ἐξ could be intro- 
 “duced now among owrselves...... that the altar should be covered, dc. ; 
 “it would mark in a very striking manner the beginning of the more 
 “sacred part of the holy office.” So he wishes the corporal pall to be 
 adopted in our churches. Page 34 gives another sense to the words 
 * corporals,” York—‘ The priest shall then wash his hands, and place 
 “the host upon corporal cloths ;” and page 357, ‘‘ At the earliest period 
 “there was but one cloth employed, which after a time we find called 
 “the corporal.” In all the three usages, we see Roman customs 
 teaching Roman doctrine. 
 
 I proceed to No. 2, The Eucharistic Fan, ὃ vin. p. 359. ‘In the 
 “Greek Liturgy, this end” (the keeping away of dust and insects) 
 ‘‘is attained by the constant waving of a Fan, or by the veil. After the 
 ‘‘offertory, the Deacon takes the Asterisk” (of which presently), “and 
 ‘“‘makes the sign of the cross with it over the holy Disk” (Discus 
 is a plate or dish), “‘and having wiped it (the Disk) on the corporal, and 
 “kissed it, places it with the air,” ὁ.6. (the thinner, we should say the 
 muslin cloth that is to cover it), “‘and then he goes over to the right, and 
 ‘‘fans reverently over the Holy things, with the fan,” &e. “The custom 
 “ig very ancient, for we find it in the Apostolic Constitutions. Let 
 “two deacons on each side of the Altar hold a fan, made of thin 
 ‘‘membranes, or of peacocks’ feathers, or of fine linen, and gently drive 
 ‘‘away the winged insects. ‘The customs of Clugny’ says, to drive 
 “them away from the Sacrifice, and Altar, and from the Priest 
 “ himself.” ὃ 
 
 Now, (3) The Asterisk. In a note to page 359, “The Asterisk or 
 
LECTURE. 751 
 
 ‘“‘Star is formed of two thin bars of silver, at right angles, with the 
 “ends bent (down), a kind of cradle, placed over the holy bread, to 
 “prevent the particles of it being disordered by the veil.” 
 
 Regarding these three usages, one naturally asks: Does not all this 
 extreme care seem to teach, that, there is onthe holy table something more 
 than consecrated bread and wine, to be so honoured? But there is a 
 little more about this last ordinance of Clugny, and it interprets the 
 rest: “ When it (the Asterisk) is first put over the disk, in the office of 
 “the Prothesis” at the Credence table, “the Priest says, ‘and the star 
 **¢came and stood over where the young child was laid.’” This sounds 
 at least very like a teaching of the real bodily presence. It gives the 
 reason too, why the silver grating takes the name of ‘the Star or 
 *¢ Asterisk.” I would ask now: Is it not possible to multiply Roman 
 ceremonies of this sort till Bible truth disappears under Roman doc- 
 trine, and till real spiritual feeling is lost in the complicity of the 
 performances? A survey, like Mr Scudamore’s, of all that was ever 
 done in various early and medizeval and later churches at the celebration 
 of the mass, becomes a kind of museum of extinct and living ritualism. 
 And much of this some would bring into use again, in England and 
 Scotland and America, and in the churches of the colonies, if they 
 could; I cannot say that I wish to see and hear of their having great 
 success. But I wish I thought there was no danger that some more of 
 these vain superstitions and childish symbolisms may take root. I 
 fancy that the folly of man as he is, fallen and unconverted, is far 
 greater than philosophers admit, or most people imagine! And I 
 really think that the one protection to each one of us, against these 
 follies and sins, is to love Jesus Christ, and to hold living communion 
 with Him day by day. If I see my Saviour present in the Spirit to 
 my living faith, I want not His body crucified again for me in the 
 mass, nor all these fancies of man, to teach me that it is. The sacrifice 
 was on Calvary, once for all. There my Passover Lamb was slain, 
 There were my sins atoned for; and of that death the Lord’s Supper is 
 the simple ordained figure, type, symbol, and representation. That is the 
 reason why there is all the difference in the world (though Augustine 
 failed to see it) between “the representation of a sacrifice,” and 
 “‘a representative sacrifice.” I commemorate Christ’s death, and in so 
 doing I draw from the Heavenly Treasury, the precious blessings that 
 flow from His death. I do not want my devotion diverted and distracted 
 by all these feeble unauthorized Roman symbols. “Ὁ but,” says one, 
 “you make the sacraments empty signs of an absent Lord.” This sort 
 of language (which has unhappily crept in where it should never have 
 appeared) deserves a little notice, and I will give it a reply, and we 
 
752 APPENDIX I. 
 
 will say something too about the words, “an absent Lord ;” and then 
 we shall be able to deal with Mr Orby Shipley as has been promised to 
 you. 
 
 I have read a good deal about “bare and empty signs,” in Greek, 
 in Latin, and in English writers; and it almost always comes from 
 those who want to make out the direct opposite to the sacraments being 
 the blessed and fruitful sign of Christ’s body. It comes from those who 
 want to prove that there is a presence of the real natural body itself, in 
 some way or other. Some say, “we will not dispute about the mode 
 ‘of the presence of Christ’s body. The Romans are wrong in fixing upon 
 “the mode of trans-substantiation, and Luther was wrong in fixing the 
 *‘ mode of con-substantiation. We only say Christ’s body is there in some 
 “mode or other.” To aut such, I reply, ‘‘ But Christ’s body is not there 
 “in any mode at all—in any mode whatever.” “ His natural body (you 
 “remember) is in Heaven and not here,” So the sigus are empty “signs,” 
 as they are empty of His body ; just as the sepulchre was empty, after He 
 had risen; and as to “an absent Lord,” His body is absent, for it is 
 in Heaven and not here. But do we say that such empty signs are 
 empty of blessing, ‘“ merely commemorative”? I say solemnly, God 
 forbid the very thought. They are as full of Christ to each of us, 
 as we have faith to receive. And, again, does the absence of the body 
 cause the absence of Christ Himself,—of Christ the Son of God? No, 
 His Divine presence is with us, though His human presence is not. 
 And when He said “Lo! I am with you,’ He meant His Divine 
 presence, —His presence as God; and not His presence as man; for the 
 manhood is at God’s right hand in Heaven; it is in Heaven, and [ποῦ 
 here: and so of all similar passages. 
 
 We partake then of His most precious body and blood “in a figure ;” 
 for the body is as far away from us as earth is frem Heaven. There 
 should be no mistake about this; for Hallam argues that the presence 
 of a natural body is a question of yes or no. It is here, or it is there; 
 and if it is there, it is not here. But some go to illustrations. “The 
 “sun is present by his rays.” I reply that it is a good thing that his 
 rays only are present, and that the sun is not present, for from all we 
 learn about tens of thousands of miles of burning gas being but a jet 
 of his photosphere or circumvolute of fire, we and our globe should be at 
 once reduced to a cinder. The sun’s rays are present, but the sun is 
 not; and so Christ’s grace is present, but Christ’s body is not. But 
 again, as to Christ’s body being a source in itself of benefits. Is it 
 not a pure fiction of mistaken persons? The body of Jesus did not 
 raise the woman’s only daughter; the body only uttered Christ’s words ; 
 the body or hand touched, but the Spirit of Christ did the miracle. 
 
LECTURE. | Goo 
 
 It was Christ, not Christ’s mere touch, that raised her. And so now 
 it is Christ that blesses us in the Supper, not His body, even if it 
 were there. But though He is present in His Godhead, His body is 
 not: it is in Heaven, and not here. 
 
 One thing more about absence and presence, Surely never was a 
 greater error of language and of thought than to say or to imagine that 
 Christ’s manhood is present wherever His Godhead is present, and, 
 therefore, that if the Son of God is omnipresent, His body is omnipresent 
 too. Remember, the Godhead and the manhood are united, “ not by 
 “confusion of substance, but only by unity of person.” The Deity that 
 is everywhere is united to the manhood that is in Heaven. 
 
 May I take an illustration from the most exact of sciences? If a 
 marble is tied to the earth’s sphere, Is that marble present at the 
 earth’s antipodes? Is it everywhere wherever the earth is? Or is it 
 anywhere but just at the part where it is united? Just so the manhood 
 of Christ, limited in nature, whether glorified or not, is present where it 
 touches the Godhead in heaven, and not in any other spot or place 
 whatever of the universal presence of His Godhead. O, if people 
 would but enlarge and raise their ideas of the unbounded majesty of 
 Gop, methinks they would not be confusing its capacity with the 
 bounded nature of any manhood, even with that spotless manhood 
 which the Son of God took upon Him for our full salvation. Ὁ, Christ’s 
 body may well be absent from the earth, for it occupies but a small 
 space, at most, in Heaven. But His Deity is everywhere; it encircles 
 me on every side ; I find it on every hand; I am never out of its bound- 
 less omnipresence, or absent from it at all; and it never leaves me, nor 
 is absent from me. But the very glory of the body of Christ is, that it is 
 really man. Asa man it suffered; and as a man it sits on the right 
 hand of the eternal throne: and I find in the Son of God who is united 
 to it, unbounded power everywhere. But I find the human sympathy 
 in the Son of Man, who is raised above the heavens, who is passed into 
 Heaven. 
 
 Men and brethren, we ascend in thought at times into the highest 
 places, but we have to come down and fulfil our duties on earth; and so 
 have we now to descend from these nobler thoughts, and to deal in the 
 spirit of Christian truth and honour with the book of the Rev. Mr 
 Orby Shipley. The details about him are as follows: He is not marked 
 as having taken any honours at Cambridge; and he appears to be 
 simply an author; no mention being made of any cure or curacy that 
 he has ever held. His first publication was on the Four Cardinal 
 Virtues, and he advocated in a note the disunion of Church and State. 
 The second publication was an “ Ecclesiastical Glossary.” More lately 
 
 He II. 48 
 
754. : APPENDIX I. 
 
 he published the “Female Glory: Life of the Holy Virgin,” price 
 10s. 6d. But his chief notoriety is as an Hssayist, on his own account, 
 and in connection with others, on church questions. I now proceed 
 to the preface of his book, which has fifty pages of close print, 12mo. 
 The book itself has 218 pages besides. But what is the nature of this 
 book ? 
 
 He says, his book is ‘to furnish a hand-book to the priest, at the 
 “time of Divine Service.” We had thought that our Book of Common 
 Prayer was the one and only guide; and that the Clergy had promised 
 to use it in public, and “none other.” Yet he mentions “ previous 
 ‘* Altar-Books. of much value, which have adapted fewer portions or 
 “more of the missal of the Western (i.e. of the Roman) Canon of the 
 ‘* Mass, and with greater or less success have incorporated them with the 
 Office of the Church of England.” We pause here a moment. It 
 takes away our breath! Many Altar-books published, combining sun- 
 dry parts of the Romish Prayer Book of the Mass with the Church 
 of England Communion Service, for public use in Churches! Could 
 you have believed this? You, at least, that are old enough to remember 
 thirty or forty or fifty years back—could you have expected to hear of 
 the use of many Altar-books in public in our own Churches! Many 
 parts of the idolatrous Mass-book blended with our admirable and 
 (I say it after much inquiry and consideration) our almost and, might I 
 not say, our altogether Protestant Communion Service! Is it not 
 amazing, that to such an extent have disloyalty and defection spread, 
 a3 to have brought the public services in so many of our Churches so far 
 into conformity with the public services in the Churches in communion 
 with Rome? I cannot abstain from saying, that if any one thing above 
 all other puts the Church of England in danger, it is such a thing as this. 
 Perhaps some of you have been startled to read the language of that 
 good scholar, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, Dr Ellicott; that 
 a bona fide conspiracy, of wide extent, has been formed, and is going on, 
 to transfer our Church to the allegiance of the Communion of Rome. I 
 fancy that by hearing the little which I have already quoted from these 
 two books, you see that the Bishop’s strong assertion is fully justified. 
 But we must go on. Mr Shipley explains that those “many Altar- 
 ‘books were not deemed by many to have enough of the Canon of the 
 “Mass of Rome incorporated with them, so that they had to be supple- 
 “mented by Manuscript Additions or Printed Translations from the 
 ‘same source.” But he thinks that his present work, “the Ritual of 
 “the Altar” “will be found to contain all the prayers and every direction 
 ‘from the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass, by which the Liturgy of the 
 * English Church may be supplemented from those rich stores of Ritual 
 
LECTURE. 755 
 
 “and devotion, which are contained in the venerable Latin type of the 
 “office for offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice.” So he has laboured to 
 do the business thoroughly; and now every rubric and every prayer of 
 the Romish Mass-book, that is at all suitable for our use, is printed in 
 the same volume with our own Communion Service, in order that 
 Clergymen may, to so great an extent, break their promise at every 
 celebration of this holy rite, and may from time to time add more and 
 more to our Service from the Canon of the Mass of the Church of Rome, 
 in proportion as they find their congregations willing to bear it. Mark 
 this, I pray you. In page 42, he says, ‘‘ It is wise in the Priest to accus- 
 “tom his people to revived catholic customs with as little as may be to 
 “scandalize them. So it is of much importance in the use of the devo- 
 “ tions,” (6. the interpolated parts from the Mass-book), “to abstain 
 “from lengthened interruptions in the course of Divine Worship.” Now, 
 for the meaning of this. I gather from this and from other passages, that 
 the way of procedure is this: The officiating Minister cannot pronounce 
 aloud anything not printed in our own Book of Common Prayer 
 without peril of a suit at law; but he can pause while a piece is being 
 recited by him from the Mass-book, as directed in Mr Shipley’s book, but 
 that portion he cannot utter aloud, he must say it to himself; and any 
 of his people who are sufficiently enlightened by his Shilling Manual, 
 “The Divine Liturgy and Daily Sacrifice,” 11th Edition, published for 
 their use by Masters, can be reciting to themselves whatever it gives 
 them from or concerning those same Mass-book Prayers, which the 
 Priest is repeating to himself. Thus a Bishop cannot touch the 
 Minister, because the Bishop can prove nothing beyond the Minister’s 
 having in hand these Supplementary Prayer Books of Mr Shipley’s, 
 and making pauses according to them. But what do you think is 
 Mr Shipley’s justification and apology for doing this? To make assur- 
 ance doubly sure, I first take from page twenty, another utterance of 
 the declaration about this book. ‘ Every prayer that could be incor- 
 “porated with, and each rubric that could be adapted to the use of our 
 “own Office, has been transplanted from the Ordinary and Canon of 
 “the Latin Mass into the Liturgy of the Church of England.” And 
 now what is his defence for doing this? ‘To that form of words to 
 “which we are by our position pledged,” (i.e. the Church of England 
 Service), “have been added those other forms, to which we are only in 
 “one degree less related; to which we have a proper and filial right ; 
 ‘““and to which our homage is only one degree less due than to the 
 Church of England.” That is to say, because we are born, as the Pope 
 wrote to the German Emperor, within the geographical bounds of the 
 Western branch of the Holy Catholic Church, we are members of that 
 
 43—2 
 
756 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Church by Divine obligation: and, Ist, we have a proper right, as sons 
 of that Western Church (of which no legislation can deprive us), to use 
 its Mass Services; and, 2nd, our homage is only one degree lessdue to 
 that Church than to the Church of England. Putting it the other way 
 —the Church of England is only one degree more entitled to their 
 allegiance, and one degree more in possession of a right to demand that 
 al] these Ministers should obey her and use her appointed Services, than 
 the Church of Rome is entitled to their allegiance, and can demand that 
 these Ministers should use her Mass Service too, as far as they can 
 bring it in, I only wonder how much this one degree of difference 
 is. And I now ask, Whether you do not entirely justify Bishop 
 Ellicott’s arraigning them as in a conspiracy to carry over our Church 
 stealthily and by degrees into the lap of Rome? Is the Bishop right or 
 is he not? Has he at all overstated the facts? And what think you, 
 Christian Brethren and Christian Sisters, of the morality of this whole 
 movement, of which Mr Shipley’s book is a part? We speak plainly. 
 The case requires it. Is there not a cause ? 
 
 Do any of you doubt whether Mr Shipley can mean all this? Well, 
 Τ honour you for doubting it as long as you can. But what will you 
 say to his words in page 18, “ But a further and more powerful argu- 
 “ment,” Mr Shipley says, may be adduced for the practice he recommends 
 (and what are his words ?), ‘‘ For employing additional devotions secreto.” 
 “ Additional devotions secreto, and optional Rubrics openly, in our 
 “ Office of the Mass.” I must tell you that in a note, page 18, he justifies 
 “the return to this old English word, Mass,” though our Reformers, as 
 you know, pointedly cast it away. He also there justifies returning to 
 the term, “saying Mass,” in the time of ‘celebrating the Holy Com- 
 “munion.” But I proceed. In a note, page 19, he justifies his secret 
 “additions” on the ground that Bishop Overall, in his time, used to 
 interpolate a Romish Prayer in the Service. In the same way further 
 on, he justifies “‘ reserving the consecrated bread,” to be used again in 
 Services without fresh consecration. This is a very old custom. There 
 is “a Liturgy of this Presanctified” in connection with it, printed 
 in “the Divine Liturgies;” and Mr Shipley justifies the practice, be- 
 cause the late Bishop Longley used once, as he says, to allow it to 
 be done. All this is in the face of our Church’s saying in the Ar- 
 ticle, “It is not to be reserved or lifted up.” But once more, to 
 prove to you that Mr Shipley does recommend the use of ex secreto 
 additions, taken from the Canon of the Roman Mass; hear how he jus- 
 tifies it, page 16, “‘ The lawfulness of these additions will eventually be 
 “recognised, when it is further perceived that nothing incongruous, or out 
 “of harmony with the mind of the English Church, has been inserted 
 
LECTURE. 751 
 
 ‘‘ within the limits of her Liturgy.” This he thinks wants a note to help 
 it off, lest it should appear to any one absolutely untrue. What is the 
 note? “The mind of the Church ” (he does not now say the mind of the 
 English Church, but the mind of the Church), “must be interpreted IN A 
 ‘(CATHOLIC SENSE.” “Why?” He gives this reason—‘ Inasmuch as 
 “the Church of to-day is identically the same (in essence, in authority 
 “and power, in faith and sacraments) with the Ancient Church.” 
 What is this but insinuating that, let English Reforming Authorities 
 decree what they will; let our Reformed Rule be what it may; let 
 present authority put forth what additional orders it pleases; nothing 
 will have any validity with them: they have simply to say, ‘‘ they cannot 
 ‘‘believe any thing is meant by us contrary to the catholic sense of the 
 ‘“Church. It would be too dreadful to suppose such a thing.” So 
 authorities may enjoin, and Mr Shipley’s friends may subscribe ; but it 
 does not alter the case: they are not bound, if it is against Catholic 
 Antiquity! So Mr Shipley continues, “The Prayers ” (ὦ. 6. the ex secreto 
 additions), “which the celebrant is directed to pray,” (directed, ὁ. 9. 
 by Mr Shipley’s book) “are those which Catholic Christendom im tts 
 “ Western phase has sanctioned; with which therefore a Catholic Priest 
 “may loyally worship.” Loyally—to whom? Why to the Western 
 Branch of the Catholic Church, not loyally to the Church of England. 
 “The Rubrics which he is enjoined to observe are those which the same 
 “august body” (ὦ. ὁ. the Communion of the West, z.e. of Rome) ‘has 
 “for ages employed, and which, therefore, Anglican Clergy may law- 
 “fully adopt.” I think you are now satisfied as to what Mr Shipley’s 
 recommendations are; and you have some idea by what authorities his 
 followers feel themselves bound; and by what authorities they do not 
 feel themselves bound at all. There is, nevertheless, in his preface, a long 
 and subtie chain of similar sophistry, whether they are bound by Eng- 
 land’s Supreme Court of Appeal, page 45. 
 
 You can at once understand such terms in it, as ‘State Tyranny in 
 ‘‘Church Government.” ‘Secular Interference in matters Spiritual.” 
 “ Judge-made Law,” &e., ending “ We elect to obey God and the Divine 
 “ Law,” (ὦ. 6. Catholic Antiquity), “rather than man and human law.” 
 This sort of conclusion is said to have been well met, by a late Bishop of 
 London. He objected to a young Clergyman’s wearing one of the 
 newly introduced clerical robes. “Ὁ, my lord,” said the young man, 
 “T wear it on the authority of St Ambrose.” ‘I would have you 
 “know,” said the Diocesan, “that Ambrose is not your Bishop; but 
 “Tam.” And his lordship might have added, “and that you do not 
 “belong to the Church of Milan, or to the Church as it was in the 
 ‘Fourth Century, but to the Church of England.” 
 
758 APPENDIX I. 
 
 I have told this story because I partly imagine you have had 
 almost enough, at least from me, here to night, about Mr Orby Shipley 
 and his singular reasonings. I am fonder of strong arguments than 
 of violent words: but ought I not to say, that his conclusions are 
 nothing short of excuses for Kcclesiastical Rebellion? What would be 
 said in secular matters, if a person shook himself free from some civil 
 laws that he did not like, on the plea that they were not comprehended 
 in the Pandects of Justinian, or in the Laws of the Emperor Julian? 
 But they will reply, “Ὁ, but the Church is different! She has Divine 
 * Authority.” It is just to that point that these gentlemen must come 
 at last—the Divine Authority of the Church, by which she has trodden 
 on the necks of sovereign and people too; only we happen at the 
 Reformation to have cast off this so-called Divine Supremacy of the 
 Roman Church, or of any Church. “General Councils may err, and 
 ‘have erred, even in matters of faith,” and ‘they can only be called at 
 “the Sovereign will of Princes;” another Sovereignty than the Pope’s. 
 Away, then, with the dominion of the General Western Church over us, 
 We acknowledge it not. We are free to obey our Queen, and to pass 
 and to maintain and obey whatever laws we think proper and right. 
 
 We are a British church, under the constitution of the British 
 Empire. The authorities of our country make our church’s laws ; for 
 we are constitutionally represented by our whole constituted authorities, 
 according to the legal framework of our land. Disestablish the church ; 
 and she may go, or any part of her may go, and nestle under the wing 
 of the Pope. But at present the body of the English people have to 
 make fitting laws for our church. In a word, commons, lords, and 
 queen, prescribe to us our rights and liberties ; and our national courts 
 of law, with our judges at the head, interpret the laws on which our 
 rights and liberties in church, as in state, stand. What kind of rights 
 and liberties in church matters would you, the laity, and we, the 
 working clergy, yea, and the dignified clergy, and the bishops too, enjoy 
 under the shadowy but very substantial tyranny of Roman ritualism 
 (i.e. with the Roman Curia, as the sole expounder of rites, and 
 services, and dues of all kinds)? perhaps you have already received 
 some idea. 
 
 It were very easy to continue, twenty minutes or half-an-hour 
 longer, similar portions with “secret additions, and open rubrics,” 
 which Mr Shipley prints to use with our Communion Service. I could 
 make you feel more pain and more indignation than you have felt yet. 
 There is no lack of matter to arouse half-sleeping Protestantism! 
 I confess I shrink from it. It is a kind of desecration. The supper of 
 the Lord is a sacred thing, though it has, in the mass, become the 
 
LECTURE. 759 
 
 chosen dwelling-place of much superstition; yes, I must say it, “of 
 “many an unclean and hateful bird.” Yes, I believe the corruptions of 
 the sacred supper are, verily, guilty things in the sight of God, and 
 have done immeasurable evil in the world. Must I give you one 
 specimen? Perhaps I ought to do so—one specimen, I assure you, out 
 of scores that 1 could adduce, and I think it will suffice. It is in 
 Ρ. 66 in English, and in the opposite page in Latin. It shows what 
 Mr Shipley makes of this part of the prayer at consecrating the bread 
 and wine, in this sacrament. ‘ Who, in the same night that He was 
 “betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it 
 “and gave it to His disciples, saying ‘Take, eat.’” I have not men- 
 tioned the interpolated open Rubrics up to this point; but here is a 
 long one, after our Rubric about the minister putting his hand on the 
 bread ; ‘‘ And here holding the host with the thumb and fore-finger of 
 “both hands, and bowing his head over the altar, he shall pronounce 
 “the words of consecration, distinctly and attentively, in one breath 
 “and without pause ;” then follow, in the largest capitals, as in the 
 Roman mass-book, the gracious and simple, but much perverted and 
 misunderstood words of Jesus, “This is My body which is given for 
 “you,” and then a second open Rubric, ‘ Having said the words of 
 “consecration, he shall immediately genuflect,” (ὦ. 6. kneel) “and 
 “worship, then rise and elevate the host, while he repeats the words 
 “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Then follows a third open Rubric; 
 “Then he shall replace the host on the paten, and again worship; and 
 “shall not disjoin his fingers and thumbs except when the host must be 
 “handled, until after the ablutions. Then, having uncovered the 
 “chalice, or if at high mass, the deacon having uncovered it, he shall 
 “proceed, and so with the cup in a similar way.” Then another open 
 Rubric; ‘Then he shall replace the chalice on the corporal, or if at 
 “high mass the deacon shall cover it with the pall, and again worship.” 
 
 ne Latin on the opposite page is for the more advanced churches. 
 “Kneeling, he adores; arises, shews it to the people, sets it down, 
 “covers it, and again adores.” 
 
 Spare me from all comment. It is too humbling and too sad 
 that this should be done in many churches of our yet Protestant 
 communion ! 
 
 If I have thus ventured to take two books that have come within 
 my reach, and to open to you a little of “‘ the perilous stuff,” and foreign 
 ritual, that they contain and recommend, and if I exhort you and all 
 the freemen of England, to look to your rights and liberties, and to 
 your present control over England’s church, that they may not be 
 unawares, on some sudden political emergency, violently wrenched from 
 
760 APPENDIX I. 
 
 your grasp ; and if I most earnestly recommend, that you should make 
 yourselves masters of these questions, and talk of them, with your 
 Protestant wives, and with your sons and your daughters, the pillars 
 and flowers of your English Protestant homes; may not I also, in 
 giving this good advice to you all, fall back on the title of my lecture 
 and say, Is there not a cause 1 
 
 Note. This lecture was printed entire in the widely circulated County 
 Paper about two months before the Primate in the House of Lords 
 called public attention to these things and brought forward and exposed 
 certain cards to be used in congregations for the very purposes here 
 delineated. The Primate has also expressed, in words which have 
 become historical, a conviction that a conspiracy is formed for introducing 
 wien doctrines and practices, particularly from the Roman Communion, 
 into the English Church. I need not here cite his Grace’s well-known 
 language. I only call attention to the fact that this lecture was 
 delivered and the following correspondence arose before and not after 
 the great movement on this subject in our House of Peers. 
 
 Of the consequences of the Archbishop’s open statement in the House 
 of Lords it would be premature to express an estimate, for although 
 between four and five years have passed, the Greek proverb holds, “We 
 ‘are yet in the rue.” 
 
 Every one knows that it was thought expedient to insert in Mr 
 Gurney’s Bill for the purification of Public Worship a clause empower- 
 ing each Bishop to put a stop to any process which he may think unad- 
 visable. The effect of this may be traced in the following extract from 
 a London paper of Dec. 27, 1878, which I give without the names and 
 without note or comment. It describes the present decision of the 
 Diocesan regarding the rites to be used in three churches, as to which 
 an appeal had been made. ‘The right rev. prelate disallows altar-lights, 
 “the mixing of the chalice during the administration of the Holy Com- 
 “munion, circular wafers, and the signing of the communicants with the 
 ‘Sacrament before delivering it to them; but he declines to forbid the 
 “use of stoles, the Eastward Position, the singing of the Agnus Dei, 
 ‘processions of clergy and choir at entering the church, elevation, at 
 ‘‘Jeast to a certain extent, the kneeling of the priest after receiving in 
 ‘either kind, the washing of the sacred vessels in the church at the 
 ‘close of the service, bowing towards the Holy Table; the use of a 
 ‘credence ; and the placing of a metal cross on the altar-ledge.” Is 
 the Reformation to stop where we are? Can it stop there? Must it 
 not go backward or forward? But this may well introduce the fifth 
 of the following letters, which happens not to have been destroyed. 
 
FOUR LETTERS IN THE SAME COUNTY PAPER. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 On Mr Hebert’s late Lecture. 
 Sir, 
 
 If I venture to make a few observations on Mr Hebert’s lecture, 
 as reported in your last number, it is not wholly, if indeed it be more 
 than slightly, in consequence of his having singled me out as the object 
 of personal remark, and occupied no small part of the time at his 
 disposal with an account of a certain work of mine, To adopt the 
 motto of his lecture, ‘‘Is there not a cause?” when misrepresentations, 
 however unintentional, are made, which are calculated to mislead the 
 ill-informed, to stir up bad feeling, and to give our enemies occasion to 
 rejoice by proclaiming, truly or untruly, that dissensions, which he 
 considers so grave, exist within our Zion ? 
 
 Mr Hebert is evidently aware that my book is to a great extent a 
 repertory of antiquarian knowledge. When, therefore, he found that 
 those details of medieval Ritualism, which he thought good to extract 
 from it, excited such “surprise” and “sensation” among his hearers, 
 would it not have been better, let me ask, if he had warned them a 
 little more plainly not to suppose that I must admire everything that 
 T had occasion to mention !—if, for example, he had said something like 
 this: ‘“ Now, pray do not misunderstand me. I do not wish to bear 
 ‘false witness against my neighbour. The author gives us no reason to 
 ‘suppose that he wishes to introduce the Fan, the Asterisc, the Air, 
 “ &c,, among us. In fact his feeling against an excessive and unmeaning 
 “ritual is shown in several places in the book.” If he had had the 
 means of knowing it, he might have added that no one has written more 
 than myself against that favourite practice of the so-called “ Ritualists,” 
 non-communicating attendance, and those other innovations to which it 
 ministers. I assume that he did not know this; for my writings on 
 those subjects are not mentioned in the list which he has given, 
 
 But there is one passage in the lecture on which I must particularly 
 remark. Mr Hebert quotes me as saying, “It appears to me that there 
 
762 APPENDIX 1. 
 
 “would be a great advantage in this [the] rule if it could now be intro- 
 “duced among ourselves... that the altar should be covered, ke. ; it 
 “would mark, in a very striking manner, the beginning of the more 
 “sacred part of the holy office.” Upon this he observes, “So he wishes 
 “the corporal pall to be adopted in our churches.” [Sensation.] What 
 I wrote (p. 304) was as follows: “that the altar should be covered 
 “ between the Nicene Creed, or the Sermon, and the Offertory. It would 
 “not only meet some existing inconveniences, but would mark,” ἄς, 
 Now my meaning lies in the words which I put in Italics, bat which 
 Mr Hebert omits. He surely cannot be ignorant that the Church 
 orders that ‘the table at Communion-time shall have a fair white linen 
 “cloth upon it.” It is simply this to which I referred. We are not 
 told when to cover the table with it. It is generally done before 
 Morning Prayer ; but I ventured to suggest that a better time would be 
 after the Nicene Creed. The reasons may not be apparent to those who 
 have not considered the matter well; but the remark is certainly 
 not worthy of the “sensation” which Mr Hebert created by his com- 
 ment on my mutilated sentence. 
 
 Now I am very glad that Mr Hebert has made this strange mistake. 
 It may suggest to him and to those who heard him a wholesome doubt 
 whether he has quite understood that far more serious subject in 
 reference to which he says that I contradict myself. I shall not enter 
 on it here. It is no fit matter for such a discussion as the unhappy 
 ventilation of it before a mixed and excited audience on Monday last 
 would naturally prelude. The key to Mr Hebert’s difficnlty on this 
 point lies in those Scriptures to which he refers his hearers. May he 
 and they find it, as the answer to prayer and the reward of quiet study 
 pursued in devout retirement, as unto Him who seeth in secret, and use 
 it when found to their soul’s health and to His glory. 
 
 If, in conclusion, I say a little about myself, perhaps the occasion 
 will in a kindly judgment be thought to justify it. My idol through 
 life, if I have had one, has been historical truth. A revealed religion 
 must have its roots in the soil of history, and indifference to historical 
 truth must end in indifference to religion. With this conviction I 
 cannot be a party man, though my independence may sometimes give 
 offence and cause me to be misunderstood. I can admire men of all 
 parties, and sympathise with them in many things; but I have never 
 found them the better for party spirit and party action. My constant 
 aim and desire, therefore, has been simply to approve myself as a 
 consistent member and minister of the Church of England, which 
 I know, upon every relevant ground of assurance, to be the most 
 faithful of any in the world to Holy Scripture, as interpreted to us by 
 
LETTER I. 763 
 
 the teaching and practice of primitive Christendom, Those who stand 
 on this solid foundation will be little affected by the well-meant but 
 mistaken denunciations of Mr Hebert and his friends; but it may be 
 far otherwise with younger, less instructed, and less stable persons. 
 A long and sad experience has shown how surely the sense of injus- 
 tice will by degrees incline a too dependent or over-sensitive mind 
 to seck peace wherever it is promised, though apart from truth and 
 right. The Church Association is thus at the present time the great, 
 though unconscious, ally of Rome. Nothing of course can wholly 
 excuse impatience of trials which God permits, or the choices of self- 
 will, the pride of private judgment, or levity of change ; but will they 
 be accounted free from guilt, who by their misdirected zeal have created 
 the temptation for their weak brother ? 
 
 Mr Roebuck has lately called for a National party. Are we never 
 in his senge to see a Church party? When will men learn to proclaim 
 and act out their unity in essentials, and cease to magnify and aggravate 
 their differences in lesser matters? When will they endeavour to keep 
 the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace ? 
 
 W. E. SCUDAMORE. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 On the Rev. Mr Scudamore’s Letter. 
 Sir, 
 
 A few words are due from me both to your readers and to Mr 
 Scudamore in answer to his letter. He must not take it amiss that 
 I do not plead guilty to his two charges. First, I cannot confess that 
 by omitting the words which he sets in italies I led to any mistake, 
 seeing they were only omitted for brevity, and words in every respect 
 equivalent had just been given by me. His words which I omitted are 
 “between the Nicene Creed or the Sermon and the Offertory,’ and 
 I had said “the point in the Service in which after the Sermon the 
 ‘‘minister returns to the Lord’s Table to begin reading the sentences 
 ‘Cof the offertory.” I had thus taken pains to point out the very time 
 when Mr Scudamore wants the pall to be spread. His quotations given 
 by me say again and again “after the offertory.” 
 
 But I must add a little about corporal palls. The Reformers knew 
 all about them, and they avoided the words entirely. But did they 
 retain the thing? First, “the fair linen cloth” spread on the table 
 cannot be a corporal pall, at least if my dictionary of Patristic Latinity 
 
764 APPENDIX I. 
 
 is right, for it defines “corporale,” that which covers the sacrifice. 
 A pall alone may be almost any cloth of state and honour; but a 
 corporal pall is, with them, that which covers the sacramental elements. 
 Now our Reformers, in the Book of Common Prayer, appoint no 
 covering for the bread and wine at all, but only for what is left after all 
 have communicated—for the sake, I suppose, of decent respect. So 
 little feeling had they towards the medizval corporal pall, and so little 
 inclined would they have been to adopt Mr Scudamore’s proposal. 
 
 His second charge is that of omission, viz. that I ought to have said 
 that (1) he was opposed to “ unmeaning ceremonies.” Why the spirit 
 of all my lecture was that there is only too much meaning in all these 
 ceremonies, only that their aim is Romish—by Romish ritual to cover 
 and introduce Romish doctrine. (2) I ought to have given him credit 
 for opposing the retaining of non-communicants in Church ; and, most of 
 all, (3) that I ought not to think that he wishes these things, or any of 
 them, except I suppose the corporal pall, introduced into our churches 
 and into those of America and the colonies. I certainly did not say that he 
 had no such wish, for I did not so interpret his book. Why, Sir, if our 
 present Primate was obliged to utter expressions of warning in his first 
 charge, and the practices which he reprehended are known to be growing 
 almost daily, may I not look upon many portions of the Church as 
 occupied with persons, who, to my eye, are very like boys fond of 
 playing with fire, and putting the Church in the greatest possible 
 danger? Then what would one think of that man who gathered from 
 all ages receipts for these dangerous fireworks and scattered them wide 
 amongst these boys? Is not he in a great degree responsible for the 
 consequences ? 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 CHARLES HEBERT. 
 
 Sr Marearer’s, Lowestorr, March 10, 1874. 
 
 LETTER III, 
 Sir, 
 
 It was ill-advised of Mr Hebert to deliver, where and as he did, 
 his crude sentiments on mysteries so deep, so inscrutable, and so awful ; 
 having been delivered, it had been well if the lecture had been suffered 
 to pass and be forgotten. Theologians will easily point out the mistakes 
 and fallacies of the effusion, but, in addressing on such topics the 
 “unlearned and unstable,” who cannot know how entirely similar 
 heresies have been demolished by the greatest minds, to them as to 
 
LETTER III. 765 
 
 children, maxima debetur reverentia ; only on grave occasions, with all 
 solemnity of utterance, should those dread mysteries be unfolded. 
 
 It is not my province to defend the most consummate divine in the 
 diocese, to say the least, from the quite unfounded aspersions of the 
 lecturer; I leave him in that gentleman’s hands, and I must say I do 
 not envy hin. 
 
 But I hope, on account of those who will certainly be endangered, 
 that I may be allowed, with all the brevity possible, to expose the most 
 glaring and most deplorable of the fallacies in the place where they have 
 been detailed at such length and with so much particularity. 
 
 Respecting that most awful and inscrutable of mysteries, the human 
 nature of Christ and His presence with His commissioned agents in the 
 Church, Mr Hebert has three or four strange propositions. The first, 
 that Christ rose from the tomb in the same condition of body in which 
 He had lived and was crucified; the second, that there is distinction 
 between a real body and a spiritual; he says that a spiritual body is not 
 areal body. (This second proposition may be briefly dismissed ; for if 
 it be predicated of anything that is a body, it must be a real body.) 
 The third proposition of Mr Hebert’s is, that Christ's body will not 
 assume its glorified condition until His second coming. 
 
 With regard to the first proposition, —whereas divines have alleged 
 the Lord’s appearance among His disciples when the doors were shut 
 for fear of the Jews, in proof of a spiritual body, Mr Hebert is content 
 to assert (of his own knowledge) that the doors were somehow opened 
 for Him, in opposition to Dr Hammond, and I believe all divines of 
 eminence. But what is of more importance, he affirms that the Sacred 
 Body which arose from the tomb, which ascended into Heaven, which 
 sitteth at the Supreme right hand, is identically the same with that 
 which was crucified; not only in essence, but in conditions. This is 
 
 -self-confuted by its consequence; for in professing to pass without 
 explanation the means and manner how it was nourished during the 
 forty days’ converse with the disciples, Mr Hebert implies, of necessity, 
 that in Heaven it must need earthly nourishment. (Mr Hebert must 
 here be credited with a new heresy; unless, indeed, he have borrowed 
 the notion from Swedenborgianism.) But if that nourishment is not 
 needed, what becomes of the assertion that Christ’s body at the right 
 hand of the Father is in all respects identical with our natural bodies, 
 sin only excepted ? 
 
 Mr Hebert, fourthly, asserting (truly) that the Sacred Body is 
 always, until the discomfiture of his foes, at the Supreme right hand, 
 maintains that Christ is present with us only in His Divine nature; 
 thus separating His Divine nature from His humanity, which amounts 
 
766 APPENDIX I. 
 
 to that heresy of “dividing the substance” condemned by the Catholic 
 Church, and by that English branch of it whereof Mr Hebert is a 
 minister. Neither is the Divine nature alone, nor the human nature 
 alone, Christ, but the inseparable union of both; if, therefore, Christ be 
 not present with us in the body, He is not at all present. 
 
 I make no doubt of Mr Hebert’s honest zeal and right intention, 
 but it were well he should on such deep subjects apply to himself the 
 argumentum ad verecundiam. 
 
 EDW. WILSON. 
 
 Recrory, Torcrorr, 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 On the Rev. Mr Wilson's Letter. 
 
 Srr,—The object alike of lectures and letters is truth. I welcome 
 Mr Wilson’s entrance, and he will not complain if I find objections 
 to some of his statements. He remarks on what he terms my first 
 proposition, “Mr Hebert asserts (of his own knowledge) that the doors 
 “were somehow opened for our Lord, in opposition to Dr Hammond, 
 “and, I believe, all divines of eminence.” My enquiry was whether 
 the Scripture says that they were not opened. My words were, “ Who 
 “tells us that He went through closed doors? Why His mere word 
 “or will could have opened or closed them. Leave that matter. He 
 “could choose His own way.” I had looked into Hammond on St 
 John. He is silent on the subject in his commentary on John xx. 
 But “all other divines of eminence” are in opposition, at least Mr Wilson 
 believes they are. Whom shall I select as most answering to Mr 
 Wilson’s idea of a divine of eminence, both regarding the coming 
 through closed doors, and this being a proof that Christ’s body was 
 already changed? I fancy Mr Wilson would set Dr Whitby very high. 
 He writes thus on John xx. 19, “ Though it be an ancient opinion 
 “that Christ made His body to penetrate through the doors, yet it is 
 “both groundless and absurd, and contrary to the very design of 
 “Christ in coming to them. It is groundless, for why might not 
 ‘He by His power secretly open the doors, His disciples not per- 
 “ceiving it, as the angel opened the prison doors and gates to let out 
 “Peter, Acts xii. 10% It is absurd, for since Christ rose in that natural 
 “body which was crucified and laid in the grave, philosophy informs us 
 ‘that such a body could not penetrate through another more solid 
 
LETTER IV. 767 
 
 “body ; and to this agree those words of Cyril of Alexandria, ‘It is 
 
 «impossible that one body should go through another without cutting 
 
 “it or being cut;’ and, thirdly, this fancy destroys not only the end 
 “ of Christ’s then coming to them, but of all that He had said and done 
 “to convince them it was the same body that was crucified, in which He 
 “appeared to them.” And there is about as much more to the same 
 effect ; as also more on Luke xxiv. 
 
 Whom shall I adduce besides? It is almost a matter of option. 
 There are so many. Lange’s Bibelwerk, though opposed to my views, 
 quotes Baumgarten, Crusius, “‘ the doors had suddenly opened to the nod 
 “ of His divine Majesty.” But I was last week using Cardinal Cajetan, 
 the rival of Bellarmine, as an interpreter of the New Testament on the 
 Papal side after the Reformation. He says on the same chapter, re- 
 garding the body of our Lord, ‘Christ not only by words but by deeds 
 ‘testifies that He is the same that was crucified by showing to them 
 “His hands and His side. Hence we learn that in the hands and feet 
 ‘‘and side were the signs of the nails and the lance. For He showed 
 “them His hands and His side for this purpose, that by the signs of the 
 “nails and the lance they might know that they were the same hands, 
 “that ui was the same side.” Or St Luke xxiv., on the words handle 
 me, he says, ‘The flesh of Christ was of the same nature after His resur- 
 ‘rection as before.” 
 
 Would it not be surplusage to adduce many other writers to shew 
 that all eminent writers are noé in opposition, especially as I merely 
 argued from these questions from Holy Scripture, stating most carefully 
 that my argument against the human body of our Lord being present 
 in many places at once equally holds true if our Lord’s body was in 
 a glorified state when He rose. I wished to establish the argument of 
 our Church, that the natural body of Christ is in heaven and not on 
 earth, “It being contrary to the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at 
 “one time in more places than one.” To that question all the light of 
 Holy Scripture regarding the kind of body which rose from the grave is 
 evidently most important. 
 
 T have not brought forward commentators whom Mr Wilson might 
 hesitate to term eminent. Perhaps I had better translate what Beza 
 says, as his commentary on the New Testament is most highly esteemed, 
 on John xx. 19: “ Hither, therefore, the doors of that house where 
 “they assembled opened of their own accord, or even the walls them- 
 “selves were passable by Him, &c. Those, however, who gather that 
 “the body of Christ, after His resurrection, was subject to no limita- 
 “tions of place, and hence at last slip away to the opinion that the 
 “body of Christ is present everywhere in an invisible manner—I can- 
 
768 APPENDIX I. 
 
 “not say by what kind of reason they learn to draw such infer- 
 “ences.” 
 
 I much wish your space allowed me tu make a yet more valuable 
 quotation from Chemnitz, Doctor and Superintendent in the Church of 
 Brunswick, from his book on the two natures in Christ, which I hap- 
 pened to use the week before. He of course knew, like Whitby, that 
 the chief early fathers, Augustin, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, and others, 
 held to Christ’s passing through closed doors, and another opinion too, to 
 which I cannot allude; and yet he, like Cajetan, throws it aside, and, 
 with it, all the various explanations of Christ’s body being present in 
 several places at once. He casts them all over as untenable. Then 
 how does he escape believing with us that Christ’s expression, ‘“ This is 
 “my body,” is a figure? He simply says that the omnipotence of God 
 ean do physical impossibilities. We should say it is much easier to 
 believe that Christ spoke in a figure when he said, “ This is my body,” 
 as St Paul said, “That rock was Christ,” “This Agar is Mount Sinai 
 “in Arabia,” as we heard read yesterday. 
 
 I have neither time nor inclination to note Mr Wilson’s terms 
 respecting my lecture as “ill-advised and crude:” and, regarding 
 charges two and three I may be short. My lecture says or implies 
 (1) Body is real, of whatever kind; (2) It is only present in one 
 limited place at one time; and the words “real” and “really” are 
 superfluous respecting body; and I was tar from saying that Christ 
 had two bodies. I said that the natural body was to become a spiritual 
 or glorified body, 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 But as briefly as possible I must touch upon one error near the end 
 of his letter. He says that my assertion that “Christ is present with 
 “us only in His Divine nature is separating His Divine nature from 
 “His manhood, which amounts to the heresy of dividing the substance, 
 “condemned by the Catholic Church and by that English branch of 
 “it of which Mr Hebert is a minister.” I need only say let him turn 
 to the Athanasian Creed referred to, and he will see that “neither 
 “ confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance” is in the first part 
 of that creed; and refers to the three Persons in the Godhead being 
 of one substance, although they are three Persons; and _ therefore 
 it does not belong to the relation between Christ’s Godhead and His 
 humanity. 
 
 CHARLES HEBERT. 
 
 Lowrstort, March 16th, 1874. 
 
A LETTER. ; 769 
 
 THE following letter, suppressed in 1874, because of Dr ’s death, 
 is added here, not only on account of the important subject it raises, 
 but also in reference to Mr Orby Shipley, of whom we are now reading 
 in the public papers that in obedience to a kind of moral gravitation 
 he has, at length, through Monsignor Capel’s influence, been drawn 
 ever and absorbed into the great communion of Rome. 
 
 November, 1878. 
 
 Srr,—Dr ’s letter, dated Monday, August 10, gives the im- 
 pression that he does not think a clergyman’s standing with his back 
 to the people, when ke is using “The consecration prayer” at the 
 Lord’s supper, is i” itself of any consequence, if we did not “make it of 
 “consequence:” and that he thinks the way te return to peace in the 
 church of England is to make that and some other disputed points 
 optional; and he has given notice accordingly that he will make a 
 motion in convocation, of which he is a member, in faveur ef its being 
 made an open question. I know the Doctor by his book on tke Lord’s 
 supper, and I trust he will excuse me if I put forth a protest against the 
 proposed settlement, 
 
 He has a right to my reasons, and I will give them in the words of 
 Cranmer’s chaplain, Thomas Becon, from his “comparison between the 
 Lord’s Supper and the Pope’s Mass,” Vol. 111. p. 397, Parker Soc.’s 
 Edition, “Christ, when He sheuld minister the mysteries of His 
 “body and blood to His disciples, sat (ὦ, 6. reclined) at a table, beholding 
 “and looking upon them mest friendly and funviliarly.” Also he says, 
 “The massmonger altogether unhonestly” (this does not mean dis- 
 honestly) “and ungently” (this does not mean violently) “turning himself 
 “from the people, standeth at an altar, after the manner of Aharon, 
 “his back turned towards the people.” I have a little softened the last 
 clause. 
 
 Sir, I believe that the body of English people will resent and not 
 suffer the clergyman’s back to be turned upon them in the consecration 
 prayer, for the very reason whick Becon gives, who must have known 
 the mind of our chief Reformers; viz. that it is in direct contrariety 
 to what our Lord did er probably would have done; and because it is 
 exactly what zs done in the Reman canon of the mass; and it is what 
 Mr Orby Shipley recommends in the “General Rubrics” at the end of 
 his book on “The Ritual of the Altar.” In a word I am very much 
 persuaded that the mass of the people of England will say, as Becon 
 
 H. Il, 49 
 
770 ; APPENDIX I. 
 
 implies, that for him that is called the celebrant then to turn his 
 back on the people is a practice that has the savour of Popery and 
 not of Scriptural and Protestant Christianity: and therefore for the 
 sake of the church of England herself I hope it will never be 
 made optional. 
 
 I have the Roman Mass-book open before me on one side, and the 
 Rev. Orby Shipley’s book open before me on the other; and I do not 
 wish our sacred and Protestant Communion service to be made at all 
 like either the one or the other. 
 
 What does Dr mean by saying in his book on the Lord’s 
 Supper, p. 499: “The clergy are priests of priests, by whom the 
 “greatest of all possible sacrifices is ministered to them” (the people) ? 
 1 Dr really means us to understand that he holds that the Lord’s 
 supper is @ sacrifice and not only a sacrament, and that in fact he up- 
 holds the ‘altar priest and sacrifice” theory, it would not incline my 
 mind in favour of his recipe for procuring peace to our church at this 
 
 critical time. 
 
 A word more before I close about Chaplain Becon. I apprehend his 
 meaning in the words ‘most unhonestly and ungently turning away 
 “from the people” to be that no officiating Christian minister would 
 . willingly dishonour the people and treat them in so wneourteous a man- 
 ner by turning his back upon them and as it were shutting them out 
 from the sacred work going forward; and that the only reason can be 
 that he deems he has something in front of him which deserves a rever- 
 ence nothing short of adoration, so that all human considerations vanish ; 
 and he therefore places himself “in the middle of the altar towards it,” 
 and “profoundly bowing, &ec. &ec.,” says, in his heart at least, something 
 of this kind, “These gifts, these offerings, this holy and unspotted sacri- 
 “tice we offer, &c. &e.” Shipley, p. 204. 
 
 Is not the time approaching when we in England must eschew 
 “optional rubrics,” and be either Roman or English in all things re- 
 lating to the sacred supper 2 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 CHARLES HEBERT. 
 
 Lowestorr, August 11, 1874. 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 “WHAT NOTICES OF EVENING COMMUNION ARE TO 
 BE FOUND IN THE FATHERS OF THE THIRD AND 
 FOURTH CENTURIES ?” 
 
 An Address read at a large Clerical Meeting at Furness Abbey, 
 March 14, 1876, 
 
 By THE Rey. CHARLES HEBERT, D.D., 
 
 VICAR OF AMBLESIDE, 
 
 Tt is known to all who know anything of the early fathers that 
 they generally advocate the reception of the bread and wine in the 
 Lord’s supper in the morning: and that they generally expressly state 
 that the object in so doing is to receive them into the mouth before 
 men take any other food, deeming this to be a peculiar honour of which 
 the sacred bread and wine are most worthy: and that for this purpose 
 it is desirable to administer the holy communion at an early hour, lest 
 the people be tempted to break their fast before they receive it. It is 
 equally well known that they recognize that the example of our Lord at 
 its institution goes against these opinions and practices, inasmuch as He 
 gave the bread and wine to His apostles, not in the morning, but in 
 the evening, 
 remove from fasting; viz. at the time of the Paschal feast, viz. the 
 
 and also gave it at the time when they were at the furthest 
 
 bread, while they were eating, and the wine, when the feast had con- 
 cluded—so that no thought of its being desirable that the sacred 
 elements should be taken fasting can be supposed to have been in 
 our Saviour’s mind, or could be gathered from the narrative. Thirdly, 
 it is also well known that these fathers rest the above opinions and 
 practices on the ground of the church’s decrees ; and some affirm that 
 the church was directed to make such decrees by the teaching of the 
 Holy Ghost. Before this paper closes, extracts will be given from 
 a renowned letter of Augustine, which sets all this forth with great 
 clearness. 
 
 49—2 
 
liz APPENDIX IIL. 
 
 Nevertheless, neither Augustine nor any other father ventures upon 
 any proof that the church was taught of the Spirit, or directed by the 
 Apostles, when it gave forth these particular orders and opinions, or that 
 the church goes into any proof that the passages of Scripture to which 
 these fathers refer contain any real sanction of them. Yet the utier- 
 ances of the fathers, in favour of observing morning communion in order 
 that it may be received fasting, are so general, that an eminent M.P., 
 who is one of the foremost in dealing with church matters in the 
 House of Commons, ventured on an assertion in a pamphlet which he 
 published in November, 1874, and which drew considerable attention, 
 and was amply reviewed in the Zimes—that there is not to be found in 
 any of the early fathers a single word to shew that evening communions 
 were in existence in the early ages. We know that writers differ as 
 to the number of centuries which are to be included in this term, yet all 
 agree to include in it the 3rd and 4th centuries: so that whatever can 
 be extracted from accredited writers of those two centuries, to shew that 
 the practice of evening communions existed then in certain churches, is 
 distinctly to the point in question. Now first, if there be a writer 
 to whom men look as the primary organizer of a rather strong system of 
 visible churchmanship, it is admitted that Cyprian is he. For amid 
 several personal qualities in Cyprian, which all concur in admiring, 
 there stand out strong doctrinal preferences for church authority, about 
 which men are divided: and these make him at least a witness entirely 
 above suspicion, when he records a practice that was adverse to the 
 general current of feeling in the Christian churches. So let us first 
 take in hand some statements of this father. 
 
 About the middle of the 63rd letter (others make it Letter 3 of 
 Book 11.) to his former teacher Czecilian, in the midst of a discussion, 
 that both water and wine are necessary in the cup, we fall in with the 
 following words: ‘An illa 5101 aliquis contemplatione blanditur, quod 
 * etsi mane aqua sola offerri videtur, tamen cum ad conandum venimus 
 “mixtum calicem offerrimus.” ‘ Does any one solace himself with the 
 “thought, that, although it appears to be offered in the early morning 
 “with water alone, yet when we come to sup (together), we offer the 
 ‘mixed cup of wine and water?” I pass over the point that some were 
 most wrongly making the offering (as they called it) with water only, 
 without wine in the morning. I have to direct attention to the fact 
 that it was im the evening that wine mingled with water was used. 
 Cyprian’s argument is, that its being done by others in what he 
 judged the right way in the evening was no excuse for its being done in 
 a wrong mode in the morning. 
 
 Thus it incidentally comes to light that it was administered in 
 
AN ADDRESS. 773 
 
 Africa by some in the evening as well as in the morning ; and Cyprian 
 enters no protest against evening communion. How widely in Africa 
 this practice prevailed the passage does not shew. But he continues, 
 “Sed cum cceenamus, ad convivium nostrum plebem convocare non 
 “possumus, ut sacramenti veritatem (i.e. wine and water mingled) 
 “fraternitate omni presente celebremus.” “But when we sup, it is 
 “impossible to invite the multitude of the lower classes to our feast, 
 “that we may (then) celebrate with all the brethren present together 
 “the true and complete sacrament.” He wishes that they could always 
 have all the common people at these evening feasts; that thus the 
 whole fraternity might be present when the Lord’s supper was admi- 
 nistered in its completeness. He then refers to the original institu- 
 tion, “For indeed the Lord*did not offer the mingled cup in the 
 “morning but after supper” (ὦ. 6. in the evening). The next sentence 
 ought I think to be printed as a question. “Numquid?” ‘Ought we 
 “then at all to celebrate the Lord’s feast after a supper, that we may 
 “thus celebrate the mixed cup in the Lord’s feast that will be largely 
 “frequented?” The Latin is, “ Numquid ergo Dominicum post ceenam 
 “celebrare debemus ut sic mixtum calicem frequentandis Dominicis 
 ‘“‘celebremus?” He then argues that it was necessary that Christ should 
 offer it in the evening, in order that by the very hour of the sacrifice 
 He might indicate the setting and evening of the world: as also it is 
 written, Exod. xu. “The whole people of the congregation of the 
 “children of Israel shall kill it ix the evening.” And again in the 
 Psalms (Ps. 141), “The lifting up of my hands an evening saecrfice.” “But 
 “we celebrate the Lord’s resurrection in the morning” (i.e. His rising 
 in the morning, and His death in the evening). And he concludes 
 the argument, “Nihil aliud quam quod 1116 fecit facere debemus.” “We 
 “ought not to do any thing different from what He did.” It is parti- 
 cularly clear I think that Mr Beresford Hope’s readings in the fathers 
 had not embraced this part of this letter of Cyprian to Czcilian; for 
 we can hardly imagine it read and forgotten. I have shewn the letter 
 to several friends, who have agreed that it is indisputable, and I have 
 inserted it in two London papers and no one assailed my interpretation 
 of it in either. It is singular that the first witness in chronological 
 order, in these two centuries, to prove that evening communion had not 
 died out in the third century, should be Cyprian ! 
 
 But Cyprian may be thought a witness only for his own diocese of 
 Carthage. Let us pass to another writer, I read in Sozomenus, one of 
 the two chief historians after Eusebius, p. 636, Migne’s Ed. Bk. rv. 
 ο. 22, “The churches everywhere in the world perform the mysteries on 
 “the Sabbath day in every week ; the Christians in Alexandria, and in 
 
774 APPENDIX II. 
 
 “ Rome, from some ancient custom, refuse to do this. But the Egyptians, 
 “who are neighbours to the Alexandrians, and those that dwell in 
 “the Thebaid maintain assemblies indeed on the Sabbath, ποιοῦνται 
 “συνάξεις, but do uot, as is the custom for Christians, partake of the 
 ‘mysteries (ὦ. 6. then and there). For after having had good cheer εὐω- 
 ““χηθῆναι, and being satisfied with food of all kinds, about evening they 
 “make their offerings and partake of the mysteries. Again in Alexan- 
 “dria on the fourth day (Wednesday), on the day that is called 
 “the preparation (Friday), both the Scriptures are read, and the 
 “teachers interpret them, and every part of the communion-service 
 “‘is gone through, except the rite of the mysteries, πάντα τε τὰ συνάξεως 
 “γίνεται δίχα τῆς τῶν μυστηρίων τελετῆς. And this is the ancient custom at 
 ‘‘ Alexandria ; for Origen (a man that being a wise teacher and one that 
 ‘“‘had considered that the impossibility of Moses’ law lies in its being 
 “‘too weak to be put into practice to the letter, πρὸς τὸ γράμμα ἀπο- 
 “ δοθῆναι), seems in those days mostly in the church to have raised 
 “the word regarding the passover (i.e. the Lord’s supper) as consisting 
 “in contemplation ; saying that it had been truly done only at pass- 
 “over” (ἐ.6. at the time of Christ’s death). Without putting the 
 doctrine of Origen into the crucible, it is plain that at the seat of the 
 African patriarchate, as well as in other parts of Egypt, evening com- 
 munion was in practice. 
 
 Socrates the historian, p. 1477, Migne’s Ed., confirms this, saying, 
 “ But with the Egyptians in many cities and villages, contrary to what 
 “has been ruled by all Christians in common, παρὰ τὸ κοινῇ πᾶσι vevo- 
 “ μισμένον, having already had their morning meals, meeting on the 
 “Sabbath about evening, πρὸς ἑσπέραν τῷ σαββάτῳ ovviovtes, ἠριστηκότες 
 
 “ἤδη, they partake of the mysteries.” 
 
 To these is to be added a singular passage of Gregory ΓΕ Nazianzum, 
 whose name carries us far away to Cappadocia in Asia, and to Con- 
 stantinople on the shore of Europe. He says, Vol. τι. “Migne’s Ed., 
 Oration 45, p. 644, “On the holy passover,” ὁ. 6. on the Lord’s supper, 
 “For this God appears to me to will, that we communicate in things 
 “nearest (i.e. most in correspondence) to the sacrifice.” After de- 
 scribing the Passover night he says, “after that, the taking away of 
 “leaven for seven days (for seven is the most mystical of numbers, and 
 ‘“‘corresponds with the creation of the world); and the leaven is the 
 “014 and strange wickedness of men; for it does not refer to baking 
 “bread to support life, &e. &e. And let them indeed lament: but by 
 “us Christians the lamb shall be eaten towards evening, because the Lord’s 
 “passion looked to the completion of the ages, &e. &e.” 
 
 The tenour of this passage can hardly be disputed, as shewing that 
 
AN ADDRESS. 775 
 
 in some other regions besides Egypt, contrary to the general custom, 
 evening communions were retained. 
 
 On looking at Isidore of Seville, whose summary of practices, rites 
 and doctrines was in general use for centuries (we may perhaps not 
 err if we say that till the time of Peter the Lombard), we do not find 
 one word contradictory of the practice of evening communion, or 
 in assertion of the contrary. A similar remark holds regarding 
 Theophylact, the glorious Bishop of Achris in Bulgaria in the eleventh 
 century. 
 
 It remains that we complete the circle of evidence by introducing 
 the letter 118 of Augustine to Januarius, Paris, Ben. Ed. p. 116. And 
 it is the more becoming to produce this letter, as no one can set a limit 
 to the influence of the writings of Augustine. His general and lasting 
 popularity seems to have arisen from his marvellous though most 
 perilous dialectical skill, from his indubitable excellence as a pastor at 
 Hippo at last, and from his championship against Pelagius and other 
 heretics, including the Manicheans (though he never got quite clear 
 from their early influence upon him; as Horace says, “Quo semel est 
 “imbuta recens servabit odorem Testa diu”). All these points and his 
 singularly beautiful elucidations of the doctrines of grace, have given 
 Augustine in all succeeding ages a control over men’s minds, which 
 perhaps surpasses that of all others taken together. Let us take him 
 therefore as a paramount instance of the way in which churches passed 
 down, from the admission of the original institution of the holy supper 
 at evening, into an almost constant authorized use of it both in the 
 morning and during fasting, instead of receiving it after the usual 
 second meal in the evening. But it will be seen that even he recom- 
 mends or sanctions one annual evening reception. P. 115. “ But other 
 ‘things vary locally and in different districts, as when some fast on a 
 “Saturday (sabbato), others do not. Some daily communicate in the 
 “body and blocd of the Lord: others receive on certain set days. In 
 ‘some places not a day is allowed to intervene without its being offered. 
 “In other places it is offered only on Saturday and the Lord’s day...... 
 ‘When my mother followed me to Milan and found the church not 
 “fasting on Saturday, she began to be disturbed, &c. And (Ambrose) 
 ‘said to me, ‘ When I come to Rome 1 fast on a Saturday, when I am 
 “here I do not fast,’ &e.” P. 116. ‘A change of custom even such as 
 ‘‘ig helpful, as being useful, is a disturbing thing by being new, &c. 
 “The apostle says, ‘ When ye meet together at one place this is not to 
 “eat the Lord’s supper’: so that he calls the very reception of the 
 “eucharist the Lord’s supper. It might bias men on the question 
 “whether they should either offer or receive the eucharist after having 
 
776 APPENDIX IT 
 
 “‘on that day taken refreshment, that it is said in the Gospel, ‘But when 
 “they were eating Jesus took bread and blessed and brake, οὐ And it 
 “clearly appears that when the disciples first received the Lord’s body 
 “and blood, they did not receive it fasting. Is then the universal 
 “church to be at all spoken against (calumniandum) because it is (now) 
 ‘“‘always received fasting? For thenceforth it was the pleasure of the 
 “ Holy Spirit (placuit), that to the honour of so great a sacrament the 
 “ Lord’s body should enter a Christian’s mouth betore the rest of his 
 “food (margin, ceteri cibi). For on this account that custom is 
 “observed through the whole world, ὅθ. &e. And He did not settle 
 ‘in what order from the first it should be taken, that He might reserve 
 “this function (locum) for the apostles, through whose hands He was 
 “purposing to make arrangements in the churches (ecclesias dispo- 
 “siturus erat), ὅθ. &e. But when the apostle is speaking respecting 
 “this sacrament, &e. &c., he says, ‘But the other things will I set in 
 ‘‘order when I come.’ From this we may understand, that it was 
 ‘‘a tedious matter in that letter to suggest the whole order of service ; 
 ‘‘which the whole church throughout the world is (ever since) ob- 
 “serving; and that therefore Paul himself took the ordering of that 
 ‘which no diversity of habits should arise and change. But there are, 
 “some to whom a certain plausible method has given great pleasure 
 “(viz.) that, on the one fixed and set day in the year, in which the 
 “Lord Himself gave the supper, leave should be given to offer and to 
 “receive the Lord’s body and blood after taking our meal (cibos), as it 
 “were to mark the institution with a more notable commemoration than 
 “usual. But I think it would be more becoming (honestius) that it should 
 “take place at such an hour, that he also who has been fasting should 
 “be able to meet at the oblation those who come to it after the refresh- 
 “ment which takes place at the ninth hour (ὁ. 6. 3 o'clock). Thus we 
 “do not by that Lord’s supper compel any one to dine first (prandere) ; 
 “but we do not dare to forbid him (contradicere). But I think that 
 “the reason why this has not been established is, that most and nearly 
 “all have been accustomed to take supper on that day. And since 
 “there are some that maintain their fast, it is offered in the morning 
 “that it may not interfere with those who are going to dine, since the 
 “fasting (of some) and the washing of others (after the Lent fast) could 
 “not be endured (side by side), and it is offered again in the evening for 
 “those that fast (till it is over).” 
 
 Thus all that has been asserted regarding the mode in which the 
 change from evening communion after the evening meal, to morning 
 communion and fasting has been exhibited from this great writer. The 
 marvel is how, with all these five passages in being, Mr Beresford Hope’s 
 
AN ADDRESS, 71 
 
 eye has escaped them all. His exact words are these, in his pamphlet, 
 entitled ‘“ Worship in the Church of England,” Murray, which was 
 reviewed in the Times, Dec. 24, 1874: “The practice of celebrating 
 “the communion in the evening—a practice for which there is nota 
 “ word of sanction .., in the immemorial usage of our own or any other 
 ‘* church.” 
 
 The argument is now concluded ; and it is only required to add that 
 these passages are brought to the front as history, simply that they may 
 receive full consideration ; and that the truth may be known. One 
 does not like ill-grounded assertions to be still ventilated with the utmost 
 confidence, or to be received with an equally groundless belief in their 
 accuracy, when it is so brief and easy a task to shew on what a sandy 
 foundation the imposing structure has been erected. 
 
 Note read at the Clerical Meeting. 
 
 The writer will be much obliged by receiving notice from any 
 clerical brother, who may happen to have fallen in with any other passage 
 in any other centuries shewing the existence of evening communions. 
 When did the practice of evening communions wholly cease? And 
 ' did the practice revive at all before the German and English Refor- 
 mations, and how soon, and where first? These are points in history, 
 that he has not had leisure to investigate. 
 
 Mr Beresford Hope rightly asserts that there is nothing within the 
 four corners of our Prayer-book to sanction any other than morning 
 communion ; but then neither is there anything in the book of Common 
 Prayer to sanction a sermon in the afternoon or in the evening, or three 
 services in a day, and the consequent using of the evening service twice. 
 Our modern alterations are not as yet introduced into the Prayer-book. 
 
 The writer also wishes to ask if anyone has ever heard of a case of 
 disorder in our church now, like that which made the Corinthian church 
 notorious, arising out of the administration of the Lord’s supper in the 
 evening. He has not heard of any. It seems that the prevailing 
 reverence for this rite in England may be trusted. The writer merely 
 deals in this paper with facts, apart from opinions. To accumulate 
 genuine facts and to assign to each of them exactly its rightful weight 
 seems to be one royal highway towards the attainment of truth in 
 doctrine also. The primary facts on the subject of the supper must be 
 gained by asking, What did the Founder Himself do? and what did He 
 say ὁ and what is the legitimate meaning in the Scriptural recitals of the 
 words used and of the acts done by Him ? 
 
778 APPENDIX II. 
 
 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE REV. J. M. MORGAN, 
 VICAR OF DALTON IN FURNESS, CHAIRMAN OF 
 THE CLERICAL MEETING. 
 
 You will well remember, my dear Sir, that the above paper was read 
 at your large clerical meeting, simply as touching an historical question, 
 although the meeting almost of necessity diverged into the practical 
 enquiry, as to the proper time or times in the day for the administration 
 of “the Lord’s supper.” You will also 1 know bear in mind that, when 
 the question of the favourableness of church authority to early morning 
 communion had been discussed, I ventured in my reply to remind my 
 brethren, that if we received the precedent of the early church as of 
 binding authority on this particular, we must equally receive its 
 authority as binding in respect of fasting communion. I also ventured 
 to affirm that there is high probability that our Lord’s example as to 
 the time of communion was followed for a certain period in the earliest 
 ages ; and that just as we infer the existence of infant baptism during 
 the silence on the subject that prevails, I think till the time of Tertullian, 
 (at least I, for one, do not remember observing or hearing of any earlier 
 mention of it), just so we may infer that our Lord’s institution of the 
 Lord’s supper at even was followed during at least a considerable part of 
 the same period, ὁ. 6. until Tertullian, during which time nothing is said 
 upon the subject in the early fathers: and I believe I further ventured 
 to say that if the subject came under real discussion many arguments in 
 favour of evening communion would have to be brought forward, which 
 had not yet been adduced. And lastly, I shall ever remember how you, 
 in a short conversation that took place after the meeting was broken up, 
 brought the question at once to its practical issue by asking “Now to 
 “what after all does this question come? What is the proper time for 
 ‘administering the Communion to our people?” And when the reply 
 was made, “At any times that suit our people best, and that seem to 
 “be most for their spiritual benefit,” you gave utterance to a strong 
 concurrence in that opinion; and there the conversation closed. Per- 
 haps nothing more would have been required, had not a pamphlet 
 - been put into my hand in my way tothe meeting, in which I find a very 
 different conviction; viz. that from the very first, by a kind of general 
 
A LETTER. 779 
 
 Christian instinct, the morning, and the early morning, was fixed upon, 
 as the only proper time for communion; and that in all probability 
 there was no breach of this custom, except the once-a-year celebration 
 on Maundy Thursday, which Augustine so much favours in his letter to 
 Januarius, No. 118. It is perfectly true that my paper had proved that 
 evening communions were in existence to a certain considerable extent 
 in the two centuries to which it refers: but I have deemed it desirable 
 to add a few remarks in reply to that writer. I should probably have 
 published this letter and paper at once, but I was preparing the 
 present long-promised work of greater dimensions upon this sacrament, 
 with ample citations from the fathers and from later writers also, and it 
 would have been very undesirable to forestall it. 
 
 In addition, however, to the cases which I have mentioned in the 
 third and fourth centuries, I ought perhaps to eall your attention both 
 to those of the second century and to some few instances later than the 
 fourth. 
 
 In the second century several striking instances are to be found in 
 Tertullian. 
 
 First in the Apologeticus p. 8 of my folio edition, Paris, 1634, 
 allusion is made to the silly and groundless scandals of Christians eating 
 a child and committing other enormities. We have only to notice (1) that 
 both these charges are referable to mistaken accounts of their eating 
 Christ’s flesh in a blessed and holy communion: and then (2) we may- 
 observe that the crimes laid to their charge are said to be committed after 
 overthrowing the lamps. This passage furnishes us with some evidence 
 in favour of the Holy Communion having been held at evening. 
 
 In the De Corona p. 121 I find as follows: “The sacrament of the 
 “ eucharist was both held during the time of food, and was enjoined on 
 ‘all by the Lord, even at the assemblies before morning light, and we 
 “‘do not take it from the hands of any but the presiding clergymen.” 
 
 in Tertullian’s Address to a Wife, p. 189, he mentions “ nightly convo- 
 cations,” and objects that no husband “would endure his wife’s spending 
 “the night away from him in the solemnities of the passover” (meaning 
 the Lord’s supper) ; and in the next sentence occur the words ‘ that 
 “feast of the Lord.” 
 
 As to the other writers of the First and Second Centuries than 
 Tertullian, I have not found any mention of the time of the Lord’s 
 supper in Justin or Ireneus or Clement of Alexandria or Hippolytus, 
 or in the briefer authors of that or of the First Century. But I may as 
 well notice Pliny writing to Trajan in the First Century about the 
 Christians assembling before daylight and singing an antiphonal, singing 
 hymus to Christ as to God, and binding themselves by an oath to lead a 
 
780 APPENDIX II. 
 
 moral life in many specified particulars. But who would have thought 
 of the writer of that pamphlet making this an argument for early com- 
 munion by rendering “ 5656 sacramento obstringere,” binding themselves by 
 the sacrament not to do evil? I need not ask you to remember that 
 Trajan knew the word sacramentum very well in two senses: (1) as 
 the military oath that bound the soldier to himself, and (2) as the deposit 
 at the commencement of a lawsuit : but that he would guess the Christian 
 sacrament to be in the term, without any turn of speech to lead him to 
 it, not I alone but all the other writers I have seen have not an idea. 
 
 It might be thought very reasonable to go no further in the enquiry 
 than A.D. 420, which is about the date at which we may suppose 
 Hermias Sozomen as aforesaid, to have written about Egypt: for this 
 date carries us on for three centuries and a half after the confirmation of 
 the position of Christianity in the world by the casting down to the 
 ground of its great rival and one of the two chief persecutors of Christians, 
 the Jewish power. If evening communion, which is (at least probably) 
 the only one mentioned in Holy Writ, endured in vast regions for 350 
 years after Jerusalem perished, that is surely enough to secure for it 
 (1) the highest sanction, viz. that of Scripture, and (2) some free tolerance 
 in the primitive ages. But again, instead of there being no trace (as 
 has been mistakenly asserted) of evening communion for the last 1600 
 years, we have to strike off a century and a half from that reckoning, 
 and to say “ You should at least have put 1450 instead of 1600.” But 
 the statement is a wild one at this end also; for we surely had some 
 traces of evening communion in the most recent periods since the 
 Reformation, though we may not be yet prepared to say either at what 
 century evening communion wholly ceased, nor at what date it was 
 recommenced, 
 
 It may, however, not be without interest just to set down traces of 
 it in accredited writings for a century or two after a.p. 420. 
 
 In Basil of Seleucus (Vol. 85 Migne’s Ed. of the Greek fathers, p. 
 596) is found a very remarkable description of an enormous crowd 
 assembling to keep the day of St Thecla. Of the communion in this 
 festival it is enough to say that it bears no sign of having been cele- 
 brated at early morning, nor in fasting. On the contrary it is admi- 
 nistered and partaken of by the crowd, with more eagerness than 
 reverence, at the close of the festival, apparently in the afternoon before 
 returning to their several homes. This Basil is placed in the middle of 
 the fifth century —thirty years after the date we have given to Sozomen’s 
 account of the Evening Communion in the Thebaid or northern Egypt. 
 
 Isidore of Seville is one of the pillars of this history of church ritual. 
 We may place the centre of his life at the meeting-point of the fifth or 
 
A LETTER. 731 
 
 sixth centuries. He writes thus, in his Origines p. 80 of the Paris 
 edition of 1601: “It has been called the Lord’s supper because on that 
 “‘day the Saviour sacrificed the passover with His own disciples ; which 
 “[passover, 7.e. the Lord’s supper] also up to this day is celebrated, as 
 “has been handed down, and a holy chrism (7.e. for confirmation) 1s 
 ‘made in it.” Then p. 271 ‘It is called a supper from the eaters sharing 
 “it in common,” &e., &e.: and he adds “but the supper is an evening 
 “meal which the ancients used to call vespertina.” He does not add: 
 ‘“but we celebrate only in the morning,” nor does he say a word for or 
 against evening communion. He only adds “ In usu enim non erant 
 ‘prandia. People then did not dine, as we do.” 
 
 In the Commentary of Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, who died in the 
 year 464, we find remarks on 1 Cor. xi. 22 which strengthen the 
 statements of Socrates and Sozomen regarding evening communion in 
 Egypt. ‘There was a time, as some assert, when a bad custom had 
 “‘ prevailed among the Corinthians, to disgrace the churches every where 
 “by banquets, in which they ate before the Lord’s oblation, and thus 
 *‘they postponed this (sacrament) to night time by prolonging the feast : 
 “and while the rich were coming to the eucharist in a state of intoxi- 
 “cation, the poor were being tortured with hunger. But that custom, 
 ‘as the narrative goes, came down to that day from Gentile superstition, 
 “ And from this also in some places through the rural regions of Egypt, 
 “or Syria, it is said that they assemble at the church by night after 
 “supper on Saturday.” Eucherius is to be found in Migne’s Vol, 11. 
 of Cassian ; and this passage is at p. 805. 
 
 Besides this, a Sedulius—either he whose name stands in a council 
 at Rome A.D. 721, or another whose name marks the year 818 (see 
 Migne’s notice of him)—in commenting on the same passage, p. 151, 
 recites the above piece of Eucherius without acknowledgment. 
 
 Two hundred years later John, Bishop of Avranches, and afterwards 
 of Rouen, who died in 1078, orders the celebration of the mass at the 
 third hour (9 A.m.), at the sixth hour (noon), whieh he calls the common 
 custom, and at the ninth hour (3 o'clock) which he calls the time 
 of fasting: and he ends by giving licence for “sacrificing the mass” 
 earlier than the third or later than the ninth hour ; see p. 97 Migne’s 
 Edition, Vol. 247, Latin Fathers. 
 
 But to return to the eighth century, Bishop Theodulf of Orleans sat 
 in the Frankfurt council of 794, which Charlemagne called to put down 
 Adoptionism. One of his laws, p. 204, Migne, prescribes that “the fast 
 ‘““must not be broken before the evening office.” There can be little 
 room for doubting that this fasting had reference to the πεῖς of the 
 Mass at the Evening Prayers. 
 
782 APPENDIX II. 
 
 We thus find scattered notices of evening communion much later 
 than a.p. 430 (1450 years ago) : and we may therefore take upon us to 
 demur to the hastily made assertion, that the administration of the 
 Lord’s supper in the evening appears either not to have been practised 
 after the time of the apostles or to have ceased at an early date in the 
 subsequent history of Christianity. 
 
 We should like to know more on this subject. 
 
 I notice in Photius a natural disposition to restrict the term the 
 
 Lord’s supper—Kvpuaxcv detrvov—to the annual special celebration of 
 it on Maundy Thursday, which shews that this one annual evening com- 
 munion survived in his diocese ; but I find no other notice of it in his 
 writings. Doubtless much that we should like to know lies beneath the 
 waves of a pitiless oblivion: and this makes every discovery precious, 
 But let us not complain. There is a Providence, and we have enough, 
 if we will but patiently work and bring latent truth to light. Things 
 are hidden for men to find. 
 
 There was a great celebration of the newly reformed rite of the 
 Lord’s supper at Zurich on Maunday Thursday, I wonder whether it 
 took place in the evening. 
 
 CHARLES HEBERT. 
 
 AmpBLEsIDE, December 5, 1878. 
 
INDICKS. 
 
 1. EVERY FATHER AND WRITER FROM WHOM CITATIONS 
 ARE MADE, 
 
 Il. VERY MANY OF THE DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS AND OF 
 THE TERMS USED. 
 
 Ill. EVENTS OF HISTORY AND OTHER FACTS MENTIONED. 
 
 IV. Passaces or Hoty WRIT COMMENTED UPON IN THE 
 CITATIONS. 
 
INDICKS. 
 
 Tue four following indices are set at the end of this volume for conve- 
 nience of reference. The appendices, which are put before them, are 
 hardly regarded as an integral part of the work, and are not embraced 
 
 in the indices. 
 
 BEERS INDEX. 
 
 Abbot, B. of Salisbury, Cent. xvr. Vol. ii. 
 
 pp. 450—452 
 Abelard, x11. 11. 99—102 
 Aiigyppius, vi. i. 520, 521 
 fElfric, x. 11. 1—5 
 Aineas Sylvius, xv. li. 243—246 
 Agobard of Lyons, rx. i. 581—586 
 Alan of Lille, x11. ii. 118—123 
 Albert the Great, x1tr. ii. 155—159 
 Albertin, xvit. 11. 542 —545 
 Aleuin, vit. i. 563—568 
 Algerus of Liege, xt. 11. 58 
 Amalarius of Treves, vin. i. 577—579 
 Ambrose, Iv. 1. 290- 948 
 Ambrose, Isaac, xvit. ii. 618—622 
 Ammonius, VI. i. 517—520 
 Amphilochius, tv. i. 823—325 
 Anastasius, vi. i. 501—508 
 Andreas of Crete, vir. 1. 541—543 
 Andrewes, xvi. ἢ. 470—473 
 Anselm, ΧΙ. 11. 42—51 
 Apollinaris, iv. 1. 367, 368 
 Aponius, vit. i. 544 
 Aquinas, Thomas, x11. 11, 159—164 
 Arminius, xvt. ii. 483—485 
 Arnauld, Antoine, xvi. 11. 562—571 
 
 Arnaulds, The, of Port Royal, xvii. 1]. 
 
 571—_575 
 Ascham, xvi. ii. 343—347 
 Athanasius, ry. 1, 152—158 
 Augustine, tv. 1. 251—281 
 Avitus, v. 1. 429—480 
 
 Bacon, Roger, x11. 11. 144—146 
 Barnabas, τι. i. 834—37 
 
 ΕΠ ἘΠῚ 
 
 WRITERS CITED. 
 
 Barrow, xvit. 11. 612, 613 
 
 Basil the Great, rv. i. 190—201 
 Basil of Seleucus, v. i. 463—465 
 Baxter, xvi. ii, 652—654 
 Becon, xvi. 11. 321, 322 
 
 Bede, vir. i. 545—549 
 Bellarmine, xvi. ii. 429—439 
 Benedict, St, of Aniane, 1x. i, 591—594 
 Berengar, x1. 11. 21—31 
 Bernard, St, x1. ii. 102—108 
 Bertram, rx. 1. 605—611 
 Beveridge, xv1t. ii. 028. 051 
 Beza, xvi. ii. 410—414 
 Bonaventure, x11. ii. 150—154 
 Bossuet, xvit. 11. 592—599 
 Bradford, xvzr. 11. 368—370 
 Bramhall, xvit. 11. 537—539 
 Bridget’s, St, life, ν. 1. 473, 474 
 Bruno, Bishop of Segni, x1. 11, 79—82 
 Bucer, xvi. 11. 378—386 
 
 Bull, Bishop, xvi. 11. 615—618 
 Bullinger, xvi. 11. 980 -- 989 
 
 Cesarius, τν. 1. 219—223 
 Cajetan, xv. 11. 420--- 420 
 Calixtus, George, xvit. ii. 527—532 
 Calvin, xvi. 11. 335—342 
 
 Canons of Carthage, v. i. 469, 470 
 Caprera, xvi. 11. 497, 498 
 Cassian, Iv. 1. 348—352 
 Chemnitz, xvi. 11. 415—420 
 Chillingworth, xvi. 11. 548—550 
 Chromatius, v. 1. 439, 440 
 Chrysologus, ν. i. 457—462 
 Chrysostom, ty. 1, 331—348 
 
 50 
 
780 FIRST 
 
 Claggett, xvii. 11, 635, 636 
 
 Clarkson, Daughter of, xvi. ii. 506, 507 
 
 Claude, John, xv. ii. 601—-604 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, τι. i. 59—66 
 
 Clement of Rome, 1. i. 11—22 
 
 Clementines, The Pseudo, mt. i. 182 —143 
 
 Colet, John, xv. ii. 269—273 
 
 Comber, x11. ii. 686—638 
 
 Conservation, H. H., Theory of, xtx. il. 
 731, 732 
 
 Cornelius, tr. 1. 123, 124 
 
 Cosin, xvit. 11. 5839—542 
 
 Councils to 326, rv. i. 144150 
 
 Coverdale, Myles, xv. ii. 257—259 
 
 Crakanthorp, xvi. ii. 498—502 
 
 Cranmer, xvi. li. 322—327 
 
 Cudworth, xvi. 11. 554—558 
 
 Cyprian, m1. 1. 114—123 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, tv. i. 369—386 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, tv. 1. 184—190 
 
 Damasus, tv. 1. 312—314 
 
 Damian of Ostia, σι. 11. 10O—14 
 
 De Cena Domini, x1, ii. 131—135 
 
 Decree of Coune., The, Lateran IV., x11. 
 li, 136, 137 
 
 Denison, Archdeacon, x1x. 11. 693—697 
 
 Didymus, tv. 1. 281—283 
 
 Diognetus, Letter to, 1. i. 31—33 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, m1. i. 129—132 
 
 Dionysius, Pseudo, vr. 1. 490—495 
 
 Duns Scot, x11. ii. 172—178 
 
 Durand of Laodicea, x1. ii. 54, 55 
 
 Durand of Mende, x11. ii, 164 —172 
 
 Durand de St Poureain, xvi. ii. 273— 
 280 
 
 Eckhart, Superintendent, xvit. 11. 560, 
 561 
 
 Ephraim Syrus, tv. 1. 316—320 
 
 Epiphanius, trv. i. 296—303 
 
 Erastus, xvi. 11. 389—396 
 
 Eucherius of Lyons, v. i. 437—439 
 
 Eusebius of Alexandria, ty. 1. 418—422 
 
 Eusebius of Ceesarea, tv. 1, 159—169 
 
 Eusebius of Emesa, tv. i. 180-—182 
 
 Eustathius, Liturgy of, ri. 182—184 
 
 Eutychius of Constantinople, vi. 1. 499 
 —501 
 
 Evagrius, vi. 1. 514—516 
 
 Fabianus, 111. 1. 106, 107 
 Facundus, νι. i. 489, 490 
 
 Felix, rv. i. 312—314 
 
 Fenelon, xvii. ii. 649—651 
 
 Fisher, Bishop, xv1. li. 296--- 802 
 Fox, xvi. 11. 474—480 
 
 Francis of Assisi, x11. 11. 137—143 
 F. of Sales, xvi. ui. 489—494 
 Frith, John, xy. 11. 252—257 
 Fulbert of Chartres, σι. 11. 31—35 
 Fulgentius of Ruspe, v. i. 480—487 
 Fulke, xvi. ii, 405—410 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Gaudentius of Brescia, v. i. 428.- 425 
 
 Gelasius I., v. 1. 474, 475 
 
 Gennadius, Dositheus, xv. il. 2833—236 
 
 Gerbert, x. ii. 5—9 
 
 Gerhard (Erasmus), xvi. ii. 281—289 
 
 Germanus of Constantinople, viii. 1. 549 
 —554 
 
 Germanus of Paris, vi. i. 495—499 
 
 Geroch of Reuchenspurg, x11, ii. 108— 
 111 
 
 Gerson, σιν. li. 214222 
 
 Geste, xvi. ii. 396—400 
 
 Goode, Dean, xrx. 11. 695—701 
 
 Goulburn, Dean, xix. 11. 708S—712 
 
 Gratian’s Decree, x1. 11. 94—96 
 
 Gregory I., vi, 1. 508—514 
 
 Gregory of Agrigentum, vt. 1. 516, 517 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzum, tv. 1. 209—219 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, tv. 1. 202—209 
 
 Gregory Thaumaturge, m1. 1. 124, 125 
 
 Grindal, xv1. 11. 400, 401 
 
 Guibert, x11. 11. 85—90 
 
 Guion, Madame, xvit. 11. 599—601 
 
 Guitmund of Aversa, x1. 11, 55—58 
 
 Haag, Professor, xtx. ii. 685—691 
 
 Haimo of Halberstadt, rx. 1. 594, 595 
 
 Hales, Alexander of, x11. 11. 146—149 
 
 Hall, xvit. ii. 519—523 
 
 Hammond, xy. ii. 558,'559 
 
 Harrison, Dr, x1x. ii. 701—703 
 
 Haussehein, xvi. ii. 371—378 
 
 Heber, Bishop, on J. T. xvrt. ii. 578, 579 
 
 Henry VIII. of England, xvz. 11. 296— 
 900 
 
 Hermas, πὶ 37—41 
 
 Hervé of Dole, x11. ii. 91, 92 
 
 Hesychius, y. i. 440, 441 
 
 Hilary of Arles, v. i. 425, 427 
 
 Hilary the Deacon, rv. i. 249, 250 
 
 Hilary of Poictiers, rv. i. 169—180 
 
 Hildebert of Cluny, x11. ii. 96, 97 
 
 Hinkmar, 1x. i. 627—629 
 
 Hippolytus, rm. i. 108. -114 
 
 Hoadley, xvii. 11. 675—678 
 
 Honius, see Ullm. 
 
 Honorius of Autun, x11. ii. 97—99 
 
 Hooker, xvt. ii. 452, 453 
 
 Hooper, xvi. ii. 358, 359 
 
 Hospinian, xvi. ii, 439—443 
 
 Hugo de St Victor, x11. ii. 92—94 
 
 Humbert of Rheims, x1. 11. 35—88 
 
 Huss, παν: ll. 203—212 
 
 Hutchinson, xvi. ii. 370 
 
 Ignatius, 1. 1. 23—30 
 
 Ildephonsus, 1x. i, 638, 639 
 Innocent III., x1. ii. 123—131 
 Irenseus, 11. 3. 50—58 
 
 Isaac of Syria, v. 1. 462, 463 
 Isaiah, Abbot, v. i. 470—472 
 Isidore of Pelusium, y. i. 453—457 
 
WRITERS 
 
 Tsidore of Seville, vir. i. 522—530 
 
 Isidorian Decretals, Pseudo, rx. i. 586— 
 591 
 
 Ivo of Chartres, x1. 11. 52—64 
 
 Jacob, Dr, x1x. ii. 721, 722 
 
 Jansen of Ghent, xvi. il. 352—355 
 Jansen of Ypres, xvi. ii, 523—527 
 Jerome, Iv. i. 283—296 
 
 Jerome of Prague, xty. ii. 212—214 
 Jewel, xvi. li. 348—352 
 
 John of Avranches, xt. 11. 388—42 
 John of Damascus, vit. 1. 554—563 
 John of Paris, x11. 11. 180—183 
 John Scot Erigena, rx. 1. 600—605 
 Johnson, xvii. ii. 662, 663 
 
 Julian, 1x. i, 639—659 
 
 Justin Martyr, τι. i. 41—48 
 
 Justini Spuria, rv. i. 150, 151 
 
 Kempis, Thomas ἃ, xtv. ii. 222—228 
 
 Ken, xvii. ii. 631—633 
 
 Knox and the Ch. of England, xvi. ii. 
 327, 328 
 
 Lactantius, m1. 1. 127—129 
 
 Lanfrane, ΧΙ. 11. 14—20 
 
 Lange’s Bibelwerk, xrx. ii. 712, 713 
 
 Lapide, C. ἃ, xv. ii. 485—489 
 
 Latimer, xvi. li. 316—321 
 
 Lawrence of Novara, vu. i. 531 
 
 Leibnitz, Posth. Works, xv. ii. 638— 
 649 
 
 Leo the Great, v. i. 465—469 
 
 Liddon, Canon, and M. Capel, xrx. ii. 
 732—736 
 
 Lightfoot, xvit. 11. 550—553 
 
 Limborch, xvi. 11. 624, 628 
 
 Liturgy of Cyril, rv. 1. 386, 387 
 
 Lubke, Professor, x1x. 11. 691, 692 
 
 Luther, Martin, xvt. ii. 290—296 
 
 Lyra, De, xtv. ii. 188—191 
 
 Macarius of Egypt, rv. i. 320—323 
 
 Macarius Magnes, 11.1. 126, 127 
 
 Maldonat, xvi. 11. 426—429 
 
 Marius Mercator, v. i. 443—445 
 
 Mark the Eremite, tv. i. 365, 366 
 
 Marriott, R. W., xrx. 11. 723, 724 
 
 Marsilius of Padua, x111. ii. 183—187 
 
 Martin’s life, by Sulp. Severus, v. i. 314, 
 315 
 
 Maternus, Iv. 1. 362, 363 
 
 Maximus of Constantinople, vi. i. 531— 
 537 
 
 Maximus of Turin, v. i. 445, 446 
 
 Mede, xvit. ii. 532 —537 
 
 Melanchthon, xvr. ii. 302—810 
 
 Methodius, tv. i. 151, 152 
 
 Moehler, Professor, x1x. ii. 682—685 
 
 Montanus, Ix. 1. 636—638 
 
 More, Dr Henry, xvir. 11. 580— 583 
 
 More, Sir Thomas, xv. 11. 253—255 
 
 CITED. 787 
 
 Morton, xvi. ii. 480--- 488 
 Moschus of Jerusalem, vit. 1, 537, 538 
 Musculus, Wolfgang, xvi. 11. 855—d58 
 
 Nestorius, rv. i. 3887—394 
 
 Nicephorus, vu. 1. 569—572 
 
 Nicephorus Blemmidas, xur. 11. 178, 179 
 
 Nicephorus Xanthopulus, xiv. i. 199, 
 200 
 
 Nicetas of Aquileia, v. i. 474 
 
 Nicetas of Colosse, xt. ii. 154—185 
 
 Nicolas I., rx. i. 625—627 
 
 Nilus, v. i. 446—450 
 
 Norwich Tract, xrx. 11. 730, 731 
 
 Ockham, σιν. ii. 192—194 
 Origen, m1, 1. 83—104 
 
 Ortizius, Blazius, rx. i. 640—642 
 Outram, xvit. 11. 589—592 
 Owen, xvui. 11. 583—587 
 
 Pacian, tv.1. 315, 316 
 
 Palladius, tv. 1. 325—330 
 
 Palmer, W., x1x. 11. 681, 682 
 
 Pareus, xvi. 11. 444—450 
 
 Parker, xvi. 11. 359, 360 
 
 Paschasius, rx. i. 595—599 
 
 Paulinus of Aquileia, vit. i. 568 
 
 Paulinus of Nola, tv. i. 363—365 
 
 Pelagius, Iv. i. 227—236 
 
 Peter of Blois, x11. 11. 83—85 
 
 Peter Lombard, x1. ii. 113—118 
 
 Peter Martyr, xv1. 11. 360-368 
 
 Peter the Singer, xu. ii. 111- 119 
 
 Philo of Carpasium, tv. i. 414—417 
 
 Photius, 1x. 1. 630—635 
 
 Pilkington, xvr. ii. 405, 406 
 
 Platon of Moscow, xvirt. ii. 655, 666 
 
 Poloni, Fratres, xvit. 11. 663, 664 
 
 Pontianus, ται. i. 105, 106 
 
 Pontifical of Clement and Urban, xvrtt. 
 ii. 666, 667 
 
 Proclus, v. i. 452. 457 
 
 Procopius of Gaza, v. i. 487—488 
 
 Prosper of Aquitaine, v. i. 450—453 
 
 Prudentius, tv. i. 248, 249 
 
 Quesnel, xvit. 11. 622—624 
 
 Rabanus Maurus, rx. i. 612—620 
 Rabbulas, v. 1. 442, £43 
 
 Rainolds, xvi. 11. 462—470 
 
 Remigius, rx. 1. 629, 630 
 
 Retrospective Thoughts, rx. i. 623, 624 
 Reynolds of Norwich, xvi1. ii. 545—648 
 Ricaut, Paul, xvirt. ii. 667, 668 
 
 Ridley, xvr. 11. 828—335 
 
 Rufinus, tv. i. 223—226 
 
 Rupert of Deutz, xt. il. 67—77 
 
 Sacramental Liturgies, tv. 1, 352—362 
 Sandys, xvr. 11. 401—403 
 Saravia, xvi. 11. 454—482 
 
 50 —2 
 
788 FIRST 
 
 Savonarola, xv. ii. 259—269 
 
 Scudamore, W. H., xrx. ii. 724—729 
 
 Seymour, Hobart, xrx. ii. 718—720 
 
 Sicilian Paschal Chronicles, vi. i. 538, 
 539 
 
 Siricius, rv. i. 812. 514 
 
 Smith, Henry, xvi. ii. 473, 474 
 
 Socrates, v. i. 427—430 
 
 Sophronius of Damascus, vii. i. 
 541 
 
 Sozomen, v. i. 480---452 
 
 St Stephen, Cistercian, x1. ii. 77—79 
 
 Stillingfleet, xviz. 11. 604—612 
 
 Summary observations, ΧΙΧ. il. 
 737 
 
 Sylvanus, John, of Jerusalem, try. i. 303— 
 312 
 
 540, 
 
 736, 
 
 Tauler, xtv. 11. 195—199 
 
 Taylor, Jeremy, xvit. ii. 575—580 
 
 Tertiaries, The, x1. 11. 143, 144 
 
 Tertullian, τι. i. 67—82 
 
 Theodore of Heraclea, tv. i. 422 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, tv. 1. 394—401 
 
 Theodoret, tv. 1. 401—414 
 
 Theodotus of Byzantium, τι. i. 66, 67 
 
 Theodotus of Studium, vit. 1. 573—577 
 
 Theodulf of Orleans, rx. i. 580, 581 
 
 Theophilus of Alexandria, tv. i. 368, 
 369 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 11. i, 48—50 
 
 Theophylact, x1. 11. 59—67 
 
 Thiers, J. B., xvii. ii. 668, 669 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 Thirlwall, Bishop, xrx. 11. 703—707 
 Thorndike, xvut. ii. 5083—506 
 Tillotson, xy. ii. 613—615 
 Tostatus of Avila, xv. li. 229-—232 
 Turretin, xvi. 11. 587—589 
 Turton, Bishop, xrx. ii. 679—681 
 Tyndall, William, xv. ii. 246—252 
 
 Ullmann, Reformers before the Ref. xv. 
 li, 236—243 
 Usher, xvu1. ii. 507—519 
 
 Victor of Antioch, v. i. 441, 442 
 Victorinus, Marius, tv. i. 366, 367 
 Vogan, Dr, x1x, ii. 714—718 
 
 Wake, xvii. ii. 654—660 
 
 Walafrid Strabo, rx. 1. 620—623 
 
 Waleran of Nuremberg, x1. ii. 51, 52 
 
 Waterland, xvi. ii. 670—675 
 
 Wetzer and Welte, xrx. ii. 692—694 
 
 Whitaker, xvi. 11. 443, 444 
 
 Whitby, xvi. ii, 634, 635 
 
 Whitgift, xvz. 11, 403—405 
 
 Wilberforce, Archdeacon, χιχ. 11. 695, 
 696 
 
 Willett, xv1. ii. 494497 
 
 Wilson, Bishop, xv1t. ii. 660—662 
 
 Wycliff, xiv. 11. 200—203 
 
 Zeno of Verona, tv. 1. 417, 418 
 Zwingel, xvi. i. 310—316 
 
SECOND INDEX. DOCTRINE. 
 
 The leading principle in this index is to range the principal state- 
 ments of doctrine according to the leading word in each, whether that 
 word be at the beginning of the sentence or not. The object is to bring 
 as many as possible of similar terms and statements near together, 
 without presenting sentences or clauses in a broken form. The same 
 purpose is carried out in some cases by ranging compound words by 
 their root and not by the prefix, whether it be adverb or noun: e.g. 
 ζωοθυτεῖ is set with θύω θύσιμον, &e., and ἀνυψοί with ὕψωμα, ἅς. Also, 
 English, Greek and Latin terms and statements, whose leading words 
 have the same initial letters, are combined under those letters. In 
 many instances there cannot be a doubt which is the leading word, as 
 when such words occur as “sacrament,” “body,” “flesh,” “blood,” 
 “substance,” “accidents,” ‘supper,” “sacrifice,” &e., by the Greek and 
 Latin terms for these. It is hoped that by these arrangements the 
 second, third and fourth indexes will make it almost as easy to find any 
 important statement, event, &c., as it is by means of the first index and 
 
 the tables of contents to find what opinions each writer maintained. 
 
 A. a. 
 
 Entire Christ, with all accidents, except 
 in so far as into Heaven, ii. 437, Bell. 
 
 Breaking, not an accident of a body now 
 in glory, 11. 517, Usher 
 
 The most heresy, accident without sub- 
 ject, 11. 202, Wyc. 
 
 Say they eat, &., but under covert of 
 the accident, of bread and wine, ii. 
 635, Whit. 
 
 Breaking, &c., impossible to essence, 
 possible to accidents, ii. 50, Anselm 
 May be accident of bread, and Christ’s 
 
 substance under, 11. 647, Leib. 
 
 Adoration of Church of Rome not neces- 
 sarily idolatry. What intention? ii. 
 503, Thorn. 
 
 Does God wish us to adore it? Will our 
 invention please Him? ii. 345, Asch. 
 
 “AY a 
 
 May be adored by a good Christian, ii. 
 503, Thorn. 
 
 The subj. of an affirm. prop. agrees with 
 predicate, ii. 437 
 
 Cross alone answers to altar, ii. 677, 
 Hoad. 
 
 On the altar of the cross, ii, 529, 
 Calixt. 
 
 Even heathens eat on tables, not on 
 altars, 11. 555, Cudw. 
 
 Never failed to approach holy altar, ii. 
 632, Ken 
 
 Sacram. of Christ’s altar made by power 
 of the words, ii. 140, 141, F. of A. 
 
 The table expressly called an altar by 
 Ignatius, i. 29 
 
 On the altar it exists in own appear- 
 ance—imperceptible, ii. 97, Hild. V. 
 
790 SECOND 
 
 Ἂς (ἃ, 
 
 We adore Him on the altar as sages did 
 in manger, ii. 408, Fulke 
 
 Three altars temp. Sol., so Christian, ii. 
 119, Alan. 
 
 Gift (loaves changed into, &c.) greater 
 than altar, Matt. xxiii. 2, ii. 63, 
 Theophylact 
 
 Three effusions, (1) on altar, (2) on cross, 
 (3) in heart, 11. 624, Quesn. 
 
 To alter arrangement of parts fatal, 11. 
 (esl ἘΠΕ: 
 
 The American P. B. omits words in the 
 Scotch, 11. 729 
 
 Do angels and Mary and saints attend ? 
 li. 220, Gers. 
 
 Patristic, therefore Anglican! ii. 
 Lidd. 
 
 As far as one thing can be another, 11. 
 716, Vogan 
 
 Ap. Can. 85 draws in all Ap. Const., i. 
 140 
 
 As to appearances of Christ after ascen- 
 sion, i. 110, Ger. 
 
 Then the minister applies these bless- 
 ings, ii. 662, Wilson 
 
 A condensed synopsis in reply to the 
 two Archd., ii. 700 
 
 Athens the University, i. 220 
 
 Deficiency of exhibition of atonement in 
 T. ἃ K., ti. 222 
 
 ἀγάπην ποιεῖν, i. 28, Tgnat. 
 
 τὰ ayia καὶ τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, 1. 140 
 
 τῆς νοτίδος ἁγίαζε αἰσθητήρια, 1.189, Cyr. J. 
 
 ἁγιασμάτων τῶν Θείων, i. 131, Dion. 
 
 μετὰ ἀδείας ἀπολαύσῃ TOMAS, ἘΣΤΟΝ; ἢ 
 333, Chrys. 
 
 ἀειπαρθένου καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμώμητα αἵματα, 
 i. 560, J. of Ὁ. 
 
 πάντας φοινισσομένους 
 Chrysost. 
 
 ῥανίδες αἵματος ὀλίγαι κοσμὸν ὅλον ava- 
 πλάττουσαι, i. 215, Greg. Na. 
 
 προκοινωνῶν ἐν τῇ αἱρέσει.. αἱρετικὸς ὁ 
 ἄρτος, 1. 576, Theod. Stu. 
 
 τὸ αἷμα τὸ avayévynody σε, 1. 
 Chrysost. 
 
 τῷ ἀνωτάτω πέπλῳ (τῷ ἀερὴ τὰ δῶρα ἐπικα- 
 λύπτει, 1. 575, Theod. Stu. 
 
 ἀληθινοῦ καὶ ἀθανάτου ἄρτου γευόμεθα, 1. 
 563, J. οἱ D. 
 
 ἀληθῶς, John vi., 1. 178 
 
 κατ᾽ ἀληθείαν αἷμα καὶ σῶμα, οὐ τύπος, 
 i. 126, Mac. 
 
 ἀληθώς μὲν βρῶσις ἡ πρᾶξις K.T.D., 
 Origen 
 
 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων Αὐτὸν ἀληθινὸν, ἐκπίπτει, 1. 
 301, Epiph. 
 
 τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν λύσαντας, 1. 139, Ps. Clem. 
 
 μελίξεται καὶ διαμερίζεται ὁ ᾿Αμνὸς Θεοῦ, 1. 
 361, Due. 
 
 τοῦ ᾿Αμνοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ σφαγιαζομένου, 1. 507, 
 Anast. 8. 
 
 735, 
 
 αἵματι, 1. 835, 
 
 340, 
 
 1. 98, 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Ads 
 
 ἡμῖν δὲ ὁ ἀμνὸς βρωθήσεται πρὸς ἑσπέραν, 
 1. 214, Greg. Na. 
 
 μηδεὶς τῶν ἀμνήτων, i. 180, Ps. Clem. 
 
 δι’ ὕδατος ἀναγεννήσαντας, 1. 139, Ps. 
 Clem. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ ἀνακίρναται (John vi. He that 
 eateth), i. 368, Apoll. 
 
 ἀνάμνησις, what it is, ii, 672, Waterl. 
 
 ἀναπτύσσει πάντα τὸν τῆς εὐεργεσίας τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ θησαυρὸν, i. 562, J. of D. 
 
 τοῦ μὴ γενέσθαι ἀναφορὰν παρόντων aipe- 
 τικών, 1. 635, Phot. 
 
 τὴν Θείαν ἀνο φορὰν, i. 186, Ps. Clem. 
 
 τῆς ἁγίας ἀναφορᾶς καὶ κοινωνίας, 1. 635, 
 Phot. 
 
 τοῦ Θείου ἄνθρακος. ..185. vi. 
 
 οὐδὲ ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως κατορθώματα τὰ 
 προκείμενα, 1. 339, Chrysost. 
 
 συναποθεωθῆ τὸ ἀνθρωπινὸν, 1. 207, Greg. 
 ΝΥ. 
 
 ἀντίτυπος representative, i. 22, 
 Clem. R. 
 
 τοῖς ἀντιτύποις ἐντιθέμενον, 1. 500, Eutych. 
 Cons. 
 
 ἀντίτυπα ταῦτα ἐπιτελοῦμεν, 1. 136, Ps. 
 Clem. 
 
 τούτων τῶν ἀντιτύπων, 1. 57, Iren. 
 
 ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ θανεῖν, i. 20, Ignat. 
 
 μηδαμῶς πρὸ τῆς ἀπολύσεως ἐ Feaxuenos: ἂν 
 420, Huseb. Alex. 
 
 ae geen ae i. 43, Just. 
 
 ᾿Αρειομανῖται, 1. 152, Ath. 
 
 τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως προσφέρομεν, 1 
 162, Kuseb. C. 
 
 ἄρτον ζωῆς os ἐστι σὰρξ, 
 Ignat. 
 
 νικήσῃ τὸν θάνατον ἡ τροφὴ τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς 
 ζωῆς, 1. 534, Max. 
 
 οὐ κοινὸν ἄρτον, K.T.X., 
 53, Lren. 
 
 ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται Tov Λόγον, κ.τ.λ., 
 Tren. 
 
 ὅλου ἄρτου, τῆς εὐλογίας Kal τῆς προσ- 
 φορᾶς, i. 553, Germ. Con. 
 
 μακαριότητος ἄρτος, 1. 157, Ath. 
 
 μέλισον Tov ἅγιον ἄρτον, 1. 361, Due. 
 
 Pseudo- 
 
 τι 26; 1 Xe, 1526, 
 
 i. 48, Just. and i. 
 i. 54, 
 
 ἄρτον σῶμα ἀδιστάκτως, i. 456, Isid. 
 Pel: 
 TOU GpTOU...OV...7OLELY, K.T.A., 1. 45, Just. 
 
 οὐκ ἐστι φύσει ὁ ἄρτος σῶμα ἀλλ᾽ ἀντί- 
 τυπον, 1. 829, Pallad. 
 
 ἀποφήνῃ τὸν ἄρτον σώμα, 1. 
 Clem. 
 
 ἄρτον οὐράνιον, i. 
 Theodot. B. 
 
 Tov ἄρτον τῆς εὐλογίας, &e., 1. 97, Orig. 
 
 μετὰ TO ἁγιασθῆναι ἀνυψοῖ τὸν ἄρτον, 1. 
 507, Anast. 5. 
 
 ἴσχυς ἄρτου (Isaiah iii.), i. 163, Euseb. C. 
 
 βρώση τὸν ζῶντα ἄρτον, i. 200, Bas. 
 
 ἀρχιερεὺς, ἱερεὺς, Λευίτης and λαικὸς, i. 16, 
 Clem. R. 
 
 196: Ps: 
 26, Ignat., see i. 66, 
 
ALTAR—BODIES. 
 
 A α. 
 
 τῶν ἀρχιερέων τὸν σύλλογον τὸν πολὺν, 
 i. 405, Bas. Sel. 
 
 οἱ ἀσκῆται, 1. 136, Ps, Clem. 
 
 τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τύχωσιν, K.T.Xr., 
 i. 57, Iren. 
 
 ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν οὕτω καταξιούμεθα, i. 
 326, Pallad. 
 
 τῷ φθαρτῷ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν, i. 55, Iren. 
 
 ἀφθαρσία, i. 66, Clem, A. 
 
 Manifestos abusus suaviter riserunt, ii. 
 358, Melane. 
 
 Duas substantias iisdem accidentibus in 
 uno loco, ii, 447, Pareus 
 
 Nihil de substantia remanet...acciden- 
 talia, 11. 120, Alan. 
 
 De altari accipiunt et moriuntur, i. 275, 
 Aug. 
 Virtus instrumentalis...movetur ab a- 
 gente principali, 11. 163, T. Aquin. 
 Agnum Dei immolamus, i. 462, Chrysol. 
 Ad altare Dei in communione, i. 270, 
 Aug. 
 
 Ascendere ad altare Dei, i. 39, Hermas 
 
 In altari Dei sacramenta benedicit, i. 
 295, Jer. 
 
 Altare in celis, 1. 53, Iren. 
 
 In altari crucis, ascribed to 8S. Andrew, 
 11. 536, Mede 
 
 Altare Dei est Filius Dei, i. 226, Ruf. 
 
 111 participes Divini altaris, isti de- 
 moniorum, i. 229, Pel. 
 
 In centro camere super altare, Ejus 
 figuram, i. 625, P. Nic. 
 
 Altare metuendum, i. 316, Pac. 
 
 Sancti altaris oblatio, i. 256, Aug. 
 
 In sexta feri& altari subtrahatur orna- 
 tus, sabbato reponatur, i. 593, Ben. An. 
 
 Ad altare offerentem Seipsum, i. 567, 
 Aleuinus 
 
 Sub altare anime...super altare corpus 
 Domini, i. 286, Aug. 
 
 Altare sanctum, in quo Deo vota, &e., i. 
 626, P. Nic. I. 
 
 Altaris palla, incendio dentur, i. 589, 
 Ps.-Is: D. 
 
 Eversores luminum, i. 79, Tert., also 
 etiam antelucanis cetibus ὁ 
 
 Antistites, velut advocati, i. 256 and 257, 
 Aug. 
 
 Ad aram Dei steteris, i. 68, Tert., i. 80 
 and 81 
 
 Altitudinem spiritualis sensfis non va- 
 lent ascendere, 1. 601, Scot. 
 
 B. β. 
 
 Question, Why after baptism remission 
 in Lord’s supper wanted, i. 616, Rab. 
 
 Delay of baptism, i. 231, Amb. 
 
 Not bare, of no force; full, not void and 
 empty, 11. 389, Bullin. 
 
 791 
 B. β. 
 
 Ye will have nothing but Seripture.—As 
 Christ left it bare, ii. 478, H. 8. 
 
 The bark of the letter, Christ’s meaning 
 within, 11. 254, Frith 
 
 Benediction made to mean thanksgiving, 
 11. 424, Cajetan 
 
 The word “ benefits” in the rubrie on 
 kneeling, ii. 705, Thirl. 
 
 To bind and to loose explained in Russia, 
 ii. 665 
 
 Change of Ritual in Sarum Manual for a 
 bishop, ii. 729 
 
 What not the meaning of “to bless,” 
 ii. 388, Bullin. 
 
 Idea of the shed blood being recovered, 
 1. 555, J. of Ὁ. 
 
 Not a drop of the blood lost, ii. 129, In- 
 noe. IIT. 
 
 The church knowing it Christ’s own 
 blood, all dreadful regard, ii. 407, 
 Fulke, Rheim, N. 
 
 Devil drew men to wine being blood as 
 from side, ii. 629, Bev. 
 
 The cup of blood is shed in each, not on 
 cross, no cup there, ii. 439, Corn. a L. 
 
 The water, 1 Cor. x., truly Christ’s blood— 
 ghostly, ii. 4, Alf. 
 
 Christ speaks of His dead body given to 
 them to eat, ii. 715, 718, Vogan 
 
 His ghostly body and blood, ii. 8, 451}. 
 
 Partaking of the substance of Christ’s 
 body and blood, ii. 340, Calv. 
 
 The body and blood really exhibited and 
 communicated to believers’ souls, ii. 
 585, Owen 
 
 Puerile to think that the body enters our 
 soul, 11, 377, Haus. 
 
 That with the eye of faith we see the 
 body there, i. 347, Chrys. 
 
 If Christ’s very body, &c. it were not a 
 sacrament but a sacrifice, ii. 474, S. 
 Christ’s body cireumsecribed and bound 
 
 to some set place, 11. 625, Limb. 
 
 The body which the church’s faith 
 makes, &e. ii. 71, Rup. 
 
 John Scot fain to shew that not truly 
 Christ’s body and blood, ii. 36, Bereng. 
 
 His true body indeed in the soul, ii. 250, 
 Frith 
 
 Denied, not so much a body as a shadow 
 and figure, ii. 55, Dur. of L. and 56 
 Guitm. 
 
 Extensibility of body, ii. 641, 2. Ans. 
 But what if organic? ii. 642—4 
 
 Cooperation, force, efficiency of body ! 
 Not coextensive with Deity, ii. 546, 
 Reyn. 
 
 In all fathers body and blood both clearly 
 expressed, ii. 591, 2, Outr. 
 
 Body of Christ not destroyed in such by 
 being slain, ii. 531, Calixt. 
 
 Two bodies of Christ, ii. 34, Fulb. 
 
192 
 
 Ἐ: 8. 
 
 Each particle Christ’s whole body, ii. 58, 
 Quesn. 
 
 We envelop the body as Nicodemus did, 
 11. 47, Anselm 
 
 Difficult, that true body given to faithful 
 only in a railful, 11. 562 
 
 Whether body in éucharist visible to 
 glorified body, &c., &c., ii. 276, D. de 
 St Pourecain 
 
 We eat His body, i.e. we surely be- 
 lieve, &e. 11. 251, Tynd. 
 
 Grace and glory enclosed in Christ’s 
 body and blood, 11. 619, I. Amb. 
 
 Obj. How can Christ’s body be eaten by 
 faith? ii. 700, Goode 
 
 Christ’s body restoring our bodies and 
 His blood our souls, ii, 49, Anselm 
 
 The true substantial body of Christ re- 
 ceived and eaten, 11. 529, Calixt. 
 
 Body and blood both sacraments and 
 res sacram., &c., 11. 116, P. Lomb. 
 
 Carry God in your body, 11. 34, Fulb. 
 
 Calls body and blood species! ii. 645, 
 Leib. 
 
 A saying communication of very body 
 and blood, 11. 272, Colet 
 
 The body and blood of Christ is received 
 of every one, &c., 11. 329, Ridl. 
 
 The sacred covenant represents and 
 conveys Christ’s body, iu. 710, 
 Goulb. 
 
 In this body sits in Heaven—thence not 
 come till judgment, 11. 369, Bradf. 
 
 What is wrought inwardly by the said 
 body and blood on the soul, ii. 398, 
 Geste 
 
 Body and blood received by hand of 
 faith with saving grace, ii. 512, Usher 
 
 Offers in His sacrament Christ’s proper 
 body and blood, é&e., ii. 630, I. Amb. 
 
 The body not in sacrament according to 
 its nature and mode of existence, ii. 
 705, Thirl. 
 
 Christ’s natural body in the sacrament 
 indeed, ii. 332, Rid]. 
 
 Denial of any such thing as His body 
 corporally present even in believers, 11. 
 325, Cran. 
 
 But glorified body received—said to be 
 present, 11. 673, Waterl. 
 
 A body can be in many places at once. 
 No contradiction, ii. 436, Bellarm. 
 Denial that we eat the body with the 
 
 mouth, 11. 334, Cran. 
 
 Only lively members eat the very body, 
 lie 997, eran. 
 
 The very body consequently, &c., ii. 673, 
 Waterl. 
 
 Our body transformed by it, as stronger, 
 ii, 272, Colet 
 
 Heresy to trowe sacrament God’s body 
 and no bread, ii. 201, Wyc. 
 
 SECOND INDEX. 
 
 B. B. 
 
 How should body and blood of Christ be 
 in the soul of a man? ii. 619, I. Amb. 
 
 Become the body, &c., the Divinity united 
 to elements, ii, 617, 8, Bull 
 
 A body that is everywhere cannot move 
 from place to place, ii. 626, Limb. 
 
 Denial Christ’s body leave Heaven, or 
 be in two places, ii. 656, Wake 
 
 Widow of Sarepta’s jar of oil a type of 
 Christ’s body, ii. 18, Lanf. 
 
 To the faithful the real spiritual part of 
 Christ’s body, ii. 319, Hugh L. 
 
 Body living, God entire, true Man, ii. 44 
 
 Christ’s body limited by properties of 
 own nature, 11. 418, Chemn. 
 
 His body gives eternal life, ii. 25, Anselm 
 
 The bread is changed by these solemn 
 words into Christ’s body, 11. 50, Anselm 
 
 However small, body of Christ whole and 
 entire, 11. 264, Sav. 
 
 Every man, good and evil, eateth the 
 body, ii. 376, Cran. 
 
 Faith perceives under bread the true 
 body, &c., 11. 649, Fenelon 
 
 This is My body, not alogical prop.—but 
 a rhetorical, 11. 438 
 
 We are turned into the nature of the 
 body and blood, ii. 370, Bradf, 
 
 He gave His body before He gave His 
 blood, ii. 591, Outr. 
 
 Christ’s true body and blood, sacrament- 
 ally given and received by hypocrites, 
 11. 455, Saray. 
 
 Exhibitives of Christ’s body and blood 
 retain own natures, ii, 397, Geste 
 
 Is ‘‘bread” virtute et effectu Christ’s 
 body ? ii. 724 
 
 If bread were body and wine blood, sepa- 
 rated, dead body, 11. 474, H. S. 
 
 Christ’s body retains essential pro- 
 perties of man in Heaven, ii. 627, 
 Limb. 
 
 Bread and wine are and are said to be 
 the body and blood, ii. 363, P. Mart. 
 Denial that natural body, &c. are where- 
 ever Divine Person is, ii. 705, Thirl. 
 Christ’s body finite and in Heaven and 
 
 not to be adored, ii. 342 
 
 Not only with his body’s mouth, but with 
 heart, &c., 11. 17, Lanf. 
 
 Lanfrane says, the portion of the body 
 is broken and eaten, ii. 25, Bereng. 
 Remembrance of an absent body broken, 
 
 1. 676, Hoad. 
 
 Jesus deigned to give us His body, &e., 
 in truth, 11. 596, Boss. 
 
 Heavenly body in which the Word clothes 
 self, ii. 686, Haag 
 
 Not that body and blood were or are 
 separated, 11. 382, Bue. 
 
 A body not eat spiritually, nor soul cor- 
 porally, ii. 474, H. S. 
 
BODY—BREAD. 
 
 ΒΕ 8: 
 
 The whole body in a thin wafer yet 
 members distinct, ii. 519, Hall 
 
 With the body one receives the blood 
 and Divinity all or none, ii. 599 
 
 Papists think taste very body of Christ 
 corporealiy, all abhor this, 11. 539, 
 Cos. 
 
 Extreme parts of a body severed not ac- 
 cording to place, 11. 550, Chill. 
 
 St Paul does not use the term ‘‘ touch” 
 the body of Christ, 1. 459 
 
 So gross a conceit—‘‘My body,” My 
 natural particular flesh, 11. 580, Dr 
 More 
 
 His bodily absence necessary to rite, ii. 
 676, Hoad. 
 
 Such commemoration that body itself is 
 present, ii. 529, Calixt. 
 
 Become in some inetiable way the body 
 and blood, &e., ii. 697, A. Den. 
 
 Argument from qualities (7. 6. substance 
 and accident) of Christ’s body being 
 inseparable, ii. 610, Still. 
 
 We receive the body, &ec., really (in- 
 wardly present), substantially, 11. 509, 
 Usher 
 
 Not such a presence as repugnant to 
 truth of body, 11. 411, Beza 
 
 Housel not the body which Christ suf- 
 fered in, 11. ὃ, 4, 4511. 
 
 Such a body could not penetrate doors, 
 li, 635, Whit. 
 
 Reverences to body and blood of Christ 
 ought to be made, ii. 84, P. of B. 
 
 A Divine body belonging to eternal 
 Logos, ii. 581, Dr More 
 
 The body, &c., by means of the invoca- 
 tion, ii. 662, Johnson 
 
 A body cannot be in any place without 
 dimensions, ii. 610, Still. 
 
 “‘Gives (prebere) His own body,” ii. 
 705, Thirl. 
 
 Body not human if in two places, ii. 365, 
 P. Mart. 
 
 Our Lord proved His body to disciples 
 by evidence of senses, ii. 577, J. Tay. 
 
 If turned substance of the body Christ 
 really naturally, ἄο., 11. 322, Becon 
 
 Our adversaries declare that bread and 
 wine are properly Christ’s body and 
 blood, ii. 362, P. Mart. 
 
 In substance bread, in mind and mystery 
 Christ, 11. 359, Hoop. 
 
 To pluck from (it) the bread and wine 
 maketh it no sacrament, 11.322, Becon 
 
 Bread by Melch. an offering, 11. 85, P. 
 of B. 
 
 Live not by bread alone—of transub- 
 stantiation, ii. 260 and Lord’s P. 262, 
 Sav. 
 
 Nothing but bread and wine to be re- 
 ceived at altar, i. 359 
 
 793 
 
 Be Bs 
 
 Form of bread, superstition in wafer 
 bread feared, ii. 360, Parker 
 
 That a piece of bread can...become their 
 God and Saviour, ii. 616, Bull 
 
 Acknowledge nothing but bread and 
 wine, ii. 382, Buc. 
 
 Bread leavened, infants, warm water, το, 
 ii. 665, Platon 
 
 Scripture, reason and six centuries shew 
 substantial bread and wine not 
 changed, ii. 543, 4, Albertin 
 
 Bread (in all the church) transfused into 
 one, ii. 33, Fulb. 
 
 The bread is the body, &e., 11. 716, Vogan 
 
 Bread broken, of whatever kind, 11, 625, 
 Limb. 
 
 Beyond controversy, bread and wine are 
 figures, not of any substance, 11. 342, 
 Calv. 
 
 Not to reserve till (the bread) be so much 
 as hoary, ii. 3, Alf. 
 
 He changes the bread and wine until, &., 
 as soon as the priest speaks the words, 
 549, Fenelon 
 
 Material bread—false and heresy, ii. 148, 
 A. Hales 
 
 What took He but bread? What brake 
 He, &c.? What He brake He gave, ii. 
 AUT, J. Fox 
 
 Bread not depart from the sacrament, 11. 
 30, Bereng. 
 
 Bread becoming Christ’s flesh, 11, 58, 
 Alger 
 
 Unfermented bread He blessed, ii. 45, 
 Anselm 
 
 Bread not taken away by corruption of 
 subject, 11. 28, Bereng. 
 
 True Deity in bread and wine, ii. 69, 
 Rup. 
 
 The sacrament His flesh covered under 
 form of bread, ii. 18, Lanf. 
 
 This is the bread of affliction our fathers 
 ate in EKgypt, 11. 559, Hamm. 
 
 Bread and wine in quality changed to be 
 true symbols, &c., 11. 413, Beza 
 
 In appearance bread and wine in truth 
 the Lamb of God, i. 69—76, Rup. 
 
 Bread cannot be other than significa- 
 tively, 11. 630, Bev. 
 
 Bread or body must be expounded typi- 
 cally, ii. 576, J. Taylor 
 
 As if Christ’s flesh were in the bread, 11. 
 375, Haus. 
 
 He knew well it was hallowed bread and 
 not the Lord’s body, 11, 476 
 
 Hints needed that he meant bread 
 changed in figurative sense, li. 352, 
 Jewel 
 
 Breaking bread not description of this 
 sacrament, ii. 288, Eras. 
 
 Τῇ no change, then of bread Christ said, 
 This is, &e¢., ii. 485, Bell, 
 
794 
 
 Be 8: 
 
 Bread doth not only represent buat bring 
 into us, &¢., 11. 258, Cov. 
 
 Christ took bread and left it bread. The 
 priest, &e., 11. 400, Grind. 
 
 Alternative of the bread becoming cor- 
 rupt, 1. 502, Anast. S. 
 
 Hearts of Jews and Mahomedans against 
 image and bread worshiy, ii. 618, Bull 
 
 The bread has ceased to be bread, ii. 
 735, Lidd. 
 
 ‘Bread into His flesh is turned,” quoted 
 by M. Capel, ii. 734 
 
 Breaking the bread, spontaneam pas- 
 sionem, 1. 623, Strab. 
 
 The bread out of which we make the 
 flesh itself, ii. 46, Anselm 
 
 Simonites held it simply bread and 
 wine, 11, 14, Damian 
 
 Natural substance of Christ ‘‘ not here” 
 in bread, ii. 329, Ridley 
 
 No reason that Melchizedek offered only 
 bread and wine, 11. 590, Outr. 
 
 “Bread itself and wine transmuted,” 
 &e., ii. 706, Thirl, 
 
 Bread remaineth, is His body given to 
 us, li. 329, Rid]. 
 
 Bread still (1 Cor. x. 16) as assuredly 
 receiveth Christ’s body, ii. 534, Mede 
 
 Breaks into three parts, ii. 128 
 
 The words to be uttered in one breath, 
 1: 759. ΜΠ ΕἸ. 
 
 Greeks buried remainder, ii. 37, Humb. 
 
 βατὴν ἐποίησε (as if ὕδωρ ἐποίησ᾽ ἐνθέῳ 
 Baroy ποδί), i. 151, Spur. Justini 
 
 Vilium bestiolarum dentes, ii. 90, Guib. 
 
 Buecella Dominica venenum Jud, i. 
 275 (Aug.), 279 
 
 C. x. 
 
 Meaning of candles threefold, ii, 48, 
 Anselm 
 
 Canon that those that leave church be- 
 fore communicating ἀφορίζεσθαι, 1. 634, 
 Phot. 
 
 Service easily carnal, i. 508, Greg. I. 
 
 Only the soul’s food spiritual not carnal, 
 11. 147, A. Hales 
 
 Not carnal but spiritual manner only, 
 ii. 630, Bey. 
 
 Carry self in own hands—bring to be 
 eaten, &., ii. 520, Hall 
 
 Canon Liddon builds on one sentence in 
 the Catechism, ii. 733 
 
 Catalogues of great teachers and of here- 
 ties, 1. 413, 414, Theod. Cyr. 
 
 Custom, laymen not in chancel at conse- 
 eration, 11. 280, Eras. 
 
 Reformers denying bodily, admit no real 
 change, ii. 579, B. Heber 
 
 Hlements to be “‘ really” changed is what 
 Rome pleads for, ii. 579, B. Heber 
 
 SECOND 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Gr x: 
 
 Fathers, and doctrine of change of sub- 
 stance, li. 538 
 
 Not correct to say any change in their 
 nature, ii. 578, B. Heber 
 
 Hyen sacramentarians allow a change in 
 it, i. 435, Bell. 
 
 Imagining some mysterious charm, &c., 
 11. 709 
 
 The church the living figure of Christ 
 through all ages, ii. 683, Moehl. 
 
 Church of England clear. Unsteady 
 minds vary in their conceits, ii. 522, 
 Hall 
 
 Only clergy to eat what remains, i. 369, 
 Theoph. A. and comments. Bals. 
 
 Cloth shaken and burnt, ii. 79, St Steph. 
 
 Tue four principal colours, &c., ii. 180, 
 Innoe. If. 
 
 Joseph of Arim. a rebuke to unclean 
 communicants, il. 548, Reyn. 
 
 Unfit communicants, ii. 196, Taul. 
 
 The enemy does not hurt communi- 
 cants, ii. 235, Cyr. L. 
 
 If full of love of world to communicate 
 frequently, ii. 573 
 
 Bohemians demand daily communion 
 and cup, ii. 204 
 
 Proper best times for communion, ii. 
 720, H. Seym. . 
 
 True and substantial communion of flesh 
 and blood, ii. 340, Calv. 
 
 On those that refuse communion from 
 married elders, i. 635, Phot. 
 
 The instrument of a higher grace and a 
 closer communion, &¢., ii. 708, Goulb. 
 
 Communion to infants, one element suf- 
 fices to save, 11. 423, Cajetan 
 
 Diverse times of communion, i. 260, Aug. 
 
 Devout adverse to frequent communion, 
 li. 708, Goulb. 
 
 Communion the delight God and His 
 people have one in another, ii. 622, St 
 Amb. 
 
 Rome desires frequent celebrations, not 
 communions, 11. 720, H. Seym. 
 
 May be comprehended by higher beings, 
 1. 26, Bereng. 
 
 Concealing Himself under the covering, 
 &e., i. 707, Thirl. 
 
 Conclusion, no absolute virtue of itself, 
 ii. 176, Duns 
 
 No truth in both the elements being 
 under either kind, concomitance, ii. 
 647, Leib. 
 
 Confer on us sanctification, gracee—how? 
 1. 682, Moehl. 
 
 The overthrow of the sacraments con- 
 ferring grace, ii. 341, Calv. 
 
 Grace conferred as by instrument of 
 Christ’s passion, ii. 497, Caprera 
 
 Conferred by God through their means 
 “eX ΟΡ. op., 11. 682, Moehl. 
 
BREAD—CARNES. 
 
 C. x. 
 
 If no priest, confess to brother, ii. 140, 
 F. of A. 
 
 Confession given up, i. 432, Soz. 
 
 The real threefold cord is, Conf., Absol. 
 and Bodily Pres., ii. 490 
 
 Man’s version of confession before Lord’s 
 supper, i. 442, Vict. A. 
 
 As to confession before Lord’s supper, 
 ii. 611 
 
 What constitutes consecration, 11. 405, 6, 
 Pilk. 
 
 Consecration to be set in Christ’s whole 
 action, li. 587, Turretin 
 
 Jerome’s saying, The life, not words, 
 consecrates, li. 42 
 
 Offer elements for consecration differs 
 from sacrificing, 11. 675, Waterl. 
 
 Ingenious reasoning about validity of 
 consecration, 11. 682, Palm. 
 
 The consecration an act of all present, 
 li. 12, 18, Damian 
 
 The giving must be by consecration, ii. 
 711, Goulb. 
 
 Words in prayer of consecration, par- 
 takers, &c., sacram. partic., 11. 682, 
 Palm. 
 
 Trreeular consecration of chrism, i. 638, 
 Mont. Tol. 
 
 Is, after consecration, Christ’s body ... 
 life to faithful, 11. 28, Bereng. 
 
 Some think Christ consecrated twice ! 
 ii. 349, Jewel 
 
 Ancient fathers teach, become and are by 
 consecration the body and blood, ii. 
 617, Bull 
 
 Mr Scudamore’s special pleading on our 
 Prayer of Consecration, ii. 728 
 
 Hard to prove what the formula of con- 
 secration, 11. 288, Eras. 
 
 Consequences of belief that cannot be 
 too often, ii. 718, H. Seym. 
 
 Constructional intermingling, &c.,ii.671, 
 Water!l. 
 
 Consubstantiation the word for John of 
 Paris ; concomitance for Melanchthon, 
 ii. 183 
 
 Christ with us till the world’s consum- 
 mation, 11. 460, Saray. 
 
 Given not to contact, but by contract, 11. 
 653, Baxt. 
 
 Divers opinions on the conyersion, ii. 
 193, W. of O., (philosophical) 194 
 
 Converted into true flesh, &c., Ber.’s 
 Recant., ii. 17, Lanf. 
 
 His sacred body should be conveyed to 
 the faithful soul, ii. 546, Reyn. 
 
 An institution where Christ is conveyed 
 to us, ii. 535, Mede 
 
 That sacraments, as pipes, convey, is 
 without warrant of, &e., ii. 388, Bullin. 
 
 Not any real essential conveying of grace 
 by corporeal means, 11. 584, Owen 
 
 795 
 
 C. x. 
 
 Not represent but convey His body and 
 Himself into us, ii. 473, H. 5. 
 
 The corporal put on and taken off, ii. 
 725, Seudam. 
 
 Corporally in Heaven, spiritually in His 
 lively members, ii. 326, Cran. 
 
 Our souls neither receive nor digest that 
 which is corporeal, ii. 402, Sand. 
 
 Corporals and lifting the elements, ii. 
 129, Innoe. ITT. 
 
 Not so much by corporal as spiritual 
 and united, 11. 1383, De Coen. Ὁ. 
 
 Corporaliter hardest. May mean with- 
 out fiction, ii, 577, J. Tay. 
 
 Corporally He not there in form of 
 bread, ii. 368, Bradf. 
 
 Without corporeity not true sacrament, 
 ii. 176, Duns 
 
 Corpus Christi day, carried about and 
 worshipped, ii. 630, Bev. 
 
 From one term (altar) the correlatives 
 follow, 11. 721, Jacob 
 
 Liable to corrupt, yet immortal God, ii. 
 220, Gers. 
 
 Franciscan doctrine—new creation of 
 body, ii. 35 
 
 If you think of any supplement to His 
 merits on cross, I renounce, &e¢., i. 
 538, Bram. 
 
 Different usings of sign of cross, ii. 47, 
 Anselm 
 
 Crosses made, ii. 167, 8, W. Dur. 
 
 Mr Scudamore’s feelings about the sign 
 of the cross, 11. 729 
 
 Sign of cross with incense, ii. 97, 8, 
 Honor. 
 
 Three crossings for the three women, 
 Luke xxiv., i. 128 
 
 Cup urged by Jacobelus from Scripture, 
 John vi. &., 11. 244 
 
 Denying the cup a sign of ignorance as 
 to value of the Lord, ii. 304, Melance. 
 
 If custom good, introduced by Holy 
 Spirit’s aid, li. 301, Bp Fisher 
 
 τὸν χερουβικὸν ὕμνον, 1. 131, Dion. A. 
 
 χόροι συνάγονται, i. 31, Let. Diog. 
 
 ov χωρεῖ εἰς TO μὴ εἶναι, 1. 558, J. of 1). 
 
 Erat jam in calice, i. 599, Paschas. 
 
 Idem sanguis jam erat im calice qui in 
 corpore, i. 599, Paschas. 
 
 Si sang. latere fluentem in calice cruen- 
 tum potum, ii. 363, P. Mar. 
 
 Nulla mentio calicis dividendi, i. 401, 
 Fulg. 
 
 Sicut illi intellexerunt, non sic do car- 
 nem, i. 565, Alb. 
 
 Per carnem Ejus vivemus (John vi.), i. 
 ΤΠ ἘΠῚ ἘΣ 
 
 Doctrinam fidei et carnem Meam, ii. 80, 
 B. of Segn. 
 
 Carnes Agni sacro ore conficiens, i. 292, 
 Jer. 
 
790 SECOND 
 
 C. x. 
 
 Calicem salutarem gutturi applicaret, i. 
 452, Prosp. 
 
 Calicem Christi sanguinem continere, i. 
 607, Bert. 
 
 Virtutem elicuit ex carne, i. 90, Origen 
 
 Carnis Christi esum. translatitie appli- 
 cari, 11. 412, Beza 
 
 Penetrare ad nos carnem, ii. 339, Calv. 
 
 Naturam carnis ad naturam eternitatis, 
 1. IO, ἘΠῚ 12 
 
 Panem carnem, negat Scotus (Hrig.), ii. 
 177, Duns 
 
 Tetigimus carnes sanctas, i. 90, Origen 
 
 In eaidem carnis forma atque substantia, 
 1. 265, Aug. 
 
 Ad veritatem carnis pertingit homo ma- 
 lus, 11. 209, Hus. 
 
 Vere Verbum carnem sumimus, i. 170, 
 ἘΠῚ ΣῚΡ. 
 
 Caro sua in veritate sumitur, i. 244, 
 Amb. 
 
 Sermo caro erat factus, i. 71, Tert. 
 
 Caro nihil prodest (John vi.), i. 
 Aug., and 273, 276 
 
 Uno certo die per annum, i. 261, Aug. 
 
 Unio inter libatum et cibum, ὅσο., ii. 153, 
 Bonay. 
 
 A communibus cibis differens, ii. 132, 
 Innoe. III. 
 
 Illius cibo vivere incipimus, &c., i. 460, 
 Chrysol. 
 
 Ad celestem cibum quotidianus defertur, 
 i, 461, Chrysost. 
 
 Ter crux cum sale et cinere super aquam, 
 li. 97, Honor. 
 
 Die cone consecraret, i.e. 
 day, ii. 115, P. Lomb. 
 
 Inter ccenandum celebratam ccenam non 
 esse, 1. 618, Rab. 
 
 Cogitationes omnes patefacere, i. 471, 
 Leo I. 
 
 Comedere est cognoscere, i. 95, Origen 
 
 In commemorationem KHjus, i. 117, 
 Cyp. 
 
 Comm. qua communiter conyeniant, i. 
 524, Isid. Sev. ; 
 
 Communicatio idiomatum inter p. οὗ ὁ. 
 Christi, 1. 181, J. of P. 
 
 In communionem sancti corporis collo- 
 candi, i. 177, Hil. P. 
 
 Interius commutatum Sp. 5. virtute, i. 
 609, Bert. 
 
 Jure communicationis, i. 148, Counce. 
 
 Jure communicationis, i. 121, Cyp. 
 
 Communicari and κοινωνεῖν, i. 115, Cyp. 
 
 Communio pacis, 1. 145, Counce. 
 
 Litera communicatoria, i. 145 
 
 Voce tua sol& commuta, i. 217, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 Concernere and our concerns, ii. 177 
 
 Sine ullé concrete confusionis labe, i. 
 236, Amb. 
 
 272, 
 
 Passover 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 σον 
 
 Concomitantur Divinitas et quantitas, ut 
 dicunt, ii. 278, Pasch. 
 
 Confectio corporis et sanguinis Domini, 
 i. 584, Agob. 
 
 Conficit esse sub specie panis, ii. 208, 
 Hus. 
 
 Ad conficiendum Christi corpus, i. 616, 
 Rab. 
 
 Corpus Domini conficiunt, i. 106, Pon. 
 
 Divinum ac mysterium sacrif. conficie- 
 batur, ii. 179, Blem. 
 
 Hoc facite is hoe conficite, ii. 245, 
 Syly. 
 
 Efficitur...conficitur, ii, 4, Alf. 
 
 Sermo conficit sac., i. 238 and 240, 
 Amb. 
 
 Spiritualem conficit panem, i. 288, Jer. 
 
 Nemo conficere nisi sacerdos, ii. 138, 
 Celi, IY 
 
 Secundum res gestas conficitur mys- 
 terium, ἄο., 1. 601, Scot. 
 
 Dei verbo conficitur (non) stolida figura, 
 1. 89, Guib. 
 
 Domini chrisma conficere, i. 107, Fab. 
 
 Non confirmatum licet opinari opposi- 
 tum, ii. 279, D. de St P. 
 
 Prius consecrat quam frangat, aliter 
 Christus, ii. 168, W. Dur. 
 
 Consubst. not less absurd than transubs., 
 11. 342 (cum pane copulare) 
 
 Corpus quomodo ad usum conyenit, 
 ‘‘quibus modis,” i. 615, Rab. 
 
 Virtute Divina totum convertitur in 
 totum, ii. 149, A. Hales 
 
 Some say non conyerti, madness, ii. 
 117, P. Lomb. 
 
 Vere, per mysterium Ὁ. et v. in ec. et 
 5. conversa subst. sumenda, i. 608, 
 Bert. 
 
 Omnes, tam conyersi quam ceteri, ii. 
 78, St Steph. 
 
 Convivium Domini, 1. 258, Aug. 
 
 Ipse conviva et convivium, i. 286, Jer. 
 
 In corde polluto injuria Ejus corpori, i. 
 230, Pelag. 
 
 Qui corde ficto carnem manducant, i. 
 524, Agyp. andi. 254, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Nihil edere nisi quod corporale, i. 177, 
 Hil Ps 
 
 Unum suppositum, duas corporeitates, 
 ris ΘΙ dis @ke) 1B. 
 
 In Christi sanguinem corporaliter con- 
 vertitur, 1. 610, Bert. 
 
 Corporis Sui figuram dedisse, i. 70, and 
 i.e. figuram, corporis Mei, Tert. 
 
 Corpore reseryato, i. 68, Tert. 
 
 Corporis et sanguinis Sui figuram, i. 
 271, Aug. 
 
 Ex corp., ex anim., ex Spirit., ex Deit., 
 &e., ii. 157, Alb. M. 
 Species frangitur, &c., 
 Christi, ii. 210, Huss 
 
 non corpus 
 
CALICEM—-CURRUM. 
 
 Cu x: 
 
 Corpus Domini vivum et vivificum et 
 multipresens, ii. 110, Ger. 
 
 Verum Christi corpus adesse fidei con- 
 templ., ii. 312, Zwin. 
 
 Ut Christi sit corpus et non aliud quam 
 quod passum, i. 499, Pasch. 
 
 Propositionis panes et corpus Christi, 
 umbram et corpus, i. 527, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Christi corpus sancto ore conficiunt, i. 
 292, Jer. 
 
 Hoe, quod conficimus, corpus Christi ex 
 Virgine est, i. 629, Hink. 
 
 In conficiendo corpore Christi, i. 295, 
 Jer. 
 
 Non verum...quod panis fiat corpus 
 Christi, ii. 278, D. de St P. 
 
 Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus 
 Christi est, i. 258, Aug. 
 
 Veraciter esse Christi corpus et sang., 
 ii. 291, Luth. 
 
 Mens, Christi corpus confectura, i. 294, 
 Jer. 
 
 Non sacramento tenus sed revera corpus 
 Christi manducare (John vi.), i. 270, 
 Aug. 
 
 Corpus ipsum manducamus, i. 273 and 
 279, Aug. 
 
 Particulam corporis Christi tinctam, 1. 
 452, Prosp. 
 
 Triforme corpus Christi, i. 579, Amal. 
 
 Sacramentum Dominici corporis et 
 sanguinis investitura, ii. 105, S. 
 Bern. 
 
 En recevant Son vrai corps, &¢., ii. 
 198, Taul. 
 
 Corpus Domini canistro, &c., i. 294, 
 Jer., Rossi’s discovery 
 
 Sed quotidiana, mediciné Dominici cor- 
 poris separare, i. 521, Aigyp. 
 
 Panis est verum corpus Maria, ii. 191, 
 Lyra 
 
 Non ficto animo apprehendimus corpus, 
 &e., ii. 366, P. Mart. 
 
 Non quod proprie corpus Ejus sit panis, 
 1. 490, Fac. 
 
 Virtute Dominici corporis protegente, 
 i. 350, Cass. 
 
 Res sacramenti corporis veritas, ii. 106, 
 S. Bern. 
 
 Vitalem corporis Sui virtutem (His 
 life), i. 89, Origen 
 
 Transferat in corpus, &c., i. 217, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 Oculi pudici, &c.; qui corpus intueri, 
 &e., ii. 327, T. a K. 
 
 In terris corpus non potest esse post 
 resurr., i. 316, Zwing. 
 
 Quid faciat duo corpora realiter dis- 
 tincta, 11. 232, Tost. 
 
 Corpus in hoc mysterio quod creatur, i. 
 599, Pasch. 
 
 A co.pore non recedamus, i. 122, Cyp. 
 
 797 
 
 Coe 
 
 Prius reficimur sacramento quam cor- 
 poralibus escis, ii. 190, Lyra 
 
 Panis ad corpus, vinum ad animam, ii. 
 190, Lyra 
 
 Fecit illud Suum corpus ἄσ., 1. 
 Gaud. 
 
 Corpus non in sacramento  fragibili 
 modo, ii. 191, Lyra 
 
 Unum corpus non in duobus locis, ii. 
 232, Tost. 
 
 Corpus...ad invisibilia non organicum, 
 Tie 950. {Π051- 
 
 Nature ῬΙΌΡΥΪ et Sue corpus, i. 175, 
 ἘΠῚ 12% 
 
 Corpus et calix figura, quia mysterium, 
 i. 610, Bert. 
 
 Corpus in quo passum proprium corpus 
 nec in eo figura, i. 610, Bert. 
 
 Verum corpus Suum quod conceptum, 
 &e., ti. 208, Huss 
 
 Corpus dicimus quod sumimus, &e., 1. 
 266, Aug. 
 Adesse substantialiter et corporaliter, 
 sed non quantitative, ii. 441, Hosp. 
 Neque corpus oportet in terris realiter 
 adesse, ii. 414, Beza 
 
 Non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus 
 Suum, i. 565, Alcuin 
 
 Nunquam possumus (in) Ejus corpus 
 transire, nisi, &c., 1. 590, Ps. Is. D. 
 
 Ex pane corpus fiat, i. 239, Amb. 
 
 Ipsummet corpus et ille ipse sanguis, 
 non figura, ii. 372, Haus. 
 
 Sumunt corpus de manibus Dei, ii. 261, 
 Sav. 
 
 Convivio corporis Christi et sang. fruan- 
 tur, i. 473, St Brig. Cog. 
 
 Unus ubique...hic plenus, illic plenus; 
 unum corpus, i. 567, Alcuin 
 
 Spiritu vero corpore et sanguine alimur, 
 ii. 325, Cran. 
 Juxta sacrarium layent, &c., ne forte 
 pulyis Dom. corp., i. 589, Ps. Is. D. 
 Extra. hoe corpus neminem vivificat 
 Spiritus Sanctus, i. 257, Aug. 
 
 Corpus Suum representat in sacramen- 
 tis, i. 77, Tert. 
 
 Non corpus ante consec., 1. 238, Amb. 
 
 Febrienti manu corpus, i. 240, Amb. 
 
 Verba quibus Dom. corpus conficitur, ii. 
 148, A. Hales 
 
 Post consecrat. verum corpus, &¢., ii. 
 212, Jer. of P. 
 
 Corpus incorruptibile tractare, ii. 128, 
 Innoe. II. 
 
 Comp. simple purity of Council of 
 Ancyra, i. 147 
 
 Crede et manducasti, i. 274, Aug. 
 
 Culpa originalis et actualis mundativa, 
 ii. 185, Marsil. 
 
 Currum mirifice structure, alius Amb. 
 M., i. 642, Ortizius 
 
 424, 
 
798 SECOND 
 
 Cre 
 Mar. Mere., quoting Cyril A. carnem 
 viviticatricem, i. 443 
 
 1): ὃ: 
 
 Monod and Goulburn opposed as to 
 daily, &e., 11. 708 
 
 Christ daily suffers and dies as often, 
 &¢., li. 72, Rup. 
 
 Calvin and Goulburn as to daily, &c., 
 1. 708 
 
 Danger and guilt of admitting unfit 
 communicants, ii. 186, 7 
 
 Deacons bearers of the mystery, i. 27, 
 and n. 
 
 Deacons βαστάζουσι τὸ σῶμα (Cant. vii. 
 14), i. 416, Theod. Cyr. 
 
 No dead person to have the bread put 
 into his mouth, i. 634, Phot. 
 
 Common prayers for dead from apostles, 
 i. 527, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Aesthetic stimulants hindrances to de- 
 votion, li. 722, Jacob 
 
 Franciscan and Dominican differences, 
 ii. 705, 6, Thirl. 
 
 To discern or distinguish His body, ii. 
 613, Barrow 
 
 The two disciples sent by Christ mean 
 the two covenants, i. 543, Andreas C. 
 
 To put an end to this unhappy discus- 
 sion, ii. 341, Calv. 
 
 As often you receive, &c., you do the 
 work of your redemption, ii. 224, 
 ΠΕ: 
 
 Rule when Greek word for ‘‘do”” means 
 to ‘‘offer,” ii. 704, Thirl. and 723, 
 Marr. 
 
 Do this, all that I have done in your 
 presence, ii. 589, Hamm. 
 
 As God can do it, therefore He does, ii. 
 34, 35, Fulb. 
 
 Not what God can, but what will do, 
 ii. 588, Turretin. 
 
 John xx. No proof Christ came through 
 the doors, 11. 409, Fulke — 
 
 Not enter through doors, but they open 
 at His nod, ii. 588, Turretin 
 
 Objection to using dress of other sex 
 in plays, 1. 127, (Lact.) 
 
 Story of dying man receiving, ii. 200, 
 Nic. Xanth. 
 
 δεκτοὺς γενέσθαι εἰς κοινωνίαν, 1. 196, Bas. 
 
 δεκτικὴν τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεάς Θεοῦ, i. 54, 
 Tren. 
 
 δέλτων ἀνάγνωσις, i. 493, Ps. Dionys. 
 
 τῶν ἐν TH κτίσει ὑπερτάτης, δεσπ. ἡμῶν 
 θεομήτορος, i. 571, Niceph. Cons. 
 
 ἀχράντου δεσποίνης Θεοτόκου, i. 218, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 ὑπερευλογημένης ἐνδόξου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν, 
 
 i. 358, Due. 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 Deo: 
 
 τὸν Δεσπότην μεριζόμενον καὶ διαδόμενον, 
 i, 421, Euseb. Alex. 
 
 διάκονοι διδόασιν, i. 43 and 44, Just. - 
 
 τὸν διάκονον ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, 1. 133, 
 Ps. Clem. 
 
 διαφωνία, i. 161, Kuseb. C. 
 
 ἐπεπήδησεν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, i. 63, Clem. 
 
 διεξοδικώτατα αὐτὴν ἤδον, 1. 435, Proc. 
 
 ὁ τῆς διορθώσεως καιρὸς, i. 377, Cyr. A. 
 
 δύναμις, that went from Christ, not said 
 to belong to body, i. 599 
 
 Da magistrum, i.e. Tert., i. 114, Cyp. 
 
 Dari nobis quotidie, i. 122, Cyp. 
 
 Ex eo parum quid decidat, i. 93, 103, 
 Origen 
 
 Aliquid decuti in terram, &c., i. 79, Tert. 
 
 Dentibus teritur, is flagitium, 11. 522, 
 Hall 
 
 Licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat 
 dentibus, i. 276, Aug. 
 
 Definire non sufficio, ii. 117, P. Lomb. 
 
 Defunctis requiem prestat, ii. 225, T. 
 a Κ. 
 
 Pro vivis et defunctis, living and dead, 
 ii. 126 
 
 Diptychs, i. 429 n., Socrates 
 
 Non putandus ut ubique diffusus, i. 265, 
 Aug. 
 
 Diligentia 
 Clem. 
 
 A ceteris non discernens alimentis, i. 
 626, P. Nic. I. 
 
 Dispositio previa, 11. 174, Duns 
 
 Non Hee est Divinitas Mea que con- 
 fringetur, i. 392, Nest. 
 
 Si mane Dominica portio editur, i. 134, 
 Ps. Clem. 
 
 Domini sanctum, i. 120, Cyp. 
 
 Ne forte pulvis Dominici corporis, i. 
 135, Ps. Clem. 
 
 Frequentandis Dominicis, i. 119, Cyp. 
 
 consumantury, i. 134, Ps. 
 
 EK. ε. ἡ. 
 
 The eating of the eucharist gives eternal 
 life, ii. 692, W. and W. 
 
 Eat Christ before. More expressly 
 through, &c., ii. 254, Frith 
 
 gees do, wicked do not eat it, ii, 631, 
 
 ev. 
 
 Wrong to deny Christ eaten and drunken 
 by bodily mouth, ii. 459 
 
 Faithful do certainly eat, &c., ii. 629, 
 Bey., properly, &., 630 
 
 Daily dies, rises, appears and is eaten, 
 11. 84, Fulb. 
 
 All not perish who do not eat, &e. 
 (John vi.), ii. 16, Lanf. 
 
 Judas having eaten overthrows many 
 theories, 11. 456 
 
 Eating none other thing than belief, &e., 
 il. 250, Tynd. 
 
CYRIL—EXCOMMUNICATIONS, 
 
 E. ε. 7. 
 
 The ecclesiastical policy of the apostles, 
 li. 721, Jacob 
 
 If we purge ourselves from great sins, 
 the eucharist effaces small, 11. 598, 
 Boss. 
 
 Yet not of themselves efficacious, 1. 639, 
 Leib, 
 
 Solemn representation of Him crucified 
 as in effigie, ii. 613, Barr. 
 
 Empty erroneous spirituality (without it), 
 ui. 684, Moehl. 
 
 Not vain and empty sign, as some say, ii. 
 340, Caly. 
 
 Is ‘“‘taken and received,” empty figure, 
 &e.? ii. 711, Goulb. 
 
 Dismiss enquiry, prepared not to know 
 what takes place, ii. 436, Bell. 
 
 Life in eucharist not of itself but of the 
 Spirit, ii. 487, Cornel. 
 
 Dr Lonsdale, Bishop of Lichfield, on use 
 of term eucharist, i. 20 
 
 The eucharist given to infants—wine, i. 
 147 
 
 Eucharist bona gratia ! ii. 115, P. Lomb. 
 and ii. 153, Bonav. 
 
 The eucharist suggests order of gifts, ii. 
 696, A. Wilb. 
 
 The eucharist the medium of communi- 
 cation, John vi., ii. 696, A. Wilb. 
 
 Eucharist entirely constituted a name of 
 this sacrament by Ignatius, i. 28. See 
 18 
 
 Some of the passages on Evening Com- 
 munion, i. 82 
 
 In Century χιχ. in England, evening 
 communion almost suppressed, i. 
 624 
 
 Not always at evening, 11. 47, Anselm 
 
 Christ’s reasons for evening institution, 
 i. 526, Isid. Sey. 
 
 On Excommunication. New Testament 
 Fathers, Old Testament Fathers, ii. 
 391—5, Hrast. 
 
 The non-existent appears—the existent 
 is hid—lest we should revolt, ii. 51, 
 Anselm 
 
 Lord’s supper not extension, &e., of 
 Christ's sacrifice, ii. 730, N. T. 
 
 The exit of Christ from the tomb through 
 the stone, i. 151, Sp. Jus. 
 
 Explanation of Nicolas, what becomes of 
 it in certain cases, ii. 171, W. Dur. 
 
 ei εἰκόνα (φὴς) φεῦ τῆς ἀλοπίας, i. 573, 
 Theod. Stud. 
 
 μετὰ τὴν εἰσόδευσιν τῶν Θείων δώρων, i. 
 575, Theod. Stud. 
 
 ἐκκαλοῦμεν τὸ IIvetua τὸ “Αγιον, ὅπως 
 ἀποφήνῃ, K.T-A., 1. 57, Tren. 
 
 ws ναῦς ἐν πελάγει...ἡ ἐκκλησία, i. 112, 
 Hipp. 
 
 ἐκκλησιαστήριον different from ἐκκλησία, 
 i, 454, Isid. Pel. 
 
 E. e. 7. 
 
 ἐμβρίμιον, 1. 330, Pallad. 
 
 ἐνστερνισμένοι, i. 135, Ps. Clem. 
 
 TH πρὸς TO ἀθάνατον ἑνώσει, K.T.A., 1. 302, 
 Epiph. 
 
 ἐντὸς τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων σπλάγχνων, i. 204, 
 Greg. Nyss. 
 
 ὁ ἄρτος... ἡν ὡμένος Θεότητι...οὐ μία φύσις, 
 1. 562, Ji. of D. 
 
 τὰ πεμπόμενα ἑορταστικὰ, 1. 635, Phot. 
 
 τῶν διαβατηρίων ἑορτὴν, 1. 168, Huseb. C. 
 
 ὅτε ἐπηνθρώπησε, i. 155, Athan. 
 
 ἐπιούσιον, 1. 366, Mk. EB, 
 
 τῆς ἑορτῆς καὶ συνάξεως διαλυθείσης, i. 465, 
 Bas. Sel. 
 
 ἐπιούσιον (Lord’s Prayer), i. 241, Amb. 
 
 στόμα Θεοῦ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους, 1. 138, Ps. 
 Clem. 
 
 ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτερίου, i. 25 and 26, 
 Ignat. 
 
 Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπιφοιτᾷ, ws... Il. a. ἐπε- 
 λεύσεται ἐπί σε, i. 556, J. of D., i. 558 
 Πν. a. ἐπιφοιτᾷ, καὶ γίνεται σῶμα Χριστοῦ, 
 
 i. 556, J. of Ὁ. 
 
 τὴν ἐπιφοίτησιν τοῦ ay. Iv. προσεδόκουν, 
 1. 485, Proclus 
 
 ἐποπτικὴ θεωρία, i. 64, Clem. A. 
 
 ἐσθίεις καὶ λαβὼν οἴκαδε dvaxwpets, i, 845, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 δι᾿ εὐλογίας τῆς μυστικῆς, i. 379, Cyr. A. 
 
 εὐλογήσας ἁγιάσας κλάσας, i. 143, Ps. 
 Clem. 
 
 eis εὐλογίαν ἑωοποιὸν ἐν ἄρτῳ, i. 382, 
 Cyr.iA. 
 
 τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας, i. 373, 383, Cyr. A. 
 
 τὴν εὐχαριστίαν διδόασιν, i. 146, Counc. 
 
 εὐχαριστίαν κλάσας, i. 142, Ps. Clem. 
 
 ἔπεμπον εὐχαριστίαν, i. 161, Euseb. C. 
 
 καλεῖται εὐχαριστία, i. 43; εὐχαριστηθείσαν, 
 44 and 45, Just. 
 
 τῆς Θειοτάτης εὐχαριστίας, i. 492, Ps. 
 Dionys. 
 
 εὐχαριστίας ἐπακούσαντα, i. 131, Dion. A. 
 
 τῶν εὐχομένων τὸ εὔτονον, i. 465, Basil. 
 Sel. 
 
 οἷον ἐφόδιον εἴληφε πρὸς τὴν αἰώνιον 
 ζωὴν, 1. 577, Theod. Stu. 
 
 Non habent Sp. 8., extra ecclesiam, 1. 
 257, Aug. 
 
 Eeclesiam in episcopo, i. 117, Cyp. 
 
 Seipsum nobis edendum tribuat, i. 568, 
 Paulin. A. 
 
 What have we to do but epulari in 
 Domino? to feast in the Lord, ii. 321, 
 Hugh L. 
 
 Epulum feederale between God and man, 
 i. 556, Cudw. 
 
 Gravari eucharistix perceptione, i. 263, 
 Aug. 
 
 Eulogiarum nomine transmittere, i. 161, 
 Euseb. Ὁ. 
 
 Excommunications, interdicts, &e., ii. 
 187, Marsil. 
 
800 
 
 F. 
 
 Quotidianas Salvatoris exequias, 1. 617, 
 Rab. 
 
 Possible inference from fabulous stories, 
 1. 124, G. Th. 
 
 Not understood without the light of 
 faith, ii. 221, Gerson 
 
 Lest think recovered by faith alone, ii. 
 72, Rupert. 
 
 Chief object to excite and train faith, 
 and to be a pledge, ii. 367, Melane. 
 To lean on reason diminishes faith’s 
 
 merit, ii. 149, A. Hales 
 
 The eucharistic fan, ii. 725, 6, Scudam. 
 
 Fasting, Morning Communion, attri- 
 butes to the Apostles, i. 526, Isid. Sev. 
 
 With exceptions only in fasting, ii. 158, 
 Alb. M. 
 
 Fasting Communion, ii. 45, Anselm 
 
 Placuisse magistris ecclesiw. Bede, for 
 fasting Communion, 1. 546 and 548 
 
 To be taken fasting, a jejunis. 1 Cor. xi! 
 ii. 116, P. Lomb. 
 
 Church adds fasting in reverence, ii. 224, 
 Cajetan 
 
 Frith says, not in one place fathers 
 said Worship sacraments, ii. 256 
 
 Argument from fathers not saying 
 Christ’s body not there, ii. 255, 
 More 
 
 On what principles to estimate the 
 fathers’ sayings, ii. 569, A. Arn. 
 
 The writings of fathers not a complete 
 test of doctrine of times, ii. 571, 
 A. Arn. 
 
 As Jewish fathers held double law, 
 written and unwritten, &., ii. 465, 
 Rain. 
 
 No sacrifice, only feasts upon the true, 
 il. 554, Cudw. 
 
 Not bare and simple figure joined to 
 verities and substance, 11. 258, Cov. 
 Christ used a figurative speech, ii. 335, 
 
 Ridl. 
 
 In one sentence figure help twice, 
 “cup” and New Testament, ii. 332, 
 Ridl. 
 
 Eaten verily and indeed figurative, 
 should not, ii. 678, Hoad. 
 
 That word cannot stand without a figure, 
 ii. 377, Haus. 
 
 A figure and a pledge, ii. 24, Bereng. 
 
 Old drawing of fishes and bread in 
 baskets, ii. 692 
 
 Quotes ‘‘ He truly nourishes us by the 
 ‘substance of His flesh,” ii. 564, 
 A, Arn, 
 
 The signs represent unseen food from 
 flesh and blood, ii. 337, Calv. 
 
 * With His flesh and blood He doth spirit- 
 ually feed, &c., ii. 326, Cran. 
 
 His real flesh not suffice, and religion 
 perish, ii. 183, Coen. Ὁ. 
 
 SECOND 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 F. 
 
 If ‘‘flesh” wicked receive salvation, 
 John vi. 34, ii. 474, H. 5. 
 
 Not flesh of a mere man, but of God, ii. 
 60, Theophylact 
 
 That flesh is received spiritually, ii. 324, ὁ 
 Cran. 
 
 John vi., Flesh profiteth nothing, i. 71, 
 Tert. 
 
 Blending Christ’s flesh with ours fights 
 against reason, ii. 453, Hooker 
 
 Truly given to us...the flesh of the Son 
 of God, ii. 351, Jewel 
 
 Thy mouth receives the flesh and blood, 
 &e., 11. 48, Anselm 
 
 The Lord’s flesh has a great and unspeak- 
 able power, ii. 63, Theophylact 
 
 When the flesh, &c., on earth, not in 
 Heaven; now not on earth, ii. 379, 
 Vigilius 
 
 He that meditates, &c., &c., eats His 
 flesh and drinks His blood, ii. 613, 
 Barrow 
 
 Not think My very flesh profiteth or 
 quickeneth, ii. 630, Bev. 
 Christ spread His life all over and 
 through His real flesh, ii. 339, Calv. 
 Taste in Heaven the Word of God made 
 flesh, ii. 226, 1. a Κι. 
 
 Wicked receive true flesh and blood 
 sacramentally, 11. 111, Ger. 
 
 He gave His flesh, after a communion of 
 His flesh, ii. 331, Ridl. 
 
 Nestorius charged for saying human flesh 
 only taken, ii. 73, Rup. 
 
 Lady M., from font unsullied to 
 grave, il. 632, Ken 
 
 In strength of that immortal food, &c., 
 &e., 11. 092, Ken 
 
 Not fed by food another man eats, ii. 
 535, Mede 
 
 As to forgiveness by Lord’s supper, i. 
 246 
 
 Body invisible hid under another form, 
 1: 94, ἘΠῚ de St V. 
 
 Frequency degenerates into formality 
 unless rise in religion, ii. 708, Goulb. 
 
 How often—middle frequency, ii. 720, 
 H. Seym. 
 
 Luke xxiy., Till it be fulfilled, ii. 82, B. 
 of Sig. 
 
 Profanis fabulis Divina sacramenta, &c., 
 i. 417, Zeno 
 
 Si hac fame mereamur, &¢., i. 233, 
 Amb. 
 
 Fasces, imperium Rom., ii. 304, Melane, 
 
 Ferebatur Christus in manibus Suis 
 (Ps. xxxiv.), i. 271, Aug. 
 
 Quod norunt fideles, i. 271 and 274, 
 Aug. 
 
 Ob meritum fidei merces, i. 597, Pasch. 
 
 Licet in figura manent...non alia quam 
 que nata est, &e., i. 597, Pasch. 
 
EX EQUIAS—ILLAPSE. 
 
 F. 
 
 Magni boni effectiva—non inanis aut 
 figurativa, ii. 88, Guib. 
 
 Propter sumentium horrorem sapor re- 
 manet et figura, i. 594, Haimo 
 
 Frangi et manere integrum, ii. 
 Alan., videri frangi, 123 
 
 Fregit, non antequam verba consec., ii. 
 190, Lyra 
 
 Fregit species panis remanentes, ii. 191, 
 Lyra 
 
 Quomodo et quam frequenter, i. 581, 
 Theodulf 
 
 Fusum in viscera, i. 237, Amb. 
 
 122, 
 
 G. y. 
 
 “Given for you,” i.e. to God! ii. 715, 
 Vogan 
 
 Guericke connects Judaic allegories with 
 Gnosticism, i. 85 
 
 Principal instrument of grace, &c., i. 
 668, P. Ricaut 
 
 Jesuit saying the less of grace, the more 
 often we should come, ii. 573 
 
 Moehler adds to grace, evinced by 
 representation and form, 11. 683 
 
 The grace of Christ’s body, ii. 
 Ridl. 
 
 Grace cannot come from creature—only 
 dispositions, ii. 263, Sav. 
 
 γέννημα τέλειον ἐκ τελείου. i. 155, Athan, 
 
 οἴνου καινοῦ γεννήματος, i. 167, Kuseb. C. 
 
 πολλοὺς οἷδα γευσαμένους καὶ κοινωνήσαν- 
 τας, 1. 422, Huseb. Alex. 
 
 ἐὰν γεύσηταί τις (eat), 1. 422, Huseb. 
 Alex. 
 
 ὄρθη καὶ ἀκίβδηλος γνώσις, 1. 102, Origen 
 
 The γνῶσις the supposed essence of the 
 Divine facts, i. 150 
 
 οὐ γόνυ κλίνομεν, οὐδ᾽ ἀσιτίαις καταπονού- 
 μεθα, 1.169, Euseb. C. 
 
 Galaticamur, i. 78, Tert. 
 
 Gratia a Deo solum per creationem, ii. 
 265, Sav. 
 
 On gratia ex operante, better than ex 
 operato, ii. 639, Leib. 
 
 Aliqua virtus—causa gratie? 1]. 
 Juns 
 
 Non dant gratiam, ex vi non justificant, 
 ii. 173, Duns 
 
 Non attingit gratiam actione sua, ii. 175, 
 Duns 
 
 Quicumque gustaverit hoc now morietur, 
 i. 242, Amb. 
 
 331, 
 
 174, 
 
 H. 
 
 Some say, as far away as Heayen from 
 earth, ii. 640, Leib. 
 From Heaven and no other altar shall 
 
 He come at latter day, ii. 403, Sand. - 
 
 ἘΠ ΟΣ 
 
 801 
 
 Εἰς 
 
 At once in Heaven and among men un- 
 consumed, ii. 75, Rup. 
 
 Christ locally in Heaven till restitution, 
 &e., ii. 546, Reyn. 
 
 No occasion to draw Christ from Heaven. 
 He everywhere, ii. 292, Luth. 
 
 Heaven His resting-place till come to 
 judge, ii. 322, Becon 
 
 Herbs, lactucas, a seasoning, ii. 
 Tost. 
 
 Opinions of many heretics preserved in 
 Trenzeus ; also reminiscences of St 
 
 - John through Polyearp and Papias, i. 
 50 
 
 Bellarm. says heretics wont to prefer 
 Greek to Latin, ii. 432 
 
 Hermas has much on baptism; on Lord’s 
 supper nothing, i. 41 
 
 H. H.’s criticism on ‘“‘ Hoe,” ii, 732 
 
 Hypatia’s end, i. 371 
 
 Hyperbatic terms in F. de Sales as in 
 Andrewes, ii. 492, &c. 
 
 Most dangerous hyperbolical language, 
 11. 471, 2, Andrewes 
 
 Holocausto sufficere, i. 134, Clem. 
 
 Christ called the victim (hostia) of the 
 altar, ii. 295, Luth. 
 
 Hostia pura venerandum sacrificium, i. 
 306, Syl. 
 
 Quomodo Christus dicatur esse in hostia, 
 11. 232, Tost. 
 
 Sacrif., hostia, sang., cruor, i. 530, 1516, 
 Sev. 
 
 Ut nova hostia novo imponeretur altari, 
 i. 468, Leo ἴ. 
 
 Hostiam et Sacerdotem (Heb. ix. 14), 1. 
 91, Origen 
 
 Hostiam offerimus...pro pecentis, &e., 11. 
 126. In honore Marizx, &e. 
 
 Plaecatio hostiarum, i. 510, Greg. I. 
 
 Mactavit Sui corporis hostias, 1.525, Isid. 
 Sev. 
 
 Etiam aliorum hostias per (sacerdotes) 
 acceptaret, i. 105, Tost. 
 
 230, 
 
 Ne es 
 
 The very idea much earlier than the very 
 term, i. 466 
 
 Not even a suspicion of idolatry, ii. 500, 
 Crak. 
 
 Auswer to defence that R. do not think 
 it idolatry, ii. 609, Still. 
 
 No proof of the asserted illapse of Spirit, 
 ii. 670, Waterl. 
 
 Regret that prayer for illapse of the 
 Spirit not universal, ii. 728, Scudam. 
 
 Parallel to temple service as to the il- 
 lapse, ii. 732, H. H. 
 
 All reference to illapse of the Spirit, &e., 
 expressed, ii. 710, Goulb., 
 
 ol 
 
802 
 
 dS (5 
 
 A spiritual incorporation peculiar to this 
 ordinance, ii. 585, Owen 
 
 No increase takes place, ii, 118, P. Lomb. 
 
 How the church came to innovate so far, 
 i. 623 
 
 What the whole church adopted is equal 
 to inspired, ii. 505, Thorn. 
 
 Instances of public bowing to Christ’s 
 example, 11. 609, Still. 
 
 Argument against Protestantism from 
 imperfect following of institution, ii. 
 298, H. VIII. 
 
 Fitness of Christ’s evening institution. 
 We not obliged, ii. 592, Outr. 
 
 What the day of the institution, i. 64, 
 Theophylact 
 
 Distinguished instrument, cause and 
 principal agent, ii. 364, Lay. 
 
 Intention of a priest essential, Trent and 
 Florence Council, ii. 607, 8, Still. 
 
 Lllogical to draw presence on earth from 
 Heaven by intercession, ii. 704, Thirl. 
 
 Whose office to be subintercessors, &c. 
 ii. 654, Baxt. 
 
 Interpenetration, ii. 625, Limb. But see 
 Haag on First Gen. Council 
 
 Philo-like interpretation of uncertain 
 things, i. 534, Max, 
 
 The liberal interpretation, &c., ii. 715, 
 716, and 717, Vogan 
 
 Invocation of Spirit in many liturgies, 
 but is not essential, ii. 681, Palm. 
 
 The true criticism of the word, is, ii, 724, 
 Marr. 
 
 lepdpxac (bishops), i. 114, Hip. 
 
 ἱερᾶς ἐπικαλυμματίδος, 1. 575, Theod. Stu, 
 
 τὸ ἱερατεῖον ὅλον ἐπιθυμία, i. 575, Theod. 
 Stu. 
 
 ἱερατεύειν Do, i. 136, Ps. Clem. 
 
 ieparevet νομίμως ἱερεὺς, i. 375, Cyr. A. 
 
 ἱερατικαὶ λειτουργίαι, i. 146 
 
 κατάλογος ὁ ἱερατικὸς, i. 141, Ps. Clem. 
 
 βασιλέων κρείττους οἱ ἱερεῖς, i. 140, Ps. 
 Clem. 
 
 epets Θεοῦ κριτήσεσθε (Is. lxi. 67), i. 195, 
 Bas. 
 
 el μὴ διὰ τῶν ἱερέων Αὐτοῦ, i. 45, Just. 
 
 ἐπιτελοῦντες ἱερουργίαν, i. 166, Kuseb. C, 
 
 ὡς ἱερεὺς καὶ ἱερεῖον, i. 499, Eutych. Const. 
 
 τὴν ἀναίμακτον ἱερουργίαν ἐπιτελέσω, i. 
 356, Duc. 
 
 τὸ τῆς φρικτῆς Kal Θείας ἱερουργίας μυστ., 
 
 : 239, Gen. 
 
 τὴν τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ σώματος μυστικὴν 
 ἱερουργίαν, i. 484, Procl. 
 
 μηδεὶς ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τὴν μυστικὴν ἱερουρ- 
 γίαν, i. 500, Eutych. Const. 
 
 το Θεῖον σῶμα τὸ ἱερουργουμένον, i. 222, 
 Cees. 
 
 ἐξιλευόμενος τὸν Θεὸν, i. 188 & 189, Cyr. J. 
 
 Per ,illapsum super illam Spirit. S., i. 
 366, Cyr. A. 
 
 SECOND 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 τς 
 
 Per illapsum exhibeat panem corpus, i. 
 184, Euseb, Em. 
 
 Omni die populis immolatur, i. 258, Aug. 
 
 Signis mysticis antequam immolaretur, 
 il. 284, Eras, 
 
 Immolandus. Signis mysticis repre- 
 sentare, ἢ]. 284, Eras. 
 
 Solo gustu immortalitatem, i, 126, Mac. 
 M. 
 
 Per intercessionem doming, i. 218, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 J. 
 
 The difficulty of a Jewish Christian 
 church, i. 406, Theod, Cyr. 
 
 Jewish terms imported, i. 315, Sulp. 
 
 Ignatius protests against Judaizing, i. 
 20 and 27 
 
 Correspondence of laws of Numa Pom- 
 pilius to Judaism, i. 74, Tert. 
 
 Christian Judaistic fables most of Jewish 
 origin, i. 60 
 
 Judas, unable to bear, &c., went out, ii. 
 133, De Coen. Ὁ. 
 
 Papists say immediate instruments and 
 efficient causes of justification, ii. 
 496, Willett 
 
 Justinian unscripturally raises the doc- 
 trine of this sacrament several de- 
 grees higher than Ignatius left it, i. 42 
 
 Jejunium ante vespertinum offic. solvi 
 non debeat, i. 581, Theod. 
 
 Nefas jejunium, de ‘geniculis adorare, i. 
 79, Tert. 
 
 Quarta et sexta jejunat eccl., 1. 
 Aug. 
 
 Nonnisi a jejunis, excepto die anniver- 
 sario, i. 470, Leo I. 
 
 A jejunis semper accipitur, i. 261, Aug. 
 
 Jejunia, &., et sordes, i. 75, Tert. 
 
 259, 
 
 Κ. κ. 
 
 What days to kneel, what to stand, ii. 
 54, Ivo 
 
 κάγκελλα, i. 552, Germ. Const. 
 
 ὑπὸ τῆς Φιλοχρηματίας καρηβαροῦντα, i. 
 457, Isid. Pel. 
 
 How to interpret καταγγέλλω, ii. 723, 4, 
 Marr. 
 
 καταλληλότερον, i. ᾿ς ae 
 
 ἡ μία κεραία, 1.109, H 
 
 ἐκέρασεν...εἰς τὴν τι ΗΝ, τὴν Ἑαυτοῦ 
 Θεότητα, i. 111, Hip. 
 
 Confusion, κιβωτὸς and ciborium, i. 540, 
 Sophron., and 551, Germ. Const. 
 
 τὸν Χριστὸν μετὰ πιστοῦ ἀνακιρνώσα, 1. 
 519, Ammon. 
 
 GupavaxipyesOn τοῖς ἡμετέροις σώμασι, i. 
 382, Cyr. A. 
 
 σώμασι κατακιρνάμενος, i, 302, Hpiph. 
 
NCORPORATION——-MASS. 
 
 K. x. 
 
 κοιλάνας τὴν παλάμην déxov, i. 188, 
 Cyr. J. 
 
 ἡ συνείδησις κοινοῖ, K.T.A., i. 100, Or. 
 
 θεοειδεῖ συμπτύξει τὴν πρὸς τὸ Ev κοινωνίαν, 
 i. 492, P. Diony. 
 
 τοὺς μοναχοὺς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν κοινω- 
 νεῖν, i, 326, Pall. 
 
 TO κοινωνεῖν τοῖς ἔγγιστα τοῦ θύματος, 1. 
 218, Greg. Naz. 
 
 περὶ τοῦ ad’ ἑαυτῶν κοινωνεῖν μονάζοντας, 
 i. 574, Theod. Stu. 
 
 ὑπὲρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων, i. 185, Cyril, and 
 188 
 
 TO μὴ κοινωνεῖν λίμος καὶ θάνατος, i. 344, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 κοινωνία not μετοχὴ; ti. 64, Theophylact 
 
 κοινωνία, large sense from Damasc., 11. 
 162, T. Aquin. 
 
 κοινωνία defined, i. 454, 1514. Pel. 
 
 ἡ ἁγία κοινωνία σώα καὶ aBpoxos διέμεινε, 
 i. 538, Mosch. 
 
 τῶν THY κοινωνίαν διακομιζουσῶν γυναικῶν, 
 i. 633, Phot. 
 
 ἀόρατον καὶ μυστικὴν κοινωνίαν éyvwpica- 
 μεν, i. 201, Bas. 
 
 τὴν μυστικὴν τῆς ἁγίας τραπέζης κοινωνίαν, 
 i. 409, Theod. Cyr. 
 
 τί λέγω κοινωνίαν ; αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν τὸ σῶμα, i. 
 562, J. of Ὁ. 
 
 βασιλέα ὑποδέχεσθαι διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας, 
 i. 894, Chrysost. 
 
 τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς κοινωνίας, i. 149 
 
 κοινωνίαν κατέχοντες, i. 198, Bas. 
 
 ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ poppy μετὰ τῆς θατέρου κοι- 
 νωνίας, 1.559, J. of D. 
 
 κοινωνοὶ of idols not spiritually eaten, ii. 
 677, Hoad. 
 
 κοινωνοὶ ὑμνωδίας, i. 187, Cyr. J. 
 
 κοινωνοῦμεν καὶ τῆς Θεότητος, 1. 
 Greg. Naz. 
 
 μυστικὰ Αὐτοῦ kpduara, i. 221, Ces. 
 
 ἐδόθη κρέας ἡματωμένον, i. 330, Pallad. 
 
 Ta δὲ παμμακάριστα κρέα κ.τ.λ. 1. 448, 
 
 218, 
 
 τὴν Κυριακὴν, The Lord’s day, i. 420, 
 Euseb. Alex. 
 ἐν TH τῆς Κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ, i. 160, Euseb. 
 
 Ibe IN 
 
 Taking lamb to temple contrary to law 
 of Moses, ii. 557, 8 
 
 Christ said Eat, not strike through with 
 lance, 11. 37, Humb. 
 
 Latin church greater authority now than 
 Greek, ii. 246, Sylv. 
 
 Why wives under the law, i. 533, Max. 
 
 Life is therein, and it giveth immor- 
 tality, &e., ii. 4, 4511, 
 
 Maximus tells of uneven number loaves 
 and cups, i. 531 and 532 
 
 803 
 
 Tie Ns 
 
 Arguments not affected by introducing 
 word Logos, 11. 736 
 
 1 Cor. xi. on rich and poor at love feasts, 
 i. 439, Eucher. 
 
 λαικοὺς πειθαρχεῖν, i. 138, Ps. Clem. 
 
 οἱ λειτουργήσαντές Moz ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς, 
 1.114, Hip. 
 
 τὸ φοβερὸν τῆς Θείας λειτουργίας, 1. 449, 
 Nil. 
 
 On the word λειτουργία, i. 434 
 
 ἐρρώννυτο τῆς λειτουργίας, 1. 213, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 λεξιθηρία, i. 62, Clem. A. 
 
 ἡ λόγχη Kal οἱ ἧλοι... τὰ ἁγιασθέντα Kal 
 Θεοθέντα, i. 374, Theod. Stu. 
 
 τὴν ἁγίαν λόγχην ἐν δεξίῳ μέρει τῆς σῴφρα- 
 γίδος, i. 357, Due. 
 
 ἄλλος ὁ Λόγος, Paul S., i. 149 
 
 Non licet, &e., prius cibi laici sumptu, 
 1. 625, PB: Nie. 1, 
 
 Dominus reguavit a ligno, i. 69, Tert. 
 and 81, 82, Ps. xvi. 
 
 Dulcissimo hie lquamine confecto Di- 
 vinitatem sorbitare, i. 617, Rab. 
 
 In locis plurimis possit esse, &¢., 11. 217, 
 Gers. : 
 
 M. pz. 
 
 Magical effects attributed to bread and 
 wine, il. 685, Haag 
 
 But give Divine worship to the very 
 manhood of Christ, ii. 537, Bram. 
 
 Manna varied in taste at every one’s 
 desire, 1. 544, Apon. 
 
 The cultus of the virgin Mary at issue, 
 Cent. Iv., i. 988 
 
 Mary’s intercession prayed for, i. 496, 
 Germ. 
 
 The mass sacrifice not grounded on 
 God’s written word, ii. 399, Geste 
 
 Man persuaded that mass a good work 
 and sacrifice, 11. 294, Luth. 
 
 Many priests know nothing but to mass, 
 keep out better, 11. 347, Asch. 
 
 Christ not so sacrificed in mass that 
 dieth, &c., ii. 258, Cov. 
 
 On many masses in a day, ii. 112, Pet. 
 Cant., and against wicked communi- 
 cating 
 
 On private massing, li. 397, Geste 
 
 How Christ’s body in every mass—1,000 
 places, ii. 57, Guim. 
 
 Romanists thought a mass a sacrifice, or 
 their church had none, ii. 674, Water. 
 
 The mass has practically taken the place 
 of everything, ii. 346, Asch. 
 
 What masses for the dead approved, ii. 
 669, Thiers 
 
 Application of masses for living and 
 dead wrong, ii. 306, Melanc. 
 
 The sacrifice of the mass, different priest 
 
 51—2 
 
804 SECOND 
 
 M. pw. 
 from that of the cross, &c., ii. 537, 
 Bram. 
 
 If masses necessarily blest, Popes holiest 
 of men, ii. 241, Wesel 
 
 Christ’s body not in every pix, altar, 
 massmonger’s hands, &¢c., ii. 322, 
 Becon 
 
 Poem on deliverance of a soul by masses, 
 i. 567, Aleuin 
 
 Comparison of outward show, Our Lord 
 
 - and a massing priest, ii. 344, Asch. 
 
 The blessing not to be materialized in 
 elements, ii. 710, Goulb. 
 
 Bread and wine—medicament and holo- 
 caust, 11. 133, De Cen. Ὁ. 
 
 Christ delivered a memorial or remem- 
 brance instead of a sacrifice, ii. 450, 
 R. Abb. 
 
 Hinkmar says J. Scot held it a memorial, 
 li. 22 
 
 A memorial does not mean only a mere 
 memorial, ii. 22 
 
 The memorial or doctrine of eucharist. 
 Answer by Bp Thirlwall, ii. 703 
 
 Memorial repudiates there being present 
 real flesh and blood, ii. 703, Thirl. 
 
 Merit done, of congruity defined, ii. 589, 
 Turretin 
 
 Justin and Ireneus among the holders 
 of sober Millennarianism, i. 42 
 
 No miracle in it, all accustomedly, ii. 
 359, Hoop. 
 
 Object to misapplying passages contrary 
 to author’s meaning, ii. 701, Goode 
 Dissension about mode only, ii. 459, 
 
 Sarav. 
 
 Whether two modes—utrum duo modi, 
 ii. 275, D. de St P. 
 
 In what mode He only knows, ii. 81, B. 
 of Seg. 
 
 We only differ in modo, in the way of 
 being, ii. 331, Ridl. 
 
 Refinements as to ‘‘ modes” not belong 
 to early ages, ii. 737 
 
 Mode of Lord’s supper among Tartars, 
 ii. 145, R. Bacon 
 
 Praise of monastic life by Fulbert, pupil 
 of Gerbert, ii, 32 
 
 This blessing given by God to Moses, by 
 Christ to 8. F. of A., ii. 144 
 
 Letter to Diognetus has not the word 
 mystery for this sacrament, i. 32 
 
 One of the great mysteries of the Roman 
 magic and juggling, ii. 534, Owen 
 
 Pious ancients say Great mystery, not if 
 receive sign only, ii. 641, Leib. 
 
 ὁ τὸ Θεῖον μάννα κατεδηδοκὼς, i. 102, 
 Origen 
 
 ἐν μεθέξει γενώμεθα τῆς ἁγίας σαρκὸς, 1. 
 385, Cyr. A. 
 
 μεθίστησιν αὐτὰ πρὸς ἐνέργειαν τῆς Havrou 
 σαρκὸς, i. 988, Cyr. A, 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Μ. μ. 
 
 πολλὰς εὐχὰς ἔμελπον, 1. 435, Procl. 
 
 δεξάμενος τὴν σταλεῖσαν μερίδα, 1. 597, 
 Mosch. 
 
 μεριζόμενον καὶ αὐτὸ οὐ μειούμενον, i. 205, 
 Greg. Ny. 
 
 διαμερίζω τὰ μέλη, 1. 157, Athan. 
 
 εἰσαεὶ καταμεριζόμενον, i. 205, Greg. Ny. 
 
 μεταβάλλειν τὰ σώματα, i. 109, Hipp., 
 and μεταβολὴν, 110 
 
 μεταβάλλω, i. 185 and 187, Cyr. J. 
 
 κατὰ μεταβολὴν, i. 43, Just., as i. 62, 
 Clem. A. 
 
 πρὸς ἑσπέραν μεταλαμβάνουσιν, i. 429, 
 Socrates 
 
 τοῦτο ὁ μεταλαμβάνομεν ... φθαρτόν ἐστι, 
 KT.r., 1. 557 and 558, J. of D. 
 
 μεταλαμβ. τ. εὐχ. μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτὰ, 
 1 58. nen. 
 
 ἀδύνατον ἄφεσιν λαβεῖν :.. εἰ μὴ μεταλάβοι, 
 i. 447 and 449, Nil. 
 
 μεταλαμβάνειν τοῦ Oelov σώματος, 1. 556, 
 J. of Damascus 
 
 μετὰ τὴν μετάληψιν ἀφθαρτός ἐστι τὴν 
 σύστασιν, i. 556, J. οἱ Ὁ. 
 
 τὴν Θείαν μετάληψιν, κ.τ.λ., 1. 56, (σα. 
 in Tren. 
 
 ἕως τῆς ἡμῶν μεταλήψεως ... ὑπὸ μυῶν Kal 
 σκωλήκων, i. 558, J. of 1), 
 
 ὅσοι ἐν μετανοίᾳ ἀπέλθετε πάντες, i. 341, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 πρὶν ἢ ταῦτα διὰ τῆς μετανοίας ἀπονί- 
 ψασθαι, i. 422, Huseb. Alex. 
 
 αἷμα ἐξ οἴνου ἀληθῶς καὶ ἀρρήτως μεταποι- 
 ούμενον, 1. 563, J. of D. 
 
 ἄρτον εἰς σῶμα μεταποιεῖσθαι, 1. 
 Epiph. 
 
 τὸ δὲ σῶμα πρὸς τὴν Θεικὴν ἀξίαν μετε- 
 ποιήθη, i. 302, Epiph. 
 
 ἵνα ἐπιφοιτῆσαν μεταποιήσῃ, i. 218, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 μεταποίει καὶ μετατίθησιν, i. 204, 205, 206, 
 and 207, Greg. Nyss. 
 
 μεταστοιχειώσας, i. 207, Greg, Nyss. 
 
 ἐπὶ τῇ Θειώσει καὶ μεταστοιχειώσει τοῦ 
 σώματος, i. 506, Anasta. 5. 
 
 els Hue μεταστοιχειούμενος, i. 883, Cyr. A. 
 
 μετασχῶν τοῦ ἁγιάσματος, i. 208, Greg. 
 Nyss. 
 
 τὸ μετέχειν συνεχῶς, 1. 198, Basil. 
 
 Mamonas μόνου κοινοῦ ἄρτου μετέχειν, 1. 
 571, Niceph. Const. 
 
 ἔμφοβοι μετέχοντες, x.T.Xd., 1. 283, Did. 
 
 ἠριστηκότες ἤδη, μετέχουσι, i. 431, So- 
 crates 
 
 ἀληθὴ διὰ τὸ σώζειν Tas ψυχὰς τῶν μετε- 
 χόντων, 1. 519, Ammon, 
 
 TH μετοχῇ κουφοτέραν τὴν κόλασιν, i. 220, 
 Cees. 
 
 TH μετοχῇ τῶν ἁγίων, i. 132, Dion. A. 
 
 τὴν THs μετοχῆς κοινωνίαν, i. 840, Theod. M. 
 
 ἀμέτοχος τῶν μυστικῶν ἁγιασμάτων, i. 208, 
 
 Greg. Nyss. 
 
 302, 
 
MASSES—MYSTERIO. 
 
 ΝΕ i 
 
 μετουσία, 1.209, Greg. Nyss. 
 
 μετουσίωσις, Greek for transubstantiation. 
 ii. 234, Cyr. L. 
 
 Three compounds of μετὰ besides μετου- 
 σίουσθαι, ii. 236, Dos. 
 
 μητέρα Θεοῦ, ii. 155, Ni. Chon. 
 
 ταῖς πρεσβείαις τῆς παναχράντου Αὐτοῦ 
 
 μητέρος, 1. 862, Due. 
 
 τὸ πάθος τοῦ Liod del μιμεῖται, 1. 512, 
 Greg. I. 
 
 ἡ ἁγία τράπεζα τὸ μνημεῖον, 1. 
 phron. 
 
 els ἀνεξάλειπτον μνήμην, i. 193, Bas. 
 
 ἀεὶ μνημονεύωμεν, K.T.A., 1. 193, Bas. 
 
 μυσταγωγία of Max. refers to Christ’s 
 death, 1. 536 
 
 τὴν Θείαν ἐπιτελεῖν μυσταγωγίαν, 1. 855, 
 Due. 
 
 τῆς φρικτῆς μυσταγωγίας τὴν ἔνστασιν, 
 i, 465, Bas. Sel. 
 
 μυστήριον discussed, ii. 387, Bullin. 
 
 τὸ μυστήριον ὅπλον Kal ἀνατείχισμα τῆς 
 ψυχῆς, 1.512. Cyt. (ἃ. 
 
 ποιεῖ τὸ μυστήριον, Christ’s instituting it, 
 ἴ PASM Epiph. 
 
 TO μυστήριον 
 Cyr. L. 
 
 πάντοτε ἐπιτελεῖσθαι τὰ μυστήρια, 1. ὃ 
 Theod. M. 
 
 τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν Θείων μυστηρίων, i. 420, 
 Socrates 
 
 ἐπιτελεῖσθαι μυστήριον, i. 160, Huseb. C. 
 
 mpooevat τοῖς ἱεροῖς μυστηρίοις, i. 334, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστηρίῳ, i. 513, 
 Greg. I 
 
 τῶν ἱερῶν μυστηρίων ἅψασθαι, i. 456, Isid. 
 Pel. 
 
 μυστήριον τοῦ αἵματός τε Kal σώματος 
 ἐπιτελεῖν, 1. 322, Mar. 
 
 μεμυσταγωγημένας τῶν ἀχράντων μυστηρίων, 
 1. 131, Dion. A. 
 
 τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οὐρανίων μυστηρίων ἱὑἱπο- 
 δοχὴν, 1. 326, Pallad. 
 
 τῶν ἐπουρανίων Σου καὶ ἀθανάτων μυστη- 
 ρίων, i. 800, Due. 
 
 τῆς διοδόσεως τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστηρίων, 
 1. 827, Pallad. 
 
 τῶν ἀχράντων καὶ ἁγίων μυστηρίων, i. 319, 
 Eph. 8. 
 
 ἡ τῶν Θεαρχικῶν μυστηρίων τῷ τελουμένῳ 
 μεταδόσις, 1. 492 
 
 ἁγίων μυστηρίων ψαύειν καὶ ἱερουργίαν, 
 i. 301, Epiph. 
 
 τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τὴν μόρφωσιν, 
 i. 378, Cyr. A. 
 
 τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας μυστήρια els τύπους μετα- 
 λαμβάνων, 1. 574, Theod. Stud. 
 
 τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν πνευματικῶν, 1. 337, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 (θυσίαν) τῶν μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἀντίτυπον, 
 i. 213, Greg. Naz. 
 
 540, So- 
 
 vyiverat ἱλασμὸς, il. 234, 
 
 805 
 
 M. μ. 
 
 τῶν ἱερῶν μυστηρίων ἣ πανήγυρις... 
 πέρα, i. 434, Procl. 
 
 ζωοποιῶν μυστηρίων, i. 360, Due. 
 
 τῶν φρικτῶν μυστηρίων, il. 235, Cyr. L. 
 
 Ta μυστικὰ σύμβολα οὐκ οἰκείας ἐξίσταται 
 φύσεως, i. 410, Theod. Cyr. 
 
 ἐπεύχεται μυστικῶς, i. 859, Due. 
 
 μύστιν ἐδωδὴν, i. 216, Greg. Naz. 
 
 Nec a malo minus perficitur, ii, 208, 
 Hus. 
 
 Malos mortificat, i. 277, Aug. 
 
 Psalm xxi., manducaverunt et adorave- 
 runt, i. 262, Aug. 
 
 Qui recolit spiritualiter manducat, &c., 
 li. 207, Hus. 
 
 Peccator manducat ad judicium, i. 597, 
 Paschas. 
 
 Seipsum mandueayit Christus in ccena, 
 τι 215, Gers. 
 
 Ad osculanda vincula martyris, i. 80, 
 Tert. 
 
 Quotidie ad medelam anime, i. 439, 
 Chrom. 
 
 Calvin attempted a via media, ii. 336, 
 Caly. 
 
 Medicinaspivitalis,purificat sibi devotum, 
 i. 618, Rab. 
 
 Memoria est absentium, ii. 448, Par. 
 (Memory refers to absent things. ) 
 
 Memoria redemptionis ut memores, &c., 
 i. 618, Rab. 
 
 Memoria renoyaretur, ii. 284, Eras. 
 
 Sub horam terribilis mens, i. 
 Syl. 
 
 Meracum eis poculum propinat, i. 96, 
 with miscuerit, Origen 
 
 Metaschematism or Metousiasm, An- 
 cients, 11. 644, Leib. 
 
 Ministrat et ministratur, i. 232, Amb. 
 
 Missa, quia tune emittebantur foris, il. 
 148, A. Hales 
 
 Quando missa celebratur, Gratian, i. 141, 
 Ps. Clem. 
 
 Sancte genetricis semperque vir. mis- 
 sam, i. 566, Alcuin 
 
 On the word Missa, ii. 481, Morton. 
 (Missa est communio.) 
 
 Missarum solennia Πρ estas nisi in 
 ecel., 1. 590, _Ps. Is. 
 
 Missas agere, i. 123, τ 
 
 Missas celebrare, i. 137, Ps. Clem. 
 
 Quotidie pro vobis mortuum, i. 
 Hink. 
 
 Commutat invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles 
 creaturas in, &e., i. 594, Haimo 
 
 Peragere ipsa mysteria, i. 584, Agob. 
 
 Mysterii ccelestis involuti in orario, i. 
 237, Amb. 
 
 Ne vacuus mysterii, i. 236, Amb. 
 
 Mysterium and sacramentum, i. 179 
 
 In mysterio panis refuit immolatus, lle 
 424, Gaud, 
 
 « e 
 ἡ ἐσ- 
 
 807, 
 
 628, 
 
500 SECOND 
 
 M. μ. 
 
 Mysterium corporis et sanguinis, i. 244, 
 Amb. 
 
 Super mens. Dom. positum mysterium 
 
 illius in quo passus, &e., i. 611, 
 Bert. 
 ING 
 It is gone over into God’s nature, ii. 81, 
 
 Theophylact 
 
 He that nourishes and the nutriment 
 are one, 11: 197, Taul. 
 
 ὥσπερ τις νεοτελὴς, K.T.A., 1. 465, Basil. 
 Sel. 
 
 A note in Migne on Chrysostom omits 
 οὐ νηστεία ἐστιν, i. 283, Did. 
 
 voepws καὶ ἀοράτως, ii. 155, Nic. Chon. 
 
 τοῖς νομίμοις τοῦ Δεσπότου, i. 16, Clem. 
 R 
 
 Naturalis proprietas, i. 171, Hil. P. 
 
 M. M. quoting Nestorius ex nature pro- 
 prize possibilitate, i. 444 
 
 Nocturnis convoeationibus 
 Dom. i. 80, Tert. 
 
 Numquam alligatam ipsis gratiam, not 
 tied to them, ii, 341, Caly. 
 
 ΩΣ 
 
 Ο. ο. w. 
 
 Offer appeasing hosts, 666, 
 Pontif. R. 
 
 Makes us worthy to offer, &c., for sins, 
 ii. 660, Wilson 
 
 This day we offer Him again to God, ii. 
 472, Andrewes 
 
 We will not offer Him to His Father, 
 &e., &., ii. 520, Hall 
 
 Pious desires of saints offered as propi- 
 tiatory, ii. 223, Τ a K. 
 
 The sacrifice to be offered again, every 
 time church filled, 11. 54, Ivo 
 
 Unlawful to think Christ can be offered 
 by any but Himself, ii. 484, Arm. 
 
 No Scripture proof that Christ offered 
 material element of body-in eucharist, 
 ii. 674, Water. 
 
 If it required to be offered would He not 
 have instituted it so? ii. 296, Luth. 
 Christ offering Self 0 God continually 
 
 through the priest, ii. 648, Leib. 
 
 We always offering Himself, one not 
 many, ii. 28, Bereng. 
 
 Ministered as Mediator in Heaven mo- 
 ment of offering Self, 11. 590, Outr. 
 The offering was on the cross, i. 269, 
 
 Aug. 
 
 About the opinions of the Greeks, ἢ, 603, 
 4, Claude 
 
 Optical and sensible illustrations of 
 failing perception, ii. 221, Gers. 
 
 Order of acts of our Lord, ii. 517, and 
 the words, 518 
 
 &e., il. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 OMe. ὦ. 
 
 In holy orders God institutes organs to 
 do this, ii. 683, Moehl. 
 
 The distinctively Christian ordinance, 
 ii. 708, Goulb. 
 
 οὐρανοῦ καταγγελτικοῖς, i. 168, Euseb. C. 
 
 ὠμοφόριον, 1. 552, Germ, Const. 
 
 τὸ στοιχάριον σὺν τῷ ὠραρίῳ, i. 356, Duc. 
 
 ζώννυται τὸ ὠράριον αὐτοῦ σταυροειδῶς, 1. 
 361, Due. 
 
 Semel oblata est hostia...per singulos 
 dies offerrimus, i. 566, Ale. 
 Ordo orationum quibus oblata Deo sacri- 
 ficia consecrantur, i. 528, Isid. Sev. 
 Particulam oblatw# immiss# in calicem, 
 i. 578, Amal, 
 
 Oblatio gratiarum rursus pro ea fit, i. 
 453, Prosp. 
 
 Quotidiana oblatio quotidiane remissio, 
 i. 531, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Pro dormitione oblatio, i. 145 
 
 Oblatione Tui pretiosi corporis, ii. 226, 
 Dee 
 
 Oblationes Levitis superponendas altari- 
 bus, 1. 528, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Sanctificationem oblationis, i. 529, Isid. 
 Sey. 
 
 Occultx, in occulto, &e., i. 97, Origen 
 
 To Ratram, Hrigena, &e., nihil aliud 
 videtur quam oculis, &., i. 599, 
 Pasch. 
 
 Offeramus pro populo sacrificium, i. 233, 
 Amb. 
 
 Non eis (angelis) corpus Christi offera- 
 tur, i. 585, Agob. 
 
 Christo offerenda sacrificia, i. 285, Jer. 
 
 Victimas offerre pro populo, i. 292, Jer. 
 
 Offerre sine intermissione, i. 53, Iren. 
 
 Cum ad ccnandum... offerimus, i. 119, 
 Cyp. 
 
 Per nos dies singulos offerri, i. 474, Nic. 
 
 q. 
 
 Offero hostias placationis pro illis, &e., 
 ii. 226, T. a K. 
 
 Ipse offertur, quando corpus, i. 234, 
 Amb. 
 
 Mane offertur...ad vesperam vero, &c., 
 i. 262, Aug. 
 
 Non causant gratiam— ex op. operato, 
 i. 163, T. Aquin. 
 
 Opere operato, by force and virtue of 
 work and word in sacraments, ii. 496, 
 Willett 
 
 Non opus meretur, &c., preter Filii 
 mortem, 11. 303, Melane. 
 
 Ligari fecit in orario, &c., i. 236, Amb. 
 
 Ornatum et stratum, i. 98, Origen 
 
 P. rr. ᾧ. Ψ. 
 
 In a latent way—impanated, ii. 
 Guim. 
 
 57, 
 
MYSTERIUM—PRESENT. 
 
 peas ν: 
 
 If the Lord’s supper in paradise, no 
 fall, i. 534, Max. 
 
 A peculiar participation of Christ as in 
 no other rite, ii. 586, Owen 
 
 Particular points pressed by particular 
 great fathers, i. 370 
 
 Three parts! Church of England says 
 two, 11. 457, Sarav. 
 
 Passover fulfilled in Lord’s supper, ii. 
 723, Marr. 
 
 The passover on the fourteenth day at 
 even, i. 440, Hesych. 
 
 The killing of passoyer in temple a day 
 before not be suffered, ii. 557, Cudw. 
 Proper details of passover ceremonies, 
 
 ii. 556, Cudw. 
 
 If what Christ did was perfect, away 
 with additions, ii. 545, Reyn. 
 
 Periodicity, a law of these opinions, 
 1. 611 
 
 More than to look at a picture and be 
 touched, ii. 708, Goulb. 
 
 Ikonobortsi, wrestlers with pictures, ii. 
 666, Platon 
 
 Greater precision of language now need- 
 ed, ii. 578 
 
 Remove every imagination of local pre- 
 sence, ii. 341, Calv. 
 
 The presence they hold is neither literal 
 nor figurative, ii. 704, Thirl. 
 
 Not only Divine, but human presence, 
 il. 417, Chemn. 
 
 A presence in, with, or under, not much 
 different from Transubstantiation, ii. 
 688, Haag 
 
 By presence spiritually, to our spirits 
 only, ii. 577 
 
 What the meaning of the spiritual pre- 
 sence of a substance, ii. 579, B. 
 Heber 
 
 None other presence required than a 
 spiritual, ii. 319, Hugh Lat. 
 
 Lord’s supper pledge and signing of 
 His presence, ii. 417, Mald. 
 
 A presence by grace not corporally, ii. 
 369, Bradf. 
 
 Deny presence in natural substitution, 
 grant presence by grace, ii. 329, 
 Ridl. 
 
 Could not doubt presence of Godhead; 
 but of humanity, ii. 416, Chemn. 
 
 Beyond properties, &c., presence in 
 many places, ii. 420, Chemn. 
 
 Hooker’s saying cannot prove objective 
 presence, ii. 704, Thirl. 
 
 The belief of double presence dropped 
 to that of only accidents, ii. 540, 
 Cosin 
 
 Objections to double presence of body 
 insuperable, 11. 715, Vogan 
 
 Some Berengarians hold a latent pre- 
 sence (like impanation), ii. 24 
 
 807 
 
 P.r. d yp. 
 
 That feigned (of many), of Christ’s 
 bodily presence a papistical invention, 
 li. 320, Hugh Lat. 
 
 Council I1., of Nica, decided the proper 
 bodily presence, ii. 614, Tillotson 
 
 Trei t Catechism on Apostles’ Creed, ar- 
 gument against belief bodily presence, 
 ii. 470, Rain. 
 
 It (a carnal presence) destroyeth the 
 institution, ii. 330, Ridl. 
 
 Bell. advises corporal presence sparingly 
 taken up, ii. 521, Hall 
 
 Entire presence of the manhood and 
 Godhead, ii. 706, Thirl. 
 
 Against multipresence, ii. 417, Chemn. 
 
 Dean Goode’s tremendous refutation of 
 spiritual presence of body, ii. 699 
 
 Roots of the weeds, doctrine of real 
 presence, ii. 325, Cran. 
 
 Divine efficiency proves (real) presence, 
 ii. 132, De Coen. D. 
 
 Article XXVIII. intended to deny any 
 real natural presence of Christ’s body, 
 ii. 583, Dr More 
 
 Real and substantial presence not in the 
 tropical words, ii. 362, P. Mart. 
 
 A real objective presence of the things 
 called, &e., ii. 715, Vogan 
 
 Real presence after manner of existence 
 of a spirit, 11. 699 
 
 Bey. attributes real presence and tran- 
 substantiation to Damascenus and 
 Amal., ii. 628 
 
 (1) Not a corporal, but (2) a real pre- 
 sence, undefined way, ii. 697, Arch. 
 Den. 
 
 The fathers mean real presence under 
 the bread, &c., ii. 717, Vogan 
 
 Corporal equivalent to real and essential 
 presence, ii. 728, Seudam. 
 
 Denial that there can be a real presence 
 of body or blood, ii. 715, Vogan 
 
 Unless a real presence, Christ not taken 
 and received, ii. 733, Lidd. 
 
 Only a real presence of Christ’s invisi- 
 ble power and grace, ii. 656, Wake 
 
 Dr Schaff, spiritual real presence, &c., 
 ii. 713 
 
 Immaterial and spiritual way of real 
 presence, ii. 697, Arch. Den. 
 
 Presence under symbols, &c., means, 
 that it not there itself, ii. 579, B. 
 Heber 
 
 How Thou, in Heaven, art present, &c., 
 I by no means comprehend, ii. 633, 
 Ken 
 
 Present really and truly, but spiritually 
 and ineffably, ii. 703, Mem. 
 
 No otherwise present than as in His 
 Word, ii. 370, Bradf. 
 
 No otherwise present than symbolically, 
 &e., 11. 509, Usher 
 
808 SECOND 
 
 Ῥ: πὶ ᾧ. Ψ: 
 
 What is in no way present, can in no 
 way be eaten, ii. 449, Pareus 
 
 Glorified human body not present in 
 many places, ii. 521, Hall 
 
 Stillingfleet—Christ’s body not present 
 after manner of a spirit, 11. 606 
 
 A body present as a thought to mind, 
 is spiritually present, ii. 704, Thirl. 
 
 Present to, &e., that made sacrament- 
 ally and representatively the body, &c., 
 ii. 652, R. Baxt. 
 
 Ii He really present, the supper would 
 cease, 11. 330, Ridl. 
 
 Reasons for the translation ‘‘ elder,” 
 instead of ‘‘ priest,” ii. 409, Fulke 
 
 When Christ’s priesthood began, i. 404, 
 Theod. Cyr. 
 
 Putting ‘priest ” in Rhemish Version for 
 “elder,” ii. 464 
 
 A priest has made Christ when own 
 life been good, ii. 588 
 
 Doubt as to priest’s intent, ii. 258, Coy. 
 
 No promise, that come down at every 
 priest’s calling, ii. 401, Grind. 
 
 Priest not on earth doing what Christ 
 does in Heaven, ii. 730, N. T. 
 
 Bible-priests only, ii. 245, Syly. 
 
 Functions of priests in private houses, 
 i. 505, Agob. 
 
 Private men not to define; particularly, 
 supreme pontiff, ii. 645, Leib. 
 
 Details of Procession, i. 497, Germ. P. 
 
 He cannot be conceived to have meant 
 properly, ii. 516, Usher 
 
 Take away part of properties of man, 
 man not there, ii. 439 
 
 We may be propitiators of God, ii. 667, 
 Fontif. R. 
 
 First reference to the pyx in ivory, i. 
 416, 417 
 
 προσέχων μὴ παραπολέσῃς τι, 1. 
 Cyr. J 
 
 ἄγει Tas παρασκευὰς, i. 86, Origen 
 
 Πνεύματος ἁγίου παρουσίαν καὶ ἐπιφοί- 
 τησιν, 1. 421, Kuseb. Alex, 
 
 τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν, i. 
 163, Euseb. C. 
 
 τὰ παστοφόρια, i. 137, Ps. Clem. 
 
 τὴν ἑορτὴν τοῦ πάσχα (Haster), 
 Soerat., and 431, Soz. 
 
 ἐποίησε TO πάσχα, i. 113, Hip. 
 
 τοιοῦτόν σοι TO πάσχα μυστήριον, 1. 
 Greg. Naz. 
 
 τὸ πάσχα τὸ ᾿Ιουδαικὸν ἔφαγεν K.T.r., 1. 
 300, Epiph. 
 
 τὸ Κυρίου πάσχα, i. 31, Let. Diog. 
 
 189, 
 
 i. 430, 
 
 214, 
 
 περίγραπτόν ἢ ἀπερίγραπτον; i. 570, 
 Niceph. Const. 
 Αὐτὸς ὁ Χριστὸς περιφερόμενος, i. 505, 
 
 Anast. 5. 
 περιγεγραμμένον οἶδεν... καὶ ἁμαρτιῶν καθ- 
 alperat, i. 572, Niceph. Const. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 1 me ὧς Ψ.: 
 
 οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ φάγειν περισσεύομεν ἀγαθῷ 
 τινι, 1. 99, Origen 
 
 συστάντας Tots πιστοῖς εἰς δέησιν (after 
 third year), i. 196, Bas. 
 
 πόας πικρίδων, i. 168, Kuseb. C. 
 
 ἀνενδοιάστῳ πίστει, i. 188, Cyr. J. 
 
 πνευματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ ἀναδίδοσθαι, 1. 156, 
 Ath. 
 
 κατάπεμψον τὸ Ἱ]νεῦμά Σου τὸ ἅγιον, 1. 
 359, Due. 
 
 ἀδιστάκτου πίστεως, i. 561, J. of D., and 
 576, Theod. Stu. 
 
 πιστεύω, three times, 1. 219, Gree. Na. 
 
 πνευματικοὺς ὄντας γονεῖς, i. 139, Ps. 
 Clem, 
 
 τὸ Πνεῦμα διαπέμπον, i. 125, G. Th. 
 
 καταπέμψῃς τὸ Πνεῦμα, i. 136, Ps. Clem. 
 
 ποιέω, When should be rendered sacrifice, 
 il. 723, 4, Marr. 
 
 πολυθεία κεκράτηκε, i. 197, Bas. 
 
 πολυποκοῦντα, i. 158, Ath. 
 
 τὸ ἐν ποτηρίῳ, TO ἀπὸ τῆς πλευρᾶς ῥεῦσαν, 
 1. 562, J. of D. 
 
 τοῦ ποτηρίου εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, K.T.A., 1. 
 and 47, Just. 
 
 πρεσβυτικῶς βακτηριεύοντες, 1. 214, Greg. 
 Naz. 
 
 πρεσβύτεροι of προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 
 i. 161, Euseb. C. 
 
 τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν, i. 
 (Just.), see i. 72, Tert. 
 
 Thy τῶν προηγιασμένων τελετὴν, 1. 575, 
 Theod. Stu. 
 
 ἡ ἁγία πρόθεσις ὁ Kpaviov Τόπος, i. 540, 
 Sophron. 
 
 kal προκέηται ἣ φρικτὴ θυσία, 1. 
 Chrysost. 
 
 ποιῶν τὰ προκείμενα γενέσθαι σῶμα, 1. 885, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 προνάοι With statues, i. 131, Dion. A. 
 
 Three bowings to the statue of Christ 
 and Mary, προσκυνήματα, i. 355, Duc. 
 
 οὐ κτίσμα προσκυνοῦμεν, i. 154, Ath. 
 
 προδφερομένην ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, 1. 
 Amphil. 
 
 προσφέρομέν Low τὴν λογικὴν Kal ἀναίμακ- 
 τον λατρείαν, 1. 359, Due. 
 
 μεμνημένοι προσφέρομεν, Ancient Lit., ii. 
 617, Bull 
 
 ἡ μυστικὴ δὲ τῆς προσφορᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱερέως, 
 κιτ.λ., 1. 522, Mace. 
 
 n προσφορὰ ἡ αὐτὴ ἣν ὁ Χριστὸς ἔδωκε καὶ 
 οἱ ἱερεῖς ποιοῦσιν, i. 840, Chrysost. 
 
 ἡ προσφορὰ, ἐξ ἧς τὸ Κυριακὸν σῶμα 
 διατέμνεται, 1. 552, Germ. Const. 
 
 Properly προσφορὰ, improperly θυσία, 11. 
 536, Mede 
 
 διδότω THY προσφορὰν, i. 137, Ps. Clem. 
 
 νέαν προσφορὰν, i. 56, Tren. 
 
 ἡ προσφορὰ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, i. 57, Iven. 
 
 τὴν προσφορὰν τελέσαντες, i. 57, Tren. 
 
 προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας, i. 15, Clem. R. 
 
 45 
 
 43 and 45 
 
 345, 
 
 325, 
 
PRESENT—REAL. 
 
 ΄ 
 
 Pi am φ' wv. 
 
 οὐδὲ τὸ πῦρ μυρίας ὑφάπτων λαμπάδας 
 μαραίνεται, 1. 222, Ces. 
 
 μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου καὶ φρίκης, i. 318, 
 319, Eph. 5. 
 
 THs μίας φύσεως μὴ οὔσης παθητῆς, i. 569, 
 Niceph. Const. 
 
 1 Cor, xi. 20, σεπτὰ καὶ φρικτὰ μ., 1. 563, 
 J. of D. 
 
 Φρικωδέστατος, i. 185 and 187, Cyr. J. 
 
 ὁμοίως φρικτὴ καὶ σωτήριος, 1.3833, Chryst. 
 
 τῆς ἁγίας ἐκείνης καὶ φρικώδους σαρκὸς, 1. 
 336, Chrysost. 
 
 ψιλὸν ἄρτον---μετὰ δὲ Tas φοβερὰς ἐπικλή- 
 σεις, 1. 447, Nil. 
 
 σῶμα ἀληθινὸν ἢ ψιλὸς ἄρτος, i. 502, 
 Anast. 5. 
 
 μὴ ὡς ψιλῷ τῷ μυστικῷ, i. 449, Nil. 
 
 De pane quia et potest et promisit, &c., 
 i. 424, Gaud. 
 
 Calesti pane, i. 121, Cyp. 
 
 Internum hominem superno pane pascis, 
 i. 438, Eucher. 
 
 Panem cujus ipsum corpus antitypum, 
 i. 391, Nest. 
 
 Panem cclestem de mysteriis, i. 289, 
 Jer. 
 
 Non panem illum yisibilem, &e., i. 101, 
 Origen 
 
 Panem angelorum, i. 286, Jer. 
 
 In panem immigrat. The body born, 
 &e., &e.; 11. 292, Luth. 
 
 Panem apud pistorem, non in sacram. 
 altaris, ii, 212, J. of Prague 
 
 Panem de ccelo vivum offerre, ii. 108, 
 S. Bern. 
 
 Non verus panis, Futuri umbra, i, 235, 
 Amb. 
 
 Panes non valde grandes nec exiguas, i. 
 616, Rab. 
 
 Sancti Sp. consecrationem panis et vini, 
 ἔοι, tly 591. ese Wee IDS 
 
 Panis ante verba, &c., i. 238, Amb, 
 
 Ile panis qui per sacerdotis ministerium 
 Chr. ¢., 1. 606, Bert. 
 
 Detur in specie panis, ii. 93, H. de St V. 
 
 Sub yelamento corporei panis spirituale 
 corpus, i. 607, Bert. 
 
 Mysticus panis, i. 126, Mac. M. 
 
 Propter periculum effus, sang. sub panis 
 specie, ii. 217, Gers. 
 
 Non ibi substantia panis et vini, ii. 94, 
 H. de St V. 
 
 Panis in Christi corpus transponitur, i. 
 608, Bert. 
 
 Sub quinque panibus quinque libri legis, 
 τ 175, Hil. P. 
 
 Nune participamus Jesum per fidem, i. 
 603, Scot. 
 
 In futuro participamus per speciem, 1. 
 603, Scot. 
 
 Per eadem Divine participes natura, i. 
 477, Gelas. I. 
 
 809 
 
 P. 3. op. . 
 
 Quinquepartito sensui hordeaceus pa- 
 nis, i. 601, Scot. 
 
 Participatione fruimur, omnino vyivifica- 
 mur, i. 445, Cyr. A. 2. 
 
 Solemnibus Pasche abnoctantem, i. 80, 
 Tert. 
 
 Die pasche...jejunii religio, i. 80, Tert. 
 
 Passionem Ilius reparari credite, i. 628, 
 Hink. 
 
 Eoram perceptione expiemur, i. 
 Greg. I 
 
 Poculum ad omnes xque pertinens, ii, 
 286, Eras. 
 
 Sacrif. placativam. Sacerdotium (1 Pet. 
 il.), ii. 152, Bonay. 
 
 Prpositi (bishops), i. 116, Cyp. 
 
 Christus a nobis corpore presens non 
 habetur, ii. 365, P. Mart. 
 
 Non sine certissima rei significate pre- 
 sentia, ii. 440, Hosp. 
 
 Nec congregatis homo est presens, &c., 
 i. 101, Origen 
 
 Secundum presentiam Majestatis sem- 
 per habemus, i. 278, Aug. 
 
 Contemplatione velut presentem, ii. 312, 
 Gwin. 
 
 Custodia seu tabernaculum, processio- 
 naliter defertur, i. 641, Ortiz. 
 
 Hec commemoratio sola propitium facit, 
 i. 92, Origen 
 
 Cur non sub propria, ii. 93, H. de St V. 
 
 Per imaginem propriz passionis, 1. 424, 
 Gaud. 
 
 In pyxide positum in die ceene, &ce., 1]. 
 216, Gers. 
 
 509, 
 
 Q. 
 
 The qualities and quantities without the 
 substance, ii. 479, H. 5. 
 
 Quando quibus et quantum oportet, i. 
 96, Or. 
 
 Quartodecimanism, i. 523, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Non ulla res adeo ad questum, ii. 150, 
 Melanchthon 
 
 R. p. 
 
 Raban Maur, a disciple of Alcuin at 
 Tours, i. 612 
 
 Winkel in the Rheingau was Raban’s 
 place of residence, i. 612 
 
 Raban held four sacraments, bread and 
 wine, and baptism, and confirmation 
 (chrism), i. 612 
 
 Five reasons why under another form, 
 ii. 170, W. Dur. 
 
 Bp Heber’s remarkable protest against 
 J. T.’s misuse of ‘‘real,” ii, 318 
 
 Not eat and drink real body and blood 
 of Christ, ii. 629, Bev. 
 
810 
 
 R. p. 
 
 Words true and real, ii. 318. See Heber, 
 Life J. T. (clearest of all) 
 
 The word ‘‘real,” as introduced, is un- 
 meaning or worse, &c., ii. 579, B. Heber 
 
 With sacrament in this sense the term 
 ‘‘real” is utterly inconsistent, ii. 578, 
 B. Heber 
 
 To drink real blood in remembrance of 
 real blood, ii. 676, Hoad. 
 
 Real, because not feigned, but true and 
 faithful, ii. 319, Hugh Lat. 
 
 As bread and wine not real body and 
 blood, no sacrifice, ii. 675, Water. 
 
 Its true and real nature is to appease 
 God’s wrath, &e., ii. 540, Cosin 
 
 We hold not a true real proper and pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice, toties quoties, ii. 540, 
 Cosin 
 
 Peter a deacon, ‘‘When get to reality?” 
 ii. 25, Bereng. 
 
 Caprera uses realiter of res ipsa, the 
 body, ii. 498 
 
 Must come back to this, Christ gave in 
 true reality, &c., ii. 458, Sarav. 
 
 Really and truly, not carnally, &c., but 
 mystically and supernaturally, ii. 547, 
 Reyn. 
 
 These elements changed spiritually in 
 nature, not really but in use, ii. 510, 
 Usher 
 
 Eating His flesh really, &c., contrary to 
 the Word of God, ii. 8359, Hoop. 
 
 If not His own body veritably and really, 
 why so obscure? ii. 623, 4, Quesnel 
 Lutherans; truly and really present in, 
 
 with or under, 11. 615, Limb. 
 
 I cannot understand really and substan- 
 tially but corporally, ii. 478, H. 5. 
 
 Nor can we really receive, but only bene- 
 fits, ii. 673, Water. 
 
 If Christ were really there what the 
 effect, 11.376, Haus. 
 
 Spiritually and really but not corporeally, 
 Overall a hundred times, ii. 540, 
 Cosin 
 
 The words ‘really and truly”? add not 
 to sense, ii. 703, Thirl. 
 
 The blood, as long as religion, really 
 present, &c., ii. 623, Quesn. 
 
 Differences of those that recanted, ii. 22 
 
 “1 have received Thee, O God,” T. 
 Aquinas dying, ii. 161 
 
 A bad man receives, ii. 14, Damiani 
 
 Receptionism, i. 554, J. of D. 
 
 Reformation, firm belief in number, 
 of visible acts, ii. 238, Ullm. 
 
 ‘“*For My remembrance,” or in ‘‘com- 
 memoration of Me,” ii. 612, Barr. 
 
 ᾿ Remission joined to blood, express figure 
 of death, ii. 526, Jansen 
 
 Remission of sins by another man’s act 
 not possible, ii. 306, Melanc. 
 
 SECOND INDEX. 
 
 R. p. 
 
 A representation of the passion to God, 
 ii. 559, Hamm. 
 
 Epiphanius says no change in Christ at 
 resurrection, i. 299, Epiph. 
 
 Review of success of Dr Pusey, ii. 690, 
 Haag 
 
 Review of Continental Reformation di- 
 vines, i. 689, 690, Haag 
 
 Multitude of sins spring from profana- 
 tion of this rite, ii. 309, Melan. 
 
 ἐῤῥαψώδησαν πεπηρωμένοι, i. 126, Mac. M. 
 
 Undecim rationes, eleven explanations, 
 πῇ e697 OW Dur. 
 
 Quod per essentiam aut realiter, &c., 
 we oppose constantly, ii. 312,13, Zwin. 
 
 Aliter ad regnum non perveniri, i. 234, 
 Amb. 
 
 Reliquarium sub tribus seris et januis, 
 i. 641, B. O. Tol. 
 
 Remedium salutiferum Chr. ec. contra 
 peccatum, i. 626, P. Nie. I. 
 
 (Manichean) corp. i.e. queedam repre- 
 sent. 6. Mei, ii. 113, Pet. Cant. 
 
 ‘Res sacramenti” and “realiter,” ii. 
 422, Cajetan 
 
 Ritus promissionis que est gratuita, ii. 
 304, Melanc. 
 
 Sua: 
 
 Sacerdotal imperialism shooting up with 
 Leo L., i. 466 
 
 Not necessary to a sacrament that thing 
 signified be absent, ii. 426, Mald. 
 
 In the sacrament the very true and 
 natural, &c., ii. 336, Ridl. 
 
 The good with weak and wicked united 
 in same sacrament, ii. 622, Quesn. 
 
 Nothing but this sacram. ever so vilely 
 contaminated and abused, 11.585, Owen 
 
 Sacraments not contain the grace by or 
 with them bestowed, ii. 453, Hooker 
 
 Refuting Aquinas, who put supernatural 
 virtue in sacrament, ii. 175, Duns 
 
 Christ takes parts of Jewish sacrament 
 to make His own, ii. 551, Light. 
 
 Practical depraving of both sacraments, 
 ii. 446—9, Rain. 
 
 Lovely picture of sacramental call to 
 men, ii. 248, Tynd. 
 
 The church no lady or mistress over 
 
 _ Sacrament, 11. 888, Bullin. 
 
 The sacrament a description of His pas- 
 sion to come, 11. 249, Tynd. 
 
 J.T. said symbols changed after a sacra- 
 mental, i.e. a spiritual, real manner, 
 ii. 578 
 
 Sacrament ordained to be explained and 
 instruct through our senses, ii. 433, 4, 
 Whitaker 
 
 Why sacrament not in Apostles’ Creed, 
 ii. 177, Duns 
 
REAL—SACRIFICES. 
 
 Sh ae 
 
 His Son’s sacrifice in this sacrament 
 represented, ii. 617, Bull 
 
 How Christian sacraments differ from 
 those of Jews? Accidentally, 11. 585, 
 Owen 
 
 On word sacrament, ii. 288, Eras. 
 
 Arguments from the holy sac., ii. 435, 
 Bellarm. 
 
 Parallel between Christ’s natural and 
 sacramental bodies, ii. 662, Johnson 
 Always to be wished to have a sermon 
 
 before sacrament, ii. 495, Willett 
 
 Whether eating sacrament necessarily 
 saving, ii. 275, D. de St P. 
 
 Denial that sacramental body, &c., is 
 Christ Himself, &¢, &c., 11. 700d, 
 Thirl. 
 
 Sacramentalism as to baptism and the 
 Lord’s supper, ii. 721, 2, Jacob 
 
 Properly no sacrifice, a sacrament and 
 memorial, ii. 248, Tynd, 
 
 Definition of a sacrament, ii. 
 Water. 
 
 Like Jovinian to believe sacrament good 
 out of the church, 11. 36, Humb. 
 
 None hold that sacrament not a way to 
 get grace of God, ii. 358 
 
 The remission of sins a part of the 
 sacrament, ii. 457, Saray. 
 
 Definition of sacrament (different from 
 Bellarmine), ii. 682, Moehl. 
 
 He unites Himself with all in this sacra- 
 ment, ii. 683, Moehl. 
 
 Sacrament maketh not concord, &c., 
 confirmeth, ii. 359, Hoop. 
 
 If righteousness from sacrament, Christ 
 died in vain, ii. 356, W. Muse. 
 
 Bellarmine cited, that flesh in sacrament 
 different from fleshin Heaven, ii. 767, 
 Thirl. 
 
 Three parts in a sacrament (as Saravia 
 and the two Archdeacons, Wilb, and 
 Denison), ii. 698 
 
 Sacraments, which are as visible words, 
 J. Taylor’s words, ii. 533 
 
 Not startle at difficulty of sacramental 
 change, &c., ii. 637, Comb. 
 
 Substantialiter may be a substantial 
 sacrament, i.e. really, truly, ii. 577, 
 J. Tay. 
 
 This sacrament a visible word, preach- 
 ing peace, ii. 359, Honius 
 
 Sacrament takes away all consent to 
 great sins, ii. 106, St Bern. 
 
 Signs belonging to Divine things are 
 sacraments, ii. 611, Barr. 
 
 The sacrament and not the sacrifice, ii. 
 399, Geste 
 
 Sacrament bare and empty of Christ’s 
 body, not of blessing, ii. 320 
 
 When sacrament dealt, none crouched, 
 or took it for God, ii. 400, Grind. 
 
 673, 
 
 811 
 
 8. σὲ 
 
 Why the idea that this sacrament is a 
 sacrifice has been ever continually re- 
 curring, i. 8 
 
 Without this sacrament rest of Christ’s 
 work insufficient, ii. 683, Moehl. 
 
 The sacred sign testifies the presence of 
 the thing signified, ii. 455, Saray. 
 
 Called sacrifice by ancients, Judaizing, 
 ii. 529, Calixt. 
 
 This kind of sacrifice falsely assigned, 
 &e., not a sacrifice, ii. 484, Arm. 
 
 If elements a sacrifice, then sin offering 
 and propitiation. Scripture says not, 
 ii. 675, Waterl. 
 
 People to kill sacrifice generally, clearly 
 kill passover, ii. 555, Cudw. 
 
 Bellarmine pleads that thing sacrificed 
 is destined to alteration, &c., 11. 451, 
 R. Abb. 
 
 Called a sacrifice because commemora- 
 tive of the Sacrifice, 11. 161, T. Aquin. 
 
 Definition of a proper sacrifice, ii. 531, 
 Calixt. 
 
 Unbloody sacrifice true sacrifice if ap- 
 peases God, ii. 429, Mald. 
 
 That lurching sacrifice of the mass, 
 when people receive not, ii. 535, Mede 
 
 To a true sacrifice, the death or destroy- 
 ing of thing sacrificed, ii. 451, R. Abb. 
 
 The sacrifice, 11. 3, Ault. 
 
 Jf we think the sacrifice on cross insuf- 
 ficient, ἄο., ii. 637, Comb. 
 
 Hight or nine different modes of a sacri- 
 fice, ii. 428, Mald. 
 
 Christ spake never a word of sacrificing, 
 ii. 319, Hugh Lat. 
 
 May be called a sacrifice for any harm 
 1 know, &c., ii. 540, Cosin 
 
 (1) Not true and proper sacrifice, (2) not 
 to be adored, ii. 502, Crak. 
 
 Expiatory sacrifice soon accepted, ii. 
 684, Haag 
 
 Protestants answer, Christ the church's 
 sacrifice, ii. 674, Water. 
 
 Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and 
 a commemoration, &¢., ii. 538, Bram. 
 
 Definition of proper propitiatory sacri- 
 fice. Such Christ on cross only, ii. 
 502, Crak. 
 
 Early Christians given way to sacrifice 
 God-man, ii. 237, Ullm. 
 
 Christ as a sacrifice alone answers to 
 Jewish priest, ii. 677, Hoad. 
 
 Fathers call it a sacrifice, and then say 
 not, ii. 677, Hoad. 
 
 The devil evacuates Christ’s death by sa- 
 crifice propitiatory, 11. 320, 1, Hugh L. 
 
 Why apostles not mention sacrifice, ii. 
 319, Hugh Lat. 
 
 Why make ye of Him more sacrifices 
 than one? semel, &e., li. 321, Hugh 
 Lat. 
 
812 SECOND 
 
 S. o. 
 
 Satan fears the recipients, i. 377, Cyr. A. 
 
 The Saviour’s Divine matter impregnates 
 soul, ii. 683, Moehl. 
 
 That might save every man who becomes 
 Him in sacram., 11. 535, Mede 
 
 Bramhall near to Scripture on this sacra- 
 ment, 11. 537 
 
 Nothing to be admitted from Scripture 
 which opposes this, 11. 505, Thorn. 
 
 Scripture (i.e. its interpretation) to be 
 confined within these bounds, ii. 505, 
 Thorn. 
 
 A sealed pardon, ii. 653, Baxt. 
 
 The ring and seal of Christ’s promise, 
 and a perpetual memorial, ii. 480, 
 ἘΠῚ: 
 
 Comparison of a ship at sea and a ship 
 in the mind, ii. 453, Hooker 
 
 Frequent separation of affection and 
 imagination from judgment, ii, 620, 
 I. Amb. 
 
 To-morrow shed, which ye now drink, 
 11. 82, B. of Seg. 
 
 Silence in the Acts, and all Epistles but 
 one, ii. 719, H. Seym. 
 
 Relation of sinner to God direct, 11. 240, 
 Wesel 
 
 Something added (letter, 1875), i. 572 
 
 Arians, Socinians, and orthodox noncon- 
 formists say spiritual benefit, ii. 675 
 
 A human spirit and any limited being 
 not in two places, ii. 660 
 
 That the Spirit may make this, &c., &c., 
 ii. 662, Wilson 
 
 Hoadley ignores, not denies, spiritual 
 benefit, ii. 675 
 
 The use of the small spoon, ii. 725, 
 Scudam. 
 
 Styed for ascended, ii. 203, Wye. 
 
 Subordination of Persons consistent with 
 coequality, ii, 616, Bull 
 
 Subordination of the church to the 
 Bishop, as of Christ to the Father, 
 i. 28, Ignat. 
 
 Substance able to give life, ii, 329, Ridl. 
 
 Terms substance and accidents suffi- 
 ciently correct, ii. 737 
 
 Two ways, virtually. Substance there, 
 and substance not there, ii. 736 
 
 The substance entirely contained under 
 one kind, ii. 591, Outr. 
 
 Dr Neale on substance and accidents, 
 ii. 734, Capel, and 737 
 
 Nowhere read substance of sign made 
 void, ii. 387, Bullin. 
 
 A summary word, ii. 698 
 
 The shewbread a type of the Lord’s 
 supper, i. 376, Cyr, A. 
 
 Where—to take the Lord’s supper alone? 
 ii. 399, Geste 
 
 We receive not literally but symboli- 
 cally, ii. 672, Waterl. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 82 σ᾽: 
 
 ἡ σὰρξ οὐ κατῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, i. 181, 
 Euseb, Em. 
 
 τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς, i. 86, Origen 
 
 συνδοξζασθείσης τῆς σαρκὸς Αὐτοῦ, i. 559, 
 J. of Ὁ. 
 
 ἡ σὰρξ, τούτεστιν ἡ κοινὴ Kal ψιλὴ, οὐκ 
 ὠφελεῖ (John yi.), i. 449, Nil. 
 
 ἐμπῆξαι τοὺς ὀδόντας TH σαρκὶ, i. 342, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 els ἐκείνην ἐγκερασθῶμεν τὴν σάρκα, i. 342, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 σάρκα ὀρέγει, K.T.A., 1. 61, Clem. A. 
 
 τῶν Σεραφὶμ κραζόντων τρόμῳ, i. 
 Chrysost. 
 
 βαστάζειν ἐν σκευοφορίῳ ἀπερχόμενον, 1. 
 505, Anast. 8. 
 
 σταυροειδῶς Tas παλάμας τυπώσαντες, 
 ΚΤ Δ: 1. 501, 9. Ὁ Ds 
 
 περὶ τοῦ τυπικοῦ καὶ συμβολικοῦ σώματος, 
 i. 100, Origen 
 
 ἐν Tals συνάξεσιν ἀκηκόατε, 1. 187, Cyr. J. 
 
 εἰ τελεῖται σύναξις... πᾶσαν ἡμέραν, 1. 450, 
 Nil. 
 
 ἐκ τοῦ κυριωτέρου μέρους συνεκδοχικῶς τὸ 
 ὅλον, 1. 574, Theod. Stu. 
 
 ἐν ταύτῃ, in Lent, συνεσκιασμένως, i. 575, 
 Theod. Stu. 
 
 παρεκαινοτόμησε τὴν σύστασιν, 1. 206 and 
 209, Greg. Ny. 
 
 els πᾶσάν σου τὴν σύστασιν ἀναδίδοται, 1. 
 188, Cyr. J. 
 
 ἐπισφραγίζεται, i. 165, Euseb. C. 
 
 σῶμα σιτουμένων Δεσποτικὸν, 1. 339, Chry- 
 sost. 
 
 ἔχομεν Χριστὸν, τὸ σῶμα Αὐτοῦ, i. 163, 
 Euseb. C. 
 
 τοῦ τιμίου σώματος ἀπολαύσωσιν, i, 421, 
 Euseb. Alex. 
 
 τῇ ἐπαφῇ τοῦ ἁγίου σώματος, i. 189, Cyr. 
 J 
 
 338, 
 
 ἀνέμιξε καὶ ἀνέφυρε τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἡμᾶς, 1. 
 342, Chrysost. 
 
 οὐ μὴν αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, ws 
 Μάρκελλος, i. 519, Ammon. 
 
 σώμα προσενήνεχθαι Θεῴ, 1. 169, Euseb. C. 
 
 μὴ κατανεμέτω τὸ σῶμα, i. 195, Bas. 
 
 κατάνευρον (σῶμα), 1. 222, Cees. 
 
 γένηται εἰς TO ἅγιον σῶμά Σου, i. 218, 
 Greg. Naz. 
 
 οὕτω TO σῶμα TO ἡμέτερον γίνεται, i. 450, 
 Nil. 
 
 σωματικῆς μὲν τροφῆς, πνευματικῆς δὲ καὶ 
 ὑπερβαλλούσης, 1. 898, Chrysost. 
 
 τὴν χορηγίαν τοῦ σώματος, i. 449, Nil. 
 
 τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Λυτρωτοῦ, 
 i. 513, Greg. I. 
 
 Tov Σωτῆρα ἐνστερνίσασθαι, i. 61, Clem. A. 
 
 Sacerdos, sacrum dans, i. 528, Isid. Sey. 
 
 Quilibet ex sacerdotali catalogo, i. 588, 
 ΒΗ ΓΒ: ΤΌΣ 
 
 Sacerdos missam solus non celebret, 
 reason given, i. 581, Theodulf 
 
SATAN—TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 Ξ': σ: 
 
 Pudicitia sacerdotalis, i. 294, Jer. 
 
 Pro nobis sacerdos et sacrificium, i. 255, 
 Aug. 
 
 Sacerdotes conficiunt ex sensibili ma- 
 teria hance visibilem, i. 603, Scot. 
 
 Sacerdotii dignitate ut eis in cunctis 
 obediant, i. 583, Agob. 
 
 Officio sacerdotii nostri, i. 119, Cyp. 
 
 Sacram. testes et foedera. Deus con- 
 signavit, 11. 271, Colet 
 
 Non est in sacram. aliqua virtus que, 
 σοι, i. 163, T. Aquin. 
 
 Sacram, quotid. ecclesiw sacrificium, i. 
 269, Aug. 
 
 Sacram. vas omnis gratie, ii. 158, Alb. M. 
 
 Sine ulla significatione alicujus tecti 
 sacramenti, i. 74, Tert. 
 
 Adesse sed sacramentaliter, &c., 11. 313, 
 Zwin. 
 
 Tantummodo sacram. non res sacram., 
 ii. 106, S. Bern. 
 
 Sub specie prop. in celo: sub specie 
 sacram. in alt., ii. 215, Gest. 
 
 Vis (sacram.) non augetur vel dim., ii. 
 122, Alan. 
 
 Non solum sacram, tenus, ut Bereng., 
 ii. 109, Gers, 
 
 Res sacram. gratia, qua unitur Christo, 
 ii. 211, Hus. 
 
 Sacramenta non ex se, &., &¢., ii. 384, 
 Bue. 
 
 A malis tantum sacramentaliter, ii. 117, 
 P. Lomb. 
 
 A nobis sumendum sacramentaliter, 11. 
 232, Tost. 
 
 Aliud sacramentum, aliud virtus sac., i. 
 275, Aug. 
 
 Sacramentum fontis et calicis (Joh. xix. 
 34), i. 485, Fulg. 
 
 Sac. sacrum factum, 1. 523, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Sacramentum concorporationis, i. 173, 
 Tells 12% 
 
 Sacram. sacrum signum (vel) secretum, 
 ii. 105, S. Bern. 
 
 Deo sacrificia offerre, i. 122, Cyp. 
 
 Deo sacrificia offerre, i. 149 
 
 Sacrificantibus nobis, i. 119, Cyp. 
 
 Against image worship, ΠῚ soli sacri- 
 ficetur, &c., i. 585, Agob. 
 
 Sacrificia Dei quotidie, i. 148 
 
 Sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor, i. 117, 
 Cyp. 
 
 Sacrificii memoriam oblatione, &¢., cor- 
 poris, &c., i. 268, Aug. 
 
 In sacrificio corp. Chr. mitti Sp. 8., 
 i. 485, Fulg. 
 
 Quod est de sacrificio sumpturus altaris, 
 i. 481, Fulg. 
 
 Extra hane nullum sacrificium, ii. 98, 
 Honor. 
 
 Sacrificium panis per eucharistiam, 1. 
 305, Syl. 
 
 $13 
 
 S. o. 
 
 Hoe sacrificium placat Deum, &c., 11. 
 171, W. Dur. 
 
 Ut sacrificium suscipias de manibus, i. 
 244, Amb. 
 
 Sanctificata per Sp. §., i. 529, Isid. 
 Sey. 
 
 Ne hereas in sanguine, i. 90, Origen 
 
 Sanguis in cratere ex latere Tuo, i. 307, 
 Syl. 
 
 Christus aspergit Patrem sang. quoties, 
 &e., ii. 171, W. Dur. 
 
 In qua quotidie sang. Suum bibit Chris- 
 tus, i. 438, Eucher. 
 
 Non videtur oculis quod vyinum in sang. 
 versum est, i. 614, Rab. 
 
 Sanguinem e Divino latere accipite, i. 
 308, Syl. 
 
 Sanguinem Seipsum probet, i.568,Paulin. 
 A 
 
 Bibere sang. quod lex interdicebat, ii. 
 135, Cen. D. 
 
 Scientibus et ignérantibus,i. 92, Or. 
 
 Secrete et sub silentio explained, i. 166, 
 W. Dur. 
 
 Sedet ad dexteram Patris inde venturus, 
 i. 265, Aug. 
 
 Christum sedere sicut in ccelo, ii. 149, 
 A. Hales 
 
 Significavit, force of here, i. 242, Amb. 
 
 Non quod videntur sed quod Divino Sp. 
 facta, i. 608, Bert. 
 
 Ut immittere digneris Sp. Tuum &., i. 
 497, Germ. P. 
 
 Verbis arcanis cum sacro suffitu, i. 498, 
 Germ. P. 
 
 ἀπέ σο GL 
 
 Description of the one very ancient holy 
 table, ii. 691, Lubke 
 
 This so terrific mystery, i. 49, Anselm 
 
 Is there a third latent way besides cons. 
 and trans. ? ii. 736 
 
 Erigena’s three lines of thought, 1.605 
 
 Scripture to be explained by tradition, 
 of which the Church the keeper, ii. 
 644, 5, Leib. 
 
 No tradition, but only of Scripture, can 
 derive self from Fountain, &c., ii. 549, 
 Chill. 
 
 Transelemented into Christ, ii. 61, Theo- 
 phylact 
 
 Explain assertion, Bread transelemented 
 into body, ii. 350, Jewel; and B. 
 Mant, 364 
 
 Transform wholly into Himself, by the 
 communication, &c., ii. 273, Colet 
 
 The bread is transmade by ineffable 
 words, ii. 60, Theophylact 
 
 Transubstantiation another doctrine from 
 a real presence, ii. 734, 1144. 
 
814 SECOND 
 
 Tea δὲ 
 
 If natural substance of bread no tran- 
 substantiation, nor adoration, &¢., il. 
 333, Ridl. 
 
 Apostles and successors power to tran- 
 substantiate, using set words, ii. 185, 
 186, Marsil. 
 
 Transelementation equivalent to tran- 
 substantiation, ii. 722, Jacob 
 
 Transubstantiation the nearest theory 
 to truth except the true, ii. 687 
 
 Nothing of transubstantiation in Apos- 
 tles’ Creed, 11. 241, Honius 
 
 Transubstantiation and multipresence, 
 which the worse? ii. 519, Hall 
 
 M. Capel charges several terms with 
 being transubstantiation, ii. 735 
 
 Classified summary of arguments for 
 transubstantiation from fathers, 11. 
 433, Bellarm. 
 
 Transubstantiation is by the 
 words drawn down, «&c., ii. 
 Goulb. 
 
 What is essentially consubstantiation, 
 and what transubstantiation, ii. 736 
 Singular parallel between doctrine of 
 Eutychius and transubstantiation, ii. 
 
 609 and 610, Still. 
 
 Cardinal Perron and A. Arnauld, best 
 defenders of transubstantiation, ii. 
 615, Till. 
 
 All fathers make it dissonant from 
 transubstantiation, ii. 617, Bull 
 
 Camera said to Luther, easier if Church 
 not held transubstantiation, 11. 294, 
 Luth. 
 
 The saints hold some conversion, if not 
 transub., ii. 148, A. Hales 
 
 Council of Trent on transubstantiation, 
 ii. 705, Thirl. 
 
 Whether words on transubstantiation or 
 consubstantiation in host or in soul 
 not settled, ii. 538, Bram. 
 
 Alternative of evils in transubs., ii. 280, 
 D. de St P. 
 
 In transubstantiation, Christianity ex- 
 ternal immediate Divine  revela- 
 tion, ii. 684, Moehl. 
 
 Transubstantiation came in A.D. 750, in 
 argument about images, 11. 614 
 
 Aug. v. Amb., mode of transub., ii. 129, 
 Innoe. III. 
 
 If it be Christ’s natural body, transub- 
 stantiation, &c., and adoration, &c., 
 ii. 333, Ridl. 
 
 Denied that a trope is any way admissi- 
 ble, ii. 561, Eckh. 
 
 Jumble heaven and earth rather than 
 hold one tropical speech, ii. 520, Hall 
 
 Words to be tropically received, ii. 36, 
 P. Mart. 
 
 On Tropologia and Anagoge, i. 438, 
 St Hucher. 
 
 sacred 
 19. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 UME Gre, (Ee 
 Tropical speaking, ii. 26, Bereng. 
 If bread turned into Christ then two 
 Christs, ii. 512, Ussher 
 ὑπὸ τών ἀξίων τέλειαι μόναι, i. 45, Just. 
 τὸ τέλειον, i. 146 
 τῇ τοιαύτῃ Θείᾳ τελετῇ, 1. 435, Procl. 
 
 διατέμνει σιδήρῳ τινι, i. 553, Germ. 
 Const. 
 θανάτου ἐξουσίαν εἰλήφασιν, i. 139, Ps. 
 
 Clem. 
 
 Θεοτόκος, Θεομήτωρ, &e., 11. 109 
 
 Note on Θεουργία, &e., by the Jesuit 
 Corder, i. 494 
 
 τὸ θῆλυν ἡ ἐκκλησία, 
 R. 
 
 τῷ θιάσῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων, 1. 221, Cees. 
 
 περὶ τῆς Θείας τραπέζης, κ.τ.λ., 1. 
 Gelas. Cyz. 
 
 Χριστὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς τραπέζης ἀνακείμενον, 
 i. 421, Euseb. Al. 
 
 αὕτη ἡ τράπεζα τῆς ψυχῆς τὰ νεῦρα, 1.344, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 τὰ σεμνὰ τῆς Χριστοῦ τραπέζης θύματα, 
 i. 164, Euseb. C. 
 
 i. 22, Pseudo-Clem. 
 
 472, 
 
 Θεοῦ τρίχα τὴν Χριστοῦ, x.7.r., 1. 222 
 Ces, 
 θυμιᾷν τοὺς τάφους καὶ ἁγίους, i. 131, 
 
 Dion, A. 
 
 ὁ τύπος σωτήριος, i. 379, Cyr. A. 
 
 Not πάσχα θύσιμον, but μνημονευτικὸν, 
 Grotius, ii. 555, Cudw. 
 
 θεωρίᾳ ἡ θυσία, i. 164, Euseb. C. 
 
 ἄγγελος ἔθυσε τὸ παιδίον, i. 990, Pallad. 
 
 ἀπὸ νηστικῶν προσάγεσθαι θυσίας, i. 634, 
 Phot. 
 
 Αὐτὴ μόνη ἡ θυσία σώζει, i. 512, Greg. I 
 
 εἰ ἄλλο Hv ἐκεῖνο, καὶ ἄλλο τοῦτο...οὐ θυσία 
 μία, Heb. vii., i. 557, J. οἱ 1). 
 
 It is a λογικὴ θυσία (sacrifice of the 
 mind, properly reason), ii. 617, Bull 
 τῆς Gucpas ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, i. 187 and 
 
 189, Cyr. J. 
 θυσία Θεῷ, Ps. li., i. 195, Bas. 
 ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, i. 49, Theoph., and 
 λογικὴ λατρεία, &e., i. 94, Origen 
 θυσιαστήριον ἀναίμων Kal λογικῶν θυσιῶν, 
 i. 165, Euseb. C. 
 ἀξιάγαστον θυσιαστήριον, i. 372, Cyr. A. 
 ἡ μυστικὴ καὶ ἀναίμακτος θυσία, i. 550, 
 Germ. Const. 
 ἡ Tov Πνεύματος χάρις κατασκευάζει θυσίαν, 
 i. 339, Chrysost. 
 τῆς ἱερᾶς ταύτης ἁπτώμεθα τῆς θυσίας, 1. 
 338, Chrysost. 
 προσδέξαι τὴν θυσίαν ἐς τὸ οὐράνιόν Lov 
 θυσιαστήριον, i. 858, Duc. 
 ἀνελλειπῶς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ θυσίαν, i. 
 Greg. I. 
 ἀναιμάκτους θυσίας, i. 377, Cyr. A. 
 θυσίας ἀναιμάκτους-ς --- ἀνάμνησιν, ii. 
 Theophylact 
 τῆς θυσίας τὸ λείψανον, 1. 374, Cyr. A. 
 
 513, 
 
 67, 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION—VERAM. 
 
 Te 73.6: 
 
 θυσίαις σωματικαῖς κεχρημένος, 1. 
 Euseb. C. 
 θυσίας αἰνέσεως (Ps. xci.), i. 161, Euseb. 
 
 165, 
 
 τραπέζαν τὸ ἁγίον θυσιαστήριον, i. 154, 
 Ath. 
 
 θυσιαστήριον κατὰ τὸ νοερὸν καὶ ἐπουράνιον, 
 i. 552, Germ. Const. 
 
 τῷ σεπτῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, i. 454 and 455, 
 Isid. Pel, 
 
 Tov θυσιαστηρίου, and ἄρτος Θεοῦ, i. 25, 
 and see 26, Ignat. 
 
 τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ προσπίπτει, i. 212, Greg. 
 Na. 
 
 εὐχὴν ἱερὰν ἐπὶ τοῦ Θείου θυσιαστ. τελέσας, 
 i. 493, Dionys. 
 
 Αὐτὸν καὶ Θείον νοεῖσθαι θυσιαστήριον, i. 
 374, Cyr. A. 
 
 τὰ θυσιαστήρια τῆς πνευματικῆς λατρείας, 
 i. 197, Bas. 
 
 οἱ ἱερεῖς τῷ ἁγίῳ θυσιαστ. προσεδρεύοντες, 
 i. ὅ99, Germ. Const. 
 
 μὴ ἴδη τὸν οὐράνιον θυσιαστήριον, i. 320, 
 Eph. S. 
 
 ἡ μυστικὴ ζωοθυσία γίνεται, i. 550, Germ. 
 Const. 
 
 ζωοθυτούμενος τὴν σάρκα εἰς βρώσιν, i. 
 550, Germ. Const. 
 
 τοῖς πιστοῖς ἱεροθυτούμενος δι᾿ ἧς, K.T.A., 
 i. 551, Germ. Const. 
 
 οὔκ ἐστι τύπος, κιτ.λ., μὴ γένοιτο, i. 561, 
 J. οἱ Ὁ. 
 
 Tanti tamque terribilis sacramenti, i. 
 548, Bede 
 
 Hoe figura testamenti, quod noyum 
 appellat, i. 619, Rab. 
 
 Hoe totum est quia id ipsum est, i. 598, 
 Pasch. 
 
 Granum tritici resurgens...totum esse 
 (whole Christ), i. 595, Haimo 
 
 Ule totus sumitur, whole Christ received, 
 ii. 115, P. Lomb. 
 
 Ut in id quod sumimus transeamus, 
 Col. iii. 3, i. 469, Leo I. 
 
 Ut in Divinam transeant, 8. Sp. perfici- 
 ente, i. 477, Gelas. 1. 
 
 In carnem transfigurantur, &c., i. 242, 
 Amb. 
 
 They say at the end of the last syllable, 
 panem transmutare, ii. 446, Par. 
 
 Transubstantians panem in carp. Suum, 
 ii. 208, Hus. 
 
 Ad probationem verborum transub., i. 
 168, W. Dur. 
 
 Transubstantiatis, &c., potestate Div., 
 lo 190; Cy Τὸ EV. 
 
 Neque transubs. nec realis conjunctio, 
 &c., cogitanda, ii. 414, Beza 
 
 Transubs., ii. 121, and stultissimum 
 diffiteri, &e., 122, Alan. 
 
 Verba illa omnino tropice dicta sunt, ii. 
 366, P. Mart. 
 
 De τὸ ὃ: 
 Tuguria circuire, i. 80, Tert. 
 Accipientibus tutela, i, 148 
 
 (Wienus 
 
 Luther borrowed doctrine of ubiquity of 
 Christ’s body from J. F., ii. 626, 
 Limb. 
 
 Luther gave up ubiquity, and built on 
 words of Christ, ii. 626, Limb. 
 
 Christ alive undiminished at God’s 
 right hand, ii. 18, Lanf. 
 
 Greeks anathematize users of unleaven- 
 ed, ii. 46, Anselm 
 
 Dispute which Christ used. Theoph. 
 said unleavened, ii. 59 
 
 A leaven and an unleaven party in 
 Greek Church after Humbert, ii. 59 
 
 Eastern says, Throw unleayven, &c., to 
 the Jews, ii. 36, Humb. 
 
 καταβαίνομεν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ, K.T.r., 1. 37, 
 Barnab. 
 
 ὕδατος καὶ κράματος, i. 43 (Just.), tem- 
 peramentum calicis, i. 54, Iren. 
 
 bv Υἱοῦ χορηγούμενον, 1. 125, G. Th. 
 
 τὸ ὑλικὸν, i. 99, Or. 
 
 ἡ ὑπόστασις (the substance) τοῦ Λόγου, i. 
 558, J. of D. 
 
 ὑπωπιάζω, 1 Cor, ix. 27, i. 86, Or. 
 
 ὑφαλεῖται θάνατον, i. 819, Cyr. A. 
 
 τοῦ ποιῆσαι THY ἀγίαν ὕψωσιν, i. 361, 
 Due. 
 
 Ubique, ut Deus, i. 265, Aug. 
 
 Hi adunabimur per caritatem, i. 603, 
 Scot. 
 
 Unitatem ecclesiasticam, i. 116, Cyp. 
 
 Humiliat Se, sicut in uterum yirginis, 
 ii. 142, F. of A. 
 
 Uve et frumenta, i. 470, Leo 1. 
 
 Ὑ. 
 
 Against veiling— offered in the truth of 
 reality, ii, 52, Anselm 
 
 We in the spiritual intention communi- 
 cate of His very Person, ii. 613, Barr. 
 
 Giveth the very substance, &c., ii. 259, 
 Coy. 
 
 So given that we verily receive Hig 
 body and His blood, ii. 350, Jewel 
 
 Verity of the body, and true faith of the 
 body, &e., ii. 331, Rid). 
 
 Dove-like vessel hanging 
 ciborium, 11. 692, Lubke 
 
 Received her viaticum, the most holy 
 body, &e., i. 6382, Ken 
 
 The Virgin in ‘a fiery furnace,” i. 515, 
 Evag. 
 
 Virtue issues in the manner that pleases 
 Christ, ii. 696, A. Wilb. 
 
 Figures secundum speciem yveram sec. 
 invis, subs, ὁ. and s. Chr. vere, i. 609, 
 Bert. 
 
 from tke 
 
816 
 
 Vv 
 
 In veram transisse substantiam, ii. 76, 
 Rup. 
 
 Divina et materialis subst. est verbum, 
 ii. 169, W. Dur. 
 
 Verbum quod nutrit, &c., i. 101, Origen 
 
 Vere nobis exhiberi non secus ac, &c., 
 &¢., 11. 338, Calv. 
 
 Christum vere in hoe sacrificio exhiberi, 
 i. 498, Germ. P. 
 
 Vere substantialiter adesse Christum, 
 ii. 308, Augsb. Conf. 
 
 Si, quod sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiri- 
 taliter, &e., i. 280, Aug. 
 
 Vere et spiritualiter—hoe est fide, non 
 proprie adesse, ii. 364, P. Mart. 
 
 True body of Christ truly, revera, con- 
 tained, ii. 353, Jan. of G. 
 
 De vere et proprie dicta carne, ii. 353, 
 Jan. of G. 
 
 Viaticum postulare, i. 459, and 460, 
 Chrysol. 
 
 Seipsum in hac vita viaticum, &c., ii. 
 84, P. of B. 
 
 Vini intinctum (dipped), ii. 96 
 
 Substantiarum panis et vini natura con- 
 versa, i. 594, Haimo 
 
 Virtute Spiritus in verbo efficitur, i. 597, 
 Pasch. 
 
 Viscerum nostrorum sanctificent interna, 
 i, 425, Gaud. 
 
 Sinon particip. mundatus non venire ad 
 vitam, i. 476, Gelas. I. 
 
 Eos vivere, John vi., i. 121, Cyp. 
 
 Vivificum corpus per veram unionem, i. 
 444, Cyr. A. 
 
 Sic voluit Ille Qui creavit, i. 596, Pasch. 
 
 W. 
 
 The benefits, the washing away of sins, 
 ii. 559, Hamm. : 
 
 Opposes mixing water, and any break- 
 ing of the body, ii. 101, Ab. 
 
 Though not in Gospels, water with wine, 
 li. 218, Gers. 
 
 Argued, water not to be mixed with the 
 wine, ii. 277, D. de St P. 
 
 On the addition of water to the wine, ii. 
 531, 2, Calixt. 
 
 Water mixed with wine, blood only, ii. 
 83, P. of B. 
 
 White v. black, i. 429, Soe. 
 
 Wine and water, i. 264, Aug. 
 
 If wine, why not unleaven, ii. 37, Humb. 
 
 SECOND 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 WwW 
 
 By wine the Deity, by water the man- 
 hood, ii. 97, Honor. 
 
 Scraping the earth on which the wine 
 falls, i, 442, Rab. 
 
 Our union with Christ, why water with 
 wine, i. 547, Bede 
 
 The woman that touched Christ’s robe, 
 (Matt. ix.), i. 275, Aug. 
 
 ‘A special kind of worship, ii. 638, Leib. 
 (peculiar promise of grace) 
 
 Seven gradations of worship (sacrifice), 
 from Peter, i. 529, Isid. Sev. 
 
 Sore abused, worshipped contrary to 
 command., ii. 478, H. 8. 
 
 You may be worshipping a non-ens, ii. 
 658, Wake 
 
 Christians always worshipping God im- 
 mediately, not by ordinance, ii. 621, 
 1. Amb. 
 
 Z. ἢ 
 
 Will this precipitate us into Zuinglian- 
 ism? ii. 656, Wake 
 
 τὴν ἀναμάρτητον καὶ ζωεραν, ii. 65, Theo- 
 phylact 
 
 ὡς Αὐτός ἐστι ζωὴ, οὕτω Kal ἡ ἑνωθεῖσα 
 Αὐτῷ σὰρξ, x.7.d., i. 520, Ammon, 
 
 ᾿ἕωὴν χαριζόμενον, i. 154, Athan. 
 
 πρὸς καινότητα ζωῆς ἀναστοιχειούμενοι, 1. 
 381, Cyr. A. 
 
 φυλακτήριον els ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 1. 
 Athan. 
 
 ὅλον ἐξ ὅλου τὸ ζώον εἰς ζωὴν ἀναπλάττων, 
 i. 518, Ammon. 
 
 ξωοποιεῖ τοὺς νεκρωθέντας ἐν παραπτώμα- 
 σιν, i, 449, Nil. 
 
 ζωοποιεῖ τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα τοὺς ἐν ols ἂν γέ- 
 vo.To, i. 383, Cyr. A. 
 
 τῆς ζωοποιοῦ κοινωνίας μὴ ἀποκωλυθῆναι, 1. 
 633, Phot. 
 
 οἷον σπέρμα ζωοποιὸν τὸ σῶμα τῆς ζωῆς, 
 i. 382 and 383, Cyr. A. 
 
 χορηγὸν τῆς ζωοποιοῦ τροφῆς, 1. 167, Hu- 
 seb. C. 
 
 axpavros and ξωοποιὸς used of both the 
 Spirit and the supper, i. 142 
 
 τὸ Αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου σῶμα ζωοποιόν ἐστιν, 
 i. 385, Gyr. A. 
 
 πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν ἡ σὰρξ, διότι ἐκ ζωοποιοῦ 
 Il. συνελήφθη, 1.562, J.of D. 
 
 ἥνωται (ἡ σὰρξ Χριστοῦ) τῷ ζωοποιοῦνται 
 
 Λόγῳ, i. 384, Cyr. A. 
 
 156, 
 
THIRD INDEX. OF HISTORICAL AND OTHER FACTS. 
 
 This index also is regulated by the leading words, but they are 
 
 more frequently the names of a person or a place. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abailard conquers William of Cham- 
 peaux and all: then falls, ii. 100 
 
 Abailard’s writings against infidelity, ii. 
 100 
 
 St Bernard loses in conquering Abailard, 
 rs MS) 
 
 Dr Robert Abbot worthy to be set with 
 Jewel and Bilson, ii. 450 
 
 Zigyppius extracted 352 heads of doc- 
 trine from Augustine, i. 520 
 
 Aineas Sylvius present on all great oc- 
 easions, 11. 244 
 
 fAlfric, his preferment, ii. 1 
 
 Had Ailfric seen John Scot or Ratram, 
 &e.? ii. 5 
 
 Agobard when France declined to a 
 silver age, 1. 581 
 
 Alan (Lille) knew all knowable, ii. 118 
 
 Estimate of Albertus Magnus, ii. 156. 
 Studied Avicenna and Aristotle 
 
 Albertin on Eucharist, parallel work to 
 Hosp., ii. 542 
 
 Aleuin sprang from Arehb. Hechbert’s 
 school, i. 563 
 
 The violence in Alexandria due to spread 
 of monkery, i. 390 
 
 Thirst of supremacy in church of Alex- 
 andria, i. 341 
 
 Allusion to Zwingel, ii. 338, Cally. 
 
 Amalarius confided in and employed by 
 Charlem., i. 577 
 
 Ambrose the apostle of perilous opinions, 
 i. 247 
 
 Amb., Aug., Jer., the Latin triad. Tert. 
 and Cyp. pioneers, i. 231 
 
 Isaac Ambrose, chaplain to Karl of Bed- 
 ford, ii. 619 
 
 Ammonius led astray by great doctors 
 of Cent. τν., i. 519, 520 
 
 Ammonius said by Anast, 5. to be best 
 expositor of Sc., 1. 517 
 
 ἯΙ OE 
 
 A. 
 
 Anastasius of Sinai the new Moses, i. 
 501 
 
 Andrew of Crete nearer Chrysostom than 
 Chrysol., 1. 541 
 
 Great Anglican lights following Alfred, 
 Soames’ and Migne’s opinions, ii.1, 2,3 
 
 Anselm a leader against Restelany the 
 nominalist, 11. 42 
 
 Antioch the school of true breadth of 
 view, i. 394 
 
 Aquileia, a second Rome, i. 223 
 
 The party of Arminius with good Bar- 
 neveldt destroyed, i. 483 
 
 Antoine Arnauld writes up infallible 
 Roman Church and yet is exiled, ii. 
 568 
 
 A, Arnauld’s answer to M. La Noue on 
 frequent com., ii. 563 
 
 From Ang. Arnauld’s appomtment to 
 Agnes’ death 72 years, ii. 572 
 
 Arnold of Brescia from Abailard’s teach- 
 ing, i. 99 
 
 Parts of Ascham deserve reprinting with 
 parts of others, ii. 343 
 
 Athanasius, his devotion from Anth., 
 logic from Or., i. 153 
 
 Augustine’s settlement of dates of events 
 of fifth day, i. 259 
 
 Augustine’s wide influence, i, 251 
 
 Authorities made co-ordinate, Syn. Basle, 
 ii. 466, Rain. 
 
 Averroes said, If worship the God they 
 eat, he prefers philosophers, ii. 618, 
 Bull 
 
 Avitus wished forsaken heretical chapels 
 ignored, i, 430 
 
 Bacon and Hales both used Aristotle, ii. 
 147 
 
 Bacon’s idea of the failure of (logic) dia- 
 lectical art, 11. 172 
 
 52 
 
818 THIRD 
 
 iB: 
 
 Extraordinary fertility of Barrow’s mind, 
 ii. 612 
 
 Basil and the two Gregories his friends 
 establish the Godhead of the Holy 
 Ghost in Council II.,i. 190 
 
 Basil’s three distinctions, i. 192 
 
 R. Baxter became a Royal Chaplain, but 
 refused to be B. of Hereford, ii. 652 
 
 Bede’s learning traceable to Theod. Cant. 
 bringing Greek, i. 545 and 548 
 
 Bellarmine had portrait of Dr Whitaker 
 in his study, ii. 443 
 
 Bellarmine the necessary supplement to 
 Pius IV.’s Catechism, ii. 430 
 
 Notice of several Benedicts, i. 591 
 
 Did Berengar hear J. Scot’s treatise? ii. 
 
 Berengar’s Reply to Lanfrane twice 
 printed, ii. 23 
 
 Bernard patron of the M. of Sentences, 
 ii. 114 
 
 Bernard and authority. Also the cru- 
 sade, ii. 108, 4 
 
 Bertram’s treatise lent by Ridley to 
 Cranmer, i. 605 
 
 Beveridge refused to acknowledge Com- 
 monwealth and Protectorate, ii. 628 
 
 Beza in accomplishments the phcenix 
 of his age, ii. 410 
 
 Alcuin gave to Charlemagne a Bible with 
 corrected text, i. 564 
 
 Biel, Tonstall and Fisher—troubled, ii. 
 474, Ἡ. 5. 
 
 Bilney’s mournful resolution, ii. 257 
 
 Blemmidas’ fidelity in this sacrament, ii. 
 iene, 8 
 
 A Dr Boileau denies that Bertram’s trea- 
 tise helps Prot., i. 606 
 
 Bonaventure lectured for Franciscans 
 same day as Aquinas for Dom., ii. 150 
 
 Bonaventure wishes to alter order of acts 
 in institution, ii. 151 
 
 The change that came on Bossuet in 
 fighting Fenelon, ii. 592 
 
 Bossuet satisfied with mere assumptions, 
 ii. 543, 4, 7 
 
 John Bradford fruit of Latimer’s preach- 
 ing, ii. 368 
 
 Many Brunos for and against Berengar, 
 ii. 79, 80 
 
 Bryennius’ discoveries in Library of Holy 
 Sepulchre, i. 20, 21 
 
 Bucer's funeral at Camb., ii. 380 
 
 Bucer’s account of the diff. Luther and 
 Zwingel, ii. 385 
 
 Bullinger, successor to Zwingel, received 
 English angels, ii. 386 
 
 Cajetan and Luther, and Constable Bour- 
 bon, ii. 421 
 
 Calixtus most learned adversary we have, 
 ii. 591, Outr. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 C. 
 
 Calixtus followed Melance. against Form. 
 Concord, ii. 528 
 
 Comparison of Calvin with chiefs in 
 civil rule and religion, ii. 337 
 
 Calvin. The body really received, minds . 
 rising to Heaven, 11. 640, Leib. 
 
 Two isles Lerin near Cannes, i. 425 
 
 Issue of the C. L. controversy alien from 
 the point, ii. 732, 3 
 
 Reply to Charlemagne about Aug. and 
 Jer., 1. 564 
 
 Escape of Prot. from Charles V., 11. 259 - 
 
 Chemnitz with A, Muse. drew up For- 
 mula Concordia, ii. 415 
 
 At 29 Chillingworth returned home to 
 Oxford from Douai, ii. 549 
 
 Chrysologus far beneath Chrysostom, i. 
 457 
 
 Chrysostom truly ‘‘incomparable,” i. 321 
 
 Chrys. stopped Theod. M. from mar- 
 rying, i. 395 
 
 The mother of Chrys. placed him under 
 Libanius, i, 333 
 
 Chunrad Gotteschalk’s successor took 
 up Geroch, ii. 108 
 
 Cistercians, ii. 77, 8 
 
 William Claggett, specially clear on 
 John vi., ii. 636 
 
 Jean Claude, like Claudius at Avranches 
 by Charlemagne, ii. 602 
 
 Clement of Rome set the door a little 
 open towards Judaism, i. 17 
 
 Panegyric on Clem. V.’s saying and the 
 Lord’s supper, i. 640, F. O. Tol. 
 
 The fable of S. Clement’s martyrdom, i. 
 143, Ps. Clem. 
 
 Clement A. between Pantenusand Origen 
 at St Mark’s, Alexandria, i. 59 
 
 Clement A. and Origen, several points of 
 likeness, i. 65 and 66 
 
 Clement of Rome (on Hefele’s hypo- 
 thesis) made bishop within a year of 
 St Paul’s death, and Linus and Ana- 
 cletus commissaries only, according to 
 Tischendorf, i. 12 
 
 Coleridge on Berengar, ii. 23 
 
 Colet entered Oxford year after Luther 
 born, ii. 269 
 
 Will any but Comber ever write 7 vols. 
 on our Prayer-Book? ii. 637 
 
 Cornelius ἃ Lapide, properly Van den 
 Steen, ii. 486 
 
 Councils at Ferrara and Florence, last 
 trials to unite Εἰ. and W., i. 631 
 
 Crakanthorp calls Archbishop of Spala- 
 tro, Judas, ii. 499 
 
 Cranmer and Ridley. Their learning, ii. 
 328 
 
 Lebas’ and others’ estimate of Cranmer, 
 ii. 322. Which portrait best? Do. 
 
 Cudworth co-equal with Lightfoot and 
 Buxtorf, ii. 654 
 
FACTS MENTIONED. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cyprian, convert of Cecilius, i. 114 
 Cyprian’s relics put in St John’s, Lyons, 
 prayer to him, i. 582 
 Cyprian’s remains rest at Compiégne, i. 
 1 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem more new doctrine 
 than all before, i. 185 
 
 Use of Cyril of J.’s and other liturgies 
 in that of Church of England, i. 187 
 
 Cyril of A. against Chrysostom in council 
 under the oak, i. 389 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria followed, ii. 709, 
 Goulb. 
 
 Cyril and Nestorius, antithesis, i. 394 
 
 Damasus, a tribute to Irene (sister), i. 
 312 
 
 Damian influenced Gregory VII., ii. 10, 
 11 
 
 Real date of De Coené Domini, ii. 131 
 
 The Defensor Pacis more what men call 
 Erastianism, 11. 184 
 
 Demaus and Froude against More, ii. 
 270 
 
 Lamented Demaus and his life of Lati- 
 mer, i. 625 and 627 
 
 Fire in town of Deutz, ii. 73, 4, Rup. 
 
 Didymus stedfast to Origen yet honoured 
 by Jerome, i. 281, 282 
 
 Ps. Dionysius claimed for Paris four cen- 
 turies later by Hilduin, i. 491 
 
 Ps. Dionysius for ten centuries dazzled 
 the Church, i. 491 
 
 Dollinger v. Bishop of Lincoln on Hip- 
 polytus, i. 108, 109 
 
 Dollinger v. Wordsworth, i. 123, Com. 
 
 Dressel’s Prolegomena, and Hefele on 
 the date of the Pastor of Barnabas, i. 
 34 
 
 Dr Drey’s opinion on the real date of the 
 Ps. Ap. Canons, i. 146; others, 140 
 
 Duns’ answer to extreme predestinari- 
 anism, ii. 173 
 
 Duns (Scot) went from Oxford to Paris, 
 ii. 172 
 
 W. Durand uncle of D. de St Poureain, 
 i. 165 
 
 D. de St P. cited by Rohrbacher for 
 Papal Supremacy, ii. 274 
 
 D. de St P. last not least of great scho- 
 lastics, ii. 274 
 
 The first printed Eastern Liturgies by 
 Duceas at Rome, i. 353 
 
 Customs in Eastern Churches, ii. 687 
 
 Elliott’s Hore Apoc. (Ed. IV.) conforms 
 to Mede, ii. 532 
 
 Emeric de Bonis and St Charles, delay 
 after confession, ii. 563, A. Arn. 
 
 Ephraim put out Syrian hymns, i. 317 
 
 819 
 
 EK. 
 
 Epiphanius calls Origenists αἰσχροποιοὺς 
 i. 297 
 
 Erasmus thought Hausschein on the 
 words, &¢., unrivalled, 11. 373 
 
 Erasmus hard on Augustine, i. 254 
 
 Erasmus and Luther to be estimated 
 separately, ii. 282, 3 
 
 Erasmus’ paraphrases (Milman says) the 
 great work of the age, ii. 282 
 
 How scarce Erastus, how little known, 
 li. 389 
 
 The way in which after council Vercelli 
 Erigena’s MSS. were treated, i. 600 
 
 Eucherius of Lyons attached to Aug., i. 
 437 
 
 Eusebius Em. charged with bias against 
 the Persons, i. 180 
 
 Eusebius the Church Herodotus, i. 427 
 
 Euseb. C. objected long to the Nicene 
 word, i. 159 
 
 Euseb. C. preached in an Arian Council, 
 i. 159 
 
 Euseb. C. ‘‘ the father of Church His- 
 tory,” i. 159 
 
 Eustathius. His liturgy, pray Spirit to 
 come down, i. 183, Euseb. Em. 
 
 Eutych. Const. died of acute fever after 
 Lord’s supper, i. 499 
 
 Eutych. Const. sent to Coune. V., i. 499 
 
 Evagrius, a lawyer, only inferior as his- 
 torian to Soe., i. 514 
 
 Rey. R. W. Evans’ idea about missions 
 abroad, i. 60 
 
 R. W. Evans severe on Origen and fa- 
 yourable to Cyprian, i. 104, Or. 
 
 Pope Fabianus like Ambrose a layman 
 when chosen Bishop, i. 106 
 
 Facundus fit name for defend. of Theod. 
 M. and Theod. Cyr., i. 489 
 
 Fisher palliates the king’s error, Crea- 
 tive Subst., ii. 302, Bp F. 
 
 Fox, fellow of Magdalene, Oxford, Karl 
 of Surrey patron, ii. 475 
 
 Fox and Dean Goode on the meaning of 
 the fathers, ii. 2, 3 
 
 The three Francises, ii. 139, F. of A, 
 Tuscan poet 
 
 German reckoning F, of A. greater than 
 Dom., ii. 139 
 
 All great Franciscans Britons but Bona- 
 venture, ii. 144 
 
 Bonaventure sick at four: given to 8. F., 
 died at 53, gazing on crucifix, ii. 150 
 
 F. of A.’s Three Rules. Visit to Sultan, 
 11. 138 
 
 F. of A.’s stigmata, perhaps fiction of 
 successor, ii. 139 
 
 Fran. of A.’s Council of the Strawhuts, 
 ii. 137. Dominic there 
 
 Franciscan and Dominican opinions, ii. 
 607 
 
820 
 
 F. 
 
 Fred. IT.’s court in Sicily favoured Ara- 
 bic and Greek, ii. 159, T. Aquin. 
 
 Frith and B. Gilpin preferred by Card. 
 Wolsey to Christ Church, Oxford, ii. 
 253, Frith refuses to fly 
 
 Fulg. of Ruspe assailed Cass. in defence 
 of Aug., i. 480 
 
 Gaspar Casalius, Brussels 1565, i. 354 
 
 Gelas. I. in second year had Theodorie 
 (Arian) succeed, i. 475 
 
 Gelas. Cyz. aided in history Niczean 
 Council by Dalmatius, i. 472 
 
 Gennadius, Cyril Lucar, &., ii. 234 
 
 Gerbert falls into the error of Kutyches, 
 11. 8, 9 
 
 Gerbert first mover of crusading, ii. 6 
 
 Gerbert’s opinion on the body and blood 
 unsettled, ii. 7 
 
 Gerbert, the philosopher, 
 Frenchman a pope, ii. 5 
 
 Gerbert used the Pseudo-Isidore de- 
 cretals, ii. 6 
 
 Germanus of Paris stops war by Sige- 
 bert, i. 495 
 
 Gerson raised the idea of Councils as 
 chief power, ii. 214 
 
 Dean Goode’s idea about the supply of 
 clergy, 11. 695 
 
 Gorgonia, sister of Greg. Na., her cure, 
 i. 211 
 
 Gratian’s (Papal law) Decree, 11. 95, 6 
 
 Greg. Thaum., a convert of Origen, i. 83 
 
 Greg. Agrigent., ‘‘a sea of arguments,” 
 i. 516 
 
 the first 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps leader in 
 Counce. IT., 1. 202 
 
 Grindal born (near Grange-over-sands), 
 Lancashire, i. 400 
 
 Guibert alone describes Peter the Her- 
 mit, ii. 85; supports Anselm, 86 
 
 Guizot, triple division of Christian influ- 
 ence, i. 252 
 
 Alex. Hales taught Bonaventure: was 
 between old and late schol., ii. 146 
 Bishop Hall, the Christian Seneca, ii. 
 519 
 
 Hallam’s charge of Bucerianism, ii. 325, 
 Cran. 
 
 Valuable extract from Hallam, ii. 378 
 
 £100 offered for Dr Hammond’s head, 
 i. 559 
 
 Dr Harrison’s arguments chiefly with 
 Dr Pusey, ii. 703 
 
 Dr Harrison’s controversy with Dr Jacob, 
 ii. 701 
 
 Dr Harrison’s eight rules to interpret 
 the fathers, ii. 702 
 
 The seven sisters and their friend De 
 Hauranne, ii. 575 
 
 THIRD INDEX. 
 
 ἘΠ 
 
 Hausschein and Zwingel wellknew Latin, 
 Greek and Hebrew, ii. 371 
 
 Hefele on Mohler in Wetzer and Welte, 
 i. 140 
 
 Hefele’s arguments for Hermas being pos- 
 sibly brother of Pope Pius I., and 
 comparison with Thomas a Kempis, i. 
 38 
 
 Henry VIII., author of book against 
 Luther, Fisher’s help, ii. 296 
 
 Henry VIII. errs by not knowing Greek, 
 li. 298; need of pomp for people, ii. 
 300, H. VIII. . 
 
 Hilary’s identity of judgment with Ni- 
 cene council, i. 170. 
 
 Hilary the deacon and the (Ambrosian) 
 com., i. 250 
 
 Hil. A., dream of robes, i. 426 
 
 Hippolytus affirms that Christ did not 
 eat τὸ πάσχα, i.e. the Lord’s supper, i. 
 113 
 
 Marble statue of Hippolytus discovered 
 in Rome 1555, i. 108 
 
 Honoratus (spiritual) parent of Hilary of 
 Arles, i. 425 
 
 Hooker’s mind a microcosm. Admired 
 by Clement VIII. and Charles I., ii. 
 452 
 
 Difference Hooker Taylor and Barrow, 
 Bp Heber and Dr Parr, ii. 575 
 
 Hooker’s last prayer written with a coal, 
 ii. 358 
 
 Hosius present at Coun. Elvira, i. 143 
 
 Hospinian would fain prove the fathers 
 all but Zwinglians, 11. 443 
 
 Hospinian does not quite correctly ex- 
 hibit Zwing., ii. 439, 440 
 
 Hugo de St V., praise by Cramer, ii. 93 
 
 Humbert excommunicated, Pat. Con- 
 stant. A.D. 1058, ii. 36 
 
 Humbert inconsistent, ii. 27, Bereng. 
 
 Humbert’s journey to England, ii. 35 
 
 Why Huss burned, held transubstantia- 
 tion, ii. 204 
 
 The Hypotyposes (of Heresies by Clem. 
 A.) lost, i. 60 
 
 Ignatius, the case of the short and long 
 recensions, i. 24, 55 
 
 Innocent Til. and Gregory VII. twin 
 powers, ii. 123, exculpations 
 
 Ireneus by protest restrains Victor, 
 bishop of Rome, i. 50 
 
 Trenzeus not much beyond Justin, i. 58, 
 except calling the Spirit to the bread 
 and wine 
 
 Sources of much in Ps.-Isidor, decretals, 
 i. 586 
 
 Isid. Pel.’s style highly praised, Dict. 
 Encye., i. 454 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium’s influence over 
 Cyr. A., i. 453 
 
FACTS MENTIONED. 
 
 i 
 
 1514, Sev.’s freedom through distance 
 from Rome, i. 522 
 
 The Jansen (of Ypres) friend of De 
 Hauranne, 11. ὅῶ9 
 
 Jer.’s writings against Vigilantius and 
 Jovinian saved their memory, i. 284 
 
 Jerome became a Christian at Tréves, i. 
 284 
 
 Jewel’s address to Merton at death, ii. 
 348 
 
 Jewel’s use of a passage imperfect, 1. 350 
 
 The holy things of Jewish temple—sup- 
 posed fate, i. 467 
 
 Jews drank each four large cups, Worse 
 at Purim, ii. 635, Whit. 
 
 John of Paris suspected, died at Rome, 
 ii. 180 
 
 John Cassian visiting cler. meetings, 
 i. 349 
 
 John of Damascus and general feeling 
 ending in Nic. Coune. Il. worship of 
 images, i. 549 
 
 John Nepos Sylvanus. 
 ments, 1. 303 
 
 Object attained by presence of Judas, 
 i. 468, Leo I. 
 
 Julian discussed with Cesarius, i. 219 
 
 Wastel’s argu- 
 
 Ken refused to admit Duchess of Portsm. 
 into his house, ii. 632 
 
 Ken on Church Catechism. How, &e., 
 1 can by no means explain, ii. 633, K. 
 
 Ivo like Ken. Gallican liberties. Refused 
 furs to the King, ii. 53 
 
 How Cranmer wrote the rubric on kneel- 
 ing, ii. 327, 8 
 
 Lactantius, tutorin Constantine’s family, 
 i, 127 
 
 Lanfranc, noble except to Berengar, ii. 
 15 
 
 Latimer’s resigning his post, bold speech 
 and more, ii. 317 
 
 Laud at Jerome of P.’s trial, 11. 213 
 
 Legend about the Sultan of Cyril’s day, 
 i. B04 
 
 Leib. mistranslates ἀντίτυπα, and mis- 
 spells, ii. 647 
 
 Leib. tries to prove substance changed, 
 and accidents remain, ii. 647 
 
 Dimensions not everything. There is a 
 ‘*moles,” ii. 647, Leib. 
 
 Leib. says elements not adored: because 
 Divine Presence in them, ii. 648, Leib. 
 
 Leib. thinks beyond question fathers 
 believed in a real change, ii. 646 
 
 The posthumous works of Leibnitz, ii. 
 638 
 
 Levites sow, reap, make, bake sacred 
 bread (Mal. i.), i. 288, Jer. 
 
 821 
 
 L 
 
 Canon Jiddon’s part in The Priest to 
 the Altar, 734, 5, Capel 
 
 Dr Lightfoot would not leave Talmud 
 for Savoy Conference, ii. 550 
 
 Peter Lombard to blame for all, ii. 373, 4 
 
 Peter Lombard unintentionally prolongs 
 reign of fathers, ii. 114 
 
 Cyril Lucar’s present to Charles I., i. 14 
 
 Luther and Zwingel took up exposition 
 of Seripture, ii. 270 
 
 Lyra and Wessel prepare way for Lu- 
 ther, ii. 188 
 
 Maldonat follows Erasmus and Cajetan 
 in giving informal comment., ii.426, 7 
 
 Maldonat said Immaculate Conception a 
 pious opinion only, 11. 427 
 
 P, Martyr, how came to England, In 
 erudition Calvin’s rival, ii. 361 
 
 Queen Mary of Scotland took the sacra- 
 ment every morning at her own hands 
 in England, ii. 408 
 
 Maximus’ tongue torn out, but he spoke, 
 1. 532 
 
 Rev. Dr Cragg’s Miejour, or isles of 
 Lerin, i. 437 
 
 Dean Milman had met only four that 
 read 1. Aquin., ii. 270 
 
 Montanus presided at Council Tol. IL, 
 i. 636 
 
 Mynoides brought Philosophumena from 
 Greece, 1842, i. 110, Hipp. 
 
 Neander puts Rupert with Luther, ii. 68 
 
 Neocesarea fertile of great men in one 
 century, i. 192 
 
 We want more of the writings of Nes- 
 torius and others, i. 888 
 
 Nicephorus Const. held image worship 
 against Constant. Cop., 1. 569 
 
 Pope Nie. I. fails in East, double success 
 in West, i. 625 
 
 The oath Novatian imposed, ii. 199, Nic. 
 Xanth. 
 
 W. Ockham restored Nominalism: a 
 great offence, 11. 192 
 
 Origenism Philonic rather than Pla- 
 tonic, 1. 150 
 
 Origen’s friend and hasty publisher Am. 
 brosius, i. 104, Or. 
 
 Origen’s speculations of Judaizing origin, 
 i. 150 
 
 Outram in Latin to answer Socinus in 
 same language, ii. 589 
 
 Overall taught (in Cat.) remission not by 
 sacraments, i. 232, Amb. 
 
 Pagi fixes the date of the Apostolic 
 Const., i. 133 
 
 Palladius, a fourth century father, died 
 near Aberdeen, i. 326 
 
THIRD 
 
 P. 
 
 Pareus looked down on in Germ., nota 
 consubs., ii. 444 
 
 In Parker’s revision Article on Grace 
 dropped, ii. 360, Hoop. 
 
 Paschasius, fuller statement and reitera- 
 tion, i. 596 3 
 
 Paulinus of Nola unluckily finds relics 
 of Felix, i. 364 
 
 Ale. joined Paul. of A. against Adoption- 
 ists, i. 564 
 
 Paul of Samosata opposed by Dionysius, 
 i. 130 
 
 Pelagius writes Com. at the wish of 
 Jerome’s Heliod., i. 227 
 
 Jesuit persecution of all connected with 
 Port Royal, ii. 572 
 
 Peter’s contention with S. M. in the 
 Clementines, i. 132 
 
 Is Peter Mansour J. of D.? i. 554 
 
 Peter the Singer refuses Bishopric of 
 Tournay, ii. 112 
 
 The presence of St Peter at Rome, is it 
 an historic fact? i. 12, 13 
 
 Philastrius known through serm. Gaud., 
 i. 423 
 
 Photius like Ambrose was a lay state 
 officer, i. 630 
 
 Bekker thought Phot. B. P. worth his 
 editing, i. 631 
 
 Photius called to the helm (as against 
 P. Nie. 1.), i. 631 
 
 Photius raised through orders up to 
 bishop in six days, i. 632 
 
 Aletter of Phot. found by Ang. Mai on 
 a palimpsest, i. 633 
 
 Migne’s Photius first perfect edition, i. 
 631 
 
 Picture of times, ii. 268, Sav., Aur. Lib. 
 
 Cat. Pius IV., and Bellarm., &c., ii. 137 
 
 Regarding the Polish body of Socin. 
 fathers, ii. 664 
 
 The three cases Pope v. King in F. and 
 E. on marriages, i. 627 
 
 Pope Pontianus ratified Origen’s orders 
 at Rome, i. 105, Pon. 
 
 Profession of Greeks at Venice to Card. 
 Claud, ii. 544, Alb. 
 
 Dr Pusey—that would not use any but 
 Church of England words, ii. 727 
 
 Dr Pusey’s Note S. in his two works on 
 the Real Presence, i. 209 
 
 Quesnel exiled for defending Gallican 
 liberties, ii. 622 
 
 Rainolds answered Bell. point by point 
 at Oxford, ii. 463 
 
 Realist W. of Champ. founds Sch. de St 
 V5 τὸ 5 
 
 Abbot of Reichenau left papers on the 
 Bible—aid to Strab., i. 620 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 R 
 
 Was there more of Heaven than of earth 
 in Bishop Reynolds? ii. 545 
 
 Ridley’s examination at Oxford. What 
 is in the cup? i. 347 
 
 Ritual at Rouen in Cent. XL., ii. 39— 
 41 
 
 Rohrbacher’s panegyric on Bede, i. 548, 
 549 
 
 Rohrbacher’s version of Council IIL., i. 
 
 Rufinus and Jerome translating and 
 copying, i. 223 
 
 Rufinus stood firm for Origen, i. 223, 
 and visited Didymus, i. 224 
 
 Sandys, probably taught at Furness Ab- 
 bey School, ii. 402 
 
 Saravia and Hooker in their last inter- 
 course, ii. 454 
 
 What did Saravia in the Church of 
 England? ii. 462 
 
 Scaliger thought Prosper A. the first of 
 his age, i. 450 
 
 Scholastics useful, with their tens of 
 folios, ii. 159 
 
 John Scot wrote at desire of Charles the 
 Great and Charles the Bald, ii. 29, 
 Bereng. 
 
 John Scot, mind like Roger Bacon’s, 
 1. 600 
 
 Was Scot Erigena the John who came 
 to Alfred ? ii. 2 
 
 Sir W. Scott’s Grey Brother, i. 106, 
 Pon. 
 
 A description of the Rev. W. E. Seuda- 
 more’s chief work, ii. 727 
 
 On sent. in Book of Sent. condemned by 
 pope, ii. 114 
 
 Hobart Seymour’s idea of widely spread- 
 ing views, ii. 718 
 
 The Rey. Orby Shipley quoted by M. 
 Capel, ii. 734 
 
 Siricius attacks Vigilantius and Jovinian, 
 i. 312, Syl. 
 
 Sirmond shews Baronius wrong on date 
 of Theophyl. by 200 years, ii. 59 
 
 Sirmond and Menard’s discoveries of 
 the work of Barnabas, i. 35 
 
 Henry Stephens did not see that the 
 letter to Diognetus not Justin’s, i. 31 
 
 Stillingfleet afraid to controvert Hilary 
 of P., ii. 611 
 
 Sublapsarians, i. 433 
 
 Sulpitius the Christian Sallust writes 
 about Martin, &c., i. 314 
 
 Tauler disciple of great but eccentric 
 Eckhard, ii. 195, Suso, 196 
 
 Jeremy Taylor like Coleridge’s estimate 
 of St Paul, ii. 576 
 
 Modern order of Tertiaries-manual. 
 Pange lingua, ii. 143 
 
FACTS MENTIONED. 
 
 T: 
 
 Tertullian partly the Christian Tacitus, 
 i. 67, as Prudentius the Christian 
 Horace, i. 249 
 
 Theod. Mops. master, and Chrys. the 
 model, of Theodoret, i. 342 
 
 The very spirit of Church of England in 
 Theodore, &c., i. 399 
 
 Theodorus of Studium refused to re- 
 marry emperor, i. 573 
 
 Theodulf as Antoine Armmauld, after conf. 
 delay recept., i. 580 
 
 Theophilus, i. 50 
 
 Thentberga’s case should have saved 
 A. Bullen, i. 625 
 
 Tillotson, son of strict Calvinist, con- 
 formed time Charles 11... ii. 614 
 
 Timothy Ailurus and Peter Mongus 
 against Bas. Sel., i. 464 
 
 One Timothy denied that it is true body, 
 i. 504, Anast. 85. 
 
 Fathers of Toledo edited by an arch- 
 bishop, 1782, i. 636 
 
 Tostatus, at expense of C. Ximenes, ii. 
 292 
 
 Turton, equal success against Brougham 
 and Wiseman, ii. 679 
 
 Tyndall's ploughboy prophecy, ii. 246, 
 Erasmus, 247 
 
 Ullmann says Pope Gregory partly Pe- 
 lagian, i. 227 
 
 Ullmann’s Life of Greg. Na., i. 210 
 
 Urban II., Fest. Corpus Christi at high- 
 est pitch in Spain, i. 636 
 
 Usher’s name properly Neville. 
 dences, ii. 508 
 
 Provi- 
 
 English edition, Variations of Protes- 
 
 tantism, omits long supplem. part, ii. 
 593 
 
 823 
 
 We 
 
 The Vatican MS. of Theorian, who tried 
 to unite East and West, i. 577 
 
 Necnon et sancti Vedasti patris, i. 566, 
 Ale. 
 
 Victor of A. contradicts St Luke about 
 Judas, i. 442 
 
 Pope Victor rejected Theodotus B. from 
 eommunion, i. 66 
 
 Gilly’s Vigilantius on excess at martyrs’ 
 feasts, i. 268, Aug. 
 
 Sharp words of M. de Vitri on Jesuit 
 persecution of Angelique Arnauld, ii. 
 574 
 
 Greg. Na. and Bas., D. Waddington 
 praises for Greek, i. 210 
 
 Wake coming after Tenison, More, &c. 
 His policy, ii. 654—6 
 
 Wake’s remarks upon Zwingel, ii. 657 
 
 Waterland corrected Clark and Hoadley, 
 ii. 670 
 
 Whitby reached 88, Why not high 
 preferment, ii. 634 
 
 Whiitgift, when young, refused to go to 
 mass, ii. 404 
 
 Manx fishermen and Bp Wilson’s in- 
 fluence, ii. 660 
 
 Wolfgang Musculus bold at time of 
 Augsburg C., ii. 355 
 
 The woman healed of an issue, of 
 Peneas (Cxs. Phil.), i. 633, Phot. 
 
 Wycliff’s works, textbook of Huss and 
 Jerome, ii. 201 
 
 Zwingel's views now predominate abroad, 
 ii. 690, Haag, 694, W. and W. 
 
 Portrait and autograph of Zwingel, by 
 Neander, ii. 310 
 
 Zwingel's form of celebration, ii. 441, 2 
 
 Wake’s remarks upon Zwingel, ii. 657 
 
FOURTH INDEX. PASSAGES OF THE HOLY 
 SCRIPTURES. 
 
 A copious index has been made, but this reduced form seemed 
 
 preferable. 
 Gen. xxvi11. 20, hune panem, i. 286, 
 Jer. 
 XLIx. eyes red with wine, i. 487, 
 Fulg. 
 
 xix. and Is. Lu, aqua et vino mix- 
 tum, i. 118, 220, Cyp. 
 XLIX, wash in wine, i. 157, Ath. 
 
 Exod. vu. 1, i. 138, Ps. Clem. 
 x11. the Passover, ii. 168, Euseb.C. 
 xiy. 8, and Heb. vr. vir. (Melch.), 
 
 i. 166, Euseb. C. 
 xxiv. hoc est testamentum, &c., i. 
 619, Rab. 
 Lev. vu. 12, Eucharistic sacrifices under 
 law with bread, ii. 590, Outr. 
 vit, 12, oil and blood, i. 488, Fulg. 
 vir. 19, omnis mundus manduca- 
 bit carnem, 1. 417, Zeno 
 1x. 16, why not eaten, i. 89, Or. 
 Num. xxii. 24, i. 93, Or. 
 Job xxx1. 31, O that had of his flesh! i. 
 511, Greg. I. 
 
 Ps. xxi. Thy inebriating cup, i. 101, Or. 
 xxi. table, oil, 1. 163, Euseb. C. 
 XXIII. prepared a table, i. 629, 
 
 (Remig.), and oil, 630 
 xx11I. inebriate, 11. 81, B. of Seg. 
 xx11. 5, spiritali cibo, i. 233, Amb. 
 XXIII. TO ποτήριον TO μεθύσκον με, 1. 
 
 402, Theod. C. 
 
 xxi. calix inebrians, i. 461, 
 Chrysol. 
 
 xxvi. I will wash my hands, i. 357, 
 Duc. 
 
 XXXxIv. gustaverunt, &e.,1. 224, Ruf. 
 
 xxxvi. 9, μεθυσθήσονται, i. 403, 
 Theod. Cyr. 
 
 11. then shall they offer, i. 226, 
 
 Ruf. 
 
 Lxx. sacrifice of praise, i. 378, 
 Cyr. A. 
 
 xcrx. adorate scabellum Hjus, i. 
 272, Aug. 
 
 cy1. all meant of Lord’s supper, 11. 
 153, Bonay. “ 
 
 cxxxv. 6, Power of God, i. 628, 
 Hink., mutare naturas 
 
 cxu. i. 119, Cyp. 
 
 Proy. vu. Come eat, ἄσ., 1, 517, Greg. 
 
 Ag. 
 vir. Wisdom, &c., i. 101, 111, 
 Hip. 
 vir. Wisdom, &¢., i. 524, 1514. 
 Sey. 
 VIII. ἡ Σοφία, i. 553, Germ. Const. 
 vir. Wisdom, i. 283, Did. 
 Eecles. 11. 25, to eat and to drink, &ce., i. 
 516, Greg. Ag. 
 Cant. v. 1, drink abundantly, i. 203, 
 Greg. Ny. 
 v. 1, Proy. vitr. wine a type, i. 232, 
 Amb. 
 Isaiah xrx. 19, 20, i. 165, Euseb. C. 
 1111. sheep to slaughter, 1. 957, Due. 
 utxy. My servants eat, i. 286, Jer. 
 Jerem. ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον, 1. 166, Euseb. C. 
 Ezek. xu. 8, pillows (phylacteries), i. 
 158 
 Dan. yur. 11, 12, juge sacrificium, a 
 continual sacrifice, ii. 320, | 
 Hugh L. 
 Hab. 11. just live by faith contrary to 
 doctrine of mass, ii. 308, 
 . Augsb. C. 
 Zeph. 11. 19, i. 36, Barnab. 
 Mal. 1.10, 12, cwuarixas, i. 166, Huseb.C. 
 1. 11, θυσίας, i. 45 
 1,11, pure θυσίαι of this sact., i. 
 46, Just.; incense, i. 45, 56, 
 Tren. ; i. 305, 806, John of Jer. 
 Matt. vir. 6, not holy to dogs, i. 310, 
 Syl. 
 1x. 15 (Bridegroom), i. 175, Hil. P. 
 xu. blasphemy Holy Spirit, i. 528, 
 Isid. Sev. 
 xu. 6, greater than temple, 1. 193, 
 Bas. 
 xiv. 26, lest faint, &c., i. 234, Amb. 
 xxvi. 29, drink no more of fruit 
 of vine, i. 55, Iren. 
 Mark v. 27, touched garment of Christ, 
 i. 458, Chrysol. 
 Luke vir. 6, not worthy that enter, &c., 
 11. 197 
 vit. 16, Who touched Me? i. 88, 
 Or. 
 
SCRIPTURES MENTIONED. 825 
 
 Luke xv, 25, carne quotidie pascimur, John vr. He who says not sp. would 
 
 cruore potamur, i. 628, Hink. 
 xx11, and John v1, Christ says unbe- 
 lieving are lost, ii, 141, F. of A. 
 RT 10. 1. 1115. ep, 
 xxiv. 30, not this sacrament, ii. 
 407, Fulke 
 
 John 1. 14, i. 110, Hip. 
 
 ΠΙ. and yi. except born, and except 
 eat, 1. 476, Gelas. I. 
 
 v. The flesh, &., οὐ περὶ τῆς 
 'Ἑαντοῦ σαρκὸς λέγων, i, 343, 
 Chrysost. 
 
 vi. 62, 3, Dr Schaff’s compilation 
 of views, ii. 712, Lange 
 
 v1. 63, ii. 527, Jansen 
 
 vi. Chrysostom denies that Christ 
 meant His own body, i. 348 
 
 vi. Unless ye eat, i. 628, Hink. 
 
 vi. 61, Bell.’s reasoning, ii. 431, 
 says about Lord’s supper 
 
 vi. above a year before institut. of 
 sacrament, ii. 514, Usher 
 
 v1. how connected with Lord’s 
 supper, ii. 671, Water. 
 
 vi, the part of the chap. allegori- 
 cal, ii. 680, Turt. 
 
 Vi. ἀληθὴς used as ἀληθινὸς, 11. 679 
 and 680, Turt. 
 
 vi. 64, i. 93, Or. 
 
 vi. debateable part is ‘' spiritual,” 
 11. 681, Turt. 
 
 yi. 51 expounded, 1. 518, Ammon. 
 
 vi. A year before Christ died. 
 How any carnal eating, 11, 513, 
 514, Usher 
 
 vi. He speaketh it not of flesh in- 
 deed, profiteth not, ii. 348 
 
 vi. Christ speaks not of sacra- 
 mental but spiritual eating, ii. 
 501, Crak. 
 
 vi. 64, ‘‘ Apparent Contradictions.” 
 i, 639, Jul. Tol. 
 
 VI. vere, i. 171, Hil. P. 
 
 vi. 55, 56, ii. 650, Fenelon 
 
 vi. 56, verum manna non in typo, 
 &e., i. 245, Amb, 
 
 vi, Cyril’s reasoning on, ἡ σὰρξ 
 οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδὲν, i. 384 
 
 VI. presentiam veram et exhibit. 
 agnoyl, ii. 383, Bue. 
 
 Vi. spiritual not sacramental feed- 
 ing, τι. 245, Sylv. 
 
 vi. Jews imposed a false sense on, 
 ii. 634 
 
 vi, the eating belongs to all times. 
 Not sacramental, ii. 560, Hekh. 
 
 vi. Therefore Christ’s flesh is not 
 present, ii. 487, Corn. a L. 
 
 γι. 63, three chief views, ii. 730, 
 Ryle 
 
 vi. of sacramental eating it is false. 
 True never unprofitable, ii. 634 
 
 ἘΠ ἘΠ 
 
 Rom. 
 
 1 Cor. 
 
 say any Scr. not sp., ii. 681, 
 Turt. 
 
 γι. σκανδαλίζει, i. 156, Ath. 
 
 χα, 255 γε Ια: ΣΧΣΎΠΙ. 2 Osu 
 89, Guib. 
 
 ΣΧΠΠ, 1. ut transeat, 26 the sop, 
 71 Judas, i. 621, 622, Strab. 
 xv. 5, manere Se in eo, i, 174, Hil. 
 
 12 
 
 xvi. 28, now I leave the world, &e. 
 explained, ii, 416, Chemn. 
 
 xvil1. 28, Passover means unleaven 
 on next day! ii. 189, Lyra 
 
 xx. 1, 2, ὀψὲ, i. 182, Huseb. Kmes. 
 
 xx. 17, Touch me not, explained, 
 
 ii. 635, Whit. 
 
 xx. 23, on direction of clergy, i. 
 523 
 
 xxI. 9, Beda, i, 295, Jer. 
 
 viii. 28, i. 102, Or. 
 
 x11, reasonable service, i. 
 Chrysost. 
 
 tv. nihil mihi conscius sum, i. 
 
 351, Cass. 
 
 x. the same spiritual, &c., i. 267, 
 Aug. 
 
 x. the stone not bodily Christ, ii. 
 4, Alf. 
 
 & same spiritual, i. 290, Jer. 
 
 x. an idol being nothing, ii. 659, 
 Wake 
 
 x. umbra in petra, i. 233, Amb. 
 
 x. argument on, ii. 711, Goulb. 
 
 x. 1, escam spiritalem, hune pa- 
 nem significavit, i. 638, Ide. 
 
 x. 3, li. 533, Mede 
 
 x1. set in order, i. 261, Aug. 
 
 x1. Have ye not houses, &c.? i. 193, 
 Bas. 
 
 x1. 23, Lreceived, 26, till He come, 
 i. 622, Strab. 
 
 x1. eating judgment, i. 193 and 
 199, Bas., and 203, Greg. Ny. 
 
 x1. interpretation of ἔνοχος, ii. 728 
 
 x1. 22, houses to eat, &c., ii. 677, 
 Hoad. 
 
 x1. facientes eam triclinium epula- 
 rum, i. 291, Jer. 
 
 XI. non dijudicat, non discernit, 
 &e., i. 619, Rab. 
 
 x1. eating unworthily and rest set 
 in order, ii. 92, Hervé 
 
 x1. not discerning the Lord’s body, 
 ii. 315, Zwin. 
 
 XI. ὁσάκις ἂν φάγητε, interpreted, 
 ii. 720 
 
 xI. criticism on, 11. 552, Light. 
 
 xr. until He come, ii. 20, Lanf. 
 
 x1. 23, addition to, ii. 219, Gers. 
 
 x1. 30, i. 95, Or. 
 
 ΣΙ. 22, ii. 61 and 66, and Theoph., 
 ii, 60 
 
 345, 
 
 53 
 
820 
 
 1 Cor. x1. 20, Eras., i. 563, J. οἱ D., and 
 ii. 285, Has. 
 ΣΙ. 24, ii. 599, M. Guion, and ii. 
 486, Corn. 4 Lap. 
 ΧΙ, 27—32, i. 316, Pacian 
 Gal, ty. 10, 11, obsery. of days, i. 86, Or. 
 Eph. 1. 7, redemption, 1 i. 201, Cyr. J. 
 ΄ Il. 6, συνήγειρε, i. 87, Or. 
 Vv. 20, the same flesh and bones, 
 ii. 20, Lanf. 
 v. 30, members body flesh and 
 bones, i. 54, Tren. 
 1 Tim. i. 1, kinds of prayer, i. 256, 
 Aug. 
 ty. 4, misapplied, ii. 727 
 Iv. 5, sanctified, i. 206, Greg. Ny. 
 Titus 1. 1, i. 293, Jer. 
 11. to the pure, i. 290, Jer. 
 Heb. ty. yet without sin, i. 350, Cass. 
 vill. who serve, &c, i. 346, 
 
 Chrysost. 
 
 END OF 
 
 FOURTH INDEX, 
 
 Heb. rx. the Heavenly things them- 
 selves, i. 408, Theod. Cyr. 
 ΙΧ. 4, offered self, i. 90, Or. ᾿ 
 x. 1, una est hee hostia non 
 multe, i. 566, Alc. 
 x. 1, ii. 66, Theoph. 
 xu. 5, we have an altar, i. 
 Theod. Cyr. 
 xr. 5, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως, i. 56, Tren. 
 . XIII. 10, not one commentator says 
 Lord’s table, ii. 678, Hoad. 
 ᾿ xii. 10, Christ a kind of altar, ii. 
 20, Lan 
 1 Pet. 11. 1, i. 62, Clem. A. 
 τι Ὁ, "royal priesthood, i. 201, Cyr. 
 ip 
 
 408, 
 
 ur. who did no sin, i. 350, Cass. 
 1Υ. 18, i. 220, Ces. 
 
 Rey. v. 8, the incense, i. 56, Iren. 
 x1. 19, the temple, i. 53, Iren, 
 
 VOL. ΤΙ. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY Ὁ. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
ἣν 
 
 WOES? mn at Ae ι 
 ἢ Νὴ. TAN He oF OW 
 ' πὴ 
 
 elie) 
 y) i 
 
ey 
 
 1 
 veh ti! 
 ees 4 
 
 Pee ant Ν, 
 
᾿ f { Ϊ 
 ee 
 
 ΠῚ VJ 
 οἵ | 
 Αἰ 1 alias 
 es 
 rer 
 Ἂ 
 ΗΝ 
 my" aad 19 
 J “ 
 
 : > 
 
 PRINTED] IN U.S.A. 
 
 © 
 
i 
 
 it 
 
 ΔΝ 
 Ἀν ἃ 
 ἜΣ TW 
 
 oe Te 
 1h iP 
 
 a a - Ὁ 
 
 ἐν 
 1) 
 ἐν 
 
 N es ie ᾿ 
 7 COR Tet ial Ray ti | 
 
 1 Out 
 
 ἵ 
 ὑπ 
 
 At Ἱ 
 i ᾿ aay 
 { u 4}! 1G oF ye 
 i y Le if 
 HN Wea Aras 
 Hh | , 
 ‘ 7 
 
 ᾿ 7 
 
Th 
 
 | 
 
 4